HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2010-03-02 PM LAKE OSWEGO
AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 380 AAvenue
PO Box 369
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 Lake Oswego,OR 97034
6:30 p.m. 503-675-3984
Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue www.ci.oswego.or.us
Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder Also published on the internet at:
Email: rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us www.ci.oswego.or.us
Phone: 503-675-3984
The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact
Public Affairs at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting.
Page#
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PRESENTATIONS (40 minutes)
3.1 Adoption of 2010 Council Goals
3.2 LOIS Update
3.3 Streetcar Summit Congressional Meeting
4. CONSENT AGENDA (5 minutes)
• The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no
discussion.
• An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda.
• The City Council makes one motion covering all items included in the consent
agenda.
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"
Jack Hoffman, Mayor • Roger Hennagin,Councilor • Kristin Johnson,Councilor
Donna Jordan,Councilor • Sally Moncrieff, Councilor • Mary Olson,Councilor • Bill Tierney, Councilor
Page 2
4.2 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
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 (30 minutes)
The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present information or
raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda items that
do not include a public hearing. A time limit of three minutes per citizen shall
apply.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS (1 hour)
7.1 Public comment on the State of Our Streets and Proposed Increase to the Street
Maintenance Fee
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney
Staff Report by Guy Graham, Public Works Director and
Christine Kirk, Public Affairs Manager
Testimony will be taken in the order received:
• 5 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association,
homeowner association, or government agency, or other incorporated public
interest organization;
• 3 minutes for other persons.
Questions of Staff
Discussion
No motion, deliberations are scheduled for March 23
Page 3
7.2 Resolution 10-14, adopting a supplemental budget resolution for fiscal year
commencing July 1, 2009, approving resources and making appropriations
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney
Staff Report by Ursula Euler, Finance Director
Testimony will be taken in the following order: those in support, those in
opposition, and neutral testimony:
• 5 minutes for a representative of a recognized neighborhood association,
homeowner association, or government agency, or other incorporated public
interest organization;
• 3 minutes for other persons.
Questions of Staff
Discussion
Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 10-14
8. REPORTS (30 minutes)
8.1 Contract award for a Multi-site Parks Maintenance Contract
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
8.3 Resolution 10-12, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement with the Lake
Oswego School District for collection of a Construction Excise Tax
9. ORDINANCES (10 minutes)
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
10. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL (15 minutes)
This agenda item provides an opportunity for individual Councilors to provide
information to the Council on matters not otherwise on the agenda. Each
Councilor will be given five minutes.
10.1 Councilor Information
.
Page 4
10.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
110. REPORTS OF OFFICERS (5 minutes)
11.1 City Manager
11.1.1 Review of Council Schedule
11.2 City Attorney
12. ADJOURNMENT
CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be shown live on Channel 28, at 6:30 p.m. The
meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28:
Wednesday 7:30 p.m.
Thursday 7:00 a.m.
Friday 2:30 a.m.
Saturday 12:00 p.m.
Sunday 4:00 p.m.
Monday 11:00 p.m.
Watch Council meetings live wherever you are via live streaming video at
mms://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live
r
CITY COUNCIL/ LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Items known as of 2/25/10
DATE MEETING
Tuesday, Study Session, 6:3013.M. Council Chambers
March 9 • Community Survey
• Update of the City's Water Conservation Program
• Infill Recommendation
Tuesday, Work Session, 5:30 p.m., Municipal Courtroom
March 16 • Code Audit Consultants
Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
• Contract for the Waste Water Master Plan
• Bid Award for Lake Down Work
• Sustainability Update
• Allied Rate Request
Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
March 23 • Adoption of Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
• IGA to donate a portion or the Willamette Shore right-of-way for
the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project
• Streetcar Update
Public Hearing
• Street Maintenance Fee Decision
Tuesday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
March 30 • Electric Vehicle presentation by PGE
• Review of Capital Improvement Plan
• Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan
Tuesday, Work Session, 5:30 p.m., Municipal Courtroom
April 6 • Financial Update
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
• LOIS Update
Public Hearing
• Adoption of Infill Recommendation
Tuesday, Study Session. 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
April 13 • Real Estate Development Workshop (Bruce Wood and Will
Denecke)
Monday, Budget Committee Meeting, 6:30 p.m. WEB
April 19
Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
April 20 • Streetcar Update
• Economic Development Strategy
•
Public Hearing
• Annexation of 5957 Waluga Drive
• Annexation of 16211 Waluga Drive
Monday, Budget Committee Meeting, 6:30 p.m. WEB
April 26
BOLD ITEMS— New issues added to schedule
CITY COUNCIL/ LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Items known as of 2/25/10
DATE MEETING
Tuesday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
April 27 • Meeting with the Commission for Citizen Involvement (PC)
• Neighborhood Planning Kit
Monday, Budget Committee Meeting, 6:30 p.m. WEB
May 3
Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
May 4
Public Hearing
• Flood Management Area Map Revision (LU 10-0003)
To Be Scheduled
• Emergency Response Plan
• Implementation of Matrix report (Spring 2010)
• Foothills Redevelopment Agreement
• Municipal Finance
• LOIS Bond Sale
• Tour of Willamette River to see Foothills Dock and Water Treatment Plant intake
• Lake Down Phase of LOIS Project Bid Award
• Streetcar line tour (Council, Staff, DTAAC, Streetcar Citizen Advisory Corn.)
• Prepare for Rail—Volution Conference (Oct 19-21, 2010)
• Streetcar Locally Preferred Alternative Process
• Percent for Art
• Clarification on referring Congregate Care Housing Ord. to Planning Commission
• GB Arrington on Foothills as Transit Oriented Development
• Tour of Smart Growth/Housing Options
• Lifelong Learning
Regular Updates
• LOIS Update, 1st meeting every month
• Streetcar Update, 2" meeting every month
• Sustainability Update, quarterly
• Financial Update, quarterly
BOLD ITEMS— New issues added to schedule
I
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
COUNCIL
REPORT 503-675-3984
i.oswego.or.us
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
SUBJECT: 2010 City Council Goals and Work Program
DATE: February 25, 2010
ACTION
Adopt the 2010 City Council Goals and Work Program.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
As a result of the City Council Goal setting workshops in January and the subsequent brief meeting in
February, staff has developed the following Council Goals and Work Program. In this document and goal
statements, we have attempted to capture the Council's wishes for a productive year.
DISCUSSION
As discussed in the pre-goal setting session and the goal setting workshops, setting City Council goals can
be a difficult task due in part to:
• Defining "what is a Council goal" versus a management work program;
• Goals are often multi-year thus extending beyond the year in which they are adopted; and
• The lack of correlation between calendar year (goal year) and fiscal year (the funding year);
The format for the goals have changed since the prior draft in order to better identify estimates for
completion of the goals or objectives, outline costs projections, and identify milestones for tracking goal
progress. Additionally, we have attempted to identify the estimated costs for accomplishing the goals in
terms of both the fiscal year (funding year) and in total (which can include the current, next, and future
fiscal years).
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
Staff has estimated the cost of certain goals and objectives where it is possible to quantify. The estimated
costs are listed for fiscal year 201.0-11 and as a total to recognize that the goals may continue over multiple
years. Objectives that have a fiscal impact in the current fiscal year may require a budget adjustment and
have been identified as such as a next step. Goals that have a fiscal impact in the 2010-11 fiscal year will
have their costs incorporated into the 2010-11 proposed budget.
Please note that identified fiscal impacts are estimates and may change for the proposed budget as the
projects, programs, or tasks become better defined.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council review, revise if necessary, and adopt their 2010 goals.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2010 City Council Goals & Work ogram
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
. I �
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
380 A
PO BoxAvenue111111 369
Lake Oswego,OR 97034
COUNCIL CI
503-675-3984
l� 1L REPORT www.ci.oswego.or.us
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Resignation from the 50+ Advisory Board
DATE: February 23, 2010
ACTION
Accept the resignation of Ellie McPeak from the 50+ Advisory Board.
Reviewed by:
� 11
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
January 22, 2010
Mayor Hoffman and Members of the City Council,
I am resigning, effective immediately, from the 50+Advisory Board. I find I am not a
good fit for the Board. Its likelihood of success is not enhanced by my membership.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to serve Lake Oswego.
Ellie McPeak
2—
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego,OR 97034
COUNCIL REPORT 503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Kim Gilmer, Director, Parks & Recreation Director
Tom Mueller, Golf Course Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Golf Course Name Change (per Resolution 93-17)
DATE: February 24, 2010
ACTION
Adopt a change in the name of the City's golf course from "Lake Oswego Municipal Golf Course" to "Lake
Oswego Public Golf Course" per Resolution 93-17 (Exhibit A).
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
As a part of the Parks & Recreation Department's overall effort to re-market and build awareness of the
City's golf course, staff proposes to change the name of the course from the "Lake Oswego Municipal Golf
Course" to the "Lake Oswego Public Golf Course" for two reasons. 1) Negative public perception of the
word "municipal" as it relates to golf course maintenance practices; and 2) further differentiation from the
Oswego Lake Country Club in signage, phone directories, and other promotional publications.
This proposal was unanimously approved by the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board at its February 17, 2010
board meeting.
DISCUSSION
Public perception is a crucial element to successful marketing of our golf course. Unfortunately, many
golfers assume municipal courses are poorly maintained and accompanied by equally poor service. The
word "public" used to carry the same stigma but has been used with great success by facilities who have
demonstrated the ability to provide a quality golfing experience for their customers. For instance, nearby
Langdon Farms has a large sign built above their entry way which reads "Public Only!". This is not only a
welcoming tool for public players but as an effective slant on the signs usually found at entry ways to
private golf clubs. We believe that this proposed name change will enhance the Golf Course's public
_ r
Page 2
perception and vastly reduce the number of inadvertent assumptions that we are Lake Oswego Country
Club, closed to the public.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
No additional costs shall be borne from implementing this change as our two entry way signs were in decay
and scheduled for replacement this year regardless of a name change. This is a good time to implement
these changes for that reason.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council approve changing the name of the City's golf course from "Lake
Oswego Municipal Golf Course" to "Lake Oswego Public Golf Course".
Reviewed by:
Department Director
1d1421--7
Cit ^-.ttor, ey
Al 0. McIntyre
City Manager
•
r�.
RESOLUTION 93-17
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego to establish a guiding policy for
the naming of parks, open space areas,and recreation facilities.
WHEREAS,The City Council and the Parks &Recreation Commission have identified a need
to establish a policy for the naming of Parks&Recreation-facilities; and
WHEREAS,The City of Lake Oswego has entered a period of actively acquiring and
developing new park land and recreational facilities, as well as rehabilitating existing sites; and
WHEREAS, The City presently has no established policy for naming Parks &Recreation
facilities; and
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the "Naming of Park and Recreation Facilities Policy
Purpose", as attached.
Considered and enacted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on the 2nd day of March, 1993.
r ' AYES: KAMMER, PUSKAS, ANDERSON; HOLSTEIN, CMRISMAN, MAYOR SCEEENKER, MARCOrI'E
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE Alice Schlenker, Mayor
EXCUSED: NONE
A'IThST:
WV,VED A! . FORM K4 t itchcock, City Recorder
r e -G. .edit
City •ttomey
•
•
_ r
(6-7\) � CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
✓ `�~ COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Alice L. Schlenker,Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Douglas J. Schmitz,City Manager
SUBJECT: Namingof Parks&Recreational Facilities Policy
cy
DATE: 23 February 1993
PURPOSE:
This policy is to establish a systematic and consistent approach,utilizing public
participation,for the naming of parks and recreational facilities.
OBJECTIVES:
The objectives of this policy include:
+ Ensuring that park and recreational areas and facilities are easily identifiable.
+ Ensuring that given names to park and recreational areas and facilities are
acceptable to the community.
+ Encouraging the dedication of lands,facilities, or donations by individi is and/or
groups.
GENERAL GUIDELINES:
The following general guidelines should be pursued for the naming of parks and
recreational areas and facilities:
1. Facilities should be named within six months after the City has acquired title to
the land and/or structure.
2. A re uest for the naming or dedication of a park and recreational area or facility
can be
submitted to the Parks &Recreation ommission, in writing, with a brie
statement describing why the request is being advanced.
3. For parks and recreational areas and facilities, the Parks &Recreation
Commission may solicit input from community groups.
4. If recommendations have been received by the Parks &Recreation Commission,
the Commission will forward recommendation of the Parks &Recreation Commission,
or may propose an alternative name for the area or facility under consideration.
r
COUNCIL REPORT: Naming of Parks &Recreational Facilities Policy
23 February 1993
Page 2
5. In unusual or exceptional circumstances, the Parks &Recreation Commission
and/or the City Council may deviate from this policy.
6. The following will be considered when naming parks and recreational areas and
facilities:
A. Places and Feature Names
1) Recognizable area,neighborhood or major street
2) Assumed Name
3) Use only if the area has been known by this name for an extensive period
of time
4) Horticultural
5) If the particular subject enhances the area
6) Natural phenomena
7) Combination of the above
B. Historical Event Names
This can be of local, regional or national significance.
C. Person orl'etsons Names
1) Deceased
+ Civic Leader
+ Historic group or person
+ Civilian national heroes
2) Living
+ Facilities may be named after living persons only after careful review.
+ People who have been instrumental in acquiring or developing sites
either by actual land or monetary donation,other than a developer
doing so to meet a park or open space requirement..
7. Dedication
A. A complete park, a community center, or areas within, may be dedicated to a
deserving individual or group. In selecting these names, the criteria
described above shall be followed.
B. Religious, veteran, fraternal and civic groups who have donated land, money
or equipment,shall be eligible for area dedications.
C. Plaques or other appropriate types of markers may be used when a park or
an area within a park is dedicated.
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial t910-2010 380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego,OR 97034
COUNCIL REPORT
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Approval of Meeting Minutes
DATE: February 23, 2010
ACTION
Approve minutes as written.
ATTACHMENTS
1. February 9, 2009, special meeting
2. November 23, 2009, special meeting
3. December 7, 2009, special meeting
4. December 8, 2009, special meeting
Reviewed by:
ti
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
441, CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
February 9, 2009
oceco$
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 5:08 p.m. on
February 9, 2009, in the Santiam Room, West End Building.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Johnson, Olson, Moncrieff, and Tierney,
Hennagin
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Jane McGarvin,
Deputy City Recorder; Stephan Lashbrook, Assistant City Manager; David
Donaldson, Human Resources Director; Guy Graham, Public Works
Director; Jordan Wheeler, Management Analyst; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner;
Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner
Planning Commissioners: Scot Seigel and Jon Gustafson
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Land Use 101 (including brief overview of Comprehensive Plan, Sensitive Lands,
Tree Code, Annexation, and Stafford Basin/Urban Growth Boundary
• Overview
Mr. Lashbrook stated he was making this presentation at the request of.the City Council. He
presented a PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed the history of land use in Oregon including
Lake Oswego's situation in relation to the rest of the state. In 1973 or 1974, the City embarked on
its planning program, which was completed in 1978. The State issued a certificate of
acknowledgement in 1984, as being in compliance with all state and federal laws, Metro rules, and
statewide planning goals. Some of those documents still exist today. In 1988, a revision was
undertaken. The system seems to take about 15 years, so this process is right on track to go
through the process once again.
• Annexation
Annexation is poorly understood. Some feel that annexations only occur in order to bring more
property into the City in order to produce more revenue. That is not the case. The driving force for
annexation is failing septic tanks where there is a health hazard.
Another misconception is that all of the unincorporated developed area is part of the city. The
yellow line on the map is the City's Urban Service Boundary, which shows a lot of developed area
outside of the City boundaries. Many cities in Oregon require voter approval before property can
be annexed, but the City's Charter only has a requirement that annexation in the Stafford area
have voter approval for annexation.
Many planners from all over the country and world come to Oregon to study the Urban Growth
Boundary concept, as it is a leader in this area. Similar concepts have been adopted in
Washington, Florida and Vermont. The concept is that on one side of a line, it is urban, while on
the other side it is rural. Some areas focused on soil types for making that decision. This was one
issue the Big Look Committee has looked at, and the Legislature is not looking at simplifying the
process.
He noted that Metro serves the three counties — Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington;
however, not all the area of the three counties are part of Metro. The cities of Canby, Sandy, and
Estacada are not in Metro, but they create their own urban growth boundaries under State rules.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5
February 9, 2009
■ r
Mr. Sin noted he has been attending Stafford Hamlet meetings, and the group is about to adopt its
vision.
Mr. Lashbrook explained that in 1997, Metro proposed to expand the urban growth boundary into
the Stafford area. The cities of West Linn, Tualatin, and especially Lake Oswego, objected as they
all had concerns about transportation, services, compatibility, and neighborhood characteristics.
Lake Oswego adopted its Urban Growth Management Plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan in
1998.
He explained the urban/rural reserves process. The Urban Growth Boundary laws were adopted
during the 1970s, and have evolved through time. In the late 1990s, legislation specified creating
urban and rural reserves for the next 20 years. However, planners, developers, and property
owners had different understanding of the legislation, and growth has continued to occur in those
areas. The current process is to plan for urban and rural reserves for a 50 year period. The three
counties, Metro, and cities in the region are currently working to develop plans for adoption in
2010, which probably will occur at the end of December in 2010.
Councilor Jordan stated she was approached to attend the urban reserves meeting. She asked if
staff was attending the meetings.
Mr. Lashbrook explained that Mr. Sin and Mr. Egner alternate attending the meetings. The
message being relayed is that if the Stafford area is urbanized, that the City of Lake Oswego
needs to be at the table. There are many concerns, including the governance question. If the area
was developed under the umbrella of a County service district, the governing body would the
Clackamas County Board of Commissioners. The City does not feel this would be a good way of
providing urban service. The City of West Linn has indicated it wants the area to remain rural. The
City of Tualatin would work with Lake Oswego if it was part of their city, but the city that would have
the biggest impact would be the City of Lake Oswego, as traffic from the area would either go to
1-205 or through Lake Oswego.
Mr. Lashbrook distributed copies of a book entitled City Comforts: How to Build an Urban Village,
revised edition by David Sucher, to the Council, which he stated is one of the best resources about
planning.
• Comprehensive Plan and Visioning
Mr. Lashbrook explained the Comprehensive Plan is a policy document regarding the growth and
development of the City. It is the Council's prerogative and responsibility to change, or maybe just
adjust. He said that one conversation the Council needs to have is regarding visioning. While the
Council has not embraced the idea, there needs to be a thorough discussion to find out what
residents are satisfied with, and what they feel needs to be changed.
He showed a diagram noting that the Comprehensive Plan is at the top of all the other plans for all
departments, including the Water Master Plan, Utility Master Plan, Neighborhood Plans, Capital
Improvement Program, Transportation Plan, etc. These plans implement the Comprehensive Plan.
The Community Development Code, Tree Code, Sign Code, etc., all relate back to the
Comprehensive Plan, and are all interconnected.
Mr. Lashbrook distributed copies of two handouts: "Stephan's Six Steps to Planning," a model he
has worked with for many years, and "Stephan's Recommendation for the Content of every City
Plan."
Mr. Lashbrook explained the difference between public space and private space, which is the
area where buildings relate to the street, such as the exterior of the building. In the typical
subdivision in the 1950s, the 20-foot front setback originated from 1939 pre-HUD model zoning
ordinance, which was sent to all municipalities across the country. In a majority of instances, most
jurisdictions adopted the model ordinance because they didn't have anything else. The 20-foot
setback was the amount of room necessary to park a car between the garage and the sidewalk.
When the First Addition Neighborhood Plan (FAN) and accompanying code changes were
adopted, they went beyond the 20-foot setback, and said they wanted to reduce the 20-foot
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5
February 9, 2009
setback, to allow a porch in the front of the house that came out into the 20-foot setback. FAN's
idea was that a porch was where the families would gather, and while sitting on their porch, talk to
people walking by, thus encouraging neighbors to communicate with each other. The irony in FAN
is there are hedges 12-feet tall across the front of the lots.
• Tree Code
Mr. Lashbrook distributed a simplified version of the Lake Oswego Tree Code, noting the Tree
Removal Continuum on page 2, from which Council could select a policy decision for the future.
The Continuum starts with very basic rules, and each paragraph is more restrictive than the one
before. He thought the City was somewhere between paragraphs 6 and 7. He urged the Council
to read the Tree Code section in the Comprehensive Plan, which focuses on maintaining the
wooded nature of the community.
Mr. Lashbrook noted similar continuums could be developed for other policy issues, such as the
infill question, to identify where the City is now, to some point it might want to be in the future.
• Solar Code
Mr. Lashbrook explained this is very complicated, but is part of community vision, and parts are in
conflict with the tree code.
Councilor Hennagin stated when he receives questions about the tree and solar codes, he is
unsure what to tell citizens, as the two are in conflict.
Mr. Lashbrook explained the City's code states that trees cannot be cut to enhance views. That is
the reason many residents in the Skylands area will never annex to the City because of the
view/tree issue. He recalled Council got beat up about that when they talked about annexing the
area. Planning staff has researched tree codes in other parts of the country, and some actually
require that trees be cut in order to improve views, while others, like the City of Lake Oswego's
code, says cutting trees to enhance views, is not allowed.
• Staff's relationship with Boards & Commissions
Mr. Lashbrook explained this was something that came out of conversations regarding Council
Goals, and the sensitive lands issue. It was pointed out that staff does not work for the Board or
Commission; they work for the City Manager, who works for the Council. In addition, staff has
been told to make their best professional recommendation in staff reports going to the
Development Review Commission (DRC), Planning Commission (PC), or any other Board or
Commission. If the DRC or PC votes against the staff's recommendation and if it ultimately gets
appealed to the City Council, the staff report should make sure their report includes what the
original staff's recommendation was. Staff also has a responsibility to explain how the DRC or PC
arrived at the decision it did. He explained that the DRC and PC may not be aware of the training
staff receives about that message. In some municipalities, the staff is not allowed to make a
recommendation; their job is to provide information and let the Board/Commission make its own
decision. In Lake Oswego, staff makes a professional recommendation based on the facts.
Councilor Jordan suggested this may be an excellent time to provide this kind of training, as there
were new Councilors, and new appointments to the Planning Commission and Development
Review Commission.
Mr. Lashbrook agreed, and noted it was about the law, and less about Robert's Rules of Order.
Councilor Tierney asked if the Planning Commission looked for direction from the Council, as he
felt this was a fine line.
Mr. Lashbrook explained the Planning Commission is an advisory body, whereas the DRC is
more of a decision making body. The Planning Commission, as well as for most of the Boards &
Commissions, are almost always advisory, or recommending action. However, it is helpful if the
Council lets them know if they want the specific Board or Commission to focus on certain issues,
and to come back with a recommendation.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5
February 9, 2009
There has not been much of a relationship with the Boards and Commissions, as about the only
contact is a dinner with the Board & Commission chairs, then a 20 minute study session once a
year where multiple Boards & Commissions are meeting as well. It is important for the Planning
Commission to have more time with the City Council as the various plans (water, transportation,
etc.) are being reviewed.
Mr. Lashbrook pointed out that all the members of the Boards & Commissions are volunteers,
who put in a huge amount of time on the City's behalf.
Mr. Powell noted that the staff provides professional opinion, and it is important for the record to
show what the staff's recommendation was, and if the Board or Commission deviates from the
staff's recommendation, to include how that decision came about.
Mayor Hoffman noted that in 2009-2010, there will be a lot of discussion and work being done on
a number of issues, such as revisions to the Comprehensive Plan, infill, sensitive lands, tree code,
the Lake Grove Town center, urban renewal center, a decision about the West End Building, and
the Stafford area. Regarding the Stafford issue, Metro needs to hear from not just staff, but our
elected officials. Does Lake Oswego want to remain at a population of 36,000? The City of West
Linn has sent the message to Metro that it wants to remain the same. The City of Hillsboro is
sending a message they want to grow by 10,000 to 15,000. Metro needs to hear from the City of
Lake Oswego within the next three or four weeks about what the population growth should be in
the next 20 years.
Mayor Hoffman explained that the City has a number of high priorities coming to the forefront right
now, and the Council needs to make some decisions, and give feedback to Metro about whether
future population growth should come to Lake Oswego, West Linn, Gresham, Portland, or
Hillsboro.
Councilor Tierney stated the Comprehensive Plan is not just a land use document. He asked if
parts that are not land use will be taken to other Boards & Commissions for their input.
Mr. Lashbrook explained one of the unfortunate parts of the Comprehensive Plan revision is that
everyone wants something else to be done first before working on the Comprehensive Plan
revision. All the subparts —Transportation, Parks & Recreation Master Plans, Utility Master Plans,
etc. - all need to be worked on and are part of the Comprehensive Plan. However, the
Comprehensive Plan revision process cannot wait for all the other work to be completed. He
recalled the diagram about the relationship between the plans and the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilor Tierney asked if the other Boards & Commissions will be asked to work on their specific
part, such as Parks & Recreation Advisory Board looking at the parks plans, and the
Transportation Advisory Board looking at transportation.
Mr. Lashbrook noted that was correct.
• Visioning
Councilor Jordan asked where the City was on the Visioning process. She recalled the Hillsboro
visioning process. She felt it was important is to state want you want to accomplish, how you are
going to get there, and what are your expectations in the process. The City has its Quality of Life
Indicators on one hand, and on the other hand is the Comprehensive Plan, but there doesn't seem
to be a relationship between the two.
Mayor Hoffman thanked Mr. Lashbrook and Mr. Sin for their presentation. He was very
impressed with the book, as there were a number of relevant items for City projects, such as Lake
Grove, Foothills, Infill, and Urban Renewal. He suggested scheduling a joint meeting with the
Council, Planning Commission and Development Review Commission, to discuss the
Comprehensive Plan and Periodic Review.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5
February 9, 2009
• MISCELLANEOUS
Mayor Hoffman noted he would like to schedule meetings with the following: Tigard City Council
concerning the water agreement in April at Tigard; Mt. Park Homeowners Association; and
requested that Professor Bud Kass from Portland State University be invited to make a
presentation on trust.
Mayor Hoffman noted he would like to schedule a Community Roundtable concerning the budget
on March 7, using the Samoan circle format. Councilor Olson noted that LONAC meets in the
morning, and there is an Eagle Scout ceremony in the afternoon. Mayor Hoffman said the
meeting could be held at the WEB.
The Council discussed the starting times for the February 19 and 25 meetings. Mayor Hoffman
noted the meetings will begin at 6:30 p.m.
Councilor Jordan noted there needs to be a meeting scheduled to get interested people from the
Stafford area, and the Cities of Lake Oswego, West Linn and Tualatin at the same table at the
same time. There is a Clackamas County Citizen Advisory Board meeting about this issue, and
Lake Oswego has been invited, but they meet on the last Tuesday of the month, which conflicts
with Council meetings.
Mayor Hoffman stated he has talked with Doug McClain, Clackamas County Planning
Commission, who is chairing the process. He will keep in touch with Mr. McClain and keep the
Council informed about meeting schedule. He will also make sure notices about the meetings are
distributed to the Council.
Mayor Hoffman noted the February 10 meeting will be televised. Joe Hertzberg had commented
to him that if the meetings last longer than 9 p.m., it appears harder for the Council to make
decisions. Mr. Hertzberg had also shared with him some tips about running the meeting, the
meeting agendas, and meeting dynamics. If Councilors have any concerns, he asked them to
share with him or with Mr. Hertzberg.
Mr. McIntyre noted the State of the City speeches will be presented by Mayor Hoffman, but he
did not have the dates.
Mayor Hoffman noted he planned to meet with each Board & Commission, and also present a
thank you gift to all the members. He will notify the Council liaison when the meetings are being
held.
Councilor Johnson explained that when she attended the last Regional Water Consortium
meeting, she voted to approve an increase in dues of$1,000. This increase will pay for advertising
on radio and print ads regarding conservation efforts.
Mr. McIntyre noted portraits are scheduled to be taken before the Council meeting on February
17, and will include both individual and group portraits. Ms. Christie will coordinate the times with
Councilors.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Christie
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: City Recorder
ON
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5
February 9, 2009
osWc
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
November 23, 2009
O;EGON ,
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on
November 23, 2009, in the West End Building, Santiam Room, 4101 Kruse Way.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney,
and Johnson.
Staff Present: David Donaldson, Asst City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn
Christie, City Recorder; Susan Millhauser, Sustainability Coordinator; Denny
Egner, Asst Planning Director; Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building
Director; Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner
Guests: Mayor Tim Knapp, Wilsonville; Lisa Nead, City of Wilsonville Environmental
Education Specialist; Holly Brunk, Natural Step Network; Stephan
Lashbrook, City of Wilsonville Assistant Community Development Director;
Paul Shirey, City of Milwaukie Public Works Director; Justin Bates,
AmeriCorps Sustainability Outreach Coordinator
Commission
Members: Eric Monahan, SAB; Paul Lyons, SAB; Bruce Brown, SAB; Dorothy Atwood,
SAB; Grant Watkinson, Co-Chair, SAB; Julie Glisson, Planning Commission;
Philip Stewart, Planning Commission Chair; Jim Gustafson, Planning
Commission; Jim Johnson, Planning Commission
Mayor Hoffman recognized Mayor Tim Knapp from Wilsonville.
Mayor Hoffman introduced Duke Castle, Castle Group. He noted Mr. Castle's extensive
experience in presenting the Natural Step to organizations in both the public and private sectors.
He mentioned the Group's goal to show business and community organizations how they could
move forward towards creating a sustainable society while maintaining a healthy economy.
3. WORKSHOP
3.1 Sustainability Leadership Training
Mr. Castle gave a PowerPoint presentation (see packet). He asked the City Council and the
Planning Commissioners what the issues of sustainability were that came to mind.
Mayor Hoffman mentioned the issue of taking the concept out to the community and getting
community buy-in/ownership of this way of thinking. Councilor Tierney commented about the
need for a common definition of sustainability. He asked how sustainability worked into decision-
making.
Councilor Olson asked to hear about the economic sustainability of the City, as the discussions
tended to default to the environmental issues. Councilor Jordan asked what activities or actions
would see the greatest gain for the money invested in introducing the community to sustainability.
Councilor Hennagin concurred with Mayor Hoffman's concern about public education and
reaching those who did not pay attention to what was happening in City government.
Mayor Knapp indicated that the questions raised by the City Council were the same questions that
the Wilsonville City Council has started discussing. He mentioned engaging the business
community in particular.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10
November 23, 2009
Commissioner Glisson asked if there were any incentive-based programs to help encourage
sustainability efforts. Mr. Castle mentioned a Portland program to help make homes more energy
efficient. He spoke of a recycling program that paid people based on the weight of their
recyclables.
Mr. Lyons asked how to change the minds of individuals who saw no need for sustainability.
Councilor Moncrieff asked about metrics and measurements for incentive programs and the like.
Ms. Atwood asked for Mr. Castle's perspective on the different models for engaging the
community.
Mr. Castle recounted the story of how he, as a businessman, became involved with the Swedish
program, Natural Step, after hearing a talk by Paul Hawkins about this program that helped
businesses and organizations move towards true sustainability.
He presented a definition of sustainability and an expanded definition from former Governor
Kitzhaber (p.1, Slide 3). He noted that the expanded definition added the requirement of meeting
environmental, economic, and community needs simultaneously, or the triple bottom line of a
healthy environment, social system, and economic system. He read the definition of sustainability
from Lake Oswego's Sustainability plan (p.1, Slide 4).
He discussed the differences between the discussion on `green' ecological practices and the tenets
of sustainability (p.1, Slide 5). He mentioned that the language of the 'green' discussion implied
that humans were the problem; if humans were not here, then everything would be fine. He noted
that sustainability looked at things differently than simply doing the least damage and minimizing
waste.
He indicated that sustainability required a whole system focus on the interaction of all the system
elements, which made it a complex and strategic issue that looked at the big picture. He
commented that it was not that humans were consciously trying to destroy the planet but rather
that humans did not understand the way that nature designed a sustainable planet. With that
understanding came an alignment of practices with the principles, and the metrics to measure
success.
He discussed how sustainability has gone mainstream over the past three years, driven by global
warming concerns (p.1, Slide 6, p.2, Slide 1). He commented that they could solve global warming
and still not be sustainable. He mentioned that the next big issue was likely water (p.2, Slide 2).
He spoke of the increasing likelihood of the extinction of species (p.2, Slides 3-4).
He presented the funnel metaphor to illustrate that the global trends of world population, affluence,
and technology were on a collision course with the depletion of resources faster than they could
regenerate themselves, and to show the margin for action available before they collided (p. 2, Slide
5). He commented that, while the world was seeing the symptoms of this collision, it was not at the
collision point yet. There was still time to take action and avoid "hitting the wall."
He discussed the genesis of the Natural Step system as developed by Dr. Karl-Henrich Robert, a
Swedish scientist who believed that there had to be some fundamental science that determined if
what people were doing led to a sustainable future. He mentioned Karl-Henrich's realization that it
was not that the environment has changed but rather that man's understanding of the environment
has changed (p.2, Slide 6). Karl-Henrich saw a need to understand what the fundamental
principles were that drove the details of the environmental issues, and to identify the unalterable
(non-negotiable) system conditions (p.3, Slide 1), which would lead to a shared mental model and
a starting place to figure out a course of action (p.3, Slides 2-3).
Mr. Castle referenced the paper written by a team led by Karl-Henrich that discussed a
methodology using a model that included the various complementary sustainability
tools/frameworks available (p.3, Slides 4, 5), which formed the Natural Step. He emphasized the
importance of starting with the broader concepts of the system before drilling down to the details of
specific actions, such as recycling programs, etc.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10
November 23, 2009
He presented the metaphor that Karl-Henrich devised of a chess game (p.3, Slide 6) with its use of
a variety of strategies that the players used to move the individual pieces in order to achieve the
game objective of checkmate. However, the starting point was understanding the rules of the
game.
He reviewed the basic science principles of sustainability (p.4, Slide 2). He discussed the earth as
an open system with respect to energy and as a closed system with respect to matter (p.4, Slide
3). He emphasized that humans could not actually throw anything away, as in things disappearing
from the system. Instead, their actions simply redistributed matter eventually from one part of the
planet to another part, similar to cream in a cup of coffee evenly distributing itself throughout the
cup of coffee over time.
He stated the conclusion that humans were consuming the concentration and structure of matter.
He indicated that, upon consumption, structured matter returned to individual atoms no longer
organized into the structure of matter but still in existence. He discussed Karl-Henrich's conclusion
that what sustained life and restored order was the green cells of plants using photosynthesis to
recombine the atoms into the structured matter of plants; animals ate the plants and people ate the
animals.
He described the zero net waste system in nature that utilized these basic science principles to
maintain a sustainable planet. He commented that the current solar income drove this natural
system. He mentioned Karl-Henrich's conclusion that what has happened in the past 200 years to
begin to break down this natural system, which has been running fine for eons, were the things that
humans did unconsciously.
He discussed how humans influenced the natural cycle (p. 4, Slide 4) through the extraction of
substances from the earth's crust, the introduction of toxins (foreign elements), and the breaking of
the cycle by physically destroying the natural system's ability to restore order. He correlated these
three actions to the system conditions of the Natural Step (p. 4, Slide 5), noting the fourth system
condition relating to meeting human needs.
He discussed the four system conditions (p.4, Slide 6). He indicated that the key to using the
earth's resources in a sustainable fashion was to close the loop, which included recycling matter.
He spoke of developing non-toxic synthetic substances, such as plastic made out of cornstarch
instead of petroleum, in order to avoid the systematic build up of toxins in the environment.
He spoke of maintaining a healthy ecosystem using sustainable harvest methods, instead of
degrading nature. He referenced Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs in commenting that it was difficult
to convince people to take sustainable actions when their basic needs were not being met.
He explained that Karl-Henrich was saying that businesses and communities were free to do
whatever they wanted to do as long as they did not violate the four system conditions.
He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that he thought Karl-Henrich would say that if humans
continued to mine copper (as an example) and systematically built it up in the atmosphere, there
could come a time when that concentration would be life-threatening. However, because they did
not know what the tipping point was, they should not continue to do such things systematically.
He noted that the mining of abundant minerals, such as aluminum and iron, has increased those
metals in the atmosphere by 4%, while the mining of the heavy or rarer metals has increased those
atmospheric levels by a higher percentage, such as copper, which has increased in the
atmosphere by 2400%.
Councilor Jordan observed that even with replacing known toxic substances with other
substances that did the same thing, they could not know whether those new substances would
eventually prove to be equally or even more toxic. She asked if this model looked to meeting
individual's basic needs for food, health, and shelter, or did it look to everyone acquiring a certain
standard of living beyond the basic needs.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10
November 23, 2009
Mr. Castle pointed out that the system conditions were not prescriptive; they did not address what
kind of lifestyle or level of education any individual should have. The idea was to not suppress
people from fulfilling whatever their destiny might be.
He recounted the story of Interface Carpet, whose CEO decided to make his company the first
restorative company. He explained that restorative went beyond the threshold of sustainability to
putting back more than one took out. He argued that a business that did not move to sustainable
practices would eventually hit the wall of the funnel. However, the question was how to do so in a
strategic manner and still make money.
He spoke of reaching for the low-hanging fruit of savings through waste reduction and re-investing
those savings into the other actions that the company wanted to do. He indicated that Interface
Carpet identified $50 million in after recovering $50 million in the first three years, they
waste;
recovered $400 million last year. He mentioned Interface's efforts to close the loop on carpeting
through promoting carpet made out of cornstarch instead of petroleum and leasing carpets rather
than selling them. He discussed the second strategy of substitution, such as cornstarch plastic for
vinyl.
He stated that the key was to create a vision of what the business would look like if it met the four
system conditions, and then to make decisions based on whether that action moved the company
forward in achieving that vision. He gave an example of a paper written by a group of architects
and builders discussing what a building would look like if it met these system conditions. He
mentioned that the Living Building Challenge came the closest of anything to that white paper,
including LEED certification.
He emphasized that the system conditions defined winning the sustainability game, as opposed to
prescribing what actions to take. He indicated that when they added in the economic component,
then they had the ability to measure the triple bottom line, once they developed the metrics to do
so. He gave an example from his years at Hewlett Packard, where the number one objective was
to make a profit. However, it was that profit, or financial health, that allowed the company to do the
things that it really wanted to do.
He reiterated that if any organization did not align itself with the system conditions, it would hit the
wall of the funnel (p.5, Slide 2). Although he could not say when that would happen, he did know
that if an organization waited until it happened, the cost would be exorbitant. He gave the example
of Nike, which took on the Natural Step, and banned PVC from its shoe designs as one of its first
actions. Their Norwegian suppliers then began working with Natural Step and were now moving to
change their industry to start to align with the system conditions.
He cited several other businesses who saved money by changing to more sustainable practices
(p.5, Slide 3). He commented that, in Oregon, businesses, the State, and others were using the
Natural Step to differentiate Oregon around the issue of sustainability. He mentioned the
Association of Oregon Industries feature magazine articles on sustainability, including an article
last spring about using the Natural Step (p.5, Slide 4). He noted the Oregon Business Council's
support of sustainability as the cornerstone of economic development in Oregon (p.5, Slide 5), and
the large grant that Portland State University received centered on researching sustainability
practices (p. 5, Slide 6).
He discussed what he has seen as one of the biggest differentiators in this field: the generation
gap (p.6, Slide 1). He mentioned that young people have come up to him and said that if their
company did not deal with this issue, then they would leave, which they did. He emphasized the
interest and concern of young people centering on sustainability, to the extent that they chose jobs
based on this issue.
He mentioned that many cities were using the Natural Step (p.6, Slide 2). He discussed the City of
Corvallis as an example of a city working over time (they began in 2000) with the community to
develop visions of what the different aspects of the community would look like as they moved
towards alignment with the Natural Step system conditions (p.6, Slide 3).
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10
November 23, 2009
He spoke of the importance of having a systematic method for keeping the work moving forward,
such as the sustainability management system that Corvallis was developing. He looked
specifically at how they implemented the system in the Police Department and eliminated waste
that saved enough money to help finance the program (p.6, Slide 4). He mentioned that
eliminating waste was the most common method of finding money. He discussed Corvallis' action
plan for water (p.6, Slide 5).
He discussed the public sector's response (p.6, Slide 6), on the local, regional, state, and national
levels. He mentioned the counties working with the cities to coordinate efforts. He spoke of
Metro's intent to achieve zero waste, citing a Portland company that already sent nothing to the
landfill.
Ms. Atwood indicated to Mayor Hoffman that achieving zero landfill waste need not put Allied
Waste out of business, as the company could shift to being a resource manager, as opposed to a
waste manager.
Mr. Castle mentioned the recent State legislation on energy efficiency buildings and achieving
zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. He discussed the City of Portland's programs promoting
sustainability (p.7, Slide 1). He described the Oregon Sustainability Center being built on the PSU
campus based on the standards of the Living Building Challenge (p.7, Slide 2). He presented the
concept of `eco-districts', which applied the concepts of the Living Building Challenge to
neighborhoods (p. 7, Slide 3).
He mentioned the Porltand/Multmonah County greenhouse gas plan (p.7, Slide 4). He discussed
other examples of sustainability efforts (p. 7, Slide 5), such as the BuildSmart program in Boulder,
CO, which required deconstruction of homes and forbade demolition of homes. He described the
AIA 2030 challenge to eliminate fossil fuel usage in buildings by 2030.
He pointed out that a weakness of the Natural Step was that it was not prescriptive: it did not tell
organizations what to do. He discussed the four-step process that they devised, the A-B-C-D
process, to guide the strategic implementation of the Natural Step (p.7, Slide 6). He indicated that
the first step was awareness training while the second step was conducting a baseline analysis, or
an inventory of existing conditions. He explained that the third step was to envision what the
organization or community would look like in the future if it were fully sustainable. The fourth step
was called `backcasting,' in which the organization determined what it needed to do now in order to
change the existing conditions into the future vision (p.8, Slide 1).
He described how the City of Whistler in Canada followed this process on a community basis (p.8,
Slide 2), following the advice of Karl-Henrich to take manageable steps in achieving their goal. He
mentioned their development of the Early Adopter program and other tactics (p.8, Slide 3) as part
of a detailed sustainability plan, which was available on the Web (p.8, Slide 4, p.9, Slide 1). He
indicated that Whistler signed up over 40 different organizations in the community to help
implement the plan (p. 8, Slides 5, 6).
He mentioned that the Canadian federal government was requiring all municipalities to have
sustainability plans, and provided funds to do so. He discussed the five person team funded by the
City of Whistler to launch the program, which the City was transitioning over to the Whistler Center
for Sustainability (p.9, Slide 2). He mentioned that, after the Olympics, the Olympic Village would
become affordable housing with 100% renewable energy.
He returned to the five-level model for sustainability (p.9, Slide 3). He explained that, while the key
planning tool was the backcasting process, one had to start with first understanding the science
and the principles behind the sustainability game.
He discussed Metro's strategic goals coming out of their use of the Natural Step (p.9, Slide 4). He
mentioned that the Army was also using the Natural Step and requiring all army bases to have
sustainability plans based on the Natural Step. He noted that everyone tended to come up with the
same goals. He commented that Metro had an RFP out for help in putting their goals on a
timeline, similar to what Ft. Lewis did.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10
November 23, 2009
He discussed the sustainability work done in Lake Oswego since 2002 (p.9, Slide 5). He
mentioned the importance of actively managing the City's sustainability plan, which included
funding it. He argued that if the City did not deal with these issues, then it would hit the funnel wall.
He commented that the City's goals were good goals and lined up with Metro's goals (p.9, Slide 6).
He discussed the strategies that he has seen other communities use successfully in working
towards sustainability (p.10, Slide 1). He emphasized that it took time to achieve success, which
required a long-term plan. He reviewed the benefits to Lake Oswego of working towards
sustainability (p.10, Slide 2). He suggested looking at Stafford as a possible eco-district. He
commented that the community would look to the City for leadership in continue to build a
community attractive to businesses and residents.
He discussed the next steps for Lake Oswego (p.10, Slide 3). He noted that one of the country's
experts on sustainability management systems lived in Lake Oswego. He reiterated that looking
towards the low hanging fruit (usually waste reduction) was the way to finance sustainability efforts.
He discussed the work that McMinnville has done in finding energy savings to fund their
sustainability plan (p.10, Slide 4).
He mentioned other ways to save energy in building and vehicle use (p.10, Slide 5), such installing
solar panels with batteries to run trucks. He spoke of improving employee productivity and
reducing employee absenteeism through these practices.
He discussed the keys to success in sustainability (p.10, Slide 6). He spoke of a shared mental
model, such as the Natural Step system conditions, backcasting to keep a plan/program moving
forward towards the vision, and education to shift the community's thinking to a sustainability
framework.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Jordan recalled her conversations with Mr. Egner regarding the Council's discussions
about how the region would support urban reserves with today's infrastructure, rather than looking
ahead to future infrastructure technologies that would not require the pipes, etc. She questioned
whether all the interested parties could come together to discuss what was the best way to develop
urban reserves 20 years out without looking at the billions of dollars cost of installing today's
technology.
Mr. Brown discussed Damascus as going through that issue right now. He mentioned the
probability that Damascus would not be able to impose SDCs or other fees without a popular vote.
He spoke of discussions with the City and the farmers in the area about developing an agra, or a
fully sustainable agri village. He argued that if they could make a downtown block sustainable,
then they should be able to create livable acres and still preserve farmland. He noted that the
2009 Department of Agriculture report for Damascus look at water and energy conservation and
transitioning family farms into a community.
Mr. Castle suggested taking that approach and envisioning what Stafford would look like under
that model. Councilor Johnson spoke to discussing Foothills as a sustainable community that
would then draw the younger people to the area. She commented that Foothills was probably the
most doable in creating an example that could be duplicated elsewhere.
Councilor Moncrieff suggested using the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update as a time to run
the Natural Step test against each section of the Plan. She wondered whether there was a way to
integrate the sustainability strategic management plan into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Castle
mentioned that in the workshop that he held for the Planning Department, the afternoon exercise
had been to envision what the housing component of the Comprehensive Plan would look like if it
were fully aligned with the system conditions.
Mr. Castle indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the sustainability management system could be
scaled to any level, either to the City as an organization or to the community as a whole. He
clarified that the system was simply a process to manage an ongoing plan. He emphasized the
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10
November 23, 2009
need to start with something manageable, such as training City personnel in this different way of
thinking. From there, the City could start to spread it out to the community through programs like
the Early Adopter program.
Mayor Hoffman asked whether the Clean Streams plan was sustainable. Mr. Castle clarified that
the question to ask was what framework did the Council use in making its decision.
Councilor Jordan observed that if all the City departments were thinking about how their
operations could be more sustainable, that would filter out into the community as staff asked
people to do things to help support the City's work on sustainability. She argued that until they
figured out what would make a difference to the City, they could not know what they were asking
the citizens to do. Councilor Johnson mentioned a citizen question of why should I conserve
water if the City kept the Safeco lawn green all summer.
Ms. Atwood spoke to training City staff first in sustainability because the City operations had the
greatest influence on the behavior of Lake Oswego citizens. The City could integrate sustainability
into its Code through Code updates. She described the Comprehensive Plan update as a great
opportunity to integrate sustainability for implementation as policy. She concurred that the City did
not have to stop there but it could start going out to the community by whichever path it chose.
She suggested leading by example.
Mr. Castle commented that the question was where the Council went from here. He reiterated that
starting with what one could manage and expanding outward was a viable methodology.
Councilor Johnson pointed out that their conversation still focused on the green side of
sustainability. She spoke to addressing the economic development and societal aspects as well,
and what the City could be doing to attract the young professional demographic to the city. Mr.
Castle mentioned that the Whistler plan addressed social aspects as well.
Mayor Hoffman mentioned receiving an e-mail from a Lake Oswego college student asking why
Lake Oswego did not forbid plastic bags or charge for them, as Canada did.
Mr. Castle commented that mandating things was probably not the best way to do this, as the
community would only push back. He said that what he liked about the Natural Step approach was
that no one was telling an individual how to live his/her life; an individual could live any life he/she
wanted to as long as he/she did not violate the four system conditions.
He indicated that the place to start to build consensus was to look at the science, which argued
that they lived in a closed system. He spoke of working with businesses to figure out how to make
a business work without violating one of the four system conditions. He discussed how Lake
Oswego might work with Allied Waste to implement a zero waste goal.
Mr. Brown commented that the marketplace has never imposed the true cost of doing the wrong
thing. He spoke to municipalities taking on the role of recognizing those true costs by providing
financial disincentives to do the wrong thing, such as using tiered water rates. He recalled that
when Metro increased the cost of construction waste tipping fees at the landfill, the construction
marketplace started pushing towards construction recycling on its own, without a government
mandate.
Councilor Olson asked whether mandatory regulations or education worked best. Mr. Castle
indicated that he found that education worked best. Ms. Atwood noted that Portland banned
Styrofoam, which influenced the market. She concurred with Mr. Brown that there were strategic
places where a municipality could create disincentives and thus influence the market. Councilor
Jordan mentioned another example of a higher fee for a building permit to demolish than for one
to deconstruction.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at
8:40 p.m.
4. COUNCIL BUSINESS
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10
November 23, 2009
4.1 Proposed Joint Statement on Stafford Area
Mayor Hoffman indicated that he had felt uncomfortable with the language and tone of the joint
statement from Tualatin and West Linn, and, therefore, he returned it to Mr. Coffee. He stated that
he made it clear at both MPAC and the Metro Reserves Steering Committee that Lake Oswego
was neither interested in asserting jurisdiction over Stafford Basin nor in seeing it urbanized.
He mentioned that the Core 4 was trying to adjust the maps at this time. He noted the presence of
Jim Johnson, a Planning Commissioner whose knowledge about the soils in Oregon and work on
the urban and rural reserves with the Department of Agriculture drove much of the discussion. He
explained that the urban and rural reserves discussion had a 50-year horizon, and represented
Metro's efforts to meet State law using a different way of expanding the UGB other than at the
edges every five years.
He indicated that, even if Stafford came in as urban reserves, that did not mean immediate
development, as there were certain steps that had to be taken. He mentioned the likelihood of an
appeal if Metro designated Stafford as urban reserves.
Councilor Tierney indicated that he had thought that tonight the Council would discuss whether to
sign the letter or not.
Mayor Hoffman asked if anyone wanted to sign the letter. Councilor Hennagin indicated that he
would not mind doing so if he could reword it. Councilor Jordan mentioned giving her edits of the
letter to Mr. McIntyre, which she thought sounded more like the tone of Lake Oswego's original
submission with regard to its position on Stafford.
Councilor Jordan discussed her concern that Stafford coming in as an urban reserve meant that it
would be urbanized using current definitions, whereas leaving it as undesignated allowed for more
forward thinking planning, such as making it an eco-district or having some form of density without
the infrastructure used today.
Mayor Hoffman indicated that leaving Stafford undesignated maintained the status quo of its
Effective Farm Use and Rural Residential zoning and the limitations under ORS 197. It would take
State legislative action to change the underlying zoning to urban farming, which the legislature
might not be inclined to do.
He explained that an urban reserves designation for Stafford meant that some jurisdiction had to
take control of it and do the concept planning and all the usual planning documents. He
speculated that someone would have to annex it because he doubted that Metro would allow a city
to be created there.
He indicated that Metro has not mandated 10 units per acre but it has required an urban form; this
allowed some creativity, such as creating an eco-district in Stafford. He pointed out that whoever
did the planning would have to get the funding from Metro because it would be very expensive.
He said that Lake Oswego has already sent one letter to Metro detailing its aspirations and making
it clear that the City was not interested in Stafford.
Councilor Hennagin commented that the policy of the City was for Stafford to remain
undesignated, a policy that the present Council has not rescinded. He acknowledged that Metro
might designate Stafford as urban reserves over the adjacent jurisdictions' objections. He argued
that the West Linn and Tualatin's letter simply reinforced what Lake Oswego has already said. He
held that the tenor of the letter could be negotiated to where it was acceptable to all three
jurisdictions.
Councilor Johnson commented that she was hearing that there was not much room for
negotiation on the letter's language. She questioned whether they needed to state their position in
a different way than they have already stated it. Mayor Hoffman concurred. He voiced his
uncertainty that what the cities said carried much weight.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10
November 23, 2009
Councilor Olson interpreted Councilor Hennagin's concern as Lake Oswego not signing the letter
presented the appearance of divisiveness and weakened the perception of Lake Oswego as a
staunch opponent of urbanizing Stafford.
Councilor Jordan commented that Lake Oswego not signing the letter might look like Lake
Oswego was saying that it would take control. She questioned whether the Council has discussed
whether the City was willing to do that. She speculated that if Stafford came in as urban reserves
and no one took control, then the land would just sit there. Mayor Hoffman stated that someone
had to take control of it.
Councilor Hennagin mentioned talking with Tom Coffee, who informed him that the West Linn
City Council has approved the wording as it now stands, which meant that it might be too late to
negotiate the tone of the letter. He noted that another option was for Lake Oswego to send a
second letter saying that it agreed with the West Linn/Tualatin letter but using a different tone.
Mayor Hoffman suggested sending copies of Lake Oswego's previous letters with a transcript of
his public testimony at Metro, and emphasizing that the Council really meant its position.
Councilor Tierney observed that there were several audiences involved. He commented that he
thought that the Council has been clear to the Metro audience about its intentions. He discussed
the second audience of their neighboring cities, and the perception that by not signing the letter,
Lake Oswego was leaving its neighbors out there by themselves. He agreed that the letter was too
harsh in tone, although he was sympathetic to signing it simply to show support for their neighbors.
Councilor Johnson asked why they had to do the letter at all. Councilor Tierney described it as
a political situation and working within the community. He mentioned that he was not certain in his
own mind whether Stafford should be urban or rural but he would support the City policy.
Councilor Hennagin commented, given the perception mentioned by Councilor Tierney, that it
would be diplomatic for Lake Oswego to send a letter that supported their neighbors' position.
Councilor Jordan described the factors that she saw as the driving force in this situation. All three
communities made their positions very clear prior to the Metro Executive's letter and
recommendation. However, the Executive's letter made it clear that Metro was not listening to
what the local communities and Clackamas County were saying about Stafford, that in order to
balance the acreage that might be needed over the next 30 years, Metro needed to bring in a
composite of urban reserves. She argued that this West Linn/Tualatin letter answered the
Executive's letter and reiterated the original position of the three jurisdictions.
Mayor Hoffman suggested that Mr. Egner take his edit of the letter, in which he edited out the
offensive language, paraphrase the West Linn!Tualatin letter in stating that Lake Oswego generally
supported West Linn and Tualatin in their opposition to the urbanization of Stafford, and enclose
copies of Lake Oswego's earlier letters. The Mayor would then circulate the letter among the
Council for feedback.
Mr. Powell indicated that he heard that the Council had consensus on the content of the letter and
has essentially delegated to the Mayor the authority to write the letter; the rest was just
wordsmithing.
Tom Coffee informed the Council that, upon the West Linn City Council's adoption of the letter,
Councilor Kovash expressed the hope that Lake Oswego would find a way to express its unanimity
with the fundamental position of West Linn and Tualatin.
5. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 9:02 p.m. to Executive Session under authority of ORS
192.660 (2)(e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property
transactions and (h) consult with attorney regarding legal rights and duties of a public body with
regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. Mr. Powell reviewed the Executive Session
parameters.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10
November 23, 2009
5. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Mayor Hoffman reconvened the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10
November 23, 2009
t OF 1A"03jyf
co
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
December 7, 2009
RECAM
�O
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. on
December 7, 2009, in West End Building, Santiam Room, 4101 Kruse Way
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin (4:10), Moncrieff, and Olson.
Councilors Tierney and Johnson were excused.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Denny Egner, Assistant Planning Director; Ann Adrian, ACC
Manager; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Rec Director
3. JOINT MEETING WITH ADVISORY BOARDS
3.1 Planning Commission
Members present: Philip Stewart, Chair; Julia Glisson, Vice Chair, Adrienne Brockman,
Russell Jones, Jon Gustafson, and Lynne Paretchan.
Chair Stewart directed the Council to the Planning Commission 2010 goals sheet in the Council
packet. He noted the Periodic Review coming up next year. He commented that many of the
Commission discussions during 2009 related to the needed Community Development Code (CDC)
update.
Ms. Glisson explained the difference between the CDC update and the CDC audit/rewrite. The
update involved the Commission working through problem areas identified by staff over the last
several years. She commented that the update would take a significant amount of time. She
spoke of prioritizing the problem areas and dealing with the ones that were most critical in terms of
impact on the community.
She indicated that the Code rewrite did not change the content of the Code but rather reformatted
and simplified the Code to make it more accessible and easier for everyone to understand. She
explained that the Code rewrite was necessary whether the Commission updated the problem
areas or not. Chair Stewart indicated to Councilor Olson that he thought that the Commission
would find it helpful to know what the scope of the audit would be and how it would relate to a
Code update.
Ms. Brockman confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that new zoning aspects were usually
incorporated into the Code as the Commission passed them on to the Council and the Council
adopted them. She explained that the update was an ongoing process that the Commission
should work on every year. However, due to needing to address other big projects, the
Commission now faced a buildup of three to four years of updates, which made it a cumbersome
project.
She indicated to Councilor Hennagin that staff would bring technological developments in the
construction industry as a special proposal for inclusion in the Code.
Chair Stewart indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the CDC rewrite and update were the
Commission's top priority, following completion of infill. He mentioned the uncertainty surrounding
when Periodic Review would start up. Ms. Brockman commented that all the goals were a
priority, which the Commission needed to schedule and integrate into a work program. She
pointed out that none of them were new goals.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10
December 7, 2009
Mayor Hoffman asked what could be removed, if necessary, given limited staff time and
resources. Chair Stewart indicated that the distinction between current projects and other projects
gave the priority. He noted that some of the current projects were tied to timing and might not
reach the Commission until later in the year. He explained that the `other projects' listed topics on
which the Commission would like Council to tell the Commissioners how they could assist the
Council
Councilor Jordan mentioned the possibility that the Council might decide to marshal resources
more tightly in order to make sure that one or two things were actually accomplished in each area
in a year, as opposed to stringing out over several years. She noted that the CDC update would
be an intensive process. She asked if the Commission intended to have something about updating
the CDC on each 2010 meeting agenda.
Ms. Glisson indicated that it depended on how staff structured the update. Chair Stewart
speculated that the audit would provide feedback on the condition of the Code. Councilor Jordan
clarified that she meant cleaning up the Code language, as opposed to reformatting the Code. Ms.
Glisson recalled that the Commission did discuss prioritizing the Code updates in order to handle
the most onerous updates with the highest impact first, with the lesser updates following later. She
commented that whenever staff brought things to the Commission as a high priority, the
Commission fit them into their schedule.
Ms. Glisson held that, given all the Commission work on the neighborhood planning issue, it
would be a shame for the Commission to put it aside now. Therefore, she saw that as a high
priority, although it needed very little additional work and was basically ready to come to the
Council.
Ms. Glisson indicated to Mayor Hoffman that she did not think that there was a danger that
neighborhood planning might be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and community vision.
She explained that their neighborhood planning work provided a basic framework for
neighborhoods to start moving their plans along. She mentioned that the Commission needed to
finish up pieces of both the neighborhood planning effort and the Lake Grove Village Center Plan
in order to keep those projects moving forward.
Ms. Paretchan recalled that several months ago the Commission put together a work plan for all
its current projects, going out six months. Thus, the Commission knew what things it had to work
on. She clarified that items under 'other projects' were items that the Council was working on and
might want Commission input on. She described the 'transportation and community aesthetics'
bullets as opportunities for the Commission to bring something creative to their usual step-by-step
methodology.
Councilor Olson mentioned that the Transportation Advisory Board was taking on a new
Transportation System Plan this coming year. She acknowledged that this was not a Planning
Commission item, and that TAB would take the lead on it, but she thought that it would be good if
the two boards could work jointly on the plan.
Mr. Jones concurred with Councilor Jordan's point about actually accomplishing something in a
short period of time. He remarked that he thought that there were parts of the CDC that they could
update quickly.
Councilor Hennagin asked why the Planning Commission had a goal to continue implementation
work for the neighborhood plans after the Council adopted the plan. He commented that he
thought that the neighborhoods implemented their own plans. Ms. Paretchan explained that
implementation involved Code amendments. She commented that the new neighborhood plans
process had an excellent handbook prepared by staff that detailed a different approach that
brought neighborhood plans and their implementation together. She noted that the City still had
several neighborhood plans not implemented.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10
December 7, 2009
Mayor Hoffman mentioned the Stafford Basin issue, on which the Council was working. He
commented that the community vision was more related to the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if
there were any other Planning Commission projects for the next year.
Ms. Glisson mentioned a Commission discussion about looking at the Natural Step framework and
seeing how the members could apply it. She commented that periodic review and visioning
seemed like a good opportunity to do so. She indicated that, while she saw it as a priority, the
Commission was not certain what kind of a priority it was.
Councilor Moncrieff wondered whether it would be helpful if a SAB member was available to
answer Planning Commission questions while the Commissioners worked on periodic review or the
Code update. Ms. Paretchan indicated that she did not know whether the Commission would
learn about sustainability from the SAB, staff, or through their own research, but she saw a need
for the community and the City to move sustainability into the Planning Commission realm.
Mr. Jones observed that, given that the Code was black and white and sustainability was
nebulous, there might be times when the two conflicted. He mentioned the custom of allowing a
Code exemption to test whether a sustainable idea actually worked, which allowed the
Commission to modify the Code realistically.
Councilor Jordan recalled an earlier Council discussion of using green building techniques. She
commented that staff was already trying to find ways to encourage green development and to
identify the roadblocks. She encouraged the Commission to identify the roadblocks as part of the
CDC update. Chair Stewart mentioned as an example the issue of whether the Code allowed a
building to exceed the height limit if the developer installed solar panels on the roof.
Chair Stewart indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Commission anticipated the infill code
amendments to reach Council in mid-January.
Mr. Egner indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the periodic review timeline depended on when the
City received its final work program approval from DLCD. He mentioned the staff's intention to
conduct a large public event around the Comprehensive Plan update and visioning this fall. He
explained that the City would do the background and visioning part of the project in 2010, the
policy option piece in 2011, and the refinement and adoption in 2012.
He indicated that last week staff discussed with the Planning Commission the public involvement
process, how to integrate sustainability into the process, and what kind of advisory committee to
use
Ms. Glisson indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Commission has not had a good discussion
regarding the Comprehensive Plan/periodic review/visioning process.
3.2 50 + Advisory Board
Members present: Janine Duncan, Chair, Terry Harty, Nanci Cummings, Robert Eidson
Chair Duncan reviewed the Board's 2009 accomplishments (December 7 memo in packet). She
clarified to Mayor Hoffman that the Board started the Neighbors Helping Neighbors project and
brought Dawn DeHaeze in because she had coincidentally been doing similar things in her
neighborhood (p.1).
She commented that the Board was now seeing citizens come to it with ideas. As a result of a
citizen suggestion, the Board did a pilot project for an educational panel program that was well-
received (p.2). She said that the Board would like to set up additional panels in 2010. She
mentioned dropping the crosswalk safety project due to lack of neighborhood interest (p.2).
She noted the Board's continuing support of the Oakridge Project (p.2) and removing barriers to
secondary dwelling units (p.2). Ms. Glisson indicated that the Planning Commission would look
forward to hearing the Board's comments on secondary dwelling units. Chair Duncan referenced
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10
December 7, 2009
the article she attached to the Council packet regarding a secondary dwelling unit program
developed in Santa Cruz, CA.
She mentioned that the Board heard many speakers at their 2009 meetings who helped educate
the Board on matters that were not their areas of expertise. She asked if the Council had anything
in particular that it would like the Board to address in 2010.
Mr. Jones commented that he would appreciate hearing the Board's testimony at the upcoming
Planning Commission hearings regarding its support of the Infill Task Force and revised building
codes. Chair Duncan indicated that the Board was willing to testify at the December 14 hearing
but she would want to talk with a Commissioner about what they could testify about.
Chair Duncan mentioned that she was not giving up on secondary dwelling units (SDUs). She
indicated that she has complied much information on how other towns have dealt with SDUs,
which she could make available to anyone interested in it. Ms. Glisson commented that the
Commission would likely have a study session on SDUs, as the issue would come to it as part of
the Code update. She said that they would let the 50+ Board know when that was.
Councilor Hennagin mentioned the staff interpretation of the current Code that the 800 square
foot maximum for SDUs had to include the garage underneath if the SDU were built on top of a
garage. He suggested looking at that provision, as that interpretation did not make sense to him.
Mr. Gustafson explained that none of the Code provisions addressing SDUs were designed to
encourage or allow SDUs. He commented that, given the many different pieces of Code
addressing SDUs, they needed a holistic approach with an endgame in mind in order to make
SDUs happen.
Mr. Gustafson indicated to Mayor Hoffman that in order to change the Code on SDUs, the
Commission needed to identify the current roadblocks that prevented SDUs, of which there were
several, and to identify how many of those Code provisions the City was willing to change, in light
of the compatibility issues that would inevitably arise. Councilor Jordan pointed out that this
would also affect the neighborhood plans. Mr. Gustafson spoke of the importance of clearly
articulating that goal.
Mr. Gustafson argued that they needed to have a common consensus that SDUs was something
that the community wanted to pursue, not only for housing seniors, but for sustainability and other
aspects as well. He spoke of balancing the different aspects that the Commission needed to take
into consideration. Councilor Olson observed that balancing the different interests was the key to
everything they did. She noted that, in this situation, the balance was between privacy, the
neighborhoods' desires, and the good of the community.
Ms. Glisson commented that this might be a good time for the Commission to think about it since it
was working on many related pieces in its infill work. She spoke of working on SDUs after the first
of the year. Mr. Gustafson agreed that it should not be difficult to do.
Councilor Hennagin commented that he has always wondered why infill and SDUs were not
combined. Chair Duncan noted that the Board also saw the two issues as closely aligned. She
mentioned the work done on SDUs in Santa Cruz in developing seven prototypes using an
architects' competition. She expressed the Board's delight at seeing other people now interested
in this issue.
Chair Duncan commented that the most logical way to ensure that those looking at transportation
issues considered the 50+ community was to partner with TAB or anybody else dealing with
transportation issues.
Councilor Jordan commented that it would be interesting to know how many individual trips
TriMet made to pick seniors or disabled persons in Lake Oswego. Councilor Hennagin recalled
that the Council had Ms. Gilmer do a study on a shuttle program. Ms. Cummings indicated to
Chair Duncan that it was the Council that decided to hold off on the pilot shuttle program because
of the financial implications.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10
December 7, 2009
Councilor Hennagin concurred that, at the time, the Council did not think it would work out
financially, but he wondered whether the Board could explore other alternatives to address the
issue creatively. Ms. Cummings mentioned the other options that the Board explored as part of
the pilot shuttle program, and the conclusion that the least expensive way to provide the service
would be through the City. Chair Duncan indicated to Councilor Hennagin that she did not think
that the idea was dead; perhaps it could fit in as part of Comprehensive Plan Goal 12.
Chair Duncan discussed community outreach. She spoke of holding informal dialogs in the
neighborhoods to update the information obtained from the original dialogs, as the Board has not
done that since its inception. She reported that Marylhurst wanted to be more involved in Lake
Oswego, as they considered themselves the living room of Lake Oswego. She mentioned that she
and Mr. Harty met with the Marylhurst Dept of Human Services Chair about pursuing joint
programs and partnerships with the City, provided that there was Council interest in doing so.
Chair Duncan indicated to Mayor Hoffman that she had thought of seminars on brain health,
while Mr. Harty had a larger vision of weekend retreats or Elderhostels on topics of interest to
people in the community. Mr. Harty said that he did not have any specific topics but he did know
that the Elderhostel program was active in the country. He described it as an opportunity to attract
people in the community and to provide services not currently available to the 50+ population.
Councilor Hennagin recalled seeing Elderhostels hosted at Marylhurst in the early 1990s.
Councilor Jordan mentioned the possibility of creating more economic development programs to
take place in downtown Lake Oswego for Elderhostel attendees.
Chair Duncan indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the next steps in working with Marylhurst were the
Human Services Chair meeting with her boss to obtain permission to proceed with a preliminary
plan, and the Board representatives then meeting again with the Chair to develop a
recommendation to bring to the Council. Mayor Hoffman indicated that it would be helpful to the
Council to know more about these potential programs before its goal setting meeting in January.
He commented that he saw much potential in expanding the City's relationship with Marylhurst.
Councilor Moncrieff suggested including Ms. Gilmer in those communications, as she was also
working on ongoing senior education. Mayor Hoffman indicated that if Chair Duncan would e-mail
him with more details, he would coordinate with Ms. Gilmer and other Council members.
Chair Duncan observed that, given that boards had no control over funding, the Board would need
to coordinate its desire to do more educational panels on various topics of interest to the 50+
community. She commented that she did not think that they have begun to tap the market in Lake
Oswego for this type of programming. She stated that it was time to do so. Councilor Jordan
suggested that the Board work with the Library Advisory Board to develop 50+ educational
programs at the library.
Councilor Hennagin suggested finding out whether the various senior congregate housing
facilities in Lake Oswego would save money by joining forces with each other and the City to
consolidate their separate shuttles into one shuttle that served the whole community. Ms.
Cummings recalled that there had been insurance issues with a consolidated service. She
suggested that each facility take one day a week to do a route.
Chair Duncan indicated to Mayor Hoffman that, with respect to their Goal #4, incentivizing the
remodeling and maintenance of existing homes, the Board did not know much about the topic,
which was why she invited Mr. Tehran to address the Board next Thursday. She mentioned her
understanding that infill had the potential to make it more appealing for people to remodel rather
than tear down, which might help keep seniors in their homes.
She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that they would like to see aging in place as seniors being able to
stay not only in their community, but also in their homes. Ms. Cummings mentioned the Board's
discussion of the lack of appropriate homes in the community for seniors to move in to if they had
to sell their homes.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10
December 7, 2009
_ r
Mr. Eidson cited his experience in moving his mother into a residential care facility in observing
that this issue went beyond the seniors living in the house. He pointed out that the house stayed
the same size while the person's needs steadily decreased. He mentioned that a senior becoming
dependent also affected the senior's children. He spoke of not focusing on only one thing, but also
looking at the ramifications beyond the individual.
Chair Duncan indicated to Mayor Hoffman that she had Paul Lyon's demographic studies, which
she had no reason to believe were not accurate in terms of a demographic analysis of Lake
Oswego. Mayor Hoffman suggested answering the questions of whether the population was
aging and whether seniors would stay in place by asking seniors 65 years old or so where they
would be in 10 to 15 years.
3.3 Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB)
Members present: Morgan Holen, Chair, Bill Gaar, Vice Chair, Nancy Gronowski
Chair Holen reviewed NRAB's 2009 accomplishments in relation to their goals, as listed in the
chart (NRAB November 30 memo in the Council packet). She noted that the funding for Phase 2
of the Cook's Butte Plan was secured and the work ongoing. She recalled that two years ago they
put the development of their vision statement on hold because the timing was not right.
She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that, following the Board's review of the Portland plan to
eradicate invasive plant species citywide, the Board would send the Council a memo with
recommendations. Mayor Hoffman suggested sending the Council members the link to the
Portland website, once the report came out, in order to speed up the process.
Chair Holen reported that their first event at the Farmers Market, in which they hosted a booth and
teamed up with a native nursery to promote and sell native plants as substitutes for non-native,
non-desirable plants, was a great success. She mentioned raising $60, which the Board used to
purchase an outdoor vinyl banner for use at all their events. She indicated that their second and
third events at the market only involved promoting gardening with native plants. She said that
those who stopped to talk with them were genuinely interested in gardening with native plants.
She indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that they did notice vendors at the Farmers Market selling
invasive species. Councilor Jordan suggested coordinating with the Farmers Market to request
vendors not to sell those invasive species.
Chair Holen indicated that she and Stephanie Wagner led the two Urban Community Forestry
workshops. She reported that the two new Heritage Trees designated were the Ponderosa Pine
and the Giant Sequoia near Luscher Farm. She mentioned the excellent work done by the
AmeriCorps staff member on the State of the Forest report, including a statistically valid sample of
City street trees documenting that the benefits of street trees far outweighed their cost. She said
that the baseline data and other information gathered would help the City make informed choices
in future forest management.
She mentioned that Tigard was looking to Lake Oswego as an example, as it just adopted its first
urban forest management program.
Councilor Hennagin asked what the bad effect was of having too many of one species. Chair
Holen explained that an epidemic could wipe out most of the canopy if it contained mostly trees
affected by that disease. A diversity of species in the canopy would protect the forest in that
catastrophic scenario. She mentioned that the State of the Forest report used the U.S. Forest
Service guidelines for appropriate percentages of tree species in a canopy.
Mr. Gaar reviewed the remainder of the Board's 2009 accomplishments. He described the Board's
perception of the Clean Streams Plan as baby steps; the Board would like to see a more holistic
approach to clean streams. He spoke of the Plan becoming more like a comprehensive plan that
dealt with surface water runoff than remaining a project-oriented plan.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10
December 7, 2009
Mayor Hoffman asked how the City could work towards a more holistic approach. Mr. Gaar
indicated that the Board could take the lead on developing a direction for the City to consider in
taking a more holistic approach to surface water runoff. He said that they did not yet know what
the next steps would be, but the Board would keep working on it.
Councilor Moncrieff asked about the Lake Oswego Watershed Council. Mr. Gaar indicated that
Ms. Wagner was working on establishing the Watershed Council. He anticipated the Watershed
Council making suggestions about how to handle surface water runoff.
Mr. Gaar mentioned the Board's consideration of educating the community as a priority in helping
the community to make good policy decisions and choices regarding the natural resources in Lake
Oswego.
He reviewed the Board's 2010 goals as listed in the NRAB memo in the Council packet. He
mentioned that NRAB's perspective of looking at what the Board could do as a citizens' council lay
behind the first goal. Mayor Hoffman commented that he thought the Board's review and
comments on the Second Look Task Force's recommendations would be its first priority.
Mr. Gaar explained that an NRAB member, Nancy Gronowski, sat on that Task Force. While she
kept the Board informed, the Board has decided that, as a biased stakeholder with a particular
focus, it could not do much beyond listening and making comments on the Task Force's work at
the appropriate time.
Mayor Hoffman commented that he did not see the Board as a stakeholder but rather as an
advisory board to the Council on the area of the Board members' expertise, natural resources. He
indicated that he looked to NRAB for advice on its area of expertise the same as he did to the other
Council advisory boards on their areas of expertise. He pointed out that the most important thing
facing the Council in the next 90 days was natural resources on private property.
Mr. Gaar explained that he said 'stakeholder' because their mission statement defined their task
specifically in terms of advising the Council on natural resources. He observed that a person's
perceptions and biases informed their comments and actions. He held that, regardless of one's
beliefs, one had an obligation to do certain things. He indicated that he had looked at the
sustainability piece early on in order to inform the Board, but now they were letting the Task Force
do its work before getting involved again in providing information to the Council.
Councilor Moncrieff observed that the Board had the natural resources lens on all the time in
giving general comments on City plans and polices regarding natural resources. She suggested
that a member on each advisory board keep an eye on the Council calendar to identify
opportunities for Board members to provide advice on items coming before the Council.
Mr. Gaar indicated, in reference to their second goal, that the Board decided to assign areas to
specific Board members as a means of obtaining both accountability and productivity. He
commented that if someone worked on an issue that was his/her passion, that individual often got
more done. He gave an example of himself as the watchperson for water conservation-related
matters who would ask the Council if it needed input on such issues when they came up on the
Council calendar.
Chair Nolen indicated that another method that the Board intended to use in order to increase its
awareness of the natural resources in Lake Oswego and the potential threats to them was to focus
20 minutes of each meeting on a particular natural resource. She continued the review of the 2010
goals. She noted that Denise Dailey would take the lead on organizing a Northwest Earth Institute
discussion course.
She stated that they would advocate for money for Phase 3 of the Cook's Butte plan ($25,000 for
invasive plant removal and eradication and $50,000 for trail construction) as well as the other items
listed on the goals page. She explained that the $10,000 to implement the Springbrook Park
management plan would pay for invasive plant removal and a trail repair project, as well as support
a Centennial event, Spring in Springbrook Park. She spoke of the Board's strong appreciation of
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10
December 7, 2009
the Friends of Springbrook Park leading by example and developing a management plan for the
park.
Mr. Gaar mentioned that Goal 4 was another example of the Board wanting to take a holistic
approach by integrating the individual pieces into a comprehensive plan. He mentioned the
Board's concern that the City was not taking care of these phenomenal properties, which were City
assets.
Chair Holen indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the way for the City to address natural
resource issues on private property was to lead by example and to manage the City-owned natural
areas proactively as a demonstration of what private property owners could do on their own land.
Chair Holen continued the goals review. She described the homeowner mentoring program
mentioned in Goal 5 as an opportunity for private property owners to have a private consultant
evaluate the natural resources on their property free of charge and make recommendations. Ms.
Gronowski explained to Councilor Olson that the Planning Department had a partnership with
the Friends of Tryon Creek State Park to provide this service, as so much of Lake Oswego was in
that watershed. Chair Holen indicated that she served as a consultant on tree evaluations.
Chair Holen reviewed the objectives of Goal 6, the urban and community forestry program. She
noted that the $15,000 to continue program implementation including $10,000 for the AmeriCorps
staff person and $5,000 for other projects. She mentioned developing a partnership with Friends
of Trees for help in planting street trees and doing Farmers Market events. She mentioned Goals
7 and 9 and reviewed the objectives of Goal 8.
3.4 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB)
Members present: John McComish, Chair, Sandy Intraversato, Vice Chair
Chair McComish reviewed PRAB's 2009 accomplishments with respect to its goals. He
mentioned the Board's encouragement of the Council to continue to provide adequate program
space for Parks & Rec while determining the disposition of the West End Building. He reviewed
the extensive range of programs held currently at the WEB from arts to sports to police training.
He pointed out that if they could not hold these programs at the WEB, they would have to find
space elsewhere in the community.
He noted that their second goal of initiating a new Parks & Rec Comprehensive Plan was not
funded last year. He reported that they did obtain DRC approval for future construction of Phase 5
of the George Rogers Park Master Plan. He mentioned obtaining funding in the FY 2009/2010
budget for trail planning.
He reviewed the Board's 2010 goals as listed on their Work Plan in the Council packet. He
discussed the objectives of their first goal of initiating a new Parks & Rec Master Plan. He
explained that PRAB felt that it was in a reactionary mode to issues as they came up, but it would
prefer to have a proactive strategy for addressing issues in the most cost effective way. He noted
that Luscher Farm also needed a master plan for the same reasons. He spoke of studying how to
best allocate SDCs and how to find grant money.
He observed that the City actually had several parks and recreation, open space, and trails plans
done in the past 10 years or so. He argued that they needed to understand what the community's
priorities were today in order to draw on these past plans and studies appropriately and not have to
re-do them. He commented that the Parks & Rec master plan needed to be more detailed and
comprehensive with respect to parks and recreation than the City's Comprehensive Plan. He
described it as supporting the Comprehensive Plan but standing on its own with its own detailed
strategies. He noted the many benefits having such a plan would provide, including community
outreach and a customized needs assessment.
He discussed the second goal of completing the park projects selected for 2006 to 2009. He
argued that the time was right to finish the final segment of the Rosemont pathway.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10
December 7, 2009
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Olson that the money that the Council recently approved for
this project paid for the environmental impact statement, and not the design work. She confirmed
that $450,000 was the cost of Lake Oswego's segment of the trail, which was in the CIP.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Olson that she could explain to her at another time the
complications involved with the disposition of the $350,000 in proceeds of the future sale of the
Maple Street property
Chair McComish continued to review the listed projects. He pointed out that a portion of the cost
for constructing Phase 5 of the George Rogers would come from the storm water and street funds.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Department might have some SDC money now.
Chair McComish noted that the Council would hear the recommendations for the golf course and
tennis center on December 15 (Goal 3). He reiterated the Board's strong advocacy of the West
End Building, which housed many Parks & Rec programs (Goal 4).
He acknowledged that this was a difficult year with respect to capital investments. He recalled that
he chose to live in Lake Oswego because of its open spaces and its community. He argued that
there were costs associated with continuing what was great about the Lake Oswego community.
He mentioned the Friends of Lake Oswego group that recently formed around the community's
direction and strategies.
He held that having a plan going forward was a key point in maintaining the beauty of the
community, a feature that did attract people. He said that he would like to think that they would not
keep putting off such a plan into the future.
Chair McComish indicated to Councilor Olson that he thought they needed a detailed plan for
Luscher Farm, given the large number of competing interests for that property. A master plan
would inform the Council decisions on Luscher Farm and allow it to make good policy decisions in
light of the competing interests.
Councilor Jordan commented that having a firm answer on whether Stafford or any part of that
area would become urban reserves would help inform the Council about the future of that area.
She suggested waiting on a Luscher Farm plan until they had a firm commitment from Metro on
what would happen with Stafford.
Chair McComish indicated to Councilor Jordan that the Board saw public input as a key point in
the master planning process, as that would provide the City with the direction that it needed. He
mentioned that the Board was pleased to have the support of the Friends of Lake Oswego in
reassessing the community's needs through surveys and web-based research. He emphasized
that the Board wanted community feedback to validate projects proposed now or in the past. He
commented that the Board was having a difficult time right now prioritizing things.
Ms. Intraversato concurred that it was difficult for the Board to prioritize and to react to things
without a master plan describing the big picture and where the specific issues fit into the puzzle.
She argued that getting a new blueprint was a huge priority.
Councilor Jordan suggested increasing the funding request from $10,000 to $15,000 in order to
include the City's other park properties and natural areas close to unincorporated areas. She
commented that what happened next door had a real effect on what the City would do on its
properties in the future. She encouraged looking beyond the city boundaries in discussing these
issues. Ms. Intraversato remarked that the interviews with stakeholders during the first phase
would be a good time to ask the consultants to incorporate that into their analysis.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 6:07 p.m.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10
December 7, 2009
r
Respectfully submitted,
a�����i'^✓a111�t,f'� .
Ro1byn hristie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10
December 7, 2009
O,LAKE 03
�1 � CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
N MINUTES
December 8, 2009
OfEW
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. on
December 8, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, and
Tierney. Councilor Johnson was excused.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Ursula Euler, Finance Director; Guy Graham, Public Works
Director; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Rec Director; Joel Komarek, LOIS Project
Director; Ann Adrian, ACC Manager
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Master Fees and Charges Update
Ms. Euler mentioned that, while most of the changes to the City's fees and charges went into
effect on January 1, the utilities' rate changes went into effect on July 1. She explained that most
of the changes resulted from formulas or predetermined factors, such as the utility rate increases.
She indicated that the significant increase in the water rate was Phase 2 of the changes staff
recommended as a result of the 2009 Cost of Service Rate Study. She pointed out that the fixed
fee remained stable with the changes occurring primarily in the volume fee, which meant that
people had some control over their bill through water conservation.
She noted that the 30% increase to the wastewater rate fell mostly on the fixed charges, and not
on the volume charges. She mentioned the 7% increase in the surface water rate also. She
explained that the 3% decrease in connection fees and SDCs were tied to a construction index.
She pointed out that many fees did not change at all. She discussed the proposed across the
board rate increase for Planning fees. She explained that the Planning fees still did not cover the
actual cost of providing the service, but this 3% increase would help a little bit.
Mayor Hoffman asked staff to return to the past practice of using red ink to show the changes.
Councilor Olson asked why some fees were increasing so much, (a copy of the CDC from $60 to
$96 per copy), while others only went up a little bit (a copy of the CIP from $52 to $54 per copy).
(p.118, E2). She commented that she already received many complaints about the fees charged
for public records.
Ms. Euler said that she would find out the reason behind the change, although she assumed it
reflected an additional cost or a different cost allocation.
Councilor Jordan mentioned the public perception that public records should be free. She argued
that public record did not mean free, as it took staff time and materials to produce a hard copy.
She suggested sending documents in PDF form, which the requestor could then print off if so
desired. She pointed out that even electronic documents took staff time and money to keep
updated when changes came down.
Councilor Olson asked why the fees and charges took effect January 1 when the City's fiscal year
ran from July 1 to June 30. She spoke to taking more time and being more thoughtful about the
fees and charges, instead of rushing through them every December.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 12
December 8, 2009
Mr.not McIntyreknowwhy explained
theyhave thatnot he
shifted inheritedfees thisand timing
charges fromtoa theJuly previous
1implementation administrationdate., andHe he did
mentioned that the City chased some of the fees, i.e., tried to recoup the previous year's costs. He
commented that a possible reason from an historical perspective might be that the City has tended
to set the CIP annually, and never corrected for the change to setting the CIP more frequently. He
mentioned another possibility that no City Manager has wanted to be the one who waived six
months of fee increases.
Councilor Jordan noted that, for most people, the fiscal year began on January 1. Ms. Euler
recalled that she too had asked this question, and had concluded that the City did it for the
customer. She agreed that staff did not know for certain why the City did it this way.
Mr. McIntyre pointed out that the Council could implement fees whenever it wanted to do so. He
said that he did not know of any accounting or auditing reason for a January 1 implementation
date, although there were impacts from a budgeting argument.
Councilor Olson suggested considering tying the timing more into the budget process. Mr.
McIntyre observed that, with respect to building the budget, if he had certainty on January 1 about
what the baseline of the fees and charges would be, even if the City did not implement them until
July 1, he could plan the budget based on those fees. If the Council did not decide on the fees
until May, then he would have predicated the entire budget process on a different revenue stream.
He confirmed to Councilor Olson that there was nothing to preclude the Council from raising fees
any time that it felt it appropriate to do so. Councilor Olson commented that she did not think that
people cared whether the fees went up on January 1 or not. She indicated that she would do a
more thoughtful analysis of the issue, especially for fees tied to cost recovery and budget items, in
the next couple of months.
Mayor Hoffman directed the discussion to the utility rates shown on p. 107.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Tierney that the City now had the software program it needed
in order to correct the two cycle billing problem it experienced last year.
Ms. Euler indicated to Councilor Jordan that the non-residential customers item has been
incorporated.
Councilor Olson asked to see a one-page comparison of the City water revenues citywide for the
first two quarters of this fiscal year against the first two quarters of the last fiscal year in order to
see the effect of the tiered water rates. She indicated that she would also like to see a comparison
of the water usage of the City as a user, to see if the City conserved water last year.
Mr. McIntyre acknowledged Councilor Hennagin's point that the comparison would never be
apples to apples because of the variety of factors that influenced water usage. He said that staff
could show the Council both the hard data and the interpretation of that data.
Ms. Euler described the Councilor's request as establishing a baseline of data, even with seasonal
variability. She indicated that the City needed that information anyway (collected every year) for
the re-evaluation of the rates every two to three years. She acknowledged Councilor Olson's
point that conservation could affect water revenue negatively, although the consultants included
elasticity in the tiers.
Councilor Tierney asked if the revenue that the City has received from the water and sewer
utilities, fiscal year to date, was sufficient to meet the City's real-time expenses, or did the rates
need adjusting up or down based on the reality as opposed to the projections. Ms. Euler indicated
that staff would evaluate the data to answer that very question towards the end of the year, but it
was a little early right now to get a good answer. Councilor Tierney spoke to adopting the rates
closer to the time of the experience in order to use the reality to set the rates going forward, as
opposed to using the theory.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12
December 8, 2009
Councilor Olson recalled asking Mr. Komarek last week if the lower than expected bids for the
LOIS project meant that the City could adjust its sewer rates downward on July 1. Mr. Komarek
commented that one benefit of discussing the rates at this time of year but not implementing them
until July 1 was that it gave the staff time to provide firmer information to the Council for use in
adjusting the rates as appropriate.
Mr. Komarek addressed the question about elasticity. He explained that an assumption inherent
in the tiered water rate pricing structure was that the prices would drive down consumption by 10%.
Staff set the rate to still recover sufficient revenue for operating, maintenance, and capital
expenses in light of that anticipated reduction.
He spoke to Councilor Tierney's concern regarding whether the rates reflected the reality or
needed adjusting. He mentioned that, at the time of the adoption of the tiered rates, the Council
directed staff to update the cost of service analysis in a year. He explained that having a year's
worth of information would give staff benchmarking information. At the same time, staff would have
refined the capital costs of the water project through a comprehensive and rigorous process.
He indicated that a year from now staff would have the necessary information to recommend to
Council whether the rates were too high, too low, or just right. He noted that the September
revenue report showed the revenues as substantially higher than the same quarterly budget period
a year ago. He concurred with Councilor Tierney that that data implied that the city residents
used more water than staff had projected.
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Tierney that he heard Mr. Komarek saying that staff
needed longer than five months to gather sufficient data. Councilor Moncrieff argued that the
City needed one to two years to see what the effect of the tiered water rates was. She noted that,
even though the Council adopted the rates a year ago, residents were only now becoming aware
of the tiered water rates and the conservation opportunities available.
Ms. Euler pointed out that, with the City's two-month billing cycle, people did not see the graph on
the bill until the summer was over, at which point they realized that they needed to conserve water
next year. She indicated that staff would keep an eye on the data and find explanations for why
revenues were more or less than expected.
Councilor Olson asked staff to present a report at the January quarterly financial update on the
City's utility revenues and residents' water usage for the first and second quarters, and the City's
usage in the first quarter.
Ms. Euler confirmed to Councilor Olson that the wastewater rates graph on p. 107 was incorrect;
the 10% increase on July 1 should be a 30% increase. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that staff
would provide Council with revised pages 107 and 108 showing the updated graphs.
Mr. McIntyre confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that if the Council adopted the utility rates next week, it
could still revise them. He concurred with Councilor Jordan that the more practical approach
would be to revise the rates going forward, as opposed to revising this rate after the Council set it.
Mayor Hoffman indicated that setting these rates now provided Mr. McIntyre with the information
he needed for budget purposes. If, between now and July 2010, staff analysis found that the
revenues were missing the mark one way or another, then the Council could make any
adjustments in time for the December 2010 adoption of fees and charges.
Mr. McIntyre mentioned that, since all four utility funds had fund balances, the City could still get
through the year if it missed the mark on the revenues, and the Council could then change the
rates prospectively rather than retrospectively. He noted that the difference needed to be fairly
large in order to have an effect.
Mayor Hoffman directed the discussion to the street maintenance fee and the staff
recommendation to increase the pavement preservation program to a sustainable level (p.12,
Council report). This would essentially double the current fee. Mr. McIntyre pointed out that the
staff report proposed no change to the street maintenance fee (p.114).
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12
December 8, 2009
Mr. McIntyre recalled that the September 22 Council report provided an analysis of the
consequences of no change, a discussion of what changes the City needed in order to address the
target of a 70 PCI and how quickly the Council wanted to achieve that, and a discussion of how to
address the pathway/bike path/trail system within the limited funds already working against the 70
PCI. He mentioned his understanding that the Council wanted staff to look at doubling the fee and
to look at carving out some special funding for the pathway system. He asked if his interpretation
was accurate.
He indicated that the Council did not need to make up its mind tonight, as nothing would change
with next week's adoption of the master schedule with respect to the street maintenance fee. He
explained that the sooner staff knew about the funding, the better the Public Works staff could plan
street and road projects for FY 2010/2011.
Councilor Jordan recalled two questions from the September 22 meeting: what the City's PCI
rating would be if staff took out the county roads, and how to put an automatic increase into the
street maintenance fee. She commented that the City had pathways identified but not prioritized.
She asked how the City could best address pathways without changing the street maintenance fee
methodology. She observed that if they set aside money for pathways until the City prioritized
them, people would come to the Council asking the City to do their pathway now.
She spoke to planning out how they would address the pathways before people started asking for
the money. She indicated that she preferred having a percentage increase in the street
maintenance fee for one more year. Next, staff could figure out the projects list using Tigard's
methodology of looking out over the next five years to identify what the City wanted to achieve with
street maintenance and pathways, determining the costs, and then seeing how to allocate the
street maintenance fee.
Councilor Moncrieff stated that she supported the staff recommendation to double the existing
street maintenance fee and tying it to an index for inflation in order to start taking care of the
maintenance backlog and raising the PCI. She said that she also supported including an additional
50 cents per month dedicated to pathways.
She explained that she thoroughly reviewed the 2003 Pathways and Trails Master Plan, which was
a 50 year plan with $37 million worth of pathway projects (regional, community, and local). She
mentioned that it included an implementation strategy and prioritization points. She argued for
using this plan now. She suggested that the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) and the
Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) meet once a year to sync up the five-year CIP pathways list
with the 2003 Pathways and Trails Master Plan list (which included all the CIP projects), re-
evaluate the prioritization, and make sure that the pathways connected up.
Councilor Jordan commented that she did not think that the City had right-of-way over all that
land. Ms. Gilmer explained that the regional and community connectors listed in the plan were on
public right-of-way or public property. However, the plan identified potential local access
connectors (most of which were on private property) as a good connection to make if there was an
owner willing to give the City an easement or sell the property. She described the local access
pathways as a visionary component in the plan.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the cost list addressed only regional and
community connector trails; it did not talk about local access.
She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the City had many trails in need of repair. She mentioned
the need to construct new trails around the city, as well as complete the pathway loop system
developed in 1991. She explained that the 2003 plan incorporated several different planning
documents, including the Bike and Pedestrian Pathway Plan in the Comprehensive Plan, the
Regional Trails System, and the Parks trails.
Mr. Graham indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Kruse Way Pathway was failing, due to root
intrusion on the west end and drainage issues. He commented that many pathways were installed
without much thought given to drainage. He pointed out that fixing a pathway to address a
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12
December 8, 2009
d
drainage problem meant that the City could use surface water maintenance funds to pay for the
project. He noted that the City had 29 miles of pathway, with 13 miles of shoulder-mounted paths
and 16 miles of off the road paths.
He concurred with Ms. Gilmer that many pathways needed rehabilitation. He encouraged the
Council to take care of the City's existing infrastructure before expanding it and providing additional
services.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the City already had the easement for the
Willamette Trail that crossed the lot now planned for duplexes instead of condominiums. She said
that the City needed to get the property owner to construct that segment of the trail as part of the
original recorded easement agreement.
Councilor Moncrieff suggested that a 50 cents per month fee dedicated to pedestrian/bicycle
pathways would cover the maintenance and new pathway planning. She noted that the City
budgeted $88,000 this year on the maintenance of existing paths and trails. Staff indicated to
Councilor Tierney that a 50 cents per month fee would generate between $70,000 to $80,000 per
year.
Councilor Moncrieff confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that she was suggesting a separate
pathway maintenance fund, in addition to the street fund. Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor
Jordan that the Council made the decision to implement the street maintenance fee; it did not go
to a public vote, although there was a public hearing.
Councilor Olson reiterated her observation that all the Council has done since the members took
office was raise fees. She expressed concern about creating a new pathway policy as part of fee
increases, as she felt that topic was better suited to the goal setting and budget discussions. She
spoke to preserving the street maintenance fee for getting the PCI back up to 70 and maintaining
the City's current infrastructure.
Councilor Tierney asked what the answer was to Councilor Jordan's question about the PCI if
staff took out the county roads. Mr. Graham gave the 2007 numbers, which showed the City
roads at 70PCI and the unimproved county roads at 54 PCI. He explained that the county roads
were such a small portion of the roadways that the revenue needed to get to a 70 PCI was not that
much less without the county roads.
Mr. Graham indicated to Councilor Tierney that the roads have likely diminished since 2007. He
explained that there was a three year cycle to do an evaluation. In 2004, the City roads had a 75
PCI; three years later in 2007, the evaluation found a 70 PCI. That was with the City investing $2.5
million per year in the pavement. Since the City has been putting half that amount towards the
pavement each year since then, he thought it likely that the upcoming pavement evaluation would
find that the City was not maintaining a 70 PCI.
Councilor Jordan recalled that the Council reduced the PCI to 70 from the original 80 because
the members did not think that they could raise sufficient funds to get to an 80 PCI.
Councilor Moncrieff spoke to raising the fees to a sufficient level to maintain the roads at a 70
PCI, in order to avoid more costly repairs later. She described this as a proactive and fiscally
responsible method of road maintenance. She pointed out that the City already had pathways as
part of its infrastructure. She argued for designating a portion of the street maintenance fee for
maintaining the existing pathways for the same reasons.
Mayor Hoffman agreed with Councilor Moncrieff that adding pathways as part of the
transportation system was consistent with the ordinance. He recalled that the Council discussed
pathways and other street elements in 2003, but the emphasis had been on streets. He argued
that it was not a sea change to add pathways, as doing so was essentially just an amendment.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Tierney that the ordinance did include pathways as part of
the transportation system. Mayor Hoffman stated that the legislative history would show that the
2003 Council had been very specific in terms of what it was doing, but the emphasis had been on
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12
December 8, 2009
streets. He argued that, under the intent of the ordinance and in light of the deteriorating
pathways, the Council now needed to include both streets and pathways.
Councilor Hennagin mentioned his constitutional objections to indexing fees. He concurred that
the City needed a large enough street maintenance fee to maintain a 70 PCI. He acknowledged
that the cost of doing so steadily increased, which left no reasonable alternative other than
increasing the fee sufficiently to maintain the infrastructure. He questioned indexing the fee to the
CPI.
Mr. Graham agreed with Councilor Tierney that indexing the fee to a construction index would be
a better fit than indexing it to the CPI. He acknowledged that the index could go either way, as it
recently brought the rate down.
Councilor Olson stated that she shared Councilor Hennagin's aversion to indexing.
Councilor Jordan recalled questioning the street maintenance fee when she sat on TAB because
it did not talk about building pathways. She pointed out that this discussion focused on using the
street maintenance fee to maintain existing pathways, as allowed in the ordinance, but that still did
not address the financing for new pathways. She indicated that she agreed with using the fee to
maintain the City's current infrastructure, while also seeing the need for a separate funding
mechanism for new pathways.
She discussed her desire to find a different method that did not use indexing. She spoke of a
method that targeted what the City wanted to achieve by identifying what it could get done each
summer and how much that would cost. They could then figure the fee to cover that period of time.
She suggested a cyclical revisiting of the question the year before the work would be done.
She argued that indexing the fee tied to the actual projects over a three to four year period would
provide a better idea of what the fee should be than tying it to an annual variable construction
index. Councilor Olson concurred with Councilor Jordan that they should base the fee on what
projects they could get done, the PCI goal, and other relevant factors. She commented that
sometimes the City had a couple million dollars and still did not get the work done.
Mr. Graham indicated to Councilor Tierney that there had been a delay in FY2007/2008 in
getting projects done. He stated that the plan this year was to spend the money in the CIP to get
the projects done. He acknowledged that delivering projects could be an issue in the short term,
but he held that, in the long term, as staff put into play the necessary tools and procedures, they
would perform better in delivering the projects.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Tierney that the street maintenance fund sources for this
fiscal year, in addition to the street maintenance fund, were the State gas tax, some State revenue
money, and federal stimulus dollars. He stated that the capital budget allocated no money from
general tax collections for street work.
Councilor Tierney asked whether doubling the street maintenance fee would be sufficient in a
short time period to meet the 70 PCI target, or would the infrastructure always need work and the
City always be fighting to achieve the PCI target. He wondered whether indexing would allow the
City to get to a point of asset management.
Mr. Graham explained that staff based the recommendation to double the fee on the 2007 PCI
evaluation and the fact that the City has been adding to the street maintenance backlog since then,
due to lack of investment. He indicated that knowing what the City's assets were and their
condition/remaining life would allow staff to do better forecasting.
He mentioned that indexing would buy the City time before the next major pavement evaluation,
and hold the line so that the adjustment based on the facts would not be such a big spike. He
discussed the constant process that staff used in visually inspecting the pavement, which involved
'art' as well as `science.' Their hope was that they were evaluating conditions frequently enough to
determine whether the rates raised sufficient revenue to meet the need.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12
December 8, 2009
Councilor Tierney commented that, with that the staff process, the City should have a good sense
of what the need was for capital, maintenance, and operating investment. With that sense, staff
could project with some accuracy the street maintenance need and determine the proper fee. He
indicated that he needed to see more data behind the numbers, showing that the infrastructure has
been pushed to a point where the City had to make investments.
Councilor Olson reiterated that this was an issue of Council priorities for discussion during goal
setting and budgeting.
Mr. Graham mentioned that one of his goals for the Public Works Department was to identify and
articulate what levels of service the City provided currently in order to determine if the levels were
appropriate. He commented that the question was what the best way was to spend the money
available.
Mayor Hoffman indicated that he thought the September 22 report more than adequately
addressed Councilor Tierney's concerns in justifying the increase. He pointed out that the report
showed the increasing gap between construction costs and the City's buying power over the last
four years, the deferred maintenance, and the projection of the PCI going down to 60 by 2019. He
summarized Mr. Graham's comments as, if the City did nothing, then the PCI would go down below
60 and keep deteriorating.
He reviewed the funding options given on p.10: to change the policy to lower the PCI past 70, to
transfer money from the general fund, to increase the street maintenance fee rates, or to consider
GO or revenue bonds. He noted Mr. Graham's discussion of the pros and cons of each option,
and his conclusion that increasing the street maintenance fee was the most appropriate choice.
He mentioned that no one has challenged the data behind the report as incorrect. Therefore, the
policy choice before the Council was whether to take money out of the general fund or to continue
the 2003 street maintenance fee and have the people using the utility pay for it.
Councilor Hennagin asked for separate motions to adopt the street maintenance fee increase and
to index the fee, so that Council members could vote separately on these two different issues.
Councilor Jordan mentioned that having a street maintenance fee would help the City obtain
Metro transportation dollars for other projects.
Mr. McIntyre noted that the gas tax has increased, which meant potentially more funds coming to
the City that were not from the street maintenance fee or the general fund. He confirmed to
Councilor Olson that this additional money was generated by those using the streets. Councilor
Jordan commented that the Council could use that money for pathways and bike paths.
Mr. McIntyre asked if the Council wanted staff to make any changes to the recommendation for
the public hearing next week. Councilor Jordan and Mayor Hoffman each indicated that she/he
could support the recommendation coming forward.
Mr. McIntyre confirmed to Councilor Tierney that the calculations should include the revenue in
addition to the street maintenance fee.
Councilor Jordan observed that the City would never have enough money to maintain its streets
at the level it wanted to or to build new pathways. She suggested if they generated sufficient
money through the street maintenance fee to maintain the streets, that they use the new money for
items currently lacking a funding source, such as new pathways and bike paths.
Councilor Moncrieff observed that the City had no lack of paving and roadway preservation
projects, citing the list on p. 8 of a $5.7 million pavement preservation backlog through 2014 and
$26.6 million in special roadway projects.
Mayor Hoffman summarized the Council discussion as several members would like staff to see
p.114 come back with the staff recommendations in the September 22 report included on it.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12
December 8, 2009
Mayor Hoffman invited John Pullen to address the Council. Mr. Pullen mentioned that a
November 2007 study backed up the September 22 study. He recalled that that Council did not
move forward on the study because of concerns about the county road situation. Councilor
Jordan concurred.
Mr. McIntyre reviewed the Council direction. The Council wanted to double the fee from eight
cents to sixteen cents. He discussed the impact of doubling the fee on commercial properties.
Although commercial properties paid through a different methodology based on trip generation, the
net impact would be the same. He mentioned that the School District was the City's number one
utility customer for all utilities; this would double the District's fee, as well as other significant
commercial property utility users' fees.
He reported that he had apprised Dr. Korach of this street maintenance fee discussion, and that
the Council might be leaning towards doubling the fee. He mentioned that Dr. Korach would likely
talk with the Council at the public hearing. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that staff would provide
the Council next week with numbers and examples of the impact to commercial properties,
including projected figures for the District.
He explained that, while the change was not unwarranted, he wanted the Council to be aware of its
impact on commercial properties, as next week the Council members might hear some resistance
to the recommendation.
Mr. Pullen confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the City phased in the street maintenance fee for
commercial properties over two to three years. He suggested also advising the Chamber of
Commerce of this matter.
Mr. McIntyre reported that he has also informed both the Chamber president and the Executive
Director of this Council conversation. He acknowledged that the timing of it might be bad, but the
tradeoff question was whether a good street system was a catalyst or a boost to economic
development. He commented that he thought the Chamber would have difficulty refuting that it
was a catalyst, but it might ask how `good' was `good.'
Councilor Hennagin asked for an opinion from Mr. Powell as to whether it would be constitutional
or unconstitutional for the Council to exempt a public user from the increase.
Councilor Jordan commented that it would be interesting to know if the District could recover the
utility fee cost through the State's repayment formula for the bus service that the District provided.
Councilor Olson indicated that the State reimbursed 70% of a school district's bus service costs.
Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Tierney that non-residential properties paid the fee for their
group multiplied by 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Councilor Tierney pointed out that the
Council could make changes to the methodology. Mayor Hoffman cautioned against doing so
because the calculations related to the City's transportation SDC methodology.
Mr. Komarek explained that the street maintenance fee formula had as its scientific basis trip miles
generated community wide. He described the process staff used to develop the formula, to identify
the trip bins, and to determine a property's relative ratio of trip miles traveled to the overall total of
trip miles in the community. He recalled that, in 2003, staff had to establish that this was not a tax
but rather a fee based on a class of users' proportionate impact on the system.
He pointed out that if the Council exempted public facilities or non-profits, someone else had to
make up the difference. He suggested holding a broader community discussion if the Council
decided to subsidize one class relative to another. He confirmed that the City phased in the fee for
nonresidential customers over two years.
Mr. Komarek indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the split between residential and business was in
the 60/40 range. He clarified that this was not the same formula used by the City to calculate
SDCs. He confirmed that staff used the classifications in the ITE Manual as the basis for the trip
bins.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12
December 8, 2009
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that staff would have an explanation next week for the
differences in the increases listed on p.118. Councilor Olson mentioned her concern about how
much the City charged for copies of documents.
Councilor Olson asked why the West End Building room rental rates went down (p.132). Ms.
Gilmer explained that staff had not been certain in 2007 how much to charge in rental fees for the
different rooms. Over the last two years, they have learned what adjustments they needed to
make to find the price point that people were willing to pay. She confirmed that the fees charged to
non-profits basically covered the City's costs. She noted that the City did charge a reasonable
cleaning fee to groups that were not non-profits and a $100 refundable deposit.
Councilor Tierney asked why Parks & Rec had a policy of recovering between 70% and 100% of
youth program costs. He asked how staff determined what level to recover from a given program.
Ms. Gilmer explained that historically youth programs did not cover all their costs. The City
subsidized these programs at an affordable level because it was more important to get the kids
involved than it was to cover the costs. She mentioned that they have been able to recover more
of the costs over the years because of the fee structures.
She used the skate park as an example. The City charged a nominal $15 annual pass fee, which
did not cover the cost of staffing the park. They would not charge a fee at all except that staffing
the park was a conditional use requirement. She indicated that the City always covered 100% of
its costs for other sports camps.
She explained that they tried to hit a net goal of between 70% to 100% cost recovery of programs;
some classes brought in 110% in revenues and others 40%. She concurred with Councilor
Tierney that the reasons for encouraging the kids were the same reasons for encouraging adults.
Councilor Tierney asked why there was no discussion of the fees associated with the golf course
(p.126), given the implication that it was not making money. He recalled that the financials last
year indicated that it was at least breaking even. Ms. Gilmer said that the Council would get more
information about the golf course at the next Tuesday study session. She explained that the golf
course fees were at the high end for the type of facility. Staff was concerned that raising fees
might actually reduce revenues.
Councilor Jordan reiterated that, with most of the City's public documents available online, people
could print them off at home on their own printer if they wanted a hard copy.
Staff indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the City's costs were consistent with other jurisdictions.
Ms. Euler indicated to Councilor Jordan that there was a 3% across the board increase in
building and planning permit fees, although the building permits stayed the same.
Mayor Hoffman asked for volunteers to attend an open house at the Oregon City City Hall on
December 18 between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m.
3.2 Minter Center for Lifelong Learning
Ms. Gilmer noted that Ann Adrian, the Adult Community Center (ACC) Manager, and George
Benson, a long time supporter of the ACC and programs for older adults in Lake Oswego, were
present. She explained that the ACC planned to kick off a new project this coming year, but she
wanted Council feedback on the program and their proposed funding mechanism.
She mentioned that the City built the ACC in 1976 during the time of a national move towards
providing a place for seniors to socialize and access services. Following many years as a vibrant
center, the perception of the ACC has changed with baby boomers reaching retirement age. She
reported that after 2000, the ACC staff saw the average age of members requesting services and
participating in programs increase from 65 — 75 to 75 —80. This meant that there was a gap
between the ages of 50 to 75 that the City was not addressing well, as the younger seniors were
not interested in going to the ACC.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12
December 8, 2009
She referenced the 2004 survey of the opportunities and challenges of aging in Lake Oswego,
which led to the 50+ Dialog and the 2006 report on the vision for aging in Lake Oswego. She
indicated that, in the area of life long learning, education, and socialization, staff has come to
realize that, instead of bringing more people to the Center itself, the ACC needed to go out into the
community and create a bridge program to involve the 50 to 75 age group.
She said that the ACC did some pilot projects last year as part of exploring a life long learning
center, through which staff discovered that there was a lot of interest and energy focused around
life long learning. She mentioned a Senior Studies Institute that began with 40 people meeting
weekly to debate current events based on their individual research; it has now grown to 300 people
attending and moved to the West End Building.
She proposed developing the Eloise Minter Life Long Learning Center using funds from the interest
on the $1.5 million endowment left to the Center by Eloise Minter, which the City placed in the
Oregon Community Foundation. She mentioned that Ms. Minter had been very involved in the
programs and activities at the ACC; staff felt that this would be a project that she would have
supported. She explained that the concept of a life long learning center was to provide an umbrella
under which many different types of activities occurred.
Ms. Adrian referenced the soft research she had from the 50+ Dialogs indicating that Lake
Oswego seniors wanted opportunities for life long learning and for civic engagement, which this
project could provide. She spoke of offering brain wellness programs at the West End Building and
other community institutions, as people were very interested in that topic. She mentioned
possibilities for partnering with other non-profits in the Metro area, such as Greater Portland Oasis
and Elderhostel.
Mr. Benson referenced his involvement with senior programs and his service on the ACC Board
and the Elders in Action Board. He spoke of the potential for seniors to serve the community and
how the ACC could provide for Lake Oswego's growing population of 50+. He mentioned `brain
aerobics,' a concept promoted by Roger Addison. He reported that all the community groups to
whom he has given this presentation have responded positively to the idea of mental gymnastics
and brain development.
He expressed his disappointment at the lack of ACC programs targeting the younger seniors, while
acknowledging the excellent job the ACC did for the older seniors. He spoke to developing a
bridge to reach the large number of people in Lake Oswego waiting to get involved in the
community. He argued that as people started learning and participating, they would become more
involved and active in the community.
Ms. Gilmer discussed how staff would implement the program after the first of the year. She
mentioned a Steering Committee of six to eight older adults in the community who would help
guide the types of programming offered, help promote the program in the community, and help
identify potential instructors and lecturers. She noted that Lake Oswego had many highly qualified
retired people from a wide variety of professions, as well as world travelers. She said that the
Parks & Rec Department would provide staff support (paid for by the Eloise Minter Endowment) to
help coordinate the administrative details of implementing the program.
She explained that staff has modeled this program after similar programs across the country. She
noted that attendees of the Brandeis University program could pay either an annual fee to attend
any program or a class-specific fee. She commented that staff's intent was that, after a few years
of cash infusion from the endowment, a growing number of attendees would shift the program to
more of a paying venture. She emphasized that the goal was not to make a business out of it but
rather to provide a necessary program that would meet a broader need in the community.
Ms. Adrian observed that one unique aspect of this program was that it was community-based, as
opposed to college or university-based. She mentioned hearing from area residents that they
would love a local resource that provided enrichment activities, rather than go to Portland. She
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12
December 8, 2009
concurred with Ms. Gilmer that Lake Oswego had a `brain trust' of people who could give talks and
give back to the community by sharing their knowledge.
She indicated that this would not be restricted to life long learning but extend to include the four
concepts of brain wellness: physical activity, mentally stimulating activities, elements of innovation
and surprise, and social interaction.
Mr. Benson mentioned an additional resource at OHSU, Brain Net, which board he sat on. He
said that Brain Net was presenting a series of lectures by experts in Portland in January and
February. He commented that he knew Eloise Minter and her interest in education and concern for
senior programming at the ACC. He agreed with staff that she would rejoice at using the
endowment funds for an educational program for 50+.
Ms. Gilmer clarified to Mayor Hoffman that this presentation was primarily informational, but staff
wanted to make sure that the Council was comfortable going in this direction before asking the
Oregon Community Foundation for seed money. She noted that the Council decided to put the
original endowment funds in the Foundation. She explained that, while staff technically did not
need Council permission to request funds from the Foundation, she had felt it prudent to inform
Council about the program and use of the money, given that this was the first request that the City
has made for funds from the Foundation.
She indicated to Councilor Tierney that she was looking at approximately $45,000 to $50,000 in
seed money for the first year, with that amount either staying the same or declining over time. She
said that she would return to Council with more details regarding the budget and timeline for
implementing the program. She clarified that it would be neutral in the City budget.
Councilor Hennagin commented that he could support almost any program that had a realistic
chance of expanding the number of individuals using the ACC or its programs. He asked if the
program would offer a lecture series on methodologies and mental exercises to keep brains
healthy. Ms. Gilmer indicated that their research spoke to that sort of program but also to creating
the kind of environment in which the older brain learned best, as older brains learned differently
than younger brains.
Councilor Olson indicated that she would like to see the whole package with firm information.
She commented that it sounded like a great idea but noted that the endowment could be used for
other senior services as well. She spoke of covering the basics first, such as home meal
deliveries.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Olson that because this would be a bridge program, the
Department would base it out of the West End Building instead of the ACC. She noted that the
intent was to attract people interested in these types of programs but unwilling to come to a senior
center. She mentioned other community locations, such as churches, Marylhurst, and Lewis &
Clark.
Councilor Olson recalled hearing from the 50+ Board that Marylhurst was interested in partnering
more with the City. Ms. Adrian observed that the City had many opportunities to partnership with
non-profits and educational institutions with this program. She indicated to the Councilor that,
while she would be a key person in administering the program, she would remain as the ACC
Manager.
Ms. Gilmer explained that they intended to start off this winter/spring with a minimal year-long pilot
program and build partnerships and relationships over the summer before hiring a half-time
contractor in the fall to run the program. She observed that it usually took three years to get a
program up and running. She emphasized that there were lots of opportunities for funding
partnerships also, which staff would explore as the program developed.
She mentioned staff's initial thought to begin the program with the hot topic of brain wellness and
then move on to other topics as interest in that topic waned over time.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12
December 8, 2009
Councilor Tierney suggested that staff present the ACC's long-term strategy at a study session.
He commented that the ACC likely had a list of excellent projects that did not fit within the City's
fixed revenue pie. He remarked that it would be interesting to see what the staff's thinking was for
the next five to ten years on how the ACC would change within the City's constraints, given the
changing dynamics.
Ms. Adrian suggested revisiting the concepts from the five-year old 50+ dialogs and visioning
process. Councilor Tierney spoke to relating a significant piece of that to what the City's
contribution and participation would be. Ms. Gilmer concurred that, with the services provided by
the ACC changing, staff needed to be thinking three to five years out. She mentioned that they
have already decided not to do certain things because they were no longer valid for the
community.
Councilor Jordan recalled the Council discussion with the 50+ Advisory Board last night about
coordinating the different activities offered in the city to help educate seniors who did not grow up
thinking about greenhouse gases. She agreed that there were many different opportunities
possible, including Legacy and Providence programs on brain wellness and using the library as a
meeting place for these types of groups. She pointed out that the program could grow large
enough to attract grants, as the endowment offered some opportunity for matching grants.
Mayor Hoffman summarized the sense of the Council as the ACC was going in the right direction.
He noted that Councilor Olson has asked staff to return with more details.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn hristie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
lJack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12
December 8, 2009
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centenn,a11910-2010
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
COUNCIL REPORT
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Guy Graham, Public Works Director
Christine Kirk, Public Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: Street Maintenance Fee Increase
DATE: February 24, 2010
ACTION
The Council is considering an increase to the Street Maintenance Fee (SMF). In December 2009, the
Council adopted its Master Fee Schedule. At that time, the Council discussed raising the revenue from the
fee from $1.2 to $2.4 million dollars annually. However, the Council chose to postpone the decision on the
SMF until further community education and outreach could be accomplished.
The purpose of the public hearing is for Council to hear input on options to raise the Street Maintenance
Fee.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Our streets are a cherished asset both because of their value at over 182 million dollars and because of
their physical and visual importance in creating vibrant residential and commercial areas. The City
prioritizes making reasonable investments in streets, achieving the lowest life-cycle cost, so as to keep
down the overall costs of street maintenance.
When it comes to streets, the longer we wait to do treatments, the worse our streets get. Improvements
become more expensive. If we wait to make repairs, streets that may only need the less expensive slurry
sealing or patching today, will continue to deteriorate and need a more costly rehabilitation tomorrow.
Recognizing the importance of our streets and the risk taken when regular maintenance is not done, the
City implemented the Street Maintenance Fee in 2004 which pays for capital improvements such as
overlays, slurry seals, chip seals, and reconstructions. The fee currently collects 1.2 million a year, 60% of
which comes from residents and 40% from businesses. For one year, the fee was increased, otherwise it
has stayed the same since its inception.
Page 2
Staff has been before the City Council previously to share information regarding the Street Maintenance
Fee. These discussions have primarily been focused on the current gap in funding versus the need to meet
the objective (i.e. Council Pavement Condition Index (PCI) goal of 70).
Since December 2009 when the City Council last discussed the SMF, there have been two stories in the Lake
Oswego Review, a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee, a public
meeting on February 24, 2010 and information in the HelloLO. There will be further information in the
HelloLO in March. Further outreach will continue to groups on request and proactively to the highest
payers of the fee.
Through the outreach efforts, it was clear that the need for good roads is understood. However, three
questions were consistently raised:
1. Why increase the fee now?
2. Doesn't the City have other ways to pay for the roads?
3. Can't the increase be phased in over time?
DISCUSSION
The presentation provided at the public meeting on February 24, 2010 is attached to this report. In review
of the presentation, one will find information on: funding for street services, street services and the overall
health of Lake Oswego Roads, the type of improvements made, reasoning for prioritization of road
improvements, the Street Maintenance Fee and how it impacts residents and businesses.
Street Maintenance Fee
The Street Maintenance Fee pays for the Pavement Preservation Program. This program is an annual
review, design and construction program that includes slurry seals, pavement overlay, and pavement
reconstructions for street improvements.
Operational and construction costs have continued to increase and the City's buying power to complete
street projects has decreased. Oregon Department of Transportation estimates that transportation
construction costs have increased over the last five years such that buying power is now only about 60% of
what it was in 2004. The graph below shows the relationship between construction costs and the City's
buying power over the last several quarters.
Page 3
Cost Trends
3.00
2.50
2.00 -- t ODOTCCT(x 1(302)
/ Buying Power
-0 1.50 - - - -- -
c
Linear(ODOT CCT(x
too ■ — — — - 10^2))
Linear(Buying Power)
0.50 •
0.00 i i i i Ili i i i i i i i
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
As buying power declines, the amount of deferred maintenance continues to grow. Deferred maintenance
refers to the amount of maintenance and rehabilitation work that should have been completed to maintain
the street in "good" condition (PCI 70-100), but was deferred due to funding deficiencies. This is also
considered a "backlog". According the City's Capital Improvement Plan FY 2009-2014, the backlog for
roadway improvements over the next 5 years is approximately$5.7 million for Annual Pavement
Preservation Program. There is another $26.6 million identified for special projects involving major
roadway projects.
As the backlog grows, at the current funding level, the City-wide pavement condition will continue to
decrease. Under the current street maintenance fee, the streets will continue to degrade and the network
PCI will fall to 60, and the deferred maintenance backlog of streets will grow to approximately$23 million
within the next 10 years. This is shown in the following graph:
r
Page 4
Deferred Maintenance and City Wide Pavement Condition at
Current Annual Funding Level ($1.2 Million)
80
70
60
-Pavement
50 Condition Index
(PCI)
40
-Deferred
Maintenance fin
30 Millions)
e
20 _ .0w.°
woo
10
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Year
At the September 22, 2009 Council Study Session on Street Programs, staff showed how PCI levels could be
improved and deferred maintenance addressed based on an increase in investment in the Pavement
Preservation Program. If the investment in the Pavement Preservation Program were to increase to $2.4
million per year in current dollars, the PCI could rise to 70 and deferred maintenance lower to ten million
within ten years. If the investment in the Pavement Preservation Program were to increase to $3.4 million
per year in current dollars, the PCI could rise to 80 and deferred maintenance lower to zero within ten
years.
The impact of those changes to ratepayers is presented below. Please note that the current proposal
actually being considered based on Council direction is in bold.
2004 2009 2010- Considered
Implementation to Implementation to
1st year Index for 1 year $2.4 million $3.6 Million
Multifamily
Unit $2.86 $2.86 $5.72 $8.58
Single family $3.75 $4.00 $8.00 $12.00
Commercial
Group I $2.30 $2.45 $4.90 $7.35
Commercial
Group II $5.17 $5.51 $11.02 $16.53
Commercial
Group Ill $19.31 $20.58 $41.16 $61.74 •
Current Proposal
Page 5
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed fee increase will take place on July 1, 2010. Alternatives for discussion are largely based on
the phasing in of the fee increase. Below are examples of alternative implementation approaches for
Council consideration and public discussion. The increase is to the level described above in the Current
Proposal and all phasing is assumed to be the same for residential and non residential rate payers.
A. Implement the fee increase in total July 1, 2010.
B. Phase in the fee increase over two years (50/50), with the fee being indexed starting at the second
year. This is a similar approach taken to other fee changes.
C. Phase in the fee increase over three years, with a ramp up approach (25/35/40), with the fee being
indexed starting at the first year.
D. No action —status quo understanding the increased cost to future ratepayers.
E. Annually index—understanding that this will push the majority of the increasing cost to future
ratepayers.
F. Other options.
It becomes quickly apparent that there are any number of ways to phase in an increase. The key decision
points are:
A. Both residential and non residential.
B. Two, three or even longer year implementation.
C. The point of permanently indexing if it is to be indexed.
D. The methodology for developing the index.
Based on Council direction, staff will bring forward an option including financial implications of that option
to Council for the schedule vote on the increase of the Street Maintenance Fee on March 23, 2010.
RECOMMENDATION
This is an opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed increase and potential implementation options
for the Street Maintenance Fee.
ATTACHMENTS
1. PowerPoint Presented at the February 24, 2010 Public Meeting on the State of the Streets and the
Street Maintenance Fee.
Reviewed by:
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
02/25/2010
Meeting Goals
State of the Streets
• Learn funding for street services.
• Understand street services and the overall health of
Street Maintenance Fee Lake Oswego Roads.
• Understand type of improvements made,prioritization
of road improvements and why.
Public Meeting • Understand the Street Maintenance Fee and how it
February 24,2010 impacts residents and businesses.
• Gather input to develop Street Maintenance Fee
changes,policy considerations and service delivery
options to bring to City Council.
1 2
The Street Fund Street Programs
• Street Operations and •
• Street Maintenance Fee=$1.2 million Maintenance:
• State Shared Motor Vehicle Fees=$1.5 million Sweeping,snow removal,
striping and pavement
—Gas taxes,registration fees,license fees ✓ s.,
markings,new sign
• Franchise Fees$500,000 installation,pavement
—A portion of PGE Franchise Fees are designated to repairs(i.e."potholes"),
the Street Fund each year. traffic signals,sign repair, f'
street lights,medians,
• Other—Stimulus, General Fund—depending landscaping,catch basins, obk+'••1
on the year and the ending balance. and street trees,etc.
3 4
1
r
02/25/2010
Street Programs, 2 State of the Streets
• Street Engineering:
Planning,design,project • The system-wide condition of the streets is identified by a
management of street Pavement Condition Index(PCI).
capital improvement - 0-100 rating scale(0 worst,100 best)
program projects,traffic � - 70-100 is"good"
studies,permits,etc. r'r - 50-69 is"satisfactory"
• Street Capital Projects& 25 49 is"fair"
Pavement Preservation - <25 is"poor"
Program:Rehabilitations, .• • Independent firms assess the condition of the roads and
reconstructions,overlays, assign a PCI.
slurry seals. — Roads are comprehensively assessed every 3 years.
5 6
State of the Streets State of the Streets
Pavement Condition Index:
• Current Condition:68 and declinine
condition Pa 2004 Percent 2007 Percent of 2009 Percent of
-2004:75 Category Range of Network Network Network
-
Good 70-100 73% 61%(231 lane 65%1246 lone
2007:69 miles)
mile)
-2009:68 Satisfactory 50-69 18% 20%(76 lone miles)
• The City's Adopted Pavement Condition(PCI) mile,) mile,)
Goal:70 Fair 25-49 6% 14%(53 lone 14%(53 lane
miles) miles)
-The previous adopted PCI goal was 80(2004-08). Poor 025 3% 5%(19 lane
7%(27
Council adjusted it as 80 was financially miles) miles)
unrealistic.
7 8
2
02/25/2010
Pavement Preservation Program Goal Strategic Investment Strategy
• Prevent a larger increase in future years to
maintain quality street infrastructure. Maintenance Activities
• Achieve the lowest life-cycle cost for city
assets by using the most cost efficient use of Condition
public resources.
Tone
m„Sby sy,w..n•.Kfsr turn cmty,
e 10
Pavement Preservation Program Pavement Preservation Program
• The Pavement Preservation Program uses the • Total Pavement Management Projects since
revenues from the Street Maintenance Fee to 2004: 12 projects
fund projects that will ultimately keep the . The breakdown of these projects are:
City's street network in "good" condition.
• Every effort is made to keep good streets —27.4 miles of slurry seals
—7.35 miles of overlays
good by slurry sealing them before they
—2.35 miles of reconstructions
deteriorate into a more expensive
rehabilitation category. • These capital improvements were funded by
the Street Maintenance Fee.
• Priority is not based on a "worst first".
11 12
3
02/25/2010
Street Prioritization Preventative Maintenance $
• More heavily used streets degrade faster so • Crack Sealing($1.00/LF)seals cracks so
they are given priority over streets with the material and water doesn't enter the opening.
same PCI. • Slurry Sealing($2.00/SY) waterproofs and
• Priority goes to roads needing slurry seal and adds flexibility to the pavement.
overlays first. • Localized Patching($65.00/SY) patches small
• Streets needing to be reconstructed will be areas of alligator cracking.
reconstructed depending on available funds.
13 14
Pavement Rehabilitation $$$$$ Street Maintenance Fee
• "The Street Maintenance
• Overlays($21.55/SY) new pavement is placed Fee is based upon the ' ' 3
directly on old pavement. direct and indirect benefit1!_
• Grind and Replace($24.00/SY) pavement is use of,or benefit from,the
removed from the entire roadway and then City street systemthat
y results from activities ctivities
replaced with new asphalt concrete. within the City."
• Reconstruction($92.45/SY)pavement and • The Street Maintenance Fee provides the funding for the
underlying rock is removed and then the City's Annual Pavement Preservation Program: Capital
roadway is rebuilt. Improvements such as overlays,slurry seals,chip seals,
and reconstructions.
15 16
4
02/25/2010
Street Maintenance Fee Basics Under Consideration • ;Y : ' :
• Reach and maintain the ` '=
• Fee was established in November 2003 by system-wide Pavement
ordinance(effective 07/01/2004) Condition Index at 70 and keep y
• Fee based on Institute of Transportation the deferred maintenance e ..
Engineers(ITE) "Trip Generation Report" backlog at or around 10 million.
• Initial fee amount did not change until • $2.4 million in current dollars is ,-
07/01/2009 indexed. needed based on current
condition of the streets and 70
PCI goal.
I
PIA n 18
What will this achieve? Why Now?
1.2MilB.4 udget • The longer we wait to do treatments,the more
l0 year period Budget Budget
Treatment )miles) )miles) expensive it gets. Costs are far outpacing
Seal Cracks 12 14 Les E.pe"""`r`°`"""` purchasing power of pavement preservation
Slurry Seal 139 175
Thin Overlay 38 57 funds.
Mill and 2
Overlay 8 3' • The deferred maintenance backlog increases
Reconstruction 1 11 Moor E,pensnre r eormenr
198 295 and becomes more costly.
• Reach and maintain a system wide PCI rating of 70. • Streets that may only need slurry sealing today,
• Keep the deferred maintenance backlog at or around will continue to deteriorate and need more
$10 million. costly overlay or rehabilitation tomorrow.
19 20
5
02/25/2010
Street Maintenance Fee Street Maintenance Fee— Per Month
I I 2004 I 2009 I 2010-Considered I
• All single family residents are billed the same rate. I I l implementation tol Implementation to
All units in multi-family homes are charged the lst year Index for i year I 2.4 million 3.6 Million
same rate. 'single
it family I $2.861 $2.861 $5.721 $8.581
• Non residential—(businesses and government) 'single family I $3.751 $4.0d $8.001 $12.0d
based on type of use and square footage and Commercial
sorted into three groups. Group I $2.30 $2.451 $4.901 $7.35
ommercial
• 78%commercial rate payers pay less than$100 roup II i $5.17 $5.51.1 $11.0 $16.53
per month. 'Commercial
roup III 1 $19.31 $20.581 $41.161 $61.741
I I I I Current Proposal I I
I I I I I I
22
Street Maintenance Fee Basics Street Maintenance Fee Basics—con't
• Group I-Less than 29 vehicle trip miles per day,per 1000 • Group II-From 29 to 90 vehicle trip miles per day,per 1000
square foot. 209 locations.Examples: square feet.204 locations.Examples:
Business Square Feet BI-Monthly Amount
Business Square Feet RI-Monthly Amount
Office Building 139,449 $1,536.73 I
Hotel 161,000 $788.9 bl-monthly
Shopping Center 51,294 $251.34 Grocery Store 30,249 $333.34
Church 17,529 $85.89 Realtor 12,900 $142.16
Tire Store 7,000 $34.30 chiropractor 2,350 $25.90
Take and Bake Pizza 800 $8.82
Veterinarian 4,400 $21.56
23 24
6
02/25/2010
Street Maintenance Fee Basics—con't Options
• New Tools and Policy Considerations (patching,
• Group III-Greater than 90 vehicle trip miles per day,per 1000
square feet.48 locations.Examples advocating for the State of Oregon to ban
studded tires, new practices such as micro seal)
Business I Square Feet I Bi-Monthly Amount
Bank 25,360 $1,043.82 • Fee
Convenience Store 3,925 $161.55 —Find Other Revenues-Cut other services to fund
Restaurant 2,050 $84.38
pavement preservation.
Gas Station 12,090 I$86.02
— No Change-Allow greater deterioration to the roads
and increasing cost of future repairs.
—Change but phase it.
• Other
25 26
Street Fund Revenues 2004-2012 Next Steps
• Staff will take questions,feedback and
develop options for the City Council.
IEms^° • Outreach to individual fee payers.
i 8 p 1 g B'# o • Public Hearing: March 2, 2010.City Council
Chambers,6:30 p.m. (hearing should
I " ' I o commence around 7:30).
• Council vote on increase:Currently scheduled
for March 23, 2010.
28
7
02/25/2010
Questions? MN►�
d ti 4;.
11
8
"5/o2/a.07O s /-. ,
1/29/1
��U ori
Lake Oswego School District `7, /
Strategic Perspectives—Teacher Staffing Framework for 2010-11
Now that Measures 66 and 67 have been decided, the district has some measure of clarity from which to begin
determining staffing decisions for 2010-11. The passage of these measures means the district should retain the
$3.1M in budgeted funding the measures represent, but it does not eliminate the district's financial challenges.
The outlook for the remainder of the current biennium (2009-11) remains the same as it was last spring, when the
state's budget for schools required $7.2 million of cuts (including 20 teaching positions) heading into this school
year. Our funding level going into next year will not be appreciably different, but some of the strategies
implemented for the current year cannot be repeated for next year. For example:
1. The district delayed the purchase of core curriculum science textbooks and materials for all schools, K-12.
These textbooks/materials have not been updated for the past 8 years and will require a district expenditure
of approximately$1M.
2. All district staff agreed to forgo a contracted salary increase that resulted in a two-year cost savings of$2.5M
for the district during the 2009-11 biennium. Next year, contracted employee salary and medical benefit
increases could reach $1.7M which the district will seek to offset with a $1.2M cost reduction realized through
the elimination of staffing positions.
3. The district dramatically reduced its building maintenance and facilities budget that resulted in a cost savings
of over$1M. It remains to be seen how long the district can go without addressing facilities issues and
preventative maintenance.
The district will continue to plan strategically, exercise considered judgment, strive to ensure the vitality of its
schools, and focus on what matters—the education, safety and welt being of the children in our charge.
2009-10 I 2010-11 I I 2011-12 I 2012-13
CURRENT BIENNIUM NEXT BIENNIUM
The district will continue to face significant financial
Current Employee Contracts I challenges in the 2011-13 biennium resulting from the
likely termination of federal stimulus dollars combined
Discussions with all Negotiations with all with a mandated increase in public employee
Employee Assocs. Employee Assocs. retirement costs.
Key Financial Factors for This Biennium Key Financial Factors for Start of Next Biennium
1. Measures 66 and 67 (Retain $3.1M) 1. Federal Stimulus Funds to End (Minus Approx. $4M)
2. Federal Stimulus Funds (Plus Approx. $4M) 2. Anticipated PERS Cost Increase (Minus $2M)
3. Foundation Fundraising (Unknown for 2010-11) 3. Foundation Fundraising (Unknown for 2011-13)
4. Student Enrollment (Unknown for 2010-11) 4. Student Enrollment (Unknown for 2011-13)
Initial Staffing Modeling Recommendations
As a starting point for modeling and communicating how the district will begin to look at staffing decisions for
2010-11, it is recommended that the district reduce 16 teaching FTE as follows:
Projected Teaching
School/Level 2009-10 Enrollment 2010-11 Enrollment FTE Reductions
LOHS I 1,255 I 1,280 I -3 I
LHS I 1,061 I 1,102 I -3
I 1 1 I
LOJHS I 571 I 545 I -3 I
WJHS I 531 I 505 I -3
Elementary Schools I 3,306 I 3,181 I -4
Foundation
For the purpose of modeling staffing reductions for 2010-11, it is recommended that the district's budgetary
financial model be developed with a Foundation fundraising estimate of$1M. If, as has been the case in recent
years, Foundation fundraising exceeds $1M, a 1.0 teaching FTE would be added to district staffing for every
additional$75,000 the Foundation raises over the$1M district financial model estimate. Once again, Foundation
fundraising will be critical to the district's success.
Notes
1. This document characterizes the district's initial thinking concerning classroom teacher staffing for next year.
Recommended reductions in all other licensed and nonteaching staffing areas have not yet been determined.
2. The teaching FTE recommendations for elementary schools noted in the chart above include classroom,
physical education, and music teachers.
3. Recommendations for Special Services staff and Talented and Gifted teaching FTE have not yet been
determined, and therefore are not referenced in this document.
Supt:Planning:2009-10:Staffmg Model with Measures 66 and 67 Dr. Bill Korach
city yKE
401,
OswEGo
OREGON
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION EXCISE TAX
FACT SHEET
• Authorized by Senate Bill 1036 during the 2007 regular legislative session
o Amended by House Bill 2014 during 2009 session
• The bill allows school boards to tax new residential and non-residential
development
o Lake Oswego School Board estimates revenues from this tax to be
approximately $150,000
• The tax applies only to new structures or additional square footage in an existing
structure
o Residential structures are taxed at $1.00/sq. ft. of floor area
■ The following is not taxed
• Garages
• Accessory structures such as tool sheds, garden sheds or
play structures
• Covered porches
• Decks (covered or uncovered)
o Non-residential structures are taxed at $.50/sq. ft.
■ The CET may not exceed $25,000 per permit or structure for non-
residential use, whichever is less
o The city of Lake Oswego may retain up to 4% of the collected tax to defray
administrative costs
• The tax pays for school capital improvements to include:
o Land acquisition
o Reconstruction or improvements to school facilities
o Acquisition or installation of equipment
o Furnishings or other tangible property
o Architectural, engineering, legal or similar costs associated or related to
capital improvements
o Payment of obligations and related costs of issuance that are issued to
finance or refinance capital improvements
• Who is exempt from this tax?
o Private school improvements
o Public Improvements
o Certain residential housing that is guaranteed to be affordable under
guidelines established by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development
o Public and Private Hospital Improvements
o Improvements to religious facilities
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
r.
sof LAKE
OswEGo
OREGON
SCHOOLS CONSTRUCTION EXCISE TAX
EXAMPLES
TYPICAL NEW 2,807 SQ. FT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN 1ST ADDITION,
• Construction/Development Fees$ 7,270 :
• Systems Development Charges $ 22,357 �' yi
• --ffi -,tits
Taxes rg I ` '
• State of Oregon Surcharge $ 319 k r
• Metro Construction Excise Tax $ 360 —- --
• Schools Construction Excise Tax $ 2,807 �- ii ' �`=` ''''
TOTAL$ 33,112
3 s,-.
TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL ADDITION - 340 sa. ft.
• Construction/Development Fees$ 1,064
• Community Development Fees $ 254 �` ,,; 7,g
Taxes - _ }
• State of Oregon Surcharge $ 83 • ,/
• Schools Construction Excise Tax $ 340 ' W.
TOTAL$ 1,741 `• �x'
TYPICAL NEW 8,000 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL PROJECT
• Construction/Development Fee $ 11,646 �, •
V� ► ' 4. 4
• Systems Development Charges $ 67,547 > :a .
Taxes ' {° , ° ,,,,,a..-, Y
• State of Oregon Surcharge $ 789 1 �'
• Metro Construction Excise Tax $ 943 _ —
• Schools Construction Excise Tax $ 4,000 zt,-
TOTAL $ 84,925
1 D
-7. / 5-6-al—Mao
Remarks to Lake Oswego City Council, March 3, 2010
My name is John Pullen. I live at 18 Britten Court, Lake Oswego.
I am disappointed tonight that this Council, which prides itself on encouraging
public input, has taken away two minutes of the five minutes formerly allotted to
citizen comment. You have even limited to three minutes the time citizens can give
testimony at public hearings. Is this limitation only tonight because of the interest in
the lack of maintenance of our streets? Or will it apply to all public hearings in the
future?
While the City is able to spend large amounts of taxpayer dollars to support the
business interests of Lake Oswego, and one million dollars of the hotel/motel tax to
restore an old furnace in the park, another eight million dollars for City Park and
Recreation programs, and to build a dock to support million-dollar yachts, it cannot
come to grips with funding maintenance of a 182 million dollar City asset. Mr.
Graham, Public Works director, quotes in his February memo: "Our streets are a
cherished asset, both because of their value of over 182 million dollars and because of
their physical and visual importance in creating vibrant residential and commercial
areas". Since November 2007 City staff has provided this Council and the prior Council
enough information about deteriorating streets to fill an encyclopedia. However, this
has not persuaded our governing body to make any positive policy concerning
maintenance of City streets. It seems you are in limbo, as was the City Council of
Tigard a few months ago, but it took the Tigard Council only two weeks to negotiate
with the business community a way to proceed on funding maintenance of their
streets.
If the Lake Oswego business community will not support an increase in the
street maintenance fee, you could always use the State Revenue Sharing funds that are
discretionary funds which can be spent on anything. In my many years in this city, no
one has ever told me how those funds are spent. If you are willing to spend money
from the hotel/motel tax to restore a furnace, you should be able to supplement
funding of street maintenance from the State Revenue Sharing funds.
On another note, I would like to see Lake Oswego encourage citizens to report
potholes on city streets. The City of Portland has a wonderful program in this regard.
By calling 503/823-BUMP in Portland, the City Transportation Office is quick to fix
reported potholes. They fill about 75 potholes a week. I have used the number myself
to report a pothole on 49`h Avenue. Lake Oswego could also establish a pothole hot
line. Keeping our streets safe is everyone's business.
Thank you.
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
COUNCIL REPORT503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Ursula Euler, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Resolution 10-14, Mid-year Budget Supplement
DATE: February 22, 2010
ACTION
Modify the 2009-2010 Adopted Budget as shown on the attached Resolution 10-14 through a Budget
Supplement Process.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Throughout a budget year, new information gives reason to make adjustments the adopted budget. Local
Budget Law allows these adjustments under certain conditions and with certain requirements. While some
of the proposed changes below could have been made through a simple Resolution Transfer process, this
request is brought forward as a full budget supplement, requiring public notice and a public hearing,
because of the changes in the Wastewater and L.O.-Tigard Water Partnership funds.
DISCUSSION
This is the second Budget Supplement for fiscal year 2009-2010 and is made for several reasons:
1. Unanticipated current year Personal Services and temporary help costs in the Finance Department,
Parks & Recreation Department, and Planning and Building Department.
2. Unanticipated current year Capital Outlay for the Iron Furnace completion.
3. Unanticipated additional spending for the Golf Fund to implement a portion of the recently
approved Golf Feasibility study and an enhanced marketing effort to shore up declining revenues.
4. A debt service payment in satisfaction of a bond anticipation note.
5. An acceleration of the planning and permitting phases of the L.O.-Tigard Water Partnership project.
6. Transfers of planned cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) amounts from Contingency to Personal
Services.
Page 2
The attached resolution lists each requested budget change by fund and amount, and with required
explanations. The paragraphs below provide additional information.
GENERAL FUND
The Finance Department in the General Fund is requesting additional spending authority in the amount of
$110,000. It had several vacancies in the early part of the fiscal year with the corresponding savings in
salaries and wages; but, it continues to need additional temporary help to catch up and improve accounting
and budgeting processes going forward. It does not add permanent employees.
The Parks & Recreation Department found that current workloads and service level expectations
necessitate changes to staffing. Two temporary part-time positions are changed to regular positions (.8 FTE
career part-time; 1 FTE full-time). These changes do not change the number of positions, but make these
employees eligible for benefits. In addition, an existing .8 FTE regular position will change to a full-time
position resulting in a net increase of.2 FTE.
The Planning & Building Department is faced with a prolonged compensated absence of one of its key
planners. They are requesting additional funding to back-fill the position for several months so that it can
continue to respond to current workload demands, namely on Sensitive Lands matters, on a timely basis.
The City budgeted for and expected to complete the Iron Furnace capital project by the end of 2009.
It was funded through the General Fund — Non-departmental with the intent that the Tourism Fund
reimburses the General Fund with the 5th percent of the Hotel/Motel tax over enough years to fully pay for
the furnace project. The Iron Furnace was partially completed in 2009 and spending authority of$506,000
requested here is to see the project through to completion. The first reimbursement installment from the
Tourism Fund to the General fund in 2009 will be included in a year-end budget adjustment.
Additionally, spending authority for the Golf Course Fund is requested to facilitate two projects: 1) Improve
visibility of the Golf Course entry from the SW Stafford/Overlook intersection ($80,000, a capital project
approved with the Golf Feasibility Study, initially to be funded through Non-departmental General Fund
appropriations and to be refunded by Golf to the largest extent possible by year-end) and 2) Enhance
marketing efforts ($15,000) this Spring.
Upon review of the November and December 2009 financial information, it became clear that the pay-off
of a Bond Anticipation Note in the amount of$12,000,000 in principal and $103,500 in interest was
budgeted to be made before June 30, 2009, but did not occur until July 3, 2009. As a result, a fiscal year
2010 appropriation of$12,103,500 is needed. The funding comes directly from the beginning fund
balance, which had grown to a larger than anticipated balance because of the delay in pay-off.
WASTEWATER FUND
The original FY 2009-10 Budget was developed approximately one year prior to selecting a consultant to
provide program management, construction management and permitting services for the 1..0-Tigard
Water Project. The City has now retained Brown and Caldwell to provide the above services. After a
detailed review of the program scheduling needs by L.O.-Tigard Water Partnership staff and the Brown and
Caldwell program management team, it was determined that the planning and permitting phases of the
Page 3
program work need to be accelerated and started earlier than originally anticipated. This is necessary to
meet the established dates agreed to by Lake Oswego and Tigard in the IGA for the Water Project
Partnership. This appropriation request for$5,082,000 in capital outlay provides the funding for the
acceleration and covers the personal services contract with Brown and Caldwell approved by Council on
November 17, 2009. The cost is shared with the City of Tigard and Intergovernmental Revenue would be
increased by$2,065,000, the anticipated cost-share amount, with additional funding coming from reducing
other costs (Personal Services, Materials & Services, and Contingency) in the amount of$1,008,000, with
the remainder coming from Contingency.
MULTIPLE FUNDS
When the 2009-2010 Budget was developed and adopted, results of labor negotiations were unknown. As
a result, each fund reserved an estimate of possible COLA amounts in their respective Contingencies. With
this supplement, the now known COLA adjustments are shifted from Contingency into Personal Services
expenditure categories to cover these increases.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact is described in detail on the resolution itself. It is helpful to know that certain spending
had been reviewed and evaluated through previous Council discussion. This is the case with the
improvement to the Golf Course entrance through the Golf Feasibility Study, previous approval of the Iron
Furnace construction project, approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement to form the L.O.-Tigard Water
Partnership, the planned satisfaction of the bond anticipation note, and the approval of current labor
contracts with their respective COLAs.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Resolution 10-14 be adopted as submitted.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 10-14
Reviewed� by:
(/tel%
Finance�� Director
�
th
City Attorney I
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
RESOLUTION 10-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ADJUSTING THE
BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1,2009 BY ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL
BUDGET,APPROVING RESOURCES/REQUIREMENTS,AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS.
WHEREAS,Certain conditions and situations have arisen since the initial
preparation of the 2009-10 budget and necessitate changes in financial planning, now,therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1. The City Council hereby adjusts the budget for fiscal year 2009-10 in the amount
of$14,183,500.
Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes:
A) The appropriation of resources and approval of requirements listed below;
B) The transfers of funds and transfers of fund appropriations as listed herein.
General Fund Adopted Revised Difference
Requirements:
Finance $ 1,284,000 $ 1,394,000 $ 110,000
Facilities Management 1,230,000 1,251,000 21,000
Fire 8,501,000 8,703,000 202,000
Information Technology 1,367,000 1,383,000 16,000
Library 3,302,000 3,374,000 72,000
Parks&Recreation 5,915,000 6,009,000 94,000
Adult Community Services 1,167,000 1,180,000 13,000
Planning&Building 3,511,000 3,607,000 96,000
Police 10,136,000 10,357,000 221,000
Non-departmental 852,000 1,453,000 601,000
Contingency 6,236,756 4,790,756 (1,446,000)
Explanation of Major Changes:
Finance:
The Finance Department requests additional spending authority of$110,000 so that it
can obtain needed resources to improve accounting and budgeting processes.
Parks&Recreation:
The Parks&Recreation Director requests changes to staffing with an esimtated cost of$39,000
for this fiscal year including all benefits.
Planning&Building:
An unplanned prolonged compensated absence of one of this Departments planners
requires additional help to enable the department to respond to current work load demands in a
timely manner. The estimated cost until the end of this fiscal year is$40,000 in salary and
benefits.
Resolution 10-14
Page 1 of 4
Non-departmental:
The City budgeted for and expected to complete the Iron Furnace capital project
by the end of 2009. It was partially completed in 2009 and spending authority of
$506,000 requested here is to see the project through to completion. Additionally,funding for
the Golf Course Fund is requested to facilitate two projects: improve visibility of the Golf
Course entrance through signage and overgrowth removal($80,000)and enhance marketing
efforts($15,000). See also the Golf Course section below.
All others:
These requested changes to spending authority stem from current year negotiated cost of
living adjustments(COLA),for which an estimate was budgeted in Contingency.
With this request the COLA amounts are moved from the General Fund Contingency to the
respective Departments within the General Fund.
Golf Fund Adopted Revised Difference
Resources:
Transfers - $ 15,000 15,000
Requirements:
Personal Services $ 541,000 $ 554,000 $ 13,000
Materials&Services $ 233,000 $ 248,000 $ 15,000
Contingency 36,998 23,998 (13,000)
$ 15,000
Explanation of Major Changes:
Personal Services.
The change in Personal Services stems from negotiated COLA increases
for which an estimate was budgeted in Contingency,resulting in the request for a corresponding
transfer of$13,000 from Contingency to Personal Services.(See also COLA Note below.)
Materials&Services:
Golf Course staff has proposed a ramped-up marketing effort,estimated to cost$15,000,for
Spring of 2010 in an effort to shore up declining revenues.
Tennis Fund Adopted Revised Difference
Requirements:
Personal Services $ 130,000 $ 135,000 $ 5,000
Contingency 110,013 105,013 (5,000)
Water Fund Adopted Revised Difference
Requirements:
Personal Services $ 1,323,000 $ 1,363,000 $ 40,000
Contingency 6,527,300 6,487,300 (40,000)
Resolution 10-14
Paae 2 of 4
Surface Water Fund Adopted Revised Difference
Requirements:
Personal Services $ 248,000 $ 255,000 $ 7,000
Contingency 1,326,328 1,319,328 (7,000)
Street Fund Adopted Revised Difference
Requirements:
Personal Services $ 446,000 $ 457,000 $ 11,000
Contingency 255,031 244,031 (11,000)
Maint. Services&Motor Pool Fund Adopted Revised Difference
Requirements:
Personal Services $ 792,000 $ 813,000 $ 21,000
Contingency 30,134 9,134 (21,000)
Engineering Fund Adopted Revised Difference
Requirements:
Personal Services $ 2,352,000 $ 2,401,000 $ 49,000
Contingency 259,000 210,000 (49,000)
Explanation of Major Changes:
COLA:These changes to spending authority stem from current year cost of living adjustments
negotiated in the City's labor agreements,for which an estimate was budgeted in Contingency.
Wastewater Fund. Adopted Revised Difference
Resources
Beginning Fund Balance 45,862,685 $ 57,966,185 12,103,500
Requirements:
Personal Services 1,108,000 $ 1,134,000 26,000
Debt Service $ 2,454,000 $ 14,557,500 $ 12,103,500
Contingency 5,211,685 $ 5,185,685 (26,000)
12,103,500
Explanation of Major Changes:
Personal Services:
These changes to spending authority stem from current year cost of living adjustments
negotiated in the City's labor agreements,for which an estimate was budgeted in Contingency.
Debt Service:
The Wastewater utility had obtained a bond anticipation note in the amount
of$12 million, in anticipation of a$60 million bond issues. That bond issue was
completed in 2009 and the bond anticipation note was scheduled to be paid off by
June 30,2009. It was paid off just a few days after June 30,2009, resulting in a higher
than anticipated beginning fund balance. Staff now requests to make the current year
appropriation for the payment,to be funded from beginning fund balance.
Resolution 10-14
Page 3 of 4
L..0.-Tiaard Water Partnership Adopted Revised Difference
Resources:
Intergovernmental Revenue $ 3,676,000 $ 5,741,000 $ 2,065,000
Requirements:
Personal Services $ 356,000 $ 250,000 $ (106,000)
Materials and Services 1,052,000 150,000 (902,000)
Capital Outlay 5,082,000 5,082,000
Contingency 2,284,000 275,000 (2,009,000)
$ 2,065,000
Explanation of Major Changes:
After further review of project phases, L.O.-Tigard Partnership staff and Brown&Caldwell
project management determined that the planning and permitting phases of the program needed
to be accelerated and started earlier than anticipated in order to meet established dates in the
agreement with the City of Tigard. This requested approporiation funds the personal services
contract with Brown&Caldwell approved by Council on November 17,2009.
Part of the funding comes from a cost sharing with the City of Tigard and the corresponding
revenue, cost savings in Personal Services and Materials&Services,
with the remainder coming from contingency.
Section 3. The City Manager or his designee shall certify,file with, and give notice to
the County Clerks and County Assessors of Clackamas County, Multnomah County,
Washington County, Oregon and the Oregon Department of Revenues, information as
required by ORS 294.555.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Considered and enacted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day
of March,2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Jack Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO •RM:
City Attorney's Office
•
Resolution 10-14
Page 4 of 4
q. I
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
380 A Avenue
1111 PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
COUNCIL REPORT 503-675-3984
www.ci.oswe8o.or.us
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director
Jeff Munro, Parks Superintendent
SUBJECT: Service contract renewal in the amount of$185,180 to Teufel Landscape to provide Multiple
Site Landscape services for Parks Maintenance.
DATE: February 5, 2010
ACTION
Move to approve the renewal of a service contract in the amount of$185,180 to Teufel Landscape to
provide landscape maintenance at various city-owned properties.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
In addition to parks and open spaces the city has a total of 90 sites that require landscape maintenance
services. These include facilities such as City Hall, Library, Adult Community Center, and the West End
Building; water pumping and reservoir sites; beautification and other locations in street rights-of-way. Sites
require a variety of services throughout the year including mowing, mulching, pruning, sweeping and weed
control. Contracted landscape maintenance crews have been found to the most economical method for
maintaining these sites.
In 2008, staff advertised for Request for Proposals for providing landscape services for one year with the
option to renew for four successive years should the city want to continue service. Five proposals were
submitted by the required deadline. Staff evaluated the proposals based on experience, length of time in
providing the type of service requested, thoroughness of the submitted proposal, ability to reliably perform
the type of service requested in a thorough, quality efficient and economical manner, within service
deadlines, and references and cost.
On May 15, 2008 the City Council approved the original contract with Teufel Landscape for$236,880 to
provide landscape maintenance services for one year.
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The contract is now entering its third year of the five year term of the original contract. The contract terms
allow the City to make the determination whether to extend the contract for another year, or to terminate
the agreement. In December 2009 staff identified areas for improved contractor performance. The
existing contract was extended for two months, from January 1, 2010 to February 28, 2010, to allow time
to resolve issues with the Contractor and put in place improved performance objectives for 2010. As a
result efficiencies were identified and performance standards were clarified resulting in cost savings.
Therefore, based upon the contractor's demonstrated ability to successfully perform the services requested
in a thorough, efficient, and economical manner, staff is recommending the contract be extended thru the
remainder of the 2010 year to Teufel Landscape.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of renewing the contract for the remainder of the calendar year is not to exceed $185,180, which
is less than the original bid amount received from the contractor due to the two month extension of I
services in January and February of 2010 to review existing service standards, and identified cost savings.
50% of this amount is included in the remaining Parks and Recreation Department FY09-10 budget. The
contract can be terminated if funds are not appropriated for FY10-11.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the contract with Teufel Landscape, not to exceed $185,180, be extended for the
remainder of the 2010 year.
ATTACHMENTS
None
Reviewed by:
/
Department Director
Cit torney
- .,ii)
Ale 2'D Meirtyre
City Manager
y. 2--
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010 380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego,OR 97034
COUNCIL REPORT503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the Lake Oswego City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: David Powell, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Resolution 10-16
Amending the City Council Rules of Procedure relating to the time limit for testimony during
the Citizen Comment portion of City Council meeting agendas
DATE: February 24, 2010
ACTION
Adopt Resolution 10-16 amending the City Council Rules of Procedure relating to the time limit for
testimony during the Citizen Comment portion of City Council meeting agendas.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
During its annual goal-setting retreat, the City Council explored ways of making City Council meetings run
more efficiently. There was consensus that returning to the previous three minute limit (as opposed to five
minutes) for individual testimony during the Citizen Comment portion of the agenda would enhance
meeting efficiency while still providing adequate opportunity for citizens to express their concerns to the
City Council.
DISCUSSION
Attached Resolution 10-16 amends the City Council Rules of Procedure to restore the three minute time
limit for individual testimony during the Citizen Comment portion of City Council agendas. The 30-minute
overall limit for the Citizen Comment agenda item will remain unchanged.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 10-16, amending the time limit for testimony
during the Citizen Comment portion of City Council meeting agendas.
•
Page 2
ATTACHMENT
Resolution 10-16
Reviewed b :
Alex D. I'IeFrrtyre
City Manager
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
WHEREAS The Lake Oswego City Council finds that it is appropriate to amend the time limit for
testimony during the Citizen Comment portion of the agenda for City Council meetings;
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego as follows:
Section 1. Section 4.d.vi. of the City Council Rules of Procedure (Procedure No. 5) is hereby
amended as follows (added text in bold, underlined tune. deleted text in strike-through type):
Citizen Comment: The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to
present information or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda. Unless
altered by the Mayor, a time limit of five three minutes per citizen shall apply.
The Council may accept the information, answer the question if simple, or refer
the matter to the appropriate City Department for review and response. If the
matter is referred, the Council may direct the Department to respond in writing
to the citizen or to present the response to the Council in the form of a Council
report. In the latter case, the citizen shall be notified of the date on which the
report will come before the Council. Citizen comment shall not exceed thirty
(30) minutes unless the Council votes to suspend the rules.
Section 2. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Considered and enacted at the meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council held on the 2nd day of
March, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Page 1 of 2 — Resolution 10-16
•
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/L-4LC—eJ-7
David Powell
City Attorney
Page 2 of 2-Resolution 10-16
, ..3
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010 380 A Avenue
1111 PO Box 369
Lake Oswego,OR 97034
COUNCIL REPORT503-675-3984
www.cLoswego.onus
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: David Powell, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Resolution 10-12
Authorizing the Mayor to sign an intergovernmental agreement with the Lake Oswego
School District for collection of construction excise taxes.
DATE: February 24, 2010
ACTION
Adopt Resolution 10-12 authorizing the Mayor to sign an intergovernmental agreement with Lake Oswego
School District 7J for collection of construction excise taxes.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
State law authorizes school districts to establish a construction excise tax to fund capital improvements
(ORS 320.170 to 320.189).
The excise tax is imposed on new structures or additions. The rate is limited to $1 per square foot for
residential structures. For non-residential structures, the limit is $.50 per square foot, with a cap of$25,000
per structure or building permit, whichever is less. Beginning in June of 2010, these limits will be adjusted
annually by the Department of Revenue to reflect changes in the Engineering News-Record monthly
construction cost index for the previous 12 months. The tax is collected at the time that construction
permits are issued.
The following improvements are exempt from the tax:
o Private schools;
o Public improvements;
o Housing guaranteed to be affordable under HUD guidelines to households earning no more than
80% of the median income for the area, for at least 60 years after the construction of the
housing;
o Hospitals;
Page 2
o Religious facilities used primarily for worship or education associated with worship;
o Agricultural buildings; and
o Facilities operated by not-for-profit corporations that are:
• Long term care facilities;
• Residential care facilities; or
• Continuing care retirement communities.
School districts are required adopt a long-term facilities plan that lists capital improvements that are
eligible for funding with excise tax proceeds. Eligible improvements may include:
o Acquisition of land;
o Construction, reconstruction or improvement of school facilities;
o Acquisition or installation of equipment, furnishings or other tangible property;
o Expenditure of funds for architectural, engineering, legal or similar costs related to capital
improvements and other expenditures that have a useful life of more than one year; or
o Payment of obligations issued to finance or refinance capital improvements
Before imposing the excise tax, a school district must first enter into intergovernmental agreements with
each permit-issuing local entity that would collect the tax on behalf of the district. State law allows the
collecting agency to retain an administrative fee of up to four percent of the tax revenue.
In 2007 the City entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the Portland Public School District
(PPSD) to collect that district's established excise tax on construction occurring within the portions of the
District that are in Lake Oswego. The agreement with PPSD provides that the City will retain an
administrative fee of one per cent of the tax revenue (the maximum fee allowed at that time).
The Lake Oswego School District has now informed the City that it also intends to establish a construction
excise tax.
DISCUSSION
The Lake Oswego School District (LOSD) intends to establish its construction excise tax on March 8, 2010.
Attached Resolution 10-12 authorizes the Mayor to sign an intergovernmental agreement with LOSD
calling for the City to collect this tax when issuing permits for construction occurring those properties in
the City that are also within the LOSD boundaries.
State law now authorizes collecting agencies to retain an administrative fee of up to four percent of tax
revenues. The draft agreement with LOSD provides that Lake Oswego will retain a fee of one percent, but
that the City may, in its discretion, increase the fee to an amount not exceeding the state limit. Staff
intends to evaluate the collection program as it proceeds and to recommend an increase in the
administrative fee if one percent proves to be inadequate to cover the City's costs.
///
///
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 10- 12 authorizing the Mayor to sign an
intergovernmental agreement with Lake Oswego School District 71 for collection of the construction excise
tax authorized by ORS 320.170 to 320.189.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 10-12
2. Proposed Intergovernmental Agreement with Lake Oswego School District 7J
Revie !e• b
Alex 10. clntyre
City klAnager
RESOLUTION 10-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT 7J FOR COLLECTION
OF THE CONSTRUCTION EXCISE TAX AUTHORIZED BY ORS 320.170 TO 320.189
WHEREAS ORS 320.170 et seq. authorizes school districts to collect a construction excise tax of
up to $1.00 per square foot on improvements for residential use and $.50 per square foot for
improvements intended for non-residential use; and
WHEREAS the proceeds of the construction excise tax may be used by a school district only for
those capital improvements listed in an adopted long-term facilities plan
WHEREAS state law requires school districts imposing the construction excise tax to enter into
intergovernmental agreements with local jurisdictions to collect the tax; and
WHEREAS state law also authorizes the local jurisdiction collecting the tax to retain an
administrative fee not to exceed four per cent of tax revenues; and
WHEREAS Lake Oswego School District 7J intends to establish a construction excise tax; and
WHEREAS Lake Oswego School District 7J proposes an intergovernmental agreement whereby
the City of Lake Oswego would collect the school excise tax for construction occurring within
those portions of the City that are within the School District boundaries for an administrative
fee of one percent of tax revenues, which fee may be increased in the City's discretion to an
amount not to exceed the maximum administrative fee allowed under state law; now,
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized to sign an intergovernmental agreement with Lake
Oswego School District 7-J, in the form attached as Exhibit "A," for collection of the construction
excise tax authorized by ORS 320.170 to 320.189. .
This Resolution shall be effective upon passage.
Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on
the 2nd day of March, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
Page 1 of 2-Resolution 10-12
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie,City Recorder
APPROVED AS : -a RM:
%/4' y
David Powell
City Attorney
Page 2 of 2 -Resolution 10-12
CONSTRUCTION EXCISE TAX
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
City of Lake Oswego/Lake Oswego School District No. 7J
Date:
Parties:
Lake Oswego School District No. 7J a school district as defined under ORS 330.005.
("School District"); and
The City of Lake Oswego, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon("City").
Recitals:
ORS 190.003 to 190.030 allows units of local government to enter into agreement for
performance of any or all functions and activities which such units have authority to
perform.
Pursuant to ORS 320.179, on March 8, 2010 School District will adopt a Resolution
establishing a Construction Excise Tax ("CET") throughout its regional jurisdiction. The
Resolution will provide that a Construction Excise Tax shall be collected by local
jurisdictions and remitted to School District pursuant to Intergovernmental Agreements.
The Parties desire to agree to certain procedures needed to collect the Construction Excise
Tax and remit the tax to School District.
Agreement:
1. Information and Forms. School District will create and provide: (i)
information, forms, and assistance explaining the Construction Excise Tax; (ii)
information and forms for CET exemptions; and, (iii) any other forms or information
necessary for implementation of the CET.
2. Staffing. City will provide sufficient staff to calculate and collect the
Construction Excise Tax along with the collection of other permit fees.
3. Collection; Start date. City agrees to assess and collect the Construction
Excise Tax on behalf of School District for those properties within the boundaries of
School District and within the City of Lake Oswego. City will begin assessing and
collecting the CET on April 1, 2010, and will continue assessment and collection until the
expiration of the CET. If City determines that the Resolution adopted by School District
Page 1 of 4 Construction Excise Tax IGA
does not meet the requirements of ORS 320.179, City may not collect the CET until such
time as the Resolution meets the requirements of ORS 320.179.
4. Exemptions. If a Person claims to be exempt from the CET and files a
School District CET Exemption Form at the time the CET would otherwise be due, City
will grant the exemption if it appears to be a valid claim of exemption under the
Resolution. It will then be School District's responsibility to determine the validity of the
exemption and to institute collection procedures to obtain payment of the CET, as well as
any other remedy School District may have under law, if the person was not entitled to the
exemption.
5. Remittance. Following the effective date of this IGA, City will remit the
collected CET to School District on a semi-annual basis on or before July 15th and January
15th of each year. CET remittance will be by electronic funds transfer to School District's
CET account, Local Government Investment Pool Account #4851, or such other similar
account as School District will hereafter designate.
6. CET Reports. Along with the CET remittance, City will prepare and
submit to the School District a report of (i) the building permits issued, and (ii) CETs
processed, whether paid or exempted, for the reporting period's construction activities.
To the extent City has this information, the report shall include: the number of building
permits issued or denied that reporting period; the aggregate amount of square footage
permitted for residential purposes; the aggregate amount of square footage permitted for
nonresidential purposes; the number of building permits for which CET exemptions were
given; the aggregate amount of square footage for the exempted construction; complete
copies of all exemption claims; the aggregate amount of CET paid; and, the amount of
CET administrative fee retained by City pursuant to this Agreement. The CET Report
shall be directed to:
Lake Oswego School District
Attn: Stuart Ketzler, Director of Finance
P.O. Box 70
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
7. Failure to Pay CET The CET shall be paid by the person undertaking
construction at the time that the permit authorizing the construction is issued. Upon a
person's refusal to or failure to pay the CET when due, the City will not issue the permit.
In no event shall the City be liable for failure to collect CET when due.
8. Records. City shall make all records related to building permit activity,
Construction Excise Tax collections, and CET exemptions available to School District or
its designated auditors, as necessary for School District to audit Construction Excise Tax
collections.
9. Administrative Fee. As consideration for the above described services,
City will retain 1% of the CET collected by the City. However, City shall have the right,
in its sole discretion, to increase the percentage of the administrative to a rate not
Page 2 of 4 Construction Excise Tax IGA
exceeding the limitation established by state law, upon advance written notice to School
District. Any fee increase exercised by the City hereunder shall be effective on the first
day of the month following the notice. Prior to submitting the CET to School District, City
will deduct this administrative fee directly from the CET collected, and the amounts
deducted and retained shall be identified on the report submitted to School District. In the
event a refund of CET is made to a taxpayer, such refund shall be made exclusively out of
CET revenues and shall not operate to reduce the amount of administrative fees retained
by City. City shall retain its records a minimum of six (6) years.
10. General Provisions. This Agreement is binding on and inures to the
benefit of the parties and their successors, and assigns. Except with the other party's prior
written consent, a party may not assign any rights or delegate any duties under this
Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only by an instrument in writing executed
by all the parties. The headings used in this Agreement are solely for convenience of
reference, are not part of this Agreement, and are not to be considered in construing or
interpreting this Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the
parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes any and all
prior understandings and agreements, whether written or oral, between the parties with
respect to such subject matter. A provision of this Agreement may be waived only by a
written instrument executed by the party waiving compliance. No waiver of any provision
of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar,
nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. Failure to enforce any provision of
this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of such provision or any other provision.
From time to time, each of the parties shall execute, acknowledge, and deliver any
instruments or documents necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. Time is
of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. Nothing in this
Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer on any person, other than the parties
to this Agreement, any right or remedy of any nature whatsoever. Each party shall bear its
own expenses in connection with this Agreement and the transactions contemplated by
this Agreement.
11. Other Agreements. This CET Collection IGA does not affect or alter any
other agreements between School District and City.
12. Defense and Indemnification. School District agrees to defend, indemnify
and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, against all claims and
actions, and all damages and expenses related thereto, arising from the City's performance
of this agreement, except for those caused by the sole negligence of the City or its officers
and employees.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Page 3 of 4 Construction Excise Tax IGA
LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT 7J CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
William Korach, Superintendent Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Approved as to form:
David Powell, City Attorne
Page 4 of 4 Construction Excise Tax IGA
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego,OR 97034
COUNCIL REPORT
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Christine Kirk, Public Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: Ordinance 2553, adopting changes to 12.38.1830 Use of City Seal recognizing the
temporary use of the Centennial Logo
DATE: February 25, 2010
ACTION
In honor of the City of Lake Oswego Centennial Celebration the City has adopted a Centennial logo. The
Council is requested to enact Ordinance 2553.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
City Code defines the City Seal as depicting the current "sailboat design". While most think of the City Seal
as an official stamp, the Code also directs that the Seal be displayed as a logo on stationery, vehicles and
signs. The City Code needs to be adjusted to allow display of the Centennial logo in place of the City Seal.
DISCUSSION
The Centennial Logo was developed as part of the process to brand the Centennial Celebration. The City of
Lake Oswego made minor adjustments to aid in printability to the logo that is being used on banners for
the Celebration. The shifting to a Centennial logo allows the City to fully embrace the Celebration and join
in the opportunity to think about the City's past, present and future. It is also an opportunity for the City to
increase consistency in how it is presented in the form of a logo and its publications.
The Centennial logo will be used for up to three years. It will be replaced by a new logo at which point City
Code will be updated for the new logo and City Seal. The process for development of the new logo and its
timing has not yet been identified.
Page 2
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
City staff took the various logos developed for the Centennial Celebration, tested them for printing
consistency and made minor adjustments. The cost of creating a new logo was $700. The logo was then
taken and put into templates for letterhead, memorandum and other documents. The cost of the template
design, development and finalization for each aspect of the organization is approximately $2,500. The
development of the templates will prevent the need for such a large quantity of letterhead to be preprinted
allowing for a cost reduction in overall printing costs.
Products that currently carry the "sailboat" logo will not be replaced. The new logo will be used on
publications, letterhead and newly purchased items.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council enact Ordinance 2553, approving the changes to LOC 12.38.1830
Use of City Seal to allow the display of the Centennial Logo in place of the current City Seal.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance 2553
Reviewed by-
"4,4,
City • tor -y
Alex ► _►A ntyre
City Manager
ORDINANCE NO.2553
AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING ARTICLE 12.38 OF
THE LAKE OSWEGO CODE RELATING TO THE CITY SEAL
WHEREAS, Section 12.38.1830 of the Lake Oswego Code directs that the City Seal be displayed on
City stationery, vehicles, reports,documents and signs; and
WHEREAS,the Lake Oswego City Council finds that it is appropriate to allow display of a logo honoring
the City's Centennial in lieu of the City Seal;
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. Section 12.38.1830 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by adding the language shown
below in bold.underlined tune:
12.38.1830 Use of City Seal. The City Seal shall be used on all stationery, City
vehicles, City reports and other appropriate City documents and signs. Notwithstanding
the foregoing,a logo honoring the City's Centennial in the form shown in LOC
Appendix 12.38.1830-A may be displayed in lieu of the City Seal.
Section 2. Article 12.38 of the Lake Oswego Code is hereby amended by adding LOC Appendix
12.38.1830-A"Centennial Logo," in the form shown on attached Exhibit 1.
Enacted at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 2nd day of March,2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie,City Recorder
APP OVED AS
David Powell
City Attorney
Ordinance No. 2553
Page 1 of 2
■ J
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
EXHIBIT 1
Ordinance No. 2553
LOC Appendix 12.38.1830-A
Centennial Logo
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
1 (' F
Ordinance No. 2553
Page 2 of 2
t
�� � �� CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
� � �� MINUTES
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 Page 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 staffs 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 13 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 staffs 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 14 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 goai.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 15 of 16
March 2, 2010
_ r
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,-.
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
e . June 1,2010 Robyn Ohristie
City Recorder
1
J(C )D. Hoffman, Maya
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16
March 2, 2010