Agenda - 02/23/2004 WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
FEBRUARY 23, 2004 - 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS
Announcements:
A. Property owner positions available on the Greenway Task
Force. Contact Randy Westrick, Recreation and Parks Director,
if interested.
The filing period for Mayor and Council positions begins Friday,
February 26, 2004 and concludes on Tuesday, August 24, 2004
at 5:00 p.m. Positions to be voted upon at the November 2,
2004 general election are as follows:
Mayor- at-large position (2-year term);
Councilor - Ward I - Precinct 815 (4-year term)
Councilor - Ward II- Precinct 825 (4-year term)
Councilor - Ward VI- Precinct 865 (4-year term)
Co
There are openings on the Woodburn Public Library Board. If
you are interested in serving, call the Mayor's office for an
application.
Appointments:
D. Planning Commission
E. Greenway Task Force
2
· 'Ha~r~ int~rpretes i~isponibles para a~[[as personas q~e no ~ab[an Ing[~s/previo acueri~o. Com~niq~ese
al (so3) ~So-z4Ss."
February 23, 2004
Council Agenda Page i
4. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
e
e
Proclamations:
A. Spay Day USA - February 24, 2004
B. Girl Scout Week- March 7-13, 2004
Presentations:
C. Livability Task Force Member
presented by Mayor Figley
Recognition
Awards to be
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Ae
Chamber of Commerce
Woodburn Downtown Association
COMMUNICATIONS
A. United Disposal- Donation of Service
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.
ke
Woodburn City Council minutes of January 26, 2004, regular
and executive sessions
Recommended Action: Approve the Woodburn City Council
minutes.
Be
Woodburn Public Library Board minutes of January 14, 2004
Recommended Action: Accept the Woodburn Public Library
Board minutes.
Ce
Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board draft minutes of January
13, 2004
Recommended Action: Accept the Woodburn Recreation
and Parks Board draft minutes.
De
Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of January 8, 2004
Recommended Action: Accept the Woodburn Planning
Commission minufes.
7
8
9
10
21
24
27
February 23, 2004 Council Agenda Page ii
E. 38
Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of January 15, 2004
Recommended Action: Accept the Woodburn Planning
Commission minutes.
Fe
Woodburn Budget Committee Workshop draft minutes of
January 31, 2004
Recommended Action: Accept the Woodburn Budget
Committee Workshop draft minutes.
48
G. Woodburn Public Library Monthly Report for January 2004
Recommended Action: Accept the report.
53
H. Claims for January 2004
Recommended Action: Accept the report.
54
Crime Statistics Comparison 2002-2003
Recommended Action: Accept the report.
59
Je
Building Activity for January 2004
Recommended Action: Accept the report.
K. Planning Activity Tracking dated February 3, 2004
Recommended Action: Accept the report.
75
9. TABLED BUSINESS
None.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
ke
Zoning Text Amendment 04-01; a proposal to revise the text of
the Woodburn Sign Ordinance
Recommended Action: Instruct staff to prepare an ordinance
adopting the draft sign ordinance and amending the
Woodburn Development Ordinance as necessary to
incorporate the proposed revisions, and prepare findings to
substantiate the Council's decision.
78
BJ
Public Hearing on Boones Ferry Road Improvement
Recommended Action: Upon completion of the public
hearing, direct staff to perform analysis on the public input
received and present a recommendation for further Council
action.
84
February 23, 2004
Council Agenda
Page iii
C. 99
11.
12.
13.
Public Hearing to Consider a Supplemental Appropriation and
Contingency Transfer
Recommended Action: Direct staff to return an ordinance
reflecting the Council's decision following the hearing.
GENERAL BUSINESS
ke
Council Bill No. 2498 - Ordinance adopting a supplemental
budget for fiscal year 2003-2004 and declaring an emergency.
Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance.
Be
Council Bill No. 2499 - Resolution amending certain
compensation standards for non-union police sergeants
Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution.
Ce
2004 OLCC Renewal
Recommended Action: Recommend to the Oregon Liquor
Control Commission renewal of liquor licenses for the listed
businesses for the year 2004.
De
Transfer of J. M. Smucker Company Wastewater Discharge
Permit and Capacity Wastewater Discharge
Recommended Action: Approve the transfer of the most
current J. M. Smucker Company wosfewafer discharge limits to
the Sabroso Company as follows: specific permitted load limits
for a maximum peak of 800,000 gallons per day of flow, 4,300
pounds per day of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BAD) and
2,700 pounds per day of Total Suspended Solids (TSS).
Ee
2004 Tourism and Economic Development Grant Award
Recommended Action: Award a 2004 Tourism and Economic
Development Grant fo the Woodburn Chamber of Commerce
in an amount not-to-exceed $48,970; authorize the City
Administrator to execute a fee for services agreement with the
Woodburn Chamber of Commerce; and authorize the City
Administrator fo negotiate an amendment to the agreement
increasing the total grant to $50,000, fo include elements of
the Woodburn Downtown Association's proposal in the
Chamber's 2004 work plan.
PUBLIC COMMENT
NEW BUSINESS
104
111
114
117
119
February 23, 2004 Council Agenda Page iv
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS -These
are Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that
may be called up by the City Council.
Community Development Director's Approval of Partition 03-04
(1515 West Lincoln)
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Ao
To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the
governing body to negotiate real property transactian
pursuant to ORS 192.660(1 )(e}.
ADJOURNMENT
132
February 23, 2004
Council Agenda
Page v
WOODBURN
3D
February 23, 2004
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Council .~-~.
Kathy Figley' May~x,~l) J
Planning CommiSslo~--Appointment
The following appointment is made to the Planning Commission, subject to the
approval of the Council. Please forward any adverse comments to me prior to
Council Meeting Monday, February 9, 2004. No reply is required if you approve
of my decisions.
Position 2 - Itichard Knoles - appointment, term ends 12/31/07
WOODBURN
3E
February 18, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council through City Administrataf~
FROM: D. Randall Westrick, Recreation and Parks Director
SUBJECT: Mill Creek Greenway Task Force
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached nominees for the Greenway Task Force.
BACKGROUND:
The 1999 Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update Policies 5 and 6 set
direction that guide the acquisition, development and management of the Mill
Creek Greenway corridor. Policy 5 states that the City will manage the corridor
as a public greenway with multiple functions to include open space and habitat
preservation, flood control, cycling and walking on all-weather pathways,
nature recreation and education, and limited playground activities. Policy 6
states that it is the City's policy to acquire privately owned segments of the
corridor to create a continuous public greenway and pathway system.
While these policies set a general course for the City's greenway, a master plan
is needed to provide direction that is more specific. The plan needs to suggest
a strategy that sets priorities, identifies funding sources for acquisition and
development and refines the type of development that balances the various
interests that place pressures on the resource.
Last summer, the City Council adopted a resolution that authorized staff to seek
technical planning assistance from the National Park Service's Rivers, Trails and
Conservation program. That request for assistance was approved. The
Recreation and Parks Department is now working with Alexandra Stone in the
early stages of the project.
DISCUSSION:
In January, the Recreation and Parks Board reviewed a draft work plan and time
line for the project. This 12-month plan proposes a Greenway Task Force that will
Agenda Item Review:
City Administrato..[~__~ City Attorney JV"/~
Financ~'~_~
2
Mill Creek Greenway Task Force
February 18, 2004
Page 2
provide a forum for public input, complete technical tasks, conduct surveys and
help promote the projects proposed within the plan. The Task Force will be
comprised of individuals with interests in Greenway issues that include
neighboring property owners, science education, business, health care, soil and
water conservation, physical education, transportation, Scouting, real estate
and Public Works issues such as transportation, flood control and facility
operations. Staff is awaiting a nomination from Chemeketa Community College
and the local chapter of the National Audubon Society. Additional
membership should also be reserved for neighboring property owners.
Attached for the City Council's review is a work plan for the project. The Task
Force will meet for the first time on Tuesday, March 2, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. in the
City Council Chamber. The first order of business for the Task Force will be to
finalize the work plan.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
National Park technical assistance is provided at no charge to the City. In-kind
City support will be provided primarily within the Recreation and Parks
Department. Public Works support has been requested to provide technical
advice on the plan and for materials through the GIS section.
Attachments
3
GREENWAY TASK FORCE
Task Force Member R~resentin~ Contact Information
(503) 587-7897
Dan Hoynacki OSU Extension dan.hoynacki~oregonstate.edu
PO Box 7595
Salem, OR 97303-0161
(503) 982-4571
Cathy Heisen Tukwila Ctr. for Health and cheisen~silvhosp.org
Medicine 693 Glatt Circle
Woodburn, OR 97071
(503) 982-6140
beachhouse0616~aol.com
Joan Garren Greenway Neighbor 1040 Wilson
Woodburn, OR 97071
(503) 391-9927
Robin Straughan Marion Soil and Water robin-straughan~or.nacdnet.org
Conservation District 3867 Wolverine St. NE, Ste 16
Salem, OR 97305
(503) 292-5962
Alison Stenger Institute for Archaeological astenger(~,pcez.com
Studies 4235 Westdale Dr.
Portland, OR 97221
(503) 982-2525
Jeane Mey Senior Estates writerjeane 1942~aol.com
1360 Walton Way
Woodburn, OR 97071
(503) 981-8235
Woodbum Downtown
Bruce Thomas
Association P.O. Box 349
Woodbum, OR 97071
(503) 982-5670
Tim Dickerson Boy Scouts 1641 W. Hayes
Woodburn, OR 97071
(503) 981-5919
Christopher Pister Boy Scouts onlylchrisp~yahoo.com
1475 Van Lieu Ct.
Woodbum, OR 97071
Woodbum School District- Dellingson~woodburn.kl2.or.us
David Ellingson Science 1785 N. Front St.
Woodbum, OR 97071
GREENWAY TASK FORCE
Task Force Member Representin~ Contact Information
Woodbum School District - tlonergan(~_,woodbum.kl 2.or.us
1785 N. Front St.
Tom Lonergan PE Woodbum, OR 97071
Chemeketa CC
(503) 982-5286
donovan.reyna(~ci.woodburn.or.us
Donovan Reyna Woodburn Youth Council 270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
(503) 982-5240
david.torgeson~ci.woodburn.or.us
David Torgeson Public Works Department 270 Montgomery Street
Woodbum, OR 97071
(503) 981-0621
jerryandlindal ~earthlink.net
Jerry Simonsen Real Estate 690 Filbert Street
Woodbum, OR 97071
National Audubon Society
Greenway Neighbor
15
WRPB
Greenway
Task Force
(GTF)
Planning
(staff/GTF)
-Background
-Maps
-Resource
inventories
-Needs
Assessment
-Analysis
-Alternates
-Updates -
Council/Board
Outreach &
Public
Involvement
(bilingual)
-Press releases
-newsletters
-events &
programs
-open houses
-surveys
Early Action
Projects
-Volunteers
lmproveraents,
JaB
# 1 - Getting
Organized
-Roles - GTF,
Staff
-Task Force
reps
-Timeline
-Technical Info
-Goals/vision
-Identify &
recruit
Background
Comp Plan
-TSP
-Archaeology
-Park Master
Plans
-NPS Ice Age
Flood Plan
-Base Maps
-Existing
r~soul~es,
Inventory
-SCORP
-Photos
MilICreekGreenwa Task
Feb Mar
-Begin
community
assessment
-Finalize
GTF
-Prop for
March
workshop
-Identify key
resources for
March GTF
workshop
-Reps & roles
(anyone
missing?)
-Finalize
timeline
-Vision
timeline
-Work teams
(inventory,
survey,
-ConL
assessment
(draft
instrument)
#2-
Workshop
meeting
-Project
Background
-Vision/goals
-Existing
Resources
-Review
Draft Survey
-Review
technical
Info
-New
Members
-Technical
)lanning
update
-Finalize
Survey
-Identify
work team
membership
- Print &
distribute
community
assessn~nt
(instrument)
-Monitor
assessment
- Monitor
assessment
-Public
Board
workshop -
see WRPB
above
-Early
Action
Projects -
see below
~ Day -
Community
Clean Up
Community-
wide
assessment
(disUibute
survey)
June
-~3 - Review
assessment
returns
-Refine,
finalize
goals &
objectives
-Analyze
summarize
assessment
returns
-Conduct
public
workshop
(see below)
-Compile
survey
results
Trail Day
workshop
(6-5)
outreach on plan
progress
w/preparation of
outreach
materials/displays
House
(display ~
Centennial Park)
-Write/design
Grennway
Plan
Review
draft plan
-Conduct
public
oulreaeh
on plan
pmgrcss
Viva La
ladegencia
House
-Pm jeer
Info
-Existing
Resources
-Survey
results
2004
Oct
public
oul~each on
plan progress
Community
Clean up
Open House
-Project Info
-Existing
Resources
-Survey
results
-Draft plan
Scout Project
- Hermanson
Pond
Nov
Review
and
recommend
Council
consideration
-Organize
Plan
adoption
celebration
final plan
with WRPB
concerns for
Council
consideration
D~c
City
Council
approval
Celebrate
the Plan -
Holiday
Luminaria
on the
Greenway?
4A
PROCLAMATION
SPAY DAY USA - FEBRUARY 24, 2004
~s CATS AND DOGS PROVIDE COMPANIONSHIP TO AND SHARIi THE HOMIiS OF OVER
63~000s000 INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES IN THE UNH'ED STATES; AND
~~ TWO UNALTERED CATS AND THEIR OFFSPRING CAN PRODUCE 420~000 ~ORE CATS IN
SEVEN YEARS AND TWO UNALTERBD DOGS AND THEIR OFFSPRING CAN PRODUCE 67~000 MORE DOGS IN SIX
~~ HUMANE SOCIETIES AND SHELTERS HAVE TO KILL APPROXI.MATELY FIVE .MIT.I_ION CATS
~ DOGS F, ACH YEAI~ AL'rHOUGH ~ O1= THF/VI AR]~ HF, A.LTHY AND ADOPTABLE~ SIMPLY BI~.CAUSE THI~RE
ARE NOT ]H~IOUGH GOOD HOIVI.ES~ ~
WI-I~R~4.S~ THE PROBLEM. OF COMPANION ANIMAL OVERPOPULATION COSTS THE TAXPAYERS OF
THIS COUNTRY OVER A BILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY THROUGH ANIMAL CORTROL PROGRAMS AIMT~ AT
COPING WI'IH THE i,tTI.I.IOHS OF HOMELESS CATS .AND DOGS~ AND
~~ SPAYING AND NEUTERING CATS AND DOGS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO DRASIICALLY RT~.DUCE
CAT ~ D(X} OVERPOPULATION} AND
WH~.,d{~S~ VETERINARIANS~ HUMANE SOCIETIES~ NATIONAL AND LOCAL ANIMAL PROTECTION
ORGANIZATIONS AND PRIVATE CITIZENS HAVE JOINF~ TOG]iTFIER AGAIN TO ADVOCATE THE SPAYING AND
NEUTERING OF COMPANION ANIMALS ON aSPAY DAY USA 20o4;"
NOW, THEREFORE, I, KATHRYN HGLEY, iVi. AYOR OP TI'IE CITY OF WOODBURN, DO HERI~BY
PROCLAIM THE DAY OP I~EBRUARY 114, 2004 TO BE
SPAY.DAY U'SA
IN THE CITY OF WOODBURN AND I C_XU. UPON THE PEOPLE OF WOODBURN TO OBSERVE THE DAY BY
HAVING THEIR OWN CATS OR. DOGS SPAYED OR NELrY~RED OR BY SPONSORING THE SPAYING OR NEU'I'~RING
OF ANOTHER PERSON~S CAT OR DOG.
7
4.B
PROCLAMATION
GIRL SCOUT WEEK
MARCH ?- is, oo4
V~rI~, FRIDAY, MARCH 12, 2004, MARKS TI-I]i 92- ANNIVERSARY OF GIRL
Scours OF Wa]i USA, ~:ou~rD~D SY Juz.r~Tr~ GOR~ON Low IN 1912 IN SAVANNAH,
GEORGIA; AND
WH~R~/~ THI~OUGHOur ITS LONG AND DISTINGUISHF. D HISTORY~ GIRl. Scours -
THIi PR~-F. MINENT ORGANIZATION FOR GIRLS - HAS INSPIRF-D I~rLT.TONS OF GIRLS Wn'H TH~
HIGHEST IDEALS OF CHARACTER~ CONDUCT, AND I'ATRIOTISMi AND
WHE~, Gnu. SCOUTING WILL LF. AD BUSINESS]iS AND COMMUNITIES TO TF. ACH
GIRLS ~ SlerLr_~; NEEDED TO TAI~ ACTIVE ROL]IS IN MATH, SCIENC]I, AND TECHNOLOGY
CARE]IRS AND TO FULFILl. OUR COUNTRY'S ECONOMIC NEIiDS; AND
WH~R~ THROUGH Gnu. SCOUTING~ ]IVERY GLRL~ ]IV]IRYWHERE GROWS STRONG,
GAINS SF. LF-CONFID]INC]I AND Slei~.T-q FOR SUCC]ISS, ANrD LEARNS HER DI. rl'Y TO TFI]I WORLD
WH~R~.AS~ THROUGH PARTICII~ATION IN GIRLS' VoIc]is, A NATIONAL COMIVIUN1TY
SERVIC]I PROJECT~ liVERY GIRL WIlL I.]IARN TO US]i H]IR OWN VOICli TO ADDRESS AN ISSUIt OF
CONCERN TO HER AND P]IRFI. APS MAYdl A CFIAHG]I FOR THE B]ITI'ER IN II. ER COMMUNITY;
AND
WH~R~i~Sj SOME 50 I~.T.TON WOMEN HAVIi ENJOYED TI-I]i BENEFITS OF THE GIRL
SCOurS PROGRAM~ AS AH AMERICAN TRADITION~ FOR 92 YEARS;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR OF THE C1TY O]~
WOODBURN~ DO HEREBY PROCLAIM THE W'E]IK OF MARCH 7-13~ 2004 TO B]i
¢iR~ $COU7 ~m. WC
8
6A
CITY OF WOODBURN
RE: DONATION OF SERVICE
DATE: JANUARY THROUGH DECEMBER 2003
SERVICE PROVIDED: 20 90GAL DOWNTOWN STREET RECEPTACLES
WEEKLY PICKUP
TOTAL DONATION: $7512.00
WE WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE opPORTUNITY TO BE OF SERVICE TO OUR
COMMUNITY. IT'S VERY SATISFYING TO US TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO ANOTHER YEAR OF SERVICE TO OUR FAVORITE TOWN.
SINCERELY,
ROBERT SIGLOH
GENERAL MANAGER
UNITED DISPOSAL SERVICES, INC.
CC: WOODBURN DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION
MAYOR KATHRYN FIGLEY
CITY MANAGER JOHN BROWN
9
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 26, 2004
TAPE
READING
0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN,
COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, JANUARY 26, 2004.
CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding.
0010 ROLL CALL.
Mayor Figley Present
Councilor Bj elland Present
Councilor Cox Absent
Councilor McCallum Present
Councilor Nichols Present
Councilor Sifuentez Present
Councilor Veliz Present
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Police Chief Russell,
Public Works Director Tiwari, Finance Director Gillespie, Community Development
Director Mulder, Parks & Recreation Director Westrick, Public Works Manager
Rohman, Sr. Engineering Technician Scott, City Recorder Tennant
Mayor Figley stated that Councilor Cox was out of town on vacation.
0062
ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A) Budget Committee will hold a mid-year budget review worksession on Saturday,
January 31, 2004, 9:00 a.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers.
B) City Hall is a designated Marion County ballot drop site for the statcwide Special
Election. Ballots can be placed in the drop box during regular business hours and, on
February 3, 2004 (Election Day), City Hall will be open until 8:00 p.m..
C) Public hearing on the proposed Sign Ordinance will be held before the Woodbum
City Council on Monday, February 23, 2004, at 7:00 p.m..
D) Public hearing on the proposed Boones Ferry Road LID will be held before the
Woodbum City Council on Monday, February 23, 2004 at 7:00 p.m..
E) Mayor Figley stated that there is one more position to fill on the Library Board and she
requested that interested citizens submit an application to her for consideration.
Mayor Figley also stated that there may be an opening on either the Planning Commission
or Budget Committee and she encouraged citizens who are interested in either of those
committees to submit an application to her for consideration.
LIBRARY BOARD APPOINTMENT.
Mayor Figley appointed Neal Hawes to thc Library Board with his term to expire on
December 31, 2007.
MCCALLUM/VELIZ... approve the appointment ofNeal Hawes to Position IV on the
Library Board. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2004
10
TAPE
READING
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 26, 2004
0197 PRESENTATION: CERTIFICATES OF ACCOMPLISHMENT TO EAGLE
SCOUT MEMBERS.
Mayor Figley stated that the rank of Eagle Scout does include a public service component
and, in her opinion, community service is always praiseworthy. She expressed her
appreciation to each of the Scouts for their work of which they, along with their family
and friends, can be proud of and the community can be grateful for.
Mayor Figley presented Certificates of Accomplishment to the following Eagle Scouts:
1) Brock Nelson - assisting the Woodburn Family Crisis Center by holding a clothing
drive and providing some picnic tables;
2) Kyle Pippert - whitewashed a fence at the Champoeg State Park Visitor Center;
3) Adam Hassell - constructing a play structure at Burlingham Park in West Woodburn;
and
4) Steven Pister - updating the landscaping on the south end of City Hall.
She stated that trees at Centennial Park have been planted in honor of Adam Hassell and
Steven Pister for the work they did on City property.
0558
PRESENTATION: 2002-03 AUDIT REPORT.
Finance Director Gillespie stated that the City had, once again, received an unqualified
opinion on its financial statements fi.om our auditors. To the best of everyone's
knowledge the City has received an unqualified opinion which shows that City
management has made a commitment to good internal controls and budgetary controls.
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) changed the way governments
reported their financial operations (GASB 34) with the intent being to make the reports
more user friendly and accessible. The conversion took City staff about 18 months to
complete during which time the financial accounting practices were changed at the
beginning of the fiscal year 2002-03 and the City's fixed assets were appraised by an
outside appraiser to account for all of the fixed assets as required under GASB 34. The
City's auditors also assisted in this process by identifying areas to be corrected before
their field work began in auditing the financial records. Copies of the 2002-03 audit
report were distributed to the Council.
Doug Partham, Certified Public Accountant (CPA) with the finn Boldt Carlisle, stated
that the staff report does a excellent job in summarizing the annual f'mancial report for the
City. This was the year for implementation of GASB 34 and it is a task that required a lot
of work on the City's part. GASB 34 was so wide sweeping to government that the
implementation was staged over 3 years depending upon the size of the governments.
Woodbum was in the second of the three groups to implement GASB 34 and the
remaining smaller governments will implement GASB 34 in the current fiscal year. He
proceeded to review the various financial statements and the difference between the
current and prior year statements.
Brad Bingenheimer, CPA, stated that the audit report also includes auditor comments as
required under state law for the purpose of providing information to the State as to the
Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2004
11
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 26, 2004
TAPE
READING
1850
City's fiscal responsibility. In general, there are no adverse comments other than a few
minor budgetary items. It was noted that all of the City's accounting and internal controls
were good based on a number of issues that they take into consideration such as size of
the City and type of operational activities. Within the document there are additional
comments made by the auditors addressing federal requirements and compliance with
large federal programs.
Mayor Figley expressed her opinion that the document seems to be more understandable
than prior documents.
Councilor McCallum also expressed his pleasure in the audit report and the financial
condition of the City.
Councilor Nichols felt that audit report shows that the staff is doing an excellent job for
our community.
1994
Sam Brentano, Marion County Commissioner, stated that he was recently appointed to
serve as Commissioner and he has made a commitment to meet with governmental bodies
from each of the 20 cities within the county. He stated that he was Mayor of Sublimity
for 10 years from which he gained a unique perspective on local government and
hopefully be able to help cities as problems arise. Recently, he attended the Metro
meeting with Administrator Brown in an effort to convince Metro that the proposed urban
growth boundary line should not extend past the Willamette River. He reiterated that he
wants to make himself available to the City to assist in anyway he can.
Councilor Bjelland stated that Commissioner Brentano will be the Marion County
representative on MWACT. He welcomed his participation on that commission and
encouraged Commissioner Brentano's support of traffic needs for Woodbum and North
Marion County.
Councilor McCallum also stated that Commissioner Brentano is a graduate from
Woodburn High School and he is proud of what Mr. Brentano has done in the business
world.
2271
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT.
Patrick Vance, representing the Chamber Board, thanked Councilor McCallum for
mentioning at the last meeting that the Mayor was giving her "State of the City" report at
the last Chamber Forum. Upcoming Chamber events include:
1) 50th Annual Distinguished Service Awards dinner will be held on Friday, March 12th.
Nominations are being accepted by the Chamber and the public is encouraged to bring
forth names of persons who work to make Woodbum the special place it is.
2) Greeter's Program on January 30t~ will be held at Tukwila Center for Health and
Medicine concerning the Relay for Life event which has been nationally recognized by
the Cancer Society. On February 6th, the Greeter's Program will be held at Prudential
Real Estate Professionals on Highway 214 and 99E. The Greeter's Program begins at
7:30 a.m. and concludes around 9:00 a.m..
Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2004
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 26, 2004
TAPE
READING
3) Business A~er Hours will be held on February 12, 2004 at the Woodburn Pet Hospital
on Evergreen Road from 4:30 p.m until 6:00 p.m..
4) Lastly, the Chamber has scheduled 2 one-hour programs on Overall Safety and Safety
Programs for Small Business to be presented by OSHA trainers. These programs will be
held during the lunch hour (12:00 -1:00 p.m.) and there is no charge to attend. The first
session will be held on February 6th and the second session on February 20th.
2591
WOODBURN DOWNTOWN ASSOCIATION REPORT.
Jose Pan'a, WDA Board member, expressed his support for the ordinance relating to the
February 14t~ celebration in the downtown parking lot.
2673
Richard Jennings, 595 Filbert Street, stated that at the last meeting he had complimented
the Mayor, Council, and staff on the work they had done last year. However, he realized
a~er the meeting that he had forgotten to include the Library Director and City Recorder
in his list of staff members being complimented.
2796
CONSENT AGENDA.
A) approve the regular and executive session minutes of January 12, 2004;
B) accept the Library Board minutes of December 10, 2003;
C) accept the Library monthly report for December 2003;
D) accept the audit report for fiscal year 2002-03; and
E) accept the Police Department Statistics for the period of January 2003 through
November 2003.
Councilor McCallum commented on the Police statistics reporting that 226 curfew
violations occurred during that period of time which shows that the curfew law is being
enforced by our department. Additionally, another statistic that seemed impressive was
the number of DUll arrests (127). He questioned Chief Russell on the line item entitled
"Fugitives for Other Agencies" since it totaled 433.
Chief Russell stated that warrants are carried by other courts and any person arrested on a
warrant is an outside entity warrant.
MCCALLUM/NICHOLS... adopt the consent agenda as presented. The motion passed
unanimously.
3040 COUNCIL BILL 2494 - ORDINANCE ANNEXING 1.15 ACRES OF PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTH OF AZTEC DRIVE AND EAST OF NORTH PACIFIC
HIGHWAY 99E AT 600 AND 610 NORTH PACIFIC HIGHWAY~ AND
GRANTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM MARION COUNTY CR
(COMMERCIAL RETAIL) TO CITY CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL).
Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill No. 2494. Recorder Tennant read thc two
readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll
Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2004
TAPE
KEADING
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 26, 2004
call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council
Bill 2494 duly passed.
3203 COUNCIL BILL 2495 - ORDINANCE PROHIBITING PUBLIC PLACE
PARKING IN A PORTION OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO PREVENT
INTERFERENCE WITH OPERATION OF THE 2004 FEBRUARY 14m
CELEBRATION AND PROVIDING CIVIL ENFORCEMENT.
3569
Council Bill 2495 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. The two readings of the bill
were read by title only since there were no objections from the Council.
Councilor Bjelland questioned the need for the ordinance rather than just closing the
parking lot.
Administrator Brown stated that the ordinance gives the City the ability to issue citations
or tow vehicles if necessary to clear the parking area which will be used for the
celebration. This is the first year for this event and the Downtown Merchants have
indicated a desire to put on periodic events using the area what will eventually be known
as the plaza. There is a parmership and affiliation between the merchants and the
Downtown Association. Staff has also asked the merchants to approach the WDA to
provide the indemification that is necessary to protect the City. The City will not be
providing insurance which is why either the merchants or WDA need to have the
coverage.
On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill
2495 duly passed.
COUNCIL BILL 2496 - RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT
WITH NETASSETS CORPORATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
3776
ON-LINE LIEN SEARCHES.
Council Bill 2496 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. Record6r Tennant read the bill
by title only since there were no objections from the Council.
Mayor Figley stated that she regularly use the services of this company in her work and
she finds them very user friendly and the fees they charge are passed on to the person
initiating the transaction.
On roll call vote for final passage, the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Figley
declared Council Bill 2496 duly passed.
COUNCIL BILL 2497 - RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO IMPROVE BOONi*,S
FERRY ROAD FROM STATE HIGHWAY 214 TO GOOSE CREEK, ADOPT
THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, ADOPT THE METHOD OF
ASSESSMENT, AND ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE.
Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill 2497. The bill was read by title only since
there were no objections from the Council.
Public Works Director Tiwari stated that the proposed local improvement district project
Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2004
TAPE
READING
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 26, 2004
would begin approximately 50 feet north of Highway 214 to the improved area at Goose
Creek. He summarized the proposed project improvements which includes additional
traffic lanes going to the south and one lane of traffic going to the north, undergrounding
of utility lines, sidewalks, and bikelanes. There will be some trees removed on the west
side of Boones Ferry Road, however, trees will be replaced after the project is completed.
The calculation method in determining the costs to each property owner involve trip
generation (60%), front footage (20%), and lot area (20%). Credits will be given to three
property owners for existing improvements along Boones Ferry Road. The estimated cost
of the project is $511,324 of which the City's funding support is $243,000 and the
proposed assessment to benefitted properties is $268,324. Property owners will be
offered the opportunity to pay for their assessments under the Bancroft Bonding program
with the interest rate estimated at 6%. If the project moves forward, the estimated
assessments will be the maximum amount property owners will pay and the City will pick
up the difference in cost if the project cost exceeds the estimate. Staff plans on meeting
with the property owners to update them on the project prior to the February 23~a meeting.
Councilor Bjelland stated that the cost per square foot listed in the proposed resolution
under Section 7(D)(3) calculates to $.017 per square foot instead of $.03 per square foot.
Director Tiwari stated that if there is an error in the calculation, staffwill correct the
calculation, however, the amount of dollars to be assessed is correct.
Councilor Veliz questioned if publicly owned property is treated the same as privately
owned property.
Director Tiwari stated that the City's past practice has been to authorize the estimated
assessment at a maximum amount so that property owners know that they will not pay
any more than the estimate for the improvement. Property owners, whether public or
private, are all treated the same in determining the cost to individual properties.
On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared
Council Bill 2497 duly passed.
The public hearing will be held on February 23, 2004 at 7:00 p.m..
0639 FISCAL YEAR 2002 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS.
NICHOLS/SIFUENTEZ... approve acceptance of the grant funds in the amount of
$7,793.00.
Chief Russell stated that the City has received local law enforcement block grant funds
from the federal government for several years, however, those funds have been reduced to
some degree now that they are being handled through the office of the State Police. The
City applied for $7,793 for the purpose of purchasing one of the City's leased police
vehicles which is about to be returned. This vehicle has less than 40,000 miles and it will
be completely outfitted for under $10,000. The intent is to use this vehicle for the School
Resource Officer and other details that do not have a marked unit available.
The motion passed unanimously.
Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2004
115
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 26, 2004
TAPE
READING
0807. PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS.
0839
A) Community Development Director's approval of Zoning Adjustment 03-05
(property located at 1303 Umpqua Road): Zoning adjustment allows for a fence height
of 62 inches measured from grade to be located on the property line adjacent to Astor
Way.
No action was taken by the Council on this zoning adjustment approval.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT.
A) Completion of Sidewalk along Highway 214:
Administrator Brown stated that he had executed an agreement with ODOT regarding the
construction of a sidewalk along Highway 214 from Nuevo Amanecer housing
development to Park Avenue on the south side and fi.om Meridian Drive to the high
school pedestrian crossing on the north side. The intergovernmental agreement provided
for the City to pay $176,000, the School District $106,000, and the balance to be paid by
ODOT. Of the City's share, $62,000 was associated with the construction of a pedestrian
bridge to provide a safe crossing at the creek and take pedestrians away from the highway
area. ODOT has now completed another study associated with this project and it has
been determined in the geo-technical report that the sub-surface peat soil conditions will
require the placement of retaining walls on the backside of the sidewalk in order to keep
the sidewalk fi.om going downhill into the creek bottom. Alternatives offered by the State
were to 1)move the sewer lines or 2) agree to a proposal that moves the sidewalk up to
the edge of the road surface for an area of approximately 500 feet in the vicinity of the
creek crossing. Due to the expense of moving the sewer lines and concern about working
in the wetland environment, staff is recommending the sidewalk be placed near the edge
of the road surface. In order to provide a safe separation between vehicular traffic and
pedestrians at the creek crossing, ODOT regulations require a solid barrier. ODOT is
proposing a continuous concrete barrier of approximately 2 feet wide and 3 feet high.
Even though this is not the most attractive separation, it should provide a greater level of
safety to the pedestrian. He has told ODOT that the City will settle on the placement of
the sidewalk next to the roadway with the placement of the concrete barrier as a means of
separating the pedestrians from the traffic.
Councilor Nichols expressed concern with youth trying to jump the concrete barrier rather
than going to the designated crossing.
Administrator Brown stated that he looks at the barrier as a means of pedestrian safety
and the City will continue, through education and some level of enforcement, to impress
upon the youth that they need to stay on the pedestrian side of the barrier and to use the
crossing in order to get to the high school.
Councilor Veliz stated that the biggest concern is for pedestrian safety and the barrier
may not be attractive but it will provide some level of safety to pedestrians.
Administrator Brown also stated that there will be plenty of room on Highway 214 for
bicyclists rather than their using the sidewalk.
Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2004
16
TAPE
READING
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 26, 2004
Councilor Bjelland expressed his hope that this will be a temporary solution in the hope
that Highway 214 will be widened in the future and the barrier may be cost effective in
the event the sidewalk is moved once a long term final solution has been determined by
ODOT.
Administrator Brown also stated that ODOT is trying to meet a March bid date on this
project with construction to begin in the early summer and completion by November
2004.
B) Metro Meeting regarding potential boundary expansion:
Administrator Brown stated that he was pleased to join the Marion County
Commissioners at the recent meeting with Metro and he presented the letter he wrote on
behalf of the Council expressing the City's concerns on the proposed expansion of the
urban growth boundary south of Wilsonville. Points brought out during the meeting
pertained to the protection of farmland, protection of the University field station, and
economic development in the Woodburn area. He reviewed comments he made to Metro
on (1) the need to provide economic opportunity in Woodbum on a strong regional or
state economy and the sharing of economic wealth, (2) the City's urban growth boundary
desires and the need to add industrial land to provide enhanced employment opportunities
to meet anticipated growth and raise the standard of living, and (3) the City's desire to
protect the industrial land that will be brought in so that it does not get converted to
commercial land. By June 30th, Metro will have finished their deliberations and there
will be more opportunities to comment on this issue if the City so desires.
C) Transient Occupancy Grant:
Administrator Brown stated that this will be the third year for this grant and applications
have been received from organizations interested in securing grant funds. The Council
has a set of guidelines established on how grant funds should be used and a process has
also been followed in previous years to evaluate proposals. This year, he has had
difficulty getting the group of evaluators together and it has created some anxiety with the
applicants since they have not been able to make their presentation. Even though the
method used in past seems to be the prcfen'ed method of the Council, other methods that
could be implemented include allowing City staff to evaluate the applications or having
two Councilors listen to the applicant's presentations and then making a recommendation
to the full Council.
Councilor McCallum expressed his opinion that an outside evaluation as the City has
done in the past is the method that should be used in determining grant funding.
Mayor Figley agreed with comments made by Councilor McCallum and even though not
receiving funds at the beginning of the calendar year may be hardship, the grant program
was never intended to be full funding for any of the parties asking for the grant.
Administrator Brown stated that he hoped to get the evaluation group together within the
next week or so and come back to the Council at their next regular meeting with a
Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2004
17
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 26, 2004
TAPE
READING
recommendation. If he is unable to get the three people together that he has worked with
in the past, staff may need to try and find a substitute regardless of their affiliation with
the Chamber of Commerce.
Councilor McCallum urged the Administrator to try and not have any of the evaluators
member of the Chamber since the Chamber is an applicant.
Councilor Bjelland suggested that it may be advantageous to have someone from outside
the local area that is knowledgeable about tourism with the two other evaluating members
within our local area.
Administrator Brown reiterated that it is his intention to get a group of people together
within the next two weeks in order to move forward with the decision making process for
this grant program.
It was the consensus of the Council to continue to follow the process used in the past
even though there may be a delay in disbursing funds to the grant recipient(s).
D) Administrator Brown stated that he had attended the "New Partners for SMART
Growth" conference held in Portland last week. He provided a brief report on the topics
discussed during this national conference which included safety and security, diversity,
social equity, and housing issues.
E) Administrat6r Brown expressed his appreciation to staff members Matt Smith and
Paulette Zastoupil for their work in getting the agenda packet out last Friday while he was
out of the office attending the conference.
3242
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS.
Councilor Veliz expressed his appreciation to the Public Works staff in their continued
clean-up efforts of damage sustained during the recent snow/ice storm. The Skate Park is
now open again and the facility is being used regularly. He also expressed appreciation to
the Recreation Department on the youth basketball program and he assured the Council
that there is a very strong partnership between the City's Recreation Department and the
School District. He has been very impressed with the staff's leadership and
organizational skills and are very respectful to the participants and spectators. Lastly, he
informed the public that Chemeketa Community College now has the pre-financial aid
forms available for anyone who is interested in attending the school this fall and he urged
college attendees to submit the forms as soon as possible.
Councilor McCallum stated that Mayor Figley did an excellent job on the "State of the
City" address at the recent Chamber Forum. He felt that she was well received by the
audience and they seemed to be comfortable with the direction of the City.
Councilor McCallum also stated that he had attended the last Fire Board meeting and
received a tour of the new Fire station which is still scheduled for completion by April 15,
2004. The facility and new equipment should meet the needs of our community for the
next 20 years.
Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2004
18
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 26, 2004
TAPE
READING
Councilor Bjelland stated that MWACT may have a Councilor from Mt. Angel interested
in serving on the Commission to replace the former Mayor of Mt. Angel.
Councilor Sifuentez expressed her opinion that things are going very well for Woodbum
and she continues to receive positive comments from community members.
Councilor Nichols stated that the Mayor did an excellent job in presenting our community
to the attendees at the Chamber Forum by not only reviewing the City's past
accomplishments but in looking into the future of our City.
Mayor Figley stated that she was proud to have been able to give the "State of the City"
address and the work being done shows that the City is in for a very positive future.
4129
EXECUTIVE SESSION.
Mayor Figley entertained a motion to adjourn into executive session under the authority
of ORS 192.660(1)(e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing
body to negotiate real property transactions.
NICHOLS/SIFUENTEZ .... adjourn into executive session under the statutory authority
cited by the Mayor. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned into executive session at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:07 p.m..
4166 Mayor Figley stated that no matters were decided in executive session.
ADJOURNMENT.
NICHOLS/MCCALLUM .... meeting be adjourned. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m..
APPROVED
KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2004
19
Executive Session
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
January 26, 2004
DATE. CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF
MARION, STATE OF OREGON, JANUARY 26, 2004.
CONVENED. The Council met in executive session at 8:59 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding.
ROLL CALL.
Mayor Figley Present
Councilor Bj elland Present
Councilor Cox Absent
Councilor McCalltun Present
Councilor Nichols Present
Councilor Sifuentez Present
Councilor Veliz Present
Mayor Figley reminded the Councilors and staff that information discussed in executive session is not
to be discussed with the public.
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, City Recorder Tennant
The executive session was called to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing
body to negotiate real property transactions pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(e).
ADJOURNMENT:
The executive session adjourned at 9:06 p.m..
APPROVED
KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 1 - Executive Session, Council Meeting Minutes, January 26, 2004
20
8B
MINUTES
MONTHLY MEETING OF WOODBURN PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD
DATE:
ROLL CALL:
January 14, 2004
Marie Brown -Absent
Mary Chadwick - Present
Vasily Chernishov - Absent
Ardis Knauf - Present
Kay Kuka - Present
Pat Will - Present
STAFF PRESENT: Linda Sprauer, Director
Vicki Musser, Recording Secretary
GUESTS: None
CALL TO ORDER: President Ardis Knauf called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
SECRETARY'S
REPORT:
The monthly Board minutes of December 10, 2003 were approved as
submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE: None
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
DIRECTOR'S
REPORT:
Monthly Statistics: The monthly statistics were self-explanatory. The
number of people visiting the Library for December was 16,169.
Circulation is up over last year; from 11,023 to 13, 335. There were
over 1600 reference questions. An average of 10 people used the
Reference computers every hour, and approximately 4 children used the
Youth Services computers each hour.
Activities: Donna Melendez reported on new book acquisitions. She
explained that the Library's Cataloguing Department is known as
Technical Processing because new books are processed, book jackets
are laminated, security strips inserted and bar codes put on the books.
In addition, volunteers and staff work to mend and repair older books.
Old dust jackets can be re-laminated, and mending tape used on the
corners. Mending is important, because the dust jackets act as a
marketing tool to attract readers.
If a book is too difficult to mend at the Library, it is sent to a bindery in
Walla Walla, Washington. It costs about $7.50-$9.00 to repair an
average-sized book.
31
Technical Processing also puts Visions vinyl book jackets on Library
paperbacks. These jackets come in many different sizes, and help
paperbacks to survive heavy usage.
Donna showed the Board a sampling of new books recently purchased
by the Library. Among the titles were: Terror in the Name of God, Elm
Creek Quilts, Liquid Polymer Clay, and Parenting with Bilingual
Children. To represent fiction, Donna brought Haven, by an Oregon
author, Irene Bennett Brown.
There are independent films on DVD at the Library now. Colorful
posters are sent by the publishers, along with the DVDs, and these help
to advertise the movies. Donna is still deciding where to hang the
posters for best display. The Library has public performance rights to
these independent films, if needed.
DVDs in general are very popular at the Library. Patrons can reserve
them.
A list of activities was distributed to the Board. Lucky the Clown will be
coming to Youth Services on January 17, from 1:30-2:30 pm. Kids'
Storytimes, Book club and the Third Thursday Teens continue as usual.
A Teen Internet Scavenger Hunt is being held from Jan. 2-15, 2004.
Due to slippery ice, the Library closed early on three occasions this past
month. On Jan. 5 (Monday) the Library closed at 5 pm; on the 6t~, the
Library closed at 2 pm, and the following day, Jan. 7th, the Library was
closed all day. The Library resumed regular hours beginning Thursday,
January 8t~.
The Morning Book Group meets from 10-11 am every 4th Monday,
and is open to everyone.
The Chautauqua Lighthouse program, held on January 11 in the City
Hall Council Chambers, was a success, with over 20 people in
attendance.
The Library will be closed on Monday, January 19, for Martin Luther
King Day.
OLD BUSINESS:
Volunteer of the Month: Paul Smith was chosen Volunteer of the Month
for December. He has been a volunteer for 7 or 8 years. He helps with
book processing in Technical Services. He is very reliable, and the
Library can always count on him.
New Staff: Ann Albright began to work as a Library Assistant, taking
over Shirley Baumgardner's position. This left an opening for a Library
Page. The position is part-time, approximately 19 hours/week, and the
pay starts at slightly above minimum wage.
CCRLS MIGRATION: Linda and Dan attended the scripted
demonstrations at Chemeketa. They evaluated each part of the
demonstrations. Their evaluations have been consecutively forwarded
to the Migration Committee, the members of the latest PYM meeting,
Library Board Minutes -1/14/04
2
NEW BUSINESS:
the Advisory Council, and finally, on to the Chemeketa Community
Board. One of the two vendors will be accepted as the vendor of choice,
pending costs. Everyone should be very pleased with the results.
This time next year there will be a brand-new system up and running.
The annual Library Board Retreat will be held Saturday, January 24,
from 9am - 3pm at the Parks and Recreation Department. Kathy
Thomas, from the State Library, will be our morning speaker.
There is a vacancy in the Library Board at present. Colleen Vancil
served an unexpired term, which ended December 31, 2003. She has
chosen to step down and give someone else an opportunity to serve as
a Board member. The Mayor will be looking for someone else to fill a
full four year term.
January, 2004 is the month to elect new officers. Accordingly, the
following people were nominated, seconded and passed: Pat Will as
Chairman, Kay Kuka as Vice-President, and Vasily Chernishov as
Correspondence Secretary.
BUSINESS TO/FROM
THE CITY COUNCIL
AND/OR MAYOR: NONE.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Vicki Musser,
Recording Secretary
Library Board Minutes -1/14/04
33
MZNUTES
Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board
Tuesday, ~Tanuary Z3, 2004
7:00 pm
City Council Chambers
8C
Herb Mittmann, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7 pm.
Roll Call
Members present: Herb Mittmann, Chair; Rosetta Wangerin, Vice-Chair;
Evan Thomas, Member; Phil Lagao, Member; Ann Meyer, Member.
5tall present: Randy Westrick, Director; Brian 5~othun, Recreation
Manager; Paulette Zastoupil, A.A.
Reorganization of Board
Rosetta Wangerin made a motion to re-appoint Herb Mittmann as Board
Chair. 5baron Felix seconded the motion. 5baron Felix made a motion to
re-appoint Rosetta Wangerin as Board Vice-Chair. Ann Meyer seconded
the motion.
Approval of Minutes from November :18, 2003.
Motion to accept the minutes as written was made by Herb Mittmann
and seconded by Rosetta Wangerin.
Approval of Minutes from December g, 2003.
Motion to accept the minutes as written was made by Herb Mittmann
and seconded by Rosetta Wangerin.
§. Business from the Audience: None
e
Division Repo~ts
Recreation Report from Brian 5~othun, Recreation Mana~ler
Brian reported on the success of youth basketball registration with 60~,
youth, which Js a 20% increase over last year. The Hoop Classic was
successful with 30 teams playing. The Hoop Classic generates business
for Woodburn and revenue for the department. The Youth Council
which meets the third Wednesday of each month are now broadcasting
their meetings. The After School Program is operating again after
Christmas break and has 300 students enrolled.
Aquatic Center Report from ,Steve Newport, Aquatic Center
Manaqer.
Steve Newport report was in written form.
Reports by Randy Westrick, Recreation and Porks Director
Randy presented o slide show of the snow/ice damaged to the porks.
He reported that the aquatic center was closed on Monday, ,Tanuary 5,
2003 due to electrical damage in a breaker panel. And then closed again
Wednesday, ~Tanuory 7, 2003 due to the snow and ice.
e
Skate
Park
Randy shored that the new helmet law that requires helmets on children
younger than 16 years of age will be enforced with positive incentives.
He is working with Woodburn businesses for coupons to hand kids that
wear helmets. 5heron Felix suggested a spring safety workshop for the
kids and Herb Mittmonn stated the workshop needed to be scheduled on
a yearly basis.
The surface of the skate pork will be discussed with contractors in the
spring.
Hermanson Pond
Monte Graham from MSWCD presented a final design plan for
Hermonson Pond. The main concerns of water source, budget
restraints, trails system and vegetation had been solved. Consensus
was to accept the conceptual design plan. Rasetto Wongerin mode a
motion to accept the plan and Sharon Felix seconded the motion. The
plan will now be presented to the City Council in February.
Mill Creek ~reenwoy
Alex 5tone, National Park Service, stated that she was here because
Woodburn showed an interest to develop the Mill Creek Greenway. 5he
reported that she would be a coach working with us os o through The
National Pork Service Rivers and Trails and Conservation Team. 5he will
help us to develop o master plan to complete the task ordered in the
lc~cjc~ Pork and Recreation comprehensive Plan Update, Policies 5 & 6.
She shored that the potential to eventually hove a Regional Trial
connecting our 5outh and North communities was in the future. 5he
noted that there ore several areas of interest and asked the board to
give their comments and additions.
This is the compiled list:
· Seniors
· Scientific
· Public Health
· Public Utilities ·
· Water Quality ·
· Transportation ·
Wildlife Habitat
Private Property
Stewardship Private/Public
Art/Photography
Education; K-12, Regional, storewide
Open 5paces
10. Future Board Business
11.
· Skate Park update
· 03-04 CIP review
Board Comment
None.
Meeting was adjourned et 8:45 pm
Next meeting is February 10, 2004
8D
WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION
January 8, 2004
CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council
Chambers with Chairperson Lima presiding.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Lima P
Vice Chairperson Young P
Commissioner Vancil P
Commissioner Grigorleff P
Commissioner Mill A
Commissioner Bandelow P
Commissioner Lonergan P
Staff Present:
Jim Mulder, Community Development Director
ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE CHAIRPERSON
Com missioner Loneroan moved to elect the current Chairperson Claudio Lima as Chairperson and the current
Vice Chairperson Royce Young as Vice Chairperson. Commissioner Vancil seconded the motion.
Commissioner Loner.qan also made a motion to close the nominations and Commissioner Vancil seconded
the motion, which unanimously carried.
MINUTES
A. Special Woodburn Planning Commission Minutes of December 4, 2003
Vice Chairperson Youn;I moved to accept the minutes of the December 4~ meeting as presented by Staff.
Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion. Motion unanimously carried.
B._:. Woodbum Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 2003
Vice Chairperson Youna commented the census presentation was very good and the statistics provided from
that presentation were captured very well in the minutes. Additionally, he stated he was glad to have the
information in written form for future reference.
Motion to accept the minutes of December 11, 2003 as written was made by Commissioner Vancil and
seconded by Commissioner Loner.qan. Motion carried unanimously.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
COMMUNICATIONS
A. Transportation System Plan Open House on January 20, 2004 in City Council Chambers from
4-7p.m.
Staff announced the Transportation System Plan Open House will take place on Tuesday, January 20~ and
stated the Commission are certainly invited. He reported it is an open house, not a workshop, and it is open
to the public. Staff indicated there will be displays set up where you could go around and look at different
maps and plans. Moreover, representatives from ODOT, consultants and Staff will be available to answer
questions. Staff strongly encouraged the Commission to attend if they could.
PUBLIC HEARING
None
Planning Commission Meeting - January 8, 2004
Page 1 of 11
27
ITEMS FOR ACTION
A. Final Order for Design Review 03-22 and Variance 03-28, construct 2,365 sq. ft. office at 576
Glatt Circle, RSS Architects, applicant.
Chairperson Lima indicated although he was not present for the meeting, he read the minutes and the Final
Order and felt comfortable casting a vote.
Commissioner Loner.qan moved to accept the Final Order as presented by Staff. Commissioner Vancil
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Draft Revised Sign Ordinance
Staff reported an abbreviated discussion of the Draft Sign Ordinance took place December 2003. The
discussion was abbreviated because there were other agenda items for that meeting. He indicated perhaps
the Commission may have felt there wasn't enough time to really discuss their issues at that time. The
previously anticipated public hearing for Periodic Review Amendment scheduled for tonight has been delayed
for several months which opened up tonight's agenda. Staff further stated this would be an appropriate time
to get into any other discussion regarding the Sign Ordinance since the public hearing on the Sign Ordinance
is scheduled for next Thursday, January 15th. Staff went through the slide presentation previously presented
back in December 2003 illustrating various types of signage because there were several Commissioners that
were absent at the time it was originally presented. Discussion was then opened and practical application was
reviewed.
Commissioner Vancil referred to the Fairway Motel signage and indicated he noticed that particular site has
now changed to being for lease now since the motel apparently has closed.
Staff responded the draft ordinance does not allow off premises signs. However, there are provisions related
to non-conforming signs and if that sign were determined to be a legal sign when it was established, it then
becomes a non-conforming sign and thers are certain thresholds established in the draft ordinance that
determine when a non-conforming sign has to come in to conformance. He further explained it would not
have to come in to conformance assuming the sign was legal when the ordinance is adopted and something
would have to happen to trigger that.
Comrpissioner Bandelow commented it would be a leap to say that would be allowable for anything just
because it happens to be there.
Staff reported that issue is currently being addressed and they will need to procure a legal opinion from our
City Attorney on that before they can really pursue any enforcement.
Commissioner Bandelow questioned if that sign were established under the new ordinance as currently
written, would it have to be the same type of business in order for that sign to continue?
Staff replied off-premise signs are not allowed under the new ordinance and the only way you can get one
would be through a Variance. He commented it puts us on notice that if the Commission were to approve a
Variance, you would want to make sure that there is a very precisely worded condition with that Variance that
reflects the Commission's intent that it will only be used for that specific property and any other message for
an off-premise sign for a different property would not be allowed.
Commissioner Bandelow also inquired if the Fairway Motel sign now met the definition under the current code
under billboard?
Staff responded the present code only defines off-premise, "bill board" is not defined. He explained billboards
are avoided because we do not allow off-premise signage and we limit the size on signs on every property
anyway. Staff reiterated "billboard" is not defined because billboard does not exist in the vocabulary of the
new ordinance nor does it exist in the current ordinance.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 8, 2004
Page 2 of 11
28
Chairperson Lima asked if holiday decorations are considered signage?
Staff.. answered it could fall under the definition of sign but it is specifically exempt under the ordinance. He
indicated they tried to address building colors with the new development ordinance as far as what colors are
allowed. He also reported pennants would only be allowed with a temporary sign permit and could have four
15-day periods per year but are not allowed continuously all year round like they are currently.
Vice Chairperson Youn,q requested clarification regarding Type II applications.
Staff cladfied pole signs are signs over 8 ft. and do require design review, however monument signs do not.
He indicated the hope is that people go with the monument signs instead of pole signs because the monument
sign process is easier than for a pole sign. Staff pointed out a sign is either legal or illegal at which point if it
is legal, it could be conforming or nonconforming.
Commissioner Bandelow pointed out the signage for Los Cabos and the night club are for the same business
which are all inside the same structure and have the same owner.
Staff reported the new ordinance does not address number of signs per business unless you are in the
commercial office zone. That property gets a certain amount of square footage within the commercial general
zone and we have no concern relating to the content. Furthermore, under the current code for integrated
business center they are allowed 150 sq. ft. of sign and you could have multiple signs on that pole all for the
same business. However, you could not exceed 150 sq. ff. under the current code.
Commissioner Bandelow pointed out they are not an integrated business.
Staff stated the current cede allows that type of signage (i.e., multiple disjointed signs on a single pole) but
under the new code that would have to go through design review and then it would not be allowed.
Commissioner Gri.qorieff inquired if something could be done if they just went ahead and put the signs up
without any permits?
Staff replied affirmatively. He said it would then be an illegal sign. Staff would then tell them to take it down
or they are given the opportunity to try to make it legal. They can do so by submitting for a permit or a
Variance and if they are not successful with that process, they would then have to remove the sign.
Commissioner Loner.qan also asked if the Los Cabos sign would be a legal nonconforming sign under the new
ordinance and if so, what would need to be done to make it conforming?
Staff responded under the new ordinance that sign would be legal nonconforming and explained copy change
is exempt and is not one of the triggers. Therefore, they could remove the plexiglass face and put in a new
one and that would not trigger conformance. However, if another business moves in and they want to put in
another sign somewhere on the pole, that would then trigger bringing the whole sign into conformance.
Commissioner Loner.qan further questioned if the whole sign would change if there is a change of use.
Staff quoted the ordinance: ~the use of the premises upon which the sign is located changes. In a complex,
if the use of an individual tenant space changes only signs attached to such tenant space shall be required
to comply. ~ He explained if someone wants to change the structure, i.e., add on something, take something
off, move it around, then that would trigger conformance.
Commissioner Bandelow commented in terms of use change nobody thought the entire complex had to
change use because it is unlikely the complex is going to change use.
Staff stated he wanted the Commission to understand the full consequences so they could make the most
Planning Commission Meeting - J~ttary 8, 2004
Page 3 of 11
informed decision and made it clear he is not telling them which way to go.
Commissioner Bandelow remarked there is no way that a sign designed like the Los Cabos signage could
possibly ever gotten a Variance or be conforming. She said if it could be written that, for example, if the
Farmer's Insurance changes use that part of that sign has to come off because it does not or will ever
conform.
Staff pointed out there would be the issue of looking at content.
Commissioner Loner.qan commented there should be ways that if there is some change that we could bring
those signs into a better light.
Staff said the Commission can write it so that if any tenant changes in that center, the whole sign has to come
in to compliance.
Commissioner Vancil noted what he heard everybody saying is that they want something that says that the
really ugly, poorly planned signs are going to, at some point, be replaced in the foreseeable future.
Staff informed the Commission that would be getting at amortization of signs and that does not only apply to
just ugly signs, it applies to any non-conforming sign.
Commissioner Bandelow indicated the Focus Group did not want to trigger having to automatically end up
removing a sign that was legally erected and well cared for. Furthermore, she stated she could not imagine
how that sign was permitted and had difficulty seeing how it could even meet today's sign code.
Commissioner Gri.qorieff pointed out there is room underneath the restaurant to put tasteful, nice signs and
what she sees occurring is that they are trying to outdo each other by putting them on the side by the road.
Staff reported the draft code does not allow them to expand, relocate, replace or structurally alter their sign.
Moreover, they will not be allowed to add anything without a Variance without requiring the whole thing to
come in to conformance. He listed the criteria needed for compliance: if a whole complex were vacant for
180 days; if a Type II Design Review or Type III Conditional Use is submitted for the complex; if the sign is
damaged for more than 50% of its replacement value.
Commissioner Gri.qorieff questioned if research could be done to verify whether that site obtained the proper
permits to allow the sign.
Staff replied it is possible to check that. Additionally, he noted he is aware of a lot of permanent signs in this
town that are not legal because permits were not obtained. Staff remarked it would be pretty overwhelming
for Staff to try and go back and try to figure out who is legal and who is not at this point in time particularly
when records are not readily available. He indicated Staff conducts research at the point an application
comes in for a new sign permit on a property in order to figure out at least what is there and whether it is legal
or not. If the sign is not legal, Staff addresses it as part of the new permit.
Commissioner Bandelow asked what happens if signs actually extend in to the line of sight?
Staff explained if a compliant is received indicating a sign is actually blocking vision, research would be
conducted at that point to try to figure out if it was legally established. There is nothing we can do from a legal
standpoint if the signage was legally established unless they do something that triggers bringing it into
conformance.
Commissioner Bandelow commented it is hard to see that they were given a permit to go that direction when
there is room as part of that sign.
Staff said the current requirement is that the sign be 10 ft. back from the curb. Temporary signs were also
Planning Commission Meeting - January 8, 2004
Page 4 of 11
3O
addressed.
Commissioner Vancil asked if the sign for the Super 8 Motel is not an off-site sign?
Staff indicated he was unaware of how that area was arranged and how it was dealt with at the time.
Commissioner Loner.qan noted he thought the Super 8 Motel monument sign is very attractive and much
better than the old pole signs that were 20 ft. up.
Staff explained pole signs require design review and monument signs do not however, it must have a solid
base. It was his professional opinion that a solid base makes a monument sign more substantial and
aesthetically pleasing.
Chairperson Lima inquired if lawn signs placed on the parkway strip between the sidewalk and the curb are
legal or illegal?
Staff responded private free standing signs are not allowed in the City right-of-way outside of public related
type signage. However, projecting, awning and wall signs would be allowed but there are limitations as to how
far they can stick out.
Commissioner Vancil revisited the Tulip Festival flags/banners issue discussed at the last meeting and stated
the discussion was left open as to whether or not those were allowed.
Staff commented from a Staff perspective for minimizing City liability, it is not a good idea to allow private
signs in the City's right-of-way.
Commissioner Vancil pointed out Canby, Lake Oswego, West Linn, Portland, Salem all do it.
Commissioner Bandelow interjected the City does not put on the Tulip Festival.
Staff further added when the City sponsors a program they may in essence be saying they are doing it,
authorizing it and accepting the liability for it.
Commissioner Vancil felt like we are shooting ourselves in the foot to not support the Tulip Festival and the
Chamber in any way that we can. He also pointed out the Bauman Farms program is different because that
is more of a private business and it is not a conglomeration of the community. However, when people think
about the Woodbum Tulip Festival they do not differentiate between whether or not it is the City of Woodburn
or the Chamber of Commerce, they think of it as the Woodburn Tulip Festival.
Staff indicated that is an issue the City Council needs to address and they have the authority to address that.
Vice Chairperson YounR referred to Exemption #L page 3.1-88 of the ordinance a nd stated it was his
interpretation that a City recognized event or holiday signage is allowed for 45 days and then they have to be
removed.
Staff explained that would not supercede the prohibition on the right-of-way. He stated signs owned and
maintained by Federal or State agencies or the City of Woodbum are exempt. Staff reiterated the City Council
could formally sponsor and/or authorize event signage in the right-of-way.
Commissioner Vancil requested that somehow it be formally brought to the City Council's attention that it is
something they need to consider or change it in the Sign Ordinance. He also noted when talking about those
type of issues, Staff has stated the difference being that the current Sign Ordinance is not enforced and the
intent is that we will enforce the new ordinance.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 8, 2004
Page 5 of 1 t
31
Staff clarified that is his intent. However, the issue with any type of enforcement is whether the resources are
there to do it and it depends on the commitment of the City Council. Choices have to made when speaking
about the budget and obviously you can not do everything that you want to do because there is just not
enough money there.
Chairperson Lima inquired whether the City Council would create an ordinance if they decide that it is
beneficial for the City to have the banners for the Tulip Festival?
Staff responded it could probably be done through a resolution or official manner of demonstrating that those
are essentially City sponsored signs whether the City pays for them or actually puts them up or not.
Additionally, he stated the City could indicate through a resolution that every year, at some period of time, the
Tulip Festival signs are allowed. It was also pointed out by Staff that would be different than anybody being
able to come in with an application to put up signs in the right-of-way or not coming in and just putting them
up in the right-of-way. A-frames signs were also discussed. Staff reported A-frame signs would only be
allowed with a temporary sign permit or as lawn signs. Moreover, he illustrated, in context, the implications
of the way this is written. He reported neighbors all around you could have two A-flame signs out on their front
yard at all times year round but they can not be in the City right-of-way. However, he made it dear that is all
they get.
Commissioner Bandelow said if you put up eight political signs in your front yard then that would allow your
neighbor to put up eight signs advertising other things because they are content neutral. Consequently, the
Supreme Court has deemed that you can not make an exception for political signs during a political time
despite the amount of time that the political signs are posted.
Chairperson Lima asked Staffwhat sign type classification would vehicle signs be considered? He expressed
concerns with this type of signage because they can proliferate.
Staff answered vehicle signs would be a permitted sign. He told Chairperson Lima it is difficult to write
something that applies to every potential situation. Staff indicated he did attempt to address that and the
Focus Group was not comfortable because they felt it would be too rigid as far as applying to a situation where
a vendor truck, e.g. Roto Rooter, is on their way home from work and stops at a supermarket and parks in
the market lot. He restated we can not get at the content of what the sign reads.
Commissioner Bandelow mentioned paint and magnetic signs are not permanently attached.
Staff remarked that issue may be revisited in the future if it becomes a problem. He explained you would not
have to compensate somebody if we were then to prohibit them because temporary signs are not grand
fathered in. Additionally, they must conform at the time of code adoption and it is only permanent signs that
would need to trigger conformance.
Commissioner LonerRan referred to the description of A-frame and lawn signs found on page 3.1-87 of the
draft cede and voiced concems regarding the 6 ft. height because he felt that is pretty high for a sign.
Commissioner Bandelow said the actual sign itself is only 2 sq. ft. but it hangs on a pole that is 6 ft. high.
Staff explained the area of the sign would have to be no more than 8 sq. ft. total.
Commissioner Vancil also made reference to page 88 of the draft code regarding signs on phone booths and
product dispensers. His interpretation is that those would not be allowed outside buildings in Woodburn
anymore.
Staff agreed the solution would be to either build an enclosure for product dispensers or you get no more than
3 sq. ft. on it. He explained the exemption of any type of dispensing machine from signage could lead a
business to then place a dispensing machine and put whatever advertising they wish because we can not
Planning Commission Meeting - January 8, 2004
Page 6 of 11
32
address sign content.
Commissioner Vancil inquired whether beacons, search lights or strobe lights that are normally used during
grand openings would not be an option for Woodburn?
Staff responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Loner.qan questioned whether they could with a temporary permit?
Sta.ff. answered the draft code is written not to allow those even with a temporary permit.
Commissioner Bandelow explained if they are allowed as a temporary sign, then they do not go away and our
temporary signs allow for four 15-day periods.
Commissioner Vancil commented that is way too long but to say that something like a search light or strobe
would be allowable one time for a grand opening up to 96 hours would be acceptable to him. He pointed out
it is not right to restrict a special event when somebody makes a multi-million dollar investment in our
community.
Staff said you can have different perspectives and neither of them are necessarily right, they are just different.
He indicated we are providing sufficient means to a dvertise a g rand opening and we tried to be fairly
generous. Moreover, he expressed his opinion in that he does not see the need to have lights in the sky
shining and causing interference.
Commissioner LonerRan asked Staff where he came up with 12 ft. for a pole sign?
Staff referred to page 96 of the draft code and said you get 12 ft. if you have less than 300 lineal feet of street
frontage; 15 ft. if you have 300 to 600 lineal feet; and 20 ft. over 600. The larger centers will get 20 ft.
however, most properties will be at 12 ft. The policy direction was not to give any advantage or differentiate
between a free-way oriented business or a non-freeway oriented business. Defining free-way oriented
business gets tricky, although some cities actually try to define "free-way oriented business",.eg., gas, food,
lodging.
Commissioner Vancil reported the Federal Highway System has put up blue signs on the freeways to prevent
the need for both billboards and mile-high signs.
Staff added he felt those are the most effective although the businesses will argue the issue that you can not
get on a blue sign if you have too many of the same category of business because ODOT only allows a
maximum of six businesses on a sign and have to be different categories. Secondly, they argue people do
not know which way to turn if they can not see their sign.
Commissioner Bandelow remarked one of the issues discussed by the Focus Group was that because of the
size of the City of Woodbum there is no question anybody driving along and approaching the Woodburn exit
that you can find food, gasoline and lodging there.
Staff commented it depends on whether you want to be known as a pit stop on the freeway or do you want
to be recognized as a complete city. Moreover, he pointed out the City may not be willing to give an
advantage to certain businesses that others do not have.
Reference was made to newspaper tubes placed on mailboxes that have the names of newspapers
advertised on the tube. Staff thought there isn't anybody who addresses something like that. However, they
would not be able to be placed on the mailbox if the mailbox is in the right-of-way because it would be a sign
in the right-of-way.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 8, 2004
Page 7 of 11
33
Staff. discussed awning signs and defined them as a sign on an awning. Murals were also reviewed and Staff
informed mural is not defined in the code because it is a sign. A mural is a sign which means they can not
exceed the same area you would have for a wall sign which means you can not cover your whole building wall
with a mural without a Variance. The issue of enforcement was brought up and Staff reemphasized we try
to strike a reasonable balance where those that are going to be subject to the ordinance will voluntarily
comply. Staff went on to address banners and said those are only allowed with a temporary sign permit and
reported they have four 15-day periods a year but the Woodburn Company Stores seasonal banners are
allowed six 15-day periods a year.
Commissioner Vancil questioned whether towing signs are allowable?
Staff. reported towing signs fall under exempt signs as you are allowed a certain amount of smaller type signs
and can not be placed within 15 ft. of the front property line and that is to keep somebody from trying to put
several of those out just for advertising out by the sidewalk. Staff further discussed banners, balloons and
canopy signs. Reference was made to signs which are inside a building,
Commissioner Loner.qan commented 50% window sign coverage seemed a whole lot of covered space.
Staff stated the current code states 40% coverage. He said the Focus Group discussed this issue and agreed
with the 50% coverage. Staff expressed concerns with limiting window signs too much because if a business
feels it is unreasonable they will start to stick banners on the outside and violate the code. Moreover, they are
more likely to comply with the ordinance if a reasonable alternative is given to put them inside their window.
He further noted he thought 50% coverage was a nice even number although it could be any coverage
amount.
Commissioner Loner.qan agreed with Staff however he personally felt it is unattractive.
Chairperson Lima stated he visited a local restaurant and they had relatively large neon signs hanging by two
small threads and felt there are safety issues that need to be dealt with.
Staff was unsure what could be done about that from a sign code perspective and he assumed that would
come under the electrical code as far as a potential to electrocute somebody. He reported a window sign is
defined as a sign within 6 inches of a window. However, it would be exempt from this ordinance altogether
if the sign is pulled back more than 6 inches from the window.
Commissioner Loner.qan said he would like to change the percentage of coverage to 25%.
Staff informed Commissioner Lonergan changes could be made during deliberations after the public hearing.
Staff also addressed and defined changing image signs.
Commissioner Vancil noted Portland's issue a few years ago with changing image signs that were so bright
and seriously distracted drivers as they passed by them.
Staff said a changing image sign could be a plasma screen or a full television type image. He indicated the
glare issue is addressed in the draft ordinance and a certain foot candle is required. However, it does not deal
with the distraction issue and could still have colors and light that could still distract you and if you get enough
ofthat you could have visual clutter. Mechanical and electronic changeable copy reader boards are permiffed
under the Commercial General zone and on poles and monument signs only which means you can not put
them on a building wall. In addition, they shall be integrated in to the overall sign to appear as a single unit
and shall not comprise more than 50%. He also reported a reader board sign with electronic changeable copy
is defined as a permanent sign in which copy can be changed electronically by using patterns of light that may
change at intervals not exceeding one change in copy or display or intensity or color of lighting in any 60
second period.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 8, 2004
Page 8 of 11
34
Commissioner Bandelow added she preferred changing image signs than the signs where you hang letters
and half of them are gone most of the time.
Chairperson Lima stated he would like to see more than a 60 second change period but he could go along
with it. However, the scrolling signs are very distracting and we had the issue with the High School sign and
at night it was very distracting.
Staff indicated his concerns were from an enforcement perspective and pointed out every one that currently
has a scrolling sign has violated the current code, including the High School. He commented he guaranteed
it will become an enforcement problem especially if we allow more and more of these type of signs because
we have already had to enforce it on everybody that has them. Staff conveyed the potential consequences
in that once you have opened the door and they are there, it will be a lot harder to get rid of them at that point.
Nonetheless, the Commission may make their decisions accordingly and it is for each community to decide
what they want. Staff also reviewed directory signs and explained directory signs direct visitors where to go
and what is available in a complex. He reported directories are exempt but they are required to be back 50
ft. from the right-of-way so that when you stop you are not doing so in the driveway to try to figure out what
it says. Internally illuminated signs were also discussed and Staff stated these are altogether prohibited. Two
flags are allowed 40 sq. ft. in area each and pole height no more than 40 ft. and the flag content does not
matter. Free standing signs were addressed as well and Staff reported free standing signs are not supported
by a building.
Commissioner Loner.qan questioned whether the code could be changed if there is a sign that blocks line of
vision and is a safety hazard?
Staff responded the sign could remain if the sign was legal at the time it was put in and is permanent, unless
there is something that legally triggered it coming in conformance. He further added we could put the owner
on notice that their sign does not comply with our current ordinance and we think it is going to cause a hazard.
However, we can not require them to remove it.
Chairperson Lima asked Staff how long it took him to obtain the photos for this presentation?
Staff responded it took two to three different days within a two month period. He reported City signs are
exempt from their own rules, however, Department Heads that put up signs are encouraged to comply with
the sign ordinance. Staff also covered off-premises signs, pennants/streamers and portable signs. He
mentioned off-premises signs are prohibited. Businesses may have pennants/streamers in the four 15-day
periods a year. However, residences are not allowed to put up banners or streamers. He commented
portable signs are very tacky and are prohibited altogether and are not even permitted with a temporary sign
permit.
Commissioner Loner,qan concurred with Staff in that portable signs are tacky however, he questioned whether
there will be businesses present at the public hearing that will say differently? He also inquired if the public
hearing notice has been passed out to the Chamber of Commerce and/or other businesses?
Staff answered there may be businesses present at the hearing. He said the Chamber is aware of the hearing
and it has been posted on the City's website for a few months. Moreover, the Woodbum Independent wrote
an article and indicated the draft ordinance was posted on the City's website. Staff informed the Commission
he has received no calls on it. He reported the Chamber was having a business meeting this rooming which
he was scheduled to attend as a speaker however, due to the inclement weather he was unable to attend.
Their option now is to come to the public hearing and it would have been nice to have the opportunity to
speak about their issues in more detail in a more informal setting. Staff said since the Chamber meets once
a month, perhaps it could be rescheduled for next month before it goes on to the City Council. Staff turned
discussion to projecting signage and defined those as signs that stick out perpendicular from a building
instead of parallel to it. Those can not project more than 6 ft. out from the wall and in the Commercial General
(CG) zone in the Downtown District they can not project out more than 4 ft. in lieu of a free-standing sign.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 8, 2004
Page 9 of 11
35
They stick out perpendicular so traffic can see it from a distance hence them is no need for a free-standing
sign because that is serving the same purpose. Staff indicated them is a minimum of 8 ft. above the ground
for clearance but there is no limit on how high up the building wall it could be. It would be considered a roof
sign if it were on the lower pitched portion however, if the pitch is more perpendicular to the ground, more like
a wall, it should then be treated more like a wall sign. Usually, roof signs are anything above the eave
nonetheless, roof signs are prohibited because normally there are braces to make it stick up so it can be seen
and the bracing becomes unattractive. Suspended signs are allowed and are defined as signage that
suspends below a canopy or an awning primarily in pedestrian areas and them is a minimum of 8 ft. clearance
height. Staff explained in calculating the area for a wall sign, all signage on a single wall must be enclosed
within a maximum of three rectangular areas and that total area has to be less than 6%. This would limit the
size but allows the business the opportunity to choose how they want to utilize the space.
Chairperson Lima requested clarification as to how the Starbucks sign came about.
Staff. stated he would have to conduct research to determine that.
Commissioner LonerRan inquired whether the Safeway gas station would be construed as being a separate
entity and having its own set of wall signs?
Staff responded affirmatively. He considered that a separate entity in that complex and it falls under the
canopy regulations. Staff noted a public hearing on the ordinance will take place next week with deliberations
taking place after the hearing is closed. Recommendations about any potential changes are then made and
Staff will return with a Final Order reflecting the Commission's recommended changes. The Focus Group sign
ordinance draft and the Commission's Final Order with the recommended changes are forwarded to the
Council. The Council will then have a hearing; deliberate and will direct Staff to draft the ordinance and return
at the following meeting with the ordinance and at that point, the Council will adopt it. He informed the
Commission one complicating factor is that this is being treated as a Periodic Review task because it is listed
as one of our Periodic Review tasks as far as housekeeping and updating the development ordinance and
amending the sign ordinance. In closing, Staff reported once the City Council adopts the ordinance it is
forwarded to DLCD for acknowledgment. However, at this point, it is uncertain whether to wait until it is
acknowledged to make the ordinance effective; set a date out to allow time for the ordinance to become
acknowledged or just decide it becomes effective 30 days from the time the Council adopts it. He further
explained there is a certain amount of risk involved if something is implemented before it is acknowledged by
DLCD. However, he believed it should be effective by summertime.
REPORTS
A. Building Activity for December 2003
B.~. Planning Project Tracking Sheet (revised 12-30-03)
Staff said projects have been submitted but not much is moving forward at this point. He thought there might
be one hearing coming up the second regular meeting of the month.
Commissioner Vancil inquired why are there so many water treatment projects on the Planning Log?
Staff responded there have been significant modifications to all three projects to where Staff could not
determine they were in substantial conformance.
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
None
ADJOURN M ENT
Commissioner Loner.qan moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion.
Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 pm.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 8, 2004
Page 10 of 11
36
C
ATTEST
APPROVED
DATE
Commt~nity Development Director
City of ~.o..odbum, Oregon
"2-f2. o~-
Date
Planning Commission Meeting - January 8, 2004
Page 11 of 11
3'I
WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION
January 15, 2004
CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a special sssslon at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council
Chambers with Chairperson ama presiding.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Lima P
Vice Chairperson Young P
Commissioner Vancil P
Commissioner GHgorleff P
Commiceloner Mill A
Commissioner Bandelow P
Commissioner Lonergan P
Staff Present:
Jim Mulder, Community Development Director
Denlece Won, Assistant City Attomey
MINUTES
None
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
COMMUNICATIONS
A_.=. City Council Minute~ of December 8, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING
A._: Zoning Text Amendment 04-01: Proposal to amend the Woodburn SI,n Ordinance
Staff provided a brief history of the process of revising the sign ordinance. He reported the City Council
established the goal of revising the Woodbum Sign Ordinance during the 2002-2003 fiscal year and by March
2003, City Staff developed a draft revised sign ordinance. Participants in that process primarily consisted of
the City Administrator, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Senior Planner and the Assistant City
Attorney. In March 24, 2003, the Mayor appointed a Focus Group to review the Staff draft, which consisted
of nine members and was intended to represent various interests in the City. The Focus Group began its
review of the draft ordinance on September 18, 2003 and met once a week until it completed its review on
November 12, 2003. Additionally, the Focus Group by consensus made numerous revisions to the City Staff's
draft and the final product is identified as the Final Focus Group draft dated November 12, 2003. Stafffurther
informed the Commission the Woodbum Sign Ordinance was substantially amended in 1992 with one minor
revision in 1994. He indicated the Wocdbum Sign Ordinance contained many errors; did not address many
current sign issues and had many potential legal conflicts associated with those regulations. Minor revisions
are not sufficient to fix these deficiencies and therefore, in order to address those, the City Council included
an update of the Woodburn Sign Ordinance as a task in the City's Periodic Review work program which was
adopted in 1997. Moreover, the format of the Woodbum Development Ordinance, adopted in 2002 by the City
Council, presented the opportunity to incorporate any revisions to the Sign Ordinance in to the Development
Ordinance. He further commented in order to address all the issues necessary to update the Sign Ordinance,
a comprehensive revision was necessary. Therefore, the Woodburn Sign Ordinance will be repealed and the
proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance will be incorporated in to the Development Ordinance by adding
a section containing sign regulations and will then be contained within the Development Ordinance. Staff
reported the proposed sign regulation amendments are comprehensive and modify every provision of the
current Sign Ordinance including but not limited to, general modifications which include revised definitions
relating to signs; revised permitting procedures and requirements; new design review requirements for pole
signs and the use of neon tubing on building exteriors; revised list of exempt and prohibited sign types; new
provisions allowing temporary signs on a limited basis and; revised sign regulations for all zoning districts that
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004
Page 1 of 10
38
will modify the number, area, height and placement of signs permitted on a given property and; revised non-
conforming sign regulations. Moreover, the draft Sign Ordinance has been written with the goal of balancing
the need of businesses to identify themselves with the needs of the community to protect public safety and
provide an attractive community. The Woodbum Sign Ordinance has been revised to be consistent with
changes in State statutes and case law with an emphasis on ensuring content neutrality in the regulations of
signs and; are consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. He said no changes are
proposed that require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan does not
contain any goals or policies that relate directly to the regulation of signs. In conclusion, Staff recommended
the Planning Commission direct Staff to prepare a Final Order recommending that the City Council adopt the
draft Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner Bandelow was unsure as to whether or not she needed to declare her membership on the
Focus Group as an Ex Parte contact.
Deniece Won explained this is a legislative decision making process and therefore, the Ex Parte contact issue
would really not be applicable.
Cpmmissioner LonerRarl requested clarification as far as the Council repealing the current ordinance.
Staff responded the Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the Council and there would be
another public hearing. Assuming they agree with the revisions, they would adopt an ordinance by a majority
vote of the Council.
Chairperson Lima opened the public hearing and opened for public comment.
Richard Jenninos. 595 Filbert St.. Woodburn, OR 97071 commented the Sign Ordinance was discussed for
quite some length beck when he was still a member of the elected body. He mentioned it is known that the
City of Woodburn does not have to obey its own ordinances and he felt the School District needed to be
included some place along with government. Mr. Jennings further stated the School's requirements, in many
cases, are completely different from anybody else that has ever walked on the face of the earth. Additionally,
he mentioned we have gone through many headaches with the School District all because they were not
addressed as a separate entity, however, not privileged. He said it was ridiculous to him that Nellie Muir
School could not place their reader board back out by the street and had to put it on the side of the building
after the old one rusted and blew over. Mr. Jennings further reported you could hardly read the reader board
and is not noticeable as you drive past the site. He indicated in speaking with Staff, it was his belief there isn't
anything included in the ordinance that addressed that and suggested and encouraged the Planning
Commission to perhaps include something in the ordinance to address that. In closing, Mr. Jennings
indicated he was pleased that the ordinance was being revised.
Staff corn mented the draft does accommodate schools because the current sign code does not allow any type
of permanent signs for uses that are in public and residential zones which was one of the problems with the
current sign ordinance. This issue has been addressed in the draft code by allowing signs in residential and
public zones. A school would be allowed a wall sign and a monument sign, not to exceed 32 sq. ft. plus a
reader board sign, not to exceed 18 sq. ft. under the draft sign ordinance. Staff further explained temporary
sign permits would be allowed in this zone for any use that is not a single or two family residence. Schools
would be allowed four 15-day periods per year where they could have special event signage.
Commissioner Bandelow pointed out allowing temporary signs for an event 60 days a year may well cover
Mr. Jennings' concerns.
Richard Edmonds. Woodburn Automotive and Mufflers, Hil~che~ and More, 555 N. Pacific Hwy. and 525 N.
Pacific Hwy.. Woodburn. OR 97071 stated he has been fighting with the City for over 2 years over his sign
and has been denied where others have been allowed to have the same type of signs. Furthermore, he
indicated Elida Sifuentez, City Councilor, requested he be appointed to the Focus Group and he was never
appointed. He said he recently submitted an application and was once again denied. Mr. Edmonds reported
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004
Page 2 of 10
39
he currently has a reader board sign and he wanted to put the automotive sign on top of it and change the
reader board to an LED reader board. Back in 1997-1998, he was told it could be considered if it was done
in good taste. Since there were a lot of issues with his building, he wanted to bring up this fight on its own
merit and not have it mixed in with other issues. It was noted by Mr. Edmonds, Miles Chevrolet's sign
company spoke with the City and were able to obtain a permit for an LED sign. He further stated he hired the
same sign company used by Miles Chevrolet and they submitted paperwork to the City. They were told
everything was fine with a manual LED and new sign except he wes only allowed 75 sq. and his sign is 78
sq. ft. Mr. Edmonds further remarked Staff suggested rounding his logo instead of making it square and that
would be dose enough. Mr. Edmonds said he stirred up the hornets nest by informing the City he is multiple
businesses and was entitled to up to 150 sq. ft. Furthermore, he was then told by the City he could have two
signs 75 sq. ft. each in that case. In speaking with his attorney, they decided to stack up the signs separately
in the ground and not touch each other making them two separate signs but now they are at 124 sq. ft. The
City said no to that because they consider that to be one sign and he was only allowed 75 sq. ft., not 150 sq.
ft. In pressing the City further, he was told they no longer issue LED sign permits at this time, locking him out
completely. Itwas pointed out by Mr. Edmonds the Kodak Magic business applied for a sign in the same time
frame he did and they were able to obtain a permit after fighting the City. Moreover, they were told the
business used to be a bank and it had a sign that gave the time and temperature and were also informed they
could be grand fathered in and the sign could be installed as long as they used the same box. Mr. Edmonds
said he told the City he was upgrading his reader board sign and was told by the City he did not have an
electrical sign which he told them he did. He further indicated the City then recommended that he pull his
request and wait until after the draft code was finalized to which he refused because under the new code the
sizes are being lower and multiple businesses are eliminated. Mr. Edmonds stated he also informed Staff he
wanted to submit his application now and he wanted them to tell him that he could not upgrade his sign
because he was documenting the City. According to Mr. Edmonds, the paperwork was returned to him
indicating his application had been denied. He claimed only a few businesses in town, including his, have that
type of signage and inquired why was it even a recommendation to have internally illuminated awnings
prohibited? He spoke about grand fathering a sign and questioned what are the Building Officials credentials
to determine the percentage of the current replacement cost? Mr. Edmonds made reference to the lack of
utilization of the word 'upgrade' in the code and mentioned it was the word given to the photo business to
allow their sign. He requested clarification as to the determination of 'upgrade'. He also noted Photo Magic
and Miles Chevrolet both have a roll and scroll sign and he has also seen the Woodbum High School sign roll
and scroll several times. In closing, he said when he asked Staff whether his current application would be
accepted after the draft code was approved he was told they could not tell. He informed the Commission he
has wanted a reader board sign since 1980 and has tried every possible angle to work with the City to obtain
one. He asked why internal illuminated signs were eliminated when there are not enough of them in town to
have been an issue and what makes a sign a public nuisance? Mr. Edmonds referred to a time he was told
that a neighbor called in to complain about construction of his business only to find out that nobody
complained and there was no record of such complaint. He questioned why has he gone for two years of
fighting this thing back and forth and being told no? He also wondered why it seemed the City goes out of
their way to help others and out of their way to stop him?
Commissioner Bandelow clarified electronic reader boards were prohibited when the City presented the
original draft because it wes their position not to allow them. As the Focus Group got further in to it, they
added the electronic reader boards. She made it very clear that decision did not come from the City and it
was something that came from the local businesses.
Chairperson Lima remarked Mr. Edmonds brought up examples of problems the City has been facing for a
long time and the proliferation of signs for which there is very little guidance or ordinance.
Commissioner Loner.qan inquired where would Mr. Edmonds' sign request fall under the draft ordinance?
Staff replied he was not aware of the details of Mr. Edmonds' proposal and would certainly have to look at that.
However, a proposal for an electronic changeable copy sign Is permitted In the draft ordinance.
Richard Edmonds argued Staff was aware of his application because the paperwork was forwarded to the
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004
Page 3 of 10
4O
Director. He explained he spoke with the new Planner and was informed at that time a definition from the
Director needed to be obtained. After speaking with the Director, the Planner returned and reported the
application was denied.
Staff responded he was aware of Mr. Edmonds submittal for a sign but not the details. He pointed out the
issue tonight was the draft sign ordinance. He indicated he had not met with Mr. Edmonds to discuss the
issue but would be more than happy to talk to him about it.
Commissioner Loneraan asked Mr. Edmonds whether he felt his proposal fits the draft ordinance?
Richard Edmonds replied affirmatively. He said the sign is 50 sq. ft. with the total of that not being over 50
ft. and they were at 48 sq. ft. to begin with.
Vice Chairoerson Youn= mentioned the current ordinance has been very problematic and difficult to enforce
and be consistent. A lot of people from the community have spent a lot of time looking at that and tried to
come up with better solutions. He stated we are trying to establish a consistent policy because obviously the
old sign ordinance does not work as illustrated by Mr. Edmonds' frustration. Vice Chairperson Young further
added they are trying to move forward with a now ordinance that defines everything, is clear, useable and
workable for the community.
Chairperson Lima remarked although he was not trying to minimize Mr. Edmonds' frustration, they are
relatively small compared to the frustrations the Commission has endured in trying to come up with something
that will benefit everyone. He further commented there is a proliferation of unsafe non-conforming signs and
the intent is to try to give everyone an equal chance. Chairperson Lima indicated it was difficult for him to
comprehend that a City could be working against a business. He told Mr. Edmonds the Planning Director was
willing to meet with him and Chairperson Lima hoped the issue could be resolved to the satisfaction of beth
parties. He thanked Mr. Edmonds for providing his testimony.
Richard Edmonds added he has been fighting with the City since 1989 regarding several issues all of which
he has documented.
Chairoerson Lima closed the public hearing and opened Commission discussion.
Commissioner Vancil remarked it has been his impression that the City of Woodburn has tried to be friendly
to businesses obviously, in this case, they failed. He recommended there be a section in the ordinance that
speaks about the appeal process because it should not take two years for this to come to other bodies.
Commissioner Vancil asked Staff what recourse would a business person that disagreed with a ruling under
the now ordinance, if adopted, would have in order to bring it to the attention of somebody at the next level?
Staff addressed Commissioner Vancil's comment about the City failing. He remarked there are constantly
times when people are not happy with regulations and for whatever reason are not satisfied. Staff pointed out
that did not mean the City has failed but that there simply is a difference of opinion. Additionally, he stated
the appeal process is addressed in the draft Sign Ordinance for Type I permits (sign permit and temporary
sign permit). He explained the Community Development Director makes the final decision on both of those
because they are considered ministerial permits with clear and objective standards and therefore, no
interpretation would be involved. Based on that, the Community Director's decision is final and the only appeal
right would be an appeal to the court. However, the design review for a Type II application requires a design
review application, which is a discretionary approval and the Community Development Director would make
that decision but that would follow typical land use decisions where notice would then be sent out and there
would be an appeal right to the City Council because that involves discretion. As far as someone not being
happy with a decision, they can bring that up to a supervisor, ultimately the City Administrator or City Council
if they do not like a regulation.
Commissioner Vancil clarified his comment about failure was not directed to Staff personally or any individual
staff member. He indicated he was referring to when a business person has invested as heavily in the
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004
Page 4 of 10
41
community as Mr. Edmonds has felt like they have been baffling with the City for 15 years. Obviously there
is a huge communication gap, who's fault it is isn't important but it is something we need to be careful to try
not replicate. He also said he wants to be business friendly but still have a decent community.
Staff mentioned the intent of this ordinance was to try to balance the desires of the community to deal with
aesthetics and safety with the needs of the business community to advertise their goods and services.
Commissioner Loner,qan commented he felt it has accomplished that. Additionally, he remarked there is quite
a cross section that the City drew from to obtain input and he admired and appreciated the effort that has gone
into this. However, he expressed concerns with whether the City will commit and enforce this once it is put
in use because historically, the City has not done that.
Vice Chairperson Youna added at least they have the opportunity for enforcement with the new ordinance
because it is more consistent than the current ordinance.
Commissioner Bandelow referred to Mr. Edmonds' question regarding who decides whether or not a sign is
a nuisance or unsafe. She assumed it would depend on which ever jurisdiction it applied to as to what the
nuisance is or whether or not it is unsafe.
Staff responded a lot of the nuisance issues are addressed in the sign code, i.e., not having signs in the vision
clearance area or in the right-of-way. The Building Official potentially could declare a nuisance based on
building or electrical codes or could come under the nuisance ordinance itself as far as a sign becoming
deteriorated to such extent to where it is in imminent danger of falling over.
Deniece Won interjected the nuisance ordinance has a list of things that are just declared nuisances outright
which include obstruction in the right-of-way. She further explained there is a public hearing process where
the persons rights get determined and by hearing what the facts are and arriving at a decision. The
procedures are pretty well outlined in the current codes.
Commissioner Bandelow commented the Focus Group went back and forth with the question of allowing
blimps. Originally there would be nothing that qualified as a blimp and then a case was made by some other
business and blimps were put back in. She further reported after it was included there was further discussion
and some of the members of the Focus Group felt it might have been an error to include it in the code.
Commissioner Bandelow could not recall whether the Commission discussed it during last weeks meeting and
whether or not it would be something we might recommend to the City Council to change. She indicated she
believed reducing the percentage of window signs was also discussed.
Commissioner Loner.qan felt window signs could be seen as just an extension of the wall sign and having 50%
window coverage is unattractive. He favored a 25% limitation on the size of window signs.
Vice Chairperson YounR was not convinced it should be reduced to 25% because a small business with a very
small window may not have an opportunity to have a sign in their window.
Commissioner Bandelow said although she agreed with Vice Chairperson Young's comment, she was unsure
whether the percentage of window coverage should be limited.
There was further discussion among the Commissioners regarding window coverage.
ChairDerson Lima pointed out what we are trying to do is restrict the proliferation of signs. He mentioned the
big businesses are taking advantage of it much more than smaller businesses,
Vice Chairoerson Youno pointed out a lot of the businesses in town are small businesses.
Roll call was taken in favor of reducing the percentage of total window coverage from 50% to 25%. Vote was
split with three Ayes and three Nays. Vice Chairoerson YounR, Commissioner Bandelow and Commissioner
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004
Page 5 of 10
42
Gri.qorieff all voted No. The Planning Commission was evenly divided on this issue, so no change was
recommended.
Fluorescent lighting was also discussed.
Deniece Won clarified fluorescence is prohibited in the draft code.
Staff. explained it is one of the design review criteria and would only apply to Type II Design Review for a pole
sign and it would not apply to a window sign.
Deniece Won also pointed out you ara not prohibited from regulating something that you can identify like color.
Chairoerson Lima commented they could apply for a Variance if the sign is larger than 25%.
Staff indicated technically a Variance can be granted from any provision. However, Variances need to be
based on individual circumstances and normally there needs to be something unique about that situation that
creates a hardship that generally does not apply to others. Otherwise, you might as well change the code to
address that situation.
Vice Chairperson Youno also commented the qualifying part of being a sign in the window is that it is 6 inches
or less from the glass addresses some of the Commission's concerns.
Commissioner Vancil remarked there is a business on Highway 99E with a fluorescent sign above the
business with signs painted on the front windows that cover almost the entire glass front of the business. He
guessed it exceeded 50% window coverage but operationally it has been a permanent sign.
Commissioner Bandelow referred to blimps and stated it is easy to understand when businesses want
something for a specific event, i.e., grand opening. She also mentioned a blimp is defined as an inflatable
device 36 inches or greater in diameter anchored by some means to a structure or the ground. However, the
problems have been blimp type things above businesses that are not being removed. Commissioner
Bandelow further remarked more and more cities are eliminating blimps and she would like to see blimps
moved to the prohibited section.
Vice Chairperson Youn~ supported Commissioner Bandelow and commented as a motorist he finds blimps
to be distracting.
Commissioner Loneroan, and Commissioner Vanci! also supported Commissioner Bandelow.
Staff.. referred to page 91 of the draft sign ordinance and revised page D-1 and moved "blimps' to the next
sentence to read 'portable signs and blimps are spec'~fically not permitted: Additionally, he added "blimps'
under prohibited signs.
CQmmissioner Vanci! commented the 1-minute change on LED signs needed to be revisited because that rule
was currently not being followed. He further remarked in listening to Mr. Edmonds' testimony it did not sound
like many businesses would want to follow that ordinance nor did it sound like it was something that would be
enforced.
Staff stated that has been Staff's contention all along which was why Staff's draft did not allow electronic signs.
Commissioner Vancil interjected he was not suggesting to do away with them but to try to regulate them to
only changing once per minute.
Staff indicated it would not make a difference whether it be 1 minute, 5 minutes, or 3 seconds. He explained
Staff's draft did not allow electronic signs because you open that door and it will become an enforcement
problem no matter what type of restriction you put on the timing of the changing of the message. The Focus
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004
Page 6 of 10
43
Group did not agree with that and determined they did want to allow them but they wanted to place a
restriction on the change of the message. Staff clarified that was the Focus Group's decision and is what
came forward to the Commission. However, the Commission could decide how they want to deal with that
situation.
Commissioner Bandelow pointed out it could be dangerous to try to change letters on reader boards
particularly on the taller signs. She understood businesses need to be able to change the message and do
so in a safe manner utilizing today's technology and she certainly sympathized with the City's enforcement
problem.
Commissioner Vancil wondered why do we want to get that specific about enforcement?
Staff replied the concern was the flashing and scrolling particularly at night and that it would be too obnoxious.
Commissioner Gri.qorieff commented you sit in your car watching the sign change while you wait for the traffic
light to change and the whole idea is to regulate it so that does not occur. Commissioner Grigorieff also
stated LED signs are the wave of the future and there is nothing we could do about that. Furthermore, she
indicated a minute sounded logical to her because that would help deter people becoming distracted and
possibly cause accidents.
Commissioner Vancil questioned what recourse does the City have if a business has an LED sign and it
changes every 15 seconds instead of every minute?
Staff responded it would ultimately be the same recourse as any violation of the sign ordinance.
~ said ultimately you can force them to stop doing what they are doing and they could be fined
the maximum fine ($500) under City ordinances.
Commissioner Vancil requested guidance from Staff as to how we might address the concern regarding the
School District being addressed as a separate entity without losing the ability to enforce things like a scrolling
sign.
Staff. answered the School District received a Variance to have the High School reader board sign and there
was a condition placed on the Variance that the message not change more than once every three minutes.
He asked Ms. Won whether a condition on a Variance even after adoption of this ordinance would take
precedent over the ordinance or if the ordinance is more restrictive than a Variance condition?
Deniece Won felt that would require some research in order to be able to provide a good answer.
Commissioner Vancil noted the ordinance is currently written where the School District would have to follow
the same regulations about signage that a business would but the City would not. Commissioner Vancil felt
that has to be remedied.
Staff clarified the fact that the City is exempt does not necessarily mean that they can do whatever they want.
It has been his experience with other cities that have the same type of exemption Councils have normally
directed Staff to follow the rules when at all possible. However, they are exempt and if they wish to do
something d~erent they can. He also explained unique situations invariably come up where it is not always
desirable to have to go through a Variance process and spend tax payer dollars to deal with that situation.
Commissioner Bandelow mentioned as an exemption it allows the City to do some things in the right-of-way
like the flower baskets that they would not be able to do if they were bound to giving the City some latitude.
D~ interjected the right-of-way subject of a lot of the types of signs the City puts up are in the right-
of-way and are done for public safety, traffic control and regulation purposes and is why it was written to
exempt the City from the sign regulations.
Planning Commission Meeting - Jattuary 1~, 2004
Page 7 of 10
Commissioner Vancil remarked when looking at different types of signs there were signs in front of the
administrative offices of the City that do not comply and comments were made in that we would not have to
change that because the City does not have to comply. He added it had nothing to do with right-of-way, it had
to do with privilege.
Commissioner Gri.qorieff commented it is going to take a chunk of change to fix all of the City owned non-
conforming signs and certainly nobody wants to pay any additional taxes than needed. She suggested to let
be the signs that look nice but have the City conform to the ordinance from this time on.
Staff further stated signs on private property do not have to conform when the ordinance is adopted and there
are things that would have to happen to trigger them to conform.
Commissioner Vancil pointed out Mr. Jennings brought up a relevant issue in that do we want to make the
School District conform to the new sign ordinance.
Staff said essentially the same body that is responsible for adopting the sign ordinance is also the one who
is ultimately responsible for the signs that the City puts on their own property and are accountable to the
public. He further stated Councils normally are not going to be in favor of Staff putting up signs that do not
conform to the sign code as it applies to other properties. A Council would need to be comfortable with that
because they do not want to get complaints from citizens because they are the ones that are ultimately held
accountable. Staff also explained to try to give that same right to an entity that isn't accountable for the sign
ordinance is more of a stretch.
Commissioner Vancil inquired whether a paragraph could be inserted in the ordinance about accommodation
being made to public agencies where appropriate?
Commissioner Bandelow mentioned there is enough latitude there for the School to do just about anything
and now they have a lot more latitude because they are granted the temporary signs and could do some
events that they have been prohibited in the past.
There was Commission consensus regarding the 1-minute change on LED signs.
Chairperson Lima made reference to directory signs and asked Staff whether those will not be allowed?
Staff indicated directories for non-residential complexes with two or more buildings and multiple family
residential complexes with four or more buildings shall be limited to a maximum of one street access and shall
be located a minimum of 50 fl. from a street-right-of-way; each directory shall be limited to a maximum of 24
sq. ft. and a maximum height of 8 ft.
Commissioner Vancil made reference to Mr. Edmonds' inquiry regarding why awning signs were left out of
the code. He indicated it was his understanding that had to do with aesthetics and it did not mean that any
current awning signs would be removed but rather that new ones would not be allowed.
Commissioner Bandelow noted grand fathered signs are those that were erected lawfully with permits will be
able to stay and do not have to come down at any particular time except if they were to become unsafe;
damaged greater than 50%; if the premises were vacated more than 180-days or; if the use of the entire
parcel changes, then the signs would have to come in to conformity.
Chairperson Lima said he expected to see something more restrictive. However, he realized there needs to
be a certain degree of limitation but not to interfere with the businesses. He further indicated we are trying to
accomplish a more aesthetically pleasing, fair sign ordinance for the City of Woodburn. Chairperson Lima
noted for the record two letters attached to the draft ordinance, received from Mr. Dick Pugh and Capital
Development Company.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004
Page 8 of 10
Commissioner Bandelow said there was discussion as to whether or not there should be anything different
for the freeway based businesses. The Focus Group did review that and the consensus was that the City has
grown so much that anyone approaching our interchanges are well aware that we can provide any service
they need (restaurants, gas stations, etc.). She further reported there was considerable feeling amongst some
of the businesses that we should not be favoring freeway businesses over those that are located perhaps two
or three blocks in. No special freeway designation was in the original draft brought by the City nor was them
any recommendation by the Focus Group to do that. Commissioner Bandelow further informed one of the
Focus Group members, Mr. Pugh, felt very strongly that them should be a time frame perhaps four-five years
down the road where all of the lawfully established but non-conforming signs under the new code would have
to come down and businesses would have to change their signage to conform with the new ordinance.
However, the Focus Group, with the exception of Mr. Pugh, felt strongly that businesses that put up signs and
maintain them in a lawful manner should not be forced to remove them because it would be too great a
hardship to put on businesses and they did not want to discourage them. She also mentioned you do not
know what the feeling of the City will be five years from now. Additionally, she pointed out the consensus of
opinion of the Focus Group was that some of the signs that do not meet the new design standards are not bad
signs and they felt the businesses should not be punished and required to remove them if they were erected
lawfully with a permit and should be able to keep them.
Vice Chairperson Youno referred to Capital Development's letter and commented they have a very, very large
parcel freeway frontage which is larger than what Wood bum Company Stores currently have for their frontage.
Moreover, any restrictions on the size of signs would be a point of contention as they would want to have a
large sign and would probably approach it the same way Company Stores did by requesting a Variance.
Commissioner Loneroan moved to adopt Zone Text Amendment 04-01 with the verbiage addition on page
91 Section D-1 to include blimps as prohibited and; move blimps from allowed for temporary sign to prohibited
as a temporary sign. Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion, which unanimously carried.
Vice Chairperson Youno complimented Staff and the Focus Group on their work in bringing this ordinance
forward.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
Staff informed the Commission there is a regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for next week.
Although, there are no agenda items for that meeting Staff indicated he could place the Final Order for
tonight's action for the next meeting and left it up to the discretion of the Commission.
Commissioner Loner.qan moved to cancel January 22, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Bandelow. Motion unanimously carried.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
REPORTS
None
BU$1NE$8 FROM THE COMMISSION
Chairperson Lima requested an update regarding Planning Commission term expirations.
Staff reported the Mayor recommended reappointment of Commissioner Lonergan and Commission Vancil
and was ratified by City Council. Staff congratulated them in their reappointed. However, he stated
Commissioner Mill requested not to be reappointed and the Mayor will probably make an appointment at the
next Council meeting. He stated the Mayor indicated she has people in mind for vacant positions, which he
assumed included the Planning Commission.
Vice Chairperson Youna announced, for the record, Commissioner Mill was out ill tonight and unable to attend
the meeting.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004
Page 9 of 10
46
Chairperson Lima thanked Commissioner Mill for his contribution to the Commission and for a job well done.
Commissioner Loner.qan moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion.
Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm.
CLAUDIO LIMA, CHAIRPERSON DATE
Jim Muld.~'7" v- -
Community Development Director
City ~oodbum, Oregon
Date
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004
Page 10 of 10
47
DRAFT
8F
BUDGET COMMITTEE WORKSHOP MINUTES
January 31, 2004
DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF
MARION, STATE OF OREGON, JANUARY 31, 2004.
CONVENED. The Budget Committee met in a workshop session at 9:00 a.m. with Chairman
Jennings presiding.
ROLL CALL.
Grayce Higgins Present Richard Bjelland Absent
Richard Jennings Present Jim Cox Absent
Stan Milne Present Pete McCallum Present
Flurry Stone Present Walt Nichols Present
Bruce Thomas Present Elida Sifuentez Present
Cindy Vetter Absent Anthony Veliz Present
Staff Present: Administrator Brown, Finance Director Gillespie, Public Works Director Tiwari,
Police Chief Russell, Park & Recreation Director Westrick, Community Development Director
Mulder, Management Analyst Smith, City Recorder Tennant
Also present: Mayor Figley
Tape 1
Side A
Chairman Jennings stated that the purpose of this work session was to (1) review the City's
current budget status for 2003-04, (2) review proposed adjustments to the current budget,
and (3) discuss budget policies and meeting calendar for fiscal year 2004-05.
QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORTS.
Finance Director Gillespie reviewed the quarterly financial report listing revenues and
expenditures within the various funds as of December 31, 2003. Within each fund, he had
forecasted revenues through June 30, 2004 and he reviewed those revenue changes which
have a basis for proposed changes to be made within the current year's budget. In regards to
property taxes, the amount collected to date would indicate that the City will receive
approximately $106,000 more than budgeted due to the Assessor's office adding more
assessed value to the property tax roll than what was anticipated at the time the City's budget
was being developed. Other General Fund revenue sources projected to receive more than
budgeted are Woodburn Ambulance franchise fees, United Disposal franchise fees, Aquatic
Center lessons, and State cigarette taxes. Revenue sources projected to be less than
budgeted included Qwest franchise fees, Willamette Broadband franchise fees, Municipal
Court fines, Aquatic Center admissions, concessions and memberships, State liquor taxes,
and interest income.
Committee member McCallum questioned if the City will see further reduction in the State
cigarette and liquor taxes if Measure 30 is defeated by the voters in the upcoming state-wide
election.
Administrator Brown stated that there is no legislative action as of this date to take the taxes
away from the cities and counties, however, these tax distributions may be discussed at a
future legislative session.
Page 1 - Budget Committee Minutes, January 31, 2004
4.8
BUDGET COMMITTEE WORKSHOP MINUTES
January 31, 2004
Finance Director Gillespie stated that Building Permit revenues, State and City Gas Tax
revenues, water revenues and wastewater revenues are projected to be greater than the 2003-
04 budgeted amounts. The largest increase is in water revenue which is estimated to be 27%
greater than budgeted because of the high water usage during the dry summer months and
last year's rate increase generated more dollars than anticipated. The Council took action in
December 2003 to reduce the originally planned rate increase taking into account the higher
than expected revenues.
16.5
Director Gillespie proceeded to review the expenditures within each fund based on
percentage used to date. He stated that the Parks Administration expenses will be close to
the budgeted amount due to unanticipated expenses associated with the Skate Park. In
regards to system development charges, the revenues are greater than what has been
budgeted due to major construction projects such as Woodbum Company Stores expansion,
Salud Medical clinic expansion, a dental building in Glatt Circle, a Subway sandwich shop
on Stacy Allison Way, and classroom expansion within the Woodbum School District.
20.7
MID-YEAR BUDGET REVISIONS.
Director Gillespie stated that the City's beginning fund balance for all funds that have an
adjustment of $10,000 or more was approximately $977,000. These adjustments are
proposed to be included in a supplemental budget for 2003-04 for the purpose of bringing
the beginning fund balance for each fund to the audited fund balances.
Discussion was held regarding the contingency fund and retention of 10% or more within
that line when the beginning fund balance is greater than the original budgeted amount.
Administrator Brown stated that he strives to maintain a 10% balance however there have
been times when that balance has decreased during year due to unanticipated expenditures.
Committee member Stone questioned if another fund should be established to transfer extra
revenues into thereby maintaining sufficient revenues on hand for unanticipated operating
and capital expenses.
Administrator Brown stated that he uses the contingency fund similar to that of a reserve
fund and does not feel that there is a problem in continuing to place the funds in
contingency. A policy decision has been made over the last several years to maintain a
higher contingency balance and last year it was decided to lay off2.5 persons in the General
Fund in order to maintain the 10% level.
Committee member Stone expressed his opinion that the City Administrator has done a good
job on budgeting but was concem that if Administrator Brown is no longer with the City
then those funds should provide the City with some level of protection in case a new
Administrator has a different viewpoint on spending City funds.
Chairman Jennings expressed his opinion that a 10% contingency is a reasonable amount to
budget and expenditures of contingency during the fiscal year requires approval from the
Council.
A lengthy discussion was held regarding the contingency and reserve funds within the City's
budget and potential claims from the public that too much money is being held in reserve. It
was noted that the City has been in good financial shape over the last few years. In the event
the state-shared revenues for liquor and cigarettes are taken away by state legislation, the
City would be able to bounce back without a tremendous amount of negative impact.
Page 2 - Budget Committee Minutes, January 31, 2004
11.3
Tape 2
7.0
BUDGET COMMITTEE WORKSHOP MINUTES
January 31, 2004
Director Gillespie reviewed the proposed revisions to the 2003-04 budget detailed within the
agenda packet for this meeting. It was noted that the Police Department has incurred
additional overtime expenses due to a grant award for seatbelt and DUII enforcement,
School District agreement to compensate the City for overtime expenses to patrol high
school events, and overtime costs associated with an increase in workload.
Administrator Brown recommended that the Committee add another $50,000 to the Police
Department budget for the purpose of working in the downtown area to reduce crime before
the downtown plaza is completed. In reviewing options available to increase the traffic and
foot patrols in this area, staff is recommending that overtime funds be allocated to provide
an additional six hours of patrol every day until the end of this fiscal year.
Chairman Jennings felt that the proposed expenditure of funds for police overtime will be
well invested in cleaning up and changing the perception of the downtown core area.
Committee member Thomas stated that he was in favor of this proposal, however, it may not
work as well as one would hope if it is not done correctly.
Administrator Brown stated that there are jurisdictional issues that will be a factor in that
immigration violations are enforced by INS. However, the City can enforce laws relating to
prostitution and drag activity which is the type illegal activity that the department would
focus on with this project.
Chief Russell also stated that some of the funds would be used to build the Business Watch
program in the downtown area. Staff will be working on changing the environment and, as
the environment changes, it is hoped that the criminal element moves out of the area. The
urban renewal project will give the City an opportunity to change the environment and to
build a partnership with the business owners that will focus on keeping out the criminal
element.
Committee member McCallum expressed his support for this proactive approach before the
urban renewal project begins. However, he questioned if the City was prepared to shif~ to
another area within the City that might become the new location where criminal activity may
take place.
Chief Russell stated that this particular program is designed for the next six months,
however, the overall plan that will be presented as part of next year's budget proposal is
much more flexible. The downtown area to be patrolled is located between Front and
Second Street and from City Hall north to Harrison Street.
Further discussion was held regarding the need to provide more police patrol in the
downtown area in order to drive out the illegal activity that is currently taking place and the
District Attorney's willingness to work with the City to identify certain crimes that his office
would prosecute if individuals are cited for those specific crimes.
Finance Director Gillespie stated that the Police Records Management system will require
the purchase of some additional servers, hardware, and sof~are to make this system fully
functional. The City has entered into contractual arrangements with other cities to provide
this service and revenues received from these agencies will be used to pay for the equipment
and software. Additionally, the collaboration between the cities will allow for the
application of grant funds through homeland security that the City would not otherwise be
eligible to apply for if the City was on its own.
Page 3 - Budget Committee Minutes, January 31, 2004
150
13.9
18.1
BUDGET COMMITTEE WORKSHOP MINUTES
January 31, 2004
It was noted that the Park maintenance budget be increased by $1,830 for the purchase of an
alarm system and for vehicle maintenance.
Administrator Brown stated that the Periodic Review project will be more expensive than
what was originally estimated and the consultant has agreed to only charge the City about
two-thirds of his normal rate in order to complete this project. This project is getting close
to completion, however, as this document receives additional scrutiny at the County and
State level, staff expects some additional expenses to be incurred to make necessary
revisions as this process moves forward.
Committee member Stone requested that one of the budget sessions include a time period for
staff to educate the Committee on the urban growth boundary, urban renewal, and
transportation issues in an effort to help the Committee further understand the basis for
staff's funding recommendations relating to these projects.
Finance Director Gillespie stated that the net impact of the proposed adjustments within the
General Fund will increase the contingency line item by $29,000.
The Building Fund will see an increase in permit revenue, however, it is proposed that some
contingency funds be transferred for the purchase of a second vehicle in this department to
be used by the Building Official. Staff is also recommending the appropriation of $10,000
to provide for contract coverage when the Building Official is on vacation or sick leave and
$4,000 for additional supplies.
Director Gillespie stated that the City had purchased property on Front Street and another
parcel on Mt. Hood Avenue adjacent to Legion Park. Staff proposes to demolish the
structures at an approximate cost of $14,000.
Administrator Brown also proposed the transfer of $169,000 from the Housing
Rehabilitation fund to the General CIP fund for the purpose of completing the downtown
plaza project. The Housing Rehabilitation funds to be used are from pre-1989 grant funds
that have been repaid to the City. In regards to the plaza project, the initial cost projection
was for $175,000, however, the nature of the project has changed some for the initial design.
He reviewed the process followed in developing the final design and went over the
conceptual design features of the plaza project which would include a fountain and gazebo.
The estimated project cost is $294,000 but he assured the Committee that he would be
seeking donations in cash and materials/supplies rather than funding this project in full with
city funds.
The Committee members present did not object to the staff's proposed changes to the 2003-
04 and these changes will be submitted to the Council for consideration in the form of a
supplemental budget.
BUDGET POLICIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-05.
Administrator Brown reviewed the policies that are very similar to last year's policies. This
year, the departments will not be providing a decrease option, however, it will be up to the
City Administrator to decide if a decrease option is necessary pending Committee discussion
during the budget process. Staff also feels that the revenue for 2004-05 should be enough to
fund the increases in personnel costs, therefore, the department heads will be asked to hold
their baseline services and supplies at the current budget level. Increases in those levels
would require the department head to submit additional funds request.
Page 4 - Budget Committee Minutes, January 31, 2004
151
28.0
BUDGET COMMITTEE WORKSHOP MINUTES
January 31, 2004
Chairman Jennings also reminded the Committee that they will be holding a separate hearing
on the Urban Renewal budget as required by law.
Finance Director Gillespie reviewed the proposed budget calendar with the next workshop
scheduled for March 13, 2004. It was noted that April 17, 2004 is the date scheduled for the
Tulip Festival parade therefore the Committee tentatively set the meeting time for 1:00 p.m..
The workshop on the Capital Improvement Programs is scheduled for April 27, 2004 and the
budget heating will be held on May 15, 2004.
The workshop concluded at 11:00 a.m..
Stan Milne, Secretary
Minutes prepared by Mary Tennant, City Recorder
Page 5 - Budget Committee Minutes, January 31, 2004
152
WOODBURN PUBLIC LIBRARY
MONTHLY REPORT FOR JANUARY 2004
8G
I. CIRCULATION
Current: 13,587
Adult: 9,473
Children: 4,114
In-House Use: 2,250
II. INTERLIBRARY LOAN
III.
Books Loaned: 1,208
Previous:
2003
2002
2001
CCRLS: 1,206
In-State Special: 0
Books Borrowed:
All Other In-State: 2
Out-Of-State: 0
CCRLS: 1,129
In-State Special: 0
All Other In-State: 16
Out-Of-State: 6
12,972
13,660
13,182
REFERENCE
Woodburn Referrals Other Total
2004 959 39 1,121 2,119
2003 978 40 1,206 2,224
2002 1,083 78 1,369 2,530
2001 948 81 1,108 2,137
Database Usage:
January 714
(not all data bases included)
IV. COMPUTER USAGE
Adults: 2,417
Children: 956
Average per open hours: 11.14
Average per open hours: 4.41
LIBRARY SPONSORED PROGRAMS
Adults: I No. Attending: 22
Children: 21 No. Attending: 515
VI. VOLUNTEER HOURS WORKED
151.25
VII. FINANCE
$2,004.93
VIII. HOLDINGS
New Adds For The Month of January: 469
78,700
IX. PATRON LOAN TYPES
16,972
Monthly Statistics: January 2004
53
WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y O F W O 0 D B U R N PAGE 1
DATE 2/18/04 AP0460
TIME 16:03:27 CHECK REGISTER VEEOT
CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE
BANK ACCOUNT AP A/P Accounts Payable
72361 1/30/2004 EAGLE WEB PRESS RECONCILED YES 850.21 850.21
72362 1/30/2004 SHIRLEY BAUMGARDNER RECONCILED YES 376.63 376.63
72363 1/30/2004 RYAN C PARADIS RECONCILED YES 769.63 769.63
72364 1/30/2004 MARIEA STAYER RECONCILED YES 300.00 300.00
72365 1/30/2004 CITY OF WOODBURN PETTY CA RECONCILED YES 161.69 161.69
72367 1/09/2004 A-1 COUPLING RECONCILED YES 242.16 242.16
72368 1/09/2004 AEROTEK INC RECONCILED YES 170.00 170.00
72369 1/09/2004 ANNE ROSALES RECONCILED YES 195.00 195.00
72370 1/09/2004 AR~RK UNIFORM SERVICE I RECONCILED YES 105.44 105.44
72371 1/09/2004 ARCH WIRELESS RECONCILED YES 101.21 101.21
72372 1/09/2004 AT & T RECONCILED YES 41.84 41.84
72373 1/09/2004 AWARDS AND ATHLETICS RECONCILED YES 13.00 13.00
72374 1/09/2004 BATTERIES PLUS RECONCILED YES 189.93 189.93
72375 1/09/2004 BEN-KO-MATIC INC. RECONCILED YES 2,015.65 2,015.65
72376 1/09/2004 BI-MART CORPORATION RECONCILED YES 154.13 154.13
72377 1/09/2004 BOB & SIkRAMITCHELL RECONCILED YES 25.00 25.00
72378 1/09/2004 BONNIE DYER RECONCILED YES 24.13 24.13
72379 1/09/2004 CALDWELL BANKER RECONCILED YES 36.45 36.45
72380 1/09/2004 CANBY TELEPHONE ASSOC RECONCILED YES 39.90 39.90
72381 1/09/2004 COASTAL FARM HOME SUPPLY RECONCILED YES 58.98 58.98
72382 1/09/2004 COASTWIDELABORATORIES RECONCILED YES 272.22 272.22
72383 1/09/2004 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO. RECONCILED YES 36.78 36.78
72384 1/09/2004 CORPORATE EXPRESS RECONCILED YES 378.16 378.16
72385 1/09/2004 COUNTRYWIDE HOMES RECONCILED YES 11.88 11.88
72386 1/09/2004 DSU PETERBUILT & GMC ACT# RECONCILED YES 69.60 69.60
72387 1/09/2004 ELLEN BA-RLOW RECONCILED YES 33.16 33.16
72388 1/09/2004 ENVIRO-CLEAN EQUIPMENT RECONCILED YES 89.71 89.71
72389 1/09/2004 ERNIE GE~ OIL, INC RECONCILED YES 906.16 906.16
72390 1/09/2004 FARMWORKERS HOUSING RECONCILED YES 2.68 2.68
72391 1/09/2004 FARMWORKERS HOUSING DEVEL RECONCILED YES 1,228.50 1,228.50
72392 1/09/2004 FEDEP~ EXPRESS CORP RECONCILED YES 37.54 37.54
72393 1/09/2004 FLORENCE THOMAS RECONCILED YES 29.65 29.65
72394 1/09/2004 FREEDOM PROPERTIES INC RECONCILED YES 39.77 39.77
72395 1/09/2004 G.K. MACHINE RECONCILED YES 16.82 16.82
72396 1/09/2004 G.W. flARDWARE CENTER RECONCILED YES 22.19 22.19
72397 1/09/2004 GOV'T FINANCE OFFICERS AS RECONCILED YES 195.00 195.00
72398 1/09/2004 HERITAGE HOMES RECONCILED YES 56.02 56.02
72399 1/09/2004 HIRE CALLING INC RECONCILED YES 4,873.62 4,873.62
72400 1/09/2004 HOME DEPOT GECF RECONCILED YES 38.57 38.57
72401 1/09/2004 HUGGINS INSUR~CE AGENCY RECONCILED YES 562.93 562.93
72402 1/09/2004 INDUSTRIAL WELDING SUPPLY RECONCILED YES 63.00 63.00
72403 1/09/2004 INSTRUME/qT SALES & SERVIC RECONCILED YES 21.06 21.06
72404 1/09/2004 INTL ASSOC FOR PROPERTY & RECONCILED YES 40.90 40.90
72405 1/09/2004 JEFF TUCKER RECONCILED YES 37.50 37.50
72406 1/09/2004 JERRY TABLER RECONCILED YES 131.81 131.81
72407 1/09/2004 JOY CONSTRUCTION RECONCILED YES 19.12 19.12
72408 1/09/2004 L & L BUILDING SUPPLIES RECONCILED YES 1.04 1.04
72409 1/09/2004 LAWRENCE COMPANY RECONCILED YES 200.00 200.00
72410 1/09/2004 MACHINERY COMPONENTS CO I RECONCILED YES 70.01 70.01
72411 1/09/2004 MARK NYI~ RECONCILED YES 20.60 20.60
72412 1/09/2004 MARY FIOCCHI RECONCILED YES 40.28 40.28
72413 1/09/2004 IW~ATTHEW K. GWYNN RECONCILED YES 145.95 145.95
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
oo
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
WOODBLrRN LIVE C I T Y O F W O O D B U R N PAGE 2
DATE 2/18/04 AP0460
TIME 16:03:27 CHECK REGISTER VEEOT
CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE
72414 1/09/2004 MCCORMICK BARKDUST RECONCILED YES 180.00 180.00
72415 1/09/2004 MCCULLY REALTY RECONCILED YES 16~96 16.96
72416 1/09/2004 METROFUELING, INC. RECONCILED YES 2,034.04 2,034.04
72417 1/09/2004 MIGUEL SALINAS RECONCILED YES 8.06 8.06
72418 1/09/2004 MILES CHEVROLET RECONCILED YES 23.09 23.09
72419 1/09/2004 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION REN RECONCILED YES 314.28 314.28
72420 1/09/2004 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS RECONCILED YES 598.82 598.82
72422 1/09/2004 NORTH CREEK ANALYTICAL IN RECONCILED YES 464.40 464.40
72423 1/09/2004 NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS RECONCILED YES 9,324.41 9,324.41
72424 1/09/2004 NURNBERG SCIENTIFIC RECONCILED YES 29.00 29.00
72425 1/09/2004 0AMR RECONCILED YES 40.00 40.00
72426 1/09/2004 OREGON MAYOR'S ASSOC RECONCILED YES 125.00 125.00
72427 1/09/2004 OREGON VINEYARD SUPPLY RECONCILED YES 552.00 552.00
72429 1/09/2004 0SU/IPPC MYRON SHENK RECONCILED YES 160.00 160.00
72430 1/09/2004 TEREXUTILITIES WEST RECONCILED YES 231.00 231.00
72431 1/09/2004 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC RECONCILED YES 37,003.29 37,003.29
72432 1/09/2004 PREMIER HOME BUILDERS RECONCILED YES 36.48 36.48
72434 1/09/2004 PW DISTRIBUTING INC RECONCILED YES 510.60 510.60
72435 1/09/2004 QWEST RECONCILED YES 2,291.42 2,291.42
72436 1/09/2004 R~IX CORPORATION RECONCILED YES 181.00 181.00
72437 1/09/2004 RR:NAISS.~ENCE CUSTOM HOMES RECONCILED YES 107.75 107.75
72438 1/09/2004 ROBERT & MYRTLE BOLSTER RECONCILED YES 41.00 41.00
72439 1/09/2004 ROSE PAPER PRODUCTS RECONCILED YES 1,507.40 1,507.40
72440 1/09/2004 SCHNEIDER EQUIPMENT INC RECONCILED YES 12,477.71 12,477.71
72441 1/09/2004 SIERRA SPRINGS RECONCILED YES 98.75 98.75
72442 1/09/2004 SIGNWORKS OF OREGON RECONCILED YES 472.00 472.00
72443 1/09/2004 SILKE COMMUNICATIONS INC RECONCILED YES 46.34 46.34
72444 1/09/2004 SPRINT RECONCILED YES 124.48 124.48
72446 1/09/2004 STEVE KRIEG RECONCILED YES 64.50 64.50
72447 1/09/2004 TEK SYSTEMS INC RECONCILED YES 736.00 736.00
72448 1/09/2004 UNEQUALLED JANITORIAL SVC RECONCILED YES 438.00 438.00
72449 1/09/2004 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERV RECONCILED YES 500.00 500.00
72450 1/09/2004 VALLEY PACIFIC FLOP~ RECONCILED YES 56.90 56.90
72452 1/09/2004 WADE OWENS RECONCILED YES 29.58 29.58
72453 1/09/2004 WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC RECONCILED YES 543.92 543.92
72454 1/09/2004 WEST COAST CONSTRUCTION RECONCILED YES 10.04 10.04
72455 1/09/2004 WILLAMETTE BROADBAND RECONCILED YES 316.74 316.74
72456 1/09/2004 WITHERS LUMBER RECONCILED YES 46.08 46.08
72457 1/09/2004 WOODBLq%/q FERTILIZER RECONCILED YES 24.00 24.00
72458 1/09/2004 WOODBU~ INDEPENDENT RECONCILED YES 154.50 154.50
72459 1/09/2004 YES GRAPHICS RECONCILED YES 161.78 161.78
72460 1/30/2004 WILLIAM A. TORRES RECONCILED YES 550.00 550-00
72461 1/30/2004 NITA J b~%RE RECONCILED YES 500.00 500.00
72462 1/30/2004 L. CRAIG HALUPOWSKI RECONCILED YES 500.00 500.00
72463 1/30/2004 OREGON DEPART. OF REVENUE RECONCILED YES 10.45 10.45
72464 1/30/2004 DUAN8 BARRICK RECONCILED YES 1,200.00 1,200.00
72465 1/30/2004 AMY QUIGLEY RECONCILED YES 500.00 500.00
72466 1/30/2004 ERIC JAMES RECONCILED YES 700.00 700.00
72467 1/30/2004 RICHARD MCCORD RECONCILED YES 500.00 500.00
72468 1/30/2004 VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN RECONCILED YES 805.50 805.50
72470 1/16/2004 A-Z STAMP & ENGRAVING, LL RECONCILED YES 23.80 23.80
72471 1/16/2004 ACE SEPTIC & EXCAVATING I RECONCILED YES 745.50 745.50
72472 1/16/2004 AEEOTEK INC RECONCILED YES 120.00 120.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
.00
.00
.00
WOODBLTRN LIVE
DATE 2/18/04
TIME 16:03:27
CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME
=====================================================
72473 1/16/2004 AP~RK UNIFORM SERVICE I
CITY OF W O O D B U R N PAGE 3
AP0460
CHECK REGISTER VEEOT
STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE
=======================================================================
72474 1/16/2004 ARCH WIRELESS
72475 1/16/2004 AT & T
72476 1/16/2004 BEERY & ELSNER LLP
72477 1/16/2004 BLL~MENTHAL UNIFORM & EQUI
72478 1/16/2004 BOLDT, CARLISLE & SMITH L
72479 1/16/2004 CASH REGISTER SALES CO
72480 1/16/2004 CIS: CITY-CTY INS. SERVS.
72481 1/16/2004 CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO.
72483 1/16/2004 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER CO
72484 1/16/2004 CUES
72485 1/16/2004 CURTIS STULTZ
72486 1/16/2004 DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING ASSOC
72487 1/16/2004 EN~IRO-CLEAN EQUIPMENT
72488 1/16/2004 EVEN-FREE ADVERTISING
72489 1/16/2004 FRY'S ELECTRONICS
72491 1/16/2004 GAYLORD BROS, INC.
72492 1/16/2004 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL
72494 1/16/2004 BEWLETT PACKARD
72495 1/16/2004 HIRE CALLING INC
72496 1/16/2004 HONEY BUCKBT
72497 1/16/2004 INDUSTRIAL WELDING SUPPLY
72498 1/16/2004 INGRAMDIST. GROUP
72499 1/16/2004 INGRAM ENTERTAINMENT
72500 1/16/2004 INTERN'TAL ASSOC CHIEFS P
72501 1/16/2004 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES
72502 1/16/2004 MARION COUNTY CLERK
72503 1/16/2004 I~SH MCBIRNEY INC
72504 1/16/2004 MARY PAT "LUCKY" BOOTH
72505 1/16/2004 METROCOUNT (USA) INC.
72507 1/16/2004 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC CO
72508 1/16/2004 NORTH CREEK ANALYTICAL IN
72509 1/16/2004 OR DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLE
72510 1/16/2004 OREGON DEPT OF CONSUMER
72511 1/16/2004 OREGON DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
72512 1/16/2004 OREGON STATE POLICE
72513 1/16/2004 OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
72514 1/16/2004 PIONEER GLASS
72515 1/16/2004 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
72516 1/16/2004 PORTLAND STATE BOOKSTORE
72517 1/16/2004 QWEST
72518 1/16/2004 RA/qDALL G. LANGBF-/{N INC
72519 1/16/2004 RED WING SHOE STORE
72520 1/16/2004 SALEM HOSPITAL
72521 1/16/2004 SHOWCASES
72522 1/16/2004 SIRIUS COMPUTER SOLUTIONS
72523 1/16/2004 TEK SYSTEMS INC
72524 1/16/2004 TRAFFIC SAFETY SUPPLY CO.
72525 1/16/2004 TLTFFPRODUCTS.COM
72526 1/16/2004 UNITED DISPOSAL SERVICE
72527 1/16/2004 VP CONSULTING INC
72528 1/16/2004 VWR SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS C
72529 1/16/2004 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
RECONCILED YES
19.50
41.14
22.15
1,t84.46
233.50
6,800.00
330.00
96.35
1,171.13
66.20
17,500.00
49.96
29.00
27.04
78.70
639.95
28.53
193.47
1,752 O0
1,873 72
74 O0
35 62
1,933 87
142 09
100 00
96.20
256.00
80.25
160.00
117.00
207.97
1,638.00
23.00
3,126.02
95.00
45.00
52.00
253.00
2,365.04
124.00
1,521.65
509.00
423.98
80.00
49.00
1,800.00
368.00
60.06
127.93
1,631.14
400.00
106.62
925.50
19.50
41.14
22.15
1,184.46
233.50
6,800.00
330.00
96.35
1,171.13
66.20
17,500.00
49.96
29.00
27.04
78.70
639.95
28.53
193.47
1,752.00
1,873.72
74.00
35.62
1,933.87
142.09
100.00
96.20
256.00
80.25
160.00
117.00
207.97
1,638.00
23.00
3,126.02
95.00
45.00
52.00
253.00
2,365.04
124.00
1,521.65
509.00
423.98
80.00
49.00
1,800.00
368.00
60.06
127.93
1,631.14
400.00
106.62
925.50
,00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
WOODBLrRN LIVE C I T Y 0 F W O O D B U R N PAGE 4
DATE 2/18/04 AP0460
TIME 16:03:27 CHECK REGISTER VEEOT
CHECK ~ CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE
72530 1/16/2004 WILLIAM E ;%DAMS MAI RECONCILED YES 2,000.00 2,000.00 .00
72531 1/16/2004 WOODBURN FAMILY CLINIC RECONCILED YES
72532 1/16/2004 WOODBURN INDEPENDENT RECONCILED YES
72533 1/16/2004 WOODBU!~N RENT-ALL RECONCILED YES
72534 1/16/2004 XEROX CORPORATION RECONCILED YES
72535 1/16/2004 YES GRAPHICS RECONCILED YES
72536 1/30/2004 VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN RECONCILED YES
72537 1/30/2004 SCOTT PARKER RECONCILED YES
72538 1/30/2004 VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN RECONCILED YES
72539 1/23/2004 ADVANCED LASER IMAGING IN RECONCILED YES
72540 1/23/2004 ADVANCED RV PAINTING & RE RECONCILED YES
72541 1/23/2004 AEROTEK INC RECONCILED YES
72543 1/23/2004 A~KUNIFORM SERVICE I RECONCILED YES
72545 1/23/2004 AT & T RECONCILED YES
72546 1/23/2004 AT&T WIRELESS RECONCILED YES
72547 1/23/2004 AWARDS AND ATHLETICS RECONCILED YES
72549 1/23/2004 BASHOR'S TEAM ATHLETICS RECONCILED YES
72550 1/23/2004 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM & EQUI RECONCILED YES
72551 1/23/2004 BRINKS HOME SECURITY RECONCILED YES
72553 1/23/2004 CITY OF WOODBURN RECONCILED YES
72554 1/23/2004 CLASS SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS RECONCILED YES
72555 1/23/2004 COCA COLA BOTTLING-NW DIV RECONCILED YES
72556 1/23/2004 DANEAL CONSTRUCTION INC RECONCILED YES
72557 1/23/2004 DARLENE JAMISON RECONCILED YES
72558 1/23/2004 DE;%NNE P GLOMBOSKE RECONCILED YES
72559 1/23/2004 DEPENDABLE PRINTER SUPPOR RECONCILED YES
72560 1/23/2004 DEPT. OF ENVIR. QUALITY RECONCILED YES
72562 1/23/2004 ERNIE GP, Dd-IAM OIL, INC RECONCILED YES
72563 1/23/2004 FAMILIAN HW RECONCILED YES
72565 1/23/2004 FAUSTO & JUANA JAQUEZ RECONCILED YES
72566 1/23/2004 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE RECONCILED YES
72567 1/23/2004 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSU RECONCILED YES
72569 1/23/2004 GALE GROUP RECONCILED YES
72571 1/23/2004 GREG MOREJOHN RECONCILED YES
72572 1/23/2004 GREC-ORY & SHA,RON SCHHIDT RECONCILED YES
72573 1/23/2004 HERITAGE HOMES RECONCILED YES
72575 1/23/2004 HOME DEPOT GECF RECONCILED YES
72576 1/23/2004 HONEY BUCKET RECONCILED YES
72578 1/23/2004 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RECONCILED YES
72579 1/23/2004 IOS CAPITAL RECONCILED YES
72580 1/23/2004 ITT FLYGT CORPORATION RECONCILED YES
72581 1/23/2004 JACK RAWLINGS RECONCILED YES
72582 1/23/2004 JAMES & C~0L DAGGETT RECONCILED YES
72585 1/23/2004 JOY CONSTRUCTION RECONCILED YES
72586 1/23/2004 JULIE MOORE RECONCILED YES
72587 1/23/2004 KENNEDY JENKS CONSULTANTS RECONCILED YES
72588 1/23/2004 LEISINGER DESIGNS RECONCILED YES
72589 1/23/2004 LIGHTNING POWDER CO RECONCILED YES
72590 1/23/2004 HACHINERY COMPONENTS CO I RECONCILED YES
72591 1/23/2004 MARION COUNTY BLDG INSPEC RECONCILED YES
72592 1/23/2004 METROFUELING, INC. RECONCILED YES
72594 1/23/2004 MOORE HEDICAL CORP RECONCILED YES
72595 1/23/2004 MSI GROUP, INC RECONCILED YES
1,679.00
399.50
173.25
982.11
5.45
727.20
279.84
612.90
399.80
800.00
215.00
19.50
124.71
441.00
178.25
264.21
769.55
31.99
17,024.02
1,800.00
228.90
28,192.30
180.53
432.98
582.00
85.00
754.95
141.03
266.11
89.44
353.16
512.80
422.93
90.87
40.00
81.80
74.00
310.23
835.27
225.00
138.05
362.56
24.09
47.56
68,431.33
525.00
402.00
118.33
605.28
1,541.41
476.64
400.00
1,679.00
399.50
173.25
982.11
5.45
727.20
279.84
612.90
399.80
800.00
215.00
19.50
124.71
441.00
178.25
264.21
769.55
31.99
17,024.02
1,800.00
228.90
28,192,30
180.53
432.98
582.00
85.00
754.95
141.03
266.11
89.44
353.16
512.80
422.93
90.87
40.00
81.80
74.00
310.23
835.27
225.00
138.05
362.56
24.09
47.56
68,431.33
525.OO
402.00
118.33
605.28
1,541.41
476.64
400.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
WOODBU-RN LIVE C I T Y 0 F W 00 D B U R N PAGE 5
AP0460
DATE 2/18/04 VEEOT
TIME 16:03:27 CHECK REGISTER
CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE
==================================================================== - ....
========================================================= ..... .00
72598 1/23/2004 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS RECONCILED YES 2,736.34 2,736.34
72599 1/23/2004 NORCOM RECONCILED
72600 1/23/2004 OLGA BURYGINA-GUBKIN RECONCILED
72601 1/2]/2004 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INC RECONCILED
72602 1/23/2004 OR DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RECONCILED
72604 1/23/2004 PREMIER HOME BUILDERS RECONCILED
72605 1/23/2004 PROMOTIONS WEST RECONCILED
72607 1/23/2004 RENAISSA~NCE CUSTOM HOMES RECONCILED
72610 1/23/2004 ROGERS MACHINERY COMPANY RECONCILED
72611 1/23/2004 ROSEMARY EATON RECONCILED
72614 1/23/2004 S&S WORLDWIDE RECONCILED
72615 1/23/2004 SALEM AUTOBODY & PAINT WO RECONCILED
72617 1/23/2004 SCHNEIDER EQUIPMENT INC RECONCILED
72619 1/23/2004 SIERRA SPRINGS RECONCILED
72623 1/23/2004 TEK SYSTEMS INC RECONCILED
72624 1/23/2004 VANGUARD INDUSTRIES WEST RECONCILED
72625 1/23/2004 VERIZON WIRELESS RECONCILED
72626 1/23/2004 VICTORIA SANDOVAL RECONCILED
72629 1/23/2004 WAYNE JESKEY CONSTRUCTION RECONCILED
72631 1/23/2004 WILLAMETTE BROADBAND RECONCILED
72632 1/23/2004 WILLIAM C RAND M.D. RECONCILED
72633 1/23/2004 XEROX CORPORATION RECONCILED
72634 1/23/2004 YES GRAPHICS RECONCILED
72635 1/30/2004 VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN RECONCILED
BANK AP TOTAL: 235 CHECKS
RECONCILED .... : 235 CHECKS 397,058.75
NOT RECONCILED . . : CHECKS .00
VOIDED ...... : CHECKS .00
UPDATED ..... : 235 CHECKS 397,058.75
NOT UPDATED . . . : CHECKS .00
YES 23,709.42 23,709.42 .00
YES 89.49 89.49 .00
YES 43.20 43.20 .00
YES 49.03 49.03 .00
YES 44.35 44.35 .00
YES 494.95 494.95 .00
YES 5.62 5.62 .00
YES 1,730.69 1,730.69 .00
YES 91.74 91.74 .00
YES 854.24 854.24 .00
YES 656.60 656.60 .00
YES 56,477.50 56,477.50 .00
YES 85.00 85.00 .00
YES 184.00 184.00 .00
YES 50.25 50.25 .00
YES 554.94 554.94 .00
YES 362.99 362.99 .00
YES 26,726.61 26,726.61 .00
YES 18.77 18.77 .00
YES 192.50 192.50 .00
YES 122.42 122.42 .00
YES 577.00 577.00 .00
YES 438.75 438.75 .00
397 , 058 . 75 397 , 058 . 75 . 00
81
February 3, 2004
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City Council through .City Administrator~~
Scott Russell, Chief of Police/
SUBJECT: Crime Statistics Comparison 2002-2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the Report
BACKGROUND:
Implementation of the Police Records Management System has permitted a
transition in the way crime statistics are reported from Oregon Uniform Crime
Reporting (OUCR) to the new Oregon Incident Based Crime Reporting System
(OIBRS). Oregon IBRS allows a better comparison to National IBRS stats. The
information now available from the system allows for more effective crime
analysis and planning. However, one drawback is the lack of comparability to
the previous years statistics. To bridge this gap Police Department staff has
developed this consolidated report that compares the statistics for calendar
years 2002 and 2003 in the OUCR Format.
DISCUSSION:
Attached you will find statistical comparison of 2002 and 2003 offenses in OUCR
format, total offense and arrest statistics for 2003 in IBRS format, a case status
summary report (indicating the clearance rate and type on each offense
code), an incident analysis report (giving total numbers and types of incidents),
and finally a copy of the FBI NIBRS 2002 Offenses report for Oregon cities
respectively. As you will notice the FBI NIBRS report numbers differ slightly from
the OUCR numbers due to reporting differences. You will also find that the new
RMS system more precisely reports the total number and kind of incidents
officers respond to and investigate. Many of these incidents do not meet the
NIBRS reporting standard for "Offenses" and are classified as incidents only.
I am pleased to report that both Part I crimes (the most serious type of crimes)
and Part II crimes, are down for 2003 when compared using either NIBRS or
Agenda Item Review: City Administrator' City Attorney ~V~.~ Finance.._~_~,/~
Mayor and City Council
February 3, 2004
Page 2
e
OUCR standards. Part I crimes are down 19.59%, and Part II crimes are down
approximately 6.88% for combined Part I&ll reduction of 12.53%. While any
reduction in crime is welcome after the spike in property crimes experienced in
recent years, these statistics should be interpreted carefully as they represent
only the year 2003 and come on the heels of a reporting system change, which
may be responsible for some of the reductions. As such I would caution that
these statistics do not yet form any kind of identifiable trend. Yet we are
pleased with the reduction of the homicide rate to zero for 2003. Especially since
the rate has been averaging 1.25 over the four prior years and 1.1 over the prior
ten-year period. We are also pleased with the overall reduction in property
crime rates, but also concerned since several areas seemed to show upward
trends as the year ended(Motor Vehicle Theft and Thefts from motor vehicles).
While the causes of crime are complex, success in crime reduction should
rightfully be attributed to the residents and business of Woodburn and their
efforts in preventing crime and making Woodburn a great place to live.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
6O
61
PART II
OTHER ASSAULTS
FORGERY/COUNTERFEIT
KIDNAP
FRAUD
EMBEZZLEMENT
STOLEN PROPERTY
VANDALISM
WEAPONS
PROSTITUTION
SEX OFFENSES
NARCOTIC/DRUGS
GAMBLING
OFF AGAINST FAMILY
DRIVING UNDER INFLNC
LIQUOR LAWS
DISORDERLY CONDUCT
TRESPASS/PROWLER
ESCAPE
CURFEW
RUNAWAY JUV
ALL OTHER
PART II TOTAL
PART I & PART II TOTAL
ACTUAL OFFENSES
YTD 03
221
152
4
6O
0
11
538
26
1
52
161
0
3
145
6O
39
84
0
14
156
182
1909
3231
YTD 02
167
111
0
102
6
6
648
67
0
52
155
0
24
86
100
94
118
0
7
92
215
2050
3694
PERCENT
CHANGE
32.34%
36.94%
200.00%
-41.18%
- 100.00%
83.33%
-16.98%
-61.19%
100.O0%
0.00%
3.87%
0.00%
-87.50%
68.60%
-40.00%
-58.51%
-28.81%
0.00%
100.00%
69.57%
-15.35%
-6.88%
-12.53%
Woodburn Police Dept. PAGE
DATE: 2/03/2004 PL6860
TIME: 14:42:21 MONTHLY CRIMINAL OFFENSES FOR JANUARY THRU DECEMBER 2003 SCOTTRU
ORI~: 0R0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR kLL OFFENSES
CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 4 2 0 2 1 0 1 3 1 2 0 1 17
AGGRAVATED h~JRDER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ANIMAL ORDINANCES 23 22 41 25 22 21 18 29 37 46 33 46 363
ARSON 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 11
ASSAULT SIMPLE 14 15 10 9 17 15 14 19 13 14 14 13 167
ATTEMPTED MURDER 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3
BOMB THREAT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
BRIBERY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BURGLARY - BUSINESS 5 7 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 4 7 1 37
BURGLARY - OTHER STRUCTURE 2 0 1 3 1 2 1 1 0 2 2 6 21
BURGLARY - RESIDENCE 9 6 11 5 7 3 9 9 10 18 10 9 106
CHILD ADBANDOMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CHILD NEGLECT 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
CITY ORDINANCE 16 21 31 7 48 44 8 6 7 1 9 6 204
CRIME DAMAGE-NO VANDALISM OR ARSON 15 15 18 10 19 27 20 17 19 50 43 44 297
CURFEW 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 14
CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CUSTODY - DETOX 3 1 0 0 0 1 4 4 0 1 5 2 21
CUSTODY - MATERIAL WITNESS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CUSTODY o MENTAL 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 6
CUSTODY- PROTECITVE 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 4
DISORDERLY CONDUCT 2 7 3 3 2 2 2 0 3 4 5 5 38
DOCI~4]~ATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DRINK/NG IN PUBLIC 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE 6 3 11 14 15 12 11 13 9 13 20 18 145
DRUG LAW VIOLATIONS 15 10 4 14 8 7 16 15 10 10 17 36 162
DRUG PARAPHERNALIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DWS/REVOKED - FELONY 2 t 4 2 7 5 4 1 1 0 0 0 27
DWS/REVOKED -MI SDI~4EANOR 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 6 6 2 4 24
ELUDE 3 0 0 1 3 5 1 0 1 2 2 5 23
~MBEZZLEMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ESCAPE FROM YOUR CUSTODY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~-,vTORTION/BLACD4AI L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FAIL TO DISPLAY OPERATORS LICENSE 1 2 1 5 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 29
FAMILY-OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FORCIBLE RAPE 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 6
?ORGERY/COUNTERFE I TING 6 6 6 28 18 13 16 9 12 17 8 13 152
FRAUD - ACCOUNT CLOSED CHECK 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5
FRAUD - BY DECEPTION/FALSE PRETENSES 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 6
?RAUD - CREDIT CARD/AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 3 1 2 2 1 15
?RAUD - IMPERSONATION 0 0 2 2 1 2 1 3 5 1 3 2 22
,~{AUD - NO ACCOLrNT - CHECK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
,~RAUD - NOT SUFFICIENT Iru'NDS CHECK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
?RAUD - OF SERVICES/FALSE PRETENSES 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 10
,?~AUD - WELFARE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~RAUD - WIRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
?RAUD-OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~3GITIVE ARREST FOR ANOTHER AGENCY 49 26 19 36 54 46 62 46 36 36 24 36 470
'UP~NI SHING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 2 0 9
~%MBLING - BOOKMAKING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~3~BLING - GAMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~BLING - ILLEGAL DEVISES/MACHINES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Woodburn Police Dept. PAGE
DATE: 2/03/2004 PL6860
TIME: 14:42:21 MONTHLY CRIMINAL OFFENSES FOR JANUARY TI~U DECEMBER 2003 SCOTTRU
ORI~: OR0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL OFFENSES
CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
GAMBLING - ILLEGAL PAY OFF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GAMBLING - NUMBERS AND LOTTERY
GANBLING - OTHER
GARBAGE LITTERING
HIT AND RUN FELONY
HIT AND RUN-MISDF~OR
ILLEGAL ALIEN - INS HOLD
ILLEGAL ESTABLISHMENT
ILLEGAL LIQUOR-MAKE,SELL,POSSESS
IMPORTING LIQUOR
INTIMIDATION /OTHER CRIMINAL THREAT
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
KIDNAP - FOR ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL PURPOSE
KIDNAP - FOR RANSOM
KIDNAP - HI-JACK, TERRORIST
KIDBAP - HOSTAGE/SHIELD OR REMOVAL/DElay WITNESS
LICENSING ORDINANCES
LIQUOR lAW-OTHER
LIQUOR LICENSE VIOlATIONS
MINOR IN POSSESSION
MINOR ON PREMISES
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT
NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE - TRAFFIC
NEGLIGENT MANSlAUGHTER
NON CRIMINAL DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE
NON SUPPORT
OTHER
PARENTAL RESPONCIBILITY ORDINANCES (SVP)
PROPERTY - FOUND LOST MISLAID
PROPERTY RECOVER FOR OTHER AGENCY
PROSTITUTION - COMPEL
PROSTITUTION - ENGAGE IN
PROSTITUTION - OTHER
PROSTITUTION - PROMOTE
PUBLIC HE~TH AND SAPETY ORDINANCES
{ECIGESS DRIVING
~OBBERY - BAN~
~OBBERY - BUSINESS
~OBBERY - CAR JACKING
~OBBERY - CONV.STORE
~OBBERY - HIGHWAY
~OBBERY - OTHER
~OBBERY - RESIDENCE
~OBBERY - SERVICE STATION
.UNAWAY
EX CRIME - CONTRIBUTE TO SEX DELINQUENCY
EX CRIME - EXPOSER
EX CRIME - FORCIBLE SODOMY
EX CRIME - INCEST
EX CRIME - MOLEST (PHYSICAL)
EX CRIME - NON FORCE SODOMY
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 10 16 9 3 4 0 6 8 12 5 2 83
0 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 11
15 5 10 8 16 9 21 15 21 14 13 9 156
0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 4 4 3 4 2 1 4 6 7 6 2 49
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 2 1 2 0 3 3 3 1 0 0 16
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 2 2 3 2 3 3 4 7 6 7 3 45
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 2 1 0 3 0 0 5 4 5 6 9 35
5 8 10 13 13 16 8 10 7 13 15 26 144
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 5 6 8 15 5 5 7 6 9 10 10 99
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 12 15 23 15 26 21 21 16 29 13 18 227
0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 3 7 5 ? 29 21 19 21 25 22 6 170
0 0 2 1 4 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 19
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 6
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 14 15 20 16 7 9 9 15 13 12 11 156
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t 6 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 3 0 2 24
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
64
Woodburn Police Dept. PAGE
DATE: 2/03/2004 PL6860
TI~E: 14:42:21 MONTHLY CRIMINAL OFFENSES FOR JANUARY THRU DECEMBER 2003 SCOTTRU
ORI#: OR0240500 WPD RESULTS FORALL OFFENSES
CH~GE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
SEX CRIME - NON-FORCE RAPE 2 0 1 0 1
SEX CRIME - OBSCENE PHONE CALL 0 0 0 0 0
SEX CRIME - OTHER 1 1 0 0 0
SEX CRIME - PEEPING TOM 0 0 0 0 0
SEX CRIME - PORNOGEAPHY/OBSCENE MATERIAL 1 0 0 0 0
SEX CRIME - SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH AN OBJECT 0 0 0 0 0
STALKER 0 0 1 1 0
STOLEN PROPERTY - RECEIVING, BUYING, POSSESSING 0 0 0 0 2
SUICIDE 0 0 0 0 0
THEFT - BICYCLE 2 1 1 2 3
T~EFT - BUILDING 3 2 5 8 5
T~EFT - COIN OP MACXINE 1 0 0 0 2
TXEFT - FROM MOTOR VEHICLE 56 21 26 20 35
T~EFT - MOTOR VEI~ICLE PARTS/ACCESSORIES 3 1 2 3 1
TI{EFT - OTHER 9 9 8 20 27
THEFT - PICKPOCKET 0 0 1 0 0
THEFT - PURSE SNATC~ 2 1 0 0 0
TI~FT - SHOPLIFT 14 5 7 4 7
TRAFFIC ORDINANCES 36 27 45 35 21
TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS 30 13 20 32 47
TRESPASS 5 6 7 6 11
b'NK~I~ 0 0 0 0 0
VANDALISM 73 40 40 47 62
VE~ICLE RECOVERD FOR OTHER AGENCY 5 3 5 2 4
WARRANT ARREST FOR OUR AGENCY 0 0 0 0 0
WEAPON - CARRY CONCEALED 1 0 0 2
WFAPON - EX FELON IN POSSESSION 0 0 0 0
~EAPON - OTHER 0 0 0 0
~APON - POSSESS ILLEGAL 1 0 1 4
~EAPON - SHOOTING IN PROHIBITED AREA 0 0 0 0
~ILLFUL MURDER 0 0 0 0
EONING ORDINANCE 3 2 11 7
TOTAL:
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
9
1
52
4
11
0
0
6
36
41
11
0
60
4
0
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
4 10
3 2 0 1 1 3 15
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 0 1 5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 3
I I i 4 0 0 10
0 i 0 0 0 0 1
2 10 5 5 2 2 37
9 12 2 11 7 6 79
0 0 1 0 0 1 6
38 26 36 83 55 52 500
i 2 i 3 2 5 28
19 14 22 21 16 16 192
1 i 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 2 1 1 0 7
10 7 10 13 10 18 111
31 62 59 61 60 28 501
33 38 30 37 45 27 393
] 10 8 8 5 4 84
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 29 31 54 45 43 540
4 2 7 2 4 6 48
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 0 0 2 1 11
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 1 2 1 0 15
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 9 18 6 9 6 91
528 365 443 467 580 575 474 545 534 697 596 576 6380
2003 TOTAL: 528 365 443 467 580 575 474 545 534 697 596 576 6380
2002 TOTAL: 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 24 26
2001 TOTAL: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Woodburn Police Dept. PAGE
DATE: 2/03/2004 PL6850
TIME: 14:42:47 MOlfi~LY ARRESTS BY OFFENSE FOR JANUARY THRU DECEMBER 2003 SCOTTRU
ORI#: 0R0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL CHARGES
CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
AGGRAVATED MURDER
ANIMAL ORDINANCES
A~SON
ASSAULT SIMPLE
ATTEMPTED ~3RDER
BOMB THREAT
BURGLARY - BUSINESS
BURGLARY - OTHER STRUCTURE
BURGLARY - RESIDENCE
CHILD ADBkNDOMENT
CHILD NEGLECT
CITY ORDINANCE
CEIMB DAMAGE-NO VANDALISM OR ARSON
CURFEW
CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE
CUSTODY - DETOX
CUSTODY - MENTAL
CUSTODY - PROTECITVE
DISORDERLY CONDUCT
DRINKING IN PUBLIC
DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE
DRUG 5AW VIOLATIONS
DRUG P~HERNALIA
DWS/REVOKED - FELONY
DWS/REVOKED-MI SDENEANOR
ELUDE
ESCAPE FROM YOUR CUSTODY
EXTORTION/BLACK){AIL
FAIL TO DISPLAY OPERATORS LICENSE
FAMILY-OTHER
FORCIBLE PJ~E
FORGERY/COUNTERFEITING
FRAUD - ACCOUNT CIDSED CHECK
~AUD - BY DECEPTION/FALSE PP~ENSES
~RAUD - CP, EDIT CARD/AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE
.~RAUD - IMPERSONATION
?RAUD - NOT SUFFICIENT FUNDS CHECK
?RAUD - OF SERVICES/FALSE PRETENSES
~RAUD-OTHER
· GITIVE ARREST FOR ANOTHER AGENCY
.,~ISHING
~%MBLING - GAMES
~AMBLING - OTHER
~%RBAGE LITTERING
lIT AND RUN FEIDN-Y
lIT AND RUN-MISDENEANOR
LLEG~ ALIEN - INS HOLD
NTIMIDATION /OTHER CRIMINAL THREAT
iIDNAP - FOR ADDITIONAL CRIMINAL PURPOSE
IDNAP - FOR PJ%NSOM
IDNAP - HI-JACK, TERRORIST
5 2 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 17
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 4
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
13 8 12 6 13 10 10 13 7 13 9 11 125
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4
0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
2 3 2 1 2 0 4 3 0 5 3 0 25
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 5 3 8 26
1 5 0 3 2 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 19
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 0 0 0 1 4 4 0 1 5 2 21
0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5
0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 6
3 12 5 6 3 1 2 0 4 4 5 6 51
0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
6 3 11 14 14 13 11 12 9 13 20 18 144
15 12 7 18 8 5 15 15 10 12 18 43 178
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 3 2 6 7 5 1 5 0 0 0 32
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 6 2 4 17
2 0 0 1 3 3 1 0 1 0 1 2 14
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 1 5 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 3 29
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 3 3 6 15 5 12 4 4 6 6 4 69
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4
0 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 1 13
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 26 25 40 52 49 63 52 36 39 24 35 491
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
0 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 8
5 1 4 0 3 1 3 4 3 3 2 2 31
0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 8
4 5 3 2 1 2 3 3 5 5 2 1 36
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66
Woodburn Police Dept. PAGE
DATE: 2/03/2004 PL6850
TIME: 14:42:47 MONTHLY ARRESTS BY OFFENSE FOR JANUARY THRU DECEMBER 2003 SCOTTRU
ORI#: OR0240500 WPD RESULTS FOR ALL CHARGES
CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
KIDNAP - HOSTAGE/SHIELD OR REMOVAL/DELAY WITNESS 0 0 0 0
LICENSING ORDINANCES 0 0 0 0
MINOR IN POSSESSION 3 1 3 3
MINOR ON PREMISES 0 0 1 0
MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 0 0
MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 2 2 1 3
NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE - TRAFFIC 0 0 0 0
NEGLIGENT MANSLAUGHTER 0 0 0 0
OTHER 11 4 8 7
PARENTAL RESPONCIBILITY ORDINANCES (SVP) 0 0 0 0
PROPERTY - FOUND LOST MISLAID 0 0 0 0
PROPERTY RECOVER FOR OTHER AGENCY 0 0 0 0
PROSTITUTION - COMPEL 0 0 0 0
PROSTITUTION - ENGAGE IN 0 0 1 0
PROSTITUTION - PROMOTE 0 0 0 0
PUBLIC HEALTH ~ SAFETY ORDINANCES 0 0 0 0
RECKLESS DRIVING 0 0 2 1
ROBBERY - BANK 0 0 0 0
ROBBERY - BUSINESS 4 0 0 0
ROBBERY - CAR JACKING 0 0 0 0
ROBBERY - CONV.STORE 0 0 0 0
ROBBERY - HIGHWAY 0 0 0 0
ROBBERY - OTHER 0 0 0 1
ROBBERY - RESIDENCE 2 0 0 0
ROBBERY - SERVICE STATION 0 0 0 0
RUNAWAY 3 3 4 4 2
SEX CRIME - CONTRIBUTE TO SEX DELINQUENCY 0 0 0 0 0
SEX CRIME - EXPOSER 0 1 0 0 1
SEX CRIME - FORCIBLE SODONY 0 0 0 0 0
~EX CRIME - INCEST 0 0 0 0 0
~EX CRIME - MOLEST (PHYSICAL) 0 0 0 0 0
~EX CRIME - NON FORCE SODONY 0 · 0 0 0 0
iEX CRIME - NON-FORCE RAPE 0 0 0 0 0
~EX CRIME - OBSCENE PHONE CALL 0 0 0 0 0
IEX CRIME - OTHER 0 0 0 0 0
IEX CRIME - PORNOGRAPHY/OBSCENE MATERIAL 0 0 0 0 0
;EX CRIME - SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH AN OBJECT 0 0 0 0 0
;TALKER 0 0 0 0 0
;TOL~ PROPERTY - RECEIVING, BUYING, POSSESSING 0 0 0 1 2
:UICIDE 0 0 0 0 0
HEFT - BICYCLE 0 0 0 1 1
HEFT - BUILDING 1 4 3 0 0
~{EFT - COIN OD MAC~INE 0 0 0 0 0
'HEFT - FRON MOTOR VEHICLE 4 0 1 0 0
HEFT - MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS/ACCESSORIES 0 0 0 0 0
HEFT - OTHER 1 3 2 2 4
HEFT - PICKPOCKET 0 0 0 0 0
HEFT - PURSE SNATCH 1 0 0 0 0
HEFT - SHOPLIFT 14 6 7 4 4
RAFFIC ORDINANCES 0 0 0 0 0
RAFFIC VIOLATIONS 30 10 25 34 38
RESPASS 6 8 8 4 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 6 4 7 9 11 11 4 63
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 2 2 0 2 1 1 1 18
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 3 5 6 4 4 6 14 82
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 3 1 3 2 0 1 0 17
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 1 4 6 2 4 36
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I 2 1 1 3 0 0 11
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3
1 3 2 0 2 1 0 17
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
i 2 0 2 i 0 14 25
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3 1 4 1 2 3 26
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
6 9 13 7 11 8 16 105
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48 45 32 30 26 28 28 374
7 2 5 8 5 6 7 73
Woodburn Police Dept. PAGE
DATE: 2/03/2004 PL6850
TIME: 14:42:47 MONTHLY ARRESTS BY OFFENSE FOR JANUARY THRU DECEMBER 2003 SCOTTRU
ORI#: OR0240500 WDD RESULTS FOR ALL CHARGES
CHARGE DESCRIPTION JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JLY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
VANDALISM
VENICLE RECOVERD FOR OTHER AGENCY
WEAPON - CARRY CONCEALED
WEAPON - EX FELON IN POSSESSION
WFJL~ON - POSSESS ILLEGAL
hT-Jt°ON - SHOOTING IN PROHIBITED AREA
WILLFUL ~ru-RDER
ZONING ORDIN~CE
4 9 12 1 5 2 0 4 1 2 4 5 49
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
0 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 11
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 2 6 2 0 3 2 2 4 1 0 25
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2003 TOTAL: 204 148 164 193 228 190 230 217 172 198 191 249 2384
2002 TOTAL: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13
2001 TOTAL: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Woodburn Police Dept.
DATE 02/03/2004 FROM DATE: 01/01/2003
TIME 19:17:47 TO DATE : 12/31/2003
CASE STATUS SUMMARY REPORT
PAGE
ORI # . : OR0240500 WPD CG1010
BUREAU . : WBP WBP SCOTTRU
OFFICER : ALL
ASSN TYPE: ALL
D U E I C CP
CRIME DISCONT UNFOUNDED EXCPT CLR INACTIVE CLOSED AR CLS PEND TOTAL CASES PERCENT
CODE DESCRIPTION W/kRREST WO/ARREST CASES SOLVED SOLVED
DOC~3M DOCUMENTATION 7 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 12 5 41.67%
LICOR LICENSING ORDINANCES 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 100.00%
MISCL MISCELLANEOUS 15 0 16 2 0 0 1
ORDIN CITY ORDINANCE 3 0 14 0 0 0 0
PROPF PROPERTY - FOUND LOS 189 0 21 13 0 0 3
PSORD PUBLIC HEALTH AND SA 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
SUICD SUICIDE 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
TRFOR TRAFFIC ORDIN~JqCES 0 1 24 0 0 0 0
TRFVI TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS 17 0 68 1 307 0 0
ZONOR ZONING ORDINkNCE 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
00020 FORCIBLE RAPE 3 0 1 0 2 0 0
00031 ROBBERY - HIGHWAY 2 0 0 1 0 0 0
00032 ROBBERY - BUSINESS 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
00035 ROBBERY - RESIDENCE 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
00039 ROBBERY - OTHER 4 0 0 0 2 0 0
00041 AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 2 0 0 0 15 0 0
00042 ATTEMPTED }fdRDEN 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
00043 ASSAULT SIMPLE 42 2 2 2 111 1 6
00044 BOMB THREAT 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
00045 INTIMIDATION /OTHER 12 1 2 3 28 0 1
00046 STALKER 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
00051 BURGLARY - RESIDENCE 55 0 3 29 14 0 5
00052 BURGLARY - BUSINESS 24 0 0 5 4 0 4
00053 BURGLARY - OTHER STR 16 0 0 2 1 0 1
00061 THEFT - PICKPOCKET 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
00062 THEFT - PURSE SNATCH 6 0 0 0 1 0 0
00063 THEFT - SHOPLIFT 17 0 1 2 88 2 0
00064 THEFT - FROM MOTOR V 425 0 2 38 18 0 17
00065 ?~-H~FT - I'DTOR VEHICL 26 0 0 1 0 0 0
00066 THEFT - BI~CLE 29 0 1 4 3 0 0
00067 THEFT - BUILDING 54 0 1 10 7 1 6
00068 THEFT - COIN OP NACH 5 0 0 1 0 0 0'
~0069 THEFT - OTHER 139 0 5 16 19 3 7
D0071 MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 96 0 15 16 11 1 5
]0090 ARSON 6 0 1 1 1 0 2
]0100 FORGERY/COUNTERFEITI 62 0 2 13 63 2 10
)01lC FRAUD - IMPERSONATIO 9 1 1 0 11 0 0
)0112 FRAUD - ACCOUNT CLOS 4 0 0 0 1 0 0
)0113 FRAUD - NOT SUFFICIE 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
)0114 FRAUD - CREDIT CARD/ 9 0 0 2 3 0 1
)0115 FRAID - BY DECEPTION 3 0 0 0 2 0 1
10116 FRAUD - OF SERVICES/ 5 0 0 1 4 0 0
10130 STOLEN PROPERTY - RE 2 0 0 0 8 0 0
0140 V2%~I]ALISM 458 0 1 37 25 4 8
0141 CRIME DAMAGE-NO VAND 238 0 0 30 24 0 9
0151 ~_~APON - POSSESS ILL 0 0 0 0 15 0 0
0152 WEAPON - CARRY CONCE 0 0 1 0 10 0 0
0161 PROSTITUTION - ENGAG 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0170 SEX CRIME - PORlqOGRA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 34 16 47.06%
0 17 14 82.35%
0 226 21 9.29%
0 2 2 100.00%
0 1 0 .00%
0 25 25 100.00%
0 393 375 95.42%
0 3 1 33.33%
0 6 3 50.00%
0 3 0 .00%
0 2 2 100.00%
0 1 1 100.00%
0 6 2 33.33%
0 17 15 88.24%
0 3 3 100.00%
0 166 116 69.88%
0 2 1 50.00%
0 47 31 65.96%
0 3 2 66.67%
0 106 17 16.04%
0 37 4 10.81%
0 20 1 5.00%
0 3 0 .00%
0 7 1 14.29%
0 110 91 82.73%
0 500 20 4.00%
0 27 0 .00%
0 37 4 10.81%
0 79 9 11.39%
0 6 0 .00%
0 189 27 14.29%
0 144 27 18.75%
0 11 2 18.18%
0 152 67 44.08%
0 22 13 59.09%
0 5 1 20.00%
0 2 1 50.00%
0 15 3 20.00%
0 6 2 33.33%
0 10 4 40.00%
0 10 8 80.00%
0 533 30 5.63%
0 301 24 7.97%
0 15 15 100.00%
0 11 11 100.00%
0 I 1 100.00%
0 i 0 .00%
69
Woodburn Police Dept.
DATE 02/03/2004 FROM DATE: 01/01/2003
TIME 19:17:47 TO DATE : 12/31/2003
CASE STATUS SUMMARY REPORT
CRIME
CODE DESCRIPTION
00171 SEX CRIME - NON-FORC
00172 SEX CRIME - CONTRIBU
00173 SEX CRIME - MOLEST (
00176 SEX CRIME - EXPOSER
00178 SEX CRIME - NON FORC
00179 SEX CRIME - OTHER
00180 DRUG LAW VIOLATIONS
00202 C~ILD NEGLECT
00210 DRIVING UNDER INFLUR
00221 MINOR IN POSSESSION
00224 DRINKING IN PUBLIC
00225 FURNISHING
00228 MINOR ON PREMISES
00229 LIQUOR LAW-OTHER
00240 DISORDERLY CONDUCT
00251 KIDNAP - FOR ADDITIO
00261 TRESPASS
00267 ANIMAL ORDINJ%NCES
00268 GARBAGE LITTERING
00269 (YlSIER
00280 CURFEW
00290 RUNAWAY
00391 HIT AND RUN-MISDEMEA
00392 HIT AND RUN FELONY
00393 RECKLESS DRIVING
00394 ELUDE
00395 DWS/REVOKED-MISDEMEA
90396 DWS/REVOKED - FELONY
30397 FAIL TO DISPLAY OPER
30500 ILLEGAL ALIEN - INS
30511 CUSTODY - PROTECITVE
]0512 CUSTODY - DETOX
)0513 CUSTODY - MENTAL
)0530 VE~ICLE RECOVERD FOR
)0540 PROPERTY RECOVER FOR
)0550 FUGITIVE ARREST FOR
D U E I
DISCONT UNFOUNDED EXCPT CLR INACTIVE
TOTAL:
13 0 0 1
2 0 0 0
14 2 1 2
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
3 1 0 0
2 0 2 2
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 2 0
0 0 0 0
1 0 2 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
i 0 0 0
17 0 3 3
2 1 21 1
0 0 6 0
19 0 1 5
2 0 1 0
75 0 43 9
105 0 1 13
3 0 0 1
1 0 0 2
4 0 0 3
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
i 0 i 0
i 0 0 0
1 0 0 1
24 0 4 5
0 0 0 1
5 0 3 0
2,292 9 278 280
TOTAL STATUS
~ER OF CLOSED CASES WITH NO DISPOSITION: 1,837
ORI ~ . : OR0240500 WPD
BUREAU . : WBP WBP
OFFICER : ALL
ASSN TYPE: ALL
C CP
CLOSED AR CLS PEND
W/ARREST WO/AJLREST
PAGE 2
CG1010
SCOTTHU
TOTAL CASES PERCENT
CASES SOLVED SOLVED
1 0 0 0 15 1 6.67%
1 0 0 0 3 1 33.33%
2 0 3 0 24 5 20.83%
2 0 0 0 2 2 100.00%
1 0 0 0 2 1 50.00%
1 0 0 0 5 2 40.00%
154 2 0 0 162 158 97.53%
2 0 0 0 2 2 100.00%
144 0 0 0 145 144 99.31%
42 0 0 0 45 44 97.78%
4 0 0 0 4 4 100.00%
6 0 0 0 9 8 88.89%
1 0 0 0 1 1 100.00%
1 0 0 0 1 1 100.00%
37 0 1 0 38 37 97.37%
3 0 0 0 4 3 75.00%
60 1 0 0 84 64 76.19%
3 2 0 0 30 27 90.00%
4 0 0 0 10 10 100.00%
70 1 1 0 97 72 74.23%
10 1 0 0 14 12 85.71%
27 0 2 0 156 70 44.87%
29 0 6 0 154 30 19.48%
7 0 0 0 11 7 63.64%
16 0 0 0 19 16 84.21%
16 0 0 0 23 16 69.57%
24 0 0 0 24 24 100.00%
27 0 0 0 27 27 100.00%
29 0 0 0 29 29 100.00%
7 0 0 0 7 7 100.00%
1 0 1 0 4 2 50.00%
20 0 0 0 21 20 95.24%
4 0 0 0 6 4 66.67%
9 1 5 0 48 14 29.17%
6 0 0 0 7 6 85.71%
454 5 0 0 467 462 98.93%
2,038 27 106 0 5,030 2,352 46.76%
C: 2,065
70
NORCOM Communications A E G I S P U B L I C S A F E T Y S Y S T E M PAGE 1
DATE 02/03/2004 INCIDENT ANALYSIS REPORT - TOTALS PL1325
TIME 21:48:37 SCOTTRU
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE TRNS E Transport : 1
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE ALM F FIRE ALARM: 3
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE AME F AMB : 14
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE AOA F AOA : 7
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE EMA F EMA : 12
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE MED F Medical : 1
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE MVA F MVA : 17
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE GRAS F Grass Fire: 2
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE HAZM F Haz Mat : 2
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE MISC F MISC : 13
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE PBLC F PBLC : 1
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE STRC F Struc Fire: 3
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE TONE F TONE : 3
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE VENF F MV Fire : 2
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE VOID F VOID : 12
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE FU P : 49
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE AOA P AOA : 468
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE APR P Arrive : 1
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE ATL P ATL NO CR : 702
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE BAR P BAR : 163
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE DOA P DOA : 37
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE LIQ P LIQ : 78
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE MVA P MVA : 398
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE ORD P ORD : 434
TOTAL INCIDENTS .FOR TYPE OUT P : 501
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE RAW P RAW : 175
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE ROB P ROB : 11
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE SEX P SEX : 49
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE TRF P TRF : 4,065
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE ABAN PAEAN : 320
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE ABAT P ABAT : 275
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE ALRM P ALRM : 894
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE ANIM P ANIM : 484
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE AREA P AREA : 194
tOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE ARSN P ARSN : 9
rOTAn INCIDENTS FOR TYPE ASLT P ASLT : 77
FOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE BCHK P BCHK : 57
FOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE BOME P BOMB : 6
FOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE BURG P BURG : 171
~OTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE CIVL P CIVL : 2
FOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE DIST P DIST : 194
FOTkL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE DRNK P DRNK : 68
~OTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE DRUG P DRUG : 127
?OTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE ~SG P E~G : 5
?OTAL INCIDENTS POR TYPE EN~T P EN]~OUTE :
~OTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE FAMD P FAMD : 252
'OTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE FGHT P FGHT : 122
'OTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE FNRL P FNRL : 15
'OTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE FOOT P FOOT : 271
'OTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE FRAD P FRAD : 98
'OTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE F911 P F911 : 345
'OTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE GANG P GANG : 4
OTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE GRASP GRAS : 81
OTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE HARS P HARS : 153
OTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE IMVA P IMVA : 13
?!
NORCOMCommunications AE G I S PUB L I C S A F E T Y S Y S T E M PAGE 2
DATE 02/03/2004 INCIDENT ANALYSIS REPORT - TOTALS PL1325
TI~E 21:48:37 SCOTTRU
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE INFO P INFO NO CR: 198
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE IPRM P IPRM : 59
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE LAND P LAND : 10
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE LOIT P LOIT : 3
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE MENC P MENC : 6
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE MGUN P MGUN : 12
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE MISC P MISC : 211
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE MISS P MISS : 39
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE MNTL P MNTL : 16
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE NEGL P NEGL : 4
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE NOIS P NOIS : 601
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE PRKV P PRKV : 182
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE PROP P PROP : 264
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE PROW P PROW : 47
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE PUBL P PUBL : 2,316
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE R~E P RAPE : 6
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE RSTR P RSTR : 18
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE SHOT P SHOTFIRED : 61
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE SICK P SICK : 4
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE SUBP P SUBP : 90
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE SUIC P SUIC : 17
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE SUSP P SUSP : 1,697
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE SVEH P SVEH : 180
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE THFT P THFT : 1,081
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE TRES P TIES : 226
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE TRFA P TRFA : 132
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE TXFR P 911 TXFER : 4
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE VAND P VAND : 713
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE VOID P VOID : 238
TOTAL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE WELF P WELF : 189
TOT]iL INCIDENTS FOR TYPE WIANT P WRNT : 269
tOTALS FOR OR0240500: 20,367
]RAND TOTAL: 20,367
Table 8
Offenses Known to Law Enforcement
by City 10,000 and over in Population, 2002---Continued
crime Crime
C~ by s~e i~dattoa lade~ Ir.d~
M~der
Motor
~orcible Aggnn. ated Larceny- vd6cle
Ar~o~t
Ponea City 26.242 1.542 !.564
Sand Spdng~ 17.669 704 709
Sapulpa 19,405 831 846
Shaw~e 29.050 1,724 1.728
Stillvnm~ 39,552 1,432 1,435
Tahlequah 14.638 650 652
Th~ V'd~e 10,284 629 630
Tal~a 397,953 30, i 19 30,365
Woodwald 12.001 628 629
Yukon 21305 653 656
Oi~_.GON
Albany 42047 2.78~ 2.791
Asldand 2O'0~3 947 ~60
Ba~ City 10,149 398 399
Beav~s~ 78,357 3,350 3,375
Bend 53,551 3,..t44 3,362
~ 13,165 465 475
Cenual Point 12.859 493 503
Coos Bay 15.824 686 697
Dallas 12.824 396 397
Euglme 141,928 9,308 9,408
(]rants Pass 23,676 ! .61 ! 1.624
Oresham 02.844 6,154 6,212
14evnfis~ 13.539 785 787
Hillc~wo 72.240 3.759 3.794
Kei~er 33,145 1,426 1,429
Klanmh Fails 20,031 841 846
La Grand= 12.6~ 376 377
Lake Oswego 36,311 824 842
Lebmon 13.329 920 923
McMinn,dlic 27,274 1,164 1,167
Medfe~d 65,002 4,434 4,472
Milwauk~ 21.O90 1,071 1,081
Ontsdo 11,306 872 872
Ore,on City 263~ I _946 1.255
Pendleton 16.833 78O 784
Potntand 544,604 43,327 43,823
Redmond 13.875 1.224 1.226
Roseburg 20,602 1,148 1,167
Salem 140,931 12,389 12,412
Shm~voad 12.136 346 34~
Springfield 54.411 4,063 4.098
SL ~ 10.312 392 397
The Dadlea 12,512 715 719
Tiga~l 42.429 2.442 2.457
Trouldale 14.181 564 567
Taalafin 23.458 1,028 1.028
West Litm 22.913 484 485
WilsonviBe 14,401 697 698
Woodbum 20.688 1,579 1387
PENNSYLVANIA
Abinston Town~fip 56.350 1.197 1.201
Aliquip~a I 1.786 362 362
AIlealovm 107.101 5,944 6,025
Altoom 49,741 2.058 2.063
A~oa Township 16,274 262 262
Baldwin Bomegh 20.087 275 27:5
Ben,em Township 58.691 2.197 2.213
Berks4..ehl~ Regional 20.471 243 245
Bethel Pa~ 33,703 388 388
B~hlehem 71.643 2,418 2,424
0 29
0 9
I I
0 22
0 24
I 8
0 1
26 243
0 14
I I
18 156 291 952 96 22
14 33 128 451 69 5
11 35 149 569 65 15
22 155 582 751 192 4
7 66 262 1.005 68 3
8 36 137 422 38 2
5 31 136 430 26 I
901 3,153 6.313 15.918 3,565 246
I 90 152 349 22 I
3 19 118 486 25 3
0 10 37 26 288 2,230
0 $ 9 I 147 739
0 10 3 13 56 295
0 19 53 114 420 2.410
2 17 28 98 509 2.506
0 I 5 8 48 369
0 0 $ 0 69 396
0 16 5 14 133 472
o 8 2 29 56 273
2 56 155 256 1,209 6,824
0 I $ I 66 431
0 9 26 33 212 !,233
3 62 141 276 817 3,956
0 5 4 0 107 618
2 37 60 g4 376
0 7 13 30 147 1.091
0 7 25 29 204 503
0 0 4 $ 64 288
0 3 8 22 153 585
0 .5 10 12 105 749
I 19 14 19 217 825
0 24 39 191 503 3,484
0 9 13 22 14~ 752
o 8 6 46 81 691
3 6 16 2'7 145 947
0 2 11 7 130 577
20 354 1,294 2.844 5,702 27,933
I 13 5 8 166 959
0 8 9 16 160 898
6 79 156 103 1,415 9.277
o 2 o o 45 288
0 11 29 78 464 3,071
0 2 3 8 65 296
0 2 8 9 104 54.9
0 14 41 54 288 1.858
0 2 13 I0 74 423
0 2 I1 2~ 130 748
0 I 8 3 78 377
0 7 6 9 82 515
I .5 15 21 192 1,131
192
46
21
334
184
34
23
46
28
806
79
98
899
51
445
138
73
15
53
193
127
102
53
5,180
57
1,353
I1
410
18
43
187
42
109
17
78
214
8
· 13
!
25
18
1o
io
I1
1
IOO
1
13
2
3
I
18
3
3
10
o
9
4
496
2
19
2
35
5
4
15
3
o
1
1
8
2 5 29 21 187 867 86 4
I 4 10 53 78 193 23 0
9 :58 294 254 1.212 3.615 502 81
2 20 74 81 540 1.218 123 5
o 0 $ 25 30 171 31 0
I 7 9 13 52 164 29 0
0 I 1 55 62 264 1,505 300 16
0 I 2 9 38 179 14 2
0 3 9 12 66 282 16 0
2 31 98 114 398 1.616 159 6
See ~ at end of tatS.
CRIME INDEX OFFENSES REPORTED
153
73
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
8,1
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071
Date: February 2, 2004
To: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director
From: Building Division
Subject: Building Activity for January 2004
(503) 982-5250
2OO2 2OO3 2OO4
Dollar Dollar Dollar
................. No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount
New Residence Value 9 $1,119,264 12 $1,752,128 5 $903,783
Multi Family 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Assisted Living Facilities 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Residential Adds & AIts 2 $51,000 2 $22,653 I $10,692
Industrial 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Commercial Value 6 $4,158,388 8 $1,341,826 6 $52,392
Signs, Fences, Driveways 1 $3,000 0 $0 2 $300
Manufactured Homes 1 $50,472 0 $0 I $40,000
TOTALS 19 $5,382,074 22 $3,116,607 15 $1,007,167
Fiscal Year (July 1- $36,638,764 $12,716,910 $20,269,907
June 30) to Date
I:\Community Development\Bldg\Building Activity~BldgAct-2004\Bldg Activity - Memos\activity - January 2004.wpd
74.
Woop u N
I~tccr?arated
IOA
February 23, 2004
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council through City Administrator ~
Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development,~
Zoning Text Amendment 04-01; a proposal to re¥ise the text of the
Woodburn Sign Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
In regard to this proposal, the City Council has the following options:
Concur with the Planning Commission's Final Order and approve the Final
Focus Group Draft Sign Ordinance subject to the Planning Commission's
recommended revisions.
(2)
Modify the Final FocuS Group Draft Sign Ordinance and/or modify the
Planning Commission's recommended revisions.
It is recommended that the City Council instruct staff to prepare an ordinance
adopting the draft sign ordinance and amending the Woodburn Development
Ordinance as necessary to incorporate the proposed revisions, and prepare
findings to substantiate the Council's decision.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council established a goal of revising the Woodburn Sign Ordinance
during the 2002-03 fiscal year. To this end, City staff developed a draft revised
sign ordinance by March 2003. City staff participating in the process primarily
consisted of the City Administrator, City Attorney, Community Development
Director, Senior Planner, and Assistant City Attorney.
On March 24, 2003, the Mayor appointed a focus group to review city staff's
draft sign ordinance. This focus group consisted of nine members representing
various interests and are listed as follows:
1. Jim Cox, City Council Member
Agenda Item Review:
C,ty Administratc~__J ~',~ City Attorney /V~/~
Financ .e-~/)/~
78
Mayor and City Council
February 23, 2004
Page 2
2. Ellen Bandelow, Planning Commission Member
3. Lisa EIIsworth, Livability Task Force Member
4. Don Judson, Business Community Representative
5. Aaron Berrera, Downtown Business Representative
6. Cindy Kelly, Highway 99 Business Representative
7. Mary Graves, I-5 Interchange Area Business Representative
8. Pam Kilmurray, At Large Citizen Representative
9. Dick Pugh, At Large Citizen Representative
The focus group began its review of the draft sign ordinance on September 18,
2003 and met once a week until it completed its review on November 12, 2003.
The focus group by consensus made numerous revisions to city staff's draft and
the final product is identified as the "Final Focus Group Draft", dated November
12, 2003.
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 1746 on December 8, 2003 initiating
consideration of the proposed amendments to the Woodburn Sign Ordinance.
The Final Focus Group Draft of the revised sign ordinance was presented to the
Planning Commission at its December 11, 2003 and January 8, 2004 meetings for
discussion purposes. A notice of public hearing to be held before the Planning
Commission on January 1,5, 2004 was published in the Woodburn Independent in
compliance with City ordinances. The Final Focus Group Draft was posted on
the City's web site and was made available for public review at the City Library
and City Hall.
On January 15, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider
public testimony regarding the proposed revisions to the Woodburn Sign
Ordinance. On February 12, 2004 the Planning Commission adopted a final
order recommending the City Council approve the Final Focus Group Draft
subject to a revision to identify "blimps" as a prohibited sign.
A notice of public hearing to be held before the City Council on February 23,
2004 was published in the Woodburn Independent in compliance with City
ordinances.
This proposal is being processed as a Type V legislative application and as a
periodic review task. Periodic Review Work Program Task 8 specifies that
changes to the sign ordinance are needed. Adoption of the proposed revised
sign ordinance will complete the portion of Task 8 relating to changing the sign
ordinance.
Mayor and City Council
February 23, 2004
Page 3
DISCUSSION:
The Woodburn Sign Ordinance (WSO) was substantially amended in 1992 with
one minor revision in 1994. The WSO contains many errors, does not address
many current sign issues and has many potential legal conflicts associated with
its regulations. Minor revisions are not sufficient to fix these deficiencies. To
address these deficiencies the City Council included an update of the WSO as a
task in the city's periodic review work program adopted in 1997. In addition, the
format of the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) adopted in 200~'z-
enables incorporating the WSO into the WDO. To address all the issues
necessary to update the WSO, a comprehensive revision is necessary.
The WSO will be repealed and the proposed amendments to the WSO will be
incorporated into the WDO by adding a section containing sign regulations. All
sign regulations will be contained within the WDO. The proposed sign regulation
amendments are comprehensive and modify every provision of the WSO,
including but not limited to the following general modifications:
1. Revised definitions relating fo signs
Definitions are substantially revised to minimize the need for interpretation
and to ensure the sign ordinance is content neutral concerning speech
regulation.
Revised permitting procedures and requirements
Two new permit applications are established. In addition to the current
sign permit application, a new permit to allow temporary signs is
established and a Type II land use application to allow pole signs or neon
tubing on the exterior of a building is required.
New design review requirement for pole signs and use of neon tubing on
building exteriors
A Type II land use application is required to allow a pole sign on a
property or to use neon tubing on the exterior of a buildinq. Design review
criteria are established to ensure that pole signs and ~-he use of neon
tubing meet minimum aesthetic guidelines.
Revised list of exempt and prohibited sign types
8O
Mayor and City Council
February 23, 2004
Page 4
o
The list of signs that are exempt from the sign ordinance is substantially
revised. Revisions include allowing window signs to cover 50 percent of
the window area, no more than two flags on a lot, allowance for
temporary signs on property in all zones, and allowance for decorations in
conjunction with holidays and recognized events.
The list of signs that are prohibited is substantially revised. Revisions include
prohibiting off premises signs, roof signs, private signs in the public right of
way, internally illuminated awning signs, and beacon, strobe or search
lights.
New provisions allow temporary signs on a limited basis
A temporary sign permit is established to allow certain temporary signs in
all zoning districts except for single and two-family uses. Generally, a
property or business is allowed four 15-day periods per calendar year to
place temporary signs on the subject property or business. This provision is
intended to allow for special events such as grand openings or special
promotions, or any other limited advertising need or political speech of
the property or business owner.
Revised sign regulations for all zoning districts that will modify the number,
area, height, and placement of signs permitted on a given property
Standards relating to the number, area, height, and placement of signs
are substantially revised for all zoning districts. In residential and public
zones, permanent wall and freestanding signs may be permitted where
no such signs are currently permitted by the WSO. Sign standards in
commercial and industrial zones may generally result in an increase in the
number of freestanding or wall signs permitted as compared to the WSO.
The permitted sign area of wall or freestanding signs and the height of
freestanding signs in commercial and industrial zones are generally
reduced. Electronic changeable copy readerboards are permitted in
CG, DDC, IL, and IP zones where the WSO does not permit such signs.
Revised nonconforming sign regulations
Regulations pertaining to nonconforming signs are substantially revised.
While most of the provisions of the WSO pertaining to nonconforming signs
have been incorporated into the draft ordinance, the draft ordinance
provides additional events that may require nonconforming signs to
8!
Mayor and City Council
February 23, 2004
Page 5
conform. These include termination of the use of the premises for more
than 180 days, change in the use of the premises, approval of Type II
Design Review or Type Ill Conditional Use or Design Review applications
on the property, or issuance of a sign permit for a conforming sign on the
premises.
The draft sign ordinance has been written with the goal of balancing the need
of businesses to identify themselves with the needs of the community to protect
public safety and provide an attractive community. The WSO has been
restructured to be incorporated into the WDO and to mal¢e the ordinance more
modern, clearer and easier to use. The WSO has been revised to be consistent
with changes in state statutes and case law with an emphasis on ensuring
content neutrality in the regulation of signs.
The proposed sign ordinance revisions are consistent with the goals and policies
in the Comprehensive Plan and no changes are proposed that require an
amendment to the comprehensive plan because the Comprehensive Plan does
not contain any goals or policies that relate directly to the issue of signs.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no direct financial impact associated with the recommended action.
However, there likely will be a financial impact associated with enforcement of
the revised sign ordinance. The level of financial impact is difficult to determine
because there are many factors that would affect the amount of enforcement
necessary, including the public's acceptance to voluntarily comply with the
new sign ordinance and the desired level of enforcement as directed by the
City Council.
Attachments:
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Planning Commission Final Order dated 2-12-04
Planning Commission Staff Report dated 1-15-04 including the
following exhibits:
Exhibit A: Final Focus Group Draft Sign Ordinance, Dated
11/12/03 (provided within Attachment A above)
Exhibit B: Written Testimony received prior to 1/15/04 public
hearing:
B-1: Letter from Dick Pugh, dated 11/29/03
B-2: Letter from John Donaldson, dated 9/4/03
Planning Commission Minutes of 1-15-04
Legal Issues Memo from Assistant City Attorney dated 9-18-03
82
Due to the length of the Zoning Text Amendment 04-01, it is not
included in the agenda packet. The entire document has been
given to the City Council and is available for review by the public in
the City Administrator's office.
lOB
February 19, 2004
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
Public Works Director ~ ~
Public Hearing on Boones Ferry Road Improvement
RECOMMENDATION:
Upon completion of the public headng, direct staff to perform analysis on the
public input received and present a recommendation for further council action.
,,BACKGROUND:
The City Council initiated the LID process for Boones Ferry Road street
improvements, instructed staff to prepare the engineering report, which has
been reviewed and approved. Council proceeded with the LID process by
adopting the resolution of intent to improve. The resolution of intent to improve
established this meeting, February 23 2004, as the date to receive public input
from the benefited property owners in the LID.
The public hearing was propedy published in the local newspaper in
accordance with Ordinance No. 2105. In addition to the legal requirements of
notification, notice of the hearing was sent by regular mail to the benefiting
properly owner of record.
After the public headng has been closed, a determination noods to be made if
written remonstrances have been received from the owners of a majority of the
land within the LID. Based on this determination the city council will be
presented with a set of options that the council may consider in their future
decision-making.
Therefore, it is recommended that the city council direct staff to perform analysis
on the public input and present the council with options and a
recommendation.
Agenda Item Review:
City Administrat~
City Attorney ~
Financ~/~]'~
84.
Mayor and City Council
February 19, 2004
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
City Engineer will provide a brief review of the presentation previously viewed by
council with the engineering report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action
Attachments
1. Out line of LID process
2. Resolution No. 1750
85
PROCESS FOR ATTACHMENT
LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID)
PROJECT INITIATION: Project is initiated by petition or by action of the City
Council
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN ENGINEERING REPORT: City
Council, by approval of a resolution, directs staff to prepare an engineers report
for the improvement
ENGINEERING REPORT APPROVAL: Engineers report contains, project
need, method of assessment, cost estimate based on preliminary engineering,
Local Improvement District (LID) boundary. The City Council may at this stage
direct staff to prepare a "Resolution of Intent to Improve".
RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO IMPROVE: LID boundary and assessments
are defined for public process. Public hearing date set with council approval of
resolution.
ADVERTISEMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING: The City Recorder gives notice
meeting legal requirements of advertising for public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING: City Council holds a public hearing on the project and WE ARE HERE
receives input from the affected property owners. If, at the time of hearing, ,~
written remonstrances are received from the owners of majority of land within the
LID, consideration of the LID must be suspended for six months.
CITY COUNCIL DECISION:
a. Direct staffto prepare an assessment ordinance
b. Direct staff make modifications to the LID
c. Abandon or postponement of the LID
8. ADOPTION OF THE ASSESSEMENT ORDINANCE: Funding defined.
COMPLETION OF FINAL ENGINEERING: Final engineering plans,
specifications and contract documents are completed.
10.
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS AND BID AWARD: The project is advertised
and bids are received. The City Council reviews staff recommendation and
awards the contract for construction to the lowest responsible bidder. (Note: City
may receive bids earlier but contract award can not take place until assessment
ordinance has been adopted)
II.
12.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: Construction takes place under the
supervision of the City Engineer. (Note: This is the time when the public sees
project action)
FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE: Upon completion of the improvements
the final assessment process is followed. The process requires another public
hearing and explanation of payment plan time lines.
Revised 5/16/03
$6
A'I'I'ACHMENT 2
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2497
RESOLUTION NO. 1750
A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO IMPROVE BOONES FERRY ROAD FROM
STATE HIGHWAY 214 TO GOOSE CREEK, ADoFr TI~ LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, ADOPT TI:I'E METHOD OF ASSESSMENT,
ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE AND DIRECT THR CITY
RECORDER TO GIVE NOTICE.
WHEREAS, the City Council considers the improvement of Boones Ferry Road
from State Highway 214 to Goose Creek to be necessary and beneficial; and
WI~.~S, The City Council has authority to initiate the Local Improvement
District improvement and procedure process as per Ordinance No. 2105, and
WI~.REAS, The City Council by adopting Resolution No. 1530, instructed the
City Engineer to prepare the engineering report for the improvements; and
Wm~REAS, the City Council reviewed and approved the engineering report on
the improvement oftbe Boones Ferry Road Improvement on January 5, 2004; NOW,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
INTENT TO IMPROV~
The City Council deems it necessary and hereby declares its intention to
order the following improvements of Boones Ferry Road from State Highway 214
to Goose Creek. The improvement Boones Ferry Road from State Highway 214
to the Goose Creek (the existing improved portion) will be widened to 63 feet in
width and improved with curb and sidewalk both sides. The cross section will
provide for four lanes that taper down to three lanes at Goose Creek. The proposal
includes one travel lane in each direction, plus a southbound lane for fight turns
and a center turn lane that becomes a left turn lane at the intersection. Bike lanes
and sidewalks will be provided on both sides with the improvement. The sidewalk
on the west side will be widened to seven feet, instead of the standard five feet to
provide for the increased volume of pedestrian traffic from the school. The
improvement will include street lighting and the undergrounding of overhead
utilities.
SECTION 2,
PROPOSED METHOD OF FUNDING
The funding mechanism to accomplish this project includes the following:
Page I - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2497
RESOLUTION NO. 1750
87
A. CITY FUNDS INCLUDING ODOT PROVIDED FUNDS:
i Street CIP Funds
ii Traffic Impact Funds
iii
Surface Transportation
Program (STP) Funds
From ODOT
B. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE PROPERTIES:
Other than the city and ODOT support, it is proposed that all other
costs associated with the Boone Ferry Improvement Project, starting
approximately 50 feet north of the intersection of Highway 214, be
assessed against benefiting properties. The assessment cost is proposed to
include one third of the undergrounding of utilities to be funded.
Properties within the district that have existing curbs and/or
sidewalks adjacem to Boones Ferry Road will be credited the replacement
of improvement cost, the proposed assessments will be reduced by that
nmount.
SECTION
BOUNDARY OF Tl:lg PROP0$gD LocAl.
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT;
The property subject to the assessment of this district are those properties within
the following described boundary:
Beginning at the Southwest comer of the Henrys Farm Subdivision, as recorded
in Volume 41, Page 46, Marion County Book o fTown Plats: Thence Easterly
along the south line of said subdivision to the Southeast comer thereof; Thence
Easterly along an Easterly extension of the South line of said Henry's Farm
Subdivision to a point on the West line of Lot 36, Miller Farm Subdivision,
Marion County Book of Town Plats Vol. 40, Page 24; Thence Southwesterly
along the Westerly line of said Miller Farm Subdivision to the Southwest comer
of Lot E of said subdivision; Thence Southeasterly along the South line of said
Lot E to the Southwest comer of lot 6, Northwood Plaza Addition No. 1
Subdivision as recorded in Volume 35, Page 12, Marion County Book of Town
Plats; Thence Southeasterly along the south line of said lot 6 to the Northwest
comer of lot 5 of said Northwood subdivision; Thence Southwesterly to the
Southwest corner of Lot 4 of the said Northwood Subdivision, Said point also
being on the North line of the Oregon State Highway 214. Thence Westerly along
the North line of said Highway 214 to its intersection with the Easterly line of
Boones Ferry Road; Thence Westerly to the intersection of the North line of said
Highway 214 and the Westerly line of Boones Ferry Road: Thence Westerly
along the North line of said Highway 214 to a point on the West line of that
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2¢9? RESOLUTION NO. 1750
88
certain tract of land conveyed to the Woodburn School District by instrument
recorded in Reel 1225, Page 614, Marion County Deed Records; Thence
Northerly along the said West line to the place of beginning. All being situated in
Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 1 West oftbe Willamette Meridian, Marion
County, Oregon.
A map of the Local Improvement District is included as Attachment "B"
SECTION 4.
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT~
MARION
COUNTY TAX LOT # ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER
MAP #
~051W07CA 500 950 Boones Fen7 First Presbyterian Church of WDB
051W07CA 400 1002 Boones Fern/ Boones Ferry Development Co.
051W07CA 300 1034 Boones Fen7 Tyler, Marvin L
051W07CA 200 1018 Boones Fen7 Caba, Nicholas
051W07CA 100 1040 Boones Fen7 Woodbum Ambulance Service
051W07BD 2501 1000 Block Bershengle Enterprises Partnership
051W07BD 2500 1000 Block Bershengle Enterprises Partnership
051W07BD 2400 1050 Boones Ferry Cornwall Family LTD Partnership
051W07BD 2300 1025 Boones Fen7 Woodbum School District No. 103C
SECTION
PROPERTY BENEFIT DETERMINATION:
A. BENEFITTED PROPERTIES:
All Properties abutting the proposed improvement of Boones Ferry
Road and utilizing it either for direct access or access through private
easement or agreement are determined to benefit from the
improvement and shall be assessed utilizing the following fair share
methods:
a. Trip Generation, Load Allocation Method:
b. From Footage, Value Allocation Method:
Lot Area, Current and Future Value and Load Allocation
Method
2. All the properties that do not adjoin the proposed Boones Ferry
Improvement but utilize Boones Ferry for access through private
Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2497
RESOLUTION NO. 1750
89
property by easement or agreement are determined to benefit from the
improvement and as such shall be assessed utilizing the following fair
share cost distribution method:
a. Trip Generation, Load Allocation Method
bo
Lot Area, Current and Future Value and Load Allocation
Method
PROPOSED DISTIalRUTION METHOD OF PROJECT
ASSESSMENT COST
The following is proposed for the distribution of the project
assessment cost against benefiting properties.
ao
Trip Generation Method: The loading on the roadway is
directly proportional to the activities of the adjoining
properties through trip generation; therefore, it should carry
the larger portion of the project assessment cost. It is being
proposed that 60% ofthe project assessment cost be
allocated against trip generation units.
bo
Front Footage Method: The front footage portion of the
improvement reflects the value benefit to properties that the
improvement provides to the office/commercial type of
properties, however its impact is lower than trip generation.
Therefore, it should be kept at a lower cost sharing level. It
is being proposed that 20% of the project assessment cost
be allocated against front footage units.
Ce
c. Lot Area Method: The addition of existing and future
loading through development ofthe properties and
miscellaneous cost associated with street lighting, sewer
and storm water are reflected in area; therefore this must be
allocated similar to the front footage. It is being proposed
that 20% of the project assessment cost be allocated
against lot area units
PROPOSED UNIT DETERMINATION FOR THE METHOD
DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT ASSESSMENT COST:
1. Trip Generation: The number of daily trips generated by a property
in the assessment district shall be used as a unit for cost distribution
purposes. Trip generation rates of the properties within the assessment
district will be based on the 6~ Edition publication of trip generation
manual by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). In the
Page 4 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2497 RESOLUTION NO. 1750
90
absence of trip generation data in the manual, actual or estimated trip
generation counts shall be used.
Note: The ITE manual does not provide well defined data for trip
generation of parking lot (tax lot 2500 & 2501) used by Tukwila
Medical Clinic, and therefore, these lots have been assigned an
estimated trip generation of 25 trips per day each, or a combined total
of 50 trips per day. This value will be verified in the field during a
period which reflects average volume to the facility. Adjustment will
be made to the allocated assessment amount after the study is
complete. The increase in assessment of this property, if any, will be
limited to 10 percent of the present proposed value for trip generation
load.
2. Lineal Front Footage: The number of feet of frontage of the
individual parcel or lot of frontage adjacent to Boones Ferry Road
improvement will be used for determining the assessable cost. The
assessment cost allocation of developed and underdeveloped property
will be alike.
Lot Area: The project assessment cost will be distributed based on the
area in square footage of the individual parcel or lot within the district.
The area cost will be calculated the same for developed or
underdeveloped property
~ ENGINEERS PROJECT COST ESTIMATE:
A. The estimated cost of improving
Boones Ferry Road
1. SWeet Improvements
2. Utility Undergroundin8
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$382,324
$129,000
Note: Estimated costs includes engineering, administration and contingency
SECTION 7.
DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT COST:
Ae
PROJECT COST TO BE FUNDED BY THE CITY INCLUDING
ODOT PROVIDED FUNDS
Costs that are not to be assessed
!. Boones Ferry Road Improvement
a. Capacity Cost
Page 5 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2497 RESOLUTION NO. ! 750
$96,489
9!
TOTAL
b. Right of Way and Easement Cost
c. Undergrounding Cost Share
(2/3 Total Cost)
d. Parking Lot Improvements
SUB TOTAL
$25,000
$86,000
$17.835
$225,324
e. Credit allowance for existing
improvements
$17,676
TOTAL TO BE FUNDED BY
TItE CITYANDODOT
B®
PROJECT COST TO BE DISTRIBUTED
· AGAINST THE BENEFITED PROPERTIES
Street improvement cost to be distributed
against the benefiting properties prior to the
ci~ funding of existing improvement
credits =
$286,000
Note: Estimated project costs include 10 % for contingency and
10% for engineering and administration
Ce
DETERMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY
ASSI~SSM~NT UNITS
ADDRE~
Boones FeaT.__ 0.27 57.73
101e ~ 0.26 58.28
Boones Ferry.__ ~ ~ 35.98
1000 Block
0so aoo
1025 Boones Ferry__
0.63
~.70
27.23
FRONT
FOOTAGE
270
216
0
89
~19
PROPERTY OWNER
First P~
T le_.~y.~.~., Marvin L _______
Caba, Nicholas
~b"~'~ ~-"~ulance Servi-J-~----
Bershengle Enterprises
Bershengle Enterprises
25*
~5' 10 IPaar~hip ____--
.... W _oo~1_ bum ~-~ool District No.
~03C __._.----
993.49 J187'3 LP J ------
' To be verified in the field
Page 6 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2497
RESOLUTION NO. ! 750
92
De
DETERMINATION OF UNIT COSTS
1. Vehicle Trip Unit Cost
Total number vehicle trips generated
Within the entire district.
The project assessment cost to
distributed using vehicle trips
(60% of project cost to be assessed)
Cost per vehicle trip
2. Front Footage Unit Cost
Total Lineal front footage of properties
within the district --
The project assessment cost to
be distributed using property area.
(20% of project cost to be assessed)
Cost per lineal foot
3. Are~ Unit Cost
Total area of properties
within the district
The project assessment cost to
be distributed using property area.
(20% of project cost to be assessed)
Cost per square foot
1993.49 trips
$171,600
1873 If
$ 57,200
1,673,793 sq. fl.
$ 57,200
s -CTION s.
CREDIT ALLOWANCE FOR EXISTING CURB AN_n
SIDEWALK
Properties adjacent to an existing sidewalk currently providing for pedestrian
traffic and curb within the proposed improved portion of Boones Ferry Road will
be given a credit. The credit is based on the current historical unit cost of each
property and will de deducted from the assessment amount.
Page 7 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2497
RESOLUTION NO. 1750
93
MARION CREDIT FOR CREDIT FOR TOTAL
CREDIT
COUNTY TAX ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER EXISTING EXISTING APPLIED TO
MAP # LOT # CURB SIDEWALK
BE APPUED
950 Boones First Presbyterian Church
051W07CA 500 Ferry of WDB $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
1002 Boones Boones Ferry
051W07CA 400 Fen7 Development Co. $0.00 $8.00 $0.00
1034 Boones
051W07CA 300 Ferry Tyler, Marvin L $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
1018 Boones
051W07CA 200 Fern/ Caba, Nicholas $852.62 $0.00 $852.62
1040 Boones Woodbum Ambulance
051W07CA 100 Ferry Service $1,140.02 $0.00 $1,140.02
Bershengle Enterprises
051W07BD 2501 1000 Block Partnership $8.00 $8.00 $0.00
Bershengle Enterprises
051W07BD 2500 1000 Block Partnership $8.00 $0.00 $0.00
1050 Boones Cornwall Family LTD
051W07BD 2400 Ferry Partnership $268.24 ~.00 $268.24
1025 Boones Woodbum School District
051W07BD 2300 Fan7 No. 103C $8,795.90 $8,619.50 $15,415.40
TOTAL $8,056.78 $9,619.50 $17,676.28
S TION 9.
INDIVIDUAL ESTIMATED PROPERTY
A$$ESSMENT~
A. PROPERTY ASSESSMENT BASED ON, TRIPS GENERATED
AND FRONT FOOTAGE AND AREA OF PROPERTY.
TRIP FRONT TOTAL TOTAL POST CREDIT
ADDRES~ PROPERTY GENERATION FOOTAGE LOT AREA AS8E88MENT CREDIT TO NET
OWNER A~E~MENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT AMOUNT BE APPLIED ASSESSMENT
First
950 Presbyterian
Boones Church of
Ferry VVDB $ 7,904.64 $ 8,245.59 $7,9(X).15 $24,050.38 i$0.00 $24,050.38
1002 Boones Ferry
Boones Development
Ferry !Co. $12,658.56 $6,596.48 $2,126.91 $21,381.95 $0.00 $2'1,381.95
1034 .,
Boofles
Ferry Tyler, Marvin $4,969.66 $0 $396.35 $5,366.0'1 $0.00 $5~36~.0'1
1018
Boones Caba,
Ferry Nicholas $4,844.64 $ 2,717.99 $388.08 $7,950.71 $852.62 $7,098.09
1040 Woodbum
Boones Ambulance
Ferry Service $3,097.40 $3,634.17 $1,663.75 $8~395.32 $1,140.02 $7,255.30
Page 8 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2497
RESOLUTION NO. 1750
94.
Bershengle
10(X) Enterprises
B_lock Partnership $2,152.00 $0 $714.51 $2,866.51 $0.00 $2,866.51
Bershengle
1000 Enteq~rises
~ Partnership $2,152.00 $0 $937.83 $3~089.83 $0.00 $3~089.83
1050 Cornwall
Boones Family LTD
Ferry Partnership $1,515.87 $5,619.22 $2,534.51 $ 9~669.60 $268.24 $9~401.36
Woodbum
1025 School
Boones District No.
Ferry 103C $132,305.23 $30,386.55 $40,537.91 $203~229.69 $15,415.40 $187,814.29
TOTAL $ $
$171,600.00 57,200.00 57,200.00 $286~000.00 $17,676.28 $268,323.72
Is&YM~NT PLAN FOR A$$ESSMRNT
A ten-year (10) payment plan is proposed for the assessment obligation.
~ON Il.
The Finance Director is authorized to develop a schedule and charge an interest
rate, which does not exceed one-half (1/2) percent above the estimated net
effective rate of bond sale. Currently this interest rate is estimated at about 6.0
percent.
FUNDING METHODS
The improvement costs for the project will be supported utilizing numerous
lundin8 sources, the LID property assessments, ODOT surface transportation
program funds and council approved city support
SECTION 13.
MAXIMUM LIMIT OF ASSESSMENT AMOUNT
It is proposed that the individual to?l assessment amounts shown in this
document be fixed as the maximum amount to be assessed against the properties
for the said improvement. Any cost over runs will be absorbed by the city.
FUNDING SUMMARY
PROJECT FUNDING REQUIRED
= $ 51 i,324
A. BOONES FERRY ROAD IMPROVEMENT
Page 9 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2497
RESOLUTION NO, 1750
95
CITY SUPPORT
Street CIP (including 105K ODOT
provided surface transportation funds)
Traffic Impact Fees (TIF)
CITY SUPPORT TOTAL
2. LID PROPERTY ASSESSME~S
$146,511
$ 96,489
243,000
$ 268,324
LID PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS
BOONES FERRY ROAD FUNDING TOTAL
= $ 511,324
SECTION 15
P~BLIC HEARING
The City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed Local Improvement
District February 23, 2004 at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers of the City
Hall, 270 Montgomery Street.
S~ON 16
NOTICE OF HEARING
That the City Recorder of the City of Woodburn is hereby directed to give notice
of the City Council's intention to make the proposed improvements and notice the
public hearing as outlined in Section 1 $
Approved as to form:
Passed by Council
City Atton~y
January/26, 2004
Submitted to the Mayor
January 27, 2004
January 28, 2004
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the office of the Recorder
January 28, 2004
City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 10 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 2497
RESOLUTION NO. 1750
96
'i
g?
0
0
g$
M. L. TYLER DMD PC
1034 N. BOONES FERRY RD.
WOODBURN, OR. 97071
SUBJECT: REMONSTRANCE AGAINST THE PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOONES FERRY ROAD, STATE
GOOSE CREEK
LOCAL
HIGHWAY 214 TO
First I do not object to the improvements as proposed.
My objection is the proposed assessment for the improvements. The bulk of the charges
as presented are based on "TRIP VISITS" that were established from use of something
called the ITE MANUAL. I have been informed by the city staff that this is some federal
document with no precise basis of local fact.
The number of visits assessed to me are very incorrect. I have provided the city staff with
actual ( exact ) visits taken from records of patient visits and staff work records over the past
year.
The assessment proposes 57.73 visits per day to my establishment where in fact the
average on days worked are only 15. However, I have been informed this number must
be doubled as each occurrence must be considered an arrival and a departure. Therefore,
the average trip visits on days worked equals only 30.
If the total days in a year are considered this number drops to the 17+ range.
If the number of days per week are considered as 5, then the visits per day equate to
approximately 24+ per day.,
SECOND: With regard to "TRIP VISITS" It appears that there will be given further
attention to assessment on the THOROUGHFARE ACCESS (Bershengle Enterprises
Partnership) that exits within this project. (An asterisk with notes is included in information
provided) At this time I can only request that attention be given to this area and that the
assessment for this will be equitable with regard to all concerned. At this time the
assessment is only 50 visits per day and this appears on the surface to be a very Iow
number.
If the assessment to my business is calculated based on the actual visit information as
provided, and the assessments are equitably disbursed, then I have no objection to the
project as proposed.
Thank You,
M. L. TYLER DMD
10C
February 19, 2004
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council through_City Administrat~
Ben Oillespie, Finance Director ~,~.~ J~
Hearing to Consider a Supplemental Appropriation and
Contingency Transfer
RECOMMENDATION:
Council direct staff to return an ordinance reflecting the Council's decision
following the headng.
BACKGROUND:
Each year in January staff performs a thorough review of financial operations
and recommends changes to the budget based on current estimates of
revenue and expenditures.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revision to the 2003-04 budget adjusts Beginning Fund Balance to
actual for all funds where the vadance is greater than $10,000. For all other
funds the difference is immaterial and no change is proposed. The City began
2003-04 with $1,012,332 more in Fund Balance than what was anticipated in the
budget. Fund Balance in the General Fund is $74,500 greater than the amount
budgeted in 2003-04.
Based on current receipts and the history of collections, Property Taxes are
estimated to be $106,000 (2.0%) more than budgeted. This is a conservative
estimate based on the assumption that collections for the balance of the year
will equal last year's revenue for the second half of the year. The increase is a
result of the County Assessor adding more to the tax roll than anticipated when
the budget was prepared.
The estimate of Qwest Franchise Fees is decreased $25,000 (18.8%) to reflect first
quarter receipts. A decrease is consistent with current reports of traditional
Agenda Item Review: City Administratc~.~J~ City Attorney /1/'/[,~ Finance/~
Mayor and City Council
February 19, 2004
Page 2
telecommunication companies suffering declining revenue as a result of
customers' shift to mobile phones. However, the magnitude of the decrease
reported by Qwest seems unusually large. Woodburn has joined with 68 other
Oregon cities to audit Qwest and Vedzon for compliance with local franchise
ordinances.
Cable TV customers are defecting to the dish, resulting in decreasing revenue
for the cable operator and reduced Willamette Broadband Franchise Fee
revenue. The current estimate is $8,000 less than the odginal budget.
United Disposal's revenue is up over the last 18 months resulting in increased
franchise fees ($16,000).
Revenue from Fines has not matched expectations. Current estimates are
$28,000 less than the odginal forecast. This is a direct result of open positions in
the Police Department. When positions are open, the Traffic program is
reduced, causing fines to decline.
There is no net change to Pool revenue; however adjustments are made to
individual revenue accounts in the Pool area to reflect collections under the
new fee schedule.
Current estimates of Liquor Tax collections for the year are $7,000 (3.8%) less that
budgeted. The budget is adjusted accordingly.
Interest rates remain stuck at very Iow rates. The rebound that was anticipated
this year has not materialized. Interest Revenue is estimated to be $28,500 less
than budgeted.
Since adoption of the 2003-04 budget the Woodburn Police Department has
obtained grants to pay ovedime wages for officers to enforce seatbelt and DUll
laws ($6,900). The department has entered an agreement with the Woodburn
School Distdct to compensate the City for overtime required to patrol high
school events ($4,100). The depadment has incurred additional overtime costs
responding to a record number of incidents. The bulk of this additional workload
($75,000) has been absorbed in the Police budget. However, $5,000 of overtime
remains unfunded. The budget is amended to reflect and increase in Police
overtime of $16,000. Of this amount $6,000 is paid from grants and $4,100 from
the school distdct reimbursement. $5,00 is funded from Contingencies.
100
Mayor and City Council
February 19, 2004
Page 3
The Police Department has been working closely with the downtown businesses
to assist them in reducing cdme and the fear of cdme in the downtown area.
The depadment has begun a Business Watch and has provided increased foot
and traffic patrols in the area. The detective division has also conducted
several undercover operations in the area resulting in multiple arrests. As the city
prepares to begin Urban Renewal improvements in the area the business
community has expressed a desire for us to provide a visible and consistent
police presence there. The current call load and staffing level will nat allow a
dedicated enforcement presence at this time. An investment of an additional
$50,000 will provide for an additional police officer to operate on foot or bike
patrol in the core area for six hours every day between February 1 and the end
of the fiscal year. This officer would be involved in high profile enforcement,
liaison with the Downtown Business Watch, and support to covert drug
enforcement. Patrol operations will provide support to this project as calls for
service allow and will augment the downtown officer where necessary. $50,000
is added to the Police budget.
As pad of the collective bargaining agreement with the Woodburn Police
Association the City agreed to provide collapsible batons and personal
flashlights as regular issued equipment for police officers. They are invaluable
when checking darkened indoor areas dudng daylight, or at night when an
officers pdmary patrol flashlight fails unexpectedly. The cost to provide these
items is approximately $3,725.
Maintenance expenses for vehicles and an alarm system had been included in
the Parks Maintenance budget. Management of that operation has been
moved to Public Works, but the responsibility for these costs remains with Parks.
$1,830 is added to the Parks budget.
A portion ($830) of the Hardcastle LID is owed by Parks. Because the amount is
small, and to avoid interest payments, that amount will be paid off during the 30
day prepayment period.
Community Development's Pedodic Review project began in 2001-02 and
continues this year. The current estimate of this year's cost is $15,000 more than
what was budgeted. $5,000 of that will be absorbed in the existing Planning
budget, and $10,000 is funded by a reduction in Contingencies.
Building Permit Revenue is forecast to be $11,673 more than budgeted. This is
based on current revenue plus estimates of projects already in progress.
101
Mayor and City Council
February 19, 2004
Page 4
In the Building Inspection budget $10,000 is added to services to provide
contract coverage when the chief building official is on vacation or out ill.
Volume has increased to the point both inspectors are often in the field at the
same time, necessitating the need for two vehicles. $21,000 is added to capital
to purchase a second vehicle. Aisc, $4,000 is added for necessary supplies now
that the division is fully staffed.
Estimates for both State Gas Tax and City Gas Tax exceed budget by more than
10% reflecting opening a new gas station by Safeway. State Gas Tax is
increased by $84,833 and City Gas Tax is increased $16,445.
The new RMS allows simultaneous access by more than one agency. Over the
last fiscal year the Silverton and Mt. Angel Police Departments have agreed join
the Hubbard Police Department to participate in the use of our records
management system. This participation amounts to revenues of approximately
$38,385 through the end of this fiscal year. We are in the final phases of
completing the project which has included adding field reporting for Silverton
Police, upgrading data transmission systems due to changes by AT&T, adding
secudty for the system required by NORCOM, and system maintenance
requirements. These additional requirements could not be foreseen and were
not addressed in the original project description or budget. They will require an
additional $11,465 to complete the project. These dollars are funded by the
contributions of system users.
The City recently acquired property on Front Street near Settlemier Park and
property adjacent to Legion Park. Both properties include structures of no value
to the City and could represent a liability. The estimated cost of demolition
($14,000) is added to the General CIP Fund and funded from Contingencies.
Money is budgeted this year to begin the Plaza project. With the addition of
$169,000 of Housing Rehab funds the project.can be completed (except for the
gazebo) this year. The Housing Rehab monies that originated from Community
Development Block Grants pdor to 1990 can legally be used for this purpose. This
budget revision moves $169,000 from the Housing Rehab Fund to the General
ClP Fund from where it can be used for the Plaza project.
Water Revenue and is now forecast to be $485,492 (27.7%) greater than
budgeted. There are two cauSes. Last year's rate increase had a bigger
impact than forecast, and because of dry weather, water consumption in July
and August was much higher than in previous years. The rate increase that took
102
Mayor and City Council
February 19, 2004
Page 5
effect December 1,2003 was reduced to reflect the fact that revenue is above
expectations.
Sewer Revenue is currently forecast to exceed budget by $72,269 (5.0%).
The following table is a tabulation of the proposed budget changes by fund:
BEGINNING
FUND CONTIN-
FUND No. BALANCE REVENUE EXPENSES GENCIES
General 001 74,500 36,500 82,380 28,620
Building 123 37,133 11,673 35,000 13,806
Housing Rehab 137 12,942 16%000 (156,058)
Street 140 109,521 84,833 194,354
City Gas Tax 169 41,622 16,445 58,067
GF ClP 358 212,908 169,000 194,465 187,443
Sp Assessmt 360 (91,526) (91,526)
St/Storm ClP 363 (59,954) (59,954)
Parks CIP 364 (35,730) (35,730)
TIF 376 73,109 73,109
Storm SDC 377 18,414 18,414
Sewer Constr 465 340,927 340,927
Water Constr 466 (42,056) (42,056)
Water 470 485,000 485,000
Sewer 472 260,884 72,000 332,884
Water SDC 474 13,820 13,820
Sewer SDC 475 (16,109) (16,109)
Central Stores 580 (11,260) (11,260)
T & E 582 30,018 30,018
Facilities Maint 583 22,387 22,387
Eqmt Replace 591 (13,713) (13,713}
977,837 875,451 480,845 1,372,443
Contingencies in the General Fund are increased by $28,620. Total
Contingencies increase by $1,372,268.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The proposed revision increases Beginning Fund Balances in all funds by
$977,837. Revenue is increased by $875,451, and appropriations are increased
by $480,845. Contingencies are increased $1,372,443.
103
11A
February 18, 2004
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council through City Administrato~~''
Ben Oillespie, Finance Director~./~'/)/~
Supplemental Appropriation--Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
Council adopt the attached ordinance making budget transfers and
contingency appropriations.
BACKGROUND:
Earlier this evening the Council conducted a hearing to consider budget
amendments resulting from the mid year budget review. The attached
ordinance, as amended, reflects the Council's direction to staff at the
conclusion of the hearing.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The proposed revision increases Beginning Fund Balances in all funds by
$977,837. Revenue is increased by $875,451, and appropriations are increased
by $480,845. Contingencies are increased $1,372,443.
Agenda Item Review:
City Administrator~
City Attorney
Finande//~/'~
104
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-
2004 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, Oregon State Statute 294.480 allows for the adoption of a supplemental
budget during a fiscal year to meet changes in financial planning, and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Supplemental Budget Hearing and Financial Summary was
published in the Woodburn Independent on February 11, 2004 as required under State budget law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 23, 2004 to give
citizens an opportunity to comment on the proposed 2003-2004 supplemental budget, now, therefore,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the supplemental budget for fiscal year 2003-2004 is hereby adopted as
set forth below.
follows:
Section 2.
That fiscal year 2003-2004 revenues and appropriations are adjusted as
Revenues Appropriations
GENERAL FUND
Revenue Adjustments:
Beginning Fund Balance
Franchise Revenue - Qwest
Property Taxes (Current Year)
Franchise Revenue - Willamette Broadband
Franchise Revenue - United Disposal
Court Fines
Liquor Tax Revenue
Interest Income
Pool Concessions
Pool Admissions
Pool Lessons
Pool Memberships
Reimbursements - Police Services
State Grant - Police Services
Total General Fund Revenue Adjustments
Appropriation Adjustments:
Police Department:
Personnel Services
Materials & Services
Parks - Leisure Services:
Materials & Services
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
74,500
(25,000)
106,000
(8,000)
16,000
(28,000)
(7,000)
(28,500)
(3,000)
(5,000)
10,000
(2,000)
4,100
6,900
111~000
66,000
3,725
330
105
Parks - Administration:
Materials & Services
Planning Division:
Materials & Services
Operating Contingency
Total General Fund Appropriation Adjustments
BUILDING FUND:
Revenue Adjustments:
Beginning Fund Balance
Building Permits
Total Building Fund Revenue Adjustments
Appropriation Adjustments:
Materials & Services
Capital Outlay
Operating Contingency
Total Building Fund Appropriation Adjustments
HOUSING REHABILITATION FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Housing Rehab. Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriation Adjustment:
Transfer to General Fund CIP
Operating Contingency
Total Housing Rehab. Fund Appropriation Adjustment
STREET FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
State Gas Tax
Total Street Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriation Adjustment:
Operating Contingency
Total Street Fund Appropriation Adjustment
CITY GAS TAX FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
City Gas Tax
Total City Gas Tax Revenue Adjustment
Appropriation Adjustment:
Operating Contingency
Total City Gas Tax Appropriation Adjustment
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
106
Revenues
37,133
11,673
48,806
12,942
12,942
109,521
84,833
194,354
41,622
16,445
58,067
Appropriations
2,325
10,000
28,620
111,000
14,000
21,000
13,806
48,806
169,000
(156,058)
12,942
194,354
194,354
58,067
58,067
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Transfer from Housing Rehab. Fund
Total General Fund CIP Revenue Adjustment
Appropriation Adjustment:
Capital Outlay- Parks Capital Improvement
Capital Outlay - Police Records Mgmt Systems
Capital Outlay - Other Capital Improvements
Operating Contingency
Total General Fund CIP Appropriation Adjustment
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Special Assessment Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriation Adjustment:
Operating Contingency
Total Special Assessment Fund Appropriation Adjustment
STREET/STORM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Total SWeet/Storm CIP Fund Revenue Adjustments
Appropriation Adjustment:
Operating Contingency
Total Street/Storm CIP Fund Appropriation Adjustment
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Parks CIP Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriation Adjustment:
Operating Contingency
Total Parks CIP Fund Appropriation Adjustment
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Traffic Impact Fee Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriations Adjustment:
Operating Contingency
Total Traffic Impact Fee Fund Appropriations Adjustment
Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
Revenues
212,908
169,000
381,908
(91,526)
(91.526)
(59,954)
(59.954)
35,730)
35.730)
73,109
Appropriations
14,000
11,465
169,000
187,443
381,908
(91,526)
(91,526)
(59,954)
(59.954)
35,730)
35.730)
73,109
73,109
107
Revenue Appropriations
STORM WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Storm Water SDC Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriations Adjustment:
Operating Contingency
Total Storm Water SDC Fund Appropriations Adjustment
18,414
18,4
18,414
18,414
SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Sewer Construction Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriations Adjustment:
Operating Contingency
Total Sewer Construction Fund Appropriation Adjustment
340,927
340,927
340,927
340_____,927
WATER CONSTRUCTION FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Water Construction Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriations Adjustment:
Operating Contingency
Total Water Construction Fund Appropriation Adjustment
42,056)
42.056}
(42,056)
( 42.056}
WATER FUND:
Revenue Adjustment
Water Revenue
Total Water Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriations Adjustment:
Operating Contingency
Total Water Fund Appropriations Adjustment
485,000
485,000
485,000
48_.__5,000
WASTEWATER FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Sewer Revenue
Total Wastewater Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriation Adjustment:
operating Contingency
Total Wastcwater Fund Appropriation Adjustment
260,884
72,000
332,884
332,884
332,884
Page 4 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
108
Revenues Appropriations
WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Water SDC Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriation Adjustment:
Operating Contingency
Total Water SDC Fund Appropriation Adjustment
SEWER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Sewer SDC Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriation Adjustment:
Operating Contingency
Total Sewer SDC Fund Appropriation Adjustment
CENTRAL STORES FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Central Stores Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriation Adjustment:
Operating Contingency
Total Central Stores Fund Appropriation Adjustment
TECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Total T & E Services Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriation Adjustment:
operating Contingency
Total T & E Services Fund Appropriation Adjustment
BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Building Maintenance Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriation Adjustment:
operating Contingency
Total Building Maintenance Fund Appropriation Adjustment
13,820
13,820
(16,109}
(16.109~
(11,260)
(11,260)
30,018
22,387
22,387
13,82Q
13,820
(16,109)
(16,109)
(11,260)
(11,260~
30,018
30,018
22,387,
22~387
Page 5 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
109
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND:
Revenue Adjustment:
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Equipment Replacement Fund Revenue Adjustment
Appropriation Adjustment:
Operating Contingency
Total Equipment Replacement Fund Appropriation Adjustment
Revenues
(13,713)
(13,713)
Appropriations
(13,713)
(13,713)
Section 3. That the City Recorder shall file a tree copy of the supplemental budget as
finally adopted in accordance with Oregon Revised Statute 294.555.
Section 4. That if any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or portion of this ordinance
for any reason shall be adjudged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall be
confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section or portion of this ordinance directly
involved in the controversy in which such judgment is rendered.
Section 5. This ordinance being necessary for the public peace, health and safety, an
emergency is declared to exist in that appropriation adjustments are necessary to meet estimated
expenditures during the 2003-04 fiscal year and this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon
passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor.
Approved as to Form:.
City Attorney
Date
APPROVED
KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 6 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
110
11B
February 23, 2004
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
John C. Brown, City Administrat~
Resolution Amending Compensation Standards for Police Sergeants
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution amending
certain compensation standards for non-union police sergeants.
BACKGROUND:
Police Sergeants receive the same benefits and compensation adjustments as
those afforded by the Council to AFSCME-represented, and other non-union
employees. Police officer salaries and benefits are established by a separate
bargaining with the Woodburn Police Association. Besides reflecting working
conditions specific to the function of a police agency, one of the principle
differences between the WPA contract and benefits afforded all other City
employees is police officers do not pay a share of their monthly health care
premium. Depending on plan enrollment and the number of dependents
covered under the plan, other city employees pay approximately 25 percent of
the monthly premium, and share any annual increases equally with the City. In
recent years, the average cost of the employee's share has increased by
approximately $200 per month. Low, CPI-based salary increases over the same
period have done little more than offset health insurance increases. Historically,
compensation adjustments for Woodburn Police Association (WPA) members
have exceeded those granted to AFSCME and non-represented employees,
including police sergeants. This evidences itself in compression between the
patrol officer and sergeant salaries and is viewed by police command as
inequitable, given the difference in responsibility level between the positions.
Earlier this year, the City bargained a new agreement with the WPA, which
increased officer salaries by 5 percent over the next two years and further
exacerbates compression between officer and sergeant compensation.
Agenda Item Review: City Administrat~
City Attorney
Finance~,~/~
111
Honorable Mayor and City Council
February 23, 2004
Page 2
v
DISCUSSION:
To address this growing compression, and to alleviate the inequity this creates
due to differences in responsibility level, it is recommended that the Council
amend the compensation standard for sergeants to re-align the city/employee
share of health insurance. A study was recently conducted of a number of
other police departments who's sworn officers pay a portion of health insurance
costs. It was found, due to increased budget pressure, that police employees
are now paying a greater percentage of health care costs than they historically
paid. Of the departments reviewed, the cost split is approximately 86/14. This
split is expected to widen, as more cities negotiate new bargaining agreements
with their police associations in the face of budget shortfalls. Anticipating this
trend, it is recommended the City Council approve paying 85 percent of the
monthly premium, reducing the sergeants' share to 15 percent.
The attached resolution establishes that change, effective, March 1, 2004,
based on the EBS Trust Medical Plan V PPP with a $100 deductible, UCR vision,
and EBS Dental Plan II, in which all sergeants currently participate.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The estimated total cost of the recommended action for the remainder of 2003-
04 is approximately ,$1,390, with an estimated annualized cost of ,$4,170. Future
years' costs will depend on the size of any increases in ongoing health insurance
premiums.
JCB
112
COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING CERTAIN COMPENSATION STANDARDS FOR NON-UNION
POLICE SERGEANTS.
WHEREAS, the City Council is obligated pursuant to Section 11 of the Woodburn City Charter
to establish compensation, including salary and benefits, for each City officer and employee; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the importance of the role its unrepresented (non-
union) employees in the conduct and administration of the City's routine operations and in maintaining
proper compensation equity between such employees and those whom they may supervise; and
WHEREAS, certain health insurance premium payments have been extended to the Woodburn
Police Association within their current negotiated agreement that compresses the overall compensation
equity between the police officers and police sergeants; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City Council's belief that, in the interests of fairness and equity, an
increase in the City's contribution towards the police sergeants health insurance premiums is necessary
to maintain a more reasonable compensation differential between the two classifications; now, therefore
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Effective March 1, 2004, the monthly health insurance premium paid by the
City for non-union police sergeants will be equal to 85% of the total monthly premium cost for the
employee and enrolled dependents. The maximum monthly contribution is based on the EBS Trust
Medical Plan V PPP $100 deductible, UCR vision, and EBS Trust Dental Plan II. The employee will
pay 15% of the total monthly premium cost utilizing either the pre-tax or after-tax payroll deduction
method, at the option of the employee.
Section 2. That all other terms, conditions, and benefit levels provided for within
Resolution No. 1737 are hereby maintained at current service levels.
Approved as to form:e'""~, e-ff0'-~'al.,t~ 2--/~ ~/ P'oo '~'
City Attorney Date
APPROVED
KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR
Passed by the CounCil
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST
Mary Tennant, Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 1 - Council Bill No.
Resolution No.
113
11C
WOODBURN
Incc,?orate~ ~g8q
February 6, 2004
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City Council through City Administrato~~
Scott Russell, Chief of Policej
SUBJECT: 2004 OLCC Renewal
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council recommend to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission renewal of
liquor licenses for the listed businesses for the year 2004.
BACKGROUND:
Annually the police department reviews activities occurring at or in the vicinity
of all licensed liquor establishments in Woodburn. All reviews were completed in
accordance with Council Resolution 1613, dated January 23, 2001, establishing
guidelines and procedures for liquor license recommendations. Through
established guidelines and procedures, the City Council ensures equitable and
consistent treatment of liquor license applications. The adoption of policy
protects the interest of the general public providing consistent direction to staff
in the processing of liquor license.
The following liquor license applications were reviewed in accordance with the
established standards for police department recommendations, as described in
Resolution 1613.
The standards and criteria are as follows:
Council Resolution
Recommendations
1613, Sec. F, Standards for Police Department
· Fights and assaults
· Liquor law violations by licensee or their employees
· Excessive or obtrusive noise
· Illegal drug use or sales on the premises
· Trespass on private property
· Public drunkenness
· Failure of licensee to take appropriate action to prevent or control
problems caused by patrons on the premises or within the local vicinity.
Agenda Item Review: City Administratc~~'""' ~
City Attorney jlj'~.~ Financ
114
Mayor and City Council
February 6, 2004
Page 2
Council Resolution 1613, Sec. G, Guidelines and Criteria
1. A recommendation to deny the renewal application will be made when
there are persistent problem involving the types of police calls listed above
related to the sales of alcohol.
2. The police department will automatically recommend denial of a renewal
application when there is a record of ten arrest, in the prior twelve months, of
employees or patrons of the licensed business for unlawful activities related to
the sale or service of alcohol under the license either on the premise or in the
vicinity.
3. Actions by the licensee, which might tend to mitigate the problems,
should be considered by the City Council. Examples of mitigating actions are
seeking and following recommendations by the OLCC, or police, and increased
security measures.
4. In addition to the criteria previously outlined, a recommendation for
denial of a license renewal may be made when there are persistent problems
involving police calls related to sales or service of alcohol not stemming from
calls for assistance from the establishment, within the preceding twelve months,
concerning unlawful activities by employees and patrons of the licensed
business, either on the licensed premises or in the immediate vicinity thereof.
5. The recommendation by the police department is only one component of
the liquor license recommendation process. Community input is significant
factor in a review of applications by the Council. With all licensing activities, it
must be remembered that the City recommends and OLCC grants or denies.
DISCUSSION:
All liquor license establishments met the guidelines and policies established by
Resolution 1613 in the year 2003. *Those establishment denoted by an ,,, have
a compliance plan. Compliance plans are developed to bring establishments
into compliance due to a history of serious and persistent problems or because
of frequency of problems within the immediate area
The following liquor license applications are recommended for approval by the
police department:
115
Mayor and City Council
February 6, 2004
Page 3
Off-Premise Sales:
7-11 Store # 2353-17416B
Bi-Mart # 643
Safeway Store # 407
Crossroads Grocery & Deli
Salvador's Bakery I
E-Z Stop Market Grocery & Deli
Senior Estates Restaurant
Gary's Market # 1
Woodburn Shop N Kart
The Raven Inn
O'Donnell Enterprises (AM-PM Mini
Mart)
OLCC Store # 60
Su Casa Imports
Westview Texaco 1
Piper's Jewelry
Woodburn Fast Serve 0Noodburn
Chevron)
Roth's IGA Foodliner
Young Street Market
Woodburn Shell
Walmart
US Market
Your Northwest
Full On-Premise Soles:
*Chu's Eatery
*Los Cabos Mexican Restaurant
Lupita's
Eagle's Lodge # 3284
OGA Members Course
Elmer's Restaurant
La Sierra Restaurant
The End Zone Sports Bar
Elk's Lodge # 2637
Rumors Bar & Gril & Bowers
Steakhouse
Yun Wah Chinese Restaurant
Limited On-Premise Sale:
Abby's Pizza Inn
Pizza Hut
*Arandas Taqueria
*Salvador's Bakery III
Senior Estates Restaurant
Taqueria Guadalajara
D&D Restaurant
The Raven Inn
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
La Unica
Shari's of Woodburn
Denny's at Woodburn
La Palapa
Woodburn Lanes
Cactus Grill
Fonzie's Deli
116
WOODBURN
Incorporated
liD
February 18, 2004
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City Council through City Administrat~cJff/V
Frank Tiwari, City Engineer/Public Works Director
Randy Rohman, Public Works Program Manager
Frank Sinclair, Wastewater Treatment Plant SuperintencFe6t
SUBJECT: Transfer of J. M. Smucker Company Wastewater Discharge Permit and
Capacity Wastewater Discharge
RECOMMENDATION:
By motion, approve the transfer of the most current J. M. Smucker Company
wastewater discharge limits to the Sabroso Company as follows:
Specific permitted load limits for a maximum peak of 800,000 gallons per day of
flow, 4,300 pounds per day of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and 2,700
pounds per day of Total Suspended Solids (TSS).
BACKGROUND:
The J. M. Smucker Company food processing plant has operated in Woodburn for many
years. They have, however, made the decision to close their plant operations and at
this time are not discharging food process waste to the city's wastewater treatment
plant. The plant has served the community and local agriculture well for many years.
The plant has also been a significant source of revenue for the city wastewater
treatment plant.
DISCUSSION:
It will be beneficial for the city and the agricultural community for Sabroso Company to
acquire the J. M. Smucker Company food processing plant. The plant recently closed
for food processing and the plants existing wastewater discharge permit has been
complied with even though waste is not being discharged to the city treatment plant at
this time. The city has in the past, most recently in December 1991 with the North
Marion Company, allowed the wastewater specific discharge limit amounts to stay with
a building and transfer with an ownership change.
Agenda Item Review: City Administrator,~
City Attorney
Financ~/~
117
Mayor and City Council
February, 18, 2004
Page 2
A potential purchaser, Sabroso Company, of the J. M. Smucker Company food
processing plant has requested that the existing wastewater discharge permit be
transferred so that they can begin processing operations quickly after property
purchase. If required to obtain a new permit, the permit process would require a
minimum of 90 days. Sabroso Company has indicated that this would be detrimental to
planned operations since they have a pending contract that requires they begin
processing operations as soon as possible after completion of the plant purchase.
The treatment plant process is designed to utilize the carbon source from food
processing waste. The continued absence of food process waste from the plant waste
stream will require that the city make adjustments such as chemical addition to make up
for the lost food waste carbon source. Adjustments such as chemical addition will, no
doubt, increase city treatment costs.
Transfer of a wastewater permits has been approved by staff in accordance with the
City Sewer Use Ordinance and doing so again would benefit the city and the agricultural
community. The transfer would be restricted to specific limits in the existing permit and
any change of operation or expansion of specific limit amounts would require the
completion of a new permit or review of the proposed change or expansion by the city.
Any discharge, by federal and state regulations and City ordinance, above maximum
peak discharge limits listed in the recommendation above are considered a permit
violation and city staff is required to take corrective actions to bring discharges into
compliance with the permit. The J. M. Smucker Company plant has had a series of
wastewater discharge permits. The most recent was completed in October 2000 and
expires in October 2005.
Staff recommends that Council approve the transfer of the most current J. M. Smucker
Company wastewater capacity loads for discharge amounts defined in this memo to
Sabroso Company. These limits, however, will be reviewed and may be adjusted at
the time of permit renewal.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Transfer of the discharge permit would result in essentially a status quo revenue
situation for wastewater fund revenue based on the Sabroso Company operation
generating flows consistent with the previous J. M. Smucker Company operation of the
facility. If the Sabroso operation were to generate less flow than Smucker's a
corresponding decrease in sewer revenue would occur. Any load increase, if allowed
by the city, above the discharge limits allowed by Council will require the Sabroso
Company to pay the SDC in effect at the time of the load increase.
118
WOODBURN
11E
February 23, 2004
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council ~
John C. Brown, City Administrator~ -
2004 Tourism and Economic Development Grant Award
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council:
1. Award a 2004 Tourism and Economic Development Grant to the Woodbum Chamber of
Commerce in an amount not-to-exceed $48,970;
2. Authorize the City Administrator to execute a fee for services agreement with the
Woodburn Chamber of Commerce; and
Authorize the City Administrator to negotiate an amendment to the agreement increasing
the total grant to $50,000, to include elements of the Woodburn Downtown
Association's proposal in the Chamber's 2004 work plan.
BACKGROUND:
Two-ninths (22.22%) of the City's Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is earmarked for tourism
and economic development via a grant program. The Council recently approved revised
guidelines and requirements for these grants. These monies are distributed through a competitive
grant process to local organizations who promote tourism or economic development, who can
advance the City Council's purposes in creating and allocating grant funding, and who can
demonstrate the ability to deliver projects that benefit the Woodburn economy.
Eligible projects pursuant to grant guidelines include those which:
Promote existing tourist attractions & events
Create a greater diversity of activities to attract tourists to Woodbum
Promote diversification of the City's economic base
Promote projects and activities having the capacity to enhance long-term economic
growth
Promote and assist existing small businesses
Provide technical and financial assistance to expand existing businesses
Provide technical and financial assistance to develop new businesses.
One agency was funded last year: the Woodburn Area Chamber of Commerce was granted
$35,888 to expand Visitors' Center Services.
Agenda Item Review: City Administrator ~ City Attorney ~ Financ .
119
Honorable Mayor and City Council
February 23, 2004
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
Notice of funding availability for the Tourism and Economic Development grant was provided in
November 2003 to several local organizations, and published in the Woodbum Independent.
Two organizations submitted applications: the Chamber requested $48,970 (Attachment A), and
the Woodbum Downtown Association submitted two applications, requesting $6,320 and $7,500
respectively (Attachment B). An additional application was received after the deadline for
submissions, and was rejected.
City staff evaluated the three applications for eligibility under the grant guidelines in November
2003, and deemed two of the three as eligible. A third was found ineligible because it did not
meet grant "match" requirements.
A review panel consisting of representatives from.tourism- and economic development-related
organizations was convened. The panel included representatives from SEDCOR, our regional
economic development organization, the Oregon Gardens, and FlexNet Development, a private
economic development firm that supports small businesses in the Silverton area. The members
independently reviewed the applications, and then met as a review panel on February 19, 2004.
The panel considered presentations by Chamber and WDA representatives, questioned the
applicants, and made funding recommendations.
The panel believes the Chamber proposal clearly furthers the objectives of the Tourism and
Economic Development Grant Program by expanding Chamber Visitors' Center functions and
increasing the volume of tourism and the quality of the tourist experience in Woodbum. The
panel recommends full funding of the Chamber proposal.
The panel also believed the vision behind the WDA proposal is commendable, and in concept
would improve downtown Woodburn's economic base and stability. But panel members
uniformly expressed concern that the partnerships necessary for project success had not been
made, and the project would be more appropriate following improvements to the downtown area
like the upcoming downtown plaza and other elements of the urban renewal program. Based on
their concerns, the review panel recommended no funds should be awarded to the Woodbum
Downtown Association's project at this time.
The Chamber's grant application sought an amount of $48,970. At the February meeting, the
Chamber sought to revise its request to $49,577. Because this amount was not requested by the
grant deadline, and in fairness to other applicants who were required to adhere to grant deadlines
or who were not able to make mathematical amendments to their applications after the
submission deadline, this request for revision has not been accepted.
Although the notice of funding availability identified $46,000 as available for distribution, a
balance of previous years' TOT monies exists. Pursuant to Council policy, these monies must be
allocated to eligible grant uses, now or at some future time. The panel believes the Chamber
120
Honorable Mayor and City Council
February 23, 2004
Page 3
and the WDA have shared interests, and that the Chamber could accomplish elements of the
WDA's proposal at a significantly lower cost than could the WDA alone. They recommend the
Chamber work with WDA to encourage downtown restaurants to participate in a simple ad
campaign promoting downtown restaurants that would be included in various Chamber
publications and on the Chamber's web site. The panel recommends an increase to the
Chamber's grant award to a total of $50,000 if this simple ad campaign can be incorporated into
the Chamber's 2004 work plan. Your guidelines for the TOT grant allow for negotiation of
contract work scope, and award amount, and can accommodate the panel's recommendation if
the Chamber is in agreement.
As is your policy, grant awards are conveyed through a fee-for services agreement. Upon your
direction, a contract will be executed with the Chamber of Commerce for the 2004 grant year.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Adequate monies are available in TOT grant revenues to fully fund the Chamber's application
for $48,970, and to support the committee's recommendation related to incorporating the WDA
proposal into the Chamber's 2004 program of work.
JCB
121
A'VrACHMENT A
Woodburn Tourism & Economic Development Grant Application
2004
1. Applicant Information
Submitting Institution:
NOV 1 3 ~oo3
Woodburn Area Chamber of Commerce
PO Box 194
Woodburn, OR 97071
503-982-8221
503-982-8410 FAX
www.wo0dburnchamber.or~
,4~STI~TOR'$ OFROE
Authorized Representative:
Federal Tax ID:
IRS Class:
Grant Amount Requested:
Matching Funds:
welcome(~woodburnchamber, org
Jerry L. Wheeler, Sr. Executive Director
93-6027273
501c (6)
$48,97O
$16,320
Realized from member dues and from non-dues revenue from events and
services, other grants and community contributions.
Project Director: Jerry L. Wheeler, Sr.
Mission Statement:
Our mission is to advance and promote the economic and civic interests of
Woodbum and the surrounding area.
History:
The Woodburn Area Chamber of Commerce has been around for many,
many years, first as a volunteer organization, and then incorporated in 1959.
It has always served as a promotional and networking tool for the
community and its businesses. Today the Chamber also works in the areas
of economic development, workforce development and providing services to
its members.
Similar Experience:
The Chamber was serving as a Visitor Center, but on a very limited scale
due to limited funds. By default the Chamber was consistently the "one stop
shop" for anyone looking for information on a particular community. With
our new professional, more welcoming presentation and updated equipment
we have been better able to serve and increase the number of visitors to
Woodburn.
Board of Directors:
Alma Grijalva, President
Kathy Wolfer, President-Elect
Scott Roerig, Treasurer
Patrick Vance, Past-President
Ray Jones, Director
Tim Benfield, Director
Walt Blomberg, Director
Jeanine Hohn, Director
Jori Wolfer, Director
Mary Graves, Director
Amy Dent-Beebe, Director
Bob Rhoades, Director
Nikki DeBuse, Director
Doug Hess, Director
122
e
Proposed Project Timeline
January 2004
· Operate the Visitor Center year-round.
· Begin planning Drams of Fire event.
Reprint Tourism Brochure, 30,000 copies.
· Begin planning Scenic Byway status for Tour Route.
· Continue distribution of Tour Route brochure.
· Continue work with Regional Tourism Task Force.
· Continue ongoing efforts to update and upgrade web site.
February 2004
· Distribute Tourism Brochure to state tourism centers.
· Contract with Certified Folder for regional distribution of Tourism Brochure.
February - March 2004
· Partner with Woodbum Company Stores to participate in POVA Trade Show.
· Parmer with Wooden Shoe Bulb Co. to participate in Home and Garden Show.
March 2004
· Publish a new Community Map.
· Work with Tulip Festival Committee to produce festival events and promotion.
April 2004
· Put'on Tulip Festival Weekend.
· Attend Governor's Conference on Tourism.
May - July 2004
· Begin selling tickets and promoting Drams of Fire event.
· Buy SCVAAd.
July 2004
· Produce Drams of Fire event.
September - December 2004
· Begin planning and selling new Community Profile.
· Attend Las Vegas DCI Dram Corp Annual Mtg.
3. Project Objective
The objective of the project is to enhance the overall quality and image of
Woodbum area visitor promotional efforts, in order to create increased positive contacts
with our community. By continuing to offer a full service Visitor Center and more
comprehensive information on what to do in the area it is more likely visitors will stay in
the area longer and spend more dollars in the community. More visitor contacts translate
into more dollars spent here in our local economy, benefiting businesses and improving
the quality of life.
A vibrant tourism industry here also means that new businesses will be attracted to
the community. Some may be tourism oriented but others, because of what they see here,
will choose to relocate, generating more tax revenue and better paying jobs, allowing for
enhanced city services and improving the quality of life.
While it is almost impossible to track how many people who pick up a tourism
brochure at any given venue actually visit that brochure's listed area, it is quite safe to say
that not having brochures on Woodbum throughout the state and elsewhere results in
nobody visiting our area from these high traffic visitor information venues. By not
participating, Woodburn forfeits a huge resource for enhancing the reputation of our
community.
123
Everything asked for has been created with a two-fold purpose in mind. First, to
create the promotional materials and activities necessary to potentially attract new visitors
to our community and to make them more readily available to those potential visitors.
Second, once those visitors have arrived, create a welcoming and professional environment
that will further clarify what is available here for our visitors.
While it is tree that the Chamber of Commerce has always answered the phone as a
one-stop information center on Woodbum, our City partnership has enabled us to extend
our Visitor Center operating hours, provide professional and informed "greeters" and
extend our promotional efforts into the surrounding region and the state. We could not
advertise the surrounding communities, nor could we promote regional and state
attractions. We would also never be involved with the amount of walk-in traffic that is
occurring and has literally doubled since we opened at this address. My assistant is
spending most of her time greeting visitors, and less time doing other Chamber work. This
success has necessitated hiring additional staff, and as our role expands will require even
more staff investment.
We've done all this, concentrated on implementing these objectives, because it
helps to fulfill a portion of our mission in the areas of community promotion and economic
development. We've also done this because the City of Woodburn has asked us to partner
with them in bringing new visitors to this community. This is a full-time challenge for
which the Chamber is. accomplishing in a part-time setting with professional resources
(albeit limited). The City, and tourism-related businesses, get a Visitor Center, professional
staff and equipment, all at a fraction of the cost to create and man a stand-alone facility.
Failure to grant the needed funds will force us to drastically scale back the City's Visitor
Center and move to a more affordable location.
4:
Project Description ]
In order to implement project objectives the Chamber will:
· Create and maintain a'welcoming, professional Visitor's Center that will be
open at least 6 days per week from March - November, and 5 days per week
from November - March.
Dedicate management staffto commit 60% of Executive Assistants time,
60% of the part-time staff time and 100% of Saturday staff time to visitor
services and reception.
Participate in two tourism related regional trade shows.
· Produce and distribute on a regular basis quality, informative publications
on the Woodburn community, its businesses and surrounding area
attractions with the assistance of an active Tourism Committee.
· Create a user-friendly web site with expanded linkage highlighting the
Woodbum community, its businesses and surrounding area attractions.
Work with the Chamber's web site professional to ensure that the Woodburn
site is easily found when visitors are searching for information.
· Partner with the Oregon Tourism Commission, Salem Convention and
Visitors Bureau, Silverton Chamber of Commerce, Mt. Angel Chamber of
Commerce, Stayton/Sublimity Chamber of Commerce, and other regional
tourism organizations to more effectively reach a larger audience, network
and gain benefit from industry expertise.
· Continue to promote the Silver Falls Tour Route and work towards creating
Scenic Byway status for the route.
124
WOODBURN AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
TOT GRANT REQUEST 2004
COMMITTED PENDING
ITEM & TOURISM % TOTAL EXPENSES % DEDICATED REQUEST ~ 75%
TO TOURISM
Personnel
Pana @ 100% $1,350 $1,350 $1,013
Rhonda @ 60% $22,000 $13,200 $9,900
Debbie ~ 60% (office hrs.) $5,200 $3,120 $2,340
Jerry @ 30% $48,400 $14,520 $10,890
Total $76,950 $32,190 $24,143
Materials & Services
Dues & Fees @ 100% $570 $570 $428
Web Site ~ 80% $850 $680 $510
Phone (~ 70% $5,700 $3,990 $2,993
Rent @ 50% $19,500 $9,750 $7,313
Utilities ~ 50% $3,300 $1,650 $1,238
Office Exp. @ 50% $4,600 $2,300 $1,725
Insurances (i~ 50% $1,800 $900 $675
Office Supplies @ 40% $4,900 $1,960 $1,470
Postage @ 40% $4,000 $1,600 $1,200
Total $45,220 $23,400 $17,552
Total Operating Expenses $1 22,170 $55,590 $41,695
Capital Projects @ 100%
SCVA Ad $1,500 $1,500 $1,125
Tourism Brochure (30,000) $3,000 $3,000 $2,250
Brochure Distribution (3 mo.) $1,300 $1,300 $975
Home & Garden Trade Show $200 $200 $150
POVA Trade Show $200 $200 $150
Tulip Festival Promotion $1,000 $1,000 $750
Drums of Fire Promotion $2,500 $2,500 $1,875
Total $9,700 $9,700 $7,275
Grand Total $131,870 $65,290 $48,970
Total Request: $48,970
125
Work with the City of Woodburn, Woodburn Tulip Festival, Woodburn
Downtown Association, Woodburn Berry Festival and other groups to
improve the quality of existing community events and to cooperatively plan
the development of new events.
Project Budget 2004 (See attached spread sheet)
Partnering Organizations
Woodbum Chamber Marketing Committee
Woodbum Chamber Tourism Committee
Chemeketa Community College
Woodburn Tulip Festival Committee
Woodbum Berry Festival Committee
Portland Oregon Visitors Association (POVA)
Salem Convention and Visitors Bureau (SCVA)
Oregon Tourism Commission (OTC)
Oregon Depmtsiient of Transportation (ODOT)
126
ATr&¢HMENT B
WOODBURN
In¢orForated 188 ~
Submitting InstitutJo,q: JType of Institution:
Mailing Address: JCity/Zip:
Authorized Representative:
Title of Authorized ReDresentatiye.
JPhone:
Fax:
- ?gl- 7z z~
Federal Tax ID:
Grant Amount Requested ($5,000 minimum):
JlRS Class (Exemption):
Matching F_u.nds tsoume
~ I~0''~'
must be identified ~n the Project Budget):
Project Director:
Address:
I$~
Phone:
Fax:
City/Zip: E-Mail:
What is your orgqnizati.on's mission statement and objectives?:
,,~.d c,.,.It~,,',~l a,~ ~.~. d
Bdefly describe the history of your organization (including yea. eration):
127
FR{]M : YES GRAPHICS PRINTING CO. PHONE NO. : 51~ 981+7225 Nc~. 27 ~ 04:59AM Pi
·~)esc_.ribe the ex~eflence your organization has w,th projects sim~ar to that being proposea,
~il~cluding prior years' Tourism and Economic Development grants:
a Project tlmefne, ;ncf~ key rnEestones to mark prioress. ~ must be completed Within one year
of a g~ant pm~ect.
128
W~cit is intended to be achieved, and its significance, by carryir~ out the I~'oposed prOject. This sh6ulcl
deScr/be the goals of the project, and not project activities.
detailed project background, methodology,
need for WTEDC] assistance.
resul~ Include in that (
Please use the worksheet below to prepare a detailed project budget. Indicate the total cost of the pro/ect, and
the portion of the budget for which WrEDG funds are requested. Provide an estimate of all project revenue,
broken down by earned income, grants and contributions, and in-kind services. Expenses must be segregated into
the following cost categories: personnel, materials and services, and capital items, and broken down by line item
'Le., advertising, printing, etc.]. Provide the total cost for each specific line item and specify the amount of
support for each requested from WTE~. Please provide documentation of all matching funds and in-kind
contributions. Recipient of award will be required to provide a match of 25%.
COMMITTED ' PENDING
(Project Revenue that :{Project revenue that has':
PROJECT REVENUE has been promisedI : not been conr~rnedl
Earned Income: ,~ ~:~ ~ ,~,z) ~; ...............
Grants & Contributions:- '1; ...... 1; ';?'~'C)-~' ~
In-Kind Services: $ ~--~. t,z) ~ ............
TOTAL REVENUE: ~ 7.~d'~' ~ ~ '7~,~'G/~' ~ .......... ..
· TOTAl. REQUESTED'TOTAl EXPENSES i
PROJECT EXPENSES * (~m thewr~x~! ; I'forth~s~tl .. .................
Personnel
Total Personneli$ /25o- ~ ~; l$0~'¢
Materials & Services
Total Materials & Services ~; ~' Z$O.dO ~; ~O'dO -~ ...........................
Capital Items
.......................... Total capital Items ~ ~; , ' ....
130
Fpecify all indMduals or organizational padners involved in the planning or execution of the.
)roposed project and summarize their involvement.
Ust the ofticers and board members for your organization:
131
14A
February 23, 2004
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
Jim MuIder, Director of Community Development ~')~
Community Development Director's Approval of Partition 03-04.
RECOMMENDATION:
No action is recommended. This item is placed before the City Council for
information purposes in compliance with the Woodburn Development
Ordinance. The City Council may call up this item for review if it desires.
BACKGROUND:
On January 23, 2004, the Community Development Director approved a request
to partition the subject lot located at 1515 (1505) West Lincoln Street into three
parcels.
The applicant proposed to divide the subject lot (43,551 square feet) into 3
parcels. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 are proposed to be 29,131 square feet, 7,202 square
feet (including access easement) and 7,218 square feet (including access
easement) respectively. Parcel 1 is proposed to be a flag lot accessed by a 24
foot wide private access easement.
The subject property is zoned Single Family Residential (RS) and designated as
Residential Less than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
Map. A single family dwelling and detached garage/shop are located on the
sub]ecl site. The properties located to the west, east, and south (across West
Lincoln Street) of the subjecl site are also zoned RS and designated as
Residential Less than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
Map. A single family dwelling is located on the property to the east. The
properties to the west and south (across West Lincoln Street) are vacant. The
property to the north is zoned Medium Density Residential (RM) and designated
Residential Greater than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive
Plan Map. Apartments are located on the property to the north.
The property owners are Ben & Zina Shevchenko.
Agenda Item Review: City Administrator__
City Attorney
132
Mayor and City Council
February 23, 2004
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
None.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action.
133
ATTACHMENT A
IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF WOODBURN, OREGON
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 04-01
FINAL ORDER
WHEREAS, a proposal was initiated by the Woodburn City Council to revise the text
of the Woodbum Sign Ordinance and incorporate it into the Woodbum Development
Ordinance, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter at a
special meeting scheduled on January 15, 2004, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written and oral testimony
presented at the public hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission closed the hearing, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission moved to recommend that the City Council
approve the Final Focus Group Draft Sign Ordinance, dated November 12, 2003 subject to
revisions and instructed staff to prepare a final order to substantiate the Commission's
decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION:
Approved:
The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the draft
sign ordinance as contained in Exhibit "A", subject to the Planning Commission
Recommendations contained/in Exhibit "B", which a re attached hereto a nd b y
referen~d ~.0~'
Claudio Lima, Chairperson Date
ZTA 04-01
3.110
Sub-Sections:
3.110.01
3.110.02
3.110.03
3.110.04
3.110.05
3.110.06
3.110.07
3.110.08
3.110.09
3.110.10
3.110.11
3.110.12
3.110.13
3.110.14
3.110.15
3.110.16
3.110.17
3.110.18
3.110.19
3.110.20
3.110.21
3.110.01
Woodburn Sign Ordinance (WSO)
Exhibit "A"
Purpose
Applicability
Definitions
Sign Permits Required
Sign Permit Approval Process
Expiration of Approval
Inspections
General Requirements
Design Guidelines for Type H Sign Applications
Sign Maintenance
Exemptions
Prohibited signs
Temporary Sign Permit
Permitted Sign: Residential and Public/Semi-Public Land Use
Districts fRS, RIS, RM, and P/SP)
Permitted Sign: Commercial Office District (CO)
Permitted Sign: Commercial General District (CG)
Permitted Signs-Downtown Development and Conservation (DDC)
Permitted Sign: Industrial Districts (IP and IL)
Variances
Nonconforming Signs
Enforcement
Purpose
These regulations balance the need to protect the public safety and
welfare, the need for a well maintained and attractive community, and the
need for adequate identification, communication and advertising. The
regulations for signs have the following specific objectives:
To ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and
maintained according to minimum standards to safeguard life,
health, property and public welfare;
To allow and promote positive conditions for sign communication
while at the same time avoiding nuisances to nearby properties;
To reflect and support the desired character and development
patterns of the various zones, overlay zones, and plan districts and
promote an attractive environment;
Final Focus Group DraR
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WIX)]
Page 3.1-74
November 12, 2003
3.110.02
3.110.03
Da
To allow for adequate and effective signs in commercial and
industrial zones while preventing signs from dominating the
appearance of the area;
E. To improve pedestrian and traffic safety; and
To ensure that the constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech
is protected.
The regulations allow for a variety of sign types and sizes for a site. The
provisions do not ensure or provide for every property or business owner's
desired level of visibility for the signs. The sign standards are intended to
allow signs to have adequate visibility from streets and rights-of-way that
abut a site, but not necessarily to streets and rights-of-way farther away.
Applicability
Section 3.110 states the standards for the number, size, placement, and
physical characteristics of signs. This section applies to signs in all zoning
districts within the City of Woodbum. Other regulations in the City Code
may also apply to signs.
No sign shall be placed or constructed on any property within the City of
Woodbum that is not in compliance with Section 3.110 or other applicable
provisions of the WDO. Proposals for signs where the code is silent, or
where the rules of Section 3.110 do not provide a basis for concluding that
the sign is allowed, are prohibited.
Definitions
Words used in Section 3.110 shah have their normal dictionary meaning
unless they are listed in Section 3.110.03 below or in Section 1.102.
Words listed in Section 3.110.03 have the specific meaning stated or
referenced, unless the context clearly indicates another meaning.
Area of s_ig!!: Sign area is measured by drawing no more than four straight
lines around and enclosing each cabinet or sign display surface; these shall
be summed and then totaled to determine total area. No more than three
cabinets or sign display surfaces or any combination thereof may be used
to calculate the total sign area on any fi:eestanding sign or for each tenant's
signage on a building wall. The measurable area shall not include
embellishments such as pole covers, decorative roofing, foundation or
supports provided there is no written advertising copy, symbols or logos
on such embellishments. The area of a sign shall include any symbol,
material, lighting, or color forming an integral part of the background of
Final Focus Group Dra~
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WDO]
Page 3.1-75
November 12, 2003
the display or used to differentiate the sign from the backdrop or structure
against which it is placed.
Sign area includes only one side of a multi-sided sign, regardless of the
presence of sign copy on both or all sides. Where a sign is of a three
dimensional, round or irregular solid shape, the largest cross section shall
be used in a flat projection for the purpose of determining sign area.
The areas of all signs in existence at the time of enactment of this
ordinance, whether conforming or nonconforming, shall be counted in
detei~nining permitted sign area.
Awning: A shelter projecting from, and supported by, the exterior wall of
a building on a supporting framework. The awning may be constructed of
rigid or non rigid materials.
Bench: A seat located upon or adjacent to public property for the use of a
combination of passersby or persons awalt/ng transportation.
Boundaries of the Site: The area inside the legal lot lines of a site and does
not include any property in the public right of way.
Building Code: The most current edition of the Oregon State Structural
Specialty Code.
Building Fwntage: Building elevations which front on a public street,
alley or parking lot. Building frontage shall be measured as the length of a
straight line extending horizontally between the exterior building walls of
a single tenant building or the midpoint of the separation walls between
individual tenant spaces in a complex.
Canopy: A permanent unenclosed roof structure for the purpose of
providing shelter to patrons in automobiles.
Complex: Any group of two or more buildings, or individual businesses
within a single building provided at least two of the businesses have
separate exterior entrances, on a site that is planned and developed to
function as a unit and which has common on-site parking, circulation and
access. A complex may consist of multiple lots or parcels which may or
may not be under common ownership.
Director: Woodbum Director of Community Development or his/her
designated representative.
Final Focus Group Dr~fl
Woodbum Development Ordin~nc~ [WDO]
Page 3.1-76
November 12, 2003
Display Surface: The area made available by the sign structure for the
purpose of displaying a message. The display surface includes the area of
the message and the background.
Eave: The overhanging lower edge of a roof.
Glare: Illumination of a sign that either directly, or indirectly from
reflection, causes illumination on other properties or fight of way in excess
ora measurement of 0.5 foot candles of light measured at the property
line.
Height: Height is measured from the lowest point of the grade below the
sign (excluding artificial berm) to the topmost point of the sign.
Marquee: A permanent roofed structure attached to and supported by a
building, and projecting out from a building wall, or over public access,
but not including a canopy or awning.
Premises: The land and buildings contained within the boundaries of a
single tenant site or complex.
Property_ Owner or Lessee: An individual, corporation, partnership, or
other legal entity shown on county records as the owner or contract
purchaser of the property, or is named as the lessee in a lease agreement
regarding the property.
Sign: Materials placed or constructed, or light projected, that conveys a
message or image or is used to inform or attract the attention of the public.
Some examples of 'signs' are materials or lights meeting the definition of
the preceding sentence and which are commonly referred to as signs,
placards, A-boards, posters, billboards, murals, diagrams, banners, flags,
or projected slides, images or holograms. The scope of the term 'sign'
does not depend on the content of the message or image conveyed.
Specific definitions for signs regulated in Section 3.110 include the
following:
A-Fr~e_.~_j~Si: A double faced portable sign constructed with an
A-shaped frame, composed of two sign boards attached at the top
and separate at the bottom, not permanently attached to the ground,
but secured to the ground or sufficiently weighted to prevent the
sign from being blown from its location or easily moved.
Awnin S.g_~g!!: A sign attached to or incorporated into an awning or
an awning that is internally illuminated.
F~.a~ Focus ~o~p t~t Page 3.1-77
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WI)O] November 12, 2003
Balloon: An inflatable device less than 36 inches in diameter and
anchored by some means to a structure or the ground.
Banner Sign: A sign made of fabric or other non-rigid material
with no enclosing framework.
Bench Sign: A sign on an outdoor bench.
Blimp: An inflatable device 36 inches or greater in diameter and
anchored by some means to a structure or the ground.
Chan_~ing Image Si..~m: Any sign, display, dev/ce, or portions
thereof which is designed to have the capab/lity of movement or
give the semblance of movement of the whole or any part of the
sign or that displays any artificial light which is not maintained
stationary or constant in intensity and color at all times when such
signs are in use or through some other automated method, results
in movement, the appearance of movement or change of sign
hnage or text. Such signs include but are not limited to electronic
signs including LED, LCD, video or other automatic changeable
display, rotating and revolving signs, readerboard signs, flashing
signs, and wind driven signs including flags, pennants, and
streamers.
Directory: A sign located in a complex which lists tenants and
corresponding addresses located within the complex.
Externally Illuminated Si .~n: A sign where the light source is
separate from the sign and is directed so as to shine on the exterior'
of the sign.
Flag: A sign made of fabric or other similar non-rigid material
supported or anchored along only one edge or supported or
anchored at only two comers.
Flashing Si_gm A sign incorporating intermittent electrical impulses
to a source of illumination or revolving in a manner which creates
the illusion of flashing or which changes colors or intensity of
illumination at intervals of more than once in any 60 second
period.
Frecstandinl/Si.Lin: A sign wholly supported by a sign structure in
the ground (e.g., monument signs, pole signs).
Historical Marker: A plaque or sign erected and maintained on
property, a building, or structure by an organization that is
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WI)O]
Page 3.1-78
November 12, 2003
recognized for routinely identifying sites, buildings, or structures
of historical value.
Internally Illuminated Sign: A sign where the light source is
contained within the sign and is directed so as to shine on the
interior of the sign.
Lawn Sign: A temporary freestanding sign made of lightweight
materials such as cardboard or vinyl that is supported by a flame,
pole, or other support structure placed directly in the ground
without foundation or other anchor.
Menu Board: A sign placed adjacent to a designated drive-thru
lane of a drive-thru service establishment.
Monument Sign: A low profile fi'eestanding sign that is placed on a
solid base that extends a minimum of one-foot above the ground
and extends at least 75 percent of the length and width of the sign.
The above-ground portion of the base is considered part of the total
allowable height of a monument sign.
Off-Premises Sign: A sign designed, intended or used to advertise,
inform or attract the attention of the public as to:
a. Goods, products or services which are not sold,
manufactured or distributed on or fi.om the premises on
which the sign is located;
b. Facilities not located on the premises on which the sign is
located; or
c. Activities not conducted on the premises on which the sign
is located.
Pennant: A lightweight plastic, fabric, or other material, whether or
not containing a message of any kind, suspended from a rope, wire,
or string, usually in series, designed to move in the wind.
Permanent Sign: Any sign other than a temporary sign.
Pole Sign: A freestanding sign which exceeds eight feet in height.
Portable Sign: A sign that is not affixed to a structure or the ground
in a permanent manner and that may be moved easily from place to
place.
Final Focus Group Dr~fl
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WDO]
Page 3.1-79
November 12, 2003
Projecting Si~n: A sign, other than a wall sign, that projects from,
and is supported by a roof or wall of a building or structure and is
generally at right angles to the building.
Re~a~erboard Sign, Electronic Changeable Copy: A permanent sign
on which copy can be changed electronically by using patterns of
lights that may be changed at intervals not exceeding one change
in copy or display, or intensity or color of lighting in any 60
second period.
Re~a~crboard Sign; Mechanical Changeable Copy: A permanent
sign on which copy can be changed manually in thc field.
Roof sign: Any sign erected upon or extending above or over the
cave or roof of any building or structure. A sign erected upon a
roof which does not vary more than 20 degrees from vertical shall
be regulated as a wall sign.
Subdivision Sign: A sign located on land in a recorded subdi~,ision
containing 10 lots or more.
~: A sign suspended from the underside of a canopy,
awning, arcade, marquee, or other roofed open structure and
oriented to pedestrian traffic.
Temporary Sign: A sign that is not p¢i-~anently affixed or attached
to a building, structure, or thc ground. Temporary signs include,
but are not limited to, A-frames, banners, flags, pennants, balloons,
blimps, streamers, lawn signs, and portable signs.
Unsafe si_gn: A sign constituting a hazard to safety or public
welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation,
obsolescence, disaster, damage, abandonment or inability to meet
lateral and/or vertical loads as dete~ined by the City of
Woodbum Building Official.
Wall Sign: Any sign attached to or erected against the wall of a
building or structure or attached to or erected against a roof which
does not vary more than 20 degrees from vertical, with the exposed
face of the sign in a plane parallel to the plane of the wall or roof
and which does not project more than 18 inches from the wall or
~: A sign which is placed inside a building (such as
placement on a windowsill) within six inches of a window or
attached to the inside of a window.
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodbum Development Ordinance [~]
Page 3.1-80
November 12, 2003
Sign Maintenance: Normal care needed to keep a sign functional such as
painting, cleaning, oiling, and changing light bulbs. Does not include an
alteration to the sign.
Sign Repair: Fixing or replacement of broken or worn parts. Replacement
includes comparable materials only. Repairs may be made with the sign in
position or with the sign removed.
Sign Structure: The structure, supports, uprights, braces, framework and
display surfaces of a sign.
Single Tenant Site: A development that is not a complex.
Street Frontage: The portion of a site that abuts a public street.
Structural Alteration: Modification of a sign or sign structure that affects
size, shape, height, or sign location; changes in structural materials; or
replacement of electrical components with other than comparable
materials. The replacement of wood parts with metal parts, the
replacement of incandescent bulbs with light emitting diodes (LED), or
the addition of electronic elements to an non-electrified sign are examples
of structural alterations. Structural alteration does not include ordinary
maintenance or repair, repainting an existing sign surface, including
changes of message or image, exchanging painted and pasted or glued
materials on painted wall signs, or exchanging display panels of a sign
through release and closing of clips or other brackets.
Vision Clearance Area: See Section 3.103.10.
-3.110.04 Sign Permit Required
A sign permit is required to erect, replace, construct, relocate, or
alter a sign, unless such sign or action is exempt under Section
3.II0.11. A sign permit shall be issued by the Director if the
applicant files an application, filing fee, and plans which
demonstrate full compliance with aH provisions of Section -3.110
and other applicable city regulations.
Sign maintenance, sign repair and changing of a sign display
surface is allowed without obtaining a sign pcrmit so long as
structural alterations are not made and the sign display surface is
not increased in size.
A building permit shall be obtained for any signs where the sign
installation is regulated under the Building Code.
Final Focus Croup Draft
Woodbum EMvelopment Ordinance [WDO]
Page .3.1-81
November 12. 2003
3.110.05
D. An electrical permit shall be obtained for all illuminated signs,
subject to the provisions of the State Electrical Code.
E. The Director may require application for sign permits for any
existing signage on the premises if no existing permits previously
had been approved.
Sign Permit Approval Process
A. Initiation of an Application.
An application for a sign permit may only be initiated by the
property owner or lessee with the authorization of the property
owner.
B. Application Form.
An application for a sign permit shall be made on forms as
prescribed by the Director. Such an application shall be filed with
the Planning Department. The application shall be accompanied by
any fees as specified by City Council resolution. A sign permit
application shall include the following information:
1. Sign location
2. Business name and business owner's name, address and
phone number
3. Property owner's name, address, and phone number
4. Sign company name, address, and phone number
5. Contact person and phone number
6. Type of sign
7. Illustration of the proposed sign(s), existing signs and
location including the following items:
a. Site plan and/or building elevation plans drawn to
scale and dimensioned showing:
1) Existing structures
2) Driveways
3) Streets and right of ways
Final Focu~ Group Draft
Woodburn Development Ordinance [WI30]
Page 3.1-82
November 12, 2003
4) Existing signs
5) Proposed sign
6) Existing property lines
Proposed sign drawn to scale and dimensioned,
showing (as applicable):
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
7)
8)
9)
Total height from the ground
Width
Depth
Area of sign in square feet
Size and style of letters
Colors
Type of illumination
Materials
Drawing of the sign on the building
elevation with dimensions of the building
wall
Signatures of the property owner or lessee. Ifa lessee signs,
property owner authorization shall be provided.
C. Process.
Permits for new signs or modification of existing signs
shall be processed as follows:
Signs subject to a sign permit, except signs listed
under Section 3.110.05.C.l.b below, shall be
processed, using thc procedures, standards, and
application requirements, provided in Section
3.110.
bo
Pole signs and the placement of neon tubing on the
exterior of a building shall be processed as a Type H
land use application, using the application
requirements of Section 5.102.02, except additional
exhibits required under Section 5.102.02.B are
limited to sign information required under Section
3.110.05.B, and using the standards and design
guidelines of Section 3.110 as approval criteria. A
Type II sign application may be processed
concurrently with a separate Type II or IH
development application.
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodbum Development Ordinance [W130]
Page 3.1-83
November 12, 2003
3.110.06
3.110.07
After a sign application is received and deemed complete
by the Director, the Director shall provide the applicant
with a written decision granting or denying the application
for a sign permit. For non-compliant applications, the
decision shall explain the reasons why the application was
denied. A decision to deny shall be mailed to the address on
the application by regular mail.
The Director's decision under Section 3.110.05.C. 1.a is
final for purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed or
otherwise provided to the applicant, whichever occurs first.
The Director's decision is not appealable locally, and is the
final decision of the City.
A decision under Section 3.110.05.C.1.b may be appealed
following the appeal procedure for a Type H application.
Expiration of Approval
Sign permit approval shall expire 180 days from the date of approval if a
building permit is not issued, if required, or substantial construction of the
sign has not commenced ifa building permit is not required. Signs that
require the issuance of a building permit shall be constructed within the
time period established by the building permit. Expiration of a Type II
sign application approval shall comply with Section 4.102.03.
Inspections
A. Construction Inspection.
General requirements for the inspection of signs during and
following construction shall be as follows:
All construction work for which a permit is required shall
be subject to an inspection by the Building Official in
accordance with the Building Code and Section 3.110:
A survey of the lot or parcel or proposed location
for sign erection may be required by the Building
Official to verify compliance of the structure with
approved plans.
bo
Neither the Building Official nor the City of
Woodbum shall be liable for expense or other
obligations entailed in the removal or replacement
of any material required to allow inspection.
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WI)O]
Page 3.1-84
November 12, 2003
3.110.08
3.110.09
It shall be the duty of the person doing the work authorized
by a permit to notify the Building Official that such work is
ready for inspection. The Building Official may require that
every request for inspection be filed at least one working
day before such inspection is desired.
The applicant shah request a final inspection when all work
is completed. This inspection shall cover all items required
by the Building Official under State law or City ordinances
such as the locations, landscaping if required, and general
compliance with the approved plans and requirements of
Section 3.110.
B. Director's Inspection.
The Director is authorized and directed to enforce all of the
provisions of Section 3.110.
All signs for which permits are required shall be inspected
by the Director.
Upon presentation of proper credentials, the Director may
enter at reasonable times any building, structure, or
premises in the City to perform any duty imposed upon the
position by Section 3.110.
General Requirements
Ao
Landscaping: Permanent freestanding signs shall be located in a
planted landscaped area which is of a size equal to at least twice
the sign area. The landscaped area shall be improved and
maintained subject to the landscaping standards of Section 3.106.
Location: No portion of a freestanding sign shall be located less
than five feet from any boundary property line.
Design Guidelines for Type II Sign Applications
The following design guidelines shall be applicable to Type II sign
applications:
Each sign should be designed to be consistent With the
architectural style of the main building or buildings upon the site.
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WDO]
Page 3.1-85
November 12, 2003
3.110.10
3.110.11
Bo
Signs located upon a site with only one main building should be
designed to incorporate at least one of the predominately visual
elements of the building, such as type of construction materials or
color. Each sign located upon a site with more than one building,
such as a complex or other nonresidential development, should be
designed to incorporate at least one predominate visual design
element common to all such buildings or a majority of the
buildings.
Multiple signs located within a single development, or complex
should have a common design established through the use of
similar sign colors and materials, sign supports, method of
illumination, sign cabinet or other configuration of sign area, shape
of sign and components, and letter style and size.
Do
Sign colors and materials should be consistent with the color
scheme and materials used in the development. The use of
fluorescent colors or similar highly reflective materials should be
discouraged.
Eo
Supporting elements of pole signs should be covered consistent
with subsection (D) above. The total width of pole covers should
be at least 30 percent of the sign display width.
Freestanding signs should appear to be a single unit and should not
have separate or detached cabinets or readerboards that are not
architecturally integrated into thc primary sign display area.
Sign Maintenance.
Si~s and sign structures together with their supports, braces, guys,
anchors and electrical components must be maintained in a proper state of
repair. The Director may order the removal of any sign or sign structure
that is not maintained in accordance with Section 3.110 or the Build/rig
Code. Signs and sign structures that are dangerous must be taken down
and removed or made safe as the Director deems necessary.
Exemptions.
The following are exempt from application, permit and fee requirements
of Section 3.110, but are subject to other applicable portions of Section
3.110 and the City Code and may require building and electrical permits:
Window signs provided such signs shall not obscure more than 50
percent of the total window area ora building face.
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WI)O]
Page 3.1-86
Novmnb~r 12, 2003
Bo
Co
De
GJ
Flags provided that not more than two flags shall be permitted on a
lot or parcel in any zone. The area of an individual flag shall not
exceed 40 square feet. Flag mounts or poles shall not exceed 40
feet in height.
Temporary freestanding signs in non-residen~l zones provided
that not more than two such signs shall be permitted on a single
tenant site or complex. The total area of such signs on a single
tenant site or complex shall not exceed 24 square feet and the
height shall not exceed eight feet. Such signs shall not be placed in
the public right of way or a vision clearance area.
Wall signs on residential dwellings provided that not more than
two such signs are permitted on a dwelling unit and the total area
of all such signs shall not exceed three square feet.
Additional Permanent Wall and Freestanding Signs. In addition to
the wall and freestanding signs permitted under Sections 3.110.14
through 3.110.18, the following additional permanent wall and
freestanding signs are permitted for all uses, except single and two
family dwellings. The area of each such freestanding sign shall not
exceed three square feet and a height of five feet. The area of each
such wall sign shall not exceed three square feet. Not more than
three such freestanding signs shall be permitted on a lot or parcel
and not more than two such wall signs shall be placed on a
building with a single tenant or on an individual tenant space in a
multiple tenant building. A freestanding sign shall not be located
within a required front yard setback or setback abutting a street.
Menu boards in conjunction with a drive-thru service
establishment. Not more than two menu boards shall be permitted
for a drive-thru service establishment. Menu boards shall be
located adjacent to the driveway leading to a drive through window
and shall not exceed seven feet in height and eight feet in width.
Lawn signs and A-frame signs in residential zones provided that
not more than two such signs are located on a lot or parcel and the
total area for all such signs does not exceed eight square feet. Such
signs shall not exceed six feet in height and shall not be placed in
the public right of way or vision clearance areas.
Signs which are inside a building, except window signs, or signs
which do not have a primary purpose of being legible fi'om a
public street or another property. Such signs include scoreboard
signs, signs on the inside of ball field fences, signs within a
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodburn Development Ordinance [WDO]
Page 3.1-87
November 12, 200'J
3.110.12
stadium, and signs located within the site of a special event such as
a festival or carnival.
Signs required by federal, state, or city law on private property if
the sign is no more than 32 square feet in area. Such signs include
building addresses, handicap parking signs, designation of fire
lanes, public hearing notices, and building inspection notices.
Signs owned and maintained by federal or state agencies or the
City of Woodbum.
Signs lawfully erected in the public fight of way in accordance
with applicable state and local laws and regulations, including
public utility signs, traffic si~o~.~ and traffic control devices.
Decorations and lights relating directly to federal, state, or city
recognized events or holidays, pwvided that such decorations and
lights shall be placed not more than 45 days before the holiday or
event to which they pertain and shall be removed within 15 days of
the passing of the holiday or event to which they pertain.
Signs on phone booths and product dispensers, such as beverage,
recycling, newspaper, gasoline, and propane machines provided
the total area ofsignage on an individual unit does not exceed three
square feet.
Directories for non-residential complexes with two or more
buildings and multiple family residential complexes with four or
more buildings. Director/es shall be limited to a maximum of one
per street access and shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from a
street right of way. Each directory shall be limited to a maximum
area of 24 square feet. Freestanding directories shall be limited to a
maximum height of eight feet.
Oo
Bench signs provided the total area of such signs on a bench does
not exceed one square foot.
Prohibited signs
The following signs and advertising devices are prohibited:
Any sign constructed, erected, replaced, relocated, altered,
repaired, or maintained in a manner not in compliance with
Section 3.110.
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodbum Development Grdinmco [WI)O]
Page 3.1-88
November 12, 2003
A temporary sign not otherwise allowed under Section 3.110.13 or
exempt under Section 3.110.11.
C. Off premises sign.
D. A sign located on the roof of any building or structure.
A sign located in the vision clearance area established by Section
3.103.10.
A sign located in the special setback area established by Section
3.103.05.
A sign in public right of ways except awning, projecting, wall, and
suspended signs projecting over a public right of way in
conformity with Section 3.110, or unless specifically exempt under
Section 3.Il0.11.
H. Internally illuminated awning sign.
A changing image sign not otherwise allowed under Sections
3.110.13 through 3.110.18 or exempt under Section 3.110.11.
A permanent sign located on an undeveloped lot or parcel, except
subdivision signs.
A beacon light, search light, strobe light or a sign containing such
Neon tubing on the exterior of a building unless approved as part
of a Type II sign application.
A sign that imitates or resembles official traffic lights, signs or
signals or a sign that interferes with the effectiveness of any
official traffic light, sign or signal.
An illuminated sign that produces glare. Glare may not directly, or
indirectly from reflection, cause illumination on other properties or
right of way in excess of a measurement of 0.5 foot candles of light
measured at the property line.
A sign required to have been issued a sign permit, but for which no
sign permit has been issued.
A sign with visible incandescent bulbs or fluorescent tubes or a
sign with a visible direct source of illumination, except neon, and
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WDO]
Page 3.1-89
November 12, 2003
3.110.14
not otherwise allowed under Section 3.110.13 or exempt under
Section 3.110.11.
A sign which is unsafe or constitutes a public nuisance.
A sign which incorporates flames or emits sounds or odors.
A sign supported in whole or in part by cables or guy wires or that
has cables or guy wires extending to or from it.
Temporary Si~n Permit
Certain temporary signs that are not otherwise exempt under
Section 3.110.11 may be approved for a limited period of time as a
means of drawing attention to special events such as grand
openings, carnivals, charitable events, seasonable openings, special
promotions, etc. Approval of a Temporary Sign Permit application
shall be required prior to placement of such signs.
B. Process.
Temporary Sign Permits shall be processed using the
procedures, criteria, and application requirements of
Section 3.110.14.
After a Temporary Sign Pei-ii~it application is received and
deemed complete by the Director, the Director shall
provide the apphcant with a written decision granting or
denying the application for a Temporary Sign Permit. For
non-comphant applications, the decision shall explain the
reasons why the application was denied. A decision to deny
shall be mailed to the address on the application by regular
mail.
The Director's decision under Section 3.110.14 is final for
purposes of appeal on the date that it is mailed or otherwise
provided to the applicant, whichever occurs first. The
Director's decision is not appealable locally, and is the final
decision of the City.
Co
Application Requirements. An application for a Temporary Sign
Permit shall be made on forms prescribed by the Director. ueh
an application shall be filed with the Planning Department. The
application shall be accompanied by any fees as specified by City
Council resolution. The following information is required for
submittal of a Temporary Sign Permit application:
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodbum Devel~ment Ordinance [WDO]
Page 3.1-90
Novembe~ 12, 2003
De
A completed Temporary Sign Permit application form. The
application form shall include the following:
1. Address of location where sign(s) is to be placed
2. Business name; property owner or tenant name, mailing
address, and phone number
3. Contact person and phone number
4. Type of signs and total area of signs in square feet
5. Signatures of the apphcant and property'owner or tenant
Identification of the location where sign(s) is to be placed as a
single tenant site, an individual tenant in a complex, a complex
with less than 20 tenants, or a complex with 20 or more tenants
Criteria. The Director shall approve an application for a Temporary
Sign Permit only if it complies with the following approval
criteria:
The following types of temporary signs are permitted with
a Temporary Sign Permit: A-frames, banners, flags,
pennants, balloons, strings of lights, streamers, blimps, and
lawn signs. Portable signs are specifically not permitted.
A Temporary Sign Permit shall not be granted for single
and two family residential uses or for an individual tenant
in a multiple family residential complex.
An owner or tenant of an individ~o! property, a tenant in a
complex, and the owner of a complex may obtain
temporary sign permits. In a complex, a tenant shall be
limited to placing only banners and flags on the exterior
walls and w/ndows of its tenant space.
Temporary sign permits shall be limited to a specified
number of 15-day periods per calendar year. Said periods
may nm consecutively; however, unused days from one
period shall not be added to another period. The number of
temporary sign permits allowed shall be as follows:
Final Focus Group Drnfl
Woodburn Development Ordinance [WDO]
Page 3.1-91
November 12, 2003
3.110.14
A single tenant site or an individual tenant in a
complex shall be permitted a maximum of four
temporary sign permits per calendar year.
be
A complex consisting of less than 20 tenant spaces
shall be permitted a maximum of four temporary
sign permits per calendar year, in addition to
temporary sign permits allowed for individual
tenants.
A complex consisting of 20 or more tenant spaces
shall be permitted a maximum of six temporary sign
permits per calendar year, in addition to temporary
sign permits allowed for individual tenants.
No temporary sign shall extend into or over public right of
way or vision clearance areas, as governed by Section
3.103.10.
No temporary sign shall obstruct on-site pedestrian or
vehicular access or circulation.
o
The total area of all temporary signs permitted by a
temporary sign permit shall not exceed 100 square feet for
an individual tenant in a complex, 200 square feet for a
single tenant site or a complex with less than 20 tenant
spaces, or 400 square feet for a complex consisting of 20 or
more tenant spaces.
Permitted Sign: Residential and Public/Semi-Public Land Use
Districts (RS, RIS, RM, and P/SP)
Signs in the RS, RIS, RM and P/SP Districts shall be subject to the
following provisions and all other applicable provisions of Section 3.110
and the WDO.
Ao
Subdivision and Manufactured Home Park Signs. Signs located
within a subdivision containing 10 lots or more or a manufactured
home park containin$ l 0 lease spaces or more shall be permitted
subject to the following limitations:
Type. Monument signs and signs attached to a freestanding
wall are permitted.
Area of signs. Each sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in
area.
Final Focus Group DraR
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WIX)]
Page 3.1-92
November 12, 2003
Co
3. Height of sign.
ao
Monument sign shall not exceed a height of five
feet.
Sign on freestanding wall shall not project above
wall.
Number of signs. One sign is permitted on each side of
each public street entry into the development.
llltunination. Only externally illuminated signs are
permitted and such signs shall not cause glare.
Multiple Family Dwelling Signs. Signs associated with multiple
family developments containing four or more attached dwelling
units shall be permitted subject to the following limitations:
1. Type of sign. Monument and wall signs are permitted.
2. Area of sign.
a. Wall sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in area.
bo
Monument sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in
area.
Height of sign. Monument sign shall not exceed a height of
five feet.
o
Number of signs. Not more than one monument sign and
one wall sign shall be permitted
Illumination. Only externally illuminated signs are
permitted and such signs shall not cause glare.
Non-Residential Use Signs. Signs for non-residential uses shall be
permitted subject to the following limitations:
1. Developed site containing less than three acres:
Type of Sign. Monument, wall, and mechanical
changeable copy readerboard signs are permitted.
b. Area of sign.
Final Focus Group Draft
Wooa'bum IX'v¢lopmeat Ordinance DVDO]
Page 3.1=93
Novmnb~r ! 2, 2003
Wall sign shall not exceed 20 square feet in
area.
2).
Monument sign shall not exceed 20 square
feet in area including any readerboard sign.
3).
Rcaderboard sign shall not cxcced 12 square
feet in area.
Height of Sign. Monument sign shall not exceed
five feet in height.
do
Number of Signs. One monument sign and one wall
sign shall be permitted. Readerboard sign may only
comprise part of a monument sign and shall be
included in the area calculation for a monument
sign.
eo
Illumination. Only externally illuminated signs are
permitted and such signs shall not cause glare.
Developed site containing three or more acres:
Re
Type of Sign. Monument, wall and mechanical
changeable copy readerboard signs are permitted.
b. Area of sign.
1).
Wall sign shall not exceed 32 square feet in
area.
2).
Monument sign not exceed 32 square feet in
area including any readerboard sign.
3).
Readerboard sign shall not exceed 18 square
feet in area.
Height of Sign. Monument sign shall not exceed six
feet in height.
dj
Number of Signs. One monument sign is permitted
per public street frontage provided the total number
of monument signs shall not exceed two signs. One
wall sign is permitted on each building wall that
fronts on a public street provided the total number
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodbum Development Ordinnnce [WIX)]
Page 3.1-94
November 12, 2003
3.110.15
of wall signs shall not exceed two signs.
Readerboard signs may only comprise part of a
monument sign and shall be included in the area
calculation for a monument sign.
Illumination. Only externally illuminated signs are
permitted and such signs shall not cause glare.
Permitted Sign: Commercial Office District (CO)
Signs in the CO District shall be subject to the following provisions and
all other applicable provisions of Section 3.110 and the VVDO.
A. Developed site or complex containing less than three acres.
1. Type of signs. Monument and wall sign(s) are allowed.
2. Area of si~.
ao
Wall sign. No more than four percent of any
building wall shall be covered by wall signs.
Monument sign. Monument sign shall not exceed
20 square feet in area.
o
Height of monument sign. Monument sign shall not exceed
a height of five feet.
4. Number of signs.
Wall sign. Maximum of one sign per tenant. One
additional sign is permitted to identify each building
or complex.
bo
Monument sign. Maximum of one sign per street
frontage not to exceed a total of two signs.
Illumination. Externally or internally illuminated signs are
permitted and such signs shall not cause glare.
B. Developed site or complex containing three acres or more:
1. Type of signs. Monument and wall sign(s) are allowed.
2. Area of signs.
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WE)O]
Page 3.1-95
November 12, 2003
3.110.16
Wall sign. No moro than four percent of any
building wall shall be covered by wall signs.
bo
Monument sign. Monument sign shall not exceed
32 square feet in area.
Height of monument sign. Monument sign shall not exceed
a height of six feet.
4. Number of signs.
Wall sign. Maximum of one sign per tenant. One
additional sign is permitted to identify each building
or complex.
Monument sign. Maximum of one sign per street
frontage not to exceed a total of two sign,~.
Illumination. Externally or internally illuminated signs are
permitted and such signs shall not cause glare.
Permitted Sign: Commercial General District (CG)
Signs in the CG District shall be subject to the following provisions and
all other applicable provisions of Section 3.110 and the WI)O.
A. Pole Signs.
1. Single Tenant Site.
A pole sign is permitted on a street frontage that
exceeds 100 lineal feet not to exceed one pole sign
on a single tenant site. A pole sign shall be
permitted instead of a monument sign.
A pole sign on a street with less than 300 lineal feet
of frontage shall not exceed 12 feet in height and 32
square feet in area.
Co
A pole sign on a street with 300 lineal feet or more
but legs than 600 lineal feet of fi'ontage shall not
exceed l $ feet in height and $0 square feet in area.
A pole sign on a street with 600 lineal feet or more
of fi'ontage shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
100 square feet in area.
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WDO]
Page 3.1-96
Novembo. 12, 2003
2. Complex.
A pole sign is permitted on a street frontage that
exceeds 100 lineal feet not to exceed one pole sign
for a complex.
be
A pole sign on a street with less than 300 lineal feet
of frontage shall not exceed 1 $ feet in height and 50
square feet in area.
A pole sign on a street with 300 lineal feet or more
but less than 600 lineal feet of frontage shall not
exceed 18 feet in height and 75 square feet in area.
A pole sign on a street with 600 lineal feet or more
of frontage shall not exceed 20 feet in height and
1 O0 square feet in area.
B. Monument Signs.
One primary monument sign is permitted on a single tenant
site or complex. If a pole sign is placed on a single tenant
site or complex, a primary monument sign is not permitted.
In a complex, secondary monument signs are permitted at a
ratio of one monument sign for each 300 lineal feet of
street frontage on the same street not to exceed two
secondary monument signs on a single street frontage and
not to exceed a total of four secondary monument signs on
a complex.
Monument signs on a street frontage with less than 300
lineal feet of frontage shall not exceed six feet in height and
32 square feet in area.
Monument signs on a street frontage with 300 lineal feet or
more of frontage shall not exceed eight feet in height and
50 square feet in area.
C. Wall Signs.
Wall signs are permitted on a primary building frontage.
Such signs shall not cover more than six pement of the
building wall on a single tenant building or each tenant's
leased wall on a multiple tenant building and shall not
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodbum D~'volopmmt Ordinanc~ [WDO]
Page 3.1-97
Novm~,r 12, 2003
exceed amaximum area of 200 square feet. However, a
minimum sign area of 20 square feet shall be permitted for
each single tenant building or tenant in a multiple tenant
building. Only one building wall shall be designated as the
primary building frontage.
o
Wall signs are permitted on secondary building frontages.
Such si~ shall not cover more than three percent of the
building wall on a single tenant building or each tenant's
leased wall on a multiple tenant building and shall not
exceed a maximum area of 100 square feet. However, a
minimum sign area of 16 square feet is allowed for each
single tenant building or tenant in a multiple tenant
building.
Wall signs are permitted on canopies. Such signs shall be
limited to no more than two sides of the canopy and shall
not cover more than 15 percent of a canopy face or 50
square feet, whichever is less.
Readerboards.
Mechanical and electronic changeable copy readerboards are
permitted. Readerboards are permitted on pole and monument
signs only. Readerboards shall be integrated into the overall sign to
appear as a single unit and shall not comprise more than 50 percent
of the total sign display surface.
Awning and Marquee Signs.
Signs on awnings and marquees are permitted as wall signs, except
that internally illuminated awning signs are prohibited. Signs on
awnings and marquees shall not extend above or below the awning
or marquee.
Projecting Signs.
One projecting sign is permitted on a single tenant site or complex.
However, no projecting sign shall be permitted on a single tenant
site or complex where there is a pole or monument sign. Projecting
signs shall not exceed an area of 24 square feet and shall be located
a minimum of eight feet above the ground. Such signs shall not
project more than six feet from a building wall.
Suspended Signs.
Final Focus Group Draft
Woodbum Developr~nt Ordinance [WDO]
Page 3.1-98
November 12, 2003
One suspended sign is permitted for each entrance to a building or
tenant space. Such sign shall not exceed an area of six square feet
and shall be located a minimum of eight feet above the ground.
Such sign shall not project past the outer edge of the roof structure.
H. General Standards.
Pole and monument signs within the same complex shall be
located a minimum oflO0 feet apart.
Pole signs shall be subject to approval of a Type H
application pursuant to Section 3.110.05.C.l.b.
Illumination: Externally or internally illuminated signs are
permitted and such signs shall not cause glare.
3.110.17
Permitted Signs-Downtown Development and Conservation District
(DDC)
Signs in the DDC District shall be subject to the following provisions and
all other applicable provisions of Section 3.110 and the WDO.
A. Monument Signs.
A monument sign is permitted on a single tenant site or
complex.
A monument sign shall not exceed five feet in height and
20 square feet in area.
B. Wall Signs.
Wall signs are permitted on a primary building frontage.
Such signs shall not cover more than four percent of the
building wall on a single tenant building or each tenant's
leased wall on a multiple tenant building and shall not
exceed a maximum area of 50 square feet. However, a
minimum sign area of 16 square feet shall be permitted for
each single tenant building or tenant in a multiple tenant
building. Only one building wall shall bc designated as thc
primary building frontage.
Wall signs are permitted on secondary building frontages.
Such signs shall not cover more than two percent of the
building wall on a single tenant building or each tenant's
leased wall on a multiple tenant building and shall not
Final Focus Croup Dr~fl
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WDO]
Page 3.1-99
November 12, 2003
:3.110.18
exceed a maximum area of 30 square feet. However, a
minimum sign area of 12 square feet is allowed for each
single tenant building or tenant in a multiple tenant
building.
C. Readerboards.
Mechanical and electronic changeable copy readerboards are
permitted. Readerboards are permitted on monument signs only.
Readerboards shall be integrated into the overall sign to appear as
a single unit and shall not comprise more than 50 percent of the
total sign display surface.
D. Awning and Marquee Signs.
Signs on awnings and marquees are permitted as wall signu, except
that internally illuminated awning signs are prohibited. Signs on
awnings and marquees shall not extend above or below the awning
or marquee.
E. Projecting Signs.
One projecting sign is permitted on a single tenant site or complex
for each street or alley frontage. However, no projecting sign shall
be permitted on a single tenant site or complex where there is a
monument sign on the same street frontage. Projecting signs shall
not exceed an area of 12 square feet and shall be located a
minimum of eight feet above the ground. Such signs shall not
project more than four feet from a building wall.
F. Suspended Signs.
One suspended sign is permitted for each entrance to a building or
tenant space. Such sign shall not exceed an area of six square feet
and shall be located a minimum of eight feet above the ground.
Such sign shall not project past the outer edge of the roof structure.
G. General Standards.
Projecting signs shall be subject to approval of a Type H
application pursuant to Section 3.110.05.C.l.b.
Illumination: Externally or internally illuminated signs are
permitted and such signs shall not cause glare.
Permitted Signs--Industrial Districts (IP and IL)
Final Focu~ Group Draft
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WIX)]
Page 3.1-100
November i 2, 2003
Signs in the IP and IL Districts shall be subject to the following provisions
and all other applicable provisions of Section 3.110 and the WI)O.
A. Monument Signs.
One monument sign is permitted on a single tenant site or
complex.
In a complex, one additional monument sign is permitted if
the complex has at least two street frontages that each
exceed 300 lineal feet.
Monument si~s on a street frontage with less than 300
lineal feet of frontage shall not exceed six feet in height and
32 square feet in area.
Monument signs on a street frontage with 300 lineal feet or
more of frontage shall not exceed eight feet in height and
50 square feet in area.
B. Wall Signs.
Wall signs are permitted on a primary building frontage.
Such signs shall not cover more than four percent of the
building wall on a single tenant building or each tenant's
leased wall on a multiple tenant building and shall not
exceed a maximum area of 150 square feet. However, a
m/nimum sign area of 16 square feet shall be permitted for
each single tenant building or tenant in a multiple tenant
building. Only one building wall shall be designated as the
primary building frontage.
Wall signs are permitted on secondary building frontages.
Such signs shall not cover more than two percent of the
building wall on a single tenant building or each tenant's
leased wall on a multiple tenant building and shall not
exceed a maximum area of 75 square feet. However, a
minin~tun sign area of 12 square feet is allowed for each
single tenant building or tenant in a multiple tenant
building.
C. Readerboards.
Mechanical and electronic changeable copy readerboards are
permitted. Readerboards are permitted on monument signs only.
Final Focus Group Dra~
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WDO]
Page 3.1-101
November i 2, 2003
3.110.19
3.110.20
Do
Eo
Readerboards shall be integrated into the overall sign to appear as
a single unit and shall not comprise more than 50 percent of the
total sign display surface.
Awning and Marquee Signs.
Signs on awnings and marquees are permitted as wall signs, except
that internally illuminated awning signs are prohibited. Signs on
awnings and marquees shall not extend above or below the awning
or marquee.
Projecting Signs.
One projecting sign is permitted on a single tenant site or complex.
However, no projecting sign shall be permitted on a single tenant
site or complex where there is a monument sign. Projecting signs
shall not exceed an area of 20 square feet and shall be located a
minimum of eight feet above the ground. Such signs shall not
project more than four feet from a building wall.
F. Suspended Signs.
One suspended sign is permitted for each entrance to a building or
tenant space. Such sign shall not exceed an area of six square feet
and shall be located a minimum of eight feet above the ground.
Such sign shall not project past the outer edge of the roof structure.
G. General Standards.
Monument signs within the same complex shall be located
a minimum of 100 feet apart.
Illumioation. Externally or internally illuminated signs are
permitted and such signs shall not cause glare.
Variances
A variance may be granted from any regulation of Section 3.110 in
accordance with the provisions of Section 5.103.11.
Nonconforming Signs
Nonconforming signs are those signs lawfully established prior to
the adoption of Section 3.110 or subsequent amendment thereto or
signs lawfully established on property annexed to the City, which
do not conform to the requirements of Section 3.110.
Final Focus Group DraR
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WDO]
Page 3.1-102
November 12, 2003
Nonconforming permanent signs may remain provided they
comply with the provisions of Section 3.110.20. However,
nonconforming temporary signs shall comply with the provisions
of Section 3.110.
Nonconforming permanent signs shall comply with the provisions
of Section 3.110 when one or more of the following occurs:
A nonconforming sign is expanded, relocated, replaced or
structurally altered.
The use of the premises upon which the sign is located
terminates for a continuous period of 180 days or more. In
a complex, if an individual tenant space is vacant for a
continuous period of 180 days or more, only signs attached
to such tenant space shall be required to comply with the
provisions of Section 3.110.
The use of the premises upon which the sign is located
changes. In a complex, if the use of an individual tenant
space changes, only signs attached to such tenant space
shall be required to comply with the provisions of Section
3.110.
A Type II Design Review or Type KI Conditional Use or
Design Review land use application is approved for the
premises upon which the sign is located. In a complex, if an
individual tenant space is the subject of a Type II Design
Review or Type IH Conditional Use or Design Review land
use application, only signs attached to such tenant space
shall be required to comply with the provisions of Section
3.110.
A nonconforming sign is damaged, destroyed, or
deteriorated by any means where the cost of repairs
exceeds $0 percent of its current replacement cost as
determined by the Building Official.
o
A sign permit for a conforming sign(s) is issued for the
premises upon which a nonconforming sign is located. In
such case, all nonconforming signs on the same premises,
except signs attached to individual tenant spaces in a
complex, shall comply with Section 3.110'prior to
installation of the new sign(s). In a complex, ifa sign
permit for a conforming sign(s) is issued for an individual
tenant space upon which a nonconforming sign is attached,
Final Focus Group DmR
Woodbum Development Ordinance [WDO]
Page 3.1-103
November 12, 2003
only signs attached to such tenant space shall be required to
comply with the provisions of Section 3.110.
A nonconforming sign or sign structure may be removed for no
more than 60 days to perform sign maintenance or sign repair. A
nonconforming sign or sign structure removed for more than 60
days shall comply with the provisions of Section 3.110.
3.110.21 Enforcement. See Section 4.102.11.
Final Focus C-toup Draft
Woodbum Development Ordinmce [WDO]
Page 3.1-104
November 12, 2003
EXHIBIT "B"
Woodburn Planning Commission
Recommended Revisions to Final Focus Group Draft Sign Ordinance
Recommended Revisions: Prohibit "Blimps" by adding "Blimps" under Section
3.110.12 as a prohibited sign and revising Section 3.110.14.D.1 by changing
"Blimps' from a permitted temporary sign to a temporary sign that is specifically
not permitted.
Explanation: Blimps were prohibited in the staff draft, but were added by the
focus group as a permitted sign type under a temporary sign permit. The
Planning Commission believes that blimps tend to be too imposing and
distracting to allow even on a temporary basis. In addition, blimps would
significantly contribute to a cluttered and unattractive living environment and
would negatively affect the city's ability to project an image of an attractive
community.
A'i-rACHHENT B
CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
January 15, 2004
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 04-01
I. PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal initiated by the Woodburn City Council to revise the text of the
Woodburn Sign Ordinance.
I1. RELEVANT FACTS:
The City Council established a goal o f revising t he Woodbum Sign Ordinance
during the 2002-03 fiscal year. To this end, City staff developed a draft revised
sign ordinance by March 2003. City staff participating in the process primarily
consisted of the City Administrator, City Attorney, Community Development
Director, Senior Planner, and Assistant City Attorney.
On March 24, 2003, the Mayor appointed a focus group to review city staff's draft
sign ordinance. This focus group consisted of nine members representing
various interests and are listed as follows:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Jim Cox, City Council Member
Ellen Bandelow, Planning Commission Member
Lisa EIIsworth, Livability Task Force Member
Don Judson, Business Community Representative
Aaron Berrera, Downtown Business Representative
Cindy Kelly, Highway 99 Business Representative
Mary Graves, I-5 Interchange Area Business Representative
Pam Kilmurray, At Large Citizen Representative
Dick Pugh, At Large Citizen Representative
The focus group began its review of the draft sign ordinance on September 18,
2003 and met once a week until it completed its review on November 12, 2003.
The focus group by consensus made numerous revisions to city staff's draft and
the final product is identified as the "Final Focus Group Draft", dated-November
12, 2003.
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 1746 on December §, 2003 initiating
consideration of the proposed amendments to the Woodbum Sign Ordinance.
The "Final Focus Group Draft" of the revised sign ordinance was presented to the
Planning Commission at its December 11, 2003 and January 8, 2004 meetings
for discussion purposes. A notice of public hearing to be held before the
ZTA 04-01 Staff Report
III.
IV.
Planning Commission on January 15, 2004 was published in the Woodburn
Independent in compliance with City ordinances. The "Final Focus Group Draft"
was posted on the City's web site and was made available for public review at
the City Library and City Hall.
This proposal is being processed as a Type V legislative application and as a
periodic review task. Periodic Review Work Program Task 8 specifies that
changes to the sign ordinance are needed. Adoption of the proposed revised
sign ordinance will complete the portion of Task 8 relating to changing the sign
ordinance.
APPLICABLE APPROVAL CRITERIA:
A. City of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan - Chapter IX. Goals and Policies
ANALYSIS:
The Woodbum Sign Ordinance (WSO) was substantially amended in 1992 with
one minor revision in 1994. The WSO contains many errors, does not address
many current sign issues and has many potential legal conflicts associated with
its regulations. Minor revisions are not sufficient to fix these deficiencies. To
address these deficiencies the City Council included an update of the WSO as a
task in the city's periodic review work program adopted in 1997. In addition, the
format of the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) adopted in 2003
enables incorporating the WSO into the WDO. To address all the issues
necessary to update the WSO, a comprehensive revision is necessary.
The WSO will be repealed and the proposed amendments to the WSO will be
incorporated into the WDO by adding a section containing sign regulations. All
sign regulations will be contained within the WDO. The proposed sign regulation
amendments are comprehensive and modify every provision of the WSO,
including but not limited to the following general modifications:
1. Revised definitions relating to signs
Definitions are substantially revised to minimize the need for interpretation
and to ensure the sign ordinance is content neutral conceming speech
regulation.
2. Revised permitting procedures and requirements
Two new permit applications are established. In addition to the current
sign permit application, a new permit to allow temporary signs is
established and a Type II land use application to allow pole signs or neon
tubing on the exterior of a building is required.
ZTA 04-01 Staff Report 2
o
o
New design review requirement for pole signs and use of neon
tubing on building exteriors
A Type II land use application is required to allow a pole sign on a
property or to use neon tubing on the extedor of a building. Design review
criteria are established to ensure that pole signs and the use of neon
tubing meet minimum aesthetic guidelines.
Revised list of exempt and prohibited sign types
The list of signs that are exempt from the sign ordinance is substantially
revised. Revisions include allowing window signs to cover 50 percent of
the window area, no more than two flags on a lot, allowance for temporary
signs on property in all zones, and allowance for decorations in
conjunction with holidays and recognized events.
The list of signs that are prohibited is substantially revised. Revisions
include prohibiting off premises signs, roof signs, private signs in the
public dght of way, intemally illuminated awning signs, and beacon, strobe
or search lights.
New provisions allow temporary signs on a limited basis
A temporary sign permit is established to allow certain temporary signs in
all zoning districts except for single and two-family uses. Generally, a
property or business is allowed four 15-day periods per calendar year to
place temporary signs on the subject property or business. This provision
is intended to allow for special events such as grand openings or special
promotions, or any other limited advertising need or political speech of the
property or business owner.
Revised sign regulations for all zoning districts that will modify the
number, area, height, and placement of signs permitted on a given
property
Standards relating to the number, area, height, and placement of signs are
substantially revised for all zoning districts. In residential and public
zones, permanent wall and freestanding signs may be permitted where no
such signs are currently permitted by the WSO. Sign standards in
commercial and industrial zones may generally result in an increase in the
number of freestanding or wall signs permitted as compared to the WSO.
The permitted sign area of wall or freestanding signs and t he height of
freestanding signs in commercial and industrial zones are generally
ZTA 04-01 Staff Report
3
reduced. Electronic changeable copy readerboards are permitted in CG,
DDC, IL, and IP zones where the WSO does not permit such signs.
7. Revised nonconforming sign regulations
Regulations pertaining t o nonconforming signs a re substantially revised.
While most of the provisions of the WSO pertaining to nonconforming
signs have been incorporated into the draft ordinance, the draft ordinance
provides additional events that may require nonconforming signs to
conform. These include termination of the use of the premises for more
than 180 days, change in the use of the premises, approval of Type II
Design Review or Type III Conditional Use or Design Review applications
on the property, or issuance of a sign permit for a conforming sign on the
premises.
The draft sign ordinance has been wdtten with the goal of balancing the need of
businesses to identify themselves with the needs of the community to protect
public safety and provide an attractive community. The WSO has been
restructured to be incorporated into the WDO and to make the ordinance more
modem, clearer and easier to use. The WSO has been revised to be consistent
with changes in state statutes and case law with an emphasis on ensuring
content neutrality in the regulation of signs.
The proposed sign ordinance revisions are consistent with the goals and policies
in the Comprehensive Plan and no changes are proposed that require an
amendment to the comprehensive plan because the Comprehensive Plan does
not contain any goals or policies that relate directly to the issue of signs.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct
staff to prepare a final order recommending that the City Council adopt the draft
sign ordinance.
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" -
Exhibit "B" -
Final Focus Group Draft Sign Ordinance, Dated
(previously provided to Planning Commission)
Written Testimony received prior to 1/15/04 public hearing:
B-l: Letter from Dick Pugh, dated 11/29/03
B-2.' Letter from John Donaldson, dated 9/4/03
11/12/03
ZTA 04-01 Staff Report
4
Exhibit 'B~,I
REAL ESTATE
Dick & Barb Pugh GRI
Principal Brokers
Woodburn Office
1880 Woodland Ave.
WoodbuFn, OR 9'/0'/1
S03-9814663
S03-981-S918 FAX
S03-320-0670 CcH
e-marl dickbarb~oregonsbesLeom
Memo
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
The Honorable Kathy Figley
Dick Pugh ~
11/29/2003
Minority report - Sign Ordnance Committee
John Brown
Jim Mulder
First let me thank you for the opportunity to serve on this committee~ They are a fine group and also very much si~ve as
to responsibilities and delegation of authority as committee members.
There are two items resulting from our deliberations that I believe merit further consideration by the Planning
Commission and also the City Council. The most important item by far deals with the changes made to the acceptable
size of the signs. I am very excited about making these si~ons less obtrusive and hopefully create a more balanced look
and less of a "Las Vegas Style Strip" impression. As a matter of fact this is unanimous as far as the commiRee is
concerned. But, by not having an "amortization period" ( say 3-5 years) to have the present signs that don't meet the
new criteria removed, we have defeated our purpose ( see 3.110.20. Nonconforming Si?~). The new rules require
replacement when servicing and when other pertinent items are required ( also see 3.110.20), but in reality this will
leave too many nonconforming signs with us, for in some cases, far too long a time.
The lesser but still an important consideration affects my own profession in that it deals with not allowing "A Frame
lype" signs (used for open houses) off premises. At present, signs offpremises are allowed for not more than 24 hours
and not placed in a baTzrdous place on public property*. The new rules don't allow any of these type of siflas off
premises. The content issue is not pertinent since these temporary signs are used for special retail sales, garage sales,
and any "less than one day event". These events do need directional signs to aid in success of their project. I felt there
was just too much animosity toward "ugly garage cardboard si~,ns" to get thc committee to come to a reasonable set
rules. I hope there is some common sense and courtesy toward our citizens that doesn't make thc city appear to be a
Gestapo toward week-end and special events that give our City it's own personality.
* This was a Council decision made many years ago that somehow never made it as an amendment to thc sign Ord.
Exhibit "B'~.,~'
Capital Development Company
September 4, 2003
REC'D
Ms. Kathy Figley, Mayor
City of Woodburn
270 Montgomery Street
Woodburn, OR 97071
SEP 0 8 2003
WOODBURN COUMuN/Ty
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
RE: Proposed Sign Ordinance
Dear Mayor Figley:
We were recently advised that the City of Woodburn is in the process of modifying thc existing
sign ordinance for the City. We own the commercial property adjacent to the Freeway identified
on the attached s/te plan. We would encourage your focus group and staff to consider a separate
category for large box stores in Freeway oriented shopping centers.
One of the principle values of property with both a vision corridor and access from the Freeway
is the ability to attract customers from the sixty to eiShty thousand cars a day that traverse
Interstate 5 in Woodbum. These cars are moving at a rapid rate and need signs sufficiently sized
to enable the patron to determine whether or not to exit in Woodburn.
In addition, most major stand-alone "power cemer" tenants have minimum requirements for
signage. If the City becomes too restrictive you will in effect foreclose any opportunity to attract
desirable job creatins, national tenants who will potentially have an interest in locating in the
City. We appreciate your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
John R. Donaldson
Senior Vice President
Encl.
Cc: John Brown, City Manager, City of Woodbum
fire Muider, Director of Community Development, City of Woodbum
rim Cox
JRD:smc
P,O. 8ox 3487 · Lacey. ~Vashington 98509-3487
71 I Sleater Kinney Rd. S.E. · Lacey. ~/ashington 98503-1124
Telephone# 360/491-6850 · FAY~tl 360/459-8747
113# 01 -CA-Pt-TD , 323005
A'ErACHHENT C
WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION
January 15, 2004
CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a special session at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council
Chambers with Chairperson Lima presiding.
ROLL CALL
Chairperson Lima P
Vice Chairperson Young P
Commissioner Vancil P
Commissioner Grigorleff P
Commissioner Mill A
Commissioner Bandelow P
Commissioner Lonergan P
Staff Present:
Jim Mulder, Community Development Director
Dehisce Won, Assistant City Attorney
MINUTES
None
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
COMMUNICATIONS
A_=. City Council Minutes of December 8. 2004
PUBLIC HEARING
A_.~. Zoning Text Amendment 04-01: Proposal to amend the Woodbum Sian Ordinance
St~. provided a brief history of the process of revising the sign ordinance. He reported the City Council
established the goal of revising the Woodburn Sign Ordinance during the 2002-2003 fiscal year and by March
2003, City Staff developed a draft revised sign ordinance. Participants in that process primarily consisted of
the City Administrator, City Attorney, Community Development Director, Senior Planner and the Assistant City
Attorney. In March 24, 2003, the Mayor appointed a Focus Group to review the Staff draft, which consisted
of nine members and was intended to represent various interests in the City. The Focus Group began its
review of the draft ordinance on September 18, 2003 and met once a week until it completed its review on
November 12, 2003. Additionally, the Focus Group by consensus made numerous revisions to the City Staff's
draft and the final product is identified as the Final Focus Group draft dated November 12, 2003. Staff further
informed the Commission the Woedburn Sign Ordinance was substantially amended in 1992 with one minor
revision in 1994. He indicated the Woedbum Sign Ordinance contained many errors; did not address many
current sign issues and had many potential legal conflicts associated with those regulations. Minor revisions
are not sufficient to fix these deficiencies and therefore, in order to address those, the City Council included
an update of the Woodburn Sign Ordinance as a task in the City's Pedodic Review work program which was
adopted in 1997. Moreover, the format of the Woodburn Development Ordinance, adopted in 2002 by the City
Council, presented the opportunity to incorporate any revisions to the Sign Ordinance in to the Development
Ordinance. He further commented in order to address all the issues necessary to update the Sign Ordinance,
a comprehensive revision was necessary. Therefore, the Woodburn Sign Ordinance will be repealed and the
proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance will be incorporated in to the Development Ordinance by adding
a section containing sign regulations and will then be contained within the Development Ordinance. Staff
reported the proposed sign regulation amendments are comprehensive and modify every provision of the
current Sign Ordinance including but not limited to, general modifications which include revised definitions
relating to signs; revised permitting procedures and requirements; new design review requirements for pole
signs and the use of neon tubing on building exteriors; revised list of exempt and prohibited sign types; new
provisions allowing temporary signs on a limited basis and; revised sign regulations for all zoning districts that
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004
Page 1 of 10
will modify the number, area, height and placement of signs permitted on a given property and; revised non-
conforming sign regulations. Moreover, the draft Sign Ordinance has been written with the goal of balancing
the need of businesses to identify themselves with the needs of the community to protect public safety and
provide an attractive community. The Woodburn Sign Ordinance has been revised to be consistent with
changes in State statutes and case law with an emphasis on ensuring content neutrality in the regulations of
signs and; are consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. He said no changes are
proposed that require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan does not
contain any goals or policies that relate directly to the regulation of signs. In conclusion, Staff recommended
the Planning Commission direct Staff to prepare a Final Order recommending that the City Council adopt the
draft Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner Bandelow was unsure as to whether or not she needed to declare her membership on the
Focus Group as an Ex Parte contact.
Deniece Won explained this is a legislative decision making process and therefore, the Ex Parte contact issue
would really not be applicable.
Commissioner Loner(lan requested clarification as far as the Council repealing the current ordinance.
Staff responded the Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the Council and there would be
another public hearing. Assuming they agree with the revisions, they would adopt an ordinance by a majority
vote of the Council.
Chairperson Lima opened the public hearing and opened for public comment.
Richard Jennin.qs, 595 Filbert St., Woodburn, OR 97071 commented the Sign Ordinance was discussed for
quite some length back when he was still a member of the elected body. He mentioned it is known that the
City of Woodburn does not have to obey its own ordinances and he felt the School District needed to be
included some place along with government. Mr. Jennings further stated the School's requirements, in many
cases, are completely different from anybody else that has ever walked on the face of the earth. Additionally,
he mentioned we have gone through many headaches with the School District all because they were not
addressed as a separate entity, however, not privileged. He said it was ridiculous to him that Nellie Muir
School could not place their reader board back out by the street and had to put it on the side of the building
after the old one rusted and blew over. Mr. Jennings further reported you could hardly read the reader board
and is not noticeable as you drive past the site. He indicated in speaking with Staff, it was his belief there isn't
anything included in the ordinance that addressed that and suggested and encouraged the Planning
Commission to perhaps include something in the ordinance to address that. In closing, Mr. Jennings
indicated he was pleased that the ordinance was being revised.
Staff commented the draft does accommodate schools because the current sign code does not allow any type
of permanent signs for uses that are in public and residential zones which was one of the problems with the
current sign ordinance. This issue has been addressed in the draft code by allowing signs in residential and
public zones. A school would be allowed a wall sign and a monument sign, not to exceed 32 sq. ft. plus a
reader board sign, not to exceed 18 sq. ft. under the draft sign ordinance. Staff further explained temporary
sign permits would be allowed in this zone for any use that is not a single or two family residence. Schools
would be allowed four 15-day periods per year where they could have special event signage.
Commissioner Bandelow pointed out allowing temporary signs for an event 60 days a year may well cover
Mr. Jennings' concerns.
Richard Edmonds, Woodburn Automotive and Mufflers, Hitches and More, 555 N. Pacific Hwy. and 525 N
Pacific Hwy.. Woodburn, OR 97071 stated he has been fighting with the City for over 2 years over his sign
and has been denied where others have been allowed to have the same type of signs. Furthermore, he
indicated Elida Sifuentez, City Councilor, requested he be appointed to the Focus Group and he was never
appointed. He said he recently submitted an application and was once again denied. Mr. Edmonds reported
Planning Commission Meeting - Jatluary 15, 2004
Page 2 of 10
he currently has a reader board sign and he wanted to put the automotive sign on top of it and change the
reader board to an LED reader board. Back in 1997-1998, he was told it could be considered if it was done
in good taste. Since there were a lot of issues with his building, he wanted to bring up this fight on its own
merit and not have it mixed in with other issues. It was noted by Mr. Edmonds, Miles Chevrolet's sign
company spoke with the City and were able to obtain a permit for an LED sign. He further stated he hired the
same sign company used by Miles Chevrolet and they submitted paperwork to the City. They were told
everything was fine with a manual LED and new sign except he was only allowed 75 sq. and his sign is 78
sq. ft. Mr. Edmonds further remarked Staff suggested rounding his logo instead of making it square and that
would be close enough. Mr. Edmonds said he stirred up the hornets nest by informing the City he is multiple
businesses and was entitled to up to 150 sq. ft. Furthermore, he was then told by the City he could have two
signs 75 sq. ft. each in that case. In speaking with his attorney, they decided to stack up the signs separately
in the ground and not touch each other making them two separate signs but now they are at 124 sq. ft. The
City said no to that because they consider that to be one sign and he was only allowed 75 sq. ft., not 150 sq.
ft. In pressing the City further, he was told they no longer issue LED sign permits at this time, locking him out
completely. It was pointed out by Mr. Edmonds the Kodak Magic business applied for a sign in the same time
frame he did and they were able to obtain a permit after fighting the City. Moreover, they were told the
business used to be a bank and it had a sign that gave the time and temperature and were also informed they
could be grand fathered in and the sign could be installed as long as they used the same box. Mr. Edmonds
said he told the City he was upgrading his reader board sign and was told by the City he did not have an
electrical sign which he told them he did. He further indicated the City then recommended that he pull his
request and wait until after the draft code was finalized to which he refused because under the new code the
sizes are being lower and multiple businesses are eliminated. Mr. Edmonds stated he also informed Staff he
wanted to submit his application now and he wanted them to tell him that he could not upgrade his sign
because he was documenting the City. According to Mr. Edmonds, the paperwork was retumed to him
indicating his application had been denied. He claimed only a few businesses in town, including his, have that
type of signage and inquired why was it even a recommendation to have internally illuminated awnings
prohibited? He spoke about grand fathering a sign and questioned what are the Building Officials credentials
to determine the percentage of the current replacement cost? Mr. Edmonds made reference to the lack of
utilization of the word 'upgrade' in the code and mentioned it was the word given to the photo business to
allow their sign. He requested clarification as to the determination of 'upgrade'. He also noted Photo Magic
and Miles Chevrolet both have a roll and scroll sign and he has also seen the Woodburn High School sign roll
and scroll several times. In closing, he said when he asked Staff whether his current application would be
accepted after the draft code was approved he was told they could not tell. He informed the Commission he
has wanted a reader board sign since 1980 and has tried every possible angle to work with the City to obtain
one. He asked why internal illuminated signs were eliminated when there are not enough of them in town to
have been an issue and what makes a sign a public nuisance? Mr. Edmonds referred to a time he was told
that a neighbor called in to complain about construction of his business only to find out that nobody
complained and there was no record of such complaint. He questioned why has he gone for two years of
fighting this thing back and forth and being told no? He also wondered why it seemed the City goes out of
their way to help others and out of their way to stop him?
Commissioner Bandelow clarified electronic reader boards were prohibited when the City presented the
original draft because it was their position not to allow them. As the Focus Group got further in to it, they
added the electronic reader boards. She made it very clear that decision did not come from the City and it
was something that came from the local businesses.
Chairoerson Lima remarked Mr. Edmonds brought up examples of problems the City has been facing for a
long time and the proliferation of signs for which there is very little guidance or ordinance.
Commissioner Loner.qan inquired where would Mr. Edmonds' sign request fall under the draft ordinance?
Staff replied he was not aware of the details of Mr. Edmonds' proposal and would certainly have to look at that.
However, a proposal for an electronic changeable copy sign is permitted in the draft ordinance.
Richard Edmonds argued Staff was aware of his application because the paperwork was forwarded to the
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004
Page 3 of 10
Director. He explained he spoke with the new Planner and was informed at that time a definition from the
Director needed to be obtained. After speaking with the Director, the Planner returned and reported the
application was denied.
Staff responded he was aware of Mr. Edmonds submittal for a sign but not the details. He pointed out the
issue tonight was the draft sign ordinance. He indicated he had not met with Mr. Edmonds to discuss the
issue but would be more than happy to talk to him about it.
Commissioner Loner,qan asked Mr. Edmonds whether he felt his proposal fits the draft ordinance?
Richard Edmonds replied affirmatively. He said the sign is 50 sq. ft. with the total of that not being over 50
ft. and they were at 48 sq. ft. to begin with.
Vice Chairoerson Young mentioned the current ordinance has been very problematic and difficult to enforce
and be consistent. A lot of people from the community have spent a lot of time looking at that and tried to
come up with better solutions. He stated we are trying to establish a consistent policy because obviously the
old sign ordinance does not work as illustrated by Mr. Edmonds' frustration. Vice Chairperson Young further
added they are lrying to move forward with a new ordinance that defines everything, is clear, useable and
workable for the community.
Chairperson Lima remarked although he was not trying to minimize Mr. Edmonds' frustration, they are
relatively small compared to the frustrations the Commission has endured in trying to come up with something
that will benefit everyone. He further commented there is a proliferation of unsafe non-conforming signs and
the intent is to try to give everyone an equal chance. Chairperson Lima indicated it was difficult for him to
comprehend that a City could be working against a business. He told Mr. Edmonds the Planning Director was
willing to meet with him and Chairperson Lima hoped the issue could be resolved to the satisfaction of both
parties. He thanked Mr. Edmonds for providing his testimony.
Richard Edmonds added he has been fighting with the City since 1989 regarding several issues all of which
he has documented.
Chairoerson Lima closed the public hearing and opened Commission discussion.
Commissioner Van¢il remarked it has been his impression that the City of Woodburn has tried to be friendly
to businesses obviously, in this case, they failed. He recommended there be a section in the ordinance that
speaks about the appeal process because it should not take two years for this to come to other bodies.
Commissioner Vancil asked Staff what recourse would a business person that disagreed with a ruling under
the new ordinance, if adopted, would have in order to bring it to the attention of somebody at the next level?
Staff addressed Commissioner Vancil's comment about the City failing. He remarked there are constantly
times when people are not happy with regulations and for whatever reason are not satisfied. Staff pointed out
that did not mean the City has failed but that there simply is a difference of opinion. Additionally, he stated
the appeal process is addressed in the draft Sign Ordinance for Type I permits (sign permit and temporary
sign permit). He explained the Community Development Director makes the final decision on both of those
because they are considered ministerial permits with clear and objective standards and therefore, no
interpretation would be involved. Based on that, the Community Director's decision is final and the only appeal
right would be an appeal to the court. However, the design review for a Type II application requires a design
review application, which is a discretionary approval and the Community Development Director would make
that decision but that would follow typical land use decisions where notice would then be sent out and there
would be an appeal right to the City Council because that involves discretion. As far as someone not being
happy with a decision, they can bring that up to a supervisor, ultimately the City Administrator or City Council
if they do not like a regulation.
Commissioner Vancil clarified his comment about failure was not directed to Staff personally or any individual
staff member. He indicated he was referring to when a business person has invested as heavily in the
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004
Page 4 of 10
community as Mr. Edmonds has felt like they have been battling with the City for 15 years. Obviously there
is a huge communication gap, who's fault it is isn't important but it is something we need to be careful to try
not replicate. He also said he wants to be business friendly but still have a decent community.
Staff mentioned the intent of this ordinance was to try to balance the desires of the community to deal with
aesthetics and safety with the needs of the business community to advertise their goods and services.
Commissioner Loner.qan commented he felt it has accomplished that. Additionally, he remarked there is quite
a cross section that the City drew from to obtain input and he admired and appreciated the effort that has gone
into this. However, he expressed concerns with whether the City will commit and enforce this once it is put
in use because historically, the City has not done that.
Vice Chairperson Yountq added at least they have the opportunity for enforcement with the new ordinance
because it is more consistent than the current ordinance.
Commissioner Bandelow referred to Mr. Edmonds' question regarding who decides whether or not a sign is
a nuisance or unsafe. She assumed it would depend on which ever jurisdiction it applied to as to what the
nuisance is or whether or not it is unsafe.
Staff responded a lot of the nuisance issues are addressed in the sign code, i.e., not having signs in the vision
clearance area or in the right-of-way. The Building Official potentially could declare a nuisance based on
building or electrical codes or could come under the nuisance ordinance itself as far as a sign becoming
deteriorated to such extent to where it is in imminent danger of falling over.
Deniece Won. interjected the nuisance ordinance has a list of things that are just declared nuisances outright
which include obstruction in the right-of-way. She further explained there is a public hearing process where
the persons rights get determined and by hearing what the facts are and ardving at a decision. The
procedures are pretty well outlined in the current codes.
Commissioner Bandelow commented the Focus Group went back and forth with the question of allowing
blimps. Originally there would be nothing that qualified as a blimp and then a case was made by some other
business and blimps were put back in. She further reported after it was included there was further discussion
and some of the members of the Focus Group felt it might have been an error to include it in the code.
Commissioner Bandelow could not recall whether the Commission discussed it during last weeks meeting and
whether or not it would be something we might recommend to the City Council to change. She indicated she
believed reducing the percentage of window signs was also discussed.
Commissioner Loneroan felt window signs could be seen as just an extension of the wall sign and having 50%
window coverage is unattractive. He favored a 25% limitation on the size of window signs.
Vice Chairperson Youna was not convinced it should be reduced to 25% because a small business with a very
small window may not have an opportunity to have a sign in their window.
Commissioner Bandelow said although she agreed with Vice Chairperson Young's comment, she was unsure
whether the percentage of window coverage should be limited.
There was further discussion among the Commissioners regarding window coverage.
Chairperson Lima pointed out what we are trying to do is restrict the proliferation of signs. He mentioned the
big businesses are taking advantage of it much more than smaller businesses.
vice Chairperson Youn~l pointed out a lot of the businesses in town are small businesses.
Roll call was taken in favor of reducing the percentage of total window coverage from 50% to 25%. Vote was
split with three Ayes and three Nays. Vice Chairperson YounR, Commissioner Bandelow and Commissioner
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004 Page 5 of l 0
Gri.qorieff all voted No. The Planning Commission was evenly divided on this issue, so no change was
recommended.
Fluorescent lighting was also discussed.
Deniece Won clarified fluorescence is prohibited in the draft code.
Staff explained it is one of the design review criteria and would only apply to Type II Design Review for a pole
sign and it would not apply to a window sign.
Deniece Won also pointed out you are not prohibited from regulating something that you can identify like color.
Chairperson Lima commented they could apply for a Variance if the sign is larger than 25%.
Staff indicated technically a Variance can be granted from any provision. However, Variances need to be
based on individual circumstances and normally there needs to be something unique about that situation that
creates a hardship that generally does not apply to others. Otherwise, you might as well change the code to
address that situation.
Vice Chaircerson ¥ouna also commented the qualifying part of being a sign in the window is that it is 6 inches
or less from the glass addresses some of the Commission's concerns.
Commissioner Vancil remarked there is a business on Highway 99E with a fluorescent sign above the
business with signs painted on the front windows that cover almost the entire glass front of the business. He
guessed it exceeded 50% window coverage but operationally it has been a permanent sign.
Commissioner Bandelow referred to blimps and stated it is easy to understand when businesses want
something for a specific event, i.e., grand opening. She also mentioned a blimp is defined as an inflatable
device 36 inches or greater in diameter anchored by some means to a structure or the ground. However, the
problems have been blimp type things above businesses that are not being removed. Commissioner
Bandelow further remarked more and more cities are eliminating blimps and she would like to see blimps
moved to the prohibited section.
Vice Chairperson Young supported Commissioner Bandelow and commented as a motorist he finds blimps
to be distracting.
Commissioner Loner~ian, and Commissioner Vancil also supported Commissioner Bandelow.
Staff referred to page 91 of the draft sign ordinance and revised page D-1 and moved 'blimps" to the next
sentence to read 'portable signs and blimps are specifically not permitted". Additionally, he added "blimps'
under prohibited signs.
Commissioner Vancil commented the 1-minute change on LED signs needed to be revisited because that rule
was currently not being followed. He further remarked in listening to Mr. Edmonds' testimony it did not sound
like many businesses would want to follow that ordinance nor did it sound like it was something that would be
enforced.
Staff stated that has been Staff's contention all along which was why Staff's draft did not allow electronic signs.
Commissioner Vancil interjected he was not suggesting to do away with them but to try to regulate them to
only changing once per minute.
Staff indicated it would not make a difference whether it be 1 minute, 5 minutes, or 3 seconds. He explained
Staff's draft did not allow electronic signs because you open that door and it will become an enforcement
problem no matter what type of restriction you put on the timing of the changing of the message. The Focus
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004 Page 6 of 10
Group did not agree with that and determined they did want to allow them but they wanted to place a
restriction on the change of the message. Staff clarified that was the Focus Group's decision and is what
came forward to the Commission. However, the Commission could decide how they want to deal with that
situation.
Commissioner Bandelow pointed out it could be dangerous to try to change letters on reader boards
particularly on the taller signs. She understood businesses need to be able to change the message and do
so in a safe manner utilizing today's technology and she certainly sympathized with the City's enforcement
problem.
Commissioner Vancil wondered why do we want to get that specif'm about enforcement?
Staff replied the concern was the flashing and scrolling particularly at night and that it would be too obnoxious.
Commissioner GriRorieff commented you sit in your car watching the sign change while you wait for the traff'm
light to change and the whole idea is to regulate it so that does not occur. Commissioner Grigorieff also
stated LED signs are the wave of the future and there is nothing we could do about that. Furthermore, she
indicated a minute sounded logical to her because that would help deter people becoming distracted and
possibly cause accidents.
Commissioner Vancil questioned what recourse does the City have if a business has an LED sign and it
changes every 15 seconds instead of every minute?
Staff responded it would ultimately be the same recourse as any violation of the sign ordinance.
Deniece Won said ultimately you can force them to stop doing what they are doing and they could be fined
the maximum fine ($500) under City ordinances.
Commissioner Vancil requested guidance from Staff as to how we might address the concern regarding the
School District being addressed as a separate entity without losing the ability to enforce things like a scrolling
sign.
Staff answered the School District received a Variance to have the High School reader board sign and there
was a condition placed on the Variance that the message not change more than once every three minutes.
He asked Ms. Won whether a condition on a Variance even after adoption of this ordinance would take
precedent over the ordinance or if the ordinance is more restrictive than a Variance condition?
Deniece Won felt that would require some research in order to be able to provide a good answer.
Commissioner Vancil noted the ordinance is currently written where the School District would have to follow
the same regulations about signage that a business would but the City would not. Commissioner Vancil felt
that has to be remedied.
Staff clarified the fact that the City is exempt does not necessarily mean that they can do whatever they want.
It has been his experience with other cities that have the same type of exemption Councils have normally
directed Staff to follow the rules when at all possible. However, they are exempt and if they wish to do
something different they can. He also explained unique situations invariably come up where it is not always
desirable to have to go through a Variance process and spend tax payer dollars to deal with that situation.
Commissioner Bandelow mentioned as an exemption it allows the City to do some things in the right-of-way
like the flower baskets that they would not be able to do if they were bound to giving the City some latitude.
Deniece Won interjected the right-of-way subject of a lot of the types of signs the City puts up are in the right-
of-way and are done for public safety, traffic control and regulation purposes and is why it was written to
exempt the City from the sign regulations.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004 Page 7 of 10
Commissioner Vancil remarked when looking at different types of signs there were signs in front of the
administrative offices of the City that do not comply and comments were made in that we would not have to
change that because the City does not have to comply. He added it had nothing to do with right-of-way, it had
to do with privilege.
Commissioner Grioorieff commented it is going to take a chunk of change to fix all of the City owned non-
conforming signs and certainly nobody wants to pay any additional taxes than needed. She suggested to let
be the signs that look nice but have the City conform to the ordinance from this time on.
Staff further stated signs on private property do not have to conform when the ordinance is adopted and there
are things that would have to happen to trigger them to conform.
Commissioner Vancil pointed out Mr. Jennings breught up a relevant issue in that do we want to make the
School District conform to the new sign ordinance.
Staff said essentially the same body that is responsible for adopting the sign ordinance is also the one who
is ultimately responsible for the signs that the City puts on their own property and are accountable to the
public. He further stated Councils normally are not going to be in favor of Staff putting up signs that do not
conform to the sign code as it applies to other properties. A Council would need to be comfortable with that
because they do not want to get complaints from citizens because they are the ones that are ultimately held
accountable. Staff also explained to try to give that same right to an entity that isn't accountable for the sign
ordinance is more of a stretch.
Commissioner Vancil inquired whether a paragraph could be inserted in the ordinance about accommodation
being made to public agencies where appropriate?
Commissioner Bandelow mentioned there is enough latitude there for the School to do just about anything
and now they have a lot more latitude because they are granted the temporary signs and could do some
events that they have been prohibited in the past.
There was Commission consensus regarding the 1-minute change on LED signs.
Chairoerson Lima made reference to directory signs and asked Staff whether those will not be allowed?
Staff indicated directories for non-residential complexes with two or more buildings and multiple family
residential complexes with four or more buildings shall be limited to a maximum of one street access and shall
be located a minimum of 50 ft. from a street-right-of-way; each directory shall be limited to a maximum of 24
sq. ft. and a maximum height of 8 ff.
Commissioner Vancil made reference to Mr. Edmonds' inquiry regarding why awning signs were left out of
the code. He indicated it was his understanding that had to do with aesthetics and it did not mean that any
current awning signs would be removed but rather that new ones would not be allowed.
Commissioner Bandelow noted grand fathered signs are those that were erected lawfully with permits will be
able to stay and do not have to come down at any particular time except if they were to become unsafe;
damaged greater than 50%; if the premises were vacated more than 180-days or; if the use of the entire
parcel changes, then the signs would have to come in to conformity.
Chairperson Lima said he expected to see something more restrictive. However, he realized there needs to
be a certain degree of limitation but not to interfere with the businesses. He further indicated we are Wing to
accomplish a more aesthetically pleasing, fair sign ordinance for the City of Woedburn. Chairperson Lima
noted for the record two letters attached to the draft ordinance, received from Mr. Dick Pugh and Capital
Development Company.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004
Page 8 of 10
Commissioner Bandelow. said there was discussion as to whether or not there should be anything different
for the freeway based businesses. The Focus Group did review that and the consensus was that the City has
grown so much that anyone approaching our interchanges are well aware that we can provide any service
they need (restaurants, gas stations, etc.). She further reported there was considerable feeling amongst some
of the businesses that we should not be favoring freeway businesses over those that are located perhaps two
or three blocks in. No special freeway designation was in the original draft brought by the City nor was there
any recommendation by the Focus Group to do that. Commissioner Bandelow further informed one of the
Focus Group members, Mr. Pugh, felt very strongly that there should be a time frame perhaps four-five years
down the road where all of the lawfully established but non-conforming signs under the new code would have
to come down and businesses would have to change their signage to conform with the new ordinance.
However, the Focus Group, with the exception of Mr. Pugh, felt strongly that businesses that put up signs and
maintain them in a lawful manner should not be forced to remove them because it would be too great a
hardship to put on businesses and they did not want to discourage them. She also mentioned you do not
know what the feeling of the City will be five years from now. Additionally, she pointed out the consensus of
opinion of the Focus Group was that some oftha signs that do not meet the new design standards are not bad
signs and they felt the businesses should not be punished and required to remove them if they were erected
lawfully with a permit and should be able to keep them.
Vice Chairperson Youn¢l referred to Capital Development's letter and commented they have a very, very large
parcel freeway frontage which is larger than what Woodburn Company Stores currently have for their frontage.
Moreover, any restrictions on the size of signs would be a point of contention as they would want to have a
large sign and would probably approach it the same way Company Stores did by requesting a Variance.
Commissioner Loner_oan moved to adopt Zone Text Amendment 04-01 with the verbiage addition on page
91 Section D-1 to include blimps as prohibited and; move blimps from allowed for temporary sign to prohibited
as a temporary sign. Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion, which unanimously carried.
Vice Chairperson YounQ complimented Staff and the Focus Group on their work in bringing this ordinance
forward.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
Staff informed the Commission there is a regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for next week.
Although, there are no agenda items for that meeting Staff indicated he could place the Final Order for
tonight's action for the next meeting and left it up to the discretion of the Commission.
Commissioner Loner.qan moved to cancel January 22, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Bandelow. Motion unanimously carried.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
REPORT_ S
None
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
C~aJiB~:Eq~3_LJJ~ requested an update regarding Planning Commission term expirations.
Staff reported the Mayor recommended reappointment of Commissioner Lonergan and Commission Vancil
and was ratified by City Council. Stafl congratulated them in their reappointed. However, he stated
Commissioner Mill requested not to be reappointed and the Mayor will probably make an appointment at the
next Council meeting. He stated the Mayor indicated she has people in mind for vacant positions, which he
assumed included the Planning Commission.
Vice Chairperson Younc; announced, for the record, Commissioner Mill was out ill tonight and unable to attend
the meeting.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004 Page 9 of 10
Chairperson Lima thanked Commissioner Mill for his contribution to the Commission and for a job well done.
Commissioner Loneman moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Bandelow seconded the motion.
Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm,
CLAUDIO LIMA, CHAIRPERSON DATE
Jim M~uld~, Date
Community Development Director
Woodbu n,
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2004
Page 10 of 10
AI-I'ACHHENT D
Memo
To~
From:
Dat~
R~.
Sign Ordinance Focus Group [
/
Deniece Won, Assistant City Attomey)2~,x/
September 18, 2003
Free Expression Umitatiorm on Sign Ordinance
HOW REVIEWING COURTS ANALYTX'. LAWS RESTRAINING SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
Generally, cities may regulate a perceived problem any way that is reasonable. However, when a
regulation implicates a protected constitutional guarantee the ability of the city to regulate is limited by
the guarantee. Sigm are used to communicate and the fL~ amendment to the U.S. constitution and
Article I, section 8 of the Oregon constitution contain guarantees on the right to communicate. This
memorandum discusses the limitations contained in those guarantees.
Oregon Constitution Trumps U.S. Constitution. Constitutional challenges to the proposed sign
ordinance may be based on the free speech provision of the first amendment to the federal
constitution or on the flee expression provision of Article I section 8 of the Oregon constitution.
The Oregon Constitution provides greater protections to speech than the federal constitution. A
sign ordinance needs to be entirely content-neutral to withstand an Oregon constitutional
challenge. A content neutral ordinance makes none of its distinctions based on the message that
may be communicated. It may include distinctions based on the medium used to communicate or
the time or location of a communication so long as the content of the communication need not be
considered to decide what regulation applies.
Under the federal constitution, speech is protected unless it is false, misleading or concerns illegal
activity. In addition, commercial speech has less protection than noncommercial speech. The
Oregon Constitution contains greater protections for speech than does the federal constitution.
The Oregon Constitution states:
No law shall be passcd restraining the fi'cc expression of opinion, or restricting thc fight to
speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever...
The free expression guarantee is a limitation on laws that may be adopted. It extends not only to
written and spoken communications, but also to verbal and nonverbal expressions in film,
photographs, art and the like because it prohibits restraints on "expression." State v. Henry, 302
or 510, at 179, 759 P2d 242 (1996). For many years, Oregon cities regulated signs in the same
manner as cities in other states. However, in the 1980s, the Oregon Supreme Court abandoned
the practice of deferring to the U.S. Constitution, and determined that all major forms of speech
are protected under the Oregon Constitution. The Oregon constitution guarantees freedom of
expression of opinion and the right to speak, write or print freely without qualification. In
Oregon, the content of all expression is protected, unless it is a form that was not protected when
the constitution was adopted in 1859.
Limitations on expressive material, such as signs, restrain free expression involving the guarantee
of Article I, section 8, and are subject to scrutiny under that provision, even though limitations on
other non-expressive material, such as use of land within a zone, may not be. The Oregon
Supreme Court has recognized three categories of regulations that might infi'inge on the guarantee
of free expression:
1. The first category contains laws expressly directed at the content of expression~
The second and third categories contain laws that are directed at the harmful effects
of expression.
The second category contains laws that prohibit an expressive method of
causing harmful effects and expressly refer to expression which are used to
cause the effects.
be
The third category contains laws that prohibit harmful effects but do not
expressly refer to expression at all.
The categorization of a law affects how a reviewing court will treat it. Those that fall in the first
category are unconstitutional unless the conduct prohibited by the law is within a historical
exception. Those falling in the second category are unconstitutional if they are overly broad,
applying to protected as well as unprotected forms of expression. Those that fall in the third
category are constitutional, but may be unconstitutionally applied to individual cases if the
conduct prohibited by the law extends to protected expression. The third category is not relevant
to evaluating the constitutionality of the provisions of a sign ordinance, on its face, because a sign
ordinance regulates a method of expression.
Content based regulation.~. A law is unconstitutional on its face if it is "written in terms directed
to the substance of an 'opinion' or any 'subject' of communication" unless the scope of the
reslraint is wholly confined within some well established historical exception. Examples are
perjury, solicitation or verbal assistance in crime, some forms of theft, forgery and fraud. State v.
Robertson, 293 Or 402, 412, 649 P2d 569 (1982). It is inconsistent with the constitutionally
protected right of expression "on any subject whatever" to impose regulation on one kind of
speech and no regulation on others because of the difference in content..4ckerly
Communications, Inc. vMult. Co., 72 OrApp 617, 623-24, 696 P2d 1140 (1985), dismissed 303
Or 165, 734 P2d 88:5 (1987) (an ordinance that regulates and limits billboards with "commercial"
content but that allows without regulation billboards with "noncommercial" content violates
Article 1, section 8).
In litigation over the Oregon Outdoor Motorist Information Act (ORS 377.700 et seq.), that
prohibits off-premises signs visible from a state highway, the plaintiffargued that the statute was
content-based because it required evaluation of the billboard's message to determine if the sign
concerned an off=premises or on-premises facility, use, activity, sale or lease. The appeals court
held that:
"Exempting [from regulation] billboards that advertise on-premises activity, while not
similarly exempting those advertising off-premises activity, is not a content-based
distinction. Although a billboard's message must be evaluated to determine whether it
relates to an activity on or offthe premises, it is not the content, subject or viewpoint of
that message that determines whether a permit is required." Id at 117 (emphasis in
original.) Outdoor Media Dimensions, Inc. v State, 150 Or App 106. aff'd on other
grounds 33t Or 634 (2001)
As interpreted by the Court of Appeals, the central over-arching feature of the OMIA is a
distinction between on-premises signs, which are universally allowed whatever the content, and
off-premises signs, which are universally prohibited whatever the content.
Recent Significant LUBA Case. LUBA, in Sune of this year, held that the City of Gladstone sign
ordinance violated Article 1, section 8 for two reasons. First, the City's ordinance defined signs
permitted or not allowed by a sign's content. Second, the city's ordinance preferred on-premises
signs identifying the use of the premises, advertising activities, goods or services available, and
public service information, over off-premises si~c~ns including campaign signs and public service
information signs because on- and off-premises signs were subject to different height, size and
duration restrictions. West Coast Media v CiO, of Gladstone, LUBA No. 2002-098 (2003).
Gladstone's ordi~nance categorized and allowed under different sets ofregnlations certain types of
speech, while prohibiting others. The city needed to inquire into the content of the proposed sign
to determine whether the sign was allowed or prohibited, and if allowed, what regulations applied.
Relatedly, the ordinance preferred certain types of speech (identification signs, traffic control
signs, temporary signs advertising sales or special events) while prohibiting others, including off-
premises signs. Freestanding and on-building identification signs were limited to speech
"identifying the use of the premises." Electronic messages signs were limited to advertising
"activities conducted or goods and services available on the property on which the sign is
located," and "public service information." Temporary signs were limited to advertising "special
sales or events." Campaign signs were limited to speech regarding pending election campaigns.
LUBA concluded that it was impossible to apply the ordinance without inquiry into the content of
a proposed sign. Consequently, it was directed at the content of the signs, preferring some forms
of communication over others, and violated Article I, section 8.
Content Based Regulations Directed at Harmful Effects. Ifa law restrains speech or
communication, reviewing courts make a second level inquiry- whether the actual focus of the
law is on an effect or harm that may be proscribed, rather than on the substance of the
communication itself. If the actual focus of the law is on such a harm, the legislation may survive
scrutiny under Article I, section 8.
Laws directed at harmful effects that expressly refer to expression are constitutional unless they
are overly broad. A statute is overbroad when it prohibits speech or conduct that the constitution
protects. When a statute is overly broad, courts will only rarely uphold it as being constitutional
by interpreting it in a way that restricts its breadth.
When laws restrict expression to prevent harmful effects, the categories that are treated differently
by the regulations must be related to differences in the harmful effects of the categories.
Additionally, the regulations themselves must include a connection to the harmful effects. It is
not sufficient to only adopt findings of fact that the effects are believed to exist. In a Portland free
expression case concerning regulating adult businesses the Oregon supreme court found that
Portland had not adequately linked the regulations to the harms and had not demonstrated that the
presumed the harms were actual. When land use regulations impinge on protected expression, the
administration of those regulations requires evidence that there will be, in fact, the threatening
effect in each situation subject to the regulations.
Summary~ of Analysis. In sum, the free expression analysis involves asking the following
questions:
Is the regulation directed at controlling the substance of opinion or the
subject of speech, writing or print or must the content ora sign be
considered to determine whether it is permitted or what regulation applies?
If the answer is yes, the regulation is unconstitutional, unless it is within an
historic exception.
e
Only if the law passes the first test the next question is whether the
regulation is directed at the harmful effects of expression and expressly
related to expression? If the answer is yes, it is unconstitutional if it
regulates expressions that don't cause harm as well as those that do.
Is the regulation directed at the harmful effects of expression not expressly
referring to expression at all. If the answer is yes, the regulation is not
unconstitutional, but it may be applied to particular cases in a manner that
violates an individual's right of free expression.
Applying Free Expression Analysis to Draft Sign Ordinance. If a legal challenge were filed, a
violation of this content-neutral principle could subject the City and its individual officials to
significant civil liability for damages and potential payment of a successful challenger's costs and
attorney fees in federal court. The draft ordinance has been reviewed for content-based
distinctions that potentially violate the Oregon Constitution. I believe this draft would be upheld.
Any proposed changes to its provisions need to be kept consistent with this principle.
· Page4