Loading...
Agenda - 03/14/1994 CITY OF WOODBURN 270 MONTGOMERY STREET **** WOODBURN, OREGON AGENDA WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL MARCH 14, 1994 - 7:00 P.M. A. Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of February 24, 1994. APPOINTMENTS: ANNOUNCEMENTS: WASTEWATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 15, 1994-7:00 p.m., City Hall PROCLAMATIONS: A. Chamber of Commerce B. Other Committees A. Written (This allows public to introduce items for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.) A. Council Bill No. 1506 - A resolution finding that the building located at 199 N. Front St. is a dangerous building, declaring it to be a public nuisance, and ordering the owner to make it safe. (Old Bank) Council Bill No. 1510 - A resolution finding that the building located at 347 N. Front St. is a dangerous building, declaring it to be a public nuisance, and ordering its owner to make it safe. (Salud Clinic) 9A ~B Page I - Woodburn City Counc8 Agenda, March 14. 1994 10. A. Council Bill No. 1§27 - Ordinance proposing a tax levy outside the limitation in the amount of $1,§77,413 for FY94-9§ and calling for an election. Council Bill No. 1528 - Resolution entering into an intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon State Police for equipment and grant funds for DUll enforcement. Council Bill No. 1529 - Resolution entering into the North Marion County Law Enforcement agreement. Council Bill No. 1530 - Resolution entering into an intergovernmental agreement with the State of Oregon for reimbursement to the city for costs associated with Hwy 214/I-5 Interchange traffic analysis services. E. Award of Bid: Cable access television equipment. Liability release and extension of insurance coverage to US Marine Corps for Centennial Park assistance. G. Woodburn population/census options. A, Claims for the month of February, 1994, ,~.~.~.~.~.,.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~....-.~.;. 13. '"' ~.~.~. 14. ~~ 15. ~~ A. Subdivision 94-01 - Meraldia Meadows. B. 9-1-1 agency liability issue. C. Building activity for February, 1994. D. ~tate Transpo~ation Improvement Plan meeting of March 9, 1994. E. Dra~ towing ordinance. 16. ~~~ Purpose: To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real prope~ transactions. Authority: ORS 192.660(1)(e) 16. ~~~~ 10A 10B 10C 10D 10E 10F 10e 11A l~iA 15B 15C 15D 15E Page 2 - Woodburn City Council Agenda, March 14, 1994 3A MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1995 ROLL CALL: Chairperson Mrs. Warzynski Present Vice Chairperson Mr. Bauer Absent Commissioner Mrs. Davis Present Commissioner Mr. Finch Present Commissioner Mr. Atkinsen Present Commissioner Mr. Kosikowski Present Commissioner Mrs. Bjelland Present Commissioner Mr. Pugh Present Commissioner Mrs. Henkes Present Staff Present: Steve Goeckritz, Community Development Director Teresa Engeldinger, City Planner MINUTES: The Planning Commission minutes of January 27, 1994 were approved as written. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE: None COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Subdivision #94-01 and Variance #94-02 Staff read the statement necessary to begin the public hearing. Staff stated that the nature of the application was the approval of an 80 lot subdivision and variance to residential street standards. The applicant, Craig Munson, for Pete Cam. Staff read the criteria for approval. Staff stated that it was located between Brown, Ogle and the back of properties located on Bradley. The property is zoned Single Family residential (RS). The lot size must be at least 6,000 sq. ft. The developer wishes to development this proposal in two phases. The developer is requesting a variance on the right-of-way width on 3A two of the internal streets of this development. It will have a play area for children. The developer is also required per lot a certain amount of dollars to donate to the city parks dept. Parr Road will be extended to collect the traffic from this development. Commissioner Pugh asked staff for a clarification on Parr Road. Staff stated that at this time Parr Road would be a collector street. Commissioner Kosikowski asked there would be adequate signage, etc on Parr Road to control traffic. Staff answered yes. Staff discussed the types of homes that would be allowed in residential areas. They would be either stick built or manufactured homes. It had not been made clear to staff which it will be. Staff discussed some other conditions that the Planning Commission could add to the list of conditions in the staff report. One of those being the erection of a uniform fence with hedge the other being a brick entry way from Brown Street on Parr. Commissioner Kosikowski asked if the off street parking would be adequate on those streets the developer had ask for the variance on. Staff stated that the parking would be restricted to one side of the street. Commissioner Kosikowski asked about the lots closest to the railroad tracks. He asked if there were any sound barrier for noise abatement. Staff stated that the person who purchased the lot and built a home there would be aware of the trains no barrier was required. Craig Munson, representing Pete Cam, 10585 S. Rd., Oregon City, stated that Mr. Cam had been in the community for many years and was currently building homes in the subdivision located east of Brown Street. The homes in this subdivision would be of the same quality and price as the ones east of Brown in the $140,000 price range. He stated that Mr. Cam was willing to meet most of the conditions listed by the city. They had questions regarding the tot lot and the common fence along Parr Road, they were trying to stay away from the Homeowners Associations, which these items listed would create a liability for each homeowner. He stated that the fencing would be individual wood fences for each lot and be maintained by the homeowner. He stated the it was discussed with Mr. Frank Tiwari, Public Works Director that PCM-FEB. 27,1994 SG:bw 2 3A the city would so everything possible to share in the cost of the 39 foot wide road with a 60 foot easement on Parr Road. He stated that it was agreed that Mr. Cam would pay for the 34 foot wide road and Mr. Tiwari would do everything possible that the city could do to share the cost of the remaining road. Chairperson Warzynski asked about the tot lot. She thought that it was required by the city to have a play area in each subdivision. Mr. Munson answered that he has done five subdivisions in the city and has never had a tot lot due to the fact that the Parks Department is not able to maintain them. He stated that he was all for the tot lots, but not the maintenance nor the liability. Chairperson Warzynski asked if they were to pay park fees in-lieu of the tot lot. Mr. Munson answered no, they were to pay the fees and provide the tot lot. He stated that they are willing to pay the fees and buy playground equipment of the tot lot if the parks would maintain the lot and the homeowners not be liable for injuries, etc. Chairperson Warzynski asked if there was anyone who wished to speak for this proposal. There were none. She then asked if there was anyone who wished to speak against this proposal. David Higginbottom, Lot//14 Bradley Addition, stated that he did not want to state that he was either for or against. He was concerned about Ogle Street. He stated that Ogle Street is classified as a street that gets little use, but from his 16 years of experience Ogle Street is a rather busy street. Ogle Street provides huge clouds of dust and dirt into the surrounding neighborhoods. In the winter it is mud, in the summer it is dust. He stated that he had not heard anything regarding the improvement of Ogle Street. He asked what was going to happen to Ogle Street. He urged the Commission to consider this carefully. Rudy Sonnen, 888 Brown Street, stated that he was concerned about the traffic that this project would create. He was concerned about lot #61 as to who would be maintaining it. He felt that the City would be maintaining it. He had some further discussion on his concerns for the traffic that would be generated. Tom Shellnut, 344 Bradley, stated that he was concerned about the flow of traffic. He felt that it would all flow out onto Brown Street. He stated that at this time Ogle Street is basically a one lane gravel road, if it were to be PCM~'EB. 27,1994 3 SG:bw 3A improved to a two lane paved road some properties would loose some of there square footage. Jay , 19464 SW Chesapeake Dr., Tualatin, stated that he was speaking on behalf of the trustees of the property at the end of Parr Road. He stated that Parr Road would be going over private property that the city has not approached the trust about. The intersection of Brown and Parr would also be on this private property. He wondered if there were any current plans to extend Brown to the south. Barbara Helvic, 917 Amity Court, stated that the $100,000 homes that were proposed to be built would had the aesthetics of the area but she was concerned about a subdivision of manufactured homes going in that general area also that would pull down the value of the existing homes in the Meadowpark area. Jay ,19464 Chesapeake, Tualatin, stated that he had an aversion to restricting parking to one side of the road. The applicant, Craig Munson, stated that it has been in the works to have a crossing over the tracks. He felt that this proposal was a good argument for the city to use to finally get the railroad to allow the crossing at this time. He stated that it was not economical for Mr. Cam to develop all the surrounding streets just to have a subdivision. He stated that lot #61 is a 10 foot strip that was left for access onto Brown Street. He stated that the intersection of Brown and Parr would definitely have to be looked at. He stated that in Phase II, Mr. Cam is wanting to get more land to help get rid of lot #61. He stated that they were currently negotiating to get rid of this small lot. Commissioner Kosikowski asked for a little history on this proposal. He felt that there is no continuity of the city in the planning of these subdivisions. He asked if the roads were locked in, or could there be some changes to the roads or subdivisions to meet the traffic flow. He asked if it was possible to redesign the proposal to get traffic to flow more smoothly in this part of the city. Commissioner Bjelland asked if Parr Road was a minor arterial not a collector. She ask if staff had change this to be a collector. There was some concern that a major road would divide a subdivision like Hwy 214 cuts through Senior Estates. She also asked staff about the width of streets in Tukwilla. She felt that parking restricted to one side would cause a problem. She stated that this proposal wanted to be like a Planned Unit Development (PUD) but not wanting a Homeowners Association. She felt that the Commission would be setting a precedence for future subdivisions who wished to have the smaller streets. PC~-F~. 27,~SS4 4 SG:bw 3A Staff answered that he would address all of these concerns in the discussion portion of the hearing. Mr. Munson answered that they were requesting the smaller streets due to the cost of having to put the major street through. Chairperson Warzynski asked Mr. Munson for a clarification of the variance request. He stated that they were requesting that a 34 ft. wide street be allowed to be a 30 ft. and the 60 ft. right of way be reduced to §0 ft. Commissioner Finch asked if anyone had contacted surrounding property owners regarding the land still needed to have adequate access to this property. Mr. Munson answered that ideally Mr. Cam would like to get the property necessary to do this but this could take months to years. Commissioner Pugh asked if he was clear that they were asking for a 10 ft. variance along the right of way. He was a little confused as to what harm it did to leave the 60 ft. right of way. Mr. Munson answered that there was less buffer. Chairperson Warzynski closed the public hearing. Staff stated that the east/west issue has been discussed many times. He stated that what the city is looking at is Parr Road would cross the railroad tracks to the existing Parr Road. Unfortunately the city does not have the money to put the entire road in at one time. He stated that each proposal accommodates the east/west road. The road dictated how the subdivision wa to be designed. Staff stated that in regard to the type of homes this subdivision will have, it will be stick built homes. Staff recommends that 50 ft. of right-of-way was no problem with 5 ft. easement on each side. Staff stated that the 30 ft. street with parking on one side was no more problem than a 34 ft. street. He stated that the developer not only has to improve the internal streets but also the part of Brown Street that fronts his development. Staff stated that in regard to the tot lot, it was his impression that the Parks Department stated that they were not interested in the tot lot maintenance. PCM-FEB. ,27,1994 5 SG:bw 3A In regard to the fence, staff recommends that a uniform fence be put up along Parr by the developer and the homeowners be responsible for their own section of that fence. Commissioner Bjelland asked if there would be RXR arms on the new crossing. Staff answered that the railroad and city would take care of the safety improvements on this crossing. There was some concern over the city maintaining lot #61. Staff answered that the city wanted this lot #61 and would maintain it like they do all the other miles of right-of-way in the city. Commissioner asked about the question from the audience about no contact of a trustee for the property located where Parr Road would be built. Staff answered that a public notice was sent to the trustee, however, it is up to the developer to negotiate with the trustee about obtaining access across this property. It is up to the developer, not the city, to negotiate to get the access across this ten foot strip. Commissioner Finch felt that the §0 ft. right-of-way should be granted but all the streets should be 34 ft wide. Commissioner stated that the subdivision meets all the requirements except for the variance. Staff answered that if he met the 34 ft. width a variance would not be needed since the standard is 34 ft. The 50 ft. right-of-way is so that he may adjust his setbacks to accommodate larger homes. Commissioner Pugh made the motion to approve Subdivision #94-01 with the conditions listed in the staff report and the Variance #94-02 to have 50 ft. right of way with 10 ft. of easement and that all streets be 34 ft. wide. Commissioner seconded the motion. Commissioner asked if the motion included the small street. Commissioner Pugh accepted the addition to his motion that the street may be paved at 30 feet of improved surface, but upon re-development of the property PCM-FEB. 27,1994 SG:bw 6 3A to the south and contiguous to the subject property, the road shall be improved to meet residential standards in effect at that time. A roll call vote was taken: Chairperson Warzynski Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Yes Bjelland Yes Pugh Yes Davis Yes Finch Yes Atkinsen Yes Kosikowski Yes The motion passed. B. Variance #94-01 - Wac Construction - Marley Seely Staff read the statement necessary to open the public hearing. Staff stated that the applicant was requesting a variance to the side yard setback requirements in a residential zone. Staff read the criteria for this proposal. Staff stated that the applicant is requesting a variance to the side yard setback The property is located on Amity Court. The problem in this case is that the house is already built. Only one corner of the house is over the standard setback. The rest of the house exceeds the setback standards. Staff recommends approval for this request. Commissioner Pugh asked if the six foot setback included in the eves of the house. Staff answered no. Staff stated that the applicant used the existing stakes thinking they were correct. The two homes have been built for a year. The title company will not clear the title until a variance is granted for the standard setback. The applicant, Walter Stalin, 1100 Koffler Street, Woodburn, stated that the house was built over a year ago. The original stakes were knocked over by a bulldozer. He found the corners mathematically and began to build the house. The owner found the house to be 2 feet too close to the property line. Chairperson asked if there were anyone in the audience who wished to speak for the proposal. There were none. She then asked if there were anyone in the PCM-FEB. 27,1994 SG:bw 7 3A 0 audience who wished to speak against the proposal. There were none. She closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kosikowski made the motion to approve Variance 94-01 as it is written. Commissioner seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION: Section 12: Integrated Business Center- Kilroys Staff stated that a request from Kilroys was in regard to existing signs be integrated into one sign. Staff granting administrative approval for this variance since it does not jeopardize the sign ordinance. REPORTS: None BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS: None ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the Planning Commission meeting adjourned. PCM-FEB. 27,1994 SG:bw 8 9A COUNCIL BILL NO. /~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 199 N. FRONT STREET IS A DANGEROUS BUILDING, DECLARING IT TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND ORDERING ITS OWNER TO MAKE IT SAFE. WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council passed Ordinance No. 1999 which provides a process for the abatement of building nuisances, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 1173, a public hearing was set for May 10, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the Woodburn City Council Chambers, 270 Montgomery Street, Woodburn, Oregon, on the question of whether the building located at 199 N. Front Street, Woodburn, Oregon, constitutes a dangerous building as defined by Ordinance 1999, and WHEREAS, the City Recorder provided notice of said hearing as prescribed by Ordinance 1999, and WHEREAS, said hearing occurred and substantial evidence was presented indicating that the building located at 199 N. Front Street, Woodburn, Oregon, constitutes a dangerous building and is a public nuisance, and WHEREAS, said hearing was continued by the Council on several occasions in order to afford the owner of the building due process and an adequate opportunity to repair or abate said structure, NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the subject real property is described as follows: Lot 1, Block 4, in the original Town of Woodburn, County of Marion, State of Oregon, also known as 199 N. Front Street, Woodburn, Oregon. Section 2. That the subject real property is owned by Nora Fives and Lee Lemos. Section 3. That pursuant to Ordinance 1999 and Resolution 1173, a public hearing was held on May 10, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the Woodburn City Council Chambers, 270 Montgomery Street, Woodburn, Oregon, on the question of whether the building located at 199 N. Front Street, Woodburn, Oregon, constitutes a Page I COUNCIL BILL NO. /:~C)~ RESOLUTION NO. 9A dangerous building as defined by Ordinance 1999. Section 4. That the public hearing was continued several times and adequate opportunity and notice was provided to all persons with ownership interests in the building to testify. Section 5. That, based upon the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Woodburn City Council finds that the building located at 199 N. Front Street, Woodburn, Oregon, is a dangerous building and declares said building to be a public nuisance. Section 6.That that the owners of the property located at 199 N. Front Street, Nora Fives and Lee Lemos, are hereby ordered to repair or abate the building located on the property by January 24, 1994 at 5:00 p.m. Section 7. That if said owners do not repair or abate the building during the prescribed time, the city will proceed to abate the building according to law. Section 8. That pursuant to Ordinance 1999 the City Recorder is hereby directed to provide a copy of this resolution to the owners of the property at 199 N. Front Street, Woodburn, Oregon. Approved as to form.~'~ ,~--~-/'~ City Attorney Dat APPROVED: Len Kelley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder A~-I'EST: Mary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2 COUNCIL BILL NO. /._~-'o ~ RESOLUTION NO. 9A MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJ.: DATE: Mayor and City Council Chris Childs, City Administrator ~ Dane_erous Buildinq - 199 N. Front St. (Old Bank Bldq.! March 10, 1994 At the last Council meeting, Nora Fives, owner of the above-described building was present to discuss this matter with Council when the matter was briefly removed from the table. Input from staff was not solicited at that time. I believe that it is important for Council to be aware of staff activities directed at getting this issue resolved. On February 1, 1994 staff met with Donald Woodley, Marion County Building Official. Mr. Woodley advised that his department, as part of their routine review of engineering documents previously submitted by Ms. Fives and her consultants, could not approve the plans because they did not meet current earthquake standards (level III). Incidental to that major issue, he also expressed concerns about the ability to meet A.D.A. requirements and other standards. Concensus was reached that a face- to-face meeting should be held with Ms. Fives and her engineer. On February 3, 1994 staff met with Ms. Fives and Wm. Pease, an engineer representing Ms. Fives. Mr. Woodley was unable to attend, but his concerns were conveyed by staff to Ms. Fives and Mr. Pease. At that point it was generally agreed that there were four possible options available regarding this structure: 1. Reconstruction to current earthquake codes and other applicable criteria. Reconstruction based on alternative design process that would meet current code (similar to what was previously done with the "Pool Hall" structure). 3. Seek Historic Designation from state/federal agencies w~th possible code exemptions to preserve the historic nature of the structure. 4. Abate (demolish) the structure. Ms. Fives and Mr. Pease indicated to staff that they believed option #1 to be too expensive, options #2 and #4 to be unrealistic in the present situation. They did state (as later conveyed by Ms. Fives to the Council) that they wanted to pursue option #3, the historical designation. Discussion revealed that application for such designation is a lengthy and tedious process, with its success known only at the 9A Page 2- Memo/Dangerous Building (3/10/94) conclusion of the process. Six months for this process was suggested as being a realistic minimum timeframe. Staff advised Ms. Fives that we could not recommend to Council an additional continuance of that magnitude (+/- 6 mo.) without solid ~ that the historic designation option was a viable alternative ectivelv beina oursued. At that time, Ms. Fives indicated to the city administrator that such evidence, in the form of a letter from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) would be forthcoming by Feb. 8, 1994, in time for inclusion in the Feb. 14, 1994 Council agenda packets. Only this morning staff received the accompanying faxed material from SHPO. As of the time of this memo, we have not had a chance to adequately determine the significance of this material. At the direction of Council, staff had previously prepared a resolution (Council Bill 1506) to declare this structure a dangerous building. The matter has since been tabled on several occasions. Unless a more concrete action plan is received from the owner, staff is not in a position to make further recommendations to the Council in this regard. Ms. Fives is of course aware that the Council retabled this matter until the March 14, 1994 meeting and, presumably, will be present at that time to further enlighten the Council as to her plans. NOTE: If the Council decides to act on Council Bill 1506, it will be necessary to insert into the text of the Resolution an appropriate timeframe for the owner to repair or abate (demolish) the structure. 9A March 9, 1994 Nora Fives 12676 Whiskey Hill Road Hubbard, Oregon 97032 RE: Old Bank Building 199 N. Front - Woodbum Downtown Historic District Woodburn, Marion County PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT STATE I,Ii~ORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE Dear Ms. Fives: Thank you for your inquiry regarding the historic value and statutory provisions for protection of the building referenced above. In consultation with Elisabeth Potter, SHPO National Register Nominations Coordinator, the Old Bank Building would be 'considered eligible' for listing in thc National Register of Historic Places. Furthermore, under Oregon R~-vise~l Statute (ORS) 401.539(4) - Unsafe conditions resulting from earthquake damage; abatement of nuisance. 'If the structure, in whole or in part, ts listed on or is eligible for llstlng on the National Register of Historic Places, e~tablished and maintained under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-665), ...or is a locally designated landmark protected by or&'nance against demolition without due process, alternative compliance w~th the provisions of paragrapks (a} and ~) of. subsection (2) of this section shall be allowed if the repaired or rehabilitatea building is no more hazardous than it would be Jf repaired or rehabilitated in accordance with paragraph (aJ of subsection (2) of this section.' Subsection (2), (a) and (c) are attached for your reference. I hope that this letter answers any questions you or the City may have regarding the disposition of this aignificant property. If you have any additional questions, please feet free to contact me at the SH.PO, extension 228. Sincerely, . ~~~ C. Kunowski / Project Manager Elisabeth Potter Steve Goegritz (faxed) Post-It'~ brand fax transmittal memo 7671 [~ of 1115 Commercial St. NE Salem, OR 97310-1001 (5O3) 378-5O01 FAX (503) 378-6447 section. 'The division may use the revolving account to pay for the purchase of organiza- tional and n;~obile suppor~ equipment and surplt~ property, for shelter construction, -.,dminisr~ation ..~nd personal services, when the purchase or expens~ is incurred pursuant to the agency's agreements with the Federal Government. other sta~ agencies or political subdivisions of the state. (Formerly 401.I~0I 401.537 Entry. · and inspection earthqu~ke-dam"g~l structures; warrant enforcement; o~ler to vacate; rehabili- tation of historic structures. (1) For the purposes of cnforcemen~ of this cl~pter the building inspector or any person appointed by the Building Codes A~e_nc,v., after snowing official identification and, ~f nec~ssa~., warrant issued to the building owner or sgent o£ the owner under subsection (2) of this section, may; (a) Enter, at reasonable times, any prop- ertv that is known to be damaged, or for which there ~re reasonable grounds to be- lieve that the ~ucture has been damaged, as a result of an earthquake- · Co) Inspect, at reasonable times, within reasonable llmi~s and in a reasonable n~nner property that is known to be damaged, or .for which there ar~ reasonable grounds to be- lieve that the structure has be~n damaged, as a result of an earthquske. (2) If entry is re£used, the building in- spector or any duly appointed representative of the Building Codes Agency may ap. pear before any magistrate empowered to ~ssue w&rrants and request such magistrate to is- sue an inspection warrant, dlrec~ing i~ to any peace officer, as defined in ORS 161.015 enter thc described prope~, to remove any person or obstacle and assist the b~ilding inspector or representative of the agency in- spectin~ the proper~v in any way necessary to complete the inspection, i1991 c.ll0 {4I Nott: 401.5~7 alld 401.~39 wire added to and rn~te & part et' 401.01S to 401~S ]~y I~islatlv. action but were not ~dded to any smaller '~fi~s ther*in. S~ face to Ore,on l~vlsed Statutes ~or [urther ~xplan~on. 401.539 Unsafe condition r~sulting from earthquake damage; abatement nuisance. (1) Ali buildings "or per,lo.ns thereof, which .are determined, after ~n- spectlon by a .building ir~pector or a rcpre- ~hall be made to comply with one of the £ol- lowing: (a) The building shall be .repaired 'in ac- cordance wi~h the cUrrent building code. or other current code applicable to the type of substandard conditions rcquirlng repair; CO) The building shall be demolished if the o~vner of the building consents; or (c) Tho building may be vac_at.ed,.se?,.red and maintained against entry if the building does not constitute an immediate danger ~o the life, limb, property or s~fety of the pub- lic.' (3) If the building or structure is in such Condition as ~o make it immediately danger- ous to the life, limb, proper~y' or .safety. o_f ~.he public or its occupants, the Building Codes Agenc,v or representative oi' the agency shall order ~t to be vacated. (4) I£ the structure, in whole or in pa~t. is listed on or is eligible for listing on the National P, egist~r of Historic Places, estab- lished and rr~intained under the National Historic Preservation Ac~ of 1966 (P.L. 89-665), o~ if the National Register o£ His- toric Places ceases accepting nominations, is approved for listing on an Oregon register of historic places, or is a locally designated landmark protected '.by ordinance against demolition 'without due process, alternative compliance with the provisions o~ paragraphs (a) aM (c) of sub,etlon (2) of this section shall be allowed i£ the repaired or rehabili- tated building is no more hazardou~ than it would be if repaired or rehabilitatad in ac- cordance with paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section- (1991 c~10 Hote: S~e note under 401.~37. 401~40 [P.~i~al~d by 158~ SEARCH ANIY. RESCUE (Generall);) 401.550 Duties of Sea.rob and. Rescue Coordinator. The administrator shall ap- point a Search and P, escue C0o.~i~ in. ato. r to: " (1) Coordinate the search ~d rescue function of the lilmergency Management Di- vision; ·. J, (2) Co';rdinate'.~he ac't[vities of state and federal age.nc!es involved in search and res- senta~ve of the Building Codes'Agency to be. cue; . . ,',.:-. )"- - . '" ':.' "' in uk~fe condition as a result of.~arthquak.e- '.i (3) Es~blish liaison.' with' the Oregon damage may be declared to be a.~ublic nm- · sance and shall be abatc~t by repa,r,.rehabil: State Sheriffs Association and other public itation, demolition or removal in accordance' and' priva~e'"or8'anizati°ns and agencies in- · vith the pro~e~lure specified by'rules adopted, volved in s~arch and rescue; " . by the agency. .'" ' " ':' '"'(4) Prey{de ~n-~cen'~ sea~ch ;~nd' rescfie (2) Any building declared td be in dnsafe' c~ordina~ion when ~ciuestcd by an author- condition under' subsaction (1)'df this ~ction ized pe.rson; ' "' 32-1Y COUNCIL BILL NO. / RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 347 N. FRONT STREET IS A DANGEROUS BUILDING, DECLARING IT TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND ORDERING ITS OWNER TO MAKE IT SAFE. WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council passed Ordinance No. 1999 which provides a process for the abatement of building nuisances, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 1173, a public hearing was set for May 10, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the Woodburn City Council Chambers, 270 Montgomery Street, Woodburn, Oregon, on the question of whether the building located at 347 N. Front Street, Woodburn, Oregon, constitutes a dangerous building as defined by Ordinance 1999, and WHEREAS, the City Recorder provided notice of said hearing as prescribed by Ordinance 1999, and WHEREAS, said hearing occurred and substantial evidence was presented indicating that the building located at 347 N. Front Street, Woodburn, Oregon, constitutes a dangerous building and is a public nuisance, and WHEREAS, said hearing was continued by the Council on several occasions in order to afford the owner of the building due process and an adequate opportunity to repair or abate said structure, NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the subject real property is described as follows: All of Lot 3, Block 2 and 2.5 feet off of Lot 4, Block 2, to the center of the party wall between the building known as the Association Building and the L.W. Guiss Building, in the original town of Woodburn, Marion county, Oregon, also knQwn as 347 North Front Street, Woodburn, Oregon. Section 2. That the subject real property is owned by Salud De La Familia, Inc., an Oregon non-profit corporation. Section 3. That pursuant to Ordinance 1999 and Resolution 1173, a public hearing was held on May 10, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the Woodburn City Council Page 1 COUNCIL BILL NO. / RESOLUTION NO. 9B Chambers, 270 Montgomery Street, Woodburn, Oregon, on the question of whether the building located at 347 N. Front Street, Woodburn, Oregon, constitutes a dangerous building as defined by Ordinance 1999. Section 4. That the public hearing was continued several times and adequate opportunity and notice was provided to all persons with ownership interests in the building to testify. Section 5. That, based upon the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Woodburn City Council finds that the building located at 347 N. Front Street, Woodburn, Oregon, is a dangerous building and declares said building to be a public nuisance. Section 6.That the owner of the property located at 347 N. Front Street, Salud De La Familia, Inc. is hereby ordered to repair or abate the building located on the property by Section 7. That if said owner does not repair or abate the building during the prescribed time, the city will proceed to abate the building according to law. Section 8. That pursuant to Ordinance 1999 the City Recorder is hereby directed to provide a copy of this resolution to the owners of the property at 347 N. Front Street, Woodburn, Oregon. DJ~e / Approved as to ,orm.~ '~/~~. ~ "~ ~"- City Attorney APPROVED: Len Kelley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 2 COUNCIL BILL NO. / ~-'-/O RESOLUTION NO. TO: FROM: SUBJ.: DATE: MEMO Mayor and City Council Chris Childs, City Administrator ~ Ordinance Referring Operating Levy Measure March 10, 1994 10A RECOMMENDATION: Approve accompanying Council Bill (Ordinance) referring the city's annual operating levy measure to voters at May 17, 1994 Primary Election. BACKGROUND: Included with the proposed ordinance for your review are the ballot title itself and the measure explanation that will appear in the voters' pamphlet. As noted in the text of the ordinance, it is necessary that this matter be acted upon at this time in order to meet timelines connected with election filing dates. The amount of the proposed operating levy is the amount previously approved by the city's budget committee. 10A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROPOSING A LEVY OF TAX OUTSIDE THE LIMITATION IMPOSED BY ARTICLE XIt SECTION 11t SUBSECTION (1) OF THE OREGON CONSTITUTION AGAINST THE TAXABLE PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF WOODBURN IN THE ~MOUNT OF $1,$??,413 FOR FISC~LYEAR 1994-95; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF MONIES DERIVED THEREFROM FOR THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1~ 1994; CALLING FOR AN ELECTION AT ~HICH SUCH LEVY OF TAX SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE LEGAL ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF NOODBURN; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. THE CITY OF WOODBURNORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the city Council of the City of Woodburn hereby proposes a levy of tax outside the limitation imposed by Article XI, Section 11, Subsection (1) of the Oregon Constitution in the amount of $1,577,413.00, for the purpose of applying said sum to the budget for fiscal year 1994-95 which begins on July 1, 1994. Section 2. That the proposed levy of tax shall be submitted to the legal electors of said City at a special election on May 17, 1994, which is hereby called to be held therein, in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon and the Charter of said City governing elections. Section 3. That the form in which said question shall be submitted to the electors of said City on the official ballot at such special election is attached as "Exhibit A" and by this reference is incorporated herein. Section 4. This ordinance being necessary for the public peace, health and safety, in that this ordinance must be promptly filed with the City Recorder and submitted to the County Clerk to meet legal deadlines, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall take effect Approved as to Form: City Attorney Da~e -- APPROVED LEN KELLEY, 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 Woodburn, Oregon Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 10A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION CITY OF WOODBURN Marion County, Oregon Questions SubmStted to the voters by the City Council AUTHORIZATION FOR ONE-YEAH OPERATING LEVY Shall the City of Woo~burn lev~ $1,-577,413 outside the tax base to finance City operations during fiscal year 1994-959 Explanation~ The passage of this measure will provide a one-year operating leVy above the 1994-95 tax base of $209,060. Police, 9-1-1, Transit and Dial-A-Ride, RSVP, code enforcement, municipal court, finance and administration, and other support activities within the General and Transit Funds are funded entirely or in part by the proposed operating levy. Approval of this measure would provide the City with its pro-rata share of the $10_~ per $1,000 assessed valuation composite rate, excluding bonded debt, as established within the property tax limitation measure (Ballot Measure 5). The proposed operating levy will continue existing city services in F.Y. 1994-95. 3.5 full-time equivalent employees will be added to maintain police services, including two certified police officer positions, partially funded by federal grant.. Dial-A-Ride availability will be increased and additional library/city hall parking constructed. This tax levy is subject to the limits of Section 11b, Article XI of the Oregon Constitution and the revenues to be raised will be used exclusively by the City for other governmental purposes. Within these limits, approval of this measure would reduce the property tax collections of other nonschool district units of government available under the provisions of Section 11b, Article XI, Oregon Constitution and implementing legislation. EXPLANATORY STATEMENT FOR PRINTING IN THE MARION COUNTY VOTER PAMPHLET Election Date IOA WitholJt an adequate tax base, the City of Woodburn must annually seek voter approval for a special one-year operating levy to continue providing important municipal services. The amount of the 1994-95 operating levy, approved unanimously by the city's budget committee on February 1 O, 1994, is $1,577,413. Approximately 70% of the operating levy, combined with the 1994-95 tax base of $209,060, will fund Public Safety programs which include Police, Drug Investigation Program, 9-1-1 Emergency Dispatch and Code Enforcement. The balance will fund support programs including Municipal Court, Finance, Administration and City Hall Maintenance, as well as community service programs including RSVP, Transit, Dial-A-Ride and other non-departmental expenses. The annual operating levy is a critical revenue component of the city's 1994-95 budget. The budget is designed to preserve and maximize all existing city services. No new programs are added, although efforts were made to strengthen some existing programs to keep pace with rapid growth and service demand in the community. 3.5 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) positions will be added to the Police Department, including an additional civilian records clerk, a half-time civilian evidence custodian position and two certified police officer positions. Cost of the added patrolmen will be partially offset by a feder, al grant. In addition, a Safety Action Team (SAT) officer position created in the previous *fiscal year will be maintained, as will the department's Differential Patrol Response (DPR) program. The city's successful Dial-A-Ride program will be expanded from its present 2 day per Week schedule to 3 days per week. The budget also anticipates construction of additional parking for city hall and library patrons. Funds are also included to partially offset the amount of bonds to be sold for construction of the new aquatic center. Code EnfOrcement, which includes animal control, nuisance abatement and enforcement of zoning violations, will continue at its existing level of service, as will most other city departments. Due to the limitations of Ballot Measure 5, the proposed operating levy will be subject to a reduction in the taxes that can actually be collected. Historically, this has amounted to about one quarter of the total levy amount. However, service levels are reduced within the budget to offset this loss. It is because of this Ballot Measure 5 limitation that Woodburn taxpayers will continue to pay a combined maximum of $10 oer $1.000 of assessed value for all non-school purposes (city, county, fire district). This operating levy, along with the $209,060 tax base and continuing levies for Library and Parks services, will maintain the city's proportionate share of the maximum $10 for non-school purposes, relative to other affected entities (Marion County/Woodburn Fire District). Under the "compression' created by the Measure 5 limit, the city's share is estimated to be approximately 51% (or $5.10/$1,000). ~, ~ Approval of this measure will not increase or otherwise change the amount of property taxes paid. Woodburn taxpayers will continua to'pay the $10/$1,000 rate established for non-school purposes under the Ballot Measure 5 limitation. Total Words Authorized Signature (Note: Th/s statement must not exceed 500 words) Title Local Government Unit 'City of Woodburn Police Department lOB 270 Monet Ken Wrigh{ ~{J/ Chief of Po ic~~ Date: March 10, 1994 Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-2345 To: Mayor and Council C. Childs, City Administrator Subject: Oregon State Police - Video Camera Grant On February 24, 1994 I was contacted by Sgt. Dugan, Oregon State Police. Sgt. Dugan presented an Interagency Agreement from the State of Oregon, acting by and through the Oregon Department of State Police. The Agreement outlines services, equipment and monies to be provided to the Woodbum Police Department. In return, the Woodbum Police Department would provide additional overtime patrols, specifically to enforce Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol Laws. The Overtime monies, $1056.00, would be reimbursed by the State of Oregon. The State of Oregon would provide equipment in the form of in-car video systems and training for officers in the use of the equipment. Upon successful completion of the grant period, September 30, 1994, the equipment would become property of the City of Woodbum Police Department. In the past the police department has entered into similar agreements with the State of Oregon and other agencies, with the same parameters as outlined within this agreement. We, the Police Department, would assign appwximately 39 hours of overtime between March 1st and September 30th, 1994. We would report all activities to the Oregon State Police as required, and request reimbursements on a quarterly and annual basis. In return the City would receive a complete in-car video camera system valued in excess of $2500.00 which we could continue to use for enforcement and officer safety. I find this grant to be extremely lenient in the performance standards required of the Police Department for the product return. RECOMM~NDATION: The Woodbum City Council authorize the Police Department to enter into Agreement with the State of Oregon through the Oregon State Police for equipment and monies for Drunk Driver Enforcement. B:DUIGRNT.M~M lOB COUNCIL BILL NO. JS~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE, FOR EQUIPMENT AND GRANT FUNDS FOR DUll ENFORCEMENT. WHEREAS, the State of Oregon has grant funds available to be used for enforcement of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUll) laws, and and WHEREAS, video equipment and police officer training would also be provided, WHEREAS, it is in the interests of the City and citizens of Woodburn to execute an intergovernmental agreement with the State so that these benefits can be obtained, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Mayor is authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, the agreement between the City and the State of Oregon, acting by and through it Department of State Police. Section 2. That a copy of said agreement is attached hereto and, by this reference, incorporated herein. / /~.,.~ Approved as to form~~~~--~ ~'~ /~ City Attorney Date APPROVED: Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Len Kelley, Mayor Page I - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. lOB INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT This Interagency Agreement is between the State of Oregon acting by and through the Oregon Department of State Police, hereafter called Department, andwoodhlJ~n PD, hereafter called Agency. Statement of Work Agency agrees to provide the services and accomplish the work described in Exhibit "A" and by this reference made a part of this agreement. Delivery of these services will be accomplished by the dates set forth in Exhibit "A", unless prior approval for an extension is given the Agency by the Department. Final payment will be made upon completion of all stated work and receipt of final report. 2. Agreement Effective Date This Interagency Agreement begins O~4arch 1.1994.,. or when signed by all parties, and terminates on September 30, 1994. 3. Reporting Requirement The agency shall provide the following reports, to the Department: a. The Agency will be required to complete quarterly data gathering forms provided bythe Department of Transportation, ~ransportation Safety Section.(Exhibit C) b. Quarterly Progress Reports The Agency shall prepare and submit quarterly progress reports by the 5th of the month of the following quarterly reporting periods ending March, June and September of 1994. Each of these reports shall: Identify project status relative to events and activities identified in the proposal. Summarize work performed; accomplishments; and problems encountered during period of report; plans for succeeding period. lOB b. Final Report The agency will prepare and submit a final report on or before October 5, 1994. This shall include the following: Summary of activities of the entire Interagency Agreement period. Include accomplishments and problems encountered. These reports shall be submitted to Sergeant Richard Kuehmichel, Oregon State Police, 400 Public Service Building, Salem, Oregon 97310. These reports require Department approval prior to payment of completed phase. Consideration PRODUCT AGREEMENT As full consideration for all services to be performed by the Agency under this agreement, the Department of Transportation, Transportation Safety Section will compensate the Agency through Transportation Safety Section Grant ~ J7931209 with Ore~ State police not to exceed the sum of $..~,'01'5.6,00 and video recording camera(s)· Compensation will be accomplished through quarterly billings provided to the Department from the Agency not later than the 5th of the month following the billing period. The billings must reflect work actually accomplished during the billing period and submitted on Agency stationary, indicate Transportation Safety Section Grant ~ J7931209, billing period, tasks completed, contract number, amount of compensation and be signed by the project manager. Quarterly billing periods are March, June and ~eptember 1994. The Agency shall maintain all appropriate financial records. Retirement System Status Agency and its employees are all contributing members of the Public Employees Retirement System or other retirement system. Agency will be responsible for all withholding and contributions to the retirement system. Travel Travel expenses shall not be reimbursed to the Agency by the Department. Travel by the Agency may be required to achieve or complete contract deliverables. Government Employment Status The Agency certifies that its employees are not currently employed by the Federal Government. lOB Subcontracts Agency shall not enter into any subcontracts for any of the work scheduled under this Interagency Agreement without obtaining prior written approval from the Department. Dual Payment Agency shall not be compensated for work performed under this Interagency Agreement from any other Department of the State of Oregon. 10. Funds Available and Authorized Department certified at the time the Interagency. Agreement is written that sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this Interagency Agreement within the Department of Transportation's appropriation or limitation. 11. Termination This InteragencyAgreement may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties, or by either party upon 30 days notice, in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. The Department may terminate this Interagency Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice the Agency, or at such later date as may be established by the Department, under any of the following conditions: If Department funding from state or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for purchase of the indicated quantity of services. The Interagency Agreement may be modified to accommodate a reduction in funds. be If state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed or interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchase under this InteragencyAgreement or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed for payments authorized by this Interagency Agreement. Ce If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by the Agency to provide the services required by this Interagency Agreement is for any reason denied, revoked, or not renewed. Any such termination of this Interagency Agreement shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination. lOB The Department by written notice of default (including breach of Contract) to the Agency may terminate the whole or any part of this agreement: ae If the Agency fails to provide services called for by this Interagency Agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof; or If the Agency fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Interagency Agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Interagency Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from the Department, fails to correct such failures within 10 days or such longer period as the Department may authorize. The rights and remedies of the Department provided in the above clause related to defaults (including breach of Contract) by the Agency shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Interagency Agreement. Any such termination of this Interagency Agreement due to unsatisfactory completion of contract work will cause the Agency to forfeit video camera equipment that is part of this agreement. 12. Access to Records 13. The Department, the Secretary of State and/or Legislative Auditor and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers, and records of the Agency which are directly pertinent to the specific Interagency Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts. Agency shall maintain all required records for three years after final payment and Other pending matters are closed. Compliance with Applicable Law The Agency shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work to be done under this agreement. 14. Nondiscrimination Agency agrees to comply with the provisions contained in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 15. Assignment Agency shall not assign or transfer his agreement without the express written Department. interest in this consent of the lOB 16. Amendments The term of this Interagency Agreement shall not be waived, altered, modified, supplemented or amended, in-any manner whatsoever, except by written instrument signed by the parties. 17. State Workers' Compensation Act The Agency, its subcontractors, if any, and all employees working underthis Interagency Agreement are subject employers under the Oregon Workers' Compensation law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers. 18. Agency Data Name of Agency: Contact Person: Address: Telephone #: 19. The Fiscal year 1993 Section 410 Plan was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on July 21,1993. At that time, the Transportation Safety Section Manager was authorized and directed to sign all contracts included in this Plan for and on behalf of the Commission. Said authority is set forth in the records, Minute Book of the Oregon Transportation Commission. 20. Signatures Agency By (name & title) Date STATE OF OREGON by and through its Department of State Police By Richard Kuehmichel, Sgt. Date lOB EXHIBIT A REQUIREMENTS FOR AGREEMENT WITH OREGON STATE POLICE FOR DUII OVERTIME FUNDING Ail Agencies receiving overtime DUII enforcement funds agree to the following conditions: mo Ail officers participating by receiving overtime funds will attend a DUII video training course specified by Transportation Safety Section. Training hours for both officers and instructors will be funded by the Transportation Safety Section Grant. Officers making DUII arrests under the Transportation Safety Section Grant will complete the agency log(Exhibit C) whether the arrest was video recorded or not and either the officer or a person designated by the Agency will track the arrest case through to it's completion. e Agency will complete the Quarterly Report and forward the report to the Department by the 5th of the month following the end of the quarter.(See Section 3.b. of the Interagency Agreement) Department agrees to submit the following to Department of Transportation, Transportation Safety Section(TSS): Department will compile the information for their officers and those Agencies with Interagency Agreements and submit them to TSS on the TSS Quarterly Report following the conditions and instructions in Transportation Safety Section Grant # J7931209 ~ VIII. Exhibit B (1 of 4) AGREEMENTS AND ASSURANCES Thc following Agrecmeots and A~sumn/~ apply to aH grants funded by thc Traffic Safety Division (TSD), Oregon Department of Transpo~om A. General The ~~ h ~ ~_tis undertaken under the authority of Title 23, United $~*__~ Code~ Sections 153, 402=410, and is subject to thc Circulars A-21, A-87, A-II0, A-122, A-128, 48 Part 31, and 49 CFR Part 18. (NHTSA) and thc Federal 14~hway Administmion (FHWA) by statue or administrative action. The grantee shah ensure compliance with 49 CFR Pa~t 18.42 which addresses retention and access re- quirements forgrant-mlatod ~. The state, the federal grantor agency and thc Comptroller General of the United States, of any of their authorized rcpresen- tativc~ shah have the fight of ncce__-ss to any books, documcnu, Ixtpexs or other records of the gmnt~ which am ~ to th~ grant. The~ records must be zctained for a period of ~ ~ starting on tbe burscment for this grant. e Any obligation of grant funds extends only to those costs incun-ed by the grantee after authorization has been given to ~ with the particular part of the program involving costs. 5. Grant funds shall not be used for activities previously carried out with the grantee's own resources. Income earned dmmgh services ~ through thc project should be used to off~ the cost of the project and ~ included in Section VI, Budget ~md Cost Summary. pcoditurcs arc included as a part of mtity-widc audits conducted in accordance with the Single Audit/,_ct of 1984 (31 USC7561-7). Thc grantee shall provide TSD a copy of nil Single Audit Reports coveting thc time period of the grant &ward as soon a~ they become available. Federal funds received are Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistnnce (C~DA) number 20.600, Stat~ and Community I-~ghway Safety Program The granite shall promptly reimbur~ 'lSD for any ineligible or unau~x~! ~ as del~zmined by a state or federal review for which grant funds have been claimed and payment received. 9. Th~ grantee and its contractors cannot use federal fund~ to influence federal employees, Members of Congress, 737-1006 (9/93) lOB and Congressional staff regarding specific grants .... grantee and its contractors must submit disclosure documentation when non-foden*al funds are used to influence tbe decisions of fede~ officials on behalf of specific projects. Signing this Agreement constitutes a certification of compliance with these lobbying 10. TI~ grantee, its subcontractors, if any. and all employers working under this asreement are subject employers under thc Oregoa Workers' Compensation Law and shah comply with ORS 656-017, which requh~ them to provide woda~' compensation coverage for all their subject wottr~. II. The grantee shah rant-,-, purchases of any equ'~mment, matefial~ or services pursuant to this Agreement under wocedmes consistent with those outlined in the Oregon Depar~ent of General Sorvic~ Administrative Rules (Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 125: and Oregon Sta~ Law, including ORS Chapter ~79, and in particuhr ors 279.312, ORS 279.314, ORS 279.316, and ORS 279.320). 12. the Department of Transpottntion, the Traffic Safety Di 'v~ion, and their members, officers, agents, and employees from all claims, suits, or actions of whaler tatum arising out of the pedommn~ of this Agreement, except for claims arising out of the negligent acts or omissions of the State of Oregon, its employees, or reprcscntatives. This provision is subject to the limitations, if applicable, set forth in Article XI, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution and in the Oregon Tort Claims Act. ORS 30.260 to 30.300. B. Project Director's Responsibilities Thc Project Director is responsible for fuiflHing this that will .ensure the effective admini_~_tmtiou of the objectives. The Project Director shall: e Eslabiish or use an accounting system that conforms to generally ~___ceep_ ted accounting print/pies, and ensu~ that sourc~ docunmm ar~ dovcloped which will reliably account for thc funds oxtm~dc(L persom hired for aH project-related pozitions which are funded at 0.25 FTE or more. and by aH other staff pe~o~ or volunlr~rs whose o Complete a Quarterly Highway Safety Project Report, including a Data Table us provided in Section VII, Exhibit A. Each report must be signed by thc Project Director and submitted to 'lSD by thc I~nth of the Page 1 month following the close of each calendar quarter for ' the duration of the grant p~riocL Submit a Claim for Reimbursement within 35 days of thc end of thc calendar quarter in which expenses wet~ incurred, using the form lxovided by TSD. Copies of invoices and/or receipts for all specified items (Contractual Services, Travel and Subsisl~g~ Printing, and Equipment) must be submitted to TSD with the Claim for Rcimbm~sement. Claims may be submits! monthly, and must be submitted at least quarterly. Clairas must be signed by thc Project Prepare a lxoject evaluation in n___~ordan~ with tho Evaluation Plan &.scribed in the grant document. The repot will be no more than tm pages and will include tbe following e. iongms: a. A summary of tbe project including problems ad- plishngnts as they i~J*t~ ~0 [h~ obj~ctiYes. b. A summary of the costs of the project including amount paid by TSD, funded agency, othez agenci~ and privag source. Th~ of volunteer time slmuld be identified. c. Discussion of implementation process so that lcam from your cxpcri~ What went as planned7 What didn't wotk as ~ What important elements nmcb th~ project succr, ssful or not as successful as ~ question and answer. Refer to Data Table. Completed Dam Table. Ce A draft must be submitted to T~D for r~v~w by tho last day of tbe grant period. A final report incorporating TSD staff comments must be submiRed within one month after the TSD review is completed. Project Revision 1. Any proposed changes in the project objectives, key project pason~ time l~iod, or budget must be rcqucsted in writing, and Le~_'_ve tbe al~oval of TSD. A Orant Adjustment Form will be signed by both Any time extension in the project period must be requested at least six weeks lx'ior to thc end of thc ~xoject period end epixomi by thc fedora grantor agency if federal funds arc involved. D. Non-Discrimination Assurance Thc grantoc and its conwec, tors will comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section .~4 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and as implemented by 49 CFR pa~ 21 and 27, and with the Executive On~ 11246, entitled ~ Employment ~ty" as amended by Executive Order 11375 and supplemented by Depamnent of Labor regulations 41 CFR Part 60, and shah ensure that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, creed, sex or national origin be excluded from participation, be denied ~ 0 [~ benefits of. or be othe~is~ subjected to discrimination under any program or activity under this project. ployment and procurement of goods and sexvice~ macl~ in connection with the project will be provided without regard to race, color, creed, sex or national origin. The grantee and its comractors shaH take aH necessary affirmative steps in accordance with 49 CFR Part 23 have th~ maximum opportunity to compe~ for and to otherwise qualified hamiicaplzxi person shall, solely by reason of ~ handicap, be excluded f~om participation in, be denied thc benefits of, or otherwise be subjec~ to discrimination under any program or activity related to this grant + The grantee shall eusum that any contracts and subcon- tracts awarded in excess of $10,000 shall contain a provision requiring compliance with the standards set in paragraphs I through 4 of this section. E. Contracts and Other Service Agreements whether the work to be accomplished is consistent with the objectives of the project, and wlw. dgr the provisions of paragraphs 2 through 4 of this section All contracts awarded by the grantee shah include provision that any subcontracts include aH provisions sta~d in this section or thc provision that no subcon- uacts sludl be awarded. 3. TbegranU~ shall eusure that each conuactor adlz~ to applicable requivmnents established for the grant and that each contract include provisions for the following: tract ~cnns, nnd provide for such snnctions nnd penaltie~ as may be appro~ energy ~ which arc contained in the stat~ encr~ conservation plan issued in compliance with thc Encq~ Policy and Conservation Act c. Accoss by thc gr~_n__t~e-, thc state, thc fcdcml grantor a~mcy, thc Coaq)trollcr Cvencral of thc Uni~! States, or any of their duly authoriz~ rclrcsentafivcs, to any books, documents, and records of thc contrac~ which arc directly pertinent to that specific contract, for tl~ purpose of making audit, examination, cxccrpts, and to maintain all rcquin:d records for three y~ ~ 737-1006 (9/93) Page 2 pending malicrs ar~ clos~L & Notic~ ofl~-amor a~ency ~~ ~ ~- ~gu~fio~ ~g ~ ~t ~gh~ wi~ ~ ~ ~y ~v~ or ~v~fion w~ ~ or ~ ~v~ ~ ~ ~ of or ~ su~ c. R~u~ giv~ ~ S~on A. 9-12. 4. Whe~ applicable~ conwa~ shall indud~ th~ followin~ ~iom. T~~ f~ ~ ~ for ~v~ by ~ ~ ~lu~g ~ ~ by w~ it ~1 ~ (~n~ ~ g~ of $10,~) b. ~mp~ ~ ~fi~ ~ 11~ of Sc~ ~, 1~ m~ ~ ~plo~t ~~," ~ ~ by ~fi~ 1137~ of~ 13, 1~7 ~ su~l~ ~ ~ of ~r ~fio~ (41 ~ ~ ~). (~n~U ~ e~ of $10,~) A~ (18 USC ~4) u su~~ ~ ~c of ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 3). (~m~ ~ ~) ~m~ ~ ~ ~-~n A~ (~ USC ~ ~ a-7) ~ su~~ by ~ of ~r ~n~u ~ ~ of $~) c. Com~ ~ ~m 103 ~ 1~ of ~c ~ Wo~ H~ ~ ~ S~ ~ (~ USC 3~-3~) u ~~ ~ ~ of ~ ~o~om ~9 ~ P~ ~. (~n~ ~ c~ of $~) or ~~ ~u~ u~ ~ ~ of ~ CI~ ~ A~ (42 USC 1857 ~)), ~vc ~ 117~, ~d ~~~ ~fion Ag~ ~m (~ ~ P~ 1~. (~ ~ c~ of $I~,~) g. Bi~ ~~ ~ ~ m~t ~ ~t ~ ~y ~r ~ ~ ~ ~fly ~ ~ ~ vo~y ~ ~m ~~ ~ ~ ~on by ~y f~ ag~ or ~~c (~n~ ~ ~s of ~,~) Travel 1. Thc grantee shall keep a record of all significant Iravcl. In-state trips outside the grantee's jurisdiction should be summariz~i on Quarterly Highway Safevff Project Reports. Reim~ will only be authorized for those uavcl expenditures specified in the grant budget. AU out-of-slate travel must be approved by'lSD. To receive autho~,~fion, Ibc grantee shsll submit ale. tlgr detailing the need, cost, and dal~ of travel ai least two weeks prior to the planned delmmm date. Reports on out-of-stale trips shah be submilied to TSD within two weeks of r~turn. G+ 3. Reimburr~ment will only be authorized for travel 1 OB per~m employed by thc grantee in pmjcct-reJ~_t _~1 activities unless prior written approval is granted by TSD. Development of Printed or Production Materials The grante~ shah provid~ 'lSD with draft copic~ of aH matrdals developed using grant funds. TSD may suggest r~visions and will approve production. AU Ixochures; cours~ workshop and conference an- and/or Ix4med ~ ~ fimds shall include a smtr.- lv[algrials produced through this project shall be provided M 'lSD for ils use and disuibution and may not be sold for profit by either thc grantee or another pa~. H. Equipment Purchased with Grant Funds A Residual Valu~ Agrccmcnt shah be comple~ and su~ M 'I'~D if grant funds are used in whole or ovor $250. A copy of thc original vendoffs invoice idenfificalion number and cost of each iron should be should be identified with a propc~y identification number. e AU ~__~x~d and cquitxnent porchased shah be produced in the UnimJ Sram in accordance with Section 165 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-424; % Stat. 2097) units the Sec~a~ of Tnnspom~on has d~nninod under Section 165 Ihat it is aplxopfiatc to waive this agreement. grant funds shall be vested with tbu grantee. Costs incun~l for mainlmancc, n~pairs, upa~flng, or support of such equipment simll be berne by the grantee. If any mamial or equipment ceases to be used in project activities, the grantee agrees to promptly notify TSD. In such evmt, TSD may direct the granule to u'ansfe~, return or otherwise dispose of the I. Debarment Tbe grantee, in ~:cq~in~ ~ A~reeme~ cra/ties ~hat ~ agency or its officials m not presently deban'ed, suspended, proposed for debanne~ declared ~ or volunlmily excluded from lmlicipating in this wansacfion by any state J. Termination 737-1006 (9/93) Page 3 1.' Thc TSD may terminate this Agrex. meat for convenieoc~ in whole or in part when~v~. 'a. TI~ requisite sta~ and/or leda'al funding becomes unavailable through failur~ of appropdation or otherwi~; or, b. Thc ze, quisite local funding to continue this project becomes unavailabl~ to grana~ or, c. Both parties agree that cominuation of the project would not produce ~sults commenszwam with the further e. xpendimm of funds. Agreeale~ without the aPlxoval of TSD and which under the l~ovisions of this agreement would have required the aplxoval of TSD; or, b. The commeacmneog lxosecution, or timely completion of the project by grantee is, for any reason, rendered improbable, impossible, or The granlee is in default under any provision of this Agreement Co K. Conditions of Project Approval Actions mlreo by the Oregon Traffic Safety Committee, if any, reganiing conditions under which this project is approved are given in Section VH. Exhibit D. The grantee agrees to follow these conditions in implementing the project. L. Contract Provisions and Signatures R is unde~tood and agtzaxl that th~ grante~ shall comply with all fcderal, state, and local laws, r~gulations, or ordinances applicab~ to this agt~eug~ and that this Agreement is contingent upon grantee complying with such ze. quirements. signature of the Agreeme~ grantee shah attach to this Agreement a copy of the motion or resolution which authorizes said officials to execute this Agreement, and shall also certify its authenticity. lOB 737-1006 (9/93) Page 4 DUll Overtime Grant Arrests -- Commission Log 10B EXHIBIT C 'X' if Pending Date of 'X' If 'X' If # hfs 'X' if # hm 'X' If 'X' if at end of Defendant Arrest Officer# Video BAC Refuse Hear Diversion Tdal Not Guilt c~__~rter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 171 ~4 ~? $4 ~7 Totals: Reporting Agency Quarter Being Reported ,City of Woodburn Police Department lOC 270 Montgomery Street Wright Chief of Police Woodburn, Oregon 97071 (503) 982-2345 Date: March 7, 1994 To: Mayor and Council C. Childs, City Administrator Subject: North Marion County Law Enforcement Agreement Beginning in September of 1993 the Law Enforcement executives of North Marion County began meeting on a regular basis to discuss coordinating efforts towards supplementation of police services. As our discussions ensued over time we agreed to formalize our alliance and support. This effort has culminated in the attached agreement. We, Police Chiefs and Sheriff, feel this agreement further memorializes our commitment to our mutual efforts in the fight against crime. We have discussed not only criminal intelligence sharing but other efforts in areas such as traffic enforcement. Through such collective efforts of mutual aid we would be able to bolster each other's cities and departments. The offenders are aware of boundaries and we want them to know that we have no boundaries in pursuit of them. This agreement and others like it provide enhanced law enforcement services to the citizens of the cities in North Marion County. The benefits for each jurisdiction are endless. RECOMMRNDATION: The Woodburn City Council authorize the Police Department to enter into Agreement with the cities of North Marion County under the General Conditions. 10C COUNCIL BILL NO. !5 ~'C~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO THE NORTH MARION COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, law enforcement authorities in North Marion County have met on a regular and ongoing basis to coordinate efforts towards supplementation of police services, and WHEREAS, these mutual aid efforts will bolster the ability of each individual entity to provide adequate law enforcement, and WHEREAS, it is necessary and in the interests of the City of Woodburn to enter into an agreement memorializing these mutual aid efforts, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Mayor, on behalf of the City, is authorized to execute the North Marion County Law Enforcement Agreement. Section 2. That a copy of said agreement is attached hereto and, by this reference, inco rporat~.e.d.~erein. Approved as to form~: ~1~~~ City Attorney Date APPROVED: Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: Mary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Len Kelley, Mayor Page I - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. 10C General Conditions March 4, 1994 1. These General Conditions are intended to provide the framework of benefits and obligations within which any Oregon law enforcement agency may obtain the aid and assistance of any other agency which has agreed to be bound by the same conditions. 2. The term "this Agreement" refers to the co~ective agreements by which law enforcement agencies consent to and are bound by these General Conditions themselves. The term "Party" includes every agency which has signed such an agreement. 3. It is to the mutual advantage of the parties hereto that there be supplementary police aid available should a public occurrence or event that would tax the police facilities of a single party, threaten to reach a magnitude or duration beyond the ability of a single police agency to control, or, for the public safety, require a multi-jurisdictional coordinated effort. 4. The parties contemplate that such supplementary police service would be available in, but not limited to situations and circumstances such as; gangs, drugs, riot, unlawful assembly, insurrection, major disaster, criminal apprehensions, parades or other events where unusually large gatherings are to be found, search parties, and other instances of complex criminal investigations where the local agency,s human resources cannot reasonably be expected to cope with the situation; and further that supplementary police se~ice would be available on a routine basis, as between neighboring jurisdictions, when, for whatever reason, a particular police agency is unable to respond immediately to a situation requiring immediate and speedy police response and the neighboring agency has the present ability to respond. Given the above, it is further recognized the mutual sharing of resources of training and information is of the utmost benefit to all participants. 5. This Agreement is of a type and for a purpose expressly authorized by Chapter 190, Oregon Revised Statutes and is not otherwise prohibited by law. 6. The governing authority of each party has determined that it is mutually advantageous to render assistance to and receive assistance from other paries, and the benefit to be derived by each of the parties from availability of additional police service and support is ample consideration for each to enter into this Agreement. 7. If there is a "police problem" within thc area of jurisdiction of one of thc parties, and the problem is of such gravity and consequence that the regular police personnel of such party cannot readily control or suppress the same, the senior police officer on duty may request assistance from one or more of the parties to this Agreement by notifying the Police Chief, Sheriff or their designated officer on duty of the agency for whom assistance is requested. 10C 8.' Upon receipt of such request for aid, the agency to whom the request is made shall respond at its fullest ability without, in its judgement, compromising its ability and resources to maintain a reasonable level of service within its own jurisdiction. The decision of the Police Chief, Sheriff or other duly designated officer of the agency from whom aid is requested as to what manpower, equipment and vehicles are available for response shall be final. 9. The requesting agency's officer in charge at the scene of thc "problem" shall remain in charge and provide general directions to all aiding agency personnel. At the request of the officer in charge any aiding agency shall withdraw its personnel from the scene of the problem. 10. Where the services of responding agencies are required on a dispersed or multiple location basis the requesting agency's senior officer on duty shall designate an officer as "Coordinator.' The Coordinator shall have authority to assign responding agency personnel to locations within or without the requesting agency's jurisdiction. When responding personnel are dispatched to locations outside of the requesting agency's jurisdiction, the Coordinator shall promptly notify the senior officer in the jurisdiction to which said personnel are dispatched, that senior officer shall provide direction to responding agency personnel as needed to carry out the mission assigned by the Coordinator. 11. It is mutually agreed and understood that this Agreement shall not relieve any party hereto of the responsibility for the police protection within its own jurisdiction, nor does this Agreement create any rights or obligations which would not exist in the absence of this agreement. 12. Each of the parties hereto shall continue to provide the same salaries, compensation for the death or disability, retirement and furlough payments, cost of transportation, and other normal fringe benefits to their employees who arc assigned to render assistance to another other party pursuant to this Agreement as those employees would receive if on duty within the boundaries of the party by which they are employed. It will be incumbent upon responding agencies to obtain the approval of the requesting agency of any costs of equipment, supplies, and materials used or expended, and reasonable subsistence expenses incurred while rendering assistance under this agreement. 13. It is agreed that this Agreement for mutual aid shall constitute the sole consideration for the performance hereof, and no party hereto shall be obligated to reimburse any other for use of manpower. Each party hereto shall protect its own employees performing under this Agreement by adequate Workers' Compensation insurance or self insurance to cover claims for injury to persons or damage to property arising from the performance of this Agreement. Each jurisdiction shall be responsible for the acts of its own employees. All officers shall be bound by the policies and procedures of their respective agencies. 14. Persons arrested by officers whose services are being provided to another agency requesting their service shall be deemed, for all purposes including provision of medical care as required by law, to be in the custody of the agency which requested the assistance under this Agreement. 15. It is expressly understood that this Agreement does not cover the use of special incident teams such as Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT), Hostage Negotiations, and Hazardous Devices and materials. Deployment of such special teams to assist another agency must be pursuant to a separate agreement. 16. The term of this Agreement shall be perpetual, subject to the right of any party to withdraw as provided herein. These General Conditions may be modified at any time by mutual consent of all agencies who are then parties hereto. Any party to this Agreement may withdraw at any time on thirty 10C (3Q) days written notice to all participating agencies. Thereafter-this Agreement shall continue to exist among the remaining parties. Any party hereto may be excluded from this Agreement upon thirty 00) days written notice executed by at least a majority of the agencies who are then parties hereto. 17. It is expressly declared to be the intention of each party signatory hereto that its participation in this Agreement is not dependent on the participation of any other law enforcement agency, whether or not already a party hereto. 18. Any law enforcement agency in the geographical area of this agreement may become a party to this Agreement by appropriate action of the participating agencies. 19. The participating agency officials shall meet annually or as needed to review the Agreement and joint agency operations. -- End of General Conditions -- POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT 1. On the day and year last set forth below, The City of Woodburn , Oregon, for its Police Department ("Agency"), based upon duly adopted action or authority of its governing body or other official or body having authority to enter into intergovernmental agreements on behalf of the Agency, agrees to and accepts the POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT GENERAL CONDITIONS dated , and agrees to become a party to a multi-agency mutual aid system governed by those General Conditions. 2. All prior agreements concerning the same subject matter and scope of coverage are hereby terminated as of the date last set forth below. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Agency has caused this Agreement to be signed, in duplicate, by its duly authorized representatives as of this __ day of , 19 THE CITY OF OREGON By: Title: Attest: Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Legal Counsel 10D MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Council through City Administrator Public Works Program Manager j~~ Intergovernmental Agreement with State of Oregon March 9, 1994 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution entering into intergovernmental agreement #12,399 with the State of Oregon and authorizing the Mayor and City Recorder to sign on behalf of the city. BACKGROUND: As part of the process of formulating a Transportation System Plan for the City a study of the Highway 214/I-5 interchange area was initiated by the city in cooperation initially with two developers. The study was conducted by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and was completed in August, 1992. A September 15, 1992 Oregon department of Transportation (ODOT) letter raised several issues that required study beyond the scope of the initial Kittelson study. Through a series of discussions ODOT agreed to fund the cost of the additional study required. The cost of the additional work was determined through negotiation to be $10,000. The Council on January 24, 1994 passed resolution number 1212 authorizing the city to enter into a professional services contract with Kittelson & Associates, Inc. for $10,000 to accomplish the required additional analysis of the Highway 214/I-5 interchange area. This intergovernmental agreement allows the city to be reimbursed by the state for the costs associated with this contract. 1OD COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT #12,399 TO REIMBURSE THE CITY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO CONDUCT FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE HIGHWAY 214/i-5 INTERCHANGE AREA AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY RECORDER TO SIGN SUCH AGREEMENT. WHEREAS,, ORS Chapter 190 and 366 authorizes cooperative agreements between the state and a city for performance of projects, and WHEREAS, , The Woodburn City Council approved resolution number 1212 on January 24, 1994 entering into a professional services contract for $10,000 with a consultant, Kittelson & Associates, Inc., to perform the tasks listed in Exhibit A of agreement #12,399, and WHEREAS,, It is in the best interests of the city to enter into an agreement to fully recover, up to a maximum of $10,000, the costs of the professional services contract with Kittelson & Associates Inc., NOW THEREFORE THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City of Woodburn enter into intergovernmental agreement #12,399 which is attached as Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein with the State of Oregon to recover costs associated with analysis of the Hwy 214/I-5 interchange area by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Section 2. That the Mayor and City Recorder are authorized to sign said agreement on behalf of the City of Woodburn. / ~ Approved as to form:~'~.~~ ~.~'/0//4:~ y City Attorney Dat APPROVED: Len Kelley, 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 VVoodburn, Oregon Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. 10D INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT #12,399 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between THE STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State"; and the CITY OF WOODBURN, acting by and through its Elected Officials, hereinafter referred to as "City". RECITALS 1. By the authority granted in ORS 190.110, 366.770 and 366.775, state agencies may enter into agreements with other units of local government for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers or agents, have the authority to perform. 2. Under such authority, State and City desire to enter into this agreement to perform professional transportation engineering services in connection with the analysis of traffic operations and refinement of future travel demand forecasts associated with the Highway 21411-5 Interchange in Woodbum, Oregon. The project will include the tasks detailed on Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. 3. The terms of this agreement shall be in effect from the date of final execution by both parties, for a period of ten weeks. This agreement may be amended and/or extended at that time by mutual consent of both parties in the form of a written modification signed by all parties. NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as Stated in the foregoing RECITALS, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: STATE OBLIGATIONS 1. Upon receipt of Certified billing by City, State shall, through the Region 2 Office, pay City for 100% of costs incurred in the performance of the work described herein. Said payment shall in no case exceed $10,000. 2. State's liaison person for this'agreement is the Region 2 Planner. EXHIBIT a IOD CITY OF WOODBURN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT #12,399 3. State hereby grants City or its Consultant the authority to enter onto State right-of- way for the purpose of performing the obligations stated herein. 4. State certifies, at the time this agreement is executed, that sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this agreement within State's current appropriation or limitation of current biennial budget. CITY OBLIGATIONS 1. City or its consultant shall perform the tasks listed on Exhibit A attached, within the time frame allotted for this project. 2. City shall present properly certified bills.for 100 percent of actual costs incurred on behalf of this project directly to State's liaison person for review and approval. Such bills shall be in a form acceptable to State and documented in such a manner as to be easily verified. Billing shall be presented on a final payment basis only, based on actual expenses to date. Said project cost will, in no case, exceed $10,000. 3. Cost records and accounts pertaining to the work covered by this agreement shall be kept available for inspection by State for a period of three years following date of final payment. Copies of such records shall be made available upon request. 4. City shall be responsible for all costs related to its employment of individuals to perform the work under this agreement, including but not limited to PERS contributions, workers compensation, unemployment taxes, and State and federal income tax withholdings. 5. City shall not enter into any subcontracts for any of the work scheduled under this agreement without obtaining prior written approval from ODOT. 6. City shall not be compensated for work performed under this agreement from any other agency of the State of Oregon or the federal government. 7. City agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work under this contract, and that the provisions of ORS 279.312, 279.314, 279.320, and 279.555 shall apply to and govern the performance of this contract. 2 10D CITY OF WOODBURN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT #12,399 8. City agrees to comply with ali applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules, and regulations. City also shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub L No. 101-366) including Title II of that Act, ORS 659.425, and all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to those laws. 9. City shall enter into and execute this agreement during a duly authorized session of its City Council. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The City, its subcontractors, if any, and all employers working under this agreement are subject employers under the Oregon Workers Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers. 2. The parties hereto agree that if any term or provision of this agreement is declared bya court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, unenforceable, illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the agreement did not contain the particular term or provision held to be invalid. 3. This agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties, or by either party upon 30 days' written notice, delivered by certified mail or in person. ODOT may terminate this agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to City, or at such later date as may be established by ODOT, under any of the following conditions, but not limited to these conditions: If City fails to provide services called for by this agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. If City fails to perform any of the other provisions of the agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from ODOT fails to correct such failures within 10 days or such longer period as ODOT may authorize. 10D CITY OF WOODBUKN nxrrERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT #12,399 4. ODOT, the Secretary of State's office of the State of Oregon, the federal government, and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers, and records of City which are directly pertinent to the specific agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts for a period of three years after final payment. Copies of applicable records shall be made available upon request. Payment for cost of copies is reimbursable by ODOT. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. The Oregon Transportation Commission, by a duly adopted delegation order, authorized the State Highway Engineer to sign this agreement for and on behalf of the Commission. Said authority has been delegated to the Region Manager, pursuant to Subdelegation Order HVVY-6, paragraph 6. CITY OF WOODBURN, by and through its Elected Officials By Mayor By City Recorder Date STATE OF OREGON, by and through its Department of Transportation Reg~--i0-n Manager ,/ Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By Asst. Attorney General Date 4 1OD CITY OF WOODBURN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT #12,399 EXHIBIT a SCOPE OF SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CITY OR ITS CONSULTANT Provide professional transportation engineering services in connection with the analysis of traffic operations and refinement of future travel demand forecasts associated with the Highway 21411-5 Interchange in Woodbum, Oregon. The'project will include the following tasks: 1. Conduct analysis of future weave and merge traffic operations on Highway 214 between the I-5 Northbound Ramp Termini and Evergreen Road for each of the following alternatives: · Partial Cloverleaf - addition of loop ramps to upgrade diamond interchange · Split Diamond Interchange · Upgraded Diamond Interchange (with median barrier along Highway 214) · Single Poin{'[Jrban Interchange (with median barrier along Highway 214) This task will analyze the weave and merge traffic characteristics between the metered flow of eastbound traffic on Highway 214 through the I-5 Northbound Ramp Termini signalized intersection, and the free-flow traffic (assumed as random arrival) from the Northbound I-5 Ramp Termini free-flow right turn lane. Future traffic volumes used in this analysis will be based on updated trip generation estimates in the study area calculated in Task #3 below. 2. Conduct comparative analysis of future traffic progression along Highway 214 (using Passer-II) between Woodland Avenue and Oregon Way. Specific issues to be assessed and summarized in this work' task include: · Calculation of maximum queues on Highway 214 between the I-5 ramp termini and adjacent streets; · analysis of average vehicle delay on Highway 214 and the major side streets; · analysis on intersection clearance (especially on the I-5 ramps and on Highway 214 between the I-5 termini). Analysis of traffic progression will investigate future traffic volumes (see Task #3 below) for the three alternatives listed in Task #1 above. 1OD CITY OF WOODBURN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT #12,399 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES, continued 3. Identify future daily trip generation rate for the S.E. quadrant area of the Highway 214/I-5 Interchange and refine future travel forecast model (QRS-II) to reflect updated trip gene. ration assumptions. Update future (2011) peak hour volume estimates based on refined model results. This task includes coordination with State staff concerning trip generation and model development assumptions. 4. Prepare for and attend one meeting with the City and State to discuss study findings. 6 IOE M: Mayor and City Councilors'through Chris Childs, City Administrator Linda Sprauer, Library Director & Representative.'of Local Government on the /~- Board of Directors of Woodburn Cable Acces~ Television March 9, 1994 Equipment Bids The Woodburn Cable Access Television (Woodburn CAT) directors advertised for formal bids for various items of equipment. As provided for in the franchise, with Northland Cable Television, a studio is made available for use by the public. This initial equipment purchase was also provide for in the franchise agreement for use by the public. On February 16, 1994 sealed bids were. received, for the advertised equipment items. Four bids were received. They are as follows: Company Mega Hertz Norcross, GA Bid Amount $ 54,476.00 Technical Industries Incorporated of Georgia Atlanta, GA 54,026.00 Professional Video & Tape, Inc. Tigard, OR 49,518.00 Proline Industries, Inc. Bellevue, WA 49,171.75 Each company made some substitutions in. the items specified, but they were upgrades or newer modets~. The apparent low.bidder, Proline meets the requirements set forth in the specifications and will provide service through their Portland, OR office. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the acceptance of the low bid from Proline Industries, Inc. of $ 49,171.75. 1OF MEMORANDUM TO: THRU: Mayor and City Council Chris Childs, City Administrator FROM: Nevin Holly, Director Recreation and Parks SUBJECT: Liability Release And Extension Of Insurance To U.S. Marine Corps For Centennial Park Assistance DATE: March 9, 1994 There are several requirements which the United States Marine Corps mandates pdor to pedorming community service project work. These are routine procedures. The Marine Corps needs a joint liability release agreement. Secondly, the City needs to extend its existing insurance coverage to the Madne Corps while they are in the process of performing project work for the City of Woodburn. The Madne Corps plans on getting started with road grading work within the next month. This will pave the way for ballfield and playground construction work for early this summer. I ask that the City Council agree to extend the City's insurance coverage to the Marine Corps Reserve Unit of Salem, Oregon for any work they perform on the Centennial Park project. I also ask that the City of Woodburn authorize the signing of a joint liability release agreement between the City of Woodburn and the United States Marine Crops. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. NH:swp CITY OF c270 Montgomery Street · 1 OF WOODBURN Woodburn, Oregon 97071 · 982-522t2 March 16, 1994 Capt. P. M. Ramey, USMC Inspector/Instructor Marine Corps Reserve Unit Company A, 6th Engineer Support Battalion 1015 Airport Road, S.E. Salem, Oregon 97301-5097 RE: ¢~ntennial Park Pro!ect Dear Captain Ramey: This letter is to acknowledge the assistance of U.S. Marine Corps Reserves #22232 in preliminary construction work in the development of Woodburn's Centennial Park. This project will include constructing an access road and parking lot and installing tiling for the first phase of Centennial Park, which includes the digging of a retention basin. The project will provide training for Marine Corps personnel in grading, site preparation, drainage tile installation and possibly some building construction. We understand that the Centennial Park project will be a priority for spring and early summer of 1994. The City of Woodburn acknowledges that the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves #22232 will be acting as an agent of the city while providing the services set forth above. Accordingly, the city agrees to extend its insurance coverage with the intent that the U.S. Marine Corps is afforded the same reasonable protections that the city is provided under its own policy. A liability release form, approved by the Woodburn City Attorney, is included for this purpose. We welcome the Marine Corps' offer of assistance on this project and look forward to working with you later this spring. If you have questions, please feel free to call me (at 982-5222) or Nevin Holly, Recreation & Parks Director (at 982-5265). Sincerely, Chris Childs City Administrator 1OF LIABILITY RELEASE City of Woodburn, hereinafter known as the first party, and the 6th Engineer Battalion, Force Troops, FMF, USMC, N&MCTC, Swan Island, Portland, hereinafter known as the second party, agree as follows: (A) First party agrees to permit the second party to drive upon, utilize, and conduct military training upon its property located at Centennial Park at no expense to the United States Government. (B) First party agrees to release and to hold the United States Government and the individual Marines involved harmless for any damages to its land, property, employees, and person, occasioned by the use of first party's land, property, and employees for the purpose of military training. (C) The second party agrees to release and to hold first party harmless for any damages to its equipment or personnel occasioned by the use of first party's land, and employees for the purpose of military training. (D) In signing this release both parties covenant and warrant that they have authority to bind their respective legal entities to this agreement. Signature, City of Woodburn Representative Subscribed and sworn to before me this. Date day of ,1994. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Signature, Marine Corp. Reserve Representative Date Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 1994. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Page I - LIABILITY-RELEASE 10G MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Community Development Director ~'' LC Portland State University Po_oulation Estimates March 9, 1994 BACKGROUND: In December staff submitted to council a memo regarding what we believe to be a discrepancy in the Portland State University preliminary census counts. It is the position of PSU that the city's population is established at 14,055 as of July 1, 1993. It is the staff's contention, based on housing counts and field surveys that Woodburn's population is closer to 16,000. The attached chart reflects the city's estimates. The city's population base has some interesting ramifications on various city projects. For instance calculations for population projections are going to begin with a base number. If that number does not accurately reflect the true population then future growth projections may be too high or Iow, an important point when attempting to calculate the size of such infrastructure improvements as a wastewater treatment plant. Also affected are city revenues generated from such items as the gas, cigarette and liquor taxes which are based on a city's total population. A discrepancy of, for instance, 500 people, reflects approximately a gain or loss of over $30,000 in revenues from those taxable items. Because of the potential shortfall in revenues, staff contacted Dr. Wineburg at PSU's Center for Population research and census and requested what options may be available in resolving this issue. Basically Dr. Wineburg identified four alternatives and their costs. Those are: 1) Have the Center for Population Research and Census (CPRC) conduct a population census for the City of Woodburn. The population census cost is approximately $30,000 - $§.00 per housing unit. PSUPOP.EST SG:BW 10G Mayor and City Council through City Administrator March 9, 1994 page 2 Staff Comment: This alternative will assure the highest level of accuracy. 2) Have CPRC conduct a population survey for the City of Woodburn. Population survey is between $10,000 - $20,000. Staff Comment: Only a portion of the population most likely a random survey, is done. Its level of accuracy is therefore less. 3) Have CPRC estimate the population of Woodburn based on the number of housing units in Woodburn. This would entail a physical count of the housing stock within the city limits of Woodburn. Staff Comment: The city staff have already done extensive field counts and computer aided drafting counts along with counting building permits. Therefore PSU would only be duplicating the city's work. 4) Do nothing until you see the 1994 population estimate. This would cost nothing. Staff Comments: To do nothing means that our population base would remain at 14,0§5 except to add those increases from building permit activity from July 1, 1993 to April 1, 1994. RECOMMENDATION: In conclusion, staff would recommend the first alternative, the population census. This would insure the highest level of accuracy which we believe will result in the highest level of economic (revenue) return and the most authoritative data for planning purposes. If this alternative is selected, the funding of the project is discussed in an accompanying memo from the City Administrator PSUPOP.EST SG :BW 10G TO: MEMO Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Childs, City Administrator ~ Fundinq for S_oecial Citywide Census March 9, 1994 SUBJ.: DATE: RECOMMENDATION: If Council elects to enter into a contract with P.S.U. to conduct a special citywide census, as recommended by the Community Development Department, funding for this purpose can be accomplished from Fund 92, the General Operating Reserve Fund (aka Marion County Sinking Fund), not to exceed $30,000. BACKGROUND: If a special census of this nature results in a significant change in the city's population base, every city program will be impacted to some degree in how that department plans for provision of services to that population. As such, it presents as a very global issue for the entire city government. Also, a decision to pursue such a census is an unplanned and unanticipated, but immediate, need. Based on the rationale noted above, it is appropriate that the General Operating Reserve Fund be considered for this purpose. It is my understanding that the fund has remained intact partially because the fund itself is global in nature; that money within the fund would properly be redistributed to a number of funds and programs if it were ever liquidated. To make such a determination would be a huge and likely unwarranted task. In recent years, very few expenditures have been made from this fund, and it has been treated as a "contingency" fund to allow for large unanticipated needs of this very nature. The maximum $30,000 expenditure proposed in this instance would represent about two years' interest earnings within this fund. State "per capita" distributions are based on the P.S.U.-certified population estimates, and represent significant revenue sources for various city funds. 1994-95 estimates are as follows: Highway Use/Fuel Tax Fees Liquor & Cigarette Tax Distrib. 9-1-1 Phone Tax Revenues Total: $47.08 $10.94 $2.96 $60.98 (Street Fund) (General Fund/Public Safety) (9-1-1 Fund) 10G Page 2 -Census Funding (3/9/94) It can be readily noted that a population increase of 1,000 resulting from a special census could equate to some $60,980 in revenues to the city gg_[.Y.9_0.D twice the amount of the potential one-time cost (for the census) to generate that revenue. I am recommending an outright expenditure from Fund 92 for this purpose, rather than a loan from that fund, which could be another option. Each of the other funds that benefits from state "per capita" distributions needs every penny it receives, and any type of "repayment" schedule from those increased distributions would be difficult, time-consuming and arbitrary in nature. As noted earlier, the General Operating Reserve Fund's purpose has been perceived as being for unusual projects of this nature, and all city functions will benefit from the ability to more accurately guage the population being served. If the Council directs this course of action, appropriate contract papers and resolution for reappropriation of funds will be presented at a subsequent meeting for Council approval. · ' llA A/P CHECK LISTING FOR THE HOHTH OF FEBRUARY 1904 Page 1 Check Number Budgetary Accomt Number Vendor Nm Vendor N~gber Check - Date Written Amount of Check 21768 SERViCES-POLiCE CASE AUTO#OT % VE 002190 2/01/94 975.00 21769 OFF ST PARKING COUPONS US BANIC 020070 2/03/94 366.00 217'70 $ERVZCES-UATER US POST OFFICE 020090 2/04/94 226.67 21771 VO I D VO i D VO i D 2177'2 VOi D VO] D VO[ D 21773 VOi D VO] D VOI D 21774 RE FUND-WATER/SEI,JER I~ZLLIA/4 OSBORNE NONE 2/04/94 8.64 21775 RE FUND-UATER/SE~ER JULIA ASHLAND NONE 2/0~/94 21776 REFUND-BUi LD[NG WEZGEL CONSTRUCT[ON NONE 2/0~/94 4,768.31 21777 SUPPLIES-STREET ALLIED SAFETY INC 0001/~ 2/C)~/9& 110.60 21778 SERVICES-VARI(XJS ARATEX SERVICES INC 0005~ 2/0~/94 35.87 21779 SUPPLIES-LiBRARY Bi-HART CORPORATioN 001275 2/04/94 34.00 21780 SUPPLiES-VARiOUS BOISE CASCADE 001~0 2/0~/9~ 208.97 21781 REIHBURSEHEHT-CITY ADH[N CHRIS CHILDS 002~8 2/0~/94 ~.50 21782 SERViCES-PUBLIC WORI(S CH2H-HILL 002477 2/0~/9~ 6~3.67 21783 SERViCES-PUBLIC t~.l(S CH2X-HILL 002478 2/0~/94 3,921.94 2178~ SERV! CES-M/TP C [ NTAS 0024~ 2/0~/94 135. 21705 SUPPL]ES-k~4TER CONSOLIDATED SUPPLY CO 002770 21786 SUPPLiES-PQLICE DARE ARERICA 003037 2/0~/94 ?/,.14 21787 SERViCES-ENGiNEERING DE HAAS & ASSOCIATES 003108 2/0~/9~ 2,335.05 217M SERViCES-NON DEPT EDEN SYSTEHS [NC 00~065 2/0~/9~ 2,397.00 21789 SUPPLiES-STREET FARI4 PLAN 005062 2/04/94 5.22 21790 SUPPLIES-911 FORCE 4 CO#PUTER 005242 2/0~/94 12.56 21791 SUPPLIES-PLANN Z NG FOTO HAGiC 005258 2/0~/9~ 4.65 21792 SUPPLiES-POLiCE FRANKLIN QUEST CO 00~332 2/G~/94 118.00 21793 SERVicES-911 GERVAIS TELEPHONE CO 006143 2/0~/94 95.4~ 21794 SUPPLiES-FINANCE GOV'T FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC 006238 2/C~/94 21795 SERVICES-VARIOUS G.T.E. HOBIL#ET 006373 2/0~/94 69.05 21796 SUPPLIES-VARiOUS INDUSTRIAL WELDING SUPPLY 008100 2/0~/9~ 128.36 21797 SERVICES-NON DEPT LOCAL GOV'T PERSON'L INST 011300 2/04/9~, 109.80 21798 SERViCES-COURT HSI GROUP 1NC 012015 2/0~/94 125.00 21799 SERVICES-t~i'P HAPLE RIDGE JANiTORiAL 01207'5 2/04/94 420.00 21800 SERViCES-U~TP GORDOR L. HERSETH P.E. 0124~ 2/0~/94 2,841.75 21801 SUPPLiES-VARiOUS HETROFUELING ZNC 012448 2/0~/94 585.99 21802 SERVICES-911 HONITOR CO-OP TELEPHONE 012550 2/0~/94 170.00 21803 SERVICES-COOE ENFORCE LARRY HORTON'S TRASHZSSION 012618 2/04/94 650.00 2180~ SUPPLiES-VARiOUS UALTER E. NELSON CO 013153 2/0~/94 254.60 21805 SUPPLiES-ENGiNEERING NESSCO SUPPLY iNC 013160 2/0~/94 216.76 21806 SUPPLZES-b/ATER NW DIN4OND BLADE & BiT SALES 013272 2/0~/94 21807 SERVICES-VARIOUS NORTHUEST NATURAL GAS 013350 2/04/94 1,~81.64 21808 SUPPLIES-VAR [OUS OFFICE DEPOT 014029 2/04/94 282.67 21809 SUPPLiES-FINANCE OH TECHNOLOGY CONP 014055 2/0~/94 494.90 21810 SERVICES-COOE ENFORCE OR DEPT OF HOTOR VEHICLE 014240 2/0~/94 ~ 14.00 21811 SERVICES-ENG OTAI( 014682 2/04/94 300.00 21812 SERVICES-tNTP PACiFiC PURE BOTTLED S~ATER 015059 2/04/94 37.50 27,223.87 .' 11A 3/10/94 A/P CHECK LISTING FOR THE NORTH OF FEBRUARY 1994 Page 2 ~eck N~r B~geta~ Acc~t N~r V~r Na~ V~or N~r Check - Date gritt~ ~t of ~eck 21813 SERVICES-VdTP PARKER BUILDINGS 015167 2/04/94 21814 SERVICES-VARiOUS PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC 015420 2/04/94 21815 SERVICES-STREET PUBLIC gORK$ SUPPLY ]NC 015648 2/0~/9& 21816 SERViCES-COURT TERRY RAHIREZ 017050 2/0~/94 21817 SUPPLIES-STREET SAFFROR SUPPLY CO 018020 2/04/94 21818 SUPPLIES-M,/TP SAFETY & SUPPLY COHPANY 018028 2/04/94 21819 SERVICES-911 BT PAUL COOPERATIVE TELEPHONE 018035 2/04/94 2187.0 SERViCES-CiTY HALL SEg%N6 & VACtJUH EXCHANGE 018405 2/04/94 21821 SERVICES-CITY ATTY #. ROgERT $#%ELD$ 018~50 ?./04/94 2187.2 SUPPLIES-WATER $ILVERTON SAND & GRAVEL 018~90 2/04/94 21823 SERVICES-LIBRARY SOUND ELEVATO~ CO 018610 2/04/94 2187.4 SERVICES-STREET $OUTHER# PACiFiC TRANS 018620 2/04/94 21825 SERVICES-DAR STATE#iq,# JOURNAL NEgSPAPER 018760 2/04/94 21826 SERV%CE$-WgTP SUPERIOR ELECTRIC HOTOR SERV 018832 2/04/94 21827 SUPPLIES-VARIOUS TELECONN BYSTE#$ INC 019043 2/04/94 2187.8 SUPPLIES-POLICE TERRITORIAL SUPPLIES IgC 019060 2/04/94 21829 SERV%CE$-E#GI#EERI#G DAVID L TRAPP & ASSOC 019210 2/04/94 21830 SUPPLIE$-C GARAGE UNOCAL:ERNIE 6RAHAN OIL 020010 2/04/94 21831 SERVICES-VARIOUS UNITED DISPOSAL SERV&CES 020020 2/04/94 21832 SERVICE$-VAR]OU$ U.S. WEST COHHUNICATIONS 020095 2/04/94 21833 SUPPLIE$-WUTP VALLEY WELDING SUPPLY 021050 2/04/94 218~. SUPPLiES-LIBRARY WAL-MART STORES IgC 022035 2/04/94 21835 SUPPLIES-VARiOUS WESTERN PAPER CONPANY 022209 2/04/94 2183~ SERVICES-NON DEPT kKX)OBURN INDEPENDENT 022630 2/04/94 218~? SUPPLIES-POLICE WOOOBURN LUHBER CO 022(~0 2/04/94 218~8 SUPPLIES-COOE ENFORCE YES GRAPH%CS 024025 2/04/94 218~9 SERViCES-DAR LOWELL UIKOFF 045705 2/04/94 21840 PETTY CASH-VARiouS CiTY OF UOOOBURN 015255 2/10/94 21841 SERVICES-WATER US POST OFFICE 020090 2/10/94 21842 VOID VOiD VOID 21843 V 0 I D V 0 [ D V 0 I D 21844 VOiD VOiD VOiD 21845 SERVICES-CITY HALL D.R. DAVIS LOCK & SAFE #OgE 2/11/94 218~6 REFUND-WATER/SEWER ROBERT D WiLHOT NONE 2/11/94 2184,7 REFUND-BUSiNESS LICENSE K~RIA RIVERA #ONE 2/11/94 218~8 SUPPLZES-WgTP Al# SAFETY USA igc 000109 2/11/9& 218~9 SUPPLiES-WWTP A-QUALITY TYPEgRITER 0004,20 2/11/94 21850 SERVICES-STREET/HATER ARATEX SERVICES INC 00053~ 2/11/94 21851 SERVICES'911 AUTOHATED OFFICE $Y$ 000563 2/11/94 21852 SERVICES-911 AT&T INFORHATION SYSTE#S 0006?.0 2/11/94 21853 SERVICES-VARiOUS AT & T 000623 2/11/94 21854 SERVICES-BUILDiNG BEAR ELECTRIC IgC 001230 2/11/94 21855 SUPPLIES-ENGINEERiNG BLUEPRINT SPECIALITY 001310 2/11/94 21856 SUPPLIES-WATER BOISE CASCADE 001340 2/11/94 21857 SUPPLIES-CiTY ATTY BUTTERSWORTH$ LEGAL PUBLISH 001590 2/11/94 21858 SERVICES-PARKS DOB CAREY & ASSOCIATES 002126 2/11/94 3,000.00 7,250.77 83.67 39.50 717.00 406.00 39.95 4,511.25 804°00 158.~6 254.00 1~.25 288.40 111.10 3,110.00 115.07 568.80 642.75 9.00 48.30 855.24 18.38 86.40 357.50 48.24 144.55 147.17 42.25 21.96 35.00 23.00 101.40 1&.18 21.96 199.75 196.69 14.00 43.89 1,265.00 53,675.18 llA 3110196 A/P CHECK LISTING FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 1996 Page 3 Check Nunber 21659 218~0 218~1 218~2 218~ 218~ 218~5 218~ 218~? 218~8 218~9 21870 21871 21872 21873 21876 21875 21876 21877' 21878 21879 21880 21881 21882 2188~ 2188~ 21885 2188~ 21887 21888 21889 21890 21891 21892 21893 2189& 21895 21896 21897 21898 21899 21900 21901 21902 21903 21906 Budgetary Account N~ber SERVICES-911 SERVICES-COURT SUPPLIES-UATER SUPPL]ES-U~TP SERViCES-POLICE SUPPL[ES-~TER SUPPLIES-LIBRARY SUPPLIES-FINANCE SUPPLIES-I~dTP SERVICES-PARKS SUPPLIES-TA/TP SERViCES-STREET GERV[CES-tdgTP SERVICES-ENG/STREET REZNBURSEM~NT-FINANCE SUPPLIES-BUILDiNG SUPPLIES-POLiCE SUPPLIES-STREET SUPPLiES-STREET HEMBERSHIP-POL]CE SUPPLIES-LZBRARY/ENG 02/11/~6 REGiSTRATION-BUILDING $UPPLZES-UATER SUPPLiES-POLiCE SERViCES-VARIOUS SUPPLiES-STREET $UPPL[E$-tAiTP SUPPLIES-VARIOUS GERV[CES-PARKS SUPPLIES-VARIOUS SUPPLIES-POLiCE SHiPPING-POLICE $UPPL]ES-UUTP SEUER BOND COUPONS SERViCES'VARIOUS SERV[CE$-VAR]OUS $UPPLiE$-I~rP SUPPLIES-CITY ATTY SUPPLIES-POLICE SERVICES-POLICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE SERVICES-PARKS REFUNDoUATER/SE~ER SUPPLIES-VARiOUS REGISTRATION-FINANCE Vendor Name CELLULAR ONE 002305 Ir, ARGOT COHLEY 00268~ CONSOL[DATED SUPPLY CO 002770 CONVENZENCECARD 002815 CREDIT NORTHUEST CORP 002900 FOX LOCK & SAFE INC 005325 GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL 006079 GOV'T FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC 00~238 HACH CHEMICAL CO 007030 HERSHBERGER MOTORS 007150 HiGH PURITY CHEMICAL INC 007189 INDUSTRIAL HACHIN[NG CO 008075 INSTANT FIRE PROTECTION 008160 JON SHOPPERS INC 00~119 GERALD LEIMBACH 011190 HARION COUNTY BLDG INSPEC 0120~0 MARION SALEM DATA CENTER 012228 #ICROUAREHOUSE 012659 NORBARK NORTHUEST INC 012562 NATIONAL ASSOC OF TOUN UATCH 013018 OFFICE DEPOT 016029 ONE CALL CONCEPTS INC 016054 OREGON BUILDING OFFICIALS 014125 OREGON GLOVE CO 01&308 PACIFIC PRINTERS 015058 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC 015620 R & R UNIFORMS 017003 JACK RAULINGS 017056 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLY 017161 SECURITY CONSTRUCTION CO 018~33 SILVERFLEET SYSTEMS 018~65 TELECOI4M SYSTEMS INC 01~043 TERRITORIAL SUPPLIES 019060 UNOCAL:ERNIE GRAHAM OIL 020010 US NATIONAL BANK 020070 U.S. UEST COI4HUNICATIONS 020091 U,S. gEST COMI4UNICATIONS 020095 UAL-HART STORES INC 022035 UARREN GORHAH LAMONT INC 022058 UOLFERS HEATING 022~0 UCOOBURN CARCRAFT 022508 I~BURN OFFICE SUPPLY 022670 UOOOBURN RADIATOR & GLASS 022700 I~:)OOBURN CONSTRUCTION 080220 POSTAGE BY PHONE SYSTEM UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA NONE Vendor Nm~er Check - Date Uritten Amount of Check 2/11/94 11.82 2/11/9~ 35.00 2/11/96 3,153.00 2/11/96 26.99 2/11/96 4.00 2/11/94 192.00 2/11/96 1~.00 2/11/94 2/11/96 ~.60 2/11/9~ 138.00 2/11/94 270.2~ 2/11/96 61.00 2/11/~, 90.00 2/11/96 1,837.80 2/11/94 55.00 2/11/9~ 9o346.19 2/11/96 209.00 2/11/96 249.03 2/11/96 299.67 2/11/96 25.00 2/11/94 463.22 2/11/94 39.00 2/11/94 2~.00 2/11/94 /8.00 2/11/94 22.50 2/11/94 18,/~5.53 2/11/94 384.00 2/11/94 348.30 2/11/94 121.28 2/11/96 7,619.00 2/11/96 184.58 2/11/94 97.50 2/11/94 8.00 2/11/94 ~69.60 2/11/94 397.50 2/11/94 508.10 2/11/94 3,013.57 2/11/94 5.44 2/11/94 65.95 2/11/94 11.00 2/11/94 312.29 2/11/96 49.76 2/11/94 157.50 2/11/94 7.45 2/11/96 600.00 2/15/96 345.00 103,739.64 llA 3/10/94 A/P CHECK LISTING FOR THE HONTH OF FEBRUARY 199/. PaGe Check #ct.bet Budgetary Account Nu.ber Vendor Nm Verrlor Nu.ber Check - Date Written ~;ount of Check 21~05 SERVICES-k~ATER US POST OFFICE 020090 21906 V 0 I D VO ! D VO I D 21907 V 0 I D VO I D VO I D 21908 VOI D VOI D VO[ D 21909 REFUND-WATER/SEUER JULIA ASHLAND NONE 21910 REGISTRATION-POLICE D.A.R.E. OREGON NONE 21911 SERVICES-PLANNING AUARD$ AND ATHLETICS 000580 21912 SERVICES-VARIOUS AT&T INFOP~AT[ON SYSTEMS 000620 21913 SERVICES-POLICE/911 AT&T LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 000659 2191& SERVICES-POLICE BAKER & BROUN 001070 21915 SUPPLIES-VARIOUS BOISE CASCADE 0013/,0 21916 SERVICES-ENGINEERING CH2H-HZLL 002/.78 21917 SERVICES-C STORES COPY OFFICE PRODUCTS 002875 21918 SUPPLIES-POLICE CRIME STOPPERS INTERNATIONAL 002907 21919 SERVICES-PUBLIC I~K$ DANEAL CONSTRUCTION INC 003028 21920 SERVICES-POLICE DOHINO'S PIZZA 003252 21921 DUES -POLI CE F. B. I. 005071 21922 SERVICES-ENGINEERING FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 005080 21923 SEUER BOND COUPONS FLEET BARK OF HASSACHUSETTS 005177 2192/. SUPPLIES-911 FORCE & COMPUTER 00524.2 21925 SERVICES-LIBRARY FOX LOCK & SAFE INC 005325 21926 SERVICES-VARIOUS G.T.E. 14OB] LNET 00~7~ 21927 SERVICES-911 IHAGE RESOURCES 008029 21928 SERVICES-911 INN OF THE TrH MOUNTAIN 008030 21929 SIJPPLIES-STREET INDUSTRIAL NACHINING CO 008075 21930 SERVICES-ENGINEERING JOB SHOPPERS INC 009119 21931 SERVICES-POLicE KEIZER AUT(X¢OT IVE 010050 21932 SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES 010093 21933 SUPPLIES-COOE ENFORCE IQ,JSTOI4 KREATIORS 010315 2193~ SUPPLIES-CITY ATTY LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS 011015 21935 SERVICES-PUBLIC UORKS LINNCO ELECTRIC CO 011261 21936 SUPPLIES-UATER LITTLE CHEMICAL CO 011285 21937 SERVICES-POLICE PATR]CI( C. MCDORALD M.D. 0123~ 21938 SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING OFFICE DEPOT 01/.029 21939 REGZSTRATION-911 OREGON APCO 01/.087 2194.0 SERVICES-VARIOUS OREGON DEPT OF GENERAL SERV 01&200 2194.1 REGISTRATION-POLiCE OREGON DEPT OF JUSTICE 01/.210 21942 SUPPL ! ES-UUTP PACIFIC PRINTERS 015058 2194.4.3 SERVICES-VARIOUS PROFESSIOMAL SERVICE INDUST 015550 21944 SERVICES-911 PT[ COMMUN [ CAT IOR$ 015580 219/.5 SERVICES-COURT TERRY RN4[REZ 017050 219/.6 SERVICES-COURT SHEREEN RZCOY 017196 219/,7 SERVICES-POLICE SALEN HOSPITAL 018100 2194.8 SERVI CES-~JATER SERVICENTER 018~60 2194.9 SUPPLIES-CCOE ENFORCE S.T.S.S. 018721 21950 SUPPLIES-CITY ATTY STATE COURT ADHINSTRATOR 0187/.5 2/18/94. 172.1/. 2/18/94 14..05 2/18/9/. 305.00 2/18/94 20.00 2/18/94. 3?2.25 2/18/94. 18~.73 2/18/9/. 94.80 2/18/94. 382.23 2/18/94 1,243.56 2/18/94 389.29 2/18/94 12.00 2/18/94 9,459.15 2/18/94 78.30 2/18/94 17.00 2/18/94/* 21.75 2/18/94 2~5.00 2/18/94 7'72.29 2/18/94 531.50 2/18/94 582.92 2/18/94 6/.0.00 2/18/94 160.50 2/18/94 149.17 2/18/94. 1,350.00 2/18/94 59.00 2/18/94 6.3O 2/18/94 30.00 2/18/94. 370.00 2/18/94 12,935.00 2/18/94 47.00 2/18/9/. 94.00 2/18/94 99.99 2/18/94 35.00 2/18/94 280.00 2/18/94 10.00 2/18/94 21.60 2/18/94 1,876.65 2/18/94. 120.00 2/18/94 47.00 2/18/94 109.OB 2/18/94 436.50 2/18/94 3~0.25 2/18/94 106.35 2/18/94 39.00 138,019.99 llA 3/10/94 AlP CHECK LISTING FOIl THE HONTH OF FEBRUARY 1994 Page Ch~k N~r Bucl~eteryAccut N~nber Vendor N~ Vendor N~nber Check - Date Written A~t of Check 21951 SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING SURVEYORS SUPPLY CO 018855 2/18/94 21952 SUPPLZES-VARiOUS THE J THAYER CO 019100 2/18/94 21953 SUPPLIE$-C GARAGE UHOCAL:ERNZE GRAHAN OIL 020010 2/18/94 21954 SERVICES-911 U.S. WEST COt4MUN]CATIONS 020095 2/18/94 21955 SERVICES-POLiCE VAN#ETER & ASSOCIATES 021085 2/18/94 21956 SERVICES-UATER i,~ATER, FOOO & RESEARCN LAB 022062 2/18/94 21957 EXPENSES-911 K~RIANNE WOLF 022459 2/18/94 21958 SERVICES-COOE ENFORCE WOOOBURN CARCRAFT 022508 2/18/94 21959 SERViCES-ENG MiX)BURN #%GN SCHOOL 0:~2615 2/18/94 21960 SUPPLIES-PUBLiC WORKS I~X)OBURN OFFICE SUPPLY 022670 2/18/94 21961 SERViCES-POLiCE WOOOBURN TAXI 0227~6 2/18/94 21962 OFF STREET PARKING COUPON US BANK 020090 2/18/9~ 21963 PETTY CASH-VARIOOS CITY OF I~X)BURN 015255 2/Z3/94 2196~ SERVICES-t~ATER US POST OFFICE 020090 2/25/94 21965 VO I 0 VO i D VO I D 21966 VO ! D VOI D VO ! D 21967 VO i D VO I D VO I D 21968 VO ! D VO I D VO I D 21969 V 0 i D V 0 i D V 0 I D 21970 VOI D VO] D VOI D 21971 SERVICES-M~'P CARD]AC CONSULTANTS P.C. NONE 2/25/94 21972 REFUND-PARKS JENN]FER TUS$ NONE 2/25/9', 21973 SUPPLIES-I&fl'P AG k'EST SUPPLY 0000~6 2/25/94 21974 SERVICES-VARIOUS ARATEX SERVICES INC 00053~ 2/25/94 21975 SERVICES-POLICE/CiTY HALL ARATEX SERV%CES INC 000535 2/25/94 21976 SERVi CES-911 AUTONATED OFF % CE SYS 0005l~ 2/25/94 21977 SERVICES-bVI'P BECIO~ITH & I(UFFEL 001174 2/25/94 2197'8 $UPPL i ES - PANKS/kIATER Bi-HART CO, POP. AT i ON 001275 2/25/94 2197'9 SUPPL[ES-ENG]NEER[RG CENTRAL POINT SOFTUANE 007325 2/25/94 21980 SERVi CES-k'UTP CINTAS 002484 2/25/9/* 21981 SUPPLIES- PARKS/UUTP CONVE# ! ENCECARD 002815 2/25/94 21982 SUPPL]ES-VAN]OU$ DAV[SON AUTO PARTS 003080 2/25/94 2198~ SUPPL]ES-POL]CE DAVISON AUTO PARTS 003081 2/25/94 21984 RE ]#BURSENENT- PLANN % NG TERESA ENGELD]NGER 00~188 2/25/94 21985 SERV%CES-POL[CE FAIU4ERS O]L 0050~0 2/25/94 2198~ SUPPL]E$-STREET FARHERS STEEL CO 005050 2/25/94 21987 SUPPL ] ES- STREET/PARKS FAR# PLAN 005062 2/25/94 21988 SUPPL]ES-PARKS FOX LOCI( & SAFE ]NC 005325 2/25/94 21989 SUPPLIES-VARIOUS G.U. HARDUARE CENTER 00~,05 2/25/94 219~0 RE[HBURSEHENT-RSVP PATR%C%A HELLHAKE 007117 2/25/94 21991 SERV[ CES-PARKS HERSHBERGER MOTORS 007150 2/25/94 21992 $UPPLIES-k'UTP HIGH PURITY CHEHICAL IRC 007189 21993 SUPPL [ ES- ENG ] NEER I NG [ NHAC 008120 2/25/94 21~4 SERViCES-RSVP I(N[GHT GRAPH[CS 010107 2/25/94 21995 SUPPLIES-STREET/UATER L & L BUILDING SUPPLIES 011010 2/25/94 21996 SERV[CES-UUTP HAPLE RIDGE JANITORIAL 012073 2/25/94 118.35 129.79 108.00 156.80 110.00 280.50 149.00 60.00 5.26 152.50 145.19 155.99 73.75 8.00 72.92 67.38 77.10 ~.58 587.00 32.46 57.45 ~6.79 111.80 27.72 30.53 226.6~ 35.00 1,20~.25 69.50 827.00 90.11 138.00 841.71 61.66 277.73 102.08 420.00 146,165.66 11A 3/10/94 A/P CHECK LISTING FOR THE #ONTH OF FEBRUARY 1994 Page Check Number Budgetary Account Nar Verxior Name Vendor N~nber Check - Date Written A~ount of Check 21997 SUPPLIES-VAR]OIlS IIETROFUEL]NG ]NC 012448 2/25/94 627.06 21998 SUPPLIES-STREET #ZDUEST #ICRO PERIPHERALS 012474 2/25/94 2,021.30 21~9 SUPPLIES-VARiOUS HR P'S AUTO PARTS 012510 2/25/94 28.07 22000 SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING NESSCO SUPPLY INC 013160 2/25/94 13.76 22001 SUPPLIES-STREET NORTHSIDE FORD TRUCK SALE 013225 2/25/9~ 20,646.00 22002 SERVICES-FINANCE OR NUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS 014360 2/25/94 245.00 22003 SERVICES-RSVP PACiFiC PRINTERS 015058 2/25/94 93.50 22004 SERVICES-I&/TP PARKER BUILDINGS 015167 2/25/94 9,000.00 22005 SUPPLIES-POLICE PIONEER ELECTROR]CS 015~5 2/25/94 24.9~ 2200~ REGISTRATIOII-1&iTP/STREET PNPCA CORTINUZNG EDUCATION 015358 2/25/94 300.00 22007 SUPPLIES'PARKS PORTLAND TRAILBLAZERS 015455 2/25/94 310.50 22008 $ERVICES-IZATER RADIX CORPORATION 017035 2/25/94 551.25 22009 SERVICE$-IA/TP LES SCHUAB TIRE CENTER 018300 2/25/94 3.00 22010 SERVICES-POLICE $LATER CO#HUNICATIONS 018522 2/25/94 139.60 22011 REGISTRATiON-POLICE STUART PARKS FORENSIC CONSULT 018798 2/25/94 500.00 22012 SUPPLIES-VARIOUS THE J. THAYER COHPANY 019100 2/25/94 187.04 22013 $UPPLIES-kIATER UNITED PiPE & SUPPLY CO 020030 2/25/94 3,789.05 22014 $UPPLIE$-tNTP VIESKO RED! #IX 021140 2/25/94 377.6.3 22015 SUPPLIES-PARKS VIKING OFFICE PROOUCT$ 021180 2/25/94 ~1.13 22016 SUPPLIES-POLICE UAL-HART STORES INC 022035 2/25/94 447.04 22017 SERVICES,PARKS UOOOBURN CLEANERS 022530 2/25/94 11.25 22018 SERVICES-911 UOUDBURN FLORIST 022600 2/25/94 30.50 22019 SERVicES-NON DEPT t~OOOBUR# INDEPENDENT 022630 2/25/04 1,128.38 22020 SUPPLIE$-E#GiNEERING M~COBURN LUIqBER CO 022660 2/25/94 109.80 22021 $UPPLIES-RSVP/tA~TP I~OODBIJRN OFFICE SUPPLY 022670 2/25/94 32.49 22022 SERVICES-POLiCE I~000BURN PHAR#ACY 022680 2/25/94 3.50 22023 $UPPLIES-UATER YES GRAPHICS 024025 2/25/94 220.00 22024 SERViCES-RSVP ELIZABETH BROOESSER 035067 2/25/94 6.72 22025 SERVICES-RSVP HARGARET IC~E 035390 2/25/94 20.16 22026 SERViCES-RSVP LEO LA ROGUE 035465 2/25/94 168.48 22027 SERVICES-RSVP VADA OUEN$ 035583 2/25/94 82.~ 22028 SERVICES-RSVP JUNE $iHPSOR 035648 2/25/94 86.16 22029 SERVICES-RSVP HEINZ $CNWABE 035655 2/25/94 22.56 22030 SERVICES-RSVP RONERT STILLHA# 035~7 2/25/94 48.00 22031 SERVICES-RSVP JAY t~:iuDS 035763 2/25/94 109.44 22032 SERVICES-RSVP GERALD t~C)O0 035790 2/25/94 81.60 22033 SERVICES-DAR HATTIE CLARK 045100 2/25/94 68.64 22034 SERVICES-DAR GI~CE DAVIDSOR 045210 2/25/94 57.60 22035 SERVICES-DAR CORNELIUS DONNELLY 045230 2/25/94 114.24 22036 SERViCES-DAR UINNIFRED FACHINI 045245 2/25/94 54.36 22037 SERVICES-DAR FREHONT GREEHLING 045290 2/25/94 18.00 22038 SERVICES-DAR GERTRUDE REES 045545 2/25/94 31.20 22039 SERVICES-DAR JARES $TROUP 045595 2/25/94 37.68 22040 SERVICES-DAR GENE ~ELL$ 045698 2/25/94 56.88 22041 SEt~ER BOND COUPONS FIRST INTERSTATE BANK 005140 2/28/94 270.00 188,721.27 1 5A MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Woodburn Planning Commission Mereldia Meadows #94-01 -A 86 Lot Subdivision March 9, 1994 At their public hearing of February 24, 1994 the Planning Commission approved, with conditions, a 86 lot subdivision. This development will be located just south of Bradley Street between Brown and Ogle Streets. The subdivision was so designed to insure that Parr Road extension can take place. The preliminary subdivision plat is attached along with a portion of the staff report. 15A ! ./ 1 5A CITY OF. WOODBURN 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 · 982-5222 NOTICE OF DECISION 'Meralda Meadows' # 94-01 VarianCe 94-02 MARCH 1, 1994 I APPUCANT: Craig Munson for Pete Cam PO Box 159 Woodburn, OR 97071 OWNER: Pete and Elena Cam At their February 24, 1994 Hearing, the Planning Commission approved with conditions your request for preliminary subdivision approval and approval of your variance request for 50 feet of right-of-way with a ten foot utility easement for the interior road within Phase I. The Planning Commission denied your request for a 30 foot improved road surface. You will be required to meet residential standards which require 34 feet of improved surface. The proposed road to the south of the subdivision as identified in Phase II was also granted for 50 feet of right-of-way. The street maYbe paved at 30 feet of improved surface, but upon re-development of the property to the south and contiguous to the subject property, the road shall be Improved to meet residential standards in effect at that time. This decision shall become final 10 days from the date of this decision. II RELEVANT FACTS: The proposed subdivision is located south of Bradley Street, west of Brown Street and east of Ogle Street. The property can be specifically identified on Marion County Assessors Map as Tax Lots 5000, 5100, 5200, 5300 Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section 18CA, Tax Lot 7900 Township 5 South, Range I West, Section 18CB and Tax Lot 1100 Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section 18C~ Lots 58,59,60 and possibly 57 as indicated on the preliminary subdivision plat currently do not have direct access on to Brown Street. Tax Lot 5400 5S,lW, 18CA (not shown on preliminary subdivision plat) serves to restrict access to these lots. 1 5A Iil A. The subject property is zoned RS, Single Family Residential. Properties surrounding the site are zoned for single family use. The applicant proposes "to develop in phases, an 86 lot subdivision south of town between Brown St. and Ogle. The subdivision will consist of single family homes ranging in size 6,000 sq.ft. The development will begin off of Brown St. and continue west to Ogle in phases of 30 to 40 lots at a time. Each.phase will be complete to its entirety, before a new one is started" (see Exhibit I). RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA: Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Staff: Applicable approval criteria have been met through the implementing ordinances of the adopted subdivision standards, zoning ordinance and any other ordinances in affect at the time of approval. The proposed subdivision lots will create a identifiable neighborhood. Each lot will access on to residential streets. The lots will meet the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet. Residential Land Development Policy A-1 states that residential areas should be designed around a neighborhood concept. Neighborhoods should be an Identifiable unit bounded by arterial, non-residential use, or natural features of the terrain. The neighborhood should provide a focus and identity within the community and should have a community facility, such as a school, park, or privately owned community facility to allow for Interaction within the neighborhood. The applicant is receptive to providing a tot lot. The applicant should be responsible for providing such a facility and contributing to the Parks systems development charges or a combination of .both. Services are available to the site or can be extended by the applicant. Transportation goals and policies will met as the applicant makes improvements per the Public Works Department comments (attachment B). A transportation report has been submitted with this application. It was prepared by Associated Transportation Engineering & Planning. It is expected that the subdivision will generate approximately 812 trips per day. The Traffic Engineer has made estimates on direction of travel subject to certain improvements in the transportation system (see Exhibit II). The Engineer concludes that the addition of 850 vehicles per day will not have an impact on Brown Street or at the intersection of Cleveland and Brown. " ; ; 15A Woodburn Subdivision Standards Chapter ill Section 7 A. Tentative plans for subdivisions shall include the following information: g. h. i. j. k. Name of proposed .subdivision Vicinity map Subdivision plan Names and addresses in notification area Diagram of water system Diagram of sewage & storm drain system Diagram of streets and sidewalk system Legal description of subject property Name of proposed streets Lot numbers Identification of easements, parkland, dedication, private utilities, and Staff: The information requested has been addressed by the applicant. Attached with this application is a site plan that indicates the proposed lots. The applicant shall consult with the Woodburn Fire District,. Building Department and Public Works Department about proposed street name prior to final approval. Woodburn Zoning Ordinance Chapter 9 Residential Standards Staff: The applicant shall comply with the residential standards 9.010 through 9.100. Chapter 10 Staff: The applicant shall comply with the off-street parking, loading and driveway requirements 10.010 through 10.080 end subject to approval of the variance. Chapter 22 RS- Single Family Residential Staff: The site is appropriately zoned for single family development. If the applicant chooses manufactured homes over stick built homes, the new dwellings will have to meet the manufactured dwelling standards, Chapter 19, section 19.080 ;, : 1 5A De IV V Chapter 39 Parkland Dedication As a condition of approval of a final plat of a residential subdivision or the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a residence, each developer or builder will be required to dedicate land for parks, or cash for the development and acquisition of parks, or a combination of both at the option of the City. Staff: The Woodburn Recreation and Parks Department has indicated that the systems development fees are $411.40 per lot for a total of 835,380.00 based on 86 lots. Landscaping Ordinance Staff: Prior to any construction of a fence or landscaping along the public right-of- way or in the common areas, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department drawings that indicate type, size, and location of such improvements. Sign Ordinance Staff: The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department any proposed drawings for sign~ morking the entrances to the subdivision. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS: Planning Department Attachment A Public Works Attachment B Fire Department Attachment C Recreation and Parks Department Attachment D FINDINGS: 1. The applicant is requesting preliminary approval of a 86 lot subdivision and a variance to residential street standards that require residential streets to have 60 feet of right-of-way and 34 feet of improved surface. The applicant is proposing two streets to be constructed with 30 feet of improved surface and 50 feet of right- of-way and a 10 foot easement on both sides of the right-of-way for utilities. 2. The subject property is zoned appropriately for single family development and will meet residential standards for minimum lot size. 3. The applicant has met the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The applicant has submitted the necessary documents as required by the Subdivision Ordinance for preliminary approval of a subdivision and property line adjustment. 5. The applicant has submitted sufficient information as required by the Subdivision Ordinance for preliminary approval of the subdivision. 1 5A VI DECISION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Based on the findings in this report, approval of the subdivision is granted subject to the following conditions: The subdivision shall comply with the applicable zoning ordinances and regulations and any ordinance or regulation adopted under ORS 92.0~. ~. that are in effect at the time of approval. The subdivision shall be in substantial conformity with the preliminary plan and the proposed phasing, = The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval for phasing at time of construction plan review. The applicant shall construct a uniform fence along entire rear property lines adjacent to Parr Road (lots 46-54). Prior to any construction of a fence or landscaping along the public right-of- way or in the common areas, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department drawings that indicate type, size and location of such improvements. The applicant shall comply with the landscaping policies. The applicant shall provide entrance signs to the subdivision. The applicant shall comply with the sign ordinance and setback standards. The owner will provide for the tot lot and or pay to the Recreation and Parks Department the appropriate systems development fee. Applicant shall meet with the Parks Board on. March 10,1994 to decide on tot lot and if Recreations and Park will maintain the tot lot. A cross walk will be necessary for access to the tot lot. The location to be determined by the Planning Department and Public Works Department. 10. 11. Prior to final approval of the plat, tax lot 5400, a ten foot wide strip along Brown Street shall be resolved. Lots 46 through 54 and 62,73,74,84 shall access on to interior road and not on to Parr Road. Lot 60 shall access on to Brown Street. Lots 5 & 57 shall access on to interior streets. Provide the City with an acceptable bond or contract for improvements as required in the Woodburn Subdivision Standards, Chapter III Section 6 (4) prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. Prior to any construction, a reproducible mylar of the final plat shall be filed with the Public Works Department after all required signatures have been obtained and the plat has been recorded with Marion County. 13. On-site construction shall not commence until the improvement plans have been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and all right- of-way permits, system development charges in effect at the time of building permit issuance have been paid. 14. Upon acceptable completion of all improvements to be maintained by the City, the developer shall provide the City a maintenance bond good for one year, in the amount of 10% of the improvement cost. 15. At the end of construction, the applicant shall provide the City with one set of reproducible as-builts reflecting any modifications in plans during construction. ' 16. Prior.to building permit issuance Comply with comments as submitted by: Woodbum Public Works with the exception of 11 Attachment B Woodburn Planning Department Recreation and Parks Department Woodburn Fire District CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE: The applicant shall indicate on the subdivision plat and dedicate 10 foot easements adjacent to the 50 foot right-of-way. The interior street in Phase las indicated on the preliminary subdivision map shall be constructed at 34 feet of improved surface. The street located in Phase II to south can be constructed at 30 feet of improved surface. Upon redevelopment of the property to south, the road shall be widened and constructed to meet residential standards in effect at the time. The applicant will be responsible for contacting Public Works Department when redevelopment occurs. Sincerely, Teresa Engeldinger City Planner 15B TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Childs, City Administrator 9-1-1 A~_ency Liability Issue February 24, 1994 SUBJ.: DATE: The principal remaining concern following the Council's February 2, 1994 workshop on the proposed ORS 190 agency agreement for Communications/Dispatch service was the issue of shared liability (equal vs. proportionate) among the participating entities. Last week I discussed this matter with Richard Egan, Program Administrator for City County Insurance Services (CIS). CIS provides liability and other Insurance programs to a majority of Oregon's cities and counties, including Woodburn and possibly other nearby cities who are involved with NORCOM. Mr. Egan indicated that ClS also provides coverage for about a half dozen existing communications agencies around the state and would be positioned to provide such coverage upon creation of the agency proposed for this area. Mr. Egan stated that liability problems on the part of dispatch agencies, themselves, are rare but do occasionally occur. Thus, it is appropriate (indeed, imperative) that the ORS 190 agency obtain such coverage for its own acts. This is specifically accomplished by Sec. VIII of the City Attorney's 11/30/93 draft agreement. Egan indicated that most exposure derives from the actions of member agency personnel at the scene to which they were dispatched. At that point, the actions of such personnel are covered for liability purposes by a) their employing agency directly, or b) subject to the terms of any separate mutual aid agreement between the entities involved. Accordingly, Mr. Egan suggested that part of the language contained in the first paragraph of Sec. VII may present coverage problems for either the agency or possibly member agencies; in that they may be assuming additional liability unnecessarily. The language reads in part "... member agencies agree to share [whether equally or proportionately] any costs or damages ... against any member aqencv." In short, Woodburn doesn't want to buy into a Gervais or Hubbard problem, and vic~e versa. Egan further suggested that, alternatively, the agreement should possibly contain language wherein each member agency mutually holds each of the others harmless. While this may look attractive in the eyes of an insurance provider, it may 15B Page 2 - 9-1-1/Liability (2/24194) move too far the other direction in not providing a realistic reflection of any agency's potential exposure. A third option, then, becomes simply "silence" in the body of the agreement document, with no specific language. Stated otherwise, "liability lies with whomever it belongs." Given the nature of this discussion, my recommendation, subject to concurrence by our legal counsel, would be to simply delete Section VII of the November 30, 1993 draft agreement. This would make the "equal vs. proportionate" liability issue moot. CC: City Attorney Communications Manager Chief of Police MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Community Development Director Bob Arzoian, Building Inspector Building Activity for FEBRUARY, 1994 March 1, 1994 15C New Residence Value Multi Family Residential Adds & Airs Industrial Commercial Value Signs, Fences, Driveways Accessory Structures Mobile Homes FEBRUARY 1992 FEBRUARY 1993 FEBRUARY 1994 [~2JJJ~_~J3~ No. Dollar Amt No. Dollar Amt 218,000 0 0 I $ 148,005 0 0 0 0 0 64,000 7 27,000 5 16,200 0 0 0 0 0 63,360 I 150,000 4 133,701 61,000 4 4,524 5 22,564 0 0 0 0 0 83,000 3 126,500 2 100,500 TOTAL: 19 $ 406,360 15 $308,024 17 $420,970 July 1-June 30 Fiscal Year-to-Date ~ ~r960.591 $ ~r 116.011 $18.367.507 Robert Arzoian Building Official RS:bw BLDACT02.94 15D MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJ.: Mayor and City Council Chris Childs, City Administrator ODOT "STIP" MEETING - STAYTON DATE: March 10, 1994 City staff and other community residents were present to voice their concerns to ODOT and the State Transportation Commission regarding ODOT's State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), formerly known as the 'six-year plan". This meeting was held March 9, 1994 at the Stayton Community Center. Staff members testifying before the state agency were Chris Childs, City Administrator, G.S. 'Frank" Tiwari, Public Works Director and Randall Rohman, Public Works Program Manager. Also in attendance were Mayor. Kelley, Planning Commissioner Bauer and six Senior Estates residents. Other local political leaders and chamber representatives had indicated their intentions of attending the meeting and may have been present later in the evening. Emphasis of staff testimony centered on maintenance of state funding support for the city's transit program and Highway 214 improvements; not only reinstatement of Hwy 214 improvements into the ODOT planning and funding process, but moving such improvements to a high priority level on the state's project list. I believe that, collectively, the Woodburn delegation's combined concerns did make an impression on the listeners. Only time will tell, however, in whether or not local projects ultimately get added to the state's project list. 15D Public Meetings 995-1998 Statewide TmnSp°rtatlon Im Provement Prog ram What is the public meeting process? The Oregon Deparuncnt of Transpo~o_fion (ODOT) welcomes you to a series of public meet- ings designed to review the prelimirtary 1995-1998 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program ($TIP). We're using an "open house" fommt to give you a chance to visit with ODOT staff, gather the information that matters to you; and ask any questions :that are on your mind. What does ODOT want out of the process? We would like to know three things: 1. your comments on-the projects contained in the 1995-1998 STIP; 2. your ideas about the future of transportation in Oregon; and 3. your comments on the public involvement p~s itself. How does the process work? The room is arranged in a series of information stations. Registration -- Please sign in at our Registration station, and then feel free to circulate throughout the room. Video m Please make your next stop our Video station for a brief introduction to the 1995- 1998 STIP. (Don't worry if you miss the beginning. The video repeats every four minutes.) Region Projects -- Please stop by our RegiOn Projects station and let staff answer your questions about the programs included in the 1995-1998 STIP. Public Transit -- In some locations, Public Transk personnel will have their own station; in others, look for them at the Region Projects station. Public Testimony -- We encourage everyone to give testimony, either public or written. If you would like to present your ideas in person to a member of the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) and a member of ODOT management from your region, please sign a public testimony card and take it to the Public Testimony station. (In some locations, numbers will be assigned to keep the line moving smoothly.) Planning Process -- Everyone wants to know how projects get into the STIP. Visit the Planning Process station to find out how the state's transportation planning process works and how you can participate in the plans that are being developed. 15D Written TestimOny, FeedbaCk ~ We hope everyone will stop at thc Written TestimonY, Feedback station and give us your feedback on the public involvement process..This is also 'thc place to give written testimony if you prefer. Aviation System Plan -- In Bend and Pendleton, you will have an opporumity to participate in a workshop for one of the modal plans currently being developed: the Aviation. System Master Plan. Oregon Coast Corridor Plan Public Open House m In NOrth Bend you WiHhave an oppommity to participate in the corridor planning process underway for US 101. (In Bend, Lakeview, The Dalles, and Warm Springs you will have an additional opportunity to visit the Highway Maintenance Program station and ~lk to maintenance staff.) When Will your questions be answered? If we don't have thc answers today, we will make every effort to get back to you as soon as possible with the information you want. When willyou know what others said at the meeting? Region staff will be Compiling and summarizh~g public testimony, written testimony, and general comments. They hope to have written summaries distributed to participants from each meeting within a'month after the meeting. When will the OTC review the testimony? Region staff will provide a'summary of all meetings within each region to the OTC within a month of the last meeting in each region. The OTC will review those summaries prior to making the final decisions on the 1995-1998 STIP. 15E ' TO: MEMO Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Childs, City Administrator Draft Towinq Ordinance March 10, 1994 SUBJ.: DATE: By memo dated February 24, 1994 (included in the last Council meeting's ~genda packets), Chief of Police Ken Wright enumerated for the Council a number of ;sues that need to be considered as we move toward a towing ordinance directed at ~ninsured drivers. Some of the issues identified by the Chief have been suitably resolved, while ome still merit further attention. This task is being accomplished as expeditiously as ,ossible in the face of competing priorities such as the ongoing homicide ~vestigation. Attached for your review is a copy of the current draft of the proposed ~rdinance being developed at the staff level. Questions, comments or suggestions egarding the document should be directed to either Chief Wright or myself. Staff expects to present a final version of this ordinance for Council approval ~t a meeting in the near future. 15E COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE TOWING AND IMPOUNDMENT OF VEHICLES OPERATED BY UNINSURED MOTORISTS, ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES, AND PROVIDING FOR A REPEAL DATE. WHEREAS, the Oregon Legislature passed Chapter 814, Oregon Laws 1993, which authorizes a police officer, in areas where the urban growth boundary has a population of at least 40,000, to tow and impound vehicles if the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the vehicle is not insured, and WHEREAS, Chapter 814, Oregon Laws 1993 does not limit the authority of impounding of uninsured vehicles, and WHEREAS, state law and the City's home rule authority authorize the City to pass such an ordinance, and WHEREAS, there is an ever increasing problem within the City with vehicles that are operated by individuals who are uninsured, and WHEREAS, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, regulation of vehicles operated by uninsured individuals is necessary, and WHEREAS, the Woodburn Police Department will conduct a public education campaign to educate drivers on the provisions of this ordinance before its goes into effect, and WHEREAS, this ordinance provides for automatic repeal one year after its enactment unless the City Council evaluates the ordinance and extends it, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Any police officer may, without prior notice, order a vehicle towed when the police officer reasonably believes that the vehicle's operator is driving uninsured. Page I - COUNCILBILLNO. ORDINANCE NO. Section 2. After a vehicle has been towed pursuant to this "'~' ..... ,..~:~. -'¥~ · ~ ~~~, notice shall be provided to the registered owner(s) and any other person(s) who reasonably appears to have an interest in the vehicle. Notice shall be personally served or mailed to such persons within 48 hours after the tow of the vehicle, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays excluded, and shall state: A. The vehicle has been towed; B. The location of the vehicle and that it may be reclaimed only upon evidence that the claimant is the owner or person entitled to possession; C. The address and telephone number of the person or facility that may be contacted for information on the charges that must be paid before the vehicle will be released and the procedures for obtaining the release of the vehicle; D. The vehicle and its contents are subject to a lien for the towing and storage charges and will be subject to sale by the towing and storage facility where the vehicle is located. E. A hearing may be requested to contest the validity of the tow. :'::::::' ~ ~ Section 3. No notice need be provided pursuant to this ordinance when: A. A vehicle does not display license plates or other identifying markings by which the registration or ownership of the vehicle can be determined, or; B. When the identity of the owner of the vehicle is not available from the appropriate motor vehicle licensing and registration authority and when the identity and address of the owner and/or other persons with an interest in the vehicle cannot otherwise be reasonably determined. Section 4. Written notice of the opportunity to contest the validity of the tow of a vehicle, together with a statement of the time in which a hearing may be requested and the method of requesting a hearing, must be given to each person who seeks to redeem a vehicle which has been towed pursuant to this ordinance. This information will be made available by the tow company or other facility holding such vehicle. Section 5. After a vehicle has been towed pursuant this ordinance the owner(s) and any other persons who reasonably appears to have an interest in the vehicle are, upon timely application filed with the Municipal Judge, entitled to request a hearing to contest the validity of the tow or intended tow of the vehicle. Section 6. Application for a hearing must be filed with and received by the Municipal Judge not later than 5 ...~:~§~ days after the vehicle was towed. 35E Page 2- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. Section 7. The Municipal Judge may, for good cause shown, grant a request for hearing filed after the foregoing time requirements have expired. Section 8. The request for hearing must be in writing and shall state the grounds upon which the person requesting the hearing believes the tow or proposed tow invalid, or, for any other reason, unjustified. The request for hearing will also contain such other information, relating to the purposes of this ordinance, as the Municipal Judge may require. Section 9. The Municipal Judge shall set and conduct an administrative hearing on the matter within 14 days of receipt of a proper request filed pursuant to this ordinance. In all cases where a vehicle has been towed and not yet released, however, the Municipal Judge shall set and conduct the hearing ';.'~t.".~.~ 72 ~' ........ :_~,...~:_ ~ c~. ~....., .... ~..-.~ ~.. - ~- ~,:~ ....~~~~. ~~ upon receipt of the request. Section 10. At the hearing, the City shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the vehicle was being operated in violation of ORS 806.010. The police officer who ordered the vehicle impounded may submit an affidavit to the Municipal Judge in lieu of making a personal appearance at the hearing. Section 11. The Municipal Judge shall make any necessary rules and regulations regarding the conduct of such hearings, consistent with this ordinance. Section 12. If the Municipal Judge finds that the towing and impoundment of the vehicle was proper, the Municipal Judge shall enter an order supporting the removal and shall find that the owner or person entitled to possession of the vehicle is liable for the usual and customary towing and storage costs. The Municipal Judge may also find the owner or person entitled to possession of the vehicle liable for the costs of the hearing. Section 13. If the Municipal Judge finds that the towing and impoundment of the vehicle was improper, the Municipal Judge shall order the vehicle released to the person entitled to possession and shall enter a finding that the owner or person entitled to possession of the vehicle is not liable for any towing and storage charges resulting from the impoundment. If there is a lien on the vehicle for towing and storage charges, the Municipal Judge shall order it paid by the City. ~ection 14. The decision of the Municipal Judge is a quas;-jud;clal dec;s;on and is final, is not appealable to the City Council, ~ '~ ~x~->. ' ~ · :>.: ' . ~:.~.>.:~- ?,:'... :~ ~~ Any person who has a hearing scheduled and fails to appear at such hearing without good cause shown, as determined by the Municipal Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. Judge, shall not be entitled to have such hearing rescheduled. The owner(s) and any other person(s) who have an interest in the vehicle are only entitled to one hearing for each tow of that vehicle. Section 15. Any private company that tows and stores any vehicle pursuant to this ordinance, shall have a lien on the vehicle, in accordance with ORS 87.1§2, for the just and reasonable charges for the tow and storage services performed. The company may retain possession of that vehicle, consistent with this ordinance .... ~~ until towing and storage charges have been paid. Section 16. A vehicle towed pursuant to this ordinance shall be immediately released to the person(s) entitled to lawful possession upon proof of compliance with financial responsibility requirements for the vehicle, payment to the City of a fee of $1§ and payment of towing and storage charges. Proof shall be presented to the Woodburn Police Department, who shall authorize the person storing the vehicle to release it upon payment of charges. Section 17. If towing and storage charges are owed to a private company, the City shall pay them if, after a hearing, the tow is found to be invalid or for any other reason not justified and the charges have not previously been paid. Section 18. This ordinance shall expire and is repealed on Approved as to form: City Attorney Date APPROVED: Len Kelley, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder. ATTEST: Mary Tennant, City Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 4- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO.