Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/12/2009 Work Session City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 2009 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, January 12,2009 at 5:40 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Leezer, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Bill Van Vactor, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Mayor Leiken welcomed Councilor Leezer to her first meeting as Councilor. 1. Urban Growth Boundary Expansion - Emplovment Opportunitv. This portion of the meeting was a joint meeting with the Springfield Planning Commission. Mayor Leiken turned it over to Planning Commission Chair Frank Cross to open the meeting of the Planning Commission. Planning Chair Cross opened the Planning Commission work session. Present were Chair Cross and Commissioners VanGordon, Beyer, Moore, Kirschenmann, Moe and Smith. City Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. He referred to the time line included in the agenda packet as Attachment 7. He noted that the shaded area on the timeline was what had been done to date. They were nearly done with the technical portion of this process. He discussed those items that had been c?mpleted. Mr. Reesor said the purpose of this joint Council/Planning Commission work session was to discuss and prioritize employment opportunity areas. ECONorthwest had reached the Alternatives Analysis phase of the Lands Study project, which included an analysis and justification for urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion area locations to meet documented shortfalls of commercial, industrial and residential land. The discussion for tonight's work session would focus on employment land. Additional sites would be evaluated for residential land in the upcoming weeks. The attached memorandum from ECONorthwest explained the Alternatives Analysis process in detail. The draft economic opportunities analysis and housing needs determination concluded that Springfield would need to expand its UGB to accommodate growth forecast for the 2010-2030 period. The exact acreage of the expansion was not yet known; it would depend on the types of land use efficiency measures the City Council adopted, as well as the specific areas selected for UGB expansion.. As a first step in the Alternatives Analysis, ECONorthwest worked with City staff to develop a series of maps showing characteristics of land adjacent to the existing Springfield portion of the City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes January 12, 2009 Page 2 Metropolitan UGH. The primary study area was land adjacent to the Springfield portion of the Metropolitan UGH. Attached was a memorandum from ECONorthwest which presented a brief description of state planning requirements for the modifications of Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs). Ten potential employment opportunity areas outside the UGB were discussed in the memorandum. Five supporting maps which provided site information related to land outside the UGB were also att.ached. After prioritizing employment opportunity areas, the next steps included: · Analyze high priority areas to match with site needs from EOA . Eliminate some areas from further consideration for employment · Conduct more detailed serviceability analysis of higher priority sites . Identify priority areas for residential development Mr. Reesor said the deadline outlined in HB3337 for this process was December 2009 and staff was on schedule at this time. A stakeholder meeting was held January 5, 2009 and the Technical Advisory Committee met last Friday, January 9,2009. That was the last large group meeting with that committee, but smaller groups would be meeting as they got into the facilities analysis. There were two remaining Stakeholders meetings on January 22 and February 26. He introduced Bob Parker from ECONorthwest. Mr. Parker said they would be briefing the City Council and Planning Commission on the progress made and input received from the Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committees, and to solicit Council and Planning Commission comments/direction on UGB expansion areas. He presented a power point presentation that was also distributed in hard copy. The following issues were presented and discussed: . Land Needed for Employment 4 Springfield has a deficit of sites in most categories, especially larger than 5+ acres. 4 Assumptions about Employment Infill and Redevelopment. The City was required under OAR 660-024-0050 to consider "land use efficiency measures". Some new jobs would not require buildable land and redevelopment would provide some sites. The group determined that all site needs for sites less than 5 acres would be accommodated through redevelopment and 50% of redevelopable sites in the 5-10 acre range would redevelop. Mayor Leiken asked if the Wildish site in Glenwood would be considered a redevelopment site or something else. Although there was nothing on it now, it was used for something in the past. Community Development Manager John Tamulonis said in the past that site was used for gravel extraction. About one acre of the 37 acres had included a building. It would probably be considered vacant land. Mr. Parker said they could map the inventory, including those areas that came up for redevelopment. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes January 12, 2009 Page 3 4 A UGB expansion of 460-640 acres is justifiable based on employment forecast and land use efficiency assumptions. (Low and high scenarios were explained) Mr. Parker noted that the figures were not fixed and it was important to think about what opportunities existed. 4 The Stakeholder Committee supported the assumptions and analysis. ./ A majority from the Stakeholders group thought that Springfield may need more large sites than shown in the analysis ./ A minority though that the analysis may overstate need for employment land J ./ Some thought the redevelopment assumptions may be too ambitious Councilor Woodrow asked if the location of the redevelopable sites came into play when doing the redevelopment analysis. Mr. Parker said location did playa part. There were a couple of approaches commonly used to evaluate redevelopment: 1) supply level analysis (not a lot of good information available on this); and 2) demand level analysis. He explained. Commissioner Beyer said there was a majority of the stakeholders that argued for more large sites, but following discussions, the group determined that getting something approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) was important. He referred to comments from Mike Kelly regarding his experience that it was hard to talk new businesses into redevelopment. Usually smaller sites were used for redevelopment. Mr. Parker continued with the power point presentation. . UGB Expansion Alternatives 4 Alternatives Analysis for Employment Lands. The City: ./ Must evaluate alternatives, including land efficiency measures and alternative boundary locations ./ Must start with highest priority and work down (e.g. consider exception areas first) - Mr. Parker explained. ./' Must provide application of Goal 14 criteria: 1.) Efficient accommodation of identified land needs; 2) orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services; 3) comparative environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; and 4) compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGH. ./ Can consider land that is not adjacent ./ Can consider site characteristics for employment sites ./ Must include a map of alternatives considered ./ Can consider costs, advantages and disadvantages of public services (most important criteria for the City) City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes January 12, 2009 Page 4 4 ORS 197.298 ./ UGB Expansion priorities include urban reserve areas (Springfield does not have urban reserves), exceptions areas, marginal lands (Lane County is a marginal land county), and resource lands. Mr. Parker said when they met with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in November, they were asked to identify employment opportunities. He referred to a map showing those areas and identified each area. The Stakeholders had concerns about the areas. 4 Stakeholder Committee Comments ./' Concerns about presence of wetlands and floodplain in many sites and bringing in buildable land and the importance of transportation access for industrial land ./ Some areas may be best suited for residential such as Hayden Bridge area, far east Springfield area, Clearwater area, or Wallace Creek area. Commissioner Beyer said he was not sure there was consensus on the Hayden Bridge area. It was dependent on wetlands and flood areas. Councilor Woodrow asked if the full 640 acres of expansion would be counted if it was put in an area with some wetland and floodplain. Mr. Parker said if there were unbuildable areas within the expanded areas, those could be discounted. Ideally, they could find property that had few or no prohibited areas. Councilor Pishioneri asked if they considered nodal development being retail, office space and other services. Mr. Parker said that was something that would need more consideration. Most nodal development would include infill for that redevelopment opportunity. The real deficiency the city had was five acre sites. They would need to target industries, identify site needs and make sure they had sites to accommodate. Commissioner Moore asked a question about the markings on the maps. Her question was answered. Mr. Parker continued with the power point presentation and said they met with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) last Friday. 4 T AC Comments ./ Continuing to provide technical information ./ Areas that may be best suited for employment / large sites, such as the North Gateway area; Seavey Loop and Goshen area; and North Springfield Highway area. ./ Areas that may be best suited for residential, such as the Hayden Bridge area; far east Springfield area; Clearwater area; and Wallace Creek area. "" Opportunity Area Summary ./ Approximate acreages of opportunity areas City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes January 12, 2009 Page 5 ./ Does not preclude other lands from consideration ./ Boundaries are not fixed ./ Areas 9/1 0 present opportunities for employment and housing Mr. Parker discussed a map showing the Study Area Summaries. . Next Steps 4 Finalize the employment land needs analysis "" Finalize residential land needs analysis 4. Complete the UGB expansion alternatives analysis ./ Continue to collect technical information about each area ./ Complete last 2 meetings with the Stakeholder Committee 4 Discuss policy options with the City Council and Planning Commission Mr. Parker said a lot of work had been done, and many other things would be considered before taking anything to the LCDC. Mayor Leiken asked if we had established the UGB based on HB3337. Mr. Reesor said that would happen with this process. Currently, they were going from the UGB that had been in use for the past decade. This process was establishing Springfield's separate UGH. The expansion areas were part of that process. Mayor Leiken said he knew that, but wanted it out in open discussion. He asked if during discussion with the City of Eugene staff, they were outlining the boundary along 1-5. Mr. Reesor said that was discussed at the last TAC meeting. Generally, they were considering 1-5 as one of the boundaries, but that didn't preclude Springfield from looking at areas beyond that in this process. Mayor Leiken said Goshen was part of the Springfield School District and was on the west side of the freeway. He asked if they were exploring industrial and commercial land on the west side of Goshen. He did not want to get Springfield in a political fight, but thought it should be considered. Commissioner Beyer said the first goal was to get the Springfield UGB established. Mayor Leiken agreed and said the other discussion was for the future. The first step was to get boundary established. Commissioner Beyer said in the near term there was probably enough commercial land in north Gateway area and the east side ofI-5 to meet the initial goals. Mr. Parker explained the maps included in the agenda packet as attachments. Councilor Wylie asked for a definition of marginal lands on the map on Attachment 3-1. Mr. Parker said marginal lands were considered marginal for farm or forestry. The County went through a process in the 1980's to justify the designations. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes January 12, 2009 Page 6 Commissioner Beyer referred to the flood map and questioned an area marked as a floodway. Mr. Parker said at the last T AC meeting, they learned that studies were ongoing that may redefme the boundaries of floodplain and floodway. The T AC recommended waiting for the studies and re-assessing those areas. Discussion was held regarding flooding in that area. Mr. Parker asked for input regarding the needs analysis, large site issue and the TAC priority areas. Councilor Lundberg said she thought of the large site issue in terms of site specific. They could identify sites, but it would still be site specific. She was fine with the large sites. Her only concern regarding the redevelopment areas was the Hayden Bridge area. She was fine with the rest. Commissioner Smith said he felt the redevelopment was pretty ambitious. The City was pretty efficient already. Keeping large lots available was important. He would lean towards being aggressive in getting those large areas. Councilor Pishioneri said the lot size should be large, but practical. He wouldn't want to stop looking at that, but wanted to make sure there was flexibility. He discussed the redevelopable lands and noted that only 50% of that would probably be developed. He was fine with everything else. Commissioner Moe said he wanted to see Springfield with its own UGB, and then move from there. He was interested in the north Springfield area as a natural area to move the boundary. He didn't want to see a lot of effort put into developing an area that would not also benefit the Springfield School District. That issue should be addressed before development occurred. He said the Seavey Loop area was a nice area, but would be very political if Springfield started to look in that direction. Goshen was a great idea, as Springfield had attachment on the west side of Goshen, but that would be further out in the future. We needed large sites because putting blocks of land together to redevelop was very difficult. Councilor Wylie agreed with Mr. Moe'e comments on the school district issue and suggested bringing in the School District for those discussions. Springfield needed a UGB we could all be comfortable with. She liked to think that Springfield was open for business, but wanted to encourage redevelopment and facilitate employment opportunities, large and small. The key was to work on employment opportunities. Commissioner Kirschenmann said he was in favor of redevelopment, and a proponent of larger sites. It was easier to break them down later than to try to put pieces together. Commissioner Moore asked for a visual example of a larger site. She asked how large the PeaceHealth RiverBend hospital site was. Mr. Tamulonis said about 48 acres for the additional medical buildings. The Sony site was about 38 acres and the Pierce property about 60 acres. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes January 12,2009 Page 7 Commissioner Moore said the only area that showed lots ofthat size was Area 3, which had all the problems. She asked how practical it was to bring together smaller sites to make large sites. Mr. Parker said north Gateway had larger sites, including a 100 acre parcel, with some in the floodway. He referred to other areas with larger sites. Commissioner Moore said the area north ofthe river, but west of Hayden Bridge, had some elevation issues. She asked if there was some area nearby that could be accessed. Mr. Tamulonis said it had constraints. He explained. Commissioner Moore said she could see issues with larger sites because they were not relatively available. She noted the amount of redevelopment that occurred in Springfield already. Councilor Ralston approved of the work done so far. He agreed large sites were needed. He was not sure we could count on redevelopment for much. Commissioner Beyer said the first priority was to meet the Council deadline to get something adopted. They needed to get it done and consider amending it later if needed. He thought the Stakeholders' recommendations were reasonable. In looking at the alternative from a development perspective, it was most important to have the land close to the freeway. The north Gateway area and Seavey Loop made the most sense in that respect. He discussed the Seavey Loop area. Site 3 bothered him due to the flood issues. They needed to be careful when moving forward that the sites chosen could be used. He wouldn't discount Hayden Bridge and Mohawk Valley because there was a lot of flatland. There was a barrier of crossing the river no matter which direction we chose for larger sites. There were already sewer lines near this area. Councilor Leezer said she agreed that we should be aggressive in looking for large sites. In the current economic environment, redevelopment would happen. This was a lengthy and expensive process so we didn't want to fall short and have to keep revisiting this. She would like to get our UGB settled with the large sites needed. Commissioner VanGordon said he agreed we should look at larger lots, located near infrastructure already in place, such as north Springfield and Seavey Loop. We needed options and opportunity areas. North Gateway may not meet what was needed. Councilor Woodrow said he was in favor of redevelopment, but the local economy showed we needed more manufacturing to provide more jobs. More room was needed for those types of companies. We need to fmd the larger sites and double check redevelopment. He noted the issues of redevelopment. Chair Cross said he felt the City needed to favor redevelopment because of the current economic situation and that should be looked at heavily when expanding the boundary. He agreed with Commissioner Beyer that they needed to concentrate on areas near 1-5, because access to transportation would be critical. He commended staff for doing a good job. He asked for clarification on how this fit with the urban growth area and if there was a deadline. Mr. Reesor said HB3337, establishing Springfield's own urban growth boundary, had a deadline of September 2009. As we established our separate UGB, the City was looking at areas for City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes January 12,2009 Page 8 expansion. It was all wrapped into one process. Once this was adopted, Springfield would have its own UGH. Commissioner Beyer said through analysis, it was determined that our current UGB was not big enough. We needed to look at how to expand that boundary. The current process looked at how to expand and once that was determined, we could defme our new UGH. Chair Cross confirmed that both steps would be done in this one process. Correct. Development Services Director Bill Grile said December 2009 was the date established by HB3337, but the adoption package would most likely come to Council in January 2010 so the twenty year supply started in 2010. It was not yet fully determined whether or not that would occur in one or two separate actions- one to establish, one to expand. Those discussions were being held with legal counsel. He explained how that could affect the ability for the decisions to be challenged. There were other cities that were in the process of expansion and Springfield was watching their process. Staff would bring information to Council for those types of decisions. Commissioner Beyer asked about the option to adopt the UGB separately. Mr. Grile said they could adopt the UGB initially and then immediately after adopt the expansion. The actions could be done separately or at once. Discussions were held regarding those actions. Councilor Lundberg asked if the action to establish our UGB as it was now and the action to expand needed approval from Eugene and Lane County. Mr. Grile said each City could adopt their own. City Attorney Bill Van Vactor noted that we would need approval from Lane County. Mayor Leiken said he recommended the Planning Commission and City Council give staff the tools they needed to make sure the findings could be proved to DLCD. We needed something realistic. We had enough information to suggest an expanded UGH. He felt the City needed to incorporate this with Willamalane Parks and Recreation on both residential and commercial and industrial. The work done had been excellent. He cautioned Council to be flexible on the large sites if it was problematic for staff and the chance for approval. Councilor Woodrow referred to the aerial photo on Map I and the metro plan boundary. Mr. Parker said that was a legal question. Mr. Grimaldi said that would be discussed during the Joint Elected Officials meeting tomorrow (Tuesday, January 13). Councilor Pishioneri discussed the area near Clearwater and the residential and retail potential in that area. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes January 12, 2009 Page 9 Mayor Leiken asked staff if there was enough information regarding redevelopment to see if the State had incentives for redevelopment, because redevelopment could be cost prohibitive. He suggested contacting Bob Warren regarding that question. Mr. Smith discussed the Seavey Loop area and Mt. Pisgah. Mayor Leiken said this was a great discussion and a there was a lot of enthusiasm. 2. Street Fund Finances. Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. For the past several years, staff have briefed the Council on the decline in Street Operating Fund -reserves resulting from stagnation of local and state fuel taxes, and the loss of County payments supported by revenues under the Secure Rural Schools Act of 2000. On October 13, 2008, the Council directed staff to seek further public input on the imposition of a Street Preservation Fee, as proposed by the Street Preservation Task Force, an increase in local fuel taxes, or a reduction in maintenance and preservation services. Results of the public outreach are attached. In addition, staff have attached a summary of current actions taken to reduce the gap between revenues and expenditures, the impact those reductions will have on FY 2010, and the current Financial Plan for the Street Operations Fund. The condition of the Street Fund has continued to deteriorate and has now reached the point where without an immediate revenue increase or reduction in spending, desired targets for ending fund balance cannot be reached. Staff will recommend, based on the full body of material available, that the Council direct that an ordinance increasing the local fuel tax be prepared for action at the next regular session. In the alternative, staff will outline the expenditure reductions that will be put in place immediately to assure that minimum balances can be maintained and the fiscal condition of the Fund stabilized at least through FY 2010. Mr. Goodwin discussed the survey done on the streets and noted that it was not scientific, but taken by those that took the time and energy to participate. The participants were clear they did not want to see a reduction in street maintenance and preservation. Staff found it surprising that when given options, Springfield citizens chose reducing as the last alternative and were prepared to pay more if it was reasonable. It was also clear that the preservation fee was confusing and troubling and the participants were not ready to endorse that option. When asked if they preferred a fuel tax or a reduction in services, they preferred a fuel tax. Mr. Goodwin said staff could come up with a list of expenditure reductions that would keep the Street Fund whole for a year or two. Some of those were .summarized in the briefmg memo. He explained those possible reductions and some of the issues that arose when maintenance and services were reduced. Staffs recommendation was to look at increasing the fuel tax. He discussed the options of increasing the tax by .02 or by .04 and how long each option would benefit the Street Fund. It was possible the Governor's Transportation Program could provide funds to the City, but that was not certain and they may not receive funds from the State. If funds . were received from the state, a good part of that would be tied up for capital improvement projects, which wouldn't solve our problem. Staff was asking Council to consider one ofthe City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes January 12, 2009 Page 10 following: 1) adding the larger increase now, and then rolling it back to the lower amount if other funds came from the State later; or 2) imposed the lower increase now, knowing that it might have to be increase if funds from the State were not forthcoming. Mayor Leiken said he had served on the Governor's Vision Transportation Committee, and what was in the Governor's package was what the committee had put together. He said while serving on that committee, on behalf of cities, he was committed to change the formula to bring more money to the cities. Mr. Goodwin had a valid point that the City may not receive the $2M that was originally proposed as there was a lot of negotiating still to go. This would start with Representative Beyer's committee, which did help to put the City in a good position. It had been disappointing to hear the spokesperson for the gas stations, who had served on the committee, say they would not support the Governor's package because it did not include per-emption for all cities. He felt Springfield should look at the higher amount now. Once a package was in place, we could roll it back. The budget should be put together with what we need so we would know what could be rolled back. Our streets were an enormous asset and needed to be maintained. The City did a great job in maximizing our resources. He commended staff for their work on this issue. He would recommend looking at .04 cent, then rolling it back to a lesser amount when we received the State package. Councilor Ralston agreed. The preservation fee was dead on arrival and he noted the high percent of people taking the survey that approved of raising the gas tax. It was irresponsible for the City not to take care of the streets. He was willing to go out and support the .04 cent increase. Councilor Leezer asked for the difference per cent. Mr. Goodwin said each penny generated about $290,000 based on recent consumption. When the gas tax was fIrst implemented, it generated about $350,000, but consumption had dropped. Mayor Leiken said when we lost the partnership with Lane County, the City lost $500,000. Before that, we had received $IM. Our Street Fund had been suffering over the last two years because of that loss. Councilor Woodrow asked if there was a taxing structure in place for the alternatives fuels. Mr. Goodwin said yes. He explained. Councilor Woodrow said he was not one to raise taxes, but based on the issues felt it was their responsibility to maintain the streets. Councilor Wylie said she was heartened to see support for a gas tax and that people taking part in the survey believed in taking care of streets. She was supportive of moving forward. Councilor Pishioneri asked if there was any tracking of the respondents to the survey to insure someone wasn't taking it multiple times. Mr. Grimaldi said they had checked the IP addresses to make sure not just one person was retaking the survey. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes January 12, 2009 Page 11 Councilor Pishioneri said he didn't like taxing fuel. He asked if we would still get to the same place by raising it .02 and reducing some of the maintenance. Mr. Goodwin said in doing that, they would undoubtedly reduce expenditures less, but would not be increasing the size of the capital program back to where it should be. He referred to Attachment 3, the financial plan for the Street Fund. He referred to the line for Capital Projects/Capital Transfer, which showed huge deficits. If the City increased the fuel tax by .02 and reduced expenditures, there was no way the City could spend the $750,000 to $IM a year to maintain the streets. The .04 increase would enable the City to fully fund the Capital Program through 2013 based on their ability to spend the funds. Public Works Director Susie Smith said the other issue was that the City no longer had a good reserve, even with expenditure reductions. That left them no flexibility to address things like wire theft, etc. They tried to maintain some minimum reserves. Mayor Leiken said he suggested a delay prior to the Governor's package so they could have an idea of what could potentially happen. He would not expect Springfield to receive $2M, but would be fortunate to get $IM. Councilor Pishioneri said with the explanation by staff, he would be willing to go with the .04, and then reduce that if funds came in from the State. Mr. Goodwin said since the gas tax would raise about $290,000 for each penny, they could most likely pull back about $500,000 or .02 if the Governor's package was close to $IM. Councilor Pishioneri said that would still give us flexibility. Ms. Smith said staff needed to come back to Council about what was needed for a prudent minimum reserve prior to rolling back. Mr. Goodwin said whatever package was approved by the State legislature wouldn't happen until June, most likely effective January 2010. Councilor Lundberg said she was a proponent of the gas tax, as it was a direct tax and citizens counted on the City for good roads. She was fine with the .04 if we could roll it back if State funding came through. Her first bond measure for the City included funds to fix roads, and people were always supportive. It was easy for her to support. The State had huge budget issues to deal with, so it was unclear what they could provide to the City. She didn't want to wait. Mayor Leiken said another issue that had been pushed was how transportation was paid for in the State. No matter what happened, revenue from a fuel tax would decline because of efficiencies of the vehicles on the road. He was hoping the State would look at a Task Force to look at a transportation utility fee statewide. He never met anyone that he had served with that wanted to raise any taxes. He asked when this would come back for a public hearing. Mr. Goodwin said they would be coming back for a public hearing in February. Mayor Leiken asked if the application process for long-haul trucking companies that was implemented when the gas tax was first enacted was still in place. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes January 12, 2009 Page 12 Mr. Goodwin said it would still be in place. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:34 pm. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa Attest: ~~ Amy So City Recorder ..>