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