Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/2012 Work SessionCity of Springfield --, Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 19, 2012 at 6:16 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Pishioneri, VanGordon, Wylie and Moore. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.. Councilors Ralston and Woodrow were absent (excused). 1. Wastewater Service Extension Policy Discussion. City Engineer Ken Vogeney presented the staff report on this item. On October 17, the City Council held a Work Session concerning a request from a property owner on Anderson Lane for City assistance with extending a public wastewater main to the property because the on -site septic system was failing. Council requested staff to come back with a broader discussion on the City's funding policy concerning wastewater service extensions. The City's current policy was derived from several sources and could be summarized as follows: • A permit cannot be issued to construct or repair a septic system if the property is within 300 feet of a wastewater system that is both physically and legally available to provide that service; and • The property being served must be within Springfield city limits to be served by the Springfield wastewater system; and • A property must abut City limits to be eligible for annexation; and • The full cost to extend a public 8 -inch diameter wastewater pipe to, and through the frontage of, the property is assessable to (shall be paid by) the benefitted property owner(s). As discussed in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet, staff had identified three typical situations where Council could consider modifying its- policy direction to assist property owners: I. Properties within City limits that remain/on septic systems because there is no public system available to them; II. Properties with failing septic systems that are outside of City limits and within 300 feet of a public sewer; and II1. Coordination with other public construction.projects..- Mr. Vogeney noted that the current policies had been in place for over forty years. Some were based on Federal regulations and others were set by past Councils. Mr. Vogeney said approximately 195 properties were inside city limits, but not connected to City sewer. He referred to some of those properties on the displayed city map. Of those 19'5. properties, 76 City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 2 had sewer service within 50 feet, 95 were within 300 feet and 24 properties were more than 300 feet from a city line. There were 119 properties that were annexed into the City and would require a public main extension to receive wastewater service. Of those 119, 108 were annexed before 1980. One of the policy questions before Council was whether to keep with the current policy for those properties. Property owners could approach the City with a Local Improvement District (LID) or could pay on their own under the current policy. Another option would be for the council to direct staff to include projects to bring service to the 119 properties in a future CIP. Those projects would be prioritized. As those properties connected to the sewer, they would be charged for the sanitary sewer through an in- lieu of assessment charge as authorized in the Municipal Code. Currently, that charge was calculated at .64 per square foot of property for the portion of the property to the connection. They didn't see a lot of those charges in the near term and hadn't collected that charge in the past four years. Councilor Pishioneri asked how many properties. on this list were currently paying sewer. Mr. Vogeney said he wasn't sure if any of those noted were paying sewer. He said if service was available at the property, they paid. Sixty four cents per square foot matched a recent update with the current LID project on Cherokee Drive. Councilor Wylie asked about the average assessments for the Cherokee Drive LID. Mr. Vogeney said they were about $6700.00. It was based on size of lot. Councilor Moore asked if the lots noted were occupied with buildings. Mr. Vogeney said there were 94 annexed lots that were unserved sites with buildings and within 300 feet of a 12" or smaller line. The other lots may or may not be vacant lots. Councilor Moore said she assumed those properties still had functioning septic tanks. Mr. Vogeney said staff had not gone into a lot by lot detail to determine if were vacant. The building data was from 2008 and things had changed. The map was a continuing work in progress. Councilor VanGordon said when they talked about Anderson Lane, it was noted that the developer had installed pipes that may have deteriorated. He asked if there was a risk that a structure put in by the City could deteriorate before someone chose to connect. Mr. Vogeney said it was possible; however materials used today (PVC) would not likely deteriorate and had a longer life. Mayor Lundberg asked if PVC lines would be affected by rain soaked dirt. She had experience with lines installed from septic to sewer that had moved by dirt pushing on them. The shifts had caused holes in the ground. Mr. Vogeney said pipes on the individual properties were the property owners' responsibility and it was up to them to decide the types of materials they would use and what they would do with the old septic system. There was a permitting system to take the septic system out of service, but then it was the property owners' responsibility. The City would construct only the public system with stubs to the properties. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 3 Mayor Lundberg asked if the City would be helping property owners determine the type of materials they should use or if the City would be working with a contractor that could connect an entire street. Mr. Vogeney said the property owners would have the option of when to join the sewer system and if they wanted to work with their neighbor to connect at the same time and use one contractor. The Plumbing Code did dictate some of the types of materials: Mr. Vogeney referred to the Anderson Lane area. In this situation, property owners were adjacent or abutting city limits and within 300 feet of sewer line. When developed, sewers were put in to serve all of the properties. He noted the properties that were annexed into the city in the Anderson Lane neighborhood. For those that were not annexed, if their septic tank failed, they would need to pay the assessment and the annexation fees. It was estimated there were about 1182 properties that were not annexed but were within 300 feet of sewer throughout the City. Of .those, 695 were developed and abutted City limits. This was a significant issue. Those residents were not part of the City, but could be potential customers to add to the water user rates and the tax rolls. The current policy was for property owners to process an LID through the Council or pay for permit. Policy options could include keeping the current policy, or let property owners repair their septic systems, although staff did not recommend that option. Developed properties would not likely annex to the City without any incentive. A third option would be to develop CIP projects to extend sewers to unannexed properties. The City could provide stubs and collect in -Lieu of assessment fees and system development charges (SDCs). Councilor VanGordon asked if under Option 2 the line would be specific to a lot. Mr. Vogeney said he would suggest it would be on a lot specific basis. He explained. Councilor VanGordon asked about the implications to the other properties if Option 2 was used. He asked if it would preclude the City from providing sewer to the other parts of the City that were not annexed. Mr. Vogeney said because the findings would be site specific, it would not rely on the other parcels. Councilor VanGordon asked how making the findings specific to the lot could slow down the City's ability to annex land. He asked if they could produce findings for Anderson Lane and continue our current policy on others. Mr. Grimaldi said the Council would need to determine whether they would respond in the same way or differently if another person from a similar situation approached the Council. Mr. Vogeney said there were other properties in that area the same distance to sewer as those on Anderson Lane. Councilor Moore said her understanding was that the properties on Anderson Lane were fairly old. She asked what the life was of a septic system. Mr. Vogeney said the life of the septic system was dependent on maintenance by the property owner and the type of soil around it. With good maintenance, a system could last a long time. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 19, 2012 Page . Councilor Wylie said she liked Option 2'c. It seemed to be something a city should do when in a healthy budget. She wondered what happened when a septic system failed and how it affected the home. Mr. Vogeney said without sewer, the residents would need to vacate the property. He had worked with some people whose tank was fine, but the drainfield was not. In that case, they would need to have someone pump out the tank monthly. Councilor Wylie said it would be reasonable to let them repair their tanks until the sewer system could be installed. There could be a requirement that in order to repair their tank they waived their right to oppose annexation. Mr. Grimaldi said it was important to look at' where the funds came from and the impact to the other users of the system. Councilor Wylie said they were backing financial issues with moral issues. She didn't want to be part of an organization who would allow someone to have to leave their house because they couldn't get their septic tank repaired. They needed a system that was fair and equitable and provided the necessary finances to put in the sewers. She didn't want to allow families to live in conditions that were not healthy. Mr. Grimaldi said the LID system was fair to everyone. He explained. Councilor Wylie said under the current practice, a family had to move out if they couldn't get an LID or pay for the sewer connection themselves. She asked how much it would cost a family to connect to sewer. Mr. Vogeney said the property at Anderson Lane was 290 feet from the sewer. The connection there would be about $130,000, plus they would need to connect through the frontage at a total cost of $15000. If they then annexed, there would be additional costs. Councilor Pishioneri said State law governed septic repair. He liked being fair to everyone and to change what we were currently doing might not seem fair to some. He would not like to subsidize someone else'.s sewer issues. It would be nice to have funds available, but in the current times it was not feasible. He asked how much it would cost other users if the City took on the cost of the project. Mr. Goodwin said every $50,000 was a 1 percent increase to the users. Mr. Vogeney said the Cherokee Drive LID was about $350,000, which was about a 7 % increase. Councilor Pishioneri said he agreed with leaving the current policies in place. Mr. Vogeney spoke regarding the third situation,as listed in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. Along 10th Street the City was currently under design and ready to go out to bid for a sewer line for added capacity. Several properties in that area were still on septic systems. Two property owners wanted to know when sewers would be available to connect. The City negotiated an easement for the new sewer with one property owner. That property owner had an obligation to build an 8" service main along his Q Street frontage for his lot and two other properties. The City would build his portion of sewer in exchange for the easement and connect it to the new lines. That would bring the line to property City of Springfield' Council Work Session Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 5 further north. The City talked with three of the property owners in that area. Two of those property owners would like the sewer built in front of their properties and it would bring a' cost savings to them. They would agree to pay sewer and assessment fees or one -third of the sewer connection if they connected by 2013. This would provide them with an incentive and the cost to the owners and the City would be lower. Staff was beginning to contact property owners further up the road to see if they were interested. Another developer asked for a stub to serve his property. The City had done this in the past when possible, although it had not been done often. Councilor Moore asked how many other properties were not served and could benefit along 10th Street. Mr. 'Vogeney said the only properties not served were the few highlighted in Attachment 4 of the agenda packet. Everyone else was served along the entire route. Councilor Moore spoke regarding Anderson Lane. She felt it might be best to annex the block along the freeway to keep the costs down. If they were annexed, they could divide the property. She asked. if annexing all properties would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Mr. Vogeney said some of the properties had already paid for'sewers. There were only about five that could be assessed. Mr. Grimaldi said annexation didn't compel the property owners to hook to the sewer. Mayor Lundberg asked for information of how much it would cost and what all was involved from connecting to annexing. She knew that annexation costs were monumental. It would be beneficial to discuss annexation and current policies. Mr. Grimaldi asked if they wanted another work session to discuss this further. Mayor Lundberg said that would be a good idea. During the next work session they could look at annexation from another viewpoint. She asked staff what other communities did in these situations. Mr. Vogeney said in the research he had done, all of the other communities followed basics of State law. Mr. Grimaldi said staff would schedule another work session. He sensed that some of the Council was interested in assisting property owners, so staff would look at some options. Councilor Moore asked if staff needed direction regarding the 10tJ' Street project. Council felt current practice in that situation was working well. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m. Minutes Recorder — Amy Sowa City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes March 19, 2012 Page 6 Attest: �1 Amy Sowa City. Recorder e P- ishioneri ident