Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/17/2008 Regular JOINT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS'I SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING September 17, 2008 5:30 p.m. Commissioners' Conference Room Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken called the meeting to order for the Springfield City Council. Springfield City Council members present: Anne Ballew, Hillary Wylie, Christine Lundberg and John Woodrow. Joe Pishioneri and Dave Ralston were absent Commissioner Faye Stewart called the meeting to order for the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Board of Commissioners present: Bill Dwyer, Bill Fleenor, and Peter Sorenson. Bobby Green, Sr., was excused. SECOND READING & PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. PA 1253/In the Matter of Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) Consistent With Policy G.3 in Chapter III, Section G. Public Facilities and Services Element; Amending Table 4, Table 16, and Map 2 of the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) and Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses (Metro Plan Amendment) (Second Reading and Public Hearing 9/17/08, Springfield City Hall). Greg Mott, City of Springfield, explained that this is an amendment to the Metropolitan Plan and the Facilities and Services Plan. He added the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) is a functional plan of the Metro Plan aild the contents of the PFSP are specified in the Oregon Administrative Rules as well as a description of their intent and purposes: Goal 11, Statewide Planning Goals. Mott stated the requirement in the rule is the project list be included and adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. He added that they don't physically do that, the project list and maps are physically in the PFSP document adopted by reference in the Metro Plan. He indicated that they are amending the Metro Plan. Mott explained that the specifics of the amendments the City of Springfield is seeking, deal with projects that are additions to the list of the wastewater projects in the PFSP, strictly on the Springfield side. He said they include lines and rump stations. He recalled when thePFSP was constructed in its current form, the elected officials decided pump stations and lines over 24 inches or larger qualify as a_ significant project. He said the rule requires the PFSP identify significant projects. He indicated that there are projects not in the PFSP because they don't raise the level to significant. He added that the ones they are asking to be added to the list do qualify as significant. Page 1 - Joint Board ofCommissioners'/Springfield City Council Meeting - September 17,2008 WD bc/m/08089/T With regard to Attachment 7 in the Staff Report (copy in file) Mott stated they were proposing to delete projects that have been completed and they are proposing other projects as the additions. He added the map, (Attachment 8 a.) is the existing map of the entire metro area showing the projects. He said their focus is for projects east of 1-5 and 8 b. contains all of the significant projects they are seeking to put into the PFSP. He indicated that if this gets adopted, the new PFSP map will be map 8 b. Mott reported that the Metro Plan amendments and the PFSP have two criteria of approval that must be satisfied in order to approve the amendment. He recalled that all three governing bodies have adopted the identical criteria. He said it is in Springfield's Code Section 5.14-135 or Lane Code 12.225(2)(a) and (b). He said the criteria is that the amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by LCDC and adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. Mott noted that both the Lane County and Springfield Planning Commissions reviewed the same amendments and adopted them as part of their action in May. He added that both Planning Commissions forwarded unanimous recommendations for these amendments going forward to the elected officials. He said subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, nothing has occurred except for scheduling this hearing. He indicated that they provided the same notice for this hearing that they did for the Planning Commission hearing. He stated they had to identify all property owners and residents within 300 feet of all of the projects. He indicated they mailed out 1,300 notices. He added they also published the notice in the newspaper. He said they received one response back from Robert Scherer on McKenzie Crest Drive asking where the new pump station will be located and when it might be put in. Ballew noted Chapter 7; Table 4 was marked as completed. She asked ifprojects in Table 16 are new or if it was the same work folded in. Kenneth Vogeney, City Engineer, City of Springfield, explained that the Jasper Road pump sewer extension is listed in the current PFSP plan but they have not yet constructed it. He said it was being repeated in Table 4 and in Table 16 to show the new cost and time frame. He added it is crossed out in Table ~ 6 at the first line because they are updating information. He noted that the cost of materials has changed. Ballew asked about the Peace Health Pump Station. She thought it would have already been built. V ogeney responded that the Peace Health Pump Station is a future pump station to serve the future campus site. He indicated that the northeast quadrant is a medium density residential area. He said the pump station doesn't have to be constructed until they develop the area. . . Page 2 - Joint Board of Commissioners'/Springfield City Council Meeting - September 17, 2008 WD bc/m/08089/T Vogeney described the City of Springfield's new Wastewater Master Plan. He recalled that several years ago the Springfield City Council initiated an update to their Sanitary Sewer Master Plan that was adopted by the city in 1980. He indicated that they had not done a comprehensive review of the wastewater system for the local collection sites since that time. He stated the city council authorized the initiation of a new Wastewater Master Plan. He added that the work was completed and the council adopted the Wastewater Master Plan on June 16. He entered that plan as adopted by the city council into the public record. He reported that the Wastewater Master Plan provides an assessment of the city's existing sanitary sewer system and wastewater system as well as looking at future needs. He indicated that the assessment viewed the existing city limits and areas inside the existing urban growth boundary. He added the plan does not contemplate any expansion or growth outside of the urban growth boundary. With regard to the question raised about the River Glen Pump Station, V ogeney noted the information requested was for Project 110 of Table 4 and Table 16. He explained that it is the existing River Glen Pump Station. He added that the new master plan identifies upgrades to that pump station to handle existing flows and bringing it into compliance with changes in the law and policy from the state on how they design and operate the pump station. He noted the key change on the existing pump station was a requirement for redundancy in the pumping capacity of the existing lift stations not meeting the requirements. He said their goal is to accommodate those upgrades without physically expanding the station. Vogeney discussed the Nugget Way Pump Station upgrade in Glenwood. He stated the recommendations in the Wastewater Master Plan was that before they did any actual upgrades, they do initial monitoring of the pump station. He said the number of users connected was not consistent to what they were seeing with the flows. He recalled that over the summer they did additional research and learned they had two severely weakened manholes that were collecting a substantial amount of groundwater at the pump station. He said they repaired them and they have seen the pump operation go from 24 hours per week to three hours a week and more in line with what they expected. He proposed keeping the pump station upgrade in the plan. He commented that until they go through more wet dry cycles, they won't know if they captured it. He said they would leave it on the list as a potential project because some upgrade may be needed in the future that they are not aware of. Fleenor asked as a county commissioner, what he should be looking for. Matt Laird, Director, Lane County Land Management, responded that they are meeting Goal 11, their public facilities responsibility. He noted a key point was the facilities plan they have designed is to provide infrastructure inside the urban growth boundary area in an area that is designed to transition to an urbanized area. Page 3 - Joint Board of Commissioners'/Springfield City Council Meeting - September 17, 2008 WD bc/m/08089/T Dwyer commented that the only thing that requires Lane CountY to weigh in is the Metro Plan. He was comfortable with this plan. Leiken asked if Springfield had an individual comp plan if the County would still have to be involved and concur with the plan. Mott explained that they have coordination requirements that exist for any county and city for the comp plan. He said they establish whatever agreements or arrangements they want. He indicated that they have a unique arrangement with the County with respect to the area between the city lirnits and the urban growth boundary and not all communities have that. Mayor Leiken opened the Public Hearing for the City of Springfield. Commissioner Stewart opened the Public Hearing for Lane County. Wally Eason, Springfield, asked if the sewer system was going in his backyard and if so, what the cost would be. Yogeney responded that the project Eason is referencing is shown on Table 4 of the maps, as Project 105, the Tenth and M Street upgrade. He indicated that particular project was identified in Springfield's Wastewater Master Plan to provide additional capacity of the system underneath Highway 126. He said the flows come from the south side, flow to the north and enter into a trunk line north of Marcola Road. He noted the size of the pipe recommended in the plan is a 24 inch pipe to parallel an existing 15 inch pipe. He said for the type of project they are discussing, the exact location is yet to be determined and it might not affect Eason's property. He added that it is a system upgrade to the overall system and they would not be proposing to have any cost shared by the property owners other than through normal system development charges for user rates. Leiken recommended continuing to communicate with Eason as the project moves forward. There being no one else signed up to speak, Mayor Leiken closed the Public Hearing for the City of Springfield. There being no one else signed up to speak, Commissioner Stewart closed the Public Hearing for Lane County. MOTION: to adopt Ordinance No. PA 1253. Dwyer MOYED, Fleenor SECONDED. Page 4 - Joint Board of Commissioners'/Springfield City Council Meeting -September 17,2008 WD bc/m/08089/T Mott explained that the City of Springfield's rules are different and tonight was their First Reading. He indicated they would be coming back on October 6 for the Second Reading. Stewart asked if the Board should wait to see how the City of Springfield acts or if they should take action tonight. Stephen Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel, Lane County, said it was up to the Board. He said if the Board wants to take action based on the record in front of them, they could. He indicated the risk would be if something happens that would cause the city to change something in the Exhibits, the Board of Commissioners would have to come back to readopt them. Sorenson asked if there would be any technical changes made. V ogeney responded that they were not anticipating any changes. Mott indicated their concern was public safety. He said if the weather is bad, they could have a health hazard as a result. He added that they have some infill sites where development might be delayed. ROLL CALL VOTE: 4-0. Mayor Leiken adjourned the meeting for the Springfield City Council at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Stewart adjourned the meeting for the Lane County Board of Commissioners at 6:30 p.m. Melissa Zimmer Recording Secretary Attest: ~~ .bvfi- City Reco er Page 5 - Joint Board of Commissioners'/Springfield City Council Meeting - September 17, 2008 WD bc/m/08089/T