HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/02/2009 Regular
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2009
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 2,2009 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ralston, Lundberg, Wylie, Simmons and Pishioneri.
Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff.
Councilor Leezer was absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken.
Mayor Leiken welcomed Troop 51 members from the Thurston area who were in the audience
earning points toward a merit badge.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
CONSENT CALENDAR
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED
WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - LEEZER).
1. Claims
2. Minutes
a. September 22, 2009 - JEO Meeting
b. October 19,2009 - Work Session
c. October 19,2009 - Regular Meeting
d. October 26, 2009 - Work Session
3. Resolutions
a. RESOLUTION NO. 09-45 - A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PROJECT P20459:
SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT 2006 FROM H&J CONSTRUCTION. INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $615.843.82.
b. RESOLUTION NO. 09-46 - A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PERMIT PROJECT
P3043 1. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES. LTD.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page 2
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters
a. Acceptance of the Financial Reports for September 30,2009.
b. Approve the Purchase of Police Vehicles for Fiscal Year 2010.
c. Allow Construction Activities Outside of the Hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. with Conditions
as Described in Attachment 1 Gateway/Beltline Intersection (P20474) for Work on this
Joint Springfield/Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Project.
ITEMS REMOVED
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available
at both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may
not yield their time to others.
1. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield (4851, 4857 & 5001 Franklin Boulevard;
Map 18-03-02-20, Tax Lots 3000, 3100, 3200 & 3300; and Map 18-03-02-32, Tax Lot 3800)
Case Number C SP 2009 - LRP2009-00009.
ORDINANCE NO.1 - AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD. L~ COUNTY
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER SERVICE DISTRICT. AND WILLAMALANE PARK
AND RECREATION DISTRICT: AND WITHDRAWING THE SAME TERRITORY
FROM THE GLENWOOD WATER DISTRICT (FIRST READING).
City Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. The annexation request was
submitted on August 14,2009 (Attachment 4, Exhibit C ofthe agenda packet). The subject
annexation area was mostly vacant industrial land located between McVay Highway and the west
bank ofthe Willamette River. The site contained a two-story office and maintenance shop
building that faced McVay Highway. The requested annexation area was about 38.28 acres in
size and was contiguous with the Springfield City limits as defined in ORS 222.111 (1). The
current City limits were on the west side of the McVay Highway right-of-way, but annexation of
the intervening right-of-way was not required or recommended at this time.
An annexation agreement that addressed urban service provision and financing responsibility
between the City and the property owners was attached (Attachment 4, Exhibit B of the agenda
packet). The Staff Report (Attachment 1 of the agenda packet) included an analysis ofthe
annexation request and recommended Council action. Maps of the annexation area were included
as Attachment 2. The requirements in Springfield Development Code (SDC) Article 5.7-100
were addressed in the attached staff report. The annexation area could be served with the
minimum level of key urban facilities and services as required in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan and as detailed in the attached Annexation Agreement. Services
were immediately available or could be provided in a timely manner.
The City Council was authorized by ORS Chapter 222 and SDC Article 5.7-100 to accept,
process, and act on annexation requests. If approved, the annexation would become effective 30
days after signature by the Mayor consistent with SDC 5.7-155 and ORS 222.040, 222.180, and
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page 3
222.465. The annexation area was currently zoned Light Medium Industrial (LMI) and was
located inside the Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB). Urban services were available at or
near the west boundary ofthe subject site, or could be extended to serve the property. The total
assessed value of the requested annexation area was listed as $1,242,796 according to Lane
County Assessment and Taxation records and would be expected to increase over time following
annexation.
The Director's recommendation to the City Council was to (a) approve the annexation ofterritory
to the City of Springfield, Willamalane Park and Recreation District, and Lane County
Metropolitan Wastewater Service District; and (b) withdraw the same annexation territory from
the Glenwood Water District.
Mr. Limbird noted that the staff report incorrectly noted that there were other solid waste
providers that could provide services for commercial properties in Springfield, but the City of
Springfield did have an exclusive franchise agreement with Sanipac for residential, industrial, and
commercial properties. He also noted that the annexation area did not follow the tax lot boundary
on the south end. It was not unusual to have an annexation area that did not follow a surveyed
boundary, but was an item of interest in this annexation.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Mayor Leiken confirmed this would be the Council's decision, not just a recommendation, to
annex this property when it came back for a second reading. Yes.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
2. Text Amendmerits to the Springfield Development Code: Case Number LRP2009-00010.
ORDINANCE NO.2 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 4.1-110.B. 4.3-ll0.A.
4.3-110.B. AND 6.1-110 OF THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
INCORPORATE TIm ADOPTED STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT PLAN. BY
REFERENCE~ AND DEFINING TIm TERM STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AND SETTING AN EFFECTNE DATE (FIRST READING).
City Planner Andy Limbird presented the staff report on this item. On July 22,2009, the elected
officials of the City of Springfield and Lane County met jointly and conducted a public hearing
on proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP).
At that hearing, testimony was provided raising concerns regarding the potential downstream
impacts to rural properties outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and requesting that the
City take additional steps to ensure that future urban development and stormwater conveyance
facilities did not negatively impact lands and property owners in the County outside the City's
jurisdiction for stormwater management.
Since that meeting, City staff had engaged in a collaborative process with affected downstream
property owners and their representatives in response to their concerns raised by the Board at the
joint meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to clarify their concerns and to develop additional
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page 4
stormwater policy guidance that would give property owners greater assurances that increased
stormwater runoff from future in-city development would not adversely affect downstream rural
properties. To address these concerns, staff recommended text amendments to the adopted
Stormwater Management Plan and the Springfield Development Code (SDC). The Stormwater
Management Plan amendments were adopted by City Council on September 21,2009. City
Council also adopted the Metro Plan and PFSP amendments that same night. The Planning
Commission reviewed the proposed SDC text amendments at a public hearing on October 6, 2009
and adopted a recommendation of support for the amendments. Staff was now presenting the
proposed SDC text amendments for consideration by the City Council.
The proposed SDC text amendments introduced a definition of the City's adopted Stormwater
Management Plan and provided explicit references to the Management Plan in various sections
that addressed storm water management regulations. The proposed SDC text amendments did not
change the adopted policies and practices currently in place for the management of stormwater in
Springfield. Therefore, this proposed ordinance would not change the way the City conducted
business, and should have no quantifiable financial impact. The Planning commission voted
unanimously to make the suggested changes. Staff would bring this back to the LCBC for a 6th
and 7th reading in the near future.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
3. Local Improvement District (LID) Request for Local Wastewater Service for S. 38th Street
and Cherokee Drive.
RESOLUTION NO. 09-47 - A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO INITIATE
CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR SOUTH 38TH STREET
AND CHEROKEE DRIVE FROM SOUTH 34TH PLACE TO SOUTH 38TH STREET AND
VICINITY.
City Engineer Ken V ogeney presented the staff report on this item. City staff received a LID
petition from the property owners at 3810 Cherokee Dr. to extend public wastewater service in
Cherokee Dr. in response to their septic system failure. Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs)
required properties within 300 feet of a public wastewater system to connect to the public system
if their septic system failed. The proposed district (Attachment 3 of the agenda packet) contained
40 properties along Cherokee Drive between S 34th Street andS 38th Street, and 4 properties
along S. 38th St. between Cherokee Drive and S. Redwood Drive. The responses in favor of the
proposed LID were primarily in the vicinity of the sponsoring property owner, at the easterly end
of the proposed district, with less support further west between S. 37th Street and S.34th Place. A
property roster showing the addresses in the district was attached (Attachment 5 of the agenda
packet). Lane County tax assessor records indicated the average real market value of homes in
the proposed district was approximately $172,000, while the average assessed taxable value was
approximately $115,000.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page 5
At Council's request, staff prepared four conceptual estimates to provide public wastewater
service to the district or to an individual property in the district. A table summarizing these costs
was contained in the Council Briefing Memo (Attachment 1 of the agenda packet).
Implementation ofa full LID (for 44 lots) yielded an average cost of$15,100 per property. This
estimate included costs for construction & engineering of the public system, Local Wastewater
and MWMC System Development Charges (SDCs), septic tank decommissioning, and private
onsite plumbing work to connect the house lateral to the service point provided by the LID. Cost
estimates for a smaller LID and costs to extend service to an individual property owner were
contained in Attachment 1.
Should Council decide not to proceed with the LID, the sponsoring property owner would be
obligated to construct the wastewater main across their frontage fully at their cost. If Council did
initiate the LID, the City Engineer would prepare a report of the project, including project cost
and description, and give proper notification to affected property owners prior to scheduling a
public hearing for adoption of the project by ordinance.
Mr. Vogeney noted that Council met on October 12 during their work session to review this topic.
At that meeting, staff introduced this petition, but no action was taken. The council briefing
memorandum in the agenda packet included responses to Council questions following that
meeting. He noted that agenda packets were sent to each of the property owners in the proposed
district and staff had received several phone calls based on the materials in the packet; some with
questions, some confirming their support, and some confirming their opposition. Two emails had
been sent to stafftoday from property owners who had previously opposed the district, who were
now asking to be counted in favor. Staff met with the City Attorney and determined that the
petition could remain open during the public hearing to allow citizens to make any changes
regarding support or opposition after hearing the testimony. Staff could track any changes during
the meeting and provide a final number at the end of the hearing. Currently, those in favor were at
about 56%.
Mr. Vogeney referred to Page 3 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet which listed various cost
estimates that may apply for different options. He explained each option. He highlighted that
initiating the district did not obligate anyone to a particular cost. Council's action to initiate
provided the city staff with direction to prepare the specifications, plans, cost assessment method,
and a more refined assessment of what the cost may be per property owner. That information
would come back to Council in the future during a public hearing. At that time, Council could
determine whether or not to move forward with the project. If so, they would adopt an ordinance
to establish that district.
Mr. Vogeney referred to the resolution which was Attachment 7 of the agenda packet. The 2nd
resolve referenced debt fmancing. That was included in the event we needed debt financing, but
they were not expecting that at this time.
Councilor Simmons asked if leaving the petition open until the conclusion of the public hearing
would open the property owners list to the current date or the date of the submission of the
petition. He was concerned that property ownership may have changed since the original date.
Mr. Leahy said there was no specific date at which the petition became concrete. In considering
the purpose of the public hearing, it made sense to allow people the chance to hear the facts and
then decide if their original stand was the same. The City had the technology to determine the
ownership issue following the public hearing. The statute in the Code specified that either by
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page 6
petition or by Council's own motion, this could move forward (Section 3.002). To give
participatory democracy, the hallmark ofthis Council, some effect, they needed to give people
the ability to make their decision after they heard everything.
Councilor Simmons said the effective date of the petition would be at a point certain.
Mr. Leahy said it would be when the hearing was over.
Councilor Pishioneri noted two emails from one email address.
Mr. V ogeney said the emails were from residents at two addresses who used one email account to
send their email.
Councilor Lundberg referred to page 3 of Attachment 1 of the agenda packet that listed the costs
for different options. She asked if they were just estimates and if residents were considering an
average cost, not an actual cost.
Mr. V ogeney said that was correct. They had not prepared a precise set of plans to know exact
costs. Each property had different width of frontage along the roadway, giving them different
costs. These estimates were based on construction estimates over the past year. As staff prepared
the actual construction plans and estimates, they could refine those estimates. They would still be
estimates until bids had been received from a contractor.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
1. Jon Ellington. 3585 Cherokee Drive. Springfield. OR. Mr. Ellington thanked the Mayor and
Council for the opportunity to speak. Mr. Ellington said he lived on the west end of Cherokee
Drive. Originally, he was opposed to the sewer because of lack of information and
misinformation he had received. He recently received new information regarding this project,
which had changed his vote to a 'yes and he supported this project fully. He was not aware
they had the option of hooking up to the sewer at a later date, which would allow them to
break up the cost. He had also learned that he would not lose ten feet of his property for
sidewalks and streetlights. Finding out this new information allowed him to support this
project. The sewer was something the neighbors had wanted since Hayden Homes developed
fifteen years ago. At that time, they were told there would be no development for their
neighborhood to go onto the sewer. The original amount he had heard was about $30,000.
With the value of the neighborhood, those costs seemed impossible for the property owners to
take on. With the lower projected costs coming in and the option to hook up at a later date, he
saw this as a window of opportunity to take advantage of this development offered by the
City and go forward. He hoped Council did not decide to reduce the size of the LID and
proceed on a smaller scale. In doing that, they would eliminate neighbors who had been
asking for the sewer for many years and would miss out on the lower costs to hook up.
2. Roxann Fierling. 3570 Cherokee Drive. Springfield. OR. Ms. Fierling said she lived ten feet
from the sewer. She had asked to go on the sewer when it was available and was told 'no'.
During a meeting last year, they were told the City's proposal would run $13,500 to $17,000
for the City's obligation and then the property owners would have their private obligations on
top of that. That was not a good time fmancially for those high costs. Now that this has been
brought forward, she would like to see if she could afford it, but would need some sort of
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page 7
confirmation that this new bid was closer to accurate than the first bid. She wanted to keep
her home. She was not sure why the neighborhood was left off of the sewer.
Mayor Leiken said the Mayor and Council would listen to the rest of the public hearing and then
ask staffto answer her question and other questions that came up.
3. Ardis Smith. 5090 Forsythia Drive. Springfield. OR. Mr. Smith said he owned a duplex on
the corner of Cherokee and 37th Street. He was the builder of 35 of the 40 homes on Cherokee
Drive. When Mr. Elmo Aldridge and his wife wanted to subdivide, they requested sewer and
water from the City. The City allowed them to go on to 37th or 38th Street underneath
Weyerhaeuser Road to bring water to Cherokee, 37th Street and 38th Street, but they refused to
allow the sewer system to go in. Mr. Aldridge put septic tanks in on the properties. Mr.
Aldridge had wanted to subdivide the rest of the property, but was told by the City that he
would have to bring the sewer line from Main Street down 32nd Street which was cost
prohibitive. When the school went in on 32nd Street, the school district paid the price to bring
the sewer line in allowing the rest of the subdivision to be completed. Mr. Smith would like
the City to try to help the people in this neighborhood with some type of funds to lower the
cost because many were of limited income.
4. Ed Christofferson. 3572 Cherokee Drive. Springfield. OR. Mr. Christofferson thanked the
Mayor and Council for the opportunity to speak. He lived at the west end of Cherokee Drive
and was originally not in favor of the LID with the information he had received. With the
costs lowered, he changed his vote to yes on this project. He hoped the city planners would
look further into lowering the costs during these unstable times. He was o.k. with the
individual cost estimate of $15,141, but would ask that this cost be lowered if at all possible
making it more affordable for homeowners on a tight budget. Most of the homeowners were
at or near retirement age.
5. R. F. Peterson. 3624 Cherokee Drive. Springfield. OR. Mr. Peterson said the previous
speakers touched on some of the points he also wanted to note. As a thirty year resident on
Cherokee Drive, which was in the LID petition area, he would be remise if didn't note past
City missteps concerning the main sewer line that should have been in place many years ago.
The City acquired this area over thirty years ago and had collected fees and taxes for that
period. The City was aware of the potential of septic tank failures and nothing was being
prepared for that problem. The City, in recent years, had been approached many times for
sewer mainlines from west to east, 38th or 39th Street. This was done during Planning
Commission meetings which he attended, and the planners told the residents it could not be
done because the subdivision had to use pumps that wouldn't have the capacity. Several
months later those pumps were taken out, and the east and west line was lost again. When
other subdivisions were built, residents approached the Planning Commission, but still
received no permission to move forward. Now, during the greatest recession that he had
witnessed with unemployment and foreclosures in the area, a great amount of stress was
being put on existing homeowners. The $10,000, to $15,000 loss in home values would make
the banks uneasy with additional liens on the properties. This was difficult on the
homeowners. Many people couldn't understand the importance of the Mill Race project and
the amount of funding it was taking. Many people didn't know we had a Mill Race. It was
wrong for citizens to be charged for the Natron extension, when his neighbors were just
asking for sewer services.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page 8
6. Rob Thomas. 3810 Cherokee Drive. Springfield. OR. Mr. Thomas said he started the
petition. He agreed with Mr. Peterson on many points. Because of the proximity of his
property, there was an inlet to the sewer near his home.. Shortly after he moved in six or seven
years ago, he came to the City and asked ifhe could hook into the sewer. He was told it
would not happen, and if so, it would be costly to him. He came back a few years later, but
was again told it would not happen. when their septic failed, they were told they had to hook
up to the City sewer. He was then told he could try for an LID. He learned during tonight's
presentation that an LID had not been done in a long time, which explained some of the
confusion With the. information. He would like to see this go forward.
7. Karen Brower. 3636 Cherokee Drive. Springfield. OR. Ms. Brower said the cost information
received at the meeting at Agnes Stewart Middle School was about $38,000, so her original
vote was a no vote. Since then, the information had continually changed, which was very
stressful. With the current information, she would like to change her vote to a yes vote and to
keep the options open at this time to see if could be affordable to the neighborhood.
S. Larry McMullen. owner of3584 Cherokee Drive. Springfield. OR. Mr. McMullen said he
purchased this property as an investment property about 18 months ago. He had put a lot of
money into the house getting it into good shape, which the neighbors were glad to see. He
noted the large cost of hooking up, which would be in addition to money already spent. He
was not in favor of this project. He felt that the failure of one septic system was impacting
another forty-three members of the community. To his knowledge, none of the other forty-
three had experience failure. He didn't feel it was reasonable to cause everybody to go to a
new system when forty-three septic systems were working fine. This was a large amount of
money for these people to spend over ten years, and it made no sense to do this during this
economy. A better solution would be to allow the owners of the house that had the septic
failure to have their septic system fixed, maybe by the City. Part of the issue was that the
policy put into place many years ago was not a great policy. He suggested looking at this
during a better economy. He also noted that if homes were hooked up to the sewer their
assessed value would increase slightly, which would cause their taxes to increase.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Councilor Simmons asked how many owners of the LLC.
Mr. Leahy said there were five.
Mr. V ogeney responded to the questions presented by the speakers. The first speaker asked about
hooking up to the system at a later date. That was an option that was offered. The LID would be
to construct the public portion of the wastewater system, and then individual property owners
would connect at whatever time they chose, or if their septic system failed. The costs associated
with the LID were approximately $7,800 per property owner. The other costs addressed permit
fees and onsite construction. One of the speakers had interpreted that to mean the City would pay
for the fIrst $7,800, but that was inaccurate. The $l5,100 was the total estimated cost for property
owners to pay. Mr. Vogeney said the estimated costs were associated with today's fees and
charges for the onsite work. Over time, fees and construction costs could increase. He had no way
to project what future costs could be.
Mr. Vogeney said one of the speakers noted the fees and taxes paid by these residents over the
last thirty plus years. None of the property owners within this district had paid the City's
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page 9
wastewater user fees, but had paid property taxes only. They would pay the wastewater user fees
after they were hooked up to the system. He said there were several comments from property
owners who had requested to hook up to the system in the past, but were told they couldn't. He
was unable to address the specifics of those situations as he wasn't involved, but said staff may
have told people that they needed to pay to connect to the main sewer line along the frontage of
their property without a City cost share. That may have been cost prohibitive for a property owner
to extend the sewer.
Mr. V ogeney referred to the testimony regarding pumping the sewer under the railroad tracks.
The City did not have a gravity sewer that came south of the railroad tracks to this vicinity until
the mid-1990's. There was a subdivision that was allowed to go in west of this area and they
provided a small pump station just for that subdivision, with a small pressure line that ran under
the railroad tracks that connected with South 3300 or 34th. When the gravity line was put in at
South 32nd, the pump station was decommissioned.
Councilor Lundberg asked how the LID would be reflected on the property owners' tax
statement. She asked if the $7,800 was imposed over a period of time.
Mr. Vogeney said the $7,800 was the estimated amount for the LID. Council could establish the
district at a future public hearing, allowing the property owners one more chance to provide input.
That would include the actual assessment of their costs. Those costs could be paid in a lump sum
or through a fmancing agreement with our Finance Department. If they chose the financing
agreement, there would be a lien against their property.
Councilor Lundberg asked if that would be in a Bancroft style loan.
Mr. Vogeney said that was correct. It would be over a ten year period, with payments due each
six months.
Councilor Lundberg asked if the City would set the interest rate.
Mr. Duey said the interest rate was a Council policy, which was normally based on the previous
project that had been completed. It had been so long since the City had completed a previous
project, the current policy was out of date for this situation. Council could determine how to
address the interest rate. He suggested tying it into something based on the market. With the
current market, they could look at something between three and five percent.
Councilor Ralston asked for an explanation of the legal requirement of septic decommissioning.
Mr. Vogeney said septic decommissioning was done through the Lane County Sanitarian's
Office. His general understanding was that the tank needed to be pumped dry. Depending on the
type of tank, it may require someone going into the tank to punch holes, and then filling the tank
with sand. This was a requirement through the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The
tank didn't need to be removed, but needed to be taken out of service.
Councilor Wylie asked if the property owner could Bancroft the full amount.
Mr. V ogeney said the homeowners could Bancroft the portion listed under construction and
engineering of Page 3, Attachment 1 of the agenda packet, which was estimated at about $7800.
In addition, the City was obligated under Oregon Revised Statute to provide financing for SDCs
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page lO
for single family homeowners. The other charges were not something the City would be involved
in, but would be between the homeowners and the contractors.
Councilor Pishioneri said he had asked about the possibility for other funds to help some of the
property owners. He felt all the pieces for this to occur were here and he felt everyone would
come out well once completed. He thought that removal of failed septic would be more expensive
than decommissioning. He would like to look at the SDCs to see if those could be postponed or
frozen so they would not increase when the others throughout the City increased.
Mr. Vogeney said the neighborhood overall may not qualify for Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funding.
Housing Assistant Jodi Peterson said they had taken a further look at one of the addresses in this
neighborhood and it was in an eligible area. She could double check to see if this could be an
eligible block group.
Mr. Vogeney said if that was the case, there could be other financing available.
Councilor Pishioneri said a comment had been made about the tough economic times. He did
note, however, that during these times, construction costs would be at their lowest.
Councilor Simmons said a similar project was done on his street using a different process. Some
of the homeowners were given a differential in the rate per front foot. That was a City project
where there was some assistance based on the property owner's prior year's income. It was
obvious the sewer line would be nice to have, but the information made available when the
petition was first submitted seemed inconsistent with the current facts. He felt the five owners for
the one LLC affected the numbers in this process.
Mr. Leahy said the LLC was one legal entity and had only one vote.
Councilor Simmons asked questions regarding the number of parties on the deed and limited
partnerships.
Mr. Leahy said he would need to look into that further, but the LLC was one owner.
Councilor Simmons said if this project went forward with the approval of the people in the LID, it
needed to be done at the most moderate cost possible. It was in the best interest of the
community. He made note that the entire area east of 28th Street became part of Springfield in part
because of a health emergency due to septic failure. A good point was brought up about affecting
forty-three when only one system failed. They needed to determine how to proceed in a way that
was equitable to all the parties and all the citizens who would be sharing in this process. He
continued to have concerns about the date of the petition and the ability for everyone in the
neighborhood to be heard. Those affected by the LID needed to know how much it would cost
and how it would be paid for. If the petition was closed, this fell back on the remonstrance
provision of the Code. He felt it was unfair to close that date on a date specific then reopen with
new information.
Councilor Lundberg said having access to the sewer was important. Her mother had a small house
and was very low income. When the sewer came through, she had a Bancroft loan to pay for the
improvements over ten years. Councilor Lundberg lived there now and was happy to have the
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page II
sewer. If Council approved the LID, she wanted to make sure they had good interest rates and
looked into whether or not this neighborhood qualified to receive CDBG funds. There was also
the Senior Program that could be of assistance. There were ways to work with this to make it
affordable. There wasn't an obligation to hook up to the system immediately, but only the LID. If
this was out of reach at this time, the property owners could possibly afford it later. There were
enough variables to make this work. In the long run, this is what we would want to see in as many
areas as possible. She wanted to make sure they had as many options as possible.
Mr. Leahy said Councilor Simmons was correct regarding a remonstrance which could defeat this
project. In accordance with the Springfield Municipal Code Section 3.012, "the Council shall
have full power and authority to abandon and rescind proceedings for projects under the
provisions of sections 3.000 to 3.016 at any time prior to the final consummation of such
proceedings, and ifliens have been assessed upon any property under sections 3.000 to 3.156,
they shall be canceled, and any payments made thereon shall be refunded to the payer, their
assigns, or legal representatives.". Council could stop this process at any time if they were not
happy with how the department was working things out with the neighbors and property owners,
or if the property owners came back and were unhappy.
Councilor Ralston agreed with Councilor Lundberg that it was in the best interest of everyone for
the sewer to go through. If this would have happened when the subdivision was built, it would
have been much cheaper. He was not sure he agreed with the statement that the other 43 property
owners shouldn't have to pay because one system failed. Sooner or later those septic systems
would fail and the additional cost would be very high. He would support a number of issues: low
interest rates, even as low as one to two percent; reducing SDC charges by $1,000; allowing the
homeowners to hook up at a later date, even though it could cost more later; and looking into
CDBG funds as an option. He wanted to make it work for everyone.
Councilor Wylie said she was concerned that if one septic system failed, with the age of the
development, others would soon fail. This piece of development should have had sewers a long
time ago, and she would like to do whatever possible to make it easier on the citizens to get on
the sewer and hook up when they could.
Councilor Simmons asked for the current percentage of neighbors in favor.
Civil Engineer Clayton McEachern said he had kept a rough tally throughout the hearing. He did
not know the exact figure because he wasn't sure which of the speakers were changing their vote
tonight and which had already changed their vote earlier today. Based on information just prior to
the meeting, they were at about 56%, so it may now be closer to 60%.
Mr. Peterson from the audience said that figure was contingent on the figure of about $7,000 for
the trunk line. It was now up to $8,000. He wanted to make sure they were treated fairly.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
PISmONERI TO ADOPT/NOT ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.3.
Mayor Leiken asked if this was an emergency clause.
Mr. Vogeney said that was correct. Resolutions do not have emergency clauses.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page 12
Mayor Leiken referred to his fIrst Council meeting as a councilor when LID's were discussed. He
did not care for them.
Mr. Leahy said it was a resolution and had an effective date of tonight. This did not commit
Council to do this project, but rather allowed staff to move forward. Council could stop this at
any time and a remonstrance could also stop this process. The citizens should know that Council
gave staff direction tonight regarding costs and options.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT -
LEEZER).
4. Temporary EmX Route, RiverBend Drive to International Way.
This item was pulled from the agenda because of a change from PeaceHealth.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from Nick Shevchynski, Springfield, Oregon Regarding a Broken Driveway
at 2315 and 2347 Marcola Road.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - LEEZER).
BIDS
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
a. Police Planning Task Force (pPTF) Appointments.
Police Chief Jerry Smith presented the staff report on this item. The Police Planning Task
Force had one Business Representative position open from the resignation of Mark Molina,
and one At-Large position open from the reassignment of Fred Simmons to the Council
Liaison.
The Task Force received two applications and interviewed both on October 8, 2009. The
subcommittee consisted of Fred Simmons, Stacey Doll and Dave Jacobson. The group
recommended appointing Wendy Polen as the Business Representative and Michelle Clough
as the At-Large Representative. Each ofthese would be four year terms.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPOINT WENDY POLEN TO THE POLICE PLANNING TASK
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page 13
FORCE (PPTF) AS THE BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE WITH A TERM
EXPIRING NOVEMBER 2,2013. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR
AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - LEEZER).
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPOINT MICHELLE CLOUGH TO THE POLICE PLANNING
TASK FORCE (PPTF) AS THE AT-LARGE REPRESENTATIVE WITH A TERM
EXPIRING NOVEMBER 2,2013. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR
AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - LEEZER).
Councilor Simmons asked if the new members would be invited to attend Thursday's PPTF
meeting. Yes.
"Ms. Polen was in the audience and was acknowledged by the Council.
2. Business from Council
a. Committee Reports
1. Councilor Wylie reported on the League of Oregon (LOC) Conference in October.
The conference was very valuable and the workshops were great. She took the tour of
downtown city parks which included a ride on the tram to Oregon Health and
Sciences University (OHSU). Next year the LOC Conference was going to be held in
Eugene and she hoped that many of the councilors could attend. It was a great
opportunity to network andget acquainted with others from other cities.
Councilor Wylie also reported on the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). She
had been appointed as an alternate for Eugene City Councilor Alan Zelenka to the
Governor's Task Force on the Reduction of Green House Gases for transportation for
small vehicles. They had a large support staff for this group. The group would have a
report at the next MPC meeting. She and Councilor Lundberg would bring back
inforniation on that report. She had interest in this committee and was learning a lot.
She was relaying all of the wonderful things Springfield was doing in this effort.
. 2. Mayor Leiken spoke regarding the formation of an Area Commission on
Transportation (ACT). He noted that Lane County chose to hire Rob Zako as the
consultant to put an ACT together although he did not rank the highest. Most Lane
County Mayors were quite upset with this choice and Mayor Williams (Cottage
Grove) was taking the lead. The Mayors felt that because there were successful ACTs
in the State, it would be beneficial to bring a representative from one of the ACTs to
a meeting to explain how it could be successful. The contract was for $15,000 for the
first portion, but could go up to $75,000.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. Approval to LeaselPurchase Three (3) Fire Pumpers with Funds from the Vehicle
Replacement Fund.
Fire Chief Dennis Murphy presented the staff report on this item. Fire & Life Safety apparatus
fleet centered on the fIre pumper. Based on past experience, pumpers normally had a useful life of
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page l4
approximately 10 years. Useful life was determined considering the cost-per-mile to operate and
reliability. Prevention of "catastrophic" failure (breakdown that delayed response to an
emergency call) was a primary consideration. A longer and safer life cycle for older, higher-mile
vehicles was achieved by rotating their higher operating cost-per-mile and less reliable service to
a reserve (back up) status. Used vehicles that had run their lifecycle were salvaged by resale to
low call volume departments. Money from resale was returned to the Vehicle Replacement Fund.
After careful analysis of the history of each pumper, repair costs, and long term reliability, SFLS
sought approval to replace three (3) fire pumpers with new, leased apparatus. Two old pumpers
would be sold, and one placed in reserve (backup) status for an additional year.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) process was used to select Hughes Fire Equipment of Springfield,
OR to deliver three (3) new Pierce Velocity fire pumpers. The amount set aside in the Vehicle
Replacement Fund was recently increased and the fund had sufficient reserves to replace these
pumpers on a 5-year lease-to-purchase basis. Purchase price for one (1) pumper was $458,955.
Purchasing three (3) costs $1,360,555, saving an additional $16,310. Annual lease payments for
three (3) pumpers were $306,766. By leasing three (3) pumpers under the same RFP, expenses
required to prepare specifications and RFP documents, advertise, evaluate proposals, and award a
contract had been minimized.
Two firms submitted proposals: Hughes Fire Equipment & KME Fire Apparatus. Both proposals
reflected somewhat lower prices than expected due to the effects ofthe economy on price
competition. The selected proposal was the lowest priced and also scored higher in matching
specifications. It represented a good value for the investment, maintained interoperability with
Eugene Fire & EMS current/future apparatus plans and facilitated joint response in the Three
Battalion System.
Chief Murphy said it was not uncommon for jurisdictions to lease public equipment. The lease
was through a local business which was good for the economy. Fire and Life Safety was working
with the Finance Director to work towards building their reserves in order to be able to purchase
replacement equipment in future years. The strategy for doing that was included in the agenda
packet as Attachment 3. The Budget Committee would make the fmal decision on the amount set
aside in years to come during their Budget Committee meetings.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON/WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A CONTRACT TO
LEASE/PURCHASE THRE.E (3) FIRE PUMPERS FROM HUGHES FIRE EQUIPMENT,
INe. OF SPRINGFIELD FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $307,000 ANNUALLY
FOR A 5- YEAR LEASE TERM. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR
AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT - LEEZER).
2. Request to Convert Funds Awarded to Mainstream Housing in 2000 for the Provision of
Affordable Accessible Rental Housing from a Loan to a Grant.
Housing Assistant Jodi Peterson presented the staff report on this item. In funding year 2000 the
City of Springfield awarded $80,000 in HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) funds to
Mainstream Housing to purchase and make fully accessible one rental unit. Mainstream Housing
is a non-profit organization that assists people with physical and developmental disabilities. In
the HOME Contract, staff structured the award as an $80,000 loan. The loan was interest free
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page l5
with the fIrst payment commencing 10 years from the date the property was put in to service. The
first payment was due January 5th, 2010.
The purchase of the home at 5512 E Street came out ofa partnership with City staff to help a
disabled Springfield couple, Tony and Nicole Worley. The Worley's had been clients of the City
housing programs staff for several years and were on the verge of losing their home to a
predatory lender. The search for alternative housing was hampered by the need for a lift system
to transfer the husband from bed to his wheelchair and other parts of the house. Mainstream
Housing stepped up and worked with staff to locate a suitable home to purchase. Mainstream then
used their own program funds to make accessibility modifications and agreed to grant the
Worley's a "lifetime lease" on the rental unit. In February of2000 the Worley's moved into their
new home.
Due to the low income of the occupants, the property had always been subsidized by Mainstream
Housing. All income from the property had been used to pay insurance, property management
expenses, association dues and minor maintenance on the unit.
Mainstream Housing had subsidized operating shortfalls for the life of the project (see
Attachment 5 ofthe agenda packet). Subsidizing this project limited Mainstream's ability to
pursue other affordable housing activities. Council discussed this during their October 26 Work
Session and asked for additional information before making a fmal decision.
As a recipient of the HOME funds the City's primary purpose was to respond to the need for
affordable housing through capacity building and creating opportunities for furthering affordable
housing. This was primarily accomplished through partnerships with our non-profit affordable
housing providers. It was very difficult for non-profits, like Mainstream Housing, that provided
affordable housing to very low-income clients to make projects viable when there was debt
service on the project. The rents received were very low and many of the projects were service
enriched making operations more costly. In the ten years since this project was completed staff
had become more aware ofthis and elected to grant funds to projects that served a very low-
income clientele. More recent examples of HOME grants were Habitat for Humanity Meyer
Park, and the St. Vincent de Paul's Royal Building and Aster Apartments.
Mainstream Housing was dedicated to creating affordable rental housing in Springfield for this
frail and underserved population. In addition to this project, in 2003, they purchased and
rehabilitated a crime ridden and distressed apartment complex, the Aquarius Apartments, on 5th
Street. The apartment complex was now well maintained and managed and the clients served
there were thriving. If the funds were to remain a loan, the City would collect $2,667 in payments
each year for the next 30 years. The Council may elect to 1) convert the loan to a grant as
requested, 2) defer repayment for another ten years or other set period of time, 3) review the
terms of the loan after the current tenants no longer occupy the unit, or 4) leave the loan in place
as it is recorded. Staff believed that the funds would be better used to support the activities and
services currently provided by Mainstream Housing thus enabling them to continue to create
affordable housing opportunities for their special needs clients. Staff supported converting the
HOME loan to a grant.
Ms. Peterson referred to page 2 of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (Attachlnent 4 of the
agenda packet). The term of affordability was based on Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
requirement of 15 years. Between the years 15 and 30 if the property was sold, the City would be
paid in full.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 2 2009
Page l6
Councilor Simmons thanked staff for responding to his questions and said he concurred with their
recommendation.
Councilor Ralston said he looked at this as public money and couldn't support advancing public
money for this. It was a worthy program, but he was standing on principal.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR PISmONERI WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ALLOW ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT
AMENDMENT THAT CONVERTS AN $80,000 LOAN OF HOME FUNDS TO A
GRANT. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4 FOR AND 1 AGAINST
(RALSTON) (1 ABSENT - LEEZER).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
Mr. Leahy said the City Manager had executed an agreement with Lane County for part of the jail
operations exchanging five beds for five beds to provide space for Springfield female inmates to
be housed at Lane County, and five male inmates to be housed in Springfield. He distributed a
copy of that agreement and acknowledged Chief Smith's work in negotiating with Lane County
on this issue.
Mayor Leiken thanked Chief Smith.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
Attest:
~~
City Rec r er