Loading...
Minutes - 11/10/2008COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, NOVEMBER 10, 2008. CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:05 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. Mayor Figley took a few minutes to thank all those who individuals who have served or are currently serving in the armed forces and to acknowledge the sacrifices and the devotion of these individuals in serving our country. She called for a moment of silence to remember those who have lost their lives while in the service of our country, to think of those that are in harms way, and to remember the network of loved ones and friends who share the sacrifice and share the service. 0104 ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Bjelland Absent Councilor Cox Present Councilor Lonergan Present Councilor McCallum Absent Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: City Administrator Derickson, City Attorney Shields, Asst. City Administrator Stevens, Public Works Director Brown, Police Captain Tennant, Community Services Director Row, Finance Director Gillespie, Interim Community Development Director Labossiere, Associate Planner Brennecke, Recorder Tennant 0150 ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) City Offices and the Library will be closed on Tuesday, November 11, 2008, for observance of Veteran's Day. The Aquatic Center will be open normal business hours. 0189 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT. Don Judson, Executive Director, stated that the Crystal Apple Awards event was held last week with a report on the event and list of award winners published in last week's Woodburn Independent. Scheduled for Wednesday, November 12"', is the monthly Chamber Forum at Cascade Park, 12:00 noon, with the guest speaker being City Administrator Scott Derickson. He stated that the Chamber is ready, able, and excited to partner with the City on Economic Development. 0240 WOODBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORT. Walt Blomberg, Superintentdent, stated that the schools will also be closed for Veterans Day. Celebrations of this event were held at the schools and some students were given the opportunity to interview residents at Cascade Park who served in the service as far Page 1 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING back as World War II. The students made a DVD of their interviews and showed it to the student body during an assembly. In regards to the general election, he stated that it had a huge impact on their school district with one statewide issue being on Measure 58 which would have limited their choices on how to serve English language learners and the other being Measure 56 which would allow for passage of a property tax measure by majority vote in the May and November elections. With the defeat of Measure 58, the School District can continue with their language programs and with the passage of Measure 56, the District can begin working on finalizing a bond measure package to submit to the voters at the May 2009 election. The District is organizing a Facilities Planning Team with the first meeting on November 13, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.. There are about 20 individuals committed to working on this team and he hoped to add another 5 individuals to the team. He encouraged anyone interested in being a part of the team to contact the School District office. Administrator Derickson stated that he did make a commitment to the School District that the City would assist in any way possible to helping them to identify future sites and to help incorporate those sites in the City's future planning. 0537 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve the City Council minutes of October 27, 2008; B) receive the Community Development Building Activity Report for October 2008; and C) receive the Annual System Development Charge (SDC) Report. COX/LONERGAN... adopt the Consent Agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 0578 TABLED BUSINESS: COUNCIL BILL N0.2735 - 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 Scott Derickson stated that he has been in contact with Robin Murbach and he anticipates this item coming up for Council discussion within the near future. Mayor Figley stated that this item will remain on the table. 0600 PUBLIC HEARING: CITY COUNCIL CALL-UP OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION IN CASE DESIGN REVIEW NUMBER DR 2008-3 (Highway 214 and S-Curve . Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7:13 p.m.. Councilor Cox excused himself from Council participation on this issue due to a conflict of interest since he will be presenting testimony during the hearing. Brief discussion was held regarding the ability to continue with the hearing since there are only three members of the Council left at the bench with Councilor Cox excusing himself from participating. City Attorney stated that the Council started the meeting with a Page 2 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING quorum and during the meeting a Councilor can excuse themself on one matter and the Council can still maintain a quorum for the purpose of the meeting. Other than driving by the location, no other potential conflicts of interests, ex-parte contacts, or challenges were heard or declared by the Mayor or Councilors. Recorder Tennant read the land use statement as required under ORS Chapter 197. Associate Planner Brennecke stated that property the is located on Highway 214 at the S- curve and encompasses 1.04 acres which is zoned commercial office. The proposed medical /professional office building is proposed to be a single-story 7,992 square foot L-shaped building with 32 parking spaces. ODOT has given their approval on the application filed by the developer for a State Highway approach with mitigation. She reviewed some of the features of this project which include a 6-foot buffer wall along the north and east property lines, two on-site storm water detention basins, a 10-foot wide Natural Gas easement, and aright-in and aright-out only driveway onto Highway 214. In regards to the landscape plan, the applicant did not meet the landscape requirements so this plan but the landscape plan will be altered when the developer comes in for building permits. She also stated that the WDO does require a solid brick or architectural wall of at least 6 feet but not more than 7 feet in height when a commercial development abuts a single family residential zone. In this proposal, the developer has proposed a 6 foot high buffer wall which was agreed to by the Planning Commission. Joe Consani, applicant, stated that he would be able to answer questions regarding the buffer wall height and any other concerns that the Council may have. He stated that the buffer wall will be very expensive in that it will cost approximately $42,000 for the 6-foot height. To add another foot in height for the full length of the wall, the bid received will increase by $9,750 plus additional fees for the building permit and engineering / re- design. He stated that the request was that the wall be at a 7-foot height in the open area along the north and east property lines but the wall around the building would be only 6- foot in height. He was unclear as to where the request for the additional height is coming from but can understand the concern about aesthetics and the line of site issue. He also understood that there was concern about the noise but was not sure if a 7-foot wall versus a 6-foot wall would make a significant impact on the reduction of noise. A study done by the State did call fora 12-foot wall for sound abatement if the road was widened. He stated that the building is aloes-volume use building that would not add to the traffic problem on Highway 214 which is why ODOT approved their application for access onto Highway 214. The development will be very attractive and improve the area which is currently vacant land. Councilor Lonergan questioned if the wall is planned to be built on the property line and if there are any fences that need to be removed when the wall is installed. Mr. Consani stated that the wall is planned to be on the property line as long as there are no problems with easements in the area. The reason for the stone wall is to provide a sound barrier whereas they had looked into installing a fiberglass wall for about half the price but it would not provide the aesthetic value or provide a sound buffer. Page 3 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING Jim Cox, 1530 Rainier Rd, spoke in opposition to the buffer wall only being 6-foot in height. His property abuts the parking lot of the proposed development and his 6-foot cedar fence will be removed when the masonry wall is installed. At this time, there is no landscaping planned adjacent to the fence since the developer has parking space limitations and no one has figured out a way to plant landscaping in the area without losing some of the required parking spaces. He stated that he has lived at this location since 1989 and he knows that the property is bound to be developed, however, it is a difficult site to develop because of its dimension, location adjacent to a major highway, and small building pad that would be available. He stated that the present S-curve was realigned by ODOT in the 1960's and this property has been zoned as a commercial site since the realignment. He stated that he is not opposed to the design of the building but he does oppose the height of the wall. Since1989, there has been more and more traffic traveling on Highway 214 and this traffic has become very frequent and obtrusive and it is getting worse. Except for ODOT funding, the proposals that have been put forward by ODOT are ready to go which would then widen the highway by an additional lane each direction and move the highway further back. As a result, the Commission has added an additional setback requirement on this development to allow for potential future widening of the highway. When that does occur, the residents abutting this property will all be further impacted by the traffic noise which will further decrease the value of their property. To further explain the decreasing value of property, he stated that residential property on King Way which abuts I-5 is only protected from I-5 noise by a huge hedge and for years houses along King Way have been slow to sell due to the I-5 noise level and the selling price of these property have been affected. He stated that the property owners near this proposed development feel that they need to have as much protection as the City can give them from that at a relatively small cost to the developer in terms of the total project cost. Based on information provided by the applicant, the cost to increase the height of the wall to 7-feet would be approximately $9,700. He stated that they are only asking for the height to 7-foot in the open area since the building will also serve as a sound barrier. In regards to why the developer should protect the abutting properties from highway noise, Mr. Cox referred to the Environmental Impact Study of 2005 for the Woodburn Interchange project. The final approved report in dealing with this particular area provided fora 12-foot sound barrier wall all along Highway214 between Country Club Road and Astor Way. Under rules in which ODOT operates, they are required to provide for sound barrier walls when freeway construction, widening, or improvement projects abuts residential neighborhoods. When the ODOT plan is eventually implemented, the S-curve will not have a 12-foot because once a commercial building is built on this property and a wall is in place between the commercial and residential property, ODOT will not be required to install the 12-foot wall since the residential property no longer abuts the highway. Therefore, whatever is built now is all they will ever get since the building is a barrier between their homes. He stated that he would like to get a 12-foot wall as a sound barrier but knows that it is not realistic and feels that they Page 4 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING should at least get a 7-foot wall which is all they can ask for under current ordinance. Additionally, the City's ordinance says that the buffer wall shall be at least 6-feet but not more than 7-feet high and the City has power to use their own good judgment to determine the height of the wall. He urged the Council in this particular case to require a 7-foot wall which will make an appreciable difference in terms of minimizing the visual and sound impact from both the developed site and the additional impact of highway traffic as traffic increases on Highway 214 and after Highway 214 is widened and moved closer to their homes. He stated that he did not think the Planning Commission had all of the information that needed to be before them when they made their decision and he has tried to give the Council the information they need to make a decision on the height of the wall. He reiterated that they are only asking for an additional 1-foot in height on the buffer wall. He entered into the record a petition signed by 25 people who either have property abutting the development or live inclose proximity to the development. He also entered into the record the Woodburn Interchange Project Environmental Assessment Report dated July 2005 which addresses the 12-foot wall height. Councilor Lonergan requested clarification on the ODOT report relating to the installation of the 12-foot wall along Highway 214 and if the 12-foot wall would installed along the property lines of the residential property which do not directly abut the highway if the property is not developed. Additionally, he questioned how many signers on the petition are abutting property owners. Mr. Cox stated that if the commercial building is not built, then the wall would be installed along the residential property lines from Country Club Road to Astor Way. He stated that some of the signers are in the neighborhood and was unsure as to how many actually abut the proposed development since he was not in town when the petition was circulated. Councilor Nichols stated that there are approximately 16 homes that abut the property proposed to be developed. Councilor Lonergan questioned if Mr. Cox envisioned any noise impact from the professional building. Mr. Cox stated that there will be some noise and visual impact from people coming to use the building but his main concern is the highway noise since the neighbors thought they would be getting a 12-foot wall when Highway 214 is widened but if the property is developed prior to the highway widening they will not be able to get the 12-foot buffer wall. As residents, they understand that they will not get the higher wall if the commercial building is built but they also feel that the City should require the 7-foot wall. 2888 Richard Jennings, Planning Commission member, stated that the concerns of the citizens from that particular area had been expressed verbally to the former Community Development Director and it was his understanding that those individuals and the developer had reached a verbal agreement that the staff report would show a 7-foot wall. However, the staff report did not recommend a 7-foot wall. At the night of the Page 5 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING Commission's public hearing, there was no opposition to this development since the residents were of the understanding that there would be a 7-foot wall while the Planning Commission assumed that the 6-foot wall was acceptable. He expressed his opinion that the developer has a good proposal but agrees with Mr. Cox that a 7-foot wall height should be required. In his opinion, if the Planning Commission had obtained all of the information from the former Community Development Director, then they would have required the 7-foot wall. Councilor Nichols questioned if the property values would change based on a 6-foot wall versus a 7-foot wall and if the property owners who abut wall would be willing to help with the cost of the additional foot to maintain or increase their property value. Mr. Jennings felt that having a 6-foot wall would probably decrease property values of abutting property and that the 7-foot wall should be borne by the developer since he did not feel that the property owners would gain anything financially from a 7-foot wall. In regards to helping to pay for the cost of the extra 1-foot wall height, he did not want to answer for the property owners but if he were a property owner he would not want to contribute to the cost since the City has the authority to require a 7-foot wall height. Laurie Cox stated that her property abuts the proposed development and the vacated street. Her first concern is the wall in that ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration clearly stated in their report that a 12-foot buffer wall would be installed between the highway and residential property. With the construction of a commercial building, ODOT will no longer be required to construct a 12-foot wall along the property lines of this development since there will be a commercial building on the development site which abuts the highway. In a recent appraisal of her property, she was informed that there will be a reduction of $5,000 to $10,000 in her property with the expansion of a the highway from 2-lanes to a 4-lanes. Since this decrease would apply to all abutting properties, the total property value decrease is substantially more than what it would cost the developer to pay for the additional 1-foot buffer wall height. Additionally, tall plantings would be of benefit to also improve the visual impact between the residential properties and the highway. She stated that she has lived at that location since 2004 and they have cleaned out the water basin at the rear of the property several times during the course of the winter months and it is possible that the basins are not even working properly for the developer to connect to the basins. Her third concern is that the vacated road adjacent to her property has a 15-foot easement on her neighbor's side of the road which currently has a Northwest Natural gas line that also runs behind her home. She has been trying to get information from utility companies as to how far these easements should be from each other and if the 15-foot easement is sufficient to add water and sewer utility lines. The right-in /right-out access given by ODOT to the developer will be right behind her property and the 7-foot wall will reduce the noise and visual impact created by this development. In reference to the petition presented to the Council, approximately 12 property owners abutting the proposed development signed the petition. Page 6 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING 3668 Joe Consani, applicant, stated that their application was submitted in 2006 and it provided fora 6-foot wall and he believes that he had a brief conversation with Mr. Cox previously that if the 7-foot wall was a negligible cost, they did not mind building a 7-foot buffer wall. However, that was before he had checked with the architect and was provided an estimate of the additional cost. He also questioned what difference the extra foot will provide for sound abatement since the noise there now is from existing conditions. He also stated that the 12-foot wall was originally proposed to be along the highway and not along the triangular backside of the property and he was curious as to why ODOT would not still want to do a 12-foot wall along either side of the building. He stated that they are certainly open to adding an extra 1-foot to the wall height if the neighbors want to participate in the added costs for the extra foot plus related fees. He also stated that it was his understanding that it was up to the builder to decide if the wall height would be 6 or 7 foot rather than the City. Councilor Lonergan questioned the building height. Associate Planner Brennecke stated that 18 feet is the approximate height of the building which is the medium of the highest roof pitch. Councilor Sifuentez questioned if at any time there was discussion in the Planning Commission meeting regarding abutting property owners being asked to help pay for the additional 1 foot of wall height. Associate Planner Brennecke stated that she would have to look at the Planning Commission minutes since she could not recall any discussion on cost share. Laurie Cox stated that many of the property owners are on a fixed income and a higher wall will help to abate some of the property value loss that will result when a commercial building is built on the property. City Attorney Shields stated that he agreed with the staff report and it is a discretionary call for the Council on whether the wall is 6 or 7 feet under the WDO but any height over 6 feet needs to be explained in the findings. 4174 Mayor Figley declared the hearing closed at 8:05 p.m.. Councilor Nichols stated that his responsibility is to his constituents and he realizes that adding the extra foot to the wall will be a cost to the developer however, he would agree to the7- foot wall since property owners should not lose value to their homes when someone else gains value. Councilor Lonergan expressed his belief that the building will be a buffer but also feels that a 7-foot high wall will be a better buffer for abutting property owners. He felt that this will be a good project for this property. In hearing from a Planning Commission member, it appears that some discussion was missed at that meeting but felt that it was the Council's responsibility to listen to what the Planning Commission member said at this meeting. Councilor Sifuentez agreed with comments made by Councilor Lonergan. She stated that a medical building will bring in some traffic and the building will provide a good buffer to the residential property owners who have property behind the building. Page 7 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING Mayor Figley stated that she understands the concerns of the neighbors and is reluctant to possibly correct a situation that is not of their making. The visual guide of how low a 6- foot wall is compared to a 7-foot wall where there is no building was very helpful. 4666 LONERGAN/SIFUENTEZ ...adopt the Planning Commission findings in DR 2008-03 located on Highway 214 at the S-Curve with the change in the wall height from 6-foot to7-foot along the entire length of the wall for aesthetics. The motion passed unanimously. Councilor Cox returned to his seat at the Council bench. 4833 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2753 -RESOLUTION INITIATING CONSIDERATION OF A LEGISLATIVE LAND USE DECISION TO ADOPT THE WOODBURN PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE. Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill No. 2753. Recorder Tennant read 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. 2753 duly passed. 4933 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2754 -RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE VACATION OF A PERMANENT EASEMENT, A TRIANGULAR SECTION IN NORTHEAST CORNER OF 1274 FIFTH STREET AND DIRECTING THE CITY RECORDER TO GIVE NOTICE. Council Bill No. 2754 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. 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. 2754 duly passed. 5019 LIQUOR LICENSE CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP /FULL ON-PREMISE SALES: CASA MARQUEZ MEXICAN GRILL, 553 N. Front Street. A change of ownership full on-premise sales liquor license application was submitted by Enrique Marquez DBA: Casa Marquez Mexican Grill. The applicant is purchasing the restaurant formerly known as Restaurante Los Cantaros which currently has a full on- premise sales license. COX/LONERGAN... recommend to OLCC a change of ownership application for Casa Marquez Mexican Grill. The motion passed 3-1 with Councilor Nichols voting nay. 5084 COUNCIL UPDATE ON MIDGE FLY PRESENCE IN THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM. Public Works Director Brown stated that the staff report in the agenda packet provides a status update regarding the most recent incident of an observed presence of midge flies in the water distribution system. A press release has also been prepared communicating the same observations to the public. He suggested that this would be a good time for discussion and an opportunity for staff to obtain Council direction on how Public Works Page 8 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING should proceed with addressing this particular problem. Since his tenure with the City earlier this year, the Water Department has flushed 4.7 million gallons of water through the City's water system to address this particular situation at a cost of $10,500 to generate the water and another $7,000 in staff time to perform the work. The greater value in doing the flushing is the reputation of the City's water system which is a state of the art high quality water system for the City. He stated that staff is concerned and disappointed that they are not able to eradicate this particular micro-organism. He stated that chlorination of the water by itself will not solve the midge fly problem but it will allow the City to get the situation under control and it will provide a level of safeguard from other sources of contamination. Bio-film in the water system is a median in which the midge fly survives. There is no public health issue associated with midge fly or copepod which are the two micro-organisms that they know of that are in the City's water supply system. However, when they become pOrevalent in the water system it is a matter of concern and distress for the citizens who observe these micro-organisms. City Administrator Derickson stated that another benefit of chlorination is that it does provide disinfection capacity incase of an emergency when lines maybe broken and surface water infiltrates into the lines. Councilor Cox stated that when the new water treatment plant first went on line, the City had e-coli in the system which was eventually eradicated. At that time, there was some talk about chlorination and this same disinfection method is now being discussed because of the micro-organisms. The current problem is not a health issue but is an aesthetic issue. He stated that the City has healthy wells and he was not anxious to incur a big expense at this time primarily because the City would then be giving up on the idea that the system could be a good healthy system without chlorination. He stated that if there is no real public health reason for chlorination he did not want to make any changes. Councilor Nichols questioned how many time staff has flushed the lines. Director Brown stated that staff has flushed the system three times since February but they have been flushing more water through the system than what is typically required for just maintenance. He agreed that this is not a health issue with the presence of these micro-organisms. He has reviewed the staff's prior dialogue with the Council on chlorination and feels that the one area not talked about much relates to the City having 98 miles of water lines with the condition of the water lines being unknown in many areas. Water that goes into the distribution lines is disinfected at the treatment plant but the problem with that process is that it has no residual capacity to take care of the water once it leaves the plant to keep the micro-organisms from growing once it gets into the system. The advantage of chlorine is that it provides a residual buffer of the water that is in the distribution system which provides protection from certain levels of contamination and the ability to monitor if there is contamination. For that reason, most municipalities chlorinate their water. Councilor Lonergan questioned how chlorination affects the taste of water. Director Brown stated that if residual is monitored, the taste of the water is not nuisance. Page 9 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING In his opinion, many communities over chlorinate or do not have their system dialed in as tightly as they could. If the residuals are at the proper levels, there should be no odor. He stated that there is a lot of community concern about the safety of chlorination and the preferred system used by cities is where generation of chlorination is done by breaking salt down on site which makes it a less concentrated chlorine solution. Councilor Lonergan questioned what the cost impact would be on the utility bill if chlorination becomes part of the disinfecting process used by the City. Director Brown stated that he would like look at the impact and report back to the Council. However, his initial thought was that the cost would be fairly neutral because some of the potassium permanganate would be shifted to chlorination and potassium permanganate would only be used to remove undesirable metals and elements with the chlorine to disinfect the water supply. Mayor Figley stated that some people are sensitive or allergic to chlorine and questioned if filtering the water at their tap is possible. Director Brown stated that de-chlorinating at the tap is possible but he did not know how much it would cost to de-chlorinate at the tap. Tape 2 Mayor Figley stated that she is concern about the possibility of having another boil-water order and she felt that at some point the Council should have the information to make an informed decision. She is also concerned about chronically having water that is not quite right. Councilor Cox stated that it was his understanding that the midge fly is very resistant to being removed by chlorination since the whole water distribution system may have bio- film in the lines that the midge fly will eat, however, chlorination may help to reduce the midge fly in the system since chlorination will reduce the bio-film. Director Brown stated that chlorination would be one step to help the City get the problem under control and reiterated that it would not get rid of the midge fly in the system since other methods will need to be used to eradicate the midge fly. Staff has prior consultant work available that deals with chlorination of the system since the City's system was originally designed for chlorination. A decision was made to not use chlorination and potassium permanganate was used to remove the high concentrations of iron, magnesium, and, to a certain degree, arsenic in the water supply system. 0254 Administrator Derickson stated that he would like to get some direction from the Council as to what, if any, next step is needed. If the next step is taken, he will be asking Director Brown to look at the existing data of information to make an assessment, update information to current status, and look at cost consideration. Mayor Figley stated that she had been told that the system was designed to work without chlorination. Director Brown stated that the community may not want to chlorinate but he believes that the City is at a position in which they need to carefully re-assess that need to chlorinate. Page 10 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING Mayor Figley stated that the Council needs more information for discussion purposes before any decision is made. Councilor Cox concurred that more information would make sense provided that the initial steps do not involve a consultant and he will reserve judgement on chlorination once he has been able to review the information. If it is necessary to chlorinate and the costs are reasonable, he stated that he is willing to change his mind. Richard Jennings stated that his wife is very allergic to chlorine and stated that if the water is chlorinated she would not be able to drink it or be anywhere near the smell of chlorine. In his opinion, the Council should explore the issue of chlorination and hold public hearings for residents to be given the opportunity to express their opinions on this issue before any final action is taken by the Council. 0559 PROPOSED CITY /CHAMBER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION / WORHING GROUP. Administrator Derickson stated that he has had some discussion with the Chamber on Economic Development and it appears that there has not been the coordination between the Chamber and the City on this issue. Out of this discussion came a proposal to form a joint working informal committee that would look at current ongoing development activities with the overall goal being to discuss and develop a community partnership for coordinating existing economic development efforts, identify potential stakeholders, new economic development opportunities, and to define roles, establish expectations, and create an economic development partnership that makes real sense. He requested that a City Councilor be appointed to this group and, following group meetings, a proposal will be presented to the City Council. Mayor Figley felt that it was a good idea and if it needs to be formalized then it can be done at a later date. She suggested that Councilor Lonergan serve on this committee and he agreed to be a member. 0688 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT. A) Administrator Derickson stated that the Community Development Director interviews will be held on Friday, November 14, 2008 and a public Meet and Greet program will be held on Saturday, November 15`", between 10:00 am and 12:00 noon at the Chamber Loft. He urged members of the public to attend this program and talk to the candidates about their philosophy around growth, customer service in the Planning Department, and any other topic that maybe important that relates to Community Development. B) Administrator Derickson stated that the City's web page now includes postings for Open Houses and meetings. On November 13`", a Wastewater Facility Plan Clean Water Back to Nature Open House will be held from 5:00 pm until 8:00 p.m. at the Police Community Room. Additionally, the web page has information on sign-ups for youth basketball which will be taken through December 31, 2008. Page 11 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING C) Administrator Derickson also stated that he has been reviewing revenue forecasts and reports on how some of the City's funds have been performing. This has led him to have some concerns around where the General Fund revenue and some of the fee-driven funding will be at mid-year. Staff is working on this issue but he wanted to share with the Council that the change in the economy maybe catching up with the City. To date, the City is ahead in the collection rate of property taxes because of the number of foreclosures that have occurred in and around the area that has lenders and others paying back taxes which has further ahead in collections. He stated that this is not a good sign but he will be doing additional work on this issue and more information will be provided at the mid-year budget review meeting. 872 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS. Councilor Nichols thanked those electors in his Ward who did vote for him in the recent election. He expressed his appreciation to his constituents for the last 8 years of service plus the nine plus years previous to that on the City Council. He wished the new Council the very best and hoped that the antagonism that had developed before he was elected this last time does not develop again. He also congratulated the Mayor on her re-election to office. Councilor Lonergan thanked Councilors Nichols, Sifuentez, and Bjelland for their service over the years. Councilor Sifuentez stated that she will wait until the last meeting to make any comments. Councilor Cox expressed his appreciation to Councilors Nichols, Sifuentez ,and Bjelland for their many years of loyal and dedicated service to the community. He also thanked the Council for their decision on the buffer wall height following the public hearing. Mayor Figley stated that this last election was very moving whereby people were very enthusiastic about voting at the local and national levels. She extended her thanks to Councilor Nichols and Sifuentez for all of their time on the Council. 1104 EXECUTIVE SESSION. Mayor Figley entertained a motion to adjourn into executive session under the statutory authority of ORS 192.660(2)(f) and ORS 192.660(2)(h). COX/LONERGAN.... adjourn into executive session under the statutory authority cited by the Mayor. The motion passed unanimously. The Council adjourned to executive session at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:00 p.m.. 1126 Mayor Figley stated that no action was taken by the Council as a result of items discussed in executive session. Page 12 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES NOVEMBER 10, 2008 TAPE READING 1136 ADJOURNMENT. NICHOLS/LONERGAN ... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:01 p.m.. ATTEST ~-~~-~ Mary Te ,Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 13 -Council Meeting Minutes, November 10, 2008