HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/23/2003 Work Session
.
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2003.
The City of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, June 23,2003 at 5:30 p.m., with Council President Fitch
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Councilors Ballew (5:34 pm), Woodrow, Burge, Fitch, and Malloy. Also present
were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorney Joe
Leahy, Acting City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Absent: Mayor Leiken and Councilor Ralston (excused)
1. Bus Rapid Transit Project Update.
.
Transportation Manager Nick Amis was present for the staff report. He introduced Hillary
Larsen-Wylie - LID Board Chair, Graham Carey - LTD Project Manager, and Stefano
Viggiano, L TD Director of Development Services. Mr. Amis said the purpose of the work
session is for the LTD and City staffs to update the Council about phase 1 of the BRT project on
South A and Main Streets. The Council met with the L TD Board in the spring of 200 1 to
approve the BR T concept and to move forward with an intergovernmental agreement and begin
reviewing designs for the project. The Council and L TD Board met again in June of 2002 and
were briefed about the progress of the BRT phase 1 project, the new Springfield bus station, and
BRT planning for Pioneer Parkway. LID also met with the Council to review the Glenwood
station locations along Franklin Boulevard in October 2002. In the agreement that the City and
LTD signed, LTD is to brief the Council at major milestones in the project. Final designs for
BRT on South A and Main Street are 95% completed according to LTD staff, and there are
differences between the current design and what the council last saw in 2002.
As the road authority for South A (McKenzie Highway), the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) must approve the BRT final design. ODOT has indicated that they do
not support on-street parking on South A, but would allow landscaping in place of the proposed
parking. To mitigate for the loss of parking on Main Street and for not being able to add parking
to South A, L TD is proposing to add parking on the pull out near the bridge entrance and Mill
Street. City staff provided comments earlier based upon a 60% design and anticipates reviewing
the final BR T design for South A and Main in the near future.
.
Ms. Larsen-Wylie said the good news is that the bid went out for the Springfield Station. All
three bids were lower than expected and the bid that was accepted is $lM less than they
budgeted. The tentative date for the groundbreaking is July 28,2003. She also noted that the
vehicles they will be purchasing will be manufactured in the U.S. at a lower cost than
anticipated. They will be manufactured by New Flier and will include a clean electric/diesel
combination engine, low floors and doors on both sides. The price for these vehicles is
approximately $lM less than the European model they were looking at and has the technology
they need.
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes, June 23, 2003
Page 2
Councilor Burge asked about propane engines such as those used in California.
Ms. Larsen-Wylie said they have looked into that, but have found that propane is a touchy
substance to work with and a $lM facility is needed to handle it. The vehicles they are looking
at run on a clean diesel with low sulphur.
Stefano Viggiano referenced the map showing the new Springfield Station and the BR T route.
He outlined the areas where there are exclusive BRT lanes and where they are in mixed traffic.
He explained how they looked at the parking situation and traffic situations in trying to make it
more pedestrian oriented. He pointed out where sidewalks would be added. The changes occur
from the west entrance of Springfield to 4th Street. He highlighted the parking spaces they have
planned.
Councilor Burge asked about signals at the intersection of Pioneer Parkway East and South A.
Mr. Viggiano said they would be adding a light at that intersection.
Councilor Ballew asked about Rose's Diner and how they would be affected.
Mr. Viggiano showed how the street would be changed. They worked to minimize the impact to
that business. He said none of the driveways to existing businesses will be removed and their
accesses will remain the same.
Councilor Ballew asked about the issue with the property to the east and if it is resolved.
.
Mr. Viggiano said that there is still an issue regarding purchase of some of the land. He also said
that the station was moved to allow the business to stay intact.
Councilor Fitch said this was one of the ways to open up the downtown and includes a
connection to Booth Kelly. One of the biggest issues with the public was with the handicapped
and disabled and the speed of the traffic in that area. Measures have been taken to slow down
the traffic.
Ms. Larsen-Wylie discussed her vision for the uses of this station for senior and disabled citizens
and for citizens going to the Gateway Mall.
Councilor Burge said he is glad to see this go forward. He asked how much parking they will
have on site.
Mr. Viggiano said about 26-29 spaces and they are looking at purchasing additional property
from the adjacent business which would add another 52 spaces.
Discussion was held regarding the adjacent property and also the timeline for these projects to be
- completed.
2. Glenwood Riverfront Plan Implementation.
.
Planner Susanna Julber was present for the staff report. Ms. Julber introduced Charles Kupper
from Spencer and Kupper, a Portland Development firm; Otto Poticha and Jerry Diethelm from
Poticha Architects; and Jim Hanks from JRH Transportation Engineering. The Glenwood
Riverfront Plan has been an ongoing project since fall of 2000. Following the transfer of
jurisdictions of Glenwood from Eugene to Springfield in 1998, the City Council identified
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes, June 23, 2003
Page 3
"direction for the Glenwood Riverfront" as a top priority. The City has received Transportation
Growth management grants to develop a plan to guide redevelopment in the area identified as a
node in TransPlan, which is along the Glenwood riverfront. The consultant, Poticha Architects,
and his sub-consultants, have been working on the project since its beginning. The concept plans
have been developed with the guidance of Citizen and Technical Advisory Committees, and
there have been approximately six public workshops since the project originated, or comments
and input on various consultant designs and the concept plans.
Mr. Kupper's work focuses on the financial feasibility of implementing the Glenwood Riverfront
Plan, and his presentation will focus on methods to achieve full-scale redevelopment for the area
designated as a node. Mr. Kupper's fmdings indicate that redevelopment of the Glenwood
Riverfront is possible, however not without work and investment by the City. Attachment 1 is a
working draft plan for the Glenwood Riverfront, and Attachment 2 is Mr. Kupper's findings and
research, in three Technical Memorandums: Tech Memo 4: Property Acquisition Strategy; Tech
Memo 5: Capital Improvements Required; and Tech Memo 6: Funding Sources for Plan
Implementation.
Mr. Kupper's findings and recommendations include:
.
· Substantial infrastructure would have to be provided to the site in order for full-scale
redevelopment to occur. The per-square foot value once infrastructure is provided is
approximately $9.60 per-square foot, which is relatively high for the Eugene-Springfield
area;
· Given the high land values, phasing the redevelopment into two phases, with the intent being
to create two areas large enough to attract and sustain higher end development, and to hold
the cost to implement each phase at a manageable level, may be a reasonable alternative to
redevelopment of the entire 48-acre site at once;
· The City should examine a variety of strategies to achieve the redevelopment of the site,
including urban renewal, acquisition strategies, and lor a general obligation bond.
Mr. Kupper said he will be available to answer questions regarding implementation strategies,
and may be available for an additional Council work session, if the Council feels it would be
beneficial.
Ms. Julber described the grants the planning staffhas applied for and received and the money
that has been spent to date.
Councilor Burge asked how much funding we received this biennium.
Ms. Julber said they received about $165,000 and have spent about $105,000 of that money on
the project. She reminded council that the figures and information that Mr. Kupper will be
presenting is relevant rather it is nodal or just a redevelopment plan.
Mr. Poticha described Tasks 1 - 4 and how they got to this point. Task 1 was to work with
ODOT and local traffic staff to determine what could be done with Franklin Boulevard. Task 2
included an access management strategy. Task 3 was dealing with the Riperian Edge and storm
water mitigation and prepare for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) and the
Corps of Engineers. They are now at Task 5, which is how to bring Tasks 1-4 together with
some plans. He described the economic studies done on this property by two companies, one
local and one national.
.
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes, June 23, 2003
Page 4
Mr. Diethelm presented a slide show referencing the property in Glenwood. He explained the
road structure and the proposed bus stations, park space and the structures that could make up
this development. He said there are opportunities for higher density spots that would give
Glenwood a different skyline. He referenced drawings showing how this might look after
developed from Phase 1 through completion.
Mr. Kupper described the issues his firm was hired to address. He said his part ofthe report
include three technical memos, memo 4, 5 and 6, which cover land acquisition, capital
improvements and means of funding the implementation plan. He discussed those issues:
1. Getting control of the land (privately, public, or private/public partnership). He discussed
the fact that there are multiple ownerships, there is a high cost to acquire the land, these
properties include a large amount of acreage, and the market for the kind of development
noted in the slides is untested and open to question. Because of these issues, private
developers are not likely to take the lead on this. The public body will most likely have to
lead the acquisition of property. He discussed implementing this in two phases because of
the high costs. He said that phase 1 consists of 21 acres on the west side and phase II
consists of 27 acres on the east side. Mr. Kupper said the land acquisition cost for phase I
would be approximately $4.9M and in phase II approximately $4.3M. These figures equate
to about $4.50 per square foot, which is high for the Eugene/Springfield area. He discussed
the strategies for acquiring the property, the options and the advantages and disadvantages of
these options as listed on the table in Attachment 2 page 6.
.
2. Mr. Kupper discussed the capital improvements required to implement the Glenwood Master
Plan. He referenced Technical Memo No.5 and the costs listed in Table One. He discussed
who would take those costs or where the money would come from. He discussed the off site
costs and that they are not that critical to implementing this master plan. He also discussed
the on site costs which are necessary to actually make the land ready for sale and
development. These include streets, sewer, water, etc. He outlined the costs per acre for on
site costs, demolition costs and acquisition costs as shown on Technical Memo 5, Table
Two. Mr. Kupper gave a brief summary of Technical Memo 5.
3. Mr. Kupper referenced Technical Memo 6 which discusses how to cover the costs in phase 1.
He said they do not need to be covered all at once and some of the costs are offset by land
sale proceeds. The most important part is acquiring property and the most important phase is
phase 1. Mr. Kupper feels we can count on little or no assistance from developers. There
may be some help from Community Development Block Grant Funds. State programs
currently don't fit this type of development; therefore land acquisition will be a local effort
only. Some means to gain fmances to purchase these properties include general obligation
bonds, or tax increment financing. He feels the general obligation bonds, which would need
voter approval, are the best option for land acquisition. Funding the site improvements
opens a wider variety of funding possibilities including general obligation bonds, urban
renewal financing, borrowing from private lender, area-wide value increment, dedication of
System Development Charges from the Riverfront Plan Area, City General Funds or Road
Funds, new Federal or State programs, and other fees and charges. He explained what could
be used if it is City and what if it is County. He discussed voter approval for general
obligation bonds and additional taxes.
.
Mr. Kupper discussed some of the benefits from these costs and tax revenue. He described
the amount ofthe investment and the revenue from projected taxes. He said that it would
create a new image for the entrance into the City. Mr. Kupper summarized Technical
Memos 4, 5 and 6.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes, June 23,2003
Page 5
.
Councilor Woodrow asked why the cost of the land in Glenwood is so much higher from that in
Eugene and Springfield. He asked if residents would pay these higher rates to live in Glenwood
right now if there is a chance the rest of the area would not be redeveloped.
Mr. Kupper said that citizens probably will not be willing to pay the higher amount if Glenwood
does not change. He believes that is why they need to create a whole new slate for this area.
Mr. Poticha discussed the issue of Franklin Boulevard and how it is a unique challenge.
Councilor Woodrow said it seems that we are asking the City of Springfield to become
developers with the City money. He asked how we can ask City of Springfield to be in favor of a
bond to redevelop Glenwood when we can't fix our own streets. How can we justify this to the
citizens of Springfield? He feels a scaled back version would be more appropriate.
Mr. Poticha said the alternatives are to leave Glenwood as it is or scale back the development.
Councilor Burge agrees. There are levels of development between this and where we are now.
He said there is no market for it today. He thinks it is a nice vision, but there is little reality. He
commends the presentation, but feels it can't come about financially. He asked how the group
originated.
Ms. Julber said it was from direction from the Council and the grant came from the state.
Councilor Burge also asked how this corresponds with the IGA we signed with Eugene regarding
the Glenwood Refinement Plan.
.
Ms. Julber said it is very consistent with the Glenwood Refinement Plan, but is more specific.
Councilor Fitch asked for information on funding for other large projects in the past such as the
Gateway area and Jasper Natron.
Economic Development Director John Tamulonis explained the Gateway area development and
the cost per acre when they developed that area. He said funding came from a combination of
grants and loans from State and County. They did look at urban renewal in that area. It didn't
receive voter approval. He said that it did move forward in smaller increments. The City
received a TGM grant for $120,000 for Jasper Natron.
Councilor Ballew said 800 new residents add to our social costs to the City. She asked what the
benefit was to current residents of Springfield to spend that amount of capital to develop this
area. Residential property does not usually pay its way for the cost of services. She doesn't feel
it will generate enough money.
Mr. Kupper said all of the questions brought forward by councilors are excellent policy
questions. He pointed out that when you combine the land acquisition costs, with the cost to
improve the property, you have a cost of about $9.50 per square foot, which is high for this area.
If you do it in smaller increments, there is still the gap in cost.
.
Councilor Burge said he is also concerned about doing it in two large phases. If the first phase is
completed and it is found the market wouldn't support it, you are in a bad situation. If it failed
as you were into the second phase that would be even worse. He does acknowledge that the City
.
.
.
. City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes, June 23, 2003
Page 6
does occasionally go out on a limb for these types of things, but many things must be taken into
consideration. He feels it is too aggressive for these times.
Councilor Fitch said she is hearing that if it was broken into smaller phases some council
members might consider. She also asked if council had thoughts on any public investment to
purchase land to do development in this area coming from public money.
Discussion was held regarding the funding issues and the difference between this area and
Gateway. Gateway already had Sony and Glenwood needs something similar to start with.
Councilor Woodrow believes there is a development plan that could work and where the city is
not totally at risk. He is in favor or taking a risk to some degree.
Councilor Fitch said she is hearing a shift in council and she feels she needs to give staff
direction.
Councilor Ballew said it is an unincorporated area. Discussion was held regarding how much
control the City has in this area.
Ms. Julber said we are putting sewer in next summer which she believes will impact the area and
its growth into the City.
Mr. Tamulonis discussed the urban renewal property and the taxes from those properties. Mr.
Kupper further discussed this issue.
Councilor Malloy said he agrees that 20+ acres is a large chunk, but he feels we need to be
careful not to develop in too small a portion. He does feel it is too risky for the City to go in
alone. He is concerned that if the development community doesn't think it will work, then it
may be too big of a risk.
They discussed rate of return.
Mr. Poticha said that it is a grand plan. It was based on two economic studies by leading
economists who both surveyed the area. They also solicited an east coast economist to study this
area. These development plans came from these two studies. It is a difficult site to work with.
He discussed the issues with Franklin Boulevard and the limited access from the Boulevard. The
storm water system is also an issue and cannot be done in small increments and added to later.
He explained the constraints and why they chose the two phase plan. They have looked at doing
it in smaller phases. He said the next task is to put out an RFP to developers nationally to see if
they are interested in this project.
City Manager Mike Kelly said tonight was to allow for councilor's discussion. Some would like
to see this happen in Glenwood ifthe timing were better. Glenwood is the center of the Eugene
Springfield metropolitan area and a gem in the rough. Glenwood has been a priority for many
years. The collision part is the sanitary sewers that will be going in within the next year or two.
The residents of Glenwood will want that sanitary sewer. If a sanitary sewer system goes in
without a plan, residents can develop however they want. He said it is up to council to decide if
they want to bring it in as a phased plan. Staff will need direction on how to proceed in the short
term. Staff will return with a proposal for council.
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes, June 23, 2003
Page 7
Councilor Woodrow would like to see how this combines with nodal development for Glenwood
and also the occupancy rates for residential and commercial in the Eugene/Springfield area for
the last 5 years and a projection for the next five years.
Councilor Ballew said she agrees that Glenwood is a gem, but we are in difficult fiscal times.
The interest is there and she would like to continue with the sanitary sewer installation.
3. Reallocation of County Road Funds
Technical Services Manager Len Goodwin was present for the staff report. Following staff level
discussions, Lane County Public Works staff have produced a matrix which describes the impact
of a potential decision by the County to allocate the funds, if any, it receives under'the provisions
of the pending Oregon Transportation Improvement Act ("OTIA III"), to the cities in Lane
County. The matrix assumes that all of that additional money, currently estimated at $1.6
million, would be added to the money currently distributed under the terms of the County/City
Road Partnership Agreement. A variety of methods for making the allocation among the 12
cities in Lane County are shown. Staff discussion have assumed that this additional allocation
would occur for a limited period oftime, depending on developments with respect to
reauthorization of the Rural Safe Schools and Self-Determination Act of 2002, under which the
County received federal funding to support revenues formerly based upon Oregon & California
timber revenues. Late last week, senior elected and administrative officials of Springfield,
Eugene, and Lane County met to discuss and evaluate these alternatives.
.
Mr. Goodwin handed out new information from recent meetings with the Cities and the County.
He noted that Council has until July 2 to determine whether or not to repeal the Transportation
System Maintenance Fee (TSMF) ordinance or to refer it to voters. Mr. Goodwin said the
information he has distributed to council is the'best information they have at this point, but it
could change.
Mr. Goodwin said that Commissioner Sorenson suggested that some ofthe money the County
receives from the State might go to the cities and not the counties. This morning the house did
pass that transportation funding package. It is scheduled for hearings at the senate business and
economic development committee on Wednesday morning. Mr. Goodwin noted that the only
negative issues raised were the credit given to companies who have purchased energy efficient
vehicles and the income revenue from construction projects. Under the current estimates, Lane
County should be receiving about $1.6 M from this transportation package. That money is not
currently included in the Lane County budget; therefore if they were to allocate it differently
they would not have to change their budget. Commissioner Sorenson is suggesting that money
go to the 12 cities of Lane County. Instead of receiving $2.5M this year, cities would receive
approximately $3.3M and approximately $4.1 in subsequent years. He described the different
formulas used to distribute the current funding and some of the recommendations. This
additional funding is only a temporary solution for the next 3 years. He referenced the handouts
and the different formulas outlined there. He also discussed the increase in the minimum and the
reasons it was increased.
.
Mr. Goodwin said the last page summarizes where we are with the different issues. It outlines
the local fuel tax which is in place. He said that notices are going to dealers, tax collection will
begin on October 1, 2003 and we will begin receiving that additional money in mid-October. He
said we are anticipating $500,000 this current year. He explained the revenue from the
Transportation System Maintenance Fee (TSMF). The final issue is the county allocation which
has been discussed this evening.
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes, June 23, 2003
Page 8
Councilor Woodrow asked Mr. Goodwin if he is correct in stating that the Lane County
Commissioners have not agreed to give us more of the original money. They may only give us
additional funding if they get more.
Mr. Goodwin said that is correct.
Mr. Kelly said that the proposal seemed acceptable to Commissioner Sorenson, but he could not
commit the other commissioners.
Councilor Woodrow asked about those cities that may lose money.
Mr. Kelly said that if the minimum is raised those cities would not lose money. It is all based on
whether or not they get the additional money.
Councilor Burge said this is an appeasement only if the County gets this additional money. He
said this is to be expected. The primary issue is around the current road funds not being property
distributed. We still do not feel their current allocation is appropriate.
Mr. Kelly said that Mayor Leiken and Mayor Torrey have strongly indicated that the issue of
current allocation is a bottom line. The Mayors and Commissioner Sorenson believe this has to
be solved. The County Commissioners know they need to have the support of the cities when
they look for reauthorization from Washington DC. This is an interim solution. The major
discussion would be in place with terms showing that the County would in good faith find a
more permanent solution. Council can wait another week to make the decision if they choose.
.
Councilor Ballew noted that in looking at registered vehicles in regards to the fuel tax, the
wealthier cities have more cars.
Mr. Goodwin said the DMV only collects data from the zip code on the license. These are
unreliable figures.
Councilor Ballew said if we get to the point where the County wants to pass this money on to us,
we should still consider if we want to go to the voters with a reduced amount.
Councilor Woodrow asked if Commissioner Green had received enough signatures to put
Eugene's TSMF ordinance on the ballot.
Mr. Kelly said that he did not.
Discussion was held regarding the amount Eugene would receive in regards to their own budget.
He said the extra money from Lane County would equal approximately $1.2M to Eugene, and
their road fee is about $5M per year. They would still need a fee in place to cover their fund.
Councilor Malloy said the amount we would expect with the local fee is about $350,000, and
what the County may offer us is about $160,000 extra this year. Even with this, will it be leaving
too big of a hole?
Mr. Goodwin said these measures would add up to the amount needed over the next couple of
years.
.
Councilor Malloy confirmed that if council repeals the fee, we would still be o.k. in the
following year.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes, June 23, 2003
Page 9
.
Councilor Fitch said we have an opportunity to come to a mutual agreement. We have one
public and one citizenry that we are serving. It comes down to the money they pay and how it
gets proportioned. There is sufficient money being collected, but it needs to be reapportioned in
a more equitable manner.
Councilor Malloy said this could be looked at as a temporary solution until a better, more
permanent solution can be found, or a way for the County to pacify Springfield.
Councilor Fitch asked about the reappropriation which will go to the County in 2006.
Mr. Goodwin said they are currently getting about $16M a year.
Mr. Kelly said that Commissioner Sorenson has stated that he personally feels there should be a
reallocation of the existing County road funds.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:36 pm.
"
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
\.
.
Attest:
~.~
Amy Sow
Acting City Recorder
.