HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2010-06-08 Special1.
2.
3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
Contact:
Email:
Phone:
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, 380 AAvenue
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us
503-675-3984
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
Also published on the internet at:
www.ci.oswego.or.us
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 #
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
STUDY SESSION
Water Conservation Study Session with the Sustainability Advisory Board (1 hour)
Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Supply Partnership (1 hour)
West End Property Debt Refinancing Options (1 hour)
Sensitive Lands Decision Making Process (10 minutes)
ADJOURNMENT
CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be televised on Channel 28. The meeting will
be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28:
Wednesday 2:30 a.m. Saturday 3:00 p.m.
Friday 7:00 p.m. Sunday 7:00 p.m.
Jack Hoffman, Mayor ■ Roger Hennagin, Councilor ■ Kristin Johnson, Councilor
Donna Jordan, Councilor ■ Sally Moncrieff, Councilor ■ Mary Olson, Councilor ■ Bill Tierney, Councilor
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LADE OSWEGO
Centennial 1410-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Susan Millhauser, Sustainability Coordinator, City Manager's Office
Kevin McCaleb, Water Conservation Specialist, Public Works
Kari Duncan, Water Treatment Plant Manager, Public Works
CC: Bruce Brown, Sustainability Advisory Board Co -Chair
Grant Watkinson, Sustainability Advisory Board Co -Chair
Members of the Sustainability Advisory Board
SUBJECT: Water Conservation Study Session with Sustainability Advisory Board
DATE: June 2, 2010
ACTION
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
No action is required. The study session with the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) is an opportunity for
the Council and SAB to discuss the City's water conservation program.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The City has had an active water conservation program since 2007, and has accomplished much during this
time. During recent presentations from staff, Council and the SAB have learned about program results,
progress towards goals, issues around data collection, and proposed next steps.
DISCUSSION
The joint study session is intended to be a conversation about the broad topic of water conservation in
Lake Oswego, as illustrated in the attached graphic. The SAB co-chairs and staff suggest that the study
session discussion cover the following general topics, with potential detailed items for discussion noted
under each:
• Where are we now?
o Staff will provide a brief overview of the current status of water conservation program, with
an opportunity for the Council and SAB members to ask specific questions related progress,
measures, and more, included in the Water Management and Conservation Plan (approved
Page 2
by the State of Oregon) and City Sustainability Plan.
o What barriers have been identified related to meeting current conservation program goals
for City operations and the community?
o What are potential solutions to reduce these barriers?
• Where do we want to go?
o How does water conservation relate to the Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Partnership and
continued water security?
o Can we meet multiple goals and provide multiple benefits? For example, water conservation
= energy conservation; water reuse and rainwater catchment also provide surface water
management and water quality benefits.
o How does water conservation fit into capital planning and redevelopment efforts?
o What are the major opportunities and barriers?
• What needs to be put in place to get from here to there?
o How do we ensure that consistent funding for water conservation continues to be a
significant element of water -related revenue?
o Do we want to consider more aggressive water conservation goals? If so, what are the
ramifications in terms of City priorities, cost, infrastructure requirements, community
aesthetics, etc.?
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
The study session does not include any specific recommendations that have a fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is hoped that Council will provide direction as to which areas should be prioritized over the coming years
and during the next budget cycle to ensure continued implementation and growing success of the water
conservation program.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Water Conservation overview graphic, June 2010
Reviewed by:
Department Director
Alex D. Mcl 11
City Manager
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
ya+l� �lia4'1'rn:M
./ N
U
N
�-+
C
�
� w
E
6
CL
ui
O
N
G1
O
Quaiy
L
y„
cn
V
All-
st�3
V
O
_ •
;
cs
a ,
aly�
fC
-i
CL
i
LLJ
LU
LL
MM N
0
�
2
W
�
w
Y
Q
=
W
0
a
L
J
LL
O
2
O
\
U
p����;
U
ya+l� �lia4'1'rn:M
./ N
U
N
�-+
C
�
� w
E
6
CL
ui
O
N
G1
L
y„
All-
V
O
_ •
;
cs
a ,
LL
fC
i
1S
LL
a
�
a
L
V
p����;
Q
06
u
06
+
06
-0
3
L
4-
(A
ya+l� �lia4'1'rn:M
./ N
U
ru
Lill
9 L
no
L
N
�-+
C
�
� w
E
6
CL
ui
O
N
ru
Lill
9 L
no
�a
Q
Q
ru
Lill
9 L
no
a
— N
720
V N
E
O L
CL
CSC tL0 N
U J
N_
LL
� I
06
� N �• U
Q •0) w
d'•
• N
4) W
>
t O%,
Q
CL
N
Cu0
All-
_ •
;
cs
a ,
' Si+
fC
1S
LL
p����;
Q
06
u
06
a
— N
720
V N
E
O L
CL
CSC tL0 N
U J
N_
LL
� I
06
� N �• U
Q •0) w
d'•
• N
4) W
>
t O%,
Q
CL
N
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., Project Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Supply Partnership
DATE: June 3, 2010
ACTION
-Z_
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
3 80 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
This report provides a brief summary discussion of information Staff will share with Council at its June 8,
2010, Study Session relating to the Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Supply Partnership. A more comprehensive
discussion of the partnership and the process being used to assist the City in selecting an appropriate water
treatment technology will be presented by Staff on the 8tn
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The cities of Lake Oswego and Tigard entered into an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) on August 6,
2008, for the purpose of jointly planning, funding, constructing and operating expanded water supply
facilities for the benefit of both communities. Signing the IGA represented the culmination of a two and a
half year effort to analyze a variety of water supply options available to both communities to address a
variety of objectives including:
• Replacing, upgrading and upsizing Lake Oswego's aging water supply infrastructure to improve
system reliability and performance;
• Keeping the costs of producing and delivering high quality water on -demand and in adequate
quantity, affordable to rate payers;
• Ensuring certainty of continued access to water from the Clackamas River — the source of drinking
water for Lake Oswego and its wholesale customers including Tigard;
• Improving emergency response capabilities through interconnections with other water supplier
systems and supply sources; and
• Improving the ability to influence and shape regional and state water policy through the combined
efforts of the partners.
Page 2
The IGA establishes the terms, conditions and schedule the partner cities agreed to follow to complete an
Initial Expansion of Lake Oswego's water supply system. Some of the more important terms and conditions
include:
• Lake Oswego will act as the Managing Agency and thus will be responsible to initiate and manage
all project related activities on behalf of both partners in order to complete the Initial Expansion no
later than July 1, 2016,.unless this schedule is altered by the parties;
• Tigard will "buy -in" to a share of ownership in existing facilities and lands owned by the City to the
extent that such facilities and lands have excess capacity for use by Tigard. The buy -in amount is
calculated on Tigard's proportionate share of total system capacity;
• The Initial Expansion will increase total system capacity to 32 million gallons per day (mgd). At the
completion of the Initial Expansion, the Lake Oswego allocation would be 18 mgd and the Tigard
allocation would be 14 mgd;
• The long-term expansion to 38 mgd is presumed to be exclusively allocated to Lake Oswego, but
Lake Oswego has options to sell all or a part of it to Tigard until such time as Lake Oswego needs
additional water;
• Formation of an Oversight Committee comprised of two council members appointed at the pleasure
of each party. The OVC:
o Meets as necessary to keep the project on schedule, but not less than quarterly;
o Reviews proposed projects and related matters and makes recommendations to the
Managing Agency or City Councils as required or necessary;
o Reviews and recommends proposed budgets during design, construction and operation prior
to submission of same to respective city councils;
Allocation of capital costs based on proportionate share of new capacity in each facility. Allocation
of operating/maintenance costs based on amount of water used multiplied by each parties O&M
expense rate;
• Decisions of the councils of each party include:
o Budget;
o Capital Improvement Program
o Property matters;
o Initial and Long Term Expansion
o New partners
o Third -party operator
DISCUSSION
Through an extensive, qualifications -based procurement process, the City contracted with Brown and
Caldwell to provide program management, permitting and construction management services to the cities
(aka "Program Sponsors") through completion of the Initial Expansion. Program implementation is now in
the project definition phase. The objective of this phase, anticipated to conclude in late 2010, is to confirm
size, type, location and updated costs and cost allocations of water supply facilities as conceptually
Page 3
conceived in the 2007 Carollo Report.' The focus of information to be presented by staff at the study
session will be the findings of the Business Case Evaluation (BCE) of water treatment options relating to the
planned expansion of Lake Oswego's water treatment plant (WTP). As presented by staff during a joint
meeting of the councils held on January 11, the BCE process takes a "triple bottom line" approach to
identifying the social, environmental and economic choices inherent in each treatment option evaluated.
To assist the cities in understanding the tradeoffs between treatment alternatives, a panel of leading
experts in water treatment and public health was convened. To provide a citizen perspective on these
tradeoffs, a Citizens Sounding Board, (CSB) comprised of citizens from each city, was also formed. Over a
series of 3, full-day workshops that began on March 10, the expert panel along with program staff and CSB
members ("participants") will engage in focused discussions of water treatment alternatives. At the end of
these series of workshops, participants expect to have identified a preferred water treatment technology
that reflects balance between many evaluation factors including:
• Capital and Operating Costs;
• Finished water quality objectives;
• Adaptability to adjust to future changes in drinking water regulations or desired levels of service;
• Temporary and long-term environmental impact of operations;
At the conclusion of Workshop #1, participants had identified a total of 16 water treatment technologies
that were considered appropriate to evaluate based on current raw water quality, drinking water
regulations and proven technologies. At the conclusion of Workshop #2, participants concluded that many
of the alternatives provided a level of treatment considered unnecessary given current regulations and the
high quality of the source water. These same alternatives also were the highest in cost and didn't provide a
substantially improved level of performance for this higher cost. The participants then concluded that six
alternatives should be evaluated further using the full suite of tools available with the BCE process. On
June 10, the third and final treatment evaluation workshop will be held. At this workshop the program
team will present the findings of the BCE for the remaining six alternatives to the expert panel, CSB and
staff of the cities.
At the June 8th Study Session, staff will present:
• A brief review of the Carollo Report study findings;
• A brief review of the BCE process;
• A preview of candidate treatment technologies to carry forward to BCE workshop #3;
• Relative cost differences between candidate alternatives; and
• The process and schedule leading to member council approval of a supply facilities plan that will
guide future design and construction efforts.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Graphic description of Business Case Evaluation
2. Graphic description of treatment alternatives from BCE Workshop #2
t The two cities jointly commissioned an engineering, financial and legal analysis of the benefits and costs of forming a
partnership to share water resources controlled by Lake Oswego. This report titled "City of Lake Oswego and the Tigard Water
Service Area, Joint Water Supply System Analysis", was completed in July 2007. The report conceptually describes the facilities
necessary to provide long term water supply to the cities.
Page 4
Reviewed by:
ent
Alex D. Mcl
City Manag
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
Business Case Evaluation Process Supports Sustainable
Decision on WTP Upgrade Alternative
1
Form Expert Team - Your Staff +
Document Problem Linked to
2
Level of Service
Define Evaluation Boundaries -
Workshop 1
3
Link to Level of Service /
Community Values
Brainstorm Alternatives and
4
Screen Fatal Flaws
Collect Data on Costs and Benefits
5
Economic, Environmental, and
Workshop 2
Community Risks and Opportunities
Monetize Environmental and
6
Community Criteria
Undertake Net Present
Workshop 3
Analysis
Value n
8
Determine Preferred Solution
V O Q O O Q O * 0 0 0 0 * * Q
O
��i•O�•�Gll�G��►��G�
a
E a EZ = E a a
E
Q O rj N 6
_�.� - c `u o d• o .' ¢ c a � E c c c E E E E E E a
O v,� > > >v 6 a Ec E •O E E E q t� c °' �
E o E �ii
a u ,v
O
y V v V d V p y y 0 C
L �
Ot Z
�-+ > a q a a i .c a. E ,�>-„ �• `.' v E a E A E.5 a s
2
J T O N O '-- N O N M N M O
r' N N N C ¢ C C C co fb CG 4
M M M M M M M M
Y
i
7S
io
11
4
E
Ln
ajc/
W
a�
I—
QUI'
Tit
Ill
��
.1
� �
N1
��
� �� � ,, 1,
,-mj
�3
-fill
Q
z _—
TRI
F-11
v
-gyp
tw
14
-111
TO
11
s, 7's
71LU
1
CD
au
J
Q
a
E a EZ = E a a
E
Q O rj N 6
_�.� - c `u o d• o .' ¢ c a � E c c c E E E E E E a
O v,� > > >v 6 a Ec E •O E E E q t� c °' �
E o E �ii
a u ,v
O
y V v V d V p y y 0 C
L �
Ot Z
�-+ > a q a a i .c a. E ,�>-„ �• `.' v E a E A E.5 a s
2
J T O N O '-- N O N M N M O
r' N N N C ¢ C C C co fb CG 4
M M M M M M M M
Y
i
7S
io
11
0
m
Y
O
J
T
L
g
Y c
e
L 00; Ste
f-
o
�
LL
C
Q
E G
U
L
c
U0s
0.1
.O°
U T
O
!9:tS
Q
O ^
+
xc
m
m
C
m m
L
L
p
d
O
m
I
LA v
0 CL
m
ZO
LL !
O m J
^
U Lm
�C
00
N
Opp L
t�
m
oa
i
i
m
'd
a
C
T
Gam°
n�J�
G
Oo
..........
r0
x
"
�peyJ Lis Ij
............
rN
V
••a
-k9pJ, -----
�
�
p�JaV/ph,
' m
so
oo o
Lh
LLd
O
U
W
�p
3
} o
ZS
«fix
Ic
x UN.m.
OJ
C Z 0.m- -
•• ,LL
OIL,
y �-w
V
C
nO
�O
�'
o'••
L
and
0, mo
1
o
`;
ECO =LL
l...v •,
GAO
Om.�
E b
>
o .e••
e
W
O
y C -
<� U
Q
m�
C
m
g�
�Ci
�
C
N
W
0
--
L
>
t
i ^ 0O
0
LLI
Of
p
a bi
V)
<
C
C
Y
Jp^,
J +
pt{p�O1//M
�
Q
J
U
m o
3
�5
.3
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
COT
UN
T�TT RETOT 503-675-3984
l� 1L PORT www.ci.oswego.or.us
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
DATE:
ACTION
Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
West End Property Debt Refinancing Options
June 3, 2010
This memorandum identifies several options for Council consideration on refinancing the West End
property. Council discussion and direction on a preferred option is needed.
BACKGROUND
The 14.08 -acre West End property, which sits in the geographic center of Lake Oswego, was purchased in
2006 for $20 million with the intention of redeveloping the property into a multi -generational community
center. The property includes an 89,000 square foot structure that was built in 1980.
Since it was originally anticipated that redevelopment of the property would occur, the property was
purchased with a bridge loan in the form of a three-year interest -only tax-exempt line of credit from Wells
Fargo Bank. As originally conceived, once a final plan was approved for development of the site, the line of
credit would be refunded through a voter -approved General Obligation bond.
In June 2006, the City Council named a 20 -member steering committee to further explore, develop and
recommend to the Council a plan for a comprehensive community center for the site. After 12 months of
public meetings, a final report was presented to the City Council which included 114,000 square feet of
developed space for a construction cost of approximately $55 million. The Steering Committee Final
Report was not acted upon and remains unimplemented.
The Parks & Recreation Department was the first tenant of the facility occupying a portion of the 2nd floor
west wing of the building. The Department began to program the public spaces of the facility for special
events, meetings, recreational activities, classes and programs; community groups also have used the
facility for meetings. In 2008, additional City staff was assigned to the facility including the LOIS team and
contractors and in 2009, the Tigard -Water team. In all, today there are approximately 50 employees/
contractors assigned to the West End property using approximately 20,000 square feet plus an additional
Page 2
15,000 square feet for Parks & Recreation programming. If the West End property was not within the
City's facility portfolio, the City would need to find space for these functions and community groups would
need to find other locations to meet.
In 2008, recognizing the City's overall facility needs, staff prepared the Strategy for the West End Building
and Property and Other City Facilities, which inventories each major City facility and, through a facilities
analysis, identifies the current and future maintenance and facility needs. Through the Council -approved
Strategy, Council asked staff to return with a recommendation of refinancing the West End property debt
burden away from the General Fund.
In 2009, the original line of credit with Wells Fargo was re -negotiated with the same interest and payment
terms; the new line expires June 30, 2011. It is clear that this financial strategy is not sustainable and the
City Council directed staff to return with a permanent option to refinance the West End property.
Facility Condition
When purchased, the building was 24 years old and was beginning to reflect its age. Staff has maintained
the building with minimal investment, in part, because of the lack of understanding or assurance that the
facility would remain within the City's inventory in its current configuration. Many of the systems within
the building had life expectancies of 30 years including the HVAC systems. It has recently come to staff's
attention that the chillers, which provide the cooling for the building, are near the end of their useful life.
In fact, one of the chillers has already failed with the other showing signs of failure. Replacement of the
chiller system could cost up to $250,000. Again, staff is exploring options to provide a minimal level of
investment into the system given the unknowns around the facility's future. There are a number of
additional architectural, structural, mechanical and building envelop deficiencies that, should the City
continue to own and inhabit the building, will require investment.
Original Financing
When purchased, the City secured a variable rate $20,156,000 line of credit from Wells Fargo Bank. The
original interest rate was 6.125% generating annual interest payments of $1,053,000. Today, the rate has
dropped to 1.68% generating annual interest payments of approximately $350,000. The rate is variable
and will likely increase as the economy improves. None of these payments draws down principal which
remains at $20+ million. As of November 2009, the City has paid $2.6 million in interest payments since it
acquired the property.
The following chart below provides a summary of the annualized rates as well as the annual amounts paid.
Fiscal
Year
From
To
Average
Interest Rate
Interest
Incurred
Interest Paid
Prime Rate
as of 6/30
2006-07
07/07/2006
06/30/2007
5.6511%
1,135,923
1,052,901
8.25%
2007-08
07/01/2007
06/30/2008
4.1101%
842,274
881,247
5.25%
2008-09
07/01/2008
06/30/2009
2.2343%
456,613
474,821
3.25%
2009-10 1
07/01/2009
11/30/2009
1.8041%
154,547
150,387
3.25%
Total 2,589,356 2,559,356
Page 3
Refinancing Options
The City Council directed staff to review and propose a refinancing strategy of the existing line of credit.
Specifically, the Council asked to "develop a financing strategy that does not require using the General
Fund revenues or reserves to pay the debt service on the West End Building and property." How the
property is used as a public asset is an integral part of the decision as to how we pay for it. There are a
number of avenues the Council can opt to proceed along each with varying degrees of financial risk.
Sell the Property
The WEB is now a City asset like any other the City owns. The City has a financial responsibility to make
wise decisions on the proper use and disposition of the asset. As early as 2008 and since, staff has
explored selling the West End property. Based upon recent and historical conversations with commercial
realtors, each has returned to us with the following general advice:
1. Like any property purchased in 2006, it is not worth what we paid for it in today's commercial real
estate market. It will not likely be worth the purchase price anytime soon. The exact value remains
unknown given the market conditions.
2. Having the property put into a "forced sale" situation will hinder proper pricing of the property. As
one indicated, "there is nothing like a fire sale to further devalue the property."
3. Should the Council opt to sell the property, the lower the price, the higher the likelihood of a sale.
For example, one commercial realtor told staff that with a listing price as low as $14 million (he
used this figure to make his point), the City should expect the property to remain on the market
from 24 to 36 months. It could be argued that $14 million may be an unnecessarily low price.
4. And, even if a buyer was found, it has been suggested that capital for commercial real estate
purchases is difficult to secure for even the wealthiest of entities.
The impact of an immediate sale of the property on the City's General Fund would be detrimental. While
the City has certain reserves available to absorb some of a loss, it cannot do so without violating the City's
financial policies or dramatically changing the financial policies. Even with changing financial policies and
using a portion of the available reserves, the ability for the City to continue to provide the types of services
that our residents have come to enjoy would be seriously jeopardized. Inevitably, General Fund services
would need to be eliminated and the City's reserves would be perilously low likely affecting the City's bond
rating.
Lease the property
City staff has had many discussions with commercial leasing agents about the opportunity to lease all or
part of the West End property. The West End property is the only Class B office space along Kruse Way.
With commercial/office vacancy rates hovering over 20% along Kruse Way, up to 80,000 square feet of
Class B leasing space might be difficult to absorb into the market, at any cost. In our most recent
discussion of expectations of leases of the WEB, commercial brokers have identified only a handful of
potential tenants each of who has expressed interest in leasing only portions of the building. Market lease
rates for this facility range from a meager $12/square foot up to an ambitious $18/square. If the City was
fortunate to find a tenant willing lease the entire facility on our terms, these amounts could yield up to
$960,000 - $1,440,000 in annual lease revenues (@80,000 sf). Typical favorable leasing terms are 10 -year
Page 4
leases with options to renew and with tenant improvements paid by the owner (note Facility Condition
section above).
Another factor to consider is relocating the present uses out of the facility. Commercial brokers have also
advised that keeping the Parks & Recreation Department staff and programming in the WEB further limits
the pool of interested tenants; particularly, with a significant portion of City users being children.
Any leasing of the facility still fails to adequately address the unfavorable/unsustainable financing currently
held by the City. With this scenario, the City would likely need to turn to a Full Faith and Credit bond
refinancing. Further, leasing the building would require the City to refinance its existing tax-exempt debt
status to a non -tax exempt status (e.g., yielding higher interest rates).
Existing Line of Credit
While the City is a beneficiary of the poor economy resulting in historically low interest rates for the
current financing, continuing to finance the property with an interest only line of credit is ill advised for any
mid- or long-term basis. The current line of credit is neither reliable nor financially sustainable and in time,
the interest payments will increase affecting the City's Operating Budget and General Fund. Even if the
City chooses to continue the interest only line of credit, the City will still need to invest in improvements to
the facility's systems and more effectively maintain them.
Full Faith & Credit Bond Issue
In October 2009, the Council heard a staff presentation about a new concept of refinancing the property
using Full Faith & Credit (FFC) financing. FFC would use the City's General Fund as security for the debt.
Due to historically low interest rates, the opportunity to secure low-cost, stable and permanent financing
for the WEB is an opportunity to consider.
According to the City's Financial Analyst, for a $25 million refinance (current principal plus funds to improve
the property), today's market offers the following:
Interest Annual
Term Rate Payment
15 year 3.40%
$2.15 million
20 year 3.75%
$1.80 million
25 year 4.25%
$1.64 million
These annual payments would need to be absorbed into the City's General Fund operating costs. This
year, the City's General Fund paid approximately $350,000 for the property; the historical average is closer
to $640,000 per year.
While this would be inconsistent with the Council's directive to shift the WEB debt away from the General
Fund, it certainly is a more responsible approach than the current financing. The City Council reserves the
legal authority to issue this debt. However, consideration might be given to seek public input should the
Council further consider this idea.
Page 5
Public development of the property/General Obligation bond
In May 2008, the City asked the voters to support a $20 million General Obligation (GO) bond issue to
refinance the West End property. The voters rejected the issue. Anecdotally, it has been suggested that
more voters may have supported the idea of issuing GO bonds had the City articulated a long-term vision
for the use of the property.
During the development of this financial analysis, the City Council directed staff to explore siting for a new
tennis center which, according to the recently released Golf and Tennis Feasibility Study, could generate
sufficient revenues to finance the development of a larger tennis center. Council directed staff to explore
sites for such a center. One of the sites under consideration is the West End property and it was
discovered that the West End property could indeed accommodate a new 8 -court tennis center. However,
solely siting a tennis facility at this property would not be financially prudent.
Any public development of the WEB site should be maximized in light of the land costs. As a result of the
original Facilities Strategy, Council also asked staff to explore sites for a new Police facility (including a 911
center and the courts). The Strategy also identified significant deficiencies with the City Hall. The idea of
consolidating city facilities on the West End site has been raised. As facilities are consolidated onto the
property, economies of scale could be achieved in the delivery of public services. Capital costs could also
be reduced by the sale of lands vacated due to the relocation of facilities onto the West End property.
Obviously, combining public facilities at the West End property may be worthy of further exploration.
And, whatever the public improvements might be to maximize development of the West End property,
they would likely need to be financed through voter -approved General Obligation bonds. In order to
develop an outreach plan on any development of the site, the City will need time. Options for Council to
place the question on the ballot include:
September 2010
November 2010
February 2011
May 2010
September 2011
November 2011
Special Election
General Election
Special Election
Primary Election
Special Election
General Election
Preparing for such an election will take time.
Presently, putting this into scale and using round numbers, in today's market, the City's average Assessed
Value is approximately $300,000 and the GO bond rate for each $10 million bond issue would be $10/year
per $100,000AV. For example, a $50 million bond issue would result in, on average, a $150/year
assessment.
RECOMMENDATION
The future of the West End property remains uncertain and needs closure. There are no easy solutions.
However, there are options which make more sense than others. It is important for the City to look to the
Page 6
future and consider how we might continue to provide services, meet our growing facilities issues, and
create a financially sound plan for the future.
The discussion of refinancing the West End property is really a discussion around future use of the
property; once that is determined, an appropriate financing strategy can be developed. Given the Council's
current goal of shifting the debt away from the General Fund, the only true way of achieving this is to ask
the voters to approve a General Obligation bond. While the voters have already rejected a bond issue to
keep the property as is, the question should be restructured to ask the voters to consider development of
the property with identified public needs.
To achieve this, the Mayor should appoint a Council sub -committee to explore various combinations of
public facilities on the West End property that could reasonably and affordably develop the land. The sub-
committee should return to the City Council no later than September 2010 with a recommended site
development plan for voter approval.
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
June 8, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the s-:pcial City Council meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. on June 8,
2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson, Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney,
and Jordan.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Susan Millhauser, Sustainability Planner; Kevin McCaleb,
Water Conservation Coordinator; Kari Duncan, Water Treatment Plant
Manager; Joel Komarek, LO/Tigard Water Partnership Project Director; Jane
Heisler, LO/Tigard Water Partnership Communications Director; Denise
Frisbee, Director of Planning and Building Services
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Water Conservation Study Session with the Sustainability Advisory Board
Sustainability Advisory Board members present: Bruce Brown, Co -Chair; Grant Watkinson,
Co -Chair; and Gregory Monahan
Ms. Millhauser gave a PowerPoint presentation. She explained that she presented most of the
program background information to the Council during the Sustainability Plan progress report at
the June 1 Council meeting. She reviewed the 2012 target objectives for internal City water use
identified in the Water Management and Conservation Plan and the broad water conservaticn-
related goals found in the City Sustainability Plan. She noted the measurements used to tack
progress in achieving the targets, which she reported on at the June 1 meeting.
She presented new information from the Water Conservation Management Plan, looking at water
usage data starting in January 2001. She noted the peaks in 2006 and 2006. She mentioned that
current water usage was a little higher than the peak use in 2001. She presented a pie chart
showing the percentages of water use by category, with single family residential having the biggest
slice (655%). She presented a graphic showing the annual indoor and outdoor use in Lake Oswego
in 2008 for single family residential.
She reviewed the City's progress towards meeting the 2012 targets. She mentioned plumbing
fixture retrofits and water conservation efforts, particularly in watering parks and street
beautification projects and the West End Building lawn. She spoke of the City's computerized
irrigation system that tied into the new weather stations, thus watering only when needed.
She presented data on the City's incentive programs to encourage water conservation in the home.
She observed that the City's program to encourage toilet retrofits has been successful and well
received by the citizens. She mentioned conducting internal and external water audits and
replacing water meters.
She indicated to Councilor Hennagin that replacing water meters enabled the City to track water
usage more accurately and bill customers properly.
She reviewed their public outreach efforts and ongoing customer service around water
conservation. She mentioned the ongoing program of leak detection and answering citizen
questions about water conservation at home and in the yard.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 16
June 8, 2010
She pointed out that all water usage in Lake Oswego had an energy component to it because the
water treatment plant used the most electricity of all City operations. She mentioned offsetting a
high level of emissions through purchasing renewable power.
Councilor Tierney confirmed Ms. Millhauser's explanation to Mayor Hoffman that, while there
was no way in the system to distinguish electricity produced by renewable power sources from
non-renewable power sources, a power company purchased or produced sufficient green energy
to meet its customers' demand.
Ms. Dijrican confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that it was the electric pumps ai `he water
treatment plant and the intake facility that consumed so much power. She indicated that the City
installed one variable frequency drive at the intake facility as part of an Energy Trust upgrade, and
planned to install premium efficiency pumps with the new expansion. Ms. Millhauser mentioned
the lighting retrofits at the water treatment plant done also with the Energy Trust.
Ms. Millhauser presented a graphic showing the overall emissions from City operations. She
showed another graphic on renewable power, noting that more than 50% of the City's electricity
purchases were for the water treatment plant, and that half of the electricity at the water treatment
plant was renewable power.
She recalled the proposed water conservation actions she mentioned on June 1, including
automatic meter reads, ongoing water conservation training for City staff, exploring other potential
water sources, and expanding the weather station grid. She mentioned a pilot program using the
Around Energy Management software at six City facilities to provide real time data on electricity
use.
Ms. Duncan indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the City could use Smart meters to monitor
leaks, to react to climate situations more quickly, to help maintain the integrity of the infrastructure,
and to cut down on car emissions by using telemetry as opposed to drive bys.
Councilor Moncrieff cited the information that 81 % of the community's water usage came from
single-family and multi -family residential combined, in asking if Smart meters were available to
residents. Mr. McCaleb indicated that Smart meters were available in a myriad of applications.
Staff was starting with a small enough program using only City facilities in order to determine how
well Smart meters would work in Lake Oswego, given its topography and existing software. He
confirmed that staff intended to take Smart meters citywide to the residents once they established
that the meters would work well in the City.
Councilor Moncrieff asked how staff could determine how much of the water usage was from
indoor or outdoor residential uses. Mr. McCaleb indicated that staff used wintertime usage as a
baseline and compared it to summer time usage.
Councilor Moncrieff questioned whether the public knew that their indoor use was almost double
their outdoor use, given that staff has only done 36 residential indoor audits. Mr. McCaleb
explained that staff combined the internal and external audits for efficiency reasons. Ms. Duncan
pointed out that the conservation program focused on the peak days during the summer because
those were the days that seriously stressed the water infrastructure.
Co -Chair Brown spoke to communicating the message that shaving down indoor water use would
translate to lower sewer bills because it was the indoor water use during the winter that dictated
the sewer charge. Councilor Moncrieff observed that, with outdoor irrigation use taxing the water
intake system and indoor water use taxing the sewer system, citizens paid for water usage on both
the front and the back end. Co -Chair Brown pointed out that the energy calculations for the city
did not include the energy spent by the Portland wastewater treatment plant.
Ms. Duncan indicated to Councilor Tierney that staff had data on the per capita water use
statistics for Lake Oswego, Tigard, and across the Metro area but not here to pass out. She said
that Lake Oswego used substantially more water per capita than neighboring communities. Mr.
McCaleb mentioned 175 gallons per person per day in Lake Oswego and 115 gallons in Tigard.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16
June 8, 2010
He cautioned the Council that there was no standardization in how municipalities calculated their
per capita use, and therefore, the statistics could be misleading. He noted that Lake Oswego had
larger residential lots than Tigard but Tigard had more multi -family residential than Lake Oswego.
He agreed with Councilor Tierney that Lake Oswego was on the high-end of per capita use.
Councilor Tierney asked what the biggest cause was for Lake Oswego being on the high end,
and whether the City's plan addressed that factor. Mr. McCaleb said that Lake Oswego had
excessive summertime usage, which he attributed to the lifestyle as much as anything did. He
commented that public participation in water,conservati^n efforts this year was the -highest it has
ever been with conservation equipment flying off the selves and more people attending his water
conservation classes. He concluded that the City was making good progress in communicating
with citizens and educating them on why they needed to manage their water better.
Councilor Tierney asked what was the percent per capita use of leakage in the system. Mr.
McCaleb indicated that he has tracked residential leaks for only the last year, and so far, the data
was showing leakage in one of four residential units. He explained that they usually found the
problem between the water meter and the house. He described to the Councilor how to read the
meter to determine whether there might be some leakage at a house.
Councilor Tierney asked if Ms. Duncan had a concern with leakage in the distribution system.
Ms. Duncan explained that the City had a good leak detection system, which found leaks
occasionally. However, currently they had 16% unaccounted for water produced but not billed,
which she did not think was primarily from leaks. She suspected meter inaccuracies and other
options.
Councilor Jordan referenced the Budget Committee recommendation to return the toilet
replacement fund allocation to the same level that it has been in the past. She wondered whether
staff should contact the Tier 2 and 3 summer water users directly regarding this program. Mr.
McCaleb commented that that was a viable option. He clarified that users usually only hit Tier 2
and 3 during the time of summer irrigation; the 16 unit mark of the rate system was reasonably
achievable by people, even with inefficient toilets.
Mr. McCaleb explained that the intent of the toilet rebate program was to get the inefficient toilets
in the many older homes in Lake Oswego off the system. He commented that, from his
perspective, it was as important to get Tier 1 users to replace their toilets, as it was to get a Tier 3
user to do so. He held that getting these inefficient fixtures off the system was key to the city's
overall savings and conservation.
Councilor Jordan asked with reclaimed water use and other types of reusable energy coming out
of the sewage treatment plant in Foothills would be part of Foothills study. Co -Chair Brown
commented, as a design professional, that the contractors would do so if the Council told them to.
He mentioned that the contractors might do it on their own anyway, but he thought that
encouragement by the Council would be good. He described this as an opportunity for the City to
have a major future development take that issue into account.
Mr. McIntyre indicated that the initial analysis might not take that question into consideration in
light of the bigger question about the wastewater treatment plant. He recalled staff advising him in
the past that the reclaimed water issue was relevant to Foothills. However, creating a redundant
pipe system for the reclaimed water raised questions around energy usage versus the cost savings
for the water. He said that they could undertake that analysis. Councilor Jordan clarified that she
had been wondering if there was a tradeoff between the cost of redoing the system and other gains
that might set off some of the initial expense.
Councilor Tierney asked the Sustainability Board members if there was anything that the City was
not doing that the Board thought it should be doing. Co -Chair Brown said yes. He recalled Board
discussions of the possibility of issuing a formal challenge to the Council to adopt an aggressive
policy to reduce City use of water in its facilities operations by 50% over a seven-year period. He
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16
June 8, 2010
described the Board's attitude as generally wanting things on all sustainability fronts to move faster
and more aggressively, as opposed to small increments.
Mr. Monahan argued that they could not continue to price the finite resource of water as a free
good in light of the certain population increase coming. He spoke of aggressive conservation
efforts, including making water conservation an integral part of any new projects coming on line.
Councilor Tierney asked if staff looked at the impact of successful water conservation on the
City's revenues from its tiered water rates. Mr. Komarek recalled that staff did a water cost
service analysis a couple .-1r years ago that assumed a: 10% reduction in demand due to
conservation. They used this in forecasting the revenue impact and setting the rates accordingly.
He indicated that they would re -visit the data this year to make sure that the City's revenues were
still on track to fund the upcoming capital expenses and to assess how the conservation program
has affected the revenues.
Mayor Hoffman asked how reducing the community -wide peak season three-day demand by 1 % a
year for five years squared with the need to increase the water system with Tigard. He wondered
whether they could conserve their way out of increasing the system. Co -Chair Brown commented
that reducing the community's water use internally increased the City's water security. He spoke in
support of moving forward with the Lake Oswego -Tigard water project. He argued that having
water security and extra capacity built into the water system would be a good thing moving forward
into the future, given the uncertainties of adequate annual snow and/or rainfall and the certainty of
population increase. He described thinking that the water supply would remain consistent as
foolhardy in light of climate change.
Mr. Komarek concurred with Co -Chair Brown's comments. He remarked that the City could not
rely on conservation to buy time to avoid planning for a water treatment expansion in 10 years. He
indicated that conservation would buy future security and delay the next increment of supply.
Councilor Tierney mentioned another factor as the need to replace the City's aging infrastructure
and equipment.
Councilor Hennagin asked if it was practical to have systems that reused the gray water from an
individual residence for that residence's irrigation needs. Co -Chair Brown indicated that there
were products available now to do exactly that. The cost of installing such systems on new
construction would be negligible, while adding them onto existing residences would be more
expensive. He mentioned that the State now allowed the use of rainwater in residential toilets. He
suggested changing the definition of 'water conservation' to include looking at alternate water
sources, such as reclaiming gray water, in order to reduce the amount of water taken out of the
river.
Councilor Tierney asked staff to provide a written report on the 16% lost in the system. Ms.
Duncan mentioned that staff requested funds in this coming fiscal year for a water loss audit in
order to track down that 16%. Mr. Komarek clarified that, while the Fire Department did have
unmetered water, that usage did not account for the 16%. He explained that the difference
between water production and water usage billed jumped suddenly from 9% before 2006 to 16%,
which was why staff did not think that the loss was in the system itself, given the amount of leak
detection and meter replacement the City did. He speculated that they would find it in the meter
reading and data extraction process. He mentioned that a monthly billing system (as opposed to
the City's current bi-monthly billing system) combined with automated meter reading systems
would help staff get a handle on the issue.
Councilor Olson commented that she was looking forward to that water audit, as she heard
frequently that Lake Oswego had a much higher per capita use than Tigard. She agreed with staff
that Lake Oswego had enough differences with Tigard in terms of Lake Oswego having larger lots
and more lawns and Tigard having more retail, commercial, industrial, and multi -family housing to
suggest that the difference was not as large as it was portrayed. Mr. McCaleb mentioned that
Lake Oswego staff would be meeting with Tigard staff to establish what each city included in its per
capita use calculations.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16
June 8, 2010
Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Olson that Tigard was currently conducting a cost service
analysis, which might or might not lead them to a tiered water rate structure. He mentioned that
Tigard customers paid over $2 per unit for water compared to Lake Oswego's $1.15 per unit. He
commented that the higher Tigard rates sent a strong price signal that might explain some of the
differences in per capita consumption.
He mentioned his hope that they would start looking at the data on a gallons per account basis as
opposed to a per capita basis. He explained that the per capita use calculation included all water
uses divided by population and was not a good indicator or comparativn tool. He commented that
looking at the account classes allowed better comparisons.
Councilor Hennagin observed that, with Tigard using a different system and computation
methodology, whatever data Lake Oswego received from them still might not tell staff anything.
Mr. Komarek concurred. He mentioned that staff would like to get back to below 10%, which was
the national organizations' suggested target.
3.2 Lake Oswego - Tigard Water Supply Partnership
Mr. Komarek introduced Bill Persich, Brown & Caldwell, Water Treatment Plant Expansion
Director.
Background
Mr. Komarek gave a PowerPoint presentation on the history of the water system in Lake Oswego.
He began with the City's purchase of the water system from Oswego Light & Power Company in
1925, which consisted of a spring and one reservoir. He indicated that when the wells developed
by the City from 1925 to 1965 began degrading, the City selected the Clackamas River as its water
source option in 1965. He mentioned that the City built the backbone of the system for $4 million
between 1965 and 1969 with an expansion of the water treatment plant to 10 mgd capacity in 1980
to accommodate the community's growth.
He indicated to Councilor Olson that he thought that the reasons why the City chose the
Clackamas River as its water source had to do with the poor quality of the water in the Willamette
and Tualatin Rivers in the mid-1960s (this was before the Clean Water Act). He mentioned the
desire to have control of the water supply source, as opposed to purchasing water from Portland,
as another factor in the decision.
He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that staff was discussing injecting water back into the old wells in
its conversations about potential supply augmentation strategies.
He mentioned that the original system pieces of the water treatment plant, the intake pump station,
and the first reservoir were still operating. He described the watershed with Timothy Lake as its
head (Clackamas River Basin Map). He noted today's system of 250 miles of pipe, several
reservoirs, and 13,500 connections (500 in 1925). He presented a graphic of Lake Oswego's
current service area.
He confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that Lake Oswego did not directly serve all its residents. He
reviewed the statistical breakdown of Lake Oswego's 40,000 plus customers served either directly
by the City or by special service districts contracting with Lake Oswego for water.
He presented the staff's underlying assumptions in planning for water demand and population
growth. He explained that the difference between the unincorporated and the in -city figures
represented Lake Oswego's actual growth in comparison to Metro's overall growth rate projections.
He presented the factors that staff considered in developing a water supply plan and the horizon in
planning for major infrastructure. He discussed the environmental elements also considered in
water supply planning.
He moved to the engineering side of water supply. He explained that, even if the City could
conserve its way out of expanding its water system, the condition of the infrastructure raised the
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16
June 8, 2010
question of whether it would last another 50 to 100 years. He noted other issues of public safety
and reliability.
He reviewed the issues discussed by past Councils about water supply planning, including whether
to include Stafford. He indicated that, since 1995, the City has been considering serving the entire
urban services boundary with City water, including potentially limited portions of Stafford. He
spoke of keeping the regional growth forecasts in the context of the City's own sub -regional needs.
He commented that any new infrastructure built needed to last a long time and have the capacity to
serve growth in the future. He argued that taking a proactive approach to infrastructure planning
provided the City with an opportunity to influence how and when growth occurred, and to be ready
to deal with it in advance rather than reacting to it.
He referenced the 2007 Carollo report on the combined planning effort by Lake Oswego and
Tigard to look at supply options and partnership supply scenarios. He mentioned the report's
finding that a supply capacity that would ultimately use Lake Oswego's entire rights from the
Clackamas was the most favorable option in terms of costs and efficiencies. He indicated that, as
part of the project definition phase, staff was looking at over -sizing facilities in keeping with a 50 to
100 year horizon and the expected growth demand, as well as to avoid having to rebuild expensive
infrastructure elements. He noted that there were some components more easily upsized, which
the City could add incrementally over time as needed.
Councilor Johnson asked if it was more expensive to hedge their bets by over -sizing components
today than to build less expensive smaller components and wait to see what the future brought.
Mr. Komarek indicated that staff was considering that question. He used the raw water pipeline as
an example of how a pipeline to carry 32 mgd was essentially the same size as one to carry 38
mgd. He commented that the cost of adding a few more square feet of structure to a new intake
facility to accommodate an additional future pump was marginal in comparison to remodeling costs
20 years down the road. Mr. Persich pointed out that treatment modules at the treatment plant
carne in distinct incremental sizes of 1 mgd or 5 mgd; the City would have to expand by those
amounts.
Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Jordan that some of the water districts purchased water from
Lake Oswego, such as the Lake Grove Water District. He described an unusual example of the
Lake Grove Water District piping Lake Oswego water to a Lake Oswego subdivision over by the
Waluga Reservoir because the reservoir was not tall enough to serve that subdivision.
He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Glenmorrie Water Cooperative had its own supply and
distribution system for serving water to many city residents, which it was responsible to maintain.
In case of a failure of the Glenmorrie system, Lake Oswego would open the emergency inter -tie
with that system to get water to those residents.
He explained to Councilor Jordan that, on a practical level, these special water districts could not
serve Stafford because they did not have the capacity or infrastructure in place to handle the
demand. He mentioned that legally special water districts were limited to their defined service area
boundaries, and could not serve outside that boundary, unless by special agreement with the City.
Mr. Powell noted that most special districts would dissolve once the City's boundaries
encompassed the entire district, some by intergovernmental agreements and some by state
statute.
Mr. Komarek confirmed to Councilor Jordan that if the Glenmorrie wells failed, and the
Cooperative chose not to repair the wells, then it would dissolve and become part of the Lake
Oswego system. Councilor Jordan wondered whether those purchasing property in Glenmorrie
were aware that they would not get City water. Mr. Komarek indicated that staff did receive
inquiries about getting on City water, but directed those citizens to their board because the City
could not go into Glenmorrie's service area.
Councilor Hennagin asked if the City could install more powerful pumps to push the water
through a smaller pipe faster as a way to increase capacity, instead of installing a larger pipe. Mr.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16
June 8, 2010
Komarek explained that doing so had higher energy costs for -the pumping and created stresses
on the pipes. He mentioned that right now the City was shoving 16 mgd of water through the 10
mgd water pipeline from the treatment plant to the Waluga Reservoir.
Water Treatment
Mr. Persich gave a PowerPoint presentation on why water treatment was necessary. He reviewed
the two primary drivers of protecting public health according to federal and state regulations and
achieving the aes"hetic parameters of taste;: odor, color, and appearance. He presented the eight
step Business C� se Evaluation (BCE) process (p.9), using the process in progress now a, Lake
Oswego as an illustration of how those steps broke down into three modules. He indicated that, at
the end of the first workshop, the expert panel identified 16 different water treatment alternatives.
By the end of the second workshop, the team screened those sixteen alternatives down to six,
after determining rough cost estimates and going through an evaluation process. He noted that
the upcoming third and final workshop would end with a recommended treatment alternative and a
refined cost estimate.
Councilor Tierney pointed out that the City Councils of Lake Oswego and Tigard would make the
decision on this highly technical recommendation. He encouraged the Council members to attend
the Thursday workshop.
Mr. Persich reviewed the water quality parameters for the water treatment process. He explained
that the intent of the turbidity standards was to remove the particulate matter that microorganisms
used as cover. He indicated that the City treated the water for the seasonal taste and odor
problems based on customer complaints. He mentioned the microorganisms (bacteria and
protozoa), noting giardia, and cryptosporidium in particular. He discussed the organics family
(molecules containing carbon and hydrogen), which included naturally decaying organics
(vegetation in the water) and man-made organics (herbicides and pesticides, pharmaceuticals,
etc.). He spoke of a subset of organics, disinfection byproducts (DBPs), which were the chemicals
resulting from organic molecules reacting with the chlorine disinfectant. He noted that the State
and EPA regulated DBPs.
He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that microorganisms included macro -invertebrates, but the
latter were big enough to remove easily. He observed that if they got the small organisms, they
would also get the big ones.
He reviewed the water quality highlights of Lake Oswego present system. He stated that the City
had high quality raw and finished water that met all the existing treatment regulations. He
described the lower Clackamas River as an "extremely excellent water supply source." He said
that the raw water data showed no cryptosporidium in the system. He referenced a 2005 USGS
study on pesticides and herbicides in the lower Clackamas River, which found the concentrations
of herbicides and pesticides in the raw and finished water so low that the team was not worrying
about them right now. He indicated that they did have technologies available to take care of it, if it
should become a problem.
He indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the team considered the possibility of changing
conditions and microorganisms, such as cryptosporidium, appearing where none had been before.
He said that there were alternatives available to deal with cryptosporidium.
He discussed the disinfection byproducts (DBPs). He indicated that the current concentrations of
DBPs in Lake Oswego water were below the regulatory limit; the water met all the health
requirements and regulations for DBPs. He explained that one of the panel experts, who sat on an
EPA regulating board, advised the team that the DBP regulations might become stricter in the
future.
Councilor Hennagin asked if using a different disinfectant than chlorine would avoid the DBPs.
Mr. Persich explained that all disinfectants were oxidizing chemicals and formed their own sets of
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16
June 8, 2010
DBPs. Since chlorine was the most predominantly used disinfection agent, there was more
evidence to suggest a concern.
He presented a graph summarizing the DBP data for the two different species: haloacetic acids
and total trihalomethanes. He pointed out that Lake Oswego's finished water tested at half the
regulatory standard for the acids and one-quarter of the standard for the methanes in 2009. He
explained that the current regulations allowed averaging of data to determine the levels. However,
the EPA was looking at returning to individual spiked samples as a threshold for violation or
concern. He observed that it would likely take five to -ten years before the federal government
changed the regulations, if it decided to do so.
He noted the spiked sample for both species found in the distribution system recently. He
indicated to Councilor Tierney that there were many factors that could cause a spike but organics
in the water reacting with the chlorine was the starting point.
He reported that, while the water treatment plant functioned well and met all the City's water quality
needs, the team did not think that it would meet these potential new regulations. He cited the
occasional problems with taste and odor and the age of the facility (40+ years old). He discussed
the alternatives examined by the team. He presented a chart illustrating how the cost went up as
the level of water quality performance increased. He described the direct filtration process as a
base level of treatment designed to remove particulates and microorganisms. He discussed the
conventional filtration process, enhanced treatment modes (ozonization, biological active filtration)
and exotic treatment processes (granular activated carbon, UV light, hydrogen peroxide). He
presented a chart listing each level of treatment and what it did (p.10).
He reported the expert panel's assessment through the two workshop sessions that the
conventional filtration process could meet the potential new DBP regulations. Therefore, the team
concluded that the direct filtration process was not a viable candidate for any expansion, a finding
consistent with the 2007 study. He mentioned another conclusion that the City did not need the
exotic treatment processes because its water did not have the level of organics that those
treatments were designed to remove.
He mentioned his expectation that the team would conclude at the next workshop that the
conventional filtration process was the most likely alternative to meet the City's current needs and
the future DBP concern. He commented that the team would like consider the ozone/active
filtration process as an optional add-on. He mentioned the $15 to $20 million in additional capital
costs to use the ozone process, which translated to $300,000 more a year in operating costs and
$4 to $6 more a month for customers.
He indicated that the upcoming workshop would not only validate the net present worth
computations and monetize the risks and benefits of the options, but the team would look at
sustainability and neighborhood impacts also. He mentioned doing a sensitivity analysis on their
assumptions, resulting in a recommendation from the expert panel.
Mr. Persich explained to Councilor Olson that the three categories of organics were taste and
odor, DBPs, and Other. Other included all other types of organics, whether they were manmade
(pesticides, herbicides, pharmaceuticals) or naturally occurring. He reiterated that, while the ozone
treatment would do a more complete job of removing trace organics, the conventional filtration
system was adequate to remove the organics down to the required standards today. He
mentioned that the concentrations of pharmaceuticals in raw water reported in the literature were
low. He considered it unlikely that EPA would regulate them. He confirmed to the Councilor that
the City could physically add-on the ozone treatment to the plant in increments later.
Councilor Hennagin asked if the plan was to build a new water treatment facility or to
remodel/reconstruct the existing building. He suggested leaving room for add-on treatment
modules. Mr. Persich indicated that the core option was to build upon the existing tankage, add to
it, and leave room for the ozone add-ons. He mentioned the option of building new tankage if they
determined that the existing tankage was not likely to last another 40 years.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16
June 8, 2010
Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Olson that the estimated life of the existing plant was 40 to
50 years. He commented that their objective was to build facilities with a minimum life span of 50
years, preferably a 50 to 75 year life span.
Councilor Tierney mentioned that the Clackamas River as an excellent source of water was a
baseline piece of information, and a place to start. He commented that every expert on the panel
praised the operation of Lake Oswego's water treatment plant. He indicated that those two factors
were pluses that made things less expensive and decisions easier. Mr. Persich remarked that
Lake Oswego was not violating arty current regulations because of the way the plant was operated
Communications/Outreach
Ms. Heisler gave a PowerPoint presentation. She discussed the goals that staff set for public
involvement for this treatment decision process: informing the public about the process leading up
to the recommendation, hearing public concerns and aspirations, and providing feedback to the
public on how the City would use their input. She mentioned their information tools of the
LOTigardWater.org website, press releases, utility bill inserts, open houses, and articles in both
Cities' newsletters. She indicated that they were doing an entire Water Savvy series discussing
the technical issues related to the partnership and simplifying them. She thanked Mr. Persich and
his team for their help in rendering technical issues understandable to the layperson.
She reported that the consultation and feedback methods that they have used (citizen surrey and
focus groups) showed that people thought that Lake Oswego's water was tasty and they gave the
City accolades for providing good and safe water (93% were satisfied with their water quality).
However, most people did not know where their water came from, which indicated a need for more
education.
She encouraged the Council members to attend the June 24 open house, even though it conflicted
with an important Festival of the Arts event. She indicated that the Citizen Sounding Board
(comprised of eight citizens, four from each city) has been working hard in discussing the technical
issues raised at the workshops and their possible impacts.
She reviewed the coming events, beginning with the Oversight Committee's meeting next Monday
to discuss the treatment process. She mentioned a joint City Council meeting on July 12 and a
study session in September/October on the supply facilities plan. She indicated that each Council
would adopt the supply facilities plan in December.
She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that staff was doing the outreach because they thought that the
community would be concerned about the partnership providing this essential service. She agreed
that it was a big and expensive decision.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. He reconvened the meeting.
3.3 West End Property Debt Refinancing Options
Mr. McIntyre noted that he was here in response to a Council directive to bring back a more
permanent financing strategy for the West End Building (WEB) line of credit. He reviewed the
background of the WEB purchase (p.11-12). He mentioned the purchase in 2006 of the 89,000
square foot building for $20 million for the purpose of creating a multi -generational community
center on the site. He noted that today approximately 50 City employees worked out of the
building, using approximately 20,000 square feet.
He discussed the three year tax-exempt variable line of credit (interest only) used to purchase the
building (p.12). He noted that the interest payments have fallen from $1.1 million in 2006 to
$365,000 in 2010, due to the poor economy. He commented that it was not a good financial plan
to depend on the low interest payments to continue.
He discussed the refinancing options identified by staff (pp. 13-15). He noted that the City's
investment in this 30 -year old building has been nominal because of the original purchase intent to
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16
June 8, 2010
renovate or rebuild the building. He indicated that the building systems were reaching the end of
their 30 -year life spans, the chillers in particular (p.12). He explained that, without at least one
chiller operational to cool the facility, the building was not inhabitable because of the lack of
operable windows. He mentioned staff's struggle with the question of whether to invest a quarter
million dollars in a chiller for a building that might or might not be torn down. He advised the
Council to refinance the debt with extra funds to improve the facility to a better working condition.
He said that his $25 million figure was a round number solely for conversation purposes.
He refere:iced the chart on p.12 listing the interest payments paid as of last Nove:m.ber, totaling
$2.5 million.
He emphasized that the question that needed answering in regards to the refinancing options was
what did the Council want to do with the building. He stated that staff struggled with investing in
the property or refinancing it, since they had no clear, specific direction from Council.
He reviewed the first option of selling the building (p.13), noting that they could not sell it for what
they paid for it. He pointed out that it would likely take several years to sell, and, once it sold, they
would have to relocate the staff to another site. He commented that the big issue with selling for
less than they paid for it was where they got the money to make up the difference. He recalled
Council's direction not to use general fund operating or reserve funds, yet that was the only
unrestricted money that the City could access. He questioned what impact using the reserve funds
to pay this debt would have on the City's bond rating, which was directly related to its healthy
reserves.
He reviewed the second option of leasing the building (pp. 13-14). He pointed out that the
commercial real estate market was very different from the residential real estate market. He
observed that many office uses would not mix well with the kids attending the Parks & Rec
programs held at the WEB. He mentioned the conversations that he and Mr. Williams have had
with commercial brokers over the past 18 months. He commented that, even if they could lease
the building, they still had to refinance the building.
He reiterated that the third option of continually renewing the line of credit was not a viable long-
term solution (p.14). He discussed the fourth option of a full faith and credit bond (p.14). He
recalled Chip Pierce's explanation last October that a full faith and credit bond rested on the full
faith and credit of the City's general fund, and could help the City start to pay down the principal.
He pointed out that this option of the general fund paying for the debt contradicted the Council's
direction not to use the general fund. He noted that the market was still good for this kind of bond.
He indicated that the Council reserved the sole authority to issue full faith & credit bonds, and did
not need to go to the voters. He observed that politically it might not be prudent to do so without
some form of public participation. He referenced the chart (p.14) showing possible rates, terms,
and annual principle and interest payments.
He discussed the fifth option of issuing general obligation bonds (p.15). He noted that this was the
only alternative available that responded to the Council strategy to move the burden of the WEB
financing away from the general fund. He recalled the voters turning down GO bonds to finance
WEB purchase two years ago. He mentioned that anecdotally he heard that the reason for the
rejection was that the City did not tell the citizens what it intended to do with the building. He
commented that it would be foolish to go out for another GO bond without answering that question.
He remarked that he thought the City needed to intensify the use of the site in order for the $20
million investment to make sense. He recalled the golf/tennis facility study's finding that the City
could locate a new tennis center on the WEB property, but he did not think that a $21 million tennis
center made sense; they needed to put shared uses on the site. He mentioned the Council
direction in its Facilities strategy to address City Hall and to site a police/9-1-1/court public safety
facility. He discussed the concept of a civic campus on the WEB property that incorporated several
civic uses and returned publicly owned property to private ownership.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16
June 8, 2010
He spoke of a GO bond strategy that asked the voters to support a civic campus concept. He
commented that he saw a tolerance question on how much voters were willing -to pay to put
several uses at the WEB site. He indicated that the formula staff developed on the homeowner's
cost for a GO bond (p.15) was based upon Chip Pierce's initial analysis of the costs to build
something at this site.
He observed that there might be more strategies for Council's consideration besides these he
presented. He pointed out that the Council did not have any good choices in this situation. He
described the situation as the City had a responsibilit;, to manage this asset properly, and it fell to
this Council to answer the question of what was the _4rst thing to do for this community. He
suggested, should the Council decide to pursue a GO bond strategy, that the Council form a
subcommittee to explore what uses might go on this site that the public might accept and put the
bond forward for a vote sometime in the future.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Councilor Jordan confirmed that what the Council heard anecdotally two years ago was that
people wanted to know what would happen at the WEB before paying for it with their taxes. She
agreed that the Council needed to explore what kinds of facilities the City could locate on the WEB
property that answered the Facilities strategy needs. She pointed out that they also needed to
have answers for how they would address the higher priority needs.if they ended up putting lower
priority needs at the WEB property.
She argued that the only option for the Council was to look at maximizing this investment now and
to find out whether the public would support a phased approach or an all at once approach: She
observed that the more uses they put at the WEB property, the greater impact it would have on
that end of town. She emphasized having a clear and comprehensive strategy laid out in advance
before asking the voters for the money to do it.
Councilor Hennagin asked if the City could reduce the principal on a bond by a lump sum
payment, should proceeds come in from the sale of civic properties, such as the current City Hall or
Adult Community Center sites. Mr. McIntyre explained that the Council could either borrow the
money all up front or do an analysis upfront to figure out what the tradeoffs would be and reduce
the amount borrowed. Ms. Euler indicated that typically, bonds were not structured to allow early
payments, but there were options that the Council could consider. Mr. McIntyre confirmed to
Councilor Olson that a shorter -term bond, such as a 10 -year callable, would have higher interest
rates.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Hennagin that staff could provide a list of the bonds that
would be stepping down or the City would be paying off in the next several years, such as the
street bond. Councilor Tierney noted that the budget book listed the bonds.
Ms. Euler indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that staff would explore how to use the sale of those
public properties to offset or shorten the citizens' payments on the WEB. Mr. McIntyre mentioned
that the next series of conversations with the Council would discuss how the Council wanted to
structure the bonds, including the possibility of pre -authorizing up to a certain amount, and phasing
it in over $10 million increments based on what the City was building at the WEB site.
Councilor Moncrieff suggested holding the money from the property sales, if the City could not
pay off the bond in lump sums, and using it to the benefit of the taxpayers. Councilor Jordan
suggested putting that money in a capital maintenance fund for facilities, since the City currently
did not have a way to maintain its facilities.
Councilor Tierney concurred with Mr. McIntyre that these were not good choices, yet the Council
needed to answer the question of what to do with the WEB. He suggested using this time of low
interest rates to find an answer that made economic sense. He commented that most Council
members have expressed a reluctance to move City Hail to the WEB and fill the WEB with
municipal uses, yet, at this point, he did not see any other alternatives.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16
June 8, 2010
He appreciated Mr. McIntyre's comment that, whatever avenue the Council chose, it needed to
take that choice to the voters. He spoke in support of a Council subcommittee to identify the
issues, to decide on a public engagement approach, and to figure out what to do. He observed
that the Council would probably not like any of the results, but they needed to move something
forward.
Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Tierney's comments. She referenced Guiding
Principle No. 4 in the June 2, 2009, Facilities strategy document that spoke of developing a
concept plan for the future redevelopment of the WEB property and of refinancing the WEB. She
expressed her sense of urc.!ency in finding a permanent stable funding source, as she did not like
the insecurity of a flexible interest rate.
Councilor Olson agreed that whatever road the Council pursued, it had to go out for a vote. She
asked Mr. McIntyre to review the funding formula. Mr. McIntyre explained that Mr. Pierce used the
current assessed value of the City at $5.5 billion, a 4% interest rate, and a 20 -year bond term to
end up with $10 per $100,000 of assessed value per $10 million borrowed. He pointed out that
those numbers would change over time as the formula values changed. He confirmed that the
current assessed value of the City did not include the potential $1 billion value of a redeveloped
Foothills District.
Councilor Olson stated for the record that she opposed full faith and credit bonds unless,
approved by a vote of the people. She indicated that she did not support encumbering the general
fund with such bonds, and, therefore, preferred the GO bonds. Councilor Jordan commented that
full faith and credit bonds would always be the last resort, and that GO bonds were their_
preference.
Councilor Olson asked if staff had a more current figure than last November's for the annualized
interest rate show on p. 12. Mr. McIntyre explained that that had been the latest information staff
had a month ago when he pulled it a month ago. Ms. Euler mentioned that the interest payment
the City made in the meantime was roughly half the $154,000 shown. She indicated to Councilor
Olson that the most recent interest rate charged was 1.68%. The next interest rate would come
out in a couple of months.
Councilor Jordan expressed her hope that the Council had a consensus on moving forward with
a committee to study the alternatives for developing the West End property with the idea of going
to the voters for approval in 2011' (the fifth option).
Councilor Moncrieff commented that she thought the Council has studied the issue thoroughly
and had all the pieces in place. She mentioned the prior studies on facilities needs, the falling
prices, and the known public attitude within the past year. She spoke to moving forward by putting
together the information and the studies and seeing how to get the best possible value for their
citizens.
Councilor Johnson agreed. She pointed out that a vote allowed only a 'yes -or no' question,
which was why they needed to state exactly what the option would be in order to get an answer on
which the Council could base subsequent decisions. She commented that, while it would be
difficult to figure out what the right proposal would be and the right question that would provide the
Council with the information that it needed, she had faith that they would develop something to
take to the voters. She argued that the action that the Council needed to take was to make a
decision. She supported forming the committee.
Councillor Olson commented that she did not want to lose sight of the need to do something
about the high priority of the Maintenance facility and its status as part of public safety during these
discussions. She recalled the feedback that the Council received from the focus groups during the
Facilities study that the citizens wanted to keep City Hall in the downtown. She mentioned the
information received during that study that civic uses were not the highest and best use of
properties in the Kruse Way corridor. She spoke in support of informing the voters of exactly what
the Council would do with the proceeds from a GO bond, and what actions it would take. She
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16
June 8, 2010
remarked that last time some citizens voted against a GO bond because the City did not say what
it would do with the property, while others voted no, thinking that the City would sell the building.
Councilor Hennagin stated for the record that the City walking away from this debt (similar to
people walking away from their homes and letting the bank take them) was not an option. He
observed that the bank would still come after the City for the difference between the amount owed
and the amount for which the property sold. Therefore, letting the bank take the property back was
not a practical option for the City. Mr. McIntyre concurred.
The Council indicated by a nodding of heads its consensus to direct the Mayor to form a
subcommittee, as proposed by Mr. McIntyre, to look at the public development of the WEB
property and GO bonds, and to report back to the Council no later than Septerriber 2010.
3.4 Sensitive Lands Decision Making Process
Mayor Hoffman reviewed the upcoming Council listening sessions on June 29, June 30, and July
10. He informed the Council of his discussions with staff about telling people that they could e-mail
their questions in as they watched the televised Council meetings on June 22 and June 23 (the
Second Look Task Force Report). This would provide Council with immediate feedback and
possibly allow staff to answer some of those questions at the meeting.
He indicated to Councilor Olson that he did not anticipate the June 29 and 30 meetings to involve
give and take between the Council and the public; the intent was to let people express their
concerns and questions.
Councilor Moncrieff suggested allowing people to send their questions in from now to June 29 in
order to give the City time to respond to them. She asked staff to put a button on the City website
linking directly to the Second Look Task Force report.
Mayor Hoffman mentioned that Councilor Olson has contacted Lake Oswego Stewards and asked
them to forward his e-mail (with the link to the report) to its e-mail list. He commented that he was
thinking of sending out another e-mail asking for feedback on the Task Force recommendations.
Councilor Hennagin suggested classifying the e-mail questions by topic, as many were likely to
ask the same question, and answer it only once. Mayor Hoffman concurred.
Councilor Hennagin commented that many residents mistakenly believed that the Council would
make its final decision on the recommendation. He asked Ms. Frisbee to review for the TV
audience what the process was, once the Council received the recommendation.
Ms. Frisbee mentioned July 20 as the tentative date for Council deliberations on the
recommendations, at which time the Council would adopt a resolution. This resolution would
identify the recommendations that the Council wanted to adopt and direct the Planning Department
to develop the code amendments necessary for those recommendations related to code
amendments. She observed that many of the recommendations did not require code amendments
but they did have significant budget implications. She explained that staff would take the code
amendments to the Planning Commission for public hearings and then to the Council for more
public hearings.
She indicated that next week staff intended to provide the Council with a matrix to guide the
members through the recommendations. This matrix would identify which code amendment
recommendations the Council could adopt in a relatively short time that would allow staff to make
changes immediately to provide the flexibility addressed by the recommendations. She mentioned
the medium timeframe recommendations considering budget impacts and identifying outreach
strategies, and the longer -range recommendations suggesting a different way to look at resource
protection or a broader scope of resource protection.
Councilor Moncrieff commented that citizens had until July 20 to communicate their questions
and concerns to the Council. She asked what public education strategies staff.had planned, as
she heard that people did not understand the recommendations. Ms. Frisbee observed that this
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16
June 8, 2010
was a complicated and difficult issue, which made it challenging to present it in a manageable and
bite -size fashion. She mentioned a flyer that staff would mail to every -household in the city, which
summarized the recommendations and identified the deliberations process. In addition, staff would
send a special notice to all property owners with sensitive lands -designated properties. She spoke
of press releases, community calendars, Hello LO, and articles in the local newspapers.
Councilor Olson commented that she was happy to hear that staff was getting this information out
to the people in advance of the study sessions.
Councilor Tierney thanked the Mayor for the new schedule. He commented that he did not think
that people would bring questions to the COL! 'hcil but rather they would bring their opinions to the
Council. He expressed his concern that the Council have sufficient time for its deliberations on
these 62 recommendations and come up with a good solution. He argued that the ultimate goal
was to make a decision that protected the resources and had community support. He questioned
whether one evening was sufficient time to find the right answer.
Mayor Hoffman acknowledged the point. He agreed that the Council has already talked about
some of the recommendations, such as a watershed Council, and that others that sounded good
would have budget implications and need further exploration. He anticipated revisiting some of the
budget implications prior to Mr. McIntyre putting together his budget in the fall.
Councilor Jordan remarked that a date of July 20 gave the Council a target for moving the priority
issues forward. She commented that Ms. Frisbee's timeframe of short, medium, and long term
should help the Council figure out what it needed to resolve on July 20 and what could wait.
Councilor Tierney clarified that he wanted to know where the Council members were on the over-
riding issues (such as how to protect resources), as opposed to specific recommendations. He
referenced a question he received in an e-mail asking how it was that this issue was so divisive in
a community where everyone shared the same values of protecting natural resources. He
reiterated the need to look at the total picture. Mayor Hoffman argued that the recommendations
were not based on the key message but rather on the context of the regulatory sideboards.
Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Tierney that they all had the goal of protecting their
natural resources while respecting private property. She referenced the past citizen vision
statements that stated that all new development would be compatible with the environment, which
raised the question of how to implement that statement. She suggested that the flyer going out to
all citizens include the website addresses where citizens could look at the mapping and follow the
history of the process. Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the separate mailer
would go to every property owner with a sensitive lands designation, either current or proposed.
Councilor Olson thanked the Mayor for adjusting the schedule. She indicated that, while she
agreed with Councilor Tierney that the July 20 date was a goal date for reaching some decisions, it
should not be a hard and fast date if they were still struggling with the bigger questions of what to
protect and how to protect it. She concurred that they needed to take the time to answer those
questions correctly.
Mayor Hoffman discussed the logistical issues of holding the listening sessions at City Hall. He
pointed out that the building only held 170 people, which limited the number of people who could
actually attend. He agreed with Councilor Tierney that the Council could only listen to about 40
people between the two three-hour listening sessions; if they had a question and answer session,
then that reduced the number to 20 per meeting. He encouraged citizens to get their questions
and concerns in now. That way, they would know that their elected officials were hearing their
concerns but they would not have to speak publicly if they did not want to.
Ms. Frisbee mentioned staff's exploration of having a panel on June 29 to represent the various
viewpoints and speak before beginning public comment as a way to move through the concerns in
a more concerted way. She pointed out that the problem was the desire to televise the meetings,
which they could not do at the WEB. She said that the Public Affairs Manager was looking into
video testimony, in addition to the public testimony, which the City could post on the website.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16
June 8, 2010
Councilor Johnson observed that people wanted to make sure that their issues were being heard
and that they were being counted. She suggested that people submit their testimony and state the
number of people they had who agreed with them, which would help the City count the citizens
who did not speak during public comment. Councilor Olson suggested that the newspaper
articles and mailers include an invitation to submit e-mail comments or otherwise communicate
their questions and concerns to the Council for the next month and include the number of people
represented by the question/concern.
Ms. Frisbee it dicated to Councilor Hennagin that staff had explored broadcasting an �,a.dier
meeting from the high school auditorium,and found that it would not work.
Councilor Jordan commented that she would find it very helpful if people would discuss in their e-
mails the specific recommendation(s) of concern. Ms. Frisbee indicated that staff could pinpoint
that information when offering opportunity for comment on the website. She concurred with
Councilor Tierney that people often had a general angst about the program and not about a
specific recommendation.
She mentioned that the staff report next week would inform the Council on which
recommendations staff would like to see implemented, as the recommendations were to the
Planning Department. She reviewed the range of topics covered by the recommendations, both
non -regulatory and regulatory. She noted that the recommendation to change the definition of
development would bring the City in line with Metro's model code definition of development and go
a long way to addressing the primary concerns expressed by citizens regarding what uses the
ordinance did and did not allow in the buffer zones. She observed that this was not a set of
regulations that would make everyone happy, but they needed to meet the Metro requirements and
address the larger objectives set by the Task Force.
She reported that she informed the LONAC Chair, in response to the letter he submitted today
detailing their concerns about the timeline, that she would make sure the Council heard their
concerns. She said that if any Council member did not get that e-mail, staff could provide it to
them.
Mayor Hoffman mentioned the six regulatory sideboards as part of the context of the discussion.
He asked whether staff has addressed the issue of whether the whole program was constitutional.
Mr. Powell recalled that staff did address the issue in the comments, but they could talk about it
again. He indicated that the Metro attorneys also addressed it at the Second Look Task Force.
50 Plus Advisory Board
Councilor Jordan asked to reduce the nine -member board to a seven -member board, similar to
all other boards, except the Sustainability Advisory Board. She explained that the Board had three
open positions and two resignations coming up. She suggested recruiting and interviewing for the
three open positions only in anticipation of changing the committee per ordinance required by the
City Charter.
She indicated to Councilor Olson that the Sustainability Advisory Board had eleven members plus
two youth members because the range and scope of sustainability required expertise in a number
of different areas. She explained to the Councilor that the 50 Plus Advisory Board started with
nine members as a way to keep the existing Adult Community Board but expand its scope and add
new members.
4. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Councilor Jordap recused herself from the Executive Session due to an actual conflict of interest;
the .subject matter involved a client of her husband's law firm.
Mayer Hoffman recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 10:02 p.m. pursuant to ORS
192.660 (2) (h) to consult with legal counsel concerning the rights and duties of the City with regard
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16
June 6, 2010
to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. Mr. Powell reviewed the Execrative Session
parameters.
5. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Mayor Hoffman reconvened the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON Ocher 5,_2Q,10 _
Jack D,,-H�bffman,
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16
June 8, 2010