Agenda - 11/27/2000
AGENDA
WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 27. 2000 - 7,.00 P.M .
270 MONTGOMER Y STREET * * WOODBURN. OREGON
1. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
2. ROLL CALL
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS
Announcements:
A. Special Council meeting: December 4, 2000 at 6:00 p.m.
B. Holiday music festival- Dec. 1,4, and 6, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. at
Woodburn High School Lectorium.
C. Downtown Tree Lighting - December 9, 2000, 7:00 p.m.
D. Reception and Oath of Office - December 11, 2000, 7:00 p.m.
Oath of Office: Mayor Richard Jennings
City Council Ward I - Walter Nichols
City Council Ward II - Richard Bjelland
City Council Ward VI - Elida Sifuentez
E. "Dance, Dance, Dance," winter recital- December 16,2000 -1:00 p.m. at
Woodburn High School Lectorium.
E. City holiday closures:
Library will be closed on December 24 and 25, 2000, and January 1, 2001.
City Hall will be closed at 12:00 noon on December 22, and all day on
December 25 and January 1,2001.
Aquatic Center will be closed on December 25 and January 1, 2001.
- None
."' '!} 'Vlili \ iii 1:..J i' i:l-~
4. PRESENTATIONSIPROCLAMATIONS
None
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Chamber of Commerce.
B. Woodburn Downtown Association.
6. COMMUNICATIONS - None
Page 1 - Woodburn City Council Agenda of November 27,2000.
r
7. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC (This allows the public to introduce items for
Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.)
8. CONSENT AGENDA - Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine
and may be enacted by one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at
tbe request of a Council member.
A. Council minutes of November 13, 2000 regular and executive meetings .. 8A
Recommended action: Approve minutes.
B. Draft Park Board minutes of November 14,2000 .................... 8B
Recommended action: Accept draft minutes.
C. Draft Planning Commission minutes of November 9, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8C
Recommended action: Accept draft minutes.
D. Draft Library Board minutes of November 8, 2000 ................... 8D
Recommended action: Accept draft minutes.
E. Annual SDe Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. BE
Recommended action: Accept report.
9. TABLED BUSINESS - None
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant ............................. lOA
Recommended action: Conduct pubUc hearing, receive public comment
and instruct staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting Council's decision
11 GENERAL BUSINESS
A. Council Bill No. 2275 - Ordinance modifying condition of approval
for Boones Crossing PUD ....................................... ItA
Recommended action: Approve ordinance modifying condition of
approval for Boones Crossing PUD.
B. Amendment to Agreement for Urban Renewal Consulting Services .... llB
Recommended action: Approve amendment and authorize the Mayor
to execute the amended agreement for urban renewal consulting services
with the firm of Spencer and Kupper.
c. Recreation and Park SDC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. IIC
Recommended action: Direct staff to prepare a revised Parks & Recreation
Systems Development charge fee resolution.
D. Proposal to Share Cost of New Refuse Containers in Downtown Area.. liD
Recommended action: Approve a cost sharing proposal to place refuse
containers in the downtown area.
Page 2 - Woodburn City Council Agenda of November 27,2000.
,~ l'
12. PUBLIC COMMENT
13. NEW BUSINESS
14. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - These are Planning Commission actions
that may be called up by the City Council.
None
15. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
A. Economic Opportunities Analysis Contract with ECO Northwest
(Oral status report)
B. Legacy 2000, 100-year time capsule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15B
C. Memorandum Opinion No. 2000-03- Procedure on remand
Hubenthal v. City or Woodburn ... .. ...... . . . . . . .... ... .. ... . . ... 15C
16. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
17. EXECUTIVE SESSION
None
18. ADJOURNMENT
Page 3 - Woodburn City Council Agenda of November 27,2000.
T
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13,2000
TAPE
READING
0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN,
COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, NOVEMBER 13, 2000.
CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding.
0012 ROLL CALL.
Mayor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Jennings
Bjelland
Chadwick
Figley
Kilmurray
Pugh
Sifuentez
Present
Absent
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director
Tiwari, Community Development Director Mulder, Deputy Chief Russell, Finance
Director Gillespie, Public Works Manager Rohman, Park & Recreation Director
Westrick, Library Director Sprauer, City Recorder Tennant
0021 ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A) City Hall office closures: City Hall offices will be closed for the Thanksgiving
holidays on Thursday, November 23rd, and on Friday, November 24th.
Woodburn Public Library will be closed on Thursday, November 24,2000.
Woodburn Aquatic Center will also be closed on Thursday, November 24,2000.
B) Public Hearing: A public hearing on the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant will be
held before the City Council on Monday, November 27,2000.
C) Tulip Planting at City Hall: An eagle scout project involves the planting of tulips at
City Hall on Saturday, November 18th. Volunteers are encouraged to help with the bulb
planting project.
0051 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT.
Cindy Vetter, representing the Chamber, stated that upcoming Chamber events include:
1) Chamber Forum will be held at MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility on November
15th at 12:00 noon. Forum participants will be given a tour of the lattice and metal shops.
2) Business Mter Hours will be on November 16th beginning at 4:30 pm at the Woodburn
Art Center.
She stated that the Board of Directors has completed two planning sessions in which the
goals have been planned out as to how to move the Chamber into the next year. One of
their goals is to increase their membership from 250 to 300.
Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13, 2000
r
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13,2000
TAPE
READING
0100 CONSENT AGENDA.
A) City Council minutes of October 23, 2000 and Special Council meeting minutes of
November 7,2000;
B) Planning Commission minutes (draft copy) of October 26,2000;
C) Museum Board minutes (draft copy) of October 19,2000;
D) Status report on selection of consultant for water study;
E) Sound amplification permit for November 19,2000 - Woodburn Company Stores;
F) Claims for the month of October 2000;
G) Building Activity for the month of October 2000; and
H) Planning Project Tracking Sheet.
FIGLEy/SIFUENTEZ.... Consent agenda be adopted as presented. The motion passed
unanimously.
0120 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 00-02. MODIFICATION
OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR BOONES CROSSING lAuulicant -
Polve:on Northwest).
Mayor Jennings declared the public hearing open at 7 :08 p.m.. Recorder Tennant read
the land use statement required under ORS Chapter 197.
No declarations were made by the Mayor or Council.
Community Development Director Mulder provided background information on the
original Planned Unit Development #97-03 which was approved by the Council in
November 1999. The application pending would allow for modification of condition of
approval "0-1" to allow for the alternative of a sanitary sewer lift station in lieu of
requiring a only a deep gravity sewer. He stated that this development consists of
approximately 62 acres involving 241 lot single family residential subdivision, 94 multi-
family units, and 2 acres of commercial property. The applicant has been in the process
of developing the improvement plans for the first phase of the single family development
and, during the engineering process, they discovered that it would be very difficult to
provide the deep sanitary gravity sewer. They have met with Public Works staff to seek a
remedy to their situation and it was agreed upon that a sewer lift station would be a more
reasonable solution. The Planning Commission adopted a final order on October 12,
2000 recommending approval of PUD 00-02.
Matt Sprague, Alpha Engineering representing Polygon Northwest, expressed his
appreciation to the staff and Planning Commission for their attention to this matter. Since
all of the pertinent information was outlined in the staff report, he stated that he was
available to answer any questions.
No one in the audience spoke either for or against the proposal.
Mayor Jennings declared the public hearing closed at 7:17 p.m..
Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13, 2000
T
SA
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13,2000
TAPE
READING
The Mayor expressed his concern regarding the safety issues involved with installing the
deep gravity sewer line and, in his opinion, the lift station will be just as good and less of
a safety hazard for installation.
Councilor Figley thanked the staff and applicant for detailed and understandable materials
in the packet which show that the lift station proposal is cheaper, safer, and just as
effective in doing what is necessary.
Councilor Kilmurray concurred with the comments made by Councilor Figley.
FIGLEYIKILMURRA Y.... concur with the Planning Commission's final order and
approve PUD 00-02 and instruct staff to prepare an ordinance to substantiate that
decision. On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously.
0481 COUNCIL BILL 2271 - ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FOR
THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN HARRISON STREET AND
WEST HAYES STREET.
Council Bill 2271 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. Recorder Tennant read the
two readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On
roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared
Council Bill 2271 duly passed with the emergency clause.
0529 COUNCIL BILL 2272 - ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 1900 TO
PROVIDE AN APPLICATION PROCESS FOR TIlE CEREMONIAL
DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS.
Council Bill 2272 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. The two readings of the bill
were read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote
for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill
2272 duly passed with the emergency clause.
0554 COUNCIL BILL 2273 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF
PARTICIPATION IN THE OREGON COOPERATIVE PURCHASING
PROGRAM.
Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill 2273. 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 Jennings declared Council Bill 2273 duly passed.
0577 COUNCIL BILL 2274 - RESOLUTION DIRECTING PLACEMENT OF STOP
SIGNS IN MONTEBELLO SUBDIVISION.
Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill 2274. 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 Jennings declared Council Bill 2274 duly passed.
Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2000
r
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13,2000
TAPE
READING
0613 OREGON LIOUOR LICENSE APPLICATION: LOS CAB OS RESTAURANT.
1565 N. Pacific Hil!hwav.
An application for a Class A Dispenser license was submitted by Rigoberto Robles for
the Los Cabos Mexican Restaurant. This business is replacing Sally's Restaurant which
did have a Retail Malt Beverage license.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... approve a Dispenser Class A liquor license for Los Cabos
Mexican Restaurant at 1565 N. Pacific Hwy. The motion passed unanimously.
0625 BID AWARD #21-01: MAINTENANCE SHOP LUBE PIT AND ROOF
REPLACEMENT.
Bids for the installation of a lube pit, replacement of some roof trusses, and replacement
of the roof at the maintenance shop were received from the following contractors:
Kohring Construction Co., $52,175.00; MG Construction, Inc., $53,500.00; Gravo
Construction Inc., $55,800.00; Future Painting & Construction, LLC., $58,500.00; Zink
Commercial, $61,900.00; B & L Construction, Inc., $72,330.00; Select Contracting, Inc.,
$79,789.00; and Hannan-Mossman Construction, Inc. $80,523.00.
Staff recommended the acceptance of the low bid which was below the engineer's
estimate of $55,000.00.
FIGLEYIPUGH... Award bid #21-01 for the installation of a lube pit and replacement
of the roof at the proposed maintenance shop to Kohring Construction Co. for
$52,175.00. The motion passed unanimously.
0647 ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT MODIFICATION: WASTEWATER
MAINTENANCE BUILDING. CONTROL BUILDING. AND LABORATORY.
Public Works Director Tiwari stated the original engineering work planned for
construction of a new lab and control building. However, the bids received were over $1
million more than budget, therefore, it was decided to pursue remodel and add to the
existing building which ultimately reduced the cost of this portion of the project by $1.1
million. This reduction in cost brought the total cost of this phase of the project to an
amount closer to the original engineer's estimate of costs. In order to bring the project
cost back in line with the estimate, Nicoli Engineering was required to modify the design
resulting in additional costs for engineering services. Staff is requesting Council approval
of $28,895 for the work that was done outside of the scope of the original contract.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... Nicoli engineering be granted additional compensation in the
amount of $28,895 for out of scope work as described in this memo and further described
by the Public Works Director. The motion passed unanimously.
0835 ACCEPTANCE OF NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
WOODBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CITY.
In lieu of an easement for the installation of a meter to determine wastewater flow in the
Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13, 2000
l'
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2000
TAPE
READING
existing sewer main along Goose Creek located on school property, the school district has
proposed a non-exclusive license which has been reviewed, and approved, by city staff.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ... approve the non-exclusive license agreement between
Woodburn School District and the City of Woodburn and authorize the City
Administrator to sign the agreement. The motion passed unanimously.
0855 CONTRACT FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND LAND SUITABILITY STUDY.
FIGLEY/SIFUENTEZ...authorize the City Administrator to execute a contract with
ECO Northwest in an amount not to exceed $60,000 to complete an economic analysis
and land suitability study.
Councilor Pugh expressed his concern regarding the large amount of dollars the City
expends on consulting fees. Even though this is a necessary study, he feels that it is more
for the need to satisfy LCDC rather than a City need.
Administrator Brown stated that the two goals to be achieved by this study are as follows:
I) satisfy DLCD by providing the economic element of the periodic review and
addressing shortcomings in our existing economic element in the City's housing element;
and 2) an implementation plan that will design a public investment strategy for providing
the statistical infrastructure and cultural/social infrastructure necessary to attract target
industries that have higher paying wages, clean, and responsible to the community. He
stated that the City's cost share of this project is $10,000 with the balance being paid for
by the State of Oregon.
The motion passed unanimously.
0960 Norris Seaton, 17240 Boones Ferry Rd., stated that he had addressed the issue of the
roughness of Boones Ferry Rd. with the Council last year and, to date, he has not seen
much improvement. He was also told that the portion of the roadway within the City
would be widened during the year 2000, however, outside of some lines being recently
located along the roadway, he has not seen much activity to make the roadway
improvements. He questioned the Council as to the status of this project.
Public Wodes Director Tiwari stated that the preliminary design for the Boones Ferry
Road improvements are almost complete. This project will involve an assessment
district, along with some contribution from the City, in order to generate funds necessary
to pay for the improvements. He stated that they have planned for the improvement to
commence in the summer of 2001 and it is anticipated that the assessment district
formation process will begin in early 200 1. He reminded the public that if there are
problems with the roadway, the problem will analyzed and there will be a response from
the public works department on the problem.
Mr. Seaton stated that, following his last visit to the Council, there were some minor
repairs made to the roadway to smooth it out
Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13, 2000
r
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2000
TAPE
READING
Director Tiwari agreed that there were some problems where service lines crossed from
the west side of the road to the main line on the east side. Repairs were made to those
areas to smooth out the roadway. He stated that the City has not spent any extra money
on this roadway since major improvements will be made in the near future.
Mr. Seaton suggested that the contractors be required to put the roadway back to its
original condition.
Director Tiwari stated that the City does require that it be brought back to its original
condition, however, they prefer that a cold patch be put in first followed by a hot patch
several days or weeks later which is a smoother finish.
1225 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS.
A) Subdivision 00-02 and Variance 00-07: Subdivision of .91 acres divided into six
single family lots at 1238 Park Avenue - Applicant: Parmworker Housing Development
Corporation
B) Site Plan Review 00-26: Construction of a swimming pool for Orchard Green and
The Links homeowners south of the OGA golf course clubhouse in the Tukwila PUD -
Applicant: Tukwila Partners
Mayor Jennings expressed his opinion that the Parmworker Housing project is an
extremely good project since it will be placing single family homes on bare ground and
placing the land and buildings on the tax roll. He questioned if the single access
easement of 24 feet is wide enough to accommodate the traffic to those homes.
Community Development Director Mulder stated that there would be no parking on that
roadway. Additionally, the Commission allowed a variance from 4 driveways to 6
driveways in order to allow the developer to put the garage to the homes facing Park
A venue at the rear rather than direct access onto Park Avenue.
1311 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT.
A) Bequest to the Woodbum Public Library:
Library Director Sprauer stated that the Library is a recipient of a bequest from Albert
John Saarinen in the amount of $36,301.22 which was given to the endowment fund in
the name of Cecil Saarinen. Since she is not aware of any family members to send a
thank you note to for this generous gift, she publicly thanked the family for this bequest.
She stated that the endowment fund has been used to pay for capital improvements to the
Library.
B) Building at 347 N. Front Street:
Administrator Brown stated that this property, known as the Salud Building, was
damaged in March 1993 as a result of an earthquake. The building was declared as a
dangerous building and has been uninhabited since that time and a number of engineering
studies done by a succession of owners. The City has been working with the current
Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2000
,~ 1T
SA
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2000
TAPE
READING
owner since October 1998, however, the existing owner has no money in which to make
necessary repairs or demolish the building. During the budget process, the Committee
included $100,000 in the budget to be used for either making repairs or demolition. The
City is within a week of obtaining ownership of the building so the problem regarding
repairs or demolition will soon be the City's to take care of. He stated that he has had
Nicoli Engineering to assess the building, draw design work for both the demolition and a
partial reconstruction. If the building is demolished, the walls to this building are also
walls to the abutting buildings (known as party walls), therefore, a sheer wall design is
necessary to keep the walls to the other buildings in place. In regards to the partial
reconstruction, it would bring down the walls to a one-story level building. In
anticipation of taking over the building, he released a request for preliminary bids for
both scenarios to get a better idea as to what costs would be involved. Unfortunately, the
bids came back a lot higher than anticipated with a demolition estimate at $125,000 and a
reconstruction to one-story of $21.8,000. He requested Council confirmation that the
dangerous building still needs to be dealt with and that they are in agreement that there is
no other alternative to pursue at this point to take care of this problem. In regards to the
preliminary bids, neither take into account any scrap value of some of the materials such
as old growth timbers that are 50 feet or longer, brick, electrical work, and an operable
elevator. However, the scrap value will not generate $118,000 which would bring the
cost down to $100,000. Additionally, he requested a local realtor to provide some
comparables that similar real estate in the downtown area would sell for if property was
purchased at a later date and it was found that, for a building of 10,000 sq feet or larger,
the cost would be at least $218,000 if not more. In his opinion, there are uses for this
building such as moving the museum to a larger space so that exhibits can be rotated and
a wider variety of information can be provided to visitors. Commercial uses could also
be considered but he did not feel that sufficient revenues would be generated to pay for
the work to be done. He suggested that further design work be completed in order to look
at 3 different bid specifications - I) full demolition, 2) first story reconstruction, and 3)
put the building back to a safe condition and seal it watertight but still at its existing
height. Funding options he would like to consider include selling off surplus city
property that are individual parcels that are owned by the City but not being used. If the
design work is authorized, the cost will be approximately $3,500 to $4,000. It is
proposed that the designs would be released to contractors asking them to bid on anyone
or all three of the options, or, in the alternative, provide another alternative that they
believe would accomplish the City's goals more efficiently and at a lower cost. This
method would involve a longer process, however, it may generate enough creativity in the
private sector that the work may be accomplished at a lesser amount. All proposals will
be reviewed and it would be closer to February before a contract could be awarded. In the
meantime, staff will look for funding options and will meet with the Budget Committee
in January during the mid-year review to discuss the additional financing requirements.
Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13, 2000
,.
TAPE
READING
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2000
Mayor Jennings stated that, as far as he is concerned, he is not interested in demolition of
the building. The first floor would be an option but he would rather see the City obtain
bids in keeping the second floor and using it as rentable space. As the City grows,
building space will be needed and there is some value in looking toward the future.
Councilor Pugh also stated that, at the last meeting, the Council elected to pursue an
Urban Renewal Program and, with the downtown area being a part of that program,
demolishing the building is, in his opinion, not acceptable. He also felt that the City
should spend only the amount of money necessary to make it acceptable. Once the Urban
Renewal Program is adopted, there may be extensive changes to that block. He is willing
to consider a one-story building with a facade upgrade but is hesitant to consider a second
story for city offices since the future of the building is unknown.
Councilor Sifuentez expressed her opinion that the building be preserved which includes
the second story. She felt that this is a project that could involve the community,
therefore, make it a building that the community can be proud of.
Councilor Kilmurray stated that she would prefer to keep the building in the original
condition rather than a one-story building.
Administrator Brown stated that renting offices will not pay for the costs incurred by the
City and the Council will need to spend money on this project that they will never see get
back just to make the building safe and eliminate the blight.
Councilor Figley also stated that she is not interested in demolishing the building. She
would prefer to look at the alternatives of one-story versus two-story and she is interested
in obtaining an inventory list of property that could be sold for the purpose of generating
cash. She would like to explore the issue of restricting property that is sold so that it is
not used for uses that the Council and community do not find as the highest or best uses.
Administrator Brown stated that he will be asking for a one-story and a two-story design.
The two-story design would be a pay-as-you go concept so that the City is not looking at
full refurbishment at this time.
C) Progress Report on Urban Renewal:
Administrator Brown stated that the upcoming issue of the Woodburn Independent will
include a notice to the public soliciting citizen involvement on an Urban Renewal
Planning Committee. This committee would be used to assist City staff and our Urban
Renewal consultant in finalizing the proposal that will be brought before the Planning
Commission and Council in 200 1. It is anticipated that the committee will consist of 15
to 18 members with a some of the seats filled by various jurisdictional representatives
such as the county, school district, and fire board. The remainder of the positions will be
filled by representatives of positions identified in the advertisement. The City
Administrator's office will be distributing the application form to interested citizens. The
second step of the urban renewal process is the Downtown Visioning and Design session.
He stated that the City has received some assurances from the Governor's office that a
Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13,2000
'T 'r
SA
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2000
TAPE
READING
financial assistance grant will be made available to provide some bi-lingual outreach. He
has been working with Latino community leaders in forming an outreach program. A
sub-consultant is being used in this effort and it is anticipated that the design work will
begin in January 2001 and completed in 6 to 8 weeks. In the meantime, the Urban
Renewal Planning Committee will be looking at legislative issues around designing the
district. It is anticipated that this project will be completed by the end of the fiscal year.
2736 Mayor Jennings stated that one of the items of discussion at the League of Oregon Cities
conference was Ballot Measure 7. Several local governments are in the process of
drafting an enabling ordinance which needs to be adopted before December 7, 2000. He
encouraged staff to continue with their research on this issue and, if necessary, draft an
ordinance for Council consideration and adoption prior to December 7th.
City Attorney Shields stated that he is aware of two or three cities that are in the process
of drafting an enabling ordinance and he will move forward on this issue.
2902 MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS.
Mayor Jennings stated that the City's bond measure for financing parks and community
facilities was defeated by the voters, therefore, staff is now looking at Plan B in order to
accomplish some of the improvements that would have been funded by the bond measure.
He reminded the public that it will take longer than originally planned to make some of
the park improvements.
He also reminded the public that there will be openings on a number of City Boards and
Commissions as of December 31 st. He encouraged interested citizens to obtain an
application at the City Administrator's office and return it prior to the December 11 th
Council meeting so that appointments can be made prior to January 2001.
Mayor Jennings requested that staff provide all of the Councilors with the Oregon
Government Standards and Practice Laws booklet which provides public officials with
guidelines on ethics.
He also complimented the artist on the art exhibit in City Hall which uses recycled tin
materials. The art is for sale and the public is encouraged to drop by City Hall to view
and/or purchase the art.
0061 EXECUTIVE SESSION.
Mayor Jennings requested that the Council move into executive session under the
following statutory authority: 1) ORS 192,660(I)(e) to conduct deliberations with persons
designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions; 2) ORS
192.660(1)(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; and 3) ORS
192.660( 1 )(f) to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection.
Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13, 2000
l'
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2000
TAPE
READING
FIGLEY/SlFUENTEZ... adjourn to executive session under the ORS statutes cited by
Mayor Jennings. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned to executive session at 8:30 pm and reconvened at 9: 11 pm.
Mayor Jennings stated that no action was taken by the Council while they were in
executive session.
0080 FIGLEYIKILMURRA Y... City Administrator be authorized to execute on behalf of the
City a new lease agreement with Wes and Zinaida Toran for the property located at 828
Parr Road, Marion County, Oregon. The motion passed unanimously.
0100 FIGLEYIKILMURRA Y.... City Attorney be authorized to take whatever legal action is
necessary, including the filing of an answer, to protect the City's second mortgage
position in the case of Bank of New York v. Scheratsti and City of Woodburn. Marion
County Circuit Court No. OOC1826. The motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Jennings reminded the Councilors that he would like to make appointments to the
various Boards and Commissions at the first meeting in December. Therefore, if they
know individuals interested in applying for, or interested in re-appointment, to encourage
them to contact the Administrator's office for an application form.
0130 ADJOURNMENT.
PUGHlFIGLEY... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:14 p.m..
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, November 13, 2000
,~ 1T
8A
Executive Session
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 13, 2000
DATE. CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF
MARION, STATE OF OREGON, NOVEMBER 13, 2000.
CONVENED. The Council met in executive session at 8:35 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding.
ROLL CALL.
Mayor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Councilor
Jennings
Bjelland
Chadwick
Figley
Kilmurray
Pugh
Sifuentez
Present
Absent
Absent
Present
Present
Present
Present
Mayor Jennings reminded the Councilors and staff that information discussed in executive session is
not to be discussed with the public.
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director Tiwari (8:35
pm to 8:58 pm), City Recorder Tennant
The executive session was called under the following statutory authority:
1) ORS 192.660(1)(e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to
negotiate real property transactions;
2) ORS 192.660(1)(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; and
3) ORS 192.660(1)(f) to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection.
ADJOURNMENT.
The executive session adjourned at 9: 10 p.m..
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
ATIEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 1 - Council Executive Session Minutes, November 13, 2000
T
8B
MINUTES
WOODBURN RECREATION & PARKS BOARD
November 14,2000
Council Chambers, Woodburn City Hall
1. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chair Darryl
Kelly.
2. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Darryl Kelly, Jan Greenwell" Sharon Felix, Patricia Watts,
Melissa Tittle and Council Liaison Kathy Figley.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Herb Mittmann and Frank Anderson
STAFF PRESENT: Randy Westrick, Director; Kathy Willcox, Manager Aquatics
Division; John Pitt, Maintenance Supervisor; Jennifer Goodrick, acting department clerk;
Kristi Davidson, Leisure Services.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Sharon Felix moved to accept the Minutes of the June
Meeting. Jan Greenwell seconded his motion, and it passed unanimously.
4. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE - There was none.
5. BUSINESS FROM THE DIRECTOR - Division Reports
Kristi Davidson reported that Youth Soccer season concluded with a jamboree on
October 21 st. Over 550 youth and 60 volunteers participated in the program. All games were
played at Legion Park this year which abused the field and special thanks go to the Parks crew
for their hard work keeping the fields in good shape. Special thanks also to staff members Tony
Carrasquillo and Antonio Mercado. The Drop-In Centers have been making efforts to increase
the time children spend doing homework assignments and reading books while at the center.
The Settlemier Center averages more than 80 children per day, and Legion Center averages 50
per day. Youth Basketball registration is almost complete, with over 400 participants expected.
Gervais youth will also be serviced by this program. Woodburn Youth Ball Association has
turned over local youth baseball and softball programs to the department, but John Wolfer and
other board members will continue to work on this program. Adult City League Basketball with
have 22 teams this year. Youth Dance will have their Holiday Production Shows on December
16th at 4pm and 6pm. Kristi wished the board members a safe and joyous holiday season.
Kathy Willcox reported that the annual maintenance for the aquatic center took only two
weeks this year instead of the estimated four weeks. Staff changes were announced. Free swim
Saturday is this weekend-ll118. Revenue is high this year-over $8000 ahead oflast year at this
time. Lessons program continues to grow. Woodburn Together will provide the funding for
swim lessons for every 4th grader; Nellie Muir are finishing up school lessons now and two
classes from Heritage will begin lessons after the Thanksgiving break. Sharon Felix asked when
Page 1 - Recreation and Park Board Minutes of November 14,2000.
~ r 1T
8B
is the pools "down time". Kathy replied September and October, which is why we shut down at
that time for routine maintenance. Kathy concluded with the news that all adult water fitness
classes continue to grow; one morning a month the "regulars" have a potluck.
John Pitt reported that last month his staffhad 1033 hours for projects, most at the
Aquatic Center and at Centennial Park. Building maintenance helped out at the pool.
Approximately 180 gal of muriatic acid was used. The .pool was drained, stains removed.
Employees had breathing tools and gloves for protection from the chemical, but clothes were
ruined. They also cleaned spa, maintained all equipment, then refilled & treated water. "We're
very proud of the fact we have never been cited for water not being up to par. We have a good
staff. We accomplished a month's work in two weeks." The department had over 80 hours of
overtime at the pool area. Cost was significant, but not as much as hiring out. Bids ranged from
$15000 to $28000. The department did the work at 1/3 cost. This months project is the down
town Christmas tree. Tree will be harvested on 11/21, erected at the downtown plaza on 12/5,
lights and bleachers will be put up for the 12/9 celebration. Randy Westrick asked about eagle
scout projects. John reported that Kameron Kofiler will plant 1100 tulip and daffodil bulbs
around city hall, annex and at the pool. "Nice young man, come help him plant bulbs." Carl
Leder planted 20 maples in the backside of Legion Park. 50+ kids and adults came out to help
and the trees were planted in about 2 hrs. The department pre-dug holes, which filled with
water. Great volunteers this year, Randy told the Board that he will be sending letters to these
young men. Sharon Felix asked for a letter to be sent to the editor of the paper as well. Randy
briefly shared with the Board how Carl came to our department for his Eagle Scout project. The
Woodburn Independent ran an article a few weeks ago. John Pitt concluded by telling Darryl
Kelly that he had several white lights for the train. Darryl will try to find volunteers to string the
lights for the holidays
Randy advised Board Members whose term is almost up that they could send a letter to
the Mayor if they would like to be re-appointed. The Christmas tree lighting will take place on
12/9. It will start at Settlemier house and proceed to the down town plaza. The program will
feature 4 languages (English, Spanish, Russian and Sign Language), Dance Dance Dance will
perform, as will the Senior Estates Chorus. Hot chocolate will be served at the World Berry
Museum after the ceremonies. Sharon Felix asked about contingency plans in case of rain.
Randy said that there are none, but will be a quick show. Randy spoke briefly about the
proposed National Ice Age Park as Woodburn is a serious contender as the location of an
Interpretive Center. The Statesman recently ran an article stating the reasons why Woodburn is a
prime location: we are on a major transportation hub, we have a museum that is growing, and we
are the only place that has retained physical evidence of the biology that was here when floods
occurred.
6. HERMANSON ill WETLANDS MIGRATION PROJECT WORKSHOP
Darryl Kelly briefly explained the wetlands work proposed north. of Mill creek pond.
Proposed projects include planting of trees, removal of brush and the preparing of trails. He
announced that the workshop would be postponed, but wanted to hear from the area residents
Page 2 - Recreation and Park Board Minutes of November 14,2000.
'I'
8B
tonight. Tony Chevnishoff of 978 Amity Court addressed the Board, Mr Chevnishoff stated that
he did not receive the letter from the Recreation and Parks department, but heard about the
meeting from a neighbor. He stated that he is totally against the proposed wetlands project
because the water already raises substantially in the winter. He says what is proposed will cause
flooding in their homes. Darryl Kelly said the proposed project would increase flood capacity at
Mill Creek so that it would hold more flood storage, Mr. Chevnishoff also said he was opposed
to creating "a swamp", and that this would create a hiding place for the criminal element. Darryl
Kelly thanked him for sharing his concerns. Sharon Felix reassured the audience that this is
project is not set, and that the Board will study further and involve more neighbors in the
planning process. The workshop was rescheduled until 119/01.
7. PARKS AND COMMUNITIES FACILITIES BOND
Darryl Kelly opened the discussion by demanding a recount of the vote on the Parks
bond. Several suggestions were made as to how to get the bond passed next time; including
having informative and campaign literature available in Spanish and Russian as well as English,
and choosing a location for the community center and having plans available to show the public.
Darryl Kelly said Skate park was promised so we need to find a way to credibility is not shot
with the youth. Discussion ensued. Randy informed the Board that Bruce and Evan Thomas
will be building the team to create this park. The youth have been given four rules: plan and do
yourselves, pay for it, be legal, don't discriminate. Adults will be needed to pick up what get
dropped, and to chaperone.
Randy presented the Board some options and responsibilities now that the Bond was
voted down. He has a 6 year plan for a 1.1 mil projected community center. Randy summarized
the report in the packet for the board. Renovation projects must still be addressed at some point.
Two projects need immediate attention: ADA ramp at Heritage Park and electrical work.
Discussion ensued as to what type of community center Woodburn could now afford, and
financing options, including taking inventory all city property to see if we can liquidate for a
more efficient purpose.
Darryl Kelly said that the # 1 priority needs to be deciding where to put the community
center, then taking that decision to the city council. Randy said the property inventory should be
done at the same time, since we may fmd that selling existing property and purchasing a new
location for a community center may be a better option that building on an existing site.
Kathy Figley reiterated that voters wanted to know where the center would be and for the city to
have a site plan before they would approve a bond, She then proposed a visit to the Florence OR
community center to help the board visualize what they want, even if it is different from what
Florence has. Thinks we should look at other facilities as well to gather ideas. A trip to the
Florence center was suggested in lieu of a meeting, maybe stopping at the Newport Center too.
Several board members expressed an interest in attending.
Silas Harvey took the floor and expresses his concern for the tax aid program computer
equipment that is house at the community center. Would like for the Board to take some concern
Page 3 - Recreation and Park Board Minutes of November 14,2000.
'.. 1T
8B
for this equipment: roof leaks, tables rickety, electrical concerns, etc. Would also be open to
another space to house program. Discussion ensued. Randy said that a walk-thru of the building
was in order, but no funds are currently available to fix roof. ~
8. FUTURE BOARD BUSINESS ~
critical renovations to the community center roof.
9. BUSINESS FROM mE BOARD ~
Darryl Kelly announced that the engine is painted and ready for wi ay was
asked to send a letter of thanks to the volunteers.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Darryl Kelly adjourned the meeting by consensus at 8:20 p.m.
Page 4 - Recreation and Park Board Minutes of November 14,2000.
,~
1~
8
8C
WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION
November 9, 2000
CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. with Chairperson Young
presiding.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Young
Cox
Fletcher
Grijalva
Lima
Mill
Bandelow
Lonergan
Heer
P
P
P
P (Arrived at 7:10 p.m.)
P
P
P
P
A
Staff Present:
Jim Mulder, Acting Community Development Director
Naomi Zwerdling, Senior Planner
Scott Clark, Assistant Planner
Chairperson Young provided an opening statement for Public Hearing.
MINUTES
A. Minutes of October 26. 2000
Commissioner lima referred to Testimony by Applicantfound on page 3 and indicated it should reflect 1 ,500
square feet and not 15,000.
Chairperson YounQ also referred to page 3 Roberto Franco's testimony and requested "second self
mortgage" be changed to reflect "second silent mortgage".
Commissioner Mill directed to the bottom of page four and made correction to Ms. Halverson's first name.
He stated it should be spelled "Euarda". Additionally, he referred to the top of page 5 and stated Nancy's
last name should be spelled "Farrell"
Vice Chairoerson Cox moved to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner lima seconded the
motion, which unanimously carried.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
COMMUNICATIONS
None
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Site Plan Review 99-26. reauest to build a Women's Health Clinic at 693 Glatt Circle. Robert
Enale. aDDlicant
Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided a presentation as reflected in the staff report. Staff
recommended approval of the request subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Griialva reported for the record that she leases her office space from Mr. Engle. She
removed herself from the hearing process on the advise of Staff.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 9. 2000
Page 1 of 10
~.
8e
Vice Chairoerson Cox inquired whether the piece of property to the north of the parking area is owned or
under the control of the applicant?
Staff replied her understanding is that the property is owned by Tukwila Partners.
Commissioner Bandelow announced for the record her office would be a neighbor to this project but she has
no financial interest in the office other than the business she conducts inside. She indicated she does not
see this affecting her judgement. She referred to the Public Works condition found on page 16 item 14 and
commented she does not recall seeing that in any of the conditions recently.
Staff replied this is a standard Public Works requirement for all storm drain/catch basin.
Commissioner Bandelow asked how long have these been required?
Staff responded it has been a standard as long as he has been here.
TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT
Bob EnQle, 610 Glatt Circle. Woodburn reported he is representing and is a member of Webstar. He stated
they accept all of the conditions of approval. Mr. Engle commented they wanted very badly to acquire the
piece of property on the corner from Tukwila Partners but they do not want to sell it. He reported Dennis
Dalisky, OB/GYN Physician out of Silverton Hospital will be the Director of the facility and will also have
offices there.
Commissioner Lima commented this is a wonderful plan and is something the community is in need off. He
inquired who will be the radiologist group that will take care of the imaging center?
Bob EnQle replied he does not know this information. He explained Silverton Hospital will be their tenant,
not the individual physicians. Therefore, Silverton Hospital will select which Physicians they want to
sublease the spaces too.
Commissioner Lima questioned when will the building be built?
Bob Enale responded they are ready to break ground because they have grant monies that have to be spent
by the end of December on this project. He indicated the minute they obtain their permits they would start
construction and would expect to have occupancy in June or July 2001.
Commissioner Lima remarked the proposed imaging center is fantastic. However, he expressed his
concerns regarding radiation protection. He suggested a condition be imposed regarding this issue.
Bob Enale stated although he could not address his concern, he can certainly assure him that their architect,
Tom Clark knows about those things because all he does are medical facilities.
Vice Chairoerson Cox commented he does not believe the Planning Commission has any jurisdiction over
regulations that govern what has to be done to make these facilities safe for the patients and the operators.
Commissioner Lima stated he would like to see something addressed as simple as "has to comply with the
State and Federal regulations".
Commissioner Fletcher asked whom are the partners in Webstar?
Bob Enale responded the members include Mr. Wellman, Mr. Barryman, Mr. Shelby. Mr. Triplett and
himself. He indicated Dr. Dalisky will also become a member of this group. He stated they foresee traffic
problems getting out onto 214. Mr. Engle further added they contacted Mr. Cornwell with Simon Funeral
Planning Commission Meeting - November 9. 2000
Page 2 of 10
r
8e
Chapel and he said he would be delighted to provide them with access and proper legal documents onto
Boones Ferry Road. Mr. Engle reported in contacting Marion County Planning he was reminded that the
property is in the County, zoned Urban Transitional and it requires a conditional use to use it in a
commercial manner. He indicated it takes 30-45 days to obtain a conditional use through Marion County.
Mr. Engle further stated they will ask for the Site Plan Review now and then apply for the Conditional Use
through Marion County.
Vice Chairoerson Cox asked Mr. Engle whether it is their intent to proceed with the conditional use
application with Marion County?
Bob Enale answered affirmatively.
Ken Triolett. 15699 Browndale Farm Rd.. Aurora. OR commented it is a fairly typical procedure in medical
buildings to put lead lined walls and the door frames and lead in the glass. He indicated the architect works
with a consultant to make sure that the room satisfies all those requirements. Mr. Triplett stated this will
show up in the architectural drawings when it goes to the City for the building permit application.
Bob Enale thanked the Planning Staff for getting the staff report out in an extremely timely manner,
TESTIMONY BY PROPONENTS
None
TESTIMONY BY OPPONENTS
None
DISCUSSION
Chairoerson Youna closed the Public Hearing and opened discussion by the Commission. He asked if there
are any additional ex parte contacts that have not already been reported?
Commissioner loneraan said he is familiar with the property and has driven by.
Commissioner Mill, Commissioner lima and Vice Chairoerson Youna also indicated they are familiar with
the property.
Commissioner Bandelow noted that one of the problems that occurs in the area of Glatt Circle is that the
circle has "no parking" signs on it but parking still occurs, particularly around the cable company.
Commissioner Bandelow stated they have enough problems with the fact that the center section of the circle
is raised higher than the street and you can't see around the comers when people are coming. She
indicated it might not hurt to have the police ticket a few times to remind people that we need to keep the
circle clear. Commissioner Bandelow said this project will be a great benefit for Woodburn.
Commissioner Mill suggested Public Works or Engineering take a look at the large area by the cable
company where there is a drainage ditch that goes down through it and see if there is some type of striping
or directional arrows that can be placed on the pavement to give a better feel for traffic flow. He stated the
totality of the usage of properties in that area has reached the point where something is needed.
Commissioner lima remarked this is one of the best additions to the medical groups that Woodburn will
have. He moved to approve Site Plan Review 99-26 with the added condition that all work should conform
with the rules and regulations of the State of Oregon for control of radiation. Vice Chairoerson Cox
seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried.
Commissioner Mill moved that in conjunction with this application that we ask Public Works to initiate a study
of that area to determine if traffic flow indicators and markings should be in and how they should be
Planning Commission Meeting - November 9. 2000
Page 3 of 10
r
8e
appropriately placed to better direct traffic flow not only for this proposed facility but for existing facilities
within the J. Glatt Circle area. Vice Chairperson Cox seconded the motion, which carried.
Staff will provide a copy of the minutes to the City Administrator and it will be up to him to determine whether
to have Public Works work on it or not. He explained once this is done, he will be out of the loop and he will
not have anything to report back to the Commission until he hears that there is something to report back,
Chairperson Youna interjected the Planning Commission will draft a letter to the City Administrator.
B. Site Plan Review 00-13. proposed clinic to provide ambulatory care to outpatients with
chronic care needs. 1310 N. Pacific Hwv.. Salem Hospital. applicant.
Staff read the applicable ORS Statement. A presentation was provided as reflected in the Staff Report.
Staff made a correction on page 11 of the Staff Report and indicated item VI is a conclusion and
recommendation. He stated this was not updated from the Administrative Staff Report and will be reflected
in the Final Order. In conclusion, Staff said the project meets all requirements and recommended approval.
Commissioner Fletcher questioned how long will the market testing period be?
Staff replied this has not been specified by the applicant.
Chairperson Youna inquired if everything goes well during the applicant's testing period and they continue
to expand through their phases of build out, would that require a zone change to have a medical facility
located at that site or would it still be Commercial Office?
Staff responded it would still fall under the Commercial Office zoning. He stated a medical facility is
classified as Commercial Office.
Vice Chairperson Cox asked if this project is not the kind of thing that requires a specific Variance
application because it is simply not practical to do 300 feet so we can do less than that without calling it a
Variance?
Staff answered this is correct.
Commissioner Mill referred to memorandum page 5 regarding the site plan proposal shall allow for full
utilization of the property and asked how are we reconciling that with the present site plan?
Staff replied the access they are providing allows for future expansion with the center left hand turn lane.
Vice Chairperson Cox stated he is tentatively prepared to say that a medical facility on the front of the
property would be consistent with the development of the whole parcel in the future as a bigger medical
facility as long as the access issues are addressed. He felt this application meets what was finally approved
by the Council even though it was perhaps not in compliance with what Walt lawson had in mind when he
brought it up.
Commissioner Mill asked Staff if the applicant has presented any type of future vision of this property other
than verbal?
Staff responded the applicant has shown staff a conceptual plan showing the future clinic, an expansion of
the clinic, possibly an urgent care center and ultimately, a hospital towards the back of the site.
Chairperson Youna commented Walt Lawson's recommendation at the time was developed as a finding
rather than a condition at the time it went to the City Council.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 9, 2000
Page 4 of 10
'Ii
8C
EX PARTE CONTACTS
Commissioner Mill reported he lives on Alexandra Court which empties onto Alexandra Avenue and he is
extremely familiar with that area.
Commissioner Lima also indicated he lives nearby and he goes by the area at least once a day. He did not
visit the site but did some researching about the proposed building but does not feel this would disqualify
him from participating in this hearing.
Commissioner Fletcher visited the site as well.
TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT
Denny Nielson, Vice President. Salem HosDital. 665 Winter St. SE. clarified the issue regarding the future
development of a hospital and said they do not intend on building a hospital on this site because the site is
not large enough. He stated their whole emphasis is on chronic disease management. Mr. Nielson reported
they have operated a number of outpatient clinics of this type. They presently have two facilities that
replicate what they propose in this application. Mr. Nielson explained the acronym SHAPES stands for
Salem Hospital Ambulatory Enteroparenteral Services. He further clarified when they first started out with
the ambulatory concept they primarily focused on iv therapy or entero therapy which is like tube feeding.
They now take care of a wide array of very complex patients. Mr. Nielson informed the Commission there
are quite a number of their patients who come from this area. They believe it would be better for the
community to serve those patients in their community as opposed to traveling into Salem and that there is
enough growth in this area where they can provide this kind of specialty care where no one else is actually
attacking this type of chronic disease management.
Vice ChairDerson Cox expressed his concerns regarding the market testing philosophy and the idea that
they are starting out with a real basic modular prefab building.
Denny Nielson commented they do not think the prefab building is a good long term solution either. He
stated they have a substantial investment in the property and have done the paperwork and think that
projections will support the build out of the master plan over time. Mr. Nielson explained the reasoning for
the placement of a modular building at this time is so that they may remove it easily for the development
of the entire property development later on. He indicated they have certainly enhanced the aesthetics of
the neighborhood by simply owning it and cleaning it up.
Commissioner Fletcher requested clarification as to who their prospective clients would be.
Denny Nielson replied they will be outpatients that require iv therapy or diabetics. people with chronic
wounds, management of anticoagulant therapy and congestive heart failure. He indicated there are about
nineteen diagnosis that are considered chronic disease that heed up an enormous amount of resources on
the inpatient side. Mr. Nielson reported staffing will be a combination of registered nurses, pharmacists,
technicians with medical oversight from a variety of programs depending upon the type of patients that are
being treated. He indicated they treat by physician prescription only so the patient remains under the
supervision and control of the physician where they are simply the instrument of the physician to delivery
what he or she has ordered.
Commissioner lima could not understand why Salem Hospital will be testing the market when the market
for these services are theirs.
Denny Nielson commented it is a matter of degree. They know very well how many patients they serve in
the Woodburn area now and believe that population of patients would utilize this facility. He indicated the
reason for testing is to make sure that not only that population is stable and treated with them. They think
they have an opportunity to capture more than just the immediate population.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 9, 2000
Page 5 of 10
l'
8e
Commissioner Mill questioned what happens if the market testing does not go the way they anticipated and
the project turns out to be a huge loss?
Dennv Nielson replied they go back to the plan that exists today. He mentioned they do not think this would
occur but in a worst case scenario the building would come down if the Commission conditions it to come
down in 36 months and then they would go back to take care of that population the way they have
historically. Mr. Nielson stated it is up to the administration at the time and the Board of Directors and
whether or not they want to keep the land inventory or whether they want to take the opportunity of the
inflated cost and dispose of the asset.
Chairoerson YounQ remarked the Commission's concern that forced the applicant to bring the project
forward as a public hearing rather than an administrative approval was that the term of the testing period.
He commented they feel that Highway 99 is high visibility and they were a little concerned about somebody
just wanting to come in and try it out just to see how it goes. Chairperson Young stated they are looking for
something with more of a commitment to the community.
Dennv Nielson replied he respects and appreciates their concern. He said they tend not to do things in a
frivolous manner and if they were not serious about this project they would not be here today. However, in
this day and age they have to become much more prudent business people than they have in the past. He
further stated it is not an unusual approach to test the market. Mr. Nielson indicated they believe they will
ultimately build out the master plan.
Chairoerson YounQ mentioned he is familiar with their facility in Salem and recognizes the quality of care
they provide. He stated although they are excited about this project they would like to know that they are
not just a guinea pig in market strategy and would like to see that commitment to the community.
TESTIMONY BY PROPONENTS
None
TESTIMONY BY OPPONENTS
None
DISCUSSION
Chairperson Youna closed the public hearing and opened discussion from the Commission.
Vice Chairperson Cox reiterated it is an acceptable project. He stated although he does not think this is the
highest and best use for this piece of property he is prepared to approve the project with a time limitation
condition.
Commissioner Mill commented he would like to see future expansion of this property to include an urgent
care clinic. He requested the applicant take a harder look at the possibility of putting an urgent care clinic
in because there is an extreme need for this type of service. He indicated the issue of market testing
bothers him because he does not see the need for it. Commissioner Mill also remarked he would like some
type of a commitment from Salem Hospital other than a trailer sitting on the property dispensing care just
to see how well things go for a while.
Commissioner Bandelow stated it would be nice to see a facility up and running very quickly for the people
who are now making those endless trips to Salem and Keizer for the services that they require. She agreed
a time limit is needed on this project. She indicated it is her belief the project will be a success and will be
able to build out quickly.
Commissioner lima commented it does not feel a market testing period is necessary. However, if we
should, it should be somewhat short and specific (i.e., two years) because he strongly believes the project
Planning Commission Meeting - November 9, 2000
Page 6 of 10
~
8e
will be successful.
Commissioner Griialva stated it is a great plan and concurred with her fellow Commissioners that she would
like to see the facility here on a more permanent basis. Additionally, she said she would like to see a long
term commitment from Salem Hospital rather than having a fancy modular at the site. She indicated she
would be inclined to approve the project with a four year commitment to the City.
Commissioner Loneraan remarked he is not a fan of modular units. He stated a precedent might be set for
future modular units if a time limit is placed on this project. Furthermore, he favors the time constraint of
three or four years.
Commissioner Fletcher hopes the project develops into an urgency clinic because this community really
needs one. He stated he supports the proposal.
Chairoerson Youna expressed his concerns on placing time constraints on the project. He stated time
constraints make it very difficult for the City to do any enforcement if the owner is not willing to comply with
those requests.
Staff interjected the applicant could enter into an agreement with the City to remove the modular within a
certain period of time. He explained this would be easier to track and provide greater assurance that it
would be done.
Vice Chairperson Cox suggested conditions be clearly delineated. He commented this is an example why
we should not get too concerned about the projections people come in with about what they are going to do
with their property when the Commission approves a land use application. Vice Chairperson Cox stated we
should approve what they propose and we should not be dazzled by the pictures because they are not
binding to anyone.
Commissioner Bandelow moved to approve Site Plan Review 00-13 and Partition 00-05 with the additional
condition that the modular building be removed on the 1st of January 2004. Commissioner loneraan
seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried.
C. Site Plan Review 00-22 and Conditional Use 00-04. proposed Elmer's Restaurant with
additional office spaces above to be located on Arney Road next to the Arby's Restaurant.
GSO Inc.. applicant.
Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided a presentation as reflected in the Staff Report.
Approval of the project was recommended by Staff.
Commissioner Lima inquired whether the applicant has specified what type of offices they will have?
Staff replied they have not specified at this time but he believes the situation is that they have yet to lease
these spaces out.
EX PARTE CONTACTS
Commissioner Fletcher reported he ate at an Elmer's Restaurant six months ago.
Commissioner Griialva stated she has gone by the site many times on her way to the mall.
Chairoerson Youna mentioned he went by and looked at the lot just for informational purposes.
Commissioner Lima. Commissioner loneraan and Commissioner Mill looked at the site.
Planning Commission Meeting - November 9, 2000
Page 7 of 10
, ~
11"
8C
TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICANT
Grea Olsen, 3950 Market St. NE, Salem, OR stated the new design concept will be the only one at this point
in time in the chain. He reported they do not have any proposed tenants for the office space above at this
time and is not their main focus at this time. Their main focus is the restaurant itself which gives them the
ability later to develop the space out.
Commissioner Lima asked if they will have any restrictions as to the type of business they will be leasing
to?
Grea Olsen replied he assumed the restrictions would follow with compliance of the ordinance. He stated
they know there is going to be a potential parking issue even with being able to use Arby's parking. Mr.
Olsen commented he would not want to have anybody that was a high volume or transient type of business.
He said there would be definite restrictions probably stricter than what the City would allow.
Commissioner Fletcher inquired if this is a franchise and if so, how many are owned by Elmer's?
Grea Olsen replied it is an independent franchise and Elmer's Corporate currently owns eleven franchises
with thirty currently in the chain. He reported this would be his second independent franchise.
Commissioner Mill asked why this type of facility as opposed to the traditional Elmer's?
Grea Olsen responded it is truly an economic issue for the maximum use of the land and to build a
restaurant specific building is very financially draining.
Commissioner loneraan questioned how many people will be housed in the Corporate GSO office?
Grea Olsen answered there will be three employees.
Commissioner loneraan requested clarification as to the location and description of the sign.
Grea Olsen described the pole sign being somewhere as far south as they can get without intruding on any
of the easements. The building signs would maximize the usage of the sign ordinance and would be high
on the building on two signs. Mr. Olsen indicated the pole sign will be 35 feet.
Commissioner Lima asked when will construction begin if the project is approved?
Grea Olsen replied they will hopefully break ground on January 181 with an estimated six months completion.
Commissioner Griialva questioned how many people will the restaurant seat?
Grea Olsen reported the restaurant will seat 160-164 downstairs including the lounge. Mr. Olsen
commented all restaurants in Oregon have lounges. He stated they do a very good job of concealing them
because they are not the main focus of what they do. Mr. Olsen remarked they are a family oriented
operation and took advantage of the lounge addition to move smoking out of the main body of the restaurant
and still cater to those folks.
TESTIMONY BY PROPONENTS
None
TESTIMONY BY OPPONENTS
None
Planning Commission Meeting - November 9. 2000
Page 8 of 10
, ~
"
8e
DISCUSSION
The public hearing was closed by Chairoerson Youna and discussion opened to Commissioners.
Commissioner Bandelow commented it is a beautifully designed building.
Commissioner Lima moved to approve Conditional Use 00-04 and Site Plan Review 00-22 with the
conditions as outlined by Staff. Commissioner Griialva seconded the motion, which unanimously carried.
Grea Olsen expressed his thanks to the Planning Staff for having assisted him in this process.
FINAL ORDER
A. Subdivision 00-02 and Variance 00-07. subdivide 0.91 acres into six (6) sinale familv lots at
1238 Park Avenue. Farmworker Housing Development Corporation. applicant.
Vice Chairoerson Cox moved to approve the Final Order. Commissioner Lima seconded the motion. Motion
carried.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Holidav Meetina Schedule
Staff asked the Commission whether they wish to cancel the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled
for November 23rd since it is Thanksgiving day. Staff reported the next scheduled meeting would be
December 14th and inquired whether the Commission wishes to have a meeting on December 28th?
Vice Chairoerson Cox moved that the November 23rd and December 28th Planning Commission meeting
be canceled due to the holidays. Motion was seconded and carried.
Commissioner Lima announced he will be out of the country for the next meeting.
REPORTS
A. Planning Proiect Tracking Sheet (revised)
Chairoerson Y ouna reported Lot Une Adjustment 00-03 administrative review previously scheduled to come
before the Commission this evening was not brought forward because the application was incomplete.
Vice Chairoerson Cox pointed out the Safeway project is a good example of why we need some grading and
tree removal control which we do not presently have. He commented Safeway would leave us with a terrible
mess if they were to walk away and decide to do something else with the site.
Staff inte~ected this is an issue that the Committee for the new development code are discussing and
addressing as far as proposing to acquire a grading permit and developing a tree removal ordinance to
address that situation.
Commissioner Lima requested an update regarding the lUBA appeal for Boones Ferry Place.
Staff reported LUBA has heard the appeal and has rendered a decision which was received by the City
Attorney a few days ago. He indicated it was remanded back to the City.
B. Buildina Activity for October 2000
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
Commissioner Griialva announced she will not seek reappointment to the Commission when her term
expires in December 2000.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if at some point in time the City Attorney will inform the Commissioners what
Planning Commission Meeting - November 9, 2000
Page 9 of 10
1i
8C
Measure 7 holds for the City?
Staff replied he would not expect this any time soon. He stated it will take quite a period of time to try to
figure out what this measure will mean to the City.
Vice Chairperson Cox commented the Commission does need some guidance from the City Attorney and/or
Planning Staff as to what additional constraints, if any, they should apply in doing things.
Commissioner Mill thanked Staff for the letter regarding the Shop-N-Kart fence. He asked if the owner of
the property discussed with him whether he will rebuild the fence so we recreate the problem or is he going
to try to continue the taller fence on down further down?
Staff answered the owner is going to replace the fence the way it was before it was broken and place
bollards in at a width where the shopping carts could not fit through where they have created the trail and
stop that there and see how that works.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Mill made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Lima seconded the motion, which
carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
APPROVED
ROYCE YOUNG, CHAIRPERSON DATE
ATTEST
Jim Mulder, Date
Community Development Director
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Planning Commission Meeting - November 9, 2000 Page 10 of 10
~ r ."..
8D
MINUTES
MONTHLY MEETING OF WOODBURN PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
DATE:
November 8, 2000
ROLL CALL:
Phyllis Bauer
Marie Brown
Ardis Knauf
Kay Kuka
- Present
- Present
- Present
- Present
Barbara Pugh
Kevin Schiedler
Pat Will
Mary Chadwick
Ex-Officio
- Present
- Present
- Present
- Absent
STAFF PRESENT: Linda Sprauer, Director
Judy Coreson, Recording Secretary
GUESTS: None
CALL TO ORDER: President Pat Will called the meeting to order at 12 Noon.
SECRETARY'S
REPORT:
The monthly Board minutes of October 11, 2000 were approved as
submitted.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
DIRECTOR'S
REPORT:
Linda gave a power point presentation showing the necessary
repairs for the Carnegie Library Exterior. Silas Harvey, volunteer, set
up the computer equipment and LCD projector for Linda's
presentation.
Monthly Statistics: The monthly statistics were self-explanatory. The
number of people visiting the library for the month of October was
15,649.
Activities: A list of activities was distributed to the Board. The last
Choices for the 21st Century program will be Nov. 9 from 9 to 11 AM
at the library. The Young Reader's Choice Award book discussion is
scheduled for the first and third Fridays at 4 PM in the Youth Services
area. Preschool Storytime, Spanish Storytime and Tuesday Night at
the Library continues. Wendell Buck, a part-time Reference
Librarian, is conducting Internet classes on Saturdays at 8:30 to
10:00 AM at the library. Anyone can sign up at the Reference Desk
1
,?
1r
8D
for this class. "Oldfolksongs and Alleged Humor" is a free concert on
Tuesday, November 28, at 7 PM in the City Hall council Chambers.
The library will be open on Veteran's Day, Saturday, November 11;
closed on Thursday, November 23, for Thanksgiving; and closed
Sunday and Monday, December 24 and 25, for Christmas Eve and
Christmas Day.
Volunteer of the Month: Olga Potapov was chosen Volunteer of the
month for November.
Project Updates: The HVAC project still has a few things that need to
be worked out.
Althea Duncan, a summer-time volunteer, wants to do a landscaping
project around the library.
OLD BUSINESS: Bequest: The library received a bequest of $36,301.22 from the
estate of Albert John Saarinen to be deposited in the Library
Endowment Fund. We first learned of the bequest about two years
ago and now have finally received it. The funding is greatly
appreciated.
NEW BUSINESS: Letters of Appreciation: President Pat Will signed two letters of
appreciation for a donation ($100.00) from Harold Murray to purchase
children's materials and the yearly grant money ($105.00) from the
Frank and Mabel Stettlemier Fund and the Oregon Community
Foundation.
Grant: The library will be receiving a "Ready To Read" grant from the
State. Woodburn was one of six libraries in the state to receive this
grant.
BUSINESS TO/FROM
THE CITY COUNCIL
AND/OR MAYOR: Mary Chadwick, City Councilor, did attend the last Council meeting,
but could not attend this meeting because of scheduled surgery.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 1 :40 PM.
ReSpeCtfU~~ed,
~~eson
Recording Secretary
Library Board Minutes - 11/8/00
2
'II
8E
TO:
Mayor and Conneil throngh the City Administrato#
SUBJECT:
Ben Gillespie, Finance n&;r,r
Annual SDC Report -' ~
FROM:
DATE:
November 20, 2000
ORS 223.311 requires an "annual accounting for system development charges showing the total
amount of system development charge revenues (sic.) collected for each system and the projects
that were funded." The attached report is presented by type ofSDC:
Water
Sewer
Transportation (TIF)
Storm Water
Parks
Total SDC's collected for all systems during 1999-00 was $2,100,002. In 1998-99 collections
totaled $1,936,618. Interest earned on investments in these funds in 1999-00 totaled $370,729,
and in 1998-99 total interest earned was $262,121.
The total amount spent on projects during the year was:
Sewer construction (plant and collection system)
Alternative analysis of 214 widening
Railroad crossing at Parr Road and Settlemier (1)
Transportation impact fee update
Storm Water Master Plan
Survey work to start aerial mapping
Hawley/Wilson storm drain
Financial study to support water expansion
Property lease for purchase to expand water system
City share of water bore across 1-5
Centennial Park Construction
Centennial Park loan repayment
Total
810,000
37,316
1,656
4,361
38,981
4,800
28,732
36,233
4,900
23,471
61,147
27.355
$ 1.078.952
(1) Charged in error. Reversed in 2000-01,
'IT
8E
The cash balance available for future capital improvements is $7,118,844. Here is the breakdown
ofthat number compared to The Five Year Capital Improvement Plan:
Cash
Balance
Water
Sewer
Transportation (TIF)
Storm Water
Parks
2,360,909
1, 112,009
2,821,544
809,328
15.054
$ 7.118.844
Total
Adopted
CIP
20,651,500
17,375,000
20,831,543
2,172,000
5.373.000
$66.403.043
System development charges alone cannot fund the capital improvement program.
,..... 11'
CITY of WOODBURN 8E
WATER SDC FUND (474)
June 30, 2000
Transfers Transfers Cash
Year SDC's Interest In Expense Out Balance (1)
07/01/93 0
1993-94 37,265 328 37,593
1994-95 119,036 13,839 204,061 (2) 374,529
1995-96 193,485 26,057 144,785 (2) 291,167 (4) 447,689
1996-97 528,987 40,789 58,521 (3) 115,000 (5) 843,944
1997 -98 665,178 59,080 85,000 (6) 1,483,202
1998-99 296,198 85,210 17,500 (7) 1,882,110
1999-00 421,420 121,983 64,604 (8) 2,360,909
Total 2,261,569 347,286 366,346 123,125 491,167 2,360,909
(1) Cash plus accounts receivable minus accounts payable
(2) Connection fees collected in 1992-1994 transferred from another fund to the SDC Fund in accordance with the SDC
ordinance
(3) Paid to HDR Engineering for development of the Water Master Plan
(5) Transferred to PW Facilities Fund to provide partial funding for expansion of PW Shop
Transferred to Water Construction Fund for future expansion of water system
Total
96,167
195,000
291,167
60,000
55,000
115,000
(4) Transferred to Bond Fund to cover debt service on Water Well Bonds
Transferred to Water Construction Fund for future expansion of water system
Total
(6) Transferred to Economic Deveopment Fund for expansion of water system to serve Waremart
Transferred to PW Facilities Fund to provide partial funding for expansion of PW Shop
Total
75,000
10,000
85,000
(7) Return of contributions to PW Facility Fund for constuction of maintenance shops. In 1998-99 the Council adopted
the policy that SDC's would not be used to fund acquisition of maintenance facilities.
(8) Financial study to support water expansion
Property lease for purchase to expand water well and tretment facility
City share of water bore across 1-5
36,233
4,900
23.471
64,604
,,.
'I!
CITY of WOODBURN 8E
SEWER SDC FUND (475)
June 30, 2000
Transfers Transfers Cash
Year SDC's Interest In Expense Out Balance (1)
07/01/93 0
1993-94 4,648 15 4,663
1994-95 218,445 17,191 318,414 (2) 558,713
1995-96 378,507 43,500 353,191 (2) 525,445 (4) 808,466
1996-97 913,061 63,541 104,904 (3) 555,000 (5) 1,125,164
1997-98 731,120 55,232 25,427 (3) 1,085,000 (6) 801,089
1998-99 594,478 44,437 17,500 (7) 500,000 (8) 957,504
1999-00 898,413 66,092 810,000 (9) 1,112,009
Total 3,738,672 290,008 689,105 130,331 3,475,445 1,112,009
(1) Cash plus accounts receivable minus accounts payable
(2) Connection fees collected in 1992-1994 transferred from another fund to the SDC Fund in accordance with the SDC
ordinance
(3) Paid to Cherry Electric to increase capacity of Mill Creek Pump Station
(4) Transferred to Sewer Construction Fund for plant and collection system expansion/upgrade
(6) Transferred to Economic Development Fund for expansion of sewer system in West Woodburn
Transferred to Sewer Plant Construction Fund for plant and upgrade
Transferred to Sewer Collection System Construction Fund for collection system expansion
Transferred to PW Facilities Fund to provide partial funding for expansion of PW Shop
Total
60,000
495,000
555,000
75,000
250,000
750,000
10,000
1,085,000
(5) Transferred to PW Facilities Fund to provide partial funding for expansion of PW Shop
Transferred to Sewer Construction Fund for plant and collection system expansion/upgrade
Total
(7) Retum of contributions to PW Facility Fund for constuction of maintenance shops. In 1998-99 the Council adopted
the policy that SDC's would not be used to fund acquisition of maintenance facilities.
(8) Construction of plant
Construction of collection system
Total
400,000
100,000
500,000
(9) Construction of plant and collection system
810,000
,- r 11
CITY of WOODBURN 8E
TIF FUND (376)
June 30, 2000
Transfers Transfers Cash
Year SDC's Interest In Expense Out Balance (1)
07/01/93 0
1993-94 28,129 212 28,341
1994-95 344,028 13,366 385,735
1995-96 207,606 28,094 621 ,435
1996-97 469,737 50,171 22,052 (2) 30,000 (3) 1,089,291
1997-98 473,485 74,234 83,906 (2) 60,000 (4) 1,493,104
1998-99 795,772 90,397 14,101 (5) 94,461 (6) 120,000 (7) 2,178,913
1999-00 548,412 137,552 43,333 (8) 2,821,544
Total 2,867,169 394,026 14,101 243,752 210,000 2,821,544
(1) Cash plus accounts receivable minus accounts payable
(2) Paid to Scharff Bros. for construction of Parr Raod--widening to three lanes
(3) Transferred to PW Facilities Fund to provide partial funding for expansion of PW Shop
(4) Transferred to Econ Develop Fund for the extension of Woodland Ave. serving Waremart
Transferred to PW Facilities Fund to provide partial funding for expansion of PW Shop
Total
50,000
10,000
60,000
(5) Return of contributions to PW Facility Fund for constuction of maintenance shops. In 1998-99 the Council adopted
the policy that SDC's would not be used to fund acquisition of maintenance facilities.
(6) Paid to Kittleson & Assoc. for alternative analysis for 214 widening.
(7) Transfer to Economic Development Fund for the city's share of the signal on 214 east of 1-5.
(8) Transportation study updates for Hwy 214 widening
Railroad crossing at Parr Road and Settlemier survey (charged in error; reversed in 2000-01)
Transportation impact fee update
Total
37,316
1,656
4,361
43,333
,~
11
CITY of WOODBURN 8E
STORM WATER SDC FUND (377)
June 30, 2000
Transfers Transfers Cash
Year SDC's Interest In Expense Out Balance (1)
07/01/93 0
1993-94 14,864 131 14,995
1994-95 79,836 3,838 98,669
1995-96 69,925 7,844 176,438
1996-97 238,075 17,545 107,941 (2) 30,000 (3) 294,117
1997 -98 257,011 24,793 10,000 (3) 565,921
1998-99 177,236 33,523 14,101 (4) 46,423 (5) 744,358
1999-00 92,289 45,194 72,513 (6) 809,328
Total 929,236 132,868 14,101 226,877 40,000 809,328
(1) Cash plus accounts receivable minus accounts payable
(2) Paid to R & 0 Construction for storm water capacity improvement along Hardcastle St.
(3) Transferred to PW Facilities Fund to provide partial funding for expansion of PW Shop
(4) Return of contributions to PW Facility Fund for constuction of maintenance shops. In 1998-99 the Council adopted
the policy that SDC's would not be used to fund acquisition of maintenance facilities.
(6) Storm water master plan
Survey wor1<. to start aerial mapping
Expansion of HawleylWilson storm capacity
Total
39,699
6,724
46,423
38,981
4,800
28,732
72,513
(5) Payment to Crane & Merseth for the development of the master plan
Construction of the HawleylWilson storm drain
Total
11
CITY of WOODBURN 8E
PARKS SDC FUND (364)
June 30, 2000
Transfers Transfers Cash
Year SDC's Interest In Expense Out Balance (1)
07/01/93 43,355 43,355
1993-94 45,915 5,674 244,725 96,480 243,189
1994-95 12,920 8,838 73,057 68,327 123,563
1995-96 55,552 7,065 2,239 96,743 91,676
1996-97 60,612 6,183 121 17 ,376 141,216
1997-98 125,673 11,727 75,646 16,075 338,188
1998-99 72,934 8,554 120,000 (2) 575,497 (3) (35,821)
1999-00 139,468 (92) 88,501 (4) 15,054
Total 513,074 47,949 486,086 963,728 68,327 15,054
(1) Cash plus accounts receivable rninus accounts payable
(2) Interfund loan from the General Operating Reserve Fund (092)
(4) Centennial Park--construction
Centennial Park-loan repayment
Total
563,937
11,560
575,497
61,147
27,355
88,502
(3) Centennial Park
Neighbortlood Parks
Total
"
City of Woodburn
Police Department
lOA
STAFF REPORT
Woodburn OR 97071
(503) 982-2345
270 Montgomery Street
From:
Paul Null, Chief ofPoli e
Date:
November 20, 2000
Through:
Mayor and City Council .~
John Brown, City AdministratJ
To:
Subject:
2000 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
RECOMMENDATION: City Council approve receipt and allocation of Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant funds for the purchase of Mobile
Computer Terminal equipment and software or four (4) patrol
bikes, associated bike equipment and overtime pay.
Grant Award
In September 2000, the Police Department was awarded a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
(LLEBG) from the U.S. Department of Justice. The grant award is $11,144. with a required
local match of$1,238., for a total of$12,382. Funds from the grant are allowed to be used with
little restrictions as long as it can be shown the allocation of funds will reduce crime and improve
public safety. The grant contains two special conditions prior to the release of funds. Those
conditions are:
1. The recipient agrees that prior to the obligation of any LLEBG funds an advisory
board will meet to discuss proposed use(s) of the grant funds. The advisory board
will make a non-binding recommendation on the use(s) of the funds under the
LLEBG Program. Members of the advisory board must include a representative
from the following:
· The local police department or sheriff s department
· The local prosecutor's office
· The local court system
. A local nonprofit, religious, or community group active in crime
prevention or drug use prevention treatment
2. The recipient agrees that prior to expenditure of any LLEBG funds, at least one
public hearing will be held regarding the purpose(s) ofthe funds.
Primary Proposal
The police department seeks to implement a wireless data communication system with partial
,..
T
funding coming from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. For the last several years, the
cities budget committee has set aside capitol improvement funds to purchase Mobile Computer
Terminals for police vehicles.
lOA
This project will allow officers to substantially reduce report writing time and increase their
effectiveness on the street. At the heart of the this project is the creation of a seamless data
stream that connects emergency dispatch, police officers and supervisors in the field, police
records management, DMV records, and multiple crime records databases. This will permit
officers to quickly and effectively access much needed crime information in the field and also
reduce the drain on dispatcher resources and reduce radio traffic.
The project will also facilitate single entry ofrequired crime data, as opposed to three separate
entries currently required. This will streamline the rep0l1 writing and records management
process, thereby reducing the need for continually adding additional clerical personnel to keep up
with increasing police activities.
The initial system will also create an infrastructure in which other attachments can be added in
the future such as DMV drivers license scanners, finger print warrant identification, photo
imaging, geographical mapping, etc.
Secondary Proposal
If for some reason the cities budget committee elects not to totally fund the Mobile Computer
Terminal project in FY 2001-02, and as grant funds must be expended within 24 months of
receipt, a second proposed use of grant funds was discussed by the LLEBG Adivory Committee.
A secondary proposed use of grant funds would be used to enhance the police departments Bike
Patrol Program by purchasing four new patrol bikes, related equipment and pay for overtime
hours. The Bike Patrol Program would be enhanced by adding additional bikes to the
department. The bikes would be attached to the police vehicles for immediate access by the
officers. The targeted area of patrol would be the proposed urban renewal district established by
the city and the goal would be to focus on livability issues.
Police department resources are limited and as with most projects little can be done without
manpower. Aside from the purchase of bikes and related equipment, the department would
utilize about 50% of the grant funds for overtime pay. This would provide approximately 200
hours of overtime for patrol activities.
The police department proposed to the LLEBG Advisory Board that the grant funds be used
toward the purchase of Mobile Computer Terminals and software with a secondary use of patrol
bikes, related equipment, and overtime pay. The city currently has $90,000. set aside in a capitol
improvement fund for Mobil Computer Terminals. The addition of the grant funds will bring the
total to $102, 382.
Attached please find the minutes of the LLEBG Advisory Board meeting of October 31, 2000, at
which unanimous support was voiced for the project(s).
cc Advisory Board Members
Grant file
~ r lr
lOA
~ Advisory Committee
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
City Hall - Conference Room
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
October 31,2000 at 2:00 p.m.
Advisory Committee:
Greg Olson - Undersheriff - Marion County Sheriff's Office
Jack Reeves - Superintendent - Woodburn School District
Janice Zyryanoff - Municipal Court Judge - City of Woodburn
Pete McCallum - President - Woodburn Together
Robert Shields - City Attorney - City of Woodburn
AGENDA
I. Open Meeting
II. LLEBG Hearing and Review Requirements
III. Review History of Previous Grant Awards
1996 Community Action Vehicle
1997 Video Imaging System
1998 Document Imaging System
1999 Motorcycle Traffic Team
IV. Proposed Expenditure of 2000 LLEBG Funds
Digital Fingerprint Scanner
Mobile Computer System
Bike Patrol Program
V. Discussion
VI. Make Advisory Recommendation to City Council
VII. Adjournment
'IT
Advisory Committee
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
Woodburn City Hall Conference Room
October 31, 2000 2 :00 p.m.
lOA
Advisory Committee Paul Null, Chief of Police, Woodburn Oregon
Pete McCallum, President, Woodburn Together
Greg Olson, Undersheriff, Marion County Sheriffs Office
N. Robert Shields, City Attorney, City of Woodburn
Jack Reeves, Superintendent, Woodburn School District *
Jan Zyryanoff, Municipal Court Judge, City of Woodburn *
** Members were absent from meeting but contacted individually for briefing
and determination of consensus.
Recorder:
Nita Marr, Administrative Secretary, Woodburn Police Department
1. Meeting was called to order at 2: 10 p.m.
II. Chief Null began the meeting with background on the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
(LLEBG) Program process, hearing and review requirements. The process consists ofthe
following steps:
. Electronic application submission by Woodburn Police Department
. Meeting of Advisory Committee
. Advisory recommendation to Woodburn City Council
. Public Hearing at City Council meeting
Ill. The history of previous LLEBG awards was reviewed which consisted of the following
purchases/programs:
. 1996 - Community Action Vehicle (used for public education events and as mobile
crime scene operation headquarters).
. 1997 - Video Imaging System (used to access mug shots and intelligence information
from various other law enforcement agencies, and to provide more precise photo line-up
capabilities ).
. 1998 - Document Imaging System (used to reduce documents to a computerized format,
providing increased ease of access and reducing the amount of space required for
retention of records for varying periods of time).
. 1999 - Motorcycle Traffic Team (used to enforce traffic violations and facilitate
response to traffic congestion and motor vehicle accidents).
IV. Chief Null proposed three projects to be considered for expenditure of the 2000 LLEBG funds,
which total $12,382 ($11,151 plus the City's required matching funds).
. Digital Fingerprint Scanner - This system would enable officers to fingerprint subjects
electronically, vastly enhancing the accuracy and matching capabilities of identification
operations. The total cost of this system is approximately $40,000, which would leave
an balance of approximately $38,000 to be funded from an as-yet unidentified source.
. Mobile Computer System - The City currently has approximately $90,000 set aside to
be used toward the purchase of a wireless, seamless, communications system through
which police officers can receive all necessary information by in-car computers rather
"..
.
than by phone or radio. Each phase in the system is an add-on to the previous phase, i.e.,
the dispatch center enters preliminary information from the original call for service. The
police officer continues to build on that information as he continues handling the call,
resulting in a completed report without the need for duplication of effort and
information, and subsequent typing of a report by the records division. The system is
designed to be updated with add-on elements, keeping it from becoming obsolete and
needing replacement in the foreseeable future. The total cost for this system is
approximately $200,000. The City has already set aside $90,000 toward this purchase.
Chief Null suggested this year's LLEBG funds be coupled with what has already been
set aside. He will be asking the Dispatch Center to contribute $20,000 toward this
purchase, and will ask the City's Budget Committee to commit another $80,000 to
cover the rest of the cost.
Bicycle Patrol Program - The department has had an active bicycle program for the past
six years when two bicycles were donated to the agency. The bicycle patrol program has
been involved in downtown patrols, park patrols, and special events (Mexican Fiesta,
Fourth of July, Grand Opening of Wood bum Company Stores, etc.). Over the years, the
condition of the donated bicycles has deteriorated and there has been no money in the
budget for replacements. If the LLEBG funds were used for this program, some of the
money would be used toward the purchase of new bicycles and officer bicycle gear with
the balance of the funds going toward overtime hours for special bicycle patrols
(approximately a 50/50 split).
V Discussion
Chief Null stated he had polled employees within the department prior to listing the possible choices.
Some other suggestions included upgrading communications equipment in the Community Action
Vehicle and completing a ruing range. Mr. McCallum expressed his admiration for soliciting ideas
from the entire department.
Chief Null expressed his preference for the second proposal (Mobile Computer System). The
Department has been planning for and working toward acquiring this system for several years. The
system would have tremendous positive impact on daily police operations and records management.
The one potential problem with this selection would be that because there is a twenty four month time
line in which to expend the grant funds, in the event the balance of the system was not funded in time,
the grant money would have to be spent on something else or turned back. Chief Null's second choice
would be the Bicycle Patrol Program.
VI. Non-binding Advisory Recommendation to Woodburn City Council
Pete McCallum made a motion to recommend to the City Council the Mobile Computer System
proposal with the Bicycle Patrol Program as a back-up proposal, if needed. Undersheriff Greg Olsen
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
VII. Meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
cc: Woodburn City Council
Advisory Board Members
file
11
lOA
ttA
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5246
From:
November 27, 2000
,r=:0
Honorable Mayor and City Council thru City Administrato~
Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development~
Ordinance Approving PUD 00-02 "Soones cros~g"
Date:
To:
Subject:
Recommendation: Approve the attached ordinance approving PUD 00-02.
Sackaround: The City Council, at its November 13 meeting, conducted a public hearing
to consider a request for modification of Planned Unit Development (PUD) 97-03,
known as "Soones Crossing", to modify Condition of Approval "D-1" to allow the
alternative of a sanitary sewer lift station to serve the proposed development in lieu of
requiring only a deep gravity sanitary sewer. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Council moved to approve the request and directed staff to prepare an ordinance to
substantiate its decision. That ordinance is attached.
11
IIA
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2275
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE MODIFICATION OF A CONDITION IMPOSED
PREVIOUSLY BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO.
97-03 (KNOWN AS BOONES CROSSING); AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Polygon Northwest, submitted Planned Unit Development
Application No. 00-02; and
WHEREAS, this application requested a modification of Planned Unit Development (PUD)
97 -03, known as "Boones Crossing," to modify Condition of Approval "D-1 " to allow the alternative
of a sanitary sewer lift station to serve the proposed development in lieu of requiring only a deep
gravity sanitary sewer, and;
WHEREAS, the Woodburn Planning Commission reviewed the matter at a public hearing
on September 28, 2000 and adopted a final order on October 12, 2000 recommending that the City
Council approve the application, and;
WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council has reviewed the record pertaining to said
application and heard all public testimony presented on said application; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That PUD Application No. 00-02 is approved and condition "D-l " of PUD 97-
03 is amended to read as follows:
D. SANITARY SEWER:
1. The Applicant shall, at its cost, either serve the entire development, all
phases, by installing a deep sanitary sewer main from the Mill Creek
interceptor located at the intersection of Brown and Cleveland to the south
and east ends of the development or install a lift station in the southeast
comer of the site, of the size and depth (35+/- feet) to serve future needs
and be acceptable to the City's Public Works Department with a 4-inch
force main for initial use and a permanent 8-inch force main (for future
use) to the Mill Creek interceptor. The entire width of Brown Street, that
has been recently paved, shall be resurfaced by the Applicant after
patching the sewer trench. Phased sewer line construction shall be
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
, ~
11
ItA
allowed, however, the termini of sewer line locations and depths shall be
such that it is suited for future extensions to adjoining areas including the
south end of the development.
The preferred location for the sanitary sewer extension shall be within the
southerly extension of Brown Street. However, if the right-of-way or
easements can not be obtained, the system may be constructed though the
rear lots of the Steklov Addition as proposed by the Applicant. This shall
be acceptable only if the Applicant provides the necessary easements to
the city, including access to each manhole for future maintenance.
If the deep sanitary sewer is not installed in the preferred Brown Street
location then the sanitary sewer shall be extended to Brown Street through
either Vine Street or Park View Blvd. It shall then be extended to the
North and South line of the development at a sufficient depth to provide
for the future extensions.
2. Applicant and property owner shall submit to the Community
Development Department a signed "Acceptance of Conditions" agreeing
to all conditions of approval. The signed document must be received by
the Community Development Department before the application approval
shall become effective.
Section 2. That the application is approved based upon the Findings in Support, which is
affixed hereto as Attachment "A".
Section 3. That this ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health, and safety, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall take
effect immediately upon passage by the Counc. d approval by the Mayor.
Approved as to form~. , \ - 2.' - Z o.() 0
City Attorney Date
Approved:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'.. 1T
IIA
ATTACHMENT "A"
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 00-02
I. APPLICATION INFORMATION:
Applicant: Polygon Northwest
2700 NE Andresen, Suite 022
Vancouver, WA 98661
Property Owner: Nancy Bocchi
19164 SW Chesapeake Dr.
Tualatin, OR 97067
Faye Zimmer
16175 NW Blueridge Dr.
Beaverton, OR 97006
II. NATURE OF APPLICATION:
The applicant requests a modification of Planned Unit Development (PUD) 97-03,
known as "Boones Crossing", to modify Condition of Approval "0-1" to allow the
alternative of a sanitary sewer lift station to serve the proposed development in lieu
of requiring only a deep gravity sanitary sewer.
III. RELEVANT FACTS:
Boones Crossing PUD was approved by the City Council on November 8, 1999.
The Council's decision also included approval of applications for annexation
(Annexation 97-08), zone change (Zone Change 97-12), conditional use
(Conditional Use 97-03), and variance (Variance 97-12). Boones Crossing PUD
consists of a 62 acre mixed used development including a 241 lot single family
residential subdivision, a 94 unit multiple family complex, and two acres of
commercial property.
The City Council in approving the project adopted Ordinance No. 2246 which
specified certain conditions of approval. One of these conditions, condition "0-1",
requires the developer to install a deep gravity sanitary sewer to connect the project
site to the existing city system. The applicant is currently in the process of
developing improvement plans for phase 1 of the single family residential
subdivision. During this process, the applicant determined that installation of the
required deep gravity sanitary sewer would be extraordinarily expensive for various
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT - PUD 00-02
Page 1
, ~
11
llA
reasons. As a result, the applicant met with City staff to discuss alternatives and
decided to submit a request to modify condition "0-1" to allow the Public Works
Director the discretion to allow flexibility as to whether to allow a deep gravity
system or a lift station.
The proposed development is generally located on the east side of Boones Ferry
Road and south of Parr Road and can be identified on Marion County Assessor's
maps as T5S, R1W, Section 18C, Tax Lots 1100 and 1400, and Section 19B,
portion of Tax Lot 600.
IV. RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
B. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 21 Planned Unit Development
V. FINDINGS:
A. Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
FINDING: Applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan have
been satisfied through the implementing ordinances of the adopted
subdivision standards, zoning ordinance and other ordinances in affect at
the time of approval.
B. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance:
Chapter 21 Planned Unit Development
Section 21.020 Design/Development Criteria:
a. The adequacy and continuity of public facilities is sufficient to
accommodate the proposed development.
FINDING: Soones Crossing PUD was approved with a condition of
approval requiring a deep gravity sanitary sewer to connect the sewer
system in the project to the existing city sewer system. The applicant,
in their application, argues that a deep gravity sanitary sewer
connection would be infeasible for the following reasons:
"1. Gravity sewer will require trenching as deep as twenty-
three (23) feet. The sewer would extend from the site
along Brown Road to Cleveland where the system will
connect with the existing Mill Creek interceptor. This
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT - PUD 00-02
Page 2
, ~
n
llA
depth and length is extra-ordinarily expensive and tests
have revealed extremely saturated soils and ground
water intrusion, which would make it even more
expensive.
2. Cave-ins could occur at this depth of trench with the
presence of ground water that has been identified. This
could impact the existing utilities in Brown Road.
3. Safety could be an issue, the gravity sewer at this depth
will be constructed though areas where the soil has
already been disturbed by the existing gravity sanitary
sewer in addition to all the other utilities within Brown
Road. The construction methods to safely build a deep
gravity system may require a wide construction swath
that could interrupt water and existing sewer seNices
and could result in the reconstruction of a major portion
of Brown Road causing inconvenience to area
residents.
4. If the lift station alternative is selected, force mains from
the station to the existing City lines would be installed at
a depth of approximately four (4) feet which results in
few interruptions, a higher level of safety and is less
damaging to the street.
5. Construction of a lift station will allow development of
property east of Mill Creek to be seNed. A gravity
system could be connected to the lift station. A deep
sewer in Brown Road as proposed previously, would
not be able to provide sewer seNice. These properties
would require installation of a lift station or trunk line up
Mill Creek for seNice. n
To address these issues, the applicant proposes that condition of
approval "0-1" be modified to allow the Public Works Director the
discretion to provide for alternatives in the sewer system design.
Specifically, the applicant requests that this condition of approval be
modified as follows (changes are in Bold and underlined):
D. SANITARY SEWER
1. The Applicant shall, at its cost, either seNe the entire
development, all phases, by installing a deep sanitary
sewer main from the Mill Creek interceptor located at
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT - PUD 00-02
Page 3
1T
IIA
the intersection of Brown and Cleveland to the south
and east ends of the development or install a lift
station in the southeast comer of the site. of the
size and deoth (35+/- feetJ to seNe future needs and
be acceDtable to the Citv's Public Works
DeDartment with a 4-inch force main for initial use
and a Dermanent a-inch force main (for future useJ
to the Mill Creek interceDtor. The entire width of
Brown Street, that has been recently paved, shall be
resurfaced by the Applicant after patching the sewer
trench. Phased sewer line construction shall be
allowed, however, the termini of sewer line locations
and depths shall be such that it is suited for future
extensions to adjoining areas including the south end of
the development.
The preferred location for the sanitary sewer extension
shall be within the southerly extension of Brown Street.
However, if the right-of-way or easements can not be
obtained, the system may be constructed though the
rear lots of the Steklov Addition as proposed by the
Applicant. This shall be acceptable only if the Applicant
provides the necessary easements to the city, including
access to each manhole for future maintenance.
If the deep sanitary sewer is not installed in the
preferred Brown Street location then the sanitary sewer
shall be extended to Brown Street through either Vine
Street or Park View Blvd. It shall then be extended to
the North and South line of the development at a
suffICient depth to provide for the future extensions.
The Public Works Director has submitted comments (see Attachment
"A") concurring with the applicant's request and with the applicant's
proposed modification to the above condition. The above criterion is
satisfied.
b. The features of the site (such a topography, hazards, vegetation, solar
access, etc.) have been adequately considered and utilized.
FINDING: This criterion was satisfied in conjunction with PUD 97-03 and
does not apply to the proposed modification.
c. The size of the development, site and building design and operating
characteristics of the proposed development are reasonably
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT - PUD 00-02
Page 4
~ r 'IT
IIA
compatible with surrounding development and land uses and any
negative impacts have been sufficiently minimized.
FINDING: This criterion was satisfied in conjunction with PUD 97-03 and
does not apply to the proposed modification.
d. Parking areas and entrance-exit points are designed so as to facilitate
traffic pedestrian safety and avoid congestion.
FINDING: This criterion was satisfied in conjunction with PUD 97-03 and
does not apply to the proposed modification.
e. The development design promotes energy conservation through the use
of materials, landscaping and building orientation.
FINDING: This criterion was satisfied in conjunction with PUD 97-03 and
does not apply to the proposed modification.
f. The buildings are located so as to provide light and air according to
yard requirements and afford adequate solar access where desired.
FINDING: This criterion was satisfied in conjunction with PUD 97-03 and
does not apply to the proposed modification.
g. The design promotes crime prevention and safety features through
lighting, visibility of building entrances, secure storage areas, etc.
FINDING: This criterion was satisfied in conjunction with PUD 97-03 and
does not apply to the proposed modification.
h. More useable and suitable located recreation facilities and other
common and public facilities are provided than would be under
conventional land development procedures.
FINDING: This criterion was satisfied in conjunction with PUD 97-03 and
does not apply to the proposed modification.
VI. CONCLUSION:
Planned Unit Development 00-02 satisfies all criteria relating to approval of the
proposed modification to Planned Unit Development approval.
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT - PUD 00-02
Page 5
,~
11
lIB
November 27, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council ~.
John C. Brown, City Admlnlstrator~,1
Amendment to Am-eement for Urban Renewal Consultln2 Services
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve, and authorize the Mayor to execute,
an amendment to the agreement for urban renewal consulting services with the firm of
Spencer and Kupper.
Background:
In July 2000 the firm of Spencer and Kupper was retained to provide consulting
services to establish an urban renewal district in the City of Woodburn. The agreement
provided for a three-element work program, at a not-to-exceed cost of $25,000
(Attachment 1). Work elements included a feasibility study, a vision/design exercise, and
completion of an urban renewal plan. The firm completed the feasibility study, which was
accepted by the City Council in October 2000. Based on your approval, the firm was
authorized to proceed with design work and to develop an urban renewal plan.
Spencer and Kupper proposed that design work be done by Lloyd Lindley, an
architect who provided similar services for the Downtown Development Plan. The
proposal also provided for contract management related to Mr. Lindley's services, and for
Spencer and Kupper's participation in the community design workshops. The design phase
is intended to validate or modify the vision for the Downtown established two years ago,
and address the future appearance of, and uses In, the downtown.
Complementing design work, an urban renewal plan will be drafted. The plan Is
required to establish a district and will be guided by staff on your behalf, with the
participation of a citizen's planning committee. The plan will formalize the district
boundaries, determine the tax increment financing available within those boundaries, and
establish a plan of work to be accomplished. The Planning Commission and City Council
will review the plan. If adopted, the District will be formed In 2001, and begin collecting
tax Increment the following year.
Discussion:
We have a verbal commitment from the Governor's office to fund bl-lingual
outreach and translation services related to the design phase of this project. Accordingly,
I have placed greater emphasis on this phase of the project than was contemplated In
1r
lIB
Spencer and Kupper's proposal for services. That added emphasis results in greater effort
and expense, and requires contract management and coordination responsibilities beyond
those which Spencer and Kupper can devote to this project. This added emphasis is
necessary if the visioning and design exercise is to be an inclusive process, and engage a
broader spectrum of Woodburn residents in determining the future appearance and uses of
the Downtown area.
Spencer and Kupper propose to eliminate the responsibility for the design and
visioning exercise from scope of work, and place responsibility for providing those services
directly on Mr. Lindley, (Attachment 2). Spencer and Kupper will participate in the
visioning and design process, but would leave management, coordination, and
compensation of Lindley's work to the City. This change appears appropriate, given the
evolution of this portion of the project beyond that initially proposed by Spencer and
Kupper. This change will require a separate agreement be executed with Mr. Lindley. The
scope of that agreement is still being developed, in conjunction with the bi-Iingual
consultant, and will be presented at your next regular meeting. An agreement for bi-
lingual and outreach services, with the public relations firm The Metropolitan Group, will
also be required. Grant funds need to be formally committed by the State, however,
before that agreement Is executed. Those actions are expected to occur sometime In
December 2000.
Flnandallmpact:
The recommended action will reduce the cost of Spencer and Kupper's services
from a not-to-exceed amount of $25,000 to a not-to-exceed amount of $16,640.
Expanded services to be provided by Mr. Lindley are expected to exceed these cost savings
by approximately $6,000, and will be recommended for funding with salary savings In the
City Administrator's budget, and with a portion of the grant monies to be received from
the State.
JCB
"'"
lIB
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
BETWEEN CITY OF WOODBURN
AND SPENCER AND KUPPER
THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT is entered into this _day of November 2000,
between the City of Woodburn ("CITY"), an Oregon municipal corporation, and Spencer
and Kupper, jointly and severally, dba Spencer and Kupper, hereinafter referred to as
"Consultants" .
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, City and Consultants executed an Agreement for Consulting Services on
July 24,2000, which incorporated "Exhibit A", entitled "Proposed Scope of Work" and
detailed the scope of work to be completed by Consultants; and
WHEREAS, said scope of work provided for completion by Consultants of three project
elements, including a Vision/Design effort; and
WHEREAS, the Vision/Design element was to be completed by a sub-consultant, under
Consultants' management and oversight and was included in Consultants' calculation of
total project costs; and
WHEREAS, the scope of the Vision/Design effort has been expanded, with a
corresponding increase in contract management and oversight and expense; and
WHEREAS, the parties agree it is beneficial to simplify contract management and
oversight and cost accounting by eliminating Vision/Design activities from Consultants'
responsibilities and allowing City to enter into a separate agreement for those services
with Consultants' subcontractor.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions and covenants contained
herein, the parties agree to amend the agreement as follows:
1. Description of Project. City and Consultants agree that Consultants shall
perform only that project described in Exhibit A, entitled "Amendment #1 To
Scope of Work". If, during the course of the project, City and Consultants
agree to further changes in the project, such changes shall be incorporated in
this Agreement by written amendment.
2. Consideration. City shall pay Consultants a sum not-to-exceed $16,640 for
all Consultants services. Compensation, however, may be less than such
maximum amount and shall actually be determined on an hourly basis at
Consultants' hourly rate of $100 per hour.
,,,. 1T
In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date
written above.
Spencer and Kupper
City of Woodburn
By:
Date:
By:
Date:
By:
Charles Kupper
Date:
By:
John Spencer
Date:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Mary Tennant, Recorder
,~ 1r
lIB
lIB
AMENDMENT #1
TO SCOPE OF WORK
Formation of an Urban Renewal District in City of Woodburn
Feasibility Study, Renewal Plan, DesignNision for Renewal Area
Amendment #1 Prepared November 13, 2000
Spencer & Kupper, Portland, Or.
Description of Amended Scope: The purpose of this amendment is to remove the VisionlDesign element
of the Agreement for Consulting Services between Spencer & Kupper, and the City of Woodburn,
Oregon. This amendment:
1. Eliminates Project Element III, VisionlDesign. The VisionlDesign element will be undertaken
via a separate contract with the VisionlDesign consultant.
2. Amends the maximum cost of the Consulting Services Agreement to $16,640.
Project Element I: Prepare an Urban Renewal Feasibility Study
The first phase of the Woodburn Renewal study will be preparation of a feasibility study. The feasibility
study will:
. Evaluate potential urban renewal district boundaries, blighted conditions, preliminary renewal goals,
and activities, the financing potential, and tax impacts of the project.
. Evaluate any political or policy issues identified in the feasibility process.
. Prepare a written report documenting eligibility and feasibility of creating an urban renewal district.
. Obtain Council decision on whether to proceed toward establishment of an urban renewal district.
In order to reduce the cost of the feasibility phase, it is proposed that the feasibility report be prepared
internally, as a staff and consultant work product. The report would be presented to the City Council in
public session, or to a City CouncillPlanning Commission workshop.
It is expected that the Consultant will work closely with City staff throughout this project, especially in
the feasibility phase. City staff will serve as the primary information source for details on potential
projects, potential blighting conditions, mapping work, and relationship to other City plans and goals. If
up-to date land value information is available from City data sources, that information will be provided to
the consultant.
Task A: Review Urban Renewal Process and Gather Materials
1. Consultant will develop informational material on the process of creating an urban renewal district
and on implications of new tax laws.
2. Consultant meets with City staff to: Meet with Staff#l
- describe process of creating an urban renewal district
_ discuss implications of new tax laws on use of tax increment financing
- establish preliminary project goals, objectives and timeline
- review and discuss proposed boundary or boundaries
_ obtain background information from City staff, including: mapping, total area of land, recent and
potential private investment, land use zones, Town Center
Woodburn Urban Renewal Plan Proposal- Spencer & Kupper
Page 1
,r
llB
- identity additional information needed from City staff
3. City staff provides Consultant with a swnmary of other City goals and studies relevant to the
proposed area (Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan, facilities plans, etc.)
4. City staff and Consultant assemble information on blighting conditions, per ORS 457.
Task B: Evaluate Renewal and Financing Potential
1. Consultant provides a summary paper providing a preliminary review and findings on whether
physical conditions and blighting influences in the project area are sufficient to designate it as a
renewal area.
2. Consultant develops preliminary estimates of tax increment revenue and financing potential.
3. City staff and Consultant develop a preliminary list of potential projects with cost estimates.
4. Consultant matches projects against projected tax increment revenues, identitying alternative sources
of funding and establishing an estimated maximum indebtedness for the project.
5. Consultant develops a projected cash flow over the life of each project and evaluates whether there
are adequate funds to carry out project activities.
6. Consultant meets with City staff to review preliminary findings. Meet staff#2
Task C: Prepare Feasibility Report
1. Consultant prepares report evaluating eligibility and feasibility of preparation and adoption of an
urban renewal plan, including analysis of blighting conditions, financial, legal and policy
considerations.
2. Consultant meets with City staff to review draft report and obtain input. Meet Staff#3
3. Consultant revises report, as requested.
Task D: Presentation to Council on Feasibility and Council Recommendation
1. Consultant meets with City Council to present feasibility Report: Meet with City Council
Consultant presents urban renewal district formation process, opportunities and constraints
utilizing handouts prepared in Task A.
Consultant and City staff presents proposed goals and objectives, linkages to existing City goals
and plans, proposed boundary, blighting conditions, and preliminary list of projects.
Consultant presents findings of Feasibility Report.
Council makes decision on whether to proceed with Phase ll: Establish an Urban Renewal
District. If Council directs continuation of project, they should also direct any changes to
proposed boundary and establish preliminary goals and objectives for an urban renewal district.
Note - At this point, or during the Renewal Plan process, the City should form an Urban Renewal
Agency, per ORS 457. The consultant will prepare this Ordinance establishing a Renewal Agency.
Project Element 11- Urban Renewal Plan for Woodburn
The Urban Renewal Plan will be developed in conjunction with the DesignNision project element. The
Renewal Plan will incorporate and provide funding for concepts and recommended project activities
developed in the DesignNision process.
Woodburn Urban Renewal Plan Proposal- Spencer & Kupper
Page 2
11
lIB
It is anticipated that the Urban Renewal Plan will be developed with participation of a Citizen's
Advisory Committee, appointed by the City Council. This will satisfy the requirement ofORS 457 that
a plan be developed with citizen involvement in all phases. The work plan for the urban renewal plan will
be built around public meetings with this Advisory Council.
During the course of these public meetings or workshops, the Advisory Committee will be involved in
discussion and decision-making in four key parts of the urban renewal plan. The experience, comments
and recommendations of the Advisory Committee will become a vital part of preparation of the final
Renewal Plan presented to City Council. Public meetings will be organized around:
. Boundary and Goals
. Project Activities
. Project Financing and Impacts
. Review of final draft Plan and Report document.
The formulation of the Urban Renewal Plan is built around the meeting steps outlined below.
1. Public Meeting 1- Explain Basic Renewal Concepts - Refme the project area boundary
. Consultant will discuss and explain basic urban renewal concepts with the Advisory
Committee, and respond to questions. Written information on urban renewal will be prepared
and distributed.
. The preliminary boundary defined in the Feasibility stage will be explained, discussed and
refined. Advisory Committee recommendations will be discussed and incorporated.
Result - At the conclusion of the meeting, the project boundary will be established, and the Committee's
major concerns, questions, and issues about urban renewal will be addressed.
2. Public Meeting 2 - Goals and Objectives - Project Activities
. Review the preliminary goals and objectives from the Feasibility phase. Obtain comment and
recommendations from Advisory Committee
. Provide goals and concepts to be explored in the Design Vision process.
. Refine, and expand on the list of project activities developed in the Feasibility Phase. Obtain
comment and recommendations from Advisory Committee.
. Provide concepts for activities to feed in the DesignNision process.
Result - At the conclusion of the meeting, renewal plan goals will be established, and available to the
DeignNision process. A list of project activities will be in semi-final stage
3. Interim Staff Meeting 1 - Review and update feasibility report data on potential new
construction values, estimated revenues, duration of plan, and tax impacts.
4. Public Meeting 3 - Preliminary revenues, costs and phasing of project activities
This step and meeting would follow the fint DesignNision workshop or charette
. Present and discuss develooment opj)Ortunities. and refme projections of tax increment
revenues from alternate development scenarios
. Incorporate the recommendations from the DesignNision effort into the list ofproject
activities to be included in the renewal plan.
. Work with city staff to prepare cost estimates of recommended project activities, and a
sequencing of projects.
. Based upon this list of project costs and activities, establish a maximum indebtedness for the
Plan;
. Prepare an analysis of the tax impacts of carrying out the Renewal Plan.
. Present preliminary fmancial information, phasing of activities, and tax impact information to
Advisory Committee.
Woodburn Urban Renewal Plan Proposal- Spencer & Kupper
Page 3
,~ 'IT
liB
Result - At the conclusion of the meeting, a list of project activities and phasing will be completed.
Maximum indebtedness, and impact on other taxing bodies will be established.
5. Public Meeting 4 (If necessary) - Final Activity List, Costs, Phasing
If the Advisory Committee is unable to reach agreement on the activity list, or project
phasing, another meeting may be necessary. This follow-up meeting usually can be
conducted by City staff, or a sub-committee of the Advisory Committee
. Prepare final list, cost, and phasing of project activities
. Make revisions to maximum indebtedness, and tax impacts, if necessary
Result - Final list of project activities, and costs to be put into the Renewal Plan and Report.
6. Public Meeting 5 - Review Draft Renewal Plan and Report
. Prepare draft Plan and Report documents with contents meeting all requirements ofORS 457.
. Review and discuss with Advisory Committee, make changes if necessary
. Get Advisory Committee recommendation to forward to Council for adoption.
Result - Final draft of plan and Report passed on to City Council for adoption
7. Adoption ofthe urban renewal plan CPC and Council Meetings.
. Prepare all notices required for plan adoption;
. Prepare draft of Ordinance adopting renewal plan, and ensure all plan adoption procedures
are followed.
. Be available to meet with, or discuss concerns of other taxing bodies
. Attend Planning Commission and City Council meetings on Plan adoption.
8. Participation in Design Plan Workshop, and Follow up
· Attend fIrst Workshop to provide overview of urban renewal
~ Provide technical advice on workshop proposals, incorporate into renewal plan
Result - Workshop participants given basic understanding of urban renewal and financing,
products of workshop are reviewed for legal feasibility, and integrated into plan.
Woodburn Urban Renewal Plan Proposal- Spencer & Kupper
Page 4
,~ "'ff
lIB
SUGGESTED FEE, BY WORK ELEMENT (AS AMENDED NOV. 13,2000)
Hourly Billing Rates
Charles Kupper - $100.00 per hour
John Spencer- $100.00 per hour
No additional sub-consultant or technical service work is envisioned for this work effort.
$6500.00
$180.00
$6,680.00
tion
$8500.00
$200.00
$8,700.00
$1,260.00
Total
$16640.00
This proposal is based upon the consultant attending and running not more than six public meetings on
the urban renewal plan, (six includes the presentation of the Feasibility Report), attending one design
workshop, and the Planning Commission and Council meetings on the Renewal Plan.
Materials and information to be provided by City.
. In the feasibility phase, City staff will be expected to provide input and information on
preliminary goals, assistance in evaluating preliminary boundary choices, provide
information on estimated new construction values in the area, and provide any available
information on blighting conditions in the area.
. A metes and bounds legal description of the urban renewal project boundary. That can be
provided by City staff, or by engaging a local surveying ftrm.
. Base maps of the renewal study area, the fmal project boundary map, and the zoning map
. Engineered cost estimates of project activities, if such estimates are deemed necessary for
plan purposes. The consultant will assist City staff in estimating project costs, based on
previous experience, and other information available to the consultant.
. Staff will be responsible for setting up dates, meeting places, and publicizing all public
meetings and workshops.
. City will be responsible for printing multiple copies of final reports and plans, and any
mailings and notices required
Woodburn Urban Renewal Plan Proposal- Spencer & Kupper
Page 5
,~ 'IT"
ATTACHMENT I
Page -L- of 1.3
liB
DUPUCA TE ORIGINAL
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
BETWEEN CITY OF WOODBURN
AND SPENCER & KUPPER
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into between City of Wood bum, hereinafter referred to
as "City," and John C Spencer and Charles Kupper, jointly and severally, dba Spencer & Kupper,
hereinafter referred to as "Consultants"
REClT ALS
WHEREAS, Consultants have available and offer to provide personnel and facilities necessary to
accomplish the work within the required time;
WHEREAS, City desires to retain Consultants to perforrn the work in the manner, at the time, and
for the compensation set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, City and Consultants agree as follows:
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. City and Consultants agree that Consultants shall
perform the project, as described in Exhibit A, entitled "Proposed Scope of Work. " If,
during the course of the project, City and Consultants agree to changes in the project. such
changes shall be incorporated in this Agreement by written amendment.
2. CONSIDERATION. City shall pay Consultants a sum not to exceed $25,000 for all
Consultants services. However, compensation may be less than such maximum amount
and sha1I actually be determined on an hourly basis at Consultants' hourly rate of$lOO.OO
per hour.
Consultants will submit an invoice to City costs and expenses inallTed either monthly, or
upon completion of the assignment. The invoice shaD include a sumnwy of services
provided. City agrees to review the invoice. and to notify Consultants of any "questions or
disagreements City might have with the invoice within ten days after receipt of the invoice.
After the ten day period, or after questions or disagreements noted during the ten day
period have been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties. the work performed during the
period covered by the invoice shall be considered satisfactory by City. Payment of the
invoice shall be within 30 days of accepting the invoice as satisfactory.
3. STATUS OF CONSULTANTS AS INDEPENDENT CONTRAcroRS.
Consultants shall be independent contractors for all purposes and shall be entitled to no
compensation other than the compensation provided for under paragraph 2 of this Agreement.
4. TERM AND TERMINATION.
A. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date above to the end of the project or
Page 1 - Agreement for Consulting Services
,~ 'IT
ATTAC~ENT::t ~
Page of
lIB
DUPLICA TE ORIGINAL
upon written notice from City This agreement may be renewed for additional periods
by mutual agreement of the parties
B At any tirne with or without cause, City or Consultant shall have the right to terrninate
this Contract I f City terminates the Contract it shall deliver full payment to
Consultant for services rendered to the date of termination.
5. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE.
A Indemnity: Consultants acknowledge responsibility for any and all liability arising out
of the performance of this contract and agrees to hold City harmless frorn and
indernnify City for any and all liability, settlernents, loss, costs, and expenses in
connection with any action, suit, or c1airn resulting or allegedly resulting frorn
Consultants' acts, ornissions, activities or services in the course of performing this
contract.
B. Liability Insurance: Consultants shall maintain occurrence form commercial general
liability for the protection of Consultants, City. its Council. directors, officers, agents,
and employees. Coverage shall include personal injury, bodily injury, including death,
and broad form property damage, including loss of use of property, occurring in the
course of or in any way related to Consultants' operations, in an amount not less than
$1,000.000 combined single limit per occurrence. Such insurance shall name City as
an additional insured. Consultants shall provide to City a certificate of insurance
evidencing coverage.
C. Workers Compensation Coverage: If Consultants employ one or more subject
workers. Consultants hereby certifies that they have qualified for State of Oregon
Worker's Compensation coverage either as a carrier-insured employer or as a self-
insured employer. Consultants shall provide to City a certificate of insurance (be they
carrier or self-insured) evidencing coverage.
6. METHOD AND PLACE OF GIVING NOTICE4 SUBMITIING BILLS4
MAKING PAYMENTS.
All notices, bills and payments shall be made in writing and may be given by personal delivery
or by mail. Notices, bills and payments sent by mail should be addressed as follows:
CITY:
John C. Brown
Woodburn City Administrator
City of Woodburn
270 Montgomery St.
Woodburn, OR 97071
Page 2 - Agreement for Consulting Services
, ~
11
ATTACHMENT I
page.....3-. of I ~
liB
DUPLICA TE ORIGINAL
CONSULT ANTS. Spencer & Kupper
2510 N.E Thompson St
Portland, OR 97212
When so addressed, such notices, bills and payments shall be deemed given upon deposit
in the United States rnail, postage prepaid
7. WORK IS PROPERTY OF CITY. All work, including, but not limited to documents,
drawings, papers, electronic media, and photographs, performed or produced by Consultants
under this contract, shall be the property of City
8. LA W OF OREGON. The contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Oregon.
Venue shall be in the Circuit Court for Marion County, Oregon. CONSULTANT, BY
EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT, HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE IN PERSONUM
JURISDICTION OF SAID COURT.
9. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNMENTS.
A. Each party binds itself: and any partner, successor, executor, administrator, or assign
to this agreement.
B. Neither City nor Consultants shall assign or transfer their interest or obligation
hereunder in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. Consultants
must seek and obtain City's written consent before subcontracting any part of the
work required of Consultants under this contract. Any assigmnent, transfer, or
subcontract attempted in violation of this subparagraph shall be void.
C. In the event Consultants assign, transfer or subcontract any of the work contemplated
or necessitated by the tenns of this contract to some third party, Consultants will
ensure that said third party is made subject to all the tenns and conditions of this
Agreement.
10. RECORDS. Consultants shall retain all books, dOQ1ments, papers, and records that are
directly pertinent to this contract for at least three years after City makes final payment on this
contract and all other pending matters are closed.
Consultants shall allow City, or any of its authorized representatives, to audit, examine, copy,
take excerpts from, or transcribe any books, dOQ1ments, papers, or records that are subject
to the foregoing retention requirement.
11. BREACBOFCONTRACf.
Consultants shall remedy any breach of this contract within the shortest reasonable time after
Page 3 - Agreement for Consulting Services
,.. .".
ATTACHMENT I
Page~ of I~
liB
DUPLICA TE OIUGINAL
Consultants first have actual notice of the breach or City notifies Consultants of the breach,
whichever is earlier. If Consultants fail to rernedy a breach in accordance with this paragraph,
City may terminate that part of the contract affected by the breach upon written notice to
Consultants, rnay obtain substitute services in reasonable manner, and may recover from
Consultants the amount by which the price for those substitute services exceeds the price for
the sarne services under this contract.
If the breach is material and Consultants fail to remedy the breach in accordance with this
paragraph, City may declare Consultants in default and pursue any remedy available for a
default.
Pending a decision to terminate all or part of this contract, City unilaterally may order
Consultants to suspend all or part of the services under this contract. IfCity terminates all
or part of the contract pursuant to this paragraph, Consultants shall be entitled to
compensation only for services rendered prior to the date of termination, but not for any
services rendered after City ordered suspension of those services. If City suspends certain
services under this contract and later orders Consultants to resurne those services,
Consultants shall be entitled to reasonable damages actually incurred, if any, as a result of the
suspensIon.
To recover amounts due under this paragraph, City may withhold from any amounts owed
by City to Consultants, including but not limited to amounts owed under this or any other
contract between Consultants and City.
12. TERMINA nON FOR CONVENIENCE. city may terminate all or part of this
contract at any time for its own convenience by written notice to Consultants. Upon
termination under this paragraph, Consultants shall be entitled to compensation for all
services rendered prior to actual notice of the termination or the receipt of City's written
notice of termination, whichever is earlier, plus Consultants's reasonable costs actually
incurred in dosing out the contract.
13. INTELLECI1JAL PROPERTY. The interest in any intellectual property, including,
but not limited to copyrights and patents of any type, arising from the perfonnance of this
contract shall vest in City. Consultants shall execute any assignment or other documents
necessary to effect this paragraph. Consultants shall transfer to City any data or other
tangible property generated by Consultants under this contract and necessary for the
beneficial use of intellectual property covered by this paragraph.
14. INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING. Consultants shall pay, if applicable, all sums
withheld from employees pursuant to
ORS 316.167.
IS. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS BY CI1Y. If Consultants fails, neglects, or refuses to make
prompt payment of any claim for labor or services furnished to Consultants or a
Page 4 - Agreement for Consulting Services
IT"
1T
ATTACH)1ENT /
Page .-:L. of I ~
lIB
DUPLICA 7E ORIGINAL
subcontractor, or by any person in connection with this contract as the claim becomes due,
City rnay pay the claim to the person furnishing the labor or services and charge the
amount of the payment against funds due or to become due to Consultants pursuant to this
contract City's payrnent of a claim under this Paragraph shall not relieve Consultants or
Consultants's surety, if any, from responsibility for those claims
16. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES Consultants hereby represent that no
ernployee of City, or any partnership or corporation in which a City ernployee has an
interest, will or has received any rernuneration of any description from Consultants, either
directly or indirectly, in connection with the letting or performance of this contract, except
as specifically declared in writing.
17. WORKER'S COMPENSATION COMPLIANCE. Consultants, their subcontractors,
ifany, and all employers working under this contract are subject employers under the
Oregon Workers' Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires
them to provide workers' cornpensation coverage for all their subject workers.
Consultants and their subcontractors, if any, shall show proof of such coverage in a form
satisfactory to City prior to commencing any of the work to be done under this contract.
Consultants, if declaring an exemption from any requirement to provide workers
compensation coverage for the labor to be performed under this contract, understands and
agrees that under ORS 656.006 (13), an "employer" is any person who contracts to pay a
remuneration for an secures the right to direct and control the services of any person.
Consultants understands and agrees that if they are exempt from coverage under ORS
656.027 and engage individuals who are not exempt under same in performance of the
contract then Consultants shall provide workers compensation insurance coverage for all
such individuals. If Consultants do not provide that insurance it may be deemed a non-
complying employer for purposes of Oregon law and agree to hold City harmless from and
indemnify it against any and all claims for compensation benefits made against Consultants
as a non-complying employer.
18. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWSIRULES. Consultants shall
comply with all applicable federal, state and loca1laws, rules and regulations.
19. HOURS OF LABOR. Consultants agree that no person shall be employed for more
than 10 hours in anyone day, or 40 hours in anyone week, except in cases of necessity,
emergency, or where the public policy absolutely requires it, and in such cases, except in
cases of contracts for personal services as defined in ORS 279.051, the employee shall be
paid at least time and a halfpay:
(A) For all overtime in excess of eight hours a day or 40 hours in anyone week
when the work week is five consecutive days, Monday through Friday; or
Page 5 - Agreement for Consulting Services
I' 1ft"
liB
ATTACH"ENT~
Page..la- of ~
DUPLICA TE ORIGINAL
(B) For all overtime in excess of 10 hours a day or 40 hours in anyone week when
the work week is four consecutive days, Monday through Friday; and
(C) For all work performed on Saturday and on any legal holiday specified in ORS
279334
Consultants agree that all persons employed under this Agreement shall receive at
least tirne and a half pay for work performed on the legal holidays specified in a
collective bargaining Agreement or in ORS 279.334 (l)(a)(C)(ii) to (vii) and for all
tirne worked in excess of 10 hours a day or in excess of 40 hours in a week,
whichever is greater.
(Required by ORS ORS 279.316)
20. PA YMENT OF LABORERS AND MATERIALMEN. CONTRIBUTIONS TO
INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT FUND. LIENS AND WITHHOLDING TAXES.
Consultants shall:
(1) Make payment promptly, as due, to all persons supplying labor or material for
the prosecution of the work under this Agreement.
(2) Pay all contributions or amounts due the Industrial Accident Fund from such
Consultants or subcontractor incurred in the performance of this Agreement.
(3) Not permit any lien or claim to be filed or prosecuted against the state, county,
school district, municipality, municipal corporation or subdivision thereof: on
account of any labor or material furnished.
(4) Pay to the Department of Revenue all sums withheld from employees pursuant
to ORS 316.167. Required byORS 279.312)
21. PAYMENT FOR MEDICAL CARE. Consultants shall promptly, as due, make
payment to any person, copartnership, association or corporation, furnishing medical,
surgical and hospital care or other needed care and attention. incident to siclcness or
injury, to the employees of such Consultants, of all sums which Consultants agree to pay
for such services and all moneys and sums which the Consultants collected or deducted
from the wages of employees pursuant to any law, contract or Agreement for the purpose
of providing or paying for such service. (Required by ORS 279.320)
22. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS BY PUBLIC OFFICERS. If Consultants fail, neglect or
refuse to make prompt payment of any claim for labor or services furnished to Consultants
by any person in connection with this Agreement as such claim becomes due, City may
pay such claim to the person furnishing the labor or services and charge the amount of the
payment against funds due or to become due to Consultants.
Page 6 - Agreement for Consulting Services
,.
'If
ATTACHMENT (
Page -.:2.. of I ~
lIB
DUPLICA TE ORIGINAL
23. RECYCLED PAPER REQUIRED To the maximum extent economically feasible,
Consultants shall use recycled paper in performing under this Agreement (Required by
ORS 279555)
24. FINAL AGREEMENTIBINDING EFFECT This document contains all of the terms
and conditions of the parties' Agreement Any waiver or modification of the terms of this
Agreement must be in writing
25. INTEGRA TION: This contract contains the entire agreement between the parties and
supersedes all prior written or oral discussions or agreements regarding the same subject.
26. SEVERABILITY/SURVIVAL Ifany of the provisions contained in this Agreernent are
held illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the enforceability of the rernaining provisions shall
not be impaired. Any provisions concerning the lirnitation of liability or indemnity shall
survive the termination of this Agreement for any cause.
27. FORCE MAJEURE: Neither City nor Consultants shall be held responsible for delay or
default caused by fire, riot, acts of God, war or similar events or occurrences where such
event or occurrence was beyond the reasonable control of City or Consultants
respectively. Consultants will, however, make all reasonable efforts to remove or
eliminate such a cause of delay or default and shall, upon cessation of the case, diligently
pursue perfonnance of its obligations under this Agreement
28. AUTHORIZATION. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties
hereto represent and warrant that the parties have all legal authority and authorization
necessary to enter into this Agreement, and that such persons have been duly authorized
to execute this Agreement on their behalf.
SPENCER & KUPPER
CITY OF WOODBURN
By: r1d::'~
Date: M d. ~ iJ.., \) 1>b
BY~~W
Date: -r/~41"LbIJO.
BY:-?~~{
Date: r//~ /V
/Y1 ~ -_I
Attest: ~~
Mary Tlift[nt, City Recorder
Date: 1'/1// OV
I ,
Page 7 - Agreement for Consulting Services
,.. 1fT"
:~:T~:z!=:
liB
EXHIBIT
Page -1...- of
A
fLJ
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
Formation of an Urban Renewal District in City of Woodburn
Feasibility Study, Renewal Plan, DesignNision for Renewal Area
Prepared May 30, 2000
Spencer & Kupper, Portland, Or.
Project Description: The purpose of this project is threefold - The first project element will be a
Feasibility Study, to determine ifan urban renewal district should be established in the City of Woodburn.
If that determination is made, a second project element will proceed - preparation of an Urban Renewal
Plan. A third project element, a Vision/Design effort, will be done in conjunction with the urban renewal
plan. The following Work Plan describes each of those three processes.
Project Element I: Prepare an Urban Renewal Feasibility Study
The first phase of the Woodburn Renewal study will be preparation of a feasibility study. The feasibility
study wi 11:
. Evaluate potential urban renewal district boundaries, blighted conditions, preliminary renewal goals,
and activities, the financing potential, and tax impacts of the project.
. Evaluate any political or policy issues identified in the feasibility process.
. Prepare a written report documenting eligibility and feasibility of creating an urban renewal district.
. Obtain Council decision on whether to proceed toward establishment of an urban renewal district.
In order to reduce the cost of the feasibility phase, it is proposed that the feasibility report be prepared
internally, as a staff and consultant work product The report would be presented to the City Council in
public session, or to a City CouncillPlanning Commission workshop.
It is expected that the Consultant will work closely with City staff throughout this project, especially in
the feasibility phase. City staff will serve as the primary information source for details on potential
projects, potential blighting conditions, mapping work, and relationship to other City plans and goals. If
up-to date land value infonnation is available from City data sources, that information will be provided to
the consultant.
Task A: Review Urban Renewal Process and Gather Materials
1. Consultant will develop infonnational material on the process of creating an urban renewal district
and on implications of new tax laws.
2. Consultant meets with City staff to: Meet with Staff # J
_ describe process of creating an urban renewal district
_ discuss implications of new tax laws on use of tax increment financing
_ establish preliminory project goals, objectives and timeline
_ review and discuss proposed boundary or boundaries
_ obtain background infonnation from City staff, including: mapping, total area of land, recent and
potential private investment, land use zones, Town Center
_ identify additional infonnation needed from City staff
Woodburn Urban Renewal Plan Proposal- Spencer & Kupper
Page I
,..
1r
ATTActiMENT~
Page ~ of '3
EXHIBIT A
Page ~ 01 '"
II
3. City staff provides Consultant with a summary of other City goals and studies relevant to the
proposed area (Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan, facilities plans, etc.)
4. City staff ancd Consultant assemble infonnation on blighting conditions, per ORS 457
Task B: Evaluate Renewal and Financing Potential
I. Consultant provides a summary paper providing a preliminary review and findings on whether
physical conditions and blighting influences in the project area are sufficient to designate it as a
renewal area.
2. Consultant develops preliminary estimates of tax increment revenue and financing potential.
3. City staff and Consultant develop a preliminary I ist of potential projects with cost estimates.
4 Consultant matches projects against projected tax increment revenues, identifying alternative sources
of funding and establishing an estimated maximum indebtedness for the project.
5. Consultant develops a projected cash flow over the life of each project and evaluates whether there
are adequate funds to carry out project activities.
6. Consultant meets with City staff to review preliminary findings. Meel staff #2
Task C: Prepare Feasibility Report
I. Consultant prepares report evaluating eligibility and feasibility of preparation and adoption of an
urban renewal plan, including analysis of blighting conditions, financial, legal and policy
considerations.
2. Consultant meets with City staff to review draft report and obtain input. Meel Slaff#3
3. Consultant revises report, as requested.
Task D: Presentation to Council on Feasibility and Council Recommendation
I. Consultant meets with City Council tp present feasibility Report: Meet with City Council
Consultant presents urban renewal district formation process, opportunities and constraints
utilizing handouts prepared in Task A.
Consultant and City staff presents proposed goals and objectives, linkages to existing City goals
and plans, proposed boundary, blighting conditions, and preliminary list of projects.
Consultant presents findings of Feasibility Report.
Council makes decision on whether to proceed with Phase II: Establish an Urban Renewal
District. If Council directs c:ontinuation of project. they should also direct any changes to
proposed boundary and establish preliminary goals and objectives for an urban renewal district.
Note _ At this point, or during the Renewal Plan process, the City should fonn an Urban Renewal
Agency, per ORS 457. The consultant will prepare this Ordinance establishing a Renewal Agency.
Project Element 11- Urban Renewal Plan for Woodburn
The Urban Renewal Plan will be developed in conjunction with the Design/Vision project element. The
Renewal Plan wilt incorporate and provide funding for concepts and recommended project activities
developed in the DesignlVision process.
It is anticipated that the Urban Renewal Plan will be developed with participation of a Citizens's
Advisory Committee, appointed by the City Council. This will satisfy the requirement ofORS 457 that
Woodburn Utban Renewal Plan ProposaI- Spencer & Kupper
Page 2
!"T 11"
ATTACHMENT ,
Page.1.tL of I ~
EXHIBIT A
P8ge~ of ~
lIB
a plan be developed with citizen involvement in all phases. The work plan for the urban renewal plan will
be built around public meetings with this Advisory Council.
During the course of these public meetings or workshops, the Advisory Committee will be involved in
discussion and decision making in four key parts of the urban renewal plan. The experience, comments
and recommendations of the Advisory Committee wi II become a vital part of preparation of the final
Renewal Plan presented to City Council. Public meetings will be organized around:
. Boundary and Goals
. Project Activities
. Project Financing and Impacts
. Review of final draft Plan and Report document.
The formulation of the Urban Renewal Plan is built around the meeting steps outlined below
1. Public Meeting 1 - Explain Basic Renewal Concepts - Refine the project area boundar}
. Consultant will discuss and explain basic urban renewal concepts with the Advisory
Committee, and respond to questions. Written information on urban renewal will be prepared
and distributed.
. The preliminary boundary defined in the Feasibility stage will be explained, discussed and
refined. Advisory Committee recommendations will be discussed and incorporated..
Result - At the conclusion of the meeting, the project boundary will be established, and the Committee's
major concerns, questions, and issues about urban renewal will be addressed.
2. Public Meeting 2 - Goals and Objectives - Project Activities
. Review the preliminary 20als and objectives from the Feasibility phase. Obtain comment and
recommendations from Advisory Committee
. Provide goals and concepts to be explored in the Design Vision process.
. Refine, and expand on the list of proiect activities developed in the Feasibility Phase. Obtain
comment and recommendations from Advisory Committee.
. Provide concepts for activities to feed in the DesignlVision process.
Result - At the conclusion of the meeting. renewal plan goals will be established, and available to the
DeignlVision process. A list of project activities will be in semi-final stage
3. Interim Staff Meeting 1 - Review and update feasibility report data on potential new
construction values, estimated revenues, duration of pl~ and tax impacts.
4. Public MeetiDg 3 - PrelimiDary reveDUes, costs and phasing of project activities
TIais step aad meeting would foUow the first DesigDlV'lSioD workshop or charette
. Present and discuss develooment oDoortunities. and refine projections of tax increment
revenues from alternate development scenarios
. Incorporate the recommendations from the Design/Vision effort into the list of project
activities to be included in the renewal plan.
. Work with city staff to prepare cost estimates of recommended project activities, and a
seaueOcin2 of projects.
. Based upon this list of project costs and activities, establish a maximum indebtedness for the
Plan;
. Prepare an analysis of the tax imoacts of carrying out the Renewal Plan.
. Present preliminary financial infonnation, phasing of activities, and tax impact information to
Advisory Committee.
Result - At the conclusion of the meeting. a list of project activities and phasing will be completed.
Maximum indebtedness, and impact on other taxing bodies will be established.
Woodburn Urban Renewal Plan ProposaI- Spencer &. Kupper
Page 3
P if'
ATTACHMENT I
Page~ of I~
EXHIBIT A
Page -...fL of
liB
b
. Previous plans and planning documents
. Urban Renewal Plan goals and objcctivcs
. Stakeholder interviews
') Design and Conduct a public workshop/charette
The public workshop/charette will provide the opportunity for the public to discuss visions, goals.
and concepts for the renewal area. The public input will be translated into graphics which
illustrate main concepts of the Woodburn Renewal Plan, and build consensus on how downtown
Woodburn should look and fccl This will bc accomplishcd by:
. Incorporating input from the dcvclopmcnt program mceting, and the Rcncwal Advisory
Committee
. Hosting a public urban design vision workshop
3. Meet with City to review concept Plan diagrams and sketches
Concept plans and sketches will be developed from workshop inputs. In general terms, it is
expected that the concept plans and sketches wi II engage issues of:
. Improving the quality of Downtown and the urban renewal plan area; _
. Illustrating how specific development and redevelopment opportunities may look;
. Address particular problems ego Provide up to 3 plan diagrams for specific areas
. Provide up to 4 sketches showing development and redevelopment opportunites;
4. Refinements to Plans and Diagrams
. Revise plans and diagrams
. Prepare display boards showing plans, diagrams and sketches.
5. Second Public Workshop
. Present and discuss diagrams, sketches, and Display boards at a second public meeting
. Incorporate comments on design concepts into urban renewal plan process
Woodburn Urban Renewal Plan Proposal- Spencer & Kupper
Page S
,.,. if
liB
EXHIBI1~ A
Page~ of ~
ATTACHMENT I
Page.1l- of I ~
5. Public Meeting 4 (If necessary) - Final Activity List, Costs, Phasing
If the Advisory Committee is unable to reach agreement on the activity list, or project
phasing, another mceting may bc necessary This follow-up mceting usually can bc
conducted by City staff, or a sub-comm ittec of the Adv isory Comm ittee
. Prepare final list, cost, and phasing of project activities
. Make revisions to maximum indebtedness, and tax impacts, if necessary
Result - Final list of project activities, and costs to be put into the Renewal Plan and Report
6. Public Meeting 5 - Review Draft Renewal Plan and Report
. Prepare draft Plan and Report documents with contents meeting all requirements ofORS 457.
. Review and discuss with Advisory Committee, make changes if necessary
. Get Advisory Committee recommendation to forward to Council for adoption.
Result - Final draft of plan and Report passed on to City Council for adoption
7. Adoption of the urban renewal plan CPC and Council Meetings.
. Prepare all notices required for plan adoption;
. Prepare draft of Ordinance adopting renewal plan, and ensure all plan adoption procedures
are followed.
. Be available to meet with, or discuss concerns of other taxing bodies
. Attend Plannin2 Commission and City Council meetin2S on Plan adootion.
Project Element III - DesignNision for Woodburn Renewal Plan
This project element will be undertaken in conjunction with the public process on preparing the urban
renewal plan. Its intent is to give create a visual dimension to the urban renewal plan area, and give the
general publi a sense of what can be accomplished with the renewal effort.
The emphasis of the urban design vision is to explore the opportunities for new development and
redevelopment opportunities in the Renewal Area, and to prepare plans and sketcbes to sbow how the
renewal area wiIJ took and feel if these opportunities are realized. It is expected that the principal focus of
the effort will be on the traditional downtown area of Woodburn.
Typically this vision process is a discussion between all participants (residents and consultants) that
results in consensus for the best course of action. The public process includes graphic representation of
ideas and options as they are discussed, so impacts can be understood. The intent is to prepare physical
urban design plans that will help make the ideas contained in the Woodburn Renewal Plan real.
I. Outline a development program describing the context, listing problems & opportunities
To prepare for the workshop/charette, hold a work session with City staff and other key
participants to develop a program of problems. goals and actions to be illustrated through
sketches and diagrams. Input will come through:
Woodburn Urban Renewal Plan Proposal- Spencer & Kupper
Page 4
,.. '1ft"
ATTAC1~ENT ~
Page of~
SUGGESTED FEE, BY WORK ELEMENT
EXHIBIT A
Page -L of ~
lIB
Hourly Billing Rates
Charles Kupper - $100.00 per hour
John Spencer- $100.00 per hour
Lloyd Lindley - $100.00 per hour
No additional sub-consultant or technical scrvicc work is cnvisioncd for thIs work effor1
---------- .-.-~-------1
Project Element I - Feasibilit)' Report . ----~--j
Technical Services, meetings, preparation of Feasibility RepOr1- ~--- $6500.00 1
--------- - - ----
Expenses - Mileage at $30 per trip, phone, fax $180.00
--------- ---------- $6,680.00 1
Total, Feasibility Element
Project Element II - Renewal Plan Preparation and Adoption
Technical Services, meetings, preparation of Renewal Plan $8500.00
Expenses - Mileage, phone, fax, assessors data $200.00
Total, Renewal Plan Element $8,700.00
Project Element III- Design Plan and Workshop
Technical Services, meetings, preparation of graphics $9200.00
Expenses - Mileage at $40 per trip, phone, fax, assessors data $120.00
Total, Design Element $9,3200.00
Total $25,000.00
This proposal is based upon the consultant attending and running not more than seven public meetings on
the urban renewal plan, (that will include the presentation of the Feasibility Report, and two design
workshops) and attending the Planning Commission and Council meetings on the Renewal Plan.
Materials and information to be provided by City.
. In the feasibility phase. City staff will be expected to provide input and information on
preliminary goals, assistance in evaluating preliminary boundary choices, provide
information on estimated new construction values in the area. and provide any available
information on blighting conditions in the area.
. A metes and bounds legal description of the urban renewal project boundary. That can be
provided by City staff, or by engaging a local surveying fIrm.
. Base maps of the renewal study area, the fInal project boundary map. and the zoning map
. EnRineered cost estimates of project activities. if such estimates are deemed necessary for
plan purposes. The consultant will assist City staff in estimating project costs, based on
previous experience. and other information available to the consultant.
. Staffwill be responsible for setting up dates, meeting places, and publicizing all public
meetings 'and workshops.
. City will be responsible for printing multiple copies of final reports and plans, and any
mailings and notices required
Woodburn Urban Renewal Plan Proposal- Spencer &. Kupper
Page 6
..
'1f
liB
MEMO
From:
Woodburn Recreation and Parks Department. 270 Montgomery Street · Woodburn, OR 97071
(503) 982-5264 . Fax (503) 982-5244 ~
Mayor and City Council, via John 8roYJn, City Admi~~
D. RancIaII Westrick, Recreation and Parks Director V r
November 22, 2000
Tcx
DatB:
Subject:
Parks and Recreation Systems Development Charge (SDC) Revision
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct staff to prepare a revised Parks and Recreation Systems Development Charge fee
resolution as follows:
Single-Family Dwelling (also duplex, manufactured housing not in a park) $ 1,1921dwelling unit
Multi-Family Dwelling $ 1,2981dwelling unit
Manufactured Housing (in a park) $ 850/dwelling unit
Non-residential $ 22/employee
BACKGROUND:
In November 1999, the City Council revised the City's Parks and Recreation SDC methodology
and fees. The methodology included a creclit to offset potential property taxes paid by new
development for a proposed bond issue for park and recreation facility improvements. This credit
included $430 for a single-family dwelling, $189 for a multi-family dwelling, $215 for a
manufactured housing dwelling and $17 per employee for non-residential development. Since
the voters did not approve Ballot Measure 24-62, the Parks and Community Facilities Measure,
staff recommends removing the discount
Ordinance 2250 includes a provision for the City Administrator to adjust the rates to account for
increased cost for construction and land acquisition. This adjustment will take effect January 1,
2001. Staff is now collecting the data for use in the fonnula to calculate this amount. The
fonnula, as outlined in the Ordinance, uses the Engineer Record News Construction Cost Index
for Seattle to calculate increased construction costs and Marion County Assessor's Office
Average Market Value to calculate increased cost for land costs. Staff is now researching this
infonnation to detennine the current adjustment factor. The factor will be at least six percent.
Attachment: Methodology and Rate Study, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I., 11"
CITY OF WOODBURN
lIB
...
Parks and Recreation
System Development Charges
Methodology and Rate Study Update
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Parks and Recreation Methodology Update
In 1989, the State of Oregon adopted the Oregon Systems Development
Act (ORS 223.297 - 223.314) to "provide a uniform framework for the
imposition of system development charges by local governments." The
Act requires local governments to enact System Development Charges
(SDC's) by resolution or ordinance, and to develop methodologies to
establish the principles used in arriving at the SDC rates.
The City of Woodbum adopted an ordinance and resolution establishing
SDC s for parks and recreatio~ water, and sewer facilities in 1991.
Included in the ordinance was a requirement for the ordinance and
methodology to be reviewed periodically to consider new estimates of
population and other socioeconomic data, changes in the cost of
construction and land acquisitio~ and other adjustments. A review of the
ordinance and the parks and recreation SDC methodology has been
completed, resulting in an updated methodology and some
recommended modifications to the ordinance/resolution.
The City's SDC for parks and recreation facilities remains an
"improvement fee" designed to generate revenue for construction of
future facilities; it does not include a "reimbursement fee" for facilities
which are already in place.
The 1991 parks and recreation SDC methodology was developed prior to
completion of the City's Parks and Recreation Comp~ltensive Plan
Update. Because specific project costs were not then available, SDC rates
included in the 1991 methodology report were based on the utypical"
costs of constructing capacity-increasing improvements needed to
maintain the then existing levels of service for parks and recreation
facilities in the City.
. -.DOh Ganer &: Associates
i
as <<lO/1S/99
!T "Tf'
The SDC rates included in the updated methodology are based on the
growth-related costs of specific capacity-increasing projects identified in
the Citys 1999 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update.
Population and employment estimates and projections from Marion
County, the U.S. Bureau of Census, and a report prepared for the City by
E.D. Hovee were used to determine growth needs required for the Level
of Service (LOS) Standards (units of facility per 1,000 persons) included in
the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan update for neighborhood
parks, community parks, and municipal parks, and for the core parks
system
lIB
Except for the non-residential SDC (which was not included in the 1991
methodology), the maximum SDC rates in the updated methodology
($762 per single family dwelling unit) are less than the maximum rates in
the original 1991 methodology ($837 per single family dwelling unit)
because a "credif' has been calculated to offset potential property taxes
paid by new development for a planned $2.5 million bond issue; no credit
was included in the original methodology. The Oty Council in 1991
adopted initial SDC rates at 32% of the maximum rates identified:. in the
original methodology report, with rates increasing by 8.6% of the
maximums annually to a total of Sl.75% of the maximum rate ~$483.20
per single family dwelling unit). The maximum SIX rates included"1n the
updated methodology report are as follows:
RESIDENfIAL SDC PER DWELLING UNIT
Residential Compliance/
Facilities Cost Per + Administration-
1:ype of Dwellin& Unit Dwelli~ Unit Cost/Unit
Credit Per =
DweDins Unit
Residential
SDC Per
DweDil\i Unit
Single-Family: $ 1,084
Multi-Family: $ 1,180
$108
$430
$ 762
$ 1,109
$ 118
$189
Manufadured Housing: $ m
$ 78
$215
$635
NON-RESIDENTIAL SDC PER EMPLOYEE
Non-Residential
Facilities Cost Per
Ernplo.yee
Compliance/
+ Administration -
Enwlo.yee
Credit Per
Elr\ploJ'ee
Non-Residential
SOC Per
F.rI\plQyee
$20
$2
$11
$5
Don Caner Ie Associates
ii
as of 10/25/99
IT 'lr
IIC
B. Ordinllnce Modifications
Credits
The 1993 Oregon Legislature modified legislative requirements
concerning the provision of "credits" against SDC's for certain
improvements required as a condition of development approval. In
order to comply with these changes, replacement language for the SDC
ordinance has been drafted, as follows:
"Qualified Public Improvement" means a capital improvement that is required:
(1) Required as a condition of development approval;
(2) Identified in the adopted capital improvement plan (CIP); and
(b)
Not located on or contiguous to property that is the subject
of development approval, or
Located in whole or in part on or contiguous to property
that is the subject of development approval and required to
be built larger or with greater capacity than is necessary for
the particular development project to which the
improvement fee is related.
(3)
(a)
Annual Rate Adjustments
The current ordinance does not provide for annual adjustments in rates to
account for changes in costs of acquisition and development. The
following new language has been recommended to provide for annual
rate adjustments to account for changes in costs, as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision, the SDC rates adopted pursuant to
Ordinance No.ZZ'52' shall on January 1st of each year be. adjusted to
account for changes in the costs of acquiring and constructing facilities.
The adjustment factor shall be based on the change in average market
value of all land in the City, according to the records of the County Tax
Assessor, and the change in construction costs according to the
Engineering News Record (ENR) Northwest (Seattle, Washington)
Construction Cost Index; and shall be determined as follows:
Don Ganer & Associates
iii
as of 10/25/99
,..
lr
lie
Change in Average Market Value X 0.50
+ Change in Construction Cost Index X 0.50
System Development Charge Adjustment
Factor
The System Developmerit Charge Adjustment Factor shall be used to
adjust the System Development Charge rates, unless they are otherwise
adjusted by action of the City Council based on adoption of an updated
methodology or capital improvements plan (master plan).
.... ;--.'
~." .....
- .;
Don Ganer 6: Associates
iv
as of 10/25/99
IT 1r
liD
November 27, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council I~
John C. Brown, City Admlnlstrato~
Proposal To Share The Cost Of Refuse Containers In the Downtown Area
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve a cost-sharing proposal to place refuse
containers in the Downtown Area.
Background:
Earlier this year, the Mayor and I met with the President of the Woodburn
Downtown Association (WDA) to issues regarding Downtown Woodburn, and activities
and projects that should be conducted by the WDA. Among the issues discussed was the
need for more refuse containers, to improve the Downtown's appearance and to reduce
the time spent by Public Works crews collecting litter. It was agreed the WDA would
consider participating in the purchase of attractive, heavy-duty refuse containers, and work
with United Disposal to implement an enhanced pick-up program for the Downtown.
Discussion:
The WDA embraced this project, and worked with United Disposal to identify trash
containers that are attractive, heavy duty, cannot be easily moved, but can be emptied by
one of United Disposal's automated trucks. It is estimated twenty (20) containers are
needed, to place one on comers at each intersection on Front and First Streets. All
containers will be emptied weekly, but some may be emptied more often depending on
experience. As a public service, United will obtain the containers for the WDA and the
City at United's cost, and empty them for at least a year for no cost to either group. Each
container will cost $327. They are high impact plastic, with a base that can be filled with
sand to weigh each unit down, lidded, and brown in color. It is proposed that the WDA
and the City share the cost of the containers equally. We would then own the containers,
and be responsible for replacing them If damaged or stolen. United will replace any
containers damaged by collection. Delivery time for the containers is approximately eight
weeks. With your approval of this proposal, containers can be placed by late January of
early February 200 1.
Placing additional refuse containers In the Downtown is no guarantee they will be
used, or that Public Works crews will spend less time In the future collecting trash than
they do today. Additional containers, however, will make It more convenient for
consumers In the Downtown to throw refuse away, and provide less excuse for not having
'''''
'1f
liD
Honorable Mayor and City Council
November 27,2000
Page 2.
done so if stopped for a littering violation. In that regard, I have asked the Police
department to assume a zero-tolerance policy towards littering in the Downtown area. It is
expected the City will recoup its investment in this project through a decrease in time
spent by City crews collecting litter (and the corresponding increase in time spent
addressing other City needs), and by additional fine revenue associated with increase
enforcement of anti-litter regulations. It appears that the City's investment in this project
will be best returned, however, by an improvement in the appearance of the Downtown
area and in the general publics perception of the area. For these reasons, your approval of
the recommended action is respectfully requested.
Financial Impact:
The recommended action will cost the City $3,270. It Is proposed that this cost
be borne by available General Fund Balance, and that funds be fonnally allocated for the
purchase in January 2001 during this year's mid-year budget review.
JCB
'1 1Jr
15B
November 17, 2000
To: Mayors, Managers, and City Recorders
From: Dick Townsend
League of Oregon Cities
We would like to introduce a new project to those cities which didn't have the
chance to attend our annual conference or perhaps didn't see the recent
article in our October newsletter. Enclosed you will find a brochure about
"Legacy 2000". Our hope is to have all cities participate in this project.
The League has already received several interesting items. For example,
Pendleton sent a booklet about the city, Veneta and Roseburg a city pin, and
Beaverton a copy of their city charter. These are just a few examples of
what your city could contribute, or use your imagination and get really
creative.
Please help us reach our goal of 100% participation by sending us some
small token of your city.
If you have any questions, or need more information after reading the
enclosed brochure, please contact Dianne Huddleston, (503) 588-6550 at
the League. Hope to hear from you soon and thanks!
Enclosure
Working together for livable Oregon communities
!1 "Tr
~
t
~
~
~
8
t
~
f
~'
:' ';0"
8
t
~
f
J '11/'
,\I\,,',~-
r-----------------------
I '"Cl I
: _ ~>-1:
I ~ -~ I
I = ~ Q. :
I ~ a. ~ I
I f'-l 0 "" I
I ~ --
I = CllQ._'
, ,rA'
, Q. V4 _. I
I ~ ~.~ I
I CI.l =.....'
1::;- = -C)l'
1(1) "'l a"t-t I
ICll _. Cllt-t I
1 - .... I'll Cll I
II:\) ~ Cl101
I ~ a e.~. I
,I:;" f'-l Cll<'
, (1) .... o..::t. I
I I'll - ~ I
I - S' Otl I
I ~ .. I
, I:\) e. I
, ..... I
I 0 - I
, ..... =:r _. I
I N CI.l ~ Q.. >-1 Cll S I
, 0 e. a o::t. ~ Cll '
! :::~ tp ~ ~ ~ ~ !
I 0"" 0 I:\) () p,o'''C '
J ~ Q ~ ~ ~ "C' ;',~ I
: e;~ ~~ ~ s.~ i,t
I _. e 00..... ~ s ~ li!.{i
, - . ., ,. ~ p ,""
'~\O Q o..a. I
,! v ;:j ~ ~. 8..~:
tZl 0 0 ..... eo",:,
! ~ 00 ~ .~~.' .
! 8 ~ s.~,
I va ~. e- ~ l"j,
I ~ u ~ I ',.
I ~ e l-
I ~ ~ C'I
:w ~~I
:8 (1)lMl
, 0 :- I
I ~NI
I 00 1
I (1) 0 ,
I . 0'
! ',. ,I
I ',~I
I .~",.
L_____________ .
---------
gsr~'"d
..... '" S -
0.9. eo ~. g
::; _ 0 I'll
~(t0..0
- 0..' ....
o 0
;t~>S
0..=0
~ ..... S
;:J(ta'
~ S (1)
~m""
0009'
0.. = I:\)
~ a'-
,I'll ~ I'll
, .;:J '"d
-..... ~
o ::+ 0
9'(1)0
o 0.. .....
I'll I'll
g
-
0..
<'
~ ~ .....r.:. ..... ~
:=.: ..... 5 ~ a'= -,.,~ '"d ~ I:\) t""4
;;: ;,,~ : ,;,;~. ~ ~ [ II
o ~ g. ~ ~ e /~,o (1) I:\) ..... ~ '"d 0
"E.. (t ~ ~ ;:::. 8'; .~.... ft g (1) a =
~ I'll a' ~ = I;:+) e.. 0 I'll - t..=.. ~(1)
~ 8.=~ a"g S I-+)JIl~ g
0.. . ., I'll _ (1) .... - ~ ~ -
~ (1) Ei" t:l '"d "'< 0Cl go 0Cl - ~
<:~o..c::a"""o ~ (1)mOo..
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.t""4::s.a = g
tt~o' ~ 0.. t:r'~g~"d s:a
;:r I'll ~ ~ ~ 0 0 '" 0 -.....
(1) e".... ...... 0 = .... 1:\)::4. "" 0
'"d 8 0.. (1) = ~ =t. (1) I'll (1) (1) =
_ 0 0 ~o =t. ~ I ~ ~ ~ I'll
~ a .... 0 = 0 ..... 0 "0 S'
~ '" ~ I:\) .... F = 0 iii' I .... ~
~ ~ 0 fij' "'< ;;. ~ =t. ~ g ~
e: = 0 0 ~. 0 <: ..... f"\,
.~ = I'll =t:r'~-
0;:J.... (1)-c.
t:r' g ,. g 9' 8: =.
_~' . o' I'll
, ....
E;-O~CllO(J--3
o E; ct- ~ '"d -. -
~ t:O 0 0 - .....
~ 0 .... ~. = -. 0
~ 0 0 S' 0 ~ t""4
I:\) S 0'0Cl 0........ 0
~ S I:\) 0 S. c ~
= g.'"d _ ? =
(5'l::; .... '"d t:r' ~ 0
.... ~. 00 0 0 ~ '"d
9' ~. ~ a ~ ~ ;-
Cll_::r::;~.....,=
o 0 a _. ""'I _: I'll
o 0....... -< N ;s! S"
~I:\)m_-~
S"'<_OO ~
=. I:\) ~ fIJ 0 g ~
OQ = .....::r. 'is 0
(') 0..::; ~ --3 r.:. S
o ~OQ o::r;: a'
g. ::r 'E.. ~ 00. ~ 0'
.fi a ~ .......... - ~
'< 0_000
. oo::r~a'
E; S. 1:1 (1)
............ ~
g ~ :=.:g'g.~
OQ---oe
_. ~ a' g S" f3
g ~ (1) ~. a;j '"d
=t. ~ g fij' ~ 0'
o ....'"d'" "d I'll
e 0.:.... 0 t:r' ~
V. (1) (1) .... '" ;:J
""'l I:\) 0.. <: 0 ....
~ I'll _ .... .::;... qs..
= v 0 0.."'<: .....
I'll (1) -
~ 0 0.. 0 '"d .....
.... ..... -.=
s:0'~~ F g.
. -'-'00 ~ =
",<' I'll 0..
o ~a .(1)
E;::s"(1)ft~
(1)-..=
~ ~
~ e:
(1) g.
~. =:tl _. ::r ~
mV ~ ::s ~
---<:
..... 0 \0 (1) 0 (1)
S~ ~a'a>~
o IJ'" '" 0 '"
_~_g=a
o ..... t:r' ~-
9'NO~Ot:r'
..... 8. "'< ~ = (1)
=. 0 ,. 0.. t""4
~ ~ S' ~ 0
~~9'0 8.~
g",~o"g~(1)
--.J~;1t:r'0
g:.Vl~ftaER
o "'< ~ I:\) ..... (=)
~g 0 (') -",(1)
e~~~'g~
~ ...... I:\) 00 0
._ a I'll g- - t:r'
001:\)
"'.... ~ <:
o
15B
S..... t""4 ~ tI1
~] ~ g'O ;i ~
=t. 2 (1) =t. 3-. ~ ~
~ g. ~ ~ .a. g. ~
i ~ g i ~. i';."~~'~
0'.... ~ 0'- =-.,~,
.0;:J't:r'O' ·
.....~ (1) 0
-<=~<~ '
_ ~'m (D ~
o (1)-Sl20Cl
a'SUJ""l(1)
(1) gwo..
~ o..gS"
#e. S" =
",.& 9' I
Y (1)
,"*
.
.
.
tk ..
f
f
.
.
.
,.""
1"1
1f
15C
MEMORANDUM OPINION NO. 2000-03
TO: JOHN BROWN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
JIM MULDER, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FROM: N. ROBERT SHIELDS, CITY ATTORNEYM...~
SUBJECT: PROCEDURE ON REMAND
HUBENTHAL V. CITY OF WOODBURN
LUBA NO. 2000-050
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2000
I recently received the attached copy of the Final Opinion and Order from the Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA) in Allen L. Hubenthal v. City of Wood bum. et al. The following is my legal
analysis of the LUBA opinion and my assessment of what procedure is applicable on remand.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
When a case is appealed to LUBA, the appellant must specify certain "assignments of error."
These are legal arguments that an error occurred. LUBA normally addresses each of these
assignments individually. If the assignment of error is denied, LUBA concludes that there was
no legal error. If the assignment of error is sustained, LUBA usually remands the case to the
City in order to correct the error that was made on that point.
This appeal involved 34 assignments of error. Each assignment was addressed by LUBA and 29
assignments of error were denied. LUBA sustained the 24th, 25th and 26th assignments of error
and sustained a portion of the 33rd and 34th assignments of error in part.
24TH. 25TH AND 26TH ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
The assignments of error all involve Section 11.070 (d) of the W oodbum Zoning Ordinance
which provides as follows:
Access to the public street shall minimize the impact of traffic patterns.
Whenever possible, direct driveway access shall not be allowed to arterial streets.
Whenever possible, access shall be shared with adjacent uses of a similar nature.
In sustaining these assignments of error, LUBA stated: "We agree with petitioner that the City's
findings are inadequate to address the requirement ofWZO 11.070 (d) that whenever possible
direct driveway access shall not be allowed to arterial streets. On remand, the City must supply
IT
lr
15C
Memorandum Opinion No. 2000-03
November 21, 2000
Page 2
a more complete explanation of its reasons for why is it not possible to deny direct driveway
access to Boones Ferry Road."
33RD AND 34TH ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
LUBA also sustained the 33rd and 34th assignments of error related to Section 11.070 (h) of the
Woodburn Zoning Ordinance. That section of the ordinance states as follows:
The location, design, color and materials of the exterior of all structures and signs
are compatible with the proposed development and appropriate to the character of
the immediate neighborhood.
In partially sustaining these assignments of error, LUBA stated:
Finally, WZO 11.070(h) also requires that the city consider the compatibility of
the proposed "signs." As far as we can tell the city did not do so. Intervenors cite
to pages in the record that show the proposed locations and design of two
proposed entry monument signs. Record 312, 316. Intervenors argue that based
on this evidence we may overlook the missing fmdings. ORS 197.835(11)(b)
(LUBA may overlook defective fmdings where "evidence in the record * * *
clearly supports the decision"). We do not agree. The evidence cited by
intervenors does not provide more than an idea of what the proposed signs will
look like. It is not evidence that clearly supports a decision that the signs are, in
the words of WZO 11.070(h), "compatible with the proposed development and
appropriate to the character of the immediate neighborhood." Moreover, whether
any given particular sign complies with the "compatibility" standard in WZO
11.070(h) calls for the kind of highly subjective judgment that generally makes
reliance on ORS 197.835(11)(b) inappropriate. Waugh v. Coos County, 26 Or
LUBA 300, 307-08 (1993). On remand the city must consider whether the
proposed signs comply with WZO 11.070(h).
PROCEDURE ON REMAND
As a first step, the City must receive a written request from the applicant asking it to proceed
with the application on remand. After this written request is received, the remand must be
processed within 90 days pursuant to ORS 227.181.
Second, a public hearing on remand will then be noticed and scheduled before the City Council.
Third, the scope of the hearing on remand must be limited to the assignments of error which
LUBA sustained. In other words, the only matters that may be addressed are the issues LUBA
,.,
1T
L5C
Memorandum Opinion No. 2000-03
November 21, 2000
Page 3
raised under Section 11.070(d) and 11.070(h) of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance.
Fourth, after the public hearing is conducted, the City Council must make a determination as to
whether the two relevant portions of the Zoning Ordinance have been adequately addressed.
If the City Council finds that substantial evidence exists in the record that these requirements
have been met, a motion should be made to direct staff to prepare an amended final order
approving the application with the appropriate findings and conclusions.
If, on the other hand, the City Council finds that substantial evidence addressing the Zoning
Ordinance requirements does not exist, staff should be instructed to prepare an order denying the
application with appropriate findings and conclusions.
Enclosure: Final Opinion and Order
'T" 1fr
15C
2
BEFORE THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF OREGON
.,
j
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
ALLEN L. HUBENTHAL,
Petitioner.
vs.
CITY OF WOODBURN,
Respondent.
and
EUGENE R. GASCHO AND JUDITH A. GASCHO,
Trustees of the Eugene R. Gascho Trust,
JUDITH A. GASCHO AND EUGENE R. GASCHO,
Trustees of the Judith A. Gascho Trust
WILLIS A. BYERS, RACHEL L. BYERS,
RODNEY LEE BYERS AND MARCIA KATHRYN BYERS,
Trustees of the Rodney Lee Byers Trust, and
MARCIA KATHRYN BYERS AND RODNEY LEE BYERS,
Trustees of the Marcia Kathryn Byers Trust,
Intervenors-Respondent.
LUBA No. 2000-050
FINAL OPINION
AND ORDER
Appeal from City of Wood bum.
Donald M. Kelley, Silverton, filed the petition for review and argued on behalf of
petitioner. With him on the briefwere Patrick E. Doyle and Kelley and Kelley.
No appearance by City of Woodburn.
Anthony R. K.reitzberg, Salem, filed the response brief and argued on behalf of
intervenors-respondent. With him on the brief was Garrett, Hemann, Robertson, Jennings,
Comstock & Trethewy.
HOLSTON, Board Member; BASSHAM, Board Chair; BRIGGS, Board Member,
participated in the decision.
REMANDED
1110312000
You are entitled to judicial review of this Order. Judicial review is governed by the
provisions ofORS 197.850.
Page 1
,..... 11"
15C
Opinion by Holstun.
2 NATURE OF THE DECISION
3 The challenged decision (1) annexes property to the city, (2) amends the city's
4 comprehensive plan, (3) grants conditional zone changes, (4) approves a site plan with
5 conditions, and (5) serves to permit the placement and construction of a multi-family assisted
6 living facility. The proposed facility would provide 102 "suites" and includes facilities to
7 house and serve 12 persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease.
8 MOTION TO INTERVENE
9 Eugene R. Gascho and Judith A. Gascho, trustees of the Eugene R. Gascho Trust:
10 Judith A. Gascho and Eugene R. Gascho, trustees of the Judith A. Gascho Trust; Willis A.
11 Byers; Rachel L. Byers; Rodney Lee Byers and Marcia Kathryn Byers, trustees of the
12 Rodney Lee Byers Trust; and Marcia Kathryn Byers and Rodney Lee Byers, trustees of the
13 Marcia Kathryn Byers Trust, the applicants below, move to intervene on the side of
14 respondent in this appeal. There is no opposition to the motion, and it is allowed.
15 FACTS
16 The essential facts regarding the proposed assisted living facility are not in dispute.
17 The site for the proposed assisted living facility totals approximately 4.3 acres.
18 Approximately .98 acre of the subject property is already within the city. Approximately
19 3.32 acres are currently outside the city limits but within the city's urban growth boundary
20 (UGB). The 3.32 acres are annexed by the challenged decision.
21 The entire subject property is designated Low-Density Residential (LDR) on the
22 Woodburn Comprehensive Plan (WCP) map. The .98-acre portion of the property located in
23 the city is zoned Single Family Residential. The 3.32 acres located outside city limits are
24 zoned Urban Transition Farm by Marion County. The challenged decision changes the
25 comprehensive plan map designation for the entire 4.3-acre subject property to High Density
26 Residential (HDR) and rezones the property to Multiple Family Residential (MFR).
Page 2
I,. 1r
l5C
The site is relatively undeveloped, with only two single-family units and two barns on
2 the subject property. There are two schools about 600 feet to the south of the property.
3 Boones Ferry Road runs north and south and borders the subject property on the east.
4 Country Club Road runs east and west and borders the subject property on the north"
5 Residential zoning and uses adjoin the subject property to the south and west.
6 The approved site plan proposes two buildings: "Building 1" consisting of 70 suites
7 and "Building 2" consisting of 12 Alzheimer's patient suites.l The buildings will cover
8 approximately 24 percent of the site.
9 INTRODUCTION
10 The petition for review includes 34 assignments of error. In those assignments of
11 error, petitioner argues the challenged decision violates a total of 13 separate approval criteria
12 in various ways. The argument following petitioner's assignments of error frequently
13 includes criticisms of the city's decision without developing those criticisms or making any
14 substantial attempt to relate the criticism to a relevant legal standard. Attempting to
15 acknowledge and address every undeveloped criticism would needlessly lengthen this
16 opinion, and we therefore do not do so. Norvell v. Portland Area LGBC, 43 Or App 849,
17 851,604 P2d 896 (1979); Neuberger v. City of Portland, 37 Or App 13, 19, 586 P2d 351
18 (1978), aff'd288 Or 155,603 P2d 771 (1979), rehearing den 288 Or 585 (1980).2
19 Petitioner's many assignments of error challenge three aspects of "the city's decision.
20 The first three assignments of error challenge the annexation. The fourth through the
21 nineteenth assignments of error challenge the comprehensive plan and zoning map
'The challenged decision also approves an additional 20 units for Building I, to be constructed in a second
phase in the future.
2Petitioner also frequently "incorporates by reference" arguments that petitioner presents elsewhere in the
petition for review, without making any attempt to identify precisely what arguments are being incorporated or
how those arguments might relate to the subsequent assignment of error.
Page 3
'" lr
15C
amendment. Finally, petitioner's remaining 15 assignments of error challenge the site plan
2 approval. We address petitioner's assignments of error under each of these three categories.
3 ANNEXATION (FIRST THROUGH THIRD ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR)
-1
A.
WCP Annexation Policy D-l
5 WCP Annexation Policy 0-1 provides:
6 "Annexation policies are extremely important for the City. While it is
7 important that enough land is available for the necessary development
8 anticipated in the City of Woodburn, it is also essential to prevent too much
9 land being included in the city limits as this leads to inefficient, sprawling
10 development. Because of the need to plan for public improvements, the City
II should insure that there is a five year supply of vacant land within the City.
12 Services should be provided to that land during that five year period."
13 The challenged decision adopts the following findings addressing WCP Annexation Policy
14 D-1 :
15 "The Urban Growth Boundary was adopted in 1980. lbis boundary
16 designates areas outside Woodburn's City Limits that could be annexed to
17 accommodate growth to the-year 2000. The annexation of [the subject
18 property] is to accommodate the growth demands of the City in a timely
19 manner. The subject property is contiguous to the current city limits -line on
20 the west and south and across Country Club Road on the north. Because the
21 site is almost an island surrounded by - the city, because city facilities are
22 adjacent, and because there is urban development on all sides of it, it cannot
23 be considered 4sprawling'. The applicant states that the need for another
24 retirement center in the city and the surrounding development [make] this a
25 timely .annexation and development This site is one of only a few large
26 parcels of land available for multi-family development without substantial
27 extension of urban services." Record 13:-
28 Petitioner faults the above findings because they do not explain why annexing the subject.
29 property is necessary to maintain a five-year supply of vacant land in the city.
30 The city council does not adopt an express interpretation of Annexation Policy D-l.
31 Although it is possible to interpret Annexation Policy D-l to require that the city include no
32 more than a five-year supply of land, as petitioner does, it is reasonably clear that the city
33 does not interpret Annexation Policy D-1 in that way. The city's fmdings focus on the
34 language in the policy that requires that the city not include 4~OO much land" which could
35 lead '~o inefficient, sprawling development." In other words, the city treats Annexation
Page 4
'" 1fr
15C
Policy 0-1 as a general anti-sprawl standard rather than a precise five-year land supply
2 standard. We defer to the city council's implicit interpretation. Alliance for Responsible
') Land Use v. Deschutes Cry, 149 Or App 259, 267-68, 942 P2d 836 (1997), rev dismissed 327
4 Or 555(1998).
5 The challenged findings explain why the subject property's contiguity with city limits
6 and existing development lead the city to conclude that annexing the subject property "cannot
7 be considered 'sprawling. '" Record 13. Petitioner does not challenge the adequacy of those
8 findings. We conclude they are both adequate and supported by substantial evidence.
9 Petitioner's challenge concerning Annexation Policy D-1 is rejected.
10
11
B.
Failure to Address Plan Annexation Goals and Policies Other than Policy
D-l
12 As discussed above, the challenged decision adopts findings addressing Annexation
13 Policy D-1. Petitioner argues the city erred by failing to adopt findings addressing five other
14 WCP Annexation Goals and six other WCP Annexation Policies.
15 The WCP Annexation Goals and Policies cited by petitioner were adopted and
16 became effective October 1999, after the application that led to the challenged decision was
17 filed and made complete.3 The challenged decision is a "permit," as that term is defined by
18 ORS 227.160(2).4 Under ORS 227.178(3), permits and zone changes are subject to "the
19 standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first submitted."
20 Sunburst II Homeowners v. City of West Linn, 18 Or LUBA 695, 700-01, affd 101 Or App
21 458, 790 P2d 1213 (1990). We agree with intervenors that the cited WCP Annexation Goals
22 and Policies are not applicable approval criteria in this matter. Therefore the city~s failure to
23 address these subsequently adopted goals and policies is not error.
lIt is not clear when the application was submitted, but it was deemed "complete" on July 19, 1999, well
before the October 1999 WCP amendments took effect. Record 112.
~As relevant, ORS 227.160(2) provides that "'[p]ennit' means discretionary approval of a proposed
development of land · · .."
Page 5
,,,.. 11"
15C
C. Marion County Opportunity for Comment
2 WCP Growth and Urbanization Policy M-6 provides as follows:
3 "Upon receipt of an annexation request or the initiation of annexation
4 proceedings by the City, the City shall forward information regarding the
5 request (including any proposed zone change) to the County for comments
6 and recommendations. The County shall have twenty days to respond unless
7 [it] request[s] and the City allows additional time to submit cornments before
8 the City makes a decision on the annexation proposal."
9 Petitioner argues "[t]here is no evidence in the record that the City ever forwarded the
10 Applicants' request for annexation to the county for its review and approval." Petition for
11 Review 8.
12 As an initial point, we agree with intervenors that the above-quoted WCP policy does
13 not require that the county review and approve annexation requests. It simply requires that
14 the city forward the request to the .county and allow at least 20 days for the county to
15 respond. Intervenors cite a finding in the challenged decision that the proposal "was
16 coordinated with Marion County * * *." Record 22. Coordination requires an "exchange of
17 information" and a balancing of "the needs of all governmental units." Rajneesh v. Wasco
18 County, 13 Or LUBA 202, 210 (1985). Petitioner cites no evidence in the record that would
19 call the cited finding into question. Absent such evidence, we reject petitioner's substantial
20 evidence challenge. See Leathers v. Marion County, 144 Or App 123, 129, 925 P2d 148
21 (1996) (absent some evidence to the contrary, recital in ordinance that required notice was
22 given is sufficient to establish that notice was given).
23 Petitioner's challenge regarding WCP Growth and Urbanization Policy M-6 is denied.
24 The first, second and third assignments of error are denied.
25 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT CRITERIA
26 (FOURTH THROUGH NINETEENTH ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR)
27 Woodburn Zoning Ordinance (WZO) Chapter 16 establishes the procedures and
28 criteria that apply where the city amends its comprehensive plan map and zoning map. WZO
Page 6
,..
1r
15C
16.050 establishes comprehensive plan map amendment criteria.5 WZO 16.080 establishes a
2 separate burden of proof that must be met to amend the comprehensive plan map and the
3 zoning map.6 We address petitioner's challenges under these criteria below.
4
A.
Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals (WZO 16.050(a))
5 WZO 16.050(a) requires that the city show "[t]he proposal complies with all
6 applicable Statewide Goals and Guidelines." In his fourth, fifth and sixth assignments of
7 error, petitioner says the city failed to establish that the proposal complies with a number of
8 statewide planning goals.
5WZO 16.050 is as follows:
"Plan Amendment Criteria. Before a Plan Amendment can be made, the Common Council
must fmd that the proposal meets the following criteria:
"(a) The proposal complies with all applicable Statewide Goals and Guidelines..
"(b) The proposal complies with the remaining Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
"(c) There is a clearly demonstrated public need for the proposed aniendment.
"(d) The proposal best satisfies the public need."
6WZO 16.080 provides as follows:
"Burden of Proof. The following specific questions shall be given consideration in
evaluating requests regarding plan and zoning amendments and are as follows:
"(a) To support an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant shall:
"( I ) Prove that the original plan was in error;
"(2) Show that the community has changed since the original plan was adopted;
or
"(3) Show that there has been a change in the planning and growth policy of the
City.
"(b) To support a zone change, the applicant shall:
"( I ) Show there is a need for the use proposed;
"(2) Show that the particular piece of property in question will best meet that
need.
u. . . . ."
Page 7
!..,- r
11"
15C
1. Goal 2 (Land Use Planning)
2 Petitioner presents three cognizable arguments under this subassignment of error.
:) Goal 2 requires that the decision be supported by an "adequate factual base," that the city
4 "[evaluate] alternative courses of action."' and that the city "coordinate" its decision with
5 "affected governmental units." Petitioner argues the challenged decision docs not establish
6 compliance with these Goal 2 requirements.
7 We reject petitioner's "adequate factual base" argument under Goal 2. There is a
8 significant amount of evidence in the record. Other assignments of error in the petition for
9 review challenge the adequacy of that evidence to demonstrate compliance with criteria other
10 than Goal 2. Where those assignments of error could provide a basis for remand, and are
11 sufficiently developed, we address them elsewbere in this opinion. However, petitioner
12 makes no attempt to explain why the three-volume evidentiary record in this matter is
13 insufficient to comply with the more general Goal 2 requirement that a challenged plan
14 amendment be supported by an adequate factual base.
15 We also reject petitioner's argument that the city did not "[evaluate] alternative
16 courses of action." The directive in Goal 2 to consider alternative courses of action is a very
17 general directive. Intervenors identify fin,dings in the decision that explain how the proposal
18 will have advantages over single-family development. Although those findings are not
19 specifically directed at Goal 2, they do show some "evaluation of alternative courses of
20 action." Absent a more focused and developed argument by petitioner, we fail to see how
21 this aspect of Goal 2 is violated by the challenged decision.
22 Finally, for reasons we have already explained under our prior discussion of WCP
23 Growth and Urbanization Policy M-6, we reject petitioner's "coordination" argument under
24 Goal 2.
Page 8
IT '1r
15C
1
2
2.
Goals 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality) and 11 (Public
Facilities and Services).
:; Petitioner next claims violation of Goals 6 and 11 because the city did not specifically
4 address thcse goals in its findings. Goal 6 is a requirement to "rnaintain and improve the
5 quality of thc air, watcr and land rcsourccs of the state." It says, among other things, that
6 waste discharges from futurc developments, in combination with existing developments, are
7
not to violate applicable cnvironmental quality standards.
Goal 11 requires that
8 comprehensive plans provide for the "timely, orderly and efficient arrangernent of public
9 facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural devcloprnent." The city's
1 0 decision talks about public utilities and services, including storm drainage, in the context of
11 applicable plan and zoning ordinance criteria. That is, while the city's findings do not
12 include a direct discussion of Goals 6 and 11, the findings do address issues relevant to these
13 goals and to the services required for the proposed assisted living development.
14 Petitioner does not allege that this plan amendment affects the city's overall ability to
15 provide for clean air and water or public facilities and services.' On its face, then, it does not
16 appear the city's plan amendment, annexation of territory and approval of the assisted living
17 facility affect the city's compliance with Goals 6 and 11 under its acknowledged
18 comprehensive plan. Nothing in the city's findings about needed services suggests the
19 challenged decision will undermine the city's ability to provide such services! Without
20 some threshold showing by petitioner that the city's compliance with Goals 6 and 11 is
21 affected by this plan map amendment, we decline to find reversible error in the city's failure
22 to address these goals specifically.
23 Petitioner's Goal 6 and Goal 11 arguments are rejected.
7 Petitioner does attack the city's approval of the development site plan on the grounds the matter of stonn
water was not properly addressed. Our review of the city's fmdings and the record does not show the city's
treatment of this issue puts its delivery of public services at risk.
'In fact the city relies in part on the ready availability of most public services to justifY the challenged
decision.
Page 9
,,,... "rr
15C
1
,
3.
Goals 10 (Housing), 12 (fransportation), 13 (Energy
Conservation) and 14 (Urbanization)
~ Petitioner argues the challenged decision violates Goal 10, which requires that the
4 city provide "for the housing needs of citizens of the state." However, petitioner does not
:) explain how the annexation and designation of the subject property for multi-family use
6 upsets the city.s compliance with Goal 10. Petitioner's argument about compliance with
7 Goal 10 centers on the city's claim that there is a "public need" for more land in the city that
8 is planned and zoned for multi-family use. We discuss the city's findings concerning "public
9 need" later in this opinion. We note, however, that nothing in petitioner's argument suggests
10 the city's action renders the city's supply of buildable land for needed housing inadequate.
11 To the contrary, petitioner argues the city already has an adequate supply of land planned and
12 zoned for multi-family use. Petitioner's unstated premise is that Goal 10 prohibits including
13 more land that is planned and zoned for multi-family use than the comprehensive plan
14 identifies as "needed." Petitioner makes no attempt to explain why he believes Goal 1 0
15 imposes such a maximum requirement, and we do not believe that it does.9 We therefore
16 reject petitioner's Goal 10 argument
17 The city adopted relatively extensive findings about Goal 12, which requires the
18 provision and encouragement of a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.
19 Petitioner discounts the city's findings and the transportation study supporting the proposed
20 development and asserts the proposal will violate Goal 12 because it will clog intersections in
21 proximity to it. Petitioner cites a portion of the record in which one of the city planning
22 commissioners notes that Highway 214 at its intersection with Boones Ferry Road is
23 "running pretty close to capacity." Record 104. We are cited to no other evidence or
90f course, at some point, including unneeded urban and urbanizable land within the UGB might violate
Goal 14 or other statewide planning goals. However, Goal 10 does not require the level of precision in
matching the supply of vacant buildable lands and the identified need for particular categories of needed
housing that petitioner assumes is required under the goal.
Page 10
,or 1r
15C
expression of opinion suggesting that this proposal will clog or even significantly affect the
2 city's transportation system.
.1 The city's Goal 12 findings conclude the proposed use will "not have a significant
4 impact on the street system and all intersections within the area will operate at acceptable
5 levels of service during the peak hours of the road system." Record 22-23. The record
6 includes a traffic study. Record 258-308. That traffic study concludes the site will generate
7 approximately 538 vehicle trips per day, that the intersections along Boones Ferry Road will
8 operate at an acceptable level of service and that the development can be constructed with
9 minimal impact to the surrounding street system. Record 281. The city Public Works
10 Department reviewed the traffic study and agreed with it. Record 147. This evidence is
11 substantial evidence supporting the city's fmding.10 See Reeves v. Washington County, 24 Or
12 LUBA 483, 490 (1993) (information provided by a traffic count at a single location is
13 substantial evidence absent evidence that it is unreliable). Petitioner cites us to no evidence
14 of sufficient quality to overcome this evidence. . That one planning commissioner questioned
15 the traffic study does not establish that the applicant's transportation study was .wrong or is -
16 somehow unworthy of belief by reasonable persons. Petitioner's Goal 12 arguments are
17 rejected.
18 Goal 13 calls for land uses to be managed and controlled "so as to maximize the
19 conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles." Petitioner
20 attacks the city's compliance with Goal 13, arguing the access to the site is not direct and
21 efficient and that the level of congestion shows it is likely the proposed development will
22 result in a waste of energy.
IOSubstantial evidence exists to support a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would pennit
a reasonable person to make that fmding. Dodd \1. Hood River County, 317 Or 172, 179,855 P2d 608 (1993).
A decision may be supported by substantial evidence under this standard, even if it is not the same decision a
reviewing appellate body might make based on the same evidence. Younger \1. City of Portland, 305 Or 346,
359, 752 P2d 262 (I 988).
Page 11
!" 1T'
15C
Goal 13 addresses energy conservation as part of the comprehensive planning
2 process. Even if the goal may have some bearing on relatively small individual development
3 decisions such as the one at issue in this appeal, petitioner's argument does not make any
4 attempt to explain how a development of this size will have any effect whatever on the city's
5 efforts to make efficient use of energy. The city addressed Goal 13, noting the placement of
6 the facility near public services including mass transit and commercial areas. The city's
7 findings also note that trees shade the buildings and that the current insulation and code
8 requirements will ensure minimum loss of heat. Record 21. Nothing in the record suggests
9 that a 102-unit assisted living facility bordering an arterial street, with nearby mass transit
10 and a clientele that will not be heavy users of automobiles, will waste energy or otherwise
11 affect the city's compliance with Goal 13. Petitioner's Goal 13 arguments are without merit.
12 Petitioner next alleges violation of Goal 14, which requires provision for "an orderly
13 and efficient transition from rural to urban land use." Petitioner asserts the city violated Goal
14 14 -by failing to explain how the proposed use ensures an "orderly and efficient transition
15 from rural to urban land use;'.!cThe-proposal does not authorize development of rural areas or
-16 authorize conversion of rural.. land to urban or urbanizab1e land. The territory to be annexed
17 is already within the city's urban growth boundary, which separates urban and urbanizable
18 lands from rural lands. There is, then, no conversion from rural land to urban land associated
19 with this development. Rather, the subject property was "converted" "from rural to urban
20 land use" within the meaning of Goal 14, when the UGB was established and the subject
21 property was included inside the established UGB. Petitioner's Goal 14 argwnents are
22 without merit.
23 Petitioner's fourth, fifth and sixth assignments of error are denied.
24 B. Compliance with Plan Goals and Objectives (WOO 16.0S0(b))
25 Petitioner's seventh and eighth assignments of error complain that the city failed to
26 address the WZO 16.050(b) requirement that an applicant for a comprehensive plan
Page 12
,.,.-
".
15C
amendment must demonstrate that "[t]hc proposal complies with the remaining Goals and
2 Policies of the Comprehcnsive Plan." Thc city's findings addressing WZO 16.050(b)
3 incorporate by reference the findings in "scction VI-A." Record 23. Petitioner's entire
4 argwnent under the seventh and eighth assignments of error is that "[t]herc is no section 'VI-
5 A' in the city's decision * * 4o." Petition for Review 15.
6 Intervenors respond that the challenged finding mistakenly cited the wrong section of
7 the findings docwnent. According to intervenors, the intcnded reference was to section IV-A
8 rather than section VI-A. Section IV -A includes several pages of findings addressing
9 comprehensive plan goals and policies. Record 10- 15.
10 Intervenors are correct. The mistaken reference in the finding could not have misled
11 petitioner, because there is no section VI-A and it is obvious that section IV-A addresses
.12 comprehensive plan goals and policies.
13 Petitioner's seventh and eighth assignments of error are denied.
14
15
16
c.
Public Need for the Proposed Amendment (WZO 16.0S0{c) and (d) and
WZO 16.080(b))
1.
Introduction
17 WZO 16.050(c) and (d) and WZO 16.080(b) impose similar, but not identical, "public
18 need" criteria for comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments.11 WZO 16.050(c) and
19 (d) require that a comprehensive plan map amendment be justified by a "clearly demonstrated
20 public need for the proposed amendment" and that the "proposal best satisfIy] the need."
21 Support for a zoning map amendment under WZO 16.080(b) requires showings that (I)
22 ''there is a need for the use proposed" and (2) "the particular piece of property in question
23 will best meet that need."
24 The city's "public need" standards are likely relics from Fasano v. Washington Co.
25 Comm., 264 Or 574, 581, 507 P2d 23 (1973), which imposed similar standards as generally
IlSee ns 5 and 6. The WZO does not defme the term .'public need."
Page 13
'"
1T
15C
applicable requirements for all quasi-judicial zoning map amendments. Burlington Northern
2 v. Jefferson County, 13 Or LUI3A 274, 279 n 3 (1985). However, the Fasano "public need"
~ standards arc no longer generally applicable land use criteria, and they apply only where a
-4 local government's comprehensive plan or land use regulations impose them. Neuberger v.
S City of Portland. 288 Or 155, 170, 603 P2d 771 (1979), rehearing den 288 Or 585 (1980);
6 Friends of Cedar Mill v. Washington County, 28 Or LUBA 477, 485 (1995). Of course here
7 the city's zoning ordinance does impose a "public need" standard. Importantly, however, the
8 city's "public need" criteria are now purely requirements of local law; and where the city
9 council expressly or implicitly interprets local law, those interpretations are entitled to
10 deference on review. Gage v. City of Portland, 319 Or 308, 317,877 P2d 1187 (1994);
11 compare Forster v. Polk County, liS Or App 475, 478, 839 P2d 241 (1992) (local
12 government interpretations of state law are not entitled to the deferential standard of review
13 required by ORS 197.829(1) and Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508,836 P2d 710 (1992)).
14 Because the challenged decision's treatment of these criteria overlaps and the parties'
15 arguments do not always distinguish between WZO 16.050(c) and (d) and WZO 16.080(b),
16 we also combine our discussion of the parties arguments concerning those criteria. The order
17 and manner in which the challenged decision addresses these criteria, and the manner in
18 which petitioner attacks and intervenors defend the decision, do not readily lend themselves
19 to analysis. To facilitate our analysis of the parties' arguments, we first consider WZO
20 16.080(a). Then we address the "public need" requirements ofWZO 16.080(b)(1) and WZO
21 16.050(c). Finally, we consider the requirements under WZO 16.050(d) and WZO
22 16.080(b)(2) that the proposal be the "best" solution to satisfy the identified need.
23 2. Change in the Community (WZO 16.080(8))
24 To approve a change in the comprehensive plan map for the subject property, WZO
25 16.080(a) requires a threshold showing that one of three circumstances exists. See n 6. The
26 circumstance the city found to exist here is "that the community has changed since the
Page 14
,..
'1r
lSC
original plan was adopted." WZO 16.080(a)(2). Petitioner argues the city's findings
2 regarding WZO 16.080(a) are inadequate and are not supported by substantial evidence.
3 The city found that (I) as the age of the population increases, more facilities serving
4 this population will be needed, (2) the original comprehensive plan did not anticipate that
5 such a change would occur, and (3) it would require land designated for multi-family
6 development in order to provide the needed services. These findings are sufficient to provide
7 the rationale required by WZO 16.080(a).
8 In support of these findings, intervenors cite 1994 census data, which estimated the
9 Woodburn population of persons over 75 years of age to be 1,569 people.12 Intervenors also
10 cite the applicant's survey, which shows some 2,131 people over 75 years of age in the
11 Woodburn area as of 1998. Record 229. These figures show an increase in the elderly
12 population of some 562 persons in the Woodburn area. The city relied on this increase in the
13 segment of the population over 75 years of age to conclude that the ..community has
14 changed" criterion in WZO 16.080(a)(2) is met.
15 The criterion imposed by WZO 16.080(a)(2) is extremely subjective. A wide range
16 of circumstances might be sufficient to satisfy such a standard. We conclude the city's
17 findings are sufficient to show the "community has changed since the original plan was
18 adopted," within the meaning ofWZO 16.080(a)(2).
19 The fourteenth and fifteenth assignments of error are denied.
20 3. Public Need for the Use Proposed (WZO 16.080(b)(1))
21 WZO 16.080(b)(1) requires that the applicant for a change in zoning establish a
22 public need for the "use proposed." The focus under WZO 16.080(b)(1) appears to be on the
23 proposed use rather than on a need for more MFR-zoned land.
12 WCP 36.
Page 15
,..
1T
15C
In addressing WZO I 6.080(b)(1), the city relies largely on findings that it adopts to
2 address other criteria. Record 25. Those findings explain the need for the proposed use by
3 identifying a need for assisted living projects for senior citizens. The city found there are
4 2,131 senior citizens aged 75 years and above and 265 residents of existing retirement and
5 assisted living facilities in the city. Record 23-24. According to the city
6 "[m]any of the current assisted living projects in Woodburn have avoided
7 taking Medicaid residents who require high levels of care. The proposed
8 project will accommodate level 4 and 5 Medicaid residents who need high
9 levels of care, including incontinence care." Id.
10 The city concludes that 1,866 elderly seniors remain who may need assisted living or
11 retirement units. The proposed project will provide housing units for about 10 percent of
12 these persons. The city finds there is a four percent vacancy rate at existing assisted living
13 facilities. According to the city such a vacancy rate indicates a "tight market and a need for
14 more units." Record 24.
15 The city adds that presently there is a 15-unit Alzheimer's care facility in the city. Id.
16 The city cites estimates that more than three percent of persons over the age of 65 have some
17 form of Alzheimer's disease. From these figures, the city concludes that approximately 64
18 persons in the Woodburn area have some form of the-disease. ld. .We understand the city to
19 say that the total number of Alzheimer's patients is not served by the existing 15-unit care
20 facility.
21 We conclude the above findings are adequate to establish a public need for the ''use
22 proposed," within the meaning ofWZO 16.080(b)(l). It is apparent from the above findings
23 that the city interprets WZO 16.080(bXI) as being met where there is a statistical probability
24 that the segment of the population that the assisted care facility is intended to serve will need
25 the facility. We defer to that interpretation. In addition, while petitioner disputes the
26 sufficiency of the evidence that the city relied upon in adopting the above findings, we
27 conclude that it is substantial evidence.
28 The sixteenth and seventeenth assignments of error are denied.
Page 16
,..,... 'In"
15C
4. Public Need for the Proposed Amendment (WZO 16.080(b)(1))
2 Petitioner argues the city erred as a matter of law in finding that the proposal
3 complies with WZO 16.050(c) because the city improperly focuses on a need for the
4 proposed use rather than a need for the proposed plan amendment. Petitioner also argues the
5 city's findings under WZO 16.050(c) are inadequate and unsupported by substantial
6 evidence.
7 Unlike WZO 16.080(b)(l), which focuses on the "use proposed," WZO 16.050(c)
8 requires a "clearly demonstrated public need for the proposed amendment." In other words,
9 following the approach taken by the city in this matter, having established a public need for
I 0 the "use proposed" under WZO 16.080(b)(1), the city must then show there is a public need
II for more HDR-designated land to accommodate the proposed use, to comply with wzo
12 16.050(c).
13 Petitioner argues that because there is vacant HDR-designated land within the current
14 city limits, and additional vacant HDR-designated land outside the city limits and inside the
IS UGB, there can be no need for additional HDR-designated land as a matter oflaw. Petitioner
16 might be correct if the city were basing its decision on a general need for more HDR-
17 designated land. However, the city based its decision on (1) a specific need for. the proposed
18 use and (2) the unsuitability of existing HDR-designated land within the city limits and
19 outside the city limits but inside the UGH. The city's interpretation and application ofWZO
20 16.050(c) to allow designation of additional HDR land to accommodate such a special need
21 in such circumstances is well within its interpretive discretion under ORS 197.829(1') and
22 Clark. We turn to petitioner's findings and evidentiary challenges.
23 In addressing the related "best" site criterion in WZO 16.080(b)(2), the city coWlcil
24 adopted the following findings:
25 u. · · The land use inventory · · · in the Comprehensive Plan dated January
26 1996 indicates that there are less than 86 acres of multi-family zoned land
27 available for development within the city limits of Woodburn. There are
28 approximately 121 acres of multi-family zoned land within the urban growth
Page 17
'" '1r
lSC
,
boundary for development. The land outside of the city, but within the urban
gro\\1h houndary. docs not have the city services necessary to support the
proposed use. ^ review of the available parcels within the City of Woodbull1
/oned l~)r ll111lti-Lul1ily sl1\1\\'s that these parcL'ls are either nnl liskd fn! sak.
have road :.ICCeS5 prohlems. ll! arc eithe! tIll) small or tnn large 1m the
proposed use .. .. .... Recnrd I fl
,4
.,
()
7
Ihe relevant I.juestlon under W/J) ] (d))()( C) ;lppears to h(' wlwtl1cl :>Iks t1);11 ;J/e
X d/n'dlh' designd{{'d III)R ;lrc suitahle for tlw n\..'cded u;..(' 111(' ;lhm (. llndings nplalll \\11\
I) none of the land that is Il1silk the U(iB ;lI1d u/u'lllh planned and /l)fh.'d 1()f Illulti-Llll1ih us\.'
I (I is appropriate for the proposed use Assuming these tindings arc supplllwd }n suhstantial
II evidence, we belic\T they arc adequate to estahlish a need for additional IJDR-designatcd
12 land to accommodate the identified need for a multi-family assisted living facilIty.
13 The findings are supported by an analysis that was submitted by the applicant,
14 Record 432-34. That analysis examined nine sites inside the urban growth boundary and
15 concluded for various reasons that none of those nine sites is suitable for the needed facility.
16 Although we might question some of the reasons that were given to reject some ofthose sites
17 as unsuitable, petitioner does not specifically challenge the analysis. Absent such a
18 challenge, we conclude the analysis constitutes substantial evidence that additional
19 HDR-designated land is needed to accommodate the proposed use.
20 The ninth, tenth and eleventh assignments of error are denied.
21
22
S.
The Best Proposal and Best Site Criteria (WZO 16.0S0(d) and
16.080(b)(2))
23 Petitioner alleges the city failed to demonstrate that the subject property is the best
24 site for the proposed use, as required by WZO 16.050(d) and 16.080(b)(2). As an initial
25 point, we have some question whether the requirement under WZO 16.050(d) that the
26 <<proposal best [satisfy] the public need" necessarily requires that the applicant demonstrate
27 that the subject property is the best site for the proposed use. However, there can be no doubt
28 that WZO 16.08O(b)(2), which requires <<that the particular piece of property in question will
29 best meet that need" does impose such a requirement.
Page 18
,..
11"
15C
Petitioner argues that thl' CltV'S findings of compliance with WZO ]()'()SO(d) and
1
] ()/lX()(h)(2) arl' lT1adequall' he-CIUS,' the citv failed to examine everv parcel ill or near the city
~
.'
tkil could all<lw. <ll hc rC;<lllcd t\l all\l\\. lhc pr\lposcd usc. Furthcr. pdlll0ncI argues that the-
~
clty's findlT1t'~ ;IIL' Illlpermlsslhh l'\llclus\lr~. hecause thcy do not expi:J11l III ',u1licie-nt dL'lail
~
why the parcels the L'lty eXJ.l1lined arc not suitahlc tin the proposed use
6
The city findings stale- Oil this point
7
8
9
10
] I
]2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
..,. * * The- applicant slates 'the proposcd site is adjacent to Boones Ferry
Road, which is an artcrial street serviced by public transportation. This wifl
enable the residents to easily utilizc public transportation, Second, the
proposed site is in close proximity to an ambulance service, which will greatly
benefit the residents when they are in need of emergency medical attention.
The location is also convenient to churches [and] business( es] providing
commercial services and public city services.' The land use inventory (Table
4) in the Comprehensive Plan dated January 1996 indicates that there are less
than 86 acres of multi-family zoned land available for development within the
city limits of Woodburn. There are approximately 121 acres of multi-family
zoned land available within the urban growth boWldary for development. The
land outside the city, but within the urban growth boundary, does not have the
city services necessary to support the proposed-use. .A review of the available
parcels within the City of Woodburn zoned for multi-family shows that these
parcels are either not listed for sale, have road access problems, or are either
too small or too large for the proposed use. For these reasons, the proposed
site best suits the public needfor the proposed use." Record 16 (emphasis
added). 13
The city approached the question of compliance with WZO 16.050(d) and
16.080(bX2) by first explaining why the subject property is well-suited for the proposed use,
27
28
29
and then examining certain other properties in or near the city to determine if any were as
well-suited. The city rejected all multi-family zoned lands outside the city, because such
lands lack city services. The city then rejected all multi-family zoned lands inside the city,
30
based on the applicant's study of those lands, because each parcel had one or more features
31
that made it unavailable or otherwise inferior to the subject property.
IlThe city's fmdings addressing WZO 16.08O(bX2) incorporate the quoted findings by reference. The
quoted fmdings address a WCP criterion that is worded similarly to WZO 16.08O(bX2).
Page 19
,., ."..
15C
Petitioner does not explain why WZO 16.050(d) and 16.080(b)(2) must be interpreted
to rCylllrC Individllal comparisons with all parcels in or near the city that could he re/"oncd to
;1i10\, thl' Pl\JpllScd lISl' Ihe ut\'S linJint'-s implicitly reject th<lt view. and inste<.ld apph
'1
thes.... nltella h) reyll i re com pari sons only against land currently zoned for mult i-ram i h. lISl'S
~
PetitionCl makes no attempt to explain why that view ofWZO 16.050(d) and 16.0R()(h)(~) is
(1
1I1conslstent with the text. purpose or policy underlying those criteria. or otherwise "c\carlv
Wl\Jnt,:'" ()}{S 1 97R29( l)~ AI/lUncc jor Re.\jJonsihle Land Use, 149 Or App at 265.
^
In Alliance jor Re.\jJonsihle Land Use. the Court of Appeals alTirmed an implicit
'i Lllunt\ interpretation III a local approval criterion very similar to WZO 16.050(d) and
10 l6.080(b)(2). The provision at issue in Alliance for Responsible Land Use allowed property
II to be rezoned if the need will be "best served" by the subject property "as compared with
12 other available property." 149 Or App at 262. The court held that it was not clearly wrong
13 for the county to interpret that provision to limit the scope of comparison to other property in
14 particular zoning classifications, -and rejected the petitioners' argument that the provision
15 must be read to require individual comparisons with all sites that could be rezoned to allow
16 the proposed use. For the same reasons, we reject petitioner's challenge in the present case to
17 the city's implicit interpretation of WZO 16.050( d) and 16.080(b )(2).
18 In Alliance for Responsible Land Use, the court further rejected the petitioners'
19 challenge to the adequacy of the comparisons the county made, which approached the issue
20 in the same manner the city does here: by explaining the virtues of the subject property, and
21 then rejecting other available property that lacked one or more of those virtues. Similarly,
22 petitioner does not explain in the present case why, under the city's approach, detailed site-
23 specific fmdings are required to demonstrate that the subject property <<will best meet the
24
eed ..
n .
Under the city's approach, once the city has determined that other parcels,
25 individually or as a group, are inferior to the subject property for one or more reasons, there
26 is no point in further analysis of those parcels. We note that petitioner does not specifically
Page 20
I"~
1r
15C
challenge anv of the reasons the city adopted for finding other property less suitahle for the
prnj1nsed IIse
Ihe twdtih. ll11l1eenlh. elghleenth and nineteenth assignments oj eITor arc dellied
"
SITL PLAj\ REVIEW (TWENTIETH
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR)
THROUGH
Till RTY-FO{ iRTH
(,
Petitioners tinal series of a<;sigllIl1enlS of error challenge the city's compliance with Its
sile plan review standards The standards for site plan review arc set out al W/O J J .0701:
X PetItioner disputes many of the city's findings addressing the site plan standards. arguing
q they are conclusory or incorrect We note at the outset that petitioner's criticisms often
J 0 ignore that many of the standards are not stated as absolute requirements. Rather they call
II for efforts to minimize impacts on adjacent uses and traffic and do not require that such
12 impacts be eliminated.
14WZO 11.070 provides the following site plan review criteria:
"(a) The -placement of structures on the property shall minimize adverse impact on
adjacent uses.
"(b) Landscaping shall be used to minimize impact on adjacent uses.
"( c) Landscaping shall be so located as to maximize its aesthetic value.
"(d) Access to the public streets shall minimize the impact of traffic patterns. Wherever
possible, direct driveway access shall not be allowed to arterial streets. Wherever
possible, access shall be shared with adjacent uses of a similar nature.
"(e) The design ofebe drainage facilities shall minimize the impact on the City's or other
public agencies' drainage facilities.
<<(1) The design encourages energy conservation, both in its siting on the lot, and its
accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. (Note: specific solar access
provisions are described in Section 8.200.)
"(g) The proposed site development, including the architecture, landscaping and graphic
design, is in confonnity with the site development requirements of this Ordinance
and with the standards of this and other ordinances insofar as the location and
appearance of the proposed development are involved.
"(h) The location, design, color and materials of the exterior of ail structures and signs
are compatible with the proposed development and appropriate to the character of
the immediate neighborhood."
Page 21
,,, '1ft"
15C
A.
Placement of Structures and Landscaping to Minimize Adverse..' I mpat'ts
on Adjacent Uses (\VZO 11.070(a) and (h))
,
\".'ltl1 respect to tl1e lirs! 1wo sl1e re\IC" critnLI \\l1ll'l1 !l'qllllt. 111;11 "pl:ll'l'!lll'lll \11
.1 structures 011 the property shall lllil1lr11i/.e adverse illlpal'l \1J1 :ldj:1CClll l1',l>.' :md 111:11
II landscaping shall he used to mJlllml/.C impact ()(] adJacent uscs," thL' CII\ found
() "The applicant st.ates that .Building 2 is positiolled Jl) the middle oj the suhject
7 property so it will have very little impact on adjacent uses Building 2 is also
~ oriented on the property so that the majority of the parking area and cars are
<) shielded by the building from adjacent properties,- The site plan and building
J (J elevations also show that the buildings arc offset and use angled \\'alls,
I 1 overhangs, and dormers for a less obtrusive view from adjacent properties
12 The proposed development has been revised to adequately minimize possible
] -; deleterious effects on adjacent low-density residential developments It
l-l accomplishes this with a generous amount of landscaped yard with shrubs,
IS lawn, and trees, with fences, and low profile residential-appearing buildings,
J 6 The setback to single-family lots on the south will be increased from a
17 minimum of 20 feet to a minimum of 50 feet and to the west, from 17 feet to
1 8 49 feet. These setbacks increase in most areas along the west and south
19 property lines. The fence will be a 7 foot high sight obscuring ornamental
20 fence on the property lines to further reduce any impact. The [building's]
21 architectural features provide many roof and wall variations to mitigate its
22 mass. In addition, the landscaping plan provides for the planting of a
23 significant number of large evergreen trees along the south property line.
24 "* * * The applicant's landscaping plan shows that the site will be planted
25 with many new medium and large trees. These trees are maples, hemlocks,
26 cedars, ash, and other species - which should help provide visual screening of
27 the upper walls and roofs--of the development. Shrubs planted on three (3)
28 foot centers will screen (along with the fence) lower walls of the development.
29 * * * The applicant is proposing 50% of the site in landscaping while 20% is
30 required. * * *" Record 19-20.
31 The [mdings clearly set out mitigation measures. The proposal may not provide the
32 more extensive mitigation petitioner's argument suggests he desires, but we agree with
33 intervenors that the findings address the criteria adequately and that the findings are
34 supported by substantial evidence.
35 The twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-second and twenty-third assignments of error are
36 denied.
Page 22
'"
'11"
15C
B. Driveway Access (WZO 11.070( d))
I
w/o 11070(d) require~ that (rafflc IIl1~~;\Cl 1)(' 1l11111I11i/l'd and Ih;11 '.Iwjhcrl'vel
possible. direct driveway access shallllol he all,)\\~'d hI aI1l'nal str~.eh' "1'1' II 1,~ Ihe cl1\
~ found the tWI) driveways, 11Ih.' OIl Boones j'erry RI)l\,j ,Illll the othl:! ('Ii I '.Iii;:. ( 11Jh I\Ol\d, 1\1'1'
.:; far enough apart so as to create no traffic impact Fl'cmd 2() Ilo\\'L'\C!. the 1'll\'S tll1dll1)2s
6 under WZO 11.070(d) do not explain why direct driveway access IS allm\ed (1I) Bool1es !'nn
7 Road. an arterial street. Il1tervenors argue the drl\eway aCCess 1)1110 B()Onl'~ lerry Road IS j()[
g the purpose of providing alternative access as required by the city's jlre chief Intervenors'
9 Brief 42.1< \\Thile it may be that the fire chief expressed cOl1cems that wmlld provide d basis
10 for the city finding that it is not possible here to deny direct driveway access to Boones Ferry
II Road, the city's findings addressing WZO 11.070(d) do not express that position. We agree
12 with petitioner that the city's findings are inadequate to address the requirement of WZO
13 11.070(d) that "[w]herever possible, direct driveway access shall not be allowed to arterial
14 . streets." On remand, the city must supply a more complete explanation of its reasons for why
15 it is not "possible" to deny direct drivew~access to Boones Ferry Road.
16 The twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth assignments of error are sustained.
17
c.
Drainage Facilities (WZO 11.070(e))
18 WZO Il.070(e) requires that "[t]he design of the drainage facilities shall minimize
19 the impact on the City's or other public agencies' drainage facilities." The city adopted the
20 following findings addressing WZO 11.070(e):
21 "The City has no improved storm sewer in the vicinity except an existing 10
22 [inch] diameter stonn sewer at the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and
23 Country Club Road that discharges to Miller Farm Road. Public Works staff
24 has indicated that this system may be utilized temporarily. if capacity is
25 available based on a hydraulic analysis of the existing storin sewer. The
26 permanent system will need to disclw-ge to Goose Creek by a piped system
27 within Boones Ferry Road as part of the ultimate street improvement. The
'Slntervenors cite pages 103 and 242 of the record in support of their contention that the driveway access to
Boones Ferry Road was required by the city fll'C chief. The cited pages of the record do not support that
contention.
Page 23
,.. 1r
ISC
J
applicant may he required to share some of the cost of constructing. this
s\stcm "I', Record 20-24
R~';\(iin~' tilt' 111ldll1!-,S ;lJ1d condiliolls of ;q)prn\;d 1t)f-'cll1n, \\C' c()ncludc 1111..'\ drc ;\(ielju:llc II)
'f dCIl1Pf)str:lk' c.)mpll;\nc~' \\ill1 \\'/() II ()70(elI o~elhcr Il1n expLlIn Ihal Bonnes Ferr\'
Road \\111 hL' IInpro\L'd III j1!\\\'llk ;\ permanellt st.)rrn \\;iler SOlllll')1l lor the prnposed
{, dc\elnpnH,'nt Ihat discharges inlo (;(ll)Sl' ('reel-- Impacts nlllhe cll\ stoJln \\'dter syslcm will
hL' minillll/ed In inilia1l\ using Ihe existing sltml1 SC\\Cf thai discharges to f\1i1kr Farm Road.
;..: If It IS sh')\\1l It) l1a\'L' sufficient capacit\ 1( not. the permanenl solulinn j()f storm water
() dischargc frnm the propcrty via the Boones Ferry Road improvements will he used. with the
10 cIty and applicant sharing the expense, Condition 30 explains that on-sill' detention will be
1 ] used to manage runoff, and condition 31 requires that the development "not cause storm
] 2 water runoff to be impounded on adjacent properties." The findings and conditions of
13 approval are sufficient to demonstrate how the proposal's drainage facility design "shall
14 minimize the impact on the City's or other public agencies' drainage facilities."
15 The twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth assignments of error are denied.
16
D.
Energy Conservation (WZO 11.070(f))
17 WZO 11.070(f) requires that "[t]he design encourages energy conservation, both in its
18 siting on the lot, and its accommodation of pedestrian and bicycle traffic." Petitioner argues
19 the city's findings of compliance with WZO Il.070(f) are inadequate and unsupported by
l6-Jbe city also imposed the following relevant conditions of approval:
"30. On-site stonn water runoff detention shall be required meeting city standards.
"31. This development shall not cause stonn water runoff to be impounded on adjacent
properties.
"32, · · · The applicant shall provide a hydraulic analysis of the development and
existing stonn sewer. The pennanent [stonn water] system [for the proposed
development] shall discharge to Goose Creek by a piped stonn sewer system within
Boones Ferry Road[.] [T]his would be part of the Boones Ferry Road Street
Improvements. If the existing system does not have sufficient capacity the stonn
sewer system to Goose Creek shall be installed by the applicant at this time. The
applicant will be responsible for the cost and size associated with the development,
material cost in over sizing would be the city's responsibility.... Record 35.
Page 24
IT
1f
15C
substantial evi<knce
The city's findings discuss sidewalks throughout the facility
,
cnnnectln~' tl 1 h.llh adjacent puhlic streets I~ecnrd::' I
They mention bicycle parkin!!
(acllnies Inr s1:l11. ;lIld address energy conservation In the facility itself hy (I) pointing out the
hullJint' \,Jl! hI' shalkd h\ pwposed tre,-' rLll1ting and (~) notinl! ('omphance with Current
I11sulati')11 cnde requirements Petitioner complains ahout the findings hecause they do not
11 address hnw the "siting'. of the proposed huildings will encourage energy conservation
Jh,' C11 \' s fi ndi ngs do address several matters that arc relevant to energy conservation
X under \\,'/0 I ] .070(1) The reference in WZO 11.070(1) to siting of the building on the lot is
Ii not eXplained That lS. \1/Z0 11.070(f) is not clear about how siting of structures on the lot
] 0 mayor may not promote energy conservation. While the city's findings addressing WZO
II 11.070(f) do not specifically address energy conservation considerations in building siting, in
12 a separate finding addressing solar access the city does discuss building placement through a
13 requirement that the building not cast a shadow on the . south wall or any solar access
14 buildable area during certain hours. Record 28. Given the ambiguity in the ordinance energy
15 conservation standard, the city's discussion of sidewalks, solar access, shade trees and
16 landscaping elsewhere in the findings is sufficient to address the code standard.17 Record 20,
17 21,28.
18 The twenty-ninth and thirtieth assignments of error are denied.
19
E.
Location and Appearance of the Development (WZO 11.070(g))
20 WZO 11.070(g) requires ~'[t]he proposed site development, including the architecture,
21 landscaping and graphic design, [must be] in conformity with the site development
22 requirements of this Ordinance and with the standards of this and other ordinances insofar as
23 the location and appearance of the proposed development are involved." (Emphasis added.)
24 The city's finding addressing this criterion is as follows:
11 Findings do not require magic words, and they do not have to be in pelfcct logical or topical order. See
Sunnyside Neighborhoodv. Clackamas Co. Comm., 280 Or 3, 21,569 P2d 1063 (1977).
Page 25
,.. "Tr
15C
,
"The applicant's proposal ha<; complied with the standards of the /,onin~
Ordinance and other ordinances as discussed in this statl rcporl I\icl."f~
Record 21 .
l'elll]O!H:r ar~ues that this findlllg IS Inadequatc hecause It 1;111:, to Idenllh til,'
,l;!lld;uJ'-. (\1 Ill,. /(lnrn~ ordinance and "other ordinances'. with whICh t!w IOCal](\ll ,lfld
f, appearanc,' ()1 the proposed development conform.
Ih,' shorl finding quoted above expresses the view that the findings the city adopted
:\ L'lsewhen: III its deCision consider the location and appearance of the proposed devclopmeJJt
') WhLther thn actually did or not is not important here. because petitioner makes no attempt
1 () to attack the adequacy of those findings in his challenge under this assignment of error
I J Instead, he appears to argue that the city must repeat those findings here as a separate
12 exercise. We reject the argwnent.
13 The thirty-fIrst and thirty-second assignments of error are denied.
14
F.
Structure Exteriors and Signs (WZO 11.070(b))
IS WZO 11.070(h) requires that "[t]he location, design, color and materials of the
16 exterior of all structures and signs [must be] compatible with the proposed development and
17 appropriate to the character of the immediate neighborhood." lbis criterion calls for a
18 subjective judgment about development aesthetics and whether the facility exteriors and
19 signs are in keeping with the character of the immediate neighborhood.
20 Petitioner argues the city's findings addressing WZO 11.070(h) are defective because
21 they do not discuss the immediate neighborhood, structure layout and business signs.
22 Findings adopted elsewhere in the decision describe the immediate neighborhood as
23 including single-family dwellings, a US West communications facility, a church and
24 apartments. Record 10. Other findings address structure heights and setbacks and
25 landscaping. Record 19-20.
liThe challenged decision includes a number or references to "this staff report." The city council's and
planning commission's decisions in this matter incorporated much of the planning staff report without deleting
many of the internal references to "this staff report."
Page 26
'''''- ~
15C
WZO I J ,070(h) is highly subjective and docs not call for more than a gencrabcd
aesthetic discussion \Ve do no! agree with petitioner's ;Jpparent \'iew tlut the citv's flndin!',;
lllldn thIS standard addreSSing the exterior of the structure are defectl\,' simply hL',';llh,' ,I
,k"'Tlptl'lll \1j tl1,' SllITllUnding neighhorhood is included under S\1ll1e \11hcr hC;idJlli' II: lil<
11ndin!!s The city.s findings viewed as a whole arc sufficient to addn.'ss tlK" \,'I() II07n{ h I
(, compatihility requirement regarding H[t]he location, design. color and materials III l)J,'
l'xtenor of all structures · · .,. We also reject petitioner's suggestion that the cit~ \\as
.,
X obligated to specifically address in its finding every criticism of the layout of the structur,'s
q that \\'as expressed during the local proceedings, Findings adopted to SUppor1 a quasi-judicial
10 land use decision generally must specifically address relevant issues that are raised during the
II proceedings, City of Wood Village v. Portland Metro, Area LGBe, 48 Or App 79, 87, 616
12 P2d 528 (1980); McConnell v. City of West Linn, 17 Or LUBA 502, 519 (1989). However,
13 findings need not specifically address every complaint that is voiced during the proceedings.
14 Petitioner simply cites to three pages of the record without making any attempt to identifY
15 which complaints petitioner believes amount to "issues" that require specific responses in the
16 fmdings.
17 Finally, WZO 11.070(h) also requires that the city consider the compatibility of the
18 proposed "signs." As far as we can tell the city did not do so. Intervenors cite to pages in the
19 record that show the proposed locations and design of two proposed entry monument signs.
20 Record 312, 316. Intervenors argue that based on this evidence we may overlook the missing
21 findings. ORS 197.835(11)(b) (LUBA may overlook defective findings where "evidence in
22 the record · · · clearly supports the decision"). We do not agree. The evidence cited by
23 intervenors does not provide more than an idea of what the proposed signs will look like. It
24 is not evidence that clearly supports a decision that the signs are, in the words of WZO
25 11.070(h), "compatible with the proposed development and appropriate to the character of
26 the immediate neighborhood." Moreover, whether any given particular sign complies with
Page 27
,,., -
15C
the '\':()l11p~ltibilJty"" standard III \....,oz<) II070(h) calls for the kind of highly subjective
Illd~IlIClll th;!1 ~clJcr;jlh lJlakes lL'll:mCl' 011 < )1\:--; 197X~')( I] )(b) lllappT<lpTLl1e
Ij'uU.l"h \
( tJtJ\ ( tJlUll\, .'(, IIi I I 1),\ ;(lil ;1; '-11:\ 11'/<); I ()i1 Tl'l11;llld thl' ('11\ 1I111S1 (1IIlSJ\ki \\11\:111\:1
till' PI(lP()Sl'd \i)'11S Cll!11ph \\111] \I,/() ! I ()7IJil1l
ilK thll1\ -thIrd and tlllrt\-('ll1rtl1 :\S\lglll11l'n1\ 01 LTIIlI all' sllst:llnni III p:\rt
(1 ('0]\( 'Ll iSIO)\
IkcaU\L' \\l' sust;lI11 the t\\l'nl\ -1'Hlrth. l\\<:l1t\-1111h and t\\<:I1lY-Si'\lh a,,,slg.lJl11l'IJh (11
^ error and SUSl:J111 the thlrty-tllll,i :111.1 t11JrI\ -lourth asslgnIl1eI1ls of errm III ]1:.irt. the ch:,dkng<:d
<) del' i S i ()jJ IS r<:maIllkd
10 The city's decision is r<:llldndcd
Page 28
'''- 'In"'
Certificate of Mailing
15C
I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Final Opinion and Order for LUBA No. 2000-050
on November 3. 2000. by mailing to said parties or their attorney a true copy thereof
contained in a scaled envelope with postage prepaid addressed to said parties or their attorney
as follows:
Anthony R. Krietzbcrg
Krietzbcrg Garrett Hemann ct al
1011 Commercial Street NL Suite 11 ()
Salem. OR 97301
Donald M. Kelley
Attorney at Law
Kelley & Kelley
110 North Second Street
Silverton, OR 97381
N. Robert Shields
Woodburn City Attorney
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
Dated this 3rd day of November, 2000.
~~ ~/71~~~
Terri Tennimon
Administrative Specialist
Kelly Burgess
Administrative Specialist
'.. ",.
MEMORANDUM OPINION NO. 2000-eJ
TO:
Mayor and City Council
John Brown, City Administrator
N. Robert Shields, City Attorney rft, ~
Draft Ordinance for the Implementation of Ballot Measure 7
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
November 27,2000
I. Back2round
At the November 7,2000 general election, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 7 by a 53%
to 47% margin. This constitutional amendment states that when a government "passes or
enforces a regulation that restricts the use of private real property, and the restriction has the
effect of reducing the value of a property upon which the restriction is imposed; the property
owner shall be paid just compensation equal to the reduction in the fair market value of the
property." It further defines a "regulation" as "any law, rule, ordinance, resolution, goal, or
other enforceable enactment of government."
The effective date of the measure is December 7, 2000 and the legal consequences for local
governments could be enormous. The ballot title estimated that direct costs to local governments
would be $3.8 billion per year. Also, since this new type of claim against the government would
be for a regulatory taking, no insurance coverage is available and the money paid would have to
come directly out of the general operating budget.
II. Implementation Ordinances
Prior to the effective date of the measure, many cities and counties are in the process of drafting
and passing implementation ordinances. Since Ballot Measure 7 itself contains no
administrative provisions as to how to process and evaluate claims, these jurisdictions believe
that if they have an implementation ordinance in force on December 7, 2000 they will be in a
better position to address the claims.
Although the provisions of the measure are far from clear, it seems to give governments only 90
days after a claim is made to pay the claim. If the claim is denied or not paid in 90 days of
filing, the government must pay both the claim and the claimant's reasonable attorney fees. The
passage of an implementation ordinance will allow the government to react to the claim within
this 90 day period and possibly avoid some liability.
''f" "n"
Memorandum Opinion No. 00-03
November 27,2000
Page 2
III. Timin2 of the Woodburn Implementation Ordinance
In response to the challenge of administering Ballot Measure 7, the Mayor has called a special
meeting to be held at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, December 4, 2000. I believe that this is a wise
approach by the City because it allows Woodburn additional time to benefit from the maximum
amount of information available prior to the passage of an ordinance. Through the League of
Oregon Cities website and my statewide contacts, I have already obtained and carefully reviewed
approximately 10 different implementation ordinances. I have not yet reviewed an opinion by
the Oregon Attorney General on the measure because none is available. However, it is
anticipated that the Attorney General will render an opinion by December 7 and it is even
possible that this opinion will be ayailable by December 4. Many people are saying that 1000
Friends of Oregon is organizing a legal challenge to the measure. This challenge will probably
be filed prior to December 7 and will include some of the larger jurisdictions as parties. Finally,
rumors are also circulating that certain land use activist groups might file legal challenges
against government implementation ordinances if they contain a provision which allows the
release of a land use restriction instead of the payment of compensation.
On December 4, 2000, I will present to the City Council the final form of an implementation
ordinance. Due to the short time frame~ it is imperative that a quorum of the City Council be
present to pass this ordinance. My draft ordinance is attached to this memorandum and will now
be discussed.
IV. Development of the Draft Ordinance
A tremendous amount of information about Ballot Measure 7 has been available since its
passage. For some time, I have been part of a statewide listserve which consists of many city
and county attorneys. Additionally, this group formed a speciallistserve specifically to share
information about the measure. This speciallistserve had over 100 subscribers in two days. The
League of Oregon Cities also started a website at:
http://www.orlocalgov.org/loc/issues/Measure7/M7page.html
Finally, the Oregon City Managers and Association of Oregon Planners are also sharing
information on a daily basis.
When I began examining this information in detail~ the following points became apparent: (1)
There is a great deal of speculation based upon the uncertainty which lies ahead; (2) This
speculation will ultimately be settled by the courts; (3) There is a wide divergence of opinion
among respected government attorneys as to what type of implementation ordinance to pass or
whether even to recommend passage of an implementation ordinance; and (4) No true "model
ordinance" will emerge at this stage because there are differing legal assessments as to what such
an ordinance should contain.
The contents of my draft ordinance are based upon careful legal analysis. I hope to explain the
legal reasoning behind the provisions it contains in this memorandum. In the relatively short
'''I
11"
Memorandum Opinion No. 00-03
November 27,2000
Pag~ 3
time which is available, I welcome your comments and insights. When the final ordinance is
passed, it is important that you be as comfortable with it as possible given the general
uncertainty of the situation.
V. The Draft Ordinance
A. General Structure
Ballot Measure 7 is a constitutional amendment passed by initiative petition. It was not intended
to fit into the Oregon land use system and, in fact, conflicts with many parts of the system.
Despite this, some jurisdictions are now in the process of drafting implementing ordinances
which treat claims for compensation under the measure as simply another type of land use
application. My present opinion is that I do not agree with this approach. I see little to be
gained by attempting to apply formalized land use procedures to compensation requests. I
believe it is likely that a court will find that these procedures do not apply and I am concerned
that they will delay the process beyond the 90 days that the government is given to decide the
claim without incurring attorney fees.
Instead of the" land use decision" model, the Woodburn draft ordinance is based upon the
concept of a "notice of claim". In order to process claims for compensation, the City first
requires that certain essential information be included in the "notice of claim" which is filed with
the City Administrator. (See section 3) After this information is provided to the City by the
claimant, the City Council can deny the claim, pay the claim, or release the restriction to avoid
payment of the claim. (See section 6) Since the City is not in a position to evaluate the claim
without the "notice of claim" information, I am hopeful that a court would find that requiring
this information is reasonable. Once the information is submitted, the claim can be decided
within 90 days. Most importantly, the option of the City to release the restriction to avoid
payment of compensation is set out as a viable alternative which I believe is arguably legally
justified under Ballot Measure 7.
B. Section 1- Legislative Findings
This section places the ordinance in context and explains to a reviewing court why the
implementation ordinance was necessary.
C. Section 2- Definitions
Some of the draft implementing ordinances from other jurisdictions add to or slightly modify the
definitions contained in Ballot Measure 7. I do not presently believe that this is a good
approach. Since the measure is a constitutional amendment, I believe a court would look only to
how the measure itself defmes its terms. Since the measure's definitions are not well written,
much of the litigation will probably center on this.
,.,
w
Memorandum Opinion No. 00-03
November 27,2000
Page 4
D. Section 3 - Notice of Claim
This section provides that no claim for compensation will be considered by the City unless a
notice of claim is filed with the City Administrator. The notice of claim is required to contain
the information necessary for the City to evaluate the claim, which includes a preliminary title
report and a property appraisal from a licensed appraiser.
E. Sections 4 and 5 - Completeness Review and Claim Evaluation Procedure
These two sections establish a simple claim processing procedure after all of the notice of claim
information is submitted to the City.
F. Section 6 - Disposition of Claim
This section states that the City Council decides whether or'not to grant compensation and
allows the City Council, if necessary, to release the restriction on the property rather than pay
compensation. This provision to "release the restriction" is legally controversial. My present
opinion is that Ballot Measure 7 is a constitutional grant of authority to the local government to
release a statutory provision (Le., a state land use requirement) from the subject property if the
failure to do so would require the payment of compensation and the government makes the
discretionary determination that the release of the restriction is preferable to making the
payment.
G. Section 7 - Payment of Compensation Conditional
This section provides that if compensation is paid to a claimant pursuant to Ballot Measure 7 and
a court later invalidates the measure and states that the claimant was not entitled to
compensation, the claimant must repay the compensation received to the City.
H. Sections 8 and 9 - Severability and Emergency
The ordinance contains a standard severability clause and an explicit emergency clause
explaining why it is necessary that it take effect immediately upon passage and approval by the
Mayor.
VI. The Evolution of the Final Ordinance
It is important for you to understand that the attached draft ordinance could undergo significant
evolution as the legal landscape changes. Nevertheless, I wanted to provide you a draft at the
earliest possible opportunity and solicit your input.
Attachment
cc: Department Heads
'" 1r
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CLAIMS RELATED TO
REGULATORY TAKINGS ARISING UNDER THE 2000 AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE
I, SECTION 18 OF THE OREGON CONSTITUTION (BALLOT MEASURE 7) AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Leeislative Findines. The City Council finds:
(A) On November 7,2000, the voters of the State of Oregon approved Ballot Measure
7, amending Oregon Constitution Article I, Section 18 by adding subsections (a) through (t),
which are as follows:
(a) If the state, a political subdivision of the state, or a local government passes or
enforces a regulation that restricts the use of private real property, and the
restriction has the effect of reducing the value of a property upon which the
restriction is imposed; the property owner shall be paid just compensation equal
to the reduction in the fair market value of the property.
(b) For purposes of this section, adoption or enforcement of historically and
commonly recognized nuisance laws shall not be deemed to have caused a
reduction in the value of a property. The phrase "historically and commonly
recognized nuisance laws" shall be narrowly construed in favor of a finding that
just compensation is required under this section.
(c) A regulating entity may impose, to the minimum extent required, a regulation
to implement a requirement of federal law without payment of compensation
under this section. Nothing in this 2000 Amendment shall require compensation
due to a government regulation prohibiting the use of a property for the
purpose of selling pornography, performing nude dancing, selling alcoholic
beverages or other controlled substances, or operating a casino or gaming
parlor.
(d) Compensation shall be due the property owner if the regulation was adopted,
first enforced or applied after the current owner of the property became the
owner, and continues to apply to the property 90 days after the owner applies for
compensation under this section.
(e) Definitions: For purposes of this section, "regulation" shall include any law,
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
~
1f
rule, ordinance, resolution, goal, or other enforceable enactment of government;
"real property" shall include any structure built or sited on the property, aggregate
and other removable minerals, and any forest product or other crop
grown on the property; "reduction in the fair market value" shall mean the
difference in the fair market value of the property before and after application of
the regulation, and shall include the net cost to the landowner of an affirmative
obligation to protect, provide, or preserve wildlife habitat, natural areas,
wetlands, ecosystems, scenery, open space, historical, archaeological or cultural
resources, or low income housing; and "just compensation" shall include, if
a claim for compensation is denied or not fully paid within 90 days of filing,
reasonable attorney fees and expenses necessary to collect the compensation.
(f) If any phrase, clause, or part of this section is found to be invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses and parts shall remain
in full force and effect.
(B) The effective date of the constitutional amendments adopted by Ballot Measure 7 is
December 7,2000.
(C) Ballot Measure 7 does not set forth any administrative process for property owners
to apply for compensation and for the City of Woodburn to evaluate such claims.
(0) It is in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Woodburn to establish the
administrative process contained in this ordinance.
Section 2. Definitions. Words used in this ordinance that are the same as words used in
Oregon Constitution Article 1, Section 18, subsections (a) through (f) shall have the same
meaning as the words used in those subsections of the Oregon Constitution, notwithstanding any
different definition in the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance or in any other City ordinance or
regulation.
Section 3. Notice of Claim.
(A) No claim arising from the 2000 Amendment to Article 1, Section 18 (Ballot
Measure 7) shall be considered a claim unless notice of claim is filed as required by this section.
(B) Notice of claim must be a written communication from a claimant filed with the
City Administrator and must include:
(1) Name, address and telephone number of person filing claim.
(2) Names and address of all property owners and all persons who hold a
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'...
'1r
security interest in the affected property.
(3) Legal description and street address of affected property including
contiguous units of property under the same ownership.
(4) Preliminary title report, dated not more than 30 days from the date the claim
is filed, from a title insurance company licensed in Oregon.
(5) Description of, and citation to, regulation adopted, applied or enforced on the
affected property causing a reduction in value.
(a) Date regulation was adopted, applied or enforce on the affected
property .
(b) Date property owner or owners obtained title to property or became
contract purchasers of record.
(6) Description of the use that has been restricted by the regulation described in
subsection (B)(5) of this section.
(7) Amount the affected property has been reduced in value because of the
restriction.
(8) Statements explaining why the regulation is not an exempt regulation.
(9) A written appraisal by an appraiser certified or licensed under ORS Ch. 674
that provides an opinion of the difference in the fair market value of the affected
property before and after application of the regulation.
(10) Any exempt regulations, known to the claimant, that may apply to the
affected property, whether or not those exempt regulations affect the fair market
value.
(11) A statement explaining how the regulation restricts the use of the affected
property and why the regulation has the effect of reducing the value of the
property upon which the restriction is imposed.
(12) A statement of the effect a release of the regulation on the property would
have on the potential development of the property, stating the greatest degree of
development that would be permitted if the identified regulation were released
from the property.
(C) A notice of claim must be accompanied by a fee to be paid in advance of acceptance
Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
,..,
11"
for filing to cover the costs of completeness review and application processing. This fee may be
established by resolution of the Council.
Section 4. Completeness Review of Notice of Claim. A notice of claim shall not be
considered a claim until determined to be complete by the City Administrator. If the notice of
claim is not complete, the City Administrator shall inform the claimant in writing of the
additional information necessary to make the notice of claim complete. The notice of claim shall
be deemed complete at such time as the additional information is submitted and determined
complete.
Section 5. Procedure to Evaluate Claim. Claims shall be processed as follows:
(A) Upon filing of a complete notice of claim, the City Administrator shall make a
recommendation to the City Council as to disposition of the claim and schedule the matter for
consideration by the Council.
(B) Notice of the time and date the Council will consider the claim shall be mailed to
the claimant (and all owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment
roll where such property is located within 200 feet ofthe affected property) ten days prior to this
date.
Section 6. Disposition of Claim. The City Council shall, by majority vote of those
present and voting, determine whether or not to grant compensation, the amount of
compensation, and whether any exceptions to the requirement for compensation apply. The City
Council may, upon determining that any claim is valid, pay to the claimant such just
compensation as the claimant is by law entitled to receive, or may release the restriction in order
to avoid the payment of compensation.
Section 7. Payment of Compensation Conditional. Any payment by the City of
compensation to a claimant under this ordinance shall be made on the condition that if a
reviewing court invalidates Oregon Constitution Article 1, Section 18, subsections (a) through
(f) in a manner such that the claimant was not entitled to compensation in relation to the subject
regulation, the claimant shall repay the compensation received to the City.
Section 8. Severa bility. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If a portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance.
Section 9. Emereency Clause. The constitutional amendments adopted by Measure 7
will be effective December 7, 2000 and give the City only 90 days to consider claims for
compensation, after which the City will lose its right to release the restriction rather than pay
compensation. Because of the limited time to consider claims, it is necessary and appropriate for
the City to establish the procedures set out in this ordinance immediately, in order that they be
Page 4 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
IT ~
DRAFT
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING A PROCESS FOR CLAIMS RELATED TO
REGULATORY TAKINGS ARISING UNDER THE 2000 AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE
I, SECTION 18 OF THE OREGON CONSTITUTION (BALLOT MEASURE 1) AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Leeislative Findines. The City Council finds:
(A) On November 7,2000, the voters of the State of Oregon approved Ballot Measure
7, amending Oregon Constitution Article I, Section 18 by adding subsections (a) through (f),
which are as follows:
(a) If the state, a political subdivision of the state, or a local government passes or
enforces a regulation that restricts the use of private real property, and the
restriction has the effect of reducing the value of a property upon which the
restriction is imposed; the property owner shall be paid just compensation equal
to the reduction in the fair market value of the property.
(b) For purposes of this section, adoption or enforcement of historically and
commonly recognized nuisance laws shall not be deemed to have caused a
reduction in the value ofa property. The phrase "historically and commonly
recognized nuisance laws" shall be narrowly construed in favor ofa finding that
just compensation is required under this section.
( c) A regulating entity may impose, to the minimum extent required, a regulation
to implement a requirement of federal law without payment of compensation
under this section. Nothing in this 2000 Amendment shall require compensation
due to a government regulation prohibiting the use of a property for the
purpose of selling pornography, performing nude dancing, selling alcoholic
beverages or other controlled substances, or operating a casino or gaming
parlor.
(d) Compensation shall be due the property owner if the regulation was adopted,
first enforced or applied after the current owner of the property became the
owner, and continues to apply to the property 90 days after the owner applies for
compensation under this section.
(e) Definitions: For purposes of this section, "regulation" shall include any law,
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
,.,... 'In"
DRAFT
rule, ordinance, resolution, goal, or other enforceable enactment of government;
"real property" shall include any structure built or sited on the property, aggregate
and other removable minerals, and any forest product or other crop
grown on the property; "reduction in the fair market value" shall mean the
difference in the fair market value ofthe property before and after application of
the regulation, and shall include the net cost to the landowner of an affirmative
obligation to protect, provide, or preserve wildlife habitat, natural areas,
wetlands, ecosystems, scenery, open space, historical, archaeological or cultural
resources, or low income housing; and "just compensation" shall include, if
a claim for compensation is denied or not fully paid within 90 days of filing,
reasonable attorney fees and expenses necessary to collect the compensation.
(f) If any phrase, clause, or part of this section is found to be invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses and parts shall remain
in full force and effect.
(B) The effective date of the constitutional amendments adopted by Ballot Measure 7 is
December 7, 2000.
(C) Ballot Measure 7 does not set forth any administrative process for property owners
to apply for compensation and for the City of Woodburn to evaluate such claims.
(D) It is in the best interests of the citizens of the City of Woodburn to establish the
administrative process contained in this ordinance.
Section 2. Definitions. Words used in this ordinance that are the same as words used in
Oregon Constitution Article 1, Section 18, subsections (a) through (f) shall have the same
meaning as the words used in those subsections of the Oregon Constitution, notwithstanding any
different definition in the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance or in any other City ordinance or
regulation.
Section 3. Notice of Claim.
(A) No claim arising from the 2000 Amendment to Article 1, Section 18 (Ballot
Measure 7) shall be considered a claim unless notice of claim is filed as required by this section.
(B) Notice of claim must be a written communication from a claimant filed with the
City Administrator and must include:
(1) Name, address and telephone number of person filing claim.
(2) Names and address of all property owners and all persons who hold a
security interest in the affected property.
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
''T
1r
DRAFT
(3) Legal description and street address of affected property including
contiguous units of property under the same ownership.
(4) Preliminary title report, dated not more than 30 days from the date the claim
is filed, from a title insurance company licensed in Oregon.
(5) Description of, and citation to, regulation adopted, applied or enforced on the
affected property causing a reduction in value.
(a) Date regulation was adopted, applied or enforce on the affected
property .
(b) Date property owner or owners obtained title to property or became
contract purchasers of record.
(6) Description of the use that has been restricted by the regulation described in
subsection (B)(5) of this section.
(7) Amount the affected property has been reduced in value because of the
restriction.
(8) Statements explaining why the regulation is not an exempt regulation.
(9) A written appraisal by an appraiser certified or licensed under ORS Ch. 674
that provides an opinion of the difference in the fair market value of the affected
property before and after application of the regulation.
(10) Any exempt regulations, known to the claimant, that may apply to the
affected property, whether or not those exempt regulations affect the fair market
value.
(11) A statement explaining how the regulation restricts the use of the affected
property and why the regulation has the effect of reducing the value of the
property upon which the restriction is imposed.
(12) A statement of the effect a release of the regulation on the property would
have on the potential development of the property, stating the greatest degree of
development that would be permitted if the identified regulation were released
from the property.
(C) A notice of claim must be accompanied by a fee to be paid in advance of acceptance
for filing to cover the costs of completeness review and application processing. This fee may be
established by resolution of the Council.
Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'"\'
11"
DRAFT
Section 4. Completeness Review of Notice of Claim. A notice of claim shall not be
considered a claim until determined to be complete by the City Administrator. If the notice of
claim is not complete, the City Administrator shall inform the claimant in writing of the
additional information necessary to make the notice of claim complete. The notice of claim shall
be deemed complete at such time as the additional information is submitted and determined
complete.
Section 5. Procedure to Evaluate Claim. Claims shall be processed as follows:
(A) Upon filing of a complete notice of claim, the City Administrator shall make a
recommendation to the City Council as to disposition of the claim and schedule the matter for
consideration by the Council.
(8) Notice of the time and date the Council will consider the claim shall be mailed to
the claimant (and all owners of record of property on the most recent property tax assessment
roll where such property is located within 200 feet of the affected property) ten days prior to this
date.
Section 6. Disposition of Claim. The City Council shall, by majority vote of those
present and voting, determine whether or not to grant compensation, the amount of
compensation, and whether any exceptions to the requirement for compensation apply. The City
Council may, upon determining that any claim is valid, pay to the claimant such just
compensation as the claimant is by law entitled to receive, or may release the restriction in order
to avoid the payment of compensation.
Section 7. Payment of Compensation Conditional. Any payment by the City of
compensation to a claimant under this ordinance shall be made on the condition that if a
reviewing court invalidates Oregon Constitution Article 1, Section 18, subsections ( a) through
(f) in a manner such that the claimant was not entitled to compensation in relation to the subject
regulation, the claimant shall repay the compensation received to the City.
Section 8. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. Ifa portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance.
Section 9. Emer~ency Clause. The constitutional amendments adopted by Measure 7
will be effective December 7, 2000 and give the City only 90 days to consider claims for
compensation, after which the City will lose its right to release the restriction rather than pay
compensation. Because of the limited time to consider claims, it is necessary and appropriate for
the City to establish the procedures set out in this ordinance immediately, in order that they be
effective on December 7, 2000 when the constitutional amendments become effective.
Therefore, this ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace,
health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall take effect
Page 4 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'..
11"
DRAFT
immediately upon passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor.
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Date
Approved:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATIEST:
Mary Tennant, City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 5 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'..
1f