Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/29/2002 Regular "I .7 . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JULY 29,2002 The Springfield City Council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, July 29,2002 at 7:05 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken, Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Lundberg, Ralston and Simmons. Also present were City Manager Michael Kelly, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Kim Krebs and members of the staff. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Leiken led the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR, THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. . 1. Claims 2. Minutes a. May 6,2002 - Work Session b. May 6, 2002 - Regular Meeting c. May 13, 2002 - Work Session 3. Resolutions 4. Ordinarices '-) 5. Other Routine Matters PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 10- Y ear Service Plan. . Finance Director Bob Duey was present for the staff report. He said since the Council Goal Setting Session in January 2002, staff has met with council four times regarding the 1 0- Year Service Plan. During those meetings council determined which performance indicators identified the key services for each department. They were given a current performance measurement for each of those services and determined where they would like those performance measurements to be 10 years from now. He said tonight's public hearing is to allow citizens the opportunity to comment on the proposed service levels for the performance indicators. After the public hearing council will be asked to provide staff with further direction. He discussed which service levels Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 29,2002 Page - 2 . staff would continue to work on and bring to council at the next work session on October 14. At that work session, staff would also provide an analysis ofthe cost to provide those services. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. No one appeared to speak. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. 2. Four-Year Police Services Local Option Tax - Resolution Calling for Election. RESOLUTION NO.1 - A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY A BALLOT MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A FOUR YEAR LOCAL OPTION TAX FOR POLICE SERVICE PURPOSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $0.60 PER $1.000 OF ASSESSED VALUE BEGINNING IN 2003/04. Finance Director Bob Duey was present for the staff report. He said the public hearing is scheduled to allow citizens an opportunity to provide input on the placement of a Four- Year Police Services Local Option Tax on the November 2002. Mr. Duey provided a brief description of the levy. Councilor Hatfield said he would delay any motions until after the discussion scheduled later in the agenda under Business from the City Council. He said at that time council would also discuss the option of possible consolidation of the two ballot measures into one. . Councilor Lundberg asked Police Chief Jerry Smith whether the sanctions were included in the dollar amount currently listed in the proposed measure. Chief Smith said no they were not. Councilor Lundberg asked what impact the proposed changes to the county intake facility would have if their measure were approved in November. Chief Smith said the Sheriff should address the question. He said if they plan on adding 65 more beds at the Lane County Jail that would have a positive impact on Springfield, however that information has not been shared with him. Councilor Lundberg commented on issues related to the Road Crew program, and Chief Smith responded to her questions. City Manager Mike Kelly also responded to the issue regarding road crew. He said the program could reach out to many different members ofthe community. He said regarding the question related to sanctions, there are no sanctions included in the 60 cents per thousand figures. He talked about different possibilities depending on whether or not the COPS grants were awarded to the City of Springfield. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. . 1. Roxie Cuellar. 739 S. 70th Street, Springfield. Ms. Cuellar spoke in support of the proposed police levy. She saidit appears the numbers look better this time than in the past levy. In the event that sanctions are added, she asked that council add those to the top. She said she would support both levies being combined as one levy. In terms of simplicity, cost savings and getting the word out to voters she feels having a single levy referred by the Springfield City Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 29,2002 Page - 3 . Council would be helpful. We should take the approach that we can get voters to approve a measure that would assist both the Police Department andthe Fire and Life Safety Division. 2. Chris Pryor, 101 S. A Street. Springfield, Mr. Pryor spoke in support of the proposed police levy. He said he is Chair ofthe Legislative Issues Committee for the Springfield Chamber of Commerce, and is here to report the committee held a special meeting on July 23m to discuss issues related to both ofthese proposed measures. Tonight he is speaking specifically regarding the police levy. At the July 23m meeting they looked at the different aspects ofthe levies and their needs, and what other things could be done as alternatives. The committee voted in favor of supporting the police measure. He said there were discussions regarding a combined measure, but they felt they did not have enough data to support a combined measure at this time. 3. Steve Singleton, 252 N. 65th Street, Springfield, Mr. Singleton spoke in support of the police levy. He has lived in Springfield for 20 years and has served on the Police Planning Task Force (PPTF) for two years. In order to sustain growth, and provide proper service to citizens, he believes the implementation ofthe Police Long Range Plan is very important. He urges the council not to be short sighted for the safety of the citizens. He feels the two issues need to stand-alone. 4. Tom Bruton, 1128 10th Street, Springfield, Mr. Bruton is representing the AARP Vote. He is here in support of the police levy. Seniors are often the victims of crime, and because of that AARP and he are personally in favor ofthe police levy. . 5. Patrick Lucanio, 1097 Janis Street, Springfield, Mr. Lucanio spoke in support of the police levy. Mr. Lucanio is the Chair of the PPTF. He sent a letter a few weeks ago, and continues to urge council to adopt the levy and send it to the voters. He has been a member of the PPTF since its inception, has worked on the Long Range plan since inception, and feels it is now time to proceed to meet the needs of this community. 6. Faye Brabham, 644 North 4th, Springfield, Ms. Brabham spoke in support of the policy levy. It has always been a mystery why people are so reluctant to spend money on public safety. She has been involved in the Neighborhood Watch program for 15 years, and served 7 of those on the board. She is concerned regarding the possible loss of programs such as our community service off.icers, the DARE Program, and Police academy program if the levy does not pass. She said she begs the council to adopt this resolution and take it forward to the voters in November. 7. Dan Bishop, 6990 C Street, Springfield, Mr. Bishop spoke in support of the police levy. He comes tonight as both a Springfield Police Officer and a citizen. He spoke about the staffing level being the same as it was when he began working for this community in 1974 when the population was much less. . 8. Matt Brandt, 344 A Street, Springfield, Mr. Brandt spoke in support ofthe police levy. He comes tonight as both a citizen and Springfield Police Sergeant. He provided a quick scenario that could happen on any given night. He said normally, there are only 5 officers on the street, 1 dispatcher, and 2 records clerks until midnight, and said this is a lack of service to the citizens and he believes the passage of this police levy would help alleviate that situation. He feels it is important to have a police sergeant on the street 24 hours a day/7 days a week. Springfield Gity Council . Regular Session Minutes - July 29,2002 Page - 4 . 9. Robert Conrad, 344 A Street, Springfield, Mr. Conrad spoke in support ofthe proposed levy. He was hired in 1991 by the Springfield Police Department, and is currently assigned as a Detective in the investigation unit. He provided some background regarding a search warrant he served on July 8. He provided a visual of the files he has had to work on to investigate the crime, sometimes having to go back weeks and months to identify the criminal and arrest them. He said in addition to this case, he has had 30 new cases assigned to him that he hasn't been able to review. With more officers on the street, he is hopeful that more ofthese criminals can be caught in the act in order to expedite the investigative process. 10. Bob Sward, 415 N 64th Street, Springfield,Mr. Sward spoke in support of the police levy. He commended Chief Smith and the job he has been able to accomplish given his current staffing levels. He believes the levies should go out separately. He said he believes the Citizen Police Academy is a worthwhile service to the citizens ofthis community. He said citizens have an . opportunity to see first hand what our police department faces daily. . 11. Rod Harrison, 617 Colonial Drive, Springfield, Mr. Harrison spoke in support of the policy levy. He said he is present as a representative ofthe Springfield Police Association and is Vice President. The association supports this levy, and he personally supports the levy. He mentioned the many officers by names that have been awarded a medal of honor for prevailing in life and death situations. He spoke about the impact the levy passing would have on the police department and how it is important to have the back up of other officers. They constantly run from call to call. Reality of police work is that they deal with the same people over and over again. He agrees that this is a band-aid approach, but feels we definitely need it. We need something to bridge them between now and a permanent fix. The jail issue is a separate issue that needs to be addressed. Rebuild the police and fire departments to the level of a safer work environment. 12. Pat John, 85114 Kensington, Pleasant Hill, Ms. John spoke in support of the police levy. She is a volunteer at Crime Victims' Service at the DA's office. Crime Victims' Services feels that Springfield is one of the top forces around. As an administrator at LCC, she recently spoke with a colleague who works at Northwest Christian College. This colleague was impressed with their thinking, discipline and quality of the papers from the officers going for their degree. She discussed the Police Academy and the value of that program. The culture of this police force is to be good officers. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. Councilor Ballew said each person who spoke in favor of the levy needs to be sure and go out into the community and talk to citizens and work diligently in order to assist in passing this levy. Mayor Leiken discussed the council's position and support of the levy. He discussed the safety issues as well, and how important it is to emphasize that to the community. He thanked all those who testified. 3. Four- Year Fire & Life Safety Services Local Option Tax - Resolution Calling for Election. . RESOLUTION NO. 02-40- A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY A BALLOT MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A FOUR-YEAR LOCAL Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 29,2002 Page - 5 . OPTION TAX FOR FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY PURPOSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $0.36 PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUE BEGINNING IN 2003/04. Finance Director Bob Duey was present for the staff report. He said much of the information on the Fire and Life Safety Levy is similar to that of the Police Levy. He explained some ofthe options that have been explored in order to staff the Fire Stations and why a levy was chosen as the best option at this time. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing. 1. Dan Egan 850 N. 6th Street, Springfield, Mr. Egan spoke as a representative of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce in support of the levy. He said our community is changing quickly, and since 1997 over 2000 homes have been built and occupied as well as millions of dollars of new business infrastructure. Given all of that we still have a citywide fire situation that is not the optimum. From the business point of view, as more investments are made we need to take care of those investments. People need to have the confidence to come into the city to build business as well as homes. There are many business representatives present tonight. He spoke about the response time, and said this city will not stop growing, so if we don't address this issue it will be accelerated in the future. . 2. JeffKronser, 6540 E Street, Springfield, Mr. Kronser spoke in support ofthe proposed fire levy, as a representative of the Springfield Professional Firefighters Association. He spoke about cuts that have resulted in setbacks that have prevented the 5th engine being staffed. With our city growing it is more necessary than ever to have that engine staffed. He spoke about the new annexation areas of Springfield, and the physical constraints for Glenwood. Businesses have come to Springfield because we say we are open for business. He spoke about the steps that must be taken and the resources that continue to be tapped. Time means lives, and the important thing to remember is that we have to be there 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Y ear-by- Year we are going farther and farther behind in meeting that goal. He talked about safety and OSHA requirements. He pledged the firefighters promise that if council forwards this to the November election, they will work to take this information out to the voters. It may not be the optimum funding method, but it is the best method at this time. 3. Terry Bever, 1439 Lawnridge, Springfield, Ms Beyer said was present as a citizen today, and thanked the council for considering the two levies. She is in support of both measures, but is here to speak about the Fire Levy. She is still amazed at the quality and compassion the department continues to display. She does not want to see this quality erode, but with increasing calls and longer response time, it is at risk. The city has a strong reputation of getting the most out of each dollar, but it is important that this measure be carried forward for the emergency care that Springfield residents are used to. We have discussed the need to determine basic services. 4. Steve Moe, P.O. Box 847, Springfield, Mr. Moe spoke in support of both levies tonight, and urged the council to go forward with a measure that includes both. He feels it is in the people's best interest to combine them. . 5. C.J. Mann, 2533 Centennial Blvd, Springfield, Ms. Mann spoke in support of both levies, and said she has lived at this address for l2 years, and moved there because a fire station was two blocks away from her home. Unfortunately, a few years later that station was closed. She Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 29, 2002 Page - 6 . mentioned her work on the campaign last time. She feels a single-issue levy would be best for the campaign. Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE 1. Hanalei Rozen, 1551 B Street, Springfield, Ms. Rozen shared with council slide projector images and issues pertaining to parking lots in the City of Springfield, and expressed her concerns related to increased development, and the need to review as a community what it takes to have and maintain a green city. In addition, Ms. Rozen circulated a handout produced by the Center for Urban Forest Research, related to air quality and parking lot shade. Councilor Ralston asked if the Planning Division was aware of the needs. Mr. Kelly said we do have knowledgeable staff. The city tries to balance the personal interest with the public interest. As new standards are set for development, there is a trade off of rules and regulations for affordability. Development Service Director Cynthia Pappas said a staff member is working on an Urban Forest Management Plan at this time. Staff will be presenting this information to the council later this fall. . Ms. Rozen spoke about the need to have something at the forefront now before developments such as the proposed regional hospital occur. COUNCIL RESPONSE Councilor Lundberg said this is an issue that needs to be addressed and discussed. Councilor Fitch said she is not going to suggest to staff to change their work plan mid-stream. She is not going to recommend stopgap measures at this time. The city is working with limited resources and our citizens are concerned about safety and other issues. She appreciates Ms. Rozen coming forward, and if it were not something that can be addressed with what is currently being worked on, she would consider bringing it back at the council goal setting session. Councilor Simmons supports the concept of taking the proper amount of time to address this issue. We need to look at the qualitative issues, especially storm water discharge. We need to provide some creativity and flexibility to the development community. He said there needs to be alternatives. We don't need to rush into the discussion, but pervious concrete needs to be addressed as well. It should be done in a timely fashion. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS 1. Correspondence from Hanalei Rozen, 1551 B Street, Springfield, regarding request for additional time on the City Council Agenda for the July 29,2002 meeting to present a slide presentation pertaining to parking lots in Springfield. . . . . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 29,2002 Page - 7 IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. BIDS ORDINANCES BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Committee Appointments 2. Business from Council a. Four- Year Police and Fire Services Local Option Tax. Mr. Duey explained the direction staff had received from council regarding the ballot measures. They have brought forward several ballot titles for council's consideration beyond the ballot title in their agenda packet should the council elect to review them. Councilor Hatfield supports both levies. He said he intends to work on a community education program in order to assist in the two ballot measures passing. He said we need to work with the county to maintain adequate accountability. He asked the council whether this should go forward as two measures or one. Councilor Ballew is of the opinion that half a loaf is better than no loaf. We need to provide the citizens an option to choose, and hopefully they will select both. Putting them both together creates a higher risk of it failing. She is confident that at least one will pass and hopefully both will pass. Councilor Simmons concurs, and feels that we should have two separate levies. He asks that they don't work against each other, but work together to solicit citizen support. This isn't the end all fix, but it is a bridge to build to the future. Councilor Fitch supports both options, but because ofthe survey and the results she supports having two separate measures. She believes the citizens have spoken in support of it for different reasons. She feels it is the best option to get them both passed. ) Councilor Ralston supports both issues. He is concerned about the perception issue when they are separated. Councilor Lundberg said she has agonized about this issue, and struggles about the idea oftwo separate measures. She feels we are not a community that is tax oriented. She believes it will be competitive, and PSCC hasn't been able to address the issues. The police levy needs to have some sort of mechanism for sanctions. Our officers, both police and fire, are the most important . resource, and we need to talk about what service the citizens are buying. It isn't a permanent fix, but will provide some time. She talked about the campaign speech. She is supportive of the police levy, not supportive of the fire and life safety because we are currently discussing a fire district for other alternatives. She feels we need to stick to what is affordable, and she does not want them competing. Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 29,2002 Page - 8 . Councilor Hatfield asked if it would be possible to run a single campaign with two ballot measures. Roxie Cuellar was in the audience and came forward to address the council regarding Councilor Hatfield's questions. She said it is best to keep them separate if they are separate measures. Two separate measures must have two separate Political Action Committee's (P ACS), separate treasury records, and separate billing. Mr. Kelly said whatever money council directs for the public information campaign, public money will be spent to support one theme of improvements in the public safety department. Councilor Hatfield asked Jeff Kronser if it is necessary to have separate P ACS for two measures. Mr. Kronser said a PAC needs to be filed for each Ballot Measure, but it doesn't mean they could not work together. The funding would need to be kept separate. .' Dan Egan, Springfield Chamber of Commerce addressed the council regarding these two proposed ballot measures. He also spoke about the other ballot measures that Lane County has proposed for the November election as well. . Councilor Lundberg said her choice has nothing to do with how she supports Fire & Life Safety. She said she talked today with the lady who conducted the surveys, and looked at the data tables. The item that stood out was that some ofthe results were from people who have not voted in the past 4 elections. To get them to actually vote in the fall is a large amount of work. She spoke about the fact that we will be at the end of the ballot. Mayor Leiken asked councilors if they want to support either levies or one. He feels that needs to be addressed now. Councilor Simmons supports both levies. He feels they should both be put on the ballot as separate measures. He feels the sooner we start the process the better off we will to be. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.1. A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY A BALLOT MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A FOUR YEAR LOCAL OPTION TAX FOR POLICE S.ERVICE PURPOSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $0.60 PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUE BEGINNING IN 2003/04. Mike Kelly said staff has prepared additional options in Exhibit A of the staff report and said council may want to consider those options before accepting the motion. Councilor Simmons said that the less complicated you make the measure the better. He feels the language regarding sanctions makes the measure too complicated and we should stick with the main focus of safety. Councilor Hatfield asked City Attorney Joe Leahy questions regarding sanctions and the COPS grant. . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 29,2002 Page- 9 . Mr. Duey provided information on 3 separate additional ballot titles, which have been prepared for council consideration. Council discussed issues related to the COPS grant and sanctions. Councilor Hatfield asked if Chief Smith knew what the proposal is now for the intake center. Chief Smith said the proposal for the intake center is to add 65 beds to the Lane County Jail. The real issue is how they are going to use those beds. He spoke about the matrix issue, and the District Attorney not filing on charges because they know it is an extra piece of work because the offender will then be released from the Lane County Jail. He said at this time we don't have a clear definition on how it is going to be used. He is not convinced it will have a positive impact. Mr.Kelly said he has had 4 different conversations with folks at the county. They each have a different idea on how those beds will be used. Mayor Leiken said we have to look at what will be right for our community. City Attorney Joe Leahy said that the wording may need to be changed if the COPS grant is not awarded. Councilor Fitch withdrew the second, and Councilor Hatfield withdrew his motion. . ITW AS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.02-39. A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY A BALLOT MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A FOUR YEAR LOCAL OPTION TAX FOR POLICE SERVICE PURPOSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $0.66 PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUE BEGINNING IN 2003/04. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 02-40. A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY A BALLOT MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A FOUR YEAR LOCAL OPTION TAX FOR FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY SERVICE PURPOSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $0.36 PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUE BEGINNING IN 2003/04. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 IN FAVOR AND 1 AGAINST (LUNDBERG) b. Metropolitan Policy Committee. Councilor Hatfield noted the information from Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) regarding addition of an ODOT policy level staffer as a voting member on MPO functions. He said to please forward any comments to Mike Kelly or Councilor Hatfield. These comments will be brought forward at the meeting on August 15. Councilor Lundberg is supportive at the LCOG level. c. Committee Reports . d. Other Business Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 29, 2002 Page - 10 . BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. Citizen Request for Council Initiated Amendment to the Gateway Refinement Plan (Pc:ace Health). Planner Colin Stephens was present for the staff report. He said that PeaceHealth is requesting council initiation of the Gateway Refinement Plan amendments. The Springfield Development Code, Article 8, limits citizen-initiated refinement plan and Development Code amendments to twice-a-year submittals. A similar limitation to Metro Plan amendments was rescinded by the metro-area elected officials in 1994. Staff will be bringing forth such an amendment to our code in the future, but in the meantime, council may have to look at individual requests such as this. PeaceHealth will be submitting a Metro Plan amendment application concurrently with the Refinement Plan amendment. Staff recommends that council initiate this application and allows' staff to begin the process. After the staff review, the Planning Commission will hold a work session and a public hearing followed by City Council work session and public hearing on all of the applications. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO INITIATE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AMENDMENT OF THE MAP AND TEXT OF THE GATEWAY REFINEMENT PLAN SPECIFIC TO THE PROPOSED PEACE HEALTH DEVELOPMENT AT THE GATEWAY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SITE. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 IN FAVOR AND 0 AGAINST. . 2. Drainage Construction Agreement for Mountaingate Subdivision. City Engineer AI Peroutka was present for the staff report. He referred to item #9 attached to the Agenda Item Summary (ArS) in the agreement. He said it should include the statement that the attorney's fees would be paid for by the developer. Since this was last presented to the council, Mr. Kelly and Mayor Leiken have met with the developer to discuss the concerns ofthe council. Councilor Hatfield asked what our historical precedent is in utilizing eminent domain under these circumstances. Mr. Leahy said we are not using eminent domain for a private party, as that is not allowed. He said council must look at this in terms of what is best for the community. Mr. Peroutka said it is not something that has been done previous to the PeaceHealth development and request. It was part ofthe agreement that if the developer was unable to obtain the easements, the city would acquire the easements based on use for public purpose. City Manager Mike Kelly said they have been used primarily for acquiring rights of ways on existing streets. Historically it is not something done often. The agreement with Mountaingate states that they will do their best to acquire the easements needed for the drainage system. If they are not successful in acquiring all ofthe parcels needed, the council may step in and authorize condemnation. Council would need to look at the efforts made by the developer before making that decision. . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 29, 2002 Page - 11 . Councilor Ralston said that if the developer really needs the easements, they will find a way without the city's assistance. Councilor Simmons said in this type of agreement, we are setting something in motion. He opposes using the city's eminent domain process. He sees problems and cannot be supportive of the agreement. Mr. Peroutka said Mr. Leahy did ask questions of the public purpose aspect of this agreement. The drainage system that is being proposed is in the city's master plan as a system that will need to be in place to serve not only Mountaingate but also other adjacent areas. It is a system that is eligible for systems developing charges. They have already determined that there is a public purpose for the city's master plan. This accelerates the process because of the funding provided by the developer. Councilor Lundberg asked Mr. Peroutka ifthe developer initiated any conversation with the property owners regarding acquiring the easements. Mr. Peroutka said they have not at this time. Their main concern is a timing issue. They feel that if they have an agreement and know they are going to have service they can move forward this fall. . Councilor Fitch said we have an Urban Growth Boundary, and expect development. We are asking development to occur in an area that is not flat. She feels that if we are asking for development and expect drainage for the developments, we need to be avail~ble to help. She is going to require a very good best effort from the developer in acquiring these properties before the city assists. Councilor Ralston said he agrees with Councilor Fitch, but he is opposed to using eminent domain. Councilor Simmons said once the agreement is in hand and the developer goes to property owners, if it doesn't work he can say that he already has an agreement with the city to assist with the remedy. That makes the negotiative process with the property owners easier and yet there has not been any environmental impact analysis on what the drainage way would have on the wetlands in that area. There are still too many issues that need to be addressed and this is premature. Councilor Lundberg asked if it would have to come back to the council before there could be any movement on the city's part about applying eminent domain. Would council have the ability to . consider it and say yes or no? Mr. Leahy said the key is the standard for invoking eminent domain. It has to be for a public . purpose. If it is not for public purpose, we shouldn't be doing it. He said an attempt by the developers to avoid eminent domain by talking with the property owners and offering to pay them a fair price is in the developer's best interest. They would have to come back to the council to report their efforts and council would determine at that time if they would apply eminent domain or require the developer to make more effort. Ultimately, council would have to make a finding that it is in the public's interest to apply eminent domain. . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 29,2002 Page - 12 . Mr. Kelly said page 3 of the agreement (item 9) lays out the process. After speaking with the developer, he felt that they will do everything they can to acquire the properties on their own. Mayor Leiken said he too was included in the conversation with the developer and his personal opinion is that this was going to be the last ditch effort. The developer is very confident that he will be able to acquire the properties. Councilor Hatfield said he isn't comfortable with the process. The language is subject to a demonstrated public purpose stating that the city will acquire such remaining easements. The issue is a public purpose, and it can be clearly demonstrated that storm waters serve a public purpose. It provides the developer perhaps unfair leverage to use against property owners in negotiating with the property owners. This benefits the developer who is one party, and he is not comfortable with paragraph 9 and the way it is currently structured. He feels it could push us into a position where we the city are obligated contractually to go after the property. Mr. Leahy said he concurs. It is clear to him that if the developer goes out and makes an attempt to acquire the property and is unable to do so, they would come to the council. If the council determines it is in the public interest, then we are obligated to apply eminent domain. He said eminent domain is designed to get the property owner a fair price for their property. . Mr. Peroutka said this was a timing issue, and staff cannot approve any part of their development until they have a drainage system available. Ther can get a temporary system from ODOT, but only if they have something guaranteed that they will be able to develop this alternate system in the future. . Councilor Ballew asked whether the city would take ownership of the pipe. Mr: Peroutka said yes. Mike Kelly said staff is not advocating council approve, but are trying to explain it clearly so the council can make an educated decision. The question was asked about what was said by the developer. The developer's perspective in simple terms is that they assumed it could be developed because it was in the city's master plan. One of the master plan requirements was that the city would provide a public drainage system. At that time, the city assumed it could be done, but have since learned that it will need the additional easements through the future Aster Street that is private property. Councilor Fitch said we don't change the rules mid stream. We need to play by the rules we set. There was discussion regarding the Master Plan. Councilor Ballew asked how deep the drainage pipes are. Mr. Peroutka said it is a 36-inch pipe buried 4 or 5 feet under ground, requiring a 20- foot easement. . Councilor Simmons said there are still a number of unanswered questions that haven't been answered regarding wetlands and water flow and he thinks it is premature. . Councilor Hatfield asked Mr. Leahy a question related to the language "satisfaction of the city" in the agreement. How far doc:s the developer have to go before the city is obligated to assist? ".J . . . . . Springfield City Council Regular Session Minutes - July 29,2002 Page - 13 Mr. Leahy said if council endorses this they can send certain recommendations along with it. Councilor Hatfield asked for more clarification on what extent the developer must go to-try to obtain the property himself before the city condemns the property. Mr. Leahy said it would include obtaining an appraisal, talking with the property owner, and trying to arrive on an agreed upon price. It guards against the situation where the property owner says it's a fair price, but I don't like your project. The city has already included this sewer system in their master plan, so they have already made a move in that direction. Councilor Ralston said many good points have been made and his opinion has been swayed from the perspective that this property has been annexed and we need to support that. His only concern is regarding whether or not there has been an environmental assessment on the wetlands and if that will be a problem. Mr. Peroutka said it will be a problem and those have been discussed with the property owner and given to the property owner to solve. Councilor Simmons said his opposition is not to the construction of the storm drainage issue. It's . all the issues about Aster Street; how it is constructed and the environmental issues. These should be answered prior to getting into this. He is not opposed to Mountaingate, or the master plan, but there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. He still thinks it is premature. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR HATFIELD WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR FITCH TO APPROVE THE DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR THE MONTAINGATE SUBDIVISION. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR .AND 1 AGAINST (SIMMONS). 3. Other Business BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY There was none. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Minutes Recorder Kim Krebs ~. Kim Krebs, ~