Loading...
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