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