HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/2010 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
~..~ ,
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2010
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, October 25,2010 at 5:33 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ralston, Lundberg, Wylie, Simmons, Pishioneri, and
Council-elect Woodrow. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Towery, City Attorney Matt Cox,. City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff.
1. Ward 3 City Councilor Position Interviews.
City Manager_Gino Grimaldi presented the staff report on this item. Due to the resignation of
Councilor Terri Leezer, the Ward 3 City Council position was vacant and. was chosen to be filled
through arecruitment/appointment process.
In response to council direction, the City Manager's Office initiated the recruitment process for the'
vacant Ward 3 position. The attached news release and application packet were prepared and available
for distribution beginning September 23, 2010. Application packets were due to the City Manager'. s
Office by October 8, 2010 and were attached for your review and consideration.
Two applications were received by the closing deadline.
The appointee would fill the remainder of Councilor Leezer's term, which expired December 31,
2012. If the person appointed chose to run for another term, the primary election for this position
would be held in May of 2012.
The chosen applicant for the Ward 3 position was scheduled to be ratified at the City Council regular
meeting on November 1, 2010.
Mayor Leiken invited Council-elect Woodrow to the table to participate in the interviews. She would
not have a vote as she was not currently a councilor, but could provide valuable input regarding the
.candidates.
The Mayor and Council chose which questions they would ask each of the two applicants. .
Mayor Leiken noted that if the Council .had afollow-up question from their original question, they
could ask that, but needed to be consistent and ask the same follow-up question of both, candidates.
Councilor Pishioneri said he could possibly want additional information on his questions.
Mayor Leiken welcomed each of the candidates as they came in individually for their interviews, and
thanked them for applying. He explained the process to each candidate. The Mayor and Councilors
introduced themselves to the candidates.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 25, 2010
Page 2
Council interviewed the candidates:
1. Why are you interested in running for the Ward 3 City Council position? (Mayor Leiken)
2. What is your greatest life accomplishment to date? How do you see that helping you in your -
role as a City Councilor? (Councilor Wylie)
' 3. When faced with a complex problem with multiple solutions; what process would you use to
select the best solution to the problem? (Councilor Simmons)
4. If there were three things in Springfield you were permitted to do, whether to add, eliminate,
or change anything, what would those be? (Councilor Lundberg)
5. Councilors in Springfield are elected citywide, rather than by ward. What advantages or
disadvantages do you see with that process? (Councilor Ralston)
6. What have you done to further your vision for Springfield? Is there something that you have a
vision for in Springfield? (Councilor-elect Woodrow)
7. How do you define success and how do you know you are successful? Putting a councilor hat
on, how would you define success and how do you know you are successful? (Councilor
Pishioneri)
8. What do you like best about Springfield and why? (Councilor Wylie/Councilor Lundberg)
9. Since there are six City Council positions, what do you believe are the advantages and
disadvantages of collective decision making and shared leadership? (Councilor
Simmons/Councilor Ralston)
The candidates answered the.questions.
The Mayor and Council asked each of the candidates if they had questions of the Mayor and Council.
Mr. Smith said he had been very comfortable tonight in front of the Mayor and Council. He asked
when they would be making a decision.
Mayor Leiken said the Council would be deliberating tonight and making a decision. Mr. Smith was
invited to remain in the lobby until the Council had made their decision.
Mr. Smith said he had not met individually with each of the councilors, but was willing to do so at any
time.
Ms. Moore didn't have any questions. She said she appreciated those that had served before and were
currently serving..
The Mayor and Council discussed the qualifications of the two candidates.
Councilor Wylie said both were great candidates. She thought Mr. Riley would do well to serve on
another committee or the Planning Commission to learn more about the City.
Councilor Simmons said he agreed with Councilor Wylie. Mr. Smith. was very interesting, but would
have a steep learning curve. He discussed gender balance. He would be supportive of Ms. Moore
because of her background. Mr. Smith was non-traditional, but could become a very effective
councilor in the future. He would encourage Mr. Smith to participate in another way. There was an
interesting balance. ~ .
Councilor Lund'erg agreed. She liked to see a balance on the Council in regard to perspective. If a
candidate was in a campaign mode, they would have time to learn more about how the City ran.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 25, 2010
Page 3 .
Serving on'the Planning Commission was a good way to learn. Coming in at this juncture with no time
to prepare adequately, she felt Ms. Moore would be better. She would love to see Mr. Smith in City
government in some form..
Councilor Ralston said they had been fortunate to have such good candidates. He liked Mr. Smith and
knew he was interested in Springfield. He liked his energy and he was very impressed. The City was
going through some tough issues, and that .needed to be taken into account. He believed the best way
to the City Council was through the Planning Commission. He would strongly encourage Mr. Smith to
apply for the Planning Commission.
.Councilor-elect Woodrow said she had some concerns about answers in Ms. Moore's application that
appeared to lean towards changes in Springfield that seemed to reflect Eugene. She would love to see
Mr. Smith apply and serve on the Planning Commission. Ms. Moore did have the background to step
in as a Councilor and begin right away. She thought it was very important to keep Mr. Smith involved.
Councilor Pishioneri referred to some of the responses from each of the candidates, and felt both had
excellent answers. He felt Ms. Moore was closer as a policy maker, but Mr. Smith was someone he
wanted on his team. He felt Mr: Smith would be a great Planning Commissioner and could grow to
become a strong policy maker.
Councilor Simmons suggested they.appoint Ms. Moore to the Council and appoint Mr. Smith to the
Planning Commission:
It was noted that hey would have to go through the application process for the vacancy on the
Planning Commission: .
Mayor Leiken said he had known Ms. Moore, liked her and felt she would do well on the Council. He
also liked Mr. Smith very much. He would encourage Mr. Smith to apply for the Planning
Commission. They were both excellent applicants. He referred to Ms. Moore's comment about how
people perceived Eugene and Springfield; but noted that throughout the state, Springfield was very .
highly thought of. .
Councilor-elect Woodrow again discussed her concerns in Ms. Moore's application which sounded
like things needed to be changed in Springfield. She wanted to make sure that enhancing the great.
things~about Springfield were nurtured in Ms. Moore.
2. Sewer User Charges.
Environmental Services Division Supervisor Tim Schuck presented the staff report on this item.
Section 4.218(1) of the Municipal Code that required the financially responsible person who owned an
assessed property for a local wastewater project be billed for monthly sewer user fees, regardless of
whether the property was connected to the local sewer, was repealed May 17, 2010, via Ordinance
6255.
Staff was asked to assess the impacts of providing a credit for monies paid to those who were affected .
by this repeal and presented four options for Council consideration at the September 20`t` Work
Session. Staff presented four scenarios including: one-year credit, five-year credit, and ten-year
credits toward future utility bills, as well as the option of issuing no credit. Options presented, with
revised information, had potential financial impacts to the City ranging from $0 to $63-,400.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 25, 2010
Page 4
During that Work Session, Council requested staff bring back one additional scenario for
consideration. Council asked staff to assess the impact of applying a credit towards future Systems
Development Charges (SDCs) for all current owner-occupied properties for a period of up to 10 years
of previously paid sewer user fees. The financial impact to the City for this option would be $34,400,
realized as either an increase in operating expenditures or a reduction in SDC revenue.
Staff was also asked to estimate the "all in" costs for customers to connect to the sewer system using
recent information from work performed on Cherokee Drive. Since the condition of existing pipes
within each property, as well as the location of the septic system was unknown, staff used various
assumptions creating a "best case" scenario to estimate costs. Using current SDC charges, staff
estimated a cost of $6,350 which included the estimate to install a private lateral line. to the main sewer
line, decommissioning and filling of the existing septic tank, and permit fees. Due to the increase in
SDCs effective January 1, 2011, the estimated cost.increased to $8,160.
Staff had no recommendation and sought Council direction for a potential sewer user credit for those .
properties affected by the recent ordinance change.
Mr. Schuck reviewed the options before Council this evening.
Councilor Pishioneri provided the following proposal: Staff could send letters to the current owner of
the property. The property owner would substantiate the length of time they had owned the property ,.
up to ten years. He didn't believe user fees would need to be increased to.compensate for that, but the
City did want these properties on the sewer system. The City could offer an SDC forbearance with a
sunset of seven years, so there would be no out. of pocket expense. If they hooked up, all citizens
would benefit from cleaner groundwater and better environment. That would satisfy getting that
property owner off a septic and would mean no rate increase. It would be a small investment for the
. City to have that system online.
Councilor Simmons felt providing a refund under the existing policy for one year was the cleanest way
to do this administratively and legally, at the least cost. They could also provide an option to allow
them to apply that as a credit towards the SDC connection with a limited impact to the City. He didn't
favor going back to ten years because it was too complicated and staff costs would be much more than
anticipated, and would impact the rate. It could not only take a lot of staff time, but could get .into legal
issues as well. He noted the cost involved if there was research that needed to be done going back ten ..
years. He appreciated Councilor Pishioneri's position, but felt there would be a high cost. He asked
staff if they had an estimate on what it would cost in .staff time. .
Mr. Schuck said they did not have an estimate of those costs.
Councilor Pishioneri said RLID was a property owner software program that was easily accessible and
gave the history of property ownership. It would take about 15 minutes for staff to look up ownership
of all 18 affected properties. The letter would then be crafted to the current owners who would have to
substantiate the information. He noted that .some of the homes would be rentals, but the owner would
be the one who would benefit from the forbearance and would be the one to determine if they hooked
to the sewer. The credit would have an expiration date or would expire on transfer or sale of property.
Councilor Ralston said in an effort to be as fair. as possible to all properties, he would like to look at
the five year option. He Liked the idea of a sunset date.
City of Springfield "
Council Work Session Minutes -
October 25, 2010
Page 5
Mr. Grimaldi asked Mr. Schuck to provide some additional information regarding calculations.
Mr. Schuck said the option presented tonight was owner-occupied homes so the $34,400 did not
include all 18 accounts. The owner occupied properties could be done in RLID relatively easily,
however if it was all accounts for a specific time they would need to do an account research which
would take considerably more time. The impact, with all accounts included, would be $9100 for one-
year, $39,000 for the five-year and $63,400 for the 10-year.,Just the owner-occupied accounts would
be a cost of $34,400 for ten years and.$24,000 for five years.
Councilor Wylie said she liked the five year. She also said she liked some of Councilor Pishioneri's
ideas.
Councilor Simmons asked if Councilor Pishioneri would go for the five-year period.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would not agree with five years. It was not an out of pocket expense for
anyone in his scenario. He wanted to get as many properties as possible to hook up to the sewers. He
.felt they needed to leverage this with the owners of the property, and could get more people. hooked up
if they went back 10 years. This wouldn't affect current rate payers, although it might cost in receipts.
of SDCs. Protecting what we had in our city was important. He noted how shallow the water table.was
in Thurston and some of the issues with septic in that area. He asked how many of the properties were
owned by the same owner for-the past ten years. Four.
,Councilor Wylie said she thought they could go back five years and accomplish the same thing. .
Councilor Ralston his comment earlier related to the owner of the property. He was fine going with
either five or ten years.
Councilor Lundberg asked about the cost difference between five or ten years.
Mr. Schuck said the difference for property owners would be $38,000 ,for five years and $63,400 for
ten years. For current owner only it would be $24,000 for five years and $34,400 for ten years.
Councilor Pishioneri said it would be worth it if they were able to get four properties hooked up.
Mayor Leiken asked if there were any rule changes coming from-the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) regarding septic.
Public Works Director said there was nothing at this time.
Councilor Pishioneri said nitrate plumes were increasing and whatever could be done to slow that
down would benefit the community.
Mr. Goodwin said the forbearance would be local SDCs. The annual revenue stream of those SDCs
was about $500,000. If it was spent iri one year, $34,000 would be about 7% of that total, and if spread
out over a number of years, it would be less. In virtually every case, the amount of the forbearance was
less than the~actual cost of the SDCs, so they would receive some SDC revenue that they might not
otherwise receive.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes .
October 25, 2010
Page 6
Mayor Leiken said Councilor Pishioneri had made a good argument, but we needed to be aware of
.how much it would cost.
Councilor Simmons discussed the amount of money spent to keep our water clean: Having more
people hooked up to the sewer would help with that.
Ms. Smith said staff did not have any issues with the suggested recommendation and were fine
moving forward. "
Councilor Lundberg referred to the sunset date.
Councilor Pishioneri said seven years was very reasonable because it would take a planning and
saving strategy for those property owners.
Councilor Lundberg said they needed to determine a sunset.
Mayor Leiken asked staff if seven years would work for them. Yes.
Councilor Simmons clarified that the City would not be refunding money, but would use it as a
forbearance against the SDC if the property owner chose to hook up within the seven years. This
would be applicable to the current owners. He felt there could be some legal issues in some cases. He
agreed, however, that Councilor Pishioneri made a valid argument.
Mr. Schuck clarified that it was current owners up to 10 years.
Councilor Pishioneri said septic failure would also trigger hook-up.
Ms. Smith said they would include a sunset date of seven years or upon septic system failure,
whichever came first.
3. Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update -Vision and Community Values and
Interests.
City Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. Mr: Reesor distributed binders to the
Council to use for information they received on this topic. He also distributed the first handout to
include in that notebook, entitled "Additional Local Value".
The Transportation System Plan (TSP) update would address long-range (20-year) transportation
needs for the City of Springfield by updating goals, objectives, policies, performance measures, and
project priorities which were currently found in TransPlan. Staff would continue a Council discussion
from the October 18 work session around what important values and interests should be considered in
developing goals, policies and project priorities for the updated Springfield TSP. Subsequent Council
work sessions would review a proposed policy set, performance measure updates, and prioritization of
needed future projects.:
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. Development of the TSP would be
coordinated with and would support the City's recent residential and employment buildable lands
analysis and adoption of a new urban growth boundary.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 25, 2010
Page 7 ;
On September 21St, 2010 the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed existing TransPlan goals,
- objectives and policies and considered their relevance to the new TSP update. The results of this Planning
Commission exercise were presented to the Council for consideration during a work session on October 4th,
2010. Staff also presented an overview of the goal and policy context for the Council at that time.
In order to develop the larger policy framework for future Council and Planning Commission work
sessions, staff met with Council on October 18th, 2010 to discuss those issues- and values that would be
most important to the community in terms of the multi-modal future transportation system. Tonight's
work session would be a continued discussion of local values, vision and issues.
The resulting Council input would provide a beginning framework for the TSP Technical Advisory
,..Committee during future policy development discussions. Additional opportunity for Council input•
would be provided at later stages in the process.
Mr. Reesor referred to the charts. on the wall that would be used to note Council comments. After
tonight, Mr. Reesor would take the Council input and discuss it with the consultant to come up with
some beginning language for draft goals, policies, and a vision they could bring to the advisory
committees: They would then bring those back to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. Reesor noted that comments made by the Council during their October 18 work session were on -
the charts. He reviewed those comments.
Councilor Pishioneri noted how Jesse Maine Park in Thurston played a huge role in keeping people in
the neighborhood. Neighborhood planning, in conjunction with recreational and transportation
planning went a long way to reducing vehicle miles traveled.
Mr. Reesor said that included coordination with Willamalane.
Councilor Ralston said connectivity was important and finding efficient ways to get between nodes
and neighborhoods that didn't create more traffic than necessary:: -
Mr. Reesor said that was also important for emergency services.
Councilor Lundberg said she had served on a Willamalane committee to work on parks as a focal
point in the neighborhood. She noted neighbors whose backyards abutted the park, but who had no
access to the park without driving to loop around to the entrance. They looked, at that time, at how
access worked. Part of planning involved determining what to do in existing neighborhoods, and the
other part was determining what could be done when planning new neighborhoods. They needed to
look at those existing neighborhoods and how those could be remedied. They. also needed to look at
the number of meetings and events scheduled because those took a lot of time and transportation.
Look at what could be done to make it easier on people and save on mileage.
Mr. Reesor asked if working from home would be better. Possibly.
Councilor Ralston spoke regarding the improvements to the intersection on Highway 126 and Main
Street. There could possibly be alternatives that would be less costly and provide the same relief for
traffic.
City of Springf eld '
. Council Work Session Minutes '~
October 25, 2010
Page 8
Mr. Reesor asked if in that context that could include connecting streets that were not currently
connected. Yes. '
Councilor Simmons said when 48d' Street was extended, that would create a shift in the traffic that
. would require the big interchange at Hwy 126 and 52nd. He discussed the possibility of an overpass-
over Hwy 126. Any interchange would need to be able to handle the loading of the vehicles.
Connectivity needed to be carefully thought out for the long term. It was all important. An ideal
connectivity would. have been a slip ramp from I-5 to the Gateway Mall.
Mr. Reesor said jurisdictional issues were. part of the equation. Taking over jurisdiction did cost
money as far as maintenance. He asked Council how they wanted to deal with those costs.
Mayor Leiken said jurisdiction was a big part of it. The City had done well using triggers, such as on
Game Farm Road and the MLK Jr. Parkway. The development of the University of Oregon Arena
would have positive impacts on Glenwood and the riverfront. They needed to look at how they would
create that transportation system based on that. He spoke regarding housing. He felt the younger
generation would determine how our community looked in the future and our transportation needs.
Many aspects would come into play. The potential of Glenwood and the riverfront was astronomical if
done right. The transportation piece would be critical for that area to be successful. The decisions
made so far regarding transportation had been good, but they needed to remain flexible. There needed
to be property available for businesses that wanted to expand. Rail would play a big role in this and
freight was needed. He believed neighborhoods would be more comprehensive and include amenities. -
Street width would need to be determined by the need. Residential areas could have narrower streets,
but commercial would need wider streets for freight. The driving force for what things would look like
would be the kids of today. Those were things they needed to think about as they moved forward.
Councilor Lundberg said they needed to look at what set Springfield apart in terms of our
transportation system and what was needed. We had a unique system because of our shape and being
bordered by rivers. Springfield was on major freight lines, both interstate and intrastate highways.
That made Springfield an attractive place for commercial and industrial businesses. The rivers along
our corridors were an asset, and we needed to figure. out how to better use the corridor to access the
rivers. The Travel Lane County Visitors Center was located in Springfield out in Gateway.
Mr. Reesor asked if she meant different modes to access rivers.
Councilor Lundberg said people went along Highway 126 to go to the coast or the mountains, but if
we could provide more access to the many places within our city, people would go to those other
places, too. We needed to use those assets for people to take advantage of.
Councilor Wylie said she liked to think about Glenwood becoming an urban neighborhood. She had a
vision of people taking the bus or train and getting to a pod car they could use, similar to a rent-a-bike,
She explained. She loved the idea of an urban area with high rises in Glenwood, like in Crescent
Village.
Mr. Reesor clarified.that she was supporting mixed use in Glenwood.
Mayor Leiken said during the Olympic Trials, most people stayed in Gateway, parked their car and
' took the EmX to the event.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
October 25, 2010
Page 9
_ Mr. Reesor asked if they wanted to include larid~development with the EmX system. Yes.'
Mayor Leiken said this was a wish list, but was important to talk about.
Mr. Reesor asked if they had other ideas regarding multi-modal.
Councilor .Simmons said multi-modal included airport, rail, and bus. Crandall Arambula had included
the high speed rail terminal in the plan for Downtown. People needed a way to get from their home to
the airport through some type of multi-modal connection. He wanted to make sure the City didn't
abandon any more rail lines. He explained. Those types of connections were vital for both urban
transportation, as well as freight and passenger service for longer distances. Rail line corridors should
revert~to public jurisdiction and be utilized to enhance our urban and rural transportation.
Councilor Wylie said we needed to .plan for electric cars and keep up with charging stations in our
community. That technology would be changing rapidly, but we needed to stay on top of the
technology. Park-n-rides also needed to be included as they were key to multi-modal transportation.
Mr. Reesor said he would bring these ideas to the advisory committees where they would begin
. drafting policies. They would then come back to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. Towery said he had talked with the two Council candidates about the outcome of the interviews.
. Ms. Moore encouraged Mr. Smith to apply for the position she would be vacating on the Planning
Commission and Mr. Smith was very interested.
ADJOURNMENT ~ .
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:44 p.m.
Minutes Recorder -Amy Sowa
~~ ~ ..
Sidney .Leiken
Mayor
Attest:
~~
Amy Sow
City Recor er