Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/12/2009 Work Session City of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2009 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 12, 2009 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ralston, Lundberg, Leezer, Simmons, and Pishioneri (5:45 p.m.). Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City RecorderAmy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor Wylie was absent (excused). 1. Local Improvement District (LID) Overview & Request for S 38th Street and Cherokee Drive. Civil Engineer Matt Stouder presented the staff report on this item. A Local Improvement District was a fmancing and construction tool that assisted property owners with installing various public improvements in their neighborhood, and could be initiated by the request of a private citizen or the City Council. The sponsoring property owner circulated a petition for improvement to other property owners in the proposed district, and if signed by more than 50% of affected owners, returned the petition to the City for review. If a property owner chose to initiate an LID and- was successful in petitioning more than 50% of the owners in the proposed district, staff would schedule a work session, such as tonight, and then a regular session where Council could either initiate or not initiate the LID by resolution. If Council chose to initiate the LID by resolution, the City Engineer would prepare a report of the proposed projects, budget costs, and details then provide notice to any effected property owners. A public hearing would then be scheduled for possible adoption. If less than two-thirds of the property owners in the district remonstrate (object) to the petition by the date of the public hearing, Council could choose to adopt the LID by ordinance. Remonstrance would need to occur in writing following the report from the City Engineer. People could also show up at the public hearing and testify in opposition. If Council chose to adopt the LID by ordinance, the City would move to engineer the plans for the project, receive bids and commence construction. City staff received a LID petition about a year ago from the property owners at 3810 Cherokee Drive to extend public wastewater service in Cherokee Dr. in response to their septic system failure. That property, as well as other properties in the proposed LID, was shown in Attachment 3 of the agenda packet. Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) required properties within 300 feet of a public wastewater system to hookup to the system if their septic system fails. Staff hosted a neighborhood meeting at Agnes Steward Middle School in February 2009 to discuss general LID concepts with affected property owners at their request. Attachment 4 in the agenda packet included the questions and answers from that meeting. After the meeting, the sponsoring property owner circulated a petition for improvement and collected approximately 52% of the property owner's signatures, then submitted the petition to the City on July 13,2009. Support for the LID was favorable among properties nearer 3810 Cherokee Dr, with less support City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 12, 2009 Page 2 westerly between S 37th Street and S 34th Place (Attachment 3 in the agenda packet). For this reason, Council may wish to suggest that the property owner explore the option of pursuing a smaller LID between S 38th and S 37th Streets. If Council suggested the property owner explore a smaller LID, the property owner would need to submit a new petition. Staff had scheduled time on the November 2,2009 regular session agenda to co;nsider action on this proposed LID by Council. At that meeting, affected property owners may attend and provide comments of concern or support. Council would then be requested to either proceed with initiating the LID by adopting a resolution, direct staff to work with the property owner to form a smaller LID, or direct staff to not proceed with the project. Mayor Leiken asked about the cost to the property owner, to hook to the City system. Mr. Stouder said for the one property owner to hook up without an LID, it would cost about $25,000-$30,000. There were also system development charges (SDCs) and other fees. Mayor Leiken asked if staff knew the average assessed value of the homes in that area. Anytime a homeowner went from septic to city sewer, the value of the home did increase. Mr. Stouder said he would get that information. He did note that staff looked into whether or not any ofthe property owners qualified for the low-income assistance program through our housing division, but none did. Mr. Stouder said if a property was within 300 feet of city sewer and the septic failed, the property owner would be responsible to hook up to city system and pay for the system. Councilor Leezer asked how the cost was billed over the ten year period. Mr. Duey said it was Bancroft financing, which was spread over a 10 year period. The property owners were billed every 6 months and interest rates were determined by the previous bond sale, usually lower than with most banks. It was a lien on the property. In the past, the City fmanced over a 20 year period, but had shortened it to 10 years due to a number of issues. Councilor Leezer asked w4at happened if the property owner defaulted on their mortgage and lost their house. Mr. Grimaldi said if the property owner did not pay the Bancroft, the City foreclosed. Mr. Leahy said if the bank foreclosed, our Bancroft lien had priority over the bank's. Mr. Duey said over the years, the City had foreclosed on very few houses, but had rather been very flexible and tried hard to make things work out for the property owner. Councilor Simmons said the petition list, original petition, and a cost estimate of the project were things he would like to see. He would also like an evaluation on the septic systems of the other homes and an understanding of the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) status about replacement of septic systems. He said he spoke with a resident who had signed the petition_ specifically for the meeting to occur and data to be received, and another person who was opposed and felt the original petition may have been flawed. If all properties were on septic and were near failure, then we needed to look at this process carefully. He said he did not know how City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 12,2009 Page 3 much the City had charged 3810 for their connection. A number of people were upside down on their mortgages and at least two houses had undergone recent foreclosure, so he was not sure if incurring the $30,000 Bancroft would put others upside down. He felt he didn't have all the details on this. Staff had targeted November 2 for the public hearing, but any decision needed to be predicated on facts that were not yet available. He could not proceed with a supporting vote without that information. Mr. Grimaldi said staff would get those facts to Council prior to the public hearing. Tonight's discussion was to learn what type of information Council would like to have. Councilor Simmons said once this was in the remonstrance category a burden had been created to the property owners. If there were questions regarding the validity of the original petition, that needed to be addressed. Mr. Stouder said they could provide the original petition. Staff had verified from Lane County Deeds and Records that the signatures were those of the property own~rs iJJ the proposed distrir,t Councilor Simmons asked about the current status of the signatures. Mr. Stouder said as oflast week, the property owners were the same as when signed. Councilor Simmons asked if Mr. Stouder had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Peterson regarding the petition. Mr. Stouder said he had spoken to Mr. Peterson about his concerns. Staffhad gone through and verified that the signatures were those of the property owners on the date submitted. Councilor Ralston asked how much it would take to replace a septic system that failed. Mr. Stouder said ifthey were more than 300 feet from City sewer~ and could receive approval from Lane County to replace their septic tank, it could cost approximately $5000 - $8,000. On the basis of the LID, they had estimated the cost would be about $12,000-$17,000, but bids had been coming in lower. To dojust the one property without an LID would be about $25,000-$30,000. Councilor Ralston said it would be smart for the properties to hook up to the sewer. Councilor Lundberg asked about one of the questions on Attachment 4, "What other costs might I incur besides LID project costs?" She confIrmed that the $2300 for SDCs was something the property owners would need to pay. Mr. Stouder said when they hooked up to the sewer, they would be assessed the SDCs. They could go along with the LID, but wait to hook up at a later date and pay the SDCs then. Councilor Lundberg said the property owner would also need to decommission their old septic tank when hooking up to the sewer. She would like to have information on the average cost to hook up to the City and to decommission the old septic system. The Bancroft rate didn't seem to be as low as other rates currently available. She would like staff to look into other possibilities to lower the interest rate and provide assistance to the property owners. Having a low or zero interest rate was a good incentive. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 12,2009 Page 4 Mr. Duey said in the past when the City was more active in LID programs, we would bundle several projects together and take them to the bond market. As a stand-alone project, the City couldn't sell bonds so would need to fmance in house. The City could set a rate that was fair to the City. Councilor Lundberg would like information regarding better rates and what the City could do to help. Councilor Pishioneri asked how much was needed to bundle for a bond sale. Mr. Duey said about $lM or more. He explained further. Councilor Pishioneri said he supported hooking up to the sewer system and felt people should not have septic if sewer was nearby. He asked if houses on Douglas and Redwood Drive were also on septic systems. Mr. Stouder said all on Douglas were hooked up or had access to hook up. Councilor Pishioneri was fme with moving forward. If neede~ to make it successful, they could remove the properties west of 37th. He respected their right to go forward. \ Councilor Lundberg asked how many property owners would qualify for the special senior deferral program and the amount for that program. Councilor Leezer asked if the cost per home would increase if a smaller area was chosen. Mr. Stouder said if a smaller LID was pursued, the property owner would need to re-petition the neighbors in the smaller area. If this petition went forward and was remonstrated, we could not move forward for another 6 months. If Council chose not to initiate and went back to do a smaller district, the petition would need to be revised and signatures gathered in that new area. It would likely be slightly more costly due to economy of scale. He said staff could get some figures. Mayor Leiken said it would be good for staff to have information for the scaled down version. If it was in an area where most everyone wanted to have it done, it would be easier for staff and Council. Septic systems did have issues. It might be best to focus in on folks that seemed the most interested. This was initiated by the property owner. He said the cost to the property owners in an LID would be substantially lower than hooking up individually when their system failed, but it was up to the property owner. He referred to Councilor Simmons comments from neighbors that were opposed and felt the petition was faulty. Mr. Stouder said once the property owner brought forward 52% of the property owners' signatures, staff was required to bring it to Council for direction. Councilor Simmons asked ifthere was an opportunity through DEQ for funds to help with the cost. Todd Miller, Assistant Project Manager from Environmental Services, said there were programs through DEQ' s 319 line of funding and the Oregon State University (OSU) Extension. The City would need to target the agency we wanted to partner with and fmd out what was available. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 12,2009 Page 5 Councilor Simmons said it would be good to check into external funds to assist. People needed to understand that if their system failed, their home could be uninhabitable. Councilor Ralston said if looking at the smaller option, he would like to give as many people as possible the ability to make the right decision. There were five houses that went past 37th. He would suggest extending it all the wflY to 3659. Councilor Simmons said the sewer line could be extended and people could pay for it later as their systems failed. It would most likely be more expensive for those property owners at that time, however. Councilor Pishioneri noted those property owners that might want to be in the LID, but were unable to because of one or two neighbors adjacent to them. The education piece would provide an edge to get those additional property owners. . . Discussion was held. regarding SDC increases in the near future. Councilor Leezer said it would be helpful to provide to property owners an informational sheet on the current costs and the future costs with SDC increases. Mayor Leiken asked if this could be moved to November 16 instead of November 2. Mr. Stouder said they could re-notice the property owners of the new date. Mr. Grimaldi said it could be beneficial for Council to get additional feedback on November 2 from the property owners. The public hearing would remain on November 2. 2. Historic Commission Interviews. City Planner Molly Markarian presented the staff report on this item. The Municipal Code stated that the qualifications for membership on the Historic Commission included being appointees of Willamalane Park & Recreation District or Springfield School District #19; or specialists with expertise in the fields of architecture, history, architectural history, planning, or archeology who lived within the Metropolitan Area General Plan boundaries; or were residents, electors, or property owners within Springfield. The School District and Willamalane declined to appoint representatives to fill this vacancy. State and Federal funding of the City's historic preservation activities stipulated that a majority of the Commissioners had professional qualifications in a field related to historic preservation. Four existing members possessed these qualifications. The vacancy on the Commission was the result of Mar en Tomblin's resignation due to family obligations. Springfield Municipal Code Section 2.500 stated that any vacancy on the Historic Commission shall be filled by the Mayor and Council for the unexpired portion of the term of the member creating the vacancy. Ms. Tomblin's term would expire March 31, 2010. The Historic Commission recommended Judy Williams for the position. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 12, 2009 Page 6 The Mayor and Council chose the questions they would ask of each of the applicants, and interviewed the two applicants: Pat Mahoney and Judy Williams. o Mayor Leiken: Why are you interested in serving on the Historic Commission? o Councilor Simmons: Describe your professional and personal experience as it relates to your desire to become a Historic Commissioner. o Councilor Lundberg: What initiatives are you interested in working on if you are appointed as a Commissioner? o Councilor Ralston: What is it about Springfield's history that interests you most? o Councilor Leezer: Have you attended a Historic Commission meeting? o Councilor Pishioneri: Describe your familiarity with the City's historic resources. Following the interviews, the Mayor and Council discussed the qualifications of the two applicants. Both were well qualified and would be an asset to the commission. Council consensus was to appoint Judy Williams to the Historic Commission at their October 19 Council meeting. 3. Introduction to Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update Proiect. City Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The City of Springfield had begun the process of developing a Transportation System Plan (TSP) in conjunction with the update of the Regional Transportation System Plan in order to meet the requirements of the state Transportation Planning Rule. This work session would provide a brief introduction to the TSP Project and an opportunity for Council to ask questions and provide comments. The TSP update was intended to serve as a blueprint to guide future multi-modal transportation system improvements and investment decisions for the City of Springfield. The TSP update would build off the existing TransPlan, which currently served as the metro-wide Eugene and Springfield TSP. Development of the TSP would be coordinated with and would support the concurrent city-wide buildable lands analysis, application of new residential efficiency measures and economic development strategies, and adoption of a new urban growth boundary. The TSP, which would ultimately be adopted as a refmement to the Comprehensive Plan, would include an inventory and general assessment of the existing transportation system; a determination of existing and future needs; a road plan; a public transportation plan; a bicycle/pedestrian plan; a parking plan; a transportation system management and demand management plan; an air, rail, water, and pipeline plan; and a financing / implementation plan. ODOT had committed $200,000 to the City TSP updale and the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) previously programmed $105,000 for the arterial and collector system and bike/pedestrian portions of the work. Staffhad worked with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and consultant CH2M Hill planners to develop a TSP scope of work, which was currently going through the ODOT procurement process. On October 6th, staff presented a draft Citizen Involvement Plan to the Planning Commission (acting as the Committee for Citizen Involvement - CCI). Staff would return to the CCI for final approval of the citizen involvement process after a brief stakeholder recruitment process. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 12,2009 Page 7 Mr. Reesor presented a power point presentation (included in the agenda packet), and reviewed what was required and what we already had in place. This plan would be Springfield specific. He discussed funding and staffing for this project. Mayor Leiken said when looking at the Metropolitan Policy Organization (MPO) and the regional side, this included Coburg. He noted how close Junction City was to Eugene and that those outlying areas were not included in this local study, although many people from those areas drove to Springfield to work and vice versa. He said there was no way to assess actual vehicle miles traveled in certain areas with a radius of25 miles. He appreciated the work staffhad done, and understood why it needed to be done. Mr. Goodwin said the Mayor was correct. After the 2010 census and the Transportation Management Area boundaries were redrawn, the next update to the Regional Transportation Plan would address the regional vehicle miles traveled. Mr. Reesor said this work was for the local!evel only" The Regionlll Transportation Plan would be updated in 2011, and the Regional Transportation System Plan in the works. . Mayor Leiken said the original TransPlan took a long time to create. He was confident with - stafr s work. Councilor Lundberg said some of those discussions were like those from Region 2050. The advantage was to focus on Springfield only and with that came other potential regarding funding. There were members on the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) that thought differently about the purpose of a transportation system. It would be interesting to see how we defined our own system. We needed to stay on top of this with climate change and global warming concepts and focus on what we wanted our transportation system to look like. Mr. Reesor said since Eugene and Springfield were each working on their individual TSP's, that would help with some of the regional goals and policies. Councilor Simmons said we needed to be proactive regarding our transportation system, and correlate the cost of carbon fuel ~d strategies of driving our bus lines into all areas. Our past plans had been reactive rather than proactive. He discussed the roads and the system as a whole. 4. Cedar Creek Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Assistant Project Manager Todd Miller (Public Works Environmental Services Division) presented the staff report on this item. He presented a brief power point presentation with maps of the subject area. Starting in 2002, the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, Lane County, Eugene Water & Electric Board, and US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) partnered on the Metro Waterways study to evaluate local waterway issues. This cooperative effort identified cost- effective methods for reducing flood damage, restoring habitat, and improving water quality. Two priority areas were identified for immediate study: Amazon Creek in the Eugene area and Cedar Creek in the Springfield area. The City of Springfield's interest in Cedar Creek included: · Management for flooding impacts · Storm water and creek channel water quality improvement · Preservation of the local drinking water supply City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October 12,2009 Page 8 Mr. Miller noted the many partners in this matter and introduced Larry Six, coordinator from McKenzie Watershed Council, who was in the audience. The study resulted in planning, public outreach, and development of a preferred alternative for moving forward. Local stakeholders met during the study to address the lower Cedar Creek watershed goals. These stakeholders identified that an MOU would formalize a partnership to address specific tasks. The value of the MOU includes: · Identify the scope and limits of individual partner interests and roles in Cedar Creek · Document partnership support for diverting McKenzie River flow into Cedar Creek under the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife's (ODFW) Salmon-Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) · Document support for the McKenzie Watershed Council to provide STEP project management · Ensure partners have the support of their boards and councils for this effort. . The Metro Waterways study was developed to engage the ACOE and regional partners to access federal funding for identified projects in Eugene and Springfield. The study resulted in preferred options. Currently, the ACOE was securing funding to proceed. The study identified specific tasks for local partner collaboration prior to construction efforts. The key task was securing an adequate river diversion to increase flows in Cedar Creek to meet the Metro Waterways goals. Partners in the Cedar Creek study developed the MOU to formalize the roles and relationships in maintaining this collaborative effort to support the McKenzie Watershed Council's administration of the ODFW STEP project to secure water flow. The MOU encouraged continued participation and cooperation for Cedar Creek management, and it recognized the contributions of the partners' ongoing individual efforts toward meeting Cedar Creek goals. Mr. Miller said the Amazon Creek Basin was lined up to receive a couple of million dollars worth of funding through the Corps of Engineers and Cedar Creek Basin would be next in that line up. Prior to going into those design and implementation phases, the local partners had additional things that could be addressed. He explained. Mr. Miller said the MOU would not obligate partners to provide any fmancial resources or funding toward the goals of the MOU, nor did it limit or restrict partners' individual programs and responsibilities related to Cedar Creek waterways. . The City of Springfield's commitment was limited to the current level of staff efforts toward the ongoing Metro Waterways project development. The City Attorney had reviewed and approved the MOD. Councilor Simmons asked if the intake gates were still functional. Mr. Miller said they were. Cedar Creek Irrigation Association currently maintained those gates with occasional excavation due to shifts in the rivers habit and changes in oxbow formations. That intake was no longer adequate without periodic maintenance to ensure the waterflows or provide habitat benefits in terms of water flow. He noted some of the alternative proposals to address the waterflow. Councilor Lundberg said she liked the theory and had always been interested in the City's ditch system and habitat. Cedar Creek had always been a problem area and she was glad the City was City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes October l2, 2009 Page 9 looking at it and working with the partners. The Step program did a fme job and was an important barometer of how we were doing. Mayor Leiken said he appreciated that this would not "limit or restrict partners' individual programs and responsibilities related to Cedar Creek waterways". At this time, the Corps had a significant budget. Mr. Miller noted that all partners were going through a parallel process. There may be some slight language changes from Lane County on their bullet points. Staff would be bringing this back to Council for endorsement as long as there were no significant changes to the City's obligations. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned 7:10 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa Attest: