HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/1996 Regular
.
.
.
~ ~...
.;
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1996
The city of Springfield Council met in Regular Session in the Springfield City Council Chamber
Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 21, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., with
Mayor Morrise~epresiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Councilors Ballew, Beyer, Burge, Dahlquist, Maine and Shaver. Mayor Morrisette,
was absent (excused). Also present were City Manager MichaelKelly, Assistant City Manager
Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Eilee~ Stein, Administrative Aide Julie
Wilson and members of the staff. .
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
- ,
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council President Stu Burge,
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
. .
I. Council President StIi Burge proclaimed .october, 1996 as Public Safety Month in Springfield.
2. City Manager Mike Kelly recognized Dana Burwell, Department of Fire an~ Life, Safety, for
10 years of serVice to the city of Springfield.
3. City Manager Mike Kelly recognized Douglas Cox, Department of Fire and Life Safety, for
10 years of service to the city of Springfield. ,
. . .
4, City Manager MikeKelly recognized Greg Deedon, DepartInent of Fire and Life Safety, for
10 years of service to,the city of Springfield.
5. City Manager Mike Kelly recognized Mark Walker, Department of Fire and Life Safety, for
10 years of service to the city of Springfield. '
CONSENT CALENDAR
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR SHAVER, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR MAINE,
TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH AVOTE OF 6
FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
1. Claims
a. September 1996, Disbursements for Approval.
2. Minutes
3. Resolutions
Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 1996
Page 2
'-..
'.
. .
a. RESOLUTION NO. 96-39 - A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PROJECT 1-994 FROM
VALLEY SLURRY SEAL COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $70.341.53.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 96-40 ~ A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PERMIT PROJECT 3~964:
JOHN TRA VESS SUBDIVISION.
4: Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
't:
a. Approval of the September 1996, Quarterly Updated Financial Reports.
b. Approve Award of Bid in the Amount of$18,907 to Clyde Wes,t for a Vibratory Roller.
c. Approve Bic;l Award for Project 1-956: Irving Slough Flow Control Project to McKenzie
Commercial Contractors, Inc., in the Amount of$16,898.
. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
~.
1. Vacatiol} of Alley Right of Way (Adjacentto the Springfield High School Campus) From 6th
to/10th Streets.
.
ORDINANCE NO.1 - AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY
BETWEEN 6TH AND 10TH STREETS OF THE WASHBURNE'S SUBDIVISION OF
THE SPRINGFIELD POWER COMPANY'S ADDITION TO SPRINGFIELD, LANE
COUNTY (FIRST,READING).
City Planner Lydia Neill presented the staff report on this issue. The Springfield School
District is proposing to vacate the alley right-of-way from 6th to 10th Streets to alleviate
problems with trespassing, Joitering and nuisance activities which affect adjoining property
owners. Vacating the alley would allow the school district to gate the alley to restrict access
to only adjoining properp' owners. The alley would be continued to be used as a driveway
serving the rear yards and the school district property. Ajoint use access agreement will be
recorded with all property owners who' will have access to the former alley right-of-way to
insure maintenance and continued access. A 14-footpublic utility easement will be required
to be granted in place of the alley to allow access to existing utilities which include
Springfield Utility Board electrical and water Jines, phone, cable and sanitary and storm
sewer facilities. The easement would prohibit the construction of fences, decks and
permanent landscaping in this area to insure continued access for utility provider~. _
The Public Works Department and all affected utilities have reviewed the application and
have determined that the vacation of a portion of 9th Street and the remaining easement in
the former 8th Street right-of-way will not have a negative affect on service provision or any
other public benefit derived from the alley vacation.
- ,
.
The Springfield Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the vacation of the
alley on October 1, 1996 and has recommended approval with conditions.
.
.
.
Regular Council Meeting ,
October 21, 1996 '
Page 3
\
There is no direct financial impact to the city resulting from this deCision.
Councilor Shaver asked ifthe Planning Commission supported the two conditions listed and
Ms. Neill responded yes'that they did.
Councilor Burge opened the public hearing.
1. Stephen Barrett, 500 N. 58th, representing Springfield Public Schools, spoke in support
of the proposal and felt that the vacation would provide, protection and safety. He felt this
would also provide access to public utilities.
In response to a question from Councilor Ballew, Mr. Barrett felt the existing problem would
move to another location. He explained that it was their immediate goalto provide better
security within the referenced area.
City Recorder Eileen Stein en~eredthe following correspondence into the public record:
1. Correspondence from Michael McIlrath, 916 G street, expressing support forthe
proposal.
Councilor Beyer supported the proposal.
Councilor Shaver explained that he had talked with a property owner in tl1e'area and that
person expressed support for the vacation.
, i
\
Councilor Ballew asked about right-of-ways and if there was an assigned value to that asset.
City Attorney Joe Leahy explained that you can not sell right-of-ways. He also discussed the
process and regulations related to right-of-waysand access. Ms. N~ill also explained that
, conditions would be recorded as required.
,Councilor Burge closed the public hearing.
2. Signal at Main Street and 69th Street.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-41 -A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
.. ,TRANSPORTATION REGARDING SIGNAL INSTALLATION AND INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS. .
City R{corder Eileen Stein read the following resolution titles along with the option they
represented:
Option 1 - 3 - A RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNALIZATION AND IMPROVEMENTS
OF THE INTERSECTION OF 69TH STREET AND MAIN STREET.
Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 1996
Page 4
.
Option 4 - A RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNALIZATION OF THE INTERSECTION
OF 70TH STREET AND MAIN STREET. ' '
Option 5 - A RESOLUTION REGARDING SIGNALIZATION OF THE INTERSECTION
OF 69TH STREET AND MAIN STREET.
\
\ .,
City Engineer Alan Peroutka presented the staff report on this issue.
. Councilor Burge opened the public hearing.
1. Michael Farthing, representing the Campbell's; PO Box 1147, Eugene, spoke regarding
the proposal. He discussed the process used to address this issue. He explained that the
.., Campbell's were not aware of the issue until recently. He suggested that the Council
consider the best interest of the community, not ODOT. He also requested an additional
seven days f.<)r additional testimony as allowed by ORS.
Mr. Farthing provided a written copy of his testimony.
.
2. LarryThorp, 644 North A Stre~t, representing Jack and Sarah Heacock, spokein ,
. oppositIon to the proposal. He discussed ground rules and proposal three. _ He hoped that
staff would consider moving the project more to the east to provide some additional
space. He also suggested that the project be funded. He felt the staff should be required
to work withODOT~nd the property owner.
3. Sandra Thompson, 250 S~uth 70th, spoke in opposition to the to the proposal. She
discus'sedthe loss of property, the financial burden and the decrease in property value.
" '
4. Harley Thompson, 250 South 70th Street, spoke in opposition to the. He discussed the
loss of property and trees, and a decrease in privacy and property value. He felt other
options were available.
5. Robert Campbell, 9301 SW Sagert 153, Tualatin, representing his parents, the
Campbell's, spoke in opposition to the proposal. H<? explained that 15 months went by
before they heard anything about the proposal and then w,ere given short'notice regarding
a decision to be made on this issue. ,. ,
6. Nan Harrison, 6897 Forsythia, spoke in support of street improvements. She felt that
safety issues needed to be addressed. She also explained that highway accessibility
, would be provided and noted the increase in development and traffic. She felt the plan
addressed all those who use the streets for traveling. She supported proposal number
three: -
.
7. Walter Henderson, 6895 Main, spoke in opposition to the proposal. He discussed the lack
of communication between resiQents and city staff. Mr. Henderson explained that his
property was for sale but that did not lessen the value of his property. He felt that staff
has taken ashort period of time to make the project work and felt there was a lack of
planning related to this project.
:R"egular Council Meeting
October 21, 1996
Page 5
.
8. Don McLane, 822 South 69th Street, spoke in support of drawing number three.
9. Ron Hiebenthal, 810 South 69th Street, spoke in support to the proposal. He discussed
the need to address safety issues and the need for speed control. He hoped council would
move forward and improve the community.
10. Stan Lynch, 2400 G Street, spoke regarding the proposal.
, ,
11. Bud Bitler, 370 S;69th Place, spoke in favor of option number 4.
.councilor Burge closed the public hearing.
Councilor Shaver ask'ed a question regarding the assessment to property owners and Clarified
thatthe project would not be a project that would be assessed to the property owp.ers. Mr.
Peroutka responded that that was correct.
Councilor Shaver asked about the deadline to respond and if a specific option needed to be
selected to secure the funding. Mr. Peroutka responded thatthe actual period for designing
the right-of-w~y, acquisition and other issues was to be completedbySeptemberJ997.
.
Councilor Shaver discussed issues such as'moving plants and trees, rebuilding and move
fences, building new fences that did not exist; remove and rebuild porches, move . structures
that could or J?eeded to be moved, etc. He guestioned how council and the city could ensure
that these things would be done witho~t the cost being assessed to the property owners. Mr.
Leahy explained that the state relocation staff members were required to meet with property
owners and discuss the potential impact to their propet1)' and what could be done to .
. minimize, eliminate or pay for those i~pacts. Mr. Le~hy explained that property owners
were concerned with impacts, some people may want to be cor,npensated for things, others
may want to do the work themselves. Councilor Shaver expressed concern for protecting the
citizens. Mr. Leahy explained that the state would meet with property owners to determine
the value of items. If the parties are not able to agree on this amount, a jury can make the
determination. .
. .
Councilor Shaver asked if Mr. Peroutka could provide some insight regarding traffic control
as well as cost and a comparison of options three and four. Mr. Peroutka explained that staff
, recommended option number three over four. Mr. Peroutka explained that option three had
direct 'alignment with69~h Street, more direct access and did not require peop1~ to go west to
access signals. In terms of the property to the south, the 69th Place road is in an improved
state. The width of the street ,can handle the traffic volume that/would be coming to that'
intersection. It also has sidewalks up to that point for pedestrian access. Option four, South
70th, aside from where it would be improved, is a narrow street, fairly hazardous in terms of
pedestrian and vehicular access. The 69th Street alignment puts the pedestrian crossing at a
more reasonable place where people generally want to take access rather than be forced to go
east..
.
Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 1996
Page 6
.
Councilor Dahlquist considered option numbers three and four. He wondered if option
number four could be studied a little closer: Mr. Peroutka explained that council did need to
. be specific regarding the option to be selected. Mr. Thames explained that council did need'
to be specific regarding the option. He also stated thatODOT did not support option number
four and only supported the 69th Place option, no other alternatives.
CoU"ncilor Maine stated that the initial intent of this ptoject was for pedestrian safety. There
was no perfect solution and this would not be an easy issue to solve. She al~o explained that
many hours of staff work have gone into this project. She felt that the city has gone above
and bey,ond requirements to provide opportunity for public input. She did not support the
. 70th Street option because~ it could not be done well. She felt the benefits outweighed the
negative aspects to the proposal. Taking no action was not acceptable to her.
Councilor Shaver felt this was a difficult decision and there would not be a perfect solution.
He explained that efforts were made because they cared about the citizens and the '
community and needed to look at what long term needs were. He recognized the need to
solve a safety probleni and sup~orted option number three.
I
.
It WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR SHAVER, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
MAINE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-41, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION REGARDING SIGNAL INSTALLATION, AND INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS, OPTION THREE, 69TH PLACE THROUGH HENDERSON, THAT
IN DOING THAT WE ROUTE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OFF THE CAMPBELL
PROPERTY, AND MINIMIZE TO EVERY EXTENT PRACTICAL, THE AMOUNT OF
RIGHT OF WAY THAT NEEDS TO BE ACQUIRED FROM THE HEACOCKS AND'
, ,
THOMPSONS, TO INSTRUCT STAFF TO WORK WITH ALL ADJOINING PROPERTY
OWNERS TO MINIMIZE THE ADVERSE EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION ON THEIR
PROPERTY AND TO ACT AS A LIAISON BETWEEN THOSE RESIDENTS AND THE
STATE AND TO PROCEED WITH THE FUNDS SECURED, AND NO ASSESSMENTS
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6
FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
Council recessed at 8:45 'p.m.
Council reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
.
, ,
1. Correspondence From Bobby Green, Chair, Lane County Board of Commissioners,
Regarding aMeeting Scheduled for Wednesday, November 6, 1996, to Discuss Citizen
. Concerns Throughout Lane County. .
.
.
.
Regular Council Meeting
October 21; 1996
Page 7
IT WAS MOVED BYCOUNCILORSHA VER, WITH A SECOND BY c;OUNCILOR
MAINE, TO ACCEPT AND FILE THE CORRESPONDENCE.
Councilor Burge would attend the meeting and report back to council regarding the i~sue.
,.
City Recorder Eileen Stein entered the following documents into the public record:
. 2.. A petition signed by 171 Thurston Hills neighbors expressing support for the State of Oregon
tobuild a full intersection that will allow signalized access to Main Street from the south side
of the hi-way (Public hearing number two). '
3, Correspondence from Sheila Garcia, 6826 C Street, expressing support for the traffic signal
. to be installed at the Corner of 69th and Main Streets (Public h~aring number two).
4. Correspondence from Scott Smith, Co-President, ThurstonElementary PTA, 7345 Thurston
RC!ad, expressing 'support for the project (Public hearing number two).
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR SHAVER, WITH A SECOND BYCOUNCILOR .
MAINE, TO ACCEPT AND FILE CORRESPONDENCE NUMBERS TWO, THREE AND
FOUR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
. BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL'
1. Committee Appointments
,a. Arts Commission Appointment.
ITW AS MOVED BY COUNCILOR MAINE, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
BALLEW, TO APPOINT SHARON NEYLON TO nm ARTS COMMISSION. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Business from.Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Shaver reported on a SWPIC meeting. He ex:plained that he would be .
attending a meeting in the near future. He eXplained that a topic of interest was to try
and get a change to the original document that created SWPIC allowing them to move
out On their own if it was the best alternative. He explained that the city of Springfield
had some concerns. He was going to try and coordinate a meeting between
Springfield, Eugenl'? and Lane County do discuss issues. He would report back to
council on this issue.
.
.
. !
.\
" Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 1996
Page 8 .
Councilor Shaver also discussed funding issues related the way Lane County
proportions funding for the different departments (similar to the city of Springfield
Fund 13 / Vehicle Replacement Fund). Because of an error, Lane County has made a
county-wide reduction,to everyone in these funding levels.
2.
CounCilor Dahlquist reported that Jhe draft human habitat and recreation action plans
would be. released for citizen input..
3. Councilor Ballew reported ~m a recent telecommunications, workshop meeting she
attended.
Councilor Ballew reported on an Intergovernmental Human Services Committee
meeting she attended.
Councilor Ballew would be attending the Lane County Council of Govermnents
meeting on behalf of the Mayor.
6. Councilor Beyer reported on a recent Planning Commission meeting, Arts'
Commission meeting, LibraryiBoard, and a CV ALCO J?eeting. She explained that
CV ALCO would be announcing the appointment of a new director. .
)
.7. Councilor Maine reported on an LRAP A meeting. They received approval to form a
task force consisting of eight people. LRAP A also received approval to hire an interim.
director for LRAP A.
,8. Council of Burge 'reported that both he and Councilor Maine have been participating on
the PSCC and explained that work was being done on the task force groups..
Councilor Burge requested that staff add the Spring Project to an upcoming work
session meeting.
b. Oth~r Business
1. Correspondence From the' L~ague of Oregon Cities Regarding Voting Delegate and
Equipment Exchange Forms for the Annual Conference.
City Manager Mike Kelly would be attending as a board member. He explained that he
would represent the Council if it was their wish.
Councilor Burge suggested Council allow Mr. Kelly to represent the Council at the .
meeting and serve as their voting delegate.
2. Councilor Shaver recommended a letter be sent to Mr. Costabile thanking him for his
recent contribution to the city. City Manager Mike Kelly provided some background on
the services provided to Sony during emergency flood conditions. Sony did reimburse
the city for their time. Comlcilor Shaver recalled the discussion that council decided
they would not bill anyone for any services rendered. '
.
.
.
e' Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 1996
Page 9
Councilor Shaver suggested that a thank you letter be forwarded to the city of Eugene
for inviting Springfield to participate in the telecomrilUnications conference.
. Council did not disagree with Councilor Shaver.
. ,
3. Councilor Burge would be attending a meeting regarding the siting of a corrections
facility. .
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Street Improvement Project 1-'958.
/
RESOLUTION NO. 96-42 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING PROJECT 1-958. STREET
IMPROVEMENTS ALONG WALNUT ROAD FROM ASPEN TO POL T A V A STREETS,
AND VICINITY.
City,Engipeer Al Peroutka was available to answer questions presented the staff report on this
issue. The council must decide whether to go forward with the requested improvement
project on Walnut Road. Council adoption of the resolution of intent is the first step in the
improvement process.
.,
IT W AS MOVED BY COUNCILOR SHAVER, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
MAINE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-42. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Correctional Facility Siting.
, \', ,
RESOLUTION NO. 96-43 - A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE SITING OF A MEDIUM
SECURITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY IN THE EUGENE/SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA.
. j
City Manager Mike Kelly presented the staff report on this issue., The state of Oregon is
considering the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area as a potential site for a medium security
correctional facility. The city ofEugeIie has asked the city of Springfield'for support in their
initial opposition to the correctional facility siting. - ,
The issue was discussed at the City Council meeting of October 14, 1996. The proposed
Resolution is intended to reflect the ~cinsensus reached qythe City C()un~il at that meeting.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR SHAVER, WITH'A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
MAINE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 96-43. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
, OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
3'. Other Business
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
'" .. c:. 'L.. '1
.
.
.
. Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 1996
Page 10
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Julie Wilson
J6dP~
Bill Morrisette
Mayor
Attest:
./
~