Loading...
Agenda - 03/25/1991 .AGENDA WOODBURN CITY COUNCIL MARCH 25, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL MINUTES A. City Council minutes of March 11, 1991. B. Woodburn Planning Commission minutes of March 14, 1991. C. Woodburn Park and Recreation Board minutes of February 7, and February 26, 1991 D. Woodburn Downtown Association minutes of March 12, 1991 APPOINTMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS COMMITrEE REPORTS A. Chamber of Commerce B. Woodburn Comeback Campaign = COMMUNICATIONS A. Written - None BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC (This allows public to introduce items for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.) Page 1 - Agenda, Woodburn City Council of 3/25/91 w 11. 12. 14. 15. PUBLIC HEARING A. Transient Occupancy Tax (Hotel/Motel Tax) B. Appeal of Variance #91-01 - Robert Montgomery TABLED BUSINESS GENERAL BUSINESS A. Council Bill No. 1286 - Resolution authorizing Supplemental Agreement with State Highway Department B. Liquor License Application (change of ownership): Westview Texaco C. Street Closure (temporary) and Sound Permits: Cinco De Mayo Celebration APPROVAL OF CLAIMS PUBLIC COMMENT NEW BUSINESS SITE PLAN ACTIONS 16. STAFF REPORTS Bo Installation of Traffic Signal on southbound interchange. K-Mart/Bi-Mart Storm Drainage Liquor License Compliance Plans I-5 RV Park Tenancy Beyond 6 Months ramp at the Woodburn 17. 18. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Page 2 - Agenda, Woodburn City Council of 3/25/91 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 11, 1991 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, FEBRUARY 25, 1991. 0003 CONVENED. The Council met in regular session at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Kyser presiding. 0011 ROLL CALL. Mayor Kyser Present Councilor Figley Present Councilor Galvin Present Councilor Hagenauer Present Councilor Jennings Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Councilor Steen Present 0023 0033 Staff Present: City Administrator Quinn, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director Tiwari, Community Development Director Goeckritz, Park and Recreation Director Holly, Police Chief Wright, Finance Director Gritta, Library Director Sprauer, Deputy Recorder Tennant. MINUTES. JENNINGS/STEEN .... approve the Council minutes of February 25, 1991; accept the Planning Commission minutes February 28, 1991, the Library Board minutes of February 27, 1991, the Woodburn Comeback Campaign minutes of February 19, 1991, the Downtown Association minutes of February 26 and March 6, 1991, the RSVP Advisory Board minutes of February 11, 1991, and the Woodburn Fire District minutes of February 19, 1991. The motion passed unanimously. APPOINTMENTS TO RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM (RSVP) ADVISORY BOARD. Mayor Kyser recommended the re-appointment of Clifford Small, Ardith Stromme, Rosetta Wangerin, and Lillian Warzynski to the RSVP Advisory Board. He also recommended the appointment of Nancy Kirksey and Delia Torres to serve a two year term on the Board. JENNINGS/HAGENAUER .... approve the appointments to the RSVP Advisory Board. The motion passed unanimously. Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 11, 1991 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 11, 1991 TAPE READING 0053 APPOINTMENTS TO WOODBURN COMEBACK CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE. Mayor Kyser recommended the appointment of the following individuals to the Committee: Andy Yanez, Dan Glennon, and Paul Kirkpatrick. JENNINGS/FIGLEY .... approve the appointments as recommended. The motion passed unanimously. 0O68 WOODBURN COMEBACK CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE REPORT. Ruth Herman Wells, Committee Co-Chairperson, extended an invitation to the Council to participate in a community event scheduled for March 16th at 4:00 p.m. in the downtown parking lot. She also summarized the Committee's meeting of February 27th pertaining to housing issues which involved State and County officials. A meeting will be held on March 26th with the State Commission on Agriculture to discuss short term temporary housing assistance to farmworkers. She also requested the Council to authorize the staff to assist the Committee in pursuing short and long term housing funds. 0241 WOODBURN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT. Dan Glennon, Chamber Board President, advised the Council that Board members will be assigned a specific month during the year to attend Council meetings. He invited the Council to attend a meeting on March 14th, 3:00 p.m., in which John Jaqua, Oregon Development Committee, will discuss issues pertaining to small businesses. 0281 Budget Committee meetings are scheduled for March 12 and 14, 1991, at 7:00 p.m.. 0289 Craig Munson, representing H & K Development, requested a workshop with the Council to discuss potential land acquisition of City owned park property in West Woodburn. Mayor Kyser stated that the trial date with Pacific Northwest Development is scheduled for June 29, 1991 and no decision on the use of the property will be made until after the trial. O362 PUBLIC HEARING - CROSSROADS GROCERY & DELI Mayor Kyser declared the public hearing open at 7:13 p.m.. Chief Wright read his staff report on the policy standards adopted by the Council at their February 11th meeting which resulted in the public hearing process for five liquor establishments within the City. Following the general staff report, he reviewed the calls for service (79 calls) during 1990 which represented a 31% increase. Calls for service include, but is not limited to, assaults, criminal mischief, fights, trespass, narcotics, liquor Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 11, 1991 · COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 11, 1991 TAPE READING violations, and theft. The calls for service involve police response to the establishment even though the problems may be occurring outside the building. Hassan Mohamud, owner of Crossroads Grocery & Deli, stated that he was unaware of the newly established policy and the potential denial of his liquor license renewal until he had read it in the Woodburn Independent. He informed the Council that he has since hired a security guard, however, his business is a known hangout for young people. In reviewing the calls for service, he stated that 50 out of 79 calls involved young people. He also expressed his concern about not being notified of the policy change. He informed the Council that he and his employees are determined to correct the situation at the business. Dan Glennon, 1460 Walton Way, stated that he had owned Artic Circle for 15 years and during that time period, he experienced the same problems with the. young people that Mr. Mohamud is now experiencing. He had hired a security guard but the young people would leave when the guard arrived and came back soon after his departure. He expressed his opinion that the number of calls for service criteria is a disservice to Mr. Mohamud and continual pressure on the young people will only drive them to another location within the City. Nancy Kirksey, 1049 McKinley, expressed her opinion that the liquor license should not be renewed and read an excerpt from the OLCC handbook relating to the probability of illegal activities. She stated that all business owners should have been responsible enough to read the handbook and take appropriate action to curtail problems at the establishment before it became an issue. She informed the Council that her testimony on the renewal of liquor licenses would apply to each establishment undergoing the hearing's process on this date._ Mayor Kyser declared the public hearing closed at 7:39 p.m.. Councilor Sifuentez questioned Chief Wright as to whether or not he had reviewed the OLCC laws with the business owners. The Chief stated that he had met with the affected business owners within the last two weeks. He also stated that the policy guidelines adopted by the Council bring those establishments under a review process rather than a direct recommendation from the Police Department for either approval or denial of a license. STEEN/FIGLEY... direct the Police Chief to meet with the applicant to establish a Compliance Plan which will be brought back to the Council. The motion passed unanimously. Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 11, 1991 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 11, 1991 TAPE READING 1409 PUBLIC HEARING - RAVEN INN TAVERN. The Mayor declared the public hearing open at 7:46 p.m.. Chief Wright reviewed the 1990 calls for service (30 calls) which represented a 61% decrease since 1989. He also stated that the owner has been operating under an OLCC Compliance Plan. Ron McDonald, attorney representing the owner, stated that the business entered into a Compliance Plan with OLCC in June 1989 and that the Compliance Plan would remain intact until the business closes or an amendment to the Plan is adopted. He reviewed the types of calls for service and informed the Council that 66% of the calls were initiated by the owner. Tina Wiltsey, owner, stated that she does hire 2 security guards for special occasions and fights are usually handled by her staff. Mayor Kyser declared the public hearing closed at 8:00 p.m.. JENNINGS/FIGLEY... recommend approval of the liquor license with the condition that the OLCC Compliance Plan be continued. The motion passed unanimously. 1964 PUBLIC HEARING - PUB 99. Mayor Kyser declared the public hearing open at 8:03 p.m.. Police Chief Wright reviewed the 1990 calls for service (37 calls) which represents a 15% decrease over 1989. He also stated that there had been six separate incidents of drug sales which occurred both inside and outside of the tavern. The bartender involved in the drug sales has been subsequently terminated by the owner. Craig McMillen, attorney representing tavern owner Raymond Krieger, stated that owners of other stores within Mall 99 have not complained to Mr. Krieger regarding his business. Mr. Krieger has since re-hired his former manager who has had 20 years of experience and has hired additional bartenders to work on the busier nights. In addition, Mall 99 has hired security guards to patrol the mall area Councilor Figley questioned the drug activity at the business. Mr. Krieger stated that when the undesirables moved out from the downtown area, they came out to Mall 99. He also stated that he has placed video cameras within his establishment to take pictures of patrons who may be involved in illegal activities. Chief Wright stated that Mr. Krieger has been working with the Police Department during the past year. The public hearing was declared closed at 8:15 p.m.. HAGENAUER/FIGLEY .... recommend approval of the liquor license with the condition that the OLCC Compliance Plan remain in force. The motion passed unanimously. Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 11, 1991 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 11, 1991 TAPE READING 2537 Tape 2 0142 Page 5- PUBLIC HEARING - LA LINDA'S TORTILLERIA. Mayor Kyser declared the public hearing open at 8:16 p.m.. Chief Wright reviewed the 1990 calls for service (70 calls) which represents a 23% decrease since 1989. An OLCC Compliance Plan is currently in effect at La Linda's based on last year's original Police Department recommendation to deny the 1990 liquor license renewal. Ed Carbajal, co-owner and manager of La Linda's, stated that of the total calls for service, 36 calls were not even related to the business. The business has hired security personnel in the past, however, they have found that family members, along with 3 other individuals, have done a better job in providing security than the firm they had contracted with earlier last year. He objected to being penalized for calling the police department when they observe illegal activities occurring at other neighboring businesses and to privately owned vehicles. He also stated that his business has a policy relating to restroom checks every 10 minutes to curtail any potential illegal drug activity at his establishment. Des Hanarahan, owner of a business 2 doors south of La Linda's, stated that Mr. Carbajal's attention to outside activity has helped to keep vandalism at a lower level. He also that the owners maintain a clean establishment. The Mayor declared the public hearing closed at 8:29 p.m.. Councilor Steen expressed his opinion that the owners of La Linda's and the Raven Inn have done a good job in managing their businesses. JENNINGS/STEEN .... recommend approval of the 1991 liquor license renewal provided that the OLCC Compliance Plan is in force. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - HOME PLATE MARKET. Mayor Kyser declared the public hearing open at 8:32 p.m.. Police Chief Wright reviewed the 1990 calls for service (61 calls) which represented a 44% decrease since 1989. He also stated that a majority of the calls were related to problems occurring outside of the business which was a hang out for local gang members. Janie Schielder, owner of Homeplate Market, stated that she has tried to clean-up the store and the area around it. In addition, the store serves a large number of people and that it needs to sell alcohol to make a profit. She informed the Council that she had brought a large number of hispanic individuals to the meeting to testify in her behalf, however, the Council elected to accept their presence as a sign of support rather than hear from numerous individuals. Jilda Ballweber, 395 Smith Drive, stated that she has failed to see the improvements in the store and surrounding area. She also stated that the Council Meeting Minutes, March 11, 1991 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 11, 1991 TAPE READING sidewalks should be cleaned up regularly. She stated that she did not wish to see individuals lose their business, however, she felt that the owners should take more responsibility to maintain their establishment in a orderly manner. Councilor Sifuentez suggested that a compliance plan be drafted which would include input from the Comeback Campaign Committee and the Downtown Association. The public hearing was declared closed at 8:45 p.m.. JENNINGS/SIFUENTEZ .... recommend approval of the liquor license renewal contingent upon a Compliance Plan to be adopted by the Council. The motion passed unanimously. The Mayor recessed the meeting at 8:48 p.m. and reconvened at 8:53 p.m.. 0617 PUBLIC HEARING - SALE OF GRACE VILLAGE PROPERTY. The Mayor declared the public hearing open at 8:54 p.m.. Administrator Quinn reviewed his memorandum which informed the Council that no bids were received for the purchase of the property. He stated that the State Economic Development Department must grant formal approval of how to dispose of the property if it is done by a method other than a sealed bid process which has already been approved by the State. The hearing was closed at approximately 9:00 p.m.. Following a brief discussion on the issue, JENNINGS/SIFUENTEZ... re-bid the property with the closing date of April 8, 1991, in which sealed bids can be received by the City. The motion passed unanimously. 0800 COUNCIL BILL 1282 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INCREASE IN TRANSIT 0879 FUND APPROPRIATIONS DURING FISCAL YEAR 1990-91. Councilor Hagenauer introduced Council Bill 1282. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Kyser declared Council Bill 1282 duly passed. COUNCIL BILl 1283 - ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE FEES FOR PROCESSING LAND USE APPLICATIONS. Council Bill 1283 was introduced by Hagenauer. The two readings of the bill were read by title only. On roll call vote for final passage, Council Bill 1283 passed unanimously. Mayor Kyser declared the bill duly passed with the emergency clause. Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 11, 1991 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 11, 1991 TAPE READING 0964 ACCEPTANCE OF BANCROFT BONDING APPLICATION. A bancroft bonding application relating to the improvement of Cleveland Street was submitted by Clay & Susan Lindsey after the initial filing period authorized by State law. JENNINGS/FIGLEY .... accept the bancroft bonding application filed by Clay and Susan Lindsey, tax account #92110-290, for the improvement of Cleveland Street. The motion passed unanimously. 0980 REQUEST FOR STREET CLOSURE AND USE OF AMPLIFIED SOUND 1005 SYSTEM. The Woodburn Comeback Campaign Committee is sponsoring a community event on March 16th at the downtown parking lot which includes a visit from Governor Barbara Roberts. JENNINGS/FIGLEY .... approve the application by the Committee for street closure and use of an amplified sound system for the event. The motion passed unanimously. WORKSHOP RELATING TO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITIES 1143 1192 1323 PLAN. Public Works Director Tiwari suggested that the Council hold a workshop during the month of April to review the preliminary plan. It was the consensus of the Council to hold a workshop at 5:30 pm on April 8th and the public hearing be scheduled for May 6, 1991 at 7:00 p.m.. WEED ABATEMENT LIENS. The staff report provided the Council with a list of property owners who have failed to pay the abatement fees associated with clearance of obnoxious vegetation. JENNINGS/FIGLEY... establish a public hearing date of April 22, 1991, 7:00 p.m., regarding weed abatement liens. The motion passed unanimously. CLAIMS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 1991. SIFUENTEZ/HAGENAUER .... approve voucher checks #4446-4804 for the month of February 1991. The motion passed unanimously. EXECUTIVE SESSION. JENNINGS/SIFUENTEZ .... adjourn into executive session under the authority of ORS 192.660 (1)(d). The motion passed unanimously. The Council adjourned into executive session at 9:18 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m.. Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 11, 1991 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 11, 1991 TAPE .READING 1333 Following the executive session, JENNINGS/SIFUENTF7 .... grant permission to the Park Board to investigate the sale of city property adjacent to the high school to the School District. The motion passed 5-1 with Galvin voting nay. 1366 SITE PL~.N REVIEW - FURNITURE STORE AT HWY. 99E AND AZTEC. 1384 No action was taken by the Council on the site plan. STAFF REPORT - PROPOSED CONNECTION FEE PAYMENT PLAN FOR 1651 1693 1752 1949 MOBILE HOME PARKS. Public Works Director Tiwari distributed a memorandum which provided information on a proposed connection fee payment plan for mobile home parks with potential health hazards to the community. The payment plan would only be made available to owners of established mobile home parks who wish to eliminate septic systems serving 20 or more units. The proposed ordinance would provide for a four or five year payment plan and connection fees would be used for upgrading the wastewater facility or retirement of wastewater bonds. Public Works Director Tiwari also advised that he would be submitting a proposed ordinance to the Council which would include a sewer surcharge which would apply to food processors during the months in which high strength waste is discharged into the system. Councilor Jennings requested the staff to investigate the length of time in which individuals are residing at the I-5 RV park since he has received complaints that some people are residing at the park for more than 6 months. Councilor Sifuentez requested that the staff be more sensitive to the problems within the community. Mayor Kyser reminded the Council that a public hearing on a proposed motel/hotel tax will be held on March 25, 1991. Discussion was held regarding the distribution of funds received from the proposed tax. It was the consensus of the Council that a majority of the revenues be placed in the General Fund. A limit would also be placed on the revenues forwarded to the Chamber of Commerce for promotion of tourism and 10% be given to the motel/hotel owners to offset their costs in collecting the tax. Mayor Kyser also informed the Council that Tony Caragol has filed a lawsuit against the City to recover legal expenses relating to the Ethics case. Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 11, 1991 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 11, 1991 TAPE .READING 1967 ADJOURNMENT. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.. APPROVED Fred W. Kyser, Mayor A'I-rEST Mary Tennant, Deputy Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, March 11, 1991 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Executive Session March 11, 1991 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, MARCH 11, 1991. CONVENED. The Council met in executive session at 9:20 p.m. with Mayor Kyser presiding. ROLL CALL Mayor Kyser Present Councilor Figley Present Councilor Galvin Present Councilor Hagenauer Present Councilor Jennings Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Councilor Steen Present Staff Present: City Administrator Quinn, City Attorney Shields, Park & Recreation Director Holly, Deputy Recorder Tennant. Press: Niki DeBuse, Woodburn Independent The Council met under the authority of ORS 192.660 (1)(d). Park Director Holly reviewed the Park Board's interest in pursuing a potential real property sale of park land located adjacent to Woodburn High School property. Brief discussion was also held regarding the developer's proposal to purchase Senecal Creek park property. ADJOURNMENT. The executive session adjourned at 9:33 p.m.. APPROVED Fred W. Kyser, Mayor ATTEST Mary Tennant, Deputy Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, Executive Session, March 11, 1991 MINUTES WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 14, 1991 1)¸ 2) 3) 4) ROLL: President Vice President Commissioner CommIssioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner CommissIoner Mr. Johnson Present Mr. Vallieres Present Mrs. Warzynski Present Mrs. Sprauer Present Mr. Park Present Mr. Shillig Present Mr. Rappleyea Present Mr. Scott Absent Mr. Guerra Present Staff: Steve Goeckritz, Community Development Director Barbara Sochacka, City Planner MINUTES: The Woodburn Planning Commission Minutes of February 28, 1991 were accepted as written. The Woodburn City Council minutes of February 25, 1991 were accepted received. The Woodburn Downtown Association minutes of February 26, and March 5, were accepted as received. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE: None COMMUNICATIONS: None 5) PUBLIC HEARINGS: Site Plan Review #91-01 Stonehedge Partners Planning staff, read the necessary Public Notice statement to begin the public hearing. Planning staff reported that the proposal was 192 unit apartment complex, 11.3 acres located on Front Street. Staff then went over the two alternative site designs as presented in the staff report. Of which a portion of the report focused on the need for a street between Front and Fifth Streets. Staff then went over the conditions and recommendations of approval of the site plan. Frank Tiwari, Public Works Director, stated that he would be talking about the water, sewer and street. The street area has been raised whether it should be required as to be provided by the developer and built by the developer. He talked about how in the near future the school would be growing from 600 students to 1200 students, there will be more traffic on Front Street. There is a need for an east/west road to help accommodate the 192 unit complex along with all other traffic. He went over the prior improvement of Front Street and told the Commission that it was an assessment project, not an up front cost. It was recommended the street be constructed by the developer and dedicated by the developer except for the sidewalk on the southside. He stated that the intent of the proposed street would be to connect Front Street to Fifth Street. A turn lane on Front would be necessary to make the turn into the complex and on to the street safer. By providing two different ways to arrive at this location would be safer for the school children. He stated that it has been a policy of the city to have the water, sewer and street go from one end of the property to the other. He stated that the 192 units to be built would need the street to get to Hwy 214. He felt that the city was not being unfair by requiring the street to be built. From the traffic point of view it was necessary to have this street built. He stated he was open for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Vallieres asked when Mr. Tiwari would expect the south part of Front Street to be 37' like the north part of Front Street. Mr. Tiwari stated that it is expected to be done in the future. He couldn't put an exact date to the improvements. Commissioner Vallieres asked the difference in the cost of a 34' street to a 37' street. 2 Mr. Tiwari stated that new street cost is not cheap, but less than the modification of the eXisting road. Commissioner Vallieres asked that if the property owners to the south of the apartment complex would have to help pay for the road. Mr. Tiwari stated that one decision that needed to be made was that if the street was needed or not. Cleveland street could not be built if it was to be constructed by the assessment of the properties which are already there. A single family house may not want access to the street, they may want a fence there. He stated he was talking from traffic point of view. Commissioner Vallieres asked if this project could go ahead and give permission for that road later on. Mr. Tiwari stated that it was one option. They could dedicate it and it be constructed later. Their fair share could be paid when the city constructs the street. The fair share would be decided by the City Council. Commissioner Vallieres asked what the street would cost. Mr. Tiwari stated that he was not sure of the cost per foot, maybe $125.00, that would make it at 650 ft. or so around $81,000. Commissioner Vallieres asked if that would make a difference in this project being successful or not. Mr. Tiwari stated that he could not answer that. He stated that it is a good project. It does not have any water problems, wastewater problems but it does have certain traffic impacts. Commissioner Park asked Mr. Tiwari if when the rest of the properties were developed wouldn't their access be from Fifth Street. It seemed reasonable to limit access from Hwy 214. Mr. Tiwari answered that Fifth was not connected at this time. It was poor planning to have so many streets in Woodburn with no cross streets. '~A/hether the street is needed or not, that is the first judgmental decision based on where we are, the second one is that somebody has to make a decision as to whether a development is being penalized unduly or not." He had to go by policy, saying from one end to the other of the property. President Johnson asked if the large open area south of the road would that property have to share some future development costs. 3 Mr. Tiwari answered that Woodburn Trucking already had that property. Commissioner Shillig asked Mr. Tiwari if the proposed road was good for Woodburn. Mr. Tiwari answered that in his opinion from technical engineering, there. should be a road. Commissioner Warzynski stated that the difference of opinion was due to calling it a residential road and the way it is being explained wouldn't it be a collector if it extends over to Second or Fifth. Mr. Tiwari answered that it all depends, it is relatively a small road from Front to Fifth. These are assessed by the property owners. There is a middle portion which is not included due to property owners not wanting to pay their fair share. Maybe in another ten years it will be improved. You may or may not require that there be a dedicated road and some later date they will be accessed. He didn't recommend it that way. Commissioner Warzynski stated that she felt that the road was needed. Riding to the perimeters of this town there were dead ends everywhere. Commissioner Guerra asked if future development in the Glatt Circle area and assuming expansion of the high school and the residents of the proposed apartment complex, if Mr. Tiwari thought that the ramp to Front Street off of Hwy 214 will become an obsolete unused ramp. Mr. Tiwari stated that turning left to get to the area would not be practical. Commissioner Guerra stated that it would require a well developed street that would divert towards the downtown area and access to the proposed apartments to handle the traffic. Mr. Tiwari answered yes. Commissioner Vallieres stated that access to the area would increase the value of the surrounding property. Mr. Tiwari stated that he not in favor of a lot of streets to be accepted by the City. The city can not waste city resources on internal streets. From the maintenance point of view he was not in favor of having a lot of public streets. But when he looks at the traffic situation public streets are needed. 4 There was some discussion between Mr. Tiwari and Commissioner Vallieres about fair share cost of the property owners. President Johnson asked if the street was put in, would loosing the 40 or 50 parking stalls be a problem for the develope~ Staff answered that if the street is put in the proposal still meets the parking criteria. President Johnson asked if the applicant wished to speak. Mike Kelly, 4004 NE RoYal Ct, Portland, stated that he represented the applicants. He stated that he wanted to talk about the project overall. He stated that currently the applicants owned and manage 600 units in Marion County. He stated that they have extensive experience in developing and managing small and large units. This project has been in the working for the past few months. He stated that in the first phase there would be 108 units and the second would have 84 units. He feels he could fill 192 units. He talked about how they surveyed the area and felt that Woodburn needed the apartments. He talked about the intended proposal they presented the city. He presented legal draft to the staff and copies to the Commission. He stated that the public road was something they felt that wasn't necessary for this project. It would cause management problems. He went over the legal draft from his attorney concerning the public road. He commented on the cost of water and sewer hookup fees. He stated that they didn't need the street for the project and if they were responsible for the cost of the construction of the public street, the project could very well not happen due to this condition. He did state that they were willing to give the City the 10 feet necessary to improve Front Street, it would enhance their property. He commented on the request from the fire department about the alarm system. He felt that the proposed fire alarm plan was sufficient, it met State requirements. Commissioner Vallieres asked if the proposed plan would be maintained by the developer. Mr. Kelly answered yes, it would be a private drive for the units and all the maintenance would be done by them. Commissioner Warzynski asked if the driveway to the south was just extended into the parking area. Mr. Kelly answered yes. It would allow the fire department continuous access through the project without turning around or having to back up. 5 Commissioner Sprauer asked to be excused. Commissioner Guerra asked what would be developed on the slope by Hwy 214. Mr. Kelly answered that there was no current plans due to this being the State of Oregon right-of-way for their drainage easement. They plan to landscape up to the fence which would be located 15 feet away from the units. Staff asked that in regards to the staff report there were two conditions that you have any objections to which are the 1) the road to the south, and 2) the fire control system. He asked if there was anything else in the report that Mr. Kelly objected to. Mr. Kelly stated that other than those two, no. Staff felt that in regards to the Fire Department request, he thought that this should be left up to the county and state safety code people. Staff told the Commission that he felt they should not act upon this condition but let that be handled by the Fire Dept. Mr. Kelly stated that he would like it to go on record that the City of Woodburn Planning staff have been very cooperative with them. Commissioner Warzynski asked about the north end of the property by the cemetery. She stated that the fence along this area was very poor. Mr. Kelly stated that a six foot fence would be built there. President Johnson asked staff that in the future on Hwy 214 if it were curbed would this developer be responsible for any of that. Staff stated that they didn't even want to guess at this time. President Johnson asked if this needed to be made one of the conditions of approval. Mr. Tiwari answered that as far as Hwy 214 improvements are concerned. If there were a curb and sidewalk required it is usually accessed against the property. Widening is usually State funded. It will probably be curbed and sidewalk in the future. 6 President Johnson stated that in the past the Commission has asked for tot lots or play areas to be fenced. He asked if there would be something like that. Mr. Kelly stated that the only problem they had with that is the play toys that they are liable for. He would be happy to work out with the Parks Department a safe play area. Staff asked if the developer had a chance to looked at what the Parks and Recreation Department was recommending. Mr. Kelly stated that yes, those kind of things were not a problem. President Johnson stated that what he was getting at was specific separation of the age group areas as far as the play park areas. Mr. Kelly stated that they have basically put in picnic tables for the tenants, benches, barbecues and play areas, he didn't want to get into cutting up those areas to the point where kids aren't able to play in the grass and run back and forth. This way parents will come out sit on the bench and watch their children play. He did not want to fence off an area where a parent could put their child into shut the gate and go back to their apartment. He preferred it be a parent supervised play area. President Johnson stated to Recreation memo thoroughly. different play areas. staff that he didn't read the Park and He asked staff if they addressed two Staff replied that the Parks and Recreation Department had asked for two tot lot play area. Staff felt there was enough play area. President Johnson asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak for this proposal. There were none. He asked for anyone who wished to speak against this proposal. Lavon Shaffner, 1455 N. Front St., stated that he agreed with the need for housing in Woodburn. He felt that two bedroom complexes would not do the job. Three and four bedroom complexes are needed. He was concerned about the traffic the complex would bring to Front Street. He felt that the extra traffic would be dangerous for the school children who walk down Front Street to and from school. The property owners, who abut this proposed street, would be assessed for this one and assessed for Front Street improvements. He felt that a double assessment wouldn't work. He stated that their properties were along the south side of the proposed street. 7 Mr. Tiwari stated that if it is determined that the property benefits from the street and the Council wishes to it can be assessed. Staff is recommending that it will be a public street and should be built by the developer. President Johnson asked if Mr. Tiwari meant that it was possible that the property owners could be assessed on both sides. Mr. Tiwari answered yes, unless a decision was made not to assess. Mr. Shaffner asked Mr. Kelly how close to the south border the parking area was. Mr. Kelly stated that had been surveyed. He stated that he would have to look at the plans. President Johnson stated that it was 12 feet. Rosa Martinez, 1495 Front Street stated that she lived at the corner, in a small triangle, the proposed plans showed the property line as straight line. She asked what this was going to do to her property. Staff answered that the developer would not be allowed to encroach upon her property. Mrs. Martinez stated she was also concerned about the traffic. President Johnson asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak for or against this proposal. There were none. He asked if the applicant had anything further. Mr. Kelly stated that they do have surveyors to survey the property and they wanted to keep the integrity of their neighbors. He stated that they were aware of the problems that exist with properties that have sit vacant for years. He felt that this was the best way to develop his property. He said that if the City of Woodburn wanted to build the street, he and his partners would only buy a portion of the property and the city could purchase the other part and build the street. The street doesn't help his development. He did not want the accesses to the proposed street. Commissioner Vallieres stated that he agreed with the developer that from a safety point only the two entrances were necessary not the proposed street. 8 President Johnson stated that he had concerns with the street. There is nothing to'guarantee that the other properties couldn't develop off of Hwy 214 and not want the street back of their properties unless it is forced across. He stated that he would like staff to look at the east/west street and see if it is really necessary for the future. He felt that this had not been fully thought out. He would like to see. more input and what the impact of the Hwy 214/Front Street intersection might be if this were completed. He felt that the Commission would be asking the developer to spend too much money that potentially the city would not gain anything from. Commissioner Rappleyea stated that he felt that the road was needed. He did feel that the developer was being asked to do a lot. He felt that a workable solution would be to dedicate the road so that the developers property could be assessed at a later date if Grace Village should be developed and the road be built. Commissioner Vallieres stated that he felt that to get the street developed on Front Street was more important than getting the proposed street built. Commissioner Shillig stated that if the City does Front Street, the developer should buuild the street to the south. He felt that the alternative site plan was good for Woodburn. Commissioner Warzynski stated that she felt Front Street was more important at this time. She did agree with the dedication of the road instead of development at this time. Commissioner Park stated that he felt that a street being built in there was absolutely essential. He did feel that dedication of the street at this time was the correct way to go. Commissioner Guerra stated that there was much to be gained by building the road on the south side and connecting to Hwy 214. President Johnson asked if the Commission was assuming that the homes to the south would take half of the responsibility and the developer put in his fair share. Staff stated that the Council would have to make a decision as to which way this would be handled. President Johnson asked what if the developer didn't want access to the road then why should he have to pay for the development of the street. 9 6) ?) 8) Staff stated that might be the case and they might state that the dedication of the land itself is adequate and equitable and now it is up to the city to pay for the improvements. President Johnson closed the public hearing, asking for final discussion from the Commission orany motions..Ne statedthat he was in favor of the project, he felt that the security aspect should be considered. He would like more input on the street. If it is found that the street is necessary that the developer build the street but not have to until after Phase II is built. Commissioner Shillig made the motion to accept Site Plan #91-01 and to include the alternative map which includes the street to the south with the developer paying the full expense of the road. Commissioner Park seconded the motion. A vote was taken and there was four yes, three no. Staff asked for a clarification. He understood that the motion was for the street to the south and the developer paying for it. The Commission answered yes. Staff stated that the developer could now start developing their proposal or if they disagreed appeal to the City Council in the next ten days. REPORTS: A. The Planning Fees Resolution was approved by Council. B. Staff asked the Commission if they had any questions about the Code Enforcement or Building Reports. There were none. BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION: None ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the Planning Commission meeting adjourned. 10 MINUTES WOODBURN RECREATION .AND PARKS BOARD REGULAR MEETING WOODBURN CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1991 6:00PM II III IV V CALL TO ORDER The Meeting was called to order at 6:06pm by Vice-Chairman Andy Yanez. ROLL CALL Members Present: Andy Yanez, Sue FoFana Dura, Jack Mitchoff, David Ott. Staff Present: Nevin Holly, Director; Shirley Pitt, Secretary, John Pitt, Parks Superintendent; Terry Williams, Leisure Supervisor. MINUTES The Recreation and Parks Board Minutes of January 10, 1991 and Special Meeting of January 26, 1991 were presented for Board approval. MOTION: J.MITCHOFF: Moved to approve the Recreation and Parks Board Minutes of both meetings, January 10, 1991 and January 26, 1991 as presented. D. o'ri': Seconded the Motion,, Motion passed unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA The Agenda was presented for adoption. MOTION: J. MITCHOFF: Moved to adopt Agenda as presented. D. OTT: Seconded the Motion. Motion passed unanimously. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Vice-Chairman Andy Yanez opened the floor for nominations for Chairman of the Recreation and Parks Board. Two names were placed in nomination for Chairman: Andy Yanez and David Ott. David Ott declined the nomination saying he was to new on the Board and would like to serve as a member before becoming an officer~ Page 2 Recreation and Parks Board Minutes February 7, 1991 VI MOTION: J.MITCHOFF: Andy Yanez to serve as Chairman of the Recreation and Parks Board for 1991~ · D.OTT: Seconded the Motion. Motion passed with Sue FoFana Dura abstaining. MOTION: S.FOFANA DURA: Dave Ott to serve as Vice-Chairman of the Recreation and Parks Board for 1991. J. MITCHOFF: Seconded the Motion. Motion passed unanimously.. It was the consensus of the Board that the remainder of the nominations for officers be postponed until the entire Board was in attendance. DIVISION REPORTS Maintenance Division - John Pitt, Parks and Facilities Superintendent John reported that the Legion Locker Rooms have been completed. Also completed was the Downtown tree planting project which took a total of 32 manhours. Crew will be installing playground equipment at Nelson Park, West Woodburn and Settlemier Parks. Superintendent also reported on a growing concem that vandalism was again on the upswing and the crew was being kept very busy trying to clean up after them. If this is an indication of what will be happening during spring and summer it could prove to be not only costly but very time consuming. Superintendent informed the Board that the Utility II Maintenance Worker had been informed as to the possibility of being terminated by the Budget Committee. He felt this was necessary in order to prepare the employee for this action. He reminded the Board that this employee had been with the Department for 13 1/2 years and had done a excellent job in serving the City. Telling this employee of his possible termination was not an easy task for him to preform. Leisure Division - Terry Williams, Supervisor Terry told the Board that the Basketball program was coming to a close, it went fairly well this year with few complaints. The supervisor also said he feels that the Department has a good posture with the School District on using their Page 2 Recreation and Parks Board Minutes February 7, 1991 VII facilities. He has had some calls on. indoor soccer and.ooed volleyball. The Senior trips are going extremely well with high participation. Terry said he is in the process of putting together a package to present to the Woodburn merchants for them to rent the Community Center for "kids for a day" program he is putting together. This idea will be new and could prove to be a real asset. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Budaet. The Director expressed his concern over the possible cuts to the Department. These cuts will cause a serious curbing of services in both Maintenance and Leisure Services and will effect the community negatively in many areas. The Board expressed concern over the fact that the City will expect the same services with these cuts, which will be impossible to do. Director could not offer any solution at this time and told the Board all they could do was wait and see what action the Budget Committee took. Museum Grant has been wdtten, however there has been no response to date. VIII ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:00pm into the Budget Headng in the Council Chambers. MINUTES WOODBURN RECREATION AND PARKS BOARD SPECIAL MEETING CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 6:30PM - TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1991 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:30pm by Director Nevin Holly. ROLL CALL Members Present: Andy Yanez (6:45pm), Sue FoFana Dura, Linda Hamilton, Jack Mitchoff and Barbara Rappleyea. Staff Present: Nevin Holly, Director; Shirley Pitt, Secretary; John Pitt, Parks Superintendent; Brian Sjothun, Recreation Coordinator; and Terry Williams, Leisure Supervisor. III SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY Director Holly informed the Board that the Budget Committee will be discussing Recreation and Parks Budget tonight and Director felt the Board would want to be in attendance, so he had called this special meeting to give the Board the opportunity to see and hear what the Budget Committee decided to do to the Department. Sue FoFana Dura asked the Director if Mike Quinn had made any further cuts, and also if he would present the Board's recommendation on where and who should be cut if cuts were necessary. Nevin said he had presented a written report to Mike Quinn of the Board's recommendations and as far as he knew no additional cuts had been made. Sue also asked about custodial service at the Community Center since this position shows up as unfilled, when in actual fact is just vacant due to the resignation of the past custodian. Director told her that although partial funds had been set aside for this position and that a part time custiodian was hired, the staff at the Community Center would have to continue to do what they could. Any major problems will have to be handled by the Maintenance crew. At 7:00pm the meeting adjourned and Board and staff left to attend the Budget Hearing. WOODBURN I)OWNTOWN ASSOCIATION M]{ETING, MARCH 12,199]. II. CALL TO ORDER Claudia called meeting to order at 7:40AM. ATTENDANCE PFesent: Don Eubanks Jose Castro Chuck Rackliff Les Reitan Bob $igloh kucien ~li. ne Alma Grijalva Arlene Monnier Vance Yoder Claudia James Mike Barmel TItEASUREH'S HEPORI' None WDA BLSINESS Chuck resigned from the treasurer's position due to his move with ]si.lntersta[e i~ank to the Main Branch .- Down- ~own Portland. Chuck was asked to contact Ruth of Woodburn 1st. Inierstale to see if she would accept the treasurers position. He will contact Claudia with Ruth's answer. Arbor Day is April 13th.-it was suggested to put the dump box with the trees in the parking lot behind Woodburn Pharmacy on Wed. the 10th and leave through Sat. Les has agreed to put an ad in the Woodburn Indep. the week prior announcing the free irees to be given away by the WDA. The garbage containers were brought up again but so far Bob has not heard from Mike regarding price etc Les mentioned the trees along the sidewalks have been trimmed and within the next 2 to 3 weeks they plan to build flower boxes around the irees. Also will be putting gravel along the curb & around the trees that were planted along RR track. The Comeback Committee is meeting Sst.the 16th at the parking lot on lst.St, weather permitting or if raining at the Community Center - Time is 4:00PM with Governor Barbara Roberts speaking at 4:16PM. Vance .said the Local. Grange was going to contribute a $1,000 check to the Museum this morning at a 9:00AM meeting. Alma announced there will be a Fun Raiser to help pay for the Van that was purchased for Saludes - it will be a Couples Only Dance - April. ]Jth. - at St. Lukes Church - $15.00 per couple - 8:30PM to Midnight. Don mentioned the renewal of liquor licenses in several of the downtown businesses had been recommended at the City Cot~ncil Meeting - It was suggested the WDA write a letter in reference to a Compliance Plan -- Cosmetic Type -- and WOODBUI~N DOWNTOWN A,ZS()CIA']'ION MlaJETING, MARC]] 1.2,199! give to Ken Wright - must be in before two weeks. A committee consisting of Mike, Les, Jose, Lucien & Alma will meet at lunch Friday regarding this. Les presented Bob $igloh with a Past Presidents Plaque for the year 1989. Jose mentioned that there should be a letter sent to the City outlining wishes to Mayor Fred Kyser regarding parking lot behind the Post Office. Arlene was asked to type letter and take to City Hall. Mike asked about the Sat. Market coming up around July - it was suggested that they have it in the parking lot between ]st. & Garfield and not behind the Post Office Lot - would p~'obab]y draw much more altention there. Ciaudi. a ciozed the meeting al: 8:25AM. A~']tene Monnier, Secretary MEMO TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MIKE QUINN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: MARCH 21, 1991 SUBJECT: TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX For the purpose of this public hearing and to shorten staff time on development, I am attaching copies of the 1988 tax proposal for your review with my current comments contained in this memo. Please refer to the following attachments: Prior Council Bill 1110 regarding the Transient Occupancy Tax Proposal submitted September 26, 1988. 2. My memo dated September 7, 1988 in reference to the above. Excerpts from Bureau of Governmental Research Bulletin No. 174 regarding 'q'ransient Room Taxes in Oregon", printed in June, 1981. This talks about the common issues involved, legal authority for enaction, and possible uses of the revenue. Statstics form Bureau of Governmental Research update on revenue production from transient room taxes published in 1984. As background information, the above 1988 proposal was not enacted by the City Council, but was deferred until June, 1989, for reconsideration. The purpose in deferral was to allow more time for the new Comfort Inn Motel to establish operations and to allow time for the City and Chamber of Commerce to work out a compromise on the distribution of funds, especially for tourism promotion and economic development activities. There was general support from the Chamber and newspaper with the the only opposition coming from the motel operators or owners. In June, 1989, the issue was not brought back to the City Council because the informal consensus of the Mayor and Council members was that the timing was not right considering the recent gas tax and budget elections. It appears that the issue remained in limbo until now when an even larger financial burden contained in Measure 5 has highlighted the City's need to look at alternative revenue sources. In reviewing the ordinance, the bulk of section prvisions deal with regulatory and administrative functions to enable the operation of this ordinance. The major areas that I believe are more important to the City Council for special review are the following: Section 2. Section 5. Section 8. Section 23. Imposition of Tax - The amount (6%) is applied to a "hotel" definition including space in RV or trailer parks as well as traditional motels' and other lodging structures. These items are adjustable per Council consideration. With their inclusion, I believe it is roughly the equivalent of another motel in town because of their space occupancy even with lower rental fees... Exemptions - These contain the most common exemptions I could find from my research and were elements of the proposed model ordinance developed by the Bureau of Governmental Research. I did find one other exemption that may be worthwhile for consideration contained in the Bend ordinance which excepted any occupant whose rent was paid by a United Way Agency as a charitable assistance. I believe this is admirable, but it's payment should not be a burden upon the occupant or the charitable agency. Collections, Returns and Payments This section allows the operators to retain 5% of the tax amount collected as a collection or handling charge. This is not an additional charge, but simply a small portion of the collected tax. Our proposal would be to modify this to 10% in consideration of the large number of occupants who pay by credit card to which the operator bears a service fee. Disposition of Tax Funds - The original ordinance proposed 40% to the General Fund, 20% for the Chamber support of tourism and economic development, and 40% for Parks capital improvements. These options are discretionary to the City Council and, as noted in the attachment, have been used by cities for a wide assortment of dedicated and non-dedicated uses. Once again, in reviewing ordinances, some cities like Bend establish a separate fund for the receipt of these monies, especially those dealing with tourism promotion and economic development. COUNCIL BILL NO. 1110 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FORA TRANSIENTOCCUPANCY TAX AND PROVIDING ADHINISTRA- TIVE PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING SAID TAX. WHEREAS, transient accomodations provide for an influx of population which*may have varied and extra needs for municipal services, and WHEREAS, a tax upon those who generate the demand for extra services is a coneon principle within local government and is not uncommon in its application to transients and tourists; and WHEREAS, the City has authority as a charter city to impose said tax absent any statutory restriction; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it in the best interest of the community to tax said transient occupancy; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS*AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this ordinance, the following mean: (1) 'Ac~rua.1 ..Accounting. ' Aisystem-.Of acCOunti6*g'.~n* wh~Ch~. the ~* operator enters the rent due from a transient into the record when the rent is earned, whether or not it is paid. {2) Cash Accounting. A system of accounting in which the operator does not enter'the rent due from a transient into the record until the' rent is paid. .. (3) Hotel. A structure, any portion of a structure, or any space that is occupied or intended or designed for transient occupancy for thirty (30) days or less for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes; and including, but not limited to, any hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, lodging house, public or private dormitory, fraternity, sorority, rooming house, public or private club, space in a mobile home or trailer park, space in ~ recreational vehicle park, or other similar structure if the occupancy is for less than 'a 30-day period. Page I - COUNCIL BILL NO. 1110 ORDINANCE NO. (4) Occupancy. The' use or possession or right to the use or possession of a room or space in a "hotel" for lodging or sleeping purposes. (5) Operator. A person who is a proprietor of a hotel in any capacity. When the operator performs his functions through a managing agent of a type or character other than an employe, the managing agent shall also be considered an operator and shall have the same duties and liabilities as his principal. Compliance with the provisionsof..this ordinance. by either the principal or the managing agent shall be considered compliance by both. .. (6) Person. "Person" means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, fraternity, sorority, public or private dormitory, joint stock company, corportation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, trustee, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unity. {7) Rent. The consideration charged {gross rent}, whether or not received by the operator, for the occupancy or space in a "hotel" valued in money, goods, labor, credits, property or other consideration valued in money, without any deduction~ .(8') Rent Packagelplan. The consideration charged for both food and rent when a single rate is made for the total of both. The amount applicable to rent for determination of the transient occupancy tax shall be the same charge made for rent when it is not a part of a package plan. (9) Tax. The tax payable by the transient or the aggregate amount of taxes due from an operator during the'period for which he is required'to report his Collections. (10) TaxAdministrator. The Finance' Director or designee. (11) Transient. An individual who exercises occupancy for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. The day a transient checks out of the hotel shall not be included in determining the 30-day period if the transient is not charged rent for that day by the operator. An individual occupying space in a hotel Shall'b~'transient'until the Period'of 30 daysl~has'expi~ed unless there is an agreement in writing between the operator and the occupant providing for a longer period of occupancy. Said agreement.must be initiated Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO: 1110 ORDINANCE NO. within the first five (5) days of occupancy. A person who pays for lodging on a monthly basis, irrespective of the number of days in such month, shall not be deemed a transient. Section 2. IMPOSITIOI OF TAX. For the privilege of.occupancy in a hotel, a transient shall pay a tax in the amount of six percent (6%) of the rent charged by the operator. The tax consititues a debt owed by the transient to the City, and the debt is extinguished only when the tax is remitted by the operator to the City. The transient shall pay the tax to the operator of the hotel at the time the rent is paid. The operator shall enter the tax into the records when rent is collected if the operator keeps his records on the accrual accounting basis. If rent is paid in installments, a proportionate share of the tax shall be paid by the transient to the operator with each installment. If for any reason the tax due is not paid to the operator of the hotel, the tax administrator may require that the tax be paid directly to the City. In all cases, the rent paid or charged for occupancy shall exclude the sale'of any goods, services and con~nodities other than the furnishing.of rooms, accomodations,, and parking space in mobile homelparksl~' trailer parkS'.or' recrea~ionvehilcle parks~ Section 3. RuLES FOR COLLECTION OF TAX BY OPERATOR. (1) Every operator renting space for lodging or sleeping, the occupancy of whi6h is not exempted under the terms of this ordinance, shall collect a tax from the occupant. The tax collected or accrued constitutes a debt owned by the operator to the City. (2) In cases'of credit or deferred pa3nnent Of rent, the pa3~nent of tax to the operator may be deferred until the rent is paid, and the. operator shall not be liable for the tax until credits are paid or deferred pa~anents are made. Adjust~nents may be made for uncollect(ble account~. {3) The tax administrator shall enforce this ordinance and may adopt rules and regulations necessary for enforcement. (4) For rent collected on portions of a dollar, fractions of a'p~nny Of tax shall not be remitted. "' Section 4. OPERATOR'S OUTIES. An operator shall collect the tax when the rent is collected from the transient. The amount of tax Page 3 - COUNCIL BILL N0.,1110 ORDINANCE NO. shall be stated separately in the operator's recOrds and On the receipt given by the operator. An operator shall not advertise that the tax will not be added to the rent, that a portion of it will be assumed or absorbed by the operator, or that a .portion will be refunded,.except in the manner provided by this ordinance. The operator shall pay the tax to this city as imposed by this ordinance as provided for in Section 8 of this ordinance. Section 5. EXEMPTIONS. The tax shall not be imposed on: (1) An occupant staying for more than 30 consecutive days. (2) A person who rents a private home, vacation cabin or similar facility from an owner who personally rents the facility incidentally to the owner's personal use. (3) Any occupant whose rent is paid for a hospital room or a stay in a medical clinic, convalescent home or home for aged people. {4) Any occupant whose rent is of a value less than $2.00 per day. Section 6. OPERATOR'S REGISTRATION. (1) An operator of a hotel shall register with'the tax.administrator,. on aform.'provided by the-administrator,.-wi~hin'l$..days.after,beginning Ibusiness'or.within 30 calendar'days after passage of'this Ordin~nce~ (2) The registration shall include: (a) The name under which the operator transacts or intends to transact business. (b) The location of the hotel. (c) Any other information the tax administrator may require to facilitate collection of the tax. (d) The signature of the operator. (3) Failure to register does not relieve the operator from collecting the tax or a person from paying the tax. Section 7. CERTIFICATE OF AUTflORXTY. (1) The tax administrator shall, within 10 days after registration, issue without.charge a certificate.of authority to each registrant to collect · the'tax from the occupant, together With'a duplicate for each additional. place of business of each registrant. Certificates are nonassignable and Page 4 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 1110 ORDINANCE NO. nontransferable and Shall be surrendered immediately to the tax administrator on the cessation of business at the location named or on the sale or transfer of the business. Each certificate and duplicate shall state the place of business to which it is applicable.andshall beprominently displayed .. so as to be seen by all occupants and persons seeking occupancy. (2) The certificate shall state: (al The name of the operator. (b) The address of the hotel. , (c) The date on which the certificate was issued. (d) This Transient Occupancy Registration Certificate signifies that the person named has fulfilled the requirements of the Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance of the City of Woodburn by registering with the tax administrator for the purpose of collecting from transients the occupancy tax imposed by the City and remitting the tax to the tax administrator. This certificate does not authorize any person to operate a hotel without strictly complying with all local applicable laws.including but not limited to those requiring a permit from any board, commission, department or office of the City of Woodburn This certificate does not constitute a permit. This certi.ficate. .does not authorize any.person to conduct.any.unl-awful business or. tq'conductI any.lawful business in an unlawful manner, Section 8. COLLECTEONS, RETURHSAND PAYMENTS (1) The tax shall be paid by the transient to the operator at the time that rent is paid. ~he taxes collected by the operator are due and payable to the tax administrator on a calendar basis on the 15th day of the month for the preceding month and are delinquent on the last day of the month in which they are due. (2) On or before the 15th day of the month following each month of collection, a return for the preceding month's tax collections shall be filed with the tax administrator. The return shall be filed on a form prescribed by the tax administrator. (3) Returns shall show the amount of.tax collected or otherwise due'for the related period. The tax-administrator may require returns . to show the total rentals on which tax was collected or is due, gross receipts of the operator for the period, an explanation in detail of any discrepancy between the amounts, and the amounts of rents exempt. Page 5 - COUNCIL BILL NO~ 1110 ORDINANCE NO. (4) The operator'is entitled to withhold five percent (5.0%) of the tax due to cover the administrative expense of collecting and remitting the tax. This deduction shall be so noted in the appropriate place on the return form. (5) The operator shall deliver the return and the tax due to the tax administrator's office either by personal delivery or by mail. If the return is by mail, the postmark shall be considered the date of delivery for determining delinquencies. · (6) For good cause, the tax administrator may extend the time for filing a return or paying the tax for not more than one month. No further extensions shall be granted except by the Council. An operator to whom an extension is granted shall pay interest at the rate of one percent {1%) per month on the amount of tax due, without proration for a fraction of a month. If a return is not filed, and the tax and interest due are not paid by the end of. the extension, the interest shall become part of the tax computation of pena)ties described in Section 9. (7) The tax administrator-may requi:re'returns.and.payment of the amOunt of-taxes fo~ ot~er than monthlyperiods in individual cases to-ensure-payment or to facilitate COllection by 'the City.- Section. 9. DELINQUENCY PENALTIES.' (1) An operator who has not been granted an extension of time for remittance.of tax due and who fails to remit the tax prior to delinquency shall pay a penalty of ten percent (10%) of the tax due in 'addition to the tax. (2) An operator who has not been granted an extension of time · for remittance of tax due and who fails to pay a delinquent remittance before the expiration of 31 days following the date on which the remittance became delinquent shall pay a second delinquency penalty of fifteen percent (15%) of the tax due, the amount of the tax, and the ten percent (10%) penalty first imposed. (3) If the tax administrator determines that nonpayment of a remittance.is due to fraud or intent to.evade the tax, a penalty of twenty?five percent (25%) of the tax shall be added to the penalties stated in subsections (1) and (2). Page 6 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 1110 ORDINANCE NO. (4) In addition to the penalties impOsed by'this section, an operator who fails to remit the required .tax shall pay interest at the rate of one percent (1.0%) per month, without proration for portions of a month, on the tax due, exclusive of penalties, from the date on.which the tax first became delinquent until paid. (5) Each penalty imposed and the interest accrued under provisions of this section shall be merged with and become part of the tax required to be paid. (6) An operator who fails to remit the tax within the required time may petition the tax administrator for waiver and refund of the penalty or a portion of it. The tax administrator may, if good cause is shown, direct a refund of the penalty or a portion of it. Section 10. DEFICIENCY BETERMINATIONS. (1) In making a determination that the returns are incorrect, the tax administrator may determine the amount required to be paid on the basis of the facts contained in the return or on the .basis of any other information. ..(2} .Deficiency. determination~may be.made on the amount due .for .. one or more than oneperiod~ .The 'determined am°unt*shal.l~be payable immediately on service of notice, after which the determined amount is delinqUent..Penalties on deficiencies shall be applied as provided in Section 9. (3) In making a'determination, the tax administrator may offset overpayments that have been made against a deficiency for a subsequent period oragainst penalties and interest on the defiC{ency. The interest on the deficiency shall be computed as provided in Section 9. Section 11. REI)E~TION PETITION. A determination becomes payable immediately on receipt of notice and becomes final within 10 days after. the tax administrator has given notice. However, the operator may petition for redemption and refund by filing a petition before the determination becomes fi nal. Section 12. FRAUD; REFUSAL TO COLLECT; EVASION. (1) If an operator fails or. refuses to collect the tax, make the report, or'remit the tax, or makes a fraudulent return or otherwise Page 7 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 1110 ORDINANCE NO. willfully attempts to evade the tax paYment, the tax administrator shall obtain facts and information on which to base an estimate of the tax due. After determining the tax due and the interest and penalties, the tax administrator shall give notice of the total amount .due. {2) Determination and notice shall be made and mailed within three years after discovery of fraud, intent to evade, failure or refusal to collect the taxes, or failure to file a return. The determination becomes payable immediately on receipt of notice and becomes final 10 days after the tax administrator has given notice. (3) The operator may petition for redemption and refund if the petition is filed before the determination becomes final. Section 13. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. (1} The tax administrator shall give the operator a written notice of the determination. If notice is mailed it shall be addressed to the operator at the address .that appears on the records 'of the tax admin- istrator, and service is complete when the notice is deposited in the post .of fi ce. ...-.'(-2) -Except-in'the.case Of..fraud Or..intent"~.to 'evade the tax,. -.-: ...... · a deficiency 'determina'tion s'hal'l' be made 'and notice' mailed within three ' years after the last day of the month following the close of the monthly.''~ period for which the determination has been made or within three years after the return is filed, whichever is later. Section 14. Operator Oela),. If the tax administrator believes that collection of the tax will be jeopardized by delay,' or if a determination will 'be 'jeopardized by-delay, the tax administrator shall determine the tax to be collected and note facts concerning the delay on the determination. The determined amount is payable immediately after service of notice. After payment has been made, the operator may petition for redemption and refund of the determination if the petition is filed within 10 days from the date of service of notice by the tax administrator. Section 15. Redetermination. .. (1) An operator against whom a determination is made under: Section 10, or a person directly interested, may petition for a 'redetermination, redemption 'and refund within the time required in Section 14. If a petition Page 8 - COUNC)L BILL NO.' 1110 ORDINANCE NO. for redetermination and refund is not filed within the time required, the determination is final on expiration of the allowable time. (2) If a petition for redetermination and refund is filed within the allowable period, the tax administrator shall reconsider the determination and, if the operator requested a hearing in the petition, shall grant the hearing and give the operator 10 days notice of the time and place of the hearing. The tax administratormay continue the hearing if necessary. (3) The tax administrator may change, the amount of the determination as a result of the hearing. If an increase is determined, the increase is payable immediately after the hearing. {4) The decision of the tax administrator on a petition for redetermination becomes final 10 days after service of notice on the petitioner unless appeal of the decision is filed with the City Council within 10 days after notice is served. (5) A petition for redetermination or an appeal is not effective unless the operator has complied with .the payment provisions.- Section 16. SECURITY. FOR COLLECTION .OF TAX. · (1) The ta~ admi.n~strator.may require.-an operator to. dePos!: security in'.the form of.caSh, ibond 'or other security.. The amount of securitY . shall be fixed by the tax administrator,' but shall not be'greater than twice the operator's estimated average monthly liability for the period for which the operator files returns or $5,000, whichever amount is less. The amount of the security may be increased or decreased by the tax administrator, subject to the limitations of this subsection. (2) Within three years after any amount of the tax becomes due · and payable or within three years after any determination becomes final, the tax administrator may bring an action in the courts of this state, or any other state, or of the United States, in the name of the city to collect the amount delinquent, together with penalties and interest. Section 17. LIEliS. (1) The tax, interest, penalty, and filing fees paid to the tax-administrator 'and any advertising costs incurred when the tax becomes. delinquent shall be a lien from the date of its recording with the County Clerk of Marion County, Oregon until the tax is paid. The lien shall be superior to all subsequently recorded liens on all tangible personal property Page 9 - COUNCIL BILL NO: 1110 ORDINANCE NO. in the operator's hotel. The lien may be foreclosed and the necessary property may be sold to discharge the lien. (2) Notice of thelien shall be issued, by the tax administrator. when the operator has defaulted in payment of the tax, interest and penalty. A copy of the notice shall be sent by certified mail to the operator. (3) Personal property subject to the lien may be sold at public auction after 10 days notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. {4) A lien for the tax, interest and penalty shall be released by the tax administrator when the full amount has been paid to the City. The operator or person making the payment shall receive a receipt stating that the full amount of the tax, interest and penalty has been paid, that the lien is released and that the record of the lien is satisfied. Section 18. REFUNDS BY CITY TO OPERATOR. When the .tax, penalty or interest has been paid more than once Or has been erroneously or illegally collected or received by-the tax administrator, it may be refunded if a written Verifi.ed cta~m.-stating~the'speci.fi'c..reason. for. the claim-~s.f~!ed within three 'years f'rom the date of payment. The .Claim. shall be submitted on forms provided by tha taxadministrator. If the claim is approved, the excess amount may be refunded to the operator or it may be credited to an amount payable by the operator and any balance refunded. Section 19. REFUIIOS BY CITY TO TRANSIENT. If the tax has been collected by the operator and deposited with the tax administrator and it is'later determined lhat the tax was erroneously or illegally collected or received by the tax administrator, it may be refunded to the transient if a written verified claim stating the specific reason for the claim is filed with the tax administrator within three years from the date of payment. Section 20. RECOROS REI~UIREO FROIIOPERATORS. Every operator shall keep guest records, accounting books, and records of room rentals for a period of three years and six months. Section 21.. EXAMINAllON OF ~cO~S.m During normal..business hours and after notifying the operator, the tax administrator may examine books, papers, and accounting records related to room rentals to verify Page 10 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 1110 ORDINANCE NO. th~ accuracy of a return or, if no return'is made tOdetermine the amount to be paid. Section 22. CONFIDENTIALITY. The tax administrator or a person having an administrative or clerical duty under the provisions of this ordinance shall not make known in any manner the business affairs, operations, or information obtained by an investigation of records and equipment of a person required to file a return or pay a transient occupancy tax or a person visited or examined in the discharge of official duty; or the amount or source of income, profits, losses or expenditures contained in a statement or application; or permit a statement or application, or a copy of either, or a book containing an abstract or particulars to be seen or examined by any person. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent: (1) Disclosure to or examination of records and equipment by a city official, employe or agent for collecting taxes for the purpose of administering or enforcing the provisions or collecting the taxes imposed by this ordinance. (2) Disclosure, after filing a written request, to 'the taxpayer, receivers,.trustees, executors', administrators, assignees,.and guarantors, if directly interested, of information' concerning tax paid, unpaid tax, amount of tax required to be collected, or interest and penalties. However, the City Attorney shall approve each disclosure, and the tax administrator may refuse to make a disclosure referred to in this subsection when, in the tax administrator's opinion, the public interest would suffer. (3) Disclosure of names and addresses of persons making returns. (4) Disclosure of general statistics regarding taxes collected or business done in the City. Section 23. DISPOSITION OF TAX FUNDS. All revenue received from the transient occupancy tax shall be accounted for by a special line item account commonly referred to as "Hotel Tax", and distributed in the following manner: (1) General Fund shall receive forty percent (40.0%) of said tax receipts for support of general municipal services and promotion of the City. Page 11 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 1110 ORDINANCE NO. (2) General Fund shall receive an additional twenty Percent {20.0%) of said tax receipts for support of tourist information and special promotion of the community. These funds shall be transferred to the Woodburn Chamber of Commerce,,or other bona fide organization providing said services on behalf of the City, on a quarterly basis. (3) Park/Recreation CIF Fund shall receive the remaining forty percent (40.0%) of said tax receipts for support of capital improvements and equipment. Section 24. APPEALS TO COUNCIL. A person aggrieved by a decision of the tax administrator may appeal to the City Council by filing a notice of appeal with the tax administrator within ten days of notice of the decision. The tax administrator shall transmit the notice, together with the file of the appealed matter, to the Council. The Council shall fix a time and place for hearing the appeal and shall give the appellant not. less.than ten days written notice oT the time and place of hearing. Section 25. SEVERABILIl~. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. .If.a portion of lthis ordinance is for .any reason held .by a court of Competent'ljUrisdic~i.°n.to be .invalid, such'decision shall not affect the validityof'the remaining portion~' of this ordinance. Section 26. VIOLATIONS. (1) It is unlawful for any operator or other person so required to fail or refuse to register as required herein, or to furnish any return required to be made, or to fail to pay the tax collected, or fail or refuse to furni, sh a supplemental return or other data required by the tax administrator, or to render a false or fraudulent return. No person required to make, render, sign, or verify any report shall make any false or fraudulent report, with intent to defeat or evade the determination of any amount due required by this ordinance. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this section, the City Attorney, in addition to other remedies permitted by law, may commence. and,prosecute to final determination in any court of competent jurisdiction an action at law to collect the tax imposed. Page 12 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 1110 ORDINANCE NO. Section 27. CIVIL IHFRACTION. A violation of any provision of this ordinance constitutes a civil infraction and may be dealt with according to the procedures established by Ordinance No. 1998. Section 28. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective on the first day of the month following its legal enactment and effect per Section 34 of the City Charter. Approved as to form: City Attorney Date APPROVED: NANCY A. KIRKSEY, F~YOR Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the Office of the Recorder ATTEST: BARNEY O. BURRIS, CITY RECORDER CITY OF WOODBURN, OREGON Page 13 - COUNCIL BILL NO. 1110 ORDINANCE NO. MEMO TO: FRON: DATE: SUBJECT: lqAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL H]'CHAEL QU]:NN, C]'TY ADR]'N]:sTRATOR SEP~ER ?, ]988 TRANSTENT OCCUPANCY TAX Please find attached a proposed ordinance on a transient occupancy tax or, as, more commonly referenced, a~"hotel tax". As you recall, on 2/22/88 the City Council held a public hearing to solicit comments on this concept proposal. At that time we heard support from the Chamber of Commerce with 90% of the proceeds going for visitor information and tourist promotion; and we heard opposition from Dale Baker, as a motel owner, that their industry should not be singled out for such a tax but it should be applied to apartments instead. I have used the intervening time to obtain and review several ordinances from other Oregon cities and make local modifications. The following modifications and impacts are worth special mention: 1. This ordinance has been expanded in its application beyond the common motel and boarding house to apply to a recreation vehicle park. In my opinion, this still constitutes a transient occupancy with the difference being the rental of space only since the dwelling unit is mobile. The RV park is expected to be very similar to a motel in revenue impact associated with their ordinance. 2. This ordinance makes it very clear that the "hotel" occupant is a transient for the first thirty days unless a longer time period is contracted for within the first 5 days of the occupancy. Otherwise, the tax would apply. It also clarifies any disagreements over occupancy stays that are committed to late in the 30-day time period as an afterthought or as a means to be exempted from the tax. 3. The tax is set up on a monthly remittance schedule rather than a quarterly schedule. This circulates the money faster with less chance of loss although it does involve a little more handling. 4. The disposition of funds is specified as 40% to General, 20% for tourist promotion through the Chamber or other organizations, and 40% for Parks capital improvements to support amenities used by tourists and transients. The hotel operator keeps 5% up front for administrative handling. 5. Appeals are sent to the City Council rather than create a special review board. Mayor & 'Council Page 2 The transient occupancy tax is a justifiable and efficient revenue source to support certain municipal services. It is progressive relative to income, inexpensively collected and remitted, generally applicable to non-residents of the community, taxes transients who produce a strain on services without other tax liabilities in the community, is well-accepted and common amongst travelers, and provides a reasonable revenue source for the benefit of the community. Recoamendation: Review the proposed ordinance and call for public input at your next meeting. A copy of the ordinance can be sent to all potential "hotelS";.as a courtesy to solicit their opinion MQ/kv Introduction Transient accommodations are taxed throughout the United States. The tax is most commonly handled by the state as a sales tax on services. Of the forty-six states with some form of general sales tax, only California and Nevada do not tax transient accommodations. However, local.units~of government impose the tax in both states.1 Tax analysts consider taxation of hotel and motel services to be justifiable because expenditures for the service tend to be progres- sive relative to income, the tax is easily and inexpensively collec- ted, it provides ameans of taxing tourists, and it has good revenue potential.2 In Oregon, an increasing number of local governments have imposed transient room taxes (see Figure 1) for several reasons: · Extra services, such as police, fire, water and sewer, must be provided in tourist-oriented cities and counties, where the population may-quadruple on weekends or during the summer. Providing extra' services puts a strain on the local budget and capital facilities, and local governments have chosen to tax those who cause the demand. · The tax is'common throughout the nation, and tourists, especi- ally from out-of-state, generally expect and accept some kind of room tax. · The tax is easy to administer because the burden to collect .the taxis on relatively few operators. · Collection costs are low, ranging from one to five percent. Enactment of a room tax ordinance hag"not been easy in many cities and counties. Hotel and motel owners and operators are generally opposed to enactment of a room tax because the original burden for collecting the'tax falls on them. To make the responsibility less onerous, most local jurisdictions allow the operators to retain a percentage of the tax.to offset additional bookkeeping costs, and a number of Jurisdictions earmark part of the revenue for tourist promotion. Nonetheless, some cities and counties have been pres- su~ed to permanently or temporarily table proposed room tax ordi- nances. In other cases, after an ordinance has been enacted it has bee~ referred to the voters by petition. This occurred in Lincoln City, Coos Bay, Newport and Ontario; however, except for Ontario, e~forts to repeal, the ordinanee~ were rejected. Table 1 lists all Oregon cities and counties that have enacted room tax ordinances, their current tax rates,,and other information about the taxes. 1. Rhode Island House.Fiscai Advisory Staff, Sales Taxes on Services (Providence, December 1979), 2. Ibid. IIIII IIII IIII IIII Legal Authority to Impose the Tax Oregon constitutional home rule amendments3 grant local electorates the right to adopt charters. The power'of cities .to levy various : taxes in compliance with their charter authority has been upheld by a number of Oregon cases and by two attorney general 0pinions.4 The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the authority of a county under a county home rule charter may be as extensive as that of a city with comparable charter provisions.5 A city or a charter county may have authority to enact a transient room tax under either a general grant of power or from a more specific charter authorization.- Under.a recent Oregon Supreme Court decision, an ordinance imposing a tax under county charter authority may not contain an emergency clause.6 Nonhome-rule counties that want to impose a transient room tax need to rely on statutory provisions granting them power over all matters of county co.ncern (ORS 203.030 to 203.065). However,' under ORS 203.055 a'tax measure proposed under authority of'ORS 203.030 to 203.065 must be submitted to the voters for approval; 3. Article IV, sec. 1(5), and article XI, sec. 2, For cities; article VI, sec. 10, for counties. 4. Lent v. Portland, 42 Or. 488, 71P. 645 (lg03); Abrahim v. Cit~ of Roseburg, 55 Or. 359, 105'P. 401 (1909); Garbade and 8oynton v. City oF Portland, 188 Or. 158, 214 P.2d 1000 (lg§O); Oavidson Baking Co. v. Jenkins, 2]6 Or. §1,.337 P.2d 352 {lgsg); Paget v. City oF Pendleton, 219 Or. 253, 346 P.2d llll (lg§g); City oF Idanha v. Consumer Power Inc., 8 Or. App. 551, 695 P.2d 294 (1972); 33 Or. Att'y Gen. Op. 238 '{1067); 33 Or. A~tty Gen. Op. 245 (1967). See also Hornerts #arket Inc. v. Tri'County Trans., 256 Or. 124, 471P.2d 78g (1970). 5. $chmidt v. Masters, 7 Or. App. 421, 490 P.2d 1029 (1971). See also 32 Or. Att'y Gen. Op. 287 (196S); 29 Or. At~;y Gen. Op. 183 (1959); 36 Or. Att~y Gen. Op. 131 (Z972). 6. Hu]tno.ah' County v. Hittleman, 275 Or. §4S, $§2 P,2d 242 (1976). The attorney general has concluded that this case cannot be extended to apply to cities, 38 Or. Att'y Gen. Op. 378 (1976). -4' Uses of the Revenue Table 2 shows the amount of room tax revenue each city and county received during fiscal 1979-80 and how the revenue was used~ Twelve cities and four counties deposit the money in a sPecial room tax ..receipts fund. Seventeen cities and two countie.s deposit the.money directly into the general fund.7 Most cities and counties earmark a small percentage of the revenue for administration. Most Oregon cities and counties proVide some room taxlfunds to pro- mote tourism. Generally', the promotion agency is the 'local chamber of commerce, a recreation association, or a similar agency. In the city of Newport, a seven member advisory committee, appointed by the mayor and the council, helps the city council determine how the advertising and promotion fund will be used. The committee is com- posed of three motel owners, two retail merchants, and two lay mem- bers. Troutdale uses part of the room tax revenue to print publi- city brochures about the city. The following information elaborates on uses of the room tax revenue in Oregon. Depoe Ba~: Most of the tax revenue is used for street mainte- nance. The amount is designated by the budget committee. Eugene: The tax was originally enacted' as a charter amendment. When the charter was revised in 1976, the room tax provisions were made part of the city code. In both instances the revenue was earmarked for "the acquisition, construction, operation, and maintenance of recreational, cultural, convention and tour- ist related services." La Grande: The ordinance designates that one-third of the tax be used for park planning and improvements; One-third for tour- ist promotion; oni-third for general purposes. Lincoln Glty: The revenue is budgeted for improvement of parks and streets and has been used as the city's portion for the cost of local street improvement projects and for general street and park maintenance. Newport: The ordinance designates that 5 percent be used for administration; 47.5 percent for advertising and promotion; 9.5 percent for the airport fund; 9.5 percent tO the general fund for public safety; 28.5 percent to the Trust and Reserve Fund for future purchase of large pieces of equipment. 7. In Or. Att'y Gen. Op. 7792 (August 15, lg7g) the attorney general construed ORS 221.480 to 221.500 to authorize and limit municipal expenditures-For advertising, publicity and tourist promotion From the general Fund. -5- I~ANSIEIff ROOH' TAXES IN OREGON CITIES 'AND' COUI~IES 1984 Jurisdiction 1982-1983 Revenue Current Tax Rate Percent for Promotion CITIES: Albany $ 60,530 Ashland 205,846 Astoria 92,606 Bandon 28,183 Bend 317,479 6 5 6 6 85I Formula 33 5 25 Brookiugs 59,911 Burns 27,868 Cannon Beach HA Cascade Locks 9,154 Coos Bay 103,357 6 5 2 5 5 ($1o,ooo) 5 Corvallis 126,343 Depoe Bay 29,077 Eugene 320,218 Gold Beach 77,184 Grants Pass 191,925 7 5 4 6 5 2O HA 4O 75 25 Gresham 25,942 Hermiston NA Hines 747 Hood River 35,292 La Grande 65,876 HA HA HA 16.7 33 Lincoln City 483,066 Hedford 359,164 Newberg 4,577 Newport 237,253 North Bend 19,671 1 25 HA 47.5 Oregon City NA Pendleton 139,863 Portland 2,037,185 Prineville 19,025 Redmond 35,385 4 5 6 5 6 100 8 15 5 ( $700 max. ) Reedsport 4,193 Rockavay 35,370 Roseburg 122,227 Salem 211,683 90 HA 35 35 * NA = Not available/unknovn. ~urisdiction 1~82-1~83 Revenue Current Tax Rate Percent for Promotion Seaside $ 159,478 6I Sisters 7,851 5 HA* Springfield 83,208 4 HA The Dalles 105.726 6 21 Tillamook 32.921 6 HA Troutdale 27,976 6 HA Waldport 5,384 7 HA Wilsonville ~8,869 5 HA Wood Village 21,000 6 R~ Yachats 38,~,7 5 HA COUNTIES: Clackamas 112,568 6 16.6 Deschutes 514,140 6 ttA Jefferson 14,923 NA RA Klamath. 231,139 6 16.6 Lane 437.970 5 0 Lincoln 292.731 5 HA Multnomah NA 6 1 Washington 375,990 , 8 NA * NA - Not available/unknown. SOURCE: Bureau of ~overnmental Research and Service, University of Oregon, Trans£ent R~om Taxes in Ore,on (Eugene. June 1981) and City and County Annual Financlal Reports (1982-83). Bureau of Governmental Research and Service University of Oregon Revised September 1984 PC~A:trt 2 ,M .E M 0 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Council through City Administrator Planning Commission Appeal of Variance 91-01 Regarding a Side Yard Setback March 21, 1991 An applicant seeking a variance can appeal a Planning Commission decision to the City council. In this case, Mr. Bob Montgomery wishes to exercise that right and request the City Council reverse a Planning Commission decision. At a public hearing held on February 14, 1991 the Planning Commission reviewed Mr. Montgomery's proposal (attachment I). The request was to allow a garage (which was being converted to a dwelling) to set back approximately 2 feet from a side yard property line instead of 5 feet. After considerable deliberation with the staff and applicant the commission voted unanimously to deny the request (attachment II). One reason for the denial was the variance did not meet the conditions for granting a variance. A second reason was the fact the City Council had previously reversed a Planning Commission approval and denied a variance for a similar setback distance on a garage (variance case #89-10, VanValkenberg). After a review of the record, the Council has three alternatives which are as follows: 1) The Council may refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration, in which case the Planning Commission shall conduct such further investigation if it is deemed advisable and report its findings to the Council. 2) The Council may summarily, after considering the application and appeal, and finding that the facts therein stated do not warrant any further hearing, affirm the action of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. 3) If the Council is of the opinion that the facts in the case warrant further action, the Council shall set the matter for hearing before the City Council, and shall give notice of the time and place of such hearing in the same manner as set forth in the Woodburn Zoning Ordinance. After the hearing, the Council may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or modify any decision of determination, or may impose such conditions as the facts warrant and may grant a variance, and its decision or determination shall be final. Any hearing may be continued from time to time. SG:Ig var91-01 ,mem STAFF REPORT VARIANCE CASE # 91-01 APPLICANT: ' ROBERT MONTGOMERY PROPERT~ LOCATION: YOUNG STREET (ROSEMONT APARTMENTS) [ SEE ATTACHMENT "A" ] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL REQUEST: The Applicant wants to place one bedroom apartment unit 2 feet from the property line where the required setback is 5 feet from the property line [ see Attachment "B" ] APPUCANT'S STATEMENT: "This structure has been this close to the property line for a good number of years. We are requesting a set back variance to remodel the interior of the garage into a 1 bedroom apartment." APPLICABLE LAND USE CRITERIA: 1) CHAPTER 3. NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES. Section 3.080. Enlargement or Extension to Non Conforming Buildings. A nonconforming building may be enlarged, extended, or structurally altered provided such enlargement, extension, or structural alteration itself conforms in all respects to the regulations specified by this Ordinance for the district in which such building is located, but otherwise it shall be unlawful to enlarge, extend or structurally alter any nonconforming building. Section 3.090. Change of Nonconforming Use. The nonconforming use of a building may be changed to a use of the same or more restricted nature when such change of use is approved by the Planning Commission after proceedings are had as in this Ordinance provided for Variances 2) CHAPTER 10. OFF-STREET PARKING, LOADING AND DRIVEWAY STANDARDS. .. Section .10..050. Off-Street,Automobile Parking*Requirements, ':. .... .**. .~ .... ..; ... Off-Street automobile parking Shall be provided as required by Section 10.070 and apprOved bY the 'Planning 'Director, in the *amounts not less than those listed below: (...) b) Dwellings containing 2 or more dwelling units located on the same lot: 1) One and one-half space per dwelling unit having one bedroom only 3) CHAPTER 13. VARIANCES Section 13. 020. Conditions for Granting a Variance The Planning Commission may permit and authorize a Variance when it appears for the application, or the facts presented at the public hearing, or by investigation: a) That there are unnecessary, unreasonable hardships or practical difficulties which can be relieved only by modifying the literal requirements of the Ordinance; b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings, or uses in the same District; however, non- conforming land uses or structures in the vicinity shall not themselves constitute such circumstances or conditions; c) That granting the application will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood of the premises; d) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right of the petitioner; e) That the granting of the application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, adversely affect the health or safety of persons working or residing on the neighborhood of the property of the applicant; and f) That the granting of the application will be in general harmony with the intent and purpose of this Ordinance and will not adversely affect any officially adopted Comprehensive Plan STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The property is already occupied by a 10 unit apartment complex, single family house and an accessory structure ( see attachment "B" ). 2. The applicant wantS-to convert the accessory' structure (garage) into a 1 .'bedroom.. -... apartment. . 3, .The.garage is located approximately.2 .feet from .the.west. property.line.and, already ........ does not conform to the required setback requirements ( 5 feet from the Property line). 4. The garage has to be brought up to code to comply with one- and two-family code. It has to be almost completely removed and start over to be in compliance with the building code ( see attachment "C" ). STAFF CONCLUSIONS: 1. Staff does not observe any "unnecessary, unreasonable hardship or practical difficulties" which can be relieved only by modifying the setback requirements. · In fact, the property is already very intensely developed ( apartment complex, single family house ). 2. Staff does not observe any" exceptional or extraordinary circumstance or conditions applying to the land, buildings or use ". The applicant wants to convert the garage into a one bedroom apartment. This type of conversion required the garage has to be almost completely removed and start over to be in compliance with building code ( see Attachment "C" ) 3. The granting the application does not seem to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to property or the neighborhood. 4. This variance does not seem to be necessary' for the preservation and enjoyment of the property; the property is already very intensely developed. 5. The granting this variance will not adversely affect the health or safety of the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider ali identified land use regulations and staff comments and conclusions in making their decision. 2. The Planning Commission may impose such limitations, conditions and safeguards as it may deem appropriate so that the spirit of this Ordinance will be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done. 6) PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE CASE'#91-01 RosEMONT APARTMENTS Robert Montgomery Staff read the necessary statement to begin the public hearing. Staff reported that the applicant wanted to place one bedroom apartment unit 2 feet from the property line where a required setback is 5 feet from the property line. Staff recommended the Commission consider all identified land use regulations comments and conclusions in making their decision. Commissioner Park asked how large the garage was and what was on each side of the property. Staff answered that it was about 16 to 20 feet wide by 24 feet deep. There are two single family dwellings one on each side of the property. Commissioner Park asked how far the garage was from the building on the adjoining property. Staff answered that it was approximately 8 to the adjoining building. The garage is located one to two feet from the property line. Commissioner Vallieres asked how tenants got to the garage. Staff answered that it was a direct driveway off Young Street. Commissioner Park asked if the garage was presently being used as a garage. Staff answered to their knowledge yes. President Johnson asked if the property owner was aware of the cost to bring this building up to code. Staff stated that the building official had informed the owner of the needed improvements. 2 .The. appli.cant, Bob Montgomery~ P.O... Box 283, Woodburn,~ stated that he was aware of the cost to bring this building up to code. It would be done over time. He stated that it would make a nice one bedroom apartment. The driveway would handle the parking situation. Commissioner Warzynski asked where the room for parking was. Mr. Montgomery stated that it was in the front of the garage. Commissioner Vallieres asked if the apartment could be built on the east side of the house. Mr. Montgomery stated that the front of the house was on the east. Commissioner Guerra asked if there was still a wire fence still separating the properties there. Mr. Montgomery stated that there are plans to put a fence all around the property. Staff stated that was one of the conditions the Commission set when the apartment complex was approved. Commissioner Warzynski asked if the parking in front of the garage was adequate for four vehicles. She asked if there was a curb cut there along with the curb cut for the apartments. Mr. Montgomery answered yes. President Johnson stated that he was not clear about the density issue. Staff stated that the property does not exceed any density requirements. It is utilized fully. President Johnson asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. There were none. He asked if there were any questions from the~ Commission. Commissioner Warzynski asked if this garage was made into a residence, would any one be inspecting this. 3 staff answered yes, the. building officiaL' .-. ..Commissioner'.' Rappleyea stated that looking, at the criteria, he didn't see. any reason for granting this variance. He stated that he was against approval-of this variance.. Commissioner Vallieres stated that he agreed with Commissioner Rappleyea, he stated that .in the past the Council has reversed Commission decisions before on an item similar to this. Chuck Roseria stated that he has talked to the neighbors. A cedar fence will be built between the property and the neighbors. This apartment would house a single person who hopefully will be the manager. Mr. Montgomery stated that he didn't know what the precedent was on the pdor variance that was denied, he wondered if it was new construction or an existing building. Staff answered that it was an add on to an existing building. Commissioner Warzynski stated that she felt that the Commission shouldn't compound the existing problem of being too close to the property line by approving this variance. Commissioner Park stated that he couldn't find a reason for granting this variance since it is going to be used for something other than what it was originally intended. President Johnson asked if there was any more questions of the applicant. There were none. He closed the public hearing. Commissioner Guerra stated that he would like to see the improvements to the garage as a garage for the house not as a manager residence. Commissioner Warzynski made the motion to deny this request for Variance Case ~91-01. Commissioner Park seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously. 4 ,4 T TA~. C H IV/ £ N T 'A " HOUSE _J A T T/I'CHIqE-1VT" GARAGE .... l to be converted ~. !~:,.,'~o'~'~~' MEMO TO: FROM: SUB J: DATE: Steve Goeckritz Bob Arzoian Rosemont Garage December 13, 1990 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Pressure treated mud sill is required. Does not appear to have under-floor vapor barrier. No perimeter insulation. Rafters are inadequate. They are undersized. Building appears to be only 1' or 2' from property. More parking space is needed. Floor has to be at least 6" above grade in 8'. Opinion: Garage has to be brought up to code to comply with one- and two-family dwelling code. It has to be completely removed and start over to be in compliance. A'R'ACHMENT "C" CiTY RECORDER WOODBURN, OREGON COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO CONTRACT 10471 REGARDING THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO HIGHWAY 214 WITH THE OREGON STATE HIGHWAY DMSION. WHEREAS, the' City of Woodbum has entered into an agreement t° finance roadway improvements on Highway 214 through State Immediate Opportunity Fund monies; and WI~.~, the City of Woodburn has determined that those infrastructure improvements are necessary to stimulate economic development for the benefit of the community; and WHEREAS, revised cost estimates have reduced the amount of advance deposit required by the City of Woodbum for this project; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ~LVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City of Woodburn enter into an agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation, Highway Division entitled "Supplement Contract No. 10471," a copy of which is attached for reference. Section 2. That the Mayor and other appropriate City officials be authorized to sign and execute said supplemental agreement on behalf of the City of Woodbum. Approved as to form: City Attorney Date APPROVED: Fred W. Kyser, Mayor Passed by the Council Submitted to the Mayor Approved by the Mayor Filed in the office of the Recorder Attest: Mary Tennant, Deputy Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 1 - ORDINANCE NO. RESOLUTION NO. RECEIVED FEB 2 0 t99! February 15, 1991 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Highway Division Frank Tiwari, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 FILE CODE: Dear Frank: Enclosed are four copies of the Local Agency Agreement Supplemental for the Hillsboro/Silverton Highway at Woodland Street, Immediate Opportunity Fund project. Please review the agreements and if satisfactory, present it to the City Council for their consideration. If approved, have the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Recorder to sign the agreement on their behalf. Sign the three blue-back copies and return them to this office. Retain the extra copy for your information. A fully executed copy will be returned for your records. Sincerely, /-) /~e~r~ R. Swanstrom -F~c[eral Aid Specialist JRS:lg Enclosures 734-1839 (10-90) February 14, 1991 Misc. Contracts & Agreements No. 10471 City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Gentlemen and Ladies: The Oregon State Highawy Division (State) and the City of Woodburn, (Agency) entered into Construction-Finance Agreement No. 10471, dated December 4, 1990, concerning construction of the Hillsboro-Silverton Highway at Woodland Street, Immediate Opportunity Fund project (project). State and Agency have now determined that the aforementioned agreement, although remaining in full force and effect, should be supplemented by this agreement in order to reduce the Agency's advance deposit, due to revised project cost estimates. Any further reference to the agreement dated December 4, 1990 shall include the following: AGENCY OBLIGATIONS, paragraph 4,which reads... "4. Agency shall, prior to State's advertising for bid proposals, deposit with State the Agency's portion of the project cost; said portion is currently estimated to be $241,000. Additional deposits may be required if actual cost is greater than estimated." Shall be revised to read... "4. Agency shall, prior to State's advertising for bid proposals, deposit with State the A~ency's portion of construction cost; said portion is currently estimated to be $180,000. Additional deposits may be required if actual cost is greater than estimated." Agency shall enter into and execute this agreement during a duly authorized session of its City Council. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and year hereinafter written. A1291002 SUPPLEMENT CONTRACT NO. 10471 CITY OF WOODBURN This project was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on October 17, 1990 at which time the State Highway Engineer was authorized to sign the necessary agreements for and on behalf of the Commission. Said authority is set forth in the Minutes of the Oregon Transportation Commission. APPROVAL RECOMMENDED By Region Engineer APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY STATE OF OREGON, by and through its Department of Transportation, Highway Division By State ~ighway Engineer Date By Assistant Attorney General Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY By City Attorney TEE CITY OF WOODBURN, by and through its City Officials By Mayor By City Recorder Date Date A1291002 WOODBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 ".~t12-2,345 Kc. ~;ri ght Chief of Police STAFF REPORT March 19, 1991 TO: FROM: RE: KEN WRIGHT, CHIEF PAUL E. NULL, LT. LIQUOR APPLICATION (CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP) BUSINESS: WESTVlEW TEXACO 100 ARNEY ROAD WOODBURN, OR. 97071 APPLICANTS: SULLIVAN, BARRY EARL O'DONNELL, DEAN ALAN O'DONNELL, LINDA ON MARCH 14, 1991 A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION WAS COMPLETED ON LISTED APPLICANTS PURSUANT TO OREGON LIQUOR LICENSE STATUTES. THE BACKGROUND REVEALED NO ADVERSE INFORMATION WHICH WOULD PREVENT ISSUANCE OF A LIQUOR LICENSE. RECOMMENDATION: THAT WESTVIEW TEXACO BE GRANTED A (PACKAGED STORE) LIQUOR LICENSE UNDER THE NEW OWNERSHIP. W-'o ~_ OEPARPMP3 . ~991 LIQUOR APPLICATION Report# 91-77 t_~_DBIjRN PoLIr;E" '" "NT . . Occurred/031491 --'( 0'2 )-PERSONS .................. Reported Date/Time/0!0491 O~:NE}-: /' SULLIVAN,BARRY EAR]_, 9280 S.W.BAiLEY ST. #78. MANAGER WE;STVIEW TE×ACO ~-.( 02 }-PERSONS .. -r-= ...... . ............... DOB/101955 W'ILSONVILLE i00 ARNEY RI). OR 97070 682-1024 981-5833 ~,; ~. 0 DONNELL,DEAN ALAN W/M 1)OE/091148 386 MONMOUTH ST. INDEPENDENCE OR 97351 838--4030 CO-OWNER WESTViEW TEXACO ]09 ARNEY RD. 982-2726 --{ 07 /-PERSONS ........................................................................................ OWNI'_:i< /' O ' DONNE]_,]., ,, l.,l NDA JOAN 3 t3 t-, MUNI'-IOU'fld ST. CO-OWNER WESTVIEW TEXACO DOB/0411349 INDEPENDENCE 100 ARNEY RD. OR 97351 838-403C' 982-2726 ---AGENC]t<S CONTACTED .............................................................................. (_iN 033_49i ~"PE:..~_, ~u~ru~,~_,,~,_,-~W~NG~ AGENCi~c.. W'~';F'~'. ,~. CGNTA~.~..5~ REGAR. D~NG q~BE. . ABOVE', NAMED C'ORi-- ORAT ] C.N COMMi SS]ON: 3';'g-4166 THE CORPORATION COMMiSSiON ADV]S~':t'~ .... ~'~'Aq'~.: THE BUSINESS ~,~.e,,-z.,.:vlEW .... FEXAC_.)" O HAD BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE NAMES OF DALE BAKER AND TIMOTHY BROWN. THE REGISTRATION WAS CANCELLED ON 122590 FOR FAILURE TO RENEW. FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY COURT: 326-223! THE FEDERAL klANKRUPTCY CO~RT REPOR']'}:'.b 'i'HA'I~ NO RECORD OF BANKRUPTC~ W~c',~.,, FiLEb FOR THE ABOVE , ~ME APPLI,.,A '~'' 'I '~ .... DATE OF BETTER BUSINESS BUREAU: 226-3981 NO RECORDS ON FILE OF ANY COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST WESTVIEW TEXACO. CONSUMER PROTECTION: 378-4320 NO RECORDS ON FILE OF ANY COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST WES'l'VIEW TEXACO. OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION: 3'78-3512 NO RECORDS ON FILE OF ANY VIOLATIONS FILED AGAINST WESTVIEW TEXACO. ===SUMMARY=- ................................................... ~'= ..... ==' ON 031491 I CONDUCTED A BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FOR A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP APPL]CATION TO OLCC FOR WESTV!EW TE×ACO AND THE ABOVE NAMED APPLICANTS. RECOR[;S CHECK WAS COMPLETED ON q'Ht< THREkl AP~:~;JCA. NTS NAM~ ..... N ic REPORT. LOCATE .ANY RECORD E:N'i~R]~:q ~'(~;,' q'HE A':~f:;Li,'~.~N.,~ IN THE CP. IM]N SYSTEM 'CHECK. APPLiCANT/SULLIVAN,BERRY HAD (5} DRIVING RECORD ENTREES, HOWEVER · ALL ENTN!ES WERE FOR MINOR TRAFFIC ONLY. APPLICANTS/O'DONNELL,DEAN AND L1NDA HAD NO DRIVING RECORD ~Nt~.IES ._ ~C2~D R~'GARD~NG THE APPLICANTS Amr~ THE i'}~E ABOVE LISTED AGENCIES WERE CON"'" ' ..... BOSIN~SS. NO NEGATIVE REPORTS WERE ON FILE 'WITH ANY OF THE AGENCIES REGARDIN~ THE APPLICANTS .OR' THE BUSINESS. A CHECK WAS MADE WITH WOODBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORDS FOR THE BUSINESS ( WESTV!EW TEXACO) FOR THE YEAR 1990. THERE WERE (31) CALLS FOR .SERVICE FROM THE TEXACO STATION. ONE OF THE CALLS WAS RELATED TO LIQUOR VIOLATIONS AND THE ....... .~E BUSINESS. WAS THE COMPLAINANT, REPORTING A REPORT ~ATTACHED~ INDICATED '~' 'P"-~ ....... MALE DRINKING BEER iN A VEHICLE. NO ARREST WAS MADE AS THE VEHICLE WAS GONE PRIOR TO OFFICER ARRIVAL, THERE HAVE BEEN [7] CALLS FOR SERVICE FROM 010191 THRU 031491 NONE 0F THE CALLS FOR SERVICE RE!,ATED TO LIQUOR V!OLATIONS. 747'i DATE 031491 Pr op-Evid/NO SH]FT/'GR':D ~(~:-i"' /' ~,2 } APPROVED__ APPLICATION STATE OF OREGON OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION GENERAL INFORMATION Return To: A non-refundable processing fee is assessed when you submit this completed form to the Commission (except for Druggist and Health Care Facility Licenses). The filing of this application does not commit the Commission to the granting of the license for which you are applying nor does it permit you tO operate the business named below. ... . (THIS SPACE IS FOR Application is being made for: [] DISPENSER, CLASS A [] DISPENSER, CLASS B [] DISPENSER, CLASS C [~ PACKAGE STORE [--J RESTAURANT [] RETAIL MALT BEVERAGE [] SEASONAL DISPENSER [] WHOLESALE MALT BEVERAGE & WINE [] WINERY OTHER: OLCC OFFICE USE) [] Add Partner [] Additional Privilege [] Change Location J~ Change Ownership [] Change of Privilege [] Greater Privilege :1--~ Lesser Privilege [] New Outlet [] Other (THIS SPACE IS FOR CITY OR COUNTY USE) NOTICE TO CITIES AND COUNTIES: Do not consider this applica- tion unless it has been stamped and signed at the left by an OLCC representative. THE CITY COUNCIL, COUNTY COMMISSION, OR COUNTY COURT OF (Name of City or County) RECOMMENDS THAT THIS LICENSE BE: GRANTED DENIED DATE BY (Signature) TITLE CAUTION: If your operation of this business depends on your receiving a liquor license, OLCC cautions you not to purchase, remodel, or start construction until your license is granted. 1. Name of Corporation, Partnership, or Individual Applicants: 5) 2. Present Trade Name 3. New Trade Name 4) 6) (EACH PERSON USTED ABOVE MUST FILE AN INDi~/IDUAL HISTORY AND A FINANCIAL STATEMENT) Year filed with Corporation Commissioner INDIVIDUAL HISTORY & TIED HOUSE DISCLOSURE STATE OF OREGON OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION TRADE NAME CITY/COUNTY 9079 SE. McLoughlin Blvd. P.O. BOX 22297 Portland, Oregon 97222 You must fill in al! the blanks, If the question does not ap~y write N/A in the soace. 2. Other names used (Magi ('.~ 5. Sex F Height ,'~" '~ Weigh1 /',~ Hair Color ...~_...~ Eye C~or _/~:~ Age 6. US C~tizen: Yes ~ No Alien Reg. t Spouse Name. CRIMINAL RECORD NOTE-CLCC makes a cnr.ical °tfender records check through the Oregon State Police o~ all liquor license applicants. ORS !87 -~.=,5~'3~, =r..-/l~es that you can contact the Oregor,.State Police or che!;enge Icaccu~ate criminal offender information. OLCC may require fingerprints. 8. Have you ever been convicted of any crime, violation,, o; Infr&ctlon of any law? Include prc~)atton or bail forfeiture. (Include traffic violations for which a fine or bell forfeiture o! more that ~50.00 was imposed.) Yes No .... J 9. Do you have arrests or citations pending? Yes __ No ~ 10. 1~. you have answered "Yes" to 8 or 9 list below: OFFENSE DATE CITY & STATE RESULT DIVERSIONrFREATMENT 11. Have you ever enterecl into a Diversion Agreement? Yes No v'/ Where and When? 12. Have you ever been treated or ~ a treatment prngram for alcohd or other drug use/abuse? Yes Where and When? No V' EMPLOYMENT & RESIDENCE HISTORY 13. Mst current and former ~qlployers or occupations during the past ten years: Fromm- ' ~7 _To /-~-_Zo -<;'-"'~v .,~,.,._~.~g - ~'/.i;,~, ;'~.%~,~ . ,~',//,96 ~/rm- __-_ 14. List other cities and states where you have lived in the bast ten years other than those noted in Question 13 above, From To __ From To. 15 ~.e ~ou ~ussnlly o~ I~ava yo~ been ~lcensec o~ e."~io~'~ in the liquor I~Jsiness? Yes, No / Where & When? 16. Is youl SlX~.Jse o~ any fahlily ~L*~ber(a) working ir, any area of the liquor industry? Yes_., No __ If Yes, give: 17 Have you ever received a warning, a notice of violation, suspanslon, fine, or revocation aa a licensee or parmitae? Yes .. NO / Where & When?. 18. Have you ever been refused · permit or license to sell, serve, or dispense beer, wine, or distilled soirlts? Yes No / Where & When? __ lg. I$ a manufacturer or wholesaler of alcoholic liquor financing or furnishing your business with moc~y or property'? Yes No. I,/__ Where & When? 20. Do you have any right, tiffs, lien, claim, or other interest, financial or otherwise in, upon or to the premises, e~uipment, business or merchandise of any relailer, wholesaler, or manufacturer of alcoholic liquor? (Do not include this business) Yes_ No u/ _Where & When? CAUTION: OLCC MAY DENY YOUR APPLICATION IF YOU LEAVE OUT INFORMATION OR GIVE FALSE ANSWERS ON THIS FORM. SIGNATURE:_ ~ ~._~ (,,4) ~.,;~-. ~.) DATE Form 84545481 LOCAL OLCC OFFICE INDIVIDUAL HISTORY & TIED HOUSE DISCLOSURE STATE OF OREGON 9079 SE. McLoughlin Blvd. OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION ' P.O. Box 22297 Portland, Oregon 97222 You must fill in ail the bianks, if the question does not apply write NIA In the space 1. Name 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. Other names used __ SSN.~O-~- ~,O - /~-~-~ Place of Birth ~X ~ Height ~'/o" Weight ~IM~NAL RE~D t~-; rE~L~ ~kes ~ criminal olfe~r r~ ch~k lh~gh the Or~ Slate Poli~ on all I~r I~e~ a~licants. ~ 181.5~3) o'~s !~1 ~u can c'~tacl t~ Or~ State P~e or c~l~e i~ccurate cr!mi~l off~r Info~t~. ~ ~y require fi~er ~rlnts. U. Have y~ ~r ~en ~v~t~ of any crib, vlclal~n, or In~raction of 8ny la~ Incl~ pr~l~ or ~il forleiture. (1~1~ traffic violations for ~ich a fi~ or ~il fodeiture of ~re lhst ~.~ w~s im~.) Y~ NO 9. ~ y~ have arrests or cital~s ~ing? Yes No 1~ If ~u have a~r~ "Yes" to 8 or 9 list ~1~: OFFENSE DATE CI~ & STATE RESUL3 DIVERSION/TREATMENT 11. Have you ever entered into a Diversion Agreement? Yes __ No ,~ Where and,When? /4/ / .,~ 12. Have yo~ ever been treated or in a treatmenl program for alcoho~ o~ ether drug use/abuse? Yes . No .~"' Where and When? .4//v~' EMPLOYMENT & RESIDENCE HISTORY 13. List current a,~ form. er employers or occupations during the past ten years: 14. ~t other cit~ a~ states ~re ~ ha~ liv~ in t~ pasl len ~ars other than t~e ~ In ~stl~ 13 ~IVITf IN LIQUOR IND~TRY (INSIDE OR O~IDE ~E~N) 15. Are y~ pre~ntly or have y~ ~en li~sM ~ e~loy~ in the ii~r Y~ No .~ ~;e & When? 16. Is ~r ~ or any faml~ me~r(s} ~rklng in any area of the liquor i~ust~ ~rm~ee? Y~ No .~ Where & When? ~ 18. Ha~ you ever ~n relu~ a ~t or licen~ to sell, ~e, or di~ ~r, ~ne, ~ distill~ ~rit8? Yes No ~ Where & When? ~/~ 19. Is a ~nufacturer or ~e~ler of alco~llc ~uor financl~ or ~urnlshl~ ~r ~sine~ wilh ~n~ or pr~r~ Y~ No ~ Where & Wh~? 20. Do you have a~ right, title, lien, claim, or other interest, financial or othe~ise in, u~n or I0 the oremises ~uip~nt. business or merchandise of any :'elailer, ~le~ler, or manufacturer of alc~ol~ liquor? (Do ~t incl~ this ~si~ss) Yes No ~ Where & When? CAUTION: OL~ M~DENY YOUR APPLI~TION IF~OU L~VE OUT IN~R~TION OR GIVE FALSE ANSWERS ON THIS FORM. Form 84545-481 (6-90) LOCAL OLCC OFFICE WOODBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT Miscellaneous Service Report Rec.•ate/Time: - * . Occd. O&te/Time: . . ' . . . [] Accident No Investigation [] ~lnll~ Co{llp~alnt [-]Impound D ~ DP..,•. DMotorist Do. icer OA~e.cy [] Att. Warrant Service DPerson DNoI,. S-2 S--3 T-1 T-2 T-3 W-1 -W-2 W-3 D Dflnklng In Public [] Emergency Message [] Extra Patrol [] Family Disturbance [] Fight [] Fraud Inquiry [] Harassment [] Juvenile Problem [] Uttering D Man Oown [] Menacing [] Mental [] Missing Person [] Parking Problem [] Public Indecency 0 Recklessly Endang [] Sellcltln~ [] Suiopoena Service [] Sus¢clous [] Theft [] Traffic Complaint Dcareless DReckless []Drunk [] Trespass [] Unwanted Pemon [] Unsecu~d Stmct [] Walk Away [] Welfare Check W-4 W-5 W-6 W-7 W-8 X-1 X-2 INAME: )DRESS: ISTATE: I ZIP: -'_T,,.,LS,A,',D,'r,ONA.,.FO,MAT,O.LT/U : f,. DOB: RACE: OTHER: IPHONE: 1 I = CANNOT LOCATE PERSON S-2 · NO SUCH ADDRESS S-3 - CONDITION DOES NOT EXIST T-1 - FALSE ALARM T-2- FOUND SECURE T-3- MADE SECURE -1-ASSIGNMENTCOMPLETE W-2-PERSONASSISTED W-3=PERSONADVlSEO/REFERREO W-4-HAZARDCORRECTED/REMOVED W-5-DELIVERED -~ - PEACE RESTORED W-7 - NUISANCE ABATED W-8 - ARREST/INVESTIGATION BYANOTHER X-1 - PERSON CHECKED, OK X-2 -VEHICLE CHECKED, OK MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MICHAEL QUINN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR March 22, 1991 "ClNCO de MAYO" USE OF DOWNTOWN LOT Please refer to the attached letter from Ramon Ramirez requesting use of the downtown parking lot for the Cinco de Mayo celebration on May 5, 1991. This also involves a request for temporary street closure and use of sound amplifying equipment. Ordinance 1527, Section 4 (2) (5) allows for the temporary closure or blockage of a City street through the City Administrator with concurrence by the City Council, The letter requests the closure of Grant Street between First and Front, however, I believe we will desire another arrangement if the situation demands. Ordinance 1990, Section 3 (5) allows for Council approval to permit the use of sound amplifying equipment for general entertainment. Recommendation: Approve the temporary closure of a street (to be designated) if necessary, and the use of sound amplifying equipment for the Cinco de Mayo celebration in the downtown parking lot on May 5, 1991, from noon to 7:00 p.m. . ·. Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United March. 20, 1.991 .... Presidente: Cipriano Ferrel Mayo r Vice-Presidente: City Council of Woodburn RamonRamirez Woodburn City Hall ~crem~o;~rerWoodburn, Oregon. Larry Kleinman Dear Mayor and City Council of Woodburn, This coming May 5, 1991, Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United will sponsor the Twelfth Annual "Cinco de Mayo celebration in Woodburn. The event will include Tradicional Mexican music, Folkloric dancing, Speakers, Theatre and food. This event is open to the general public and is free of charge. At this time we wish to request permission from the City Council to use the Downtown City parking area to hold these event. In addition we request a permit to use outdoor speakers and for safety purposes closing down Grant Street from Front St. to First St. The event will run from 12:00 noon to 7:00pm. We have also spoken to the Police department and will coordinate efforts with them. No alcohol will be served or permitted. If any additional information is needed, please contact me'. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Sincerely yours, vR.a~.°npcR~3;irezi'"~ MEMO..: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Administrator for Council Information Randy Scott, C.E. Tech III Woodburn Interchange, Traffic Signal Installation March 21, 1991 The Oregon Department of Transportation is currently requesting bids for the installation of traffic signals on the south bound ramp at the Woodburn interchange. Traffic lanes that will be controlled by signalization is the east and west bound lane of Oregon State Highway 214 and the south bound off ramp of Interstate 5. The bids will be received by the Oregon Transportation Commission on March 28, 1991. The anticipated start date is August or September, 1991. The selected contractor will be given 30 days to complete the project after work has begun, however, the project must be completed prior to November 15, 1991. The project manager for this project is Mr. Ron Clay from the Oregon Department of Transportation, phone number: 378-8529. RS:Ig 15trafsig MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Administrator for Council Information Randy Scott, C.E. Tech III, through Public Works Director~'' Resolution 1035, Engineer Report for Storm Sewer Improvements March 21, 1991 On January 14, 1991, the City Council approved Resolution No. 1035, which authorized staff to prepare an engineering report for storm sewer improvements. The storm sewer improvements are for the property adjacent to State Highway 214, east of Progress Way. Although Council has authorized staff to prepare the engineering report, private developers have decided to finance the improvement. Staff, therefore, will discontinue work on the engineering report and will not create the L.I.D. boundary. RS:lg res1035.mem WOODBURN POLICE DEPARTMENT 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071 982-2345 Ken Wright Chief of Police DATE: TO: FROM: THRU: RE: Hatch 21, 1991 Mayor and Council Ken Wright, Police Chief ~ ~ Michael Qutnn, City Administrator 1991 OLCC License Compliance Plans I have been in contact with all 5 affected licensees and have set appointments to review, update and initiate compliance plans for each business. Although the process is taking longer than anticipated, it is going well. We will have the completed products to the Council for review and anticipated approval at the April 1, 1991 meeting. Should you have comments or would care to provide input, please contact Lt. Null or myself. KLW/tls MEMO TO: City Council through City Administrator FROM: Community Development Director SUBJECT: Interstate-5 Recreational Vehicle Park DATE: March 19, 1991 At the March 11, 1991 meeting the city council raised the issue that information had been conveyed to them that people were residing in the I-5 RV park for more than six months at a time. Staff was instructed to investigate this matter and check on the length of stay allowed. As to the length of stay allowed on July 11, 1988 the city council called up for review site plan no. 88-07 regarding the development of the I-5 RV park proposal. The focus of the discussion was to determine whether the length of stay in the park should be greater or less than six months. In a July 1, 1988 letter to the mayor and council, Mr. Kenneth Bush conveyed the planning commission had approved a six-month time limitation for park occupancy. A letter dated July 11, 1990 from his attorney further expounded on the fact that Oregon Administrative Rules 814-29-060(21) makes allowance for up to a six-month stay. The mayor and the majority of the council concurred with the applicant and the planning commission's position. In regard to whether there are persons that reside in the park for more than six months at a time, our code enforcement officer met with the RV park manager on March 18, 1991. The park manager, Bill Caroll, told Officer Culver that no one resides in the park for more than the six- month time period.