MINUTES OF THE CITY OF HEPPNER CITY COUNCIL MEETING

HEPPNER CITY HALL, 111 N. MAIN STREET, HEPPNER, OREGON

7:00 PM, February 13, 1006

ATTENDEES:

Mayor Tim Van Cleave

City Manager, Dave DeMayo

Kay Robinson

Judy Buschke

Cindi Doherty, Council Chairman

George Koffler

Glenn Baker

Rusty Estes, Heppner Fire Department

Bruce Nelson, Chief, Public Works

Ann Spicer, City Attorney

Sgt Randy Rayburn, MCSD

David Sykes, Heppner Gazette

ABSENT: Tom Wolff

Members of the Public:

Bob Jepsen

Jerry Breazeale

Dick Sargent

Jeff Thompson

Jim Rollis

Gary Ball

1. GENERAL BUSINESS.

A) Call to Order. The February 13, 2006 meeting of the City of Heppner City Council was called to order at 7:00 PM by Mayor Van Cleave.

B) Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Van Cleave led the Council and attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance.

C) Announcements.

1) Mayor Van Cleave welcomed attendees to the meeting.

2) Agenda Additions. City Manager De Mayo announced that there were two additions to the City Managers Report:

a. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

b. Plant Watering.

D) Correspondence.

1) St. Patrick’s Celebration Announcement, Heppner Chamber of Commerce. Mr. De Mayo stated that in the past, the City has made a $100.00 donation to this event. Mr. Koffler recommended leaving this decision up to the City Manager. A basket was suggested in lieu of a donation. However, Mr. De Mayo stated that he preferred a donation.

Motion by Mr. Koffler that the City donate $100.00 to the Chamber of Commerce for the St. Patrick’s Day event. Seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion Carried unanimously.

2) Letters of Apology. These letters are from youth of the City apologizing for defacing the wet cement in the City during the water project. According to Mr. Nelson, the boys will be performing community service.

2. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE AGENDA.

1. Letter from residents of the Lott’s Addition in support of allowing Gary Ball to park and drive his truck in the area.

Discussion: Mr. Van Cleave stated that there was a concern at the last Police Commission meeting regarding parking trucks in residential areas. Mr. Ball is a resident of the Lott’s Addition area and parks his log truck at his home. Mr. Rollis also drives a log truck and parks his vehicle in front of his home on Elder Street. Mr. De Mayo distributed copies of the truck ordinance to the Council members.

Mr. Ball stated that he is trying to run a business and has large equipment which he cannot park downtown. He would like to be able to take his empty truck home. Mr. Rollis stated that he only parks his truck at his house when it is empty and he has been driving truck for 37 years. Neither of these vehicles are loaded when parked at the respective owners’ homes.

Mr. Baker voiced his opinion that the ordinance either be enforced, or the modified to allow the owners to park their empty trucks at their residences, since this is their livelihood. Mr. Koffler stated that he agrees with Mr. Baker and that the ordinance should either be cancelled or revised.

The Police Commission’s recommendation was to allow this practice to continue.

According to Ms. Spicer, this is an old ordinance and was probably passed because of weight limits on streets, and noise. The ordinance does not designate logging trucks. In answer to Mr. Van Cleave’s question on changing the ordinance, Ms. Spicer recommended that the City allow the City Attorney to draft a new ordinance. She also recommended that the Council direct the Sheriff’s Office not to enforce the current ordinance until such time as a decision is made.

Sgt. Rayburn stated that forbidding parking of the trucks by residents in order to perform maintenance would affect their livelihood. He agreed that the ordinance should be changed. Granting a special use would be agreeable to him.

Mr. Rollis stated that he does most of his repairs at Miller’s. Mr. Ball does minor repairs at his residence.

The Council agreed to direct the City Attorney to proceed with work on revising the ordinance, to include the public hearing process.

3. CONSENT AGENDA

A. Minutes of City Council Meeting, January 9, 2006.

B. Resolution No. ________, A Resolution Approving Accounts Payable for Payment

C. Monthly Financial Statement

Motion by Mr. Baker to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as presented: Minutes of January 9, 2006 Council Meeting; Resolution No. 629-06, Approving Accounts Payable for Payment; and the Monthly Financial Statement. Seconded by Mrs. Doherty. Motion Carried unanimously.

4. REPORT FROM THE FIRE CHIEF

Fire Chief Estes Reported that they had their first working wild fire of the year: A 5+ acre brush fire in Hardman. He also reported that the old Gazette Times building is almost completely demolished. The area still needs leveled, and Chief Estes will be working on grant applications. Plans are to eventually construct a storage facility for equipment and an upstairs meeting room.

5. REPORT FROM COUNTY SHERIFF’S REPRESENTATIVE

Mayor Van Cleave reported that Sgt Rayburn has agreed to continue handle all code enforcement actions for the City of Heppner.

A. Activity Report.

Sgt Rayburn reported that a new deputy is on staff, Brian Snyder. Deputy Snyder is currently working in Heppner and is doing a good job of issuing citations.

The department is currently 84 hours over.

B. Code Enforcements.

1) 340 Union Street. Sgt Rayburn is working with Mrs. Flaiz on removing the vehicle from the property.

2) 315 N. Chase Street. Cleanup action on this property is complete.

3) New Action: 255 Water Street, Cary Davis Property. This property was brought up as a result of a citizen complaint. There are numerous vehicles and other items scattered on the property.

4) There has been no new action on 440 Water Street, although enforcement was enacted at the January 9 Council Meeting.

5) Mrs. Doherty brought up a possible abandoned vehicle by the Wenberg property on Water/Jones Street, and the vehicle parked at the Forest Service building. Sgt Rayburn has discussed this vehicle with the owner.

6) Sgt Rayburn stated that he is working on a vehicle cleanup, but is still trying to find a location to set up the operation. The Port of Morrow has declined to allow the operation on their property.

Motion by Mrs. Robinson to proceed with the code enforcement action on 255 Water Street, Cary Davis, owner. Seconded by Mrs. Doherty. Motion Carried unanimously.

C. Contract Addendum.

Discussion: According to Sgt Rayburn, the addendum contains all items discussed at the last Police Commission meeting. Mr. Baker stated that Under-Sheriff Myren wrote the draft of the addendum which includes material that would be returned to the City in the event that the City would decide to go ahead with forming their own police department. According to Mr. Van Cleave, part of the reason for the addendum was that some of the equipment transferred to the Sheriff’s Department is no longer usable. The addendum specifies what is to be done with the equipment. It also provides for disposal of the out-dated equipment.

Motion by Mr. Koffler to approve the Addendum to the present contract. Seconded by Mrs. Buschke. Motion Carried unanimously.

D. Additional Discussion.

Mr. Koffler asked Sgt Rayburn how he felt about the Police Commission’s interest in having the Sheriff’s Department be more aggressive in enforcing actions. Sgt Rayburn states that he is in favor of this. However, there have been some comments, both pro and con, from citizens. The activity report will reflect these actions.

6. REPORT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. None.

7. REPORT FROM HEPPNER HOUSING AUTHORITY.

Mr. Jepsen reported that they are still struggling with the roof problem and vacancies. A Manager has been hired, Kathy Turner. Mrs. Buschke reported that one more tenant is moving out. This means there will be 5 vacancies in the center.

Mr. Koffler asked Mr. De Mayo if there is any news on the refinancing. Mr. De Mayo stated that there is one more piece of information needed before he can proceed further.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS.

Public Hearings opened at 7:43 PM.

A. St Patrick’s Senior Center Roofing Bid Award.

Mr. De Mayo reported that he has received bids from three roofing contractors as follows.

1. Broderick Roofing - $8,300.

2. Gillespie - $14,300

3. Palmer - $20,610

Each of these bids are broken down for repair of the roof proper, and the parapet wall.

Mr. De Mayo recommends accepting the bid from Broderick in Walla Walla/Hermiston. This would be a “fix.” Mr. De Mayo has inspected the roof with Mr. Broderick. Mr. Broderick pointed out that the membrane is still good, but needs to be re-sealed. The fixtures on the roof will be re-sealed, along with the parapet walls/tin flashing which will also be re-sealed. Stuart Dick from Pendleton has offered to seal the mortar with some type of rubber compound after the roof is repaired. Mr. Koffler asked if there was an exact scope of work to bid from and Mr. De Mayo stated that he had sent a letter outlining the repairs to all contractors contacted. The other item is the asphalt area in the corner which needs to be removed and replaced. Mr. De Mayo stated that by law we are constrained to accept the low bid.

B. Acceptance of Roads.

Mr. De Mayo stated that he and Mayor Van Cleave had met with the County on the Riverside/Fuller Canyon/Spruce Lane transfer. County representatives were in attendance at the January 2006 Council meeting and they presented their reasoning as to why it was the right thing for the City to accept the roads. Mr. De Mayo added that since that time, it has been brought to his attention: 1) Costs that the City had expended which was a little over $51,000; and 2) The City contributed many hours of flagging and controlling traffic.

Mr. Jepsen stated after reading and studying the January 2006 Council minutes, there is still another side to be told. He has asked Mr. Breazeale to also attend this meeting.

Mr. Breazeale: Stated that he wanted to clarify some of the discussions that were held regarding Riverside Avenue and the other roads. The City had scheduled Riverside Avenue for some grant applications. In discussions with Mr. O’Brien, the determined that they wanted to improve the entire length of Riverside to City standards, which would include curbs, storm drainage, and sidewalks for the entire length. The discussion was that if we did that would the City like to own the road. Mr. Breazeale told Mr. O’Brien that it would seem pretty fair if the road was brought up to City standards, realizing that there were some out-of-city properties that are directly served by that road. The City did put in an application for improvements to Riverside Avenue for OTIA funds through the NEACT process and applied for funding to upgrade the road to city standards to include curbs and sidewalks the entire length. The application was the highest rated; however Kunze Road improvement was chosen by the County for their number one priority because of the possible improvement of the speedway and the economic impact it would have for Morrow County as a whole. In order to make sure that the project went forward on Riverside, the state was going to be re-paving the highway between Lexington and Heppner and since it was scheduled, they said that if the base and everything was done on Riverside, they would include it in their paving project. Morrow County also agreed to help out by the existing asphalt and putting in the base rock. The State would then come in and pave the road. The road is up to industrial standards, but not up to City standards because there are no sidewalks or finished storm drainage. The City’s contribution was for engineering fees and in-kind work by the Public Works. Later on, Burke O’Brian approached Mr. Breazeale and suggested that the City take over Spruce Lane and Fuller Canyon Road. Mr. Breazeale replied that the City could consider sanding in the winter and helping with snow removal. Ownership was not agreed to or discussed.

According to Mr. Breazeale, if the City owned Riverside, this would make it easier for grant applications to complete the work to bring the road up to City Standards. The City’s out-of-pocket expenses on the project were minimal. Mr. Breazeale has no idea what the County spent on this project.

Mr. Jepsen: Mr. Jepsen reported that he had studied the January 2006 minutes. BEGIIN QUOTE: “With regard to the bridge replacement, in November, the interim City Manager had stated that the bridge would go with the streets. The bridge is in need of repairs, with lots of cracks. There is a difference between the bridge and the asphalt. Mr. Jepsen would like to see included that the County would help the City with road maintenance. Mr. Jepsen stated that Mr. Breazeale, Monte Grove, and Mr. O’Brien met and agreed that the County would do the project and upon completion the City would assume the portion of the road being discussed. Mr. Jepsen did not attend this meeting.

The City put $51,000 into the project. With regard to the statement by Judge Tallman that the City and the County would get a good deal, Mr. Jepsen does not understand the good deal. On the other two streets, no agreement has really been met. Nothing in the County Court minutes indicated an agreement on Spruce Lane and Fuller Canyon Road. The only thing the County had agreed to was that they would do the striping on Riverside and the City would pay for the striping. His understanding was that this project was not really acceptable in the December meeting and he was surprised to see it surface again in January. Mr. Jepsen stated that as former mayor, it is a big liability to take on these streets. They are out of the City limits; the City does not have the necessary equipment or the dollars to take this on. The County has road graders, rock crushers, a pugmill which takes gravel and mixes it with asphalt to make asphalt concrete. They also have a paver to lay this, big rollers, big trucks, and trailers. The City has none of this and if we need to do some asphalt, we usually get Blue Mt. Asphalt and this is very expensive. The City can’t afford this.

There are two ways we can go: The first one is to accept the streets and have a public hearing on it this evening. You always can have a motion to rescind and that means that you make void any action previously taken. A motion to reconsider requires some different things. A motion to rescind requires a second, is debatable, it is amendable, and a majority vote will rule if there is previous notice. He believes the notice is in the agenda this evening. There is another way to go. You can accept the road and then (this needs to be in writing) that the County has no intention of not helping the City if it takes over the road. We are saying that the City will own the road, but when it needs repairs, the City will let the County know. He would like to say that there isn’t any revenue that the City has off of that piece of property that the City calls the roads. The money that we do get within the City should be used within the City limits and then that would leave none for the road outside of the City limits. He thinks, looking back in the minutes, that the County did leave the City a way out and he would recommend if you go that way that the County has no intention of not helping the City and by all means we would need help if we took that on, so I wish to thank you for your time and let’s do what is right. Thank you.” END QUOTE.

Mr. Van Cleave clarified that the original motion was made to move forward on the process of public hearings, not to accept the roads. Mr. Baker asked whether Mr. Jepsen or Mr. Breazeale had said anything to lead anyone to believe that the City would take title to these roadways. According to Mr. Jepsen, he never attended any meetings. According to Mr. Breazeale, the only verbal agreement was to accept Riverside if it was up to City standards.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Sargent stated that he is the only resident of Spruce Lane. There is a lot of traffic going to and from the school on this road. There is a lot of liability if the City was to take over the road. There is also a lot of maintenance required. This has been an issue before because the culverts are not adequate to handle the water flow coming off the hill. There is one culvert that has been blocked. This road has a lot of traffic and the road is not adequate to support it, in Mr. Sargent’s opinion. The guard rail is not safe. Since the accident 2 +/- years ago, the County has done a good job of sanding the road. There are also a couple of places that are also washing out. Mr. Van Cleave stated he as thought quite a bit on how the City can work with the County. The County had stated that they would take over the maintenance and liability of the bridge. With regard to Fuller Canyon and Riverside, he doesn’t feel so bad about taking them on, but Spruce Lane needs lot of work to make it safe.

Jeff Thompson: Mr. Thompson stated that he is new to the City, but has gone through a similar situation before. His only thoughts were that they had the city engineer survey the road to see if the standards are being met. He recommends that the City have a City Engineer survey the road, determine the life expectancy, find out what kind of repairs were needed or recommended, and whether the City standards are being met. Some of the roads they did accept and some turned away. All of the roads were within the City limits. They declined on the roads in the UGB.

Mr. Van Cleave stated that the County had indicated that it would make sense to include the roads in the UGB. He asked if there is a way the City can accept Riverside. Mr. Koffler wondered if there is a way the County would agree to do the maintenance.

Mrs. Spicer stated that this could be done, but that Spruce Lane is very dangerous and would require a lot of maintenance. The County would have to agree to take care of major repairs. Mr. Koffler stated that we need to remember that the County contributed materials and manpower. The inference was that “the City cut a great deal.” His suggestion is that we consider accepting the roads with some kind of deed restriction that County would do the repairs. Mr. Baker stated that he doesn’t think the County will agree to this. He stated that this could be tried, but he doesn’t think the County will go for this.

Mrs. Doherty feels that the City should try to take the piece of Riverside. Mr. Van Cleave feels that if we don’t take all the roads, we may not get any help from the County. Mr. Sargent stated that he doesn’t think the City has the equipment, funds, and manpower to do the maintenance. Mr. Van Cleave feels that the City needs to make sure that road is sanded, etc.

C. Resolution Declaring Certain Property a Nuisance and Ordering Cleanup of Property, 340 W. Union Street, Map #2S 26 27DD, Tax Lot 1101 (Flaiz). Action to be kept open —Sgt Rayburn is working with the property owner.

D. A Resolution Declaring Certain Property a Nuisance and Ordering Cleanup of Property, 315 N. Chase Street, Map #2S 26 35BB, Tax Lot 4300 (Brosnan). Action complete.

Public Hearings Closed at 8:30 PM.

9. COUNCIL ACTION.

A. St Patrick’s Senior Center Roofing Bid Award.

Motion by Mr. Koffler to accept the bid from A&B Roofing (Broderick). Seconded by Mr. Baker. Motion Carried unanimously.

B. Acceptance of certain roads surrendered by Morrow County (Riverside Ave., Fuller Canyon Road, Spruce Lane). Motion by Mr. Koffler that the City accept the roads in question with a deed restriction that requires the County to perform any maintenance items over $2,500.

Discussion: Mrs. Spicer asked what specific items of maintenance are being discussed?

Seconded by: None. Motion was not seconded and failed

Motion by Mr. Baker to decline the acceptance of the roads that the County has offered to the City, i.e., Riverside Avenue, Fuller Canyon, and Spruce Lane. Seconded by Mrs. Robinson.

Question:

In Favor: Mrs. Buschke, Mr. Baker, Mrs. Robinson, Mrs. Doherty

Opposed: Mr. Koffler, Mr. Van Cleave.

Motion Carried.

According to Mr. Van Cleave, if another hearing is held, property owners will be notified.

10. MINUTES OF COMMISSION MEETINGS

A. Planning Commission. None.

B. Police Commission. January 26, 2006.

C. Utilities Commission. January 19, 2006.

D. Beautification/Parks and Lands Commission, January 12, 2006, February 9, 2006.

E. Housing Authority. No minutes provided.

F. Safety Commission. No minutes provided.

Discussion: Mr. Koffler stated that the City and Public Works have developed time lines on the parks and both Hager Park and the Old Pool Site are scheduled for completion by October. Mr. De Mayo stated that timers need to be installed on the sprinkler systems and he is going to budget for this.

11. REPORT FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

A. Activity Report. Mr. Nelson reported that they located two serious water leaks: 1) 325 Matlock Street, which was under the road. This was a 4 inch water line which was repaired. 2) The 4 inch line between the library and the RV Park has been leaking. Public Works crews moved the meter and pushed a 2 inch line through the 4 inch line which should correct the problem. The Little League field water lines in the “lower field area” are off until they can be repaired. This should reflect a substantial difference in water use.

B. Additional Discussion. None.

12. REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER.

A. Council members reviewed the written activity report provided by Mr. De Mayo on his actions for the last month. Mr. De Mayo reported that the City Code does not allow bicycle traffic on Main Street. There has been come concern that bicycles on the sidewalk are causing a danger, especially to the elderly. According to Mrs. Robinson, trying to enforce this is a problem. Mr. Baker stated that he doesn’t know what to do about this. Mrs. Buschke stated that parking on Main Street is also very dangerous. Mr. Koffler stated that he thinks bicycle riders should be kept off the sidewalks.

Mr. De Mayo stated that on February 16, 2006, at 2:00 PM, a meeting to discuss the UGB expansion will be held at City Hall. This meeting will be among the County Planning Department, City Officials, other state agencies, and ODOT, to address the UGB process.

With regard to the copier lease, Mr. De Mayo stated that the City is actually saving money this round, going from $5,100 to $3,700.

Mr. De Mayo stated that Cycle Oregon is asking the City to donate 20,000 + gallons of fresh water and would like the City to also accept their gray and black water. Mr. Nelson stated that he has discussed this with DEQ and this should not have any effect, but to dump it in a manhole as far away as possible from the sewer plant so that it will have time to dilute.

Tax Lot 6300. In the packets, a letter is included from Morrow County Grain Growers stating that they are interested in purchasing this lot. This needs Council action. The County Court was not upset over not transferring this to the County and would agree if the City were to give this to MCGG.

The cost for the League of Oregon Cities, Small Cities meeting will be less than $300.00.

With regard to franchise agreements, Mr. Kuhn has provided a memorandum on CenturyTel and Heppner TV. There are some changes in the provisions, but give more protections to the City. The City Attorney suggests all three agreements be adopted at the next Council meeting. According to Mrs. Spicer, final copies have been prepared. Mr. Arbogast has not reviewed the Heppner TV agreement.

Randy Sample will be undergoing surgery in March. He does not have much sick leave and is not sure how much recovery time will be needed. The personnel policy does not address transferring sick leave. Rene’ Devin and Brian Harmon have expressed a desire to donate some of their sick leave to Mr. Sample. They would like to do this so that Mr. Sample will not have to use all of his vacation leave. According to Mrs. Doherty and Mr. Koffler, normally, all of the employees’ leave has to be used up before donations can be accepted. Mr. Sample does have some vacation leave. Mr. Sample expects to be absent 4-6 weeks.

Mr. De Mayo stated that the Beautification/Parks and Lands Commission made a decision to have organizations, such as Boy Scouts, water the Main Street hanging planters for a financial contribution to the organizations involved.

Mr. De Mayo stated that the CRP program may go away. If this is true, it will change the drainage characteristics of the surrounding terrain, which may cause more runoff.

D. Action Items.

· Council authorization of Copier Contract. Motion by Mrs. Doherty to accept the copier contract. Seconded by Mrs. Buschke. Motion carried.

· Cycle Oregon water and sewage facilities. Motion by Mrs. Doherty to provide water and sewage facilities for Cycle Oregon. Seconded by Mr. Koffler. Motion Carried.

· Tax Lot 6300 Lease Disposition. Mr. De Mayo stated that Mr. Ripple, MCGG has agreed to purchase the property at the assessed value. According to Mrs. Spicer, this cannot be done unless the property is offered for public bid. She would like to research this further. Action tabled.

· Franchise Agreements – CenturyTel, Heppner TV, and Heppner Garbage Disposal. According to Mrs. Spicer, the agreement with Heppner Garbage Disposal needs further discussion, i.e., does the City want Mr. Green to provide a schedule for pickups. The City Attorney will include additional language on this. She will also add additional language on extra items for pickup. This will be provided for signature at the next Council meeting. The other two agreements will be ready to be presented at the next Council meeting. They need to be published as required prior to the meeting.

· Authorization for League of Oregon Cities, Small Cities meeting costs. Motion by Mr. Koffler to host the meeting and pay the costs. Seconded by Mrs. Doherty. Motion Carried.

· Voluntary Donation of sick leave to Randy Sample. Motion by Mr. Koffler to allow Ms. Devin to donate 40 hours of sick leave to Mr. Sample after he has exhausted all of his accrued sick and annual leave. Seconded by Mrs. Doherty. Motion Carried.

13. REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY. Items covered previously.

14. REPORT FROM MAYOR/CITY COUNCILORS.

A. City Council Goals for 2006. No action required. There has been no input from private citizens. These will be approved at the March 2006 Council Meeting.

15. ADJOURNMENT. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 PM.