Loading...
Minutes - 02/11/2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, FEBRUARY 11,2008. CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. 0015 ROLL CALL. Mayor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Figley Bjelland Cox Lonergan McCallum Nichols Sifuentez Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Asst. City Administrator Stevens, Public Works Director Brown, Community Development Director Allen, Police Chief Russell, Finance Director Gillespie, Public Works Manager Rohman, Recorder Tennant Mayor Figley stated that the Mayor and Council are now using computers to access their agenda materials in an effort to reduce the amount of paper used to generate the agenda packet and, with this being the first meeting the computers are in use, she requested that the public be patient with them in the event some time is necessary during the meeting for staff assistance. 0035 ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) Office Closures: City offices and the Library will be closed on Monday, February 18, 2008, in observance of the President's Day holiday. B) City Council Public Workshop regarding proposed changes to the animal control ordinance will be held on Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 7:00 pm., in the City Hall Council Chambers and interested residents are encouraged to attend. C) Public Hearings before the City Council will be held on February 25,2008, 7:00 p.m, City Hall Council Chambers, regarding the proposed final assessments of the West Lincoln Street and Country Club Road local improvement districts. 0075 APPOINTMENT: BUDGET COMMITTEE. Mayor Figley appointed Eric Swenson to serve on the Budget Committee, Position I, with a term expiration date of 12/31/2010. Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TAPE READING COX/MCCALLUM... approve the appointment of Eric Swenson to the Budget Committee. The motion passed unanimously. 0095 PROCLAMATION: WOODBURN TULIP FESTIVAL, MARCH 20 THROUGH APRIL 20, 2008. Mayor Figley read a proclamation declaring March 20 through April 20, 2008 as Woodburn Tulip Festival Month and encouraged local citizens and Oregonians to participate and support this event which promotes Woodburn throughout the country. 0137 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT. Don Judson, Interim Executive Director, provided information on the following upcoming Chamber events : 1) Chamber Forum will be held on February 20,2008, 12:00 noon, at Country Meadows with ODOT Regional Director Tim Potter as guest speaker who will be addressing state highway transportation issues relating to the Highway 99E and the 1-5 interchange improvements. 2) Annual Distinguished Service Award Banquet will be held on March 14, 2008 and he encouraged the public to submit their nominations of individuals deserving of an award for Senior First Citizen, Junior First Citizen, Service Club Member of the Year, or Special Award for Service. Mr. Judson thanked City Administrator Brown for working with him over the last few months to keep the Chamber afloat and get it into a better financial situation. 0206 WOODBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT. Anthony Veliz, School District Parent and Community Outreach Program representative, stated that the District is currently in their 10-year Strategic Planning Review Process which sets direction for schools for the next seven to ten years. On February 26,2008, the second Community Forum will be held which is an opportunity for Superintendent Walt Blomberg to provide an overview on the "State of the School District" and on the status of a proposed facilities bond issue to be placed on the November ballot. The second half of the meeting is an opportunity for community members to have a question & answer period with interpreters available in Russian and Spanish and a questionnaire will also be made available in all three languages for those individuals who do not like to speak in public. The Forum will be held at the Woodburn High School Lectoruim beginning at 7:00 p.m.. 0279 LETTER FROM MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. An invitation was extended to the Council to participate in the process to address the use of Deadly Physical Force by law enforcement personnel during their performance of their duties as required under Oregon Senate Bill 111 adopted by the legislature in 2007. The Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TAPE READING Planning Authority will be conducting meetings to develop a plan that will work for Marion County and serve the expectation of Marion County citizens. Once the plan is developed, the City Council is requested to review and approve the plan. 300 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve the City Council minutes of January 28, 2008; B) approve the City Council workshop minutes of January 28,2008; C) receive the Building Activity report for January 2008; D) receive the Planning Project Tracking Sheet report dated February 5,2008; E) receive the Claims report for January 2008; F) receive the Wastewater Facility Planning update report; and G) receive the proposed Natural Gas Piplelines status report. Mayor Figley stated that she had a telephone message from a Palomar project representative who has offered to brief the Mayor, Council and staff on their project. She stated that she had let the representative know that she was interested in a meeting and would be contacting her within the next few days to set up a meeting date and time. Mayor Figley requested that any Councilor interested in attending this meeting let her know within the next couple of days so that a meeting can be scheduled. She stated that this is the gas line company which is still talking about bisecting the southerly portion of the urban growth boundary expansion area. Councilor Bjelland stated that in the Council workshop minutes of January 28,2008, page 2 regarding his comment about calculating maximum occupancy of habitable space, he did not recall putting in the age 18 or older in his statement. COX/NICHOLS... adopt the Consent Agenda as presented with correction to the minutes of the January 28,2008 workshop as mentioned by Councilor Bjelland. The motion passed unanimously. 0405 PUBLIC HEARING: 2007-08 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7: 16 pm. Finance Director Gillespie stated that the supplemental budget had been presented to the Budget Committee at their January 25,2008 workshop. The staff report in the agenda packet summarized the material submitted to the Budget Committee and he did not have any additional information to share with the Council on the proposed budget. No one in the audience spoke either for or against the proposed supplemental budget. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed 7: 17 p.m. LONERGAN/NICHOLS....direct staff to prepare an ordinance on the supplemental budget for Council consideration. The motion passed unanimously. A few minutes was taken between these two agenda items to provide Council with computer assistance. Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TAPE READING 0623 PUBLIC HEARING: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7:23 pm. Public Works Manager Rohman stated that a short presentation will be made prior to taking public testimony on the proposed updates to the traffic impact fee methodology. He stated that the City did receive a letter from Capital Development Company prior to the date of this hearing which has been submitted to the City Recorder for entering into the Council record. John Ghilarducci, FSC Group Consultant, stated that his presentation would provide background information, key policy recommendations, key assumptions reflected in the numbers, summarization of calculations that have resulted in the proposed charges, and a table of comparable transportation system development charges from selected communities within the state. Mr. Ghilarducci stated that the purpose of the study is to update existing transportation system development charges (SDC) and to develop an interchange development charge (IDC) to separately recover eligible city-share costs related to the costs of the interchange. He stated that SDC law is covered under Oregon State Statute and are (1) one time charges and not on-going charges, (2) for capital projects only and calculated on cost of capital projects, (3) properties assessed SDC's are new development or re-development of property adding demand on the system, (4) SDC's include future a component based on cost of planned capital projects and an existing cost component based on unused capacity in the City's existing system, and (5) SDC's are for general facilities not local facilities. The fee components involve the reimbursement fee (existing cost component) and the improvement fee (future cost component) to total the system development charge which will then equal a per-unit of capacity. The SDC fee being proposed is predominately the improvement fee based on planned capital projects. He stated that the existing Transportation SDC is based on average daily trip and a policy recommendation, which is reflected in the proposed charges, is to change the charge basis from average daily trip to peak-hour trip. Other policy recommendations include (1) growth-related planned costs for alternate modes of transportation such as bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities with these costs being very small portions of these alternate modes; (2) trip estimates adjusted for retail land uses to deduct for pass-by trips so that commercial customers are not charged for interim trip on their way from home to work or vice-versa; (3)SDC's be indexed to annual cost escalation due to inflation; (4) provide SDC credits as required under state law and, in the case of developers constructing improvements on the SDC project list and over sizing those improvements, those credits be limited to the amount of the improvement fee and those credits earned could be redeemed for cash but only for cash earned from SDC's paid from subsequent building on that development site; and (5) Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TAPE READING an additional SDC be adopted to apply only in the Interchange Management Overlay District (IDC). Key technical assumptions reflected in the proposed charges are (1) planned projects from the 2005 Transportation Plan and 2007 TIF project list will provide system capacity to the year 2020; (2) identified anticipated developer responsibility for each project which have been taken out of the SDC charge basis; (3) a 49% deduction in traffic volume has been taken into account since this amount originates and ends outside of the City limits; and (4) in looking at the IDC, eligible interchange costs were split 50/50 between Citywide SDC and IDC. He reviewed the calculations used to derive at the proposed SDC peak-hour trip rate of $3,466 per peak-hour trip that would be applied to all types of land uses. He then reviewed the calculations on the proposed IDC rate of $1,108 per peak-hour trip that would be applied to properties within the Interchange Management Overlay District in addition to the SDC charge. Lastly, he provided a SDC comparison survey of system development charges in the area and along the 1-5 corridor and do not include the proposed interchange development charge. 1069 Will Denecke, representing OPUS, stated that he had just recently received the proposed system development charge methodology and questioned if OPUS is allowed 1,250 peak- hour trips for the entire parcel in the proposed IDC for the industrial park, what would be the total IDC that would be paid by OPUS for its development. He stated that he was trying to understand what the total fee is for this parcel of land and whether or not it generates the $2.7 million referred to in the report or some dollar amount in excess of this figure. Councilor Cox also questioned if a development is built in phases when would the IDC and SDC fees become payable. Mr. Ghilarducci stated that the fees become payable when the building permits are pulled. Mel Counts, Woodburn area Realtor, stated that the fee is a form of tax and questioned how that fee would affect clients and realtors. Additionally, he questioned why the City's fee is near the top of the comparison survey and if traffic volume is the reason for the fee adjustment. 1285 John Donaldson, Capital Development Company, stated that his company has been working since the 1990's on the Woodburn Town Center project located south ofWal- Mart. They are now down to working on the development of their general commercial area but they have been having a great deal of difficulty in attempting to attract some quality tenants. One of the major issues that has been a stumbling block is the system development charges that currently exist and they were planning on meeting with the City on this very issue. They have been working with national tenants with one potential client stating that the SDC's were more than what they were willing to pay for ground in a setting similar to what would be available at the Woodburn site. He encouraged the Council not to take action at this time and allow the property owners to meet with staff and the City's consultant to see ifthere is a more equitable way to spread the charges. He also mentioned that his company has installed more than a $1 million worth of Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TAPE READING infrastructure beyond what was required for their site in oversized roads, storm drain lines, and sanitary sewer lines which were designed to go to property to the south of their land. They feel that they have paid their share as it relates to growth paying for itself. On another issue, he understood that there is a state statute that does not require the City to notify property owners about these kinds of charges but he feels that the City has a morale obligation to notify anybody who is going to be impacted by the kind of dollars that is being proposed with the change in methodology. George Wilhelm, Wilhelm Engineering representing Capital Development, expressed his opinion that the study is clear and concise and attempts to equitably apportion $18, 900,000 of proposed project costs. However, the IDC applies to selected undeveloped properties near the 1-5 interchange. He stated that the study intends to fund 50% of the City's cost of the interchange improvement and 100% of the City's share of the interchange development is allocated to growth. It is his belief that in peak hour the existing interchange is well below an average rating and that a significant portion of the cost should be allocated to existing development to bring the interchange up to at least an average rating during peak hours. Also, existing development in the area of the interchange will significantly benefit from the improved capacity of the interchange. Therefore, 50% of the City's costs ofthe proposed interchange should be paid by other revenues to spread the cost to existing properties with 25% to be allocated to the SDC's and 25% to IDC's. According to Capital Development, one of the biggest hurdles they face in marketing their commercial property is the cost of development and, in particular, the SDC costs. The proposed study requires selected properties in the Interchange Management Area to pay for $11,435,000 of the total $18,836,000 which is proposed to be recovered by SDC and IDC which is 61 % of the cost, excluding the improvement fee fund balance, of the total projects that are SDC eligible throughout City. The study indicates that the Interchange Management Area is required to pay not only the 50% of the City's cost of the interchange improvement but they are also required to pay an additional $8,685,000 of the other improvement projects in the City. He also questioned the estimated costs ofprojects used within the study that are in close proximity of the Town Center project because he has recent knowledge of construction costs in that area. For example, in 2006, Capital Development paid $1,050,000 for infrastructure costs to extend Evergreen Road by 1,850 lineal feet. However, there is less than 1,000 ft yet to be constructed to connect Evergreen Rd to Parr Rd and the study's estimated cost for this transportation improvement is $4,878,000. He would expect the cost to have increased since 2006 but feels that the estimates are either too high or Capital Development is being asked to pay for infrastructure twice. He reiterated that he had done a cursory review of the proposed study and Capital Development's property is located in the proposed Interchange Management Area. His client is concerned that the proposed rates will significantly reduce the marketability of their property. He feels that Capital Development has some legitimate concerns regarding the proposed rate study and, on Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TAPE READING behalf of Capital Development, requested that the proposal be tabled until Capital Development has had an opportunity to go over the calculation and allocation of the costs wi th staff. 1709 John Bauer, attorney representing a landowner within the IDC, submitted a letter into record and stated that his client did not receive notification but he did obtain a copy of the methodology last Thursday. He is trying to find consultants to assist them with the review of the methodology and requested an additional 90 days to complete their review of the study. He stated that his client owns 13 acres which is 2% of the entire IMA and the potential cost is to his client is $500,000 of the $2.75 million interchange fee. Administrator Brown stated that individual notices had not been sent out to property owners, however, notices were sent to those people on the list who had been asked to be notified when this issue came up which is a requirement of the law. A notice of this hearing was also published in the newspaper which is not a requirement of the law. Mr. Donaldson expressed his opinion that property owners affected by increases of this magnitude should be formally notified so that they can be aware of pending action. Don Judson, Interim Chamber Executive Director, stated that the Chamber Board has not seen this proposal nor to the best of his knowledge, has the Chamber membership seen the proposal so he is not speaking on behalf of the Chamber. However, as a former banker, he does know that the under the peak hour trip cost for a commercial activity, it would be cost prohibitive to build a local bank branch. The cost comparator list shows Woodburn as the third highest along 1-5 and these development costs could be a major reason as to why building activity has slowed down. He suggested that he would like to see examples of cost for different types of commercial activity and then be able to discuss this issue with the Chamber Board and membership since this will affect the whole City and not just the property owners in the Interchange Management Area. He expressed his support of any delay to let businesses know the impact of costs. Public Works Manager Rohman stated that the fees are due when a building permit is issued. Within the Interchange Management Area (includes proposed urban growth boundary expansion area), there are 2,500 peak hour trips and the total amount allocated to those 2,500 peak hour trips is $2,750,000. He estimated that the most peak hour trips to be allocated to OPUS will be about 400 which would equate to an estimated $430,000 if all were used for general and light industrial development. The proposed fee for single family residential has been in effect for several years and would increase from $3,286 to $3,501. In regards to the comment made by Mr. Donaldson on oversized roads, he stated that the roads were built to the standards outlined in the Transportation System Plan for the functional classification of the road. The sewer and storm drain lines may be larger as a result of future development but he would need to check on that issue. In regards to notification requirements, he stated that he has a list of individuals who have asked to be notified of proposed development charge increases and notices were mailed to those Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TAPE READING individuals 90 days in advance as required under state law. The estimated costs for projects were taken out of the 2005 Transportation System Plan and staff may need to look at the costs of the projects mentioned earlier to verify the estimated amount. Mr. Ghilarducci stated that the study forecasts that 53% of the City's growth will be in the interchange management area and the additional burden that is being asked of commercial enterprises in the interchange area is 8% which totals the 61 % figure previously mentioned byMr. Wilhelm. On the SDC comparison survey, the cities of Tigard, Forest Grove, Tualatin, Hillsboro, and Beaverton all fall under the Washington County TIF which was a voted upon system development charge. Washington County is undergoing an extensive review at this time with one of their stated objectives is to more than double their TIF. For example, their existing single family residence SDC would increase from $3,200 to well over $6,000. 2214 Councilor Sifuentz questioned as to why the property owners in this case were not notified of the proposed rate change while notices are provided to surrounding property owners when a proposed development is being reviewed. Public Works Manager Rohman stated that staff had followed the State's statutory requirements in addition to providing a public notice in the local paper. City Administrator Brown stated that notice requirements are different, for example, a local improvement district requires mailed notification to property owners since Council action would place a lien on a person's property obligating them to pay for an improvement once it is approved by the Council. Councilor Cox also stated that a local improvement district would list a known fixed amount proposed to be assessed to a property but, in this case, the City does not know what development will take place on these properties. The same notice that was published in the newspaper could be sent out to every property owner in the City at a huge expense and would, in many cases, be a useless notice because the SDC's would only apply to undeveloped or underdeveloped properties. For those property owners that would be affected, providing a cost estimate would be very difficult since the SDC amount is dependent upon on the property use. 2347 City Administrator Brown stated that the Council did hold a workshop on this issue last November which had been a noticed public meeting followed by an article in the newspaper. He stated that the study totaled those project costs in the City's approved Transportation System Plan that have been deemed necessary in order to support the City's growth over the planning period that ends in 2020. The presumption is that the current facilities are not sufficient to take care of the demand that growth would place on the facilities therefore facilities will either need to be expanded or built. Even ifthere is no more growth within the community, most people would agree that the current facilities are not sufficient to deal with the traffic flow that currently exists, in particular the interchange. Council options are to establish system development charges to help collect the funds that growth needs to support itself or to place that burden back onto the Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TAPE READING community. Some contention has been made that fees are driving business away but he reminded the Council that they have established an Economic Development Plan that identifies a certain kind of business that is most appropriate to try and raise the standard of living within our community. Over the last 10 years, the City has experienced unprecedented building despite the fees and, if you provide the infrastructure and the land there will be a number businesses who will want to come to Woodburn and not be put off by the proposed fees. In regards to the Interchange Management fee, the City had to enter into an agreement with ODOT to fund the City's share of the interchange improvement which totals $5.5 million in addition to the $2.5 million already paid to ODOT from previously collected system development charges. This agreement was necessary in order for the State to approve the City's Transportation System Plan. Without the Transportation System Plan, the urban growth boundary expansion would not be happening and the businesses within the urban growth boundary area would not have the ability to potentially develop their property. Instead of charging future development within the Interchange Management Area 100% of the fees for future improvements, staff felt that a 50% charge would be a more equitable charge with development in the rest of the city pay the remaining 50%. Staff believes that this is a defensible plan and he did not feel that much would be gained by waiting another 90 days before the Council takes this item up again. He appreciated concerns expressed on how they felt they had not been properly noticed but staff has met the notification requirements and, in his opinion, provided a good plan that is well conceived, satisfies the various Council goals, and will not be a hindrance to good quality development in the future. Will Denecke, representing OPUS, stated that he would generally support the City Administrator's comments, however, a developer does not want to pay anymore than necessary and the Council needs to come up with an equitable formula. The City had spent a lot of time working with ODOT on the Interchange Management Area and this agreement is the first in the State. He felt that asking developers in this area to contribute 50% is equitable. Escalating construction costs is being faced by all developers and amortizing infrastructure costs over time is a big challenge. He questioned if developers in this area would be paying additional system development charges over the interchange development charge and, if so, what would those fees be. Public Works Manager Rohman stated that for general light industrial the city-wide fee is $3,397 per 1,000 sq. feet of gross floor area. 2726 John Donaldson stated that he did not have a problem with the housing system development charge but development of commercial property has a different impact and the charges need to be balanced against this market. He expressed his opinion that the properties in the overlay district should have been notified and given a chance to respond since the proposed fees have a greater impact on the development of their property. Councilor Cox stated that several people have asked for more time, therefore, options are to close the public hearing and keep the record open for written comments or to keep the Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TAPE READING public hearing open. He suggested that the hearing be closed but keep the record open for 30 days to receive written comments. Councilors McCallum and Sifuentez stated that they would support closing the hearing and keeping the record open for written comments. Mayor Figley felt that there should be sufficient time given allow interested individuals to review the documents utilizing accurate information. Mr. Wilhelm stated that the interchange management area is a very small area compared to the City and the $11 million figure he mentioned previously was derived from taking 2500 trips times the $4,000 figure and felt that the property owners in this area should have an opportunity to meet with staff to go over how the numbers were calculated since he believes that there are some inconsistencies which directly relate to the amount of the charge. Councilor Bjelland stated that either (1) the hearing can be closed completely, (2) the hearing can be closed hearing and allow written testimony, or (3) continue the hearing until some future date. In his opinion, this is a critical issue that would affect a lot a people within the community and supported continuance of the hearing until some future date since it is important to hear opinions or interpretations after interested property owners have had a chance to discuss it. There may still be differences in opinions between staff and their experts and he would be interested in hearing their interpretations. He stated that there are issues related to whether or not the total amount of money to be raised by the IDC and SDC is correct and agreed that transportation infrastructure costs has experienced a significant increase. He also felt continuing the hearing until the first meeting in March will give enough time to both staff and interested parties to be aware of this issue, talk to staff, and come back to the Council with sufficient information so that the Council can make a decision on how to deal with the SDC's and IDC's. City Attorney stated that this is a legislative matter and all of the options discussed by Councilors Cox and Bjelland are open to the Council with no set time line to complete. Councilor Cox stated that if more testimony is received at a future meeting then it may involve more analysis and further postponing a decision. Even though it is acceptable, he would like to see a final decision being made as soon as possible. He also stated that he would be agreeable to the continuation of the hearing. Following a brief discussion on how to proceed with this issue, BJELLAND/NICHOLS... continue the public hearing to the first regular meeting in March and allow both oral and written testimony. Administrator Brown stated that the interchange management area is limited in size and most of which is in the urban growth expansion area. Staff will send out notices to those property owners, run another notice in the local paper, a follow-up newspaper article will by Mr. Gervais will provide additional exposure, and he will discuss with Mr. Judson how the Chamber might be able to assist in getting information out to their membership. Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TAPE READING Councilor Bjelland mentioned that the public needs to be aware that unless there are some changes in the total costs of the capital improvements that are going into the calculations for the fees involved, any reduction in one place will generate more fees in another place. The motion to continue the hearing passed unanimously. At 8:45 p.m.., Mayor Figley continued the hearing until the first meeting in March 2008. 3392 PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS. A) Community Development Director's Approval of Zoning Adjustment 2007-03 located at 591 Gatch Street (Mid-Valley Community Church). Zoning adjustment approval was given to authorize joint use parking for a new parking lot that was constructed on the property for the church and school (Arthur Academy) in order to meet the previous land use approval for the parking lot construction which required 65 parking spaces under the Woodburn Development Ordinance. No action was taken by the Council to bring this land use item up for review. 3412 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A) Administrator Brown stated that he had been reminded of the annual Relay for Life event and he will be requesting the Mayor and Council for their contributions towards funding a team on the City's behalf. B) He also stated that he had submitted a resignation letter last week with his last day of employment being March 21,2008. He has been having some conversation with the Mayor and several Councilors on how to handle the continuity for the coming months. A suggestion had been made to ask Assistant City Administrator Stevens to serve as interim City Administrator but he asked that they not ask her to do it because of her short tenure with the City and she is currently doing personnel work that needs to be addressed at this time. He also discussed the interim position with a couple of department heads and the general consensus is that they will serve if asked but prefer not to because they are concerned about the long-term detrimental effects on their own departments of their not being at the helm in their department. He proposed that a recruitment be done by a professional recruitment firm and ask a recruiter to bring an interim City Administrator to the City while doing the recruitment. He put together a Request For Proposal (RFP) for consulting services which will be ready for distribution by tomorrow and, in this document, he is suggesting a turnaround for their proposals by March ih so that the Council could potentially review the proposals at their first meeting in March. In the event there is some additional interviewing that needs to be done or a delay in bringing in an interim Administrator, Police Chief Russell is willing to serve as interim Administrator on a very limited basis. Mayor Figley agreed that using a professional recruitment firm is the route to take, however, she and Council President Sifuentez would like to meet with Administrator Brown on Wednesday to discuss options and then discuss Page 11 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TAPE READING this issue with the entire Council either before or after the Council workshop scheduled for February 19th. She requested that the RFP include 3 options - one for a full-time interim, one for a part-time interim, and one with no interim. Administrator Brown also recommended that the Council follow a similar screening process that he has used in more recent hirings of department heads since he has built this process into the RFP so that respondents will give the City a quote for doing that level of work. It was the consensus of the Council to follow the recommended screening / interviewing process and to call a special meeting for February 19, 2008 at 6:30 p.m.. MCCALLUM/NICHOLS...accept City Administrator's resignation with regret and with thanks for almost 10 years of extremely high quality service. The motion passed unanimously. 3772 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. McCallum stated that over the last week he has had an opportunity to work with IS staff on computer training and, even though there has been a lot to learn, he did get through it. Additionally, he had visited our Library last week and complimented staff on their excellent service to patrons. He also thanked the Police Department for their quick work on the criminal incident last week. He expressed concern on the amount of time it had taken to develop and adopt a new sign ordinance and he is noticing that the signs are now coming back on Hwy 99E / Mt. Hood Avenue. These signs include sandwich boards and canopies and he requested that a review be done on the sign ordinance to see what can be done reduce or eliminate the these signs. Councilor Bjelland stated that his reign as Chair ofMW ACT is nearly over after 3 successive terms but he will continue to serve on the steering committee as the Past Chair ofMW ACT. Other items of interest to the Woodburn area specifically involve funding for the Park n Ride facility near the 1-5 interchange and project work will probably be in conjunction with the redevelopment of Woodburn Crossing shopping center. As reported previously on the ODOT project cost overruns, different regions have been asked to reduce the 2008-2011 STIP funding to address these increased costs. This resulted in a reduction of more than $20 million to our region in previously funded projects. With only $11.5 million within our region for modernization, MW ACT would receive about $2,750,000 and, of that amount, at least $2 million will be allocated to the Woodburn interchange project. Most of the reductions have come from other areas, primarily the Newberg-Dundee bypass project. A little more promising is that MW ACT was asked to prepare a list of projects in case the legislature approves some additional financing for transportation proj ects in Oregon. If funding of up to a potential $120 million over the 2010- 2013 time period is received, MW ACT has recommended 3 primary proj ects to move forward totaling $99 million with the Woodburn Interchange being one of the projects as well as the widening of Highway 214 from the interchange to Park Street. He Page 12 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TAPE READING also mentioned that within our region which consists of 3 counties, identified project needs for infrastructure improvements total $1.2 billion and, with the rate of inflation and costs increasing, something has to be done by the State legislature to address transportation financing needs. Councilor Sifuentz thanked the IS staff for their assistance in training her to use the new computer. In regards to the sign ordinance, Councilor Cox stated that he has seen somewhat successful efforts to clean-up certain areas but he feels that a more proactive enforcement of the regulations may resolve the sign issues that we are currently experiencing. There may be a need to fine tune the ordinance but additional staff had been authorized a few years ago to assist with the enforcement process but does not see where this has been happening as he had envisioned. He feels that staff members who are responsible for enforcement of the ordinance should be taking more initiative. Councilor McCallum stated that he had asked staff those questions and was somewhat surprised to find out that what he thought they had adopted was different than what he had envisioned. The ordinance is being enforced as written and did not realize that the people could play games with the number of temporary signs, length of time to be displayed, and location of signs. City Administrator agreed with Councilor Cox that the enforcement of this ordinance could use some improving and he continues to ask various City departments to help collect signs that are not allowed under the ordinance. However, there is a strong desire to get this problem under control and they have found that there is a problem with the ordinance that needs to be corrected. The City has a right to deal with signs that are placed in the City's and ODOT's rights-of-way but signs are being displayed just outside rights-of-way which include A-frame signs or flag advertising signs. The ordinance does have a provision for temporary sign permits to be issued for 15 consecutive days and it can be 4 times per year. The intention was for seasonal sales but an applicant could get a temporary sign permit for up to four 15-day periods in a rowand, if it is done toward the end of the calendar year, an applicant could come in the beginning of the next calendar year and apply for another four 15-day periods. There is also an exclusion in the ordinance that allows for the placement of two signs under a certain size to be displayed at the business as long as they are not in the right-of-way without any sign permit. This seems to be what is happening along Highway 99E and Highway 214. Community Development Director Allen stated that the Sign Ordinance is on the work program list that was adopted by the council last month and Senior Planner Labossiere has begun work on this issue. The Focus Group and Planning Commission will be reviewing this issue over the next few months and the Council will most likely see proposed changes to the ordinance. Page 13 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TAPE READING 4501 EXECUTIVE SESSION. Mayor Figley entertained a motion to adjourn into executive session under the authority of ORS 192.660(2)(i). MCCALLUM/SIFUENTEZ... adjourn into executive session under the statutory authority cited by the Mayor. City Attorney declared that this executive session is a six month follow-up on his evaluation and he waives his right to an open hearing and, secondly, he is unable to give the Council legal advice on this executive session issue due to a conflict of interest. The motion passed unanimously. The Council adjourned into executive session at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened at 9:59 p.m.. Mayor Figley stated that no decisions were made by the Council while in executive seSSIOn. 4545 COX/MCCALLUM... approve an amendment to the City Attorney's employment contract to increase base rate compensation by 3% effective January 1, 2008 and the contract also be amended to provide that in lieu of the administrative leave provisions that are in his existing contract be instead an executive leave provision allowing him up to 15 days per year executive leave with a use it or lose it cap of 30 days and it is also understood that this will not change his cycle of the normal annual review period which is August 1 st. The motion passed unanimously. 4646 ADJOURNMENT. BJELLAND/MCCALLUM.... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m.. / / ATTEST !!J,.,~~ Mary Tenna , Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 14 - Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008 Executive Session COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 11, 2008 DATE. CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, FEBRUARY 11, 2008. CONVENED. The Council met in executive session at 9:22 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. ROLL CALL. Mayor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Figley Bjelland Cox Lonergan McCallum Nichols Sifuentez Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: City Attorney Shields (9:46 pm - 10:00 pm), City Recorder Tennant Mayor Figley reminded the Councilors and staff that information discussed in executive session is not to be discussed with the public. The executive session was called pursuant under the statutory authority of ORS 192.660(2)(i) to review and evaluate, pursuant to standards, criteria and policy directives adopted by the governing body, the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer of any public body, a public officer, employee or staff member unless the person whose performance is being reviewed and evaluated requests an open hearing. A ADJOURNMENT. The executive session adjourned at 10:00 p.m.. ATTEST ~~ Mary Te t, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 1 - Executive Session, Council Meeting Minutes, February 11, 2008