Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/2012 Work SessionCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2012 The City of Springfield Council met in .a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 5, 2012 at 6:02 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston and Woodrow. 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. Councilors Wylie and Pishioneri were absent (excused). 1. Police Planning Task Force Application Review. Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report on this item. The Police Planning Task Force had one At -Large position available from the resignation of Stacey Doll. One other At -Large position was open with an eligible reappointment candidate, and the School District was naming a new representative. Pat Mahoney had applied for re- appointment to the Task Force and was eligible for a second term James Crist had resigned from his position as the School District representative and would be replaced by Chris Reiersgaard. The Task Force received two applications for the remaining At -Large position. One of the applicants did not live within the City Limits and was therefore not eligible. The remaining applicant was Fred Simmons, who had served on the Task Force previously as the Council Liaison and as an At -Large member. A subcommittee consisting of Councilor Marilee Woodrow, Dave Jacobson, Wendy Polen and Jack Martin recommended the appointments of Pat Mahoney (for a second term) and Fred Simmons to At -Large positions, and Chris Reiersgaard as the School District Representative. Chief Smith said this was an important committee for the Police Department. 2. 2013 -2017 Capital Improvement Program, A Community Reinvestment Plan Civil Engineer Jeff Paschall and City. Engineer Ken Vogeney presented the staff report on this item. The City of Springfield's 2013 -2017 CIP — A Community Reinvestment Plan had been drafted by staff, reviewed by the Planning Commission (February 7 and February'22, 2012), and was now being forwarded to the City Council for review and comment prior to a Public Hearing at the March 19, 2012 regular session. The draft City of Springfield 2013 -2017 CIP, A Community Reinvestment Plan, was reviewed at the Planning Commission's February 7, 2011 work session meeting. The Commission voted to recommend Council approval of the plan at their February 22, 2012 meeting. The CIP attempted to balance the use of scarce capital construction funds with the long list of infrastructure needs for our community. It was not 'a document with budget authority, but served as a guide for programming funds and planning the annual workload of capital projects staff. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 5, 2012 Page 2 There were a few new projects proposed in the next five years of programmed funding. Staff, continued to make significant headway on several projects from previous year's capital plans and had also completed several projects in the past cycle. These items were detailed in the Council Briefing .Memorandum included in the agenda packet. Staff presented a power point presentation. Mr. Vogeney discussed the four criteria for considering projects to include in the CIP: 1) project addresses State or Federal laws or regulations; 2) project maintains existing assets, extends useful life of assets, or improves or expands infrastructure; 3) projects respond to requests from citizens, neighborhood groups, advisory committees, or government bodies; and 4) project is included in local and /or regional infrastructure plans. The majority of projects come from the City's infrastructure plan. Requests from citizens are rarely included in the CIP, but were handled as citizen service requests handled by current ongoing programs. Mr. Vogeney listed the tools used to identify capital needs; 1) Hansen Asset Management System; 2) Facilities Plans; 3) Urban Renewal Plans; 4) Land Use Plans; 5) Refinement Plans; 6) Citizen/Public Request; and 7) Council Goals and Priorities. The CIP was updated annually, but was a five -year forecast tool for capital funding. The budget was one year and the CIP was five years. He reviewed the timeline for the CIP process. The CIP was scheduled for a public hearing before the Council on March 19, 2012. He noted that the Planning Commission had asked for more discussion regarding prioritizing. Mr. Paschall said the CIP had grown over the last few years, much of it because of the Wastewater and Stormwater Master Plans and the update of the TransPlan. Internally, staff developed a matrix which was used to rate projects. Projects were then prioritized using the matrix to help identify which funding could be used for which projects. There were similar matrixes for transportation, wastewater, and buildings and properties. All four matrixes were included in the draft CIP. Mr. Paschall identified some of the recently completed projects from previous CIPs. Those included Gateway /Beltline Phase 1 Construction ($IOM), several EECBG projects, ($500,000), the Thurston/Lively Park pedestrian crossing ($35,000), City Hall and Depot painting ($164,000), City Hall fascia ($130,000), completed pedestrian enhancements at the MLK roundabout ($200,000), 17,700 of 30,500 feet of sanitary sewer pipe rehabilitation in Basin 22 ($1.76M), and slurry seal of local streets ($60,000). He noted that the City had completed a large amount of the sewer rehabilitation project. The rest would be completed by the end of this next construction season. Mr. Paschall also identified construction projects schedule for 2012/2013. Those included Jasper trunk sewer, 10th and N Street Sewer/Basin 22, 58 b Street Sewer, Mill Race, A Street /Thurston Road, 59th and Aster, and Island Park. He noted some of the funding sources for these projects. There were also a number of projects scheduled for design in 2012. Those included Franklin sewer expansion, Jasper trunk sewer, pump stations, Mill Race, 10th & N Phase 2, Island Park, and the over /under channel. These projects were in the current CIP budget. He referred to a slide showing'the over /under channel working properly'when there was an overflow. There were also several planning projects for 2012 including Franklin Boulevard NEPA, downtown access /circulation, 2030 urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion, and the Transportation System Plan (TSP). City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 5, 2012 Page 3 Mr. Paschall noted that as part of the CIP, there were some new high - priority, unfunded projects. Those included S and T Streets drainage, Irving slough, downtown lighting, ADA transition project, street preservation and reconstruction, wire theft remediation, and light pole testing. Mayor Lundberg asked if the S and T Street project was part of Channel 6. Mr. Vogeney said Channel 6 was a separate project. This piece was upstream from Channel 6. S Street currently didn't have a drainage system between 10th and 15th. That piece would connect into Channel 6 at l Oth Street. Staff was evaluating whether or not to move the S and T Street work to Channel 6. Mr. Paschall noted several new projects identified in the 2013 -2017 CIP. Those included Glenwood Boulevard bridge improvements, ADA transition projects, signal modernization, East 17th Avenue pavement preservation, 19th Street sewer upgrade, and sewer extension in East 17th Avenue and Marcola Road. All but the sewer projects had some funding. For the Glenwood Boulevard bridge and East 17th Avenue pavement preservation projects, the City had an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Lane County to have those projects done as part of allowing the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to use Glenwood Boulevard for the bridge project. East 17th Avenue had been one of the highest priorities for overlay for a long time. Councilor Moore asked where the preservation would be done on East 17th Avenue. Mr. Vogeney explained. Mr. Paschall spoke regarding the sewer projects and explained each. He referred to a chart showing overall need for projects by category and which were funded. Many of the stormwater and wastewater projects that were unfunded were expansion projects and could be paid for by development. The Franklin Boulevard construction was still in the CIP and accounted for much of the funding need in the Transportation category. The Buildings and Property category included future projects such as a new Library and new Fire Station. Mr. Paschall said in looking forward, sewer rate payer revenues were stable. Through the CIF, the City had identified funding to accomplish all of the preservation and rehabilitation projects for sewer projects, reducing the number of sewer projects in the current CIP. Any sewer projects left on the CIP were for future development. The need for future bond issuance had been extended an additional one to two years. SDC revenues continued to decline and missed projections and the City needed to identify stable funding source for street projects. Councilor Moore asked about recent SDC suspension and if that would. have a long -term affect. Mr. Paschall said the revenues had been down prior to action taken by Council. It could have a long- term affect, but was not immediate. Mr. Vogeney noted that on the stormwater matrix, they rated each project on each of the five drivers, assigned it a priority of one, two or three, and then took an average. They then applied the available funding to the highest average score projects first to see how they could get to meet some of the ongoing projects. There were a few that were difficult to prioritize. Some set aside funds were available for some of the sewer projects. Councilor Woodrow asked how long they had used the matrix and if it was working Mr. Vogeney said this was the second year. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 5, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Paschall said they found that projects came out in about the same order using the matrix as they had before. This was, however, a way to document better. Some projects didn't meet the criteria. Mr. Grimaldi referred to the unfunded projects. These were examples or projects unfunded through the priority process. Citizens or businesses may put some projects as a higher priority than shown on the chart. Council had the option to add new projects and remove other projects. Councilor Moore asked if there was a way to make changes once the CIP was approved. Mr. Paschall said the CIP was a guide for staff to prepare the capital budget. It was a tool to prioritize funding, but was very fluid. Some projects had been advanced in the past that were not originally in the CIP because their priority had changed. Some of the street projects had federal funding for part of the project, but not full funding. Staff was trying to look at revenue sources for the projects. Mayor Lundberg said the graph showing funded and unfunded amounts was pretty dismal. She understood that some of those projects were new projects and some were current. She asked if before they got to the budget discussion they could have the projects broken down in a way to identify which were current projects and which were new. She asked if it would help if Council prioritized from that list. Mr. Paschall said every project in the CIP had been prioritized, but staff could come back with specific projects for further discussion. He could break down the chart to show which unfunded projects were new or future projects versus preservation or rehabilitation projects. Councilor Woodrow said it would also help to indicate what projects were almost completed or out five years. Mr. Paschall said he could break it out by year. Councilor Woodrow said that would make it more visual. Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt said when looking at unfunded projects, it made sense to look at them in the .context of what was funded, what was partially funded, and what was not funded. Councilor VanGordon asked if the matrix scores were in the report. Mr. Paschall said they were not in the report, but were used internally. Because of the size of the spreadsheet, he hadn't found a way to incorporate the data into the CIP document. Councilor VanGordon said it would be helpful to have the information on how each item was prioritized when reading the report. It could be in the format of a one -page document explaining how to decode the criteria. He was most interested in the projects that were in design or ready to start design as those would be at the decision point. Mayor Lundberg said it would be helpful to have a map or description to help further identify each project by location. Mr. Vogeney said they used to include a vicinity map for each project, but had not been able to do that as the list expanded. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 5, 2012 Page 5 Mayor Lundberg said even a written description to help identify the location would be helpful. Management Analyst Rhonda Rice explained how each project was bookmarked in the CIP, with the maps following. Each overview sheet had the code and the project. Mayor Lundberg said it would still be. helpful to have printed maps to refer to from the overview page. She commended staff for a good job on this project. It was a lot of work. Mr. Vogeney said this was scheduled for a public hearing on March 19. For that public hearing, staff could provide charts showing the breakdown between expansion projects and other projects. They may not be able to provide additional maps, but could make note to include those next year. He asked if there was anything else Council wanted for the public hearing. Councilor Moore asked about stabilizing funding and when they' would have that discussion. Mr. Grimaldi said Council recently discussed road funding and the .communication plan to the public. Staff would bring back feedback from that plan in early September. Councilor Moore asked if they would then discuss what was possible. Mr. Grimaldi said there were some options that appeared to need more public input which would take some time. The public needed to be engaged on the street fund topic as well as the police levy. Mr. Grimaldi said the CIP was an excellent opportunity to inform the public of the needs, what was funded and what was not. Councilor Ralston said the reality .was we didn't have funding. Councilor Moore said it could be a point of discussion to look at bond measures or other options for the future. She felt something could be added to the public hearing to explain stabilizing funding during the public hearing. Mayor Lundberg said it was legitimate to identify that we needed to do the projects in the CIP, but it was not the document for an action plan. The City first needed to talk to the public. The action plan would be a way to stabilize funding, much of which would involve voter approval. She felt that discussion needed to wait. Councilor VanGordon referred to the matrix. He asked if there was more information on SW5 projects in the 2 and 3 categories. He asked what kind of payback would be on those types of projects. Mr. Paschall said as this had developed they had used more of a rule of thumb rather than a criteria that was specific to cost. Some of the other efficiencies were not on paper. Mr. Vogeney said that was correct. Part of this plan included projects in areas that currently needed ongoing maintenance that would no longer need that additional maintenance once the project was completed. They hadn't yet developed rules to measure a payback or savings. Mr. Paschall said some of it was based on maintenance costs, but there was no solid data on the cost savings. Councilor VanGordon said that might be something to look at long -term. When looking at projects that had a return or cost benefit, they could move them up on the matrix. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 5, 2012 Page 6 Mr. Paschall said they could work on that as they moved forward. It was more difficult to find solid data on projects such as sewer systems, but transportation projects were more specific. Mr. VanGordon said perhaps staff could start with transportation since there was better data, and then move into other areas. Mr. Grimaldi said it could help more in terms of holding down operating costs. The dollars wouldn't be significant enough to affect capital improvements, although they were important savings. Mr. Paschall said the majority of sewer projects didn't fit the driver. He explained how he had applied those projects to the matrix. Staff could certainly look at doing something. Mr. VanGordon said he realized there would be a number of projects that wouldn't fit that category. Mr. Boyatt said that was a discussion.that could also be applied to. other lines, such as preservation. The Environmental Services Department (ESD) had gone through lawsuits regarding water quality to those costs were responsive to the -regulations. There were many factors that affected costs and knowing that may not differentiate much in how they get prioritized. Councilor VanGordon said this could provide better standard for the criteria. Councilor Woodrow said maybe at the five year mark staff could have more detail of what Councilor VanGordon was looking for since this was a five year plan. Councilor Ralston said it might help to color code the matrix over time and plot where projects fit on the matrix. It would help to identify where things didn't fit and could be a visual way to prioritize. He wanted to minimize their work. Mayor Lundberg thanked staff for their work and the presentation. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa •r Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: Amy Sow City Recorder