Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2010-03-02 PMCity Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 16 March 2, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:39 p.m. on March 2, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson (7:35), Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney. Councilor Jordan was excused. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Jane Heisler, LOIS Communications Director; Christine Kirk, Public Affairs Manager; Guy Graham, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Denise Frisbee, Planning & Building Director; Bob Gilmore, Building Official; Anthony Hooper, Public Works Management Analyst; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Jordan Wheeler, Management Analyst 3. PRESENTATIONS 3.1 Adoption of 2010 Council Goals The Council continued this item to the end of the agenda. 3.2 LOIS Update Ms. Heisler gave a PowerPoint presentation, beginning with the construction update. She noted the milestone of finishing the anchors, which would allow the contractors to make good progress on other elements over the next several months, such as piles and pipe. She reported that the pile installation in the East End went smoothly, and the contractor has moved to Blue Heron Bay. She described the progress on the tether bracket installation, and the Bryant Road and Foothills pump stations work scheduled to begin in May. She indicated that staff would bring the bids on the lake down phase to Council on March 16. She commented that finishing the pipe fusing work next week would also allow more time to focus on pile installation. She presented the communications update. She mentioned the February 9 briefing that staff gave to Commissioner Dan Saltzman and Dean Marriott from Portland as part of the update and streetcar tour, and the two “Meet the Contractor” meetings held for the pump station work. She indicated that the team met with the Terraces Marina Association regarding moving its floating dock during the lake down phase. She noted the notices sent out to mariners on how to drive their boats around the pile work, and the Lake Oswego Review article about gearing up for the next phase. She indicated that they did not update the financial information, as the team has not yet received invoices from American Advanced Construction or Brown & Caldwell. The Council viewed the pile and pipe work webisode. Councilor Tierney asked staff to inform Council of the range of bids received on March 4. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Olson that the staff briefing had been primarily for Mr. Marriott of the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, and that Commissioner Saltzman had come along for the streetcar tour. Ms. Heisler clarified to Councilor Hennagin that all the anchors have been installed and were awaiting the installation of the tether brackets and the delivery of the pipe. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 2, 2010 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16 March 2, 2010 Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that Advanced American Contractor owned the temporary wood and steel trestle over the lake. The company would remove it upon completion of the work, and probably re-use the materials somewhere else. 3.3 Streetcar Summit Congressional Meeting Mayor Hoffman gave a PowerPoint presentation reporting on the Community Streetcar Coalition Summit held on February 24 – 25 in Washington, D.C., which he attended. He explained that the Coalition was an organization comprised of cities, local government entities, private sector companies, and transit agencies dedicated to expanding federal funding for streetcar projects. He indicated that the primary purpose of the Summit was to inform the Coalition members of a significant shift in public transportation policy by the Obama administration regarding the criteria for public transit projects. He explained that the old criteria used in judging funding allocations for transportation projects in the New Starts, Smart Starts, Small Starts, and Urban Circulator programs focused on overall system costs and travel time saved. On January 13, 2010, Transportation Secretary LaHood turned those criteria upside down with a new emphasis on economic development and promoting livability rather than hindering it. He indicated that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) would now base its decision on how a project helped the environment, improved development opportunities, and made better places to live. He reviewed the new criteria in detail. He presented a list of the Summit attendees, noting that Lake Oswego was the smallest city involved. He mentioned the goal of making the case to the Obama administration and the Congress that streetcars were the ideal investment to fulfill the administration’s goals of livability, sustainability, leveraging non-federal funds, and encouraging economic development and mixed-use development. He indicated that the Summit theme had been federal government support of the streetcar and local government commitment of resources to the streetcar. He reviewed the two-day Summit agenda, noting the opening remarks by Rep. Earl Blumenauer and the various meetings with federal agencies and administrators. He reported that he met with Senator Wyden’s staff and with Congressman Schrader to discuss the importance of the streetcar. He indicated that many of these people would attend the Railvolution in Portland this October, as they did get the connection between the streetcar and livability/sustainability. He reviewed the criteria for the New Starts program covering the environment, compact development, decreased travel demand, and saving energy. He presented a U.S. map showing the streetcar projects throughout the country. He summarized Rep. Blumenauer’s remarks about partnerships, urban redevelopment, economic revitalization, and reconnecting with neighborhoods. He presented a streetcar project funding page and the TIGER grants given to five cities, including $24,000 to Portland for the Moody Street work. He noted projects in the Urban Circulators and Small Starts programs (projects under $25 million). He pointed out that the Lake Oswego $350 million project in New Starts had a $190 million federal match with part of the local match coming from the $80 to $100 million value of the right-of-way. He mentioned discovering that Rep. Blumenauer as a Portland Commissioner, along with Rick Gustafson, had been instrumental in buying the right-of-way from Southern Pacific for $2 million. He presented summary pages from several jurisdictions’ projects, including Lake Oswego’s summary page and its schedule for following the steps in the established project process with construction planned for 2014 and operations in 2016. He indicated that this summer/fall Metro and TriMet would complete the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) followed by selection and approval of the locally preferred alternative from the options of no build, streetcar, and bus rapid transit. He mentioned that a jurisdiction needed to get a green light from the FTA at each step of the process. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16 March 2, 2010 He commented on how far ahead Lake Oswego and Portland were with respect to using a streetcar for redevelopment and revitalization of a city in comparison to other jurisdictions whose mayors were very interested in pursuing this option. He presented other examples of streetcar projects from around the country. He mentioned a statistic someone gave him that 70% of voter- approved transportation-related funding measures were passing 70% of the time. He showed a list of the Coalition membership. He discussed the weighting of the six criteria for the four federal programs. He commented that the Portland story was constantly retold during the conference with points of great interest being the increase in property value as a result of the streetcar ($10 per square foot becoming worth $200 per square foot) and the change from warehouses to mixed-use multi-family housing. He reported that the Oregon Congressional delegations clearly knew about Lake Oswego, its redevelopment of its downtown, and this streetcar project, and they supported it. Councilor Olson asked if the Mayor had any concern with Lake Oswego’s ability to provide its local share, given that it was the smallest of the cities. Mayor Hoffman explained that the local share would be comprised of a creative combination of sources, including the $80 to $100 million value of the right-of-way. He commented that they could not do this without the right-of-way. He mentioned the value of the team supporting the project, mentioning Rick Gustafson and Rep. Blumenauer in particular. Councilor Hennagin observed that the increase in value was amazing, given the $400,000 or so that Lake Oswego contributed towards the $2 million purchase price of the right-of-way in 1988 and the possible crediting of $80 million for the right-of-way towards the cost of the project. Mayor Hoffman mentioned hearing conversations about using other federal funds for the local match, which staff would need to look into as the project moved forward. Mayor Hoffman indicated that Councilor Tierney would carry the same message to the Congressional delegation when he attended the National League of Cities Conference in two weeks, namely that the City was committed to the project and appreciated the Congressional support. He said that he anticipated Congressman Schrader speaking to the Council about the project. He mentioned that Railvolution was looking to Lake Oswego to provide a leadership role and to present its project as a workshop at the conference. He indicated that their project was one of the first hybrid “Rapid Streetcar” projects for moving people from the suburb to the inner city and for economic development. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Hennagin moved the Consent Agenda. Councilor Olson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting “aye.” [5-0] 4.1 REPORTS 4.1.1 Resignation of Ellie McPeak from the 50+ Advisory Board Action: Accept Resignation 4.1.2 Proposed Golf Course Name Change Action: Change the name of the City’s golf course from “Lake Oswego Municipal Golf Course” to “Lake Oswego Public Golf Course” 4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.2.1 February 9, 2009, special meeting 4.2.2 November 23, 2009, special meeting 4.2.3 December 7, 2009, special meeting City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16 March 2, 2010 4.2.4 December 8, 2009, special meeting Action: Approve minutes as written END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 6. CITIZEN COMMENT  Charles “Skip” Ormsby, 170 SW Birdshill Road, Portland He contended that the streetcar project would not be a success for Lake Oswego transit riders because it required a transfer at the PSU Urban Center for those bound for Pioneer Courthouse Square where the four Max lines intersected. He cited the time involved in transfers and the general dislike of transfers in holding that the project would fail. He suggested that the Council members test out the realities of transferring by going from Lake Oswego to Metro headquarters on the other side of the river. He argued that once the voters realized the fact of transfers, the City would face many problems.  Carolyne Jones, 2818 SW Poplar Way, Lake Oswego She asked the Council not to take action on Item 8.2 because people did not get their minutes on Friday, and she knew of several people who wanted to weigh in on the issue.  John Surrett, 1685 Edgecliff Terrace, Lake Oswego He addressed Item 8.2, Resolution 10-16, amending the public comment period for citizens from five minutes back to three minutes. He recalled hearing at the goal setting session that the reasons for shortening the comment period was a desire to shorten the overall Council meeting length. He said that he took issue with that, as he believed a search of the records would find that Citizen Comment did not frequently delay the meeting adjournment to late in the evening. He referenced the Mayor’s comments at the goal-setting meeting about citizens’ lack of trust in the government. He argued that limiting public comment on issues before the Council would not help ameliorate lack of trust or lack of transparency. He stated that he believed this was the wrong direction, as was not televising the work sessions. He contended that the Council needed to reach out in every way possible to inform the citizens of its deliberations and actions. Transparency would eventually translate into trust. He stated that he opposed Resolution 10-16 and the discontinuation of televising the work sessions. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1 Public comment on the State of Our Streets and Proposed Increase to the Street Maintenance Fee Mayor Hoffman reviewed the public hearing procedures and the testimony time limits. STAFF REPORT Mr. Graham introduced Anthony Hooper, the new Management Analyst in the Public Works Department. Ms. Kirk and Mr. Graham gave a PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Kirk summarized the Council process on the street maintenance fee (pp. 59-60). She presented a summary of the input received through the public education process. She noted that the public had a very good understanding of the importance of the street system as well as concerns regarding the timing of the fee increase, the City finding other ways to pay for street repairs, and a phased implementation City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16 March 2, 2010 (p.60). She mentioned other suggestions to ban or limit studded tires, to use more patching, and to use new technology options. Mr. Graham presented a graphic illustrating how pavements declined and how to make strategic investments to maximize the investment (p.66, Slide 10). He explained that the reason to increase the fee now was to gain funds to make strategic repair investments early in the curve using slurry seals, which would increase the lifespan of the roads, as opposed to a more expensive overlay or reconstruction later on. He indicated that the City funded its overlay program using the street maintenance fee with the goal of keeping the street network in good condition. He explained that the street repair prioritization program they used weighed factors such as heavily used arterials and collectors deteriorating faster than local streets (p.68, Slide 13). He emphasized that they accomplished more using slurry seals and overlays than doing a street reconstruction. Ms. Kirk commented that the number one question citizens asked was why the City was not getting to their street and the second question was why was the City putting money into a street that looked better than theirs did. She explained that there was a point at which a street reached a condition of needing such expensive work that it received a lower priority than streets that the City could maintain in good condition. She indicated that the City needed to increase its street maintenance fee revenue to $2.4 million in order to maintain a system wide 70 pavement condition index (PCI) and to keep the deferred maintenance backlog at around $10 million (p.69, Slide 18-19). She discussed the application of the street maintenance fee rate to residential and commercial users (p.70, Slides 21). She reviewed the bi-monthly impact on the various groups of users (p.70, Slides 22-24, p.71, Slide 25). She presented the options before the Council in implementing the fee increase (p.63). She discussed the policy issues surrounding phasing in the fee increase (p.63). She mentioned that 60% of the fee revenue came from residential and 40% from commercial. She mentioned that the Northwest Grocers Assn felt that Tigard’s approach to the index methodology was reasonable. Mr. Graham explained that Tigard would adjust its street maintenance fee according to an annual index calculated on a two-year rolling average of a combination of the following indices: Oregon Composite Construction Cost Index (cost of materials, weighted at 65%) and the US Bureau of Labor Statistic Employment Cost Index (cost of labor, weighted at 35%). He indicated that Tigard also established a 2% floor and a 7% ceiling based on a composite of both indices. He commented that, given the increasing cost of asphalt, including the cost of materials as a primary factor resulted in an index more representative of what was really happening. Ms. Kirk mentioned the next steps of the Council determining a desired option, staff conducting public outreach regarding the desired option, and the Council voting on March 23, 2010. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony.  Jerry Wheeler, 13594 Blazer Trail, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Officer He expressed the Chamber’s appreciation of the Council holding off on the fee increase in light of its impact on local businesses during these difficult economic times, and of the staff outreach to the Chamber and the business community at large. He noted that the timing and doubling of the fee have been the Chamber’s questions from the beginning. He indicated that many Lake Oswego businesses were nowhere near recovering economically. He commented that they all understood the need for street maintenance and improvements. He described an effective transportation network as the backbone of any economy and necessary for businesses to prosper and cities to grow. He observed that, not only would the businesses have to step up, but so would the City as one of the fee payers. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16 March 2, 2010 He said that the Chamber has not yet taken an official position on the various options on the table. He asked that the Council seriously consider investing a portion of City reserves to rebuild streets. He indicated that doing so would go a long way in building business community support for the fee increase. He recommended explaining the fee computation clearly to businesses and providing a staff contact person. He commented that he thought that the business community could support a phased in increase over the next three years. He spoke in support of indexing the fee for inflation. He suggested that, even though the conversation so far as been street maintenance and not street rebuilding, the City think about solving the street rebuilding issue.  Gary Buford, 5 Camelot Court, Lake Oswego; 415 N State Street He concurred with Mr. Wheeler that the City needed to write out the fee basis in an exact and detailed manner. He commented that currently it was ambiguous and not exact with regard to how square footage and type of business worked to set a fee for a professional office building. He argued that he needed something exact and in a printed (not handwritten) format so that he could review the fee on an exact technical basis and compute his tax. He stated his expectation of receiving from Mr. Graham a printed document in the near future that laid out the exact basis for charging for office building space. He mentioned that, during the economic downturn, his office building has experienced vacancies, and yet there was no reduction in the fee. He argued that a fee computed on exact information should vary with vacancies. He indicated that staff told him that doing so would be too difficult to compute.  Carolyne Jones, 2818 SW Poplar Way, Lake Oswego She referenced the 200,000 cubic yards of dirt excavated from the bottom of the lake as part of the LOIS project. She argued that the trucks transporting that dirt to an abandoned quarry in Tigard would put a tremendous burden on the roads used by the trucks. She suggested that the City establish a specific route for the trucks to use to avoid spreading the burden on the roads beyond the chosen route.  Bill Korach, School Superintendent, 352 Livingood Lane He stated that he did not oppose fees, as the District charged fees for athletic participation. He explained that he wanted the Council to understand clearly the District’s current financial position in light of the fact that the District was one of the largest contributors to the street maintenance fee. He expressed his appreciation for the Council and staff trying to consider the District in the decision made. He clarified that Measures 66 and 67 did not change the District’s financing; those measures simply continued the guarantee that the legislature made to fund schools in a way that was not adequate in the first place. He mentioned that last year the District cut 20 teaching positions, and this year it was looking at cutting 16 teaching positions. He indicated that the District had $4 million in stimulus money funding its staffing for this biennium, but it lost those funds in the 2011/2013 biennium. He indicated that the District, given its precarious position, would look seriously again at school consolidations in its efforts to explore all options for maintaining a high quality school district for the community. He asked the Council to consider the District’s situation, as well as the City’s own resources, in making its decision. He said that the District appreciated the long partnership between the City and the District. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that he did not know the percentage of students in the District who lived outside the city limits, but he could get that information to the Councilor later. He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that he could provide an estimate of the number of students driving to and from school, as the District issued parking permits for on campus parking. He said that he did not think that the number of students driving to and from school has decreased with the economy because the parking lots were still full. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16 March 2, 2010  John Pullen, 18 Britten Court, Lake Oswego He referenced an article he had read in the Tucson paper last week about Tucson’s receiving $63 million for their streetcar project, which mentioned that the streetcars were build in Oregon. He complimented staff on the excellent staff report presentation. He expressed his disappoint that a Council that prided itself on encouraging public input was now limiting Citizen Comment to three minutes. He commented that, while the City was able to spend large amounts of taxpayer dollars to support business, tourism, and recreation interests, it could not come to grips with maintaining the $182 million City asset of the street system. He read a quote from the staff report describing the streets as a cherished asset (p.59). He argued that, despite the staff providing Councils with sufficient information regarding the City’s deteriorating streets to fill an encyclopedia, that information has not persuaded the City’s governing body to make a positive policy concerning City street maintenance. He suggested using the State revenue sharing funds for street maintenance, if the business community could not support a fee increase. He suggested that the City set up a telephone ‘hotline’ to encourage citizens to report potholes on City streets. He indicated that Portland has had great success with its pothole hotline. Mayor Hoffman closed the hearing to public testimony. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Councilor Hennagin commented that he found the information presented tonight regarding the calculation of the fee for commercial properties counter-intuitive. He questioned a 2500 square foot restaurant paying substantially more than an 800 square foot take and bake pizza place, which would likely generate more trips than a restaurant (p.70, Slide 24, p.71, Slide 25). Mr. Graham explained that they used the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual to establish the number of trips generated by any given use. He indicated that the ITE conducted empirical studies across the country to establish these statistics, which served as the basis for most traffic impact fees in the country. He speculated that a take and bake pizza with primarily a dinner clientele had fewer trips generated than a restaurant serving three meals a day. Mayor Hoffman recalled that the 2004 Council chose the ITE manual as providing the fairest basis because its figures were all data-driven and based on empirical studies. Councilor Olson pointed out that square footage was also a component of the calculation. Ms. Kirk confirmed that square footage was the factor that really drove the dollar amount. Councilor Moncrieff asked if staff looked at alternate methodologies to the ITE, such as Tigard’s methodology. Mr. Graham confirmed that Tigard’s methodology was based on parking space. He indicated that staff stayed with the methodology already in place in Lake Oswego but they could re- evaluate that methodology and look at different options if the Council so desired. Ms. Kirk commented that what she found so valuable in meeting with the Northwest Grocers Association was the Association seeing many different calculation methodologies used by different jurisdictions across the state, resulting sometimes in dramatically different fees for the same type of business. She mentioned that grocery stores could pay thousands of dollars a month in some jurisdictions, in comparison to the $250 a month fee in Lake Oswego. She noted that Tigard’s ordinance was incredibly complicated and the result of negotiations between the business community and the City. She mentioned that many of the streets in Tigard that businesses would use were not City streets, but rather State highways. She pointed out that Lake Oswego had a different circumstance of only one State highway. She acknowledged that the parking space methodology allowed a degree of negotiation that the trip generation methodology did not. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16 March 2, 2010 She mentioned that she also learned that the groups of uses, or buckets, served as an equalizer in Lake Oswego’s methodology. Therefore, Lake Oswego did not see the high fee peaks between different types of businesses that other jurisdictions saw. She acknowledged that there was room for improvement in Lake Oswego’s methodology, yet there were things in their methodology that helped in terms of understandability and usability. She confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that, as complex and complicated as the ITE Trip Manual methodology was, it was the simplest and easiest to use model available. It provided a consistency that allowed equalization across businesses, which was a benefit to the ratepayer. She explained that, with the data process behind it, there was a logic to the methodology as opposed to finding a place of agreement that might appear inappropriate or illogical. Councilor Moncrieff commented that she heard both Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Pullen speak to rebuilding the City’s broken roads, as opposed to simply maintaining a 70 PCI. She asked if tripling the fee would make a noticeable difference in getting the street system up to an 80 PCI and rebuilding roads. Mr. Graham indicated that it would get the City closer to an 80 PCI, but he would know more once staff completed the new pavement condition assessment. Mr. Graham concurred with Councilor Moncrieff that getting the PCI up to 80 would get the City the most mileage out of its tax dollars. He explained that the science indicated that a low 80s PCI provided the lowest pavement life cycle costs. He confirmed that a 70 PCI was not at a sustainable level. Ms. Kirk pointed out that raising the fee to $2.4 million would increase the number of reconstruction projects in a 10-year period from one project to 11 projects. Mr. Graham indicated to Councilor Olson that he thought Tigard’s indexing methodology did more closely replicate the actual impacts because materials (asphalt) was a big component in doing pavement. He confirmed to Councilor Olson that the economic downturn this year did create a favorable bidding climate, as evidenced in other City projects, allowing the City to get more done with less money. He observed that, as the economy improved and more work became available, the bids would not be as competitive. Councilor Olson commented that it was probably became important then, as the economy recovered, to index the fee sooner rather than later. Councilor Hennagin referenced a comment by Ms. Kirk regarding grocery stores in Lake Oswego paying substantially less than they did in other cities because of Lake Oswego’s formula. Ms. Kirk clarified that the Tigard’s recently negotiated agreement charged grocery stores about the same as Lake Oswego’s current fee. She explained that the grocers had talked about the initial proposals and not necessarily about the end results of negotiations. She mentioned that approximately 78% of businesses billed by the City paid less than $100 a month in comparison to the grocery stores paying $250 a month. While grocery stores paid more than the average ratepayer did, they were not at the highest end of the fee payments. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the Council was not limited to the information presented at this hearing. He noted that if the Council’s decision involved adopting an ordinance, the City would have to advertise another public hearing anyway. Councilor Hennagin requested more detail on how the City determined the fee assessment for the schools as opposed to the assessment for retail businesses and professional office buildings. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Tierney that there were no pitfalls associated with dealing differently with residential versus non-residential as long as the City used a methodology that tied into usage, such as the ITE manual. Councilor Tierney asked what the ‘other options’ were (F, p.63). Ms. Kirk indicated that there could be other revenues going towards the pavement preservation program, such as reserves and gas tax money. She discussed the decreasing and fluctuating gas tax funds and their decreasing purchasing power. She indicated that the street fund paid for other street elements, such as signage, striping, and landscaping. She mentioned that she could not get citizens to tell her what City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16 March 2, 2010 tradeoffs they might be willing to make in general fund services in order to maintain the street pavement and appearance. Councilor Olson asked if staff figured out where the City has been allocating franchise fees. Mr. McIntyre reported that, historically, the City has dedicated $500,000 of the $1 million a year it received from PGE to the street fund for no particular reason. He indicated that today the City has rolled all its franchise fees into the general fund, and the City Council, at its own discretion, continued to allocate $500,000 of the general fund to the street fund. Mr. Graham indicated that the City used those funds to pay for street operations, including contributing towards the parks landscape maintenance of the medians. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 8:35 p.m. He reconvened the meeting. 7.2 Resolution 10‐14, adopting a supplemental budget resolution for fiscal year commencing July 1, 2009, approving resources and making appropriations STAFF REPORT Ms. Euler indicated that this request for a supplemental budget adjustment was fully within the Oregon budget law. She reviewed the six requests contained within the supplemental budget (p.73). She mentioned that all funding for general fund items came out of contingency. She reviewed the circumstances in Finance, Parks & Recreation, and Planning & Building that required additional funding for personnel (p. 74). She discussed the capital outlay request to complete the iron furnace and to make visibility improvements to the front entrance of the golf course (p.74). She mentioned shifting the estimated COLA (cost of living adjustments) increases from contingency to the respective department line items (p.75). She spoke of implementing the marketing plan for the golf course in the hopes of increasing revenues (p.74). She mentioned paying off a bond anticipation note in the Wastewater fund that was delayed from last year for some reason (p.74). She noted the acceleration of the work schedule for the Lake Oswego/Tigard water partnership requiring funding this year (pp.74-75) PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony. Hearing none, he closed the hearing. QUESTIONS OF STAFF Councilor Hennagin asked why it was a good thing for the City to accelerate the expense of the Lake Oswego/Tigard water project. Ms. Euler clarified that, based on her experience, capital projects often did not press forward fast enough, and that she thought it good that this project was pressing forward. She confirmed to the Councilor that the $506,000 to finish the furnace was included in the original estimate of the cost of the iron furnace. Councilor Olson expressed her appreciation for the clear and well laid out report on the supplemental budget. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that, in the jagged history of the furnace, these monies were reserved but not officially appropriated for two budget cycles. Staff was now correcting the situation. Ms. Euler commented that Mr. Donaldson deserved the credit for discovering this oversight. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that he and Ms. Euler were working through the mechanics of how to handle the hotel/motel tax monies funding the iron furnace reconstruction. He said that the intention was to move the additional 2% of the hotel/motel tax to the tourism fund as it accrued, but he wanted whatever process was easiest from an accounting point of view. Ms. Euler commented that they would see where the tourism fund ended up at the end of the year and work towards paying off the general fund as quickly as possible. Mr. McIntyre clarified to Councilor Olson that the City created the tourism fund through this year’s budget, transferring the monies coming into the general fund from the hotel/motel tax into City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16 March 2, 2010 the tourism fund. He indicated to the Councilor that the ideal situation would be the golf course improvements and marketing effort increasing the golf revenues and offsetting the general fund expenditures. Ms. Euler confirmed that staff would keep track of the general fund expenditures and reimburse the fund when the golf course generated sufficient revenues to do so. Councilor Olson agreed that accelerating the water project should save the City some money. She commented that she thought that Tigard’s share would be $3 million, instead of $2 million. Ms. Euler explained that she did some layering in order to capture the capital outlay appropriations line now, and not have to come back near the end of the year for that one line. She indicated that she included capitalizing materials and services in the computation for the $2.65 million of Tigard’s share. She said that she could go through the computation with the Councilor at another time. Councilor Tierney reiterated his mantra of current revenues equaling current expenses. He observed that, with spending at 45% (per the last budget report), the general fund could sustain the $80,000 plus personnel changes up to $200,000. He asked why staff did not use that tactic as opposed to increasing the spending limit. He asked what measures were in place to control those expenses in order to maintain a balanced budget. Ms. Euler indicated that, overall, staff was shifting contingency dollars already approved and for which staff had spending authority. Councilor Tierney recalled that much of the contingency was taken from reserves and therefore did not represent current revenues. He reiterated his concern that this went into the reserves, and thus the City was not balancing current revenues with current expenses. Ms. Euler indicated that, while the short answer to the Councilor’s question was yes, it depended somewhat on how one ‘sliced and diced the pie.’ Mr. McIntyre explained that unspent monies in the general fund reverted to the ending fund balance, and anything left over at the end of the year went into the beginning fund balance for the next year. He mentioned that he intended to freeze the budget again around Memorial Day, which meant that department heads with expenditures beyond personal services needed to get his approval. He indicated that this was to prevent the purchase of unbudgeted items just because there was still money in the budget at the end of the year. Mr. McIntyre explained that, in theory, really good budgeting meant spending 100% of the budget. He pointed out that sweeping the unspent monies into next year’s beginning fund balance meant a higher beginning fund balance next year. Councilor Hennagin asked Ms. Gilmer why she wanted to change employees from temporary to permanent and give them benefits. He wondered why a .8 FTE and a 1.08 FTE did not already receive benefits. Ms. Gilmer indicated that, according to the City’s union contract, the City needed either to lay off these two temporary part-time employees, who have worked for the City for three years and two years respectively, or give them benefits. She explained that staff had not known what they would need to operate the West End Building when Parks & Rec first moved out there, and they have used temporary part-time employees to staff the building during the evenings and weekends. She said that staff now knew that they needed to provide more consistent service as the building rental usage increased, which she felt a full-time permanent employee could better provide. She clarified to Councilor Hennagin that there were actually three positions involved: the Teen Coordinator, the position at the West End Building, and a .8 FTE vacancy that opened up when the employee decided not to return from maternity leave. She described how the Parks & Rec Department’s level of service has significantly increased over the past 10 years with the addition of several new parks and many new programs and services. She commented that, while she had a quality staff with which to work, the department lacked someone to manage projects and do real data collection and analysis of departmental operations. She indicated that currently she held those responsibilities, but she needed to focus on running the department and leave this job to someone else. She explained that staff decided to make the .8 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16 March 2, 2010 FTE position into a 1.0 project manager/analyst position who would provide the information that the department needed to determine how best to serve the Lake Oswego community with the limited resources that it had. She confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the two temporary staffers have proven that they were assets to the City. She described the Teen Coordinator’s position, noting its value to the community. She indicated to Councilor Olson that the Teen Coordinator position was the same position that started out in the after school programs at the junior highs. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Moncrieff moved to adopt Resolution 10-14. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting ‘aye.’ [6-0] 8. REPORTS 8.1 Contract award for a Multi-site Parks Maintenance Contract Councilor Tierney indicated that he asked to pull this from the Consent Agenda at the last regular Council meeting because he saw a public perception that the City had not been handling parks maintenance well. He suggested explaining to the public how the City intended to keep the plants alive this year. Ms. Gilmer mentioned the five landscape-related contracts managed by the Parks & Rec Dept for the City: a multiple site landscape contract, a summer annuals planting contract, a winter annuals planting contract, a watering contract, and a hazard trees contract. She said that the incident last year involved the summer annuals contract, in which the plants planted last May were not properly mulched or watered against the two weeks of very hot weather that killed them. She indicated that they worked with the contractor to replace the plantings but there was not enough growing season left for the plants to grow very big. The City terminated that contract and hired a new contractor She explained that staff delayed the renewal of this multi-site landscaping contract because they had not seen the level of service that they expected (e.g., weeds proliferating). She discussed the contract modifications they negotiated in articulating a landscaping standard, including closer monitoring and problem resolution, which staff hoped to see maintained through the season. She indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the lower price came primarily from not needing to mulch as much this year (staff have verified a three-inch minimum in most of the 126 beautification sites around the city) and using Parks Maintenance staff to do the overseeding instead of the contractor. Mr. McIntyre confirmed to Councilor Olson that technically part of this contract funding came out of the franchise fees. Ms. Gilmer clarified that they charged each fund for its parks maintenance costs. Councilor Tierney moved to approve the renewal of the service contract in the amount of $185,180 to Teufel Landscape to provide landscape maintenance at various City-owned properties. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting ‘aye.’ [6-0] 8.2 Resolution 10‐16, a resolution amending the Lake Oswego City Council Rules of Procedure relating to time limits for testimony during the citizen comment portion of city council meeting agendas Mr. Powell recalled that the Council reached some consensus at goal setting that, in order to avoid late night meetings, it would reduce Citizen Comment timelines. He mentioned that the Council discussion found that three minutes provided adequate time to express concerns, while also City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16 March 2, 2010 helping with meeting management. He noted that last year the Council decided to try a five-minute time limit; this resolution restored the time limit to the three minutes that it used to be. He explained that the time limits for Citizen Comment were different than the time limits for land use and non-land use public hearings based on evidence presented before another hearings body; those were set in the Community Development Code. However, the time limits for other types of hearings were subject to the Mayor’s authority to set the agenda, and changeable by a majority Council vote. Councilor Johnson mentioned that she brought this up at goal setting because she thought it was important to be efficient and fair to all wishing to speak. She noted that the Council usually allowed people to go over the three-minute time limit but the members would appreciate it if the public would plan to speak for three minutes. Mr. Powell confirmed to Councilor Olson that last year the Council changed only the time limits for Citizen Comment, which had been three minutes. He indicated that staff heard at goal setting this year the Council’s desire to change Citizen Comment time limits to three minutes for individuals and five minutes for groups. Councilor Johnson indicated that that was what she had intended. Councilor Johnson indicated that she would like the Commission for Citizen Involvement to discuss the time limits for public hearings. Councilor Hennagin suggested giving the Mayor the discretion to reduce a five-minute time limit to three minutes if there were many people present to testify. Councilor Johnson pointed out that it was easier to expand from three minutes to five minutes than vice versa. Mr. Powell indicated that the code gave discretion at the hearing to alter the published time limits as long as the Council maintained a balance among those testifying. Councilor Tierney pointed out that this resolution related only to Citizen Comment. He commented that, in weighing the earlier comments in support of not changing the time limit, he would support changing it to three minutes, as a person could make his/her point in three minutes. He indicated that he thought five minutes was more appropriate for a public hearing, as that involved commenting on something produced by the City. Mayor Hoffman commented that Citizen Comment was only one of several ways that citizens could talk to the Council members. He indicated his support of the resolution time limits. Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Tierney on three minutes for Citizen Comment, and with Councilor Johnson that the Commission for Citizen Involvement should look at the public hearing time limits. Councilor Johnson moved to adopt Resolution 10-16. Councilor Moncrieff seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting ‘aye.’ Councilors Hennagin and Olson voted ‘no.’ [4-2] Mr. Powell asked for direction regarding the public hearing testimony time limits. Councilors Hennagin and Olson indicated that they did not want the public hearing testimony time limits changed. Mr. Powell clarified that the Planning Commission did need to make a recommendation on a change to the Community Development Code. The Council agreed by consensus to leave the public hearing testimony time limits as they were. 8.3 Resolution 10‐12, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement with the Lake Oswego School District for collection of a Construction Excise Tax Mr. Powell explained that the State legislature passed a bill in 2007 giving school districts the authority to impose a construction excise tax, which local jurisdictions collected on the districts’ behalf at the time of building permit issuance. He indicated that the tax was $1 per square foot for residential structures and 50 cents per square foot for non-residential structures with a cap at $25,000 per permit. He mentioned that the previous City Council entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Portland School District in 2007 but the City has City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16 March 2, 2010 collected no tax on their behalf because of that district’s small presence in the city and the economic downturn. He referenced the agreement form (pp.91-94), the one used by Clackamas County in contracting with school districts customized to Lake Oswego. He explained that a jurisdiction could set the amount of administration fee it charged a district up to a maximum of 4%. He recommended setting a 1% administrative fee (the same as for the Portland School District). He noted that the agreement language allowed the City to increase that percentage up to the limit at its discretion. He reported that the City Manager surveyed other jurisdictions on what percentage they charged, and found that it varied from 1% to 4 %. He indicated that Bob Gilmore, Building Official, was present to answer questions. Mr. Powell confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the City had no authority to reject the imposition of this excise tax by the School Board. He commented that the statute did not expressly say that local jurisdictions could not refuse, yet State law gave the Districts the authority to impose the tax, and the local jurisdictions collecting it was the only way that the Districts could collect it. Mr. Powell confirmed to Councilor Tierney that the School Board had to have its agreements in place before passing a resolution to impose the tax. He mentioned his understanding that the School Board intended to adopt a resolution at its March 8 meeting. Dr. Bill Korach, School Superintendent, asked for the Council support, as the District could not act until it had all the entities involved on board. He confirmed that the Board planned to act on March 8. Councilor Olson moved to adopt Resolution 10-12. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting ‘aye.’ [6-0] 9. ORDINANCES 9.1 Ordinance 2553, an Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council amending Article 12.38 of the Lake Oswego Code relating to the City Seal Ms. Kirk mentioned that the City Attorney brought it to staff’s attention that the Council needed to take official action in order to implement the Centennial logo as the temporary City Seal, replacing the sailboat logo. She explained that the Centennial Celebration team developed the Centennial logo as part of their process for the City’s birthday celebration, and not the City staff looking at what was best for the City. She discussed how adopting this temporary logo effectively gave the City a clean slate to think about how it wanted to identify itself in the future and how to represent itself in public as one organization. She indicated that the public expense of the transition was minimal because staff would apply the Centennial logo solely to new purchases, and not replace the logo on existing items. Councilor Tierney asked about the police logo. Ms. Kirk explained that the police department had a unique identity in the law enforcement culture, which its logo represented. She indicated that the department would use the City logo on their cars and letterhead but, as a paramilitary culture, it would use the police logo on their uniforms and badges as a way to support their individual identity for the purpose of their ethic. Ms. Kirk indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the Centennial Celebration team developed various logos, including the logo on the lapel pins and placards, and the more colorful one on the street banners. She clarified that the Centennial logo would remain on the newly purchased items, even if the City switched to a new logo, because the City could celebrate its birthday as long as it wanted to. She emphasized the prudent use of public resources in determining where to use the logo. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16 March 2, 2010 She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that, while both the sailboat logo and the Centennial logo would be present in the community, no one item would have both logos. She confirmed that staff’s intent was to move eventually into a process for the development of a new permanent logo. Councilor Johnson moved to adopt Ordinance 2553. Councilor Olson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting ‘aye.’ [6-0] 10. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL 10.1 Councilor Information Councilor Moncrieff mentioned the article in Digger, a nursery industry magazine, on the Rogerson Clematis collection with the high praise for the City staff by the volunteers. She noted that the Annual Clematis Society Conference attendees from 16 different countries would tour the collection. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that she would put the article in the Digest. She reported on her watershed field trip, conducted by the Friends of Tryon Creek volunteers in cooperation with the Lake Oswego School District. She indicated that the Friends were running 38 day-long field trips through the Springbrook Creek watershed, and doing an excellent job of engaging the students. She mentioned how well prepared the Hallinan fifth and sixth graders were, and complimented their teacher Mrs. Zurker. Mr. McIntyre confirmed to Councilor Olson that the District had its science curriculum in part because of the reduced surface water management fees assessed by the City. Councilor Moncrieff commented that she could not think of a better use of Clean Streams educational funding. 10.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 11.1 City Manager 11.1.1 Review of Council Schedule 11.2 City Attorney Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting to move to the LORA meeting. He reconvened the regular Council meeting. 3.1 Adoption of 2010 Council Goals Mr. McIntyre explained that, in the Council Goals and Work Program document (pp.3-8), staff attempted to capture the Council’s direction from the December pre-goal setting session, the January goal setting session, and the first study session. He referenced the document distributed by Mr. Wheeler that showed Councilor Tierney’s suggested changes to the base document. He commented that he saw the Council goals as the loftier ideals and the Work Program falling under those goals and indicating what efforts and commitment staff would make on behalf of the Council in pursuing those goals. He pointed out that estimated dates of completion of Council action, the estimate and the total budget, and the initial next steps. Councilor Moncrieff referenced Councilor Tierney’s recommended addition of “and fund projects accordingly” to the Clean Streams # 2 item (p.4). She indicated that, while she agreed with implementing the Clean Streams program, she was concerned about having a goal without a current funding source. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16 March 2, 2010 Councilor Tierney said that he concurred with the philosophical underpinnings. He explained that he had wanted to include the potential for action in addition to adopting policies, by emphasizing the Council’s ability to do something specific. He suggested changing the wording to “and fund projects, if appropriate.” Councilor Tierney moved the adoption of the 2010 City Council Goals and Work Program as amended. Councilor Moncrieff seconded the motion. Councilor Olson asked a series of questions of staff. Mr. McIntyre confirmed that $20,000 of the $30,000 needed to fund the site selection for a police/9-1-1 facility came from this year’s budget and $10,000 from next year’s budget (Safe community, #1, p.3). He agreed that the Council already authorized the funding to initiate the Foothills development framework, and that ‘continue the Foothills development framework’ would be better wording (Planning-Neighborhoods, #1, p.4). Mr. Wheeler indicated that the $20,000 for the infill recommendation (Planning-Neighborhoods, #3, p.4) related to doing the design books. Mr. Wheeler explained that the $222,000 for the dock (Planning-Facilities, #1, p.4) included the matching grant funding as well as the $126,000 change order. Mr. McIntyre clarified that approving a water treatment plant process for the Lake Oswego-Tigard partnership referred to determining what the right water filtration process was (Planning-Infrastructure, #3, p.5). Councilor Olson pointed out that the library was referenced in three places: a library needs assessment (#4, p.5), due diligence for the North Anchor incorporating the library (#5, p.6), and library siting analysis and needs assessment (#4c, p.7). She indicated that she did not know what the library goal was. Mr. McIntyre explained that the Council had asked him to consider the library funding as part of the budget development process (#4c, p.7), but later the Council had discussed not spending money re-doing a library needs assessment but rather revisiting the existing one (#5, p.6). He indicated that the library needs assessment (#4, p.5) was separate from the LORA task (#5, p.6). Councilor Olson commented that she had a problem adopting a goal that listed “unknown” under the budget estimate, citing the expansion of the Gallery Without Walls. Mr. McIntyre confirmed that they could determine the numbers during the budget process. He pointed out that the Council has not provided clarity to staff regarding how broadly to expand the Gallery Without Walls or how much money it was willing to invest in it beyond the current investment. Councilor Olson expressed concern with setting a goal that they might decide during the budget process they did not have enough money to fund. Councilor Tierney commented that they did not meet the goal then, which was okay. Councilor Olson suggested changing the wording of #1 (fiscally prudent, p.7) to read “consistently produce reliable financial reports and clean audits and to maintain strong internal controls.” She suggested changing the wording of #4 (Planning-Neighborhoods, p.4, Councilor Tierney’s changes) to read, “to modify the Code to meet Metro requirements and to emphasize voluntary and educational methods.” Councilors Tierney and Moncrieff, as the mover and seconder, agreed with the suggested changes. Mayor Hoffman expressed concern that emphasizing voluntary and educational methods was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which contemplated regulatory protection. He spoke of staying true to the Comprehensive Plan and all the work that went into it in 1994. Councilor Tierney indicated that he included those methods because he recalled a strong sense among the Council members during the discussion of the creation of the Second Look Task Force that the City would look more for voluntary and educational means within the regulatory scheme. Councilor Olson recalled that the Council had emphasized these methods for Title 13 because there was more regulation for Title 3. Councilor Moncrieff said that she shared the Mayor’s concern regarding “emphasize,” and that she would be more comfortable with the wording of “find opportunities” or “consider.” Mayor Hoffman indicated that that language would be consistent with City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 March 2, 2010 the intent of reasonableness, fairness, and flexibility. Councilor Hennagin pointed out that the City was always trying to educate citizens that voluntary compliance was the best course of action because otherwise the City had to enforce the regulation. He questioned including ‘voluntary’ in the ordinance. Councilor Johnson suggested compromise wording of “to emphasize voluntary and educational methods where appropriate or possible.” Mayor Hoffman suggested “where consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.” The Council agreed by consensus on the wording “to modify the Code to meet Metro requirements, and to emphasize voluntary and educational methods where consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.” Mr. McIntyre informed the Council that one of Councilor Tierney’s changes would have a cost impact: consider the driving range recommendations (outdoor recreation, #4, p.4). He explained that the $20,000 was solely for the siting study for the tennis piece and had no money for going further with the driving range question. He referenced the agreement that resources would follow the identification of the need for resources. He indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that siting the driving range could be part of the Parks Master Plan already in the goals. Councilor Tierney commented that he was trying to understand the linkage between starting with a study to improve the economics of the golf course and ending with the creation of a tennis center. He explained that the tennis center had seemed to be such a good deal on paper that he had thought they could include the driving range expenses in the bond measure. He recalled that the study said that, in order for the golf course to make money, the City had to get revenue back out of the driving range. He argued that not figuring out what to do with the driving range meant that the $80,000 in landscaping improvements was wasted money. Mr. McIntyre reminded the Council that the golf and tennis feasibility study considered moving the driving range across the street and left many questions open without clarity. He pointed out that the study identified what the City needed in order to have a successful golf course, but there was still a lot of analysis to do around those options and to flesh out the information. He mentioned that he had to cut back the staffer working on the tennis siting study because the issue of siting the facility at the West End Building was wide open and complicated. He speculated that they would run into something similar in answering the question of whether a driving range could go on the Farr property. Councilor Tierney observed that there was no guarantee of funding any of the objectives. He suggested increasing the estimated budget for this item to $40,000 and seeing if it was funded. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting ‘aye.’ [6-0] Councilor Tierney complimented the staff on a good piece of work. Mr. McIntyre indicated that Mr. Wheeler deserved the credit. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie /s/ Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON June 1, 2010 Jack D. Hoffman /s/ Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor the intent of reasonableness, fairness, and flexibility. Councilor Hennagin pointed out that the City was always trying to educate citizens that voluntary compliance was the best course of action because otherwise the City had to enforce the regulation. He questioned including `voluntary' in the ordinance. Councilor Johnson suggested compromise wording of"to emphasize voluntary and educational methods where appropriate or possible." Mayor Hoffman suggested "where consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." The Council agreed by consensus on the wording "to modify the Code to meet Metro requir�ments, and to emphasize voluntary and educational methods where consistent with the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Mclntyre informed the Council that one of Councilor Tierney's changes would have a cost impact: consider the driving range recommendations (outdoor recreation, #4, p.4). He explained that the $20,000 was solely for the siting study for the tennis piece and had no money for going further with the driving range question. He referenced the agreement that resources would follow the identification of the need for resources. He indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that siting the driving range could be part of the Parks Master Plan already in the goals. Councilor Tierney commented that he was trying to understand the linkage between starting with a study to improve the economics of the golf course and ending with the creation of a tennis center. He explained that the tennis center had seemed to be such a good deal on paper that he had thought they could include the driving range expenses in the bond measure. He recalled that the study said that, in order for the golf course to make money, the City had to get revenue back out of the driving range. He argued that not figuring out what to do with the driving range meant that the $80,000 in landscaping improvements was wasted money. Mr. Mclntyre reminded the Council that the golf and tennis feasibility study considered moving the , driving range across the street and left many questions open without clarity. He pointed out that the study identified what the City needed in order to have a successful golf course, but there was still a lot of analysis to do around those options and to flesh out the information. He mentioned that he had to cut back the staffer working on the tennis siting study because the issue of siting the facility at the West End Building was wide open and complicated. He speculated that they would run into something similar in answering the question of whether a driving range could go on the Farr property. Councilor Tierney observed that there was no guarantee of funding any of the objectives. He suggested increasing the estimated budget for this item to $40,000 and seeing if it was funded. A voice vote was taken, and the motion ap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney voting `aye.' [6-0] Councilor Tierney complimented the staff on a good piece of work. Mr. Mclntyre indicated that Mr. Wheeler deserved the credit. 12. ADJOURNMENT Nlayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submi�ted,� �--- APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: O� June 1 10 Robyn ristie � � City Recorder J ck D. Hoffman, May City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 March 2, 2010