Docstoc

BAKER CITY COUNCIL

Document Sample
BAKER CITY COUNCIL Powered By Docstoc
					                           BAKER CITY COUNCIL
                            REGULAR MEETING
                          Tuesday, January 10, 2006

#1) Call to Order             The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by
                        Mayor Charles Hofmann in the Council Chambers of City Hall.

#2) Pledge of                 The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilor Haynes
Allegiance/Invocation   and the invocation was given by Michelle Owen.

                               Roll call was answered by Mayor Hofmann, and
#3) Roll Call
                        Councilors Haynes, Bass, Ellingson, Daugherty and Petry.
                        Councilor McNeil was absent.        Also present were City
                        Manager Jerry Gillham, City Attorney Ethan Huff, Public
                        Works Director Tim Collins, Finance Director Laura Harryman,
                        Fire Chief Jim Price, Community Development Director
                        Jennifer Watkins, Technical Services Supervisor Gary Van
                        Patten and City Recorder Michelle Owen.

#4) Consent Agenda            The Consent Agenda contained the minutes of the
                        Regular Council meeting of December 13, 2005 and
                        consideration of a liquor license application from Elkhorn
                        Lanes, Inc.

                               The bowling alley has transferred ownership and the
                        new owners are required to submit an application to the city
                        and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) for
                        permission to sell alcohol. The Police Chief conducted a
                        background investigation and recommended approval of the
                        license.

                               Councilor Petry stated that he would abstain from
                        voting on the minutes as he was not present at the meeting.

                              Upon the MOTION of Councilor Ellingson to approve
                        the consent agenda, seconded by Councilor Daugherty and a
                        unanimous vote of those present and voting; the consent
                        agenda was APPROVED.

#5)Citizens’                   Mayor Hofmann then called for citizen participation.
Participation
                               Steve Culley, 2249 Virginia, stated that he was present
                        at the meeting to keep the issue of dangerous dogs before the
                        Council. He stated that the State has passed a law regulating
                        dangerous dogs and he would like the city to enforce the laws
                        pertaining to dangerous dogs.

                                             -1–
                          afea603d-7f23-4ffc-82de-5d8cd39dadb8.doc
                             There was no further citizen participation at this time.


     rd
#10) 3 Reading of           Mayor Hofmann then moved the 3rd reading of the
Ordinance No. 3251    Cascade Natural Gas franchise agreement up to this point on
Cascade Natural Gas
Franchise             the agenda.

                            Mayor Hofmann asked City Attorney Huff to read
                      Ordinance Number 3251 for the third time by title only.

                           Following the third reading Councilor Ellingson made a
                      MOTION to approve the reading. This was seconded by
                      Councilor Daugherty. Mayor Hofmann called for discussion.

                             Councilor Petry inquired as to the length of the
                      agreement and Mayor Hofmann replied that it was limited to 5
                      years at the request of Councilor Petry. Mr. Petry stated that
                      he would have liked the franchise agreement to include a
                      requirement to maintain a customer support center locally.

                           Mayor Hofmann called for a vote on the motion and it
                      CARRIED with Daugherty, Ellingson, Hofmann, Bass and
                      Haynes in favor, Petry opposed.

                                               Ordinance No. 3251
                                 An ordinance granting a non-exclusive right,
                      privilege and license to Cascade Natural Gas Corporation
                       to utilize the streets, alleys and public places of the City
                      of Baker City, Oregon, to construct, maintain and operate
                      a natural gas utility system within the corporate limits of
                        said city, fixing the terms and conditions thereof, and
                           establishing the effective date hereof and repeals
                                           Ordinance No. 3101.

#6) Resolution No.            The next agenda item was discussion of the
3535 Accepting the    engineer’s report for the Elm Street Local Improvement
Elm Street LID
Engineer’s Report
                      District (LID).

                              The City has prepared an engineer’s report as
                      requested for the 2006 Elm Street Local Improvement District.
                      This report covers proposed improvements to Elm Street from
                      E Street to H Street and also improvements to F Street from
                      Grove Street to East Street- a total of five blocks. Under the
                      LID procedural ordinance, No. 2344, the Council will consider
                      the submitted report. If it approves the report, the Council
                      then calls for a public hearing at which time the public will

                                           -2–
                        afea603d-7f23-4ffc-82de-5d8cd39dadb8.doc
have a chance to remonstrate against the project and the
Council will decide whether to actually construct the
improvements.      The Council had requested alternative
methods of assessment, which have been prepared and
distributed to Council for consideration.

       The report estimates the total cost of the project to be
$386,612.29.      Of this amount, $18,549.73 is due to
improvements necessary to the city water and wastewater
systems and will paid for by those funds. Of the remaining
balance of $368,062.56, $345,009.10 is proposed to be
assessed against the benefited properties bordering on the
improvements. The difference between the LID assessments
and project costs, exclusive of city utilities, is due to the cost
of private driveways to be paid for by the property owners.

      The first engineer’s report set forth a method of
assessment which divided the $345,000 cost of the project
among the individual dwelling units which are either
constructed on the property or are reasonably anticipated to
be constructed. Properties within the district that already
fronted on an existing paved street were presumed, according
to the report, to utilize improvements at a lower level and their
assessments were therefore set at 50% of a dwelling unit.
The district has a total of 33.5 existing or proposed family
units within it and dividing the project costs by that number
gave an estimated assessment per dwelling unit of
$10,298.79. This amount did not include the private driveway
costs due to the fact that these may vary greatly among
property owners depending on their wishes.

      Because of concerns about the amount of the
assessment against certain of the properties, the City Council
asked that the report be returned with alternative methods of
assessment based more on front footages rather than
dwelling units. Therefore a new report has been furnished to
Council with five different possibilities. All of these are still
based on the original 5-block district. Changing the size of the
project would involve a complete revision of the engineer’s
report.

      The first proposal is the original method based on
dwelling units. There are slight changes based on the fact
there are only 33.5 units in the area, not 35.5 as erroneously
used in the first report. This would place about 2/3 of the cost
($237,000) on the developer of the duplexes.


                     -3–
  afea603d-7f23-4ffc-82de-5d8cd39dadb8.doc
      A majority of the council at the last meeting were
interested in returning to the City’s historic method of
assessment - front footages. There are three possible
methods using these general criteria. The first of these is a
simple division of the total project cost by the total footage of
property in the district. The cost per front foot would be
$128.9273. This method puts a heavy burden on the owners
of corner lots and is perhaps out of proportion to the actual
benefit provided. Staff also prepared an alternative that uses
the front footage method but provides relief to the owners of
corner lots by assessing the secondary side at 50% of the
regular footage charge. Finally, at the suggestion of a
councilor, staff prepared an alternative that takes into account
properties that did not front on Elm Street but use it for
access. This one is called “front footage corner relief
modified”.

       When Bowers Properties, LLC received building permits
for the first set of duplexes, it signed an agreement not to
remonstrate against an LID for the construction of Elm Street
from “E” to “G” and “F” Street from Grove to Elm. This 3-block
section has been increased to five at the request of the
council. This has the effect of removing any restriction on the
ability of Bowers Properties, LLC to remonstrate.

        City Manager Gillham stated that Mr. Collins written
staff report was very complete. Mayor Hofmann stated that
whatever method of assessment is adopted there will be a
public hearing at which the concerned parties may testify.

       Technical Services Supervisor Gary Van Patten briefly
reviewed the five methods included in the staff report. Mayor
Hofmann asked for any questions from Council. Councilor
Daugherty asked what the traditional method of assessment
had been. Mr. Van Patten stated that in the 1970’s and
1980’s a straight front footage assessment was used. Mr.
Collins stated that on the Birch Street LID the property
owners had to pay for only 20% of the whole project. In the
Elm Street case there is no money for subsidizing the LID
and property owners must bear the full cost.

       Councilor Petry stated that he has represented five of
the properties through his work as a real estate agent and he
would not be voting on the issue.

       Councilor Ellingson verified the process of forming the


                     -4–
  afea603d-7f23-4ffc-82de-5d8cd39dadb8.doc
LID. Mr. Collins confirmed that a hearing would need to be
held. Councilor Haynes expressed displeasure at having the
assessment method determined by the Council. He stated
that no one is ever happy about being assessed, but it is a
necessary part of development. Mr. Collins stated that City
ordinance requires the engineer’s report to be approved by
Council and the Council has always approved the report and
method of assessment. In the past, Mr. Collins said, only the
front footage method was ever considered.            The only
exception to that, stated Collins, was the Indiana LID where a
modified front footage method was used, but the overall
dollars involved were not as great as the Elm Street LID.

      Mayor Hofmann explained that this particular LID is
more complicated because additional blocks have been
added to the original proposal of the LID. He said that the
reason for the LID was because of the new development, it
was not a request of the original homeowners.

       City Manager Gillham stated that the past LID’s
involved primarily single family dwellings and this is the first
to involve many multi-family dwelling units and led to the
alternate assessment approach.

      Ralph Ward, Elm Street property owner, stated that he
had a concern that the dwelling unit assessment meant he
would be responsible for about $49,000 and the straight front
foot method would require him to pay over $100,000. Mr.
Ward stated that the lots that he could subdivide and sell
would not even cover the amount of the assessment.

       Milo Pope, attorney for Ann Mehaffy of 3245 Elm,
stated that initially the LID did not include Ms. Mehaffy’s
property. He read a letter from Ms. Mahaffy stating that she
had heard from a real estate agent that the value of her
property may be reduced by the development of the street.
Mr. Pope reviewed the Council’s actions to this point on the
LID. He said that the non-remonstrance agreement signed
by Mr. Bowers should have been in place sooner. He also
said that the value of his client’s property will not increase
with the development of the street.

       Gary Dielman, 1515 4th Street, questioned why Mr.
Petry was not voting on the matter. Councilor Petry replied
that he had represented homeowners in the Elm Street LID
area and he and Mr. Bowers are personal friends. Mr.


                    -5–
 afea603d-7f23-4ffc-82de-5d8cd39dadb8.doc
Dielman stated that while he was part of the Council any
councilor with a conflict was to sit out the entire discussion.
Mr. Dielman stated that he did not understand why the
developer was not completely responsible for the cost of the
street construction.

       City Manager Gillham defended Councilor Petry’s
decision to declare a conflict of interest and still participate in
the discussion.

       Alvin Ward, 39449 Pocahontas Road, stated that his
office at 1500 H Street is being torn down. He said he had
concerns with the survey done on the whole area. He said
that he would like to see the development of the Elm Street
stop at G Street and not carry through to H Street.

       David Bowers, 42880 Hudson Road, said that he is in
favor of the Elm Street improvement but not the additional
development of E Street from Elm to East. He said that he
would be willing to fill in the mud and chip seal that area.

       Delores Scott, 3150 Elm, stated that she knew the LID
would occur in the future, but understood the cost would be
about half of what is now being discussed. She wanted to
confirm the amount of her assessment.

        Chuck Coughran, 3115 Elm, said he supports the
development of the street, but he was concerned with extra
costs of having an additional half lot. Mr. Van Patten
explained that extra curb costs more and he would be
charged actual costs for the driveway apron. Mr. Van Patten
estimated $5.25 per square foot cost for the apron. Mr.
Coughran stated that he felt more money should be spent to
fix the streets Baker City already has because they are very
rough.

       Daniel Labonte, 3055 Elm, stated that he is a disabled
Veteran and is concerned about the large assessment on his
portion of the street.

       Don Worley, 3045 Elm, stated that he is not against
the street but he feels that the dwelling unit method makes
more sense because the duplexes have more vehicles using
the street.

       Mayor Hofmann said he appreciated the discussion.


                    -6–
 afea603d-7f23-4ffc-82de-5d8cd39dadb8.doc
                    He said he felt it was good policy to extend the street
                    development on Elm from G to H, but it shouldn’t be part of
                    the LID. Mayor Hofmann also said that improving E Street
                    from Elm to East was also a good idea, but understood it was
                    not part of the original agreement signed by Mr. Bowers.

                           Councilor Daugherty made a MOTION to request a
                    revised engineer’s report including only the three original
                    blocks on Elm Street with a straight front footage assessment
                    method. This was seconded by Councilor Haynes.

                           Upon clarification of the motion Mayor Hofmann called
                    for the vote. The motion CARRIED with Haynes, Bass,
                    Hofmann, Ellingson and Daugherty in favor and Petry
                    abstaining.

                            Mayor Hofmann called for a brief recess at 8:10 pm.

#7) BCU Marketing          The meeting resumed at 8:12pm. The next agenda
Plan and Budget     item was approval of the Baker County Unlimited (BCU)
Approval
                    budget and marketing plan.

                             City Manager Gillham stated that he would like the
                    City Council to authorize the city’s participation in a task force
                    formed in connection with Baker County to address the
                    transfer of transient room tax collection to the County from the
                    City. Mr. Gillham also asked that a city representative be
                    assigned to that task force.

                            Upon the MOTION of Councilor Ellingson to approve
                    the participation in the task force and to appoint Mayor
                    Hofmann and Mr. Gillham to the group, seconded by
                    Councilor Petry and a unanimous vote in favor; the motion
                    CARRIED.

#8) Airport                 The next item on the agenda was a report from the
Commission Report   Airport Commission and a recommendation for proceeding
and FAA Grant
Recommendation      with the FAA grant application process.

                            The Airport Commission had met to review draft
                    documents from the engineers on the airport improvement
                    projects. The Commission prioritized necessary projects with
                    the desire of completing the top four priorities including the
                    repair to the connector taxiway, the construction of a FBO
                    taxiway and a t-hangar taxiway and the construction of
                    several t-hangar units.     The cost estimates exceeded


                                         -7–
                      afea603d-7f23-4ffc-82de-5d8cd39dadb8.doc
                     available funding and the Commission will meet again to
                     evaluate options for reprioritizing projects and consideration of
                     further funding opportunities.

                             City Recorder Owen stated that the Airport
                     Commission was scheduled to meet the following week and
                     formalize their recommendation. Ms. Owen stated that she
                     would prepare a report for the next Council meeting.

                             Councilor Daugherty asked if the FAA dollars were
                     available. Ms. Owen stated that all of the projects being
                     considered had been included in the previous master plan and
                     would be approved by the FAA as grant eligible projects. She
                     said the approximately $400,000 is available when the City
                     has the 5% match.

                              Mayor Hofmann stated that the item would be tabled
                     until the next meeting.

#9) Discussion of           The next agenda item was discussion of the
Environmental        environmental assessment needed for the replacement of the
Assessment for the
Mountain Waterline   waterline within the watershed area.

                            Mr. Collins stated that the reconstruction of the road
                     within the watershed necessitates the environmental
                     assessment. Mr. Collins said that the City could use a private
                     consulting firm or hire a Forest Service team to do the work.
                     The project will take about 9 months according to Mr. Collins.
                     He said the cost will be substantial, perhaps around $100,000.
                     Councilor Daugherty inquired as to the availability of a Forest
                     Service team. Mr. Collins replied that a team from Boulder,
                     Colorado had already visited Baker and gave staff an
                     overview of the process. Mayor Hofmann stated that using a
                     Forest Service team may have advantages but the scope of
                     work really must be defined.

                           Mr. Collins said that he would bring back further
                     information on the process in the future.

#11) January 17,            Mayor Hofmann introduced the topic of the Council
2006 Work Session    Work Session scheduled for January 17, 2006 at 5pm at the
Discussion
                     Sunridge Inn. He distributed draft agendas and stated that
                     the meeting would include department heads presenting their
                     top three issues of their departments. Then he said the
                     Councilors would have an opportunity to bring up their issues
                     of concern followed by the City Manager’s description of the


                                          -8–
                       afea603d-7f23-4ffc-82de-5d8cd39dadb8.doc
                     work plan. Mayor Hofmann also stated that it was important
                     to leave the meeting with criteria to use to evaluate Mr.
                     Gillham over the next six months. Mayor Hofmann said that
                     the Council Goals would be reviewed. Councilor Daugherty
                     requested an executive session to briefly evaluate Mr.
                     Gillham’s performance thus far.

#12) City                   Under City Manager Comments, Mr. Gillham explained
Manager/Department   a memo the council had received from Chief Mason regarding
Comments
                     a seat belt grant.

#13) Council               Both Councilor Ellingson and Mayor Hofmann thanked
Comments             the Public Works staff for the efforts in clearing snow recently.

#14) Adjourn               There was no other business to discuss and the
                     meeting was ADJOURNED at 8:30 p.m.

                                            SIGNED:__________________________
                                                            Mayor

                     ATTEST:_________________________
                                        City Recorder




                                          -9–
                       afea603d-7f23-4ffc-82de-5d8cd39dadb8.doc

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:15
posted:7/17/2010
language:English
pages:9