HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/2008 Work Session
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2008
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 20, 2008 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATIENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, Woodrow and
Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Towery, City Attorney Matt Cox, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Gatewav/Beltline Proiect Proposal.
Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt presented the staff report on this item. Staff has developed
a Unit 1 Gateway/Beltline Project based on Council direction in October 2007. This project adds
additional turn lanes and through lanes to three of the four intersecting streets and makes the
associated signal modifications and access improvements. A future Unit 2 Gateway/ Beltline
project would complete the Gateway/Beltline Intersection Couplet alternative identified in the
2003 Environmental Assessment at a future time when traffic congestion adversely impacts the
I-5 northbound ramps and safe freeway operations.
The City has been involved in assessing improvements at the I-5/Beltline interchange for 10
years. Part of that assessment has been how to make improvements to the Gateway/Beltline
intersection that work with and support interchange improvement investments. In 2003 the City
signed on to the I-5 Beltline Environmental Assessment preferred alternative, which set out a
series of interchange improvements and established the Couplet improvement for
Gateway/Beltline (see Attachment 2 in the agenda packet). In early 2007, staff began
investigating implementation of the Gateway/Beltline Couplet project through a combination of
technical analysis and stakeholder involvement. In October 2007, Council provided staff
direction to pursue a fIrst phase of the Couplet project that added needed capacity, but did not
complete the Couplet conversion of Gateway (Kruse to Beltline) to one-way southbound, and
Kruse/Hutton to one-way northbound.
Staff believes that substantive issues have been worked out with the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) in order to move ahead with construction of a first phase (Unit 1) of the
Gateway/Beltline project. The final piece that is currently in process is the ODOT and Federal
Highways review of City's Memo comparing environmental impacts of the Unit 1, Add Lanes
Project to the Environmental Assessment of the full build out of the Couplet Project. That
review is not anticipated to generate significant project issues.
The attached Council Briefing Memo (Attachment 1 in the agenda packet) provides a description
of the Unit 1, Add Lanes Project, including estimated cost and funding for the project, traffic
design life, anticipated right of way impacts, access and circulation for area businesses, and a
description of next steps in the design and project delivery process.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 20, 2008
Page 2
Mr. Boyatt introduced Sonny Chickering, the ODOT Area 5 manager.
Mr. Boyatt walked through the project improvements and referred to the maps that were
displayed on the table in front of the Council (also included in the agenda packet as Attachments
2 and 3) and explained them. He noted that it was important that the projects on the State
highway and the City roadways. occured at the same time because of continuity through the
intersections. Staffhave spent time coordinating the two projects to make them fairly seamless.
Councilor Ballew asked for clarification of the State projects.
Mr. Boyatt explained. Attachment 3 in the agenda packet was the proposed design.
Councilor Ballew said because there was little return on the investment on the Couplet, it was
smarter to invest in the Gateway. She asked ifthe couplet had been abandoned.
Mr. Boyatt said they had been cautious to avoid throwing out the NEP A document. The red lines
on Attachment 2 showed the solution the City was committed to. As they added elements up to
the ultimate Couplet, this was a $ 10M cutline on a $25M-$30M project that provided substantial
roadway capacity. He explained the first element of the ODOT project and the City project. He
explained the turn lanes and how the traffic would be affected. He explained the other
intersection and the treatment for Hutton Street and Beltline Road. He noted areas that had no
left turn access and how traffic could take alternate routes. A raised median on Beltline between
Gateway and Hutton was part of the original design. It was difficult to have any turn movements
in that first block because of the large amount of traffic coming from the signal. What they were
trying to do with this project was to extend the landscaping theme that was along MLK Parkway
and bring some of that beautification into this part of the Gateway area.
Councilor Woodrow said the alternate routes to turn left seemed to make increased travel.
Mr. Boyatt said it may, but it could be quicker and safer.
Councilor Woodrow said knowing the businesses at the corners, it seemed a raised median
would hamper their ability to enter those businesses from businesses across the street without
going a long ways out of their way. That didn't make sense and seemed to create more of a
traffic problem. He asked if the City would relocate the '76 gas station ifit were to close.
Mr. Boyatt said his understanding was that the City would be negotiating with the property
owner. There were a subsequent series of leases that ran through the distributor and the operator
that was fairly complex. The City's obligation was to the property owner. Relocation costs were
a negotiable expense in right of way acquisition.
Councilor Wylie asked about some of the accesses to businesses in that area.
Mr. Boyatt explained ways to access several of those businesses. The first thing the City and
State were trying to do was to address congestion and safety on the Beltline Highway, and access
control was a big part of achieving that goal. It may put more of the circulating traffic into the
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 20, 2008
Page 3
block; however that pattern had been establishing over the years. Internal circulation had been
growing in the transportation field. He noted the purpose of internal circulation.
Councilor Wylie said she understood the principle, but it put a lot of traffic in a close area.
Because the internal circulation ways were not regular streets, people didn't follow the rules of
the road. She asked if a traffic light would be installed at McDonalds.
Mr. Boyatt said it was not planned, but they recognized the difficulty of getting in and out of that
area. The way this area was developed had created that problem and they weren't able to solve
that with this stage of the project. They hoped the design would actually alleviate that issue. He
explained the issues with adding another traffic light at that location.
Councilor Wylie said as a citizen, it seemed they were creating a system that didn't make it
better in that area and easier to get around.
Mayor Leiken said there was an urban renewal opportunity about twenty years ago that would
have made this area better regarding transportation. The estimation of vehicles per day through
that area was about 100,000. About twenty to twenty-five percent came off ofI-5 for some
reason every day. They had also projected 30,000 to 35,000 vehicles per day on the Pioneer
Parkway/MLK Jr. Parkway. In response to Councilor Wylie's concern, he said people would just
have to plan their day when visiting that area. They needed to deal with the safety issues in that
area and couldn't necessarily make getting around easier. There was still more property to be
developed out in that area, which would make it worse.
Mr. Boyatt said those numbers projected out and included background traffic growth, origin and
destination traffic growth for another ten years. It was a congested environment. In areas where
medians and driveway closures were proposed, there were lines of cars. Turning left against
Beltline traffic was scary and dangerous at those locations. The chief commitment made by the
City in moving the I-5 Beltline Project forward was to protect the functionality ofI-5 and the
mainline first, and then protect the Beltline Highway second. He did have some next steps ideas
looking ahead, but they would not be easy. Solving the issues would take an incremental
approach.
Councilor Pishioneri discussed the eastbound dedicated right turns to southbound Gateway. He
asked how that transition occurred as they entered Gateway.
Mr. Boyatt said the State had chosen to make the ultimate configuration in which Gateway
became one-way south just past Kruse. Of the two right lanes south of the median, only one
would be open to traffic and the other would be a fairly large shoulder. The second right turn
would be on the north side of the pedestrian refuge and there would only be one right turn on the
south side of the pedestrian refuge. Each one of those would feed a lane on Gateway.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the southernmost lane on eastbound Beltline would be signaled or a
non-stop slip lane.
Mr. Boyatt said it would be controlled by the signal the same way it was today for the pedestrian
crossing. When the southbound Gateway traffic was released by the signal, people would have anway to move around.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 20, 2008
Page 4
Councilor Pishioneri suggested making one of those two lanes a non-stop slip lane to
depressurize that intersection.
Mr. Boyatt said the light was just so people would stop before proceeding.
Councilor Pishioneri said some drivers did not know that and would stop at the sign for an
extended period of time causing a lot of cars to queue up at that intersection creating more of a
hazard. With a dedicated non-stop slip lane, it could alleviate that. He also suggested making the
lane that was next to the dedicated left turn lane on westbound Beltline approaching Gateway, a
dedicated straight through and left turn, both could go into the southbound lane.
Mr. Boyatt said he would take those comments back when looking at the design.
Councilor Lundberg asked where we were with 'agreeable solutions'.
Mr. Boyatt said the parties may interpret the discussions differently than staff, but he felt that
what was mapped out in the proposed design had been agreed upon by all the impacted
properties with the exception of the vacant lot north ofthe gas station, but staff was still working
with them. The crossover easement between McDonalds and IHOP may not be acceptable to
corporate McDonalds, but was acceptable to the franchise owners. He discussed other businesses
in that area. Staff had met with them a lot and talked to them. Several people had told staffthis
was the design option they wanted in the 1990' s. He noted the other properties that had agreed to
this plan. There was some concern about internal circulation and loss of a few parking spots, but
generally people kept coming back to meetings. They had expressed appreciation for the City
trying to work with them. If Council directed staff to come back for a public hearing on
November 3, they would send out notices and make phone calls. His job was to bring Council the
information and facilitate those that wanted to challenge or support the project.
Councilor Lundberg said she liked the landscaping. Unfortunately, she didn't feel we could get
away from medians because they helped to control dangerous crossings. There was a lot of
traffic in that area and it would be developed more. People would figure out how to get around.
She said the work staff had done was most appreciated.
Councilor Ballew asked if a public hearing was needed, or just a resolution.
Mr. Boyatt said based on the Code, a public hearing was more acceptable for alignment.
Mayor Leiken said he appreciated the letter from Sonny Chickering from ODOT, but still had
some concerns about ODOT. He would like assurance from Salem.
Mr. Chickering said they had already had discussions regarding the environmental document,
and traffic and congestion modeling done to the satisfaction of their Salem group. He was feeling
confident and felt this was an opportunity to reassure Council.
Mr. Boyatt said there was a real benefit of presenting this as a joint City and State partnership.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 20, 2008
Page 5
2. AmendIDent to Systems Development Charge (SDC) Transportation Proie.ct List and Update
to Transportation SDC Improvement Fees and Transportation SDC Reimbursement Fees.
Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. Under
ORS 223.309, the City is required, as part of implementation ofSDCs, to create and maintain a
list of capital projects to be funded in whole or in part using SDCs. The statute permits that list to
be updated at any time. Staff have prepared an updated SDC Transportation Project List so that it
is consistent with the region's Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) and the federally-required
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Staff have also prepared updated SDC Transportation fees
based upon.the updated Project List.
The updated project list, if adopted, will result in an increase in Transportation SDCs. This is
consistent with the conversation with the Council at the time we embarked on creating a Capital
Financing Plan in June, 2007, as well as the staff briefings on the SDC update process in June
and November 2007. ORS 223.309(2)(a) requires that in such a case, the City must give 30 days
notice of the proposed adoption of increases and, if a written request is received within 7 days of
the proposed adoption date, conduct a public hearing. Staff intends to provide notice of the
proposed increases on or about October 24, 2008, and will schedule a public hearing for
December 1, 2008. Staff recommends that such hearing be held even ifno written request is
received.
The update results from revisions to the cost estimates for a variety of projects, and inclusion of
new projects that have been added to the relevant transportation system plans since the last SDC
update in 2000. No changes are being made to the existing methodology. If adopted, the
proposed project list will result in a 137 percent increase in the trip rate used to calculate
Transportation SDCs.
Further details are contained in the attached Council Briefing Memorandum. City staff and Ms.
Deborah Galardi will be available to provide furtherinformation and answer questions.
Mr. Goodwin said the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) met last week. Staff would meet with
Council during their November 10 with a list of topics which they would seek Council input to
determine if the list should be forwarded to the CAC. He noted that he was joined by Deb
Galardi from Galardi Consulting, who was in the audience. The City had retained Ms. Galardi as
an outside expert on all SDC reviews. The project list was required under ORS 223.309, to form
the basis to calculate the charge. The list was to include all capital projects that were required to
be constructed and the amount of the project for an addition to capacity so the City could use
existing methodology to allocate to individual developments based on the formula in that
methodology and their appropriate share. Because this was only a project update, Council would
not see things that would normally be in an SDC methodology. He explained. Council would
probably see the possibility of additional credits and adjustments to the SDCs to accomplish their
economic development and growth objectives. Many were not appropriate to include in the
methodology because the methodology was meant to be an objective calculation of the cost to
grow and the shares of those costs to be absorbed by growth, not a place to make economic
decisions. They must allocate only to an individual development its proportionate share. The
methodology needed to treat everyone fairly. He noted other issues that would not be reviewed
as they would happen outside the methodology.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes.
October 20, 2008
Page 6
Mr. Goodwin said staff had taken the existing project list from 2001 and re-evaluated the cost of
those projects based on actual experience. In the existing methodology, the charge went up by an
adjustment based on the engineering record and cost of construction each year. They were also
going through TransPlan and looking for projects that had been added since the last
methodology. One requirement for adding a project into a list that was available for SDCs was
that it had the necessary land use approvals to be constructed. Design and precise land use
decisions may not have been made, but the projects were contemplated by the appropriate land
use plans. They added those projects with the updated estimated costs. In addition, they had
looked through projects on the ODOT system, for which the City would most likely need to
provide some local match, assuming ODOT would continue seeking a twenty-five percent local
match. The list did not show twenty-five percent of the cost of the project, because none of the
projects were one hundred percent caused by growth. Only the proportion of the growth would
be allocated to the project list. This did represent a substantial increase in transportation SDCs.
Staff had expressed concern that when the methodology and capital project lists were updated,
there would be a large increase in SDCs. Attachment 7 in the council packet included a number
of options for Council to consider ranging from doing nothing to having staff bring back a
recommended SDC rate based on the project list as described. Staff would schedule a public
hearing if they did propose an increase in SDCs.
Councilor Ballew clarified that projects, such as the Bob Straub Parkway listed on page 3 of
Attachment 2 in the agenda packet, were already paid for and shown at actual construction costs.
She asked if that was the same with the I-5 I Beltline. Yes. She asked about the assumptions.
related to miles.
Mr. Goodwin said the current methodology depended on total trips, and they must still rely on
that number. He explained.
Councilor Ballew asked about calculations. Mr. Goodwin explained.
Councilor Woodrow thanked staff for doing this. He believed development needed to pay their
fair share of the increase. If they went forward, he strongly suggested looking at Option 4 to
adjust the project list.
Councilor Lundberg said 137 percent was too much of an increase. She would like to look at
projects, and level it out in that manner. This was not the time to increase because there was not
much being built. She would like to see something in the middle.
Councilor Woodrow said he appreciated that, but understood that if SDC fees were not imposed,
the City had to pay for the rest of it and the City couldn't afford that. The City had to recover
fees the City was investing. The City could no longer say we would cut services because we
were losing money on SDCs. They needed to look at it realistically. The City had projects we
needed to move forward on.
Councilor Wylie said she understood both sides. The City had just received information on other
costs increasing and revenues decreasing. In order to maintain our community, the City needed
adequate funds.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 20, 2008
Page 7
Councilor Ralston said he agreed with Councilor Woodrow. Looking at the proposed rates
compared to other cities, we were still o.k. It meant we were growing. Development needed to
pay their fair share. It was the cost of growing in a limited space with limited resources.
Mayor Leiken said Bend and Grants Pass had been hit hardest with the slow down of real estate.
Councilor Pishioneri said he could appreciate the costs going up and said the overall picture
wasn't too bad. Council set down goals with staff and staff was doing what they had been asked
to do. To reach the Council goals, they needed to do this. He agreed to go forward with Option 4
cautiously.
Mayor Leiken asked if staff had held conversations with the HomeBuilders Association (HBA).
Mr. Goodwin said he had talked to their intergovernmental representative last week about
meeting with the association.
Mayor Leiken said he wanted to make sure the City reached out to the HBA. With the building
industry as it was now, if the City enacted this now, we may not recover much of the cost.
Mr. Goodwin said most of this would be recovered through commercial and industrial activity.
Mayor Leiken said staff had been working on this for a long time, before the economic
downturn. He appreciated that, but was concerned.
Councilor Ballew said she wasn't sure why it cost $126,000 for a striped lane on South 70th
Street, Main to Ivy, as noted on Attachment 2, page 5.
Mr. Goodwin said staff would check into that.
Councilor Woodrow said he would be willing to wait on making a decision until staff had talked
with the HBA and realtors.
Councilor Lundberg agreed.
Councilor Ballew asked that when they brought this back to Council, they provide a future
project list only.
Mr. Goodwin said they would want to have a complete project list, because that was what the
methodology contemplated. With that kind of change in the project list, they would need to
reopen the methodology.
Councilor Ballew asked to just have it sorted and displayed differently.
Mr. Grimaldi said staff could come back in a couple of weeks for more discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 pm.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 20, 2008
Page 8
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Attest:
Am~
City Rec rder