Agenda - 02/13/2006CITY OF WOODBURN
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
FEBRUARY 13, 2006 - 7:00 P.M.
KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR
WALTER NICHOLS, COUNCILOR WARD J
RICHARD BJELLAND, COUNCILOR WARD II
PETER MCCALLUM, COUNCILOR WARD III
JAMES COX, COUNCILOR WARD IV
FRANK/ONEROAN, COUNCILOR WARD U
ELIDA SlFUENTEZ, COUNCILOR WARD Vi
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 270 MONTGOMERY STREET
e
CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS
Announcements:
A. City Hall and the Woodburn Public Library will be closed
Monday, February 20, 2006, in observance of the Presidents'
Day holiday. The Aquatic Center will be open regular hours.
B. A public hearing will be held on February 27, 2006 to consider
ambulance rates.
Appointments:
None.
PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS
Proclamations:
None.
Presentations:
None.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Chamber of Commerce
B. Woodburn Downtown Association
C. Woodburn School District
COMMUNICATIONS
None.
al (5o3198o-~-48%'
February 13, 2006 Council Agenda Page i
BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC - This allows the public to introduce items
for Council consideration not already scheduled on the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA - Items listed on the consent agenda are considered
routine and may be enacted by one motion. Any item may be removed
for discussion at the request of a Council member.
A. Woodburn City Council minutes of JanuaryS,, 2006
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes.
Be
Woodburn Memorial Aquatic Center Revenue Comparison
Recommended Action: Accept the report.
C. Planning Project Tracking Sheet dated 2/1/06
Recommended Action: Accept the report.
Building Activity for January 2006
Recommended Action: Accept the report.
Ee
Claims for January 2006
Recommended Action: Accept the report.
Fe
2005 Police Department Statistics
Recommended Action: Accept the report.
G. Highway 214 Sidewalk- Phase 3
Recommended Action: Accept the report.
9. TABLED BUSINESS
18
19
21
22
28
30
10.
None,
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2005-06 Supplemental Budget Hearing
Recommended Action: Conduct public hearing, receive
public comment, and direct staff to prepare an ordinance to
substantiate its decision.
33
February 13, 2006 Counc# Agenda Page ii
11.
GENERAL BUSINESS - Members of the public wishing to comment on items of
general business must complete and submit a speaker's card to the City
Recorder prior to commencing this port/on of the Council's agenda.
Comment time may be limited by Mayoral prerogative.
ke
Council Bill 2609 - Ordinance entering into an amended and
restated Intergovernmental Agreement for the Regional
Automated Information Network; authorizing the Mayor and
City Administrator to sign said agreement; and declaring an
emergency
Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance.
Be
Council Bill 2610 - Ordinance approving Zoning Adjustment
Case File No. 05-02 affecting property located at 120 Smith
Drive; attaching cerlain conditions thereto; and declaring an
emergency
Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance.
Ce
Council Bill 2611 - Ordinance issuing Formal Interpretation
05-01 regarding Ordinance 2227 and declaring an emergency
Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance.
De
Council Bill 2612 - Ordinance making appropriations for a
Community Development Block Grant received during fiscal
year 2005-06 and declaring an emergency
Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance.
Ee
Council Bill 2613- Resolution ratifying the compilation and
indexing of the Legislative Record for Legislative Amendment
05-01 regarding the completion of Periodic Review Work Tasks
Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution.
Training Agreement Portland Police Bureau
Recommended Action: Authorize the Woodburn Police
Department to sign an agreement with the Portland Police
Bureau for police driving range use and training services.
Multiple Bid Award for Police Facility Integrated Building
Security System and Low Power Data Cabling Services
Recommended Action: (1) award the contract for a design
build of the Police Facility Integrated Building Security System to
Entrance Controls, Inc., for $97,860.00 and (2) award the
contract for the Public Address/Paging and Low Power Data
Cabling Services to ESP Technologies for $50,634.60.
46
58
72
80
84
89
95
February 13, 2006 Council Agenda Page iii
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
NEW BUSINESS
PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS -These
are Planning Commission or Administrative Land Use actions that
may be called up by the City Council.
None.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION
A. 1'o consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties
of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation
likely to be filed pursuant to ORS 192.660 (1)(h).
B. To consicJer records that are exempt by law from public
inspection pursuant to ORS 192.660 (1) (f).
17. ADJOURNMENT
February 13, 2006 Council Agenda Page iv
8A
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
TAPE
READING
0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN,
COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, JANUARY 23, 2006.
CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding.
0010 ROLL CALL.
Mayor Figley Present
Councilor Bjelland Present
Councilor Cox Present
Councilor Lonergan Present
Councilor McCallum Present
Councilor Nichols Present
Councilor Sifuentez Present
Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Police Chief Russell,
Public Works Director Tiwari, Interim Community Development Director Zwerdling,
Finance Director Gillespie, Park & Recreation Director Westrick, Public Works Manager
Rohman, Associate Planner Salas, City Recorder Tennant
0042
ANNOUNCEMENTS.
A) Mid-year budget review and fiscal year 2006-07 budget work session will be held
with the Budget Committee on Monday, January 30, 2006, 7:00 p.m., in the City Hall
Council Chambers.
Mayor Figley also encouraged citizens interested in serving on the Budget Committee to
contact the City Administrator's office for an application since there are currently two
vacancies on the Committee.
.0094 PRESENTATION: TOURISM - WOODBURN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
0127
Mayor Figley stated that Executive Director Harville has agreed to postpone his
presentation on Tourism until a future meeting due to the length of this agenda.
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT.
Executive Director Nick Harville reminded the Council that the annual Chamber Dinner
will be held on January 27th. Additionally, the recent Tourism study brought out that the
room tax revenue was down by $17,000 in 2005 however there has been substantial
growth in the room tax over the last five years. It was noted that the revenue decrease can
be accounted for in a number of ways such as the accounting period used by a particular
business not coinciding with December 31.
Page 1 -'Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, 2006
1
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
TAPE
READING
0216
CONSENT AGENDA.
A) approve Council minutes of January 9, 2006;
B) accept the Planning Commission minutes of December 8, 2005;
C) accept the Recreation & Parks Board draft minutes of January 10, 2006;
D) receive the Claims for December 2005;
E) receive the Police Department Statistics for December 2005;
F) receive the Recreation Services Division Attendance Report for November and
December 2005;
G) receive the Fall 2005 Recreation Services Revenue Report;
H) receive the Aquatic Center Revenue Comparison report; and
I) receive the report on the public hearing relating to the proposed sale of property to
Habitat for Humanity.
City Administrator Brown stated that he had distributed updated copies of the Recreation
Services report to the Council just prior to the start of this meeting and this report does
include anticipated revenue rather than just what the revenue flow has been within this
program. On a future report, staff will go back and pick-up the revenue information from
earlier this fiscal year.
Councilor McCallum expressed his appreciation in receiving the recreation program
report along with the new format being used to present the information.
MCCALLUM/NICHOLS... adopt the consent agenda as presented. The motion passed
unanimously.
0300 TABIJED BUSINESS: UNION PACIFIC PIPELINE CROSSING AGREEMENT.
0360
COX/SIFUENTEZ... remove this item from the table and take it up for consideration
under General Business item 11G. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: FORMAL INTERPRETATION 05-01 FOR THE
LOCATION OF A SECURE RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY (1605 E.
LINCOLN ROAD).
Councilor McCallum stated that in reviewing the materials within the agenda, he has
noticed that the applicant is represented by counsel from Davis, Wright, Tremaine in
Portland and his wife is an employee of that firm. Therefore, he will declare a conflict of
interest and excuse himself from discussion and deliberation.
Mayor Figley stated that the Council would proceed with the hearing as if Councilor
McCallum was not in attendance.
Mayor Figley opened the hearing on Formal Interpretation 05-01 at 7:09 p.m..
Councilor Cox stated that he was on the Planning Commission when this property was
originally determined but did not feel that it would disqualify him from participating
since, from his understanding, it is a legislative issue.
Attorney Shields stated that he has done some thorough research and being on the
Planning Commission when the original development was before the Commission and/or
Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, ~006
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
TAPE
READING
0840
Council would not disqualify him from this process.
Councilor Bjelland stated that he was also on the Planning Commission when this
development was originally considered by the City.
Mayor Figley stated that she is quite familiar with the property in question.
Councilor Nichols stated that he has previously visited the property.
Councilor Sifuentez stated that she knows where the property is located but has not been
on site.
Mayor Figley also asked if there were any challenges and no one came before the Council
to express a challenge.
Recorder Tennant read the land use statement required under ORS Chapter 197.
Interim Director Zwerdling stated that Tele-Care Medical Health Services, Inc. and Erik
Berkey are co-applicants who have submitted a formal interpretation application
requesting Ordinance No. 2227 be interpreted to allow for the use of property located at
1605 E. Lincoln Road as a secured residential care facility. In 1998, the Council adopted
Ordinance No. 2227 which granted a conditional zone change from single family
residential to commercial general and Section 2 of this ordinance stated that it would only
allow an elderly group care facility. Staff has requested that a formal interpretation be
made by the Council for the purpose of determining if the proposed use of the property is
the same use specified by Ordinance No. 2227. Co-applicant Tele-Care Medical Health
Services intends to operate a 15-bed mental health care facility licensed by the State of
Oregon which would provide temporary and semi-permanent housing for individuals
requiring treatment for mental disabilities. Facility staff provides 24-hour supervision of
residents who have been placed in the facility by the Psychiatric Security Review Board
(PSRB). Interim Director Zwerdling stated that the Section 3 of Ordinance No. 2227
only allowed an elderly group care facility and any change to this conditional zone change
requires a zone change process. Additionally, the co-applicants plan on making this a
secure facility by installing non-breakable windows, fire pull stations will be equipped
with locks or alarm covers, and installation of an 8-foot high chain link fence.
Additionally, several of the rooms fi.om the existing building will be converted to
office/administration rooms. A change in the facility use also requires a change in the
occupancy from SR 1.2 (Alzheimer and Dementia residents) to R-4 for a secured
residential care facility. She reiterated that staff is recommending that the Council make
thc interpretation that thc secured residential facility use proposed by the co-applicants is
not the same as the elderly group care facility use specified by Ordinance No. 2227.
Councilor Cox questioned if the letter presented to the Council from the Oregon
Advocacy Center is to be made a part of the record.
Interim Director Zwerdling stated that it is to be entered into the record (Exhibit 1).
Recorder Tennant also stated Pegge McGuire, Executive Director fo the Fair Housing
Council of Oregon, submitted a document entitled "Background Information about Fair
Housing for Neighborhood Groups" to be entered into the record (Exhibit 2).
Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, 2~06
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
TAPE
READING
1608
Dean Phillips, attomey from Davis,Wright,Tremaine representing the co-applicants,
stated that he would be introducing several individuals to supplement the testimony. He
stated that there has been a substantial delay with respect to the approvals for the use of
this facility and that Interim Director Zwerdling had accurately stated the issue before the
Council which is whether this proposed use is a continuation of a use that was existing on
the facility. They feel that there are one or more individuals within the City that do not
want the secured residential care facility since they have encountered a number of
roadblocks over the last several months even though this is simple question of whether or
not it is a continued use. He entered into the record a set of photographs of the facility
(Exhibit 3).
2345
Kevin McChesney, 3204 NE 15th Ave, Portland, stated that he is the Regional Operations
Director for Telecare Mental Health Services of Oregon and their planned use of the
building is to make it into a secured residential facility for 15 residents who are currently
in the State Hospital and have achieved maximum benefit at that level of care. He stated
that this is a typical transition for those individuals and it is their first step towards
reintegration into normal community living. A psychiatrist does assessments, prescribes
medications, and will do medication management to educate the residents about the
medication and why it is necessary for those individuals to take the medication. A RN is
also on site 24-hours a day to assist with the administration of medication and to treat
minor medical conditions. Other programs they provide include basic skills training,
money management, supported choice making to help individuals to make good decisions
so that they can live successfully in community settings. He stated that Telecare
operates programs in 5 states and, included in those programs, there are about 1,000
locked beds. They are cun'ently operating two facilities in Oregon one of which is
located in Gresham and the other facility in southeast Portland. The average age of
residents at the southeast Portland facility is 40 which is similar to those who would be
coming out of the State Hospital. He stated that the licenses of care issued by the State
are the same for the Alzheimer and Dementia program versus the secured residential
treatment. Both are programs treating adults with mental illnesses and provide access to
community services to help establish or maintain normalcy in the lives of the residents.
He stated that the window replacement is a licensing requirement, security feature, and a
liability issue. All of the gates and doors are locked with a magnetic lock that is tied into
the fire alarm system so that doors will unlock in the event of a fire, otherwise there will
be control for ingress and egress. He stated that residents will be sent out into the
community with staff for purposes of community re-integration.
Erik Berkey, co-applicant, requested a decision pertaining to future usage of his former
Dementia and Alzheimer facility (Countryside Living). The facility was built in 1999 as
a 16-bed facility but he had to close the facility in January 2005 due to high maintenance
cost and ratio to the number of residents. He had contacted numerous businesses and
organizations to see if they would be interested in the building and eventually found
Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, ~006
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
TAPE
READING
3842
Telecare who was interested in utilizing his building for a secured residential facility.
The City's Community Development Director had provided a letter of approval on April
19, 2005 stating that a group care facility use is allowed to continue on the property
located at 1605 E. Lincoln Road as long as the use does not cease for a continuous period
of six months. On the basis of this approval, he signed a lease in good faith with Telecare
but, after signing the lease, there was a change in City personnel and there were a number
of postponements by the City resulting in the specified length of time expiring. He stated
that the building has been vacant for over a year and is causing him financial hardship.
Telecare would like to use his existing building to provide an additional treatment facility
in Oregon. Other than changing the windows, there is not structural changes being made.
Attomey Phillips stated Telecare has asked that the fence be 8-foot in height rather than
6-foot but they are willing to install a 7-foot fence in compliance with the City code.
Mary Claire Buckley, Executive Director of the Psychiatric Security Review Board
(PSRB), stated that PSRB assumes jurisdiction over all persons found guilty, except for
insanity, of a crime in Oregon. The Board is made up of 5 members - Probation Officer,
Psychiatrist, Psychologist, Attorney, and a member of the general public. The Board's
primary purpose is to protect the public and that is accomplished through the management
and treatment of these individuals. Individuals who would be placed in this facility
would be placed on a conditional release since they are no longer in need of the level of
care provided by the State Hospital. They have undergone years of treatment at Oregon
State Hospital and have successfully completed their course of treatment. The Board
would issue an evaluation order and submit their exhibit file so that any community
mental health agency such as Telecare will know everything about the individual and they
will do their own independent assessment before a final decision is made by the Board.
Any conditions outlined by the agency are again reviewed by the Board and any
additional conditions can be placed on the individual as part of the conditional release.
Once the individual is released to a treatment facility, the Board will continue to monitor
these individuals.
Councilor Lonergan questioned if this type of facility could be found in Marion County
since Ms. Buckley had stated that there are currently 320 individuals out on conditional
releases.
She stated that Marion County Mental Health has a number of foster homes but this is the
first secured facility in Marion County. Additionally, there is a tremendous need for this
type of facility.
Councilor Cox requested clarification on who makes the final decision on whether an
individual is accepted into the facility.
Ms. Buckley stated that the Board makes the final decision but Telecare can determine
whether or not they are willing to accept the State's clients. This type of facility is the
first step from the State Hospital and, if an individual is ready to move from this level of
care, the individual would then be moved to a different level of care.
Michael Morris, Mental Health Policy Manager for the State office of Mental Health &
Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, 2~906
TAPE
READING
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
Addiction Services, stated that his staff did tour this facility and did provide some
feedback to Telecare. The licensing staff was very pleased with the condition of the
facility and how close it meets the State's standards. Once a new provider is licensed,
they do a 90-day site review and then reviews are done once every 3 years. In regards to
the State Hospital, there has been a lot of public attention and this facility is one of the
key solutions in addressing overpopulation at the State Hospital for those individuals who
do not need to be at the State Hospital. He reiterated that the PSRB is not part of their
agency and they continue to remind Telecare of public safety which is why they work
very closely with PSRB to make sure that the community safety is addressed when setting
up programs for their residents.
Bob Joondeph, Executive Director of Oregon Advocacy Center, stated that the letter he
had submitted to the Council addressed housing issues for individuals being treated for
mental diseases or disorders. Under the Fair Housing Act, discrimination against persons
with mental illnesses is prohibited and hoped that the Council would take this federal law
into account when deliberating on this issue. He understands that the Council's main
consideration is for the citizens of Woodburn but he requested that they also look at
offering the most decent care to people who have suffered mental diseases and disorders.
Individuals under the jurisdiction of PSRB have a maximum time period of 20 years and
then the individual will be released back into the communities. By having adequate
supervision, treatment, and step down care, the transition back into the communities will
complete the treatment program.
Kevin McChesney stated that Telecare assesses each individual as they come into their
facility and outings are generally goal oriented rather than just riding in a car.
Recreational activities include movies, bowling, and parks and other types of activities
that families would normally do on a weekend. Telecare also encourages individuals to
participate in volunteer activities. Training related outings include riding a bus, going to
a Library, computer training and intemet access. If an individual is willing and able to
work, Telecare will assist in finding opportunities for individuals to learn job skills for re-
integration into normal community lifestyle roles.
Mayor Figley questioned if all of the proposed residents of this facility would fall under
the PSRB and have done things that would be crimes except for their mental health
condition.
Mr. McChesney stated that the residents would be under PSRB since they had been guilty
of a crime(s) except for insanity. In regards to State licensing, there was a change in the
universal building code classification system and SR 2.2 (rather than 1.2) and R 4.0 are
the same designation. He also stated that SR 2.2 and R 4.0 have the same building code
requirements.
Attorney Phillips provided a written presentation for the record (Exhibit 4). He stated
that Mr. Berkey did operate a residential care facility between 1999 and 2005. This was
also a secured facility treating individuals with mental diseases (Alzheimer's and
Dementia). In his opinion, the proposed use of the property is a continued use of the
Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, ~006
TAPE
READING
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
facility that was operated by Mr. Berkey. Ordinance No. 2227 is the applicable ordinance
for the use of this site and the critical aspect is that the Council has a zoning ordinance
before them that provided for a single use facility. Since the Council had decided in their
original deliberations to add the term "elderly" to the group care facility, a zoning
standard was adopted that is, in essence, unenforceable because it provides no guidance to
the applicants as to what it can do to comply with the facility. There is no definition of
the term elderly and suggested that the Council take this into consideration during their
deliberations. Secondly, the record provided as a basis for the staffreport is problematic
as well in that it infers that the facility should not be used for people with mental illness
and suggested that it nothing more than discrimination on the basis of a mental
deficiency. He urged the Council to make an interpretation of the ordinance that it is a
continuation of the use of the property because it is the same use that was made of the
initial facility that being a residential treatment facility for people with mental disease.
He stated that there is no change to the original site plan and they will continue to object
to the staff recommending imposition of criteria as if this was a new facility. The issues
about the windows, office space, and alarm are building code issues and not zoning
issues. Nor is there anything in the record that would require a specific State license for
operating the facility. The record does indicate that it has to be for an elderly group care
facility but it does not provide for a definition of elderly. In regards to the fence, the 7-
foot fence is a requirement within the City's zoning code and they would agree to the
installation of a 7-foot fence. Lastly, their initial application in April 2005 requested the
Community Development Director's interpretation under the WDO as to whether or not
this use was an approved use. Director Mulder responded with a letter dated April 19,
2005 indicating that the proposed used as proposed by Telecare was a continued use if it
would be continuous in a period of six months. However, due to the City's process, they
have been unable to continue the use. After April 19, 2005, Mr. Berkey and Telecare
entered into a lease on May 5, 2005 in good faith reliance on the letter from Director
Mulder. On May 19, 2005, they received a letter from Director Mulder changing his
mind and informing them that he would be submitting the interpretation to the Council.
He stated that the standards and criteria within the staff report are for a brand new
building and, in this case, it is use of an existing facility. This facility will provide a
benefit to the property owner, Telecare, and the State of Oregon for those individuals who
need this type of treatment in a secured facility environment. The primary concern of the
PSRB is protection of the public and before individuals can be released to this type of
facility, they undergo a tremendous amount of screening to determine if they can be
placed into a community. Telecare also has the ability to accept or deny an individual
proposed to be placed in their facility. He requested that the Council carefully consider
this decision since they are providing an opportunity to correct what they think is a
decision that is without justification either in fact or justification in the law. He also
reiterated his opinion that this is a continued use of a treatment facility for individuals
involved in a mental disease or defect.
Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, 2006
?
TAPE
READING
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
0196
0421
0652
Councilor Lonergan questioned how many neighbors showed up for the neighborhood
meeting.
Mr. McChesney stated that there were four neighbors representing 3 households at the
meeting.
Councilor Lonergan also questioned if the psychiatrist was a full-time staff member.
Mr. McChesney stated that Telecare has a psychiatrist under contract who will work 10
hours per week at this facility and additional hours at Telecare's other two facilities in the
Portland area. When this individual is on vacation, they have another psychiatrist who
takes his place.
Mayor Figley questioned if the Telecare facilities in Portland serve the same type of
population or do those individuals have other mental health issues.
Mr. McChesney stated that they do get some people that have been under PSRB
jurisdiction but most of the individuals are civilly committed to the care of the Office of
Mental Health and Addiction Services for a period of 180 days.
Pegge McGuire, Executive Director of Fair Housing Council of Oregon, stated that she
had submitted informational material to the Council on fair housing issues relating to
disability to hopefully clarify issues relating to protected classes. She stated that the Fair
Housing Council is a private non-profit Fair Housing organization founded in 1990 with
their primary work in education, outreach, and enforcement related activities around
housing discrimination issues. She stated that this facility was previously used for people
with disabilities and the applicant wants to continue to use it for people with a different
set of disabilities. Those people are protected under the fair housing laws and to treat this
group of people with different disabilities differently is, in their opinion, a fair housing
violation. Even though the Council knows about discrimination, sometimes individuals
do not understand that with disability discrimination there is a affirmative obligation for
the decision makers to remove barriers that exist for people. She urged the Council to
approve the application for the facility.
Inez Berkey, 17575 Landura Ct., Hubbard, shared some experiences she had in growing
up with several family members that had mental illnesses. There were no residential
facilities available during those years and follow-up care minimal. She felt that there are
many families within Woodbum are at a loss as to what to do with family members that
are mentally disabled. This type of facility will provide individuals with professional
help and will provide individuals with a safe place to live. She urged the Council to
support the application and thanked Telecare for their willingness to help the mentally ill.
Jack Berkey, 17575 Landura Ct., Hubbard, stated that he had witnessed a lot of what his
wife had shared with the Council and knows that there is a need for a facility to provide
residential treatment. He also stated that he was supporting his son Erik since the facility
has been vacant for sometime. The facility is very nice and a plus for the City.
Rod Calkins, Mental Health Director for the Marion County Health Department, stated
that he is concerned with assuring the well-being and appropriate treatment of individuals
with mental illness. Their program goal is to assist people to reach their goals in terms of
Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, 21~06
TAPE
READING
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
1162
1460
recovery. Factors for recovery include medication, community support, and stable
housing. Rather than an abrupt transition without any supports, a community based
program such as the one proposed by Telecare will provide an opportunity for individuals
with mental illness to learn and practice the skills that they will need for successful
transition back into the community. The program proposed by Telecare represents sound
treatment and an opportunity for individuals to improve their lives. He urged the Council
to support their proposal.
Yvonne Rice, 3815 Dakota Rd SE, Salem, stated that she has been diagnosed with a
mental illness for many years and have been hospitalized many times over a number of
years in various types of institutions. She felt that the secured residential treatment
facility will offer other individuals a chance for lasting change. She had stayed in secured
residential treatment facility for approximately 180 days and during that time she was
given the time, safety, structure, and practice in the community to move forward and lead
a productive life. It is her belief that this proposed facility could offer the mentally ill the
chance to become people again.
Matt Kennedy, 9790 SW Nimbus, Beaverton, stated that he served as Mr. Berkey's agent
on this property. He stated that when Mr. Berkey operated the facility, dementia was not
age specific. Mr. Berkey ran a business at the facility which benefitted the community
over the last five years. City staff had provided Mr. Berkey with a written decision to
allow continuation of the use but then the decision was changed at a later date. The
building costs Mr. Berkey approximately $8,000 for every month the building is vacant
and feels that this process and the hurdles that have been placed on Mr. Berkey have been
unjust.
Molly Gorger, 7615 Chestnut, Tigard, stated that she would like the Council to seriously
consider, and approve, this application for a secured home for patients leaving the State
Hospital. At this facility, they will be able to begin rebuilding their lives and put them a
step closer for personal responsibility and normal living circumstances. With medication,
education, and learning effective management of their illnesses will provide most of these
individuals the ability to return to useful work, be productive, and regain their life. More
homes both secured and partially secured are needed for these individuals so that they can
move on and rebuild their lives with their disability. She stated that she has a son under
the PSRB and that she is thankful for the PSRB because if there is ever a difficulty the
PSRB will take care of it.
Marilyn Birodes, 1560 E. Lincoln Rd., Woodburn, stated that she is not opposed to this
facility but does live across the street. She wanted to go onto the record that when the
transitional outings do occur that the individuals will be supervised. She had attended the
neighborhood meeting and it was understood that individuals could go out on their own
once they reach a certain point. Even though it is mental illness, most of the individuals
will have a criminal background and she wants to be protected.
Mary Reitan, Administrator of the Countryside facility in Canby and former
Administrator of the Woodburn facility, stated that residents went on daily supervised
Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, 7ti)06
TAPE
READING
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
1883
visits to various locations in the area and they never had any issues with the businesses.
These visits provided the residents with an opportunity to experience life by getting out
into a variety of social settings. She urged the Council to support the application for the
proposed facility.
The Council took a short recess from 9:02 p.m until 9:07 p.m.
Michael Roth, representing Roth's Family Market, stated that their grocery store is
located at 948 N. Pacific Highway and has served Woodbum since 1967. Their property
shares the property line with the applicant and, in 1998, Roth's did support the zone
change so that the facility for Alzheimer care could be built. In 2006, they were notified
that the use would be changed and they do not feel that the proposed use of the facility
would be a compatible neighbor. They oppose the change of use for the following
reasons:
1) more time needs to be taken to find a home for these individuals that is completely
away from a residential area and a business like a grocery store;
2) the grocery store has a large supply of beer and wine;
3) the southeast quadrant of Woodbum along Highway 99E continues to struggle as an
area with a reputation of being unsafe and not attracting capital for re-development and
this type of facility will not help with efforts to revitalize this area; and
4) even though some people's hardships will potentially be ending and a whole new
group of people's hardships could be beginning.
He stated that this facility will be a revolving door for some potentially high risk
individuals and he urged the Council not to approve the proposed facility. He also
submitted a letter for the record (Exhibit 5).
During rebuttal, Attomey Phillips requested that Mary Claire Buckley address the issue of
alcohol that might be available at Roth's grocery store.
Ms. Buckley stated that PSRB has absolute prohibition against the use of alcohol and
non-prescribed drugs in every conditional release order. It is true that a number of their
clients are duly diagnosed, however these individuals have received treatment and it has
been determined that it has been addressed and will continue to be addressed when they
live in facilities such as Telecare. PSRB also requires that individuals submit to random
urine analysis to assure that they are not using alcohol or drugs while on conditional
release.
Councilor Bjelland questioned the age range of individuals conditionally released.
Ms. Buckley stated that the average age of their clients is 42 and this program would be
targeted for this age or above. They do have clients that are younger in age but they also
have other programs available that deal more specifically with younger clients.
In regards to supervision, PSRB's primary concern is to protect the public and if there is
any concern that any individual poses a danger to the community then they would not be
released from the State Hospital. This would be a locked facility and when the
individuals go out into the community they will be accompanied by Telecare staff. She
Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23~}006
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
TAPE
READING
stated that she understood the concerns but did not think it was warranted given the
monitoring and supervision that is maintained on these individuals. She reiterated that
movement from the State Hospital to a residential facility is a voluntary step but they
have to agree to conditions and, if they do not abide by one or more of the conditions,
then they immediately retum to the State Hospital.
Councilor Lonergan questioned if a resident could get out on their own to go to a
neighborhood market to purchase alcohol.
Attorney Phillips stated that this is a secured facility but there still be an opportunity for
an individual to break out of the facility. In other facilities operated by Telecare, there
has not been an instance of an individual breaking out of a facility. If it were to happen,
notification is made immediately to PSRB and to the Police Department. Once the
individual has been located and brought back to the facility, PSRB will make the decision
as to whether or not the individual is to be returned to the State Hospital.
Mr. McChesney stated that some of Telecare's facilities do allow voluntary
commitments, however, it is highly unlikely that this facility will have any voluntary
commitments. They have been working with PSRB and the State and since there is a
high demand for this type of facility, it is anticipated that all of the individuals in this
facility will be under PSRB jurisdiction which is an involuntary commitment pursuant to
conditional release under a court order.
2909
Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 9:22 p.m..
The Mayor stated that the main issue before the Council is what does Section 3 of
Ordinance No. 2227 really mean and whether or not the proposed facility is considered to
be the same as the original use.
Councilor Nichols stated that the federal government has lowered the age from 55 to 50
and feels that it is difficult to define elderly as a certain age unless it is standardized
otherwise discrimination could be involved. Based on the testimony at this heating, he
felt that proposed facility is a continued use of the property.
Councilor Cox stated that he agreed with the proponents on most of the comments and
this program is necessary. He stated that most of the arguments he heard at this meeting
seem to be arguments that would be addressed as to why the zone should be changed.
The question is whether or not this is a proposed use that is an elderly group care facility.
He stated that it is a care facility but did not feel that it was an elderly care facility. He
did not feel that he was being prejudiced or violating the rights of the disabled by making
these comments. If a proper application is made to the City, it will be addressed on its
merits. He stated that he was on the Planning Commission when this was originally
discussed, has re-read the minutes, and, if the term elderly is to vague, the record is very
clear that it would be used for a Class 1 residential care facility licensed by the State. He
stated that Class 1 is a high standard residential care facility for individuals with
Alzheimer and Dementia. He reiterated that the zone change approach is a more
appropriate avenue for the property owner to take to either expand the condition or have
Page 11 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, 2006
11
TAPE
READING
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
3621
4463
4733
the condition removed completely.
Attorney Shields reviewed Section 3 of Ordinance No. 2227 which stated that the zone
change would only allow an elderly group care facility and approval of any other use
would require a zone change process. If an interpretation is made that the proposed use is
a continuation of the same use granted in 1998, then it will be a permitted use. However,
is an interpretation is that it is not the same use, then the applicant can apply for a zone
change.
Councilor Bjelland stated that the facility was used for Alzheimer and Dementia patients,
however, not all Alzheimer and Dementia patients are elderly. This facility had mental
health patients in residence provided that Alzheimer and Dementia is a mental health
diagnosis. In his opinion, this is a gray issue before the Council and he is having
difficulty in trying to decide how to resolve the issue. An excellent case has been made
for the need for this type of facility and personally feels that the facility would serve that
purpose well, however, he is trying to reconcile from a legal and land use planning
standpoint what is the appropriate course of action to take. The record from 1998 brought
up a number of issues and eventually the use was for Alzheimer and Dementia facility.
He stated that the distinction between similar use and same use would help him to decide
how to vote on this matter.
Mayor Figley stated that she shared the concerns expressed by Councilor Bjelland. Her
recollection was that the presentation was more toward assisted living and concerns about
commercial encroachment and incompatibility with single family residences were an
issue. Based on what she heard at this heating and if the Council was in the middle of a
zone change, she would find the testimony in favor of the facility to be highly persuasive.
She questioned if the proposed use is the same use granted in 1998.
Councilor Sifuentez expressed her full support of the program but questioned if it should
be a change in the ordinance.
Councilor Cox questioned if there is any standard stated in the ordinance such as being
the same or of no significant difference which would help the Council to make an
interpretation.
Attorney Shields stated that there is nothing in the ordinance that would specifically
address a standard. In this case, the condition is specific to the zone which is not
something done by the Council. He stated that it is clear in Oregon that the law defers to
the Council's interpretation of their own enactment,
Councilor Cox stated that if this was an application that would be approved if it was
before the Council in the proper way and if the Council has the authority under the
ordinance, then maybe the Council should allow the proposed use at the facility.
Councilor Bjelland felt that there is ambiguity in this situation since the words in
Ordinance No. 2227 do not match up with what actually existed at the facility over the
years and an argument can be made that it is a similar use. If the Council can make a
decision on similar use, then he would be in support of this application.
Attorney Shields stated that Ordinance No. 2227 uses the similar use determination
Page 12 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, 2006
12
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
TAPE
READING
phrase but it does not give sufficient guidance on how to apply it.
Councilor Bjelland stated that if the previous use was strictly an elderly care facility
without any other elements such as mental health, then, even though he would be
supportive of a zone change, he would not feel that the Council would have the legal
justification under this provision of the Ordinance to make this interpretation.
Councilor Lonergan stated that the State Licensing Division has testified that there is not
a difference in the license
Councilor Cox questioned Attorney Shields if, in his opinion, the Council has the
authority to say that a secure residential care facility is sufficiently similar to an elderly
group care facility.
Attorney Shields expressed his opinion that the Council does have that authority. In
regards to the interpretation, the Council would need to make a finding that it is similar
and that the conditional zoning that was imposed by the prior decision is complied with
by this proposed facility.
BJELLAND/SIFUENTEZ... make the interpretation as described by Attorney Shields
and support the applicant's position.
Attorney Shields stated that staff will prepare an ordinance with findings supporting the
Council's decision and it will be presented at the next meeting.
On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (5-0).
Councilor McCallum returned to his Council seat.
5575 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2606 - ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2055
(BUSINESS REGISTRATION ORDINANCE) AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Mayor Figley stated that she had discussed with Administrator Brown thc possibility of
deferring debate on this ordinance until such time as an ordinance is drafted that would
combine thc contents of the original ordinance plus the new amendments.
Administrator Brown stated that he had spoken with Councilor Cox earlier today and
there is additional work that can be done on this ordinance to both update it and eliminate
vague language and some internal inconsistencies. Staff would like to make these
updates over the next month and the provide thc draft to the group that has been working
on this issue before it is presented to thc Council for consideration.
Councilor Cox stated that time is of the essence and suggested that it be brought back to
the Council by the first meeting in February.
Administrator Brown stated that staff will work towards that meeting date but it should
be completed by the last meeting in February.
Councilor Lonergan questioned thc exemption status in the current ordinance to any
business that pays a franchise tax or transient occupancy tax since other cities charge both
the tax and the registration fee.
It was noted that the franchise taxes being paid takes care of any others that thc City may
Page 13 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, 2006
115
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
TAPE
READING
6238
charge.
Councilor McCallum stated for the record that his wife is a business owner in Woodbum,
and for the most part, her business is done outside of the City and she does pay for a
business license. He would be taking part in this issue when it does come before the
Council.
Councilor Bjelland stated that one of the issues brought up at the last meeting related to a
definition of home business and he questioned if the draft ordinance would incorporate
that definition.
Administrator Brown stated that staff would be looking at the Woodburn Development
Ordinance (WDO) language and language in business registration ordinances from other
jurisdictions to incorporate some language that would define a home business.
COUNCIL BIl.I, NO. 2607 - RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO WOODBURN
INTERCHANGE AGREEMENT NO. 22933 WITH THE STATE OF OREGON.
Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill No. 2607. Recorder Tennant read the bill by
title only since there were no objections from the Council.
Councilor Cox stated that the agreement is consistent with what has been discussed in
principle and he questioned if there is a need to amend some ordinances to enforce this
interchange agreement.
Public Works Director Rohman stated that the portion dealing with the Interchange
Overlay Management District is included in the WDO. The main purpose of this
agreement is to lay out ground rules on how it will be coordinated and administered
between the City and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).
On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared
Council Bill 2607 duly passed.
656Q
COUNCIL BILL NO. 2608 - RESOLUTION REVISING GUIDELINES,
PROCEDURES, AND PROCESS FOR OBTAINING CITY TOURISM AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUNDS PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE
NO. 2057 (TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX ORDINANCE).
Council Bill No. 2608 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. The bill was read by title
only since there were no objections from the Council.
Councilor McCallum expressed his disappointment that this grant was not a competitive
process as it had been in the past but he understands the reasons why for a one-time grant
award. He reminded the Chamber that this grant is only valid for one year. Additionally,
the City seems to be paying the bills on the Tourism Center and he hoped that other
communities will join in and help with the financial aspect rather than it being placed as a
burden on the City.
On roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill
2608 duly passed.
Page 14 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, 2006
14
TAPE
READING
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
Tape 3
0010 APPEAL OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE FILE NO. 05-02 LOCATED AT 120
SMITH DRIVE.
Mayor Figley stated that some additional testimony was filed which has been distributed
to the Council in the agenda packet.
BJELLAND/MCCALLUM .... concur with the Community Development Director's
decision of approval of Zoning Adjustment Case file no. 05-02 and instruct staffto
prepare and ordinance to substantiate the decision.
Councilor Cox stated that he had read the materially carefully and feels strongly that the
garage is not an extension of the existing building.
On roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously.
0180
EASEMENT EXTINGUISHMENT AND MODIFICATION (RELOCATION OF
EASEMENT)
The casements have been conveyed to thc City by Premier Development, LLC, in
conjunction with Boones Ferry Crossing Phase I development.
BJELLAND/COX... approve the Extinguishment Agreement of a public storm sewer
easement as outlined in Attachment A, and the modification agreement of an existing
public access easement as outlined in Attachment B. The motion passed unanimously.
.0206
OLCC LIQUOR LICENSE - BEAR CREEK STORES, INC.
Staff recommended the approval of a off-premise liquor license submitted by Bear Creek
Stores ]nc, trade name Harry & David, located within the Woodburn Company Stores
shopping complex.
BJELLAND/SIFUENTEZ... recommend to OLCC approval of the liquor license
application for Bear Creek Stores, Inc., trade name Harry & David. The motion passed 5-
1 with Councilor Nichols voting nay.
0240 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD PIPLELINE CROSSING AGREEMENT.
Mayor Figley felt that this issue has taken quite some time and it is now time to make a
decision on the proposed agreement.
Councilor Cox agreed that it was time to make a decision and even though staff is very
much in favor of moving ahead as proposed, he still did not feel that the City should be
entering into a license agreement.
NICItLOLS/SIFUENTEZ... authorize the City Administrator to execute the pipeline
crossing agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad as presented with the understanding
that construction of a safety manhole may be added in the agreement. The motion passed
5-1 with Councilor Cox voting nay.
Page 15 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, 2006
115
TAPE
READING
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JANUARY 23, 2006
0369 PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS.
0477
A) Planning Commission's approval of Design Review 05-12 and Variance 05-19 located
at 515 S. Settlemier (Water Wellhouse);
B) Planning Commission's approval of Partition 05-07 and Variance 05-20 located at
2701 N. Front Street; and
C) Community Development Director's approval of partition 05-06 located at 1791 W.
Lincoln.
No action was taken to bring these land use actions up before the Council for review.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT.
Administrator Brown reminded the Council that they had received a presentation from
ODOT and their consulting traffic engineers who had developed some design work on
improvements to Highway 99E. Within our City, it would have placed some pedestrian
islands along Highway 99E in those areas where there are no crosswalks or signal lights,
plus there was some reconfiguration of the Young Street intersection. At the time, the
Council did not seem overly supportive the pedestrian islands and there were some issues
regarding the need to eliminate and sign. The Council was in favor of the Young Street
interchange improvements and offered some operational concerns for the consultants to
consider. Following the presentation, the consultants did make contact with the business
owners along Highway 99E and, as a result, the business owners were not in favor of the
pedestrian islands. Administrator Brown stated that he has further discussed this issue
with the consultants and suggested that they should make the improvement if they feel it
should be done rather than putting the decision back onto the Council. The consultants
have requested that he ask the Council to see if the Council would like to hear from
ODOT again on the proposed improvements.
Mayor Figley stated that the Council had not made any decision but felt that they had
politely communicated the fact that they were not sure if the pedestrian islands would be
acceptable.
Councilor Bjelland stated that he would like to hear what ODOT's final proposal is and
then give some feedback.
Administrator Brown stated that the improvements are proposed as a result of a study
involving pedestrian and motor vehicle accidents on a lengthy stretch of Highway 99E.
The piece they are looking at right now is within the City and ODOT has indicated that
they do have other things they can spend the money on so they are not interested in
mandating the improvement if the community does not want the islands. ODOT does
believe that the Young Street intersection needs to be improved and they will be making
that improvement. His impression is that if he tells ODOT that the Council is not that
concerned about listening to another presentation and satisfied that ODOT has done their
diligence in the community, then ODOT will not make the pedestrian improvements.
Councilor McCallum stated that money saved by not installing the pedestrian islands
could be used to improve lighting along Highway 99E, install metal strips high off of the
Page 16 - Council Meeting Minutes, January 23, 2006
16
Woodburn Memorial Aquatic Center
Revenue Comparison FY '2004-05 v.s. FY '2005-06
Jug, 2004 July 2005 Aug 2004 A 2005 Se t 2004 S 2005 Oct 2004 Oct 2005 Nov 2_0~ ~A Nov 2005 Dee ~ ,v, Dec 2005
Special Events $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
L~
Rentals L $475.00
omcessiom [ $3,696.81
TOTAL 24,673.65 23,937.90 16,246.71 25,655.01 14,109.00 15,613.59
Attendance 8,253 6,731 5,838 6,008 4,187 2,826
$ Difference -735.75 9,408.30 1,504.59
% Diffexemce -0.03 0.58 O. 11
Dollar Avg $2.99 $3.56 $2.78 $4.27 $3.37 $5.52
Jan 2005 Jan 2006 Feb 2005 Feb 2006 Mar 2005 Mar 2006
L~som
R~tal~
Co~ce~sions
TOTAL 32,801.90 19,728.76 15,413.67 0.00
Al~eadance 4,560 5064 5,178
$ Difference - 13,073.14 - 15,413.67
% Diff'exence -0.40 -1.00
Dollar Avg 7.19 3.90 2.98 #DIV/01
Year to date by account
Admi,s.sions
Memberahipa
Re~ale
2004- 2005 2005- 2006 )ifference
8,202.65 6,753.09 14,286.96 10,732.02 12,010.92 9,992.09
3,998 2,606 4,421 4,336 4,071 3517
-1,449.56 -3,554.94 -2,019
-0.18 -0.25 -0.17
$2.05 $2.59 $3.23 $2.48 $2.95 $2.84
June 2004 June 2006
841 0 -841.14
75,185 39,303 -35,882.34
36,153 15,347 -20,806.03
56,215 34,015 -22,200.36
12,988 6,652 -6,336.37
4,857 2,363 -2,493.86
23,210 14,733 -8,477.11
year to dato total $122,331.79 $112,412.46 -$9,919.33
16,651.07 0.00 15,446.93 0.00 14,425.17 0.00 25,181.04 0.00
5,644 5,398 4,038
-16,651.07 -15,446.93 -14,425.17 -25,181.04
-1.00 -1.00 -1.00 -1.00
2.95 #DIV/0! 2.86 #DIV/01 3.57 #DIW0! #DIV/01 #DIV/0!
Year To Date Summar~
I,o'-I,-..- IRevenue Budget Estimates 1
112,412.n6I
Total R~venu~ 200S-2006 pO0$- 2006 223,000[
~oUars tO da~ $112,412'46I
I Diff.~ce _9.919.33l [o,~ coueaoa year to date 0.5o!
I Pe~e.t c~l~ -0.0fl
Year To Date Attendance
F,_ I
005 2006 31,0881
12 month total $209,449.67 -$97,037,21
Buret
$22,.3,000 -$110,588
PLANNING PROJECT TRACKING SHEET Page 1 of 2
Revised:2/1/2006
Project Date Deemed 120-Day Facili~e~ No~iosf(x Notiosto Post Stf Rp~ PC ~ Final Notlosfo~ to Post StfRp{ CC On1. CCO~d. Appeal
AppliCant Des~i~u~ ~ved ComlX~e Date Planner Refen. als= ;_'.c~g PC Pape~ Property Due Headng Due Ord~ CC Paints Profx~ty Due Hea~ng Due ~ Ends
Change
CPA 04~2, Ptan & zoning &
~ 04.~, concli~xx~ use Incomp~e N~^
Wcxxlland Ave.
Incoml~e '12J17/05
· Ua I~l, William 4 Io~ _~__~,b,,~,~sio~ 0~16/05 06/14/05 ExL to J~so~ ~/22/05
V.~R 0~-tt, Coleman at 715 C~ S~ C~plele
DR 0~'1~, structure ~nd InCOml~le~
CU ~*~,~, S¢~¢~ E~:Is I pan~ng are~ ~ 10/19/05
V~I~..14, ~'~e- e~OCDC 9/19/05 C~ml~sto 5~11106 Jaso~ 111~ 11'19,/06
V~J~0&.I~, Pe~'G~mm ~VooclbumHead
AMR 05-18, Stat at 540
~ 0~-17 Sealemi~ Aw.
VAR ~-18 Valley Ptaza ·
11,360 SF
Hays cxmrtmen:ial 11114/05 Jason
DR 05-t3 An:~__~_ __,re building at 1539 11/30/05
AvemJe
new buildings Inoomplete Breah
DR05-14 GuyWc~den (12.050sftoial) 12/8/05 1/6/06
at 610 N. Pacific
Hwy.
Page 2 of 2
PLANNING PROJECT TRACKING SHEET
Revised:2/1/2006
PUD 0~01 ~ Dane
PUD on
Wmm~rn
Towne C,e~m
Pmt
Brandl Graft Collee, U.C) at
2285 N. paciftc
C~ o~ Gmenway
Woodbum Mam~ Ptan
CITY OF WOODBURN
Community Development
8E)
MEMORANDUM
270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, Oregon 97071
(503) 982-5250
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
February 1,2006
John Brown, City Administrator
Building Division
Building Activity for January 2006
2004 2005 2006
Dollar Dollar Dollar
No. Amount No. Amount No. Amount
New Residence Value 5 $903,783 4 $740,422 5 $786,689
Multi Family 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Assisted Living Facilities0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Residential Adds & Alts I $10,692 2 $78,996 1 $29.500
Industrial 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Commercial Value 6 $52,392 4 $80,782 1 $120,100
Signs, Fences, Driveways 2 $300 3 $9,985 1 $1,500
Manufactured Homes I $40,000 0 $0 1 $4.000
TOTALS 15 $1,007,167 13 $910,185 9 $941,789
Fiscal Year (July 1 - $20,269,907 $16,476,104 $24,617,631
June 30) to Date
I:\Communily Developmefll\Building\Bu~ldmg Actwity~BldgAct-2006~Bldg Acbwly - Men~:liw~ - January 2006.wl:xt
WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y 0 F W 0 0 D B U R N PAGE 1
AP0460
DATE 2/08/06 VEEOT
TIME 8:01:51 CHECK REGISTER
CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCe=
BANK ACCOUNT: AP A/P Accounts Payable
82282 1/31/2006 ALMA IGNACIO RECONCILED YES 1,400.00 1,400.00 .00
82283 1/31/2006 CITY OF WOODBURN PETTY CA RECONCILED YES 161.72 161.72 .00
82284 1/31/2006 OREGON P.E.R.S RECONCILED YES 849.11 849.11 .00
82285 1/]1/2006 STEVE KRIEG RECONCILED YES 193.06 193.06 .00
82286 1/31/2006 AUNDRY PADILLA RECONCILED YES 34.96 34.96 .00
82287 1/31/2006 JEFFERSON PILOT FINANCIAL RECONCILED YES 29.56 29.56 .00
82288 1/31/2006 VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN RECONCILED YES 842.40 842.40 .00
82289 1/06/2006 A & A DRILLING SERVICE IN RECONCILED YES 61.70 61.70 .00
82290 1/06/2006 ;%DAIR HOMES RECONCILED YES 80.00 80.00 .00
82291 1/06/2006 AFANASY BURKOFF RECONCILED YES 33.00 33.00 .00
82292 1/06/2006 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES RECONCILED YES 76.40 76.40 .00
82293 1/06/2006 ANN FINCH RECONCILED YES 313.20 313.20 .00
82296 1/06/2006 A~RCH WIRELESS RECONCILED YES 52.48 52.48 .00
82297 1/06/2006 ASSOC TP~S ENGR & pLAN I RECONCILED YES 365.00 365.00 .00
82298 1/06/2006 AT & T RECONCILED YES 111.21 111.21 .00
82299 1/06/2006 BEERY,ELSNER &HAMMOND LL RECONCILED YES 2,188.90 2,188.90 .00
82300 1/06/2006 BENEJAMIN JR & JENNIFER L RECONCILED YES ]3.00 33.00 .00
82302 1/06/2006 BI-MART CORPORATION RECONCILED YES 11.64 11.64 .00
82303 1/06/2006 BORG CONSTUCTION RECONCILED YES 396.00 396.00 .00
82304 t/06/2006 BROAD REACH RECONCILED YES 208.45 208.45 .00
82305 1/06/2006 BRYCE COURT RECONCILED YES 132.00 132.00 .00
82306 1/06/2006 CAM'S DRYWALL/NAZARI CAM RECONCILED YES 80.00 80.00 .00
82307 1/06/2006 CANBY TELEPHONE ASSOC RECONCILED YES 19.95 19.95 .00
82308 1/06/2006 CDW GOVERNMENT INC RECONCILED YES 249.15 249.15 .00
82309 1/06/2006 CENTEX HOMES RECONCILED YES 462.00 462.00 .00
82310 1/06/2006 CHARLES DYSINGER RECONCILED YES 33.00 33.00 .00
82311 1/06/2006 CHARLES LITTLE RECONCILED YES 80.00 80.00 .00
82312 1/06/2006 CLEMENT BORU RECONCILED YES 132.00 132.00 .00
8231] 1/06/2006 COMPLETE WIRELESS SOLUTNS RECONCILED YES 144.80 144.80 .00
82314 1/06/2006 COMSTOCK DEVELOPMENT RECONCILED YES 613.00 613.00 .00
82316 1/06/2006 DAVID C-ONZ~ES RECONCILED YES 5,177.50 5,177.50 .00
82317 1/06/2006 DAVID M COREY PHD PC RECONCILED YES 160.00 160.00 .00
82318 1/06/2006 DIJAH/qELOS HOMES RECONCILED YES 2,746.00 2,746.00 .00
82320 1/06/2006 DP NORTHWEST INC RECONCILED YES 330.00 330.00 .00
82321 1/06/2006 DUANE DUKLETH RECONCILED YES 132.00 132.00 .00
82323 1/06/2006 ERIC HENRY RECONCILED YES 33.00 33.00 .00
82324 1/06/2006 ESCHELON TELECOM INC RECONCILED YES 510.50 510.50 .00
82325 1/06/2006 FARMWORKERS HOUSING DEVEL RECONCILED YES 1,228.50 1,228.50 .00
82326 1/06/2006 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP RECONCILED YES 179.50 179.50 .00
82328 1/06/2006 FRED & FOKA CAM RECONCILED YES 142.00 142.00 .00
82330 1/06/2006 G.W. HARDWARE CENTER RECONCILED YES 31.92 31.92 .00
82331 1/06/2006 GARY LEE VAUGHN RECONCILED YES 1,320.00 1,320.00 .00
82332 1/06/2006 GENE F~RAITEN RECONCILED YES 33,00 33.00 .00
823]3 1/06/2006 GENE WELLMAN RECONCILED YES 80.00 80.00 .00
82334 1/06/2006 GENEALOGICAL PUBLISHING C RECONCILED YES 117.81 117.81 .00
82335 1/06/2006 GEOENGINEERS INC RECONCILED YES 3,857.45 3,857.45 .00
82336 1/06/2006 GOV'T FINANCE OFFICERS AS RECONCILED YES 205.00 205.00 .00
82337 1/06/2006 GUILLERMO LLAMOS RECONCILED YES 62.00 62.00 .00
82338 1/06/2006 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY RECONCILED YES 80.00 80.00 .00
82339 1/06/2006 HENDERSON HOMES RECONCILED YES 62.00 62.00 .00
82340 1/06/2006 HERITAGE HOMES RECONCILED YES 5,672.00 5,672.00 .00
82341 1/06/2006 HOLLMAN CO RECONCILED YES 622.00 622.00 .00
PAGE 2
WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y 0 F W 0 0 D B U R N AP0460
DATE 2/08/06 CHECK REGISTER VEEOT
TIME 8:01:51
CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE
.......... ==================================================================
.............. = .................................................. YES 90.81 90.81 .00
82342 1/06/2006 INGRAMDIST. GROUP RECONCILED
82343 1/06/2006 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCI RECONCILED YES 290.50 290.50 .00
82344 1/06/2006 INTL ASSOC FOR PROPERTY &
82347 1/06/2006 JEFFERY & TAWANA BREWER
82348 1/06/2006 JOA~I & RANDY BRACK
82349 1/06/2006 JOHANNES VANDERWEY
82350 1/06/2006 JOHN ROEHM CONSTRUCTION
82351 1/06/2006 JOY CONSTRUCTION
82352 1/06/2006 KENNEDY JENKS CONSULT INC
82353 1/06/2006 KERRY YORK
82354 1/06/2006 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY
82355 1/06/2006 LANDRISE DEVELOPMHNT
82356 1/06/2006 LUCKEY CO
82357 1/06/2006 LYDA LEON
82358 1/06/2006 LYNN PEAVEY CORPORATION
82359 1/06/2006 MARC MASTERSON
82361 1/06/2006 MARLAAHRE
82362 1/06/2006 MATT MONTGOMERY CONSTRUCT
82364 1/06/2006 METROFUELING INC
82365 1/06/2006 MID-WILLAMETTE UTILITY CO
82367 1/06/2006 MONTH MILLER
82368 1/06/2006 NESTOR REUTOV
82369 1/06/2006 NET ASSETS CORPORATION
82370 1/06/2006 NORTHWEST NATUPJ%L GAS
82371 1/06/2006 OA~4R
82372 1/06/2006 OR STATE POLICE ID SERVIC
82373 1/06/2006 PETE MELIN
82374 1/06/2006 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC
82375 1/06/2006 POWELL BUILT HOMES INC
82376 1/06/2006 PREMIER HOME BUILDERS
82377 1/06/2006 QUALITY PLUS INTERIORS
82378 1/06/2006 QWEST
82379 1/06/2006 QWEST
82380 1/06/2006 R.B.& G. CONSTRUCTION, LL
82381 1/06/2006 RENAISSARCE CUSTOM HOMES
82382 1/06/2006 RICHARD SWENSON
82383 1/06/2006 RICK CH~RIS
82384 1/06/2006 ROSEMONT APARTMENTS
82385 1/06/2006 S.O.S. LOCK SERVICE
82386 1/06/2006 SALVADOR MORALES
82387 1/06/2006 SERGE SERDSEV
82389 1/06/2006 SLAYDEN CONSTRUCTION INC
82390 1/06/2006 SPRINT
82391 1/06/2006 STAYTON CONSTRUCTION
82392 1/06/2006 STEVE MENDONCA
82393 1/06/2006 TASSY DAVIS
82394 1/06/2006 TAURINO LOPEZ
82395 1/06/2006 THOMAS A DUENES
82396 1/06/2006 THOMAS I~SEN
82397 1/06/2006 TOM CAPPS
82399 1/06/2006 TROFF
82401 1/06/2006 UNEQUALLED JANITORIAL SVC
82402 1/06/2006 UNITED DISPOSAL/ALLIED WA
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YHS
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YHS
YES
50.00
33.00
62.00
33.00
62.00
1,544.00
42,262.17
80.00
81.19
396.00
4,478.00
33.00
155.40
33.00
132.00
528.00
3,589.70
52.00
344.00
33.00
1,179.00
17,145.08
40.00
12.00
80.00
29,703.27
124.00
35,148.00
396.00
166.12
1,057.35
176,338.69
6,349.00
33.00
344,00
132.00
45.00
80.00
240.00
57,045.00
90.57
396.00
80.00
620.00
225.00
160.00
33.00
33.00
132.00
438.00
632.00
50.00
33.00
62.00
33.00
62.00
1,544.00
42,262.17
80.00
81.19
396.00
4,478.00
33.00
155.40
33.00
132.00
528.00
3,589.70
52.00
344.00
33.00
1,179.00
17,145.08
40.00
12.00
80.00
29,703.27
124.00
35,148.00
396.00
166.12
1,057.35
176,338-69
6,349.00
33.00
344.00
132.00
45.00
80.00
240.00
57,045.00
90.57
396.00
80.00
620.00
225.00
160.00
33.00
33.00
132.00
438.00
632.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
PAGE 3
WOODEURN LIVE C I T Y 0 P W 0 0 D E U R N AP0460
VEEOT
DATE 2/08/06 CHECK REGISTER
TIME 8:01:51
CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENCE
....... ====================================================================================
................................................... RECONCILED YES 4,369.21 4,369.21 ]~
82403 1/06/2006 US BANK
82405 1/06/2006 WE BE CONSTRUCTION RECONCILED YES 1,096.00 1,096.00
82407 1/06/2006
82408 1/06/2006
82409 1/06/2006
82410 1/06/2006
82411 1/06/2006
82412 1/06/2006
82413 1/31/2006
82414 1/31/2006
82415 1/]1/2006
82416 1/31/2006
82418 1/31/2006
82419 1/13/2006
82421 1/13/2006
82422 1/13/2006
82423 1/13/2006
82424 1/13/2006
82425 1/13/2006
82427 1/13/2006
82428 1/13/2006
82430 1/13/2006
82431 1/13/2006
82432 1/13/2006
82433 1/13/2006
82434 1/13/2006
82435 1/13/2006
82436 1/13/2006
82437 1/13/2006
82438 1/13/2006
82439 1/13/2006
82440 1/13/2006
82441 1/13/2006
82442 1/13/2006
82443 1/13/2006
82444 1/13/2006
82445 1/13/2006
82446 1/13/2006
82447 1/13/2006
82448 1/13/2006
82449 1/13/2006
82450 1/13/2006
82451 1/13/2006
82452 1/13/2006
82454 1/13/2006
82455 1/13/2006
82457 1/13/2006
82458 1/13/2006
82459 1/13/2006
82460 1/13/2006
82461 1/13/2006
82462 1/13/2006
82464 1/13/2006
WESTATE CONSTRUCTION
WESTWIND CONSTRUCTION
WILLIAM CHRISTIANSEN
WOODBURN INDEPENDENT
WOODBURN PLUMBING
YES GRAPHICS
NITA J MARR
SCOTT STINSON
EBS
RICHARD MCCORD
VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN
ACE CHEMICAL TOILETS
ADVANCED RV PAINTING & RE
ANN FINCH
ARAMARKUNIFORM NATIONAL
ARAMARKUNIFORM SERVICE
ARCH WIRELESS
ASHLAND BROTHERS LANDSCAP
ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL CORP
AT & T
AWARDS AND ATHLETICS
BARKER SURVEYING CORP
BEN SHEVCHENKO
BI-MART CORPORATION
BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM & EQUI
BOLDT, C~LISLE & SMITH L
BROWN & C~DWELL INC
CASCADE POOLS
CDW GOVERNMENT INC
COASTWIDE L4%BORATORIES
COMPLETE WIRELESS SOLUTNS
COOKE STATIONERY COMPANY
CORPORATE EXPRESS
CPR TECHNOLOGY
CTL CORPORATION
ERNIE GP~ OIL INC
EVENT SOLUTIONS INC
GRAINGER INC
GROUP MACKENZIE ENGR INC
GUNCRAFTERS REPAIR LLC
INGRAM DIST. GROUP
INTERN'TAL ASSOC CHIEFS P
LANDRISE DEVELOPMENT
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES
LAWRENCE COMPANY
LEGISL~%TIVE COUNSEL COMM
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL COMM
LESLIE HOWLAND
MARTY FOLWICK
MARTY WOLCOTT
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
132.00
124.00
33.00
42.00
80.00
149.80
1,100.00
400.00
100,999.74
900.00
769.05
413.50
950.00
571.15
74.94
65.52
47.06
245.00
17,055.30
24.48
77.50
4,663.00
246.87
243.79
142.00
500.00
4,993.25
1,255.40
1,045.o0
130.22
175.0o
195.99
1,073.80
64.75
831.29
651.45
190.00
108.22
8,043.34
35.00
306.17
100.00
24.88
209.55
200.00
356.00
356.00
25.00
32.04
33.00
1,344.09
132.00
124.00
33.00
42.00
80.00
149.80
1,100.00
400.00
100,999.74
900.00
769.05
413.50
950.00
571.15
74.94
65.52
47.06
245.00
17,055.30
24.48
77.50
4,663.00
246.87
243.79
142.00
500.00
4,993-25
1,255.40
1,045.00
130.22
175.00
195.99
1,073.80
64.75
831.29
651.45
190.00
108.22
8,043.34
35.00
306.17
100.00
24.88
209.55
200.00
356.00
356.00
25.00
32.04
33.00
1,344.09
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
00
00
00
00
00
00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
PAGE 4
WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y 0 F W 0 0 D B U R N AP0460
VEEOT
DATE 2/08/06 CHECK REGISTER
TIME 8:01:51
...... K DATE PAYEE N;~ME STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFERENC~
82465 1/13/2006 NORTHWEST ELEVATOR CO RECONCILED YES 900.00 1, . '
82466 1/13/2006 NORTHWEST NATURAL GAS RECONCILED YES 1,047.98 449.86 .00
82467 1/13/2006 I~ SOFTWARE RECONCILED YES 449.86
82468 1/13/2006 ONE CALL CONCEPTS INC RECONCILED YES 59.85 59.85
82469 1/13/2006 OPAL RATLIFF RECONCILED YES 31.55 31.55
82471 1/13/2006 OR DEPT OF CONSUMER RECONCILED YES 3,148.86 3,148.86
82472 1/13/2006 OR DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLE RECONCILED YES 19.50 19.50
82473 1/13/2006 OR DISTRICT ATTOR~YS ASS RECONCILED YES 95.00 95.00
82475 1/13/2006 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS RECONCILED YES 57.26 57.26
82476 1/13/2006 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC RECONCILED YES 35,769.59 35,769.59
82477 1/13/2006 PREMIER HOME BUILDERS RECONCILED YES 41.62 41.62
82478 1/13/2006 PROTHMAN COMP;~NY RECONCILED YES 322.40 322.40
82479 1/13/2006 PUBLIC WORKS SUPPLY INC RECONCILED YES 463.89 463.89
82480 1/13/2006 QUALITY CONCRETE RECONCILED YES 375.00 375.00
82481 1/13/2006 QWEST RECONCILED YES 1,920.20 1,920.20
82482 1/13/2006 RADIX CORPORATION RECONCILED YES 190.05 190.05
82483 1/13/2006 ROBERT ALLEN RECONCILED YES 43.38 43.38
82484 1/13/2006 ROSE CITY STAMP INC RECONCILED YES 28.15 28.15
82485 1/13/2006 SALEM PRINTING-BLUEPRINT RECONCILED YES 160.80 160.80
82486 1/13/2006 SEXUAL ASSAULT TRAINING I RECONCILED YES 90.00 90.00
82487 1/13/2006 SHIP IT RECONCILED YES 169.48 169.48
82488 1/13/2006 SILKE COMb~ICATIONS INC RECONCILED YES 38.50 38.50
82489 1/13/2006 SILVERFLEET SYSTEMS RECONCILED YES 3,172.43 3,172.43
82490 1/13/2006 TEK SYSTEMS INC RECONCILED YES 1,840.00 1,840.00
82491 1/13/2006 TRUE CARE INC RECONCILED YES 945.00 945.00
82492 1/13/2006 UNITED DISPOSAL/ALLIED WA RECONCILED YES 1,465.09 1,465.09
82493 1/13/2006 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS RECONCILED YES 58.73 58.73
82494 1/13/2006 WEST GROUP PAY~ CTR RECONCILED YES 726.25 726.25
82495 1/13/2006 WESTERN POWER & EQUIPMENT RECONCILED YES 9,806.48 9,806.48
82496 1/13/2006 WILLIAMS ZOGRAFOS & PECK RECONCILED YES 176.00 176.00
82497 1/13/2006 WILSONVILLE LOCK & SECURI RECONCILED YES 446.00 446.00
82498 1/13/2006 WOLFERS HEATING & AIR CON RECONCILED YES 81.00 81.00
82499 1/13/2006 WOODBURN AUTOMOTIVE REPAI RECONCILED YES 955.18 955.18
82500 1/13/2006 WOODBUq~N INDEPEIqDEITT RECONCILED YES 120.00 120.00
82501 1/13/2006 WOODBURN SCHOOL DIST 103C RECONCILED YES 1,375.00 1,375.00
82502 1/13/2006 WOODBURN SCHOOL DIST 103C RECONCILED YES 310.80 310.80
82503 1/13/2006 WOODBURN SEW & VAC RECONCILED YES 90.00 90.00
82504 1/13/2006 XEROX CORPORATION RECONCILED YES 890.94 890.94
82505 1/13/2006 YES GRAPHICS RECONCILED YES 3,353.95 3,353.95
82506 1/31/2006 ERIC JAMES RECONCILED YES 400.00 400.00
82507 1/31/2006 DUANE BARRICK RECONCILED YES 1,000.00 1,000.00
82508 1/31/2006 OR DEPT OF REVENUE RECONCILED YES 7.67 7.67
82509 1/31/2006 VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN RECONCILED YES 649.80 649.80
82510 1/20/2006 ALEXIN ANALYTICAL LAB INC RECONCILED YES 867.00 867.00
82511 1/20/2006 AA]N FINCH RECONCILED YES 2,657.85 2,657.85
82512 1/20/2006 AT & T RECONCILED YES 70.90 70.90
82513 1/20/2006 AWARDS AND ATHLETICS RECONCILED YES 2,272.05 2,272.05
82514 1/20/2006 CASCADE POOLS RECONCILED YES 105.17 105.17
82515 1/20/2006 CASC3%DE SCENIC RAILWAY IN RECONCILED YES 4,791.68 4,791.68
82516 1/20/2006 CESSCO INC RECONCILED YES 22.34 22.34
82517 1/20/2006 COMPLETE WIRELESS SOLUTNS RECONCILED YES 795.00 795.00
82518 1/20/2006 CORPORATE EXPRESS RECONCILED YES 532.56 532.56
82519 1/20/2006 CRYSTAL SPRINGS WATER CO RECONCILED YES 111.77 111.77
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.oo
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
WOODBURN LIVE C I T Y 0 F W 0 0 D B U R N PAGE 5
AP0460
DATE 2/08/06 VEEOT
TIME 8:01:51 CHECK REGISTER
CHECK # CHECK DATE PAYEE NAME STATUS UPDATED CHECK AMOUNT RECONCILED AMI DIFFEREnCe_
82520 1/20/2006 DEPT OF EN"JIRONMENTAL QUA RECONCILED YES 147,792.37 147,792.37 00
82521 1/20/2006
82522 1/20/2006
82524 1/20/2006
82525 1/20/2006
82526 1/20/2006
82527 1/20/2006
82528 1/20/2006
82530 1/20/2006
82531 1/20/2006
82532 1/20/2006
82533 1/20/2006
82534 1/20/2006
82535 1/20/2006
82536 1/20/2006
82537 1/20/2006
82538 1/20/2006
82539 1/20/2006
82540 1/20/2006
82543 1/20/2006
82544 1/20/2006
82545 1/20/2006
82546 1/20/2006
82547 1/20/2006
82548 1/20/2006
82550 1/31/2006
82554 1/27/2006
82556 1/27/2006
82560 1/27/2006
82563 1/27/2006
82564 1/27/2006
82566 1/27/2006
82567 1/27/2006
82569 1/27/2006
82570 1/27/2006
82574 1/27/2006
82576 1/27/2006
82582 1/27/2006
82586 1/27/2006
82587 1/27/2006
82590 1/27/2006
82593 1/27/2006
82594 1/27/2006
82595 1/27/2006
82602 1/27/2006
82605 1/27/2006
82606 1/27/2006
82607 1/27/2006
82614 1/27/2006
82615 1/27/2006
82616 1/27/2006
82617 1/27/2006
82618 1/27/2006
EASYSTREET ONLINE SERVICE
ESTEBA2~ ANDRADE- CASTRO
FRANK M MASON
GRAINGER INC
HACH CHEMICAL CO
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
KJM PROGRAM & CONSTRUCTIO
MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS
MSI GROUP INC
NAT'L ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH
NEW WORLD SYSTEMS
NEXTEL COM~I CAT IONS
NORCOM
OR DEPT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
OREGON YOUTH AUTHORITY
PARKER NORTHWEST PAVING C
PORTLAND PAPER & SUPPLY
PROTHI~ COMPANY
SUREFIRE LLC
TAYLOR ELECTRIC SUPPLY
VERIZON WIRELESS
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
WDBRN CliAMBER OF COMMERCE RECONCILED
WOLFERS HEATING & AIR CON RECONCILED
VALLEY MAILING SERVICE IN RECONCILED
ADVANCED RV PAINTING & RE RECONCILED
APPLE BOOKS
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICE I
AUTO ADDITIONS INC
AWARDS AND ATHLETICS
BATTERIES NORTHWEST
BEN-KO-MATI C INC
BEULAH JORDAN
BI-MART CORPORATION
C.J. HANSEN CO INC
CASCADE POOLS
COLUMBIA INSPECTION INC
DAVISON AUTO PARTS
DAVISON AUTO PARTS -POLI
DP NORTHWEST INC
EASYSTREET ONLINE SERVICE
ENVIRO- CLE;~ EQUIPMENT
ERNIE GI~ OIL INC
G.K. MAC~IIlgE INC
GART SPORTS
GEORGE MORL~ PLUMBING SU
GROUP MACKENZIE ENGR INC
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
INDUSTRIAL WELDING SUPPLY
INGRAM DIST. GROUP
ISCO INC
J STEVE G014ZALEZ
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
RECONCILED
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
639.00
5.00
195.00
375.36
452.20
435.78
6,680.39
954.50
400.00
24.00
1,199.98
1,037.19
25,153.34
544.62
8,780.00
117,591.86
180.43
490.00
257.46
74.04
80.04
161.82
5,947.11
86.00
438.30
1,160.28
142.33
1,070.83
365.00
1,643.65
70.15
1,501.35
89.72
790.59
84.00
532.69
1,636.50
1,095.66
18.58
199.00
304.20
90.72
906.98
41.01
1,467.67
169.13
1,478.40
662.51
65.99
4,838.37
252.75
18.36
639.00
5.00
195.00
375.36
452.20
435.78
6,680.39
954.50
400.00
24.00
1,199.98
1,037.19
25,153.34
544.62
8,780.00
117,591.86
180.43
490.00
257.46
74.04
80.O4
161.82
5,947.11
86.00
438.30
1,160.28
142.33
1,070.83
365.00
1,643.65
70.15
1,501.35
89.72
790.59
84.00
532.69
1,636.50
1,095.66
18.58
199.00
304.20
90.72
906.98
41.01
1,467.67
169.13
1,478.40
662.51
65.99
4,838.37
252.75
18.36
O0
O0
O0
O0
O0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
82625 1/27/2006 L&L BUILDING SUPPLIES 1,867.84
82627 1/27/2006 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER RECONCILED YES 1,867.84
82632 1/27/2006 METROFUELING INC RECONCILED YES 3,967.67 3,967.67 .00
82637 1/27/2006 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC CO RECONCILED YES 235.94 235.94 .00
82638 1/27/2006 NORTH CREEK ANALYTICAL IN RECONCILED YES 525.20 525.20 .00
82641 1/27/2006 OR DEPT OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECONCILED YES 100.00 100.00 .00
82643 1/27/2006 OVS RECONCILED YES 344.50 344.50 .00
82644 1/27/2006 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION RECONCILED YES 100.00 100.00 .00
82649 1/27/2006 PORTER W YETT CO RECONCILED YES 497.25 497.25 .00
82650 1/27/2006 PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC RECONCILED YES 257.04 257.04 .00
82651 1/27/2006 PRIER PIPE & SUPPLY INC RECONCILED YES 2,339.59 2,339.59 .00
82653 1/27/2006 QWEST RECONCILED YES 267.80 267.80 .00
82654 1/27/2006 R.B.& G. CONSTRUCTION, LL RECONCILED YES 156,913.93 156,913.93 .00
82655 1/27/2006 R&J MOBILITY SERVICES RECONCILED YES 15.80 15.80 .00
82657 1/27/2006 RANDALL G LANGBEHN INC RECONCILED YES 338.50 338.50 .00
82661 1/27/2006 S.O.S- LOCK SERVICE RECONCILED YES 58.35 58.35 .00
82667 1/27/2006 SILVA TECHNOLOGIES RECONCILED YES 1,654.72 1,654.72 .00
82673 1/27/2006 WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC RECONCILED YES 883.35 883.35 .00
82674 1/27/2006 WILLAMETTE BROADBAND RECONCILED YES 317.23 317.23 .00
82675 1/27/2006 WILLAMETTE CHAP RED CROSS RECONCILED YES 50.00 50.00 .00
82678 1/27/2006 WOODBURN AUTOMOTIVE REPAI RECONCILED YES 267.57 267.57 .00
82682 1/27/2006 YES GRAPHICS RECONCILED YES 90.00 90.00 .00
BANK AP TOTAL: 287 CHECKS 1,170,375.18 1,170,375.18
PAGE 6
C I T Y 0 F W O O D B U R N AP0460
WOODBURN LIVE VEEOT
DATE 2/08/06 CHECK REGISTER
TIME 8:01:51 ATE pAYEE NAME STATUS UPDATED CHECKAMOUNT RECONCILED AMT DIFFErenCe.
CHECK # CHECK D ........... = .... = .....= ..... =
........................................................ :~V~ ....... ~ ...... 275.76 275.76
......... - ....... J WARD O'BRIEN K~=u,u~ --- 491 30 491.30
82619 1/zv/zuuu · RECONCILED Y~ ' .00
RECONCILED ....
NOT RECONCILED
VOIDED ......
~UPDATED
"~NOT
287 CHECKS 1,170,375.18
CHECKS .00
CHECKS .00
287 CHECKS 1,170,375.18
CHECKS .00
8F
February 1,2006
TO:
Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
FROM:
Scott D. Russell, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: 2005 Crime Statistics Review
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the repod.
BA(~KGROUND:
The Woodburn Police information System (WPS) allows for the capture of
incident-based crime data that can easily be combined to generate Index
Crime data, which is comparable both to local cities and on a regional and
national basis. This 2005 crime data represents the third complete year of WPS
system operation and provides comparative data for 2003 through 2005. This
allows for statistical comparison with both historical local data and data from
other Oregon cities, the West Coast, and the entire United States. This year's
Crime Analysis Repod combines local, state, regional, and national data to
provide a snapshot of crime here in Woodburn.
In calendar year 2005, the City of Woodburn observed an increase in overall
crime reports, but no change in violent index crimes per capita. Property Index
crime reports rose by 10.26% while Violent Index Crimes remained unchanged.
The modified Total Index Crimes (the sum of Violent Index Crimes and Propedy
Index Crimes) rose by 9.82%.
However, when adjusted for population growth, violent index crimes fell by
1.19% and property crimes rose by 8.85%
One key area of concern is the relation between property crime and the
ongaing Methamphetamine epidemic. While we have seen a tremendous
reduction in local clandestine meth labs due to passage of new statutes, we
continue to encounter meth abuse directly tied to all types of property crime
~
Agenda Item Review: City Administrato(~/~ City Attorney N~ ~ Financ~
25
Mayor and City Council
February 1,2006
Page 2
and fraud schemes. As long as meth use continues at its current level, users will
continue to seek criminal endeavors to obtain the means to purchase it.
The causes and reasons for increase and/or decrease in crime rates are varied
and complex. The performance of the local criminal justice system as a whole is
lust one component in the greater equation. A benchmark of performance
that we use in law enforcement is the crime clearance rate as it is uniformly
measurable and tends to show if crimes are being solved. A poor clearance
rate tends to show that not enough police resources are being properly applied
to a given problem. Due to the continued large number of propedy crimes
sparked by meth use, we sought to maintain our rate of clearance on propedy
crimes, while doing our best to improve our already high clearance rate on
violent crimes due to the serious nature of these offenses. We did succeed in
increasing the clearance rate on violent crimes, but fell slightly below last year's
rate on propedy crime clearance in two areas. We did however continue to
outpace the West Coast average clearance rate for all crimes.
Attached to this staff report you will find a Synopsis of Index Crime Repod for
Woodburn in 2005, which provides more detail on definitions, statistics, and
analysis of our local crime picture. If you have any questions or need additional
information after reviewing this data, Police Depadment Staff is ready to assist
you.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
Woodburn Police Department
Crime Index Report
2004 - 2005
There are eight main offense classifications, which are measured nationwide to determine the state of crime in the United States.
These classifications are known as Index Crimes and are uniformly and cooperatively reported by more than 17,0000 city, county and
state law enforcement agencies each year. The Federal Bureau of Investigation, in a book entitled "Crime in the United States",
publishes the results annually.
The eight classifications are divided into two categories; Violent Crimes and Property Crimes. Violent crimes include murder/non-
negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes include burglary, larceny/theft, motor vehicle
theft, and arson. In this report we will address these crimes as they have occurred in Woodburn, comparing current statistics to
previous years and to other jurisdictions.
The following table represents the index crime in Woodburn over the past three years:
Violent Crime
Year Population Mo~,lfled Overall Crime Index % Chan~e Violent Crime Index Violent Crime % Change Murder Fomible Rape Robbery Aggravated Assault
200." 21,438 1271~ -19.60% 38 -9.52% ( 7 9 19
200~ 21,783 128~ +0.55% 5~ +44.74% 0 ? 21 2t
2005 22,065 140~. +9.82% 5~ 0% 0 ~ 21 2~
PropertF Crime
Year Population! Property Crime Index % Change Burglar~ Theft MV Theft Arson
2003 21,438 1238 -19.87% 161 928 138 11
2_~n.421,783 1228 -0.81% 198 825 198 7
2005 20,065 1354 +10.26% 238 92C 191 5
2005 Crime Index Report - Page 1
Over the past three years the City's population has increased by 6.6%. To effectively compare the percentage of change in crime we
must account for the increased population. Equalizing the ratio is accomplished by comparing the crimes per 100,000 population each
year, as follows:
Year Population Crimes/JOOk Pop
2003 21,438 5,952
2004 21,783 5,890
200~ 22,065 6,386
Percentage Change
200~ +3.63% -22.41%
200~ +1.61 % -1.04%
200[ +1.09% +8.42%
3-Year Average +2.11% -4.23%
Year Population Violent CrimeellOOk Pop Property CrimeellOOk Pop
2003 21,438 177 5,775
2004 21,783 252 5,638
2005 22,065 249 6,137
Percentage Change
2003 +12.81% -22.67%
2004 -42.37% -2.37%
2005 -1.19% +8.85%
3-Year Average -10.25% -5.40%
2005 Crime Index Report - Page 2
In Woodburn, as in many jurisdictions across the United States, the incidents of violent crime are far less than the incidents of
property crime, much of which is driven by the increasing methamphetamine epidemic in our society. Although there are many other
types of offenses to which the department responds, with index crimes comprising only about 28% of total offenses, the following
graph depicts a clear-cut view of the types of index crime that exact the majority of time and resources fi.om the Woodbum Police
Department in the eight specific categories:
Index Crime Comparison
2003-2005
· Murder
[] Aggravated Assault
[] MV Theft
· Forcible Rape
· Burglary
[]Arson
· Robbery
· Theft
2005 Crime Index Report - Page 3
Comparison of crime from jurisdiction to jurisdiction is a difficult task. There are many key factors that affect the type and frequency
of crime in any community. Some factors that are known to affect frequency and type of crime from one community to another
include:
· Population density
· Population composition
· Population stability/transient factors
· Methods of transportation
· Economic conditions
· Cultural/educational/recreational and religious characteristics
· Climate
Criminal justice system of the jurisdiction
· Citizen's attitudes toward crime
· A community's crime reporting practices
Without an analysis of key factors that affect crime, the following table depicts only the number of crimes reported in the following
Oregon cities. Some of these communities were chosen according to population for comparison and others for their demographic
similarities. Eugene, Salem and Portland were selected for comparison due to their proximity as metropolitan statistical areas.
Cit7 Population ~rimesllOOk Pop Modified Overall Crime Index Violent Crime Index Property Crime Index
Eugene 143,582 5,691 9,146 40-c 8,74a
Grants Pass 25,593 3,490 1,944 61~ 1,87~
Gresham 96,75~ 8,084 6,142 454 5,68~
Hillsboro 78,473 5,529 4,023 165 3,85~
~:eizer 34,49(21 3,598 1,241 8(~ 1,161
~:lamath Falls19,476 4,380 853 66 78._q
VIcMin nville 28,794 3,66,~ 1,055 5(1 1,005
Vlilwaukie 20,841 5,16~ 1,077 34 1,043
~lewberg 19,926 4,39~ 876 35 841
Oregon City 28,686 4,92.c 1,414 64 1,53f'
Portland 543,838 8,372 45,52~. 4,034 41,49~
Tualatin 25,034 4,45(2 1,11,1 46 1,06t:
Salem 244,319 7,404 10,68." 745 9,94£
Woodburn 21,783 5,89(2 1,283 55 199~
2005 Crime Index Report - Page 4
Law enforcement agencies can clear offenses in one of two ways; by arrest (self-explanatory) or by exception. To clear an offense by
exception the agency must meet four criteria: identify the offender; gather sufficient evidence for an arrest, make a charge, and turn
over the offender to the court for prosecution; identify the offender's exact location for the purpose of being taken into custody; and
have encountered a circumstance outside the control of law enforcement that prohibits the agency from arresting, charging and
prosecuting the offender. Examples include the offender's death, the victim's refusal to cooperate with the prosecution, or the denial
of extradition, among others. In the UCR program, the recovery of property does not clear an offense.
The following chart compares clearance rates for calendar year 2004 of Woodburn with those of 1,857 agencies within the western
United States, which represent jurisdictions of cities, counties, and states for a total population of 62,024,636.
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2004 Clearance Rates
Woodburn vs Western US
--e-- Woodburn
--1-- Western
(No murders were committed in Woodbum in 2004, however a 10-year old murder case was solved and cleared by exceptional means.)
Woodbum Police Department strives to maintain a clearance rate of 53.4% for violent crimes and 21.1% for property crimes, with an
overall clearance rate of 23.9%. During the calendar year 2004 the department fell a little short of those goals with the clearance rates
at 41.07 for violent crimes, 19.46% for property crimes, and an overall clearance rate of 20.4%.
2005 Crime Index Report - Page 5
The following chart compares the clearance rates in Woodbum between calendar years 2004 and 2005:
~ Woodburn Clearance Rates
· 2004 vs 2005
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Forcible Robbery Aggravated Burglary
Rape Assault
I-.- 2004
-*- 2005
Theft MV Theft Arson
(No murders were committed in Woodburn in 2004 or 2005.)
2005 Crime Index Report - Page 6
8G
February 13, 2006
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
David Torge~istant City Engineer, through Director of Public
Works
Highway 214 Sidewalk- Phase 3
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive report.
BACKGROUND:
Transportation Enhancement (TE) funding has become available for
construction of new sidewalks in Highway 214. The City has been asked to affirm
the intention to proceed with the project. Response is required by February 15,
2006 on the attached form.
DISCUSSION:
The project will provide sidewalk on the north side of Highway 214 between the
Front Street Ramp and Progress Way. Phase 1, already completed, provided
walkway on the south side, and on the north, west of the high school driveway.
A second phase, performed with Bicycle Pedestrian Grant funds, will construct
additional sidewalk east of Phase 1. Completion of all three phases will result in
continuity of walkways on both sides of the highway.
TE funds originate in federal programs, and are administered by Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT). Council authorized application for
Transportation Enhancement funds by a motion on August 9, 2004. In early
December of the same year, the project was one of 32 considered by Mid
Willamette Valley Area Commission on Transportation. On March 17, 2005, the
City was notified that the project was not selected for funding. (Only 13 projects
among 79 applications received approval.)
Agenda Item Review:
City Administrat~''~_ City Attorney
Finance~.~
3O
Honorable Mayor and City Council
February 13, 2006
Page 2
In a letter dated January 24, 2006, Woodburn was informed that funding was
now available for the Phase 3 Sidewalk project for the 2006-2009 funding cycle.
According to the draft prospectus prepared by ODOT, the available funding is
$170,000 greater than was requested in the funding application.
Design/development funds will be available October 2006.
A response/acceptance sheet accompanied ODOT's January 24, 2006 letter,
and the City was asked to indicate its interest in proceeding with the project.
Given the Council's interest in this project, the City Administrator executed that
document on February 10, 2006, and acknowledged the City's intent to
proceed with project (Attachment 1). A project specific intergovernmental
agreement must also be executed before the project can proceed. The
agreement will be scheduled for Council consideration once it is tentatively
completed by the City and ODOT.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Current estimate for the project is $880,000. Of this amount, local share of
approximately $90,000 is anticipated.
ATTACHMENT:
Response/Acceptance Sheet
31
I ransportatlon Enhancemen! Project Awards for FY 2009
RESPONSE I ACCEPTANCE SHEET
Attachment 1
Review the information below and return a signed copy of this page by February 15, 2006.
Mail to: ODOT Locai Government Section, 355 Capitol St NE, Salem OR 97301-3871
Project Programming: Ncw projects are placed in the Statewide Transportation Improve-
ment Program (STIP) based on expected ready date and the available funds in a given year.
New 'YE projects approved in January 2006 will be scheduled for construction funds in 2009,
with design/development funds available early in fiscal year FY 2007 (October 2006).
Agencies approved for new projects must "program" these projects by completing the ODOT
Project Prospectus and signing an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). It is important to
complete these tasks promptly to ensure the project is started and delivered on time.
Please note: Any project expenses incurred before completing the programming process are
not eligible for TE reimbursement.
Prospectus: ODOT uses this form to clarify the project scope and purpose, and to identify
responsibilities and potential issues during project development. A draft Prospectus was
completed for your agency during the scoping exercise in October 2005. A copy is available
from thc ODOT Local Program Liaison assigned to your project.
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA): This is a legal contract with ODOT that sets the terms
for using Transportation Enhancement funds. A blank copy is enclosed with this award letter.
The missing information will be negotiated between ODOT and your agency. Do not expect to
change the standard text of the agreement or Special Provisions as this language applies to all
TE projects and in some cases to ali federally-funded projects that ODOT administers.
What to Do:
· Make corrections to the draft Prospectus as needed, in coordination with your assigned
ODOT Local Program Liaison.
· Have all prospective signers review the standard IGA language immediately. Review the
project-specific IGA that you will receive soon. Submit requested revisions to ODOT by
MaY 30. 2006 to allow time for ODOT review and response.
· Return signed copies of the final Prospectus and IGA to ODOT by June 30. 2006
to remain eligible for TE funds in the 2006-2009 funding cycle.
Assistance: ODOT Local Programs staffar¢ available to assist local agencies in preparing the
Prospectus form and other programming tasks. However, the applicant agency has primary
responsibility for completing thc Prospectus and IGA before the June 30 deadline.
AGENCY:
PROJECT:
~'"'~y agency intends to proceed with this project. We understand that we must complete
our project programming tasks by June 30, 2006 to retain a place in the FY 2006-2009
STIP, and that further consideration after that date will be on an equal basis with other
projects competing for the FY 2009 funds.
[ ] My agency has decided not to proceed with this project usir~g TE funding.
Signat,re of ofJ~cial with attthority to cornmit
agency funds attd stqff resottrces to the project
Date
('~ngrttt~ Rc.ncr~x' I.t~t 0106 doc
32
IOA
February 7, 2006
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
Ben Gillespie, Finance Director, I~
Hearing to Consider a Supplemental Budget
RECOMMENDATION:
Council direct staff to return an ordinance reflecting the Council's decision
following the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Each year in January staff performs a thorough review of financial operations
and recommends changes to the budget based on current estimates of
revenue and expenditures.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed revision to the 2005-06 budget adjusts Beginning Fund Balance to
actual for all funds where the variance is greater than $10,000. For all other
funds the difference is immaterial and no change is proposed. The City began
2005-06 with $2,997,960 more in Fund Balance than what was anticipated in the
budget. Fund Balance in the General Fund is $80,986 greater than the amount
budgeted in 2005-06. (1)
General Fund
Analysis of current year Property Tax collections based on prior years' revenue
indicates the City might collect as much as $99,000 more than what is
budgeted. To be conservative only $62,000 is added to lhe budget at this time.
If, as the year progresses, actual revenue supports the higher figure, the budget
can be adjusted again. {2)
In February Business Registration Fees are expected to be increased from $35
per year to $50 per year, and registration will be extended to cover home
Agenda Item Review: City Administrat~ City Attorney/v'!L' ~ Finance~
Mayor and City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 2
occupation businesses. These increases were contemplated when the budget
was adopted, but because they will be in effect for only half of the year, total
collections will be $13,000 less than budgeted. The year-end forecast is $47,000.
(3)
Based on the first quarter collections United Disposal Franchise Fees are
increased $5,000. (4)
Willamette Broadband Franchise Fees stabilized toward the end of 2004-05 and
are rebounding in the first half of 2005-06. The current estimate is $6,000 more
than the original budget. (5)
Woodburn Ambulance Franchise Fees are determined by the gross revenue
earned in Woodburn for the operator's previous fiscal year. Gross revenue for
the ambulance service declined last year, so their franchise fees decline $3,000
this year. (6)
Woodburn continues to lose swimming pool patronage to the recently opened
Molalla and Silverton pools. Increases in Admissions and Lessons are offset by
decreases in Memberships and Concessions. The forecast year-end Pool
revenue decreases $8,000. (7)
The long anticipated increase in interest rates finally materialized late last year.
Rates have jumped faster and to higher levels than expected. Current year-end
estimates of Interest Income in the General Fund increase by $35,000. (8)
The sale of the Community Center in December adds $186,914 to Sale of Surplus
Property. This amount is reserved for the construction of a new community
center. (9)
The City negotiated a new contract with the City Recorder that adds $3,542 in
salary and $1,113 in benefits to the cost of that department, and decreased
Contingencies by $4,655. (10)
Since adoption of the 2005-06 budget the Police Depadment has obtained
grants, received donations and entered into agreements with other jurisdictions
to pay overtime (and in some cases regular) wages. Projects funded in this way
include: the school resource officer, seat belt enforcement, DUll enforcement,
and the purchase of bulletproof vests, rifles, and ammunition. Total new
revenue from grants and donations to the Police Department totals $91,027.
(11)
Mayor and City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 3
Until November 2005 the police department used a web service called WiNPHO
to provide real-time on-line access to DMV photos and data. This service was
available both in police vehicles and at desktops. The service ceased to exist in
November 2005 due to elimination of Federal funding. Web LEDS is the only
other existing similar service. An 80-user license, installation, and training will
cost $9,700. This will be funded through a Homeland Security grant. (12)
The police estimate that increased fuel costs will cost the department an
additional $22,000. (13)
Managing reservations for the public for time on the Internet computers, and
enforcing time limits is a time consuming task for Library staff. Software called
PC Reservations would eliminate staff involvement in both functions. The $5,000
cost will be made up in staff time savings in the first year. Savings from a vacant
position will be used to fund the purchase. (14)
The Library secured a Ready to Read grant in the amount of $3,405. (15)
Parks staff secured a $29,000 grant from the Police Activities League (PAL), and
the City was able to claim an additional $38,326 this year under the Woodburn
Together grant. These two items add a total of $67,326 to Rec program
revenue, and that will allow the Teen program and the Adult program to be fully
funded for the entire year. The Teen program is increased $29,000, and the
Adult program is increased $22,165. The balance ($16,161) increases
Contingencies. (16)
The net effect on the General Fund is: Beginning Fund Balance is increased
$80,986; revenue is increased $442,372; expenditures are increased $181,952;
Contingencies are increased $154,492; and a Reserve for Community Center is
established at $186,914.
Building Fund
Building Permit Revenue is forecast to be $2,000 more than budgeted. This is
based on current revenue plus estimates of projects already in progress. (17)
Housing Rehab Fund
Propedy purchased by the City last fiscal year was sold for $90,828 in October.
At the time the City bought the property the bank was foreclosing, and the City
Mayor and City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 4
made the purchase with Housing Rehab monies to protect its Housing Rehab
loan. Sale of Surplus Property in the Housing Rehab Fund is increased $90,828.
This covers lhe purchase ($55,000) and the Housing Rehab Lien ($20,000), and
provides an additional $16,000 for future Housing Rehab activities. (18)
Street Fund
Based on current collections State Gas Tax is forecast to exceed the budget by
$50,000. (19)
Increased fuel prices are expected to cost the Street Fund $5,900 more than
what is budgeted, and increased equipment utilization will cost $2,800 more
than the budget. (20)
City Gas Tax Fund
Based on current collections City Gas Tax is forecast to be $15, 000 less than
what is budgeted. (21)
General CIP Fund
The Plaza was funded in 2004-05 and was scheduled to be completed by June
30. Delivery of specialized components delayed completion. $28,000 should be
carried forward to the current year to finish the project and pay the retainage.
(22)
Water Fund
Overtime costs are spread proportionately over all programs charged by the
employee. In the Water Fund several people work on both maintenance and
meter reading. As explained below, there has been additional overtime this
year associated with bringing the new water plants up. The accounting system
charges overtime to Meter Reading in the same proportion as regular time is
charged. An increased number of customers combined with increasing printing
costs are driving up the cost of billing. Printing is increased $6,000. (23)
This is the first year of operations of the new water plants. Unexpected
operational problems have been worked out with additional overtime totaling
$15,000. This division has been affected by rising fuel prices, requiring a budget
increase of $5,000 for fuel. (24)
36
Mayor and City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 5
Sewer Fund
One of the three primary pumps at the Mill Creek Pump station failed requiring
$10,000 of repairs. This division has been affected by rising fuel prices, requiring
a budget increase of $1,400 for fuel. A vehicle replacement was postponed,
saving the capital cost, but it does add $2,500 in maintenance costs this year.
(25)
IS Fund
The Laser Fiche program, used to store documents electronically, is budgeted to
be upgraded this year. The amount of the original proposal covered the cost of
the upgrade and additional licenses to make the program more broadly
available. It was anticipated the new version would degrade the performance
of the existing server within acceptable limits. Since then it has become
apparent that the new software will overwhelm the current server. The
additional sewer will cost $9,600 and will last at least five years. The purchase
can be funded from the IS Fund Contingency. (26)
Insurance Fund
The City and AFSCME agreed in the last labor contract to a review of medical,
life, and long term disability insurance programs. The goal is to identify less
expensive providers of those coverages. The city has contracted with a benefit
agent at a cost of $25,000 to perform the analysis. (28)
Building Maintenance Fund
Increasing fuel costs necessitate a budget increase of $700, and additional
cleaning supplies have been required to keep the pool up to City standards.
(29)
The following table is a tabulation of all the proposed budget changes by fund:
BEGINNING RESERVES
FUND & CONTIN-
FUND No. BALANCE REVENUE EXPENSES GENCIES
General
Transit
Building
Rev Sharing
001 80,986 442,372 181,952 341,406
110 29,959 29,959
123 14,555 2,000 16,555
135 60,182 60,182
3'/'
Mayor and City Council
February 7, 2006
Page 6
Housing Rehab 137 33,882 90,828 124,710
Street 140 286,056 50,000 8,700 327,356
City Gas Tax 169 166,823 -15,000 151,823
GF CIP 358 -73,033 28,000 -101,033
Sp Assessmt 360 95,237 95,237
St/Storm CIP 363 47,202 47,202
Parks CIP 364 34,499 34,499
TIF 376 319,617 319,617
Storm SDC 377 33,815 33,815
Sewer CIP 461 20,683 20,683
Sewer Constr 465 33,852 33,852
Water Constr 466 1,068,726 1,068,726
Water 470 164,557 27,000 137,557
Sewer 472 -9,150 13,900 -23,050
Water SDC 474 572,982 572,982
Sewer SDC 475 -89,053 -89,053
IS 568 10,836 9,600 1,236
Insurance 581 25,000 -25,000
T & E 582 98,758 98,758
Building Maint 583 5r000 -5p000
Total 3,001,971 570,200 299,152 3,273,019
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The proposed revision increases Beginning Fund Balances in all funds by
$3,001,971. Revenue in all funds is increased by $570,200, and total
appropriations are increased by $299,152. Contingencies in all funds are
increased $3,086,105, and reserves are increased by $186,914.
Contingencies in the General Fund increase $154,492 to $1,012,603, which is
11.0% of budgeted expenditures. $186,914 is established as a Reserve for
Community Center.
38
CITY of WOODBURN
MID YEAR BUDGET REVISION
2005-06
Description
Account
GENERAL FUND.
Contingencies 001 901
Beginning Fund Balance 001 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
Contingencies 001 901
Property Taxes 001 000
A~ustto actual
9971 5921
3081
9971 5921
3111
Contingencies
Business Registration
Business Registrarion
001 901 9971 5921
001 000 3211
Contingencies
Franchise Revenue--United D
United Disposal Franchise
001 901 9971 5921
001 000 3234
Contingencies
Franchise Revenue--Will BB
Willamette BB franchise
001 901 9971 5921
001 000 3235
Contingencies
Franchise Revenue--Wdbn A
Wdbn Ambulance Franch
001 901 9971 5921
001 000 3236
Pool Concessions
Pool Admissions
Pool Memberships
Pool Lessons
Contingencies
Pool Revenue
001 000 3418
001 000 3471.101
001 000 3471.102
001 000 3471.104
001 901 9971 5921
Contingencies
Investment Income
Adjust to actual
Reserve for Buildings
Sale of Surplus Property
Sale of Community Cntr
001 901 9971 5921
001 000 3611
001 901 9971 5981.002
001 000 3691
Expenditures
80,986
62,000
-13,000
5,000
6,000
-3,000
-8,000
35,000
186,914
Revenue
80,986
62,000
-13,000
5,000
6,000
-3,000
-4,000
4,000
-13,000
5,000
35,000
186,914
(1)
(3)
(~)
(7)
(8)
(9)
39
Description
Recorder--Regular Salaries
Recorder-FiCA
Recorder--Insurance
Recorder--Retirement
Cotingencies
Recorder's Contract
Police-Community-Supplies
Donations
Police Donations
Police-Detec-Regular Salaries
Reimbursements
School Resource Officer
Police-Detectives-Overtime
Reimbursements
School District O/T
Police-Traffic-Overtime
Police-Patrol-Overtime
Police-Patrol-Clothing
Police-Patrol-Other Supplies
Police-Patrol-Ammunition
Federal Grants
State Grants
Various Grants
Police-Patrol-Other Supplies
Reimbursements
Hubbard range use
Police-PatroI-Tuition/Reg
Reimbursements
Firearms course fees
Police-Admin-IS Services
Federal Grants
Web LEDS browser
Police-Patrol-Fuel
Police-Detectives-Fuel
Poiice-NRT-Fuel
Police-Admint-Fuel
Contingencies
Increased Fuel Costs
Account
001 131
001 131
001 131
001 131
001 901
001 211
001 000
001 211
001 000
001 211
001 000
001 211
001 211
001 211
001 211
001 211
001 000
001 000
001 211
001 000
001 211
001 000
001 211
001 000
001 211
001 211
001 211
001 211
001 901
1531 5111
1531 5212
1531 5213
1531 5214
9971 5921
2161 5329
3673
2131 5111
3881
2131 5121
3881
2121 5121
2111 5121
2111 5352
2111 5359
2111 5351
3332
3341
2111 5499
3881
2111 5492
3881
2111 5415
3332
2111 5323
2131 5323
2171 5323
2199 5323
9971 5921
Expenditures
3,542
275
67
771
-4,655
1,848
48,481
14,000
14,000
500
4,200
2,948
1,500
300
3,250
9,700
15,700
1,100
4,500
700
-22,000
Revenue
1,848
48,48t
14,000
14,000
9,148
300
3,250
9,700
(lO)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(12)
(13)
4O
Description' Account
Library-Admin-Reg Salaries 001 311
Library-Admin-Contmct Is 001 311
PC Reservation software
Library-Children-Prog Supplies 001 311
State Grants 001 000
Ready to Read grant
Expenditures
3199 5111 -5,000
3199 5426 5,000
Revenue
3199 5347 3,405
3341 3,405
PAL Grant 001 000 3671.102
Donations--Teen Scene 001 000 3671.101
Parks Rec-Adult-Temp Salaries 001 431 722 5113
Parks Rec-Adult-FICA 001 431 722 5212
Parks Rec-Adult-lnsurance 001 431 722 5213
Parks Rec-Adult-Retirement 001 431 722 5214
Parks Rec-Adult-Services 001 431 722 5419
Parks Rec-Teen-Reg Salaries 001 431 7423 5111
Parks Rec-Teen-P/T Salaries 001 431 7423 5112
Parks Rec-Teen-FICA 001 431 7423 5212
Parks Rec-Teen-lnsurance 001 431 7423 5213
Parks Rec-Teen-Retirement 001 431 7423 5214
Parks Rec-Teen-Suplies 001 431 7423 5329
Parks Rec-Teen-Services 001 431 7423 5419
Contingencies 001 901 9971 5921
Additional Parks Rec revenue and costs
TRANSIT FUND
Contingencies 110 901
Beginning Fund Balance 110 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
Contingencies 123 901
Beginning Fund Balance 123 000
A~ust Beginning Fund Balanceto a~ual
Contingencies
Building Permit Revenue
Bldg Permit Revenue
8,704
600
5O0
561
11,800
8,000
8,100
1,300
2,00O
90O
3,000
5,700
16,161
29,000
38,326
9971 5921 29,959
3081 29,959
9971 5921 14,555
3081 14,555
123 901 9971 5921 2,000
123 000 3221.101 2,000
STATE REVENUE SHARING
Contingencies 135 901
Beginning Fund Balance 135 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
9971 5921 60,182
3081 60,182
(14)
(15)
(16)
(1)
(1)
(17)
(1)
4.'1
Description Account Expenditures Revenue
HOUSING REHAB FUND
Contingencies 137 901
Beginning Fund Balance 137 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
Contingencies
Sale of Surplus Property
Sale of foreclosure
137 901
137. 000
_STRE~
Contingencies 140 901
Beginning Fund Balance 140 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
Contingencies 140 901
State Gas Tax 140 000
Adjust to actual
Contingencies 140 901
St Maintenance-Fuel 140 631
St Maintenance-Equip Repair 140 631
St Maint-Vehicle Repair 140 631
Street Clening-Fuel 140 631
Increased street maint costs
CITY GAS TAX
Co~ingencies 169 901
Beginning Fund Balance 169 000
A~ust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
Contingencies 140 901
City Gas Tax 140 000
Adjust to actual
GENERAL FUND CIP
Contingencies 358 901
Beginning Fund Balance 358 000
A~ust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
Contingencies 358 901
Otherlmprovements 358 121
Plaza
9971 5921
3081
9971 5921
3691
9971 5921
3081
9971 5921
3361
9971 5921
4211 5323
4211 5471
4211 5475
4261 5323
9971 5921
3081
9971 5921
3171
9971 5921
3081
9971 5921
9531 5639
33,882
90,828
286,056
50,000
-8,700
4,500
1,100
1,400
1,700
166,823
-15,000
-73,033
-28,000
28,000
33,882
90,828
286,056
50,000
166,823
-15,000
-73,033
(1)
(18)
(1)
(19)
(1)
(21)
(1)
Description Account Expenditures Revenue
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUND
Contingencies 360 901
Beginning Fund Balance 360 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
9971 5921 95,237
3081 95,237
(1)
STREET/STORM CIP FUND
Contingencies 363 901
Beginning Fund Balance 363 000
A~ust Beginning Fund Balanceto a~ual
9971 5921 47,202
3081 47,202
(1)
PARKS CIP FUND
Contingencies 364 901
Beginning Fund Balance 364 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
9971 5921 34,499
3081 34,499
(1)
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FUND
Contingencies 376 901
Beginning Fund Balance 376 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
9971 5921 319,617
3081 319,617
(1)
STORM WATER SDC FUND
Contingencies 377 901
Beginning Fund Balance 377 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
9971 5921 33,815
3081 33,815
(1)
SEWER ClP FUND
Contingencies 461 901
Beginning Fund Balance 461 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to a~ual
9971 5921 20,683
3081 20,683
(1)
SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUND
Contingencies 465 901
Beginning Fund Balance 465 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to a~ual
9971 5921 33,852
3081 33,852
(1)
WATER CONSTRUCTION FUND
Contingencies 466 901
Beginning Fund Balance 466 000
A~ust Beginning Fund Balanceto a~ual
9971 5921 1,068,726
3081 1,068,726
(1)
43
Description Account Expenditures Revenue
WATER FUND
Contingencies 470 901
Beginning Fund Balance 470 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
Contingencies 470 901
Meter Reading-Overtime 470 611
Meter Reading-Printing/Bind 470 611
Increased water costs
Contingencies 470 901
Water Op--Overtime 470 611
Water Op--Fuel 470 611
New plant operations costs
SEWER FUND
Contingencies 472 901
Beginning Fund Balance 472 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
Contingencies 472 901
Sewer-Plant-Equip Repair 472 621
Sewer-Maint-Fuel 472 631
Sewer-Maint-Vehicle Maint 472 631
Pump Repair & fuel Costs
WATER SDC FUND
Contingencies 474 901
Beginning Fund Balance 474 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
SEWER SDC FUND
Contingencies 475 901
Beginning Fund Balance 475 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
IS FUND
Contingencies 568 901
Beginning Fund Balance 568 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
Capital Outlay-Computing
Contingencies
Laser Fiche upgrade
568 901
568 000
9971 5921
3081
9971 5921
6421 5121
6421 5493
9971 5921
6421 5121
6421 5493
9971 5921
3081
9971 5921
6511 5471
6521 5323
6521 5475
9971 5921
3081
9971 5921
3081
9971 5921
3081
9971 5921
3081
164,557
-7,000
1,000
6,000
-20,000
15,000
5,000
-9,150
-13,900
10,000
1,400
2,5OO
572,982
-89,053
10,836
9,600
-9,600
164,557
-9,150
572,982
-89,053
10,836
(1)
(23)
(24)
(1)
(25)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(26)
44
Description Account
INSURANCE FUND
Contingencies 582 901
Risk Management Services 582 131
Cost of benefits agent
T & E FUND
Contingencies 582 901
Beginning Fund Balance 582 000
Adjust Beginning Fund Balance to actual
BUILDING MAINTENANCI~ FUND
Contingencies 583 901
Bldg Maint--Supplies 583 631
Bldg Maint--Services 583 631
Price increases
9971 5921
1611 5418
9971 5921
3081
9971 5921
1911 5323
1911 5321
Expenditures
-25,000
25,000
98,758
-5,000
7OO
4,300
Revenue
98,758
(27)
(1)
(28)
Grand Total
3,572,171 3,572,171
45
llA
February 1,2006
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
Scott D. Russell, Chief of Police ~
Intergovernmental Agreement for Regional Automated Information
Network (RAIN)
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council pass the attached ordinance entering into
the Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement for the Regional
Automated Information Network (RAIN).
BACKGROUND:
For more than 20 years the Cities of Aumsville, Aurora, Dallas, Dundee, Gervais,
Hubbard, Independence, Keizer, Lincoln City, McMinnville, Monmouth, Mt.
Angel, Newberg, Salem, Silverton, Stayton, Turner, and Woodburn and the
Counties of Marion, Polk, and Yamhill, have participated in the sharing of law
enforcement data as part of the RAIN Consortium. Over the last several years
RAIN has obtained several large federal grants allowing for the upgrade of this
information network, and for expansion to more agencies. These increased
responsibilities have required the redrafting of the RAIN ORS 190 agreement.
Through a series of Federal grants the RAIN consortium has been able to
purchase and install a COPLINK data warehousing system. RAINLINC, as the
system is called, will provide active links tar all the listed agencies to selected
sets of data. Only authorized users are allowed access to the system and they
are 0nly allowed access to data that the agency providing the data has
authorized. Typically this includes suspect and vehicle intormation, intormation
about types of crime, suspect patterns, and other identifying information. The
system will also link with other areas that also have operational COPLINK nodes;
this includes New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and California.
Agenda Item Review:
City Administrat~ City Attorney_
Rnanc~
46
Mayor and City Council
February 1,2006
Page 2
On numerous occasions in the past such shared information has provided real
help as officers seek to gain information on unknown suspects. In the past
several homicides and serial crimes have been solved by Woodburn Police
officers utilizing RAiN data. The Woodburn Police Department supported RAIN in
its application for grant funds to provide a COPLINK system to the Mid-
Willamette valley. COPLINK is the premier information sharing program in the
world and will provide numerous improvements in the former system. The redraft
of the ORS 190 agreement will allow for the expected growth as many other
agencies seek to join RAIN, while still providing for local control and proper cost
allocation and control so that the system is perpetual and yet does not run
ahead of agencies ability to pay. Legal counsel has reviewed the agreement
with staff and we believe it to be in acceptable form at this time for
acceptance.
Because of the requirements of ORS 190 regarding intergovernmental entities,
the passage of an ordinance is required. "An emergency clause has been
added to the ordinance in order to accommodate establishment of the
COPLINK system and RAIN's administrative needs.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
RAIN fees are allocated in the current Woodburn Police Depadment Budget
and no significant increase is anticipated.
4'/'
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ENTERING INTO AN AMENDED AND RESTATED
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE REGIONAL AUTOMATED
INFORMATION NETWORK; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR
TO SIGN SAID AGREEMENT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, the City of Woodburn is a member agency of the Regional
Automated Information Network ("RAIN"), an intergovernmental entity originally
formed pursuant to ORS Chapter 190 and since amended at various times,
including the addition of new members; and
WHEREAS, RAIN consists of the cities of Aumsville, Aurora, Dallas, Dundee,
Gervais, Hubbard, Independence, Keizer, Uncoln City, McMinnville, Monmouth,
Mt. Angel, Newberg, Salem, Silvedon, Stayton, Turner, and Woodburn and the
Counties of Marion, Polk, and Yamhill ("the RAIN members"), and
WHEREAS, the RAIN members desire to amend and restate the terms and
conditions of membership and the provisions of the Intergovernmental
Agreement by entry into an Amended and Restated Intergovernmental
Agreement for the Regional Automated Information Network ("Amended and
Restated Intergovernmental Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Woodburn is a current member of RAIN and wants to
consent to membership in RAIN upon the terms and conditions of the Amended
and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement; and being fully advised; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to ORS 190.085, the City of Woodburn enters into the
Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement and consents to ]oinder
by the cities of Aumsville, Aurora, Dallas, Dundee, Gervais, Hubbard,
Independence, Keizer, Lincoln City, McMinnville, Monmouth, Mt. Angel,
Newberg, Salem, Silvedon, Stayton, and Turner, and the counties of Marian, Polk,
and Yamhill as RAIN members.
Section 2. That the Mayor and City Administrator are authorized to sign
said agreement on behalf of the City. A copy of said agreement in substantially
final form is affixed hereto as Attachment "A."
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
Section 3. Declaration of Emer,qenc¥. This ordinance being necessary for
the immediate Preservation of the public peace, health and safety for the
reason that the City wants to accommodate the establishment of the COPUNK
system, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall take effect
immediately upon passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor.
Approved as to form: ~'~l")'~r'd" ~ '~--L
City Attorney Da
Approved:
Kathryn Figley, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATI'EST:
Mary Tennant City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 2- COUNCIL BiLL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
ATTACHMENT
Page.--L-- of ',
AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT
REGIONAL AUTOMATED INFORMATION NETWORK
THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT REGIONAL AUTOMATED
INFORMATION NETWORK is made and entered into by and between the governmental units
which have signed this Agreement dated July 1", 2005, creating the Regional Automated
Information Network (RAIN) as se~ forth below (hereinafter collectively referred to as
"Members"). Thc Regional Automated Information Network is an intergovernmental entity
formed under O.R.S. 190.010, et seq. This Agreement has been amended at various times since
its adoption. The Members wish to modify the terms and conditions of thc Agreement as set
forth herein.
In consideration of thc mutual benefits and obligations as set forth herein, thc Members
agree to the following:
ARTICLE I
PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
Pursuant to O.R.S. 190.010, et seq., the Members intend to jointly share criminal
justice information, pool technology resources and seek to streamline and minimize costs of
information management.
ARTICLE II
NAME
This Intergovernmental Entity has been and shall continue to be known as the Regional
Automated Information Network, hereinafter referred to as "RAIN," or "Agency."
ARTICLE III
GOVERNING AUTHORITY
Supervision and management of RAIN shall be exercised by a BOARD OF
DIRECTORS.
3.1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS (hereinafter referred to as the "BOARD").
A) Composition: The BOARD shall consist of:
June 28, 2005 Revision of the Draft Strikeout O.R.S. 190
Page I of 8
50
ATTAC~.IMENT-.~
page
One (1) Chairperson elected by the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP.
One (1) Vice-Chairperson elected by the GENERAL
MEMBERSHIP.
Seven (7) Members at large.
One position must be filled by
a. a Sheriff, provided that thc County for which the Sheriff
serves is among the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP;
b. one (1) position by the City for which the Chief of Police
serves, provided that a Chief of Police is among the
GENERAL MEMBERSHIP; and
c. by a Member Agency whose annual user fee is 15% or
more of RAIN's total user fees provided that agency has
not been elected Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson; and
d. the annual user fee percentage may be modified as needed
by a fifty-one percent (51%) majority vote at a meeting of
the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP.
The term of office for all BOARD members shall be for two (2)
years. At the initial meeting of the BOARD, terms shall be
staggered and the BOARD members shall draw lots for one or two
year terms. The initial term of the Chairperson and Vice
Chairperson shall also be staggered. At the next annual meeting of
the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP, those BOARD member positions
drawing one-year initial terms shall be elected for two years.
Thereafter, each BOARD position shall be for two years.
Any Member Agency may have no more than one Member on the
BOARD.
The BOARD Chairperson will appoint a nominating committee
which will make available it's recommendations no later than 30
days prior to the lune meeting of the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP
for vote.
Any BOARD member may be removed from office by an
affirmative vote of the Member Agencies of this agreement at a
meeting of the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP for violation of law or
ethical codes of conduct whether by BOARD policy or statute.
In the case of removal of a Director that is a Member of an agency
with a guaranteed seat, the affected agency will then nominate a
replacement to be ratified by the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP.
Meetings.
1. A quorum shall mean at least five (5) of thc nine (9) BOARD
June 28, 2005 Revision of the Draft Strikeout O.R.S. 190
Page 2 of 8
51
AI'I'ACI-JMEN"r ~
Page ~ of '~
c)
3.2
members and shall be sufficient to conduct any business oftbe
BOARD. Decisions of thc BOARD shall require the same number
of affirmative votes to pass a measure as if the entire BOARD had
been present.
Each BOARD member shall have one (1) vote. 3.
There shall be at least one meeting of the BOARD each quarter.
The Chairperson or three (3) BOARD members may call other
meetings as deemed necessary. The Chairperson shall preside over all
meetings. The Vice-Chairperson (or in the event the Vice-Chairperson is
unavailable any other BOARD member as designated by the
Chairperson) shall act as Chairperson in the absence of the Chairperson.
Duties: The BOARD is empowered to
1. Determine the type of services and equipment necessary for the
operation of RAIN.
2. Enter into contracts with any individual, firm or corporation, or
agency of government, to acquire equipment, goods, or services
for the operation of RAIN.
3. Prepare an annual budget for the expenditure of RAIN funds and
set the amount of financial participation in the form of user fees for
each Member to be presented to the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP
by December 1st of each year for adoption. The budgeting and
appropriation of funds by an entity for its share shall be pursuant to
that Member's budget process. The RAIN fiscal year shall be/luly
1" to June 30'~. Payment shall be made within 30 days of invoice.
Create committees of RAIN members and/or Member Agency
personnel to assist and advise the BOARD on the administration
and operation of RAIN.
4. The BOARD may employ or contract for the services of an
Executive Director to conduct the day-to-day operation of RAIN.
5. Conduct regular review of the financial operation of RAIN and
perform audits as required.
6. Exercise any other power or authority to implement the powers expressly
set forth in this Agreement and to adopt policies and procedures as
necesslM~.
GENERAL MEMBERSHIP:
A) Composition: The GENERAL MEMBERSHIP shall consist of
1. Each Member Agency (County or City) shall select its
June 28, 2005 Revision of the Draft Strikeout O.R.S. 190
Page 3 of $
B)
¢)
D)
representative.
Each Member Agency (County or City) may appoint an alternate
representative. The alternate must declare his/her voting authority
at any GENERAL MEMBERSHIP meeting.
The voting representative selected by each Member Agency shall
be eligible for election to the BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
Quorum:
I. A quorum shall mean not less than fifty one percent (51%) or
more of the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP shall be sufficient to
conduct any business of the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP. Except
as otherwise provided in this Agreement, decisions of the
GENERAL MEMBERSHIP shall be made by the same number of
affirmative votes to pass a a measure as if all Members had been
present at the meeting.
2. Each Member Agency in the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP shall
have one (1) vote, which may be exercised in person by a
designated alternate representative. No Member Agency shall
have more than one vote at any GENERAL MEMBERSHIP
meeting.
Duties: The GENERAL MEMBERSHIP is empowered to:
Provide advice and assistance to the BOARD.
Elect the BOARD OF DIRECTORS from the GENERAL
MEMBERSHIP in June of each year.
Adopt for recommendation to each Member's governing body an
annual budget for the expenditures of RAIN and set the amount of
financial participation in the form of user fees for each Member at
the meeting of the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP in January each
year.
Meetings:
There shall be at least two meetings of the GENERAL
MEMBERSHIP each fiscal year.
Special meetings of the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP may be called
by the BOARD Chairperson, or by any five (5) Members.
The BOARD Chairperson shall preside over all meetings. The Vice-
Chairperson (or in the event the Vice-Chairperson is unavailable any
other BOARD member as designated by the Chairperson) shall act as
June 28, 2005 Revision of the Draft Strikeout O.R.S. 190
Page 4 of 8
$3
Chairperson in thc absence of the Chairperson.
4.1
4.2
ARTICLE IV
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
4.3
Each Member is responsible for the accuracy of its data and integrity and
functions of its computer system. RAIN assumes no liability for the accuracy of
data entered into RAIN's system by its Members, nor for errors in data
transmission.
Subject to the Constitution and laws of this State regarding units of local
government, each RAIN Member Agency agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless RAIN, its BOARD, its officers, its employees, and its agents from and
against any claim or demand arising out of or in connection with any act, error or
omission of any person for whose acts such Member may be responsible under
O.R.S. 30.260 to 30.300.
Pursuant to O.R.S. 190.050(3), debts and liabilities of RAIN shall be joint and
several to the Member Agencies.
ARTICLE V
TERM AND TERMINATION
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
This Agreement shall be effective commencing July 1, 2005, and continue until
terminated as provided in this section.
A Member Agency may voluntarily terminate by giving written notice to RAIN
no later than February 1 of any year unless otherwise negotiated and approved by
the BOARD. The Agreement shall terminate on the next ensuing June 30.
Notwithstanding termination or withdraw by a Member Agency, this Agreement
shall remain in effect as to all remaining Members.
In the event of voluntary withdrawal by a Member Agency, the Member Agency
shall forfeit any right to payment of its portion of RAIN's assets except upon
dissolution as described in this ARTICLE.
Upon 30 days written notice of a violation of this Agreement and if the violation
is not remedied in that time, the Member Agency may be terminated involuntarily
by a vote of the BOARD.
In the event of nonpayment by a RAIN member agency 90 days after invoice,
membership by the defaulting agency may be terminated upon affirmative vote of
75% of the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP.
Ifa Member Agency is found in violation of policy, law or ethical codes of
conduct adopted by BOARD poli0y or statute, upon affirmative vote of 75% of
the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP, membership in RAIN shall be revoked.
If membership is terminated for nonpayment or revoked, the Member Agency
June 28, 2005 Revision of the Draft Strikeout O.R.S. 190
Page 5 of 8
54
ATTACHMENt'
Page ~ of
5.9
shall forfeit any fight to payment of its portion of RAIN's assets upon dissolution.
If three fourths 0/4) of the RAIN Member Agencies vote to dissolve RAIN, the
BOARD shall proceed to wind up the entity. Any RAIN assets may be distributed
to a governmental entity providing similar services or the assets and cash will be
distributed in kind or in cash to the then Member Agencies using the same
formula that was used for allocation of user fees. Any unexpended grant proceeds
or assets subject to grant agreements or conditions shall be distributed in
accordance with grant agreements.
ARTICLE VI
COMMUNICATIONS AND NOTICE
Any notice required to be delivered shall be in writing. Such notice shall be sufficient
upon being deposited in the regular UnRed States mail postage prepaid, electronic mail (email)
with return receipt requested, or personally delivered to the BOARD Chairperson, or Executive
Director of RAIN.
ARTICLE VII
ADDITION OF NEW MEMBERS
Additional Member Agencies may become parties to this Agreement by accepting all
terms of the Agreement, and upon a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of the GENERAL
MEMBERSHIP.
ARTICLE VIII
AMENDMENTS
This Agreement represents the complete and integrated agreement between the parties
with respect to the subject matter hereof, and may be amended only by written amendment
signed by three-fourths (3/4) of the membership. As such, this Agreement cancels and
supercedes all prior written and oral agreements, representations, negotiations, and
communications between the parties and their representatives with respect to the subject matter
hereof.
ARTICLE IX
USE OF DATA
Thc Member Agencies agree that to the extent permitted by O.R.S. Chapter 192 (Public
June 28, 2005 Revision of the Draft Strikeout O.R.S. 190
Page 6 of 8
55
ATTAC, HMEI~I'?-~-""""'
Rccords Law) or any other applicable law, the information or data obtained from RAIN or any
Member shall be considered confidential and not for public disclosure.
ARTICLE X
VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT
If any part, paragraph, article, or provision of the agreement is adjudged to be invalid by
any court of competent jurisdiction, such adjudication shall not affect thc validity of any
remaining article, part or provisions of this agreement.
ARTICLE XI
COUNTERPARTS
Thc Member Agencies agree that this Agrccmcnt may be executed in counterparts and
such signatures shall bind the Member Agency.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties herein have caused this Agreement to be executed
on their behalf by their duly authorized representatives as set forth below.
June 28, 2005 Revision of the Draft Strikeout O.R.S. 190
Page 7 of 8
56
Regional Automated Information Network
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties herein have caused these Amendments to the
Agreement to be executed on their behalf by their duly authorized representatives as set forth
below.
[AGENCY] , OREGON
Approved as to form:
[AGENCY] Administrator Date
[AGENCY] Legal Counsel
[AGENCY] Elected Official Date
Commissioner Date
June 28, 2005 Revision of the Draft Strikeout O.R.S. 190
Page 8 of 8
157
11B
February 13, 2006
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
FROM:
Naomi Zwerdling, Interim Community Development Director~l~-
SUBJECT:
Ordinance Approving Zoning Adjustment 05-02 located at 120 Smith
Drive.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached ordinance approving Zoning Adjustment 05-02.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council, at its January 23, 2006 meeting, directed staff to prepare an
ordinance to approve Zoning Adjustment 05-02. That ordinance is attached. It
contains an emergency clause because it is a site specific land use action not
subject to a referendum petition.
DISCUSSION:
None,
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action.
Agenda Item Review:
City Administrat~'~/ City Attorney.~~
Finance~
58
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONING ADJUSTMENT CASE FILE NO. 05-02 AFFECTING
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 120 SMITH DRIVE; ATTACHING CERTAIN CONDITIONS THERETO;
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Brian Henry, submitted Zoning Adjustment Case File
No. 05-02 to reduce the rear yard setback from 24 feet to 19.42 feet to allow for the
expansion of an existing garage towards the rear of the properly; and;
WHEREAS, the Woodbum Community Development Director approved said
application, and;
WHEREAS, the Woodburn Community Development Director's decision was
appealed by David Emmenegger, the properly owner, and;
WHEREAS, the Woodburn City Council has conducted a public hearing and
reviewed the record pedaining to said application and has considered all public
testimony and evidence presented on said application; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That based upon the findings and conclusions contained in Exhibit
"A", which is affixed hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, Zoning
Adjustment Case File No. 05-02 is approved.
Section 2. That the land use application approved by Section 1 herein is
subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "B", which is affixed hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein, which the Council finds reasonable.
Section 3. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of
the public peace, health, and safety, because this is a site specific land use
decision that is not subject to a referendum petition, an emergency is declared to
exist and this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by the Council
and approval by the Mayor.
Page
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
City Attorney
~J{~/~~
Date
Approved:
Kathryn Figley, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
A'Fi'EST:
Mary Tennant, City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
60
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
II.
III.
IV.
ZONING ADJUSTMENT 05-02
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Applicant:
Brian Henry
1775 32nd Place NE, Ste. A
Salem, Oregon 97303-1674
Property Owner:
David E. Emmenegger
120 Smith Drive
Woodburn, OR 97071
Application Deemed Complete:
120-Day Rule Deadline:
August 31, 2005
December 22, 2005
NATURE OF APPLICATION: The applicant is requesting a zoning adjustment to
reduce the rear yard setback from 24 feet to 19.42 feet to allow for the expansion of an
existing garage towards the rear of the subject property.
RELEVANT FACTS: The property is located at 120 Smith Drive and is further identified
on Marion County Assessor maps as Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section 18BB,
Tax Lot 2200. The property is .23 acres in size with an existing single family dwelling.
The subject property is zoned Single Family Residential (RS), designated for Residential
Less Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map, and is the
location of a single family dwelling. The surrounding properties are also zoned RS,
designated for Residential Less Than 12 Units Per Acre on the Woodbum
Comprehensive Plan Map, and are the location of single family dwellings.
The subject property is polygon shaped and is a corner lot at the intersection of Smith
Drive and Workman Drive. The front of the property faces Smith Drive creating a
sideways lot orientation. The applicant is requesting a zoning adjustment to reduce the
rear yard setback from 24 feet to 19.42 feet to allow for the expansion of the existing
garage on the subject site to accommodate a hobby shop, secured vehicle parking area,
and storage area.
RELEVANT APPROVAL CRITERIA:
A. WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
1. Section 2.102.06.C.2.9.2 Single Family Residential (RS)
2. Section 5.102.03 Zoning Adjustment
FINDINGS:
A. WOODBURN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
Section 2.102 Single Family Residential (RS)
Section 2.102.01 Permitted Uses
61
The following uses, when developed under the applicable development
standards of the WDO, are permitted in the RS zone.
A. Site-built single family dwelling.
FINDING: The subject site has an existing single family dwelling. This criterion
is met.
Section 2.102.05 Accessory Uses
The following uses are permitted as accessory uses subject to Section
2.201.
A. Garage
FINDING: The applicant is proposing to expand the existing garage on the
subject site resulting in a rear yard setback of 19.42 feet which does not meet the
24 foot required rear yard setback. The proposed zoning adjustment is
discussed later in this report.
Section 2.102.06 Dimensional Standards
The following dimensional standards shall be the minimum requirements
for all development in the RS zone.
C. Setback and Buffer Improvement Standards
Front Yard Setback and Setback Abutting a Street
a. Dimensions
1) The minimum setback abutting a street, or front
property line shall be 20 feet plus any Special Setback.
ZA 05-02, 120 Smith Drive
Interior Side Yard and Interior Rear Yard Setbacks
a. Dimensions:
1) Side Yard Setback.
2) Rear Yard Setback.
a) The average rear yard setback ( as defined in
Section 1.102 ) for all lots, EXCEPT a flag lot
shall be:
2
(i) 24 feet wide for structure up to 16 feet in
height;
with no point measuring less than 5 feet from
the average dimension.
The subject site is developed with an existing single-family dwelling having an
attached garage. The side yard abutting Workman Drive is 14.75 feet. A
condition of approval will require the proposed garage addition to meet the
twenty-foot setback abutting the property line adjacent to a street from Workman
Ddve. The rear yard setback for the existing dwelling and attached garage is an
average of thirty-two feet. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing
attached garage into the rear setback of the property reducing the setback to
19.42 feet which does not meet the required 24 feet as stated above. The
applicant has submitted a zoning adjustment to reduce the rear yard setback
from 24 feet to 19.42 feet as discussed in Section 5.102.03 later in this report.
Section 2.102.07 Development Standards
G. Lot Coverage.
Lot coverage by the primary and accessory structures EXCEPT
accessory structures in the rear yard area, shall be:
A maximum of 40 percent for lots containing a primary
building with an average height of 14 feet or less...
The area of the subject property is 10,019 square feet with an existing home and
attached garage measuring 2,073 square feet in area. The applicant is
proposing to expand the existing garage by 517 square feet increasing the entire
building coverage to 2,590 square feet resulting in a total lot coverage of 25.8
percent [2,590 / 10,019 = .258 = 25.8%] which meets the 40 percent lot coverage
requirement.
Section 2.201.02
Attachment to a Primary Building.
Covered or enclosed accessory structures which are attached to a
primary building shall be considered as a portion of the primary
building and subject to the same zoning requirements as the
primary building,
FINDING: The proposed accessory structure is an expansion of the existing
attached garage into the rear yard, and is required to comply with the setback
and lot coverage requirements in the RS zone (Section 2.102) discussed earlier
in this report.
Section 5,102.03
ZA 05-02, 120 Smith Drive
Zoning Adjustment
3
63
Criteria. A determination of whether the criteria set forth are
satisfied necessarily involves the balancing of competing and
conflicting interests.
The adjustment is necessary to prevent unnecessary hardship
relating to the land or structure. Factors to consider in determining
whether hardship exists, include:
Physical circumstances over which the applicant has no
control related to the piece of property involved that
distinguish it from other land in the zone, including but not
limited to lot size, shape, topography.
FINDING: Physical cimumstances, which the applicant has no control over, on
the subject site which encumber the expansion of the garage into the rear yard
setback include the lot shape and existing building orientation. The subject site
is a polygon shaped corner lot with two street frontages. The existing home was
constructed in the middle of the subject site and angles away from the front
property line. The existing garage is located between 35 feet and 36.41 feet from
the front property line adjacent to Smith Drive. The large garage setback from
the front property line reduces the area available on the rear of the subject site to
accommodate an expansion of the existing garage.
The house orientation is sideways with the front property line facing Smith Drive.
Because of this sideways orientation the rear yard of the property is limited in
size and thus requires a zoning adjustment for the expansion of its attached
garage. This approval criterion is met.
Whether reasonable use similar to other properties in the
same zone can be made of the property without the
adjustment.
FINDING: Reasonable use similar to other properties in the same zone cannot
be accomplished on the subject site without the proposed zoning adjustment.
The shape of the subject site and the existing building orientation prevent the
applicant from expanding the existing garage onto the rear yard.
Co
Whether the hardship was created by the person requesting
the adjustment.
FINDING: The existing house and garage were built before the applicant bought
the property. Thus, the hardship was not created by the applicant. This approval
criterion is met.
Development consistent with the request will not be materially
injurious to adjacent properties or to the use of the subject property.
Factors to be considered in determining whether development
ZA 05-02, 120 Smith Drive
4
64
consistent with the adjustment is "injurious" include but are limited
to:
Physical impacts such development will have because of the
adjustment, such as visual, noise, traffic and drainage,
erosion and landslide hazards.
FINDING: The proposed zoning adjustment will not create a negative visual
impact, or have negative erosional impacts. The applicant is proposing to vary
the rear yard setback from twenty-four feet to 19.42 feet for the primary structure
to allow for an attached garage expansion. The applicant is proposing to utilize
building materials, paint and architectural features for the garage expansion that
will match the existing color, and architectural features as the existing home and
garage. Storm runoff will be addressed by a new drainage way along the rear of
the new expansion that will drain to the street. The subject site is fiat and is not
expecting to have erosion or landslide hazards resulting from this proposed
zoning adjustment. The applicant submitted letters of support for this zoning
adjustment application from all the surrounding neighbors.
Council Ordinance No. 1917 requires the owner of land adjoining a city street to
maintain in good repair the driveway approach. The driveway on the subject site
adjacent to Workman Drive (120 Smith Drive) is missing a section 24 inches
wide, 6 inches in depth and 21 feet in length (the full width of the driveway).
Thus, condition of approval #6 requires that the existing driveway approach to
the site from Workman Ddve shall either be removed or completed/repaired,
complying with city standards, prior to building permits being issued.
Daniel B. Atchison, the property owner's representative, submitted written
evidence on January 13, 2006 regarding the clarification of the condition
requiring replacement or removal of the applicant's driveway as part of the
appeal heating process. Daniel B. Atchison stated the following:
"Pursuant to the city council's direction, the applicant has discussed the
repair of the 24 inch cutout in the driveway on the subject property with
the Public Works, and is in the process of filling the cutout with crushed
gravel to eliminate any safety hazards. This is a temporary remedy, as
the driveway will be repaved during the construction of the proposed
addition, pending the city council's approval of this application. As stated
during the January 9, 2006 public hearing, the applicant's objection to this
condition of approval was merely to clarify that the objection did not
require that the driveway be removed."
Section 2.102.06.C.l.a.1 of the WDO requires a 20 foot minimum setback
abutting a street or front property line. A setback is defined in Section 1.102 of
the WDO as the distance measured from the foundation or the exterior wall of a
building or structure and the abutting property line. The applicant's submitted
site plan date stamped August 16, 2005 showed a 14.75 foot setback from the
proposed building expansion and the property line abutting Workman Drive which
does not comply with the 20 foot minimum setback from the property line and the
ZA 05-02, 120 Smith Drive 5
65
proposed structure. Thus, condition of approval #1 of Zoning Adjustment 05-02
requires that the proposed garage expansion shall comply with the minimum 20
foot setback from the property line adjacent to Workman Drive per Section
2.102.06.C.l.a.1.
Daniel B. Atchison, the property owner's representative, submitted written
evidence on January 13, 2006 regarding compliance with the 20 foot setback
requirement for structures abutting a street. Daniel B. Atchison stated the
following:
"The existing dwelling on the subject property is a nonconforming use,
which, like most other dwellings in the neighborhood, was built prior to
when the 20 foot setback requirement was enacted by the city.
As stated in the WDO, and consistent with state land use law, an
attached accessory structure, such as proposed by the property owner, is
considered an addition to the existing structure on the property, not a
separate structure. The same zoning requirements that apply to the
existing structure apply to the addition. In this case, the 20 foot setback
requirement does not apply to the existing structure, because, as will be
shown below, the existing structure was built before the WDO 20 foot
setback requirement was enacted. As a result, the setback requirement
does not apply to the addition."
The applicant further argued that 1) The existing structure is a legal
nonconforming use, 2) The proposed addition is subject to the same standard as
the existing use, and 3) The proposed addition will not make the use more
nonconforming.
In regard to the existing structure being a legal nonconforming use, the applicant
stated that the applicant's dwelling was established in 1968/69. A City of
Woodbum Building Permit Application was issued for a 2,100 square foot
residential dwelling on the 120 Smith Drive site on Apdl 1, 1968. Staff could not
find a site plan or certificate of occupancy. The applicant stated that at the time
the dwelling was constructed, City of Woodbum Ordinance No. 999 required only
a 10 foot setback for a side yard for corner lots. The applicant refers to Section
6.08 on page 10 of Ordinance No. 999 which states "...On corner lots or building
sites, unless elsewhere herein or by other ordinances otherwise provided, no
main building shall be closer than 10 feet to the exterior side line..." This section
of Ordinance No. 999 is not clear. Ordinance No. 999 does not define the
"exterior" side line. It is not clear if a greater than 10 foot setback could have
been imposed as part of the Subdivision Decision.
The Subdivision Plat (Subdivision of Block 8, Smith's Addition to the City of
Woodburn, Marion County, Oregon) that was recorded July 14, 1966 at Marion
County to create lot #8 (120 Smith Drive site) shows a 20 foot building setback
kine on the south (adjacent to Workman Drive) and west (adjacent to Smith Drive)
sides of the subject property. This recorded plat was signed by the Chairman of
the Woodburn Planning Commission, the City of Woodburn Mayor, the Marion
ZA 05-02, 120 Smith Drive 6
66
County Surveyor, the Marion County Assessor, Marion County Commissioners,
the Madon County Recorder and the Property Owner. Staff at the Marion County
Surveyor's Office stated that it was common practice when the subdivision plat
for the subject site was recorded, to place a required building setback line on
recorded subdivision plats. The existing dwelling on the subject site does not
comply with the 20 foot building setback line shown on the recorded subdivision
plat. It appears the existing dwelling on the subject property may not be a legal
nonconforming use that is not subject to a 20 foot setback requirement on
Workman Ddve.
The applicant included a copy of a portion of the recorded subdivision plat
discussed above in the zoning adjustment application packet. The applicant
stated on page 4 of the narrative submitted with the zoning adjustment
application "...The double frontage of the subject property imposes an additional
burden of two required front yard setbacks along both streets. See Exhibit H,
which shows the subject property with a 20-foot setback along both the front
(west) and side (south) property lines. If this were not a corner lot, the side
(southeast) property line would be considered an intedor side yard, and only a
five-foot setback would be required..." The applicant used the 20 foot double
frontage setback requirement throughout the narrative submitted with the zoning
adjustment application to support their argument that the zoning adjustment to
the rear yard setback should be approved because the 20 foot double frontage
requirement reduces the buildable area of the subject lot. The applicant did not
discuss the nonconforming side yard setback adjacent to Workman Drive in the
narrative submitted with the zoning adjustment application.
Even if the applicant proved that the existing structure is a legal nonconforming
use, Section 1.104.04.A of the WDO states "Any expansion or addition to
buildings or structures with nonconforming height, setback, density or lot
coverage shall not make the development more nonconforming." In addition,
Section 1.101.04 of the WDO states "Developments, including subdivisions,
partitions, planned unit developments, zone changes, conditional uses,
variances, site development review, or other development applications for which
approvals were granted before the effective date of the WDO, may occur
pursuant to such approvals; EXCEPT that all subsequent modifications to
development approvals shall comply with the WDO." "Development" is defined in
Section 1.102 of the WDO as "A building or grading operation, making a material
change in the use or appearance of a structure or land, dividing land into two or
more parcels, partitioning or subdividing of land as provided in ORS Chapter 92
or the creation or termination of an access right." The applicant is proposing to
expand and change the appearance of the existing dwelling on the subject site
that does not meet the 20 foot building setback shown on the recorded
subdivision plat or the 20 foot minimum setback abutting a street or front property
line requirement in Section 2.102.06.C.l.a.1 of the WDO which will make the
development more nonconforming. If the applicant proposes a garage door on
the proposed addition, which will change the entry/exit use of the existing garage
making the development more nonconforming, then the current driveway on
Workman Drive which is currently between 13 feet and 15 feet in depth as shown
on the applicant's submitted site plan date stamped August 16, 2005 does not
ZA 05-02, 120 Smith Drive 7
have the 20 foot minimum depth necessary to
overhanging into the Workman Drive right of way.
WDO states the following:
keep parked vehicles from
Section 3.104.05.B.2 of the
"Paved Parking Pad at a Garage Entrance (or carport for a manufactured
home). There shall be an improved parking space, or pad, abutting the
attached or detached garage doorway for each opposing parking space
within the garage. The exterior pad area for each vehicle shall have the
minimum dimensions of 10 feet wide by 20 feet long."
The applicant states the following in the submitted narrative:
"Pursuant to the WDO, the addition is considered a portion of the dwelling
and subject to the same requirements as the dwelling. WDO 2.201.03.E
states, Covered or enclosed accessory structures which are attached to a
primary building shall be considered as a portion of the primary building
and subject to the same zoning requirements as the primary building."
The above stated requirement in the WDO is a standard for development under
the current WDO and not a former code or a nonconforming use.
Condition of approval #1 of Zoning Adjustment 05-02 is necessary to ensure that
the proposed garage expansion will comply with the minimum 20 foot setback
from the property line adjacent to Workman Drive per Section 2.102.06.C.l.a.1 of
the WDO. Condition of approval #1 is also necessary to keep parked vehicles
from overhanging into the Workman Drive right of way if the applicant proposes a
garage door on the proposed addition. Variance approval (Type Ill Decision) is
required to vary the minimum setback from the property line abutting a street
(Workman Drive) and the proposed structure from 20 feet to 14.75 feet. A
variance application and fee would be required to initiate the variance process.
Section 4.101.06.C of the WDO requires a public hearing process at the Planning
Commission for a Type III Decision.
This approval criterion will be met.
b. If the adjustment concerns joint use parking, the hours of
operation of the uses sharing vehicle parking shall not create
a competing parking demand.
FINDING: This zoning adjustment does not involve joint use parking. Therefore,
this criterion does not apply.
c. Incremental impacts occurring as a result of the proposed
adjustment.
FINDING: A slight increase in the size of the garage will have minor visual
impacts on the surrounding neighbors. The applicant is proposing to utilize the
same building materials, paint, and architectural features on the one-story garage
expansion to make it compatible with the existing building on the subject site and
ZA 05-02,120 Smith Drive 8
68
minimize any negative visual impacts on surrounding properties. Adjacent
neighbors have reviewed this proposal and have submitted letters of support for
the application. A minor impact from the storm water runoff will also occur due to
the increase in lot coverage. The applicant states a new drainage way along the
rear of the new expansion will direct runoff toward the street and away from the
neighboring property.
The adjustment is the minimum deviation from the standard
necessary to make reasonable use of the property;
FINDING: The applicant is proposing to expand the existing garage on the
subject site to allow for the garage on the subject site to be utilized fro a hobby
shop, secure vehicle parking area, and storage area. WDO Section 2.102.06
states the average rear yard setback must be twenty-four feet from the property
line for structures up to 16 feet in height. The applicant is proposing to vary the
rear yard setback from twenty-four feet to 19.42 feet. This garage expansion will
create further useable area within the 20% maximum adjustment in the rear yard
setback allowed in Section 5.102.03.D.5. Therefore, this adjustment is the
minimum deviation necessary for the reasonable use of the subject site. This
approval criterion is met.
e
The adjustment does not conflict with the Woodburn
Comprehensive Plan.
FINDING: The Woodburn Development Ordinance implements the goals and
policies in the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan. Per the applicant this adjustment
complies with Residential Land Development Policy No. A-2 Living Environment
in that this policy is designed to promote the long-term livability and quality of the
built environment of the neighborhood. The proposed garage expansion will be
built in a manner that will not depreciate the character of the neighborhood and
will blend with the primary structure in materials, color and architectural details
while addressing security, storage and privacy concerns of the applicant. This
approval criterion is met.
Maximum Adjustment permitted.
Rear Yard Setback: Up to a 20 percent reduction in setback, but no
less than 5 foot setback, EXCEPT in those zones permitting zero
setback the minimum setback shall be either 5 feet or zero.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing to expand the existing garage on the
subject site. WDO Section 2.102.06 states the average rear yard setback must
be twenty-four feet from the property line for structures up to 16 feet in height.
The applicant is proposing to vary the rear yard setback from twenty-four feet to
19.42 feet for the primary structure to allow for the attached garage expansion.
This reduction equals 19.8 percent (((24' - 19.24' = 4.38') / 24') = .198333 =
19.8%). This criterion is met.
ZA 05-02, 120 Smith Drive
9
69
VI.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the findings of fact contained herein, all relevant approval cdteria relating to
approval of Zoning Adiustment 05-02 have been met.
ZA 05-02, 120 Smith Drive
10
?O
EXHIBIT "B"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. The proposed garage expansion shall comply with the minimum 20-foot setback
from the property line adjacent to Workman Ddve per Section 2.102.06.C;1 .a.1.
Zoning Adjustment approval allows the maximum 24-foot rear yard setback for a
structure up to 16 feet in height to be reduced to 19.8 percent to allow for an
expansion of the existing garage into the rear yard of the subject site.
3. The applicant shall submit a building permit to the Building Department for review
and approval prior to expansion of the existing garage.
4. The property owner/applicant shall submit to the Community Development
Department a signed "Acceptance of Conditions' agreeing to all conditions of
approval prior to issuance of the building permit.
Any conditions attached to the approval of the zoning adjustment shall be conditions
on the issuance of a building permit. A violation of the conditions shall be
considered a violation of the Woodbum Development Ordinance.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The existing driveway approach to the site from Workman Drive is currently missing
a section near the property line creating a safety hazard. The ddveway approach
shall either be removed or completed/repaired, complying with city standards, pdor
to building permits being issued.
ZA 05-02, 120 Smith Drive
11
11C
February 13, 2006
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
Naomi Zwerdling, Interim Community Development Director
Ordinance Issuing Formal Interpretation 05-01
Subject Property: 1605 E. Lincoln Road
Co-applicants: Telecare Mental Health Services of Oregon, Inc.
and Erik Berkey
RE(~OMMENDATION:
Approve the attached ordinance issuing Formal Interpretation 05-01.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The City Council, at its January 23, 2006 meeting, directed staff to prepare an
ordinance issuing Formal Interpretation 05-01 and finding that the co-applicants'
proposed use of the subject property is a similar use to the permissible use of
"elderly group care facility" specified in Ordinance 2227 and, therefore, is
allowed by the previously enacted conditional zone change. That ordinance is
attached. It contains an emergency clause because it is a land use ordinance
affecting a site specific development.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action.
Agenda item Review:
City Administra~ City Attorney
IV, CO
Finance~'~
7'2
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ISSUING FORMAL INTERPRETATION 05-01 REGARDING ORDINANCE
2227 AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, Telecare Mental Health Services of Oregon, Inc. and Erik Berkey
("the co-applicants") applied for Formal Interpretation 05-01; and
WHEREAS, the co-applicants have requested an interpretation by the City
Council permitting the operation of a secure residential care facility to provide
mental health treatment to adults under the jurisdiction of the State of Oregon; and
WHEREAS, the proposed secure residential care facility would be in an
existing building located at 1605 E. Lincoln Road, Woodburn, Oregon ("the subject
properly"); and
WHEREAS, in order to make this interpretation, the City Council must evaluate
and interpret Ordinance 2227, a prior land use action that granted a conditional
zone change an the subject properly; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 23, 2006
and considered public testimony, staff repods and written information; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council finds that it is necessary to interpret the terms and
meaning of its own enactment, Ordinance 2227 (attached hereto as Attachment
"A"). This constitutes a "local government interpretation" under ORS 197.829, Ga.qe
v. City of Portland, 319 Or 308 (1994) and Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508
(1992).
Section 2. The City Council finds and concludes, based upon its
interpretation and the facts presented, that the co-applicants' proposed use of the
subject property is a similar use to the permissible use of "elderly group care
facility" specified in Ordinance 2227 and that the proposed use is, therefore,
allowed by the previously enacted conditianal zone change.
Section 3. The City Council's interpretation is based upon the Findings and
Conclusions contained in Attachment "B," which is affixed hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein.
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
'/'3
Section 4. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of
the public peace, health and safety because this is a land use ordinance affecting
a site specific development, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance
shall take effect immediately upon passage by the Council and approval by the
Mayor.
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Approved:
Kathryn Figley, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATi'EST:
Mary Tennant City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 2-
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
74
Attachment "A"
Page 1 of 2
COUNCIL BILL
ORDINANCE NO. 2227
97-08 for a zone change from smgle-tmuuy rmmenmu Ln.~ ~.u ~., a
WHE~S, Application No. 98-01 was aubmitt~ by th~ applican~ for alt~ plan
approval; and
WHERgAS, the City Council conducted a ~ novo public hearing on October 26, 1998
and heard testimony on said applications; NOW, TIIR~FORR,
TBX crrY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOI2aOWS:
Section 1. The subject property is owned by Edk Berkey and Aaron Ensign and is
described as follows:
Marion County Assessor map T55, RIW, Section 17BA, Tax Lot 200.
S .. - ~-- ~---~ u.-~n the findinas and conctusions contained in Exhibit
~UOU .~. xru~ uaa~-~ ~ ?. . · t_ __J a.__ sin,,1e.fa31~y
attached hereto, the zone designation on the subject property ts ChanSon
r~dentiat Ct~S) to commcrc'ml senegal (CG).
Section 3. That the zone change granted by Section 2 of this ord' .m~.. ce shall allow, o. nly
an elderly group care facility. No other commercial use ~ b~ allowed without first obtaining
approval thereofthroush the zone change process.
Section 4. That the site plan of said property is approved based upon the findings and
conclusions contained ia Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
Section S. That the zone change and site plan approval are subject to the conditions
c0ntaincd in Exhibit '~B' attached hereto.
Approved as to form:
City Attorney Date
Paget- COUNCIL BILL NO. 1934
ORDINANCE NO. 2227
75
Pas,sod by th~ Council
Submittal to th~ Mayo~
Approved by th~ Msyor
Fil~d in th~ C~ of..th.~_ rder ~
ATTEST: ~
~ T~ city s~,order
City ofWoodburn, Oreson
Attachment "A"
APPROVED ~
November gm 199~
November 10. lgg8
November 10, [998
Nov~m~c 10. 1998
Pase2- COUNCIL BH~L NO. 1934
ORDINANCE NO. 2227
76
Attachment "B"
Page l of 3
FINDINGS
FORMAL INTERPRETATION 05-01
(INTERPRETATION OF ORDINANCE 2227)
I. NATURE OF PROC;EEDING$
On January 23, 2006, the Woodburn City Council conducted a public
hearing on Formal interpretation 05-01 involving the interpretation of Ordinance
2227. Section 3 of Ordinance 2227 provides as follows:
That the zone change granted by Section 2 of this ordinance shall
allow only an elderly group care facility.
This interpretation was requested by Telecare Mental Health Services of
Oregon and Erik Berkey ("the co-applicants"). It specifically involves a City Council
interpretation as to what use is permitted under Ordinance 2227 on propedy
located at 1605 E. Lincoln Road, Woodburn, Oregon ("the subject properly").
BACK~ROUND
At its November 9, 1998 meeting, the City Council granted Zone Change
Application 97-08 and Site Plan Review Application No. 98-01 submitted by Erik
Berkey and Aaron Ensign. The zoning of the subject propedy was changed from
Single-Family Residential (RS) to Commercial General (CO) under the provisions of
the former Woodburn Zoning Ordinance ("the WZO"). The City subsequently
repealed the WZO and passed the Woodburn Development Ordinance ("the
WDO"), which is the ordinance in force and effect today.
The co-applicants have requested an interpretation by the City Council that
would permit the operation of a secure residential care facility to provide mental
health treatment to adults under the jurisdiction of the State of Oregon. This secure
residential facility would be in an existing building located on the subject properly.
Specifically, the co-applicants state:
['[]he existing facility is a 15 bed residential treatment facility that was
previously used by the owner and co-applicant for a treatment care
facility for individuals suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The treatment
consisted of individuals of all ages subject to Alzheimer's disease. The
proposed use by Telecare is also that of a residential care facility for
individuals needing treatment for mental diseases or disorders.
'/'7
Attachment "B"
page 2 of 3
II.
III.
APPLI(~ABLE PROCEDURE
Section 4.102.09C of the WDO provides as follows:
Interpretation of Uses.
The Community Development Director may, as a Type II decision,
approve, approve with conditions, or deny a request for approval of a
determination that a proposed use is similar to a permissible use in the
applicable zone.
For uses which the Community Development Director determines
cannot be readily classified with reference to the NAICS or padicular
description in the WDO the Director may request a formal
interpretation by the City Council. Alternatively, any person, upon
application may request such an interpretation.
INTERPRETATION OF ORDINANCE 2227
Ordinance 2227 approved a conditional zone change on the subject
propedy from Single Family Residential (RS) to Commercial General (CG) and
Section 3 stated, "that the zone change granted by Section 2 of this ordinance shall
allow only an elderly group care facility."
Since Ordinance 2227 was passed when the substantive provisions of the
WZO were in effect, the WZO must be first examined for assistance as what was
meant by the term "elderly group care facility" as specified in the ordinance.
Although the WZO contains an extensive definitions section, lhe term "elderly group
care facility" is not defined by the WZO. "group home", "Homes for the Aged and
Infirm" and "Nursing Home" are all defined by the WZO. However, none of these
defined terms were used in Ordinance 2227. Because "elderly group care facility",
is not defined, the City Council must look to the actual use of the subject propedy
under Ordinance 2227 and rely upon its broad power as the governing body to
interpret whether the proposed use of the subject propedy is a similar use.
V. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Facts
1. The facts concerning this matter before the City Council are
contained in the record of this proceeding, including the staff submissions, public
testimony and documentary evidence presented before the City Council, all of
which are by this reference incorporated herein.
78
Attachment "B"
Page 3 of 3
2. The City Council finds that because Ordinance 2227 was passed
when the substantive provisions of the WZO were in effect, the WZO must be first
examined for assistance as what was meant by the term "elderly group care
facility" as specified in the ordinance.
3. The City Council fudher finds that the term "elderly group care
facility" is not defined by the WZO.
4. The Cify Council fudher finds that because "elderly group care
facility," is not defined under the WZO, it must look to the actual use of the subject
propedy under Ordinance 2227 and rely upon its broad power as the governing
body to interpret whether fhe proposed use of the subject propedy is a similar use
to the permissible use of "elderly group care facility.
5. 5. The City Council fudher finds that, from the testimony and
record, it appears that fhe proposed use of the subject propedy is a similar use to
the permissible use of "elderly group care facility" initially approved under
Ordinance 2227 and that the proposed use of the subject propedy is, therefore,
allowed by the previously enacted conditional zone change.
B. Conclusions:
1. The City Council concludes that Ordinance 2227 constitutes the
City Council's own enactment.
2. The City Council concludes that Section 3 of Ordinance 2227 is
not clear on its face and needs interpretation. Specifically, the term "elderly group
care facility" is not defined by the WZO. It is necessary for the City Council to
interpret whether the proposed use of the subject property is a similar use to the
permissible use of "elderly group care facility" initially approved under Ordinance
2227.
3. The City Council concludes that it has the legal authority to
make the necessary interpretation because this constitutes a "local government
interpretation" under ORS 197.829, Gage v. City of Portland, 319 Or 308 (1994) and
Clark v. Jackson County, 313 Or 508 (1992).
4. The City Council concludes that the proposed use of the subject
property is a similar use to the permissible use of "elderly group care facility" initially
approved under Ordinance 2227 and that the proposed use of the subject
property is allowed by the previously enacted conditional zone change.
'/9
11D
February 13, 2006
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
John C. Brown, City Administrator
Community Development Block Grant - Hazelwood Estates
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance Making
Appropriations For A Community Development Block Grant Received During
Fiscal Year 2005-06.
BACK~,ROUND:
On August 8, 2006, following a public hearing, the City Council approved an
application to the Oregon Economic and Community Development
Depadment (OECDD) for a Community Development Block Grant in the
amount of $225,000. The grant was sought to help the Madon County Housing
Authority fund off-site improvements associated with its Hazelwood Estates senior
housing project on Carol Street.
The City was awarded the grant; the Mayor executed the grant agreement in
December 2005.
DISCUSSION:
Since December 2005, the staff has executed agreements with the Mid-
Willamette Valley Council of Governments (COG), and with PacWest
Engineering. Agreements are for :$23,000 and $11,500, respectively. The COG
will provide grant administration services, including an environmental
assessment and labor standards compliance. PacWest is developing
construction and bid documents, and will provide project staking and
construction management. The remainder of the grant, ,$190,500, will provide
contactor payments for street and storm water improvements.
Agenda Item Review:
,./-' ,.
City Administrat ~~~'
80
City Attorne~t~'~
Financ~
Honorable Mayor and City Council
February 13, 2006
Page 2
Progress billings were received from the COG and PacWest, and are due and
payable at the end of this month. A reimbursement request for this work was
prepared by the COG, and submitted to OECDD last week. It is necessary for
the Council to budget these funds at the present time, to account for these
payments, and for grant reimbursement.
FINAN(~IAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. Grant
funds are considered sufficient to support the pass-through costs associated with
this project.
8!
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR A COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT RECEIVED DURING FISCAL YEAR 2005-06, AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, Oregon Revised Statutes 294.326 provides for the expenditure of
grant funds transferred to a municipal corporation for a specific purpose, and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2005 the City Council conducted a public hearing, and
approved an application to the State of Oregon Economic and Community Development
Department for a Community Development Block Grant for the purpose of providing financial
assistance for off-site infrastructure improvements, and grant administration, related to the
Hazelwood Housing project on Carol Street; and
WHEREAS, on November I, 2005 the City received Notice of Grant Award
from the State of Oregon Economic and Community Development Department for $225,000
related to offsite improvements for the Hazelwood project; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2005 the Mayor executed, on behalf of the City, a
Grant Agreement with the State of Oregon Economic and Community Development Department,
referenced as Project No. P05032; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to budget these grant monies to provide for
contractor payments, now therefore
THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That appropriations be increased within the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Fund for fiscal year 2005-06 as follows:
REVENUES
CDBG Fund:
Grant- State
Total CDt~G Fund Revenue
$ 225,000
EXPENDITURES:
CDBG Fund:
Materials & Services - Administration
Capital Outlay - Engineering
Capital Outlay - Construction
Total CDBG Fund Appropriations
$ 23,000
11,500
190,500
Section 3. This ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health and safety, in that adoption of the appropriations will allow the availability
of funds to pay engineering, administration, and construction costs, an emergency is declared to
$2
exist and this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by the Council and approval
by the Mayor
City Attomey D
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Approved:
Kathryn Figley, Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant City Recorder
City of Woodbum, Oregon
Page 2 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
83
11E
February 13, 2006
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and City Council ,~
John C. Brown, City AdministratoF-~
Periodic Review Record
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution Ratifying the
Compilation and Indexing of the Legislative Record Regarding the Completion
of Periodic Review Tasks.
BACKGROUND:
On October 31, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2391 which
completed periodic review tasks by:
Amending the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan
Adopting a new urban growth boundary
· Amending the Woodburn Development Ordinance
· Repealing Ordinance 1689, the city's previous growth
ordinance
· Adopting certain background documents
· Making legislative findings; and
· Setting an effective date
management
As the City Council will recall, a wide array of documents was available on
October 31, 2005, including some documents that were presented to the
Council at previous meetings, and some documents that had not been
presented at previous meetings.
DISCUSSION:
Ideally, every document that forms the record of the City's periodic review and
urban growth boundary expansion project would have presented to Council at
lhe October 31st meeting. The record, however, includes all pertinent
Agenda Item Review:
84
Finance~./~
Honorable Mayor and City Council
February 13, 2006
Page 2
documents that were developed or submitted during the seven years this
project was conducted, and is several thousand pages in volume. This includes
plans, studies, and supporting documents including evolving drafts of those
presented in October as final documents - and some that were adopted
previously; materials distributed at open houses, workshops, meetings
conducted by a various task forces, and at Planning Commission and City
Council meetings; and correspondence generated and received by City staff.
As a legislative matter, the City Council is not required to have read this entire
compilation prior to having rendered its decision in the matter. Legislators
routinely enter material into "the record" so that it can be considered part of
the decision making process. As a practical matter, City decision-makers have,
in fact, digested this material in several significant bites and in a variety of
venues during the past seven years, and based recommendation, decisions and
policy choices on this material in that time.
That said, the City's consultant expressed concern, following your October 2005
decision, that the record would be incomplete if only those materials available
in the Council Chambers on October 31st were forwarded to the County of
Marion and the State of Oregon. Both agencies were, in fact, provided with
advance copies of the material before Council in October 2005. County staff
has indicated it will not bring this matter before the Board of Commissioners until
it has a copy of the entire record of our periodic review project. The consultant
also advised indexing the material in logical and chronological order for ease of
review by the County and State would be of benefit to the City
Since October 31st the consultant developed an index of the record and City
staff has, with the consultant's guidance, compiled what is believed to be most
useful presentation of the full record of our periodic review. This was a daunting
task, given the length of time since the project began, its myriad components,
the locations in which records have been stored, the sheer volume of the
material to review and compile, and the absence of the Director who
managed record keeping until July 2005. Holidays, departmental workload,
and consultant availability have also extended the time needed to compile the
full record.
Your ratification of the compilation is requested, and is intended to make the
record more navigable by those who will evaluate it next, and reduce the
potential of challenges to the record. Upon your approval, staff will draft a letter
for the Mayor's signature, conveying the record to Marion County, and asking
the Board of Commissioners to consider and approve those areas of our
Honorable Mayor and City Council
February 13, 2006
Page 3
periodic review and urban growth boundary expansion for which
responsible.
FINANCIAL IMPACT,:
There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action.
they
are
86
COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
AN RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE COMPILATION AND INDEXING OF THE LEGISLATIVE
RECORD FOR LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT 05-01 REGARDING THE COMPLETION OF
PERIODIC REVIEW WORK TASKS
WHEREAS, the City previously adopted Ordinance 2391 (Legislative
Amendment 05-01) to complete Periodic Review ("the Periodic Review
Amendment Package"); and
WHEREAS, the Periodic Review process started in 1997 by the approval of
the City's Work Program by the Department of Land Conservation and
Development; and
WHEREAS, prior to adoption of the Periodic Review Amendment Package,
the City provided extensive public input, including public open houses, work
sessions and public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Legislative Record for the Periodic Review Amendment
Package is voluminous and consists of several thousand pages; and
WHEREAS, the City retained Winterbrook Planning to compile and index
the Legislative Record so that it can be evaluated and considered by Madon
County and then submitted to the Land Conservation and Development
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Legislative Record has been compiled and indexed; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Legislative Record for Legislative Amendment 05-01, in its
compiled and indexed form, is appended hereto.
Section 2. The City Council ratifies the Legislative Record appended
hereto.
Section 3. The City Recorder is directed to file this resolution with the
Legislative Record and to distribute copies as is appropriate and permitted by
law.
Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
87
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
Approved:
Kathryn Figley, Mayor
Passed by the Council
Submitted to the Mayor
Approved by the Mayor
Filed in the Office of the Recorder
ATTEST:
Mary Tennant City Recorder
City of Woodburn, Oregon
Page 2-
COUNCIL BILL NO.
RESOLUTION NO.
11F
February 1,2006
TO:
Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
FROM:
Scott D. Russell, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Training Agreement Portland Police Bureau
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Woodburn Police Depadment to sign an agreement with the
Portland Police Bureau for police driving range use and training services.
BACKGROUND:
The Podland Police Bureau has built a reputation as a regional leader in
providing police emergency vehicle operations training. The Woodburn Police
Depadment has padnered with Podland Police and padicipaled in their training
on several occasions. These padnerships have allowed us to obtain training and
utilize training equipment that we would not othepwise have been able to
obtain. The Portland Police have expressed a desire to continue and formalize
this training arrangement by the signature of the mentioned agreement, which
constitutes a Memorandum of Understanding.
DISCUSSION:
One of the challenges of modern police management is seeing to the
maintenance of officer's perishable skills through ongoing training. Many of the
critical skills that officers must possess, to be safe and to reduce civil liabilities,
perish if they are not utilized regularly. These critical skills (shooting, pursuit
driving, ground fighting, responding to an active shooter, etc) are thankfully not
needed on a regular basis in the City of Woodburn. However, when a skill is
needed the courts and the public expect that our officers will possess the
required skill and be competent in using it. This requires continuous and rigorous
training on not lust new topics but, retraining and maintenance of the basic skill
sets.
The Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training now requires
each officer to complete a number of hours of in service training in specific
Agenda Item Review: City Administrat City Attorney [kJ'L .~ Finance~
89
Mayor and City Council
February 1,2006
Page 2
areas every year in order to maintain their certification. The Woodburn Police
Department has worked diligently to train our own staff as instructors and
subject matter experts and we have numerous certified police instructors on
various topics within our department. However, with the many varied fields that
must be covered, some outside instructors and classes must be used each year.
The cost of such training continues to escalate and includes; training
equipment, instructor fees, travel, per diem, and loss in work time. The proposed
mutually beneficial agreement would assist us in obtaining regular, quality,
realistic police training in the critical subjects of emergency vehicle operations
that we would otherwise have to pay a great deal for, and/or travel a great
distance for, or in many cases lust do without.
The referenced agreement was drafted to assure proper safety, and liability
measures are followed in order to provide for a safe and efficient training facility
for all those involved in the training and the public as well. However, prior to
signing such an agreement the department desired to allow for any council
comment on the matter.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Sufficient monies are available in the Police budget to cover the cost of the
contract.
90
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
This agreement, dated January 1, 2006 is by and between the Bureau of Police, City of
Portland, Oregon (hereafter referred to as PPB) and the Woodbum Police Department
(hereafter referred to as WPD). The PPB authorized representative for this agreement is
Captain George Babnick, Training Division. The WPD authorized representative for this
agreement is Charles Blevins, Police Captain.
RECITALS:
1. PPB shall be conducting Police Vehicle Operation (PVO) training at the AMC facility
January through December, 2006.
2. WPD desires to have their officers attend PVO training at the same facility.
1. AGREEMENT:
1. PPB shall maintain a use agreement with the Port of Portland for the training at the
AMC facility.
2. PPB shall provide at least one instructor for the PVO training, who will be present
with WPD personnel at all times.
3. WPD shall provide vehicles for use by their officers.
4. WPD shall provide additional instructors and lesson plans in support of the training.
WPD officers and instructors shall adhere to all policies, procedures,
safety protocols and facility use rules as established by PPB and the Port of
Portland while participating in the PVO training.
Subject to the provisions of paragraph 9 (Indemnification) of this agreement, WPD
shall be responsible for any claims, loss or damage resulting from the actions of
WPD and it~ ofllcer~, agent~ and employee~ in the use of the premises and
participation in the training provided under this agreement, including
reimbursement to PPB for any damage to PPB equipment caused by the officers,
agents and employees of WPD. Any reimbursement required by PPB shall be based
on the actual expenses incurred for repair or replacement of said equipment.
PPB shall be responsible for any claims, loss or damage resulting from the actions
of PPB and its officers, agents and employees in performance of this agreement by
PPB. Any reimbursement required by WPD shall be based on the actual expenses
incurred for repair or replacement of said equipment.
91
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Page 2 of 4
2. COMPENSATION:
WPD agrees to reimburse the City of Portland, Bureau of Police for the cost of instructor
wages at the rate which it is incurred.
3. BILLING AND PAYMENT PROCEDURE:
PPB shall invoice WPD for all expenses incurred by WPD at the completion of the PVO
training segment. WPD shall submit payment within 30 days of receipt of the invoice
from PPB.
WPD shall invoice PPB for all expenses Incurred by PPB at the completion of the PVO
training segment. PPB shall submit payment within 30 days of receipt of the Invoice
from WPD.
4. EFFECTIVE AND TERMINATION DATES:
This agreement shall bo effective as of January 1, 2006, and shall terminate on
December 3t, 2006 or upon comple~ion of the PVO training or upon proper notice by the
parties to this agreement.
5. NOTICE:
Ail notices pursuant to the terms of this agreement shall be addressed as
follows:
If to PPB:
George Babnick
Captain, Training Division
Portland Police Bureau
1111 SW ~ Avenue, Suite 1180
Portland, OR 97204
503 823-03t8
If to WPD:
Charles Blevins
Captain, Woodburn Police Department
92
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Page 3 of 4
6. AMENDMENTS:
PPB and WPD may amend this agreement at any time only by written amendment
executed by PPB and WPD.
?. EARLY TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT:
This agreement may be terminated by either party on 30 days written notice of such
termination to the other party.
8. OREGON LAW AND REFORM:
1. This agreement shall be construed according to the law of the
State of Oregon.
Any litigation between WPD and PPB arising under this
agreement shell occur, in the state courts, in the Multnomah
County Court having jurisdiction thereof, and in the federal
Courts, in the United States Court for the District of Oregon.
9. INDEMNIFICATION:
Subject to the limitations set forth in the Oregon Constitution and Oregon Tort Claims act,
the WPD shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Portland Police
Bureau and its officers, agents and employees from and against all claims and
liability for bodily injury and property damage arising from the actions of WPD and
its officers, agents and employees in the use of the premises and participation in the
training under this agreement.
Subject to the limitations set forth in the Oregon Constitution and Oregon Tort
Claims Act, the City of Portland, Police Bureau shall defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the Woedbum Police Department and its officers, agents and employees
from and against all claims and liability for bodily injury and property damage
arising from the actions of the City of PorUand Police Bureau and its officers, agents
and employees in performance of the agreement by PPB.
93
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Page 4 of 4
10. INSURANCE:
WPD is a unit of local govemment under Oregon law, or maintains commercial
general liability insurance coverage. A certificate of liability insurance or self-
insurance will be provided upon request. WPD is responsible for providing workers
compensation insurance coverage of its personnel who attend PVO training under
this agreement.
11. INTEGRATION:
This agreement contains the entire agreement between WPD and PPB and
supercedee all prior written, oral discussions or agreements regarding PVO training.
PORTLAND POLICE BUREAU
By: Date:
George Babnick
Captain, Training Division
Portland Police Bureau
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney, City of Portland
Woodbum Police Department
Date:
Charles Blevins
Police Captain
Woodbum Police Department
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney, Woodbum, OR
Date:
Date:
94
llG
February 1,2006
TO:
FROM:
Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator
Scott D. Russell, Chief of Police~'"/'
SUBJECT:
Multiple Bid Award for Police Facility Integrated Building Security
System and Low Power Data Cabling Services
RECOMMENDATION:
(1) Award the contract for a design build of the Police Facility Integrated
Building Security System to Entrance Controls, Inc., for $97,860.00.
(2) Award the contract for the Public Address/Paging and Low Power Data
Cabling Services to ESP Technologies for $50,634.60.
BACKGROUND:
Two contracts are to be awarded for separate parts of the Police Facility
Integrated Building Security System and Low Power Data Cabling on the Police
Facility Project. The project was advertised for bid beginning on November 19,
2005, and bids were opened on December 15, 2005. Two bids were received.
The results were:
Bidder for Security
Entrance Controls, Inc.
ESP Technologies
Amount
$97,860.00
$127,365.00
<~Lowest
Responsible Bidder
Bidder for Low Power/PA
Amount
ESP Technologies
$50,634.00
The Police Facility Project bid phase for an Integrated Building Security System
and Low Power Data Cabling has been completed and the apparent lowest
responsible bidder is Entrance Controls, Inc. The other bidder ESP Technologies,
Agenda Item Review:
City Administrat C'ty Attorney IV/1'' --)
95
Mayor and City Council
February 1,2006
Page 2
was the sole bidder to respond to the add alternate bid for Low Power Data
and Cabling services and has agreed to accept a partial award for lust those
services. The bids of $97,860.00 from Entrance Controls, and $50,634.00 for ESP
Technologies, are within the identified budget for the project, while still keeping
necessary contingencies intact. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council
make the determination that the bids are in the best interest of the City and
award the contracts.
FINAN(~IAL IMPACT:
$148,494.00 for the project is available from bond proceeds and COPS
Technology Grant Funds placed in the Capital Improvement Projects fund for
the Police Facility Project.