Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2002-03-19 PM City Council Regular Meeting Minutesfor March 19, 2002 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369, Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Phone (503) 635-0236 March 19, 2002 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Mayor Judie Hammerstad called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. on March 19,2002,in the City Council Chambers. Present: Mayor Hammerstad,Councilors Hoffman,McPeak,Rohde, Schoen,Turchi and Graham. Staff Present:Doug Schmitz,City Manager;David Powell,City Attorney;Robyn Christie,City Recorder;Jane Heisler,Project Planner; Stephan Lashbrook,Community Development Director;Helen Bicart,Police Chief Youth Council Present:Matt Buehler,Kristin Johnson 3.PRESENTATIONS 3.1 Distinguished Service Award,Herb Bumgarner,Library Advisory Board On behalf of the Council,Mayor Hammerstad thanked Mr.Bumgarner for his nine years of service to the City on the Library Advisory Board and presented him with a Distinguished Service Award. She mentioned that Mr.Bumgarner had been one of those instrumental in getting the Friends of the Library?s Booktique started. Mr.Bumgarner thanked the Mayor for the award. Mayor Hammerstad recalled that Mr.Bumgarner?s interest in genealogy led him to volunteer at the library,as the Library had a fine family history collection.Mr.Bumgarner mentioned that the Library inherited that collection from Steve Turner,and has since enhanced it. Mayor Hammerstadacknowledged the other Friends of the Library members present. 3.2 Safety Levy:John Foote,District Attorney,and Pat Detloff,Sheriff Mayor Hammerstad welcomedJohn Foote,Clackamas County District Attorney(Sheriff Pat Detloff was unable to attend). She explained that she invited Mr.Foote to address the Lake Oswego community regarding the upcoming public safety levy on the May ballot. Mr.Foote distributed information pamphlets,stating that the facts spoke for themselves in convincing people of the need for the levy.He said that the three-year levy assessed 59 cents per$1,000 assessed value,which was$78 a year(or$7.34 per month)on$150,000 home or $118 per year on a$200,000 home. Mr.Foote said that the County?s intent with the levy was to finance the four County public safety agencies: Sheriffs Office,District Attorney?s Office,Juvenile Department and Community Corrections.He noted that the County designed the levy to keep the current staffing levels of the four agencies in place for three years,and to obtain 115 new jail beds at an economical cost. Mr.Foote emphasized that the levy had no growth in it,as the County did not feel that it could ask for growth in this economic climate,even though crime and the population would continue to grow.He explained how the County could obtain the State?s intake facility in Oregon City(which was attached to the County jail)for$1,when the State moved that function to the new prison in Wilsonville by May 2002.He commented that the County has been waiting to take that facility over for years. Mr.Foote explained that,although the County picked up the State intake facility,it would lose the$5 million in State money currently used to pay the County employees(certified and trained)to man the State facility.He said that Clackamas County currently had one of the smallest jails per capita in the state(1.3 beds per$1,000 compared to the state average of 2.3 beds);the extra beds would put the County up to 1.65 beds. Mr.Foote said that the effect of a small jail and overcrowding was the early release of over 400 inmates every month.He explained that these early released inmates either served a shorter sentence than ordered by the judge or were released on probation pending a hearing or were released without the bail ordered by the judge.He contended that increasing the number of beds would reduce the number of early releases. Mr.Foote discussed his primary concern with the early releases,that the County did not carry out the mandates of the court in sentencing criminals,and the court often did not know what was happening.He conceded that they could not completely fix the problem but argued that this was an economical way to approach it. Mr.Foote described the relationship between a local city police department,like the Lake Oswego Police Department,and the County system: Lake Oswego police took anyone they arrested directly to the County jail or the juvenile department for processing.He noted that any adults arrested in Lake Oswego passed through the Sheriffs Office(which ran the jail),the District Attorney?s Office(which prosecuted the case),and Community Corrections(which supervised probationers and parolees). Mr. Foote pointed out that juveniles arrested in Lake Oswego passed through the Juvenile Department and the District Attorney?s Office.He contended that the mutually supportive partnership between city police departments and the county public safety system was a good reason for the public to support the County public safety levy. Mr.Foote discussed what would happen if the levy did not pass.He explained that the County projected a$10 million budget shortfall next year in the public safety budget: $5 million was the jail and$5 million was current staffing needs.He noted that this presented the County Commission with a policy choice if the levy failed: did they reduce the budgets in all county departments or did they reduce only the public safety budget? Mr.Foote said that,because the County was already making cuts in other departments,as a result of other shortfalls,the Commission decided to reduce the public safety budget only to address the$10 million shortfall.He explained that this meant that the public safety agency budgets for next year included a 22.7%cut across the board. Mr.Foote indicated that the agencies were looking into reducing the impact as much as possible but,without the levy,he would lay off prosecutors, Sheriff Detloff would lay off deputy sheriffs and corrections officers,Community Corrections would lay off probation officers and the Juvenile Department would lay off counselors.He emphasized the importance of passing the levy. Mr.Foote indicated toCouncilor Graham that the number of early releases would likely increase but not directly as a result of the levy not passing.He explained that the number of early releases grew as the number of arrests grew and their jail stayed the same size.He pointed out that fewer police officers on the street and fewer arrests could translate to fewer early releases but he expected the early release rate to stay the same. Councilor Graham asked how this would impact the Clackamas County cities and unincorporated areas that depended solely on the County Sheriff for law enforcement.Mr.Foote said that there were eight municipal police departments in the County;everybody else,including cities such as Wilsonville and Estacada,used the Sheriff?s Office. He noted that the distribution was 50/50 between cities with police depaitrnents and cities and unincorporated county areas using the Sheriff?s office. Councilor Rohde asked how many layoffs the County anticipated in the public safety agencies.Mr.Foote clarified that the numbers changed as he worked his budget and they found ways to lessen the impact of no levy funding.He said that he had originally thought that he would have to lay off 20 employees but with shifting some things around,he reduced that number,although he would have to let go as many as four to six prosecutors(out of 26). Mr.Foote indicated that Sheriff Detloff mentioned to him possibly letting go anywhere from 80 to 100 employees,including deputies, corrections officers,and support staff.He said that the Sheriff was still working on his numbers also,and by next week,they would have the figures finalized for publication. Mr.Foote indicated toCouncilor Hoffman that Multnomah County has always supported its District Attorney and Sheriff offices out of its budget,although he has heard talk of Multnomah County going out for a public safety levy next year.He said that he did not know the exact staffing level per capita at Multnomah County in comparison to Clackamas County,but he did know that it was significantly higher than Clackamas County?s. Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that Multnomah County?s situation was not analogous to Clackamas County: Clackamas County?s tax rate was$2.40 per $1,000 for its general fund revenues while Multnomah County?s tax rate was almost twice that assessed on a much larger city. She explained that Clackamas County stopped supporting its public safety system from the general fund years ago and went to a levy, which Measure 50 rolled into their tax base. Mayor Hammerstad noted that they also supported their system with the North Clackamas Law Enforcement District. She mentioned that the budget for the public safety system was now larger than the County?s general fund. Mayor Hammerstad recalled that when the State decided five years ago to incarcerate offenders with less than one year prison terms at the county level, some counties received state money for the decision while other counties did not implement the decision. She noted that Clackamas County had enthusiastically supported the decision because it knew that the State would build its intake facility in Clackamas County, for which it received a substantial amount of financial support from the State. Mayor Hammerstad asked if,during the time while it was waiting for the facility to come under county control,the County did any planning for supporting the operations of the intake facility.Mr.Foote said that he did not know the answer,as he has been on staff for only one year.He mentioned hearing of the County?s failed 1999 levy.He commented that the County had felt that obtaining an$8 to$10 million facility in exchange for some money was a good trade at the time. Mr.Foote referenced the 3%property tax cap that voters chose with Measure 50,which translated to property taxes in Clackamas County increasing by just over 5%,given its growth.He explained that there was a disconnect between the cap and the normal growth of an organization in personnel costs;normal growth was more than 3%,even if the organization kept the same number of people. Mr.Foote said that the County experienced this increasing gap between revenue and costs over time.He held that the public would see,in every property tax-financed entity in the state,either shrinking services for the same revenue or requests for more money.He noted that three cities had public safety levies on the May ballot,which were larger than the county levy. Helen Bicart,Police Chief ,confirmed that a reduction in County services would affect the Lake Oswego Police Department. She mentioned the processing of its cases through the District Attorney?s office,fewer open hours at the juvenile reception center and different lengths of sentences for offenders. Mayor Hammerstad commented that it was painful for her to watch this happen because during her term on the Commission,it had invested a significant amount of money in juvenile corrections and working with first-time offenders,which has helped keep the crime rate down. She remarked that the County had done a good job,and did not want to lose its gains.Mr.Foote agreed that the County?s approach to juvenile crime has successfully reduced the number of offenders per 1,000 by half of what it was six years ago. Mr.Foote indicated toCouncilor Graham that the County would have to come back in November if the levy failed in May.He explained that because the County?s fiscal year ran from July to July,they would have to lay off employees if the levy failed in May and then re-hire as many as they could if the levy passed in November.He pointed out that this was inefficient as many of the already certified and trained employees laid off in July would have found other jobs by November,and they would have to hire new people and train them. Mr.Foote indicated toCouncilor Graham that he did not know how much it cost each time to send something out to a vote. Councilor Rohde asked if there was an organized campaign behind this ballot measure.Mr.Foote said that they were doing the best they could,and that they were trying to raise money,given the short-time frame available.He mentioned the serious money that the Commission allocated to a public information campaign on the impact of the levy passing or not passing.He indicated that they would rely on the public information campaign more than anything else,because they did not have the money to provide things for the volunteers to do. Mr.Foote asked the Council for a resolution of support.He acknowledged that the timing was tight,as they hoped to get something into the voter?s pamphlet(deadline March 25).He mentioned that Chief Detloff had examples of resolutions available if the Council was interested.He said that they would also like to have the public support of Police Chief Bicart. Councilor Hoffman observed that Chief Bicart was present at the meeting to provide information to the Council,since,as a public employee,she could not take a stand on this issue.He asked how much did Lake Oswego use the County system. Chief Bicart said that last year the police took 132 juveniles to the Juvenile Reception Center;they averaged taking one to two adult offenders per day to the County jail. Councilor Rohde moved to support the law enforcement levy.Councilor Schoen seconded the motion.A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad,Councilors Hoffman,McPeak,Rohde,Schoen,Turchi and Graham voting ?aye.? [7-0] Mayor Hammerstad indicated that staff would get a resolution to Mr.Foote in time for the voter?s pamphlet. 4.CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Hoffman reviewed the consent agenda for the audience. Councilor Hoffman moved approval of the consent agenda.Councilor Graham seconded the motion.A voice vote was taken and the motion passed with Mayor Hammerstad,Councilors Hoffman,McPeak,Rohde,Schoen,Turchi and Graham voting ?aye.? [7-0] 4.1 COUNCIL BUSINESS 4.1.1 Resignation of Lou Jordan from the Tree Code Task Force ACTION:Accept resignation with regret. 4.1.2 Resolution 02-19,making appointments to the Natural Resources Advisory Board ACTION: Adopt Resolution 02-19. 4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.2.1 February 12,2002,special meeting 4.2.2 February 19,2002,morning meeting ACTION:Approve minutes as written END CONSENT AGENDA 5.ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA There were none. 6.CITIZEN COMMENT There were none. 7.FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER 7.1 Ordinance 2243,an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego amending the Lake Oswego Code,Chapter 48,(Zoning Code),relating to Long-term care housing and adopting findings LU 99-0070-1468 Mayor Hammerstad noted that the findings and conclusions were not ready for a Council vote this evening. Councilor McPeak moved to continue Ordinance 2243 to April 2,2002.Councilor Graham seconded the motion.A voice vote was taken and the motion passedwith Mayor Hammerstad,Councilors Hoffman,McPeak,Rohde,Schoen,Turchi and Graham voting?aye.? [7-0] 8.INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL 8.1 Councilor Information 8.1.1 Field Turf Mayor Hammerstad announced that the Council agreed to the settlement of the artificial turf litigation in Executive Session this morning. Councilor Hoffman declared a conflict of interest because his law firm represented Bones Construction Company.He said that he would recuse himself from the vote,just as he has recused himself from all discussion regarding the litigation and settlement over the past eight months. David Powell,City Attorney ,recalled the circumstances leading to the litigation over the two artificial turf fields installed at the high schools.He explained that about a year and a half ago,the shock absorbency testing failed to meet the specifications for the G-max rating laid out in the contract. He noted that the City was unable to resolve the issue with Field Turf,and litigation began a year ago with an arbitration claim. Mr.Powell said that in June 2001,the G-max ratings on some spots on the fields exceeded the federal safety levels(200).He noted that this resulted in the City briefly closing the fields until Field Turf performed a deep grooming process and reduced the ratings below the federal safety level(180). Mr.Powell reviewed the provisions of the tentative settlement in detail: ?Field Turf would remove the current infill and replace it with new infill by June 1,2002; ?Following removal of the infill,the City and Field Turf would inspect the backing and structure for any damage, which Field Turf would fix; ?Field Turf guaranteed that G-max rating on the fields,immediately after replacing the infill,would be no higher than 120; ?Field Turf guaranteed that the G-max rating on the fields,throughout the remainder of the new eight-year warranty period,would not exceed 140(which was the current contract standard); ?Field Turf would pay the City$82,500 for its legal costs,$7,500 towards its testing costs and$15,000 towards City staff time; ?The arbitration proceeding would continue on the record,and not be dismissed for one year to ensure no default under the current agreement; ?After the one year,if the new specifications were not met during the warranty period,the two parties would enter into a new arbitration; ?The City and the School District agreed to groom the fields every two months,using the deep grooming process; ?If the process caused any damage to the fields,Field Turf would rectify the problem; ?G-max testing would be performed regularly after the repairs,2 months,then 6 months and then annually to ensure that the 140 requirement was met; ?If the City did an independent test that showed the fields exceeding 140,Field Turf would pay the cost of those tests; ?In the event of a breach of contract,and the City having to take action to enforce the contract,Field Turf would pay the City?s attorney fees,should the City be successful. Mr.Powell reviewed the conditions of the agreement: ?The City to receive counterparts of the agreement with original signatures by Field Turf and Bones Construction; ?Field Turf to make the agreed upon payments at the time of the execution of the contract; ?Field Turf to provide a letter from Seaboard Surety Company(the company that issued the performance bond,and was also a party to the litigation)indicating that nothing in the settlement agreement affected their obligations under the bond. Mr.Powell noted that,if Field Turf complied with the agreement,then the City would end up with fields at the G-max rate specified under the contract with its legal costs paid to date and a new eight-year warranty starting from this point on.He recommended approval of the agreement. Mayor Hammerstad asked where the reimbursements,totaling over$100,000,went to in the budget.Doug Schmitz,City Manager,said that most of it would go back in the general fund,as the City Attorney?s office and his and Mr.Jordan?s time were all paid for out of the general fund. Councilor Turchi moved to authorize the Mayor to sign the settlement agreement with Field Turf International,Inc.,and Bones Construction Company,Inc.,in the form submitted by the City Attorney,conditioned upon the following: 1)the receipt of counterparts of the agreement with the original signatures for Field Turf and Bones Construction Company;2)receipt of the payments from Field Turf as provided in the agreement; and,3)receipt of a letter from Seaboard Surety Company stating that the agreement does not affect their obligations under their performance bond.Councilor Schoen seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the motionpassed with Mayor Hammerstad,Councilors McPeak,Rohde,Schoen,Turchi and Graham voting?aye.?Councilor Hoffman abstained. [6-0-1] 8.1.2 Car Seat Clinic Councilor Graham reported that the turnout at the car seat clinic held in February was high,with 76 car seats inspected. She said that the misuse rate of 80%incorrectly installed was consistent with the national rate. She urged parents to know what they were doing when they installed those seats. She indicated that they would hold more car seat clinics upon receiving more grant funding. 8.1.3 Urban Forestry Summit,sponsored by Oregon Community Trees,the Urban Community Forestry Program(Oregon Department of Forestry),the Pacific Northwest region of the Forest Service and the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. Councilor Graham reported on this daylong summit she attended on March 8. She listed the speakers. She discussed the information presented by Dr. Wool(University of Washington)in addressing the question of whether trees were only about aesthetics or where they about human health and welfare,which was an expression of the new Urban Nearby Nature ethic.This information included the$1.8 million in yearly energy savings resulting from the tree canopy during the summer months,the reduced stress level in drivers driving on treed roadways as opposed to non-treed roadways,and the 23%fewer ailments reported by workers with a natural setting view. Councilor Graham mentioned Dr.Wool?s statistic that Americans drove 2.3 billion miles a day. She discussed the term?placed perceptions,?which meant the perception that businesses with trees around them had quality goods to offer,which allowed those businesses successfully to raise their prices by 12%. She characterized Mike Houck?s statement(Audubon Society)- "If we can?t figure out how to make our cities livable,there?s no way we can protect our wilderness and unique areas" ?as meaning?Smart Growth.? Councilor Graham mentioned Dave Doctor(Palo Alto Planning Department Arborist),and his sharing of his city?s very stringent tree code that put the trees and the tree canopy first. She noted Jim Middaugh?s(Portland Endangered Species Act Manager)statement that Portland had 150 culverts needing retrofitting or replacement in order to facility quality spawning grounds. Councilor Graham reviewed the basic concepts pointed out by all the speakers:the actual dollar value of trees,the environmental considerations regarding storm water runoff,air quality,energy and fish conservation,and the demonstrated positive impact to humans and their personal quality of life. 8.1.4 National League of Cities Conference,Washington,D.C. Councilor McPeak thanked the citizens for giving her the privilege of attending this conference. She said that she learned a lot,which was a good investment of the money spent. She reported on the two half-day leadership training institute seminars she attended:Four Traits of a Successful Leader,and The Courage to Lead, 12 Steps to Leading Your City. She said that the four traits were clarity(the wisdom to see what is right in a sea of confusion),credibility(holding on to your principles),creativity(adapting to change by letting go of ego, power and insecurities),and courage(doing the right thing under pressure). Councilor McPeak discussed two points made by Lyle Sumak,the leader of the second seminar. The first was that the real challenge in city government was not to try to convince the negative 20%of the community but rather to work towards empowering the other 80%in the community. She commented that Lake Oswego had a negative 10%in the community. Councilor McPeak discussed the second point,that a big key to city government was understanding the demographics of the city. She reviewed the five age categories postulated by Mr. Sumak and the characteristics that he saw in them: Old Folks(born before 1935),In-Betweeners (born between 1935 and 1947),Rejectionists(born between 1947 and 1954),Hedonistic Traditionalists(born between 1954 and 1967),and Boomerangers(born after 1967). Councilor McPeak discussed the speakers at the general session. She indicated that Senator Tom Daschle received bad reviews(she missed his speech due to illness), Senator Bill Frisk and Tom Ridge were impressive, Senator Dianne Feinstein brought credibility as a former mayor but the best speaker was Roger Wilkins,Washington,D.C. School Board. She mentioned Senator Feinstein?s contention that the cities should fight for a$10 billion line item in the federal government?s contingency funds. Councilor McPeak indicated that she selected two breakout sessions that were appropriate to her work on intergovernmental committees(MACC and REMG):Managing Our Public Right-of-Way,and Making Sense of Homeland Security. She reported that the right-of-way session had battling lawyers,one representing the communications industry perspective and one representing the cities?perspective. Councilor McPeak said that the industry lawyer argued that cities tended to get in the way of upgrading technology while the city lawyer contended that the industry was making a land grab,and that the municipalities and citizens deserved reimbursement for the wear and tear and use of the right-of-ways. She mentioned that the value of the physical investment in the U.S.right-of-way came to$1.3 trillion while the value of the right-of-way land in the U.S.was$7 to$10 trillion. She noted that the cities have been winning the court battles. Councilor McPeak mentioned the discussion in the Homeland Security session revolving around the$3.5 billion floating?out there?for first responders (i.e.,the local community). She recalled her earlier report on the Regional Emergency Management Group?s(REMG)proposal to obtain$22 million to improve a plan for first response to any kind of disaster. She commented that REMG was doing very good work. Councilor Rohde gave a day-by-day report of his trip to the Washington,D.C.He held up the Regional Transportation Briefing Book,which had Lake Oswego?s Willamette Shore Railway listed on the last page;Tri-Met officials used this book to brief the Congress and the Federal Transit Administration(FTA).He mentioned spending two days,as a member of JPACT,making the rounds of the Oregon congressional delegation to advocate for the list of regional projects(which he had reviewed at the Council?s February meeting). Councilor Rohde observed that he has always found it a reassuring experience to see the effect of JPACT coming with a unified message to the Oregon congressional delegation concerning the projects that were important to the region.He reported that the delegation united across party lines in order to do what was good for Oregon and to deliver a unified message to Congress. Councilor Rohde reported that he attended a leadership-training seminar on e-government.He mentioned that he had a packet of information for the City?s Information Technology Manager on additional ways to integrate e-government,including technological advancements and coordinating between departments for a smoother operation. Councilor Rohde mentioned Dr.James Zogby?s address at the Celebrate Diversity breakfast on the issue of racial profiling.He commented that Dr. Bill Frisk?s frightening assessment of the country?s under preparedness to deal with bioterrorism underscored the need for cities and regions to address the issue as soon as possible with the federal government?s help. Councilor Rohde concurred with Councilor McPeak?s assessment of the general session speakers.He mentioned another speaker,Kristy Todd Whitman,who gave a well-spoken speech on the administration?s policies towards the environment and its attempt to strike a balance. Councilor Rohde reported on his breakout sessions:Are the Supremes Singing Your Tune?The Supreme Court decisions and their impact on cities,and Reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St century(T-21).He summarized the lawyers?message as the Supreme Court was leaning more towards states and local rights than towards federal powers.He explained that T-21 has been so successful in delivering funds for transportation to the states that Congress was looking at re-authorizing it. Councilor Rohde mentioned questions asked at the T-21 session about environmental streamlining,the added cost to transportation projects of environmental compliance,and whether mitigation actually benefited the environment.He reported on the possibility of using Homeland Security dollars for transportation projects,especially for the interstate highway system,which had originally been a defense project for troop movement and evacuation. Councilor Rohde noted another question asked about whether it was reasonable to expect a change that only projects on the approved Transportation Improvement Program state priority lists would be earmarked for funding.He said that the response was that it was reasonable but no one would commit to it. Councilor Rohde reported that there was very little discussion of the loss of revenue due to decreasing gas taxes,which resulted from increased fuel economy.He said that the Oregon discussion was years ahead of the federal government. Councilor Rohde reported asking Senator Gordon Smith if he would sign on to the RABA backfill bill(Revenue Aligned Budget Authority),which tied into the funding mechanism for the transportation bill.He explained how the allocation of funding worked under the RABA bill.He noted that Oregon could lose$88 million as a result of the overall reduction of$9 billion from the transportation funding package for the coming year. Councilor Rohde said that the RABA backfill bill would transfer$4.5 billion out of a$19 billion reserve account to keep the transportation funding package at the amount authorized but with no increase.He noted that the entire Oregon delegation has now signed on as co-sponsors of this bill,which enjoyed wide bi-partisan support. Councilor Rohde reported that Congresswoman Hooley?s office would pursue funding mechanisms for the Boones Ferry Corridor,the Willamette River properties and the Willamette Shore railway. 8.2 Reports of Council Committees,Organizational Committees and Intergovernmental Committees 8.2.1 Metro Area Communications Commission(MACC) Councilor McPeak commented that they fought long and hard to get the cable upgrade in Lake Oswego,which was now in progress. She reported that there were a number of citizens who were not happy with the upgrade because it required the installation of physical structures in the right-of-way that they did not like. She urged citizens to call MACC directly. She said that she did not know that MACC could fix the problem but the staff could help explain things and assist citizens in working with AT&T. 8.2.2 Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation(JPACT) Councilor Rohde discussed the two issues of concern at the JPACT meeting: the Sauvie Island Bridge and the Columbia channel deepening project.He explained that the Sauvie Island bridge,a vital to-market transportation link for the island,was on the verge of failure;the replacement cost estimate came in at$25 to$30 million.He mentioned that,while in Washington,D.C.,they did look for the$3 million needed to begin the environmental assessment work needed to replace the bridge.He commented that his interest lay in using regional funds to benefit the region as a whole. Councilor Rohde reported that Bill Wyatt of the Port of Portland gave a lengthy presentation at JPACT detailing where the Oregonian?s series of articles on the channel deepening project went wrong.He mentioned in particular,the newspaper?s serious mistakes in calculating the cost-benefit ratios and assessing the real benefit of the project to the region.He also noted the question of whether the project was solely responsible for the environmental issues raised by the Oregonian.He encouraged people to read the Port of Portland?s responses to the articles. Councilor Rohde reported hearing positive comments at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon;the Chamber members felt that the City has done a nice job in creating a healthy and attractive environment. 8.3 Discussion of Temporary Sign Ordinance Mayor Hammerstad reviewed the background of the temporary sign ordinance situation. She noted that Lake Oswego currently had a temporary sign ordinance that did not allow any kind of temporary sign in the right-of-way. She recalled that the realtors asked the Council to allow real estate signs in the right-of-way for a regulated period of time. She mentioned that the Council passed the ordinance initially but decided not to pass the final order and findings when residents testified in opposition. Mayor Hammerstad explained that the Council decided to direct staff to develop a public process to gather input from the community,churches,schools and businesses. She noted that,while staff went through the public process,the Council discussed possible additional elements for inclusion in the temporary sign ordinance,including standardizing sign size and appearance and requiring a permit and/or a fee,but those were not part of the proposed ordinance. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that the comments that the Council has received from realtors responded to the discussion of permits and fees,rather than to the actual changes proposed in the ordinance. She read from several letters sent in by realtors,which demonstrated that the letter- writers did not understand what Lake Oswego?s current ordinance was or what the proposed changes were. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that most of the realtors who wrote the 50 letters to the City wanted the Council to allow signs in the right-of-way on weekends at a time certain. She mentioned that the letters received from one neighborhood association,the Mountain Park Homeowners Association and four citizens all spoke to leaving the current ordinance as it was. Mayor Hammerstad mentioned the first question before the Council: was there a need to change the existing ordinance? She pointed out that the ordinance was difficult to regulate and enforce. She asked if it was better to permit signs in the right-of-way for a certain period of time(which was easily enforceable)or to maintain the existing ordinance. She asked if there was a way to arrive at an ordinance that allowed real estate signs in the right-of-way for a particular time,while at the same time,honoring the rights of the abutting property owners who might object to those signs in front of their properties. Mayor Hammerstad indicated that the Council would direct the City Attorney to draft one or more ordinances based on its discussion this evening. She mentioned that the Council would take testimony at an April 2 public hearing on the ordinance coming out of tonight?s meeting. She asked for Councilor comments on the existing sign ordinance and the proposal to allow private signs in the public right-of-way. Councilor Graham pointed out that this was a temporary sign ordinance for the community as a whole,and not simply for the realtors. She spoke in support of allowing signs in the right-of-way in order to provide clear and easy-to-read directions to estate or realty sales. She described it as a safety measure;otherwise drivers tended to look at their maps instead of at the roadway. She mentioned her expectation that those who put up the signs would take them down in accordance with stipulations in the ordinance and not put them in locations that would cause harm to landscaping. Councilor McPeak discussed her questions regarding this difficult subject. She commented that it was difficult to connect what was happening now with whatever changes the Council might make to the ordinance. She observed that the current ordinance was regularly flouted. She conceded that easing the restrictions would legalize some activity but questioned whether the City paid a price for doing that. Councilor McPeak stated that she was prepared to support a test of a well-circumscribed use of the right-of-way for a limited number of days,hours,sign size and locations. She spoke to moving forward with a test before a full-scale opening of the restrictions. She said that she wanted to watch what happened,and that she was prepared to re-open the subject with the Council,if it went badly and there was no sunset clause. Councilor Turchi concurred with Councilor McPeak.He indicated that he had thought that the proposed ordinance permitting signs in the right-of-way four days a week was too much.He described the structure as almost forcing signs in front of people?s properties,which was unfortunate.He held that there was a reason in the community to allow signs on a limited basis in order to provide directions to temporary sales. Councilor Turchi stated that he was prepared to support a limited liberalization of the sign ordinance,which allowed temporary directional signs in the right-of-way on Sundays for a specified period of time.He spoke to the Council revisiting the matter in one year in order to evaluate whether the policy?junked up?the community,and repealing the ordinance if that was the case. Councilor Hoffman observed that all the Councilors supported the economy and businesses in terms of their attempts to service the people in the community.He pointed out that right-of-way by definition was the land owned by the adjacent landowners(not the City),for which the City had public travel and utility easements. Councilor Hoffman emphasized that the discussion focused on temporary signs,not signs associated with a particular industry.He noted that the City had to regulate signs based on content neutrality or face a First Amendment violation.He mentioned that one test used by the courts to analyze whether temporary sign regulations were constitutional was to determine whether there were alternative means to communicate the message,such as newspapers. Councilor Hoffman spoke to the issue of balancing the private property concerns of individuals versus the community concerns,which was their job as elected officials.He described this situation as balancing the economic interest of a certain segment of the community versus the property interest of those living along the road.He observed that the businesses wanted to advertise but the property owners had an expectation of privacy. Councilor Hoffman discussed his geographic analysis of the issue,starting at the national level and ending at the corner of 10`hStreet and A Avenue.He reported that his Internet research found that 90%of city ordinances around the country prohibited temporary signs in the right-of-way for reasons of visual clutter and public safety.He cited the proliferation of signs every day of the week on the corner of Terwilliger up by the Burlingame Market as an example of the effect of the City of Portland?s temporary sign ordinance(passed three months ago). Councilor Hoffman noted that in Lake Oswego they have seen temporary signs proliferate at corners,which many saw as visual clutter.He observed that aesthetics were important to this community,citing the discussions on neighborhood character,infill and compatibility.He mentioned the downtown design district,the commercial sign regulations, street and city entry way improvements,flower baskets,pathways and open space as other examples of the community?s value of aesthetics. Councilor Hoffman remarked that the biggest irony,should they pass this ordinance,was that they still could not put temporary signs up on Highway 43, even in the residential area,because state statute prohibited temporary signs in the public right-of-way.He observed that it was odd to permit temporary signs on Country Club or McVey but not on Highway 43. Councilor Hoffman reiterated that he tried to balance the issues whenever he made a decision.He described this issue as the community interest and no visual clutter versus the private property expectation.He indicated that he felt comfortable agreeing with the other 90%of US cities in not allowing temporary signs in the right-of-way.He held that the ordinance was fine as it was. Councilor Schoen recounted his follow-up to Councilor Hoffman?s research when he went house-shopping with his son in Southern California.He noted that the exclusive communities,such as Beverly Hills,Belair,Hollywood Hills,Carlsbad,etc.,had very restrictive sign codes and did not allow any signs in the public right-of-way.He argued that Lake Oswego fell into the classification of the type of city that did not want visual clutter.He expressed his concern about the content of temporary signs.He held that the existing sign code has worked effectively,although the City needed to enforce it better. Councilor Schoen discussed a compromise of allowing temporary signs on Tuesdays and Sundays with the express permission of the abutting property owner.He concurred that most people felt that the right-of-way was their property,as they had the maintenance responsibility and paid taxes on it.He argued that the Council had an obligation to protect that privacy.He emphasized that he could not support anything that did not require the express permission of the property owner. Mayor Hammerstad said that she would favor allowing temporary signs in the right-of-way only on Sundays for directional purposes. She pointed out that Tuesdays were the brokers?open houses,and the brokers had the addresses and knew the city. She noted that at least four councilors willing to support at least Sundays. Councilor Rohde observed that most people did not know where the right-of-way was in front of their house.He cited Wembley Park with its 100-foot right-of-way,which meant that,under the existing ordinance,even a homeowner on Wembley Park could not put up a garage sale sign in his/her front yard.He spoke in support of allowing temporary signs in the right-of-way and getting permission from the property owner.He referenced his experience in garage saleing on weekends in stating that he thought he could find the sales without directional signs at every corner Councilor Graham confirmed that,as a homeowner on Wembley Park,she had no place to put a sign in her yard to advertise a garage sale; she depended on the corner at Fir Ridge Road to place a directional sign to her house. Councilor Graham pointed out that the economics of estate sales and real estate sales impacted homeowners who needed to sell their homes or its contents for financial reasons. She argued that allowing signs one or two days a week was insufficient time to advertise estate sales, which were typically held on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. She held that directional signs on Tuesdays were a valid use to accommodate the brokers?open houses. She discussed other uses for temporary signs,such as advertising neighborhood association events. Councilor Graham cited a letter from an estate sale agent who provided documentation,based on his 20 years of experience,that the estate sale agent depended on 50%of sales coming from drivebys. The agent mentioned a case of a woman who was selling because she desperately needed money;they lost$2,000 in sales on Sunday because the?sign police?pulled her signs.Councilor Graham argued that that was not serving the economy or the citizens either. Councilor Graham quoted from two letters received by the Council. She noted that a Lake Oswego resident and business owner asked the Council to consider the signs in the right-of-way issue seriously and to allow him as a homeowner and neighbor to conduct his business effectively. She quoted from the other letter that the Council "was elected to serve a varied constituency with competing interests. The well-being of any city depended upon keeping things in balance and not ignoring a part of the community." She said that she was trying to keep that balance,and would like to see the Council expand the proposed ordinance. Mayor Hammerstad asked if private right-of-way signs should be restricted to residential zones. Councilor Rohde said no.Councilor Grahamindicated that she could go either way. Mayor Hammerstad confirmed toCouncilor Hoffman that not restricting the signs to residential zones meant that the City allowed them in residential, commercial and industrial areas,including the downtown. She noted that only Councilor Rohde was saying that that was all right. Councilor Hoffman held that private right-of-way signs in a commercial area would necessarily be on the sidewalks,and they clashed with the City?s intent to spruce up the downtown areas.Mayor Hammerstad observed that there was not Council support to extend these signs outside of the residential areas. Mayor Hammerstad asked if the ordinance should require that those placing signs in the right-of-way obtain permission from the abutting property owner. Councilor McPeak remarked that in a perfect world,yes,but she was convinced by the almost universal response of the realtors,that it would be hard to do so. She spoke in support of the third option where the property owner could lay the sign down if it offended him/her,as it gave the property owner some control over what happened. Mayor Hammerstad commented that the third option appeared to be a compromise to address the fact mentioned by realtors that people were frequently not home,and to allow the homeowners a method of communicating that they did not want the sign and that the realtor needed to come talk to them. Councilor Schoen argued that allowing realtors to place signs in the right-of-way with the property owner?s express permission loosened up the existing ordinance sufficiently.He stated that he would continue to oppose putting up a sign without permission. Councilor Turchi spoke in support of people making a good faith effort to obtain the property owner?s permission.He said that if they failed to do so, and the property owner put the sign down on the ground,then that was a clear indication that people should not put a sign up at that location. Councilor Rohde agreed that they should try to get permission. Councilor Graham noted that state law required realtors to put their name and phone number on their signs. She pointed out that that provided a contact number for homeowners who wanted to go beyond simply laying the sign down. She recounted an anecdote of a father and daughter who held their traditional garage sale last year and specifically obtained the permission of their abutting neighbors to put up their signs on private property. She noted that when someone removed their directional signs,the sale was over,leaving them wondering if they would hold their father-daughter garage sale again if it caused them this much angst. Councilor Graham acknowledge the Mayor?s point that this incident happened under the current ordinance but reiterated that someone took it upon him/herself to remove signs,which the sign owners had legitimately placed on private property.Mayor Hammerstad commented that she doubted they could prevent that. Councilor McPeak indicated that Councilor Schoen?s preference to allow signs in the right-of-way only with specific permission was more restrictive than she wanted to go but she could live with it if she had to. Councilor Hoffman spoke in support of getting permission. Mayor Hammerstad noted that the majority of Councilors(Rohde,Turchi,McPeak,Hammerstad and Graham)wanted language requiring people to attempt to get the permission of the abutting property owner,with the property owner having the option of laying the sign down. Mayor Hammerstad invited Ms. Schetky and Mr.Petrie to address the Council. She summarized the Council?s feelings as they wanted to find a balance that allowed some opportunity for signs in the right-of-way as well as respected the private property owner. • Chris Schetky,55 Condolea Terrace Ms.Schetky stated that she did attempt to get permission from every homeowner as a courtesy. She held that many realtors did so but she could not say that all of them did. She indicated that she had no problem with realtors attempting to get a property owner?s permission but she knew that it was not always possible because they could be out of town. She described her process in leaving a note on her business card at the door when a homeowner was not home. She commented that to prohibit putting up the sign if no one was home was more restrictive than she wanted to see. • Craig Petrie, 18262 SW Bryant Mr.Petrie stated that not once,in the 9.5 years he has lived on this corner lot,has a realtor knocked on his door.He observed that the City has had the current ordinance for 41 years.He argued that the Council would better serve the community by directing all sign owners to get permission. He contended that if someone wanted something special,then he/she should make an extra effort to ask permission. He described the issue of attempting to make contact as a travesty inflicted upon the city. Mr.Petrie indicated toMayor Hammerstad that he has reported signs in the right-of-way to the City,which staff then picked up,but he has not called a realtor.He contended that the realtors,as professionals, should know the ordinances.He restated a comment made by a Councilor earlier,as the realtors have willfully flouted the sign regulations for many years. Mr.Petrie spoke in support of the realtors asking permission,asking what was wrong with requiring them to do so.He argued that his right to quiet enjoyment was greater than their right to put up signs.He expressed his disbelief that the Council would change the ordinance to anything less restrictive than requiring the specific permission of the adjacent property owner. • Joseph Eusterman,851 A Avenue Mr.Eusterman indicated that he lived on the corner of 9thStreet and A Avenue,which was an attractive spot for signs.He said that he simply moved the large number of directional signs placed in front of his property to the other side of the street.He held that this met the needs of the realtor while allowing him to reduce the visual blight on his property,which he has spent thousands of dollars on maintaining and beautifying. Mr.Eusterman said that no one has ever asked him for permission to put a sign on the right-of-way in front of his house.He commented that the arrogance of the real estate industry offended him.He argued that weakening the existing ordinance would lead to a proliferation of signage of all kinds,which would be unfortunate for the appearance of the city.He spoke to minimizing the visual blight in Lake Oswego. Mr.Eusterman reported that LONAC,at its March 2meeting,approved a motion to send a letter to the Council in support of leaving the present sign ordinance unchanged.He commented that he has never seen a study on the importance of directional signs in selling real estate as compared to newspaper or other media ads.He remarked that it would be interesting to ask those who bought homes in Lake Oswego within the past 10 years whether they utilized the directional signage as opposed to newspaper ads and maps. Mr.Eusterman indicated toMayor Hammerstad that,if the Council intended to loosen up the ordinance,then it should require realtors to get permission from the property owner,as opposed to allowing realtors to say that they tried. He held that loosening up the current ordinance would make it harder to enforce.He opposed any change to the current sign ordinance. Councilors Schoen and Hoffman stated their continued opposition to any new ordinance that did not require the abutting property owner?s explicit permission. Mr.Powell indicated toCouncilor McPeak that laying the sign down on the ground was as far as was proper for a homeowner to go.He pointed out that removing the sign could lead to due process issues with respect to deprivation of property.He commented that laying the sign down allowed the realtor to retrieve it and the homeowner to exercise some control. Mr.Powell mentioned an issue raised by the City Manager: could someone handle someone else?s sign without getting into an issue of trespass? He advised the Council,should it decide to allow homeowners to lay down signs,to direct him to draft the ordinance such that placing a sign in the right-of-way implied consent to the property owner?s right to handle the sign and lay it down on the ground without damaging it any more than necessary. Mr.Powell commented that,while attempting to get permission could be included as a legal requirement,enforcement was problematical. Mayor Hammerstad observed that the Council wanted to craft an enforceable ordinance,especially since the City could not enforce the existing ordinance. She asked Mr.Powell to bring back two separate wordings,one requiring permission and one requiring an attempt to ask permission. Mr.Powellmentioned another element of requiring anyone who placed the sign to document the time and manner in which he/she attempted to make contact. Councilor Rohde described this situation as a mess.He pointed out that this became a?he said?she said?situation without some sort of documentation proving that the realtor attempted to make contact.If the realtor could not produce the documentation,then he/she faced a fine for violating that section of the ordinance.He questioned how they could enforce the ordinance. Councilor McPeak commented that she had no expectation that the City could afford the resources to enforce an ordinance requiring sign owners to attempt to get permission. She said that she would watch how the industry behaved because she depended on their self-enforcement. Councilor Schoen noted that there has been little discussion about content,which he thought the Council should think about.He commented that the sign code has worked for political signs because the sign placer had to get the property owner?s permission,and they did not go into the right-of-way.He spoke to the Council having an obligation to protect the content of signs. He reiterated his concern with the placement of signs in the right-of-way without any control. Mayor Hammerstad described the difference between asking permission for political signs and temporary directional signs,as political signs would be up for a number of weeks while directional signs would be up for only a few hours on a particular day of the week. She observed that if the owners of political signs had to ask permission every day to put up signs,there would not be any political signs put up. Councilor Hoffman discussed his concern with passing an ordinance that the Council knew the City could not enforce and thus rely on self-enforcement. He acknowledged that this was a temporary sign ordinance,and not simply a realtor?s ordinance.He pointed out that the self-policing extended to other people with signs.He cited the history of temporary signs as underlying his concern that what might start out with realtor signs would proliferate beyond a single industry.He spoke to passing an ordinance that was somewhat enforceable. Mayor Hammerstad noted that the next question was what days should temporary signs be allowed in the right-of-way. She commented that allowing signs on Saturday and Sunday was a clear-cut provision but expanding that to include Fridays and Tuesdays would lead to proliferation. Councilor Graham spoke to signs on Tuesdays, Saturdays and Sundays.Mayor Hammerstad observed that the majority were not nodding their heads in agreement. Councilor Turchi suggested Sundays only.Mayor Hammerstadsuggested starting the discussion with Saturdays and Sundays before narrowing it down even further. Councilor Rohde mentioned a scenario of a Wednesday event at a home with a sign and balloon placed at the end of the driveway,which was in the right-of-way. Councilor McPeak suggested signs on Tuesday and Sundays.Councilors Schoen and Hoffman supported Sundays with permission.Councilor Rohdesaid no limit.Mayor Hammerstad noted that everyone mentioned Sundays. Mayor Hammerstad asked about the time of day.Councilor Grahamspoke to 9 a.m.to 3 p.m. or 10 a.m.to 2 p.m.for Tuesdays,and 8 a.m.to 5 p.m.on weekends. She commented that it would be sad to take down a garage sale sign at 5 p.m. on a summer evening,thus ending the sale, when it was still light out until 8 p.m. Councilor McPeak noted the Chamber?s suggestion of 8 a.m.to 6 p.m. on Sundays.Ms.Schetky said that 10 a.m.to 6 p.m. worked for the real estate industry.Mayor Hammerstad commented that including the estate sales would put the start time at 8 a.m. Mr.Eusterman commented that he would hate to see Lake Oswego?trashed?on Sundays.He argued that signage was visual blight.He spoke to allowing signs on Saturday,which was a more traditional business day than Sundays,and on Tuesdays.Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that Sundays were the traditional open house day for real estate. Mayor Hammerstad summarized the Council direction on the hours and days as 8 a.m.to 6 p.m.on Sundays. She directed the discussion to the next question: Should right-of-way signs be allowed on sidewalks and corners? Councilor Turchi spoke to restricting signs to corners only for directional purposes.Councilor McPeak indicated that she has moved away from her former total opposition to signs at corners but questioned how someone found the place after turning at the corner.Councilor Turchi spoke of a sign on the private property. Councilor Schoen spoke to getting permission,even at the corner.Mayor Hammerstad pointed out that if someone wanted to put a sign at the corner,and he/she had to get permission,then he/she would get permission to put it at the corner. Mayor Hammerstad questioned whether the corner issue mattered.Councilor McPeak argued that it mattered in terms of restricting the number of signs. She pointed out that if they restricted the signs to the corners,then it did not matter if the property owners did not want to give permission because the signs would not be allowed elsewhere. She held that the end result would be fewer signs. Councilor Turchi concurred. Councilor Graham said that she wanted them at corners for directional and safety reasons. She commented that the chart,although well-meaning,was difficult to figure out. Mayor Hammerstad suggested that the Council not address the issue of signs at corners,as it has already limited signs to one day with permission. She argued that this got into micro-managing,because the person giving permission could dictate the location and type of sign. Mr.Powell asked if the Mayor proposed using the size regulations for signs on private property for signs in the right-of-way.Mayor Hammerstadrecalled that the Council agreed on October 16 to signs 30 inches in height to include the realtor?s A-frame sign. Councilor McPeak raised the issue of stick signs. She commented that much of the discussion has focused on the real estate industry because that industry would place most of the signs. She held that the real estate A-frame signs looked professional while the stick signs usually did not. Councilor Grahampointed out that one person?s aesthetically pleasing sign was another person?s trashy sign. She spoke to allowing either stick signs and A-frames or nothing. Councilor McPeak recalled that the Councilor had not objected to A-frame signs only during their earlier discussion. Mayor Hammerstad noted that stick signs would not go in the right-of-way or be available for permission,although they would still exist. Councilor Hoffman asked about balloons.Mr.Powellpointed out that the height requirement precluded the use of balloons. Mayor Hammerstad recalled that,at its last discussion,the Council decided against including a sunset provision but would revisit the issue whenever it wanted to. Mayor Hammerstad invited Ms. Schetky and Mr. Petrie to address the Council with respect to the discussion. Mr.Petrie alleged that the City staff has said that the real estate industry could not police itself,yet the industry said that it would do so.He reiterated that finding a sign in front of his house affected his quiet enjoyment of his home.He mentioned that he has expended significant private funds to beautify his property,just as the City spent public money to beautify the streetscape. Mr.Petrie argued that allowing realtors to put up a sign without his permission because he was not home trampled on his right to quiet enjoyment,which should take precedence over signs in the right-of-way.He asked the Council to make the permission requirement absolute or to allow him to put up a sign in his front window denying permission.He held that the attempt to get permission idea would not work. Mr.Petrie stated that he had to deal with this issue every Sunday.He reiterated that he had an absolute right to quiet enjoyment of his property. He observed that no one on the Council would be affected by this issue but he was.He emphasized that no one asked permission to put up the signs now,which he argued was because they did not want to have to do so. Mr.Powell indicated toMayor Hammerstad that a?no signs?sign in the window constituted an express statement that the property owner did not consent to someone putting a sign up in the right-of-way. Ms.Schetky expressed her appreciation that the Council appeared to be leaning towards giving the ordinance a try. She said that she was not convinced that the community would look much different than it did now. She noted that the Council discussion has been that if someone put up a sign without permission,then the property owner could lay the sign down. She argued that someone?s right to quiet enjoyment was not removed if he/she could lay the sign down. Ms.Schetky asked for confirmation that if realtors placed a sign in an undeveloped area with no abutting property owner,they did not have to cross the street to ask permission from those homeowners.Mayor Hammerstadindicated that it would be appropriate to put a sign in an area with no abutting property owners. Ms.Schetky noted for the record that the realtors have addressed only the professional A-frame signs,and not the stick directional signs. Councilor Hoffman asked about signs on City property.Mayor Hammerstadmentioned the possibility of exempting City property and not allowing signs in the adjacent right-of-way. Mr.Powell asked for clarification because every property had an owner,whether that property was developed or not.He asked if the consensus of the Council was that,for undeveloped property,there was no obligation to attempt to contact the property owner. Stephan Lashbrook,Community Development Director ,commented that Wilsonville discussed the question of signs on City property extensively.He said that the City precluded locations adjoining City-owned property over concerns about content,and presenting the appearance that the City sanctioned whatever the message was. Councilor Rohde described this discussion point as the Council did not want the City sanctioning messages but it was okay to foist it upon a private property owner.Mayor Hammerstad noted that a sign owner had to get the property owner?s permission. Mr.Powell asked for clarification on the sign size.He mentioned the discussion of limiting the sign height to 30 inches,A-frame style,and the mention of an area of five square feet to fit the typical realty sign.He asked if the Council wanted the square footage in the ordinance or only the height limitation. The Council agreed by consensus to include the five square feet requirement. 9.REPORTS OF OFFICERS 9.1 City Manager 9.2 City Attorney Mr.Powell reported that this morning the Council approved the stipulated writ of mandamus in the Skyland Heights plan matter. 10.ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hammerstad adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie/s/ Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON May 14,2002 Judie Hammerstad/s/ Judie Hammerstad,Mayor