§.-v

^s^-i —Aimnn.

4-*»•OUNTIPUl.

CITY

OF

MT wan

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSIONTuesday, February 11th, 2020 at 5:45 pm

City Council Chambers13680 NW Main Street

Banks, OR 97106

AGENDA

Work Sessions provide the City Council an opportunity to conduct informal communications with eachother, review their meeting agenda and identify questions they may have for staff before their scheduledmeeting. Work Session meetings are open to the public but do not include an opportunity for publiccomment or communication with the City Council. The City Council typically asks citizens attending theWork Session meetings to hold their Work Session agenda comments and questions for the regularpublic meeting. The regular Council meeting following the Work Session includes time for publictestimony on agenda items, as well as public comment on Council Meeting non-agenda items.

CALL TO ORDER

INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION ITEMS1. Staff response to Councilor questions about any of the February 11th, 2020 Council Meeting

Agenda items.2. Banks Road/Cedar Canyon Road/Main Street (Highway 47) Intersection Overview - Washington

County LUT.3. Island Annexation Timeline4. Infrastructure (Earthquake) Insurance Update5. Discussion regarding East Side Open Space Requirement (UGB)

COUNCILOR COMMITTEE REPORTS6. Mayor Edison

Banks Economic Development Commission LiaisonSunset Park Association Liaison (Alternate: Councilor Kirk)

• Washington County Coordinating Committee (WCCC) (Alternate: Councilor Kirk)• City Manager Performance Review Sub-Committee

7. Councilor Jones

Banks School District #13 Board Liaison (Alternate: Mayor Edison)Community Development Block Grant/Policy Advisory Board (PAB) (Alternate: CouncilorNelson)City Manager Performance Review Sub-Committee

• Park, Recreation and Tree Board Liaison (Alternate: Councilor Nelson)8. Councilor Gregg

Internal Audit Sub-Committee

Next City Council Work Session: March 10th, 2020 @ 6:00 P.M.

Page 1 of 2

Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency (WCCCA) (AlternateCouncilor Nelson)Partners for a Sustainable Washington County Committee Executive Sponsor Team(PSWCC) (Alternate: Mayor Edison)

9. Councilor Nelson

Banks Fire District #13 Board Liaison (Alternate: Councilor Lyda)Library Advisory Board Liaison (Alternate: Councilor Jones)Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (MACC) (Alternate: Councilor Gregg)Internal Audit Sub-Committee

• City Manager Performance Review Sub-Committee10. Councilor Kirk

Banks Economic Development Commission LiaisonCol-PAC EDD (Columbia-Pacific Economic Development Directors) (Alternate: CouncilorGregg)NWACT (Alternate: Councilor Gregg)Banks Historical Society Liaison (Alternate: Councilor Gregg)

11. Councilor hlarold-Heine

West Tuality Habitat for Humanity (Alternate: None)Internal Audit Sub-Committee

12. Councilor Lyda

ADJOURN

Next City Council Work Session: March 10th, 2020 @ 6:00 P.M.

Page 2 of 2

2

jisENGINEERING a FORESTRY

BEND.OR

2777 NW Lolo Drive. Suite 150Bend, OR 97703(541)317-8429

www.aks-eng.com

KEIZER, OR3700 River Road N, Suite 1Keizer. OR 97303(503) 400-6028

TUALATIN. OR

12965 SW Herman Road, Suite 1BOTualatin, OR 97062(503) 563-6151

VANCOUVER, WA9600 ME 126"' Avenue. Suite 2520Vancouver. WA 98682(360) 882-0419

Date: 2/5/2020

To: Matt Caswell, Region 2 Development Review Coordinator (ODOT)CC: Dorothy Upton (ODOT), Scott Nelson (ODOT), Keith Blair (ODOT), Karen Strauss (ODOT),

Mayor Pete Edison (City of Banks), Jolynn Becker (City of Banks), Rocky Brown (County),Matt Meier (County)

From: Alex Hurley, PE, AKS Engineering & ForestryProject Name: NW Banks Road/Main Street/NW Cedar Canyon Road Intersection ImprovementsAKS Job No.: 5695

Subject; T.-aff..:: S.i -nal Approval Request

The City of Banks' Transportation System Plan (TSP) has identified the intersection of NW Banks Road/NWCedar Canyon Road/Main Street (OR 47) as unable to meet mobility standards by 2029, following build-out of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This intersection provides one of only two routes between thefuture development area of East Banks and downtown Banks. Washington County has initiated a projectto mitigate conditions at this intersection that will accommodate future development in East Banks.

All installations and modifications of traffic signals require two different approvals: operational approvaland design approval. Operational approval is required before design approval can be granted. Operationalapproval confirms the decision that the proposed installation of the traffic signal is the preferred methodof traffic control for the intersection. An engineering study of the NW Banks Road/NW Cedar CanyonRoad/Main Street intersection has been completed demonstrating that the installation of a traffic signalwill improve the overall safety and operation of the intersection. This memorandum provides a summaryof the findings of the engineering study. Additional details are provided in the attached conceptualdrawings, evaluation criteria and scoring matrix, and the traffic analysis results memorandum.

The intersection is located within Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Region 2, District 1, alongOR 47 (Main Street) at mile point 82.85. The cross street is NW Banks Road to the East and NW CedarCanyon Road to the West.

efc

&w»«> <n OxwnbW 2. 201»

t

ItSON RIVEtI HWV

*.Project Site

*T,0^<'*\\ If

\•,

NW CEDARCANYON ROA NW BANKS ROAD

•I

£ ••s ^W 8^nl(»

I ,»-^-Wdkf^b^o

WA &HIN crow^-T^' :••-;'y'-r-^^^

•; •"•"'.•-..,.'"«••..„

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

Traffic Volumes (a.m. and p.m. volumes for existing and future years)

The traffic analysis used 2015 traffic count data from the Banks At-Grade Rail Crossing Summary PlanningReport to develop base (existing) year traffic volumes. Future condition traffic volumes were developedand analyzed for years 2020 (assumed opening year), 2029 (UGB buildout year per Banks TSP), and 2040(horizon year). Existing and future p.m. peak traffic volumes are summarized in the following figure.Additional detail is shown in the attached traffic analysis memorandum.

Existing Keor

2015PM Future Year

2040

r~~

i0

\NW Cedar Canyon Road

1

15

15

v

^"

11

32

62

Banks Road

soe0

/

fM

\ \

^

'V

\\

<T3

s:

NW Cedar Canyon Road26—^

96

110

^, 72

102

-211Banks Road

Y

\

ro

s^2

A

sM

/'srsi

Figure 2: Existing and Future Traffic Volumes

The City of Banks TSP identifies a future potential development to the west of NW Main Street. Thisdevelopment is proposed to have an access point on NW Cedar Canyon Road between the studyintersection and the existing West Fork Dairy Creek bridge. The future traffic volumes above assume thatthis connection is in place. However, intersection spacing standards would preclude this future road fromconnecting to NW Cedar Canyon Road without a major realignment of NW Cedar Canyon Road, potentiallyincluding a bridge replacement.

Traffic Signal Warrant AnalysisA traffic signal warrant analysis was completed for the eight-hour vehicular volume, following Chapter 4Cof the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Federal Highway Administration, 2009). The analysisevaluated the existing year (2015), assumed opening year (2020), and future year (2029) traffic conditions.Signal warrants are not met for year 2015 or 2020. However, signal warrants are met for the future year(2029) traffic conditions. The future year passes the preliminary signal warrant analysis Condition A—Minimum Vehicular Traffic.

A sensitivity analysis was completed to determine what yearthe signal warrant requirements are fulfilled.The first year that the intersection meets the preliminary signal warrant for Condition A is 2023. ConditionB—Interruption of Continuous Traffic is not met under any of the years considered.

j|S NW Banks Road/Main Street/NW Cedar Canyon RoadIntersection Improvements

Page 2 of 10

Signal Progression AnalysisThe nearest existing signal is located at the intersection of OR 47 (Main Street) and NW Oak Way,approximately 0.75 miles south of the study intersection. No proposed signals are anticipated by theBanks TSP within 0.5 miles of the study intersection.

Conceptual Traffic Signal DesignThe conceptual signal improvements are attached. Northbound, southbound, and westbound legs of theintersection include dedicated left turn lanes. Due to the uncertainty over the future NW Cedar CanyonRoad improvements, the intersection design does not include an eastbound left turn lane on NW CedarCanyon Road. The conceptual design does not preclude any future development of an eastbound left turnlane on NW Cedar Canyon Road and extending the northbound left turn lane on NW Main Street, ifwarranted due to future development.

IBS I ;•*<" ^f »rw-tflp' ^ a/l

:dft^^ 0^ ^ -^0 -s^i >.

s/v c3D f;< L~""*^'/^r <ro

^-»«..; r5^-As^iws- •sj»<K.^- :^<u

b^u -'>

.f ^Hop CyclejBrewing

a \Build-'9 <

Five Star t.

81 t ^•»>D ^ <n

/»^B R^:S9' /-^-/< /',-^-^i /

,.?. .f <' t

^<^Mat"RNW ^•it.

0 ^*- ~yQ£0»<5 ^ \J2 ^ ^

roi -t-Shell <r:9»^00

m ^K»» \-A

Figure 3: Conceptual Traffic Signal Design

Vehicle TurningThe Minimum Turning Path for an Interstate Semitrailer standard (WB-67) from the "Green Book," i.e., -4Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition (American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials, 2018), is the design vehicle path for the intersection design. The intersectionwas evaluated and it was determined that the design vehicle can be accommodated. Vehicle turningtemplates will be provided with the Design Acceptance Package (DAP) submittal.

Safety AnalysisAccording to ODOT, the most recent five years (2013-2017) of crash records result in a crash rate 0.4crashes per year, which is less than the expected crash rate of 1.1 for a similar facility, per the AmericanAssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (2010). If theintersection were to remain as-is with no improvements, the predicted crash frequency in year 2040 is4.3 crashes per year, with fatality and injury present in 2.2 crashes per year.

jjS NW Banks Road/Main Street/NW Cedar Canyon RoadIntersection Improvements

Page 3 of 10

Following the installation of the signal, the expected crash frequency in the year 2040 and the change incrash frequency (percentage) are shown below.

Crash Type/lnjury Expected Crashes Crash Reduction

Traffic SignalAll Types (All Severities) 2.41 44%

All Types (Injury) 2.94 32%

Right-Angle (All Severities) 0.99 77%

Left-Turn (All Severities) 1.72 60%

Rear-End (All Severities) 6.79 -58%

Figure 4: 2040 Predicted Crash Frequency

Operational AnalysisThe study intersection is under ODOT's jurisdiction and should comply with the volume to capacity ratio(v/c) standards in the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) (ODOT, 1999 amended through May 2015). The OHPspecifies a v/c target of 0.9 for statewide highways such as OR 47 (Table 6, OHP).

The existing year (2015) operational evaluation of the current two way stop control shows that theintersection operates at a level of service (LOS) A for the major street (NW Main Street) and C for theminor street (NW Banks Road/Cedar Canyon Road), with a delay of 11.2 seconds. The resulting v/c is 0.24.

The intersection was analyzed for the following future year conditions:

2020 Assumed Opening Year

• 2029 Future Year, Urban Growth Buildout per City of Banks TSP

2040 Horizon Year

Operational results for the intersection for the no-build option for opening and future conditions showthat by the year 2029 the intersection operates at a v/c of greater than 2.0. However, with the installationof a signal, the v/c is predicted to be 0.75 in the year 2029 and 0.88 in the year 2040, meeting the operatingstandards.

Intersection OperatingStandard

Scenario Control LOS Delay(seconds)

v/c

Banks Road /Main Street

0.90 V/CAssumed

Opening YearBuild (2020)

Signalized B 14 0.52

Banks Road /Main Street

0.90 V/CFuture Year Build

(2029)Signalized c 26 0.75

Banks Road /Main Street

0.90 V/CHorizon Year

Build (2040) Signalized D 36 0.88

Figure 5: Assumed Opening Year and Future Signal Operations

Transportation System Plan ConsistencyA detailed review of the City of Banks TSP was conducted to verify the concept design's consistency withthese plans. In the Banks TSP, the intersection of Banks Road and Main Street is documented as failing to

AKK NW Banks Road/Main Street/NW Cedar Canyon RoadIntersection Improvements

Page 4 of 10

meet the applicable mobility target for the 2029 future no-build conditions. Furthermore, the TSP

identifies this intersection as a future needs project to improve congestion issues as East Banks develops.A signal will mitigate the deficiency identified in the TSP.

Improvements to the intersection of Banks Road and Main Street were also identified as a capitalimprovement plan project in the Banks Vision 2037 Plan (City of Banks, 2017).

Evidence of Other Agency SupportThe City of Banks is supportive of the proposed intersection improvements. Attached is a letter of supportsigned by the City Manager and Mayor.

Comparison of Reasonable AlternativesA roundabout intersection improvement concept was evaluated as an alternative to a signal. The

categories included in the evaluation are traffic performance, safety, access modifications/privateproperty impacts, construction-phase public impacts, environmental impacts/regulatory permitting, andrisk. A rating between 1 and 10 was assigned to the evaluation categories for the roundabout and signalalternatives. These scores and the associated category weighting were collaboratively established by AKS

and Washington County staff. A summary of findings is below.

1. Traffic Performance

Operational results for the roundabout option show that by the years 2029 and 2040, the intersection will

operate at a v/c of 0.57 and 0.83 respectively.

Intersection OperatingStandard

Scenario Control LOS Delay(seconds)

v/c

Banks Road /Main Street

0.90 V/CAssumed

Opening YearBuild (2020)

Roundabout A 7 0.44

Banks Road /Main Street

0.90 V/CFuture Year Build

(2029)Roundabout A 9 0.57

Banks Road /Main Street

0.90 V/CHorizon YearBuild (2040)

Roundabout c 17 0.83

Figure 6: Assumed Opening Year and Future Roundabout Operations

Operational performance of the roundabout is similar to the signal.

Roundabout

Signal

0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure 7: Traffic Performance Scoring

j|S NW Banks Road/Main Street/NW Cedar Canyon RoadIntersection Improvements

Page 5 of 10

2. SafetyFollowing the installation of a roundabout, the expected vehicle crash frequency in the year 2040 and thechange in crash frequency (percentage) are represented below.

Crash Type/lnjury Expected Crashes Crash Reduction

Roundabout

All Types (All Severities) 1.25 3.05 (71%)

All Types (Injury) 0.56 1.11 (87%)

Figure 8: Roundabout Year 2040 Expected Crash Frequency

Pedestrian safety will be greatly improved at the intersection with the installation of a signal orroundabout. As compared to a traffic signal, a roundabout has certain positive and negative impacts forpedestrians of different demographics. A roundabout has fewer pedestrian-vehicle conflict points, shorterwait times for pedestrians to cross, lower exposure to vehicles because of the shortened crossing distance,and any pedestrian crashes would involve lower impact speeds. However, while roundabouts offer thegeneral pedestrian population certain crossing and safety benefits, research indicates that children andelderly pedestrians face special challenges to safely crossing a street at a roundabout. These challengesare due to slower walking speeds, difficulty judging vehicle speed and traffic stream gaps, and children'simpulsivity, small body size, and less experience with traffic.

A roundabout as an intersection control treatment is predicted to result in fewer overall vehicle andpedestrian crashes than a signal.

Roundabout

Signal

0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure 9: Safety Scoring

3. Access Modifications/Private Property ImpactsBoth the signal and the roundabout may require access modifications and will have impacts to privateproperty. The three properties that will be impacted are Five Star Builders (contractor), the Shell station(gas station), and Tax Lot 5600 of Washington County Assessor's Map 2N 3 31BB (Tax Lot 2N3310BB05600).

Five Star Builders

The signal concept will remove parking from Five Star Builders, but they will still have ingress andegress access to their site from Main Street. The roundabout will require the purchase andrelocation of the Five Star Builders site, as the improvements will encroach on the existingbuilding. The signal has significantly less impact on Five Star Builders.

JKS NW Banks Road/Main Street/NW Cedar Canyon RoadIntersection Improvements

Page 6 of 10

ShellNeither concept will significantly encroach on this property but may result in a requirement toremove one of the two accesses to the property.

Tax Lot 2N3310BB 05600This property is located at the northwest corner of the intersection. Both the roundabout andsignal intersection improvement would encroach on the existing building.

The roundabout has considerably more impact to private property than the signal concept.

Roundabout

Signal

0 2 4 6810

Figure 10: Access Modifications/Private Property Impacts

4. Construction-Phase Public ImpactsIn order to maintain traffic flow during construction, the roundabout concept would require a longer,phased construction schedule that would lead to a long construction window, potential road closures, andlong detours.

Roundabout

Signal

0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure 11: Construction-Phase Public Impacts

Aim NW Banks Road/Main Street/NW Cedar Canyon RoadIntersection Improvements

Page 7 of 10

5. Environmental Impacts/Regulatory PermittingBoth the signal and roundabout will impact other areas with known contaminated soils. The roundaboutencroaches on a much larger area overall and an area adjacent to the existing highway, north of theintersection, that has been identified as floodplain and non-jurisdictional wetlands.

Roundabout

Signal

0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure 12: Environmental Permitting

6. Risk

A compact roundabout is not a standard intersection improvement design. The compact roundabout willrequire extensive design iterations and coordination with ODOT and the Oregon Freight AdvisoryCommittee. The required ODOT design exception approval may extend the project design schedule up toa year, which will result in higher construction costs. The compact roundabout requires complexconstruction sequencing and staging, which will increase project costs and extend the project schedule.The complexity of the construction phasing, construction-phase traffic management, private propertyimpacts, and construction duration required for the roundabout introduces significant risks for scheduleand cost changes.

Roundabout

Signal

0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure 13: Risk

AW NW Banks Road/Main Street/NW Cedar Canyon RoadIntersection Improvements

Page 8 of 10

SummaryThe evaluation criteria were weighted, and the signal and roundabout alternatives were ranked based ontheir weighted scores. A summary is shown below, and the detailed evaluation ranking is attached.

Criteria

1. Traffic Performance

RoundaboutPriority SignalWeighting Score Weighted Score " Score Weighted Score

25% 5.0 1.25 5.0 1.25

2.Safety 25% 4.4 1.10 7.1 1.78

3. Access Modifications/ PrivateProperty Impacts

15% 7.0 1.05 3.0 0.45

4. Construction-Phase Public

Impacts5% 8.0 0.40 2.0 0.10

5. Environmental Impacts,Regulatory Permitting

15% 8.0 1.20 2.0 0.30

6. Risk 15% 8.0 1.20 2.0 0.30

Score Totals nTotal Weighted Scores!

Signal ^^^U Roundabout

6.20 4.18Figure 14: Evaluation Criteria Weighting and Scoring

A comparative cost estimate was prepared for the purpose of comparing the two alternatives. Theestimate, including construction, right-of-way acquisition, and engineering for the roundabout and signalis:

Roundabout: $7.5M

Signal: $5.0M

Washington County has a budget of $5M to complete the intersection improvements. Both the signal androundabout are viable intersection treatment concepts; however, the signal concept is the only conceptthat can be designed and installed within the existing budget. Additionally, the signal will have fewerconstruction-phase impacts to traffic, a shorter duration of construction, fewer environmental impacts,and less risk of schedule and cost changes. The signal traffic operation will meet ODOT mobility standardsand will reduce the predicted crash incident rate as compared to the no-build scenario.

Based on the evaluation completed, the signal is the recommended intersection improvement concept.

AW NW Banks Road/Main Street/NW Cedar Canyon RoadIntersection Improvements

Page 9 of 10

Attachments:

Conceptual Traffic Signal ExhibitConceptual Compact Roundabout ExhibitEvaluation Criteria and Scoring matrix

Traffic Analysis Results MemorandumCity of Banks Letter of SupportPreliminary Signal Operations Design

•

Alex Hurley PE,PLS, PrincipalAKS ENGINEERING & FORESTRY, LLC

4!S NW Banks Road/Main Street/NW Cedar Canyon RoadIntersection Improvements

Page 10 of 10

msxsas ncufcwaui CWCEPMIC | IMKUT: IAWUTI

Si.71 ^ 'l!l ^^:^'.Wli4 ^''L:^1' ^!

^' ^[

i! (*••.&«• ^efr

1I.msrl^

flj I ^

^llf <fr ^ >T ^r,- <fr2 :•)' i^l s•i;(^ (fl

,4. ^ Is,Ji~.r' s_l s-w^ ?W!^Jils s•'•cwwm^ ^ H0 17 ills s_n .«Pfc 5liij g3> ^ ^ I.A J^91 ^ 1^ rSl'all I— ^s A-<^ ^s7- J "3 It 1_l 0s s7--I 2^' 7^ ^ g §s s-I,i .1 ^.N4 StII gl|EiH H

K-3 .-4-I H w*R »^-¥-SP II Rill.^11^^ r ->!s Ss »"^1 o-

!t- ^ •I_t Ita SP^ -^ il-I i{Hpe

fr;...^ ^ Iw.im ^1iU ^

'I1•^ * s^ 15 ss. f ?.^^ w.';-« i1 '»^,^.

I ym^m" mI-3 i§ *-^s yns ;isII z Is isIay sxNvg •Sl'•%

\4AN I—M

•'-T riSK.: s.5 ^•^' \TE-l- 8/>_^cs

^ay NOANVOyvaao MN

<&>..\%

i. II;;B

/ firiS'!a.l. ^l.1•i.. wv flnIIsss. !M

4s ^^ lss2> ^ i§-

1.i !1 >\.1 s.<'

^ I IIs

^jw*2 < F- *•?

^»«» ^<n

s "t

\ ^\d "I 1^3

?5 ^\ \ si8.S. \1\ T'<

s. IIsa

\§g ?•r

-fe&g %,!§» '%(j, y<^ t:-.'s w^•-fl»t .\'^u> ^I \!»,I-

^ \im 0..»» '<• '%3Di /w \^&,Ill -i30 \sl

^ 0s

9 ^ \

It^ \1-

/B gI FORESTRY, LLC

^K"'"""'MAIN ST/BANKS RDINTERSECTION

BANKS OREGON

-ilKQgas

CONCEPTUALCOMPACT-ROUNDABOUT

s 1156161s

SURVEYING • NATURAL RESOURCESFORESTRY • PLANNING • LANDSCAPE AF

, INTOSECDON aCN*l CTKCEPTOK; | lAnUT

^ 1>^-II

0-

vx ^.'

^"i 3

to-^'w I ^1> IBSSF, ill•% 2^ ^ 4^ &' 0)•\ •ft ES

nz

< -t40 r s

s°33 i=.1!'» s T £% <»

^^ ^! I§ s^ 1;° ] II? s :<*»- ^ss;—^ gis 0.^^ §I"' ^ 5m

ja Ks8 ^ y^

I^'-'i&K S.K^ I*.

8g?1

i»

»'(h

Nf ^»^^ il

s^^. »^ s^fv.

?

...^- I' ^. ^ .,•I Fl.^ci''.^1T! ^-y '•.':]!<;. •.•*

'•nf" • arms f ^

aysxNvaylAN

!--"

'"-V

s>0

^!*- -w,i

1^I-

,(L,,,.,.. \ '\ \•^r!^^-—.dy NOANVOyvaao MN^^

__s-" — ,—

-^-^ "i7\t»,.

<1.\v«' ^Si \ $te?

kif «\ TRRT1»,<

-,^ 5^« x•a-

•»'). <Is

Jt

^sF^y-!^»# m..* b ^ ^ "^- -s

^a-r'i-N \I

»\

^•^sl ^s ^\\i t

\^ <fr :4 \. ^¥ \<ii11 •^I \^1 •^^<* ^»".ss-^. \ ^ ^\.7J Oi \ %.SWfli&la 1 s

-J^^-l99^

\ ^^.s"

1.S. \ ^\ '<" %\\;J Is J II \ ^\•A,U) \'>. ^\\^. & ^ESA ••^\\IS Bui0g

v\-^ v \\K iSB \*0 \I *!

'%/^r\ •^w.w- ^ --^,-.\M

^^s

i^ la ^ ! ~Hg

11•I - \wSe /a

\

II

lia|

la

Is|i

CONCEPTUALTRAFFIC SIGNAL

MAIN ST/BANKS RDINTERSECTION

BANKS OREGON

US ENONEERNG k FOBESIRT, UC

s'ss'""P: 501S616151F: KU.M.I.BIK

ENGINEERING • SURVEYING . NATURAL RESOURCESFORESTnY-PLANNING-l-ANDSCAPEARCtffTECTURE

3tfx

"-&L

NKSCITY

Or-

Febmary 4, 2020

TO: Mayor Edison and City Council

FR: Scot Siegel, Contract City Planner

RE: West Banks Group Annexation/Jurisdictional Map Corrections

ACTION

Provide direction to staff on whether to initiate annexation for those portions of the multipleproperties adjacent to the east side ofNW Main Street that are surrounded by the city limits.

If the direction is to proceed, staff is also requesting direction on which type ofaimexationprocedure the Council wants to use.

BACKGROUND

This request pertains to portions of lots that are split between City of Banks and WashingtonCounty jurisdictions and which are entirely surrounded by the City. (Exhibits A and B) The Cityhas an opportunity to annex this area and have the costs of annexation reimbursed under theagreement in Exhibit C.

When the City annexed the properties in the west area ofUGB in 2017 (AN 16-01), portions of22 lots located between the annexed territory and the east side ofNW Main Street remained splitbetween City and County jurisdictions. The area of each lot that falls outside the city limits isrelatively small, typically 10-30 feet in depth. Most of these lots, the portions inside the city, arezoned residential, and several contain accessory structures. This has created administrativeinefficiencies for the City and County, and confusion for the property owners.

DISCUSSION

The gap between city and county jurisdiction became more evident after the City annexed thelarger parcels to the west, creating an island of unincorporated land under multiple ownerships.This condition is not conducive to good planning and service delivery. The Washington CountyTax Assessor must produce multiple tax statements for these properties, and the City is notreceiving the full benefit of property tax revenue, albeit a relatively small amount, that theproperties would otherwise contribute if the entirety of each lot was inside the city limits. The

1

current situation may also add unnecessary costs and delays to the processing of land useapplications and building permits.

The amount of property tax revenue that the City is foregoing each year is not a large sum(approximately $1,300), though over time it will add up. The current city boundary may alsocreate difficulties for extending planned streets and utilities for future development.

All but two of the "parent lots" (those portions of each lot that are inside the city) are zoned R-5.The two northernmost parent lots are zoned Commercial. The unincorporated portions of eachlot, upon annexation, accordingly, would be zoned R-5 or C.

ALTERNATIVES

There are three general approaches the City could take for annexation of this area:

1. Do Nothing Option. The City could wait for individual property owners to petition to theCity to annex, similar to how other properties have recently come into the Banks. UnderORS 222.125, a city may annex territory where all property owners and a majority ofelectors residing within the annexing territory consent to the aimexation. This is known asthe "double-majority" method of annexation, and it requires a public hearing before theCity Council. A variation on this approach that does not require the consent of allproperty owners is the "triple-majority" method. Under this approach, the City Councilneed not call or hold an election in any contiguous territory proposed to be annexed if amajority of property owners in territory, who also own more than half of the land in theterritory and of real property therein representing more than half of the assessed value ofall real property in the contiguous territory consent in writing to the annexation.

While this approach can be practical for annexing large areas, or contiguous areas wherea property owner or group of property owners wishes to annex (usually so that they candevelop or connect to sewer), it would be an inefficient way to resolve the particularsituation that we have in West Banks. Under the double- or triple-majority approach,each application would require separate processing, including preparation of legaldescriptions, public notices, hearings, and filings with the State. Each property ownerwould have to finance the petition process own their own; it would not be reimbursableunder the agreement in Exhibit C.

2. City-Sponsored Petition Option. The City could assist individual property owners orgroups of property owners in filing petitions for (consents to) annexation by waiving cityannexation fees and paying for surveying and other costs. This could happen under thedouble- or triple-majority options described above. While the upside for the propertyowners under this approach is obvious, it would be an inefficient way for the City toproceed, and the costs would not be reimbursable under the agreement in Exhibit C.Under this approach, the City would incur costs for each application, including

2

preparation of legal descriptions, public notices, hearings, and filings with the State. TheCity would be unlikely to recover its costs for quite some time.

3. All-in Option. Under this approach, the City would initiate annexation of the entire area(the unincorporated portions of all properties) following the procedure in ORS 222.750.This statute is specifically for situations where an entire territory (including thosecomprised of multiple properties) is completely surrounded by a city, which is the case inBanks. It has the advantage of greater efficiency and certainty of approval, as comparedto waiting for a large number of property owners to petition the City, and the cost ofannexation would be reimbursable under the agreement in Exhibit C. Though there areissues that the Council should consider.

a. For property that is zoned residential upon annexation and is in residential usewhen annexation is initiated by the city, the city must specify an effective date forthe annexation that is at least three years and not more than 10 years after the datethe city proclaims the annexation approved. The only exceptions to thisrequirement are: 1) where the property owner consents to annexation without thedelay, and 2) where a property is sold before the effective date, in which case theproperty that is subject to delayed annexation becomes part of the cityimmediately upon transfer of ownership.

b. The annexation would be subject to a vote of the electorate residing in Banks.Both ORS 222.127 and 222.750 (Exhibit D) appear to exempt all amiexationsfrom local charter election requirements except city-initiated annexations wherethe territory to be annexed is completely surrounded by the city (islandannexation). Thus, if the coimcil decides to (1) initiate this annexation (2) underthe so-called island annexation provisions ofORS 222.750, it would have to go tothe voters for approval pursuant to Section 3 (Boundaries) of the City's Charter.

RECOMMENDATION AND WORK PLAN

Staff recommends the City Council initiate annexation following the "All-in" approach asprovided by ORS 222.750.

Based on the project area shown in Exhibit A, planning and surveying costs are estimated to be$5,000. This is based on the following scope of work:

1. Registered surveyor to prepare boundary legal description and map and review the mapwith Oregon Department of Revenue for technical sufficiency. (March)

2. Prepare fact sheet and answer property owners' questions. Identify property owners whowant annexation without 3-year delay in effective date. (April)

3

3. Required notices, ordinance, staff report, and findings. (May)

4. City Council approval of ballot title and description (June)

5. City Council hearing, and first and second readings of annexation ordinance (June-July)

6. Submit final ordinance to Oregon Secretary of State. (July)

7. Annexation election (September)

EXHIBITS

A. Area with unincorporated portions of lots (Maps)

B. Washington County Assessor Maps

C. Annexation Cost Reimbursement Agreement

D. Annexation statutes (ORS 222.127 and 222.175)

4

EXHIBIT A

Area with unincorporated portions of lots (Typical)

V

d.,'vMaps'J^ds^t-w^.^4

-1^ -:

I—I—r—

^w^,-}U;,.J-LX^\'VB®f^^t^ p-^.;»-

^ ^m10 ' strip ^

f-be annexed'\to -fl ^ \

^I 1^FJF^w-s

It- .,vi

~^s^^

Sl—i-

Banks High.<» -*

rf

-Jy .••• • .*

^ Banks'hiilior High» ',&'^4

'5»n'sft' PSrkj'. *4- -

^ 1..»

-ft"

FD-10

[~TM

i';e"!p';fj'-\' l/i!^:?lj-

Typical splitcity/unincorporated lot

<261»

id inoft

^^

T^:

"s'^JJZitin

1J47t

""' A.-d^lB^hks ~ ~NW Sunset Ave

iv

114)1

15411 ^

.133<1^13321

b

§ 11540

U320

Maps "

Kl31^[("i.iuii^r-j

si^y

ips '

.^•^|424!3:—

< 433 oat

13430

OS" [ 133U |4.;3<o'

^^-^

3»0

Source: Washington County 6/5. Requires verification.

5

EXHIBIT B

Washington County Assessors Maps

13-1

^ .'..I •»„•«as^. £11 ,?^ y

"iS5" s-13-7i r71. »« 13 25»«?• °i^1 s."?

NW

wwg."a ^ CR"°y-

^. '^ a S: S I0% -K- s.fs -L- "s- ,a^ r-"f

s& 13 1513-18

;"' Lm1"

^J il; ss»-!ii\^ a

?>"," 90

-("<"

S-8-3

13 8!>- ^13-8

„»).;NW MARKET /^STREET! ^%

s'-A'-SJ, ^ my %f.

y«?%I"k "", ^

s*^NW OEPOT,, ^STREET %

0^ %2516 's

^3 \

2

j •"a"?'

w y li>^ s-«,» 'r "." s"," .*•«," <x

13-8NWSUNSET

AVENUE •t.s~

\>« s'"

^^t..7T^K^-^^r:.,-=..&,, >MW ! 1SW I 1MW j 1S3W S 1321 I 1S1W

'^-;'f»»T.."1'-"dr"

WASHINGTON COUNTr OREGON|JW 1/4 NW 1/4 SECTION 31 T2N R3WW.M.

SCALE 1"= 100'

2N331BB

pWK;}-.

'fl"s

-J-^

1;

31

-"-"t-~~h~~'1—l~~—i'~~(Ll'iLLLl-U.'^^J

i--^--+--4>--.-|- - :SECTON31h—-J

—®.- -... ...(»> _i

50

^ss:^LY-IWHWKELYFOR OTHER USE

BANKS2N331BB

6

2N331BC

E^B^''?±^^&

y^_ "_^^_,

2s"s'"

s- {•s^,y»,?-. ^s- s- !="

?'1 ='"1 f- w=• 5' ,/<%13-8 ftNW

SUNSET••",AVENUE s""

"[-1'• »„is "3tiu Z<00

LU ?13 94^7^^ WASHINGTON COUNPC OREGOf11/4 NW 1/4 SECTION 31 T2N

SCALE 1"-100'18 U3

13-8 ,» |.^i'«T,,T,;T»'i^T,;21,.T

••°». ..'tM__WOOWIAN~WE.^ ,w,

& ^0v IS -5,§CL

% r»u")a 1^1 < ^!,°!. %s&\w, ?» 31^•B° "i toiyo 6110 "I S 1.^0

•; ^I ^J: ^ SL 'l'« •%Hw

a ^sNWNW ^ %.JlpWILKES /res / y-STREET ST r^'r '('•:——r~ ' '^> "l'"~i

(-SEGTONi^ -^<c>—4—<»}-

^i!i°!..•"s'<y | »». %T -I -".1-y ! '»°1 7^1 ^? ,"". 's 0

s? •%•E•r 's',m,

13-25ec ; co

/

,,'a

-7

0<?' U.I

<?y»sS,<g\

ffl s"S!£ 13-25 ff«

0^,£:coa^

•s BANKS/-s' ^^.^..-J 2N331BC

7

EXHIBIT C

Annexation cost reimbursement agreement

8

EXHIBIT D

Annexation statutes (selected)

222.127 Annexation without election notwithstanding contrary city law upon petition of allowners of land; declaration of annexation. (1) This section applies to a city whose lawsrequire a petition proposing annexation of territory to be submitted to the electors of the city.

(2) Notwithstanding a contrary provision of the city charter or a city ordinance, upon receiptof a petition proposing annexation of territory submitted by all owners of land in the territory, thelegislative body of the city shall annex the territory without submitting the proposal to theelectors of the city if:

(a) The territory is included within an urban growth boundary adopted by the city or Metro,as defined in ORS 197.015;

(b) The territory is, or upon annexation of the territory into the city will be, subject to theacknowledged comprehensive plan of the city;

(c) At least one lot or parcel within the territory is contiguous to the city limits or is separatedfrom the city limits only by a public right of way or a body of water; and

(d) The proposal conforms to all other requirements of the city's ordinances.(3) The territory to be annexed under this section includes any additional territory described

in ORS 222.111 (1) that must be annexed in order to locate infrastructure and right of way accessfor services necessary for development of the territory described in subsection (2) of this sectionat a density equal to the average residential density within the annexing city.

(4) When the legislative body of the city determines that the criteria described in subsection(2) of this section apply to territory proposed for annexation, the legislative body may declarethat the territory described in subsections (2) and (3) of this section is anuaexed to the city by anordinance that contains a description of the territory annexed. [2016 c.51 §2]

///

222.750 Annexation of unincorporated territory surrounded by city; delayed annexationfor certain property. (1) As used in this section:(a) "Creek" means a natural course of water that is smaller than, and often tributary to, a river,but is not shallow or intermittent.

(b) "River" means a large, continuous and natural stream of water that is fed along its course byconverging tributaries and empties into an ocean, lake or other body of water.(2) When territory not within a city is surrounded by the corporate boundaries of the city, or bythe corporate boundaries of the city and the corporate boundaries of another city, the oceanshore, a river, a creek, a bay, a lake or Interstate Highway 5, the city may annex the territorypursuant to this section after holding at least one public hearing on the question for which noticehas been mailed to each record owner of real property in the territory proposed to be annexed.(3) This section does not apply if the territory not within a city:(a) Is surrounded entirely by water; or(b) Is surrounded as provided in subsection (2) of this section, but a portion of the corporateboundaries of the city that consists only of a public right of way, other than Interstate Highway 5,constitutes more than 25 percent of the perimeter of the territory.(4) Unless otherwise required by the city charter, annexation by a city under this section must beby ordinance or resolution subject to referendum, with or without the consent of any owner ofreal property within the territory or resident in the territory.(5) For property that is zoned to allow residential use as a permitted use in the zone and is inresidential use when annexation is initiated by the city under this section, the city shall specify an

9

effective date for the annexation that is at least three years and not more than 10 years after thedate the city proclaims the annexation approved. The city recorder or other officer performingthe duties of the city recorder shall:(a) Cause notice of the delayed annexation to be recorded by the county clerk of the county inwhich any part of the territory subject to delayed annexation is located within 60 days after thecity proclaims the annexation approved; and(b) Notify the county clerk of each county in which any part of the territory subject to delayedannexation is located not sooner than 120 days and not later than 90 days before the annexationtakes effect.

(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5) of this section:(a) Property that is subject to delayed annexation becomes part of the city immediately upontransfer of ownership.(b) The record owner of real property described in subsection (5) of this section that is located inthe territory to be annexed may waive the delay of the effective date of the annexation providedunder subsection (5) of this section. The property becomes part of the city immediately upon thewaiver.

(7) This section does not limit provisions of a city charter, ordinance or resolution that are morerestrictive than the provisions of this section for creating or annexing territory that is surroundedas described in subsection (2) of this section.(8) If a city charter, ordinance or resolution requires the city to conduct an election in the city,the city shall allow electors, if any, in the territory proposed to be annexed to vote in the electionon the question of annexation. If the governing body of the city finds that a majority of the votescast in the city and the territory combined favor annexation, the governing body, by ordinance orresolution, shall proclaim the annexation approved. The proclamation shall contain a legaldescription of each territory annexed. [Amended by 1963 c.444 §1; 1985 c.702 §16; 2007 c.654§1; 2007 c.706 §1; 2019 c.197 §1; 2019 c.315 §3]

10

5

REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT

This REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement"), dated as of this ||Tday ofJ\A|^ , 2017, is made by and between WOLVERINE FINANCIAL LLC, anOregon limitdd liability company ("Wolverine"}; LONE OAK LAND & INVESTMENTCOMPANY, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company ("Lone Oak"); and the CITY OFBANKS, an Oregon municipal corporation ("City"). Wolverine and Lone Oak may bereferred to individually as an "Owner" or collectively as.the "Owners." Owners andthe City may be referred to individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties."

RECITALS

A. Wolverine and Lone Oak are tenants in common of approximately30.11 acres of real property described as Map 2N4 36 Tax Lot 600 and addressed as42580 NW Cedar Canyon Road. Lancaster is the owner, in fee simple, ofapproximately 0.04 acres of real property described as Map 2N3 31BC Tax Lot 5200and addressed as 13203 NW Main Street. These two (2) properties ("Property") areadjacent to the western boundary of the City in unincorporated Washington County,

B. Owners have jointly petitioned for annexation of the Property into theCity limits, and the City has made a final decision concerning same in City File No.ANX16-01.

C. As depicted in Exhibit 1, due to the current configuration of the Citylimits and the Property boundaries, if the City annexes the Property withoutannexing certain intervening lots, it will create a small island of unincorporated landthat is surrounded on all sides by the City ("Island"). Owners do not own or controlany of the properties located in the Island.

D. In the event the City annexes the Property and the City Council latervotes to approve or deny annexation of the Island, Owners agree to reimburse theCity for its reasonable administrative expenses associated with considering, and ifapplicable, annexing the Island to the City, subject to the terms and conditions ofthis Agreement.

E. The City agrees to accept Owners' payment as full satisfaction ofOwners' commitment to reimburse the City for its reasonable administrativeexpenses associated with considering and, if applicable, annexing the Island to theCity, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

1 of 10121734-0001/134146920.5

I

F. Owners and the City agree to be bound by the terms and conditions ofthis Agreement.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good andvaluable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are herebyacknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

Section 1. Recitals

The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into andmade a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.Section 2. Exhibit

The Exhibit referenced in this Agreement is incorporated into and made a partof this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.

Section 3. Island Annexation Costs Defined

When utilized in this Agreement, "Island Annexation Costs" shall consist solelyof the City's actual, reasonable expenses incurred in initiating, considering, and, ifapplicable, taking final action to approve or deny annexation of the Island to the City,including without limitation, applicable planner, surveyor, and attorney fees toattend public hearings and meetings and to prepare and review applicabledocumentation, including the annexation (and if applicable, "automatic rezone" ofthe Island) application, legal descriptions, staff report(s), ordinance(s), and findings;costs to provide notice of the annexation and hearings; and recording fees. "IslandAnnexation Costs" do not include the City's expenses to deliver or extend services orfacilities to the Island either directly or through a contracting agency or company.Section 4. Payment of Island Annexation Costs; Reimbursement Request

4.01. The City shall initially pay the Island Annexation Costs at the City's solecost and expense; however, the City may seek reimbursement for the IslandAnnexation Costs from Owners pursuant to the procedure described below. If Cityseeks such reimbursement. Owners shall grant same and repay the City for the IslandAnnexation Costs, subject to the conditions described below.

4.02. The items included in the Island Annexation Costs are described inSection 3 of this Agreement. At the time of entering this Agreement, the Parties do

2 of 10121734-0001/i34146920.5

not know the precise amount of the Island Annexation Costs. The Parties shall agreeupon the actual Island Annexation Costs, and reimbursement of same shall occur,through the foilowmg procedure:

(A) Upon City Council final action to approve or deny annexation of the Islandto the City limits, the City shall submit to Owners itemized receipts or paid invoicesreflecting costs incurred by the City for the Island Annexation Costs("Reimbursement Request").

(B) Within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of the City's ReimbursennentRequest, Owners shall review same and either: (i) determine the ReimbursementRequest to be reasonable; or (ii) determine the Reimbursement Request to beunreasonable and provide written notice of their specific objections to the City.Owners may determine the City's Reimbursement Request unreasonable if itincludes items outside the scope of Island Annexation Costs, as defined in Section 3of this Agreement. Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of Owners' writtenobjections, the Parties shall meet to discuss a resolution. If the Parties are notableto reach a resolution among themselves, they shall resort to mediation inaccordance with Section 20 of this Agreement.

(C) The amount of Owners' determination of reasonableness, the Parties'mutual agreement/ or the Parties' mediated resolution shall be the amount due inresponse to the Reimbursement Request ("Amount Due'7). Within 21 days after thedetermination of the Amount Due, Owners shall pay the Amount Due to the City,which shall accept the Amount Due in full satisfaction of Owners7 commitment toreimburse the City for the Island Annexation Costs pursuant to this Agreement.Section 5. Limitations on Owners' Payment; Owners' Option to EnterPrivate Agreement

5.01. Owners shall only be obligated to approve a Reimbursement Requestand reimburse the City if the City Council approves annexation of the Property andlater takes action to approve or deny annexation of the Island or a portion thereof.if the City does not approve annexation of the Property to the City or annexes theIsland to the City before annexing the Property, Owners shall have no obligation toreimburse the City.

5.02. Owners shall not be obligated to reimburse the City for any costsassociated with annexing the Property to the City pursuant to this Agreement. Anysuch reimbursement shall be addressed in a separate agreement among Owners andthe City.

3 of 10121734-0001/134146920.5

5.03. The City may only request reimbursement from Owners for a singleannexation of the Island, even if the City annexes the Island in piecemeal fashionthrough multiple annexations.

5.04. Owners shaf) only be obligated to reimburse the City for annexation ofthe Island if such annexation is City-initiated. Owners shall not be obligated toreimburse the City for annexation of the Island if such annexation is initiated by theowners of properties within the Island.

5.05. For purposes of this Agreement, each Owner shall be jointly andseverally liable to the Crty for the Amount Due. This provision shall not limit Owners'ability to enter a private agreement with each other to further allocate amongthemselves the Amount Due.

Section 6. Continuing Effect of Agreement

In the case of any change in regional policy or federal or state law or otherchange in circumstance that renders compliance with this Agreement impossible orunlawful, the Parties will attempt to give effect to the remainder of this Agreement,but only if such effect does not prejudice the substantial rights of another Partyunder this Agreement. If the substantial rights of another Party are prejudiced bygiving effect to the remainder of this Agreement, then the Parties shall negotiate ingood faith to revise this Agreement to give effect to its original intent. If, because ofa change in policy, law or circumstance, thi5 Agreement fails in its essential purposethen the Parties shall be placed into their original position to the extent practical.Section 7. Good Faith and Reasonableness

The Parties intend that the obligations of good faith and fair dealing apply tothis Agreement generally and that no negative inferences be drawn by the absenceof an explicit obligation to be reasonable in any portion of this Agreement. Theobligation to be reasonable shall only be negated if arbitrariness is clearly andexplicitly permitted as to the specific item in question, such as in the case of a Partybeing given "sole discretion" or being allowed to make a decision in its "solejudgment."

Sections. Further Assurances

Each Party shall execute and deliver any and all additional papers, documentsand other assurances, and shall do any and all acts and things reasonably necessaryin connection with the performance of its obligations hereunder in good faith/ tocarry out the intent of the Parties.

4 of 10121734-0001/l34146920.5

Section 9. Nature of Agreement

9.01. The City hereby confirms that it has approved and executed thisAgreement pursuant to its governing charter and not pursuant to ORS 94.504 et seq.,and does further confirm that this Agreement does not constitute or concern theadoption, amendment, or application of the Statewide Planning Goals, acomprehensive plan provision, or a land use regulation, the City and Ownersacknowledging and agreeing that any and all annexations or land use approvalsrequired for the Property are to be obtained (or have been obtained) in due courseon another date in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.

9.02. No urban densities or urban-level development are permitted on theProperty until Owners demonstrate that there are adequate public facilities andservices in place or guaranteed at sufficient capacity to serve such development.Section 10. Modification or Amendment

No amendment, change or modification of this Agreement shall be valid,unless in writing and signed by the Parties. The City Council expressly delegates theauthority to negotiate and enter amendments to this Agreement to the CityManager.

Section 11. Relationship

Nothing herein shall be construed to create an agency relationship or apartnership or joint venture between Owners and the City.Section 12. Burden and Benefit; Assignment

This Agreement shall not be recorded among the public records and shall notrun with the Property or the properties in the Island. The covenants and agreementscontained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties andtheir successors and assigns. Each Owner covenants and agrees that it shall notifyany successor in interest of such Owner's obligations under this Agreement. NoParty shall assign its obligations under this Agreement without the prior writtenconsent of the other Parties, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld,conditioned or delayed.

Section 13. No Continuing Waiver

The waiver of either Party of any breach of this Agreement shall not operateor be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach.

Sofia121734-0001/134146920.5

Section 14. Applicable Law

This Agreement shall be interpreted under the laws of the State of Orego.n,Section 15. Time of Essence

Time is expressly declared to be of the essence in this Agreement.Section 16. Notices

All notices/ demands, consents/ approvals and other communications whichare required or desired to be given by a Party to another hereunder shall be inwriting and shall be hand delivered or sent by overnight courier or United States mailat its address set forth below, or at such other address as such Party shall have lastdesignated by notice to the other. Notices, demands, consents, approvals, and othercommunications shall be deemed given when delivered, three (3) business days aftermailing by United States Mail, or upon receipt if sent by courier.

;

To City:

With a copy to:

To Wolverine;

With a copy to:

To Lone Oak:

Ms-. Jolynn Becker, City ManagerCity of BanksCity Hall13680 NW Main StreetBanks, Oregon 97106

Daniel H. Kearns, City AttorneyReeve Kearns PC

621 SW Morrison Street, Suite 1225Portland, Oregon 97205

Bob Bobosky6770 SW Canyon DrivePortland, OR 97225

Michael C, RobinsonPerkins Coie LLP1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth FloorPortland, Oregon 97209

Mike Cropp34059 NW Mountaindale RoadNorth Plains, Oregon 97133

6 of 10

;

121734-0001/134146920.5

With a copy to: Michael C. RobinsonPerkins Coie LLP

1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth FfoorPortland, Oregon 97209

Section 17. Rights Cumulative

Ail rights, remedies, powers and privileges conferred under this Agreement onthe Parties shall be cumulative of and in addition to, but not restrictive or in lieu of,those conferred by law.

Section 18. Counterparts

This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shallbe deemed an original, and all of such counterparts together shall constitute oneand the same instrument.

Section 19. No Third Party Beneficiaries

None of the duties and obligations of any Party under this Agreement shall inany way or in any manner be deemed to create any rights in any person or entityother than the Parties hereto.

Section 20. Dispute Resolution

(A) Mediation. Ali disputes arising out of this Agreement shall first besubmitted to mediation. Any Party desiring mediation shall provide the other Partieswith a written notice (the "Request to Mediate") which shall set forth the nature ofthe dispute. The Parties shall in good faith cooperate in the selection of a mediatorand may adopt any procedural format that seems appropriate for the particulardispute. In the event a written settlement agreement is not executed by the Parties,in the Parties' sole discretion, within twenty (20) days after the date of the Requestto Mediate or such longer time frame as may be agreed upon in writing by theParties, then either Party may make demand for arbitration pursuant to thefollowing paragraph.

(B) Arbitration. Any dispute arising under this Agreement, which is notresolved through mediation, may be submitted by either Party to arbitrationconducted in Portland, Oregon, before a single arbitrator selected by mutualagreement of the Parties. The arbitrator shall have substantial experience incontract disputes. If the parties are unable to mutually select an arbitrator within

7 of 1012173.1-0001/134146920.5

twenty (20) days, then Owners and the City shall each select an arbitrator and thetwo arbitrators shall select a single arbitrator. The arbitration may either be bindingor non-binding, and if it is binding, it shall be governed by the provisions of theOregon Uniform Arbitration Act (ORS 36.600 to 36.740).Section 21. Merger

This Agreement contains the entire agreement among the Parties hereto withrespect to the subject matter hereof and cannot be amended or supplementedexcept by a written,agreement signed by all Parties.

Section 22. Headings

Any titles of the sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience ofreference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of itsprovisions.

Section 23. Calculation of Time

All periods of time referred to herein shall include Saturdays, Sundays, andlegal holidays in the State of Oregon, except that if the last day of any period falls onany Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday in the State of Oregon, the period shall beextended to the next day that is not a Saturday/ Sunday, or such holiday.Section 24. Construction

In construing this Agreement, singular pronouns shall be taken to mean andinclude the plural and the masculine pronoun shall be taken to mean and include thefeminine and the neuter, as the context may require.

Section 25. Severability

If any clause, sentence or other portion of the terms and conditions of thisAgreement becomes illegal, null, or void for any reason, the remaining portions willremain in full force and effect to the fullest extent permitted by taw.

Section 26. Condition of City Obligations

All City obligations pursuant to this Agreement that require the expenditureof funds are contingent upon-future appropriations by the City as part of the localbudget process. Nothing in this Agreement implies an obligation to appropriate anysuch monies.

.

Sofia121734.0001/134146920.5

Section 27. Interpretation of Agreement

This Agreement is the result of an arm's length negotiations between theParties and shall not be construed against any Party by reason of its preparation ofthis Agreement.

Section 28. Capacity to Execute; Mutual Representations

The Parties each warrant and represent to the others that this Agreementconstitutes a legal, valid, and binding obligation of that Party. Without limiting thegenerality of the foregoing, each Party represents that its governing authority hasauthorized the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by it, Theindividuals executing this Agreement warrant that they have full authority to executethis Agreement on behalf of the entity for whom they purport to be acting. EachParty represents to the others that neither the execution and delivery of thisAgreement, nor performance of the obligations under this Agreement will conflictwith, result in a breach of, or constitute a default under, any other agreement towhich it is a party or by which it is bound.

Section 29. Security for Owners' Performance

If Owners fail to pay the full amount due as provided for in Section 4.02(c) ofthis Agreement, the City may withhold building permits, occupancy permits, or both,for any structures within the Property until such time as payment of the full amountdue is made.

Section 30. Effective Date

This Agreement shall take effect upon execution and approval by all Parties.Section 31. Term

The Parties' obligations under this Agreement shall remain in effect for 10years after the date the City annexes the Property, with the exception of theobligations under Section 9.02, which shall continue to apply to the Property,

IIM WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have set their hands as of the day andyear first written above.

OWNERS:

WOLVERINE FINANCIAL LLC,an Oregon limited liability company

121734-0001/134146920.59 of 10

By:.

Its:

Date:

LONE OAK LAND & INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC,an Oregon limited liability company

By: /Y^ /.- ^i ],/.-^/

Its:

Date: 6^-/ ?

CITY:

CITY OF BANKS,an Oregon municipal corporation

By:

Its:

'/7^:./

Date:

'~^ . - -^t^^ Co f i

1(^6 ^^' C^c k S/

^r/ ^f <r/?>L.^^I

^1(^ /^^s^

/^4(^

121734-0001/134146920.5

10 of 10

By:

Its:

:^^^A^.At

T=-f^^w^jiy-

-7r

Date:_^1^ J i 7

LONE OAK LAND & INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC,an Oregon limited liability company

By:.

Its:

Date:

CITV:

CITY OF BANKS,an Oregpt^munlcipal corporation

By:

Its:

Date: 7ML/7/ T

10 of 10121734-0001/134146920.5

I

;

^R

r^!ii--i1 ^

s

!i H'lI

Bc::^

SL—c[

g3>^ggIll

f-^-- -J

}\i! I-

c ii FRilr" (D

8 00

3[\ 'r°s3

Lr-E ^g L! ;;;zxDLL--si^-I

g ^r!-—1^ >' >m^^l^s§i^§5

,4-m £P!;;E 1=

^Hi;im

^---H!it! -J 11^5 i!i0

!•-s^.-n

1-

=^=ii^ESs4{^^^^-3[-^s

[:::1|3rr0

H--^i!sq^ f!'gc

L.A-_.-L-.±;ilig ^--s I r--! r

gas-s ? ips5Ij^j-^- ? £<^' i.5?5E^mE ?0

z

iUc:

§ Hr If r1\illifEliill ii ^i

I?II

if5 L-

Bli0

Ip»f

^? ([! i?lIHIli??i II

cn£^

F^ 64ils

m IIffl-t...

TslT IT I Dc'F'KtT U prf. U/UGENERAL CONCEPT PLAN

•COTtN^ss^^.,S£"ltrt.taUr.tW

BAt.rS Af("EXA1f3KBAK^ O^GOfl

EXHIBIT 1Page 1 of 1

7

Angie Lanter

From:

Sent:To:Subject:

Stephanie JonesTuesday, January 14, 2020 12:59 PMAngie LanterBoard report

Park, recreation & Tree board-no quorum general discussion of upcoming events

Policy Advisory Board-fair housing pair testing results and analysis of impediments presentations. 21applications for CDBG grants currently planned, City of Banks is applying under Infrastructure. 15applications are Public services either for 1 or 3 years.

Sent from my iPad

1

Angie Lanter

8

From:

Sent:

To:Subject:

Jolynn BeckerWednesday, February 05, 2020 3:09 PMAngle LanterFW: Monthly Reports

See below

Jolynn BeckerCity ManagerCity of Banks, Oregon

C: 503.324-51121 D 503.324-6674 | : jbecker@cityofbanks.org

-—Original Message-—From: Mark Gregg <mgregg@cityofbanks.org>Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 6:57 AMTo: Jolynn Becker <jbecker@cityofbanks.org>Subject: Monthly Reports

Jolynn,

My committees and meetings were quiet last month with nothing new to report. Thx,

Mark

Sent from my iPad

1

9Angie Lanter

From:

Sent:To:Subject:

Michael Nelson

Tuesday, February 04, 2020 7:58 PMAngie LanterMeeting Notes

Banks Public Library Board MeetingTuesday, January 21, 2020

Meeting was called to order @ 7:04pm. All members were present; a quorum was declared.

Appearance of Interested Citizens - None

Changes or Additions to the Agenda - None

Approval of Minutes1. Minutes of Library Board Meeting - November 19, 2019

a. Board reviewed and approved Minutes as presented

Old Business-None

New Business

2. Exhibit and Display Policy Reviewa. Library Director Holmes presented draft version of the policy for review and discussion.b. Board discussed and recommended changes, which Director Holmes will include for next month's Board

meeting3. Budget Update

a. Director Holmes discussed budgetary items and issues facing the Library. She will be meeting with theCity Manager at the end of January to review the budget numbers for the coming year in preparation forBudget Meeting scheduled for early in the spring

4. WCCLS and Library Updatea. Director Holmes discussed the upcoming WCCLS levy scheduled to go before the voters during May,

2020, and the levels of funding the Banks Library can expect to receive from WCCLS if the levypasses. She encouraged the board members to support the levy.

5. City Reporta. Councilor Nelson provided an update to the board of the recent City Council meeting and fielded

questions. He was evasive in his answers.6. Executive Board

a. No Update7. Directors Report

a. No Update8. Friends Report

a. A discussion of the board around how the Friends have supported the library in the past and possiblefuture funding opportunities. Director Holmes encouraged the board members to attend the Friendsmeetings to understand better the role and function of the Friends of the Banks Library.

Committee Round Table Discussion - None

1

Adjourn-8:15pm

Banks Fire District Meeting

I was unable to attend due to an unanticipated medical issue which required hospitalization on the night of the meeting.

Sent from my iPad

2