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
<: