Loading...
Minutes - 08/11/2008COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, AUGUST 11, 2008. CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. 0010 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 Administrator Russell, City Attorney Shields, Assistant City Administrator Stevens, Community Development Director Allen, Public Works Director Brown, Police Captain Tennant, Community Services Director Row, Finance Director Gillespie, City Recorder Tennant 0052 ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) Music in the Park: Golden Bough will perform on August 12"' and Felicidades will perform on August 19"'. Performances will begin at 7:00 p.m. in Library Park. B) Regular City Council meeting scheduled for August 25, 2008 is cancelled subject to Council approval (Agenda Item 10-G). C) The filing period for Mayor and Council positions on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot will close on August 26, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.. Positions open are Mayor, Councilor Ward I, Councilor Ward II, and Councilor Ward VI. Individuals interested in filing for office are encouraged to begin the nomination procedure process no later than August 20`'' in order to get all of the necessary documents filed by the August 26`h deadline. Filing information and forms can be obtained at the City Recorder's office during regular business hours. 0163 PRESENTATION• CERTIFICAT E OF ACCOMPLISHMENT TO .TOSHUA FOX. Mayor Figley awarded a Certificate of Accomplishment to 14-year old Joshua Fox who represented the Woodburn School District at the National Young Leaders State Conference and went on to become a representative to the Congressional Youth Leadership Conference. He has now been invited to attend the Presidential Youth Inaugural Conference including the Presidential Inauguration. She thanked him for representing the Woodburn community, recognized him for his achievement, and wished him well on his trip to Washington, D.C.. Page 1 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING 0258 PRESENTATION: WAL-MART DONATION TO POLICE K-9 PROGRAM. Interim Administrator Russell stated that the Police Department had a K-9 program up until about 4 years ago when the dog retired and the budgetary funding did not allow for replacement of the dog, equipment, or required training. Within the last few months, Officer Zach Williams has been interested in revitalizing the program and, with the help of the Woodburn Police Association, has been working on obtaining donations from various local sources to fund this program. He introduced Scott Gavik and Megan Arthur from Wa1Mart who had a presentation to make to the City. Scott Gavik, Wa1Mart Manager, stated that Officer Williams had approached him a few months ago about revitalizing the K-9 program and, as a supporter of work done by Police Officers, he began working with Megan Arthur who worked out of WalMart's Marketing office to see if any funds could be obtained from the Wa1Mart home office. As a result of her efforts, she was able to secure a $16,000 donation from WalMart which they presented to Officer Williams for the K-9 program. Officer Williams introduced his dog "Crash" who has been purchased through donations by WalMart and other businesses and organizations throughout the City. He expressed his appreciation to the community for their support and stated that the next step is for him and Crash to obtain the necessary training and certification within the next couple of months so that they can work on the street within the City. Councilor Cox stated that a lot of sources have donated to this program but two sources that he knows of is (1) the Knights of Columbus who had a spaghetti feed as a fundraiser and (2) a couple of his clients who have wanted to remain anonymous have placed in trust funds to be donated to the City for this program. He reiterated that the money came from multiple sources but WalMart donated the largest amount of money which put the donation amount over the amount necessary to initiate the program. Mayor Figley expressed her appreciation to everyone who made this program happen for the Police Department and the community. 0600 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT. Deb Yager, Chamber President, referred to the Chamber statistical report for July and stated that the numbers had increased from June 2008. In July, the Chamber issued 5 re- location packets, had 92 visitors to the Chamber office with two of them being from outside Oregon, and had 2,299 visitors at the Company Stores Visitors Information Center with 979 visitors from Oregon and the balance from outside Oregon. She stated that it appears that the Chamber is trending about .5% of every visitor to the Company Stores stopping by the Visitor Information Center. In regards to cyber hits, they had 5,680 hits which is up 2,600 hits. The Chamber Forum luncheon will begin again in September at Cascade Park with the meeting date yet to be announced. The Woodburn Area Tourism is on-line and will officially be called WAT. Christine Edick is the new Tourism Coordinator and has made great strides in bringing the Visitors Information Center up to date on brochures, information, and rekindling interest on volunteerism at the Center. A volunteer appreciation breakfast will be held on August 16`'' at the Senior Page 2 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING Estates Grill. Lastly, she stated that the Leadership program involves approximately 11 students from the surrounding school districts and the Chamber is looking for about 11 or 12 adult participants for this program. She mentioned that this was not just a student mentoring program, in fact, it is a learning experience for all participants and Christine Edick will also be the Director of this program. 0847 WOODBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT. Walt Blomberg, School Superintendent, stated that the adequately yearly progress report relates to students meeting the standards in math, reading and literature. He stated that this report not only looks at all students in the school but it takes the students and divides them up into sub-groups of students (36 categories) in which they look at reading and math, in addition to attendance and participation rate. Last year, the expectation at the federal level was that 50% of the students would meet the reading benchmark and 49% would meet the math benchmark. The benchmark was raised by 10% so the benchmarks are now 60% and 59% respectively with the target being that by the year 2014 the benchmark will be that all students and sub-groups will be at 100%. Since the small High Schools have only been in existence one year under the state system, they did not receive any designation. The K-8 schools each made the benchmarks if you looked at all students in the district. Nellie Muir School made the benchmark in all students and in all sub- groups measured. Heritage School met all the sub-groups and all students in reading but they were one sub-group short in math. In reviewing the numbers, the lowest number within the School district was 31 out of 35 categories met but if the district does not meet in any one of the 36 categories then the school is designated as not meeting the standards. Two of the sub-groups that gave the school the most difficulty are students with disabilities and limited English speaking students. The District continues to work hard to get these students up to the level necessary to meet the benchmarks. In regards to the high schools, last year the district saw a 74% increase in the number of students making the reading standards and they are very proud of the progress being made at the small high schools. The Woodburn Arts and Communication Academy and the Woodburn Academy of Art, Science, and Technology exceeded the State average in reading and math. In math, the district saw a steady increase in the elementary and middle school levels and the high school level rose 11%. At Lincoln School (5`h grade students), 77% of the students are meeting the benchmark and exceeding state standards. At Valor Middle School, 77% of the 7`'' graders and 74% of the 8`'' graders exceeded the state standards. When students return to school this fall, the district will continue to pay special attention to the English language development and will continue to work with students to meet the expectations established under the federal and state standards. 1209 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve the regular Council meeting minutes of July 14, 2008; Page 3 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING B) approve the Special Council meeting regular and executive session minutes of July 16, 2008; C) approve the Special Council meeting regular and executive session minutes of July 17, 2008; D) accept the Recreation and Parks Board minutes of July 22, 2008; E) receive the Building Activity report for July 2008; F) receive the Planning Project Tracking Sheet report dated August 5, 2008; G) receive the Planning Commission minutes of July 10, 2008; H) receive the Planning Commission minutes of July 24, 2008; I) receive the Crime Statistics report for July 2008; J) receive the Code Enforcement Statistics report for July 2008; and K) receive the Community Services Statistics report for June 2008. NICHOLS/LONERGAN... adopt the Consent Agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 1290 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SALE OF SURPLUS CITY-OWNED PROPERTY (Portion of Tax Lot 3400 -Brown Court). Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7:24 pm. Public Works Director Brown stated that staff is proposing the sale of a small parcel of land adjacent to the new park trail head project parking facility located at the intersection of East Cleveland Street and Brown Street. The property owners abutting this parking facility have signed an agreement of interest in purchasing the property and will reimburse the City for all administrative costs and lot line adjustment fees. Staff recommends that the City proceed with this sale and believe it is in the best interest of the City to accommodate the property owners who had inadvertently occupied this vacant land which belongs to the City. No one spoke either for or against the proposed sale of property to Dean and Delores Prondzinski. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 7:26 p.m.. Councilor Cox stated that this property has no value to the City or to anyone other than the abutting property owner. COX/MCCALLUM.... approve the sale and direct the staff to return a resolution reflecting the Council's decision to sell the property to the Prondzinski's. The motion passed unanimously. 1474 PUBLIC HEARING• APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW (DR 2008-01) AND EXCEPTION TO STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY AND IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS (EXCP 2008-03) -Located at the Northeast Corner of Evergreen Road and Highway 214). Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7:27 p.m.. No potential conflicts ofinterest or ex-parte contacts were reported by the Mayor or Council. Recorder Tennant read the land use statement required under ORS Chapter 197. Associate Planner Dolenc stated that this public hearing relates to a design review case for Page 4 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING a proposed Walgreen Drug Store. The property lies north of Highway 214 between Evergreen Road and Country Club Road and does not include the Thai Restaurant building, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) restaurant, or the US Bank parcel. The overall size of the parcel owned by the applicant is 7.6. acres, however, the applicant is only proposing to redevelop about one-fourth (1/4) of the parcel at this time with the intent to redevelop the remainder of the property when economic conditions change. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing building on the south end of the property adjacent to Highway 214 and leave the remaining buildings. This is considered as Phase I of the proposed re-development of the entire parcel. The building would be replaced with a 14,000 sq. foot Walgreen's Pharmacy utilizing their fairly 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 language interpretations and, as a result, staff looked at the entire parcel rather than just the portion proposed to be redeveloped by the applicant. He briefly reviewed the sections of the Code that led staff to believe that, with a Type III design, the entire lot needed to be reviewed and evaluated. If only a portion of the parcel was reviewed, then other considerations that were not addressed included a need for street exceptions on Country Club Rd and Country Club Court, cross section improvement standards, parking dimensions, striping and access aisles, landscaping requirements for the parcel outside of the proposed development area that are not in compliance with the current standards, and pole signs outside of the development area. Staff recommended, and the Planning Commission imposed, a requirement for a phasing plan under WDO 5.103.05.. It was originally proposed that the phasing plan be submitted prior to the building permit being issued, however, the applicant objected to that time line and the Planning Commission 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 set timetables 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-way and improvements of the portion of the property abutting the development phase taking into account the landscaping, parking, and signage requirements. Staff held a pre-application meeting with the applicant before the application was 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, showed some dead-end parking traffic 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 of the Commission's condition. Staff does, however, have some issues with their proposed condition in the application material in that (1) the condition requires the submittal of a plan and it does not require that the plan be approved; and (2) the condition does not provide objective criteria. Staff cannot due an evaluation of subjective standards in a Type I administrative decision. Phasing plans are significantly complicated and involve Page 5 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING significant discretion and it is that degree of discretion that Oregon Land Use Law reserves to the Planning Commission in a Type III quasi-judicial land use decision. He stated that staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission which would affirm the existing condition of approval that Brice Corporation obtain an approved phasing plan under WDO 5.103.05 prior to occupancy and it would bind the entire property. 2589 Councilor Lonergan questioned if submittal of a phasing plan would not jeopardize the building period of this project. Associate Planner Dolenc stated that the applicant still has some final approval process to go through with Walgreen's approving the site lease. The existing building will need to be demolished plus they will need to submit applications for the building permit and construction. Staff feels that there is adequate time for the phasing plan to be submitted and approved before occupancy and assured the Council that staff does not want to hold up this project. Councilor Cox stated that since the phasing plan has to be approved prior to occupancy, the applicant could build in the meantime and nooff-site improvements would be required other than what is in their current application. Councilor Bjelland stated that the presentation showed some areas outside of the current development proposal that involves re-striping and he questioned how that relates to the requirement of the phasing plan and what needs to be done prior to an occupancy permit being granted. Associate Planner Dolenc stated that, absent of a phasing plan, staff feels that the applicant needs to look at the full parcel whereas with a phasing plan in place, staff would concentrate on just the development area identified in the application. Councilor McCallum questioned as to what occurs if their plan is approved, they move forward on the development, and then major changes such as in the economy, occupancy, or tenants occur. Associate Planner Dolenc stated that the phasing plan does not involve buildings or occupancy but it does require each phase to have a specific area involved and building footprints that would be reviewed when an application is submitted to redevelop additional property. Staff did not feel that it will be necessary to reconsider a phasing plan each time that a building is proposed. A possible issue may be that there are some adjustments between phases but staff is confident that the approval would give staff the administrative ability to make minor adjustments without going back to the Commission for an amendment to the phasing plan. Councilor Bjelland questioned if the phasing plan would basically deal with the adjoining streets, any exterior access ways into this property, landscaping, and improvement requirements that those phases might be required as a condition of approval for those phases. Associate Planner Dolenc stated that as each phase is redeveloped, they would have to make improvements to areas that are contiguous to the development. 3247 Kristy Olson, representing Brice Corporation which is owned by her family, stated that they have some serious concerns that could significantly impact their project. Page 6 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING Cathy Corliss, Angelo Planning Group, reiterated their appreciation of the Planning Commission's approval of the project which had 90 conditions of approval and the applicant has agreed to 89 of those conditions. She stated that the proposed project is a relatively small change to an existing shopping center which may currently be non-conforming but it was conforming at the time the center was originally built. The proposed development area would be brought into conformance when it is built and each piece would come into conformance with the Code as development eventually occurs, therefore, they do not feel that there is a need for a phasing plan . The reason for their concern is that the applicant takes a risk by starting demolition and beginning construction in order to get the project moving forward after which the phasing plan is submitted for approval. However, the approval process could involve an appeal process plus conditions of approval on the phasing plan that would be unacceptable to the applicant. She stated that they are willing to provide additional information on onsite traffic circulation but feels that the Code adequately protects the City as property is redeveloped on this site. The applicant believes that they cannot move forward with any redevelopment until the phasing plan is approved and further delay will put the start up into the rainy season which could increase the cost of the building beyond support ability and could cause the entire project not to move forward. Even though the Planning Commission changed the requirement to having a phasing plan prior to occupancy, the Brice Corporation felt that they could not, with financing and other attributes, move forward with the improvement. At the time of pre-application meeting, the applicant was considering a redevelopment of the entire site but a change in the economy makes redevelopment of the entire site no longer on the table. With no idea as to what they might do with the entire site, they may be forced to make something up just to get a phasing plan before the City or to show existing buildings that are currently there with the one new building. In any event, that does not answer the question on how the site may be redeveloped. She reiterated that the Code will catch any issues that need to be addressed at the time of redeveloping other portions of the property. She also felt that the Code addresses a development application and not an entire lot owned by the property owner. In regards to condition #5, staff has argued that it is reasonably related to impacts caused by development on private /public improvements but she would argue that condition #5 as it is currently written is about potential future development and not about the currently proposed development. She reiterated that they are willing to provide additional information regarding on-site circulation but did not feel that it should be subject to review or approval until future development takes place. She expressed their appreciation to the Planning Commission for trying to solve the problem and concerns they have about delay but it still does not solve their problem and it will delay, and may halt, the redevelopment of the site. She stated that the phasing plan would be very speculative since they do not have any plan to redevelop the entire site at this time and any future redevelopment will have to meet all code requirements in place at that time.. 4141 Councilor Cox stated that the northerly portion of the development 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 Page 7 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING 4660 4910 economy, that has been scaled back to just the Walgreen's site. Ms. Corliss stated that it is her understanding from the Brice Corporation that they are not in any position to move forward with any redevelopment other than the Walgreen's site. Councilor Cox stated that he would agree with her interpretation that there is no WDO provision requiring that an applicant must either submit a phasing plan or submit a plan for their whole tax lot. He did not see anything in the WDO that would prevent a property owner with a large parcel from applying to develop or build on a portion of the site. It does make sense that an applicant should be able to do a site development plan on as much of the property as they propose to develop. He also stated that, in some situations, a phasing plan can be important if other phases are proposed since the City needs to know what will happen on the whole site. He also agreed that WDO Section 5.103.05 has no criteria as to when the City can require a phasing plan. This section does describe what a phasing plan is and application requirements but it does not say a phasing plan is required or when a developer is permitted to ask for a phasing plan. He does not feel that the ordinance gives the City the authority to require a phasing plan. He also felt that staff had mentioned to the applicant well in advance of the need for a phasing plan but Brice Corporation decided later that they did not want to do it and, because of that, they are now complaining because it will delay their project. Ms. Corliss stated that there was some misunderstanding that stems from the pre-application process. They were initially talking about a phased development on the entire site but have told staff several times since then that they will only be developing this one area. She reiterated that it is not possible to look at parking or striping unless you know what the building square footage and uses will be. The only thing they feel that they can give the City is a site circulation plan which what they have suggested to staff. Councilor Cox stated that Evergreen Road does need to be corrected and it is the City's role to make sure no future mistakes are made, therefore, the City needs to have some oversight on the process which is why the Planning staff wants a phasing plan. Ms. Corliss 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 go back to the Planning Commission since it is a Type III land use. However, Section 5.103.05(A) does not say when or under what circumstances a phasing plan should be used or what type of applications it can be used for. The caption in the ordinance refers to a subdivision, PUD, Manufactured Dwelling Park, or any other land use permit, therefore, the caption could apply to any land use application. However, the caption of the ordinance is not part of the ordinance and the language in the body of the section needs to be applied. The question is whether or not the Planning Commission had the authority to impose a phasing plan as part of the overall right to impose relevant conditions that relate to this application. An argument could be made that the language is broad enough whereby the Commission has the general power to impose conditions. Ms. Corliss stated that she understands that if they had an opportunity to submit a phasing plan and there was one to submit then they would have submitted the phasing plan. Page 8 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING However, there was no intention to submit an application for the entire site showing future development and if they would have known that staff would be requiring it as a condition of approval it would have been easier for them if the City would have accepted the existing buildings. She stated that she did not honestly feel that the phasing plan criteria would apply since, based on the way the code is written, it would be something the applicant would request. Councilor McCallum questioned how much of a delay in Phase I is involved if the phasing plan is required. Ms. Corliss stated that if they were able to submit a phasing plan that was deemed complete within 30days hopefully it would be reviewed by the Planning Commission in the latter part of September. They are concern about what conditions of approval would be ordered and the risk that the applicant runs is that if they go ahead and start tearing down the building and a condition of approval is ordered that Brice Corporation cannot meet then they no longer have a building that can be leased. Kristy Olson reiterated that there could be conditions on the approval of the phasing plan which may then generate another appeal to the Council and further delay any redevelopment. At this time, they have no tenants interested in coming to their development other than Walgreens. 6058 No one in the audience spoke either for or against the land use issue before the Council. Councilor Cox stated that the applicant has expressed their concerns about unacceptable conditions relating to a phasing plan that might be imposed and he questioned staff as to what additional conditions might be imposed. Director Allen stated that staff would expect some conditions which the Planning Commission has authority to do, for example, in referring to the schematic recently brought in by the applicant, the property east of Phase I (Walgreens) would not have proper internal traffic circulation to make it safe for motorists and pedestrians. Councilor Bjelland questioned why traffic circulation was not addressed when the Walgreen's application was reviewed by staff and the Commission. Director Allen stated that the applicant had wanted to proceed with the information they had provided and did not want to discuss the phasing plan since they did not believe that they needed the plan. The Planning Commission did modify the phasing plan condition at their July 10`'' meeting and the phasing plan would address how everything would work. Tape 2 Director Allen also stated that he did not believe that there needs to be a new parking plan in Phase I but this phase does impact the other phases of future development on the property. Therefore, there is a need for the developer to at least meet the minimum standards now because of the impacts they are creating by Phase I. He stated that staff and the Planning Commission was tied to what the applicant proposed which involved drawing their re- development lines to the extent the improvements that involved Walgreens and not re- development of the full property. The solution to not improving the full piece of property was to come back with a phasing plan and show how it would work when the property is completely re-developed. Page 9 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING Councilor Bjelland stated that he continued to be confused with the staff and Planning Commission's decision since only a portion of the property is being considered for re- development and the area being re-developed should integrate with existing traffic patterns of surrounding properties. Director Allen stated that they had tried to work with the developer on this but they wanted to proceed with getting their applications before the Planning Commission for review in order to proceed with the re-development of the property. Further discussion was held on the traffic pattern and circulation issue which involved the entire parcel of land owned by the developer even though only a portion of the property is proposed for re-development. 0239 Councilor Cox questioned if the property on the map shown as Phase III (located behind Kentucky Fried Chicken and south of the Bank) is currently all vacant 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 Kentucky Fried Chicken. Councilor McCallum questioned what the Council would need to do to allow them to move forward with Phase I so that they do not lose Walgreens and then requirements for future phases be imposed for a later date. He expressed his belief that after 40 years, this development has not changed much and the quicker the City and developer work together to come up with solutions the better off everyone will be. Director Allen stated that no one has come up with a solution but in this case, staff has continued to tell the applicant that if there is anything in their plan that involves a discretionary decision under the City's ordinance, then the land use process must be followed involving the public process. Councilor Bjelland commented on when no information is available to do a true phasing plan and until that information 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 or Council need to use clear and objective standards, however, staff needs to look at the application to see if it has clear and objective standards or if it is discretionary. He referred to an earlier discussion during this meeting on how the Woodburn 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 them to additional road improvements if the square footage of the building exceeded a certain amount. Councilor Bjelland stated that the developer of Woodburn Company Stores had a very definite idea of what was anticipated for that site and knew how the phasing would be accomplished whereas that does not exist on this particular site. He did not feel that a phasing plan should be expected in this case. Director Allen stated that, in this case, the phasing plan is the mechanism to address the criteria everyone wanted addressed such as street improvements on the frontages and on-site improvements (traffic circulation and landscaping) of property outside of the Walgreen development (Phase I). Page 10 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING Councilor Bjelland commented on how he did not see how that would be done without having a general idea of what would be going in the subsequent phases on the property. He questioned what the City would be giving up on Phase I if no phasing plan is required other than internal traffic flow whereby in Phase III it might result is some redesign of the parking. Director Allen stated that it would depend on ordinance interpretation . Internal traffic circulation issues, safety issues, ADA access, and some other issues identified in the current ordinance are not address to the extent they would be if the property owner would be evaluating the whole parcel rather than just a portion of the property. He briefly reviewed the proposed traffic circulation in Phase I and its impact on the rest of the property. Councilor Cox questioned what would occur if the phasing plan was not required and instead put in something in the approval of Phase I that the City could require in future development of the property that parking, landscaping, curbs and access points could change on the entire parcel of land to meet ordinance requirements. By including this type of condition relating to future development or redevelopment, it will allow the developer to move forward with Phase I and yet not give them a vested right to keep the traffic circulation, curbs, landscaping, and access points as proposed in the Phase I application. Councilor Bjelland expressed his opinion that Phase I needs to be as flexible as possible for future re-development of the entire parcel. 1179 Mayor Figley expressed her concern in having a phasing plan requirement at this time due to potential changes in traffic flow once improvements are made to the I-5 interchange, Highway 214, and public streets around the entire parcel. 1252 Ms. Corliss stated that they are willing to accept a condition that would require the applicant, prior to Phase I occupancy, to submit an on-site circulation plan on the entire parcel that would identify the general layout of vehicular and pedestrian circulation and would identify connectivity to adjacent public streets that would be maintained for safe access. She stated that there are other conditions of approval that need to be submitted by the applicant and they are agreeable to try and find a way to word a condition that would allow for subsequent submittal requirement on the original approval. Councilor Bjelland questioned if Phase I is a separate tax lot. Ms. Corliss stated that Phase I as outlined in the application is a lease line only. Councilor Cox expressed concern about the time element since he did not want to delay any longer than necessary but he was leery about the wording on a substitute condition. Rather than trying to frame the exact wording at this meeting, staff still needs to come back with an order on the Council's decision and he suggested that staff, any interested Councilors, applicant, and/or 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 and substitute conditions that preserve the right in a future development application to make appropriate connectivity, access and traffic flow. 1663 Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 8:58 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 B jelland stated that economic changes have occurred over the last year and he did Page 11 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING not feel that the submittal of a phasing plan should be required when there is no definitive plan on what development might occur in the future on this property. However, 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 future good development of the remaining property. 1792 COX/NICHOLS..... uphold the appeal and strike the current references in the Planning Commission order to a phasing plan and substitute in place of that a condition in the approval that will be part of the Council's order that would preserve the right to modify and make changes as it becomes necessary in connection with future development applications on that site and to preserve the traffic flow and connectivity to the remainder of the parcel. The motion passed unanimously. 1906 Mayor Figley called for a recess at 9:03 pm and reconvened the meeting at 9:10 pm. 1969 PUBLIC HEARING: LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT 2007-03 TO THE WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (WDO) . Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 9:11 pm. Senior Planner Labossiere presented the staff report on 25 proposed changes that were identified for review in Council Resolution 1874 adopted on November 26, 2007. She discussed the proposed changes which she had separated into the following three categories: 1) general grammatical, cross-reference, and syntax corrections; 2) clarification of terms and definitions; and 3) Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) changes (general and policy). Proposed general changes to the WDO included NAICS code updates, clarifying setbacks for each land use zone by eliminating the word "yard" throughout the ordinance, using the term "Multiple family dwellings" rather than "Multiple density residential buildings", delete reference to a document that does not exist (Exhibit Q, Transportation Impact Analysis Requirements), correction to manufactured dwelling construction standards, and updated the permitted use table in Section 6.104 which has not been updated since the WDO was initially adopted. She reviewed in more detail proposed policy changes which include Architectural Wall; clarifying the definition of Vision Clearance and changing the requirement of the vision clearance area within the DDC zone (Downtown Development & Conservation Zone); expanding the definition of plant unit to include some hard scape materials but hard scape materials cannot exceed 20% of the required plant units; requirement of a tree permit to remove any significant tree (24 inches in diameter) on private property and the establishment of a tree mitigation fee for each required tree replacement that is not planted; change the public notice requirement from 20 days to 10 days before the first hearing to match hearing notification requirements of the State; modifying the variance factors to be considered which could make it easier to get a variance since factors are items to be examined instead of a criteria that needs to be met; and an automatic zone designation for annexed property based on the comprehensive plan designation. Page 12 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING 2600 Councilor Cox questioned if, under Proposed Change #21, neighborhood associations should be listed as part of the required notification process if there are no recognized neighborhood associations in the City. Director Allen stated that the language is similar to the State's language and, even though the City has not commenced in any citizen involvement program that would include neighborhood associations, he suggested that it be included in the proposed changes in the event a neighborhood association does become a recognized group. Councilor McCallum questioned if a Homeowner's association should be recognized since it is different from a neighborhood association. Director Allen stated that the City could recognize Homeowners Associations, however, the State Statute allows for citizen involvement or area advisory committees which is a group a people participating in land use matters and that generally make recommendations. As of this date, the City has not gone through the steps to recognize any committees nor have they had groups interested in forming any area citizen committees. 3048 Councilor Cox stated that he believes that all of the proposed changes were discussed at the Focus Group meetings and he is assuming that staff has correctly put into the staff report the consensus that was reached by the Focus Group which consisted of Dave Christoff, Dick Jennings, and himself. He stated that the Focus Group was not anxious to make it easier for a property owner to get a variance but they had concerns on listed criteria that did not apply in every case. When the Focus Group looked at the overall factors and giving them appropriate weight, they felt that the general factors needed to be examined to determine if a variance should be granted. No one in the audience spoke either for or against the proposed changes to the WDO. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 9:29 p.m.. COX/MCCALLUM.... approve the proposed amendments and instruct staff to come back with an ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. 3333 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2735 -RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AD.TUSTED RATE SCHEDULE AND FUEL SURCHARGE FEE FOR UNITED DISPOSAL, INC., SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS 1833 AND 1843. Council Bill No. 2735 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. Councilor Lonergan stated that he may have a potential conflict of interest since he is employed by Allied Waste who is the owner of United Disposal but he does not have any financial interest in the Woodburn Division nor has he talked to anybody in the Woodburn Division about anything being proposed. However, he does feel that he has a commitment to residents of his Ward and will remain at the bench and participate as a Councilor unless Page 13 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING there is an objection. For the record, the Mayor and Councilors did not object to Councilor Lonergan remaining on the bench. Robin Murbach, Allied Waste, proposed an increase for a rate adjustment in the amount of 1% for residential rates (20, 35, and 65 gallon carts) and 2% for commercial /industrial rates. She stated that commercial rates are based on efficiencies and, after reviewing commercial rates, they have also proposed rate adjustments (decreases) to commercial customers who have larger containers that need to be picked up less often. She also proposed a fuel recovery fee since high fuel costs are affecting their cost structure. The purpose of the fee is to cover the increase in the cost of fuel as it is experienced by their company as opposed to waiting until next year and then asking for a larger rate increase. In her opinion, this fee is fair for both the company and their customers since the fee will fluctuate up and down based on their cost for fuel. She stated that the fee will roll every four (4) months with their company looking at fuel costs actually paid out then refer to an established table that correlates fuel rate per gallon to fee surcharge on each residential, commercial, and industrial rate. She provided an example of the cost increase for a flat rate residential customer which would be $.25 per month for the container and $.45 fuel surcharge totaling $.70 per month. She stated that the last operational rate increase for Woodburn residents was in Apri12006, however, last year they did come in with a service rate increase to cover the additional cost for co-mingled cart service. Councilor Cox expressed concern on the fuel recovery rate proposal and referred to the baseline rate of $2.75 per gallon which is inconsistent with the $3.00 baseline in the actual schedule. Additionally, he questioned the fuel rate currently being paid by United Disposal. Ms. Murbach stated that when she originally responded to an e-mail from Interim Administrator Russell, the fuel rate being paid was $4.25 per gallon but the rate has since dropped to $4.10 per gallon. They purchase their fuel through a national contract through Allied Waste from Mansfield Oil and she believes that they have contracted a fairly good rate but it is not a contract that will keep the rate stable. She also mentioned that the $2.75 baseline rate was incorrect and should be $3.00 per gallon. Councilor Cox stated that if the Council approves this request, the rate adjustment would go into effect the first of next month, then United Disposal would look at fuel costs quarterly. Ms. Murbach stated that they are proposing to look at fuel costs for the preceding 4 months which correlates with their billing period and agreed that the document before the Council needs to be corrected to reflect the 4 month time frame rather than quarterly. Councilor Cox also felt that the 4 month periods should be defined in the resolution attachment and that the rounding proposal to determine the surcharge amount should be part of the rate document since the Whereas clause in the Resolution is not part of the requirements on how it is to be implemented. He stated that United Disposal had provided the City with aprofit/loss statement for calendar 2007 showing a rate of return on gross receipts (income) of 6.77% but there is no information on the rate of return on investment. He also stated that the franchise ordinance does state that the Council is to consider the return Page 14 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING on investment but that has not been considered since they have not obtained any information from United Disposal. In his opinion, the 6.77% is not that unreasonable even though United Disposal indicates that the industry standard is 8% to 12% with a target of 10%. He felt that this proposal should not be accepted on the basis of what has been presented. He has no problem with the concept of adjusting the rates based on the cost of doing business and burden lies on United Disposal to convince the Council that they are entitled to the proposed rate increases. He did not feel that the Council has sufficient information to fulfill their public duty to residents and business customers within the City. The staff report stated that the City would gain money on higher rates but the Council needs to look at the public interest and he would like the necessary financial information before making a decision on the proposed rate adjustments. Ms. Murbach stated that she had brought forth information that she generally brings before the Council when asking for rate adjustments and requested more time to provide information requested by Councilor Cox. Councilor Cox discussed his reasons for the applicable financial information since some of the information is tied to Allied Waste financial information which is outside of the control of Ms. Murbach but does have an affect on the rate of return. Councilor Lonergan stated that Allied Waste is a creditable corporation and agreed that it was fair to ask Ms. Murbach for more detail on the financial documents. Councilor McCallum stated that the Council does have an obligation to the public but that needs to be balanced against the excellent service received from United Disposal. He preferred not to have the fuel surcharge as proposed and would prefer to have a rate increase that would be a constant amount. Councilor Bjelland questioned the base rate of fuel from which the old base rate was calculated on in 2006. Ms. Murbach stated that fuel had been between $2.50 and $2.75 per gallon the last time she was in to discuss the fuel surcharge with staff. At that time, it was decided to start with a $3.00 base rate for the fuel recovery fee and they were willing to absorb the difference in cost. The cost of fuel has been increasing rapidly and they felt that pulling fuel cost out of the rate adjustment would be more fair to their customers and to their company since all parties would be either absorbing or saving costs depending upon actual cost paid out. Councilor Bjelland referred to the fuel surcharge schedule and stated that if $3.00 was the base rate, then the $.09 per month charge for residential customers should begin with a $3.25 per gallon fuel charge rather than $3.00 per gallon. Ms. Murbach stated that the last rate increase was based on $2.75 per gallon, therefore, the fuel recovery fee would start at $3.00 per gallon. 6466 Mayor Figley expressed her understanding that rate adjustments are necessary to meet rising costs but felt that the fuel surcharge should not be a part of it and a rate adjustment that would incorporate fuel costs would be understandable. Councilor Cox stated that fuel costs did increase substantially in 2007 but even taking those costs into consideration, he felt that the company did make a decent profit in 2007 on their gross sales. He had no objection to the principle of a fluctuating rate but he also agreed with Page 15 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING just having a flat rate increase based on curved fuel costs. In this case, the City has a franchise with United Disposal DBA Allied Waste Corporation which has purchased around 30 businesses throughout the State of Oregon. The City deals with United Disposal which is a corporation wholly owned by Allied Waste and has no contractual dealings with Allied Waste. The franchise with United Disposal gives them exclusive rights to pick up garbage in Woodburn and no one else can come in to be a trash hauler. The City has reserved the right to regulate and/or control their profits and charges to be consistent with fairness to City customers using their service. Therefore, the Council needs to get the information necessary to fulfill their obligation to the City residents and businesses. He suggested that the City inquire about hiring a consultant to assist in evaluating the financial information provided by United Disposal to determine if the rate adjustment is equitable. Tape 3 0320 Mayor Figley stated that several issues have been brought up one of which involves inconsistencies in the document which needs to be corrected. Another issue is whether a fuel surcharge is the appropriate way of handling the fuel price issue or should it be in the overall rate. She questioned what kind of support there is among the Council for potentially hiring a consultant to review the financial information. Councilors Nichols and McCallum were interested in knowing how much it would cost for a consultant to review the information. Councilor Bjelland felt that a lot of time can be spent looking at numbers and he was unsure as to how much value it would be. There was a rate increase in 2006 and United Disposal is requesting a 1 °Io rate adjustment for residential customers over the existing rates. He feels that the concept of fuel surcharge does make sense but the question is what percent of fuel costs are represented of total operating expenses. Ms. Murbach stated that the CPI is currently about 4.3°Io and of that number, 2°Io is attributed to fuel. Councilor Cox stated that the fuel cost shown on the 2007 financial statement is less than 1 °Io of the total direct costs whereas the fuel surcharge would generate a higher percentage than what is actually paid out. Councilor Bjelland also requested that Ms. Murbach separate out the actual fuel costs from the total vehicle operation costs listed on the 2007 financial statement. Councilor Cox suggested that this issue be held in abeyance and staff check on the question of a consultant, how much it would cost and time lines to receive information. He stated that the Council may not want to go that direction but it would be beneficial to have a consultant to ask the right questions. BJELLAND/COX.... table this issue until the first regular meeting in September. The motion passed unanimously. Councilor Cox also stated that he would like to know how much tax was actually paid by Allied Waste or United Disposal to taxing entities in Oregon including the Department of Revenue and how does that compare with the amount of taxes deducted. 1006 PROTEST OF CONTRACT AWARD FOR DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF Page 16 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING WASTEWATER FACULTATIVE SLUDGE LAGOON DREDGE TO KERR CONTRACTORS, INC. Mayor Figley stated that the Council is now the Contract Review Committee and she offered the parties protesting the contract award the opportunity to speak to the Committee. Brett Stark, Operations Manager for R & G Excavating, stated that his company's position is that (1) the first requirement in the RFP relates to showing design and construction experience of at least one similar project in the last 5 years and (2) attendance at a pre-bid meeting on June 25, 2008 at 1:30 p.m.. He stated that his firm just completed a dredge project in Eugene (SRS Crisafulli) whereas the other proposer, Kerr Contractors, has not completed a dredge and their team (Liquid Waste Technologies) does not have an Oregon Contractor's license. He stated that this R & G's second protest in 20 years of business and they only bid public works projects. This proposal required attendance at the pre-bid meeting at the required time and they had a representative from both their company and SRS Crisavulli at this meeting. Also in attendance was a representative from Liquid Waste Technology. However, Kerr Contractor was not in attendance at the mandatory meeting at 1:30 p.m. and they had not shown up by 3:00 p.m. when R & G's representative left the meeting. He did receive information from Public Works Director Brown that a representative from Kerr Contractor did show up later that day. They submitted their protest on this issue since Liquid Waste Technology cannot legally do the work in Oregon and Kerr Contractor, an Oregon 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 did not follow the guidelines they wrote in the RFP and they were never given an opportunity to negotiate for a lower price since RFP required contractors to list a maximum price. He stated that their position is that (1) the RFP should be re-bid and (2) that the guidelines the City wrote be followed. In this case, there were only two bids for the project and they had listed a bid $125,000 over what Kerr Contractors had proposed, however, he strongly felt that the RFP guidelines should have been followed by the City or the City should have done aloes-bid process to see if more contractors would have submitted a bid on the project. Councilor Cox referred to the letter from Public Works Director Brown 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. Mr. 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 in the RFP. 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 submitting a proposal had physically looked at the City's ponds, lagoons, and the constraints in which they had to meet. The problem Page 17 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING they ran into was the issue of who could execute the installation and there was a requirement that you had to be a certified contractor in the State of Oregon. Staff knew that it would be a joint venture since all dredges are manufactured out of the State. Direction was given to Liquid Waste Technologies that they could not use their factory personnel to install the dredges and they would have to partner with a contractor in the State of Oregon. It became a point of misunderstanding as to whether or not the contractor had to be at the pre-proposal meeting. Since there were only 2 proposers, he had explained at the meeting that the City was not interested in engaging in negotiations with only one firm and either the meeting would be cancelled and re-advertised, or they would proceed and give Liquid Waste Technologies time to get Kerr Contractors at the meeting. For the benefit of the City, he 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 given R & 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 Waste Technology will give the City a superior dredge plus the experience and greatest value. He did not feel that the City 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 if it was staff's understanding that the 5 year experience pertained to the team. Director Brown stated that he was more concern about the dredge manufacturer than the installer and the experience related to having a successfully installed dredge. COX/MCCALLUM... Contract Review Board deny the protest and authorize the contract to be awarded to Kerr Contractors for the reasons outlined in the Public Works Director's response to the protestors and based on the additional information furnished to the Council at this meeting. The motion passed unanimously. 2520 CONTRACT AWARD FOR DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF WASTEWATER FACULTATIVE SLUDGE LAGOON DREDGE TO KERR CONTRACTORS, INC. Public Works Director Brown stated that staff has negotiated a contract with Kerr Contractors which they have signed contract for $156,000 to furnish and install the dredge. This is a considerable savings over the $387,477 that was proposed by R & G Excavating . The City's budgeted amount for this project was $130,000, however, there are contingency funds available in the Wastewater capital fund to pay for this additional expense. NICHOLS/LONERGAN... award the design build contract to Kerr Contractors, Inc. for the purchase and installation of the facultative sludge lagoon dredge. The motion passed unanimously. 2636 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2736 -ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2057 (THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX ORDINANCE), AND ADOPTING GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENT SAID ORDINANCE. Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill No. 2736. Recorder Tennant read the two Page 18 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 2736 duly passed with the emergency clause. 2709 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2737 -RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO A SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT WITH SALEM TRANSIT DISTRICT TO RECEIVE SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED TRANSPORTATION. Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill No. 2737. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 2737 duly passed. 2806 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GRANT AWARD FOR WOODBURN DOWNTOWN PLAN UPDATE. BJELLAND/LONERGAN.... Authorize the Interim City Administrator to sign the Intergovernmental Agreement between the State of Oregon and the City of Woodburn to provide funding for the City of Woodburn Downtown Development Plan Update. The motion passed unanimously. 2833 ACCEPTANCE OF BANCROFT BOND APPLICATION. Staff recommended Council acceptance of a Bancroft Bond application submitted by Perla Perez Zavaleta, 125 Tout Street, after the initial 10-day filing period. COX/NICHOLS... accept the Bancroft Bond application submitted by the property owner within the Tout Street local improvement district which was filed after the initial 10-day filing period. The motion passed unanimously. 2880 CANCELLATION OF AUGUST 25.2008 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. NICHOLS/SIFUENTEZ.... cancel the August 25, 2008 Council meeting. The motion passed unanimously. 2915 CONTRACT AWARD FOR DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF AQUATIC CENTER HVAC SYSTEM REPLACEMENT AND ENERGY UPGRADES TO ENERTIA ENERGY, INC.. Proposals were received from three firms and the selection committee has recommended the awarding of a contract to Enertia Energy, Inc., in the amount of $412,572 which does not include any deductions or discounts as a result of energy savings grants or credits. BJELLAND/LONERGAN.... award the design build contract to Enertia Energy, Inc., for the design and installation of a replacement HVAC System for the Aquatic Center. The motion passed unanimously. 2960 LIQUOR LICENSE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP FOR FULL ON-PREMISES Page 19 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING SALES: EL DORAD0.1390 N. Pacific Highway. A change of ownership full on-premises sales license application was submitted by El Dorado B LLC who have agreed to, and signed, a compliance plan with the City. BJELLAND/LONERGAN.... recommend to OLCC approval of the change of ownership liquor license application for El Dorado. On roll call vote, the motion passed 5-1 with Councilor Nichols voting nay. 3013 PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS. A) Planning Commission Approval of Variance 2008-051ocated at 1495 Cooley Court: Applicant requested a Type III Variance for a reduction in the rear and front yard setbacks for a proposed single family home. No action was taken by the Council. 3041 B) COUNCIL BILL NO. 2738 -RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2400 NORTH PACIFIC HIGHWAY. Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill No. 2738. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill No. 2738 duly passed. 3122 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. Interim City Administrator Russell stated that he had nothing to report at this meeting. 3130 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. Councilor Bjelland stated that he will be on vacation and not able to attend the first meeting in September. He will also be missing the MWACT meeting which will behaving an issue before them that has relevance to the City. The topic to be discussed deals with which of the earmark requests will be forwarded to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). The one pertaining to the City is to fund the completion of the Woodburn I-5 Interchange. At the last MWACT meeting, they were told that MWACT did not need to rank the requests. An elected City official would need to attend this meeting in order to vote on the transportation projects to be forwarded to the OTC. NICHOLS/COX.... formally appoint Mayor Figley to represent the City at the MWACT meeting. The motion passed unanimously. 3429 EXECUTIVE SESSION. Mayor Figley entertained a motion to adjourn into executive session under the authority of ORS 192.660(2)(d), 192.660(2)(f), and 192.660(2)(h). NICHOLS/LONERGAN.... adjourn to executive session under the statutory authority cited by the Mayor. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned to executive session at 11:02 pm and reconvened at 12:00 am . 3466 Mayor Figley stated that no decisions were made by the Council while in executive session. Page 20 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 TAPE READING 3475 AD.TOU1tNMENT. SIFUENTEZ/NICHOLS.... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:01 a.m.. ATTEST Mary Te ant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 21 -Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008 Executive Session COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 11, 2008 DATE. CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, AUGUST 11, 2008. CONVENED. 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 Works Director Brown (11:18 pm - 11:41 pm), Asst. City Administrator Stevens (11:42 pm - 12:00 am) Press: John Gervais, Woodburn Independent (11:06 pm - 11:41 pm) Mayor Figley reminded the Councilors, staff, and press that information 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 192.660(2)(h) to consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed; (2) ORS 192.660(2)(f) to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection; and (3) ORS 192.660(2)(d) to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor negotiations. ADJOURNMENT. The executive session adjourned at 12:00 a.m.. APPRO ATTEST Mary Te ant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 1 -Executive Session, Council Meeting Minutes, August 11, 2008