HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/19/2010 Work Session
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
TUESDAY, JANUARY 19,2010
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, January 19,2010 at 6:05 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ralston, Lundberg, Wylie, Simmons, and Pishioneri. Also
present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe
Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Leezer was absent (excused).
1. Springfield Commercial and Industrial Lands Study (CIBL) Case Number LRP2007 -00031.
Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented the staff report on this item. Robert Parker from
ECONorthwest would present a summary of the CIBL study process, and discuss the results and
implications of the study. The CIBL documents were included as Attachment 1 in the Council's packet
for the Regular Session.
Staff would explain how the CIBL would be incorporated into the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
(SRP) and would introduce the Council to the Economic Element ofthe plan (Attachment 1 of the
agenda packet).
The work session was an opportunity for the Council to preview the CIBL before the public hearing.
Bob Parker and staff would be available to answer questions.
Mr. Parker presented a power point presentation on the study. A hard copy of the power point was
distributed to the Mayor and CounciL Mr. Parker reviewed the purpose of the Work Session which
was to review the Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA) (Project Process, Economic Development
Strategy, and Study Results) and to answer Council's questions. He discussed the State criteria for
economic elements, including Goal 9 (Economy)
Mr. Parker discussed the process steps including the committee process, the public process, and the
City Council and Planning Commission process. City Council's direction on the CIBL was to develop
a reasonable, simple analysis; create policies that provided flexibility to address future opportunities;
consider development costs and capitalize on existing opportunities; and focus on key community
development objectives.
Springfield's Economic Development Vision was to encourage economic growth; attract appropriate
types of businesses; and provide sites with a variety of characteristics and in a range of sizes. He
explained each of those goals.
Mr. Parker discussed the land needed for employment and referred to the State's Goal 9 rules. He
noted the State requirements for Goal 9: Economy. The majority of employment growth would not
require vacant land, but Springfield would need employment land with characteristics that couldn't be
found within the existing UGB. Springfield would need about 640 acres of land on 17 sites outside the
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
January 19,2010
Page 2
UGB to meet the City's economic development objectives. The Stakeholder Committee supported the
assumptions and analysis, although a majority thought that Springfield may need more large sites than
shown in the analysis, a minority thought the analysis may overstate the need for employment land,
and some thought the redevelopment assumptions may be too ambitious.
Mr. Parker noted that the draft EOA met the applicable State criteria.
Mayor Leiken said he appreciated the work done by staff and the consultant. This study was important
to provide the City with a road map and a strong case when taken to the State for approval. He wasn't
concerned about the numbers, but wanted to make sure that when the City separated the UGB, we had
the ability to look at where to expand. He wanted to make sure the City could back up our proposal
when taken to the State for approval. That was his number one criteria. We were in a recession now,
but Springfield needed to be in a good position when coming out of the recession. Working with our
partners in Eugene would be key to position ourselves. This was the second largest metro area in the
state and we were lacking 50 acre sites. This area had opportunities in the health care field.
Councilor Wylie said it was important that the City could back up what we presented. A number of
people in our community were adamant about preserving the forests and farmland and we needed to
make sure our data was accurate.
Councilor Lundberg said there was a letter from the State (DLCD) in the agenda packet for the public
hearing (Attachment 1, page 198) that went over some weaknesses. She asked if they could address
those concerns.
Mr. Parker said the letter addressed large site requirements. The consultant and staffs interpretation of
the Goal 9 rule was consistent with conversations with DLCD staff. The City's employment forecast
was not inconsistent with the population forecast. DLCD's letter stated that the redevelopment
analysis may not be aggressive or well documented enough. He felt the process Springfield had gone
through was extensive and the assumptions were quite impressive in that regard. An issue was how to
account for redevelopment, and the data was quite limited. He explained. The study didn't consider
sites like Rosboro or International Paper as redevelopable at this point because they did have existing
businesses that were operational. The number was not inconsistent with the fmdings. It could be that
DLCD didn't understand that process, although they did have a representative that sat through many of
the Technical Advisory Committee (T AC) meetings and Stakeholder meetings. Some issues were
local determinations about what the City would like. There was a lot of process in this and a lot of
input from the Planning Commission, City Council and the public. They tried to set up assumptions
that were consistent with the wants of the community and were defensible. He believed they were
defensible. Additional information could be provided to the State if they requested it.
\
Councilor Lundberg said that was what she wanted to hear. She appreciated the work and was happy
to see all of the pieces included. It was a great tool.
Development Services Director Bill Grile said staff was asking Council to adopt a resolution after the
public hearing to adopt the draft plan. That resolution was not a final land use action that was subject
to appeal, but rather a stop along the way towards the ultimate decision. Any comments from the State
or others were helpful to staff because it narrowed the scope of what needed to be addressed.
Ms. Pauly said the letter did state that the EOA included reasonable assuniptions and a generally
complete analysis.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
January 19,2010
Page 3
Councilor Pishioneri asked about lands assembled for larger sites and what issues might be involved.
Mr. Parker said that question was discussed during the process and was one the City should continue
to work through. Assembling sites would be done by private entities, not the City. He quoted from the
Division 9,rule regarding development constraints. Stakeholders felt fragments of property were a
constraint.
Councilor Pishioneri asked for some examples in Springfield.
Mr. Parker said Glenwood was a good example.
Councilor Ralston said the DLCD letter stated the study "does not appear to address the City's nodal
development strategies".
Mr. Parker said he felt their study did address nodal development, but didn't go through how much
employment would go into each node and when, which was an imprecise exercise.
Mr. Grile said it could be addressed more.
Councilor Simmons said because he was not on Council when they started this process, he took the
opportunity to review the past 5 years of progressive activity culminating with this study. He felt the
study was a wonderful compilation of the data available at the time. It could not be perfect to predict
what the future would bring. The letter from DLCD regarding nodal sites meant that it didn't come
through the way the State wanted it. The City could encourage nodal, but could not make it absolute.
The EOA was good, but the economy was moving. This was an excellent piece of work. The City
needed to make sure it was adaptive to utilize the opportunities. He spoke regarding the issues with the
Public Facility Services Plan (PFSP) and the County. There were differences of opinion of what was
going to grow and where. Looking at the economy, most development in ~pringfield had not come
from a plan, but from a result of the City's adaptability and ability to seize the opportunities. That was
a credit to the staff and the City. The City needed to start looking down the road longer term. This was
a wonderful document, and the response from staff was great. The City needed to be ready to seize the
opportunities.
Mayor Leiken said he agreed completely.
Ms. Pauly referred to the economic element included in the agenda packet. This document was one
element of the City's 2030 Refinement Plan and she wanted to give Council an opportunity to ask
questions about the documents. Economic Development strategies would be incorporated into the
2030 Plan. She reviewed the information that she pulled together from this study and the County
economic study.
Councilor Simmons asked if they needed the County's affirmation of the 2030 Plan.
Ms. Pauly said they would need their approval. All of this material would be forwarded starting
February 2 during a joint Planning Commission meeting with Lane,~.'
Mayor Leiken asked who would be presenting the information to the County.
Mr. Grile said there would be a number of staff from Springfield.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
January 19,2010
Page 4
Mayor Leiken said from a regional standpoint, it was less than ten years ago that the area was still
recruiting sectors in the recreational vehicle (RV) industry. Now that industry had all but disappeared.
When staff presented to the County, they needed to emphasize that the region needed to again market
our area with the changing economy. This was the 2nd largest metro area in the state with a state run
university and so much more to offer. Competition was worldwide. It was important to have those
examples for the County presentation. We needed to be nimble and the County needed to work with us
as partners. He thanked staff and the consultants from ECONorthwest.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned 6:47 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
\:-
~u~~
Mayo
Attest:
~~
Amy S a
City Recorder