Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/2012 Work SessionCity of Spring8ald Work Session Meeting. MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRITIGFIELD CITY COLTN CiL HELD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2072 The City of Springfi ald Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street. Springt3 el d- Oregon, on Monday, September 1(), 2012 at 5.30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pisbionari_ Van Gordon, Wylie, Moores, and Woodrow. Also present ware City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant Cit} Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith - City Recorder Amy Sowa and members ofthe staff. Councilor Aal ston was absent (exeused) 1 . Joint Historic Commission Meeting. Mayor fund berg we]com ed the members of the Historic Commission. Materials from the Historic Commission ware provided to the Mayor and Council Histork Commission Chair Judy Williams introduced herself. The other members of the Historic Conzm fission also introd ucad themselves. Those in atten den ca ware Tim Hilton <N/ice Chair), Dannie Helm, 7<uri Gill. Paula Guthrie- Kip Amend, and Kerry Barbaro. Historic Commissioner Kuri C;ill said tfie Historic Commission had done a lot over the last year and a half_ She presented a power point presw�tation showing their goals and accomplishm ants from December 2009 to present, as wall as upcoming projects. Ms. Gill said the Historic Commission kxiked at the Council Goals and determ road that everything they were doing fit into at least one of the Council Goals_ One thing preservation was good for was a way to preserve and enhance the authenticity of local communities. It was what made Springfield unique from other cities_ Many people thought of the Wash burne District when th a_y thou gfit o£U�c preservation of Springfield, but many- other things also help ©d shaped the history of Springtiel d. Many things warn affected by the economy, World War 11, the lumbar industry, etc_ Pre sere an on would continue to be all of -the things that would be coming in the future in Springfield_ Ms. Gill referred to livability as noted in the Council Goals, which included good neighborhoods and nice parks_ Understanding the history of our City was important for new people coming to town. It had been shown that often it was new people in a community that ware the most active participants in presary anon activities because they had chosen that place to Live and they wanted to 1cnc— n—re about it and understand it_ Economic development such as the Main Street Program also intertwined with historic preservation. She noted the difference of the District since it had be--- a historic district and been maintained_ When trying to bring people to our area, things highlighted were historic areas, schools_ parks, and other amenities_ She spoke regarding environmental quality. Many people thought historic properties ware not energy efficient, but they were actually designed to be energy efficient and could be adjusted to be extremely energy efficient_ City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 10, 2012 Page 2 Ms. Gill referred to the Council Goal of Financially Responsible and Innovate Government Services. The Historic Commission came with grant funding and a wonderful group of volunteers doing great work for the City. Ms. Gill also served as the coordinator for the State for the Certified Local Government Program so had seen what other cities around Oregon were doing. Springfield had very dedicated volunteers. Ms. Gill reviewed the Historic Commission goals. In doing those things, the Commission chose to emphasize working with other organizations such as the Main Street group, building relationships with the Museum, the Washburne Neighborhood and other organizations. Ms. Gill said grant funding had increased substantially over the last two years which impacted the whole city. Ms. Gill discussed the accomplishments of the Historic Commission from December 2009 to present. The Commission had reviewed 25 proposals for modifications, which was one of the roles of the Historic Commission. Many of the homes in the Washbume District had siding and other pieces of the house that were built with wood from Springfield. The Commission's efforts were mostly on public education and encouraging people to understand why they wanted to keep their homes looking historic. Most people wanted to do that. but were not aware that certain changes were not historically correct. Ms. Gill said several Commission members served on the Main Street Design Committee, the Downtown Citizen Advisory Committee, the Washbume Neighborhood Association, and the Washbume and Downtown Envisioning Rehabilitation Project. She referred to a slide showing drawings of what could be done to historic properties. These drawings were on display at City Hall and the Art Walk. Springfield Buick Motors building had been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In that process, Springfield hosted the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation, a committee that met three times a year in various cities around the state. This group helped make decisions on what got posted on the National Register. The Historic Commission initiated conversations with the Springfield School District regarding potential future National Register Nominations of some of the schools, such as Brattain Elementary. The Commission helped celebrate the Brattain Elementary history and the Brattain celebration. Ms. Gill said the commissioners attended trainings on their own time, including the Annual CLG workshops, Oregon Heritage Conference and the National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference. Commissioners presented workshops on energy efficiency in historic buildings during the Farmers Market in 2011. They also had completed a Selective Reconnaissance Level Survey of Glenwood and would continue to survev other areas. Survey was very important and provided a good base of information for all types of planning such as disaster preparedness. The Historic Commission purchased historic preservation resources and produced an annual newsletter that was sent out to residents and owners of historic properties. They continued to update the Historic Commission webpage and had reprinted the Everyday Houses, Downtown. and Washburne walking tour brochures. The Commission had also worked with Lane Transit District (LTD) on a Washburne District interpretative panel, attended the Gateway EmX SmartTrips Washburne District walking tour, and presented at the Washbume Neighborhood meeting. In another partnership, the Commission coordinated with the Springfield Museum to host an informational table at the 2nd Friday Art Walks. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 10, 2012 Page 3 Another accomplishment of the Commission was to develop a brochure and webpage highlighting the recommended fence styles and design. Ms. Gill spoke on upcoming projects which included sending out an annual newsletter, reviewing proposals for modifications to historic properties, completing a Reconnaissance Level Survey of Willamette Heights Neighborhood, and completing at least two intensive level surveys of downtown buildings. They also had plans to support and promote the Cottage Grove CLG wood window workshop for contractors. The Historic Commission planned to repair and replace the Washbume District signs. Their members would be attending local. regional, and national conferences and workshops. They also planned to propose revisions to the Historic Overlay District section of the Development Code. and collaborate on City interpretive and directional signage efforts. They would continue to survey and inventory Springfield's historic properties, support the preparation of one National Register nomination and establish a preservation incentive program. Ms. Gill thanked Molly Markarian and Tara Jones for the amazing staff support. Mr. Hilton said the Commission was interested in knowing what the Council's plans were in regard to whom their staff contact would be in the Planning Department. Ms. Markarian had been amazing and had helped carry a number of projects forward. They were concerned they might lose steam without someone as effectual as Ms. Markarian. Development and Public Works Department Director Len Goodwin said with the department reorganization. some of the assignments did remain somewhat unsettled. Ms. Markarian had continued to serve as liaison. but whether she continued in that role or someone else was still under study. He understood the importance of providing staff support to the Commission. If it was not Ms. Markarian, it would be a staff member that was more than adequately prepared to support the Commission. Councilor Moore asked how much staff time was involved. Ms. Markarian said over the last few years it had been at .2 FTE, but she felt it could be accomplished with .1 FTE. Councilor Moore asked if grant funds included attendance at some of the conferences. Ms. Gill said usually the Commissioner paid a portion for the bigger conferences and a portion was paid from grant funds. Councilor Moore noted that grant funds were going towards publications and signage. She asked if the connection with people in the neighborhoods was done by Ms. Markarian or the Commissioners. Ms. Gill said it was a combination, depending on who they contacted. She clarified that a good portion of the funds had gone to the survey work which was contracted out, and register nominations. Ms. Helm added that part of what they were trying to do with outreach was to get to know the homeowners and make a connection in a more informal way. She also noted that Commissioners also applied for scholarships, and Ms. Guthrie had recently been awarded a scholarship to attend the National Trust Conference. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 10, 2012 Paae 4 Councilor Pishioneri said he had been to many homes in the Washbume District and found they were resoundingly proud to live in the district. One woman had moved in a few months ago, and had been waiting for a home to open up in the Washburne Historic District. There was some concern about the fencing and setbacks. and the many rental properties in the area that were not being cared for, making it difficult for those wanting to improve the area. Overall, the residents were very proud of their homes, happy with the Commission and happy to know the area was going to be preserved. The Historic Commission had been doing a very good job. He discussed the fence issue related to setbacks and noted the small size of some of the front yards making it difficult to meet the setback requirements. Overall, he was very impressed with the Commission. Councilor Woodrow asked what an intensive level survey entailed. Ms. Gill said it included research and interior and exterior layout drawing of one property. It was usually the preliminary work before a register nomination. Councilor Pishioneri said there were some elderly people in the neighborhood that couldn't afford to make improvements. It would be appropriate to target those homes that were owner occupied, but the owners didn't have the financial or physical means to fix up their homes. He hoped the Commission could help those homeowners. Councilor VanGordon said they were doing great work. He loved the list of what they had accomplished. He referred to Ms. Gill's comment that preservation represented the story of who we were as a community. He asked if there was something they needed from Council to further support their activities. Ms. Williams said they would like to hear ideas from the Council. Last time they met jointly, one of the councilors suggested the Commission partner with LTD which had brought about great results. They would like to hear if there were others the Commission could collaborate with on projects. Members were always willing to research and go out for additional projects. Ideas with how the Commission could assist with the staff shortage would also be helpful. This was a very active group. Mr. Amend said networking was important with the City Council as well as other community groups that Council may know or be part of, such as the Main Street Program. Whatever the Council could do as the Council or as individuals to get information out about what the Historic Commission was trying to do was appreciated. Councilor Wylie thanked them for their good work and found the brochures very interesting and helpful. Mayor Lundberg said people were enthralled with the changes in downtown, and the Historic Commission bad a lot to do with those changes. She was amazed at the outstanding things they had done. She would like to see their brochures at Travel Lane County in Gateway to capture the tourist audience. She was always impressed with the materials the Commission had put together. She was looking forward to the next chapter of all the City's neighborhoods. She would be happy to promote the Commission as well as downtown, and talk about our active historic areas and Commission. Councilor Moore asked if the Commission had connected with Springfield School District 4th graders who studied Oregon history. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 10, 2012 Page 5 Ms. Gill said they had, but there were new guidelines for that study in the schools. They had started conversations with the School District regarding how to get involved. In response to Councilor VanGordon's question about how the Council could help, Ms. Gill said she would like to see the Development Code revisions take place. She felt it could make them more efficient, productive and take less time from staff. Mayor Lundberg thanked them for coming and sharing with Council. Mr. Hilton referred to the electric vehicle charging stations by the Museum. One was attached to the Museum which was a historic building. The Commission would like to see that altered. Also, when work was done to remove that electric station, they would like the other electrical work on the outside of the building removed. Mr. Goodwin noted their concern and would look into the matter Ms. Guthrie said the Commission was also looking for a new Council liaison (with Councilor Pishioneri's term ending in December) to help them come up with ideas and projects. 2. Water Supply and Distribution. City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented the staff report on this item. The supply and distribution of drinking water was essential to Springfield citizens and played a key role in the future growth and development of the community. Mr. Grimaldi introduced Jeff Nelson, General Manager of the Springfield Utility Board (SUB), who provided an overview of Springfield's drinking water system. Water supply issues would be a topic of discussion as the City Council considered a request from Lane County, to bring the Metropolitan Plan Boundary in alignment with the Urban Growth Boundary. SUB had well fields that were outside of the Urban Growth Boundary but currently within the Metropolitan Plan Boundary. Mr. Nelson said he started as the General Manager of SUB on July 10, 2012, but had been at SUB for 16 years learning different aspects of the business. He would be delivering a broader context of the utilities, specifically water issues. He introduced Amy Chinitz, Water Quality Program Coordinator from SUB who would be presenting with him. He acknowledged several other SUB employees who were in the audience and could answer questions if needed. Jamie Porter from the Rainbow Water District was also in the audience. He noted the unique and great relationship between SUB and Rainbow Water District. Mr. Nelson said SUB's mission included low rates, reliable service and good customer service. The resources in our area helped with the social fabric and economic well -being of Springfield. Mr. Nelson said SUB's water service was involved in source development and protection, production and treatment, and distribution. They provided monitoring and quality control, long -term planning and customer service, which included repairs and water quality concerns. Water quality testing was done regularly throughout the year. Mr. Nelson said the system in Springfield was very complex with multiple water sources from wells to surface water from the Willamette River. The three main systems were the north system, west system City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 10. 2012 Page 6 and east system. There were 20.000 water service connections. 6 reservoirs, 240 miles of distribution lines, and at peak command they had 1 4,671,600 gallons /day. The Rainbow Water District and SUB had a relationship of coordinated planning. Rainbow served northern and western areas outside the City limits, but because the systems were connected, there was no defining line between Rainbow and SUB regarding water source. The two agencies co -owned the Weyerhaeuser Wellfield, SUB purchased wholesale water from Rainbow Water District, and operated the system cooperatively because it was interconnected. They also partnered on education, planning, protection and conservation activities. About ninety percent of Springfield's water came from wells (35 wells between SUB and Rainbow Water District) and about 10 percent came from the Middle Fork Willamette River. Ms. Chinitz noted the location of the wells throughout the area. The City's surface water source was the Middle Fork Willamette River. It was the largest watershed in the Willamette Valley and comprised of the communities such as Dexter, Lowell, Oakridge and Waldo Lake. Our drinking water source was a precious resource. She noted that we had very shallow groundwater with depths of 10 -20 feet. Basically we lived and worked on top of our water supply. The same thing that made our groundwater so plentiful. also made it susceptible to contamination of chemicals. Another way to illustrate the sensitivity and preciousness of this water resource was by looking at the time of travel zones. The time of travel was identified by determining how long it took for precipitation to reach a well. She identified the areas on the map that showed the replenishment area (20 -99 year time of travel) and the areas closer to the well (1 year time of travel). Knowing the time of travel helped them to understand not only precipitation, but also contamination. Ms. Chinitz referred to the Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan which was adopted in 1999. The Plan was formed to identify risks and determine the best strategies for managing and reducing risks. It was focused on prevention as it was much more cost effective to prevent a problem than to deal with it after the fact. This plan had 10 strategies for managing risks of chemical contamination, which was identified as a primary threat to the groundwater supply. Of the ten strategies, education was the top strategy. Second was the Drinking Water Protection Overlay portion in the Springfield Development Code that addressed the management and storage use of hazardous materials within a wellhead protection area. The purpose was to protect aquifers used as potable water supply sources by the City from contamination. It applied to facilities that stored, used or produced 20 gallons or more. They worked with the businesses to educate them about preventing spills and how to store things properly. Another strategy was the focus on stormwater. This was another example of how SUB and the City worked together because stormwater and groundwater were connected. Protection of both went hand in hand. Ms. Chinitz spoke regarding the sources of water. The largest quantity in terms of what was being produced came from the east system, which was contributed to from four different sources. The north system was just one subwell so provided a very small percentage. The west system was supplied by a single source, the Willamette Wellfield. The City was getting 41.4% of current production from the west system, yet it actually provided 53.5% of our total water rights. Ms. Chinitz said she was focusing on the Willamette Wellfield because with information SUB had received about a proposal for a gravel mine in the two -year time of travel zone, they were looking at the key risks to this water source. She outlined some of those key risks. The proposal was for an open City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 10, 2012 Page 7 pit gravel mine. That created an accelerated pathway to the aquifer for chemical contaminants and pathogens. SUB staff recently met with a hydro geologist who explained how an open pit accelerated the pathway. An open pit also created a potential to lower the pH of the groundwater which was an issue for SUB as they tried to manage the pH at the appropriate levels for their customers. The proposal also came with a batch plant which would include bulk chemical storage. In general, the pond water in gravel pits could be of a highly degraded quality. Mining activity increased the turbidity, which compromised the water treatment process. Ms. Chinitz said some may argue that prevention was already in place. Although only 14% of the water at the Willamette Wellfield came from groundwater, there was still an impact to the drinking water. She explained the surface water sources that would be exposed and could be contaminated. The City did have good regulations;. however Springfield's Development Code 3.3 -200 was designed largely for urban operations and did not address turbidity, degradation from gravel ponds, or other impacts from gravel mine operations. Another question might be to ask if SUB could move its facilities, but the answer was `no'. SUB's water rights were tied to specific wells or surface water intake locations; in other words "points of appropriation ". Developing replacement treatment and transmission facilities would cost upwards of $25million. Ms. Chinitz concluded by reiterating that SUB operated a complex system to deliver high quality water to the people of Springfield; SUB's Willamette Wellfield was one of Springfield's most critical and productive drinking water sources; and a gravel mine located immediately adjacent to the Willamette Wellfield would introduce significant new risks to the water source. The nature of water rights made it impractical for SUB to relocate its facilities and replacing the Willamette Wellfield and associated infrastructure would bring tremendous costs. Finally, Springfield's Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay was an excellent tool for preventing chemical contamination in an urban environment, but did not address the kinds of risks associated with gravel mining operations. Councilor Wylie asked if surface water was primarily rain water. Ms. Chinitz said surface water referred to water that was either flowing or on the surface. It included rivers, streams, lakes, etc. Councilor Wylie asked if our rainwater was clean or if there was acid content. She asked how it compared to rain around the world. Ms. Chinitz said that was not something they knew, but could check into. Councilor Pishioneri asked when the Willamette Wellfield was installed. 1951. Councilor Pishioneri asked how long the gravel operation on the hill had been in place, not the one being proposed. SUB staff responded that Knife River had mining rights for two properties. Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted to know how long they had the mining rights and when the Willamette Wellfield was placed. He also asked about a Wellfield on the corner of 28Th Street and Olympic. The wellfield at that location had been put in about 1981. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September l 0; 2012 Page 8 Councilor Pishioneri asked about a proposal about four years ago just east of 28"' Street. Staff from SUB responded that there was a well on that property that was drilled in 1981 and was being used. Councilor Pishioneri said there had been discussion about plumes of contamination heading that direction. He asked if that was the case. Staff from SUB said no plume contamination had been detected as of yet. but the area was tested frequently because it was an industrial area. Mayor Lundberg said the City had been approached by the County to move the Metro Boundary and give up rights to that area. She asked Mr. Nelson what SUB's interpretation was of the effect of the proposal. She was looking for additional feedback and what they should do as good stewards of the water supply. Mr. Nelson said SUB had a good opportunity to talk with Knife River about their proposal. The City and SUB had reached a proposal that could move the southern boundary to the mid -line of the Willamette River. That would keep the properties sensitive to SUB's interest within the City's jurisdiction. From SUBs perspective, once they moved the Metro Boundary to make the UGB coincide at their current location. the Knife River property would only be in the County's jurisdiction. The concern with that was that then Knife River would have different mechanisms to rezone that property and transform an otherwise non - permitted use to an outright permitted use of a gravel operation. He noted that the Springfield Water Protection Plan couldn't be moved to the County side as it didn't address gravel operations. If that zoning change was to occur and the City lost control over some of the core elements of the land use in this area. the City would have no interest and would lose control over that situation. One thought would be to strategically find ways to meet SUB's interest and keep retention of those areas while still giving some control to the County. Mr. Goodwin said staff had met with SUB staff and developed some concepts about how the Metro Plan Boundary could be changed to assure the drinking water areas were protected. Staff had met with County staff on that subject and were participating with them in drafting an understanding which would be reviewed with Council during their work session on September 24. That option offered alternatives of how- to move ahead to bring the Metro Plan Boundary and UGB together at a spot that would insure adequate protection of the wellhead. There would be further discussion with Council. Councilor VanGordon said the issue was not whether or not we kept wellheads in the Metro Plan and to some degree the UGB. but rather what the time of travel zone was in those properties. He asked where those properties were in terms of time of travel zones. Mr. Nelson said they were in one and two year time of travel zones. Councilor VanGordon asked if there was any way to find a place for gravel operations. Mr. Nelson said yes, somewhere away from SUB's wellfield. Councilor VanGordon asked if there was any scenario where they could identify how close to the wellfield a gravel mine could be located and still maintain water quality. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 10, 2012 Page 9 Mr. Nelson said based on his assessment of the impacts and risks, operation within the one or two year time of travel zones was not acceptable. Councilor VanGordon said if the choice was between a gravel pit or water quality, they would choose water quality. Mr. Nelson said the breadth of their operation was pretty significant. A much smaller project could be acceptable. He was not saying they were expecting a total prohibition of all extractions, but the magnitude of the extraction in the relative proximity of SUB's wellfields and water sources was incompatible. Ms. Chinitz said in their discussions with Knife River, they had asked how they could protect the water quality, but there was no other scenario they could compare to for that answer. Mr. Nelson said turbidity of the water typically occurred after the activity had ceased and was a residual effect of the mining operations. Staff from SUB said turbidity was suspended solids in the water. Councilor Pishioneri asked if they had history of any other utility agency that had a gravel mine that had experienced a negative impact such as that they were anticipating. Ms. Chinitz noted an area in Glenwood, but said they could look into that more Discussion was held regarding that site Councilor Pishioneri said he would be interested in hearing a real life story of this occurring and what had occurred with their drinking water. Councilor Moore said she and the Mayor had met with County Commissioners about this topic and they had also expressed concern about the water supply. She felt they were moving in the right direction in working out an agreement because that was her and the Mayor's primary concern. She appreciated the report and input from SUB, and she was glad to hear they had talked with Knife River. She felt more positive about working with the County to alleviate the issue of control and the ability to protect our drinking water. Staff would bring forward more information on September 24. Mayor Lundberg asked staff or SUB to provide evidence or history of what anyone else had done that was in a similar situation. Protecting our groundwater was one of the most important things the City could do and to do that in the most educated way was important. They would be making decisions about which direction they should go. Mr. Grimaldi said on September 24, Council would be making a decision on where they wanted our jurisdictional voice to be located. Once they determined that, they would have a separate discussion on what type of regulations or protections needed to be imposed. It was a two step process. Mayor Lundberg said having as much information as possible would help them with that discussion Mr. Grimaldi said staff would get as much information as they could. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 10, 2012 Page 10 Mayor Lundberg thanked the staff from SUB for attending and presenting. 6:55pm: Council took a five- minute break. 3. City Priorities for 2015 -2018 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Transportation Manager Tom Bovatt and Senior Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. Mr. Boyatt noted that Frannie Brindle, Area 5 Manager from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). was in the audience. In recent months, at the Governor's request, ODOT and the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) significantly revised the STIP process. Between September 2012 and March 2013, the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) and the Lane Area Commission on Transportation (L -ACT) would review and recommend priorities to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) for inclusion in the new "Enhance" (was Modernization) portion of the 2015 -2018 STIP. As with past practice; ODOT would continue to recommend projects from the state's management systems (e.g. Preservation, Safety) for the "Fix It" program. but was also seeking input on those projects. The shift to the new STIP approach was very complicated and still being understood by all parties. Application materials were currently being refined and would be available on September 20, 2012. There would be significant competition for limited funding in this STIP cycle, with approximately $5 million available in Lane County for each of the three funded years, 2016, 2017, 2018. The area of most interest to local governments was the shift from the old "Modernization" program to the new "Enhance" program. The new Enhance program collapsed a variety of ODOT programs into one single program, and broadened the range of eligible projects in an effort to create a new process that could fund `complete projects', thereby realizing greater efficiencies. Example: In past practice the modernization program would fund a highway element, the bike /pedestrian or transportation enhancement prograrn would fund those elements, and the bridge program would fund that element (if there was one). even though each of those pieces were part of the same overall project. Now, the Enhance program was attempting to fund `complete' projects, and most of the stand alone funding pots, such as they were. were being funneled into the Enhance program. Within the new Enhance program there had also been a significant shift in focus away from purely highway or roadway projects to projects which addressed multi -modal needs and enhanced community and economic development. There was a new emphasis on community priorities and a shift away, from traditional "highway" priorities. This meant a variety of types of projects would compete against each other for funding.. e.g. bike /pedestrian vs. highway. During tonight's meeting, staff would present a draft list for Council consideration of both Fix It recommendations to ODOT, and Enhance projects for MPC and L -ACT consideration. The process was on an accelerated timeline. MPC and the L -ACT would see draft project lists in September, provide project endorsements in November, projects to 150% of available funding in December and January and submit final priorities to ODOT in March 2013. A complete calendar of the planned process sequence was shown on page 16 of Attachment 2 of the agenda packet. Mr. Reesor said staff had been working with partner agencies on the different projects to be presented. He described the three main projects that were being recommended for the Enhance program: 1) Franklin Boulevard Phase l Construction, $5M (ODOT and Lane Transit District Partnership): 2) 42nd Street, E Street to OR 126 Westbound Ramp Terminal, Safety and Mobility Improvements and Rail Crossing Upgrade. $1M; and 3) Weyerhaeuser Haul Road_ Acquisition for City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 10, 2012 Page 11 Multi -Use Path/Green Street, $750k (Possible Willamalane Partnership). He referred to the projects listed in the agenda packet that had been considered, but were not on the final list. Many were still pending other grant funds. Mr. Boyatt said ODOT had replaced the fragmented system with a multi -modal selection process that was more responsive to communities' priorities. There used to be five programs and they were now looking to de -silo the funding pots. Those five were now broken down in to two sections: Enhance (which was similar to the old modernization); and Fix -It (repairing, preserving, etc.). For the Fix -it projects.. the OTC made the decision on projects that came out of their project list. The projects for the Enhance piece came out of the all area ACT process after each of the ACTS brought forward lists for funding. There was about $5M per year for the next two or three years for all of Lane County. The total of the metro projects proposed was about $35M and there were still other projects to be considered. Because of the limited funds, they hoped to bring forward the projects that fit the criteria and didn't ask for full funding. With many projects brought forward, it would be difficult to choose priorities. Councilor Wylie asked how much support there was for the Franklin Boulevard project from other jurisdictions. Mr. Boyatt said there was support from Lane Transit District (LTD). but they also had other projects they were proposing. There was support from ODOT as a partner for the project. The MPC and L- ACT would have a difficult time negotiating down to a $5M list from $50M. Councilor Wylie asked if there was one project that everyone wanted Mr. Reesor said there wasn't one project that everyone supported, but when staff put together the City's list, the Franklin Boulevard project seemed to fit well with the criteria and what ODOT was looking for. It seemed right, was in the heart of the Metro area and benefited the whole area. Councilor Moore said it had been mentioned by a County Commissioner during one of the joint elected officials meeting that the County was interested in the McVay Highway project as they looked at redeveloping Goshen. She asked if that had been considered. Mr. Boyatt said more land use work had been done on the Franklin Boulevard project than McVay. Also, it fit well with the focus on the Glenwood Riverfront. The McVay Highway did need a lot of work. but an overlay surface preservation could extend the life of that facility until it was a higher priority. Mayor Lundberg asked for clarification on the process. It seemed that staff was looking for direction from the Council on the City's top three priorities. The City would then present our top priorities to the Metropolitan Policy Organization (MPO) with our best narratives of why those projects were most deserving. The City did support other projects that were worthy of consideration in the metropolitan area. Those priorities would then go to the L -ACT where that large group would review many projects and try to select the few that would go on to the OTC. This was a very delicate process. She liked the things that had been put together, but was unclear about the process and if the City would just be presenting our arguments of our top choices. Mr. Boyatt said staff was proposing to apply for all three projects. After they submitted applications and got a better sense from ODOT about their scoping, staff might come back and ask for City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September l0, 2012 Page 12 prioritization which could be helpful. Nobody really knew how this process would roll out as it was the first time it was being used. After hearing all of the narratives, the political leaders would likely sit down and talk about areas of highest priority. The OTC would be looking for projects that fit the criteria, but giving authority for decision making to the ACTs. The L -ACT would need to keep the priority order as submitted by the OTC, and would ultimately try to reach a consensus of what 150% would look like. It would take a lot of meaningful conversations to reach agreement. Mayor Lundberg said this was setting a new level of working together. Staff would go forward and make applications for the three priorities, and then they may come back after making applications to get direction for priorities from the Council. Mr. Boyatt said all of the jurisdictions' and agencies' projects were going to MPC and the L -ACT this month for a first look. Next month, the MPC would start to discuss and prioritize the projects, talk about them again in November, submit applications in November and continue meeting monthly trying to sort the list to something close to 150% of the funds available. The timeline listed in the agenda packet was much accelerated. March 15. 2013 was when the ACTs would submit their recommendations. Mr. Reesor said tonight it would be helpful to bear from Council that the three projects proposed were good to submit for applications, or if staff had missed something. He asked if Council had any questions about any other projects. Councilor Moore asked if the $5M could be divided into smaller amounts to get part of several projects. Mr. Boyatt said staff often talked about how projects could be phased. They were investigating other options to match funding with Finance and ODOT. They would take anything they could get and match it up to leverage development. Councilor Moore asked if it was more likely to get funded if they asked for $5M or $2.5M. Mr. Boyatt said the L -ACT would discuss that issue, but the City did have flexibility. The funds would not be awarded until 2016. Councilor Pishioneri asked if these projects were part of the Fix -It Program Mr. Boyatt said staff had three priorities that they would be recommending to ODOT for the Fix -It Program. Those priorities were separate from the priorities being recommended for the Enhance Program. Staff was recommending that when they brought the projects on the Fix -It list forward, they could say that Council validated those projects. Councilor Pishioneri said the highest priority for him in the Fix -It list was 42, the Main Street Pedestrian Improvements. He was glad to know that was separate, but asked about the cost of the items in the Fix -It list. The Enhancement Program projects looked good. Mr. Boyatt said they didn't know the costs for the downtown pedestrian project. The cost for the other projects were: Virginia -Daisy Bike Boulevard — about $500,000 to $800.000; Franklin NEPA Gap Funding — about $200.000; Glenwood Riverfront Path NEPA Analysis — about $800.000; and the Beltline/Hutton Intersection Control - $5.000. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 10, 2012 Page 13 Councilor Pishioneri asked if the Glenwood Riverfront Path was separate from the Franklin project. Mr. Boyatt said it was a stand -alone project Councilor Wylie was comfortable with the staff recommendations. The City had tried for the TIGER grant for the Franklin Boulevard project. She had talked to other groups about the Franklin Boulevard project for years and she wanted this to happen in her lifetime. It would be good to let Council know about the overall plans for the community and how projects fit into other planning. It would be nice to see the whole picture and the vision for the community. She didn't understand the rail crossing upgrade and asked if that included a quiet zone. Mr. Boyatt said that was a spur that was degraded. Union Pacific would not do anything to fix it so the City was looking for options. Councilor Wylie said she was supportive of staffs work. Mr. Boyatt said next time staff brought this to Council, they would bring a map to show where these projects were in context of other plans. Councilor Wylie said when Em.X was put in, it was based on the realignment of Franklin Boulevard. There were a lot of things that fed into the redevelopment of Glenwood. She was very excited for this project. Councilor Woodrow said she also approved the list presented by staff. She noted that 42nd and E was a very bad crossing with many potholes near the railroad crossing. She was curious about the Bob Straub and Mt. Vernon crossing improvement and how they could get that done. She understood it was a Lane County highway. but it was a very dangerous crossing for both vehicles and pedestrians. Mr. Reesor said that was the only project Lane County had said they would apply for recently. They had made it to Phase II on this project with a recent ODOT bike grant. That grant wouldn't be finalized before the applications were due, so they had two opportunities for this grant. Mr. Boyatt said staff was aware of the need and noted that the Council had convened on that site a couple of years ago. The City was partnering with the County to advance the project. City would be in support of the County getting that project. Mr. Reesor said many of the projects were listed with multiple partners. Councilor VanGordon said he supported the list as presented by staff. Mayor Lundberg said she. too. supported the list. 4. Update on Fire Merger. Springfield Fire Chief Randall Groves presented the staff report on this item. Since last reporting to the Council in March, Springfield and Eugene had been working together to fully consolidate the cities' two fire departments. The purpose of tonight's meeting was to update the Council on how City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 10. 2012 Page 14 Springfield had benefited from the merger thus far and provide information about the costs involved in fully consolidating the two departments. At its meeting of March 12. 2012, the City Council directed the City Manager to negotiate an intergovernmental agreement that implemented the merger of the two fire departments and also negotiated labor agreements that reflected a merged organization. The Cities of Springfield and Eugene have been working together to consolidate their fire departments by using an incremental approach where the first step in the merger was the sharing of certain key administrative personnel. The next step in the process was to normalize the collective bargaining agreements for both cities and form a single department for operations as well as administrative personnel. An update regarding the costs and benefits of the merger was being presented to better inform the discussions regarding labor negotiations. Chief Groves said Council would be going into Executive Session later this evening to discuss IAFF negotiations regarding a single contract. Chief Groves provided background on the process of merging departments which started in 2007 with the integrated response systems (Third Battalion). As a benefit from that., the two cities had provided better service to the public, reduced costs. and reduced overtime call -back. He discussed figures from last year related to construction fires and the reduced number of overtime call- backs. The two departments had seen cost savings with the apparatus purchasing and sharing agreement. He provided an example. There were other things they had accomplished such as a joint grant application that was received that may not have been received if they had applied separately. Also they were able to get a better cost on some equipment by purchasing it together. The departments were now using and maintaining the same equipment which was a better way to do business. Chief Groves noted that in addition, the two departments had a joint recruitment and selection process which saved each City about $15,000. Training was now shared providing more efficiencies in that area, and the two departments shared administrative costs saving additional funds. Funds saved by Springfield through administrative costs were about $285,000 in FY11. $413,000 in FY12, with projected savings of about $573,000 for FY 13. Through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) the two departments had been able to move Fire Marshal staff back and forth which had provided efficiencies and better operations. The two departments had purchased the same software to update the records management system and were configuring it the same to make both departments more efficient. A joint strategic plan, work plan and standards of cover had also been developed. Chief Groves noted that the cost to unwind the merger was projected at $380.000 - $520,000. The reason there was a range was because they were not sure if everything that had been eliminated would be replaced due to economic circumstances. He asked if the Council had any questions Council had no questions. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes September 10; 2012 Page 15 Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa L�oT l�?l Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: r Amy So` a City Recorder