Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/1996 Work Session . City of Springfield Work' Session MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 1996 The City of Springfield Council met in Work Session in Springfield City Hall, Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, on Monday, January 22, 1996 at 6:04 p.m. with Mayor Morrisette presiding. Present were Mayor M9rrisette and Councilors Ballew, Beyer, Dahlquist, Maine and Shaver. Councilor Burge was absent (excused). Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Tim Harold, City Recorder Eileen Stein, Administrative Aide Shari Higgins, Public Works Director Dan Brown, Maintenance Manager Ed Black, City Engineer AI Peroutka and members of staff. 1. Human Rights Commission Interviews : Council discussed the interview questions that would be asked of the ten applicants and decided that a brief five minute interview for each applicant would be given. . Council interviewed the following candidates for three adult and two student positions on the Human Rights Commission: Melody Kelsay Dr. Stanley Greenberg G, Dennis Shine Cynthia J. Anderson (Loni) Leeauna Wilson Starla Woodford Sadie Wilson Teresa Arlene Kovarik Joleen M. Ambrose Jodi Neel The Council asked the following interview questions: 1) Why are you interested in serving on the Human Rights Commission? 2) What would be your top two goals for the commission in 1996? 3) How would you accomplish your two goals? 4) Have you attended a Human Rights Commission meeting? . Council discussed the applicants, first the adult candidates and then the student candidates. . City of Springfield Work Session - 1/22/96 Page two Councilor Shaver stated he supported appointing Melody Kelsay, Dr. Greenberg and Cynthia Anderson. Councilor Maine concurred with appointing Melody Kelsay, Dr. Greenberg and Cynthia Anderson. Councilors Beyer and Ballew also agreed with Councilor Shaver's recommendations. Councilor Dahlquist felt that either Ms, Anderson or Mr. Shine would be acceptable candidates. Councilor Ballew spoke in favor of Mr. Shine. After discussion, by consensus, Council agreed to appoint Melody Kelsay, Dr. Stanley Greenberg and Cynthia Anderson for the three adult positions. Councilor discussed the two vacant student positions. Councilor Shaver suggested . appointing Joleen Ambrose. Councilor Maine suggested appointing Loni Wilson. Mayor Morrisette recommended that Council select one student from each of the two schools being represented, Springfield High School and Thurston High School. Councilor Beyer suggested appointing Starla Woodford, representing Springfield High School and Joleen Ambrose, representing Thurston High School. m . By consensus, Council agreed to appoint Starla Woodford and Joleen Ambrose. to the two vacant student positions, Both the adult and student positions will be ratified at the next regular Council meeting on February 5; 1996.' 2. Springfield Millrace - Hydrologic Study and Flow Control Alternatives Public Works Director Dan Brown commented he will be presenting alternatives for a Millrace flow system, Mr. Brown introduced audience members including: State Representative Lee Beyer; Nancy Leibowitz, Division of State Lands; Jeff Ziller, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Gene McGinnis, Oregon Water Resources Department; Tina Monical, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Thom Lansfear, Lane County; Bart McKee, Springfield Utility Board, and Rpger and Kathy Vinyard and their attorney Douglas DuPriest. Mr. Brown stated staff's goal was to gather all of the parties interested in evaluating the hydrologic study and flow control alternatives for the Millrace project, and to have a joint discussion about which alternatives are most feasible. . Maintenance Manager Ed Black reviewed the physical aspects of the Millrace and explained who the major adjoining property owners are. He presented Council with background information regarding the people who currently have water rights to the Millrace. Mr. Black explained the permit the city has obtained to manage the water flows in the Millrace. He explained how the permit was obtained and why additional stipulations have been added to the original permit. Mr. Black discussed funding options for a permanent or semi-permanent flow control stucture and the process for pursuing the water right permit. He explained that the city has obtained additional property to assist in the process of managing the water flow. He discussed the concerns of those who also have water rights on the Millrace. ~ . City of Springfield Work Session - 1/22/96 Page three Finally, Mr. Black reported that this project was included in the Capitol Bond Measure that was approved by voters in November, He stated that consideration must be . given to the cost and timing of project and that bond proceeds must be spent by 1999. Mr. Larry Magura, Manager of the Water Resources Department, and Mr. Ben Higgins, Water Resources Engineer for Otak, the Millrace project consultant, explained that if nothing is done to the current water flow of the Millrace, it will dry up, He summarized the executive report that was prepared for the Council and presented the following alternatives: 1) Relocate Millrace Inlet Upstream to Boat Ramp; 2) Provide Ground Water Source for Millrace; 3) Continue Present Practices; 4) Pump Water from Willamette River Upstream of Existing Inlet; 5) Fixed Dragline to Remove Gravel; 6) Reverse Fixed Dragline to Move Gravel; 7) Shoreline Backhoe Operations; and 8) Pump Water from Willamette River Downstream of Existing Inlet. . Mr. Magura discussed pursuing a new inlet and the watenights associated with Alternative #1, Relocate Millrace Inlet Upstream to B'oat Ramp; Council discussed a fish screen which could be placed during construction to assist with the implementation and maintenance of a new inlet. A fish screen would provide positive flood flows that would regulate the Millrace system flow: Council discussed the slew on Mr. and Mrs, Vinyard's property. The Vinyard's discussed why they do not want a slew utilized as a future channel for the Millrace. Mr. Vinyard explained a slew would take approximately one-third to one- half of his property. He stated the city would then have an easement through his property and could interfere with natural habit and disrupt his living conditions. Mr. Magura discussed what changes the WillametteRiver has seen since the 1960's. He explained why the inlet should be relocated upstream at the Clearwater Boat Ramp and explained the pros and cons of Alternative #1. Although there would be a large initial cash outlay with this option, the solution would be permanent. The next two alternatives discussed byMr, Magura were temporary solutions, alternatives #5 and #6, Fixed Dragline to Remove Gravel and a Reverse Fixed Dragline to Move Gravel. These temporary solutions would vary due to water flow each year and all equipment used would be out of the water, with the exception of' the bucket. Mr. Magura stated these type of systems move a lot of gravel in a very short period of time and the cost is much less than the process that is being used currently by Maintenance Division staff. He added that there is no guarantee that a regulatory agency would approve either alternative #5 or #6, as there is no inlet for allowing fish into the Millrace. . Councilor Shaver questioned whether alternative #5 would create a net decrease in sediment balance and a reduction in the Millrace's erosion levels. There was a discussion regarding the processes for alternatives #5 and #6. . City of Springfield Work Session - 1/22/96 Page four Mayor Morrisette asked if the city is required to do anything about the issue of allowing fish to enter the Millrace. Mr. Black replied that if the water quality can be upgraded to good then it is likely the fish would be allowed. If the water quality can not be r:naintained the'n Department of Fish and Wildlife would prefer not having fish in the Millrace. Mr. Ziller stated the water flow must equal the current movement in the middle fork of the Willamett~ River, and migration issues and environmental problems must be solved before the fish would be allowed by state law to enter the Millrace. He acknowledged they are currently entering now. There was a discussion of water flow needs, Mr. Magura commented the Millrace runs too slow now and tends to warm up and loose it's oxygen, making it not a conducive environment for fish habitat. Ms. Leibowitz stated the city needs to get low bed samples from the bottom of the Millrace pond to determine the water quality, She stated the flow of the Willamette River is naturally changing and to 'shut '. off the north channel is not considered a natural flow. She added there is no timeframe for knowing when the natural river flow change will occur. . Mr. Ziller discussed the water flow and whether lowering of the damn at the pond would enhance the water flow in the Millrace. He also explained the 'need for evaluating whether the water rights for the middle fork of the Willamette River is more important the water rights for the Millrace. Mayor Morrisette asked how long the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers will allow the present maintenance procedure to continue and if they have a recommended alternative. Ms. Monical stated the Corps of Engineers is not in favor of concrete structures in the river, but alternative #5 would probably be acceptable, keeping. in mind that it is a temporary alternative. She indicated they are seeking a solution that has the least impact on the natural resources and is probably less concerned with the movement of the river than the other state agencies. Ms. Leibowitz stated this process needs to,be an ongoing discussion, as many questions still need to be answered. The options being presented as alternatives #1 through #8 are only for design purposes, There are many more steps to the process. . There was a discussion regarding alternative #6. Mayor Morrisette stated the city would need to look at the possibility of lowering the damn at the pond if this alternative was chosen. Mr. Ziller stated a reverse drag line would be an experiment and it would be difficult to use a fish screen, He als,? added he did not feel there is enough drop in the canal in order to complete a reverse drag line successfully, as it could leave the channel dry very quickly. Mr, Magura explained how the reverse drag line concept would work. . City of Springfield Work Session - 1/22/96 Page five Councilor Dahlquist asked what are the chances that a solution could be found that all the state agencies could agree upon. Mr. Ziller asked what the city's goal is for gravity flow in terms of cubic feet per second (cfs), Mr. Black stated the city filed a pre-1909 water right application for 150 cfs, but at this time he doesn't know how the adjudication of the claim will turn out so it is diffuicult answer. Mr. Brown stated the city is currently consulting with attorneys to see how we can speed up the process for determining water rights, Councilor Maine asked how this process affects the ability to continue to move water. Ms. Leibowitz stated as long as a long-term solution is being sought, the Division of State Lands is willing to renew the current permit. She stated they want to make sure the long-term solution is sustainable and are willing to work with the city. Mr. Ziller added the city must first identify its cubic feet per second need before any determination is made regarding alternatives or options. . Councilor Dahlquist asked other than to the Springfield Utility Board, what contractual' obligations does the city have to provide water. Mr. Kelly explained the city has other obligations such as providing water for fire protection to Springfield Forest Products, as well as replenishing of Gorrie Creek to provide water for the Springfield Utility Board well fields. He explained the difficulty of the situation in trying to design a project that all state agencies will agree too, without each agency providing specific information needed for Millrace approval. Council discussed whether the Millrace could run dry as long as the obligations in the donation agreement (providing fire protection for Springfield Forest Products and supplying water to Gorrie Creek, etc,) were met in other ways. Mr. McKee, representing Springfield Utility Board, indicated that if the Millrace ran dry, it would completely eliminate the supply of water to Gorrie Creek for SUB wellfields. Council discussed those who have junior water rights on the Millrace. Mr. Brown stated junior watenights are a civil matter that would be subject to private litigation. Mayor Morrisette suggested looking at the possibility of lowering the damn height at the mill pond 'to increase the water flow through the Millrace, Councilor Shaver asked If there are any options that Council should not consider. Mr. McGinnis stated there is no method under current law that would allow the city's pre-1909 water right to be diverted to an intake point higher up the river. Ms, Monical commented that additional information is needed, but that the Corps of Engineers would not rule out alternatives as presented, They are encouraging the city to find an alternative that is the least damaging to the environment. , . . City of Springfield Work Session - 1/22/96 Page six Ms. Leibowitz stated she has some concern about the option (alternative #1) that would go through the Vinyard's property, but would be willing to look at the optio_n that would pump water into Gorrie Creek. Mr. Ziller again expressed the city's need to know its cubic feet per second goal and if a large concrete structure is needed. He commented this is an unstable location on the river and there are other more stable locations that the city might want to explore a new water right for, He stated he would prefer an alternative that includes a fish screen. Mr. Brown commented that with the information and input presented, staff will now continue working towards the best alternative for flow control on the Millrace, Council expressed their appreciation to members of the state agencies who attended the meeting and for their willingness to discuss the Millrace topic. The meeting was recessed at 9:08p.m. Councilor Maine left the meeting at 9: 1 0 p.m . The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 p,m. 3, Alternatives for Initiating Project 1-962: Street Improvements Along South 41 st and Virginia Streets City Engineer AI Peroutka reviewed the specific request and explained in detail what a city improvement agreement is, He explained this item was carried over from the January 16, 1996, regular meeting at the request of the Council since new information was presented by staff regarding an additional development being proposed on the corner of South 41 st Street and Main Street. Mr. Peroutka discussed what impact the pending "new" development would have on the street improvement project and presented the Council with the following options: 1) Initiate the project as requested; 2) Decline to initiate the project and leave the street improvement obligation with the developer; and 3) Initiate an expanded project scope including South 41 st from Main Street. . Mayor Morrisette asked if other property owners are willing to share the cost of the expanded project. Civil Engineer Don Branch stated he has received a couple of calls from property owners that were not in favor of the expanded project. Mr. Kelly explained the Council can initiate a street project at any time, although it is not consistent with past Council practice, Mr. Kelly stated if Council initiated the project and it was remonstrated, then the city would need to wait an additional six months before the project could be initiated again by the Council. . City of Springfield Work Session - 1/22/96 Page seven Councilor Shaver asked for clarification on South 41 st Street funding versus Virginia Street funding with an improvement agreement signed and consensus for street improvement given by property owners. Mr. Peroutka clarified that a majority of property owners had signed improvement agreements on Virginia Street, but not on South 41 st Street. He stated that the developer obtain~d a performance bond for the South 41 st Street improvements to proceed with those street improvements, but is first seeking participation by other property owners who would be benefitted by the improvements, but do not have signed improvement agreements obligating them to participate, Council had a long discussion in which both street projects, improvement agree- ments obligations of the developer and property owner preferences were discussed, Councilor Shaver asked City Attorney Tim Harold if the city could split the South 41 st Street and Virginia Street projects and have the developer proceed with the South 41 st Street project on his own. Mr. Harold replied yes, and explained in more detail how the Council can initiate street projects and the remonstration process. . Mr. Kelly stated only the decision whether to initiate the project is necessary at this point.He explained it is not necessary to discuss the method of assessment,.that can be done at a later date after all the engineering work is completed. Councilor Shaver stated he would like to look at a shared responsibility assessment of all five property owners on Virginia Street. But, he explained that he views the South 41 st Street project differently, as more of an emotional issue, because the property owners have been negatively impacted by the Wyatt Meadows subdivision and the developer already had obtained the necessary performance bond to make the street improvements on his own, By consensus, Council agreed to separate the two street improvement projects, South 41 st Street and Virginia Street. Council agreed to proceed with the Virginia Street improvement project using the normal assessment procedures. Council also agreed to proceed with the South 41 st Street improvement project under the condition that some cost-sharing occur and directed staff to explore options for an equitable cost sharing arrangement. Council agreed that the resolution of initiation would be placed on the February 5, 1996, regular meeting agenda for approval. 4. Inventory of Services . After discussion, it was agreed that this item would be postponed. Council discussed the amount of time the review of the services would take, and agreed to review the first department and then decide how they would like the process to continue. .. . . . , City of Springfield Work Session - 1/22/96 Page eight Mr. Kelly stated that this project was a directive of the 1995 Council Goal Setting Session and explained the process that staff used for compilation of the services, By consensus, Council agreed to postpone the Inventory of Services until the February 5, 1996, work session meeting, so that all members of the Council would be present for review and discussion, ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjour~ed at 10:09 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Shari Higgins ~#m~ Mayor ATTEST: ~~ I~' City Recorder