HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/2003 Regular
.
.
.
"
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JULY 28, 2003
The City of Springfield council met in Special Regular Session in the Council Meeting Room,
225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 28,2003 at 7:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken, Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Woodrow, Burge, Malloy, and Ralston.
Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City
Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members ofthe staff.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Leiken led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilor Woodrow noted that he had exparte contact regarding item number 2c, but it would in
no way affect his decision.
Councilor Malloy will not vote on item 2e.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
BALLEW TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEM 2E REMOVED. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
1. Minutes
a. July 14,2003 - Work Session Minutes
b. July 14,2003 - Special Regular Session Minutes
2. Other Routine Matters
a. Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Tax Lot 3512, Map No. 17-03026-24 for the
Amount of$12,000.
b. Award the Contract for Laura Street Sewer and Drainage to Egge Sand & Gravel in the
Amount of$215,732.10.
c. Approval of the Release of Drainage Easement for Willamette Medical Center, AAA of
Oregon/Idaho and Harlow Urology Center.
d. Approval of City Prosecutor Contract.
f. Award Contract for Sanitary Sewer Replacement, to Eugene Sand & Gravel in the
Amount of $640,938.00.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
e. Award Contract for Oncall Traffic and Transportation Engineering Services.
.
.
.
,
,
Springfield City Council
Regular Session Minutes - July 28,2003
Page - 2
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
BALLEW TO ACCEPT ITEM 2E. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR
AND 0 AGAINST (COUNCILOR MALLOY ABSTAINED).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing to Consider a Request for the Annexation of Property (Jasper Meadows Phase
3) to the City of Springfield, Journal Number LRP2003-0000 1.
RESOLUTION NO. 03-39 - A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING EXPEDITED
ANNEXATION OF JASPER MEADOWS. PHASE 3, CONDITIONED UPON AN
ACCEPTABLE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BEING FULLY EXECUTED PRIOR TO
THE ANNEXATION REQUEST BEING SUBMITTED TO THE BOUNDARY
COMMISSION. IN ADDITION TO OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS,
THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WILL REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF A
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE REMAINING PHASES OF THE JASPER
MEADOWS PROJECT.
Planner Linda Pauly was present for the staff report. Ms. Pauly explained that at the July 14,
2003 Work Session Council continued their discussion of the Jasper Meadows Phase III
annexation proposal. Staff presented additional information regarding the availability and timing
of key urban facilities and services. At that time, Council directed staff to proceed with the
Public Hearing on July 28, 2003.
The property owners of the subject territory, Crossroads Development L.L.C., have requested
annexation in order to develop a 39 lot residential subdivision on the 10.77 acre property located
south of Jasper Meadows First Addition (south of South 60th and Granite Street), Assessor's Map
Number 18-02-03-00, portion of Tax Lot 507. The applicant has submitted a concurrent
application for Subdivision Tentative (Journal Number SUB2003-00004). This urban use is not
permitted in the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District, thus annexation is required.
Ms. Pauly explained the issues that faced this property in terms of key urban services. Staff
prepared an outline of what needed to be done to provide key urban services as noted on
Attachment 2-1. She discussed conditions recommended by council leadership. Staff is
confident that the developer and staff can come to an annexation agreement to provide services.
She said they did not receive any comment from the public notice.
Ms. Pauly said that council had three options this evening:
1. Adopt a Resolution to initiate and support the applicant's annexation request and to
recommend that the Boundary Commission approve the annexation by an expedited
process. To do so they would need to authorize the City Manager to forward the
resolution during council recess to the Boundary Commission.
2. Continue this public hearing in September and have a Work Session on September 8 to
discuss the details of the annexation agreement with staff and give further input. An
expedited process could still be recommended to the Boundary Commission at that time.
3. Deny the annexation request.
Mayor Leiken opened the Public Hearing.
.
.
.
"
Springfield City Council
Regular Session Minutes - July 28, 2003
Page - 3
1. Mark Vukanovich, 15754 NW Graff St., Portland, OR 97229. Mr. Vukanovich
represents the developer Crossroads, LLC and he is requesting council approve
annexation for expedited process conditioned on an annexation agreement. Mr.
Vukanovich is confident that between themselves and the City staff a formidable
annexation agreement can be reached.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Councilor Burge noted the cost ratio comparisons. He asked what methodology they used for
this.
Ms. Pauly said it was an annexation study given to her by Planning Supervisor Mel Oberst that
compared the revenues generated by different parts of the city when they were annexed.
Councilor Burge asked if they took into consideration the market and assessed value in this
subdivision of the homes to be built. The proposed subdivision would include more entry level
homes. That in itself would certainly make the cost ratio lower because they are lower priced
homes. He said to give the ratio any credit, and to allow that to influence council's decision,
would also be saying council does not support lower income housing.
Ms. Pauly said she is not sure the cost used. She did not believe that would be a factor.
Mr. Kelly said the study referred to is about 10 years old and was done by LCOG. The study
referred to those living on the fringe of the city regarding their interest in annexation. These
numbers in the staff report tonight are from that study done in 1993. He said that Ms. Pauly is
indicating that the developer would be picking up a large number of the costs that would normally
be the City's. Because it is an older report and with the developer paying more of the costs, it is
not an accurate reflection of this issue.
Councilor Burge suggested not using this number if it is no longer current.
Councilor Ballew said that perhaps a mixture of commercial and industrial in areas would be
more of a factor to increase that ratio. She feels it is not affected much by higher end homes.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
BALLEW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 03-39. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. An Ordinance Amending the Springfield Municipal Code to Add Submittal Requirements for
Grading Permits Sought Prior to, or in the Absence of, A Partition, Subdivision or Site Plan
Review Application.
ORDINANCE NO. 6065 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 8.300 ET SEQ,
"GRADING" SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS 8.300, 8.308(1). 8.318(7) AND 8.334(1) OF
THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD PERMIT SUBMITTAL
REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND
WELFARE WHEN A GRADING PERMIT IS SOUGHT PRIOR TO OR IN THE
ABSENCE OF A PARTITION, SUBDIVISION OR SITE PLAN REVIEW
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Springfield City Council
Regular Session Minutes - July 28, 2003
Page - 4
.
Planner Colin Stephens was present for the staff report. Mr. Stephens said that Council discussed
this item during their Work Session earlier this evening. This ordinance supplements the
submittal requirements ofthe Springfield Municipal Code to include requirements that are
normally part of a Partition, Subdivision or Site Plan Review application and provides expanded
bonding and 'hold harmless' guarantees by adding section that:
· Require a 'hold harmless' clause stating that the approval of the grading permit does not
ensure the approval or terms of approval of a future development application.
. Protect important physical features until they are fully considered through a development
application.
· Require surrounding property owner notification for large-scale grading.
· Expand the bonding requirements needed for cases where an applicant fails to complete
the terms and conditions of the grading permit.
Adoption of the Ordinance will allow the Public Works Director to issue LDAP permits prior to
the submittal of a development application by providing supplemental information, guidelines
and conditions necessary to fully protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens.
This will insure certainty to property owners wishing to perform grading prior to the issuance of
other required City development approvals.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
BALLEW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6065. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
3. A Resolution Establishing Guidelines for the Development Services Director to Apply When
Authorizing the Issuance of a Land and Drainage Alteration Permit Prior to Preliminary
Approval of a Site Plan or Tentative Approval of a Partition or Subdivision.
RESOLUTION NO. 03-40 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ADOPTING GUIDELINES AND CONDITIONS FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF LAND AND DRAINAGE ALTERATION PERMITS PRIOR TO
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN OR TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF A
PARTITION OR SUBDIVISION.
Planning Manager Greg Mott was present for the staff report. Mr. Mott said a change was made
on Attachment 1.1 to provide guidance to the Development Services Director which is inserted in
the second to the last paragraph of the first sentence. He said that council discussed this item
during their Work Session earlier this evening. He said the Development Code includes an
exception clause in Articles 31, 34 and 35 allowing the Director to issue a LDAP prior to
approval of concurrent development applications (site plan, partition and subdivision). There are
no instructions regarding conditions of approval to assure public health, safety and general
welfare.
.
.
.
.
"
Springfield City Council
Regular Session Minutes - July 28, 2003
Page - 5
Mr. Mott said the existing exception language is somewhat vague regarding the circumstances
that might precipitate a request for an "early" LDAP, or ifthe Director should impose conditions
unique to "early" LDAP's. The Code says "In certain cases the Director may issue a Land and
Drainage Alteration Permit prior to approval of the prelimimiry site plan or tentative partition or
subdivision." This text could provide an opportunity for inconsistent application as well as the
possibility of complaints that such action constituted a de facto approval ofthe pending
development application.
An additional complicating factor is that neither the Development Code nor the Municipal Code
requires a LDAP to be processed with an actual development application. In other words, if the
applicant is not proposing to do anything other than alter the site, the LDAP is processed and
issued. If the applicant submits a concurrent development application with the LDAP' only an
exception by the Director would allow the applicant to begin site work prior to development
application approval. The proposed Resolution will eliminate this double standard and provide
the guidelines and conditions necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the
citizens. A companion Municipal Code amendment regarding the issuance ofLDAP's without
accompanying development applications is also proposed for Council consideration on July 28th.
Mr. Mott said this resolution is responsive to the Council's target of a more efficient and
consistent development review process. This target is derived from comments gathered during a
half-day work shop with the development community on May 19,2003.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
Noone appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
BALLEW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 03-40. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
1. Michael McIlrath., 916 G Street. Springfield, OR. Mr. McIlrath appreciated the air of
fairness from last week's meeting regarding the Patriot Act. The Bill of Rights Defense
Committee will be holding several forums this summer and they would like to invite
councilors to meet to learn more about the Patriot Act. He said it was clear that the
councilors do not understand that there is a contradiction between the law they are asked to
uphold and the Constitution. He would ask councilors to read the Bill of Rights, learn more
about the Patriot Act and reconsider this in the fall. He explained some of the issues of the
Patriot Act at the expense of representation of government. He will extend invitations to
councilors to events as they occur.
2. Roxie Cuellar, Homebuilder's Association, 2053 Laura Street. Springfield, OR. Ms. Cuellar
apologized for her past comments to Susie Smith and the City of Springfield on this issue.
She said tonight the Springfield Council will be considering increasing MWMC fees by
110% without public input. She asked that council consider her remarks to represent an
appearance by the Home Builders Association of Lane County and the Homebuilders
Construction Company. She outlined some of the issues with this new methodology and the
.
.
.
Springfield City Council
Regular Session Minutes - July 28, 2003
Page - 6
double charging it would cause. She explained that council cancelled the public hearing in
the spring. She explained the problems involved in basing this on the new CIP. She
discussed the problems with these SDC charges and how they are not equitable. She referred
to the metro plan amendments passed by Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. She
explained the facilities plan and how it applies to these charges. She referenced sections from
the MWMC FY03 budget. She said there are a number of projects that need to be paid for by
the city and she feels this is an attempt to pay for these. She discussed the infiltration and
inflow (III) problem and that you cannot use SDC's for these problems. She explained that
there are other projects that should not be funded by SDC's. She has not seen the list that
shows which projects are SDC eligible, but the list she has shows maybe $lM worth of
projects which would not warrant the increase staff if requesting. There is no data showing
how much capacity the City is adding. She referenced a chart provided by staff. She said
that SDC's are growth related and Springfield has the lowest growth rate; therefore,
Springfield should have lower SDC's. She said the City of Springfield has a treatment plant
with a lot of capacity for growth. Springfield has unique features. Ms. Cuellar submitted her
written testimony along with other documents for the public record.
City Attorney Joe Leahy clarified that the documents will be submitted as part of the record. The
relevancy of it is an open issue.
.. COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from Carl and Delores Lohner, 40 Allen Avenue, Springfield, OR,
Regarding Modifications to Streets West of the Pioneer Parkway Extension. [Please see
attached staff response included in agenda packet.]
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
BALLEW TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
ORDINANCES
1. An Ordinance Reapportioning the Liens for the Installation of Paving, Curbs and Gutters,
Sidewalks, Storm Drainage, Street Trees, Sewer, and Street Light Improvements for Long
Ridge Drive, West of South 39th Street, and Vicinity.
ORDINANCE NO. 6066 - AN ORDINANCE REAPPORTIONING THE LIENS FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF PAVING, CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STORM
DRAINAGE, STREET TREES, SEWER, AND STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENTS FOR
LONG RIDGE DRIVE, WEST OF SOUTH 39TH STREET. AND VICINITY, PROJECT
#P20079, IN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, LANE COUNTY. OREGON AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Accounting Manager Valerie Warner was present for the staff report. Ms. Warner said that the
Springfield Municipal Code 3.150 through 3.156 allows and defmes the action necessary for a
property owner within a local improvement district to request that the assessment be apportioned
or reapportioned to various parts or parcels of such real property. Such a request is to be made in
writing to the finance director, who shall recommend approval or disapproval to the Council.
Springfield City Council
Regular Session Minutes - July 28, 2003
Page - 7
.
Such a reapportionment request has been made by the property owner of tax lot number 18-02-
06-13-10002 and upon review is being recommended for approval by the finance director.
The finance department has received a request of the reapportionment of an assessment upon tax
lot #18-02-06-13-1002 as a result of Project No. P20079 (Long Ridge Drive, west of South 39th
Street, and vicinity.) The original assessment was in the amount of$29,443.18 and the
outstanding principal balance is $25,762.78, which would be divided equally among the three
parcels.
Since the original assessment, tax lot # 18-02-06-13-1 002 has been legally portioned into three
separate tax lots, to include tax lot #18-02-06-13-1002, parcels 1,2 and 3. All required
documentation for the partitioning, including recent survey maps, has been submitted to and acted
upon by the City's planning services division. The public works department has completed the
calculation for the reapportionment and it is included as an attachment to this council briefmg
memo.
The Finance Director recommends to the City Council that they approve, by ordinance the
reapportionment requested.
Councilor Burge asked if they had filed for partitioning.
Ms. Warner said they did file for partitioning in March. Tonight they are just asking to
reapportion the lien.
.
Mr. Leahy said the reapportionment has already been completed.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCaOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCaOR
BALLEW TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 6066. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE
OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL
Councilor Fitch wanted to thank two paramedics, Tony and Don, along with Mohawk Valley,
who helped her mother when she recently broke her arm.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Leiken adjourned the meeting at 7:38pm with the opportunity to reconvene following
Executive Session.
Mayor Leiken reconvened the Special Regular Session of the Springfield City Council at 9:01pm.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
1. Proposed Resolution of the City of Springfield Common Council Updating the FY03-04
Regional Wastewater System Development Charge (SDC) Fee Schedule per the Existing
Methodology Adopted in 1997.
.
.
.
.
. ".
Springfield City Council
Regular Session Minutes - July 28, 2003
Page - 8
RESOLUTION NO. 03-41 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD UPDATING THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 REGIONAL
WASTE WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) FEE SCHEDULE FOR
THE EXISTING ADOPTED METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY ADOPTED BY THE
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION ON MAY 15, 1997
AND THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ON JUNE 16, 1997.
Environmental Services Supervisor Gary Colwell said that last September the commission chose
to amend their SDC methodology from a 5 year CIP basis to a 10 year CIP basis. Those are used
for the improvement SDC portion of the combined SDC. Eugene approved the change in
January. The Springfield chose to delay their decision to allow the Homebuilder's Association
concerns to be heard. In June, the commission chose to not pursue implementation of the 10 year
SDC methodology, but continue with the 5 year methodology while they hired a consultant and
citizen's advisory committee to look at SDC alternatives. The Homebuilders and other
community interests were invited to be a part of that committee to bring their recommendations to
the commission for adoption of possibly a new methodology by July 2005. Staff is asking
council to approve an update to the fee for two years. They didn't renew last year while
anticipating the new methodology. These fee increases are under the 5 year methodology
adopted in 1997.
Mr. Colwell said that this update has been done administratively since 1991. He said that with
the large increase, staff is asking council to approve this increase. He noted a correction on the
Agenda Item Summary (AIS) which lists the amount for Springfield's total wastewater SDC
charges as $1589. That amount should have been $1565 to match the amount listed on
Attachment B. $1565 is the correct figure.
Dave Jewett, Attorney for the MWMC, said that in light of comments made by the
Homebuilder's Association regarding possible litigation, he will be submitting a number of
documents into the record. These documents include: 1) the Status Monitoring Report, which is
the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) plan review report that was done in 1986; 2) the Wet
Weather Flow Management Plan that was developed for MWMC by CH2M Hill in December
2000 and approved by MWMC, Eugene and Springfield. This plan discusses a number of
projects that are listed on the CIP; 3) the Technical Background Report, Existing Conditions and
Alternatives, which was done for the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and
Services Plan in April 1999; 4) the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and
Services Plan (the refinement plan) which was finalized in December 2001; 5) the FY03-04
budget for MWMC approved by MWMC. This document contains the 5 year CIP which the
updated charges are based; 6) and the draft resolution with the referenced data table attached as
exhibit A. This is the staff's proposal with respect to adopting the updated charges for the
existing adopted methodology.
Councilor Fitch asked what the increase would be if only one year was figured instead of two.
Mr. Jewett said that they are not adopting methodology tonight. This is only the annual update of
the SDC based on the original methodology adopted in 1997.
Mr. Colwell said that if they had updated the fee in 02-03 it would have gone to about $580.00
from $380.00.
'.. ......
.
.
.
Springfield City Council
Regular Session Minutes - July 28, 2003
Page - 9
Councilor Ballew said the 5 year CIP list is always changing. There are peaks and valleys
depending on what is scheduled.
Councilor Fitch asked why they have chosen to make up two years.
Councilor Ballew said it was to stabilize rates as the list went up and down.
Councilor Burge said he likes to believe that compromise could be reached, but it doesn't seem
possible. He feels we should pass this to be effective immediately. We need to conduct our
business as it needs to be done. He supports adoption of the resolution
Councilor Ralston said he feels we should update it effective immediately.
Councilor Woodrow said he thinks that as City Council we have a duty to look at something from
all sides. If putting this off for 45 days allows us to work together with those that do not agree, he
feels it would be well worth it. If something needed to be changed, it could be changed before
September 16.
Councilor Ballew believes we are here, and we need to act. She does not see an advantage of
waiting.
Mr. Leahy said that Technical Services Manager Len Goodwin reminded him that 45 days would
get them to Monday so they may want to extend it to 46 days.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR FITCH WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 03-41 WITH AN AMENDMENT THAT IT
BE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 16, 2003. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4
FOR (MAYOR LEIKEN BROKE TIE) AND 3 AGAINST.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9: 19p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
\
...,
Attest:
~ Jo-u~
Amy Sow
City Recorder