Agenda - 06/10/2002 AGENDA
WOODB URN CITY CO UNCI£
JUNE I0, 2002 - Z'O0 P.M.
270 Montgomery Street ~ ~ Woodburn, Oregon
CALL TO OR~ ER AND FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS
e
e
e
Ce
WoodbUrn Public Library will be closed on Friday, June 21, 2002
for staff training.
June 18~ 2002 - 6:30 p.m., City Council Workshop with Marion
County Growth Management Task Force, City Hall Council Chambers.
June 24~ 2002 - 7:00 p.m. - Public hearing: Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment 01-02, Zone Change 01-05, Site Plan Review 01-13 and
Partitioi~ 01-07 on a 1.7 acre lot located at 847 N. Cascade Drive.
None
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS - None
COMMITTEEi REPORTS
Chamber of Commerce.
Woodburn Downtown Association.
COMMUNICATIONS
A. Letter dated May 31, 2002 from Willamette Broadband ............... 6A
BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC (This allows the public to introduce items for
Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.)
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
the request of a Council member.
Bo
Woodburn City Council minutes of May 13, 2002 regular meeting
and May 28, 2002 regular and executive meetings .................... 8A
Recommended action: Approve the Woodburn City Council minutes.
WoodbUrn Planning Commission minutes of May 9, 2002 ............. 8B
Recommended action: Accept the Woodburn Planning Commission
minutes,
Page 1 - Council Agenda of June 10, 2002.
Ir I
11.
Ce
Building Activity Report for May 2002 ............................. 8C
Recommended action: Receive the report.
De
Planning Project Tracking Sheet dated June 3, 2002 .................. 8D
Recommended action: Receive the Planning Project Tracking Sheet.
Police Department Activities report for April 2002 ................... 8E
Recommended action: Receive the report.
Em
Speed zone investigation requests .................................. 8F
Recommended action: Receive the report.
Ge
Real Estate and Land Use Presentation at Oregon State Bar
Conference by City Attorney ..................................... 8G
Recommended action: Receive the report.
TABLED BUS][NESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. City of Woodburn 2002-2003 Budget .............................. 10A
Recommended action: Conduct public hearing, receive public input
and direct staff to prepare an ordinance reflecting Council's decision.
GENERAL BUSINESS
Ae
Council Bill No. 2392 - Ordinance relating to improvements of Boones
Ferry Road from Goose Creek to Hazelnut Drive, adopting the
Local Improvement District, directing the contract award and
providing for payment of costs through assessment of properties
in the Local Improvement District ................................ 1 lA
Recommended action: Adopt the ordinance.
Council Bill No. 2393 - Resolution entering into a grant contract with
the State of Oregon for a Community Development Block Grant for
the Cipriano Ferrei Education Center, making a declaration of policy
regarding the use of excessive force by law enforcement personnel as a
condition of grant approval, and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract
and the declaration of policy ..................................... 11B
Recommended action: Adopt the resolution.
Council Bill No. 2394 - Resolution declaring the City's election to receive
state revenues during fiscal year 2002-03 .......................... 11C
Recommended action: Adopt the resolution.
De
Contract award for street resurfacing improvements ................ llD
Recommended action: Award the construction contract to the lowest
responsible bidder, Roy L. Houck Construction for the resurfacing
Page 2 - Council Agenda of June 10, 2002.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
ge
Fe
improvements for Clackamas Circle, Hawley Street, Judy Street and
Julie Court in the amount of $129,873.15.
Contract award for pak-flail mower ..............................
Recommended action: Award the contract for the purchase of a 96"
pak-flail mower to Fischer Mill Supply for the amount of $5,489.00.
liE
Contract
Recomm~
Offset-FI
Renewal
Recomm
the firm.
sign the
award for offset-flail mower .............................
~nded action: Award the contract for the purchase of a 98"
,il mower to Ernst Hardware for the amount of $5,499.00.
of audit contract .......................................
;nded action: Approve renewal of the audit contract with
C Boldt, Carlisle and Smith and authorize the Mayor to
~ntrac£
llF
llG
Extensio~ of City liability insurance coverage for July 4th celebration .. 11H
Recommqnded action: Authorize extension of City liability insurance for the
July 4th c~lebration to be hem at the Woodburn High School athletic field.
Grant AWard - Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant
Program ...................................................... 11I
Recommqnded action: Approve receipt and allocation of the Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant funds for Woodburn Peer Court and
authoriz~ the City Administrator to sign the grant agreement.
Yard waSte disposal charge request from United Disposal Service, Inc ... llJ
Recommended action: Authorize a rate adjustment for United Disposal Service,
Inc. to include a $1.50 per month yard waste disposal charge.
Recommended Amendments to the 2001-2002 Master Fee Schedule .... 11K
Recommended action: Review the recommended revisions to the Community
Development and Finance fees, and authorize staff to prepare an ordinance
amending the 2001-2002 Master Fee Schedule.
PUBLIC COMMENT
NEW BUSINESS
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - These are Planning Commission actions
that may be called up by the City Council.
None.
CITY ADMINi~STRATOR'S REPORT
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
EXECUTIVE ~ESSION
Page 3 - Council Agenda of June 10, 2002.
18. ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 - Council Agenda of June 10, 2002.
Willamette Broadband
6A
May 31, 2002
City of Woodburn
270 Montgomery St
Woodburn, Oregon 97071
Dear John Brown,
We are notifying all Df our Willamette Broadband customers of a pricing adjustment
effective July 1,200~. These notices were typed and processed on each customers cable
billing.
The adjustments are as follows:
Canby
Basic Cable - From $16.25 to $16.99
Expanded Basic Cable - From $13.75 to $14.75
Value Plus Cable - $7.95 to $8.25
Woodburn
Basic Cable - From $16.25 to $16.99
Expanded Basic Cable - $12.75 to $13.75
Value Plus cable - $6.95 to $7.95
These changes will become effective July 1, 2002.
If you have any questions, please call me at 503-266-8262.
Sincerely,
Sandra Coleman
General Manager
Willamette Broadband
With office locations at:
Willamette Broadband, LLC.
191 SE Second Ave, Canby, Oregon 97013, 503 263 8080,
635 Glatt Circle, Woodbum, OR 97071,503 982 4085, Fax 503 982 4804
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN,
COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, MAY 13, 2002.
CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding.
0010 ROLL CALL.
Mayor Jennings Present
Councilor Bj elland Present
Councilor Chadwick Present
Councilor Figley Present
Councilor McCallum Present
Councilor Nichols Present
Councilor Sifuentez Present
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attomey Shields, Public Works Director
Tiwari, Deputy Police Chief Russell, Community Development Director Mulder, Finance
Director Gillespie, Park Director Westrick, Public Works Manager Rohman, Sr. C.E.
Tech. Scott
0051
ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A) Public Hearing: The City Budget Committee will hold a public hearing on the
proposed City Budget for fiscal year 2002-03 on Tuesday, May 14, 2002, 7:00 p.m., in
the City Hall Council Chambers.
B) Memorial Day Holiday Closures: City Hall offices and the Aquatic Center will be
closed on Monday, May 27t~, in observance of Memorial Day. The Woodburn Public
Library will be closed on May 26th and May 27th in observance of the holiday.
C) City Council Meeting regularly scheduled for May 27, 2002 has been rescheduled
to Tuesday, May 28, 2002, 7:00 p.m., due to the Memorial Day holiday.
D) Town Hall Meeting on Proposed Community Center: This meeting will be held on
May 16, 2002,7:00 p.m., at the present Community Center, 491 N. Third Street. Citizens
interest in obtaining information on the proposed facility are urged to attend.
0133
APPOINTMENT TO LIVABILITY TASK FORCE.
Mayor Jennings appointed Phyllis McKean to serve on the Livability Task Force.
FIGLEY/MCCALLUM... approve the appointment of Phyllis McKean to the Livability
Task Force. The motion passed unanimously.
0155
PROCLAMATION: POLICE MEMORIAL WEEK - MAY 12-18, 2002.
Mayor Jennings declared the week of May 12-18, 2002 as Police Memorial Week in the
City of Woodburn and urged all citizens to observe May 15, 2002 as Peace Officers'
Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
8A
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
0290
Memorial Day i~ honor of law enforcement officers for dedicated service to their
community. --
PRESENTATI~)N: MARION COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING
COUNCIL.
0838
Marion County (~ommissioner Mike Ryan, Chair of the Public Safe~ Council, provided
an introduction tO this presentation which focuses on Marion County s criminal justice
system and the areas in which improvements need to be made, budget proposals in this
area, and the dir0ction the County would like to take in order to address the gaps in the
criminal justice ~stem. He reminded the Council that the County criminal justice system
involves all of th~ communities in the County whether it be the police, courts, jail, district
attorney's officei juvenile, parole/probation, and County mental health section as it relates
to the jail popula fion. He stated that the County budget resources for all funds are
approximately Si',66 million of which 24% of total budget expenditures are in the health
program and 205, in public safety. Since public safety has always been the County's first
order ofbusines~ the majority of the budget is allocated to this area. In fiscal year 2002-
2003, Marion Cz unty is facing a multi-year deficit and the projected General Fund deficit
for FY 2002-03: s $5.5 million. Public Safety will need to,~t~e a large percentage of the
reductions since it is a large spending source in the County s General Fund. He stated
that County elec! ed officials and departments were asked to identify cuts that would
generate not only the $5.5 million threshold but also additional cuts that would generate
$8 million in red~ctions to give the Budget Committee and the Board the ability to make
policy decisions,i The issue now before the Budget Committee is to determine which
reductions need to be made without making irreparable additional damage to their public
safety system as twell as maintaining the program and service delivery that the citizens of
Marion County ~xpect to receive. For FY 2003-04, he expressed his feeling that other
General Fund departments will take deeper reductions and some of those reductions will
be shifted into the public safety programs. Last fall, public safety meetings were held
throughout the County in order to receive input from city officials and citizens on
expectations of the public safety program. As a result of these meetings, the Public
Safety Council has made a recommendation to a sub-group to finish the work on a law
enforcement levy that would be referred to the Board of Commissioners in May 2002 and
potentially referred to the voters in November 2002. This levy would deal with the
identified gaps in a balanced way.
Und.ersheriff Grog Olson reviewed the Sheriff Department's mission statement and the
services provide~l which include area such as law enforcement, civil process, prisoner
transport, court Security, animal control, search and rescue, parole and probation,
reserve/cadet program, and warrant service. Currently, the department provides 3 district
offices throughout the County plus they prowde patrol to communities which have no
Police Departments. He stated that the state average for the number of deputies per 1.,000
Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
population is 1.6 whereas Marion County has .85 deputies per 1,000 population. As a
result of the community meetings, it has been recommended by the Public Safety Council
that patrol coverage be increased by adding 72 deputies to meet state staffing average
which will provide for increased response time to calls for service and additional deputies
to do follow-up investigations and drug/gang enforcement activities. Other programs in
which gaps were identified include the School Resource program, Civil Process, Animal
Control, Search and Rescue, and Court services.
Walt Beglau, M~mager of the County's District Attorney's Office, stated that the District
Attorney's office is responsible for prosecuting crime within the County. He stated that
this office partners with many law enforcement agencies and these agencies must send all
of their criminal cases through the County's DA office. The volume of cases has created
a bottleneck in which the DA's office cannot handle all of the crimes being submitted
which results in the criminal being given immunity when the cases cannot be handled by
the DA's office. With the current budget constraints, the DA's office has been unable to
prosecute 300 felony narcotics a year plus hundreds of misdemeanor cases in which the
DA's office has had to make policy decisions regarding prosecution. Current budget
constraints have also resulted in higher caseloads for each prosecutor thereby reducing the
number of hours a prosecutor can devote to a case. The proposed budget reduction would
layoff up to 4 prosecutors which may result in the DA's office inability to prosecute any
misdemeanor in Marion County and may go as far as non-person felonies such as theft in
the first degree.
Undersheriff Olson then reviewed the Adult Supervision Department which includes
corrections and parole/probation. He reviewed the current services provided by the
department in this area and reviewed the service gaps which were identified through the
community meetings. For the Adult institutions, it has been recommended to increase
staff level by 12 deputies and 3 facility security aide positions and to look at ways of
increasing the inmate beds. In Adult Parole & Probation, it has been reconunended to
add 20 Parole & Probation officers to provide adequate supervision and to provide more
treatment services to the offenders. It was noted that since July 1,2001, corrections has
lost 208 inmate beds in order to stay within their budget.
Larry Oglesby, Director of Juvenile Department, also provided his department's mission
statement with the primary roles of the department being 1) hold youth accountable for
their delinquent acts and, 2) provide the youth with some reformation and rehabilitation
opportunities so that they can get their lives turned around. He reviewed the programs
offered which include detention and intake, educational programs, alternative programs,
counseling, and family support programs. The department currently has 25 probation
officers that supervise about 1300 youth on formal probation and approximately 300-400
on informal probation. Gaps identified include lack of beds and staffing level and ability
to provide programs for delinquent youth which will assist in the rehabilitation and
treatment process. Initial budget recommendations for fiscal year 2002-03 include
Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
2089
elimination of pqsitions such as probation officers, group workers, youth and family
counselor, and probation supervisor; closure of the Stayton and Woodbum offices, and
closure of the dayreporting center.
Commissioner Ryan stated that the County is now in the process of !nitiating their budget
discussions and many of the reductions will be shown in the County s final budget for
fiscal year 2002-03. He stated that the cuts will take effect on July 1, 2002 and they will
be looking into a criminal justice levy which would not go into effect until July 1, 2003.
The levy being d:.scussed by the Public Safety Council would provide approximately $14
million annually and it would levied annually over a 4-year period. He expressed his
appreciation to ti Le Council for allowing them to make the presentation on the status of
the criminal justi:e system within the County. He also requested that the Council either
formally endorse or state the Council's positive feelings on the Public Safety Council's
work to the County Commissioners.
2403
PRESENTATION: MARION COUNTY URBAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PROJECT.
Sterling Anderson, Planning Manager for Marion County Planning Division, stated that
the Board of Commissioners had adopted a coordinated population projection for Marion
County and all the 20 cities in Marion County in 1998. This decision resulted in the need
for more in-depth information and funds from the State were obtained to offset costs for a
planning consultant to assist with this project.
John Fregonese, planning consultant, stated that the first phase of the project was to
develop basic data and involve the public by (1) polling them to find out their interest and
issues, (2) establishing evaluation criteria, and (3) forming a stakeholder's committee. A
model was then established that would identify how much land each of the cities in the
County would need under various population assumptions. Workshops were then held in
Woodbum and Silverton to invite the public to share their plans for land requirements
and population Projections. Phase II of this project was to select the best option and
policy package for the County to adopt. The following three alternatives were developed:
(1) increase County population increase by 60% over the next 50 years, (2) hold thc
urban growth boundaries to current size and focus growth along I-5 which would include
Woodburn, Gervais, Donald, Hubbard, and Aurora, and (3) look at which cities would be
able to provide for infrastructure such as Woodburn, Silverton, Stayton, and Salem. Thc
third alternative seemed to bc the one most accepted by city representatives which would
meet the most p01icy goals of both small and large cities. Phase III took the third
alternative and, with Woodburn's population growing faster than its forecast, hc
suggested that this would be a good opportunity for the City to enter into a discussion
with the County ~o develop a long range plan to accommodate the expected growth
(Growth Management Framework). Thc implementation process is now being prepared
and, even though state law looks at a 20 year forecast, it is being proposed that the
Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
.8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
County plan loqk beyond 20 years to 2050. The Growth Management Framework would
be a part of the Marion County Coordination Plan and common goals for all cities along
with specific forecasts and general plans for each city would be included in the document.
The County Planning Department would like cities to submit comments to them
regarding the current proposal and make suggested adjustments in order to make the
proposal work ~r the city. As part of implementing the Growth Management
Framework, the, City would need to revise the City/County Urban Growth Boundary
agreement in order to address the topics identified in the Framework. He stated that the
City's current census is 20,100 and the 2020 forecast is 26,000 while the Framework
proposal for 2050 is 38,000. To accommodate the projected growth to 38,000, an
additional 548 acres would be needed by the City with the area projected for growth being
to the south and east of the city limits. He reiterated that this project was done through
coordination with the cities, citizens, and staff and, even though it is not perfect, it
focuses on trying to obtain a general long range plan. He stated that Woodbum has been
growing faster than the County as a whole and, if forecasted out, it would reflect 45,000
rather than 38,000. He reiterated that the total projected population of the County has to
be balanced county-wide as part of this Framework. The Framework will be reviewed by
the County Board and the basic Framework adopted would be a the Marion County
Comprehensive Plan Chapter dealing with local coordination. It was requested that the
City submit a letter of support to the County Commissioners before the public heating.
3676
Councilor Figley expressed her opinion that the population figures for both 2020 and
2050 are extremely low and, as far as 2020 population for the City's public works
facilities, the City is estimating 40,000 which is substantially higher than the County's
proposal. She appreciated having the Transportation component considered at the County
level and it is hoped that there is the opportunity for Woodbum to talk not only with
Marion County but with other cities in our area on transportation issues.
Councilor Bjelland stated that an important element of this document is that there will be
inter-city agreements and it will be very important to look at the driving factors of growth
in each of these areas and to make the appropriate plans to handle that growth. By having
a process that involves neighboring cities can be an important element in dealing with
Woodbum issues even to the extent of dealing with other issues such as urban growth
boundaries and transportation. In general, he is in agreement with the process but there
are specific issues that need to be used in the common process involving the County and
other cities.
Mayor Jennings stated that the presentation was well-done, however, he felt that the
Council needs to be given some additional time to review the material before comments
will be submitted to the County.
Councilor McCallum stated that it is very important that the City does not get locked into
a plan until the City examines how this plan will work with what the City has already
Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
~A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
done. Additiona
this plan.
Administrator B~
City last year, s~
order to get the £
Staff met with th
the purpose of ~
given the growth
window, staff is
that would have
ly, the City needs to be able to communicate with surrounding cities on
own that, based on the Economic Development Program adopted by the
ff has been trying to consolidate all the various periodic review tasks in
:ity in a position to try and expand the City's urban growth boundary.
~ County last week to talk about the coordinated population number for
4ng to mn some altematives in this study that might be more realistic
the City has experienced in the last 10 years. For the 2020 planning
ooking at 35,000 population even though the City had other scenarios
t greater population by 2020. At this time, the staffhas a gentleman's
agreement with t he County that the 35,000 number can be used provided that the City
coordinates with. them more closely and this project would be one of the better ways of
working with the m. Staff would like to schedule a workshop with the Council in the
month of June ar d the City's consultant who is working on the City's periodic review
will be in attendance to provide an analysis of the document along with some
recommendations for the Council to consider in providing a letter back to the County.
Councilor Figley questioned if Marion County was talking to the adjoining counties since
issues such as transportation and development cannot be evaluated in isolation from what
is going on the metro area.
Mr. Fregonese stated that they are trying to coordinate with Mid-Willamette Valley
Council of Govehunents which includes Marion, Polk, and Yamhill counties. There is
knowledge of this process at the State level and in the Portland-Metropolitan area when
transportation plOnning is addressed. The forecasts in this plan would be used by these
jurisdictions when they do their transportation modeling. Lane County is also trying to do
this type of coordination but, other than that, there is very little coordination going on
within the State. Marion County has a long history of cooperation between cities and this
plan will provide the basis for other entities to plan in terms of the larger transportation
picture.
4732
CHAMBER Ol~ COMMERCE REPORT.
Walt Blomberg, representing the Chamber, distributed the Chamber's report which
reflects a steady increase in visitors and, in the month April, there were twice as many
out-of-state visitOrs who visited the Chamber office. He also pointed out the increase in
e-mail and web-site hits which shows that there is interest in either learning more about
Woodbum, reloc~ating to Woodbum, or starting a business in Woodbum. Upcoming
Chamber events are as follows:
1) On May 17t~, the annual Chamber Golf Toumament will be held at Senior Estates;
2) On May 21st, lhe Leadership Youth group will be installing playground equipment
which is a City Project; and
Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
3) On May 22nd, there will be lunch at the Rose Room, 12:00 noon, honoring those
students who have been through a year of training in conjunction with the City, Chamber,
and School District.
Councilor McCallum congratulated Walt Blomberg on his recent appointment as the new
Superintendent of St. Helens School District beginning July 1, 2002.
5120
CONSENT AGENDA.
A) approve Council minutes of April 22, 2002;
B) accept the Planning Commission minutes of April 11, 2002;
C) accept the Livability Task Force minutes of March 26, 2002;
D) receive the Police Department Activities Report for February 2002;
E) receive the Building Activity report for April 2002;
F) receive the Planning Tracking Sheet dated May 1, 2002;
G) receive the Library Monthly report for March 2002;
H) claims for the month of April 2002;
I) receive the memo regarding Michael Culver v. City_ of Woodbum; and
J) authorize the Mayor to sign the Modified Development Agreement with Hidden Creek
Properties, LLC.
FIGLE¥/SIFUENTEZ... consent agenda be adopted as presented. The motion passed
unanimously.
5152
PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE 02-01 AND SUBDIVISION 02-01 (Property_
located at 888 Brown Street.).
Mayor Jennings declared the public heating open.
Councilor Figley stated that she did look at the affected property yesterday which was
educational and the role that it plays in her ultimate decision she will state publicly at the
appropriate time.
Community Development Director Mulder read the land use statement required by ORS
197. He stated that this proposal is to change the zoning on a portion of the subject
property and a request for approval of 13-lot subdivision on the 2.83 acre parcel of land.
The property is located north of Comstock Avenue and currently has zoning designations
of single family residential and Marion County Urban Transition Farm. Last year, the
southern portion of this property was annexed by the City as part of the island
annexations but, at that time, no zoning designation was applied. As part of the newly
adopted Woodbum Development Ordinance, this property was included in the zone
changes within the ordinance, however, this does not take effect until July 1, 2002. The
applicant had requested to continue with the zone change so that they could proceed with
their development prior to July 1 st. The proposed subdivision lot sizes would range from
6,200 sq. feet to 14,155 sq. feet with all but 3 lots to be accessed off of an extension
Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
Tape 2
0046
which is currently, shown as Robin Street. In regards to the street name, there is an
existing Robin S[reet which has a house currently addressed as Robin Street. The
applicant proposed to name the cul-de-sac Nugget Court but that would be in conflict
with the existing street name. Another issue that complicates the street name is that there
is already a Robijn Avenue located on the north side of Miles Chevrolet in the West
Woodbum area,however, there are no properties addressed off of Robin Avenue and it is
unlikely that the~ e would be any properties addressed off of that street. Staff is
recommending tltat the cul-de-sac be named Robin Court and it would be at the option of
the property own er on Robin Street to change their address to Robin Court. The Planning
Commission has recommended approval of this proposal with the conditions that are
outlined in their ~'mal order.
Councilor Figley stated that the Council had previously approved a large development in
that same area at td her concern is that Brown Street is close to capacity and it does not
have adequate si~tewalks. She realizes that for a development of this size it would not be
appropriate to ixt ~pose the same type of conditions as might be imposed on a 300 lot
subdivision, however, there may be a situation in which future property owners may be
included in a local improvement district for Brown Street. She questioned if a Brown
Street LID was aver brought up by the staff or Commission since infill will ultimately add
to the traffic vol~, e on the surrounding streets.
Director Mulderldoes not recall if this issue was ever discussed by Public Works. The
roadway in fronl~ of the site is already improved so there was no requirement for that
portion of the street to be improved.
Director Tiwari ~.ta.. ted that the LID boundary is determined by the benefit received and it
is not known atlCu's time what benefit this development would receive in ratio to some
other properties that are in the surrounding area.
Councilor FiglO' questioned if a waiver of non-remonstrance had been discussed that
would provide home buyers with some advance notice that a future financial obligation
may be assessed as a result of a local improvement district.
Mayor Jennings questioned if sidewalks are currently in place along Comstock Avenue.
Staff stated that sidewalks along Comstock Avenue are being constructed with building
permit issuance.
Jeff Twenge, representing the applicant T7 Development, Inc., stated that they had
proceeded with the zone change application process in order to get the zoning change
designation approved before July 1, 2002. In regards to the street name, it is not material
to their subdivislon and the issue was brought up by the Fire Marshall that they would
like to see the street name changed. Additionally, he had received a letter from the Fire
Department statihg that they did not have an objection to changing the street name to
Nugget Court. Mr. Twenge stated that they would change the name to whatever name the
City would like it to be called.
Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
8A
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
Director Mulder stated that the Planning Commission did not make a recommendation
regarding the street name issue.
Further discussion was held regarding changing the name of either Robin Street off of
Comstock or Robin Avenue in West Woodbum.
No one in the audience spoke in opposition to the proposed land use issue.
Mayor Jennnings declared the public hearing closed.
Director Mulder stated that changing a street name is done by ordinance and, once that
has been adopted, the City would send notification to the property owner of the new street
name.
Administrator Brown stated that the City still does not have a procedure in place for
changing street names. In the reviewing procedures followed by other jurisdictions, the
potential parties affected would receive a notice prior to the Council consideration of a
name change and a public hearing would be held to give the property owners an
opportunity to express their views. Even though the City does not have a procedure in
place, he suggested that the City hold a public hearing before any action is taken by the
Council.
Councilor Bjelland questioned if a subdivision can be approved with the street name held
in limbo until it is recorded.
Director Mulder stated that there is no need to name the street until the plat is actually
recorded which could be another six or eight weeks before the applicant is ready to
proceed with their development.
FIGLEY/NICItOLS ... concur with the Planning Commission's Final Order and
approve Zone Change #02-01 and Subdivision #02-01, and instruct staff to prepare an
ordinance supporting that decision. The motion passed unanimously.
0742
PUBLIC HEARING: BOONES FERRY ROAD LOCAL IMPROVEMENT -
DISTRICT (LID).
Mayor Jennings declared the public hearing open and asked for any declarations or
potential conflict of interest from the Council.
Councilor McCallum stated that he lived and owns property in the proposed LID and,
with this passage, he could have a financial gain, he declared a conflict of interest and
would not participate in the voting or discussion on the matter.
Public Works Director Tiwari presented the staff report outlining the local improvement
district process and the steps taken by the City to date. The public hearing notice was
published as required and notices were sent to affected property owners to provide them
information on the proposed assessment and inform them of the hearing date to discuss
the issue with the Council. He stated that there has been substantial growth in that area
over the last several years and there is a need for sidewalks, bicycle lane, and a refuge
lane on this medal street in order to make the roadway safer for motorists, bicyclists, and
pedestrians. The estimated cost for this particular local improvement district is $1.3
Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
2406
million of whiclx the City will contribute towards the cost of the improvement. He stated
that the Boones Ferry Road improvement will encompass the area from Goosecreek north
to the north city imits. The project will include the widening of the road to 3 lanes with
the middle lane ,eing a turn lane, a bikeway, and sidewalks. Since this roadway is
considered an afl erial, the depth of the pavement will be greater than what is required for
a two-lane local:~treet. Entered into the record were written remonstrances from
Heritage Park M mdows (Lots 1-46), William Powers (940 Tukwila Dr), Don Lindstrom
(2298 Boones Ferry Rd), and Donna Baker (1231 Anna St.). Director Tiwari stated that
the proposed cost share is similar to other local improvement districts within the City.
The proposed as~;essment to property owners is based on a 34 foot local street width and
the cost associat~'d with the additional width, bikeways, and depth of street will be paid
for through City, funds. In calculating the individual assessment, the method used to
determine the co 5t was a combination of land area (25%) and trip generation (75%). The
trip generation nUmber was taken from the technically accepted National Transportation
Engineer's Man [al. Properties in which Boones Ferry Road is considered to be a primary
access would be charged at 100% of the assessment calculation whereas those properties
in the reduced a~ea since Boones Ferry Road is considered as a secondary access would
be charged at 65% of the assessment calculation. He stated that there is some property
located on the West side of Boones Ferry Road near the north city limits which is
currently outside~ of the city limits, therefore, the City cannot assess these parcels of
property. As a result, staff contacted Marion County and the County has agreed to pay
the charges that would otherwise be charged to those properties. The City's share of the
project cost is approximately $548,718 which pays for the capacity improvements and
two-thirds of the cost to underground utilities. The cost to benefitted property owners is
estimated to be $811,062 and $14,000 from Marion County. He reiterated that the total
estimated project cost is $1,374,747. He also stated that the developer of Heritage Park
is willing to contribute approximately $65,000 to offset assessments to property owners
within their particular development. A ten-year payment plan is available to property
owners who wish to pay the assessment over a period of time and the interest rate to be
charged by the City will be 6.5%. The interim financing proposed by staff involves
interfund borrowing rather than borrowing money from a financial institution. In the
City's proposal, the cost to the property owner will not be anymore than what has been
published and any costs in excess of the estimate will be absorbed by the City.
Councilor Bjelland questioned how the assessment was calculated for the parcels of
property located ioutside of the city limits.
Director Tiwari Stated that the assessments were calculated at the same method as all
other properties by using land area (25%) and trip generation (75%). The trip generation
figure was based on the approved process whether City or County and, at this time, there
is only one unit on each of those properties.
Mayor Jennings Stated that he would be exercising a prerogative of the Chair and limit
Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
testimony from individuals to 5 minutes.
No one in the audience spoke in favor of the proposed local improvement district.
Layne Rowell, 2603 Colony St, stated that he has been a resident since 1999 and it has
only been in the last year or so that he has felt that the road improvements are really
wan'anted. He spoke in mild opposition since he did not entirely agree with some of the
assessments in the plan since Boones Ferry Road is a major arterial coming into the City.
Boones Ferry Road will see an increase in traffic as the City continues to growth and he
feels that the burden placed on the property owners in the development in which he lives
could easily be disbursed out amongst other parts of the City. As an example, he stated
that Boones Ferry Rd is used by motorists to get to Amey Road and Woodbum Company
Stores in order to avoid Highway 214/I-5. He stated that he is glad that he is a Woodburn
resident, however, he did want to speak to the Council and share his perspective.
William Christiansen, 1263 Bernard Dr., stated that he has just recently built and moved
into his home, however, he was surprised to see that the assessment was being proposed
since he thought that he had paid all of the assessments and fees when he purchased his
home. He agreed that Boones Ferry Road needs to be improved but he questioned the
City Attorney as to what the legal basis is for the proposed selective assessment and how
one gets around equal protection under the law. Even though he does not expect an
answer at this meeting, he did feel that these were issues.
Mark Leach, 1232 Arlington, stated that he had purchased his home approximately two
years ago and he had thought that all of his fees were paid. He felt that some
improvements could be made to Boones Ferry, however, he did not feel that bikelanes
were essential since very rarely do bicycles travel that roadway. Additionally, the foot
traffic on that portion of the road is also limited since most pedestrians stay within their
development. He stated that he is currently struggling to make necessary mortgage and
tax payments and he did not feel that the road improvement would benefit his property.
In his opinion, the City and County should absorb the cost of the improvement since they
are the main beneficiaries. He was also concerned about the potential increase in track
traffic on Boones Ferry Road to Hubbard or Canby once the street is widened.
Burton Holcomb, 2345 Miller Court, stated that he has been a resident of Woodbum for 5
years and shares the concerns of earlier speakers in that Boones Ferry Road is an arterial
street that is shared by much more than the residents outlined in the local district
improvement. Therefore, a majority of the cost should be incurred by the City. He also
felt that the property owners in this proposal should have a greater voice in this process
by a vote or some other method since he feels the costs are too burdensome on the
property owners and should be apportioned differently.
Rosemary Hammack, 1320 Althea Street, stated that she has lived in Woodbum for 23
years and agreed that Boones Ferry Road needs to be improved but felt that these
Page 11 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
neighborhoods si
owners live on Iii
reiterated that as
property owners:
the Council to lo,
Wade Anderson,
tould not bear the whole cost. She expressed concern that some property
nited income and the additional assessment is not acceptable. She
an arterial, motorists from all over are using this roadway and yet the
.n the area are being asked to pay the majority of the costs. She urged
>k at other options in determining how to pay for the improvement cost.
2589 Patriot St., stated that he serves as the Board President of their
Neighborhood A~sociation and their group came up with the same opinion in regards to
the arterial in that the roadway use is something that expands beyond the current
neighborhood. 4mother issue they thought was interesting was that the primary entrance
for Senior Estateg happens to be off of Boones Ferry Road, however, they are have not
been included in[any part of this assessment. Another issue is that Country Club Road
will also have a ~umre LID to improve that street, however, much of that street was tom
up similar to Boones Ferry Road to take care of the water system improvements. For
their particular dbvelopment, they will be also be paying for a majority of the cost for
Country Club Re, ad. They would be surprised if Senior Estates is excluded from that LID
since many Senigr Estates residents use Country Club Road to access Boones Ferry Road.
3286
Mayor Jennings gtated that the Country Club Road improvement is part of the total
overall project bgt the Country Club Road portion has not been brought before the
Council as of this date.
Mr. Anderson st,~ted that, from their perspective, they are excited about some of the
improvements being looked at since it has been a safety issue for quite some time.
John Bechtold, 2510 Patriot St., stated that Boones Ferry Road is clearly a road that has
been in use for close to a 100 years and he reiterated that, even though notice is in the
paper, not all resldents receive the newspaper. He appreciated receiving the additional
notification but ctlearly this is a very small representation of the number of people
involved and he ['eels that it would be in order that, if this is pursued, a greater
representation of the people involved have a say in this proposal.
Bill Cox, Attorney representing Tukwila Partners, Hazelnut Partners, Renaissance
Homes, and United Properties, stated that he did not believe that the City could impose
this LID on houses that have paid a systems development charge (SDC) or a
Transportation Impact Fee (TIF). This whole roadway is under the TIF Capital
Improvement Plan and it is from Highway 214 to the urban growth boundary. He read an
excerpt from the TIF program which was adopted in 1999, but has been in place since
1993 in some form,: "....basically, the TIF fee has been paid by new construction on each
house is to be paid by new development (reading from page 7 of 10/29 TIF program). The
SDC is paid by new development and it meets the rough proportionality requirement
because it is base~d on the impact of each specific development on the transportation
facilities for which the SDC is charged. The TIF is based on the impacts of new trips and
the SDC rates are calculated based on specific impacts a development is expected to have
Page 12 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
3845
on the City's transportation system .... ". One other comment out of that same document
on page 5 talks about the Dolan test and the rough proportionality and it says ".... the
concept of rough proportionality is applied by insuring that new growth is not required to
pay an amount beyond the level roughly proportionate to the new development's impacts
on facilities through the use of nationally recognized standards for levels of service and
trip generation..,". He stated that the City's SDC's are based on trip generation which is
the same trip that is being now requested to pay for the LID. That same 9.57 trips that the
City's engineer talks about from a residential structure is now being hit a second time and
that is not the intention of the City's SDC program. The SDC program was designed to
pay for these arterial improvements as growth occurred. He could see the requirement of
having a house that accesses directly onto Boones Ferry pay a fee because that has direct
access. All of the other roads have been built by the developers at their own expense.
The City doesn't pay for local streets and that is why the SDC is designed to cover
arterials. He stated that there are two areas in a portion of Tukwila that have conceptually
been talked about to be developed but in fact cannot be developed because when the last
subdivision that was approved there, the Council said that there would be no more
subdivisions there until there is a secondary access. There is no secondary access and,
until that ground is brought into the urban growth boundary, there will not be a secondary
access. He does not understand why the engineer projected 5 units per acre on this
property when no approval has been given and the property owner is requested to pay full
fees for each of those 5 units. He feels that there is a portion of land that cannot be taxed
or would fit with the LID at this time because there is no approval only a mere projection.
He stated that they have had trouble with this whole Tukwila program all along because
initially it was thought that a PUD was approved and all of these individual subdivisions.
He reiterated that the City is acting beyond their scope of authority and cannot pass this
LID. If the LID is approved, he feels that the City will end up in court.
John Baker, 2355 Miller Ct., stated that he believed in the merits of the project and
Boones Ferry Road is a highly used venue that does need improvements. However, in
this case, he did not believe that the LID is a means to accomplish that goal. He felt that
different options needed to be explored regarding the funding of the project. Traffic
impact fees have been increasing over a period of time and in 1999, they were
approximately $900 per house being constructed, while in 2001 the fee was
approximately $3,000 and the current fee is $3,300. He feels that these fees have been
increasing to do what Mr. Cox was talking about to help alleviate future growth the City
is going to encounter by providing a fund to improve those streets as needed. He
suggested that the City look at local bond issues, federal funds, or other financial sources
to pay for the proposed improvement.
Betty Gemma, 1209 Henry's Blvd., stated that her home abuts the brick wall which
parallels Boones Ferry Road and the new road will be coming up next to brick wall. She
stated that she has been a resident of Woodbum for 5 years and has seen the development
Page 13 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
going on around~er and, as a result, her property value has decreased due to the type of
development tha~ is going on around her property. She questioned if this improvement
would further decrease her property value. She agreed with many of the individuals that
have spoken on t~is issue and she has seen a lot of trucks traveling that roadway which
further deteriorates the roadway. The road does need improvement but motorists within
their development are not the only ones who use this roadway but they are being affected
by everyone else ~ho uses this roadway.
Gene Kraiter, 11700 SW Ashwood Ct, Tigard ( property located at 2337 Miller Ct.),
stated that he waS under the impression that he had paid his fees that were related to road
improvements bdt was surprised to see this LID information. He agreed with the other
individuals who ~tddressed the Council in that the people who are living in the immediate
area use the roadway substantially less than everybody else who uses that roadway. He
stated that when ~e comes to Woodbum, he does not travel 1-5 since that is the slowest
way to get to Wo0dburn. Instead, he comes down Boones Ferry Road and to get to the
outlet mall he als0 travels Boones Ferry Road. He also questioned if the size of his lot
will dictate that he will use the road more that someone who will have a smaller lot with
3 teenage driversi He did not understand how the City could assess their evaluation on
the fees according to lot size. For the record, he gave a written remonstrance to the City.
Steve Resch, 2610 N. Boones Ferry Rd., stated that he is an affected party who has 3
small children under the age of 5 and they do have a fenced backyard where the children
play since the 35 MPH is not enforced and something needs to be done. He feels that the
road should have been improved when the developments were approved by the City
rather than the older homes incurring the cost. The City should have had the
foresightedness to have had the road improved a long time ago and the Council is not
representing the City of Woodbum. He did not feel that this is a democratic government.
He stated that the road does need to be fixed but there are very few people that walk along
Boones Ferry Road because it is dangerous. When a turn lane is constructed, the speed
on the road will increase which will make the situation worse. He stated that the people
that live in the area do use the road and are willing to pay their fair share but this is about
a community that uses the roadway to drive north or bypass the interchange. He is
willing to do his part but he will be losing half of his front yard whereas the other
property owners in the proposed district only have to come up with money. He also had
an issue with constructing a bikelane as part of the improvement.
Ted Betts, 563 Ironwood Terrace, expressed her feelings that it had been made very clear
from the testimony that Boones Ferry Road is a main arterial that a lot of people are using
and she does not believe that they are the majority users of the roadway. She does not
feel that the burdgn of payment should be placed on people that live in the proposed
district. She stated that there are wide gravel roads and she goes for walks along Boones
Ferry Road almost everyday and cars are traveling fast and if the road is improved, the
speed will increase even more. She stated that the OGA has not even been mentioned
8A
Page 14 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
even though there is extreme use from both directions to use the golf course. In her
opinion, the traffic is so fast that it is of more concem than improving the roadway. She
stated that, even~ though she sent her children to private schools, she still voted for school
levies since it benefits all citizens and if this road is going to be used for all motorists,
then it should be paid for by all. She is willing to pay taxes to better the life of a lot of the
people that live here, but did not feel that it was fair to tell her that she would have to
come up with more money to make a road better that she does not feel needs to be better.
4885
Mayor Jennings stated that there were 3 remonstrances that would be entered into the
record.
Councilor Bjelland stated that Mr. Cox did represent a number of parties and he did have
some interesting things to say. From his own perspective, if Mr. Cox feels that he has
some additional points to make that have not been made by himself or by other people, he
would be willing to give him a few more minutes to make those points in the interest in
getting as much information as possible on this issue.
Director Mulder stated that there were 4 remonstrances in opposition entered into the
record.
The Mayor stated that he would give Mr. Cox another 5 minutes.
Bill Cox expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to make additional comments,
however, he felt that the public has spoken about the same concept that he would like the
Council to consider. Almost all of the houses in the proposed assessment district have
been built since 1993 or 1994 have paid an SDC fee which is on that portion of Boones
Ferry Road which is on the Capital Improvements list. He did not think that it was proper
to come back and ask those people to contribute again since they are still making only
that same 9.57 trip per day. He feels that it is contrary to the whole concept of the City's
TIF fee.
Roy Smith, 2580 N. Boones Ferry Road, expressed his opinion that the assessment is
ridiculous because it is exactly what he pays for property taxes. He stated that he retired
from the military and he works as a roofer but this assessment is more than he can afford
at this time. He feels that this assessment is charging him twice for property and some of
his property will be taken away when the road is widened with sidewalks. He purchased
the property 4 years ago with a certain amount of land that came with it but some of it is
now going to be taken away. He is considering the sale of his property in the near future
and will probably see a property value loss.
Mayor Jennings stated that he did not think that the City was taking anybody's property
rather the City is taking what is in the State right-of-way which is in our right-of-way
today. The City is not going into anybody's private property and even though a property
owner has planted lawn on it, the right-of-way belongs to the City.
Sandra Mosier, 1573 Arlington Ave., stated that the purpose for her attending this hearing
was to be informed about the LID. Prior to this meeting, she was for this project because
Page 15 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
rTM T
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
5580
she does see the
hearing, she is m
experience in wl
order to get back
Council take this
being assessed tt
need for sidewalks but, as the individuals have spoken during this
~w in opposition to the proposed project. She related a personal
ich it took it her 20 minutes to get out of Lincoln School parking lot in
to her home in the Miller Links development. She requested that the
information into consideration in that it is not just the developments
~at are the cause of the problem.
Public Works Di rector Tiwari stated that the LID
the benefit and tl
generation. Oth~
judgmental dec[
been used in the
used in this case
process looks at the way to determine
tere are many ways to determine the benefit one of which is trip
.,r methods include, but not limited to, area and valuation. There is a
ion to be made by the governing body and, even though one method has
~ast on other projects, it does not mean that another method could be
He stated that trip generation is being used as a basic method of impact
in this case. Many individuals have expressed their opinion that the amount of the dollars
charged is rather large compared to what it should be and that there ought to be more
contribution from the traffic impact fees. He stated that the traffic impact fees are for the
capacity. He stated that the OGA golf course is included in this assessment and their
impact has been included in the analysis. There was an issue brought up about the mm
lane and the traffic backup to get out of the school parking lot and he stated that it the
mm lane will give a little more stacking area. He stated that the City has followed the
legal requirements in noticing this proposed LID in addition to sending out letters to
property owners to let them know what is being proposed and of the hearing date and
time. He reiterated that the City has never denied that Boones Ferry Road is an arterial
street which is why the staff has proposed that there be a contribution from Traffic Impact
Fees in addition to the assessment. It may be considered that the amount of the City's
contribution should be larger but the reason for the use of the Traffic Impact Fees is
because it is an arterial. Traffic Impact Fees are for overall City-wide plan and not for
one local street. He stated that property is not taken away by the City for any means and
if there is a property that belongs to the private property owner and, if for some reason the
City needs to acquire some land, there is a process followed by the City to acquire the
land with proper compensation. It was noted that the City has not condemned any
property over the last 26 years while he has been with the City.
6212
City Attorney Shields stated that he had placed a memo in the Council's packet that
related to a procedural issue since the City is not using a land use procedure, therefore,
there is no specific hearing procedure is applicable. However, he pointed out that Courts
have found that if there is a significant impact on surrounding land uses then a land use
procedure does need to be followed. After looking at the material submitted by Public
Works and Planning, he believes that the record could be a little more complete in that
regard and, if that is done, it would make the Council's final action on this matter more
Page 16 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
defensible. He feels that it is proper in this case with a developed area and, with a road as
outlined on the map, that this improvement does not seem to affect the surrounding land
uses. He recommended that a motion be made to leave the record open until 5:00 p.m. on
May 22, 2002 to allow the Planning and Engineering staff to supplement the record and
to address the significant impact issue, and, if that action is taken, then close the hearing
and LID process which would then the conclude the testimony other than the limited
procedural issue. He stated that the Public Works Director's staff report also has a
second proposed motion in which case at the same meeting the Council could consider
taking some action on all of the testimony and materials received by May 22, 2002.
6643
Tape 3
FIGLEY/BJELLAND .... leave the record open until 5:00 p.m. on May 22, 2002 in
order to allow the Planning and Engineering staff to supplement the record to further
address the issue as to whether the proposed LID constitutes a significant impact on land
use decision.
The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
Mayor Jennings declared the public hearing closed.
BJELLAND/NICHOLS... direct staff to perform an analysis on the public input
received, present a recommendation for further action at the next regular scheduled
Council meeting.
Councilor Bjelland stated that, based on what he has heard during this hearing, much of
their concern has been on the issue of whether they will be paying more for the street
because of its arterial designation and of the way it is going to be built. Even though the
City has had this same issue with East Hardcastle, he is not really sure that it came across
clearly to everyone that the way the assessments were being proposed by the Public
Works Director is to only charge properties in the assessment district as if it was a local
street. Any costs for changing that from a local street to an arterial street is being
absorbed by the City's share of what the Public Works Department has proposed. In
addition, there has been discussion on the SDC's and TIF's that have been collected from
property owners in the affected and whether or not that should be used to pay for the
improvements to Boones Ferry Road. As indicated, those SDC's and TIF's are to be used
to address all transportation issues that face the City and not just Boones Ferry Road. A
significant amount of those monies are being used to fund the City's portion of Boones
Ferry Road. He stated that he is a member of the Mid Willamette Valley Area
Commission on Transportation which allocates ODOT monies to be allocated on the
State highway system and projects that Woodbum has a significant need for include the I-
5 interchange and the widening of Highway 214. Those projects alone constitute a
potential $40 million investment of which the City will be asked to come up with a
significant portion. Additionally, there are other areas in the City that need improvement,
therefore, the SDC's and TIF's need to be spread amongst other areas that have
Page 17 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
rr~ I
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
0328
potentially greater impacts on all residents of the City and not just the Boones Ferry Road
area. Admittedly, Boones Ferry Road is an arterial if you look at what Woodburn's
population will l~e in 20 years and the turn lane, bikelane, and sidewalks are needed to
handle the traffic in the future. Some tough decisions will be faced on how the
improvement will be financed if the improvement is made and he thanked the public for
their comments {bn this issue. He also requested that the public understand the issues the
Council needs to face and the types of decisions the Council will need to make.
Mayor Jennings ;eminded the public that the LID before the Council is only part of the
total project whi]e the improvement from Goosecreek south to Highway 214 is not even
at the LID procel',s as of yet. He stated that there will be SDC's being contributed to that
portion of the to al project once the engineering report is completed.
The motion pass~ ~ unanimously (5-0).
Councilor McCa tlum resumed his seat at the Council bench for the rest of the meeting.
Councilor Bjelland stated that, in regard to 13-lot subdivision approval, the condition of
approval in the agenda packet shows that Robin Street would be the name on the final
subdivision plat Whereas the motion, based on Council discussion, was to leave the
option open for ~ street name.
Director Mulder[stated that there was no condition of approval in the Planning
Commission's final order regarding the street. They did have a recommendation as part
of their final order but it was not attached to the project.
BJELLAND/FIGLEY... the Council's previous approval includes the recommendation
that the stub street be named Nugget Court in Zone Change 02-01 and Subdivision 02-01.
The motion passed unanimously.
0350 COUNCIL BILL 2385 - ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2300 (THE
2001-02 MASTIER FEE SCHEDULE) TO INCREASE THE NON-RESIDENT
LIBRARY CARD FEE FOR NON-RESIDENTS OF THE CITY RESIDING
INSIDE THE CCRLS SYSTEM BOUNDARIES.
Councilor Chadwick introduced Council Bill 2385. Director Mulder 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 Jeunings declared
Council Bill 2385 duly passed with the emergency clause.
Page 18 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
SA
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
0693
08lb
COUNCIL BH,L 2386 - ORDINANCE ADOPTING PROCEDURES TO
PREPARE FO I AND CARRY OUT ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT, MINIMIZE,
RESPOND TO OR RECOVER FROM EMERGENCIES; PROVIDING A
PROCESS FO [ THE DECLARATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCYi
GRANTING Ti lIE AUTHORITY TO ORDER MANDATORY EVACUATIONS;
AND PRESCR[BING A PENALTY.
Council Bill 2386 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. The two readings of the bill
were read by title only since there were no objections from the Council.
Mayor Jennings complimented Deputy Chief Russell on the Emergency Management
document that was developed and will be adopted by this ordinance.
Deputy Chief Russell stated that he had worked with the City Attorney on this plan and
he feels that it will serve the City well in the future.
On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared
Council Bill 2386 duly passed with the emergency clause.
COUNCIL BILL 2387 - ORDINANCE RELATING TO IMPROVEMENTS TO
EAST HARDCASTLE AVENUE FROM PACIFIC HIGHWAY 99E TO THE
EAST CITY BOUNDARY; ADOPTING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT; DIRECTING THE CONTRACT AWARD; AND PROVIDING FOR
PAYMENT OF COSTS THROUGH ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTIES IN THE
0894
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.
Councilor Chadwick introduced Council Bill 2387. Director Mulder 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 2387 duly passed with the emergency clause.
COUNCIL BILL 2388 - RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE ELIGIBILITY OF
THE CITY TO RECEIVE STATE-SHARED REVENUES DURING FISCAl,
YEAR 2002-03.
Council Bill 2388 was introduced by Councilor Chadwick. 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 2388 duly passed.
0933
CONTRACT AWARD: EAST HARDCASTLE STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
Bids for the East Hardcastle Avenue improvements were received from the following
contractors: Wayne Jeskey Construction, $309,091.12; Geico Construction, $336,670.00;
D & D Paving, $341,092.16; C R Woods Trucking, $342,959.49; Parker Northwest
Paving, $350,249.10; Emery & Sons, $356,895.22; Valley Pacific Construction,
$365,054.90; Morse Bros., $366,359.00; North Santiam Paving, $369,395.50; Kerr
Contractors, $393,349.25; Roy Houck Construction, $401,414.20; Canby Excavation,
Page 19 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
0981
0994
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
$409,065.09; Sa',
$489,761.60. S'
the engineer's e:
FIGLEY/SIFU
Construction in
The motion pas~,
em Road & Driveway, $440,068.70; and Dirt & Aggregrate,
afl recommended the acceptance of the low bid which was 23% below
timate.
~NTEZ ... construction contract be awarded to Wayne Jeskey
he amount of $309,091.12 for the East Hardcastle street improvements.
~d unanimously.
PLANNING C~ )MMISSION ACTIONS.
A) Variance 02 01: Planning Commission acceptance of Planning Director's decision to
approve a minor variance to reduce the required rear yard setback on a single-family
residential lot lo':ated in the Heritage Park Phase 3 Subdivision.
No action was ta ken by the Council on this administrative decision.
CITY ADMIN]STRATOR'S REPORT.
Administrator B :own stated that he and the Mayor had met with ODOT staff and Senator
Peter Courtney ~ talk about a strategy to try and fund the interchange improvement using
the second roun of Oregon Transportation bond monies which amounts to about $100
million state-wi, [e. The City had tried to get recommended for funds as part of the first
round of bond rn'onies but MWACT did not put the City high enough in its
reconunendatio~' for the City to get through that funding process. ODOT staff indicated
that it would be ,tifficult for the City to try and get the full project funded by the Oregon
Transportation £',ommission since total project is estimated at $24 million and Region II
may only get $17 million. It was recommended by ODOT Region management that it
would be better fOr the bond monies to be used for smaller projects in the State and what
was left would then be the larger STIP projects such as Woodbum's. He stated that
ODOT staff gave them a clear indication that they would make the City's interchange
project as their #1 priority for the Region if that could be swung politically through the
various transportation commissions and counties that are involved. He also stated that on
the following Thursday, the interchange project came before MWACT and it became #1
in the rating and ranking process for their recommendation for the 2004-07 STIP. More
recent estimates for the project are closer to $35 million due to potential right-of-way
acquisition costs. ODOT staff is now suggesting that it may be very difficult for the City
to see this project funded through the STIP. In attendance at the meeting was a
representative from Rep. Hooley's office for the purpose of working towards not only
getting on the STIP but getting some federally ear-marked money towards this project so
that it can hopefhlly be started by 2007. He stated that the OTC is holding their May
meeting on May 14th and Senator Courtney may be in attendance at that meeting.
8A
Page 20 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
TAPE
READING
1402
1835
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
MAY 13, 2002
MAYOR AND ;COUNCIL REPORTS.
Councilor Bjelland stated that he wished that MWACT would have used the point
system that was used in the most recent ranking on the original selection of projects since
it took away the political issue of the ranking of projects. Unfortunately, with the
estimated cost increase for this project, it will lessen the alternatives available for funding
this project. He stated that MWACT will be continuing their selection of the more recent
bond monies at their next meeting in addition to selecting the STIP projects for 2005-07.
Region II may be getting $17 million but MWACT is only 1 of 4 Advisory Commissions
in Region II which may only provide MWACT with $5-7 million to spend on the 3
county area (Marion, Polk, and Yamhill counties).
Councilor Sifuentez stated that she would be out-of-town from May 15th through May
28th.
Councilor Chadwick stated that this was a very interesting meeting and the Council will
have a lot of thinking and studying to do before the next meeting.
Councilor Nichols reminded the public that the Mayor will be the guest speaker at the
Mayor's breakfast and he encouraged the public to attend this event.
The Mayor stated that there would be no executive session.
ADJOURNMENT.
MCCALLUM/BJELLAND... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m..
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
CityofWoodbum, OR 97071
Page 21 - Council Meeting Minutes, May 13, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 28, 2002
TAPE
READING
0001
DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN,
C---0-U-~TY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, MAY 28, 2002.
CONVENED. Fhe meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding.
0010
ROLL CALL.
Mayor Jennings Present
Counciloi Bj elland Present
Councilor Chadwick Absent
Councilor Figley Present
Councilor McCallum Present
Councilok Nichols Present
Councilor Sifuentez Absent
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director
Tiwari, Commux~ity Development Director Mulder, Police Chief Null, Deputy Police
Chief Russell, Pgrk & Recreation Director Westrick, Finance Director Gillespie, Public
Works ManagerRohman, City Recorder Tennant
0100
0150
Mayor Jennings stated that Councilor Chadwick is recovering from pneumonia and
Councilor Sifuentez is out of state and will be returning on Wednesday.
ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A) Public Hearing: The Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed City Budget
for Fiscal Year 2002-03 on Monday, June 10, 2002, 7:00 p.m., in the City Hall Council
Chambers.
B) Public Library Closure: The Library will be closed on Friday, June 21, 2002, for
staff computer training.
C) Dance, Dance, Dance Spring Recital: Students participating in this program will
hold their spring recital on June 1, 2002 at 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. at the Woodbum High
School Lectorium.
D) Cascade Surge Soccer: Opening Day for Cascade Surge at Legion Park will be on
Saturday, June 8, 2002, at 7:00 p.m..
E) Reception for Community Relations Officer: A reception to introduce the City's
new Community Relations Officer Javier Meza-Perfecto will be held on June 30, 2002
from 4:00 pm to[6:00 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers.
F) Police Chief Reception: On Friday, May 31, 2002, a farewell reception will be held
beginning at 2:00 p.m. for Police Chief Paul Null who is retiring as of that date, and
incoming Chief Scott Russell will be swom into office. This event will be held in the
City Hall Council Chambers.
Page 1 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, May 28, 2002
8A
TAPE
READING
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 28, 2002
0240
1131
PRESENTAT][ON: OREGON ROUTE 99E CORRIDOR SAFETY REPORT.
Dave Bishop, Region II Manager for Oregon Dept. of Transportation, made a presentation
to the Council on the Oregon Highway 99E Corridor Safety Report which was a project
initiated by the Mid-Willamette Area Commission on Transportation. The report
statistics cover the period of January 1994 through December 31, 1999 and it covers a 24-
mile distance from the north Salem city limits to the north city limits of Canby. The
study utilizes data from the ODOT Safety Management System which is a compilation of
statistics from law enforcement agencies filed on traffic accidents and crashes. The study
was divided into four segments: 1) Salem to south city limits of Woodburn, 2) within
Woodburn city limits, 3) north city limits of Woodburn to south city limits of Canby, and
4) within Canby city limits. As a result of the study, the following recommendations
were made by the 'consultant: 1) some capital improvements will be needed that will
require some time to be made due to funding; 2) some changes can be made through
ODOT maintenance funds and are categorized as maintenance projects; and 3)
educational and enforcement activities. The method used to analyze the statistics looked
at where the accidents and crashes occurred, crash diagrams, police reports, and
pedestrian/bicycle police reports on fatalities, engineer site visits, and data comparing this
roadway segment with other similar roadways in the State.
Mr. Bishop proceeded to outline the following key findings of the report:
1) There is a higher "rural" crash rate on Highway 99E than the statewide average;
2) On Highway 99E in the urban area, there is a higher to average crash rate than the
statewide average, however, the urban area in Hubbard has experience a higher crash rate;
3) There is a much higher rate of fatalities on Highway 99E than the statewide average for
similar highway types with the only exception being a small segment of Highway 18 in
Yamhill county;
4) Pedestrian fatalities are at 28% while statewide the fatality rate is 11%;
5) The study also shows that crashes seem to be more associated with alcohol and other
drugs; and
6) 6% of the total crashes involve Hit and Run whereas the statewide average is 3.5%.
He stated that the report does not go into trying to explain the reasons for the findings
rather it just provides the data.
Mr. Bishop stated that two major projects are being funded to improve the safety of
Highway 99E during the 2005 construction season. Those projects are 1) Howell Prairie
Road intersection with 99E which will involve the widening of a section of roadway to
provide for a left turn refuge, and 2) Boones Ferry Road intersection with 99E which will
also provide for a left turn refuge. Potential projects along Highway 99E include 1)
installation of a median at the Highway 99E/Highway 211/Highway 214 intersection, and
2) a Highway 99E preservation project to resurface the road from Salem to Woodburn.
Mr. Bishop stated that Highway 99E is an extremely important State highway that
Page 2 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, May 28, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 28, 2002
TAPE
READING
parallels I-5 and
transportation ro
the cities and col
potentially make
Mayor Jennings
installed on Hig~
Safeway develol;
Mr. Bishop state
been finalized as
Councilor McC~
indicated where.
there are times that I-5 is closed with Highway 99E being the alternative
ate for motorists. Additionally, ODOT looks forward to working with
tnties within this stretch of highway in order to improve the highway and
it a safer roadway.
~tated that it was his understanding that a partial median was being
tway 99E near the Highway 211/214/99E intersection as a result of the
ment.
:1 that the partial median was being required, however, the design has not
of this date.
llum questioned Mr. Bishop as to whether or not the police reports
~lcohol was purchased in those crashes involving alcohol.
Mr. Bishop state :1 that the sources are not known, however, the stretch of Highway 99E
included in the study does have at least 4 taverns that are right along the highway which
may be a contrii~uting factor.
Councilor McCallum expressed his hope that ODOT will continue to focus on making
improvements tO this problem area in an effort to reduce the number of accidents and
fatalities.
Mr. Bishop state
report and it inC
Council that ma
cl that all of the recommendations made are listed in latter portion of the
udes comments on some of those recommendations. He reminded the
or improvements will take time and he suggested an Advisory
Committee of 1~ rsons interested in promoting the recommendations be formed to help
ODOT to priorit[ze and verify the approaches to improving this segment of Highway 99E.
He reiterated that enforcement of traffic laws and educational programs are important
factors in makinl; this area safer.
Councilor McCa llum stated that the City's Police Department has had the foresight to
increase patrols Specific to traffic enforcement in an effort to reduce the number of
accidents. He also suggested that the cities and counties within this stretch of roadway
receive periodic reports from ODOT on progress made relating to the recommendations
within the safety report.
1800
Bob Montgomery, representing the Woodbum Eagles, stated that their organization
would like add a 10'x7' (70 sq. foot) freezer onto the back of their building. He objected
to the City's site plan review fee of over $1,100 since the City's site plan review fees are
by square footage and the minimum cost is $1,100 provided that the review is for 4,000
sq. feet or underi He feels that this is an excessive permit fee and he suggested that the
City implement a couple of more graduated fees rather than charging the current amount
for a very small ~ommercial building addition.
Administrator Brown stated that the Community Development Department will be
bringing recommendations to the Council for new fee schedules for all of their various
permits which is in conjunction with the new Development Ordinance. He stated that
Page 3 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, May 28, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 28, 2002
TAPE
READING
staff agrees that there does need to be a lower level of fees than what is currently in place
but there will be some set costs such as public notice to surrounding properties.
Community Development Director Mulder stated that the zoning ordinance requires
review of any addition no matter how large or small the addition will be whereas a
building permit is only required for a building of 120 square feet or more. He also stated
that, in this case, he has determined that the Eagles were not expanding the square footage
since this is a portable unit that will just be attached onto the existing wall. Therefore, the
Eagles will not be going through site plan review for the small freezer unit.
2133
CONSENT AGENDA.
A) Accept the Planning Commission minutes of April 25, 2002;
B) Accept the Library Board minutes of May 8, 2002; and
C) Accept the Police Department Activities Report for March 2002.
FIGLEY/NICHOLS .... adopt the consent agenda as presented. The motion passed
unanimously.
2167
COUNCIL BILL 2389 - ORDINANCE SUBDIVIDING 2.83 ACRES INTO 13
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED NORTH OF COMSTOCK
AVENUE AND EAST OF BROWN STREET AND CHANGING ZONING
DESIGNATION TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS).
Councilor Figley introduced Council Bill 2389. Recorder Tennant read the two bills by
title only since there were no objections from the Council.
Mayor Jennings stated that his preference is to have a full Council when voting on a land
use issue of this sort, however, Councilors Chadwick and Sifuentez were aware of this
issue and did not have any objections to the proposal.
On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Jennings declared
Council Bill 2389 duly passed with the emergency clause.
2311
COUNCIL BILL 2390 - RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO COOPERATIVE
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT #19464 WITH THE STATE
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF
FRONTAGE ROAD FROM WOODLAND AVENUE TO I-III,LYER'S FORD
Council Bill 2390 was introduced by Councilor Figley. 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 unardmously. Mayor Jennings declared Council Bill 2390 duly passed.
2359
COUNCIL BILL 2391 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF
OPERATING CONTINGENCY APPROPRIATIONS DURING FISCAL YEAR
2001-02.
Councilor Figley introduced Council Bill 2391. The bill was read by title only since there
Page 4 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, May 28, 2002
8A
cOUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 28, 2002
TAPE
READING
were no objections
unanimously.
2420
244Q
ACCEPTANCE I
HARDCASTLE,
Staff recommen&
property owners:
from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed
or Jennings declared Council Bill 2391 duly passed.
~F SIDEWALK/UTILITY EASEMENTS RE: EAST
,VENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS:
d the acceptance of sidewalk/utility easements from the following
Iames and Carol Daggett (Exhibit A), Donald and Agnes Hagenauer
(Exhibit B), Pave and Komela Ionko (Exhibit C), William and Susan Wyatt (Exhibit D),
James and Rebeo :a Kirsch (Exhibit E), and Karen, Donald & Agnes Hagenauer (Exhibit
F).
FIGLEY/NICHI ~LS .... accept the sidewalk and utility easements on East Hardcastle
which are desigm Lted as Exhibits A through F. The motion passed unanimously.
BOONES FERI~,Y ROAD LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID).
Mayor Jennings .~ rated that Councilor McCallum had previously declared a conflict of
interest on this is:;ue. He has advised Councilor McCallum that it is not necessary for
him to leave the l~ench, however, he will not participate in the discussion.
The Mayor stated that at the last meeting, the public hearing was closed but the record
was left open for' staffto solidify some of the issues that needed to be addressed. Since
there was no Council discussion at that meeting, this is the time for discussion to be held
and a consensus ff the Council can be taken to inform the staff to bring back an ordinance
for the next mee~ ing. Once the ordinance is before the Council, it will require a quorum
of the Council tol act on the ordinance.
Administrator B~own stated that the record was left open in order to allow the City
Attorney to file sbme additional information into the record by May 22, 2002, a copy of
those documents~are included in this agenda packet. Also received were letters from the
Attorney representing the Tukwila Partners in the large undeveloped landowners in the
area and a letter from the Presbyterian Church. He stated that the Presbyterian Church
raised issues regarding not being notified of this LID hearing and he explained that the
Church had not been notified since they are not a part of this particular LID. Legal issues
were raised by the attorney representing the large undeveloped landowners regarding the
charging a Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) in addition to the LID assessment. A legal
opinion from City Attorney Shields is included in the agenda packet which states that the
City does have the right to charge for both primarily because the TIF is only allowed for
capacity expansion and that is the only portion of this project for which TIF's have been
applied. The LiD assessment will take care of reconstructing the existing roadway costs
of which cannot!be paid for through TIF's. Another issue related to use of trip generation
in calculation of LID's since trip generation is one of the components that factors into
TIF's and Attorney Shield's opinion states that it can be done and trip generation is an
appropriate method of measuring traffic impact for a number of different spectrums
Page 5 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, May 28, 2002
gA
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 28, 2002
TAPE
READING
including TIF's and LID's. Lastly, there was an issue as to whether or not the
apportionment was appropriate in the method that was used by staff and, in Attorney
Shields' opinion, the Council has broad discretion to determine the method of
apportionment as long as it is being done on a rationale basis. The proposed
apportionment is consistent with the way the Council has handled apportionments in
other LID situations and in the Reimbursement District for roadway improvements. He
stated that the overall project runs from Lincoln Street on Settlemier Avenue north to the
north city limits and will take in the intersection at Highway 214/Settlemier
Avenue/Boones Ferry Road and Country Club Road fi.om Astor Way east to Boones
Ferry Road. The total project is estimated to cost $2.7 million over the next couple of
years and this particular segment represents about 50% of the total project. He reminded
the Council that a project this large consists of several financing mechanisms and the LID
is only one portion of the financing package. The amount of TIF's apportioned to this
particular project is the amount that can legally be apportioned if TIF's are going to be
used consistent with state law. Therefore, any improvement beyond the 34' foot roadway
improvement, which in this case is 14' additional width from curb to curb, is being picked
up by the TIF's. Additionally, TIF's can be used to pay for additional costs relating to the
depth of the road base which would be required to build a roadway in excess of the 34'
foot local street improvement. Other funds beings used to offset the LID's include some
developer contributions and Street CIP funds. It was noted that of the total $2.7 million
project, more than 1/3 of the cost of the project is being paid through the Street CIP Fund.
This particular LID will pay about 33% of the entire project even though it has been
pointed out to the Council that it is about 60% of this particular segment. Staff feels that
the proposed LID cost for this segment is appropriate since the properties located in this
LID will gain the most immediate and consistent benefit from the improvement. If a
general obligation bond issue was submitted to the voters, staff felt that past experience
would reflect that the likelihood of this measure being approved by the voters being
marginal if at all. Staff looked at other funding opportunities but what has been proposed
are those funding methods that are legal, rational, and justifiable. Another question asked
by individuals at the heating related to speeding in the area if the roadway is improved
and widened. Administrator Brown stated that there will be a posted speed limit along
this stretch of roadway and the City does have motorcycle units that are dedicated to
traffic enforcement and, when complaints are raised by the public, the Police Department
does respond to the complaints and assigns traffic units to the area to enforce the laws.
He reiterated that the apportionment of costs to the individual properties is based on 25%
of the land area and 75% based on trip generation. Within those numbers, if the parcel of
land has direct access to the roadway with no other secondary access, then the charge to
the property would be 100% whereas if a secondary access was available then the charge
to the property would be 65%. The LID involved 660 parcels of land representing
approximately 475 property owners.
Page 6 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, May 28, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 28, 2002
TAPE
READING
Another issue that was raised by a property owner related to the potential taking of his
property in orde~ to make this improvement. Administrator Brown stated that this is a
territorial road x~hich dates back to 1855 and the right-of-way granted to territorial roads
is 60 feet which is the right-of-way to be used for this improvement. He stated that there
are 8 or 9 deeds [hat indicate that there is a 5 foot variance on their side of property which
means that the d]eeds show that their property comes out 5 feet further than territorial road
would indicate t~at it should. Therefore, the City will be negotiating this issue through in
the course of trylng to do improvements. In regards to the remonstrances relating to this
project, there was an overall rate of 34.7% of the LID which still allows the Council to
move forward w~th this project if they so desired. It was also noted that 27.9% of the LID
is comprised of~he large properties represented by Tukwila Partners, Renaissance
Homes, United l?roperties, and Hazelnut Partners who are represented by Attorney Cox.
Property owner~ either objecting verbally or in writing were considered as a remonstrance
even though written remonstrances constituted approximately 5% of the total. Staff is
recommending that the Council move forward with this project and is willing to bring
back an ordinance at the next regular meeting to establish the LID.
Councilor Bjelland suggested that the City clarify how remonstrances are identified since
there is a legal requirement that remonstrances be written whereas staff includes verbal
objections as a remonstrance. Even though the percentage is below the 50% level, the
City needs to go on record what is going to be considered as a true remonstrance for
purposes of detcanfining whether or not to move forward with an LID.
Mayor Jennings stated that the remonstrance issue will be discussed under New Business.
The Mayor also stated that, after the hearing, he had spoken with 6 property owners in the
proposed LID regarding this project and those owners were more concerned about the
principle of the matter rather than the monetary assessment. He expressed his opinion
that the City should move ahead with the improvement project.
Councilor Nichols stated that the staff report states that no property is being charged
twice for the same improvemem which was a questioned raised during the public hearing.
He also felt that the City should proceed with the improvement rather than waiting to do
the improvement at a later date at a higher cost.
Councilor Figley also stated that she was in favor of the improvement and supports the
formula used to determine costs within the LID. Additionally, she felt that, at the
heating, Councilor Bjelland did an excellent job of informing the public that the City is
making a substantial contribution towards this improvement since the roadway is an
arterial street. She felt that it is long overdue to have sidewalks along this street since
there are a largeinumber of children who reside in the area and walk that roadway in order
to get to school. Her one concem on the whole process relates to property owners who
purchased new homes within the LID thought they were paying for the improvement as
part of the purchase price of their home. Even though that was a reasonable supposition,
in this case, it was not true since there was nothing recorded that would alert the
Page 7 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, May 28, 2002
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 28, 2002
TAPE
READING
4510
purchaser of a potential future obligation.
Councilor Bjelland expressed his opinion that improvements are needed on Boones Ferry
Road and, even though comments were made that indicate minimal pedestrian and
bicycle usage, he feels that the improvements will generate more use these transportation
modes. On the issue of defining the boundary of an LID, he felt that some judgement had
to be made and the LID boundary was a valid decision on what property should be
included based oh benefit. Another issue brought up by Councilor Bjelland related to the
letter from Mr. Cox dated May 22, 2002 which indicates that the LID as proposed treats
the undeveloped portion of Tukwila as if it had no restrictions.
Attorney Shield~ stated that the public testimony for this heating is closed and the record
is also closed, but, in the record, there is a letter from Mr. Cox which addresses the
Tukwila property and it would not be inappropriate for the Council to ask staff to address
the letter. He stated that the law states that the benefit has to be equal to the assessment
imposed which is a judgment call and the Council has a high degree of discretion as to
what that judgment is as long as it is reasonable.
Administrator Brown stated that the staff felt fairly comfortable with the percentage of
assignment in that area and in the future, the developers may want to construct a road
within their development that would link up to Hazelnut at Boones Ferry. In assessing
the undeveloped property, single family residences and single family trip generations is
the conservative approach and, if they are able to get a higher density when the property is
developed, the trip generation number would be greater.
Mayor Jennings stated that, in regards to the Tukwila development that is within the
Urban Growth Boundary, the Council did not say that the Urban Growth Boundary
needed to be changed only that the developers needed to find a second exit to the Tukwila
property. He reiterated that pedestrians need to be protected and proceeding with the
improvement will result in the installation of sidewalks along this arterial street. Staff
was asked to bring back an ordinance at the next regular meeting.
5131 NEW BUSINESS: POLICY DISCUSSION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF
OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS.
Councilor Figley stated that she has had concerns regarding the timing and payment
responsibilities for offsite improvements associated with new developments since new
homeowners purchase property not always knowing what conditions have been placed on
the developer. She stated that most jurisdictions have a waiver of remonstrance where it
is put on record that 1) the developer or homeowner is obligated to be a part of a local
improvement district as a condition of approval, and 2) home buyers are put on notice
that this improvement will be made in the future that will obligate them to pay for a
portion of the cost. A recorded document will not only protect the City but it will provide
a level of integrity that citizens are entitled to expect when conditions are imposed. As
she reflects back on projects that have been or will be assessed, she did not anticipate that
Page 8 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, May 28, 2002
ITT I
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 28, 2002
TAPE
READING
the street and sid~ewalk improvements would be delayed as long as they have and was
surprised to lear~ that no record was filed that would provide the home buyers with
advance knowledge that the improvement would be made and properties assessed. In the
future, she would like to see that improvements are done soon after the development is
approved with either the developer making a contribution or the City will execute a non-
remonstrance agreement which will be recorded to let home buyers know that the
improvement will be made which will involve a financial obligation to the property
owner. She stat~d that the City Attorney has drafted a non-remonstrance agreement that
addresses the coacems she has expressed which can be recorded at the County.
Mayor Jennings ~tated that he also has concems relating to this issue since purchasers of
property have a right to know what developers had agreed to at the time the development
was approved. ~
Councilor Bjelland stated that his concern relates to the formal remonstrance process and
making a decision on what constitutes a remonstrance for future local improvement
districts. He agra,'ed that the issue brought up by Councilor Figley and Mayor Jennings
needs to be addn :ssed, however, he questioned if a legal remonstrance can nm with the
property rather fl tan the property owner. If the developer does contribute to a future
improvement, a b. ir share estimate would need to be determined since it may be several
years before the .mprovement is constructed. He agreed that this issue needs further
examination ani discussion by the staff and Council.
Councilor Nicho Is questioned if a waiver of remonstrance can be tied to the property.
Attorney Shields stated that some jurisdictions use waiver of remonstrance which can be
a recorded docm aent that will nm with the land. He stated that there does need to be a
determination under the current law based on the situation the Council is in with the
developer as to their relationship between the projected improvement and that
development.
Councilor McCallum stated that he would like to provide a more in-depth study on this
issue. His concerns are 1) new development needs the appropriate infrastructure to work,
and 2) property owners need to be protected from surprised financial obligations as a
result of conditions imposed upon developers.
Tape 2
Administrator Brown stated that it is his understanding that the Council would like to see
those who are financially benefitting from the growth they are driving be the ones who
primarily pay for the infrastructure improvements and, if they do not pay, then the
purchasers of property be well informed. He will come back to the Council with a variety
of options that may ~nvolve dtfferent options under different circumstances. If legislative
changes will be required, staff will be prepared to draft the necessary resolutions or
ordinances to make the changes after the decision has been made by the Council. He also
stated that staff Will prepare a staff report on what constitutes a remonstrance which was
brought up as a concern by Councilor Bjelland.
Page 9 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, May 28, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 28, 2002
TAPE
READING
0088
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT.
Administrator Brown referred to the letter he had drafted, in collaboration with Deputy
Chief Russell, in response to the Public Safety Council that addressed the Council at the
last meeting. In summary, the letter states that the City needs the following criminal
justice services from the County: 1) prosecution, 2) incarceration, and 3)probation
services. These services are necessary to make the City's law enforcement activities
meaningful within the City and to protect our citizens.
It was the consensus of the Council to have the Mayor sign the letter which will be
submitted to the County Budget Committee.
0210
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS.
Councilor Nichols stated that there are a lot of activities planned for this summer and he
encouraged citizens to take advantage of the activities.
Councilor McCallum congratulated the Mayor on the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast and he
also congratulated the Administrator in making the retiring Police Chief work up until his
last day of employment.
Councilor Bjelland stated that 124 baskets were hung around the City and there have been
many favorable comments on this program. He also stated that the next Mid Willamette
Area Commission on Transportation (MWACT) meeting will address the 2004-07 STIP
allocation of monies and he will be talking to staff to develop strategies to try and get our
share of monies for the interchange project. As costs continue to rise to do the complete
project, the City may need to look at piecemealing the project so that the City does not get
shut out completely from being allocated funds
0446
Mayor Jennings presented retiring Chief Null with a Certificate of Appreciation for 29
years of service to the City. As a token of appreciation, Mayor Jennings also gave Chief
Null an air-power tool which he can use when doing bodywork on automobiles.
0620 Mayor Jennings called for a brief recess at 8:40 p.m. in order to have a small reception for
Chief Null. The meeting reconvened at 8:57 p.m..
0698
EXECUTIVE SESSION.
Mayor Jennings entertained a motion to adjourn to executive session under the authority
of ORS 192.660(1)(h) and ORS 192.660(1)(0.
NICttOLS/BJELLAND... adjourn to executive session under the statutory authority
cited by the Mayor. The motion passed unanimously.
The Council adjourned to executive session at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at
9:28 p.m..
Page 10 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, May 28, 2002
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 28, 2002
TAPE
READING
0751
Mayor Jennings ~tated that there were no decisions made in executive session.
ADJOURNMEI~IT.
FIGLEY/BJELLAND .... meeting be adjourned.
The meeting adj¢.umed at 9:30 p.m..
APPROVED
The motion passed unanimously.
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennan~, Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 11 - Special Council Meeting Minutes, May 28, 2002
8A
Executive Session
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
May 28, 2002
DATE. CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF
MARION, STATE OF OREGON, MAY 28, 2002.
CONVENED. The Council met in executive session at 9:02 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding.
ROLLCALL.
Mayor Jennings Present
Councilor Bj elland Present
Councilor Chadwick Absent
Councilor Figley Present
Councilor McCallum Present
Councilor Nichols Present
Councilor Sifuentez Absent
Mayor Jennings reminded the Councilors, staff, and press that information discussed in executive
session is not to be discussed with the public.
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, City Recorder Tennant
Press: John Gervais, Woodburn Independent
The executive session was called under the following statutory authority:
(1) 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 9:27 p.m..
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 1 - Council Executive Session Minutes, May 28, 2002
8B
WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION
May 9, 2002
CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a session at 7:00 p.m. with Chairperson Cox presiding.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Cox P
Lima P
Young P
Grosjacques P
Mill P
Bandelow P
Lonergan P
Staff Present:
Jim Mulder, Community Development Director
Deniece Won, Assistant City Attorney
MINUTES
A. Woodburn Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2002
~"ommissioner Mill movedto accept the minutes as written. Commissioner Loner.qan seconded the motion,
which unanimously carried?
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
COMMUNICATIONS
A._=. City Council Min~tes of April 8, 2002
PUBLIC HEARING
A._.=. Comprehensive P, lan Map Amendment 01-02, Zone Change 01-05, Site Plan Review 01-13 and
Partition 0t-07, request to amend the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map from Low Density
Residential to Hig~ Density Residential and change the zoning designation from Single-Family
Residential to Multi-Family Residential on a 1.7 acre lot located at 847 N. Cascade Drive. The
request also includes a Site Plan Review proposal for 2 residential care facilities 5,628 sq. fl.
in size and a Partition request to divide the lot into 3 parcels.
Chairperson Cox provided an opening statement for Public Hearing and opened the hearing.
EXPARTE CONTACTS
Commissioner Bandelow reported the sale of the property that is involved in this particular public hearing was
handled through the office that she works. She indicated it is best that she excused herself from participating
in this hearing although she had no direct involvement in that sale but there has been discussion in the office
about the Zone Change.
Commissioner Mill, Commissioner Lonerqan, Commissioner Youn,q, Vice Cha rperson Lima and Chairperson
Cox all reported they drove by and looked at the location.
Staff read the applicable ORS Statement and provided a presentation as reflected in the Staff Report. He
stated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change meets all approval criteria for proposed
parcels I and 2, but not for parcel 3. Parcel 3 should remain zoned Single Family to provide a transition area
and buffer between proposed parcels 1 and 2 and the existing Single Family residence to the south of Parcel
3. He reported the proposed Site Plan meets all municipal code requirements. The Partition also meets all
municipal code requirements for partitioning the lot and that they all will be of sufficient size and width to
satisfy municipal code. In conclusion, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002
Page 1 of 10
I
for Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and Zone Change on proposed parcel 3 and recommended
approval of the ComprehenSive Plan Map Amendment, Zone Change, Site Plan Review for proposed parcels
1 and 2 and approve the Partition application for all three parcels subject to the conditions of approval outlined
in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Loner,qan referred to page 9 of the Staff Report and commented the recommendation for the
architectural wall is not anYWhere in the conclusion or recommendations.
Staff replied he does not see that specific condition in the Staff Report. He indicated that needs to be added
as a condition if the Comm!ssion does follow Staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Loner,qan also referenced the second paragraph contained on page 19 of the Staff Report and
expressed his confusion regarding the RCF's and the lot areas.
Staff clarified the 24,597 figure is the lot size and the 5,628 is the area of the structure. He explained within
each structure there w I be eleven bedrooms comprising 15 beds. Therefore, 4 of the bedrooms will have
2 beds in each of the roomS. Staff further explained each bedroom, for purposes of calculating the required
lot area for multiple family, Was considered a living unit. He further stated this is consistent on how it has been
done on other senior projects. It was stated by Staff part of the confusion is the code does not give us a
specific way of dealing witl~ senior projects.
Vice Chairperson Lima inquired whether the existing North fence will be replaced or remain the same?
Staff suggested the question be presented to the applicant as he did not have the answer.
TESTIMONY BY APPLICANT
Leon Oliver, 1425 NW Ponderosa St., Grants Pass, OR addressed Vice Chairperson Lima's question
regarding the fence and stated he has not personally inspected the fence but it may not be adequate for their
purposes. He indicated these facilities will be licensed to house Alzheimer patients and therefore they need
to have pretty impenetrable fences because Alzheimer patients have a tendency to want to elope at times.
Mr. Oliver further stated he does not know whether the present fence belongs to his property or the neighbors
property. Additionally, he said the surveys on this property are so old they are going to have pins relocated
when they do the partition and they will know at that point who the fence belongs to. It was indicated they were
blind sighted when they reCeived the Staff Report on the recommendation of denial for parcel 3 on the Zone
Change. Mr. Oliver reported through all of the application process, itwas never mentioned that might remain
single family zoning. It seemed obvious to them that it should be RM zone because only 80 feet of its 199 foot
boundary at the South line abuts the single family zone. He commented they designed everything based on
the idea that the whole thing was going to be zoned RM. It was suggested by Mr. Oliver that they could move
the building on parcel 2 slightly to the North to achieve the 15 foot buffer but then they will not conform with
the Ordinance Section on Solar because they would be too close to the building on the North. Additionally,
he commented had they known that this was going to be an issue, they might have included yet another item
in the application for a Variance for the Solar. In closing, Mr. Oliver stated the only solution that would put
them in compliance would be if the seller would allow the applicant to purchase another 15 feet of parcel 3.
Chairperson Cox questioned if parcel 3 has been separately sold to somebody else?
Leon Oliver replied he is not the applicant but the representative. The applicant, Mr. Cummings who is the
contractor/owner, is buying the two parcels from the seller subject to this approval and the third parcel would
remain with the seller. Mr. Oliver indicated they did not anticipate parcel 3 would remain Single Family zone
and it was logical to divide it as equally into thirds as possible. He added the Commission might have seen
a different application if they had different information before this last week. Additionally, he clarified what a
residential care facility is and stated under Federal Law residential care facilities are allowed in any Single
Family zone and can not be conditioned any differently than a Single Family home. The Oregon Law
attempted to say that but was worded poorly and it can be interpreted to say that jurisdictions like Woodbum
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 2 of l 0
¸8B
have discretion on what zone they can put them in. Mr. Oliver stated he included with his application a copy
of the Oregon Attorney Gerieral's opinion that states that is not the case and you have to allow them in any
Single Family zone. The str~cture looks a lot like a large house inside and out but they only have one kitchen,
one laundry facility and one living room. Mr. Oliver further cOmmented they are an alternative to the big box
care centers.
Commissioner Mill asked if essentially a residential care facility would be an overgrown adult foster home?
Leon Oliver responded affirmatively.
Comm ssioner Youn.q inquir~ed what level of care will they be providing?
Leon Oliver replied it is aging in place concept. It is not a medical facility and there is no nursing staff at the
location. He explained a rlurse supervises medication on a monthly basis. The residents are typically
ambulatory but are too infir~n to live independently.
Commissioner Mill asked the applicant how many people will be on staff?
Leon Oliver reported it will vlary according to the time of day but there will be at least one overnight when the
residents are asleep. It will ipeak at about 3:00 pm and at shift overlaps which happen around meal time.
Vice Chairperson Lima questioned how many of these projects has Mr. Oliver been involved with?
Additionally, he requested clarification as to whether they will have Alzheimer residents at this facility.
Leon Oliver answered he has been involved in about 20-22 projects. Furthermore, he reported they expect
to be licensed for Alzheimer patients so they will have that option available and the buildings will be built with
that i~ mind. He explained Alzheimer is a progressive disease and at some point you have to have
supervision almost one on {)ne for the patients. Certainly, they do not need that type of supervision at the
earlier stages of Alzheimer; Mr. Oliver further explained dementia is put in the same package for State
licensing with Alzheimer.
Vice Chairperson Lima expressed concerns in that they may have a relatively small number of employees
when they are expecting patients requiring full time care.
Leon Oliver commented they are residents and not patients. These are folks that may not see their doctor
once a month and they are not in the late stages of whatever malady they may have. He explained they do
not have capacity anymore lo live entirely on their own. Mr. Oliver pointed out the Rule and Statute Excerpts
which are included in the Staff Report provides a lot more insight into what it is they are actually doing.
Commissioner Mill expressed curiosity as to why they have a garage rather than converting it into some other
type of space.
Leon Oliver replied they will use it as storage, additional parking and it does lend to the type of curb appeal
of a residence rather than an institution.
TESTIMONY BY PROPONENTS
Tim Cummings, 236 NW B st., Grants Pass, OR reported unfortunately the State of Oregon minimum
requirements for staffing is one staff person for 15 residents. However, they are not proposing to staff at that
level. He stated they would be looking at each person and figure out what their daily habits are, wake times,
sleep times and eat times because all the residents are different and then they would staff those accordingly.
Mr. Cummings further reported they will have an administrator at each facility and a minimum of two people
dudng the day and then staff it according to the needs of the residents. He reiterated care plans are prepared
for each individual resident. Additionally, he remarked the needs are a little different in larger facilities. Mr.
Cummings commented their facility is a little bit different because it is a facility that has more home like setting
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002
Page 3 of 10
and not as much like an institution type setting where they are able to probably be priced a little less than the
larger facilities. He addres~-:,cl the garage issue and stated it will be utilized more like storage in the fact that
a lot of the residents bring their own furniture and items in and they need a space to put those in. It was
explained each individual room contains a bedroom and a restroom with all the bathing done in a central
location.
Commissioner Loner,qan asked what is the average length of stay for their residents?
Tim Cummin.qs replied he {Ices not work with that part of the numbers.
Vice Chairperson Lima inqtlired if they have any numbers as to how much each resident would be charged?
Tim Cummin.qs responded they have not done a study. A new facility will be opening up in Salem around mid-
June that is exactly the same as this proposed facility. He reported it would probably run around $2,400 a
month.
Mel Counts, 1581 Matheny ~Rd. NE, Gervais, OR stated he is the listed agent for the property. He commented
he agreed with Staff in that~ere should be a buffer zone. However, he inquired why can't there be a buffer
zone or wall for the entire groperty at the southern end of the property? He said Staff mentioned there is a
possibility that there could be two residences on the property that is left over. Therefore, you actually have
to provide a buffer zone for two residences instead of one which is on the southern property. Additionally, he
remarked it is a nice package having the whole thing zoned Multi-Family to the eastern part of the street and
the north side. He said he would appreciate it if the Commission would consider zoning the whole parcel
Multi-Family.
TESTIMONY BY OPPONENTS
Ingrid Sti,qerts, 966 Ore,qop Way, Woodburn, OR reported her home looks out onto this property. She
prefaced by stating St. Mary's Episcopal Church wanted to do a year ago a complex similar to this but their
archdiocese said no because there are too many in the Woodburn area and it would not be profitable.
Additionally, she remarked the traffic to make a left turn on Cascade to 214 is usually horrendous. She
pointed out several of the other residential facilities are all going to be looking for residents. It was Mrs.
Stigerts feeling that if this complex is not going to be filled, it will run down and there will be another
landscaping problem. In closing, she said there was no addressing what will be done to the West of this
property which abuts the 11~' fairway of the golf course.
Leon Oliver interjected a typical solid vinyl fence is proposed to separate the project from the golf course.
Barbara Sharp, 855 N. Cascade Dr., Woodbum stated her property is adjacent to parcel 3 and she is highly
opposed to this project. Additionally, she is representing five of her neighbors that could not be here tonight.
She also referenced the traffic situation Mrs. Stigerts raised and further commented her husband has been
asked not to park his truck in front of their home because of the traffic. Mrs. Sharp also reported the street
parking is bumper to bumper on both sides of the street when she leaves in the mornings usually about 9:30
am and there is no where to park on that street. If additional vehicles are added, they will be sitting in front
of her door. Additionally, she expressed concerns with what is happening to the golf course and expressed
disappointment in that the old house is not being sold as one parcel. However, she approves the Commission
not approving that third parcel for Multi-Family and would rather see the old house stay than to have an
apartment next door to her property.
Chairperson Cox asked Staff if there was anything in the Staff Report regarding traffic impact statement?
Staff answered there was a traffic study done and the Staff Report addressed that. He reported this facility
would generate less traffic than if this property was fully developed with Single Family residences.
APPLICANT REBUTTAL
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002 Page 4 of 10
8B
Leon Oliver addressed two issues the first being the market place for this type of housing. He indicated they
submitted population data based out of the Oregon Blue Book and other resources showing the growth of the
over 60 population in Woodbum and showing its relationship to the rest of the State. Mr. Oliver commented
they are here tonight because they are confident in the market place and are quite confident that they are not
going to have a problem with empty beds. As far as the traffic, he remarked their residents do not drive and
do not get constant doctor, nurse or physical therapy visits. Therefore, this project is a very Iow traffic
generator. It was reported by Mr. Oliver that his analysis of the two facilities, which they have traffic data on,
and full build out on Multi-Family on parcel 3 there was 16 trips per day more than what could be done with
a full build out in the Single Family scenario that you have now. He further added 16 trips per day is less than
two Single Family homes, it was also indicated by Mr. Oliver most of the traffic generated by the Alzheimer
facility typically do not occur at peak hour.
Vice Chairperson Lima asked the applicant what license class will they apply for?
Leon Oliver replied it would be a Class II license with an Alzheimer endorsement. He explained Health and
Human Services puts a alder on your license if you are going to house Alzheimer residents.
DISCUSSION
Chair~.~.~n Cox closed the Public Heating and opened for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Grosiac~ues requested clarification regarding the shadow situation.
Staff remarked he does not see that being an issue in this situation although the code does have shadow
access protection provisions. However, under the current code that can be waived by the adjacent property
owner. He further stated since the applicant controls the affected property, the applicant can waive it or wait
until the new development code becomes effective July 1 =~ which does not have as stringent requirements as
under the current code.
~ explained for the record that even if the Commission were to approve the Site Development
Plan it would be conditioned upon the fact that the Council goes ahead and approves the Zone Change and
the Comprehensive Plan change.
Commissioner Mill addressed Mrs. Sharp's comments and stated her points are very valid and one that Staff
is concerned with as well as himself. The issue being what is going to happen with Parcel 3 as far as
changing that to residential multi-family or keep as residential single family. Commissioner Mill agreed that
it should be kept as residential single family. He pointed out it does abut a sensitive residential area and for
that reason he would conaur with what Staff is saying in that area. Additionally, since there does not seem
to be a solar access issue there would not be a need to go into Parcel 3 to erode part of that space to create
a 15 foot landscape buffer. In closing, he stated the area should be kept as residential single and not
residential multi-family without a firm Site Plan in place for that piece of property at this point in time.
Commissioner Loner.qan commented it makes sense that we do leave that as a single family residence and
he favored that. The facility would fit well in the rest of the neighborhood and he is glad that there will be an
architectural wall as a break. He stated he will have to believe that there is a need and their figures made
sense with 22% in the senior population and believed that the applicant would not make this type of
investment if there weren't that need. Therefore, he is convinced that Woodburn is destined for this type of
facility. He addressed the problem with traffic but he does not think that this facility would generate that much
traffic where it would be a problem.
Commissioner Youn,q agreed with Staff's placement of the wall and the landscaping strip between Parcel 2
and Parcel 3 because that really is where the transition occurs between multi-family and single family. He
remarked parking on the ,street would be one drawback with the project because he knows that street is
always fully parked during the day.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002
Page 5 of 10
Chairperson Cox concurred with his fellow Commissioners. He indicated he might not have any great concern
with regard to leaving ParCel 3 as single family rather than changing it to multi-family if he knew they were
going to build another facili~ like these two on that third lot. Chairperson Cox stated it would be totally out of
character to that neighborhqod and would be an imposition on the people who live to the South along Cascade
who bought property which !abutted property zoned single family. He further commented it would be a bad
precedent to suddenly pu! apartments next to them and indicated the buffer needs to be preserved.
Chairperson Cox believed the line should be drawn where Staff recommends because it seems to make
sense and because probal~ly the people who bought along Cascade relied on that when they bought the
properties. Additionally, he referred to the pictures contained in the Staff Report and remarked the existing
house that is proposed to remain has probably totally outlived its second amount of life and is an eyesore in
the neighborhood. He beli~eved the Commission would have the power as part of the conditions that the
applicant in order to go ahe~ad and do what they are proposing, that the existing house has to be somehow
upgraded at least so it isI not an eyesore in the neighborhood, i.e., repainted, brush cut back. He
recommended a condition ibe placed in that the remaining house on the parcel 3 either be removed or
upgraded before an occupancy permit is issued on the residential care facility properties.
Deniece Won interjected Staff consulted with her today with that question and they were unable to come up
with anything in the Zoning Ordinance that has authority for doing that. ,She thought, as a land use matter,
the Commission lacked the authority to make that a condition of this approval. Furthermore, she stated there
is a potentiality of the buildii~g being a nuisance and being abated under another type of ordinance.
Leon Oliver requested the hearing be reopened so that he may address these issues.
Chairperson Cox suggested to reopen the headng to address the issue of the condition of either removing
or upgrading the remaininglhouse and what is going to happen to it.
Commissioner Youn,q explained the reason for dividing the single property into three parcels is to develop
Parcel I and Parcel 2. ParCel 3 really is only the dividing line and there really is no connection with Parcel 3
to this project.
Chairperson Cox called a 10 minute break.
10 MINUTE BREAK
Deniece Won stated she discussed with the applicant dudng the break a number of different scenarios to
accommodate the concernS of the Commission and the Chair. She indicated in her mind it was left that the
applicant had to decide what they wanted to do as she could not give them any advice because some of it is
strategic choices. To some degree, based upon that bit of conversation she thought it might be wise to let
the applicant have a say about that one subject.
Chairperson Cox reopened the hearing limited to the ability to condition the Commission's decision with
respect to doing some aesthetic improvements to the house that would remain.
Tim Cummings reported they postponed this application because they thought the noticing requirements were
going to change soon but that did not occur. It was indicated by Mr. Cummings the seller is wanting to close
on the property and he is reluctant to try to do a continuance. He questioned how substantially changed would
the application be if they slid the Site Plan over to Lot 2 and Lot 3? Mr. Cummings requested the Commission
go down the road they were intending and try to do that maneuvering prior to the City Council meeting instead
of requesting a continuance.
Leon Oliver suggested the Commission make a finding in that they shift one of the Site Plans 9 feet to create
a 15 foot landscape buffer, then it isn't all that big of a stretch to make a condition that they shift over on the
lots. He explained the lots are identical and no difference in utility access and that they submit a revised Site
Plan for Staff's review.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002
Page 6 of 10
8B
Deniece Won interjected primarily Staff's view and professional judgement on analyzing the criteria and
whether having those residential care facilities close on the lot that they were recommending not do make the
Zone Change on in order to have a buffer, is affected and is a legal dilemma.
Staff also added it would modify the analysis of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Chairperson Cox questioned Mr. Oliver why could he not get by and do what he wants to do without getting
a High Density Residential Zoning on Parcel 3 and just leave it zoned Single Family but go ahead and build
the facility there?
Leon Oliver responded the Woodburn Ordinance does not acknowledge the case law that allows them in a
Single Family Zones.
Deniece Won reported there are occasions when our Ordinance is not in compliance with State law. To her
knowledge there has not b~en any exploration of the question about whether our existing Ordinance is
compliant and whether or not this applicant has a right to do what they want to do under State law and whether
or not Staff would recognize that.
Commissioner Lone~an said he would feel uncomfortable voting to have all of those change to Multi-Family
without knowing what type Of Multi-Family facility would be going in to that North end at this point.
Commissioner Lima. commented in the many years he has been on the Planning Commission, this is the most
convoluted hearing. He stated the Commission either follows Staff recommendations or goes against it. He
thought the Commission can not change what has been proposed at this point. Shifting the parcels to him
means a completely new application.
~ interjected he felt the Commission is not in the position to fully analyze this properly at this
meeting with what they haVe available to them. He said since the Commission received testimony from
proponents, he asked the opponents whether they had anything additional to comment.
Barbara Sharp remarked they would not have an objection having a care facility next to them because it would
be a lot cleaner to what they have there now.
Chairperson Cox re-closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Mill said although he likes the project, he felt the whole application should be denied and have
the applicant come back with something that closely fits what is now the desire of the applicant and the
neighbors. He further commented he does not see it put together legally where they can do that to the
satisfaction of everyone.
Commissioner Lima expressed concerns with the lack of clear information by the applicants and it does not
appear to him that they know what they are talking about as far as licensing. He said although they may have
great knowledge and expertise in building, they have not come prepared to answer some questions in terms
of Alzheimer licensing that will affect a lot of people.
ha~ commented the Commission does not have the authority or expertise to regulate care
facilities. The applicant will have to comply with State regulations and if the applicants are a little vague about
what they are, he is sure there is somebody on their team that will get that straightened out before they can
open up their doors.
Commissioner Mill moved to deny Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 01-02. There was no second and
therefore, motion did not carry.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002
Page 7 of 10
Commissioner Loner,qan questioned if by accepting the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Parcel 1 and
Parcel 2, he could tie in th(~ building?
Staff answered it can not be done with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment but you can condition a Zone
Change but Staff was trying to avoid a Conditional Zone Change because it has some inherent difficulties in
trying to reconcile it with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment especially if the development does not go
forward. However, you have the ability to condition the Zone Change based on this specific project.
Commissioner Mill asked if by doing that you would then be keeping the RS for Parcel 3 and RM for Parcels
1 and 2? Additionally, he questioned if this would affect the Partitioning and the Site Plan?
Staff responded that is his understanding based on the motion which was to recommend approval of the
Comprehensive Plan Amelldment to RM on Parcels 1 and 2 and deny the request for Comprehensive Plan
Amendment on Parcel 3. {e indicated this would not affect the Partitioning nor this proposed Site Plan. He
further stated by approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment on Parcels I and 2 and the Zone Change
to RM, the applicant is not I~ound to construct this project because the zoning is being changed. Unless you
were to do a Conditional Zi)ne Change, they could decide to come with an apartment complex on Parcels 1
and 2. Staff stated they di~l not find an issue with that and believes an apartment complex on Parcels I and
2 still makes sense as far as Comprehensive Plan and Zoning as long as Parcel 3 provides the buffering and
transition area. ~
Commissioner Loner,qan commented he has problems with transportation issues which opens up a whole new
ball game.
Staff clarified Staff analyzed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment based on High Density Residential, not on
this s0ecific project. The traffic analysis was addressed in the Staff Report and showed if the project was built
out to maximum density under Single Family and maximum density under Multi-Family there was only a
difference of 40 trips per day, 196 for Single Family and 239 for Multiple Family.
Commissioner Loner.qan withdrew his previous motion.
Commissioner Mill moved to deny Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 01-02 as a recommendation to City
Council. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lima. Motion carried with Commissioner Young and
Chairperson Cox voting NO. Commissioner Bandelow did not vote as she recused herself from this hearing.
Deniece Won interjected we need the Commission's findings on all the criteria for the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. She summarized the Commission's reasoning appears to be: the applicant had not persuaded
them, they had not met the burden of proof, and the criteria were not satisfied with respect to the impacts.
Commissioner Loner,qan asked if it is possible to do the Comprehensive Change and tie the Zone Change
into this project?
Staff replied you have the ability to condition the Zone Change to this specific project. He explained the
Comprehensive Plan can not be conditioned.
Deniece Won explained the law is not perfectly clear but there is a lot of question about the ability to condition
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and she advised Staff to avoid doing that. She quoted a case that
specifically linked a Comp Plan Amendment to a reverter if the development that was expected did not
happen. Ms. Won further explained when you go through a Comp Plan Amendment you have to go through
a certain procedure and consider certain criteria and you are not doing that at the point in time when you are
reverting so you are not in compliance with the Conditioned Comp Plan Amendment. She added you could
condition a Zone Change. However, the cleanest way to do it is to link the conditions to one of the approval
criteria, i.e., you are not supposed to have impact on the facilities, there is too much traffic for the full set of
uses that could be allowed in the zone so you are going to allow uses that go up to a certain point of traffic
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002
Page 8 of 10
8B
impact and not beyond. Ms. Won expressed concerns about defending a condition that links the Zone
Change to a very particulariSite Plan. However, she could not say that is not defensible.
There was consensus by the members of the Commission that voted in favor of the previous motion to
reconsider that vote.
Commissioner Young recommended approval of Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 01-02 for Parcels
1 and 2 and recommend to City Council to deny Parcel 3 and requested Staff return with facts and findings
to reflect the Commission s request. Commissioner Groslacques seconded the motion, which carried w th
Commissioner Mill and ViC~ Chairperson Lima voting No. Commissioner Bandelow did not vote on this
motion as she recused herSelf from this hearing.
Commissioner Grosiacque8 moved to recommend to City Council the approval of Zone Change 01-05 as to
Parcels I and 2 but deny aS, to Parcel 3 and that the change be conditioned upon uses as a residential care
facility and Staff return with proposed findings. Commissioner Loner.qan seconded the motion. Motion
carded with Commissioner ~Bandelow abstaining from voting as she recused herself from this hearing.
Chairperson Cox commented Staff will need to come up with the reasons the Commission is conditioning it.
He provided assistance and indicated it is his sense that the applicant has convinced the Commission that
they met their burden of persuasion in addressing the various elements of the standards that they have to
meet as to this type of use ibut they have not addressed and the Commission are not convinced upon the
record before them that they could comply with those standards if they were talking about an otherwise more
intensive use that might be allowed in that zone.
Commissioner Mill added as well as the fact that it is a compatible use for traffic and surrounding
neigl~orhood impact.
Deniece Won questioned if in the Commission's mind it is tied to that particular use or is it residential care
facilities and any use allowed in the RM zone that is less intensive?
There was a consensus by the Commission that it is tied to residential care facility or less intense than a
residential care facility.
Commissioner Youn,q requested clarification as to the definition of residential care facility.
Deniece Won responded future uses are going to be determined under the Woodburn Development
Ordinance rather than the Woodbum Zoning Ordinance. She reviewed the permitted uses and commented
the one use that is outright permitted that would be clearly a higher intensity use as Multiple Family uses.
Every other would be permitted under a decision that limited it to residential care facility.
Commissioner Lima moved to approved Partition 01-07 as proposed by Staff. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Grosiacques!, which carried. Commissioner Bandelow excused herself from this hearing and
therefore abstained from voting.
Chairperson Cox inquired if it is stated in the conditions that the necessary Zone change and Comp Plan
change be made? He further indicated it needs to be included if it is not included already.
Staff replied it is not included. However, by law, until the Comp Plan and Zoning is approved they can not
legally develop it because it does not comply with the Ordinance. He further commented it is not necessary
to have it there.
Commissioner Lima requested clarification regarding resolution to the wall and fencing issue.
Staff clarified the Site Plan showed a 7 foot fence, although it was not clear whether that meant that the
applicant was going to build one or whether the existing fence was 7 feet. Under our Landscaping Policy
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002
Page 9 of 10
Standards, there is a buffer requirement between Multiple-Family Residential development that abuts a
Commercial Zone to have ia 10 foot planting strip which is provided and a 7 foot wall is required. Staff
reported the new Development Ordinance would not require the less intensive use to buffer themselves from
more intensive. Certainly the applicant has the opportunity to buffer themselves if they choose. Furthermore,
under the new Ordinance When the abutting property is a CO Zone, wall requirements shall be determined
in conjunction with the applicable design review process.
Chairperson Cox requested Staff's recommendation in determining how to address this issue.
Deniece Won interjected it ~hould be addressed as the code requires. She stated the applicant's proposal
is judged by the criteria that Were in place when he filed his application and if that code is specific and explicit,
that is what he is required t~ do and it should be a condition of the approval.
Commissioner Grosjacque8 moved to approve Site Plan Review 01-13 to include the conditions of a 7 foot
solid wall on the South proPerty line and that the separation between the property on the North side be a wall
in compliance with Chapte~ 8 Section D-4 of the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Lonerqan
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Mill requested clarification regarding Police Department comments regarding outdoor lighting.
Staff cladfied Staff will review and approve the outdoor lighting plan taking into consideration the Police
Department recommendations,
Motion unanimously carried. Commissioner Bandelow did not vote because of the reasons previously stated.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
None '
DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
REPORTS
A.~. Building Activity for April 2002
B._~. Planning Project Tracking Sheet (revised 5-1-02)
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
Commissioner Bandelow announced she will not be present at the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lima moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion was seconded and carried. Meeting adjourned
at 9:33 p.m.
ATTEST
APPROVED
CLAUDIO LIMA, RSON
Jim I~l(~er,
Cor~m[~hity Development Director
Cit~ o!.3Noodburn, ~Oregon
i//
DATE
Date
Planning Commission Meeting - May 9, 2002
Page 10 of 10
8C
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5250
Date:
To:
June 6, 2002
Jim Mulder, Community Development Director
From:
Building Division
Subject: Building Activity for May 2002
2000 2001 2002
Dollar Dollar Dollar
No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount
New Residence Value 9 $822,173 13 $1,370,390 17 $2,011,266
Multi Farhily 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Residential Adds & Alts I $30,000 3 $62,300 8 $40,499
Industrial 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Commercial Value 0 $0 1 $7,769 9 $5,365,718
Signs, Fences, Driveways 4 $15,598 1 $3,500 1 $1,100
Manufactured Homes 2 $107,000 0 $0 0 $0
TOTALS 16 $974,771 18 $1,443,959 35 $7,418,583
July 1 - June 30
Fiscal Year To Date $28,307,403 $15,370,305 $66,536,576
I:\Communit~ Development~Bldg~Building ActivitytBIdgAct-2002~Activity - May 2002.wpd
City of Woodburn
Police Department STAFF REPORT
270 Montgomery Stree~t Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-2345
Date:
From:
To:
Thru:
May 29, 2002
~.~~ Chief of Police Mayor and Council
John Brown, City Administrator.~
Subject:
Police Department Activities - Apr/l, 2002
8E
The Consolidated Monthly Report is a monthly analysis of police department calls for service.
This report lists all police department incident investigations for the month, shows year to date
statistics, and comparisons to the previous year. The report is in conformance with Federal
Bureau of Investigations national guidelines for crime classifications and is reported to the State
of Oregon Law Enforcement Data System via the Regional Automated Information Network.
Should you have questions or wish further information, please contact me.
+ I
~"0
-,I
..,<
· e I + +:'e
-~ 0 ~1~.~'' 0 0'0 00iO 0
·
8E
+ +il + +[+ + +~
4, I +
8F
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
City council through City Administrator
Public V~/orks Program Manager ~~
Speed Zone Investigation Requests
June 5,2002
The city will be requesting ODOT to complete a speed zone investigation on North
Front Street to assign appropriate speeds along the street from Hardcastle Avenue to
the north city limits.
As a result of an inquiry from the police department traffic enforcement officers, the city
contacted the ODOT traffic engineer's office to determine speed zones that were
currently established along North Front Street. There was an existing speed order from
1974 that covered the section from Hardcastle Avenue to the Highway 214 under
crossing that indicated a speed of 30 MPH along that section. There was no speed
order for the section from the Highway 214 under crossing to the north city limits. The
option would be to allow this section to be governed by the basic rule which would be
either 25 or 55 MPH. In consultation with the police department, the conclusion was
that the above speeds were not appropriate for North Front Street from Hardcastle
Avenue to the north city limits.
The city is recommending to ODOT, as shown on the attached map, that the following
speeds be established along North Front Street:
· 25 MPH from Hardcastle Avenue to Hazelnut Drive
· 35 MPH from Hazelnut Drive to Shenandoah Lane
· 45 MPH from Shenandoah Lane to the north city limits
Portions of the affected section of North Front Street are now incorrectly signed and the
current speed orders existing for the street have speeds that are not consistent with the
character and conditions along the street. The investigation should assign the speeds
that the city proposed above which Public Works and the Police Department have
determined to be appropriate for the street.
MEMO
From the Office of the City Attorney
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
N. ROBERT SHIELDS, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: REAL t~STATE AND LAND USE PRESENTATION
OREGON STATE BAR LAND USE CONFERENCE
DATE: JUNE 61 2002
I have been invited to give a presentation at a professional conference on representing the
government in land use! cases. The conference is sponsored by the Real Estate and Land Use
(RELU) Section of the Oregon State Bar. RELU has a statewide membership of 1176 attorneys
who practice real estate and land use law. I intend to accept this invitation unless I am advised
otherwise. While I believe that my participation in activities such as this one is of some benefit
to both me and the city~ I will make it clear that all opinions I express at the conference are my
own and not the city's.
IOA
Memo
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor & Council
Ben Gillespie, Finance Director
Sohni ow City
June 5, 2002
2002-03 Budget Hearing
On May 14, 2002 the Budget Committee concluded their hearing on the City's 2002-03 budget
and unanimously recommended that the budget document be forwarded to the City Council for
the next phase of the budget process.
As required by Oregon Budget Law, the notice of this hearing date, along with the financial
summary, was published in The Woodburn Independent on May 29, 2002. The financial summary
doc~uments a City budget totaling $47,263,521. It includes the Committee's recommendation to
impose the property tax limit of $6.0534, and to impose a levy of $127,800 for bonded debt
which is excluded fi-om the statutory limitation.
Upon completion of the hearing before the Council, staff recommends that the Council authorize
staffto draft a budget ordinance based on the Committee's recommendation, including allowable
budget adjustments that do not change the tax levy requirement.
Management recommends one change to the Budget Committee's Recommended Budget: in the
General CIP Fund increase Operating Transfers Out and decrease Contingency by $35,000. In
the 2001-02 preliminary budget $50,000 was proposed for construction of a firing range near the
sewage treatment plant. Before the budget was adopted, management determined that it would
be cheaper to have the sewage plant contractor do the work in fiscal year 2000-01, while his
crews were still on site. This avoided the cost of mobilizing a crew at a later date. The 2000-01
budget was amended and the bulk of the work was done in that year. The cost was to be funded
in part by a transfer from the General CIP Fund. That transfer was not made in 2000-01, and
consequently it should be done now. To do so requires a appropriation of $35,000 in the General
CIP Fund. No change is necessary in the Sewer Construction Fund, which paid the contractor in
2000-01 and will be reimbursed once this appropriation is approved. This budget amendment
could not be effected in 2001-02 because of statutory constraints on the use of Contingency.
IOA
Due to the length of the document, the Woodbum 2002-
2003 Recommended Annual Budget is not included with
this packet. Copies of the budget will be sent to the
Council and Mayor directly.
The public may view the recommended budget in the City
Administrator's Office, located at 270 Montgomery
Street, between the hours of 8am and 5pm, and at the
Reference DeSk at the Library. Two public copies of the
budget will be available at the door on the night of the
hearing.
MEMO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
For Council Action, through the City~Administrator<7
Public Works Director ~'~2 f~
Boones Fen5, Road Improvement Ordinance
June 5, 2002
RECOMMENDATIO~q: Approve the attached Ordinance ordering improvements to Boones
Ferry Road from Goose Creek to Hazelnut Drive and adopting the Local Improvement District
for said improvements.
llA
BACKGROUND:
The City Council on May 13, closed the public hearing on Boones Ferry Road Local
Improvement District (LID), however the record was kept open until 5:00 p.m. on May 22 to
receive additional information from staff. On May 27, at the regularly scheduled meeting the city
council reviewed the additional information introduced into the record and instructed staffto
prepare an ordinance for the street of improvements of Boones Ferry Road.
As l~reviously provided to the council, the summation of written remonstrance received on the
Boones Ferry Road LID is approximately 5%. The total number of properties opposing the
improvement in writing combined with oral testimony is about 35 percent. All legal requirements
have been met and staff~alysis indicates the number of remonstrance' s received are not sufficient
to stop the project.
The council options are to 1) Approve the LID ordinance as presented, or 2) Postpone the
decision and/or modify the terms of the ordinance, or 3) abandon the improvement. Staffis
recommending Option I be chosen by the city council.
1lA
COUNCIL BILL NO. 9392
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO IMPROVMENTS OF BOONES FERRY ROAD
FROM GOOSE CREEK TO HAZELNUT DRIVE, ADOPTING THE LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, DIRECTING THE CONTRACT AWARD; PROVIDING
FOR PAYMENT OF ~2OSTS THROUGH ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTIES IN THE
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the City Council considers the improvement of Boones Ferry Road from
Goose Creek to Hazelnut Drive to be necessary and beneficial; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has authority to initiate the Local Improvement District
improvement and procedure process as per Ordinance No. 2105, and
WHEREAS, The City Council instructed the City Engineer to prepare the engineering
report for the improvements; and
WI:rEREAS, the City Council reviewed and approved the engineering report on the
improvement of Boones Ferry Road on April 8, 2002;
Wi~EREAS, The City Council by Resolution No 1676, declared it intent to improve
though a Local Improvement District process, adopted the method of assessment; and established
a date for the public hearing; and
WREREAS, a public hearing was held on May 13, 2002 to receive input from affected
property owners and insufficient remonstrances were received in either written or oral form to
prevent such improvement; NOW, TtIEREFORE,
TIlE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council deems it necessary and hereby declares its intention to
order the following improvements. Boones Ferry is to be widened to 48 feet in width
providing two travel lanes, one turn lane and a bikelanes in each direction. The
improvement will be complete with curbs, drainage improvements, installation of
sidewalks on both sides, ADA ramps at all intersections and street lighting. The
improvement will also include undergrounding of existing utilities
PAGE 1- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
SECTION 2. PROPOSED METHOD OF FUNDING
The funding mechanism to accomplish this project includes the following:
A. CITY SUPPORT:
All cost of improvements beyond the standard 34 feet wide local residential street
is to be funded by the city. (Note: This has been the general practice in the past)
Two thirds of the cost ofundergrounding the electrical utility is to be absorbed by
the city. (Note: Undergrounding of the utilities will provide a more serviceable
utility and desirable corridor therefor, sharing of majority cost by the city is
reasonable)
B. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE PROPERTIES:
Limited tO the cost associated with a 34-foot wide standard residential street in the
Local Improvement District. In addition, one third of the undergrounding of
elecui~ Utmty.
C. OTI~.R SUPPORT:
County UGB System Development Charges, or other funds are proposed to be
used to pay for share allocation ofbenetited properties in the Urban Growth
Boundary!but located outside the City Boundary. In addition, developer
contributions are proposed to be used to reduce the cost of each lot in the
particular development equally.
PAGE
SECTION 3. BOUNDARY OF TILE. PROPOSED LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT:
The property subject to the assessment of this district are those properties within the
following described boundary:
Beginning at the most Northwesterly comer of Heritage Park Meadows subdivision
recorded in Marion County Book of Town Plats in Vol. 43 Page 90, being situated in
Section 6, Township 5 South, Range I West of the Willamette Meridian, Marion County
Oregon; Thence in a Southerly direction along the West boundary of said subdivision to
the Southwest comer thereof. Thence Southwesterly to the Northwest comer of that
certain tract of land conveyed to the City of Woodbum and recorded in reel 1587, page
621 Marion county deed records; Thence Southwesterly 40.01 feet to the Northwest
comer of lot 130, Heritage Park Phase 4, Marion County Book of Town Plats Vol.43,
2- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
JlA
page 47; Thence Southwesterly along the West line of the said Heritage Park Phase 4
subdivision to the Northwest comer of Heritage Park Phase 3, Marion County book of
Town Plats Vel.fl3, page 8; Thence Southwesterly along the West line of Phase 3 to
Southwest comer thereot~ Thence Southeast to the Northwest comer of that certain tract
of land recorded! in deed reel 1441 Page 91Marion County deed records. Thence
Southerly along the West line of said tract to the Northwest comer of said Henrys Farm
Subdivision, Vol 41, Page 46 Book of Town Plats; Thence Southwesterly along the West
line of said subdivision to the Southwest comer of said Henry Farm subdivision: Thence
Easterly along the south line of said subdivision to the Southeast comer thereof} Thence
Easterly along ag Easterly extension of the South line of said Henry's Farm Subdivision to
a point on the W~est line of Lot 36, Miller Farm Subdivision, Marion County Book of
Town Plats Vo1.140, Page 24; Thence Southwesterly along the Westerly line of said Miller
Farm Subdivision to the Southwest comer of Lot E; Thence Southeasterly along the
Southline of said Lot E; Thence Northeasterly to the initial comer of said Miller Farm
Subdivision; Thence Southeasterly to the Southwest comer of Lot 1, Tukwila Subdivision,
recorded in Marion County Book of Town Plats Vol. 40, Page 95; Thence Southeasterly
to the point of intersection of the East line of Meridian Drive and the most southerly line
of said Lot 1; Thence Northeasterly along a Northerly extension of the East line of
Meridian Drive, 18.00 feet; Thence South 85° 38' 47" East 197.64 feet to a point on the
East line of Lot 1, of said Tukwila Subdivision; Thence Northeasterly along the East line
of said Lot 1,876.39 feet to an angle point thereof} Thence South 87° 21' 39" East along
the easterly line of LOt 1,242.61 feet; Thence North 02° 40' 09" East, still along the said
East line to a point on the Southerly line of Hazelnut Drive; Thence Northeasterly long the
a northerly extension of said LOt 1 to a point of intersection with the North line of said
Hazelnut Drive. Thence Easterly traversing along the North line of Hazelnut Drive to the
Southeast comer of LOt 9, said Tukwila Subdivision; Thence Northeasterly along the
West line of said Lot 9, 455.21 feet to angle point in said West line; Thence Westerly still
along said West line 39.29 feet; Thence Northerly still along the said West line of LOt 9, to
the Northwest comer thereof; Thence Westerly along the North line of said subdivision to
a point on the East line of Boones Ferry Road. Thence Southerly along the said East line
of Boones Ferry Road to a point of intersection with the extension of the North line of
Vanderbeck Lane; Thence Westerly along the North line of Vanderbeck Lane to the point
of intersection with the East line of the Miller Links Subdivision, recorded in Marion
County Book of Town Plats Vol. 43, Page 66; Thence Northerly along the East line of
said Miller Links to the Northeast comer thereof, Thence Westerly along the North line of
said Miller Links Subdivision to the Northwest comer thereof, said point also being the
Northeast comer of the Heritage Park Meadows Subdivision, recorded in Marion County
Book of Town Plats, Vol. 43, Page 90; Thence Northwesterly along the North line of said
Heritage Park Meadows to the place of beginning.
A map showing the above described district boundary is attached as Exhibit 1 and those
properties within that boundary are identified in Section 4.
PAGE 3- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
SECTION 4. PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
The individual properties located within the district boundaries are as follows:
MARION COUNTY
MAP tf TAXLOT If
'""'051W06CD" "OD100''
..... 051W06CD"
'""'051W06CD"
"0~0200"
"00300"
"'"'051W06CD" "OD400"
'""'051W06CD"
'""~)51W06CD"
"00500"
'""'051W06CD" "06700"
'""'051W06CD"
'""~51W06CD"
"008oo-
'""'051W06CD" "0~1000"
'""'051W06CD"
'""'O~IW06CD"
"0t 100"
0~200
'""'051W06CD" "0~ 300"
'""'051W06CD"
'""~351W06CD"
"0 t 400"
"o 5oo"
'""~51W06CD" '~)~!600"
'""'051W06CD" "01700"
'""'051W06CD" "01800"
'""'051W06CD" "0~ 900"
'""951W06CD" "0~000"
'""'051W06CD" "02100"
'""~351W06CD .... 02200"
PROPERTY OWNER
'""'051W06CD" "03100"
'""~)51W06CD" "03200"
MILLER,ALLEN
RUDD, KENNTH M.
M-C BUILDERS INC
MENDF?, JESUS
SCHMITZ, JULIA MILLER
HAMBERGER,JESSE GRAHAM
DELBRIDGE, DOROTHY A & STAN
ALBRIGHT, GARY J & LESLIE A.
GUSTAFSON,DAVlD M
M-C BUILDERS INC
ARELLANO FERNAND & SANDY
MILLER, GARY LEE LLC
MATYEEV, DIMITRY & USTINA
CHARLESWORTH,JARED W
M-C BUILDERS INC
M-C BUILDERS INC
M-C BUILDERS INC(DETENTION)
M-C BUILDERS INC
MCGINNIS,BARBARA MILL
MCGINNIS,BARBARA MILL
M-C BUILDERS INC
M-C BUILDERS INC
'""'051W06CD" "02300" MILLER,ALLEN
'""'051W06CD" "02400" THOMPSON,VERN ANTHONY
'""'051W06CD" "02500" M-C BUILDERS INC
'""'051W06CD" "02600" M-C BUILDERS INC
'""'051W06CD" "02700" M-C BUILDERS INC
'""'051W06C D" "02800" M-C BUILDERS INC
'""'051W06CD" "02900" M-C BUILDERS INC
'""'051W06CD" M-C BUILDERS INC
MILLER,ALLEN
MILLER, DONALD
PAGE 4- COUNCIL BILI., NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
MARION COUNTY PROPERTY OWNER
MAP # TAX ,OT #
.... 051W06CD" "0:5300" BOSQUEZ GUSTAVO E & AYDA E
'""'051W06CD" "0:~400" M-C BUILDERS INC
"'"'051W06CD" "03500" BRAVO TEODORO & GONZALES ANDRES
"""051W06CD" "0!5600" M-C BUILDERS INC
"'"'051W06CD" "0~5700" M-C BUILDERS INC
'""'051W06CD" "0:3800" RIOS, ALFEDO & SHIRLEY
...... 051W06CD .... 0~900"MILLER,JOHN R-TRUST
'""'051W06CD" "0~000" MORALES, MIQUEL & LUZ i & JOSE A
"'"'051W06CD" "0~4100" VBS CONST & STATSENKO VALDIMAR
'""'051W06CD" "0~4200" MIRANDA, EVELIO & NOEM
'""'051W06CD"' "0~,300" MILLER, DONALD
i'""'051W06CD" "0~,500" IFIOCCHI,JOHN J &
I'""'051W06CD" "04600" FIOCCHI,JOHN J &
'""'051W06CD" "04700" M-C BUILDERS INC
'""'051W06CD" "0¢4800"SCHMITZ, JULIA MILLER
'""'051W06CD" "q4900" YOUNG~SONJA F &
'""'051W06CD" "05000" MILLER, GARY LEE LLC
'""'0~lW06CD" "05100" VALDF__X, GUADALUPE JR & IRENE
'""951W06CD" '~5200"M-C BUILDERS INC
'""'051W06CD" "05300" M-C BUILDERS INC
'""'051W06CD" "05400" M-C BUILDERS INC
'""~51W06CD" "05500" MILLER, GARY LEE LLC
'""'051W06CD" "05600" M-C BUILDERS INC(TOT LOT)
'""'051W06CD" "05700" SCHMITZ, JULIA MILLER
'""'051W06CD" "05800" SMITH,CRAIG W & CAROL
'"'"051W06CD" "05900" M-C BUILDERS INC
'""~51W06CD" "06000'' MILLER, JOHN R-TRUST
'""'051W06CD" ",06100," !M-C BUILDERS INC
'""'051W06CD" "06200" MILLER, JOHN R-TRUST
'""'051W06CD" "06300" VI-C BUILDERS INC
'""'051W06CD" ",',0~o400" INZHIROV, PETR & SVETL
'""'051W06CD" "06500" M-C BUILDERS INC
'""'051W06CD" "06600.. TOMPKINS,MARY MILLER
'""'051W06CD" "06700" BEAN,CANDY K
'""'051W06C D" "06800"MCGINNIS,BARBARA MILL
'""'051W06CD .... 06900" M-C BUILDERS INC
'""'051W06CD" "07000" GANOVICHEFF, ANNA
'""'051W06CD" "07100" ARELLANO-RODRIGUEZ, MA
PAGE 5- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
° llA
MARION COUNTY
MAP # TAXLOT #
'""'051W06CD"
'""'051W06CD"
"07300"
'""'051W06CD" "07400"
'""'051W06CD"
'""'051W06CD"
"07600"
'""'051W06CD" "07700"
'""'051W06CD" "d7800"
'""'051W06CD" "0~900"
'""'051W06CD" "08000"
'""'051W06CD" "08100"
'""~)51W06CD .... 08,200"
'""'051W06CD" "0~300"
'""'051W06CD"
'""'051W06CD"
'""'051W06CD" "~"
PROPERTY OWNER
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
~IERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""~351W06CD"
'""~351W06CD"
'""~51W06CD"
'""'051W06CD"
'""'051VV06CD"
"ob7oo" IHERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
"0~00:' IHERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
"oB9oo' IHERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
"09000" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'~9100" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""~351W06CD" "09300"
'""'051W06CD" ",09400"
'""~351W06CD" "09500"
'""~)51W06CD" "09600"
'""'051W06CD" "09700"
'""'051W06CD" "09800"
'""'051W06CD"
'""'051W06CD"
"10100"
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
i HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
-IERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06CD" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06CD" "10200" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06C D" "10300" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06CD" "10400" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06CD" "10500"
"10600"
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06CD" ~ERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06CD" "10700" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06CD" ~ERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06CD"
"10800"
"10900"
'""'051W06CD"
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
PAGE 6- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'llA
MARION COUNTY PROPERTY OWNER
MAP # TAXLOT fi
..... 051W06CD" "I 1100" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06CD" "11200" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06CD" "I 1300" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
...... 051W06CD ..... 1400" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06CD" '" 1500" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06CD' .... 1600" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06CD .... 11700" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC
'""'051W06DC" "(:0400" OREGON GOLF ASSOCIATI
'""'051W06DC" "(:0500" TUKWlLA PARTNERS
'""'051W06DC" "(:,0600" HALTON DEVELOPMENT LT
'""'051W06DC" "(:0700" CHARITAR, DINA N & J S
'""'051W06DC .... (:0800" JUDSON,DONALD R & RH0
"""'051W06DC" "(:0900" TUKWlLA PARTNERS
'""'051W06DC" "(:,1000" TUKWILA PARTNERS
'""'051W06DC" "(:,1100" TUKWlLA PARTNERS(ACCESS ONLY)
'""'051W06DC" "(::,1200" TUKWILA PARTNERS
'""'051W06DC" "01300" TUKWlLA PARTNERS
'""'051W06DC" "01400" TUKWILA PARTNERS
'""'051W06DC" "01500" TUKWlLA PARTNERS
'""'051W06DC" "01600'' TUKWlLA PARTNERS(ACCESS ONLY)
'""'051W06DC" "01700" TUKWlLA PARTNERS
'""'051W06DC" "01800" TUKWILA PARTNERS
'""'051W06DC" "01900" TUKWlLA PARTNERS
'""~)51W06DC" "02000" EDWARDS,CAROL
ANN
'""~)51W06DC" "02100" TUKWlLA PARTNERS
'""~)51W06DC" "02200" PIERCE,DENNIS & BEECH
'""'051W06DC" "02300" TUKWlLA PARTNERS(ACCESS ONLY)
'""'051W06DC" "02400" ~,NDERSON,FLORENCE E F
'""'051W06DC" "02500" TUKWILA PARTNERS
'""'051W06DC" "02600" OREGON GOLF ASSOClATI
'""'051W06DC" "02700" TUKWlLA PARTNERS(TENNIS/SWIMMING)
'""'051W06DC" "02800" RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES
'""'051W06DC" "02900" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC" "03000" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC" "03100" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC" "03200" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC" "03300" RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES
'""'051W06DC" "03400" RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES
'""'051W06DC" "03500" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
PAGE 7- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
' llA
MARION COUNTY PROPERTY owNER
MAP # TAXLOT #
'""'051W06DC" "03600" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC" "03700" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC" "03800" UNITED pROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC .... 03900" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC .... 0~, 000" RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES
'""'051W06DC .... 04100" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC" "0~200" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC" "04300" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC" "04400" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC" "04500" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC" "04600" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC" "04700" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
""'051W06DC" "0~,800" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC" "04900" iUNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W06DC" "0 ~X)0" !UNITED PROPERTIES(EMERG ACCESS)
'""'051W07AA" "0 '300" TUKWILA PARTNERS(PED ACCESS),
'""'051W07AA" "0 ,400" TUKWILA PARTNERS
'""'051W07AA" "0;'500" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""~731W07AA" "0 '600" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""~51W07AA" "0 '700" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""~)51W07AA" "0' '800" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""~)51W07AA" "0' '900" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W07AA" "0~3000" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""~)51W07AA" "08100" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
:'""'051W07AA" "0~1200" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""~)51W07AA" "G k300" UNITED PROPERTIES (TOT LOT)
'""'051W07AB" "0~200" RESCH,STEVE F JR & COL
'""'051W07AB" "0~300" SMITH,CINDY A &
'""'051W07AB" "00400" HAZELNUT A PARTNERS
'""'051W07AB" "00500" HAZELNUT A PARTNERS
'""'051W07AB" ',' ,0(7600" HAZELNUT A PARTNERS
'""'051W07AB" "00700,, WITHERS LUMBER CO lNG
'""'051'WOTAB" ",0(?800" HAZELNUT A PARTNERS
'""'051WO7AB'' "01000" PARKHURST, GLENN D & B
'""'051W07AB" "01100" THELEN,CHRISTOPHER H
'""'051W07AB" "01200" EPPS, WILLIAM A
'""'051W07AB" "01300" WALSH, SHARON F
'""'051W07AB" "01,400"GRISELLvRANDY G & DIA
'""'051W07AB" "01,500"HERSHBERGER,WARDE & P
PAGE 8- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
*llA
MARION COUN~TY PROPERTY OWNER
MAP # TA],'LOT #
'"'"'051W07AB" ", )1600" REID,O,LI,VER A & MARIE
'""'051W07AB" "91700" WlETHORN,VALDON G & P
'""'051W07AB" "01800" JAMESON,FRANK O JR &
'""'051W07AB" "~ )1900" PHIPPS, SAM & MARYLU
'""'051W07AB .... ~ ~2100" POLING, HARpER A & JAC
'""'051W07AB" "1~2200" QUAN,SIU W
"""051W07AB" "~32300" KIGHT, LEONARD G & DEE
'""'051W07AB" "~ ~2700" OREGON GOLF ASSOCIATI
'""'051W07AB" "~ ~3100" OREGON GOLF ASSOCIATI
.... 051W07AB .... (~3300" TUKWILA PARTNERS
'""'051W07AB" "(13400" AIKEN,RONALD R 50% &
1'""'051W07AB" "1 13500" BREWER, JEFFERY P & TAWANA G
~'""'051W07AB" "~ 13600" WAGNER, MAVlN G & BONN
'""'051W07AB" "(;13700"BARNES,JACK W & ROSIN
'""'051W07AB" "(;13800" TUKWlLA PARTNERS(COMMON AREA)
'""'051W07AB" "Ci3900"TUKWILA PARTNERS(COMMON AREA)
'""~)51W07AB" "C ~000"BRADLEY, BERNADETTE
'""'051W07AB" "C 4100" GIBBS TRUST, GIBBS ARDEN A TRUSTEES
'""'051W07AB" "(~4200" HILL, RICHARD A & JANI
'""~)51W07AB" "04300" BELLUM, RICHARD J & VI
'""'051W07AB" "CH400" TUKWILA PARTNERS
'""~351W07AB" "04500" WOODBURN CONSTRUCTION
'""~51W07AB" "~" ZAUNER~CLIFFORD A & V
'""~)51W07AB" "04700" TUKWILA PARTNERS(ACCESS)
'""~)51W07AB" "04800" PATTERSON,EDWIN E & C
'""'051W07AB" "04900" MORSE, RICHARD L & SHA
'""'051W07AB" "05000" MONTGOMERY, JOHN & GAY
'""'051W07AB" "05100" MISTRY,ASHISH N & RIT
'""'051W07AB" "05200" TUKWILA PARTNERS
'""'051W07AB .... 05300" TUKWILA PARTNERS
'""'051W07AB" "05400" !TUKWILA PARTNERS
.... 051W07AB" "05500" PAYNE, ROBERT D & PATR
'""'051W07AB" "05600" POWERS,WILLIAM E & GL
'""'051W07AB" "05700" MILLICAN, MARY L
'""'051W07AB" "05800" KRAXBERGER,WILLIAM F
'""'051W07AB" "05900" TUKWILA PARTNERS(COMMON AREA)
'""'051W07AB .... q6000" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W07AB" ",Q6100"OWINGS, SANDRA LEE
'""'051W07AB" "06200" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
PAGE 9- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
MARION COUNTY PROPERTY OWNER
MAP # TAXLOT #
'""'051W07AB .... ~300" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W07AB" "(~00" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051w07AB" "(~§00" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W07AB" "06600" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W07AB" "£6700" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W07AB" "(:6800" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W07AB" "(:6900" RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES
'""'0$1W07AB .... (:7000" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
...... 051W07AB .... 07100"UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W07AB" "~17200" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W07AB" "d17300" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""'051W07AB" "07400" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE
'""~:)51W07AC" "dO300" WOOSLEY, ROXLYN R-TRUS
'""'051W07AC" "do400" VACHTER, BETTY S
'""~51W07AC" "do500"ZEHRUNG, DON L & MANET
'""'051W07AC" "00600" FILLMORE, KAY
'""~}51W07AC" "do7oo" ZULEGER, ROBERT C & CA
'""~:)51W07AC" "el 0800"OLSON,NORMA
'""'051W07AC" "(}0900"DETERVlLLE, ROCHE J &
'""~351W07AC" "ql000" STENLUND, BARRY& JACQ
'""'051W07AC" "01001" DETERVlLLE, ROCHE J &
'""~:)51W07AC" "d1100" GRINNELL, PHILLIP H &
'""~351W07AC" "01200" MILNE,STANLEY D & PAT
'""~)51W07AC" "01300" HEER, GARY& TERRIE J
'""~351W07AC" "q1400" FLOMER~THOMAS J
'""'051W07AC" "01500" BAKER,JOHN E & DELISA
'""'051W07AC" "d1600" LARIOS, SALVADOR
'""~51W07AC" "01700" JAMISON,THOMAS & GILL
'""'051W07AC" '~31800" HOLCOMB,BURTON T & CA
'""~351W07AC .... 01900" KRAITER, GENE P-& ELIZABETH
'""~)51W07AC" "02000" SCHWAN,F MARTIN & JUD
'""'051W07AC" "02100" TYLER, SANDRA R
'""'051W07AC" ",0~200" HERMANSON,GLEN H
'""'051W07AC" "02300" SAWYER, MARGARET BOONE
,
'""'051W07AC" "02400" MILLER FARM HOMEOWNER(SWIMMING)
'""'051W07AC" "02500" HAZELNUT A PARTNERS
'""'051W07AC" "02600" ?IAZELNUT A PARTNERS
'""'051W07AC" "02700" IRONS,LLOYD & SVVEENEY
'""'051W07AC" "02800" SEITZ, SUE ANN & MARTE
PAGE 10- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
MARION cOuNTY PROPERTY OWNER
MAP # TA~ :LOT #
'""'051W07AC" "(12900" HENKES,RICHARD J & KA
.... 051W07AC" "(,3000" HENNY, MILLARD T & I_AU
'""'051W07AC" "03100" FABRE, HAROLD A & JO O
'""'051W07AC" "(,3200" BAKER, JOHN E
'""'051W07AC" "(3300" VIILLER FARM HOMEOWNER(ACCESS)
'""'051W07BA" "00105" CITY OF WOODBURN
'""'051W07BA" "(0200" WOODBURN ART LEAGUE
'""'051W07BA" "(0300" WOODBURN ART LEAGUE
'""'051W07BA" "¢ 0400" GORMAN,THOMAS P & HAR
'""'051W07BA" "(0500" KWDS LLC & SEC VENTUR
'""'051W07BA" "(;0500" KWDS LLC & SEC VENTUR
'""'051W07BA" "(;0600" REHDER, DENNIS E ET AL
'""'051W07BA" "(;0700" iCITY OF WOODBURN
'""'051W07BA .... (;0800" ;CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIS
'""'051W07BA" "(;0900" GASCHO,EUGENE R ETAL
'""~51W07BA" "(;1000" GASCHO,EUGENE R & JUD
'""'051W07BA" "01100" PACIFIC NW BELL TELEP
'""'051W07BA" "01200" NAUTA, LOUIS P & RHONDA
'""~){51W07BA" "01300"MILLER, STUART M & REBE ,,
'""~51W07BA" "01400" NELSON,WARREN F & CAR
'""'051W07BA" "01500" KRASKOFF, EVAN & ANNA
'""'051W07BA" "01600" MONTGOMERY, LOUISE
'""'051W07BA" "01700" SILVER, DONALD M & RUB
'""X)51W07BA" ,01800" VACHTER, SCOTT J & RuT
'""'051W07BA" "01900" CLARKJANIS H
'""'051W07BA" "02000" MATHERS, HANNAH & BEA
'""'051W07BA" "02100" MARTINFT,SILVERIO N J
'""'051W07BA" "02200" JENNINGS,WlLLIAM J &
'""'051W07BA" "02300" ALBRICH,MARY ELIZABET
'""'051W07BA" "02400" CITY OF WOODBURN(DETENTION)
'""'051W07BA" "02500" JENSEN,BRIAN F & AMAN
.... 051W07BA" "02600" PICKETT, CHRISTOPHER L
'""'051W07BA" "02700" PHELAN,BILLY W JR & D
'""'051W07BA" "02800" WARD,BARRY WILLIAM
'""'051W07BA" "02900" LEACH,MARK H
'""'051W07BA" "03000" KREBEDUENKEL, DIETER K
'""'051W07BA" "03100" SNEGIREV, lVAN
'""'051W07BA" "03200" HATCH,EUGENE R & NANE
'""'051W07BA" "03300" SONNEN,SlDNEY W
PAGE 11- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
MARION COUNTY
MAP # TAXLOT #
'""'051W07BA" "03400"
'""'051W07BA"
'""'051W07BA"
"03500"
"0 00"
,,03~700,,
'""'051W07BA"
'""'051W07BA" "03800"
'""~)51W07BA" "03900"
'""'051W07BA" "~000"
'""'051W07BA" "04100"
'""'051W07BA" "04200"
'""'051W07BA" "04300"
I '
'""'051W07BA" "04400"
'""'051W07BA" "04500"
'""'051W07BA"
'""'051W07BA"
"0~4700"
'""'051W07BA" "0~!800"
'""'051W07BA"
'""~)51W07BA"
"04900"
'""~51W07BA" "05100"
'""'051W07BA" "d5200"
'""I)51W07BA" "05300"
'""~351W07BA"
'""~351W07BA" "05500"
'""~:)51W07BA" "05600"
'"'~51W07BA" "05700"
'""~351W07BA" "05800"
'""~)51W07BA" "05900"
'""'051W07BA" "06000"
'""~)51W07BA" "06100"
'""'051W07BA" "06200"
.... 051W07BA" "06300"
'""'051W07BA" "06400"
'""'051W07BA" "06500"
'""'051W07BA" "06600"
'""'051W07BA" "06700"
'""'051W07BA" "06800"
'""'051W07BA" "06900"
'""'051W07BA" "07000"
'""'051W07BA" "07100"
'""'051W07BA" "07200"
PROPERTY OWNER
MOLINA, LUIS R & LUZ M
BROWN,JAMES D & LADON
GUYTON,GARY & JOCELYN
FORD, JENNIFER L
PARRACI~RONALD G & SU
CHADBURN,MICHAEL W
LOPEZ, CHRISTINE V &
BUNDYLEONARD&MARGA
ATKINSON, JAMES T.
,ROWELL, LAYNE N
SH EPHERD~ NADIN E
WOLFGANG,ERICH H & DE
TUPPER~KEVlN & PARTID
CALLAHAN,BARBARA R
HUNT, DAVID W & HELEN
WRIGHT, PAUL G & CARRI
GODINFT, MIGUEL & GRISELDA
RITCHIE, CALVlNG & JE
JACOBS,NANCY J
PEQUENO,ISRAEL L & MA
EELLS,ROCKY L
MAYFIELD,,CHARLOTTE &
ATVVOOD,KATHARINA & DO
WATTS~ SHAWN M. & SKYE R.
GONZALES,RONNIE N
LISOFF,NICK
ORTIZ, SYLVIA ARRDYO
WIENEKE,CARL W & LORI
:'EDERSON,NETTIE S
3ARTEL, RICHARD& JANE
MCCAMPBELL,SEAN D & T
VlORRISON,DWAYNE F
COLEMAN,DIANA M
HORTON,STEVEN E
TORO,SABINO & SANDRA
MILLER, STEVEN D & CYN
YOUNG,REX S & KEENIN
SONNEN,TY & SHERI L
PALAFOX, HUMBERTO & WA
PAGE 12- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
MARION COUNTY PROPERTY OWNER
MAP fi TAXLOT fi
.... 051W07BA" "~17300" MCDERMOTt, DAVID R
..... 051W07BA" "(17400"ROBERTS, RICHARD & MAR
'""'051W07BA" "07500" ,HALTER,KAREN E
'""'051W07BA .... (17600" ROEDEL,CARSTEN M
'""'051W07BA" "£ r7700" TEMPLE,ANTHONY J & MA
'""'051W07BA" "(17800" MICHELS,MICHELLE R &
"""051W07BA" "{:~7900" ANDERSON,WADE E & DIA
"""051W07BA" "£18000" KARP~SEAN D & MELANIE
'""'051W07BA" "( ~8100" KOVAL,WALTERA& LOIS
"'"'051W07BA" "£18200"POWERS,STEVE E & LYNE
'""'051W07BA" "( ,8300" VELA, JULIO C & KIMBER
'""'051W07BA" "(:,8400"BECHTOLD,JOHN E & KAR
'""~)51W07BA" "(:8500" FIGUERAS,ANTHONY & MA
'""'051W07BA" "(~8600" NEAL, BRUCE W & ANITA
'""~)51W07BA" "l:8700" NEJEDLO,NICOLE
'""'051W07BA" "1:.8800"WOLFE~LONNIE
'""'051W07BA" "q8900" MALLON,DEAN A & SHELL
'""'051w07BA" "09000" STUMPF, JERALD L & DEB
'""'051W07BA" '~39100" BACKMAN,ERIC
'""'051W07BA" "09200" BENAVlDFT~ .AMANDO III
.... 051W07BA" "09300" LAUER~JOSH D & AMY
'""'051W07BA" "09400" FLETCHER, JEFFEREY S &
'""'051W07BA" "09500" HUTrUI_~ DAVID W & DORIS
'"'~)51W07BA'' "09600" PARRACK~BRIAN C & PHY
'""'051W07BA" "09700" BAILEY~RICHARD J JR &
'""'051W07BA" "09800" LOFTIN,MARY M
'""'051W07BA" "09900" BISHOFF~ DAVID J & ANGEl_AY
,'""'051W07BA" "10000" HUTTULA, DAVlD W & DOR
"""'051W07BA" "10100" WHITE,KERRY A & MELIS
.... O51WO7BA" "10200" BERNHARDT. PATRICK W
'""'051W07BA" "10300"GARClA-PEREZ, POLICARP
.... 051W07BA" "10400" RYAN, DALE E & LAURA
'""'051W07BA" "10500"ASTORG/~FELIpE & BENI
..... 051W07BA" "10600"ELLIOTT,TENLEY K &
'""'051W07BA" "10700" HOLLAND,CATHERINE
'""'051W07BA" "10800" FRONTIER HOMES LLC, WADE, ROBERT
'""'051W07BA" "110900" PARSONS,JIM P & DIAND
'""'051W07BA" "11000" HIDDEN CREEK APARTMEN
'""'051W07BA" "11100" TAYLOR~TRACY L
PAGE 13- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
MARION COUNTY PROPERTY OWNER
MAP # TAXLOT #
'""'051W07BA" ";I 1200"SANDSTRUM HOMES INC
'""'051W07BA" "~ 1300" FLEMING,DAVID K & STEPHANIE L
'""'051W07BA" "i 1400" BOWMAN,BRUCE E & JO ANN L
'""'051W07BA" "~1500" SANDSTRUM HOMES INC
'""'051W07BA" "~ 1600" FREDIANI,FRED A JR
'""'051W07BA" "'1700" ROTH,DONALD C &','ROTH,DIANE J
'""'051W07BA" " 1800" ,SANDSTRUM HOMES INC
'""'051W07BA" "' 1900" BRANNOCK, DUNYA
"!2000" BROWN,JOHN C & HAYDIE
'""'051W07BA" "'~ JONES,JEFFERY S &
'""'051W07BA" 2100"
'""'051W07BA" "~ ~:~00" DESSELLIER, BRUCE R&DESSELLIER,JAMIE J
'""'051W07BA" "i 2300"FaANKEY, MARCUS
'""~351W07BA" "i2400" SANDSTRUM HOMES INC
'""'051W07BA" "12500" HUTTULA, DAVlD W & DORIS
'""~)51W07BA" "i 2600"BAILEY, JAIME L
'""~)51W07BA" "12700" OSBURNE,NATHAINEL R &
'""'051W07BA" "~12800" CALLISON,JACK F JR &
'""'051W07BA" "12900" CHARLES,CHERYL A
'""~3~31W07BA''' "~13000" ARELLANO,GUADALUPE &
'""1)51W07BA" "~3100" FERNANDO,LUIS
'""'051W07BA" "~t3200" MOESER, CHAD L &,SANDR
'""~)51W07BA" "113300"KILMURRAY, PAMELA &KILMURRAY, MICHAEL
'""~351W07BA" "13400" QUAN,MON Y &
'""~)51W07BA" "13500" WEMLINGEI~MARJORIE SU
'""~351W07BA" "113600" BLACKNIAN,BRIAN P
'""~)51W07BA" "113700"GILMORE, BRIAN J & ANT
'""'051W07BA" "113800" HUTTULA~DAVlD W & DOR
'""~)51W07BA" "~139(X)" KULIKOV, PATTY P
'""~)51W07BA" "114000" 'RUIZ,ALBERTO & MARGAR
'""'051W07BA" "14100" CHAMBERLAIN,RICHARD D & BETH
'""'051W07BA" ";14200" SANDSTRUM HOMES INC
'""'051W07BA" "~14300" SANDSTRUM HOMES INC
'""~)51W07BA" ";14400"GREEN,ROBERT C JR
'""'051W07BA" "14500" FlSCHER, JOYCE M
'""'051W07BA" "':14600" HERRIGES, GREGORY C & REBEKAH L
'""'051W07BA" "14700" ANDERSON,ERIC JOHN& DAWN SHANNON
'""'051W07BA" "14800" BOETTCHER, PAUL A JR &
'""'051W07BA" "14900" BOLSTER, ROBERT A &
'""'051W07BA" "~5000" GRAMZOW, ROBERT W & CA
PAGE 14- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'llA
MARION COUNTY PROPERTY OWNER
MAP # TAXLOT #
'""'051W07BA' .... 5100" HUTCHINGS,DA LORA C & DOLORES G
'""'051W07BA" "' 5200" GIROD,TERESAD
'""'051W07BA .... !5300" TUCKER,TERRY L
'""'051WO7BA" '" 5400" ARNDT, STEPHEN A &','ARNDT, DIANE L
'""'051W07BA' .... 5500" ARMSTRONG,JOHN R
'""'051W07BA" '" 5600" CU77ONE,DAVlD E &','CU77ONE,PATRICIA A
'""'051W07BA" '" 5700" MCMURPHY, GERALD L & MARY E
.... 051W07BA ..... 5800" MCCLAUGHERTY, NICHOLAS& CATHERINE
'""'051W07BA" '" 6000" ELLIOI-r, GREGORY L
'""'051W07BA" " 6100" JONCICH,SARABELLE I
'""'051W07BA" "4 6200" JONCICH,SARABELLE I
'""'051W07BA" "1 6300" MCFARLAND, SCOI-r & SI-IA
'""'051W07BA" "1 6400" SNEGIREV,VASSA
'""'051W07BA" "16500" HANDRAN,TROY A & MELO
'""~)51W07BA" "~;16600" SNEGIREFF,VASlLY & ANASTASIA A
'""'051W07BA" "16700" KHAMPHILAVONG,SAM &
'""'051W07BA" "16800" STONE,JERRY L &','STONE, KAREN A
'""'051W07BA" "16900''WOOLBRIGHT,WESLEY L &
'""'0~IW07BC" "17300" JOHNSTON,TERRY A
'""'051W07BC .... 17400" VAN VELDHUIZEN,DONALD & BELINDA C
'""'051W07BC" "17500" TOWN GROUP INC, THE
'""'051W07BC" "17600" ,VlAMETIEV, ALEX& ELIZA
°""'051W07BC" "17700" TOWN GROUP INC, THE
'""~51W07BC" "17800" MYERS,STEWART & HEATH
'""'051W07BC" "17900" STRUTHERS,ARCHIE A &
'""'051W07BC" "18000" GULLARD,MURRAY M & CA
'""'051W07BC" "18100" JAMES,RANDY L & KAREN
'""'051W07BC" "18200" BOECKMAN,DONNA K
'""'051W07BC" "18300" AMICK~JOSEPH H & SHIR
'""'051W07BC" "18400" LARSEN,THOMAS J &
'""'051W07BC" "18500" BARTH,DENISE R
'""'051W07BC" "18600" BRANNON,TONYA D-ETAL
'""'051W07BC" "18700" PFAU,WlLLIAM &','PFAU,GWENDOLYN
'""'051W07BC" "18800" NULL, JEFFREY P & ROCH
'""'051W07BC" "18900" MASTERSON,MARC S & CAROLYN J
'""'051W07BC" "19000" POLONSKI,ANDRES & MAZ
'""'051W07BC" "19100" NG,HENRY W
'""'051W07BC" ";19200"BOURN~JERRY &','BOURN,JANET
'""'051W07BC" "19300" NICHOLS~BERNARD J JR
PAGE 15- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
MARION cOuNTY PROPERTY OWNER
MAP # TAXLOT #
'""'051W07BC" "49400" PEROI-[,I,~RR¥,,J~& HAT
'""'051W07BC" "19500" HAWES,NEAL A & LAURIE
'""'051W07BC" "19600" BAKER,AARON DAVID
..... 051W07BC" "19700" M D CASE
..... 051W07BC .....9800" M D CASE
'""'051W07BD" "C0100" SAALFELD,DONALD F &','SAALFELD,TOBI,N L
"'"'051W07BD" "C0200" GASCHO,EUGENE R & JUDITH ET AL
'""'051W07BD" "C, 0200" GASCHO,EUGENE R & JUDI
'""'051W07BD" "C0300" GASCHO,EUGENE & JUDITH
...... 051W07BD" "C0400" GASCHO,EUGENE R & JUDI
'""'051W07BD" "C0500" LINDSTROM,DONALD E
'""'051W07BD .... C0600" AHO,ARMAS & ELLA L
'""'051W07BD" "C0700" MILLER FARM HOMEOWNER
'""'051W07BD" "C0800" BARR,WILLIAM S & MARY
'""~351W07BD" "C0900" MCMULLEN,LAWRENCE H & DIANE
'""'051W07BD" "C,1000" BRACl~BEVERLY JOAN LIVING
TRUST, BRACK~BEVERLY JOAN TRUSTEE
'""'001W07BD" "C ~1100" MILLER FARM HOMEOWNER
'""'051W07BD" "C,1200"HUSSEMAN,KENNETH L &
'""~)51W07BD" "C,1300"POORMAN,DON A & DIANA
'""'051W07BD" "C,1400" HADER~WILLIAM E & MAR
'""~:X51W07BD"' "C4500"SEAMAN,BETTY M &
'""'051W07BD" "C,1600" HAZELNUT A PARTNERS
'""~:)51W07BD" "C,1700"MILLER FARM HOMEOWNER
'""'051W07BD" "C,1800" HAZELNUT A PARTNERS
'""'051W07BD" "01900'" HAZELNUT A PARTNERS
'""'051W07BD" "02000" HAZELNUT A PARTNERS
'""'051W07BD" "02100" HAZELNUT A PARTNERS
'""'051W07BD" "02200" TUKVVlLA HOMEOWNERS AS
'""'051W07BD" "02600" HENRYS FARM HOMEOWNER
'""'051W07BD" "02700" GEMMA, ELiZABETH A
'""'051W07BD" "02800" WILHELEM,NEIL
'""'051W07BD" "02900" ATKINSON~JAMES T & LA
'""'051W07BD .... 03000" HUBENTHAL,ALLEN L & L
'""'051W07BD" "03100" LOSCUTOFF,ELIZABETH
'""'051W07BD" "03200" HAMMACK, GARY D & ROSE
'""'051W07BD" "03300" ASBURY, JULIE A
'""'001W07BD" "03400" BOYD,VIRGIL A &SHARRO
'""'001W07BD" "03500" KIRI~EUGENE A
PAGE 16- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'llA
MARION COUNTY PROPERTY OWNER
MAP # TA)',LOT #
'""'051W07BD" "~ 13600" CHADWICI~ELLIS W TRUS
'""'051W07BD" "~ ~3700" WOLCO~-r, MARTIN W &','WOLCO I I,PAULA K
'""'051W07BD" "03800" TOWN GROUP INC, THE
'""'051W07BD" "1t3900" FARIA, MELVIN A & MARl
'""'051W07BD" "~ t4000" ZANE,TERENCE A & MONI
'""'051W07BD" "1 )4100" WISE,JUDITH A
'""'051W07BD" "()4200" KAYSER, SUZANN J
"'"'051W07BD" "1 ~4300" iBANDELOW, ROBERT A & E
'""'051W07BD" "i )4400" HIM,HENG &','HIM,DOMINIQUE A
'""'051W07BD" "~)4500" OSTERGAARD,DEWARD J &
'""~351W07BD" ,,1 )4600" MORALES,SALVADOR &','MORALES,IMELDA
'""'051W07BD" ", )4700" JOHNSON,ROBERT J JR &
'"'051W07BD" "~H800" KLIEN~W. ILLIAM R & PAM
'""'051W07BD" "~ )4900" WEGENER~HELEN D
'""'051W07BD" "~ )5000" JOY, STEVEN & THERESA
,--,051W07BD,, ",15100" BARNEKOFF,GREG
'""'051W07BD" '" )5200" HERMANSEN,SONIA N & M
'""'051W07BD" ")5300" WUBBEN,COURTNEY G & B
'""~351W07BD" "' )5400" NGUYEN,TAM & THERESA
'""'051W07BD" " )5500" AGEE~WlLLAS D &
'""'051W07BD" ")5600" TOWN GROUP INC~ THE'
:'""~351W07BD" "05700"IGNACIO~MURILLO ET AL
'""'051W07BD" "~5800" JONES~RAYMOND A & CHR
'""~351W07BD" "05900'' VARGAS,JORGE A & DIAN
'""'051W07BD" "06000" LARAMORE,EDWARD A & P
?""'051W07BD" "~06100" CORTINAS,OFELICA G
'""'051W07BD" "06200" TOWN GROUP INC, THE
'""'051W07BD" "06300" TOWN GROUP INC, THE
'""'051W07BD" "06400" TOWN GROUP INC, THE
'""'051W07BD" "06500" M L MILLER CONSTRUCTION
'""'051W07BD" "06600" TOWN GROUP INC, THE
'""'051W07BD" "06700" HENRYS FARM HOMEOWNER (COM. AREA)
'""'051W07BD" "06800" HENRYS FARM HOMEOWNER (COM. AREA)
'""'051W07BD" "06900" HENRYS FARM HOMEOWNER (COM. AREA)
'""'051W07BD" "07000" BURLACHENKO,ANDREY & NATALYA
'""'051W07BD" "07100" VELIZ, RODOLFO & CANDE
'""'051W07BD" "07200.. iTOWN GROUP INC, THE
'""'051W07BD" "07300" TOWN GROUP INC~ THE
'""'051VV07BD" "07400"TOWN GROUP INC, THE
PAGE 17- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11A
MARION COUNTY PROPERTY OWNER
MAP # TA) LOT #
'""'051W07BD" "(~7500" TOWN GROUP.INC, THE
'""'051W07BD .... C7600" TOWN GROUP INC, THE
'""'051W07BD" "07700" TOWN GROUP INC, THE
I
'""'051W07BD" "07800" GRUBB,MICHAEL S & REB
,!
.... 051WO7BD .... C7900" GAUTHIER, PETER J & KA
'""'051W07BD .... C8000" DUENES~THOMAS A&BELL,VVENDY ANN 112 ea.
'""'051W07BD .... C8100" FLETCHER~IRVIN H & EV
'"'"051WOTBD" "C8200" DORN,DANIEL A & CATHE
REDUCED ACCESS
PROPERTIES
MARION COUNTY PROPERTY OWNER
MAP # TA) LOT #
'""'051W07AA" "C~0100" LEE, KIMBERLY A & HOCK
'""'051W07AA" "C~0200" SMITH,CARL J &
'""'051W07AA" "(~0300"ASHLEY, BENJAMIN A & J
'""'051W07AA" "C~0400" SCHRENK, RONALD H & LI
'""'051W07AA" "~0500" HANEBERG, ERIC B & PAM
'""'051W07AA" "C~0600"HENDRICKS, KEVIN M & K
'""'051W07AA" "(~0700" KOEPPING, pAUL R & KRI
'""'051W07AA" "(~0800"GLAVNIK~NIKOLAY & LYU
'""'051W07AA" "00900" WOLFER~JON A & DEBRA
'""'051W07AA" "01000" NIELSEN,SHANNON T & R
'""'051W07AA" "01100" SEETHOFF,PATRICK M &
'""'051W07AA" "01200" FREY, KENNETH
'""'051W07AA" "01300" BERRY, MICHAEL D &
'""'051W07AA" "01400" BLOMBERG~WALTER M'& N
'""'051W07AA" "01500" KITCHEN~FLOYD E & BRE
'""'051W07AA" "01600" LUNEKE, KEITH E & BEVERLY L
'""'051W07AA" "01700" CHRISTOFF,DAVID J & J
'""'051W07AA" "01800" REINHARDT,JOHN A & RE
'""'051W07AA" "01900" BARBOUR, MARGARET J &
'""'051W07AA" "02000" MARCO'I-rE-LING,JULIA F
'""'051W07AA" "02100" BEAM,THOMAS L &','BEAM, SUZAN T
'""'051W07AA" "02200" CENTEX HOMES
'""'051W07AA'' "02300" ANDERSON,jAMES S & MARILYN J
'""'051W07AA" "02400" CENTEX HOMES
'""'051W07AA .... 02500" CENTEX HOMES
'""'051W07AA" "02600" BEC-rS,DONALD G &','BETTS,TERESA L
'""'051W07AA" "02700" CENTEX HOMES
PAGE 18- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'llA
MARION COUNTY pROpERTY OWNER
MAP # TAXLOT #
'""'051W07AA" "02800" SHUMWAY, DAVID L & SALLY J
..... 051WO7AA .... 02900..JONES,JANICE I & DAVl
'""'051W07AA" "03000" CENTEX HOMES
,
'""'051W07AA" "03100" CENTEX HOMES
'""'051W07AA" "~3200" RIFFLE.DAVID S & LIND
'""'051W07AA .... 03300" SHIM.HYONG W & MI YOU
'""'051W07AA" "03400" DOOLEY, MICHAEL R & MA
'""'051WO7AA" "03500" MILLER. MARl LEE
'""'051WO7AA" "03600" MAXWELL. MICHAEL P & PATRICIA J
'""'051WOTAA" "(~3700"WINDER, SHANE R & MICH
'""'051W07AA" "(~3800" KAPSSOF. BILL& NOREEN
'""'051W07AA" "03900" TORRES~MARIA L &
'""'051W07AA" "(~4000"TELEUSHOV~IMASH Y
'""'051W07AA" "(~4100"HANNON,JAY E & SALLY
'""~)51W07AA" ",0~.200" CARR, KEVlN M & LISA H
'""'051W07AA" "04300" SNOWHILL, GRANT W & JA
'""'051W07AA" ",04400" BLANKE,DAVlD E
'""'051WO7AA" "04500" KlM.ANNA B
.--.051W07AA,. -04600.. HULSTROM,JO'HNR
'""~351W07AA" 'i04700" SWANNACK, ROBERT D & A
'""'051W07AA" ",04800" SMITH~LAURETTA F
:'""'051W07AA" "04900" DEL CASTILLO~JESUS &
'""~351WO7AA" "05000'' JAYNES,PEGGY A
'""'051WO7AA" "05100" STUART~ROBERTA& CAT
'""'051W07AA" "05200" BROWN,CURTIS L & ERIN
'""'051W07AA" '"05300" STEPHENS~LAURENCE H & CRISTINE G
'""'051W07AA" "05500" IRONWOOD AT TUCKWlLA(TOT LOT)
'""'051W07AA" "05600" KENT,SANTIAGO A & KEL
'""'051W07AA" "05700" BANUELOS,ROSA E &
'""'051W07AA" "05800" CASS,DENNIS & LINDA L
'""'051W07AA" "05900" ADKINS,RONALD L &','ADKINS,KATHY J
'""'051W07AA" "06000" BROOKFIELD,JOHN M
'""'051W07AA" "06100" NEWBURY, DOUGLAS T & J
'""'051W07AA" "06200" VELIZ, RAUL JR & MARIE
'""'051W07AA" "06300" NUSS~CHARLES H &','NUSS~SUSAN M'
'""'051W07AA" "06400" IVES,DAVID C &','IVES,HEATHER L
'""'051W07AA" ",06500" SHUBIN~GEORGE JR & TA
'""'051W07AA" "06600" CARIGNAN,ROGER & JULI
'""'051W07AA" "06700" VELASCO~ARMANDO A & D
PAGE 19- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
I T I
llA
MARION COUNTY PROPERTY OWNER
MAP # TAX LOT #
'""'051W07AA .... (]6800" WHITEHURSTiN,ORMAN A
'""'051W07AA" "(] 6900" PEDDICORD,CHRISTOPHER
'""'051W07AA" "dTooo" SCHIEDLER, CURTIS G &
'""'051W07AA .... 07100" TOMPKINS,MICHELLE D & SAKAI,GEORGE JOJI
'""'051W07AA .... (]7200" MILLER, SHAWN L & CHRI
'""'051W08BB" ';(] 0100 CAMACHO,ROSA C
'""'051W08BB" "(]0200 FELLER,JAMES P & MAR
'""'051W08BB" "(]0300 MITCHELL,TODD M
'""'051W08BB .... (]0400 MI ,TTMANN,HUBERTUS J
'""'051W08BB" "(]0500 SPRECHER,THOMAS W &
'""'051W08BB" "(]0600 MINOR, GARY J &
'""'051W08BB" "(]0700 STUCKI, vBERKLEY K &','STUCKI,ANGELA J
'""~351W08BB" "(]0800 MCCALLUM,PETER J &'~'MCCALLUM,ILA F
'""'051W08BB" "(]0900 DOZIER~STACIE L
'""~51W08BB" "01000 MONTGOMERY, ARTHUR J
'""~)51W08BB" "(] 1100 ROTH,RONALD D & EILEEN L
'""~51W08BB" "(]1200 WALLACE~THOMAS J TRU
'""'051W08BB" "(~1300 GRIMALDI,BOBBI L & P
'""~)51W08BB" "(]1400 HEIDE,MICHAEL DEAN
'""~51W08BB" "(]1500 TAYLOR, DORIAN D
'""'051w08BB" "(]1600 POTTER, RANDALL J
'""~51W08BB" "(]1700 MORELAND,DONNA M & J
'""~351W08BB" "01800 OLSEN,BRANDON A & RA
'""~)51W08BB" "02000 CANTU,JOHN SR & ALMA & JOHN A JR
'""'051W08BB" "02100 COX, JEFFREY D & MARG
'""~51W08BB" "02200 STERLING,MARK D &','STERLING,MARCIA
'""~51W08BB" "02300 HINDMAN,LOUIS E
'""~351W08BB" "02400 JAMISON,GILBERT D & SHIRLEY K
'""~351W08BB" "02500 SANDERS,LON L &','SANDERS,PEGGY S
'""~)51W08BB" "02600 MORTENSEN,JAMES V &
'""'051W08BB" "02700 BAXLEY, RICHARD A &
'""'051W08BB" "02800 ELLINGSON~DAVID B & KIMBERLY
'""'051W08BB" "02900 LASSER, PETER R &','LASSER, JUDY D
'""'051W08BB" "03000 KUZNETSOV, ANTONI K & EKATERINA
'""'051W08BB" "03100 SCHMIDT, BRANDON J &','SCHMIDT~ELAINE M
'""'051W08BB"' "03200 LUN~RICK L & SHEPPA
'""'051W08BB" "03300 BEYERvBRIAN D & SARA
'""'051W08BB" "03400 KIM,ANDREY S & EUNAH
'""'051W08BB" "03500 MAGRUDER, KIMBERLY A
PAGE 20- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
MARION COUNTY
MAP # TAXLOT tt
'""'051W08BB" "03600
'""'051W08BB"
'""'051W08BB"
'""'051W08BB"
..... '051W07AB"
..... '051W07AB"
PROPERTY OWNER
GRAFF,GERALD II & BR
"03700 GROVE,DEREK& MICHEL
"03800" FOX, AARON J & AMY E
"0,3900" BAUMAN,JERRY
"02600" TUKWlLA PARTNERS
"02601" TUKWlLA PARTNERS
"03200" TUKWlLA PARTNERS
'"'051W07AB"
SECTION 5. PROPERTY CATEGORY FOR BENEFIT DETERMINATION,
ASSESSMENT METHOD, COST DISTRIBUTION TO BENEFITTED
PROPERTIES:I
A. PROPERTY CATEGORY FOR BENEFIT DETERMINATION:
FULL ACCESS PROPERTIES: All properties within the district boundary
that do not qualify for a reduced access property designation
REDUCED ACCESS: Thc residential properties within thc district
boundary that are served by Hazelnut Drive, and located south and
southeast of the intersection of Tukwila Drive with Hazelnut Drive. These
properties have the privilege of utilizing Front Street, minor arterial as their
primary route, and these properties may be subject to a portion of Front
Street improvement assessment at a furore date.
DIRECT ACCESS: Properties, which have direct ingress and egress access
onto Boones Ferry, shall be assessed an additional cost for approach
installation
Be
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
25% of the project cost will be distributed against the properties having
structure(s) built on them or planned to have structures built on them at a future
date be based on property area. The remaining 75% of the project cost will be
distributed to all properties based on the impact created by the property that
quantified by the vehicle trips generated. (Note: Trips generated by different uses
are outlined in the Institute of Transportation Engineers)
PAGE 21- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
Ce
COST DISTRIBUTION TO BENEFITED PROPERTIES
1. FULL ACCESS PROPERTIES: Since these properties will utilize the
proposed improvements as a primary route, these properties will be assessed
100% &the calculated assessment mount. The assessment amount for these
properties will be calculated using the combination of property area and trip
generation method stated earlier.
2. REDLIcED ACCESS PROPERTIES: Since these properties do have another
prim~3~ route available, the amounts of these assessments will be reduced,
based on the amount of benefit received.
The r~duced benefit will be calculated at 65% of full access properties. The
reduction is based on a traffic analysis provided for the specific area, which
identifies 65% of the generated traffic will utilize Boones Ferry Road.
DIRECT ACCESS PROPERTIES: Full access properties, that have direct
access onto Boones Ferry, will be assessed a flat rate amount for the
installation of the driveway approach to their property.
REDUCTION OF ASSESSMENTS DUE TO SPECIFIC FUNDING: When
dermal funds are received by the city, such as developer contribution, it shall
be us~xl to reduce the assessments of specified properties.
SECTION 6. ENGINEERS PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Estimated cost of the Boones Ferry
from Goose Creek to Country Club
Street Improvement Cost =
Underground Existing Utilities =
Sub total =
$ 341,590
$150,O00
$ 491,590
Estimated cost of the Boones Ferry
from Country Club to Vanderbeck
Street Improvement Cost =
Underground Existing Utilities =
Sub total =
$ 325,793
$144,000
$ 469,793
C. Estimated cost of the Boones Ferry
PAGE 22- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
Estimated cost of the Boones Ferry
from Vanderbeck to Hazelnut Drive
Street Improvement Cost
Underground Existing Utilities
Sub total
TOTAL PROJECT COST
= $ 313,364
= $ lOO,OOO
= $ 413,364
Note: Estimated costs include 10 % for contingency & administration
SECTION 7.
A.
COST ALLOCATION FOR FUNDING SUPPORT
PROJECT COST TO BE ALLOCATED TO THE CITY
(Costs which are not to be assessed)
Estimated capacity cost for additional
14 feet of width and additional structural
Thickness
a. Goose Creek to Country Club
b. Country Club to Vanderbeck
c. Vanderbeck to Hazelnut Dr.
Capacity Cost Total
Two thirds of the estimated cost for
undergrounding the utilities
Goose Creek to Country Club
Coumry Club to Vanderbeck
Vanderbeck to Hazelnut Dr.
2/3 Undergrounding Cost Total
TOTAL CITY SUPPORT
$ 99,630
$ 95,023
$ 91,398
= $ 286,051
$100,000
$ 96,000
$ 66,667
= $ 262,667
Be
PROJECT COST ALLOCATED TO BENEFITTED PROPERTIES
25% of the project cost be distributed
against the properties based on area,
(square footage of property).
PAGE 23- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
= $204,257
llA
llA
75% of the project cost be distributed
to all properties based on vehicle trips
generated, property impact.
$612,772
Approach cost will be distributed to
property which requires the approach
based on a flat rate fee of $500 each.
$ 9,000
TOTAL BENEFITED PROPERTY SUPPORT
SECTION 9. UNIT DETERMINATION FOR METHOD
OF ASSESSMENT.
AREA UNIT: Based on total square
footage of individual parcel or lot. Calculated
the same for both developed or underdeveloped
p~toperty.
TRIP GENERATION UNIT: Trip units are based on the trip generation
rates as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip
Generation Manuel, 6* Edition. Developed property is assigned a trip rate
based on the current use.
Trip units on vacant property, which have received land use approval either
conceptual or final, have been based on the projected trips for the approved
use.
Single Family Residential
9.57 trips/mt (100%)
6.22 trips/unit (65%)
Multi Family/Duplex
= 6.63 trips/unit
Golf Course = 5.04 trips/acre
Ce
Planned Unit Development
UNIT AREA COST
46.78 trips/acre (100%)
30.54 trips/acre (65%)
Total adjusted area of properties
within the district
6,548,992sq.ff.
PAGE 24- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
1lA
The project assessment cost to
be distributed using property area.
(25% of project cost to be assessed)
$ 204,257
3. Cost per square foot
= $O.03/sq. fi.
D. UNIT VEHICLE TRIP COST
Total number vehicle trips generated
Within the entire district.
8611trips
The project assessment cost to
distributed using vehicle trips
(75% of project cost to be assessed)
$612,772
Cost per vehicle trip
= $71.16Arip
SECTION 10. DISTRIBUTION OF COST ALLOCATION TO BENEFITED
PROPERTIES
IMPROVEMENT COST ALLOCATED TO
ASSESS~ME~ DISTRICT PROPERTIES.
Standard Residential Street Improvemem
Cost To Be Assessed Against The Benefiting
Properties. =
$ 679,729
One Third Of The Estimated Cost For
Undergrounding The Utilities.
Goose Creek to Country Club
Country Club to Vanderbeck
Vanderbeck to Hazelnut Dr.
$ 50,000
$ 48,000
$33,333
Undergrounding Total =
IMPROVEMENT COST TO BE ALLOCATED
TO ASSESSMENT DISTTICT PROPERTIES =
(Includes 15 approaches ~ $500.00 each)
$131,333
PAGE 25- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11A
PROJECT COST ALLOCATION TO PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF THE
CITY BOUNDARY BUT WITHIN THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY:
Method Of assessment is based on same distribution as properties within the
assessment district.
Propertie~ Outside Assessment District
But Within Urban Growth Boundary =
TO BE ~UNDED BY UGBSDC FEES =
(Includesl 3 approaches ~ $500.00 each)
(Includesi undergrounding cost share)
TOTAL COST DISTRIBUTION
TO BENEFITED PROPERTIES =
$14,967
$14:967
SECTION 11. REDUCTION OF ASSESSMENTS DUE TO SPECIFIC FUNDING
RECEIVED i
Defined developer contributions of $65,500 is to be used to equally reduce the
assessmer~t amount of all lots in Heritage Park Subdivision as per agreement.
SECTION 12. END1VIDUAL ESTIMATED PROPERTY ASSESSEMNTS
Ae
PROPERTIES WITH FULL ACCESS AND DIRECT ACCESS; 100%
ASSESS~IENT BASED ON AREA OF PROPERTY AND TRIPS
GENERATED. NO DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION
AREA I KiP
MAP & TAX LOT PROPERTY OWNER APPROACH ASSESSMENT
NO. COST RATE
COST ~ COST TOTAL
Ssoo EA.
PROPERTIES WITH DIRECT ACCESS
"051W07AB"'00200"IRESCH,~TEVE F ,JR & COL $487.21 $500.00 $681.03 $1,669.17
"051W07AB'"'00300", SMITH,CINDY A & $652.79 $500.00 $681.03 $1,835.06
"051W07BA"'00200" WOODBURN ART LEAGUE $~.~.9.23 $500.00 $681.03 $1,631.12
"051W07BA'"00300" WOODBURN ART LEAGUE $298.84 $500.00 $1,021.54. $1,820.95
"051W07BA"~7:J00" GASCH0,EUGENE R ETAL $1,357.87 $500.00 $3,131.15! $4,991.62
"051W07BA'"01000" GASCH0,EUGENE R & JUD $2,086./! $500.00 $3,131.15 $5,721.92
"051W07BA"011IX)" PACIFIC NW BELL TE[I=p $1,071.23 $1,000.00 $6E~1.03 $2,754.31
"051W07BA'"'01200" NAUTA~LOUIS P & RHONDA $678.69 $500.00 $681.03 $1,861.01
"051W07BA'"01300" MILLER, STUART M & REBE $1,208.73 $1.000.00 $681.03 $2,892.07
PAGE 26- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'llA
MAP & TAX LOT PROPERTY OWNER AREA APPROACH TRIP ASSESSMENT
NO. COST RATE
COST ~} COST TOTAL
$soo EA.
"051W07BD'"'00100" SAALF~LD,DONALD& TOBINi $873.43 $500.00 $(381.03 $2,05S.13
"051W07BD'"'00400" GASCH0,EUGENE R & JUDI $1,048.10 $,500.00 $3,131.1§ $4,681.26
"0§lW07BD'"'00500" LINDSTROM,DONALD E $713.52 $$00.00 $681.03 $1,895.91
"0§lW07BD'"'00600" AHO,ARMA$ & ELLA L $708.94 $${30.00 $681.03 $1,891.33
$11,63S.35 $7,$00.00 $16,544.2 $35,701.86
Be
PROPERTIES WITH FULL ACCESS: 100% ASSESSMENT BASED ON
AREA OF PROPERTY AND TRIPS GENERATED. WITH DEVELOPER
CONTRIBUTION
TRIP REDUCTION TOTAL
WITH ASSESSMENT
AREA RATE DEVELOPER COST
MAP & TAX LOT NO. PROPERTY OWNER COST COST CONTRIBUTION
· PROPERTIES WITHOUT DIRECT ACCESS
'"051W06CD'"'00100" MILLER,ALLEN $232.29 $681.03 $0.00 $913.76
"051W06CD'"'00200" RUDD, KENNTH M. $187.24 $681.03 $0.00 $868.63
"051W06CD'"~0300" M-C BUILDERS INC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051w06CD'"'00400" MEND,E.Z, JESUS $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"~30500" SCHMITZ, JULIA MILLER $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.1..6
"051W06CD'"'00600" ,HAMBERGER,JESSE $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
GRAHAM
"051W06CD'"'00700" DELBRIDGE, DOROTHY A & $186.78 $681.03 $8.00 $868.16!
STAN
"051W06CD'"'00800" ALBRIGHT, GARY J & $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
LESLIE A.
"051W06CD'"'00900" GUSTAFSON,DAVID M $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'01000" M-C BUILDERS INC $186.87 $881.031 $0.0{3 $868.25
"051W06CD""01100" ARELI~ANO FERNAND & $208.35 $681.03 $0.0(:] $889.77
SANDY
"051W06CD'"'01200" MILLER, GARY LEE LLC $260.74 $681.03 $0.0G $942.27
"051W06CD'"'01300" MATYEEV, DIMITRY & $202.44 $681.03 $0.0~ $883.85
USTINA
"051W06CD'"'01400" CHARLESWORTH,JARED W $187.90 $681.03 $0.00 $869.28
"051W06CD'"'01500" M-C BUILDERS INC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
PAGE 27- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
I T I
11A
Map and Tax Lot ! Owner Area Trip Reduction Total
"051W06CD'"'01600" M-C B~ILDERS INC $186.78: $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'01700" M-C BUILDERS INC( $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
DETENTION)
"051W06CD'"'01800'' M-C B01LDERS INC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'01900" MCGII~!N.IS,BARBARA MILL $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'02000" MCGIr INIS,BARBARA MILL $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'02100" M-C B~JILDERS INC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'02200" M-C B;JILDERS INC $187.84 $681.03 $0.00 $869.22
"051W06CD'"'02300" MILLE ~,,ALLEN $227.09 $681.03 $0.00 $908.55
"051W06CD'"'02400" THOM ~SON,VERN $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"~)2500" M-C Bi IILDERS INC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'02600" M-C BiJILDERS INC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
q351W06CD'"'02700" M-C BiIILDERS INC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"~)280ff' M-C BiIILDERS INC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'02900" M-C B!IILDERS INC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'03(X)(Y' M-C B JILDERS INC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"~33100" MILLE {,ALLEN $227.46 $681.03 $0.00 $908.92
q351W06CD'"~k3200" MILLE ~,,DONALD $256.29 $681.03 $0.00 $937.81
q351W06CD'"~33300" BOSQi IEZ GUSTAVO E & $189.92 $681.03 $0.00 $871.31
' AYDA
'~)51W06CD'"~33400" M-C BUILDERS INC $189.92 $681.03 $0.0(] $871.31
'~351W06CD"~)3500" BRAVO TEODORO & $189.92 $681.03 $0.0~ $871.31
GONZ~ES ANDRES
'X)51W06CD'"'03600" M-C SI~ILDERS INC $189.92 $681.03 $0.00 $871.31
'~51W06CD'"m700" M-C B~JILDERS INC $189.89 $681.03 $0.0(3 $671.28
'~)51W06CD'"~3800" RIOS, tALFEDO & SHIRLEY $247.54 $681.03 $0.0(3 $929.04
"051W06CD'"~)3900" MILLE~,JOHN R-TRUST $257.50 $681.03 SO.Off $939.02
~"051w06CD'"'04000" MORALES, MIQUEL & LUZI $189.89 $681.03 $0.00 $871.28
& JOSE A
"051W06CD'"'04100" VBS CONST & STATSENKO $189.92 $681.03! $0.00 $871.31
VALDIMAR
"~)51W06CD'"~)4200" MIRANDA, EVELIO & NOEM $189.92 $681.03 $0.00 $871.31
"051W06CD'"'04300" MILLER, DONALD' $189.92 $681.03 $0.00 $871.31
"051W06CD'"'04400" MILLER, DONALD $189.92 $681.03 $0.00 $871.31
'~)51W06CD'"'04500" FIOCCHI,JOHN J & $246.55 $681.03 $0.00 $928.041
'~)51W06CD'"'0460(~' FIOCCHI,JOHN J & $226.44 $681.03 $0.00 $907.901
"051W06CD'"'04700" M-C BUILDERS INC $193.10 $681.03 $0.00 $874.49
"051W06CD'"'04800" SCHM!TZ, JULIA MILLER $186.87 $681.03 $0.00 $868.25
"051W06CD'"'04900" YOUNG,SONJA F & $186.87 $681.03 $0.00 $868.25
"051W06CD'"'0500(Y' MILLER, GARY LEE LLC $213.61 $681.03 $0.00 $895.05
PAGE 28- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'llA
Map and Tax Lot Owner Area Trip I~eduction Total
"051W06CD'"'05100" VALDEX, GUADALUPE JR & $197.80 $681.03 $0.00 $879.20
IRENE
"051W06CD'"'05200" M-C BUILDERS INC $204.46 $681.03 $0.00 $885.88
"051W06CD'"'05300" M-C BUILDERS INC $186.84 $681.03 $0.00 $868.22
"051W06CD'"'05400" U-C BUILDERS INC $196.96 $681.03 $0.00 $678.36
"051W06CD'"'05500" MILLER, GARY LEE EEC $282.03 $681.03 $0.00 $963.60
"051W06CD'"'05600" M-C BUILDERS INC(TOT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
LOT)
"051W06CD'"'05700" SCHMH'Z,JULIA MILLER $267.12 $681.03 $0.00 $948.66
"051W06CD'"'05800" SMITHiCRAIG W & CAROL $194.06 $681.03 $0.00 $875.46
"051W06CD'"'05900" M-C BUILDERS INC $200.94 $681.03 $0.00 $682.35
"051W06CD'"'06000" MILLER, JOHN R-TRUST $197.70 $681.03 $0.00 $879.11
"051W06CD'"'06100" M-C BUILDERS INC $188.89 $681.03 $0.00 $870.28
"051W06CD'"'06200" MILLER, JOHN R-TRUST $195.52 $681.03 $0.00 $876.92
"051W06CD'"'06300" M-C BUILDERS INC $197.98 $681.03 $0.00 $679.39
"051W06CD'"'06400" INZHIROV, PETR & SVETL $192.75 $681.03 $0.00 $874.15
"051W06CD'"'06500" M-C BUILDERS INC $193.19 $681.03 $0.00 $874.5g
"051W06CD'"'06600" TOMPKINS,MARY MILLER $211.71 $681.03 $0.00 $893.14
"051W06CD'"'06700" BEAN,CANDY K $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'06800" MCGINNIS,BARBARA MILL $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'06900" M-C BUILDERS INC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'07000" GANOVICHEFF, ANNA $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'07100" ARELLANO-RODRIGUEZ,MA $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'07200" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $251.28 $681.03 $0.00 $932.78
"051W06CD'"'07300" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868..161
"051W06CD'"'07400" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'07500" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'07600" :HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
'~051W06CD'"'07700" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'07800" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'07900" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051WO6CD'"'08000" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $186.78 $681.03 $0.00 $868.16
"051W06CD'"'08100" -IERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $187.84 $681.03 $0.00 $869.22
"051W06CD'"'08200" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $191.32 $681.03 $0.00 $872.71
"051W06CD'"~38300" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $245.61 $681.03 $0.00 $.927.11
"051W06CD'"'08400" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $188.64 $681.03 $0.013 $870.03
"051W06CD'"'08500" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $188.80 $681.03 $0.013 $870.19
"051W06CD'"'08600" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $186.78 $681.03 $0.0G $868.16
"051W06CD'"'08700" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $189.17 $681.03 $0.0~ $870.56
"051W06CD'"'08800" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $202.34 $681.03 $0.00 $883.76
PAGE 29- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11A
Map and Tax Lot Owner Area Trip Reduction Total
"051W06CD'"'08900" HERIT ~GE MEADOWS LLC $186.78 $681.03 $0.0a $868.16
"051W06CD'"'09000" HERIT ~,GE MEADOWS LLC $196.55 $681.03 $0.0a $877.95
"051W06CD'"'09100" HERIT ~,GE MEADOWS LLC $256.32 $681.03 $0.00 $937.84
"051W06CD'"'09200" HERIT ~,GE MEADOWS LLC $207.32 $681.03 $0.0a $888.75
"051W06CD'"'09300" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $207.32 $681.03 $0.00 $888.75
"051W06CD'"'09400" HERIT ~GE MEADOWS LLC $207.32 $681.03 $0.00 $888.75
"051W06CD'"'09500" HERIT ~GE MEADOWS LLC $226.78 $681.03 $0.00 $908.24
"051W06CD'"'09600" HERIT ~GE MEADOWS LLC $226.78 $681.03 $0.00 $908.24
"051W06CD'"'09700" HERIT ~GE MEADOWS LLC $207.32 $681.03 $0.00 $888.75
"051W06CD'"'09800" HERIT'~GE MEADOWS LLC $207.32 $681.03 $0.00 $888.75
"051W06CD'"'09900" HERIT ~GE MEADOWS LLC $261.80 $681.03 $0.00 $943.33
"051W06CD'"'10000" HERIT ~,GE MEADOWS LLC $256.44 $681.03 $0.0a $937.96
"051W06CD'"'10100" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $216.88 $681:03 $0.00 $898.32
"051W06CD'"'1020(7' HERIT~,GE MEADOWS LLC $216.88 $681.03 $0.00 $898.32
"051W06CD'"'10300" HERIT ~,GE MEADOWS LLC $216.88 $681.03 $0.00 $898.32
'K)51W06CD'"'10400" HERIT~,GE MEADOWS LLC $217.47 $681.03 $0.00 $698.91
"051W06CD'"'10500" 'HERITAGE MEADOWS EEC $216.88 $681.03 $0.00 $898.32
'~)51W06CD'"'106(X)" ,HERITAGE MEADOWS EEC $213.61 $681.03 $0.00 $895.0,5
"051W06CD'"'10700" HERITI~GE MEADOWS LLC $213.61 $681.03 $0.00 $895.05
"051W06CD'"'10800" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $269.43 $681.03 $0.00 $950.97
"051W06CD'"'10900" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $263.60 $681.03 $0.00 $945.14
"051W06CD'"'11000" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $212.46 $681.03 $0.00 $893.89
"051W06CD'"'11100" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $212.46 $681.03 $0.00 $893.89
"051W06CD'"'11200" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $215.73 $681.03 $0.00 $897.17
X)51W06CD'"'11300" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $216.32 $681.03 $0.0a $897.76
'~351W06CD'"'11400" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $215.73 $681.03 $0.00 $897.17
"051W06CD'"'11500" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $215.73 $681.03 $0.00 $897.17
"051W06CD'"'11600" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $215.73 $681.03 $0.00 $897.17
"051W06CD'"'11700" HERITAGE MEADOWS LLC $275.15 $681.03 $0.00 $956.71
"051W08DC'"K)0400" OREGON GOLF $0.00 $3,095.23 $0.00 $3,095.23
ASSOCIATION
"051W06DC'"'00500" TUKWILA PARTNERS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
'K)51W06DC'"'00600" HALTON DEVELOPMENT ET $223.23 $881.03 $0.00 $904.68
"051W06DC'"'00700" CHARITAR,DINA N & J S $305.29 $681.03 $0.00 $986.90
"051W06DC'"'00800" JUDSON,DONALD R & RHO $322.97 $681.03 $0.00 $1,004.61
"051W06DC'"'00900" TUKWILA PARTNERS $165.33 $681.03 $0.00 $846.67
"051W06DC'"'01000" TUKWILA PARTNERS $190.33 $681.03 $0.00 $871.72
"051W06DC'"'01100" TUKWILA $0.00 $0.00 So.oa $0.00
PARTNERS(ACCESS)
"051W06DC'"'01200" TUKW!LA PARTNERS $212.02 $681.03 $0.0a $893.45
PAGE 30- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
tlA
Map and Tax Lot Owner Area Trip Reduction Total
"051W06DC'"'01300" TUKWILA PARTNERS $214.36 $681.03 $0.00 $895.79
"051W06DC'"'01400" TUKVV~I~ PARTNERS ; $239.98 $681.03 $6.00 $921.46
"051W06DC'"'01500" TUKWiLA PARTNERS $262.08 $681.03 $0.00 $943.61
"051W06DC'"'01600" TUKWlLA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
PARTNERS(ACCESS)
"051W06DC'"'01700" TUKWiLA PARTNERS $262.08 $681.03 $0.00 $943.61
"051W06DC'"'01800" TUKWiI~ PARTNERS $239.98 $681.03 $0.00 $921.46
"051W06DC'"'01900" TUKWiLA PARTNERS $321.38 $681.03 $0.00 $1,003.02
"051W06DC'"'02000" EDWARDS,CAROL ANN $288.98 $681.03 $0.00 $970.55
"051W06DC'"'02100" TUKW!LA PARTNERS $172.96 $681.03 $0.00 $854.31
"051W06DC'"'02200" PIERCE,DENNIS & BEECH $186.03 $681.03 $6.00 $867.41
"051W06DC'"'02300" TUKWlLA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
PARTNERS(ACCESS)
"051W06DC'"'02400" ANDERSON,FLORENCE E F $172.96 $681.03 $0.00 $854131
"051W06DC'"'02500" TUKWILA PARTNERS $186.03 $681.03 $0.00 $867.41
"051W06DC'"'02600" OREGON GOLF $4,881.60 $5,946.57 $6.00 $10,837.53
ASSOCIATION
"051W06DC'"'02700" TUKWILA PARTNERS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(TENNIS)
"051W06DC'"'02800" RENAISSANCE CUSTOM $146.31 $681.03 $0.00 $827.61
HOMES
"051W06DC'"'02900" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $146.31 $681.03 $0.00 $827.61
"051W06DC'"'03000" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $146.31 $681.03 $6.00 $827.61
"051W06DC'"'03100" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $146.31 $681.03 $0.00 $827.61
"051W06DC'"'03200" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $146.09 $681.03 $0.00 $827.40
"051W06DC'"'03300" RENAISSANCE CUSTOM $183.98 $681.03 $0.00 $865.35
HOMES
"051W06DC'"'03400" RENAISSANCE CUSTOM $198.95 $681.'03 $0.00 $880.36
HOMES
"051W06DC'"'03500" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $163.46 $681.03 $0.001 $8z.4.80
"051W06DC'"'03600" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $136.97 $681.03 $0.00 $818.26
"051W06DC'"'03700" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $136.97 $681.03 $0.00 $818.26
"051W06DC'"'03800" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $136.97 $681.03 $0.00 $818.26
"051W06DC'"i03900" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $136.97 $681.03 $0.00 $818.26
"051W06DC'"'04000" RENAISSANCE CUSTOM $165.11 $681.03 $0.00 $846.45
HOMES
"051W06DC'"'04100" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $169.87 $881.03 $0.00 $851.22
"051W06DC'"'04200" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $146.31 $681.03 $0.00 $827.6.1
"051W06DC'"~M300" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $146.31 $681.03 $0.00 $827.61
"051W06DC'"'04400" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $146.31 $681.03 $0.00 $827.61
PAGE 31- COUNCII, BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
Map and Tax Lot Owner Ama Trip Reduction Total
"051W06DC'"'04500" UNITEI3 PROPERTIES ORE $193.19 $681.03 $0.00 $874.59
"051W06DC'"'04600" UNITE ) PROPERTIES ORE $146.31! $681.03 $0.00 $827.61
"051W06DC'"'04700" UNITE ) PROPERTIES ORE $146.311 $681.03 $0.03 $827.61
"051W06DC'"'04800" UNITE ) PROPERTIES ORE $146.31 $681.03 $0.00 $827.61
"051W06DC'"'04900" UNITE ) PROPERTIES ORE $146.31 $681.03 $0.03 $827.61
"051W06DC'"'05000" UNITE ) PROPERTIES( $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ACCE: iS)
"051W07AA'"'07300" TUKW LA PARTNERS( $0.00 $0.00 $0.0(3$0.00
ACCE,'iS)
"051W07AA'"'07400" TUKW LA PARTNERS $26,772.90$82,510.62 $0.00 $109,334.79
'~)51W07AA'"'07500" UNITE ) PROPERTIES ORE $138.99 $681.03 $0.00 $820.29
"051W07AA'"'07600" UNITE ) PROPERTIES ORE $138.9~ $681.03 $0.03 $820.29
"051W07AA'"'07700" UNITE ) PROPERTIES ORE $138.9S $681.03' $0.03 $820.29
"051W07AA'"'07800" UNITE ) PROPERTIES ORE $138.9S $681.03 $0.03 $820.29
"051W07AA'"~37900" UNITEI) PROPERTIES ORE $138.99 $681.03 $0.03 $820.29
"051W07AA'"'08000" UNITE ) PROPERTIES ORE $150.57 $681.03 $0.00 $831.89
"051W07AA'"'08100" UNITE ) PROPERTIES ORE $220.74 $681.03 $0.00 $902.19
'~351W07AA'"'08200" UNITE ) PROPERTIES ORE $174.39 $681.03 $0.00 $855.75
"051W07AA'"~)8300" UNITE ) PROPERTIES (TOT $0.0(3 $0.03 $0.00 $0.00
· LOT)
'~351W07AB'"'00400" HAZEL'NUT A PARTNERS $529.58 $2,808.30 $0.00 $3,338.89
"051W07AB'"'00500" HAZE[ NUT A PARTNERS $1,132.8(3 $2,741.44 $0.03 $3,876.41
'~351W07AB'"~X)600" HAZE[ NUT A PARTNERS $772.91 $1,905.63 $0.00 $2,680.03
'~351W07AB'"'00700" WITHE RS LUMBER CO INC $718.69 $1,771.91 $0.00 $2,491.97
'~351W07AB'"'00800" HAZEL, NUT A PARTNERS $555.97 $1,370..72 $0.03 $1,927.76
"051W07AB'"'01000" PARKHURST, GLENN D & B $488.17 $681.03 $0.00 $1,170.13
"051W07AB'"'01100" THELEN,CHRISTOPHER H $288.69 $681.03 $0.03 $970.27
"051W07AB'"'01200" EPPS, WILLIAM A $337.82 $681.03 $0.00 $1,019.49
"051W07AB'"'01300" WALSH, SHARON F $236.99 $681.03 $0.03 $918.47
"051W07AB'"~31400" GRISE.I_L,RANDY G & DIA $246.55 $681.03 $0.03 $928.04
"051W07AB'"'01500" HERSHBERGER, WARDE & P $246.64 $681;03 $0.0(3 $928.14
"051W07AB'"'01600" REID,OLIVER A & MARIE $256.29 $681.03 $0.03 $937.81
"051W07AB'"'01700" WIETHORN,VALDON G & P $267.09 $681.03 $0.0(3 $948.63
"051W07AB'"'01800" JAMESON,FRANK O JR & $246.55 $681.03 $0.03 $928.04
"051W07AB'"'01900" PHIPPS, SAM & MARYLU $317.52 $681.03 $0.0(3 $999.15
'~)51W07AB'"'02100" POLING,HARPER A & JAC $343.92 $681.03 $0.03 $1,025.60
"051W07AB'"'02200" QUAN,SIU W $343.92 $681.03 $0.0(3 $!,02.5.60
"051W07AB'"'02300" KIGHTrLEONARD G & DEE $320.29 $681.03 $0.03 $1,001.93
"051W07AB'"'02700" OREGON GOLF SOCIATION $0.0(3 $6,893.43 $0.0(] $6,893.43
PAGE 32- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
Map and Tax Lot Owner Area Trip Reduction Total
"051W07AB'"'03100" OREGON GOLF $0.00 $12,796.97 $0.00 $12,796.97
ASSO(~IATION
"051W07AB'"'03300" TUKWiLA PARTNERS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
"051W07AB'"'03400" AIKEN~RONALD R 50% & $252.77 $681.03 $0.00 $934.28
"051W07AB'"'03500" BREWER, JEFFERY P & $234.72 $681.03 $0.00 $916.19
TAWANA
"051W07AB'"'03600" wAGNER, MAVIN G & BONN $288.57 $681.03 $0.00 $970.15
"051W07AB'"'03700" BARNES,JACK W & ROSIN $263.2§ $681.03 $0.00 $944.82
"051W07AB'"'03800" TUKWILA PARTNERS (C. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 SO.OB
AREA) ,
"051W07AB'"'03900" TUKWILA PARTNERS (C. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
AREA),
"051W07AB'"~)4000" BRADI~EY, BERNADETTE $315.09 $681.03 $0.00 $996.72
"051W07AB'"~)4100" GIBBS TRUST, GIBBS $256.23 :$681.03 $0.00 $937.74
ARDEN A TRUSTEES
"051W07AB'"~34200" HILL, R ICHARD A & JANI $240.41 :$681.03 $0.00 $921.90
i"051W07AB'"'04300" BELLUM,RICHARD J &VI $246.61 $681.03 $0.00 $928.11
"051W07AB'"'04'!00" TUKWlLA PARTNERS $289.13 :$681.03 $0.00 $970.71:
"051W07AB'"'04500" WOOISBURN $172.96 $681.03 $0.00 $854.31
· CONSTRUCTION
'~351W07AB'"'04600" ZAUNER, CLIFFORD A & V $186.03 $681.03 $0.00 :$867.41
"051W07AB'"'04700" TUKWlLA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
PARTNERS(ACCESS)
"051W07AB'"'04800" PATTERSON,EDWIN E & C $186.03 $681.03 $0.00 $867.41
"051W07AB'"~4900" MORSE,RICHARD L & SHA $172.96 $681.03 $0.00 $854.31
'%)51W07AB'"'05000" MONTGOMERY, JOHN & $236.58 $681.03 $0.00 $918.06
GAY
"051W07AB'"'05100" MISTRY, AsHISH N & PIT $264.60 $681.03 $0.00 $946.13
"051W07AB'"~)5200" TUKWlLA PARTNERS $289.47 $681.03 $0.00 $971.05
"051W07AB'"%)5300" TUKWlLA PARTNERS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
"051W07AB'"'05400" TUKWILA PARTNERS $0.00 $0.00 $0.0(~ $0.00
"051W07AB'"'05500" PAYNE,ROBERT D & PATR $237.92 $681.03 $0.00! $919.40
"051W07AB'"'05600" POWERS,WILLIAM E & GL $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07AB'"'05700" MILLICAN, MARY L $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07AB'"'05800" KRAXBERGER,WILLIAM F $249.04 $681.03' $0.00 $930.54
"051W07AB'"'05900" TUKWlLA PARTNERS(C. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
AREA)
"051W07AB'"'06000" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $159.17 $681.03 $0.00 $840.50
"051W07AB'"'06100" OWINGS, SANDRA LEE $193.63 $681.03 $0.00 $875.02!
"051W07AB'"'06200" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $151.26 $681.03 $0.00 $832.57
"051W07AB'"'06300" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $138.99 $681.03 $0.00 $820.29
PAGE 33- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDIlqANCE NO.
I4.
11A
Map and Tax Lot Owner Area Trip Reduction Total
"051W07AB'"'06400" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $138.99 $681.03 $0.00 $620.29
"051W07AB'"'06500" UNITEI:) PROPERTIES ORE $138.99 $681.03 $0.00 $820.29
"051W07AB'"'06600" UNITE :) PROPERTIES ORE $138.99 $681.03 $0.00 $820.29
"051W07AB'"'06700" UNITEI:) PROPERTIES ORE $138.99 $681.03 $0.00 $620.29
"051W07AB'"'06800" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $164.43 $681.03 $0.00 $645.77
"051W07AB'"'06900" RENAI~;SANCE CUSTOM $138.06 $681.03 $0.00 $819.35
HOME, S
"051W07AB'"'07000" UNITE 3 PROPERTIES ORE $~87.80 $681.03 $0.00 $869. 9
"05~W07AB'"'07~0(~' UNITE 3 PROPERTIES ORE $2~9.93 $68~.03 $0.00 $90~.38
"05~W07AB'"'07200" UNITEI3 PROPERTIES ORE $205.73 $68~.03 $0.00 $687.~5
"05~W07AB'"'07300" UNITE 3 PROPERTIES ORE $20~.75 $C:~.03 $0.00 $883.~6
"05~W07AB'"'07400" UNITEI3 PROPERTIES ORE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
"05~W07AC'"'00300" WOO~LEY, ROXLYN R-TRUS $~78.06 ~:~.03 $0.130
"051W07AC'"'(X)4(X)" VACHTER, BETTY S $156.89 $681.03 $0.00 $838.22
"051W07AC'"'00500" ZEHR~NG,DON L & MANET $156.89 $681.03 $0.00 $838.22
"051W07AC'~)0600" FILLMORE, KAY $156.89 $681.03 $0.00 $838.22
"051W07AC'"'00700" ZULEGER, ROBERT C & cA $156.89 $681.03 $0.00 $838.22i
'~)51W07AC'"'00800" OLSON,NORMA $179.77 $681.03 $0.00 $861.14
"051W07AC'"'00900" DETERVILLE,ROCHE J & $266.78 $681.03 $0.00 $948.32
"051W07A(?'01000" STENI~UND,BARRY & JACQ $359.33 $681.03 $0.00 $1,041.04
'~)51W07AC'"'01001" DETERVILLE,ROCHE J & $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $22.67
"051W07AC'"'01100" GRINNELL,PHILLIP H & $265.66 $681.03 $0.00 $947.1~t
'~)51W07AC'"'01200" MILNE~STANLEY D & pAT $161.97 $681.03 $0.00 $843.3C~
'~351W07AC'"'01300" HEER,GARY & TERRIE J $287.64 . $6.81.03 $0.00 $969.21
'~351W07AC'"1)1400" FLOMER,THOMAS J $318..33 $681.03 $0.00 $999.97i
'"~)51W07AC'"'01500" BAKER, JOHN E & DELISA $262.80 $681.03 $0.00 $944.32
"051W07AC'"'01600" LARIOS, SALVADOR $274.62 $681.03 $0.00 $956.18
"051W07AC'"'01700" JAMISON~THOMAS & GILL $285.36 $681.03 $0.00 $966.94
"051W07AC'"'01800" HOLCOMB,BURTON T & CA $245.27 $681.03 $0.0(3 $926.76
"051W07AC'"'01900" KRAITER, GENE R $349.83 $681.03 $0.00 $1,031.53
"051W07AC'"'02000" SCHWAN~F MARTIN & JUD $244.49 $681.03 $.0.013 $925.99
'"'051W07AC'"'02100" TYLER, SANDRA R $244.37 $681.03 $0.0(3 $925.86
"051W07AC'"'02200" HERMANSON,GLEN H $255.17 $681.03 $0.0C~ $936.68
"051W07AC'"'02300" SAWYER,MARGARET $272.76 $681.03 $0.0C] $954.30
BOONE
"051W07AC'"'02400" MILLER FARM $0.00 $0.0(3 $0.0C3 $0.00
HOMEOWNER (SWIMMING)
"051W07AC'"'02500" HATI=LNUT A PARTNERS $177.38 $0.0(3 $0.0(] $177.72
"051W07AC'"~)2600" HATFLNUT A PARTNERS $140.36 $681.03 $0.00 $821.66
"051W07AC'"'02700" IRONS,LLOYD & SWEENEY $140.36 $681.03 $0.00 $821.66
PAGE 34- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
Map and Tax Lot Owner Area Trip Reduction Total
"051W07AC'"'02800" SEITZ,SUE ANN & MARTE $140.36 $681.03 $0.0(3 $821.66
"051W07AC'"'02g00" HENK~S,RICHARD J & KA $140.58 $681.03 $0.0(~ $821.88
"051W07AC'"'03000" HENNY, MILLARD T & LAU $140.58 $681.03 $0.00 $821.88
"051W07AC'"'03100" FABRIC,HAROLD A & JO O $140.61 $681.03 $0.0~ $821.91
"051W07AC'"'03200" BAKER,JOHN E $154.99 $681.03 $6.00. $836.32
"051W07AC'"'03300" MILLEI~ FARM $0.00 $0.00 $0.0C $0.00
HOMEOWNER (ACCESS)
"051W07BA'"'00105" CITY OF WOODBURN $162.71 $681.03 $0.00. $844.05
"051W07BA"00400" GORM~N,THOMAS P & EAR $818.08 $681.03 $0.00 $1,500.68
"051W07BA'"'00500" KWDS LLC & SEC VENTUR $4,607.66 $33,918.93 $0.00] $38,535.42
l
"051W07BA'"'00500" KWDS LLC & SEC VENTUR $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
"051W07BA'"'00600" REHD~R, DENNIS E ET AL $3,41.5.37$7,491.28 $0.0~ $10,913.20
"051W07BA'"'00700" CITY C F WOODBURN $778.24 $681.03 $0.00 .$1,460.75
"051W07BA'"'00800" CHURI~H OF JESUS CHRIS $3,368.83 $8,661.17 $0.00 $12,036.46
"051W07BA'"'01400" NELS(!N,WARREN F & CAR $264.04 $681.03 -$422.58 $522.99
"051W07BA'"'01500" KRASKOFF, EVAN & ANNA $194.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $453.60
"051W07BA'"'01600" MONTGOMERY, LOUISE $203.71 $881.03 -$422.58 $462.55
"051W07BA'"'01700" SILVER, DONALD M & RUB $256.88 $681.03! -$422.58 $515.82
"051W07BA'"'01800" VACHTER, SCO'I-r J & RUT $320.73 $681.03 -$422.58 $5.79.79
"051W07BA~"'01900'' CLARK JANIS H $342.89 $681.03 -$422.58 $601.99
"051W07BA'"'02000" MATHE,' RS, HANNAH & BEA $219.28 $681.031 .-$422.58 $478.14
"051W07BA'"'02100" .MARTINEZ, SILVERIO N J $313.10 $681.03 -$422.58 $572.15
"051W07BA'"~32200" JENNINGS,WILLIAM J & $296.17 $681.03! -$422.58 $555.18
"051W07BA°"'02300" ALDRICH,MARY ELIZABET $191.07 $681.03 -$422.58 $449.88
"051W07BA'"~)2400" CITY OF WOODBURN $459.72 $6.00 $0.0(3 $0.00
(DETENTION)
"051W07BA'"'02500" JENSEN,BRIAN F & AMAN $201.47 $681.03 -$422..58 $460.30
"051W07BA'"'02600" PICKETT, CHRISTOPHER L $188.08 $681.03 -$422.58 $~.46.89
"051W07BA'"'02700" PHELAN,BILLY W JR & D $187.37 $681.03 -$422.58 $445.17
"051W07BA'"'02800" WARD,BARRY WILLIAM $208.94 $681.03 -$422.58 $467.79
"051W07BA'"'02900" LEACH,MARK H $326.98 $681.03 -$422.58 $586.06
"051W07BA'"'03000" KREBEDUENKEL,DIETER K $189.21 $681.03 -$422.58 $448.01
'"'051W07BA'"'03100" SNEGIREV, IVAN $202.22 $681.03 -$422.56 $461.05
"051W07BA'"'03200" HATCH,EUGENE R & NANE $140.1;I $681.03 -$422.581 $445.61
"051W07BA'"'03300" SONNEN,SIDNEY W $237.83 $681.03 -$422.58 $496.73
"051W07BA'"'03400" MOLINA, LUIS R & LUZ M $180.68 $681.03 -,$422.581$439.47
"051W07BA'"'03500" BROWN,JAMES D & LADON $186.65 $681.03 -$422.58 $445.45
"051W07BA'"'03600" GUYTON,GARY & JOCELYN $186.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $4~5.58
"051W07BA'"'03700" FORD,~JENNIFER L $186.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $~45.58
"051W07BA'"'03800" PARRACK, RONALD G & SU $246.36 $681.03 -$422.58 $505.28
PAGE 35- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
I'T
11A
Map and Tax Lot Owner Area Trip Reduction Total
"051W07BA'"'03900" CHAD 3.URN,MICHAEL W $207.35 $681.03 -$422.58 $466.20
"051W07BA'"'04000" LOPF; ',CHRISTINE V& $207.35 $681.03 -$422.58 $466.20
"051W07BA'"'04100" BUND f LEONARD & MARGA'i $207.35 $681.03 -$422.58 $466.20
"051W07BA'"'04200" ATKIN~;ON, JAMES T. $207.35 $681.03 -$422.58 $466.20
"051W07BA'"'04300" ROWELL,LAYNE N $249.53 $681.03 -$422.58 $508.46
"051W07BA'"'04400" SHEPi~JERD,NADINE $186.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $445.58
"051W07BA'"'04500" WOLF GANG,ERICH H & DE $246.36 $681.03 -$422.58 $505.28
"051W07BA'"'04600" TUPPI !R, KEVIN & PARTID $205.45 $681.03 -$422.58 $464.29
"051W07BA'"'04700" CALL/ ,HAN, BARBARA R $205.45 $681.03 -$422.58 $464.29
"051W07BA'"'04800" "HUN; ',DAVID W & HELEN $205.45 $681.03 -$422.58 $464.29
"051W07BA'"'04900" WRIG ~T, PAUL G & CAP, RI $186.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $4~.5.58
"051W07BA'"'05000" GODI~IEZ, MIGUEL $186.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $445.58
"051W07BA'"'05100" RITC~ IE,CALVIN G & JE $186.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $~.~.5.58
"051W07BA'"'05200" JACOI DS,NANCY J $186.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $~,5.58
"051W07BA'"~)5300" PEQUI-'NO,ISRAEL L & MA $186.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $445.58
"051W07BA'"'05400" EELL,<,ROCKY L $186.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $~.~.5.58
'~)51W07BA'"'05500" MAYF ELD,,CHARLO~-rE & $186.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $~.5.58
"051W07BA'"~)5600" ATWQOD,KATHARINA & DO $186.78 $681.03 -$422.581 $~.~.5.58
"051W07BA'"'05700" WATTS, SHAWN M. & SKYE $290.28 $681.03 -$422.581 $549.28
'~)51W07BA'"'05800" GON7_~ALES,RONNIE N $363.90 $681.03 -$422.58! $623.05
'~)51W07BA'"~35900" LISOF~F,NICK $283.93 $681.03 -$422.58 $542.92
'~351W07BA'"'06000" iORTIZ, SYLVIA ARRDYO $220.9~1 $681.03 -$422.58 $479.86
'~51W07BA'"~)6100" WIENEKE,CARL W & .LoRI $350.55 $681.03 -$422.58 $609.67
'X)51W07BA'"~"200" PEOEi~,SON,NETTIE S $364.0~ $681.03 -$422.58 $623.23
'1)51W07BA'"~33(X)" BARTI :L, RICHARD& JANE $246.33 $681.03 -$422..58 $504.25
'~351W07BA'"'06400" MCCANIPBELL, SEAN D & T $205..45 $681.03 -$422.58 $464.29
"051W07BA'"'06500" MORRISON,DWAYNE F $234.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $493.67
"051W07BA'"'06600" COLEMAN,DIANA M $277.77 $681.03 -$422.58 $536.75
"051W07BA'"~700" HORTON,STEVEN E $190.51 $681.03 -$422.58 $~.~9.32
"051W07BA'"'06800" TORO,,SABINO. & SANDRA $190.51 $681.03 -$422.58' $449.32
-051W07BA'"'06900" MILLERrSTEVE. N D & CYN $190.51 $68.1.03-$422.58 $~.~.9.32
"051W07BA'"~)7000" YOUNG,REX S & KEENIN $190.51 $681.03 -$422.58 $~.~.9.32
"051W07BA'"'07100" SONNEN,TY & SHERI L $251.34 $681.03 -$422.58 $510.2!
'~051W07BA'"~)7200" PALAFOX, HUMBERTO & WA $226.25 $681.03 -$422.58 $485.13
'~351W07BA'"'07300" MCDERMOTT, DAVID R $199.85 $681.03 -$422.58 $458.68
"051W07BA'"'07400" ROBERTS,RICHARD & MAR $199.85 $681.03 -$422.58 $458.68
"051W07BA'"'07500" HALTER, KAREN E $199.85 $681.03 -$422.58 $458.68
"051W07BA'"~37600" ROED, EL, CARSTEN M $265.25 $681.03 -$422.58 $524.21
"051W07BA'"~)7700" TEMPLE~ANTHONY J & MA $262.36 $681.03 -$422.58 $521.31
."051W07BA'"~)7800" MICHELS,MICHELLE R & $239.11 $681.03 -$422.58 $498.01
PAGE 36- COUNCIL BII,L NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'llA
Map and Tax Lot Owner Ama Trip Reductien Total
"051W07BA'"'07900" ~.NDERSON,WADE E & DIA $187.62 $681.03 -$422.58! $446.42
"051W07BA'"'08000" KARP,~EAN D & MELANIE $192.26 $681.03 -$422.58! $451.07
"051W07BA'"'08100" KOVAI~,WALTER A & LOIS $196.93 $681.03 -$422.58 $455.75
"051W07BA'"'08200" POWERS, STEVE E & LYNE $201.56 $681.03 -$422.58 $460.39
"051W07BA'"'08300" VELA, J~ULIO C & KIMBER $270.39 $681.03 -$422.58 $529.35
"051W07BA'"'08400" BECHTOLD,JOHN E & KAR $250.84 $681.03 -$422.58 $509.77
"051W07BA'"'08500" FIGUERAS,ANTHONY & MA $190.64 $681.03 -$422.58 $d~.9.45
"051W07BA'"'08600" NEAL, BRUCE W & ANITA $189.77 $681.03 -$422.58 $448.57
"051W07BA'"'08700" NEJEDLO,NICOLE $188.89 $681.03 -$422.58 $~.~.7.70
"051W07BA'"'08800" WOLFE,LONNIE $188.02 $681.03 -$422.58 $~.d$.83
"051W07BA'"'08900" MALLON,DEAN A & SHELL $246.70 $681.03 -$422.58 $505.62
"051W07BA'"'09000" STUMpF,JERALD L & DEB $251.34 $681.03 -$422.58 $510.27
"051W07BA'"'09100" BACKMAN,ERIC $190.51 $681.03 -$422.58 $~.~.9.32
"051W07BA'"'09200" BENAVIDET_,AMANDO III $190.51 $681.03 -$422.58 $~?.9.32
'~)51W07BA'"'09300" LAUER,JOSH D & AMY $190.51 $681.03 -$422.58 $~.~.9.32!
"051W07BA'"'09400" FtFTCHER, JEFFEREY S & $190.51 $681.03 -$422.58 $~.~.9.321
,'051W07BA'"'09500" HUTI'ULA, DAVID W & $260.37 $681.03 -$422.58 $519.31:
DORIS
"051W07BA'"'09600" PARRACK, BRIAN C & PHY $192.88 $681.03 -$422.58 $451.69
"051W07B,~'"'09700" BAILEy, RICHARD J JR & $186.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $445.58
'~351W07BA'"'09800" LOFTIN,MARY M $186.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $445.58
"051W07BA'"'09900" BISHOFF, DAVID J & $278.83 $681.03 -$422.58 $537.81
ANGELAY
"051W07BA'"'10000" HuTTULA, DAVID W & DOR $285.49 $681.03 -$4'22.58 $5~.~..48
"051W07BA'"'10100" WHITE,KERRY A & MELIS $196.15 $681.03 -$422.58 $454.9!
"051W07BA'"'10200" BERNHARDT, PATRICK W $196.15 $681.03'-$422.58 $454.97
"051W07BA'"'10300" GARCIA-PERE~,POLICARP $196.15 $681.03 -$422.58 $454.9/
"051W07BA'"'10400" RYAN, DALE E & LAURA $196.15 $681.03 -$422.58 $454.91
"051W07BA'"'10500" ASTORGA, FELIPE & BENI $196.15 $681.03 -$422.58 $454.97
"051W07BA'"'10600" F! LIOTT,TENLEY K & $196.15 $681.03 -$422.58 $454.97
"051WO7BA'"'10700" HO~iAND,CATHERINE $193.19 $681.03 -$422.58 $452.00
"051W07BA'"'10800" FRONTIER HOMES LLC, $187.31 $681.03 -$422.58 $446.11
WADE, ROBERT
i"051W07BA'"'10900" PARSONS,JIM P & DIAND $242.50 :$681.03-$422.58 $501.41
"051W07BA'"'11000" HIDDEN CREEK APARTMEN $194.68 $681.03 -$422.58 $453.50
"051W07BA'"'11100" TAYLOR,TRACY L $188.80 $681.03 -$422.58 $'H7.61
"051W07BA'"'11200" SANDSTRUM HOMES INC $190.48 $681.03 -$422.58 $449.29
"051W07BA'"'11300" FLEMING,DAVID K $190.48 $681.03 -$422.58
"051W07BA'"'11400" BOWMAN,BRUCE &JO ANN $190.48 $681.03 -$422.58 $'I'~.9.29
"051W07BA'"'11500" SANDSTRUM HOMES INc $190.46 $681.03 -$422.58 $~.~9.29!
PAGE 37- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
Map and Tax Lot Owner Area Trip Reduction! Total
'~351W07BA'"'11600" FREDI.'~.NI,FRED A JR $190.48 $681.03 -$422.58 $44.9.29
"051W07BA'"'11700" ROTH,!;)O.NALD C & ,DIANE J $190.48 $681.03 -$422.58 $~.~.9.29
"051W07BA'"'11800" SAND,~;TRUM HOMES INC $190.48 $681.03 -$422.58 $~'19.29
"051W07BA'"'11900" BRANI~IOCK, DUNYA $190.36 $681.03 -$422.58 $~9.17
"051W07BA'"'12000" BROWN,JOHN C & HAYDIE $294.27; $681.03 -$422.58 $553.28
"051W07BA'"'12100" JONE,< JEFFERY S & $199.85! $681, .03 -$422.58 $458.68
"051W07BA'"'12200" DESS[ LLIER, BRUCE R & $199.85 $681.03 -$422.58 $458.68
JAMIE
"051W07BA'"'12300" PANKE Y, MARCUS $199.85 $681.03 -$422.58 $458.68
"051W07BA'"'12400" SAND,C;TRUM HOMES INC $199.85 $681.03 -$422.58 $458.68
"051W07BA'"'12500" HUTT[ ILA, DAVID W (ADJ.) $229.58 $681.03 -$422.58 $488.46
"051W07BA'"'12600" BAILEY, JAIME L $187.65 $681.03 -$422.58 $446.45
"051W07BA'"'12700" OSBUI~NE,NATHAINEL R & $191.94 $681.03 -$422.58 $450.76
'~)51W07BA'"'12800" CALLI$ON,JACK F JR & $196.21 $681.03 -$422.58 $455.03
"051W07BA'"'12900" CHARI~ES,CHERYL A $260.21 $681.03 -$422.58 $519.15
"051W07BA'"'13000" ARELL~NO,GUADALUPE & $253.36 $681.03 -$422.58 $512.29
"051W07BA'"'13100" FERN~,NDO,LUIS $186.78 $681.03 -$422.58 $~.5.58
"051W07BA'"'13200" MOESi:_R, CHAD L & sANDR $252.93 $681.03 -$422.58 $511.86
"051W07BA'"'13300" KILMURRAY, PAMELA & $227.00 $681.03 -$422.58 $485.88
' MICHAEL
'~351W07BA'"'13400" QUAN,IMON y & $225.32 $681.03 -$422.58 $484.1S
"051W07BA'"'13500" WEMLINGER, MARJORIE SU $216.01 $681.03 -$422.58 $474.87
'~)51W07BA'"'13600" BLAC ~KMAN,BRIAN P $232.91 $681.03 -$422.58 $491.80
'~)51W07BA'"'13700" GILMQRE,BRIAN J & ANT $242.93 $68!.03 -$422.58 $501.84
'~)51W07BA'"'13800" HuTFuI_~. DAVID W & DOR $223.54 $681.03 -$422.58 $482.41
"051W07BA'"'13900" KULIKOV, PATTY P $230.39 $681.03 -$422.58 $489.28
"051W07BA'"'1400~' RUIZ, ALBERTO& MARGAR $229.52 $681.03 -$422.58 $488.40
"051W07BA'"'14100" CHAMBERLAIN,RICHARD& $189.98 $681.03 -$422.58 $448.79
BETH
"051W07BA'"'14200" SANDSTRUM HOMES INC $187.37 $681.03 -$422.58 $446.1/
"051W07BA'"'14300" SANDSTRUM HOMES INC $189.3(3 $681.03 -$422.58 $448.11
"051W07BA'"'14400" GREEN,ROBERT C JR $194.65 $681.03 -$422.58' $453.47
"051W07BA'"'14500" FISCHER, JOYCE M $258.31. $681.03 -$422.58 $517.25
"051W07BA'"'14600" HERRIGES,GREGORY C & $197.98 $681.03 -$422.58 $456.81
REBEl(AH L
"051W07BA'"'14700" ANDERSON,ERIC JOHN & $197.98 $681.03 -$422.58 $456.81
DAWN SHANNON
"051W07BA'"'14800" BOETrCHER, PAUL A JR & $197.98 $681.03 -$422.58 $456.81
"051W07BA'"'14900" BOLSTER, ROBERT A & $197.98 $681.03 -$422.58 $456.81
-051W07BA'"'15000" GRAlVtZOW, ROBERT W $197.98 $681.03 -$422.58 $456.81.
PAGE 38- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
11A
Map and Tax Lot Owner Area Trip Reduction Total
"051W07BA'"'15100" HUTCHINGS,DA LORA C & $197.98 $681.03 -$422.58 $456.81
DOLORES G ~
"051W07BA'"'15200" GIROD~,TERESA D $197.98 $681.03 -$422.58 $456.81
"051W07BA'"'15300" TUCKI~R, TERRY L $197.98 $681.03 -$422.58 $456.81i
"051W07BA'"'15400" ARND~,STEPHEN A & DIANE $197.95 $681.03 -$422.58 $456.78
"051W07BA'"'15500" ARMS'~RONG,JOHN R $196.15 $681.03 -$422.58 $454.97.
"051W07BA'"'15600" CUZZONE,DAVID E $190.92 $681.03 -$422.58 $449.73'
&PAT~ICIA A
"051W07BA'"'15700" MCMURPHY, GERALD $187.15 $681.03 -$422.58 $~,45.95;
L&MARY E
"051W07BA'"'15800" iMCCI_~UGHERTY, NICHOLA $204.71 $681.03 -$422.58 $463.54
S J &,CATHERINE M
"051W07BA'"'15900" TORRES-SOTO, ISlDRO $226.34 $681.03 -$422.58 $485.22.
i&','CUI~VAs, BERNARDO
"051W07BA'"'16000" ELLIOTT, GREGORY L $202.59 $681.03 -$422.58 $461.42
"051W07BA'"'16100" JONCI~H,SARABELLE I $201.75 $681.03 -$422.58 $460.58
"051W07BA'"'16200" JONCICH,SARABELLE ! $201.75 $681.03 -$422.58 $460.58
"051W07BA'"'16300" !McFARLAND, SCOTT & SHA $205.39 $681.03 -$422.58 $464.23
'~)51W07BA'"'16400" SNEGIREV, VASSA $266.22 $681.03 -$422.58 $525.17~
"051W07BA~"'16500" HANDRAN,TROY A & MELO $193.35 $681.03 -$422.58 $452.16
"051W07BA'"'16600" SNEGIREFF,VASILY & $193.35 $681.03 -$422.58 $452.161
~ ANASTAS IA A
'~)51W07BA'"'16700" HAMPHILAVONG,SAM & $193.35 $681.03 -$422.56 $452.161
"051W07BA'"'16800" STONE,JERRY L & KAREN A $193.35 $681.03 -$422.58 $452.16
"051W07BA'"'16900" WOOLBRIGHT,WESLEY L & $267.31 $681.03 -$422.58 $526.27i
"051W07BC'"'17300" JOHNSTON,TERRY A $250.06 $681.03 $0.03 $931.57
"051W07BC'"'17400" VAN VELDHUIZEN,DONALD $250.53 $681.03 $0.00 $932.04
& BELINDA C
"051W07BC'"'17500" TOWN GROUP INC, THE $251.03 $681.03 $0.00 $932.53
"051W07BC'"'17600" MAMETIEV, ALEX& ELIZA $187.40 $681.03 $0.03 $868.78
"051W07BC'"'17700" ITOWN GROUP INC, THE $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BC'"'17800" MYERS,STEWART & HEATH $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BC'"'17900" STRUTH, ERS,ARCHIE A & $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BC'"'18000'' GULLARD,MURRAY M & CA $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BC'"'18100" JAMES,RANDY L & KAREN $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BC'"'18200" BOECKMAN~DONNA .K $249.04 $681.03 $0.0(3 $930.54
"051W07BC'"'18300" AMICK~JOSEPH H & SHIR $249.04 $681.03 $0.0(3 $930.54
"051W07BC'"'18400" LARSEN,THOMAS J & $293.74 $681.03 $0.0(3 $975.33
"051W07BC'"'18500" BARTH,DENISE R $293.71 $681.03 $0.0(3 $975.30
"051W07BC'"'18600" BRANNON~TONYA D-ETAL $249.04 $681.03 $0.0(3 $930.54
PAGE 39- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
Map and Tax Lot ~ Owner Area Trip 'Reduction Total
"051W07BC'"'18700" PFAU,WILLIAM & $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
GWEN )OLYN
"051W07BC'"'18800" NULL,, EFFREY P & ROCH $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BC'"'18900" MASTERSON,MARC S & $272.17 $681.03 $0.00 $953.71
CAROLYN J
"051W07BC'"'19000"' POLO~ SKI,ANDRES & MAZ $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BC'"'19100" NG, HEI~iRY W $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BC'"'19200" BOURI~I,JERRY $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
&','BO[RN,JANET
"051W07BC'"'19300" NICHO _S,BERNARD J JR $300.12 $681.03 $0.00 $981.72
"051W07BC'"'19400" PERO'I '11,LARRY J & HAT $275.31 $681.03 $0.00 $956.86
"051W07BC'"'19500" HAWE. ;,NEAL A & LAURIE $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BC'"'19600" BAKER AARON DAVID $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54.
"051W07BC'"'19700" M D CASE $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BC'"'19800" M D C/~,SE $294.36 $681.03 $0.0(3 $975.95
"051W07BD'"'00200" GASC~IO,EUGENE R & $0.00 $0.00 $0.0(3 $0.00
JUDIT~ ET AL
"051W07BD'"~30200" GASCHO,EUGENE R & JUDI $1,106.22 $3,131.15 $0.00 $4,239.49
'~51W07BD'"'00300" GASCH~ O,EUGENE & JUDITH $291.62 $0.0(3 $0.0(3 $292.18
"051W07BD'"'00700" MILLER FARM $0.00 $0.00 $0.0(] $0.00
HOMEOWNER
'~351W07BD'"'00800" BARR,WILLIAM S & MARY $140.36 $681.03 $0.00 $821.66
'~)51W07BD'"~3900" MCMULLEN,LAWRENCE H & $140.36 $681.03 $0.00 $821.66
DIANE
'~351W07BD'"'01000" BRACI~BEVERLY JOAN $155.96 $681.03 $0.00 $637.28
LIVING
TRUS~,'BRACI~ BEVERLY
JOAN TRUSTEE
"051W07BD'"'01100" MILLER FARM OMEOWNER $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
'~351W07BD'"'01200" HUSSEMAN,KENNETH L & $169.97 $681.03 $0.00 $651.32
"051W07BD'"'01300" POORMAN,DON A & DIANA $154.74 $681.03 $0.00 $836.07
"051W07BD'"'01400" HADE ,R,WILLIAM E & MAR $154.74 $681.03 $0.00 $836.0/
"051W07BD'"'01500" SEAMAN, BETTY M & $154.74 $681.03 $0.00 $836.07
"051W07BD'"'01600" HA~_FLNUT A PARTNERS $198.29 $681.03 $0.00 $879.70
'~351W07BD'"'01700" MILLER FARM $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
HOMEOWNER
"051W07BD'"'01800" HAZELNUT A PARTNERS $160.29 $681.03 $0.0(3 $841.62
"051W07BD'"'01900" HATFLNuT A PARTNERS $140.61 $681.03 $0.0(~ $821.91
'~)51W07BD'"~)2000" HATF_LNUT A PARTNERS $140.61 $681.03 $0.0(] $821.91
'~)51W07BD'"'02100" HAZELNUT A PARTNERS $140.61 $681.03! $0.00 $821.91
"051W07BD'"'02200" TUKWiLA HOMEOWNERS $0.0(3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.0~
PAGE 40- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
Map and Tax Lot Owner Area Trip Reduction Total
"051W07BD'"'02600" HENRYS FARM $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
HOMEOWNER
"051W07BD"02700" GEMMA~ ,ELIZABETH A $290.63 $681.03 $0.00 $972.21
"051W07BD'"'02800" WILHELEM,NEIL $252.15 $681.03 $0.00 $933.66
"051W07BD'"'02900" ATKIN,SON,JAMES T & LA $248.41 $681.03 $0.00 $929.92
"051W07BD'"'03000" HUBENTHAL,ALLEN L & L $250:78 $681.03 $0.00 $932.29
"051W07BD'"'03100" LosCUTOFF, ELIZABETH $321.66 $681.03 $0.00 $1,003.30
"051W07BD'"'03200" HAM~cI~GARY D & ROSE $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BD'"'03300" ASBU ,P,Y, JULIE A $281.60 $681.03 $0.00 $963.16
"051W07BD'"'03400" BOYD,,VIRGIL A &SHARRO $282.72 $681.03 $0.00 $964.29
"051W07BD'"'03500" KIRK, EUGENE A $245.05 $681.03 $0.00 $926.55
"051W07BD'"'03600" CHADWICI~ELLIS W TRUS $251.87 $681.03 $0.00 $933.38
"051W07BD'"'03700" WOLCOTT, MARTIN W& $251.46 $681.03 $0.00 $932.97
PAULA K
"051W07BD'"'03800" TOWN GROUP INC, THE $250.97 $681.03 $0.00 $932.47
"051W07BD'"'03900" FARIA~MELVlN A & MARl $250.50 $681.03 $0.00 $932.00
"051W07BD'"'04000" ZANE,TERENCE A & MONI $250.00 $681.03 $0.00 $931.51
"051W07BD'"~IL100" WISE,JUDITH A $275.87 $681.03 $0.00 $957.42
"051W07BD'"'04200" KAYSER, SUZANN J $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BD'"'04300" BANDELOW, ROBERT A & E $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
'q351W07BD'"'04400" HIM,HENG $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
&','HIM, DOMINIQUE A
"051W07BD'"'04500" OSTERGAARD,DEWARD J & $300.62 $681.03 $0.00 $982.22
"051W07BD'"'04600" MORALES,SALVADOR & $278.39 $681.03 $0.00 $959.95
IMELDA
"051W07BD'"'04700" JOHNSON,ROBERT J JR & $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BD'"'04800" KLIEN~WlLLIAM R & PAM $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BD'"'04900". WEGENER,HELEN D $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
'~351W07BD'"'05000" JOY, STEVEN & THERESA $300.68 $681..03$0.00 $982.28
"051W07BD'"'05100" BARNEKOFF,GREG $281.01 $681.03 $0.00! · $962.57
"051W07BD'"'05200" HERMANSEN,SONIA N & M $238.08 $681.03 $0.00 $919.56
"051W07BD'"'05300" WUBBEN,COURTNEY G & B $232.38 $681.03 $0.00 $913.85
"051W07BD'"'05400" NGUYEN,TAM & THERESA $247.36 $681.03 $0.00 $928.85
"051W07BD'"'05500" AGEE,WILLAS D & $264.85 $681.03 $0.00 $946.38
"051W07BD'"'05600" TOWN GROUP INC, THE $259.25 $681.03 $0.00 $940.77
"051W07BD°"'05700" IGNACIO,MURILLO ET AL $247.36 $681.03 $0.00 $928.85
"051W07BD'"'05800" JONES,RAYMOND A & CHR $228.68 $681.03 $0.00 $910.14
"051W07BD'"'05900" iVARGA. S,JORGE A & DIAN $257.50 $681.03 $0.00 $939.02
"051W07BD'"'06000" LARAMORE,EDWARD A & P $285.46 $681.03 $0.00 $967.03
'~)51W07BD'"'06100" CORT!NAS~OFELICA G $249.78 $681.03 $0.0(3 $931.29
PAGE 41- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
Map and Tax Lot Owner Area Trip Reduction Total
"051W07BD'"'06200" TOWN GROUP INC, THE $244.27 $681.03 $0.00 $925.77
"051W07BD'"'06300" TOWN1 GROUP INC, THE, . ~$250.22 $681.03 $0.00 $931.72
"051W07BD'"'06400" TOWNi GROUP INC, THE $250.09 $681.03 $0.00 $931.60
"051W07BD'"'06500" M L MILLER CONSTRUCTI $247.76 $681.03 $0.00 $929.26
"051W07BD'"'06600" TOWN GROUP INC, THE $249.97 $681.03 $0.00 $931.47
"051W07BD'"'06700" HENRYS FARM $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
HOMEpWNER (C. AREA)
"051W07BD'"'06800" HENRYS FARM (C. AREA) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
"051W07BD'"'06900" HENRYS FARM (C. AREA) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
"051W07BD'"'07000" BURLACHENKO,ANDREY & $251.96 $681.03 $0.00 $933.47
NATAI~YA
"051W07BD'"'07100" VEL. IZ, RODOLFO & CANDE $250.53 $681:03 $0.00 $932.04
"051W07BD'"'07200" TOWN GROUP INC, THE $323.53 $681.03 $0.00 $1,005.17
"051W07BD'"~)7300" TOWN GROUP INC, THE $261.74 $681.03 $0.00 $943.26
"051W07BD'"~37400" TOWN GROUP INC, THE $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
'~)51W07BD"~7500" TOWN GROUP INC, THE $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
'~)51W07BD'"'07600" TOWN GROUP INC, THE $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BD'"~37700" TowN GROUP INC, THE $249.041 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
'~351W07BD'"'07800" GRUBB,MICHAEL S & REB $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
'~351W07BD'"~)7900" GAUTHIER, PETER J & KA $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
'~51W07BD'"'08000" DUENES,THOMAS A 1/2 $249.04 $681..03$0.00 $930.54
&','BEL, L,WENDY ANN 1/2
'~)51W07BD'"'08100" FLETCHER, IR.VIN H & EV $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
"051W07BD'"'08200" DORN,DANIEL A & CATHE $249.04 $681.03 $0.00 $930.54
PROPERTIES WITH DEFINED REDUCED ACCESS: 65% ASSESSMENT
BASED ,ON AREA OF PROPERTY AND TRIPS GENERATED. NO
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION
MAP & TAX LOT PROPERTY owNER AREA TRIP RATE TOTAL
NO. COST COST ASSESSMENT
COST
"051W07AA'"'00100" LE, KIMBERLY A & HOCK $176.78 . $442.67 $619.45
"051W07AA'"'00200" SMITH,CARL J & $168.63 $442.67 $611.30
"051W07AA'"'00300" ASHLEY, BENJAMIN A & J $199.4g $442.67 $642.15
"051W07AA'"'00400" SCHRENI~RONALD H & LI $162.39 $442.67 $605.05
"051W07AA'"'00500" HANEBERG,ERIC B & PAM $161.86 $442.67 $604.53
i"051W07AA'"'00600" HENDRICKS,KEVIN M & K $169.16 $442.67 $611.82
PAGE 42- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'llA
Map and Tax Lot Owner Area Trip Total
"051W07AA'"'00700" KOEPP!NG, PAUL R & KRI $152.29 $442.67 $594.96
"051W07AA'"'00800" GLAVNI~NIKOLAY & LYU $145.131 $442.67 $587.80
"051W07AA'"'00900" WOLFER,JON A & DEBRA $158.151 $442.67 $600.82
"051W07AA'"'01000" NIELSEN,SHANNON T & R $177.59 $442.67 $620.26
"051W07AA'"'01100" SEETH~FF,'PATRICK M & $152.41 $442.67 $595.08
"051W07AA'"'01200" FREY, KENNETH& $106.98 $442.67 $549.65
"051W07AA'"'01300" BERRY, MICHAEL D & $103.881 $442.67 $546.55
"051W07AA'"'01400" BLOMBI-'RG,WALTER M & N $156.16 $442.67 $598.83
"051W07AA'"'01500" KITCHE~I,FLOYD E & BRE $172.22i $442.67 $614.89
"051W07AA'"'01600" LUNEKE, KEITH & BEVERLY $144.38 $442.67 $587.05
"051W07AA'"'01700" CHRISTOFF,DAVID J & J $143.59! $442.67 $586.26
"051W07AA'"'01800" REINHARDT, JOHN A & RE $139.881 $442.67 $582.55
"051W07AA'"'01900" BARBOUR, MARGARET J & $139.8B $442.67 $582.55
"051W07AA'"'02000" MARC ,oS-rE-LING,JULIA F $139.88 $442.67 $582.55
"051W07AA'"'02100" BEAM. ,T;HOMAS L &SUZAN $139.881 $442.67 $582.55
"051W07AA'"'02200" CENTEX HOMES $139.86i $442.67 $582.53
"051W07AA'"'02300" ANDERSON,JAMES '& MARILYN $148.28 $442.67 $590.94
"051W07AA'"'02400" CENTEX HOMES $121.09' $442.67 $563.76
,.
"051W07AA'"'02500" CENTEX HOMES $115.56 $442.67 $558.22
"051W07AA~"'02600" BETrS,DONALD G &,TERESA L $115.56 $442.67 $558.22
"051W07AA'"'02700" CENTEX HOMES $115.58 $442.67 $558.22
"051W07AA'"'02800" SHUMWAY, DAVID L & SALLY J $115.56 $442.67 $558.22
"051W07AA'"~)2900" JONES,.JANICE I & DAVl $115.56 $~.~.2.67 $558.22
"051W07AA'"'03000" CENTEX HOMES $115.56 $4~.2.67 $558.22
"051W07AA'"'03100" i CENTEX HOMES $115.56 $442.67 $558.22
"051W07AA'"'03200" i RIFFLE,~DAVID S & LIND $114.60 $442.67 $557.27
'~)51W07AA'"'03300" SHIM, HyONG W & MI YOU $110.93 $~.~.2.67 $553.60
"051W07AA'"'03400": DOOLEY, MICHAEL R & MA $113.33 $~.~.2.67 $555.99
"051W07AA'"'03500" MILLER, MARl LEE $129.36 $~.2.67 $572.03
"051W07AA'"'03600" MAXWELL,MICHAEL & PATRICIA $108.01 $442.67 $550.68
"051W07AA'"'03700" WINDER,SHANE R & MICH $118.98 $~.~.2.67 $561.65
"051W07AA'"'03800" KAPSSOF,BILL & NOREEN $110.30 $~2.67 $552.97
"051W07AA'"'03900" TORRES,MARIA L & $110.30 $442.67 $552.97
"051W07AA'"~)4000" TELEUSHOV, IMASH Y $101.20 $~.~,2.671 $543.87
"051W07AA'"'04100" HANNON,JAY E & SALLY $101.20 $442.67 $543.87
"051W07AA'"'04200" CARR, KEVIN M & LISA H $101.20 $~.~.2.67 $543.87
"051W07AA'"'04300" SNOWHILL,GRANT W & JA $122.37 $442.67 $565.03
"051W07AA'"'04400" BLANKE,DAVlD E $119.41 $442.67 $562.07
,051W07AA'"'04500" KlM,ANNA B $121.23 $~.~.2.67 $563.90
"051W07AA'"~34600" HULSTROM,JOHN R $130.92 $~.~.2.67 $573.59
PAGE 43- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
· llA
Map and Tax Lot Owner Area Trip Total
"051W07AA'"'04700" SWAN,ACK, ROBERT D & A $111.64 $442.67 $554.31
"051W07AA'"'04800" sMITH,~_AURETTA F ~ $105.14 $442.671 $547.80
"051W07AA'"'04900" DEL CASTILLO,JESUS & $101.24 $442.67i $543.91
"051W07AA'"'05(X)0" JAYNE,,PEGGY A $100.37 $'!,'!,2.671 $543.04
"051W07AA'"'05100" STUAR,T, ROBERT A & CAT $117.89 $442.67 $560.55
"051W07AA'"'05200" BROWH,CURTIS L & ERIN $119.20 $442.67 $561.87
"051W07AA'"'05300" STEPH -'NS,LAURENCE $112.45 $442.67 $555.12
"051W07AA'"'05500'' IRONWDOD AT TUCKWILA (TOT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
LOT)
"051W07AA'"'05600" KENT, SANTIAGO A & EEL $141.36 $442.67 $584.03
"051W07AA'"'05700" BANUE _OS,ROSA E & $147.85 $442.67 $590.52
"051W07AA'"'05800" CASS,[ ENNIS & LINDA L $114.18 $442.67 $556.84
"051W07AA'"'059(X)" ADKIN,~,RONALD L & KATHY J $114.04 $~.~.2.67 $556.70
"051W07AA'"'06(0X)" BROORFIELD,JOHN M $177.65 $~.~.2.67 $620.32
"051W07AA'"'06100" NEWB[ IRY, DOUGLAS T & J $217.08 $~.~.2.67 $659.75
"051W07AA'"'06200" VELIZ, RAUL JR & MARIE $192.84 $442.67 $635.50
"051W07AA'"'06300" NUSS,(~HARLES H & SUSAN M $166.18 $442.67 $608.84
"051W07AA'"'06400" IVES, DAVI.D C &IVES,HEATHER L $187.24 $~.~.2.67 $629.91
'~)51W07AA'"~)6500" SHUBIN,GEORGE JR & TA $155.78 $442.67 $598.44
"051W07A/~"'06600" CARIGNAN,ROGER & JULI $158.68 $~.~.2.67 $601.34
"051W07AA'"'06700" VELAS¢O,ARMANDO A & D $115.56 $442.67 $558.22
'~)51W07AA'"'06800" WHITEHURST, NORMAN A $115.56 $~.42.67 $558.22
'~351W07AA'"~36900" PEDDI¢ORD, CHRISTOPHER $108.60 $~.~.2.67 $551.27
"051W07AA'"'07000" SCHIEE~LER, CURTIS G & $100.39 $442.67 $543.06
"051W07AA'"'07100" TOMP~ INS,MICHELLE D & $100.39 $~.~.2.67 $543.06
SAKAI,GEORGE JOJI JR
"051W07AA" "07200 MILLER, SHAWN L & CHRI $100.39 $~.~.2.67 $543.06
"051W08BB'"'00100 C..AMAC, HO, ROSA C $123.18 $~.~,2.67 $565.85
"051W08BB'"'00200 FELLER, JAMES P & MAR $123.97 $~.~.2.67 $566.64
"051W08BB'"'00300 MITCHELL,TODD M $115.92 $442.67 $558.59
"051W08BB'"'00400 MITTMANN,HUBERTUS J $118.03 $442.67 $560.701
"051W08BB'"'00500 SPRECHER,THOMAS W & $147.61 $442.67 $590.27
"051W08BB'"'00600 MINORIGARY J & $176.17 $442.67 $618.84
"051W08BB'"'00700 STUCKI,BERKLEY K & ANGELA J $158.37! $442.67 $601.04
"051W08BB'"'00800 MCCALLUM,PETER J & ILA F $134.84 $442.67 $577.50
"051W08BB'"'00900 DOZIER, ,STACIE L $119.25' $442.67 $561.91
"051W08BB'"'01000 MONTGOMERY,ARTHUR J $123.56 $442..67 $566.23
"051W08BB'"'01100 ROTH,RONALD D & EILEEN L $119.87 $442.67 $562.54
"051W08BB'"'01200 WALLACE,THOMAS J TRU $110.30 $442.67 $552.97
"051W08BB'"'01300 GR!MALDI,BOBBI L & P $110.30 $442.67 $552.97
PAGE 44- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'11A
Map and Tax Lot Owner Area Trip Total
"051W08BB'"'01400 HEIDE,MICHAEL DEAN $110.33 $442.67 $552.99
"051W08BB'"'01500 TAYLOR, DORIAN D $122.37 $442.67 $565.03
"051W08BB'"'01600 POTTER, RANDALL J $120.60 $~.~,2.67 $563.27
"051W08BB'"'01700 MOREi~AND,DONNA M & J $101.20 $~.~,2.67 $543.87
"051W08BB'"'01800 OLSENi, BRANDON A & RA $101.20 $442.67 $543.87
"051W08BB'"'02000 CANTU,JOHN SR & ALMA & $135.22 $442.67 $577.89
JOHN A JR
"051W08BB'"'02100 COx, JEFFREY D & MARG $183.37 $442.67 $626.04
"051W08BB'"'02200 STERL!NG,MARK D & MARCIA $176.09 $442.67 $618.76
"051W08BB'"'02300 HINDMAN,LOUIS E $165.99 $442.67 $608.66
"051W08BB'"'02400 JAMIS0N,GILBERT D & SHIRLEY $182.86 $442.67 $625.53
"051W08BB'"'02500 SANDERS,LON L &,PEGGY S $167.90 $442.67 $610.57
"051W08BB'"'02600 MORTENSEN,JAMES V & $150.87 $442.67 $593.54
"051W08BB'"'02700 BAXLEY, RICHARD A & $110.37 $442.67 $553.03
"051W08BB'"'02800 ELLINGSON,DAVID B & $101.47 $442.67 $544.13
KIMBERLY
"051W08BB'"'02900 LASSER, PETER R &JUDY D $101.47 $442.67 $544.13
"051W08BB'"'03000 KUZNETSOV,ANTONI K & $101.47 $~.42.67 $5~.4.13
EKATERINA
"051W08BB~"'03100 SCHMIDT, BRANDON J & ELAINE $101.85 $442.67 $5~,.52
"051W08BB'"'03200 LUNA, RICK L & SHEPPA $141.20 $442.67 $583.87
"051W08BB""03300 BEYER, BRIAND & SARA $156.51 $442.67 $599.17
"051W08BB'"'03400 KIM,ANDREY S & EUNAH $105.48 $4~2.67 $548.15
"051W08BB'"'03500 MAGRUDER, KIMBERLY A $115.56 $442.67 $558.22
"051W08BB'"'03600 GRAFF, GERALD II & BR $115.56 $~.~.2.67 $558.22
"051W08BB'"'03700 GROVE,DEREK & MICHEL $100.39 $442.67 $543.06
"051W08BB'"'03800 FOX, AARON J & AMY E $100.43 $442.67 $543.10
"051W08BB'"'03900 BAUMAN,JERRY $124.84 $442.67 $567.51
"051W07AB'"'02600" TUKWILA PARTNERS $1,561.46 $4,782.09 $6,343.55
"051W07AB'"'02601" TUKWILA PARTNERS $9,078.13 $27,805.35 $36,883.49
"051WO7AB'"'03200" TUKWILA PARTNERS $2,091.15 $6,404.97 $8,496.12
SECTION 13. PROPERTIES EXCLUDED FROM CITY LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR ASSESSEMENT PROCESS:
Certain properties identified to be benefiting form the proposed improvements are outside
of the city boundary and they can not be included in the assessment district. This decision
is based on the legal opinion of the City Attorney. Arrangements are being made to
receive from City Urban Growth Boundary System Development Fees collected by
PAGE 45- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
1lA
Marion County. In any event, other property owners in the assessment district will not pay
for the benefit received by the property owners identified in this section.
The properties proposed to be funded by the with City Urban Growth Boundary System
Development Fees are identified as follows:
MAP & TAX LOT PROPERTY OWNER AREA APPROACH TRIP TOTAL
NO. COST COST ~ RATE TO BE
~ $500 EA. COST FUNDED
"051W06C'"'01100'"' WELLIV ~,N,GENE M & PATRIC $2,269.82 $500.00 $681.03 $3,450.84
"051W06C'"'01400'"' TATE,J -'RRY E & MARY L $698.92 $500.00 $681.03 $1,879.94
"051W06C'"'01500'"' ENTEN ~,,MONCHITO C & ANT $3,099.95 $500.00 $681.03 $4,280.97
"051W06C'"'01200'"' WELLIV AN,GENE M & PATRIC $1~133.82 $0.00 $681.03 $1,814.84
"051W06C'"'01300'"' JONESiPAUL L & BARBARA $2,859.36 $0.00 $681.03 $3,540.38
subtotal $10,061.87 $1500.00 $3405.15 $14,966.97
TOTAL TO BE FUNDED BY UGBSDF $14,966.97
SECTION 14. PAYMENT PLAN FOR ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to applicable law, assessments paid in installments shall be paid within 10 years.
SECTION 15. INTEREST RATE
The Finance Director is authorized to develop a schedule and charge an interest rate,
which does not exceed one-half(l/2) percent above the estimated net effective rate of
bond sale. Currently this interest rate is estimated at 6.5 percent.
SECTION 16. CONSTRUCTION TIME FRAME
Schedule A: Approximately 2300 lineal feet of Boones Ferry Road, from Goose Creek
to Vanderbeck Lane (phase 2 & phase 3) is proposed to be completed in
this construction season, summer and fall of 2002
Schedule B: Approximately 800 lineal feet of Boones Ferry Road from Vanderbeck
Lane to Hazelnut Drive (phase 4) is proposed to be completed in the
following construction season, summer and fall of 2003
PAGE 46- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
SECTION 17. FUNDING SUMMARY
PROJECT FUNDING REQUIRED = $1,374,747
SUPPORT FROM OTHER SOURCES OTHER THAN LID ASSESSMENTS
CITY SUPPORT
Street CiP Boones Ferry Improvement
Traffic Impact Fees Boones Ferry Improvement
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEES
SUB TOTAL
SUPPORT FOR LID ASSESSMENTS
LID PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS =
LID APPROACH ASSESSMENTS =
SECTION 18.
$ 262,667
= $ 286,051
= $14,967
SUB TOTAL=
FUNDING TOTAL =
$ 803,562
$ 7,500
MAXIMUM LIMIT OF ASSESSMENT AMOUNT
The assessment amounts shown in this document shall be fixed as the maximum amount to
be assessed against the properties for the said improvement.
SECTION 19
CONTRACT METHOD
The contract award will be in conformance with public contracting laws of the State of
Oregon as outlined in ORS Chapter 279 and the laws, regulations of the City of
Woodburn
SECTION 20
AUTHORIZATION OF BOND SALE
The Finance Director is hereby authorized to proceed with the sale of bonds and/or the
issuance of general improvement warrants to finance the assessment portion of the project.
PAGE 47- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
llA
Staff is further authorized to utilize interfund borrowing until bond sale is needed.
SECTION 21 : FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The action taken by the City Council is explained and justified by the findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law which are attached to this ordinance as Exhibit "A" and are by this
reference incorporated herein.
SECTION 22
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
This ordinance b9ing necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health,
and safety, an e~ergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall take effect
immediately upop passage by the Council and approval by the mayor.
Approved asto fbrm'~~.~~ _~- ~ '" ZOo 2--
' City Attorney Date
Approved:
Passed by CounCil
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the office of the Recorder
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Attest:
Mary Tennant, City Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
PAGE 48- COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
~O'llBIT
, of ~
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Existing Street. Boones Ferry Road was built and upgraded over the years by Marion
County. As Woodbum grew, the portion of Boones Ferry within the city improved over
the years to adapt to the urbanizing needs and growth of the city, but was never built to
city standard. The existing street provides two travel lanes approximately 11-12 feet
wide.
Transportation System Plan. In 1996 the city adopted the Woodburn Transportation
System Plan (TSP), which identifies all the city's road, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit
facility needs for the next twenty years. Some of those needs result from existing
deficiencies in the city's transportation system, others result from demands created by
development. The TSP classifies Boones Ferry Road as a minor arterial. (See Figure 29,
TSP). The TSP identifies Boones Ferry Road from Hwy. 214 northeast to the urban
growth boundary (UGB) as in need of improvements in the near term (within 5 years).
The TSP adopts a minor arterial standard that has a 48-foot street width, for two travel
lanes, a center turn lane and bicycle lanes, curbs and sidewalks on both sides.
Capital Improvements Program. The Woodburn Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
contains the improvements identified in the TSP and includes funding the local street
standard through a Local Improvement District (LID.) The improvement to be made in
this project includes Phases 2, 3 and 4 of the Boones Ferry Road improvements, from
approximately Goose Creek northeast to Hazelnut Drive. Phase 1 involves the
Settlemier/Boones Ferry Road intersection with Highway 214 and the segment of
Boones Ferry Road from the intersection to Goose Creek. The City Council determined
to delay Phase 1 because it is not ready to go forward because some preparatory steps
have not been completed, including coordination with ODOT.
Procedure Followed To Form LID. This LID was initiated pursuant to Ordinance No.
2105 by resolution of the City Council. A public heating on the proposed improvement
and formation of the Boones Ferry Road Local Improvement District was held on May
13, 2002, after notification to the property owners through published advertisement and
direct mail. After the hearing was closed, the record was kept open to 5:00 p.m. on May
22, 2002. On May 27, at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting, the City Council
received and considered the additional information submitted into the record and
deliberated.
Proposed Improvements. The proposed improvement project will widen the street
surface to 48 feet, providing two travel lanes, one turn lane and bike lanes in each
direction. The project also includes drainage improvements, sidewalks on both sides,
ADA ramps at all intersections, installing street lighting and putting all utilities
underground. The proposed project is consistent with improvements planned in the TSP.
The proposed widening improvements to the existing street will provide additional
-1-
1'"'
vehicular and bicycle capacity. Pedestrian safety will also be improved because the
project provides sidewalks on both sides (meeting ADA requirements) where none
currently exists, i The LID funded portion of the improvement project will bring the
structure and surface of the existing roadway up to city standards.
No Change in A~cess. Parcels which are adjacent to Boones Ferry Road and have access
to it will continue to have access to the improved street. Other properties which have
access to surrour~ding streets will continue to have access to the surrounding streets. No
direct access from lots to the public street will change because of the project or this
funding decision~ The project will improve safety and convenience of the existing
access points by Providing a center turn lane and sidewalks.
Legal Limitation~s on TIF charges and LID Assessments. Under state law, a
Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) may be charged only to finance capacity needed for new
growth. Legallyi the city may not charge a TIF to finance the repair of existing roads or
to build capacityI to satisfy existing deficiencies. The city may form a local improvement
district when certain properties will specially benefit from the construction of a local
improvement. A property has "specially benefitted" when the construction of an
improvement "add[s] anything to the convenience, accessibility and use of the property
as distinguished from benefits arising incidentally out of the improvement and enjoyed
by the public geaerally.'" Hutchinson v. City of Corvallis, 134 Or App 519, 523-524,
895 P2d 797 (1995) quoting State Highway Com. V. Bailey et al., 212 Or 261,306, 319
P2d 906 (1957). Consistent with state law, the city's local improvement district
ordinance (number 2105), provides that the Council may use "any just and reasonable
method" to decide the boundary of the improvement district and to apportion the sum to
be assessed among the benefitted properties."
The City Council has wide discretion in determining the LID boundaries and the fair
allocation of costs among the properties in the district. The fundamental determination is
whether properties within the LID boundary receive a special benefit, other than the same
benefit received by the general public. The city may assess property for an improvement
even if the improvement also confers a general benefit, as long as the properties within
the LID realize a special benefit that the general public does not receive.
The amount of the LID assessment must be equal to the benefit received by the assessed
property. However, many benefits measured in a local improvement project are not
subject to precise mathematical computation. Consequently, reasonableness is what is
required of a formula applied to the benefitted properties to apportion the costs according
to the benefits.
The Oregon Supreme Court has held that in determining whether the improvement
benefits the property, its present use is not controlling. Western Amusement Co., Inc. v
City of Springd2eld, 274, Or 37, 545 P2d 592 (1976). The rational for permitting
assessment of vacant property is that if benefit had to be determined by the present use,
an owner could change the use after the city made the assessment and receive full benefit
-2-
llA
o
of the improvement without contributing any payment.
~(HIBIT ~
Page ~ of (~
This decision is the city's final decision on the issue of forming the LID. After the
project is completed and the actual costs are known, a public hearing will be held to
decide the final assessments to be made on the properties within the LID boundary. At
that hearing the Council will "consider objections and may adopt, correct, modify or
revise the assesSment against each lot in the district according to the special peculiar
benefits accruing to it from the improvement." Ordinance No. 2105, Section 9(3).
Basis for TIF per Unit Charge. The city caused a study to be done to arrive at the portion
of the TSP projects that relate to growth. That rate study resulted in the TIF fee that each
property pays upon purchasing a building permit. The rate study began with all the
projects in the TSP and excluded those related to local streets and existing deficiencies.
To assure that the TIF charge would only be related to new growth within the city, the
study also excluded projected "through" traffic on city streets (i.e., trips which originate
and end outside the city), TSP projects related to deficiencies in the existing
pedestrian/bikeway, and transit portions of the city transportation system. The TIF does
not fund local streets nor existing deficiencies.
TIF and LID Pay For Separate Parts of the Improvement. This Boones Ferry Road
Improvement project consists of two parts. One part of the project corrects existing
deficiencies in the basic roadway needed for safe two-way travel. This is equivalent to a
local street standard. Only this part is proposed to be funded by the LID assessments.
The portion of the project funded by the LID is the equivalent to a standard 34-foot wide
local residential street with curbs and sidewalks.
The second part of the project expands the capacity of the street. The capacity expansion
part of the project includes an additional 14-foot street width, bicycle lanes and enhanced
pedestrian movement. The city will pay this capacity increasing portion of the project
from city funds, including funds from the TIF payments made in the past by developing
properties as well as city and state gas tax revenues.
No property within the LID assessment district will be paying twice for the same part of
the Boones Ferry Road Improvement project. Although the construction project will
result in an arterial street, the LID funded portion of the project is to correct existing
deficiencies in the local street part of that project. The TIF calculations excluded local
streets and existing deficiencies. Therefore, when a property owner pays a TIF that
owner is paying only for capacity increasing needs to arterials and collectors, and is not
paying for local street needs or correcting existing deficiencies. Through the Boones
Ferry Road improvement project, the existing roadway will be brought up to city
standard funded by the LID assessment. The LID resources will be used to complete the
portion of the improvement which does not expand capacity and will come from
properties within the district which specially benefit. As part of the same project, the
capacity of the roadway will be expanded to an overall width of 48 feet funded by TIF
resources. The capacity expansion portion of the project brings Boones Ferry Road into
-3-
'llA
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
EXHIBIT~ of/~
Page "(' (~
compliance with the city's arterial street width and structural standard as specified in the
TSP.
Both the TIF ra~e study and the LID assessment use vehicle trips to calculate a
proportionate per unit share of the respective costs. In the TIF rate study, vehicle trips
were used as a divisor to allocate the total costs of future capacity increasing projects on
a per unit basis. In the proposed assessment for the LID, trips are also used as one
method to allocate the total costs for the LID portion among the various benefitted
properties. Thelfact that vehicle trips is used to measure the impact of future growth to
set the TIF and is used as part of the formula to spread the cost of the benefit of the LID
does not result ih a property paying twice for the same improvement. Rather, a similar
measure of burden and impact is used to allocate proportional shares of costs of two
different parts o~f a construction project.
Basis For LID l~oundarv. The north boundary of the LID assessment area was selected
because that is the urban growth boundary. An area to the north, inside the UGB but
outside the LID iboundary is discussed in the engineering report. The Senior Estates
boundary formsi the west boundary of the LID. The south boundary results from dividing
the Boones Ferry Road improvement into two projects. The TSP shows a needed
improvement to i Boones Ferry from Hwy. 214 to the UGB. This project does not include
a segment at the intersection of Hwy. 214 north to Goose Creek. That part of Boones
Ferry will be irr~Proved in a separate construction project and properties east and west of
that segment will be more directly benefitted by that future project than by this project.
Authority To A~sess Vacant Property. An argument was made at the public heating that
the city would he beyond its authority to assess land within the Tukwila PUD that
allegedly they could not develop because it presently lacks an alternative access. That
land is within the city's urban growth boundary and is planned to be developed for urban
uses within the 20-year planning period. The land may be vacant now but it is expected
to develop. That expectation is based upon the UGB and the comprehensive plan and the
fact that the Tukwila undeveloped lands have received preliminary approval for a PUD.
The city has made no final decision requiring an alternate access to that parcel within
Tukwila. Case law on LIDs supports the assessment of vacant properties.
Basis for Allocgting Costs among Specially Benefited Properties. The engineer's report
contains the rational for the allocation of the assessments and the City Council accepts
that rationale.
Remonstrances. The total number of remonstrances received before the close of the
public hearing on May 13, 2002 was insufficient under Ordinance No, 2105 to delay
consideration of the LID.
Effects of the Project.
a. The widening will affect the appearance of the property frontage of those parcels
-4-
llA
bo
Page ~ ~ of ~
fronting Boones Ferry Road. The project will provide increased safety for
vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic for both adjacent and surrounding
property. It is possible that traffic that presently uses local streets to avoid
congestiOn on Boones Ferry Road will use Boones Ferry Road after the
improvements are completed. Taking through traffic off local streets and
carrying that traffic on arterials and collectors is one objective of the TSP.
Lack of the proposed improvements has not been a basis for denial or
discouragement of development because the TIF fund will finance all the
improvements to the arterial and collector street system that relate to new
development. As development occurs, TIF revenues go into a fund to pay for
planned improvements, such as this one. Improvements provide traffic capacity
to accommodate furore development citywide. It is the TSP, not this specific
improvement project, that sets the stage for future development. The impacts of
the improvements made pursuant to the TSP and funded by the TIF were
addressed when the TSP was adopted. The decision to improve the road to
increase capacity was made when the TSP was adopted. The timing of when to
improve:the road was further refined when the city included the project within its
Capital Ilnprovements Program. This decision is merely carrying out the policy
decisions made by the City Council when it adopted the TSP and the CIP.
Most of the lands surrounding the proposed improvement within the UGB are
already developed. See map attached to Randy Scott memorandum, dated May
20, 2002. Within the LID boundary, the undeveloped lands east of Boones Ferry
Road are part of the Tukwila PUD and have received conceptual PUD approval.
All the vacant lands within the LID boundary west of Boones Ferry Road have
also received land use approval for development, except one parcel which the city
owns. The city recently acquired that parcel for a water treatment facility.
ConseqUently, the formation of the LID with its associated assessments will have
no impact on the uses of land within the LID boundary. The project, which the
LID only partly funds, also is not expected to have any land use effects because
the lands within the immediately surrounding area are committed by existing
development or approved development. Further, the applicable acknowledged
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Map and zoning regulations control the use of land.
No change in land use from what is planned can occur without a change in one of
those documents. The character of the area is predominately single family
residential. The improvement proposed is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan because it is consistent with the TSP, which implements the transportation
element of the Comprehensive Plan. This project will not alter the single family
character of the area because the zoning will remain predominately single family
residential and the area is substantially developed. This decision to form the LID
to finance the deficient part of the existing road does not have any effects on the
use of land, either within the LID boundary or within the surrounding area.
The direct impacts of the decision improve Boones Ferry Road include reducing
-5-
'llA
Page ~-.-- of (z~
11A
congestion, both on Boones Ferry Road and within the surrounding street
network, improved and safer access resulting from completion of a center turn
lane, sidewalks and bike lanes. The direct impacts of the decision to form the
LID include improving the surface and structure of the existing roadway and
creating funding for a part of the overall construction project.
C:'uMy DocumentsLMyFilesLkkATTORNEYXBoones Ferry Road LID Findings.wpd
-6-
MEMO
liB
To:
From:
Via:
Subject:
Date:
Mayor and City Council
Matt Smith, Management Analyst x ~-~
John C. Brown, City Administratora4'~"
Grant Contract with the State for the Cipriano Ferrel Education Center
June 10, 2002
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution entering
into a grant contract (Project No. C02004) with the State of Oregon for a $600,000
Community Development Block Grant for the Cipriano Ferrel Education Center, making a
declaration of policy regarding the use of excessive force by law enforcement personnel as a
condition of grant approval, and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract and the
declaration of policy.
Background:
'In November 2001, Council conducted a public hearing, received public comment,
and directed staff to submit, in cooperation with the Farmworker Housing Development
Corporation, a Community Development Block Grant application for the construction of
the Cipriano Ferrel Education Center on the property of the Nuevo Amanecer Farworker
Housing complex. The City received notice from the granting authority, the Oregon
Economic Development Department, that the grant was awarded to the City in April 2002.
The Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments (MWVCOG) will administer the grant,
and ensure that grant requirements are met. The City will enter into an agreement with the
Council of Governments shortly, and staff anticipates presenting the agreement to Council
at an upcoming meeting for review and approval.
The notice indicated that the grant contract would be sent to the City shortly. The
grant contract was subsequently misplaced in the mail when it was received, and when it was
discovered, staff requested and received an extension from the granting authority. The new
date by which the contract must be executed by is June 28, 2002.
The proposed grant agreement is attached. Grant requirements state that the City
must also adopt a policy statement stating that the City's law enforcement personnel shall
not use excessive force against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights
demonstrations, and applicable state and local laws that prohibit physically barring entrance
to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights
demonstration. The City Attorney and Police Chief reviewed the policy statement, and
indicated that the provisions are acceptable.
Conclusion:
lib
The City is functioning as a pass-through for grant funding to the Farmworker
Housing Development Corporation. Grant contract management will be performed by the
Council of Governments, and no cost will be incurred by the City for the project other than
costs associated with basic administrative oversight of the project.
Staff Report to Coundl re Contract mith the State
Page 2 of 2
liB
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2393
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO A GRANT CONTRACT (PROJECT NO. C02004)
WITH THE STATE OF OREGON FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT FOR THE CIPRIANO FERREL EDUCATION CENTER; MAKING A
DECLARATION OF POLICY REGARDING THE USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE BY
LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AS A CONDITION OF GRANT APPROVAL;
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT AND THE
DECLARATION OF POLICY.
WHEREAS, the city made application to the State of Oregon Economic Development
Department for a $600,000 Community Development Block Grant for the Cipriano Ferrell
Education Center; and
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Department has awarded the city the requested
Community Development Block Grant; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of the grant award Grant Contract CO2004 must be signed,
and
WHEREAS, as another condition of the grant award, the city must make a Declaration
of Policy Regarding the Use of Executive Force by Law Enforcement Personnel, NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City of Woodbum enter into Grant Contract CO2004 with the State
of Oregon, acting through its Economic Development Department, which is affixed as
Attachment "A" and by this reference incorporated herein, for a $600,000 Community
Development Block Grant for the Cipriano Ferrel Education Center.
Section 2. That the City of Woodburn make a Declaration of Policy Regarding the Use
of Excessive Force by Law Enforcement Personnel which is affixed as Attachment "B" and by
this reference incorporated herein, as a condition of grant approval.
Section 3. That the Mayor is authorized to execute Grant Contract CO2004 and the
Declaration of Policy Regarding the Use of Excessive Force by Law Enforcement Personnel as
required by the grant.
Approved as to form.'~/~ '(~/~ t/~/~ ~"'- d"- ZO<"'0 Z
N. Robert Shields, City Attorney Date
Page 1 - Council Bill No.
Resolution No.
I':' i
liB
Approved:
Richard Jennings, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of th~ Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennanl~, City Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
c:wIy DocumentsWlyFiles~\CB\cdbg.wpd
Page 2 - Council Bill No.
Resolution No.
RECIPIENT COPY
Attachment "A"
liB
STATE OF OREGON
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
GRANT CONTRACT
This Grant Contract is made and entered into by and between the State of Oregon, acting by and through
its Economic and Community Development Department ("State"), and the City of Woodburn
("Recipient"). The reference number of this grant is C02004.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the OregOn Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") Program is funded in
part by community development block grants ("federal grants") from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development ("HUD");
WHEREAS, these federal grants and subgrants of these federal grants are subject to Title I of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 II.S.C. §§5301-5321 (1994) ("the Act"), the
regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, 24 C.F.R. §570.1-.5 (1997), ORS §285A.075 (1997), and
OAR 123-080-0000 to 123-080-0050 (1998), all as may be amended from time to time;
WHEREAS, the State has reviewed the Recipient's application, submitted on December 13, 2001
(the "Application") and determined the Project, as hereinafter defined, is feasible and merits funding;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
Contract. This Grant Contract shall include the following, which, in the event of inconsistency
between any of the terms, are to be interpreted in the following order of precedence:
A. this Grant Contract without any Exhibits;
B. Special Conditions of Award, attached as Exhibit B;
C. Notice of Grant Award, attached as Exhibit A;
D. Recipient's Certification of Compliance with State and Federal Laws and Regulations,
attached as Exhibit C;
E. A description of the project approved by the State (the "Project"), attached as Exhibit E;
F. Approved Project budget showing breakdown of sources of funds, attached as Exhibit D.
This exhibit supersedes the Project budget submitted in the Recipient's Application; and
G. Recipient's Application (which is by this reference incorporated herein).
Grant. In reliance upon the Recipient's Application and Certification of Compliance with State
and Federal Laws and Regulations as described in Exhibit C, the State agrees to provide the
Recipient funds in the amount of $600,000, the use of which shall be expressly limited to the
Project and the activities described in Exhibit E. The use of these funds shall also be subject to
the approved Project budget in Exhibit D and the Special Conditions in Exhibit B, if any.
liB
Attachment "A' Grant Contract
Page 2 of 8
Subject to the terms and conditions of this Grant Contract, including but not limited to, the
authorization described in Section 3 below, State shall disburse the grant funds to Recipient on
an expense reimb6rsement basis after State's receipt and approval of cash request forms from
Recipient.
Further Authorization Required. The obligation or expenditure of funds by the Recipient for the
approved activities described in this Grant Contract is prohibited without the further express
written authorizatil).n of the State, except that such funds may be obligated or expended by the
Recipient for activ~ities that are exempt as specified in 24 C.F.R. §58.34 (1997), provided that
each exempt activity or project meets the conditions specified for such exemption under the cited
section.
Prolect Complet~o9 Date.
A. The approved grant activities must be completed within 36 months from the date of this
Grant Contrac~ or by the date specified below the signature blocks of this Grant Contract
("Project Completion Date").
By the Project Completion Date, all Project activities must be completed, including
submission of ihe Project Completion Report and all cash requests (except cash requests for
audit costs, if applicable). Unless exempt by OMB Circular A-133, the audit for the final
fiscal ycar'of the Project shall bc submitted to the Oregon Economic and Community
Development Department as soon as possible after it is received by the Recipient, but in any
event no later than December 31 aRer the Project Completion Date.
Recipient's Coven~tnts - Compliance with Laws.
A. The Recipient agrees to comply, and cause its agents, contractors and subgrantees to comply,
with all applicable state and federal laws, regulations, policies, guidelines and requirements
with respect to the use of and the administration, distribution and expenditure of the funds
provided under this Grant Contract, including but not limited to the following:
(1) the Act and with' all related applicable laws, rules and regulations, including but not
limited to Sections 109 and 110 of the Act.
(2)
Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended,
42 U.S.C. §5304 (1994), and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and 12
U.S.C. §1735b (1994).
(3)
Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, 12 U.S.C. §1701u
(1994) (employment opportunities to lower income people in connection with assisted
projects), and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, 24 C.F.R. §135.38 (1997).
The Recipient shall cause or require the Section 3 clause in 24 C.F.R. §135.38 (1997) to
be inserted in full in all contracts and subcontracts exceeding $100,000 for Section 3
covered construction projects receiving more than $200,000 under this Grant Contract.
(4)
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act of 1970,
42 U.S.C. §§4601-4655 (1997), and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, 49
C.F.R. §§24.1-24.603 (1997);
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
, liB
Attachment "A' Grant Contract
Page 3 of 8
the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. §§276a to 276a-5 (1994); 42 U.S.C.
§5310 (1994) (applicable to the rehabilitation of residential property by laborers and
mechanics in the performance of construction work only if such property contains not
less than eight (8) units); and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, 40
U.S.C. §§327-333 (1994), and all regulations promulgated pursuant to thereto and all
other applicable federal laws and regulations pertaining to labor standards.
the Hatch Act, 5 U.S.C. {}§7321-7326 (1994) (limiting the political activity of some
employeeS).
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d (1994), and the regulations
promulgated pursuant thereto, 24 C.F.R. {}§1.1-1.10 (1997). The Recipient will
immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this assurance. If any real
property or structure thereon is provided or improved with the aid of federal financial
assistanc~ extended to the Recipient, this assurance shall obligate the Recipient, or in
the case of any transfer of such property, any transferee, for the period during which the
real property or structure is used for a purpose for which the federal financial assistance
is extended, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or
benefits.
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, popularly known as the Fair
Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. {}{}3601-3631 (1994), as amended by Pub. L. 104-76, {}{}1-3
109 Stat. 787 (1995); Pub. L. 104-66, Title I, {}1071(e), 109 Stat. 720 (1995); Pub. L.
90-284, Title VIII, {}814A, as added Pub. L. 104-208, Div. A, Title II, {}2302(b)(1), 110
Stat. 3009-3421 (1996); Pub. L. 104-294, title VI, §604(b)(15), (27), 110 Stat. 3507,
3508 (1996)
Exec. Order No. 11,063, 46 F.R. 1253 (1962), reprinted as amended in 42 U.S.C.
{}1982 (1994) and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, 24 C.F.R. {}{}107.10-
107.65 (1997).
Exec. Order No. 11,246, 3 0 F.R. 12319 (1965), as amended by Exec. Order No. 11,375,
32 F.R. 14303 (1967), reprinted in 42 U.S.C. §2000e (1994), and the regulations
promulgated pursuant thereto, 41 C.F.R. {}§60-1.1 to 60-999.1 (1997)
the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. §{}6101-6107 (1994).
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 (1994).
Section 302 of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. §4822
(1994), and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, 24 C.F.R. §{}35.1-35.98
(1997).
the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. {}{}41514157 (1994).
the Copeland Anti-Racketeering Act, 18 U.S.C. §1951 (1997).
liB
(16)
Attachment "A"
ORS §§294.305-294.565 (1997) and other applicable state
municipal administration.
Grant Contract
Page 4 of 8
laws for county and
(17)
Special program and grant administration requirements imposed by the State related to
the acceptance and use of funds provided under this Grant Contract (which
requirements have been approved in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
Grant Management Handbook).
Bo
When procuring property or services to be paid for in whole or in part with CDBG funds, the
Recipient shalli comply with Chapter 279 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapters 137
(Divisions 030i 035, and 040) and 125 (Divisions 300, 310, and 360) of the Oregon
Administrative iRules, and ORS Chapter 244. The State's performance under this Grant
Contract is conditioned upon the Recipient's compliance with the provisions of
ORS {}§279.312, 279.314, 279.316, 279.320, and 279.555 (1997), which are incorporated by
reference herein.
The State's mrglel rules for public bidding and public contract exemptions shall govern
procurements under this Grant Contract if the Recipient or its public contract review board
does not adopt those, or similar, roles. If the Recipient or its public contract review board
has adopted similar rules, those rules shall apply.
6. ,Other Covenants o~ Recipient.
A. The activities undertaken in this grant must meet one of three national objectives established
by the U.S. Congress. The Recipient covenants the activities it will undertake with the grant
will meet the following national objective (check one):
(X) (1) Activities primarily benefitting
(24 C.F.R. 570.483C0))
low- and moderate-income persons;
( ) (2)Activities which aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight;
(24 C.F.IL 570.483(c))
( ) (3)Activities designed to meet community development needs having a particular
urgency; (24 C.F.R. 570.483(d))
No employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected or appointed official of the Recipient, or
any subrecipient receiving CDBG funds who exercises or has exercised any functions or
responsibilities with respect to CDBG activities assisted by the grant made pursuant to this
Grant Agreement or who is in a position to participate in a decision-making process or gain
inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a financial interest or benefit
from the activity, or have an interest or benefit from the activity, or have, shall have any
interest, direct or indirect, in any contract, subcontract, or agreement with respect thereto, or
the proceeds thereunder, for themselves or those with whom they have family or business
ties, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter.
The Recipient shall also establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using their position
for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain
Co
Do
Eo
liB
Attachment "A" Grant Contract
Page 5 of 8
for themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, or other
ties.
The Recipient Shall incorporate, or cause to be incorporated, in all purchase orders, contracts
or subcontracts regarding the procurement of property or services paid for in whole or in part
with CDBG :funds any clauses required by federal statutes, executive orders and
implementing regulations.
The Recipient shall, and shall cause all participants in lower tier covered transactions to
include in any proposal submitted in connection with such transactions the certification that
neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment,
declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation from the covered transaction.
The Recipient shall insert a clause in all documents prepared with the assistance of grant
funds aekno .wledging the participation of federal and state CDBG funding.
The Recipient shall maintain all fiscal records relating to this Grant Contract in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles for state and municipal corporations
established by the National Committee on Governmental Accounting in a publication entitled
"Governmental Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting (GAAFR)." In addition, the
Recipient shall maintain any other records pertinent to this Grant Contract in such a manner
as to clearly document the Recipient's performance. For fair housing and equal opportunity
purposes, and as applicable, the Recipient's records shall include data on the racial, ethnic
and gender characteristics of persons who are applicants for, participants in, or beneficiaries
of the program. The Recipient acknowledges and agrees that the State and the Oregon
Secretary of State's Office and the federal government (including but not limited to HUD,
the Inspector General, and the General Accounting Office) and their duly authorized
representatives shall have access to all books, accounts, records, reports, files, and other
papers, or property pertaining to the administration, receipt and use of CDBG funds and
necessary to facilitate such reviews and audits in order to perform examinations and audits
and make excerpts and transcripts. Audits shall be conducted annually in accordance with
the Single Audit Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. §§7501-7507 (1994) as amended by Pub. L. 104-
156, §§1-3, 110 Stat. 1397 (1996) and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, 24
C.F.R. §§44.1-44.18 (1997), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-
133, 24 C.F.R. §§45.1-45.5 (1997). The Recipient shall retain and keep accessible all such
books, accounts, records, reports, files, and other papers, or property for a minimum of three
(3) years from closeout of the grant hereunder, or such longer period'as may be required by
applicable law, or until the conclusion of any audit, controversy or litigation arising out of or
related to this Grant Contract, whichever date is later.
The Recipient shall provide citizens with reasonable access to records regarding the past use
of CDBG funds consistent with State and local requirements concerning the privacy of
personal records.
The grant made pursuant hereto shall be conducted and administered in conformity with the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000a-2000e (1994), and the Fair Housing Act, and
the Recipient will affirmatively further fair housing.
liB
Grant Contract
Attachment "A" Page 6 of 8
G. The Recipient will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted
in whole or part with CDBG funds by assessing any amount against properties owned and
occupied by persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment
made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements, unless:
(1)
such funds are used to pay the proportion of such fee or assessment that relates to the
capital costs of such public improvements that are financed from revenue sources other
than under the Act; or
(2)
for purposes of assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by
persons Of moderate income, the Recipient certifies to HUD that it lacks sufficient
CDBG funds to comply with the requirements of (1).
H. The Recipient will assume all of the responsibilities for environmental review,
decisionmaking and action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
II.S.C. §43214370(d) (1994) ("NEPAD, and such other provisions of law that the applicable
regulations sPeCify that would otherwise apply to HUD federal ~rojects, in accordance with
Section 104(g)i of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §5304(g) (1994). The Recipient shall provide such
certification as required by the Secretary of HUD. Recipients will perform reviews in
accordance wi~h 24 C.F.R. §58 (1997) and the other federal authorities listed at 24 C.F.R.
§§58.5 (1997).
~ I. All non-exempt Project activities must be reviewed for compliance with 36 C.F.R. §§800.1-
800.15 (Protection of Historic Properties) and Exec. Order No. 11,988, 42 Fed. Reg. 26951
(1997), reprinted as amended in 42 U.S.C. §4321 note (1994) (Floodplain Management), and
Exec. Order Nb. 11,990, 42 Fed. Reg. 26961 (1997), reprinted as amended in 42 U.S.C.
§4321 note (1994) (protection of Wetlands).
J. The Recipient has adopted and will enforce (1) a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force
by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-
violent civil fights demonstrations and (2) a policy of enforcing applicable State and local
laws against physically barfing entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the
subject of such non-violent civil fights demonstration within its jurisdiction in accordance
with Section 104(1) of the Act.
The Recipient shall cause all its first tier contractors or subrecipients receiving subcontracts
in excess of $100,000.00 to execute and file with the Recipient the certification set forth in
Exhibit C-I hereof.
Lo
All construction projects in excess of $50,000.00, which are undertaken using funds from this
Grant Contract, shall have a Project sign (which sign shall be in the form approved by the
State) located prominently at the Project site acknowledging the participation of federal and
state CDBG funding. This sign shall be installed prior to construction and shall be
maintained for thc duration of the construction period.
M. No lead-based paint will be used in residential units.
o
' liB
Attachment "A" Grant Contract
Page 7 of 8
Determination. State has made the determination that Recipient is a subrecipient, in accordance
with OMB Circular A-133 and Section .102 of Oregon Accounting Manual 04 03 00.P0
(effective June 1,1998). Recipient agrees to monitor any local government or non-profit
organization subrecipient to whom it may pass funds.
Termination.
A. The State reserves the right to terminate this Grant Contract immediately upon notice to the
Recipient:
(1) if the Recipient fails to perform or breaches any of the terms of this Grant Contract; or
(2) if the Recipient is unable to commence the Project within four (4) months from the date
of this Grant Contract; or
(3) if the state fails to receive funding, or appropriations, limitations or other expenditure
authorityiat levels sufficient to carry out the terms of this Grant Contract; or
(4)
if federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a
way that either the grant made pursuant to the terms of this Grant Contract or payments
to be made hereunder are prohibited.
The State may impose sanctions on the Recipient for failure to comply with provisions of this
Grant Contract or OAR Chapter 123, Division g0. When sanctions are deemed necessary,
the State may withhold unallocated funds, require remm of unexpended funds, require
repayment of expended funds, or cancel the Grant Contract and recover all funds released
prior to the date of notice of cancellation.
Miscellaneous.
A. This Grant Contract shall be null and void if this Grant Contract is not executed and returned
to the State by the Recipient by jUne 28, 2002
Bo
The State and the Recipient are the only parties to this Grant Contract and are the only parties
entitled to enforce its terms. Nothing in this Grant Contract gives, is intended to give, or shall
be construed to give or provide any benefit or right, whether directly, indirectly or otherwise,
to third persons unless such third persons are individually identified by name herein and
expressly described as intended beneficiaries of the terms of this Grant Contract.
Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Grant Contract, any communications between
the parties hereto or notices to be given hereunder shall be given in writing by personal
delivery, facsimile, or mailing the same, postage prepaid, to the State or the Recipient at the
address or number set forth on the signature page of this Grant Contract, or to such other
addresses or numbers as either party may hereafter indicate pursuant to this Section 9.C. Any
communication or notice so addressed and mailed shall be deemed to be given five (5) days
after mailing. Any communication or notice delivered by facsimile shall be deemed to be
given when receipt of the transmission is generated by the transmitting machine. To be
effective against the State, such facsimile transmission must be confirmed by telephone
notice to the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department at
llB
Grant Contract
Attachment "A" Page 8 of 8
(503) 986-0123. Any communication or notice by personal delivery shall be deemed to be
given when actually delivered.
Do
This Grant Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of law. Any claim, action, suit or
proceeding (collectively, "Claim") between Agency (and/or any other agency or department
of the State of Oregon) and Contractor that arises from or relates to this Contract shall be
brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Marion County for
the State of Oregon; provided, however, ifa Claim must be brought in a federal forum, then
it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon. THE RECIPIENT, BY EXECUTION OF THIS
CONTRACT, HEREBY CONSENTS TO THE IN PERSONAM JURISDICTION OF SAID
COURTS.
This Grant Cotitract and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties
on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations,
· I
oral or wntten~ not specified herein regarding this Grant Con-tract. No waiver, consent,
modification or change of terms of this Grant Contract shall bind either party unless in
writing and signed by both parties and all necessary State approvals have been obtained.
Such waiver, COnsent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific
instance and foir the specific purpose given. The failure of the State to enforce any provision
of this Grant C0ntraet shall not constitute a waiver by Agency of that or any other provision.
This Grant Contract is hereby executed by the Parties on the dates set forth below.
STATE OF OREGON
acting by and through its Economic and
Community Deve~artment
By: BettyPon~~ Manager '-~ By:
Valley/Mid-Coast Team
Title:
Date: t"////3'- [0 ~ Date:
CITY OF WOODBURN
(ReCipient)
(Signature)
ProjeCt Completion Date
Exhibit .A lIB
Page I of I
Attachment "A"
April 10, 2002
Honorable Richard Jermings
Mayor of Woodburn
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
RE: Oregon ComiC, unity Development Block Grant Award, Project Number #C02004,
($600,000), City of Woodbum, Cipriano Fen'el Education Center
Dear Mayor Jennings:
We are pleased to make the official announcement that your jurisdiction has been awarded a
grant of $600,000 from the Oregon Community Development Block Grant Program. The award
is to assist the city in completing the Cipriano Ferrel Education Center.
'~he enclosed staff report presents our analysis of your application.
Actual funding is subject to execution of a contract between your jurisdiction and the Oregon
Economic and Community Development Department. Contract documents will be sent to you in
a short time'for your review and signature. Enclosed is a current Ch'ant Management Handbook
that is periodically updated. Section 5. A. (17) of the grant contract requires the recipient to
comply with all applicable state and federal laws, regulations, policies, guidelines and
requirements with respect to the use and the administration, distribution and expenditure of the
funds, as set forth in the Grant Management Handbook. It is recommended that you review, at a
minimum, Chapter 2 of the Grant Management Handbook for any changes to these requirements.
This offer will be extended 60 days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please
call Karen Homolac at (503) 986-0191.
S' cerely,
t~eay rongracz, Manager
Valley/Mid-CoastTeam
Enclosures
C:
Jim Mulder, City of Woodburn
Roberto Franco, Farm Workers Housing Corporation
Ray Teasley, Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments
Tom Fox, Oregon Economic and Community Development Department
Governor John A. Kltzhaber
llB
Attachment "A"
Exhibit B
Page I of 3
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF AWARD
COMMUNITY FACILITY GRANT
Special conditions pertinent to this grant are set forth below.
1. All matching funds must be secured in writing by October 4, 2002, or the Grant Contract may be
terminated. No CDBG funds may be drawn down unless all Project matching funds are secured.
2. All Project-related co~tracts must be received by the State ten (I 0) days before they are signed. This
includes all Project-related contracts between the Recipient and any person or entity who will be
administering the grant or performing services under a personal services contract. All Project-
related bid documents must be received by the State at least ten (10) days before they are advertised.
3. Where the approved Project budget includes local funds and CDBG funds for a specific line item
activity, those local funds must be expended before the Recipient can request CDBG funds for the
activity, unless otherwise authorized by the State.
4. Any locad funds remaining in an approved non-construction budget lihe item when that line item
activity is completed Shall be transferred to the construction line item and shall be expended in
accordance with pm'agraph 3 hereof.
5. Prior to the approval of the first drawdown of grant funds for this Project, the Recipient shall provide
the following to the State:
a. Copy of an adopted Fair Housing resolution and evidence that this resolution has been published
within six (6) months prior to the grant drawdown.
b. Copy of a completed self-evaluation checklist required by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 (1994) or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, .42 U.S.C.
§§12111-12213 (1994).
6. Prior to approval of the first drawdown of grant funds for a construction line item of this project, the
Recipient shall provide the following to the State:
a. Notice of the Start of Construction which includes the project name and location, date of bid
opening, date of award, name of general contractor, and the number of the applicable federal
Davis-Bacon Wage decision included in the construction contract. If there is no general
contractor, a notice shall be completed for each specialty contract.
b. Copies of the required certified payroll reports from the general contractor and subcontractors
whose work is covered by the drawdown request.
7. The Recipient shall place a sign indicating the involvement of CDBG funds in the Project in a
clearly visible location on or near the construction sites of facilities that will be available for use by
the public.
8. Any recipient which has had prior CDBG grants or which is the recipient of more than one 2002
CDBG award must undertake at least one activity, in addition to adopting and publishing a Fair
Housing resolution, to promote fair housing opportunities in its community.
, ao
bo
Attachment "A"
liB
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 3
Change of Use Requirements.
The following condition shall be in effect until five (5) years following the date of issuance by
the State of a Certificate of Completion for this Project:
(1) The real property or facility acquired or improved in whole or in part under this Grant
Contract shall be operated and maintained for the purposes described in the Exhibit E or for
other purposes which meet one of the national objectives of the Community Development
Block Grant Program and which are eligible under Section 105 of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §5305 (1994).
(2) Any change in use of the facility or disposition of property acquired or improved with CDBG
funds must be made in accordance with the standards provided in 24 C.F.R. 570.4890)
(1997).
(3)
In the case where the Recipient is not and will not be the owner of the real property or
facility being improved with grant funds hereunder, the Recipient is responsible for ensuring
that the owner of the real property or facility complies with 9:.a.(l) and (2) above. As a
condition of using grant funds under this Grant Contract to improve any such real property or
facility, the Recipient shall cause the owner of such real property or facility to duly execute
and record a trust deed against such real property in favor of the Recipient, which trust deed
shall be in form and substance satisfactory to the State.
,The following language must be included in any contract which transfers the property from the
Recipient to another party:
"It is understood and agreed that this conveyance is made and accepted, and the realty is
transferred, on and subject to the covenant, condition, restriction, and reservation that the realty
must continue to be used for [INSERT THE APPROVED USE OF THE PROPERTY] or for
another eligible use under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
mended, 42 U.S.C. §§5301-5321 (1994).
This covenant, condition, restriction, and reservation shall apply to and nm with the conveyed
land. If the realty is not used for the above purposes, then all the right, title, and interest in and
to the described property and to the improvements on such property, shall revert to and revest in
[Recipient NAME] or its successors and assigns, as fully and completely as if this instrument had
not been executed.
No reversion shall render invalid or operate in any way against the lien of any mortgage or deed
of trust given with respect to the conveyed realty in good faith, and for value; and on any such
reversion [Recipient. NAME] shall take title to the conveyed realty subject to any such mortgage
or deed of trust. Provided, however, that should any such mortgage or deed of trust be
foreclosed, then the title acquired by 'such foreclosure, and the person or persons who thereby
and thereafter become the owner or owners of the conveyed realty, shall be subject to and bound
by all the restrictions contained in this instrument; and further provided, that [Recipient NAME]
may enforce any covenant, condition, and restriction by any other appropriate action at its sole
option."
Attachment "A"
liB
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 3
c. The following language must be included in any deed that transfers the property from the
Recipient to another party:
"This deed is subject to all covenants, restrictions, and agreements of record that are made a part
of this deed by reference, including the [INSERT NAME OF DOCUMENT OF SALE OR
TRANSFER] which by this reference is incorporated herein, as though such covenants,
restrictions, and agreements were fully set forth in this deed. Should any mortgage or deed of
trust be foreclosed on the property to which this instrument refers, then the title acquired by such
foreclosure, and the person or persons who thereby and thereafter become the owner or owners
of such property, shall be subject to and bound by all the restrictions, conditions, and covenants
set forth in this instrument."
10. The Recipient shall obtain as-built drawings for buildings that will be available for use by the public.
11. The Recipient shall collect and maintain documentation satisfactory to the State that the community
facility meets the natioxml objective of principal benefit to low- and moderate-income persons. Such
documentation shall be: _
a. Evidence that shows that the primary use of the facility is by persons who are presumed under
HUD regulations for the Community Development Block Grant Program to be principally low
and moderate income (e.g., elderly or handicapped persons, abused children, battered spouses,
homeless persons, illiterate persons or migrant farm workers), or
b. ' Data showing the size and annual income of the immediate family of each person benefitting
from the facility so that it is evident that at least 51 percent of the clientele are Iow and moderate
income, or
c. Income eligibility requirements which limit the benefits of the facility exclusively to low- and
moderate-income persons, or
d. Evidence that the benefits of the facility are available to ALL the residents in a particular area
and that at least 51 percent of those residents are low and moderate income.
12. The obligation of the State to make any disbursements under the Grant Contract is subject to receipt
by the State of a grant administration plan in form and substance satisfactory to the State.
Attachment "A"
' lib
Exhibit C
Page I of 3
RECIPIENT~S CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Funds for the Oregon Community Development Block Grant Program are provided through a grant to
the State from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, under Title I of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §5301 (1994). These funds are
subject to various federal siatutes and regulations as well as state laws and administrative rules.
The Recipient hereby repre~sents, warrants and certifies that:
1. it has complied with 011 relevant federal and state statutes, regulations, executive orders, policies,
guidelines and requirements with respect to the application for and acceptance and use of Oregon
Community Development Block Grant funds, including but not limited to the Act;
2. it possesses legal authority to apply for and accept the terms and conditions of the Grant and to carry
out the proposed Proj~t; -
3. its governing body has! duly authorized the filing of the application, including all understandings and
assurances contained ~erein;
4. the person identified as the official representative of the Recipient in the application and the Grant
Coatmet is duly authorized to act in connection therewith and t9. provide such additional information
as may be required. 'The Recipient's official representative rhas sufficient authority to make all
certifications on its behalf;
5. the Grant Contract do~s not and will not violate any provision of any applicable law, nde, regulation
or order of any court, regulatory commission, board or administrative agency applicable to the
Recipient or any provision of.the Recipient's organic laws or documents; and
6. the Grant Contract has been duly executed by the Recipient's highest elected official and delivered
by the Recipient and will constitute the legal, valid and binding obligations of the Recipient,
enforceable in accordance with their terms.
The Recipient further represents, warrants and certifies that it is following a detailed citizen participation
plan which:
1. provides for and encourages citizen participation, with particular emphasis on participation by
persons of Iow and moderate income who are residents of slum and blighted areas and of areas in
which funds are proposed to be used;
2. provides citizens with reasonable and timely access to local meetings, information, and records
relating to the Recipient's proposed use of funds, as required by applicable regulations, and relating
to the actual use of funds under the Act;
lib
Attachment "A"
Exhibit C
Page 2 of 3
3. furnishes citizens information concerning the amount of funds available in the current fiscal year and
the range of activities that may be undertaken, including the estimated amount proposed to be used
for activities that will benefit persons of low- and moderate-income, and the proposed activities
likely to result in displacement and the plans of the Recipient for minimizing displacement of
persons as a result of activities assisted with such funds and for relocating persons actually displaced
as a result of such activities;
4. provides for technical assistance to groups representative of persons of low and moderate income
that request such assistance in developing proposals, with the level and type of assistance to be
determined by the Recipient;
5. provides for a minimum of two public hearings to obtain citizen views and to respond to proposals
and questions at all l stages of the community development program, including at least the
development of needs, the review of proposed activities, and review of program performance, which
hearings shall be held after reasonable notice, at times and locations convenient to potential or actual
beneficiaries, and with! accommodation for the handicapped;
6. identifies how the needs of non-English speaking residents will be met in the case of public hearings
where a significant number of non-English speaking residents can be reasonably expected to
participate;
7. provides reasonable advance notice of and opportunity to comment on proposed activities in a grant
application to the State or as to grants already made substantial changes from the Recipient's
application to the State to activities; and
8. provides the address, phone number and times for submitting complaints and grievances and
provides for a timely written answer to written complaints and grievances, within 15 working days
where practicable.
The Recipient represents, warrants and certifies that:
1. it has complied with its obligations as described in Section 6.F of this Grant Contract; and
o
it is following the State of Oregon Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance Plan
unless it adopts and makes public its own plan which complies with 24 C.F.R. 42.325 (1997). The
Recipient also certifies that it will minimize the displacement of persons as a result of activities
assisted with Oregon CDBG funds.
The Recipient further represents, warrants and certifies that:
1. the grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. §§2000a-2000e (1994), and the Fair Housing Act, and the Recipient will affirmatively further
fair housing; and
2. no lead-based paint will be used in residential units.
Attachment "A"
liB
Exhibit C
Page 3 of 3
The Recipient further represents, warrants and certifies that:
1. it has carried out its responsibilities as described in Section 6.H of the Grant Contract;
2. the officer executing this certification is its chief executive officer (or other designated officer of the
Recipient who is qualified under the applicable HUD regulations):
3. such certifying officer 4consents to assume the status of a responsible federal official under NEPA
and other laws specified by the applicable HUD regulations, 24 C.F.R. {}{}58.1-58.77 (1997); and
such certifying officer is authorized and consents on behalf of the Recipient and himself/herself to
accept the jurisdiction of the federal courts for the purpose of enforcement of his/her responsibility
as such an official.
In addition to the above c~rtifieations, for grants of $100,000 or more, the undersigned also makes the
certification regarding lobbying set forth in Exhibit C-I attached to the Grant Contract and incorporated
herein by this reference.
Signed
Title
City/County
City of Woodbum
Proomm
lib
Attachment "A"
CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING
(CDBG Awards of $ 100,000 or more)
Exhibit C- 1
Page I of l
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1)
No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned,
to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congre~, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of
Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal
grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the
extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan
or cooperative agreement.
(2)
If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of. a Member of Congress in
connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall
complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance
with its instructions.
(3)
The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award
doetunents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcomraets, subgrants, and contracts under
grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subreeipients shall certify and disclose
accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this
transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or
entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who falls to file
the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than
$100,000 for each such failure.
Signed
Title
Date
0
Z~
0
r~
Attachment "A"
0 0 0
0
0 ~
~ 0 0 0
~ 0 0
o ~ '-- ~ '~ ~
0 ~ --- ~ .-- o
o.- = '=E=8~ OE ~o
<88 .
lib
Attachment "A"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City of Woodburn
liB
Exhibit E
Recipient will construct a 9,000-square-foot building to house a Head Start Center and a day care center
and to provide space to conduct a variety of adult education services. The facility will primarily serve
migrant farm workers, but some sessions will be open for attendance by other Woodbum residents. The
facility will contain two large classrooms for children's programs and two for adult programs as well as
a computer center accessible to both youngsters and adults. A large commercial kitchen will be used to
prepare meals for children's programs and for cultural events or meetings. Classes on citizenship
preparation, development of leadership skills, English (spoken and written), financial management,
income tax preparation, home ownership, counseling, computer skills, and credit application will be
offered. Adults will use the computers to take college courses via the Internet, to conduct job searches,
and to gain job skills. The facility will also have indoor and outdoor play areas.
liB
Attachment "B'
OREGON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM
Excessive Force Po Declaration ~ /fl/[~
"It is the policy of the City
(1) Its law
engaged in
(2)
.ersonnel shall not use excessive force against any individuals
civil rights demonstrations, and
Appli state and local laws that prohibit physically barring entrance to or exit from a
fac or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations.
Date
Richard Jennings, Mayor
City of Woodbum
Attachment "B' ~.~d
OREGON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM ~ 0~ r~c~ ~
Excessive Force Policy Declaration (~/[ O/~
"It is the policy of the City of Woodbum that:
~Its law enforcement personnel shall not use excessive force against any individuals
engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations, and
(2)
Applicable state and local laws that prohibit physically barring entrance to or exit from a
facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations
within the jurisdiction of the city shall be enforced.
Date
Richard Jennings, Mayor
City of Woodburn
llC
COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
2394
AN RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE
REVENUES DURING FISCAL YEAR 2002-03.
Whereas, ORS 221.770 requires cities to pass a resolution annually declaring
their election to receive state revenue sharing, now, therefore,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to ORS 221.770, the City hereby elects to receive state
revenues for fiscal year 2002-2003. -
City Attomey
Date
APPROVED
RICHARD JENNINGS, MAYOR
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 1 - Council Bill No.
Resolution No.
llC
April 17, 2002
CITY OF WOODBUP-N
CITY TP~EASURER
270 MONTGOMERY
WOODBURN OR 97071
155 Cottage St. NE U-90
Salem, OR 97301-3872
(503)378-2350 ext 329
FAX (503)373-1273
KevinHerburger~state.or.us
Finance Director,
e,t:ttc Rexenae Sharing Lay, ()R:~ 2-' ;.770, requ,es cities lc, annuail? pass an o<lh~ar~.:e or res,_,lut:..~ r¢,:ltJusiil,g st~t~
revenue sharing money. The law mandates public hearings be held by the city, certification of these hearings is
required.
in order to receive state revenue sharing in 2002-2003, your city musl have levied property taxes in the preceding
year and:
1. Pass an ordinance or resolution approving participation in the program and file a copy of that ordinance with
the Office of Business Administration prior to July 31.
2. H~31d the following hearings on the use of state revenue sharing funds:
a) a public hearing before the budget committee to discuss possible uses of the funds;
b) a public hearing before the city council on the proposed uses of the funds in relation to the
entire budget.
3. Certify to the Office of Business Administration by completing the attached ordinance/resolution form,
prior to July 31, that these hearings have been held.
The Actual Use Report and Long Range Fiscal Projections were repealed by the 64th Legislative Session. It is no
longer required to file these reports.
If you have any questions, you can contact me Monday through Friday 7:45 AM -4:i5 PM.
Sincerely,
Kevin Herburger
Disbursement Accountant
Office of Business Administration
llC
RETURN TO:
()i linc of Business AdTniifist~adon
155 Cottage St. NE U-90
Salem, OR 97301-3972
(503)378-2350 ext 329
FAX (503)373-1273
DEP~IT~NT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SEWVICES
OFFICL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTI~TiON
ATTN Kevin Herburger
155 COTTAGE ST NE U-90
SALEM OR 97301-3972
AN ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION
TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES
The City of WOODBIiJRN ordains as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to ORS 221.770, the city hereby elects to receive state revenues for
fiscal year 2002-2003.
Passed by the Common Council the
Approved by the Mayor this
day
day of
.,2002.
,2002.
Mayor
A~est
I *certify that a public hearing before the Budget Committee was held
on ., 2002 and a public hearing before the City
Council was held on ,2002, giving citizens an opportunity
to comment on use of State Revenue Sha.-h]g.
City Recorder
DEADLINE JULY 31. 2002
* NOTE: Please return certification only. We do not need copies of notice
MEMO
To: For Council Action, through the City Administrator
From: Randy Scott, C.E. Tech III, through the Public Works Director
Subject: Contract award for Resurfacing Improvements
Date: June 5, 2002
lid
RECOMMENDATION:
It is being recommended the City Council award the construction comract to the lowest
responsible bidder, Roy L Houck Construction for the Resurfacing Improvements for Clackamas
Circle, Hawley Street, Judy Street and Julie Court in the amount of $129,873.15.
BACKGROUND:
The contract is in conjunction with Project No. 2001-075-20, Bid No. 22-29, for resurfacing all of
Clackamas Circle, Judy Street and Julie Court. Hawley Street will be resurfaced from Wilson
Street to the South. The project includes surface repairs for the area offailare and then
placement of either a 1" or 1 1/2" asphaltic concrete wearing course.
The project will be funded using approved resurfacing/maintenance budgeted funds.
Staff[, received a total of six qualified bids as listed below
1. Roy L Houck. $129,873.15
2. Parker Northwest Paving $130,233.10
3. D & D Paving $145,027.55
4. Morse Bros. $147,843.80
5. North Santaim Paving $149,652.30
6.. Salem Road & Driveway $149,718.50
Engineers Estimate
$147,330
The low bidder is 12% below the engineer's estimate, therefor staff is recommending the contract
be awarded.
liE
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
SUJECT:
DATE:
City Council through City Administrator
Frank Sinclair, POTW Superintendent through Frank Tiwari,
Public Works Director
Contract Award for Pak-Flail Mower
June 5, 2002
RECOMMENDATION: Award the contract for the purchase of a 96" Pak-Flail
mower to Fischer Mill Supply for the amount of $5,489.00.
BACKGROUND: The City requested bid number 22-19 for a 96" Pak-Flail Mower
attachment. The bids were opened at 1:30 p.m. on May 24, 2002, and the results were as
follows:
Biddgr Amount Bid
Fischer Mill Supply
Ernst Hardware
Lenon Implement
Jensen Equipment
$5,489.00
$5,499.00
$5,675.00
$5,844.30
The rear-mounted mower will be attached to the orchard tractor and used in the poplar
plantation for mowing between the rows of poplar trees and on flat ground adjacent to the
poplar plantation. The cost of this mower is included in the approved budget for the
Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion project.
llF
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
SUJECT:
City Council through City Administrato~ /~~-"'~
Frank Sinclair, POTW Superintendent through Frank Tiwari,
Public Works Director
Contract Award for Offset-Flail Mower
DATE: June 5, 2002
RECOMMENDATION: Award the contract for the purchase of a 98" Offset-Flail
~aower to Ernst Hardware for the amount of $5,499.00.
BACKGROUND: The City requested bids for a 98" Offset-Flail Mower attachment.
The bids were opened at 1:30 p.m. on May 24, 2002, and the results were as follows:
Bidder Amount Bid
Ernst Hardware
Lenon Implement
Fischer Mill Supply
Corvallis New Holland
Jensen Equipment
$5,499.00
$5,600.0O
$5,788.00
$5,825.00
$5,888.OO
The mower will be attached to the orchard tractor and used in the poplar plantation for
mowing sloped areas and other parts of the plantation where the rear mounted mower is
not usable. The cost of this mower is included in the approved budget for the Wastewater
Treatment Plant expansion project.
llG
MEMO
To.'
From:
Date:
Subject:
May0r and Council through the ~-~ ~ministrator<~
Ben Gillespie, Finance Director J 0o'
May 29, 2002
Renewal of Audit Contract
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council by motion authorize the Mayor to sign
the attached contract. -
Background: The public accounting firm of Boldt, Carlisle, & Smith have successfully completed
a five year contract to audit the City's general purpose financial statements. The policy of the
Finance Department is to subject financial services contracts to a competitive process every three
to seven years. If management is dissatisfied with the level of service the cycle between requests
for proposals will be shorter. Under no circumstances is a business relationship allowed to
survive beyond seven years without the City requesting proposals. In this case the service
provided by Boldt, Carlisle, and Smith has been more than satisfactory. Management asked the
fu-m to provide a proposal for a two year extension. Their proposal and a copy of the contract are
attached.
Because Woodburn is adopting major changes in the two years to be audited, it is important to
retain an audit team that has experience with and knows the background of the City's financial
affairs. In 2001-02 Woodburn began two major projects:
Implementation of a new Financial Management System (FMS)
Conversion to GASB 34 reporting requirements
These projects will be competed in 2003-04
Financial Implications: The prices proposed for the audits of the years ending June 30, 2002
and June 30, 2003 are $24,600 and $28,300 respectively. The year 2002 figure represents a 11%
increase over the prior year's billings, and the 2003 amount is a 15% increase. When questioned
about the magnitude of the increases, Doug Parham, the Boldt, Carlisle, & Smith partner
responsible for this engagement responded that the prices reflect three things.
First, the labor market for public accountants is tight and has been so for over a year. He justifies
6% of the increase in each year as reflecting his firm's increasing labor costs to attract and hold
qualified staff
llG
Second, GASB 34 stipulates additional disclosure, which requires more time of the audit team to
prepare the financial statements. 3% of the second year's increase is due to financial statement
preparation. This will be an ongoing cost.
Third, 5% of first year's increase and 6% of the second year's increase is attributed to the cost of
convening the City's reporting model to GASB 34. These are costs that will not be incurred in
the following years.
LDT~
ARLISLE
t_.~ &SMITLHLc,
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANYS
May 15, 2002
llG
480 CHURCH STREET SE
SALEM, OR 97301
(503) 585-7751
FAX 370-3781
408 NORTH THIRD AVENUE
STAYTON, OR 97383-1797
(503) 769-2186
FAX 769-4312
Ben Gillespie, Finance Director
CITY OF WOODBURN
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
Dear Ben:
In re: Audit contract and related fees
We have successfully completed audits of your general-purpose financial statements for the years ended
June 30, 1997 through June 30, 2001. We welcome the oppommity to continue to serve as your
independent auditors. We have prepared a two-year contract with a cancellation clause that provides an
oppommity for either party to terminate.
The significant factors, which influence the cost of professional services, include proper measurement of
the scope of services to be performed, planning and control of the engagement, and careful matching of
the skills a~d experience levels of personnel with the requirements of the engagement. We have reviewed
your 2001-02 adopted budget and appropriation resolution, which include thirty-six funds and plans for
$35,757,292 of expenditures.
Fees for the renewed contract are based on the following:
Evaluation of audit requirements and scope (including 6/'30/03 GASB 34)
· Application of current hourly rates for appropriate staff
· Evaluation of the adequacy of fees during the initial contract term
Therefore, our fee for audit services for the years ended June 30, 2002 and 2003 will not exceed $24,600
and $28,300, respectively.
Enclosed are three copies of the new contract. Please sign all three copies and return them to me in the
enclosed envelope. I will sign all three copies, return one to you, submit one to the Secretary of State,
Audits Division, and retain one for our files.
If you have any questions, please contact me, or Brad Bingenheimer.
enc
Very truly yours,
Douglas C. Parham, CPA
llG
AUDIT CONTRACT
THIS CONTRACT, made this 8th day of May, 2002, in accordance with the requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes
297.405 through 297.555 between BOLDT, CARLISLE & SMITH, LLC, Certified Public Accountant(s) of Salem, Oregon,
and the CITY OF WOODBURN, Oregon, provides as follows:
It hereby is agreed that BOLDT, CARLISLE & SMITH, LLC shall conduct an audit of the accounts and fiscal affairs
of CITY OF WOODBURN, Oregon, for the period beginning July 1, 2001, and ending June 30, 2002, and for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 2003, in accordance with the Minimum Standards for Audits of Municipal corporations as
prescribed by law. The audit shall be undertaken in order to express an opinion upon the financial statements of CITY
OF WOODBURN, Oregon, and to determine if the CITY OF WOODBURN, Oregon has complied substantially with
appropriate legal provisions.
BOLDT, CARLISLE & SMITH, LLC agrees that the services they have contracted to perform under this contract
shall be rendered by them or under their personal supervision. In the performance of services under this contract,
BOLDT, CARLISLE & SMITH, LLC agrees that it shall use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under
similar circumstance by reputable members of its profession practicing in the State of Oregon.
It is understood and agreed that, should unusual conditions arise or be encountered during the course of the audit
whereby the services of BOLDT, CARLISLE & SMITH, LLC are necessary beyond the extent of the work
contemplated, written notification of such unusual conditions shall be delivered to the CITY OF WOODBURN,
Oregon, who shall instruct in writing BOLDT, CARLISLE & SMITH, LLC concerning such additional services, and
that a signed copy of each such notification and instruction shall be delivered immediately to the Secretary of State by
the Party issuing the same.
The audit shall be started as soon after this contract is executed as is agreeable to the Parties hereto and shall be
compleX'ed, and a written report thereon delivered within a reasonable time, but not later than six months, after the
close of the audit period covered by this contract. Adequate copies of such report shall be delivered to the CITY OF
WOODBURN, Oregon, and its form and content shall be in accordance with and not less than that required by the
Minimum Standards for Audits of Oregon Municipal Corporations.
o
It is understood and agreed that the CITY OF WOODBURN, Oregon, is responsible for such financial statements as
may be necessary to fully disclose and fairly present the results of operations for the period under audit and the
financial condition at the end of that period. Should such financial statements not be prepared and presented within a
reasonable period of time, it is understood that BOLDT, CARLISLE & SMITH, LLC shall draft them for CITY OF
WOODBURN, Oregon. The cost of preparing such financial statements shall be included in the fee for conducting the
audit as set forth in Paragraph 7 below.
6. It is understood and agreed that either Party may cancel this contract by giving notice in writing to the other Party at
least ninety days prior to July 1 of any year.
o
In consideration of the faithful performance of the conditions, covenants, and undertakings herein set forth the CITY
OF WOODBURN, Oregon, hereby agrees to pay BOLDT, CARLISLE & SMITH, LLC the sum not to exceed $24,600
and $28,300 for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2002 and 2003, respectively, and the CITY OF WOODBURN, Oregon,
hereby affirms that proper provision for the payment of such fee has been or will be duly made and that funds for the
payment thereof are or will be made legally available.
Boldt, Carlisle & Smith, LLC
CITY OF WOODBURN, Oregon
by
G :~Clientg_\98408~atandard contzact.doc
by
llH
MEMO
TO :
THROUGH :
FROM :
DATE :
SUBJECT :
Mayor and Council ~_~A~
John C. Brown, City Administrator
Mary Tennant, City Recorder ~"~
June 5, 2002
Extension of City Liability Insurance Coverage
Recommendation: By motion, the Council authorize extension of City Liability Insurance for
the July 4th celebration to be held on July 4, 2002 at the Woodburn High School athletic field.
Discussion:
The City has been a co,Sponsor for the July 4t~ celebration since it's inception in 1990. The event
is held at the Woodbum High School athletic field and, even though the School District does not
charge a fee for the use of their facility, they do require a Certificate of Insurance naming the
School District as an additional insured. The event will be similar to last year's program and a
fireworks display will conclude the event.
Financial Impact: There is no financial impact to the City for extension of liability coverage in
that no additional premiUms are assessed by our insurance carder.
City of Woodburn
Police Department STAFF REPORT
270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-2345
Date:
From:
June 4, 2001
Scott Russell, Chief of Police)On//
To'
Through:
Mayor and City Council
John Brown, City Administrato~~k~7~
Subject:
Grant Award - Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program
11I
Recommendation:
The city council approve receipt and allocation of thh Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant funds for Woodburn Peer Court and
authorize the City Administrator to sign the Grant Agreement
In Jti_ne 2001, the city council approved receipt and allocation of Juvenile Accountability Block
Grant (JAIBG) funds for Woodbum Peer Court. The grant program is administered by the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and is designed to promote greater
accountability among juveniles who are involved in the juvenile justice system.
Once again this year the City of Woodburn has been awarded a Juvenile Accountability Incentive
Block Grant (JAIBG) in the amount of $7,096. The grant requires a $788. local match which
will come from the police department's public education budget.
The Youth Peer Court allows for the implementation of a cohesive, community-based program of
prevention and intervention for first time youth offenders. The program is currently training
youth to act as peer court members and plans to have their first court soon. The grant funds
received from JAIBG will be used as partial funding for Woodburn's Peer Court. The total Peer
Court budget for FY2002-2003 is $14,440.
The police department will pass the grant funds offto the Marion County Sheriff's Office who
has agreed to act as fiscal agent and supervisor for the Peer Court Program. The Peer Court
Program Manager, formerly a Sheriff's Office Employee, will now to be a contract employee,
that is yet to be hired by the Marion County Sheriff's Office. The Peer Court Program Manager
will administer the program under the Sheriff's Office direction and oversight.
Oregon
John A Kitzhaber M D Governor
May 30, 2002
11T
.l. ll
Department of State Police
Criminal Justice Services Division
400 Public Service Building
Salem, OR 97310
(503) 378-3720
FAX (503) 378-6993
V/TTY (503) 585-1452
Deputy Chief Scott D. Russell
Woodburn Police Department
270 Montgomery St
Woodburn, OR 97071
Dear Deputy Chief Russell:
Congratulations on your 2001 Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) award.
Enclosed please find two copies of the Grant Award Conditions and Certifications (contract).
Review the award document and budget and notify me if any revisions are necessary. If there are
no chan'ges, please have both contracts signed and return both copies to my attention no later than
Friday,_[une 21, 2002. Once the Director signs both contracts, one original will be returned to you
for your files.
Please remember that grant funds must be used to supplement, not supplant existing program
funds. Neither grant nor match funds may replace funds that would otherwise be available for
any of the JAIBG Authorized Purpose Areas.
As you are aware Mona West's last day with CJSD is Friday, May 31, 2002. We are in the process
of filling her position and are confident we will hire an excellent coordinator for the JAIBG
program. Until that time, I will be the contact for the program. Thank you in advance for your
patience during this transition.
If you have any questions please call me at (503) 378-3725 ext. 4146.
Sincerely,
Karen Green, Grants Manager
Criminal Justice Services Division
JOHN A. KITZHABER, M.D.
GOVERNOR
May 23, 2002
llI
Woodburn, City of
Attn: Deputy Chief Scott D. Russell
Deputy Chief
Police Department
Woodburn, OR 97071
Dear Deputy Chief Russell:
It i's my pleasure to infbrm you that $7,096.00 in federal funds has been allocated to the
Woodburn, City of. These funds have been made available to the State of Oregon through
the Juveniie Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program, which is administered by the
Criminal Justice Services Division of the Oregon State Police.
This notice does not constitute a legally binding grant agreement tbr these funds. Staff from
the Criminal Justice Services Division will forward a Grant Award Conditions and
Certifications (contracO, to finalize the grant agreement for your program. It is not until the
grantee and the Director of the Criminal Justice Services Division signs the grant agreement
that funds will be available for expenditure.
This award vlaces the Woodburn / Marion County Youth Peer Court in the forefront of
Oregon's ef{orts to promote greater accountability in the juvenile justice system. We hope
that these funds will be coordinated with the use of your county's juvenile crime prevention
funds. I look forward to hearing of your accomplishments.
Sincerely,
JAK/osp:cjsd:C Merlo
STATE CAPITOL, SALEM 97301-4047 (503) 378-3! ! ! FAX (503) 378-4863 TTY (503) 378-4859
WWW.GOVE RNOR.$TATE.O R. U S
- llJ
June 6, 2002
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
John C. Brown, City Administrator (~ C
Yard Waste Disposal Charge Request from United Disposal,
Service, Inc.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council authorize a rate adjustment for United
Disposal Service, Inc. to include a $1.50 per month yard waste disposal charge.
Background:
Ordinance No. 1641, as amended by Ordinances 1945, 2008, and 2072, regulates
the solid waste franchise with United Disposal. Section 13 addresses rates, and
provides that changes in rates shall be approved by City Council resolution. In
determining the appropriate rate to be charged, the Council shall consider:
1) The cost of performing the service provided by the Franchisee.
2) The anticipated increases in the cost of providing service.
3) The need for equipment replacement and the need for additional
equipment to meet service needs; compliance with federal, state and local
law, ordinances and regulations; or technological change.
4) The investment of the franchisee and the value of its business and the
necessity that the franchise have a reasonable rate of return.
5) The rates in other cities for similar service. And,
6) The public interest by assuring reasonable rates to enable the franchisee
to provide efficient and beneficial service to the residents and other users
of the service.
United Disposal's most recent rate adjustment was approved in December 1997,
and went into effect in July 1998. That adjustment implemented the yard debris
and mixed paper recycling programs. To promote separate collection of yard
waste, Marion County offered to pay, for a limited period, tipping fees associated
with the program for participating communities. Tipping fees are the per ton fee
charged by the processing facility. Woodburn and several other cities have
benefited from the subsidy since 1998.
Discussion:
Attached is United Disposal Service's request to adjust rates to include a yard
debris tip fee. The Marion County subsidy ends on June 30, 2002, and United
Honorable Mayor and City Council
June 7, 2002
Page 2.
llJ
will be subject to a $22.85 per ton tip fee to continue the separate yard debris
program. To support that cost, United requests adjustment of the rate schedule
to include a $1.50 per month, per household, yard debris tip fee. A similar
request is being made in the other cities served by United, where the Marion
County tip fee subsidy has ceased.
Upon receipt of United Disposal's request, City staff explored the possibility of
Marion County continuing to subsidize a portion of the program for another
year, and asked United Disposal to consider absorbing a portion of the tipping
fee. Neither agency was able to oblige that request, in both cases due to
budgetary constraints.
The separate yard waste program has been well received by customers. Beyond
it's value to customers who want to recycle green waste, it also reduces the size
of containers required for household solid waste disposal, and attendant costs.
United Disposal's request appears to satisfy most or all of the six criteria upon
which the Council can base its consideration of a rate adjustment. Accordingly,
your authorization of the requested adjustment is recommended. Should you
authorize the recommended action, an implementing resolution will be prepared
for your approval at your June 24, 2002 meeting. A public notice regarding your
consideration of the proposed increase on June 10, 2002 was published in the
Woodburn Independent.
Financial Impact:
The requested rate adjustment will increase residential rates by $18 per year.
That will increase the franchise fees paid to the City by 54 cents per household
per year and result in an overall increase in franchise fees of approximately
$2,200 per year, depending on the number of households receiving service.
Under the franchise, the City receives 3 percent of United's gross revenue.
JCB
United Disposal Service, Inc.
P.O. BOX 608 2215 N. FRONT STREET
WOODBURN, OREGON 97071-5999
RESIDENTIAL - COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL - RECYCLING
TELEPHONE 503-981-1278 FAX 503-982-7930
http://www.uniteddisposal.com
City of Woodbum
City Council
270 MontgomeD' Street
Woodburn, Or 97071
llJ
Subject: Request approval for yard debris tip fee - County subsidy ends June 30. 2002
YARD DEBRIS TIP FEE United Disposal Service, Inc. respectfully requests approval
of a new disposal cost for yard debris composting (or more commonly known as a tip-fee).
History: To encourage cities to move toward separated yard debris collection anc~reduce
the overall waste stream, Marion County offered to subsidize the cost of disposal
(processing fee) in 1998 for 2-years. Marion County continued the subsidy far past the
original 2-year promise, but will end the subsidy as of June 30, 2002. This new cost
represents a tip-fee of $22.85 per ton. The proposed tip-fee, which represents new additional
costs are due to the discontinuation of the County yard debris tip fee subsidy.
The additional cost for yard debris tip fee is: $1.50 per month per household.
Early estimates predicted the cost per month per household would be in excess of $1.50mo.
(from 1998 original dollar estimates). United Disposal Service, Inc. has secured an agreement
with a local processing facility, thus reducing the original estimate.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Sigloh
General Manager
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER M / F / D I V
'IlK
MEMO
To:
From:
Via:
Subject:
Date:
Mayor and City Council
Matt Smith, Management Analyst ~
John C. Brown, City Administrator<:J- ~
Recommended Amendments to the 2001-2002 Master Fee Schedule
June 10, 2002
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council review the recommended revisions to the
Community Development and Finance fees, and authorize staff to prepare an ordinance
amending the 2001-2002 Master Fee Schedule.
Background:
The 2001-2002 update to the Master Fee Schedule was adopted by Council on
September 24, 2001. Occasionally it is necessary to amend the fee schedule prior to the
regularly scheduled annual review in September to account for changes requiring immediate
attention. The City amended the fee schedule in May to account for changes requested by
CCRLS for the Library fee charged to non-residents living within the CCRLS boundaries.
The adoption of the new Woodbum Development Ordinance prompts another such
amendment to the fee schedule to account for changes in existing fees and the addition of
new fees that will take effect on July 1, 2002. One additional amendment to the fee
schedule is recommended to allow staff to improve the lien search service.
Discussion:
Community Development. With the exception of sign ordinance compliance
permit fees, all of the fees charged by the Community Development Department are
changed per the new Development Ordinance, and one fee, the "Appeal of Land Use
Action to the Planning Commission," is eliminated. Seventeen new fees are added, also per
the Development Ordinance.
Finance. The technology is available to provide lien information to tide companies
on the Intemet. Title companies are interested because it decreases the turn around time
when processing title insurance. The City is interested, because it will decrease the time
spent responding to lien search requests. Net Assets is an Oregon company providing such
a service at a cost of $8.00 per inquiry. To recover the total cost of lien searches, the City
must increase its fee from $15.00 to $23.00. The recommended fee is within the range
charged by other cities.
The revised Community Development and Finance fees (see table in Attachment
llK
"A") are set to reflect the City's policy of recovering the actual cost of providing a service.
Staff utilized the same criteria for establishing the cost of providing services developed for
previous master fee schedules in determining the revised fees. Said criteria includes: all
personnel costs associated with the service (i.e., salaries and benefits), operating expenses
(including noticing costS), and all applicable indirect costs (e.g., building and equipment
maintenance). Noticing costs for Community Development fees were not included in the
fee in previous fee schedules, but were recovered by charging the applicant directly for
actual costs.
Conclusion:
It is recommended that the City Council review the recommended revisions to
improve the delivery of the Lien Search service, and to update the Fee Schedule per changes
adopted in the Woodbu~n Development Ordinance, and to authorize staff to prepare an
ordinance amending the 2001-2002 Master Fee Schedule.
Financial Impact:
The increase in fees and charges resulting from the recommended amendments are
based on costs of service determined in 2001-2002. The financial impact for the changes
will be, determined in september as part of the regularly scheduled annual review once the
costs of service have been recalculated to reflect actual costs for labor and other cost criteria
for 2002-2003.
Staff Report to Coundl re Fee Schedule ,4mendment
Page 2 of 2
Attachment "A
Page 1 of 3
Recommended Community Development and Finance Fees Table
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEES
Annexations $1,365 $1,594
Zone Map Amendment $1,435 $2,249
Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,435 $2,249
Conditional Use $883 $1,014
~ retitled "Zoning Adjustment" $674 $662
Major Variance $984 $1,121
A ........ , _,, ., ,, ,,_,:__ s_ '~'---:-- "'----=--:-- $250 eliminated
Appeal of Land Use Action to City Council $916 $1,035
Minor Po,~,t,,,,, ,,.,,o ~,, ,~oo~
to $979 $929
retitled "Partition (Preliminary Approval)"
Major Pod,t,,.,,, $1,161 eliminated
(plus $11 per loO
"Partition (Final Plat Approval)" new fee $168
Lot-Line Adjustments "and Consolidation of Lots" $299 $360
Subdivision (4 lots or more) $1,623 divided into two fees below
(plus $11 per lot)
"-Preliminary Approval' -- $2,456
(plus $11 per lot)
"-Final Plat Approvaf' -- $598
P. U.D. (4 lots or more) $1,928 divided into three fees below
(plus $15 per lot)
"-Preliminary Plan Approval" -- $2,071
(plus $15 per
"-Design Plan Final Approval" -- $900
"-Final Plan Approval" -- $451
Regulation,
Site Plan Review (based on sqUare footage)
IlK
Attachment "A "
Page 2 of $
"-under 1,000 sq. ft." new fee $611
--under 4,000 sq. ,'t. "1,000 sq. ft. - 4,999 sq. ft." $1,172 $1,608
--25,000 sq. ft. - 99,999 sq. ft. $2,740 $2,958
--100,000 sq. ft. - 199,999 sq. ft. $5,920 $6,563
--200,000+ sq. ft. $11,653_ $12,169
Sign Ordinance Compliance Permit
--under 30 sq. ft. $28 $28
--30-75 sq. ft. $100 $100
--76-150 sq. ft $150 $150
--150+ sq. ft. $264 $264
'Exception to Street ROW and Improvement Requirements" new fee $1,121
'Specific Conditional Use for a Historically or Architecturally new fee $1,014
Significant Site"
"Formal Interpretation of the Woodbum Dev. Ordinance" new fee $1,524
"Manufactured Dwelling Park"
"-Preliminary Approval" new fee $2,242
"-Final Plan Approval" new fee $532
'Phasing Plan" new fee $1,141
"Residential Architectural Standards Substitution" new fee $238
"Significant Wetlands Overlay District (SWOD) Permit" new fee $411
"Telecommunications Facility Specific Conditional Use" new fee $1,270
.~.IK
Attachment ",4"
Page 3 of 3
R~'cbm!d
Fbe
"Temporary Outdoor Marketing and Special Event Permit for new fee $113
a Woodburn Development Ordinance Special Use"
"Tree Removal Permit" new fee $86
"Formal Pre-Application Conference" new fee $357
"/nterpretation of Uses" new fee $1,746
(plus Measure 56 notice costs, if applicable)
"Interpretation of Zoning District Boundaries" new fee $1,746
(plus Measure 56 notice costs, ff applicable)
FINANCE FEE
Lien Search Fees (per request)
$15
$23