Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda - 07/25/2005
CITY OF WOODBURN GIT',( COUNCIL AGENDA JULY 25, 2005 - 7:00 P.M. KATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR WALTER NICHOLS, COUNCILOR WARD 1 RICHARD BJELLAND, COUNCILOR WARD It PETER MCCALLUM, COUNCILOR WARD ti1 JAMES COX, COUNCILOR WARD IV FRANK LONERGAN, COUNCILOR WARD V ELIDA SIFUENTEZ, COUNCILOR WARD VI CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 270 MONTGOMERY STREET CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND APPOINTMENTS Announcements: A. Music in the Park presents Men of Worth on July 26, 2005, and Koral Jam on August 2, 2005. Both performances begin at 7:00 p.m. The Mayor's Cup Golf Tournament will be held at Senior Estates Country Club on July 29, 2005 with a shotgun start at 1:00 p.m. Co The 22nd Annual National Night Out is August 2, 2005, 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. To register, call the Woodburn Police Department at 982-2345. The rgistration deadline is July 31. Do The 41 st annual La Fiesta Mexicana will be held on August 5-7, 2005, with a parade beginning at noon running from Settlemier Park to Legion Park. Walt's Run wilt be held on August 13, 2005, 8:00 a.m., at Centennial Park. Registration forms can be obtained at the Aquatic Center. Appointments: None. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Proclamations: None. "EIa[~rd int~rpretes ~ispo~d[~[es para aqu~[[as personas clue ~o baI,[an InO[~s/ previo acuerao, comunicluese a[ (5o3) 98o-z485." July 25, 2005 Council Agenda Page i Presentations: B. Certificate of Appreciation to Donna Gramse for the City's Marion County Fair 2005 Exhibit 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS Chamber of Commerce Woodburn Downtown Association 6. COMMUNICATIONS None. e 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 July 11, 2005, regular and 1 executive sessions Recommended Action: Approve the minutes. B. Woodburn Planning Commission minutes o! June 23, 2005 13 Recommended Action: Accept the rninutes. C. Woodburn Public Library Board minutes of July 13, 2005 Recommended Action: Accept the minutes. 15 D. Recreation and Park Board draft minutes of July 12, 005 19 Recommended Action: Accept the draft minutes. E. Claims for June 2005 21 Recommended Action: Receive the report. F. Summer Water Use 27 Recommended Action: Receive the report. July 25, 2005 Council Agenda Page 9. TABLED BUSINESS None. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 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 portion of the Council's agenda. Comment time may be limited by Mayoral prerogative. A. Council Bill 2581 - Ordinance levying assessments for the 28 improvement of Boones Ferry Road from Goose Creek to Hazelnut Drive Recommended Action: Adopt the ordinance. B. Council Bill 2582 - Resolution entering into an 63 intergovernmental agreement with Marion County for various types of road maintenance and engineering services and authorizing the City Administrator to sign such agreement Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution. C. Community Development Director Vacancy 70 Recommended Action: (1) authorize the City Administrator to solicit proposals from executive search firms to conduct a recruitment to fill the Community Development Director position and (2) approve the attached resolution(Council Bill 2583) approving a transfer of $25,000 from General Fund Contingencies (00t-c)01-c]c]71-5c)21) to the Human Resources account in the General Fund Non-Departmental budget (001- lC]C]-121c)-5417) to support the cost of executive search services. D. Legislative Amendment05-01 (Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive 75 Plan Update) - Additional Written Testimony and Staff Responses to Testimony Recommended Action: Instruct staff to prepare an ordinance adopting Legislative Amendment 05-01, subject to the revisions recommended within the staff memorandum to the City Council dated June 13, 2005 July 25, 2005 Council Agenda Page South Front Street Improvements Recommended Action: Award construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Parker Northwest Paving Company Inc., for street and storm drain improvements on South Front Street in the amount of $845,627.19. 86 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. 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. Planning Commission's Approval of Design Review 05-05, Variance 05-09, Variance 05-13 and Exception 05-01 (Marion County Housing Authority) 88 14. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 15. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 16. EXECUTIVE SESSION Ao To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor negotiations pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(d). To consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection pursuant to ORS 192.660 (1)(f). 17. ADJOURNMENT July 25, 2005 Council Agenda Page iv 8A COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 TAPE READING 0001 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OP~GON, JULY 11, 2005. CONVENED. The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. 0025 ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Bjelland Present Councilor Cox Present Councilor Lonergan Absent Councilor McCallum Present Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Public Works Director Tiwari, Public Works Manager Rohrnan, Park & Recreation Director Westrick, Police Captain Tennant, Senior Planner Zwerdling, Senior CE Technician Scott, City Recorder Tennant OO58 0151 ANNOUNCEMENTS. A) Music in the Park: 1) Severin Sisters - Library Park, July 12, 2005 beginning at 7:00 p.m.. 2) Gail Gage Band - Library Park, July 19, 2005 beginning at 7:00 p.m.. B) Basset Hound Games will be held on Sunday, July 17, 2005, at Legion Park beginning at 10:00 a.m. with registration beginning at 9:00 a.m.. C) Periodic Review Deliberations will be held on Monday, July 25, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.. D) Mayor's Cup Golf Tournament will be held on July 29, 2005 at the Senior Estates Country Club beginning at 1:00 p.m.. E) 22nd Annual National Night Out will be held on Tuesday, August 2, 2005 from 6:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m.. Neighborhood groups wishing to participate in this annual event are asked to register with the Police Department by July 31st. Mayor Figley stated that she and Councilor Sifuentez will be touring several gatherings throughout the City to visit with participating groups. PROCLAMATION: NATIONAL NIGHT OUT - AUGUST 2, 2005. Mayor Figley read the proclamation declaring August 2, 2005 as National Night Out within the City and encouraged local neighborhoods to participate in this annual event promoting crime, drug and violence prevention programs and police-neighborhood partnerships. Page 1 - Council Meeting Minutes, July 11, 2005 1 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 TAYE READYNG 0228 PROCLAMATION: RECREATION AND PARKS MONTH - JULY 2005. Mayor Figtey proclaimed the month of July 2005 as Recreation and Parks Month within the City and urged all residents to visit a City Park, the Aquatic Center, or participate in a recreation program or special event offered by the City. 0325 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Pd~PORT. Nick Harville, Executive Director, expressed his appreciation to the City for assisting with the Drums of Fire event held on July 6th at the high school. As in the past, they served strawberry shortcake to the kids participating in the event and it was noted that Woodbum was the only location on tour within the United States that does something for the kids after the event. On behalf of the Chamber, he congratulated the City on winning the Grand Prize for 'City Display' at the North Marion County Fair this year. The Visitor Center is almost complete and it is scheduled to be open on August 1, 2005 with its Grand Opening on August 9, 2005. Volunteer training will begin on July 12th and volunteers will be going through the Q Quality Customer Service training followed by familiarization tours to show the volunteers the different locations of interest throughout our area so that they can talk to the visitors intelligently about these areas. On July 20a', Bill Baker will be conducting a workshop with the Tourism Alliance on "Destination Branding" in an effort to develop an identity for our area. It was noted that Mr. Baker is well-known for his work in destination branding and the Tourisrn Alliance is looking forward to this workshop. Councilor McCalium questioned if the Q Training program is the same training program received by employees of DisneyWorld and Disneyland. Mr. Harville stated that the modules used are from the Disney training session. Councilor McCallum stated that he was very impressed with the customer service which is top priority at the theme park and, if translated to our businesses, then it will be an exciting time for our comrnunity. Mr. Harville also stated that Ed Gonzalez, Hubbard Chevrolet, is the only bi-lingual trainer in the State of Oregon under the Q Training program. To date, between the people trained through the Chamber and Woodburn Company Stores, Woodburn is close to being a Q Certified community. 0675 CONSENT AGENDA. A) approve regular and executive session Council minutes of June 27, 2005; B) accept the Library Board minutes of June 8, 2005; C) accept the Recreation and Park Board minutes of June 14, 2005; D) accept the Planning Commission minutes of May 26, 2005; E) receive the Planning Tracking Sheet dated July 6, 2005; F) receive the Building Activity report for June 2005; and G) receive the Analysis of Distribution System Coliforn~/E. Coli Event report. Page 2 - Council Meeting Minutes, July 11, 2005 2 TAPE READFNG COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 NICHOLS/MCCALLUM...adopt the consent agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 0747 PUBLIC HEAPdNG: BOONES FERRY ROAD - GOOSE CPdgEK TO HAZELNUT DPdVE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (LID) FINAL ASSESSMENT. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing open at 7:15 p.m.. Councilor McCallurn declared a conflict of interest since he is a resident of the area and financially involved in the LID, therefore, he would not be involved in the discussion or voting. Public Works Director Tiwari reviewed the Local Improvement District (LID) process beginning with the project initiation through construction completion. Once final costs were ascertained, final assessments were determined based on the methodology used in the Ordinance 2318 which authorized the improvement. This public hearing is the first step in finalizing assessments to benefitted properties and property owners of record have been notified by mail of this heating date/time and a complete copy of the proposed assessment -,,vas published in the Woodburn Independent. For the record, Director Tiwari stated that the City did receive a letter from the Woodburn Art League which was distributed to the Council just prior to this meeting. He stated that this hearing is an opportunity to review planned versus actual improvements, correct errors in the proposed assessments, and review funding sources. He reviewed the LID boundary area and the improvements made which included 2 traffic lanes, a turn lane, sidewalks on both sides of the street, bike lanes, and undergrounding of utilities. The total project cost was $1,099,465 which was less than the $1,374,747 estimated project cost. Of the total project cost, the City's contribution is $485,047 and the project cost to benefitted property owners is $592,393. It was noted that the project cost was approxirnately 20% less that the original estimate, h~ regards to cost distribution to the benefitted properties, some of the original tax lots have been developed and the proposed final assessment for these parcels have been modified in order to distribute a proportional share of the original assessment to the parcel on a per lot basis. The following subdivisions are listed as rnodified tax lots: Links Phase II and IH, Joy Village, and Goose Hollow. The other modified tax lot is the Gascho property along Boones Ferry Road which was a lot consolidation. Of these modified tax lots, the estimated lien for the Goose Hollow subdivision has been paid in full whereas the majority of lots sold in the Lir~ks Phase II and III have money in escrow to pay the lien, and no funds have been received frorn Joy Village so the current property owners will be responsible for the assessment to their lot. It was also noted that the estimated lien for the Gascho property has been paid. The City has received estimated lien payments from a large number of property owners and the overpayment will be refunded to the payee. For those property owners who would like to finance their share of the cost under the Bancroft Bond program, interest will be charged at 4.54% which is V2 percent more than the most recent Page 3 - Council Meeting Minutes, July 11, 2005 TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 2468 2948 3260 City bond sale interest rate of 4.04%. Unless errors are brought forward as part of this hearing, he recommended that the Council direct staff to prepare a final assessment ordinance based on the information presented in the staff merno. Juan Jimenez, 2832 Revere Street, stated that it was his understanding that the estimated lien was paid for at the tirne he purchased his home. (Translation through Councilor Sifuentez). Recorder Termant stated that his letter does state that the estimated lien was paid and a refund will be rnade to the payee. George Harris, 681 Fairwood Crescent, stated that he is on the Board of Directors of the Links Phase II Homeowners Association. He expressed his concern that, as property owners, they never received any information regarding this assessment whether it be through the real estate agent or the title company at time of closing. Therefore, it is unfair to be taxed for this improvement. Additionally, they did not feel that the methodology used to distribute the cost was fair in that the assessment boundary only charged residents of Ironwood 50% of the allocation. He questioned why Senior Estates was not charged for a portion of the cost since they also use Boones Ferry Road. He urged the Council to re-evaluate the LID boundary since the roadway is used by substantially more people than what is included in the boundary as shown on the map. Mike Cook, 827 Fairwood Crescent, opposed the assessment since he was not given an opportunity to participate in the process. He felt that the whole City should pay for the improvement since it is a major roadway used by all motorists. He also questioned why an assessment district was established for a neighborhood like theirs while most of the City was excluded from the assessment. Dennis Buchanan, 693 Fairwood Crescent, questioned why the escrow companies have not figured out who is or is not supposed to pay on estimated liens, and why none of the builders have shared this information with the current property owners. He also questioned why the builders were not required to pay when building the new homes. Gary Dews, 2481 Tracy Lane, stated that they knew nothing about the proposed assessrnent until the notice was received by them on July 1, 2005. The developer has not finished up what was started in the subdivision and they do not know what to do about this situation. Murillo Ignacio, 1235 Althea Street, stated that he had received the letter on the assessment and he questioned when it needs to be paid. He requested that the letter be translated into Spanish so that he can understand the assessment notice. (Translated by Councilor Sifuentez) Ron Osborne, 581 Fairwood Crescent, stated that he is the President of one of the Homeowners Associations in the Tukwila area. Their concern is that Boones Ferry Road is used by most people in Woodburn and they feel that their neighborhood is being charged for the improvement since they are more able to pay bill than anyone else. This road is used by many motorists since there is a school close by and motorists from Senior Estates travel down Country Club Road to Boones Ferry Road to go either north or south. Page 4 - Council Meeting Minutes, July 11, 2005 4 TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 3756 5319 Mayor Figley stated that the City cannot monitor what is or is not told to a buyer by a developer. The City does record estimated liens and communicates payoff arnounts when requested. Councilor Cox stated that the first public heating was held prior to the property being purchased by those individuals who expressed concerns at this meeting. The original notice was given to the property oWner of record at the time the district was initiated. It was unfomanate that people were not told about the pending assessment since the owners of the property knew about the pending assessment. Discussion was held regarding the assessment process which began during the first part of 2002 and issues relating to disclosure when property transactions take place following the adoption of the ordinance. It was noted that there were some legal challenges initially after the ordinance was adopted in June 2002 and estimated assessments were not recorded with the County until March 2003, however, lien search records through the City should have disclosed the estimated lien amount. Additionally, the lien goes with the property and not the property owner, however, buyers of property are supposed to be informed by the title company of any lien. In regards to the amount of the City's contribution on this project, the Council made the decision to contribute City funds based on the benefit it would provide to the whole community and not based on the ability of a specific area to pay. When a local improvement district is formed, the City cannot force a developer to pay the estimate prior to completion of the project and allocation of the final assessment. Within this project, undeveloped land is also being assessed based on the methodology used in the original ordinance. In regards to Iromvood, a consulting engineer report had determined that 65% of the traffic within that subdivision utilize Front Street to get to Highway 214 which is why this subdivision is only being assessed 50% of the lot calculation. Councilor Bjelland stated that streets are used by the general public and the Council needs to make a rationale decision to determine which property owners are most affected by a street improvement and then determine how much those property owners should pay towards the cost of the improvement versus how much the City should pay for the road improvement for the amount of city-wide usage. Councilor Cox also stated that the City does not charge property owners for normal street maintenance such as resurfacing provided that the street has been built to City standards. Mr. Buchanan questioned if Crosby Road will becorne an freeway access. Mayor Figley stated that another interchange whether it be at Crosby Road or at Butteville Road would be sensible but she did not foresee it occurring for many years. Public Works Director Tiwari stated that once a final ordinance is adopted, property owners will receive a notice of final assessment. Properties that have an outstanding lien will receive an informational packet on repayment options which will include paperwork on the Bancroft Bond program. Mayor Figley declared the public hearing closed at 8:23 p.m.. Page 5 - Council Meeting Minutes, July 11, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 TAPE READING 5908 Councilor Sifiaentez requested that Community Relations Officer Javier Meza Perfecto meet with Mr. Ignacio to explain the assessment process. Councilor Cox stated that his past experience with local improvement districts has resulted in property owners stating that the cost of the improvement should be assessed more widely. However, it is a judgment call on the part of the City and a decision was made in 2002 to establish the boundary and the rnethod of calculating the cost to each benefitted property. Councilor Bjelland stated that a lengthy discussion was held in 2002 and a decision was rnade for the City to contribute about $.5 million towards this project. Unfortunately, there was a lot of lag time before this final assessment is being made and he hoped that in the future the process will not take as long from the point in time that the assessment district is formed to the point in time when actual assessments are allocated. BJELLAND~IICHOLS... instruct staff to prepare an ordinance for Council action establishing the final assessment amounts as presented. The motion passed 4-0 with Councilor McCallum not participating in the vote due to his declaration of a conflict of interest. 6378 COUNCIL BILL NO. 2578 - ORDINANCE APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW CASE FILE NO. 05-01 AND VAPdANCE CASE FILE NO. 05-05 AFFECTING 6557 PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1475 MT. HOOD AVENUE. Councilor Bill 2578 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. Recorder Tennant read the two readings of the bill by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2578 duly passed with the emergency clause. COUNCIL BILL NO. 2579 - RESOLUTION DECLARING CERTAIN CITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 491 N. THIRD STREET TO BE SUP. PLUS PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZE SALE OF PROPERTY TO DEBORAH 6672 HIGGINBOTHAM (former Woodburn Community Center). Councilor Sifuentez introduced Council Bill 2579. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2579 duly passed. COUNCIL BILL NO. 2580 - RESOLUTION ENTEPd?,~G INTO AN INTERGOVEI~NMENTAL AGREEMENT CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH CHEMEI'~TA COMMUNITY COLLEGE FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE CHEMEK~TA COOPERATIVE REGIONAL LIBRARY SERVICE (CCR~S), Council Bill No. 2580 was introduced by Councilor Sifuentez. The bill was read by title only since there were no objections from the Council. On roll call vote for final passage, the bill passed unanimously. Mayor Figley declared Council Bill 2580 duly passed. Page 6 - Council Meeting Minutes, July 11, 2005 6 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 TAPE READYNG Tape 2 0029 WATER SYSTEM DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES. Public Works Manager Rohman stated that staff requested the treatment plant design consultant, Kennedy/Jenks, to look at disinfection alternatives and costs, and to make a recornmendation to the City on a preferred system based on their analysis. Mayor Figley expressed her opinion that the technical rnemorandum prepared by Mr. Tormanen was understandable and she did not want to go through another boil water order. In looking at the range of treatment options, she felt that the City should seriously consider some type of chlorination in order to not have a repeat of what the City previously experienced. Councilor McCallum also appreciated the clarity of the report and had hoped that chlorination would not be necessary but, in reviewing the alternatives, he thought that option 2 (chlorine on-site but not using it full-time) would be a preferred alternative. In his opinion, health and safety of the residents is top priority and chlorination should be considered to prevent another occurrence of coliform bacteria in the water. Public Works Manager Rohman stated that the water treatment project is slightly under budget and, in looking at revenue sources, staff would need to look for a loan source for about one-half of the estimated cost. Councilor Bjelland questioned the cost differential between full-time chlorination versus stand-by chlorination. Travis Tormanen, representing Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, stated that a standby system could be located at each treatment plant which would be similar in cost to one that is a full-time system. Another option would be to have one system that could be moved out to a system where a problem exists resulting in a significantly lower cost. Public Works Manager Rohman stated that staff had been looking at the option of having a chlorination system in place at each location so that it would be ready to go when the need arises. Councilor Cox questioned the anticipated time line to get the -water treatment system fully on line. Manager Rohrnan stated that staff wanted to takce about 60-90 days to take a closer look at the systems and go through the process to clean out all of the tanks. Councilor Cox stated that the Council made a conscious decision several years ago when designing the treatment facilities not to chlorinate the water. After spending millions of dollars to accomplish that, no one ever suggested to the Council that, by the nature of the new system, it would require chlorination. With the recent boil order, it is now being suggested that the water be chlorinated since the reservoirs are so large. The consultant's report did not say that chlorination is necessary and he feels that the Council should wait to see if the treatment plants will function the way they are designed to do without chlorination. Unfortunately, the City will probably never know what caused the coliform bacteria to be present in the water. He reiterated that problems at the facilities outlined in the consultant's report be corrected, staff monitor the system aggressively, and plan to Page 7 - Council Meeting Minutes, July 1 t, 2005 7 TAPE R£ADEqG COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 continue operating without chlorination until such time as it is proven that this incident was anything other than a one-time occurrence. Councilor McCallum questioned how long it would take to implement a chlorination system if nothing is done at this time. Manager Rohman stated that it would take six to nine months to design a systern and then have it installed. Currently the City is taking 7 or 8 samples per week and no coliform has been found in the water since the boil water order was rescinded at the end of May. During June 2005, the City took twice as many samples and no coliform has been found. Water is still being pumped directly from ground water to the distribution lines and testing is. on-going at the treatment plants and reservoirs. Two of the reservoirs have been cleaned and partially refilled with samples being taken and no bacteria has been found in the water within the reservoirs. Mayor Figley stated that she would be more agreeable to not chlorinating the water if this truly was a one time occurrence, however, what concerns her is the feedback the City received from the Health Department officials basically stating that Woodbum and Keizer are lucky that this has not happened before. If it would happen again, she would rather go to the expense now and chlorinate the system. Manager Rohmart stated that it was staff's feeling back in the 1990's that the plant could be operated safely without disinfection. There have been periodic coliform occurrences in the City's distribution system in the past when water has been pumped directly from ground water but e-coli was not present. Travis Tormanen stated that there are a number of systems in the United States that do operate without chlorination even with much larger stored quantity of water than Woodburn. This system is designed to operate without chlorination and the consultants feel that it can still be operated that way safely, however, there is alvvays a greater risk of occurrences such as this in an un-chlorinated system. Councilor Bjelland stated that it was his understanding that a consultant would perform an analysis of this incident in an attempt to figure out why it might have occurred. Administrator Brown stated that this report is part of the Consent Agenda for this meeting and the consultant did not come up with any kind of conclusion as to what the cause was for the presence of coliform but they did make a number of recommendations as to how system improvements should be made to reduce the opportunity for this type of incident to occur in the future. Public Works Director Tiwari stated that the treatment facility was built knowing that chlorination would need to be done at some time in the future. He agreed that there was a lot of discussion at the Council level about chlorination when the facilities were designed and it was decided to design a system that would not require chlorination. He reminded the Council that designing and constructing a chlorination system will take 6-9 months. Councilor McCallum stated that other local water districts have also recently gone through an e-coli event and reiterated that the health and safety of our citizens are extremely important to him. However, he suggested that the design phase for Page 8 - Council Meeting Minutes, July 11, 2005 8 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 TAPE RE333ING 2386 chlorination be initiated and the City keep evaluating the need to actually construct the systern. Councilor Sifuentez agreed with Councilor McCallum that the design should begin since it will take several months and prevention should begin at this time rather than waiting until it occurs again. Councilor Cox reiterated that the system was designed to operate without chlorine and, since the system has never been operational, he feels that the problem arose during the initial start-up. He was reluctant to spend $.5 million as a fear reaction on a chlorination system just in case it might happen again. He is concerned about the public's health and safety but does not feel that now is the time to move forward with a chlorination alternative. Councilor Nichols expressed his opinion that the engineer's have monitored the system as it has been built and he felt that it should be given an opportunity to be operational without chlorine and then, if it does not work, it will be 6-9 months before a chlorination system can be installed. Councilor Bjelland stated that he reviewed the technical memorandum in the consent agenda but did not realize that it was the final report since he did not see any discussion on what caused the bacteria to show up in a water sample. He agreed with Councilor Cox in that the system is designed to operate without chlorination and that it is premature to chlorinate at this time since the system has not been on-line and operational. Mayor Figley's stated that even though the public was upset over the situation, they were very patient and tolerant of the City's effort to correct the problem. She stated that she will not be as tolerant the next time this might occur and hoped that it would be rnany years in the future. 2684 PLANNING COMMISSION OR ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTIONS. A) Community Development Director's approval of Partition 05-04 (1791 W. Lincoln Street): The Director approved the partition of a .34 acre parcel into 2 parcels within the single family residential zone. No action was taken by the Council to call this action up for review. 2712 MAYOR AND COUNCIL PdgPORTS. Councilor McCallum questioned if the Police Department had received very many reports regarding illegal fireworks since he had heard that the City of Vancouver Washington had issued about 111 citations for violating their city ordinance. Captain Tennant stated that some calls were received but it was not disproportionate to the vmmber of calls received in past years. Councilor Bjelland reported that the 2005-07 Public Transit Division Discretionary Grant Program awards have been approved and $21.5 million was made available for funding. The City of Woodburn did quite well in this proposal by securing $4,487 for vehicle preventative maintenance, $47,108 to replace a vehicle, $15,000 for operations for the Page 9 - Council Meeting Minutes, July 11, 2005 9 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 TAPE RJEADING Dial-a Ride Program(funds hhrough Salem Mass Transit District), and $163,309 for a new small bus. Councilor Bjelland also stated that MWACT came to a consensus on a new amendment for prioritizing the transportation projects in our area at their last meeting. He feels that this new amendment will take out the political process, sets up a system of establishing factors that should be taken into account for analyzing projects, assigns weights to the criteria, and, within each criteria, there are a number of variables that will be assigned points. Staff will then go through and evaluate the projects to determine how many points are given for the various variables which are then reported back to the full commission. Previously the commission mernbers assigned points with some general guidelines but they often came to the meeting and assigned their projects with the maximum points and competitors projects with lesser amount of points. He feels that the new approach makes more sense and that the Woodburn interchange project will score very high based on this approach. Councilor Sifuentez stated that there have been a number of burglaries within our community and Police Department investigations are on-going. She has received comrnents from citizens stating that the Police Department does not listen when they call in their loss of property. She suggested that the Police Department have patience and understanding with the citizens and let them know that the department is working toward a resolution to the problem. Councilor Cox shared with the community that the Library is a really great resource to the City and the Children's section of the Library is great not only in the materials section but in the programs they provide for children. Mayor Figley thanked everyone associated with the July 4th celebration which ,sas again a successful event. She also thanked Donna Gra_mse and Randy Westrick who put together the Woodbum Display at the Marion County Fair which was the award winner. She stated that other cities put together very nice displays but Woodburn's was rich in content and represents the kind of place Woodburn really is thereby making it special. 3551 EXECUTIVE SESSION. Mayor Figley entertained a motion to adjourn into executive session under the authority of ORS 192.660(1)(h), ORS 192.660 (1)(f), and ORS 192.660 (1)(d). MCCALLUM/SIFUENTEZ... adjourn into executive session under the statutory authority cited by the Mayor. The motion passed unanimously. The Council adjourned to executive session at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:50 p.m.. The Mayor stated that the Council made no decisions while in executive session. Page 10 - Council Meeting Minutes, July 11, 2005 10 TAPE READING COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JULY 11,2005 3591 ADJOURNMENT. NICHOLS/MCCALLUM .... meeting be adjourned. The rnotion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:51 p.m.. APPROVED K~ATHRYN FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Mary Tennant, Recorder City of Woodbum, Oregon Page 11 - Council Meeting Minutes, July 11, 2005 11 Executive Session COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES July 11, 2005 DATE. CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBUP~,I, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, JULY 11, 2005. CONVENED. The Council met in executive session at 9:31 p.m. with Mayor Figley presiding. ROLL CALL. Mayor Figley Present Councilor Bj elland Present Councilor Cox Present Councilor Lonergan Absent Councilor McCallum Present Councilor Nichols Present Councilor Sifuentez Present Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, City Recorder Tennant Mayor Figley reminded the Councilors and staff that information discussed in executive session is not to be discussed with the public. The executive session was called under the following statutory authority: 1) To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor negotiations pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(d); and 2) To consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection pursuant to ORS 192.660(1)(f). **Note ~ No discussion was held in executive session under the statutory aut'nority of ORS i 92.660 (1)(h) which was included in the motion of the regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT. The executive session adjourned at 9:48 p.m.. APPROVED KATHR'¥2q FIGLEY, MAYOR ATTEST Marl,' Tennant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 1 - Executive Session, Council Meeting Minutes, July 11, 2005 12 8B WOODBURN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 23, 2005 CONVENED The Planning Commission met in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Council Chambers with Chairperson Lima presiding. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lima P Vice Chairperson Bandeiow P Commissioner Vancil A Commissioner Grigorieff A Commissioner Hutchison P Commissioner Jennings P Commissioner GrosJacques P Staff Present: Jim Mulder, Community Development Director Chairperson Lima introduced the newly appointed Commissioner Larry GrosJacques. MINUTES A_~. Woodburn Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 26,2005 Commissioner Jennings moved to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Hutchison seconded the motion, which unanimously carried. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE None COMMUNICATIONS A_=. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2005 B__=. Woodburn City Council Meeting Minutes of May 23, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING None ITEMS FOR ACTION None DISCUSSION ITEMS None REPORTS A__~. Building Activity for May 2005 B_~. Planning Project Tracking Sheet (revised 6-15-05) Staff reported the Marion County Housing Project on Carol St., which was approved by the Commission a few years ago, has finally obtained funding to go forward with the project. However, they wilt come before the Commission very soon because revisions have been made to their plan. Additionally, the City is administering a CDBG Grant (Community Development Block Grant) for them to do the street improvements for that project. Staff briefly reviewed the Planning Project Tracking Sheet. Planning Commission Meeting - June 23, 2005 Page 1 of 2 13 BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION Commissioner Jennin~s asked Staff whether he knew when the WDO Focus Group would meet regarding the WDO revision? Staff replied summertime is obviously a hard time to get everyone together because people go on vacations during that time. Additionally, Naomi is heading the group and she will be gone next week due to a death in the family and he would be gone the week after that. He stated his focus has been on completing Periodic Review so that we have some land to develop. Commissioner Jennin~s also inquired if the City Council is about ready to finalize their decision on the Periodic Review? _Staff indicated the City Council allowed additional written testimony focused on either the items that came in between April 20~ and June 13t" or to respond to any of the recommended Staff changes to what came before the Commission and the Council. He would then work with the Consultant in responding to the additional written testimony. He mentioned he will not be at the next Planning Commission meeting but Naomi will be present for that hearing item. Chairperson Lima mentioned the Public Works Department invited the Planning Commission to attend an open house tonight. He also acknowledged the work that the City did with the boil water alert. He thought it was a unique situation from which we have learned from and hopefully it will not happen again in the future. In closing, Chairperson Lima announced Commissioner Grigorieff was not present tonight due to a death in the family but she plans on attending the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairperson Bandelow moved to adjourn the meeting and was seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm. APPROVED CLAUDIO LIMA, CHAIRPERSON DATE ATTEST ~ ~?~'~'-'~ l.~t~;tfl x;Community Development Director City of Woodburn, Oregon Date Planning Commission Meeting - June 23, 2005 Page 2 of 2 14 8C MINUTES MONTHLY MEETING OF WOODBUI~N PUBLIC LIBRAI~Y BOARD DATE: ROLL CALL: STAFF PRESENT: GUESTS: CALL TO ORDER: SECRETARY'S REPORT: July13,2005 Mary Chadwick - Present Yesenia Chavez - Present Neal Hawes - Present Ardis Knauf- Present Kay Kuka - Present Patricia Will - Absent Catherine Holland - Present Daniel Peterson, Assistant Library Director Vicki Musser, Recording Secretary None. President Catherine Holland called the meeting to order at 7 pm. The minutes of June 8, 2005 were approved. CORRESPONDENCE: None PUBLIC COMMENT: None. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Monthly Statistics: Daniel Peterson, Assistant Library Director, presented the Director's Report. Linda Sprauer, Library Director, is on vacation. There are still some gaps in the statistics. Mmenmmn capamlmes are evolving, and perhaps as soon as July, full statistical capability is expected. June is one of the Library's busiest months, as students study and research for end of term reports. Once school ended, the People Count slowed down noticeably, although it picked back up a week later, when the Summer Reading Program began. Computer usage continues to grow. Several computer changes designed to maintain computer stability have been installed and may be a factor in the higher usage. The Library stayed open on Sunday, June 5 and Sunday, June 12 to accommodate students who needed to finish term papers and cram for finals. The People Count statistics proved this to be useful to patrons. It may be repeated next year. Activities: Daniel Peterson and Deeda Stanley, Children's Librarian, have been visiting grade schools to promote the Library's Summer Reading Program. They took along Dante, Summer Reading's dragon mascot, and Daniel got the children's attention with his juggling act. Summer Reading had a successfial kickoff on Monday', July 18 with juggling classes. 1 15 Over 400 children have signed up for the Summer Reading Program. Sign-ups are continuing on a regular basis. Every Thursday afternoon there is a special Summer Reading program, designed to fascinate the children. This year, the Summer Reading Program's theme is "Dragons, Dreams and Daring Deeds", and all Summer Reading events will center on that theme. The Library's goal is to involve all the families in Woodburn. Juggling, Birds of Prey, a Tournament of Games, and singers Jen and Wendy were offered in June, and upcoming offerings include Will Hornyak, Storyteller; Jason Ropp of Dragontale Theater; and Angel Ocasio, Clown for the grand finale on July 28th, a Medieval Faire. Dante the dragon has been visiting various business sponsors of Summer Reading, and when children spot him, they can come in the Library and receive a raffle ticket for the "End of Summer Reading" drawing. Third Thursday Teens continues to be held on the third Thursday of each month, from 6:30-7:30 pm. Teens have a Summer Reading Program, and their theme is "Joust Read". The first entertainment was Matt's Cavalcade of Comics. On Thursday, July 21st, John Pierson ("Pitman"), a local retired professional wrestler, will tell the teens about the world of wrestling. He will be bringing masks he wore and various awards he won during his career. The Teen Summer Reading Program ends on Thursday, August 18, with a special two-hour activity from 5:30-7:30 pm. Circulation is running smoothly. Many of the glitches with Millennium Silver have been ironed out. The self check- out machine is now working. Holds notification is also operational. Tech Processing has an influx of new children's books at present, and both volunteers and staff are working hard to process them and have them available during the Summer Reading Program. Many are already on display. There are children's book recommendations on the "For Kids" portion of the Library's website. Beulah Leder, now retired, is filling in once or twice a week for a limited time, in order to get caught up on labels and audio-video repair. Other volunteers and staff are learning those jobs as well. Recently, the Library contracted with Dr. Disc, a disc cleaning company, to clean and buff away disc damage occurring from normal use. Technical Processing sends them up to 10 discs a month. There have been regular Acquisition meetings lately, to keep on top of Library needs. Various teams are in charge of different sections of Library materials, such as the fiction, nonfiction, AV, and foreign language materials. The meetings are attempting to be proactive in weeding out unused books and videos, as well as ascertaining current needs and ordering materials before patrons request them. The Reference Department is very busy. Christine Mackie and Amy Mihelich, Reference Librarians, have been organizing monthly book displays, which have proven very popular. This month reflects the Summer Reading Program theme, "Dragons, Dreams and Daring Deeds", by showcasing books on dragons, legends, folk tales and chivalry. In addition, Christine and Amy have been collecting book 2 16 recommendations from the staff to post on the Library website. Dan invited the Library Board members to submit their own recommendations for posting. Reference has recently changed over to Firefox as the library's web browser. Firefox makes the Library's web site easier to maintain with the ability to read and add RSS feeds. Recently, Reference staff added Teen, Summer Reading and Music in the Park pages to the web site. These pages give dates and times of various Library programs and activities, as well as general information geared to varying ages and interests. Another innovation is the advent of "social bookmarks", a way to help people find related sites by using the website http://del.icio.us/woodburnpl/. Volunteer of the Month: The Volunteer of the Month for June is Nancy Kirksey. Nancy is one of the Library's most hardworking volunteers. She lends a hand wherever it is needed, from cleaning, watering and planting the Library atrium, to power washing, patching and painting the Library Park stage steps. She is an active member of the Friends of the Library, and can be seen helping with the Friends' activities, such as Music in the Park and the bi-annual Book Sale. Nancy is vital, optimistic and versatile, and the Library honors her many talents by making her the Volunteer of the Month. Friends of the Library:. Neal Hawes reported that the donation bin in the Library was full, and that the next Book Sale will be larger than usual. Music in the Park is the Friends of the Library's primary focus right now. The concert series is going well, with every concert showing an increased audience. J.T. and the Tourists concert had an attendance of about 250; and the third concert, the Severin Sisters, drew about 400 people. Larger numbers are predicted as the summer progresses. Next week's concert stars Gail Gage and the Fabulous 50's Band. The Friends are sponsoring Music in the Park t-shirts, which are being sold for $15. Neal is wearing a specially designed blue t-shirt to all of the concerts, which in addition to the Music in the Park logo on the front, has a list of all the sponsors on the back. In addition to the t-shirts, colorful Music in the Park posters are available at the concerts for $20. Dean Kinney designed the t-shirts and posters. They can be purchased from Sandy Kinney in the Library Administration office, or at one of the concerts on Tuesday nights. All Tech Sound is doing a great job with the sound and lighting for Music in the Park. Friends of the Library: Neal Hawes, Library Board Member and past Treasurer for the Friends of the Library, noted that there have been no Friends of the Library meetings since the last session of the Library Board. Donations are still coming in for Music in the Park. Thirty sponsors were needed to support the summer concert series. Bruce Thomas, owner of the downtown business, Yes Graphics, is seeking two final sponsors. Shi~xs, baseball caps and posters will be 3 17 sold every Tuesday night at the concerts. A decision has not been made as to prices for iterns to be sold, since they depend on final designs used and number of colors chosen. OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: BUSINESS TO/FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND/OR MAYOR: ADJOURNMENT: None. None. The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 pm. Respectfully submitted, Vicki Musser 4 18 Minutes Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:00 p.m. lDRAFT 8]) = J Sm Sm Call to Order Herb Mittmann, Board Chair called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Roll Call Members present: Herb Mittmann, Chair, Rosetta Wangerin, Board Secretary; Ann Meyer, Member; Bruce Thomas, Member; Joseph Nicoletti, Member, Eric Yaillen, Member, Cristal Sandoval, Member Staff present: Randy Westrick, Paulette Zastoupil, A.A. Approval of Minutes from June 14, 2005. Motion to accept the minutes was made by Herb Mittmann and seconded by Joseph Nicoletti. Business from the Audience: None. Division Reports Parks and Facilities - Randy Westrick Randy shared that July was the time of the year when the Board decided on Friends of The Park nominees. Randy nominated, Woodburn Success School, and Richard Morris and Mayor Figley will present certificates at the July 25th City Council meeting. Randy gave the public upcoming dates of interest: July i7 Bassett Hound Games at Legion Park July 29 Mayor's Cup Golf Tournament August 5 - 7 Fiesta Mexicana August 13 Walt's Run at Centennial Park Randy reported the Centennial Ballpark #3 backstop, and cement work was complete. The stamping and coloring of the cement was scheduled and the turf would be put in next. Recreation and Parks Board Work Plan Randy shared that the Recreation and Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated, due to the 2020 population change and the Urban Growth Boundary. He explained several projects needed to be considered such as; a dog park, playgrounds and basketball courts, which need to be listed in the Comp Plan. He explained the 2020 projected population was changed to 35,000 and that the 6-year CIP needs to be revised to account for the projected cost of these projects as well as new proposed parks. Rosetta Wangerin suggested that benchmarks be placed on population growth to keep the SDC's balanced. Herb Mittmann shared that the decision on the Urban Growth Boundary would make an enormous impact on future plans, Page 1 19 Minutes Woodburn Recreation and Parks Board Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:00 p.m. and that the board should anticipate the future housing and purchase public land for future parks while land is available. Rosetta asked if the City has looked into taxes as a way to help the department. Randy explained how the Tourism Tax helps the Woodburn Chamber of Commerce, and those funds become available in the fall. Discussion on partnerships with community businesses would be an asset to the department for tournaments and events. Future Board Business · Next meeting, August 9, 2005 · Legion Park Master Plan · Centennial Park Master Plan Board Comments Rosetta opened Board discussion about the Comprehensive Plan and how important it is to prioritize projects. Bruce Thomas stated that a public forum was needed on the decision to dismantle or leave Legion Park Stadium. It was agreed that an article should be placed in the Woodburn Independent with a picture of the stadium to draw people's interest. It was also stated, that lights need to be planned in the Legion Park Master Plan. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 PM Rosetta Wangerin, Board Secretary Date Paulette Zastoupil, Recording Secretary Date Page 2 2O ............... ~~ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo O~H ~ ~ .... oooo~g~g~oooo .... o o © m ~ ~~oo~8~o~oo o oooo~~oooo~E~~°°°ooo 0 0000000 ~~~~~oo oo ooooo ..... ~~oooo .... ~~oooooo ...... ~ ~ooo~o~oo~oo~ooo~ ......... ~ ..... ~ .......... ~ g oooo oooo 0 0©©00000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000 ~ ~ooo~o~oooooo~~~~ooo oooooo ...... O~H 2~ H © 88888000008888888888 ~o~o ~ o 9.6 July 20, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council throu ;ity Administrator FROM: Public Works Program Manager SUBJECT: Summer Water Use INFOP,~AI'ION: The City of Woodburn has an adequate supply of water to supply the needs of its residents. During prolonged streaks of hot weather in the summer, when water use is at its highest, the city suggests that residents make some adjustments to how they use water for outside Uses such as watering of yards and gardens. Water use during the hottest part of the summer is often three to four times the quantity used during the winter. Lawn watering during the cool parts of the day, generally before 10:00 am, is best since it reduces the amount of water that evaporates and reduces the potential for disease. A good way to see if the lawn needs watering is to step on the grass. If the grass is stepped on and it springs back it does not need water. If it stays flat it is time to water. When watering do it long enough for the moisture to soak down to the roots where it will do the most good. A good gUide is to water long enoUgh to fill uP an empty tuna fish can with water. Also position sprinklers so water lands on the lawn or garden and not on paved areas. Other hints to reduce outside water consumption include sweeping your driveway and sidewalks instead of hosing them off 'with water. Do not run the hose while washing the car. Also check for leaks that may be present in the sprinkling system or other outside water devices. Occasionally, although it hasn't happened yet this year, in the summer in the afternoon and evening between 4:00 pm and 10:00 pm city water use will exceed the amount that the wells can produce and the water tank is drawn down to make up the difference. By reducing outside water use for watering of yards and gardens during the hottest part and peak use period of the day from 4:00 pm to 10:00 pm Woodburn residents can insure that there is an adequate supply of water for use by residents and sufficient reserve capacity to meet potential fire protection needs. Once again there is no shortaqe of water for domestic use. Agenda Item Review: City Administrc City Attorney lacor?aratcd 1889 11A July 20, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council through City Administrator F'ublic Works Direct< Boones Ferry Road, Goose Creek to Hazelnut Drive LID Final Assessment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance to levy final assessment on property within the Boones Fern/Road, from Goose Creek to Hazelnut Drive Local Improvement District. BACKGROUND: The City Council initiated the Local Improvement District (LID) process for Boones Ferry Road street improvements from Goose Creek to Hazelnut Drive, approved the engineering repod, held a public hearing and adopted Ordinance no. 2318, on June 10, 2002 establishing the legal foundation for the LID assessments. The City has followed the procedures as outlined in Ordinance No. 2105 regarding formation of a Local Improvement District and to levy final assessments to benefited property owners. The final costs have been determined and property owners were notified by mail and through legal publication in the Woodburn Independent. The public headng on the proposed final assessments was held on July 11,2005. Council closed the headng and directed staff to prepare the final assessment ordinance. DISCUSSION: Upon passage of the ordinance, property owners will receive notification of the final assessment. Property owners with unpaid assessments will also receive a Bancroft Bond information package. The Bancroft Bond program wilt provide property owners an opportunity to make annual installment payments for their share of the assessment over a 10-year pedod at 4.54% interest rate. The Agenda Item Review: City Administrator __ City Attorney ~ Finance ~.8 Mayor and City Council July 20, 2005 Page 2 property owner may pay the entire amount at any time within the 10-year period without incurring any penalty. It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance to levy final assessments. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Passage of this ordinance will authorize the City to collect $592,393 in assessment costs allocated to the benefited property owners within the LID. COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF BOONES FERRY ROAD FROM GOOSE CREEK TO HAZELNUT DRIVE. WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and approved the engineering report on the proposed improvement of Boones Ferry Road from goose Creek to Hazelnut Drive on April 8, 2002; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution 1676, declared its intent to improve Boones Ferry Road by the formation of a Local Improvement District ("LID"); and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the formation of the LID was held on May 13, 2002, to receive input from affected property owners and insufficient remonstrances were received to delay such improvement; and WHEREAS, the assessment to each benefited property is based upon the special benefit received for the said improvement using a distribution method as outlined for each lot identified in Ordinance 2318; and WHEREAS, legal notice of the public hearing on the proposed final assessment was provided and mailed to the owner of each lot proposed to be assessed at the address of record shown in the official records of Marion County; and WHEREAS, the final assessment hearing was conducted on July 11, 2005; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF WOODBURN ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Total Assessable Cost. The actual assessable cost of the local improvement of Boones Fern/Road from Goose Creek to Hazelnut Drive is $592,393.00, which is hereby assessed against the property described herein in the amounts listed. Page 1 - COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 30 Section 2. Levy of Final Assessments - Assessment Roll. The City Council levies final assessments against the real property in the local improvement district as set forth on the Assessment Roll attached and incorporated as Exhibit "A". Section 3. Determination of Special Benefit. The City Council determines that each lot described on the Assessment Roll is specially benefited to the extent of the assessment set forth on the Assessment Roll against that lot. Section 4. Payment Options. Pursuant to ORS Chapter 223 (Local Improvements), benefited property owners have the following payment options: A. Full payment of the final assessment within 30 days of the effective date of this ordinance without incurring interest charges; or B. Installment payment plan over a ten (10) year period where annual payments wilt be made equal to 1/10 of the cost of their share of the assessment plus interest. If an installment payment plan is elected by the benefited property owner and the outstanding lien is paid off before the end of the 10-year period, interest will be calculated to the date of the lien payoff. Section 5. Interest. Pursuant to Section 15 of Ordinance No. 2318 the interest rate is established at 4.54% and the accrual shall start from the effective date of this ordinance unless payment is made within the first 30 days. Section 6. Notice of Assessment. The City Recorder shall send a notice of assessment to all owners of assessed property and publish notice of the assessments pursuant to the requirements of Ordinance 2105. Page 2- COUNCIL BiLL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 31 ~ection 7. Refund of Overpayments. Estimated lien payments made prior to the enactment date of this ordinance in excess of the amount listed in Exhibit "A" shall be refunded, interest shall be paid on the refunded amount at a rate of one percent (1%} to be calculated from the date when payment was received by the City. Approved as to form: '~ ~ Z ~O0~'"- City Attorney Dc 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 3- COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. 32 EXHIBIT "A" BOONES FERRY ROAD LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL (NOTE: DOU_~£_r: ~-TR!?.ETHP. OUG::, Denotes tax lot, which have been modified since the adoption of the original ordinance; Final assessments for these tax lot numbers are identified in Section 3.) PROPERTIES WITH FULL ACCESS AND DIRECT ACCESS; 100% ASSESSMENT BASED ON AREA OF PROPERTY AND TRIPS GENERATED. NO DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION MAP & TAX LOT AREA NO. PROPERTY OWNER COST APPROACH TRIP ASSESSMENT ... RATE COST (~ COST TOTAL $500 EA. PROPERTIES WITH DIRECT ACCESS "051W07AB""00200" JOHNSTON, STEVEN D & EMILY M $387.14 $500.00 $540.11 $1,427.25 ~051W07AB'"'00300" SMITH, CINDY A & ROY $518.71 $500.00'- -$~5~0.11 $1,558.82 "051W07BA'"'00200" WOODBURN ART LEAGUE $356.96 $500.00 $540.11 $1,397.07 "051W07BA'"'00300" WOODBURN ART LEAGUE _ $237.46 $500.00 $810.17 $1,547.63 MODIFIED PROPERTY- F ,,nm.~^,n'7~^,,,,nnnnrl,, ~ mi ,~c:~,,,= o mu:,= $!,07~ 97 .';-'mnn nm $2,'!.~3.27 ,~,~ n~-) ,~,~ "n_51WOTB.~.,,,,01900,, ~_^e~un ,::, , ~ ,::: ,,, ,:: D won~ e:nn nn " SEE SECTION 3 "051W07BA""01100" QWEST COMMUNICATIONS CORP. $851.20. ...... $1,000.00 $540.11 $2,391.31 "051W07BA'"'01200" NAUTA, LOUIS P & RHONDA $539.29 $500.00 $540.11 $1,579.401 "051W07BA""01300" MILLER, STUART M & REBECCA $960.46 $1,000.00 $540.11 $2,500.57 "051W07BD'"'00100" SAALFELD, DONALD & TOBIN L $694.03 $500.00 $540.11 $1,734.14 MODIFIED PROPERTY - F SEE SECTION 3 "051W07BD'"'00500" LINDSTROM, DONALD E $566.96 $500.00 $540.11 $1,607.07 "051W07BD""00600" AHO, ARMAS & ELLA L $563.33 $500.00 $540.11 $1,603.44 $5,675.54 $6,000.00 $5,671.16 $17,346.70 EXHIBIT "A" 33 PAGE 1 PROPERTIES WITH FULL ACCESS: 100% ASSESSMENT BASED ON AREA OF PROPERT~ AND TRIPS GENERATED. WITH DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION TRIP REDUCTION TOTAL AREA WITH MAP & TAJ( LOT NO. PROPERTY OWNER RATE ASSESSMENT COST DEVELOPER COST CONTRIBUTION COST PROPERTIES WITHOUT DIRECT ACCESS ~I'051W06cD'"'00100" SHEVCHENKO, ALMA & TELEUSHOV, IMASH Y & GALIJA $184.58 $540.11 $0.00 $724.69 "051W06CD""00200'' RUDD, KENNTH M & MARTA $148.78 $540.11 $0.00 $688.89 "051W06CD'"'00300" MURPHY, BERNADETTE $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD""00400'' WERT, JOHN A $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'00500" HALL, ARINA I $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'00600" HAMBERGER, JESSE GRAHAM $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD""00700" DELBRIDGE, DOROTHY A & STAN $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'00800" CALKINS, JOSEPH J $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'00900" GUSTAFSON, DAVID M $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'01000" KEELAN, LEO E & CHRISTINA L $148.49 $540.11 $0.00 $688.60 "051W06CD'"'01100" ARELLANO FERNAND & SANDY $165.56 $540.11 $0.00 $705.67 "051W06CD'"'01200" YODER, THOMAS & ELAINE $207.19 $540.11 $0.00 $747.30 "051W06CD'"'01300" MATYEEV, DIMITRY & USTiNA $160.86 $540.11 $0.00 $700.97 "051W06CD'"'01400" PATTERSON, DARRELL M $149.30 $540.11 $0.00 $689.41 "051W06CD'"'01500" CANCINO, JAIME V & SANTO, RAYMUNDO $148.41 $540.11. $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'01600" ~DAMS, MARLS P. & JACQUELINE L $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'01700" MILLER LINKS MAINTENANCE ASSN $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W06CD'"'01800" HANSEN, JOHN C $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'01900" SHEVCHUK, LYUBOV & ALEKSEY A $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'02000" PUNZO, GEMMA $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051w06CD'"'02100'' DELONG, LON HINCKLEY & PAMELA JEAN $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD""02200" AFONIN, TIMOFY & ALEXANDR~, $149.25 $540.11 $0.00 $689.36 "051W06CD""02300" BALANCE, MATTHEW S & ............ MARIE C $180.45 $540.11 $0.00 $720.56 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 2 34 '~'051W06CD'"'02400''THOMPSON, VERN ANTHONY $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'02500" MATVEEV, NEFODEY $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'02600" BOLMAN, TERRI J $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'02700" MCDONALD, RONDA $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'02800" ......... BRAULT.~ CARY J & SAR~,H $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'02900" TAYLOR, RONALD & PATRICIA $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'03000" EVANS, JEFFREY L & ELISABETH J $148.41, $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'03100" SILVA, JOSE & MO'ISES $180.74 $540.11 $0.00 $720.85 "051W06CD'"'03200" MILLER, DONALD $203.65 $540.11 $0.00 $743.76 '~';~51W06CD'"'03300'' BOSQUEZ GUSTAVO E & ......... i/~YDA E $150.91 $540.11 $0.00 $691.02 "051W06CD'"'03400" GUZMAN, JOSE $150.91 $540.11 $0.00 $691.02 1'1~051w06c~;'~'03~--(~(~;'~ BRAVO, TEODORO & GONZALES, ANDRES $150.91 $540.11 $0.00 $691.02 "051W06CD'"'03600" CONTRERAS, OLGA MARINA & SALCIDO, MARTIN CRUZ $150.91 $540.11 $0.00 $691.02 "051W06CD'"'03700" MORALES, MARCOS & MARIA GUADALUPE $150.89 $540.11 $0.00 $691.00 "051W06CD""03800" ...... RIOS, ALFEDO & SHIRLEY $196.70 $540.11 $0.00 $736.81 "051W06CD'"'03900" MCDONALD, CASEY G & JENNIFER L $204.61 $540.11 $0.00 $744.72 "051W06CD'"'04000" MORALES, MIQUEL & LUZ I & JOSE A $150.89 $540.11 $0.00 $691.00 "051W06CD'"'04100" KAMPEN, BERNARD $150.91 $540.11 $0.00 $691.02 "051W06CD'"'04200" LOMELI, CAROLS $150.91 $540.11 $0.00 $691.02 "051W06CD'"'04300" MILLER, DONALD $150.91 $540.11 $0.00 $691.02 "051W06CD'"'04400" MILLER, DONALD $150.91 $540.11 $0.00 $691.02 "051W06CD'"'04500" JONES, WILLIAM ALAN & DAWN M $195.91 $540.11 $0.00 $736.02 "051W06CD'"'04600" DIAZ, MARTIN & ROSEMARIA $179.93 $540.11 $0.00 $720.04 "051W06CD'"'04700" ZAVALA-HERNANDEZ, MARIELA $153.43 $540.11 $0.00 $693.54 "051W06CD'"'04800" PACHECO, GERMAN & NELLY $148.49 $540.11 $0.00 $688.60 "051W06CD'"'04900" CANTU, ANADELIA $148.49 $540.11 $0.00 $688.60 "051W06CD'"'05000" BARRETT, GEOFFREY S & MARILYN E $169.74 $540.11 $0.00 $709.85 "051W06CD'"'05100'' HOPPER, S[EVEN C, JR & VLCEK, KRISTEN $157.17 $540.11 $0.00 $697.28 051W06CD""05200" GROSS, BYRON T & JULIE A $162.46 $540.11 $0.00 $702.57 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 3 "051W06CD""05300" WRIGHT, WILLIAM L & BARBARA G $148.46 $540.11 $0.00 $688.57 "051W06CD'"'05400'' CLARK, SCOTT R & KIMBERLY M $156.50 $540.11 $0.00 $696.61. "051W06CD""05500" BLEM, REGGIE B & ANDREEFF, JENNIFER M $224.10 $540.11 $0.00 $764.21 "051W06CD""05600" MILLER LINKS MAINTENANCE ASSN. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W06CD""05700" MORRIS, MACDONALD $212.26 $540.11 $0.00 $752.37 "051W06CD""05800" SMITH, CRAIG W & CAROL $154.20 $540.11 $0.00 $694.31 "051W06CD""05900" WOLF, EDWARD D $159.67 $540.11 $0.00 $699.78 "051W06CD""06000" 3ATTON, SCOTT & CHRISTINE $157.10 $540.11 $0.00 $697.21 "051W06CD""06100" PIEKARZ, TOMASZ $150.10 $540.11 $0.00 $690.21 "051W06CD""06200" PEREZ, ISIDROV $155.36 $540.11 $0.00 $695.47 "051W06CD""06300" SHEIRBON, ROBERT M $157.32 $540.11 $0.00 $697.43 "051W06CD'"'06400" INZHIROV, PETR & SVETLANA $153.16 $540.11 $0.00 $693.27 "051W06CD""06500" PETERSON, DOUGLAS & CHARLA $153.51 $540.11 $0.00 $693.6.2, "051W06CD'"'06600" DONNELLY, HOWARD & IDA $168.23 $540.11 $0.00 $708.3.4 "051W06CD'"'06700" BEAN, CANDY K $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'06800" VENTUPJ~, RAUL & MARICELA $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'06900" CRUZ-SALCIDO, HECTOR J & BOGARIN, SARA L $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'07000" GANOVICHEFF, ANNA $148.4~ $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'07100" ARELLANO-RODRIGUEZ, MARLO & ANN E $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'07200" WATERMAN, THOMAS & BARBARA A $199.67 $540.11 $0.00 $739.78 "051W06CD'"'07300" HANSEN, LAURA A $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.5~ "051w06CD'"'07400'' REED, ANDREW S & MULLENS, STACY M $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'07500" KELLAR, JANICE M $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD""07600" POITP, A, JOLENE M $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'07700" BURR, GPACE & HARRY $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'07800" SANAROV, DIMITRI G & MARIA I $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.5~. "051W06CD'"'07900" JACOBSEN, ETHEL ROBERTA RLT $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.5.2 "051W06CD'"'08000'' REISDORF, APRIL A $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.521 '"051W06CD'"'08100" SHAFERLY, JOHN W & JILL $149.25 $540.11 $0.00 $689.36. "051VV06CD'"'08200" SEARS, CHRISTOPHER G & SHERRY A $152.03 $540.11 $0.00 $692..14., EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 4 36 "051W06CD'"'08300" MARTUSH'EV, JOSIPH SR & DUNIA E $195.16 $540.11 $0.00 $735.27 "051W06CD'"'08400" VlLLASTRIGO, FP~A, NCISCO & SONIA M $149.90 $540.11 $0.00 $690.01 ';'051W06CD""08500" 'PAZ, ROSARIO A $150.02 $540.11 $0.00 $690.13 ;;'051W06CD'"'08600" MERTEN, ~ ~J~CY $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD""08700" VELIZ, PJ~UL JR & MARIE R $150.32 $540.11 $0.00 $690.43 "051W06CD'"'08800" BOROVSKIY, SERGEY & LUYBOV $160.78 $540.11 $0.00 $700.89 "051W06CD""08900" MANN, BRIAN E & DENISE M $148.41 $540.11 $0.00 $688.52 "051W06CD'"'09000" RIEL, CHANRAMANY & WILHELMSEN-RIEL RLT & RIEL LYNN WlLHELMSEN $156.18 $540.11 $0.00 $696.29 "051W06CD'"'09100" BARBER, JEREMY D & JAMIE L $203.67 $540.11 $0.00 $743.78 ,"051W06CD'"'09200" ........ JIMENEZ, JUAN H $164.74 $540.11! $0.00 $704.85 "051W06CD'"'09300" ANISIMOV, ANATOLIY & ANISIMOVA, LUDMILA $164.74 $540.11 $0.00 $704.85 "051W06CD""09400" DIERKES, TINA $164.74 $540.11 $0.00 $704.85 "051W06CD'"'09500" SWOPES, DOLTON G & LYNDA $180.20 $540.11 $0.00 $720.31 "051W06CD'"'09600" IBARR, A, MARIA $180.20 $540.11 $0.00 $720.31 "051W06CD'"'09700" PEREZ, JOSE A $164.74 $540.11 $0.00 $704.85 "051W06CD'"'09800" HARR, DANE E $164.74 $540.11 $0.00 $704.85 "051W06CD'"'09900" AVILA, TOM & REBECCA $208.03 $540.11 $0.00 $748.14 "051W06CD'"'10000" HERNANDEZ-MARTINEZ, CORAZON H $203.77 $540.11 $0.00 $743.88 "051W06CD'"'10100" MAKSIMOV, VLADIMIR $172.33 $540.11 $0.00 $712.dd "051W06CD'"'10200" SHEARER, CHRIS $172.33 $540.11 $0.00 $712.44 "051W06CD'"'10300" EQUALL, KIMBERLY L $172.33 $540.11 $0.00 $712.44 "051W06CD""10400" KRUG, KlM M $172.80 $540.11 $0.00 $712.91 "051W06CD'"'10500" YOUNG, MARILYN $172.33 $540.11 $0.00 $712.44 "051W06CD'"'10600" HOFMANN, HEIDI J $169.74 $540.11 $0.00 $709.85 "051W06CD'"'10700" ATKINSON, KENNETH & MARILYN $169.74 $540.11 $0.00 $709.85 "051W06CD'"'10800" SANTILLAN, JESUS $214.09 $540.11 $0.00 $754.20 "051W06CD'"'10900" GREENLEE, JESSE $209.46 $540.11 $0.00 $749.57 "051W06CD'"'11000" CAREY, ROBERT E & CAREY, JANET L & ETHAN E $168.82 $540.11 $0.00 $708.93 "051W06CD'"'11100" ANFILOFIEFF, GERMAN & MATRONA $168.82 $540.11 $0.00 $708.93 "051W06CD'"'11200" SCHAUGAARD, CHAD T & MISHELLE S $171.42 $540.11 $0.00 $711.53 "051W06CD'"'11300" COBOS, TWYI_A A $712.00 $171.89 $540.11 $0.00 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 5 37 '051W06CD'"'11400" GENTRY, ROBERT D & BETTIS, JOAN V $171.42 $540.11 $0.00 $711.53 "051W06CD'"'11500" ~,LVAREZ-PEREZ, CELIA $171.42 $540.11 $0.00 $711.53 "051W06CD'"'11600" SHEARER, ROBERT L & DARCY F $171.42 $540.11 $0.00 $711.53 "051W06CD""11700" BENDER, FREDERICK E JR & PEGG! L $218.64 $540.11 $0.00 $758.75 "051W06DC'"'00400" OREGON GOLF ASSOCIATION $0.00 $2,454.78 $0.00 $2,454.78 ;;051W06DC'"'00500" TUKWlLA PARTNERS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W06DC'"'00600" KlM, HOON S & KYONG's $177.38 $540.11 $0.00 $717.49 "051W06DC'"'00700" CHARITAR, JITENDR~, SAM & DINA $242.58 $540.11 $0.00 $782.69 "051W06DC'"'00800" JUDSON, DONALD R & RHONDA J $256.63._~___ _$540.11 $0.00 $796.74 "051W06DC""00900" PARADIS, PATRICK L & SUSAN M $131.37 $540.11 $0.00 $671.48 "051W06DC'"'01000" BCE FAM TR & BCE, D TRE & BECKY TRE $151.23 $540.11 $0.00 $691.34 "051W06DC'"'01100" TUKWlLA PARTNERS (ACCESS) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W06DC'"'01200" MAHAFFEY, MICHAEL K SR & JUDITH A $168.47 $540.11 $0.00 $708.58 "051W06DC'"'01300" PAPINI, CHERYL D & CALL DONALD L $170.33 $540.11 $0.00 $710.44 "051W06DC""01400" SANCHEZ, ARTURO $190.69 $540.11 $0.00 $730.8'0 "051W06DC'"'01500" FESSLER, MICHAEL S & JENNIFER C $208.25 $540~11 $0.00 $748.36. "051W06DC'"'01600" TUKWlLA PARTNERS (ACCESS) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W06DC'"'01700" HARJU, JAN P $208.25 $540.11 $0.00 $748.36 "051W06DC'"'01800" MEIERS, GARY A & DOONIE $190.69 $540.11 $0.00 $730.80 "051W06DC'"'01900" MILLER, GARY & JUDITH A $255.37 $540.11 $0.00 $795.48 "051W06DC'"'02000" EDWARDS, CAROL ANN $229.62 $540.11 $0.00 $769.73 "051W06DC'"'02100" WELLMAN, GENE M & PATRICIA C $137.43 $540.11 $0.00 $677.54. "051W06DC'"'02200" PIERCE, DENNIS & BEECHLER, KAREN $147.82 $540.11 $0.00 $687.93 "051W06DC'"'02300" TUKWlLA PARTNERS (ACCESS) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0~0.0 i'051W06DC'"'02400" ANDERSON, FLORENCE E FAMILY TRUST $137.43 $540.1 li $0.00 $677.54 "051W06DC'"'02500" GRIFFEE, DAVID R $147.82 $540.11 $0.00 $687.9~'" "051W06DC'"'02600" OREGON GOLFASSN $3,878.94 $4,716.13 $0.00 $8,595.07. "051W06DC'"'02700" TUKWILA PARTNERS (TENNIS) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 6 38 "051W06DC""02800" BPJ~XMEYER, JAMES A & SANDRA J $116.26 $540.11 $0.00 $656.37 "051W06DC'"'02900'' LOVE, WILLIAM L. & FRANCES B. $116.26 $540.11 $0.00 $656.37 "051W06DC'"'03000'' BECK, MELVIN J & JANICE R $116.26 $540.11 $0.00 $656.37 ~'~'051W06DC'"'03100"HENNIGES, REINHOLD MIKE & KARIN A $116.26 $540.11 $0.00 $656.37, "051W06DC'"'03200" HART, MICHAEL W & MARY LOU $116.08 $540.11 $0.00 $656.19 "051W06DC""03300" LAHEY, RONALD"'L'ESLEE $146.19 $540.11 $0.00 $686.30 "051W06DC'"'03400'' GOLDEN, STEPHEN & BETTY $158.09 $540.11 $0.00 $698.20 "051W06DC'"'03500" ASTORGA, FELIPE & BENITA B $129.89 $540.11 $0.00 $670.00 "051W06DC'"'03600" STARK, JACK B & CHERYL $108.84 $540.11 $0.00 $648.95 "051W06DC'"'03700" POWELL, LEROY D & MARIAN P $108.84 $540.11 $0.00 $648.95 "051W06DC""03800" HIEBENTHAL, JASON SCOTT $108.84 $540.11 $0.00 $648.95 "051W06DC'"'03900" REGAN? ROBERTA M $108.84 $540.11 $0.00 $648.95 "051W06DC""04000" COOK, MICHAEL E & MICHELE V $131.20 $540.11 $0.00 $671.31 "051w06Dc""04100'' HEROLD, DAVID G & LUANN $134.98 $540.11 $0.00 $675.09 "051W06DC'"'04200'' R, ANDALL, RICHARD T & SHERR! G $116.26 $540.11 $0.00 $656.37 "051W06DC'"'04300" NEIGER LT & REX A TRE & CAROL A TRE $116.26 $540.11 $0.00 $656.37 "051W06DC'"'04400" IRONS FAMILY TRUST & IRONS, LLOYD H & RACHEL _ SWEENEY $116.26 $540.11 $0.00 $656.37 "051W06DC""04500" DONNELLY, ARNOLD J & CAROLYN A $153.51 $540.11 $0.00 $693.62 "051W06DC'"'04600" GARDINER, JAMES G & JUDY M $116.26 $540.11 $0.00 $656.37 "051W06DC'"'04700" ERDMANN, LENNY G & CAROL A $116.26 $540.11 $0.00 $656.37 "051W06DC'"'04800" PAPENDIECK, ANDREW D & CICHANSKI, SETH M & ANDREA J $116.26 $540.11 $0.00 $656.37 "051W06DC'"'04900" SMITH, JOHN P & JOLENE $116.26 $540.11 $0.00 $656.37 "051W06DC'"'05000" UNITED PROPERTIES OREGON INC (ACCESS) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W07AA""07300" TUKWlLA PARTNERS (ACCESS) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 · ODIFIED PROPERTY - A EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 7 39 SEE SECTION 3 "051W07AA'"'07500" MELDRUM, JACK W & JOANNE M $110.44 $540.11 $0.00 $650.55 "051W07AA""07600" PRICE, CRAIG D & WALTEMATH.,.....DONNA L $110.44. $540.11 $0.00 $650.55 "051W07AA'"'07700" EILEEN & JOHN CANDIOTO TRUST $110.44 $540.11 $0.00 $650.55 "051W07AA'"'07800'' 'SCHALLOCK, RICHARD D & JF~,N M $110.44 $540.11 $0.00 $650.55 "051W07AA'"'07900" PERKINS, Dwi'GHT L& PATTI R $110.44 $540.11 $0.00 $650.55 "051W07AA'"'08000" PICKTHORN, GREG G & " GREENWOOD, CHERI ANN $119.65 $540.11 $0.00 $659.76 "051W07AA'"'08100" MUELLER, GARY R & KJ~THERINE M $175.40 $540.11 $0.00 $715.51 "051W07AA'"'08200" BELZA, LEON $138.57 $54o.11! $0.00 $678.68 "051W07AA'"'08300" UNITED PROPERTIES OREGON INC (TOT LOT) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 MODIFIED PROPERTY - B ~K4%Ait'~'TAl:)m~r~r't,4r~ L.iATEI kll IT A DADTKIED~' ~q '")'")'7 qq (~ ;~;4%Air~-.TAl:~m~.Tr~r~ %AiiTUr-DC~ I I It~/iDED r,,/-~ iKir~ (~/:::'74 rt.-), ~ ~r~ rt/'~ SEE SECTION 3 "051W07AB""01000" IPARKHURST, GLENN D & BEVERLY K $387.90 $540.11 $0.001 $928.01! "051w07AB""01100" KEMPER, KJ~REN $229.40 $540.11 $0.00 $769.51 "051W07AB""01200" BEAM, CAROL M BENNETT $268.43 $540.11 $0.00 $808.54 "051w07AB;"'01300" WALSH, SHARON F $188.31 $540.11. $0.00 $728.42 "051W07AB""01400" CRISELL, RANDY G & DIANE $195.91 $540.1t $0.00 $736.02 "051W07AB'"'01500" PIPER, HARLEY & MARIAN $195.98 $540.11 $0.00 $736.09 "051W07AB""01600" BAGLIEN, JANICE C $203.65 $540.11 $0.00 $743.76 "051W07AB""01700" NIKKARI, GARY $212.23 $540.11 $0.00 $752.34 "051W07AB""01800" JAMESON, FPJ~NK O' JR & MURIEL I $195.91 $540.11 $0.00 $736.02 "051W07AB""01900" SMITH, TERRY W & LAURIE $252.30 $540.11 $0.00 $792.41 "051W07AB""02100" POLING, HARPER A & JACUELINE K $273.28 $540.11 $0.00 $813.39 "051'W07AB""02200" QUAN, SIU'W $273.28 $540.11 $0.00 $813.39 "051W07AB'"'02300" KIGHT, LEONARD G & DEE $254.50 $540.11 $0.00 $794.61 "051W07AB'"'02700" OREGON GOLFASSN $0.00 $5,467.08 $0.00 $5,467.08 "051W07AB'"'03100" OREGON GOLF ASSN $0.00 $10,149.08 $0.00 $10,149.08 "051W07AB'"'03300" TUKWILA PARTNERS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 8 40 "051W07AB'"'03400" AIKEN, RONALD R & JANICEI A LEITH $200.85 $540.11 $0.00 $740.96 "051W07AB'"'03500" BREWER, JEFFERY P $186.51 $540.11 $0.00 $726.62 "051W07AB'"'03600" WAGNER, MAVIN G & BONNIE B $229.30~ $540.11 $0.00 $769.41 ;'~'051W07AB""03700" BARNES, JACK W & ROSINA $209.21 $540.11 $0.00 $749.32 "051w07AB'"'03800'' TUKWlLA PARTNERS (C. AREA) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ;';051W07AB'"'03900" TUKWiLA PARTNERS (C. AREA) $0.00 $0.00i $0.00 $0.00 "051W07AB'"'04000" LENHARDT, JACK L & ELAINE L $250.37 $540.11 $0.00 $790.48 "051W07AB'"'04100" SMITH FAMILY LIVING - TRUST & SMITH ERiC W & THERESA M TRUSTEES $203.60 $540.11 $0.00 $743.71 .i.i.051W07AB'"'04200" CLEMENTS, JOAN S $191.03 $540.11 $0.00 $731.14 "051W07AB""04300" BELLUM, RICHARD J'& VICTORIA L $195.96 $540.11 $0.00 $736.07 "051W07AB'"'04400" BARTON, WILLIAM H III & HOLLIE L $229.74 $540.11 $0.00 $769.85 "051W07AB'"'04500" LEWALLEN, SUZANNE J $137.43 $540.11 $0.00 $677.54 "051W07AB'"'04600" ZAUNER, CLIFFORD A & VIRGINIA A $147.82 $540.11 $0.00 $687.93 "051W07AB""04700" TUKWlLA PARTNERS (ACCESS) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W07AB'"'04800" PA~ ~ERSON, EDWIN E & CAROL J $147.82 $540.11 $0.00 $687.93 "051W07AB""04900" MORSE, RICHARD L & SHARON C $137.43 $540.11 $0.00 $677.54 "051W07AB'"'05000" MONTGOMERY, JOHN & GAYLE $187.99 $540.11 $0.00 $728.10 "051W07AB""05100" WALTERS, GLENN E & JUNE A $210.25 $540.11 $0.00 $750.36 "051W07AB'"'05200" TUKWlLA PARTNERS $230.02 $540.11 $0.00 $770.13 "051W07AB'"'05300" TUKWlLA PARTNERS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W07AB'"'05400" TUKWlLA PARTNERS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W07AB'"'05500" PAYNE, ROBERT D & PATRICIA A $189.05 $540.11 $0.00 $729.16 "051W07AB'"'05600" POWERS, WILLIAM E & GLENDA G $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $738.00 "051W07AB'"'05700" MILLICAN, MARY L TRUSTREE $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $738.00 "051W07AB'"'05800" KI~J~XBERGER, WILLIAM F & !PAMELA C $t97.88 $540.11 $0.00 $738.00 "051W07AB""05900" TUKWILA PARTNERS (C. AREA) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 EXHIBIT "A PAGE 9 "051W07AB'"'06000'' DANIEL C MEEKER LT & MEEKER, DANIEL C TRE $126.47 $540.11 $0.00 $666.58 "051W07AB'"'06100" BROWN, WAYNE KENNETH $153.86 $540.11 $0.00 $693.97 "051W07AB'"'06200" BOERS, FPJ~NK A & GONUL $120.19 $540.11 $0.00 $660.30 "051W07AB'"'06300" SHILLING, LEON & JEAN $110.44 $540.11 $0.00 $650.55 ;;'051W07AB'"'06400''DARRELL RICHARD SANDLIAN TR & JUDITH ANN SANDALIAN TR $110.44 $540.11 $0.00 $650.55 "051W07AB""06500'' REIFF, JOHN & JANICE N $110.44 $540.11 $0.00 $650.55 "051W07AB""06600" .... BURGER, CPJ~IG $110.44 $540.11 $0.00 $650.55 "051W07AB'"'06700" MCKELVEY, MICHAEL J $110.44 $540.11 $0.00 $650.55 ;';051W07AB'"'06800" 'LACOSSE, TANYA $130.65 $540.11 $0.00 '$670.76 "051W07AB'"'06900" PEARL, EDWARD W & LESLIE N $109.70 $540.11 $0.00 $649.81 "051w07AB'"'07000'' MCWILLIAMS, DIXIE ANN $149.23 $540.11 $0~00 $689~34 "051W07AB'"'07100" KUZMIN, SIMON $174.76 $540.1t $0.00 $714.87 "051W07AB'"'07200" ANGEL C BELLO-MERRILL IR TR & WEST COAST TRUST $163.48 $540.11 $0.00 $703.59 '"'051W07AB'"'07300" GOUGHNOUR, MARTIN E & REBECCA A $160.31 $540.11 $0.00 $700.42 "051W07AB""07400" UNITED PROPERTIES ORE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W07AC'"'00300" WOOD, WALTER H & MARCIA C $141.49 $540.11 $0.00 $681.60 "051W07AC'"'00400" VACHTER, BETTY S $124.67 $540.11 $0.00 $664.78 "051W07AC'"'00500" ZEHRUNG, DON L & MANETTE L $124.67 $540.11 $0.00 $664.78 "051W07AC"00600" FILLMORE, KJ~Y JENSEN TRUSTEE $124.67 $540.11 $0.00 $664.78 "051W07AC'"'00700" ZULEGER, ROBERT C & CAROLE LEA $124 67 $540.11 $0.00 $664.78 "051W07AC'"'00800'' OLSON, NORMA $142.85! $540.11 $0.00 $682.96 "051W07AC'"'00900" DETERVILLE, ROCHE J & ELISABETH $211.98 $540.11 $0.00 $752.09 "051W07AC""01000" STENLUND, BARRY & JACQUELINE $285.52 $540.11 $0.00 $825.63 "051W07AC'"'01001" DETERVlLLE, ROCHE J & ELISABETH $17.98 $0.00 $0.00 $17.98 "051W07AC'"'01'100" TAN, DAVID & DIEP, NHI $211.09 $540.11 $0.00 $751.20 "051W07AC'"'01200" MILNE, STANLEY D & PATRICIA R $128.70 $540.11 $0.00 $668.81 "051W07AC""01300" OREGON TERRITORY CREDIT UNION $228.56 $540.11 $0.00 $768.67 "051W07AC'"'01400" FLOMER, THOMAS J $252.95 $540.11 $0.00 $793.06 ""051W07AC""01'500" BAKER, JOHN E & DELISA L $208.82 $540.11 $0.00 $748.93 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 10 42 "051W07AC'"'01600" LARIOS, SALVADOR $218.22 $540.11! $0.00 $758.33 "051W07AC'"'01700" JAMISON, THOMAS & JUDITH C $226.75 $540.11 $0.00, $766.86 "051W07AC'"'01800" HOLCOMB, BURTON T & CAROLYN K $194.89 $540.11 $0.00 $735.00 "051W07AC'"'01900'' KRJ~iTER, GENE R & ELIZABETH $277.98 $540.11 $0.00 $818.09 "051W07AC'"'02000'' SCHWAN, F MARTIN & JUDITH C $194.27 $540.11 $0.00 $734.38 '"'051W07AC'"'02100''TYLER, SANDRA R $194.17 $540.11 $0.00 $734.28 "051W07AC""02200" HERMANSON, GLEN H $202.76 $540.11 $0.00 $742.87 "051W07AC'"'02300" SA~ArYER, MARGARET BOONE TRUSTEE $216.73 $540.11 $0.00 $756.84 "051W07AC""02400" MILLER FARM HOMEOWNER (SWIMMING) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W07AC""02500" 'KISILEV, TATIANA VlCKTOR $140.94 $0..00 $0.00 $140~94 "051W07AC""02600" ANDERSON, JAMES L & K. ATH RYN ANN $111.53 $540.11 $0.00 $651.64 "051W07AC""02700" BRYANT, EDGAR & NANCY $111.53 $540.11 $0.00 $651.64. "051W07AC'"'02800" SEITZ, SUE ANN & MARTENS, PETER $111.53 $540.11 $0.00 $651.64 "051W07AC'"'02900" HENKES, RICHARD J & I~J~REN JO $111.71 $540.11 $0.00 $651.82 "051W07AC""03000" HENNY, MILLARD T & LAURA TRUSTEES $111.71 $540.11 $0.00 $651.82. "051W07AC""03100" FABRE, HAROLD A $111.73 $540.11 $0.00 $651.84 "051W07AC'"'03200" BRUCE, BETTY JEAN TRUSTEE $123.16 $540.11 $0.00 $663.27 "051W07AC'"'03300" MILLER FARM HOMEOWNER (ACCESS) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W07BA'"'00105" CITY OF WOODBURN $129.29 $540.11 $0.00 $669.40, "051W07BA"00400" GORMAN, THOMAS P & ~ARRIET M $650.05 $540.11 $0.00 $1,190.16 "051W07BA""00500" SEC VENTURES LLC .$3,661.26$26,900.58 $0.00 $30,561.84 "051W07BA'"'00500" SEC VENTRUES LLC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W07BA""00600" CITY OF WOODBURN $2,.714.72$5,941.22 $0.00 $8,655.94 "051W07BA'"'00700" CITY OF WOODBURN $618.39 $540.11 $0.00 $1,158.50 "051W07BA'"'00800" CORP. LDs CIO TAX DIVISION $2,676.89 $6,869.04 $0.00 $9,545.93. "051W07BA""01400" NELSON, WARREN F & CAROL J $209.81 $540.11 -$338.06 $411.86 "051W07BA'"'01500" KRASKOFF, EVAN &ANNA $154.77 $540.11 -$338.06 $356.82' "051W07BA""01600" MONTGOMERY, LOUISE $161.87 $540.11 -$338.06 $363.92 "051W07BA'"'01700" SILVER, DONALD M & RUBY $204.12 $540.11 -$338.06 '$406.16 "051W07BA""01800" VACHTER, SCOTT J & RUTH $254.85 $540.11 -$338.06 $456.90 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 11 43 "051W07BA'"'01900" CLARK, JANIS H $272.46 $540.11 -$338.06 $474.51 "051w07BA';';'02000''EPPERS, MICHAEL G & FJ~THLEEN L $174.24. $540.11 -~338.06 $376.29 "051W07BA'"'02100" MARTINEZ, SILVERIO N JR & ANTONIA $248.79 $540.11 -$338.06i $450.84 "051W07BA'"'02200" RODRIGUEZ, ERNESTINA $235.33 $540.11 -$338.06 $437.38 "051W07BA"~"02300'' DULANEY, MARYLOU $151.83 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.88 "051W07BA'"'02400" CIT-Y OF WOODBURN (DETENTION) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W07BA""02500" JENSEN, BRIAN F & AMANDA SUE $160.09 $540.11 -$338.06, $362.14 "051W07BA'"'02600" PICKETT, CHRISTOPHER L & TAMPA $149.45 $540.11 -$338.06 $351.50 "051W07BA'"'02700'' PHELAN, BILLY W JR & DIANE M $148.88. $540.11 -$338.06 $350.93 "051W07BA""02800" WARD, BARRY WILLIAM $166.03 $540.11 -$338.06 $368.08 "051W07BA""02900" LEACH, MARK H $259.82 $540.11 -$338.06 $461.87 "051W07BA'"'03000" KREBEDUENKEL, DIETER K & WANDA L $150.34 $540.11 -$338.06 $352.39 "051W07BA""03100" SNEGIREV, IVAN $160.68 $540.11 -$338.06 $362.73 "051W07BA""03200" HATCH, EUGENE R & NANETTE $148.44 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.49 "051W07BA'"'03300" MYERS, THOMAS R & PATRIClA A $188.98 $540.11 -$338.06 $391.03 "051W07BA'"'03400" MOLINA, LUIS R & LUZ MIREYA $143.57 $540.11 -$338.06 $345.62 "051W07BA'"'03500" MARSH, JEFFREY O JR $148.31 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.36 "051W07BA'"'03600" GUYTON, GARY & JOCELYN $148.41 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.46 "051W07BA""03700" JOHNSON, HEIDI M & EMCH, DAVID C $148.41 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.46 "051W07BA'"'03800" PARRJ~CK, RONALD G & SUE K $195.76 $540.11 -$338.06 $397.81 "051W07BA""03900" CHADBURN, MICHAEL W $164.76 $540.11 -$338.06 $366.81 "051W07BA'"'04000" LOPEZ, CHRISTINE V & JESSE J SR $164.76 $540.11,-$338.06 $366.81 "051W07BA'"'04100" BUNDY, LEONARD & MARGARET - TRUST $164.76 $540.11 -$338.06 $366.81 "051W07BA'"'04200" ATKINSON, JAMES T !! $164.76 $540.11 -$338.06 $366.81 "051W07BA'"'04300" ROWELL, LAYNE N $198.28 $540.11 -$338.06 $400.33 "051W07BA""04400" LITZENBERG, GARY'L & SHAWN T $148.41 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.46 "051W07BA""04500" WOLFGANG, ERICH H & DEBORAH G $195.76 $540.11 -$338.06 $397.81 "051W07BA""04600'"'''TUPPER, KEVIN & PARTIDGE, MICHELLE $163.25 $540.11 -$338.06 $365.30 "051W07BA'"'04700" CALLAHAN, BARBAPJ~ R TR $163.25 $540.11 -$338.06 $365.301 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 12 '~051W07BA""04800" HUNT, DAVID W & HELEN D $163.25 $540.11 -$338.06 $365.30 "051W07BA'"'04900" WRIGHT, PAUL G & CARRIE $148.41 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.46 '~051W07BA'"'05000" GODINEZ, MIGUEL & GRISELDA $148.41 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.46 "051W07BA'"'05100" RITCHIE, CALVIN G & JEAN $148.41 $540.1i,-$338.06 $350.46 "051W07BA""05200" JACOBS, NANCY J $148.4t $540.11 -~;338.06 $350.46 "051W07BA'"'05300'' PEQUENO, ISRAEL L & MARIA G $148.41 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.46 "05~"W07BA'"'05400'' YALVER'DE, JAIME "$148.41 $540.'11-$33'8.06 $350.46. "051W07BA""05500'~ MAYFIELD, CHARLOTTE & PAGE, ELMA ..... $148.41 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.46 "051W07BA'"'05600" VANLIEU., BRIAN A $148.41 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.46 "051W07BA""05700" WATTS, SHAWN M & SKYE $230.66 $540.11 -$338.06 $432.71 "051W07BA'"'05800" GONZALES, RONNIE N $289.16 $540.11 -$338.06 $491.21 i"051W07BA'"'05900'' BROOME, JEFFREY J & KYLIE A $225.61 $540.11 -$338.06 $427.66 "051W07BA'"'06000" ORTIZ, SYLVIA ARROYO $175.60 $540.11 -$338.06 $377.65 "051W07BA'"'06100" WlENEKE, CARL W & LOR! $278.55 $540.11 -$338.06 $480.60 "051W07BA'"'06200" PEDERSON, NETTLE S $289.31 $540.11 -$338.06 $491.36 "051W07BA'"'06300" WILES, STEPHEN J & HUDSON, JANET L $194.94 $540.11 -$338.06 $396.99 "051W07BA'"'06400" IESTI~,DA, ANDRES A & ROGERS, ROBIN $163.25 $540.11 -$338.06 $365.30 "051W07BA'"'06500" MORRISON, DWAYNE F $186.56 $540.11 -$338.06 $388.61 "051W07BA'"'06600" COLEMAN, DIANA M $220.72 $540.11 -$338.06 $422.77 "051W07BA'"'06700" HORTON, STEVEN E $151.38 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.43 "051W07BA'"'06800" CORREA, JAVIER V $151.38 $540.11 -$338.06! $353.43 "051W07BA'"'06900" HAUGEN, IRIS N & SCOTT R $151.38 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.43~ "051W07BA'"'07000" YOUNG, REX S & KEENIN L $151.38 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.43 "051W07BA'"'07100" WAAGE, THOR HANNES & SIMi ELIZABETH $199.72 $540.11 -$338.06 $401.77 "051W07BA'"'07200" PALAFOX, HUMBERTO & WANDA $179.78 $540.11 -$338.06 $381.83 "051W07BA'"'07300" HUTTULA, DAVID W $158.80 $540.11 -$338.06 $360.85 "051W07BA'"'07400" ROBERTS, RICHARD & MARY K $158.80 $540.11 -$338.06 $360.85. "051W07BA'"'07500" HALTER, k'J~REN E $158.80 $540.11 -$338.06 $360.85: "051W07BA'"'07600" ROEDEL, CARSTEN M $210.77 $540.11 -$338.06 $412.82 "051W07BA'"'07700'' TEMPLE, ANTHONY J & VIARIANA R $208.47 $540.11 -$338.06 $410.52 "051W07BA'"'07800" MICHELS, MICHELLE R & KEVIN J $189.99 $540.11 -$338.06 $392.04 "051W07BA'"'07900" GOMEZ-SOSA, ARCADIO $149.08 $540.11 -$338.06 $351.13 "051W07BA'"'08000" BAMIDELE, SEGUN & GENEVA $152.77 $540.11 -$338.06 $354.82 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 13 45 "051W07BA'"'08100" KOVAL, WALTER A & LOIS E! $156.48 $540.11 -~338.06 $358.53 "051W07BA'"'08200" WORKMAN, CHRISTINA P & KESTI, CHERIE L $160.16 $540.11 -$338.06 $362.21 "051W07BA'"'08300" VELA, JULIO C & KIMBERLY $214.85 $540.11 -$338.06 $416.90 "051W07BA""08400" HERREPJ~,, ADAN $199.32 $540.11 -~338.06 $401.37 "051W07BA'"'08500'' FIGUEP~.S, ANTHONy & rvlARGARET $151.48 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.53 "051W07BA'"'08600" NEAL, BRUCE W & ANITA M $150.79 $540.11 -$338.06 $352.84 "051W07BA'"'08700" ORLANDO, PAUL $150.10 $540.11 -$338.06 $352.15 "051W07BA'"'08800" WOLFE, LONNIE $149.40 $540.11 -~338.06 $351.45 ',051W07BA'"'08900" MALLON, DEAN A & SHELLY $196.03 $540.11 -$338.06 $398,08 "051W07BA'"'09000" JDS LAND TR & MOORE, HEIDI TRE $199.72 $540.11 -$338.06 $401.77 "051W07BA""09100" BACKMAN,. ERIC $151.38 $540.11 -~;338.06 $353.43 "051W07BA""09200" NIDA, JASON & CHRISTIE $151.38 $540.11 -~338.06 $353.43 "051W07BA'"'09300" CONCORD LT & PRIME FINANCIAL GROUP TRE $151.38 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.43 "051W07BA""09400" BOSWELL, JOE D. JR. & IENNA $151.38 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.43 "051W07BA'"'09500" HUTTULA, DAVID W & DORIS $206.89 $540.11 -$338.06 $408.94 "051W07BA""09600" PARR~CK, BRIAN C $153.26 $540.11 -$338.06 $355.31 "051W07BA'"'09700" BAILEY, RICHARD J JR & LUANN R $148.41 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.46 "051W07BA""09800" LOFTIN, MARY M $148.41 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.46 "051W07BA'"'09900" BISHOFF, DAVID J & ~,NGELA Y $221.56! $540.11 -$338.06 $423.611 "051W07BA'"'10000" HUTTULA, DAVID W & I DORIS A $226.85 $540.11 -$338.06. $428.90 "051W07BA""10100" CANClNO, VALERIE S & JOEL $155.86 $540.11 -$338.06 $357.91 "051W07BA'"'10200" BERNHARDT, PATRICKW $155.86 $540.11 -$338.06 $357.91 "051W07BA""10300" GARCIA-PEREZ, POLICARPA A $155.86 $540.11 -$338.06 $357.91 "051W07BA'"'10400" RYAN, DALE E & LAURA E SIMPSON-RYAN $155.86 $540.11 -$338.06 $357.91 "051W07BA'"'10500" CAM, IVAN I $155.86 $540.11 -$338.06 $357.91 "051W07BA""10600" ZAMORA, JOSE & AIDA $155.86 $540.11 -$338.06 $357.91 "051W07BA'"'10700" HOLLAND, CATHERINE $153.51 $540.11 -$338.06 $355.56 "051W07BA'"'10800" FERSCHWEILER, LARRY & OLENE $148.83 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.88 "051W07BA""10900'' PARSONS, JIM PATRICK $192.69 $540.11 -$338.06 $394.74 "051W07BA'"'11000" GARCIA, MARCOS C & OCHOA, ELISABETH B $154.70 $540.11 -$338.06 $356.75 "051W07BA'"'11100" TAYLOR, TRJ~CY L $150.02 $540.11 -$338.06 $352.07 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 14 46 ';'~051W07BA'"'11200,ELIZONDO, MARTIN S & ........ BARAJAS, MARIA $151.36 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.41 "051W07BA'"'11300" FLEMING, DAVID K & STEPHANIE L $151.36 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.41 "051W07BA""11400" BOWMAN, BRUCE E & JO "ANN L $151.36 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.41 ;';051W07BA""11500" SHEVCHUK, SERGEY I & NATALIA V $151.36 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.41 "051W07BA'"'11600" FREDIANI, FRED A JR & SHERRI L $151.36 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.41 ;';'051W07BA'"'11700"ROTH, DONALD C & DIANE $151.36 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.41 "051W07BA'"'11800" REINA, YANIRAA $151.36 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.41 ';'~'051W07BA'"'11900" BRJ~NNOCK, DUNYA $151.26 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.31 "051W07BA'"'12000" BROWN, JOHN C & HAYDIE $233.83 $540.11 -$338106 $435.88 "051W07BA'"'12100" JONES, JEFFERY S & PAMELIA A $158.80 $540.11 -$338.06 $360.85 '"051W07BA'"'12200" CHA, FONGSAMOUT $158.80 $540.11 -$338.06 $360.85 "051W07BA""12300" PANKEY, MARCUS $158.80 $540.11 -$338.06 $360.85 "051W07BA'"'12400" AFANASlEV, LEONID & KSENIA $158.80 $540.11 -$338.06 $360.85 "051W07BA'"'12500" HU I I ULA, DAVID W & DORIS A $182.43 $540.11 -$338.06 $384.48 "051W07BA""12600" TREVINO, STEPHEN M & MERCADO, HILDA G $149.11 $540.11 -$338.06i $351.16 "051W07BA'"'12700" MARTIN, BRUCE E. & TAMMY D. $152.52 $540.11 -$338.06 $354.57 "051W07BA""i2800" SiFUENTEZ, VERONICA & !LEON, FEDERICO C JR $155.91 $540.11 -$338.06 $357.96 "051W07BA'"'12900" COURTNEY, MAI I HEW & VERA-COURTNEY, JULIA $206.76 $540.11 -$338.06 $408.81 "051W07BA'"'13000" ARELLANO, GUADALUPE & YOLANDA G $201.32 $540.11 -$338.06 $403.37 "051W07BA'"'13100" ZUBER, OLIVER $148.41 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.46 "051W07BA'"'13200" MOESER, CHAD L & SANDRA J $200.98 $540.11 -$338.06 $403.03 "051W07BA'"'13300" KILMURRJ~Y, PAMELA & MICHAEL $180.37 $540.11 -$338.06 $382.42 "051W07BA'"'13400" QUAN, MON Y & WU, LUO FAN $179.04 $540.11 -$338.06 $381.09 "051W07BA'"'13500" WEMLINGER, MARJORIE SUE $171.64 $540.11 -$338.06 $373.69 "051W07BA'"'13600" BLACKMAN, BRIAN P $185.07 $540.11 -$338.06 $387.12 "051W07BA""13700" GILMORE, BRIAN J & ANTOINETTE S $193.04 $540.11 -$338.06 $395.09 "051W07BA'"'13800" KRAXBERGER, RICHARD R & ILENE M $177.63 $540.11 -$338.06 $379.68 EVL..i IDIT "A PAGE 15 47 "051W07BA'"'13900'' KULIKOV, PATTY P & BORU, MARK $183.07 $540.11 -$338.06 $385.12 "051W07BA'"'14000" 'RuIz, ALBERTO & MARGARET A $182.38 $540.11 -$338.06 $384.43. "051W07BA'"'14100" CHAMBERLAIN, RICHARD D & BETH $150.96 $540.11 -~338.06 $353.01 "051W07BA'"'14200" WAITE, ANTHONY W & ELIZABETH A $148.88 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.93 "051W07BA'"'14300'' RAINES, HAROLD D & MARY $150.42 $540.11 -$338.06 $352.47 "051W07BA""14400" GREEN, ROBERT C JR $154.67 $540.11 -$338.06 $356.72 "051W07BA'"'14500" VOLZ, HAROLD L & LINDA & JOANNA M $205.26 $540.11 -$338.06 $407.31 "051W07BA""14600'' sWEENEY, CAROLYN J $157.32 "$540.11 -$338.06 ' $359.37 "05 lW07 BA'"' 14700"ANDERSON-AUBIN, GEORGE & SHANNON, MICHAEL W $157.32 $540.11 -$338.06 $359.37 "051W07BA""14800" FRIESZ, JuDy A $157.32 $540.11 -$338.06 $359.37 "05 lW07 BA'"' 14900"THOMPSON, CHRISTOPHER D & KARISSA E $157.32 $540.11 -$338.06 $359.37 "051W07BA'"'15000" GRAMZOW, ROBERT W & CARIANNE G $157.32 $540.11 -$338.06 $359.37 "051W07BA'"'15100" HUTCHINGS, DA LORA C $157.32 $540.11 -$338.06 $359.37 "051W07BA'"'15200" MAYHUGH, DONALD R & CARLENE $157.32 $540.11 -$338.06 $359.37 "051W07BA'"'15300" TUCKER, TERRY L $157.32 $540.11 -$338.06 $359.37 "051W07BA'"'15400" ARNDT, STEPHEN A & DIANE L $157.29 $540.11 -$338.06 $359.34 "051W07BA'"'15500" MARTIN WILSON SPECIAL NEEDS TR & MERO, LU R $155.86 $540.11 -$338.06 $357.91 "051W07BA'"'15600" iCHAVEZ, JUANA REINA $151.70 $540.11 -$338.06 $353.75 "051W07BA""15700" PRINSLOW, ROBERT & CHRISTINA $148.71 $540.11 -$338.06 $350.76 "051W07BA'"'15800" MCCLAUGHERTY, NICHOLAS J & CATHERINE $162.66 $540.11 -$338.06 $364.71 "051W07BA'""15900" TORRES-SOTO, ISIDRO $179.85 $540.11 -$338.06 $381.90 "051W07BA""16000" GROW, GORDON J & IMA L $160.98 $540.11 -$338.06 $363.03 "051W07BA""16100" JONCICH, SAPJ~BELLE TRE $160.31 $540.11 -$338.06 $362.36 "051W07BA'"'16200" JONCiCH, SARABELLE TRE $160.31 $540.11 -$338.06 $362.36 "051W07BA'"'16300" HERSHBERGER, SHAWN & JOANN $163.21 $540.11 -$338.06 $365.26 "051W07BA'"'16400" DAVIS, MICHAEL & BARBARA C $211.54 $540.11 -$338.06 $413.59 "051W07BA""16500" HANDRAN, TROY A & MELONY $153.63. $540.11 -$338.06 $355.68 "051W07BA'"'16600'' MCDANIEL, JASON $153.63 $540.11 -$338.06 $355.68 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 16 48 "051W07BA'"'16700" KHAMPHILAVONG, SAM & MALAI $153.63 $540.11 -$338.06 $355.68 "051W07BA'"'16800" STONE, JERRY L & KAREN $153.63. $540.11 -$338.06 $355.68 "051W07BA'"'16900" CHRlSTIANSEN, JAMES R & TRICIA N $212.40 $540.11 -~338.06 $414.45 "051W07BC'"'17300''' JOHNSTON LT & JOHNSTON, TERRY A TRE $198.70 $540.11 $0.00 $738.81 "051W07BC""17400" VAN VELDHUlZEN, DONALD & BELINDA C $199.07 $540.11 $0.00 $739.18 "051W07BC'"'17500" DELGADO, ROBERTO ALVEREZ & AMPARO A $199.47 $540.11 $0.00 $739.58 "051W07BC""17600" MAMETIEV, ALEX & ELIZAVETA $148.91 $540.11 $0.00 $689.02 "051W07BC""17700" PHIPPS, SAM R & MARY LU $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BC'"'17800" MYERS, STEWART & HEATHER $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BC'"'17900" STRUTHERS, ARCHIE A & VELMA O $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BC'"'18000" CHRISTENSEN, YVONNE M $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BC'"'18100" JAMES, RJ~NDY L & KAREN $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BC""18200" BAKER, DONNA K $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BC'"'18300" :AMICK, JOSEPH H & SHIRLEY M $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BC'"'18400" LARSEN, THOMAS J & SHAYLENE M $233.41 $540.11 $0.00 $773.52 "051W07BC'"'18500" BARTH, DENISE R $233.38. $540.11 $0.00 $773.49 "051W07BC'"'18600" BRANNON, TONYA D $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BC'"'18700" PFAU, WILLIAM & GWENDOLYN $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BC'"'18800" NULL, JEFFREY P & ROCHELLE M $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BC'"'18900" MASTERSON, MARC S & CAROLYN J $216.26 $540.11 $0.00 $756.37 "051W07BC'"'19000" HERNANDEZ, RODOLFO GARCIA & RENDON HERMILINDA FLORES $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BC'"'19100" VILLEGAS, RAFAEL O & MARIA $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737~99 "051W07BC'"'19200" BOURN, JERRY & JANET $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BC'"'19300" NICHOLS, MARJORIE PHILIPSEN &BERNARD L JR $238.48 $540.11 $0.00 $778.59 "051W07BC'"'19400" PEROTTI, LARRY J & HATTY $218.76 $540.11 $0.00 $758.87 "051W07BC'"'19500" HAWES, NEAL A & LAURIE $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BC'"'19600" BAKER, AARON' DAVID $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 17 4.9 "051W07BC'"'19700" IRMACLAIRE LINCOLN NATVIC RLT & LINCOLN, IRMA CLAIRE TRE $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BC'"'19800" MACK, WILLIAM L & DF. ANNA D $233.90 $540.11 $0.00 $774.01 MODIFIED PROPERTY - F SE~ SECTION 3 "05qW07BD""00700" MILLER FARM HOMEOWNER8 A88N $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "05~W07BD""00800" BARR, WILLIAM 8 & MARY $111.53 $540.11 $0.00 $65!.6~ "051W07BD""00900" MCMULLEN, ~WRENCE H & DIANE $111.53 $540.11 $0.00 $651.64 "051W07BD""01000" B~CK, BEVERLY JOAN LT & BP~CK, BEVERLY JOAN TRUSTEE $123.93 $540.11 $0.00 $664.04 "051W07BD'"'01q00" MILLER FARM :HOMEOWNER AS~N $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W07BD'"'01200" HU88EMAN, KENNETH L & LOUISE $135.06 $540.11 $0.00 $675.17 "051W07BD'"'0q300" POORMAN, DON A & DIANA $122.96 $540.~ 1 $0.00 $663.07 "051W07BD'"'01400" HADER, WILLIAM E & MARY $122.96 $540.~ 1 $0.00 $663.07 "051W07BD'"'0q500" KNOLES, DIANA & RICHARD $122.96! $540.ql $0.00 $663.07~ "051W07BD""01600" MUROFF, ANNA $157.57 $540.~ 1 $0.00 $697.68 "05~W07BD""0~700" MILLER FARM HOMEOWNER A88N INC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "05~W07BD'"'01800" CAM, IVAN & lVKA $127.36 $540.~1 $0.00 $667.47 "05~W07BD'"'01900" CAM, IVAN & IVKA $111.73 $540.1 ~ $0.00 $651.84 "05qW07BD""02000" PIATKOFF, NANCY $111.73 $540.~ ~ $0.00 $651.84 "05~W07BD""02100" PIATKOFF, NANCY $111.73 $540. ~ 1 $0.00 $651.84 "05~W07BD""02200" TUKWI~ HOMEOWNER8 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W07BD""02600" HENRYS FARM HOMEOWNER~ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "05~W07BD"02700" PE~IT, DAVID W $230.93 $540.~q $0.00 $771.04 "05qW07BD'"'02800" WlLHELEM, NElL $200.36 $540.1~ $0.00 $740.47 "05~W07BD""02900" ATKIN~ON, JAMES T & ~U~ J $197.39 $540.11 $0.00 $737.50~ "05~W07BD""03000" HUBENTHAL, ALLEN L & ~NA G $199.27 $540.11~ $0.00 $739.38 "051W07BD'"'03~00" ~iNC~IR, FR~,NK W & JOAN M $255.59 $540.11 $0.00 $795.70 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 18 50 "051W07BD""03200" HAMMACK, GARY D & ROSEMARY M $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BD""03300" ASBURY, JULIE A $223.76 $540.11 $0.00 $763.87 i"iQS1W07BD'"'03400" BOYD, VIRGIL A &SHARRON $224.65 $540.11 $0.00 $764.76 "051W07BD'"'03500" WHITE, BRIAN N & MEREDITH S $194.72 $540.11 $0.00 $734.83 "051W07BD""03600" COLLINS, OEP, ALU, &HELEN $200.14 $540.11 $0.00 $740.25i "051W07BD'"'03700" PICKTHORN, MARK L $199.81 $540.11 $0.00 $739.92 ~051W07BD'"'03800" CHRISTIANSEN, WILLIAM & SUSAN $199.42 $540.11, $0.00 $739.53 .i.1051W07BD""03900" FARIA, MELVIN A & MARIE $199.05 $540.11 $0.00 $739.16 "051W07BD'"'04000" 7ANE, TERENCE A & MONICA L $198.65 $540.11 $0.00 $738.76 i.i.051W07BD'"'04100'' WISE, JUDITH A $219.21 $540.11 $0.00 $759.32 "051W07BD'"'04200" ~ySER, SUZANN J $197.88 $540~11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BD""0~3'~0" SCHNABEL, GARY A & TAMMY M $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BD""04400" HIM, HENG $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BD'"'04500" OSTERGAARD, VERA $238.87 $540.11 $0.00 $778.98 "051W07BD'"'04600" MORALES, SALVADOR A & IMELDA P $221.21 $540.11 $0.00. $761.32 "051W07BD'"'04700" SALME, MARISSA E & HAHN, JEFFERY L $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 '"051W07BD'"'04800" LUNEKE, MICHAEL J & SLOAN CINDY L $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BD'"'04900" JOY, STEVEN & THERESA $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BD'"'05000" JOY, THERESA $238.92 $540.11 $0.00 $779.03 ~"051W07BD'"'05100" 'LOZOYA, WILFRED Z & DIONIClA CARRASCO $223.29 $540.11 $0.00 $763.40 '"051W07BD'"'05200" ALBRIGHT, RAYMOND G & ANN H $189.18 $540.11 $0.00 $729.29 "051W07BD'"'05300" WUBBEN, COURTNEY G & BRENDA $184.65 $540.11 $0.00 $724.76 "051W07BD'"'05400" PARK, ALAN C & JULIA D $196.55 $540.11 $0.00 $736.66 "051W07BD'"'05500" AGEE, WlLLAS D & JUDITH $210.45 $540.11 $0.00 $750.56 "051W07BD'"'05600" MCDONALD, DANIEL L & JENNIFER D $206.00 $540.11 $0.00 $746.11 "051W07BD'"'05700" IGNACIO, MURILLO ET AL $196.55 $540.11 $0.00 $736.66 "051W07BD'"'05800" JONES, RAYMOND A & CHRISTINE J $181.71 $540.11 $0.00 $721.82 "051W07BD'"'05900" MOYER, JAMES D & PEGGY $204.61 $540.11 $0.00 $7dd.72 "051W07BD'"'06000" LARAMORE, EDWARD A & PAMELA A $226.83 $540.11 $0.00 $766.94 ~;'051W07BD'"'06100" CORTINAS, OFELICA G $198.48 $540.11 $0.00 $738.59 "051W07BD""06200'' CURTIS, JAN $194.10 $540.11 $0.00 $734.21 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 19 51 "0'51W07BD'"'06300" LEOS, BENJAMIN jR & JENNIFER M $198.82 $540.11 $0.00 $738~93 "051W07BD'"'06400" WOOD, AARON S & JENNIFER A $198.73 $540.11 $0.00 $738.84 "051W07BD'"'06500" MILLER, MONTE L & VALINA $196.87 $540.11 $0.00 $736.98 "051W07BD""06600" CHANTHALANGSY, ANOUSA & COLLATT, JENNIFER $198.63 $540.11 $0.00 $738.74 "051W07BD""06700" HENRYS FARM HOMEOWNER (O. AREA) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W07BD'"'06800" HENRYS FARM (C. AREA) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W07BD""06900" ~ENRYS FARM (C. AREA) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00. "051W07BD""07000" BAKER, SHAWNEE & BPJ~NDON $200.2t $540.11 $0.00 $740.32 "051W07BD""07100" VELIZ, RODOLFO & CANDELALRIA $199.07 $540.11 $0.00 $739.18 "051W07BD""07200" CAPPS, TOM C $257.08 $540.11 $0.00 $797.19 "051W07BD""07300" -IARRIS, RICK C $207.98 $540.11 $0.00 $748.09 "051W07BD""07400" NAVA, MARIA DEL ROSARIO FREGOSO $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BD""07500" SCHUMACHER, MICHAEL J [& KATHLEEN A $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.9.9. "051W07BD""07600" WHITMORE, BRANDON J & STALFORD, MARTHA J $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99. -051W07BD""07700" WALDO, WILBUR $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BD""07800" GRUBB, MICHAEL S & ~,EBECCA R $197.88 $540.ii $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BD""07900" GAUTHIER, PETER J & KJ~REN A $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.9.9 "051W07BD,"08000" MAHAR, THOMAS & IEVELYN F YOUNG $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BD""08100" =LETCHER, IRVlN H & EVA $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 "051W07BD""08200" DORN, DANIEL A & CATHERINE L $197.88 $540.11 $0.00 $737.99 PROPERTIES WITH DEFINED REDUCED ACCESS: 65% ASSESSMENT BASED ON AREA OF PROPERTY AND TRIPS GENERATED. NO DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION MAP & TAX LOT PROPERTY OWNER AREA TRIP RATE TOTAL NO. COST COST ASSESSMENT COST "051W07/~,A'"'00100" .LEE, KIMBERLY A & HOCK J $140.20 $351.07 $491.2.7..I "051W07/~'"'00200" SMITH, CARL J & WILMES- SMITH, LINDA L $133.74 $351.07 $484.81 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 20 52 '"051W07AA'"'00300" ASHLEY, BENJAMIN A & JILL M $158.21 $351.07 $509.28 "051W07AA""00400" DE LOS REIOS, MAGDALENA $128.79 $351.07 $479.86 "051W07AA""00500" HANEBERG, ERIC B & PAMELA J $128.37 $351.07 $479.44 "051W07AA'"'00600" HENDRICKS, KEVIN M & KIMBERLY L $134.16 $351.07 $485.23 ~"051W07AA'"'00700" KOEPPING, PAUL R & KRiSTEN $120.78 $351.07 $471.85 ;;051W07AA'"'00800" GLAVNIK~ NIKOLAY & LYUDMILA $i 15.10 $351.07 $466.17 ~';051W07AA'"'00900"WOLFER, JON A & DEBRJ~ R $125.43 $351.07 $476.50 "051W07AA""01000'' NIELSEN, SHANNON T & RUBIN, ........ STEVE $140.84 $351.07 $491.91 "051W07AA'"'01100" SEE~ HOFF, PATRICK M & MARY ANNE L $120.88 $351.07 $471.95 ;;'051W07AA'"'01200"DEAN, WILLIAM T & SANDI~J~ J $84.84 $351.07 $435.91 "051W07AA""01300" MERRILL, SHANNON & STEVEN $82.38 $351.07 $433.46 "051W07~,'"'01400" BLOMBERG, WALTER M & NORMA T $123.85 $351.07 $474.92 "051W07AA'"'01500" KITCHEN, FLOYD E & BRENDA J $136.58 $351.07 $487.65 "051W07AA""01600" LUNEKE, KEITH E & BEVERLY L $114.51 $351.07 $465.58 "051W07AA'"'01700" CHRISTOFF, DAVID J & JANE E $113.88 $351.07 $464.95 "051W07AA'"'01800" REINHARDT, JOHN A & RENA F $110.94 $351.07 $462.01 "051W07AA'"'01900" BARBOUR, MARGARET J & .......... JOHN M TRUSTEE $110.94 $351.07 $462.01 "051W07AA'"'02000" RIEHL, JULIA F MARCO ~ ~ E-LING $110.94 $351.07 $462.01 "051W07AA'"'02100" BEAM, THOMAS L & SUSAN T $110.94 $351.07 $462.0i "051W07AA'"'02200" BLANKE, DAVID E $110.92 $351.07 $461.99 "051W07AA'"'02300" ANDERSON, JAMES & MARILYN $117.60 $35!.07 $468.67 "051W07AA""02400" CARTER, PJ~YMOND B & CATHERINE M $96.03 $351.07 $~.~,7.10 "051W07AA'"'02500" COLVlN, LLOYD W & ELLA M $91.65 $351.07 $~.d2.72 "051W07~J~'"'02600" JONES, BERT S $91.65 $351.07 $dd2.72 "051W07AA'"'02700" GARCIA, JOSE L & GEORGINA $91.65 $351.07 $442.72 "051W07AA'"'02800" SHUMWAY, DAVID L & SALLY J $91.65 $351.07 $442.72 "051W07AA'"'02900" JONES, JANICE I & DAVID M $91.65i $351.07 $~.~.2.72 "051W07~J~'"'03000" SUMMERS, SCO I I D & SUSAN M $91.65 $351.07 $~.~.2.72 "051W07AA'"'03100" PARK, SANG C. & LEE, SOON I. $91.65 $351.07 $442.72 "051W07AA'"'03200" RIFFLE, DAVID S & LINDA K $90.89 $351.07 $ddl.96 "051W07AA'"'03300" SHIM, HYONG W & MI YOUNG $87.98 $351.07 $439.05 "051W07AA'"'03400" DOOLEY, MICHAEL R & - MAUREEN P $89.88 $351.07 $~.~.0.95 "051W07AA'"'03500" MILLER, MARl LEE $102.59 $351.07 $453.66 "051W07AJ~'"'03600''MAXWELL, MICHAEL & PATRICIA $85.66 $351.07 $436.73 ';'051W07AA'"'03700"VANEMAN, DENNIS R & BEVERLY A $94.36 $351.07 $~.~, 5.43 "051W07AA'"'03800" KAPSSOF, NOREEN $87.48 $351.07 $438.55 ~'~051W07AA'"'03900"VELIZ, LIZA M $87.48 $351.07 $438.55 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 21 '"051W07AA'"'04000''' TELEUSHOV, IMASH Y $80.26 $351.07 $'431.33 "'~'051W07/~'"'04100" HANNON, JAY E & SALLY B $80.26 $351.07 $431.33' ~'051W07AA'"'04200" CARR, KEVIN M & LISA H $80.26 $351.07 $431.33 "051W07AA'"'04300" POPESCU, ALEXANDRU M & DORIANA $97.05 $351.07 $448.12 "051W07AA'"'04400" JENSEN, JAMES B & JULIE A $94.70 $351.07 $445.77 "051w07AA""04500" Kik~, ANNA B $96.15 $351.07 $447.22 ';';051W07AA'"'04600'' SHONES, GABRIEL D $103.83 $351.07 $454.90, ;';'051W07AA""04700"SANCHEZ, MIGUEL A $88.54 $351.07 $439.61 "051W07AA'"'04800" SMITH, LAURE['[A F $83.38 $351.07 $434.45 ;'~051W07AA""04900" DEL CASTILLO, JESUS & MARIA $80.29 $351.07 $431.36 "051W07~'"'05000" JAYNES, PEGGY A $79.60 $351.07 $430.67 "051W07AA'"'05100" STUART, ROBERT A & CATHERINE O $93.49 $351.07 $444.56 "051W07AA""05200" CANTU, JOHN A JR & ROMINE, JENNIFER $94.54 $351.07, $445.61 "051W07AA'"'05300" EVERSON, RICHARD L $89.19 $351.07 $440.26 "051W07AA'"'05500" IRONWOOD AT TUKWILA (TOT LOT) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 "051W07AA'"'05600" KENT, SANTIAGO A & KELLY I $112.11 $351.07 $463.18 "051W07AA'"'05700" R, AMOS, MARIA $117.26 $351.07 $468.33 "051W07AA'"'05800" CASS, DENNIS E & LINDA L $90.55 $351.07 $441.62 "051W07AA""05900" WHITELEY, WILLIAM R & GREELEY, EILEEN F $90.44 $351.07 $441.51 "051W07AA""06000" BROOKFIELD, JOHN M $140.89 $351.07 $491.96 "051W07AA'"'06100" CROSS, MARILYN J & RICHARD $172.16 $351.07 $523.23 "051W07AA'"'06200" VELIZ, PJ~UL JR & MARIE -TRE $152.94 $351.07 $504.01 "051W07AA'"'06300" JENSEN, DARRYL i & EMILY M $131.79 $351.07 $482.86 "051W07AA'"'06400" IVES, DAVID C & HEATHER L $148.50 $351.07 $499.57 "051W07AA'"'06500" SHUBIN, GEORGE JR & TANYA N $123.54 $351.07 $474.61 "051W07AA'"'06600" GREGORIE, RUSSELL P $125.841 $351.07 $476.91 "051W07AA'"'06700" SHKUTNIK, ALEKSANDR N & VICTORIA V $91.65 $351.07 $442.72 "051W07AA'"'06800" JUAREZ, MACARIO $91.65 $351.07 $442.72 "051W07AA'"'06900" PEDDICORD, CHRISTOPHER L & CHALASE I $86.13 $351.07 $437.20 "051W07AA'"'07000" SCHIEDLER, CURTIS G & MICHELE R $79.62 $351.07 $430.69 "051W07AA'"'07100" TOMPKINS, MICHELLE D & SAKAI, GEORGE JOJI JR $79.62 $351.07 $430.69 "051W07AA" "07200 MILLER, SHAWN L & CHRISTINE $79.62 $351.07 $430.69 "051W08BB'"'00100 CAMACHO, ROSA C $97.69 $351.07 $448.76 "051W08BB'"'00200 ALZNER, SALLY L $98.32 $351.07 $449.39 "051w08BB''''00300 MITCHELL, TODD M $91.93 $351.07 $443.00 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 22 "051W08BB'"'00400 MITTMANN, HUBERTUS J & IMME H $93.61 $351.07 $444.68 "051W08BB'"'00500 HANBERG, HEATHER R $117.06 $351.07 $468.13, '051W08BB'"'00600 FLORES, RAMIRO R & ANDREA $139.72 $351.07 $490.79 "051W08BB'"'00700 STUCKI, BERKLEY K & ANGELA $125.60 $351.07 $476.67 "051W08BB'"'00800 MCCALLUM, PETER J & ILA F '$106.'94 $351.07 $458.01 '~051W08BB""00900 DOZIER, STACIE L $94.57 $351.07 .... $445.64 "051W08BB'"'01000 BEVAN, ROBERT $98.00 $351.07 $449.07 "051W08BB""01100 ROTH, RONALD"D &'E'iLEEN E ....... $95.07 $351.07 $446.14 "051W08BB""01200 WALLACE, THOMAS J TRUSTEE $87.48 $351.07 $438.55 "051W08BB'"'01300 GRIMALDI,. BOBBI L & PATRICK $87.48 $351.07 $438.55 "051W08BB""01400 HEIDE, TERESA A $87.50 $351.07 $438.57 "051W08BB'"'01500 RUPP,~SC~O_TT L & JENNIFER K _$97.~0__5._ __ $351~07 $448.12 "051W08BB'"'01600 POTTER, RANDALL J $95.65 $351.07 $446.72 "051W08BB""01700 BALTA~J~,R, HIPOL!TO M & ELIZABETH F & FREGOSO, GUILLERMO A $80.26 $351.07 $431.33 "051W08BB'"'01800 OLSEN, BRANDON A & RJ~CHEL $80.26 $351.07 $431.33 "051W08BB""02000 'CANTU, JOHN A JR $107.24 $351.07 $458.31 "051W08BB""02100 ROBINSON, DONNA $145.43 $351.07 $496.50 "051W08BB""02200 STERLING, MARK D & MARCIA $139.65, $351.07 $490.72 "051W08BB""02300 HINDMAN, LOUIS E $131.65 $351.07 $482.72 "051W08BB'"'02400 JAMISON, GILBERT D & SHIRLEY $145.02 $351.07 $496.09 "051W08BB""02500 SANDERS, LON L & PEGGY S $133.16 $351.07 $484.23 "051W08BB'"'02600 MCGRATH, MELINDA R $119.65 $351.07 $470.72 "051W08BB'"'02700 B/~×LEY, RICHARD A & DEANNA $87.53 $35!.07 $438.60 "051W08BB'"'02800 ELLINGSON, DAVID B & KIMBERLY $80.47. $351.07 $431.54 "051W08BB'"'02900 WILLS, JOHN F & DEBORAH B $80.47 $351.07 $431.54 "051W08BB'"'03000 KUZNETSOV, ANTONI K & E K, ATE RI NA $80.47 $35i .07 $431.54 "051W08BB'"'03100 MARQUEZ, ROBERTO C & ALEJANDPJ~ C $80.78 $351.07 $431.85 "051W08BB'"'03200 LUNA, RICK L & CRYSTAL J $111.98 $351.07 $463.05 "051W08BB""03300 PASCALAR, TPJ~CY W &ROBERT $124.12 $351.07 $475.19 "051W08BB'"'03400 KlM, ANDREY S & EUNAH $83.65 $351.07 $434.72 "051W08BB'"'03500 MAGRUDER, KIMBERLY A $91.65 $351.07 $442.72 "051W08BB'"'03600 GRAFF, GERALD II & Bp, ANDY A $91.65 $351.07 $442.72 "051W08BB'"'03700 GROVE, DEREK & MICHELLE M $79.62 $351.07 $430.69 "051W08BB'"'03800 WATSON, RANDY $79.65 $351.07 $430.72 "051W08BB'"'03900 BAUMAN, JERRY $99.01 $351.07 $450.08 MODIFIED PROPERTY - D SEE SECTION 3 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 23 55 VIODIFIED PROPERTY - E SEE SECTION 3 MODIFIED PROPER~- C SEE SECTION 3 SECTION 3. MODIFIED PROPERTIES Certain undeveloped properties identified in Ordinance 2318, adopting the local improvement district and establishing the benefit to each property have been modified since its adoption. The following table lists the original property tax lot (denoted by a double strikethrough) and distributes the final assessment proportional to the new tax lot/properties. The calculated final assessment amount for the original tax lot is based on the methodology as outlined in ordinance 2318. MODIFIED PROPER'i'Y - A Original Tax Lot and Final Assessment Amount Assessment' Tax Lot Number Property Owner AMOUNT New tax lots within original Proportional Final Tax Lot Number Properb! Owner Assessment Amount 051W06D 1500 TUKWILA PARTNERS $54,598.90 051W06DD00100 BUCHANAN,DENNIS K &BUCKANAN,JACQUE $594.68 L 051W06DD00200 ~HARRIS,CHARLENE L &HARRIS,GEORGE H $594.68 051W06DD00300 BUTLER,JEFFREY F &KILGORE- $594.68 BUTLER,MARSHA R 051W06DD00400 SPENCER,STEVEN W &SPENCER,MARVIS J $594.68. 051W06DD00500 MARTINEZ, LOUIS R &MARTINEZ,PEGGY C $594.68 051W06DD00600 BOHLMAN,DON K &BOHLMAN,CAROLYN J $594.68 051W06DD00700 MAGKAMIT,LARRY C &MAGKAMIT,ELMA S $594.68 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 24 56 051W06DD00800 RJ~NEY, ALDEN M & JUDITH G $594.68 051W06DD00900 CLARK, MIA D $594.68 051W06DD01000 OSBORNE, RONALD & BEVERLY $594.68 "'051W06DD01100 KJ~NE, MICHAEL D & DEBBiE L $594.68 "651W06DD01200 ENGEN, RICHARD B & REBECCA L $594.68 "051W06DD01300 DAVlDSON, LAURA E. $594.68 051W06DD01400 SWYGART, ROBERT W & MARTY C $594.68 051W06DD01500 PEINE, BARRY & CLARE L $594.68 "051W06DD01600 YOCHIM, VICKI L $594.68 051W06DD01700 BEACH, SHANE M $594.68 051W06DD01800 DEVAULT, ALLEN D & NANCY $594.68 051W06DD01900 EYER, DELANO DOUGLAS & LAURA ANN $594.68 051W06DD02000 MOLONEY, MICHAEL R & KAREN M. $594.68 051W06DD02100 JONES, JAMES L & VIRGINIA A. $594.68 051W06DD02200 GETZINGER, THERESA A. $594.68 051W06DD02300 KRANZ, PAUL R & MARY T $594.68 051W06DD02400 BALE, RICHARD W & CAROL J $594~68 051W07AA08400 BOARDWELL, JAN ICE C $594.68 051W07AA08500 JEN, JULIANA $594.68 051W07AA08600 SHARON KLUPENGER RT $594.68 051W07AA08700 WOLF, MARK C $594.68 051W07AA08800 KINNEY, I/AYE $594.68 051W07AA08900 ELLISON, JOHN C & PHYLLIS $594.68 051W07AA09000 KRONMILLER, ELEANOR JC/O CASCADE $594.68 EXCHANGE SERV INC EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 25 051W07AA09100' HASSANPOUR, DEE ANNA $594.68 051W07AA09200 WALLACE, DON E & CYNTHIA L $594.68 051W07AA09300 DELLES, ROGER E & HOWARD- $594.68 DELLES,JUDITH A 051W07AJ~09400 YATES, RODNEY & JEANE I'"'I"'E L $594.68 051W07AA09500 GAFFREY, PATRICIA E & PATRICK F $594.68 051W07AA09600 O'NEIL, CAROL L & JACK R $594.68 051W07AA09700 GARDNER, MICHAEL $594.68 051W07AA09800 P, ENAiSSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $0.00- 051W07AA09900 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68 051W07AA10000 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68 .... 051W07AA10100 ~ENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68 051W07AA10200 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68 051W07AA10300 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68" 051W07fi~10400 RENAl SSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68" 051W07AA10500 ~,ENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68 051W07AA10600 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68 051W07AA10700 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68 051W07AA10800 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68' 051W07AA10900 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68 051W07AA11000 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68 051W07AA11100 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68. EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 26 ! 051W07AA11200 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68 051W07AA11300 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68. 051W07AA11400 RENAISSANCE CUSTOM HOMES LLC $594.68 TOTAL FINAL ASSESSMENT $86,711.72 MODIFIED PROPERTY- B ORIGINAL TAX LOT AND FINAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT Tax Lot Number Property Owner Assessment Amount t'~,. % A It"t '7 A I~t~t"l~l ~ OS~WO7AB "nnonn" ,,,,,,,,HS~ELHU~ A PARTHERS ~ New ~x Io~ within original PropoAional Final Tax Lot Number PropeAy Owner Assessment Amount 051W07AB07500 JOY-VAN DERWEY LLC $709.57 051W07AB07600 BELL, FPANK EDWARD $709.57 051W07AB07700 BURKHALTER, ~HELDON W & JANIS S $709.57 051W07AB07800 SIMONICH, ALBERT J $709.57 051W07AB07900 ' S~RY, STANLEY & ALLIE $709.57 051W07AB08000 BRINGHAM, ERIC R & STACl E $709.57 051W07AB08100 SIMS, ME~NIE $709.57 051W07AB08200 VANVLECK, SHARON L I~ $709.57 ~ 051W07AB08300 DEWS, FRANCES Y $709.57 051W07AB08400 GALES, BRIAN & SHELBY A $709.57 051W07AB08500 WEAVER, RODNEY M & WlNIFRED J $709.57 051W07AB08600 SILLIMAN, GREGORY R & ERIN M $709.57 051W07AB08700 SODERLUND, BERT D & EARLENE L $709.57 051W07AB08800 PETERS, GERALD & JOAN $709.57 051W07AB08900 JOY-VANDERWEY LLC $709.57 ~'5i W07AB09000 JOY-VA~DERWEY LLC $709.57 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 27 59 " TOTAL FINAL ASSESSMENT $11,353.12 MODIFIED PROPERTY- C ORIGINAL TAX LOT AND FINAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT Tax Lot Number Property Owner Assessment Amount New tax lots within original Proportional Final Tax Lot Number Property Owner Assessment Amount ~051W07AB09100 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $561.51 051W07AB09200 ECKHARDT, ROBERT E & NADINE L $561.51 051W07AB09300 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $561.51 051W07AB09400 'PROPST, KENNETH S & CARLA S $561.51 051W07AB09500 VEDA J MCALLISTER RLT & MCALLISTER, $561.51 VEDA J TRE 051W07AB09600 PEREPCHUK, KAY F & DONALD P SR $561.5i" 051W07AB09700 PMH TR &HERSHBERGER, PATR!CIA M TRE $561.51 & A WARDE TRE 051W07AB09800 YAILLEN, ERIC MC/O OREGON GOLF $561.5i ASSOCIATION 051W07AB09900 PARKER, SCOTT H & KERR, BONNY L $561.51 051W07AB10000 ERVIN, WESLEY W & JEANNE K $561.51 051W07AB10100 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $561.51 051W07AB10200 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $561.51 051W07AB11400 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $0.00 051W07AB11500 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $0.00 TOTAL FINAL ASSESSMENT $6,738.12 MODIFIED PROPERTY - D ORIGINAL TAX LOT AND FINAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT Tax Lot Number Property Owner Assessment Amount * 0.26 acre of the original tax lot 02600 is included in Goose Hollow Phase Two in accordance with land division EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 28 6O New tax lots within original Proportional Final Tax Lot Number Property Owner Assessment Amount 051W07AB10300 .... DIJAHNELOS HOMES INc " $443.91 051w07AB10400 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $443.91 051W07AB10~00 MDC LIMITED " $443.91 '051W07AB10600 '" CRAVEN, DICK T &' JEANNE H $443.91 051W07AB10700 REDFOOT, LARRY D & SUZANNE $443.91 051W07AB10800 ..... McCLENAGHAN, SHELAGH S $443.91 051W07AB10900 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $443.91 05 IW07ABI 1000 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $443.91 051W07AB11100 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $443.91 051W07AB11200 DIJAHNELOS HOMES I NC $443.91 051W07AB11300 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $0.00 TOTAL FINAL ASSESSMENT $4,439.10 MODIFIED PROPERTY - E ORIGINAL TAX LOT AND FINAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT * 0.28 acre of the original tax lot 02800 is included in Goose Hollow Phase Two ~n accordance with land division New tax lots within original Proportional Final Tax Lot Number Property Owner Assessment Amount 051W07AC04400 TU KWILA PARTNERS $17,186.72 051W07AB11600 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $527.37 051W07AB11700 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $527.37 051W07AB11800 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $527.37 051W07AB11900 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $527.37 051W07AB12000 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $527.37 051W07AB12100 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $527.37 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 29 61 051W07AB12200 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INc.. $527.37! 051W07AB12300 DAVID GREEN CONSTRUCTION LLC $527.37 '05'1W07AB 12400 DAVID GREEN CONSTRUCTION LLC $527.37 051W07AB12500 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INc. $527.37 051W07AB12600 DAViD GREEN CONSTRUCTION LLC '$527.37 051W07AB 12700 AFANAIEV, VLADIMIR, NATALIA ..... $527.37 051W07AB12800 DISTEFANO, RICCI S & DAGMAR $527.37 05 lW07AB 12900 ZIMMERMAN, GARY $527.37 05 lW07AB13000 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC .... $0.00 051W07AB13100 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $0.00 051W07AC04500 DAVID GREEN CONSTRUCTION LLC $527.37 051W07AC04600 DAVID GREEN CONSTRUCTION LLC $527.37 051W07AC04700 i JOHNSON, DALE & IRENE $527137 051W07AC04800 DAVID GREEN CONSTRUCTION LLC $5271'37 051W07AC04900 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $527.37 051W07AC05000 WESTWIND CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING & '$5'27"i"3~' DESIGN INC 051W07AC05100 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $527.37 051W07AC05200 CARLSON, RONALD W & BETTY J $527.37 051W07AC05300 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $527.37 051W07AC05400 DIJAHNELOS HOMES INC $527.37 TOTAL FINAL ASSESSMENT $29,843.60 MODIFIED PROPERTY '"F ORIGINAL TAX LOT AND FINAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT 051WO7£A 91999 GASCHO, c, ,~_ck, c o ~ ,, ,n,Tu ~ TC~TAI EIKIAI A~E~R4EKIT ARiel IKIT ~ New Tax lot within originals Propo~ional Final Tax Lot Number Prope~y Owner Assessment Amount 051W07BA 009'00 GASCHO, EUGENE R & JUDITH $16,113.74 EXHIBIT "A" PAGE 30 62 11B July 20, 2005 TO: FROM' Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Public Works Program Manager SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Agreement with Marion County to Provide Certain Maintenance and Engineering Services RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution entering into an intergovernmental agreement with Marion County to provide various types of road maintenance services to the City. BACKGROUND: The City has been utilizing Marion County maintenance crews for activities that can be done more cost effectively by the county such as striping of City Streets for many years. This was done through a series of annual agreements that specifically addressed street striping activity. Marion County is seeking to reduce the administrative effort required to accomplish annual agreements for specific maintenance activities such n~ stripe work on ~+r~,-,+~ ,,,~;,-~, they do ~-- ..... ,.iii ',--,glO/ V¥1 IIk--I I J(....)J most cities in the county. Other cities in the county use Marion County for other maintenance activities such as chip sealing of streets and engineering services. The City has used the county in the past for development of a Pavement Management System for City streets. Marion County has proposed a standard continuing blanket agreement that will cover all road maintenance and engineering services that they provide to cities ~n the county. In the future, the City may take advantage of other county maintenance services such as chip sealing. The City will also continue to use the county to update the City's Pavement Management System. DISCUSSION: The County desires to reduce their workload required with annual updates of these agreements w'ith cities Jn the county by replacing annual task specific with continuing agreements to provide certain maintenance and engineering services that wJtt be determined by re~,~from cities to Marion County. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator.~'~'-// City Attorney/~"/f'~ Finance 63 Honorable Mayor and City Council July 20, 2005 Page 2 The City will primarily utilize Marion County to accomplish the annual paint stripe work on City streets. Periodically the City may have the county perform other maintenance activity that can be cost effectively performed by the county. The maintenance activity will be included in approved budgets for street maintenance. The county will bill the city at the prevailing rates for the requested service for the period in which the services are provided to the City. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Costs for Marion County work for the City, such as striping or chip sealing of city streets, are included in the approved Street budget for maintenance activity. COUNCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MARION COUNTY FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF ROAD MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN SUCH AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, Marion County will provide various types of road maintenance and engineering services to the City of Woodburn, and WHEREAS, Marion County has determined that an intergovernmental agreement pursuant to the provisions of ORS Section 190 should be in place for all agencies for which the county provide such services, and WHEREAS, The City has found it to be beneficial to use Marion County for various road maintenance activities, and WHEREAS, It would be in the best interest of the City to enter into this intergovernmental agreement for various types of road maintenance and engineering services and authorize the City Administrator to sign on behalf of the City, NOW THEREFORE; THE CITY' OF WOODBURN RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City of Woodburn enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Marion County for various types of road maintenance and engineering services, which is affixed as Attachment "A" and by this reference incorporated herein. Page t- COUI,~CIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. 65 Section 2. That the City Administrator of the City of Woodburn is authorized to sign said intergovernmental agreement on behalf of the City. 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, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon 66 INTERGOVElt2qMENTAL AGI~EMENT ALLOWING MARION COUNTY TO PROVIDE CERTAIN MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES TO THE CITY OF WOODBURN This Agreement is made pursuant to ORS t90.003 to ORS 190.110 between the City of Woodburn ("Agency"), a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, and Marion County ("County"), a political subdivision of the State of Oregon. Purpose The purpose of this Agreement is to allow the Agency to request the County to provide various types of road maintenance and engineering services to the Agency. NOW, THEI~FORE, the parties agree as follows: Term This Agreement shall be in effect from the date upon which the last signature is affixed and shall remain in effect until terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. Agency Obligations The Agency shall, whenever possible, request the beginning and ending of services fi'om the County with sufficient notice and time for completion that is reasonable for the county to respond and provide the requested service. For road maintenance services, at least forty-eight (48) hours advance notice is required. The Agency shall make payment within thirty (30) days of receipt of the County's invoice for services provided. Costs charged the Agency will be billed at the County's time, equipment, and, materials rates for the period in which the services are provided. Rates may also include administrative costs associated with the tasks performed under this Agreernent. County Obligations The County will make every effort to begin and perform the requested services in the time frame requested by Agency. However, both parties agree that the operational needs of the County shall take precedence over any requests from the Agency, and no guarantee is rnade or implied that the services will begin or be provided by the date requested by the Agency. County shall provide a monthly invoice to the Agency for services provided to the Agency under this Agreement. Invoices shall list all resources required to perforrn the requested service(s) including, but not lirnited to, equipment, personnel, materials, and parts used for services provided under this Agreement. Prior to the beginning of any service under this Agreement, the Agency may request the County to provide an estimate of the total cost for a specific request. The Agency may also request frorn the County a current list of rates that will be charged for services requested of the County. 67 GENERAL PROVISIONS: Funds Available And Authorized The Agency certifies at the time they request services that sufficient funds are available and authorized for the services requested under this Agreernent. Compliance With Applicable Laws The parties agree that both shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the work to be done under this Agreement. The parties agree that this Agreement shall be administered and construed under the laws of the state of Oregon. Hold Harmless To the extent permitted by law, County agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold City, its officers, agents, and employees, harmless from any and all clairns, actions, liability or costs including attorney fees and other costs of defense, arising out of or in any way related to this Agreemer, t, and arising from the sole negligence of County, its agents, ernployees and officers. To the extent permitted by law, City agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold County, its officers, agents, arid employees, harmless from any and all claims, actions, liability or costs including attorney fees and other costs of defense, arising out of or in any way related to this Agreement, and arising from the sole negligence of City, its agents, employees and officers. Insurance Each party shall insure or self-insure and be independently responsible for the risk of its own liability for claims. Merger Clause Both parties concur and agree that this Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties. No waiver, consent, modification or change to the terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. There are no understandings, Agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. Both parties, by the signatures below of their authorized representatives, hereby agree to be bound by its term and conditions. Notices Any notice required to be given the Agency or the County under this Agreement shall be sufficient if given in writing, by first class mail or in person to: COIYi',ITY Marion County Director of Public Works 5155 Silverton Road NE Salem, OR 97305-3899 AGENCY City of Woodburn Director of Public Works 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 68 ATTACHMENT Page _~__~ of In witness thereof, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date of the lat signature shown below. MARION COUNTY CITY OF WOODBUR3'4 Director of Public Works Date City Adrninistrator Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: Contractors Coordinator Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: Legal Counsel Date 69 e 11C July 25, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council John C. Brown, City Administrator Community Development Director Vacancy RECOMMENDATION: it is recommended the City Council: Authorize the City Administrator to solicit proposals from executive search firms to conduct a recruitment to fill the Community Development Director position; and Approve the attached resolution approving a transfer of $25,000 from General Fund Contingencies (001-901-9971-5921) to the Human Resources account in the General Fund Non-Departmental budget (001-199-1219- 5417) to support the cost of executive search services. BACKGROUND: I received, and accepted, the resignation of James Mulder from his position as Community Development Director on July 15, 2005. A copy of his resignation letter is included as Attachment 1 to this report. DISCUSSION: A vacancy in the Community Development Director position disrupts the City's ability to process complicated and time sensitive land use applications, to interpret land use and zoning regulations, to complete comprehensive plan periodic review and transportation system plan updates, to provide planning interaction on city projects and to provide staff support to the Planning Commission. As an integral member of the City's management team, the loss of this position can also impact other City priorities and services. Agenda Item Review: City Adminis City Attorney ftV~J_ iFinance 70 Honorable Mayor and City Council July 25, 2005 Page 2 To provide continuity while a new Director is recruited, I appointed Naomi Zwerdling, Senior Planner, to the position of Interim Community Development Director. She will temporarily manage two associate planners and clerical support, and address current planning matters including land use applications and sign ordinance and other code compliance. Ms. Zwerdling will also assume responsibility for facilitating the focus group charged with forming recommendations for revisions to the Woodburn Development Ordinance. Steve Krieg, Chief Building Official, will run the Building division, 'which has been under management control of the Community Development Director. Mr. Krieg will answer directly to me during the interim. Although I have not been able to confirm his interest because he is on vacation, I will request that Winterbrook Planning take the lead in completing periodic redew tasks currently before the Council and in moving the project forward to Marion County. These actions should minimize the disruption that can be anticipated due to this vacancy, and allow the time needed to conduct a thorough recruitment to fill the position on a permanent basis. Appointing the right, well-qualified individual to this position is of utmost importance to satisfying the Council's goals related to community and economic development, urban renewal, and livability. Finding and hiring the right individual is also needed to develop and maintain effective and cooperative working relationships with State agencies, local business, and the conservation and development communities. The City typically conducts it own r.-.,--r '+ ~v,~,-, ,+~,,~, oea,~.h ~r,..~ ~. ......... ~. . _ ,.. .... ul,ments. ~ ~'" ---'-'-~ ,.,,~,.~,,,v~ ,,,,,,o, ,,,.,vv~v~,, .eque~ ~t~y co~ ~uuc;~ recruitments with this sensitivity. Executive search firms have the knowledge, expertise, and connections to assure that highly qualified candidates with characteristics that match the needs of the community are attracted. They also dedicate the undivided attention needed to assure recruitment moves along without delays. Although City staff could conduct this recruitment, I believe it can be completed in less time and with better results if an executive search firm is retained to conduct this search. Through informal contact during the past week with three such firms, I have determined that services would include working with City staff and members of the Council and Planning Commission to validate desirable characteristics in qualified candidates, developing recruitment materials, advertising in general and focused locations, conducting qualifications screening and preliminary interviews, recommending finalists to me for a hiring decision, completing background checks, and negotiating a contract, as needed. The average cost for such a recruitment, including professional services and reimbursement for expenses is approximately $25,000. The recruitment can be completed, including the time needed to select the 71 Honorable Mayor and City Council July 25, 2005 Page 3 search firm, in approximately four months. Given the time constraints on existing staff, and the lack of experience in recruiting employees at this level, it is recommended that the City Council authorize me to solicit proposals from executive search firms to conduct a recruitment to fill the vacant Community Development Director position. FINANCIAL IMPACT: A portion of the cost of this recruitment may be offset from salary savings associated with a vacant Director's position. Accumulated leave payouts provided to Mr. Mulder upon his separation, as well as a salary increase for the Senior Planner to compensate for her duties as interim director greatly reduce the amount of salary savings available to support the cost of the recommended recruitment. Accordingly, a contingency fund transfer of $25,000 is recommended. An amount of $916,149 is currently budgeted in Contingencies. The recommended action would reduce that amount to $891,149 (10.1% percent of general fund operating expenses). ATTACHMENT 1 July 15, 2005 ~'ohn Brown, City Admini._strator City of Woodburn Re: Resignation Please accept my res'tgnation as Community Development Director effective itmnediately. It has been a pleasure working with you and your support has meant a great deal to me. '/3 COUNCIL BILL NO. P~SOLUTION NO. A P~SOLUTION AUTHORAZING THE Tli_ANSFER OF OPERATING CONTINGENCY APPROPRIATIONS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2005-06. WHEREAS, Oregon Revised Statutes 294.450 allows for the transfer of operating contingency appropriations within a fund to an existing appropriations category within the same fund during the year in which appropriations are made, and WHEREAS, a transfer of General Fund operating contingency appropriations is necessary to pay a contract service fee to a recruitment firm to assist the City in the recruitment and selection process for a Community Development Director, now, therefore THE CITY OF WOODBUR~ P~SOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That authorization is hereby given to transfer the following operating contingency appropriation during fiscal year 2005-06: GENERAL FUND: Transfer From: Operating Contingency (001.90 ! .9971.5921) Transfer To: Non-Departmental - Materials & Services Human Resources (001.199.1219.5417) Approved as to Form: : City Attorney $ 25,000 $ 25,000 D~te 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 Tenxtant, Recorder City of Woodbum, Oregon PAGE 1 - COU~NCIL BILL NO. RESOLUTION NO. 74 WoO .U _N 11D July 25, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John C. Brown, City Administrator SUBJECT: Periodic Review Deliberations Attached is a report, prepared by the former Community Development Director, which was provided with attachments to each of you approximately l0 days ago. He addressed, to the degree he believed appropriate, documents submitted to the City following the original deadline for written testimony of April 28, 2005 and those submitted by the extended deadline of June 27, 2005 that Council authorized on June 13, 2005. After considering this most recent report and attachments, earlier reports, testimony provided at the public hearing, and staff input provided at subsequent deliberation sessions, you may conclude you are ready to render a decision. If this is the case, it is appropriate to act on the recommendation provided in the Director's report. If, however, you have unanswered questions or require additional information, it would be appropriate to continue your deliberations to a future date. To date, staff and consulting resources have been available to provide support in the deliberation process. As the director position is vacant, the interim director has not been intimately or globally involved in the periodic review process, and as the City's primary consultant is on vacation, resources will not be available at your July 25*h meeting to support your deliberations. Should you have unanswered questions at that time, staff will record your concerns and return at a future meeting with any information you may require fo enable you to make a decision. If you have any concerns regarding this approach, please give me a call prior to Monday night's meeting. JCB Agenda Item Review: City Administratol City Attorney Finance .ugN July 25, 2005 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Jim Mutder, Director of Community Development Legislative Amendment 05-01 (Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update) - Additional Written Testimony and Staff Responses to Testimony RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council instruct staff to prepare an ordinance adopting Legislative Amendment 05-01, subject to the revisions recommended within the staff memorandum to the City Council dated June 13, 2005. BACKGROUND: At its meeting of March 28, 2005, the City Council received oral and written testimony regarding proposed periodic review amendments and proposed urban growth boundary' expansion. The Council closed the hearing for oral testimony and established a deadline of April 20, 2005 to receive additional written testimony. At its meeting of April 25, 2004, the Council began deliberating on the proposed amendments and then continued its deliberations to allow staff to respond to the testimony received by the April 20, 2005 deadline. At its June 13, 2005 meeting, the Council continued deliberating and decided to accept additional written testimony with a June 27, 2005 deadline for receiving additional written testimony. The Council directed that additional written testimony would be accepted only if it was related to the following: Changes proposed by city staff to the proposed amendments presented at the City Council public hearing on March 28, 2005. These proposed changes are contained as attachments to the June 13, 2005 memorandum to the City Council from the Director of Community Development. 2. Additional information or evidence introduced by city staff up through the City Council meeting of June 13, 2005. Agenda Item Review: City Administrator __ City Attorney Honorable Mayor and City Council July 25, 2005 Page 2 3. City staff's incorporation into its draft findings of new God t 4 regulations recently approved by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission. 4. Responses to written testimony submitted after April 20, 2005 and received by the City by June 13, 2005. Notice of the opportunity to submit additional written testimony was mailed on June 14, 2005 to those persons that participated in the public hearing before the City Council either orally or in 'writing, to those persons that submitted written testimony after the public hearing, and to those persons listed on the Periodic Review Notification List. The notice was also published in the Woodburn independent on June 22, 2005. DISCUSSION' Six items of additional testimony or correspondence were received after the April 20, 2005 deadline and before the June 13, 2005 City Council meeting and seven items of additional written testimony were received after the June 13, 2005 City Council meeting and before the June 27, 2005 deadline. Staff provides the following responses to these items for Council consideration: Attachment A-1 (Daniel Orsborn)' This is a petition submitted by Daniel Orsborn opposing" ~"'-'- -' *~'^ School r~:r+~i,-.+ property on East Lincoln Road in the UGB. Staff has recommended not including this property in the proposed UGB expansion. Attachment A-2 (Serres Family)' Staff has reviewed all of the comments from the Serres family. We found little new information that would help to justify inclusion of all or part of the Serres property within the 2005 Woodburn UGB. The May 24, 2005 letter from the DLCD Regional Representative Geoff Crook simply reiterates the multitude of statutory, statewide planning goal and administrative rule requirements that must be addressed in any UGB amendment proposal. Mr. Crook's letter does not support the Serres arguments for inclusion of their land within the UGB, nor does it refute work done by Winterbrook Planning. ORS 197.298 requires that lower quality soils be brought into the UGB before higher quality soils, with limited exceptions that do not apply to the Serres property. Honorable Mayor and City Council July 25, 2005 Page 3 In conclusion, both the Serres and the Fessler properties have the capacity to meet future residential land needs. The Serres property is comprised of predominantly Class I1 soils, with very little Class III soil, and is relatively expensive to serve. In contrast, the Fessler property has a large, buildable area with Class Ill soils, and is relatively inexpensive to serve. Class II soils on the Fessler property also qualify for an exception to ORS 197.298 priorities, because urban services must be extended through the Class Il soil area to reach the Class Ill soil area. The Fessler property also has better buffers from agricultural land (Crosby Road) than the Serres property. These are the priman/ reasons why we continue to recommend inclusion of the Fesster property, rather than the Serres property. For reference purposes, ORS 197.298(3) reads as follows: "(3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following reasons: (a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably accommodated on higher priority lands; (b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher priority lands due to topographical or other physical constraints; or (c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to include or to ~r,-,,,;~.. sePvices to ~,~,--r ~,r~,r;+,, lands." Attachment A-3 (Richard Stein): This is a letter from an attorney representing the Serres family. It requests that the record be reopened. The City Attorney in his Memorandum Opinion No. 2005-01, provided to the Council before the June 13, 2005 City Council meeting, addressed procedural issues relating to legislative decisions. The City Attorney in his memorandum dated June 13, 2005 recommended the Council reopen the record to accept additional written testimony. After considering these items, the Council reopened the record for additional written testimony and set a deadline of June 27, 2005 for receiving such testimony. Attachment A-4 (Roger Alfred): This is a letter from an attorney representing Renaissance Homes. It requests that the record be reopened. The response to this letter is the same as for Attachment A-3. Attachment A-5 (Richard Stein): The response to this item is included in the response to Attachment A-2. Honorable Mayor and City Council July 25, 2005 Page 4 Attachment A-6 (Roger Alfred): This is a letter from an attorney representing Renaissance Homes. It requests that the record be reopened. The response to this letter is the same as for Attachment A-3. Attachment B~I (Roger Alfred): In a June 27, 2005 letter, Attorney Roger Alfred (representing Renaissance Homes), disagrees with staff's recommendation to remove the northeastern portion of the OGA golf course property (Study Area 2) from the proposed Urban Growth Boundary. The staff recommendation to exclude the northeastern portion of the site was based on (1) the fact that this area is comprised of predominantly Class I and II agricultural soils, (2) this land is not needed to serve areas with higher priority for inclusion with in the UGB (i.e., exceptions areas or areas with Class III soils), and (3) the inclusion of the northernmost portion of the property would require an unacceptably long cd-de-sac. The Class I and II soils that are not beneath golf links, and therefore which potentially are available for housing development, currently are productive orchards. Mr. Alfred argues that the entire site should be included within the UGB, despite the fact that it is comprised of Class I and II agricultural soils, fo meet a special need for higher-end housing in Woodburn. Alternatively, Mr. Alfred recommends that only land with predominantly Class I soils be removed, which would allow a northern tier of lots, despite the fact that the proposed northern tier of lots would require a cul-de-sac +~,,~,,,~, ,,~,-,~,~+.-.cv,,,,,~,~.o ~".-.,,..,.,'rr'"~'+,, code standards. Mr. Alfred provides two maps showing the two proposed options, and opines that the new Goal 14 and the North Plains case allow for such a special needs exception to ORS 197.298 priorities. While staff agrees with Mr. Alfred that buildable land adjacent to the golf course provides an excellent opportunity for higher end housing with open space amenities (an exception to the priorities authorized under ORS 197.298(3)(a)), staff does not believe that this "locational need" by itself is sufficient to include areas with predominantly Class I soils, when areas with Class II soils are available to meet this need. Staff continues to support bringing in the western portion of the OGA golf course site for the following reasons. First, staff agrees that the golf course has provided a unique opportunity fo meet higher-end housing needs in Woodburn. This conclusion is supported by testimony in the record form Renaissance Homes, which Honorable Mayor and City Council July 25, 2005 Page 5 stated that this company specializes in higher-end housing, and would not have invested in Woodburn if there had not been development area adjacent to the golf course. Staff also agrees, for reasons stated in Mr. Alfred's letter, that some land near the golf course outside the UGB is needed for higher-end housing. However, because there is a choice between Class I and ii soils, staff cannot support bringing the lowest priority land (Class I agricultural soils) into the UGB to meet this need. Thus, staff recommends that the predominantly Class II land on the western portion of the OGA golf course be included within the UGB to meet the need for higher-end housing, as authorized under ORS 197.298.(3)(al. Second, there are urban efficiency reasons to bring the westerly portion of this property into the UGB. An emergency access is required to connect an approved subdivision within the existing UGB to Boones Ferry Road in Study Area 2. This emergency access road will cut through a relatively narrow strip of predominantly Class I orchard land sandwiched between existing golf links. This emergency access road will have adverse impacts on existing agricultural operations by providing unbuffered vehicular and pedestrian access through the center of the orchard. The City would prefer to have this emergency access road constructed to urban street standards, with curbs, gutters and sidewalks, because it serves a local street function. The only reasonable way to fund these improvements is for land on either side of the street to be developed for urban residential ..... ~,~, for ~ looped uses. ~v~o~eove~, this land must be developed to help ~,,.,~' .~ water system beneath the local street, which is needed to maintain adequate water pressure for land within the UGB and for proposed expansion areas north of the UGB. Thus, including the western portion of the OGA golf course in the UGB is justified for urban efficiency reasons under ORS ] 97.298(3)(c). Third, development of land between the emergency access road and Boones Ferry Road in Study Area 2 should be included to enable improvement of the east side of Boones Ferry Road to urban minor arterial standards. Such improvement is necessary to serve planned land uses safely and efficiently, as called for in the 2005 Woodburn Transportation System Plan. Attachment B-2 (Brian Moore): Mr. Moore's letter provides additional support for inclusion of the Fessler property within the 2005 Woodburn UGB. Staff has reviewed this letter, and a letter from Multi-Tech Engineers, and generally agrees with the evidence and findings they contain. $0 Honorable Mayor and City Council July 25, 2005 Page 6 Attachment B-3 (Serres Family): The response to this item is included in the response to Attachment A-2. Attachment B-4 (Dan Btem): These comments supplement previous testimony received from Klm Ashland. These comments pertain to two properties each approximately 9 acres located on the north side of Mollala Road adjacent to the easterly UGB boundary. These properties are within the current UGB, but not in the city limits. They both have CPM designations of Commercial. These comments request that the CPM be changed to Low Density Residential. No change is proposed to the subject property, because vacant commercial land is already being constrained by the UGB expansion proposal and removing approximately 18 acres of commercial land from within the current UGB now, will make it difficult to add it back later. This is because commercial UGB expansions are much more difficult to justify as opposed to residential or industrial expansions because it is more feasible to redevelop commercial uses to address commercial land needs than industrial or residential uses. Also, these properties represent the largest vacant commercial site on the east side of the city. In addition, Low Density Residential development would not be compatible with the adjacent Maclaren facility to the north, the highway to the south, commercial land to the west, and farmland to the east. Attachment B-5 (Richard Warnick): These comments supplement previous ,~,,,, ,u,,y received from,,,,..,D~'-~'~"~,~,,~ Warnick. These~.._,,'-'~"~,," ~,+c, ,,, ,,., ,,, ~,--,~""r+~';~',,-,,, to property located at 1365 N. Front Street that is currently designated Commercial on the Comprehensive Plan Map (CPM) and zoned CG (Commercial General). Mr. Warnick comments that he would like the CPM and zoning to remain commercial. The Planning Commission recommended changing the CPM to Medium Density Residential and zoning to RM (Medium Density Residential). This property is one of 14 neighboring properties designated to change to multi- family residential use. Of these properties the subject property is the only one that has a commercial use. Tax Assessor information indicates that the existing building on the 0.7-acre parcel was constructed in t964 and consists of approximately 9,000 square feet. Assessor information also indicates the value of the improvements ($132,000) is slightly more than the value of the land ($126,000) (Parcels where the improvement value is less than the value of the land are typically considered to be under utilized and ripe for redevelopment). This property is recommended for Medium Density Residential for the following reasons: 1. The property's improvement value is not significantly higher than its $1 Honorable Mayor and City Council July 25, 2005 Page 7 land value. o The property is generally located in the middle of a larger area recommended for Medium Density Residential. The property's existing commercial use is not consistent with the adjacent single-family dwellings and Single Family Residential (RS) zoning to the west. Leaving this property as commercial would result in a 0.7-acre commercial property that is isolated from other commercial properties (i.e., "spot zoning"). The property could be redeveloped with the larger vacant property to the west, which could potentially provide access from Front Street to First Street and Second Street (First and Second Streets currently are long dead-end streets). This could provide an opportunity to significantly improve an existing access deficiency in the area. Attachment B-6 (Keith Woollen): These comments supplement previous testimony received from Keith Woollen. These comments generally concur with the draft Transportation System Plan (TSP) although they go beyond the scope ~ d~a~ I.)P by showingF,,-,oo,~,,~;~'~" ~, ,+,,r~,..,..... ..,....,""+"n~n~,.,.., ,~ of s+r¢,¢,+~,,~,, outside of the proposed Woodburn UGB. The scope of the draft TSP was limited to planned street improvements that can be provided within the proposed UGB. Attachment B-7 (Mark Castor): These comments supplement previous testimony received from Martin Rohrer and other property owners north of the Woodburn Company Stores. Staff's response to these comments is the same as was provided in the June 13, 2005 memorandum to the City Council, which stated the following: "in Exhibit B-95 and related exhibits (B-65), Mr. Rohrer makes a persuasive case to include 125 acres of land, located between Crosby Road and the Woodburn Company Stores, in Study Area 1 (Northwest). Mr. Rohrer believes that this land is best suited for mixed use industrial. He goes on to suggest that agricultural land west of Butteville Road or land in the Parr Road area east of t-5, could be removed to allow inclusion of the Crosby Road property. Mr. Rohrer notes that previous Council-appointed Honorable Mayor and City Council July 25, 2005 Page 8 committee had recommended inclusion of this area for a mixture of commercial and light industrial uses. The 125 acres in question is designated "Agriculture" on the Marion County Comprehensive Plan map, and is zoned Exclusive Farm Use. This subarea is comprised primarily of Class Il agriculture soils, with the exception of unbuildable riparian corridors which are primarily Class IV agricultural soils with narrow strips of Class III soils are the riparian edge. To access this land, one either would need to drive through the Woodburn Company Store area to reach Highway 214 and the I-5 Interchange, or access the interchange through the Butteville Road residential exceptions area. There are no large blocks of Class Ill soils in this area, nor can such large blocks be reached by extending services through this area. Since the Committee finished its work in 1999, the Council has reviewed and accepted the Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) and the Economic Development Strategy (EDS), Winterbrook Planning has carefully analyzed alternative UGB expansion areas based on the Statewide Planning Goals and applicable Oregon statutes, and the Transportation Systems Plan has been extensively revised to provide for alternative east- west routes through Woodburn. Ali of this work pointed towards reservation of large blocks of land along Butteville and Parr Roads, with minimal development constraints and readily available urban services. ORS 197. oo~ p,,~,,,t,es d,,~,..te,~ employment growth towards the blocks of Class III soils immediately south of Parr Road. In order to reach this Class III soils area, intervening Class II agricultural land along Parr and Butteville Roads must be developed. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan and Development Ordinance Package, made changes, and provided its recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission recommended that this area not be included in the UGB expansion area because it did not satisfy land use, transportation, and economic goals as well as other areas proposed for inclusion in the UGB. Specifically, the portion of this area between 1-5 and East Senecat Creek is best suited for future commercial uses consistent with Woodburn Company Stores type development. However, the City proposal only justifies 32 acres of commercial UGB expansion. The portion of this area west of East Senecal Creek is best suited for residential uses because of compatibility considerations with the adjacent residential development in the City and East Senecal Creek. However, residential land needs are Honorable Mayor and City Council July 25, 2005 Page 9 better addressed with the City proposal. This area is not best suited for industrial use for the reasons stated above. This area should be preserved for future commercial and residential uses when sufficient justification for such expansion can be provided in the future." Attachments: Attachment A Attachment B Written Testimony and Correspondence Received After 4/20/05 Written Testimony Deadline and Before 6/13/05 City Council Meeting: A-l: A-2: A-3: A-4: A-5: A-6: Daniel Orsborn, received 4/22/05 Serres Family, received 5/5/05 Richard Stein, received 5/23/05 Roger Alfred, received 5/23/05 Richard Stein, received 6/2/05 Roger Alfred, received 6/13/05 Written Testimony and Correspondence Received After 6/13/05 City Council Meeting and Before 6/27/05 Additional Testimony Deadline: B-l: B-2: B-3: B-4: B-5: B-6: B-7: Roger Alfred, received 6/27/05 Brian Moore, received 6/27/05 Serres Family, received 6/27/05 Dan Blem, received 6/27/05 Richard Warnick, received 6/27/05 Keith Woollen, received 6/24/05 Mark Castor, received 6/22/05 84. The attachments for Item 11 D are not included in the agenda packet. The entire document has been given to the City Council and is available for review by the public in the City Recorder's office, in the City Administrator's office, and at the reference desk of the Woodburn Public Library. 11E July 20, 2005 TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator Randy Scott, Seni, Technician through the Public Works Director SUBJECT: South Front Street Improvements (street and storm drain phase) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the City Council award construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Parker Northwest Paving Company, Inc., for street and storm drain improvements on South Front Street in the amount of $845,627.19 BACKGROUND: The contract is in conjunction with Project 2004-068-28, Bid No. 2005-06, for the street and storm drain improvements on South Front Street from Cleveland Street to Parr Road. The project also includes Cleveland Street from Front Street to First Street. Bids for South Front Street Improvements were opened on July 18, 2005. Seven bids were received. 1. Parker Northwest Paving $845,627.19 2. M L Houck Construction $936,684.30 3. Kerr Contractors $938,423.04 4. Capital Concrete Const. $952,875.25 5. D & D Paving $t,006,883.89 6. North Santiam Paving Co. $1,016,212.95 7. Geico Construction $1,025,876.45 Engineers Estimate $811,596.00 The recommended award is within 4% of the Engineers estimate. Agenda Item Review: City Administrc City Attorney 86 Honorable Mayor and City Council July 20, 2005 Page 2 DISCUSSION: South Front Street will be improved to provide two travel lanes, turn lanes at Tout, Settlemier Park, Oak and Cleveland Streets. Parking bays and a ten-foot combination sidewalk/bikepath will be provided on the west side. This cross section could not have been accomplished without the 20-year lease entered into by the City in 2001 with Union Pacific Railroad. The lease provides an additional 5 feet wide strip of land on the east side of South Front from Cleveland to Settlemier. Union Pacific Railroad is interested in resolving the ownership rights of two small tracks of land currently being used for roadway purposes by the City. It is most likely that during the resolution process of those parcels, the 5-foot strip of land currently under lease will be purchased by the City. This process is expected to take 12 to 18 months to complete. Cleveland Street from First to Front will be reconstructed to remove the deteriorating railroad ties under the existing street surface. The improvement will include storm drainage, replace the curb returns at Front Street and some existing curbs. This project is identified on the approved CIP list as a major street upgrade. It has been combined with South Front improvement project although the construction costs wilt utilize street CIP funds. The contract award is in conformance with public contracting laws of the State of Oregon as outlined in ORS Chapter 279C and the laws and regulations of the · rec,.,mmend,,,~ the contract be City of Woodburn; ~,^~..~.-.~.. staff is '-' ~'~ FINANCIAL IMPACT: The project cost of $845,627 will be funded utilizing approved budgeted funds, $611,000 Urban Renewal Fund, $179,627 Street/Storm CIP Fund, $55,000 Traffic Impact Fund. 13A July 25, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council through City Administrator FROM: Naomi Zwerdling, Interim Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Commission's Approval of Design Review 05-05, Variance 05-09, Variance 05-13 and Exception 05-01 RECOMMENDATION' No action is recommended. This item is placed before the City Council for information purposes in compliance with the Woodburn Development Ordinance. The City Council may call up this item for revievv if it desires. BACKGROUND: On July 14, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a final order approving Design Review 05-05, Variance 05-09, Variance 05-13 and Exception 05-01 for a 32 unit senior apartment project; variance approval to allow for 1.50 parking spaces per unit when 2 parking spaces per unit are required; variance approval to reduce the interior yard setback from 24 feet to 14 feet; and exception approval for the reduction of the required right of way on Carol Street adjacent to the subject site (boundary street requirement) from 60 feet to 50 feet and the reduction of the connecting street improvement requirement to require a 29 foot street surface with parking to be provided on only one side of the street. The subject properties are located on the west side of Card Street, an unimproved gravel road, and have over 500 feet of frontage when combined. The subject properties are further identified on Marion County Assessor Maps as Township 5 South, Range 1 West, Section 17BA, tax lot 800 and Township 5 South, Range 1 W, Section 8CD, tax lot 7800. Currently there is an orchard on the property. Tax Lots 7800 and 800 are zoned Medium Density Residential (RM) and are designated as residential greater than 12 units per acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map. The parcels located to the north, south and west of the subject property are also zoned Medium Density Residential (RM) and designated as residential greater than 12 units per acre on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map. An apartment building is located on the property located to the north of the subject site and a s~jngle family dwelling is located on the property located to the south of th? sub~t property. The property abuttir Agenda item Review: City Administrat City Attorney Finance 88 Honorable Mayor and City Council July 25, 2005 Page 2 the west side of the subject site is vacant. The parcels to the east of tax lot 7800 (across Carol Street) are zoned RM, and parcels to the east of tax lot 800 are zoned RM and General Commercial (CG). The parcels located to the east of the subject site (across Carol Street) are designated as residential greater than t2 units per acre and commercial on the Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Map. Most of the parcels to the east are in residential use, except for the bank in the CG zone. The subject properties do not have wetlands on them and are located outside of the 500 year floodplain. A consolidation of the two tax lots (tax lots 800 and 7800) was approved by the Community Development Director on July 8, 2005 (Property Line Adjustment Case File No. 05-06). A condition of approval is that prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall accomplish removal or relocation of the existing interior lot line on the subject property that conflicts with placement of structures in accordance with the WDO. The proposed development is a 32 unit affordable senior housing complex. It will be owned and maintained by the Warion County Housing Authority as affordable senior housing for a minimum of 60 years. The project 'will be funded through the State of Oregon's Department of Housing and Community Services. The Applicant is Anne Delaney. The Property Owner is the Marion County Housing Authority. DISCUSSION: None. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the recommended action. LA 05-01 "2005 Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Update" Correspondence Received after April 20, 2005 Written Testimony Deadline Attachment A-I: Attachment A-2: Attachment A-3: Attachment A-4: Attachment A-5: Attachrr~nt A-6: Petition from Daniel Orsbom, received 4122/05 Letter from Serrea Family, received 515105 Letter from Richard Stein, received 5123105 Letter from Roger Alfred, received 5/23105 Packet from Richard Stein, received 6/2/05 Letter from Roger Alfred, received 6/13105 My name is Bob Dryden, I live at 2060 E. Lincoln Rd. Woodbum. I s'~l/ned this petition because I feel where the school district purchased Ground on E. Lincoln is the wron$ place to put the school. I msGest that you trade equal Ground w/th the Serres family and put the school on E. Hardcastle where sewer and access is much better. 22 23 24 25 26 27 25 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 35 39 40 43 44 Both Geoff Crook (telephone conversation May 4) and Les Sasaki (telephone conversation April 26) stated that the soils around Woodbmn are essentially thc same, that inclusion of one farm over another does not make a difference. Wc f~el that you must make it clear to the council that they have a choice, that Oreg Winterowd offered them his opinion, one which is not in agreement with the County and the State. We feel it essential that the council starts its public testimony In addition, it was not clear, per David Torgeson, April 25"' council meeting, as to whether the data from Public Works was to be included in the Councilor's packets. We request that all of the data, including the maps, be included in order to allow a complete Please note that we are forwarding all of our communications with the City of Woodburn to Les Sasaki, Marion County Planner, and Geoff Crook, DLCD representative for tbe Woodbum area. We also request a formal notice of the date that the proposed Woodburn Comprehensive Plan is accepted and submitted to the county and thc state. Sincerely, The Sen'es Family Send notice to: AI=I'ACHMENT A-~ May 23, 2005 ~: (503) 952.5243 h/tr. N. Kob~ Shields Woodbum Cit~ Attorney 2'/0 Montgomery Street Woodbum, Oregon 9/071 .. Re: City Council Procedural Error, UGB Meetings Dear Mr. Shields: Our firm i~ representing , ' 0~ ~ ...... r .... - - ' · ' ~ tO Se~) ~~S ~e c~ ~m~ ~fom ~~t of ~e U~ Gr~ Boun~ ~GB). mutrpIe p~ t~a~ ~i~Iy to ~e emt of ~e c~ UGB ~d would t~e to see tMk l~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ctud~ ~ ~e UGB. At I~ half of ~e pro~ is ~~tely adjust m ~e ci~ t~ts, which ~ould ~~e for a~fion to ~e ci~. ~e pu~e of~ t~m is m ate~ the ~yor ~ ci~ ~uacil m a ~~at egor ma r~umt ~at the mco~ ~ m-open~ to ~ ~e probt~. ~re w~ a ci~ co,cji m~t~ on M~h 2~, 2005 to comid~ ~e ~fferent pro~S f~ ~en~ing ~e UGB. ~ r~o~ ~e k~ i~u~ under disc~ion at ~e ci~ ~c~ h~ng wm ~e c~ of providing public utili~ s~ices m ~e v~om pa~ls ou~de ~e UGB. O~ cli~m requested de~ted info~tion Eom ~e Ci~ of W~b~ ~btic Wo~ Dep~ent because this [nfo~ation w~ not provided in ~e packet ~t went to ~e ma~or md ci~ council for ~e h~g. ~ were ~omised by Public ~o~ ~ ~e ~fo~ation would be pro~d~, but a ~ date w~ not ~v~- On April tg, 2005, o~ ciien~ ~ed ~ a [enVy d~um~t package concerning ~eir gac~. B~ause the info,alton ha~ stilt not hegB tgC~i~d ~0~ Public Wor~, th~ specifically requmted that the recor~ remain open 1305 L~:~TV ~T.S~ S~ ~0.~ O1F. C, ON 97302 ~503) 399-9776 WAX {503} 370-7909 Robert 20, 2005 reply. Thankyou for your anticipated cooperation. We ill look fotavard to your writtum $iuce~ety, " RAMSAY & STrife, P.e. Richard C. Stein Enclosure cc: Ms. Ruth Thompson Cote n3o N.W. ~ 5tm~t. Tenth lqoo~ Pertl~d, 011 ~ pq. Tr/.~z 23, 20O5 ,A, REC'O Woodbum City Council City of Woodbum 270 Monlgome~Y S~ Woodbum, OR 97071 Re: Renaissance Homes- UGB Exl~nsiou Dear Members of thc Council: This office represents Rgna~ance Homes in the ongoing development of thc Links at Tukwila residential PUD. We have appcarad before tho City Council with respect to thc lnclusiou of the remainder of the OGA golf course property within the Woodbum UGB, and support the Planning Commission's decision to include that property. Since the closing of thc record tut month, we have had discussions with Jim Mulder regarding a potential change in the slaff recommendation to thc City Council with respect to thc inclusion of thc entire golf course prope~. If the City Council decides to consider changing the boundaries of the proposed UGB expansion duc to a change in the staff recommcudalion after the clos~ of the record, it is our understanding that thc City Council will m.open the record so that affected parties may commom on the new proposal. Otherwise, we would be unfairly prejudiced due to the denial of an opportunity to provide comments on the new proposal during the open record period. Roger A. Alfred :ajf cc: Renaissance Homes Mike Robin.son Pmkins ~u ~ and ~l~;tcs ~ TOT~ ~.~ ~ KAMS^¥ ~ S'TEIN, ?.C. Mr. N. Robert Shields Woodburn City Attorney 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, Oregon 9707 l Re: UGB Expansion A'r'rACHMENT A- ~ June 1, 2005 ~AND DELIVE ~R-E-D- ~ REC'O ~ JUN 0 2 ~005 WOODBUF~N COMMUN',TY DEYELOPi",~ENT DEPT. Dear Mr. Shields: I previously sent you a letter dated May 23, 2005 regarding the submittal of additional materials to the mayor and city council regarding the LIGB mxtendment proceedings. I have not yet had a response from you to that letter. Because we do not want to delay the process, you are being handed with this letter a letter from'my clients to the mayor and city council containing my client's analysis o[ the cost of providing city services to the various study areas. These are supported by attachments A through L, including a letter from a professionat engineer. We hereby request that these materials be submitted to the mayor and city council, per our previous request. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Please fee[ free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, RAMSAY & STEIN, P.C. Richard C. Stein r<cS6k Enclosures cc: Ms. Ruth Thompson 1395 1 ~BE~TY,ST. SE. SIT, 101 SAt~d, O&ECON 97301 [503} 399-9776 [AX {503) 370-7909 Her Honor, Kathy Figley, Mayor, City of Woodbum Woodbum City Council: City Councilor--Ward 1 City Councilor--Ward 2 City Councilor--Ward 3 City Councilor--Ward 4 City Councilor--Ward 5 City Councilor--Ward 6 Walt Nichols Richard Bjelland Pete McCallum Jim Cox Frank Lonergan Elida Sifuentez June 1, 2005 Dear Mayor and City Councilors: Hopefully you are receiving this letter and its attachments in your packet. Hopefully each of you also has the full version of Woodbum Public Works' City Services cost study in your packet, complete with all 28 maps. We say "hopefully" because city legal staff will not acknowledge our requests that you receive these materials. Before discussing any of these issues, we would like to make the following clear. We never imagined that in testifying to errors and discrepancies in the Comprehensive Plan Update documentation that we would embark on an increasingly antagonistic and defensive interchange between city staff and ourselves. We felt that if we honestly and forthrightly put forward our objections, that there would be a reasonable and timely response that would either set us straight or acknowledge and redress our complaints. Instead, we have had to file Public Information requests to get information that the OAR requires be made available to the public. And your legal staff will not acknowledge written requests (see attachments). In broad view, we bring three issues before you: the adequacy of the Public Works City Services Cost Study; the admission of prejudicial testimony before you; and compliance of Woodburn' s Comprehensive Plan Update process with Statewide Planning Goals. The first of these issues is the main topic of this letter and its numerous attachments. However, as the attachments show, the other two issues are intimately intertwined. We feel it appropriate to touch upon them here and urge you to read all of the attachments to this letter. Regarding prejudicial testimony please see the Attachment E "Mayor Figley, Administrator Brown, Council" dated May 4, 2005. The Comprehensive Plan update testimony provided by the expert panel April 25 spoke to numerous issues raised by our public testimony. However, you, the City Council, were not provided our testimony. Accordingly, you heard demeaning and prejudicial expressions like "Hatfields and McCoys" and "You will lose at LCDC" without knowing the issue to which these remarks were a response. You needed to have our issue before you to understand if the staff and consultant testimony fairly and adequately addressed our issue. And where the staff and consultant introduced new material, we should have the opportunity to rebut. Our understanding is that testimony of this nature is not allowed under LCDC guidelineg. Which bfingg ug to the Statewide Planning Ooal compliance issue. Please Our understanding is that testimony of this nature is not allowed under LCDC guidelines. Which brings us to the Statewide Planning Goal compliance issue. Please refer to Attachment I, our May 19 letter to Administrator Brown and Mayor Figley, which addresses compliance with Statewide Planning Goal #1. Clearly there are other Goal compliance issues beyond Goal 1. As you know, we testified at the March 28 Comprehensive Plan public hearing that the Woodbum Public Works Study does not correctly identify the costs of providing public services to the UGB expansion study areas. We also provided detailed written testimony critical of the cost study in letters-of-record dated March 23 and April 19. In the April 19 letter, we indicated that we were not allowed access to the full cost study and its memorandum prior to the April 20 close date for public testimony. We requested a 30-day extension for submitting testimony dating from the date that we obtained the study and memorandum in this letter. We obtained the study and memorandum on May 4, 2005 after filing two Public Information Requests with the City Recorder on April 29, 2005, one for the memorandum and one for the City Services Cost Study maps, the existence of which we learned from April 25 City Council testimony (copies of requests enclosed). After reviewing the material, we took two actions: 1) we sent a letter to the City Administrator and the Mayor requesting that the entire UGB City Services Cost Study be included in your packets (copy enclosed) and 2) we forwarded the cost study to a licensed Professional Engineer, Mr. Leonard Rydell, for review. Mr. Rydell was unable to review the City Services cost study in a timely manner, so he,passed our information to Mr. Randolph A. Lytle, P.E., a specialist in services layout, and principal of Consulting Resources, Inc. who could review the material in a timely manner. Mr. Lytle reviewed all of the documentation we received through our Public Information Requests. We also supplied a copy of the USGS Woodburn 7.5 Minute topographic map, a copy of an Excel spreadsheet (copy enclosed) that summarizes relevant information from the 2005 Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Update documentation (Big Black Book), and a copy of David Duncan's review of the study documentation, provided in a sealed envelope. The scope of our review request was: This cost study was not intended to be a detailed study--but it is intended to be accurate enough to make decisions about which land should go in and which should not from a city utility cost standpoint. The Serres family is asking you to take a serious, professional look at this cost study to determine if it is detailed enough and error free enough to serve as a decision making tool. (Copy of letter enclosed). We received Mr. Lytle's written review on May 19, 2005, which we forwarded to the City Administrator and Mayor under a cover letter dated May 19, 2005. We did request that this cover letter and Mr. Lytle's review letter be entered in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update public testimony (copies enclosed). Mr. Lyric's letter is clear regarding the adequacy and accuracy of the city services cost study. We particularly call your attention to Mr. Lytle's items 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9. Mr. Lytle does note the absence of Goal 14 needs analysis in his item 6 and conclusion. Because we were seeking a engineering review of the City Services Cost Study, we did not provide Mr. Lyric with the City's Goal 14 needs documentation. City Councilors, you have heard David Torgeson testify that the City Services Cost Study is beyond reproach (April 25 Council Meeting). You now have a letter from a licensed professional engineer, Mr. Lyric, who says it is not. That is why we have requested that the full Cost Study be included in your packet. The adequacy of the study boils down to questions as simple as "Does water flow downhill?". With the study maps and a topographic map in hand you can see that:' Sewer pump stations and force mains are needed to fully develop some Study Areas, but are neither shown on the maps nor costed in the Study Area written summaries Dumping storm drainage into tributaries of Senecal and Mill Creeks is OK West Side, but East Side storm drainage has to go to the Pudding River in 78" drains, not to Serres Reservoir, the drainage North of Hardcastle street (actually, the Hardcastle/Evergreen storm drainage already goes there), or the drainage South of the Sewage Treatment Plant. · A 42" drain can handle 255 cfs of storm flow in SA-7, but a 78" drain can only handle 167 cfs in SA-4. Certain upgrades and lift stations are marked on the maps, but no mention or costing of them is made in the UGB Study Area written summaries. Certain upgrades have to be made if either of two Study Areas are developed, but the upgrade costs are allocated to one UGB Study Area, not both. The Study Region maps show residential and commercial/industrial uses occurring in creeks and wetlands, and commercial/industrial uses occurring in rural/residential areas. We really don't believe that you need a degree in engineering to determine that the City Services Cost Study contains errors on all of these points. But you do need the entire cost study documentation to see where the errors occur. David Torgeson's Memorandum does provide useful information. In the Memorandmn, Mr. Torgeson lays out the base costs of providing city services as 3 $27,600.00 per acre residential and $13,700.00 per acre Commercial/Industrial based on the City's own cost experience. These per acre dollar amounts are the same, regardless of study area. Where Study Area cost differences arise is in the upgrades or "extras" needed above and beyond base costs. Our criticism about averaged costs is correct. However, without seeing the full city services cost study, we incorrectly identified where the error was introduced. We apologize to David Torgeson and Woodbum Public Works, for their study does keep the costs of services segregated by use class (residential versus Commercial/Industrial). It is Winterbrook Consulting that confuses the two types of services and introduces averaged costs. Winterbroolc, by adding residential cost to the commercial/industrial cost and dividing by acres, calculates a Study Area average cost per acre. Winterbrook then rates the Study Areas "A", "B", and "C" based on this average cost and dismisses the "C" rated study areas as too expensive to merit further consideration. This procedure is mathematically incorrect. Please see attachment "Services Cost Averaging--A Mathematical Fallacy" for an example. (Table I I: Ranked Public Utilities Costs by Study Area, found in Woodbum Year 2020 UGB Justification Report, Page 18, Winterbrook, 2004). Neither the Memorandum nor the City Services Cost Study considers the costs of city funded streets in the costs of developing the different UGB study areas. Both the OAR and ORS treat city streets as a city service with most role and statute references to city services specifically referencing city streets. Woodbum Public Works UGB Services Cost Study is not accurate enough to serve as a planning decision tool. The City is subject to challenge if it uses the Cost Study as is. The City needs to redo the study to a higher standard of accuracy and consistency. Not including "constrained" acres, using topographical data to determine the need for lift stations and force mains, etc., and seeing that all infrastructure is properly identified and costed would be an obvious start. The rankings found in "Table 11, Ranked Public Utilities Costs by Study Area" are based on a major mathematical error. Any decision based on the table, especially its rankings, is subject to challenge. The City' s costs for street infrastructure should be included in a comparative discussion ot' UOB study areas based on city services costs. The failure to follow Goal 1 guidelines (see May 19 letter to City Administrator and Mayor) exposes the City to Comprehensive Plan remand from DLCD. 4 The acceptance of tainted, prejudicial testimony, as occurred April 25, 2005, may expose the City to Comprehensive Plan remand from DLCD. The acceptance of new testimony from Consultant and City Staff and/or major new amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, without opportunity for rebuttal and/or new public hearing(s) exposes the City to Comprehensive Plan remand from DLCD. In all due respect, we suggest that the best course of action is to remand thc Comprehensive Plan back to the Planning Commission. Schedule public hearings at the Planning Commission level in the manner specified by Goal 1. Doing so will establish Goal 1 compliance. Doing so will allow public input to the planning process prior to formulation of thc Comprehensive Plan, as required by Goal 1. Solicit the citizenry about the livability of this town. Address the growth drivers that are already at work in this town. Remand the Comprehensive Plan for no other reason than that the Census Bureau now projects a much bigger increase in Oregon's 2025 population, rendering the needs study out of date. Respectfully, The Serres Family CC: Mr. John Brown, Administrator, City of Woodbum Mr. N. Robert Shields, Attorney, City of Woodbum Geoff Crook, Department of Land Conservation and Development Les Sasaki, Marion County Planning Richard Stein, Ramsey & Stein, P.C. Jeffrey Tross, Consultant, Land Planning and Development 5 Attachments: Ao B. C. D. E. F. G. H. 1. J. K. L. Cost Averaging Across Uses--A Mathematical Fallacy Public Information Request #1 of April 29, 2005 for Memorandum Public Information Request #2 of April 29, 2005 for 24 Maps Invoice, Receipt, Documents Received List, re April 29 Public Info Requests Letter, May 4, 2005, Mayor, Administrator, City Council re various topics Letter, May 12, 2005, Mr. Leonard Rydell, P.E. re City Study Review Attachment, May 12, 2005, Mr. Leonard Rydell, P.E. re study errors. Excel Table, "Woodbum UGB Study Area Infrastructure Costs Per Acre" Letter, May 19, 2005, Administrator, Mayor, re Lytle Letter, Goal 1. Letter, May 19, 2005, Randolph Lytle to David Duncan re City Cost Study Topographic map, USGS Woodbum 7.5 Minute Goal 1, OAR 660-015-0000(1). Please enter this letter and all its attachments into the pubic record in the matter of Woodbum 2005 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review and Update. 6 Cost Averaging Across Uses ....A Mathematical Fallacy Please consider the following example. This example simplifies the numbers to illustrate how Winterbrook has distorted city services costs. David Torgeson's Memo "Methodology for Calculations - Urban Growth Boundary Expansion" April, 2005 gives the costs by type of land use as follows: Service S/Acre Residential Commllndust Water 9000 5100 Sanitary Sewer 10800 5000 Storm Sewer 7800 3600 Total S/Acre 27600 13700 Please note that these are the base costs of providing these services to these land uses. If additional infrastructure, such as a lift station or a pipe size upgrade is necessary, the additional costs are added to the base price. The lowest possible cost for residential service is $27,600 per sere, regardless of study area. Winterbrook added the Residential and Comm/Indust service costs together, and then divided by gross acres to calculate the average per acre cost of providing city services to each Study Area. Winterbrook then applies the averaged cost to the specific land uses. Consider the following simplified example: Four study areas, each 100 acres in size. Study Area I is 100 acres commercial/industrial and No acres residemial Study Area 2 is 75 acres commercial/industrial and 25 acres residential Study Area 3 is 25 acres commercial/industrial and 75 acres residential Study Area 4 is No acres commercial/industrial and 100 acres residential. Study~Acresl Residential Cost Acres l Commllndust Cost Total CostITotal Cos~Acres Area Res Per Acre For Ares Comllnds Per Acre~For Ares All Uses = Ay. CosUAcre 1 0 27600 0 100 13700 137000( 1370000 1370C 2 25 27000 09000C 75 1370~ 1027500 171750C 1717~ 3 7[ 2760~ 2070000 25 1370¢ 34250~ 2412500 2412~ 4 100 2760¢ 2700000 0 t3700 £ 2760000 2760~ Winterbrook now grades the Study Areas by Average Cost/Acre. Study Area 4 is the highest, so it grades "C". Study Area I is the lowest, so it grades "A". Study Areas 2 and 3 are intermediate, so they grade "B". Study Area 4 is not considered further because it is a "C"--the highest cost category. Winterbrook now has to decide where to locate 10 acres of residential. It can't choose Study Area 1, because Study Area 1 is 100% Commercial/Industrial. Winterbrook chooses Study Area 2 over Study Area 3 based on its lower services cost of $17,175 per acre, compared to $24,125 per acre. l) How much does it cost to provide city services to the 10 acres of residential to be located in Study Area 2? A) B) C) D) $137,000. Ten times the average per acre cost of Study Area 1. $171,750. Ten times the average per acre cost of Study Area 2. $241,250. Ten times the average per acre cost of Study Area 3. $276,000. Ten times the per acre cost for Residential Services. 2) Somehow the surveyor got confused and platted 10 acres of residential in Study Area 4. How much more will it cost to provide city services to the 10 acres of residential in Study Area 4 compared to Study Area 2? 3) A) $104,250. B) $69,500. c) $o. Difference of costs for 10 acres in Study Areas 4 and 2. Difference of costs for 10 acres in Study Areas 3 and 2. The cost is the same, so the difference is zero. Study Area 4 is no longer being considered for residential development because it has the highest per acre cost. Is this fair? A) B) Yes, Study Area 4 has the highest average cost per acre. No, SA-4 has the same residential cost per acre as the other Study Areas. Answers; Question 1. D. · $27,600 per acm is the minimum cost for providing residential services. No extra costs were identified for any of the study areas. 10 acres residential in Study Area 2 will cost $27,600 per acre for a total of $276,000. Question 2. C. Question 3. B. There is no difference in residential costs between Study Areas. It is not fair to exclude Study Area 4. Study Area 4 has the same per acre cost for residential services as the other Areas. Do not confuse average cost with specific cost. Fln~ ~~ P~nm R~u~ ~ ~:~ wi~n a ~ble i~,~ ~, ~ five b~in~ ~ ~ r~pt. ~ aur~ U~ ~na~ n~~ :D~~N ~ · ' <~o~-~-'i[~,~:~ C~;.~'.~r(~c:"'~ ~'~,'~ a c~?~,~a,. ,~.~,~', ,. ~, , ~... '~' .-~ '"",~i~,~' ~ - ':vff ', ;~,~( -I~ C~h( ~;..! ~]{:~.~(6~1,~:~,~'~',:,' ~ ~(~ ~ t .... I.IC~ ~;~ / u'~ ~' ~'. ) '~ ~ ' ' ' ' olde r~ ~ am ~u~ ~ ~n~ ~ke che~ Eayable C~ F~ ~.~ ~r ~ge side ~ & r~ta~h lee ~ ~l~r, ~arged m ~e newe~ 114 h~r, ~ (D~umen~) f~ ~np~ ~e ~ ~u~ O~ 1t4 hour ~ ~), A~Io~ ~arges may be ~ f~ ~ ~ h~, FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Li_ _.p.~_Oe~ Rec' d-. _marks: Date Provld~ch Fee Pa~d: APR-29-L:~5 t4: 08 From: KLUPENGER ~ F~EG' 0 ~ 5056781205 T o: $039825~44 97071 ~R ~PIC~ ~ ONLY, ~mer~: Invoice May 3, 2005 City of Woodburn 2700 Montgomery Street Woodbum, OR 97071 FOR Production of documents in connection with Public Records Request Form filed April 29, 2005 by David Duncan, 1840 E. Lincoln Road, Woodburn, OR 97071: Paper Copies (Page Size) Engineering Plotter (24X36) Engineering Plotter (1 IX17) Research Time 25 @ $0.05 $1.25 3 ~ $10.00 $30.00 25 ~_a $2.16 $54.11 112 Hours (~ $31.00 $15.50 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $100.86 CITY OF WOODBURN z7o Mom'OOM~¥ STreET WOODBURN, OR 97071 FUND Busin~ L~cen~e (~1 .-000~42 tt~5 Licenses & Fees 0O I-{~-42 It.~l M~: ..... L...?:~'~)o~- -.~_ -.' . _ . W~te~ 470-~- I lt~ ! Vacalion 470-~-441002 T~NSIT ............. ~ A~Ka ...... Pool. M~mb~hip~ _ _~.I-0~46732 I. S~immhlg L~so.s 0O 1:0~-~.62_6_[ l .... Kcs de..~. Mcrch~._ UtH :01~:~6791 [ Co~lces~jpn Sal~s ......... [ 00 !-05~?'l~>79.[~ ........... RUF~J~a~ ......... ] 001-~-447022 Regional t.ibrarv ] 001-000-450035 ~ T c'i-G<~%~h'~ 022698 '-"r°'~'L'"'~-'-{~0D-'-~ - Request #1: Response: Request #2: Response: City of Woodburn Response to Public Information Requests #1 and #2 of 4/29/05 Requested two page memo from David Torgeson to City Council regarding City Services costs to UGB Study Areas. On May 4 received copy of"Methodology for Calculations-Urban Growth Boundary Expansion, April, 2005." "24 maps of UGB Study Areas showing layout of public services..." On May 4 received following: Invoice and receipt for copying services and staff time-$100.86. Copy of Public Information request time-stamped April 29, 2005. Copy of two page memo "Methodology for Calculations-Urban Growth Boundary Expansion, April, 2005." One page process tlow diagram indicating that the UGB expansion cost study is between the "Conceptualize" and "Plan" stages. Five page services cost calculations, dated 3/18/04. Eight page Services Costs by UGB Study Area one page per Study area. Same material appears in BBB. Five page Services Costs by Revised UGB Study Areas, dated 8/2/04. One page for each of five Revised UGB Study Areas.. same material appears in BBB. One 11 x 17 over-view map showing Woodburn and eight UGB SA's. Three overview 24 x 36 maps of City and UGB SA's one map for each type of service--showing significant features of services in Study Areas. Eight 11 x 17 Study Area Water maps, one for each UGB SA. Eight I 1 x 17 Study Area Sanitary maps, one for each UGB SA. Eight 11 x 17 Study Area Storm Water maps, one for each UGB SA. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Mayor Figley, P~dministrator Brown, Council May 4, 2005 Please note that this does not include additional written testimony. At the Woodburn City Council Meeting April 25, 2005, Greg Winterowd prejudiced the council prior to full disclosure of written testimony. Greg stated that the absolute key factor upon which Winterbrook Planning based their recommended UGB expansion for Low Density Residential property was based on ORS 197.298, agricultural land suitability. He stated that the state law is inflexible. He stated that the "Fessler Property" had an inclusion of Class 3 soils, and that the buildable land on Serres property was Class II soils "...there is a small inclusion of Class 4, 5 and a bit of class 3." He painted a black and white picture with "this is a strong statement" of "If you brought that land into the UGB, you would lose at LCDC..., not maybe, you would lose." Greg also alludes to the inclusion of our entire property as too much land, in excess of what is needed. We have never asked the city to include beyond the limits described in our portion of study area 4. Susan Duncan spoke with Geoff Crook of DLCD on May 4, 2005 and he stated this (soils) is not a black and white issue. He stated that soil capability classification is a high priority, but is never considered the sole factor upon which to base a decision. He went on to say that Greg Winterowd of Winterbrook planning is a hired consultant and that he is probably trying to support growth around I-5, but that the ultimate decision lies with the City Council, who must weigh a multitude of factors to best meet the needs of the city. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Both Geoff Crook (telephone conversation May 4) and Les Sasaki (telephone conversation April 26) stated that the soils around Woodburn are essentially the same, that inclusion of one farm over another does not make a difference. We feel that you must make it clear to the council that they have a choice, that Greg Winterowd offered them his opinion, one which is not in agreement with the County and the State. We feel it essential that the council starts its public testimony review without bias. In addition, it was not clear, per David Torgeson, April 25m council meeting, as to whether the data from Public Works was to be included in the Councilor's packets. We request that all of the data, including the maps, be included in order to allow a complete and fair review. Please note that we are forwarding all of our communications with the City of Woodbum to Les Sasaki, Marion County Planner, and Geoff Crook, DLCD representative for the Woodburn area We also request a formal notice of the date that the proposed Woodbum Comprehensive Plan is accepted and submitted to the county and the state. Sincerely, The Serres Family Send notice to: 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 Susan Duncan ! 840 E. Lincoln Road Woodburn, OR 97071 David Duncan 1840 E. Lincoln Road NE Woodburn, OR 97071-5142 503 981-3275 Fax 503 982-8211 May12,2005 Leonard Rydell 601PinehurstDfive Newberg, OR 503 538-5700 Mr. Rydell: Thanks for taking on a little extra work for the Serres family. It may seem a little odd that I am writing to you, but I happen to be the person who filed an Oregon Public Information request to obtain the enclosed information from the City of Woodburn. Plus I'm a Serres-in-law. Woodbum is performing its Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review, which is the process by which land is added to the Urban Growth Boundary for development. The Serres family farm borders the City Limits on the East Side of Woodburn, and would seem to be a prime candidate for inclusion into the City. However, that is not happening and one of the justifications for bringing in land on the other side of town is the high cost of providing city services to the Serres land. The city evaluates adjacent land for inclusion. One aspect is the cost of providing city services. The area surrounding the city was divided into 8 UGB Study Areas. Woodbum Public Works did a cost analysis for each Study Area for three city services: sewer, storm drain, and municipal drinking water. A map was generated for each type of service for each study area, resulting in 24 maps 11" x 17". A 25th 11" x 17" map shows the location of the 8 UGB Study Areas around the city. Three additional maps, 24" x 36" serve as summary maps for each type of service, and show all of the planned improvements for that type of service for all study areas on one sheet. Also included are several tables of costs, and a two page memorandum to the City Council explaining how they did their work. There are two groups of pages stapled together. The first group has eight pages that refer to the eight UGB study areas. These pages summarize Public Works' findings. The second group of pages, 5 in total, are marked "Revised Area". This group of pages develops the costs of services to the portions of the study areas actually being considered for UGB inclusion. ~llais cost study was not intended to be a detailed study--but it is intended to be accurate enough to make decisions about which land should go in and which should not from a city utility cost standpoint. The Serres family is asking you to take a serious, professional look at this cost study to determine if it is detailed enough and error free enough to serve as a decision making tool. Since two of the three city services in the cost study normally depend on gravity flow, I am including a copy of the USGS Woodbum 7 ~A minute quadrangle map. Unfortunately, this does not show all of the study area. The USGS map data base is available at: http://terraserver.microsof't.com/ The site default opens to aerial photographs. You can toggle between aerial photo and topographic map by using the tabs at the upper right on the map "window". I am also enclosing a smaller map, which shows the Serres land relative to the sewer treatment plant. I am also enclosing a table which shows costs per acre. These costs come from the city survey or from the city document source cited in the footnotes. If you have any questions, please call me at 503 981-3275 evenings, and at 503 678-5838 duriag business hours. I have examined the cost studies. I am enclosing my comments in an envelope. Different eyes see different things, so take a look at things without my comments. Thanks, Dave Duncan Hi Leonard. May12,2005 Here's my take. The city compares costs straight across, Study area by Study area. The first error, in my opinion, is that Public Works does not distinguish between land uses by study region. The memo indicates Resdiential is approx twice as expensive as commercial/industrial. As a result, the region with no residential gets compared directly with the regions that are 100% residential. The regions with part residential and part industrialJcommercial fall in between. So SA-4, which contains the Serres land, is penalized because it is 100% high cost residential. The second error, in my opinion, is that Public Works uses gross acres of each Study Area. In a separate document, referenced in the table I provide, the "constrained acreage" is identified. "Constrained" means the land is not developable for one of two reasons--it is already developed to its maximum capacity, or it is land unsuitable for development. The public works study does not account for constrained land. Some areas, like SA-4 where the Sen'es property is located, have comparatively higher percentages of developable land. By not showing the constrained acres in the calculations, the cost of servicing each developable acre is shown as lower than the actual service cost. Study areas with a higher percentage of developable land are penalized by this error. SA-4, which contains the Serres land, is again disadvantaged compared to most other study areas because the other areas have a higher proportion of constrained land. The third error has to do with consistency in storm drainage infrastructure. In general, the three East side Study Areas are required to bear the cost of enormous drains from the Study Area boundary to the Pudding River. The Study Areas North, West, and South of town are shown as not requiring connection to a remote drainage--the storm water evidently is dumped to the existing drainages (creeks). Well, the tact of the matter is that all three East side Study Areas have natural drainage ways (creeks) in them. In the case of the Serres land, storm drains would be routed exactly the way that the existing sub- surface drainage tiles are routed--namely down the draws to the Serres Reservoir. There is absolutely no reason to require a 78" drain, 3500 feet in length in SA4. A reservoir system to capture storm drainage is actually the preferred method of dealing with storm drainage. Of all 8 study regions, $A4 with the Sen'es property, is the only one with a reservoir system in place. The fourth error has to do with consistency in placement of sewer lift (.pump) stations. Retbrring to the topographic map and the study area boundaries, it can be seen that SA- 2's lowest land is near Senecal Creek on its North boundary. Given the slope of the land, I do not understand how all of SA-2 could be developed without a lif~ station. Nonetheless, it is assumed that the entirety of SA-2 can be gravity served, and no lift station cost in included. Similar inspection of the other study areas will reveal that lift stations are either incorrectly located in the study area, or are necessary but none is specified. The fifth error is actually a series of errors of omission or of fact, but they are specific to one Study Area, not general like the four preceding. These are detailed as follows: Storm Sewer Service: SA-1 "Natural drainage to both fingers of Senecal Creek appears adequate" SA-2 "Natural drainage appears adequate" SA-3 "Natural drainage is adequate...for only a small portion to upper Mill Creek... Bulk requires 78"" drain to Pudding. Refer to topo map deep draw comes up to Maclaren facility on South Side. Don't need to go to Pudding River. States that 78" drain will only handle 167 cfs. SA-4 "Inadequate drainage" Requires 3500 feet of 78" drain to Pudding River. Refer to topo map. Land drains (and is drained by tile system) to Serres Reservoir or by unnamed creek North of Hardcastle. Point of fact--Hardcastle residential area is already served by a City storm drain that runs down Hardcastle street to its end, then North to the drainage. States that 78" drain will only handle 172 cfs. SA-5 Requires drainage to Pudding. Don't understand why. The entirety of this area naturally drains to the creek .that follows along Hiway 214. It used to be that the Smucker's Jam plant discharged its water into the ditch along 214, and it had no Problem running from inside the City across Study Area 5 and into the creek Along 214. States 84" drain required to handle 216 cfs. SA-6 Natural drainage adequate. SA-7 States that 42" drain can handle 255 cfs. See notes regarding capacity of 78 and 84 inch drains, SA3, 4, 5. Something is not fight with these numbers. SA-8 Natural drainage adequate. Sanitary Sewer SA-1 Map indicates upgrading required from King Way to N. Boones Ferry Road. Upgrade not mentioned in written description and not included in costs. This Upgrade is mentioned for SA-2 as 4000' upgrade, Boones Ferry to Goose Hollow. Even at that, the upgrade from King Way to Boones Ferry is omitted. Under the SA-2 SA-3 SA-4 SA-5 SA-6 SA-7 SA-8 "Rules", all costs were to be counted as if the adjoining areas weren't there--so all of these upgrade costs need to be added. Written description indicates all gravity flow to N. Boones Ferry Road. I do not understand how all of SA-2 can have gravity flow sewer--the land slopes to the North in the opposite direction that it is being routed so the North part can't be gravity flow served. Requires pump station and force main. Map indicates gravity flow to Industrial Ave Pump Station. I doubt the portion of SA-3 North of Goudy Gardens Lane can gravity flow to Industrial Avenue. See topo map. Requires pump station and force main. Shows pump station at Hi. 211. Given lay of land, pump station would need to be located near Serres Reservoir (low point) with force main to sewage treatment plant. *Map shows pump station at railroad tracks in NW comer of study area. Ground slopes East. Would make sense to have pump station adjacent to RR tracks at the East edge of the Study Area. Increases length of force main. Layout on map looks like it will work. Only Study Area with a lay out that will work. Map indicates a pump station may be required in SE portion of SA-7. This is not mentioned or costed in the written summary. System layout does not follow lay of land. A gravity flow trunk main along Senecal Creek to a pump station would make sense. Gravity flow layout does not work in my opinion. Water Distribution No comment, except that the install cost of 12" water main varies on a per foot basis from region to region. Revised Areas Did not took at revised areas, except to note that on a couple of them, almost all of the infrastructure was going to go in on the reduced acreage, resulting in one case of around $70,000/acre, which is far higher than the acreage cost for SA-4 that is being excluded because it is too expensive. The Serres Family 1840 E. Lincoln Road Woodburn, Or 97071 Mr. John Brown, Administrator, City of Woodburn The Honorable Kathryn Figley, Mayor, City of Woodbum Woodbum City Hall 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, Oregon 97071 May 19, 2005 Mr. Administrator, Madame Mayor: As you are aware, we have provided public testimony regarding Woodbum's 2005 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review and Update. Central to our testimony was criticism of Woodbum City Public Works' city services cost study, which analyzes the costs of providing city services to the 8 UGB expansion study areas. We were unable to obtain the study from Public Works prior to the April 20, 2005 close for written public testimony. Since we could not review the study, we requested, in our April 19 letter, the fight to comment on the city services study for up to 30 days from the date we were given access. We obtained a copy of Woodburn Public Works' study on May 3, 2005 by filing a Public Records Request. We subsequently submitted Woodburn Public Work's study to Mr. Randolph A. Lyric, P.E. for review. We requested Mr. Lytle to review Woodbum Public Work' s Services cost study for its adequacy as a "first approximation" planning tool which 1) establish relative costs of providing city services to different UGB study areas, 2) serve as a basis for making public policy decisions, particularly which UGB study areas were to be brought into the UGB. We are enclosing Mr. Lytle's letter of findings, dated May 19, 2005 in its entirety. Please note that we provided only the Public Works City Services Cost Study to Mr. Lyric because we were seeking a professional opinion as to the adequacy of the Cost Study from an engineering standpoint. Mr. Lytle notes the absence of the needs analysis as his Issue No. 6, but we were not seeking his evaluation of the needs portions of the Comprehensive Plan documentation. We feel that Mr. Lytle's assessment speaks clearly regarding the adequacy of Public Works Public Services Cost Study, namely: "...the analysis that was conducted by the City of Woodbum is flawed and not consistent. The evaluation and consideration of land that should be brought into the UGB should be further evaluated." We agree with Mr. Lyric' s assessment. We do not feel that the existing study correctly and adequately estimates the costs of providing City Services to the UGB study areas. Consequently, the study should not be used as a decision making tool. However, both the Woodburn Planning Commission and the Winterbrook Consultancy finn cite this study in justification of their policy decisions/recommendations. We also wish to take issue with the process we utilized to obtain the cost study. The Woodbum Public Library, City of Woodbum's public repository, does not have a copy. We contacted Public Works to obtain the study and an explanation regarding the methodologies used to develop the UGB area service costs. We were told that nothing would be available until after April 20, 2005, which was the close of testimony. Ultimately, we had to file a formal Public Records Request Form to obtain the Public Works cost study. We call your attention to the following excerpts from Goal 1: OAR 660-01S-0000(1)(4) Technical Information - To assure that technical information is available in an understandable fornt Information necessary to reach policy decisions shah be available in a simplified, understandable form. Assistance shah be available in a simplified, unclerstandable form. Assistance shah be provided to interpret and effectively use technical information. A copy of all technical information shall be available at a local public library or other location open to the public. OAR 660-01S-0000(1)(6)(C)(3) Adoption Process- The general public, through the local citizen involvement programs, should have the opportunity to review and recommend changes to the proposed comprehensive land-use plans prior to the public hearing process to adopt comprehensive land-use plans. OAR 660-015-0000(1)(6)(D)(2) 'Technical information shouM include, but not be limited to, energy, natural environment, political, legal, economic and social data, and places of cultural significance, as ,veil as those maps and photos necessary for effective planning. OAR 660-015-0000(1)(6)(E)(1) At the onset of the citizen involvement program, the governing body should clearly state the mechanism through which the citizens will receive a response from the policy-makers. Contrary to Goal 1, it seems obvious that Woodburn's 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update was decided long before any public input was sought. The April 15, 2004 "Open House" on the UGB expansion should have been a venue where decision making criteria, like the UGB City Services Cost Study, were made public and explained, and where public input should have been Solicited. In contradiction to the Woodbum Independent article, which stated that such materials would be presented, the "Open House" did not include any oral presentation or explanation to the public of any kind. The only solicitation for input was a "questionnaire" which did not address the criteria · for UGB inclusion. This questionnaire was not entered into the public record, and was not available in sufficient quantity for all attendees to complete and submit. At this point the City has made significant investment in time and money in its Comprehensive Plan Update. However, this past investment does not justify a rash to completion. The best possible plan for Woodbum should not be sacrificed for the sake of expediency. Is it a priority to get the job done, or to get the job done right? We request that you, the administrative and executive leaders of the City, adhere to the law, which, in the case of Comprehensive Plan Updates, begins with Goal 1. We also request that this letter and its attachment be placed in the public record of testimony, Woodburn 2005 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review and Update. You[s, Susan Duncan Representatives, The Serres Family Ruth Thompson Enclosures: Letter, May 19, 2005, Randolph A. Lyric, P.E. CC: Geoff Crook, Department of Land Conservation and Development Les Sasaki, Marion County Planning Richard Stein, Ramsey & Stein, P.C. Jeffrey Tross, Consultant, Land Planning and Development Service by email, May 19, 2005 Service by hand delivery, May 20, 2005 COnsulting Resources, Inc. 308 Pinehurst Ddve Newberg, OR 97132 Phone: 503-537-4927 Fax: 503-537-4927 Mobile: 503-780-8351 ra ndylytlef~comcast.net May 19, 2005 Mr. David Duncan 1840 E. Lincoln Road N E Woodburn, OK 97071-821 ! RE: Woodbum UGB Study Job No. 0138-0002 Dcm' David: Per your request, we have reviewed the information prepared by the City of Woodbum that was transmitted to tis from you on, May 12, 2005. That in~'ormation included: 3-24"x 36" - SAP Stonn, Water and Sewer Maps lbr all Regions 24 - I i"x 17" - SAP Storm, Water and Sewer Maps tbr each Region i- I l"xl7"-Map of ali Regions 8 - 8-l/2"xl 1" - Study Area Cost Discussion for Regions 5 - 8-1/2"xl l"- Revised Area Cost Discussions for Regions I - 8-l/2"x I I" - Woodburn UGB Study Area Infrastructure Costs Per Acre l - 8-1/2"xl 1" - Publi~ Records Request Form 1 - 8-I/2"x i i"-City of Woodbum Respmkqe to Publio lnfommtion Requests # 1 and #2 of 4/29/05 2 - 8-lIT' xl 1" - Methodology for Cidculations- Urban Growth Boundary l.~;xpansion 1 - 8-1/2"xl I" - UGB Expansion Water Demand 5 - 8-1/2"xl 1" - S.A.P. Evaluation of Water Requirements for UGB Increase Our review brought up the following issues: Thc scale indicated on the 24"x 36" sheets indicate 1"=2500'- This appears to be incorrect. Tile scale of the 1 l"xlT" plans is 1"=800'. This appears to be correct and it is the same as the 24" x 36" sheets. The length of pipe indicated on the "Study Area Cost Discussion ~or Regions" does not correspond to what is indicated on the plan for water, sewer or storm. The resultant lengths of pipe are in question. Devel. opment Smwices * Engineering * Project Management 2. The Costs per acre developed on the "Woodbum UGB Study Area Infrastructure Costs per Acre" reflects the costs per "Gross Acres" of land. A more relevtmt method would be to use the cost per "Buildable Acre" of land. 3. The linear foot costs of the piping or infrastructure does not appear to be consistent from region to region. 4. The inlSrastructure that is indicated on the 24"x 36" sheets does not appear to service the entire region in any of the regions. A more detailed look should be considered. 5. The assumed int~structure that is proposed does not appear to be based on any real topographical data. A more delailed review should be considered with accurate topographical infommtion. As an example, sewer tilt stations are proposed in some areas ~md not in others that appear to need it. 6. There is no data suggesting what needs that the City may have relative to future housing, commercial, retail, parks or industrial based on population projections. A needs analysis would be appropriate for cunslderation of UGB expansion. 7. The analysis assumes that the existing stoma drain system does not have capacity in some regions m~d do~s in others. We find no basis I'or this ewfluation. 8. The quantity et' flow versus pipe size is inconsistent and appears to be in error. 9. The schematic utilities that twe laid out are not sufficient i'or pa>per evaluation. Based on the in{'ormation that was provided to us, the analysis that was conducted by the City o1: Woodbum is flawed and not consistent. Tim evaluation and consideration of land that should be brought into the UGB should be further evaluated. Consideration of the needs el' the City based upon existing facilities and population pro~ectiona should also be considered. l~ieasc call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Consulting Reso:lrces,~c. Rm. ~d_o!p.~. Lytl~,, P. E- Prln~l Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines GOAL 1' CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT OAR 660-015..0000(1) To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The governing body charged with preparing and adopting a comprehensive plan shall adopt and publicize a program for citizen involvement that clearly defines the procedures by which the general public will be involved in the on-going land-use planning process. The citizen involvement program shall be appropriate to the scale of the planning effort. The program shall provide for continuity of citizen participation and of information that enables citizens to identify and comprehend the issues. Federal, state and regional agencies, and special- purpose districts shall coordinate their planning efforts with the affected governing bodies and make use of existing local citizen involvement programs established by counties and cities. The citizen involvement program shall incorporate the following components: 1. Citizen Involvement--To provide for widespread citizen involvement. The citizen involvement program shall involve a cross-section of affected citizens in all phases of the planning process. As a component, the program for citizen involvement shall include an officially recognized committee for citizen involvement (CCI) broadly representative of geographic areas and interests related to land use and land-use decisions. Committee members shall be selected by an open, well-publicized public process. The committee for citizen involvement shall be responsible for assisting the governing body with the development of a program that promotes and enhances citizen involvement in land-use planning, assisting in the implementation of the citizen involvement program, and evaluating the process being used for citizen involvement. If the governing body wishes to assume the responsibility for development as well as adoption and implementation of the citizen involvement program or to assign such responsibilities to a planning commission, a letter shall be submitted to the Land Conservation and Development Commission for the state Citizen Involvement Advisory Committee's review and recommendation stating the rationale for selecting this option, as well as indicating the mechanism to be used for an evaluation of the citizen involvement program. If the planning commission is to be used in lieu of an independent CCI, its members shall be selected by an open, well-publicized public process. 2. Communication -To assure effective two-way communication with citizens. Mechanisms shall be established which provide for effective communication between citizens and elected and appointed officials. 3. Citizen Influence -- To provide the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. Citizens shall have the opportunity to be involved in the phases of the planning process as set forth and defined in the goals and guidelines for Land Use Planning, including Preparation of Plans and Implementation Measures, Plan Content, Plan Adoption, Minor Changes and Major Revisions in the Plan, and Implementation Measures. 4. Technical Information -- To assure that technical information is available in an understandable form. Information necessary to reach policy decisions shall be available in a simplified, understandable form. Assistance shall be provided to interpret and effectively use technical information. A copy of all technical information shall be available at a local public library or other location open to the public. 5. Feedback Mechanisms -- To assure that citizens will receive a response from policy-makers. Recommendations resulting from the citizen involvement program shall be retained and made available for public assessment. Citizens who have participated in this program shall receive a response from policy-makers. The rationale used to reach land-use policy decisions shall be available in the form of a written record. 6. Financial Support -To insure funding for the citizen involvement program. Adequate human, financial, and informational resources shall be allocated for the citizen involvement program. These allocations shall be an integral component of the planning budget. The governing body shall be responsible for obtaining and providing these resources. A. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 1. A program for stimulating citizen involvement should be developed using a range of available media (including television, radio, newspapers, mailings and meetings). 2. Universities, colleges, community colleges, secondary and primary educational institutions and other agencies and institutions with interests in land-use planning should provide information on land-use education to citizens, as well as develop and offer courses in land-use education which provide for a diversity of educational backgrounds in land-use planning. 3. In the selection of members for the committee for citizen involvement, the following selection process should be observed: citizens should receive notice they can understand of the opportunity to serve on the CCI; committee appointees should receive official notification of their selection; and committee appointments should be well publicized. B. COMMUNICATION Newsletters, mailings, posters, mail-back questionnaires, and other 2 available media should be used in the citizen involvement program. C. CITIZEN INFLUENCE 1. Data Collection - The general public through the local citizen involvement programs should have the opportunity to be involved in inventorying, recording, mapping, describing, analyzing and evaluating the elements necessary for the development of the plans. 2. Plan Preparation - The general public, through the local citizen involvement programs, should have the opportunity to participate in developing a body of sound information to identify public goals, develop policy guidelines, and evaluate alternative land conservation and development plans for the preparation of the comprehensive land-use plans. 3. Adoption Process - The general public, through the local citizen involvement programs, should have the opportunity to review and recommend changes to the proposed comprehensive land-use plans prior to the public hearing process to adopt comprehensive land-use plans. 4. Implementation - The general public, through the local citizen involvement programs, should have the opportunity to participate in the development, adoption, and application of legislation that is needed to carry out a comprehensive land-use plan. The general public, through the local citizen involvement programs, should have the opportunity to review each proposal and application for a land conservation and development action prior to the formal consideration of such proposal and application. 5. Evaluation - The general public, through the local citizen involvement programs, should have the opportunity to be involved in the evaluation of the comprehensive land use plans. 6. Revision - The general public, through the local citizen involvement programs, should have the opportunity to review and make recommendations on proposed changes in comprehensive land-use plans prior to the public hearing process to formally consider the proposed changes. D. TECHNICAL INFORMATION 1. Agencies that either evaluate or implement public projects or programs (such as, but not limited to, road, sewer, and water construction, transportation, subdivision studies, and zone changes) should provide assistance to the citizen involvement program. The roles, responsibilities and timeline in the planning process of these agencies should be clearly defined and publicized. 2. Technical information should include, but not be limited to, energy, natural environment, political, legal, economic and social data, and places of cultural significance, as well as those maps and photos necessary for effective planning. E. FEEDBACK MECHANISM 1. At the onset of the citizen involvement program, the governing body should clearly state the mechanism through which the citizens will receive a response from the policy-makers. 2. A process for quantifying and synthesizing citizens' attitudes should be developed and reported to the general public. F. FINANCIAL SUPPORT 1. The level of funding and human resources allocated to the citizen involvement program should be sufficient to make citizen involvement an integral part of the planning process. 4 Corn Jtme 13, 2005 VIA FAX Woodbum City Council City of Woodbum 270 Momgomcry Street Woo&urn, OR 97071 Re: Ibuabsmnce Homes- Procedural Issues for UGB Expansion Dear M~m~'~ of tim Couacil: This office represents Renaissance Homes regarding the ongoing development of thc Links at Takwila residential PUD. We have appear~ before the City Council with respect lo the inclusion of the remaindgr of the OGA golf course property within the Woodbum UGB, and support the Plnnning Commission's decision m includ~ that The record was closed by the Cit~ Council on April 20;i 2005; Atthe time thg record i 'i was closed, city planning staff supported the Planning Commission's re, commendation to includ~ all of the remaining OGA golf course area within the proposed UGB expansion. We appeared befog the City Council and testified in support of the staff r~ommendation and the Planning Commission recommendation. l-Iowewr, the most recent staff rqx~rt, which was issued long after the record was closed, includes a new recommendation that the City Council revise the UGB expansion "to remove the easterly portion of the OGA Golf Course from the proposed UGB expansion to avoid Class I soils." This would have the effect of removing betw~n 60 and 80 potcntial new homesites from futurc phases or the Tukwila development. No revised plan map wss attached to the staff report, so the extent of the new slalT recommendation to the council is not entirely clear. Because this change was made after the City Council closed the public record, Renaissance has not been able to submit any comments on this new proposal. Unless [4 lg~$-CY, IOt~PAOSL 6.t0.60/I ~rktns C~e ~ a~ 'Ct REC'D ¢4' JUN ~ 7 2005 ATTACHMENT Perkins1 Cole Roger A. ^It, d WOODSUPN C,!}MLIU~,!~Ty .,.o~ 503.727,2094 C?'ELO'C'E'!~i:i¥ BE'r'vf' ~*~ 503.346 20~4 r ~L rait~d(~p~rkinscoic.com ~2o N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 972o9-4~28 PHON~: 503.727.2000 FAX; 503.727.2222 www. perkinscoie.corn June 27,2005 VIA EMAIL Woodburn City Council City of Woodburn 270 Montgomery Street Woodburn, OR 97071 Re: Renaissance Homes - UGB Expansion Dear Members of the Council: This office represents Renaissance Homes regarding the development of the Links at Tukwila residential PUD. As discussed at thc last City Council meeting, we are submitting this letter during the 14-day open record period in response to changes in the staff recommendation since the Planning Commission's decision was issued. Specifically, city planning staff is now recommending the removal from the UGB of approximately half of the OGA golf course property that was previously recommended for inclusion by staff and thc planning commission. The basis for this decision relates to the existence of Class I soils on thc eastern portion of the golf course expansion area. As explained in Section I of this letter, it is within the City Council's discretion to bring in the entire OGA golf course property. The City Council can adopt findings under the new Goal 14 rule that will withstand any potential challenges to the inclusion of the entire golf course area. In the alternative, Section 2 of this letter explains why the City Council should, at a minimum, adjust the new boundary line proposed by staff in order to maximize the amount of buildable residential land that would be brought into the UGB without expanding onto Class I soils. [41995-0001/PA051750 065] ANC HORACE MENLO PARK BEllING BELLEVUE BOISE CHICAGO , DENVEI~ . HONG KONG - LOS ANGELES O~.YMPIA PHOENIX . PORTLAND · SAN FRANCISCO . SEATTLE WASHINGTON. D.C Perkins Coie Lip and Affiliates City of Woodbum June 27, 2005 Page 2 The entire OGA golf course property may be included within the UGB under LCDC~s recent revisions to Goal 14. On April 28, 2005, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted revisions to Goal 14 and its implementing rules. The purpose of the new Goal 14 rules is to streamline the overly complex process required for expansions of UGBs, and to afford local governments more flexibility with respect to the identification of local "need" for location-specific expansions. To that end, the new Goal 14 rules expressly allow the City to expand its UGB based on different types of land needs beyond the typical need for housing acreage, including a need for parks or open space. Further, under the new Goal 14 rules, the City may also identify a specific need based on special characteristics of land, such as location, topography, parcel size, or "livability." This approach is consistent with LCDC's recent approval of the North Plains UGB amendment, which expanded the boundary based in part on an identified need for livability based on location, in the form of housing land that is proximate and walkable to downtown. The amendments to Goal 14 are significant for the present City of Woodburn UGB expansion proposal, because the new rules will allow the City Council to adopt findings that identify a specific need for the type of housing land provided by the OGA golf course and the Links at Tukwila development. Specifically, a need for higher-end housing on property that provides the type of recreational and open space amenities that will draw higher-income residents to Woodburn. Findings identifying a need for this specific type of property would allow the City Council to exclude other areas adjacent to the UGB with lower soil classes from the analysis required by the statutory hierarchy of ORS 197.298. This is precisely what occurred in the North Plains case, and the findings of the North Plains City Council were affirmed by LCDC on appeal in the face of challenges based on the fact that the City was including high-value farmland ahead of adjacent exception areas. ~ Briefly stated, LCDC concluded that the City's identified need for land in a specific location, which cannot be provided elsewhere, trumps the statutory requirement that land with lower-value soils must be included in a UGB first. The t A complete copy of the LCDC Order approving the North Plains UGB expansion is attached as Exhibit A to this submittal. 141995-000 !/PA051750.065 ] 06/27/05 City of Woodburn June 27, 2005 Page 3 conclusions of LCDC regarding the interplay between the Goal 14 need requirement and the statutory hierarchy of ORS 197.298 are set forth at pages 12 through 16 of the attached Order. Because ORS 197.298 begins with a statement that it applies "in addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization," LCDC concluded that the City acted properly when it first identified a specific need for locational livability, and then excluded other potential expansion areas from the analysis required by ORS 197.298 because they did not satisfy that need. The same analysis may be applied by the City Council in this decision. The OGA golf course property includes some Class I soils, but it also satisfies a specific need in the City of Woodburn for higher-end housing in a location that provides the type of recreational and open space amenities that will attract higher-income homebuyers to Woodbum. The location of the Links at Tukwila development on the OGA golf course satisfies a need that cannot be met elsewhere, because there are no other properties adjacent to the existing UGB that can provide this type of needed development opportunity. Under the approach approved by LCDC in the North Plains case, and incorporated into the new Goal 14 rules, there is no mason to exclude half of the OGA golf course expansion area, because the special characteristics and location of the property would justify findings that it satisfies a specialized need under Goal 14. Therefore, the presence of Class I soils on the eastern portion of the property does not preclude its inclusion. In the alternative, the OGA golf course expansion area should include available property that does not encroach on Class I soils. The revised staff recommendation proposes that the City Council should revise the comprehensive plan map "to remove the easterly portion of the OGA Golf Course t?om the proposed UGB expansion to avoid Class I soils." However, the staff proposal, as we understand it, would go far beyond the exclusion of Class I soils. Instead, the staff recommendation would needlessly exclude a significant amount of non-Class I soils fi.om the expansion area. The staff recommendation proposes to adjust the proposed expansion area by having the new boundary line cut to the west immediately north of the Class I soil area and south of the northernmost fairway, then connecting to Boones Ferry Road on the west [41995-0001/PA051750.065] 06/27/05 City of Woodburn June 27, 2005 Page 4 edge of the expaxision area. As shown on the attached maps prepared by W&H Pacific, the staff proposal would needlessly exclude a significant amount of developable property that does not contain Class I soils, which could instead be brought into the UGB and used for approximately 30-35 additional home sites. The attached maps show the location of the Class I soils on the golf course site, as well as a likely development plan for the final portion of the Tukwila Links residential development. The maps provide two options for alternative locations of the new UGB that would avoid the Class I soil areas. As shown on the maps, the entire stretch of potential home sites along the northern edge of the golf course would not be located on Class I soils, and should be included in the UGB. The map identified as "Option 1" shows a road extending along the north end of the expansion area all the way east until the point where the Class I soils are met. This option includes the maximum amount of land available without expanding onto Class l soils. We recognize that there are development standards applicable to maximum block lengths. However, those are standards that would be properly considered as part of the City's review of development permit applications, not as part of a UGB amendment process, which should attempt to include the maximum amount of property for needed housing in the OGA golf course area. By placing the new boundary line as indicated on the map identified as "Option 1," the City Council would avoid bringing Class I soils into the boundary, and would include the opportunity for additional residential uses along the northern boundary. Instead of following the staff proposal of moving the new UGB line to the west, the City Council should place the new boundary as indicated on the attached map, thereby avoiding the needless exclusion of 30-35 potential home sites. In the alternative, if the City Council is concerned about development standards as part of this UGB amendment, the map identified as "Option 2" shows a road extending ! ,200 feet east from the westernmost intersection, which is the maximum block length allowed under Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) Section 3.101.02. Decisions regarding the allowable length 0fa residential street should be made if and when development permits are submitted, not as part of a periodic review decision regarding the extent of a UGB expansion, which is more properly focused on bringing in the maximum supply of residential lands practicable, while avoiding Class I soils 41995-0001/PA051750.065] 06/27/05 City of Woodbum June 27, 2005 Page 5 on the property. However, the UGB location proposed on the map identified as Option 2 would provide a development option that would be allowable under the City's current standards. 3. Conclusion As stated above, it is within the discretion of the City Council under the new Goal 14 rules to include the entire OGA golf course property into the UGB, as recommended by the Planning Commission, through the addition of findings identifying a specific need for residential property in this location, with the special characteristics afforded by the golf course location. In the alternative, the City Council at a minimum should revise the location of the boundary proposed by planning staff to maximize the amount of developable land for future phases of the Links at Tukwila residential PUD. Roger A. Alfred RAA:ajf cc: Renaissance Homes Mike Robinson [41995.0001/PA051750.065] 06/27/05 ~'~FOlU~ tHE LA~O CONS~,RVXr~Ot~ ~ D~-V~LO~'M~t,~ COMM~SStON OF Tm~ grATe, OF ommoN I6 'IN THE MATTER OF 7 ~ PERIODIC REVIEW OF. 8 ~.HE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 9 OR ~ CITY OF NORTH PLAINS ! l0 Il I 12 I13 14 I 15 ~16 17 18 I19 2O I2l 22 I 23 24 25 26 27 ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ) ORDER ) 03-WKT,a~SK. 001534 ) This matter camo before the Land Comsorvation ~md Development Commission (Commission or LCDC) on March 21, 2003 following a previo~ LCDC order remanding the City of North Phina' final period review work tasks numbers one through five. The pr/or order remanding the city's work tasks was issued on August 19, 2002. The Commission, having fully considered the City of North Plains' submittals, the comments and objections and exceptions of interested parties, and the reports of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (Depar0nent)~ now adopts the following Findings of Fact, Reasoning, and Conclusions: Procedural H. istor3~ 1. On December 11, 1981, the Commission acknowledged the City of North plains,. comprehensive plan and land use regulations to be in compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals. 2. On January 30, 1996, the Department notified tile City of North Plains of requirements for periodic review, and initiated the Periodic review process. 3. On June 13, 2001, the Department issued an order approving the City of North Plains - EXHIBIT Page ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 periodic review work program. (Exhibit A). 4. On June 5, 2001, the City of North Plains submitted periodic review work tasks I and 2 to the Department for review. (Exhibit B). 5. On June 25, 2001, the Department received timely objections to the City of North Plaim' work tasks 1 and 2 from Specht Development, Inc. (Specht). (Exhibit C). 6. On June 26, 2001, the DePartment received timely objections to the City of North Plains' work tasks I and 2 from Friends of North Plains. (Exhibit D). 7. On November 1, 2001~'the City of North Plains submitted periodic revi~,v work tasks 3, 4 and 5 to the Department for review. (Exhibit E). 8. On November 21, 2001, the Department received timely objections to the City of North Plains' work tasks 3, 4, and 5 from Friends of North Plains. (Exhibit F). 9. On November 21,2001, the Department received timely objections to the City of North Plains' work tasks 3, 4, and 5 from Specht. (Exhibit G). 10. On November 21,2001, the Department received timely objections to the City of North Plains' work tasks 3, 4, and 5 bom 1000 Friends of Oregon and the Washington County Farm Bureau. (Exhibit H). The Department rejected the objections from 1000 Friends and the Farm Bureau as invalid for failure to comply with the provisions of OAR 660-025- 0140(2)(c) and (d). See April 4, 2002 StaffReport at 4. 1 I. Pursuant to OAR 660-025-0150([)(c), on April 5, 2002, the Department referred the City of 1North Plains' work tasks I llu'ough 5, the objections, and the Department's responses to a total of thirty-three objections to tho Commission by preparing a Director's report. Copies of Page 2 of 21 ER3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 the Director's report were submitted to the City of North Plains, Washington County, objectors, and persons who requested a copy of the report. 12. On April 15, 2002, thc Department received timely, written exceptions to the Director's report from Specht (Exhibit 1) and Friends of North Plains (Exhibit J). 13. On April 25, 2002, the Commission held a pubiic hearing on the referral. The Commission sua spont¢ decided to accept oral argument from the parties. The Commission accepted new information, pursuant to OAR 660-025-0160(6), and allowed the parties to respond to the new information in writing by May 9, 2002. 14. The Department received timely responses to the new information from the City of North Plains, (Exhibit K) Friends of North Plains (Exhibit L) and Specht (Exhibit M). 15. On May 24, 2002, 2 t-days prior to the Commission's June meeting, the Department issued a response to written exceptions, the new information, and the parties' responses to the new information, pursuant to OAR 660-025-0160(3) (Exhibit N). 16. On June 14, 2002, the Commission held a second public hearing. The objectors' responses to thc Director's report of May 24, 2002 (Exhibits O and P) and the Department's second report were entered into thc record. 17. At the June 14, 2002 hearing, the Commission heard argument from the objectors and the City of North Plains, and legal advice from its counsel concerning the interrelationship of ORS t97.298, ORS 197.732, Goal 2 and its implementing rules, and the need and locational factors of Goal 14. Based on the legal argument and advice presented to it, the Commission detem~ined that there are multiple ways in which these requirements interact, depending on the particular circumstances of a given case. Such circumstances include, but are not limited Page 3 of 21 2 4 5 6 9 I11 12 I 13 I14 15 I 16 I17 18 I I 20 21 22 to, the reasons why a local government needs to amend an existing urban growth boundary CLIGB), the types of alternatives that can reasonably accommodate those needs, the long-term environmental, economic, social, and energy (ESEE) consequences of accommodating those needs at alternative sites that require a goal exception. In this ease, the Commission determined that it was appropriate to remand work tasks 4 and 5 to the City of North Plains to allow the city, in the first instance, to more clearly and completely develop both the policy and evidentiary bases for its need to amend its UGB, including whether those needs can only be met on lands with particular characteristics (and, if so, why). As part of this analysis, the city specifically was required to analyze whether exception lands tO the south (ac~ss Highway 26) can reasonably accommodate the needs it identifies. 18. The Commission examined the planning assumptions underlying residential housing · needs and made revisions to the staffreeornmendations for household size, overall land needs, and housing capacity. The net effect of these changes was to identify the exact ,amount of acreage needed for housing outside of the existing UGB. 19. After deliberations in all matters related to the referral, the Commission approved two motions: 1) to adopt the staff recommendation (as amended in the May 24, 2002 staff report, and as further amended in the June 14, 2002 staffcorrections document, and as further specified by the Commission at its June 14 meeting (see, paragraph .18 of remand order); and 2) to direct the Department to prepare a periodic review order remanding work tasks 1-5 and establishing a new submittal date for the work tasks. The Commission determined that the City of North Plains' periodic review work tasks 1 through 5 did not fully comply with Statewide Planning Goals, and identified seven items for further planning work. Those seven Page 4 of 21 J1 2 I4 5 8 I 10 i11 12 I 13 i14 15 I 16 18 I 19 2O 21 items are summarized as follows: (1) develop comprehensive'plan policies on livabillty and other matters in support of work tasks 3-5; (2) revise the analysis of population growth; (3) make specific revisions to work tasks 2 and 3 concerning housing capacity and need; (4) establish a minimum density for areas proposed to be added to the UGB; (5) update the housing policy of the city's comprehensive plan; (6) develop the evidentiary and policy bases for determining whether certain exception lands can reasonably accommodate the Goal 14 need identified by the city; and (7) the Department set a new submittal date for work tasks 1- 5. 20. On August 19, 2002, the Commission issued a remand order (02'WKTASK-00!426 _ Exhibit Q), setting forth its deliberations and decisions from the June 14, 2002 meeting in writing. 21. On October 3 l, 2002, the city submitted revised work tasks 1 through 5, including revised findings and comprehensive plan elements in response to the Commission's remand order (Exhibit R). 22. hi November 2002, the Department received timely objections to the city's submittal of material performed in response to the remand order from Friends of North Plains (Exhibit S), Specht (Exhibit T), the Washington County Farm Bureau (Exhibit U), and Mci and Wendy Mortensen (Exhibit V). 23. On December 19, 2002, thc City submitted a request to withdraw the Commission's remand order (Order 02-WKTASK-001426) (Exhibit W). 24. Otl February 27, 2003, twenty-one days prior to the Commission's March meeting, the Department addressed the city's submittals under the remand order, the obi ections, and the Page 5 of 21 I 2 i 4 6 8 9 I 10 I11 12 I 13 I14 15 I 16 I'17 18 19 I 2O i21 Department's responses to them in a Director's report (Exhibit X). Copies of the Director's report were submitted to the City of North Plains, Washington County, objectors, and persons who requested a copy of the report. 25. On March 10, 2003, the Department received timely, written exceptions to the Director's report from Specht and Friends of North Plains (Exhibits Y and Z). The City also filed exceptions and additional information responding to four deficiencies identified in the Director's report (Exhibit AA.). At its Mar~h 21, 2003 meeting the Commission agreed to accept the additional information from the city, and afforded the parties to the proceeding the opportunity to provide oral argument concerning the additional information. No parties elected to provide argument or evidence in response to the city's additional information, although Specht objected to the Commission's consideration of the new information. 26. On March 19, :2003, the Department issued a r~port in response to the filed exceptions. 27. On March 21, :2003, the Commission held a public hearing. The Commission sua sponte decided to accept oral argument from parties Specht, Friends of North Plains and the city. As noted above, the Commission also accepted new information, pursuant to OAR 660-025- 01O0(6). 28. Prior to the public hearing, counsel provided legal advice to the Commission regarding whether it could consider a submittal dated March 18, :2003 from Costa Pacific Homes and Jackson Union LLC. Due to the £act that the proceeding was before the Commission as a referral rather than an appeal, and that no objections had been filed by Costa Pacific or Jackson Union LLC, the Commission determined that these entities had not satisfied the Page 6 of 21 ER 7 I II 2 I4 5 I 7 I10 11 I'2 13 I I15 16 17 I 18 i19 20 I 21 m22 requirements of the Commission's rules to participate in the referral proceeding. As a result, the Commission sustained a motion by Specht to strike the submission. 29. The Commission also considered whether to grant the city's request to withdraw the Commission's August 19, 2002 remand order (02-WKTASK-001426). The city's request stated that it was for the purpose ofreplacing the remand order with a more neutral order, in order to resolve an appeal of the remand order. The Commission denied the city's request based on advice (including the concurrence of the city) that the disputes would likely be best resolved by proceeding to consider the city's submittal under the existing remand order. F~indings of Fact and ReasoninE 1. In response to item gl of the remand order, the city adopted additional comprehensive plan policies to supplement its earlier policy bases for determining that its UGB must be amended in response to a need for livability (North Plains Ordinance No. 301 October 24, 2001). The city also provided findings that reconcile the Transportation Growth Management (TGM) Study and the revised comprehensive plan policies. The revised set of policies in work task I provide support for work tasks 3 through 5. The Commission finds that the city's revised comprehensive plan policies and findings submitted in October 2002 comply with the terms of the remand order, more specifically the requirements of item # i of the remand order, including reconciling the city's Transportation Growth Management (TGM) Study and the revisions to the city's comprehensive plan. flee Remand Order at 4. The key policies are contained in the comprehensive plan provisions addressing urbanization. Page 7 of 21 I 6 8 9 l0 I11 12 I 13 I14 15 I 17 18 19 I 2O I21 22 Among other matters, these policies call for a "* * *connected, walkable and non auto oriented environment, supportive of the [existing] town center and East Industrial Area." Comprehensive Plan Policies at 15.02.120. The policies specifically identify Highway 26 as a barrier that prevents the lands to the south of that highway from being able to be urbanized in the form the city wishes to foster, e.g., compact, well-connected, mixed-use development patterns that are both internally balanced and closely linked to and supportive of the existing town center. The city's findings, in general at pages 1-7, and more specifically at pages 11- 14, describe the nature of the city's identified need that justifies an amendment to its UGB (based on factors I and 2 of Goal 14), and why lands to the south of Highway 26 cannot reasonably accommodate that need. The Commission finds that the city has provided an adequate factual basis for the policies that it has adopted under Goal 2, and that the city's policies comply with Goal 14 factors I and 2 and OAR 660-004-0020. 2. [n response to item//2 of the remand order, the city adopted a final decision for work tasks I and 2, under OAR 660-025-0020(2). The city also submitted supplemental findings for periodic review work tasks I and 2 to document how they apply to the entire body of submitted tasks (1 through 5). Also in response to item//2 of the remand order, the city revised findings for work task 2 to account for a corrected/updated trends analysis of historic population growth rates as required by item 2 of the Commission's remand order and as further specified by the June 2002 Director's report (responses to exceptions). See Remand Order at 4 and 5. 3. The Commission considered the objections and exceptions raised by Friends of North Plains and CPO//8. These objections and exceptions primarily centered on the Page 8 of 21 i-bt ~ II m 6 I7 I9 I10 Il m13 14 15 I 16 i17 18 I 19 I20 21 I 22 II contention that the city's chosen population forecasting methodology lacked an adequate factual basis as required by Goal 2 and by statute. The Commission further considered oral testimony from the objectors and information from Department staff. The Commissio~ rejects the objections and exceptions of Friends of North Plains and CPO//8 relating to population forecasts and methodology for the reasons set forth in the Department's reports dated February 27, 2003 (including Attachmeat A) and March 19, 2003. 4. The Commission finds that the city's population forecast method and the resulting projection, which included the use of State Office of Economic Analysis data, and which eliminated its earlier use of flawed analysis using TAZ data and supporting documentation, constituted an adequate factual basis under Goal 2 and ORS 197.732. The Commission further £mds that the city's submission complies with item #2 of the remand order with two exceptions. The Commission £mds that the city's inclusion of two incorrect data tables are inconsistent with the remand order and sustains Friends of North Plains exception #5. Although the city has erred in this regard, sustaining the objection does not alter the Commission's disposition of the work task. The City is directed to revise the tabular data as specified at the conclusion of this order. 5. In item #3 of the remand order, the Commission directed the city to adopt six specific changes to work tasks 2 and 3 and applicable sections of the city's comprehensive plan relating to housing capacity and land needs methodology..gee Remand Order at 5. The city's submission includes all of the required changes. 6. With regard to housing capacity inside the existing city limits and the existing UGB, the Commission finds that the city properly included additional housing capacity due Page 9 of 21 CI'~ IU 12 I 20 to: a) the use of 379 infill units, b) the inclusion of housing units located in commemial zones and c) additional capacity generated by enlarging the downtown core by a half a block to the south. Remand order at 5, items 3A-3C. 6.A. With regard to housing capacity outside the existing city limits and in the UGB expansion area, the Commission finds that the city discontinued use of an underbuild factor;, the city revised its gross to net reduction factor for residential uses (from 20 to 25 percent); the city reevaluated its use of other gross to net reduction factors for non-residential uses; and the city revised its comprehensive plan to provide for an overall density of 8.4 units per net acre in the residential portions of the expansion area. ,gee Remand Order at 5, remand items /13 and//4. 6.B. The Commission finds that the city's use ora 25 percent gross to net reduction factor, in place of the 20 percent factor used by the city earlier in periodic review, complies with Goals 14 and 2, and is consistent with the Commission's practice. As a result, the Commission rejects objection 8 and exception 7 of the Friends of North Plains and CPO t18. 6.C. Item #3F of the remand order required the city to reevaluate the total land need for its UGB expansion. The Commission finds that the city complied with the remand order relative to the land needs in the UGB expansion area, and that the overall land need of 149 gross acres is supported by an adequate factual base and complies with applicable Statewide Planning Goals. The city reworked the land needs analysis in its October 2002 submittal; a change from the original identified land need of 164 gross acres in the city's 2001 submittal. Remand Order at 5, items #3D-F. Page !0 of 21 ER 11 II 2 I 3 I4 5 I 7 i8 9 I I0 m11 12 I 13 I14 15 i 16 I17 18 i20 21 6.D. Item #5 of the remand order required the city to revise its housing policies to remove certain provisious. The Commission finds that the city properly revised the housing policy in its comprehensive plan by removing outdated language about housing needs and population projections in compliance with the remand order. See Remand Order at 6, item #5. 7. Friends/CPO #8 Objection #15 alleged that the city ignored the potential for the use of marginal lands as defined by ORS 197.247 that may exist in the vicinity of North Plains in Washington County, as a means of providing the amount of land required for the city's UGB amendment under ORS 197.298, and that the city further failed to provide any information which would supp6rt its conclusion that lands of higher priority do not exist. In its staff report of February 27, 2003, the Department agreed with the objector and recommended that the city be directed to conduct an analysis of potential marginal lands in the city's vicinity, in accordance with ORS 197.298(1) and ORS 197.247. 8. Between the date of the staff report and the March 21, 2003 Commission meeting, the city submitted a letter from Washington County dated February 28, 2003 which stated in part: "Although AF-20 land lies immediately adjacent to current city boundaries, no marginal lands have been designated on these parcels to date." The city submitted this letter in conjunction with its exceptions letter of March 10, 2003 as additional information. 9. The Commission, at its March 21 hearing, decided to accept the additional information provided by the city into the record, and provided the other parties with an opportunity to respond to the information. The Commission finds that there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole that there are no designated marginal lands available for Page 11 of 2 i ER 12 2 I4 6 8 9 I 10 i11 12 i 13 I14 15 I 16 I17 18 I I 20 m21 22 II inclusion into the city's UGB under ORS 197.298(1)(c). As a result, the Commission rejects Objection//15 of Friends/CPO/t8. i 0. As described above, the city submitted revised and supplemental findings and policies that provided additional evidentiary and policy bases for determining, under OAR 660~004-0020, that the exception lands to the south across Highway 26 cannot reasonably accommodate the need that the City of North Plains has identified under Goal 14. The Commission also heard objections, exceptions and additional argument from thc objectors and the City of North Plains, and legal advice fxom its counsel, concerning tho relationship of tho Goals to the application of ORS 197.298 and other applicable law to determine which lands to include within the UGB. 11. More specifically, the Commission considered objections that argued for a different interpretation of.the relationship of ORS 197.298 to ORS 197.732, Goal 2 and Goal 14. Specht Objection gl and the related Farm Bureau Objection//3. The Commission understands Specht's first objection (and the Farm Bureau's Objection #3).to be that the city erred by not applying ORS 197.298 and other applicable law to "all adjacent lands." Specht contends that the city's finding that the priorities of ORS 197.298 only must be applied to those areas that the city decides can accommodate its needs based on livability is erroneous as a matter of law, and also does not comply with the terms of the LCDC remand order. The Commission disagrees. 12. Erroneous as a matter of law. Speeht contends that the provisions of ORS 197.298 do not allow a local government to exclude exception lands from the priority analysis of that statute based on a. stated need for livability. Specht relies on "the plain and Page 12 of 21 ER 13 2 I 3 I4 I 6 m.7 8 I9 I10 11 I13 14 15 I 16 i. 17 18 I 19 m 20 21 unambiguous language of ORS 197.298." ORS 197.298 provides, in pertinent part: "In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization, land may not be included within an urban growth boundary except under the following priorities[.]" 13. The Commission disagrees with Specht that the plain and unambiguous meaning of ORS 197.2980) requires a local government to include lands within its UGB that cannot reasonably accommodate the need identified by the local government. ORS 197.298(1), by ita text, applies "[i]n addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization[.]" The legislature did not provide that ORS 197.298 applies "notwithstanding any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization," rather it provided that ORS 197.298 applies "[iJn addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization[.]" ORS 197.298 by its terms recognizes that LCDC's rules addressing urbanization, e.g., Goal 14 and the Goal 2 implementing rules, will apply in addition to the priority scheme. To the extent that Specht argues that ORS 197.298 prohibits the application of Goal 14 before ORS 197.298 to narrow the application of the statutory prioritization of lands to lands that are capable of accommodating the identified land need, again Specht misreads the applicable law. 14. LUBA has noted that application of the priorities in ORS 197.298 is necessarily predicated on first determining need. ORS 197.298 does not speak to how local governments determine the need necessitating an amendment of their UGB. Nor does the statute address how, once the reasons for an amendment are identified, they are translated into an amount of land. These steps are governed by Goal 14, factors I and 2, the Goal 2 implementing rules, Page 13 of 21 t I_1'% IM' l i10 11 12 I 13 I 14 15 16 I17 18 19 I 2o 22 I23 24 26 I 27 29 30 and ORS 197.732. ,gee Malinowsla' Farms v. Metro, 38 Or LUBA 633,654-55 (2000). Goal 14, factors I and 2, the "need" factors, provide: "Urban growth boundaries shall be established to identify and separate urbanizable land from rural land. Establishment and change of the boundaries shall be based upon consideration of the following factors:' "(1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals; "(2) Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability[.]" In Friends of Linn County v. £inn County, 41 Or LUBA 342, 344-345 (2002), LUBA considered the interplay of the Goal 14 need factors: "Factor I can be satisfied by (1) increasing population projections; (2) amending the economic, employment or other assumptions applied to those population figures in originally justifying the UGB; or (3) doing both. BenjFran Development v. Metro Service Dist., 17 Or LUBA. 30, 42 (1988), afl'd95 Or App 22, 767 P2d 467 0989). Factor 2 can be satisfied by showing that there is insufficient land within the UGB to provide for a specified need for housing, employment opportunities and livability. Both factors may be satisfied by a determination that, after considering the two factors, additional land is needed to improve livability. 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Metro Service Dist., 18 Or LUBA 311,319 (1989)." 41 Or LUBA at 344-345. 15. To summarize, a local government normally will have to demonstrate a need to accommodate long-range urban population growth, and needs for housing, employment and livability under Goal 14 as a first step in evaluating the adequacy of its UGB. ORS 197.298(1) assumes that Goal 14 has been applied to determine these needs, without that exercise there is nothing for the statutory priorities to apply to. 16. As a second step, once it has identified a need under Goal 14, ORS 197.732, and Goal 2, a local government must then determine whether the need that it has identified in step one can be accommodated within the current UGB. This step also recognizes that the need Page 14 of 21 I1 2 I 3 I4 I 6 I.7 8 I 9 IlO Il I13 14 m 16 i17 18 t 19 I20 21 m 22 identified under Goal 14 Factors, I and 2 is not necessarily a need for land, but a need for housing, employment opportunities, or livability. 17. Third, if the identified need cannot be accornmodated within the existing UGB, thc local govenuncnt must then determine what lands outside the UGB can reasonably accommodate the identified need. This step stems from thc exceptions requirements of Goal 2, Part II provided at OAR 660-004-0020. The local government's inquiry is focused by what the identified need is. A general need, for example housing, requires a broader inquiry than a specific need, for example port facilities. 18. Fourth, once the local government has identified a set of lands than can accommodate thc need it has identified, it must determine which of those lands to utilize for urbanization. This is the juncture at which the priority scheme of ORS 197.298 applies to determine which lands that can reasonably accommodate the identified need must be added to the existing UGB first. 19. Finally, if the amount of land within a particular statutory category of ORS 197.298(1) exceeds the identified need, then thc "locational factors" (factors 3-7) of Goal 14 apply to determine which of this subset of lands within a particular category the local government must bring in to the UGB first. If a local govemment must look to resource lands to reasonably accommodate its identified need, ORS 197.298(2) provides a sequence and hierarchy for which resource lands must be used to accommodate the need. 20. The Commission finds that the foregoing is a permissible application of the relevant statutes, Goals, rules and case law to the facts of this case. It may not be the only manner in which the statutes, Goals and rules apply. However, the Commission declines to Page 15 of 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 I I 14 15 I 16 18 I 2O ER 16 adopt the application of ORS 197.298 urged by Specht in its objection #1 and the Farm Bureau in its objection #3. The Commission rejects those objections. 21. Compliance with the terms of the LCDC Remand order. Specht also objected that item//6 of the LCDC Remand Order 02-WKTASK-001426 "requires the city to apply ORS 197.298 to all of the adjacent lands, including the southern exceptions areas, in order to determine where to expand the UGB." The Commission agrees that the remand order clearly requires the city to determine first whether the need identified by the city under Goal 14 can reasonably be accommodated on exceptions lands. As set forth above, and as established in detail in the city's submittal following remand, the city has done so. It has adopted comprehensive plan policies and supporting findings that establish a poticy and factual basis for its determination that the exception lands to thc south, across Highway 26 carmot reasonably accommodate the needs that justify the amendment to the city's UGB. Neither applicable law nor the remand order requires the city to apply the statutory priorities of ORS I97.298(1) to lands that do not satisfy its identified need. 22. Also in its objection #1, Specht objects to thc city's findings that use of the exception lands to the south would be inconsistent with Goal 12 and thc TPR. As tho city found, and the Commission concurs, the south exception area cannot reasonably accommodate the city's identified need. The Commission does not reach the city's justifications for excluding these lands based on Goal 12 and the TPR, as these findings are not necessary to the Commission's decision and are provided by the city only as supplemental bases for excluding the south exception lands. Page 16 of 2! ER 17 2 3 , 4 5 8 I10 -11 m13 i14 15 I 16 i17 m 19 I20 21 m 22 ii 23. Specht Objection # 2 challenged the city's fundings with regard to ORS 197.298 (3). Specht objects that the city misidentifies "livability" as "a specific type of identified land need" under ORS 197.298(3), in order to bring lower priority land into the UGB ahead of the southern exception area. A similar objection was submitted by the Washington County Farm Bureau. The. Department recommended that these objections be sustained. The Commission recognizes that tho city, on remand, adopted specific comprehensive plan policies for livability in lieu of its original concept of"livability" (October 2001). Nevertheless, the Commission concurs with the. Department's recommendation and determines that iivability, even as set forth in the city's more detailed policies, is not a "specific identified land need" under the meaning of that phrase in ORS 197.298(3). As a result, the Commission sustains Specht Objection/t2 and Washington County Farm Bureau Objection #2, and determines that "livability" is not a specific identified land need under ORS 197.298(3) that may be used as a basis for including lands of lower priority within an urban growth boundary. Although the Commission sustains these objections a remand is not necessary because the city is directed to adopt revised findings that remove "livability" as a specific identified land need under ORS 197.298(3) as specified at the conclusion of this order. 24. Specht Objection # 3 is that the city continues to incorrectly assert that the southern exception area is not "adjacent" to the UGB. The Commission finds that objector Specht erroneously concluded that the Commission had previously made a policy determination and statutory interpretation that the southern exception areas are in fact and by law "adjacent" to the city's UGB as that term is used in ORS 197.298 (1). The Commission Page 17 of 21 ER 18 l I I I I i I I ! ! i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 does not reach this issue because it concurs with the city' s determination that these lands cannot reasonably accommodate the need the city has identified. As a result, it is not necessary to determine whether they are "adjacent" as that term is used in ORS 197.298(1). 25. Specht Objection # 4 is that the city's findings that a new exception would be required in-order to bring the southem exception area into the UGB were incorrect. The Commission sustains this objection. The Commission fmds that new exceptions to Goals 3 and 4 would not be needed for the southern exception area. Although the city has erred in this regard, sustaining the objection does not alter the Commission's disposition of the work tasks because the city is directed to adopt revised findings that remove the city's arguments that a new exception is required in order to bring the southern exception area into the UGB as specified at the conclusion of this Order. 26. Specht Objection # 5 alleges that the city's proposed expansion onto resource lands to the east is not economically feasible. The Commission finds that it determined that these lands could accommodate urban development for purposes of Goal 14 and ORS 197.298 when it accepted without comment, the city's original findings submitted in 2001 that addressed development feasibility. Further, despite Specht's argument to the contrary, there is an adequate factual base in the record for the city's findings that these lands can reasonably accommodate urban development. As a result, the Commission rejects Specht's Objection #5. 27. Mortensen Objection #1 challenged the adequacy of the city's submitted revised comprehensive plan policies in response to the remand order. The objectors allege the policies are not sufficient to support the livability the city wants. The Commission finds that Page 18 of 21 ER 19 II I 3 I4 5 I 6 I7 I 9 I10 1! i13 m14 15 I 16 i17 18 t 19 2l thc city has provided ample policies to support livability as found in revised comprehensive plan sections that are organized under Statcwidc Planning Goals 9 Economic Development, 10 Housing, 1:2 Transportation, and 14 Urbanization and policies for Quality Development. Thc objection is rejected. 28. Washington County Farm Bureau Objection #1 faults the city's UGB decision, because it is based on thc city's assumption that it is required by thc statute [ORS 197.296(IXa)] to maintain a 20-year residential land supply to' accommodate urban population growth. The objector cites ORS t97.296(1)(a), which only applies to cities over 25,000 in population. The Commission concurs that the statute no longer applies to the city. However, no changes to thc city's completed work tasks arc needed. Although, thc Washington County Farm Bureau is correct that ORS 197.296 no longer applies to the city, thece is ample precedent for the city's use of a 20-year supply of land under Goal 14. The use of'a 20-year period complie,s with Goals 2 and 14. In addition, the Commission denies the objection because it was required to have been filed either as an appeal of the Department's June 13, 2001 approval of the city's work program or in conjunction with the initial review of the city's work tasks. Nothing in tho remand order or thc city's response to that order implicated ORS 197.296, and the scope of the Commission's review of the work tasks as a result of the remand order does not encompass this issue. 29. To the extent there are any remaining motions, objections or exceptions that have not been specifically addressed, such motions, objections or exceptions arc denied or rejected. Page 19 of 21 ER 20 2 3 5 6 I 8 9 I 10 I11 12 14 15 17 18 2O 21 23 24 25 26 I27 28 29 30 31 30. In addition to the findings of fact, reasoning, and conclusions in this order, thc Commission specifically adopts and incorporat~ by reference the Department's reports dated February 27, 2003; the Department's Response to Objections (undated, labeled "Attachment A, Department of Land Conservation and Development Response to Objections City of North Plains Periodic Review Tasks #1 through 5 Submitted in Response to Remand Order LCDC 02-WKTASK-001426"); and the Department's Response to Exceptions dated March 19, 2003. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this order and the provisions of the Department's reports incorporated herein, the provisions of this order will prevail. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Department's reports, the last report will prevail. Conclusion THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT: Based on thc foregoing findings of fact, reasoning and conclusions of law the Commission concludes that the City of North Plains' periodic review work tasks 1 through 5 comply with the Statewide Planning Goals, and acknowledges the ciD's work tasks t through 5, PROVIDED; that the following changes shall be adopted by August 15, 2003: 1. Thc City shall adopt amendments to its findings prepared in response to Remand Item #6 to: A. remove the legal arguments that utilize "livability" as a specific identified land need under ORS 197.298(3); and B. remove findings and conclusions that determine that a new exception would be required in order to bring the southern exception area into the city's UGB. 2. The City shall amend the tabular data (Tables 3 and 5) to include thc year 2000 census data, substituting for year 1999 population estimates. (Work Task 2, Exhibit B of City' s submittal in response to remand order). This amendment shall be adopted by August 15, 2003. Page 20 of 21 22 II ER21 No further review by the Department or Commission is necessary. HoWever, the failure of the city to adopt the revisions required by 1. and 2., above, shall constitute failure to complete work tasks I through 5, and shall result in the Director initiating a hearing before the Commission according to the procedures in OAR 660-025-0090(5) and may result in the imposition of sanctions under that role and ORS 197.632(2). DATED THIS / 'Z~-day of July, 2003. FOR THE COMMISSION: Nan Evans, Director Department of Land Conservation and Development NOTE: You are entitled to judicial review of this order as provided by ORS 197.650. Judicial review may be obtained by filing a petition for review with the Oregon Court of Appeals within 60 days from the date o t' service of this final order. Copies of ali exhibits to this order are available for review at the Department's office in Salem, Oregon. Page 21 of 21 A'R'ACHMENT B--2 June 27, 2005 Honorable Mayor Kathy Figley Woodburn City Council 270 Montgomery St. Woodburn, OR 97071 RE: Area 2 in UGB Expansion Dear Honorable Mayor and Woodbum City Council: I write this letter on behalf of the Fessler family respectfully requesting that you retain Area 2 in the expanded UGB. I submit the letter into the record re-opened on June 13, 2005 and in response to written testimony submitted after April 20, 2005 that was received by the City by June 13, 2005. The Serres family asks you to include Area 4, including property owned by the Serres, instead of Area 2. In support of their position, the Serres continue to question the cost analysis employed by Public Works. As Mr. Stein, the Serres attorney, acknowledged in his June 3, 2005 letter to Robert Shields, Public Works need only provide a "rough cost estimate." See OAR 660-011-0035. The purpose of the estimate is not to predict future costs with exactness, but to provide a comparison based on a consistent methodology. Woodbum Public Works did that. Nevertheless, the Fesslers provided you detailed data from Multi Tech Engineering of Salem, a well-established and reputable engineering firm with experience designing and constructing multiple infrastructure projects--past and present--in Woodburn. Multi Tech's analysis confirms Public Works' estimates. Area 4 costs more to serve than Area 2--approximately $9,000 more per acre. See Exhibit B-108 (Multi Tech Memo submitted into record with April 20, 2005 letter from Brian Moore). In contrast, the Serres family provided no data and no alternative methodology to demonstrate that Area 4 costs as little as or less than Area 2 to serve. Further, despite their many, sharp criticisms of Public Works' methodology as a whole and what they perceive as inaccurate numbers, the Serres have provided no evidence that Public Works' methodology produced an inaccurate comparison of costs between Area 2 and Area 4. In response to the May 19, 2005 letter from Randolph Lytle, engineer for the Serres, Mark Grenz, principal of Multi Tech Engineering, confirms in the attached letter that you can rely on Public Works' cost comparison as consistent and accurate. Snlem- 8end ~,.ww.sglaw.( om Park Place, Suite 300 Post Office Box 470 tel 503 399-1070 25I) Church Street SE Salem,()regon 97308 fax 50~ 371-2927 June 27, 2005 Honorable Mayor Kathy Figley Page 2 Nevertheless, please keep in mind that comparison of costs is only one element of one factor to be considered in determining the location of UGB expansion. Where you decide to expand the UGB is governed by ORS 197.298 and four factors from new Goal 14 (collectively the "Review Criteria"). In short, lower-class soils must be included first, urban uses must be compatible with nearby agricultural uses, services must be provided in an orderly and economic manner, and land must be used efficiently and with comparatively positive environmental, energy, economic, and social consequences ("ESEE" consequences). In analyzing Area 4 and Area 2 according to the Review Criteria, Area 2 satisfies all the factors better than Area 4. Soil values: Area 4 contains predominantly Class II soils (higher value). Area 2 contains predominantly Class III and some Class IV soils (lower value). Consequently, Area 2 must be included before Area 4. The only information the Serres have provided on this point is their unsubstantiated phone conversations with DLCD and Marion County. However, written and oral comments in the record from both DLCD and Marion County support staff's recommendations and in no way question the inclusion of Area 2 over Area 4 or the Public Works analysis. Compatability: A majority of Area 4 directly abuts farmland. Area 2 is separated from agricultural uses by road: even minor arterials. Comparability is generally enhanced by "buffers" or "hard edges" such as streets. See Department of Agriculture letter, Exhibit B-103. The Pudding River, contrary to Serres testimony, is not a part of or adjacent to Area 4. It is located well beyond Area 4 to the east. As such, the river does not separate Area 4 from the agricultural property directly abutting Area 4. Orderly & Economic Services: Not only is Area 4 more expensive to serve, but development in Area 4 will increase the burden on the east-side access of the I-5 Interchange. The improvements of Crosby Road associated with Area 2 development will be funded by the developer of Area 2--not by the City--and will minimize congestion on the east side of the Hwy 214/I-5 Interchange by providing easy access to the west side of the Interchange. Thus, Area 2 costs less to serve and better accomplishes Woodburn's Transportation System Plan. Efficiency: As a completely flat area comprised of large-acre tracts with close proximity to existing infrastructure of services, Area 2 provides the greatest efficiency conceivably possible for development for either residential or public purposes. ESEE Consequences: Area 2, with its golf course and the surrounding residential development, has a proven record of attracting higher-wage homebuyers, thereby accomplishing the economic and social objectives of the new comprehensive plan. Environmentally, Area 2 has no more sensitive areas than Area 4, and many of those areas are accommodated in the golf course. With its centralized proximity to shopping and recreation of all types, including the commercial area to be located within it, Area 2 will help conserve energy as well. Again, we note that the amendment package provided by Staff and its consultant has been reviewed favorably by DLCD, Marion County, ODOT, and the Planning Commission. None of these reviews has questioned either the inclusion of Area 2 over Area 4 or the cost estimates provided by Public Works. The Serres family has been afforded every procedural accommodation required by Oregon law. Oregon rules require nothing more than one hearing to present oral testimony, one opportunity to present written comment, and one response to such comments. See OAR 660-025-0080(2). The Serres have received these requirements and more. Despite these accommodations, the Serres family June 27, 2005 Honorable MayorKathy Figley Page 3 would have you start the review process anew by remanding the expansion package to the Planning Commission. See p. 5, June 1,2005 Serres letter to Mayor and Council. No law requires a jurisdiction to change its decision based on public comment, particularly if the substance of such comment is not supported by State law. Nevertheless, the City and its Staff have gone out of their way to listen, accommodate, and even make changes where such change would be supported by law. Please do not be distracted by the undue focus on the element of costs. The law requires you to make your decision considering all factors required by Goal 14 and ORS 197.298. Such a multi- factor consideration reveals that Area 2 must be included over Area 4, just as Staff and its consultant have recommended. Sincerely, BRIAN G. MOORE bmooreOsglaw.com Voice Message #366 BGM:ms cc: Councilor Walt Nichols, Ward 1 Councilor Richard Bjelland, Ward 2 Councilor Pete McCallum, Ward 3 Councilor Jim Cox, Ward 4 Councilor Frank Lonergan, Ward S Councilor Elida Sifuentez, Ward 6 Robert Shields, City Attorney Jim Mulder, Director of Community Development Tom Fessler H?, Dc)csx, 15000-15499~ I S087 \ Le~e~.Cou nciI.Re-Opened Record. Doc MULTI/TECH CONSULTANTS 155 13th Street, S.E. Salem, Oregon 9730£ (503) 363-9£27 June 27, 2005 Brian Moore Saalfcld Griggs, PC PO Box 470 Salem, OR 97308-0470 Re: Woodburn UGB Dear Brian, As requested, our office reviewed the comments from Randolph A. Lytle, P.E. with Consulting Resources, Inc. regarding the City of Woodbum Public Works' City Services Cost Study prepared for the proposed Urban Growth Boundary Additions. We will address each of the issues included in his May 19th, 2005 letter to Mr. David Duncan using the same number system. We did note some problems with the scale noted on a few of the maps, however, we did verify that the pipe lengths noted in the written portion of the study were correct. There are many different methods that could be used in related infrastructure costs to the areas to be developed. The important point in any study that compares one area to another is to be consistent. The City of Woodburn study was consistent in this approach. The costs that were used for determining the piping infrastructure costs did take into account knowledge that the City of Woodburn has that would influence construction costs in each of the regions. Our knowledge and experience from prior projects in the City of Woodbum would support their position that costs would differ in different areas of the community. The intent of the maps is to show the major facilities that would be required in any of the regions. It was not necessary to show all of the piping in thc regions to make the needed comparisons of each region. The study has been consistent in this approach. The infrastructure discussed and noted as required in the different regions does appear to be based on topographic features of the sites together with the ability of existing systems to be extended to provide gravity service. Our review of the existing trunk system in North Boones Ferry Road area can be We provide a full spectrum of engineering & related technical services Design, Coordination & Construction Management extended into Region 2 with sufficient depth to service the area. Local knowledge of the Woodburn systems greatly aids in the understanding of the information in the study. 6. The study did take into account previous information generated that outlines the "buildable" lands available and the types of land needed. It is not necessary for an additional needs analysis to be completed at this time. 7. Again, the local knowledge that the City Public Works staffhas determines the tree ability of the existing systems to handle the existing and new storm water runoff that would be created with the development of each area. Based on our knowledge of the drainage system around Woodbum, the study is correct. 8. The information contained in the study relative to pipes and flows was not correctly understood by Mr. Lytle. The flows referenced are those that would be created from the total area. The pipe sizes noted are those necessary to handle the deficiencies, not necessarily the total flow from each reason. Our review of the study information supports that of the Woodbum Public Works staff. 9. We believe that the schematic information is sufficient to make the type of comparisons needed of the different regions at this point in the process. Public Works was consistent in there application of the methodology that they set up for the study. In summary, we find that the study prepared by the City was consistent in its approach and evaluation of each of the regions, and did not contain any significant errors. It was clear to us that local knowledge of the topography and facilities was taken into account by the City. It is true that a more detailed study of the regions and a different methodology would result in different costs for the regions, but the fact that some regions will cost more to develop than others will remain true. This fact is shown to be true by the detailed cost comparison that our office did previously of Regions 2 and 4. Our analysis shows, like the City of Woodburn, that Region 4 costs more to service and develop than Region 2 We hope that the information included in this letter is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact our office. Thank you. or require additional in, ion, MUL TI / TECH ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. The Serres Family 1840 E. Lincoln Road Woodbum, Or 97071 The Honorable Kathryn Figley, Mayor, City of Woodbum Woodburn City Council Woodbum City Hall 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, Oregon 97071 ATTACHMENT June 27, 2005 JUN 3 ~ ~u5 WOOBBURN CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE Dear Mayor and Councilors: Thank you for allowing additional testimony into the record. We appreciate that you are considering our testimony dated May 6, May 19, and June 1, 2005. We want to take the opportunity to make a few points based on the new testimony of others and the comprehensive plan amendments. I. Soils Issue: The Down and Dirty! ORS 197.298 Consultant Greg Winterowd, has repeatedly stressed that ORS 197.298 dictates the soil capability class priority for amending the UGB (Winterbrook Planning, Page 18, Attachment B, to Memo, June 13, 2005, Jim Mulder to Mayor and Council). Factually, Greg is correct as regards the content of ORS 197.298, but Greg is incorrect in asserting that ORS 197.298 is the controlling criterion for UGB expansion decisions. Following G-reg's April 9 Council Meeting testimony, Susan Duncan contacted Geoff Crook, Willamette Regional Representative for DLCD to verify Greg's statements. Quoting Mr. Crook: "It ia unfortunate that Greg Winterowd led the Council to believe that soils classification would eause a remand." Geoff went on to say that the plan should be made based on many considerations. Overall efficiency of layout, particularly locating new development in proximity to existing infrastructure required to support it, is of greatest importance. In a follow up, we requested Geoffto provide a written clarification of ORS 197.298's relative importance in making UGB expansion decisions. In his response, Geoffreiteratcs that soil capability class is not the controlling criterion for UGB amendment purposes. Our request letter, and Geoff Crook's response appear as Attachments A and B respectively. Rebuttal of Greg Winterowd Testimony We also wish to rebut Greg Winterowd's testimony regarding the Serres property (Winterbrook Planning, Page 4, Items B-77 and B-101, Greg Winterowd, oral testimony, April 9 and June 13 Council meetings). Mr. Wintemwd states that the Serres Property West Boundary is the UGB. While this is factually correct, Mr. Winterowd fails to state that most of this boundary is also the City Limits. By failing to note that the Serres Property and the City are contiguous, Mr. Winterowd creates an impression that the Sen-es property is removed from the City by intervening UGB land. See figure 1. Figure 1: Current Woodburn City Limits & UGB re Serres Tract Yellow dished line is City Limits. Pale Blue Line is UGB. Dark Blue Line is SA-2 Boundary Mr. Winterowd also states that Serres property, which goes to the Pudding River, is too big to be considered. The Serres Family has not requested that its entire holding be included at one time. Virtually all of our testimony speaks to the lands the City included in its UGB Expansion Study Area 4. A review of our testimony will show that the comments speaking to development of the entire Serres tract reflect a very long term planning horizon, awareness that urbanizing part logically concludes with urbanizing the whole, and that infrastructure needs to be considered a context larger than SA-4. We ,.~,r have never argued that our entire holding had to be brought in at once. Mr. Winterowd misrepresents our testimony in suggesting otherwise. Greg also states that bringing in all of the Serres property would mean bringing in Class I soils. Greg neglects to point out that the only Class I soils we have arc in the Pudding River flood plain and can't be developed. Another misrepresentation. Soil Capability Argument Arbitrary, Argument Used Inconsistently For the record, we think the soil capability class argument is arbitrary. The proportions of soil classes in a Study Area depend on where the boundaries are drawn. These proportions can be manipulated by changing the boundary, fi, for example, UGB Study Area 4 had been drawn to exclude the 30 acre, Class II Christensen Place (Area of Study Area 4 South of Serres Lane), and include our land along the Pudding River, the composition of Study Area 4 would shiR towards lower Capability Class soils. See Figure 2, below. Figure 2. Colorized Soils Map showing Capability Class IH, VI, and Flood Plain Soils on Serres Tract. Note that Class 1 Chehalis soil is in flood plain. 3 Similarly, if this soils argumem is really worth its weight in salt, why not bring in only the Class III portion of the Fessler property? Logical access for storm drain and sewer is through an existing drainage on the adjacent property to the South and road access is available from existing roads. By the map, there is no absolute need to bring in the Class H soils portion of the Fesslcr property for access reasons. Therefore, we do not understand why Mr. Winterowd argues that Fessler's Class H soils must be brought in but that the Woodbum School District site cm~'t be brought ia because it is Class H. Either way, some Class H is in, so why penalize the Woodburn School District? H. Of Infrastructure, Schools, and Other Necessary Things The Rest of the Story At our request, the full and complete version of Woodbum Public Work's UGB Expansion City Services Cost Study has been included in your packet. We have alleged that various errors and omissions occur in this study, please see detailed attachments to our letter dated June 1, 2005, delivered June 2, 2005. With the maps and descriptions in hand, you can see for yourselves that unnecessary costs for storm drains have been added to the East side, and that costs for lift stations and upgrades are noted on the maps but not costed for the SW and West study areas, or are required by topography but omitted (please refer to copy of USGS 7 'A topographic map we have submitted as attachment to June 1 letter). Commenting on David Torgeson's Comments about our Comments. We appreciate David Torgeson's April 25 response to our letter of record dated March 23, 2005. Please note that we did not obtain the Woodbum Public Works City Services Cost Study until May 4. Writing a critique of a technical document is difficult when you don't get to see it. Please note that Mr. Torgeson's April 25 response does not address the questions we raised after we received the Services Cost Study. We would be interested to see Mr. Torgeson speak to our later testimony that is based directly on the Public Works Study. Mr. Torgeson's comments regarding the suitability of the Serres wells appear well founded, pardon the pun. At the least, the Serres wells document that water is available at large flow rotes at specific locations and that this water can be tested prior to investing in a new well. Removing the usual uncertainty regarding how much and what quality of water one will recover when drilling a well is valuable knowledge. Mr. Torgeson's comments regarding the Water Distribution System and Sanitary Sewer System are fair comments and are duly noted. 4 We appreciate that Mr. Torgeson acknowledges our assessment of the storm drainage system is correct., no large drain to the Pudding required. While we agree with Mr. Torgeson that the same approach was employed to evaluate all 8 UOB study areas, we do not agree that all required in ~frastructure was properly identified and costed for each area. Please see the attachments to our June 2, 2005 letter of record for detailed discussion and refer to Mr. Lytle, P.E.'s letter, which concludes that the City Study has too many errors and omissions to serve as a planning tool. Rebuttal, Brian Moore Testimony Brian Moore, attorney for the Fessler family, provided testimony which included a detailed report from the engineering services firm, Multi/Tech. Much of Mr. Moore's testimony repeats Comprehensive Plan justifications supporting inclusion of his client's property. We have rebutted much of this testimony in our other letters of record, so we are limiting our rebuttal to a few new comments. Multi/Tech Engineering Report The Multi/Tech report correctly indicates that basic city services cost the same regardless of study area. The Multi/Tech report concludes that city services will cost $52,033.27 per acre for SA-4 compared to $43,226.77 per acre for SA-2. The cost differences are based on specific additional infrastructure required to support development within each SA. Our comments are as follows: The Multi/Tech report appears to be realistically costed. The Multi/Tech report compares the revised Study Area 2 to the whole of Study Area 4. Comparing the "cherry picked" Study Area 2 to the whole of Study Area 4 is unfair. A fairer comparison would be to compare cherry picked versions of both Study The Multi/Tech report repeats an error that massive storm drains would be required in SA-4. Please refer to David Torgeson response to Serres, April 25, 2005. We point out, again, that the East Hardcastle, Evergreen Street neighborhood of Woodburn is currently served by a storm drain that discharges into a gully on the Mark Unger property, not the Pudding River. Similarly, the Southerly portion of Study Area 4 could drain through small in-street collectors to the Serres Reservoir, and from the Serres Reservoir to the Pudding River via connecting wetlands, just as it does now. We provide some reference material on the use of reservoirs and bioswales to manage storm drainage as Attachment C. 5 The f'mancial impact of the storm drain error accounts for $6,827 of Multi/Teeh's $8807 difference per acre for servicing the two areas. The reduced difference of $1,9$0/acm is less than 5% of the total ex)st, which we believe is less than the margin of error in costing these services. We note that the MuM/Teeh report does not support Brian Moore's assemtion that "... Area 4 costs over 300 per cent more to serve than Area 2." The Mulfi/Tech report is in thc public record as an attachment to Brian Moore's letter of April 20, 2005. Transportation Issues Mr. Moore, in his written testimony, makes several statements regarding the transportation advantages of his client's property. We did a little checking with our odometer. Do you realize that the Serres portion of SA4 is virtually the same distance from the OPUS NW site as the Fessler properVfl Our location on Lincoln Street to 99 to Young to Front to Parr Road to Butteville Road to LeBrun Road is the same distance as Cmsby Road at Booties Ferry Road to Butteville Road to LeBrun Road. Did you also realize that the East side of the 214/I-5 Interchange is closer to the Fessler property than is the West side of the 214/I-:5 Interchange via Butteville Road? So which way to I-$/214 do you think future Fessler property residents will go? Brian Moore's testimony states: "The plan assumes the Crosby Road improvements to be paid by the developer of the Fessler property .... Removing the Fessler property could cause the City's plan to become out of compliance with ODOT and the Tmns~on Planning Rule." Now wait a minute, we thought the Comprehensive Plan Update was an ongoing process with the outcome yet to be determined. This reads like the deal is done. (Letter of record, Brian Moore to Mayor and City Council, dated April 20, 2005, Page 3, Item C). New School on Class II Soils, Oh My! Mr. Greg Winterowd has repeatedly stated that the Woodbum School District East Lincoln R~oaad property should not be brought into the UGB because it is 100% Class H soils (April,Wand June 13 City Council Meetings). Keeping in mind that Woodbum School District does not want a new school close to its Parr Road facility, there is only one other area large enough for a school on Class Ill soils. That would be the West end of the Fessler property. Now since Mr. Fessler personally testified (March 23 public hearing) that he did not want his developable acreage reduced to accommodate a school off his property, we think it reasonable to infer he wouldn't want his developable acreage reduced by a school on his property. Given these constraints, Woodbum School District must consider a Class II soil site for its next school. Of course, it already owns one!! The real problem with the school site doesn't have anything to do with soils. 6 IlL Choosing Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea Woodburn's Needs Study Inadequate The Woodbum 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update, as amended, does not address the growth drivers currently shaping Woodbum. Woodbum is growing without the stimulus that Opus NW's proposed Industrial Park and the SWIR will provide. While it is certainly desirable to plan for the future residential, commercial, and infrastructure needs stemming from these economic developments, the plan should not allocate all of the Community's development fights to support of Opus NW and SWIR. Nowhere is this more evident than in the proposed residential areas, which, while serving Opus NW and SWIR, do not efficiently meet the needs of residents attracted to Woodbum for other reasons. Two specific demographics have been identified to us as appropriate target demographics for residential on our land: affluent new retirees from California and local professionals nearing retirement age. These demographics are attracted to Woodbum by Woodburn's rural feel, competitive residential cost, and commute proximity to Portland for employment, cultural amenity, and advanced medical services. These demographics are sorely needed in our community to shift Woodburn's average income, average education level, people per household, etc., closer to state averages. We feel that a more appropriate plalaning vision for our community would identify all needs of the community and allocate future development rights in proportion to those needs. We can't see how this focus on Opus NW and SWIR makes for the best possible future for Woodburn as a whole. We do not understand why this Comprehensive Plan Update addresses the needs of an economic plan that hasn't been implemented while failing to address existing community needs. Any Color they Want, so Long as it is Black The Amended Comprehensive Plan Update does not offer choice. You, as the decision makers, are getting one take-it-or-leave-it plan that lacks flexibility. So a few questions before you vote on this plan. Does the plan before you emphasize what is special about Woodburn? How does this plan differentiate W0odburn from all the other places in Oregon? Does this plan optimize all residents' quality of life? Does this plan make Woodburn feel like home, or does this plan make Woodburn seem the like every other growing town? Nodal is crucial to this plan. Villebois is a nodal community, but its developers are spending more than $1 Billion to make it work. Villebois includes bus lines, possible commuter light rail, and many amenities to get people out of their cars. Villebois, given this level of investment and infrastructure, might actually work. But this nodal concept is not the nodal concept proposed for Woodburn. What is proposed for Woodbum is Nodal-on-the-Cheap. Is there a feasibility study for Woodbum's nodal concept? Is there any documentation at all to show that low priced, entry-level nodal has worked anywhere? Is there evidence that nodal is appropriate for sm_allish, rural, agriculturally oriented towns with larger households and no mass Uansportation? Will Nodal integrate into the greater community fabric? Or will the nodal community be a community unto itself, insular, parasitic, and disrespectful of the larger community that gave it life? IV Locafion, Locafion, Loeafion Location Present The Sen'es property offers the following advantages due to its location: Pmximityto Woodburn'sthrec Primary Arterials, 99E, 211, and 214. · Proximity to Woodburn's established grocers, retailers and service providers. Proximity to Woodburn's downtown core and Opus NW site. · Esthetic environment, no freeway noise and pollution. · Pmxirnity to established utility infrastructure, notably Electric sub station and high pressure gas line. · Proximity to Serres Reservoir, Pudding River, and connecting wefland/bioswale for storm drainage. · Proximity to Woodburn Sewage Treatment Plant. · Inclusion completes city street system comprised of Landau, Tomlin, and Laurel Sweets and Cooley Road. · Inclusion resolves all development problems connected with Woodburn School District's East Lincoln Road property. · Introduces an opportunity for a major park on Wnodburn's East side centered around Serres Reservoir near term, Serres Reservoir and Pudding River frontage, long term. 8 Location Past The thing about location is it can't be moved. The location-based virtues we itemize were also recogniTed in the past. The City of Woodburn has contacted our family regarding Eastward expansion of the City in years past. The City's past intent is evidenced in the streets, laid out in the 50's and 60's, that end at our farm's boundaries. It was in recognition of these location-based advantages and anticipated Eastward development that the Woodbum School District purchased their 19 Acre East Lincoln Road property. Location Future We support SWIR and Opus Northwest's industrial park. But note that we do not support allocating all of Woodburn's future development rights to accommodate economic inftasmacture that doesn't yet exist and, in any scenario, will never account for all of the growth in our community. The current Plan argues that future residential areas must be located to accommodate the economic plan, but contains no provisions for synchronizing industrial development (SWIR and OPUS NW) with residential development. In the current housing market the proposed SA-2 residential area will build out faster than SWIR and Opus NW. V Conclusion-The Lost Alt of Compromise We were heartened that the April ! to June 13 testimony received by the council overwhelmingly supports East side development in preference to West side. The only testimonies not supporting East Side development were from Brian Moore and Dan Osbourne. Mr. Moore's testimony favored development of the Fessler property, and 1Mr. Osboum¢ argued against bringing in the school district property if the surrounding area wasn't brought in to share the costs of improvements, particularly E. Lincoln Road. We were disheartened that despite this overwhelming public testimony supporting East Side development over West Side development, the Comprehensive Plan amendments offer no substantive changes reflecting public sentiment. 9 Allowing modest East Side development simultaneous to West Side developmem seemingly would enable the City to meet all its needs, strengthen the school district, support 99FJMt. Hood Ave businesses, locate some housing away from the Interstate, and support the Opus NW and SWIR developments. Allowing some East Side development adjacent to the WSD E. Lincoln Road site would allow completion of the Laurel/Landau/Tomlin city street grid, and resolve the access and city services problems for the WSD site (See Figure 3, this page). But consideration of East side development would involve compromise, a quality absent fxom this process, which is continually characterized in black and white, either-or terms. Figure 3. WSD Site and Proximal Serves Land And this lack of compromise begs the question, is this Comprehensive Plan a done deal, consummated behind closed doors, with token public input? The lack of public testimony, the inadequate Public Services Study that was never discussed before the public, the admission of continuously slanted, unobjective, misleading testimony before the Council, the insistence on ORS 197.298 as the ultimate criterion for the UGB amendment, the lack of Goal 1 compliance, and the apparent deal making all suggest that this is the case. 10 City Councilor's, you are the people's representatives in this matter. Do you vote to follow the will of your constituents, in which case you will insist on an amended plan that provides balanced growth for all of Woodbum and supports your school district? Or do you vote to pass this plan as it stands--voting against the testimony of your constiment~ against the best interests of your school district, and against the present needs of your community? Thank you for your time and consideration. The Serres Family Attachments: A. Letter, David Duncan to Geoff Crook, DLCD, May 12, 2005 B. Letter, Geoff Crook, DLCD, to Serres Family, May 24, 2005 C. Storm Water Management and Post Construction Best Management Practices. CC: Geoff Crook, Department of Land Conservation and Development Les Sasaki, Marion County Planning Richard Stein, Ramsey & Stein, P.C. Jeffrey Tross, Consultant, Land Planning and Development Please enter this letter and its attachments into the public record in the matter of Woodburn Comprehensive Plan Update and Periodic Review. 11 David Duncan 1840 E. Lincoln Road NE Woodbum, OR 97071-5142 May 12, 2005 Mr. Geoff Crook Willamette Valley Regional Representative Department of Land Conservation and Development 635 Court Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2524 Dear Geoff: This is a multi-tasking letter. It' s a cover letter for the enclosed material and it is an inquiv] regarding LCDC policies. Thanks, by the way, for speaking at length with my wife, Susan Duncan on May 4. She appreciated the information you shared regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update Acknowledgement process. As you know from speaking to Susan, her family owns farmland abutting the City Limits of Woodburn. Susan and other family members have testified in favor of including their land in Woodburn's amended UGB. Please find enclosed copies of their testimonies, all of which are in the public record. Letter to City Council, January 30, 2005. Letter to City Council, March 23, 2005. Letter to City Council, undated, but submitted with March 23 letter. Letter to City Council, April 19, 2005. The Woodburn City Council, at its April 25, 2005 meeting, received testimony fxom an expert panel regarding several UGB expansion issues. The panel consisted of Terry Cole, ODOT; Jim Mulder, Woodbum Planning Director; Greg Wlnterowd, Winterbrook Planning; and David Torgeson, Woodburn Assistant City Engineer. The panelists addressed the issues listed in Agenda Item 1 lA, attached. At this meeting Greg Winterowd cited ORS 197.298, and stated explicitly that bringing the Sen-es land into the UGB would trigger a Comprehensive Plan remand to the City. This statement prompted Susan to contact you for clarification. Now I attended Woodburn Planning Commission's December 9, 2004 meeting, where I heard Greg Winterowd and Jim Mulder both say that UGB expansion meant bringing in high value farmland regardless of direction. So I'm confused by Greg Winterowd's black and white statement about farmland priority before the city council. I saw your very detailed March 16 letter to Jim Mulder on Woodbum's Comprehensive Plan Periodic Review. Since you are familiar with Woodburn's Comprehensive plan update, I would very much appreciate a written explanation that explains the various criteria and their relative importance when deciding which lands to bring into the UGB. Sincerely yours, David Duncan Attachment: Agenda Item 11 A, Pages 89 and 90, Woodburn City Council Packet for Council Meeting of April 25, 2005, .lx[f on line version. -O-r -gon Depa~h~tent of Land Conservation and Development Theodore R. Kuloogo~ki, Governor May 24, 2005 David Duncan, Serres Family 1840 E. Lincoln Road Woodburn, OR 97O71 Re: Woodbum Comprehensive Plan Amendments 635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150 Salem, Oregon 97301-2.524 Phone: (503) 373-0050 First Floor/Coastal Fax: (503) 378-6033 Second Floor/Director's Office: {503) 378-5518 Web Address: http://www, oregon.gov/LCD Dear Mr. Duncan: This letter is in response to your inquiry of May 12, 2005, in which you asked for an explanadon about the various criteria (and their relative importance) when deciding which lands can be approved for inclusion in an urban growth boundary (UGB). The proces~ for amending a UGB can be fairly complex, as there are many legal criteria and aspects of land use that must be considered and balanced during the analysis and review. As you requested, I have provided the basic decision making criteria and priorities for tha~ analysis here, based on the applicable Statewide Planning Goals, statutes and administrative rules. Decision-makinI Criterin~ The criteria applicable to the amendment of an urban growth boundary (UGB) are: Stntewide Plannin~ Goal 14 Goal 14- Urbanization: "To provide for an orderly and efficient lransition from rural to urban land use." This goal requires cities to have UGB to separate urbanizable land from rural land. Amendment ofa UGB is based on consideration of the following seven factors: (1) Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals; (2) Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability;, (3) Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services; (4) Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fi'inge of the existing urban area; (5) Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences; (6) Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the highest priority for retention and Class VI the lowest priority; and, (7) Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities. Factors (I) and (2) above are the "need" factors, which are used to determine whether there is sufficient land in a UGB to provide a twenty-year supply of land for a coordinated population projection. The need for residential lands can be justified through a housing needs analysis (guided by Goal I0 and ORS 197.296), with land supply determined by a buildable lands inventory. The need for employment opportunities is defined in Statewide Planning Goal 9 "Econongc Development" and OAR 660, Division 9, "Industrial and Commercial Development." Factors (3) through (7) above are the "locafional' factors, and are used to dcterrnin¢ which hnds would best meet the identified needs and should be included in the UGB. These factors encompe~ a wide range of issues such as: which lands can be most efficiently provided with urban services; which lands are most suitable for urban uses due to topography and othcr development constraints; tmural resources which should be protected; encr~y, economic end social impacts, both positive and nc~tivc; and protection of prime farmland. Urbanization Priorities- ORS 197.298 Specific requirements establish priorities for adding various types of land to a UGB as set forth in statute, ORS 197.298. Ono of the purposes of this statute is the protection of farmland. All lands of a higher priority must be brought into a UGB or shown to be unsuitable befor~ lands of lower priority can be used. The priorities, in order, are: 1. Lands desigl~ed ns an urhan rese~e; 2. "Nonresom~" land~ or "exception" lands which have rural residential or other development; 3. "Marginal lands" designated pursuant to ORS 197.247; 4. Lower quality farmlands; and 5. Hi~er quality farmlands. Excentions Process- Stntewide Plannin_~ Goal 2 To amend a UGB, a local government must follow the Goal 2 Exceptions process, as set fot~d~ in OAR 660-004-O010(1XC)(b). This requirement sometimes leads to some confusion. To follow the exceptions proc~.s does not mean that a UGB amendment require~ an exception to a Stn~-wido Planning Goal; for example, bringing farmland into a UGB does not require an exception to Goal 3. Also, some of the standards to address for an exception may be seen as duplicative of the Goal 14 factor~. The exceptions standards are: (1) Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply (this factor can be satisfied by compliance with the seven factors of Goal 14); (2) Areas, which do not require a new exception, cannot reasonably accommodate the (3) The long-term enviromnental, economic, social and eneq~ consequences (ESEE) resulting from the usc at the proposed site with measures dcsigocd to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than thc proposed site; and, (4) Tho proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures de~igned to reduce adverse impacts. 2 Thc first standard (reasons) requires nothing beyond the seven factors of Goal 14. The second (areas not requiring a new exception) hna two interpretations although these are not mutually exclusive. A UGB amendment must be justified by showing thai the need cannot be accommodated within the existing UGB (this is similar to Goal 14, fnctors 1 and 2). In addition, this standard can be applied to the pdorities in ORS 197.298 to nrgue that an exception area should not be brought into a UGB because it cannot reasonably accommodate the use. The third requires a comparison of lands outside the UGB to det~tuine which arc most suitable for urbanization, similar to the "location" factors (3) through (7) of Goal 14. The last exception standard requires a finding that the uses inside and outside of the new UGB would be compatible; for farm uses, this standard encompasses Goal i 4, factor 7. Other Ax~li~le Goals. Statutes and Rules As noted above, other applicable statutes, l~OalS and roles apply to UGB amendments (in varying degrees), depending on the scale and complexity of the proposed amendment. There are 19 Statewide Planning Goals, and UGB amendments are reviewed for compliance with all applicable goals. Beyond Goal 14 (Ufoanization) the most prominent goals that apply to UGB amendments are: Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources; Goal 9, Economic Development; Goal 10, Housing; Goal 1 l, Public Facilities and Services; and Goal 12, Transportation, and their implementing administrative rules. Amendments to Goal 14 wer~ adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (ICI)C) on April 28, 2005. Although adopted, these changes are not yet in effect and wiU not apply to Woodbum's plan amendments since the city began their analysis several years ago using the existing Goal 14 language. The information provided above, including the Statewide Planning Goals and details on DLCD policies ami rule amendments can be found on our agency website at http://www.lcd.state,or, us/ Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) can be referenced at the following site: http ://www.leg. st ,ate.or. us/ors/ I hope this information has been helpful. I can be reached at 503-373-0050 with any additional questions you may have. Sincerely, Geo ff Crook Regional Representative Photo by Consenmifon Design Forum StOrmwater Management and Post-Construction Best Management Practices Storm Water Management---Manage for High Frequency-Low Intensity Rainfall Events , Infiltration Systems The goal of infiltration based BMPs is to reduce the volume of runoff and contain potential pollutants on-site. Pollutants such as nutrients and hydrocarbons are treated by the microorganisms that exist in soils. Urban runoff can create thermal increases in water temperature that can impact stream ecology. Infiltration is the only way to reduce thermal pollution. Heated runoff is cooled to the temperature of the soil, which typically remains at a constant 55° F below the frost line. Infiltration systems mimic the historic groundwater seep that recharged surface waters. , Soil Quality Healthy soil should be able to absorb and hold water in pore space throughout the soil profile. When the soil profile is altered through land disturbing ac'dvifies and compaction, the pore space is reduced thus restricting water infiltraton into the soil. The organic matter content of the soil is the key to absorbing and holding water on-site which reduces the amount of runoff. The organic matter content of soils in Iowa is estimated to be 60-80% less than historic levels when prairies were first plowed. Restoring and protecting soil quality will be a key component of on-site water management systems that absorb and infiltrate more water and reduce runoff. Low4mpact Development (Smart Growth) Traditionally, stormwater management has involved the rapid conveyance of water to an engineered pond or surface water body. Low impact development (LID) is a different approach to stormwater management that modifies development to try to maintain some natural hydrologic function. This development method treats stormwater by on-site infiltration of rainwater. The management practices associated with LID may include some of the following: · Infiltration of rainwater through vegetated trenches and basins with some filtration devices; Landscaping methods that include rain gardens, biorention cells or bioswales, and native vegetation; · Stormwater conveyance through vegetated channels such as bioswales and directing runoff from impervious areas to vegetated areas; · On-site capture and storage of rainwater using rain barrels or subsurface storage; · Minimization of impervous area by using green roofs, narrower streets, porous pavement, concave medians, and landscaped traffic-calming areas. Protect and Restore Soil Quality: · Minimize land disturbing activities and avoid compaction · Increase organic matter content through the use of compost applications · Strategic use of native vegetation Low Impact Development Practices: , Vegetated Roof Covers Vegetated roof covers reduce the amount of impervious surface by capturing and evapotranspiring rainwater. The roof is multilayered and typically consists of a drainage layer covered by a manufactured soil matrix protected by growing vegetation. Green roofs may extend the life of roofs, reduce energy costs, significantly reduce stormwater runoff, and ultimately reduce the size of typical stormwater controls within the community. Roofs can be designed to accommodate specific Iow or high intensity storms by varying the media depths. , Rain Barrels Rain barrels are designed to hold rainwater collected from residential rooftops. Water is retained in the barrel and can be used for yard watering of vegetation. The barrels are designed with overflow options to allow water to infiltrate beneath the barrel or be redirected to such features as a rain garden. Barrels would be especially effective in areas of cities with combined sewers. , Rain Gardens A shallow depressional area planted to native vegetation that absorbs and infiltrates runoff from impervious surfaces and may discharge to groundwater, a storm drain, or surface outlet. Depending on site conditions a subgrade tile system may be recommended to enhance infiltration, especially where high water tables exist. Rain gardens reduce the volume of stormwater runoff pollutant loads delivered to surface water. Rain gardens can be used in individual residential, commercial, or institutional settings to mitigate impervious surface runoff. Storm Lake Rain Garden Newly completed ~ Bioretention Cells Bioretention cells are designed to function similar to rain gardens except that they collect larger volumes of runoff generated at sites with a high percent of impervious surfaces. They are often used in industrial settings, corporate campuses, shopping centers, or other sites with large parking facilities. The cells are designed with more temporary storage to accommodate larger volumes of runoff and consequently will have more depth compared to a typical rain garden. , Bioswales A vegetated swale is an alternative to standard below ground stormwater sewers. They intercept or receive impervious surface runoff and blend infill]'ation and slow conveyance of stormwater. The soil matrix of the swale can be amended to enhance infiltration and percolation. These systems can be engineered to absorb the high frequency Iow intensity storms but can convey the large storm events while providing vegetative §ltering. Bioswales can discharge to groundwater, storm sewer intakes, or directly to surface water. Land area prior to bioswale Installation (CDF Inc.) Well-vegetated bioswale after installation (CDF Inc.) Bioswale under construction in Davenport, Iowa (River Action) ~ Permeable Paving Alternatives These surfaces provide reduce site runoff by increasing infiltration into the soil. There are a number of permeable paving surfaces available from paver block systems to geoweb reinforced grass surfaces. These systems can be designed to infiltrate virtually any design storm including the lO0-year storm or they can be used strategically with impervious surfaces to capture the high frequency lower intensity storms. In addition to hydrocarbons, heavy metals, salts and other motor vehicle related contaminants, permeable paving altematives reduce TMDL contaminants and thermal polluUon. Porous pavement installa~ons, Iowa City. Iowa. Emopean installations of porous pavem. ~ Concave Medians: These are essentially construct, ed similarly to rain gardens and bio- cells except that they are placed in a median strip between two lanes of traffic or in parking lots. Depending on the setting, they may be confined to narrow cross-sec'dons, which may restrict their capacity to low intensity storms. Raised medians can be retrofitted by excavation and curb cuts to allow water to enter. Conventional Stormwater Management ~ Detention Ponds: Detention ponds temporarily store runoff and control the rate of release to reduce downstream flooding. In the past, detention ponds have not provided significant water quality benefits due to the short duration of storage and the lack of control of Iow intensity storms. The ponds will trap some sediment, but are not designed to capture the first flush of contaminants. Two-stage outlets can enhance the removal of these contaminants. , Retention Ponds: Retention ponds are designed primarily to manage stormwater discharge to prevent flooding. They can enhance sediment trap efficiency and can reduce some nutrient loading while controlling rate of release to control downstream flooding. They also provide an aesthetic amenity that doubles as wildlife habitat and a recreation source, and which also enhances property value. Two-stage outlets can enhance the removal of contaminants by increasing retention time of Iow intensity storms. ~ Constructed Wetlands: Constructed wet]ands provide water storage benefits similar to retention ponds. The filtering, biological, and chemical removal mechanisms provided by wetlands can also improve the quality of stormwater discharges. Wetlands are aesthetically pleasant and provide wildlife habitat and recreational outlets. The soils underlying the wetland should be relatively impermeable in order to maintain a permanent water level. Remnant native wetlands should never be used to store or treat stomwvater. Thermal and contaminant loads will degrade vegetative communities thus reducing biological diversity. June 27, 2005 DAN BLEM P.O. BOX 514 CLACKAMAS, OR 97015 (503)704-9742 ATrACHMENT B~ JUN ~ '; 2005 WOODBURN OIlY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE City of Woodburn City Council 270 Montgomery St. Woodburn, Or 97071 Re: 18 acted Commercial General property 2145 & 2155 Molalla Rd. To Whom it may Concern Additional information on the LDS Church Application and position, SEE ATTACHED. Discussed with Marion County planning department, what they thought about our property being residential. They felt with the LDS Church isolating our property from any other commercial property on 99E, the better use would be residential. Kim Ashland (503)390-0308 Kevin Ashland Dan Blem Ivan Semerikov NW LAND USE CONSULTANTS Sherwood Office: 395 N. Sherwood Blvd. P.O Box 1124 Sherwood, OR 97140 (503) 625-5529 Fax: (503) 625-4169 Emaih Mark~ottle.com Daniel B]em Fax 503 65%0910 April 25, 2005 RE: Woodbum LDS Church Dear 1~. Blem: You ask me to clarify the Church's position on its application. The application has been deemed COmplete by the City and we are now working with ODOT on the street issue. We are going to proceed with our application and the Church has no objection to your applicalion at this time. L I : ! ~J / / / Comp I~u_lvl~'{c.rnxd Woodburn Planning Division, (Jim Mulder): AI-rACHMENT B-~ I see that my written and verbal testimony have not swayed city staff to consider leaving my property at 1365 Nor& Front st. to be leR alone as CG zoned property. I have not received a call, letter or e-mail to try and come to a mutual agreement or arrangement to work something out. In my last letter I asked for a response and left all #'s and e-mail, ( I am including that again). Please respondl i I wish to try and work this out, but if that is not possible, I will be forced to use either measure 37 or whatever means necessary to protect my investment. I recently got an appraisal on the property at $438,000.00 and by you rezoning it, it would become virtually worthless, as RM property goes for about 150k an acre making it worth 105k at .70 acre after I spend who knows how much to clem'the buildings. My point is you would cost me the entire 438k at today's market value if you rezone this, who knows what you will cost me 20years from now, maybe 2 million dollars maybe more? Please reconsider this area, it is not the right or fair way to treat hard working people. Ask yourselves how would you feel about this happening to you or how would you treat it if your brother owned the land. I11 bet you would at least write or call him first. Please respond Richard Warnick 9925 72ad ave. Salem, Or. 97305 or call at 503-792- 3335 Home or 503-871-0361 Cell or e-mail at outwest~xpressdata.net Thank You .... Richard Win'nick Woodburn Planning Division, ( lim Mulder); 2-10-05 My name is Richard Warnick, I own the property at 1365 N. Front st., which is approximately.70 acre zoned CG. I have been told with your proposed amendments that my property could be re, zoned to RM if passed. This would radically decrease the value and usage of my property. I would like to make it known that I oppose this amendment on those l~'ounds. I have recently started a business on one end and gettin8 ready to lease the other partial that I am not usins. I was told that I could continue ffthis were that business or a like business, but that does not address the fact I am going to lease the other end to whomever miffJ~t want it for what ever type business and that could chan~e from time to _time over the years. It also does not address the fact that when I go to sell, no one will want to buy something with those conditions attached. Therefore devaluing the property. In your notes regarding my property, it states tha~ the buildings are run down and in need of repair, this is not true. There are 10,000 square feet of office, warehouse and shop space that are in excellent condition. I have new metal roof on all of it, metal siding on all the warehouse and shop, new siding on the front of office and the construction of warehouse and shop are steel tresses with some side wall to the south being block construction. Your notes also state that this property touches the RM property to the North, this is also not tree. This .70 acre does not abut RM zone property. There is yet another issue if you are to proceed. I recen~y went in and took out permits to install storm system and blacktopped everything out front of the property. If you had this in the works why didn't somebody say something instead you took my money and allowed me to invest a rather large sum in storm drain and blacktop. I don't want to cause problems but I cannot allow this to go through without some provision to leave me zoned as I am. If you have some ideas how we can work this out please feel flee to call 503-871- 0361 cell or 503-792-3335 or e-mail at outwest(~_,xpressdata, net or write to Richard Warnick at 9925 72~a ave. Salem, Oregon 97305. I would appreciate some kind of response. ,JUN ~ ,1:2OO5 · ,rune 23~, 2005 The enclosed map indicates how Woodburn's traffic can be solved. If you take a pencil and imagine that you are coming fi-om Newberg ltwy into Woodburn proper, you have the option to take a left on Crosby Ro,'d leading you to Portland, or you may go right into Silverton. Equally, coming from I-5 South, .there are many different directions as well as coming from 1-5 South onto 99E, in that case you have direct access to Woodburn's Shopping Center, otherwise you may $o toward Silverton or Portland. The same with coming from Silverton ,.nd Mol~lln, then again fi-om 99E from the North. And finally coming from 1-5 North arriving into Newber~ ltwy. This indicates how and why George Washington endorsed the design this architect made for Washington DC and the world has since followed. He was intelligent in more ways than one. It has taken the City of Woodbum ten to twelve years to recognize that they had the same possibilities as Washington DC had. This is the reason the enclosed plans will solve our traffic. ~1nd m my opinion everyone finally agrees. Sincerely, Keith Woollen, Retired Architect ,/ June :21, 2005 woo~bum c~ com~ ~ woodmm c~ Nau ~0 ~ Str~ Woodbum, OR 97071 ltF.,: ~ Amendmem 05.01 ATTACHMENT B-~/ I would lik~ to bring to your attention that mtr property is and has been for 30 years tl~ area moa surromd~ by th~ Urban Growth aoundaxy. Thi~ eree b ~reedy am-oundod l~ ~ to th~ Citi~ ~ C, oal (G.2)" the i~mi to aimpe th~ ii~o~rapbi© area ofthe city within the UBG so the ~ity limits de, ne a cosnpa~t servi~ ar~,, seems to ~ Shcerdy, 7052 SE ~ Drive Kathy Rohrer- 16 Abelard, Lake Oswego, OR 97035 Jim Adney - 16501 Arney Rd. NE, Woodburn, OR 97071 Steve Coleman - lfi151 Feyrer Park Road, ~V[olalla, OR 97035 Dennis Castor- 192 Cummings Way, Keizer, OR 97303 Perri Castor - 16548 Arney Rd NE, Woodburn, OR 97071 Patti Aflen - 3607 Umatilla, Prinevifle, OR 97754 T Woodbum City Council Woodbum City Hall 270 Montgomery Street Woodbum, OR 97071 16 Abelard Lake Oswego, OR 97035-2342 March 28, 2005 Dear Mayor Figley and Councilors: This letter (including the attachments) is submitted for your consideration at the hearing and through the completion of your deliberations regarding the current UGB expansion proposal. Please place a copy of it in the record. I am testifying at the heating and submitting this letter on behalf of myself nad three of my neighbors (the Castor, Adncy, nad Coleman families) who also own properties along Arney Road mid Amey Lane. The Planning Commission record will show letters wherein they consent to being brought within the Urban Growth Boundary and to my speaking slid writing on their behalf. Our four properties total about 110 acres within a larger area of approximately 125 acres. The area adjoins nad is north of Woodbum Company Stores. It stretches from the manufactured home area (the old "Nazarene District") on the west over to I-5 on the east. We all have owned our properties since 1979 or earlier. Ballot Measure 37 relief may be available, although we prefer to work with the City, rather than to take the Ballot Measure 37 approach. I will get right to our requests. We ask that you.modify the UGB expansion proposal, ;~o uth;et;;;a~uer ?r~eaa~nat~e~ ~,~a~c.l_u~d?_._wi~_..tl~_.' the .UG.B. Additionally, we ask that __o~u, ....., ..... -,.,,,.., ,.-u ,:,,nomn a uuxea use district that will, b ,,,,umauce~ ,naure mat rue area u developed for uses that take advanta e of and y compatible with) our area's unlr*ue vfslbili'-' fF g ( are .~ zy, reevvay access, and proximity to Woodburn Company Stores and other retail establishments. The district should protect the aesthetics and the neighbors who remalm in the area. If you feel aha b including our 12S-acre area within the UGB *.ou ,~- .... _. ~_ . t, y ~ ~u~n acco ~o rel~.oYe ri-om the proposal some farmland designated Industrial to make everytMn~ work within your projections, we suggest that you remove the farmland west of Butteville Road and, ffyou need more, some of the farmland in the southwest corner on the east side of I-$. Those other properties that could be removed are clearly "Resource Land" that should be protected as much as possible. Our area is not officially designated as such, but it likely would be determined to be an "exception area" as defined in ORS 197.298 and in Oregon Administrative Rules chapter 660, division 4. It is surrounded on three sides by Woodburn Company Stores, housing, and farming standpoint. - ...................... s ,,,,,,,.,, ~,,u racy ~ u~ae~tilizcd f~om a Our a~ca contains a concrete plant, a cell tower, an aucl~on l~usincss, a couple I~usinesses that arc '~agucly related to agriculture, and sc¥cral l~'sonal residences. RIVER PAG~ 03 Woodburn City Council March 28, 2005 Page 2 In my previous oral and writt~ tg~timony, I have given numerous examples of the kinds of uses that we have in mind for our area. Copies of my letters to you dated March 1, 2005, and to the Planning Commission dated Febmnry 7, 2005, nre attached at the end of the handout. They contain many of those examples. I won't go through them again here. I do want to point out, however, that our vision is not ours alone. In case you don't know or have forsotten, in 1999 a City Council-appointed committee called "Buildable Lands Citizen Advisory Committee" held numerous hearin~ and reported finding~ and recommendations to the City. Dave Christoffchaired that committee. The ~endations were shelved because of thc conflict with Marion County over the future population figures to be assigned to the City for purposes of determining land needs. By the time the population issue was resolved, the playen (including the consultant, the planning staff, and most of the elected nad appointed officials) had changed and the recommendations came out very differently, including the current proposal that bets most of Woodbum's future on the eonstn~on and success of a South By-Pa~. Let rr~ tell you about the recommendations of Dave Christoff's committee. That committee reoommended thai 65 acres of our area be brought into the UGB Md designated Light Industrial, with a Mixed Use Campus District designation. I will let you read from the committee's report for yourselves. It is attached in the middle ofthe handout. Included also are maps related to the committee's recommendations. I would like to hi~hlight several comments and t~mdings. They said (and I run several clauses together) "There are a number of commercial and industrial uses that compliment one another... A mixed use campus ... district.., would allow the opportunity for specific industrial and commercial uses to be in close association with one another...The mixed use campus would be subject to a strict design standard." We and thnt coraraittec don't have exactly the same concept in mind, but it is pretty close. We think thnt, not only do many commercial and industrial uses conducted by different businesses compliment one another, but also it is often difficult to tell exactly which one a particular business is. For examplc, you would normally say a shoe maker has a commercial operation at a retail location, but an industrial one where the shoes are made. However, what would it be in a location where they make the shoes, but they also have a showroom and salesroom as part of their entire business at that same location? We think that uses and businesses that have some of the characteristics of both commercial and industrial are also appropriate for our area. Wc would like to see an area similar to some of the areas along the west side of I-5 near Lake Oswego, along I-5 through Wilsonvillc, near Portland Airport, and along Highways 26 and 217. We disagree with the committee to the extent that we think that you should now bring the enthv 125 acres/nto the Urban Growth Boundary. Things have changed in several respects since 1999, including Woodburn Company Stores and other retail businesses along Amey Road, the population projections, and the urbanization of our PAGE Woodbum City Council March 28, 2005 Page 3 area. Thc 125 a~res would give us about 110 acres to develop, which is what we think would be necessary to attraet a developer who would be willing to look at thc big picture, to put in the necessary mad and signaling improvements, and to create a screening and a development plan that will protz~t the neighbors who will remain. Our group of four families has been in agreement for several years that, if reasonably allowed by the UGB, zoning, and economics to do so, we will attempt to sell all of our acreages at one time to one developer that we determine will likely carry out our vision for our area. The Buildable Lands Citizen Advimry Committee made specific findings minted to UGB Amendment B (which is specifically our area) and those findings include: The use of these parcels for industrial activity serves ns a buffer to freeway noise for the rcaidemial uses to the west. It is a better neighbor to adjacent wetland/greenways and existing residential area than current farming practices, i.e., chemicals, and pesticides pollution. Provides a buffer to vehicular poilu~on between fi'eeway and farmland uses to the west. Public facilities and an arterial street abut these parcels. · It upholds the concept ofmain~ing industrial uses on the periphery of the city. Incorporatca several small parccls of presently mixed uses into one [sic] land use objective. · Traffic generation from the site may cause congestion at thc time ofbuild out it' proper mitigation measures are not implemented." (I would like to point out that any development will cause traffic concerns, but traffic on the west side of the freeway is still far better than traffic is on the cast side. Since the findings of thc committee were issued, there has been substnntial mitigation of traffic problems done by and for Woodburn Company Stores, and the success of that retail establishment is some indication that the mitigation has been effective and that thc traffic along Amey Road is not a problem for retail businesses.) Imagine our surprise and disappointmem in April of 2004, when the battle with Marion County was resolved, but we found that thc recommendations of the Buildable Lands Citizen Advisory Committee had been ignored and thc emphasis was now placed almost entirely on future development going toward a South By-Pass. We have our own opinions regarding why there was a change in emphasis and whether a South By-Pass will ever get approved, funded, and built. And, even [fit does get built, what the timeframe will be. Aside from that, let me give you the reasons we think our area should be included in the UGB expansion proposal: Woodbum City Council March 28, 2005 Page 4 1. Out ares is an__d has beim for about the past 30 years thc area mos~ surr0tmded by the ~ That will be even more true if you now extend thc UGB north along Butteville Road and all the way to Crosby Road on the east side o£ I-$. You can see that very clcarly on the first page of the maps in the handout. As former Mayor, now Planning Commissioner, Dick Sermin~ so colorfully suggested at the hearing a month ago, "It looks like a drunken sailor drew thc proposed UGB linc in that area." He then went on to acknowledge that squaring off the UGB around our area is something he has wanted and promised to do for quite some time. However, he decided to not recommend that action at the Plamfing Commission hearing. 2. O_~ area is already surrounded and affected by urbaniza~iQn, This is basically the same reason that we should be considered an "exception area". Our area adjoins Woodbum Company Stores, the manufactured homes portion of the old Nazarene District, and I-5. Our parcels are small, especially in comparison to the parcels along the proposed South By-Pass and on the west side of Butteville Road. Our area wiU draw far less attention from conservation organizations and from county and state officials, who will be scrutinizing this proposal very carefully. Our parcels haven't been fully farmed for quite some time. It will have far less impact on local farming for our area to be developed than it will for those other parcels to be developed. 3. Our area already has streets. Oowcr. water, and sewer F~ni~_ri?ht B_D to it_ There is no need to wait for a South By-Pass (or a new freeway exit) to be approved, fimdod, and built. And there is no need to wait for or to pay for utilities and infrastructure to be drug nearly one mile to a South By-Pass before industrial development could commence there. You might be talking about a difference of over 20 years. If the purpose of this periodic review process is to designate an available 20-year supply of land, isn't it relevant how ready the land is for development and whether the area has economic viability? Hasn't Woodbum Company Stores, which is one of the largest and most successful retail developments in the Pacific Northwest, proven that our area is viable in terms of location, visibility, and traffic flow? In summary, we feel that our area should be included within the UGB based on its own merits. Your consideration of our position will very much be appreciated. One final nmtter that I would like to get in the record is that I wish to express my thanks to both Greg Winterowd and Jim Mulder for the time, coaching, and courtesies they have extended. We simply have a slight difference of opinion on this particular matter. Very truly yours, Martin W. Rohrer