Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/29/2002 Work Session , . . . MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD ON MONDAY, APRIL 29, 2002 The Springfield City Council met in work session at Springfield City Hall, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Jesse Maine Meeting Room, on Monday, April 29, 2002 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, and Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Lundberg, Ralston and Simmons. Councilor Hatfield was absent (excused). Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Kim Krebs, Clerk 3 Amy Sowa, and members of staff. 1. Flood Plain Policy/Staff Work Program. City Engineer Al Peroutka was present for the staff report. He referred to the Agenda Item Summary (ArS) and said as indicated staff is seeking comments or questions regarding staff work program, and Article 27. Councilor Lundberg said the only comment sbe has is about the statement from Joe Weber from FEMA regarding different ways of channeling water. She said she is thinking in terms of revetment. Ifthat is something we are able to do, let's explore other techniques that we can employ along revetments, and determine who wants to take on that responsibility. Mr. Peroutka provided an update regarding a recent conversation with Mr. Weber at FEMA. He has run the model in the area from the confluence with the Willamette River through Springfield. Mr. Weber said his analysis shows variations from original model runs, but they were small, less than Y2 foot range. Mr. Weber emphasized that the variations were not cumulative at all with the way this river runs. He said it all gets washed out fairly quickly from one point to another. He inserted some cross-sections into the model, which made some variations locally. Mayor Leiken asked if the river was more site specific, and when the information would be available from FEMA. Mr. Peroutka confirmed yes, that is what Mr. Weber indicated that it is more site specific. He said he is hoping that we will get some preliminary information sometime this week, and then we will get something official from FEMA. Councilor Ralston said in reviewing the information in tbe Council Briefing Memorandum, he agrees with the staff work program. He agrees we should continue working witb FEMA, and the staff should continue to work with the Corps regarding revetment. In light of all of that, he still bas questions. He understands that if there was a loss of property in light of a flood, it is not the city's responsibility. Can the city still be held harmless if we have reasonable doubt that the maps are incorrect and we allow development anyway? He read verbatim notes from the minutes included in the council packet from testimony from Arlie and Co. It is his understanding tbat if a development proposal comes through and is approved, but later the maps are proved to be wrong, we cannot retroactively deny that proposal. . Springfield City Council Minutes of Work Session - April 29, 2002 Page - 2 City Attorney Joe Leahy said yes generally that is a correct statement. If a development is already built, then it becomes more difficult. We must then act reasonably. Iftbe city engineer has information that indicates that there are going to be issues and a threat of potential loss of property or life, the engineer has an obligation to look at that. The city engineer has outlined his approach and has put down the many different ideas that have come up during all of the council discussions. These bave included not only engineering data, but anecdotal information as well. He is now looking for direction from council on how to approach these particular development proposals that come in until better data is presented. Councilor Ralston said he is supportive of development, and we all know development is scheduled to happen sometime in the future. He is concerned, however, that we may approve a development before knowing all of the facts. What he would like to hear is if we accept a proposal and a project is allowed, and new information comes forth before the project begins, we will take those other things into consideration. Mr. Leahy said if new information comes to the attention of the city engineer after annexation is approved, but before the development application, he has the obligation to exam the new information. If the city engineer were presented with data indicating a problem, even after tbe development application is approved, we would take steps to solve that in some manner. If it were a genuine safety concern, we would prefer to stop the development, and respond to a lawsuit by the developer. We hope that scenario will not occur. Mr. Leaby hopes the information outlined for council tonight will prevent that from happening. The city would err on the side of safety. . Councilor Ralston said that he wants to make sure that the city will not be liable for any repairs or finances incurred to protect existing infrastructures or buildings. Councilor Simmons said we are doing our level best to follow existing rules in effect so the developer knows those rules. Ifwe follow Article 27 to the letter and someone's house gets wet, we are not liable. If the water diverts to other properties, have we done everything we can to be prudent, and limit our liability? As a city we are not obliged to constrain the river. What these various applications bring to us is a flat playing field. He is concerned about building a tremendous amount of activity in the flood plain and the flood way, however we do have a development process. We did not encourage, facilitate, and bring about a development in a flooded area. He thinks the advice council provided to the city engineer is sound, and he looks forward to obtaining additional information from the corps. He said based on the facts we have today, it is best to follow the prudent person theory as close as we can in this process. We have the rules, tbe developers have expectations, and if there are federal ESA rules that are inconsistent with these, staff will be met with that task. Councilor Fitch said she appreciates the time and effort that staff has put into this process. It has definitely been eye opening and is a good reinforcement that what we're doing is accurate. It's important to make sure there are sound rules, and Article 27 does that. The staff work program looks good and it is solid. It is not something that can be accomplished overnight. She agrees with the information provided. Councilor Ballew said there aren't 100 percent guarantees. We do the best we can with the information available. In the mean time life goes on, and we have to rely on what we have until additional information is provided. . Mayor Leiken said he has never come across information that staff has withheld in order for the council to make sound decisions. Issues related to flood plain are important, and he can't imagine \, . Springfield City Council Minutes of Work Session - April 29, 2002 Page - 3 staff or council would bring forward information that would endanger citizens. This community has a lot of pride in its employees. Councilor Fitch asked that staff bring back further information when they get it, but for now, we should carry on. 2. Sanipac Franchise Amendment. (John Hire present) Technical Services Manager Len Goodwin was present for the staff report. He said John Hire from Sanipac was in the audience and is available for questions or comments if the council chooses. He said he is here tonight to briefly describe a potential amendment in the Sanipac Franchise, and find out from council if they concur. He said staff has been reviewing for months a number of revenue options. The current franchise granted to Sanipac provides for a franchise fee of 5 percent of gross revenues. As part ofthe City's strategy to improve General Fund revenues, staff has discussed an increase in that franchise fee. Following those discussions, staff has concluded that it is reasonable to increase the franchise fee to 6 percent effective July 1,2002 and further increase it to 7% effective January 2003. . Councilor Simmons said making this transition by shifting street sweeping fees brings about a question. We are going to shift dollars from street fund into sanitary sewer fund, and then off loading that onto Sanipac, taking dollars utilized out of the road/ general fund. Sanipac will tben have to recover from rate charges, whicb will then be shifted over to ratepayers, who will ultimately have to absorb that fee. He realizes we don't have enough money in the road fund, but a good many of our constituents don't have money in their funds either. What are we talking about in terms of net dollars on an annual basis? Mr. Goodwin said the tipping fee for the past 12 months has been about $23,900. He said if the cost were to be directly passed on to solid waste ratepayer, the impact would be approximately 11 cents a month. He said currently those costs are absorbed by Sanipac. Councilor Pitch said in polling some other jurisdictions, our rates will still be lower. In past studies, such as Springfield tomorrow, people do like their streets looking nice. She said she is ok with this increase. Councilor Ballew asked if 7% franchise is comparative to other jurisdictions. Mr. Goodwin said the last true survey we have is from 1998. At that time, it would have been at the top of the range. Since that time, however there have been other changes, but he understands 7% would remain at upper-middle rather that at the top. Councilor Simmons aced if street sweeping materials were proven to be other tban normal waste, i.e. hazardous potential, who has the liability in the process? Would Sanipac have a liability? Mr. Leahy said he believed that Sanipac would be liable as they are distributing the materials into the fill. . Mr. Hire said ultimately everyone who has money is responsible for it, it wouldn't stop at Sanipac, and it would carry on. The street sweepings are being dumped at Lane County, and if at some time someone decided it was a hazardous material, there would be no new ramifications. If, however, for some reason Lane County were to have a catastrophic episode, everyone who has ever dumped there would have some type ofliability. That happens with all trash. He said he . . . . . { Springfield City Council Minutes of Work Session - April 29, 2002 Page - 4 and Mr. Goodwin have discussed the possibility that some day the waste related to street sweeping could be determined to be hazardous material, but he does not see that this will happen. Lane County is not permitted for hazardous material at alL Councilor Simmons said our citizens are benefited by the relationship with Sanipac, and we are well served. Councilor Ballew said we have asked staff to find more revenue, and they have done that, although Sanipac may not prefer this option. Hopefully, ifthe rate is passed on to the consumer, the benefit for II cents a month is that the streets will be cleaner. She finds it acceptable. Mr. Hire said he is pleased to see it as a staged increase. Council consensus was to proceed as stated and bring back to the council for final approvaL ADJOURNMENT Themeeting was adjourned at 6:39 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Kim Krebs <: Sidney ATTEST: ~,x.~ lo~/~ Kim Krob8, City Recorder