HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/1993 Work Session (2)
"
.
.
.
~
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE YORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, MAY 10, 1993
The city of Springfield Council met in Work Session in the Springfield City
Hall, Meeting Room 2, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 10,
1993, at 7:35 p.m., with Mayor Morrisette presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Morrisette, Councilors Shaver, Walters, Burge, Schanz and
Maine. Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Assistant City Manager
Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Eileen Stein, and members
of the staff.
CALL TO ORDER
1. State Highway/Road Projects to Request the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) to Add in the 1995-2000 State Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
Traffic Engineer Scott Morris provided the staff report on this issue.
Don Wagner, ODOT Region 3 Manager, has contacted city staff and requested a
list of projects to be considered for addition to the state 1995-2000 STIP.
He also requested the list be prepared with the following criteria:
construction, development or planning. Construction projects are those
which are ready to go with no problems (controversial or logistical).
Development projects are those which have some problems. These projects
will be moved to construction when the problems have been resolved. The
planning projects are long-term projects for which the scope has not been
fully defined. These projects when defined would move to development and
then to construction.
The other request was to have the list prioritized. City staff has
recommended a list of projects and their priorities and is asking Council
to review and approve or amend this list. Staff will then work with staff
of other metro area agencies to consolidate and submit to the Metropolitan
Policy Committee (MPC) for a recommendation to ODOT.
Council discussed projects on the list and priorities for inclusion in the
1995-2000 TIP.
Councilor Shaver discussed project number 4, Pioneer Parkway east and west
intersection with Highway 126. This would involve new surface but mostly
transportation circulation improvements. He also discussed project numbers
5, 7 and 8.
Councilor Maine did not want project number 2, Eugene-Springfield Highway
lighting project, from I-5 to McKenzie Highway, to move any further down on
the list. He was concerned for with safety issues in this area.
...
.
.
.
'.I
Work Session Meeting Minutes
May 10, 1993
Page 2
Management Analyst Dick McKinley and Traffic Engineer Scott Morris
explained how ODOT classifies projects and why the staff priorities were
developed as they appeared in the staff report. Mr. McKinley explained the
criteria includes the feasibility of the project. Another consideration is
that construction projects are more likely to be funded over planning and
development projects. .
Council discussed the impacts of moving project number 7 up on the list.
They directed staff to move project number 7 up to the third project on the
list. Council also directed adding an overpass on Johnson (Sprague Road)
on 1-5 as the last project on the list.
Councilor Burge exited the meeting at 8:00 p.m. and returned at 8:04 p.m.
2. MPC Conflict Resolution for Metro Plan Amendment Process.
Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this issue. At
their April 22 conflict resolution meeting, MPC recommended changes to the
Metro Plan amendment process that attempt to incorporate the Springfield
city Council's preference for more autonomous decision making. These
changes are a compromise to both the amendment process adopted by Eugene
and Lane County and to the recommendations of the Springfield Planning
Commission.
The significant changes included in the MPC proposal are: (1) Lane County
will decide whether or not the "other city" (Eugene for amendments east of
I-5, Springfield for amendments west of I-5) is "substantively affected" by
the proposal and therefore entitled to participate in the decision; and,
(2) an acreage threshold for UGB amendments that determines when all three
governing bodies, as opposed to just the city and county, would
participate. MPC did not recommend an acreage threshold figure.
Subsequent to this MPC meeting, the City Attorney's Office has reviewed the
MPC alternative and has determined that Lane County's proposed role in the
process is quasi-judicial because the county must exercise discretion in
evaluating the city's response to the substantive effect criteria. A
quasi-judicial decision is subject to notice, public hearing and appeal
(Ref. ORS 197.015(10). In other words, if Eugene or Springfield wanted to
participate in an amendment proposal involving land in the other
jurisdiction, Lane County would need to hold public hearing to consider the
other city's claim of substantive effect. Such a hearing would require
legal notice and Lane County's decision would be appealable to LUBA. Staff
does not recommend an amendment process that includes an initial hearing to
determine jurisdiction. This would protract the process by at least 2
months and, if appealed to LUBA, would cause another 4 month delay. This
is not an inconceivable scenario and could add up to 6 months to a process
that already takes 4-6 months. However well intentioned, the MPC
alternative does not simplify the plan amendment process.
If the Council decides that the MPC alternative does not adequately address
the issues of autonomy and efficiency, staff recommends that the Council
review certain options, select or create their preference, and then request
.
.
.
'J
Work Session Meeting Minutes
May 10, 1993
Page 3
their MPC representatives to relay their position to MPC on May 13.
Council discussed the process and directions for feedback for the upcoming
MPC meeting. Councilor Maine indicated the direction to staff at the last
MPC meeting was to prepare language reflecting the proposal that was
developed and then bring that language back on May 13 to ensure that is
what everyone agreed upon. Tonight's meeting is to get Springfield's input
on that language. Council discussed the various aspects of the text.
Council also discussed various options for negotiating with Eugene and Lane
County at the MPC meeting on May 13.
By consensus Council chose to select option number 4 to continue to support
the Springfield Planning Commission's recommendation with possible
modification to develop an acreage agreement (i.e., 10% of inventory
base) for opting in when the the urban growth boundary is altered.
3.
Periodic Review Time Line.
Development Services Director Susan Daluddung presented the staff report.
On April 8, 1993, MPC discussed the proposed work program and budget for
the up-coming periodic review of the Metro Plan. At the conclusion of this
discussion Lane County requested that periodic review be delayed two years
to accommodate a difficult budget situation. Staff explained that a one
million dollar grant from the state was about to be awarded to L-COG to
complete a portion of the TransPlan up-date that is fundamental to periodic
review. This grant is being expedited to coincide with the July 1, 1993
notice and would probably be lost if periodic review is delayed.
The option of extending the completion date of periodic review was
discussed as an alternative to delaying the start. This option does not
jeopardize the state grant nor are the other tasks required of periodic
review dependent upon a previously established completion date of July,
1995. The cash and staffing commitments to periodic review remain the same
whether the project takes two years or three.
At the April 22 MPC meeting, Springfield and Eugene MPC members told Lane
County that their respective councils wished to commence periodic review as
scheduled. Lane County again asked that Springfield and Eugene support a
two year delay. Springfield's representatives agreed to take this issue
back to their council for reconsideration.
Councilor Burge asked if deferring the periodic review for two years would
put the grant funding at risk. He also asked if there was any guarantee
that ODOT would fund it in two years. Ms. Daluddung replied there were not
any guaranties the funding would become available in two years.
Councilor Burge asked if we can take the money and only proceed as far as
funds would carry us. Ms. Daluddung responded that DLCD will want it
completed by a certain time. On the other hand, the city of Portland
received an extension and may still be uncompleted after 7 years.
Mr. Mott explained a proposal for proceeding with components of the
planning process that will be compatible with other planning efforts
...
.
.
.
'.
Work Session Meeting Minutes
May 10, 1993
Page 4
necessary such as the TransPlan. He also discussed the timing of certain
planning processes and notice requirements and explained how certain
elements would be delayed anyway.
Councilor Burge requested that the Council be sensitive to Lane County. By
consensus, the Council directed staff to find a way to accommodate Lane
County.
ADJOURNMENT
THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:37 P.M.
Minutes Recorder - Eileen Stein
84//!~
ATTEST:
4kttWitz:t~
City RecordEtr
#:4072