Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/1995 Work Session . Joint Work Session Minutes Minutes of the Joint Work Session of the Springfield City Council and Springfield Planning Commission Held Monday, May 22, 1995 The Springfield City Council and Springfield Planning Commission met in a joint work session at Thurston High School Auditorium, 323 N. 58th Street, Springfield, on Monday, May 22, 1995, at 6:09 p.m. with Mayor Morrisette presiding. Present were Mayor Morrisette and Councilors Beyer, Burge, Dahlquist, Maine, Shaver and Walters. Present from the Planning Commission were Commission Chairman Harvey and Commissioners Ballew, Cole, Hiatt, Lutes, Raybould and Trygstad. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Recorder Eileen Stein, Development Services Director Susan Daluddung and members of the staff. 1. Annexation Options for the Urban Transition Area . City Manager Mike Kelly reviewed the meeting agenda and introduced key staff members who would be presenting information. Mr. Kelly provided an overview of past Council and Planning Commission direction on the issue of annexation. He indicated this effort has been underway for the past couple of years and was initiated to respond to increasing requests for annexation, as well as a petition from 450 Glenwood residents requesting jurisdictional transfer of Glenwood from Eugene to Springfield. The purpose of undertaking the original urban services study was to enable the city to plan for the city's growth in a more coordinated and concerted manner. Mr. Kelly discussed current efforts to examine the city's capital investment needs, including the possibility of seeking voter approval of a general obligation bond measure in November. He discussed how the urban services and annexation studies related to this effort. He reminded Council and Planning Commission of past Council direction to staff and the various steps that have been involved in the process. He indicated the staff report prepared for Council includes a summary of findings during the various steps of the process in addition to four annexation options which are being presented at this meeting. 2. Study Processes and Findings Summary Mr. Kelly introduced Carol Heinkel of the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) who would present the study processes and findings. Ms. Heinkel gave an overview ofthe study and discussed how the city arrived at requesting LCOG to conduct the study. She discussed Senate Bill (SB) 122, adopted by the 1993 Legislature, and how the annexation study was prepared in accordance with SB 122. She indicated the provisions of this legislation were being complied with in order to enable state grant funding of the annexation study and discussed the requirements of the legislation and grant funding. She state the legislation requires that cities and surrounding special districts enter into urban transition agreements. . Another requirement of the legislation is a public involvement process which has been the reason for the city's extensive outreach effort. Ms. Heinkel discussed the components of the public . Joint Work Session Minutes City Council and Planning Commission - 5/22/95 Page 2 information effort that was undertaken from October through April including various surveys, newsletters, telephone contacts and public information meetings. She indicated the last step in the public information effort involved surveying both city and urban growth boundary residents to determine their interest in annexation. Ms. Heinkel discussed the findings of the final survey which asked who was interested in annexation and who should vote. Ms. Heinkel discussed the survey findings by subarea in the study 3. Options Review Development Services Director Susan Daluddung presented the annexation options that were being presented for consideration by the Council and Planning Commission. She commented that the process has been a good one in terms of citizen involvement and that it was time to consider options. She indicated that by choosing an option, staff could begin focusing on a particular direction for further study and evaluation. She reminded everyone that it was important to remember that whatever plan is developed it will most likely be implemented over a number of years. She discussed how the city's current planning effort is not done with a particular growth strategy in mind and that an annexation plan will enable better planning for the future in activating an urban growth management policy. . The options were developed based on citizen preferences (she recognized that while no one area clearly favored annexation, some subareas showed some degree of interest,) voter preference, ease in delivering services, cost to provide services and development demand in a particular area. She indicated the options range from one that has little control over growth to one provides for a coordinated growth management plan. She presented the following options and summarized the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Option # 1 - Continue to Annex New Development and Annex Developed Portions of Gateway Phased Over 10 Years - This option means the City would continue to react to annexation requests and would also annex developed portions of the Gateway study area over a period often years. No method of annexation is proposed, only that it would be done so over a ten year period. Based on the survey data, after "never", the next preferred time line option is five to ten years. The advantages ofthis option are that it meets the needs of a high growth area in Springfield, appears to be financially beneficial to the General Fund, and responds to Gateway's relatively high percent interest in annexation (32% have interest over the next 20 years.) The disadvantages of this option are the City assumes responsibility for substandard roads, lack of storm drainage and code compliance problems, etc.; faces strong opposition (50% never want to annex;) there is a disproportionately high demand for services upon annexation; and requires some unfunded capital expenditures. . . Joint Work Session Minutes City Council and Planning Commission - 5/22/95 Page 3 Option #2 - Continue to Annex New Development and Annex Developed Portions of Gateway. North Springfield C and Willamette Heights Phased Over 10 Years - This option is the same as Option #1 but adds North Springfield C and Willamette Heights subareas. Again, it means no method of annexing the developed portions of these areas is proposed, but assumes annexations would be phased in over a period often years. The advantages of this option are it extends city services in a logical manner, three subareas have some interest in annexation (Gateway 32%, North Springfield C 29%, Willamette Heights 34%), the impact on the General Fund is minor, and it contributes to the positive image of Springfield by bringing up substandard properties to code. The disadvantages of this option are the City assumes responsibility for substandard roads, lack of storm drainage and code compliance problems, etc.; faces strong opposition (55% never want to annex;) there is a disproportionately high demand for services upon annexation; and requires some unfunded capital expenditures. Option #3 - Continue to Annex New Development and Annex Developed Portions of Gateway. North Springfield C, Willamette Heights and Menlo Park Phased Over 1 0 Years - This option is the same as Option #2 but adds Menlo Park to the list of areas to be annexed over ten years. . The primary advantage of this option is that service delivery is more easily accommodated since Menlo Park is an island and has a high percentage of paved streets and sanitary sewer exists. The primary disadvantage is that only 18% of Menlo Park residents favor annexation. Option #4 - Annex Developed Portions of Gateway. North Springfield C. Willamette Heights and Menlo Park Using the Annexation Plan Method - This option is the same as Option #3 but uses the annexation plan method (SB 122.) The advantages of this option are that it involves city residents in the annexation decision (67% think city residents should have a voice in annexation, 48% think there should be a combined election involving city and subarea residents), provides certainty for everyone since annexation can be phased in up to a 20 year period, allows the city to process annexations without Boundary Commission approval of each annexation, facilitates financial planning for operations and capital improvements, and allows for the continued use of delayed annexation effective dates for new development without boundary commission approval. The disadvantages are that it leaves a large unfunded liability to the General Fund and other capital funds, is opposed by the Lane County Commissioners and Rainbow Water District, and faces strong initial opposition as subarea residents feel they will be "outvoted" by city residents. . Commissioner Lutes asked staff to review one of the detailed financial spreadsheets prepared to present the financial data. Public Works Management Analyst Len Goodwin discussed the assumptions used to develop the financial data and answered questions regarding how the assumptions and financial data were developed. . Joint Work Session Minutes City Council and Planning Commission - 5/22/95 Page 4 Commissioner Raybould asked about the election provisions in SB 122. Ms. Daluddung replied that if an annexation plan method is used it would involve the city and the annexation area residents. She indicated there are existing ways people can express their interest in annexation, such as through a remonstrance or referendum petition, but there is not a method that provides for a general vote by the residents in the annexation area alone. Councilor Burge commented he was concerned that the SB 122 method would skew the vote with such a large vote coming from city residents. He felt the annexation study needed to be done especially since state grant funding was available to pay for it. He felt the Council would be "swimming upstream" by proceeding aggressively with annexation, but was most concerned with how annexation impacts the General Fund. He felt that moving forward would create a lot of risk for the city. Councilor Shaver commented that even if an annexation plan method of election were used and the majority vote was "no," the Council could still make the policy decision that anyone subarea could be taken into the city. . Councilor Maine commented that the study was beneficial to her to know whether there was any interest in annexation. In relation to the capital bond planning effort, she commented it would have been unresponsible of her to make any decisions about the capital bond without knowing if there was any interest in annexation. She also commented that a major benefit is that the study provides baseline data about where the city's growth is now so that future annexation requests can be considered within that context. She said she never thought the study would result in the Council picking one option to move forward with, but rather the study would assist the city in continuing to process annexation requests and discussing annexation with the community. Commissioner Lutes asked whether the city already provides planning services in the urban growth boundary. Ms. Daluddung replied that the city does provide planning services through an . intergovernmental agreement with Lane County. She indicated that while urban service planning has been done, the associated financial planning has not and that a funding source for capital improvements needed to provide urban level services to the annexed areas does not exist.. Commissioner Lutes asked who pays for planning services. Mr. Kelly replied that the city pays for planning services which are supported through permit revenues, however they do not pay for all the costs. Planning services to the urban growth boundary is subsidized by the city, in accordance with the urban transition agreement between Lane County, and the cities of Springfield and Eugene, entered into approximately eight years ago. He indicated that although the General Fund subsidizes the costs, Springfield does receive substantial Road Fund money from Lane County. . Commissioner Lutes asked what city services are subsidized. Mr. Kelly replied planning and permitting, fire and life safety, and library (at a nominal fee.) He indicated that city and county residents pay the same tax rate and county residents get a lesser level of service from the county. Mayor Morrisette indicated that nuisance code enforcement is a service that the city provides but . Joint Work Session Minutes City Council and Planning Commission - 5/22/95 Page 5 cannot provide in the county. He stated it would be an additional cost to the city to provide this service to county residents. Councilor Burge commented to the audience present that the city is not the enemy and not to let this study be divisive. He commented that the annexation study was needed in order to do capital investment planning for the bond election in November. Commissioner Harvey commented on the respondent characteristics in the survey. He observed that the greatest number of those in favor of annexation were 35 to 45 years old. He suggested a 20 year annexation strategy should therefore be evaluated, or some other strategy whereby annexation occurs when a property is sold and/or changes ownership. He asked whether something like this could be done. Mr. Kelly commented that the current policy regarding annexation is reactive. He discussed the difficulty in providing city services if annexation were to occur with each change in ownership. This idea would be similar to the city's existing reactive policy towards annexation whereby no comprehensive plan is established or followed. Councilor Shaver commented that Commissioner Harvey's suggestions were the type ofcreative thinking and problem solving that needed to be done. He discussed a possible tax credit for senior citizens whose properties were annexed and commented that people with fixed incomes need to be taken into consideration. . Mayor Morrisette asked staff what was needed from the Council and Planning Commission in regard to this issue. Mr. Kelly commented that staff wanted to provide an update and to present the annexation study findings and options for evaluation. He said nothing was pending other than the need to do the capital planning for the bond election. More time could be taken to consider a particular option in further detail later. Mayor Morrisette commented that he did not see any compelling reason to move ahead with any option at this time. Commissioner Harvey stated every time the issue of annexation is brought up people get mad. He commented that the Metropolitan Plan provides that areas in the urban growth boundaries will be annexed to the city eventually and that there needs to be a time frame to do it. He stated that an extended plan, i.e. 20 years, would provide a timeline and give people the option of determining whether they want to be annexed or to do something else if they don't. He suggested that a condition could be that once 60 percent of an area is annexed, the rest of it would be annexed automatically. Again, he stated an established plan, even with a 20 year time frame, would give people something to plan their lives around and enable them to exercise their options. . Councilor Walters concurred with Commissioner Harvey's comments. He commented that 20 years provides a good long term time frame. He envisioned the creation of many island areas, such as Menlo Park, without an established annexation plan. He felt Menlo Park benefits from protection the Police Department provides to the surrounding area and he did not want to see this type of situation proliferate into other areas. He commented he would not want to be annexed himself if he lived outside the city, but as a Councilor, felt responsible for protecting the best . Joint Work Session Minutes City Council and Planning Commission - 5/22/95 Page 6 interests of Springfield citizens. He suggested the current level of systems development charges (SDCs) might be inadequate to support development in the urban growth boundary and suggested that Council should reevaluate it's policies regarding SDCs. Mayor Morrisette asked if there was favor in supporting a 20 year time frame for annexation. Councilor Shaver commented that people do not want to be annexed, that annexation is not a sound financial investment for the city, and that it does not block development of most of the surrounding areas. He said there is no benefit to the city to look at annexation at least not now, although he could see benefit to further evaluating annexation in Gateway and Willamette Heights with some alternatives as to how it could be phased in. Commissioner Harvey commented that some certainty in needed. Councilor Shaver replied that his suggestion would provide certainty where annexation is more likely to work. Commissioner Cole commented that if a subarea wishes to come into the city then it should be annexed, but that no one should be forced to annex. . Mayor Morrisette commented he is most concerned with having to suddenly provide urban services to an area when there isn't any money to do it. He discussed the situation in the River Road/Santa Clara area with the city of Eugene and commented there are no groundwater protection problems in Springfield that would require people to hook up to sewers. Councilor Walters asked what was next in the process. Mr. Kelly replied that ifthere is interest in taking some of the comments and formulating them into a policy recommendation then perhaps that Planning Commission could do that over the next six months or year. Councilor Walters asked if a motion could be made to provide formal policy direction. He suggested perhaps Commissioner Harvey could restate his ideas in the form of a motion that could be voted upon, that would give staff formal direction. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WALTERS TO DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK AT A 20- YEAR PHASING OF ANNEXATION AND DEVELOP OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. Commissioner Harvey commented he is not comfortable making a motion, but feels that "never" is not an option. He stated that the urban fringe area residents need to state when they want to be annexed and how they want that to come about. Councilor Shaver commented how the area that had the most positive reaction to annexation was still less than a majority. He discussed other aspects of the resident survey preferences. He indicated he'd like the Planning Commission to have a dialogue with affected neighborhood organizations, i.e. Game Farm Road Neighborhood Association, to do some brainstorming about options for phasing in annexation over the next whatever number of years. . . . . .. 1 ~. . Joint Work Session Minutes City Council and Planning Commission - 5/22/95 Page 7 Councilor Burge commented the city already has an annexation policy and asked Mr. Kelly whether a policy existed. Mr. Kelly replied that the city does have a policy for annexing developed and undeveloped property. Councilor Burge suggested remaining with the existing policy until the state dictates that another, less reactive policy is needed. He commented that if people want to suggest an annexation policy to Council, or if Commissioner Harvey's suggestions are worthy of consideration, then they should be evaluated. THE MOTION DIED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND. Mayor Morrisette commented that annexation cannot simply be ignored until the state says otherwise. Unless existing laws change, at some point in time the areas within the urban growth boundary have to be annexed. Councilor Walters asked whether Lane County has ever expressed interest in the city annexing Menlo Park because it cannot provide services to Menlo Park or whether there is a similar area on the Eugene side ofI-5. Mr. Kelly replied there has been none and that there is no area on the west side ofI-5 similar to Menlo Park. Councilor Walters asked whether the city ever dispatches patrol cars to Menlo Park. Chief Bill De Forrest commented that there probably have been some minor instances patrol cars have been dispatched, but no major events he's aware of have happened. Councilor Walters commented he liked Councilor Shaver's suggestion to look further at the Gateway area as a test case. Commissioner Lutes commented that it is necessary to be sensitive to the timing of the capital bond election. He asked whether an annexation policy would impact the capital bond election? Mayor Morrisette replied he thought it would not. Commissioner Harvey commented that not making a decision at this meeting is not doing a favor to the residents in the urban growth boundary. He reiterated that people need to know what the plan is, or that there is a plan, otherwise the subject will come up every four or five years for discussion and nothing will get settled. He stated a 20 year time frame provides people with a time frame to plan their lives around. Mayor Morrisette commented that he hoped the Planning Commission would take up the issue of developing an annexation strategy for the Gateway area over the next 20 years, under the leadership of Commissioner Harvey as Chairman of the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Eileen Stein . . . . ... Joint Work Session Minutes City Council and Planning Commission - 5/22/95 Page 8 ~t&'M r, J / Bill Morrisette ~ Mayor Attest: ~dtb~ Eileen Stein City Recorder 052295ws.doc