Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda - 09/08/2008
CITY O F W 00 D B U R N KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR WALTER NICHOLS, COUNCILOR WARD 1 RICHARD BJELLAND, COUNCILOR WARD II AG EN DA C C PETER MCCALLUM, COUNCILOR WARD III OU N C I L ITY JAMES COX, COUNCILOR WARD IV FRANK LONERGAN, COUNCILOR WARD V p SEPTEMBER H, ZOOS ~ 7.00 P.M. ELIDA SIFUENTEZ, COUNCILOR WARD VI CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 270 MONTGOMERY STREET 1. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE 2. ROLL CALL 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: A. Viva La Independencia September 13 & 14 from noon - 8:00 p.m. at the Downtown Plaza. B. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Draft Recommendation Presentation will be held on September 9 at 6:30 pm in the Council Chambers prior to the Recreation and Parks Board meeting. C. Public Hearing on the Annexation of Certain Property Located at 2400 North Pacific Hwy and Identified on Marion County Tax Assessor's Maps as tax lot O51 W08A05000, September 22 at 7:00 p.m. Appointments: G. None 4. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Proclamations: A. None. Presentations: B. None. 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. Chamber of Commerce B. Woodburn School District 6. COMMUNICATIONS A. None. ''Habra interpreter aisponi6fes Para aque[[as personas que no ~jab~an Ing[es, previo acuerdo. Comuniquese a~ (5o3) 980-2485... September 8, 2008 Council Agenda Page i 7. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC -This allows the public to introduce items for Covncil consideration not already scheduled on the agenda. 8. CONSENT AGENDA -Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and maybe enacted by one motion. Any item maybe removed for discussion at the request of a Council member. A. Woodburn City Council minutes of August 11, 2008, regular and executive session Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. B. Woodburn City Council minutes of August 14, 2008, special and executive session Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. C. Woodburn City Council minutes of August 25, 2008, special and executive session Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. D. Woodburn City Council minutes of August 28, 2008, special and executive session Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. E. LOC Efforts Regarding Telecommunications Franchises Recommended Action: Receive the report. F. Claims for July 2008 Recommended Action: Receive the report. G. Building Activity Report dated August 4, 2008 Recommended Action: Receive the report. H. Termination of Community Development Director Contract Recommended Action: Receive the report. I. Information on Garbage Franchise Rate Analysis Recommended Action: Receive the report. J. Community Services July 2008 Statistics Recommended Action: Receive the report. September 8, 2008 Council Agenda Page ii 9. TABLED BUSINESS A. Council Bill 2735 - A Resolution Approving An Adjusted Rate Schedule And Fuel Recovery Fee Surcharge For United Disposal Service, Inc; Setting An Effective Date; And Repealing Resolutions 1833 And 1843. Recommended Action: It is recommended the City Council consider the resolution. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Gottsacker Measure 49 claim and Vested Rights determination Recommended Action: After conducting a public hearing, direct staff to prepare an order for adoption: (1) Finding Claimant is not entitled to relief under Measure 49 Section 9, and (2) Denying the claim of common law vested rights in regards to the subject property. 11. GENERAL BUSINESS -Members of the public wishing to comment on items of general business must complete and submit a speaker's card to the City Recorder prior to commencing this portion of the Council's agenda. Comment time may be limited by Mayoral prerogative. A. Council Bill 2739 -Adoption of Habitable Rental Housing Ordinance Recommended Action: Approve the attached proposed ordinance providing for standards for rental property livability and enacting penalties for failure to comply with the standards. B. Council Bill 2740 -Adoption of a resolution regarding the appeal of cases 2008-01 and EXCP 2008-03, for Woodburn Crossing development located at the northeast corner of Evergreen Road and Highway 214 Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution approving the land use application. C. Council Bill 2741 - A resolution authorizing of the sale of surplus city owned property from tax lot 3400 Recommended Action: Pass the attached resolution authorizing the sale of surplus property. September 8, 2008 Council Agenda Page iii September 8, 2008 Council Agenda Page iv D. Council Bill 2742 - A resolution entering into 2004, 2005, and 2006 Fund Exchange Agreement with ODOT for North Front Street Recommended Action: Approve the attached resolution entering into a 2004, 2005, and 2006 Fund Exchange Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation for construction of the North Front Street project and authorizing the Interim City Administrator to sign said agreement. E. Council Bill 2743 - Woodburn Development Ordinance Amendments Recommended Action: Approve the attached Ordinance. F. Four Hour Parking Request on N. Fiffh Street Recommended Action: Approve the installation of four hour parking signs on both sides of N. Fifth Street south of Hwy. 214 to the barricade adjacent to the south property line of Nuevo Amanaceer. G. Program Implementation: Police Canine Team Recommended Action: It is recommended the City Council receive the donations and authorize the implementation of a Police canine program. H. Designation of Voting Member at LOC Conference Recommended Action: Designate a City Council Member to attend LOC Conference. I. City Attorney Evaluation Recommended Action: Schedule annual evaluation date. 12. PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS -These are Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that maybe called up by the City Council. A. None. 13. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 14. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION A. To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor negotiations pursuant to ORS 192.660(2) (d). September 8, 2008 Council Agenda Page v 16. ADJOURNMENT September 8, 2008 Council Agenda Page vi COLNCtL ~1EETING 1~~II:i\i L'TES AL'tiL?ST ll, T008 "1`.~l' RE~DI'.tiG (}l)()1 D:~TE. CC}G'rC`II. CHAlIBERS, t:I'C~' H:~I,I., CITY OF «'OODB[Rti, C'f)t`~iTlr` OF ~~IARIOIti, ST~T>l:/ OF OREC~O~, :~G~;L'ST l 1, 2408. COtiti'E~IED. "I`he meeting convezzed at ?;{)f} p.n~. with 1~layor Figley presiding. ~}()l~ ROLL CALL. Mayor f~ igley Present Councilor 13jelland Present C: ouncilor Cox Prescrit Councilor I.onergan Present Councilor ~'vlcCalluzn Present Councilor ?~ichols Present Couzrr i Iczr Si fuenter Present Staff Present: Interim Administrator Russell, City Attorney Shields, Assistant C: ity .'administrator Stevens, C'omnlunity C)e~-elopn~ent :Director Allen, Public 1~~'orks I)ir4ctor Brown, Police C.'aptain Tennant, C'onirrzunity Serti•ices Direetczr Ro~v, Finance Director Gillespie, City Recorder Tennant {)(}j? ?-tii>tiC3L1iC'F;x~IE~i`TS, .~) Music in thr; Park: Golden Bough will perfc}z-n~ on ~u~tzst 12`'' azid Is~licidadc:s dill perform orz :~.ugust l~'~. Perfonzlances ~~~ill begitz at 7;(}0 p.n~. in Library Park. B} Regular City Council meeting scheduled for August 2Z, 2t)(}8 is cancelled subject to C'our~cil approval fAgenrla Rena 1€l-(i). C}The tiling period for 14~layor and. Council positions ozz the November ~, ~OQB generzl election ballot L~~ill close on August. 26, 2{)C18 at 3:~t) p.m.. Positions open are'Mayvr, Councilor V~r'ard 1, Councilor ~~Vard ll, azzd Councilor Ward ~'I. Inditi~iduals interested in filing for office; are encozrraged to begin the nomination procedure process no later than :'august ?tl`" in order to got all of the necessary documents filed by the Augzzst 2C~;" cleadiine. Filing inforntation and forms can be obtained at the City Recorder's office during regular Lousiness hours. {_tl f~3 PRESirNTATION: C'FRTIFICAT' E OF ACC01~1Pi.iSli~iENT TO JOSHtA >FOY. :Mayor Figley a«-arded a Certificate of Accomplishment to 14-year old Joshua F~}x ~~ha represented the ti'4'oodburn School. District at the National ~'oung Leaders State Conference and went on to become a rcpreser3tative to the Congressional ~'outh Leadership Conference. I-le has now been invited to attend the Presidential Youth Inaugural Conference including the Presidential Inauguration. Size thanked. him for representing the Vt'oodl~urn community, recognized hint for his achievement, and ti~ isheci Izim t~-el1 on his trip to t~'4'ashington, D.C.. Page 1 -Council .Meeting Minzrtes, August 11, ?O()~ Page 1 COL'tiC'il.. ~IEET[tiG ~liti CITES ~,L'C;L'ST 11, ZQOB T,~I'I/ RE:'~17I'~Ci {l~'y~ PRESEtiTAT[O?ti: t~'<~L-~1~,RT DOti:?~TION TO POI,TCE k-9 I'ROGRAII. Interim ~dzninistratnr Russell stated that the Police Department had a K-~ program up until about ~ years ago ~~-hen the dog retired and. the laudgetary fcznding did not allow for replacement nfthe dog, cgczipmezzt, or required training. Vv'ithin the last. fe~~ n~znnths, C}ffzcer Zack Williams has been izltcrested in rcvitahcing the prngran~ and, with the help oCthe 1~'if`ondbtzrn Police ~.ssnciatinn, has been working on obtaining donations frvzn ~~arinus local sources to fund. this program. Ne introduced Scott Gavik and 1~Iegan Arthur frz~z31 t~'al'~~art ~ti-ho lzad a presentation to make to the City. ;~cott Gac~ik, t~b'a1?~~Iart '~lanagcr, stated that (:)fficer t'4'illiarns had apprcaac:Iled him <z feu months ago about re~~italizing the K-r) program and, as a supporter of work done by Pnliee CJl~fzcers, he began r~~nz-king ~~,~ith ;Megan :~rthur ~vhn ~;°c~rked nut of l~'aliVlart's '~~Iarketing nClicc to see iCany fu~~ds could be obtained, Cram the ~~'al~~art hnrne office. :~s a reszzlt c7fher efforts. she was able to secure a SICK,{t{}f) donation from ~'4'al'~art ~~~hicll they presented to C}fficer ~'illianzs for tlzc K-r1 program. (~7ffieer ti~'illiams introduced his doff "C: rash" ~~'hn has been purchased through donaticzns by ~'~'al~Iart and other businesses and. c~rgazzizatinns Thrnughrzut the City. l-Ie exlsressed leis apl~reciatinn to the cnmmzznity for their support tuzd stated that thc; next step is for him and C'r<~sl~ to obtain the necessary training and. certifzcatinn within the zlext crauplc of n~znnths sn that they can work on the street ti~~itin the City. C:ouncilnr Cox statccl that a lot o#'sozzrces hay-e donated to this program but tLVn sources that he knn4vs of is (1 i the Knights of Columbus ~vl~o had. a spaghetti feed as a fundraiser and (2) a couple of his clients w-l1n ha~~e wanted to remain annnynznus lave placid in trust funels to be donated to the City Cur this program. FIe reiterated that the money came frnnz zz~ultiplc sn~zrces but V4'a11~Iart dnnatecl the largest amczunt of money ~lziclz lout the donaiinn amount n~°er the aznozzt~t zzccessary to initiate the program. :~9aynr I"igle}' expressed her appreciation to ever~=onc w°ho made this program happen fnr the Police Department and the cozr~munity. ()64)(l C'HA~'tBER OF COttlti'tlr.RC'E REPORT. L7~;b ~'ag~r, Chamber President, refers°ed to the Chamber statistical report for July and stated that the numbers had increased from June 2C}CJ8. In July, the Chamber issued S re- Incatinn packets, had. z~2 ~~isitnrs to the C:lzamber office with t«~n of them beiz3g from outside Qregc~n, and had `',2q{) ~=isitors at the C:nmpanv' Stores t~'isitnrs Information Center l~~ith 97~ ~~isitors from. (Jregnn and the balance from outside Qregon. She stated that it appears that the Chamber is trending about .5° ~ of ever}~° visitor to the Company Stares stopping by the ~f isitnr Inlonnation Center. In regards to cyber hits, they had ~,C~~{) hits «~lzich is up ?,tzta(?hits. The Chamber Forum luncheon ~~°ill begin again in September at Case.ade Park with the meeting date yet to be announced. The «'nodburrz ~~rea'I°nurism is nn-ling; and «~ill officially be called l~~':AT. Christine Fdiek is the new Tourism C'nnrclinatnr and has made groat strides in bringing the l~'istnrs lnfonnation Center tzp to date oza brochures, inforznatiozz, znd rekindling interest. on volunteerism at I~agc ? - Council :Meeting :Minutes, august 11, 2t1{}l Page 2 COU~`CIL I~~EETING ~HNtiTES AUGUST l 1, 2Q08 "l~:'11'E RE.~17i'~G the Center. .'~ volu~lteer appreciation breakfast twill be held on August l6`h at the Senior Estates Grill, lastly, she stated that the Leadership program involves approximately 1 l students from the surrounding school districts and the Chambez' is looking for about 11 or }? adult participants for this program. She mentioned that this leas not just a student rnentoring program, in fact, it is a learning experience for all participants and Christine Edick will also he the Director of this program. 1)847 t~'OODB1[~`RN SCHOOL, DISTRICT REPORT. t~'alt Blomberg, School Superintendent, stated that the adequately yearly progress report relates to students meeting the standards in math, reading and literature. Ile stated that this report not only looks at all students in the school but it takes the students and divides them up into suh-groups of students {36 categories) in ~}~hich they look at reading and math, in addition to atte~~dance and participation rate. Last year, the expectation at the federal level twos that 50°,so of the students would meet the reading benchmark and =~~1~'0 titould meet the math benchmark. The benchmark was raised by l0°% so the benchmarks are nt?ty fi0°~, and S~)"~ respectively with the target being that by the year?(}1=t the: benchmark trill be that all students and sub-groups ~+~ill be at 100"~~. Sind the sr~lall Fligh Schools have only been in existence one year under the state system, they dicl not receite any designation. The K-8 schools each made the benchmarks ifyou looked at all students in t}ie district. '~`ellie Muir School made the benchmark in all students and in all sub- groups measured. Heritage School met all the sub-groups and all studealts in reading but theti were one sub-group short in math. In reyietying the numbers, the lowest number within the School district twos 3l out of ~5 categories met but il~the district does not meet in any one of the 36 categories then the school is designated as not meeting the standards. Ttvo of the sub-groups that ,gave the school the most difficulty are students with disabilities and tin}ited English speaking students. The District continues to work hard to get these stucic~nts up to the level necessary to meet the benchmarks. In regards to the high schools, last year the district saty a 74°~n increase in the number of students making the reading standards and they arc very proud of the progress being made at the small high schools. The ~i'oodburn Arts and Communication Academy and the ~~'oodburn .:academy of Art, Science, and Technology exceeded the State average in readinL and math. In math, the district sate a steady increase in the elementary and middle school levels acid the high school level rose 11" i,. At Lincoln School {S'~ grade students), 77°« of the; st«tlents are meeting the benchmark and exceeding state standards. At Valor Nlidclle School, 77° {, of the "k' graders anti '4"'~, of the 8`~ graders exceeded the state stand~rrds. ~~'hen students return to school this fall, the district will continue to pay special attention tc~ the English langua;=e development and twill continue to tit•ork with students to meet the expectations established under the federal and state standards. Page 3 -Council R~teeting ~'[inutes, August 1 1, ?008 Page 3 CQL'itiCiL ~~EE'1'i~G i~1i'~iT.`-TES A~GL'S'i` 1 i, ZliiiB T:~PP, REt~Di'~(~ 1'_(}~1 COItiSE~iT ,~C;FhDf~. ~~) approve the regular Catmcil meeting minutes of Jtafy l~. 2tlU~, B} approve the Special C'c~uncil mc~`tittg regular and executive sessi~an minutes afJuly lEi, 2{?{)S; C'} approve the Special Council meeting regular and e.~ectttive session tnint~tes ofJufy 1?, 2{)tt~; D} accept the Recreation and Parks Board minutes c~fluly ?2, 20{)$; E} receive the Building <'letivity report for .tiny ~{){tq; rcce:ive the: Planning Project Trackin~s Sltect repart dated :'lugttst ~, ?0{)~; G) receive the Planning C'cunmission minutes of` Jttty 1{~. ?{f()~; H} receive the Planning C,'an~rx~ission i~iinutes aE':tuty 2=f•, '{){~$; I}receive the Crime Stettistics repart f'ar July 2{)()~; J) receive the fade Enfarcemen# Statistics repart far ;tiny 2(}0~; and ti) reeei~e the Community et-~~ices Stabs#ics repart far June 2tlf#S. ~I~'II()I:S/I:t~tiERG,~ti.., adapt the ~'ansent G~genda as presented. 'I'he motio~l passed. una~iimatrsly. 1?<,){} PIBI.IC:' HEriRItiC: C'+DtiSIT1ERATtC}ti dF S~L.E QF' SLRPI.I~S C'f~ l'-C}~~'NED PRQPF.RT~' (Portion afTax I.at 3~OU - Bran Court). ~layar Figley declared the public hearing apen at 7:?~ pm. Put~lic ~~'arks Director Brotti°n stated then staf`f'is proposing the sale afa smafi parcel of land adjacent to the stew park trail head prc3ject parking facility located. at the intersection af1/ast Cleveland. Street and ~3roti~n Street. The f~raperty ati~ners abutting this parking facility have signed an agreement of interest in purchasing the property and. wi11 reimburse the; City fir all acln~inistrative casts and lot fine adjttsttne;nt fees. Staffrc:cc~m~~acnds that the City proceed with this sale and befieve it is in the best interest of the; City tc3 accommodate the property owners l~ ho had inadver#ently occupied this vac;an# 1<tnd l~~hic;h helangs to the City. ':tia one spoke either far ar against the; 13ropc~sed sale of property to Dean and Delores Prandzinski. I~layar Figley declared the: public hearing closed at ?:2Ei p.m.. Councilor Co~c stated that this property has na value to the City or to anyone other than the abutting propertyy owner. CO?il~ICCAI,I;U'~'1.,.. approt-e the sale and direct the staffta retun~ a resolution reflecting the Council's decision to sell the property to the Prandrinski's. The rnotian passed unanimously. 1~~~ PtiBIIC HEARING: :~PPEAI: fll; DESIGN REti'IE~'4' (DR 2{I08-0I) A~iD F~C~EP'C1C1N TC.} STREET RIGHT-OF-~~AY AYR I:'~iPRC}L'E:~1EtiT RF(~UIRE~~k"~TS {EXCP 2048-03) - I.acated at the Northeast Garner of Evergreen Road and H,_gh~vay 21~I. '4layor Figley declared the public hearing apen at 7:2? p.m.. P.tge 4 -Council :Meeting 4linutt:s, f'~ugust 11, ?{)ti~i Page 4 C'QUNCIL ~`II~~ETItiG i~1I?tit'TES ALGL?ST 11, 2008 T~P1: READI~Ci do potential conflicts ofinterest or ex-parte contacts were reported by the'Vtayorc~r Council. Recorder Tennant. read the land use statement required under C)R5 Chapter 1 ~}~. :associate Planner Dolenc stated that this public hearing relates to a design revie~~ case for a proposed ti~'algreen Drug Store. The property lies nort:lt of highway 214 bet~cen Evergreen Road and Country Club Road and dots not include the Thai Restaurant buildin~i, Kentucky Fried Chicken tKFC}restaurant, or the US Sank parcel. The otierall size of the parcel owned b}° the applicant is ~.b. acres, however, the applicant is onl}' proposing to redevelop about. one-fourth (l =4) of the parcel at this time with the intent to redevelop tl~e remai~ider of the property ~4~hen economic conditions change. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing building on the south end of the property adjacent to f~Iighwa}° ? 14 and leave the remaining buildings. This is considered as Phase I ofthe proposed re-development of the entire parcel. The building would be replaced t;-ith a 14,!)flf} sq. foot 1~'4'algrccn's Pharmacy utilizing their fairl}~ standard floor plan with some architectural enhancements to meet the architectural standards in the City's development code. The application covered only the development area which caused staff to make some Code la~lguage interpretations ~~nfh as a result, staff looked at the enrire parcel rather than just the portion proposed to be redeveloped by the applicant. he briefly reviewed the sections of the Code that led staff tc~ belieti~e that, ~~ith a 'Type Ill design, the entire lot needed to be reviewed and e~ al~rated. If only a portii~n of the parcel was reviewed, then other considerations that ~~ ere not addressed included a need for street eYCeptiorls on Countr}~ Club Rd and C:ountr}° Club Court, cross section improvement standards, parking dimensions, striping and acccas aisles, landseapi~lg requirements for the parcel outside: of the proposed dcveloprnent area that are not in compliance with the currant standards, and pole signs outside of the dc;v~clopmcnt area. St~rff recommended, and the Planning Commission imposed, a requirernerit far a phasing plan under ~~'DO 5.1 t)~.QS.. Lt was originally proposed that the phasing plan be submitted prior to the. building permit being issued, ho~vet er, the applicant objected to that time line and the Planning Comrraission concurred with the. applicant and changed submittal date to prior to occupancy. He stated that the phasing plan envisioned by staff does not specify buildings, uses, or sot tirnetables but insures that all of the property will be included in one of the development phases. As each development phase develops, it would include the dedication of rights-of-tip ay and improvements of the portion of the property abutting the development phase taking into account the landscaping, parking, and sigr~age requirements. Staf'fheld a pre-application meeting uYith the applicant before the application w°as filed last fall and the applicant had proposed redeveloping the full parcel in phases and staff had recommended a phasing plan at that time. However, the applicant chose just to submit an application on a portion of the parcel to be redeveloped. The applicant did submit a phasing schematic to the Planning Commission and staff noted that this schematic did not meet the Commission's condition of approval. In particular, it did not show the parking circulation and, in fact, sliot~°ed some dead-end parking traffrc aisles that could be problematic. Since then, the applicant has met with staff and they are working on the traffic circulation issues that would meet the intent ofthe Commission's condition. Staff does, however, have; some issues with Page 5 -Council Meeting '~lirtutes, August 11, ~~()~ Page 5 C'QL.~tiC:;iL ~IEETI~G 1~IIl~L~TES ~iC;L#ST l 1, 20{}8 Tt~PE REi'~T)1'~C~ rccluirerents that these phases rnm~ht he required as a candmtion czfapproi~al fc~rtlzase phases. associate Planner Dol~;nc stated that. as caclz phase is redeveloped, they ~vorEld ha~~e to rzzake mrpravez~~ents to areas that are canti~uaus to the dc;~°eloprcnt. ~?~~ Kristy Olson, repres~ntin~; Aricc C'orporatian which is awned ley her firmly, stated that they have same seri~}us coneerzls that could si~niticantly impaci tll~:ir project. Cathy ~'orliss, :~nelo Plarulin~ Crraup, reiterated their appreciatican of thy; Planning Camnzissmon's appra~°al oaf the pra~~ct ~~°ic}z l~ac~ ~0 c:c~nditions afappra~ al a~zd the applicant has agreed to $~ of those conditions. She stated that the proposed project is a relatmvel}. small ehan~e to an existing slaappin~ center u°hiclz may currently be non-conforming but it was c€?nformitzg at the time the canter }~'~3s ari~inallt~ built. '1'he proposed dcv~:lopm~nt aria ~~ould he hroulht into ce}nCaranco. ~vhun it is bzzilt and each piece ~~~auld carp; into cpn fornzance ~°th the C"ode as deti elc~l3rent c vetztually czccurs, therefor€;, that' do nc~t feel that them is a need for a phasing plan . Tlic reason far their cancez~z is that the applicant takes a risk by starting derolitian and be~;innin~ canstructi€~n in order to ~;et tl~e project mavin~ foz°~°ard after u~•hich the phasing; plan is subzrzitt:ed far approval. Ho~~°ever, the approval process could iz~vol~°e an appeal process plus conditions of approval on the phasing plan that ~vc?ulci he unacceptable to the applicant. She stated that they are ~e.~illmn~ to provide additional infolatia~z €~n onsite traffic circ€zlatmon but. feels that tlz€; f_'odc adcquateiy protects the (~"ity as property is redc~€;loped un thzs site. Y1'he applicant believes that tlzcy cannot nzave foz~~s~ and wroth any re€le~°€;lc~pnze:nt until the phasingplan is approved and fL~rther delay will put the stazt up into the rain}~ se~asan which could iztcrease the east: of the btzildin~ beyond support ability anal could cause the e~~tire pr{aject not to rove fc~n~ard. Fven though the 1'laz~ning Coznmissian changed the recluirernent to Izavmn~ a phasing plan prm€zr to c~ccupazzcy the Brice Carpr~ration f'Llt ilzat th€y could not, «-ith financing and atl7er attributes, nlavc foz•~°ard with the in~proveznt;nt. ~t the tune ofpre-application re~tan<z, the applicant was cozlsiderin~ a redevelopment of the entire site but a clzan,~e in the economy znakcs rcde~°elopmcnt of the. entire site na lazz~er arz the table. t~'4'ith no idea as to ~°lzat they might do with the entire site, they ray he forced to make son~ethin~ up just to utt a phasizz~ plan before the City or to show existing buildings that are currently there with the one new hzzildin~. In any event, that does not: answer the question on haw the site may be redeveloped., She reiterated that the Code ~~~ill catch any issues that need to be addressed at the time of redeveloping; other laartians oftlae property. She also felt that the Fade addresses a development application and not an entire lot awned by the property c~it~ner. In regards to condition ~5, staff has argued that it is rcasonal~ly related to impacts cause€1 by deve;lczprent on prig°atc ~' public improvements but she ~vauld argue that c€~ndition ~5 as it is currently ~=ritt~n is about potential fiztur~ deve;lopm~nt a2id not ak~out the currently proposed clevelopza~ezzt. Slzc reiterated that they are u i lliz~g to provide additiozzal izzfozation regarding on-site circulatiozz but did not feel that it should he subject to review or approval until fixture €levelopment takes place. She expressed their appreciation to t11e Planning C'omnzission f~~r tz-~°ing to salve the problem and c€zncerns they have about delay but it st i II €laes not sol~,e their problem and it will delay, and nay halt, the: red~w°~:lopm~:nt €~f the site. She stated that the Page ? - C`auncil ;Meeting ~'~~inuies, August l 1, 2(}(~t~ Page 6 CQL~+Cu IL ?~iEETItiG ~'tItiLTES AUGUST ll, 2008 f1.1'E Rl~_~~DI\G phasing plan would be ti°ery speculati~-e since they do not have an}~ plan to redevelop the entire site at this tune and. any future redevelopment will have to meet all code requirements in place at that time.. =tl~l Councilor C'ox stated that the norther}y portion of the develapme~nt has had difficultly in keeping tenants for the existing key space and it is his understanding that the applicant had originally had a plan on redevelopment of the full site but, because of the change in the economy, that has been scaled back to just the l~~'algreen's site. 'pls. C:arliss stated that it is her understanding from the Brice Corporation that t}~ey are not in any position to move forward with any redevelopment other than the V4=algreen's site. Councilor Cox stated that he would agree with her interpretation that there is na ~~'L)C) provision requiring that an applicant must either submit a phasing plan or submit a plan far their whole tax lot. He did not see any~thing ~n the VVDC} that tivould preve~~t a property au ncr with a large parcel from applying to develop or build an a portion of the site. It does make sense that an applicant should be able to do a site development plan on as much afthe property as they propose to develop. lie also stated that, in some: situations, a phasing plan can be important i f other phases are proposed since the City needs to kna~v what w~ ill happen on the u hale site. lie also agreed that l~'DO Section 5.1 C)3.{}j has no criteria as to when the City can require a phasing plan. This section does describe tivhat a phasing plan is az~d application requirements but it dais not say a phasing plan is required or ~~~hen a developer is pern~itted to ask for a phasing plan. He does not feel that the ardin~tnce gives the City the authority to require a phasing plan. He also felt that staffhad mentioned to the applicant well in advance of the need For a phasing frlan but Brice Corporation decided later that they did not ~ti ant to da it anci, because of that, they are notiv complaining because it will delay their project. ~lf~(~{) :GIs. t:•"arliss stated that there was same misunderstanding that stems from the pre-application process. They were initially talking about a phased development on the entire site but have to}d staff several times since then that they wit} only be developing this one area. She reiterated that it is not passible to look at parking or striping unless you knu~v what the building square footage and uses will be. The only thixag they feel that they can give the C: ity is a site circulation plan which what they have suggested to staff. ~~)1 {} Councilor C'ox stated that Evergreen Road dues need to be corrected and it is the City's rate to make sure na future mistakes are made, therefore, the City needs to have same oversight an the process which is why the }'tanning staff wants a plaasing plan. ~1s. Carliss stated that staff was supportive of a design for on-site traffic circulation of the proposed development and existing buildings Councilor Cox agreed with Associate Planner Dolenc that any phasing plan would need to ~~a back to the Planning Commission since it is a Type lTI land use. H:cnvever, Section 5.1 {)3.05(A}does not say tivhen or under what circumstances a phasing plan should be used or what type of applications it can be used for. The caption in the ardin~u~ce refers to a subdivision, Pt~'D, Manufactured Dwelling Park, or any other land use permit, therefore, the caption eau}d apply to any land use application. Efawever, the caption o f t}1e ordinance is not 1'ai~e ~ -Council 1~leeting Minutes, August } L 2t){)8 Page 7 :~L`C;L.~~T 11, 2408 T~Pk Rl/.'~D~C Hart t~f the ordinance anti the language: in the body of the scrtion needs to he applied. ~Tlze gt~estir~~~ is whether or not the Planning C"onlmission Itad the authority to impose a phasing plan as parfi caf the oS~re~rall right to impose rele~~~znt ronditions ti~at relate to this application. r'1n ~zr~ument could fie ~taade that the language is k~road enough ~~~herehy the C'tamz~7issica~~ has the general po1~-cr to impose conditions. 'pis. Corliss stand that she ua~cierstaztds that if the~~ had szn opportunity to submit a phasing plan anti there w<rs one tt~ stzbztlit then the}~ 4vould hale submitted the phasing plan. lkowevrr, there w as nca intez~tir~n to suhmit an application for the entire sift; sho~.ving future development and. ifthey w~otzld Itt~ve kz~o~~Yn that staff~vcnzld he requiring it as a condition of approv=al it would hax°e becal easier for them if the C'tv ~vot~ld have accepted the existing buildings. the stated that slle did nc~t honestly tiec.l that the phasing plan criteria would apply since, based ran the w ay tl~c cede is r~vrittez~, it would be so~xzt;thing the applicant would request. Cotzncilor'~1cC'allum questio~xed ltot~~ zt~tzch of a delay in Phast; I is in~c>lved ifthc phasing plan is requiz~ed. 1Jts. Corliss stated that i fthey ~~-ere able. to stzbzt~it a phasing plan that vas deen~etl cozr~plc;te within 3~clays hope;fizll±,- it ~vot~ld he rec iet~•eti kzy the Planning Commission in the latter part of Septt;~nl~er. "1`laey are concern about what ro~~ciitions of approti al ~~ ould k~e ordered and the risk that tkze applicant runs is tlzLzt i f they gc~ ahead anti start tearing dawn tl~e huildiz~~ and fz c~onclitioz~ of°approval is ordered that F3rire Co~~ar~ratir~n cannot ztleet thin they no k3nger hative a buildint:.T tl~:tt eszrz be leased. Kristy t~lson reiterated that there could lie conditions czn the approval ol'tlze 1}Basing plan which -~ay the.n generate another appeal tc~ the Counri l ttnii further dela}° az~~° redevelopment. .fit this time, they have nc? tenants i~lteresteti in conliz~~7 to their development other than t~4'algrcens. fi{}~?~ ~o one in the audience spoke either for r~r agitinst tlae land use; isstzr; bufort: the Ccaunril. Couztrilor Cox stated that the applicant has expressed Their ronces about unacceptable conditions relating to a phasing plan that might he imposed and lie questioned staff as to what additional cortciitisans might he imposed. Director 411en stated that staff would expc;ct some conditions which the Plaztztin C"ommissic~n has authority to do, for example, in rrfei-ring to the schezxzatic ret;ezrtly brought i~l by the applicant, the; property east of Phase 14 ~'algreens) wYauld not have proper internal traffic rirrulation to make it safe fr~r motorists anti pedestrians. Councilor 13jeliand questioned ~~hy traffic circulation was not atidresscd ~~hezz the t1'algreen's application w°as rc~=icwed by staff anti the ~`omn~ission. Director t'~ile~n stated that the applicant had wanted to proct;ed with the: inft~rn~ativn they had provided and ditl not ~~°azat to discuss the phasing plan since they elid not bt:lieve that they needed the plan.. The Plan~~ing Comntissiozz did modfu the phasing plan condition at their July lf)~'' zt~eeiing and tl~e phasing plan would address hoc- everything=1~-ot~ld work. •1'ape' ~ • Director Alen also stated that he did not believe that there needs to he a nrty pa.rkin~~ plan Pate r) - C'ouzzcil ~~leeting 'tiiinutes, r'~ugtzst 11, 2ti{}~ Page 8 CtJt`NC:[L i~1EETING ~titiUTES AL?GL~ST ll, 208 T,~PF IzI~:~Dlticx i]Z Phase I but this phase {foes impact the other phases of future development on the property. "I"l~erefare, there is a need for the developer to at least meet the minimum standards now because of the impacts they are creating by Phase 1. He stated that staff and. the Planning C'{)mmissivrl ~~ as tied to what the applicant proposed which involved drawing their re- devek)pment lines to the extent the improvements that involved Walgreens and not re- development ofthe full property. The solution. to not improving the full piece of property was to come back with a phasing plan and show haw it would work when the property is completely re-devc;loped. Councilor Bjelland stated that he continued to be confused with the staff' and Planning C:o]nnuss]on's dectsron since only a portion of the property is being considered far re- development and the area being re-{ievelopcd should integrate with existing traffic patterns of surrounding properties. Director A11en stated that they had tried to work with the developer on this but they wanted to proceed with getting their ap})lications before the Planning Commission for reviz«• in order to proceed. with the re-development of the property. Further discussion was held on the traffic pattern and circulation issue w~hicl~ involved the entire parcel of land owned by the developer even though only a portion of the property; is proposed for re-development. tip ~9 Councilor Cox questioned if the property on the map shown as Phase III (located behind Kentucky pried Chicken and south of the Bank} is currently all vacani asphalt parking and will continue to be available as an access point to Kentucky Fried Chicken. Director Allen stated that it is his understanding that there is a blanket access easement to Kcntuckv Fried Chicken. Councilor !~1cC`allum questioned «-hat the Council would need to do to allow them to mop=e ff)r<~•ar{3 ~ti ith Phase I so that they do not lase ~~'algreens and then. requirements for future phases be irnlx~sed for a later date. He expressed his belief that after -l0 years, this tievelop]T~ent has not changed much and the quicker the City and. developer ~~ork together to come up with solutions the better off everyone will he. Director Allen stated that no one has comer up with a soh]tion but in this case, staff has continued t{) tell the applicant that if them is anything in their plan that involves a {liscretionary decision under the City's ordinance, then the land use process must bcfollow=e{I involving the public process. Councilor Bjelland commented. on when no information is available to do a true phasing plan and until that inforn~ation is available, it is not possible to come up with clear and objective criteria to evaluate the impact of subsequent phases on this particular phase. Director Allen stated that neither the Planning Commission ar Council need to use clear and objecti~•c standards, however, staff needs to look at the application to see if it has char and objective standards or if it is discretionary. He referred to an earlier discussion during this meeting on how the ~~oodhurn Company Stores phasing plan had a condition relating to the footprint of future buildings in that the City did not tie them to the footprint but tied the]i~ to ad{litional road impro~°ements if the square footage of the building ctceeded a certain Page It} -Council ~fcrcting titinutes, August 11, 2f}f1~ Page 9 C'OFE~ICIL ~1~~n1"I>tiG'~1Iti>~;~'I9ES ~I.'C:L'ST 11, 2008 TAPE i~feADl'LG amount. Cauttcilor F3jelland stated that. the developer of ~'aodburn Company Stores had a very definite idea of ~ehat ~~-as anticipate:d for that site and Itneti~• how the phasing ~~•auld he accomplished ~~hereas that does not exist c>zt this particular site. He did nett feel that a phasing }}lan should be expected in this case. Director Allezt stated that, in this case, flee; phasing plan is the mechanism to address the criteria e~°er}~ane ~~ anted adcire:sse;d such as street itrzprc~ti°eme;z~ts on the fronta;~es anti on-site inlpro~•emezzis (traffic circulation and lanciscapingl of property outside of the ~~'algreen deg°elapnzet3t {Phase I ~. Councilor Bjellat~d t:anzmented on ho~v he did not see Ito~~ that would be clone ~yithaut having a general idea afw-hat would be going in the subsequent. phases an the: property. He gtzestioncd what flee C'~ity t~-ould be giving tzp can Phase 1 ifrta phasing. plaz7 is required other thazz interztal traffic floe ~~~herebv in Phase 111 it might rLsult is san7e redesign of tltc~ parking. Director Allen stated that it u°auld depend oft ordinance: interpretation . It~teal traffic circizlatiozt issues, safety issues, ADA access, and some other issues identifzed in the current ordiztancc are Clot address to the extent they would be if the property c~~~trer ~~ould be e~°aluating flee whole parcel rather than just a pardon of the; property. He briefly reviee~~ed the prc~posecl tr~f#ic circulation in Fhase I and its impart on the rest a#"fhe property. Councilor C`c~t cluestianc~ci ~ hat ~~ auld occur i f the phasing planl~ as teat recltzired and instead lout in sozt~tething in the appro~~al c~fPhase i that the Cit~• c.ottlci re~luire in futit~•e deg°clapztte~tt of the prc~pe:rty that parking, landscaping, curbs and access points could ehant,~==~; on the entire ptzrce:l cif land to rzzeet ordinance requirements. B}~ iztcludittg this type of condition relating to future de~~ elaptxzent ar recievelapment, it will ailo~~- the developer to move fc~r~~~ard cc~ith Pftase 1 anti yet not gig e them a ve;steci right to keep the traffic circulation, curbs, landscaping, and access points as proposed in the Plr~tse I application. C'auncilar f3jelland expressed his opinion that Phase I needs to he as flexible as passible for future re-developnletat of the entire parcel. 1179 '4'[a}=or Fi~;ley expressed her concern in having a phasing plan requircn~ent at this tirttc cltz to potential changes in traffic flo~~:~ once impravetl~ents are made to the I_a interchange, Highway r 14, and public streets aratznd the entire parcel. 1 ?~~ 'GIs. Corliss stated that they are willing to accept a condition that ~~-ould require the applicant, prior to Phase 1 occupancy, to submit an on-site circulation plan an the entire parcel that ~~auld identify the general layout of vehicular and pedestrian circulation and would ieientify connectivity to adjacent public streets that ~~otEld be maintained for safe access. She stated that there are other cctnclitions ofappraval that need to lie sul~mitttd by the applicant and the}• are agreeable to tz-y and find a ~ti:ty to ~~-ord a condition that. ~voulcf allct~~ far subsequent submittal requireme~~t an the original al?praz al. Catzncilar Rjellazld questioned if Phase l is a separate tax lot. ~~s. Corliss stated that Nhase 1 a~s outlined i~n the application is a lease hne only- C'outtcilar C'oxexpressed concc;rn about the time: element since he did not want to Bela}' a~3y h>n=er than neceyssary beet he was leery about flee: ~~ording an st substitute condition, Rather Page 11 - C'c~uncil 1:leetin4~ :1~'linutes, August 1 l,'{)f} Page 10 C'tJtVCIL ~`IEETING 1t1INt'~T'ES AL'GL~ST l1, 2008 ~,~'~ P I RE:'1DI'~Ci than trying to frame the exact ~~~ording at this -neeting, staff still needs to come back with an order on the C'ouncil's decision .u~d he suggested that staff, any interested Councilors, applicant, andlor the applicant's consultant get together to work out the exact language. He suggested that the Council approve, in principle, the idea that the phasing plan be eliminated a-~d substitute conditions that preserve the right in a future development application to make appropriate connectivity, access and traffic claw. 1 fib? 'Mayor Figlcy declared the public hearing closed at 8:5$ pm. Councilor :McCallum stated that he wants to be sure that all parties are working together but at the same time trying to alleviate future problems. Councilor Bjelland stated that economic changes have occurred over the last year and he did not feel that the submittal of a phasing plan should be required when there is no definitive e plan on tivhat development might occur in the fixture can this property. 1-Iow ever, he did feel that it would be appropriate to address the concerns that this phase does inter-relate with the remaining properties so that when they are developed, there are not any problems encountered in the past that create barriers that inhibit the fi-ture good development of the remaining property. l"~~? COXINIC'HOLS..... uphold the appeal and strike the current references in the Planning Commission order to a ph~~sing plan and suhstitutc. in place of that a condition in the approval that will he part. of the Council's order that Lvot-!d presen•e the right. to moc:lify and make changes as it becomes necessary in connection ~°ith future development applications on that site and to preserve the traffic flow and connccti~-ity to the remainder of the parcel. "i'he motion passed unanimously. I c)(}f, Mayor Figley called for a recess at c)a)3 pm and reconvened the meeting at ~;l:l ~:) pm. 1 ~)b~ PLBI.IC HEARING: I:EGISLATIV'E A~IEND:~IENT 2007-03 TU THE ~i~'OODBURN DE~'EL.OP'~'IENT ORDINANCE {~'DOZ ~~layor Higley declared the public he.zring open at 9: l 1 pm. Senior Planner Labossiere presented the staff report on 25 proposed chant7es that ~~ ere identified for review in Council Resolution 1~7~ adopted on tiovember 2G, '_{)U~. She d iscussed the proposed changes which she had separated into the. fol lowing three categories: 1) general grammatical, cross-reference, and syntax corrections; ?) clarification of terms and definitions; and i) V4`oodburn Development Urdinance («'DC)) changes (general and policy). Proposed general changes to the ~~'DO included tiAIC'S code updates, clarifying setbacks for each Land use zone by eliminatit7g the word "yard" throughout the ordinance, using the term "'~'[ultiple familydwellings" rather than "Nluliiple density residc;ntial buildings",delete reference to a document. ghat does not exist (Exhibit Q, Transportation Impart Analysis Requirements), correction to manufactured dwelling construction standards, and updated floe permitted use table in Section 6.1 U4 which has not been updated since the 1~~'DU vas initially adapted. She reviewed in more detail proposed policy changes which include Architectural Page 12 - (`out~cil :Meeting ~limrtes, August l 1, ~t)(14 Page 11 AL=GC`Srt" 11, 2008 TAFF RF~AI~I'~C ~~'all; clarifying the definitio~z al' t~ ision Clearance and chatzging the recluireznent of the visia€t clearance area ~~itlzin the L7DC: cane { Do~~°ntau~n Develo}~mczzt & Consen•atian done); expanding the del:tnition ofplant unit to include same hard scope materials lout hard scope materials canzzat exceed 2Q"'a cif the re;cluired plazjt uzzits; reyzziremez~t of a tree permit to ren3ave any significant tree X2=1 inches in diameter} on pri~•ate property and the establishment of it tree mitigation fee far each reeluired tree rel}lacetnet€t that is not planted; change the public notice requirement Pram 2Cl days to l C? clays before the first hearing to match hearing notification regrtirements ofthe State, moclifi izzgthe variance factors tea be considered which could snake it easier to get a ~-ariancc; sines factors arc items to be examined instead of a criteria that needs to be met; and ~zn a€ztamatic cane designation far annexed property based an the comprehensive plazz de:s~=nation. 2Ei{){} C.otzncilar C'ox questioned if; tender Proposed Change X21, neighbarl~tood associations should lie listed as part of the required notification process if there are no recagnize;d neighborhood asso~ciataz~s in the: City. Director :'Alen stated that the IanguEzl;c, is similar to the: State's latlgttage and, even though the City has not. commenced in an~~ citizen izzl-olvement program that Lvould ine.ltzdc neighborhood associations, he suggested that it Eye included in the proposed chan~;cs izz the event a neighborhood assczciation does becazzze a recognized groul.~. Councilor'43cC'allum questioned if a Nomeo«'Her's association should be recognized since it is different from a neiglthorizc?ocl associatic>~1. Director Allen stated that the C: ity could recc?gnire Homeo~~ nc:rs :~ssc~ciatians, hc}ti~ evert, the State Statute allows far eiticezl involvertnent: or area advisory comnzi€tees ~~hiclz is a group a people p.zrtieipating i~z latzcl use matters and that generally make; recomtnendatians. :'~s of this elate, then City has ~zot gone through the steps to recog~zice any committees nor haver they had groups i~ztcrested in forming any area citizetz committees. ~Cl~~a Councilor C;°ox stated that he believes that. all al°tlze propase;d changes «ere discussed at the Focus Group meetings azid Ise is assuming that staffhas cc~rreetlyput izzta the staff report the cotzsensus that tivas reached by the 1~oeus Csroup which consisted of Dave C'hristoff, Dick .leanings, and himself'. ~-le stated that the Focus Ciroup w-as not anxious to make it easier far a property au~=Her t~ get a variance but they hacl ct~ncerns an listed criteria that ciicl not apply in every case, L'4~hen the Focus Croup looked at the overall factors and giving them appropriate ~=eight, they felt that tlzc general factors needed to be examined to determine if a variance should be granted.. ltio otle in the audience spoke either #c~r or against the proposed changes tct the ti~=DC?. Mayor Figley declared the; prtbIic hearing closed at 9:29 p.m.. Ct)X11V1CC~LLC:'~•I.... approver the proposed ame~zdme~lts anti instruct stafl'to cazzze back with an c~rdinazzce. The motion passed una~zimously. page l ~ - Council ~leetin~: 'Minutes, August l l = v{1:1'3 Page 12 CtJUitiCIL <'4iEE'TING ~1INt?TES ~r~GsT ~~ i, Laos "r:~~F R1FA1)1\G 3333 COti ~1CIL BILL tiU. 2735 - RESULL=TION APPRU~~ING Ati ADJLS"I'ED Rf~ I'E SC:HEDUL.E AND FUEL SURCHARGF, FEF. FUR li1'ITED DISPOSAL. ItiC., SETTI1iG AS EFFECTIVE DATE. AND REPEALIl~1G RESULLTIO~IS .1833 A~1D 1843. C`aurtcil Biil No. 2735 tivas introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. The bill ~°as read by title only since Chore ~~~ere no objections front the Council. Councilor Lonergan stated. that he may have a potential conflict of interest since he is employed by Allied V4'aste i~-ho is the awzzer of United Disposal but he does not have anv financial interest in the Woodburn Division nor has he talked to an}°body in the ~'~`oadburn Division about an}°thin~ being proposed. Ho~ve~er, he does feel that he has a commitment to residents afhis t'4'ard and will remain at the bench az~d participate as a Cotmcilar unless there is an abjection. I~or the record, the Mayor and Councilors did not objoct to Councilor Lonergan remaining an the bonch. Robin :~turbach, allied ~~`astc, proposed an increase fora rate adjustment in the amount of l~'~E~ far residential rates (2{). 35, and (i5 gallon carts) and 2°. E, far commercial -industrial rates. She stated that commercial rates arc based on efficiencies and, atler review~in;r cazr~rnereia) rates, Choy bout; also proposed rate adjustnzonts (decreases} to commercial customers «~}zv have larger ccantainers that need to be picked up less often. She also prt?pose~l a fuel recover} fee sine: high fuel costs are of fecting their cost structure. The purpose of the fee; is to aver the increase i~z the c~~st cif fuel as it is experienced by their company as apposed to 1v<riting until next year and then asking for a larger rate increase. In her opinion, this f'ce is fair for both the company and their customers since the fcc a=ill fluctriate tzp and cfo~vn based on their cost for fuel. She stated that the fee wilt rail every four (4}months tivith their company looking at fuel costs actually paid out then refer to an established table that. coz-relates fuel rate per gallon to fee surcharge an each residential, camznercial, and industrial rate. She prcati ided an example of the cost increase for a flat rate residential customer which t~•ouki be 5.25 per month fc~r the container and 5.45 fuel surcharge tUtalizig S.7t) por mt?nth. She stated that tho last operational rata increase for tVoodbtrrn residents tiv'as in April ?t~tj(,, ha~ve~~cr, last year then did come in tivith a sere ice rate increase to cover the additional cost for co-mingled cart sert•ice. Councilor Coax expressed concern on the fuel recovery rate proposal and rofcrrc:d to the baseline rate of 52.75 per gallon which is inconsistent with the 53.{}t) baseline in the actual scht;dulo. Ad<litir~nally, he questioned the fuel rate currentlybeing paid by tnitcd Disposal. ~1s. 1lurbach stated that tivhen she originally responded to an e-mail fram Interim :administrator Russell, the file! rate being paid vas 54.25 per gallon but the rate has since droppt;d to S4.1() per gallon. They purchase their fuel through a national contract through Allied Waste from Mansfield Qil and she believes that they have contracted a fairly good rate lout it is not a contract that will keep the rate stable. She also mentioned that they,?." baseline rate «-as incorrect and should be 53.0{) per gallon. Page l~ -Council ~~'~'loeting '41inrrtcs, August 11, Zf?(?R Page 13 C'fJ~tiCIL ~1EET~ItiG- ~1tISL~"TES :~1.~GLST l 1, ?00$ t°r~P)= RE AT)I?~(~~ Councilor C;ax stated that if the Council a~pra~-es this r~y~~vst, tl~e rate adjustment would ga into effect the first ofnext month, then Cnited Disposal would look at fuel casts quarterly. 'vis. ~~urbach stated that they are ~r€}~vsing tv lavk at #'uI casts for tl~e pree€;din~ 4 rnanths which correlates with their billing period and agreed that the document befare the Cauneil needs to be carrectc;d to reflect the 4 month time frame rather tha~x quarterly, Councilor Cox alsa felt that the 4 month periads should be defined. in tlae resolution attachment and that the roundirts~ proposal to determine the surcharge amount should lac part of the rate document since the t'4'ltereas clause in the Resolution is not part of the requirements an how it is to be implemented, Ne state:cl that Irnited. Disposal had pray°ided the Cit}° r~~-ith a profit%1€ass st<~tetnent for Galen€lar ZtJfl7 showing a rate of return an gross receipts (inc€ame} of Ca.?7"%a bt~t there is n~a iaafa~atian €~n the rate of return an investment. I-le' alsa stated that they franchise ordina~lce~ does state: that tl~e C:att~acil is t€~ considerthr; return an investment but that has not begin co~tsiclered since they ltav~ ~aat al}rained any information from Lnited Disposal. I~z his opinion, the (~.?7"~~, is not that tznreas€anable e~ en though united Disposal indicates that the industry standard is ~"s, t€a 12°.~o with a tarVct of It)"o. I-Ie felt that this proposal should not be accepted ern the basis of ~vltat has lacen presented. fIe has na problem with the concept of adjusting the; rates baseel on the cost of dain~; business and burden lies on I ~ nite;d L?ispvsal to convince the C~c-~uncil that they are entitled to thy; pr~~posed rate increasc;s. I-1e did not feel that the Cauneil has sufficient. infcarnaatian to fulfill their public duty to residents and business customers ~~~ithin tl~e City. The staff report stated that the City u cauld gaita money on higher rags but the C€aunci 1 needs to lc7€lk f€t the public i~atc~•est a~~d he ti~-o€€Id like: the nc;cessar} financial inf:€a~-mation beftar~: ixtaking a decisian €an tl~c prapcased rate adjustments. '41s. ~lurbaeh stated that she Itad brought faith informatio~i that she generally brings before the C:auncil when asking for rate acljustnae~ats and re°quested in€are time to provide infannatian requested by C"ouneilar C'cax, Councilor C'ok disc cissc~d lais reasans #iar the applicable financial i~aforcraation since some €af' the information is tied t€a Allied ~~'aste financial in#`arrnation ~~-hicl~ is outsiclc of the ro~ttral of'~1s. it~Iurbach but does leave a€1 affect ot~ tl~e rate of return. Caunedar Lone;rgan stated that Allied ~~'astc is a creditable corparation and agreed that it was fair to ask ?~s. lllurbaeh for mare detail an the fixaaneial doe€~mertts. Cauncilor?41cCalIum stated that the Council sloes have an obligation to the public but that needs to bea balanced against the excellent service received from lnitc:d Uispcasal. He preferred. not to have the fuel. surcharge as pr€aposed and w~oulcl prefer to ha~-e a rate increase that would be a constant atrtvunt. Councilor Bjellanci questione;cl the base rate of fuel #i-am which the old base rate w°as calculated on in ZEE}fi. '~~is. iVlurbach stated that fuel had been between `~2.5() a-~cl X2.75 per gallon the last time sloe was in to discuss ilae #'uel surcharge with staff. :fit that time. it leas decided to start with a S~.OCI base rate far the fuel reeavery fee and they tivere u filling to absarla the clifferenee in east. 7'Irc cost af` fuel has been increasing rapidly and they felt that pulling fuel cast aut of I'agc; 1 ? - C'ou~~eil 'Meeting '4linutes„ t~ugiist 1 1, 2t:?t) Page 14 C'OL'NCIL 1~1EETING MINL`TES Alit;-LIST 11, 2008 I;~hl: KIADItiG the rata; adjustment rwauld be more fair to their customers a17d to their ccnnpany since all parties ~vauld be either absarbing ar saving casts depending upon actual cost. paid out. Councilar 13jelland rel`errcd to the fuel surcharge schedule and stated that if 53.00 was the base rate, then the S.Ct~) pez- month charge far residential ctzstamers should begin with a .x,3.2 per gallon fuel charge rather than 53.00 per gallan. ~1s. ~iurbach stated that the last rate increase was based on 52.75 per gallan, therefore, the tizel rccavery fee would start at 53.00 per gallan. t~-lf.~E~ Mayor Figley expressed her understanding that rate adjustments are necessary to meet rising casts but felt that the fuel surcharge should not be a part of it and a rate adjustment that tvoczld incorporate fuel costs would be understandable. Councilor C:ax stated that fuel costs did increase substantially in 2007 but even taking those costs into consideration, he felt that the sampan}~ did make a decent profit in 2007 an their Vrass sales. He had no abjection to the principle of a fluctuating rate but he also agreed with just having a flat rate increase based on cured fuel. casts. In this case, the City has a franchise ~vitl~ t.nited Disposal llf3A Allied V4'aste Corporation «•hich has purchased aroiuld 3t}businesses throughout the State of Oregon. The C'it_y deals with United T~)ispasal which is a corporation ~vhally awned by Allied ~~4'aste :znd has na contractual dealings with Allied ~~'aste. The franchise with (nited. Disposal gives them. exclusive rights to pick up garbage in ~'l'aodbun3 and no one else can come in to be a trash hauler. The City has reser-ed the right to regulate azld`ar control their profits and charges to be consistent urit.h Painless to City customers using their sere ice. Therefore, the C'aEZncil nc;eds to get the infonnatian necessary to tizltill their obligation to the City residents and businesses- l-fe suggested that the t'ity in<luire about hiring a consultant to assist in evaluating the financial information provided by united Lispasal to determine if the rate adjustment is equitable. Tape (}i2{j 'Mayor Figley stated that several issues have been brought tzp one of ~~°hich invol~~es inconsistencies in the document which needs to be corrected. Another issue is ~;~hether a f'izel surcharge is the appropriate lvay of handling the fuel price issue ar should it be in the overall rate. She questioned ~~~hat kind of sttppart there is among the Cacznci) far patentiall}- hiring a consultant to review the tmancial infartnatian. Couneilors'~ichols and ~ieCallum were interested in knaw~ing holy much it would cast tier a consultant to review the information. f,ouncilor Bjelland felt that a tat of time can be spent looking at numbers and he was unsure as to haw much value it u°auld bc. There was a rate increase in 2000 az~d tnited Dispasal is reyuesting a 1 °•n rate adjustzncnt far residential customers over the existing rates. Ne feels that the eonrept of fuel surcharge does make sense but the question is what percent of fuel costs are represented af'total operating expenses. ~'ls. '~turbach stated that the CPl is currently about 4.3°/p and of that number, 2",~i, is attributed to fuel. Ccnzncilor Cox stated. that. the fuel cost shown on the 2007 financial statement is less than 1"0 of the total direct casts whereas the fuel surcharge ~jould generate a higher percentage than Page 1(~~ - Cazzncil ~lcetizlg'~linutes, August 11, 2008 Page 15 C`C3L='~C'IL '~~EETI1Cx ~111it"I"ES ,I.~PF•, RI/~I~l'tiG what is actually paid out. C'auncil~~r Bjellancl also requested that its. lurbach separate out the actual fuel costs Pram the: fatal vehicle operation costs listed on tl~e 2{_}t}7 ftnatrcial statetr`ient. Cau€rcilor C'ox suggested that this issue be held itr abe}°ancc and staffcheck oir the eluestion of a consultant, ho~~ much it would east and time lines to receit•e inForination. He stated that the C'auncil nray trot ;~~ant to ~o that dircetaan bttt it u~auld be beneficial to have a consultant to ask the;. right questions. BJk;lei...A'~DIC'OX.,.. table this issue until the first regular meeting irr September. Tile tnatiorr passed una€ritnorisly. C'auneilor Cox also stated that he ~~=auld like to ki~c~ti~~ how it-iuch ta.Y v4~as actually paid b}< allied t~4'aste or E~irited Caisposal tc? taxing entities in C~rey~crrr includitr~; the Departure€rt of Revcrrue atrcl hoe~~ does that coirrpare ~vitir tlrc: winraunt of taxes deducted. IOOfi PRdTFST CiF CQiVTRAC'T A~~'ARD F(?R DESIGIti ~1tiD itiST~LLAT[Qti C}F 1~`~~STE~'4'~TER F~CL-LT:~TI~'E SLLDC,F i.~~~GOt~~ DREI}GE TC? KKIiE;RR C`f}tiTR.~CTC3RS~ ItiC;. '~1a~°ar I~'i~le:~° stated that the C'aunci 1 is nova the Cantrrret Revic~~° C an~n~ittoc ar1~i sloe affGred the partial protesting the contract award the opportunity to speak to fire Catrrmittee. Brett Stark., t~peratians'tilanager far It ~ G F;xcav~tting, stated that Iris company's position is that (1 }the first requirenrcnt in the RFP reliites to showing design atrcl cc~trstructiair. expei•ie€~tce, of at le~rst anc; similar project i€~ the last S years and {2} attendatrce at a pre-hid €neeting an ,ittne 'S, ?{)€>~ at 1:3{) p.irr.. I-Ie stated brat his firnr just co€xrpleted a dredge project itr Eugene (SRS C't•isai-unit k~°hereas the; other proposer, Kcrr C`antr<tctors, has trot catnpletecl a dred~;c and their teairr (Liquid t~'aste Tech€rc}lo~;ies}claw t7~~t Ira~~e ern (~r~:~on C:ontraetor's license. 1-1e stated that this R L~ {.i's second protc;st itr ?~) years ofbctsiness and they only bicl public works projects. 'This proposal. required attendance at fire pre-bid meeting at the required time and the}~ had a reprc;seirtative front bath their cotr~pany and SRS Crisavulli at this meeting. :also itr attendatree was a represeirtative from Liquid waste "I'eclrnolo~;y. Ham e:~°er, Kerr Contractor vas not in attendance at the mandatary mec;titrg at 1:3t) p.m. and they had not shatv~n up by 3:~{) p.m. ~~-hen R ~~ Ci's repres~:ntative left. the meeting. He did receive information from Public ~'4~orks Director Broom°€r that a represent<rtiveProm Ken Contractor did sira~~• up Iater that da}~. They submitted their protest an this issue since Liquid ~~'aste "T"echnology cannot Iegal ly do the l~°ark in Qregon and Kerr Ca€~trae;t~r, an Qregon contractor, could perform the work but they did not attend the mandatory meeting as outlined in the RFP. He stated that their main concern is that the City. slid not follow the guidelines the}' wrote in the RFP and they u°ere never given an opportunity tea nc;~;otiate far a lower price since R.F`P refit€ieed contractors to list a maximum price. Tie stated that their position is that { 1) the REY shaulcl be re-bid and {~} that titc ;.=uideline:s tlr~: City wrote be follar~~ed. In this case, them ~vc~re only t~kcr irids far the project curd they haci listed a bid ~ I ? `~,Cl{?(} o~•er what Kerr C: orrtractors had prapc~sed, ho~~~ever, he strongl~° felt that tiro RFE' guidtliiles should have; been falla~ved by the City or the City should have da€rr: a Page 1' - C'outrcil 1~Ieeting :Minutes, August 1 1, ~t>{?S Page 16 C'C1G~VCIL ~1EE'TINC; M11IVUTES ~LG[5T 11, 2008 ^h,~~ l' E 12F:AL)ltiG lo~~~-bid pr~?cess to see; if more contractors would have submitted a bid on the project. Councilor C'ox referred to the letter from Public ~~'orks .Director gown stating that the: meeting was not adjourned but postponed, everyone in attendance knew of the postponement, and a Kerr Contractor representative did show up at a later time. '~lr. Stark stated that he does not doubt that a representative from Kerr Contractor did show up, however, his argument is that a mandatory pre-bid meeting requires attendance and felt that Kerr Contractors should have been in attendance at the time of the meeting in order to be considered as a contractor for this project. He reiterated that their position is either it be re-bid as a low bid process or another RFP be advertised with the City following the guidelines that it sets out u~ the REP. Director Brown stated that they had used a competitive proposal process which included criteria that the proposals had to fulfill. They had included a mandatory pre-proposal meeting since they wanted to insure that anyone slrbmitting a proposal had physically looked at the C'ity's ponds. lagoons, and the constraints in t~~hch then had to meet. "I_he proble~l~ they ran into was the issue of t~ ho could ekccutc; the installation and there «~as r~i reyuircrnent that you had to be a certified contractor in the State of Oregon. Stafl~kneti~ that it ~tirould he a joint venture since all dredges are manufactured out of the State. Direction «as given to Liquid 1~~"ast~; Technologies that tl~ev could nc~t use their factory p~rsor~nc.l to install the dredges and theti° ~}~ould have to partner with a contractor in the Stato. of Oregon. It beca~xt a point of'misunderstanding as to whether or riot the contractor had to be at the pre-proposal mLcting. Since; there t~~erc onl~~ 2 proposers, he had explained at the meeting that the City ti~ as not interestc;d in engaging in negotiations ~~ith only one firm and either the meeti~~g tivould be cancelled and re-advertised, or they ~;ou1d proceed and give Liquid. ~~'astz ~T`echnologies Limo to get Kerr Contractors at the meeting. For the benefit of the City, lie agreed to extend the meeting and, as a result, met with R & G at the scheduled meeting time to discuss the issues and with Kerr Contractors at a later time. He stated that he had givers R K G the option of coming back to a later meeting in which both contractors would be present but R & G elected to meet at that time rather than coming back at a later time;. In his opinion, the team of Kerr Contractors and Liquid t~'aste Technology will give the Cite a superior dredge plus the experience and greatest value. Ne did not feel that the CitS• violated provisions of the RFP and R & G was not selected because of• their proposal which was opened about a week after the pre-proposal meeting. Councilor Cox questioned i f it was staff s understanding that the 5 year experience pertained tv the team.. Director Brolvn stated that Ile was more concern about the dredge rnamrfacturer than the installer and the experience related to having a successfully installed dredge. C'Ahl~'ICCALLh~~... Co~ltract Review Board deny the protest <rnd authorize the contract to be a~{-ardcd to Kerr Contractors for the reasons outlined in the Public t~l'orks Di~•ector's response to the protesters and based on the additional information furnished to the Council at this meeting. The motion passed unanimously. E'a~e 1 g -Council Meeting Minutes, August l 1, 2{?Q$ Page 17 t'C)L=NCII.t 1°~EE`C'I'tiC~ ~il~tiL`TES AUGUST 11, 2t)08 TAPE RE ~DI''~Ci ?>Lt~ Ct7NTR.~CT !1~'ARD FfJR DESIGN- AND INSTALLATIQN ClF ~'ASTE~'~'aT'ER FACtiI~T'A'TI~'E SLliDGE LAGt)C)N DREDGE T'U I~ERRCiJNTRACT4RS INC Pudic ~'4'arl;s Birectar I3rau°n stated that staff has nev~atiatecl a contract ~°itlZ Kerr C:antractors ~~~laich they hay-e si~zzeci contract f'c~r ~ 1 Sfi,{)(}{} to fumislz arzci install the clreci~e. ~"13is is a cansidcrafile savings or°er the ~3~7,~77 that w°as proposed by R & G Excavating . Tine City's budgeted anzaunt for this project vas 13f}3{}~}{}, }~a~.ye~-er, t}sere are cantingeraev ftznds available in the V4`astc;ti~ater capital liu~cl to pay far this additional expense. NICHC)LSILUNERG~1~L., ar~~.arc~ the deli~zv'huild contract to Kerr Cc~ntractars, Ir~c. far tie purchase and installation a#' the facultative sludge lagoon dredge. 7"he n~atian passed urlaniniausl~=. ~~i3(~ CUGNC[L BII.I! N©. 2736 - CJ-RDINANCE :~:~'[F'NDI'tiC~ QRDI'S~-'SCF ZU~THE T'R~I~ISIE4"tiT t~C'CUPAtiCI' Tr1`~ C)RDI~i`~:'~C"F~, ~,ND -~-D+DPTI'1i~E: GL IDEI DIES TQ I11PLE~IEi~T S~.ID t~RDINANCE. ~~ C'auz~ciloz- Siluc~ntez introduced ~'ouncit Dill ~o, ?~3(7. Rec:arder Tennant read tl~e tu-a rzadings of the bill by title only since there were zla objections t'<c~m the C:arencil. {fin roll cal3 vote for final passage;, the bill passed. t~zianimously. Vayar Figley declared Cr.~tzncil Bill ~`o. 273( duly passcc} ti~~ith the ezner~;ency clause. ??t}9 CQL3NCiL BILL NC?. 273'1 - RESOIsLTIOti ENTERING INTO <~: SPEC'IAL TRANSPQRTATIf)'.ti AGREF.~TEN"I` ~~'ITH SALE:'~I TRANSIT DISTRICT TC) RFCF.I~'E SPECIAL TRANSP()RTA'I"If31ti FLNDS F(}R EI<DFRI ~' AND DIS.~BI:ED TRAtiSPC)R'TATIOti. Councilor Sifucntez intraciucccl C`auncil dill tia. ?°'3~. "I~he hill was a-ead bt• title only since tht:rc were: net ahjecti~~ns franc the CauzZCil. C)n call call vote for fiz~~tl passitge, the hill passed tznaninzausly. i~1a_yar Pi~;ley declared Council 13i11'tia. ?7? duly passed.. ~~Sf)l~ ItiTERG()~'ERN~IENTr1I., AGREE1°IEN"I' !Y"IT>Et f)REC:();! I?EPART!'tEtiT CJF TRANSPORTATION - TRANSPORTATIQN AtiD GRQWTI-I IAN aGE~IFNT PROGRAM GRANT Ate'<~RD FOR ~'4=UC}DBL R'V DQti'VNTOV4'N PI AN L'PD ~"I'F BJEI,IaANDILONERGr1,1i.... F'ltzthorizey the Interim. City Administrator tc> sign the Intergoverrzrrzental Agrec;n~cz~t between the State of t7re~;an and the City of ~'aodhurn to provide funding far the. City of t'~'aadbuz-n taawntown Develapent Plan update. The motion passed unanimously. ?8~3 ACCEPTANCE OF BANCROFT BOND APPLICATit)?ti. Staff recommended Council acceptance of a Bancroft Band izpplicatian submitted by Perla Perez Zavalet<z, IZS Tatzt Street, after the initial 10-day fili~~g period. C'QYINIC'HOI:S... accept. the Bancroft Bt~nd application stzhnlitted 13y the prape~-ty acs°ner tix°itfZin the Taut Streei }aca} itnpravement district ~~ hich was ii }ed after the initia} I ~-clay filing period. The nation passed unanin~otzsly. Page It} - Council 1~Ieeting ~'linutes, August 11, ?()t)5 Page 18 COL'\CIL 1~IEETING lIINUTES AUGUST I I, 2008 T.~PE l~l:~f)1\C~ ?~8cf C'<~tiCFI I ~TIOti OF AL"GUST 2S, 2008 REGC~L.AR COL"~CIL ~IEETItiG. NiCIIOLSISIFUENTEZ.... cancel. the August 25. 2Ot)8 Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. {~l5 CO'NT'RACT A~~'ARD FOR DESIGIti AND I'~STAL,LATIOti OF AQUATIC CENTER H~'AC SYSTEY1 REPLACEitIENT riND ENERGY UPCJR.~DES TO F:NERTIA ENERGY, I:NC.. Proposals ~~~ere received from three firms and the selection committee has recommended the au~~arding oFa contract to Enertia Enemy, lnc., in the amount of 5412,572 lvhich does not include any deductions or discounts as a result of energy savings grants or credits, BJELI:ANDILONERGAi~I.... award the designtbuild contract to Enertia Energy, lnc., For the design and installation of a replacement IIVAC System for the Ac}uatie Center, The motion passed unanimously. '~)t~t) I IQCOR LICF'VSF CHANGE OF O~'~'NERSHIP FOR FULL Oti-PRE~IISF.S S ~I ES• F I DOR ADO, 1 X90 N Pacific Ili~hwav. ,~ change of o« nership full on-premises sales liccrrse application was submitted by El Dorado F3 I..LC' tivlro have agreed to, and signed, a compliance plan with the t:'ity. BJF:I,I:AND/I.ONERGAN..>, recommend to OLCC approval of the cllangc of o«nership liduor license application For El Dorado. On roll call vote, the motion passed 5-1 with Councilor tiichals voting nay. ;ttl; PI:AItiI\[~G COI~tl1ISSIOI~ OR AD~IItiISTR.~TI~'E I.AtiD l:`SE ACTI4~S. .~) Planning Comraissian Approval ofti'ariance 2008-OS located at I495 Coole~~ C'nurt; :~pl~licant requested a Type [lI Variance fur a reduction in the rear and. front yard setbacks For a proposed single family ho~n~e. ~;o action was taken by the Council. 3t3~1 B} COt~'~`CiI BILL '~t0 2738 - RESO~I ~UTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2400 NORTH PACIFIC' EIIGHth'AY. Councilor Sifuentel introduced Council Bill tio. 2738. The bill vas read by title only sine; there ~~~ere no objections from the C ouncil. t)n roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. ~la}=ar Figley declared Council Bill ?tiYfl. 2?3~a duly passed. 31?2 CITY ADMINISTR4:TOR'S REPORT. ]ntcrim t: ity Administrator Russell stated that he had nothing to r~;port at this muting. 31 ,(} `:tI:~YOR AND C'OU~iCIL, REPORTS. Councilor Bjelland stated that he w°ill be on vacation and not able to attend the first meeting.: in September. He will also he missing the'~9V~'ACT meeting tivhich ~°ill be having an issue before them that has relevance to the City. The topic to be discussed deals with which of the Page ?t) _ Council 'luting ;Minutes, August 11, 200$ Page 19 C Qt~tiCl[~ '41E~:I~'I~ItiC: ~II'tiL'I'E r'l[_?GL'~ST I I, 2008 `f,~l'E RE AI~I;~C,a armark requests ~ ill lie fi3n~,arcied to the C)regc~n `frattspnrtation Conamissic~~~ (C~TC~`1. The cane pertaining to the City is to fund the cnn~pletinn n~the t~~'nndhu I-~ lntc~rehange. At the last ~.~t~'AC'T meeting, then «•ere told that ~~ft~`AC'T did rent teed to ra~7k tlae requests. ~~~ elected City official «~nuld need to attend this meeting in order to vote nn the transportation projects to be fnrwarded to the C)~l"C. ~IC'HOLSIC'QX.... fnrn~ally appnint ?~la~°ar 1°igley to represent the City at the ~I~tiACT meetialg. The tnotinn gassed unanit~~ously. i~l?z) F~F.,CI~TI~'F SESSIC7ti. lvia~°or F'igley entertained a motion to adjourn into e~eeutive session u~~cier thy; authority of C.tRS l~)?.f~<~t){2}€d}, l~)?.Ei6(}4?}(f}, and lf1?.(i{t}{?}(h}. tiIC'HE3LSfI.,C1tiERC;;~ti.... ac~j~~u to eYec~~tii°e session urlderthe statutory authority cited. h~~ the It'layc~r. Tl~e mc~tinn pt~ssed u~~a~~imnusly. `T~h~; meetitlg adjourned to executive session at 1 1 a-`? pin and recc>n~~ened at 12:~{~ any . 3-tf~t~ '~1a~or f~igley st<~tecl that ~~o decisions u°ere made h~~ the C"nu~~cil ~~-bile in executi~°e Session, 347> ~.DJQi:'It:~~iI~:NT. SIFL=FNTF7.,"\ICIIC3LS..., meeting lie adjnuecl. ~I`hr: motion pass~:d ut~ar~imnusll•. The meeting adjourned at 12:f}1 a.m.. ;'~PPRC)VEC) ATTEST I~-fary "I"enxl~~t, Recorder Citt° nf• ~4 nndhur~3, C)regnn 1'~~4~e 21 - Council 'Meeting lfinutes, August 11, 2t~(}8 l~:~THR~''t F1t;I~f~Y, ~1AI'(JR Page 20 Executive Session COt`NCIL ~IEETItiG ~IINLI'I'ES August 11, 2008 D:~-7'E. CO\FERI~:~CE ROCI~t, CITY Hr'~LL, CITY t)F WOODBt'R~, CO('~tiT~' C)>F 1i1<RIt)ti, S'L'ATE OF OREGON, AUGUST 12, 200$. COS~E~ED. The Council met in executive session at 11:06 P.m. with Mayor Figley Presiding. ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Bjelland Present Councilor Cox Present Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor ;McCallum Present Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: Interim City Administrator Russell, City Attorney Shields, City Recorder "Tennant, Public ~~`orks [~irecror Brown (11:18 pm - 11:41 Pml, Asst. City Administrator Stevens { I l :42 Pm - 12:0~1 am) Press: John Ciervais, Woodburn [ndependent (11:016 pm - 11:41 ptt~) 'Mayor Figley reminded the Councilors, staff, and Press that. infnrtrtation discussed in executive session is not to be discussed with the Public, The executive session was called pursuant to the following statutory authority: ~ 1) ORS 192.660f2)th} to consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties ol` a public body ~~ ith regard to current litigation or litigation likel}' to be filed: t2> ORS 192.660(Zl(f} to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection; anti t.3} 0)RS 192.660(2}(d) to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to carry inn labor negotiations. ADJC)tRti'~iE~T. The executive session adjourned at 12:00? a.m.. APPROVED 17~"PEST :Mary Tennant, Rect~arder City of l'1'o~?dburn, Oregon KATHRYN FIGLEY, i41AYOK Pa~~e 1 -Executive Session, Council 4leetin~ ~[inutes, ,~u~ust 1 1, 2(X)8 Page 21 ~PECI~I:~ C`Clta'~C`IL:~1EETItiG ~TItiliTES AC`GC`ST l~, 2008 T~PP READI:'~~( . l llATE, C€~L1tiC"II. CIIA~IBERS, CI TY H~L:L, C[~`Y t~F ~~'(~C}DBURti, CC}L`tiTY C3F ~1~I2It)lti, :~'I"~°TE C}F t7REC;C}?ti, .~LGL'ST I4, 2008. CO~VF.\ED. Tl~e special rt~eeti€~~ cc~n~•ened at (i:~1t1 p.m. ~~~itl~ Mayor 1"i~rley presiclin~. Rt)I,L C~I~I.. ~1ay°r~r F~i~leti~ Present Councilor Bjella~ld 1'rescnt ("c~i€€lcilor (~`ox Present C«ur~c: i l~r Lcaner~an Present Councilor '~1ct:'allc€€n Present C'ou~lcilor tiichols Present C r~unc€lor S1fucT~tez Present Staff Present: Interim City ~dzni-iistratc~r Russell, C`it~° ~tte~rney Shields, assistant City :~dmnistrat~3r Step°er~s, Interim Administrative assistant 7astc~upil l .() EYF.CL=TI~'F< SESSICI'~. :'Llayor Fi~lc:y ~:ntertai€~ed a €nc~ti~~€~ to f~+.l_jc~urn i€~to exec€€tive session uracler tlzc statutc~r}~ a€~thorit~~ ref OFtS lrI?.(if~t}{?}{a) tc~ c;c~nsider tl~e al~l~oi€It€~€ent cif a p€zt~lic c?fhcer, employee, staff~njert€ber, ter indi~~iclt€al a~~e€~t. ltii('Ht?I_:51?41C'C<'iLI..L'~L.. acljc~urn try e~ecuti~ e s~;ssi~?€~ t€r~c~e:r 1114 statutc~ry~ authority cited ley tl~e l'Iayor. The motion passed ~€na€~imously. 1"lie €~~eetin~ acljo~€n~eci to ~;xecutive scssic~n at ~;f}~ I~.m. aF~d reci~n~ened at 7:t}3 p.n~,. l.~ i~1a~=or 1'i~:lcy stated that no decisiotls ~~~ere made by the Council ti~'hile in executil~e Sesslt~n< l.~ ADJOtiR1ti~~F:~T. NICHQLSfLQ1VF,RG:~~.... meeting he adjourned. The n~otic~n passed. i~~~animc~usly, The meeting adjourned at b:()~ p.m,. :~PPR(,~~`ED ATTEST J"~1ary Tennant, Recorder City cif ~~°c~odl~urn. Cre~;on I DTI-1Ry"t FICI_EY , ~i:'~y'(.)R Page 1 - Specieil Council ~~leetin'~tinutes, yu~ust 1=I, ?Qt:>S Page 22 Executive Session COLV`CIL ~~1EETING i4'IINT'TES August 14, 2UA8 DATE. COI~CIL CHAI~II?tERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBt'R\, COLN7'Y OF VIARIC)N, STATE OF OREGON, AL~GL'ST I4, 2008. CO1~'E'~ED. 'The C'owul met in executive session at 6:06 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Bjel[and Present Councilor f'vx Present C't~uncilor I_c~nergan Present ('ouncilor '~'[cCallum Present Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: Interim City Administrator Russell, City Attorney Shields, Assistant City Aciministratc~r Stevens, Interim Administrative Assistant Lastoupil Protham (`consultants: Greg Protham and Bill Itirkright Press: Jahn Gervais, l~'oodburn Independent ~'[ayor I~~igley reminded the C:ouncilars, staff, and other individuals present that information discussed in executive session is not to be discussed with the public. "1'he executive Session was called under statutory authority ORS 192.660(Z)fa) to consider the c:mplt~yment of a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent. ADJOL"R'ti1iE~T. The executive session adjourned at 7:02 p.m.. APPROVED KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of 1h'oadburn, Oregon Page 1 - ~:xecuti~~e Sc;ssion, Council iti~Ieetitlg'~~Iinutes, August l~, 2O(?$ Page 23 sPEeICf~L CoL~cllL ~~EE~rt~~ ;~~>~~~~~~:~ ~~cl~s~r~ ~:~, ~oo~ T ~l~l RP<OI)ltiG .l U~T'F.. CO[:ti('IL CHr'14II3FRS, C`I°I`~' H:~LI., C"IT~' (JF ~~'OClDI3LR~, C'OL~T'lr' OlF ~IAR:IO~, ~T~TF OF OREC~01, aEE~[sS°I' 25 2tl{If3. C'O:ti~'F<<'1iED. Thy slaeeial mc;etira~ ccxl~erred at =:{)~ la.raa. u~itla ':l~1a}nor Fi;~lc~~ presiding. ROLL C.'~LL. ~9ayor C`ouncilcar Finley I~jelland Present ~lasent ("ouneilcar C'ok 1'reser7t Councilor l;canc r~~an Present Ccacrricilor blcC'allur~r Present. Councilor ~iehols Present C'ocnaeilor Si~fi~entc,~ Present Siaff Present: Irateritrr City Administrator :Russell, City Attorney Shields, assistant City ~,drninistrator Ste~~ens, (.: ity Rc corclcr T'ennarat It tic=;cs nrlted tsar the reccard thztt C`ounncilcar l3j~lland c~ as carz ~ acatiora. l.~ F~~ECUTI~'E SF.SSIO\. ____ l~~layor l~ igley entertain%d a motion to ac~jourr7 into e~ecrrti ~~e srssic3n urrclc:r the follo~~ irr~ St~ittrtor'~ 1L[t11C11'Itl~. { 1) ORS 1~2..C~fi{~l{2){a) to eo~nsider the alapointrncnt of a public: officer, r:ruployee, staff nremtacr, or individual a~etat; and {~?} QRS 1{~~.{iC}t.}{~}{~ tc~ car~sic~er rccc~rcis that are exi~n~i~t !~y lrre~ frr~rtl ptahlic insPc:ctic~n. ~IICI~[C)LS/~ICC't~i.i L ~I:.,. acljounr tc~ c~ccuti~,e session urlcler the statutcary authority r;ited ~?~ the 'k'Iayc~r. The motion passed rmtrninicrusl~°. The naeetin~~ adjc}caned tc~ c~xectrtive session at 7;t)~ P-. and recc~n~ er~ec~ at 7:55 f,.nz. =~, ~ '~~ta~ or Finley stated that Sao decisions were made lay the C~'eauracil while in e>;eeutive SCSSron. :'1IC'HOLS/I.,O~FRG~ti.... meetirl~ kae tcljcaurracci. Tlae rncatic7n passed unaniraaously. T}re nieetin~ adjocrn~ecl at ?:'+(r p.n1.. f1PPRC}l'll:) <'~TTFST :Mary Tennant, Recorder City of ~Vocsdlatrrra, t~re~on K~1"I-HR~'~ FIGI.,Iw;~'. i4~:~~'QR Fa*~e l - S~}ecial Council '4leetin~ Minutes, :'~u~i~st ?5, 'f1t.)~ Page 24 Executive Session CO[.'NCIL 1~TEETING ~1INtiTES August 25, 2U08 D:~`CE. COI~NCIL CHA4~BERS, C'ITI~' HAI..L, CITY OF 1'VOODBI'RN, COL'NT'Y OF 'MARION. STATE OF OREGON, At~CTt'ST 25, ?00$. CONVENED. The Council met in executive session at 7:08 p.m. with '~1ayc}r Figley presiding. ROLL C:~LL. Mayor E~igley Present Councilor Bjelland Absent Councilor Cox Present Councilor I..canergan Present Councilor McCallum Present Councilor Nichols Preseni Councilor Sifuentez Present :Staff Present: Interim City Administrator Russell. City attorney Shields, Assistant City ;ldministratiar Steens, City Recorder Tennant Pretis: John C;ervais, 1h'aodburn Independent ?~4a~~i~r Eigle}~ reminded the Ci:~uncilors, staff, and rather individuals present that information discussed in executive session is not tta 'be discussed with the public. The executive session vas called under the fallawirag statutory authority: t 1) tea consider the employment caf a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent pursuant to ORS 192.fa60(2)(a}; and t?) tia consider records that are exempt by law from. public inspectican pursuant to ORS ADJOL'RN1~'IEN~I'. The executive sessiian adjcaurned at 7:54 p.m.. APPROVED KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR :~7'"CES•I' A~Iary Tennant, Recorder Cit}• of V4'acadburn, Oregon 4'a~e 1 -Executive Scssiian, Council '~'[eeting ~ltnutes, August 25, 2C)ttS Page 25 SPECT~L COC=itiC`I1: ~IE~pI'IG ~'Iltii"1'ES ~LGtST 28, 2008 TAPE READING . l U~TE. C'C3L tiC'II; CH.<~~IBF1R4~ C'IT'Y H:~~LL, C'[Tl` C)F ~t~'I~CIUBt'R~. C'(?LtiT~' C)F ~~ARIC)~i, STATE. C)F (3RFCtJ4, AL'GLST 28, 2008. C'C3'~~'F,'tilkll. "l e special n~eetin~ convened at :t)(} p.nt, tiv it}t ~layar Fit;icy presiding. RC)I.L C'AL.I,. ~9ayor Fi~jlc;}` Preset--t Cc~ttncilor E3jeliand Absent C:ounciiar ('ox Present Councilor I.,~atter~an Present Councilor ~'lcCa}}urn Present C'ouncilar '~ichc}ls Fres~nt fi'c~ttncilor Si }itcntez I'reserit Staff Present. Interim Cit}' Administrator Hassell. City Atts~rney Shields, Assistant City Administrator Stet~cns, City° Recorsier "I crrnant _ it was note€i fs~r the record. that t~'nt-ttcilor I3jelland vv-as an vacation. '~'}a~°ar F~i~~ley etitertaitteti a motion tc~ zt~ijc~ttrtt into ~ ~ectitiYC s~.ssi~~n ttnclc~- t}rc; Fc~llc~u•in~~ statutory auths~rity l ~ t~RS }92.fifif){?)(a1 to consider the €tpPotntnlent ofa Public afficc~r, cn~plctyec, staff ms;ntbcr, car ittdividua} a~.:ent; ansl {•?~ {~~ }c)?.f~(i(}{~}{~~ to consider records that are cxetnpt by larv- from public inspection, 'ti I:CHt~LSIL(~~ERC~.~~i... stdjot~rn to exectitiv~e session under the statutory aut}torit} cited b~ the 'Flavor. Thv motion Massed unani3nousl~°. .I'he rraeetit~~ adjourned to exectttiv~e session at 7:{)? p.rn. and reconvened at t ; I a p,n~. ?.`~ '~Iays~r Finley stated that no decisio~ts n-cre mach; by the C'sruncil wlti}e in executivs: session. C`C3XI:tiICIIt)I.S,,.. Scan Deriekson be appc}itlts:sl as C'it~• Administrator pursuant to the 11~'ooc}horn. City C'harter• and that ths; 'Mayor be aut}toriled tc~ execute an empls~yntertt tt~reenlent tirith him on }~ehaif cif tine E:`ity fire t}te fon~n prescratt~d to the. C«ut~cil b~~ the C it~~~ On rol}call vote, the notion passes} un~tttimousiy. '~1ayc~r Fide}° stated that she veil} mcetitt~f ~v ith '~Ir. C?cricksan tomorrotiv ttt which time she expects to sign the contract can behalf of the C'it} . She expressed her appreciation to hlterini Administrator Rttss~il for his }tarsi u°ork dtcrin~ this interim period v~~hic}t "ill ct~nc}uric in ai~out six weeks. qtr. Derickson's (first clay af'emp}ayment is seheduieci fs~r f~ctohcr l 4,'()t>~3 vvltich is a re~ttlarly scheduled Council n~eetin~ dots. Pale } -Special C:'ottncil 4teetin~ l~~tinutes, Att~ust 2R, ?f}t;)g Page 26 SPE~'i:~I~ Ci~L'tiCIL ~1EE7'I~G ~~INCTES ~C~GL~S"T 28, 200$ T.~PE RE~1DItiC:j ~.~ :~DJ4LItti~1EtiT. ~~~'C'f1i.i.t`~1/'~iiC.HQLS.... meeting he acijc~urnc.ci. ~Che n~otic~n Passed unani~not~sly. Tl~e n~eetin~ <icijot~r~~ed at 7. i 7 P.n~.. t'~PPR{a~'EI) I~~TNFZY'v FIGL~1', ~1r~~'C}R .•~~I~"T4ES~f. Mary Tcnnaz~t. Recorder City €~f ~~'oodburn, Oregon Page ? - Special C°c~uncil ~1~eting ~iiflutes, <~~igust 2~, ?f)f~f~ Page 27 ~:xecuti~ a Sessian CtJL~iCIL 1~1EETItiC ~iItill.'TE,S August ?8, ZQU8 [}ATF:. Ct)t~tiCIL CHA~1IiER~, CITY H:~:I:I., CITI' (}F ti~'C1C}[)BtiRN, COI_~1~'T~' flF '11ARIC}ti, ST:~TE ()F CJREC;Q;ti, ~1t`GtiST 2~, ?tftit3, C`t)~~'E~€EI}. The Council met in executive session at 7:08 p.m, ~~~ith Mayf7r Finley presiding. Rt1I.I, C:~LL, Mayor Finley Present Councilor Bjelland Ahsent Councilor C`;ax Present. Councilor l,~anergan Present Councilor M~cCallun~ Present Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Stfuentez Present Staff Present: Interim City Administrattu Russell, City ;attorney Shields, ~~ssistant Cite rldininistrator Ste~~ens, City Rece~rder Tennant Press: Sohn Gervais, ~~'oodburn Independent Mayor Finley reminded the Council~~rs, staff°, aitd «th~:r incli~°iduals Present that intcrrniatu~n discussed in executi~,e session is not tc~ be discussed r~°itll the Public. "I`he e;~et:utiw°e session. ~~~as called under tizc f~~lic~~vin~ statutory authority: (1 } tc~ consider the employment of a public c3flxcer, employee, staff ~~ember or indiv°i~lual a~;ertt Pursuant. to ORS 192,660{2}(a}; and (2} tc~ consider .records that are exempt by lam- from public inspection pursuant to C1RS 192.660(2){f~}. ~DJC?t'RN'4IEVT. The executive sessi~in adjourned at 7:1~ p.m.. APPRO~'FI) K?1"1'HRl'1 FIGLF~', 1~i:1Y()R r1'I'"1`CST Mary °i`enizant, Recorder City of t~Vriodburtt, t~regon Pa~~: l -Executive Sessic7n, Council 1~leetin~ ~1~tiutes, :~tE~ust 28, ?ilt)~ Page 28 `~QUDBUR.j~ A~„~ r~ September 8, 2008 TO; Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FRGN1: Ben Gillespie, Finance Director SUBJECT: LOC Efforts Regarding Telecommunications Franchises RECOMMENDATION: Accept report BACKGROUND: .qs ~.:se of land line based telephones has decreased, two issues have emerged. First. 1`r7~s~ telco's offering land line based services have corr7plained that because they have to pay the franchise fees, they are at a disadvantage to those offering wireless telephony (cell, satellite, or VoIP}. Second, franchise fees, ~~jhict~ are a percentage of revenue, have decreased thereby reducing ~:~~~rerai Fur3d revenue for cities that impose franchise fees. %~._~- TF~ieccn~r~,unicafiions Committee of the League of Qregon Cities' formed a ~~.~K force to explore ways to address both issues. Their work has culminated in a ~~r~~:~:~casal to replace individual franchise fees with a statewide uniform gross ~c=venue tox applied to a!I telecommunications revenue (voice, Internet, and T~'l. See attachments. The proposal is intended to be as revenue neutral as poCsible. To satisfy the telcos, it would generate no more taxes than are currently being charged. To protect cities' revenue, it would generate no less than the existing franchise fees. By r7~aking the gross revenue tax a state measure, the proposal avoids the federal limitations placed on local jurisdictions to impose taxes on Internet service providers {ISP's) and cable TV providers. The tax would be collected by tt~e st~,~te and distributed to cities and counties in much the same way the Li~~uor ~L-~x ar,d Cigarette Tax are currently handled. ?he legislation would be carefully crafted so that Cities' authority to manage #lleir right c>f way would no# be restricted. A;_~~•,~~:a ;=Far,; F;eview: Cty A.c~n~ir7istrczto~,~~~ C+ty Attc~rney~~ Dina Page 29 H©norable Mayor anc~ City Council (date] Page ? DISCUSSION: The traditional phor^,e companies are expected fio support legislation that would subject their corr~petitors to the same fees/taxes they pay. Their support is not altogether certain, however. The twa largest (and line phone companies, Qwest and Verizon, have repeatedly attacked local franchise tees at every opportunity. They may find it difficult to support any tax on their revenue, even if it levels the playing field. The wireless providers are expected to ©ppose any legislation that would subject them #o an additional tax, Even though the proposal is designed to be revenue neutral, cftfzens rr~ay perceive the grass revenue tax as a new tax rather than a replacement of franchise tees. The ~~C does not expert this proposal to pass in the first legislative session. It r~;c~},, take tt~o r~r three afiterr~pts to write legislation that will get support from a n~t;jor=ty c.~r" !enislators. But it is important to begin now. As the League r~noves this prc;~posal tc~rward it will call on members to support their efforts with data, letters to leg~sk~tors and tesfiimany at hearings in Salem. FINANCIAL lMPAGT: Tree gross revenue tax is intended to be revenue neutral. Page 30 Changing Telecom Environment Prompts LOC Task Force to Explore Solutions 8t' Andrea Fugue, Senior intergovernmental Relations Associate he rapid ivolutir~n «f technoltagy has led to a pro #t7und transformation cat the teleccammunications industry- Eu3th in hoK' it operates 22nd how it interact^~ with It~cal rovt:mments. For most caf the telecommunicaticans in.lustrv, loc-al re~~l~ztic>n is limited to a~c~>> t:, i}ul~lic: rights-t>f-way and ronipc~nsation for that .~~ i ~~_ I`he franchising of telecummunie<iti~ans providers, as t}ie means l;y which cities hay°e histcirically managt;d the rights-car-way, is l?ecotnin~; obsolete: l~tause tt has neat kel>t price with changes in technolc;gy. 'This has led tea increasing threats tea city rights-of-tray. frat<c:hise and taxin authority, and a trc~uhlittg trend eaf declining telec«namunications rt°veriues. It ic~ft unaddressed, tl'ii:< rrent~ will iikclL r~:suit in harmful c:~3nseyuenc.es ti €he IG>>al {af services and ~uality° cif life loth i;ittlc215 dn1 bilciniS~tF3 ["3's3C f~nly eXpCCC, I;ut dc'n.and. ~Io address the c.hallen~es presented by the reipid evcalution r.?~f technology=, in'tioveni~r cif ?t?t3~ tht~ Lc;ague initiated a 'leleccatnmunicatic?ns Task Force c~ampriscd of city officials ~t-~m actc3ss thr state. The task force wis presented with tlae ambitious task. of finding a uay tea protect Litt' rights-cif-way authorit} rand preserve a critical revenue stream. the rrtembers ~•ere asked to t I$'?6 t~ ~CUS can. idi;rltlft'itl~~„ anCl asSeSS1I'z,~. teCnntC<ii SC31tS- 3[A tins z°iaJ?le fcrr X311 t nf~'gtari er~mmuntties. r~~ THE ANALYSIS :sire n3naunica i n` c:aiTapanies, ee~hich histori- c,-~lls~ ~.r{,vided c~,31y l~irid~line I^~sed teleianvr,e ;c°rt`;ce~, ns?w F~rt.~;1= tair~:{cs5 tcl>ephi;rte, i'i~'rt3 ~~ t t~~5 +, TS1211r t tt es k`; ff+th 1T7~1 Irai'rrlet ii_Cefis. '':SrilIl,irl'. ~ i1lle ti ~i<iE'I3 C~~~~)slr',iC'S are ,g3v€u- s LL~ is 4'. :l rt L4 .i'3 't i.il~iti c.'c.. ~~~ilils ttie. 4{; `:Ci`t'cC C!i ~"~~>~ ~: r.,eil Il.~ln.i~til ti.^,~er +e'~ „r~?fr' rL~L3l~#t['~rL ,` i';_~'=,rk5 lii tl'1C ~. it" ati.~i ~ P,~,ar34' i ,t~ l;'z'ts" t i , ., ,it} , °~n ~ .,_ ill Seri f :'s. services t4 wireless bast:d services. In 2i, there were :Wore telephone land-line based cervices in C?regon thin wireless. ~y 2~"r ,the nutnl?ers had. reversed and wireless telephones br carne the lextding communication device. r~.s early` as?~2~, wireless su}:~scrihers c~,}u1t3 vutnum~;r land- lines 2 to 1. The predominant systen°i «f franchising tc~lec.onirnunic;atiuns providers in Oregon. is tied to the physical prt;sence of facili- ties in the rights-of-~•ay. It does neat recc~miYe new tech- nologies or the significant changes in bury facilities in the public rights-of-way are relate d tcy the delivery of services. ~.s the customer base: shifts from traditiean.3l I<incl•litie Passed St:r'42CL'S that pay a tran112Se tt:e CTF pF"2471Cix..',e S,<i?t, t.7 +A°tr~'IESS based services rind te4.hnoltyges that can t>perate a°sthc3ur a franchise, ctampens;ttion for rightsrat-w.ay use is decrc;,as- ing. At the same time, cities arc seeing resistance to Icacal franchising regulations and fees from corporate users ctf the rights~caf-u=ay. (conttnuetl un h~~tc; State and Lora! Wireless Taxes -July 2007 ..,,m jQ!~ °...... _ .. ._. _ __~.. m._ ~. _. „,. s~ isa~ _ `~~1'4 a`1q\ \ti~1 o~,,h~ ~.yb1 ~~,ti~ti ~~.,~01 '~yC-1 al~y1 ~~$'. a~~~~ c~~~1 `~ Slate (Rank our a! 50 States} ^.., 't~, .,.SS 'a:, <">~:,i: ., > Gars . '.l .E` ~.~ ii:: .: ~ z(t £ 3z. viii,. #i: },.:'~.-:•t ;.,i72}s, icsr: ;2'T. ..~,Ici S.. ...,...CS ...,,i. .,~~•;. ,i t't its, y.,, _,,., .x,e ... ..... L'... ~. .. .. .,~ ~L: ;,,4' s. , it, i, t ~tE t..il i;.....1 ,..... _ , y~~: i`1l. ..:x .. i . c,. ,., i~ , L',.ai, "~.~ ..3t€ t':i L.k~i,.:c' .. , .... .. tt, Sa. _.t .:s i i s.1..'.. Page 31 e`~Itf1~)u~jh iitti ~I~t'i~ii~ r€€#f' :autht~rat~ t(i tnaa~c~~~.~yG` ~~e i~t tiles pull€c. ~,?l,'s.^: .~:-14`;tr <'trlu it? r':'i.t:£' . s::i~sLFl3aitIi~t1 ~i,C C}i(.'.€r gq~~ jL~ r e1.:``C', ti.z1S L'e: i'il C. a`'t2alStt l2tii ,iild San€ic..'Ti1l}".S~.; IZt°l~ ~k' iLI~ F coc€rts tE=;<~it ~;:.atl~c~;tty~ is cl-iallet3i{' ~ <€t ~4crv` turn. L'nri;- ~et~.cn;; cittS:;S'€. E`4 ~~ industry ~~ .., ; £~ .ier.zl, stag: and 1~:~=il , Ic~`~1~ tc vlin~t::sttz: Ur restract ~h€~,;°~_, fr~;nc.~.se, ra~;r;ts-~Ft- 41'a4~ artd taxing .author'it}~ is cviclirnt in Ic~rsi<ition, litigation ~in~l Ic~~l rc:ferr;ts. THE SOLUTIC?N Presented 44`ith the ch~illengE of tinding a s,4ay tc? protict cit. nhts-{.~f-~4ny authority an~i ~resc.rvc~ a crtt€cai revenue `:tTe"sim, ills task #t1rC:G CUilSi~c;rL'~l ;:apticns ran~rng from retaining the Current franchised based systetn try whcilesale chance, and established principles from which to e~=alurtte those options. The task farce coneliided that the c:untinucd threat to city rights-of-way authority and erosion of revenues requires thL cc~nsidcration of a paradigm shift in Itc~w Cities approach the question of utility use of the rights-oi~way to ensure. that the relationship l?et4;-seer Cities an+~ the: telecommunications industry keeps pace with the rapid transf~armation cif the industry itself, Tl'ie cc?risensus recornmendati~~n ,nf thi: task force is to m~>~.•e tx~ an altcm;itive rz~~enut: s~'stem f~>r releCOmnxunic~€- ti,~ns providers. l.`i~der a n~44` ;yst:CCn, CttiaHs wool<~ rc;tiit°. the authority to manage the rights-of-way and reCeivi: epsr reec~verr hnrseEl l~c~cs, but €hc financial element of e~ist- ing franchise agrc°~:~rnents wc7uld ~ rt°placed with a riew ln~esV..h:anastn, 44°hich would ere ate cane uazitC°agr°n_~ statewide rate 1',~tilse~l {:?t't t3 ~'t,'.rf~S.'rFiva~;L= iii `~~.,rSZcc 2"E: ~`L:nues. S Ilt'. r<i[~ ~L'S~3ul~ the '+;1]7te iifr all €:3t1e5, rC:CC~nl~in,'.; t13~ a't`e•'.Itt Ga[ LhC?'.?' Citiet that have silready moved to a neu re4~t:nuc: systetn tE~ ret<iara ti`~etr ~,1-~cfac.e. ~`~ ftaaadaraas:rrtal ~:,~rsidtration c;f the task. fr~rce~ i'. vvtl.~<~tir? ;~ new s~;`stem is that ~.atit:s <is <i whole anal indivaduall ~• should nc~t Icase re:ventaes, car receive windfall ;gins. Total r<4~enue styuld be kept generally neutral, witl'i the sourea:s fc?r that rc4•enue spread amt>ng all t~lccc~mmuni- caticins i?rc~viders, The new s~°stt;tn also err~i4ionr in4ludini; courities by prcivading ehem with flt„4\' authority to receive ti°IeCOmtnUniCatlt3n5 Fel'PnlleS. lay 1?rinring all teleconununicatic~ns providers irSto the same regulafc=ry Strilttire, creatin a StatC'14`id~ elite aSStireS fair- ness, sinrp~licity and uniformity, reg;rrdless of how those prc~- viders deliver their services. It is essential that the system capture new tec;hnolt~gies and become as technologically independent as passible. This system would enable eities to adapt to a cltariging future and allow for grciwth as local economies and uses of technology expand. The l ease will be wrirking to educate cities, legislators and key stakeholders about this critical issue to ~:nsure that moving frnward, the financial health of cities is preserved while protecting the fundanrz?ntal authority ofcities to man age thin public-rights-of-way. lf~~uu ~4°~auld lilts more inforraratic~ra alii~ut what this means fair v~ur city=, or the v~"c~rk cif the '~I~*I,~~Ce~mmtzsiieations T~+sk Force, visit the League's 1'~'eb site at u.~c=w.csrdttzes.rirg or ccrnt~ict LC~C;`s Andrea Fugue pit {~~3I58~-65~t? c?r afrr~ ee=cz rrrs`itt~s.t:~rg. Cirnt+~iu {Yeri,zae} r~cp .t Ito tQ 9zkj_.. ~~ r e+rtc>ur tlesreass: 33Y. ~ ..~_ § ,.. Partfamd iQwraf~ _ .~~ k flay Ck7~Scri'T~~.. __.__ Navaewe Laarneae«e: 35%l .. _ , Pop. 1 23Q {mss 6%3 is Grartd~~Vtr~c~wt~ Pop. t;t,Pt.SO t3Xow1R'J.59b; ~tevss'eue rN*: 56% ;^ , ftew~rax- t>ronrtfe: 3'3'Et '; Tin da8rs {8prisrtl ~ .' ~~ Piap, i3,fl45 t9~aSM'ih 7'y.,} '•"' lirtcoM C.k~t .,~x..~..~, _. Rs+t~r~w Derap~r. t ? y, , ., Pop. 7,lS15 tai 3%) ~"' =,' RewerwrLavaesu: t99s; ' ~ ;.~' ~ < f' Svn rt Monti (Ctn1 ur71ff} ..Mr~~ .~-~° • ~. Pop 9 3'9,*i €b.~ 10~- , »s:' ,,,,. Rave+wA U@C~eese i "k ~~. ~~ CBryi~lit (CvreRStl __ ,~~ ,. .'~~ .#~ ~ ~, . ' ~'' Ft>p, S~t,89S~4 fDtra.r.ruit'17.514) 8~ '~ ~" ~~+''' `"'' r,.i ReYrllbt va...w+~• 24.5% ~ ~ 9~,• =onn ~sy (Crntu-yta ~ i ~ . ~~,,; •. . t . " t r ~ ~ ~ P ~P 135% (,$tGw'.t: 1 `+.1 ~ . sy ,.~.~~ ~ '~ Rr.r,ur (>rxnase 1 ~'k Yortc~etla_iG*rkuryhll __ PoP 57.324 (9rpxAti 7+.~) «.: . f•,~ „'`~, ` ~ '~ - ~ i +Y Pop t,tt0 t4c+OVAtt 3%2 #tsventw tlea>1~: 28% "' ' `~ ~*r- ~' 4 r ~. i Revsnua t)OCxtsai; <5?G ~ ' ~ s ~ . "" ?y , '" _~ fr ti0ltA Bred iVanion~ r, e ~ 1 ~. ~ ~1 ,~ ° ~ ~LL'dTt~L ~~!^""C 4YE ~'~ S`E - ~ ~jv!' ~ ~ ~ ~., •J 7 { ~~~ m ~~ ~~I~" r~.'!'.ti? ~ ~.r 7 ^ 4 ~ ""` r~s~_ ~1 it -; ~... ~ a~'' ~ z.. y ,~ ~ ~ Twt, :+dC t 3,. ~„ t ;Ark 1¢prd irawrstr i a„ 35675 :~rr+rzta'?~: ,~~iS ?'i:"s'1 «ft24C'yY.2:Y.5 w~:t J:;.it:'2{ t,i'~' i't:tiif r3f ,~~>, 3:Y,"~'~ i~3~c'r. ;1'it3"tF'::itii%'t?nt Yi_'t;;ti;fc'~ Page 32 ''what the ~lternati~9e ~te~senue Proposal Means far Four Cite l eLhnc~l~±g~° has ads°ancrd rapicll}• in the last decade and i~~ill Continue to c;valve in ways that cities cannt~t predict. This has Icd to significa~lt implications for City rights-c~#=«•a~ authority and t~lecommunicatioras revenues, Cities ha~•e experienced an onslaught of Challenges to franchising, rights-af=way,. and taxing authc~rit}' through local referrals, state and. federal legislation and litigation. '~leantv~hile, the predominate s~ stem cif' franchising tt:Iecommunications providers has nut kept pace with technology. In particular, the shift i'ra Iandline telephones to wireless technologies has resulted in an erasion of telecommunications revenues. The combination of these factors has led to the Conclusion that to protect city rights-of-u~-ay authority and preserve: Critical telecom.municatians revenues, cities must Consider moving to an alternative revenue system. I,he alternative revenue system proposal under Consideration is a grass revenues tax specific to tcleCOmrnunicatians providers. "Ihe proposal Contains the following elements; primary objective of moving to an alternative revenue system would be to establish. a stable base rate as Close to revenue neutral as possible ensuring that city revenues are kept whale, while allowing cities to capture new revenues as technology evolves and local economies expand. Currently, the majority of cities are experiencing a decline in telecommunications franchise revenuCS. :~ new system would enable cities to preser~~e a Critical revenue source while moving away from a declining revenue source. ~'. '1 he rate would be uniform statewide for every City,* It would be based an a percentage of gross revenues of telecomrnuniCatians providers and would be set in statute, Ideally, the tax ~vauld be collected Ie~Cally can all teleCammunications servic~;s, broadly defined, to bring all providers into the same tax. structure, regardless of haw these providers deliver their services. In doing so, a new system would minimize distinctions among teleCC~mmuniCatians providers. This uauld include providers such as ~°ireless, ti~hich are neat franchised under the current system. The revenue generated within each cite ~v~auld be determined by billing address, The system could also provide a new revenue stream. far cc7unt~es. 3, Pities could retain a franchise agreement, ar use municipal Code provisions to preserve the management. clen~enis applicable to the use cif the rights-af way such as location standards, construction standards, IaCaI permitting authority and cost recovery based fees. The financial component of the franchise areemLnt would be replaced with the gross revenues tax. Priti•ilege taxes would also be replaced by this tax. Ift~~,u have yuesticfns ur wt>uld Tike additional information about hour this proposal ~ti~ill affee:t }~t~ur cite, piCase ct~ntact 1_.(~C's .~ndrea Fcgue at (5t)3) 588-655tJ ar ufa~*ueii'arcities.ar~. ~'~~~Gr.~f° rxc~tt~ litctP tire-: G• c.•it?c~s rrt C)r-c~~rurr-.__„(Yl"x".519 X711, Ezt,~E•n~.{ cxrtc~ (1ak~-tc~~c'- ~~u~~c7 u1t•E=ue~t rtzr~t~ed Ir.r ~rt~r Cr?tc'~`r~c~til•e~ r~•t•c=r~rfr~ ST:~Ic'l1T. ~itc~ ~rc7~txs~crl rr~ra~~rz~~~s the r•i~~l~t a~•tht~.5z~ e:iltG~~ to re~trfir~ flterr- c•1ralct~. Page 33 ~€,);;~-i3!.)kit z„u~ .. .. v r' w ,.~ ~~ , Ea c= *~ ~?A(E A~(}4r:a : C'•Ili !. 49:44 C.HF::".K i?C3C3S.S'rr}2 ~iEE:~'£ :i^t:,:'!t !R CHEf'R. S:r'c2... F>At.... ....'F .. .Fx::L`:i ti'1"A'P'., :FxF"k: ~I.A'.C:C7 ^tiFt".K AM(7':N^ fi.:f'€irJt:.I.~tzC, eu'+~.;' :iS.t~f'i;R?If'c;: E n :c A vUN7 A3' A % 'c: :.s ?tvaC;Tc~ 31t€9i 1i.0~ :31j ij .,Ari2~E f2.AY i~ C.fw:`:.~':3 A,~13.f~RJf% yc, %", f` 06 <50 6C) .. '-I '(P.s 9:3 jj I '71 .3 :il i. ti R23 ~.e}E'3 ~i }xPi cvJx'i~,.~^i .: ... .'F~~ ~: R'. Fi ~i`4. )'`f f. i!.. ~i:a E3f ii,l .%ti~i E) Yi _i 'x ~l. X3, :3}. (` J ir,'JS '7/321zo€}a :>'r2;v2=.~; .. .,f)A; E~:r.=.)r:~:, c,E"?3 Ei;'2;; eat: E+ :»:s as2 .ac 1~3 s. 9Ey ,.,. 9;'s3h'> "}rlllzet}9 a.,. :rAa~ ti~,•_._..~r.>.... ~.:r~;:..ur::7 e%~,-2tz,c3 .x~> ~3a e~ >oe J6 :. •?'.£39Ei ::'r 31i 2J03 2~E`i'T`s ~~.Fx:iiS itr:.;:t:4:."i. '.;yi'i3 €112 a )CN 't'E:5 2"t ;t . E:€) 2'33, fi(} . (`_~' •a~t79^ t(32i?.; C'3 .,At'2f:E i'l,;i,} }?. L.Vc".5.:^:is Ear 2 .Ckl '!E?:S , 1Hs3 €:;. , 343. 01. 0 `1.3498 'i".2. .-D~ A &. A i'.f:.., ,. ....r.f;... ... ., k- f;,..:cD E3%1:, ;£c Yi:. L: .. ii iU, a;) .. i:iEi9t3 "7i_f1~3:)£i Ai)Vir::'F:) . , E'A tiFi ~ 4'. 3~ „.".. ::»i'>>" 9 I'i"23:ft tKi; $3d :~t; 332. u0 .~ ...,9€}Q .,: ., .,1:26€38 i,2€.:i ;3 n:%lCc ?z...,:.1:."7..(::} iiillis;iC€3 ~!F:S ;i!2 d4 :.Ei1. 44 933t7o :3 t2:`3~ t"aL.". _, ,:."K»: 3t?::~f;:vi.?t.»:.} di!Ir%_,.;3 x'i:i 399 0's 3'tD t33 .~ ?+3f3.: t1....34 ,..,.._ w,,.,,„b .3R's..... X45 ??fr:~..Vt .,.. 3i1J ,JN YEy 16 .20 <", :E: i;, ,., •sr#)., t; .. .. "v t? .,N t,„'=,h .. ,... R•?f „>.)./... .a 1'r ...L?tif I`, .. 3: 1, .,,N YE`;; .!fl , .., lEi. . . ,:i?6a .,:.2;,;~}33 ~, Aivris:~ .. _.A:.E;,~ ~r,,,r:.... .. , E€.. ;z3;E; ~E~', 2"x6 .4;3 .'i6 4? ~~;:~:,> "r' ~.'"3E3 AfEA?~'Akr< ~.:4.~.;;kM ,::r±.:i':E T ?,......'.t..FL;-i) n..'si:?;?8 }E::~ E45G .f8 dEiO HB 'ii iC5 _ J3 AfiAr .. .;-:Ixi?E' .. ...h i.::-") E3; z 11 23?tt YP;S :d. ~iil F.'7 '.i, dC'! . I i . . ,?9v'r ',;~i,z^73 A.>€>.Er>.,. :,_ S. .. lri-::€.,.cc:.,<F:Ci Hi21iz 0(?8 XPi::~i a25 .,., a~<a. r.6 .c':. ... . 2C:}~ ~..,,. ..,G.~,..... YS..r.l ... Ei2 yi ~' ~E.... _'Qf~l :,;'.. y iii }.. ,. i.l. ()63 '1~}',.; 21~ G,. 1'.~J 23 ~ -' , . ., ; :};a.c~t~ , A'Z ~ x :dr~Pi,!~:! ~r_...-2:7ua Yss ;Ra .>;y tca. s-, . ,... ?; :.?; c6+3 es ?At.. s?. x,iirx 4`..e^,2Y 1,:; 1;Mi~;!I1~ !: i7~" -:'3 3;"' ~ `?33 ?»:~ 3, 4! i :~'v' .1,4:3 a6 ... .. ,. ., .3 ..211,}03 i3EE2,;TwT:.h .kASti: ... ... 9; - .. :i3 x'F'; .2'.i .fsC 42. 6f .0.. Ji92t „ .2,v.03 HI x"}ALC"~ , RA .:)xi ..i`~ ...,., .: l:, ,8 ~ }",~^,.ti :€:'l l3f. .i)y b^ af. 6:92`, s?0£y 3ifJ !SE=. 5.:.... ._a~Y,'C~":£ .)N. ... f: '23:8 ~ %k;S 45 .4i~ Fs4 ti€i .a'. ?3.39:1., .ii"L6f)8 :ti.A€.'k :t;rt ._. ;.)N .... es .]. .,,38 Yz~S A79 .6(7 i3^y. t;6 ;:, 4;,11'? zr:3?20R9 E32,Af'K!~1'.,}12; A:.'. ,.)GK`> ;2 »,€",x.,.. ., ei,, :::?39 Y»:G 19 .4'? 39. 4't Q;, 9iu~18 }2%2()G3 BI.,UM»K7'T:Ai, €TrICY".:'i'.# S fiQ(.IS PEt.`3rit.`.2i.:b:Ci R.J2:f7,3()E3 'rEf> ,G9fi ,£i5 2,09G BS .~ 'i'tw:29 "3f.2r«!?03 t'W3LkY ~:i"E:LE':E:ii?? r^.?.'.C.':iNi'.z.,F:i) 8/.^J2p()Ei 's ES i:3 3S ,:. `.) E75 ri ..i 32f3 ?i1~i.; 7.6;"tH f"AR.()L`».~'!' Au':i'€J 3~Ai~i':; i2 e:t'~21 ~'T..:">S.1 SI1:x t:e L"€)B Xi',~s ~t h2 .>9 2f'2. (>9 93,92: ?12112639 CLT'w GfVFiF23*?ENT :EIC :REC;':EJf:.L:D 1311111^Gi3 Yu'; "9:1 .10 2,a33 ).0 3.342 '112;2003 CENT°E? F'~7'YtIT ?..AR<3E f>R.?rt? ?.~:f`i>Nt°:L.E£) ar.t!11.nfS9 `;E> .,AEdB 6i; i,4H8 DO .~_ 33ka3 71i..Ii2(303 C}fc`M»:if%TA :':iC+iM,'k2'PX £•32.£, R.T'C'^vrtC,'.,I3 912.!;23f)f3 :E5 ''9.3 3; x93 92 ., ,?324 1t.>26€}8 Ct3'2M Fit€. «, I:IZ" ti»:f`.Gid€::':>:t3 4r'11l20f)9 YMS .:8,4.3b ."%R "2 E?,S3K. "?0 3~32~i 9 ,126f38 t,'CAS'A!.: i'A4?^. 1~ii)Mi": , i;Pi'S_Y RE;i'"~aP7C;:, rt) 8i i i; 2:iR3 .:».*: 3`r' .'7' 9E3z. "3', ...., . ')".39:1 fi ',t, :%2(303 C~%QKP. S:A ;ri L'?~ t.^Mi~a.*it ~ = r7:.".. i.itti G'.i12 ;i; i1 '?itS his s~;41 63 I39?' ?1.ti2:t63 (.jFJh:'ItX M:A~^W;~ R~<.'3f'...:F.) A;, f23u4 ':iS 90 0:; zy,6 DG ` rs3«3 7; 22 f7. fi€}A t`f YAraiA "itf;S J.*I N.... et 'l .P€€ .,:z.: d +i 7F}r)t5 X; f^, L`~y >f: "~. .:sa '% ' ' 9197.9 7%11.11.0138 UA:rrY 7--Lfr?*CA: c,b c?MM'c3•~'n K».t~J3~,:,,;7 ri,...t.l?(7C3 Y^: 5AC} .54 f,r36. 5a .(= 43": .0 'Iir2i;0E3 C)A:e\v.S:.CN <;C'/+':~3;...A':'*.f;NS kE"v"I t.-.:.~[7 Nf':..''2eUri 'rp:S <'.~n .i8 1.~8. zf3 .:7; 9'?'352 1jllrl'31iii C)ATA3.'.i :,;.:i. Z '+t';saw;) &. :"!2'30Ei .~:ti ?Eifl ,t}6 358. x€; .,7 .. ,s "5 ~+.32 ~ ~^E3 Sirntl i2? ?! r..2,.tiY :>Ei:~ iF:" ;rdt:..:<.., €J1~; ,'7--. t; ;• ..., ac's: nr ..., aEiS OC: 0:• `i :i 4:33 1:(.:.5.03 I?nV :,^r3 A::. ., :-AR':.> y r. .,,NC': ,...., di: -20G9 Y6;S '38 5}. 38 GL .biz ~i13:34 ,%.i "!.?23()$ !;r)dczs >:`N is F:7131 < ~+„";... .,, b; .;r< 6Ei YE: ~: 7d6 . "tar,. SY .i . ... Sis9.3ti ..'n33 ~r:s , ..,.. .:..~ Ilr:xidA f.:.rFai?. ii K A.,,x.:~ ZA.c.,t .c...(..5..;::.._7; r?r:',/'.t~~4)8 Y:5 £y .3".i"s ,r"> .3'.13 ~~' .CtC 9x:'33Ei 'r2..i23f)9 llt.«,i::•1:xktC~..,.N,~°'..xx .. .... K...:..k f?i:E.!~'::E? Y:~; s,ca: .;.. .,:,:. ~.` ~€, 9S:r,. '?.!23ti39 .lei.. ... ..,'r~.::M:Y AP22' }5~..,. :Tki.. t1 ..: ti `<w.. .,.:39° !t` .337 ^<E3 s,. '+iaifl i'.€ it'?.3 )'t> Jw~ ~ ., ., rat nr.. °Z:)€:~1 .S•.S ~0 G! :i) D:: C T.^, s:i.l :; l., `18 :3xz .ac3r''lsn`i.a:' i:2,, , i•.. /PI:.. 3, ., :'r:~; i'i 3 R:", 3 ? t . rR , r'. `lA:l 3 S %S -; /., 3'S ...li. u... )'.f '.. '.ir i. r..... G',?. .. .., ,.. i3 .. .: !, :,. '."i.'..~:i .i C(, 1a YX;f 25 'y , ~i i 94 s. -r~r .in ..R-srfi:?... .,:I ".:. ,~.. .::TY.G ih r...C..,hl'........ ~I .I.i iJC'9 Ye:;> ::; ?3 6,. 's F38 (tj .C^ ):3;>4'l ..,;,- ,r`. ._ ,~ ,.;.i:..•.ifi ..:. ~ ERTi1«K', R:Ib~ipt ...,>. ;.tiz~' Fi»......;PY<::...i'I% Cs f' 1!<...^,H yt:~; ,, ,.:?94 .C>:. i, '?4. ti1 .. %3453 )!"_ .s ~ -0Et 'r",51E: ': ?•i ~t.C~ N' ..;~I: isl::i.r ~'. ri ?'::: 4.1' - :i3 4, 1">7. 5'.3 , 7 1444 "11:'+. LSU~ :;::GE4tt.1 A~( 7s.. • .'Fz ^2 E, t~ 7~ . 3r -1, - °d Y'. ~ <. `.i'F, 30 , :,'3h. .. a0 .... ~ . )SrAS ..:/'1.(:(73 IaVx:i:i::, i,.?rs~,.-"~'ki ;. irlCi.:. 3i:) ~2F flJ:.2i?., l.H '::ti Es i. nM Es :. 338 .., Page 34 . F:,~,C,~.. ~ C'f1E€;K xrA'P"f tyAYE;~; ;iATda ~3Ti 3, f~ "t(1=,':3 €7Cf3 i»k{~II€^s '1'_, A::.4`€D :.`Ss A.c... .r~s'.34H "FJ 1. 3.f.~v '.8 FA~aTF''S+t31, a Pq e?ANY X33949 "'J1'€.f..:%.,f3 r',.€;FT'.At, kX€'R}aSS ':'t?3?.a ~A}a~>G 71 is€. ,''l.CGE w'€i2 f>T SaA'1'E "xti."v St i3 f" S,€~II?$ 3.i `1 7/1i?2€,C8 :~'S`a"C:iF:E MSLt, SiJ€'P1.Y :€~:3 .. '7; .3 :;'2~~i :a3 F ~a85;r't.'.. ~:.'€731LY :S+i.`. •%3 '?!1: :.?33 .., it kiAi~T.;r~A:2W S:'k;.t':'i:i~ 43~ '.1', "2C:23 ..~, ~. 3'i ~>`.i F~ .€,tv?8 .. 13 -..''rf «c;zn. ., Ut.". •s3h:> ~,. «i:Cf's },:'. +kR ..:';7 ,.. .*iEl:,?_~. d:Rw r'i.it ,~st'::y .. :1..l:A z•l, :.ra.1TS'>AN ~7k'1Ci 93^s5C t1.r2fG8 iK.'.... i3el'i`:E .. ., .. ,,.,., 3?3 "-.'..%2C^9 :'. _'4;TRSA€.. kE:.i?1Nii :>t1€=t?I..Y `i a <iE I. ;' z 2 r 2 ~^, u E3 TK'€'Ei;r~.m". :'Ei.,t:c'i.?M ?39&:3 '7113., tfl08 ISCS&w'«I<ttd3.. C'E3k?5;i:..T;I~G w€+:,". ;.;r3~5 '7; :. I, - "'03 "«llTasR:T2 Y."•:?MS%3a,3'z a:33)f:~ ~;r.'I.Iti~rSR ~. +3AAL? C'€3€tl:;# <ia~D=c tz2ef}~ ::A.:x 3iA'rdi,:*S(> :33'35.;' ,. ,2iG8 ,ASfY AL;r':T'..Fs«317 c.€1 n.i*}~-9 '7l is 2€3G8 Kk:Y Cie E:1i'C 7:;CSS ti39'?7. °?%11f2G9& «:bi., t3€S:I"«>T,',IW€i ;U1~Pis:T€?a y39S2 "; ;?.,,':ZOilB 1.RKESH(3ft1A 1:Es'1ftNSNC SSA%`::..'RT ri39'3 ';? ? s~7.L'08 L:AS VEGAS r'1f~PA!2ES., &: i?.P,t}P.7.C3 #~3:s'75 '?i 1.:.i20s}f3 GZ£Mi) SMPI..rMEi3T ;.'t7 ~,;,.,, Jr2.=r 2!3;?~ l.~:S St:73svR3 '1'1RE .:€~I";°EK Grd'r, 7i.€«./::'34'.3 tab`W SEA4?RAVES 3>,fb. 5<<i?'7 "l;2.! <363 LC5(:"AL £ii::1t+:' FER:;t3td'«. 1:NST <3:3`+'8 'f1.1;23t18 #,C3t' t":C:Ti,TF:E3 9?", 1~3 .%lz> 2iFG8 i:Ck,VG'S E3 TiK«;RX '''398:' „,. r'G3 M & M :tit:- '~ Wiir:"Y.INC# Ztit: s?i3;t ,,.... ,.. Mr'l= •.'i. IT ',Mf3E~.£2T 93~}f32 :r2C '~: M:.;~;:C' ~-~ "iT`X Ai.:FD€; Itu4k~::;' ri'34l3~,3 tl::, .7C )i' P''~.. . ,.. ::"t>3'!'t`X t:::`..Zsf?.}S :37:38'1 .. <,. f3 lr,. .., <. CYC:I.F..s ..f €. `.~}'3 f3fi A. ,'2t: .^3f"s ~ r3 ... ~. . ~v~.` gxci3l 'f.: !2;:3A M.. 1.... .'. £.. "'?;Ei'Pv ::"A':".t}SrS aswf}a 1; a;a€3 M.s- yr ;wP 'itaC .j '39µy ,.€1.. „. t'=fl3 m",:,€IF .,_.. f3T':'t;E3ES E. pR:3;*.f: i ; ?:3i:} ,S. .; 313 tJz:f;C3£3:ti'." .:rdt4.. _. '`) ? 9 ~f3.. ~ € t . <. ' fl 3 ;+w:':. A°;.3E . '~~ ;3; ,.'.,r'%Rr'S~:..:;?u 53.3 `3 9 r °. 3. t 3 ;) ;, ....: uL?'1.. f. At N . r . _..., .:v'~: gt:}9:3 •'.3.i;iG`~i3 h,»tV riCT?.'..,3 ...c:M3: i;3 ':+9': ..; 14sd'iL,~"":7~.1'C' ...x.:.,.1".z:K ~:?3:: 3' .. iCf3 hfD~1'PtwE~. :~. F`~. .. :~i>7> '~ ,>f3 .. :.(i^,i3 Kt1'TARA .t i~ndk: fRf• ~ : `, 3 , ...; 2€:.^:8 ti:3RSJP3E&,.:~ '3C"lf-''s'S1'r's'£` ~D~. .. ,.. -t,".-3 .:f'7•'€f:E «i3;Pt3T :' 'f 'P, Y C3 ~ W ~ f? S.: &3 1." R ?d f~A~'r': 2 FYxC4b0 ;1'A1':1:3 S7'A'.*-iF5 .'^•,.r'1'3`~ GSt~TJR1'f.:J ~ziwCit A'~",t3`@t: fd:~Cf,T,C~f1;4^.L? AM.T i??a,E ilt:E r^Ett?'3Ct:~w~ rt,x2i2GflF3 YfiS f3G G;} i3C Ct3 ., E?.Sa.°t3N€'t:.E?Z} ~I1'k!2(1fl8 Yk'~ ~i:3S .G^v :iri i:€t 'J l~~C:i3Nt"~IT,,~I: E3i.:'!.1tiQi1& Y€:H . £?G .... i%5 .fl{} i2E€"~N:'1LE'"u` f3r:.ti2G€d8 YES 292: `i9 ;592. `aa iiG RG;fGNCSI.€s«} f3fi.:1?""<f3Gf3 Yf;S 1.,895 !Da '1.,39ry 95 .GO ~ €}HCL'N~SI,E~ 3ttl%2GG8 Yz::a 234 .G; 274 G"; U €ac.Y;C}`IC:1,~E".3 3?:I?2.GG3 YES 2.4 .29 14. ?~) Gt} ~ia.t."i22'YC:?,~T,7 e5j'EiI2GL'•?3 YES :1G9 74 3~)9. ?d €; f.' RL:CfJ:SC,TLIi:! f3/'! t,z€?€;8 YES f32 .1t; 3s ,t3 .c;fl x~:Cd':3c«:,~:v atlAr2t3fi ~~~ €~:;~} .~; t ~c ;}o .€, _; EkC€3~i~Z«.E:17 r; tir2t.;}E3 YFS 3,2'11 .2c f3. /.:T., 2e; v0 ?2F€..~}+£.T..ES"i Ark i2flc?fl YES G~: 9G F: ;. 38 r:: ~>:.n_t~}1vC.€:M~'«} 3f7:,<2 Gf3 1YE> ~16 .:~3 5:x. 53 ,,. RE~^C1Ni:SLEu 3iili.€}fli3 Y€i5 ,'zesG ~ G+,' ,564. Gf~' ~)~` RE'~V3~C1:,k;LT 3rtltvi}Gi3 YF~: 3£:8 5c 3f3. 9G f33 I?f'::t;*S€'.€;ETD 3r>:!2{ri3f; YEr;1 342 .25 342 25 GJ (DEt:CNf':€>EC3 3%~ii"t.GGc YES "?.71.C .C;,^. '7,72.J. :i} G?? f;w~t?NC:€,~IS #/"si2Ct3~ ES 62".s .C: t} a,ZS G G€i RF:<"GN^...,EF3 +.1>'.. %2nn8 Y"r",S :t.:G28 .?d >i28. 3,i .G€? ~.. R€~;t:i:F:C:S.>£i3 8; :1.r2G08 (ES 26~ .';G 2!r.'i. g;} n7 tiECt3Nt:',i «;tti fs 11%?(?f}£3 YF:fi 2cJ .3~ 28G. 3.`i rr, 2c ..L'C.uEL X711{2^v'}£a YES %:7^s .riv tisG€%. ::~ Otl ~E ;.i~EL f?il.l,"213`}£3 YES .,G'.G ~G Z, £; :3€}. {'© .6t} r :;<.'1~LE;«? 3,'1.1'~GGf3 XY>S iFi .G€} 1.ra. GTi Gfl ,'L);if".I:..Fi) Sl.t ~l t:',10£3 Y€?S 2 97. 8A 2 32. 86 sC3 fik:wC2~PC,LE:3 E?; 11.!2Gi}9 YES 25"? .1'L 25'7. €~ ;7 (} f'(k'.wQg{c'P1tE€) { €~f i.: f.Zfl{i~ LE~ A'v S. . C'3 f3ui _ ~~ ''J t} REC3w`NY'SLi, 5I 1.+r'2GG8 YSS 3<i3 .Gfi 393. €%5 .7fl €2fwCt}AIt:II.,f'TJ 3Jl~ll2€PG8 YES .€,3~ttt .&5 1, :3"Pfl. 54 ~:fl ?2EL"€3;vC11.EL3 8i X=,>2GC#1 YES d3Ta 35 5.35. 3:1 CLT 1?.F..Cu:tif:t'€:Si} 8112I2GC3?3 X.^nS 3.,575 .fl€1 1,5"74. Ofl G€r 52?':Ct3:~FCZC:k"D i3;I1.I20t;8 YES 2£13 .1}£# 7.83, (}3 €iG R£€"Cih"t:f.i.F.T} R11.:€I2flflf3 YE.r, 7Q ,Qt; 7€3. €Sfl €;fl A~;f'VNCi':Ei) ~}jl t (2(}03 YES 33 flE3 8:1 Gf} , «;~.'3NCtP,E:? 33f1:z1<}G3 YF5 3G GS 3:!fl. Ga GC a~a~xt:[z,~ ~,€€fifl03 ~~~ 1,C}a,C} .4G i,eSG. ,;s~ .a.; kP:t'i3N^:€.EL: fart.f2flff~ `rES tf} .€,C t.f> €?fl Gw Fik,...aN..ii,7w«} t3~;.j2E74}B YES A€3A .1.5 E30A. :5 .';C R~.t~f.NS'«.51;3 d/i7.J2Gfl8 `CES 2,^€?O , i'f .,s00. £iG Cl^ &F.C'C)4dCILE€3 f?r;l(2€:Gf"s XS 153 .'sp 1.59 ""t` ?:: €?E::;~31vrt.ls.z:T3 ::1'L£}JE's 3i YE4 4 G , fl;; 4G`w GO ;iii f?.f`t„.'~.*7CT.i~'~-P~ J 3~tw11.7~}t}f~ Y.~';~'J 1.>:~:3~ ,~~ 1,~3gf~. fi~ Gl~ ;t.E."....ISCs,%:iSC 8j:.€: ?.:flA YES n;~ .5d >2. 44 .vu ~.5:£..3NT"t;:.:r,',fz C::.s.r`d'}^v8 Y:S:i $SC: ,:S=? 44.C . ^ui} J€' 6?:?.,;`rt_:...E;S3 Sr.:k,r'.?3C3 'fP:a 2,£3:14 .539 2,{33-0. 3f3 .. ., :F'`.4Ri:'ILE€> f:71ti2:?f}3 Y"~:;; &'',3S,; .u3 57,37:1 ;}fl .€`G iY~(.GN€,.~'L~k:L` f3?1;.J?.G:}3 Y€3S 1„5'13 ,Af1 2,598 Sf3 .:1 €i R '. ~?rt(.€i<r~.:t} 3f ttr 2fl(?3 YeS "~, 93s t': i; 5. 9:3M. nfl .'v i; 52c .:.E.tz.13«i Y3;,_tr2C:;sES YE65 2s,.175 .fl9 2£i,3'74. G:1 :30 R:".`CNC.ILEC: 8?»11:i}Gf3 YF:S 3,:9'1 .84 3,'.??.. n"-t .')6 R~,.,.;JCiL,:e:«3 3i 1.it2i}G8 YES 89G .«: t? 89^. 2G .":'~ i?e1'Y;N("IS..EC3 f°;~:..I2~Gf3 YES _iS5 i5 .3f's'.) 14 .`.?1; }2 Y. ~,f i~(:f€~Ez3 fi.: I.'2flE'T, C~ 1'T'. ~i .f t..~ .f#2 .€~$.l Y~i ~) Page 35 ,..j "w XF,' ~'w>v . •C ~.:: ::> , .,.. .:: J W `. ~.: ~Li ,. .~ ~ ` .C J ..: V ;S3 U ~ ~': W Si .,, 1. r: J '::.:> 4'i W ". i; ? a ~ ~ :£ -I .r n n 1 i b ,3. n :e A s :A oC*. A z, a n r~ A .++ ? n ,~, A n zn J. .- .~ n as s+ t. i+ :a A .~ ~ 'r ~s" ~_ ~-' C? ~ ~ ~ c> c:. <i o r s^ r: u ` > Z5 G :J ca fs .a z cy <.: < ~ . p >:,a. 3a ~! +/.S A ,>.: w i w '~. P .^-: ~z M i -, .... b«< C9 ..J b > ~' ,} ,T. ;. ,,. a .„. `f. '.f. .< .. ... w .>. t~> C .tE :^ ... a Jz n w .,> v T. w a ,.. . 2.. : ' <.. r. ,.. ,. .. .. n i.: hi a CJ aka .. >, ii3 ata v a. it Ri A is r # !; 51 W w .3 ¢„ !., s•~ L R ?..~ \. \ S. i. '. E.. .,. ~ S,a L~. 4.i hs N tr 'J N "-' L 3: a.> tom. ?.. ?~% S" A: R.; N N L h3 N N i.S :. •• i b i ~ <> < 4. i ."> b i W <3 ;., ..`. i'~ C: C# :.. b Fw' ;.. C) < . ". C.. . 2 ^z <~ CJ < <3 :.~ C; i3 C' C *'.^ ' ` 2' C C: '' ) ..• :~ <~ C> ~^. i.: Cd ':.: :] C: ;" C> C G 'O CJ .~ ~. !J f: C` C7 ~) ti w ~ G fJ i '= ; ' ., x ui 'c s. - ~ .~: m x „i u; s~ ~ x ~: s? ~: ;p ........, xr. m x ~ :s ~ ~ a> x x u. x rx' as ;ts x u' u. m :: m x ;n =x - .. iv .:: us u; x x y s, a ~ ~: ~ ~. ~: ~' ~ ~ L„4 .-? .# ~. zr; ~ ~ ~'S n c xs fi ;u .'n ~ t; 'r 3 ., s .. L; 7' < ~ i.; < r ,~ ~ to ,r ~ iF: z £ K Fx; r ~ ri: x% 'L X, R. ~"`'t" ~ Y v L -L rL > k` '3 'C 'E. z3 '~' 'L A xi k: 'X 'L . 3 Y :(` 'R'.' ~ .'Yx ,X. 1' 'S2 S} r X °Fi v' ',4` 'A.` 1: 'a; "a3 ip 1 +` F 2F` 'a' #?i 1 >, 4%; ~ 1; 'i r fa' ~ 'x` , i . `" #'" ~& is' 47 # 3 f 's`' #' #v [ #. 7 C;` m h: 7 I? , '~7 i"e F :3 n" rt` C 'Y' .3 .., ,... v .. ~".~ ., .. ., :1 C; ,. ':I Mt ..... L.'i L; L" Y'1 v ..r ,T L: ~:.. .. V t1 :...r w L:.. ., ., .T ...., ,. t7 s .<. ~' ^~ ,x'. ^• x s ~ ^^ 'c .n x x~ ~. x ~• ~• a. r~ m .,: <c ,rr x .:c: x x m rx a: w ;.a ai .r ; i ~u .~ x ~ .x, 'ss s> ~: x ~ x cr u3 sc x ;s; 5~ ti ry, ` . ^`, M,.. ^. ,N a, h '~' t,• .L '~, :{ - \:: h U i„ Tr ' sr M1 h. '~< S N t b. N N• t 3 A 1> f,. N f k3 A 'v t: .i ! U tv N T: N SS :.y i` !n ... <J : <J .. .,. a "7 t. ..< ., G: C ..> 6 C.. ..^. 4T G :> G <J > C..' !> ;> -. .J < G1 .'.'. b L--` ^.; C) „s «i ::1 C'r .^ . - - :,% U :S f <: : J :> G: C'> "~ w G P C3 C9 ..; C...3 CJ C7 (J ' : :.: C ') ':) ,.. ,:.: b t? > 'J ,: ,^..' fJ ::) C.> "'> .,3 .: +'ti '.Ti ?": ~:x.-..-,a^x.asuz~:~,:;rs.2a:u,;- ::.' ~amuiscm:~c;i;&xtcmx.n:.-,a;xx.x..,.u.az;scxx%mwx.".tcma~c:c;c~ r ~ ~ :, c ~< -C w •,. °~. c -{ ;d +n` +~:. r. -< .f. K •' !~ G aS '~ +~` w ~+. t -C < .r *r .C *•. K .c <w +C ~" K '^C w < aC ^a, ::: :. E +s '?° n- . i s? -r:.. .1 "" .'1 !%F '+3 C4: P: r 2 t '~ r rep !z r n Y' y" , '?` `al erg >n # £:zi £~*t a ... ....... ,,, Y r ,< >, ,.. ~, s, s z., s., v ~. s..., s si::s} .<- ... ,..:n .ra «ra ... ............ 4. ... ~r: ,t, n .s: c~ ..> ,... ...., .., r isa .., s, s ..., rs _ ;? r ~ "' ([~ \i e. `C `!• ._•.' d. r'U x i;J 3..., GJ u. aS• J ;.4 3. ..• N !• n h. ~• ,..• ,.., k: V` *C: n i• tJ Si ~ z" t :~. a• n ,x .., ,: ;., r~ is: N Rt n x rm :.. r...: ;,^ c. :.ss ,,. e? cti 'n r~ cs •; :N -: z e> ~i ca ;n u ,~:~.'-".. ~~ u;.•:s, ~n .:. c. ..~ :.~Ca ~n w><;, i-~v>+^cx>.v si .~ ,. xac.:_Nwe...m„ .; i. ~i eaos.> .;s .,e.sa ai AAW~ C1 a u ~> iro b c> a ~i cr k z~ <r, ^, b ..^ r,= u ra cr e: ca ~ C'> R3 S ~ ~:' e m .:; ~ w ~.; v. ;„~ s. ,r ,w ::'n :a c~ i„ c> s. V/ w ., !3 ,.s u. +, ~. .~. ,. C C.°`, <J .:1 :..:.J 3~- ,.. ...`. 47 s:. CJ w"'2 41 <.`. .~ ~: FS ti w <3T K7 U w ... CJ t:, b .^.~ a• d: w '.> 4? ., 83 L S :5 b iS .^., C ..r ~: n to :b !.a t3 :o ~ x >.? ~~ .~ 4J :{; :" .,: 3~ S i3'. <i i+ v. r„ S> ;.. T, s:? W. N k i... N a~ r• .,.e T 31 S,. ~ :.: *:J x N ^v"` ~ n ..: C' .bT ~. :3' <Y: G' ~- '~• n Y k^^. 3t W a ~ r» Cs w Y? .: 13 h3 N T~ 34 Sh z..o N 3-2 :IT ~# :5' .? :,- b £:R ^. w^ 1' ... ;±` .-.. !.7 >i` w ".'t d' ~ u :~ Ji v 'h k"• ~F J' '.".' -% C: H .T ..y :..% ~ £.) 4:.r ..^2 ..% .3 .C O 4. iw+ ~j >"' VJ S> C3 U~ v J! > <3 ~. (:x :L' N L;T 3a 1+ a> &.. 13 £~ <> <J 3a .i •S+ ,b F+ C' ,D :'? .,~ ~i u`ii 3+(C C.. <'J 'Y'N 7 AS ff<.^.'CJ CJ G;J CJ GJ iRN CJa Cif.. ?' i"w :F''.:. fA ,:.J !).': 4° J •' i+V .:. 3a ~C>QUC to ,,.. ,.....: .., ,n CJs .> ,: ~~. sn .., ....,> :.> ~• G7 W ;s to C> c a c~ ca cs r:s c> ..+ ... u *.. cJ ,:::.~ cx ~, a ..~ m ,,. w zi s b N a iFa ca G :., :a c:.. ~z 1 ~? ?T.F iJ :~J ~µ :~` .~k, K. `,y ;~ 3+ i?S "! 'J3 O G` .^. O G <3 42 .^ r" .y :'> G C> O Ci C,k O d T.'. 3 £: G+ C• <` ' l1 :•• .. <ry Ci :.< C> "7 •." ' i.~ ,^, :c... :~ ' :a ~^ ~: ~: z w " w r =:.:sx n w v :a :>. >~ :o : s, .~ s, :. .:.~ .,..c; : <s .. °,'~+•, ,. ~ i> J. d. > a :s- i> ._> ? .> Aa j, a is R. .'> d> »> W Ja a> A 3> . '>' A Y ,}.> da„x Z. ;a Ja .> A . i C V : C> i s '.> <> J C C: '? G 7 .: <. C' C C? <:) 'JC ..: ~. w ,., .,, ,,: .. • - .3 _ .;'; J a,. J :S: ~': ',.'R EU ~ £:: J." W J> :}, w .3 .i Vi Ch :.^ ^' (A (Yx i1t fh h "3• ; " .- .., rr .. ., w t • t :'> .. v.. 3 fT ., .i+ ..: h: x <.x v^ 5 ..: '3` .,K da ... >,: >~ .. vW -. ~: 1t :s. w R: s,. w. .. ? W Rt t- ... ., ll T iX. 'A ~ ''w 3. W 'w £~ ....K• ... <%: ~'% :}S 21 :% 5> 5 2; CL` ~ 33 :T3 fY:.., a2 ~ f}::..% ~ 6A :L? a: ~ <~: xi >1J .L ati ;w :}; w E5: CQ T. 62 KC 9t ".tt 3S L1w 33 s R !.> N !w 3:3 A; A. ._ A. R_' 'a3 N U !>H P.. n> ^> N 43 Al At [) AY At N RA N fi !J A: AS P.. fi.: U N !.) F-) h> N A: N Ai A, A. ,:. P•< N N TS A: h: !: N £ (',`, .i <.`. ^'> r? G' W W J <... .:. :~ :~ S^, rj 4} 3 A 67 J <.> Ew G A S:> C., .'">. Cl G D A 'wS iw C> C) f7 4J C ::i ) CJ 4S G> C:: C> R7 :S C) a") w% J a ."'+. .'> f.: C> .°7 £:: :: :3 <? '^ ::) ::1 f.'~ f.> :'• :': <Y C> ~ ~ "~ A .°" u 4T U C> A `.': J (? 4. .'".: A > CD :J is i'> G A E:> C.i v C C3 A A O C3 C? fJ M F.i Sx S:'::%? :t S :L• FT% iL .^.. :. fa: to ;}: 6> 6i A) 2`~ 2Yt 35 -.}. .:% x Zp Qi ~ ~ ~ CTS 2` a x ES: t13 fi: ~> Ct fT1 !x :TS M 5 Sky (L Ei.` TC :A': O> tG 'S: ~ ~ 5 5> £ RE :S ~ ~ -~+ !.' 2 ;k '.X :, z., .. Fa :~ >,z'. : 'i^. •a v"'Y i7 C ~7 ::.7 '., •.., f f f" ^ ('1 f' f ' ~z t G% A b y P .'^a D Y ?+ P tt 1F' '+} b ,-' x ~.' '*€ r ;x ~ Y' 7+ A, '# 2; C3 V > `s3 '1 :'q >~w [+3 S* ~+ tJ !•+ ~:' 3 C` 'v 31` L' ~` .'c. Z„ ;" tt ;s ... 7' £ 9 '' ~' ~' ~ F x. x E; ~ >n .a? 6"f T ~. J 3 C 7G T' .w J 'i? ~ . 4:3 +.: r C !"' A N :~. 2" s M;t '"~ b ;C+ ~+ ffi K r~~s `-} : ~ }P x"s acs d 'F+ ~„~), _.! ~ ..: }v ? -i ~ C^ }* «. fti ~ P"` .e' °w ~ •~ CS '~ 'EJ '{ "C P3 ~t V: a :x4 ., ra Y > n, .C ~ ~ i x x3 :n G 7 x[ P+3 f+Y H '"4 :"+ ?'! .~".~ PY •-' ?? .e. ,+s .`.: 'ter .. ,~<,~~ ~~. Ji ,'a c~. e~c.'SC:~=r ~ az e: w3 e; :.: ~~ u.~x;c:xkz:c: >a, 7 t -~ 3T' C 'YF ~ , : +~ C: 'x5 's3 3 f £_ 'ry 3+ E; C1 :5 X X p X k; «, C'• ;Ty Y , ~ 'zz ~ 't3 '~ 7 C" "FS M ~) t::' 'n A ~ ,c ~ j ~ ~ f Ks y D "~ r, a `,~~ 7 ~ Y. ~ .: ^. x1 ~ . 7 > r ~ ~ i ~ C.: N x' t= - ~' xi £` 3 C3 ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ '!~" •t} SY x _. w .f J: f ~' ~ ' 2": :i S *: C S ~: X:.'t! x: 'C X! ~ xs :: AS '}a :C x; ~: %C ',tS ~t "FS T 'C X! ,'L! ,R3 'A3 '?U f3 ".x1 X: R' ": ~; 7I 'v :b3 X5 ?Fl x FS :_; 'x: 'X:.'2a x::~? a 'x7 :d ~' R1 'xi 'xx _' ri" ? '>F Eti t.: ?'1 "'S f* { M P7 F'!` ^4 ;5' ~i L"} £,+^I 'i'I Y3 C?3 T'k >E'F t+3 tx3 Px` :a. D; iT: 'F} P Ye7 x, M r' ;r; fx" ~t ;? '*S R; nD ~ »• n zc ~ ,~,~ z v~~;~c~cs ).~r,~~~cz a~ c~% a ~~.~ ~ ~ra~'~is' .~ r'<z,~~.~r~r~x~ ~x~:c.~.:xzzrcx x ~:x,cx~ ar ~x r~rzz~ .r~x:~~:z ~ ~"> r'z^s .'n ~f. :t*.l~A~a,irs~c~ r, t. ^~^r ~, rfr~ ." SrY ~> :: „~ " r nEni:Fn {rg .,^~. r r-rr :~:r: ^P°c r r •rc'z~^ ~r t r ~ c P. ~ i•i•r't° c ':i:,-'•.. {{~~ '=3 ET 'xl P7 zr P+F tT' SC ~ i*` K+' L}` 'F! ~r s*I M iT3 t'~ ~ ET' M SF EF` "} (T' ;xE 7: ,ni i+; ;x! T~ '~ ~ t g7 :+7 sT' >~ J .. £7 C3 .. £.. ?; .J ~ t5 a ..: >Y :1 5J ",Z C C"s .. v _, C'; v t7 C .'7 i3 ~, .., C3 L'~ ~ ~. t2 t. ~ L7 .;7 L::9 CS ~^' L::. £1 ~ .• ~ ~ ~7 C~ :pcx:;~;}:a:xai x~ ~:m:FSm mu> aD:x:to~ a: cc ~>x xc2lfeo}mu::cxmxcr ax ac a*ms: x:}>a>:;.~x c:~cam~~»a :~= 3^+ ' D. y ,> }.a b.. }. N a 'D-` }- b'~ e-+ w .. S-^ D~ W / Y D+ .+ 33-= T x3 A. 4 N is +.D A. N !*: h3 3.; A: A: !V P.5 P•: N N N K= N f: N N AS N AS Pv P.5 N TJ r3 h: A: f i N 4._ At N N P.= P•5 N N N 33 n. A> A3 AS N B.3 A> L 4> w e"•.:: C:> <2 C.`. C. :? A Q C> G7 C: C: .'>. c::5 CS C7 O C^ O '..i A C> J O G` ~ C3 A A J C C.. <: ...> :;> £J a i J t~ >r::: C> Sd G Y> CR C'] C.? C i'?C> <3 C'J L7 t'.Y U Y> i7 "_^+i~.^.. ^w 4'J .`.': C>i. C?<,±L'1 •„bt> `"'Ct UL:3C C>n'y :~:3 (:> fS C].^,>C? C"i CS C7 :.'. C'AA:> .^., G OCybG% v ~r:;::a~m ~ mm ¢t<n a:mm:~ c~a>xc~ccaz.>R,`vma.~wm;.rsmaaa:aa~mec:,t m~>uzli:;istvsr~:wai~m~xa:o': ' -< K `t .1, '{ +'C 'C aK ~`' / K: ^« M: >C K ~C E+". K HC >f K :`C . ,,4 K •C >c K K k w ~ ,': ~' ~ >~.; .<; 'K ~f ><, DG ~ K ^t K K >'C K ••: f<3 '"€ Tt :+::*S t+: C : L=. '>3 ;rj ;x? ~: t?? ! 3 t" . i £x; @7 ?7 Pf C1 .L Va C+S ~ !Yf Fi' I T' ~ ir; ::T3 tT 'T' nt '~3 b~. ;}3 M ?si i ,'T Z%7 .+'Y Lx7 £•`, ix7 ITI +I :R V3 ... 3'. L. 1J :;i i/S Dd: G:? U1 VS Gs 1} U: ~ ~ ?,>;. 13 $I 3P3 f1k J: EP! L'4 4: ;SZ ff3 :A C::d! ff1 +i.. ~A ff3 .,..f: ;ti ~_ :..^. 'Jx 'S. 13 ,>. J'F ;£3 L3 fi SFP U: US It) £t3 ;:> (~ d. f^x +3 v h: N ~.W a> T ?~ A :.t }- ~.: A N h% d. A X: t'. 4; •.: :J ..} !•A b a iJ .3 `v D<.>, N :.t LN '~+c `^ •' 3F :... D^ h ~..; ~u n: v^. v^ Jx C: 'J' !.. •,. ..: CV"> G }~. U? N V 5 G x,; 7 da G% :,s ;}: xL' A! ti ? AS C< :x= a= i3e :.. ..3 :3m ,.; :S3 Ci? J d> n a; wurwr~cn v. v'. r;s<..d .a :a ;r ~.Aas>~.: „. ;y :c>a:.: o:n esm-.ys:r. n. A. wD~-D~ wwNNCx ~a .r. v=.,,>^ Al CS Gt c>s; sz :o W x> .".> :„ t#5 aL> L G' C w. S) ' L: U '.. •J L^. W At G'^. G A J ~ D-+ SA C.' ..> .1 ::: C} G> :'> .'.S A !- ~: !. Y> :~ • A: 'J A: >.^ ~ 19'3 1E 7. CC C^ •L.' .'a <:: C7 A .. d: :> a'D hs .. ~> C> t e,; Cn ~w A S. S. C7 SJ ..+ ~ G V? J C.'1 G S p .^.. :> :> > x .: CG Aa C.~ .... C'? J.s y S3 E! £Y, a C:S At CJ tea. v W 'fi ~~ H 7 -i $~ ~3 "K: 3* ..? C: z X: k i A PA u: G N ~ :3` ~. AS Q .. p+ ~n ~ A; }~. ~'; tN ~ :%; y.a A W .F i> N N `iW h +'>3 is C). .,: N •.I !+: :.> da !^ ..} STS w A: :~ w Q; r.. i> F C'+ ,..• iX: :. .+ C,> ,.: L b., J N 4 K::.9 S cY. R, ,.: .' w't }+ G^^: N 4S iA Q w C:D .P. (r, v: 2 SL` N CS; i> /.A iY E.+ ¢: v. ~~ E2: .: Gt ti 11 A e'> A # Ff z. :f, rG :t:w e~-x:330::1. } .. .: i6i :T. -3 fft A>1^>:-~'C 13 i>C,3 CJ tR CJ T. .: i3T V'a ~ hi `.> ._;~t~~• N A: C;,t ST 3+S?SC NG'>T. :'>*C Q3 ::t tt _ ..~ f u :J G A :R x> C3 C> C> ::J t.• tT Y) it eJ 0> .T. A} !~ o .7 LS 4^ }'' :> O C? da ;3 C> C'? ('> i;. i. t_• *J n% G C:3 <:) ..r A; w,,: N u^ .T +X'. .?E tX' R% C`. 'y'S :: ~'. ..: !) ;'> i> .1 .'L' C.> C> A; .^. _n CT t-x „3 C..' ~w A :'> V' C> .^.. C'A W FiT if:. .^.. CT Y.2 sG C:> ::. .". :) C, s^' S CY 4^_ :"> C3 <.? J> w £:? Ji C}% w: C'.> A: .^.' 'vrt :;J :C r•§ ~: •6 ~: '.> .. ._' ') Y Jb t> c` a EzY ?+S +C 'Sf .~ LT: ^i t CJ C h, K: y J !.T$ `F, zj i C': C.x i> Cii .T7 A K sfY '3 :> 4> ~J a.s > . G C> > ) :~: W .J G J S'A G: C> > '.> C 'A Ct Ci L > Cs' A '> < S "s C5 '• w 2 .. ..~ A S"S 'w% .^ ~ C> a) GA C> J ._.... ..'. C, :3 ... A r> C,. .^.. C"t Q A J :. ./ 4 -....:, (1 L> ~J E~ L'..T .: .> :. .. c} .,. .T T CS Y> ~ C.'a O C~ ;T} x a. w:x;I~l:? ixki iriVE; riA'ri<, 8/ I:31G8 .I.Mc: ... a8:4d :'?I;"K k 94' , 'l: i33 fa:l"l 9dI.13 `3a; uL} ~?42I ?4:.22 ;d.~ x124 :?a x.25 ::a'I.2" 4-~ . 68 94 I.:;. . ,4:.30 )5"3: ?a.3w .' ~~ i zi ridi:3d I'1 13 7 va .`: 3, ?9f 37 9a i iE5 ? .: } .i ~4.2a: -:4td~ 9a 1.4'L 9a 1.4.3 94:~ da 9a]45 Shc.ari id1.A? 94: i8 :?al5o ids 5a 1. ~:3 ~aal.~rs 4d1 r,f> :,.,1r 'i4I'i<. r,az ~9 k 4 ;. e: s; fr 4 i E .,. ~aiE.s 9 •; I €> a ~H ~. ~.~ a ~, E`'; 't4 Gf3 :}4:r9 +a.'}I. +a 'r~; .;a L'FtIiL'FL. I'.Ai'~ FAYi.'.E ?JAk~EL"+: ''l.if3lL'.'s.fsi} ?4UN:.~:I'i.;. FE:Mck,f;yf"Y .,x:Ft7 7f 18/20:?H NAht~Y .; :3vitSa.AN FiG:.'r ,'3.812^'?6 ':V'c:X'.'t'F't, f.'vM':?:`s".^*Ia£°AI`£vht` ?;1E3rzGOE3 rr;;R'rEa~3rrAiz ?°i:~~:'kal:'r,I, :NL~ '?%.i8l20u'8 kdliMA'r'.FA ,..,.^:aARe: 1'Pi~~ '7,812GLt8 ;Si:;ttN:3c:€xG S`"=":N'ri.E"... 1; :8: «.':CE3 C;kiC .."A... ...,...'k.piS Iki{' ~ti'~'2;)v S .'?1i )~':}%'. .~.~` ?.?~l if:if t<:.F: ~. ~.,. Y', ":?i2G£38 i,R:?.Gi>:d ,. Aiz E3AR 'i:EiJL~JGri Pi.A"". .....ii..'i'pi.... .'t^; "fit irk ..i8 :"iz~xi~Ti VF. e!x:>;?c?"€"_ .~., `x::v i;; :912u{sE? zx~2 ~?:I?-rJiiv ...":MzxAN7~ , 3l2C^,8 C„i13.:1{`_ rs' KXy. :'in:",Y ..~. '%f~I.Bl2r3G9 riF:l% :v?if> xk3C~; .,,'i:±R:: i1£tt:;i?3i3 :>A's~E+:A'a ... ,:%I'<i 1.x"s%2i30E3 SAFER:"J >:.r~-Pe.:Y ~CS ., _~.%M`?3zs S:v'St7 i:;:~5f.::v Sl'si ~; I'X '3I3 P'x'I,z .,. S, t.^s;8 5...iin,.;.AGw,•;~ .,ikaks,R~' Px;liW:iS .>.3l2~E:N '::kYSi:A« ~R: ..;ISR.- fiP~.':3~; .si2CC!9 sChl'iriC.., ~.;:I~i?•:;RA:,:„i ,.. :,fif3 :xPixi.k: .r;;'2£:Of3 ..'IAI~t,I::S I}C~..;i.N1:S^~ r'1ii'vAkdTA,^> :E3l2^G33 'xT 19€'i:.i;i"E ;E3l20G$ T.t'i'Atd E>AI:E;z :;AC3iiP ~3;'10:3E1 'rRAt+F." :~AFI~.TY :>'sPPi.,Y C3 7%"iE3l2^a8 TRi M?w''^R & MAi'HIkdF.RY ;'(? ?; i. E3l2;~GH `J?4I T. €i E,,. 'A3,5 iti.ist?HWE`i ~i i18!:G08 f3ta"A M£1HI'l,f'':'Y ;s>i2F~I.,ES3 1MC° ':i3l20;?8 iiATc:f+.Si:~i: 2:+!. ~:slz;ae wr:,sc:C; r,„>TRZE3';•i'if;ki :xc "'l i. Ei; 2.}nf3 FI{.,C)z.A:k:d x'~kzT :'. '.'zRt"x.5 ,: I'3,:,:)Oi" i7L:ztid3;iRR itI'«SIil~idf: ....k,"'fi'R :E3li.C38 XERCIX `,;Rt=^vr{A2`i.tikd i8J"<::^8 Y3-;S ,~.IFAdx'r?i .... ,a. ;f3 SAL..,.. {~*,AI.khG ...=i2;%;: t, iN ;'.31,`2f,~E3 MZ::~E'.,E t~~E.r~Ii.'S '?; 1? 11.:G53 PEA :_ Z"ASH ,;3;!23::€? 'rYi.cK ., ?.A>v.:,. ~~! ^Of3 SdE.,. ., z~i..Y ~S!r.'J ,3 Ai.,.,Fi:?,.., 'kti.; r%E I;..., ,?. C' i?;;: Ai2A"'ARx .Po1 F,xRFa .,k::.1L . •.r '. 21)0€3 r'1:;Ai% i;.?t"'vfA_t ~•: .. „ i;,' };.: Ml:is°: Edtx', :,tii r.r4 i2,rni k I'v`,r ,!2512^,^3 {ARe;...i?"fRA:.:K S'i'A'.i~ir'.~3 :CC3Sti': i ~;~8 Ii ^; 'Qki is r 7.£i.; K t:,;c;ro:: I i.E:c R?~:, .IN:, , .,,. FED .,:d:...«:i; u I;'..;kdt.... e;TU" R:•.,..JNf. ..,,.. 7Ii.:iki r... s.Ei, R. ~=.3, ?'.. 7 . .iN :.xa~ F i:J~~.'wFv R ,.13.:' E W~F;ll R: :'NE' Z :.irk ": VktC? i,p:U kttf,N:^, I;,F;J R F:r"fiN C". 1 i.,Ei3 Sz is°°o'v':' .. ~ I3 ._ .:_..h,::.,E~s Ri.£.~ti `...,,.. R. E<"CitdC ~ ia?Ti Fx k. C. ,.. ~..c;I? z. c^,: : e:~:~ Kr,. f, ......._ P..,~...,k;(.l..m.. ic't"t>7Jr... ... .~'i'A3't%w I}r'1"'w„ .. :^AsE;1, f`Si ~C'R. AMC;Citdi i3,"e.ll2C~~8 Y£S 2'i'~ 6'3 8;": >!"l0"FS `rIs i d, a".. 0{; i3,"I I2=?G!3 YI':i }32. 8ii ~ :f I . J 2 v :; ~ .... ' S , iii i 231.... .. {3^E3 YE':y :3!.,. _ s;lll,i„:t03 Ye~S 46 t. 9 £3iIj2G'~8 YEa $2. ~: :;his Yzi.r I:G , Hi, lcrJ:;r• Y'r:si 33f3. ',:} f3111/2.G8 ~rE.g 1:?S. E3l, 33ji.t!?.f)GN YEti 1,3£37 57 3:131?GQi3 YI;S .>r,8 LI<^z E11 iL1Z3GE3 YES E,3+>3, I~C fi!£'i.f2G38 YES I.,.Z:}?. .;6 d/1_Il2L3QE3 YbS 46 '%E3 ?3i 1.~>t.~O3E3 YFa.S .,394 9.3 N1Iil2i7£•. :ES 4i. ... fb,tl2l;l,Of;e1 :Y:=i i`:v. u3J Eli ~ f 2vliL) `r .', fi v.3 . ii f' n/'..; 1. ~'...in Yk;- .. 'r~ Gix 8i I'.f`2J(7~3 Yii:i 20t3. 1G rE.r:ll2a'Sfr .., .. a,:1.,. ,,,, Kli.l% "Oi3 Yi3 a4 ~r ..;'~' e .. xso a2 fir!}.; 2L:)b ,:;E 't4 Aix:?4n6 V't;Ei3T IEEC4NC'ILI.i7 AMT i.)TPFt'wftE:N''» 1A;0 ~G . (:0 2.29,d.i .. a,a'Ja.oa .,.. 93:2.£f8 v:l 53 33 :; s7 Sv6 57 £0 r3.;e ,.. Ee . ~ {) , z,z.otl .~:_ } 4.3 7f; r}:~ w6S G. 1 3 , a ~i. C :3 36.72 , i2!' 45:3.9'? .C^. 92.5i Ci i.4;.5.i5 .£7J f3J.t33 ~I:i :., 335.9fS ?:: 7.4Q .O`, ILG OG .0 378.33 'v~; '715.32 ., .. 3E?.CO .GO 1Z5, i3.f .'~J 1, 387..~'ip 5r?6 OG ~.;J x,3:x3,t3G .... I,2:37,5Fs .... 45.78 z, 3vd 93 ~. dt.1~ s;;; t'sG.ESO +.0 ?G3.`SG v;t y95 ..., i37a.G5 ... ,. 3~G.ae ~^ 2c3a oo ... 181.92 .... 2a{?.L•G ' Ias.4a a,E3: .. ... .. s~ :~ ,:, 27 nf; CL __. ~9 u_ a4 iS L}0 C9i,7,.t .I,fi 19 E3 {? 4 . Cs G •.~L7 a2 0~ 3",. 9d .Oi; Page 38 ~~ ~: ~-: w -. ..:i ~ a:n .u '.:s ~< a ~ a*a ~ssu r. .« .a" o.v ~v. .. s ',,r cw s: 'x+ .c+ ~ .. ~ a , ~ a a` a~ .u ,e. a a a a~ ,e, a a ,g. a s, s: a a .. ~.. .~ s. ,a a a .:a a.. a a a ~ a v °~. a s. r a .*7 ?3 Cs N ' :... A, '~. f hs ~.~ '~. '~. f N x> 0. A. N n, R xS; N N h, N iv R N \? r >» .+ ~ t.. w »: w e. w °.: i.k h: P. ;`. ~ ~ ~ n+ i C3 L> w3 <? G :.> C7 J U x:% i£> 'J SD ~C S, ':~ v ~% ~'. ~ <C 'A fx ~ aA S[3 N -.. r .: W .1 T .. .., \. ~ w^ x .. T~ N •~ to •.: :3 .. U. ... CS `.% Lf% ..: m L^: ds w h.. .., .~, ya C ai) t. i.- N M+ 2'> ?. ~3 L. ~" A :.; N r-~ G ffi -.. C SC. S': Y•. # a a .a ~ t~ ~ :... ~ '~ N \ A N N 4 :1x ! ?.. !..- N F,. N N {:s N N f. ±.> N ffi. 4 N '~. . , t. !. N x;~ rx Y3 R. N N }:i n; SV Aa N ffi fi. 3* '23 [~: V ,W W 31 ~ r ~ .3` ~ .t :tE v ' ^3 ~'t :R li? ari J' ~ 3t i/' J? CJ' h Ji 'v L~.:t'y. ~ ?. F .a A T\ A. A. N '~, }.. N t.. N N U R £. N A. N N N 1: A: N ffi3 P 11 A is ^.~ k N N }.~ A3 !v A: U N Fu a '^` J U :> CJ W 4 <> ', h ,, .. t C„` -.~ `3 C> {? v.} .w' <'? CI p Y:7 C ..: t~ G: G7 ~ ~ CJ ~ i '> :, i Yaw`, C G/ C'. G C? ... C~ (".k fi 3Y :. W J ` '> <.' .:: C` ::: <9 b <:D G: .7 £. x- fJ CJ J J :.'? ^..,t' b <'J :` .. <a ^ '"z « C) C> `> f L:k GD J Y :> '. »# :~ ...% S~ :S~ :: ... .k: av ,D :.~ '.L` S >]> ^:: :z. .:., 6x ~S 4! UD ~ J ;T5 At2 ~ ii> ~D Cx x :St ... iL iYi ~3 SA :L '., a. .S.'. ~> SF> ',:.- w 2 v SL Sk".. rA CC t}x 6: 5 :i IL L' ? i il .: l :8 Z .~ ~ .~ 74 t., -- ::x: "~ 'r3 't '" F '~ :3 3 Z ' x i ;-. "~ f { ,~; k* ~ 3 .z ra» ~+ : y {^,, .-? 8~ ~ ;~ t=3 H` ~:.. ,Frc' I ,.: ^k ... 7x ~ i' r C ~"? 2 a b ~ .~„ „y ~ ?xs z s3 .r~ <. S ~ s. ~-: :s 3 _ , t~3 ?~ r . 'J 3 ~. y L? x .F y r .,. ~ Cr C s xF c- Y' c > .r .+~ > En > ~' rr f. ,~ „r ~ a s~r ., ~ :.~ ~,~~ -•~, >-iz.' czzi~~t r:; .,•x.' 3 x~ w. t?>~r fix? ~ ,i .~ Eft ifs i, > >-? z3 ,z >+: i '~ V L is; ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ .; ~. y, ^t ~ iT~~' ~ ~ `23 .>t. •} dF .~ t LY' ~ °SS ~ ~ ~" ~ K i ~ ~ r.. ~ K x ;'T K t r 3 !aF ~. # >-i i fi1 ;x O ~ ~' :z~ r' e: 4. t i ~ E" sJ .f r"'3 ~'" s a> ~ : ~ . s t•x " 't c`fe ".7 'C .t3 :.} RS ~ ~ 3 # ~ +,C k ,r > ; :f $ d i ti w ."s '7 f7 Vr ra ~ <3 r-r vs .4' v G :ti t_ e > 'y ~ 'rF :.. 3' G "i 'L' K ;s3 M rJ" X 7 Se .y1 `a: ~' t') ~ Y '. ~ 'E7 7; :=I :: _. r ~ :.~ . ~ .r ~ . > . t ;r J FS? 4 :'"} s.... f~ TC . Y+ ffx b': ;r "+.' Ls •C 4: «, ;t; £: Z A t" i"' .L' ;C :U +'7 '~ C a a '.C. K` x3 'Rt ""-. ~ V %L .# X, %3 ',C 'L' 'F :U ,'S3 :i3 Z', xF 7J 13 'A2 X! X. 2` Xk .'G ~3 .~ "X3 kl "Xk ,K, F. ."C. ~# 'a" 'R+ x' 1'F t1 "i! '.iv k3 ."<7 ,t:T u U ~S ?Y S n 'T "'F "T' [>' F rr'> £rl t"x` '+7 Y. 3 L'S ?% :'+S M i%? x t'Y ^f f!t tY3 "F 2'3 t*1 '~€ S+" "r3 r°' ' t S+t i*? L' 's« 3 M '~7 ?` r?t Lx` >n, t*' 74 EsF [># •3 ,. '~ ". ~ . ~ f"' k °3 l,{ f ~ `3 Y? :'s h f2 Y"} rZ f~ ~" f'` f] ~ f '1 ^ f'1 f` ~ C` :'' "~ F^ r f"` ~ 2? :air car ,~~ ~ ? ;o~;~ y.,.rae ~wca ~rso fir mot, > ~ >' <>c*,^ c:~ ao'^ ~ 7.7.C Z'~ 7. .C Z e.'G a' :G x'.. `.x: "8. `1.'.? r".. 7. 7>.7 Z;~`J'..~ `L 2 ~.~ `.r: <;Y 1.: .ry; :k' 2'?<2 ~2''~ G ~7,~`eL C„ f ')r f'S. ~ ~! 'a: `; :k <fi' 'y ~i'y ~i F"~ f; f. ~ , r, f'r f'4 :k .f~! ri , ~ »'•.:.c..c:e:.r.r~~,„y.g.,e..'::' r:~r e r<i->r r` t ;~ r,e.c c .::~ ~ EY' ;TI rx? f?: 2 "'S C"` :?3 "%" I'rY kY "S Er5 '.%1 €+S ?v P-'Y E t 3 'H E+7 ~ PI #%3 1T' r# ~j t~ '?t ~7 LTI E_' r3'3 I f :*k r+' 2+'3 C~ '>3 >"4 ?I 2 1 6?9 M #C `rv t3a~ u~~:.±u:,~~C;~~3c;~c,Gbt~ r~caU.,~s.~t..r~~~r"rs:~..~..rsz~~cz:~~s°~~~.,.~.. Y % eR A .T. :T' L'S) 9 :I% :Lk W Si &^ .:: Q> C il3 0.? :E @) a9 fT xi 33 ¢` W $ ffi C3 <+D iD AS 'S R3 m fA Qi (e: .'te. L'a 41 OJ SSD '.'7;; p> yt> 'S ::,' S> 5 Q? Yki 'X+ EL' 4' rx .'i3 $ Js f• Y> h. >r .w .. ~ ~ ~~ Y. ~ r.a w i~ ~ 9+ N H [^' N H r2 ~ ~ i..~ k % «.> Y^> Y 3-+ w N .-+ i N N AS R1 N tJ N N r3 h3 N N N t3 fr N N N N N N Rr N N RS N N LV N N i~3 * N Ax '3 d.; r:.b k~k :v ni P2 R: N N N r:i N N #.3 AF N N ii v %JJ (:iQC L'3 C :% QC> ryYJ b4"'rCC} CaOGOG`'J C? GkC>::. C: S:a Ci <:G C: ~i:7 GY GD C> ~!~:::%C'a ::>^.,2 i}CD >;,"D V C'+O :'., u "` F <> C'a 47 fi <D G V ;; L'J C3 CD ~ `.~ R Q ti t7 J Q CA C7 O C3 C Ca L.'a d CZ <Z ~„'"`. C <.> O 4:t C: C: G 4` Q 4J GR CS <D C C CJ G? C.. : C.', ii 'i ;U :' S S fA W :Y: ,^. .. ~r< R iF lb S *9s ~ J3 ~.` AS 9 Si4 G9 tE 53 OD £YJ 3t ~ m :Yr C%: ~:: 'J? W ~ Ti' a1+ 3J '.X? ii: :v fRk :Sx .^.: ~3 ~k S W SS W i'L` ZA is jT, 6 ' •C ~'C *< »: ~^ K a< .{ { rC >ti ^v •+: +C >G >+€ .f K >:.C rC »C K *G •< •G .C 'w ~C w w ~+. >ti ><' •C '•<: ~ .G w> +1 rC K •K >H ^c; w .t >~C K k ~ rsF C+", r%1 t~€ M iT; - 7 r t+" :L L '?1 .3 LLS " F M [3: R9 t=f M t*< Sr9 rrl eXE w :T7 [* 3 . M M A$ ?'! '.+F nF LT, "r3 ~, ~ [+' =F TF M ;s; €LS '.'=3 '*` '+' PF ce ..............~..a .r^. L.'• u ..i .FF :f} .1: J3 :la rT. J? vF ~!11's {A V1 €,: tt1 tf1 VF 'S: c.^. d3 i1Y U. ~ t'3 U} J: Ef3 's1 Ef3 iT:rt L^. J1 .fi3 .f.:1Y :fi :. r.I {l.:n ks :'tF :T. # ~' s y S '=F v'7 s ,: v' r :s. N N N s ti (? r+ 1 :,r '.~ ?,t ~~ s..; S-> w r k-+w :^- !31 V: A.F :»r ".,s crr N s» iT: u3 .~y w .i rw M: ..: ;.x ?vs s,y ,W a^. !v S s^> iv iai T^..T J. 'w fi aE w cT :.'% ? L's V~ CS ., x{k L. v A ltx N '.FF ih Ri ii` dD EY.:.° :.1 A: !.:.~ '.v w l:i ltt Sr`. is ?y,' .-r ..F C; w 4` a Fa ~+ R: ~ ,"y' L: 's3 ;A +^ a h3 L'k '.::%-,}L ^...` ~L` NN:at a N am r-~ a fRNXx <7 P.F J> JCS US .., L'3w a i:. ::> i;D :.°t .~ r3 e:3 ?- .: h3 :.» ~ htb~C%::i ~L?4??Y' :: ~~)3 +C ~> :ZS O ;":> ~.x ". 1,.:. -`: k.i [C :~ ... <n Ai ri .^ :.Y a,'! a>. G'~ ). f~~ G 4 O r* vW i(: v'a aSi :.; 47 C". :A :n C.> £°, zU ::J ,w 4 ~ ~.• f.> h FSF •.; ?'3 ikY Lf3 ti3 & L FEt ~ iS3 £3 C` GR a {> N &" ..3 ~~ ?`i '.^~ v': V? O O ~ ~.: O J? ?lZ tC L> 3 sSi CD <'? A :.D m :: `.3 « \a N :~ f3 i.? <J i»+ C3' Y.> tr: ."J L3 J V` :i? `.3 !S 0.: :: >~# k P: x+ ~ K3 a r a n m ~ >`i 4'i C: J =; ?'.3 f.3 k.a i3` ..s s~+ ., .-• ~ c" <: Ai a, ? aG 'w kU -• ~:;a h• F.> ?~ + SA ~ N :.. i(,` ~/ m `C v ~ i+ ~ N ,:>r ,p sr ~N rr m :., w Cu <D J~..ia Sn '~"~ :D S%.` m "x i. fJ m 3.> P '7 i'3. ..1 i> J` A5 ;A m N :1? A '1'. :^~ v3 A„ r,F .iD ffi+ (...~ trg R% 'v"r `f3 :v •3 [%: :.: :D A «'?~ T N 3 {"i .-: iU S O .a .^: GZ <:: •.3 C: 'J. ie;r R: n5 Ss Aa A,r iT: ~ ~ A ¢ D+- '.L` O N a. ;a C.i` i/ _.. ,.. S.+ Q <'.D t.'a iii <Z ~3 O :~» W N >,• +.e'S f,:, J' ~ Li ti v vs ~> cc N .. r; ;.r .,k ca sx u',r:. r f.x ~-rs •.:; c, nc:: `..,an` m;;f a.n cs .., a, s. ,-. acs v: ..: ~s-,c :. ,~~ ;;+ .; .t3 <> :a ,n .... «_, t.i ., ..i . ~ :.? <a w wn. z> ..~ t- .: cv .}x xk a::V ra 4...; :'a .o u m c; ~a c> ?.: rs r.D :.. v..> ._ >r ca :n r. rx x> ;; :n .. a N a 3 r.. S # - R? M, •., v W C:3 .^. <: :.> :: > '•:J '.;. .; :,: CJ <'a <> CJ :^. :.; CZ G'i E:S :'"> S.: ~ Cxz ;Z t:% Ca :a i'a <) (i Ci Q C> <: G> <D ."D ~„: J wi 3 G C C. <J ~: ^„3 <1 x C7 <~ (_):. .. .,, ,,. .-. ... .» i3 ~,.,` S.> C.> CD w>.:; S3 C3 C Of3 <S fDb C:J O:J G` eZ :.>C?d t)C.3 J fS G C f.'>i'3 Ci C?!.`. <Z '.>f.YOC.~d'a ;,^ ~.` v f.: 7 vt ~ i~ EDS . A'>Y# "'f iT :? :di?»'i3i.3i?t"2t3 :.;IY.~ ... _. 'i.' f .., F iv '. {; ?, i; L rt :3 F'A4'. i ;SRS: (.: 4 €} : X14 ta.^.Cit. ki~ix::3TI`.Pi 1i€'iE.C3`". t~.=.{.x ~ c~ttk~t~~° ~~•rt; ~-~y~:zt ~€~.£~~ ,> ~°::c z;~t'n'~rt~ z;;~~~ ;.::>~a wr ~>~:r•.w,-t x.~t;s '..s€~R ~,..r,.rx:.ti.zst.~ Aa~~z s~'~'r~€3~n~r"'~ y41't2 '~1 ZAJ! c~.Gf~ '..~.{S.'i'A~.s i.. , t.A ,.J C?:~.S xd~> ' U}. ... . ~..:,I: L'J w.A: !€).3~ 'Y ~'.e~ . %':> r , . . ,. ... .... X.6(~ ~ ~:J ... 3:7.43 °~(2`'ilz,,tt~ ~. Kr..ai;t.: t '> >'ie~SRi$ ii~..i.. ..,e:~ i3}i511£3GE3 YES tjail~i"i .'i~ f:,,~7 55 Gti 9~124£f 712xi%27:1ts "' t.!t:E3:;.f: r^^.:: C3,d .. ., :?.'z21'1•G4i3 Y~`q ..4~ .4?i ~~'3 .sk~a .tj^> 4~%4.~ 'J/"<y11t~Gi's 'CS';".~SdT~x i. i.,, ..:A: ,.:;~la; f:&SS:~a RS....,,ah.. ...: 1) 8%.€~L j;20.9A zF5 39t3 .J"3 39H .93 .€;~ ,)~3~xi0 7J2':s2.:~ '3`ShY"i €'s_~~ ., £2i.r('i? R*S?blSYr' RS ..3~ „Fu€7 ts11!°~cG£~ ft+;;i ::i4 .C"' :?Q .K? .C,p ')4252 "~~~sir2G4$ `.'?v<.:.. Rr,Sv".A'.": *.;,32'fi:iWf~;'1` ?2e ka. ::.<~;€i i3r;;12GilE? Y~;zi 7,~4? .9i3 ,74? .9t? ,;',Z S?4'~'.i3 7%ZS `~!I.i %s ';T't. .... id w, _,~35 £dC2 'iti€sf~,.,Y ;H€. z2b. ,N. ......., sr, j2G(i8 'z £:." . :v^ ~•.2'S4~ °t2':. fe9 't rjC - .x...:2y.'.'T: dck~ €_:-.1.3 ,3r: afo:fr7~ YE'fi zJG C9 .. . . ii ~ ~ 9,.7,'aG .`., ,~E ~ k ~ n „ _ ,.(i~,-, 7S. , .ba7a 2r»1.~iJzt~ ~'i:.. ~,..3a'? ,3H 3,.,ti? .,3 ~ .,. G f.l`., Jl , 312G r-, 'rr .., _. .,,,, R'a,• ,. .. A R:.':;t3!3 ~.-., ,i t3 ,:3. St; 7i: .. :1 s4«.'i~# f:.~~s .....', Yi .. .. ... .. .. .. .. :.`~lr :ii.~ Y: .' .~ :~::i ?. 3. :. .I:`iV.? Y `i r.?:~4 .yti 4>.?`}~ s'.nr t `.^4:63 "i~F:)iLEifiH i13,.'.•,,:.._.. ;f'l...w_Y S«;i°t•3~.I:' ',.. :::- .i. ...n~:`; ?is "aIS.7.i>t.EI X;Y S~ .L?s.' y$. ~'.i & ~14J.~.€ . ..ll.it7i eV- .. YL:~2 ._._«. L`f ~. .. .~ Sf.:::. €?}. .T S b:. S yi , ,, j.i;ET.? ..i23i?s~ }.'_~': .... .., ...`.;£d 2:'. ~ ..,.., fir ...,.~ .'E;, .'t2 ..... i.S?2. G2 .u^t; „ ^'4~:!>4 %2xx;x„G~ X>. ,., kir :..."r.'i. 3, .512€<& 3 _>_ .. ~., .?. :.fs2 < .:G ),2f3g. 5F'. .6'3 kit %~t. "v Ie:Fit. ,., i i]{)i.),~s~2"K.?i '.?.': C:a'~.;.,~'.L>ti ,Ci ti Gsr S ti ~:a P9 S. Idf)2` E#PisF.1'E:t: :.."Y~;'.:Cw ..),n, Page 40 ~17`Y ~F WC?QDB C!#?N C©mmunity t}evelapmen~ f~~L 1 UI C~RA ND Ul Vl 27G~ tvfontgcar~ery Sfreef Woodburn: Gregor 977? Date: August 4, 2C}08 To: Natalie I_abossiere, Interim Community Qeveiapment Qirector From: Building Qivisian Subject: Building Activity for August 2f1i08 2Q06 Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Assisted Living Facilities ___..~ Residential Adds ~ Alts lndustr;al _ _. Commercial Signs and Fences Manufactured Names 7QTAL.S Fiscal Year to Date {July 1 - June 30) - No. - _-~ Dollar Amount ' .- No. - 4 v. ~~ _ $844,890 8 Q 50 fl 0 S0 0 6 _.__ 59587$ 6 . _t 0 _........ __.. S0 0 11 51,325,830 6 2 5166;400 0 1 . 560,000: ~_.T-~ _ _ __.._ 0 __._.._. _.._._.~_ 24 ._. . . 52.492,998 ' 20 $3,511,162 20Q7 2Q08 Dalian Amount No. Dollar Amount ~~,3s7,a1s ` 0 Sa ____~ ___._ __-~~ 1 56 ClOQ ~(} 0 50 5133.882 ; 1 512,080 50 0 50 5283.760 7 a 5257,742 _____- - _.._.._.. 50 0 - _.._... --- _ S0 50: t~ 54 --- _ _ _ _ S 1 814,958 T--9 ----~ 5275.742 '; ---- ~7,45B,937 j $1,753,187 ..;:^,~~:; .:e-:;r '.a:.:::? , B. r. ~ : ~ ~ z3?;ax. ;=:n .,,t...,~.r; Me.,' •, a.:,~:.r ., ....... VUoo~ RN p iu~. September 8, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott D. RusseN, Interim City Administrator~~~ SUBJECT: Termination of Community Development Director Contract RECOMMENDATION: While no consent is required for this action, per the City Charter, the Interim City Administrator requests Council consent. BACKGROUND: ©n August i 5, 2008 I terminated Community Development Director D. James Allen's employment contract. This contract termination was "without cause" per the terms of his employment contract. The City of Woodburn took this action, without reflection upon Mr. Allen, in pursuit of the best interests of the Community Development Department and the citizens of Woodburn. Sr. Planner Natalie I_abossiere has been appointed acting Community Development Director. FINANCIAL IMPACT; Per the contract terms the City paid a lump sum severance equaling three months of base salary. AgendQ Item Review: City Administrator -r,`,~I_sN._ City Attorney Fines Page 42 ~-w., r T~ "fir ~~~~8~~~ A~,,~ta ~~ September 8, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FRC}M: Scott d. Russell< Interim City Administrator~~`" SUBJECT: In#ormation on Garbage franchise Rate Analysis RECON4NtENDATIQN: Receive the report BACKGRC?UND: At the August 1 1, 2008 City Council meeting staff was directed to investigate the feasibility of consulting a subject rnatter expert for the purpose of providing a through external review of current and proposed garbage rates from the City`s franchisee. DtSCUSSIQN: City staff contacted Mr. Ray Bartlett, (3 X07 Franklin St, Ste, 201, Vancouver, Wa 97220; 3b0-823-1700j, Mr. Bartlett has provided economics and financial analysis as a consultant to a number of local governemnts including, North Plains, Stayton, Clackamas County, and others. In talking with Mr, Bartleft staff identified the following relevant facts: i_arger cities regularly do a full rate analysis of garbage haulers, but cities our size rarely do • In any discussions of rates, independent information must be obtained as much as possible • The fac# that Allied Waste of Marion County is a subsidiary of another company adds complexity to any rate analysis. • It is reasonable to expect that the City would bear some of the cost of a rate analysis, but it is also reasonable to expect United Disposal to share in the cos#s. The City should bear enough of the cost to assure the impartiality of the work of the consul#ant. • Bartlett's fee is $150 per hour, and he has a senior analyst that is billed at $100 per hour. Agenda iter~~ Review: City Administratc~r~'``"./ City Rttarney Financ Page 43 Mayor and City Council September 8, ~QO$ Page 2 • It is very important that we evaluate United Disposal's proposals based on return on investment. To do an evaluation based on RC~I, we will need an accurate statement of United Disposal's equity (investment}, Such inforr~nation can usually be obtained from SPC filings. • We should ask for written evidence of the amount Allied Waste or United Disposal has paid to the State of C)regon for taxes. • lnle should get a clear explanation of what casts are included the amounts paid to cover overhead of the parent company. • Bartlett suggested that there are three passible levels of analysis. l , Perform a basic analysis including: Compare rates #o other cities of Woodburn`s size in the area (beyond those serviced by United Disposal since this has already been done.} Review RQl based upon independently obtained ar audited documents M Review quantity and costs of foci 2. Create a hypothetical garbage hauler to serve a city of '~oodburn's size and geography, and compare the rates produced in that wcay with what United Disposal is proposing. 3. Perform a full rate analysis, which involves extensive review of United Disposal°s and Allied Waste's records. Bartlett suggested that this would nc~t be cost effective. Staff has contacted Robin tvturbach of United Disposal and regarding the analysis and cost share and she agreed fio consider it once costs are known. She advised that United is responding to some Council inquires and wil! provide information to any member of the Council as needed. Robin indicated that United is not prepared to move forward with another presentafiion at this time. FINANCIA! IMPACT: Staff has requested a quote for work related to option 1 above, bvf has not as of this writing obtained it. Page 44 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT STATISTICS JULY 2008 Recreation Services Division Revenue: Expenditures: Program Attendance: Youth Sports: Adult Sports: Youth Programs: Adult Programs: Teen Programs: After School Club: Special Event: TOTAL: Aquatics Division Revenue: Expenditures: Cost Recovery: Attendance: Jul-07 Jul-08 2006 YTD 2007 YTD $10,706.87 $12,461.13 $10,706.87 $12,461.13 $39,320.03 $30,108.88 $39,320.03 $30,108.88 0 18 0 18 720 44 720 44 881 212 881 212 0 17 0 17 315 514 315 514 0 0 0 0 1,500 2,145 1,500 2,145 3,416 2,950 3,416 2,950 Jul-07 July_O8 2007 YTD 2007 YTD $22,442.85 $26,953.48 $22,442.85 $26,953.48 $51,315.66 $56,252.90 $51,315.66 $56,252.90 44% 48% 44% 48% 6,480 6,671 6,480 6,671 Lesson Enrollment: 0 0 Group: 261 252 261 252 Adults: 4 4 4 4 Private: 10 27 10 27 4th Grade: 0 0 0 0 TOTAL: 275 283 275 283 Library Division Jul-07 Jul-08 2006 YTD 2007 YTD Revenue: $18,207.88 $15,410.01 $18,207.88 $15,410.01 Expenditures: $70,279.02 $79,968.58 $70,279.02 $79,968.58 Library Attendance: 16,089 20,674 16,089 20,674 Library Circulation: 12,140 12,326 12,140 12,326 Adult Program Count: 4 5 4 5 Adult Attendance: 1,430 1,980 1,430 1,980 Youth Service Program Count: 30 21 30 21 Youth Service Attendance: 869 1,412 869 1,412 Database Usage: 711 272 711 272 Adult Computer Usage: 4,222 4,249 4,222 4,249 Youth Services Computer Usage: 1,039 1,226 1,039 1,226 Room Reservations 4 0 4 New Adds: 425 559 425 559 Volunteer Hours Worked: 109 103 109 103 Page 45 ~--~ - ~t '~~tJCJ.D, LT~,~J August 11, 2008 TO: H©narable N1ayQr and City Council FROM: Scott D. l~ussell, Interim City Administrator A Izu+. SU6JECT: Rate Adjustment for Aiiied Waste Services of i-Aarion County (dbo United Disposal Service, inc.} REC4N11U1ENDATi4N: It is recommended the City Council consider the attached resolution authorizing an amended rate schedule for United Disposa! Service,. lnc. BACKGROUND: ordinance 1 b41 as amended by Ordinances 1945, 2008, and 2072, regulates the solid waste management franchise of United Disposal Service, Inc, Article 13 of the ordinance states that changes in rates shall be approved by City Council resolution. In determining the appropriate rate to be charged, the Council shall consider: 1. The cost of performing the service provided by the franchisee; 2. The anticipated increases in cast of providing service 3. The need fc~r additional equipment to meet service needs; compliance with federal, state and local law. ordinances, regulations; or technological change; 4. The investment Qf the franchisee and the value of its business and the necessity that the franchisee has a reasonable rate of return; 5. The rates in other cities for similar service; and b. The Public interest by assuring reasonable rates to enable the franchisee to provide efficient and beneficial service to the residents and other users of the service. On June 12, 2006 City Council authorized a rate increase that increased rates an average of: 3,8 percent for residential service, 5.5 percent for commercial service, and 1.6 for industrial service. Octgber 23, 2006 the City Council also authorized a rate adjustment for the costs of co-mingled recycling that took effect Janu©ry 1, 2007. That rate increase included a $1.80 per month increase Agenda [tem Review: City Admtnisfratar~'1°'"°' City Atfiorr~ey r=i~,~~n~~e _ Page 46 Mayor and City Council August 11, 2008 Page 2 for residential customers, and no increase for commercial customers or industrial customers. DiSCUSSIQN: United Disposal is currently requesting an average increase of 1% for residential customers, and 2~o for commercial and industrial customers, some minor adjustments in individual rates, plus the imposition of a "fuel recovery fee" fuel surcharge for each set of customers as outlined in the attached schedule that increases or decreases with the cast of fuel. United indicates that this request is the result of several factors; • The last rate increase was based on a fuel price of $3.00 per gallon and the cost of fuel is rising faster than inflation. • An annual COLA increase for most expenses; wages, health insurance, 8~ metal, excluding escalating fuel costs. • The cost of containers, carts and equipment have increased substantially over the last year due to fuel prices. United has provided the following material as background information and it is attached to this report: • Financial statements showing actual 2007 results. • Proposed rate sheets for the services offered in Woodburn. • A table comparing the City of Woodburn current and proposed rates with those in other Cities in Qregon. • A response sheet to series of questions posed by the City Administrator United's Pro-forma financial statement for 2007 indicates a 6.77 percent rate of return on investment (RCJIj. United indicates an 8 to 12 percent Rt~l is standard in the industry. The Pro-forma statement is unaudited as United does not audit its books at the franchise level, but they included a statement from the parent companies annual report which is audited, As a public held corporation Allied Waste is a mandatory reporter under Sarbanes Exley Act of 2002 which among other things, requires the reporting and auditing of how local, state, and federal taxes ore paid and by which subsidiary. Also included is a comparison of the rates charged in other local cities. This summary shows the proposed rates for Woodburn at a slightly higher average rate than for other jurisdictions that were compared. This proposal also includes a new fuel recovery fee that moves with the increases or decreases in the price of fuel. Page 47 Mayor and City Council August ~ ~ , ~~~~ Page 3 United explains that the purpose of the fee is to recover escalating fuel costs so that overall rates can remain genera€€y stabilized, and require only sma€€ limited adjustments to the general garbage cafe by e€iminating the volatility of fue€ rates. United indicates that the fuel rate will be tied to the amount of fuel required fora given customer type (i.e. 3.1 ga€lons per month for each commercial customer, 4.3 gallons for each €ndustria€, and 0.36 gallon far each residentia€; based upon United's methodo€ogy to average the amount of fuel used in servicing each customer type, (which United is prepared to exp€ain} and will increase or decrease with fuel prices as calculated three times per year, Qr every 4 months {due to the bi-monthly billing cycle}. United has established a baseline fuel cost of $3.00 per gal€on for ifs operations in 2007. United indicates that given their current cost of toe€, the fuel recovery fee world be $3.90 a month for commercial customers, .45 cents a month for residential customers< and $5.45 a month for industrial customers. To be clear these surcharges would be in addition to the rate increases proposed above. United has agreed to review fuel costs three times a year and increase or decrease the recovery fee based upon its costs on a .25 cent per step basis. United has further agreed to average its cost of fuel drawn {not up} to the closest .25 cent increment, and to provide invoices to substantiate its casts of fuel fio the City of Woodburn at each increaseldecrease. However, there would be no limit on the fuel surcharge increases unless challenged by the City under the franchise agreement. United E~isposal's request appears to satisfy the criteria upon which the Council can base its consideration of the rate adjustment. The fuel recovery tee is a new concept, not addressed in the current franchise agreement. However, United's agreement to constrain itself to the agreed upon terms, as outlined in the City's proposed resolution, would be sufficient to assure that fuel costs are fair€y represented by this strategy. A United disposa€ representative will attend your August 1 1, 2008 meeting to answer any questions about the requested increase. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The requested rate adjustment and fuel surcharge wil€ increase residential rates from $8.40 to $12.75 per year and commercial rates from $18.65 to $20.51, and €ndustrial rates similarly. Based on current revenue estimates this will result in an overall increase in franchise fees paid to the City, as the City receives three percent of United's gross revenue. Page 48 Attachment A, Page 1 Allied Waste Fuel Recovery Fee Schedule What is the Purpose of fhe Fee? a«~~o waste The fee wit! help offset fhe significant increases in the cost of diesel being consumed to operate our fleet. In addition to the waste stream management industry, some other examples of businessJindustries charging this kind of fee are FedEx, UPS, landscaping, Norists and fast oil companies, to name a few. t_rke other transportation companies, higher fuel cosfs are affecting our cost structure. The purpose of this fee is simply to cover a portion of the significant increase in fuel costs for trucks used fo service our customers, Fuel expense is running at a cafe of over 50% from last year. The fee is being created to offset this increase in our expenses. A fee teased approach is preferred over the normal" rate adjustment process due to the volatllrty and unpredictability of diesel prices. This approach allows for a quicker response to increased cosfs while also allowing a decrease rn price fo our customers should fast prices begin to felt in fhe coming months. What is Allied Currsntiy Doing to Miti"sate the Affects of Rising Fuel Casts? Aified Waste constantfy reviews squlpment usage and monitors truck and driver fuel economy, Continuous re- routinghelps us optimize our route efficiency and decrease fuel consumption. Atfied Waste leverages it's nationwide volume consumption to secure the lowest possible fuel paces. Meanwhile, full prceslquofes are monitored daily to achieve the very best fuel prices and to maintain a fuel inventory that allows for uninterrupted service to astr customers. Now Witi the Fuel Recovery Fee Work? The fee wilt bs added fo the cusfomer"s monthly invoice. The fee wilt increase at every 25 cent increment in average fuel rate for the most recent trscal quarter over the baseline rate of $2.75. A separate fee rate schedule tzar been established for Commercial, Industrial and Residential customers. Now was the Baseline Rate Established? The baseline rate was established by taking Atlied's Oregon operations average fuel rats for the year 2007. Therefore, the fee only applies to the increase in costs incurred in 2008. All tae! pries increases in 2007 that were not recovered would bs included in the calculation of "normal" cafe adjustments. Carrrmerciai Fee Schedule: Ths Commercial Fuel Recovery Fse wit! be a single line-item charge on each customer's invoice. To service fhe average commercial customer, Allied's trucks consume 3.1 gallons of fast per month. Therefore, every 25 cent increase in fuel rate results in $0.78 of additional cost per customer, per month. Fuel Rate Fee 5 3.00 S 0.78 3.25 1.55 3.50 2.34 3.75 3. t 2 4.00 3.90 4.25 4.68 4.50 5.46 4.75 6.24 5.00 7.02 Fuel Rats Fee $ 5.25 S 7.80 5.50 8.58 5.75 9.36 6,00 10.14 6.25 10.92 6.50 11.70 6.75 12.48 7, 00 9 3.26 7.25 14.04 Fuel Rate Fee $ 7.50 5 f 4.82 7.75 15 60 8.00 t6.38 8.25 17 16 8, 50 1 ?. 94 8.75 18.72 9.00 19.b0 9.25 20.28 9.50 21.06 Page 49 Aktachment A, Page 2 industrial f=ee Schedule; The fndusfr#a/ Fuei Recovery Fee wi## he charged can a hau# by hau# basis. To senrlce fhe average rottoff hau#, ,4llied's frocks consume 4.3 gallons of fuel. Therefore, every 25 Genf increase in fue# cafe r~s~lfs in ~?.09 of addifionat cosf per haul. Fue! Rafe Fee ~ 3.00 ~ 1.09 3,25 2.?6 3.50 3.27 3.75 4.36 4.00 5.45 4.26 5.54 4.50 7.63 4.75 6.72 6,{10 9.81 Fuel Rate Fee ~ 5.25 $ 10, 90 5.50 11,99 5.75 ) 3.06 6.00 ?4.?7 6.25 ?5.26 6.50 15.35 6.75 ? 7.44 7, Ot7 ? 8.53 7.25 19.62 Fuel Rate Fee $ 7.5f1 $ 20.71 7.75 21.80 6.301 22.83 6.25 23.98 8.50 25.07 6.75 26.16 9, 00 27 25 9.25 28.34 9.50 29.43 Resldetrtial fee 5~chedule; The Res#dentrat Fuef Recovery Fee will be a single line-i#em charge on each customer's invoice. To service the average residenfiat customer, Al#ied's frocks consume [?.36 gallons of fast per month. Therefore, every 25 cent increase #n fuel rate results rn X0.09 of addfflortal cost per customer, per me~nfh. f=uel Rafe Fee ~ 5.25 ~ 0.9CJ 5.50 0.99 5. T5 1.06 6.010 ?.17 6 25 ?.26 6 50 ?.35 6.75 1,44 7.00 1.53 7.25 1.62 Fue# Rafe Fee 7.513 ~ 1.71 7.75 1.Sf1 6.00 ?,69 6.25 ?.96 8.50 2.07 8.75 2. ? 6 9.OtJ 2.25 9.25 2.34 9.50 2.43 Fuel Rate Fee ~ 3.0(1 $ 0, 09 3.25 11.18 3,50 0.27 3.75 0.36 4.00 11.45 4, 25 0.54 4.50 0.63 4.75 0.72 5.00 0.81 Page 50 l~f). Mayor,. Staff and members of the Woodburn City Council FRU~1: Allied Waste of Marion County I~'1TE: July 1, 2C}0$ SL?LiJEC'1~: Rate Increase far the City of Woodburn Enclosed is a request for an increase in garbage and collection rates in the City of Woodburn. The new rates represent an overall increase of 1 °!o for residential and 2°lo far commercial and industrial. This proposal also includes a floating fuel recovery fee that rolls with the increases and decreases for the price of fuel. This request is the result ofi several factors: The last rata increase was based on a fuel price of $3.OQ per gallon and the cost of fuel is rising faster than inflation. An annual GOLA increase for most expenses; wages, health insurance, metal, excluding escalating fuel costs. The cast of containers, carts and equipment have increased substantially over the last year due to fuel prices. Included in the attached information is the following: • Financial statements showing actua120C17 results. Proposed rate sheets for the services offered in Woodburn. ^ A table comparing the Gity of Woodburn current and proposed rates with those in ether Gities in Oregon. I appreciate the opportunity to present this proposed rate change and look fonrvard to your comments and questions. Best Regards, Robin Murbach General Manager Allied Vllaste of Marion County Page 51 2007 Financial Statement City ofi Woodburn TOTAL REVENUE $3,5"11,606.49 direct Costs WAGES 5576,157.29 REPAIRS AND MAINT 5168,717.76 VEHICLE OPS COST 5184,389.24 EQUIP RENT 53,897 47 FACILITY OPS COST 574,532.99 SAFETY.INS;CLAIMS 584.196.48 TIPPING DISPOSAL 51,308,459.11 COST OF PRODUCTS 50.00 TRANSPORTATION 50.00 FRANCHISE FEES 5107,862.82 OTHER OPS COST -54.096 83 subtotal 52,504.107.23 inriirect Costs SALARIES 5117.571.06 RENT AND OFFICE EXP 538,507.63 TRAVEL AND ENTERTAINMENT 55 137.47 PROFESSIONAL FEES 510.253.26 BAD DEBT 518,078 82 OTHER EXP 553 493.81 INTEREST EXPENSE 5106,841.54 MANAGEMENT EXPENSE 594.632 94 DEPRECIATION 5166.707 35 subtotal 5611,223 8$ TQTAL EXPENSE $3,115,331.11 I BT $3s6,275.38 Tax 5158, 510.15 GRASS PROFIT 5237,765.23 Actual 6.77°lQ Page 52 Ai.~.tED WASTE lNUUSTRiEB, INC. CONSt'~UQATE© STATEAAENT3 E}F 4PERATIONE {in millions, excep# per share amounts} Revenues .. ................................... ...................... ............................. Cast of operations (exclusive of depreciation and amortization Years Ended December 31, 2007 2006 2405 S 6,468.7 $ 5,908 5 $ 5,612.2 shown below) .................................................._......,.........._, .. ....... 3,787 1 Setting, general end administrative expenses .......................:. .... 631.9 Depreciation and amortization ........................................ _..... ....... 553.5 Loss from divestitures and assek impairments .............. ......... ...... 40.5 Operating income ................................................................... ..... 1,055.7 Interest expanse and other ............................ _.,.......,..........,...... ,,..... 538.4 Income from Continuing operations before income taxes ........ ....... 517.3 Income ~x Expense ......_ ................................ ........................ ....... 207 1 MinOrit}+ interests ................................................................... ..... ....... 0.4 inCOrne from continuing operations ............................ ........ ... .. 309 8 (Loss) income from discontinued operation&, net of tax ..... ..... ...... {36.2} Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of lax. ..,.... NetinCame ..... ..................................................................._..... ..,.... 273.6 Dividends on preferred stock ................................. ...... ..... ...... {37 5~ Net income available to common sttarefralders .,......,._ ........ ... ... $ 236.1 Basic EFS 3,786.4 587.3 557'.7 22.5 954,6 563.4 391.2 235.3 (l.1 155.8 5.1 164.9 ~42.9~ 116.0 Continuing operations ...................................... _...................,.,,. $ 0.74 $ 4.32 DasCOntinusd operations....,._ ................................................ ..... ... {0.10} 0.01 Cumulative effect of change in accounting primp{e ................. -- Net ~nCOme available to common shareholders .............. ........ $ 0.64 $ 4.33 ;Neighted average common shares .......... .............. .......... ... ..... 368.8 356.7 L}iluted EPS. Continuing operatsons .. .. .. ..... ............ .. .... ...:............ .. S 0,71 $ 0 32 D~scar~tanued operations ...... ..........................._.......................,... (0.08j 0.01 Cumulative effect of change In accounting principle ................. .... -- - "~et in%L`iSt£> available to common shareholders ....... . . . ....... .. $$ Q.63 $ 4.33 '4hleigfated average common and Common equivalent shares ..... 443.0 359.3 3.654.6 510.2 543 6 903.8 583.1 320.7 131.1 ~Q.2} 189.8 14.8 f0.8} 203.8 (52.0 $ 151.8 5 0.42 fl.04 {0.04} $ 0.46 326 9 $ 0 42 0.04 (0 $ 0 46 330 1 T'~e aGCOmpanying Nokes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integra# part of these financial statements. 61 Page 53 Ciiy of Woodburn Rat€~ Compansor7s Current Gity of Woodburn Proposed Gity of Woodburn City of Stayton City of Silvertan Marion County City of Salem Nauler Name AW of Marian County AW of Marian County AW of Marian County AW of Marian County AW of Marion County AW of Salem Service Type 32 gallon can service NIA N1A N1A NIA 52'0.60 NdA 35 allan cart 521.05 $21.3fl $22.60 $22.65 $21.2fl 52fl.10 65 allan cart 529.90 53fl.2fl 529.90 $27.10 $25.65 $26 95 9fl anon cart $35.80 $35.80 533.20 $29.Ofl $32.80 N1A 2 d front iaad container lxtweek 5135.75 $138.50 $136.00 $141.5© $132.75 $120.95 30 d dra box (haul and $153 fl0 5156.06 $153.95 $140.00 $169 40 5145.90 v m a, WC}ODBURN RATE SHEET-AREA 20 iNDUSTRtAL-DROP BOX RATES Rent charge {'after 4 days): Dry run charge: $35.00 Day:55.00 Screen box, per haul $10.50 Month: 575.00 Relocate, per box: $35.00 'Compacted rates charged @ 3 X's loose rate Overweight, per box: 5100.00 Liner, per box: $35.00 SIZE 'weight limit is 10 tons) 20,00 pounds TOTAL DELIVERY NAUL DISPOSAL TAX/FRAN. FEE OVER WEIGHT RATE 10 yard` GARBAGE $258.60 $35.00 $122.40 5101.20 WOOD COMPOST CONCRETE/BRICK! DIRT $35.00 $122.40 $3.50 and METAL SHEETROCK 20 yard* GARBAGE $376.12 $35.00 $138.72 $202.40 WOOD COMPOST $35.00 $138.72 $5.80 and CONCRETEfBRICKf DIRT METAL SHEETROGK 30 yard* GARBAGE $494.66 $35.00 $156.06 $303.60 WOOD 535.00 $156.06 $2.00 and COMPOST $35.00 $156.06 $5.80 ai-d CONCRETE/BRICK! DIRT METAL $35.00 $156.06 SHEETROCK $35.00 $156.06 55A0 yard 40 yard* GARBAGE $613.20 $35.00 $173.40 $404.80 WppD $35.00 $173.40 $2.00 and COMPOST $35.00 $173.40 $5.80 and CONCRETE/BRIGKt DIRT . METAL $35.00 $173.40 SHEETROCK .~. Crr'CL I IVC. _ revised 7t7108 be Page 55 V110t~DBURN RATE SHEET-AREA 20 RES/t3ENT1AL RATES Pick-up dates: ~onlTuesfVltedlThurlFri Included wi#h service weekly: Trash, 65gYard Debris Bi-weekly: 65g Commingle Cart and Ban Recycle SIZE PKG PRICE ADD. YARD CART 2Q gallon REGULAR 518.85 $6.3t3 RECYCLE OPT OUT 517.00 no commie le cart 35 gallon REGULAR $21..30 56 30 NON-CURS HARDSHIP Ot+1fN CAN 65 anon REGULAR X3020 ~a6.30 NCJN-CURB HARDSHIP t}WN CAN 80 gallon REGULAR $35.80 X6.30 NQN-CURB HARDSHIP OWN CAN Qn-cal[ pick-up_58.00 Sharps:814.50 Recycle only: 55.00, bi weekly 65g roilcarttb~n Extra canlbagtbox: 55.00 Request to change or switch container ~15.G0 (after allowed one change ~ nlc) Outstanding invoices older than 60 days are subject to a sentice interrupt fee of $25.00 Return fee~$10 00 Rec carttYard debris contaminated $9.50 Senior discount upon approval. NfA Premium drive-in service {per Bart}. NIA A late fee of 18°16 per annum with a S5 00 monthly minimum will be charged for non-payment after 45 days from invoke date. EFFECTIVE 211107 revised 614108 ah Page 56 WCl40BURN RATE SNEET-AREA 24 CC?MIVtERC1AL RATES SIZE COMMERCIAL CART EXTRA TRIP {EXT} 35 a{lon $15.91 $14.18 65 anon $25.54 $16.58 9U anon $35.90 $19.18 CBB $5.92 Add.Rec.Cart $5.40 Yard $10.24 ApptTlQtltAL SERVICE RATES; "CommrnglelYard Debris. 90gfbi-weekly--65g Yard weakly pIu (One cart per customer at na charge w?weekly garbage service} *Request to change or switch container $35 00 'Contain+nation fee, $9 50 (applies to al! commodities) `Cardboard: $O,available wtweekly garbage service "Return trip fee $10.001trip 'A late fee of 1$°!a per annum with a $5.00 monthly minimum vatill be charged for non-payment after 45 days from rnvoice date. Service interrupt fee, $25 00 on invoices 60 days. ~EX~r~ phl-(Jff FOtlfE3 rl?~UR?. Il7Qfttlt/Y rdtef4 rrltrS ~1 ~ SIZE ONE XiWEEK TWO XIWEEK THREE XlWEEK EXTRA TRIP {EXT} ADDITONAL PICK UP PER WEEK 1 and $81.14 $149,44 $234.45 $34.28 $81.05 1.5 and $147.74 $214.14 $356.94 836.93 $147 80 2 ..and $138.64 $286.44 $444.35 844.63 8138 44 3 and 8207.65 $424.44 $631.90 861.91 $247.54 4 and $276.86 $562.44 $818.54 $79.21 $276.64 5 and $346.44 $644.44 $985.74 $96.54 8345.84 6 and $415.15 $768.44 $1;182.75 $113.79 8414.85 8 yard $553.64 81,424.44 81,577.30 $148 44 $55320 'PtIL.C QUT RATE: $75AOllitOtlttt, per cani. 'Compacted containers charged ~ 3 X's loose rate `Extra yardage $21.401yard SIZE WfGARB1BlN ©NLY CARTIBIN QNLY REC CART AND BIN 20 anon 35 anon 817.84 $19.64 $25.84 65 anon 827.14 $28.94 $35.44 90 gallon 835.65 $37.54 843.60 TFMDORARYlSDECJAL CQNTAJNERS SIZE TOTAL. DISPOSAL DELIVERY 3 and 8105.40 $75.04 834.44 Commingle and yard debris carts are 65 gallon. recycling p1u bi-weekly, yard weekly KEN is ~'J.tltlll..)AY, ;~"Lb.UUfN[VIV 1 ti (Gnargeo /nays TrOm delivery date} EFFECTIVE: Extra yardage. 821.401yard revised X7108 be Page 57 ~'a~e 1 of 2 Robin Murbach .. Re: Questions on rate increase request From: Robin Murbach To: Robin Murbach Date. 08J05J2008 5:09 PM Subject: Re: Questions on rate increase request »> "Scott Russell" Scott,Russell;~aci.woodburn.or.us~ C}B~GiJZtI08 1:41 AM »> Robin, as I have been working with staff and the Council on your request the following questions have arisen. Pefiaps you can address them for me, either via email, or early next week by phone or in person so I can complete my staff report. i got your message and left a message for you, but have not connected with you yet. 1. Your proposal requests authority to raise the fuel surcharge as fuel rates increase, would Allied also agree to be bound by a City resolution that states in essence if fuel prices come down, that rates would be reduced a commensurate amount? Would this be done on a quarterly basis? b~lould the increment be .25 cents up and down? Now would you report this to the City? Yes No - It will change 3 times a year or every 4 months, because we bill every other month for 2 months Yes By showing an average of the last 4 months of actual fuel bills. 2. A question has arisen as to the methodology and backup for arriving at the $2.75 per gallon fuel rate, and the amount of fuel required for the various customer classes. Can you give some insight into this? We have very detailed information in our database that calculates the amount of fuel we use for each line of business. Fuel was at approximately 2.5fl the last time we came in, We decided to absorb the difference between the $2,5fl and $2.75 3. We assume that you are using a 2007 fuel rate, rather than a 2008 fuel rate because you are using 2007 financials {the most current you have} to do your financial analysis on overall costs, is that correct? If not, why riot use 20Q8 fuel costs as they are more current? We have always come in for a rate review with the previous years financial statement. We pulled out the percentage of costs for fuel and came up with approx, 2°fa of the overall increase in expenses. 4. What are your current fuel costs, and what could customers expect for a current fuel surcharge based upon that? Our very rough estimate of your P&l. statement, after applying the fuel surcharge, shows a net profit of approx. 8.1nfQf which exceeds the industry standard you gave me of 810, however this depends an your current fuel and overhead costs. Industry standard is 8-12°fa with a target of ifl°to Current fuel costs are running at $4.25 per gallon 5. Can you provide generalized backup information that shows that taxes have been paid by the local franchisee as shown in the P&L statement? All taxes are generated at the Corporate level, because the tax return is filed by Corporate. flur 10-K shows the tax liability. 6. Can you provide a generalized breakdown of the "Management Expense" and "Interest Expense" line items in file= C:t[)c~eunleilts an~I 4ettitl~,~s rn~urbacl~ I.~~cal ~~:t ' ET~e I~~~p` ~f'~rp~~s~`~8t)8~g=~~~,~~~'... 8='6I2Q48 F'a~e ? of the P&L? And is the interest paid to separate lenders or to the parent organization? Interest Expense - is calculate by taking the tote! net cash investment multiplied by our ROTC and then divided by the °fo that is Woodburn. Allied borrows and purchases at the Corporate level. Management Expense - includes: a portion of district and region employees, MIS, procurement, safety, environmental compliance, HR, accounting all allocated on headcount. I realize these are challenging questions, but I would expect that you will need to respond to them at the Council meeting if not before. I will be happy to work around your schedule next week if you would like to meet. Thanks. Scott D. Russell, Chief of Police Woodburn Police Department (503}982-2345 scoff.russell;'g~ci.woodburn.or.us PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE This e-mail is a public record of the City of Woodburn and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. This e-mail is subject to the State Retention Schedule. file:' C': I~)ocume~lts and ~ettin~~ rT~~urbaeh Lr~eal `~et~~e~l~nf+ ~ ~~rpwise--~Rg$89~:1:~~'~~... 8~'6'_(~QR COUNCIL 81LL NO.2735 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADJUSTED RATE SCHEDULE AND FUEL RECOVERY FEE SURCHARGE FOR UNITED DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC; SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS 1$33 AND 1843, WHEREAS, Qrdinance 1641 grants an exclusive franchise to United Disposal Services, Inc. ("United Disposal"} to collecfi, transport, and convey solid waste in the City; and WHEREAS, United Disposal was acquired by and is operated by Allied Waste Services of lutarion County; and WHEREAS, the City and Allied Waste tvlanagement/United Dispesal are currently in the process of negotiating a new franchise; and WHEREAS, the franchise granted by Ordinance 1641 is still in force, and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adapted Resolutions 1833 and 1843 establishing certain rates; and WHEREAS, United Disposal has requested an adjustment to its residential and commercial rates and has submitted safiisfactory evidence to the City Council to justify the proposed rate schedule, and WHEREAS, in addition to the rate adjustment, United Disposal has requested the imposition of a "fuel recovery fee" surcharge that will increase or decrease, as provided herein, based upon the price of fuel and WHEREAS, fhe City Council believes that fliere has been satisfactory evidence submitted by United Disposal fio justify imposition of this fuel surcharge; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Council finds that the rates proposed by United Disposal are fair and appropriate under the existing franchise. In making this determination, the Council has considered the following factors pursuanfi to Section 13 of Qrdinance 1641: The cost of performing the service provided by the franchisee. Page 1 -Council Bill No. 2735 ResolutEon No. Page 60 {2} The anticipated increases in the cost of providing the service. {3) The need for equipment replacement and the need for additional equipment to meet service needs; compliance with federal, state and local law, ordinances and regulations; or technological change. {4) The investment of the franchisee and the value of its business and the necessity that the franchisee have a reasonable rate of return. {5) The rates in other cities for similar service. {6) The public interest by assuring reasonable rotes to enable the franchisee to provide efficient and beneficial service to the residents and other users of the service. Section 2. That the rate schedule affixed as Attachment "A" and by this reference incorporated herein is approved, Section 3. That the "fuel recovery fee" surcharge, pursuant to the schedule affixed as Attachment "B" and by this reference incorporated herein, is approved Section 4. That in imposing the fuel surcharge, United Disposal has agreed to review its fuel costs three times a year and increase or decrease the surcharge based upon its costs on a .25 cent per step basis Section 5. That in imposing the fuel surcharge, United Disposal has further agreed to round its cost of fuel down buff not up to the nearest .25 cent increment. Section b. That the City Council finds that any failure by United Disposal to implement the fuel surcharge as provided herein constitutes a violation of the franchise granted by Ordinance 1 b41. Section 7. That this Resolution is effective on October 1, 2008 and Resolutions 1833 and 1843 are repealed at that time. Page 2 -Council Bill No. 2735 Resolution No. Page 61 ,+ Approved as to form: _,._ ` `4' ~ Cifiy Atfiorney Date Approved: Kathryn Figley, h~tay4r Passed by the Council Submitted to fibs lvtayor Approved by the tvtayor Filed in file t'~ffice of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant City Recorder City of Woodburn, t~regon Page 3 -Council Bill No. 2735 Resolution N©. Page 62 ATTACHMENT Page / 0# , -;~ WQQDBURN RATE SHEET-AREA 20 lNDUSTRIA~-DROP BQX RATES Rent charge {'after 4 days): Day:55.00 Month: $75.00 `Compacted rates charged @ 3 X's loose rate Dry run charge: $35.00 Screen box, per haul: $10.50 Relocate, per bax: $35.00 Overweight, per bax: $100.00 Liner, per bax: $35.00 SIZE *weight limit is 10 tonsi 20,00 pounds TOTAL DELIVERY HAUL DISPOSAL TAX/FRAN. FEE OVER WEIGHT RATE 10 yard' GARBAGE $258.60 $35.00 $122.40 $101.20 WOOD COMPOST CONCRETEIBRICKt DIRT $35.00 $122.40 $3.50 and METAL SHEETROCK 20 yard` GARBAGE $376.12 $35.00 $138]2 $202.40 WOOD COMPOST $35.00 $138.72 $5.80 and CONCRETEfBRlCKI DIRT METAL SNEETROCK 30 yard' GARBAGE $494.66 $35.00 $156,06 $303.60 WOOD $35.00 $156.06 $2.00 and COMPOST $35.00 $156.06 $5.80 and CONCRETEtBRICKJ DIRT METAL $35.00 $156 06 SMEETROCK $35.00 $156.06 $5.00 yard 40 yard' GARBAGE 5613.20 S35.00 $173.40 $404.80 WOOD $35.00 $173.40 $2.00 and COMPOST $35 00 $173.40 $5.80 and CONCRETE/BRICK/ DIRT METAL $35.00 $173.40 SHEETROCK trrcc, i rvt: revised 7!7108 be Page 63 ATTACHMENT ~e :~ of WOQDBURN RATE SHEET-AREA 20 REST©EN71AL RATES Pick-updates; ManCTuesfWed/Thur/Fri included with service weekly: Trash, 65gYard Debris Bi-weekly: 65g Commingle Cart and Bin Recycle $IZE PKG PRICE ADO. YARD CART 2d gallon REGULAR $18.85 56.30 RECYCLE OPT OUT 517.00 no commin le cart 35 gallon REGULAR 521.30 $6.30 NON-CURB HARDSHIP OWN CAN 65 gallon REGULAR $30.20 56.30 NON-CURB HARDSHIP OWN CAN 90 gallon REGULAR 535.80 $6.30 NON-CURB HARDSHIP OWN CAN On-calf pick-up 58.00 Sharps.514 50 Recycle only $5.00, bi weekly 65g roilcartfban Extra canfbag/box:. 55.00 Request to change or switch container: 515.00 (after allowed one change ~ ntc} Outstanding invokes older than 60 days are subject to a service interrupt fee of 525.00 Return fee:510.00 Rec carttYard debris contaminated.59.50 Senior discount upon approval. NtA Premium drive-~n service (per cart}: NIA A late fee of 18% per annum with a S5 00 monthly minimum wtll be charged far non-payment after 45 days from invoice date. EFFECTIVE. 211107 revised 614108 ah Page 64 ~nACNMENT Page .~ ~~ Vlt{)ODBURN RATE SHEET-AREA 20 CQMMERGlAL RATES SIZE COMMERCIAL DART EXTRA TRIP (EXT) 35 allan $15.91 $14.18 $5 anon $25.50 $1$.58 9{I anon $35.90 $19.18 CBB $5.92 Add.Rec.Cart $5.00 Yard 510.20 date Service interrupt fee: $25.00 on ~nvolces 60 days `E'xtra o/u-otf mute return. rnortthty ratat4 plus $10 AL}t)ITICINAL SERVICE RATES: `Commingle~'fard Debris' 90glbs-weekly--65g Yard weekly pfu {One cart per customer at no charge w.?weekly garbage service} `Request to change or switch container~35 00 'Contamination fee 59 50 {applies to all cornmgd~ties} 'Cardboard 50,avaiiable wfweekiy gartsage service 'Return trip fee $t 0 00ttrip 'A late €ee of 18°l~ per annum with a 55 00 rnanthly minimum will be charged for non-payment after 45 days from invoice SIZE ONE XIWEEK TWO XIWEEK THREE XtWEEK EXTRA TRIP {EXT ADDITONAL PICK UP PER WEEK t and 58119 $149.40 $230.45 530.28 $81.05 1.5 and 5107.70 $214. i 0 $358.90 536.93 5107,80.... 2 and 5138.50 $286 00 $444.35 544.63 $138.40 3 and 5207,65 $424 40 $631.90 561.91 5207.50 4 and $276,85 $562.00 $818.50 579.21 $276.60 5 and 5346.00 $640.00 5985.70 $96.50 5345 80 6 and 5415.15 5768.00 51.182.75 $113..79 5414.85 8 yard 5553.60 5'1,024.00 $1,577.30 $148.40 $553 20 'PULL t?UT RATE: ~iS.QOlmor-th, per cont. `Gampacted containers charged ~ 3 X"s loose rate 'Extra yardage: 521.00/yard SIZE ~ WIGAIRSIBIN (C QN~BlN AND BINT 20 anon 35 aUon $17.80 $19.60 $25.80 65 gallon $27.10 $28.90 $35.00 TEMPtTRARYISPEC/AL CC?NTAfNERS SIZE TOTAL DISPOSAL DELiYERY 3 yard 5105.00 575.00 530.00 1e and yard debris carts are 65 gallon, ptu bi-weekly, yard weekly RENT: 55 OOIDAY, $25.OOtMQNTH (charged 7 days from delivery date} EFFEGTNE: Extra yardage: $21.00/yard revised 7f710$ be Page 65 ATTAGMEN?' Page ~ t1f Allied [rVaste Fuel Recovery Fee Schedule What is the Purtnose of the Fee? ~' Ai1.~ED 1 ~ WASTE The fee Witt help offset the signifcant increases in the cost of diesel being consumed to operate our fleet. In addition to the waste stream managerrtent industry, some other examples of busTness~rndustries charging this kind of fee are fiedEx, LIPS, landscaping, ttorists and fuel ail companies, to name a few. tike other transportation companies, higher fast costs are affecting our cost sfructure, The purpose of this fee is sr'mpty to cover a portion of the significant increase in fuel costs for trunks used to service our customers. Fuel expense is running at a rate of over 50% from last year; The fee is being created to offset this increase in our expenses. A fee based approach is preferred over the "normal"rate ad/ustment process due to the volatility anri unpredictability of diesel prices. This approach allows for a quacker response to increased costs v~rhile also allowing a decrease in price fo our customers should fuel prices begin to felt in the corning months. hat i Atli rr r- t D lr: o M i e the Affec of Ri r'n Fuel Costs? Allied Waste constantly reviews equipment usage and monitors truck and driver fuel economy. Cantinuaus ro- routing hefps us optimize our mute efficiency and decrease fuel consumption, Allied Waste leverages it`s nationwide volume consumption to secure the lowest possible fuel prices. Meanwhile, fuel prices/quotes are monitored daily to achieve the very best fuel prices and to maintain a fuel inventory that allows for uninten~upfed service to our customers. Now YYlit the Fue# Recovery Fge Work? The fee wilt be added to the customer`s monthly invoice. The fee wilt increase at every 2S cent increment in average fuel rate for the most recent fiscal quarter over the baseline rate of $2 75 A separate fee cafe schedule has been established for Commercial, Industrial and Residential customers flow was the Baseline Rate Fsta6tlshed? The baseline rate v~ras established by taking Allied"s Qregon operations average fuel rate for the year 2007 Therefore, tare fee only applies to the increase in costs inearrred ir? 2008. Alf fuel pnce increases ~n 2007 that were net recovered would be included irr the calculati€~rt of "normal" rate adjustments Carrrmerciat figs Scheduie.~ The Commercial Fuel Recovery Fee 4vill be a single line-item charge nn each customer's invoice. To service the average commercial cusfarner, Atlied`s trucks consume 3.1 gallons of fuel per month. Therefore, every 25 cent increase in fuel rate results in $01.78 of additional cost per customer per month Fuel Rate Fee $ 3.00 $ 0.78 3.25 1.56 3.511 234 3. T5 3.12 4.00 3.90 4.25 4,68 4.50 5.46 4.75 6 24 5.00 7.02 Fuel Rate Fee $ 5.25 $ 7 80 5 50 8.58 5.75 9.36 6 00 10.14 6.25 1 {?. 92 6.50 11.70 6.75 1248 7. (30 13.26 725 1404 Fuel Rate Fee ~ 7 50 $ 14.82 ?. 75 15 60 8.00 16 38 8.25 J7 16 8 50 17.94 8.75 18.72 900 t 9 50 9.25 20.28 9.50 21 06 Page 66 ." Industrial Fee Schedule: The Industrial Fuel Recovery Fee will be charged on a haul by heat basis. To service the average rottoff haul, Alfred's trucks consume 4.3 gallons of fuel. Therefore, every 25 cent increase in fuel rate results rn $1 09 0l additional cost per haul. Fuel Rate Fee $ 3.t10 ,$ i.09 3.25 2,1$ 3.50 3.27 3.75 4.36 4.00 5.45 4 25 &.54 4.50 7.63 4.75 8.72 5.00 9.83 Fuel Rate Fee 5.25 ~ 10.90 5.50 11.99 5.75 13.08 6.00 14 17 8.25 15 26 6.54 16.35 6 75 17.44 7.00 18.53 7.25 19.62 Fuel Rate Fee $ 7 50 $ 20 71 7 75 21 80 8 00 22 89 8, 25 23 98 8.50 25.07 8.75 26.16 9.110 27, 25 9.25 28 34 9,50 29.43 Residential Fee Sche¢u1e: The Residential Fuel Recovery Fee -~vill be a single time-item charge on each customer`s invoice. 7o service the average residential cusfomer; Allied's trucks consume 0.36 gallons of fast per month. Therefore, every 25 cent rnerease in fuel rate results in $0.09 of additional cost per customer, per month. Fuel Rate Fee 3.00 $ 0.09 3.25 0.18 3.50 0 27 3.75 f1.36 4.00 0.45 4.25 0.54 4, 50 0.63 4.75 0.72 5.110 0.81 Fuel Efate Fee $ 5.25 $ 0 90 5.50 0.99 5 75 7.08 6 00 1 ? 7 sz5 126 8.50 1 35 6 75 1.44 7 00 i 53 7.25 1.62 Fuel Rate Fee $ 7, 50 $ 1 71 7.75 1 8Q 8 00 1 89 ~ 25 r ~~ 850 2G7 875 216 9.00 2.25 9.25 2 34 9.50 2, 43 Page 67 ~~~JfJDBt1R„~ September 8, 2Q~8 TO; Honorable Mayor and City Council ~RC}M; Scott D. Russell, Interim City Administrator Sl1BJECT; Gattsacker Measure 44 claim and Vested Bights Determination REGC.}Mfy1ENQATIQN: After conducting a public hearing, direct staff to prepare an order for adoption; {1 } ITinding Claimant is not entitled tc~ relief under Measure 44 Section 4, and {2) Denying the claim of common law vested rights in regards to the subject properfy~ BACK~R4UND & DISCUSSICIN: The Claimant, Delbert Gottsacker, filed a claim under Measure 37 and on March 14, 2C}07, the City Council granted Claimant a general waiver in lieu of paying compensation. With the passage of Measure 44, the electorate eliminated certain development rights established by Measure S7. Pursuan# to Measure 49, the City is required to review all previously-approved Measure 37 claims to determine whether they qualify for relief under Measure 44. As explained more fully in the Gc~mmunity Development Department Staff Reportf this is the time set for a public hearing to determine; {1) whether the Claimant qualifies for relief under Measure 44 and {2} whether Claimant has a valid claim for vested rights under common law, FINANCIAL IMPACT: This decision is anticipated to have no public sector financial impact. A~enc~a (tem (review: City Adm~n~stratc~ ~'~~~,-~'l.`~ City AitorneY Page 68 Finance C'IT~ O~ ~'O(JDBta Rti, t)REG(~N CITE' CaC7NC.IL Staff report of September 3, 2008 For public hearing on September $, 200)8. General Information Claimant: .Delbert Gottsacker 8518 Parr Road NE Gen~ais, QR 97026 Subject Property': The property is located at SOC)-51 f} and 514 l~?orth Pacific Highway and can be identified on Marion County Tax Assessor's maps as tax lot 031 W17BC00200. tiature of the Application: Claimant requests a final determination of his rights under Ballot Measure 4{1 and a determination of his vested rights under common taw. Condition of the Property: The subject property is zoned Commercial General {C;G) and is designated C'ornmercial on the Comprehensive Plan '1r1ap. The site is t}.4l acre and is currently developed with rivo commercial structures. Surrounding properties are zoned Commercial General (CG) anal are designated Commercial an ilic Comprehensive Plan Map. do significant trees exist on the site. Igo wetlands (per the ~~'oodburn Loeal Wetland Inventory map) or floodplains {per the Federal Fmergenc}• Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, pane1013t}(.~, dated January l~), 2t)(}0} exist on the site. Ballot Measure 49 Ballot Measure 4t) became effective on December fi, 2007 and eliminated certain development rights established by Measure 37. Of particular importance to City governments, Measure 49 sets forth certain requirements regarding; Measure 37 waivers for properties within city limits. Section 10 requires the City to review all previously approved Measure 37 claims to detern~ine «•hether they qualify for relief under Section 9 of Measure 49. Section 9 sets Earth criteria for the establishment ofa limited number afsingle-family homes on a property. :'ldditionally, ,Measure 4c) Section 5(3) provides for a property owner who began a use pursuant to a prior Mc;asure 37 waiver to complete and continue the use if the owner can demonstrate he has a common la~v ti~ested right in the use as of the eff'cctive date of Measure 4~7 (December 6, 2t}(a7}. Page I cif' 8 Page 69 This staff rc.pc~rt rc~~ie~%s anti provides canclusic~ns tf3r t~{3 separate areas af` ~i<~IIc3t 'Measure ~ with respect tca C`laimant's 'Measure ~7 apprcavai. They are as fcallca~vs: Re~ie~~ and conclude ti~l~ether C'laimant's apprcaval fits under the criteria of '~~easurc ~9 Section ~? fur the right tca establish a limited. number ofsingle-family homes can a property. ll. Review toad conclude whether C:lai~nant has established a common lar3• vested night to alla~v the continued establishme~at of a use begun before Measure 49 hc;carrae effective. The fall®~~in,g Council actions are necessary with regard to ~ledsure ~~: i4lake a "Irinal Determination" w°ith findings as to whether Claimant is entitled to relief under Measure 49 Section i~, 2. Conduct a public hearing to decide whether C'laitnant has established a C:aznmon La«~ Vest Right to complete and c;antinue the use described in the ~vai~°er. Prior :Measure 37 Claims Claimatt owns a f~.41 were parcel that is currently developed with ttiva commercial structures. The subject property is zoned Commercial Cieneral {C'Ci) and is designated C°om€nercial can the C:amprchensic~e Plan 4~ap. Claimant's prapert~3 has been the subject of t~vo separate 1~leasure 37 claims. Claimant filed his first claim can December ?, ~{){"~=f. Staff co~acluded that "Claimant has ncat provided the C ity the required information to show that a City land use regulation has restricted the use of private real property and had the effect of"reducing the fair market ~ralue at'the property," anti recommended that the claim be denied.. The City Council denied the first 14'leasure 37 claim can t~pril ?~, 2{)G~. Claimant filed a second china {involving the same real property and caperati~=e facts) on September 27, 2f)flfi, ~itlt fhe assistance of legal counsel. Claimant submitted na develtapnaent proposal for the property and, on il~artrh 14, ?f}{j?, the C"ty Council granted Claimant a general ~~°aivcr (copy attached?. i. Evaluation of C"Iaim under ~~teasure ~9 S+ection 9: Sin~;Ie-Family Homes F3allat i4~eastrre ~'~, Section It}, requires that the City snake a deterra~inatian ofClaimant's right to establish a limited number ofsingle-fancily Names on his property. This determination is required regardless ofwhether the Claitxtant is requesting the establishment of single-family Karnes or not. In the present case, C`lairnant has neither requested nor suggested the establishment ofsingle-family hcanaes on the subject prcalaerty. f'a~e Z cif Page 70 On July It?, 2(.IO~, the Community Deve}opment Director, on behalf of the City, made a "'l'entati~~e Determination" of Claimant's right. to establish single-family homes on the property. (copy attachecj). The tentati~~e decision stated that Claimant was not emitted to relief under Measure 49 :for t}ie establishment ofsingle-family homes. lender Section q{5) of ~1easure 49 the following criteria must be met to qualify for relief: (a} The claimant is an owner of the property. Claimant's i1~~leasure 37 files contain a copy of a warranty deed dated June 7, 1965 transferring the subject property to Claimant as sole owner. Claimant states that he purchased the property on contract on September 10, 1960. Marion County tax records indicate that Claimant is the current owner of the property. This criterion is met. (b? :~It owners of the property have consented in writing to the claim, Claimant signed the original Measure a7 claim forms. This criterion is met. (c} The property is iacated, in whole ar in part, within an urban growth boundary. The subject property is located whop}7 within the City of `ti'oodburn and the City's urban gro~~~th boundary. This criterion is met. (d) On the claimant's acquisition date, the claimant lawfully was permitted to establish at least the number of dwellings an the property that are authorized under this section. Claimant acquired the subject property on September l0, 1960. At that time, the subject property uas located in unincorporated 1~1:arion County and was apparently not subject to any zoning restrictions. Therefore, claimant was perniitted to establish dwellings on the property. T}~is criterion is met. (e) 'The property is zoned for residential use. The zoning map of the City of V4'oodburn shows the subject property to be zoned Commercial General {CG}. The subject prcaperty has been designated "Commercial" on the Comprehensi~-e Plan map since at least 1 ~)~{). This criterion is not met. (f) One or more land use regulations prohibit establishing the single-famih~ dwellings. Single-family dwellings are not authorized as a principa} use in the CCi zone. Page i of 8 Page 71 This critc:ric~n is met. {g} The establishment of the single-family dwellings is not prohibited by a land use regulation exempted in ORS 197.352 {3}. ORS 195.305{3} pro~ides that regulations prc~-c.nxing {a? nuisances, {b} protecting; the public health and safety°, (c}required fur carnpii~znr.e with federal 1a1~•, or {cl} restricts uses related tc~ parnography and nude dancing are exempt fru~n Measure 49. 1"rstablishment ofsingle-family d~~relliT~gs ~~-ould nc~t be implicated by any of the exernptinns of ORS 195.305(3}. `T`his criterion is rnet. {h} The land use regulation described in paragraph {f} of this subsection was enacted after the date the property, or any portion of the properhr, was brought into the urban growth boundary, The suEaject property was brought iz~tca the urban. gro~~rth boundary after I973. The property ~~•as shown on the Cc~mprehensi~°e Plan Map since at least 198fJ. Although nc~t applicable to the subject property until anne~ati~n, the present commercial ?caning regulations ~~ere enacted July 1, 2002. Tl~Terefore, the regulations were enacted after the property ~~~as located within the uurban growth box~ndary, "Thls Cr3tf;rloTi 1S n1et. {i} [f the property is located within the boundaries of Metro, the land use regulation that is the basis for the claim was enacted after the date the property was included within the boundaries of 4ietro. 'This criterion is nat applicable. {j} Tf the property is located within a cih', the land use regulation that is the basis for the claim w°as enacted after the date the property was annexed to the city. "1'he subject property alas annexed to the City on June 12, 2001 pursuant to Ordinance N©. 2289. At the time of annexation, the property became subject. to the b~oc~dburn 7aning Ordinance. The ~'oc~dbu l~e~°elc~pTnent C)rd~~~anc;e eras adopted on April 9, ?0(}2 and became effecti~re on July 1, 20fJ2, replacing the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance as the applicable land use regulation. Both of Clair~nant's Measure 37 claims and the Measure 49 claim refer to the 4~`godbum Dc~°elopent Ordinance. This criterion is met. {k} 'The challenged regulations reduced the fair market ti=slue of the property according to an appraisal conducted as specified by Measure 49. 1'at*e ~ cft`~ Page 72 Section 9{7} of Measure 49 proti°ides in part that "a claimant must provide an appraisal shoe-ink the fair market value of the property one ~~ear lefore tlr~ encxc~trrz~nt ~~f tlzr, Iczncf zes~ re,~Tzzlertir~zz that was the basis for the claim and the fair market value of the property nne t•eur crftet° tlzc> enrzrtnz~nt." {emphasis added} As part of his second Measure 37 claim, Claimant submitted an appraisal which gave a "Hypothetical Market Value Without Constraints" of 5315,400 and an "`As-Is' Market 1~'alue V4Tith Constraints" of 5110,000 as of May 2, 2006. Na appraisal was submitted for the Measure 49 review. The appraisal submitted determined the fair market value of the subject property as of May 2, 200Ei --not one year before ffie enactment of the land use regulation and one year after the enactment. as required by Measure 49. This criterion is not met. Section 9(8} Highest and best use. Relie# may not be granted if the highest and best use of the property was not residential at the time the land use regulations were enacted. As part of his first Measure 37 claim, Claimant submitted a list of uses that had been established at 514 North Pacific Highway from 1945-2004 and at 500-510 North Pacific Hightivay „sine being built." None of the uses listed ti~>ere residential. Claimant's submittals far the Measure 37 claims and the Measure 49 review did not mention residential use of the property. Claimant's appraisal submitted for the second Measure 37 claim concluded that "[b]ased upon past, present and prospective market activity in the Vt'oadburn area, it is our opinion that a commercial use commensurate with the City's CG zoning ordinance is an adequate expression of the highest and best use of the vacant site." (emphasis in original). The subject property's location also suggests residential is not the best use. The subject property abuts a state highway and has been. used consistently for commercial purposes since Claimant purchased it. Therefore, the highest and best use is commercial and not restdenttal. This criterion is not met. Staff Conclusion: Measure 49 Section 9 single-familS~ homes `I'a be eligible for relief under Measure 49, approved Measure 37 claimants must meet all of the requirements of Section 9. While the claim meets the requirements of Section 9(5}(a-d and f-j ), it did not meet the re~yuirements of Section 9{S)(e and k) and Section 9(8). Rt;licf under Measure 49 Section 9 should not be granted. Page 5 of 8 Page 73 TI. ~~aiuation of Claim under Leasure 49 Section S: Common Law bested t_ i hits . Under Measure 4~), a claimant with a :Measure ~37 waiver who has begun fihe development described in tl~e ~r°°aiver may proceed under ~rleasure 37 iftlie else of the property complies w°ith the waiver and the claimant has a corr~mon la~v vested right to complete and continue the use. Under decisions of the CJregon courts, whether a person has a vested right to complete a use (despite a change in law} is an issue of fact, to be decided on a case-by-case basis. `The issuance of a :Measure 37 waiver does not, by itself, create a common Iaw vested right, For an owner to have acqusred a vested right to proceed with construction, the commencement of construction must have been substantial or substantial costs toward completion of the development must have been incurred. ~'luc°k~rrzcrx C'nunt~` ~°. I7c~lm~s, 265 Ur l q3, 1 q7 (1 X72}. lVleasure 4L) Section 5{~) requires that Claimant must show that he his right to complete and continue a use vas vested on or before December 6, 2®C}7. ~ccc~rdingly, Staff has reviewed only those activities and expenditures made on or before December 6, 20tJ7. Staff revieu°ed Claimant's vested rights claim. using the factors that the C)regon appellate courts have considered in determining w°hether a particular deg°elopment has progressed to the point where the owner has a vested right. These include the following: l . The amount of money spent on developing the use in relation fio the total cost of establishing the use; ?. The good faith of the property owner; 3, ~4`hetl~er the property owner had notice cif the proposed change in law before beginning the development; 4. ~~'hether the improvements could be used for other uses that are allowed under the new lar~v ; 5. The, kind cif use, location and cost of` the development; and 6. ~`l~ether the oumer's acts rise beyond. preparation (,land clearing, planning, etc.}, Staff reviewed all information submitted by Claimant including contents of both Measure ~7 claim files associated with the subject property and additional information submitted on June 27, 2QC}~. 1. The amount of money spent on developing the use in relation to the total. cost of establishing the use. Claimant stated in the Measure 4q submittal that "~t]he money spent, was to protect the uses established through Measure 37 claim and the r.~~aiver granted to me by the City Council of Woodburn, rather than paying me .~205,c}CJt}.f)f~ Damages." Claimant iterni~es the expenditures as: ~ttorne}°'s fees S4g81.{)() ~ppra~sal fee 2,Sf}t}.Of.} ~'Ieasure 37 filing fees 1,C}t}C}.t}t) Title Report fees 45E}.t}{} F'a~e 6 ref 8 Page 74 Cap_y7ng and supplies 7l 1.Ut} Landscaping and curb 39(}.f}() Loss of rent 52,912.()() Claimant provided documentation only for the "landscaping and curb." No other documentation was provided to support the expenditures of Attorney's Fees, Appraisal fee, title report fees, copying and supplies. In reviewing all information available, it appears that the money spent related to attorney fees, appraisal fee, Measure 37 filing fees, and title report fees are not attributable to money spent in developing the "uses" aIla~ved by the Measure 37 claim. These expenses occurred to obtain the hleasurc 37 approval, not to proceed with development after the approval. toss of rent is not "money spent on developing the use" and is not applicable to the determination of common law vested rights. Claimant has not specified a use(s) that the expenditures were intended to establish. Claimant has not provided any dacurz~entatian related to actual. or estimated fatal cast of establishing his intended use{s). Conclusion: C'lairnant has not established that any "use" has been commenced pursuant to the 'Measure 37 waiver. The money spent by Claimant does not appear to have been spent in developing a use. Because Claimant has not articulated a use or estimated the fatal cost of establishing the use, it is not passible to evaluate the amount of money spent an developing the use in relation. to the fatal cast of establishing the use. Z. The good faith of the property owner. tiothing in the information reviewed suggests that any actions taken by Claimant were made to beat the potential enactment of'vieasure 49. Conclusion: The City noes not dispute the good faith of CIaimazit. 3, Whether the properh~ owner had notice of the proposed change in law before beginning development. Staff is unau°are if Claimant had notice of the change in law. 4. ~~'hether any improvements could be used for other allowed uses. The only improvezncnts to the subject property are the landscaping and curb. Claimant slid not submit any information regarding the nature and extent of these improvements. Page 7 of £3 Page 75 Cunctusittn; The nature and extent caf` the landscaping and cunt improvements is unknct~~-n. i-ict~~-ever, such imprctveittc~nts could. reasonably be e:~peet~d tct Ere sftared with qtr used fctr either allo~~°cd uses, including the uses currently existing can the property. ~. ~"he kind of use, and the lacatian and cast raf the de~elapment. Claimant ltas not pro~•ided information on the specific use c:omtnenced, location cif such use, or the cost of fire de1=eioping that use, Staff is nett aware of any design review- or building permit apltiications submitted for the cctmmenccmertt ctf`any development caf Claimant°s property, Canclusi€an; Claimant has not commenced any use pursuant tea his Measure 37 approval. Ca. '!~4'hether the property owner's acts are mare than mere contemplated use ar preparation, such as the leveling of land, baring test bates, ar prellminar~. ne~;atiatians with contractors ar architects. Claimant itas pro~~ide;d expenditures for copying, supplies, and. landscaping and curia improvements. C'anctusican; C'laimant's expenditures and improvements are of a similar or lesser magnitude titan such activities as leti c;lirtg cif laatd car boring. test holes. Claimant stated that the expenditures ~~=ere "to prcatect the uses estaEaiished through ~'~1leasure ?7 claim." rather than to continue development of ~, new use that ~~~ould Ere protected by ccammon law 1 ested rights, Staff Canclusan; ~Ieasure_~9_Sectian S: Cornmon.Larv Vested Rights C'iaimant has not sustained a claim of`corttmc-an law vested righ#s. C,iaiinant has not articulated or d~}cutnettted a specific. development use or project that was substantially begun before the enactment of Measure 4~ oft decentbc:r Ca, ?ffg7. Staff Recarnmendation Based on rite fi~tda'ngs and conclusions in this report, staff recommends that rite City Council direct staff to prepare an order fear adoption: { 1) Finding Claimant is not entitled to relief under Measure -f9 Section y. and {?} Denying the claim of common. la~v vested rights in regards to the subject property, Exhibits :~ C'laimant's application and narrative, date-stamped September ?7, ~OOfi B Council's Findings of Fact and Decision of March l~, 207 C Claimant's '4ieasure ~9 claim, date-stamped .lone 27, ?O~f§, iniiuding attachments D Tentative petermination of'vleasure ~9 rights dated July lt), ?(}E}S Page t~ cif` Page 76 !~' A. ~, ~ • ~~ ~ Measure 37 C1a~m Form ~~~~~~~ t , a s , City of Woocibum Community Development Department 2717 Montgomery Street - V~toodburn Qr on 97071 Phone: 543-982-5246 • Fax: 54~-9$~ 5244 NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATICiN OF CLAIMANT1PRt}PERTY QWNER: dame of Claimant: elephone #: Delbert Gottsacker ~ ax#; None . ~. e.._ ____ ___ ____.. _._ .._. ~ ~.~..,.. ..... ,._.. ,_,, ~ .._.__. .... _ __ oAr1= RECFiv~c~: 'ate ~9~ ;. .. Salem ~ OR ' 97302 ust attach a written notarized statement sigr~d by the owner{s} or a Power of Attorney giving authority to submit this claim. PROPERTY FROM WHICH CLAIM DERIVES: Street Address: xA.t.so, see deed attached to the 500-510, 514 N. Pacific. Iii hwa , Woodburn, 08 a .sisal. and descri tion of the 'T"ownship, Range, S~;ction and Assessor's Tax lot#: title report whieh is su'braitted Pit lots 5,6,7,8: ~ 9, Block 1, W~*ttn's Addition herewith. Site Acreage: _=4l acres _ Comprehensive Plan DesignatioNZona Map C}esignaticsn: _gCoe rc is l General. ~...Wm ~ I ATTEST THAT t HAVE FILLED OUT THIS fORM COMPLETELY AND THIS CLAIM IS TRUE AN[} CORRECT. {Sfgrtatures of off parties preparing this torrn Irrcfudtng those cfafmfng ownership fn the property over which drfs cfafm fs t~trtg made.} v ~ .~ -., ~. _ _ _ ignature ' Date Ue.l}aert Gottsacker Print Name Signature Print Name ! t Signature Date Print Name Page 77 NAME ANL) CONTACT INFORMATION OF PERSQN SUBMITTING CLAIM (AGENT): iF DIFFERENT THAN tN SECTlOlM f ABt}YE. dame of Agent: elephone #: - -- j Norman P. Webb, Attorne ax#; 503-363-2250 Address: 1114 - 12th Street 1~ I T:`11...~~~~.\ 1 l ~ ~ll. 1 I~ ~..Tl YYv[.11111LT 1: ~~:e'~~~~E:~~ ~ ~L. ~~iYi ~[./ii,~~~ 1. Degositr ~~~; encl~sse~l cheek fc~r S(kl.(lCl, 2. Claim Form. , ~~~ attached claim tia€m. ~. Identification of C?v~nership Interests, The prc~pc.~rty owner is Uc:ibcrt Gc~ttsack~~r, 1~5I8 Parr Read tiE, Ge~ais, QR ~?f}?6. '~c} other party has any interest in the prt~pc.'rty. There arc; n€~ lien hc~lde~€'s, rc~nte~rs,lc;ssee~s, car casement he~lde~rs can the prc~pe:rty. ~. Progcrt~ Ues+crigtinta~f"f'itle Regort. See currc,•nt title: report attached he~rc~tc~. 5. tiearhy Prc~gert} Uwner Information. See; attached prcpcrty owner inft~rmation, b. Proposed t'se. The proposed use of the property would be all u3es omitted pursuant to '1Flaricn County ~c~nin~ t)rdinance tio. ?4, a campy attached herewith, which vvas in place at the time; the Claimant purchased the prc~p€~rty. free cif any current restrictit~ns including those i€r~posc~d 1'ry the Cit}~ cat ~'4'oodbu related to all devc;lopmertt ~,uidelines and standards. landscaping, si~tt code. re~uirernents, desi,n rep ieu~°, parkin; requirements, anti restrictirans imp~~se~d 1~~~ curreYr€t Cc~n~mcrcial General (t'C,) zoning. ?, Land Lse Regulation `T'hat Restricts the Claimant's l:'se of the Property. See attached City of t~'e~odburn 17e~=elc~pment (~rdinancc~s C?, i (l~, ?.1(?fi Commercial General (CG), anti 3.1 U 1 Deg clc~pmc~nt Guide l inc and Standards (Street Standards}, and appraisal attachedi hc~-eto. iti. Remedy Sought. Ke€nc~l~~ sought is ~~°aiue~r uf~all c~fthe ti~rgoing land use restric,~tic~ns that are described alx~ve i}r in lieu thcre~c~sf~ just ex~rr€pe>nsatic~n in the anx~unt ."~'(l ±,{)t~).Ut) izt acc;c~rdance ~4ith the appraisal includc.~l he're~ith. c}. <~ggraisal. See attachi apprai:~al re~pc~rt. Wage 1- ~TTi~CNt1ENT~ ~`C~ NtEASURE 37 CLAIM Norm~ut F. Webb 'tttorne~ At ~a;,a: •~ - =2' Sc~Era SE fern €7R = ., ^:3; 36:ri>~t4` Page 78 exhibit "A" BEFORE THE UVflflDBURN CITY CC3UNCIl In the Matter of a Claim for } Findings of Fact & Compensation Under Ballot } Decision Measure 37 {QRS 197.352) by j Delbert Gottsacker } Claim No. M3? 2006-t}1 Claimant: Delbert Gottsacker Property: 500-510, 514 N. Pacific Highway, Woodburn, OR Claim: Wavier of all land use restrictions or just compensation of $205,000, iNTRflDUCTtflN AND PROCEDURAL BACKGRBUND Measure 37 requires payment of just compensation to an owner of real property if a government regulation restricts the use of the real property and reduces its fair market value. In lieu of just compensation, the government is authorized to "modify, remove or not apply the sand use regulation". On December 1, 2004, the Gity adopted Ordinance 2378 establishing procedures for the processing of claims under Measure 37. ©n December 2, 2004, Delbert Gottsacker ("Claimant"}, representing himself, filed a Measure 37 claim {"the First Claim"} with the City in connec#ion with his property located at 500-510, 514 N. Pacific Highway, Woodburn, Oregon {"the Property"). That claim was denied by the City Council on April 25, 2005 because Claimant did not demonstrate how a City Land use regulation restricted the use and reduced the fair market value of his private real property. {Attachment "A") On September 26, 2006, Claimant, through his legal counsel, filed a Measure 37 lawsuit {"the Lawsuit°) against the City in Marian County Circuit Court {Case No. 06C 19144}, demanding compensation of $205,000 and attorney fees. {Attachment "B") On September 27, 2006, Claimant, with the assistance of legal counsel, filed this Measure 37 claim with the City {"the Second Claim") in connection with the Property and based upon the same set of operative facts as the First Claim. The Secand Claim states that the proposed use of the Property "would be ail uses permitted pursuant to Marion County Zoning Ordinance No. 24, a copy attached herewith, which was in place at the time the Claimant purchased the property." However, by a letter dated October 18, 2006, Claimant amended the Second Claim to state that no zoning was in place because Ordinance No, 24 did not apply to the Property an the date of purchase. (Attachment "C") Page 7 of 5 Page 79 The claim does not describe a specific development proposal. Claimant cites the Woodburn Development Ordinance ("the 1NDC}"} and makes a general request to be "free of any current restrictions including those imposed by the City of Woodburn related to all development guidelines and standards, landscaping, sign code requirements, design review, parking requirements, and restrictions imposed by current Commercial General ECG} zoning." Attempts to gain further Information about a specific use or the development goals of Glairnant have been unsuccessful. Staff informed Claimant of his right to request a voluntary claim conference. However, Claimant has not requested a claim conference and has reiterated his desire to develop the Property as allowed when it was purchased. (Attachment ~Q"} A lVQtice of Public Mee#ing was mailed as required by ~3rdinance 2378. This notice states that the City Council will conduct a public meeting and consider the Second Claim at 7;04 p.m. on March 12, 2047 and that no tes#mony will be taken in this matter. The notice further states that written comments can be submitted to the Community Development Department by March 6, 2447 and that these comments will be Included in the information provided to the City Council, (Attachment "E"} Based upon any written comments timely received, the Second Claim itself and Its supporting documents, the City Council makes the following Findings of Fact and Decision. FINDINGS {3F FACT 1.~ The Lawsuit is based upon the City Council's denial of the First Claim and the City Council finds that there are no material differences between the operative facts set forth in the Lawsuit and the operative facts set forth in the Second Claim. 2. The City Council finds that its determination on the Second Claim to be conclusive as to this set of operative facts set forth in the Lawsuit and binding as to Claimant. 3, The Property was located outside the City of Woodburn, in rural Marion County when Claimant purchased it, as recorded in Volume 802, Page 233, Marion County peed Records, on June 10, 19fi5, The Property was initially zoned Marion County Commercial {C2} on July 31, 19fi8. Qn June 11, 2401, the City forced an annexation of the Property in conjunction with other properties as part of an "island" annexation process pursuant to ORS 227.75{}. All adjacent properties are located within the City of Woodburn and zoned Commercial General {CG}. Page 2 of 5 Page 80 4. The Property is located at the intersection of Qregon Highway 99E and Laurel Avenue. Highway 99E is improved to two travel ianes in both directions and a center turn cane, There are curbs and gutters along Highway 99E and Laurel Avenue, but no sidewalks along the subject property. The Property has two approaches to Highway 99E and two approaches to ~aurei Avenue. 5. The Property is relatively flat and contains two structures. As identified in the appraisal submitted with the claim, one building contains two 410 square #oot office or retail spaces in a one-story building. This building is of concrete block construction and was built in 1966. The second building, built in 1945} is a 3,906 usable square foot building with one large {62.5-foot by 62.5-foot} warehouse with adjoining 10-foot by 41-foot and 12.5-foot by 21.5-foot lean-to sheds. The building includes a 40-foot by 20-foot soft. The appraisal identifies the Property as containing 17,932 square feet, A diagram of the site is attached. {Attachment "F"} 6. City water is provided to the Property for domestic use and was provided prior to annexation. No water for fire protection is available to the Property. The Property is not connected to the City wastewater system and the sys#em is not adjacent to the Property. 7, Current roadway access to the Property from both Highway 99E and Laurel Avenue involves safety issues and does not meet the City standards for spacing, number of access locations, access width, or distances from intersections. Access onto Laurel Avenue is approximately 5 feet from the Highway 99E right of way and this distance should be 50 feet. Qne access to Highway 99E is 40 feet from Laurel Avenue and the second is 120 feet. The nearest access to Laurel Avenue should be 300 feet. The Laurel Avenue right-of-way is only 40 feet wide, but the Woodburn Transportation System Plan {TSP} coils fora 60-foot wide right-of-way. A portion of this additional right-of-way could be provided from the Property. However, the existing structure would be iocated within this street right-of-way area. There is no sidewalk along the frontage of the Property and this creates a pedestrian safety issue. The TSP identifies Highway 99E as needing 100 feet of right-of- way {80-feet exists}, and there are no sidewalks or bike ianes, both of which are specified in the TSP and are necessary far an efficient and safe muiti- modal transportation system. 8. fin September 27, 2006, Claimant flied the Current Claim in connection with the Property demanding "wavier of all land use restrictions or just compensation of $205,000". aECISi~N Measure 37 grants a property owner the right to compensation {or kNaiver at the option of the public entity} for a regulation that existed as of the effective date of Page 3 of 5 Page 81 Measure 37 if five substantive requirements are met. First, the regulation must constitute a "land use regulation" as defined by Measure 37, Second, the public entity must have enacted or enforced the regulation in some manner, Th'srd, the regulation must "restrict the assn of private property. Fourth, the effect of the regulation must cause a reduction in the fair market value of the property. Fifth, the regulation must not fall within one of Measure 37's five exemptions. In this case, the claim does not describe any specific development proposal. Claimant merely cites to the WDQ and makes a general request to be "free of any current restrictions including those imposed by the City of Woodburn related to all development guidelines and standards, landscaping, sign cods requirements, design review, parking requirements, and restrictions imposed by current Commercial General (CG} zoning." Claimant does not identify with any specificity which portions of the WD4 meet any of the tests outlined in the preceding paragraph. By failing to provide sufficient specificity to the City Council, Claimant has precluded the City from responding to each issue In the manner anticipated by Measure 37. Nevertheless, in order to implement the wilt of the voters and to avoid the risk of paying even a nominal amount in a claim, which would result in a large award of attorney fees that would be paid for in public funds, the City Council orders as follows: 1. The City shall not apply those provisions of the WDQ to the Property to the extent that the provisions were adopted after Claimant acquired the Property and {a}the provision is a "land use regulation" as defined by Measure 37, {b) the provision "restricts the use" of the lot as that phrase is used in Measure 37; {c} the provision has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the lot; and {d} the provision does not meet any of the exemptions contained in Subsection {3} of Measure 37, 2. Because it is clear that Section 4.1 of the V1JD0, Administration and Procedures, does not impose any substantive requirements on Claimant and is necessary for the City to process any future development proposal by Claimant, Section 4.1 continues to apply to the Property owned by Claimant. 3. Because it is clear that Section 5.1 of the WDO, Application Requirements, does not impose any substantive requirements on Claimant and is necessary for the City to process and future development proposal by Claimant, Section 5.1 continues to apply to the Property owned by Claimant. 4. To the extent that any law, order, deed, agreement or other legally enforceable public or private requirement provides that the property may not be used without a permit, license, or other form of authorization or consent, this order wtil not authorize the use of the property unless the claimant first Page 4 of 5 Page 82 abtatns that permit, license, or other farm of authorization or consent. These requirements may include, but are not limited to, a building permit, a tend use decision, a permit as defined in ORS 227.160, other permits or authorizations from loot, state or federal agencies, and restrictions on the use of the property posed by private parties. 5. A-ny use of the property by Claimant under the terms of this order will remain subject to any laws enacted or enforced by a public entity other than the City of Woodburn; and any taws not subject to Measure 37 {ORS 197.352). 6. This order is subject to and shall be interpreted consistent with any future legislative changes or judicial interpretations of Measure 37 {ORS 197.352). 7. Consistent with the language of Measure 37 {ORS 197.352) and Sectsan 7 {t) of Ordinance 2378, this order is personal to Ctairnant and is not transferable to any other owners. Dated this. day of March 2007. ATTEST: _.-----~ f~' 1 Mary Want, City Recorder NOTICE OF JUDICIAL REMEDY Pursuant to Section 9 of Ordinance No. 2378 and consistent with Measure 37 {ORS 197.352) this decision is not a land use decision and appeal shaft be by Writ of Review pursuant to ORS 34.01 p to 34,142.. Page 5 of 5 Page 83 •n 9 4~it ~'~ Pg. 1. Measure .~~ Clam File Number M-37-2£306-t71 Common Law Vested Flights ~LL~#'#Ft~' )~;-- lone 26, 2008 Dear Mayor, Cflunci# Members and Mr. Allen: My Vested Rights Claim is fur uses that has already been estab#ished. The Money Spent, was spent to protect. the uses estab#ised through Measure 37 claim and the Waiver granted to me by the City Counci# of Woodburn, Rather than paying me $205,t}OO.Ofl Damages. Mt3NEY SPENT Attorney Fees Appraisal Fee Measure 37 Filing Fees Title Report Fees Copy 43ocuments, Maps, Copy Supplies, Postage, Stamps and Fax Property Improvements, Landscaping and Curb Subtotal Loss of rent because planning dept. didn't honor 43DC}T"S Mlodified Hwy. 99F widening p#an and other Emit#ements granted with Adutated Modified P#an. Tote! ~ 4,981.043 ~,s4343.tx3 1,000.00 450.4~t} 711.430 390.430 11,4332,4343 $ 52r880.4~! $ 63,912,4'3 The above i5 a substantial expenditure in Good Fa°rth to save my Property Use Rights, without these rights the property would have eery little value, as proued by the appraise#. To maintain the best value and use would be to update the present improvements, but this could on#y be done by obtaining the Common Law Vest Rights. If l had to fol#ow the Woodburn Deve#opment Qrdinance, I would lose the SjF corner of my property, if there was a change in the radius of the corner, under the direction of ODOT. OD4~T'S safety rotes would require them to close the driveway to Laurel Ave. Lose the south approach tv Hwy 99E if it was to close try the intersection of Hwy 99E and Laurel Ave, Receiving a total fee of $ 1,00 for a utility easement of 153 ft long, between ray but#dir~gs and Hwy 99E. Page 84 . :r.... ~„i tl ~ t <:~. r3> , r~~VL~1iut';. LOt.ik.l~! E Y ~-; ~, P ~. 'tCVtL~'U~,Ar~ ~t'. $'' When the highway is widened it is not known in how many years, it would be done by ODOT. This is based on using Woodburn development ord. by using contingencies to get what the city wanted free. am told Woadburns Transportation Plan was not amended to ODOT"S Modified Plan for the South Section of Hwy 99E. All Property Adjacent to Hwy. 99E is under the lurisdictian of ODOT-OAR 734-OS1 and is under the adopted Modified Plan and Entitlements, which are; 1. Grandfiather approach permits to Hwy. 99E, if qualified. 2. Properties along the project do not conform with city's current Setbacks and Parking requirements and are Attowed to remain with Substandard Dimensions. 3. A Variance from the City is not Required. 4. Sidewalks and 5 ft. have been eliminated. I filed a measure 37 Claim in Gaad Faith. It was between the City's Woodburn Development Ordinance and my property. By appraisal, Woodburn development ordinance did damage to my property of X245,000.00 by taking away my use rights. The city chose to give me back my rights. I felt this was the right choice in good faith. The city council may be able to change their mind through Measure 49, claiming 1 didn't Spend Enough Money $11,032,00 or $63,912 to Grant Me My Common t.aw Waiver Rights. This will force me to Claim my Rights and Entitlements through the Oregon Transportation Modified Plan for the South Section of Hwy, 99E, Woodburn, C}regon 97071. Will this open up a can of Worms for the South section. I attended OROT"S meeting on Oregon 99E Pavement and Safety Improvements, Cansiruction through Summer of 2008. I had a couple of questions on my Property and within the area. The people who was in Woodburn couldn't answer them and they referred me to an Ot~C?T number in Salem, They were very helpful. Woodburn property in South sec. is not required to have Sidewalks an either side of Hwy 99E, and if ODOT was to require Sidewalks, it would be on the West side only. ODOT would not put sidewalks in this year, in their project, as this project is for safety. ODOT will not be doing anything on my corner, on Hwy. 99E and Laurel St., Here again, the Project is for Safety Factors Only. This Should Tell Us Something About Safety factors. !f you have Miscellaneous questions for OQOT, do nat call the Oi)OT number(Dept} that takes care of Conditional Uses or a Change Of Use. They do not quote you the Oregon Transportation Plan. If you are from Woodburn, the OpOT people wit( back up the Woodburn Plan, and there is a difference, especially if you are in the Modified Section. Page 85 °°~~;;°°~~ C~ Pg. ~. I had a bid on a sidewalk and a curb i put in around my garden between my two approaches on Hwy. 99E, I called OOOT to make sure the size was right and was to#d sidewa#ks were not required far my property. t canceled the sidewalk not knowing where 4 set. i would like to make some improvements to my property, but i have to wait and see what happens with my Common law Vested Rights, What the city is going to da with the water #ine into my bui#dings, as Frank Tiwari wanted and what the price of black toping is naw. Then # can decide. Rocuments Inclosed as Proof of comments: 1. Property under who's Jurisdiction. Ot}OT 2. Modified Plan Explanation, Sidewalks Eliminated 3. City Council Approval and Request 4. Properties do not conform with city's current setback and parking requirements and are al#owed to remain with substandard dimensions. Variance from city not required, S ft from each side not needed. Eliminated., 5. Marion Counties approval. 6. Grandfathers Approach. 7. laurel driveway closed, if radius of corner changes. 8. Citizens approval required 9. 2t)OS Safety improvements being made. 1t1. OQOT wi!! do Widening. 11. Letter ICOC Morrissey 12. letter O€~OT Potter, OC3OT to pay for widening with Modernization funds, their share 23. Curb & Sidewalk Bid, sidewalk canceled not required , re modified p#an Sincere#y, De#bert Gottsacker 8518 Parr Rd. NE Gervais, Oregon 97026 Page 86 ~. Ev+eryf ~ S~l'lAll I-ave dir~act aC~sS t0 '! i~rs~ public or ~~ -~ ~ ~ ~ a public stmt by an imevacable mef~t. ~, ~` ~~ r ~ ~~~~~~` 2. Every jc~n# dr~eway or cross connerc#i,o~n daean serrate late .. shall lae establlshs-d by an irrev~acable aracess +~a~arnent, 3~ ~Ir~.~Y ~ac~s C3ukleilnea, Tvc~ ~~1 ~~+Qns A. Gulines for tfie Ntm~ber and Lar~ca##an a-# I~rtw~+waysr, Type ll and Type 111 ,A~ppilcatlarts. '1. The number oiF drlverway acr~ses slwuld bu rnlnlm~ed based off overall site ,t~slgnf lnduding canstdetatlan of $. Tie ~tlr!t~Cht1 c~s~ca'tlon t'!~ Sbtt#l~n+,~ ~~#, b. The on-sibs +eet~s pattern, eluding cross conrtec•"b~d parfCing and r~rcutertion, j~nt a+cc~s, tutn~+aun+c~ and building orientat#on; c. The access nae+~ a~ ttw use In trsnms t~ vnfunno, Intensity and duration cfiaracterlstk:s cd` trip generation. F11+tU1NCa: The subjred prraperty has one egasting connmer driveway access orb Higtr+~vay 99E, a rear arts~i, whk~t is tt~r minimum Humbert r+ec~ifed. The on-site acxess pattem has been desigr~ect to maw tt~te one ex~tir~g approach. Thera ~ rxf reasonable atteimatlve with an abuttlr~g cxjmme~rrciei PI~~Y, orttc~ Nig~rr+way An aarxa~s pem~ #rom tl'~ City ie ncrt n~quired tausr~hf g~ is c~ n th~`lit~c~ t~f Q ~r nd i a, s~~erd #ci t he ruiremetds ~ OAI~ 7-45. A t~eferral was aerrt to C?[KT avid C?D~3T cornmerrtedd that an ep~~r+oech mad permit fe r~X~ed. ~'4 ('rr~s c, ~,.~,~„,~r/~u,,,~ ~. Qri~way Spacing t3uidellnes= Type li and 111 Appllcaticma. ~,~ Page 87 T - -... _ ~~~~~ >xr~rp~ix; ~sd €R9^f C?ctc~ber ~~, ~~ TGE: Mayor and City Council through Gity Administrator FRt)M: Jim P~Auldsr, Dirsctor of Community Development r SUBJECTi Clydinance Approving Design Review 013-16 ~AAQn^ow} REC4MMENDA71t~N. Approve the attached ordinance approv[ng Design Review C~3-16, SACKGF2QUNi3: The City Council, at its t'~ctober 13, 2QC13 meeting, directed slsff tQ prepare ordinance to approve the above referenced application. That ordinance is attacheci~ DISCUSSiE3N: None, ~~ci~~ ~~~~ACT: .~. Tt~e`~lr~ir~ar~m `ate~l_wif tf t~~,.~m~r~~endeci~c.~on. '~ ~ _ ~~4~,f~j~ jyr Jj p jJ jJ/,r~~,~^ ~~ , ~, J ~ ;, I ~~~ Ar~encia [tern Review; ~ityr Admin~strr~tar City Attc~mey _._..~_. Finance Page 88 2. Modified South gnit " The Modified South thtit Mich begins at the intersection of L#t~oln Street and Pacific H#ghway East would terminate at fire 1ivt~dburn S~tth City Limits on Pacific Highway East wild be cstructed w#th#n the existing BtI-foot right-of-gray ~r#th the exce~rtfvn of_street #rrtersections r~ere~addi_ tional right-of-wa,~! catty feprove the fuming rac~e~'the #nter- s tact ~ on . Y ar i ab ~ s 1 and ut i'1"'~fy easeuents would be repo i rid needed . The typical section for the MoEdified South wit would be a curbed section w # tit a 14-f_ oot ~~ed i arty„ four 12-foot t~av,~,.1.. 1 acres { tea i n eamcic direct # on ~ and two 6-foot shoulders. This gyp#ca1 sect#on is Compatible w!#th the ibrth thtit. _,~.~_ In order to b~#ld~ w~tfiitt the exists right-ctf-wa;y, t! Sfidew$'~ks }t+~ , lfed rcurth _._.._ . At the present time, funds have curt been allocated for construct#on_of e#Lher unit. filter, for. the portion north of l.inco3n Street {unit ~.), futais have been allocated for the purchase of rig#tt-+of-ray and the cotapletion of final plans. For the artiort south of ~#r~coln Street {unit 2}, funds have on'!y been allocated to prepare the Env#ronmet~tal Assessment. For tMit 2 to be advanced to the construction phase, fdntls would have to be allocated for the preparation of final plans acid the purchase of right-of-gray a~tdlor ease'tts, ~N ~ ~ 1!? ~3a~~~~-~~~~4a*~~ ~~~. -~ - Page 89 ~~ tD the C~t1tS reCe~Ved frt~ Gf3riGerned citizens and 8 request by the ti!~aodburn City Ct~u~#l, the Fbdffied Build Alternat#ve xas developed and c- nded fcrr the South tin#~ wh#ch would b+e constructed with#n the existing r#ghts-t~f-gray erg fur~c~#n b s ~ avei ia~ale. C nt Ito. 3t}: lewis italicer {prc~erty comer} I ffin strictly opposed to atnyth#ng south of l#ncoln Street. Res~n~ nse: Please refer to the Responses to Co~+ents Nos. 1, 2, 3, 29 and the Pro~eCt Stm~ttaation Section. Com~ent No. 3I: terry S#~onsen ~i~oodtwrn Plana#ng -ission} Explained the recent r-ezs~n#ng ~nf t#te rm-rthern part#tm of 1burn. The North unit does need ~t#den#ng to sake #t conforae to the rest of the highway. I am Opposed to the Seth unit. Res onse~ Please refer to the Responses to nts mss. 1, 2, 3, 2I, 29 a~i the Pro,~ect 5um~ation Section.. ~~O~u~3~ ~~r4~~nur~s ~~,• -~s- Page 90 l~ '~ F~~C'C1 :'r . _ ~~' Th$ iioodburn Transportation Plan states that "Arterial streets areA. . to b8 oP suPi`icient width to acco~todate traffic flogs xitCaut interruptioa." The transportation plan also refers to tMit I of the project in its list of - road itgroveetents. The plan stakes "99£ Prot 4incoln to 50t) feet north of !lolalla End should- be xidened to tour lanes", acrd "Sato steaxta of transportation for pedestrians shall be, Mhere leaaible, provided on arterial and collector streets:" The plan does not licit or prohibit project construction of the 1lnit• II portion of ttte project. T'he ibaiburtt coep~ret~aive plan refers to the need along Pacific tiighxay Fast for better across and an adoquate stort sexer•spstet. The project is consistent riot both objectives. Sots of the properties along the pro jai; ~o pot. +cstAfo~nt xitb the. t city*s currez-t sgtbac~c aid .ice ~~-+~~° these properties t~ter+e level for to the fre~eet~ ~ hll+t~d te- t vi~!'t atdastats~arrt diitenaions. - ' ~ pra_#ect could ray acaui~~tion of ~~~~ 5 test of .c nal__r#.~t-of-~ra~ trt~t bo#~b sides of tho hi~war. This Mould Qause ~u~-y _buasi~wss±ea to _b~ose ei tt~er nos-cwafor~ting or yore nan-contorting xith resttect Co Pru'ldng ssttc ntedi~F. ~Ac`i~rbre !'t'ot the cif could twtt bet e~~uirad for°"'tEawa bt~sin~a~ 9 . ,~ J f ProperL~ea Wr-icn haYO tscb ltproYaweirtta along 99E (curbs artad sidetralks? could gave those itproveaents replaced at no additional cost should trie ridening tame out their ispt•ovotents. . ~per..iss rtaich have no ittprovea~nc..~ tcurcrs an4 sidottalka) xould be` assessed by the •citr for tho casts i-. - ot ttto~a iitnraves+ents, ~ ceN of the properties acsjacent to Pacific Highway East and located in the pro,~ect area are outside tho city litlts. These properties are subject Page 91 -i~= ~ ttte ~c~~nty co~tg~rette+rtsive ;plait. Cc~ttversat~iot~,s with the f'ir~tttti.ng prarttltettt fir r~arioat Ccaunby t:ta-r~eurred ~ the pro~c:~d, p~-~-,~tct.rld ~t tee itt conflict t+~ ~ any of rite t~ctunty~ t s laud use plans. ~~ect d~ nQt ~ to ~?cc~nwtic,s Ttte 1~OCiburn econt~ty i,s p~rittrarilir based vn agriculture a~td Pc,ud prttc~aa~sis~g. €fPc~rts,~. tt~ diversify the ~y have it'acluded ec~uragltrtg light fs~rttved tratfit: Plt~tt an adequate sttu~r setrer system. 'Ctye 8uiid Altwrttative t~u,iti have a po,~itive s~feet tat satist'yittg all oP ~ t~rieds. ~ur~ittg o! p~'iyat~ l Por public use alters the tas b~ betatuae ~tvertittg L!'~e prt~p~erty to tart ex~-pt hiay rfght-'o!'-ray reduces awut-t of land in ~riyat~e custerst~lo. 'fie lass to the tax base for tfitit I uouad bo~a~xux..~f~7'~ -+ Tt~ t~ntlt Il lass to tt~t tax .base t+puld tie abt~ut: 35b2.t Itt aratty ease; ttre ~t~to the tart brass 1~~Ccw~areci icy tt~ tit _rMVt..~,,...va3~1. iit#'tfC~'t $tt ~~~rQYei'~ tac~~.~tY ~t~t`aCtS: .. +-t985 Lax bEt.~B. ,~,~ Page 92 6 {~ (l l } "Al~groach road" means a k~atiy construed, public or Primate ca+nras~ioa, prc~vuitng vehicular access m andlor from a highway and an ati,1Q+~8 Y- (l2) "C'lassificatiot~ of highways" means the Department's highway clarssific~ticnts defined in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan. {i3} "Commission" means the Tn~tion Ctxr~misswa. (14} "Construction Permit" mmcans a Pemnit ~ C a State Highway AppR~ach inehading ail attachments, required sib, and ~ tiaras. { l 5 } "Crash history" means at Ieast the throe ~ r+ec~eat years of dash data roc~t+ded by the Departarerrt's Crash Analysis and Rgxrctir~g LTni~t {25} "Day" moans ~ day, unless spcciStraily stt~od dda~vise. { 17) "Deaned complete" mama an apPlic~ion tatci a!! roquirod st~piam~l do~on necessary for the De~artateat ~ rcvtcw and assess the ~-lication and do ~a Constrt~cticxi Permit or a Percrxit tQ Operate may be i~d. {18) "De~artmeat" or'Y3DCYf", the (hegoa ~ ofTrar~partadion. (19) "Deviatiaz" ru~as s departure fray the aces management ~. {20) "Ivvision S 1 * auapus tkegon Atlxnmistrative (t3AR) r3a-cYS 1-o41t1 tbar~ugh r34-t3~ l - 45Gt} ~ Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ti, 7 and 8 adol~od and momma a part of division 51 rtrks amd Figrur~s 1, 2, 3 arid 4 adoptied and rondo a Part ofdivision 51 rules. {21) "DRwblo-Fronfia8~e Piv~xtY" mesas a praperiy with a right of a to mort t#um one start highway, {22) "F:sive Deputy f~' meatus the E~raxrtive Deptriy D~tot ~ Highway Divisiaso~ of the Or+egoa D~epariment of Transportation. (23) "Ea~rsssway" meatus a segaaeat of highway defiaod in tfie 1999 Ongort Ffighway Plan and classified by the Trat~t Cam~wiasiclo. {24} "Fair Markxt Yahte" rags tare ainocmt ut ats6, or om t+aass r+atsctnab!}- equivaleert bD ~, for which in ail pctability ~ PAY would be aald by a ioaowledgcabk owner willing but not obligated to sell to a lsnovvledgeabk pureltaatx wiser desired btu ~ ~t obiigstod to buy. {Z~) "Freeway or Expressway ramp" ns~ al! types, arras>~amern~, sad siua oftranting roadways f~ right car ~ trErnir~ vehicles that as two oc moue logs at ~ inNa+t:lsaflge anti the comport of a rattrp area te~ml at each log and a camoction rnad, tssut-lly with some Gurl~aturt~ aD(i on a grade. t~l~aei`~" nos a ioga~y o~nc~ad a~ech r Prior to I9~19. A pt+opraty owrt+ex bas ~e buxdoa ~ ~ am alb ~ graeKfBetharxt based ~ prior to 1949. For pttrpo~s of this Division, gcaodfatha+ad y{os nine icwkido appma~ presumed in compliancx as sd fardt in QAR X34-051-0285(1), arsd apQrosdms ba r+ennsin open flint waea~e unprvvod in coon with a L'topartment Pt+c>ject prior ~ the etiective date of Ibis Division, Apn'I 1, 20t>Q, as not ~ is DAR T34-031'd2$S(9?- {27} "Cxrarrt of A,ccxss" means the aartveyancc or evicknac of the cx~nveyan+ce from the Department of a specific right of access ~ a locatiaa vvhexo an property cumentfy does tort have that specific rigirt of acres. (28) "i~iighvvay mobility st~dards" roam the estabdialted fr~r ~ mobility as defined in the 1944 Oregon Highway Plan. {29} "Highway stgmtat cars" nuam the four c~egories of desigaateons, Special Transportation Arse, Caamer+ciai Cis, Utterer Areas, toad t3rbem, defined is the t 999 Oregon Highway Plan. T34-USI 2 .~1~ ' i ~Q~ '~f Pr14.9?1NiFY Page 93 ~'~. w ~. ~ ,r~ r, ~,. n r-~s~ :~~xr ,~_~ ~~'~'3ct~'1Tl£t7~' C}~ ~t`~311,a~~3ssQC~c~~1Qf7 ~~7~ Reglc~n ~ 296(1 ~~°ATE STF17', ALt~, C~REGt~ 97310 PH~}~ 3~`8-fa26 ~3ecettaber 22, I486 Delbert ~attsacker Woodburn &.eaity P9 Box I74 Woodburn, C}~ 9 7C17I ,~; ~ta4dburn ~~.'~.^~~".~ Pacific Highway East Marion Caunty Ct324-19(}4 Dear 3~ir. Gottsacker: to r Rsca.: a _: F~, ! [~i.~4V _h ~ ~ x` .ems t.' On December 12, 1986, Ilan Wagner, our Region Traffie Engineer, and I met with you to discuss the comcerns you had expressed in year Segteiaber Its, 198b letter on the subject grc~jeet. This letter will summarize our dissuasion with yQU and restate the Highway Division's position can the questions you asked. Pre seatly, neither the Woodburn NCL-I.incaln Street unit, nor the Lincoln Street-Woodburn SCL unit of the aubject project are funded for construction; bath are listed in the Deve2ogment Seetion of our 1987-I992 Sir Rear Highway Im~rrovement Pra~ram. As a result of testimoxxy received at our public hearing, the north unit, from the north city limits to I.incoin Street, would remain as presented in the environrnentai ass essmeut, Tate month tiiai.t widening teas beef. ~~fd" t,o st,~t~ within the:. +~'~iating right-c~£_ way, ezcept fQr minimal right-of-way at intersections. As you know, there was little car no support and eon- siderable apgositian to the south unit of the project at the public hearing, Without strong local support, from k~oth City staf€, elected officials, and citizens in the ccxmmunity, the south unit would net be reco~amended for construction. Page 94 Page 2 You asked how your property, at Highway 99E and Laurel. Avenue in the south unit, would be impacted if this project were constructed. .,;~Yp2ained to you that design and safety standard-~A wcsnld require that the tur'hing radius on tie northeast corner of the Laurel Avenue intersection would hate to be ittcxease+d`. This would eliminate your sautheriy dxi~regay onto Laurel Avenue as we could not perert a driveway in the turning radius of an intersection leg. die could also recommend your two accesses to Highway 948, be consaiidated to one. Highway access issues are normally resolved during the right-of-way phase of a project. Our project records show you are supportive of the north unit and opposed to the south unit, because of the impact it has on your business property. You may be assured that without strong Ioca2 support for the south unit, it will not be constructed. Sincerely, ~~ p~ ~~ if f~V'iw. ~ r..s•• ~ d k `'~.~'" S~./ 1 ~ ~ Keneth E, Husby REGION CONSTRDCTION SNGII4E8& KE~iJk~p cc: Gary Potter Frank Tiwari, City of Koodbura 122282 Page 95 '~` ,g _ < '~"' .,,t =,.s y~ .~ . , , .. u'; ~~¢7c'~#` t7~ CTS ~l'c~!?St'f'c~~`d t?C7 ~ ~. r- r z, ~:°`' ~ I~ z;~ roc c=awn ~eL~It?t~ ~ 98U S`~A~' SHEET, S~it..~M, CIREGUN 973111 PN~N~ 37&2626 fah R~pr To A4arch 2f1, 1987 ~"""= Delbert Gottsacker GJoodburn ~ea].ty P, 0 . Box l 74 ~_~N .? " ?~j~ Woodbuzn, C8 9?Q71 ^~'~,' RE ; Wo adta a.rn ~ICL-SCL Pacific B.i.giaszay Eas t Marian County C t124~-19 (? 4 Dear Mx. Gottsa,eker: This will confirm spur telephs~ne convereata.on today discussir-g the i~oodburn NCL - Lincoln Street Chit and the Lincoln Street -- Woodburn SCL Unit of the subject groje.ct . As we discussed, neither unit of this project ere funded for construction; both are listed in the deval.opmental section cif cur 1987-1992 Six. Year ll~_a~ Im~rovea~ent Pragram~- We are prtsceeding with vur plans to acquire, by the end caf Fiscal Year 1988, the right-of-way necessary for the construction of the Woodburn ltorth City Limits to Lincoln Street section. Since we have completed the Final Environmental Impact Statement fear the entire project (both units}, we have ncs further glans fcsr the Lincoln Street -~ South City Limits section. As you know, there was little or no suppcart o£, and considerable apposition to, the South Unit of the project at the public hearing. Without strong local support £roffi both City staff, elected csf ficials, ,au:d: ctitec~s is the Ctsm~ut~.itg, the South unit will recaain "``x~at recammended for construc- t ion ,'~ Recently you may have notieed our survey crews establishing center line monument at ion, This u~onuumentatic~n was to assist us in establishing the necessary right-of-way needed for the forth I3nit construction, as well as faz maintenance purposes in the Page 96 page2 South unit. Sy na means should the presence tsf ~sur crews be construed as proof that we are praceediag with coastructimn of the South Unit. To reitt-zate: Yau easy be assured that without strong .local support for the South Unit , xegan wi 12 not reao~etaead it for xt~~ruct ion. ~,.._ Sincerely, Kenneth E, Rusby R~GZ(}N CONSTRtJCTIOH SAtGINSBR KER:drn cc: Gary Potter frank Tiwari Q320d2 Page 97 Oregon t?epartment of Transportation . ~ ~iig~w~-y Prc~,ject I~nf~rrr~~tion Area 3 Project mice: Salem {sos~ sus-moo State Highway Devek~rmenf and Constrtretic~n in Marion. Polk arxt Yamhift Counties {~re~on 9~~: Pavement and a#ety ~nprQVeme~ts {Project irtft~rmation as of September 2f1Q5} Protect location Oregon 99E from approximately 2nd Street in Aurora to Ward Drive in Salem {Milepost 24.9 to Milepost 45.9} Project pcrrpose and need Much of the pavement through this section of Oregon 99E is in fair to poor condition, The intent of this project is to reham the pavement to good or better condition, extending the life of the roadway and protecting the public investment. Pavement preservation includes maintenance, rehabilitation, and reeonstnrction with new pavement where necessary. Some sections of the highway will not require new pavement or any constnaction activity due to good condition of existing pavement. Safety will be addressed at the intersection of 4n3gon 99E and Young Street and also between M#. Jefferson Avenue and James Street in Woodburn. This project combines three smaller pro}acts into one larger effort to minimize construction impact to area residents and businesses. P%~ectlConstruction overview This project will determine the scope of pavement preservation and', itnpresvement ~ be< ruse on flregort 99E from Aurtua tg Sale~t, ~dud~g: • Sections of roadway that will be repaired, repaved, or rek~nsffucteci; • Safety improvements in Woodburn from Mt. Jefferson Avenue to James Street, which is a high crash area; • Street lighting improvements in Woodburn at the intersections of Oregon 99E end Lincoln, Hardcastle, and Aztec streets; • ~~afety improvements in Woodl~m at the intersection of t?regon 93E act Young Street< • Consolidation of access, if appropriate. Cast estlrrrate • Estimated construct'son cost is $6,403,000, not incuding any preliminary engineering or right-of-way. • Funding available from ODOT's Preservation, Safety, and Qpera#ions budget. Key project milestones • Proieet Design - OBEC, the consulting engineering firm, is scheduled to complete a conceptual design package and access management recarnmendation by the end of 2005. The team wilts gather public feedback this faA. • Hid Let Date -July 2007 M. • Cortstrucfir~rt - Falf 20{17 through Summer 2008 ;~ }~ 'fit ~~~ .wJ~~ ~ t~ ~f~f;~ ~f i{ri .YS _. _ P........ J-t.. ,.! t.6.. ..._,,. .. s:... _. ~.- 1L:.. .~....~. ~.• .,.1.4....« L:~L....+... -..~, ..i. ....J +~...~.. wl t........7 :o.f .+++wK...w /f..+....w {.w..F Page 98 ~,~~ Now to get invctved A public open house and stakeholder meetings for businesses and those dinactiy affected by any of the improvements will also be held Fall 2U45. • The cornmuri~ty wi!! be updated on the progress of the pro}ect through mailings, stakeholder meetings, Woodburn City Council briefings, and media. Signage and public information will be part of a communication plan during construction. For more information ar tea schedule a mewing with your organization, co~rtact= Tim Dodson, Consultant Project luNanag~ (503) 503) 986-2fifi6 arTrmottty.J.Dodsan(a3odo#.state.ar.us * Dan Knoll, Public Infom~ation Representative (503) 98fi-5845 or Dan.E.Knoli~dtodo~.state.or.us t~_.... J~.4~J f.~L~~~a:~~ ~..~ LI~i......~.. ..... ..I. ..J _..__44.....t I..!__~...Lt~~ a~...~.._L ..,.t n~_.._ _.'T'a Page 99 r' t :~I3~tTl6 ...._ _. __ .. _. ~ fi6ltf€~~' A,grzl 25, 2005 Lamar Praperty d'v`eirbc~r~ Re: gregtrrt Department of T'rsu~poris Pa t sacl Suf+et~r Imprave€tte vz~ Hwv 99E You will soc+r~ ~~ ir~g surveyar§ trot iu year area. Y will be gathering infc~rma€aar# as the t}regca~ Departrnea€ of Trans~statioa {pT~4`I') ~ pl;muing far Pa and safety ~vemen€s can Hwy 9S-E &c~m Aurora to Sairxn. Stuveyors will be examining the ruatlway and prciject area, including FroP~Y impacts, euvixunzttental cane, and utility canflic#s. The prc~je~t focus is paversnt preservation, which extends tl~e life of the roadway and protects tour public inves€aner~€. k~avem~t pz+er~vatian inch marrt~, r~Yrilitatic'ra, and reco~zs€zuctian wi€h new pavement where necefi„~ry. Saate sr~tiores of ~ highway will ~ r+equiarc new paveu~ent ar any construction activity due tcx goad caz~ciitian of cxistiug ~vt~tenL To irs~~-+?~ cc~z~a~uctian impacts tc~ aroa. residence ~, buses, CtI)Q'T has ct~mbirxed sev+cral lslauned projects into one iargt-s ccm.~trtt~etic~a effort, 'Ihe project includes the following: • Pavement prescxvaticx~ along Hwy ~E from Lcsne IIdcr Road in Axrxrsra to Ibis Suet in Salem. * Safety imprav in ~4tt3adburu;6rom Mt, 3effexsc~u Av~e€tuc to Jmncs Stxa~ct, which is a high Gra3li area. Enclosed is a simple ~ that shc,~ws the ezpa work areas. Mare information will be known ailCr surveying has been c+auapleted. Farly this sur~tmc~, y~ will be invited w a gubtic apezt house m Iearn more about the project and give us ycnrr feedback. You will. receive a mailing with additlanal prajoct iztfcmmation prior €o the summer cspen_hausc, Constxuctiau is net scduled to begin mil sumzncr 2fIE}7. I ~ the Project lauager with OBEC ~:vz~suhing ~gers~ If ytsu brave arxy questions poor to the next inforrrzatianal wailing and open housz, please contact me ar our public involvement ccrosultaxtt, Kristen K% a~ Ieanne l,,,awsrsrrta ~!~ssacia€es. She will tre vrc~rkiug claseiy wittti the pubfic as this pray progresses. She can be reaacl~d at l-SQ3-235-5881 or kiable~j~ainvalvc.ccim, I look forward k~ €atlang with you at the epee house this surna~c~. _.-,__.,. ,..~ Sincerely, ~it,f ~....~,.. M~~hael Swan Q$EC Consulting 1~azghteers sA {5p~ 3~-41ti4 FR7C (SCXi}589-ase t 2?35 Alkcsinn S3reat SE, S t04 s~+,a. o s7aaz-, ccxpo-a.~s orr~. {sx4t rax (5a~-ss'rs ~ -r t~ raffia, s~ ~oa~s . $rao~ woes Page 100 ro+u~ {stet rrs-eo rAx (saS~ ~~ 3~+.-o.~ . an~pcx, e°r~cra-aaor to Bert Go#tsacker From: "Randy Rohman" ~F.~r~dy.Rohmas~s~i.wc~clburr~.or.us> To: ~bertg45(d~rnsn.crxn? Sent: Thursday, Match Q6, 2d08 2:p0 PM Subject: Traffic Irnk Fee Inpt<t 1 received both of your inputs and they will go to Cautcil. On your public ~ fc~nrn; 0~'}OT w1 da the wiling 1 on 99E from Lincoln m tie souk ci~yi~n bse tho city wiU have to cxxttrt'bute sinnr7ar w the contrrbu4'or- tha; was agreed o0 f~ ~ t 5 intercl~tge. ODOT has given Eht City pcrmissroa to do the widening, Randal( Rohmarr, P.E. Pttl?11G works Program Manager z70 Montgomery street woodbum, oR 97071 Phone: (503) 982-5245 Fax: (503) 982-5242 PUBLIC RECORDS i.Aw DISCLOSURE 'Ibis a-urail is a public record of the City of Woodburn and is sabject t+~ petblic disctostu~e tmless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law.1'lris e-rrrait is subject to tha Stott Rctentioa Schedule. SUN ti ~ ~~~ n`om' r1a f'11111}[j~(~^jR {kY L'!..tV ~;.:i iii V Lt I`,`~F`•~,.rJ ~yda n .. ~a~y_ 3/11/2008 Par°1n1 /C Bert Got#eacker ~~//~~~Jf ~~s p~I~caY~ ~w~fiJB~~~~y~Rl~ ~. ~R i {7~i . Vt .4~ ~V. ~4~~,~'~7N ~. i~VR 1 Y~' Seth Thursciaryt~ Apra 1Q 2t?08 4,39 PM Subjecl» ire 37 ctaim Mr. Gam, I am nag to a March 25 phone dision w~ yon anti to ~ you sect Eo Ricieae~i Whitman, the duacuos of the 1 a~ ~Y t3eed ' . bam be vritit i~riou ~y trt the CiiS+ of Rroodbucu. Mover, Data ~ the sit~tian ° b 3? sat~~3: Measbra 37-If you are not vte~ad is yata< a~ ber$od an ~ id3 7 wslvxsr, yon have ~ f andar M3~. 'ibe chy of Wood or a [~~ flnrn aj cro®R $ro ~ that csa t~dt yaa vrhetbar you aea vastex3, ~ not. Measure 49- As a Ivt3? chitnant, ycsn are e,Eigble oa ba ao~ideendd fats A 49 t~ef~, Since yoar p+opd~ty is inside the City of Woodburn, the arty should be 8 yon know how to pc+aceod nteder M49. I will say that Meaataa 49 wily allows c~ssidaation of deve inside cities if dtie proirerty ~ zaeeed far taaida~iai tit. Sie~oo you indiat~e that yonr PAY is zonead cxxtemercial, I am rrtrt ~ that you ttr+e floc a IK4~9 b~ At say rs~m. tied ~ rd' Land Conservatiase and Dcve~partertt is not ~btxized by M49 to matte deter €ar prapdtty insdde nrbsn growth bae sad cities--cities are. 'this is prababty not what you wexe hoping to hear, but it dons t+ctla;t ycnu situation as I rt. Sincerely Michael Mcxrissry, Manager' Memeua 49 L)evelapn:tnt Services I3ivision '_`~ REC'E~ . t~ JIJ~ ? ~ ?.~08 `•ti`€~C~t~l~~'v Ctl~,~h~U'd4T`t 4!I 112008 Page 102 ~~ ~`- Mar. 27, 2008 Mr. Bert Cr~i.tsacker $51~ Parr Rd, IVE t3ervals, 4R 97Q26 Re ~ .tether evncerr~ing Nlghw~y 99E imprc~v+~rnents Dear Mr. G4ttsaClCer, L~egarEmenE of Tiransport~#ion Area 3 s ~~ a s~~ ~~. ~ ~alezn, QR 9?3p1-478$ FAX 50.-98b-2$81 FFLE CC3L?E: ~E~'~ 'r ~qq.~tg~~~~~1g1~ ~ `7 108 1~~V~L~~'";r' ~}~~' Vile r+eoe~ci your ir~uiry of Mar. 20, 2t~8 that yon seat t<s th+e Region Manager's ofl~ce. ~ Interim Regiart Manager, i~+is, Deolir~c#a k~nes, ! asked me ~ respond on her b~aif. I urtderstarx! the Issue Is r~rding oppa~tlon to impro~rernents in sout~rr~ ~lvooc~urn along g9E. I tl~ank you fior y+ou arr~errt o~ cement op~tf~ among the clt~ns. The p%t !# ~€~ the Waocm ~ysbertt k~xrtc~ r reflects-#~e planning done at the city level ~d tit ,". ,~ ~urgt~ projec~sche~sted by tie t]e~ar~ °`~~~~ The 2t)D&2tI21 S does Ir~"tt~e fihc~e i~~ ~ be by t~DOF'f. ?fte Llnoc~ln btu S+OUth Limits ~ ~ uvhich yoga r has be~rt d~~d at the Midllam~ette Area Comma on Transportation {MWA but has not been prioritized hii+gh enough to ache state furxng ~ tiffs t~lrr~e, '1"here has been na disci of a fee beir~ tx~iiec~ed fob fire ,: fog' ~: eir~b~an funds. The. MoE#ern fund} vhln OAT ~ very s~mmalt ~ the can gent time a~ri that Ls one t~ort'th~ th~pat~r~:tl~- pr~,~ect has-r~ot advanoad, The table You ai~ached tao your ~ r~;fca~~ only tD City of Wotxit~um System Development charms and ~ i~~~1 o~ {)DO-T fundir~. Vttith regardµ to the tither pm.~Ct You mention, the pavit~ project from Saierrt to Aurora, v be r~ wldenir. There may be srxr~e wcxic tD improve t#ye truck turning ability at Young St if vie can get the rreoessary v~cuic dome in time ~ do conbact.un wi#fi the paving. If ncrt, that v+axic will be let urKier a separate Sincere -.~ J f~j/~jf~jJyt ,~ f/(ff Ttm potter Mid ~VVillamette Arena Manager ~~~~~ Page 103 ~; _, 1J ~~.ik..r ~3 1 yLAi 1 i T 4 T ~, ~»~: (503) bad-2353'" _. ~ wORtc ORC~~R ~~ STATEMENT ~~rs Corn < C> 23858 oAT~ .usTaME~ ~D~RESS ;~ 1GENT ,,,,.~ ~t~ PHONE WORF~ ORDER STIMATED FOOTAGE _.........~.____ .', ~T 5,,.,..._._i FT .,_...... S ___.._.....:.___ :STIMATED TOTAL .................., S .___., _.__. ~PC3SIT ...... ............................ $ ~ .,_ I 2ECEIVED $Y -"'.SiiitATEiI B11t.ANCE ktE0NCQ1tALETKIN . ......._.......,.5 a. T}iE ESTIMAT£I1 FOOTAGE YdILL $E ADJUSTED t*tEN ThIE .~ IS COMPLETED AND ACTUAL °OOTAGE MEASURED ANO BILLED. „USTCMtER ~ 4CCEPTAI~E: i ~~ ST,4TEMENT ACTUAL FOOTAGE ._e.a., . AT 5 t FT ......,., $ EXTRAS ....... .......................... S TOTAL g ~~._~ REPOSIT PAID ....,. _ ................... S._~ ~._.~ BALANCE DUE PLEASE PAY FRC3M THIS STATENtENT. NO OTHER STATEMF_t~tT tMLL 8E SENT. ~~ ~ ~ <~ PROFILE: s~~ ~'ct,~l c'e-.C '~" SCHEDULED DATE: JOB SrrE PLAt+i s~wAaEAS Taa sE CURBED BY DOTTED LINE ~dfgy ~- f- ~~ 1~ ~ .__._ ~l'~ ~~ Page 104 ,; _. 'P '.? :" .,fie . I ! a f r f - ~ 7~ 'i Y ~~ w r ..2 a 4 .. f / ei '~~ .~ l}ell~ert Gottsacker ~S 1 S Parr Road C~er~•ais, OR 97f}?b Re: Tentative Determination: Measure 49 rights of File No. M3? 200f~-(Jl Ucar "Y1r. Gottsacker: Pursuant to Measure 49 {t)RS 1.95.305{10)}, the City is required to make a Tentative Determination as to whether your McasurL 37 claim approval {File No. M3? 2006-01}qualifies far relief under Section 9 of Measure 49. This letter serves as the Tentative Determination and notice to vau of the applicable process. The City makes the fallowing findings of fact based an documents contained in File Na. 11.3? 2006- th and applicable ordinances, rules, and statutes: • Delbert Gottsacker {"C'laimant"} awns the property located at SOg-510, 514 N. Pacific Highway, Woodburn Oregon. • Claimant's property is located within the city limits and urban growth boundary uf'the City of Woodbum, • Claimant's property is caned Commercial General (CG}and is designated Commercial in the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. • On March 12, 2t}(17, the City approved C'laimant's pleasure 37 claim (File No. 1ri "i ?Or)f~- t~l }subject to those portions of the Woodburn Development Ordinance exempted under Measure 3?. F3ased an the above findings and requirements of 1-Leasure 49 relief under ORS 1 C1S.305(9}, the City makes the following tentative determination ORS 195.3()5{9)(e) requires the claimant to establish that: "The property is zoned for residential use." C'laimant's property is zoned for commercial use (Commercial General {CG}). Therefore, Claimant is not entitled to Measure 49 relief. ~'ou bare 15 days from the receipt of this letter to submit written evidence or arguments in response to this Tentative Determination, After that time, this matter will be brought before the City Caunci l far review and issuance of a Final Determination on whether you are entitled to 14teasure 4') relief. At the same meeting, the City Council shall determine whether you hati~e demonstrated that you hate a common law vested right to develop your property as all~~w•c:d ~n your '4leasure 3? claim appraval. Date d this _ /~ ~' day o f July <008. _._. 3 Jim''Allen Camrnuruty Development Director Copy File 1137 "~{)GG-t~1 f3ab Shitrld4, C"ity Att«rney; 1c~n Sttieart, Assistant {'ity Attorney I~t;partment cal' I_ar~4 (`unsenation and Dc.v~elopment Carnmuntty Devcxltapmcnt Department age -.,STAFF EXHIBITS E - V (D. Gottsacker _' Recd 9/8/08, 7:35 pm Meas 49 claim) Documents to be entered into the record The following documents were included in the staff report as exhibits: A Claimant's application and narrative, date-stamped September 27, 2006 B Council's Findings of Fact and Decision of March 14, 2007 C Letter of June 26, 2008 from Delbert Gottsacker asserting a Measure 49 claim, including attachments D Tentative Determination of Measure 49 rights dated July 10, 2008 The following documents are hereby entered into the record as exhibits: E Claimant's Measure 37 claim form and narrative, date-stamped December 2, 2004 F Letter date-stamped December 13, 2004 from Delbert Gottsacker to John Brown G Claimant's list of building occupancies, dated December 8, 2004 H Title insurance policy dated December 30, 2004 I Warranty Deed dated June 7, 1965 J Letter of January 6, 2005 from James Mulder to Delbert Gottsacker K Letter of January 10, 2005 from Delbert Gottsacker to James Mulder L Email of January 18, 2005 from Delbert Gottsacker to Jim Mulder M Letter of January 24, 2005 from Delbert Gottsacker to James Mulder N Minutes of the Council meeting of Apri125, 2005 O Letter of June 15, 2005 from Robert Shields to Delbert Gottsacker P Real estate summary report dated August 8, 2006 Q Letter of October 18, 2006 from Norman Webb to Jim Allen R Oregon Department of Transportation comments date-stamped October 27, 2006 S Woodburn Fire District comments date-stamped October 27, 2006 T Memo of November 3, 2006 from Randy Scott to Jim Allen, with attachments U Notice of Measure 37 Claim dated March 14, 2007 V Letter of June 2, 2008 from Jim Allen to Delbert Gottsacker ~..L.,er r _++, Measure 37 Claim Form FILE NO: i'i -~~ ~°~ °"~~ ~OODBUR~ FEE: Y `' t~ ~ ~ DATE RECEIVED: ~=--~~- "o- „y,; „A ~A ,~k; City of Woodburn Community Development Department 270 Montgomery Street • Woodburn, Ore on 97071 "~" REC'Q ~' Phone: 503-982-5246 • Fax: 503-98~ 5244 ~C ~ ~ 2~~~ NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF CLAIMANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Name of Claimant: elephone #: BURN COMMUNITY '" =s /l~ ~ -/ T ~ ~ i Tj~n ~~~ Fax #: 5 ~~ ~~ - `/~/ ` 5 ~' ~` <' DEVELOPMENT DEPT. H Mailing Address: ~ ' - tate: i ity: ~ - , p'er`' to ~~! ~ ~ sC`' _~~~ -~: ~ '~- ~~~ ;. ~~ L-~~ NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PERSON SUBMITTING CLAIM (AGENT): IF DIFFERENT THAN IN SECTION 7 A60VE. Name of Agent: elephone #: Fax #: ddress: i ity: State: ip: Must attach a written notarized statement signed by the owners} or a Power of Attorney giving authority to submit this claim. oonoco'rv cQniu wlairla f:1 e1M 11FRIVFC• treet Address: _ 'q 5L'L - `s ,~C Nj 1 ..I- f / ~~ . c'i .' C. ~i.¢ ' / I [ 'L't`Y~L, ~{, _ ,~''~, ' ` n,~hip, Range, Section and Ash ssor's Tax lot c - vZ' y 5 /~ ~~ ~, ite Acreage: omprehensive Plan Designation/Zone Map Designation: 4 _ ~. .. ~ y., 1` ~./ is G, ' J"/ 1 ATTEST THAT 1 HAVE FILLED OUT THIS FORM COMPLETELY AND THIS CLAIM IS TRUE AND CORRECT. (S/gnatures of all partied preparing, th)s form including those claiming ownership in the property over whj~ch this claim is being made.) Signature Date Print Name Signature Date Print Name / / Signature Date Print Name Exhibit "E" ~~G~fl 'LPL Woodburn Mayor and Council Members 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Woodburn Mayor and City Council: I am filing a claim pursuant to Measure 37. My property is 500, 510 and 514 N Pacific Hwy. Woodburn, Oregon 97071 FR Lots 5,6,7,8 and lot 9 BLK 1 Wynn's add. Woodburn, Oregon. C`'~ f~ '~a!~;f 'N0008URha COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. I purchased my property September 10, 1960 in Marion County. And on November 13, 1970 they adopted the Marion County, Uniform Zone Code. I was zoned Commercial Retail, CR.. I rented my building under there regulations. None of my buildings was ever vacant more than 30 days between renters. My property was in an enclave, adjacent to the city of Woodburn. The Woodburn City Council annexed us into the city June 1 1, 2001, with opposition. The Mayor and City Council all agreed to Grandfather all the commercial properties into the cities Commercial General Zone, CG. On July 1, 2002 the city council enacted the Woodburn Development Ordinance and has enforced it every since. Thisis the zoning that has done damage to my property. On January 1, 2004 my 4200 sq. ft.building became vacant nd it is still vacant, this December 2, 2004. I have had many, many people who wanted to rent it. I sent them all to the planning dept. and all the uses were Conditional Uses in the Woodburn Development Ordinance. For a conditional use application approval it costs $1,400.00 and then it increased to$1,725.00 and up to 120 days to get an approval or denial and no money refunded if denied. There was no one who would try to get a conditional use under these conditions. They all felt that you were taking advantage of them. Many of the potential renters wanted to know why the building hadn't rented. I gave them all the same answer, because of the zoning and after them going to the planning department, they allcame back and agreed with me. An Investment Broker, Commercial Service Division, Prudenta.l Real Estate, wanted to research my zoning and get comparable property sales and he would tell me what 1 should list it for.I said O.K... He gave me the figure of $ 235,000.00 and he wanted to list it. I told him I wouldn't think of it until after the election. On October 28, 2004 a Mr. And Mrs. Kim called me to see my building on Hwy. 99E. After they looked at it they told me they didn't want to rent it they wanted to buy it. They offered me $400,000.00 Cash, If Measured 37 Passed. When Measure 37 passed, that established the value of my building, Without the zoning that did me the damage. When Mr. Crosby gave me the Value of $ 235,000.00 with the zoning that is doing the damage. This gives me the value I need for my claim. Value Without The Damaging zoning.----------------------------------$ 400,000.00 Value With The Damaging Zoning Claim Amount--------- ------- - $ 235,000.00 $ 165,000,00 In lieu of payment I will accept waivers of any and all regulatory restrictions that prevents me from using my property as I could have when I purchased it in 1960. Time is of the essence, my building has been vacant one year, and without relief, it will continue to be vacant and devalued. Measure 37 Claimant. Delbert Gottsacker 8518 Parr Rd. NE Gervais, Oregon 97025 Phone:503-981-5000 Enclosures: copy of warranty deed November 2, 2004 } , Claimant `t%. ~~ ~..~ ~ Y`~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ copy of title insuranec certified list property owners, 250 feet radius If you need any additional information please call; 503-981-5000 ~ , .~_ John Brown Woodburn City Administator 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Dear John: DEG~.~200~ WOOOBURNCOMMUNITYCopy To: James Mulder DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Re: Measure 37 Claim filed 12/2/04 This morning I delivered the property owners report from the Title Co., to Woodburns planning department, which should make the claim complete and ready to move forward. Also following is an inventory of the documents in the file. Inventory of Documents and Information in Measure 37 Claim File. 1. Completed City Claim Form. 2. Claim I had typed when the city form was not available the night before December 2, 2004. And to be attached to the city claim form. Information= Address. Legal Description. Date when property was purchased. County zone. Annexation. City zone code that did the damage. Property value with damaging zone. Cash offer if Measure 37 Passed. Claim Amount. Statement, In lieu of Payment. 3. Copy of title insurance policy. Information= Owner. Legal Description. Restrictions, Contract of Purchase 9/15/60. Proof of Purchase. A newer title report would not have shown this. This title report is the same as a 1 month old policy, except that the 1 month old policy would not show the contract purchase on it. 4. Copy of Warranty Deed. Information= Owner. Legal Description. Date 6/7/65. Revenue Stamps. 5. Copy of properly tax statement. Information= Owner. Account No. Property address. Acres. Map No. Total Value, and they are suppose to take into consideration the zoning. Amount of taxes. 6. Property report from Fidelty Title Insurance Co. =Information= Certified list of 47 property ownerships. 47 addressed labels and 4 Maps of ownerships,(500 ft.) . They only use the address of one of the buildings (510). 7. Occupants of Buildings. A. 514-Building. Information= Since building was built, Businesses and types of uses. B. 500 & 510 Building. Information.= Types and uses in general. Exhibit "F" C. Zone code used when property purchased. Information. =Woodburn ORD.999 8. Property Income. 2004 and proposed 2005 income. Information= Income on each building and the total of all 3 buildings. Proposed for 2005, hopefully the zoning wilt be corrected. Purpose of income= In the event some council members would want the income, to determine a value. I have probably included a lot of information that wasn't necessary, but if the council members are anything like me, they would like to have everything before them when they get started, then there are no holdups. If I am missing something, Please let me know. John, would you please let me know who the one person I could go to, to find anything out about my claim, during the process. The other day on the phone you said you had appointed James Mulder your designee, so I will give him and the Mayor a copy of this letter, as I think the Inventory and information could be very helpful to them. You might also think about giving each Council Member a copy. Date:December 13, 2004 Claimant. ~.~~ ~__ Delbert Gottsacker y.z E -t_... .. .. 7-A City of Woowburn Woodburn, Oregon DES l 3 ?~04 WOOD$URN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Dec. 8, 2004 To become part of Measure 37 claim information, Filed 12/02/04. Occupants of 514 N. Pacific Hwy. Building since it was built. 1945 to 1949 Burrights Automotive Repair. Cars, Trucks, and Semi-Trucks 1950 to 1963 Buttecreek Pickle Co. Pickles & Relishes, Wholesale & Retail Rolands Food Products Pickles,Relishes, Sauerkraut, Manufacturing & Distrubition, Wholesale & Retail. Portland Canning Co. Pickles, Sauerkraut, Relishes,Manufacturing and Receiving Cherries, Cane Berries and Strawberries, Wholesale & Retail Woodburn Enterprises, Inc; Pickles, Cucumbers 100 Tons. Sauerkraut, Cabbage 80 Tons, Manufacture, Packageing & Distribution, Wholesale & Retail and Bulk Sales 1964 to 1979 Blem Co. Manufacturing of Prehung Doors & Windows Builders, Lumber Yards, Wholesale & Retail 1979 to 1981 Dans Window Co. Sales & Distribution Daves GlassCo Cars and Misc. . Installation, Retail & Wholesale 1981 to end of 2002 Carpet Warehouse Carpets, Retail, Wholesale and Installation Furniture, Retail Page # 1. Exhibit "G" ~-A Jan. To Dec. 2003 Lees Tile and Carpet Retail Sales and Installation Dec. 8, 2004 January to December of 2004 Vacant, Because of zoning, Length of time, High cost & no provision for Refund if Denied.,on Conditional Uses. Woodburn Muffler David Fontini, Owner has had two Business Licenses applications turned down for my building since the end of November 2004. ~ _g 500 and 510 Building ,Occupancy since being built. Real Estate Office, Accounting, Used Book Store, Children Cholthing Store, Knitting Supplies, Shoe Repair, Bookeeping, Computer Sales & repair, Knitting School, Check cashing & Sending Mattress Sales, Grass Seed Sales,Fortune Telling, Cell phone sales & Service,Counseling, Custom Jewelry, Driving School. ~ - ~ When I purchased my building I felt some day I would be in the city, so I followed Woodburns Zone Code and I never had any problems with Marion County, but I think Woodburn ws ahead of them. I used ordinace No 999, and I followed it for 12 years, I didn't have any problems with it or Woodburn and I don't think Marion County or Woodburn had any problems with me, anyway if they did they didn't tell me, because it would have been taken care of. I was very comfortable with Ord. 999. I may furnish you with a lot of information that you don't need to make your decisions, but I would rather you have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. When I receive the property owners list, I am quite sure that I will be the longest property owner in the 500 ft. radius. I also think you should have a list of my income on these properties for this year 2004 and also my projected income for 2005, since I have an annual rent increase, January I S` of each year. Claimant ~'~~~~_ Page # 2 City of Woodburn Woodburn, Oregon Dec. 8, 2004 To become part of Measure 37 claim information, Filed 12/02/04 500, 510, & 514 N. Pacific Hwy .Woodburn, OR Claimant. Delbert Gottsacker 8- Income and Projected Income for the years 2004 and 2005 on the rentals at 500, 510 and 514 N. Pac. Hwy. Woodburn, OR. You may need this information, if you would rather compensate than grant a waiver. 20041ncome: 500 Building; $600.00 Mo. X 12 = $7,200.00 510 Building: $575.00 Mo X 12 = $6,900.00 514 Building $ 2.050.00 Mo.Vacant for 12 Months due to zoning regulations, conditional uses, cost & time involved. 00.00 Total 2004 Income $14,100.00 Projected 2005 Income. 500 Building; $610.00 Mo. X 12 = $ 7,320.00 510 Building: $590.00 Mo. X 12 = $ 7,080.00 514 Building: $2,200.00 Mo== PROJECTED 12 months $26,400.00 Depending on being rented: Re:measure 37 Projected Income $ 40,800.00 Purpose of these figures are, Property Value determined by income. Claimant : ~G~~% ~~~~Zac~~_ ~~N~ Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon PRELIMINARY REPORT In response to the application for a policy of title insurance referenced herein, F%de/ity National Tit/e Company reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the specified date , a Policy or Policies of Title lnsurance describing the land and the estate or interest described, insuring against loss which maybe sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of the Policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage of said Policy or Policies are set forth in Exhibit A attached. Copies of the Policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report. This report (and any supplements or amendments) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed. The Policy(sl of title insurance to be issued hereunder will be policy(s) of Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, a California corporation. P/ease read the exceptions shown ar referred to be/ow and the exceptions and exc/usions set forth in Exhibit A of this report carefu//y. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of mafters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered. It is important to note that this pre/iminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects and encumbrances affecting tit/e to the land. This report is for the exclusive use of the parties to the contemplated transaction, and the company does not have any liability to any third parties nor any liability until the full premium is paid and a policy is issued. Until all necessary documents are placed of record, the company reserves the right to amend or supplement this preliminary report. Countersigned Exhibit "H" ~I~~~ Fidelity National Title Company of Oregon w 198 Commercial St. SE #200 • Salem, OR 97301 1503) 585-7219 • FAX 15031 585-0326 PRELIMINARY REPORT TITLE OFFICER: Patty Smith T0: Delbert Gottsacker OWNER/SELLER: Delbert Gottsacker BUYER/BORROWER: ORDER NO.: 00-504437-22 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 500-510-514N Pacific Highway, Woodburn, OR 97071 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 2004, 05:00 P.M. 1 . The policy and endorsements to be issued and the related charges are: AMOUNT PREMIUM Owner's Standard To Come 200.00 Partial Billing Government Service Charge 50.00 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: A Fee 3. TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: Delbert Gottsacker, an estate in fee simple 4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED, IN THE CITY OF WOODBURN IN THE COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SEE EXHIBIT "ONE" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF MP\MP 01;'2012005 1 Order No. 00-504437-22 EXHIBIT "ONE" Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot Seven (7), Block One (1), Wynn's Addition to Woodburn, Marion County, Oregon, (See Volume 13, Page 7, Record of Town Plats for said County and State); thence Northwesterly to the Northwest corner of Lot Five (51 in Block One (1) of said Addition; thence Southerly along the Pacific Highway, 61.3 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot Six (6), of Block One (1) in said Addition; thence Northeasterly along the North line of Lot Seven t7) to the place of beginning. Also Lots Seven 17), Eight (8) and Nine (9), Block One (1 ), Wynn's Addition to Woodburn, in Marion County, Oregon. (See Volume 13, Page 7, Record of Town Plats for said County and State. Save and Except: Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot Seven 17), Block One (1-, Wynn's Addition to Woodburn, Marion County, Oregon, (See Volume 13, Page 7, Record of Town Plats for said County and State); for a place of beginning; thence South 32° 19' West 33.40 feet; thence North 60 ° 59' West 121.05 feet to a point 44.4 feet South 76 ° 10' East from the Northwest corner of Lot Five (5); thence South 76 ° 16' East 1 27.26 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot Seven (7) being the place of beginning. 2 Order No. 00-504437-22 AS OF THE DATE OF THIS REPORT, ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AND EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS IN THE POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: GENERAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records, proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession. 3. Easements, or claims of easements or encumbrances, not shown by the public records, reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof, water rights, claims or title to water. 4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose. 5. Any statutory liens for labor or material, including liens for contributions due to the State of Oregon for unemployment compensation and for worker's compensation, which have now gained or may gain priority over the lien of the insured deed of trust, which liens do not now appear of record. SPECIFIC ITEMS AND EXCEPTIONS: 6. City liens in favor of the City of Woodburn, if any. A report has been ordered and the Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested report. 7. Covenants, conditions and restrictions (deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin) as set forth in the document Recorded: July 10, 1941, Book 261, Page 144 8. Please Note: We find no Mortgage's and/or Trust Deeds recorded for the herein described property. If this is incorrect, please contact the title department as soon as possible. END OF ITEMS AND EXCEPTIONS NOTES: Order No. 00-504437-22 Note Q. Property taxes for the fiscal year 2004-2005, paid. Amount: 52,221.68 Account No.: R65022 Map No.: 051 W 17BC-00200 Affects: Note B. There are no judgments of record against Delbert Gottsacker. Note C. There are no tax liens of record against Delbert Gottsacker. Note D. Note: According to the public records, there have been no deeds conveying the land described herein within a period of 24 months prior to the date of this report, except as follows: None. The last deed was recorded June 10, 1965, in Vol. 602, Page 232, Records for Marion County, Oregon. Grantor: Chris C. Burright and Emma Burright Grantee: Delbert Gottsacker, a single man Note E. YOU WILL BE REVIEWING, APPROVING AND SIGNING IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS AT CLOSING. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOLLOW FROM THE SELECTION AND USE OF THESE DOCUMENTS. THESE CONSEQUENCES AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. YOU MAY CONSULT AN ATTORNEY ABOUT THESE DOCUMENTS. YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN ATTORNEY IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRANSACTION OR ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS. IF YOU WISH TO REVIEW TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS THAT YOU HAVE NOT YET SEEN, PLEASE CONTACT THE ESCROW AGENT. 4 r~~;lsi ?. ;. ,r- ~~',>,l:ii:~~~•i~"hil`.fi:.-': _ ... KNOIY ALL I~7EN 13Y THESE PRESENTS, That ---_.._~~_~~_.s~.C._.1.3:~1._~<<:_1.;1'-.._.~':~~ti.... ,;.u,,-"~,`-~--...-- ' -... . _. -.,-- , ,., am o 1.00---------------------- ------------------------- rn consrd~ratron of. 1 -- - ... . ........... .. . dollars, ,. ,,, -~ - ,--, , ,, to 11~ . paid by ; .,.1~ ,.~.Lt fir., i 1; ~ ~;~',.~~~. ~ S_-.~.~;~le-.?:1^:??c..-.._ - .-' - -' - ---._......-..--- -..._.---....-..- .. ~, . r. do hereb - rant bar ain sell and conve unto sand _ ~e_ ~~e-="~ ~~tS'1C" E'1 ~, ~F ;~.~..-. -.. ~~-~-5 ..-_ heirs and assigns, all the following real property, with the tenemer:` hereclitam~ nts and appurtenances, situated in the County of =:`.zrioil _ ' an Si . _ _ - - ... -.... -L1~.L.L~.>. of OreSon, bounded and described as follo~;~s, to-tvit: ~,rj. e,inn n, 1t rho I,o?'c,he-.-.,t corner o_ Loy seven (7), iaock One (1 ), ~,~,mn s ~"tc.c..~tior~s- to '. oo ?b•;~rn, ::~~.ri_en Count-, Or^~ron, ( Se^ Volwne 13, Po. Ye 7, <:e;cord of l'cx.•n P7.zts 'o:" ,, ?d Counter •?rd :hate); thence ilorthr~ester7_Tr to '~}?e IToz c.i---n;-t co~'n^r o.f Lof, "' ive (~) i_n 1 lick One (1) or' s'~.iri. .n,clc',ition; thence ~ olttherl~T ~lon~ ti~c~ Paci~ic _ iiinlr•-~.y, c;1. ; :'eat to the ~>rn>tYm*eFt corner o.f hot six (u ), oi' ~7_ocl: Ch-lc (1 i in said tid~'~_t:i on; th~nnce I?oz'-thea^terly alon€; the IJorth line ~ ~' :Lot Seven (7) ~,o the Pl~c~ "Y ..~„~~~: ~~FS ~1~'.Ven (:~), ,J1;rli"~ (~) anCi iJin(.' (~!), I310C'" ~nC (1), '~~r~~Il'S s~i'.~'_itiOn i,0 ~if ~~ ~:Oi'} it''n, J_n '.:L'~'10n ~.%O'.ZTlt~r, OrenOn. ( sir E' VOlUT:lE ~_~, Pa^@ 7, .~.OCOrCi ni l~0-, n ~ ~.'~ i 5 '~ l ',,; ,~ i~~1~' ,"~".l_Ci ~;O11~1t'~T aliCi ~~t3.t!>,•) ;R~t: f ~~ ~\~;., P...~ ~- :~'.~:, '.~.>> ,:~~;~;P1': `1'iiat parcel of Pra;~e",'tT here~naa:ter clescribnd: ~' ,~~~~,~ . ''~„-•-j 77n.•. ~'!: • i. 'i;} le _.OI '..h!?'~,S'l, COr?7e T' Oh r~Ot v(?~*e*? ((), P.,lOCl: One ~ 1), ~'1~1"1' S _~CiC'.:i--L7 o ", roc huz n, `-~.rion Counter, Ore on, ( See Volt~.^~e l3, ;'<-pro 7, t~ecrn d o_ 10-•,m P7_:~t~ ~ ~ ~.. ~,; ~or .~'~ -i c? ~onrr~~r anti ,; i,~te ); f or a place oz bnrinr_2~7-; -hence South 3~ ° ly ~ ::est ~"'' "~ ??.IiO _Cee-i,; thence I:or'th ~>Oc' ;~ ~ ;:est 1?1.0~ :~cet t,o a. point ~~~.I~ fcc~t, ~otrtll 7v' ~~ ,, r 7,~ ~ t row the; '?ort}r.•rest, corner of l,ot rive (5); thence ~ouL-1~ 7v° 16' ::~st ' _'c~~^-- ~,o t}Ze ;:ortiie~..~t coy°ner of s~:.id hot ;even ~- ' " _ ~ ~`~~ 1,'7.._~ L (!) b,.ii~:; -~iic "taco ~ ~~~ ~~' Uc,~~iluz:in~°, thu.~_ oz'r1in; ; a tri annt~l~s track. ~~;", ..~.~==~ ?';T-;ai`l' 1'0: lZ(?St?'1et10IlS CO?~t•1?.'_?ECi 1T2 1nSt.t'w.t@nt d^tCG. :J1121F; ~O, l;t!~. '?P.C7 I';?COl:'I' 1hJ_-r Zr)~ 1_x!;1 in Volune ~~1, Pa~'e 1'~~, Poeci ..ecords ~'or :.:G.rionl Cour_t-,-, ~:~rc~~;an. To Have and to Hold the above described and granted premises unto the said --_ -~--`-_~_.-.---"~----_. ~- Jr;li>(;i'', 'iOt'tS'1C}iC2' - -- j ' h1S .-...._..--- heirs and assigns forever. ~ ---- ..- And e±. Oiv'i.s :,. :~'ttrrt~-lr~ any' ..1:r;1~ iJur_•; rj1-~-....---- -- ..... ........_ . _ . _...- ..... . .._ - - the grantor •~ i ~' above named do- - covenant to and with the above named grantee h7-S _ heirs and assign, th°i '•~``' Viz'"'~ -..__-_ .- lawfully seized in fee simple of the above granted premises, that the above i ~r<ant<•d premises are free from all encumbrances, .-.--_.-.. ~' ~. _. ji _.. , ~ - - _ - i .... ............. . I. - __ -- -- - -- ... ---- - -- ............ ....... - _ ii . . ~ ~:; „ ~ -- -- - Exhibit ' --.._....-- - I STATE OF OREGON, ~ ~r County of ~~.l_ ~1_: cx.^._:~. -' -..`- --....-.... , -- ; --- ~-----.`.- da .. ~-:~•_~.~'~.~~.--=---------------- -.. , 19 ~~~! ~ 13E IT REMEtV1I3ERED That on this y of.--..-. --- before n1e, the undt:rsil;ned, a -'' .. ..-"f :?.r "~- --~ '- ./~-...__'.-_-.Y../,....._ ._.•..T--„I-~----~,-,- -. _ in and for said Co;mt}• arld State, personally appeared the tvrthin narue U_'..~,~1_~...U~...: ~i_:.~1.-L',u.i._-.-:~lii -..- .....- U__.. r,-;.: i, h1~.}'_~~,nd and. ,, ~.:~'e, - - - - - -- _ - - ---- -- ---- -- -- - - - _ who '1 ~_ - _. finorvn I', to rte to lie thF~ identical individual described in and who executed the within instrument and aclnorvledged • jSr~-* tv me th~'t'~ ., ;.t--~,i;., .........................executed the same freely and voluntarily. ~- ~' ~' IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day a d. year last above written. .. . 4t ... j __._._- __-.____ - ~ _u .. [Votary Public. for Orezion. II .. .., ~. . - , , .. . -- r 1 .• '.;' ' My Corrunission expires ~!'.~--_L[=.~•:f--• -~j~ --• /-~~- `--- ~, _-_.-. _ _ _ ... --~ -= _ - _ - -- ___ - ~ ~ ~ ~ I' ~; a, -~ ~, .,., i i ~' r. ~.. I I < ..~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ Q qy 'b O ~ I a~ c~y ~~ I, Cj 'I N. CL~ O v Qa ,.,..~ H ~ ~ ~ 2© ~', ~ ... O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~! .._~ n ~ M ~ c....~ mom' ', ~ 3 ~,-~: o~ ~ .n I. ~ ~ ~ ''~ ice. 'W ! ~: ~, .~ ~ ,~ ~~ N O v ~ r1r :', U 'ti ~ '" U to W ~ ,~, g m o a, 2' II ~ ~ ti RS O O V ~ ~ ;, ~`~ _ ~_ ~~y OODBUR Incorporated 1889 January 6, 2005 Via Regular Mail Delbert Gottsacker 8518 Parr Road NE Gervais, OR 97026 Re: Case File No. M37 04-01: Measure 37 claim for property located at 500, 510, and 514 North Pacific Highway Dear Mr. Gottsacker: The Woodburn City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2378 to authorize processing of Measure 37 claims. Section 2 of this ordinance provides: Section 2. Accrual of Claims. Except in cases where the enactment of a new land use regulation by the City is shown by Claimant to restrict the use of private real property and have the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, no enforcement of a land use regulation under Measure 37 shall be deemed to have occurred and no claim under Measure 37 shall have accrued until the City is provided necessary information under the Ordinance to evaluate and decide the Measure 37 claim presented by Claimant on a rational basis. Please provide as soon as possible the following items and information so that your claim can be evaluated by the City: 1. A title report issued by a title company no more than 30 days prior to submittal of the claim must be submitted. This is necessary to identify any persons with a recorded interest in the property and to determine chain of title. 2. The specific land use regulation that allegedly restricts the use of your property and causes a reduction in fair market value of your property must be provided. 3. A specific remedy to the claim must be specified. You ask for either a waiver of the City's regulations or compensation, but you do not specify what regulation should be modified or removed and you have not supported any compensation claim with an appraisal by an appraiser licensed by the State of Oregon. If you seek compensation, the amount of the claim must be supported by an appraisal by an Community Development Department _;"J.llarttgomerv Srreet • lebcdb~un, Qrtgon ~~0,'t Exhibit "J" Ph i03-?XZ-i2~r • Fay' iJ3-a,gz-5~.~., appraiser licensed by the State of Oregon establishing the reduction in the fair market value of the property as of the date of the claim. 4. Copies of any leases or CC&R's that impose restrictions on the property or may affect its valuation must be provided. 5. The particular use that is proposed for the property must be specified and proof that the requested use was allowed when the property was acquired must be submitted. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (503) 982-5246. Sincerely, =----~ J' ;Mulder ~munity Development Director cc: John Brown, City Administrator Bob Shields, City Attorney 2 James Mulder Community Development Director City Of Woodburn 279 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Dear Mr. Mulder: ~ ~~C~p ~r W p~~pPMENM pEPT~ January 10, 2005 Thank you far your letter of January 6, 2005. Everthing you have asked for,1 have given to you between the date I filed the claim and now, with the exception of the age of the Title Policy, which would not show the contract purchase now. f paid the property off June 7, 1965. look at the date an the Deed. I am going to answer the numbers in your letter. # 1. Title Policy dated September 15, 1960 #2 Woodburn Development Ordinance-July 1, 2002. A Conditional Uses. B. Change in occupancy in existing buildings. C. No percentage of a refund of deposit if conditional use is denied. #3. A. On my letter to John Brown on 12/13/04, which I thought was part of my claim folder when it went to him. I stated on Page 2 ---C, Zone code used when I purchased the property, Woodburn ORD. 999,1 did Fail to put down Commercial-3- Which a my properly was. I felt this was my remedy, if it wasn't, then it is now. B. I agreed to: in lieu of payment I will accept waivers of any and all regulatory restrictions that prevents me from using my property as 1 could have, when I purchased it in 1960. C. On #2 I specified what regulation restricted my use, and I assumed that you would understand that Woodburn Development Ordinance. Would have to be removed. I want to stress again, this is the Regulation that needs to be Modified or Removed, #3 of your letter of 1 /6/05. 1 dan't feel there is a need for an appraisal at this time, unless the city wants to go to court at this time. I will order the appraisal after I file for a jury trial. It will then be up to date for the Jury on it's value. As you know I didn't ask for compensation , I agreed to a waiver. #4 1 do not lease my properties, I rent them month to month. Exhibit "K" #5 There is not one particular use that I have proposed for. I would like all the uses I would have had when I purchased the property. It is my intention to follow the new law Measure 37. The four uses that was turned down or refused occupancy permits for my building were. Tile Factory Store, # 82-C-2. Car and Truck Detailing, #4--C-3 Sales and Installation of Mufflers #34-&55 -C3 Auto Parts and Installation # 4-C-3 'T'hese are all listed in ORD. 999 -C-3 I can't believe the city would not have the zone book ORD 999 with the C-l, C-2, & C-3, but if they don't I will get them the pages. 1 feel you aze going to be concerned about the old Title Policy and if I am trustworthy and you can trust my word. There are three of the council members that I have known over 15 or 20 years, ask them or I can give you names of some of the old city employees that you can ask.. Sincerely, ~ , ~~-~" ~~~`~~-- Delbert Gottsacker 8518 Parr Rd NE Gervais, OR 97071 Phone 503-981-5000 cc: Mayor Figley and Council Members City Administrator, John Brown City Attorney, Bob Shields Jim Mulder -Measure 37 Claim #1 _ _ r From: "Bert Gottsacker" <bertg45 @msn.com> To: <jim.mulder@ci.woodburn.or.us> Date: 1/18/2005 4:09 PM Subject: Measure 37 Claim #1 CC: <bertg45@msn.com> James Mulder Woodburn Development Director Dear Jim: I want to keep you and the Mayor , up to date, on where I am on my Measure 37 claim, on a weekley basis, maybe one of these days I will have it all togeather. The Title Report is on order, and when I receive it I will put it all togeather with the items and information you had in your letter of January 6, 2005. and bring it in to you. I feel, Time Is Of The Essence, as this is holding up jobs for people in the Woodburn area. Sincerely, De1Bert Gottsacker Exhibit "L'° file://C:\Documents and Settings mmu\L.ocal Settings\Temp\GW ~~~O1.HTM 1/19/2005 tr3' Htl.r U ~7 JAh~ 2 4 ZOt~~ James Mulder Community Development Director 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Dear Mr. Mulder: January 24, 2005 wOGDBURN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Re: Measure 37 Claim, Case File No.M 37 04-01 Find enclosed all the items and information you requested in your letter of January 6,2005. 1. A preliminary title report from Fidelity National Title Co. Of Oregon, on property at 500- 510-514 N. Pacific Highway, Woodburn, Or 97071. Effective December 30, 2004 Policy No.:00-504437-22 Dated January 20, 2005. 2. Special land use regulations that restricts the use of my property Woodburn Development Ordinance, July l , 2002 A. Conditional Uses. B. Change in Occupancy C. Design Review. 3. A specific remedy to the claim must be specified. A. A waiver of the cities land use regulations and allow me to use the property for the uses permitted at the time I purchased the property, which would be Ordinance 999 -C-3, which also includes C-2 and C-l. B. There will be no appraisal, I am not asking for compensation. I thought I made it plain on my letter that was attached to the City form. It is on page 2, just above my signature, which states: In lieu of payment I will accept waivers of any and all regulary restrictions that prevents me from using my property as I could have when I purchased it on contract in 1960. 4. Copies of any leases or CC&R's that impose restrictions. A. There are no leases on the property and one Restriction on the title report. 5. Particular use that is proposed for the property must be specified and proof that the requested use was allowed, when the property was acquired. A Use and page number of Ordinance 999 1. Sales and installation ofmufflers-=ORD. 999-=(page} ord. 25= # 4 & # 55 Exhibit "M" 2. Tire store w/ installation=ORD. 999=(page) ord.22=# 85 3. Car & truck detailing==ord.20 #11, ord.22 #70, ord. 23 #4 4. Auto parts and installation=ord.22 # 11 5. Antque shop==ord.20 # 8 6. Vehicle towing= ord. 22 #70 7. Pawn shop==ord. 21 # 65 8. Ambulance service=ord. 23 # 2 9. Upholstery shop==ord.25 # 51 10. Veterinary clinic=ord 25 # 52 11. And all other uses in Ordinance 999, C-3, C-2, C- l . B. Proof of uses allowed, when property was acquired. 1. Copy of Ordinace 999, pages 17 through 25, C-1, C-2, & C-3. Sincerely, Delbert Gottsacker, claimant Enclosures: preliminary title report copy of ordinance 999 pages 17 through 25. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 7:17 p.rn.. BJELLANDIMCCALLUM... staff prepare an ordinance vacating that portion of Sixth Street right-of--way west of West Lincoln Street to the south terminus subject to the conditions as outlined. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. 0984 PUBLIC HEARING: MEASURE 37 CLAIM M37 04-O1 (Delbert Gottsacker) Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7:1$ p.m.. Administrator Brown stated that the Council agenda materials includes a staff report from him backed up by a more thorough staff report from the Community Development Director. He stated that the Council adopted Ordinance 2378 in December 2004 which provides for local implementation of state-wide Measure 37. The City's ordinance provides that certain information needs to be given to the City in order for there to be an active Measure 37 claim. Information submitted must include some evidence that there was an enforcement action taken, a specific land use regulation that created that enforcement, and that there had been a reduction in the valuation of the property. The City's ordinance calls for an appraisal to be part of the documentation that needs to be provided. In this particular case, these various requirements were not met by the applicant in December 2004 when information was originally submitted nor were the requirements met with supplemental information provided to the City in January 2005 based on a letter from the City asking for more information. State law allows the City 180 days to process the claim. This claim was submitted to the City about 4 '/2 months ago but staff did not bring it to the Council immediately since the legislature is still looking at this measure. This claim is being brought forward to the Council since the 180-day process period is close to expiration. He stated that staff is recommending that the Council deny this claim. Councilor McCallum stated that City Attorney Shields had not initialed the staff report and questioned if he had read, and approved, the report for submittal to the Council. Administrator Brown stated that Attorney Shields had been assisting on the draft but when the final copy of the report was printed on agenda day he was not available to initial the report. 1249 Delbert Gottsacker, 8S 18 Parr Rd, Gervais, stated that he is the claimant and owner of property located at 500, 510, and S 14 N. Pacific Highway. He stated that the notice sent out to the public for this public hearing was in error and incorrect in that he has asked that Ordinance 999 be applied to his property which was in affect at the time he purchased his property in 1960. In his opinion, the public hearing is illegal since the public is to be notified 10 days in advance of the hearing but he did not receive notice until S days ago, nor were signs posted in the vicinity of his property or a hearing notice published in the local newspaper. He requested that another public hearing be held before the Council makes any decision on his claim. He questioned if the Council will still make the Page 3 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 2S, 2005 Exhibit "N" COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2445 TAPE READIIgG decision on the approval or denial of the claim. Mayor Figley stated that the Council will make the decision on behalf of the City. Mr. Gottsacker stated that staff has stated in their staff report as to what, why, and haw to proceed with this claim. Mayor Figley stated that staff work is done in advance of the hearing and there is some type of staff recommendation that the Council is at liberty to agree with, disagree with, or modify as they see fit. The ultimate decision does lie with the Council although the staff has offered a recommendation. Mr. Gottsacker expressed his disagreement with all of the information provided by staff. He stated that everything that he has said is documented and it does include a property diary of everything staff did after he had filed a Measure 37 claim. Before the claim was filed, Mr. Bogs of Salem Tire Company was going to rent his building and he went to the City's Building Official to see what needed to be done to the building before he could utilize it. Two things were brought to his attention one of which was a conditional use approval. Mr. Bogs had requested the Community Developer Director to waive the public hearing but Mr. Mulder stated that he did not have the authority to waive the hearing. As a result, Mr. Bogs decided not to rent his building. As time went on, Mr. Fontini, Canby Muffler, also wanted to rent his building so Mr. Fontini applied for a City license but was denied because it would require a conditional use. Mr. Gottsacker stated that he filed a Measure 37 claim on the day the measure allowed the first claim to be filed and, later that day, Mr. Fontini also paid to the City the $1750 application fee for conditional use. Prior to a subsequent public meeting, Mr. Gottsacker had been in the planning office to inform staff that there would be no remodeling or changes to his building since he did not want involvement from the Building Inspector and ODOT. When he spoke to the City's planner, he was told that there should be no problem but ultimately the conditional use was denied. The Director had told him that the Building Department had submitted a list of 13 items of questions on his building which were not brought forth when Mr. Bogs had been considering the rental of his property. He stated that the City compiled a list of problems with his building after his filing of a Measure 37 claim. He reiterated that he would like the Council to hold another public hearing because if it had been posted then there would have been a lot of people in attendance at this meeting since they have had similar problems with City staff. ] 848 Mayor Figley stated that she had reviewed the information provided by Mr. Gottsacker, staff responses and staff report. She questioned Mr. Gottsacker as to whether the sale price for his property as of right now has been decreased and, if so, if he had any written documentation of that offer. Mr. Gottsacker stated that he did not have documentation and he would most likely go to court, so he figured that he will now get the appraisal which Woodburn will have to pay for after the 180 days. He was not going to start anything before the 180 days and he reiterated that he was not asking for money }ust to get his rights back that he had when he Page 4 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READING purchased the property. To date, it has cost him $36,000 because of the City's conditional use requirements and business people cannot wait this long to give the City the $1750 application fee and not have a more expedited response to the application. Councilor Lonergan questioned if the City had requested Mr. Gottsacker for an appraisal to show that the land value has decreased. Mr. Gottsacker stated that it was his understanding that an appraisal was required if you were asking for money but since it was on land use there was no reason for an appraisal. Councilor Bjelland requested clarification regarding a conditional use permit application which had been filed but withdrawn after the Building Department inspection. Mr. Gottsacker stated that the owner of Canby Muffler (Mr. Fontini) had paid the fee but withdrew his application after the Building Official put in his list of 13 improvements on the building. He stated that his building was vacant between January 2004 and April 19, 2005 and it has all been because of the City's conditional use requirements. 2365 No one in the audience spoke either in support or opposition to Mr. Gottsacker's claim. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 7:40 p.m.. 2401 Councilor Sifuentez questioned if the City did follow the guidelines for this public hearing. City Attorney Shields stated that City Ordinance 2378 stated that a public hearing is discretionary and there are no State procedures in Ballot measure 37 claims. He stated that the Council has followed the required procedure and there is no requirement fora 10- day notice, nor to publish notice, nor to post the property. A Measure 37 claim is not under the land use law, however, the City did mail notices to property owners within 500 feet of the property as required under the City Ordinance 2378. He also clarified for the Council that when compensation is paid, if paid under Ballot Measure 37, the compensation comes from the General Fund of the City. The claimant must always establish that there is a reduction in the fair market value of his property based upon a city regulation which is why the appraisal is required otherwise there is no Ballot Measure 37 claim. He stated that the Council has a fiduciary duty not to pay out compensation unless there is a reason and not to waive applicable law unless there is a basis for that waiver. 2717 Mayor Figley stated that there is a lot of documentation from the applicant and staff but the question is still whether or not the fair market value of the property been reduced. She stated that she did not have the evidence in the documentation to make her believe that the value has been reduced. In the absence of an appraisal or a path of creditable offers of different amounts, she could not make the determination that the claimant's property has been reduced in value. Councilor McCallum concurred with the Mayor's statement and stated that the Council needs to rule on facts which is whether or not there was a loss of fair market value. Councilor Bjelland stated that Measure 37 is an issue that has not been well defined and is waiting for a lot of legal interpretations as to all of the significance and meanings of the Page 5 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 25, 2005 TAPE READ IN G sparse language that is included in Measure 37. This is the first time the City is addressing a Measure 37 issue and the Council needs to be extremely cazeful in how it is approach so that the Council does not establish precedence. He felt that the most critical aspect is to determine if there is a legitimate claim before the Council. According to his reading of the language and different reports, it must be established and proved that there is a loss of value as a result of actions taken by the City to make a valid Measure 37 claim. In this particular case, the Council does not have the formal evidence before them and, for that reason and at this point in time, he felt that it would be premature for the Council to accept the Measure 37 claim and process it further. 2980 LONERGAN/NICHOLS... deny Measure 37 Claim M37 04-01 based upon the information contained in Mr. Mulder's staff report dated April 21, 2005. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. 3073 LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT OS-O1: WOODBURN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. Mayor Figley stated that the public hearing has been closed and deliberations will begin at this meeting. Written testimony has also been closed and the Council has received additional testimony which the staff is compiling for the Council. No final decisions will be made at this meeting, however, the Council has a number of questions that staff and others associated with this project will be answering during the deliberation process. She briefly reviewed the list of questions included in the City Administrator's staff report for the benefit of the audience. Members of the panel to answer the Mayor and Council's questions were Community Development Director Mulder, Terry Cole (ODOT Representative), Greg Winterowd (Planning Consultant), and Assistant City Engineer Torgeson. 1) Interchange Management Area (IMA)- Mayor Figley questioned how this area would affect (a) the owner and would be developer of a parcel south of Capital Development newly included in the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as part of this process, or (b) the expansion of any of the uses already in existence west of the freeway, or (c) the development or redevelopment of some of the commercial areas east of the freeway,. or (d) the small applicants with relatively insignificant traffic impact. Greg Winterowd stated that the IMA overlay is one of the cornerstones of the overall 'program since adequate access to I-5 is necessary to have a solid industrial growth program. The west side of I-5 has the least amount of traffic congestion. The proposed ordinance does not regulate residential land, parcels of less than l acre, or developed commercial and industrial parcels. In regards to the re-development of the Brice property, they would not be affected and there would be no impact_ In regards to Capital Development, there could be an impact since the intention of this ordinance would be that when they come in to develop they would do a detail trafftc impact study and they would Page 6 -Council Meeting Minutes, April 25, 2005 ~~ , s~ OODB~.TR Incorporated 1889 June 15, 2005 Bert Gottsacker 8518 Parr Road NE Gervais, OR 97026 RE: Measure 37 Claim M37 04-O1 Dear Mr. Gottsacker: This is in response to your letter dated June 2, 2005. On April 25, 2005, the Woodburn City Council acted by motion to deny your claim. You were present at that meeting and addressed the Council. Pursuant to your request, I have enclosed a copy of the April 25, 2005 Council meeting minutes for your records. You also asked that you be sent an itemized list of the claim processing expenses incurred by the City. The itemized list is enclosed. As you can see, the amount has exceeded $500 and there is no balance to be returned. Sincerely, ~ .~-a-i~ N. Robert Shields City Attorney Enclosures: Apri125, 2005 Council Minutes Itemized List cc: Mayor and City Council John C. Brown, City Administrator Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Office of the City Attorney ~'J _lic~rt.~;~rnery Str~z; • lw'~~c.thurx, Urz~;: n "~~?'I P{r.;,73..av~-;Z.'.b' • Far i3-d?~ y~~.~ Exhibit ,.O„ ~°°, :~, ~ , f•~ ~~ ~ ~i zl Z H Q J Q J J W O ^ REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL SUMMARY REPORT Gottsacker Property Measure 37 500, 510 and 51 ~ Hwy 99 East Woodburn, OR 97071 ^ PREPARED FOR Delbert Gottsacker 8518 Parr Rd NE Gervais, OR 97026 ^ PREPARED BY C. Spencer Powell, MAI POWELI VALUATION INC 3220 Stale Street, Suite 100 Salem, Oregon 97301 (503} 371-2403 www.aowellvaluation. com CGPYRIGHT fJ 2006 6Y POW ELL VHLUAI ION INC ;~cr ~ ~~; ,: ; Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 1 ofi 127 Exhibit "P" August 8, 200b Delbert Gottsacker 8518 Parr Rd NE Gervais, OR 97026 RE: Gottsacker Property Measure 37 Real Estate Appraisal 500,510 and 514 Hwy 99 East Woodburn, OR 97101 Dear Mr. Gottsacker: As requested, the captioned property has been valued using generally accepted appraisal principles and practices. The report is intended to comply with the development and report requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAPj and the Appraisal Institute. A copy of the engagement letter is included in the Addenda. The scope of this appraisal is to determine the property's market value without land use constraints imposed subsequent to your acquisition on September 10, 1960. Further, to estimate the subject's market value as of May 2, 200b assuming all land use constraints are in place. The difference is your just compensation under Measure 37. Based upon our investigation and analysis of available information, the concluded values under the requested scenarios, as of May 2, 2006, were: :MARKET VALUE $CLNARiOS DATE ; VALUE Hypothetical Value -Without Constraints May 2, 2006 $315,000 "As Is" Market Value -With Constraints May 2, 2006 1 14000 Just Compensation May 2, 2006 $205,000 Estimated Marketin /Exposure Time One year or iess Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 2 of 127 Delbert Gottsacker 8518 Parr Rd NE Gervais, OR 97026 August 8, 2006 Page 2 The hypothetical value presented in this appraisal is based on the "hypothetical assumption" that the subject property is not subject to setback, parking and other land use rules in force as of the date of inspection. This appraisal is subject to the conditions and comments presented in this report. If any questions arise concerning this report, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, POWELL VALUATION INC C. Spencer Powell, MAI OR State Certified General Appraiser No. 0000154 CSP: ja Summary P061241 Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 3 of 127 POWELL VALUATION (NC TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY APPRAISAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 1 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ............................................................ . 6 DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... . 9 SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS ......................................................................................... 16 SUBJECT MAPS .......................................................................................................... 27 MEASURE 37 ............................................................................................................... 30 HIGHEST ~ BEST USE ................................................................................................ 31 VALUATION METHODS .............................................................................................. 34 SITE VALUATION ........................................................................................................ 36 LAND SALES TABULATION CHART AND ADJUSTMENT GRID .............................. 38 LAND SALES MAP ...................................................................................................... 39 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ........................................................................... 40 VALUE ASSUMING CURRENT REGULATIONS IN PLACE ....................................... 42 JUST COMPENSATION ............................................................................................... 42 IMPROVED SALES TABULATION CHART AND ADJUSTMENT GRID ..................... 43 IMPROVED SALES MAPS ........................................................................................... 44 ANALYSIS OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 46 CERTIFICATION OF APPRAISAL ............................................................................... 47 ADDENDA Engagement Letter Plat Map Floor Plans Deed & Legal Description Tax & Assessment Data Zoning & Parking Property Data Regional Description Appraiser Qualifications Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 4 of 127 POWELL VALUATION INC PRELIMINARY APPRAISAL INFORMATION REPORT ORGANIZATION This summary report is designed to inform the reader of all factors influencing the property's va{ve in a clear and concise manner. The Preliminary Appraisal Information sections provide an overview of the property and general information. The Description section starts with general regional issues and proceeds to more specific issues directly related to the property. The Highest and Best Use section establishes the premise upon which the property is valued. The Valuation section focuses on the "as is" market value of the property as well as the value of the property based on the hypothetical assumption that land use rules and regulations adopted subsequent to September 10, 1960 were not in place. It describes the Sales Comparison Approach, and includes comparable information, application of market information to the subject, and valuation analysis. Supporting information is attached in the Addenda. PURPOSE, INTENDED USE, AND INTENDED USERS OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the just compensation due the client with regard to the subject's pending Measure 37 claim. The intended use is limited to litigation by the client. The intended users include the subject owners and legal representatives as well as representatives from Marion County and the City of Woodburn. All other uses and users are expressly prohibited. Reliance on this report by anyone other than the client or other user specifically approved by Powell Valuation Inc for a purpose not described in this section is prohibited. The authors' responsibility is limited to the client. DATE OF VALUATION May 2, 2006 EFFECTIVE DATE OF REPORT August 8, 2006 DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE This definition is in compliance with the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency), FDIC {Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), FIRREA (Federal Institutions Reforms, Recovery, and Enforcement Act), and USPAP (Uniform Standards of o Professional Appraisal Practice) as adopted by the Appraisal Foundation and the Z Appraisal Institute. ~ ~` ~N r Market Value, as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, ~ o 2005 Edition, is: a "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open ~ ~ market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting .~ prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue ~ P061241 POWELL VALUATION INC PRELIMINARY APPRAISAL INFORMA710N (C011~11t1ed~ stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests; 3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; 4. Payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.'" VALUE SCENARIOS DEFINED The "As is" Value represents the value of the subject property, in its current status as of the date of inspection. The Just Compensation is the amount of loss for which a property owner is compensated measured in Measure 37 claims as the difference between the property value with and without the land use regulations imposed since the date of acquisition by the owner (September 10, 1960). PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED Fee Simple Estate, defined in The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition (2002), Appraisal Institute, as: Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the {imitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat. Leased Fee Estate, which is defined by The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition (2002), Appraisal Institute, as: An ownership interest held by a landlord with the rights of use and occupancy conveyed by lease to others: the rights of lessor (the leased fee owner) and the leased fee are specified by contract terms contained within the lease. SPECIFIED FINANCING Cash to seller with or without financing. o z OWNERSHIP AND SALES HISTORY ANALYSIS E w According to the Marion County Assessor's office, the subject property is (and has ~ ~ been) under the ownership of Delbert Gottsacker since September 10, 1960. No N transactions involving the subject have occurred in the last 45 years and 1 1 months. ~ ~ E Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 2005 Edition, Appraisal Standards Board of the v Appraisal Foundation. P061241 POWEI.L VALUATION (NC 2 PRELIMINARY APPRAISAL INFORMATION (COI'1tltlYed~ ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION -CURRENT Annual real estate taxes levied by the Marion County Assessor's Office are summarized on the following table: 2005/2006 Maximum ---------Real Market Value--------- Assessed Account Valve (MAV} Annual Number Land Im rovements total Total Taxes R65022 132,930 123,720 256,650 1 16,500 2,346.7 i Source: Marion County Tax Assessor's Office The subject taxes have been paid. The 2005/2006 millage rate is $20.1434 (taxes/$1,000 of value). In May 1997 Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 50, which is a property tax limitation. The maximum assessed value reported above reflects a 1 G-percent deduction from the 1995/96 assessed value and subsequent increases after 1998/99 of 3-percent per year plus bonded indebtedness. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Please refer to the Addenda for a full legal description. INSPECTION Date of Inspection: Property Representative: Powell Valuation Inc: USE OF REPORT May 2, 2006 Delbert Gottsacker Jennifer Aronson and C. Spencer Powell, MAI Without prior written approval from the authors, the use of this report is limited to decision-making concerning a Measure 37 filing for the subject. All other uses are expressly prohibited. Reliance on this report by anyone other than the client for a purpose not set forth above is prohibited. The authors' responsibility is limited to the client. SCOPE OF WORK AND REPORTING PROCESS The scope of work for this appraisal is to develop an opinion of market value (hypothetical) under Standard 1 and report our findings using Standard 2 of USPAP 2006. Preparation of this appraisal included: • An inspection of the subject. «s 0 • Interviewing the subject's owner. ? a~ • Inspecting of the subject property neighborhood. r • Gathering and confirming land sales, lease comparables, and improved sales from ¢ ~ the immediate area and competing marketplaces. y ~ C d Inspecting the exterior of all comparables utilized. All land comparables and Sales ~ Comparison comparables were inspected by C. Spencer Powell, MAI. P061241 POWELL ~/ALUATION INC 3 PRELIMINARY APPRAISAL INFORMATION (Continued) Reviewing the subject's income and expense history. Highest and best use analysis. Application of the Sales Comparison Approach to arrive at an indication of value for the subject property. Review of the written report. To develop the opinion of value, the appraisers performed a Complete Appraisal process, as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. This report document is categorized as a Summary Report. SOURCES OF INFORMATION The following sources were contacted to obtain relevant information: Saucce .. firtl~iyn Delbert Gottsacker, Owner Subject historical data; income and expense Norm Web, Attorney at Law information and land use regulations. Marion County Assessors Office Subject data; tax information. City of Woodburn Planning Department Zoning information. Willamette Valley Multiple Listing Service Land and building sales research. Multiple brokers and real estate professionals Local area data; land, lease and sale confirmation. MetroScan Subject data, comparable research. Costar Comparable research. County Deed Records Comparable research. COMPLIANCE AND COMPETENCY PROVISION We are aware of the compliance and competency provisions of the USPAP, and within our understanding of those provisions, the authors of this report possess the education, knowledge, technical skills, and practical experience to complete this assignment competently, in conformance with the stated regulations. Mr. Powell has appraised numerous commercial properties and related facilities in Woodburn and the State of Oregon in recent years. He has also appraised numerous properties for Measure 37 claims. PERSONAL PROPERTY, FIXTURES, AND INTANGIBLE ITEMS No personal property, trade fixtures, or intangible items were included in this valuation. USE OF RECOGNIZED APPRAISAL APPROACHES This report considers the three recognized valuation methods: Cost, Income, and Sales Comparison Approaches to value. Due to the age of the improvements and the °D subjectivity inherent in estimating depreciation, no cost approach was developed. z° Further, the subject market is primarily owner/users and the income approach is not ~ N typically relied upon. Lack of the cost and income approaches does not degrade the E validity of the final conclusions. ~ ~ Q a~ ti ~ c a m _E P061241 POwELL VALUATION INC 4 ~ U PRELIMINARY APPRAISAL INFORJIAATION (continued) I~NAVAILABILITY OF {NFORMATION All information necessary to develop an estimate of value of the subject property was available to the appraisers. EXPOSURE TIME AND MARKETING PERIOD Exposure time is defined within the USPAP, Statement 6, as: The estimated length of time the property interest being appraised would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal; a retrospective estimate based upon an analysis of past events assuming a competitive and open market. Exposure time is best established upon the experience of recent comparable sales. The sales indicate a standard exposure period of less than one year for appropriately priced investment properties. ivtarketir~g period is very similar fio exposure time, but reflects a projected time period to sell the property, rather than a retrospective estimate. As such, a similar time period of less than one year is estimated for the subject's marketing period. Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 9 of 127 P061241 PowELL VALUATION INC $ ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal is subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions: HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS The subject is valued twice, once in the "as is" condition with ail current land use and building requirements in place. it has also been valued under the land use requirements in place in September at 1960, when purchased by the current owner, Delbert Gottsacker. EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS None. ORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS The analysis assumes that the Marion County Assessor's office legal description accurately represents the subject property. A survey has not been provided to the appraisers. if further verification is required, a survey by a registered surveyor is advised. We assume no responsibility for matters legal in character, nor do we render any opinion as to title, which is assumed to be marketable. All existing liens, encumbrances, and assessments have been disregarded, unless otherwise noted, and the property is appraised as though free and clear, under responsible ownership, and competent management. The exhibits in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. We have made no survey of the property and assume no responsibility in connection with such matters. Unless otherwise noted herein, it is assumed that there are no encroachments, zoning, or restrictive violations existing in the subject property. This report is not a real property inspection; the appraiser only performed a visual inspection of accessible areas and this appraisal cannot be relied upon to disclose conditions and/or defects in the property. The appraisers assume no responsibility for determining if the property requires environmental approval by the appropriate governing agencies, nor if it is in violation thereof, unless noted. information presented in this report has been obtained from reliable sources, and it is assumed that the information is accurate. This report shall be used for its intended purpose only, and by the parties to whom it is ~ addressed. Possession of the report does not include the right of publication. z° Simply because a borrower or third party may receive a copy of the appraisal, does not mean that the borrower or third party is an Intended User as that term is defined in ~ o USPAP. ~ ° The appraisers may not be required to give testimony or to appear in court by reason of ~, ~ a this appraisal, with reference to the property in question, unless prior arrangements ~ have been made. ~ t6 U P061241 r"OWEII.~/ALUp1T10N INC 6 ASSUMP710NS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS (GOt1t111tt@d~ The statements of value and all conclusions shall apply as of the dates shown herein. The appraisers have no present or contemplated future interest in the property that is not specifica4ly disclosed in this report. Neither all, nor any part, of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the written consent or approval of the authors. This applies particularly to value conclusions and to the identity of the appraisers and the firm with which the appraisers are connected. This report must be used in its entirety. Reliance on any portion of the report independent of others may lead the reader to erroneous conclusions regarding the property values. No portion of the report stands alone without approval from the authors. The valuation stated herein assumes professional management and operation of the building(s) throughout the lifetime of the improvements, with an adequate maintenance and repair program. The valuation is based on the projection that the complex wilt maintain a stabilized occupancy level over its economic life, with tenants paying market level rents. The liability of Powell Valuation Inc and employees is limited to the client only and only up to the amount of the fee actually received for the assignment. Further, there is no accountability, obligation, or liability to any third party. If this report is placed in the hands of anyone other than the client, the client shall make such party aware of all limiting conditions and assumptions of the assignment and related discussions. The appraisers are in no way responsible for any costs incurred to discover or correct any deficiency in the property. The appraisers assume that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that would render it more or less valuable. In the case of limited partnerships or syndication offerings or stock offerings in rea! estate, the client agrees that in case of lawsuit (brought by lender, partner, or part owner in any farm of ownership, tenant, or any other party), any and all awards, settlements, or cost, regardless of outcome; the client wiN hold Powell Valuation Inc completely harmless. The appraisers are not qualified to detect the presence of toxic or hazardous substances or materials, which may influence or be associated with the property or any adjacent properties, has made no investigation or analysis as to the presence of such materials, and expressly disclaims any duty to note the presence of such materials. Therefore, irrespective of any degree of fault, Powell Valuation Inc and ifs principals, agents, and employees, shall not be liable for costs, expenses, damages, assessments, or penalties, or diminution in value, property damage, or personal injury (including death) resulting from or otherwise attributable to toxic or hazardous substances or materials, including without limitation hazardous waste, asbestos material, formaldehyde, or any smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids, solids, or gasses, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants, or pollutants. The appraisers assume no responsibility for determining if the subject property complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act ,ADA}, which prescribes specific building standards which may be applied differently to different buildings, depending on such factors as building age, historical significance, amenability to improvement, and costs of renovation. Powell Valuation Inc its principals, agents, and employees, shall not be 0 z c ti r EN ~ o ¢~ N aS -~ ~o ~a E .~ U P061241 POWELL ~/ALUATION {NC 7 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS (continued) liable for any costs, expenses, assessments, penalties, or diminution in value resulting from non-compliance. Except as otherwise noted herein, this appraisal assumes that the subject complies with all ADA standards appropriate to the subject improvements; if the subject is not in compliance, the eventua{ renovation costs and/or penalties would negatively impact the present value of the subject. If the necessary renovation costs, time period needed for renovation, and penalties for non-compliance (if any} were known today, appropriate deductions would be made to the value conclusion(s) reported herein. Claimant's Attachment No. S Page 12 of 127 P061241 QOWEIL V{~ILUATION INC $ DESCRIPTION REGIONAL DESCRIPTION Please see the Addenda for a detailed description of the Woodburn MSA. NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION Woodburn is lacated adjacent to the Interstate-5 Freeway approximateiy 30 miles south of Portland and 17 miles north of Salem, within Marion County. The City originally began as a farming community, which incorporated in 1889. Woodburn is on the periphery of both Salem and Portland and serves as a bedroom community for both of these metropolitan areas. In addition, Woodburn is within the Salem/Keizer Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which consists of Marion and Polk counties. Thus, its economy is closely tied to the economic health of the Salem/Keizer MSA. The Mount Hood Avenue corridor (Highway 214) is the primary east/west arterial that connects with Interstate 5 to the west, and Pacific Highway to the east. This road is a two-way, two-lane arterial that is lined with various improvements. Near Interstate 5 it is highway commercial development, which primarily consists of restaurants and service stations. As you travel east, development transitions into office, single-family development, and then back to commercial uses as you near Pacific Highway, where the subject is located. The most significant professional office development along this corridor is an area known as the Northwood Plaza Office Park. This subdivision development is generally bound by Woodburn High School and residential properties to the north, Newberg Highway to the south, Meridian Drive to the east, and Boones Ferry Road and residential properties to the west. Development in the area is predominantly professional and medical ofifice, with a mix of single-family and multi-family residential properties on the perimeter. The office improvements are generally of average to good quality and typical of suburban office buildings in smaller communities. The majority of development has been improved in the last decade, giving the neighborhood a modern feel. There are very few developable parcels remaining in this neighborhood. The subject is located south of the intersection of Mount Hood Avenue and Pacific Highway 99E. This is a highly traveled intersection, providing retail development in the area with good exposure. Development along Mount Hood Avenue, at and near this intersection, primarily consists of North Park Plaza (which currently houses a Safeway), Shari's Restaurant, Oii Can Henry's, and Bi-Mart. Other development along the Highway, at and near the Mount Hood Avenue intersection, consists of AI's Garden Center, Napa Auto and Truck Parts, and Truss T Structures inc. McLaren Youth Correctional Facility is located on Highway 99E, north of the intersection. Roth's IGA on 99E recently closed. The property is bounded by other retail properties of like use. To the z ~ r- ~N ~ a ~' m N rn c° ~a E .~ U PO61241 POWELL VALUATION INC 9 DESCEU~noN (continued) North is a retail office that holds a salon and Blue Azul Travel Agency. To the West is the Budget Inn Motel and the Mufflers Hitches and More Auto Store and south of the subject is the Woodburn Auto Body Service Shop. Due East of the subject begins residential neighborhoods. In summary, Woodburn is a moderately growing community with a diverse economic base, benefiting from easy access to Salem and Portland. Retirees and commuters comprise an important percentage of the population. The community is characterized by a wide diversity of land uses including commercial, industrial, single-family and multi- family residential. Over the long term, land values may be expected to increase in direct proportion to demand for remaining vacant land. The probable future of the community is continued growth in all sectors as it continues in the growth stage of its life cycle. SITE DESCRIPTION Hazardous Upon physical inspection of the site, no obvious hazardous Waste/Asbestos material was evident. We have made no independent investigation regarding this issue. The property owner reported that no environmental contamination exists. This appraisal assumes the site is free of all hazardous waste and toxic materials. Please refer to the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions section regarding this issue. Current Use The site is improved with two buildings. The first building houses two 410 SF office/retail spaces. It is one story with access and frontage on N Pacific Hwy. The second building is a 4,585 SF building with one large 62.5` x 62.5' warehouse and adjoining 10' x 41 ' and 12.5' x 21.5' lean-to shed. It has a 40' x 20' loft providing an additional 800 SF. It has access from both N. Pacific Hwy and Laurel Street. Site Size According to measurements taken from Marion County Assessor, the site size is 17,932 SF or 0.41 acres. Shape Irregular. Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 14 of 127 P061241 POWELL VILLUATION INC 10 DE$CRIIPTIpN (continued) 'topography Level. Abutting Properties-- North Beauty Salon 8~ Blue Azul Travel South Woodburn Auto Body West Budget Inn 8~ Mufflers Hitches and More East Residential Neighborhood Utilities Public utilities are in the subject area. There is a septic tank on site. Street Improvements Pacific Hwy N (Hwy 49E) is improved with curbs, gutters and streetlights. It is a two way street four lanes and refuge lane. Laurel Street is a residential collector of two lanes and concrete curbs and gutters with no sidewalks. Exposure Good, Pacific Hwy is a highly traveled street, it has a good canner location on Pacific Hwy and Laurel Street. Accessibility There are two points of ingress and egress on Pacific Nwy and two on Laurel Street. Easements and A preliminary title report was not provided for review. Encumbrances Upon reviewing county plat maps, there did not appear to be any adverse easements, encroachments, or encumbrances relevant to the subject property. If questions arise regarding easements, encroachments, or encumbrances, further research is advised. Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 15 of 127 P061241 PoWELL VALUATION INC 11 ~ESCRIP'T10N (continued) Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Floodplain Soils P061241 K~ i + n ~ SUBJECT `~ ` f~~ ~ ~ . ~ '~ /~ ._ ~~°-~; ~ 11 ~t= Rs 'y ~ I 1, ~y ~ f6 ~, ~ ~ --~C r~3 ~ ~~ ~~ .., ~~ ~ ~, ~ .a sr ~ ~ti - .. I - - i The site is zoned CG (Commercial General) by the City of Woodburn. This is the most flexible of the commercial zones, as it allows nearly any commercial use. It permits a wide variety of office or retail uses tied to professional services and retail trade. --- --SUBJECT ,: /r,_ _~ f~_ - - -- ~1-- _, ~ i !L.. __._.. -- _ ~ ;, According to the Federal Emergency Management °0 0 Agency (FEMA}, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP}, Z Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community-Panel No. 41047C0139G, dated January 19, 2000, the subject site lies ~ o in Zone X, an area determined to be outside the S00-year Q floodplain. y rn -~ ~ ~ ~- Soils are assumed to be stable, supporting the subject and neighborhood buildings. v POWELL VALUATION (NC 12 DESCRIPTION (continued) Site Rating Overall, noting the location providing good exposure and accessibility, the site has a high rating for commercial development. It's shape, and topography are conducive to development as well. DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS (Photo #5782-2) Introduction The property description is primarily based upon a physical inspection of the property, and Marion County Assessor information. Hazardous This appraisal assumes that the structures are free of all Materials/Asbestos hazardous waste and toxic materials, including (but not "' limited to) asbestos. Please refer to the Assumptions and Z Limiting Conditions section regarding this issue. E ~' General Description The subject is a single-story retail/office building constructed ~ r° in 1966 and a 1945 concrete block and frame building N ~ housing a variety of tenants, most recently a carpet sales ~ ~ business. ~ ~~ v P061241 POWELL VALUATION INC 13 ~:~* 4 ~ _ f ~.._.. ,,,~,~,,,,', ~ maw a;_ ., DESCrerrnoN (continued) Current Use The office/retail building space is dived into two office spaces, one of which is occupied. The older and larger building is vacant. Size According to Marion County Assessor's records and our physical measurement, the subject office/retail building is 40' x 20.5' or 820 SF divided into two offices. The 1940's building has a gross area of 4,585 SF, of which the eastern lean-to is in marginal condition and has limited contributory value. Without this area the building has a footprint of 3,906 SF plus a meaanine of 800 SF. The building also has an exterior restroom of 84 SF for a total usable footprint of 3,990 SF. Site Coverage The total building footprint is equal to 4,810 SF. This is equal to a 26.82 % site coverage, excluding the eastern lean-to. With the added square footage of the lean-to the site coverage is 30.61 %. Foundation Concrete slab. Exterior Walls Combination of concrete block, frame and painted siding with stucco. Exterior Pedestrian Doors Wood frame and sliding plus man doors. Roof Structure Flat and pitched and shed. Roof Cover Built up and metal. Insulation Limited. Heating and Air Forced air gas heating and baseboard systems; Conditioning adequate for each space. Floor Coverings Entrance and bathroom are tile, with carpet or trowel finished concrete throughout. Interior Walls Painted. Interior Doors Wood core. o z Ceiling Both firfex and open ceilings. Ceilings in the office/retail E N buildings is drywall. z U ~ Q ~ Interior lighting Fluorescent in incandescent; appears adequate for .N potential. ~ a E .~ c~ P061241 POWELL VALUATION (NC ~q DESCRIPTION (Ca~t~nlued) Plumbing An 8' x 10.5' area is attached to the exterior south wall of the larger building. This area has two restrooms, one accessed to the interior of the older building and one accessed on the exterior and used by the 820 SF office/retail building. Plumbing is marginal. Condition Fair. Basement None. Building Age The subject was constructed in 1945 and 1966, according to Marion County records. The actual age of the buildings is 66 and 40 years. Its effective ages are 40 and 25 years; remaining economic lives are 20 and 35 years. Site Improvements and Minimal. landscaping None. Parking West side of improvements. Summary -The subject property is two improvements on one corner site in eastern Woodburn, Oregon. The improvements are older and in fair condition. One (the 820 sf retail office) is 50% occupied and one is fully vacant. "Construction was originally done under Marion County building and land use standards in place in the mid-1940's and 1960's. Current setbacks, parking, landscape and construction codes and regulations make the existing improvements marginally contributory. Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 19 of 127 P061241 POWELL VALUATION (NC 15 ~~ '~' a J 3^"' 0 z c r. N N E ~- t o v ~o Q N N p> C !1 f6 E co U SUa.IECT PHOTOGRAPHS ~, ~ s ~ _~ ~,,_~,~ ~sI"~ ~ ~ P061241 POWELL VALUATION ANC EXHIBIT 2. View of northern elevation from the west. (5782-4} 1. View of western elevation frontage along N. Pacific Highway. (5782-2) ~,.~ "~ ~°. _. < ...E SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS (COf'1t~11Y@d~ ....~-.i .~ u. :J ` ~ ~ `T t`~,~~ i 0 z ~~ O N E r' r o U ~ ~ Q N to Q~ C ~ t0 ~' E .~ v PU61241 POWELL VALUATION INC EXHIBIT 3. view of northern elevation of warehouse from the east. X5782-6) 4. view looking west at the eastern elevation of warehouse. (5782-10) ~,> , .~~ Sus.iECT PHOTOGRAPHS (continued) _~ _._ .. , A ~ ,- .. :. ~1 ~ ~ .;' ..__._.__ .._. ..,.. ~.._ _. _ ,ven. y. + ... <:, _.. 0 z c I~ i~ N ~ ~ O ~ N Q N N Q~ C ~ ~ Q. f0 P061241 POWELL VALUATION ANC EXHIBIT 5.view of southern elevation from the east (5782-59) 6. View of exterior restroom and southern elevation of warehouse building. (5782-61) pp- y f~j Sus.iECr PHO'r~oGw~HS (continue :~ ;~; ~- ~~ -.~..~, t f; °~ ~ ' "~E Y~ - ~~~y ~ - ~rt~~~ t;~;. r~,~d. a4 r ~ ~o~, „~, P061241 POWEL~ VALUATION INC EXHIBIT 7. View of exterior access only restroom. (5782-65) r~ ~, ~.~ .., ~' u' ~ . s..: a~j `~' SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS (COrltinued) ~, r' ~~ {$ mss.. ~ ~ _ _ ~S j. s -; i r. t ' : rt,:.. ,~~T. } }~ ~ _ ~. ~ ~ ~. f f~ 0 Z c ti O N Er M. U O ro ~. ~ (V fn ~ G ~ roa E m U P061241 POWELL VALUATION INC EXHIBIT 9. Interior office space of warehouse looking east. (5782-87) 10. View of interior restroom. (5782-77) Sus.iECr PHOtoGitu~HS (continued) ~i' ; ~s . Q, r a,~{ ~ ~- ~ ~ _ , ~ s~C } k.~.5 ' -~~ ~.r ~~ ~~ ~~ ;r ~~ i ~~ ~. ~ 3 ~~ 1 } 1 1. Interior office space of warehouse, rest room entrance looking southeast. (5782-76) Sus.iECT PHOTOGRAPF~S (continued) r^a ~f~C ~;{ l ,~ -- _~. ~ ~;-~t' 0 z is ti ~ fV E ~ w U ~ ~~ Q N H ~ C ~ f~ a E .~ U P061241 POWELL VALUATION ANC EXHIBIT 13. Interior warehouse space -north bay looking northeast. (5782-41) w. inienvr scars ro iorr m warehouse building (5782-19) Sus.iECT PHOT+oGtsapHS (continued) ;L .?v -. `'. '- ~':;-- 0 Z c r~ G> CV L~ ~ U O ~ ~ Q N N ~ C ~ f6 d. .~ U '? ~£ P061241 POWELL VALUATION ANC EXHIBIT 15. Interior loft space of warehouse building. (5782-21) ~• ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~.cnn iy vi au~i ciavc~nc~n aaamon of warehouse building. (5782-14) S .. ~ rt~ C°°: ° ~ Id ~:; Sus.iecT PHOroGwu•HS (continued) - "_ :,.' , 00 0 z c r~ ~N E~ L o U Q N N py C ~ ~a E i; P061241 POWEL.I. VALUATION INC EXHIBIT 17. Interior of east elevation addition of warehouse building. (5782-54) ~ 8. Last view of 500 & 510 frontage along N. Pacific Highway. (5782-93? Sus.iECr PHOrr~ru~HS (continued) ~ e i''~ f ~, E }~-~ , ,; ~n O Z ~~ N c•~ E~ ~ o ~ °' Q N N p~ C ~ N ~ E co U ~. _ ;, --fi t/ E I ~ e ..,, v J J phi .! ~. ~_. ~ _ e ~.: ~..uu.. -. ~..~ _ `4., z ` ~ ~ _i `+(~ ~ . ~ , i s r ,~: 19. South exterior view of 500 N. Pacific Highway. {5782-2•? ,. .:~ P061241 POWELL VALUATION INC EXHIBIT 20. Interior office space of 500 N. Pacific Hwy. {5782-80} Sus.iECT PHO~rsaP~ (continued) .; ~' .r' ~ _, . Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 30 of 127 P061241 PoWELL VALUATION INC EXHIBIT 21 . Interior office space of 510 N. Pacific Highway. (5782-78) o~R~e~ P1~1eTAGRAPN n 01 ~ ~ tv N N r o 5~. V Z O C1D p ~ ~» d1T {kl*°.w, r"^*rwr° y: i'. ~' ~'~.~'' A'r'k- `fir ~ qe'. R` i'` Iii, ' .e ~~~ fAA K~ ~ y ,~ is ~ (( ~r ~' ~ ~! ry jy/,/1 +'wn'ur' ids 'n~5:, s; ~:q Vk~. 1 r ~ ~t ~ ,.'Y~ i f^;F' ~e,~'~ II ~, ~. r~,w, `rte' ,,,' _ ~,.~ ., ~ r-» t w .+ d ~ r ~ k a '. ,. ~, 1t t ~^ r ~c r ,i ~F 1, ~~ fit. ~'t~ ~ @Yr" .. ~ ~ .. 4. ~,i!f `.~ .~; .r~,~ SUBJECT "~ l 1 ~ . ~~~~'~ +~ `" PROPERTY ~.-~` ~`~~ ~ ~ ~A ~-~,~~ 3, ~ ,#n . w; w~ p ~ ',fl-"1~ It ~~,tir ~~'~^ .`~T~ ~ ~ ~ 'u ,. .,i' ~ .S ~ ~ $ +i ~~' - r}`#~", ~,,a rst, ~'+' twb *n: L . ry x,., r ~k~~ ~~...' T~ ;, air ~~'~"t~ ~~ ~~ ~ t "',r a~z ~+,,,,. ~.°~~~t; +~ r}'$'" afr..~n'.,~ r:~' ~~~. ~ 1'~S'•%, ~t; ~. A~ ~ ~ r, n~~~~4 ~ ..,f`,i~'~ ,.~" ~ >a it ~~RT ~ ~ ~, 7i,r, ~ I! ` :~ n ?y h YYY ,~. .~~ .7P 3 o2~x l MY l ~" r~ r. .~ ,H ~ ~ ra uwtN ;Y , .ai ,gym ,, ~ ~ ~ ~/~' ~k ~~' ~p' ' ,~ .v. . P061241 FOWELL VALUATION ANC EXHIBIT r~ r. ~- e~ ~ % ~''~ ~ h ,_r t_ i-~ ~~ r~ RCGIONAL MAP ~;,~i~ " " - -- ~ ~ Gifford Ptnchot National Forest ~ ' St. Helens ...,t odland i.annon Elaach , ;,. a Vernonia r, _ o tn.~L, ~~ C L A T S O P Fettle KLICKIT rar~;o.r~„ COLUIo161A . V`round . ,- a~appoose ~'. f~ C W A S H I N G T O N ... - ~~ _ Pdehalern ~ ~. S L A R It ~~rs4~'FItS'od ~~.on Fedida alrcron Crec-tc Stevenson ~ ~aC ~`"`''` .~•~~ Manzarrta~ 30 - ~.~~- w~ ~-ry. ~~Wheeler ~ I;'ar .:~:.~.?r ~ atie ~ Walnut Grove ,~ River rpt' Rockawa I b Cascade F,t C: d .D 0~ c`°9 ~' w~ N p~ N~ v 2 0 ao t3each' g 2i's ' ~tICDUV@f~• 4~Ilsworth ; SKaMANIP,~ Locks `pdefl : ate _.. ~: Washougal ..~"' The Dabs .. 71? 1~.;~ ~'.<<rnk F"`iJ~~; MUL NOht C81~9S ~~~ ~.;F, ~ OODRIYER . ~~,~ ~ ' ~ H Garibaldi .Bay City ~• ~ '~ --~~ ~" Farest Grove" H illsbt~t~,~ Troutdale Parkdale` ' r Tillamaok~, TILL,&MOOIt V'JASHINGTON °~I ~' a ax PO and t;tlesharn fast Lake r i, ~ .......b............Var;~;. ,35 a~ .... ,:~ ..... ........ Ti ar, ~ ~!+ _SunnysidC. = 9 ~,'' ~.ak~eswego „Sandy MouM.Nood A} i~~y ' Tual Or onxi~~ w°~ ,: Wilderness C L A C I< A M A S 99YU ' Pacific . ' Estacada Newbergt ;~:.. ,Canb 2g ~:,,::-, Beaver Dundee 214 ~~' ,b"99.E 21;, ^Creek r ' Giacka nas Mount .. O c e a it to . _,~~ '....- .v ~.~0 R E G O N ztl Fore ..:. Cloverdale; .. McMinnaireo ~' Nation~d Y A M H I L L ~ ~ W A S C O Siuslaw ~'~" 4biute Woodbur Tin; ~t+~ National ~ y Lake 216 Neskowin ' Forest ~Molalla Sheridan ' `r ,-, ~, ' G ti. •. 101 .. .. , ~ 18 ., tNklemina .. ... ~ 221 ° rrt An el ~~ Subiect -. ' Keifer :'~ 510 Pacific Hwy E - ._ 'Rose Lodge 32 :, , °~~ HayesviU Woodburn OR 97071 'Lincoln C.ty P O L K Salem,Four Corners <, ~~ ' Daiasti, ~ .... UUa,~r.: Lincoll ~< '~/msvile-. .Subtilrrt ~~ ......1„^i --..P ......................... Warm.Sp26 Sv~~,,g3 8each~ Independence ..: r+" M A R I O N '~ rings......... . Depoe t3ayt 99w ,~~ L ~,, t. re. k ~ ~ "~Iridian Reservatian 'r~ Slayton°. y ~., S rln s lSiletz .. f J felkon •- Mdl C11'y ..Gates ~ ~ Detrodd Warm p g Idanha ..• 236 "` 22 ` ~-*:.,: Agate beach L I N C. 0 L N ' •. %f ... , r ' Nh Albany NeWport* ~Eddyvile ~: B E N T O N ...~ , ~,Tdedo ~ ~°^~ 'E~ ' MaurnJeffersoo JEFFERSON 20 I`i Wilderness G+af4a~is I R`: 34 Lebanon L I N N 4r)(+~~~r ~! ~ Culver Phlbmath~ ,~ c:ntia,n Wlllamettq~' ~i~-~ .-. National Fordi~t ,~ Deschutes W~~, ..': 3 Natlonat Forest Tidewater ~~ Brovvnsvile _ ....... 2u . , .: ........ ........... DESCHUTES CopyngM r7 2005 Mcnisott Corp andJor Rs suppliers WI ngMs reserved ~ Swed Home P061241 POWELL VALUATION lNC EXHIBIT NCIGHdORHOOD MAP GJ,` a J~ m Rr ~ Sfi Sf ~q~ y Sj h'i's ~~ St ~` ~ ~°'+y~~, ~a ~~ Judi St c s efd st c ~ ,~~ ~~ «;i ~ ~C ~~ ~ -0 ~ 99E ~t ~Sf ~ ~ is c:.ti ~ Wootilwurn g`- C~ E Lincoln St ~ o~ a val. Vo'~ E Blaitte St s' ~ ~ r7~ J4Fm94R St 214 /~ztec St ~ a? Y~,_ Mt Hood Ave Molalla Rd Q' .s ~ a A+axandre .q y~ ~~ ~~ James gt ~,br Legion Park ,; 2) C~e~~ ~ Gt3rfr ~ 4a'`~'~'~ ~ `Yc~ Gj`~ ~ E Nardcastla Ate Hardcastje St NE ~~ ~ N~~oY~~~a~t`y Q ~~ ~~~ ~ l.trlCOfr7 5t ~ ~ 0~ ~"` ~' y ~ ~~ ~~ 'V Ha 'as St ~ `~ c'~ -~ ~~ ~' CP n d 3 ~~ K fr~f-' N W ~^y ~J NN v~ Z O ~~ 99E L d Belle Passi Cemetery O i1Y15 Mr..rust+tt r:orG~ andlor is s~~,pliers iYt nQhts reserved ~ ~ {~~ aurel ~+'~ ~ To Subject ~, 510 Pacific Hwy E ~'~ Woodburn OR 97071 c~~ ar Q Koener Rd TLS. 'V Meado+rv Ln P061241 POWELL VALUATION INC EXHIBIT MeasuRe 37 The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the just compensation due the property owner with regard to a pending Measure 37 claim. To properly discuss the damages awarded the subject as a direct result of Marion County land use ordinances, it is necessary to first discuss the implications of Measure 37. The subject is located in Marion County and is within the city limits of Woodburn; therefore, it falls within City jurisdiction. Following is a brief description of Measure 37. A complete copy of the initiative as well as supporting documentation relating to the initiative is included in the Addenda. MEASURE 37 The fallowing information was obtained from the Woodburn Department of Community Development and Ordinance No. 1209 from the Marion County Board of Commissioners. Measure 37 is an initiative passed by Oregon's voters in the November 2, 2004 election. It calls for some landowners to be compensated for reductions in value of real property caused by certain land-use regulations. The measure took effect or. Decen giber 2, 2004. lvleGSUre 37 states that "written demand for compensation... shall be made within two years of the effective date of this act, or the date the public entity applies the land use regulation as an approval criteria (sicJ, whichever is later." Owners of private property may be eligible for compensation if land-use regulations adopted or enforced after they acquired their property have caused a reduction in its value. In some cases, current owners of real property may be eligible for compensation because a regulation was enacted or enforced after a family member acquired the property. Compensation is money paid to a landowner for a reduction in property value. Measure 37 says the amount of compensation to be paid "shall be equal to the reduction in the fair market value of the affected property interest resulting from enactment or enforcement of the land-use regulation as of the date the owner makes written demand for compensation." Once the property owner submits a claim, the Planning Director reviews the claim for comp{eteness. Assuming the application is complete, the Planning Director notifies the affected agencies and County departments and gives the opportunity for said departments to comment on the claim. A Staff Report that describes the application and claim; summarizes all relevant County departments, agency and public comments; describes all pertinent facts; and makes a recommendation on how the claim should be resolved is completed. The Planning Director may require that the applicant submit an appraisal of the property. The Panning Director's report and recommendation is then forwarded to the Hearings Officer for initial review and recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. The Hearings Officer shall then recommend or deny the claim. If recommendation is granted, the Hearings Officer ~ ° states which regulations would need to be modified, removed or not applied and/or z ~ ~ the amount of reduction in the fair market value of the property if the regulation ~ continues to be applied. The Hearings Officer forwards the recommendation to the ~ o Board of Commissioners for final action. The Board of Commissioners will then conduct Q ~ a public hearing before taking final action. After the public hearing, the Board shall N enter an order denying or approving the claim. E a .~ U P061241 POWELL VALUATION INC 30 HIGHEST ~ BEST USE HIGHEST AND BEST USE introduction Highest and best use is a market driven concept, which identifies the most profitable and competitive use to which a property can be put. It is further defined as follows: "The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant sand or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum profitability."2 The concept of highest and best use is fundamental to real property value. In one application of the concept, a site is valved as though vacant and available for development to its highest and best use. In another application, the highest and best use of the property as improved is estimated. A site may have one highest and best use as though vacant, while the improved site may have another optimal use.3 Highest and best use is essentially a market driven concept, which identifies the ideal use(s) of a property, which follow logical market criteria. It attempts to mirror the thinking of a buyer in the marketplace. Analysis pertaining to the legal, physical, financial and most productive uses of the site, both as though vacant and as improved narrows, development options to those best fitting the demand for the property. Once highest and best use is established, the appraisal process focuses on the identified sub- market, selecting parameters for meaningful analyses. The highest and best use of the subject land and improvements has been tested separately against the four criteria in the following analysis. Vacant Site Among all reasonable, alternative uses, the use that yields the highest present land value, after payments are made for labor, capital, and coordination. The use of a property based on the assumption that the parcel of land is vacant or can be made vacant by demolishing any improvements.4 Legally Permissible -The primary legal factor affecting the highest and best use of the subject is the zoning ordinance applied to the site. The site is zoned CG (Commercial General) by the City of Woodburn. This is the most flexible of the commercial zones, as it allows nearly any commercial use. It allows a wide variety of office or retail uses tied to professional services and retail trade as well as many conditional uses. For a complete copy of the zoning ordinance, please consult the Addenda. Physically Possible -The site has excellent exposure on the corner of 99 E and Laure( Avenue. It is level and has public utilities in the area. However, city water is at the NW corner of the 514 building as it has been since the property was purchased. The city wants any new service to the subject to come from Laurel Street. There is a new sewer and water line in Hwy 99E but serving the subject might be costly. Setback - the Gictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition. Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2002. The Appraisal of Real Estate, Eleventh Edition. Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 199b. Page 297. The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Third Edition. Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2002. 0 z c r` ~N E r- cr5 0 Q~ N rn ~~ ~a E c~ U P061241 POWELL ~/ALUATION INC 31 HIGHEST $ BEST USE (G01'itlflliti~t'~~ requirements and access on the corner limit the ingress and egress points. However, it will be developable commensurate with its CG zoning. Financially Feasible -Due to the subject's overall exposure, the greatest financial return would likely come from a highway oriented retail related development. The subject has good commercial potential based on surrounding land uses, zoning and access granted to and from a primary arterial. Maximally Productive -The most profitable use would be synonymous with the financially feasible use, commercial development. According to development codes, the most probable use is for retail related development. Legal and locational considerations would tend to eliminate other uses, such as industrial or residential development. Surrounding uses are primarily commercial in nature and are highway oriented. Supporting residential uses are located east of the subject and developed on the periphery of existing commercial uses. Therefore, the maximally productive use of the site would be a commercial use consistent with requirements under the CG zoning ordinance. Marketability -The subject's V~,~oodbum marketplace is in a reasonable state of balance, with minimal adverse supply and demand conditions noted. The commercial market is still recovering from the latest recession with some properties experiencing extended vacancies. Because of the subject's size and location, we anticipate a marketing period of approximately 12 months, if listed at or near market value. This is consistent with marketing periods of similar properties in the subject's neighborhood. HIGHEST AND BEST USE CONCLUSION - AS VACANT Based upon past, present and prospective market activity in the Woodburn area, it is our opinion that a commercial use commensurate with the City's CG zoning ordinance is an adequate expression of the highest and best use of the vacant site. MEASURE 37 CLAIM - HISTORY OF PROPERTY • The subject property at 5i 4 N Pacific Hwy, Woodburn, Oregon was purchased on contract dated September 10, 1960. It was paid in full and the deed transferred on June 7, 1965. It was improved with a 62.5' x 62.5' building constructed in the 1940's and with room for development of another structure. The property is located on the NE corner of Laurel Street and N. Pacific Hwy 99E. When purchased, the property was in Marion County and not the City of Woodburn. City utilities were not available. • fn June of 1966 Mr. Gottsacker built an office (24' x 40'j on the property. It was i and still remains without City of Woodburn public water and sewer. ~ ~, d (V • In June of 1964 the Blem Co. rented the 514 building and they added a 10'-12' x .~ o 62.5' lean-to on to the east side of the building. Marion County destroyed ~ ~ building records prior to 1970 so there is no proof of a building permit. y ~ • On June 1 1, 2001 the City of Woodburn annexed the property under an enclave ~ a E provision. ~~ U PU6124'I POWELL VALUATION INC 32 HIGHEST ~ BEST USE (continued) On July 1, 2002 the Woodburn City Council adopted the Woodburn Development Ordinance. This Ordinance moved 20 former permitted outright uses in a CG zone to a conditional use. Further, any increased parking use triggers a Design Review and deals with conditional uses, set backs, access, street improvements, landscaping and buffer improvements. Any change in occupancy or conditional use requires a public hearing. if a property is on Hwy 99, any request for review or change goes to the Oregon Department of Transportation which will limit the property approaches to one on Hwy 99E and one on Laurel. Because of the position of the improvements this will e{iminate the effective use of one or both of the improvements. • Under the current Woodburn Development Ordinance there are 12 allowed uses. Under Marion County Zoning when the property was purchased there were 106 uses. • On October 28, 2004 the owner received a verbal offer to purchase for $400,000. However, because of current land use regulations the offer was withdrawn. LANQ USE REGULATION IMPACT Land use regulations now in effect that have changed and/or were not present when purchased in 1960. • Conditional Uses • Design Review Required Setbacks • Parking • Access • Public Hearings • Landscape Requirements • Underground Sprinklers • Sign Code • Change of Occupancy The reduction of the number of permitted outright uses and the imposition of a design review process effectively limits the uses of the property and reduces the market, which could purchase or lease the property. The setback requirements, combined with parking, effectively make the 514 building valueless. It cannot be used and meet the new requirements, including parking, setbacks, and landscaping. Access will now be iimited to one on Hwy 99E. This makes the existing improvement's location inconvenient for ingress and egress to and from the property. The existing improvements are no longer functional or usable under current Woodburn Development Ordinance. They do not contribute to value. 0 z c r~ ~ CV ~ r.. cr3 0 ~^ Q M N Q~ ~~ ~a E U P061241 POWELL VALUATION INC 33 VALUATION METHODS SITE VALUE In valuing the subject site, as though vacant as of the effective date of this report, the sales comparison approach is utilized. In this approach, recent sales and/or listings of similar sites are compared to the subject using the adjustment process (if appropriate) to indicate value. Where good market activity and data is available, this approach best reflects market behavior and provides a useful estimate of value for the subject land. COST APPROACH The Cost Approach is based upon the principle that the value of property is significantly related to its physical characteristics and that no one would pay more than the cast to build a like facility in today's market on a comparable site. In this approach, the market value of the site is estimated and added to the depreciated value of the improvements. In addition, entrepreneurial profit is added. Far proposed or newer properties, this approach may have Significant relevance. For older properties or those with substantial depreciation, this approach has limited application. However, the cost approach may prove useful as an indication of potential supply, as measured by the amount of profit evident. These factors will be considered in addressing the emphasis placed on the Cost Approach. INCOME APPROACH This approach is predicated on the assumption that there is a definite relationship between the net income a property will earn and its value. Net income is the income generated before payment of any debt service. The process of converting it into value is called capitalization. Net income is divided by a capitalization rate. Factors such as risk, time, interest on the capital investment, upside potential and recapture of the depreciating asset are considered in the rate. Applying a capitalization rate based on indications from comparable sales reflects expectations of buyers and sellers in the market. Another capitalization concept employed with the Income Approach is the Discounted Cash Flow Analysis or yield capitalization. It is developed by projecting cash flows over a holding period assvrning variations in income, expenses, lease terms, reversion rates and internal rates. The net present value of the cash flows is a method of measuring anticipated future benefits. SALES COMPARISON APPROACH z° This approach analyzes sales of comparable properties with regard to the nature and ~ N condition of each sale. Logical adjustments and/or comparisons are made for varying ~ o physical characteristics. For land value, a common denominator is a price per square ~ ~ foot or price per acre; for improved properties, it may be the price per square foot, ~ ~ price per unit, or a gross income multiplier. This approach develops a goad indication ~~ a of value when sales of similar properties have occurred. E co U P061241 POWELL VALUATION INC 34 VALUATION METHODS (COf1~l~led~ RECONC{LIATION This is the process by which the individual approach indications are weighed based on validity and applicability to the subject market. The indications often indicate different values. After factors influencing each approach are carefully considered (i.e. quality and quantity of data, sophistication of the market, etc.), a final point estimate of value is concluded. In this report, land is valued as if there were no improvements. Value is established by comparing the subject to sales of similar sites in the area market. The value of the property including improvements and assuming none of the current development requirements in place has been developed by comparing the subject with sales of similar improved properties in the area. Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 39 of 127 P061241 POWELL VALUATION ANC 35 SITS VALUATION In this section, the market value of the subject site will be estimated by comparing it with recent sales of land located in the subject's market area. As discussed in the Site Description section, the subject contains 17,932 square feet of land area, with a highest and best use for commercial development. The limited number of comparable sales in the subject's immediate area and lack of uniformity within this market prevents direct extraction of adjustments from the marketplace. General analysis reflecting market behavior is utilized to determine which comparables are superior or inferior to the subject. This analysis establishes value parameters for the subject, allowing for a final conclusion of value. The subject's Woodburn marketplace is in a reasonable state of balance, with minimal adverse supply and demand conditions noted. Discussions with local market participants have further supported this conclusion. A decent paired sales analysis was not possible, however market participants suggest a time adjustment of Y2 percent per month is reasonable. All sales have been adjusted upon this basis. All listings have all been adjusted down five percent. The price per square foot unit of comparison will be used in this analysis. This indicator will be used as it best reflects the behavior of the typical buyer and seller in the subject market. Information regarding the land sale comparables are presented on the following Land Sales Tabulation Chart and Adjustment Grid, followed by a Location Map. After time adjusting the three sales and three listings range in adjusted price from $4.68 to $22.49 per square foot. Comparable 1($4.68/SF) has a slightly superior location in a newer commercial district close to Hwy 214. It is superior in shape being mostly rectangle. It is zoned CG making it similar to the subject. It has inferior access and exposure to the subject because it has no frontage on Mt. Hood Avenue. According to Woodburn's City Zone map this parcel contains a portion of wetlands. (For complete zone map please consult Addenda) Comparable 1 is a low indicator of market value due primarily to its size. Comparable 2 ($5.81/SF) has a slightly superior location in a newer commercial district closer to the I-5 interchange. It is zoned CG making it similar to the subject. Although exposure is inferior with no frontage on Mt. Hood Street it has similar access to our subject. It is almost eight times larger than the subject making it inferior. It is mostly rectangular in shape and is considered a reasonable to low indicator of market value. Comparable 3 ($22.49/SF) and Comparable listing 4 ($12.00/SF) both are improved therefore additional dollars/SF are added for the value of the improvements. Comparable 3 was sold to the neighboring property owner for assemblage creating motivation for the sale. Comparable Listing 4 is a for safe by owner with a house and o small trophy shop on the property, the owner has had no offers and has had it on and ~ off the market for several months. Both of these comparables are considered to be E N high indicators of market value and are given the least amount of weight. ~ o Comparable 5 ($6.68/SF) and Comparable 6 ($5.72/SF) are inferior in location being in d ~ Hubbard just Northeast of Woodburn. They are similar in size and in zoning. Hubbard c only f~as one Commercial Zone where as Woodburn has two. Although these are listings ~ when talking to Prudential Broker Keith Young, he told us that there are offers in on P061241 POWELI. ~/ALUATION INC 3f) SITE VALUATION (COti1tB11JE"~I~ these properties for the asking prices and could possible be pending as of the completion of this appraisal. For this reason we have placed weight on these listings and are considering them reasonable indicators of market value. Based on these comparables, and considering the subject's location, size, and other physical characteristics, aland value of $7.50 per square foot is estimated for the subject. This equates to an overall land value of: 17,932 SF x $7.50 = $134,490 Rounded = 135 000 Claimant's Attachment No. $ Page 41 of 127 P061241 POWELL VALUATION INC 37 ~ LAND SALCS TABULATION CHART AND AD.IUSTMCNT GRID ~ Characferisgcs Subject Comparable I Comparable 2 Comparable 3 Comparable 4 Comparable 5 Comparable b tame Gottsacker Properties Va~-ant land Vacant land LISTING (for <ale. by owner) LISTING IISTING A ddro,; 50~-~ SIO R 51 a Pa~~tir Hwy Mt. hood Ave M1- Hood Ave 3D0 & 312 Pacific Nw~y 694 Pacific Hwy 40h4 Pacifir- Hwy TX lot 1204 Parkway Ave W o~.;dt>r~rn. OR Woodburn, OR Woadburn, OR Woodburn. OR Woodburn. C)R Hubbard, OF.' Hubbard, pR htop 8. Ta= Lr>t 051 W 1 OSA03801 O51 Wi18803000 051 W 1 7BC08000 051 W' 178A04000 041 W3a801200 041 W 34801200 F'rox~miry tc Sul-,jec-1 l.i miles to the SW 1-4 miles to the tJW 0.2 miles to the SW 0.2 miles to the NE 3.~ mite, fo the NF 3.7 mites to the NE Sale Dr)k~ Sep-OS Dec OS Jan-0E Sale r^n~.-.e $196,020 $300.000 $300,000 $330 000 $149.000 $98.000 r'r~.tu/SF IUna~ii...,sir'7! $450 $5.67 $22.05 $12.63 $7.03 $6.02 Dare Irsprr tc~i May ?. 2D06 June 9. 2006 June 9, 2006 J'-one 9. 2006 .tune 13. 2D06 June 1 3. 2006 June 13, 2CK)h Site Area 1SF'I 1,'.932 43,560 141,134 13,608 25.127 21 , 186 16,281 Zu~e CG CG CG CR CR Comm. Comm. A:-yes Good Average Good O thPr Element Descripgon AdJ(+~.) Descripgon Adj(+/.) Descripgon Adj{+/-) Descripgon Adj(+/-) Descr(pgon Adj(+/,j Descdpgon Adj(+;-) Property Rights Conveyed Fee Simple $0 Fee Simple $D Fee Simple $0 Fee Simple $0 Fee Simple $0 Fee Simple $0 F:nancina fernu Conventional $0 ConvenFona! $D Conventional $~ Conventional $0 Conventional $0 Conventianal $0 Condii~ens of Sae Arms Length $0 Arm's Leng~h $D Arm's length $~ Arm's Length $0 Arms Length $0 Arm's Length $0 ^,+arket Conditions Time 4.0~ $7,841 2.5 0 $20.000 ~ 2.0.0 $b.000 -S.Ow ($16.50C'1 -S.OP ($7,450 I ,5.0% I$4•~a'1 A dj ~ Est e d P r i r. e $203.861 $820.000 $306.00 J $3 t 3.500 $ t 4 t, 550 $93.100 A~--)joslyd F'riselSF $ A.68 $ 5.81 2249 $ $ 12.00 $ 6.63 $ 5 72 Qualttngve Adjustment Comparison Adj(*!-) Comparison Adj(+j-) Comparison Adj(+/-) Comparison AdJ(+/•) Comparison Adj(+/-) Comparison Ad}(+/-) location superior ++ superior ++ similar = similar = inferor -- inferor - tir-e inferior -- inferior -- similar = similar = similar = similar = Ar.cese similar = sim~lor = similar = similar = similar - simifor = )opngrapghy inferior -~- similar = similar = similar = similar - similar W ~hapn superior ++ superior ++ similar = slightly superior + superior ++ superiar ++ r-x.pns~~re inferior ~- infer'ior -- similar =- similar = similar - inferor = ~.n,prvvurnr>~~ts similar = similar = superior ++ superior ++ sin Filar = similar = .onin9 similar = similar = slightly inferior - slightly inferior - sii7lilar = similar = s C om parabllify -- _ + ++ = Conclusion low indicator reasonable indicator high indicator high Indicator reasonable indicator reasonable Indicator Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 42 of 127 ',ti,~,~;;~~;i.i~, .. ,,~ 1ti. P061241 POWELL VALUATION INC 3$ LAND SALeS MAP t' ~ ~. Y.~ t ~.r~ "'~.~° .`~ ~ f' ~ ~',~ --~__~~___-. - -- Aulrora ~. -_~__.~_ _-_____- -- . Donald 4'l~'t ~ '1F.~~ ~ ?,~fll~t!(ti~lY . G t f 1.~a' ,~ L7t~;'7. ~` 99E St. Peuf . ~~ 2~9 ~~ paVlFl~Y Land Sale 5 ~~, ~ Parkvray Blwd . , Hubbard, CSR 970~i2 ~,, ~' ~ ~~ ~ ~ .. ~lbrbbard ~ . , f. Land Sale 1 Lenhardt :airport Land Sale 2 Mt Hood Ave Mt Hood Ave ~ Woodburn, OR 97071 Woodburn OR 97071 ,~~ L A C Ft A M a S ~ gg gg Y Y ..... : ~ ,. <.: _ .._ _ ~a Woodtxlrno ~ z! ~ 1~ l~ Land Sale 3 ~ Subject 694 Pacific Hwy E $t Lnuf~ Rd N~ 510 Raatic Hwy E Woodburn, OR 47071 ~ Woodburn, OR 970?1 qty ~ .. ~ G t1r _ ~ u~~ erVals` ~~^ ~ ~' 99E Land Sale 4 ~' ~ ~ E Fecific Hwy E ' ' Woodburn, OR 97071 ~ ~, PRl Ang fir. .~ ~~ ~rveis Rd NE _ ~' ~ ~ °6 n g 213 C opynght L<l 2£105 Mtarosott Crap anrltor rts suppliers 1U1 rights reserved ~,' Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 43 of 127 1'U61241 POwELL VALUATION INC EXNl617 SALES COMPARISON APPROACH In this section, the market value of the subject property will be estimated by direct comparison analysis. Direct comparison analysis compares improved sales to the subject property on a price per square foot basis. The price per square foot is based upon the physical characteristics of the property, and care must be taken in the comparable selection process. The comparables are analyzed considering such factors as age, quality, condition and location. Despite a concerted effort, finding current comparable sales for the subject proved difficult due to the nature of the property. However, adequate sales were found and offer a good indication of value for the subject. An Improved Sales Tabulation Chart and Improved Sales Location Map are located following this analysis, summarizing the comparables utilized in the direct comparison analysis. COMPARABLE ANALYSIS The comparables represent a per square toot range of $33.36 to $87.14. They represent sales of older buildings in small Willamette Valley communities, primarily along the stem of I-5. Comparable 1 ($33.71/SF) is an auto repair facility and sales lot located on N Pacific Hwy in Woodburn. It has good frontage relative to its depth and was in fair condition at the time of sale. The building is twice the size of the subject but adaptable to similar uses. It is a reasonable indicator of the value of the older subject building. Extracting land value and dividing the result by the improvement size suggests a building only price of $23.60 per SF. This understates the value of the subject because the sale is over twice the size of the subject. 7?rJ !~! Pacific Hwy, Wcodburn, OR (Photo #4929-26j Sam ~~ >>~;treet, woudburn, vR photo X5554-33) Comparable 2 ($52.62/SF) is the sale of the US Postal Building in the old center of the city of Woodburn. It sits on a corner site, improved with an 8,468 SF improvement built in 1971 and leased long-term to the Postal Service at $32,000 per year. There are dock high doors located on the NW side of the building and a large parking lot surrounded by cyclone fencing. It was in average condition. The downtown location is inferior compared with the subject location. Extracting land suggests a building only price of $25.65 per SF. This is a reasonable indicator. Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 44 of 127 P061241 PoWEL~ ~/ALUATION INC 4U SALES COMPARISON APPROACH (C011~11Y@d~ Comparable 3 ($47.30/SF) reflects the sale of a three tenant building that was a vacant shel{ when sold. It is inferior to the subject in location but slightly superior in condition. This sale is a reasonable indicator of value. Extracting estimated land value from the sale suggests a building only price of $31.1 1 per SF. Comparable 4 ($33.36/SF) is the June 2006 sale of a tilt up concrete building housing a batting cage business about four blocks south of the subject. It is three tirY7es the size of the subject and a more modern structure. - Subtracting land value leaves a net improvement price of $21.58 per SF. The size of the improvement and inferior ` {ocation make this a low indicator. 160 S Pacific Hvry, Woodburn, OR (Photo #5122-10) Comparable 5 ($87.14/SF) is a pending sale of a 1949 -- ~ constructed retail/office located two blocks south of the ~'"~`~"~' subject, near the dividing line between north and south "~"~"`""'""'"" '"1"_~ ~ A` `~ Pacific Highway. It is superior in condition and location. It _ has been adjusted down for the listing nature of the ... data. After deduction of land value it indicated $65.12 tom. _ per SF of building. It is a reasonable indicator of the ~'` value of the 820 SF office on the subject. 300 N Pacific Hwy, Woodburn, OR jwvn115 539903) The sales suggest an overall value range of from $33.36 to $52.62 per SF for the older portion of the property. Sale 5 suggests a higher value for the small office improved portion of the subject. The sales have also been compared on the basis of improvement only. This was achieved by estimating the contributory valve of the land under each sale, and dividing the residual by the square feet of improvement. On this basis, the older improvement was compared with sales 1 - 4 or $21.58 to $31.1 1 per SF of first floor area, excluding the marginal eastern lean-to and second floor mezzanine. Overall, a price per SF of $30.00 is considered appropriate for the older structure and $75 per SF for the small office. The indicated market value via the Sales Comparison Approach, as of May 2, 2006, assuming none of the current Land use regulations are in place, was (3,990 SF x $30.00 + 820 SF x $75.00) + $}35,000 (land value) or $316,200 ($65.74/SF), rounded to: ~'~'~~ Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 45 of 127 P061241 POWELL VALUATION INC 41 i 69 W Main Street, Monmouth, OR )Photo #5856-1) VALUE ASSUMING CURRENT REGULATIONS IN PLACL Since the subject does not comply with current setbacks, landscape, access, parking and use requirements, the improvements cannot meaningfully contribute to the overall property value. They cannot hope to be used in the face of the requirements now in place. The subsequent users will have to remove the improvements and start again in ful{ compliance with regulations now in place. Land value was estimated at $7.50 per SF or $135,000. The cost to remove the improvements and dispose of the debris was estimated at $5.00 per SF or $25,000. The remaining vacant land has a present value, as of May 2, 2006 of $110,000. .BUST COMPENSATION Subtraction of the value with current regulation in place from the value assuming 1960 regulations results in a just compensation of $205,000. $315,000 - 110 000 $205,000 C{aimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 46 of 127 P061241 PoWELL VALUATION {NC 42 ~ IMPROVED SALES TABULATION CHART AND ADJUSTMENT GRID ~ Characteristics Subject Comparable i Comparable 2 Comporable 3 Comparable 4 Comporable 5 Name Gottsacker Property Auto Sales Post Office Retail Bldg Batting Cages Law Office & Ins Co Address 514 Pacific Hwy 770 N Pacific Hwy 540 N 1st St. 169 W. Main St. 160 S Pacific Hwy 300 N pacific Hwy Woodburn, OR Woodburn Woodburn Monmouth Woodburn Woodburn Proximity to Subject Subject 1/4 Mile North 3/4 mile Northwest 36 Miles SW Four Blocks South 114 mile North Sole Date May-O6 Jul-02 Nov-03 Apr-06 Jun-06 Listing Sale Price $300,000 $387,500 $350,000 $400,000 $325,000 Pace/SF (Unadjusted) $000 $27.41 $45.76 $47.30 $33.36 $91.73 Date inspected May 2. 2006 June 12, 2006 June 12, 2006 June 12, 2006 June 12, 2006 June 12, 2006 Site Area (SFI 17,932 40,000 49,658 7,988 28,240 13,068 Building Size (SFj 4.810 10,945 8.468 7,400 11,992 3,543 Site Coverage (o) 26.82 27.36% 17.05% 92.64% 42.46°10 27.11% Year Built 1945 8 1966 1949 1971 1930 1972 1949 Value Adjustment Description Adj(+/-) Description Adj(+/-) Description Adj(+/-} Descrlpton Adj(+(-} Descriprion Adj(+1-) Property Rights Conveyed Leased Fee Fee Simple $0 Fee Simple $0 Fee Sirnple $0 Fee Simple $0 Fee Simple $0 Fnancing Terms Cash or Equiv Conventional $0 Conventional $0 Conventional $0 Conventional $0 Conventional $0 Conditions of Sale Arm's Length Arm's Length $0 Arm's Length $0 Arm's Length $0 Arm's Length $0 Arnis Length $0 MarketConditlons:Time 23.0°,6 $69,000 15.0% $58,125 0%. $0 0.0~ $0 -5.0~ ($16,250] Adjusted Price $369,000 $445,625 $3,50000 $400,000 $308,750 Adjusted Price/SF $33.71 $52.62 $47.30 $3336 $87.14 Qualitarive Adjustment Comparison Adj(+/-} Comparison Adj(+/-) Comparison AdJ(+/-) Comparison Adj(+/-) Comparsan Adj(+/-} location Hwy 99E Similar = SI Superior = Similar = SI inferior - Similar = CoveragelParking 26.82 o Similar + Superior + Inferior - Superior + Superior + Conditon Fair Superior + Superior + Similar = Superior + Superior + C~luality Fair Superior + Superior + Superior + Superior + Superior + Size 4,810 SF Inferior - Inferior Larger - Larger - Larger - Comparability ++ ++ - + ++ Concius'ron Reasonable indicator Reasonable Indicator Reasonable Indicator Reosonable Indicator Reasonoble Indicator Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 47 of 127 n~. .r} yi, }i'I?' '. P061241 Powet_t_ VAt-UATION InIC 43 IMPROVlD SALES MAP - WOODQURN 17 ~_ 3 N .~. lD y N C7 O ~, 3 ~~ S} ~~ ~ ~4 ~r ~~ c ~ ~~ ~ 5~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ s~ h1E Comparable 1 -r 770 Pacific Hwy E ~~ Woodburn, OR 47071 ~ E Lincoln St Subject 510 Pacific Hwy E Woodburn, OR 97071 ~ \~ 300 Pcxfic Hwy E ~ ICE Laurel Ave Q t?~ ~ ~%f ~ Woodburn, OR 97071 ~~ w C~ ~ ~'`a B ~ ~ S}~ ~ ~ S} Comparable 4 Yl Rvg ~¢}gam +'~ S,} ~~ 160 Pacific Hwy E Ntoodburn, OR 97071 ~'~• .' S Sj C) Glyn, A ~ d ~ ~- ~: a~ h- ~ ~ 4~ t3 s ~7Sj~ sf5'f `~^~ ~~ ~ ~q~S, yyy{~fk I Ul ,~ c.7 ly `, Woodburn = ~l. ~~ mar ~ P~`~~a'~~ ~~ q~~ ~ 5~ E Blaine St Settlemeir ~ '~.~ Park Johnson St ~L ~ kith g~ Comparable 5 j ~ `O u'` ~?` y- & ~,~` s} Jacobsen Rd ~. w 1~~ +~ Comparable ~ m ~ C? r C• 540 N lsk St Legion Park Qq Qa ~~~qfy ~!~• Woodburn, OR 97071 „y~ fi ~y ~ ~.~. ~_ ~ sv E 14ardcastle ,qve ~ r ~ a Hardcastle St ~ C}~ ~~ Judy St 99E l7 CopyngM ~~ 20115 tt4cro;ott C~ip Ivor rts sup~hers Pp rigAts reserved S13rres Ln NE Koener Rd r '~i'l ., '.i?. ~-~. z 0 ou P061241 POWELL VALUATION INC EXHIBIT IMPROVED SALES MAP -MONMOUTH d Marra Ave W 4 ~` ~ n` ~ QCIVZ ~a~ ~ po~,i4ory Dr C17 r~ x Gentle A~~e E a„ o 1 Suzana St E _ _ ~ Margaret St E ~'J ~~~ 1Nay E ~,, ° ~~`` .4ve E ~ ~-, a, Mistletoe Rd Church St VV ~ Ghurch St E ~ ~ .Alberta .give E ~ Comparable 3 ~ 164 Main St W y ~ ~ Monmouth, t]R 97361 q u ~ c ~ ~' Jackson St W ~ , c Jackson St E ~, .~ ~ c ~, ~ Main St W Main St m Monmouth m~, 1~f ~ " co ~ " 99W ~' blai 51 rr St E m w ~ ~ m Clay St W Clay St E ~ n ~ ~- ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ cn = ~ o ° d `-' rn Madrona St E p .~ ~ w ~ ~. ~ E ~ ° E Ackerman St E Ackerman St W ~ ~ Qalke St E x ~ ~ Bentl.~y 5t E c Grvinn St 1N Monmouth H~ro~y Copyright a 2005 Adicrosoft Corp andFOr its suppliers clq rights reserved TI Independence ~ S Monmouth St -~ m ati m Rc1 'a z Rainier Ballard [,1r E Teton -a s U ~ L LI t. } ul Claimant's Attachment No. 8 -C~ ;~ ~~,~ 3 r Page 49 of 127 P061241 Powet_t_ Va.uanau INC Exr-rrsrr ANALYSIS OF VALUE CONCLUSIONS The Analysis of Value Conclusions is the final step in the appraisal process and involves the weighing of the individual valuation techniques in relationship to their substantiation by market data, and the reliability of each valuation technique to the subject property. Indicated Vaiues Without post 1960 regulations :.........................................................................................$315,000 With post 1960 regulations in place :.............................................................................. 1 10 000 Just Compensation as a result of post 1960 regulations :.......................................... $205,000 The following analysis summarizes the conclusions and explains the amount of weight applied to each value indication. The Without Post 1960 Regulations value was estimated by comparing the subject site to sales of similar sites in the market area. After adjustments for time and other features on a qualitative basis a final conclusion of land value was reached. The contributory value of the improvements was estimated by comparing sales of similar improvements to the subject improvements. This was done on a with-land c~i~d without-land basis. This conclusion developed an excellent value for this primarily owner purchaser and user dominated market. Lack of a Cost and Income Approach to value was explained by lack of investor purchasers of this type of property and lack of credibility in estimating depreciation for improvements of the subject ages. The elimination of the Cost and Income Approaches does not degrade the final value conclusion. The With Post 1960 Regulations value developed a value of the land only. The presence of improvements built under 1945 - 1960 building codes, and land use regulations may have resulted in structurally usable improvements but they will never comply with 2006 land use regulations and building codes. Set back requirements from north, south and west property lines are not possible without removing the improvements. Further, landscape, access and parking requirements cannot be met with the current location and nature of the improvements. Lastly, the improvements have a much more restrictive use than was previously allowed. The property value eliminates any contributory value for the improvements and deducts for the removal and disposal of the debris. The value conclusion is well supported in the market. The Just Compensation is simply the deduction of the pre and post regulation value conclusions. With full emphasis placed on the Sales Comparison Approach, the estimated just compensation of the Measure 37 interest in the subject property, as of May 2, 2006, was: TWO HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS Cfairriant's Attacfiment No. 8 Page 5Q of 127 P061241 POWELL VALUATION INC Qs CERTIFICATION OF APPRAISAL We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: ^ The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. ^ The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. ^ We have no present or prospective personal interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved. ^ We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment. ^ Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. ^ Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainfr~ent of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. ^ Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. ^ I, C. Spencer Powell, MAI have made a personal interior and exterior inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. I have also inspected the exterior of all comparable data referenced in this report. ^ As of the date of this report, I, C. Spencer Powell, MAI, have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. C. Spencer Powell, MAI OR Certified General Real Estate Appraiser License No. 0000154 8/30/06 Date Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 51 of 127 P06'1241 POWELL VALUATION INC 47 ENGAGEMENT LETTER ~~~`~~~° Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 52 of 127 POWELL VALUATION INC PR4FESSlONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT Project: Gottsacker Commerclai Property Location: 500 Pacific Hwy, Woodburn, OR Presentation: A Complete appraisal report (2 copies} in a Summary fiormat will be prepared in accordance with Appraisal lnstitufe and USPAP . The report wilt present the As-is and I-iypotheticat values required for an appraisal compliant with Measure 37 A copy of the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions, which appear in the report, is available upon request A PDF version is available upon request. Professional Fee: $3,504.00 Additional Copies: Any additional copies of the report requested will be billed at a rate of $75.00 each. Consultation: The above fee includes 1 hour of consultation Additional consultation with client or client's representatives wilt be biAed at the hourly rate stated below. Retainer: $0 00 Terms: The fee is due upon delivery of the report. Past due accounts will accrue a late payment charge of 1.5% per month, compounded monthly. In the event that either party commences any legal action relating to the provisions of the Agreement, including collection, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its actual attorney's fees and costs, including those incurred upon appeal. This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of OR, and the venue of any action arising from this agreement shall be in Marion Gounty, OR Delivery: May 31, 2006, assuming receipt of the fully executed Professional Service Agreement and the requested materials Modification or Any changes in the assignment will be mutually agreed upon, in writing, and the fee set Cancellation: forth above wit) be adjusted accordingly, if necessary If the assignment is cancelled, for any reason, prior to completion, for ail time expended prior to cancellation, the client will be billed at the rate of $100 per hour for associate time, $150 per hour for senior associate time, and $250 per hour for principal time. If the client delays completion of the assignment beyond 90 days, the fee will be renegotiated. Hazardous Waste Powell Valuation Inc doss not assume any duty to analyze or examine the property or Disclaimer: adjacent property for the possible presence of toxic or hazardous substances or materials and accepts no liability regarding the issue. This appraisal report will contain a comprehensive disclaimer to this effect, Liability: Powell Valuation Ines responsibilities are rendered, and limited to, the client, and its liability is limited to the fee actually received for the services requested herein I, C. Spenc Powell, MAI, a representative of Powell Valuation inc, agree to the above terms ass mi g the Pr ssional Service Agreement is returned by May 4, 2006. Date: ~~ C. Sp nce~ owell, MAI, resident I, Bert Gottsacker, agree to the above stated terms and authorize Powell Valuation Inc, to prepare the above referenced appraisal. ;~ '-- -----r---- Date: "-.~ ° ~~ b ;~ ~ '~- r l ~ ~ ~ ~ L~r - ~ ~ ~ ~., -- " ~ Bert Gottsacker Claimant's Attachment tdo. 8 Page 53 of 127 {`_ t' x r; , PLAT MAP Claimant`s Attachment No. 8 Page 54 of 127 POwELL VALUATION INC MRY-03-2006 1414 ~N L 1~ If .~~ ~~ ..~ AMER I T I TI_E SALEM ~, ~ f ~s• `~ -~~r '~ ~~ ~~} I l~Tr ~~ S u:~~ t ~• ~~ .rr.~r +-+~r ~rrlr ,~ ~• R~' R ~~'~'' ~~~ i`y~ ~~ . syt~ '~t ~ _._' ._. . ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~,~ ,+'' ti 1'A/.'-4~'4".~1 - •.f 5<~r'~ tl,~d.'.'sh?i.Sttr V• • tir yah'srYa l4'.•.'-lrikJ4RJt•i •r . t l P•rkir6' ~4`.r.i'Ml.JVJ.Rhs• t1t rs + •'1•Y ~~ ~~~ ~vN 4 R •r ~ ~i ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ rti' ~~~ 1~ ~~~5~ •~ ;ice . ii'^' ~r • •. ~ . .~ ~•K r•• wt 1 ~~ .Y.4K'~i ~. i ~`~ j k s4~ ti4li~Si" ~ s4. ~! ti7t~C Vl ~' ."rti'MrY~.•.sras• a • rrr,Ys. r1 1 .'f.r.,+y4yW~.r • •,• f ~vY.cr. 14ti is f1A1LV1rf~s~t,',~1 s a1TYti )Yl •y/~+,ly~yla•`y+t . R• ~~~ ~ -~~~ .,- -r,~r.-t-. • ~' ~ ; ." r ' ~` ~ ~ ,,s~ 4 ~ A ~. ~ ~ ~'' j .v its. '(~ ~ - Y ~ - - ~ `r- ~ ~Y7 J P, 06 ''`~' ""~ '~•.. '~`~ 11~ ~ Ya ~1 -~r '~G .':s`s'~ ry -'.1'r+tyhf~ rsfrssT3 ~~~trt+ S 320fCbut~rh St. N.E ai, oR s»ot S61.1~31 ~ w- ~ c Saar a>a ~~.~ ~~~~ ~~~ mttrurt ra warm sae v iF rut; u u ~scp~ta~ er u 4~~ ~. ~,.~., 0 z N ~ o ~~ ~' ~~ ~~ ~a ,E ~o U FLOOR PLANS 4s ~~r-.~.~~ ..- ..i~w ~ . _ .~` Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 56 of 127 Po1NELL VAIUATEON INC a 7~,. 21.5' } ~ .5' ~~ l 2.5' i i `~ . 62.5 ` 75'j ~~a ~~ Mr { i 4a' i {! e ld .~ rct -(., .i~ `~~ , ,~ Exfira Storage { t1 +~ 30 `f I ~i ~, 1 ;'~. Left ~ ~! 8' a ~~,~ O ^ ~I O ^ 10.5 Office ~~ RR I ._._, 24' . Garage/Storage `~ ~- 42.5' - ti~.,j _ _ .~,,.~_ __ _ _ ._.._ .~.~.Y a 3' ~~ I i Retail Area 62.5' 32' 0 z d N ~~ o ~~ d~ ~~ ~a E .~ U 500 N. Pacific Hwy Sc:aie 1 " = 10' Waodburrt, OR 9707] 4,669 square feet 8Q0 square feet - loft area r May 3, 2006 ^ Furnaae O 7'oiiet (JMA~ ^ Sink 40' i 20.5' ~` y Off. tJff. Off. Off. ~ Office Office ~~ Soffit Overhang ~ 500 & 510 N.Paci~c Hwy Woodburn, Oregon 97071 Scale 1 " = 10' $20 total square #eet May 3. 2006 (JMAj C7 G1 ~ ~_ 7 lD H O Ls ..~ rv ro V ~, Z O ~.. ~_ C a L11~;[} 4Gt.~i 1, ~•..i ~. DEED & LEGAL DES~CR/PTlON • Y' ...». s a M ~ _ .. ~ i ~ L ~ - J `~ ~ f _ v. Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 59 of 127 POWELL VALUATION INC MAY-03--2006 14:1? AMERITITLE SALEM P.05 ~, ~~ ~....,. ~`'J !"~' ~~~ ~r_1 ~"V. t/ i Z C ~ N E ~' ~ o ~ c$ N ~ C ~ t0 n' E f0 U TAX & ASSESSMEtVT DATA r~ ;=='~~ _~ ~~ b"~ r ~. 45 •- d Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 61 of 127 PpWeLL VALUATION 1NC MAY-03-2006 14 17 RMERITITLE SALE~'1 _ ...~__._ ,,,,_..., ..~~„~~~~ - ~ ~uNcicy ~ruuruictnon 9lfariott ~aurtty, Oragaa. ~Prapetty cords Proprrty Tax Assessment (nfonnation Summary History iu Snmaury ~ ~rr~pravement New Information Search Search Results P.03 Page 1 of 2 Printable Summary Search Results for R65022 Owner Name GOTTSACKER,DEl.BERT Ownet Addreas 8518 PARR RD NE GERVAIS, OR 97026 Alternate Account Number 1-75840040 v.,t, . Property ID Number R65022 31tu8 Addre6s 510-5'14 N PACIFIC HY woooauRN, oR 97071 Netghbofiood J ~.~~' it 1 L U~u Map Tax Lot Levy Code Area 051 W17BC00200 (WOOpBIJRN C{TY, FD 8 UR) 50 ; 1h 9 ;125 ; 321 ; 328 ; 439 ; 460 ; 500 ; 701 ; 995 Last Certified Year (20a5)lnformation for R65022 RMV Land Non-LSU $132,930 RMV Land LSU $0 RMV Improvements $123,720 RMV Total $256,650 Land LSU ~0 Tota! Exemptions $0 MS Net Value $256,650 M50 Assd Value $116,500 important Information About R65022 if applicable, the described property is receiving specia! valuation based upon its use. Additional r Nback taxes which may become due based on the provisions of the special valuation are nat indicated in Phis Ii ling, Total lax Payoff Amount Worksheet teterest Date O51D3/2006 Tax Summary Current Property Tax Property Taa Histo~y Summary Current Year Tax Owed Total Tax Pa}~off Amount 50.00 ~ $D.DD Tax Summary Special Year Tota{ Levied Ad Valorem Assessments principal Interest Due Date Paid Total Owed -~ 0 z ~N U O ~ N <L ~ h ~ rn c m ~a E .~ U tn•//mraar rn marine nr ~so~~+.•....'7r.._.. .+_-h11_. __ __....7t^+ t~ ire..-. i~Y-03-2006 14 i'7 AMERITITLE SRLEM _ _w.,,~......wi4~ ~-.a~wav~ - riu~7CC~y lIlI0FIT13tIQri P.04 Page 2 of 2 2005 2004 2,346.71 2,221.68 2,346,71 L 0.00 2,221.68 0.00 0.00, 0.00 OAO 0.00 11/15 05 11/15 4 0.00 8.00 2003 2,163,21 ' 2,163.21 0.00 1 0 00 8 0.00 0 00 0.00 00 0 11/17 3 1112 2 0.00 00 2002 1,982.8 1 5 . 2.6 1, 9 66 0 1 00 35 . 00 0 . 0 00 ) 1 11 15! 1 0. 0 0 2001 1,23 ..66 . . ,2 . . / . 0 2000 1,238.51 1,238.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 11!10! 0 0.00 1999 1,1$5.19 1,185,19 0.00 0.00 0.00 11115! 9 0.00 1998 1,182.80 1,182.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/1218 0.00 1997 1,144.54 1,144.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 12/081 7 0.00 1998 1,713,74 1,713.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/15/ 6 0.00 1995 1,191.97 1,191.97 OA4 0.00 0.00 11115/ 0.00 1994 1,234.01 1,234.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 11115/ 4 0.00 1999 1,457,85 Unavailable Unavailable 0,00 0.00 11!15/ 3 0.00 1992 1;635.20 Unava~'i~b a Unavailable 0.00 0.00 11!16/ 2 0.00 1991 1,828.48 Un®vailable Unavailable 0.00 0.00 11/15! 1 0.00 1990 2,440.89 Unavailable Unavailable 0.00 0.00 1117 5! 0.00 1988 1,966.36 Unavailable Unavailable 0.00 0,00 91/15/8 0.00 INFORMATION SUBJECT 70 ~ISCLAIMI=RS If you have questions, comments, or suggestions regarding this site, please Send a-mail to the Assessor@co. Marian; onus, Copyright 2006 ®Tyler Technologies Alf Rights i~esenred. Clasmant's Attachment No. 8 Page 63 of 127 A~I~I11C85r.C0_mBTinn nr i~c/rr~n7r>>r.+ on.-rID~.++ ~+•'•TT\_ln rrn.... crezn Print from AbleTerm session{tsg} 09:20 AM 05/04/2006 - - Property Data Selection Menu - - Owner: GbTTSACKER,DELBERT rop ID R65022 (Real Estate} (8788} 8518 PARR RD NE ap Tax Lot: 051W17BC00200 GERVAIS, OR 97026 egal WYNNS ADDITION, BLOCK 110, LOT 9, ACRES 0.412 itus 510-514 N PACTFIC HY WOODBURN, OR 97071 acne { s ) ode Area 10303935 ale Info eed Type DE nstrument: 06020232 2005 Tax Status * No Taxes Due urrent Levied Taxes 2,346.71 pecial Assessments 006-07 SB125 Taxes Year Built 1950; 1966 Living Area: 3600; 960 2005 Roll Values RMV Land $ 132,930 RMV Improvements $ 123,720 RMV Total. $ 256, 650 Total Exemptions $ 0 td5 Net Value $ 256,65G M50 Assd Value $ 116,500 (+) (+) (_) (AD) Alt Disp (Y} primary (SE}condary (L)and/Impr (G) en Appr ~ (O)wnership ~ (H)istory ( . ) More nter Option from Above or <RET> to Exit: Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 64 of 127 Tax 2005/2006 :Real Market-Value Assessed 2005/06 , .MAlage Account Land `' ,.. _ .... Im rovements . ~ Total Value 'Tdxes Rdte ~~ 2 ~~_.,- ~ . Z C~ Z ~ ~ t fit` ~ ~ : ~Io.71 ~`~. Source: Mahon C:ounry Assessor's Uffice 1 ` / ~~ . ~ ~ ~~ n m 3 tG N fD D ~ w o ? ~3 N ~ J ~, O ~a «~ nr~~ MARKET LAND CARD ,ppr # / -7 Date %~' I Z - ~ "- Year For: 2003-04 ,ccount #. R65022 Map Tax Lot: 051 W 17BC00200 Code Area: 10303935 Titus Address: 510-514 N PACIFIC HY 'raperty Class: 201 Neighborhood Code: Prop. Code: S20 /faint Area: 34D Utilities; ELEC-X,GAS-X,WATER-X,SEPTIC-X,BDRM-0 access: ALLEY-X,RD-P,RDCN-A,TRAF-H Zoning: CR segment # Land Type Size Acres Size Sq. Ft. Appr. Method Appr. Year Land Schedule Adjustments X65022.1 CQM 0.41 17,932 SFT 2002 4E3 CCfJNR~11 Total for this account: Campanion Accounts; Total Effective Acres: 0.41 xception Code 0.41 17,932 Part Tata! Acccunts Acres Exception Value ,~:t.:~, .,.~~ gate ROUTING SLIP r ~ ~`"7 --~ Clerk Vork Needed: (Please make necessary comments, sign and pass to the next appropriate person.) ~-' Uata entry reviewed bylcomments =a. t~~} ~~tiareuv~w..k ~~t~s-t~~i~;cn ',~i~=' C~-~~.J-~~ ~ Corrections made by/comments _ Appraiser's calculation of values _ ~ Reviewed by lead appraiser/comments _ ~ Needs filing 0 - ~ z c r~ ~ N E~ _ -~ o ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ - --- E .~ Exception code (if needed) _, ~ 1,J ( t•' c"te: . I, o r;. J 1- ' .. .~ _ ~ ~ tit~~ - ~, , r ~-~ ~tJ~-~~ ' jJJ'L ~ _ . . ~ ; -i~ ~~ 1 t }:. f ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~U/ r,. +~.~ r~ Y/ 4 _,r c.. ~ ~r.~f ~ i C O ~~ G rr ~„ ' Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 67 of 127 l .~. 1 b ~ Ci ~ m Itq~ ~ ~ A '~ m j1 ~ ~r f1 l __---- u m 7 b A F tt1 ~;. .ti ~~_ . h + 1. ~s. _ ., ~ ~M 1V ~ J_K~,,, i _ -: 1 -: .y, ~_,_..... z~~ 5 ~ ~• y >~ ~. 1~~- i `~. ~ - ;} -, o.. ~ ` , 11' /~ 1 1 'i: t~ -i I 7 S ! •. nn 1 ,:r C ~ C '~ 2 '~ G z D 3 D .. ~ I 3 r a z C-a~~'nY s Attachment Nc - 8 P age ~ °f ~ 27 l;iairne~ u ~ r.....-... - page 69 of 127 ~~~~Ii i'rint from AbleTer~~~ session (ableTerm) 09:52 AI~I 05/0'i-'~~rul' - - Land Detail ~Narlcet) - - Proper~y 1D: R65D33 OS1W17BCG0~00 Segment 1 rf 1 ~'.,rpe Land Coif (COI~~!L'RCaF.L) 10 _ Izppr Method SFT Pz'op Class %O1 Primar~r: ~Oi 11. fippr Year 3003 Land Class CR 1? Land i'able 4E3 1•abad `ode Unit Price 6.00 I~lbad ~dj ~: Total oAdjust 110 Eff Sipe 0 4117 Total $Adjust Site - ACRS: 0.41? IKar}~:et Value $118, 350 Sice - SQFT: 1?, 93' t17,93?f 13. Trend Ad; ~ IGO.OOo F,ff . Front Trend I/Jtt Val $2.18, 350 F,f f . Depth Ui~lt CGiir'it Site DeVelOpInent Situs fiddr 14. Exception Code: Value ~ommen"s . er Field IJumber, 'k' -Adjust, ' F.' -Recalculate, ' E' -Before, ' V' -L'iew Pic, -Delete, ' S ' -Save, or ' X' -Er_it : i Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 70 of 127 _.'.,II.'J. _ ~.I- :.,1.:h':l ~ ~~~`/ C ~~y,T L1. .:~SYi ~(1 ~ilJ J ~Y1•~ ~.. I ~ 1 ~7' 1 jr'~~ .. ~~li~l 1 7 ... ... .~ .1- .:l,Llr F ~1 ~. Laic Vi4'.41T_L~ ~_ .,.F F: K!j j .. ~r..~•Fl, j ,,:I 1,4.,_, .'l~i ..l .., [~ r ! 7t) 0.EV r~ ~hCIr.G .'Y' vti~iJ,/Bi1ch .:~: ~ ~; y ,.: ,"., . ta,l~~~I.~l 7'~ J ~I( ~JT~~ ~ c G ~~1`T' =iLf' • . • ... , uuut I 1 11 4 :J.te ~.~~. '•C,F,~n.~ v~l..k r.:.,l•~_ul ~: '+t Iti, c: ' •IS v. WF^. Eta friG(AICGF I .1, .l'.HI,. I (: c,(' il,.. ~ ll'1 r'. ,.'it I% I. ;.1~ Nl;.c fl :.~.i. ~ Y ~1t4 1 .I~J. '::iSl :fl.' :l ', 1 1 .J.: ' i i i 1~ ` v f, f it.~n: ~. AI: !I I. 1, zty[fl ~ ~.IL'/r_.' lilt i'1 L_ s r I Y :,Lru 1• ~ 14J4hi( ~ 1'J'( f41 ~ 1 1 Y In . [. ;/C GH~.Wt.f :. nYyl. n ... u.~C :SI(ti, TL k., Ie .I -.e 'f d ? .1' t t ,IttS , SIZE ; . ~ ^t „• 1,~: 1 ~ ~ 1 `-' 3 '- : 1 . 1. J ,^-`:'c^'.'_ ~ -~---ti-~'r ~,~,~. i _ - ~ ~ ~ ~ i i 1 ~ 4 ~ i j I ( 4 t 1 ~ i i • 1 ! I 1 f 1 ~ i I Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 71 of 127 LAND APPRAISAL .i000tle, •7 ~ o .~ n n . „ co~E ~~{ 0 9: 5 8 AM 0 5/ 0 i -~-~:1 L BASF. YEA Screen Print from Ab__ 1_ eTezm Session {ableTerm? 0~111EN tIAt.1 - .- strusAOUt - - Land Detail {Market oESCatarto, Segment 1 Of 1 ® erty ID: R65022 051W1'7BC00`l00 Prop ""E 1 ~e Land COM {COMMERCIAL? 201 ''""T`~ ~ " . p -o x p Class : 201 Pr3_mary: X cotu,E~ 3. Land Class CR v~~~T~ Nbad Code NUIUL Nbad Adj ~ o=_v Eff. Size 0.4117 STA" oec 4 Size -- ACRS: 0.41 7„ 932 l 17 , 9~~ ~ 17 5 . Size - SOFT' , ,,,,t 6. Eff, Front Eff. Depth 7. Unit Count ~~ g. Situs Addy 10. Appr Method ~ SET 11. Appr Year 2002 12 Land Table ~ 4E3 . Unit Price : 6.00 Total oAdjust 110 Total $Adjust $118,350 Market Value 00~ 00 1 13. ~ Trend Adj Trend Mkt Val . . 118,350 $ Site Development 14. Exception Code: Value c~assraE 9. Comments : ust, 'R'-Recalculate, 'B`-Before, 'V'-View Pic, i~R 'A'-Adj Enter Field Number, or 'X'-Ex~-t• -- D' --Delete, ' S' -Save, _ ,.---- ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ l I ~ ~5, t5. ~Tr"1 ~ A° =1 au 0 Z ~ N ~ r` m o ~~ d d ,y o~ c m m °- E .~ U Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 73 of 127 LAND APPRAI(S}+AL - ALLiUD(IT? ~ $ ~ Ly _' Q ~.~ Q IG'tlihllTv ~ _ _ LIAP NiJL10FF11,_7 Bl. V 51W r•oDe AAEaJ Ct 3 G 0 Q 3 ~ ID~I~ d_ I] cLASS2 21._ srAr cLAS~ 1 ~ BASE YEAGi~ ~ YEAR FiJF(~ 7 MPAAISEA7 1~. „~~,tt~A,IALt~OT^1 S:~Ci{BR , DLLBRRT x _ _ _ _.. slrU3w1,A~1Q-5? 4 ti PACIFIC HY G700DBURN PAOPEATY 1 UCATUFQ y 1 tlrl,~ 1 7 B ~- Q d_2 O PAGr1 OF 1 raTE PRINTED 0.PPAA1$AL DArL~ ~ / 2 Q / 9 ~ Ri: ~/al. LAST SALE YAfLE SIU.E OA?t QR g_'] p ? 1 M'Ai1T TJT:.L ~.t,~~ S~Htn `'f ~. S n>:scAFPrwrINYlV1Y,~ Ally FR LO TS 5 6 7- & 8- LO T 9 BLKl INPUT ~, . ' ii a - i i 'xr~ t~~ 1 t'~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~x ~ ~ .~. _ p I t ~~ _ Y~~ 3' ~ 1 J ; ~ ' I ~ ~ F~T.. l ~i~.i .~ ... ~" .nn ,i ~ ' . . 3 i i. 1 '• .. .•~~~_Trl . 1 1~ l{i e y , Cvv~ wt . { rtG{i.'1 ~1 ~~V f .F ` .xf(r x. ~~~ . ~NtuLE FAI.IiLY SIUELVAIh LtUtT1~EAlIILY' X CURB x 1~ coLV.ae+cc(aL ~; sroA,u Daalrl ~ u~GUSrn1aL '~ uLEV }{ AUFlAL AOAD TYPE OFVELUPItIG P O. G. P ~ STATIC ROAD COflbtTtON , DECLIMG~13 ~. E, G.A F P X , YAa1tSl Trpf/ :t TAAFFIC H . L. (,,. fI ~~ !„ 1=, 17i (a, r, HS CLASS:DESC. DIMENSIONS 812E ' cx ! 1793 ~r ! ; ~ i ~~ 9~ z l ~s~ ~ a spa l~~ a,'i- - ta' '..•kd~.y h.b.l ..195 • Its • t~I ~ (5) i•T (~ "! 1. =METR~SCANM~rPRC3FER TY P ROFI L E_ OwM3.Z'.7.oII _~~R1MATION Parcel Nu:T~ber Ref Parcel Nbr Old Parcel 1Jumber Ovmer CoOwner Site Address Mail Address Owner Phone Tenant Phone :R65022 :051W178CG0200 :75890 090 :Gottsacker Celbert :510 N Pacific Hwy 47oodburn 97071 :8518 Parr Rd NE Gervais Or 97026 SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION Transferred Loan Amount Cocument ~; :602-0232 Lender gale Price Loan Tyge Geed Type :Misc Interest Rate . Owned Vesting Type ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Mkt Land :$132,930 MktStructure :$123,720 E~Fkt Totai. :$256, 550 Exempt ~ Improved :48 Census Land Use Neighborhood Subdivision Legal Zoning R:01W T:t Levy Code :10303935 Millage Rate :20.1439 OS-06 Taxes :52,396.71 M50 Assd Total :$116,500 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION :Tract:iG3.05 Siock:2 :201 Com,Conanercial :39D :Wynns Addition :WYNNS ADDITION LOT 9 $LOCK 110 :CR COMMERCIAL RETAIL 5s s: 17 Q: raw 2Q: sW Profile-Page 1 of 3 Injornrction con+piled fron+ carious rourtes Ree! Eslme Solntiats makes no representations or is•o+rantier os to tha ocarrary or compleleneu uJ+njorn+alion cmtlained m this report Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 74 of 127 = M E T R O S C A N P R O P E R T Y P R O F I L E_ Marion (OR} Parcel '# :R65022 PROPERTY CHP.RACTERISTIC5 Resdnce Count :2 YearBuilt :1966 Lot Acres :.41 Bedrooms YrRemodel Lot SgFt :17,932 Bathrooms TotalFinSF :3,600 Basement Fixtures 24ainFlrSF :3,600 Ceiling Living Room 2nd Floor SF Floor Dining Room 2ndFlrFinSF Wall Family Room 2ndFlrUnfSF Main F.Zoor Kitchen Znd F1rLCSF Ceiling Foundation BsmtTotSF Constr Deck Hsm£inSF Trim Deck SF BsmUnfnSF U per Level Patio BsmLCSF Ceiling patio .SF ArT;c Tot GF Floor Porch AtticFinSF Wall Porch SF AtticUnfSF Attic Pcol/Spa AtticLCSF Ceiling Wall Cover Ext Cover Floor . Garage Ext Connt Wall Det Garage SF : IntrCover Mobi.te Home DetGrg2ndFlrSF: IntrConst Brand DetGzgAtticSF Roof Type Xdims Att Garage SF Roof Matl Skirt Bsm Garage SF DriveN:atl ExtWall Carport SF Drive SF Wa11Cvr StatClass :K20 Fireplace Overhang Heat/Cool Fireplace# Gutter Bldg Use :Commercial Shop,Wood Frame ether Improvements Size 1.1~!ain P.rea (additicna]. Building 960 2. 3. 9. Profile-Page 2 oz 3 Injprmafion compiled jronr various Bourret Rea! Estate Solntrons maker rra rep~ese»lo~ions or s•arronlies os ro the accuraq~ or completeness ojinjormotion conlained in Oris repot! Claimant's Attachment No. 8 Page 75 of 127 Legal Sc°cretap~~ Iv?ri~55a M;~ng;ni October 18, 2006 Jim Allen Planning Director City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 NORMAN F. WEBB Attorney at Law 1 114 - 12th Street S.E. Salem, Oregon 97302 Telephone: (503) 363-9264 Fax: (503) 363-2250 Re: Our client: Delbert Gottsacker City of Woodburn Measure 37 Claim Dear Mr. Allen: Legal Assistant tiandra E. Harris Since I have filed the Measure 37 Claim on behalf of Delbert Gottsacker, the Marion County Planning Department has informed me that the Marion County Ordinance No. 24 which I attached to Mr. Gottsacker's application, did not cover the subject property. It only covered the properties down the I-5 corridor. I believe therefore that no zoning was in place on my client's property at that time. Therefore, please amend my Measure 37 claim form accordingly. If you need anything further regarding this matter, please advise. Yours ery truly, ,t, /' ``, ,C ~,~,-~ /~ ~~2 rat' G Norman F. Webb " ,;,- ~- _ _ ;j b ... L ~ . .. ~' NFW:seh c: Delbert Gottsacker Exhibit "Q" ,~ re on Department of Transportation District 3 Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor "~ ~ °` ~~ 885 Airport Road SE, Bldg. P Salem, OR 97301-4788 503-986-2900 dC~ ~ ~~~~ FAX 503-986-2887 ,. _ .. FILE CODE: State Highway access will be considered only if no other alternative access to a city or county street exists. Apply or show proof of an Oregon Department of Transportation Access Permit. Applicant maybe required to do frontage improvements and or access improvements including surfacing from center line, installation of curbing, sidewalk, gutter, dedication of right of way. Applicant may be required to apply for an Indenture or Grant of Access due to access control Installation of any utility in state right of way will require a permit from The Oregon Department of Transportation. Contact; Mike Rose Oregon Department of Transportation District 3 Permit Specialist 885 Airport Rd. Bld. P Salem, Oregon 97301 503-986-2639 Porm 7342873 (~1-04) Exhibit "R" Z00(~j £ .LSIa .LgQO I88Z 986 £OS T~'3 0£ ~LO 90; LZiOT 1776 Newberg Hwy Woodburn, OR 97071 Bus. Office 503-982-2360 Fax 503-981-5004 ~~~ ~ ~ ZG~U'o Jim Allen Woodburn Community Development Department 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn Oregon, 97071 File Number: M37 2006-01 The claimant will still need to follow all of the current building and fire codes. Respectfully; -i R ~, °~ r~~._ Paul Iverson Fire Marshal Woodburn Fire District Exhibit "S" ~ • ~..~ ~~ ~ ~~~~3 To: Jim Allen, Community Development Director From: Randy Scott, Senior Engineering Technician CC: Date: 11/3/2006 Re: M37 2006-01 Jim, you asked for comments. input in regard a measure 37 claim for property located at 500-510, 514 N Pacific Highway. I would offer the following; some of which may or may not be useful. 1. The subject property is currently connected to city water for domestic use only, no fire protection is currently being provided. A substandard 1-inch diameter water line traverses across the subject property to serve it and several other properties located on Laurel Avenue. There is no recorded easement for this water line and it has been an item of contention between the city and the property owner for a number of years. I have no exact date or what process was used when the property was actually connected to city water service, it would have been outside of the city boundary. The meter was installed in 1981 but it may been receiving service prior to that date based on a flat rate charge, city records don't indicate this one way or the other, I can research this further if needed. The city is currently, as an identified Capitol Improvement Project, is installing a water main of proper size along HWY 99E and Laurel Avenue to provide domestic and fire protection in the area. This system when complete will eliminate the need for the substandard water line traversing through the subject property. 2. City records indicate the subject property is not connected to city waste water system and there is no city system adjacent to the subject property to provide this service. The property is probably being served by a subsurface waster water system that would have been originally permitted or at least should have been by Marion County. 3. I have no records for the on-site storm water system 4. Current access from the subject property to both Pacific Highway 99E and Laurel Avenue could be a safety issue and does not meet the current requirements of the WDO for spacing, the number of access, access width or the spacing requirements from the intersection of Laurel and HWY 99E. The access to Laurel Avenue near the intersection is approximately 5 feet from the intersecting right of way, should be 50 feet. One of the accesses to the Major Arterial, HWY 99E from the subject site is approximately 40 feet from intersecting right of way, should be 300 feet. The property has two access's from the Major Arterial HWY 99E and least three from Laurel Ave. Exhibit "T" 5.The existing right of way on Laurel Avenue is only 40 feet in width; the WISP for a local street requires 60 feet. This in it self would not be problem except the requirement for future dedication will be an issue. The existing structure is less then five feet from the north boundary of the existing 40 foot wide right of way. The additional 10 feet of required dedication to provided 30 feet from centerline could not dedicated with the encroachment of the existing structure. No pedestrian traffic is being provided for adjacent to the subject site. 6. The existing improvements on HWY 99E although ODOT jurisdiction does not met the requirements for a Major Arterial as required in the WTSP, for both right of way width and improved width. The current improved width does not provide bike lanes or for pedestrian traffic adjacent to the subject site. The right is 80 feet in width the WTSP requires 100 foot width for a Major Arterial. I have attached for your use an aerial map and utility maps showing the existing city water system and sanitary sewer system in the subject area. Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need me to address other issues in regard to this site. • Page 2 -a. ¶,:;, ,r ~~ „.., _. ~\ „1 ~~ ~ ~- ~ ~'~~~ ~~ ~f • • ~ `' 4 `_' ,_\ • ~\ C~ ~ ~• _~ +, ~. r' ~ , / r ~~~ ~. tJ 4 ~ f./~ ~, /~1 ~t ,r ~' ' .J i> p F F'a, ~.~:. ; ~ re on ,E ~' ` ~ ~', Department of Administrative Services N ~:~~.,.~: ,.~ ~ ~ State Services Division --I$5§.%~ lheodorcR.Kulungo.ci,i,Gixemor Measure 37 Unit 1225 Ferry Street SE, 0160 Salem, Oregon 97301-4292 March 14, 2007 ~ ~~~j~ lone (503) 378-5513 FAX (5031 373-7337 TO THE NEIGHBOR OF: ~~~~ ~ ~ L.Ul,~~ MEASURE 37 CLAIMANT: DELBERT GOTTSACKER ;~~iOpgJPN Ci1~IMUNiTY Claim Number: M130495 ntvE~OPh<<~YT DEPT. NOTICE OF NEIGHBOR FILING A MEASURE 37 CLAIM SUBMISSION This is to notify you that the State of Oregon has received a claim for compensation due to the enforcement of a land use regulation that is alleged to restrict the use of certain private real property in a manner that reduces the property's fair market value. This claim pertains to property located near property you own. This claim was submitted to the State under Oregon Ballot Measure 37, now known as Oregon Laws 2005, chapter 1, and Oregon Administrative Rules 125-145-0010 et seq. The processing of Measure 37 claims by the state is done under OAR 125-145-0010 et seq. Per OAR 125-145-0080, we are notifying you of the pending claim and of your opportunity to submit comments concerning the claim and any relief the State may allow. Relief for a valid claim may include the payment of just compensation or an election to stop applying the land use regulation to the property. An election to stop applying a land use regulation to the claimant's property may result in use of that property that would not be permitted if the land use regulation continued to apply. Below is the information that pertains to property under which the claim has been submitted. Name of property owner: Name of party submitting the claim Property description: Address of property: County of property: Law or regulation on which Delbert Gottsacker Norman Webb T5 1 W Sec 176C TL 200 500, 510, 514 N Pacific Hwy Woodburn Oregon 97071 Marion the claim is based: CG 2.106;DevelopmentGuide1ines 3.101, Access Ordinances 3.104, 3.105. 3.106, 3.107, 3.108, 3.109, 3.110, 6.104 Use requested as provided by owner: desired use of the 0.41-acre property is to redevelop it for commercial purposes Amount of property value reduction submitted (value only): $205,000.00 Any person receiving this notice or who would be adversely affected or aggrieved if State land use regulations were modified, removed or not applied to the property, may submit written comments, evidence or information addressing any aspect of the claim. Responses to this letter will be considered only as comments related to the claim described in this letter and will only be accepted by U.S. Mail, in person, or by private carrier. Comments, evidence or information will not be accepted by Email or facsimile. Any comments, evidence or information must be received within 10 days of the date this notice is postmarked to Department of Administrative Services, Measure 37 Unit, 1225 Ferry ST SE 0160, Salem, Oregon 97301-4292. 130495 031407 NL Exhibit "U" ~ { a~ L __.-. .~p W~ 5 }i. 1 aoD$~vR .. Incory~orate~l 1889 Delbert Gottsacker 8515 Parr Road Gervais, OR 97026 June 2, 2008 Re: Measure 37 Claim file number M37 2006-01 Dear Mr. Gottsacker: On November 6, 2007 Oregon voters approved Measure 49, which makes substantive changes to Measure 37 (ORS 197.352). Measure 49 became effective on December 6, 2007. The City is required to review your Measure 37 approval, issued March 14, 2007, in the light of the Measure 49 changes. The City will make a tentative determination of your Measure 49 rights prior to August 2, 2008. In the alternative, a claimant with an approved Measure 37 decision may exercise the rights granted by the decision if the claimant can show that on December 6, 2007 he or she had a common law vested right to complete and continue the use described in the decision. Among the factors considered in determining whether a claimant has a vested right area • the amount of money spent on developing the use in relation to the total cost of establishing the use; • the good faith of the claimant, whether the claimant had notice of the proposed change in the law before making expenditures and beginning development, whether any improvements built could be used for other uses that are allowed under the new law; and • the kind of use, location, and cost of the development, and whether the claimant's acts rise beyond preparation (such as land clearing and planning). Please submit, within 30 days of receiving this letter, information related to the factors listed above and any other information you think is relevant to your potential vested rights claim. We do not wish to require you to send duplicates of information already on file. If you are uncertain whether some of the information identified above may already be in your Measure 37 claim file please call us and we will clarify that with you. If you fail to provide the information within 30 days, the City will review your vested rights claim based on the information you submitted previously in support of your Measure 37 claim. The City will evaluate the new information you submit along with information already provided and make a tentative written determination regarding any Measure 49 and Measure 37 rights. Community Development Department - '.I_ nr~c~n.,~r;' ?treet • lt'c~'.ii~rrr;, Or<,;;,'n ~i~i -i Exhibit "V" Neither I nor Community Development Department staff can advise you on vested rights questions and I encourage you to discuss this issue with your attorney if you believe you may have a common law vested right to complete the use allowed by your Measure 37 decision. Community Development Department staff is ready to assist you in any way we can. Please call me if you have questions or if we can assist you. Thank you, ~~ Jim Allen Community Development Director Copy File M37 2006-01 l ':Community Development\Planning`~Measure 37`2006\M37 2006-01\Letter- M49 review.doc _ CLAIMANT - EXHIBIT A (D. Gottsacker--. Recd 9/8/2008, 7:44 pm PUBLIC HEARING September 8, 2008 Gottsacker -Measure 49 claim and and Common Law Vested Rights determination. Mayor and Council Members. I do not feel the recommendation the staff made on my Common Law Vested Rights is in Woodburn Best Interest. It is my understanding that the decision on the common law vested rights is to be made by the persons who granted the Measure 37 Waiver, which is the Woodburn City Council. The staff report indicates they did it. I am requesting the Council Members review the information 1 am submitting and make the final determination. Any Questions. Thank You. Delbert Gottsacker 1 September 8, 2008 Comments on Staff Report; Dated Sept. 3, 2008. For Public Hearing, Gottsacker Measure 49 claim and Vested Rights determination. Comments Measure 49 Subject property is zoned Commercial, which disqualified it for Relief-sec.9-8 #2- Evacuation of claim. Property was and is fully developed, there would be no construction or commencement of construction on fully developed properly, par.1 There is documentation of other expenditures, if requested, none was requested. Letter from Allen June 2, 08, requesting I do not send duplicates of information in fife. Par. 2 There wouldn't be any development after approval, because the property is fully developed. Par. 3 Not applicable, as stated. Par. 4 This is rental property, uses change with tenant. Conclusion== No, 1 didn't establish any uses in my measure 37- Waiver, because 1 had 120 uses and all equal to me. Woodburn Development Ord. gives me 4 uses now. The money spent was used to protect the 120 uses I had when I purchased the property. # 2. I agree # 3. No development was planned. # 4. Curbs was around flower garden, Plantings delayed because of sterilization of the soil. # 5. 1 couldn`t commence anything on the property because of the planning and building departments. They wouldn't approve anything forme, or they would have suggested it tome. I understand they were suppose to make an example of me. Thank You. My renters were having problems with the sign code. 1 went to the building inspector wanting to change the roof design, without any questions he said 1 couldn't do it, it was against the code. He said he could make me tear the building down, if he wanted to. 1 walked out without comment. After that, my Attorney called me again and told me I should have some type of development on the property. This required me to eliminate some of the parking in the rear of the 514 building. I took duplicate plans of my 500-510 building into Mr. Allen, the building would be east of my 514 building facing Laurel St. When I told him I wanted to make an application to build this building, he said I couldn't, it wouldn't pass code. He then said, t can't cum your application down, but you are wasting your time and money. He told me everything he was going to make me do. 1 told him I would think about it and never went back. If they would have permitted me to remodel and build, these expenses would have been part of my Common Law Vested Rights expenses. # 6. For over 25 years, year by year we were suppose to have water on Laurel St. and sewer at a later date. Frank T'iwari wanted my water to come in off of Laurel St. instead of Hwy 99E. I wanted any work like that to be done before I paved the parking. After Tiwari retired I sent an E-Mail to Dan Brown, Public Works Director, to get the details on my water line. Dan turned it over to Eric. Eric report. My water line will remain where it is now. They would tike to move my water meter out towards Hwy 99E. They would like a Utility Easement across the front of my property so they could connect the Hwy 99E line to the Laurel St line, which is looping their lines and gives them more pressure to fight fires. 1 told Eric 1 could see no big problems as long as I receive my City Waiver that 1 received on my measure 37 claim and I am Granted my Common Law Vested Rights by the Woodburn City Council. 1 had been dealing with Rose City Paving for the last year, to hold off until 1 get an opinion on the location of my water line, And a decision on my Common Law Vested Rights, but Rose City Paving could wait no longer, the price was going up to fast. My Paving was done Sept 2, 2008. Price $ 5,400.00 which, if it hadn't been held up by the city of Woodburn, it would have been included in my expenses. Conclusion; In talking with LCDC, I understood the City Council was to make the determination on the Common Law Vested Rights, without the influence of anyone, I understood it was the ones who granted the Measure 37 Waiver who made the decision on the Common Law Vested Rights. The person 1 talked to didn't think 1 had any problems, if 1 could trust our city council members, that is why I submitted additional information June 27, addressed to you the Council Members. I am going to submit a copy of it for the record and to be available to be read by the council members if they haven't read it. Please grant me My Common Law Vested rights, so it won't require me to claim my rights and entitlements for those under the Jurisdiction of ODOT -0AR734-051 under the Modified south section plan, for the south section of Hwy 99E, between Lincoln Stand South City limits, Woodburn and explain to my neighbors it's also available to them. If you deny my Common Law Vested Rights t will give you 30 days to purchase the utility easement' which is very important to all the property in that area for the same appraised damages that Woodburn Development Ord. did to the subject property $205,000,00. Sincerely, `~~~ Pg. 1. Measure 37 Claim File Number M 37-2006-01 Common Law Vested Rights June 26, 2008 gear Mayor, Coundt Members and Mr. Allen: My Vested Rights Claim a for uses that has already been established. The Money Spent, was spent Zo protect the use estabi'rshed through Measure 37 claim and the Waiver granted to me by the City Council of Woodburn, Rather than paying me $205,000.00 Damages. MONEY SPENT Attorney fees Appraisal fee Measure 37 Filing l=ees Tide Report Fees Copy Dowmentsti Maps, Copy Supplies, Postage, Stamps and Fax Property Impravemems, landscaping and Curb Subtotal lass of rent because planning dept didn't honor ODOT'"S Modified Hwy. 99E widening plan and other Entitlements granted with Adopted Modified Plan. Total $ 4,981.00 3,500.00 1,000.00 450.00 711.00 3.00 $ 11,032.00 $ 52,880.00 $ 63,9u.oo The above is a-substantial expenditure in Good Faith to save my Property Use Rights, without these rights the property would have very little value, as proved by the appraisal. To maintain the best value and use would be to update the presets improvemerrts, but this could onty be done by obtaining the Common taw Vest Rights. ff 1 had to follow the Woodburn Development Ordinance, I would lose the S/E corner of my property, if there was a d~ange in the radius of file corner, under ttte direction of ODOT. ODOTS safety rules would require them to dose the driveway to Laurel Ave. terse the soutfi approarfi to Hwy 99E if it was to dose to the intersection of Hwy 99E and Laurel Ave_ a Receiving a total fee of $ L00 for a util'dy easement of 153 R bng, between my buitdin~ and Hwy 99E. Pg. 2. When the highway is widened it is not known in how many years, it would be done by ODOT. This is based on using woodburn devebpment ord. by using corrtingences to get what the city wanted free. am told Woodbums Transportatwn Plan was not amended to OD07'"S Modified Plan for the South Section of Hwy 99E. Ali Property Adjacent to Hwy. 99E is under the Jurisdiction of Ol)Ol'-0AR 734051 and is under ifie adopted Modified Plan and Entitlemerrts, which are: 1. Grandfather approach permits to Hwy. 99f, if qualified. 2. Properties along the project do not conform with aty's current Setbacks and Parking requirements and are Allowed to remain wide Substandard Dimen~ons. 3. A Variance from the City is not Required. 4. Sidewalks and 5 ft have been eliminated. 1 filed a measure 37 Claim in Good Faith. it was between the City's Woodburn Devebpment Ordinance and my property. BY appraisal, woodburn devebpmerrt ordinance did damage to my property of $205,000.00 by taking away my use refits. The city chose to give me back my rights. I felt this was the right choice in good faith. The city coundi maybe able bn charge ti~eir mind through Measure 49, chiming I don't Spend Enough Money $11,032.00 or $63,912 to Grant Me My Common Law Waiver Rights. This v~n'q force me to Claim my Rights and E~ments through the Oregon Tran~rtation Modified Plan for the South Section of Hwy. 99E, Woodburn, Oregon 97071. Will this open up a can of Worms for the South section. i attended ODOT'S meeting on Oregon 99E Pavement and Safety Improvements, Construction through Summer of 2008. had a couple of questions on my Property and within the area. The people who was in woodbum couldn't answer them and they referred me to an OOOT number in Salem, They were very helpful. Woodburn property in South sec. is not required to have Sidewalks on either side of Hwy 99E, and if ODOT was to require Sidewalks, it would be on the West side only. ODOT would not put sidewalks in this year, in their project, as this project is for safety, . ODOT will not be doing anything on my corner, on Hwy_ 99E and Laurel St., Here again, the Project is for Safety Factors Only. This Should Teti Us Something About Safety Factors. If you have Miscel~neous questions for ODOT, do not rail the ODOT number(Dept) that takes care of Conditional Uses or a Change Of Use. They do not quote you the Oregon Transportation Ptan. [f you are from woodbum, the ODOT people wi{i bads up the W~dburn Phan, araf there is a diffierenoe, especially if you are in the Modified Section. ~_ Pg. 3. 1 had a bid on a sidewalk and a curb 1 put in around my garden between my two approaches on Hwy. 99E. 1 called ODOT to make sure the size was right and was toil sidewalks were not required for my property. 1 canceled the sidewalk not knowing where I set. i would like to make some improvements to my property, but t have to wait and see what happens with my Common Law Vested Rights, What the city is going to do with the water line into my buildings, as Frank Tiwari wanted and what the price of black topirq; is now. Then 1 can decide. Documents incbsed as Proof of comments: 1. Property under who's Jurisdiction. ODOT 2. Modified Plan Explanation, Sidewalks Eliminated 3. City Council Approval and Request 4. Properties do not corrFomn with city's current setback and parking requirements and are aflowed do remain with substandard dimensrons. Variance from city not required. 5 ft from each side not needed. Eliminated., 5. Marion Counties approval. 6. Grandfathers Approach. 7. laurel driveway closed, if radius of comer changes. 8. Citizens approval required 9. 2008 Safety Improvements being made. 10. ODOT will do widening. iL letter 1 CDC Morrisscy 12. Letter ODOT Potter, ODOT to pay for widening with Modernization funds, their share 13. Curb & Sidewalk Bid, sidewalk canceled not required , re modified pFan Sincerety, Delbert Gottsacker 8518 Parr Rd. NE Gervais, Oregon 97026 :~ t~S.~ ~~ a~'-- 2 ~''' g:'~dified Sot3th J~it ' The ~C-dified Soutfi tMit Mich mains at the itr~rst~ctian of Lir~olfl Ss t°e~t and PaC;fic High~ay ~a5t .and tulr#~ terarinate at the ~~€burn Sooth ~ficy limits ~~ Pacific ~i#gh~say Fist e~ttld be eonstrtacted t~ith;t~ the existing - . dQ®fc~ut right-t3f~ t$t the Except;an ttf street irttersect;cros ire ~ adds- ~i~l righ~~of troa"~e it~rove t#~ turning r ii the utter- • . se~e~ne ~ar•~a a shape artci ttt•t ~ easet~ents t~sld be re~ir~ d~ - - . The typ=cai secticm for tt~ Audi€ied Stith Ehtit . ld ~ a curbed section. . €~ith a 14-€oot ~ iart, ftwr ~2-~ ~avei ia~es {tom ;~t eat direttiort) and --- 5-font sh~wldersm This typical sectio~t ;s atibie pith the h Shit. ____---- I~ d re ~i'it'~eta`s"1~" ~t~tin tote existing tri~it-+~f-waay, the s;dewa-lks have been el~imittated the ~fied Stttrtirt lhtit. ~~ the present t=, farads have rat beEn alioeatect for construction_ of ~~e`i#~r unit. er,. foF tt~e port#oa nth of linc©ln Stet (knit ij, funds •hatte-beEn altocate~ for the purchase of right-o~f-~y ~d tfie tletion _of final•pians. Far the portion sow, of Li~ain Street (unit 2), fps have . . only bee~i allocated to prepare the EnrirortaT For thlit 2 to tie advanced to the constaruction phase, fends aould have to be allocated for the .preparation of f#na1 plans a~ the purchase of~ rf~it-~hf-~r~y acid/ar=~a~er~ts. .~ .- _.~ _ - -~.- ~s_ thae to the cuts r~ein~ i~ c~cer~ citfzeas amt a request t~ the ~ City Council, tip modified Build Rlternati~e was d~ue3oped and rec- ~- tt~e !he#t edtich t?Q he cons!truc#ed trtthit~ the existing rights-of-u~ eh~ furxting a~ -e~tailabie. - - C~er~t ~. 3t1: Luis ~itcer property } - . I ae strictly opposed to as}ythin9 south of Liacaln Street. Response: ...~- Please refer to the Responses to Gets itos. I, 2, 3, 29 ar~d the Project SfaeearLioN Section. Gant No. 31: wry Sis~onsen {~ r mat=~ ~ss~r~rrr Expl'aine+3 the recent ~xoni~ ofi the ~r~ern portion of ~odburn. The i~rth ihait does nP.~ widening to ice it tx~nfor~ t0 the rest of the ' highKay. I ~ oppos~i to the South ibti't. response: ._.____ Please refer to the Responses to erns Nos. 1, 2, 3, 21, 29 the Pro3eet Serration Section. - .. 16- '= ~l -~~- - The ~odburn tatiote P3at- states that °Arter~ai sta~eets ~ to ~ of seattici~at t~3,dlh to to trattic t3oe~as eait~ut itetere~upti+at.~ ~e~aespc-rrtation plan reteas to Ihsit I of tbes pe~oj+e~t ite its list oP road iepra~erets_ The plan stakes "9~ trove Lin~cola ko ~i feet t~e'tte of 13s d mod- be ~.de~rted to toes 1~ $ "Bats of _ - - tratsLinn for pedestrians s~es12 be, ewe P~sible, provideei ae~'arterial - - __ e~ c~leatar ste~eets: ~- T!~ plan ~ not licit a~ obit ~o~t - cansta~e~t~- o& flee tknit II ~ti~t of the project. - T~ee roe ®e p3an meters to the used along PaciPiQ EEig~,y ~t foP i'ietter arce~ ~ an ~ stor® aeeeer -system. The }~oJeot is coa~siste~t ceith bone oojeetives_ - .t"ssT~l&+ ~e'a ~~..m ,.®.~ ~ ~3 'LiBssnad ._. ~~@ ~~. ds .a..ta ~~ i u ~~~ ~~~ WJo. LSda Z'r..~ia i ~~ ?4 8 ~ ~.~ Ey°.~ s. [. ~~~.i`~~ Esc; a -~xsg xo ~~'~'~et'a~a.. ~m ~.~ ~ ,.3 ~ p ~A~ ~G, ~8.~ i~,, ~sz~1 ~.::,FS t:~:..,.~:,: F~.c~u 9 ~ :: a~.~~. 3. ~am.SS~cu. ,.1. ~t~~~~~ ~9~' 'av ~~ i~;~~ r^e ~'~° ~ds`'Ao ~~ ~ ~ e~<', ~~9d~+7fC~~+"'L! F~ ~ ~. ~ ~B etith t ~ ~etieae.lc' St!"d$• ~ 19$'L'~ ~'s~~ '~ ~~ ~~ €~ ~~~ ~ :~ A._ _ . ~.~ ,~ ; _ .____ , ----~ . ,.. ~4_ - _ a~ -- ___ Pl'ap'ss'$ies ~~tf1~ eDLB ai0eeg 9~ ~(,emmrbs ae~ . ~ ~ eould laae@ t i tS r8pia~tt at ~ atlditioeeal tsost stmutld - M _ ,~ ~@ ~ til~@ Olen ~~ ~ tS ~ `~ $-~~S eAit~l1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~;. ,_~ ieapro is c ~~°~...~ ~:~ - j aouid be asd the -ci tar t~ oasts ~ es• - 'a .. s-.- ~- .ar~_.~_ _-- - -~- _ _ r~ ~ ~~ OP the t#ss s~dAt t0 Pa~.tic ~$. ~t~ in ties project arm are outsi~a ~ city Iimits_ ~ese Mies ~re..suDjec~_ s to the cow~ty _ ~ 3ve p~lsaa. Coavecsations irittt_ tlaZ Plarav~ Dap®t~~it r®~ c~ coim~g ~ tdat t~+~t._a ~s to c~fllct t~~t et#y of tl~ co1~tP's 7~d use p~aas. . Tke p~no~eat des aot app~t~ to canP~ict ~itd ~e cca~aty c~pce~asles plea. pia p~~ct is e~~teat uitt~ -sib ~t3s, ~licf®s, attd l pleas. Tlts Rro~ct co®tributffi to ,s ~~ _~~. ~~-°;_.,~=~~; ~~1~~ ~ ~ is to a sate; e~7., aa~ _ - - ~~al a~~ „ .- It -t~lps to t t aad f~utut~e ~~ .~~ ~_ _, _ - - - - ~~~~ - - 4__ .. _. __ . .~_._~ ~9- p~eeas~_ Etto~t~a. ~o d~tre~ity t~s 'T ~tve lnd eglag ll~tt _- -y.,.~..~...~ ~..a -~•~~~ ° '~i ~-~ ~~~~~ fe± *~ ~~ - ~a-.~~r~ ~~.e~~ .mss _ - -- _: °°_- - ~ • - - _. _. - - - _--~_.M. __ ~-~~. ~.,. .+w .w ..-x.. rvu ar C~o.o.~.i~i,Y.~'- t*d{aw . ~a~i*~~ a~ ~ a .. tai _ _~ ~ - ~ ~ ~~~ .F~ Rey ,FT' g 6~r~ai~'~11~ ;~ ....._... ~~.. ',.,sue -~~ ~r~ ~r~-~~~.~~~. ~~a a.. ..._ _ ~...-~-~-~ 6 (11) "Approach mad" means a legally , public ac private connection, providing vehumlar access ~ and/or fra~n a highway sad an adjoining Invperty. (12) "Classification of highways" means the Depa:Cment's sfa6e highway classifies defo~ed is the 1999 Or+egaa ffighvray Phm. (13) " Comanissian" means the Oragan Traa~paamation Commissi~. (I4) "Canstructian Permit" means a P~eamit to Canstrnd a State Highway Approach all attac~m~ts, rcquired , and oanditi+ans and fiams. (ls) 'K~ history" means at lesat the tht~ee moat receat yews of csiasrh data r+eoo~cled by the DepmtmeaYs Crash Anad3-sis and Repartiug Unit. (16)'D~sy" means calendar day, mnkss IIy stated a~xwise. (1 ~ 'Deaned coio~plet+e" means an and all regained suppleamental lion necessary for the Department to review and assess the application and determine if a C.aan Permit or a Permit ~ Operatic nary be issreed. (18) "Depertme~' or "UDOT" interns the (~gon Departa~t ofTranspartatian. (19) "DCYlation" means a dcpatture from the 800035 mrenage~t SpaCIIlg standards. (ZO)'~ivisao~n SI" mesas Oregon AchninistkaRive ltnies (OAR) ?34-051-0014 t 734-OS1- OS60-and Tablas 1, Z, 3, 4, 3, 6, 7 and 8 adopted and made a Pert ofdivision 51 rnies and Frguross .1, Z, 3 wad 4 adap6ad arm nee a part of division 51 rates. (21) "Doabb-I+romt~e Pry" mates a prnpaty with a right of aaaeas m ~ than one state ~Y- (22) "Bve Deputy Dinec~or" m~ the 8~oeootive Depaty Dic+ec~or £ac Highway Division of the Oregon Depamnmt ofTtian. (23) "Fxpty" means a of highway defmod m the 1999 Oregon I~ighway Plan ami classified by the Oregon 1~ansporfatiat Carman. (24) "Fair Marloct Valac" nnean4 the amount ~ cash, or on t+erm~s reasonably equivalent to cash, . for which in all Probalx'li~-1he property world be sold bT a knawledgesble awaer wt"i~ bnt trot obligated to sell to a tioowledgeabk pnnchaser who desired but is not obliged to bay. C~'~Y a'~ ~" means all types, arranges and sores ofttuning roadways for right or kft taming vehicles thffi camtect two ~ mare at as a and the camporamis of a ramp area l at ~ k8 wad a casmoc~ian mad, ustwlly with some ~ and on a grade. (26~ "Grand~~ered approach" means a Iegatly constructed approach existing pz for zo 1949. A property owr~~er has ~e burden to pro~rp an approach is grandfathered based upoa~ exist~ce larior to 1949. For purposes ofthis Division, grandfathered approaches also include approaches presumed in conlpliau~ as set forth in ~ ?34-U51-A285(i}, and approaches ir~tea~deci to amain open that were improved in coajtmctioa with a Department project prior to the effective date oftt~.is Division, r~prfil 1, 2Q(I0, as set fortis ig OAR 734-051-0285(9). (27} "Grant of Access" mesas the conveyance or evidence of the conveyance ~ the Dept of a specif c right of access at a location wha+e afl ab~mg propexty carre~rtly does not have That rigid of access. (28) ~ y " mcsa the est~lirshod ~ mobility as defined in the 1999 Oregon Highway pion, (29) '~Iighway segtnenf desigm~ons" mean the four of , Special T~ranspor~ion Ana~, Cammercisl C Urban Areas, and Urban, dammed in the 1999 0regos Highway Pte. . r3a,osi s " ~ ~ 6~ De~+s~' of Tra~rsportaf'~~„ -.~ ~ 2 29~ STATE STREEt, SALEM, OREGON S7Si 0 PHt}A1E 37$-2526 enRep~lr~7e re, ra.: December 22, 198b Delbert Gottsacker Woodbnra 8ealty Pff•- -Boa 174- - . Haodbarn, O$ `97071 8B: Woodburn HCZ-SCL Pacific Highway Bast garioa County C024-1904 Dear--Wr. Gottsacker: On December 12, 198b, Don Magner, our 8egion Traffic Bagiraeer, and I met rith gan to discuss the concerns you had expressed is your September 10, 1986 letter on the sabjsct project. This letter wa11 summarise our discussion eith yon and restate the Highway Division's position an the gaestioas you asked. Presently, neither the ~oodbura 8Cb-Lincoln Street unit, nor the Lincoln Street-Aoodbnrn SCL Wait of the subject project are fnaded for coastrnction; both are lasted in the Development Section of our 1987-1992 Sis Year Hi hwa lm roeement Pr~ram. As a resn t of testimony receaved at our pn lzc hsa~ng, the earth nai.t, from the north city linens to Liacola Street, would remain as presented in the environmental assessment. the south unit"widening has been modified to st:y within the existing right-of- ®ay, except for minimal right-of-way at intersections.. As you kaaw, there was lithe or no support and con- siderable opposition to the south nest of the project at the public hearing. idithout strong local support, from both City staff, elected officials, and citiseas in the comaunity, the south Wait _ would not be recommended for construction. ~9 .e - L - - Page 2 Yon :asked how your property, at Highway 998 aad Laurel Aveane is the swath wait, would be impacted if this project were eoastructed. i explained to you that design and safety standards ~ouid zegni=e that the turaiag radios on the northeast corner of the Laurel Avenue iatersectioa ~onid have to be increased. This would eliminate gout southerly drivew~q oato Laurel Aveane as we could not permit a driveway is the turning radius of an interseetioa leg. ~e could also recommend pour two accesses to Highway 9913, be consolidated to owe. High~-ay access issues are normally resolved daring the right-of-wap phase of a project. Our project records sho~r yon are supportive of the north Wait and opposed to the s~rnrh gait, bec~snse of the impact it has oa your basiaess property. Yon-may be assayed that without strong Iocai support for the swath Wait, it Hill oat be .constructed. Siacerelp, ,~ Y ~y~ ~ ~ geaneth B. Husby ~ BSGZOg COi~STBIIC?ION B8&IN888 KBH/ h] P cc: Gary Potter Fraah Ti~vari, City of Hoodbnrn ' 122ZSZ j P8ge2 .. By no means shoaid the presence of our crews be construed as proof that aye are proceeding eiith coastractioa of the Synth IInit. To reiterate: You may be assured that without stra=tg iocai support for t8e South IInit, Region ®'III not recommend it for construction. Sincerely, r H meth B. Husby 8$GI-A1V • -EOiiS28D~TIOB1 E~iGIHBEB ~BH:drn cc: Gary Potter Frank Tivari 032fld2 • j nt aid ~~' 200 I~ ~I '~ 1 4: ~:. ,, ; . ~~. ,•'~~ ~~ y lf' j~~r` j. 4'1~,~, t ~: ~ ~i r~ ~~ „'~ ~ .•:l ,,,~ ~ ~~ ~w ,~,~e. Mp"' IT'"~ L4! ~ ~ X0'1 ®~„ eat ~ ~®~~~ i e 1 ati Area 3 Project ice: ~alern t~l suss-2so~ SAS l~fg~~pay Dev!elbpr~errt mad Cron in Marian, Pb~r ar~d YamhFJl Cam[~ss ~reyon 991e: Pavement an~1 Safety Improvements ioformatlbn as of Sepf+embe~' 2oD5) Oregon 99E from approxirre~eltr 2r~ Street fi Aurora fio ward Drive in Salem t~ 24.9 to M'depost 45.9) Prc~Ct~rupoeea~n~d AAuch of tfie pavement through #his section of Or+~on 99E is in flair tD poor condition. The Intent of this pry ~ th r+etum the pav+em~rt bo good or better condition, extending the ~fe of the roadway and protecting the pubic ~nrsstrrient. Pavement preservation mainbera~noe, rehabilitation, and recor~strtxdion vritlt new ~vernent where Some of the highway will rat require ne~nr paMement or any construction activity due th good oorviition of existing ~vemertt. Safety wit be addressed at the won of Chegort 99E and Young Street and also between tiAt. Jew Avenue and James Street in Woadbum_ This project combines three s~riatter projects ~ one larger el~t th me k~ortsfivc~ion mnpac~ to area residerrts and busirs. . ornsrv~ew This pnojec~ w~l deierrnine the scope of pavemerrt preservation and safiety irrtprovmnent to be made on Oregon 99E from Aurora m Setem, tr9: • Sections of roadway that vu~ be repaired, repaved, or r+eooristre~ci; • Safiety irrrprovemerrts in win from Ntt: Jetl~son Avernre th .lames v~ch is a high dash area; ~ • street ~gt~g ~nprovemerrfs in Woodburn at the irriersections of O<egon 99E and Lincoln, Harcik~stle, end Aztec streets; e Safety Pro in woodlasn at the ~ of Dragon 99E at Young street; • Cor~soNdation of akxess, if apps. Cast estimate • Estimated construction cx~st is ~,~IO:i,~, not indudmg any pn3timinary engineering or right-afi-way. • t=undmg avm'l~le from ODOTs Preservation, Sammy, and . Keypsr+t~estn~ • Prowert Desiarr - OBEC, the cons~,dtirrg engird Earn, is sdieduted th oormpiete a . tAttoeptual Package and access rr~nagement by the end of ZOU5. The #eatn wiN gather public feedback this fail. • i3ld Let Rafe -Duty 2tm7 • Cil~/7S~'UC¢FDI/ ~- t'a~ 20x7 th1'~OUgI1 Summer 2008 i` " "i ;, ~,, 1~~ .`y ~~i~~ ~ . ,,g ~•i ;;~ i`' ' GQ7° Q tA~W~y ! E"~ d ~ ~ ~~. .~ ~+u a.a a~a aro w ~w m~ pn aai ~aea 1RP ~ •.a /O _ Page 1 of 1 Bert Gottsadcer From: "Randy Rafiman" <Randy.Rohman~awt~dbum ~ tts> To: <bertg45~msn.corr-~ Ssn~ Thursday, RAarch 06, 2008 2:00 PM Subj~t: Traffic Impact Fee Input I received both of yore ampiris and they will ga to Camel. Oa yonr Public n farm, ODt7T tell d4 the Pt'ol~ ai 99E ii+o~ Lincoht to the sa~th city lm2its but the City will have to cue sim~ar fo the won that was agreed do far the I-~ . ODOT has Hat given the City permission #o do the widening. Randall Rohmaa, P.E. Public Worl~s Program Manager 270 Mo~ntgo~nnery Street Woodbnm~, OR 9707I Phone: (503) 982 5245 Fax: (503) 982-5242 PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE This e~aii is a public record of the City of Vitoodbam and is sabjed to public disclosure unless exempt finan disclosure Hader Onegaa Public Recxle+ds Law. Thise-mail is subject to the State Ration Schedule. 3/1I/2008 - YBge 1 of 1 '~'a_.O~S~_aCI~BE )=Horn: ~: ~ ~Iili-~orrissey~ Y-or.~ Ta. <ben.corn~ Sank Thun;daj-;:~rrl 9~, 20th 4:~ PM Suter t~37 claim hb: GoLL I am ries~a~nrg m a l+~ 25 phaa~ disa>ssioa with you sr~ w ce you ~ m Riga ~if'~ ~ direc#or ofd d~maat. I am cony that you haven`t been able ~ reach agreemeni wish lvlarion County or the Caty of 4~iToodbum. rlQVer, lxere is the sitsation whit 1'egarrl ~ Meas~es 37 aric3 -"e9: Measure 37-If yaa sre n~ v~bod is Ya~or cut; based as a A~I37 aaivea, yet I~ne no furtia~ a~ia~ns uudar A937. The eiiy of ~Toodburn or a ~declarati©n from a~ circuit couR are flrgacns that can ~Il you whether you are ire; t~teri, yr Hai. i~easura 49- ~s a i~~37 alaima€si, you are eligible to be cxansadered far ll~easure 49 benefits. Since yaur prct~rty is inside ~e Cii~ of t~Ioodburu, the city shoe he letting yo'a mow how tc3 procr~d tmdef' M49. I will say that Meas~ 49 only allows consideratic3u of developme~at aside cities of the groperty is zaned for residential uses. Since you iadir~be ti~at yeas' ProP~Y is aome+d eoaimex+c~i, I sm not t that y+o~ e~+e eligible ~ a 1149 beae5t At any ~, the Ilepar~nneIIt of Land Conservatian and I3evelopment is not authon~ed by x#49 to make decisions for prap.~rty inside ur'tran graw#h boundaries and ZnSZCIe (;I~TPS-Cl$~S ~. This is ~+o6~ably uat whet yon wens bopirrg to hear, but it does reflect y~ situ~on as I uadnatand it Smce~+ely lei Mosey, Maw Messo[+e 49 D~evetopmcet Services Division 4/11/2008 -~ Mr, Beat Comer 8518 Parr Rd. l~ ~, OR 9702b .____ _ ~ Re: l.+~bei' a'rting 99E ~ ~ - Dear Mr. Gvtt~sacker~ 1Ale rid }roar wry of Pitt: 20, ~ that yas sent Uo the Manager's offloe. Oirr' it>tetint R+B~rt Ate', P+l~ Dew has asiaed t'r~ ~ r cxt her behalf. _ Mid 1r11~1 1'N W f'~O 'J9~-1873A(8~M) 4! VR .. ..' `i '^' ~c~o~~r~~.C~ September 8, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council I Interim C( Administrator`'F FROM: Scott D. Russe (, ty SUBJECT: Habitable Rental Housing tJrdinance REC4MMENDATIQN: It is recommended the City Council approve the attached proposed ordinance providing for standards for rental property livability and enacting penalties for failure to comply with the standards. BACKGRQUND: The Council held a workshop on December 10, 2007 to discuss a draff rental housing ordinance. Background regarding this issue (s included in the staff report for that workshop. The Council raised questions and concerns about the proposed ordinance, and asked for a staff response on January 28, 2008. At the January 28, 2008 Council Meeting Council directed staff to make additions! changes in the draft ordinance and to convene a meeting of stakeholders to provide feedback on the draff ordinance. The stakeholders group was convened on February 29, 2008 in a joint effort by the Police Department and the Community Development Department. Approximately 20 members of the property management community along v~rith representatives of the Oregan Law Center, Marion County Housing Authority, and the Farmworker Housing Development Corporation (FHDC) met with City staff to discuss the proposed rental housing ordinance, Staff obtained feedback from the group, and provided it to Council at the April 14, 2008 Council meeting, Council then convened a Workshop on the Draff Ordinance on May 12, 2008 and directed staff to make significant changes to the draff ordinance. The changes were provided to the Council at the June 9, 2008 Council Meeting and distributed to property managers who had asked to be on the mailing list thereaffer with notice that the Ordinance would come before the Council on September 8, 2008. __ -- ,~ e ~ i ~i ~.~ ___ Ac;er~dc~ itUm 2evipL/: City Administratc~~~~~__~"~ City A#torney :_.__.__:_:, f=ln~nce Page 106 Mayor and City Council September 8, 2Q(~8 Page ~ DISCUSSIC}N: The changes directed by Councii effectively mirror the Oregon Revised Statutes. Staff added some minor housekeeping changes. The changes Included: l . The ordinance was re-titled the Habitable Rental Housing Ordinance 2. Section 7 -removed all definitions not used in Ordinance 3, Section 8 - the language of ORS 9C1.32Q replaces for the former requirements, 4, Modified Section 17 R to specify that constitutional rights will not be violated when property is entered. 5. Removed the fee section. 6. Language was added stating that where the Landlord is not the Owner of the Dwelling Unit, reasonable efforts must be made to provide the Owner written notice of the violation. 7, The effective date section was removed and the ordinance will go into effect 30 days after Mayor signs it. While the current language is not as specific as the prior draft, it is supported by case law as applied to the State statute, and staff will use these cases to guide enforcement efforts. The current draff focuses on issues of livability for thane living in rental property, As of this time staff has received no formal comment on the revised draff ordinance from the public, FINANCIAL IMPACT: Education, enforcement, and prosecution casts for the proposed ordinance are dependent upon number of cases that are ultimately initiated. Staff will track costs during the first year of implementation and report to Council as part of the budget process. Page 107 COUNCit BILL NO. 2739 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING HABITABLE RENTAI HOUSING AND PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT. THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section i. Title. This Ordinance steal[ be known as the "Habitable Rental Housing Ordinance." Section 2. Legislative Findings. A. The City Council finds that a safe, decent place to live is a basic necessity that enables families to meet other basic necessities and save for their future. B. The Gity Council further finds there are a growing number of residential rental properties within the City, and that many of these properties are in a declining state of maintenance. C, The City Council further finds that inadequate maintenance directly affects the health, life, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Woodburn and impacts fhe health and vitality of the surrounding neighborhood and the City as a whole, D. The City Council further finds that it is necessary to adopt this Ordinance so that Rental Housing in the Cify is maintained in a good, safe, and sanitary condition and does not create a nuisance or blighted conditions to its surroundings. E. The City Council further finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is a reasonable method at insuring suitable housing, safe and viable neighborhoods and a healthy City. Sectron 3. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide minimum habitability criteria to safeguard health, property and public welfare of the Owners, occupants and users of residential rental but{dings. Section 4. State of Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. This Ordinance is intended to supplement and not conflict with the habitability standards of the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Pa!~e 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. C~I?CINANCE NO. Page 108 Sectian 5. Scope. A. Except as described below, these standards shall apply to Dental Housing located within the City. ~. Notwithstanding subsection 5A and consistent with the Oregon Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, the following are exempted from the application of this Ordinance: 1, Hotels, motels and lodging houses; 2. Hospitals and other medical facilities; 3, Nursing care facilities as defined in the Woodburn Development Ordinance; and 4. Group homes and group care facilities as defined in ORS Chapter 443. Sectian 6. Comt~iain#s, Complaints under this Ordinance will be initiated on a form provided by the City containing the following information: A. The name of the Person filing the complaint, B. The name of the Landlord. C. The address of the alleged violation. D, A description of the alleged violation. E. Where the Tenant is the Complainant, a certification that reasonable efforts were made to provide the Landlord with notice of the alleged violation.. Section 7, Det~nitions. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following definitions shall apply: Dweifing Unit. A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or mare Persons including provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. For purposes of this Ordinance, where portions of a residential building are occupied under separate Rental Agreements, but tenants share eating, cooking, and/or sanitation facilities, each portion under a separate Rental Agreement shall be considered a Dwelling Unit. Page 2 - CQURICIL 81LL NO. ORDINANCE NO. Page 109 Enforcement Officer. A police officer, code enforcement officer or other city officio( authorized by the City Administrafior to enforce this Ordinance. Landlord. The Owner, lessor, or sublessor of a Dwelling Unit or a party acting as an authorized agent of the Owner, lessor or subiessor. Owner includes a mortgagee in possession and means one or more Persons, jointly or severally, in whom is vested: (a} all or part of the legal title to property; or (b) all or part of the beneficial ownership and a right to present use and enjoyment of the premises. Person, Any natural Person, firm, partnership, association or corporation. Rental Agreement, Ail agreements, written or oral, concerning the use and occupancy of a Dwelling Unit and premises. Rental Housing. A Dwelling Unit which is the subject of a Rental Agreement. Section 8. Maintenance of Dwelling Unit in Habitable Condition. A. A Landlord shall at all times during the tenancy maintain the Dwelling Unit in a habitable condition. For purposes of this section, a Dwelling Unit shall be considered unhabitable if it substantially lacks: 1. Effective wafierproofing and weather protection of roof and exterior walls, including windows and doors; 2. Plumbing facilities which conform to applicable law in effect at the time of installation, and maintained in good working order; 3. A water supply approved under applicable law, which is: a. Under the control of the Tenant or Landlord and is capable of producing hot and cold running water; b. Furnished to appropriate fixtures; c. Connected to a sewage disposal system approved under applicable law; and d. Maintained so as to provide safe drinking water and to be in good working order to the extent that the system can be controlled by the Landlord; Page 3 - COUNCIL SILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. Page 110 4, Adequate heating facilities which conform to applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in good working order; 5, Electrical lighting with wiring and electrical equipment which conform to applicable law at the time of installation and maintained in goad working artier; b. Buildings, grounds and appurtenances at the time of the commencement of the Rental Agreement in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses, clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin, and all areas under control of the Landlord kept in every part safe for normal and reasonably foreseeable uses, clean, sanitary and free from all accumulations of debris, filth, rubbish, garbage, rodents and vermin, 7, Except as otherwise provided by local ordinance or by written agreement between the Landlord and the Tenant, an adequate number of appropriate receptacles for garbage and rubbish in clean condition and goad repair at the time of the commencement of the 1?ental Agreement, and the Landlord shall provide and maintain appr©priate serviceable receptacles thereafter and arrange for their removal; 8, Floors, walls, ceilings, stairways and railings maintained in good repair; 9. Ventilating, air conditioning and other facilities and appliances, including elevators, maintained in good repair if supplied or required to be supplied by the Landlord, 10. Safety from fire hazards, including a working smoke alarm or smoke detector, with working batteries if solely battery-operated, provided only at the beginning of any new tenancy when the Tenant first takes possession of the premises, as provided in c~RS 479.270, but not to include the Tenant's testing of the smoke alarm or smoke detector as provided in URS 90,325 (6~; or i l , Working locks for ail dwelling entrance doors, and, unless contrary to applicable law, latches for all windows, by which access may be had to that portion of the premises which the Tenant is entitled under the Rental Agreement to occupy to the exclusion of others and keys for such locks which require keys. Page 4 - COUNCIL BILL I~10, ORDINANCE NO, Page 111 Section g. Abatemen# Notice. Whenever a violation of this Ordinance is found to exist within the corporate limits of the city and the Enforcement Officer elects to proceed by abatement, the Enforcement Officer shall give written notice, by a type of mall that requires a signed receipt, to the Landlord of the property upon which the violation exists, Section 10. Abatement. Upon receipt of the notice that a violation exists, the Landlord shah have thirty (3Q~ days to abate the violation. Section 11. No#ice Re~auirements. The notice to abate the vlolatifln shall contain the fallowing: A. An order to abate the violation within thirty (3Q) days; B. The location of the violation; G, A description of what constitutes the violation; D. A statement that if the violation is not abated within the prescribed time, the Cifiy will seek civil penalties under this Ordinance; and E. A statement that a Person wha is dissatisfied with the abatement notice has the right to judicial review under this Ordinance, Section 12. Re~c ,uest for Judicial Review. The Landlord may file a written request for judicial review in the Woodburn Municipal Gourt within ten C~ Q) days of the date that the notice to abate was mailed. Section 13. Requirements for Request. The request for judicial review need not be in any particular form, but should substantially comply with the following requirements: A. Be in writing; B, Identify the place and nature of the alleged violation; C. Specify the name and address of the Landlord seeking judicial review; and D. Identify the Enforcement Officer alleging that a violation exists, A copy of the request for judicial review shall be served on the Woodburn City Attorney`s office. Page 5 - CCJUNCIL BILL NC?. O(~Dll`JANCE NO. Page 112 Section 1 d, Schedulinc~,of Judicial Review, A. The judicial review hearing shall be held within ten (10} days after the request far judicial review is made. The day may be postponed by; l . Agreement of the parties; or ~. Order of the court far good cause. S. Affer a hearing is scheduled, the court shall promptly notify the parties as to the time and location of the hearing, Section 15. ~ludicial Review Hearinct. At the judicial review hearing the City and the Landlord shall have the right to present evidence and witnesses and to be represented by legal counsel at their own expense. Affer due consideration of pertinent information and testimony, the court shall make its findings. The findings shall be based on substantial evidence and shall be final. Section 1 b. Notification of Violation. The Landlord shall be notified by a type of mail that requires a signed receipt postmarked no inter than five days after the findings are entered by the court or by personal delivery by a representative of the City, Upon notification of violation, the Landlord shall have 3Q days to abate the violation. Section 17. Enforcement. A, inspection and 12iaht of Entry, Whenever the Enforcement Qfficer has reasonable cause fio suspect a violation of any provision of this Ordinance, the Enforcement Officer may enter on any site or into any structure for the purposes of investigation provided that no premises shall be entered without first attempting to obtain the consent of the Owner or person in control of the premises if other than the Owner, If consent cannot be obtained the Enforcement Officer shall secure a search warrant before further attempts to gain entry, and shall have recourse to every other remedy provided by law to secure entry. 8, Civil Infraction. in addition to, and not in lieu of any other enforcement mechanisms, a violation of any provision of this Ordinance constitutes a Class 1 Civil Infraction which shall be processed according to the procedures contained in the Woodburn Civil Infraction Ordinance. C, Civil Proceeding Initiated by City Attorney. The City Attorney, offer obtaining authorization from the City Council, may initiate a civil proceeding on behalf of the city to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance. This civil proceeding may include, but is not limited to, injunction, mandamus, Page b - COUNCIL B4LL NO, O(2QlNANCE NO. Page 113 abatement, or other appropriate proceedings to prevent, temporarily or permanently enjoin or abate any violations of this Ordinance. Sectionl8, Proh%bion on Retpliatorv Conduct by Landlord. No Landlord may terminate a tenancy, increase rent, decrease services or refuse to renew a lease or tenancy because a Tenant has in good faith: A. Flied a complaint under this Ordinance, or B, requested the t.andford to make repairs to a premises as required by this Ordinance; or C. Provided information or testffiied in any proceeding involving the enforcement of this Ordinance. Section I4. Separate Offenses. Each day during which a violation of this Ordinance continues shelf constitute a separate offense for which a separate penalty may be imposed, Section 20, Severabiility. ff any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence, or provisions of this Ordinance shelf be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, such judgment shaft not affect, impair, invalidate, or nullify the remainder of the title, but the effect thereat shaft be confined to the section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or provision immediately involved in the controversy in which such judgment or decree shelf be rendered, it being fibs intent of the governing body to enact the remainder of this Ordinance notwithstanding the parts to be declared unconstitutional and invalid. Approved as to form: - City Attorney Date Approved: Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the recorder Kathryn Figiey, Mayor ATTEST: Mary Tennant City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 7 - CQLINCIL BILL NO. {JPDINANCE NQ. Page 114 Y ,~ F WooDBVR.I~ September $, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator V]A: Natalie Labossiere, Interim Community Development Director FROM; Donald Dolenc, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Adoption of a resolution regarding the appeal of cases DR 2008-01 and EXCP 2008-03, for the Woodburn Crossing development located a# the northeast corner of Evergreen Road and Highway 214. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolu#ion approving the land use application. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Brice Corporation, requested a Design Review fora 14,820 square foot pharmacy and an Exception to Street Right-of-Way and improvement Requirements for Evergreen Road. The Planning Commission approved both applications subject to conditions. The applicant appealed a condition of approval imposed by the Planning Commission that required the appellant to obtain an approved phasing plan under WDO 5,103.05 prior to occupancy. The Council upheld the appeal and directed Staff to work with the applicant on the language of a condition to replace the one appealed. DISCUSSION: The resolution reaffirms all conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission except the condition that was appealed. The resolution imposes a substitute condition that is acceptable to both the applicant and Staff. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This decision is anticipated to have no public sector financial impact. Agenda Item Revie~r~: City Administrato~~r Cifiy A Erne.-""'-.,_ Financa- Page 115 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2740 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING APPLICATIONS tN DR 20138-O1 AND EXCP 2008-03; ADOPTING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF SAID APPROVALS; AND IMPOSING THE CONDITIONS PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED BY THE YYOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CONDITION NO, 5, WHICH IS MODIFIED AS PROVIDED HEREIN WHEREAS, applications were made by Brice Corporation, applicant, on behalf of Plaza Center, LLC, property owner, for a design review fora 14,820 square foot pharmacy (case DR 2008-01 a and an exception to street right-of- wayand improvements for Evergreen Road (case EXCP 24x8-03j and; WHEREAS, the Woodburn Planning Commission held a public hearing on the applications at its meeting of June 26, 2008 and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved applications in DR 2008-01 and EXCP 2008-03 subject to certain conditions of approval, and; WHEREAS, the applicant timely appealed to the Woodburn City Council under WDC~ 4.102.01; and WHEREAS, the Council held a de novo public hearing on the cases at its meeting of August 1 1, 2008, and; WHEREAS, the Council considered the wri#ten and oral testimony presented by staff and the applicant; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The applications in cases DR 2008-01 and EXCP 2008-03 are approved. Section 2. This decision is based upon evidence in the record before the Woodburn City Council and is justified by the findings and conclusions which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this reference are incorporafied herein. Section 3. Approval of the applications is subject to the conditions previously imposed by the Woodburn Planning Commission, attached hereto as Exhibit "B", EXCEPT that condition number 5 is modified to read as follows: Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLD?EON r~0. Page 116 5. Prior to occupancy, the property owner shall identify the general layout of vehicular and pedestrian connections from the current development area to adjacent streets and to other areas of the subject property. The property owner shall provide conforming drive aisles in the area of the subject property immediately east of the current development area. This land use approval acknowledges that changes to the on-site parking and circulation layout may be required in connection with subsequent redevelopment of the property in order to preserve traffic flow, connecfiivity, and safety}, ,~ A roved as to form : ~' " ,~i~'~-- ~ `~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~' pR City Attorney Da e Approved; Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST; Mary Tennanfi City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. Page 117 exhibit "~„ All uses shall be estak~lished and conducted on tats of record, as defined by Section 1,102 and de~~eloped to the public facility and access standards of Sections 3.101, 3.102 and 3.104. (W'II)Q 2, l 06.06, F] Find%ngs: The subject. property is a parcel created by ;Minor Partitit~n fig-OS. ~'onclusion: That portion of the property being r~;de~elcaped is required to comply with Sections <, 3.lOl {Street Standards), 3.10 (Utilities and asemcnts), and. 3.1t~4 (Access.) z; The purpose o#' Tyge III design review is to insure compliance with the applicable site ~~t development standards and architectural design guidelines of Section 3,1 fur: All new R ~ structures or additions 1000 sq. ft. t3R IViORE of gross floor area in the ... C`G ,,, zone. [Vt~'t30 ~~ 5.103.02.A] ~~ Finclinls: Resig~~ Reviews for Structures 1000'?OOf) Square F`cet gar *vlore and Exceptions tt~ Street ~~ Right of may and l~rnprovement Requirements are T~~pe 111 decisi~ans, ~5 Conclusions: That portion cif the prcape:rty being rede~etoped is required tc~ comply with the ~+~ applicable site deg°elopment standards and architectural design guidelines of Secti+an ~. t . The = applicable. standards arad guidelines of Section 3.l arc Sections 3.101 (Street Standards, 3.l{)? _~ (Utilities anti lvaseentsj, 3.103 (Setback, C}pen Space, and I..ot Standards Generally}, 3.l{34 ~F~ (Access}, 3.10 (C?ffStreet Parking and I,c~ading}, 3.106 (Landscaping Standards}, 3,10"1 z~ (Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards), and 3.l l0 {Sir s.) t ~x ~~ All City decision-making bodies have the authority to impose conditions of appro~~al z~ reasonably related to impacts caused by the development or designed to ensure that alt applicable appro~~al standards are, or can be, met on Type II, III and i~" decisions EXCEPT ~ annexation, All conditions of approval shall be clear and objective or if the condition requires ~~ discretion shall provide for a subsequent opportunity for a pablic hearing, ~'DO 4.1O1,15,A] 4~ Finding Thr~ C'it~~ C:ourtcil is a City decision-making body. z~ Conclusion; The C'it}Council has "the auths~rtty to ~mpc~se cc~nd~t~ons cif approti"al reasonably ~~~ related to impacts eausecl by the d~:velopment." t: C'onln~u~it~. })eic?~±t~tr:zzt Plann3n~ Tt7f~f{ I)~;sign Re~~~:t~ 1L''c~odtiua~n Crc?~,~ng _ t~)f~ ?f~{l~-{)l. }°.~t°t' "tit~}_ f)3 :Exhibit :~ t`e~~=n~ ~t.~cac }'ai~e t ~~f` l Page 118 Exhibit "B" ~ l . The property owner shall execute an acceptance ofthese conditions on a form provided by _ the City-. 2. The property owner shall develop and maintain the subject property in accordance with all a pray°isions of the LVDQ, tivhether or not addressed in the sta#~~review, conditions of s approval, ar public hearing. E, 3. The property shall be developed in substantial eanfarmity to the plans attached hereto as Exhibits "~" though "'vi," except as modified by these conditions of approval. s 4. The term "substantial conformity" shall not be interpreted as relieving the property a~vner from complying with. any requirement of the WDC}. The term "substantial conformity" ~~~ shall not be interpreted to mean that City staff have the authority to waive ar vary any ~, development standard set forth in the WDQ ar to modify any condition of approval << imposed by the Planning Commission. ~ x ~. See Council Resolution. 3~ b. The maximum height of any building shall not exceed 70 feet, in accordance with V4'DC) ~ < ?. l t}f~.O~.B.* ~~, 7. ill buildings shall be set back from struts at least 1 S feet. plus any Special Setback, in ~ ~ accordance with l~l%DQ ?.1 Qfi.06.C.1.a.1.* S. The applicant shall submit detailed plans of the trash enclosure demonstrating that the ,~~ layout, height, and construction materials damply with Vt~TDO 2.1C)6.Q6.E.3. ~~, t). The property owner shall establish and maintain vision clearance areas in accordance ~.vith __ 1 t). friar to issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall either (1) redesign the __ project to locate the tninimutn street im~provcrnents required by WDCl 3.IC11.{}2.D?.6 for ~a p:vergreen Read {to the northern extent of the proposed driveway) on the subject property, _- car (2) show that the minimum street improvements for Evergreen Road {to the northern ~F, extent of the proposed driveway} would be located entirely within existing dedicated right- _ of=way or existing recorded public use easements. ~~ 11. The property owner shall provide the full right of way required of the subject property by .y the Transportation System Plan far Ever~een Road from the Highway 214 intersection to ;; ~ the northern boundary of the current development area per WDO 3.1(} l .t)2. D.2,a. ;; 1?. The property owner shall provide the minimum boundary street improvements required by z~ V4'DC} 3.1 f} t .92.D.2.b from the Highway 214 intersection to the northern extent of the ~~ proposed driveway. :~ 13. The property owner shall enter into a nanremonstrance agreement to participate in the cost ~; t~f reconstructing Evergreen Road to the standards of the Transportation System Plan Fi hen F, such reconstruction becomes timely. ~~ 14. In accorclancc with WDQ 3.1 Ot5.Q3.A.l, the property owner shall install 30 small street ;~ trees, 2' medium street trees, or 15 largo street trees, or shall file with the City t: Community Develc~pmcnt`t'lanning`2t}Q3' Design Review 1h'oodburn Cresssing - UR 2t)t)S-t)t , E?iC'f' ~t)t)S- 03 Exbihit 8 ti7r Council.dac Page i of ~r Page 119 € :administrator a pcrforrnance guarantes~ under l'~'DC3 4.1t~2.07 fear their installation when t~D~"I improvements are ccaznpleted along Highway 2l4 and Evergreen Rcaad. 3 1 ~. The: property ca~isner shall prop°ide a lane width for the drive-thrcaugh c}fat lest 12 teat, ~ unobstructed by lateral vehicular ac;ess f`car at least 50 feet. '1`he property owner shall provide a by-pass lane to a site exit with a minimum width caf Fl feet, in acc~cardance with V~`Di.~ 3.1t}4.02.D.* l E~. The prcaperty owner shall pray°ide a tuna radius for the drive-through caf at least 25 feet, in accordance with V4'DQ 3.104.(}2.D. a 17. The property owner shall provide curb returns with a radius otat least 25 feet, in r€} accordance with ~V'D{) 3.104.(}S.E.2. € € 14. The property owner shall prop°ide a driveway throat length of at least ~0 feet fear the € ~ drip eee-ays nn Evergreen Road and l-iighway ? 14, in accordance e~~ith i~VDC} 3.1 Q4.f}~.~.4. t? 19. The property canner shall install underground utilities fear the prcaposed development, in ~a accordance with V~'DC) 3.1(}2.0`?.* € ~ 2t}. The prtaperty cawner shall provide street lights installed tc~ the standards of the f'ublie s~z t~iorks Department and the electric utility, or obtain an exccptcan to street right-of-cvay and € ~ improvements tsar Evergreen Road, in accordattcc with t~ DC~ 3. l t}2.03. €~ 21. Tl~e property owner shall dedicate easements far the construction and maintenance of ~£, zalnicipal water, ~;ee~°eraf;e and stcarm drainage facila`ties, in accordance ~e°ith ~~'I7t3 ~~€ 3. l Q2.(14.A. ~~ ?`?. The property o~,vner shall dedicate public utility easements along each prcapert}' line _~ abutting a public street, in accordance with Vii D() 3.1 f}?.t}4.B car shall ccaordinate the -- location catthe easements with the VV'oodburn Public Vav'carks Department. ~s 23. T'he property cate~ner shall provide at least (7f}parking spates fear the pharmacy, in accordance with 1'i<'D(? 3.1(T~.{)2.E and Table 3.1.2.* ~~ ?4, The parking prcavided shall clot exceed 12C} spaces for the pharmacy, in accordance with V4'I~C} 3.1O5.t}2.E and Table 3.1.2.* ,k ?~. 'T'he property owner Shall prop°ide no more than ?t} percent oftht~ retluired ttehicle parking v~, spaces as ccaznpact uchicle parking spaces, in accordance with. W'DCJ 3.1{l~.C}?.E.* ;{} 26. The property owner shall prop°ide: at least 3 di4ablecl perscan vehicle parking spaces, ?~ including cane: van. accessible space, spaces fiat the pharmacy, in accordance with VIiDO ~~ 3.1€5.0}.E.3, VIiDO 3.105.t)2.f-1.4.c, Section 1104 of the tJregon Structural Specialty Code :~ azad C3RS 447,233.* 3~ 27. The property cawner shall provide at least two loading spaces tear tl~e proposed pharmacy, in ~; accordance with VYT~O 3,1(}5.f1?.Cx and Table 3.1.3, ~F, ?R. The property oevner shall demonstrate that all the rcctuired lcaading spaces meet the ~w reyuirernents of 4~VrD0 2.1 €lfi,05.C.1,b.2. ~~ ?~. The property oF~rner shall provide turn arouncis and°or specific circulation features, to J~, De;partznent of Public Wiarks reyuircments based can the review of the Fire District, in a€, acccardazate with V4~DC? :i.1C}4.t~S.I?5,* t::Cc?mrz~urtiz~° t)cveiopment';P1~3nnitat; Zt}()~ Design Review t~~'oodburra Crossing - UR 2c}z}g-01, 1~'?iC: P ~t}08- f}3 :Exhibit }3 for Cc~uni:iLctoc Pa~c ? of Ci Page 120 € 3t1. All vehicle parking and loading area shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or other hard surfacing approved by the Public Works Director, in accordance with WDO :~ ~ i . All vehicle parking and loading area shall be graded and provide storm drainage facilities approved. by the Public Works Director, in accordance with Vt~`DO 3.105.02.H.2.* ~ ~?. All vehicle parking shall be constructed with bumper guards or wheel barriers that prevent vehicles frcym damaging structures or projecting over walkways, access ways, or abutting x property or rights of way, in accordance with WDO 3.105.02.H.2.* 4 33. All parking space and aisle dimensions shall comply with the dimensional requirements of~ l~, WDO 3.1 O5.()2.H.4 and with Table 3.1.4,* ~ i 3~, Parking and traffic circulation shall be marked to control vehicle movement, in accordance ~~ with WDO 3.105.02.H.5.* i : 35. AU csff street parking spaces shall be delineated by double parallel lines separated by 2 feet, is in accordance with VVDO 3.105,02.H.6.* i, 36. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan demonstrating compliance with the standards of ~~ t~`DO 3.1 t)5.02.H.8 and the guidelines and standards of t~'DO 3.107.Ob.E.2. ~- 3?. The property owner shall provide at least 7 bicycle rack spaces for the proposed pharmacy. E~ in accordance with VvDO 3.105.02.N.1f). ~4 38. The applicant shall install and maintain an irrigation system, in accordance with WDO _r~ 3.106.02.8.* ~~ ;y. I~hc property owner shall provide at least 2.212 plant units in the yards abutting 1"/~erg~recn __ Road and Highlvay 214, in accordance with WDO 3. i06.03.A.2.a.* ~~ ~(?. The property owner shall provide an effective 42-inch vertical visual screen along all ~~ parking areas abutting a street, in accordance with Sh`DO 3. i 06.03.A.?.b.2. ~~~ ithin vision .~ clearance areas, the visual screen shall comply with the 30-inch height restriction of 1~'DC) ~~, 3.103.1 f). _- =11. The property owner shall provide at least 11, 632 square feet oflandscaped area within 20 ~x feet of the paved edge of off street parking andlnr circulation improvements, in accordance ,,; ~~ ith V4'DO 3.106.03.0. l ,a.* :~a 4?. The property owner shall provide at 582 plant units within 20 feet of`the paved edge of of~~ ,i street parking andjor circulation improvements, in accordance with WDO3.106.t)3.C.~.* _ 43. The property otivner shall provide the equivalent of at least l 2 small trees, b medium trees, ;; or ~ large trees within and abutting off street parking facilities, in accordance with WD<:) ?a 3.106.03.C,3.* ?t ~~. The property owner shall provide shrubs and ~~round cover that attain 80°o ground .~~ coverage «'ithin 3 years, in accordance with ti~'DO 3.106.05.A.* ;~ -t5. All landscaped areas that are not covered by plant materials shall be covered by a layer of :K bark mulch or decorative rock, EXCLUDING ordinary crushed gravel, a minimum of'2 ?~ inches in depth, in accordance with WDO 3.106.05.8. I: Community lleVelopment P3. ~~ 2t~0~,De~sign keview=Waodburr~ ' "r~~s~=~t~ - CSR ZOQB-Ol, L:XCI' ~'f)(l4- (13 Exhibit Q for Council-doe Pale 3 of'6 Page 121 ~ 46. The property ca~vner shall provide asix-inch concrete curb between landscaped areas and parl.ing areas ar access. ~~-ays, in accordance u~ ith ~'4~Dt} 3.106.f~5.C. 47. This land use decision does not authorize cautdeaor storage. a 48. This land use decision does not authorize the installation of the wall suns or the 4 "~'alg~reens pylon sign." The property o~~~ner shall obtain a sign perniit prior to the installation of any sign. 49. Pticar to the issuance of a building permit, thu property a~}~ner shall obtain an approach road permit from OD{JT fur a c~~estbaund right-in only access to OR 21 ~. Any improvements y required by the permit shall be installed and approved by C}DOT prior to issuance of a ~~; certificate of occupancy tar the first new use on the site, i i 5(). Prier to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy far the first new use an the site, the ~~ applic:ant shall dedicate 12 Beet along OR 214 within the applicant's ownership for future i ; highway purposes to ODOT. is ~ 1. The ati`ailable fire flow shall be determined and the fire flc7w results provided to the ~~ Building; t)fficial and Fire 4tarshal, per Section 8105.3, OFC. ~h S2. Fire apparatus turnaround and access shall be provided to the existing buildings and the ~~ new buildings, per Appendix D, OEC. iY 53. Fire hydrant location and sparing shall comply with Appendix C, t)Ft'. rs; ,4. The Fire Department Connection location needs to be approved by the l=ire Department. ~s Fire Department Ccannections are neat allowed can buildings, per Sectican t}tii.:1.7, t1pC ; ;end ~~ Section 91?.?, OSSC. ~w :~5. "C'he phar-rnary building shall be provided with rm autonaatie sire sprinkler system per ~3 Section e1t)3.2.G, t}SSC. >a 56. The minimum site of an underground fire line serving the VValgreens building shall be six {ti) inch unless caleuiations are provided showing a smaller size is adequate, per Section ~~, 15.1.3.1 tiFPA 1 ~, 2002 edition. z- 57. L?isabled access shall be provided between ail buildings on the same: lat. The route must ~~ be distinguished by a difference in material ur texture, per Section 1103.1, t)SSC and ~~, ~~4'oodhurn Development Ordinance. ,t~ SR. A Knc}x box snail be provided an the ti~alg,rcens building, per Section SQfi, tJFC. ;, St}. ~~11 wr~rk within the public rights-af-way or easement shall require plan approti al and ~?~ permit issuance from the Public \~carks Department ~~ 6O. All city maintained facilities located can private property shall require a utility easement to za be conveyed to the city. 3~ 61. The applicant, not the city is responsible for obtaining perntits from any state and,'or ,r: federal agencies, which may require approval and.`or permit. 62. System Develc~pnacnt fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. zs 6?. Any ~`acatian of existing public right of way e?r easerrrent will need tea confirm tea the ,<, requirements of ORS 271. I: Comr~iu-~ity r)eveloprnent';Planning ?0O~3 Design Revii:w'_Woodburn Crossing - Dft 2QQ8-Ul, ErXC-P 2Q(l8- C)3'.Fxhibit Bfor C'ouncil.doc Page ~ <~f fi Page 122 ~ f~-1. installation of a city maintained stcxrm water system shall comply with Storm Water Plaster Plan, Public «'arks Department requirements, sperificatians, standards and pern~it ~ requirements. ~ 65. ~ grease trap shall be installed an the sanitary sewer sere°ice of the restaurant, either as a central unit or in the kitchen'food preparation area. r, fib. Domestic, lawn irrigation and fire sprinkler seI'vice shall require the installation of a proper type of barkflow preventer. The device and meter shall be located near the city water main x within an easement, unless approved otherwise by Public Works, ~~ b7. Any abandonment, relocation ar ne~~~ installation of a city maintained water system shall ~o comply with Public V4'orks Department requirements, sperificatians, standards and permit i E requirements. G8. Fire protection requirements shall comply with the Woodburn Fire District standards and ~ ; requirements. Additional fire hydrants for fire proteetian if required to be installed by the ~a applicant shall be placed within the public right of way or public utility easement and i; constructed in accordance with the permit requirements of the Public Works Department. ;~. b9. *Building facades visible from streets and public parking areas shall be articulated in artier } to ati aid the appearance afbox-like structures with unbroken wall surfaces, iE1 acec>rdancr ~k ~i-ith the guideline of V4'DO 3.IU7.Ub.B.I .a,* ~ ~~ 7 t), The appearance of extrriar walls shall be enhanced by incarparating three dimensional design features, in acrardanre with the guideline of WDU 3.1U7.()fi.B.l ,b.* ~~ ~l. Building rxteriars shall exhibit finishes and textures that reduce the visual monotony of` _~ bulky structures and large structural spaces; enhance visual interest of ~~•all surfac~;s and harmonize with the structural design, in acrardanre with the guideline of tfDO d~ 4, i ()7.C)b.B.2.a. '?. The: roof line shall establish a distinctive tap to the building and shall incarp~~rate ~~~ ~ ariations, such as offsets and='or jogs in the plane of the roof or changes in the height of _- tine exterior «•all f~?r flat roofbuildings, including parapet walls with variations in elevatii~n ~~ and. or cornices, in accordance with the guideline of V4'DU 3.1 U7.Ufi.B.3.* ~•} ?>. ;'111 roof mounted equipment, EXe1vPT solar collectors, shall be screened from view from ?+~ streets abutting the building site, in accordance with the guideline of WDO ~.1 U7.t?b.B.4.* ~~ 7-f. x'111 building faces abutting a street or a public parking area shall provide weather z~ protection far pedestrians, in accordance with the guideline of V4'DO 3.107.Ufi.B._5.* ?5. The awnings shall not have internal back Lighting, in accordance with the guideline of ;a t~'DO .107.Ub.B.5.b.4, 7fi. The landscapinb shall be augmented to address site specific visual imparts of abutting uses zF, and the visual character of the surrounding area, in accordance with the guideline of~ VdDC} 3.1 O7.Ub.B.fi.* ;n 7~. Standardi-r_ed ar characteristic "corporate" and "franchise" design elements shall be relined to reduce domination of the visual environment by corporate icons.* I: Community D~.~elc~pment Plan~ung~?008' Design Review`1~Voc?dburn Crossing - I7R ?Ot}8-01, EXCF' ?t)CtR- t)3 .Exhibit B for Counci(.doc Page 5 of 6 Page 123 ~~, t~bstruetican of existing solar c€aller;t~ars on abutting propea~ties by site development shall be mitigated, in accordance with the guideline cif ~~'°Ut~ 3.If)7.£?t~.F3,10.* 79. z~ccess tc~ and from the site acid circulation within the situ shall separate facilities for cars, a trucks and traaasit from those for bi~:yc[es and pedestrians, in accordance with the guideline of V4'Dt~ 3.1(l7.Clfi.f".l.* S0. t~ehi~;le access points shall be identified b}' accentuated landscaped areas, by entrance thr~aats designed to control ac~;ess from abutting parking and by mcanumeaat type entrance x signs, in accordance ~°ith the guideline of ~i'C3fJ ~.l Ct'7.(?C,C.2.a.1.* Sl, The buildings shall be linked to the side~~v°alks on abutting streets by internal pedestrian. Ef~ ways. Such. pedestrian ways shall. be either raised car delineated Say distinctive pagers, in ~ ~ accordance with the guideline of ~D0 3. Itl7.p6.C'.2.b.1.* ~~ S2. ti~'ithin the prescribed. setbacks, building locatioaa and orientatican shall compliment abutting 2? uses and develcapmeaat patterns, in accordance with. the guideline of V4'L}O 3.1 f17.~(~.L7.1.* S3. f~fl`street parking bthveen the architectural front. of a building and the setback line ~> abutting street steal[ be limited. to a depth of not. more Haan 13{# feet, in accordance with tlae ~~, guideline of~~DtJ .~.Ig7.t)Ei.E'.* ~~ * The development as prnposed appears tt~ aneet these conditions of approva[. "rhesr ~~ onditions are included tc~ reiterate the applicable design standards and guidelines. k} ?{i ~~ Exhibit ":~" 1_i~catiran a~aaap, Sheet r1t).0, date-stamped 'vfay 9, 2f)f)S __ Exhibit "B" `site l~ernolitioa~ flan, Sheet A0.4, date-staraaped ~~[ay ~}, _'OCl~3 Y Exhibit "C" Site Plan,. Sheet :~0.3, elate-stamped ~~ay ~, ?OCtt~ ~.~ Exhibit `•D" f~~,°erall Sits; Flan, Sheet :~{3.3a, elate-stamped fay ~~. 4(:)()S ,; Exhibit "E" 1'laarrraacy flc3or Plana, Sheet ~ I .I ,date-stamped ~4~ay 9, 2()f)S ,~ Exhibit •~G" Fhaaxaaacy bui[ding, elevations, Sheet A4.1,dnte-stamped :'V1ay ~, 2{)Cl~ Exhibit `•I«« Drainage Flan, Sheet C4. [,date-stamped'lflay ~, 4{)t)8 aY Exhibit "J" C~radiaag Flan, Sheet C'4?, date-stamped 1~1a~° ~. 4tt()S ,,, Exhibit "ii" L=tlity flan, Sheet C'?. [ ,date-stamped '~1ay ~~, 2g08 {, Exhibit "l," Planting Flan, Sheet 1 of 4, dated 1 Z ~rtarcla, 4gU~ z ~ Exhibit "~"l" 'Materials Board, Sheet A4. I a, daie-staraaped April 11, Of)S ~~ C~c~~nrnunity [)c} elc}pnicnt ['lar~nint.?t~t);3' I)esi~i~ Re~~ie~-'.~~'e~t~sctburn C;`rc>ssin~ - t~R 4008-f)1. [:XC'I' ~(.)0?~- 0~' [:xhibit ~B 1~>r C;~~izncil.~irac 1'~~~;~: fi c>f b Page 124 VII o.~BVZ~.N ~~ ~ September 8, 2008 TO: Honorable Nlayor and City Council through City Administrator FRUM: Dan Brown, Public Works Director SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION OF THE SALE OF SURPLUS CITY OWNED PROPERTY FROM TAX LOT 3400 RECOMMENDATION: Pass the attached resolution authorizing the sale of surplus property. BACKGROUND: The City is currently engaged in the design of a new park trail project. The trait head for this new park facility is located at the intersection of East Cleveland Street and Brown Street. The trail head will be located on three adjacent tax lots awned by the City (Tax lots 3200, 3300. and 3400). The adjoining property at 535 Brown Court owned by Dean F. and Delores K. Prondzinski (Tax Lot 3500 have encroached onto Tax Lot 3400 with a fence and out building structure. City staff determined that property on which the adjoining property owners had encroached provides no benefit to the City and is surplus to the needs of the City to construct the Trail Head project on Tax Lots 3200, 3300, and 3400. An agreement has been reached with Dean F. and Delores K. Prondzinski for their purchase the property onto which they have encroached from the City for the assessed value of $1.00 per square foot. Additionally, the Prondzinski's will reimburse the City for all fees and professional services needed to prepare and file a [ot line adjustment transferring ownership of approximately 2800 square feet of property from Tax Lot 3400 to Tax Lot 3500. DISCUSSION A preliminary legal description of the surplus property to be sold is attached to this resolution. The preliminary legal description is intended to define in concept the actual property to be sold. The final legal description will be prepared upon completion of the design of the trail head improvements on Tax Lot 3400 and a completed survey. The surveyor of record will prepare and file the final legal descriptions of Tax Lot 3400 and 3500 incorporating the property sale and lot line adjustments. Agenda Item f~eview: City Aciministrato~r_~3~" City At. rneY _!~1. ~'~'_-~ FinGnce Page 125 Hc~narable Mayer and City Council Septernl~er 8, 2008 Page 2 Dean I*. and Delores K. Prondzinski present an offer of purchase on June 22, 2008 to compensate the City the assessed value of X1.00 per square foot of property acquired and to reimburse the Caty for all technical and administrative fees associated with completion of the lot line adjustment. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The estimated east of the property purchase and associated technical and administrative fees is $5,000. The sale of this property will be of no cost to the City. The sale of the surplus property will result in additional property tax revenues. Page 126 COUNCI! BIL! NO, 2741 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DECLARING CERTAIN CITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT TAX LOT 3400 TO BE SURPLUS PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SEL! SAID PROPERTY TO DEAN F. AND DELORES K. PRONDZINSKI. WHEREAS, Notice of Public Hearing was published on the proposed sale of the property owned by the City at Tax Lot 340Q Map Tax Lot 051 W 18AC034Q0~; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 4RS 221.725, the Woodburn City Council conducted a public hearing on August 1 1, 2008 to hear testimony concerning said sale; and WHEREAS, the Council disclosed the nature of the proposed sale and the general terms thereof, including evidence of the market value of the property; and WHEREAS, after conducting the public hearing, the Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to accept the offer from Dean F. and Delores K. Prondzinski, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS; Section 1. The property is known as a portion of Tax Lot 3400, Woodburn, Qregon and is described as follows; Tract 1: Beginning at a 5/8-inch rod, point #22 as identified in Marion Co. Survey Record (MCSR] No. 36587, Thence N 37~49'4S"E, 105.12 feet, more or less, to identified point #21, MCSR 3b587; Thence N 60~45'OQ"W, 10.0 feet more or less; Thence S 3749'45"W parallel with boundary line between identified points #22 and #21, 105 feet more or less to the northerly right-of-way line of Brown Court; Thence S 5443'00"E, 10.0 feet more or less to the point of beginning. And; Tract 2: Beginning at point #31 as identified on MCSR 36587, Thence N 3749'45"E, 10.1 1 feet more or less to point #21 MCSR 3b587; Thence S 6045'00"E, 120.18 feet more or less; Thence S 31~34'QQ"E, 35.00 feet more or less, to point #30 MSCR Page 1 -Council Bill N©. Resolution No. Page 127 36587; Thence N 3414`54"HIV, 49.14 feet mare or less, to paint ## 32 MCSR 36587; Thence N 6445'40"W, 78,40 feet mare or less, to the paint of beginning. Section 2. The Council finds that the property Is surplus property and is not needed far public use. Section 3, The Council further finds, based upon the August 11, 2448, Public 1Alorks Director staff report and the information presen#ed at the public hearing, that 55,000 is a reasonable amount far the City to receive far the property, Section 4. The Council authorizes the Interim City Administrator an behalf of the City to accept the offer of dean F, and Delores K. Prondzlnski and to sell the property tv Dean F. and Delores K. Prandzinski for the sum of $5,044, which Includes the assessed value of the surplus property and administrative fees associated with filing the iot Ilne adjustments. Approved as to form: ~ ~~ ~ City Attorney Dot Approved: Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Kathryn Figley, Mayor Filed In the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant City l~ecarder City of Waodbum, Qregan Page 2 - Cot~neil Bill No. I~esc~lut±on Nc~, Page 128 ~''.`.'~ Woa~~v~N A5*~ I~ September 8, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Dan Brown, Public Works Director SUBJECT: 2004, 2005, and 2006 Fund Exchange Agreement with ODOT for North Front Street RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution entering into a 2004, 2005, and 2006 Fund Exchange Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation for construction of the North Front Street project and authorizing the Interim City Administrator to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND: The federal transportation act, current act is SAFTEA-LU, contains federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds that are allocated to the states. These funds are provided to the State each fiscal year and are allocated to cities based upon population. The STP funding has been a part of the federal act since 1991 when the identical Federal Aid-Urban program was renamed. The amount of funds allocated to the State for this program has grown with each reauthorization of the federal transportation act which occurs approximately every six years. The City can use the allocations for a formal federal aid project which requires federal approval and results in a very complicated process that is time consuming and expensive. Another option that most cities utilize is a fund exchange program where the City exchanges $1 of federal dollars for 94¢ of State gas tax dollars. The S#ate then utilizes the federal dollars on existing projects that already have federal dollars obligated and have completed the federal approval process. The use of exchanged State gas tax dollars allows very flexible use of these dollars and the State wiH normally authorize a fund exchange for any street project that is requested. The State allows annual STP fund allocations to remain with the state and be accumulated for use on larger project. The City prepared a prospectus far the North Front Street project and submitted it to ODOT Region 2 for approval as a fund exchange project. The City requested that a fund exchange be made with federal dollars that the City was allocated in 2004, 2005, and 2006 (a three year total of $582,024) for $547,103 in state funds to be utilized for North Front Street. ODOT Agenda Item Review: City Administrator ___.~ City Attorney .~. ___...._.__ Finance Page 129 Mayor and City Council September $, 21708 Page 2 Region 2 subsequently approved the fund exchange as requested and provided a fund exchange agreement to authorize the fund exchange. DISCUSSION: The attached resolution authorizes the Interim City Administrator to sign, on behalf of the City, the 2004, 2005, and 2006 Fund Exchange Agreement with QDQT to exchange $582,024 in federal funds for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 for $547,103 in state funds the Front Street project. The exchange of STP funds has been identified previously as one of the funding sources associated with the Front Street project. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Front Street project is included in the FY 2007-200$ approved Capital Improvement Program and funding will come from a variety of funding sources. Page 130 COUNCIL BILL NO. 272 RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO 2004, 2005, AND 2006 FUND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT NUMBER 25,141 WITH THE STATE OF OREGON AND AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN SUCH AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, by authority granted in ORS 190.110, 366.572 and 366.576 the State of Oregon acting through its Department of Transportation is authorized to enter into agreements with cities for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties, and WHEREAS, North Front Street is a part of the City street system under the jurisdiction and control of the City of Woodburn, and WHEREAS, a project has been developed to improve the North Front Street Gateway to downtown Woodburn that enhances the appearance and access to the downtown area, and WHEREAS, the City has completed a project prospectus outlining the schedule and costs for the North Front Street Gateway project, and WHEREAS, the State of Oregon, Department of Transportation, has reviewed the City's prospectus for the North Front Street Gateway project and has determined that the project is eligible for exchange of $582,024 in federal funds for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 for $547,103 in state funds, NOW THEREFORE: THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS; Section 1. That the City of Woodburn enter into 2004, 2005, and 2006 Fund Exchange Agreement No. 25,141, which is affixed as Attachment "A"` and by this reference incorporated herein, with the State of Oregon acting by and through its Department of Transportation to exchange of $582,024 in federal funds far the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 for $547,103 in state funds to improve the North Front Street gateway to downtown Woodburn and enhance the appearance and access to the downtown area. Page 1 - COUNCtL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. Page 131 Section 2. That the Interim City Administrator of the City of Woodburn is authorized to sign said agreement an behalf of the City. Approved as to farm: ~,~ ~ .~w City Attorney Date APPRQVED: Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by Mayer Filed rn the Office flf the Retarder ATTEST: Ka#hryn Figley, Mayer Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, C}regon Page 2 - CQUIUCIL BILL NQ. RESt}LUTIQN NO. Page 132 ATTACHMEI~fT Page 1 of Misc. Contracts & Agreements No. 25,141 2004, 2005 and 2006 FUND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT North Front Street Gateway Project City of Woodburn THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State", and the CITY OF WOODBURN, acting by and through its designated officials, hereinafter referred to as "City," hereinafter individually referred to as the "Party" and collectively referred to as the "Parties." RECITALS 1. By the authority granted in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 190.110, 366.572 and 366.576, State may enter into cooperative agreements with counties, cities and units of local governments for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. 2. North Front Street is a part of the city street system under the jurisdiction and control of City. NCIW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing Recitals, it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as fol{ows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT City has submitted a completed and signed Part 1 of the Project Prospectus, or a similar document agreed to by State, outlining the schedule and costs associated with afl phases of the North Front Street Gateway project, hereinafter referred to as "Project." The location of the Project is approximately as shown on the sketch map attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part hereof. 2. State has reviewed City's prospectus and considered City's request for the Fund Exchange, State has determined that City's Project is eligible for the exchange of funds. 3. To assist in funding the Project, City has requested State to exchange federal funds in the following manner: Page 133 A"i'1"AG1~~~~ ~ag~ ~.e of City of Woodburn / State of Gregc~n - Dept. of Transporfafian Agreement ~o. 25,141` Flscal Year ~ F~d~ar~~~ ~ ~, Funds Excha~~e Rats - State Funds 20Q4 ~ ~ 82,514 - _ 94°l~ __ __ 171,563 2005 X203,392 94°l0 191,189 2Q06 $196,11.8 94%~ X1841351 Total $582,024 $547,103.. 4. City she!{ exchange a total of $582,024 federa{ funds for state funds at the ratios defined in the above table, State shall reimburse City up to the total of $547,103 state funds for eligible costs incurred. 5. The term of this Agreement will begin upon execution and wil{ terminate two {2) calendar years later on the same month and day unless extended by an executed amendment between the Parties. 6. The Parties agree that the exchange is subject to the following conditions: a. The federal funds transferred to State may be used by State at its discretion, b. State dollars transferred to City must be used for the Project, This Fund Exchange will provide funding for specific roadway projects and may also be used for the fallowing maintenance purposes: Purchase or Production of Aggregate, City shall ensure the purchase or production of aggregate will be highway related and used exclusively for highway work, ii. Purchase of Equiprnenf. City shall clearly describe how it p{ens to use said equipment on highways. City shall demonstrate that the equipment will only be used for highway purposes. c. State funds may be used for all phases of the Project, inc{uding preliminary engineering, right of way, utility relocations and construction. Said use shall be consistent with the Oregon Constitution and statutes {Section 3a of Article !X Oregon Constitution}. City shall be responsible to account for expenditure of state funds, d. This Fund Exchange shall be on a reimbursement basis, with state funds limited to a maximum amount of X547,103. All costs incurred in excess of the Fund Exchange amount will be the sole responsibility of City.. Page 2 of S Page 134 ATt'ACNMENfi Page ~ of a-._~ City of Woodburn I State of Qregon -Dept. of Transpe~rtation Agreement Na. 25, f 4 9 e. State certifies, at the time this Agreement is executed, that sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this Agreement within State's current appropriation or limitation of the current biennial budget. f. City, and any contractors, shall perform the work as an independent contractor and will be exclusively responsible for all costs and expenses related to its employment of individuals to perform the work including, but not limited to, retirement contributions, workers compensation, unemployment taxes, and state and federal income tax withholdings. g. City shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the provisions of QRS 279C.545, 279C.515, 279C.524, 279C.534 and 2798.274 incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, City expressly agrees to comply with (i} Title V1 of Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Title V and Section 544 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (iii} the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and t?RS 659A.142; (iv) aN regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (v} all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. h. City, ar its consultant, shall conduct the necessary preliminary engineering and design work required to produce final plans, specifications and cost estimates; purchase all necessary right of way in accordance with current state and federal laws and regulations; obtain all required permits; be responsible for all utility relocations; advertise for bid proposals; award all contracts; perform all construction engineering; and make all contractor payments required to complete the Project. City shall submit invoices to State an a monthly basis, for actual costs incurred by City on behalf of the Project directly to State's Project Manager for review and approval. Such invoices will be in a form identifying the Project, the agreement number, the invoice or account number (or both}, and will itemize all expenses for which reimbursement is claimed. Under no conditions shall State's obligations exceed $547,143, including all expenses. Travel expenses will not be reimbursed. Page 3 of 8 Page 135 ATTAGIiMIV°C Page ~ of , City a€ Y~aodburrt !State of Qregt~n - fleet. of Transportafion Agreement lVo. 25,141 City shall, at its own expense, maintain and operate the Project upon completion at a minimum level that is consistent with normal depreciation and service demand. k. All employers, including City, that employ subject workers in the State of Oregon shall comply with URS 656.017 and provide the required Workers' Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. City shall ensure that each of its subcontractors complies with these requirements, This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days' notice, in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. State may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to City, or at such later date as may be established by State, under any of the following conditions: A, If City fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. B. if City fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as #o endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from State fails to correct such failures within ten (10) days or such longer period as State may authorize. 2. Either Party may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to the other Party, or at such later date as may be established by the terminating Party, under any of the following conditions: A. If either Party fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow either Party, in the exercise of their reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for performance of this Agreement. B. If faders! or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such away that either the work under this Agreement is prohibited or either Party is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding source. 3, Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the Parties prior t© termination. Page 4 of $ Page 136 ~TTACH~IEM' __1 ~~ge of _~,,,~ City of Woodburn 1 State of Oregon -Dept, of Transportation Agreement l~10. 25,141 m. State and City hereto agree that if any term or provision of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, unenforceable, illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular term or provision held to be invalid, 7. City acknowledges and agrees that State, the pregon Secretary of State's Office, the federal government, and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers, and records of City which are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts for a period of six (6) years after final payment. Copies of applicable records steal! be made available upon request. Payment. for costs of copies is reimbursable by State. S. City certifies and represents that the individual{s) signing this Agreement has been authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement on behalf of City, under the direction or approval of its governing body, commission, board, officers, members or representatives, and to legally bind City. 9. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all of which when taken together shall constitute one agreement binding on all Parties, notwithstanding that all Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy of this Agreement so executed shall constitute an original. 10. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the Parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement, No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either Party unless in writing and signed by both Parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given, The failure of State to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by State of that or any other provision. 11. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all of which when together shall constitute one agreement binding on all parties, notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy of this Agreement so executed shall constitute an original. Page 5 of 8 Page 137 ft'~`AGH,'~NC Cify of Woodburn 1 State of Qregon - C3ept. of Transportation Agreement No. 2> 141 THE PARTIES, by execution of this Agreement, hereby acknowledge that each Party has read this Agreement, understands it, and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. The funding for this Fund Exchange program was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on November 14, 2007, as a part of the 2048-2011 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program {STIP). The Program and Funding Services Manager approved the Fund Exchange on August 12, 2008, The Oregon Transportation Commission on June 18, 2003, approved Delegation Qrder No. 2, which authorizes the Director to approve and execute agreements for day-to-day operations. Day-to-day operations include those activities required to implement the biennial budget approved by the Legislature, including activities to execute a project in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. Signature page to t`oilow Page 6 of 8 Page 138 >~ ~r~acla l:~ `~ gage ~ of City of Woodburn t State of Oregon -Dept. of Transportation Agreement No. 25,147 On August 2, 2005, the Director, Deputy Director, Highways and Chief Engineer approved Subdelegation Order No. 5, in which the Director, Deputy Director, Highways and Ghief Engineer delegate authority to the Region Managers to approve and sign intergovernmental agreements over $75,000 up to a maximum of $500,000 when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP}. CITY OF WOODBURN, by and through STATE OF OREGON, by and through its designated officials its Department of Transportation By Administrator Date APPROVED AS T4 FORM By City Legal Counsel Date BY Region 2 Planning & Development Manager Date City Contact: Randall Rohman, P.E. Public Works Program Manager City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Phone: (503} 982-5245 Randy Rohman{c~c~ woodburn anus By Region 2 Manager Date APPROVAL. RECOMMENDED APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By Assistant Attorney General Date State Contact: Lyn Cornell, local Agency Coordinator Highway Division, Region 2 455 Airport Road SE, Building B Salem, OR 97301-5395 Phone: (503) 986-2650 Email: iir:da.s.cornell odot.state onus Page 7 of 8 Page 139 ~Tt`AGC~~-~~ .~,. City of Woradburn 1 State o€ aregQn -Dept. ~f 7'rartsp~rfafic~rt Agreerrrent fllo. 25, °t41 EXHiF31T A NortC~ Front Street Gateway Project L~DC-~' ~~~1U~~ ~ l ~~~~ ~ `~~ ~~r ~-~ ~~ Y'€LLSt?~31~? ~~...- -R^ ~ ~ l ~ ~.... !i f ~ ~ F ~~ ...~... s~~r~co~~~r~c~~t ~c~~~ bTRTE 3•iX.a7#trAY CaA-~swiF}:.I~TkQtd ~a'~:rv 9 ~w..'.i.~.i.rw T EiEaE.+t~l~JcRY ~~ I r j "" Ss ~` L __ r. j L-~...~.'.5 j .y '.- ~' ..SSd y ~~ r y # _.' P. _`I ~ ~~ `t t~ ~:~ ~, ~ ~! t 3~ lidl '1 ..... ..~ +M~ ~I a c 1/~~~'~~..~ ~I ~,~ ~, n t ..... w. _.._ ... _~..~._ 1 .._~ _l-_ t. .... `` -- ~,t~ t MfiiiC~f j,~ {~fJl~ll~jt t CITY QF OtJ[?BURN C~fJ11~JNTQINN REVITAL.I~ATCQN "~Tq >vT}:i J '.A't MFi!~j}7ffii !i~roY6'b{ii 3'wS rt'4 nx +sti hN+ '/#C++++'Q Cr ~ b~ 3~~atia flv YqK Ir(}4MR+:M~... V •A101~5.} gF7f}{45 1..05'4 !# AL"i i!lur~naRn 4fYJ.d .AM4 s O11+1Y.C fv G~~4 Yi`ai iM2 YiM~!AS s5~aa:M U ~,4!Mt M .Nt''.~'f d IIu 3tYS~5.'4~a~a'.-° Page 8 of $ Page 140 y. .sC,.A;..c a4 st153 1.......„...___..~ ........._'^"4 lhkscsi MN0.1~1 f sv-2 ~EtiE F?M ., .. ~•.~°s-.fir ~J~I~O+DDBL~R.~ p iz~.~. September 4, 20Q8 T{J: Honorable Mayor and City Counci! through City Administrator FROM: Natalie Labossiere, Interim Community Development Director SUB.IECT: legislative Amendment 2~7-Q3; Woodburn Development Ordinance RECC?MMENDATI4N: Approve the attached Ordinance, BACKGROUND: The Woodbum City Council passed Resolution 1874 on November 26, 2007 initiating review of the Woodburn Developmen# Ordinance far a list of provisions and topics. The Woodburn Planning Commission considered a portion of those topics and revisions to the W DO and recommended adaptian of those amendments at is .tune 12, 2008 meeting. The City Council conducted a public hearing of those items on August 1 1, 2008. DISCUSSIQN: The legislative Amendments Findings and WDO #ext amendments are attached as exhibits for your consideration. FkNANC1Al IMPACT: There is no financial impact identified with the recommended action. ~: Agenda Item Re,r~E'vi~ laity Adrx~iristrcJta~~yr iwity Aitorr~ey _-. ` ._ Finar~c.e Page 141 COUNCIL BILL NC}.27~3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 4RDINANCf 2313 (THE WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE) TO MAKE CERTAIN TEXT REVISIONS. WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council passed Resolution 1874 on November 2b, 2Q07 initiating review of the Woodburn Development Qrdinance; and WHEREAS, revisions to the Woodburn Development Ordinance were considered by the Woodburn Planning Commission at a public hearing on June 12, 20CJ$; and WHEREAS, the Woodburn Planning Commission made its final recommendation to the Council on June 12, 2Q08, and WHEREAS, the Council conducted a public hearing en these revisions on August 1 1, 2Q08, and WHEREAS, having considered the evidence and information presented, the Council wants to make the necessary amendments to the Woodburn Development Ordinance, NOW, THEREFCIRE, THE CITY CAF WC7QD6URN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1, For purposes of this ordinance amendment, all new text is shown as underlined (i.e. new text) and all deleted text is shown as stricken ~i.e., deie-fit}. After this ordnance amendment is ad©pted, the Community Development Director shall correct the Waodburn Development Ordinance to incorporate all revisions contained herein. Section ~. Section 1.101.42.C cif Ordinance 2313 (the Woodburn Development Ordinances is added to read as fellows: "C. As used in the W OQ: 1. The term "shall" is mandatory. 2. The term "should" is discretionary 3. The term "mad' is permissive, 4. The term "standard" indicates a mandatary requirement The decision-maker shall re airs conformance with a standard unless a gage ; - C~~^~C1! fiiL~ tiC ~;~uNANCE ?vQ. Page 142 variance, zoning adjustment, exception, or other relief has been granted. 5. The term "guideline" indicates a norm that is accepted in the community. The decision-maker shall require conformance with a guideline unless it finds that the guideline is unwarranted, unnecessary, duplicative, or unreasonable under the particular circumstances, or that the intent of the guideline has been substantially rnet." Section 3. Section 1.102 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "Lot: A lot or parcel created by subdivision or partition in compliance with ORS Chapter 92 and applicable zoning and subdivision ord'+nances or a unit of land created by deed or land sale contract recorded before subdivision requirements, or partition regvirements in the City of Woodburn LA,pril 16, 1963 or for land in Marion County not yet incorporated in the City of Woodburn prior to major partition regulations (August $, 1962j and minor partition regulations September 1, 1977j, exclusive of units of land created solely to establish a separate property tax occount." Section 4. Section 1.102 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "yVall Architectural: ~- #e~k~es: A brick, poured concrete, precast concrete, or CMU wail, that has an earth tone coloration other than grey on at least eighfiy-eight percent {88`~o~.of the surface; incorporates at least two colors; is architecturally treated with scoring, texture, or pattern on at least eighty- eight percent j$$~a~ of the surface; and is provided with an anti- roffiti surface." Section 5. 1.102 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "Plant Unit: The quantity of specified plant materials, per table 3,1.5. Section b. Section 1.105.03 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "C. Review and Tentativel~Approval of Plats and Planned Unit Developments. The Commission shall have the duty and power to review and tentatively approve plats, replats and planned unit developments of land laid out in ~RD3NR'~tCE '~~~ Page 143 #flts, inc#uding the streets, alleys, and other portions of the same intended try be dedicated fc~r pub#ic or private use within the City of Woodburn. subject to review or appeal tc~ the City Council," Sectaen 7. Section 2.102.46 regarding yard setbacks is amended to read as fo#1ows: "D. Setback and Buffer lrnprc~vement Standards. 1. Minirr~urn ~rant'F~~ Setback and Setback. Abutting a Street: ~, Minimum Interior Side `Facd and lnteriar Rear `~ Setbacks a. flimensions: 1 } Side ~-Setback. The minimum side setback shall be 5 feet EXCEPT for a flag lot. The side ~~-d-setbcsck for a fl©g 1©t may be either Qne of the following: aj 12 feet, when all setbacks are a minimum of 12 feet; or b} ~ feef, when the rear ~ setback complies with dimensions of Section 2.102.46.C .2.a.2} a) . 2} Rear ~- Setback. a} The average rear ~ setback has defined in Section 1.102} for all lets, EXCEPT a flag lot shall be; b} The minimum rear ~ setback for a flag lot shal# be either one cif the following: (i} . A minimum 12 fee#. when all ~ setbacks are a rrsin"swum of # 2 feet:,, Sec#ipn $. Section 2.143.06 regarding yord setbacks is amended to read as fol#ows: "C. Setback and Buffer lmprovemen# Standards. # . Minirr~um Front ~ Setback and Setback Abutting a Stree#: 2. Minimum Interior Side ~-a~d and Interior Rear -Setbacks. a. Dimensions: 1 } Side Setback. The minimum side ~ setback for all lots shall be 5 feet, or 7~e of the lc~t width, whichever is greater. 2j Rear Setback: The rr~inimum rear setback for al# lots shall be 5 feet. b, Cuff Street Parking and Maneuvering: 1 } £~ff street parking, rnanevvering and storage shall be permitted in the side and rear ~ setback Q~d~P~AI~IC~ ~+~. Page 144 subject to applicable Special Use and Accessory Use standards, Secfions 2.203.03 and 2.201." Section 4. Section 2.104.06 regarding yard setbacks is amended to read aS f4ilOWS: "D, Setback and Butfer improvement Standards. 1. Minimum Front Setback and Setback Abutting a Street: 2. Minimum Interior Side and Interior Rear -Setbacks." Section 10. Section 2.105.05 regarding yard setbacks is amended to read as follows: "C. Setback and Buffer Improvement Standards. 1. Minimum Front ~!a~d Setback and Setback Abutting a Street: 2. Minimum Interior Side and Rear Setbacks.'° Section 11. Section 2,106.05 regarding yard setbacks is amended to read as follows: "C. Setback and Buffer Improvement Standards. 1. Minimum Front Setback and Setback Abutting a Street; 2. Minimum Interior Side and Rear mod-Setbacks." Section 12. Section 2.109.06 regarding yard setbacks is amended to read as toilows: "C. Setback and Buffer Improvement Standards. i , Minimum Front Setback and Setback Abutting a Street; 2. Minimum Interior Side and Rear ~-Setbacks." Section l3. Section 2.1 10.06 regarding yard setbacks is amended to read as follows: "C. Setback and Buffer Improvement Standards. 1. Minimum Front a'~d Setback and Setback Abutting a Street: 2. Minimum Interior Side and Rear Setbacks." Section 14. Section 2.111.05 regarding yard setbacks is amended to read as follows: "C, Setback and Buffer Improvement Standards. 1, Minimum Front Setback and Setback Abutting a Street: 2. Minimum Interior Side and Rear ~efd Setbacks." gage 4 - CUl3tvCi~ a1LL NCB. GRG'~NAt~. `~. NC?, Page 145 Section 15. .Section 2.114.08 reg©rding yard setbacks is amended #o read as follt~ws: "C. Setback and Buffer Improvement Standards, 1. Minimum Front y Setback and Setback Abutting a Street: ?. Minimum Interior Side and Rear ~ Setbacks.,' Section 16. Section 2.1 15.02 regarding yard setbacks is amended to read as f©llows: "L}, Development Standards tar Smal# Lot Single Family Residential Develflpments. The following level©pment standards shall apply only to small lot single family residentia# developments. Standards fc~r ether developments and uses shall comply with the RS zone. 1. Minimum Front .~ Setback and Setback Abutting a Street ?. Minimum Interior Side ~ and Interior Rear ~ Setbacks. a. Dimensions: 1 ~ Side y- Setback. The minimum side setback shall be 5 feet. 2~ Rear Setback. The average rear setback {as defined in Section 1,102} shall be 0 feet." Section ~ 7. Section 21 15.08 regarding yard setbacks is amended tc~ read as tolloVVs: "C Multi-Family and Duplex Residential Development Standards. l . The setback abutting a street and the front ~ setback fer multi-family and duplex residential uses shall be a minimum Qf 10 fleet and a maximum of 15 feet, EXCEPT where: 2, Rear and side-~ setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet, EXCEPT where: D. Attached Single Family Dwelling (Raw H©uses~ Development Standards. 1. Minimum Front ~a~ Setback and Setback Abutting a Street: a. C?ff Street Parking, Maneuvering and Storage: ~ ~lehicular access directly to a public street is prohibited and alley access tQ garages facing the alley is required. oft street parking and storage shall be prohibited within a required #rc~nt setback car any yard abutting a street. 2. Mir~imvm Interior Side r~ and Interior Rear ~` Setbacks. page 5 -- ~~~`:~ BtLi. ~~~. GR~tiA^ICE ~~ Page 146 a, Qimensions: ~ } Side Setback. The minimum side setback sha11 be 0 feet, EXCEPT for corner Pots, in which case, the minimum street side setback shall be 15 feet, 2) Rear Setback. The average rear } setback (as defined in Section t,102~ shall be 20 feet. b, Off Street Parking, Maneuvering and Storage: >> Off street parking, maneuvering and storage shall not be permitted in a side setback." Section 18. Table 2.1.7, Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for RM Zones of t~rdinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: TABLE 2, i .7 Interior Yard and Buffer Standards for RM Zones Abutting Property Landscaping Wall lnterlr~r Setback RS or R1S zone; or All interior yards Solid brick or 24 ft. from any portion of a shall be fully orchitectural wall primary building I fi ft, or Existing single family landscaped with anti-graffiti less in height.. or duplex dwelling subieet to Section surface, no less than (I 3. it?b. b feet or greater 3o ft. from any portion of a ( than 7 feet in height. Primary building 1 b.1 ft. to II i 28 ft. in height. i 36 ft. from any porticn cf a primary building 28.1 ft. to 3S ft. in height. I RM, PISP or CO zone; Ali interior yards shall Wail requirements shall 24 ft. from any portion of or be fully landscaped be determined in a primary building ; 6 subject to Section conjunction with the ft. ar less in height- Existing medium density 3. i05, applicable Design residential unit Review process. 30 ft, #rorn any portion of a I star mare building mere-.##~ra i b.l ft. Mess I #•f~ to 28 ft. in height- I 36 ft. from any portion of a rip mare building ~e~r-#kre+a 2$.l ft. ~t"le,s #t~ to 35 ft. in height. pale 6 - CQlitvCIL ~Ir L NC. GRC''~AN~E NQ. Page 147 Section 19. Section 2.102.Ob of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "D, Setback and Buffer Irr~prc~vement Standards. 1. f=ront Yard Setback and Setback Abutting a Street: a. Dimensions; 1 } The minimum setback abutting a street, or front property line shall be 2fl feet plus any Special Setback, Section 3.1~3.D5, EXCEPT; bj When the existing pattern of development requires the application of Section 2. ta2.t?b.ED.1.a.2)."" Section 20. Section 2.104.Ob, Dimensional Standards of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "B. Lot Standards. Lots in an RM zone shall comply with the standards for the subject use described in Tables 2.1.1 (single-family dwelling onlvj, 2. i.5 and 2.1.5." Section 21. Section 2.104,05.D, Dimensional Standards of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "2. Interior Side and Interior Rear Yard Setbacks a. Development in an RM zone, except far a single family dwelling and duplex dwelling, shall be subject to the setback and buffer requirements of Tr~b1e 2.1.7. b. A single family dwelling or duplex dwelling in the RM zone shall be subject to the setback and buffer improvement standards in Secfion 2.102.06.E" Sec#ion 22. Section 2,104.07, Development Standards of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "C. Architectural Design Guidelines and Open Space Standards. 1. Multiple family dweflinas shall be subject to the design standards or guidelines of Section 3. T 07.Q5." ~R~f"sANCE ~~~, Page 148 Section 23. Section 2. ] 09.Qb is amended to read as follows; "A. Lot Standards. Lo#s in e the IP zone shall comply with the applicable standards of Table 2.1. ] 5." Section 24. Section 2. ] ] 3.04.A of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "3. The following uses and activities are prohibited within the RCWOD: a. New residential, commercial, industrial, or public/semi-public construction; b. Expansion of existing buildings or structures; bc. Expansion of areas of pre-existing non-native ornamental landscaping such as lawn, gardens, etc.; od. Dumping, piling, or disposal of refuse, yard debris, or other material." Section 25. Section 2. ] 16.45, Administration, of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "Section 2.1 1b delineates responsibilities of the City and ODOT to monitor and evaluate vehicle trip generation impacts on the I-5 interchange from development approved under this section. A. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIAj A TIA is required for ali land use applications subject to the provisions of Section 2. i lb. The TIA must meet City and ODOT administrative rule (OAR Chapter 734, Division 51 j requirements and shall include an evaluation and recommendation of feasible transportation demand management (TOMj measures that will minimize peak hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed development. B. ODOT Coordination For a land use application subject to the provisions of Section 2. I t 6: ] . The City shall not deem the land use application complete unless it includes a TIA prepared in accordance with €i# Q; TIA Requirements. 2. The C'rty shall provide written notification to ODOT when the application is deemed complete. This notice shall include an Pcge 8 - COUNCIL $1LL NO. OR04N.~NCE NO. Page 149 invitation to ODOT to participate in the City's facilities review meeting. 3. OaOT shall have at least 2Q days to provide written comments to the City, measured from the date the completion notice was mailed. If ODOT does not provide written comments during this 20-day period, the City's decision may be issued without consideration of ODOT comments." Section 26. Section 2.203.1 ~, tvtanufactured Home on a lot, of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "F, Energy Efficiency. The manufactured home shall be certified by fhe manufacturer to have an exterior thermal envelope meeting performance standards equivalent to the performance standards required of single-family dwellings constructed under the state Building Code as defined in C3RS Chapter 455.,' Section 27. Section 2.203.1 ~, Manufactured Nome on a Lot, of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: "G, Garage or Carport. The manufactured home shall have a garage or carport of like rr~aterials. An attached or detached garage in lieu of a carport shall be required where such is consistent with the ~e~er~~te redominant construction of immediately surrounding dwellings. 1. Predominant Material and t='-reifx~#e Predarr~inant Construction. As used in Section 2.2173. Ib, "predominant material" and "predominant construction" shall be the material used on the majority of the dwellings in the review area, If #here is no majority of dwellings using the same material, then the material used on the largest plurality of dwellings in the review area shall be the predominant material." Section 2$. Section 3.103. i 0, Vision Clearance Area, of Ordinance 2313 is revised to read as follows: "A. Pur~aose. Fage 4 -- C~~P~C(L BILE 3~C~. G'R~'~'~iANCE P~lC?. Page 150 A vision clearance area is an area at the intersection of two streets a street and a drivewaYor a street and an alley in which visual obstructions are limi#ed for safety purposes. B. Extent. l . At the intersection of two streets the vision clearance area is formed by a combination of the following. lines: a line extending 30 feet from the two lot lines adjacent to a street and a third line drawn across the corner of the lot that connects the ends of the lines, creating a triangular vision clearance area. 2. At the intersection of a street and an alley, the vision clearance area is formed by a combination of the followin lines: a line extending ten feet from the intersection along the back of curb, a line extendingten feet from the property line along, the alley and a line drawn across the corner of the lot that connects the ends of the lines, creating, a triangular vision clearance area. 3. At the intersection of a street and a driveway, the vision clearance area is formed by a combination of the following lines; a line extending ten feet from the intersection along the back of curb, a line extending ten feet along the side of the driveway a third line drawn across the corner of the lot that connects the ends of the fines, creating, a triangular vision clearance area. 4. Within the DDC zone, the vision clearance area is formed by a combination of the following lines: a line extending 20 feet from the two curb lines and a third line drawn across the corner of the lot that connects the ends of the lines, creating a triangular vision clearance area. 5. if a street is subject to a Special Setback under Section 3.103.OS`the Species{ Setback shall be used to define the vis;on clearance area. C. Prohibited Development. A vision clearance area shall contain no plants, fence, wall, structure, signs garkina space, loading space or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding 30 inches in height Page ' ~ -CO~!~lCIL BiL~ NC3. ORDINANCE NCJ. Page 151 (measured from the top of the curb or, where no curb exists, from the established street centerline grade], EXCEPT as follows: 1. Trees, provided bronches and foliage are removed to 0 height of 7 feet above grade; 2. Telephone, power and cable television poles; 3. Telephone and utility boxes less thon ten inches of the widest dimension; and 4. Traffic control signs and devices. D. Authority to Modify The Community Development Director with the written concurrence of the Public Works Director shall have the authority to modify the standards for a vision clearance area upon finding that the waiver is appropriate due to one-way traffic atterns." Section 29. Table 3.1.5 of Qrdinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: TABLE 3.1.5 Definition of a P{ant Unit (PUj Material Plant Unit Value Size 1. 1 Significant Tree 75 PU Minimum 24" Caliper 2. :urge Tree. Section b. l (}3 10 PU Min. l 0' Height or 2" Caliper 3. 1 Medium Tree, section 6.103 $ PU Min. 10' Height ar 2° Caliper 4. 1 Small Tree. Section 6.103 4 PU Min. 1 a' Height ar 2" Caliper 5. 1 large deciduous or Evergreen shrub (at maturity aver 4' wide x 4' high] 2 PU Minimum 3 gallon or balled & burlapped b. 1 Small to Medium shrub (at maturity maximum 4' wide x 4' high] 1 PU Minimum I a!!an g 7. lawn ar o#her living ground cover 1 PU150 square feet 8. Berm i PUl2Q lineal feet Minimum 2 feet high 9. Qrnamentai fence t PU12~ Iineal feet 2'-~ - 4 feet hitch 10. Boulder 1 PU Minimum 2 feet hitxh 1 (.Sundia's, obe;i5k gnt~man. ar gazing ball 2 PU Minimum ~ feet high i 2.=ountain 3 PU Minimum 3 feet high Page i 1 -CtJUNCiL BIIL NC7. ~~RDINRNCE NO. Page 152 TABLE 3.1.5 Definition of a Plant Unit (PU} lvtaterial Plant Unit Valve Size i 3.13ench or chair . PU{ lineal foot 14,Raised giantlna bed constricted of tvlinimum 1 foot high .5 PUj ling~l foot of , brick, stone car similar materit~,l minimurrt 1 fo©t wide in least r~reatest dimension EXCEPT CMU interi r dimension N4 more than tweet er ent 2(}°~ of the re it d lent .ifs ma b s ti fi items in lines 8 thro~~cah 14. Section 3Q. Table 3.1 Qb.tJ4, Conservation of Significant Trees of ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: A. "Purpose. The purpose of this Section is fio establish processes and standards which will minimize cutting or destruction of significant trees within the City. Significant trees enhance neighborhoods by crewtinq a sense of character and permanence In general, significant trees c~n_private property shelf be retained unless determined to be hazardous #o life or roperty. ~ _~ 8. Applicability. The provisions of this Sect€Qn apply to the removal of any significant tree and the replacement requirements for significant tree removal. A "significant tree" is any existing, healthy tree 24 inches or more in diameter, measured 12 inches above ground level. C. Review Prior fio Removal. A £ significant tree removal permit shall e~ be reviewed as a Type 1 application to authorize the removal of a significant tree, subject to the following €~~€#~S~ ~_.__..____ 1. The property °wner shall replace each tree removed with two new trees A tree required by the development standards of the zone Section 3,1, or as a condition of permit or fond use a_g royal shall qualify as a replacement tree. 2. ~+gn+#+E~#- Pc~~e i ~ -CGUNCIL B[~L NCB. ~RDINAt'~iCE N©. Page 153 . For The removal cif a diseased or dangerous freer a reaarf from a certified arborisf shall be submittet~ certifying that the tree is dead or dying, structurally unsound or hazardous to life or grvperf~r~ any significant free removed under This-provision shall be replaced in accordance with Section 3,f46.44.D. 3, A eesc~-~ dangerous free may be rerraoved rior fo obfaining wi##e€-~ a permit in an emergency. and the owner shall apply within Three days for the removal permit pursuant fo this Section.. Any significant free removed under this provision shall be replaced in accordance with Secfion 3, l 46.44.03. D, Tree Replacement Requirement, The issuance of a significant free removal permit requires the property owner fio replace each tree removed with Two new trees on the same property.. Each new tree shall be at leasfi 2 inches in caliper. Each free replaced should be of a species not on the prohibited free Iist~Secfion 6.143 as these trees are not recommended for their ne alive attributes. The re lacement tree should be of the same size ran eat rnaturif as the si nificant tree replaced-A--#fee-re~e+~ . The property owner shall choose the method of replacement. Replacement shall be accomplished 1. Planting two trees on the subject prapertvj 2, Planfiin one free on the sub'ect ra err and one tree at a location determined by The Woodburn Communify Services Qepartment or 3. Planting one tree on the subiect pr©perty and.payina a fee- in-lieu to The Woodburn Communit}~Services Departmenf f©r the slanting of one tree €~t a future time by the City. gage i 3 -~~UNCIL BILL NUJ, C1RVitvAI~CE ~~}. Page 154 E. i-Lieu-of Miff titian Fee, The ro ert owner shall a a miti ation fee far each required rer~lacement tree thcit is not planted pursuant to Section 3.1 Q6A4.D,3. The a licant shall a the miti titian fee into the Citv's tree fund. The amount of the mitigation fee shall be established by the City Council in the Master Fee Schedule, based on the average value of a 2-inch caliper tree available from local nurseries plus planting casts.,` Sectian 31, Sectian 3.1 Q7A9, Architectural Walls of Ordinance 2313 is added to read as follows. "A. AQplicability. This section shall appiy to required architectural walls in all zoning districts. B. Design Guidelines 1. An architectural wall steal! meet the texture color and articulation re virements an fhe face awe from the ro ased develo meat, 2, An architectural wall sfaautd meet the texture color and articulation requirements on the face toward the.proposed development. 3. Are architectural wall shah have a minimum 3„ horizontal articulation of of leasf 1 linear fact of the wall of intervals not mare than 40 feet and 4. An architecture[ wall shalt have a minimum ~" vertical articulation of at least 1 linear foot of fhe wall of intervals not more than 44 feet. C. RetQininq walls Retaining walls shouldlshall meet the texture and color requirements of architectural walls in or abutting residential districts, where the texture and color requirements amply to the visible fade of the retaining wall." Section 32. Sectian 4.1 Q1,Q9 of Ordinance 2313 is amended to read as follows; "A. Mailed Native. 2. Type 111 ar 1V, Notice fcr all initial evidential public hearings concerning Type Ill and IV decisions shall conform to the requirements of this subsection. At least 281Q days before a Type 111 initial evidentiary hearing, or at least X910 days before fhe first Page 1 ~ -CC(~~Cl~ B;LL NC3. ~'~.. RDIN~N~E NQ. Page 155 hearing of a Type lV application the Director shall prepare and send, by first class mail, notice of the hearing to all record owners of property within 250 feet of the subject property and to any City-reco nlzed neighborhood assocfatron whose territory includes the subject property," Section 33, Section 4.101.1 1 of C}rdinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: „All public hearings pertaining to Type Ill and IV ermits, whether before the Planning Comrnissfon, Design Review hoard, or City C©uncil, and any appeal or review for a Type ll, III or IV permit, shall comply with the procedures of this Section. In addition, all public hearings shall comply with the Oregon Public Meetings Law, the applicable provisions of C)RS 197.7b3 and any other applicable law. A. Scheduling. ~. Public nearing Notice. Notice of the hearing shall be issued pursuant to VItDt7 Section 4.141.49. a~# ,~ Section 34. Section 5.103.11, Variance< of Qrdinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: A. "Criteria, A variance ma be ranted to allow cx c#eviation from a lrtrl~Q develo merit standard where the followin criteria is met: Strict adherence to the VYC}Q standards is not possible or imposes an excessive burden on the.~roper~ owner and 2. variance to fhe standards will not unre~onably impact adiacent existing or potential uses or development. A variance ma not be ranted from a standard overnin use. ~a~e 1 ~ -CC~~w;CIL ~I~~. NC?. CJR~iNAN~E NO. Page 156 Standards set by statute relating to siting of manufactured homes on individual lots; siding and roof of manufactured homes; and manufactured home and dwe3ling park improvements are non- variable. Additionally certain specified minor deviations to development standards are allowed by a Type !! Zonina Adjustment, Section S. I02.a3. B. Application Requirements. An application shall include a completed City application form, filing fee, deeds, notification area map and labels, written narrative statement regarding compliance with criteria, location map and the following additional exhibits; t. Street and Utility Plan as applicable; and 2. Site Pkan C. Factors to be Considered. ~=r~#e~i~+: A determination of whether the criteria set forth are satisfied necessarily involves the balancing of competing and conflicting interest. The factors that are listed to be considered are not criteria and are not intended to be an exclusive list. The factors to be considered are used as a guide in deliberations on the application. The variance is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship relating to the land or structure, which would cause the property to be unbuildable by application of the WDQ. Factors to consider in determining whether hardship exists, include: a. Physical circumstances over which the applicant has no controk related to the piece of property involved that distinguish it from other land in the zone, including but not limited to lot size, shape, topography. b. Whether reasonable use similar to other properties can be made of the property without the variance. c. Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting the variance. ?. development consistent with the request will not be materially injurious to adjacent properties. Factors to be Page ? ti -CCli~CiL Bii.L NO. C}RJ1"vANCIT Nth. Page 157 considered in deterrr~ining whether development consistent with the variance materially injurious include but are no# limited to. ~. Physical impacfs such development will have because of the variance, such as visual, noise< traffic and drainage, erosion and landslide hazards, ~. Incremenfal impacts occurring as a result of fhe proposed variance. 3, Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limifed to traffic, drainage, dramatic land forms or parks will not be adversely affected because of the variance. ~. The variance is the rriinimum deviation necessary to make reasonable economic use of the property; The variance does not conflict with the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan." Section 3~. Sectian .104,~1.D.2,g of t~rdinance 2313 is amended fio read as follows: "Reasc~nc~ble Facility and Service Needs. The proposed industrial or corr~mercial use of fhe ferrifiary does not require the expansion of intrc~tructure, additional service capacity, or incentives that are in excess of fihe casts normally ~ borne by the community for development;,, Section 3d. Section 5.104.Q1.F is added to read cas follows: "5 144 O1 I^ Zoning Designation for Annexed Pr©pertY 1 All land annexed to the CitYshall be zoned as follows unless an application to rezone the preperty to another zone has been submitted: a Properfiy shall be designated as S. when the comprehensive plan designation is Low Density Residential. b. Properfy shall be des Hated as RM when the comprehensive plan designation is Medium Density Residential. Pale 7 -~'fl~M~lL BILL NC. Q~?I'~t~•~.E ~{~. Page 158 c. Property shall be designated as CCU, when the comprehensive plan designation is Commercial. d. Property shall be designated gs It„ when the comprehensive plan designation is Industrial. e. Property shall be designated as PjSP;when the comgrehensiveplan des nation is omen space and darks or public use. 2. If the annexed property is within an overiav designation, overlay shall apply to the annexed property." Section 37. Table 6.1 p4 of Qrdinance 2313 is amended to read as follows: PQ~e '8-C{~U~CI~ ~SILI. Nv. flRGII~ANCE Nfl. Page 159 Use (~~~ICvS #) ~s ~~~ r;ni t~ca c~<:, >!arx' ~n ~ iP i~ P~sl~ ~c~~wa>a ~wl!rt ' »~a~t ~ ~t4 KM N cQ (D O w._ vttaal>i aawaava^ ~f,r.,,r~ ~. _ _ __...__.~..._ ... _ .. __ { t3ai}ITUitii)n ~)t.Ituatdlh~~ t~t+r ~ is,,~"t11:`F{i~°f~EH#lfilt~~lii~ { ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ,) ~) ~ ~ 1 " ~ ' unci {,il)I (fa ItaUtfrn CC)nSiTUCtrllfa ~'Y tit i1 .~ _.~~._. I II ~ .- j _._~ 9 ~ ' ~~ _ ... ~ ~ _..._~ .. ... ._._ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~..._ _ _.p_. _~ ' ................_..._. ~ _.__._ __"__....... _ . ...... w,_. .. .. ..,...... } ~~ _ .. 3 ~ . _. _ ...__ a ~ ryi ......... _._ .... 1 b)xcral traifw conir"i~iars (~~~ ~~~~ ~ _ __.__ zi d u d ' € n _ ...._.,..... ................- ..... .. ....,.._, . ~ ~. _..._...~. ___ _ ,.. ..,.-... 1' ......... ...._. ......___. ~ ~ ~ E 44 ~._ ..__,.,.___ ~ ~ _ _. canan}; t arr-ccan a}~ an luarrbant, taeaz t c'uartraczearsd3A~-~~'3A'ra1za } F'afrcr ar;d uall c~a at+t; ~~ cov~r~ng t~xS?~t 21~3?t)) i~'ti;i1{~r~f~~'LYf~~."FtT:~MM~t~R"..t3~_'~Xt,.""' 'A ~ .+..w..... 'y, ~_ t~i ~ a ' .. ...... ~ .....,.. ..._ ...... ' . .......~...- .m-.,,w.. .. ......«. __._~ _._ ~,~ , ......._ v .~ ...._ _ ............. ......._ .._. ,. .___. ._ ....,........ ()i'~ ~ i~~ ~„i~µl"Ct;rll,il ltYrt 7,~R.)It~y/ - .. m~M..... 1 ._ ....._..,..... ..,.. ___ ...«,.... ._.._...o.. ' ..... (( `` j jf(` ,i rite 1 ~.TP 7N1~........_ ...............................................,_.....................,...,....,_._.. Flcwrl~~an~i:ontra>rtor~t2~S52ft) N .. _.-._. ._._...~._ _. ..._._. .. .. ~ ~^ _~_._...~... ~ _. .__. .~...w.,. __.___ ..~.._.__ _ _.. ..___.~~..~ ......_ ....... . _..... _.. „~x~_ F2ocaftn~,, sr~ian~;. ar+cf shrct metal canstnsetst~ra ~t S I +:c~ntractar~ (71Sfalll) r:nUtcl a~s,thtn a buztdzn~ ~~ K ~ ~ ~ ..._ _.._.__ ._. w__, ._._._.._.__.. .--. _--~ I ,.I ~ (~la~s trail klxrlan[, Ct7ntrd~tt>r5 { i3ualct,n~ eyuapmcnz tizzd crthcr niachanery tn5zs3iutaon umtr.acznr5 {?'~Sr)St) ~ _~,.._ ....... _.~._. ~....._..._~.. ~._. .......... ______ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~._.._ _ ...._.._ ._ ~ __...... _......___.._.._. tkn artrEnttl tnmre,rk crantracta~.~S~'~{l) __w _ . _ __ ' _.__. ~. ._.....__ ,..__.. __..._ __~ 1 ~ . -- -.----.--- ' ----- t rnttrcl~ ~r,tlzztr a butkirn~ _._._ t t"ntter~fFs !3f) -~ ~,....~.... .~ ._ . _~..__~. _..._ _ _.. ....~ ,_ _._ _.~ ~.._ ..__~. _..~_... Manufacturing 1~3 l -33`1 ,.... I"'carxf manuf~ctur,n , ~ ~ ~ ) ~ W Hakr:r,c5 3 l 1 ~ 1 f' ~' f3evera~,e and zobaeccr prtxfuct rnanutacturrn~ 3l2 ~ Text,ie ~raduct nrall5 .~ ~ $ ~ ~ A ~ :uc1 manut'i+ciurin > ~ ~ ~ ~}~i-~ SP (' P 3_c~azlrer ,uzd allie-d rndurts rrwnufaeturin ~* ~ 1 ~i ~' ~ t:7thcr Ecather ntanufarturin ~ I tis)r) SP#3 SP t'a 'r manufariuran " ~ ~ ~ Pa °r rnanu#'acturan {3i?} linutcd to asserazbl P ~ Page 19 - COUNCIL BILL NO. pRDiNANCE NO. at to m rn ~ Use (NAIL'S # ItS It15 KM t't) C'G DIX' Nht` 1P IL PlSP Izc~wC)D tiw'Itt Nocltal Ncxlxl , RS 12h1 Pnnun > and related su n achy cues 3 ~ ~ l' P Wood rtxluct~ manufartunnt; 32 I CU P Pa xr manufactunn ~ 322 CLJ l'rmtm r and related su rt aenvities 323 P ~ E' Petroleum and a.yal art)i1UCt5 m;utufactunn 324 i'ctroleum and coal praducts manufacturing l:j~~t ~•ith all storake under ~raund ~~) Cherrucxtl rnanut~ctunn , 32$ ~.~ C"U t'-E1 Plastus anti rubber roduct manufactunn 326 P P lvonrnctalhc m~nera) rotiuct tnstnufactunn 327 P F' Pnmarv rrtCtal manufactunn ~ 331 cu l~abricatcd metal roducts manuf`acturin ~ 332 P P FabncatCd metal product manufacturing {332) eniirel wtthrn a butldin P htachrncry manufacturing (333) P P P {~omputer and elcctromC product manufacturing 334 P P P. Electnca) equipment, appliance and component manufactunn 33$ P P P Trans nation w lent mattufacturin 336 ~' P P Furniture and related roduct manufacturin 337 Sgt "~ P P Household and institutional furniture and kitchen Cabinet manufacturing {3371) enureiy wrthm a buiidin P Misr. Manufacturin ~ 339 P P S mm ~ Maxis ntanufactunn 33992) S~'1~ SP t~)oll, tov and anx; manufaciurin 33993 SP~i SP Wholesale Trade {42) Wholesale trade, durable goads (4~ 423) !: ?t(::'.E;::.H:T'_nwtc,r:.} ehi~le wrerkin ~ ar~is ~~~}•} P ~4'ht~lesalc trade, nondurable s?oods (~ Wholrsalc trade, nondurablC goe7ds {d22 4"~) Fs}kt=;<sP"f-nr«+k~r vrhteltt-tivrc>~+rtg-y;~~s Page 20 - COUNCiI BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. ' l KS Rtti K~~ co rc nuc~ NNt:' IP I[. P/SP 1RC~w°an swtlR rlodxtl Iyoaal se (NAIL S #) L ~s ~t~t Retail Trade (44-4S1 N (Q N rn N Motar ~ehtclc and parts dealers ~~ ~ 5s:>~ Matar ~chtclc and parts dcalcrs (441 } t~~t'f;f'"1' ~ G! _..._ autcmxrt,~c_Fartiwathauitnstailatran___....._._..__.. _..__._ ..... __._-__...,. .____. ~._...._. ~_ ._._~__..___ ..___ ..... _._.....__._. _...._...__ _.__,_.___.. __.___. i1ur~?rrautt~c Farts (44111 }without ttrs[allattun _t_.. ,_ _....._~ ..~_._.....___ ........._.__._ _._._._..._._. .~., _... _.......... _,__.___._ _ ........._ _,,, , ._....__....._~ ..__.___._.l ......._._____ _,__._ t_lsc (W;i{) l~Al(:'S c1~ sification) - __ _ I tartnr and ht. n~ ~ c u~rnrent dcalcrs _~ ______ .~ . tw't.l -` - __ _.____ _ _ .. ._._ ___ _____ _ __ ._._ I ractrx and farm rrmrchtnery and cqutpRrent ~P1-~ dcalcrs "Truck dcalcrs I'd('t,l1T)1Nl:i new truck, used SPi-~ truck. parts and tyre dcalcrs l~urmiurc: and harne furnishin ~s stares ~~ F' ~' ~' Preture frame sho t44~29r1) 5C:'t) SCU `?<~~~' ~_.._Wt' t=lcctramas and a lianccs sees ~Q~ P t~lre~t-+u+;+~~#+ta~e~Stores and rcpatr (d43IN} E3urldin z matcrurl and garden c ut ~cnt X14 Nwld3n~; Rtrtertstl and Supplies dealers {'~~~~} titirth all autdoar storage and drsplay enclased by~ a T rnasartr ~ wall 1'arnt, wallpaper, and mtcrior dccarating surres P P P Add 12lJ) Hardware stores (44413) A 1' ~' l r ~ht fixtura stores d441 t)O} P Y ~ ___...........__._. _......_.. ~...._._ __ _......_____ ts~cirrrr*rf'pi~>fe-4-0A+i~~-} i~ursc~.~.C;ardcn P P F' (ct)tet and Farm ~u nl Stvres t4d42't) .~_.._._..~_._. __... _..~.. _.__._ __.._.....___ ~.St; ~~4'/~) ~}~~~'~ C~i~S5t~C:i1fOll~ _. ..._.... _._ _ _ _ _________ _ ._ _ _ __ _ ._ __ _ _ . . ..____._ . _ _ . F arm,~rdcn and landsra tR~suF~ltcs __--- `"~"'_.._. . _,_ _ . ..__ _ ._ __ r _._._ ~ ..._._ _ ___ __..._._ __.._._ ~~~ __ _...__ .._. _ .. w ___ _._._ ._._. ~ ~__... ~<~cui and heticra~e stares 4:~5 1' C~roeerv store, food market, food stare 4451 I ~~1-! P 1Ac:~t markets X521 } P P !' [~ tsh markets LiP~11"T'1=i) 'i't) sales onl ° 1445?2} P P P __ .................._<~a31dY., nut, rt~nf~ecttanery_stares~(4452~2} _. P P ~' _ .~ ~_. ___ _. 1)au v Frocfuets 4tores 1,1M11'~[> 1 O sales only. _._ P A ~` page 21 - CC7UNCIL BILL NO, C7RDINANCE NC~~ a~ cn m rn w tTse {NAIC''+ #) Poge 22 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. ks ~ xis ~ ~n~ (c~~ra (cc; ~ r»r ~ ~vhc• ~ iP ~ ~r~ ~ rrsp r~rw<~ra s-~~iR ~aaH~ ~u~rai __~_... ._ _.~.. _._... i RS .._ ._ __...._.. R'-t ._ ....._..._......_.. v ca m 1 I5C {~~>t~-~1~~,~-E'~M.s5+~@flHFt) kS kiS kM ("C) C~c.; [3})C' NNC IP 11.. P'tiP 12('l~'t)i7 tiWIK, N<>cial T~c~dal. _ w~-wwwwwwww*w*ww**w**+*w*** ..._ . ..r._........._ __...... _.._._.......... __ ......_ _ ............. . K5 kM 1'~r{u;ttcssen stores (~4~i t(1, 44S~it~)~~rid 77)3, i .. 1 ~t irte sho ~c t~i~S3.lt) ~n~i.,"~?~ lLi j f' f' (,t P .. .___ .... .. ~ .. . .... .P. i ( }ic.~lrh atu~{ xrrstrnal care stares 4~(i p t'han)iactes ;and [)ru 5tflres. 44G i 11 P P P ()?ttta) s~cxx{s stores. (44CY13} P P f' t iealth farad stares. {4441') l) f f }iGsnn =, std stores {44(alrJq) P !~ ~ Cssvi~nr stations 447 C;t.~ (;asiahnc stattans u-~ih c~antigntence._stares i 44~?~1~~3 447 i ,i O t __. C"l1 t"lathmi; and clrxhmr; acccssartrs srores ~4$ J(, l.) ..71."ti P .lt:__`~,.' ~9tr`.~cy. C°laihirt~; state. (44tt 11~) P P P hlcn`s 44i+i it? Wntnc;n's 44S 12P" Chridrrtt's 44151 ~U {~urncrs and fur sha s (44fi 19t P P E' Jctivelry. uateh, sad clcyck stares (44ts 15 rYt 4481) P P P Shc,c stares (4482~~ Lu~a~t stores 444b~' - "" ---_... __ _ P f' P f' ~? P .. _. _. Sporting ~;ocatis, hobby, book, end music stores ~S1 P S rt~n ~ scads stores ~S•4-F-} 4i 1 f I ()) P P P t:;u;L sho 45 f 110 P F' P }{atata shu s 45113) P P P 'fo stcares (45112 P P P Sewtn , needlewark rnd tree ~cxads 45 M) 3) P P P titu~ac, iana, and musics! instrument (451 )41 P P P kC.Card and C.'l.~ SLgreS (45122) P ~ C;eneral ttLer~;hsndtse: stores ..) }~ th; aartment stores 4521) P P P t3oc~k stares {43~ 451211 P P P (.)ther ~encrai nacrchandtsc stores (4529} P P P Mrsc stcarc retailers (453) P P Page 23 - COUNCIL BILL NQ. t~RD1NANCE NO. Miss since reta~lcr> f4531 tX('k;}'"1" used i7 rttcrchandrsc stares (45 i t j, nthcr than antt,~tte shops, and f:X(~fY"i' ttranuiacnrn~ci f mnb~}c} t r } ); hantc dealers. :153 i7 P ~ Flonst sho ' t45i l t y P P ~' Scat+asre ~;tc~rest4'4~Z1) ca tD CJ1 Page 24 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. a~ t~ to Use (NAI('S #~ KS KIS KM C'() c'ti C)I)C' ~ 1P IL PrSt' KtN't)f~ S1b'lK N,tx,:#I, 'tindal KS RM l3usmess machines, t wntcrs and re aar (453210) P P Q (ntl. rau~c)t , stauvcmt sha s (45322) P P P C;recfin ~ card stores 45322) P P ~ t+eci mcrcfiandasr stares (4533), ather than anh• ue sha s C'll ~' Antic ue sha s 45.311() P P ~' 1(tied merchandase~stores {45331 P ~' !'ct stare;,1453~)1) P P P Art ~allerv (45392> SC`t_I #.;~=1-± SC'ti s;('4i P P P tiC'lJ SC'U Manutitctured (mubtle) hatrte dealers. 4S393t) C't ~' Sf'•kl Artasts su >>i stnr<s 4539+)K) _~.___. ~__. _ _ ....._ . _ _Ll...~_.... --.. ___ . _ _... ___ . ~~. t P P P ._.._.__. ...._...~.~._...~..._.. .~..w,..._. ____ _.............._ _........~.. - .. _ __ _ _ __.~_ __ #:~l(~ctrc~ni~ shn~~Laln„~and h1ar1 ardor houses ~' P i~sc {W;C) NA1C'S c~lassific~tic~z~) __ _ ~..._..___.... Auctaan houses f.k<'C=PT lrvestcek and ~uitry sales _ ~ .__. I r P ~heC-ed~ra ~ Prasthette Stares 44b 19') P Temporary restdcnnaJ sales: a. Praducr and plant matrnals grown on tttt subject property b tistate, garage and yard sales c C"rafts and other hahb items SPli1 SP ~ SP SP SP SP Transportation and Warehousir~~ (48-4~) Truck trans 7rt.tttan 4$~ C'l1 P Transit and raund tracts rtah<rn A$5 (`U P l!rban transtt s stem 485 I t) t'U lntrrurban anti rural transit {4852) CtJ `t'axt sen•tcc {4$53 t) t: U l.:amaustnc service t48S3) t'U Schaal iranspartation 14854) C'tl t"barter bus service 14859} CU Spccral needs iranspgrtatian (48501) (: U Page 25 - COUNCIL BILL N©. ORDINANCE NO. N~~t~~ #~ ' ( U RS R1S RM C() r'C; GI.X' NI`1.~ IP IL PiSA RC 1~'C)C) S.~Wjlt iVcxlal '~!a<i~l St. . , RS R'<1 tiuplx>rt A~tivrties far Rail 'T'ranspc~rtauon (a8fi2' 1U1 P P Matar vrhscle tow~mg t4hf~~ 1 } (~U 1~reiGtht uansl~~srurtran arrangernrnt (Ais851t)) C'Cl P Postal ,erg, ire (~~ ~ } I P P P 14'archouamg and storage {+~~}3} CU P Use {w'o 1tiA1(: S classification) 4elf- and rnirn-story ~e C'tJ P~=D P Inforn~ation (5l ) a~ t~ m .Y v Publishing {$ l I } P Newspaper, prriadreal, and bauii publishing. P P E' ~s1111 Mohan rcture, sound rccordin rndustnrs 51? Mattan picture thraters {51?IJ1) EXCEPT" P drtvr-ins firoadcastin and tc[ecatrnnunications 513 Radio and TV 343[• 1 P Radta and TV studios and offices (3~~ ~ f 51) P P P l' EXCf:PT antennae and tawrrs C'ablc nrtwar4;s 3-3,2 S !Sri 1 P P 7 [ ~ Tclccommunicahons {;}t-13 51_____71) EXCEPT' P P P P leiecommumcahon facilities subjrct to Secuan 2 2tki t)3 Use (wiry NA1CS classification) 'I'ele~nmrnum~atton facilihes suh)rct to Section ~ SCtJ 2.3t+4 t)1 Data Processine, P P P P Hoatm ~ and Related Service 5-1.4 518} Ckher lntarmation S 191?t) and S 19190 CG Frnancr and insurance (5~) [rXCF.:PT pawn P P sh+aps (S?'~?~)t;} ~ chrck cashing, pay day lawn and cash transfer establishments (atfier than bani~sj as a ltreclattimsnt, ;rneillary, ar requrred su rtin ~ use Page 2b - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. v to t;D t~ ~_1S~ {~~](`~j #~ kS k1S RM CC7 C'G t)p(:' NNC iP li, P/SP t2t~'Ih'Ot) 4W'1R tvcxiul Kti N~x~lai KM9 Fsnancc and snsurancc (,52) F,X{'~Pi~ check cashing, Pay day loan and ~ci cash transfa~r estatsltshmcnts (other than banks( as a predonunant, ancttlary, ar rc~yutrcxi supporting L95i: P ~' ~.~re~itt snicirYlet.lt,illOn & relatCd al'lll'ttteS ~..:;,~ 3'a~Yn ShCJ S (S~'S'1L)ip) (mot ~ ~-~1P t!sc {++`cr !~AlC`4 cla,atticationl ('heck castssn~;, pay day loan and cash transfer cs[atsltshnscnts, other than banks (..-'t-+ E~~~ kcal estate $ 3 ~ ~' P P P kental and leastn r J32 ~'.l+cc> to _w anal disc rent.(.. 53?23{} S' Kemal and leasing {5;t?h wrthnut nutdoor dt~play ar stsrrage, I~!t_'~ f'`1"_.3irlcc~Mta~c and c~tsc rcntai 532~3t) P kcntui and leasing {5 ~2} wsttLrsut outdoor drs 5a ~ nr stcsras;r ~ P I' (~enrral rental centers (5~2:1it))urtth ail outdoor st<sraa~c and dss Ala ' on a aced surface P t;sc (x'n NA1t`S dassrficaaon} 13~;+tiesrtserl- ael~w ~+t~ ~ i'rofessronal, sctent[Cc and technical serti•iccs ~~ ~.e *af !;cry secs 53 t 1) SCt.! SC-U P P P Y P S~ t ~C~L' Accnunun ~ {5412} SCU SC'LJ P Y P P p ~L7 S~'t~1 Architects and en ~snecrs 5413 SC`ll St't.J P P P F (? SC't? C`(.l 5 xctah~cd dest'n ser':tccs {5314} CCU SC`Lb P P P P C"orn )utCr s stctLY doss ~sL {5415) 5C`ll ~C l-= P P P f' P _. ~('ti _...m S(`i.' .~.. . hlan~emcnt, Sc~)~ntt!'ic anct 7'GChntcal {" _onsulttn~;.Servtc~s SC:l1 S~ti P P P N P SC°!, SC'lJ ti41h) Sctcntslic research anti dcveit~ mcnt {541 ;r) ~ C'hl p Ad+ertssutL;t531fi) S(`CI SC`!.! Other professional services {541 ~)}, 4XC'fP"i' veterurarp srn'tce { 5411)31)} nat cnntautcd to a Musidtnc, P P P H } - ~`ctersn:Lr sc•r+~ce {541!)<iitt ('Ls P Adrnmsssrattve and su ~ n scr~ tics ~G j P P Page 2? - C:flUNCIL 81LL NO. ORDINANCE NO. N to <D t:0 Ilse {NA1C'ti *~~ us R1S Rh1 ('() f't; t)[k' NNC' IP lt. P.`5P f2( l4YJU 5W'IF2 '~cx1a1 lts tiaclal xtif Admut3urutnr and facilities supEwri serti secs. iSbl l ~tnd 46E7~ )' P )~ ~ 1:rn lcrvn~:nt sen•tces {S513t P P f' P f3u.utcss suitfx±rt Bert+ccs 1Nt'L~l![J1NtMi uctPy sho~s t4hld) 1 P 1 -- 'Ira~cl and u?ur a ~enctcs. 5G1S) P t' P P. 'I•ele htme answ~cnn ~ service f Sfi i 421 5C"I1 St'U P P ~ 5C`Ci SCI,' lnvcstt rallon and sccurit ~ services. {5515) A P }' P ~crvires to butldinks and d~vclhngs (Sbi?), uf)iccs onl P P P P Services to butldmws and dwrlltn 7s (55 t 7) P f}thcr su xxt scn ices { 5619')) P P P P Rc~yclin~_(,`enters...i.S(i?,r?Zt..l~ t:lJ C`Il f'sc iw~a NA1CS classification) ~~k~i ~ k.ducahanal services 6 a ~ t:lementar • and second• schoals 51 I 1 } ~`U C'U P P CU C~I! CC: Cammunit cake a bi 12} P ~ P P Business schoals (5 i 14} P A P P "I'echnicai and trade schaois fb i I S} P Ambulatar • health care far~iities $~ ~ Ambu)atary health sen~tees (631) E XCEP7' ambufanre service (52191) P OfTiccs af' Phvsictans 6211 SCU SC'U P C)ffires of L)entists 5212) SC'l.l SCIJ P OfTiccs of ('khEr Heath Practttroners X52) 3 ~~U SCU P . Ambulartcc scrvsce (Ci? { 9 i } C U ~ ffns 1t315 ~12? Social assistance f)~~ P 1 C.~ther tndtvtduai and f;+mily sen~ices fi?41) SCl.1 mkt wC`tl £+l'i~~ P I C'lnld day care services (6244) SCt.1t.1 P, SC`I: P ('h+ld da • care: Services tb244), F:~CC'E:P"1 C`I1 P 1 "~~utTtace elearttn};"' is nit listed ut the I)[)(' zcync, h~wcver, it wctr,ld be a ")'luttshtn, he i'(age 28 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. to (D V O [.)St' ~j~.11~(`~ #~ R.` Rt5 RNI C'(.) CCi C)i)(' NhC' ff' If_ p.Sp lt(;1t't,)f;) tiWIR Nixi~l, R S 'vcx~! ft'~4. fanntV chr)d da "care f«r) 2 ter fewer chr)dren l tic (~, ca tiatl S c(.+ssafriatac~n! Faanrt~; child dyr care far ) 2 ur fewer cbtfdren f' f !' t'ar,,ta home r-rr ;rt'u care facrtnres P ('~) t;rc~u ~ hzarre f f' F? F' N 1'cr~i"c~rrt~rnag aril arrd spectatt~r sfx7rts {~ ~ ~ j P fa~uicrnnst~ 1?1 151) P f' f' 1 `1~USCUrtt~ ant! fti~tririC JtteS ~ ~ 1 ~ h9uscums artd historac sncs {71 ~) f:a("[sf T' rt>tt~ (71' I :fit)) f ~ p }? >muscntent, h"ntenamment;rnc! Kc~ereatrnn {713) f-itncss and rccrcatrnnal s)wrts (7-t:391 7I39dQ) p Y P P f:3ut,lanu centers ('~l:i~)5- P C)tttcr an~tusentrnts INC"l.l.~r"~lNc~ baNrc>+rms (~ (3~~t}ai) p t)sr Ia'°o NJ~It S rlasstlicanon} Aquatic furtirnes f'f ) ('ummuntty center ~ p p ("ar~rrnunit~ club buddrngs and laaiures SY !:{-) SP a1,i SP t+tJ ~.}.'. SF'. C;uli xcsurstrs ~~ tthaut a drtvin~ tan~~e ~p ~l-, SP fif~d Sf' ~. f' SP fiP (~olfdrr~rngrange C:'fa C`IJ CaJ C:'t~ i" f'aria p P ~ p }~ f arks anti ptay~±rounds p f' P P f' f' Ai;iy' cm bafl Gild ~^ta Prt+u~ ~ ,4L3 'Ternp<~+rar}- t)utdottr Marketrn~ and Special Events: a. Arts and emits h Focxi :utd bcvrragcs, rncludmg nlabale f~ services c '~rasnnalsalesoflirettcrrks, ('hnstmas rrecs, prcxjuce wr plant rrraienals d :lnrusemcnt rides and gartxs c. f-.ntertammcnt ~ Sf? ~" SP ~'~' ~ ~P Page 29 - CQUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE ND. N to m v ()~~ ~~~1('~ t{~ RS Rlti Itbt C t.) ('C~ 1)[>t:' NNt` IP If. PlSP R( 4b'()T~ ti~~'IK Ncx1~l 'vcxi~( R ti !t'41 f env athcr nurchandise or servlte u hi<h ~s nc~thcr acccssarr" to a prlnwry, permanent use of the ~ul>tect pra}xrty ni~r marketed by cm lavice.s of that •rrttancnt use ~ct~c,riimadatu,n 721 I kncls { I 'ti( T~ PT ~astna hotels) and motels 1' P t' (' i?:"!illl c f3cJ and hrcak fast inns (r _ 1 f > I) (~'U ~..-~~- SC'l_i P P P F ~tit_"l: ~,C~!' l aad 5cr~ lcc•s and l)nnkin * Places ~2? Fond servlcc aricl dnnkin}; places (X22) P t:X(~'EPT rriobilr favd srrvicc Faod service and dunking places (722j P P ~ T° t('T~l''I` faod cantractars (721 f) and rrwhilc faad Sl'rVICG Food cen•ues and drlnl~m}; places (722) far C'Ll C:tJ industrial employees E?iCEP7' mobile faad sere ice Recreational uehicle ~ ks. (7212 ~-~ t15e tw~a tiA1C'S ciassificanon) Mabrle faad service sub~cct to .Srr~iurr ~ ~ ~ ~P ~~ 'v3 17 Rc air and mamtcnance $ l 1 Automotive maintenance (81 l i) Cl.l FIertramc and precision equipment repair ~ (81121 C'ommcrcial acid industrial equipment repair C,}! ~~ ~ ~ ~ (8111) }ianir gcxxls repau (81 14), #~ EXCCP"T' C'l% (! ah+7lstu • (8! 1d2)~and i.,cather re air (Ri 1A~) tipholster iSll~?1 P l.cathcr re air !>;1 f43) P Tare~smaker aix} tailor sha s ?211 ~' ~' Pcrsana! anti 4aundrv facihtiex ~ 1 ~ Pcrtianal earl tierviccs 81 ? l) P l Fancra(hattics(A}?2}ft) P P P ~' t"err+eter 81 _'?2t) P ('l1 Tar ~ clcamn ~ and laundr sen~ice (8 i 2;) P Page 30 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. N (n N N [,TSB ~~it"1~(~~f ~~ [tS R15 RM ('() C°(; l)t)(' NNC° IP il.. P''if' KC"4Vt)l) 4VVIit Nadal KS N<xlal R 1~1 1 YC l:_1'1 l+rscn Su a 1 ~ 1812.13) l .aunclr . srlf scrti irr (81231) P P P Ike ~ 4caninr„ ~.eliscrvue {81 Z31 j P P P Lance ~u l~ 1#`s123~) t'l, Phtstcr lin~sh+n * (81'!tl2} P f P P Parkin ~ lots and e,ara acs (RI2~)3) (`lam! P P C~°ll Nari~rng tats and E;arages (ti12931 t:XCl.;1''i' cxtcndad ti°ch~rlc st~oru *e {44:~At) J~)3.1.')t)) P {' P P P P I'ulaiic parkmg cars and garagrs (812x))} 1~ \C'FPT rxtcnded ~~ehicle storage- 14~~9~~ d911')lt) and ark~n~; as an Acressarv l.`se ~ ~C,~,,,L1 X111 t>thcr •raanal srrti~rrrs Ii! 2~)r3t)) A Y P P Ftclit;ruuus, rivic• anii sar~al ar anvrtrans $ l 3 P 1' 1' P Ilse {trto l~Att"S rlaxsifirAtion) [)ti~ti~erv sererces S>"l SP £;lt S}' ~+ tiF' ~ SP ~ SP ~ SP ~ gkl SP £.k{ SP SP 5P SP SP I~k~~t~»f;-€~~~~~~-w~a~.u~ P P ~ l:le,tric ntatcir rc • u, cnt~rei a~rthtn a bwldm P 1lon~e ()rru atran ~ ~ ~~ Vii'. ~'~ SP SP Sl? (louse of wartihr 8111 t() F+1a SF' ~kl SP &ta St' Sl' Sf? 1tilatar ~ chfrle wrerkin ~ ards ~ 1J t)ff strcrt parking rn can~unrtran with a non- resadenltai use ailawed to the none C'U C`l.l C~II C.,,;,„t_ C'li Pul>Irr parkrn~; for usrs rn the same caning dtstrrrt A1J Itesidentral sales offrce ~ ~~' ~ ~ ~~' SP 3~~;~=1~e++t~s f-~ ~;;k~ Public Administrairan ~Z P P P P Fire ~ratcrtran t~)221fi(il P P t-~c~tt~t~c~~~~ ~~41i it (~t. Hf~+iifiil.' #f}: fli4~l6fiif~Aiil~filikl ti#Aitl$F lase i~~a tiAlt'S rlassifiraUanl C;o~~ernment nra~ntenanrc facilures and storage yards P P f' Page 31 - COUNCIL 81LL NO. ORDINANCE NO. to c~ v W (N1\IC'~ ~#~ I l RS Rlti (tM ("C) ('C; F)F7t' Nh(' IP tL F'%SP Rf'1~'(:)F) S_WIR Nutial Jv~~clal se _ RS R1~f (~;a~ ernment and public utility butldrn~s and Cti ('17 t't! Ct; C'lt t'tJ Cli (~li C't.i t't ~ (-(.: strui•tures F° l"t'#:!'~C usca pcrtrtttCCi to the ,ubirct ~emt and tcfccommuntcatrtxn facrluies sub crt to .tip t tuu, ' _'t141) i (~~~<<°rnotent and public uttlrty hutldrnbs and (`i.! titru~tures E~t'F~P1~ uses permitted to S~~<'tran ' It}; tll, tileccmutaunicaut~n faaltttes sublcct u> .ti'e~e ru,» ' Zt14 () i, and elementary, meddle and ht ~h srhaals " (. t' t",~~vcrnrncnt an<i Public utilu hu~.__,_ ildrngs and """'" structures E~XC~t:,1'T u.st~s~e+rmtried rx SNt`tir>n ' i.ltll~l_.anil icler:prnrrtun.jcations facilrues sub cct to 5eciton ~ 2(t4 03. _ _ i•i.i+.+:es of vt ~ iw~t:~ 4~Fd ttrghts of way, easements anci the 1' P P P P P ~' P P P f' Y }' ten rais;ments thertm cwe~+ta P A ~ ~.1SC (N' `p NA1C`S cl;xssrfiGaUOn} Stte-buolt sin !e famil dH~~litn P P P ~~ P Manufactured hame an a lat ~ ~ ~ ~_' !;~_3 ~~' SP SP Attached srn 1e famtil dwcUin ~ raw houses} A Dwelhn ~ far caretaker ar watch rson. ~' P A~ A t>nc dK~clhng untt to conjunction with a P P P P convncrctal use "fcmFwrary houstnf; far nrght accurity penonnrl SP SP t;F{ SP bft SP Sll SP ~.t SP fi~ 5P t~1 SP i~~ SP t~l.d SP SP SP SP tiurtng ccrostruchan, Faetli~res_durin~ ronstructtan ^. )c>; dwelhn t)u ~ P Sl' F' ~ F P L' -F-o~e~ #t~Fit~as P to 3 dwclltn~ untts 5t~ll ,C~t'- Manufacturcd d~aelltn ~ k+rk P 5F' Mu1tt le f~mt1 dwelltn ~ units F' ('i.= CU P C"om lententarv restdcnttal use ~ SA ~t S1' SP ttiursin f care factlrties (G231) P t'ls ~~~~ P Assisted Item' factl~ttcs. 62331) t' ('li C~L1 ~' Page 32 -- COUNCII Bill NO. ORpINANCE NC?. to c~ V [1SC' {NAIL'S ~i) K~ KIS RM t't) t'Ci I)t)C' NN(' IP Il. P•ti!' tl(.'N'()[) tii?UtEt, Ncxial, R~ Node! ftM Raonarn ~~ and troardui ~ herusc {72 {~3> P i'tJ P l +c tw:o Nt'11t.'ti clussrlicatton) A wrtruttura! r.uticcs w+thout livestock E;it SP t~t> SP ~;t Si' ~_t SP ;;s.a SP 2~4z SP !s43 SP t,;ta SP Si' 4F' SP l3crat and recrc:suona! vchrcle story,e .acf f;t•t SP eta SP `~~'. `?.I'_ E~uat and rccreahonal vehrcle story, area Att Sl' t't' ~~-' `'~ 5(' t;aragr I+rr carport to the case o!`a rn,rnufacurrecl hc~m~ ) Ali All Air ~t,i tnrr.r4e wrt}a a naaxrmum capacit} uCthrrc r;rrs (or carport tis~rth a nuarrmum capaeuy of°tu•o cars rn the case of a nr:anufactured berme) Al) T)cck or ~strcr Al! AlJ Ate' At! } cncc or tree siandtn r walls AU Al.! Ali Al! Ala Al' All Al! Al! All r11~! :11J At< t;trentrouse ur hubb sho Al} All Al ~ AlI Al.l Pets and pet ;accormrxkJatrons #ar five or !ewer ~ct~; awned b ~ the cx:cu .ants rif the restdrnce ~~ ~ Prrvatc rccreataonal factlntes, rnctuding swtmrnrn~ pool, hctt tub or sauna, and ~amr: ccruris AtS All ~~=.~ ~' Personal sti>rac;c structure All tll Alai A~l.i `iclecontmunic:rtron f`acrlutes SC'L) Sit) SCU ~rr-atls ~ Passrvc recreairun uses and actor ics p M}~tte_n~n~w_c~i~ t~ng„structures, lawns n,,d P +arclcns ?~i~~rnul.naaintenance and ex ansicrn ofc><rstsng ~' uhltc facrltttr;s Rernc~ti~il__Uf,tnvasrve non~natrve lent s tics ~' Page 33 - COUNCIL. BILL NC7. CJRDiNANCE NO, Section 38. Figure 6.4, Vision Clearance, of Ordinance 2313 is revised to depict as follows: Sheet Dente*~;^e ! i ~ ' a+~ptry ure i ' r-°' ffiQA ~.Cgfgrto A7C6 i ~ ~ ~ ~UEfN.~~ 9 :. ~ ~ f E e x ~ # S: ~ 1 r _a._. - . E -~---... --~i i a - ~... _~ ..- ._.... _. r f 4. 3.. .. ~~ i .e. _:..: _ ~,~ `~ f ~.. 3 ~~ } i ,. ! f i._.. i«~. ' ~ ~ ..-~ ~_ {---iN~-...._i__._ .3 _ -.,-~-.ems....--~.~._._ _ -l- L ds[o.. 2 do 3 '~{,teru~t or q a str,~ die ar AiSCr 1 rjrC~rgr. ~G' ~s,ar .tt2r¢rce N ~ r~ v*saer+„y e1[ti'^ ~e Section 39, The amendments and revisions made by this Ordinance are justified and explained by the Legislative Findings, which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. Pcge 35 -COl;tiC'L BELL NO. ORC,NANC~ NO. Page 175 Section 4t?. The sections and subsections of this Qrdinance are severable, The invalidity Qt any section or subsection shal4 not aftect the validity of the remaining sections and subset#ions. r ~` ~, "~; Approved as ter form: ~~ ~~r ~ t~ °--~-~~"""'~ ~ ~ ~' ~' City Attorney Dat Approved: Kathryn Figley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the taftice of the Recorder ATTEST: glary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Qregon Page 3b -CC~~C~~ B!~.~. raQ. OR^~N.ANCE NC;. Page 176 E]C~11blt "A" CITY OF WOODBUR,~I, OREGON STAFF REPORT to: The Woodburn City Council August 11, 201)8 LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT File: LA 2007-03 PROJECT INFOR'1~1ATION; APPLICANT: City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, 4R 97071 Application Commeaeed: By City Council Resolution No. 1874, passed November 26, 2(}t}7 120-Day Rule Deadline: Legislative amendment not subject to 120-Day time line. Staff contact: Jim Allen, Community Development Director Recommendation: Conduct public hearing to receive public testimony, consider Planning Commission and Staff recommendation for adoption of amendments to the Woodburn Development +Drdinance. NATURE OF THE APPLICATION: A legislative amendment to consider text changes to the t~4'oadburn Development {7rdinance. The Woodburn Development Qrdinance would be amended as follows: • Clarify organization and structure provisions in Section l .141 to define terms. • establish a definition for property that was not created through a review under City standards through the partition or subdivision process. • Revise the standards for an architectural wall to limit the extent of extensi ve continuous surface walls, • Clarify the definition of "plant unit" to be consistent with the standards specified in section 3.106.03. E. • Update the current references to the North American Industry Classification System { 1997} for uses that are throughout the ordinance to the 2007 version. • Clarify definitions differentiating "yard", "yard setback" and "setback". • Cla»fy uniform terminology for an "interior setback" in Table 2.1.7, • Cla»fy Table 2.1,1 standards for the minimum lot size for a duplex on a corner lot in a Medium Density Residential Zone. • Revise the vision clearance area standard, Section 3.143.10, and also create a separate standard for properties located in the Downtown Development and Conservation Zoning District that would be consistent with other standards related to building setbacks from property lines. • Revise Section 2.113.{}4,A.3 to include the uses and activities that are prohibited with the Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Qverlay District (RCW4D) zone districts. • Revise Seetian 2.203.16.F requiring manufactured dwellings to meet the performance standards eyuivalent to asingle-family residential dwelling based on ORS Chapter 455. • Consider if landscaping credits, Section 3.106, should be provided for fountains, benches, ari. car t~thtr materials. • Kevise the "Consen~ation of Si~mificant Trees" Seetian 3.106.04 to change the process for review «f removal of'a aignificant tree and to establish an "in-lieu or replacement" mitigation fund. • Revise: n~7tificat~an the time line to provide a l0-day Notice prior to a public bearing. Page 177 • Clarify the purpose cal a variance procedure. • E stablish a stream-lined process for annexation that establishes a zoning consistent with the Comprehensive .flan designation. • Update Table b. l~?4 to bring all uses into the table and correct references to specific chapters or processes that are not identified correctly. Correct grammatical errors, improper use of homophone, and use Consistent language. • Correct cross-ref~:renct~s as necessary. REL.EVA'~T FACTS: The review of the Woodburn Development Ordinance (V1r'DO} is required periodical}y in order to maintain current with new state and ? ar federal laws and rules, case precedents, scrivener errors, interpretations, or other changes in circumstances. The V4'DO was last amended by Ordinance Number 2423 effective July 28, 2007 for many topics that were identified in Resolution Number 1745, The City Council adopted Resolution Number } 874 that directed a review of a list of topics within the WDO. The current evaluation is a review of, and recommendation an, most of the list of topics adopted in Resolution Number 1.874. RELEVAtiT APPROVAL CRITERIA: page [W'DC}4.}01.06.E] Type V Legislative Decisions ........................................................2 [WDO 1.}01.08] Annual Review of the R'DO .....................................».,..,..,.»,,,,,,„»3 [Wf}O 4.}01.09.A.3] Type V Notices ..................».....,,..,........,......................,......,,....,...,.3 Comprehensive Plan Policy Cansistency ..,» ...............................................................:................ 4 ANALYSIS AtiD FINDItiGS C}F FACT: 1. Type ~' decisions involve legislative actions where the City Council enacts or amends the City's land use regulations, comprehensive plan, zoning maps or some other component of any of these documents where changes are sack a size, diversity of ownership or interest as to be legislative in nature under state law. included are large scale annexations, and adopting or amending the comprehensive plan text or the tVDO, The Planning Commission holds an initial public hearing on the proposal prior to making a recommendation to the Cite Council. The City Council then holds a final de novo public hearing and makes the City's final decision. Public Notice is provided for all public hearings (Section 4.1 Dl. D9). The City Council's decision is the City's final decision and is appealable to LLBA within 21 days after it becomes final, [V1rD0 4.1O1.0f.E] Findings: The Woodburn City Council passed Resolution Number 1874 on November 26, 2007 that included a list of topics to be considered by the Planning Commission far revisions and amendments. The topics before the City Council at this time are most of the topics identified in Resolution Number } 874, The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 12, 2408 and considered evidence and testimony regarding the text changes. The City Council is scheduled to conduct a public hearing an August ll, 2008 to consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission and testimony regarding the identified text amendments. This legislative action was initiated through the procedures outlined in the 'Vi'aodburn Development Ordinance for this type of action. ?. The Community Development Director steal! maintain a list of potential modifications of the W"DO due to new state and / or federal laws and rules, case taw precedents, scrivener errors, interpretation, or other changes in circumstance, The Director steal! report these matters to the City Council at its first regular meeting in the month of November so that 1 (omrrtumty t7evelupntent Punning ~ttti % I,eg~slaave Arnenciments t~'D{) amendments' i)ecisions`t.`C` Staf2 Report.doc 2 Page 178 the Council may consider initiating appropriate measures to modify the WDU. [wDo t.t©i.~~l Findings: The identified text amendments to the Woodburn Development Ordinance were previously identified and would update the VvDO to more appropriately reflect the needs of the citizens of the City of Woodburn based on changes in laws, improved efficiencies of operations, and omissions that are currently in the ordinance. This Iegislative action was initiated by action. of the City Council, as contained in Resolution 1874. 3. Type V. At feast 2Q days before an initial evidentiary public hearing at which a Type V decision is to be considered, the Director shall issue a public notice that conforms to the requirements of this subsection and any applicable state statute. Notice shat! be sent to affected governmental entities, special districts, providers of urban services, the Oregon Department of Transportation and any affected recognized neighborhood associations and any party who has requested in writing such notice. [WDO4.tOt.U4.A.3t A. Published Notice. Type IV and V The Community Development Director shall publish a notice of a Type IV or ti' public bearing as described in this subsection, unless otherwise specified by statute. The notice shat! be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City at least 7 days prior to the hearing. Such notice shall consist of: 1. The time, date and location of the public hearing; 2. The address or Aber easily understood location of the subject property and the City-assigned planning file nu tuber; 3. A summary of the principal features of the application or legislative proposal; and 4. Any other information required by statute for an annexation or other hearing procedure. [w~o4.tat.t~.c~ Findings: '~~otification of the legislative amendment was provided to the Qregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DECD) on April 21, 2008, consistent with the requirements for a Past Acknow•ledgeinent Plan Amendment notification contained in Oregon Revised Statutes 197.610 and Oregon Administrative Rule 66Q Division 1&. A certifieaie of malting of the required notice to the DECD is provided in the record. The Planning Commission conducted a work session regarding the proposed text amendments during the Planning Commission's regular meeting of May 8, and May 22, 240$. Notification of the legislative amendment was published in the Woodburn Independent Newspaper on May 24, 20(}8. All notification contained information regazding the time, date, and location of the pubic hearings, the file number, the staff contact far questions or submission of testimony. All notification also included a summary of the proposed text amendments. All notification documents provided information regarding the public hearing procedures and how to review or obtain copies of the documents to be considered. Notification requirements consistent with the provisions of the Woodburn Development Ordinance and statutory requirements were met for this legislative amendment to the Woodburn Development Qrdinance. i C'ommun~ty Development .Planning ?047.L.egislatrve Amendments=WUO amendments.Decisians<CC' Staf'f~ Rrpeut.dex 3 Page 179 Comprehensive Pian Polio Consistency 4. Poticy B-l. It is the policy of the City of ~'4'oodburn to solicit and encaurage citizen input at all phases of the land use planning process. Since the city is trying to plan the community in accordance with the community's benefit, it is essential that the community be consulted at all stages of the planning process. (Policy fl-t l Findings: The State of Oregon Department of Land ~'onservation and Development was provided notification ~5 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing of the proposed text amendments. The DLCD provides other potentially interested parties the opportunity to review text amendments from local goy ernments throughout the state. The Planning Commission conducted a work session regarding the proposed text amendments during the Planning Commission's regular meeting of Vlay 8, and May 22, 2008. Notification of the legislative amendment was published in the 1~~`oodburn Independent Newspaper on May 24, 2008. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing an June 12, 2008 and considered evidence and testimony relating to the proposed text changes. 5. Woodburn shall coordinate with affected state agencies regarding proposed comprehensive plan and land use regulation amendments, as required by state law. {a) The state agency most interested in land use is the Oregon Department of I..and Conservation and Development {DLCD). Woodburn shall notify DLCD 45 days in advance of the first hearing before the Planning commission of proposed comprehensive plan ar development ordinance amendments. (Policy B-2(a}I Findings: Notification and a copy of the text amendments were provided to the DLCD, consistent with this policy as documented in the record. 6. Residential developments should strive for creative design that will maximize the inherent values of the land being developed and encourage slow moving traffic. Each residential development should provide for landscaping and tree planting to enhance the livability and aesthetics of the neighborhood. (Poticy D-t.sl Iindings: The text amendments include pra~~isions that will encaurage slaw moving traffic and development that encourages landscaping and tree planning to enhance the aesthetics of Woodburn neighborhoods. Proposed Policy change f#I8 regarding ~'isian Clearance Area clarifies the existing vision clearance regulations and requires a moderate clearance area in the Downtown Development and Conservation {DDC) zone, Proposed Policy change #20 establishes a process to minimize the cutting or destruction of significant trees within the City. Both of these proposed changes strive to enhance the livability of V4'oadburn. The proposed text amendment would be consistent with this policy. 7. Industrial and commercial uses that locate ad}scent to a residential area should buffer their use by screening, design, and sufficient setback that their location will not adversely affect the residential area. (Poticy Dt.~l Findings: The Proposed Policy Change ~3 establishes design guidelines for architectural walls. Architectural walls serve as a buffer walls, and the WDC? currently requires buffer walls in industrial and commercial zones ~ti°hen the use is abutting a residential use or zone. By providing design guidelines far buffer walls, the proposed text amendment is attempting to prevent any adverse affect to adjacent residential areas. The proposed text amendment would be consistent with thts policy, ATTACH}1F.`TS Attachment A - Plarning Commission :Final Chder and recommendation of June l2, 20()8, I. C'nrnrnunjty Deteiopment Planning ?f}0 %.I.rgistati~c Amendn~ents'1~VDQ amendments Dec~ssons':C;C Staff Report doe Page 180 Y ~~ A~~ a~ September 8, 2008 TQ: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FR{~M: Dan Brown Public Works Director SUBJECT: FOUR HOUR PARKING REQUEST ON N. FIFTH STREET RECOMMENDATION: That Council approves the installation of four hour parking signs on both sides of N. f=ifth Street south of Hwy. 214 to the barricade adjacent to the south property line of Nuevo Amanaceer. BACKGROUND: A request has been made by Cade Enforcement to have four-hour parking signs installed on both sides of N. Fifth Street south of Hwy. 214 due to the high volume of vehicles being stored on the street by residents of Nuevo Amanaceer. DISGUSSI4N: Fifth Street has a 60 ft R4W and a 40 ft. paved width, which does allow parking on both sides of the street. The street has a barricade at the south end of the Nuevo property which prevents traffic from travelling through to Harrison Street. This section of street is the only way to access Nuevo. This is also the main access to the church on the west side of the street. Allowing only four hour parking will eliminate vehicles being stored on the street and allow easier access to and from the adjoining properties. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Estimated cost for installation of four hour parking signs is X400 including materials and labor, which will be funded from the regular Street Maintenance Budget. Agenda {fem Review: C ?y Administrato~~~ Ciry A ~~r^~ Page 181 Financ '~~,, i~ ~1Voo ~v~,~ A Sze,,. September 8, 2408 Tfl: Mayor and City Counci! through City Administrator FROM: Scoff D. Ruse!!, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Program Implementation: Police Canine Teom RECflMMENDATIflN: 1t is recommended the City Council receive the donations and authorize the irr~plementation of a Police canine program. BACKGROUND: A quality police canine team is a valuable asset to any police department and to the community which it serves. The Woodburn Police canine program has been in hiatus for several years due to many factors including; retirement of the existing dog, serviceability of the previous canine vehicle, lack of a trained dog handler, and the lack of additional funds in the Cifiy budget to restart such a program. However, the Woodburn Police Department often finds itself in need of a Folios Canine to provide support to the Patrol and Detective Divisions during the search for suspects, missing persons, evidence or contraband. A canine unit can also provide tactical support to our Tactical Services Unit in serving search warrants and effecting arrest and drug detections. The Marion County Sheriff`s office has some canine teams available. however few are deployed in the North County area at this time and the response time from Salem or South County is usually more than 30 minutes. Most dog tracks that start after 30 minutes or more in urban areas are unsuccessful. In addition a dog trained in narcotics detection can significantly reduce search time and increase seizures. Such a dog is not currently available locally. DISCUSSION: The Police Department is requesting to create and implement a Police Canine program based upon the demonstrated need to support officers with Agenda Item Reui~w: City Administr~tto .~_....._..._._ City Atforney ...... ~_._ Finon Page 182 Mayor and City Council September 8, 2008 Page 2 TrackinglTrailing, Building Search, Area Search, Evidence Recovery, Crowd Control and Narcotics Detection. As mentioned above over the post several years, the police department has had to rely on outside agency assistance for a Police Canine. The immediate availability of an outside agency Police Canine has been sporadic and often unavoilable. The canine unit will consist of one uniform police officer (drawn from a currently authorized patrol position] and a po{ice canine. The canine will be trained in Obedience, Agility, Tracking/Trailing, Building Search, Area Search, Evidence Recovery, Crowd Control, and Narcotics Detection. The Department's desire to create such a unit has been bolstered by the fund raising efforts of Officer Zach Williams (with the support of the Woodburn Police Association] who sought department support and began work on project fund raising in the spring. The Departments position was that after such a project was funded and factually supported, staff would be wiQing to recommend its approval by the City Council, but that there were no available funds within the City budget this year for such astart-up effort. Officer Williams was successful in raising over $22,000.00 for the program, in locating a high quality police canine, and in securing pro-bono training from a nationally accredited police canine team training academy presented by the Denver Colorado Police Department. Based up Officer William's efforts the Department now recommends that the City accept the donated funds being held by the Woodburn Police Association, take ownership of the canine "Crash", and authorize the addition of the program to the FY 08-09 budget. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Most of the initial start-up cost has been mitigated by donations from various businesses and civic organizations. Fund raising will continue to be sought to defray any additional costs. $22,000.00 has been raised to date leaving a balance of $b,572.00 needed to start. Total annualized maintenance cost of the program is $3,500.00 or approx $241.65 per month. This cost is mitigated by the fact that these funds are available within the approved Police Department Budget for FY 2008-2009. Page 183 Woodburn Police Proposed Canine Budget Line Items Dog Food Vet Care Kennel Kennel Acc. Special Uniforms K9 Vehicle Cage & Acc Bite Suit Muzzles(Narnesstleashes Narcotics Safe/Training gear Used K9 Vehicle Fully CJutfitted Total Donations To Date Required t4 B81anCe "Services Dontated Captial Costs Fy Q8-09 $7,567.72 $4.44 $4.44 $634.44 $234,44 5354.44 54,444.44 1, 299.44 5254.44 5474.44 $13,444.44 x+27,796 72 521,225 56, 572 Ongoing Annual Costs $4,44 4~ 4* Page 184 54.44 $244.44 5354.44 54.44 54.44 ~ 154.44 $4.44 $2,844.44 $3, 544.44 ~~C~ BtJR,~ w ~ September 4, 20Q8 TC~; Mayor and City Council 1~ F(~flM. N. Robert Shields, City Attorney "~~` SUBJECT: City Attorney Evaluation RECOMMENDATION: Schedule annual evaluation date. BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: The City Council normally conducts my annual evaluation in August. However, two of the summer meetings were cancelled and my evaluation has no been scheduled. I wanted to bring this to your attention and request that the Council schedule the evaluation at its earliest convenience. I:INANCIAI. IMPACT: Rione. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator`-'° City A' ~rn~~ °''~_ Finance . Page 185