MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES OF THE CITY OF HEPPNER

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

July 14, 2003

PRESENT:

Mayor Bob Jepsen

City Manager, Jerry Breazeale

Public Works, Craig Canham

Deputy Randy Rayburn, MCSD

Deputy Phil Morris, MCSD

Deputy Jamie Rietmann, MCSD

Bill Kuhn, City Attorney

Council Members

Judy Buschke

Tim Van Cleave

Merle Cowett

Kay Robinson

Tom Wolff

Absent: Cindi Doherty

Visitors:

David Sykes, Heppner Gazette

Deborah Kendrick, Planning Commission

Jerry Gentry, Planning Commission

Suzanne Jepsen, Planning Commission

Cheryl Jarvis-Smith, ODOT

Jerry Healy

Pam Schmidt

Louis Carlson

1. GENERAL BUSINESS:

A) Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Jepsen at 7:00 PM.

B) Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Mayor Jepsen led the Council and visitors in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

C) Announcements:

Mayor Jepsen welcomed visitors to the Council meeting.

Mayor Jepsen announced that one council member was absent and that there were a number of additions to the Council packet. Water Street paving was also added to the agenda under Public Works.

D) Approval of the Minutes from the June 9, 2003 Council Meeting. The Council reviewed the June 9, 2003, minutes with the following corrections:

(1) Page 2, Para G, last line, change “work” to word.

(2) Page 4, last para, Mr. Wolff stated that he had made a point of stating at the meeting that the March 23 letter had no meaning because the deadline for notices to the city is March 1.

(3) Page 5, Item 6, line 3, change “commuter” to “comminutor.”

(4) Page 6, Para 10C, Mr. Wolff asked to have “bathroom improvements were not done.”

(5) Page 7, second para, line 2, change “deeds” to “needs.”

(6) Page 7, second para, line 3, change “q” to “a.”

(7) Page 7, second para, line 8, change “information” to “calculations.”

(8) Page 7, third para, Mr. Wolff asked for clarification as to whether this relates to the Little League fields only, and Mr. Breazeale stated that this refers to the Little League fields.

(9) Page 2, Para 1E, change to City Manager Breazeale administered the oath of office to Mr. Cowett.

Page 2, Last sentence, should read: “…………..could be…….”

Mr. Van Cleave moved to approve the minutes of the June 9, 2003, meeting as corrected. Seconded by Mr. Cowett. Motion Carried.

E) Approval of the Minutes from the June 23, 2003 Council Meeting. Mayor Jepsen explained that this was a special meeting. These minutes were reviewed by the council, with the following changes:

(1) Page 3, Line 3, change to “..looking at…..”

(2) Page 4, Item3, sentence 3, change “aalso” to “also.”

(3) Page 5, para 9, second line, change “would” to “could.”

Mrs. Buschke moved to approve the minutes of the June 23 meeting as corrected. Seconded by Mr. Wolff. Motion carried.

F) Report from Planning Commission.

Ms. Kendrick reported that there has been a problem with the recent Planning Commission meetings due to the fact that a quorum has not been present and members have not given notice that they will be absent from the meetings. One member has been consistently absent from the meetings and this member should be removed from the commission and a new member appointed. Mr. Breazeale will take action on this item.

G) Correspondence.

(1) Mr. Breazeale reported on the anonymous correspondence, to include photos, sent to the City Manager and City Council. These concerned the City yard on Riverside Avenue. Mr. Wolff asked if the City yard was industrial zoned. Mr. Breazeale stated that it is zoned industrial and that Mr. Canham had pointed out that this is a central location for people to bring their scrap metal for disposal rather than have it scattered throughout the community. Industrial zoning allows this activity. Landscape screening along the creek has been discussed.

(2) Correspondence from the Willow Valley Service Club requesting use of the City Park on July 25, 6-9:00 p.m. for Music in the Park in connection with Celebrate Heppner Days. Mr. Wolff inquired as to whether a flat-bed trailer would be used for the band, and if so, could the stipulation be added that a utility department person will work with them so that they don’t drive over the sprinkler heads and damage them. The park is available on this date.

Mr. Wolff moved that they be allowed to use the park on July 25, with the above stipulation. Seconded by Mrs. Robinson. Motion carried.

2. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC.

A) Oral communications from the public not on the agenda.

(1) Letter, Willow Creek Valley Economic Development Group, July 10, 2003. Mr. Sykes explained that the council has a copy of a letter that has been included in a mailing that was sent to targeted businesses that would work well in Heppner. The sic code list came from the ELESCO study that was done by the county. Packets of information have been sent out and to date, they have received 31 responses. The next step will be to follow up with a call to the businesses that were sent the packet. One of the responses included favorable comments on the lower electrical rates in this area. Two volunteer groups assisted with the mailings.

B) Request for Animal Permit (renewal) – Chelsey Hedman, 440 S. Main, requesting permit for 1 sheep.

C) Request for Animal Permit (renewal) - Whitney Matthews, 1155 Rock Street, requesting permit for 3 sheep.

D) Request for Animal Permit (renewal) – Ashley & Kelsey Wolff, 180 Rock Street, requesting permit for 3 rabbits.

E) Request for Animal permit (new) – M. A. Elguezabal, 70 Canyon Dr., requesting permit for 4 lambs.

Mr. Van Cleave moved that animal permits B through E be granted provided that if the animals become a nuisance, they will be removed from the city. Seconded by Mrs. Robinson. Motion carried.

3. PUBLIC HEARINGS.

A) Ordinance No. ____, An Ordinance Amending the Heppner Comprehensive Plan, the Heppner Zoning Code, and the Heppner Subdivision Code, Facilitating and Implementing the Heppner Revised Transportation System Plan, Providing for Downtown Development District, Adjusting Street Standards, Parking Requirements, Street Access Requirements, Landscaping Requirements, and Declaring an Emergency.

Discussion:

(1) Ms. Kendrick stated that after many meetings, workshops, and discussions, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to accept the recommendations of the Mitchell-Nelson Group.

(2) Mr. Jepsen stated that the June 2 Planning Commission minutes included in the packet have not been approved due to the fact that a quorum was not present to approve them. Mr. Jepsen quoted the actions that were recommended in the June 2 and June 23 meetings. There were no objections to the plan on June 23. He feels that if the Planning Commission makes a firm recommendation, the City Council usually endorses it. Mr. Wolff inquired if the packet distributed at this Council Meeting included the changes discussed at the June 9 meeting, and the recommendations from the June 23 meeting which are attached separately (pink pages). Mr. Kuhn has stated that this method is legally appropriate rather than doing a whole new ordinance with the changes. Mr. Wolff asked if the council was being asked to adopt an ordinance with a codicil to it and why not fix it before it was adopted. Mr. Kuhn stated that the way things were left at the last Council meeting was that there was no definite action and Mr. Wolff instructed Ms. Jackson to look at removing a section, which she did. If the Council decides that it is going to adopt all of these removals, then the ordinance will be adopted sans the items included on the “pink” pages. Mr. Van Cleave stated that the Planning Commission had met since the Council meeting, and the Planning Commission’s approval was for the document before the deletions. Mr. Wolff brought up the fact the Planning Commission could not take action at the June 23 meeting because there was not a quorum. Mr. Jepsen stated that the June 2 recommendation still stands. Mr. Wolff asked where in the deletions did it state deleting the concrete median in front of Columbia Basin’s driveway and doing away with the 10 foot sidewalk on one side of Riverside Avenue and the 6 foot sidewalk on the other side. He questions whether these would be deleted. Mr. Breazeale replied that when Ms. Jarvis-Smith asked for specifics on what the Council wanted, the original motion which was rescinded deleted those items, and included clarification at the end which dealt specifically with the deletions shown. There were no other deletions mentioned in that discussion. Mr. Wolff moved to table this action for another month until the deletions discussed on June 23 were made. Mr. Jepsen informed Mr. Wolff that this portion of the meeting was a public hearing and no action could be taken. Mr. Kuhn stated that all that was included was the ordinance and he isn’t aware about what is in the new packet which also includes the Transportation System Plan. Mr. Breazeale is not sure whether the median and sidewalk changes are included in the last version of the plan. The consensus was that the zoning code (pink pages) included the items removed. Mr. Jepsen stated that this was not brought to a vote in the hopes that Mr. Breazeale, Ms. Jackson, and Ms. Jarvis-Smith would assemble the document minus the deletions discussed. Mr. Jepsen cannot understand why Mr. Wolff is so dead set against quite a few of the items in the document since these are some of the things that will help to beautify Heppner and make it a more attractive place to live.

Mr. Van Cleave noted that Jerry Gentry was not present at the June 2 Planning Commission meeting and asked if Mr. Gentry was in agreement with the vote that was taken at that meeting. Mr. Gentry stated that he is not up to date with all the actions taking place, but basically he is in agreement with Planning Commission actions. Mr. Van Cleave stated that he has had a difficult time in deciding how to vote on this. He stated that he can see the concerns, but feels there is enough leeway that the document is not absolutely binding and we need to leave the goal out there. He had been told that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the ordinance be approved. He agrees with the Planning Commission’s decision, even though he has some reservations. However, he understands that this document governs future actions and is not for immediate implementation. Ms. Kendrick stated that the Planning Commission is made up of very knowledgeable people and the document is very basic and flexible. She said that variances are granted frequently. Mr. Jepsen stated that he has attended at least four meetings and that he felt that the documents have been refined and are easily understood. Mr. Gentry stated that there are some items in the document that are not applicable to Heppner. However, the consultants don’t live in Heppner and some of the items in the plan are not worth deleting. Further discussions indicated that much of the work is years down the road. Mr. Carlson stated that there a lot of work is being paid for from sources out of the area, and that the City Council should be forward-looking in the amenities of beautification. We have to make Heppner as much of a destination as we can. He urged the City Council to take the high road and strive to reach their goals.

Mr. Jepsen asked Mr. Wolff to state his definite ideas and identify those that he absolutely does not want included in the ordinance. Mr. Wolff stated that his concern with the code sections is the cost to the citizens of the city. He said that the homeowners in Heppner have the highest tax rate in the surrounding area. Due to this, he feels that we are pushing ourselves into oblivion. Mr. Carlson feels that if we don’t have goals and the desire to meet them, we might as well “fold up our tent and go home.” Mrs. Buschke stated that in her opinion, the goals should not be too far out since Heppner does not have the traffic problems of cities like of Hermiston and Wilsonville. Mrs. Robinson said we need to keep Heppner’s individuality. Mrs. Buschke stated that she feels that some of the items are too far out and unnecessary, in particular, the left turn lane at Hinton Street. Mrs. Robinson agrees with Mr. Wolff on the cost to the citizens since much of Heppner’s population is older and on fixed incomes. She stated “I don’t want to get us into a jackpot where it is too expensive to live here.” Mr. Cowett asked if this is the document that the Planning Commission agreed to recommend to the City Council, and asked what the Planning Commission’s decision would be when a quorum was present. He stated that he has always had concerns about the intersection at Hinton Street. Mr. Van Cleave proposed postponing action until the Planning Commission has reviewed the changes again. He asked whether Mr. Wolff would feel comfortable having the Planning Commission review the document again. Mr. Wolff stated that he is not certain that the “pink pages” cover all the documents that the council is being asked to approve. These may be all the deletions requested on the code sections, but he is not sure where the code sections apply as far as the sidewalks on Riverside, the concrete median turn lanes at the Hinton intersection, and a boulevard with a center median going down Highway 74. Mr. Van Cleave asked if the Planning Commission would have made a decision at their last meeting if a quorum had been present, and Ms. Kendrick answered that they would. Mr. Van Cleave asked if the Planning Commission would review the minutes of the meeting and look at them to determine the commission’s position on June 23.

It is Mr. Wolff’s feeling that the recommendations made by Ms. Estes should be taken into consideration. These were thoroughly discussed at the June 23 meeting. Mrs. Jepsen stated that the consensus was to stand by their first vote. Mrs. Schmidt pointed out that we have the new OHV park outside of town which will bring more traffic into the city. She also stated that her proposed construction had been approved by the county. Mr. Wolff asked Ms. Schmidt if she had problems with the county and she stated that she had, but the issue had been resolved. She feels that if we establish fair and consistent regulations and ordinances initially there would be fewer problems, and feels that Heppner will find a way to make the ordinances work. Mr. Jepsen asked whether the council should postpone this action for another month. Mr. Breazeale stated that the decision can be postponed; the consultants have completed their work, and that action will be closed shortly when payment is delivered to them. If the public is not willing to accept the ordinances as written then they need to do what the people want to do. Mr. Carlson commented that as a former county judge, he had a lot of opportunities to talk to people at the state and national level and the one comment he got from them was that “if we don’t have it in our plan, you won’t be able to do what you want to do.” He feels that there should be at least a plan. Ms. Schmidt agreed with Mr. Carlson’s statements. Mr. Jepsen also stated that we can’t do anything until there is a plan. Mrs. Jepsen stated that she thinks this is a scare tactic to say that this money is going to come from the taxpayers and that these funds come from grants and other sources. She says that just because something is in the plan doesn’t mean that it is going to happen. Mrs. Robinson asked if we had to split up money with a grant. Ms. Jarvis-Smith stated that the city of Heppner is very skilled at grant writing; the grant that was received for this project did not require money from the city. This was based on the skill in putting the grant together. Mrs. Buschke asked where the grant money comes from and stated that it all comes from the people at some point. Mr. Gentry asked where the money came from to develop Main Street. Mr. Jepsen stated that it came from many sources, ODOT, federal sources, and grants. Mr. Gentry wondered where the plan came from and where did the design come from. Mr. Jepsen said the design came from ODOT and the City Council agreed to the program. Mr. Gentry’s point is that anyone can wait until something is done and then object. He feels that sometimes you have to move on, even though you don’t like some things, and it will work out. He stated that he liked Mr. Wolff’s concerns, but that this is a long range plan that is needed for the future. He feels we should let the plan go and that we should move on at the first opportunity. HEARING ON THIS ITEM CLOSED.

B) Ordinance No. 541-2003, An Ordinance Prohibiting the Use of Dynamic Braking Devices on any Motor Vehicle, Except to Avoid Imminent Danger to Persons or Property; and Declaring an Emergency.

Comments. Mr. Wolff asked if Mr. Kuhn had prepared the ordinance and if it would satisfy the people who had objections to the use of the brakes. Mr. Kuhn stated that it did.

C) Property Cleanup at 165 Linden Way, owner Paul Breeding. Continued from June 9 meeting. Deputy Rayburn stated that nothing has been done. Mr. Van Cleave has talked with the Breeding’s son, and informed him that he needed to do some work to the property. He did not respond. Mr. Wolff attested that he has driven by the property and that it is still in bad condition. HEARING CLOSED.

4. COUNCIL ACTION.

Discussion: Mr. Van Cleave asked if this ordinance would include the deletions from the last meeting. Mr. Jepsen stated that he didn’t think so.

Mr. Van Cleave moved to adopt the document as recommended by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Jepsen. Mr. Cowett asked if we adopt this plan, would it include the revisions and Mr. Van Cleave stated that his motion is to adopt the original document without the deletions. Vote: FOR: Mr. Cowett, Mr. Jepsen, Mr. Van Cleave; OPPOSED: Ms. Buschke, Mr. Wolff, Ms. Robinson. MOTION DID NOT CARRY.

Ms. Buschke moved that we postpone this action and direct the Planning Commission to review what was discussed at the last council meeting and is contained in the minutes, and then make a recommendation. Seconded by Mrs. Robinson. MOTION CARRIED.

B) Ordinance No. 542-2003, An Ordinance Prohibiting the Use of Dynamic Braking Devices on any Motor Vehicle, Except to Avoid Imminent Danger to Persons or Property; and Declaring an Emergency.

Mr. Wolff moved that we adopt Ordinance 542-2003. Seconded by Mrs. Robinson. MOTION CARRIED.

C) Resolution No. 533-2003, a Resolution Declaring Certain Property a Nuisance and Ordering Cleanup of Property. (165 Linden Way, owner Paul Breeding. Continued from June 9 meeting.)

Discussion: Deputy Rayburn showed the video of the property which showed that there are appliances and a lot of garbage on the property. There are also three vehicles and a motor home on the property. Mr. Jepsen feels that the city has been quite lenient with the Breedings. The city has to deal with the owner of record who is not available. Deputy Rayburn has been trying to get the son to do some of the work and he is not cooperating. Mr. Healy stated that about 15 years ago, CBEC had erected a fence so that the garbage would not encroach on CBEC’s property. Mrs. Robinson moved to approve Resolution No. 533-2003. Seconded by Mr. Cowett. MOTION CARRIED.

COUNCIL RECESSED FOR 5 MINUTES.

5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE COUNTY SHERIFF.

A) Activity Report. Mr. Wolff pointed out that he would like citizens to be aware that all activity that our Sheriff’s Department handles are included in this report.

B) Police Commission Meeting Minutes. Deputy Rayburn stated that they have discussed quite a bit of information at these meetings regarding code enforcement, etc. Mr. Wolff asked about the Neighborhood Watch program. Deputy Rayburn stated that Deputy Slinger is in charge of organizing the program. Mr. Wolff stated that a number of people in his neighborhood have expressed an interest in the program. Deputy Rayburn stated that citizens need to call in whenever they see any suspicious activities.

C) Letter from Deputy Jamie Rietmann requesting release from City of Heppner duty. A copy of his letter is included in the packet.

Discussion: Deputy Rietmann stated that he is requesting release from his three-year agreement with the City and wants to take a position with the County patrol. This would be a lateral transfer and his position would be filled. Mr. Van Cleave asked if they would keep him until someone else is hired. Mr. Wolff commended Deputy Rietmann, but had concerns since in the passt, one of our deputies was gone to training and was not in the town patrolling. This was understood when they were hired. If Deputy Rietmann is hired by the County and a new person is hired, he/she would also have to attend training. Mr. Wolff feels that Deputy Rietmann should remain in his present position until a new qualified patrolman is hired, trained, and on the job. He feels that since the city paid for his training, he should stay here until a new person is certified. Mr. Wolff wants three certified person on the street. Mrs. Robinson stated that she has no problem with Deputy Rietmann leaving, but feels we need another patrolman on duty when he leaves. Mr. Cowett stated that he feels letting Deputy Rietmann go would be setting a precedent. Deputy Rietmann stated that he has gone through a long process to get to the City Council, and stated that he wanted more challenge in his work.

Mr. Wolff moved that the Sheriff allow Deputy Rietmann to be released from his commitment when his replacement is on board and ready to go to work. Seconded by Mrs. Robinson.

Discussion: Mr. Healy asked if the city could participate in the selection of the new person. According too Mr. Wolff, they haven’t so far. Deputy Rayburn will discuss this with Sheriff Denton as far as his feelings on having city representation on the selection board for the new patrolman. Deputy Rayburn stated that candidates would be told at the testing that one position is with the City of Heppner. MOTION CARRIED.

D) Code Enforcement.

(1) Former Penturf Property (660 Elder Street). Current residents are Cory Breeding and his roommate.

(2) Hendricks Residence, 435 Water Street. Video shown. This property is in very bad condition, although garbage and weeds have been raked into piles. Deputy Rayburn has no idea how many people live there. Mr. Wolff wondered if the alley to the Holt residence is private, and Deputy Rayburn stated it was. The ordinance affects the view from the public street.

Mr. Wolff moved to direct the city staff to move on to code enforcement on these two properties and continue too work with the Breedings on their property on Linden Way. Seconded by Mrs. Robinson. MOTION CARRIED.

E) Additional Discussion. Liquor Control License Renewals. Deputy Rayburn has no problem with these.

Mrs. Robinson moved to approve the liquor licensee renewals as stated in the packet. Seconded by Mrs. Buschke. MOTION CARRIED.

6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

A) Activity Report.

Mr. Canham reported that he was on vacation for a portion of June. Quite a bit of work has been completed. The sidewalk from the grade school to Baltimore Street has been cleaned and debris hauled away. Mr. Canham was not available for the June 19 Utilities Commission meeting. Mr. Canham discussed communications failures at the reservoirs and discussed the number of failures. He stated they have problems with this every summer and are working on a quote for an updated system, to include capabilities of including another reservoir and another well. They are backing up the current system with visual inspections.

B) Utilities Commission Meeting – June 19. This was a working session since a quorum was not present.

C) Resolution No.534-2003, A Resolution Adjusting Water Usage Rates and Repealing Resolutions 5-4-87, 245-96, 489-2002, and 530-03 in Conflict Therewith.

Discussion: According to Mr. Breazeale, there is a problem with the new rates for duplexes and triplexes. Mr. Breazeale has run some reports on the figures with the existing resolution which showed that they are actually paying less than they would on the old rates. Under the resolution adopted June 9, 2003, they are not paying anything into the water improvement fund. The new rate schedule for these properties is simpler and more equitable. There is a charge of $17.50 for fire flow capacity for commercial and multi-family dwellings. Mr. Wolff questioned building a multi-family unit in a new area. He wondered if the city would make the owner pay the cost of extending the water line, along with the additional cost of providing a bigger fire flow. Per Mr. Breazeale, there is extra cost to provide fire protection water to commercial and multi-family units.

Mrs. Buschke brought up the fact that in the minutes it stated that the water rates will be reviewed in one year and stated that this means we will be doing this all again in another year. She feels that we “bit off more than we can chew.”

Mr. Wolff moved as follows:

1. That we rescind our prior approval for the City to receive and spend RUS and Oregon loans, grants and monies for the implementation of our water system master plan.

2. That the City Manager be instructed to return any borrowed funds, or grant monies contingent on borrowed funds, that the city has received or will receive, for the water project.

3. That we delete the proposed water reservoir and the proposed water wells, from our water system project.

4. That we proceed with the water system master plan program (as amended), using budgeted revenue raised annually, using new, leased equipment and city employees to complete the work.

5. That no debt be taken-on for the water project. We will pay-as-we-go.

Discussion: Mr. Wolff stated that he is making the motion in sincere belief that we have bitten off much more than we can chew, a 40-year commitment at a proposed $203,000 per year payment based on historical consumption where the new water rates aren’t raising anywhere near that much money. He expects consumption and the number of meters to go down and has just become extremely gun shy with the project as we have proposed and adopted it and are planning for. In talking with various segments within our community and he is going to name names: Bert Howling, Central Market; Bill McDowell on Rock Street; Jamie Helfrecht, Green Feed; Gwen Healy, retired widow; George Guiterrez, pensioned senior citizen, they do not want this size of a program and they do not want to pay for it. The mayor has indicated that sometimes council people have been elected to do what is best for their constituents and we have to take their opinions and beliefs into account when we act. Mr. Wolff believes that we erred when we approved the project and that it continues to get bigger and bigger. We approved a one million gallon reservoir because the plan called for it. Now it has been reduced to 750,000 gallons. How come? Where did it come from? When the city indicated that we need one to two more wells in the Hager Park area, council advocated a year ago to find a source outside the Willow Creek drainage. He has personally spoken with Judge Terry Tallman and County Public Works Director Burke O’Brien and they have indicated that they will not give up the well at the fairgrounds but that they would be willing to enter into an agreement with the city so that in case of emergency we could plumb into that well and the county would turn it on in the event of a severe water shortage. These are his beliefs and this is why he is making this motion for consideration tonight.

Mrs. Buschke seconded the motion and stated that she agreed with Mr. Wolff and wondered why we didn’t discuss entering into an agreement with the county. Mr. Jepsen stated that the agreement with the county was made when the Oregon Youth Authority decision was being considered. At that time, we had a different judge and different commissioners and they all agreed that that well would be used for that purpose and has never been changed. Mrs. Buschke is not sure that this explains why we didn’t go to the county at this time. Mr. Breazeale stated that the fair board, approached the city to see why we didn’t use that well. In the same vein, the Port of Morrow suggested looking at the wells that they had at the Kinzua property which were also included in that study. There was never any need at that time to secure any agreements to purchase any facilities. Now we are at the next step of putting the pieces together to make them work. Mr. Buschke stated that we didn’t do that—we approved new wells and a reservoir. She feels like we dropped the ball. Mr. Breazeale stated that no specifics were approved besides the loan from OECDD and the master plan. The engineering was also approved. Mr. Breazeale stated that if you cut the project to below the amount of where the grant monies, then you would start to save money. If the project is dropped down $1,250,000 + then the city would pay less on the loan. Ms. Buschke asked who was going to make the decision on where we go from here. Mr. Jepsen stated that the City Council does. Mrs. Buschke asked why the city crew couldn’t do the work on the project. Mr. Jepsen said that he understands that Mr. Wolff is saying that only the money raised in the budget with the increased fees could be used for the project. Mr. Wolff stated that u nder the way the project is proposed now, the debt repayment is $203,000 per year and there is a $60,000 shortage and water rates will need to be raised again during the next 40 years. Mr. Wolff’s plan would call for taking $143,000 per year for possibly 12-13 years and every spring the head of the city utility commission would hire extra personnel and lease new equipment and start digging up streets and putting down pipe. Then in the fall, the equipment/personnel would be turned back. This would not create a burden on the existing city equipment and avoid having to use broken down equipment. The next year crews would go back to work again and pay as you go. He wonders where the city would be in 18-27-39 years; yet when the project was proposed it ended up being a $203,000 per year debt service that was revenue money from the water system and if the city didn’t have a water system, they didn’t have to pay it back. Low and behold, when the documents came for the City Council to approve, they were based on all the good faith and assets of the city; not revenue money, but general obligation money. Mr. Wolff stated that he cannot incur that debt on the citizens of Heppner for the next 40 years.

Mr. Canham stated that his crews can do anything. Mr. Kuhn stated that after two to three years of planning, the new proposal is a 180 degree turn. He would not vote on this proposal. He feels that Mr. Breazeale and Mr. Canham need to consider this new proposal. Before they do a radical switch in policy, at least investigate what the result is of that policy.

Mr. Van Cleave stated that Mr. Wolff had discussed this with him and he has concerns about this and he is not ready to make a quick decision. Mrs. Robinson felt that this change is worth investigating. Mr. Jepsen stated that what he has been hearing from the public is that they would like a water system fixed within a couple of years. Mrs. Robinson stated that the public has not heard this proposal. Mr. Jepsen stated that he has already discussed this with Mr. Canham and he said his crew could possibly do this within 10 years, but that he still needed to keep the chores of the city going. Mr. Van Cleave stated that if the work takes ten years, there would still be a lot of patching to be done. He wonders if we can wait 10 years to have the project complete. Mr. Wolff asked if we can afford not to wait that long. Mr. Van Cleave wonders if it would end up costing more for digging up streets again and again. Mrs. Buschke asked if we know where the biggest problems are.

Mr. Canham stated that having the city doing the work has been discussed previously. He stated that he and the City Manager would have to prioritize how the work could be done. Mr. Wolff asked Mr. Canham about the sewer line on Chase Street that will have to be replaced next summer and if the water lines couldn’t be done at the same time. Mr. Jepsen stated that the water line is on one side of the street and the sewer is on the other. Mr. Wolff stated that if the equipment and labor is there, you do what you have to do. Mr. Canham stated that if the money is there, some of the work could be sub-contracted. Mr. Wolff believes that a contractor qualified to bid on this type of job would have a 30% margin built in and that there is not a contractor in the Willow Creek Valley that has a bonding capacity to bid on this job, so all this value is going out the door. If we piece-meal the work, take more time, and try to use local contractors when needed, it would keep the money in Heppner. Mr. Kuhn stated that there are also other costs, i.e., administrative costs, supervising which need to be factored in. There are pluses and minuses associated with the extra costs.

Mr. Breazeale spoke on his experience working with water systems. He stated that they would look at doing the work in-house; however, there are a lot of old lines in the ground here and other problems. He stated that this is a huge project. In Madras they used public works crews which created a huge problem. He stated that one of the main things Heppner needs is a reservoir which would cost approx. $1.00 per gallon or $750,000. He also stated that the 1% financing over the life of the loan is cheaper than any other money. He also stated that we need to consider the fact that there will be new water lines throughout the city. He stated that the city could go ahead and do a capital improvement plan and if this is a better plan then go ahead.

Mr. Wolff stated that there is an individual in this city who has experience with the Main Street fire and that Heppner did not run out of water. This particular individual does not feel that we need another reservoir. Mr. Wolff feels that if we can put a project together in this town for $140,000 per year he would be much more inclined to vote for it. He feels that we cannot pay for the project that was proposed earlier. Mr. Jepsen disagrees.

Mr. Breazeale stated that we need the new reservoir since the current ones are not large enough. If we cut the project you first lose all the grant money and each dollar we save up to $1,250,000 is not money that the city would pocket, but would be turned back to the government as part of the grant. When you get below that level then you save $1.00 in loan payments.

Mr. Cowett asked if the city went with Mr. Wolff’s proposal, was there anything special that would need to be done, i.e., special licenses, training, state permits, state signing off on the job, etc. Mr. Canham stated that there is some training that would have to take place and they would have to meet all state standards the same as contractor. Mr. Cowett also asked if Mr. Canham had the qualifications for a job of this type, and, Mr. Wolff stated that he feels that he does and referenced the Court Street, Elder, and Stansbury projects. Mr. Van Cleave asked if there is a way that Heppner could run the project and still have other people doing the work. Mrs. Buschke felt that Mr. Canham could run the show and have others do the work. According to Mr. Wolff, the money dictates the project.

Mr. Wolff asked to clarify his motion. He is not against the project and understands the need for the project. He truly believes that the city can afford the project as he has proposed. Mr. Canham stated that this is a good motion that Mr. Wolff is proposing and the project is needed. He cited as an example the problem that recently occurred on Gale and Center Streets. Mr. Wolff feels that his version of the project would be more acceptable to the citizens.

Mr. Van Cleave asked Mr. Breazeale for his feelings on the project and whether he feels it has gotten bigger than it was in the beginning. Mr. Breazeale stated that it is still the same project that was originally stated, but with inflation, it will cost more. There are some cost savings in doing the project in two years with 1% money. Additionally, with new facilities, there will be savings on maintenance. Mr. Wolff asked Mr. Breazeale whether the new water rates will be adequate to generate additional revenue. Mr. Breazeale stated that there are variables which will dictate the revenue generated. Mr. Wolff asked about the $70,000 going into the reserve account and Mr. Breazeale said that there will be two years to build up the reserve and during that time they will have time to determine if the debt structure will need changing.

Mr. Jepsen stated that he would be glad to have a good water system within two years even if he had higher water bills.

Ensuing discussions brought out the suggestion that the citizens need to be consulted on their preferences of how the project should be done. Mrs. Robinson felt that all of the pros and cons should be weighed before a final decision is made. Mr. Van Cleave feels that we should give the plan back and see if it can be re-drafted to what the city can afford. Mr. Wolff stated that this is part of his proposal being made tonight, since the city can’t afford what the Master Plan recommends. Mr. Wolff asked if the 1% money would go away if they cut out the reservoir. Mr. Jepsen stated that he didn’t know. Mr. Van Cleave asked if the project could be sped up somewhere down the line. Mrs. Robinson asked if we changed the master plan, would the grant go away and Mr. Breazeale explained that there is a possibility that it would. Mr. Van Cleave asked what would happen if the city couldn’t make the payments and Mr. Breazeale stated that they would have to raise the water rates. He also stated that there are a lot of alternatives that can be done. He said rates could be adjusted to treat people fairly and still make the payments; everything is flexible and there is no magic formula. Mr. Van Cleave asked if they used the proposal as stated, but the rates would not be raised, what other scenarios would be. Mr. Breazeale theorized that if the revenue is not what they planned, the project could be downsized and all the grant funding could be cut. The state will only ask for what has been used to be paid back. Mr. Van Cleave asked Mr. Wolff how he felt about cutting the project to where it can be paid for. Mrs. Buschke asked what cutting down means. Mr. Wolff stated that his concern is that after the wells and reservoirs are cut out, then you would have to redraft the pipe to be put in the ground and cutting out streets. You would down-size the project to where $140,000 over 40 years would then pay for it, and to do that over a summer or two summers and still you have a 40-year obligation, and the problem hasn’t been solved. There would still be streets with old pipes that haven’t been replaced and the revenue is tied up for 40 years, with nowhere to turn but to raise water rates. Mr. Van Cleave feels that if the city started doing the work they would be farther ahead than they are now. Mr. Kuhn feels that we don’t have the crew, the manpower, and the expertise to do the work in house. He would have to be sure that the project could be done over 10-15 years and get the master plan done, and has some doubts as to what the city crew could do. Mrs. Buschke feels that the city should look at Mr. Wolff’s plan to see if it is feasible. Mr. Wolff’s feeling is that the city crew could do the work as well as any other contractor.

In accordance with the council feelings, Mr. Wolff retracted his motion and Mrs. Buschke retracted her second. This was done with the understanding that the council will consider Mr. Wolff’s proposal. Mr. Wolff stated that the comments he receives from the citizens indicate that the new reservoir should be cancelled and that the city does not need to dig any more wells.

Mr. Jepsen stated that he has not received such comments. He feels that they have found a good source of financing, i.e., the 1% money.

Continued discussion on the Resolution Adjusting Water Usage Rates and Repealing Resolutions 5-4-87, 245-96, 489-2002, and 530-03 in Conflict Therewith. Mr. Wolff questioned why the previous resolutions need to be repealed. Mr. Breazeale stated that this new resolution will reduce the base rate for commercial and increases the rates for triplexes or more, only when they increase their usage above the base rate. Mr. Wolff asked how many services would be affected by this and Mr. Breazeale stated that there are quite a few properties in the city that this would affect.

Mr. Van Cleave moved to approve Resolution 534-2003, A Resolution Adjusting Water Usage Rates and Repealing Resolutions 5-4-87, 245-96, 489-2002, and 530-03 in Conflict Therewith. Seconded by Tom Wolff. Motion Carried.

C) Parks and Lands Commission Meeting – June 30, next meeting in July 28.

D) Additional Discussion:

(1) Water Street paving will be accomplished on July 21 and 22. The street will be widened four feet on each side and should cost approximately $18,000. City crews will be working with the contractor.

Motion to accept Blue Mountain Asphalt figures for the paving on Water Street. Seconded by Mr. Wolff. Motion Carried.

(2) Mr. Canham needs the council to make a motion to transfer salary money from a permanent employee to a temporary employee. Discussion—no motion required; action tabled until next council meeting.

7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FIRE CHIEF. NONE.

8. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY MANAGER.

A) Resolution No. 535-2003. A Resolution Approving Accounts Payable for Payment. Motion by Mr. Van Cleave to pay the accounts. Seconded by Mrs. Buschke. Motion Carried.

B) Flood Study Review. The review is complete. The next step is to get some elevations assigned and get the revised maps. According to FEMA we would be looking at a substantial reduction; however, Mr. Breazeale has not been able to obtain a copy of the report, and has not been given a time line for when the information will be forwarded.

C) Baker/Morrow Land Use Committee Report. Mr. Breazeale reported that they had their first informational meeting and will be compiling a work plan.

D) City Hall Remodel. Over a span of 5 meetings, a floor plan has been developed that will adequately serve the needs of the public and staff and is cost effective. The committee is asking for permission from the city council to get Requests for Proposals from contractors to develop the plans. This would include developing design specifications and cost estimates. Mr. Wolff moved that the Council grant this approval. Seconded by Mr. Van Cleave. Motion Carried.

E) Financial Statement. The preliminary figures indicate that the city is in good financial shape and the cash carry over will be larger this year than budgeted.

9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITY ATTORNEY.

Mr. Kuhn reported that he has been working on the Morgan Street vacation, Transportation System Plan review, and attempting to foreclose on the Del Little Property.

10. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR/CITY COUNCILORS.

A) Beautification Commission – June 12, July 19, Next Meeting August 14. Plaque to install at the City Park on the red oak tree was discussed.

B) Heppner Housing Authority – Bob Jepsen, Chairman, June 30, next meeting August 28. There is one vacancy. Responsibility for replacing light bulbs in the dining room at the senior center was discussed. The senior board is responsible for this. One of the resident’s daughters has requested a reserved parking space on the side street with a sign stating “Reserved for Honored Citizen Sylvia McDaniel.” No decision has been made on this item.

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:15 PM.