HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/07/2003 Work Session
,
.
..
.
~
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2003.
The city of Springfield council met in work session in the Jesse Maine Room, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, April 7, 2003 at 6:18 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding.
ATTENDANCE
. Present were Mayor Leiken, Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Woodrow, Burge, and Ralston. Also
present were City Manager Michael Kelly, Interim Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City
Attorney Joe Leahy, Clerk III Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Museum Board of Directors and Museum Committee Application Review and Appointment.
Kathy Jensen, staff liaison for the Museum Board of Directors and Museum Committee, was
present for the staff report. She said the purpose of this work session was to approve the
applications from prospective Board of Directors member Kristie A. Redmond and
prospective Museum Committee member P. Maureen Sicotte. Ms. Jensen outlined some of
the qualifications of each applicant.
The vacancy on the Board of Directors was due to the resignation of David Bradford on
February 6, 2003 because he is moving to Arizona. If Ms. Redmond is appointed to his
position, she will [mish out Mr. Bradford's term until October 2,2004.
Ms. Sicotte, if appointed, will fill a position that has been vacant on the Museum Committee
for 10 years. Her term would expire April 7, 2007.
The Springfield Museum Board of Directors and the Museum Committee recommend that
Council approve both candidates and appoint them at the regular session.
2. Sewer Service to Grandview Estates.
City Engineer AI Peroutka was present for the staff report. He said the purpose of this work
session is to request that Council make several decisions regarding the Grandview issue:
1) Should the project move forward at this time?
2) If the decision is to move forward, should there be a cost recovery component
(surcharge) to the SDC for this area, as suggested by staff, or some other cost recovery
mechanism beyond normal SDC charges:
3) Does Council want to defer the requirement for hook-up or otherwise relieve the burden
of hooking up for some properties based on criteria the council would establish for this
situation, and should private deed restrictions be required noting the requirement for
hook-up in the future?
Some property owners have requested that the City provide sewer service to their properties
in Grandview Estates, as they believe they were promised by the developer when they
purchased those properties, and as they believe they were promised by the City through the
decisions to permit the development. Sewer service will allow them to further partition their
properties for development as was planned during the initial serial partitioning and
/.
.
Springfield City Council
Work Session Minutes - April 7, 200~
Page - 2
development process allowed by the Springfield Development Code. Other property owners
in Grandview Estates are opposed to the installation of sewer service because ofthe cost.
Council is requested to provide directio~_ to staff on whether and how to extend sewer service
to Grandview.
Mr. Peroutka outlined some of the conditions put into place when this subdivision was
started regarding location of homes on property, septic services and recording of condition
when sewer service was available. The properties were to hook up to sewer services when
they became available. Initially, it was believed this would occur within 5 years, but this did
not occur. Mr. Peroutka outlined the options available to the Council including Council's
authority to require sewer hook-up if they feel it is in the public's best interest.
Mr. Peroutka provided Council with a table showing when the different properties were
occupied. Standard septic systems were put in by all owners. He referenced a chart showing
the location ofthe proposed pump station and force drain leading to the existing sewer
system. He pointed out that another problem they may encounter is that at this time they
have no one willing to sell property for the easements.
Councilor Ralston said his decision will be based on the 15th homeowner. Mr. Peroutka said
that the 15th owner has chosen not to take sides because she does not want to offend any of
her neighbors. Councilor Ralston referred to rules which he believed stated that over 50 %
of the property owners had to want the service in order for Council to be able to go forward.
.
City Manager Mike Kelly said there actually was not such a rule. All public improvement
projects are initiated by Council. This usually occurs when Council receives a petition
signed by over 50% of the people. This shows enough interest to go ahead with surveying
and engineering for these projects. Council has in the past, and is entitled to, go forward on
- their own volition without support. He said that it takes 2/3 of the affected owners to
remonstrate.
Councilor Ralston asked for the overall cost of the project.
Mr. Peroutka said that the overall cost ofthe project is approximately $250,000.00 including
acquisition of properties for the easements.
The effected properties were confirmed on the map.
Discussion was held on how it would be paid for. Those are the options for the council to
consider. Average cost per property owner would be $3000.00.
Mr. Peroutka said that there was concern, especially by those who most recently built and
put out the money for their septic systems. He also pointed out that there was some
discussion during some of the past council meetings that some of the- homes would get some
credit because they put sewer lines in front of their homes. He explained that every
subdivision does that, and that is a cost that everybody bears in addition to getting their
sewage to the treatment facility.
Mr. Kelly clarified that at the time of the development, the city required the developer to put
sanitary sewer lines in the street in front of those homes so hook-up could be easily done
when sewers were available.
.
Councilor Ralston asked how we would recover the costs
.
.
.
.
Springfield City Council
Work Session Minutes - April 7, 2003
Page - 3
Mr. Peroutka said that only if the surrounding lots deveioped would they recover 'l'2 the costs.
The other half would be picked up by the city. Long range plan would bring in additional
dollars by extending the sewer system.
Discussion was held regarding how this development began and progressed to this point.
Planning Supervisor Mel Oberst discussed the development and the exceptions which were
put into place on this project.
Discussion was held regarding how this happened and how to insure it would not happen
agam.
Councilor Ballew said she feels the City is obligated to provide this service. She said we
need to cover what we can and those that develop later could be required to hook up, or if
existing lots are sold or change ownership. She is suggesting a voluntary hook-up. Those
that want it need to pay their share. As additional owners hook-up to the sewer, they will
need to pay the existing costs.
Councilor Burge said he was on the Council when this occurred. Sewer hook-up was to be
provided when it was available and he does not remember that there was a 5 year time limit.
He feels that whenever we make an exception, we get stung. The goal at the time this
development was approved was for upper end housing. Average size of the lots is 30,000
square feet, which does not meet the minimum density requirement. In essence we violated
our own code (10,000 square foot lots). It was the intent that when sewer lines became
available, they were to split the lot and build another house giving the city the tax base
needed. Mr. Burge will not vote in favor of the general public picking up the slack. He feels
the owners can pay the $3000.00 themselves.
Councilor Ralston asked if the surrounding property is developable property.
Mr. Oberst confirmed that it is developable.
Mr. Burge feels that those who can divide their property want the sewer line and are able to
recoup some of the costs by selling'l'2 of their property. Those that are unable to divide their
property do not want to incur those costs.
Discussion was held regarding the direction of the sewer lines and existing lines.
'"
Mr. Peroutka said that the main cost is the pump station, gravity sewer and force main.
Mr. Kelly pointed out that the force main and lift station were in the master plan. It will
need to eventually be done. Typically, it was at the city's expense, but over the last few
years costs have been shared with the developer 50/50. Over time this would be a 50/50 split
as new development comes in and they are required to pay their share for the sewer. The
question is whether or not to build this pump station and sewer lines ahead of the times
(before the development reaches its peak).
Councilor Woodrow asked if we had the right-of-way for the force main.
Mr. Peroutka said yes, but notfor the pump station and gravity sewer, and property owners
are not willing sellers.
~
.
.
.
...
Springfield City Council
Work Session Minutes - April 7, 2003
Page - 4
Discussion was held about the planning of this project at the time of development.
Councilor Ralston said he has a problem asking the public to pay for something the city gave
an exception to. He feels that the owners should pay for all of it. Ifthey each paid
$13,000.00, that wouldcover about $200,000.00, leaving the city with a balance of
$50,000.00. That might encourage some of the owners to divide their property and sell'lS of
it off to recoup their costs.
Councilor Fitch said another possibility could be that each owner could be charged double,
representing two lots. There were some individuals that may have been given
misinformation; therefore we should allow a five year leeway to connect so that those that
have just built and put in new septic systems would have an opportunity to spread out their
costs. Assuming that we are going to get 45 lots is not likely to happen in the near future.
She added that looking at information from the City Attorney, there could be litigation costs
incurred if we do not proceed.
Councilor Burge, Councilor Woodrow, and Councilor Ralston agree that the general citizens
should not have to pay for this project.
Councilor Ballew feels that the City has an obligation to get the sewer to these homes. She
feels the city has to go the extra mile.
Councilor Fitch will bring this forward as a motion. She feels we need to have an answer for
the owners so they can proceed.
Councilor Burge suggested that as future lots are developed, the money paid by the
developers at that time could be used to reimburse current owners.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
'-
Minutes Recorder - Amy Sowa