The regular meeting was called to order by Mayor Young at 7:38 p.m. Harold Olsen delivered the invocation and Mayor Young led the flag salute.

COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mayor Cheryl A. Young

Councilor Marian Calnon

Council Bill Guy (arrived 7:39 p.m.)

Councilor Gary Hudson

Councilor Bob Schmor

COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:

None

ALSO PRESENT:

Leahnette Rivers, City Administrator/Recorder

ATTORNEY PRESENT:

Harold Olsen, City Attorney

A quorum was present and due notice had been published.

Public Hearing opened.

Mayor Young said this public hearing is being held to receive public input concerning a proposal to vacate an undeveloped alley in Block 4 which is located north of "G" Street, south of "F" Street, east of First Street and west of The Strand in Columbia City. She explained the City Council had initiated the alley vacation proceedings on its own motion on October 18, 2001, in accordance with provisions of ORS 271.130(1).

Mayor Young asked Leahnette Rivers to enter into the record any information she has received.

Ms. Rivers entered into the record the alley vacation file containing the following:

• The list of property owners that were notified about the alley vacation.
• The notices posted on either end of the alley.
• Notices that went to the newspapers.
• Correspondence related to the alley vacation.
• Written input in the form of a letter dated March 7, 2002 from Al Culbertson, president of Whispering Pines Development Company.
• Written input received on February 6, 2002 from Herb Sandstrom.
• Written petition from property-owners opposing the initiative to vacate the alley between "F" and "G" Streets.

The Mayor asked Ms. Rivers if the petition represented the owners of a majority of the affected land. Ms. Rivers said the petition was signed by the owners of a majority of the property within the affected area.

Input in Favor:

Steve Morasch of Portland introduced himself as an attorney with the firm of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, representing Hal Hewitt. He stated he had some documents for the record. Mr. Morasch submitted a copy of a petition signed by property owners in 1998 in support of the vacation of this alley as background information. He said there are a number of people on the 1998 petition that have now registered some objections to the alley vacation. He said based on the fact that there was a prior petition, a full alley vacation was proposed at this time because it was believed a majority of property owners would be in support. Mr. Morasch said he would like to submit another map for the record, which is also mainly informational. He submitted a plat map of the City, and he stated that the plat map shows the City has approved vacations of portions of alleys in the past. He said this is consistent with State Statute, which allows a City to vacate all or part of an alley or a street. He said the Statute he is referring to is ORS 271.080 which says a City may vacate all or part of any street, avenue, boulevard, alley etc. He said the statue the City is proceeding under is ORS 271.130, which says the governing body of a City may initiate vacation proceedings authorized by ORS 271.080. He said the 1998 alley vacation process was not completed, but because a majority of the property owners adjacent to the alley were in support of its vacation in 1998, it was believed that a majority of the people in the affected area would be in support of full alley vacation now.

Mr. Morasch said there is a petition in the record that has been signed by owners of a majority of the affected area of the full alley vacation in opposition to vacating the full alley. He said some of those people are here tonight to testify, and they may be opposed to a partial alley vacation as well. He said a number of people on that petition have been contacted about a partial alley vacation, and they have signed another document stating that would have no objection to a partial alley vacation. For the record, he presented a 5-page document regarding a half alley vacation option. He said provided the Council with several copies of the document and the original signed copies for the record. He said the last two pages of the document provide signatures from property owners in Block 3 and Block 5 who had provided a written objection to the full alley vacation, but who were not opposed to a partial alley vacation. He read from the document, "Regardless of any previously stated position which I may have given, my signature below indicates that I have no objections to the partial alleyway vacation, as shown on the attached partial map, or any variations thereof." He said the third page shows a map of the affected area and the proposed partial alley vacation, which is the north half of the alley. He said circles have been placed on the tax lots owned by people who have not opposed the partial alley vacation. He said these are people who have either signed the attached document, or people who have not signed the prior petition in opposition and did not register any opposition to the alley vacation.

Mr. Morasch said the statue states the City may approve the alley vacation unless it receives written objections from the owners of a majority of the affected area. He said the tax lot numbers that are circled are not in opposition to a partial alley vacation either, because they never objected in writing to any alley vacation or because they signed the attached document saying that they are specifically not in opposition to a partial alley vacation as shown on this map. He said the first two pages go through some calculations of area. He said the affected area for the half alley vacation is slightly smaller than for the full alley vacation because of the way the statute measures the affected area. He said the statute requires that the affected area extend 400 feet from the end of the area being vacated. He said the calculations show that the total affected area for the half alley vacation is equal to 145,375 square feet, and half of that would be 71,688 square feet. He said on the second page are some calculations showing the area of each of the circled lots. He said the land area owned by those not opposing the half alley vacation totals 75,875 square feet, which is more than half of the total affected area. He said we have more than half either unopposed or specifically in favor of the half alley vacation as shown on this map. He said we have not reached the point where a majority of the owners are in opposition to the half alley vacation and therefore, according to the statutes, the City may proceed to approve the half alley vacation, and he urged the City Council to do so.

Mayor Young asked Mr. Morasch if the figures presented on the first two pages represents the original request for the full alley, or are just the ones who changed their minds if this were a partial vacation.

Mr. Morasch said the first page shows the calculations of the affected area for a half alley vacation, which is less than what the affected area would be for a full alley vacation because the affected area for a half alley vacation is smaller. He said the way you measure it under the statute is beginning at the end of the vacated area and going 400 feet. He said if you are doing a full alley vacation, you have a larger affected area than a half alley vacation. Mr. Morasch said the first page goes through the area of all the property within the affected area for the half alley vacation and shows the total area in the affected area, and that is what the bottom number is on the first page.

Mayor Young asked Mr. Morasch if a majority of the owners of the affected area had signed in opposition to vacating the full alley.

Mr. Morasch asked if the Mayor was asking him about the agreement or the petition.

Mayor Young said the City initiated the vacation of the alley for the full block. She asked if Mr. Morasch accepts the fact that a majority of the owners of the affected area objected in writing to the full alley vacation, even though some people had changed their minds about the alley vacation.

Mr. Morasch said that seems to be what the petition says. However, he said he has provided signed statements from several people who have changed their positions if the proposal is to vacate half of the alley rather than the full alley. He said he had also cited the statutes, which he read again for clarification. He said ORS 271.130 says the City may initiate vacation proceedings authorized by ORS 271.080, which allows for all or part of any street or alley. He said the City could approve a partial alley vacation. Additionally, he said ORS 271.120 says the City may grant or deny a vacation in whole or in part. He said the City could, under these statutes, approve part of the vacation even though the original proposal was for vacation of the entire alley. He said he had shown that there is not a majority of the owners of the affected area in opposition to the partial alley vacation, and the City can approve under ORS 271.130 and the related statutes the City is proceeding under.

The Mayor asked for questions from the Council.

Councilor Calnon asked if the majority is based upon square footage or by property owners.

Mr. Morasch said the majority is measured by square footage. He said you look at the affected area and then you look at the square footage of that, and it's the owners of the majority of the affected area.

Mayor Young asked Mr. Morasch if he had read the original agreement where the City agreed with Mr. Hewitt to initiate the proceedings to vacate the entire alley.

Mr. Morasch said he had read the agreement. He said the agreement states, "The City will initiate an alley vacation proceeding upon its own motion to vacate the undeveloped alley adjacent to Mr. Hewitt's property." Mr. Morasch suggested that "adjacent to Mr. Hewitt's property" would only necessitate the City vacating that portion of the alley that is actually adjacent to his property. He said they had originally offered the City a map showing the entire alley vacation based on a prior petition that had been signed by almost everyone in that block in favor of an entire alley vacation. He said they thought that was what the neighborhood wanted, and therefore, they offered that. He said the agreement only requires the City to vacate the portion of the alley adjacent to Mr. Hewitt's property; it doesn't require the City to vacate any other portion of the alley. He said when opposition to the entire alley vacation arose, they started exploring the option of only vacating a portion of the alley and found that at least three people who were opposed to the entire alley vacation were not opposed to a portion of the alley being vacated. He said the City is only obligated to vacate the part that is adjacent to Mr. Hewitt's property and need not proceed on the full alley vacation under the agreement. He said the intent of the agreement is that the City will approve the vacation if at all possible. He said it would be possible to do that tonight based on the signed documents they have provided.

Councilor Hudson asked if the agreement specifically mentions a "portion" of the alley, or if this is just Mr. Morasch's interpretation. He said his copy of the agreement says the undeveloped alley, and does not mention a portion of the alley.

Mr. Morasch said he thought it was implied by the language, "the alley adjacent to Mr. Hewitt's property." He said if it were intended to mean the entire alley it would have said the alley between "G" and "H" Streets. He said he would also infer from the background of the agreement and the purpose of the agreement agreement that the other parts of the alley are irrelevant. to the issue that was resolved by this agreement. He said Paragraph 5 of the agreement has a good-faith clause that says, "The parties agree to cooperate and exercise good faith and fair dealing in their implementation of this agreement." He said this includes the interpretation we are suggesting and not taking a hyper-technical interpretation of the agreement in an effort to frustrate the intended outcome.

The Mayor asked Mr. Morasch if he agreed that Paragraph 5 of the agreement applies to both parties.

Mr. Morasch said Paragraph 5 applies to both parties. He said both parties have to exercise good faith and fair dealing.

Councilor Schmor asked how many total pieces of property are included in the alley vacation.

Mr. Morasch asked if Councilor Schmor was referring to the full alley vacation or the partial alley vacation.

Councilor Schmor said he was referring to affected properties for the whole alley vacation. He said 24 people received notice of the alley vacation, and there are only 11 circles on the map provided by Mr. Morasch, which would not constitute a majority.

Mr. Morasch said it is the majority of the area, and not a majority of the number of lots. He said some lots are bigger than others are, and he said Lot 2300 is actually two lots. He said the smaller affected area also has less lots in it.

Ms. Rivers said there were 24 notices mailed.

Harold Olson said Councilor Schmor was looking at the original notices that went out, but Mr. Morasch is talking about the amended proposal for vacation for part of the alley.

Councilor Schmor asked if the amended proposal would reduce the number of people.

Mr. Olson said the amended proposal would reduce the number of people because there are fewer property owners in the revised affected area.

Mr. Morasch said the amended proposal removes lots 2500 and 2600 from the affected area, which reduces the number of owners. He noted that the majority is not based upon the number of owners, but the area of the land owned, because under the statute, it is based on the amount of area in the affected area. He said in addition to that, the majority has to be a majority in opposition. He said there has to be a majority in opposition for the City to deny the vacation, and even if it was an even split, then the City could approve it. He said we have shown the owners of a majority of the property within the affected area either are not opposed or are in favor of the half alley vacation proposal.

Mr. Olsen asked Mr. Morasch if the first page of the half alley vacation option gives the total amount of square feet of the amended proposal being submitted now.

Mr. Morasch said that was correct.

Mr. Olsen asked if second page shows that the property owners of 32,875 square feet of the affected area have withdrawn because they are not objecting.

Mr. Morasch said 32,875 square feet described on page 2 is located in Block 5. He said one person had signed the document stating they would not oppose the half alley vacation, and four people who were not opposed to the original proposal for a full alley vacation. He said page 2 provides three subtotals representing the land area for each of the three blocks within the affected area.

Mr. Olsen said the grand total of land area owned by people who have not objected to the half alley vacation is the 75,875 square feet, which exceeds 71,688, or half of the square footage within the affected area.

Mr. Morasch said that is correct. He noted that page 2 lists the 3 property owners that opposed the original full alley vacation, and do not oppose the half alley vacation, as well as the land area they own, which totals 26,600 square feet.

Mr. Olsen said under the partial alley vacation being proposed tonight, there is a majority of owners who are not objecting and the owners of a majority of the affected acreage are not objecting. He said this qualifies under the statute.

Councilor Hudson said the amended proposal qualifies under the statute.

Mr. Olsen said that is correct. He said the other significant thing is the statute says when an alley vacation proposal is before the Council, the Council can vacate all or part of the alley.

Councilor Hudson asked about the process. He said the original concept for the full alley vacation took a long time to develop. He said in comparison, this amended proposal seems to be eleventh hour.

Mr. Olsen said it isn't really eleventh hour because they proposed this amendment a month or so ago, and we said we didn't want to change all of our publications, but we would consider it the night of the meeting. Mr. Olsen said the statute specifically gives the Council the authority to reduce the amount of property being vacated. He said the Council cannot increase the vacation area, but the Council can reduce the amount of area being vacated.

Ms. Rivers said the alley vacation file does contain a letter dated August 7, 2001, written by Mr. Morasch to Mr. Olsen, to clarify Hewitt's understanding of the alley proposed for vacation and the affected area. She said the letter indicates that Hal Hewitt drew the map identifying the affected area, as implied by the agreement, and the letter asked if the City agreed that the map fairly represents the affected area according to the agreement. She said Mr. Olsen responded verbally on behalf of the City to Mr. Morasch, and he stated that the City did agree that the map correctly identified the alley area to be vacated and the affected area.

Mr. Morasch reviewed the letter of August 7, 2001. He said this letter was drafted after the agreement was drafted and signed by the City. He said the purpose of the letter was to get a point of clarification so that they knew where they were starting from, and they thought it would be good to start with a map showing the affected area because it wasn't expressly included in the agreement. He said the letter was phrased in terms of Mr. Hewitt's understanding of the alley proposed for vacation and the City's understanding of the affected area. He said they wanted to make sure they were proceeding with the same understanding, but the letter was also phrased to indicate that the attached map was not an amendment to the agreement. Quoting from the letter, he read, "I believe that Mr. Hewitt has accurately measured the distances on the map, and I would not seek to hold you or the City responsible for any measurement errors or anything like that." He said it is clear that the letter does not in any way amend the agreement because the agreement had already been signed. He said the reason they suggested the full alley vacation initially was because of the prior petition that was signed by a majority of the people in that block. He said during the process it became apparent that people were not in favor of the full alley vacation, and that's when they went back and looked at the language of the agreement which referred to the alley adjacent to Mr. Hewitt's property. He said he started thinking about what the intent of the agreement was and what it was attempting to accomplish. He said the intent could be accomplished by only vacating half of the alley or even just the part adjacent to Mr. Hewitt's property. He said the only real limitation to vacating the alley is the agreement, which states, "that part of the alley adjacent to Mr. Hewitt's property."

Mayor Young said it sounds like Mr. Morasch is trying to tell the City Council what their intent was, and she asked Mr. Morasch if this is what he is trying to do.

Mr. Morasch said he is not trying to put thoughts into any one's head or read what the thoughts were. He said in the law when courts interpret agreements, they talk about trying to discern the intent of the parties. He said when he's talking about the intent of the agreement, he's using that word in a legal sense. He said the intent of the parties was to vacate that portion next to Hewitt's property. He said a court doesn't glean the intent of an agreement by hearing testimony from parties to the agreement. He said the first thing a court will do is look at the language of the agreement itself, and the Court will decide what the Court will use as the intent of the agreement based on the language of the agreement. He said when he uses the word "intent" he is talking about what the objective intent of the agreement was based on the reading of the language in the agreement.

Ms. Rivers asked Mr. Morasch why the proposed amendment provides for a vacation of the alley from the south edge of Hewitt's property to "F" Street instead of just the section adjacent to Hewitt's property. She said the owner of tax lot 1905 is opposed to the alley vacation, and maybe they have opposed it because they would like to retain their access to "F" Street from the alley. She asked if any thought had been given to reducing the alley vacation area to that area directly adjacent to Hewitt's property.

Mr. Morasch said they had considered that, and the reason they showed the entire half alley vacation was because the owner of tax lot 1905 will retain access at least to his half of the alley all the way to the street because there is no other owner on the other side of that property to block access. He said the owner of tax lot 1800 is in favor of the alley vacation.

Mayor Young noted that it would be more difficult to turn around in an area equal to one-half of the width of the alley.

Mr. Morasch agreed that it might be, but the owner on the other side of the alley is in favor of the vacation. Mr. Morasch said the City could choose to just vacate the part of the alley adjacent to Mr. Hewitt's property and it would not change the affected area.

Ray Biggs of Columbia City said he has a question that is not considered input in favor or against this proposal. He asked if this proposal was initiated by City Council.

The Mayor said the City Council agreed to initiate the alley vacation, but it was based on an agreement between Mr. Hewitt and the City.

Mr. Biggs said in the past, other City Councils have been opposed to any vacations, and he asked if this means that this Council is more favorably disposed to street and alley vacations and partial street and alley vacations.

The Mayor said she couldn't answer that question, but she did not think there was any pre-disposition to a desire to vacate alleys or not at this point.

Councilor Hudson said this is a specific instance and any other instances would be judged on their own merits.

Input in Opposition:

Mick Culbertson of Deer Island said he came here this evening to decide on a proposal to vacate the alley. He said there was never a mention of a half alley vacation. He said he owns property located at 2135 The Strand, and if the alley is vacated he estimates his property value will drop by at least $50,000. He said the buyer of the property will realize he cannot get a boat or motor home into his backyard, and the backyard would be landlocked. He said he didn't know if a person could back a large yacht like Mr. Hewitt owns down a 10-foot easement, as proposed by the half alley vacation. Mr. Culbertson asked why he should suffer a $50,000 loss of his property's value because a real estate professional has elected to try to go around City regulations. He said we have fiddled with this so long. He said the City Council has been too polite and too accommodating. He said Mr. Hewitt knew very well that he broke the City regulations when he built his deck into the setback area, and it was built after the final approval of the house. He said he could not understand why the Council would entertain a half alley vacation. He said the Council would be setting a precedent if they approve the half alley vacation. He said we all came to this meeting to discuss an alley vacation or no alley vacation, not a half alley vacation. He said he has invested a lot of money into his two homes on The Strand, and they are high-end homes. He said Mr. Hewitt had previously said he would build shacks and be gone overnight, and that has not been the case.

Finos Lunsford of Columbia City said he attended this meeting because he thought the Council was hearing public testimony about a full alley vacation and contained in the original proposal. He said he did not know there was an amendment. He said he is strictly opposed to any partial variation of the original alley vacation. He said he did not know there were petitions being circulated about an amendment.

Robert Campbell of Columbia City said he is one of the people that signed the petition opposed to the alley vacation. He said he has heard nothing about the new proposal and he has not had a chance to look at it. He asked Mr. Olsen if he is affected by the partial vacation. He said he does not understand how the Council can make a ruling on a partial vacation tonight. He said he would like to learn more about it and read the documents. He said he didn't see how the Council could make a ruling on the partial vacation tonight. He said he would like to learn more about it and read the documents if allowed to do so. He said he is opposed to the full alley vacation.

Councilor Hudson asked Mr. Campbell if the he is opposed to the half alley vacation.

Mr. Campbell said he couldn't say yet because he would like to know more about it and he would like to read the statute.

Councilor Hudson asked if the first sentence of the first paragraph on page 1 of the handout submitted by Mr. Morasch is implying that Campbell, Hruska and Jones would not oppose the half alley vacations.

Mr. Olsen said he believes they are trying to address the objections those people made about the full alley vacation.

Mr. Campbell said he does not agree with the City Council making a decision about the half alley proposal tonight.

Barbara Jones of Columbia City said their property is adjacent to Mr. Hewitt's. She said they own two lots on the east side of the alley adjacent to Mr. Hewitt's, and Mr. Culbertson owns property next to theirs. She said she and her husband signed the petition in 1998 in favor of the alley vacation, but the situation has changed. She said at that time they had absolutely no idea nor any plan to do any building on their lots adjacent to the alley. She said now the situation has changed and they have decided they perhaps would like to build and if they do that, any partial vacation in that area will make it very difficult for access to the backside of those lots. She said Mr. Culbertson also objects to the alley vacation, and they are all adjacent to the half alley proposed for vacation. She said she understood this meeting had to do with vacating the alley, and she has worked very hard to get signatures of people who object to vacating the alley. She said throwing in another curve at the last minute is unfair. She said no one has been notified about the new proposal for a half alley vacation. She said a partial vacation of an alley would result in a checkerboard effect just like doing partial sidewalks along The Strand, and she asked why the City Council would want to do that. She said if the Council is interested in vacating the alley, they should vacate the whole alley. She asked that the Council not vacate half of the alley.

Rebuttal:

Mr. Morasch said he has heard a lot of people complain that they did not know about a proposal for a partial alley vacation. He said they did suggest the partial alley vacation to the City some time ago. He said at least some of the people testifying today in opposition were aware of the new proposal or at least suspected it could be a possibility because there had been a letter submitted by the President of Whispering Pines on March 7, 2002, strongly objecting to a partial vacation. He said the statutes clearly authorize the City to vacate partial alleys. He said this is because notice went out saying the City was considering the vacation of the whole alley, and anyone wanting to object needed to object in writing. He said it is presumed that the people who did not object in writing to the entire alley would also not object to something less than that, which would be part of the alley. He said they have the signatures of three people saying they were specifically not opposed to the partial alley vacation. He said the only real question is whether there is a majority in opposition to the partial alley vacation and there clearly is not. He said we have a certain number of people that were not opposed to vacating the entire alley, and we have other people who are not opposed to the partial alley vacation, and they represent a majority of the land. He finds a $50,000.00 reduction in property value due to an alley vacation hard to believe, and there really is no evidence of that since he didn't bring anything from a broker or an appraiser to the hearing. He suggested that the City could soften the impact of the alley vacation to tax lots 1905 and 1907 by limiting the alley vacation to the half of the alley adjacent to Mr. Hewitt's property.

Mayor Young asked Mr. Morasch if he could state for a fact that the people who did not respond to the full alley vacation proposal would also not object to the checkerboard effect a partial alley vacation would create, as mentioned during Mrs. Jones' testimony. She asked him if he could be certain that the people who did not respond to the full alley vacation proposal would not change their minds and object to a partial alley vacation, much in the same way as the people who changed their minds when the proposal went from a full alley to a partial alley vacation.

Mr. Morasch said he didn't believe they would change their minds because the alley is undeveloped and not being used for access at this point. He said there is some gravel on a portion of the alley, which was put there by Mr. Hewitt, but otherwise the alley is undeveloped and not being used for access at this point. He said there is one undeveloped lot, and the owner of the lot has expressed an interest in using the alley for boat access if he builds on the lot. He said the people you are talking about are people who don't own property adjacent to the alley. He said the City's alleys are not intended to benefit any other people other than those owning property along it. The City has signs on these alleys saying these are not through streets, so these are not for people to walk through. He said alleys are not intended for people to use to walk through back yards. He said he lives on an alley, but he has a six-foot fence between his house and the alley, and everyone else does to, but he does not live in Columbia City. He said in this City, alleys tend to be undeveloped and used as an extension to everyone's backyard. The statute sets up a procedure and under the statute, it presumes that if people don't object to whatever is initially laid on the table, they won't object to something less than that. He said otherwise the statute would not authorize the City Council to grant part of the request and deny part of the request. He said under the statute the people who might be interested in part of the request but do not care about the whole request are obligated to attend the hearing to see what happens. He said we have not heard from anyone who was not opposed to the full alley vacation, but is opposed to the partial alley vacation.

Mayor Young said they may not know that a partial alley vacation is being considered.

Mr. Morasch said those people do not live in Hewitt's block, they live in one of the other blocks. He said the statute creates a duty for those people to attend the hearing if they care about what the City decides. He said there are many land use statutes that are written that way, because many things about the land use proposal can change during the hearing. He said there has been some talk about the variance issue, and that is what led up to this agreement for an alley vacation in the first place.

Mr. Culbertson said he came tonight to hear discussions for or against the vacation of an alley. He said all of this discussion about a half alley vacation is out of order. He said we'd like to hear comments for or against the vacation of the alley, and then have the Council vote on it.

Herman McNeely of Scappoose said he owns a lot at 2205 The Strand. He said when the City Council sets a precedent, they need to stick with it. He said it would be a big mistake for the Council to start chopping up alleys, and the Council should stay with the original proposal.

Public Hearing closed.

Councilor Calnon said she is confused by the two maps before her. She said one map shows people in favor of the proposal, while another map shows the same people as being opposed.

Councilor Schmor explained that three people had changed their minds if the proposal is for a partial alley vacation. Councilor Schmor asked if the notices to the property owners had mentioned anything about the consideration of a partial alley vacation.

Leahnette Rivers said the notices that were mailed addressed a full alley vacation from "F" Street to "G" Street in accordance with the notice requirements of the statute.

Mayor Young said it is her understanding that the City Council may consider vacating part of the alley, but the Council is not required to consider a partial alley vacation. She asked Mr. Olsen if her understanding is correct.

Mr. Olsen said the statute says the City can, but is not required to, vacate a portion of the proposal.

Councilor Guy suggested delaying the decision to give the property owners time to look at the partial vacation.

Mayor Young said this matter has been ongoing for a long time, and she said there are people that have worked long hours on a petition. She said she thinks it is unfair and unjust to make a change at the last minute. She said if the proposal changes, these people would have to go through all of that work again. She said she would like the Council to decide upon the full alley vacation, which was the original intent, and forget the proposal for a partial vacation. She said she is not interested in vacating alleys in bits and pieces. She said if we should not make changes to what we originally agreed upon when the City agreed to initiate the alley vacation in the first place. She said the Council has been presented with a great amount of opposition to the full alley vacation. She said she feels like the partial alley vacation is just another ploy to get something approved. She said based upon the input that she has heard, and received in writing, she suggested the City Council proceed with the full alley vacation as originally intended, and not accept any amended proposals or vacate any less than what was considered from the beginning. She said she is in favor of denying the alley vacation.

MOVED (SCHMOR), SECONDED (GUY) AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO OPPOSE THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN "F" AND "G" STREETS BASED UPON THE SIGNATURES OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE AFFECTED AREA.

The Council reviewed a letter dated March 18, 2002, from Shirley Mann, Head Librarian of the Columbia City Elementary School. Ms. Mann addressed the City Council, and explained that she is also the Head Librarian for the Columbia City School and Community Library, which has been very successful. She said the City has contributed to that success, and thanked the Council for their support. She said it is time again to prepare the budget, and she said they would like to continue to offer the library to the community. She said they have 465 patrons who are using the facility. She said these patrons check out books, magazines, newspapers, videos, and they also use the facilities that the school has provided, including the computers and internet services. She said the school has been very generous with their support of this endeavor. Ms. Mann said the library is still in need of the City's support. She reviewed the financial needs for the coming year, as included with her March 18 letter. She said financial needs for the Library Assistant will be $3,898.44 and $1,920.00 for the Head Librarian Stipend in the coming year. She said they could use $1,200.00 for new books, and $400.00 for supplies. She noted that the library continues to grow, and will outgrow the current facility in the near future. She asked where the City Council stands with the future of the library.

Mayor Young said it has been more difficult to work with the school in a joint effort in recent years due to staffing changes at the superintendent and principal levels. She said it has been rather difficult to work with the new principal in a joint effort for the community. She said the City Council thought they were helping when they agreed to contribute the revenues from the Celebration to the library during the past two years. She said the citizens, who pay for the school through taxes, should make the decisions about whether or not the school continues to contribute to the library. Mayor Young said the City has other needs for the Celebration revenues, and the incentive to put it towards the library decreases when the future of the library is in question.

Shirley Mann said she has been very dedicated to making the community library available, and the City's funds have been used to pay for needed staffing. She said without the staffing, the library cannot be made available to the community. She said we should continue to talk about the future of the library at a later date.

Councilor Schmor said the voters approved the proposal for the new school building with the idea that there would be space provided for a community library. He said nothing was presented to the City Council about the City agreeing to take over the library services, or for the City making any contributions to the community library. He said after the voters funded the construction and the building was completed, a request for financial assistance was made to the City for staffing.

Cathy Lundberg, President of the Friends of the Library, said she spends approximately four to five hours per week processing adult books so they are available for people to check out from the library. She said the community section of the library is reaching the point that it is full, and there is no more room for new books to be put on the shelves. She said eventually we will want more space for the community section of the library. She said we will need more support from Columbia City in two years because additional space is needed. She said when the community library is moved to a larger location, it is her understanding that all of the children's books belong to the school district and will remain in the school library, but the adult books will belong to the community library.

Mayor Young said the building across the street from City Hall may be a possibility. She said this year there is some competition for the Celebration funds. She noted that historically the Celebration funds were used for a different cause each year. She said now she is concerned about the future of the community library, and it is difficult to contribute towards something that may not be there next year.

The Council continued to discuss the library needs and service levels with Ms. Mann and Ms. Lundberg at length.

MOVED (HUDSON), SECONDED (SCHMOR) AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO CONTINUE THE COUNCIL MEETING UNTIL 10:00 P.M.

Robert Campbell suggested the Council ask the voters to support a community library through a tax levy. He said the combined effort between the City and the School District to provide a public library is an interesting and unique arrangement.

4.1 Parks Committee: No report.

4.2 Water Source and Development Committee: Alana Probst asked if there would be a report about water development during this meeting, and in particular, discussion about the Probst water system. She said they are interested in either selling the water system to the City, or selling excess water to the City.

Councilor Guy said the Committee is researching some options for the well.

Leahnette Rivers said the Water Committee has not met to discuss the Probst water system yet because the City Engineer is still in the process of checking with the Health Division to determine whether or not the City could use the existing wells for municipal purposes. She suggested Ms. Probst attend the next Water Committee Meeting. Ms. Rivers suggested she provide the City with her e-mail address so that she can receive future meeting agendas.

4.3 Streets Committee: No report.

4.4 Other reports: Councilor Schmor suggested the City Council postpone the RCE pump station reconstruction project for a few years, and proceed with the purchase of an extra pump and the hydrogen sulfide system at this time.

Councilor Hudson expressed concern about delaying the inevitable, and thus increasing the costs of the project.

Council discussed this matter with staff at length, including funding options for the RCE project, modifying the scope of the RCE project, etc.

MOVED (SCHMOR), SECONDED (CALNON), AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO POSTPONE THE RCE PUMP STATION RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT FOR A FEW YEARS, AND TO PROCEED WITH THE PURCHASE OF AN EXTRA PUMP AND THE HYDROGEN SULFIDE SYSTEM AT THIS TIME.

5.1 Approval of Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 7, 2002.

MOVED (GUY), SECONDED (HUDSON) AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ROLL CALL VOTE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

Harold Olsen was excused from the remainder of the meeting.

6.1 Sewer Usage Fees: Recommendation from City Administrator/Recorder regarding an increase in sewer usage fees; discussion of rate structure options.

The Council continued their review of sample rate structures, including a chart showing revised sample rate structures. The Council discussed the rate options at length with staff.

MOVED (HUDSON), SECONDED (CALNON) AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO PROCEED WITH A FLAT 25% SEWER USAGE INCREASE.

MOVED (HUDSON), SECONDED (SCHMOR) AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AGREEMENT.

Coalition Against Bigger Trucks: Leahnette Rivers explained that Colleen Pacheco, Northwest Field Director for the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, has asked the City to join the coalition and send a letter to our U.S. Representative. The Council discussed the details of this request at length. It was the consensus of the Council that the City be named in support of the coalition and the Mayor send a letter.

Public Works Superintendent: Leahnette Rivers said the City received 10 applications for the position of Public Works Superintendent, and it was the consensus of the Council that the position be re-advertised. Mayor Young noted that due to the extended vacancy of this position, an Interim Public Works Superintendent will be hired. No objections were heard from the Council.

There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

Return to Columbia City home page