Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/05/2012 RegularCity of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2012 The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers; 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon; on Monday, November 5, 2012 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie, Moore; Ralston and Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg. SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT 1. Lane County Stand Down Proclamation. Mayor Lundberg noted that on Saturday. November 10 and Sunday, November 1 I, the community would be recognizing our veterans. As part of that, she would be presenting the Lane County Stand Down Proclamation at the Saturday event. She read from the proclamation. 2. Pacific Northwest Diabetes Week. Mayor Lundberg said as someone who was diabetic. this was an important subject to her. It was important to recognize this disease as something people dealt with every day. She read from the proclamation. Eric Kendall and Diabetes Educator Terry Cornell were present to accept the proclamation. Mr. Kendall noted that November 14; 2012 was World Diabetes Day. He introduced Terry Cornell who was an inpatient diabetes educator at RiverBend. There would be a number of events next week at RiverBend and he encouraged those with diabetes to attend. Ms. Cornell said as a nurse, she saw patients every day that didn't understand or comprehend what diabetes really was and how it affected their lives. She tried to help them better understand. She hoped many people would attend the events next week at RiverBend. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claims 2. Minutes a. July 30, 2012— TEAM Springfield Mid -Year Social/Meeting b. October 8, 2012 — Work Session City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 5, 2012 Page 2 c. October 15, 2012 — Work Session d. October 15, 2012 — Regular Meeting e. October 22, 2012 — Work Session 3. Resolutions 4. Ordinances 5. Other Routine Matters a. Allow Utility Installation Activities Outside of the Hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. by Comcast in the Vicinity of 1611 18th Street with Conditions as Described in Attachment 1. b. Approve a Motion to Award the Purchase of an Asphalt Patching Machine to Northwest Manufacturing & Distribution, Inc. in the Amount of $101,414.42. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. ITEMS REMOVED PUBLIC HEARINGS-- Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not yield their time to others. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield (Portion of 16'" Street Right -of -Way and Lot 4 of the Plan of First Addition to Delrose Addition: Municipally Addressed as 2576 16" Street) Case Number C SP 2012 — ANX 12- 00001. ORDINANCE NO. 1 — AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD. LANE COUNTY METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER SERVICE DISTRICT, AND WILLAMALANE PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT: AND WITHDRAWING THE SAME TERRITORY" FROM THE RAINBOW WATER AND FIRE DISTRICT (FIRST READING). City Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. A request for annexation to the City of Springfield had been received from John Nonage and Diane Mattison - Nonage, owners of property at 2576 16ifi Street (Attachment 3, Exhibit B of the agenda packet). The subject annexation territory was a residential lot with an existing single family dwelling that had a failed septic system. The property was less than 300 feet from the nearest City sanitary sewer line, and in accordance with OAR 340- 071- 0160(4)(A) a new septic system could not be installed on the site and must be connected to the sanitary sewer. The property owners were requesting annexation to the City to facilitate connection of the dwelling to City sanitary sewer. The City Council was authorized by ORS Chapter 222 and SDC Article 5.7 -100 to act on annexation requests. In accordance with SDC 5.7 -155 and ORS 222.040, 222.180 and 222.465, if approved the annexation would become effective 30 days after signature by the Mayor or upon acknowledgement by the State — whichever date was later. The subject property was currently zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) with an Urbanizable Fringe Overlay (1-117-10) and was located inside the Springfield urban growth City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 5, 2012 Page 3 boundary, (UGB). Urban services were available at or near the frontage of the subject site, or could be extended to serve the property. According to the most recent Lane County Assessment and Taxation records (Tax Year 2011) the subject property had an assessed value of $127,966. The subject property was within an established neighborhood with a full suite of available urban services, so an Annexation Agreement was not required for this request. In lieu of an Annexation Agreement, a utility servicing plan for extension of sanitary sewer to the property had been prepared by staff (Attachment 3, Exhibit C of the agenda packet). Construction costs for extension of the sanitary sewer connection to the subject dwelling were the responsibility of the property owners. The property was not contiguous with the City limits, so staff recommended annexing a portion of the 16`s Street right -of -way to achieve contiguity (Attachment 3, Exhibit A of the agenda packet). As outlined in the attached staff report (Attachment 1 of the agenda packet), the annexation area could be served with the minimum level of key urban facilities and services as required in the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. The attached staff report also confirmed the annexation request met the criteria established in Section 5.7 -100 of the Springfield Development Code. Staff recommended the City Council (a) approve the annexation of territory, as shown on Exhibit A to the annexation request, to the City of Springfield, Willamalane Park and Recreation District, and Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District; and (b) withdraw the same territory, from the Rainbow Water and Fire District. Mr. Limbird noted several steps staff had taken in order to save the property owner time and costs. The property owners had requested through the Development and Public Works Director, the creation of a Reimbursement District. The property owner did front -end the costs for extension of the sewer lateral. Those discussions would be held with the Development and Public Works Director, and brought back to Council at a later date if deemed appropriate. This situation was dealt with as an emergency. The property, was already hooked up to the sewer and now they were going through the administrative aspects of the annexation request. Mr. Limbird said after tonight's hearing, if Council had no changes or concerns, this would be prepared for a second reading on November 19. The adopted ordinance would then be fonvarded to the State and County for further conclusion of the annexation. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing No one appeared to speak. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. NO .ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY Councilor Pishioneri noted that there were several components in the changes to the Engineering Desigtt Standards that he would like to have further discussed during a work session before moving forward. If the Council did not object, he would like to pull this item from the agenda. The issues he would like to discuss were regarding the sidewalk section. Council had no objections and Public Hearing #2, Proposed Amendments to the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual was pulled from the agenda. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 5, 2012 Page 4 2. Proposed Amendments to the City's Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. (Pulled) RESOLUTION NO. 1 — A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD. 3. Proposed Updates to Municipal Code 2.700 through 2.718 and Adding Section 2.709. ORDINANCE NO. 2 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AMENDING SECTIONS 2.700 THROUGH 2.718.. 'PUBLIC CONTRACTS" OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS 2.702. 2.701 2.704. 2.706. 2.708. 2.712 AND ADDING SECTION 2.709 TO THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE. Procurement Officer Jayne McMahan presented the staff report on this item. Following the October 8, 2012 Work Session the changes to the Municipal Code 2.700 through 2.712 and added section 2.709 were being recommended as set forth in the draft ordinance attached to the agenda packet. The State of Oregon Legislature passed HB3316 which required the City to update our Municipal Code surrounding how we selected certain consultants for engineering, surveying and architectural professional services. The changes also presented the Council with choices as to whether to adopt certain cost savings and process improvement by updating the dollar threshold for the formal solicitation process, and included the use of electronic means for solicitations and contract execution. During the Oct. 8`h Work Session the Council considered the following updates to the municipal code: 1. 1-1133316 passage requires the use of a qualifications based selection process only (price cannot be an evaluation criteria) for any solicitation hiring a consultant for engineering, surveying and architectural professional services where the anticipated fee is over $100,000.00. 2. Cost savings and process improvements a. Increase the purchasing threshold for formal procurement from $35,000.00 to $100,000.00 b. Allow the use of electronic means in Contracts and Solicitations Ms. McMahan described the changes in more detail. She noted how the last two changes would make a more efficient and streamlined process for both the City and the customer. Ms. McMahan noted that Council had several questions during their October 8 work session regarding the purchasing threshold. The first was regarding purchases less than $5000 on the small informal bids. There was a provision for small purchases which encouraged efforts to obtain three quotes, but allowed a contract to be bid with less than three quotes as long as there was a written record of the effort. The second was regarding cost savings. A shorter timeline would save the City in terms of staff time, material costs and advertising costs. It would allow for faster turnaround for projects in the procurement of goods and services. In terms of time savings, a conservative estimate was between 5 -6 weeks for most procurement, and an additional 2 -4 weeks with larger construction contracts. In terms of staff costs, a conservative estimate was 8 -12 hours of staff time saved at an average rate with benefits of about $50/hour. The third area in cost savings was in advertising and printing costs. A conservative estimate of costs saved in advertising was about $2500 per solicitation. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 5, 2012 Page 5 Ms. McMahan said Council had also asked during the October 8 work session for a notification of bid awards between $50.000 and $100,000. Staff was prepared to provide a spreadsheet in the Communication Packets if requested by Council. Ms. McMahan noted that staff would bring this back to Council in about 6 months to a year with an update on how the changes were working. Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing. NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE Buzz Forbes. 5682 C Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. Forbes said he was here to speak regarding removal of the barricades at 56h and 57'h Street tied in to the work being done on the sewer system. A letter was sent from the contractor, Kipco and the City that notified the neighbors that work would be started and that there would be some road changes that would be temporary through August or September. They were now hearing from City staff that the barricade would not be going up again. The neighbors had an agreement with the City some years back that this barricade would stay and the neighbors were quite upset with the City. He provided a copy of the letter to the City Recorder for distribution to the Council. This was a safety issue and the neighbors would like to see the City put that barricade back up. If the City engineers wanted to address this issue, they should do it properly and let the neighbors know what they would be studying. During that study. the City should put the barricade back in place. This was not the correct process. 2. Robert Murphree. 309 56t° Street, Springfield. OR. Mr. Murphree agreed with Mr. Forbes. The barricade was at the end of his street, a gravel road. He wanted the barricade back up when they finished with the construction because he didn't want a lot of traffic going up and down the road. He had lived there for seven years and it had been a dead -end street the entire time. Some of the neighbors that lived by the barricade had kids and leaving the barricade down could cause safety issues for those children. Brad Ramano, 5650 C Street. Springfield, OR Mr. Ramano said he had lived in his house for 1 1 years and was here to talk about the barricades. When they received something from the City, they respected it. They received information from the City about an update to the sewer system and that the barricades would be moved during this project. The neighbors were now hearing that the barricades were not going to be put back up. Mr. Ramano talked with the City Engineer who said there was not a lot of traffic on that road. A speed sign was put up at 57h Street which was a gravel road so people didn't speed there anyway, but now the amount of traffic had increased dramatically. There were many small children in the neighborhood. The traffic had increased, especially in the evening and late at night. A couple of trees had been damaged by speeders. This street should not be a short cut to get to Main Street. If the barricade was going to stay down, improvements needed to be made to that street such as City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 5, 2012 Page 6 sidewalks, paved streets and speed bumps. In the interim; he would like to see the barricades back up. 4. Joseph Nunsioto. 5653 C Street. Springfield. OR. Mr. Nunsioto said he was opposed to the barricades coming down. There were many small children in the neighborhood. Many people moved into the neighborhood under the pretense that this was a dead end street and would not have a lot of traffic. With Main Street and businesses so close, it was dangerous leaving the barricades down allowing for a lot of traffic to go through the area. 5. Billy Meink 11. Springfield. OR. Mr. Meink said he bought his house because it was advertised as being on a dead -end street. He had two Young kids and that was why he bought at this location. He would like to see this remain a dead -end street. COUNCIL RESPONSE Mayor Lundberg asked if there were sidewalks on that street Mr. Nunsioto said there were sidewalks on the paved road, but not on the unpaved roads (56" and 57" Streets). Mr. Grimaldi said staff was looking at the situation and would bring it to Council for discussion sometime in December. Removal or installation of barricades was always a sensitive issue. At this time, staff had not come to any conclusion on whether or not to put the barricades back up or keep, them down. If barricades did come down, something should be done to the street to address safety and staff would also be looking at that option. Council would snake the decision. Councilor Pishioneri said it also took Council action to have barricades permanently removed. He said he looked forward to the work session. Mr. Grimaldi said staff would let the neighbors know when Council took this under consideration Councilor Wylie asked why barricades couldn't go back up at this time until this was resolved. Development and Public Works Director Len Goodwin said staff was still investigating all of the issues including safety and fire response. A permanent decision would not be made without Council. Staff questioned the use of City resources in putting the barricades back up during this study in the event it was determined to take them down. They hoped to have a final decision in less than a month. Councilor Pishioneri said he understood the issue of use of resources. but would recommend temporary barricades be put up to mitigate the problem and keep the neighborhood status quo until a decision could be made. Mr. Goodwin said he would check with staff to make sure the sewer work was finished and then consider temporary barricades. Councilor Pishioneri said temporary barricades could be moved by contractors Councilor Woodrow said she agreed with temporary barricades. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 5, 2012 Page 7 Mayor Lundberg said she had been through barricade issues in the past and it was always a difficult situation. She was hopeful they could find a resolution that was satisfactory to everyone. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS BIDS ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments 2. Business from Council a. Committee Reports b. Other Business. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER Long Term Agreement -,v/Freshwater Trust for Mill Race Planting Projects Assistant Project Coordinator Todd Miller presented the staff report on this item. In March 2010; City Council approved entering into a Sponsorship Agreement (Attachment 1 of the agenda packet) with the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MRTMC) to develop riparian shade restoration projects on the Springfield Mill Race. In August 2012, the MWMC contracted with The Freshwater Trust (TFT) to implement the projects. TFT now needed to enter into a conservation agreement (Attachment 2 of the agenda packet) with the City of Springfield to allow TFT long -term access to the site(s) and ensure the site(s) would be protected from any potentially conflicting activities. The agreement provided the City's general approval of any planting locations along the Mill Race as deemed appropriate and authorized by the Development and Public Works Director during project implementation. This arrangement provided the most efficient means of identifying, restoring, and crediting planting locations under the MWMC's agreement with TFT. The City of Springfield would benefit from this agreement both as an MWMC partner and as custodian of the Mill Race restoration. The 25 -year restoration projects would further the City's objectives for Mill Race ecosystem restoration while reducing demands on City maintenance resources. The agreement required the City to avoid damaging the restored areas. City staff and partners (such as Willamalane Park and Recreation District) would need to coordinate other restoration and recreational activities in the vicinity of TFT management areas so as to not harm or hinder their viability. For private land restoration; TFT typically entered into conservation easements or site leases for annual payments in exchange for land committed to restoration. Any costs of these transactions would be incurred by the MWMC. Public lands not requiring such compensation would afford more cost - effective restoration to the MWMC. No such lease or easement payments would be received by the City under this agreement. City of Springfield Council Regular Meetine Minutes November 5, 2012 Page 8 Councilor Pishioneri asked if that was moving water. Yes. He asked if that would be the stretch ODFW planned to stock. Mr. Miller said that Jeff Ziller from the ODFW had discussed that could occur somewhere in that Mill Pond downstream. This particular reach was narrowing to allow for a deeper flow. Councilor Pishioneri noted concern in the agreement under Section 3? that spoke of non - inclusive access and under Section 3.3.6 which seemed to conflict with 3.2 regarding access. That section gave TFT authority and addressed access; but not who would have access — the City or the public. He also had concerns about the reference to TFT putting up temporary fencing. He referred to the last sentence in Section 3.2 that stated "The Access Route must be not less than twelve feet in width ". He felt this was a great project and it was important to cool the waters, but he still had some concerns. There were some holes in the agreement that needed to address public access to public lands. Mr. Miller noted that staff and the City's legal counsel also had some concerns regarding this section. . It was the City's recommendation that access was not exclusive. The concern of TFT was that they were guaranteeing to restore the area in order to meet regulatory requirements and once that work was started, they needed to get it done. After discussion; staff and legal counsel felt that the language addressed an understanding of what TFT needed in order to insure the plants were established before people had access. In the long term, this would be an open and natural area. Councilor Pishioneri said he still had significant concerns. There was nothing in the agreement that said the public could have access. If TFT could put up fences; he was concerned that in the future the public could be completely shut out of the area. Mr. Miller said it sounded like staff needed to come back with specificity of what was allowed in Section 3.3. The difficulty was in trying to address all potential issues that could come up over the next twenty years. Councilor Pishioneri referred to language in agreements with PeaceHealth and in the Oxbow Project that allowed reasonable access without damaging the plantings. Mr. Grimaldi said it sounded like Councilor Pishioneri was looking for some type of affirmative statement that the public would have access to the water. _ Councilor Pishioneri said he didn't want to negate the project, but felt it needed to say that the public would still have access. Mr. Goodwin said the last sentence of Section 3.3 provided that land could be used for any purpose, educational and access. Councilor Pishioneri said his main concern was in Section 3.2 and that if this property, was ever transferred to another agency, it would be transferred with the agreement as written. Mr. Goodwin noted that if the property was transferred, it would only be done with consent of the Council. Mr. Grimaldi said staff would work in addressing Councilor Pishioneri's concerns and bring this back for further discussion. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 5, 2012 Page 9 Councilor Ralston said he understood installing temporary fencing to allow the plants to grow, but didn't want the temporary fences to be in place for ten years. He agreed the agreement should state that the public was not prohibited. Staff would come back with more specific language. 2. Acceptance of Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Grant to Support Main Street Corridor Community Visioning. Planning Supervisor Linda Pauly presented the staff report on this item. As the City's primary mid- town east -west access and circulation spine and its longest commercial strip, the 7 -mile Main Street/ Oregon Highway 126B corridor provided access to many Springfield neighborhoods and destinations. A significant amount of Springfield's planned and zoned commercial and industrial lands were located along the Main Street/Highwav 1268 corridor. "All roads lead to Main Street" was true in more than just a geographic sense. In one way or another, the corridor influenced. was influenced by, or directly intersected major land use and transportation planning projects currently being conducted and implemented by the City of Springfield. The work funded by the grant would support and build on the Springfield 2030 Plan, the Main Street Safety Study, Downtown planning, the Downtown Main Street Program. and LTD's study of potential future transit improvements. The purpose of this project was to engage the Springfield community in a planning process to envision a preferred future for the corridor that capitalized on strengths already in place, made sense to stakeholders and facilitated streamlining of future public and private investments. The grant would pay for $200.000 in consultant services to facilitate interactive workshops, stakeholder interviews, and other citizen participation opportunities. The Visioning process would initiate a broad community discussion about what worked and didn't work right now and what made the most sense for the future. What kinds of land use and physical changes did the community aspire to see in this important thoroughfare? Where were the best opportunities for redevelopment? How did bus transit fit into the redevelopment picture and where were the best places for possible transit station improvements? By engaging affected stakeholders at the very beginning of the planning- for -change process, the community could help identify, articulate, visualize and choose incremental steps that would move towards an overall vision for the Main Street corridor. This project would be closely coordinated with the LTD Main Street transit concepts evaluation. Staff had requested and received agreement from ODOT for a fast - tracking of the TGM process to allow a more "quick response approach" to conducting this work. At this time, staff expected that consultant selection and negotiations with ODOT would be completed by January 2013, and that initial community outreach communications could begin as early as March 2013. Ms. Pauly said they were working to coordinate multiple projects on Main Street. including Main Street safety, LTD's EmX project and land use update. Interagency meetings had occurred and all were working on a coordinated approach. Mayor Lundberg said that was her main concern. She wanted to make sure everyone was working together to move, all of the projects forward. Ms. Pauly said the topic of the coordinated effort would be coming to Council on November 13 during their work session. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 5, 2012 Page 10 Mayor Lundberg said it was critically important how this moved forward with everyone working together. She was very supportive. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISHIONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO ACCEPT THE TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT (TGM) GRANT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:52 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa Christine L. Lundberg Mayor Attest: City R rder