HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/2004 Work Session
.
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17,2004.
The City of Springfield council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225
Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, February 17,2004 at 6:00 p.m., with Council
President Pitch presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Councilors Ballew, Woodrow, Lundberg, Fitch, Ralston, and Malloy. Also present
were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorney Joe
Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Mayor Leiken was absent (excused).
1. Application Review for the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission.
Environmental Services Manager Susie Smith presented the staff report on this item. Ms. Smith
said the City Council is requested to review Doug Keeler's application materials during this
Work Session.
.
The term of Springfield's lay position on the MWMC expired February 1,2004. The City
Council needs to appoint a representative to serve the next term, which extends through February
1, 2007. Doug Keeler, incumbent, has re-applied for the position and is the only applicant.
The MWMC is composed of seven members. Springfield is represented by one City Councilor,
Anne Ballew, and one citizen. Doug Keeler, who works for Weyerhaeuser, has represented
Springfield on the Commission since 1997. Mr. Keeler brings to the Commission a strong
background in industrial wastewater management.
The vacancy was advertised in the Springfield News and the Register Guard, and applications
were accepted from December 19,2003, through January 16,2004. Notices of the vacancy were
also sent to citizens who have served on recent citizen advisory committees and/or have
expressed interest in Springfield boards and commissions. One application was received from
Mr. Keeler and is included for City Council review.
Councilor Ballew said that Mr. Keeler is a very good representative of Springfield. He
understands the technical issues and gets along well with other members. She strongly
recommends re-appointing Mr. Keeler to the MWMC.
Council consensus was to re-appoint Mr. Keeler at their regular council meeting tonight.
2. Stormwater Management Plan and Submittal of Required Documents to the Department of
Environmental Qualitv.
.
Water Resources Program Coordinator Chuck Gottfried presented the staff report on this item.
Mr. Gottfried introduced Kevin Masterson, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
representative for a stormwater management program and members of the City of Springfield
staff. Mr. Gottfried said the purpose of tonight's work session was for council to review and
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 17, 2004
Page 2
discuss the Stormwater Management Plan. In 2003, the city applied for its first Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) stormwater discharge permit, as required by the CW A. A
Storm water Management Plan (plan) has been prepared to meet the minimum requirements of
the State and Federal clean water laws. The Plan was included as Attachment B in the agenda
packet.
The Plan's purpose is to provide policy and management guidance for the city's stormwater
management programs and other activities affecting storm water within the Springfield
metropolitan area. Chapter Five of the Plan is intended to fulfill specific requirements that must
be met to obtain a MS4 storm water discharge permit. It provides for incremental progress toward
achieving the council's annually-reviewed "Key Outcomes for Stormwater Management," (listed
on the chart Mr. Gottfried placed on the wall) as well as State and Federal minimum water
quality standards. The proposed MS4 materials in Chapter Five mainly capture existing city
stormwater management practices and programs. Additional activities, such as a Federally-
mandated program for detecting and eliminating illicit discharges (dumping and/or spills) of
pollutants city-wide, were only included in the Plan where the city currently has no applicable
practices or programs.
The Plan reflects a minimalist approach, which recognizes the city's fiscal and organizational
constraints. It does not, however, preclude the city from implementing additional measures that
would assist in improving water quality and drainage system conditions. The Plan relies heavily
on enhanced outreach and technical assistance to business and industry, as well as
implementation and enforcement of existing Development and Municipal Code requirements
related to storm water management and erosion control.
.
The NPDES-MS4 portion of the Plan must be submitted to the DEQ by March 10,2004. If the
DEQ finds the city's submittal to meet the minimum requirements, Springfield will be issued its
first ever NPDES MS4 stormwater discharge permit. Implementation of the Plan is intended,
over a five-year permit term, to improve Springfield's water quality by 1) establishing goals and
benchmarks for reaching water quality standards, 2) implementing the specified management
practices, outreach, education, and enforcement efforts, and 3) ensuring compliance with the
city's State and Federal stormwater discharge requirements through tracking, monitoring, and
reporting. The Plan does not amend any local codes or ordinances. It also does not impose any
new regulations or limitations on the development or use of private property. It is consistent
with, and supports city implementation of both the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan and the
Public Facilities and Services Plan.
Stormwater management functions operate within the city's Public Works and Development
Services Departments. The planning, expansion, maintenance, and management of the city's
storm water infrastructure require ongoing operations staff and capital improvement program
resources. The plan calls for a modest increase in drainage program staffing for illicit discharge
inspection and compliance, starting FY 04-05. Since the adequacy of this Plan to satisfy DEQ
requirements is not yet known, the overall future financial impacts are uncertain.
.
Mr. Gottfried said last year the permit application was reviewed with the Planning Commission
and the application was submitted to the DEQ. The public involvement plan was for improved
community involvement and included three public events, poster shows (which were included in
the agenda packet as Attachment E), and outreach to stakeholders in public industry. The
Springfield Chamber of Commerce, HomeBuilders Association, Lane County, City of Eugene
and Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) all reviewed the plan with minimal comments
and no negative comments. Staff conducted mass mailings, direct telephone contact, media ads,
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 17,2004
Page 3
and posted the draft plan to the city's website. The Planning Commission reviewed the plan at
its February 3, 2004 meeting and adopted a resolution for recommendation to forward the plan to
council.
Mr. Gottfried said the plan evolved from council review oflocal stormwater resource issues and
state and federal regulatory programs. The plan requirements included the NPDES program
. under the Federal Clean Water Act. The plan would also assist the city with compliance with the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and local ordinances. The plan meets the
city's NPDES requirements, which were listed on the chart on the wall.
Mr. Gottfried said the plan would be reviewed by the DEQ to obtain the NPDES permit and may
need additional honing to meet those requirements. The council may see the plan after staff
incorporates any changes that may need to be made. The plan addresses both water quality and
water quantity issues and is driven by non-compliance with the state water quality standards.
The plan provides local controls of stormwater management practices while complying with the
state and federal mandates. It coordinates existing studies and data that have been gathered to
address water quality issues and supports the stormwater facility plan, which is under
development. It identifies special areas of concern, such as the Mill Race, and establishes
consistent pragmatic water quality goals and implementation actions to reach the long-term
goals.
.
Mr. Gottfried discussed two new programs: the Land Drainage and Alteration Program (LDAP)
and the Illicit Discharge Detection Program. He explained the staffing necessary for these
programs. He discussed Chapter Five, which is outlined in the staff report included in the
agenda packet.
Councilor Woodrow asked how the city would enforce the illicit discharge detection.
Mr. Gottfried said there would be several facets to that program. At this time, the city does some
monitoring regarding water quality and when illicit discharge or pollution is detected, they work
their way back upstream until the source of the discharge is located. The contaminated portion
can then be isolated.
Councilor Woodrow asked what would happen if the city doesn't meet MS4 requirements.
Mr. Gottfried said that would bea violation of the Clean Water Act, which required the city
submits the plan. The DEQ would determine the ramifications of that violation.
Councilor Woodrow asked if the city could anticipate any minor or major changes in what the
DEQ might require in the next five years.
Mr. Gottfried said the city could anticipate the new program of total daily maximum loads.
There are concerns over water temperature in both the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers. There
are also concerns regarding mercury levels in the Willamette River. There will most likely be
temperature limitations sometime this summer or later this year. The temperature concerns are
something this plan will adaptively address, although it does not specifically address temperature
controls. Other sections ofthe City and Development Codes may address that issue.
Councilor Ralston asked about the floodway basin through the middle of Springfield.
.
Mr. Gottfried said he is not clear why it is named the Q Street Floodway.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 17,2004
Page 4
.
Councilor Ballew recalled that in the 1950's there was enough water in the street to re-route
traffic to Mohawk.
Councilor Lundberg said there is a stormwater system that runs under Silke Field and there is a
mechanism for stormwater discharge that runs through that area.
Mr. Gottfried said that system starts south of Main Street near the Rosboro Mill and continues
through town.
Councilor Ballew discussed open ditches and the risk of breeding mosquitoes and other insects.
Mr. Gottfried said we do not have a pest management program for those areas at this time.
There are technologies to deal with those issues, but the city doesn't have a program to use those
treatments. This plan does not address that issue.
Ms. Smith said the mosquitoes that carry the West Nile Virus are more likely to reside in the
pipe system, not in the open areas. At the state level clean water agency advocacy organizations,
the legal committee has been working with the DEQ on draft language that might permit
communities to use better pest control. At this time, it is not allowed under the Clean Water Act
to put pesticides in the waterways.
Mr. Gottfried discussed open ditches and the pipelines and temperature control.
.
Councilor Ralston said those little streams and ditches have a large number of small fish who eat
the bugs.
Discussion was held regarding other breeding grounds for mosquitoes.
Councilor Fitch referred to Attachment A, page 3 included in the agenda packet regarding
[mancial impacts. She asked about the cost of the additional staffing for the LDAP and the
staffing for Environmental Services and if they would be covered by existing revenue or would
be additional budget items.
Mr. Gottfried said that all of the water resources staff is funded outside of the General Fund.
Ms. Smith said the LDAP staff would be funded primarily out of the permit fees from the LDAP
program.
3. Proposed Sale of the Springfield Community Center to Catholic Community Services. and
Disposition of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Subsidy.
Housing Program Specialist Kevin Ko presented the staff report on this item. The Springfield
Community Center, located at 1025 G Street is currently owned by the Springfield Community
Development Corporation (CDC). The city assisted the CDC in the purchase and rehabilitation
of the facility by providing $195,369 ofCDBG funds in 1998 and 1999. The city has been asked
to facilitate the sale of the Community Center to Catholic Community Services (CCS) by
waiving repayment of the CDBG subsidy.
.
The Springfield CDC has been operating the Community Center since its acquisition in 1998.
The Community Center has been a [mancial and operational challenge to the CDC, which is
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 17, 2004
Page 5
.
wishing to divest itself of the facility. The Arc of Lane County was initially interested in the
facility, but has concluded it would not serve its needs. The CDC is wishing to sell the property
to CCS, who currently operates a food box distribution program and energy assistance program
from the facility. CCS is very interested in purchasing the facility so that it may continue to
provide services to Springfield residents. If the acquisition is successful, CCS also plans to
relocate its main offices to the facility and to offer space to other service agencies to better serve
Springfield residents. The debt on the facility (including the CDBG subsidy) exceeds current
market value, and full repayment of all debts and obligations is not financially feasible. CCS has
requested that the city facilitate the transaction by waiving repayment of the CDBG subsidy.
The city has invested $195,369 ofCDBG funds in the facility and has entered into two separate
CDBG grant agreements with the CDC, describing the responsibilities and obligations that go
along with the CDBG funds. The agreements require repayment ofthe CDBG subsidy to the city
if the facility is sold within 10 years of the date of the agreement. The CDBG program allows
the city the option of waiving repayment, if CDBG eligible services continue to be provided
from the facility to low-income residence ofthe community. The CDBG program requires
continued maintenance of the facility.
.
Staff has visited the facility on several occasions and recognizes the importance ofthe services
that CCS currently provides. The addition of other service agencies would broaden the range of
services available. There is no other location in Springfield where low-income persons have
access to these services. Staff recommends that the city waive repayment of the CDBG subsidy
and assign the CDBG responsibilities and obligations to CCS, according to the terms of the
Assignment and Modifications Agreement. This will ensure the long-term continuance of the
vital services which are currently being provided by CCS to the benefit oflow-income
Springfield residents, and represents the best use of the CDBG funds.
Mr. Ko said council is being asked to approve staffs recommendation to allow the CDBG
subsidy to remain in the facility, under the terms described in the Assignment and Modifications
Agreement (Attachment 3).
Mr. Ko introduced Ed Monks,- Executive Director of Catholic Community Services. Mr. Ko
referred to the draft assignment and modifications agreement included in the agenda packet as
Attachment 3. He made a correction to Attachment 3, page 2, paragraph D which states
"Further, in the event that any ofthe programs specified in 4A, B or C, are not provided. . ."
(add words in italic).
City Attorney Joe Leahy discussed the interest from Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC)
and the School District regarding this property. He discussed the age of the building and
bringing it up to code. Ifwe don't do something like this and someone forecloses, we may be in
a position of trying to recover that money from a board which no longer exists. Philosophically,
this program may need some work regarding the lending of funds. Those are best discussed by
council and staff for future projects. He said following a number of meetings, it was determined
that the services have been delivered by CCS and by purchasing this building they could
continue providing those services to Springfield residents.
Councilor Fitch said the intent was that those services be provided for ten years and have already
been provided for five years. The community would continue to receive these serv:ices.
.
Councilor Ralston asked about the total amount owed, the current property value and who would
be responsible for the difference.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 17,2004
Page 6
.
Mr. Leahy said the applicant is working with the bank to get that amount down.
Mr. Monks said the purchase arrangement with CDC would satisfy the debt in a way that is
acceptable and manageable to CCS. He gave the updated figures. CDC would leave the
property with no debt, but with no proceeds going to them. He explained how CCS would secure
funding to maintain this building. The city and CCS have negotiated to this point.
Mr. Leahy said the CDC had other obligations to the city which have been assumed by St.
Vincent DePaul. This is the last arrangement the city would have with CDC.
Councilor Lundberg said she is supportive of anything the city can do to move this forward and
retain the same venue as when it started. She is concerned with the size of the building and that
there is enough going on in that building. She also noted the parking lot needs repair. This
building is viable to what it is offering the community.
Mr. Monks said negotiations with the primary lender enterprise foundation are close and the
price is agreed upon. It is their intention to move the CCS administrative offices to this building
over time making it very viable.
Councilor Woodrow asked if we could anticipate other issues coming back to us regarding ARC.
Mr. Ko said he sent a letter to ARC explaining what the city is doing regarding the building and
CCS. The ARC had already made the determination that the building would not suit their needs.
.
Councilor Fitch asked if the CDC would be dissolving after this transaction.
Mr. Ko has not heard that they are planning to dissolve. The CDC is not a Community Housing
Development Organization (CHDO), which is the designation given to organizations by HUD.
They no longer qualify as a CHDO, so their future is unclear. They do have an active board.
Mr. Leahy discussed the CDC Board and their focus on completing this transaction.
Councilor Fitch said this building could also provide meeting space for groups to meet since we
are losing the Clarion as a community meeting space.
Councilor Ballew asked if CCS was financially able to weather some setbacks.
Mr. Monks said they are in a position to deal with setbacks.
Councilor Ballew said while the building was the Springfield CDC, it was not tax exempt. She
asked if CCS would be property tax exempt.
Mr. Monks said they would be tax exempt. He believes that while the CDC owned the building,
occupancy by the CCS within the building qualified the building as tax exempt, but the CDC did
not complete the application properly and were denied tax exempt status. Property taxes were
not paid by the CDC and continued to accrue to the amount due today. CCS is a 501(C)(3)
corporation and would be qualified for tax exemption. They do plan to apply for the tax
exemption.
.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 17,2004
Page 7
.
Councilor Ballew discussed the CDBG guidelines for services for ten years. She asked if CCS
would continue to provide those services after the ten year period.
Mr. Monks said their mission is providing those types of services and have done so over the last
52 years. Their intention is to continue providing those services or something very similar.
Councilor Ralston asked if CCS could be added to the Housing Policy Board list since the CDC
was removed.
Mr. Ko said they could not, because CCS does not provide housing in a way that a CHDO needs
to qualify.
Councilor Fitch thanked staff for their work in resolving this to allow the community to receive
the services they need and the building to be used and maintained.
4. Council Initiation of Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) and the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP).
.
Environmental Services Manager Susie Smith and Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the
staff report on this item. Mr. Mott said last week during the council work session there was
discussion on some of these amendments. Amendments to the Metro Plan - Public Facilities and
Services Element, and to the PFSP, are needed to: 1) clarify the relationship between, and the
types of facilities projects included in, the PFSP and local capital improvement plans (CIPs); 2)
update the PFSP maps based on new statutes; 3) reflect current conditions and planned regional
wastewater facilities consistent with the MWMC Facilities Master Plan Update currently under
way; and 4) resolve inconsistencies among metro-wide planning documents. The amendments
proposed this evening would apply to Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC), City of Springfield, City of Eugene, Springfield Utility Board (SUB), and Eugene
Water and Electric Board (EWEB).
The PFSP includes inventories, condition assessments, project lists and policies for key urban
public facilities, including wastewater collection and treatment. Since the inception of these
metro-wide comprehensive plans, the wastewater facilities included in the project lists have been
limited to pump stations and 24" or larger pipes. Capital improvements to the regional
wastewater treatment facilities have beeri addressed only through the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management Commission (MWMC) CIP process.
The PFSP was updated in 2001 as part of the Metro Plan periodic review process. It contains a
condition and capacity assessment of the regional wastewater treatment facilities based on the
information available at that time. The text references two areas of constrained capacity and the
planned work to resolve them. Consistent with past practice,'no wastewater treatment facility
projects were included in the PFSP project list. An updated MWMC Facilities Master Plan,
which will update the information in the PFSP, is nearly complete. The Facilities Master Plan
identifies a list of projects that will need to be constructed over the next ten years in order to
comply with the wastewater discharge permit issued in 2002 and with additional peak wet
weather flow management requirements, as well as to provide adequate capacity through 2025.
.
Local and regional wastewater program and planning staff, along with legal counsel, have
concluded that several amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP are advisable. The amendments
would result in updated wastewater system text, and clarification of the definitions ofPFSP-
included projects versus projects included in local CIPs only. The amendments also would
.
.
.
. .
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 17, 2004
Page 8
ensure that all of the metropolitan planning documents provide a consistent and legal framework
for developing both regional wastewater Facilities Master Plan projects and city infrastructure
projects not currently addressed in the PFSP. '
The types of Metro Plan and PFSP amendments contemplated are defmed by the Metro Plan as
"Type II" amendments, which must be initiated by one of the three governing bodies.
Expeditious review of the amendments will be critical to timely design and construction of
newly identified regional wastewater facilities, which is slated to begin in fiscal year 2004-2005.
The metropolitan area Planning Directors reviewed this matter on January 27th and have
tentatively scheduled a Joint Planning Commission public hearing for April 13, 2004, pending
formal initiation. Development of the amendment language is currently under way, and will be
provided to the City Council for review and comment prior to the Planning Commission public
hearing.
Staff would also like to ask for council to initiate staff to create a PFSP amendment process in
the context of the PFSP. Only the elected officials can initiate these.
Councilor Fitch asked how this process could be done efficiently and timely.
Mr. Mott said a Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for April 2004. Staff then
plans to bring it to council for a public hearing this summer.
Ms. Smith gave a brief background of why this has been brought to council so quickly. MWMC
needs to get a number of things in place to begin the process of building a treatment plant for the
next 20 years for the community. It involves approval of the facility master plan update, which
will be undergoing public hearing and approval by the commission soon; an updated
Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) methodology; an updated CIP; and ratification of the
finance plan. In updating the master plan, staff found they need to get this going in 2004 and
2005 in order to maintain compliance with the wastewater discharge permit. The Planning
directors have agreed to expedite this with a joint Planning Commissioners and elected officials.
The meetings are set up. Staff from all jurisdictions are ready on this, which would help to move
it forward. Staff is working to see what efficiently gets approved through the local CIP process
versus the regional Metro Plan and Public Facilities Plan update process. Council may hear
testimony from elements of the community that may want to maintain that in a more formalized
process. Wastewater treatment facilities have not been listed on the public facilities plan, but
need to be included and clarified.
Mr. Mott said they cannot operate outside of the requirements of the administrative rule that
specifies what needs to be in the PFSP. The purpose is to clarify what needs to be on the PFSP
and what does not. The changes could include amending what is already on there or adding to it.
Councilor Fitch is concerned about all entities making these amendments and causing more
confusion.
Councilor Ballew said it is wrong to put capital improvement plans and numbers into what.
should be a policy document. The process has become the product.
Ms. Smith said staff's big concern is that this facility master plan update will come out with a
twenty year laundry list of projects. They are looking to find the most efficient plan. Five years
from now they may have adjustments. Every time the name of a project is modified to achieve
the same results, staff has to go through a three-jurisdiction metro plan and PFSP amendment
.
.
.
. ;
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
February 17,2004
Page 9
process to get that change. That is not a cost effective use of regional sewer user rates and staff
time.
Discussion was held regarding leaving the concept and the site location of the facility, and
moving the details of the plan and its implementation into the local CIP process, which the
elected officials would have complete jurisdiction over.
Ms. Smith said there are concerns of keeping this schedule on track.
Mr. Mott said the request going before council during the regular meeting does not mention all
aspects of the amendment process for the PFSP, council may need to remove this from the
consent calendar to include the additional information.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 pm.
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa
Attest: