Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/2001 Work Session . . . , , ~. MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 200 I The Springfield City Council met in work session at Springfield City Hall, Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, on Monday, September 10, 2001,at 5:30 p.m. with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Lundberg, Ralston, and Simmons. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Recorder Kim Krebs, and members of staff. 1. HB 2142 Priorities. Traffic Manager Nick Amis was present for the staff report. He said the purpose of the work session was to present information, and seek council's endorsement of the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) metro project priorities for HB2l42 funding and provide direction for City Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) members. Mr. Amis referred to an overhead map, and highlighted the various changes in Phase I. He reminded council that the TPC created a draft modernization priority list for MPC review and approval. He said the list is based on the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) threshold and priority ranking criteria, and local knowledge of transportation and land use needs. Possible projects were considered from existing metro project rankings lists (Oregon Department of Transportation Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) list) and the draft TransPlan financially constrained and future project lists. He highlighted the information in the Council Briefing Memorandum (CBM) and reviewed the draft TPC ranking list: 1. 1-5 Beltline interchange (Phase I) 2. Beltline Stage 3 (Royal to West II) 3. Pioneer Parkway Extension (PPE) 4. CoburglBeltline interchange 5. Highway 126 (West 11 th) 6. 1-105 (Washington-Jefferson Bridge) 7. 6thnth intersections 8. Springfield - Creswell Highway (Jasper Rd) $ 35 million $ 17 million $3.3 million $1.0 million $4.5 million $4.5 million $0.5 million $5.5 million Mr. Amis highlighted HB 2142 process and important dates that are coming up over the next few months. Mr. Amis reminded council of the OTC' s tour of the City of Springfield on the 19th of September. He said those attending and involved in the tour are the decision makers, and will be making the final decision. He said he sees this as an opportunity to make them see that Springfield's projects are worthy. There was discussion about what changes would be made in the various projects. After discussion council consensus was to endorse the funding, and continue the good work. . . . , Springfield City Council Work Session - September 10, 2001 Page - 2 2. Flood Plain Development Practices. Planning Manager Greg Mott was present for the staff report. He provided a handout of the response to the Response for Proposal (RFP) prepared by VRS Corporation. Mr. Mott explained the RFP process. He said the response address most of the issues, and has a cost of $97,000. He highlighted the information in the response to the RFP. He said even though staff has calculated the work for this discussion, this particular RFP did not include the environmental impact components of an evaluation that might incorporate the issues that involve the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act (ESA) considerations. He said there is other work ongoing, and again stated this was not requested in the RFP process. Mr. Mott highlighted the information in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS), and attachments. Councilor Fitch asked whether or not funds were available in the budget this year for this work. Mr. Mott said no, the $97,000 was not budgeted. There was discussion regarding receiving only one response to the RFP, and whether or not the cost seemed reasonable. Mr. Mott said in his opinion, there are other qualified consultants that would be able to accomplish the work for less. Councilor Hatfield said one thing that needs to be accomplished is to bring FEMA maps into compliance with reality. He hopes staff will make an effort to apply for grants to assist in that process. Councilor Simmons said the flood hazard is one question of approximately seven, and it will be important to obtain an integrated approach, that addresses the riparian issue, and biological issue. There was discussion regarding a biological assessment of the Middle Fork of the Willamette River. Mr. Mott said a lot is happening statewide related to flood-plain development, and whether or not cities should continue to allow building on those lands. He said the objective going into this is to start with an initial premise that the UBG and floodplain in some areas are one and the same. The cumulative effect of flood plain activity has not been evaluated until recently, and it was determined that the boundary of the flood plain was different than the FEMA map. He said the hope is for a better understanding of what causes the discrepancy, or are there legitimate miscalculations. Councilor Lundberg said she is supportive of obtaining good information because we are moving out to that area, and it has been an issue. She said timing might be an issue that can be worked with, does it have to happen now, or do we have some time to apply for some grants, or are there other options. She suggested possibly going out for another RFP that includes more information, and possibly waiting for response from the courts on Ballot Measure 7. She said it is important to have a consistent policy. . . . / Springfield City Council Work Session - September 10,2001 Page - 3 Mr. Mott said almost all of the vacant land in the floodpiain is outside the city limits, so the rules that would apply related to development and timeliness are different. He said that one option available until council has additional information is that key urban services will not be available, and annexing these properties will not be accomplished until such time as key services are available. There was discussion as to whether or not the City can petition FEMA to update their flood plain maps. Councilor Fitch said she understands the importance, however, the latest FEMA update was in 1985, and those maps were adopted by ordinance. She asked if it was the city's responsibility to create the maps for FEMA? Mr. Mott said in the proposal handout on page 7, the table does include FEMA coordination and project management. Councilor Ralston asked if it was necessary to have the maps changed officially before council makes a decision. He said to have a document with specific guidelines is necessary. But until the funding is available he sees a need to at least have a basic understanding. He said there is no questions that changes are needed, either no net fill or evaluate the whole system. He said some balancing options are needed. Mr. Mott said he thinks that is something that has been accepted in some other communities. He said the other information that could influence what council would like to do from a policy standpoint, is the ongoing storm water development issue, and the need to modernize, and the need to accommodate what will happen in the future. He said it might not be something as simple as not allowing development. Councilor Ballew said she does not think the cost looks so out of balance for the RFP. If we can't fmd a grant to fund the study, the classic liability is that the city knew or should have known; we have a lot to lose. She asked what would happen if the city found the FEMA maps to be inappropriate, and what liability would the city then have. She said she sees the importance of this issue being addressed. Mr. Mott said most of the land in questions is residential, he said there has not been a high demand for these properties, but that isn't to say that his staff is receiving applications. He said the urgency right now is to know what is going on, not because we have to develop that land, with the exception of Glenwood. City Manager Mike Kelly said the reason that staff brought this item forward for discussion, was to seek direction from council on what they would like to see happen in relation to flood plain development practices. He said the development and fmancial issue might be totally separate. He said the issue is vital; staff is receiving applications and requests for development. He said staff does need some direction from council on how they should perform and base their work. He asked council for some clarification in what they would like staff to return with for their review in the future. . . . i Springfield City Council Work Session - September la, 2001 Page - 4 Mr. Kelly said because annexation of property is discretionary, property owners have the right to request FEMA as part of the condition of the annexation to determine how accurate their maps really are. Council further discussed the need for a study, however they are not comfortable going forward with just one response to the RFP. They would like an informational update from staff regarding what grants might be available to assist with the funding. City Attorney Joe Leahy said council in their capacity as elected officials, have enacted a land use code, which is outlined in the Springfield Development Code. He said that Code identifies criteria in which the council evaluates applications and proposals. After further discussion, council consensus was: · Need to have Ballot Measure 7 resolved prior to making any firm decisions, and need to slow things down until that information becomes available; · Inform FEMA of the discrepancies in the flood plain maps taking into account the 1996- 97 floods, and officially request that they correct those maps; · Seek grants to pay for work necessary to properly identify flood plain; · Until such time as a final decision is made, inform any developer who may express an interest in developing near a flood plain ofthe discrepancy, and until such is work is done by FEMA or the city to correctly identify flood plain, that the work must be done by the developer and must be submitted with the development or annexation application. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:49 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Kim Krebs <: