HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/2008 Work Session
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2008
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 27,2008 at 5:35 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
A TIENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leikenand Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Ballew, Ralston, Woodrow and
Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Mayor Leiken said there would be a change in the order of the meeting with the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program item going first.
1. Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Funds for Springfield.
Housing Manager Kevin Ko presented the staff report on this item. Prompted by the alarming
increase of foreclosed and abandoned properties, the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) has authorized an allocation of $3.92 billion nationally to assist states and
local jurisdictions in responding to this issue. The City of Springfield must inform HUD of the
City's intent to accept the funds and describe possible activities that will be undertaken.
With very short notice, staff has been informed ofa new funding opportunity. Congress has
authorized HUD to create a new Neighborhood Stabilization Program to help municipalities deal
with the increasing number of residential foreclosures. This will be accomplished by targeting
emergency assistance to state and local governments to acquire and redevelop foreclosed
properties that might otherwise become sources of abandonment and blight within their
communities. Oregon is authorized to receive $19.6 million ofNSP funds (for comparison
California is receiving $529.6 million). Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS)
described how the state intends to distribute the funds to CDBG entitlement communities
(Attachment 1). The formula is based closely on the percentage of sub-prime loans made to each
municipality vs. the total for the state. According to the data provided, Springfield's percentage
is 1.419% of the state's total. The amount that Springfield can expect to receive under the NSP
IS $278,216. These funds must generally be treated as CDBG with a few changes and additional
requirements. HUD made it clear that NSP funds are not to be used to "bailout" households
facing foreclosure, and they are not intended to benefit banks holding foreclosed properties.
Jurisdictions must provide OHCS with written intent to accept the NSP funds by October 28,
2008. This is because OHCS must submit their NSP action plan to HUD for approval by
November 15,2008. Funds will be available from HUD after January 1,2009. OHCS has
provided a short form that the City will need to review and complete (if we intend to accept the
funds). The form asks us to describe what activities we intend to undertake with the funds.
Although a public hearing and Council approval is required to formally accept the funds, OHCS
and HUD has determined that this is not possible for many jurisdictions, given the short timeline.
What is needed at this time is for OHCS to identify which jurisdictions intend to accept the
funds. Filling out and submitting the form by October 28th will provide evidence of intent. The
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 27, 2008
Page 2
City may conduct the public hearing and council approval at a later date. Staff is presenting this I
opportunity to Council for information purposes and to address concerns regarding the use and
responsibilities associated with accepting the NSP funds.
Mr. Ko said the State had not come up with their rules or regulations for this funding at this time,
but he did know what the federal government was requiring. He said he would bring this back to
Council for a formal public hearing.
Mayor Leiken confIrmed that this would get Springfield in line for the funds, but was not a
commitment. Once the State knew their procedures, Springfield would be ready to move
forward. That was correct.
Councilor Ballew questioned the State administrative fee.
Mr. Ko said this wasn't a bailout for people that were in foreclosure or for the bank, but was to
stabilize neighborhoods.
Councilor Ballew asked about foreclosed versus repossessed.
Mr. Ko said they had to be actual foreclosed properties. He explained.
Councilor Ballew asked how the price would be set.
Mr. Ko said the federal government had to sell it to the City or non-profit through this program
at a fifteen percent discount based on the appraised value.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if this process occurred before or after the Sheriff's sale.
Mr. Ko said he was not familiar with the process of a Sheriff's sale, but did note that the City
could participate in the Sheriff's sales.
Councilor Pishioneri said buyers needed cash for the Sheriff's sale.
Discussion was held regarding Sheriff's sales.
Mr. Ko said they would schedule the public hearing sometime in November.
Mayor Leiken asked Mr. Ko to provide Council with information regarding Council's role in
allocating the funds, participation in a Sheriff's sale, and other information for the public
hearing.
2. Land Supply Study / Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Proiect Update.
Planning Commission Chair Frank Cross called the Planning Commission to order at 5:43 p.m.
Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Frank Cross and Commissioners
Kirschenmann, Smith, Moore, and Beyer (6:05 p.m.).
City Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The purpose of this joint City
Council / Planning Commission work session is to provide a project update and present the
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 27,2008
Page 3
following: (1) draft Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) (including Inventory Chapter), (2)
Stakeholder Committee Recommendations to-date, and (3) draft Economic Development
Strategy. ECONorthwest will present these items and facilitate the work session.
ECONorthwest and City Staff have been working on this project consistent with the approved
work program.
On June 9th, 2008 and June 23rd, 2008, ECONorthwest (ECO) facilitated joint work sessions with
the Planning Commission and City Council to seek guidance on economic development in
Springfield. ECO used this initial input from the Planning Commission and City Council as the
foundation for developing the draft Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and draft Economic
Development Strategy. ECO and City Staff have also held monthly meetings with the
Stakeholder Committee to gather ongoing input to create these draft documents. Stakeholder
recommendations regarding inventory constraints; employment infill; and constraint assumptions
are provided in Attachment 4. Redevelopment assumptions will be finalized with the Stakeholder
Committee during its October 23rd meeting, and will be presented to Council and Planning
Commission on October 27th.
The draft material is extensive. City Staff and ECO are eager to receive feedback from both the
Council and Planning Commission at the joint work session on October 27th. Staff requests that
the Planning Commission and Council consider the following questions:
I. Based upon information found in the Economic Opportunities Analysis, do you want to
agree with the Stakeholder Committee recommendations to-date?
2. Does the draft Economic Development Strategy accurately reflect your prior input
regarding Economic Development Objectives and Strategies?
3. Are there any additional comments / issues you see with the draft Economic
Opportunities Analysis?
A second Council work session is scheduled for November 17th to allow more time for questions
and discussion. The Planning Commission's review ofthe planning material will be ongoing.
Having the collective comments from the City Council on November 17, 2008 will be timely and
enable the process to continue meeting work program deadlines.
Mr. Reesor noted that staff met with the Stakeholders last Thursday and would provide that
additional information at tonight's meetings. He referred to the time line in the agenda packet.
ECONorthwest would be presenting a power point presentation. Mr. Reesor provided a hard
copy of that presentation for members to take notes. He asked ifthe Council and Commission
could write down questions during the presentation and ask their questions at the end.
Bob Parker, ECONorthwest, said it was a good time to check back in with the Planning
Commission and City Council. He reminded them that the. CillL lands study was set up to
evaluate whether or not the City had sufficient land for the urban growth boundary to expand and
to respond to requirements from HB 3337. Much was prescribed by State rules and
ECONorthwest would strive to produce a plan that was consistent with those requirements.
Mr. Parker discussed the following which were outlined in the power point presentation:
· Economic Opportunities Analysis: Key Findings.
o Key Employment Trends Affecting Employment Growth
./ Changes in Lane County employment between 1980 and 2007
o Employment Forecast: 2010-2030
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 27, 2008
Page 4
../ Nearly 13,500 new employees
../ Base employment considers PeaceHealth
../ Uses "safe harbor" methodology
o Employment Site Needs, Springfield UGB, 2010-2030
../ Majority of sites smaller than 5 acres
../ 8 sites larger than 20 acres
. Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory
o Status of Employment Land
../ 3,415 acres in tax lots
../ 355 vacant acres
../ 581 redevelopable acres
Mr. Parker discussed Map 2-2 (Commercial and Industrial Land by Classification and Nodal
Overlay Status - City of Springfield) and Map 2-3 (Vacant Commercial and Industrial Land and
Development Constraints - City of Springfield).
o Development Constraints
../ T AC and Steering Committee Recommendations
../ Prohibitive Constraints and Other Constraints
Mr. Parker discussed Map 2-4 (Vacant Commercial and Industrial Land and Prohibitive
Development Constraints - City of Springfield) and Map 2-5 (Vacant Commercial and Industrial
Land and Development Constraints - City of Springfield).
. Infill and Redevelopment Assumptions
o Assumptions about Employment Infill
../ Some new jobs will not need employment land
../ New jobs that will locate on non-employment land
../ New jobs that will locate in existing built space
../ 3,626 or 24% of new employment will not require buildable land
../ 10,177 new jobs will require employment land
o Redevelopment Context
../ Evaluation is for 20-year planning horizon
../ Tools to identify redevelopable sites limited and only address redevelopment
potential
../ Viable businesses are located in areas with redevelopment potential; these
businesses must either relocate, or go away.
../ Redevelopment is a function of location, markets, and other factors that are difficult
to analyze above the site level
../ Redevelopment can be influenced by public policy
../ Key questions about redevelopment are:
· How much?
· Of what type?
· Of what characteristics?
o Three Scenarios of Redevelopment Potential
../ Higher Potential
../ Moderate Potential
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 27,2008
Page 5
./ Lower Potential
./ Vacant Acres
./ Total Acres in Land Base
Mr. Parker referred to a map showing Redevelopment Potential by Category - City of
Springfield.
Planning Commissioner Beyer arrived 6:05pm.
o Stakeholder and TAC Comments on Forecast of Land Need
./ Employment forecast estimate for growth
./ Buildable lands inventory inaccuracies
./ Constraints impact of buildability
./ Infill and redevelopment assumptions
./ Land forecast underestimates need for sites 20 acres and larger
. T AC Recommendation
o Use higher- and moderate scenario assumptions, but
./ Discount redevelopment potential along Highway 126 outside of downtown because
of ODOT's requirements for development.
. Steering Committee Recommendations
o Use moderate redevelopment scenario assumptions
o The moderate scenario overestimates redevelopment potential of sites 5 acres and larger
./ Range of opinions about the amount are overestimated, especially for industrial sites
5 acres and larger
. ECO' s Recommendations
o 14% of new employment will locate on other land
o 10% of new employment will be infill
o Use moderate redevelopment assumptions and assume that:
./ All site needs for sites < 5 acres can be accommodated through redevelopment
./ Assume that 50% of redevelopment sites in the 5-20 acre range will redevelop
./ Evaluate UGB expansion alternatives for larger sites
. The Bottom Line: Employment Land Supply and Need Comparison, 2010-2030
Mr. Parker noted that under all scenarios, the City was deficient in all sites. He reviewed two
charts showing Baseline Supply/Need Comparison and Supply/Need Comparison: ECO
Recommendations.
o Approximate Land Deficit Based on Current Assumptions
./ Analysis suggests a deficit of 400 to 500 acres
./ All of the deficit is in sites )5 acres
./ Baseline:
Deficit closer to low end of range
Needs evenly split between Industrial and other
./ ECO Recommendation
Deficit closer to high end of range
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 27,2008
Page 6
Need for Commercial is 100-150 acres
Need for Industrial 300-350 acres
. Next steps
o Finalize buildable lands inventory and economic opportunities analysis
o Finalize residential land needs
o UGB expansion alternatives analysis, based on statutory priorities and other issues.
Councilor Woodrow asked to see what 500 acres looked like on a map.
Mr. Parker referred to the map on the wall and pointed out a site that was about 200-300 acres.
Analysis showed the City had no vacant sites larger than 50 acres. He noted sites that were
constrained. The next phase was to identify characteristics of the needed sites and location.
Councilor Woodrow asked about nodal overlays. He said he didn't see all of the different overlay
districts on the maps.
Mr. Parker said the sites shown were Glenwood, Downtown, the Old Springfield Mall, Marcola
Meadows, and a fifth smaller one off of 30th Street.
Discussion was held on other areas not yet identified.
Mr. Parker said they would get that updated information.
Councilor W oodrowasked if those nodal areas pulled more usable land of the statistical analysis.
Yes it would.
Mayor Leiken said there were a lot of redevelopment opportunities on Main Street, but the issue
of access management and working with the State on that issue was very difficult. The City
could provide a lot of incentives, but until that issue was resolved it would remain difficult to get
businesses to redevelop there. He appreciated the focus on redevelopment, but it remained pretty
frustrating in that area.
Planning Commissioner Beyer said George Grier, a member of the stakeholder committee, had
mentioned during their meeting that the Farm Bureau had commissioned a project through the
University of Oregon regarding Main Street redeveloment. Council might want to consider
taking over jurisdiction of Main Street from the highway department.
It was noted that was not an option at this time.
Councilor Ralston said the only identified Campus Industrial (CI) was located in the upper
Gateway area. He asked if that was a targeted deficiency.
Mr. Parker said it would definitely fall into that deficit. He did note that the site in Gateway was
in a floodway, so much of it was not in the inventory.
Councilor Ralston referred to the Pierce property on Mohawk and asked if that had previously
been identified as CI. That was correct. He felt they needed more CI.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 27,2008
Page 7
Councilor Woodrow referredto Attachment 1, page 10. He asked for clarification on the
difference between Light Medium Industrial and Light Medium Industrial Mixed Use.
Planning Manager Greg Mott explained the difference between the two designations.
Discussion was held regarding the inclusion of residential lands in those areas and how that
would affect the inventories.
Mr. Reesor said that was something they were still evaluating.
Mr. Parker said they had a lot of conversations internally on whether or not to include those
areas in the Industrial/Commercial component. He explained some of the issues in putting those
properties into ,the Residential inventory. The main deficiency for Springfield was for larger
sites. Plan designations needed to be studied to determine the right balance.
Councilor Ballew said the chart on Three Scenarios for Redevelopment Potential had figures that
didn't add up for the total acres on the land base. She suggested the additional information be
included.
Mr. Parker said the chart included only lands classified as developed.
Councilor Ballew talked about limitation due to the BP A (Bonneville Power Administration)
easements. She said there were probably others that had easements, and asked if those should
also be considered.
Mr. Parker said he agreed. They had not yet identified the data sources for those other sites. He
did note that BPA didn't prohibit development in easements, but required permits.
Mr. Reesor said there were also easements in residential. Employment sites could actually have
parking placed on those easements.
Councilor Ballew asked about the Willamette Greenway.
Development Services Director Bill Grile said it needed to be designated in some areas such as
Glenwood.
Mayor Leiken talked about solar panel manufacturing companies and the need for sites that
could accommodate that type of industry. It seemed there was a push by the City of Hillsboro to
develop a cluster of those. Springfield had the potential to capitalize on healthcare clusters. He
asked if we had other opportunities and what size of sites would be needed. He asked how much
more land was needed for biotechnology or other health related industries.
Mr. Parker said following their last meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council,
they did incorporate those industries. They had combined them into other services under medical
and government. Outside of the hospital, most sites were more modest. In their study, they had
identified 78 sites ranging in size from under one acre to about 20 acres. They needed to identify
where those should be sited.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 27, 2008
Page 8
Mayor Leiken asked about major "green" manufacturing and the type of opportunities for those
in our area.
Mr. Parker said it would be hazardous for him to give a list of specific industries. The planning
exercise was to make sure the City had the right configuration of sites to accommodate
industries. The site needs of many ofthese industries had overlapping characteristics.
Mayor Leiken appreciated Mr. Parker's response. The Opportunity Analysis was to plan what
could happen in years to come.
Mr. Parker said the stakeholder's meeting discussion brought up many of these things. The City
needed to have the land base to have those opportunities.
Councilor Ralston said on Map 2-2, the whole Mohawk Boulevard area was shown as developed
rather than potential redevelopment. He noted the many vacancies in that area.
Commissioner Beyer said the building was there and had once been sold, although that fell
through. It was developed, but not occupied.
Mr. Parker said they had used a formula based approach, and some of the improvements on that
site may have eliminated it from being considered for redevelopment. He asked if the
assumptions about infill and redevelopment were acceptable to the Planning Commission and
City Council. The maps were indicative of the potential, not necessarily where development
would occur. The bigger question was if redevelopment was something they wanted to push.
Because the City was focused on investing in Glenwood and downtown, other areas may not get
the attention they needed due to financial constraints. It made sense to focus on areas with the
biggest potential.
Councilor Lundberg asked about training facilities for medical personnel.
Mr. Parker said in the economic development strategy document, educational training had been
identified as an opportunity. Local and Statewide figures showed a gap in workers in health care.
The sites could be smaller, filling in that gap and creating relationships with related businesses.
This was a consideration that had been brought up in June.
Planning Commissioner Moore asked if ECONorthwest would be making recommendations
about the expansion area for the UGB. She noted the many constraints.
Mr. Parker said they would. The work program included an alternatives analysis and creating a
set of findings for expansion. They needed to look at what was legal and also what would work.
They had done some preliminary mapping to identify some potential areas. He explained the
legal process. One of the major criteria for employment lands was that they needed access and
that was very challenging. They would bring some options back to the Planning Commission and
City Council during future work sessions.
Mayor Leiken said Council had realized for some time that we had limited expansion options.
There were more options on the residential side, but commercial and industrial land was
different. He explained. Health care could be our opportunity and we needed to capitalize on
that. We may not be in a position to bring in large industry. He asked Mr. Reesor if they would
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 27,2008
Page 9
include Willamalane regarding open space after our Commercial/Industrial and Residential
studies were complete.
Mr. Reesor said there were representatives from both Willamalane and the School Board on the
TAC. They would take both of their needs into consideration.
Mr. Beyer spoke regarding the medical cluster and said with the zoning changes made in the
PeaceHealth area, there was a lot of office environment in that area for that use, as well as near
McKenzie Willamette Hospital. Medical was a prime candidate for the Glenwood
redevelopment. He thought there were opportunities for larger sites, but the question was
whether or not the City wanted to move that way.
Councilor Ballew appreciated the current demographics that were provided. She felt the figures
regarding the number of people in Springfield compared to Eugene with Associate Degrees or
higher was skewed because of the college being located in Eugene and the number of students
residing there. She felt that without including the University, the work force would be more
comparable.
Mr. Parker said that would be difficult to sort out. From the way economics worked, the
jurisdiction was not as important as the region. They were looking at the cities together, although
Eugene was considerably behind on this study. That could provide additional opportunities for
Springfield. .
Planning Chair Cross noted several items that were not yet available in the packet. He asked
when those would be available.
Mr. Parker said they hoped to have them to present to the stakeholders at their November
meeting. A lot of the analysis was sequenced. In order to come to a conclusion of how much
land was to be infill or redeveloped, they needed direction from the Planning Commission and
City Council. Tonight they heard that the PC and CC wanted redevelopment in certain targeted
areas. They felt that had narrowed that down and could now move forward. The next draft of the
EOA would have those numbers and identify some sites. They still needed to do an evaluation of
the short term supply the City was required to identify. Ifthe City moved forward with
expansion, there were some areas that were easier to service.
Chair Cross asked if the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to review that draft.
Mr. Parker said the next work session with the City Council was scheduled for November 17 on
a different issue. The next joint meeting on this issue would be held after the first of the year
with opportunity for feedback. Staff would ask for major concerns or comments.
Councilor Ballew asked if current economic issues would affect this study.
Mr. Parker said it was an important point. It delayed this for a few years, but this set the target
for what the City wanted to plan for in the future.
It was noted that private firms were doing their long range planning now, during this down time.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 27,2008
Page 10
Councilor Lundberg said she agreed. During the recession ofthe early 1980's, Springfield had to
diversify when the timber industry went down. She referred to one of the assumptions that stated
that 14% of new employment was designated as residential. The City didn't have the residential
study yet.
Mr. Parker said that assumption was not to show space that could be available for office space,
but rather for those people working out of their homes.
Councilor Lundberg said 14% seemed significant.
Mr. Parker said Ashland had 25% and Grants Pass had 29%. It was not uncommon and they
recognized that it could be a trend with technology.
Commissioner Beyer referred to work done in 1978 on the Metro Plan. It was important to create
the sites for the opportunities that could come along. The information and technology available
today, was very beneficial for policy makers when making these types of decision. He felt City
staff and ECONorthwest were doing an incredible job. This could be modified and it needed to
be acknowledged by the State.
Councilor W oodfow referred to the percentage of people in home based offices. Many he knew
used their home address for their business, but kept a space away from their home for storage of
equipment, etc. He spoke regarding trying to plan for the types of industry we want. The
University of Oregon was working on nanotechnology and no one would have imagined such a
thing twenty years ago, so it was difficult to plan very specifically. He was concerned about not
having sites that were big enough. It was possible to see industry that took up large amounts of
land. He asked that they keep that thought as they moved forward.
Commissioner Moore asked if the Springfield Bicycle Plan was going to be updated in the near
future.
Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt said the City was engaged in developing a City only
Transportation Plan, which included a requirement for the bicycle and pedestrian plan. Staff was
talking about how to incorporate that in the next eighteen months to two years.
Commissioner Moore asked about long term care facilities and senior housing and whether that
was considered residential, mixed-use or commercial.
Mr. Parker said that had often been considered housing, but did employ people. It would depend
on the configuration, but could be considered both.
Commissioner Kirschenmann asked for clarification on "other" assumptions.
Mr. Parker said "other" contained two main categories: retail and services. Many plans lumped
commercial into one category, but there was a difference in retail outlets and office space as far
as needs, etc. The data suggested a greater need in the services component.
Councilor Ralston talked about Housing Policy Board maps which showed nineteen growth
management strategies. He asked what set Springfield apart from Eugene regarding infill
strategies.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 27, 2008
Page 11
Mr. Parker said it was part ofthe land use efficiency. The reasonable recommendation to the
stakeholder's committee was to be aggressive on how to use small parcels that were
underutilized, but it was a Council decision. The State may not be favorable if no redevelopment
and infill were included in the plan. He spoke of the two urban renewal districts that had infill
strategies.
Councilor Ralston said infill was a component and he would encourage it when possible, but he
did not feel it should be a major strategy. Eugene made it one of their major strategies. He felt
Springfield had done a good job of infill.
Councilor Woodrow said the report seemed to suggest the service industry was growing at a
greater rate than regular industry. Part of the reason the City was conducting this study and
preparing this plan was to bring in new companies and to facilitate growth in smaller areas. It
seemed logical that if we had more companies coming in to use the larger sites, infill would
follow. He agreed with Councilor Ralston regarding the infill component. The City needed to be
more balanced to generate economic growth with larger sites, than concentrating on infill.
Commissioner Moore asked if the City provided tax incentives for business.
Mr. Grile said the City had incentives to encourage infill. He explained.
Mr. Parker said they were hoping to fmd a balance between large sites and small sites and
determine where to locate businesses, near industries or downtown, etc. They would be looking
at sites outside the UGB ofthe appropriate configuration and size.
Mayor Leiken thanked staff and Mr. Parker. Whatever the City did, they needed concurrence
with the State.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 pm.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Attest:
Am~
City Recor er