HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/16/2005 Regular
, ;
.
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY MAY 16, 2005
The City of Springfield council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, May 16, 2005, at 7:04 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ballew, Ralston, Lundberg, Woodrow and Pishioneri.
Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City
Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Fitch was absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
.
1. Recognition of Troy McAllister for Fifteen Years of Service to the City of Springfield.
City Manager Mike Kelly recognized Troy McAllister for his years of service with the City
of Springfield. Mr. Kelly discussed Mr. McAllister's position with the regional wastewater
program in the city and the importance of that program. He gave a brief history of Mr.
McAllister's background with the city. Mr. Kelly discussed Mr. McAllister's fishing
expeditions and passed around a photo of one of his fishing trips. Mr. Kelly noted the
dedication and hard work of Mr. McAllister and how his co-workers enjoy working with him.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilor Lundberg asked to remove item 1.a. She had a conflict of interest and recused herself
from action on this item.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEM LA REMOVED.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - FITCH).
1. Claims
2. Minutes
.
a. March 28,2005 - Work Session
b. April 4, 2005 - Work Session
c. April 4, 2005 - Regular Meeting
d. April 11, 2005 - Work Session
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2005
Page 2
.
e. April 19, 2005 - Joint Elected Officials Work Session
f. April 19, 2005 - Joint Elected Officials Public Hearing
3. Resolutions
a. RESOLUTION NO. 05-26 - A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PERMIT PROJECT
P30384; PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AT ASPEN PARK SUBDIVISION ON THE
EAST SIDE OF ASPEN STREET BETWEEN DIAMOND STREET AND HAMILTON
STREET.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 05-27 - A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PERMIT PROJECT
P30399; PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AT ASPEN PARK SUBDMSION. FIRST
ADDITION ON DIAMOND STREET.
c. RESOLUTION NO. 05-28 - A RESOLUTION FIXING FEES FOR THE PLACEMENT
UNDERGROUND OF NON-UTILITY FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC WAYS
OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.
4. Ordinances
a. ORDINANCE NO. 6128 - AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING SANITARY SEWER
CHARGES INCLUDING RATES AND AMENDING SECTION 4.206 OF THE
SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE.
.
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Approval to Award the Subject Contract to H & J Construction in the Amount of
$194,482.50 for Project P20389; Sanitary Sewer Repair and Construction, 30th Street
Between Industrial Street and Olympic Street and Vicinity.
b. Approval to Award the Subject Contract to Wildish Construction in the Amount of
$122,711.50 for Project P20289; South 14th Street Improvements Main Street to South A
Street and Vicinity.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
1. a. Approval of the April 2005, Disbursement for Approval.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
BALLEW TO APPROVE ITEM 1.A. OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENTION- LUNDBERG AND 1
ABSENT - FITCH)
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.
.
1. Vacation of a Subdivision Boundary Line (Assessor's Map 18-02-02-12, TL 98 and 99), Jo.
No. LRP2004-00034. .
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2005
Page 3
.
ORDINANCE NO.2 - AN ORDINANCE VACATING A SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY
LINE ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF LOTS 98 AND 99. MCKENZIE HILLS FIRST
ADDITION. AS RECORDED IN FILE 73. SLIDES 89 AND 90. LANE COUNTY.
OREGON PLAT RECORDS. (FIRST READING)
City Planner Sarah Summers presented the staff report on this item. The applicant is requesting
vacation of a subdivision boundary line along the east side of lots 98 and 99 in the McKenzie
Hills First Addition subdivision. This action is in conjunction with a concurrent subdivision replat
application.
The applicant is requesting the vacation of a subdivision boundary line along the east side of lots
98 and 99 in the McKenzie Hills First Addition subdivision. It is the common boundary line
between the above subdivision lots and Tax Lot 5201 on Tax Map 18-02-02-12. The vacation in
conjunction with a concurrent subdivision replat application will allow a portion of lot 99 to be
added to lot 98. The remainder oflot 99 will be dissolved into TL 5201. Both lot 99 and TL 5201
have the same owner. The applications have been submitted in order to correct conditions created
when the house on lot 98 was built within a side yard setback and with its driveway encroaching
into lot 99. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 3, 2005, and voted to
recommend adoption of the proposed vacation ordinance.
.
Ms. Summers said the applicants had hoped to attend tonight's meeting but were detained out of
town. She discussed the issues regarding this property. This had taken a long process to come to
resolution.
Councilor Ballew asked who issued the permit to build the home on this property.
Ms. Summers said the city issued the permit.
Mr. Leahy said there was a question regarding where the pin was located separating the two lots
at the time the city's building inspector arrived.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
NO ACTION. FIRST READING ONLY.
2. Liquor License Endorsements for the Renewal Period of 2005-2006.
Councilor Lundberg recused herself from this item as she had a conflict of interest. Her
restaurant was one of the applicants.
.
Community Services Manager Dave Puent presented the staff report on this item. The attached
list of 122 businesses will likely be applying to the Development Services Department for their
2005-2006 liquor license endorsements prior to June 30, 2005.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2005
Page 4
.
On December 19, 1994, council approved Ordinance No. 5768 that established specific criteria to
be used when reviewing an application for a liquor license endorsement. Council may
recommend denial based upon reliable, factual information as it relates to any of the criteria listed
in Section 7.302 ofthe Springfield Municipal Code.
Some of the required information for liquor license renewal, i.e., ownership of the establishment,
cannot be determined until staff receives the actual application. However, some determination
about meeting the listed criteria can be made now since the criteria relates to the level of police
activity associated with the establishment.
The public hearing this evening is scheduled for council to receive community testimony relative
to the liquor license renewal endorsement. At the conclusion of the public hearing, council is
requested to provide one of the following recommendations to the Oregon Liquor Control
Commission for the license renewal of the listed establishments: 1. Grant; 2. No
Recommendation; 3. Do Not Grant Unless (applicant demonstrates commitment to overcome
listed concerns); or 4. Deny.
Mr. Puent said he had not received any verbal or written communication regarding tonight's
public hearing.
Councilor Ballew said it did not appear there were any establishments that had received an
excessive amount of police calls.
.
Mr. Puent said that was correct. The calls were similar to last year.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
BALLEW TO APPROVE LIQUOR LICENSE ENDORSEMENTS FOR THE RENEWAL
PERIOD OF 2005-2006. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 0
AGAINST. (1 ABSTENTION - LUNDBERG AND 1 ABSENT - FITCH)
3. Annexation of 0.33 Acres of Industrial Property to the City of Springfield, Planning File
LRP2005-00005 (Tumck Tonsh Investment Company, Applicant).
RESOLUTION NO. 05-29 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN TERRITORIES TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ORS 1 99.490(2)(a)(B) AND REQUESTING THAT THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL
GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION APPROVE THE ANNEXATION BY
EXPEDITED PROCEDURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORS 199.466.
.
City Planner Jim Donovan presented the staff report on this item. The applicant/property owners
are re-developing a 1.5 acre site in Glenwood for use as offices and warehouse space for
Chambers Construction Company. A 0.33 acre portion of the larger site is not yet annexed to the
City of Springfield. Pending annexation and concurrent site plan approval for the larger
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2005
Page 5
.
development area, the subject area will be used as a parking lot. The subject site abuts city limits
and the remainder ofthe development site along its east boundary.
Expedited processing by the Boundary Commission is requested to allow issuance of land use
decisions and approval during this summer's construction season.
The City Council is authorized by ORS 199.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate annexation upon receiving
consent in writing from more than half the owners and a majority of the registered electors
residing in the territory proposed to be annexed (i.e. double majority). Written consent from the
owners' group has been obtained; there are no registered electors residing at the site. The city is
authorized to request a twenty-five day processing time in accordance with ORS 199.466. The
expedited Boundary Commission procedure includes notice to affected properties and agencies, a
hearing and remonstrance period is provided upon request of an affected party.
Availability of key urban services required by Section 6.030 of the Springfield Development
Code and Metro Plan Policy 8.a., page II-B-4, including but not limited to fIre, police, sewer,
water, streets and storm drainage, has been reviewed by staff. All services can be provided to the
site in accordance with city codes during a concurrent application for Site Plan Review.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
Noone appeared to speak.
.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 05-29. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - FITCH).
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE - Limited to 20 minutes. 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.
.
1. Dave Carvo. 4010 East 16th. Eugene. OR and Steve Moe. P.O. Box 847. Springfield. OR.
(Mr. Moe and Mr. Carvo requested ten minutes to speak under Business from the Audience.
Their request was approved by council leadership.) Mr. Moe said Glenwood's
Comprehensive Plan included bike paths and access to Glenwood. Franklin Boulevard would
eventually be a main corridor. When Lane Transit District (LTD) made a presentation in
1989, they discussed a bike path in this area. Mr. Moe referred to a map which showed an
area on 14th Street in Glenwood for a proposed bike path. He noted that this area was inside
Springfield city limits and that 14th Street was paved. He noted the areas owned by LTD. He
said Springfield Utility Board (SUB) was putting a water line down 14th Street this summer to
Glenwood Boulevard. Mr. Moe said he and Mr. Carvo had talked with L TD and SUB about
moving the fence back and building a bike path. He discussed how this could connect with
other bike paths in that area. L TD would allow this bike path. SUB said they would put in
their line and put down a compacted gravel surface. He said they needed the city to assist in
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16,2005
Page 6
.
building the bike path. He said it would enable a route into Glenwood that everyone could
use. Residents of Glenwood would be very much appreciative.
Mr. Carvo discussed the timeline and noted that SUB and L TD staff had agreed to this
project. Money would be needed for lighting. He said this path could be built with
impervious surface so as not to affect storm water runoff. They would also approach the
Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA) with this proposal. This path would
alleviate dangerous situations for bicyclists in this area.
Councilor Ballew asked how much it would cost.
Mr. Carvo said they did not yet know. He said they just wanted to offer the concept to
council for their consideration. He said the water line would be going through, and they were
just looking for a way to get lighting and asphalt.
Mr. Moe said the timing would be perfect.
Councilor Ballew said it was not currently on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
budget. She asked if they had talked with public works staff.
Mr. Carvo said they had talked with Nick Arnis in Transportation. Mr. Arnis was checking
into the cost.
.
Councilor Pishioneri suggested they contact public works for ideas. He said it was a great
idea and recommended they continue to push forward.
Mr. Carvo said SEDA could possibly take a loan from the city and pay it back as they
received revenue. Most of the cost would be done by the other agencies. It would allow
biking and walking in a safe manner.
Councilor Ralston said it was a great idea. He asked if L TD was going to put bike lanes
along Franklin Boulevard.
Mr. Carvo said not at this time.
Councilor Ralston said this would be a less expensive way of putting in a bike path than if
property needed to be acquired for a path along Franklin Boulevard. He said it would
probably be better for SEDA to use funds received from the city in the form of a loan. He
suggested partnering with LTD.
Mr. Carvo said it would have to be done by the city because it was in the city limits. He said
it would take some action by the city either by partnership or alone. The other agencies were
putting in what they could.
Councilor Lundberg asked if staff needed direction.
.
Mr. Kelly said staff could look into this issue. There was a grant offer from ODOT for bike
paths and sidewalks closer to Franklin Boulevard, but a complicating issue for Franklin
Boulevard is the right-of-way. This may be an opportunity for the city. He said the city did
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2005
Page 7
.
not want to waste any public money by putting in paths that would be removed later for
improvements to Franklin Boulevard. This may be a better option. He said staff would
report back to council by the Communication Packet. If action by council was needed, staff
would bring it back for consideration during a regular meeting under Business from the City
Manager.
Mayor Leiken commended Mr. Moe and Mr. Carvo for thinking of this option. He agreed a
Communication Packet memo would be helpful.
Mr. Kelly said staff would get that memo out to council in a week or two.
.
2. Fred Simmons. 312 S. 52nd Place. Springfield. OR Mr. Simmons said it appeared Qwest was
already charging their customers the charge for the Utility Tax. He said it was his
understanding that once the referendum was complete, the Utility Tax could not take affect
until thirty days following the election. He said the city needed to check with Qwest on this
issue. Mr. Simmons also discussed the Main Street stormwater cleaning issue which he had
raised at a prior meeting. He said he had not seen any evidence of a 195 agreement that
bequeaths the responsibility from ODOT to the City of Springfield for that $100,000 annual
cost for maintenance of the stormwater line. He said that was nearly thirty cents per month,
per resident in the City of Springfield. He said this item would be Attachment B-2 in the
Budget Committee packet and he would suggest putting pressure on ODOT that it was their
responsibility. He also spoke on the county public safety district. He said there were more
questions than answers and he asked council not to move forward on this item. He also made
a friendly suggestion that Councilor Pishioneri declare a conflict of interest on that item due
to his position with the Lane County Sheriff's office.
3. Curtiss Greer. 357 55th Street. Springfield. OR Mr. Greer said this nation was founded on
Christian principles. He discussed the choice of Mayor Piercy of Eugene not to attend the
Mayor's Prayer Breakfast and thanked Mayor Leiken for choosing to attend.
4. Joan Armstead. 4718 East 16th. Springfield. OR Ms. Armstead spoke fIrst on the bike path
proposed by Mr. Carvo and Mr. Moe. She said she supported that bike path because the
Franklin Boulevard is dangerous for bikes to navigate. She said it could also be a showcase
of what could be done with permeable pavement and the right type of lighting. She suggested
putting in landscaping with native plants which would be beneficial and low maintenance.
She said there was a neighborhood group that could assist with planting. She said 14th Street
could become an alternate route that people would enjoy taking. She encouraged plans for
the Franklin and 1-5 Interchange to be gentle on the land and the river. She encouraged the
use of bios wales along that area as much as possible and good lighting that didn't shine out in
space but lower towards the ground. She recommended that buildings would not be any taller
than the tallest tree along the Willamette River. She said she was excited about the future and
hoped good decisions were made in Glenwood that would save money and work well.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
.
1. Correspondence from Steve Moeand Dave Carvo, P.O. Box 847, Springfield, OR Regarding
Additional Time to Speak to Council Regarding a Bike Path in Glenwood.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2005
Page 8
.
2. Correspondence from Raymond Zimmer, P.O. Box 481, Springfield, OR Regarding Hayden
Bridget Area Air Quality.
3. Correspondence from Steve and Sheri Tofflemoyer, P.O. Box 147, Springfield, OR
Regarding Annexation and Offer to Purchase Real Property (18-02-05 TL 1900).
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - FITCH).
BIDS
ORDINANCES
1. Continued Deliberation and Decision on Proposed Metro Plan Amendment to Chapter II,
Growth Management, Policy 15 to Allow the Creation of a County-Wide Public Safety
District Within the Boundaries of the Metro Plan.
ORDINANCE NO. 6129 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) TO CLARIFY AND
PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE DELIVERY IN
THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA (METRO PLAN. GROWTH
MANAGEMENT. POLICY 15).
.
Councilor Pishioneri said on April 20 of last month he contacted the Ethics Commissioner
regarding his involvement as an employee of the county and the decision making process council
was going through this evening regarding the Metro Plan. He said that he and the Ethics
Commissioner realized there was no conflict and he would continue forward. He guaranteed he
would not show any bias toward any party.
Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. Policy 15 in the Metro Plan
must be amended as an initial step in the formation of this countywide public safety district
within the boundary of the Metro Plan. Formation of the boundaries ofthis taxing district will be
approved or denied by the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. Ratification
of the district will be determined by an election of the people who reside within the district.
After close of the record on April 19, 2005, several of the elected officials posed questions to
Lane County staff regarding potential impacts caused by the proposed public safety district. The
main theme to these questions involved compression, however, there were some questions
directed toward service delivery and the precedent this amendment might set. Please refer to
Attachment 1 in the agenda packet to review these questions and the answers provided by Lane
County.
On May 10, 2005 the Board of Commissioners deliberated on this proposal and approved a
modification intended to address concerns about compression. Please refer to Attachment 3 in
the agenda packet for an explanation of this action.
.
Mr. Mott said this was a continuation ofthe hearing from the April 19, 2005 Joint Elected
Officials. He asked council to review the questions listed in Attachment 1 and ask additional
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2005
Page 9
.
questions if needed. He noted that Lane County staff was in the audience to assist with some of
those questions.
Mr. Mott said the Lane County Board of Commissioners held their fourth reading on this
ordinance on May 10. Attachment 3 in the agenda packet was a memo from Lane County Board
Chair Anna Morrison regarding an addition to the Metro Plan text that the Board of
Commissioners provisionally adopted. Eugene and Springfield would have to agree to that same
language before it could be incorporated into the plan. He said the amendment was an attempt to
address an issue that came up during the public hearing. That addition was in bold and
underlined in the memo regarding policy l5F. The City of Eugene was prepared to take action
this week, but rescheduled to May 23. The Springfield City Council could vote or not on this
ordinance. He said council may choose to get advice from legal counsel on the additional
sentence.
Councilor Woodrow asked Mr. Leahy if the addition of the last line fit within the parameters of
the public hearing.
Mr. Leahy said it would because there was a lot of testimony and discussion that ensued
regarding this issue. Although the sentence was not included in the public hearing, it was in the
testimony and discussion and anyone attending the public hearing would have been informed.
The affect falls on the proponents rather than council.
.
Councilor Ballew said the county justice system is in dire straights and this was the fIrst move to
do something different. This district was a financing tool for an improved justice system for the
whole county and she said she would support it. She would ask the county to limit their special
district to juvenile and adult corrections. She felt these steps were needed to begin the process
and she did not see another way to solve the problem countywide.
Councilor Lundberg said she did not believe this would ever pass by an election of the people
because it would take the whole county to vote for it. She didn't think the county would want to
raise their taxes again to pay for something they believed should already be paid for. There were
too many questions about what this meant. She said this was narrowly written to create this
district. She said a solution would be found one way or another. She hadn't talked with anyone
that supported this idea. She said she didn't want to see another special district and didn't think it
would be supported. She said it was difficult to find an answer that she could support.
Councilor Pishioneri said he had worked around corrections for two decades and he had seen
criminals getting away with crimes. He said there was a point when enough was enough.
Innovative ideas were needed and this was innovative. This was the first step and a tool to keep
looking for something that could work. He said it wasn't up to the council to tell the county they
should not do this, but rather it should be left to the citizens to decide. He said he would support
the amendment.
.
Councilor Ralston said he did not support special districts. He said it was a way to circumvent
the voters desire to help cut the cost of government. Lane County would not solve this problem.
Springfield was in the process of solving this problem in our own way and this would be counter
productive to anything the city was doing. He said compression would affect every aspect of the
services the city, Willamalane, and other agencies provide. He said it would fail at the polls.
There were no dollar figures known yet and to throw large amounts of money at this problem
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2005
Page 10
.
would not solve anything. There was no guarantee the county would do what needed to be done
regarding prosecuting or retaining criminals or making them have some type of consequences for
their actions. He said he would not support changing the Metro Plan.
Councilor Woodrow said this was a tough decision. It was difficult in part because the special
district would be voted on in 2006 at the same time the Springfield Police levy would go back to
the voters. He applauded Lane County, especially the District Attorney and Sheriff, for looking
for a way to resolve the problem. He didn't think it was right yet, but he would support it to the
point of taking it to the next step.
Mayor Leiken said it was a travesty that council had to discuss this issue. He said the officials
from Lane County, Douglas County, Coos County and other timber producing counties needed to
speak to their Federal representatives regarding the lack of funding from timber harvesting. He
said it had been a lack ofleadership and local government needed to step up to talk to our Federal
partners to get the funding needed for these services. He said we had a great opportunity when
Oregon and California Timberlands (0 & C) funded all of these services. He discussed the loss
of funds. He supported looking at the land use issue and asking council to move forward on this.
He said he would want to see the details of the district. He said the resources to fund this were
available.
Councilor Ralston asked if all three jurisdictions had to pass this in order to change the Metro
Plan. Yes.
.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
BALLEW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6129 PREDICATED ON SUCCESSFUL
NEGOTIATIONS OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) WITH LANE
COUNTY THAT WOULD SPECIFY HOW THE PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT FUNDS
WOULD BE ALLOCATED TO SPRINGFIELD. WE WOULD WANT TO SEE THAT IGA
COMPLETED AND SIGNED PRIOR TO THE NOVEMBER 2006 ELECTION. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3 FOR AND 2 AGAINST (LUNDBERG & RALSTON)
(1 ABSENT - FITCH).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
.
1. Business from Council
a. Councilor Ralston said if anyone had questions about the LRAP A issue, they could
contact him later. He would be discussing this with Mayor Leiken, Councilor
Woodrow, Mike Kelly and Joe Leahy regarding Springfield's options. Springfield
could not drop out of LRAP A because that would leave businesses in our boundaries
with no representation.
b. Councilor Ballew said she attended the Metropolitan Policy Organization (MPO)
meeting, but she had nothing to report.
c. Councilor Woodrow thanked Councilor Pishioneri for taking his spot on the
McKenzie Watershed Council, allowing him to attend the Boundary Commission
Budget Committee and other obligations.
d. Councilor Ralston said the Human Services Commission passed their budget for the
next two years. He said the last two years had been very difficult. This year the
budget was status quo and it passed with little discussion. He said Human Services
was able to stay within their means.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2005
Page 11
.
e. Councilor Pishioneri said he enjoyed the McKenzie Watershed Council meeting and
he looked forward to serving on that committee. He attended the HIV Alliance Walk
on Saturday as a representative of Springfield and let them know it was a regional
issue.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Recommendation and Approval of Award for Project P20208: Martin Luther King, Jr.
Parkway Construction.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-30 - A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING AND APPROVING
AWARD BY THE LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE MARTIN LUTHER KING. JR. P ARKW A Y
PROJECT.
.
City Engineer AI Peroutka presented the staff report on this item. Lane County has asked for a
City Council resolution which approves ofthe county awarding the construction contract for the
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway project. They asked that the resolution state that the city has
sufficient funds available to pay for the city share of project costs, and they asked the council to
make a recommendation (based on life cycle costing available funds, or other factors) to build the
project with either the asphalt or concrete pavement alternative bid. Since bids will not be
received by Lane County until Thursday, May 12, and time is of the essence, we will bring the
bid results along with a staff recommendation to the May 16 meeting and present them to the
Council under Business from the City Manager.
Lane County has provided $5.2 million for the construction of the Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK)
Parkway. By Intergovernmental Agreement dated February 25, 2003, the City of Springfield has
agreed to provide funding costs which exceed the county's grant amount. Most of the city
contribution to the project is being provided by PeaceHealth under the provisions of our
annexation agreement with them. L TD has agreed to provide additional funding for costs of the
project caused by the addition of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lane to the project. The County
Board is scheduled to award the MLK Parkway construction contract at their May 18 regular
meeting and will need our resolution of recommendation and approval of award at that time.
Based on our cost estimates at this time, our project costs are estimated to be very close to, and
possibly greater than, our budgeted funding for the project. The staff recommendation at the May
16 meeting will depend on bid results.
.
Mr. Peroutka referred to the Council Briefmg Memorandum which was distributed to the Mayor
and council prior to the meeting. This memo outlined the bids that came in for this project. He
said good bids did come in that were within the city's budget. He said he would need council
approval of the bid Lane County had chosen and the type of material to be used (concrete or
asphalt). Based on the bids, the city could affrrm they could cover their cost. The county
requested that a life cycle analysis was completed for both concrete and asphalt and a
recommendation was made based on that analysis. Staff had completed that and recommended
the concrete pavement alternate for this project. He noted that the amended resolution was
attached to the memo. The amended resolution included the additional information including the
statement that the city had sufficient funds, the contractor chosen and the type of pavement
recommended. He asked council to consider this amended resolution for adoption.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2005
Page 12
.
Councilor Ralston asked if this could possibly run over the amount.
Mr. Peroutka said there was a five percent contingency included in the city budget for this
project, which was about $350,000.
Councilor Ralston asked if L TD and Lane County were also responsible for any overruns.
Mr. Peroutka said that Lane County had indicated that they had a fixed amount of $5.2 million.
L TD' s amount was an approximate until final costs were known regarding costs for the bus lanes
and to acquire the right-of-way. It would be close to $500,000.
Councilor Ballew asked when construction would begin. She also asked about the location.
Mr. Peroutka said it was a two-year contract. The new parkway would run from Harlow Road
through the improvement on Beltline Road and over to Hutton Street. The portion of Beltline
which would be crossed was a portion of the Gateway/Beltline project and there was an
additional $7 million from PeaceHealth for that project that could be used for overrun.
Councilor Ballew asked when PeaceHealth would begin construction. She asked about the
amount of construction in that area at the same time and if there would be a conflict.
.
Mr. Peroutka said the same contractor that gave the low bid on this project was also doing the site
work on the PeaceHealth site, which was a big advantage. He discussed the construction of the
building of the hospital and the added trucks for that project. PeaceHealth was starting their site
work now and would be doing a lot of grading.
Mayor Leiken commended staff and their partnership with Lane County on this project. This
project defined our community and it had been fun to watch the progress.
Mr. Peroutka said a groundbreaking ceremony would be planned for the MLK, Jr. Parkway.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 05-30. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 4 FOR AND 1 AGAINST (RALSTON) (1 ABSENT - FITCH)
2. Status of the City's Ballot Measure 37 Demands of Compensation.
City Planner Gary Karp presented the staff report on this item. On November 2, 2004, the voters
of the State of Oregon approved Ballot Measure 37 which amended Oregon Revised Statutes
Chapter 197 to require under certain specific circumstances, payment of compensation to present
owners of real property if the government land use regulations reduce fair market property value.
On November 22, 2004, the City Council adopted an ordinance adding Chapter 2.900 through
2.995 to the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997 to establish a process to review Ballot Measure 37
Demands. On March 14,2005, the City Council adopted amendments to Chapter 2.900 tlrrough
2.995.
.
On December 28,2004 Mr. Nick Shevchynski submitted a Ballot Measure 37 Demand for
Compensation letter (PA-BM 37-2004-12-001) asking the city to: either pay for changing the
permitted use of the properties from commercial! industrial to residential; or to waive the
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2005
Page 13
.
regulations and allow the commercial/industrial use to continue (storage of materials). The
addresses of the properties are 2315 and 2347 Marcola Road (Lots: 3,4,28 and 29 of North view
Subdivision). Staff reviewed the Lane County zoning at the time the Shevchynski family
purchased the property in 1956, which was Residential Agricultural (primarily single-family
residential), and the zoning history since the property was annexed to the city in 1979, R-1/Low
Density Residential (primarily single-family residential). On the basis of this history, and the fact
that the storage of materials is a nuisance and therefore, not a Ballot Measure 37 Claim, staff
denied this Demand.
On February 25,2005. Mr. Shevchynski submitted a revised BM 37 Demand letter which
discussed the status of "R" Street. Staff considered this submittal to be a separate BM 37 Demand
(PA-BM 37-2005-02-002). Staff found that "R" Street was dedicated on the Northview
Subdivision Plat as public right-of-way and could not be used for the private storage of materials.
On the basis ofthis history, and the fact that the storage of materials is a nuisance and therefore,
not a Ballot Measure 37 Claim, staff also denied this Demand. On May 6,2005, Mr. Shevchynski
was sent notice of staff's decisions. This notice was the city's fmal action, no public hearing is
required for these Demands for Compensation.
.
Ballot Measure 37 provides that in order to receive compensation, a property owner must make a
written "Demand for Compensation" to the government entity enacting or enforcing a land use
regulation that allegedly restricts the use of their property and has had the effect of reducing the
fair market value of the property. The government entity has 180 calendar days to make a
decision. The property owner may then file an action in Circuit Court for compensation, and
obtain attorney's fees, expenses, and costs reasonably incurred in addition to just compensation.
Mr. Kelly said he had made a decision on two initial Ballot Measure 37 claims that had been
denied. Letters were sent to the applicant but no response had been received. The file was
included in the agenda packet.
Councilor Ballew asked to review the process.
Mr. Karp reviewed the process. He said the applicant would file a demand claim. They would
then have a right to write a letter or follow the process established by the Municipal Code. In this
case, the applicant sent a demand letter only. In a case where the City Manager did not deny the
claim, the Municipal Code allowed a public process in which a public meeting would be held.
Citizens would be noticed regarding the demand and could participate in the dialogue on that
demand. A public hearing would then be held before the council in the case where the city was
going to pay compensation or waive a land use regulation.
.
Mr. Kelly said when the city received a request that may become a demand, they offered a
consultation with the City Manager and other staff. Some of these issues were points of
confusion by the property owner. Staff would try to meet with them to determine the issue.
Because of an ongoing issue with this applicant, staff offered to sit down to speak with the
applicant regarding this issue and other issues he had regarding code enforcement. That meeting
did occur with the City Manager, other staff, the applicant and the applicant's advocates. The
city had been very patient in trying to sort this out and to give the applicant time to understand the
Ballot Measure 37 (BM37) ordinance and his rights. In the end, the city offered the applicant the
opportunity to submit new and more complete information on the BM37 claim, which was not
forthcoming. The incomplete application was denied.
.
.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2005
Page 14
Mr. Leahy said even though the application was incomplete, Mr. Karp and other staff went to the
county and did research to gather the needed information. They found that there was an
ordinance that was in affect at the time the claimant's family came into the property which .
prohibited what he was alleging he was entitled to do. Staff did try to treat the applicant's claim
fairly and did do a search and examination of the record. The second claim related to a claim that
had been filed in 1996, stating that the applicant had the right to use the public right-of-way
which was created in the applicant's plat for purposes. After thoroughly examining the records,
staff found a letter from an attorney that indicated it was public right-of-way. Staff tried to go the
fmal mile even when the applicant did not provide all information.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
Attest:
"-
(],ul~ W~
City Recorder