HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2004 Work Session
.
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JULY 6, 2004.
The City of Springfield council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 6, 2004 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ballew, Woodrow, Lundberg, Ralston and Fitch.
Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City
Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members ofthe staff.
1. Further Discussion of the Vision and Potential for Urban Renewal Districts in Downtown
and Glenwood.
.
Development Services Director Bill Grile and Community Development Manager John
Tamulonis presented the staff report on this item. At the March 22, 2004 Work Session, council
heard about the potential for redevelopment in Downtown and Glenwood through urban renewal,
based on some success in Medford's downtown. Council saw that urban renewal was one tool
and asked staff for more information about the overall vision for redeveloping downtown and
Glenwood. Council also asked for more information regarding the potential for Lane County and
the city to work on redevelopment of Glenwood using urban renewal for achieving the vision for
Glenwood.
The community at large and many Downtown and Glenwood stakeholders have prepared
numerous reports, plans and visioning documents over the years. These provide a strong set of
visioning concepts and recommendations to develop and redevelop both areas. Based on all this
prior work and community dialogue, the vision for the future of Downtown is summarized in
Attachment 1 and for Glenwood in Attachment 4 included in the agenda packet.
Helping convert these visions to reality could include some of the projects listed for each area
(Attachment 2 for Downtown and Attachment 5 for Glenwood included in the agenda packet).
Attachment 3 in the agenda packet indicates potential boundaries for a Downtown urban renewal
district.
For Glenwood, Attachment 6 in the agenda packet shows the area currently inside and outside
the city, along with the area within the Glenwood Riverfront Plan. The primary options for
establishing urban renewal in Glenwood include:
A. Establishing a district that includes only the areas annexed to the city;
B. Asking Lane County to set-up and separately operate an urban renewal district in those
areas remaining in the county not yet annexed to the city; or
C. Partnering with Lane County to set-up and operate an urban renewal district covering all
of Glenwood - including incorporated and unincorporated lands.
.
Councilor Fitch said following a response City Attorney Joe Leahy received after writing a letter
to Patrick Hearns at Government Standards and Practices, she would like to disclose that she
owns property in the downtown area. They are in good standing. She understands this is
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 6, 2004
Page 2
.
occurring and it will not influence any decision she was to make whether it was commercial or
residential property.
Councilor Lundberg also owns a business in the downtown area and does not have an ethics
issue with this topic.
Councilor Ballew owns a residence near the designated area, but is not within the area.
Mr. Tamulonis referred to maps displayed on the wall which outlined the different areas in the
downtown that could be part of an Urban Renewal District. One of the smaller areas could be
the initial district, with additional areas added at a later date. He referred to historical photos of
these areas. He referred to photos of the Urban Renewal District in Eugene and the options
available in Springfield downtown. He referred to drawings depicting possible development
options in downtown.
Discussion was held regarding setbacks along the Mill Race.
Mr. Tamulonis referred to photos of Glenwood displayed on the wall which outlined the areas
that are already annexed into the city limits and the areas that are under county jurisdiction. He
referred to drawings showing options for development in Glenwood.
.
Mr. Tamuloins said that in the last two weeks, staff has met with developers and neighbors in
Glenwood. There is a lot of concern about what could occur with existing developments or
existing manufactured homes in this area. Staff is working on potential solutions that could be
included in the Urban Renewal District to help provide for transition to another location.
Councilor Fitch said she attended the meetings with Mr. Tamulonis. She said there were a lot of
nervous senior citizens who needed a lot of questions answered. She commended staff including
Susanna Julber, Bill Grile, planning and transportation staff, for doing a great job. The owner of
Roaring Rapids offered to hold the next meeting at their business in Glenwood. The neighbors
wanted to know what was happening. Many of them commended Springfield. World renowned
organ maker, John Brombaugh, was very excited and encouraged the city not to limit their vision
and to keep open to possibilities. Glenwood is a unique spot and he encouraged the city to look
for something that would last. A lot of elderly individuals with mobile homes and trailers are
concerned about moving. Discussion was held regarding exemptions from Lane County for
moving in some cases. They discussed the possibility of moving into the new St. Vincent
DePaul building. A lot of property owners were happy to hear the city was considering doing
something before the sewers were installed so it would not be done in pieces.
Councilor Woodrow asked if a new vote would need to occur to increase the area at a later date
if only one of the designated areas in downtown was originally voted to be an Urban Renewal
District.
Mr. Tamulonis said it would be a major change in the plan and would require another vote.
Before this goes out for the initial vote, council would determine if they wanted one, two or all
three areas included. Council would want to weigh the size of the area with the amount of
growth that would allow the district to bring in enough income to complete the projects in a
reasonable amount of time.
.
Mr. Grile said staff would provide the rationale for the justification for any of the three choices.
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 6, 2004
Page 3
Mr. Tamulonis discussed limiting the amount of property. He said all three areas could be
included. Council may want to focus on areas one and two and not three at this time. The
boundaries shown on the maps displayed could be changed if council chose. He discussed
access to the south side of the railroad and including the one underpass that can access that area.
Mr. Grile said staff would show from a property tax standpoint there is no disadvantage for any
of the areas to be included within the district.
Councilor Ralston said an Urban Renewal District would freeze the property value at some level.
Mr. Tamulonis said for all the taxing districts that are collecting property taxes in the area
designated, the tax rate would be frozen at a certain point through a certain length of time.
Councilor Ralston said there is a big difference between Glenwood, which is mostly
undeveloped, and downtown. Ifwe freeze Glenwood's value at a very low level and a lot of
development occurs, the city would not receive the benefits for the duration of the district. He
would support a smaller area for a shorter amount oftime. The city has limited tax increases we
can utilize and our services continue to cost more and more. If we freeze too much area and
don't get additional funding, we still have to provide services. That caused him concern because
it sounded like a subsidy.
Mr. Tamulonis said with a larger district, and higher increments, the duration of the district could
be less as it would pay it off sooner. Staff will bring information back regarding each area and
the advantages and disadvantages of choosing one, two or all three.
.
Councilor Ralston discussed a convention center in area one, but said it needs to be market
driven. He agreed with most projects in the attachments, but said the city can't be too involved
by giving up tax revenue. The city needs to be cautious.
City Manager Mike Kelly said that if we froze a large district in downtown and nothing
happened, we would get the same amount of revenue as if we weren't a district. If the district
was successful and we could attract new investment, the new taxes would go into the district to
pay for infrastructure, parking lots and other things to make the district successful. If we are not
successful we would only lose the annual increase, which has been approximately one and a half
percent annually over the past several years.
Mr. Grile noted an example ofa local business and the low amount of value increase. The
district's goal would be to raise the assessed value for all of downtown by stimulating
reconstruction and new development.
Councilor Woodrow said according to Mr. Kelly, if the Urban Renewal District made repairs and
improvements to the infrastructure and streets, the funding would come from the district and not
the city's General Fund. It would reduce the burden on the General Fund for those types of
. things.
.
Mr. Kelly said as far as operations go, the only shift in substantial resources would be if we did
attract more investment. That would allow us to put in more parking lots, more sewers, or more
wetland mitigation, etc. The question is whether or not we would get the growth without the
district. Many communities believe they would not have gotten as much redevelopment had they
not created urban renewal to create some incentives and to have the power of condemnation and
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 6, 2004
Page 4
.
other things to aggregate land. These communities are better off in twenty years by having a
more dynamic downtown with the tool of urban renewal. Opinions differ.
Mr. Tamulonis said a good example is in Glenwood. Developers come forward with a plan and a
vision along the riverfront, but then ask how the city would be involved. At this time there is no
incentive for the develop~rs. Urban renewal could be such an incentive.
Councilor Lundberg said she agrees at looking at all three downtown areas and looking at them
closer and with more detail. She said she would like to know some of the numbers regarding
possible projects. She would like to see how urban renewal can best be used as a tool. She
would look at a smaller portion in Glenwood because it is a much larger area. She suggested
using a small area as a catalyst. There are a lot of things already occurring in Glenwood. She is
supportive of drafting a plan for downtown.
Councilor Woodrow asked about Booth Kelly. It is part of area one. If we did a smaller amount
in Glenwood and the three areas in downtown, that would be a catalyst for developers to
continue with the rest of the area.
Mr. Tamulonis said if urban renewal was only for the area in Glenwood that belongs to the city,
it would be short-sighted. The bulk of development would occur outside that area which is in the
county. There are a lot of areas in Glenwood with some difficult problems to solve and no way
of solving them. There are issues related to sanitary sewers in those areas. Urban renewal may
need to encompass a larger area in Glenwood.
.
Mr. Grile discussed the partnership with the county regarding installation of sewer laterals to
assist those with failing septic systems. That, along with our Community Development Block
Grant resources, Springfield could be a popular commodity with developers. If citizens were
unable to comply with mandates due to failing septic systems, the city could offer assistance to
those citizens. That assistance could be in the form of urban renewal.
Mayor Leiken noted that thirty minutes was not enough time to discuss this topic.
Councilor Ralston asked about mandated relocation expenses and assistance and where that
funding would come from.
Mr. Tamulonis said if the city acquires property, there are state and federal mandates regarding
assistance with relocation costs.
Mr. Grile discussed the large growth in value in the Gateway area over the past twenty years.
Councilor Ballew said she liked starting with a more discreet area since they have not done urban
renewal yet in Springfield. Glenwood is secondary because we are new at urban renewal and we
need a process. She said the list of projects included siting and building a conference center.
The city is not a developer. The city could put together properties, but she wants to see private
money involved. The city could facilitate the process, but we couldn't carry the whole load.
There is no return on that type of investment.
Mr. Tamulonis said in most of these cases, there would be a partnership with the Urban Renewal
District and the private developers.
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 6, 2004
Page 5
.
Mr. Grile said the projects the Urban Renewal District would want to pursue would be the
infrastructure projects that would lighten the load on other city funds.
Counclor Ballew said there are no specifics in tonight's packet.
Mr. Tamulonis said that is correct. Tonight they are discussing the vision based on interest from
people over a long period of time. Staff would create a list of potential proj ects. If staff came
back with a draft plan, it would include a list of projects, timing and associated values. Staff
would also include the length the Urban Renewal District might be in place to accomplish those
projects based on the increase in values and within the boundaries. Council would then decide
whether or not to move forward on this.
Councilor Fitch asked that the next time these items come to council, more time is allowed for
discussion.
Mr. Kelly and Ms. Pappas said they would adjust the council meetings to allow more time.
Councilor Fitch said she feels that downtown should be second and Glenwood should be first
regarding urban renewal. She would like to discuss this further at their next meeting.
2. Public Facility Bond Measure.
.'~
Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas and Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report
on this item. Council has discussed the potential of constructing a new public safety facility to
include the housing of the police, fire administration, municipal court and city prosecutor
functions of city government.
The facility housing the police, court and city prosecutor was originally constructed in 1949 and
1957 and has undergone several remodels. The facility was not constructed to house a police
department and in fact consists of two separate contiguous buildings. The western end of the
building is leased to a print shop.
The current facility consists of approximately 24,000 square feet and because of design, presents
cost prohibitive or structural prohibitions to expansion. A companion discussion to the issue of
constructing a new public safety facility is a decision on whether to construct a municipal jail.
The current police facility houses a ten bed jail that is used as a holding facility after years of use
as a municipal jail.
Berry Architects projected costs for the construction of a new public safety facility in a 1999
Space Needs Study at $15,819,880, not including land acquisition. Berry Architects also
conducted a Space Needs Study for a municipal jail in 1999 and projected costs at $8,725,196.
The DLR Group, located in Portland, reviewed the space needs study of the Public Safety
Facility and the Jail as well as cost estimates provided in 1999 by Berry Architects. They opined
that as a starting point, any cost estimates should be increased by approximately 18% to adjust
for inflation in the construction marketplace since 1999.
.
The jail facility was designed as a stand alone facility that could be constructed at any site and
not necessarily contiguous or part of a public safety facility. There exist amenities in the plan
that are not desired and in some areas, duplicitous with those within a public safety facility. If a
decision were made to construct a municipal jail as part of the public safety facility, there would
be savings in both facilities. For example, the police component of the public safety facility
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 6, 2004
Page 6
.
includes a lObed holding facility that would be unnecessary should a municipal j ail be
constructed as part of the project. Locker rooms would be unnecessary and office space reduced
in the jail facility.
Ms. Pappas said tonight's discussion was to get council's initial thoughts regarding construction
of a public safety facility and whether a bond measure to finance that should be put on the
November ballot.
Results from the community survey to determine the level of support for such a project were
distributed to the council.
Chief Smith apologized for the late results of the survey. He discussed the questions on the
survey and the results. He discussed the options for housing a jail in the facility and the need for
each. He discussed the four options that were listed in the council briefing memo included in the
agenda packet. Those options included:
1. Do nothing
2. Develop a ballot measure for the November, 2004 election that provides funding for land
acquisition with a target date of November, 2005 or 2006 for a bond measure that
includes funding for land and construction of a public safety facility
3. Develop a ballot measure for the November, 2004 election that provides for funding for
the acquisition of land and construction of a public safety facility.
4. Develop a ballot measure for the November, 2005 or 2006 election that provides for
funding for the acquisition of land and construction of a public safety facility.
.
Mayor Leiken asked about the current size of the facility. He asked how the $15M to build a
new facility was determined. He discussed cost per square foot for a commercial building.
Mr. Smith said the existing facility is 24,000 square feet, but the study in 1999 was for a new
85,000 square foot building.
Mayor Leiken asked Community Services Manager Dave Puent's opinion about the existing
building and occupancy. Mayor Leiken asked Mr. Puent ifhe would issue an occupancy permit
to a private sector company if they moved into the existing police building.
Mr. Puent said there would be a change of use of occupancy so there would be some
improvements that would need to be done. The city would issue a permit for work to be done on
that building. The code is not retroactive, so an old building does not need to be brought up to
current code as long as the new use is not more hazardous than the previous use.
Councilor Ralston said he is all for this, because the cost to our community without such a
facility is much higher. There is currently no consequence for crimes. The county is not doing
their part in housing inmates. Most Springfield residents he knows would support the Public
Safety Facility and the jail. It is a great idea. He would support option number three. He
discussed using the present location and making it multiple stories.
Councilor Woodrow concurred with Councilor Ralston. Ifwe don't give the courts and the
police department a place to restrict the criminal activity, it will continue. Lane County did what
they could, but they will continue to cut each year. He supports both the facility and the jail.
.
Councilor Fitch asked Mr. Duey about the increase in cost since 1999. She asked what that
would translate to in cents per thousand of assessed value.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 6, 2004
Page 7
.
Mr. Duey discussed interest rate and principal. He explained the starting point in the survey was
$40M with 5.5 percent which generated the $1.30 per thousand. He said if we ran about a $30M
issue at 5 percent it would be about .92 cents per thousand. He discussed building some
reserves.
Councilor Ralston referred to the report which had a bid from Cowlitz County which quoted
$40,000 per bed, which was substantially less than the quote he saw. He asked about the
difference.
Chief Smith said in working with DLR and Carole Knapel, who has had experience with
construction of jails, staff is working to get better figures to bring to council. The numbers they
have tonight are questionable and they would like to get something more reliable. Staff will
bring the more accurate figures to council on July 19th.
Councilor Lundberg said the cost was too high to pass this on a ballot. She discussed the
philosophy that TEAM Springfield members would not go against each other for competing
measures on the same ballot and Willamalane already has a measure going forward on this
ballot. We would become the county in terms of corrections and we could end up with a large
portion of our budget going towards corrections.
Ms. Pappas said there would be the police and fire levy renewals, a school measure and a county
public safety district measure on the ballot in 2006. There could be others competing in addition
to those. That would take us to the 2008 ballot.
.
Councilor Woodrow said he would not be in favor of housing both police and fire in same
building due to security concerns.
Chief Smith said if it was determined the city could only go for seventy cents per thousand,
certain things would have to be eliminated from their plan. They would either eliminate the jail
in the new facility or the fire administrative offices. One of the two would have to go. Staff will
go back to the architect to try to make the project work within the limits of the funding.
Councilor Ballew said- she would be supportive of police, courts and fire all in one building, but
no jail. She would like us to try something more creative regarding the jail, perhaps something
with the City of Eugene and the county. She discussed opening additional beds at the county jail
and staffing those with additional assistance. She appreciates the frustration of the police not
havingjail space.
Ms. Pappas said staff is discussing some of those options at this time as well.
Councilor Ballew said she would support the least cost because the tax bill continues to get
larger. It is time, however, to look at a new facility and include the courts and fire
administration. The city could possibly save money be combining them.
.
Mayor Leiken said he had concerns that seventy-two percent of those surveyed did not know the
city was discussing a new public safety facility. There needs to be a lot of education to let the
citizens know. The city has had this conversation for about four or five years. He referred to
other figures in the survey. If the county cannot step up, the city does need to look at this. He
asked Chief Smith who would staff the jail and if it would be the same type of staff the county
has in place.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 6, 2004
Page 8
.
Chief Smith said they would not recommend sworn officers staff the facility. He discussed
figures they received from the county regarding cost to operate j ail beds. The City of Springfield
could run the operation at a lower cost.
Mayor Leiken discussed Measure 30 and the funds that were lost, but then somehow found.
Citizens question that. Citizens look at government as one government, not as separate entities.
He said we need to talk to the citizens about the condition of the police facility. Springfield has
a good reputation, but we will have to work with the public to educate them. If council chooses
to go forWard with this for the public safety building, we will have to ask the public to join with
us to continue to have top quality public safety in our community. He is more supportive of fire
and police in one building. Council will have to work hard over the next few months to make
this happen.
Councilor Fitch said there is interest in the tour of the police facility on July 19th. There is a need
for more discussion and more answers to questions. No one has said they do not want to go
forward, but more discussion is needed and education of the citizenry. The community is going
to look to police officers for their answers, but to councilors to spread the word and educate the
public on why this is needed. Springfield is very common sense and Councilor Ballew is correct
that our citizens want to see the money spent wisely. We need a solid plan in place.
.
Mr. Kelly said both the urban renewal and public safety facility issues will take additional work.
Staff will return to council on July 19th for another work session on both topics. If there is
direction from council to proceed with either or both, a special public hearing will be held in
August to consider a ballot title. The deadline for a ballot title for the November 2, 2004
General Election is September 2, 2004.
Ms. Pappas asked councilors to call or e-mail additional questions relating to either topic for
staff to respond to on the 19th. Council will tour the police facility on July 19th followed by an
hour work session on this topic. During the Regular Meeting, council will have 45 minutes
allocated for discussion on Urban Renewal.
Mayor Leiken asked Chief Smith if he could prepare a memo to council with information from
his meeting with Russ Berger, incoming Lane County Sheriff. He would like Chief Smith's
reactions and Mr. Burger's comments regarding the jail included in the memo.
David Lewis, representative of the Springfield Police Officer's Association, introduced himself.
Mr. Lewis said they are very interested in this as well and would be available to assist in
educating the public or giving money towards educating the public. He said council could
contact himself, Chief Smith or Joe Zito with their requests.
Mayor Leiken suggested Mr. Lewis receive a copy of the survey and read it over. Mr. Lewis was
provided with a copy of the survey.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 pm.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
July 6, 2004
Page 9
~
.
Attest:
~.~
Amy So
City Recorder
.
.