Loading...
Minutes - 03/10/2008COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, MARCH 10, 2008. CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. 0015 ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Bjelland Present Councilor Cox Present Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor McCallum Present Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Absent Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Asst. City Administrator Stevens, Public Works Director Brown, Community Development Director Allen, Community Services Director Row, Finance Director Gillespie, Police Captain Tennant, Public Works Manager Rohman, Recorder Tennant 0025 ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) Filing period for Mayor and Council positions is open and certified nomination petitions must be filed with the City Recorder by 5:00 p.m. on August 26, 2008. Positions to be voted upon at the November 4, 2008 general election are as follows: Mayor: At-large position (2-year term) Councilor -Ward I: Precinct 815 (4-year term) Councilor -Ward II: Precinct 825 (4-year term) Councilor -Ward VI: Precinct 865 (4-year term) Candidate filing information and forms are available at the City Recorder's office. Mayor Figley also reminded the public that there is still one Budget Committee position vacant and she encouraged interested citizens to consider submitting an application for this position. Applications are available through the City Administrator's office. 0064 PROCLAMATION: iOHN BROWN DAY -MARCH 19.2008. Mayor Figley stated that John Brown is leaving his position as City Administrator after almost 10 years employment with the City. The public is invited to attend a reception on March 19`'' either at City Hall between 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm or at Lupita's beginning at 6:00 p.m.. Mayor Figley read a proclamation declaring March 19, 2008 as John Brown Day within the City wishing him well and thanking him for his many accomplishments as City Administrator. Page 1 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING 0140 PRESENTATION• AQUATICS RISK MANAGMENT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS. Mayor Figley stated that this has been a topic of concern since there was a drowning incident a couple of years ago and staff is providing this report to update the Council and the public on what is being done to do things better in the future. Community Services Director Row stated that this unfortunate drowning incident occurred in May 2006 which prompted the City to take a much closer look at the Aquatic Center operations to make sure that it is being operated in the safest possible manner. The report before the Council consisted of an internal analysis, an analysis of Oregon Administrative Rules pertaining to public swimming pools, an American Red Cross site visit and consultation, and a meeting with the City's insurance carrier risk management consultant. He stated that the report includes an analysis of the current situation, and in many instances, the current situation had already evolved from the time of the incident and while other improvements are in various stages of implementation. Of the seventeen categories within the report, the Director reviewed the following more significant categories in the report: 1) Screening, Hiring, and New Employee Orientation: Director Row stated that, even though new employee skills have always been tested, there has never been a standardized checklist in place to make sure that all employees meet the American Red Cross required skills. This checklist is being developed by staff. In addition, new employees are required to go through a job shadowing program whereby they work with an experienced mentor already on staff for a minimum of 4 shifts and an improvement being made in this program is that a job shadowing manual will be developed to make sure that the program is fully implemented. 2) Staff certification: Improvement is being made in this category through the development of a head lifeguard training course which will be developed in the coming months and implemented by the end of spring or early summer. This course will train those individuals who have been promoted into a head lifeguard position to better manage facility wide emergency incidents, perform regular on-going maintenance and inspection required by the facility, and learn basic supervision skills. When the facility is open, there must be, at a minimum, a head lifeguard and/or a member of management on duty to be responsible for the overall facility operations. 3) In-service training: This training has always been a part of the Aquatic Center staff training program, however, staff will be taking the lifeguards from the point of just having basic water rescue skills to train them to manage incidents that occur at the facility. Staff tries to have in-service training done monthly but have not always met that benchmark. There are at least 10 training sessions per year and an improvement in this category is to do at least 12 training sessions a year. These training sessions are mandatory for all employees and if an employee misses a session, they are required to make it up and, if not, they are relieved from duty. 4) Life guard attentiveness, rotation, and scanning policies: Under state law, the Aquatic Page 2 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING Center is required to have 1 lifeguard on duty for every 40 swimmers in the water. The Center always meets, and generally exceeds, that requirement. Another guest protection standard that the State recognizes is the 10/20 protection rule which dictates that the Center has a sufficient number of lifeguards placed where they need to be in order to recognize a swimmer in distress within 10 seconds and reach them and begin providing care within 20 seconds from recognizing them. The Aquatic Center does meet both of those standards. Studies have shown that fatigue reduces peripheral vision by about 30% and staff has been implementing the following: (1) a strategy that recommends that lifeguards change physical body position at least once every 10 minutes, (2) lifeguards are rotating so that they are not at a station more than 30 minutes, and (3) lifeguards get a 10 minute break for every hour on deck. Red Cross has determined that they have found a factor that is a significant contributor is a large number of catastrophic aquatics incidents. This factor is known as RID -Recognition, Intrusion, Distraction -and staff is committed to making sure that employees understand the dangers of the RID factor. Policies have been developed and implemented to eliminate as much as possible that factor from becoming a problem at the facility. Lastly, a lifeguard auditing program is being developed whereby staff will systematically audit lifeguards on a regular basis, document it, and correct problems immediately. 5) Location of lifeguard stations: It has been determined that there is a blind spot on the northwest corner of the swimming pool next to the waterslide and it is the protrusion of the slide that creates the blind spot. This area is visible to lifeguards on the north wall of the pool but not to lifeguards stationed in other areas of the facility. A concave mirror will be installed on the north wall of the pool. Another visibility issue is glare which is an issue in every swimming pool however, our facility has a less significant glare than most centers since there is not a lot of exterior light coming into the facility. It is recommended that lifeguards incorporate some strategies to reduce the negative effects of glare such as making greater use of the elevated lifeguarding platforms and employing roving strategies so that they are moving around and looking at the water from different angles. 6) Zone for coverage: Lifeguards are trained which zones they are responsible for protecting based on the number of lifeguards on duty. Detailed visual zone coverage charts will be developed and posted in the lifeguard office and lifeguards will be trained on visual zone coverage on a more regular basis. 7) Life jackets: Staff will be training lifeguards to pay more attention to those swimmers wearing life jackets to insure that they are receiving the proper monitoring and assistance in making sure that the life jackets are on properly. Councilor Lonergan questioned if life jackets are voluntary or are lifeguards to determine which swimmers should be wearing life jackets. Director Row stated that life jackets are available for anyone that wants or needs one and if a lifeguard sees that a swimmer could benefit from the use of one, staff will either make Page 3 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING sure that the swimmer gets into shallower water or wears a life jacket. There are also those cases where young people are in the pool for a long period of time and they get fatigued which is another issue that lifeguards need to be aware as well. 8) Safety signs: Staff is developing new facility group rule signage in both English and Spanish with these signs to be posted in the swimming pool area. In addition, staff will be posting additional "no diving and no running" pictogram signs so those who cannot read the language can see the picture and hopefully understand the intent of the message. 9) Visiting group policies: Improvements noted in this area are 1) groups will be required to schedule one week in advance of their visit and 2) one adult person in the group will be asked to perform a water watching task for every 20 swimmers they bring with them. Staff will convey safety rules to the group including pool depths and life jackets usage. Additionally, a water watcher program will be implemented whereby volunteers willing to accept some responsibility will be paying closer attention to the water and alerting the lifeguards of any problems that they recognize. Staff will continue to be vigilant as to what is going on while swimmers are in the pool but these volunteers will provide an extra set of eyes and pointing out potential problems. Director Row stated that certain risks are inherent in operating an aquatic center and there is nothing that can be done to eliminate all risks, however, the City is committed to making sure that the Aquatic Center operates in the safest possible manner. This is an on-going process of analysis, evaluation, recommendation and evaluation and staff will continue to make improvements even after all of improvements noted in the report have been made. Councilor McCallum requested clarification of a group visiting the facility being asked to provide a water watcher. Director Row stated that the group would be bringing chaperones and the water watcher program would be having chaperones specifically dedicated to sitting down in a certain area of the facility and watching a certain area of the pool. He reminded the Council that this would be voluntary and some chaperones may be reluctant to accept that level of responsibility but staff has been trying this program since last May and it seems to be going well. Councilor McCallum questioned if the School District and the City still cooperate on the 4`'' grade school swim lessons that has been through Woodburn Together. Director Row stated that this partnership between the City, Woodburn Together, and the School District still exists. Councilor Lonergan felt that this was an excellent report and staff has taken a proactive approach on this issue. 0729 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT. Don Judson, Executive Director, stated that the Greeter's Program will be held on Page 4 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING March 14"' at Valley Pacific Floral and on March 21S` at the OGA golf course. On March 14`x, the Distinguished Service Award banquet will be held at Wellspring and tickets will be available through March 10~'. Lastly, a special promotion will be held on April 19`t' and 20"' involving merchants along Highway 99E with the celebration of the 60`'' anniversary of Al's Garden Center, Long Bros. is opening their newly remodeled store, Heidi's Cafe will be having some specials, and the Chamber is talking to more merchants interested in participating in a shopping extravaganza. This is the same weekend in which a Wine Festival will be held at the tulip fields. Director Judson stated last month it had been suggested to him after a Council meeting in February that the Chamber members did not care about system development charges and, after thinking about it, realized that his focus has been on Chamber solvency and trying to get tourism funding in some logical fashion for the future. Since then, he has been encouraging Chamber members to attend the Council meetings and show that they are ready to be a partner in future reviews. He hoped that with the number of Chamber members present at this meeting, the Council will see that they are ready to step up when talking about issues affecting our community. Mayor Figley expressed her appreciation in seeing the large number of individuals in the audience and encouraged them to attend future meetings. 0830 WOODBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT. Walt Blomberg, Superintendent, thanked Director Row for his report on the pool. He felt that it was exceptionally well done and reiterated that they have had a strong partnership with the pool regarding the 4`f' grade lessons and the After School program.. He reported that the School District is engaged in a renewal of their Strategic Plan and have met with staff members and a number of people within community to talk about the future of Woodburn Schools and the direction the District should follow. A draft report will go before the School Board in April and, once adopted, the report will discuss changes to be made and their ideas of what should be accomplished over the next 5 years in future. Another project recently done by the District was to survey the community about a potential bond measure. The survey was on a $76.2 million proposal which would add 2 new K-8 grade buildings and one small high school. The cost for this bond proposal did not meet with much favor from those surveyed since, for the most part, people do not want to pay anymore taxes. They continue to look for an amount that would be palatable and then explain the need and options that were looked at to the public between now and November. Lastly, the Guys & Dolls performance at the High School last Thursday through Saturday was an exceptional performance involving the Choir, Band, and many actors/actresses. 0960 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve the Council meeting minutes of February 25, 2008; Page 5 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING B) approve the Council special meeting/workshop minutes of February 19, 2008; C) accept the Planning Commission minutes of February 28, 2008; D) receive the Planning Project Tracking Sheet as of March 6, 2008; E) receive the Building Activity Report for February 2008; F) accept the report on the Intergovernmental Agreement with ODOT for environmental Assessment on Highway 214 between Broughton Way and Park Avenue; G) accept the informational report on the proposed property rental for farming operation of Wastewater Treatment Plant; H) accept the informational report on the Highway 214/Settlemier Avenue/ Boones Ferry Road project update; and I) receive the Animal Control Ordinance status report. Councilor McCallum stated that he had received positive feedback on the draft animal control ordinance and, in general, residents were very pleased with provisions relating to dogs. He also stated that some residents did not understand why chickens would be allowed under the ordinance. MCCALLUM/COX... adopt the consent agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 1013 PUBLIC HEARING: TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE (TIF) (Continued from February 11, 2008 City Council meeting). Mayor Figley opened the continuation of the Traffic Impact Fee update public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Public Works Manager Rohman stated that after the February 11"' meeting, staff sent notices to each property owner included in the interchange management area that would be affected by the interchange management charge. He reviewed presentation materials provided at the February 11, 2008 hearing on the study's purpose, policy recommendations, key assumptions, and System Development Charges (SDC's) comparison study. Staff feels that the that proposed SDC's (also known as TIF) fairly and equitably allocates the cost of the City's transportation improvements for the next 20 years. It was a consensus of the Council at the November 2007 workshop to proceed with the 50/50 split of the $5.5 million still owing to ODOT for the future interchange improvement. At the February 11, 2008 meeting, Mr. Donaldson from Capital Development indicated that the commercial cost had gone up significantly for development along the interchange and, following the meeting, Mr. Donaldson had provided him with potential developments that could occur on his property for the purpose of calculating the proposed TIF's. He stated that he calculated costs for three different developments: 1) a 155,000 sq. foot home improvement type of store under the current rate would pay $1,211,000 while the proposed rate would increase to $1,247,000 ($36,000 increase); 2) a 72,000 sq. foot specialty retail store under the current rate would pay about $653,000 while the proposed rate would increase to $892,000 ($239,000 increase); and 3) a 75,000 sq. foot supermarket under the current rate would pay Page 6 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING $1,162,000 while the proposed rate would decrease to $946,000 ($216,000 decrease). He stated that supermarkets tend to spread their trips out fairly evenly throughout the day which is why they have a high average daily traffic count and would pay a higher TIF charge under the current rate structure. He stated that TIF's are due at the time a building permit is issued and the amount of the fee is based on a square footage and, based on the cost of construction, this fee tends to be relatively small. For example, an industrial development might pay around $2 per square foot for the TIF while commercial uses might pay between $4-$10 per square foot since they generate a higher trip rate. He reiterated that staff feels that the new methodology is swell-conceived plan, it provides a fair and equitable proportion of the traffic impact fees amongst the undeveloped property still within the City, and it is not a hindrance to good quality development that the City is looking for. Councilor McCallum questioned if the City had received many written responses on this issue. Public Works Manager Rohman stated that two additional written responses had been received prior to this meeting and they have been included in the in the agenda packet. Councilor Lonergan stated that the one written response mentioned an objection to widening the highway from Lincoln Street to the south city limits. Public Works Manager Rohman stated the letter had inferred that ODOT had turned over the responsibility of Highway 99E to the City. The City will be making a small contribution towards a future improvement to that roadway but the State still retains responsibility for Highway 99E. 1471 Wally Lien, Attorney representing Capital Development, stated that he had just recently been retained to represent Capital Development on this issue, however, since this issue may end up in a different venue, it is his responsibility to his client to enter a document into the record so that the technical matters are taken care of for the future. He requested a little more time and, understanding that the Council granted a continuance last month, he has not been able to locate a traffic engineer to assist him with the methodology and to provide an independent review. He provided the Mayor and Council with a memo requesting the continuance along with legal issues that, in his opinion, bears some additional discussion. He did not feel that there was an immediate need to rush to a judgment and by waiting he hoped to avoid some issues once a final decision has been made by the Council. He stated that the problem he ran into was that he has never seen an IDC (Interchange Development Charge) before where an area is geographically identified located both inside and outside of the current city limits but does not include the entire City. In his opinion, this area is a special district that is assessed its own SDC and then that charge is in addition to the normal city-wide SDC. He cited a state statute that says when a special district is created and all of the property within the city limits is not included, and in fact crosses geographical and jurisdictional boundaries from the City into the County, the SDC is not the way that it gets done. A special transportation district would be applicable which is governed by a different state statute (Chapter 267). He Page 7 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING reiterated that a special transportation service district would be the applicable formation process to follow and the fees to be charged would be a tax rather than a fee. He stated that if it was assumed that the SDC is an appropriate mechanism, then there is a lack of equity since that interchange has been poor for many years. He argued that property is treated differently between the interchange area and the east side of town even though the undeveloped land outside of the interchange area uses that same intersection and could generate the same or more peak hour trips. Under the proposed methodology, the property within the interchange district is treated differently because of its location and those properties outside of the district get to use the interchange but do not have to pay the additional charge. It is his belief that the proposed SDC is not a fair and equitable charge. He also felt that there were some problems with the rationale in the text since ORS 223 requires there to be substantial evidence and adequate findings and, if appealed, Circuit Court looks at evidentiary support for what has been done. He felt that some of the assumptions that were made may not be explained enough to substantiate findings. If the IDC is eliminated from this mix and it is spread over entire city, then an equitable charge would be applied to all undeveloped property. If the Council will not eliminate the IDC, then he requested that the interchange district pay only one of the two charges which may be the IDC instead of the SDC. 1874 Public Works Manager Rohman stated that the IDC was looked at very carefully and there is nothing that prohibits the two different charges since, in the interchange management area, it is just one fee composed of two different components. The Transportation System Plan looked at land outside of the urban growth boundary but within the proposed urban growth boundary expansion. The City will only be able to collect fees on property that has been annexed into the City and development approval given. Councilor Cox question if any of this property that is outside of the city limits but within the urban growth boundary that is within the IDC will be developed in the County. Public Works Manager Rohman stated that someone could develop property in the County but he does not see that happening since the property in the County does not have any utility services available. A proposal could be made to the County but they are aware of this being an expansion area and, as a practical matter, did not see development happening in the IDC area. Councilor Cox stated that a comment was made that property that was re-developed does not pay but it was his understanding that re-developed property would pay if a change in use would generate more traffic then it would pay the difference between the prior use and the new use. Manager Rohman confirmed that a developer maintained the same use with the same square footage would not pay additional SDC's, however, property re-developed by changing the use but maintaining the same square footage would pay the difference between the two uses. Councilor Cox stated that any change in use would have to come before the City for Page 8 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING approval through the site development review process and, if there is an additional traffic load imposed by the proposed development, then the City would be collecting the difference at the time the development occurs. He stated that he is willing to adopt this document except for the legal issues Mr. Lien has raised and he is not prepared to disregard the arguments. He would like City Attorney Shields to look at this issue very carefully and provide a report before it is brought to the Council for final consideration. If it is determined that some other procedure is necessary, he would want the Council to follow the other procedure. He also stated that the Council could authorize staff to draft an ordinance but, before actual adoption, a report from the City Attorney be provided. In regards to the suggestion of leaving the IDC off the table at this time and start implementing the SDC's, he stated that he could foresee problems with authorizing one but not the other in that the Council would need to go back and raise the city-wide SDC's and it was his feeling that it should be done as a package at this time. 2120 John Donaldson, Capital Development, stated that his attorney identified a number of technical issues that need further Council consideration. He stated that his company is willing and eager to pay at least their share of SDC's and willing to pay more than their share but they do not need to pay for one-half of the project which would, in effect, be what the City would have them do if the proposed fees are enacted. He stated that on a 40-acre project, they have the ability to add a significantly large number of additional stores. They had also provided Public Works Manager Rohman with a buildout of significant office complex units in this area that, at one point, totaled up to $15 million in fees if they were calculated the way the City has them. In another project that did a mix of property calculated to $6-$7 million in fees. In his opinion, there is an inherent, unfair imposition placed on them and he requested the Council not to close the door on opportunities for jobs, further growth within the City, and goods and services that can be provided to the community. Lastly, he did not know the rationale for getting this completed but stated that there may be other things they can do to help the City in this process if they had the ability to negotiate an amount of their fair share up front or possibly make quarterly payments before any development ever occurs. He reiterated that they want to be a good corporate citizen and are willing to pay more than their share but are asking for some help from the City. Mark Wolf, Woodburn, stated for the record that the comments he is making at this hearing reflect his views and not that of the Chamber of Commerce. He stated that he had no knowledge of the hearing that was held last month even though he is one of the larger property owners in this City. As a developer of property in multiple states and Asia, he spends a lot of time out of town but was unaware of the issue before the Council until he saw a local newspaper article. He is very well aware of fees charged by different jurisdictions and he considers SDC charges as a total package of all government fees and into the cost of holding property. He has heard that Woodburn ranks 3`d worst in the State of Oregon and he would argue that, with all of the fees, Woodburn is the last. He Page 9 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING referred to the system development charges document that was prepared by the League of Oregon Cities that talks about Woodburn. In his opinion, there are a lot of great businesses in Woodburn that are struggling to survive due, in part, to up-front costs much of which are passed on to the businesses by developers. He stated that he pays over $200,000 annually in real estate taxes on two shopping centers he has in Woodburn. His company looks at which towns to due business in and he understands that fees need to be assessed to meet obligations but they are driven by market forces and rents, cost of land, and system development fees are important to them. He cited different types of businesses he has wanted to put into Woodburn but has not done it because of the fees charged by the City. He stated that many different well-known businesses will not come to Woodburn because of fees and because of, what they feel along with himself, an unwelcome sign for business. With the upcoming election, he encouraged the public to become involved in the upcoming election. 2414 David Christoff, Woodburn, thanked City Administrator Brown for 10 years service and for the improvements he has made to our community. In regards to the proposed charges, he felt that it was wisdom on Councilor Cox's part to take in as much as they can and it would be wiser to get it done right rather than just to get it done. Councilor McCallum questioned if City Attorney had time to research the issues presented. City Attorney Shields stated that he had just been served with the memo and his reaction is similar to Manager Rohman's comments. However, he did feel that it would be prudent to look at any legal issues that have been raised. Since this is not a land use hearing, notice was given as required under the state statute and the Council continued the hearing to this meeting. The Council could close hearing at this meeting and give the staff some direction but no ordinance with the methodology and findings attached to it would be in effect unless it is adopted. He stated that the initial distinction he sees between a district and this issue is that this is a fee and no money for an SDC fee or charge is imposed until it is developed. On the other hand, a special district asserts jurisdiction outside of the jurisdiction. 2525 Councilor Cox stated that, as a legislative matter, the City has the power to look at documents from any source even though the hearing may be closed. He cited as an example whereby Attorney Lien could provide the Council with a report from a Traffic Engineer then the Council could review that report before any action is taken. Attorney Shields agreed that documents can be reviewed even after the close of the hearing. He stated that the SDC Statute tacks the writ of review onto to this but he feels that it is a legislative matter and the Council could look at material. presented. 2585 With no other individuals within the audience wishing to comment on the issue, Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 8:26 pm. Councilor Bjelland felt that one issue to be addressed is the equity issue on how the City arrived at an allocation of the $5.5 million within the TIF process for payment towards the improvement of the I-5 interchange. He stated that, In looking at past history in Page 10 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING attempting to equitably distribute costs to benefitting properties, the City often looked at not exactly everyone paying the same but how the benefit flows to the different properties involved. It should be very clear that those in the interchange district would benefit more from the improvement of the interchange than improvements to Highway 99E, therefore, those property owners receive a greater benefit and there should be some allocation of an additional cost involved with the total traffic impact fee. Since the City has to work with a given amount of dollars to fund all infrastructure needs through 2020 from increased growth within the City and if that allocation process was eliminated, the City can only change the total amount of dollars by reducing the projects to meet infrastructure needs or for those infrastructure projects to come in at a lower costs. Assuming the costs do not change and costs are reallocated, then everyone else in the City developing property would see SDC fees higher than what is proposed. He stated that he had wrestled with the 50/50 split and, in his opinion, there appears to be a reasonable allocation of benefits. He referred to the three projects presented by Mr. Donaldson and, even with the increased amount since his projects fall within the interchange management area, one project increased by 1%, one project increased by 25°Io, and the third project decreased. The Council felt that the peak hour trip process is a more appropriate way of allocating costs to those businesses that are going to be expanding and providing greater traffic volume onto the City's system, therefore needing additional improvements to the City's traffic infrastructure. He stated that not everyone will be a winner in this type of situation and it is incumbent upon the Council to most equitably distribute those costs in a fair manner. He stated that he feels comfortable in the methodology that has been used to arrive at these costs and, admittedly they would like to have all SDC's (water, sewer, traffic, storm water, parks, schools) lower, but there is also an obligation to make sure that people requiring more infrastructure within the City are paying their fair share and not putting the burden on those people who are already here. Cities that have high SDC's are primarily those cities that are growing and have new infrastructure needs over the next 15-20 years. A need exists and yet people are reluctant to, and object to, paying for these improvements and the Council has to attempt to balance all of those issues to pay for future costs to support Woodburn's future. Councilor Lonergan agreed with comments made by Councilor Bjelland and reminded the public that the methodology has not been changed since 1999. In his opinion, the proposed methodology seems to be a fair and equitable solution . In looking at the comparative analysis with other cities, it appears that Woodburn fits in with what others are charging. Councilor McCallum also concurred with statements made by the Councilors. As pointed out earlier, the Council can still take a look at this issue before an ordinance is adopted. Councilor Cox stated that Woodburn, as in any growing City, has a huge need for improvement of public infrastructure and Woodburn needs road improvements. Money to pay for these improvements cannot come from general taxes since there would be no Page 11 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING voter support. Developers will need to pay increased fees to fund improvements. He stated that he was sorry if these fees price Woodburn property out of the markets that might otherwise be there but he felt that it would be irresponsible on the Council's part to not raise the SDC fees and let everyone develop anyhow without providing the money to pay for the improvements that a development would require and benefit from as an added load on the City's public facilities. The Council wants to be responsible and equitable about this issue and, in his opinion, the report in which the consultants, staff, and Council has wrestled with for many months does about as good a good of job that could be done under the circumstances. He is prepared to vote for this unless the City Attorney provides a report that is different based on review of Attorney Lien's memo. Mayor Figley stated that Woodburn is one of the first cities in the State of Oregon who has been required to pay a significant share of the interchange improvements if the City ever wants the interchange improved. The City's share needs to be paid in some manner and they cannot come from the general taxpayer in our community. She feels that the logic that came into the additional charge for interchange area development has to do with the fact that businesses locate there for the visibility or freeway access. Those who are not as concerned about that visibility can locate along Highway 99E or Highway 214. The City will be required to pay $8 million toward interchange improvements and those costs should not be sacrificed from general fund services to residents or businesses already here in Woodburn rather these costs need to come from growth. Councilor Bjelland stated that the Woodburn interchange was the first one in State of Oregon to have the interchange management district applied which is why there are not other incidences of having that occurred in the past. Because of Woodburn being the first one to do this, we have improved Woodburn's chance of getting the interchange funded over many other communities who also want to improve their interchange area. He also stated that State transportation dollars are very scarce at this time but when dollars do become available, Woodburn will have a much better chance of having our interchange improved over other communities. He stated that having the interchange improved is critical to the future economic development of Woodburn. COX/MCCALLUM... approve the proposed methodology in amounts for the increase in the system development charges which has been the subject of this hearing and instruct staff to bring back an appropriate ordinance or resolution on this matter. Councilor Bjelland stated that he would assume that the City Attorney will take an opportunity to research the legal issues that have been raised to make sure that the Council is on sound footing if they elect to move forward with the ordinance. Attorney Shields stated that he will be looking at the legal issues brought forth and the ordinance will be made available to them for review prior to Council consideration of any final action. Also, interested members of the public will be given an opportunity to comment when it comes before the Council. Councilor Cox stated that his motion did not set a time limit but he would assume that staff would act as soon as they can on this issue. Page 12 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING Attorney Shields stated that legal issues do need to be looked at and the document will include findings to substantiate their decision. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. 3308 COUNCIL BILL N0.2701-ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS OF COUNTRY CLUB ROAD BETWEEN BOONES FERRY ROAD AND ASTOR WAY. Councilor Cox introduced Council Bill No. 2701. The two readings of the bill were read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 2701 duly passed. 3358 COUNCIL BILL N0.2702 -ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS OF WEST LINCOLN STREET BETWEEN CASCADE DRIVE AND LEASURE STREET. Council Bill No. 2702 was introduced by Councilor Cox. Recorder Tennant read the two readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 2702 duly passed. 3402 COUNCIL BILL N0.2703 -ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1965 (THE SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICES ORDINANCE) TO PROVIDE FOR NEW DISCONNECTION PROCEDURES AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilor Cox introduced Council Bill No. 2703. The two readings of the bill were read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. It was noted that the effective date of this ordinance is May 1, 2008. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 2703 duly passed. 3367 COUNCIL BILL N0.2704 -ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE N0.2368 (THE 2004-05 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE); ADOPTING THE 2007-08 REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES• PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF SAID FEE SCHEDULE• AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilor Cox introduced Council Bill No. 2704. Recorder Tennant read the two readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. City Attorney Shields stated that the recommendation on the agenda does not match the one in the staff report and there is a state statute (294.160) that says that the City does not have to have a public hearing but public comment should be asked for when fees are Page 13 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING proposed to be raised. Mayor Figley stated that the proposed ordinance would increase the fee schedules in all departments. It is a fairly lengthy document and did not know how many people have had the time to look at the document in order to express an opinion or viewpoint but she wanted to offer the audience an opportunity to anyone who would like to make a statement. She stated that it has been the City's philosophy to try to have a lot of services pay for themselves and what is subsidized is frequently in the arena of services for youth and sometimes for other services which the Council believes should have some subsidy. Don Judson, Chamber Executive Director, stated that no one in the Chamber has had an opportunity to look at this ordinance, therefore it is difficult to have public comment. It may or may not be significant but he hoped in the future the Chamber would receive a copy of the agenda so that their members can have an opportunity to look at items up for review . Mayor Figley stated that most of the fees have a nominal increase primarily to account for labor and service costs. Councilor McCallum questioned if the Chamber was on the mailing list for agenda materials. Mr. Judson stated that he did not receive anything in the mail. John Gervais, Woodburn Independent, stated that he does not receive anything until Friday afternoon prior to the Monday Council meeting. Mayor Figley reiterated that a lot of the fee increases are basic fees for services and are mostly nominal changes due to cost of the living. Councilor Bjelland took issue with the Mayor's statement in that he did not feel that the proposed planning and development fees were nominal. He questioned staff as to how the current cost of service was arrived at for some of these fees since some of them are at 33% rather than 100% current cost and he wondered if the City has seen 3 times the cost of providing these services over the last 3 years or if there was some other method used to determine the cost. Finance Director Gillespie stated that the methodology in calculating the cost of service is the same method used over last 4 or 5 years. Managers estimate how long it takes for a certain class of employee on a specific fee, an extension on the number of hours times hourly rate is calculated to apply labor costs, then factors are applied to account for supplies and capital that looks at the budget and how supplies relate to labor for any given division. These numbers are added together to come up with a fee that accounts for 100% of the City's cost to process a specific fee. The Planning area has some major changes in the proposed fees. When the last fee schedule was approved in 2004, the Council decided not to charge 100% for those planning fees. In this fee schedule, staff went back to the Council's direction given in 1999 that said that the Council would like to have the planning fees be self-supporting. Councilor Lonergan questioned as to how staff communicates, if any, to the Council during the course of year if a fee may be too high and may need to be reviewed to Page 14 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING determine if any change should be considered by the Council. Director Gillespie stated that in the parks division, staff tries to set the fees to reflect market conditions and, cited for example, the aquatic center fees which have fees similar to those in the area . He stated that trying to judge where the price point is can be very hard and staff has been trying to find where the demand is to try and maximize the revenue. City Administrator Brown stated that the Community Services department is now offering discounts on different kinds of fees and programs as a marketing tool to see if it makes a difference in volume of users. During the year, any one of the City's department heads can come in to talk about changing their fees either up or down as well as proposing creative means of addressing the demand part of the curve. In respect to the planning fees, it has always been acknowledged that those fees are high but the Council has also talked about the price of development paying for itself and not having certain benefits paid for by the general taxpayer. The Council has been swayed by arguments about small projects paying a disproportionate share of a fee charge and the fee schedule has been adjusted to slide a little in this regards before it goes off of the methodology and equity that it is intended to be. He stated that the proposed fee schedule goes back to setting a fee to recover costs. Councilor Cox stated that all fees are nominal and in line with inflationary trends except for planning fees and he has a lot of sticker shock on those proposed fees. Therefore, he will be voting no on this ordinance so that it will not be put it into effect as of this meeting. He agreed with Mr. Judson that people need to be alerted that the fees are going up. He cited an example of a simple variance fee which would cost under the proposed schedule $3,474 whereas before it was $1,769. He realizes that the City would like to recover as much as possible and people getting the benefit should have to pay for it. When talking about the kinds of applications that Community Development deals with, no two applications are exactly alike and these estimates for cost of service are very rough and cannot be applied to all categories. He is also inclined to think that the City may not want to get 100% recovery because part of what the City is doing is not for the benefit of that particular piece of property at all rather it is for benefit of the public as a whole where the City is trying to protect the quality of development that goes on in our community and to enforce our laws. It may be that the public as a whole should pay for a portion of the cost if they want the Council to preserve the quality of things that go on within the City. He stated that he is not criticizing the Community Development Department but feels that he needs more information before he would agree with those fees. Councilor Bjelland stated that he has similar concerns and different kinds of variances require the planning department to go through a series of steps in order to justify approval of a variance. He did not know if there are different classifications of variances such as a minor variance or a major variance thereby having two different fee structures supporting those applications. The issue of variances has come up before and it was determined that Page 15 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING it was high at that time and now the proposed ordinance would double the amount again. He felt that it would be worthwhile to find out if there could be some way of classifying variances that would allow for a tiered pricing structure. 4088 Administrator Brown stated that staff has been through this exercise in the past to try and establish a sliding scale and they are willing to look at it again. There are some fees that are included in this ordinance that staff would like to see adopted soon and cited the previous agenda item which set some water fees that would go into effect May 1, 2008. If the concern is focused solely on the planning fees, he suggested that those fees be pulled out and the ordinance be amended to not address those at this time and staff can then be given an opportunity to take a look at adjusting the planning fees to address public benefit. COX/NICHOLS.... amend Council Bill No. 2704 by deleting agenda pages 80, 81, and 82 from the fee' schedule attached . The motion passed unanimously. On roll all vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously as amended. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 2704 duly passed. 4174 COUNCIL BILL N0.2705 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF OPERATING CONTINGENCY APPROPRIATIONS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2007-08. Council Bill No. 2705 was introduced by Councilor Cox. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 2705 duly passed. 4213 TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT. Don Judson, Chamber Executive Director, stated that one of his challenges has been to make sense out of the tourism funding. As the Woodburn Area Chamber of Commerce, they have members outside of Woodburn thereby forming a regional tourism makes sense to the Chamber. He stated that their proposal is fora 3-year plan to use Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) funds as seed money to create the regional tourism organization to be known as WAVA (Woodburn Area Visitor's Association). In reviewing budget information for Fiscal Year 2008-09, the City estimates TOT revenues of $215,000 and, in the budget document, it indicates that one-third of that revenue (approximately $70,000) is available for grant disbursement. He stated that their request is for $44,000 which is an amount similar to what has been received over the last several years. His intent is to prove to the Council what that they can do with those funds. The Visitor's Center will have to pay someone to oversee the facility operations and a portion of the grants funds will be used to pay for this service. There are also costs to be incurred for brochures, itineraries, and other tourism publications. A report will be provided to the Council at the end of first year to show what has been done at the Center. They will then evaluate at the end of year two and three to check on the status of the visitor's center. Once they have been able to show the value of WAVA, he believes that they will see Page 16 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING other businesses and organizations outside of Woodburn willing to contribute to WAVA. He reiterated that the TOT funds would be used as tourism seed money in a separate organization under the auspice of the Chamber. Councilor McCallum questioned how many of the other Woodburn area businesses contributed towards tourism in years past or are prepared to do it now because they think it is valuable. Mr. Judson stated that the Chamber has had some organizations pay to have their brochures at the Visitor's Center but this has been a nominal amount. The Chamber has not gone out to get operational support and they have just used TOT funds for operations. Once WAVA gets started, they will be going out to talk to other Chambers and some businesses on their tourism committee to see if they would like to be a member of WAVA. He cited an example whereby some companies would like to be a part of the Visitor Guide but have no reason to join the Chamber. Results will be reported to the Council annually so that the Council can see a financial report along with the impacts the Center has had on businesses within the community. Councilor McCallum questioned who would overlook WAVA. Mr. Judson stated that the Chamber's Vice President of Tourism, Darcy Ruef from Al's, will be overlooking WAVA activities until he gets back in October. Councilor McCallum questioned if this particular procedure follows the established guidelines for awarding TOT funds. City Administrator Brown stated that if the Council is interested in deviating from the procedure followed in the past then the Council needs to make amendments to both the ordinance and guidelines that were previously adopted. In both documents, the word "competitive" would be removed or the Council would allow themselves the option of a competitive or direct allocation to one or more organizations. He felt that a policy decision should be made before April 1, 2008 since that is the date that the Council will be moving forward with a competitive proposal process. Councilor Cox stated that the amount requested by the Chamber is about 60°Io of the tourism portion of the TOT. Administrator Brown stated that TOT is divided into 9th's whereby 3/9th's is dedicated to tourism and economic development. One-ninth (1/9th) stays with the City with the other 2/9th's allocated out through the grant. Of the $70,000 mentioned previously, only about $48,000 are funds that would be awarded as grants. The balance of the funds are used for various City activities such as the July 4"' Fireworks and regional tourism promotion. Councilor Bjelland questioned if a budgetary issue is involved if a grant award is made for subsequent years since funds are budgeted for on a fiscal year budget cycle. Administrator Brown stated that he was not aware of any problems and each year the City would need to re-budget funds in order to meet budget law requirements. He did not see any problem with funding this proposal because it does seek to diminish the amount that Page 17 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING it is asking for each year. Language in the grants should state that the actual amount distributed on the basis of what is collected. Except for one year, the collections have always been at what was projected and, even in the year it did not meet projected, the City distributed what had been asked for. He suggested that City should still retain the right to distribute what has been received rather than meeting a specific commitment amount. Mayor Figley stated that the larger commitment will reduce funds that might otherwise be used to promote economic development within the City. Even though she is supportive of tourism ,she did not want to sacrifice other opportunities if all funds are dedicated to one source. Councilor McCallum questioned the cost to operate the Visitor's Center. Mr. Judson stated that, in this first year, they have budgeted $18,000 to hire a person to work 20 hours per week to operate the Visitor's Center with the balance towards brochures and other operational expenses. The staff member will also be coordinating volunteers to be at the facility during hours of operation. He stated that the Chamber believes tourism is a part of economic development which is another subject to be discussing with the Council in the future. He stated that there are ways to make money on tourism with the type of attractions that are within our local area. Deb Yager, Chamber President, stated that they believe WAVA will begin to bridge the disconnect that they feel is between Council and business with the Council being blamed for not being business friendly and the Chamber being blamed for not being concerned for livability in Woodburn. One of the things they look forward to in WAVA is a true partnership between the Chamber and the City and to see viable results that will benefit the livability of Woodburn by bringing in dollars, supporting daily itineraries, trips that are either overnight in nature that will take visitors to not only take them to the outlying areas of Woodburn but would also keep dollars spent within Woodburn. Councilor Nichols questioned if a Board member oversees tourism and economic development. Ms. Yager stated that tourism falls under the responsibilities of Darcy Ruef as Vice President. There will be an actual board formed with WAVA that will be a sub- committee of the Chamber but WAVA will have separate financial accounting. They will also be looking for WAVA memberhip and support outside of Woodburn but the grant funds will provide the seed money to get this program started. She reiterated that they will be looking for regional exposure plus some cooperative itineraries to encompass a theme. Events and locations advertised include the Tulip Festival, OGA golf course, drag strips, and nurseries. Councilor McCallum expressed concern with the potential lack of travelers due to current economic times. He also expressed concern about having a competitive process in the past and felt that organizations should continue to have an opportunity to apply for grant funds. Mayor Figley stated that staff did receive some information on who has received grant Page 18 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING funds in the past and feels that it is realistic that other organizations might apply if funds were available. 1VIr. Judson stated that this was one reason why they had shown in their proposal a decreasing amount of TOT funds. This puts the pressure on the Chamber in that they will have to go out and raise money if WAVA is to meet their budget. They also recognize that it is hard to commit for three years but it is also hard to plan for tourism if you do not know if you have any money at all in the following year. Their goal is to have an idea as to what they will have for a budget knowing that they will have to raise half of the revenue at some point. Councilor McCallum stated that they may still need to be in a competitive process for future years if the results do not warrant future dollars. Mr. Judson realized that results are not always what one would envision but they are looking for a partnership to try and make this project work. He briefly cited the statistics on the number of visitors to our community and their goal is to try and figure out how these visitors can stay in our community and provide some tourism dollars to the local businesses. In regards to the WAVA budget, there will be a large first year expense in developing and printing brochures with future years be a lesser expense since only dates or minor changes will be made to the brochures. Councilor Cox stated that he would be willing to commit $44,000 this year without the competitive process because he believes that the Chamber has performed a valuable service in the past and, despite some of the problems they have had, they have been very responsible about facing those problems and moving forward. He was not prepared to make a legal commitment to continue for years 2 or 3 but is willing to make a morale commitment in that if results are as good as predicted, then the Chamber could plan on his support. Councilor Nichols felt that some type of assurance should be given for the second year. He stated that the Chamber is more active in their businesses to try and get them moving, they support each other, and have support from businesses from outside of the area. He expressed his feeling that the Council should guarantee them something for the second year and was confident that they would show the Council that the Center is worth funding with TOT funds. Councilor McCallum stated that if things work out then the money will be there for the Chamber. He also stated that he would like to see other organizations be at least in a competitive situation for some tourism funding. He expressed his desire for the City and Chamber to work together on this issue and to look at economic development. Mr. Judson stated that the Chamber is re-forming their economic development committee but he would like to get the Visitor's Center project started first since they feel that tourism is important to our community. He stated that he would like a commitment towards tourism but he also realized that if they are not doing a good job then funds may not be allocated in future years. Councilor Bjelland stated that he is very supportive of the effort and, given the fact that Page 19 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING the City Administrator will soon be leaving and an interim Administrator will be appointed, he is supportive of anon-competitive grant for this year. He also feels an obligation to continue support in the future provided that it continues to be successful. TOT dollars are coming from tourists and the Council needs to see that a significant portion of those dollars go back to continue increasing tourism within the area. Councilor Lonergan stated that the City has given the Chamber $40,000 each year over the last 6 years and he strongly encouraged the Council to continue funding their tourism program. He would also like to strength relationship between the City and Chamber and go for the three year commitment. Councilor McCallum stated that the City has given the Chamber almost $250,000 over last 6 years but he would like to see what one year will provide before further dollars are committed. 5715 COX/MCCALLUM... approve a grant from the TOT funds of $44,000 for fiscal year 2008-09 subject to availability of funds collected and instruct staff to take a look at the City ordinance and regulations on anon-competitive basis and any amendments that are required to accomplish that legally be brought back to the Council in due course and he suggested that it would be helpful if the division between economic development and tourism be more flexible from year to year. The motion passed unanimously. City Administrator stated that the way the money has actually been distributed is through a fee for services contract which has been on the basis of reimbursement of costs. Part of this proposal has to do with giving the money up-front rather than reimbursement so that they have some money to work with since this is a new organization. He assumed that the Council would still want a contract with the Chamber and some amendments would be made to the guidelines and contract in eliminating the reimbursement clause. 5859 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A) Administrator Brown reported that five recruitment firms had returned proposals and it appears that there are 3 fully responsive proposals with some provisions regarding interim administrator services as part of the proposals. He did not see a clear winner and will most likely require some additional discussion with them through an interview process. Mayor Figley stated that she would like some assistance from one or two Councilors to go through the proposals with the City Administrator, Assistant City Administrator, and herself over the next couple of weeks. Councilors Lonergan and Bjelland stated that they would be willing to review the proposals. B) Administrator Brown expressed his thanks to the community for their support over the years. 6059 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. Page 20 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING Councilor Nichols expressed his pleasure in working with Administrator Brown and stated that he will be missed within the City's organization. He also thanked the Council for supporting the Chamber on the tourism project but he firmly believes that the Chamber now has a handle on this project and the City will see a lot growth from them. Councilor Lonergan also wished Administrator Brown the best for the future. He mentioned that the two trees on Second Street which recently came up before the council had been removed and both trees had diseased stumps. A maple tree that was over 100 years old was just recently removed on Third Street but this tree was located just outside of the right-of-way. He thanked Police Officer Williams who looked up the code and found that the property owners had the right to take the tree down since it was inside the property line. He stated that it was also found that the tree was rotten. He would rather see these old trees still standing since they are a part of Woodburn's history and the downtown. He also knows that there is an effort to try and preserve these historical trees but did not feel that there is an answer to this issue. Councilor McCallum stated that following a process is necessary but also reminded the public that residents have a stewardship which needs to be kept in mind. He thanked Public Works Director Brown for his Friday Facts which provides one more way of keeping the Council informed. He also stated that he will miss Administrator Brown but is also glad that the City has great management staff and is a little less worried until such time as a new Administrator is hired. Councilor Bjelland stated that Administrator Brown's shoes will be hard to fill and he hoped that the City will be able to attract someone that will be able to do anything close as to what he has done for the City. He expressed his appreciation to Administrator Brown for everything he has done over the past 10 years. Councilor Cox stated that he will be out of town on John Brown Day but he has made arrangements to have lunch with Administrator Brown in lieu of attending the reception. He stated that he shared everybody else's feelings about what a valuable man and good friend he has been. Mayor Figley concurred with comments made and stated that he will be truly missed. She wished him the very best and stated that Woodburn is a better community for having him as City Administrator. 6399 AD.TOURNMENT. MCCALLUM/LONERGAN... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm. Page 21 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 1 u, Suva COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2008 TAPE READING ATTEST Mary Te t, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 22 -Council Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008