Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/1994 Work Session (2) . . ~ ". v' City of Springfield Joint Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD MONDAY, JUNE 27,1994 The City of Springfield Council met in Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 27, 1994, at 7:15 p.m. with Mayor Morrisette presiding. Present for the Council were Mayor Morrisette and Councilors Burge, Shaver, Schanz, Walters, Beyer and Maine. Present for the Planning Commission were Commissioners Siegle, Lutes, Hiatt and Tinsley (7:20 p.m.) Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager/City Recorder Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, Administrative Secretary Shari Higgins, Development Services Director Susan Daluddung and members of staff and Lane Council of Governments staff . Mayor Morrisette called the meeting to order. Ms. Higgins called roll for the City Council and Planning Commission Chair Siegle called roll for the Planning Commission. 1. Review and Discussion of the Urbanization Report. Grant for Development of an Annexation Plan. Urban Services Financing Report and Draft Glenwood Revenue-Cost Analysis Development Services Director Susan Daluddung introduced Planner III Mel Oberst and Jim Carlson and Carol Heinkel from the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). She gave an introduction to the issues and the grant which was awarded to the City of Springfield in May. Ms. Daluddung reviewed issues to be discussed and outlined staff's presentation. Mayor Morrisette and Commissioner Siegle stated that members of the Council and Planning Commission have already read information and asked staff to brief in their presentations. Ms. Daluddung spoke of advantages of developing a Springfield annexation plan: to add tax base, to assist with future development opportunities and to reduce urban subsidies. She referred Council to page eight of the Glenwood Revenue/Cost Analysis. Councilor Burge asked when the City will receive the $83,000 in grant funding. Ms. Daluddung replied, on July 1, 1994. Ms. Daluddung stated she needs direction on what areas to focus on and what approach to use in developing an annexation plan. Mr. Oberst gave detailed information on the Annexation Plan and referred to the study area map. He explained the City coordinated the plan to begin providing services people want in Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) areas. Mr. Oberst described how staff prioritized needed capital improvements through the creation of the Springfield Comprehensive Urbanization Study and Analysis (SCUSA) report. .. . 4. Do the City Council and Planning Commission want to be part of the process? By consensus, the Council and Planning Commission agreed on -- One City Councilor and Planning Commissioner attend each subarea meeting. 5. As part of our ongoing coordination, should staff contact the formally recognized groups (neighborhood groups, PTA officers, Rainbow Water District, Glenwood Water District, EWEB, SUB, etc.) before contacting the general public? By consensus, the Council and Planning Commission agreed to -- support staff contacting formally recognized groups. The Council and Planning Commission discussed who is responsible for costs associated with development. Commissioner Lutes suggested creating criteria for annexation review that includes base support, economics, services within a reasonable time frame and the potential benefit to the City. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Carlson spoke of the decision making and education process for the community. Mr. Carlson stated that there is a decision to be made regarding citizens paying an equitable share for receiving City services. The Council and Planning Commission discussed making the annexation plan a positive goal and concentrating on the benefits the community could receive. . Councilor Shaver suggested creating a schedule within the plan, in the event the Council members change and decisions are re-evaluated at a future date. He also stated he would like to be included in all public education/information meetings regarding the Menlo Park area. Commissioner Siegle asked if Lane County will be able to continue to provide urban services. He suggested bringing Lane County into our annexation plan process in the early planning stages. Commissioner Tinsley asked if the Development Services Department will need additional staff to work on the plan. Ms. Daluddung replied no, but the City may possibly contract with LCOG. There was a discussion between the Council and the Planning Commission on involvement of the established Springfield Neighborhood Associations. Councilor Burge stated his concern over additional neighborhood associations beginning and the costs associated with new associations. The Council and Planning Commission discussed the roles of neighborhood associations. By consensus, the Council and Planning Commission agreed to the process as outlined above (# 1-5). The meeting recessed at 8:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. The Council and Planning Commission discussed the possible annexation of Glenwood. Commissioner Lutes stated the issue is very controversial and complicated and he suggested the issue be discussed during the periodic review process. . . . . '" ~' Councilor Burge stated the annexation of Glenwood has financial shortfalls, but he felt is it imperative to Springfield's future. He felt the City should find a way to finance the annexation. There was a discussion regarding the amount of Light Medium Industrial (LMI) land in Glenwood and what percentage of LMI Springfield currently has. The Council and Planning Commission discussed the City of Eugene transferring jurisdictional authority to Springfield. Councilor Shaver commented that the citizens of Glenwood should have a vote in the decision process. Councilor Walters stated Glenwood is the front door to Springfield off 1-5 and should become apart of Springfield. Commissioner Hiatt agreed and said she has always associated Glenwood with Springfield. Councilor Burge suggested creating a small task force to develop questions and review and collect information before the Council meets with the City of Eugene and Lane County. Commissioner Lutes suggested using the annexation criteria he mentioned earlier to review the feasibility of annexing Glenwood. The Council and Planning Commission discussed the Lane Community College basin and if it is, or is not, included in Glenwood. By consensus, the Council and Planning Commission agreed to form a task force consisting of Councilors Burge and Shaver, Commissioner Lutes, Steve Moe and staff to prepare for upcoming meetings with other jurisdictions and to pursue the annexation of Glenwood through a Metropolitan Area General Plan text amendment. ADJOURNMENT The Joint Work Session Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Shari Higgins ~m~ ayor , Minpc627.doc