HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/2009 Work Session
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
I
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 I
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Main~ Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 20, 2009 at 5:45 p.m:., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Lundberg, Wylie, Leezer, Ralston, Woodrow and
Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery,
City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members ofthe ~taff.
1. Local Wastewater User Fees for Fiscal Year 09-10.
Environmental Services Supervisor Tim Schuck presented the staff report on this item. Rate
options for local wastewater user fees were reviewed by the City Council at the April 13, 2009
Work Session. Staff was asked to provide detail on additional rate options for Fiscal Year (FY) 09-
10 for consideration by Council later this spring.
At the April 13 th Council Work Session, staff reviewed required capital projects and timelines,
discretionary and/or deferred capital projects, rate drivers, and various rate scenarios for local
wastewater user fees. The Council Briefing Memo (Attachment 2 in the agenda packet) from
April 13th is included for reference. At that meeting, Council requested that staff provide the
analysis of an additional scenario with a 14% rate increase for FY 09-10 and resultant rate
projections through FY 13-14. This scenario as well as the original Opti~n 1, which is an 18%
increase in FY 09-10, is provided in Exhibit A forreview.
Councilor Woodrow referred to the 14% option, and asked if the 22% increase for FYlOlll was
only a potential increase if everything stayed the same.
Mr. Schuck said that was correct. If SDCs increased or other revenues, increased, that figure could
be lower.
I
Mayor Leiken reminded Council that last week Council had asked for sotne other options and
now staff needed direction.
Councilor Woodrow said the reason Council asked for the 14% option Was to make the impact on
the citizens as low as possible and still allow staff to do as much in term~ of projects as possible.
The Option 2+ 14% would satisfy both of those. It should provide a little extra to do some ofthe
work earlier. He would be in favor of that option. I
Councilor Pishioneri said he supported Option 1 because it offered the greatest amount of
flexibility and offered the funds to get started and also invest. It also provided the same increase
next year.
Councilor Ralston said he also was in favor of Option 1, as he felt it saved money in the long run
and offered more flexibility. i
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 20, 2009
Page 2
Councilor Lundberg said she was fine with Option 2+ 14%. Staff was recommending at least a
10% increase this year, which seemed reasonable because of the tough edonomic times. The City
needed to be sensitive to that. She could not support Option I. !
Councilor Leezer said she agreed with Option 2+ 14%, but was concerned with the increase in
FYIO-ll. Option 1 would allow the City to proceed with projects earmarked.
Councilor Pishioneri said he was sensitive to the current times, but the difference in the increase
was very small. Option 1 gave staff more flexibility to do their job at only .60 per month. Council
had always tried to give staff flexibility and the users would have to make it up at some point.
Councilor Wylie asked for clarification about Option 1 and more funds coming in sooner to get
more work done that could be cheaper in the long run. '
Mr. Schuck said in the out-year Option 2+ 14% had the smallest overall bill in FY13/14. With
Option 1, the City would not have to draw down on reserves as much and could get interest
income, which would mean more money in the long run. '
Councilor Wylie said she liked Option I.
Mayor Leiken asked how Councilors Lundberg and Woodrow felt about Option I.
Both were opposed.
Councilor Woodrow explained. He felt they needed to be sensitive, and we were also asking
citizens to pass the fuel tax of .02. He understood they had to increase it ~o some degree, but if
they could increase it less now, it was a good compromise. '
Mayor Leiken said he was more inclined to support Option I because frontloading made more
sense. The way the financial markets were trending, there could be some:significant inflation in
the next two to three years. If the City could put forth some of this now with the reserves in place,
we could hold off certain obstacles that may be coming. He would have been fme with either
~~ I
Mr. Schuck said he had also included Option 2+ 16% for Council considlration.
Council did not want to take that into consideration. I
!
Mr. Grimaldi said they would have the public hearing on May 18. Council could change their
minds after the public hearing if they chose.
I
Mayor Leiken thanked staff for bringing this back to Council and for their work. This was
important. Council may not have been so adamant for staff to come back if economic times were
better. He would like to hear from members of the public who would be fffected the most.
i
2.' Update on Stormwater Management Plan Activities
,
i
I
Environmental Services Supervisor George Walker presented the staff report on this item. The
purpose of this item is to inform Council on the status of the City's stomlwater management
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 20, 2009
Page 3
activities. Two primary items of focus are the updates to the City's adopted Stormwater
Management Plan (Plan) and the Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan (TMDL).
This Plan was drafted to address the Willamette Basin TMDL order issu~dby the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) concerning mercury, temperature, and basteria pollution, and to '
augment the activities outlined in the Plan to meet specific water quality improvement objectives.
The Plan directs City activities for compliance with State and Federal cJan Water Act and .
I
Endangered Species Act requirements, as well as the Council's "7 Key Qutcomes for
Stormwater." Implementation of the full range of activities included in the Plan is a requirem~nt
of the City's Stormwater discharge permit issued by DEQ. Springfield c~.mtinues to pursue
stormwater management in a manner that adapts to the resources that are available and prioritizes
the activities to address the overall needs of the community. The Plan has a five year schedule to
meet objectives in each of the required stormwater management areas. While not all activities
described within the Plan (which was adopted by the City in 2004) have been accomplished,
significant accomplishments have occurred. I
Looking back at the last year's regulatory compliance accomplishments; the annual report for DEQ
was completed and submitted, the Stormwater Facility Master Plan was completed and adopted by
Council, and the TMDL plan has been prepared and submitted to DEQ. These activities included
the necessary public outreach and oversight by selected stakeholders. Day to day staff
implementation activities have focused on high priority objectives ofthe Plan. Many on-the-
ground, in-the-class-room, and in-the-hands ofthe 'citizens' tasks occurred. Examples of these
include the Peace Health storm water and riparian development, elementary through high school on-
and off-site educational projects, and a new auto shop certification program. As well, staffhave
continued efforts to respond to pollutant incidents, and provide basic mo~itoring.
,
Looking ahead, there are additional needs to accomplish the revised schedule of activities
outlined in the Plan for years two through five of the adopted Plan. In aQdition, staff will
participate in the Glenwood and Downtown Refinement plans and contribute to Springfield
Development Code revisions to'address water quality improvement needs. We will continue to
work with Lane County via the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement for shared
responsibilities within the areas between the city limits and the urban grdwth boundary.
Results ofDEQ review of the annual report shifted the schedule to addre~s time that elapsed prior
to issuance of the permit and various housekeeping changes are discussed in the Council Briefmg
Memo. The annual report does revteal that we are behind on some meas~es and will have to
work creatively to achieve objectives and requirements with reduced staffing in FY 09-10 to meet
budget reduction goals. , I
The Plan as presented in this work session will be presented for Public Hearing and adoption in
the Regular Session. I
i
,
Mr. Walker said it was always a pleasure to bring this to Council becaus~ of their involvement in
this plan since the outset in 1999. The City had developed programs to m;onitor the stonnwater
quality in Springfield, educated the community, wo,rked with land develqpment and alteration
permit~ and the builders, and had made an impact on the community. Th~ program had received a
number of high level permits. The City had partnered with TEAM Springfield members, Lane
County and the community. The plan offered flexibility to adapt with what's going on in the
environment, was an emerging technology and was much more prevalent in people's view of how
they lived. The City had received good response from the regulators we worked with, such as the
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 20, 2009
Page 4
I
DEQ and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Both had been v~ry complimentary in the
programs Springfield had developed because they did follow the Council:'s key outcomes. Mr.
Walker said our contemporaries (Eugene, Albany, and Corvallis) had loo).<:ed at the programs in
Springfield and emulated some of those programs. !
Mr. Walker referred to the Council Briefmg Memorandum (in the agend~ packet) where the three
major elements ofthe City's stormwater program were outlined. The fIrst of those was the Seven
Key Outcomes, which Council was involved in developing. The Stormwater Management Plan
(SMP), which was a response to the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
requirements, included a program which was the TMDL plan. This plan came about from the
EP A's listing of Springfield's rivers for bacteria, temperature, and mercury contamination. The
activities outlined in those elements were implemented by both Public Works (PW) and
Development Services Department (DSD). He explained. Staff was currently doing a septic tank
inventory to find septic tanks in the City and adjacent areas. They were working with Eugene
Water and Electric Board (EWEB) with some grant money to possibly extend that inventory with
grant funds. Staff had worked with development activities, both public and private, through the
construction phase and to help them develop better water quality. They also did a lot of record
keeping, not only for reporting purposes, but to maintain credibility for our programs.
Mr. Walker said the two items he was bringing before Council tonight were because of regulatory
approvals to the amendment to the SMP and that the City now had formal approval for the TMDL
plan. The TMDL plan was to augment the MS4 permit and addressed activities to reduce
temperature, reduce bacteria, and mercury in all of Springfield's discharges. It didn't need a
formal adoption to satisfy the regulators, but was folded into our SMP. The City did receive
DEQ's letter of approval for this plan. The SMP was different from the TMDL and was the City's
overall stormwater program. It had a requirement that the City would do annual reporting.
Another requirement was that staff would bring it back to Council for formal acceptance. The
City's process of that acceptance is by adoption of a resolution. The updates to the plan were to
reflect permit issuance date problems. He explained the timeline since the City fIrst applied for
the MS4 permit and that the dates were updated to reflect the current timeline and tasks done.
Staff also fixed some formatting errors in the SMP and inconsistencies in wording in tables.
There were some minor negotiated aspects of the plan where the City had fallen behind the
schedule. We wer.e able to negotiate with DEQ to get back on track.
Mr. Walker spoke regarding future expectations. He said technology was: changing, and he
expected new rules would be coming. Staff was going to emphasize public education because it
was one of the most effective things they did. They would also change their emphasis to look at
source control and where pollutants started. If they were able to emphasize that, it could be a
money saver for the City as a whole. Personally, he saw having a wetlands bank in Springfield to
keep those wetlands in this area.
Councilor Lundberg said one of the places she would like to see some mitigation was around the
schools. As we grew and changed and looked at densities, kids lost the opportunity to be out in an
urban forest setting. Page Elementary was near Harvest landing, and she remembered helping her
children dig a ditch at that location. Kids took ownership of that and those were learning
opportunities in the school setting, so she would like to expand that. She ~sked about the Fish
Friendly Car Wash Kits. The company she worked for did allow kids domg fundraising to wash
their trucks and she would be interested in getting the Car Wash Kits for those events. '
I
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 20, 2009
Page 5
Mr. Walker said that would be great. He explained the car wash kit. Charities did hold car washes
all over town and those activities were exempted from the DEQ regulation, which means soapy
water was running into the storm sewers. The kit included a little sump pump to be put into the
catch basin where the soapy water went and pumped it into the sanitary sewer. That would
comply with all DEQ requirements for commercial car washes. Staff helped set up the hoses so
they could keep the water on site and kept in the wastewater system so it was treated. The kits
were free to any charity that wanted to use them if enough were available on a given day. Kim
Whorrall managed that program and it had been very successful. He said he would provide Ms.
Whorall's business cards.
Councilor Woodrow asked about the wetland bank. He asked if wetlands' would be considered as
they went through the CIBL and residential lands studies.
Planning Manager Greg Mott thought the City should avoid expanding the UGB in order to have
wetlands.
Mr. Grimaldi asked if that was something to take into consideration if a wetland bank was
established. I
Public Works Director Susie Smith said staff was looking at areas where wetland systems served
as stormwater functions, such as in the Glenwood Refmement Plan. There were issues in some
areas where wetlands had been filled in for development and the water had to be trained to go
where it didn't want to go. The approach being taken in the interim was to incorporate the
wetland functions in storm drainage management and hopefully do more retention of the existing
wetlands for future developments. The wetlands bank piece was a separate issue, but they were
doing some work in the interim.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to page 53 ofthe SMP. On that page, it indicated that the
Metropolitan Endangered Species Act Coordinating Team (MECT) comprised of members of
Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. He thought Springfield had pulled out of that. He noted the
last paragraph that said "Springfield was a participant on the MECT . . . stopped meeting as the
project was completed". It sounded like there was a conflict in what it was saying.
Ms. Smith said the City had not pulled out, but was on hiatus because they did fmish a scientific
evaluation and report. It was an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that :the cities and Lane
County joined. They were there as a team when more work went forwarq. It didn't end, but did
complete a significant piece of work. '
Councilor Pishioneri said the wording was misleading. He referred to the paragraph on page 54
above "Proposed MS4 Plan Activities". The words 'thought out' should be changed to
'throughout' .
Mayor Leiken thanked Mr. Walker for mentioning that other jurisdictions were looking at our
plan. Staff deserved credit for that. This year, thanks to a suggestion from Ms. Smith, the City
was trying to showcase what we had accomplished and our programs. This year the City would
be presenting certificates and thanking people in the business communit~, education community
and other citizens for making Springfield a cleaner place to live. Springfi'eld had things here we
should be proud of and he thanked staff for getting the job done. He note~ the education with the
schools and the outstanding program at Agnes Stewart Middle School (ASMS). He was able to
I
I
participate in some activities in this program last year with his son and watched the kids learn and
take ownership.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 20, 2009
Page 6
Councilor Pishioneri said he didn't want to seem critical pointing out the minor corrections. He
really appreciated the work being done by staff. Springfield had a great reputation for water
quality. Goodjob.
Mayor Leiken spoke regarding wetland banks. There were some private property owners
interested in doing something such as a trade. He asked staff to continue to reach out to people
regarding this issue. He gave an example in Roseburg. Property owners could see the significance
of setting up a wetland bank because of the opportunity for trade. He thought it was a good idea.
Mr, Walker said he already knew a couple of property owners that were interested in that concept.
Council said good work.
3. Highway 126 Expressway Management Plan Update.
Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt presented the staff report on this item. ODOT has
completed Phase I - Current and Future No-Build Conditions, and Phase 2 - Alternatives
Analysis (3 eastern intersections) and Policy Framework, ofthe OR 126 Expressway
Management Plan. Phase 3, now underway, proposes to complete Concept Refinement/Selection
for l26/52nd St. and l26/Main St., Policy Development and Implementation, Agency Approvals,
and Plan Documentation. A future Phase 4 would develop project alternatives and policies for
the three western interchange locations - 42nd St., Mohawk and Pioneer Parkway.
The Expressway Management Plan (EMP) is required by ODOT policy for OR 126 between 1-5
and Main Street. The EMP must be completed for one or more segments of the OR 126 corridor
before ODOT can make investment decisions to improve intersection/interchange locations, or
linear segments ofthe highway. '
The goal of the current EMP Phase 3 is to select a preferred build alternative for both the 52nd
Street and Main Street intersections to improve safety and capacity at those locations, and to
consider and potentially adopt a policy framework at the local level that relates to managing the
intersection locations to preserve the operational life of system investments.
ODOT staff will update Council on project activities and next steps. OD6T and City staff will be
available to answer questions.
Mr. Boyatt introduced Savanna Crawford from ODOT. Ms. Crawford took the position of
Planner for ODOT when Mr. Boyatt left ODOT to join the City. Mr. Bo~att said a hard copy of
the power point presentation that Ms. Crawford would present was in the: agenda packet, along
with 11 x 17 graphics of the alternatives and timeline.
Ms. Crawford presented a power point presentation.
Ms. Crawford gave an overview of the Expressway Management Plan, including what was
driving the project, who was involved, what had been done so far in Phases 1 and 2, and what to
expect in Phase 3. The Expressway Management Plan was a plan for the expressway ofHwy 126
from 1-5 to Main Street. They looked at forming a plan to try to manage the operation and
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 20, 2009
Page 7
function of the facility over a twenty year period. They also looked to design policies and design
recommendations, which ODOT would bring back to Council. The proje6t management team was
a multi-jurisdictional collaboration including Springfield, Lane County ari.d other partners, and
served as an umbrella document. She explained how they broke this into aifferent segments and
I
some of those segments. Once they completed each segment, they would ,put together the full
Expressway Management Plan. I
Ms. Crawford said there were several things driving the project, including traffic, safety, and
freight mobility, and congestion. The 52nd Street intersection was currently failing according to
standards. There were a number of traffic collisions in this area, There were similar issues at the
Main Street intersection, including high levels of pedestrian activity and a number of driveways.
Ms. Crawford said the Project Management Team was comprised of staff from the City of
Springfield, Lane County, Lane Transit District (LID), Lane Council of Governments (LCOG),
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and ODOT. This group did
technical review and presented information to the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee
was comprised of two individuals from ODOT, two LC Commissioners and two Springfield
Councilors, Councilor Ralston and Pishioneri. The Steering Committee is the decision making
body in this process. There was also a public involvement process. She explained.
Ms. Crawford described the schedule and work plan. This should be wrapped up in April or May
of 20 I O. She discussed what had been done in Phases 1 and 2 and noted the study area for Phase
3. The group took the ten remaining concepts from Phase 2, set aside those with large issues, and
was left with seven remaining concepts, four at Main Street and three at 52nd Street. The Goal was
to come up with one concept at each location.
Councilor Ralston said at the last meeting, Commissioner Dwyer discussed the 52nd Street
intersection and a slip lane at that site. He didn't see that in any of the concepts.
Ms. Crawford said she would be addressing that next. She explained the fIrst concept at 52nd
Street. She explained the intersection and how the concept used the existing street system. The
overall operation of the intersection would be the same but shifted over slightly. At the last
Steering Committee meeting, there was concern there was no short term improvement, such as a
slip lane to help with the traffic flow. That was what the Steering Committee meeting was for, to
look into those ideas. That would be addressed, but had not been incorpobted yet on the maps.
I
Councilor Pishioneri said the goal was for a long-term fix.
Ms. Crawford said when looking at short-term improvements, they wanted to make sure those
improvements lasted as long as possible and could be done in a phased approach.
i
Mr. Boyatt said one of the opportunities with one of the larger projects ~as that it could be
I
phased. Looking at the expanded intersection project, that could be completely rebuilt, but it
wouldn't have had any phasing. There was a choice to make. He discussed costs associated with
phasing and the chance to find dollars to build it all. '
Mayor Leiken asked who paid for the temporary improvements offI-5 a~d Beltline for traffic
going north on 1-5, turning east on Beltline. It was ODOT. He asked if that was the type of
interim or short-term fix. :
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 20, 2009
Page 8
Mr. Boyatt said it was an example of a near term fix that wouldn't get in the way of the long-term
fix.
Ms. Crawford discussed the second concept at 52nd. She explained the concept.
Councilor Wylie asked if they costed out the concepts and if that was part of the consideration.
Ms. Crawford said they would be costed out. The next step was to look at the concepts through a
variety of criteria, including cost. She explained the third concept at 52nd Street. She explained the
first concept for the Main Street interchange. There was an example of this type of interchange in
Salem at Market Street. She explained the second concept for the Main Street interchange which
included a flyover.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about southbound traffic from Hwy 126 turning west onto Main
Street.
Ms. Crawford explained. All turn movements would remain.
Mr. Boyatt said one of the reasons for the free right turns was to help with pedestrian crossing.
Ms. Crawford explained the third and fourth concepts at Main Street.
Councilor Woodrow said in looking at the concepts for the Main Street interchange, he didn't see
any solutions to address traffic tie-ups from southbound traffic from Hwy 126 turning east onto
Main Street. He explained the issues.
Ms. Crawford said she agreed and they understood that movement was a huge traffic generator.
When doing the intersection improvements, most were dual lefts or triple lefts with a single
through. They were addressing that issue in the concepts, but it was difficult to tell from the
maps. They did realize it was a concern.
Councilor Woodrow said the same issue was at 52nd Street. He asked if ODOT would resurface
Hwy 126 if they put three lanes in each direction.
Ms. Crawford said that was one of the plans with this.
Mr. Boyatt referred to the southbound left turn. In Phase 2, he was a proponent of grade
separating that similar to a flyover. Unfortunately, that had very negative impacts to all of the
accesses and businesses in that area. They had come back to more traditi6nal ideas, and in the
modeling, determined the predominant area of traffic growth would be ~om Jasper Natron. By
taking that movement out ofthe intersection and making other improvements, they hoped there
wouldn't be any additional volumes. He explained. They hadn't seen furt;her traffic analysis for
all the concepts. They also needed to weigh capacity with affordability. .
Councilor Woodrow asked if ODOT and Lane County would look at a lqw grade traffic signal at
Mt. Vernon and Bob Straub because of the expansion into the Jasper Natron area.
Mr. Boyatt said those issues had been brought up by Springfield staff. They were trying to give
local traffic opportunities on the local system. If they could make connections off the State
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 20, 2009
I
Pqe9 I
system, it could make the State system work better. Unfortunately, the State system was in the
way. He noted other options at the Daisy intersection. I
,
Mayor Leiken asked about the timing of this project and which intersection would be done fIrst.
Ms. Crawford said if all timelines were met and they could move throuJ the NEP A process, it
would be about six to ten years for construction, at a minimum. Funding kould be needed for the
NEP A process and construction. Which intersection was done first would depend on funds
secured and discussions with the City. They could go to phasing if only a portion of funding was
received. There were a number of factors to consider.
Mr. Boyatt said for the past three years, the City had made a request through Congressman
DeFazio's office for funding for NEPA through the annual appropriations bill. This year, with the
six year transportation reauthorization, the City was allowed three high priority projects. The City
was requesting $20M to get started on solutions at this location. He would be preparing a memo
to Council regarding federal priorities, but was filling out the federal funding forms and writing
the letters this week to meet the deadline. He would give Council an update next week.
Mayor Leiken noted the amount of federal funds that were going into the Columbia crossing
project and wondered ifthere would be any funds left for any other projects. He felt this would be
one ofthe worst legacies for Oregon and the best legacy for Vancouver, Washington. The
challenge would be the funding.
Ms. Crawford said ODOT was working closely with the City. During the Open House on March
18, there were about 15-20 participants who saw the seven concepts. She discussed some ofthe
responses from the Open House. Most agreed that whichever design concept was chosen, the less
property taken the better, and they wanted to incorporate'pedestrian safety. The next steps
included the sounding board meetings, property owner meetings, and policy concepts with the
help of Springfield and Lane County. They planned to narrow the concepts to two preferred at
each location and then bring them back to Council for adoption.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Attest: