HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/10/1997 Work Session
.
City of Springfield
Work Session
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1997
The City of Springfield Council met in Work Session at Springfield City Hall, Jesse Maine
Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 10, 1997, at 7: 17 p.m. with
Council President Shaver presiding.
Present were Council President Shaver and Council members Ballew, Beyer, Burge, Dahlquist
and Maine. Mayor Morrisette was absent (excused). Also present were City Manager Mike
Kelly, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Eileen Stein, Administrative Aide Shari Higgins,
Public Works Director Dan Brown, City Engineer Al Peroutka, Senior Management Analyst Len
Goodwin, Supervising Civil Engineer Don Branch and members of staff.
1. 1997-2002 Capital Improvement Program
.
City Engineer Al Peroutka presented the staff report and referred council to Schedule II of the
Capital Improvement Program (CIP), Summary of Proposed Revenues and Expenditures.
He explained the revenue sources by category and stated the Street Fund has not received
an increase in gas tax funds during the last two legislative sessions. Mr. Peroutka stated in the
Sewer User Fund, a substantial debt burden is being shown and it provides historical
information which is pertinent to the future of the city. The Sewer Fund shows an increase
in reserves over the five-year CIP period.
Councilor Maine discussed the "old" System Development Charges (SDC) and the interest
which was included in the totals. Mr. Peroutka explained the difference between old SDC
money, new SDC money and specific fund SDC's. He then provided detailed
information about each funding source included in the CIP. He spoke about specific projects
which were identified for funds from new SDC's, the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and Capital Bond.
Mr. Peroutka spoke about revenue sources. He said the County Roads Partnership Agreement
is showing declining revenues, and capital expenditures have been reduced and even
eliminated over the five-year CIP period. In the Sewer User Fund, the city is incurring a
substantial debt burden in each year of the CIP, but otherwise the fund is healthy with
adequate reserves and working capital.
.
Mr. Peroutka spoke about the sanitary sewer projects which are included in the CIP and will
have a significant impact on the city's continued growth. They are the South 2nd Street
Sanitary Sewer and the South 57th Street Sewer which are both going forth as county
projects. Also programmed is an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) safety
improvement project for traffic control modifications in the South 57th and Mt. Vernon Road
area. Mr. Peroutka referred council to the Agenda Item Summary, page 1-10, Capital
Improvement Project Sheet, which addressed un-programmed funding for growth-related
projects identified on the council adopted System Development Charge project list. Mr.
Peroutka further explained CIP and Capital Bond projects.
Springfield City Council
Work Session - 2/10/97
page 2
.
There was a discussion about the sewer plant and operational needs, since it is nearly 20 years
old. Mr. Kelly stated the Master Plan for the sewer plant is being updated, but that no funding
sources have been identified. He said that actual reinvesting of the future in terms
of equipment and operational needs have not been budgeted for. It is approaching time
to reinvest by both Eugene, Springfield and Lane County in the sewer plant.
Councilor Shaver asked if the city can use existing SDC funds in conjunction with any
funds the state may provide for the Beltline/I-5 Interchange project. Mr. Peroutka explained
that beyond small funding for safety features, the city is looking beyond its CIP funds for
the project.
Councilor Shaver asked how close the trigger is for the extension of Game Farm Road.
Mr. Brown replied the traffic count is currently at about 8,000 vehicle trips per day. The city
can plan, but not design or implement the project until 10,000 trips per day occur. Mr. Leahy
stated potential buyers or property owners in the area are made aware of the trigger and
projected development growth in the Gateway area. Councilor Burge stated he is not
willing to commit at this point to the future extension of Game Farm Road, without further
staff and council review.
.
Mr. Peroutka discussed the proposed Jasper Road to 1-5 extension, which is currently not
a budgeted item. He stated project completion would create a needed link in the road system.
There was a discussion of county funding in the amount of $2.2 million which was
set aside for the Jasper Road project, and the possibility ofODOT assisting the city with
the balance of the funding. Mr. Peroutka said the city could draw from SDC funds if it was
the desire of the council to complete the project. Another option would be possible funding
from the Legislature. Council agreed to discuss this specific project issue at the end of
the meeting.
Councilor Maine asked how the Millrace project is progressing. Mr. Brown said, the city
is still in the process of studies and analysis. Issues are being worked through with the
Department of State Lands, but the city is still nurturing its working relationship with
the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Brown said the city has the Capital Bond financing
in place and needs to continue with the Millrace project or the bond funds may be lost. All of
the current studies are being funded with Capital Bond financing.
Mr. Brown closed by stating that any of the revenue sources where reserves are left,
have a list of projects that will eventually outspend reserve accounts. The potential for
spending funds and/or reviewing reserve accounts will occur at a future date.
2. Agreements and Funding for South 32nd Street. Jasper Road. and 51st Street Improvements
.
Mr. Peroutka presented the staff report by referring to the Agenda Item Summary,
Attachment C titled, Agreement with Hayden Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Peroutka detailed the
Jasper Road project and said the developer has come to the city for development
approval, which would include a two-thirds street in front of their property. The agree-
ment with Hayden Gardens requires them to pay a maximum of $184 per foot for frontage,
which totals approximately $130,000.
Springfield City Council
Work Session - 2/1 0/97
page 3
.
Mr. Peroutka then referred to Attachment B of the staff report, regarding the South 32nd
Street Intergovernmental Agreement. Mr. Peroutka explained the project and said on South
32nd Street, School District #19 (SD#19) will pay the remaining costs out of their overall
commitment of $500,000 to the South 32nd/Jasper Road Corridor. For the South 32nd Street
portion of the project, the SD#19 costs is estimated at $180,000.
Mr. Peroutka began to tie the projects together and explained staff is trying to coordinate
and complete these agreements at the same time to provide accurate funding amounts and
project management.
Mr. Peroutka said Attachment D of the staff report refers to the Jasper Road
Intergovernmental Agreement which is between SD#19, the city and the county. He
explained how the funding would occur between the remaining $320,000 from SD#19's
verbal agreement of $500,000, Hayden Gardens' portion at $300,000 and Lane County's
portion at $500,000. The city would then still need to fund approximately $1 million for
project completion.
Mr. Kelly explained how the agreements were formed with the SD#19 and the county. After
review and placing all the elements together, the city felt they could possibly add funding
to complete all three projects. Since the time of the agreements (all verbal), the project
completion amount has risen to approximately $1.5 million and the funds committed by the
respective jurisdictions are not adequate.
.
In addition, a storm drainage outlet needs to occur and will add costs above and beyond the
$1.5 million dollar figure to complete the project. One approach would be to ask the county
to participate in providing additional funding for the needed storm sewer. Since there is
not an established drainage system, the water outlet problem needs to be addressed at this
time. If the county or SD# 19 are unable to provide the additional funding needed, then Mr.
Brown suggested the use of SDC fees, which are collected and placed in reserves for this type
of a project.
Council discussed who typically funds infrastructure assessments and how the city
assesses SDC charges. Mr. Leahy reminded council of the Dolan case and how it
relates to assessments and "takings."
Mr. Peroutka asked council for the ability to negotiate with both the county and SD# 19
for additional funds. He stated his doubts about the outcome, but said the projects are
worthy of completion and with the agreements ready for approval, though this may be
the best time to approach the jurisdictions. Should negotiations for funding not go well,
Mr. Peroutka asked council for the authorization to spend city funds in the amount of an
additional $500,000 if SD#19. He explained there is a short window of time to reach
agreement on the projects and to proceed without project delays.
.
Council discussed the use of a smaller pipe at a lesser cost if the respective jurisdictions
do not provide the additional funding needed. Mr. Peroutka stated the use of a smaller
pipe would be substandard infrastructure and would eventually cost the city more money
when a replacement pipe was needed.
.{ ..
.
.
.
Springfield City Council
Work Session - 2/10/97
page 4
Mr. Brown said the city has an ordinance that states any size pipe over 24" is paid for by
the city. It would be in the city's best interest to fund the project at a higher level now versus
digging the street up at a later date to update the drainage system.
Mr. Peroutka referred to Attachment E, which is the county Intergovernmental Agreement
for the amount of 500,000. This is a separate agreement that was negotiated with SD#19 to
assist with the 51st Street project. At the time of the 51st Street Agreement only, funding
sources included SD#19 in the amount of$180,000, and $120,000 in Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, plus a contribution of our city Engineering
costs in the amount of $50,000, which was authorized by council. Assessments would occur
in the amount of$150,000.
There was a lengthy discussion which included information regarding assessment costs
to property owners on 51 st Street and discussions with SD# 19 about those property
owners. Council asked questions regarding the specific agreements, project costs and
funding options presented.
Council discussed ways in which they could assist staff in the negotiation process and the
timelines for completing a budget transfer if necessary.
By consensus, council directed staff to negotiate with both the county and SD# 19 for
additional funds to complete all three projects. Council asked for a report back by March 3,
which is the budget transfer resolution date.
3. Council Business
Councilor Shaver explained the Legislature is going to increase gas tax for the maintenance
side of road infrastructure. Some legislative representatives would like to allocate the funds
from the increase themselves, versus allowing ODOT to receive and distribute the funds.
Representative Beyer suggested Springfield add the project of extending 1-105 to Jasper Road
to the STIP regional priority list. Councilor Beyer said this would allow the Legislature to
choose specific local projects versus allowing ODOT to choose local projects, and by having
our project on the STIP it would be recognized by other representatives. This is a process that
Representative Beyer has stated he would support and he recommends the project be added to
our STIP regional priority list.
City Recorder Eileen Stein explained the city currently has two projects which are already on
STIP: 1) the safety project at the Beltline/I-5 Interchange, and 2) the S. 42nd Street project.
Council discussed adding the project to the regional priority list, but not dedicating funding.
Councilor Maine led a discussion over the position of projects on the regional list.
By consensus, council agreed to the following priority: 1) the safety project at the
Beltline/I-5 Interchange, 2) the extension ofI-I05 to Jasper Road, and 3) would be the
S. 42nd Street project. Council discussion how traffic would be relieved on S. 42nd Street
if the extension to Jasper Road occurred.
~ . ,.. .
.
.
.
Springfield City Council
Work Session - 2/10/97
page 5
By consensus, council agreed to re-prioritize the projects and allow the extension ofI-5 to
Jasper Road to be presented to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) as a higher priority
than the S. 42nd Street project.
Mr. Kelly said at the MPC level that it is important that elected officials present the city's
request and support it, versus relying on input from staff members. There was a discussion of
how the project would be presented for inclusion on the STIP list at the MPC meeting
scheduled for February 13, 1997. Mr. Brown stated he would contact Lane County staff
regarding the proposed change and present figures to both Councilor Shaver and Councilor
Maine as MPC representatives.
Councilor Shaver asked if council members would like to meet with representatives Beyer,
Dwyer and Wooten, to discuss what is occurring in the Legislature and how the city could
or should become more involved. Councilor Burge spoke in opposition of including
Representative Wooten. Council discussed the concept and agreed to further discuss the idea
at their next meeting.
Councilor Shaver said he has received a suggestion to schedule council's summer
recess. The dates suggested were July 1 through August 10, 1997. Council would meet on
June 30 to adopt the budget and then begin their recess immediately following. By
consensus, council agreed to check their calendars and set the time for summer recess at their
next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9: 15 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Shari Higgins
coun~~ ,i1I4
ATTEST:
Q!~e~~