HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2010-09-07 PMLAKE OSWEGO AGENDA
Centennial 1910-2010 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, 380AAvenue
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
3 80 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder Also published on the internet at:
Email: rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us www.ci.oswego.or.us
Phone: 503-675-3984
The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact
the City Recorder's Office at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting.
Page #
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PRESENTATIONS (30 minutes)
3.1 Distinguished Service Awards:
• Brent Ahrend, Transportation Advisory Board
• Ron Gronowski, Sustainability Advisory Board
• Nancy Gronowski, Natural Resources Advisory Board
• Morgan Holen, Natural Resources Advisory Board
• Adrianne Brockman, Planning Commission
• Philip L. Stewart, Planning Commission
• Robert Galante, Redevelopment Director
3.2 Federal Legislative Update
3.3 Water Partnership Update
3.4 LOIS Update
4. CONSENT AGENDA (5 minutes)
♦ The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no
discussion.
♦ An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda.
♦ The City Council makes one motion covering all items included in the consent
agenda.
Jack Hoffman, Mayor ■ Roger Hennagin, Councilor ■ Dan Vizzini, Councilor
Donna Jordan, Councilor ■ Sally Moncrieff, Councilor ■ Mary Olson, Councilor ■ Bill Tierney, Councilor
Page 2
4.1 RESOLUTIONS
4.1.1 Resolution 10-49, making appointments to the 50+ Advisory Board
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-49, appointing Gail Zimmerman, Debbie
Harris and Marcia Robertson to the 50+ Advisory Board, Gale Gipson
as alternate
4.1.2 Resolution 10-50, making appointments to the Planning Commission
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-50, re -appointing Russell Jones to the Planning
Commission and continuing to recruit for additional candidates
4.1.3 Resolution 10-55, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement to
accept a grant for the Juvenile Youth Diversion Program
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-55
4.1.4 Resolution 10-56, appointing an additional member to the Foothills
Oversight Committee
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-56
4.1.5 Resolution 10-57, regarding oversight of Lake Oswego School
District's New Sustainability Fund
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-57
4.2 MINUTES
4.2.1 March 30, 2010, special meeting
4.2.2 April 13, 2010, special meeting
4.2.3 April 13, 2010, regular meeting
4.2.4 April 20, 2010, regular meeting
4.2.5 May 17, 2010, special meeting
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
Page 3
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT (30 minutes)
The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present information or raise
an issue regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda items that do not
include a public hearing. A time limit of three minutes per citizen shall apply.
7. REPORTS (1 hour)
7.1 One -Time Financial Support to the Lake Oswego School District
7.2 LOIS Bond Issue #2
7.3 Boones Ferry Road Project Phase 2: Consultant Selection and Public Process
7.4 Financial Review as of June 30, 2010
8. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL (15 minutes)
This agenda item provides an opportunity for individual Councilors to provide
information to the Council on matters not otherwise on the agenda. Each
Councilor will be given five minutes.
8.1 Councilor Information
8.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS (15 minutes)
9.1 City Manager
9.1.1 Review of Council Schedule
9.1.2 Review of Council Digest
9.2 City Attorney
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION - pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2) (e) to conduct deliberations with
persons designated to negotiate real property transactions
11. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
12. ADJOURNMENT
Page 4
CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be shown live on Channel 28, at 6:30 p.m. The
meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28:
Wednesday 7:30 p.m. Friday 2:30 a.m.
Thursday 7:00 a.m. Saturday 12:00 p.m.
Watch Council meetings live wherever you are via live streaming video at
mms://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live
CITY COUNCIL/ LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Items known as of 9/2/10
DATE
MEETING
Tuesday,
Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
September 14
• Issues of Aging & Housing Options (75 minutes)
• Tennis siting study (30 minutes)
• New MS4 Permit report to Council (45 minutes)
Thursday,
City Hall Day. 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
September 16
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
September 21
• Sustainability Update
• Comp Plan Update (Sustainability Framework)
• Declaring the public necessity to acquire real property as necessary to
implement the Lake Oswego -Tigard Water Supply Partnership (Res. 10-58)
• Award Boones Ferry II Refinement Plan Contract
• Park naming process for lakefront park
• Executive Session: Real Property
Study Session
• Comp Plan Demographics & Trends (30 minutes)
• Marketing Strategy (30 minutes)
• Water Partnership Update (Water rights, treatment options) (30 minutes)
• LOPedia — catalog of City programs and services (30 minutes)
Wednesday,
Vancouver Water Resources Education Center Tour —10 a.m.-4 p.m.
September 22
(Metro, Milwaukie, West Linn, Lake Oswego)
Monday,
Marylhurst University Meet & Greet, 6-7:30 p.m.
September 27
Tuesday,
Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
September 28
• Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Study Ridership (30 minutes)
• Policy on Media in Executive Sessions (30 minutes)
• West End Building site study (2 hours)
• High Speed Rail
Thursday,
Tour Corvallis food recycling facility, 1 p.m. -5 p.m.
September 30
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
October 5
• LOIS Update
• Water Partnership Update
• Comp Plan Update
Redevelopment Agency, following Council
• Lakefront Park Bid Award
• LORA Financial Analysis
• North Anchor Feasibility Study Report (incorporating Library Needs)
Thursday,
Tour to the Wilsonville recycling facility, 2 p.m. -3:30 p.m.
October 7
Tuesday,
Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
October 12
• Comprehensive Plan Kick-off
Saturday,
Comp Plan Kick-off Event
October 16
BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Items known as of 9/2/10
DATE
MEETING
Tuesday,
No Council Meeting
October 19
Rail—Volution Conference (Oct 19-21, 2010)
Saturday,
Council Roundtable, 10 a.m.-noon, ACC
October 23
Tuesday,
Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
October 26
• Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project DEIS Study Session (90 minutes)
• Code Audit (30 minutes)
• Comprehensive Plan Update — Draft Vision/ Futures Scenario Development
(with Planning Commission) (30 minutes)
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 5:30-7:30 p.m. Council Chambers
November 2
• LOIS Update
Election Day
. Water Partnership Update
• Legislative Update
• Personal Services Contract to Provide Right -of -Way Acquisition Services
Relating to the Lake Oswego — Tigard Water Supply Partnership for Fiscal Year
2010-11
• Award Construction Contract Hatch Alarms at Water Reservoirs
Public Hearing
• Request to annex 4747 Upper Drive (AN 10-0004/Ord. 2559)
Tuesday,
Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
November 9
• Context statement relating to Lake Oswego's Iron Industry and Mid -Century
periods
• Emergency Operations Plan Update
• Sensitive Lands Amendments to Definitions and Exempt Development
(LU 10-0043)
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
November 16
• Photo Contest Winners
• Comprehensive Plan Update — Goal 9 Economic Development and Goal 10
Housing (with Planning Commission) (60 minutes)
Public Hearing
Tuesday,
Break for Thanksgiving
November 23
Tuesday,
Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
November 30
• Lake Grove Neighborhood Overlay (30 minutes)
• Neighborhood Enhancement Program proposal and update on neighborhood
planning (30 minutes)
• Charter Officer Evaluations
BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule
CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
Items known as of 9/2/10
DATE
MEETING
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
December 7
• LOIS Update
• Water Partnership Update
• Comp Plan Update
• Unsung Hero Awards
• Award Professional Services Contract for Stormwater Code Rewrite
• Multiple site landscape contract
Public Hearing
• Sensitive Lands Amendments to Definitions and Exempt Development
(LU 10-0043)
Tuesday,
Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
December 14
• ACC National Accreditation
Tuesday,
Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
December 21
• Sustainability Update
• Award Construction Contract for Chow Corner Pedestrian Improvements
Public Hearing
• Lake Grove Neighborhood Plan Implementation — Amendments to create new
overlay zone (LU 10-0003)
Tuesday,
Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
December 28
•
To Be Scheduled
• Municipal Finance
• Streetcar Locally Preferred Alternative Process (November)
• Lifelong Learning
• Adoption of Preferred Water Treatment Alternative (September)
• WEB Refinance Work Group recommendation
• Review draft Wastewater Master Plan (January 2011)
• Lake Oswego -Tigard Joint Council's Meeting (November)
Regular Updates
• LOIS Update, 1st meeting every month
• Water Project Update, 1st meeting every month
• Streetcar Update, 2nd meeting every month
• Sustainability Update, quarterly (2nd meeting, June, Sept., Dec.)
• Financial Update, (Sept., Dec., March, June)
• Legislative Update, quarterly (1st meeting, June, Sept., Dec.)
• Comp Plan Updates
BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
It ,
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Christine Kirk, Public Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: Federal Legislative Update
DATE: August 31, 2010
ACTION
S,2 -
CITY
OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
No action. A briefing will be provided by Chris Giglio, Washington D.C. legislative advocate with
CapitalEdge, on current federal issues of concern to the City of Lake Oswego.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The City of Lake Oswego entered into an agreement with CapitalEdge to assist the City in advancing its
federal priorities. Areas of engagement include identifying grant funds, coordinating federal efforts,
advocating on the City's behalf and securing appropriations. The City retained CapitalEdge in October
2009. Managing the federal legislative agenda and influencing efforts is undertaking in partnership
between myself and CapitalEdge's Chris Giglio and Carolyn Chaney.
The last Federal Legislative Update was provided in April. Since that time, federal legislative efforts have
included:
• Engaging the delegation and staff on two appropriations requests - Foothill planning funds and
assistance with wastewater line rehabilitation.
• Monitoring appropriations requests.
• Prioritizing of local dollars and staff time spent on federal travel and conferences.
• Increasing awareness of federal grant opportunities which aid the City in funding its local priorities. For
example: Foothills planning, energy efficiency, sustainability, and historic preservation.
• Advocating for funding available to local jurisdictions to be reauthorized, in particular if they are
funding sources the City has utilized in the past.
• Raising the voice of Lake Oswego through letters on the Jobs Bill, Collective Bargaining and support of
regional partners' grant requests.
• Advising on the appropriateness of signing onto letters sent from other organizations and when best to
work with other groups as opposed to engage alone.
Page 2
• Meeting with representatives of Oregon Water Utilities Council, of which we are a member, to learn of
water rights in federal reservoirs managed by the U.S Army Corps of engineers as well as to advise on
issues and process.
• Meeting with Tri -Met and Portland Streetcar Inc. staff to discussion the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit
Project.
• Engaging with the Community Streetcar Coalition.
• Increasing engagement in the LO/Tigard Water Project because of the number of federal partners and
permits involved.
• Engaging federal staff to ensure when they come to Oregon, a tour of current projects in Lake Oswego
is part of their schedule. A member of Senator Merkley's Office recently toured.
• Monitoring broadband for 911 communications access and funding (D Block).
• Distributing current information on the federal government, grants and areas of interest for our
advocacy through the Washington Report.
• Responding to local requests for engagement, such as the tour of the Willamette Shore Trolley with
Senator Schrader and Representative Defazio.
DISCUSSION
This year, Lake Oswego decided to present two appropriations requests. CapitalEdge will discuss the status
of our appropriations requests and also how this process compares to past years given the decreased
funding available and increased political tensions around appropriations.
CapitalEdge will also provide an update of the status of legislation of concern to Lake Oswego.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
N/A
Reviewed b .
Alex D. Mclnt*e----
City Manager
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder
SUBJECT: 50+ Advisory Board appointments
DATE: August 13, 2010
ACTION
Adopt Resolution 10-49, approving appointments to the 50+ Advisory Board.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
3 80 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
The City Council Interview Committee consisting of Councilors Moncrieff and Jordan, and Janine Dunphy,
Chair of the 50+ Advisory Board, met on July 13, 2010, to interview candidates for the 50+ Advisory Board.
It was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Gail Zimmerman be reappointed to
the 50+ Advisory Board for a term ending June 30, 2013; that Debbie Harris and Marcia Robertson be
appointed to the 50+ Advisory Board for terms ending June 30, 2013, and that Gale Gipson be designated
as alternate on the 50+ Advisory Board to serve if a vacancy occurs on the 50+ Advisory Board due to
attrition through May 31, 2011.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 10-49
Alex D. PA
City Mana
RESOLUTION 10-49
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVING
APPOINTMENTS TO THE S0+ ADVISORY BOARD
WHEREAS, a City Council Interview Committee, consisting of Councilors Moncrieff and
Jordan, and Janine Dunphy, Chair of the 50+ Advisory Board, met on June 13, 2010, to
interview candidates for the 50+ Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Gail
Zimmerman be reappointed to the 50+ Advisory Board for a term ending June 30, 2013;
and that Debbie Harris and Marcia Robertson be appointed to the 50+ Advisory Board
for terms ending June 30, 2013, and
WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Gale
Gipson be designated as alternate on the 50+ Advisory Board to serve if a vacancy
occurs on the 50+ Advisory Board due to attrition through May 31, 2011.
WHEREAS, the Mayor has made the appointments recommended by the Interview
Committee;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
approves the reappointment of Gail Zimmerman to the 50+ Advisory Board for a term
ending June 30, 2013, appointment of Debbie Harris and Marcia Robertson to the 50+
Advisory Board for terms ending June 30, 2013, and that Gale Gipson be designated as
alternate to the 50+ Advisory Board to serve if there are any vacancies on the 50+
Advisory Board due to attrition through May 31, 2011.
This resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular
meeting held on the 7th day of September, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
^` Robyn Christie, City Recorder
F \
APMOVE D�AS`\TO FOR
David Powell, City Attorney
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Appointments
DATE: August 18, 2010
ACTION
Adopt Resolution 10-50, making appointments to the Planning Commission
BACKGROUND
Z-/ . /. -z-
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
The City Council Interview Committee consisting of Councilors Tierney and Jordan, and Julia Glisson, Vice -
Chair of the Planning Commission, interviewed candidates on June 12 and 14, 2010. The Committee
recommends that Russell Jones be re -appointed to the Planning Commission for a four-year term ending
May 31, 2014; and to continue recruiting for additional candidates.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 10-50.
Reviewed by:
City Manager
RESOLUTION 10-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPROVING
APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, a City Council Interview Committee, consisting of Councilors Tierney and
Jordan, and Julia Glisson, Vice -Chair of the Planning Commission, met on June 12 and
14, 2010, to interview candidates for the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Russell
Jones be reappointed to the Planning Commission for a four-year term ending May 31,
2014, and
WHEREAS, the Mayor has made the appointment recommended by the Interview
Committee;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
approves the reappointment of Russell Jones to the Planning Commission for a four-year
term ending May 31, 2014.
This resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular
meeting held on the 7th day of September, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APTYVED AS 1 O
David Powell, City Attorney
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
NMI
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Don M. Forman, Interim Chief
Police Department
y [3
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
SUBJECT: Resolution 10-55 Authorizing the Mayor to execute an Intergovernmental Agreement with
Clackamas County to continue the local Youth Diversion Program
DATE: August 19, 2010
ACTION
Council is requested to adopt Resolution 10-55 authorizing the Mayor to execute an Intergovernmental
Agreement between the City of Lake Oswego and Clackamas County to continue the local Youth Diversion
Program.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The Lake Oswego Police Department and the Clackamas County Juvenile Department have developed a
local Youth Diversion Program to deal with delinquent behavior, hold youth offenders accountable for their
actions, and provide opportunities to prevent them from re -offending. Generally, the diversion counselor
contacts the juvenile and their parents within one week of a juvenile -related offense and sets up a meeting
at the Lake Oswego Police Department. As a convenience to the parents, meetings are typically held within
the first ten days of the offense. The meeting also provides a greater sense that a local issue is being
handled at the local level. Community service requirements are noted in the case disposition.
It is important to understand that in all cases when juveniles are referred to diversion, assessments will
have been made using pre -established criteria that takes into account whether or not the offense is
appropriate for diversion. Further, if there is any prior history or other factor that would suggest the
juvenile should appear at the juvenile department, he or she will not be allowed to participate in the
diversion program.
For the last fiscal year, 109 referrals were sent through this program. Of these referrals, 71 completed their
agreement and 10 are in the process. Of the 590 community service hours assigned, 514 hours were
completed at various sites (Lake Oswego Farmers Market, Adult Community Center, Luscher Farm/Garden,
Page 2
Shriners Hospital for Children, Oregon Food Bank, Tryon Creek Park, Mary's Woods at Marylhurst, Spring
Art Fair, Pet Adoption Center, Meals on Wheels, homeless shelters, church camps, community events
coordinated by the Parks and Recreation Department, and various coaching projects with children).
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
Twelfth year funding has been approved for F/Y 2010-2011 with funds from Clackamas County and the
police department. The fiscal impact on the police budget will be $4,500.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 10-55 authorizing the mayor to execute an
Intergovernmental Agreement with Clackamas County. The agreement provides the basis for a cooperative
working relationship between Clackamas County and the City of Lake Oswego to continue the local
diversion program.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 10-55
2. Intergovernmental Agreement with Clackamas County
Reviewed by:
Department Director
Finance Director(
City Atto
Alex D. W14
City Manager
RESOLUTION 10-55
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAKE
OSWEGO AND CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON TO CONTINUE THE LOCAL YOUTH DIVERSION
PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego Police Department and the Clackamas County Juvenile
Department have developed a local youth diversion program to deal with delinquent behavior,
and
WHEREAS, the diversion program operates to protect the public, hold youth offenders
accountable for their actions and provides youth with opportunities to develop skills that
prevent them from re -offending, and
WHEREAS, the diversion program operates to restore losses to the community and to victims of
juvenile offenses, and
WHEREAS, the original agreement establishing the program has expired and must be renewed
for the program to continue and will be funded by Clackamas County and city budgeted funds,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1: The Mayor is authorized to sign the Intergovernmental Agreement with Clackamas
County, in the form attached as Exhibit "A", to continue the Local Youth Diversion Program.
Section 2: Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Considered and enacted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on 7th day of September 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
Resolution 10-55
Page 1 of 2
APPROVED ASnTO RM
David Powell, City Attorney
Resolution 10-55
Page 2 of 2
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OREGON
AND
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Purpose
This agreement is entered into between Clackamas County (COUNTY) and the City of
Lake Oswego for the cooperation of units of local government under the authority of
ORS 190.010.
This agreement provides the basis for a cooperative working relationship for the
purpose of continuing a diversion program for at -risk youth referred from the
Clackamas County Juvenile Department as part of the Clackamas County Juvenile
Crime Prevention Plan for High Risk Youth.
Scope of Work and Cooperation
A. The City of Lake Oswego agrees to:
1) Assess all youth residing within the boundaries of the Lake Oswego School
District, who are referred to the Clackamas County Juvenile Department for
violations, all Class C Misdemeanors and all Class B Misdemeanors and
specified Class A Misdemeanors (Exhibit 1, II, 12).
2) Complete a Risk Assessment for all youth determined to be eligible to
participate in the local diversion program (Exhibit 1, II. 13).
3) Enter into and monitor compliance of youth's Diversion Agreement conditions
(Exhibit 1, II. 14).
4) Coordinate and keep open communications with the Clackamas County
Juvenile Department liaison regarding case planning, progression of the case
and final disposition of the case.
5) Develop and implement a volunteer services component.
6) Complete Quarterly Progress Work Plan (Exhibit 1) and Quarterly Fiscal
Reports (Exhibit 3).
B. The COUNTY agrees to:
1) Forward copies of appropriate documents, including police reports, to the City
of Lake Oswego Diversion Program.
2) Serve as a centralized depository for all records involving juvenile offenders.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
3) Provide liaison staff for technical assistance, case consultantion and
networking as required.
4) Except any and all diversion cases in which the juvenile and/or parents refuse
to participate or have failed to adequately complete the local diversion
program.
5) All youth that score two risk factors on the Oregon JCP Risk Assessment
(Exhibit 1, 11. 13) to be eligible for Juvenile Crime Prevention funded
resources.
III. Compensation
The COUNTY agrees to pay the City of Lake Oswego an amount not to exceed
$24,990 for the services outlined in Section II.A.
AGENCY shall be paid on a quarterly basis and shall submit invoices and
accompanying performance reports as described in Exhibits 2and 3 attached
hereto.
All requests for payment are subject to the approval of the COUNTY and will be
submitted to:
Deanna Muider, Administrative Analyst
Children, Youth & Families Division
Public Services Building
2051 Kaen Road
Oregon City, Oregon 9?045-4035
IV. Liaison Responsibility
Mel Olsen of Parrott Creek Child & Family Services will act as liaison from the City of
Lake Oswego for this project, Mark McDonnell or Krista Tidwell will act as liaison from
the COUNTY for program services and Korene Mather will act as liaison from the
COUNTY for contractual requirements.
V. Special Requirements
A. The COUNTY and the City of Lake Oswego agree to comply with all applicable
local, state, and federal ordinances, statutes, laws and regulations:
B. Indemnity. The COUNTY and the City of Lake Oswego agree to indemnify, save
harmless and defend each other, its officers, commissioners and employees from
and against all claims and actions, and all expenses incidental to the investigation
and defense thereof, arising out of fault or sole negligence of the City of Lake
Oswego or the COUNTY, subject, where applicable, to the limitations and
conditions of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 through 30.300, and the
Oregon Constitution, Article XI, Section 7. The conditions described in the
2
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Intergovernmental Agreement supersede examples described in exhibits 1
through 3.
During the term of this contract AGENCY shall maintain in force at its own
expense, each insurance noted below:
Commercial General Liability Insurance
1K Required by COUNTY
❑ Not required by COUNTY
AGENCY shall obtain, at AGENCY's expense, and keep in effect during the term
of this contract, Commercial General Liability Insurance covering bodily injury and
property damage on an "occurrence" form in the amount of not less than $1
Million per occurrence/$2 Million general aggregate for the protection of the
County, its officers, commissioners, and employees. This coverage shall include
Contractual Liability insurance for the indemnity provided under this contract.
2. Commercial Automobile Insurance
121 Required by COUNTY ❑ Not required by COUNTY
AGENCY shall also obtain, at AGENCY's expense, and keep in effect during the
term of the contract, "Symbol 1" Commercial Automobile Liability coverage
including coverage for all owned, hired, and non -owned vehicles. The combined
single limit per occurrence shall not be less than $1 Million.
3. Professional Liability Insurance
[KI Required by COUNTY ❑ Not required by COUNTY
AGENCY agrees to furnish the County evidence of Professional Liability
Insurance in the amount of not less than $1 Million combined single limit per
occurrence/$2 Million general annual aggregate for maipractice or errors and
omissions coverage for the protection of the County, its officers, commissioners
and employees against liability for damages because of personal injury, bodily
injury, death, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof, and damages
because of negligent acts, errors and omissions in any way related to this
contract. The County, at its option, may require a complete copy of the above
policy.
4. Additional Insurance Provision
The insurance, other than Professional Liability, Workers' Compensation, and
Personal Automobile Liability insurance, shall include "Clackamas County, its
agents, officers, and employees" as an additional insured.
Such insurance shall provide sixty (60) day written notice to the COUNTY in the
event of a cancellation or material change and include a statement that no act on
the part of the insured shall affect the coverage afforded to the COUNTY under
this insurance. This policy(s) shall be primary insurance as respects to the
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
COUNTY. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the COUNTY shall be
excess and shall not contribute to it.
5. Notice of Cancellation.
There shall be no cancellation, material change, exhaustion of aggregate limits or
intent not to renew insurance coverage without 60 days written notice to the
Clackamas County Purchasing Division. Any failure to comply with this provision
will not affect the insurance coverage provided to the County. The 60 days notice
of cancellation provision shall be physically endorsed on to the policy.
6. Insurance Carrier Rating.
Coverages provided by the AGENCY must be underwritten by an insurance
company deemed acceptable by the County. Insurance coverage shall be
provided by companies admitted to do business in Oregon or, in the alternative,
rated A- or better by Best's Insurance Rating. The County reserves the right to
reject all or any insurance carrier(s) with an unacceptable financial rating.
7. Certificates of Insurance.
As evidence of the insurance coverage required by this contract, the AGENCY
shall furnish a Certificate of Insurance to Clackamas County. No contract shall be
effected until the required certificates have been received, approved and
accepted by the County. The certificate will specify that all insurance -related
provisions within this contract have been complied with. A renewal certificate will
be sent to the Clackamas County Purchasing Division 10 days prior to coverage
expiration.
8. Independent Contractor Status.
The service or services to be rendered under this contract are those of an
independent contractor. AGENCY is not an officer, employee or agent of the
COUNTY as those terms are used in ORS 30.265.
9. Primary Coverage Clarification.
AGENCY's coverage will be primary in the event of a loss.
10. Cross -Liability Clause.
A cross -liability clause or separation of insureds condition will be included in all
general liability, professional liability, and errors and omissions policies required
by this contract.
C. Record and Fiscal Control System. All payroll and financial records pertaining in
whole or in part to this contract shall be clearly identified and readily accessible.
Such records and documents should be retained for a period of three (3) years
after receipt of final payment under this contract; provided that any records and
ld
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
documents that are the subject of audit findings shall be retained for a longer time
until such audit findings are resolved.
D. Access to Records. The COUNTY, the State of Oregon and the Federal
Government, and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the
books, documents, papers, and records of the City of Lake Oswego which are
directly pertinent to the agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination,
excerpts, and transcripts.
E. This agreement is expressly subject to the debt limitation of Oregon Counties set
forth in Article XI, Section 10, of the Oregon Constitution, and is contingent upon
funds being appropriated therefor. Any provisions herein which would conflict
with law are deemed inoperative to that extent.
VI. Amendment
This agreement may be amended at any time with the concurrence of both parties.
Amendments become a part of this agreement only after the written amendment has
been signed by both parties.
VII. Term of Agreement
This agreement becomes effective when this contract is signed by all necessary
parties, but not prior to July 1, 2011. This contract will terminate June 30, 2011.
This agreement is subject to termination by either of the parties when thirty (30) days'
written notice has been provided.
Upon termination of this agreement, any unexpended balances of agreement funds
shall remain with the COUNTY.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
GOVERNMENTAL UNIT
City of LAKE OSWEGO
A-0
Jack Hoffman
Name (Typed)
Mayor
Title
Date
Post Office Box 369
Street Address
Lake Oswego Oregon 97034-0369
City/Zip
(503) 636-0247
Phone Number
93-6002234
TIN, FIN or S.S.#
u'
David D. Powell, City Atorney'
y _ 2 - l
Date
Police Chief
Date
2
CLACKAMAS COUNTY
Chair: Lynn Peterson
Commissioner: Bob Austin
Commissioner: Jim Bernard
Commissioner: Charlotte Lehan
Commissioner: Ann Lininger
Signing on Behalf of the Board:
Cindy Becker, Director
Health, Housing & Human Services
Date
Approved as to Content:
Rodney A. Cook, Division Director
Date
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT 1
SCOPE OF WORK AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
AGENCY shall meet all performance outcomes as outlined in attached Work
Plan.
Performance Standards:
Community Based, Holistic Approach
AGENCY programs and services shall be community -focused,
incorporating the greatest level of input from multiple stakeholders,
including clients, families, and other agencies.
• AGENCY programs and services shall have ongoing community
investment and involvement.
2. Family -Centered Programs
• AGENCY programs and services shall involve families in all aspects,
recognizing that they are the most important teachers, caregivers, and
role models for their children.
• AGENCY programs and services shall support and strengthen families
in providing the foundation for the physical, social, emotional, and
intellectual development for their children.
3. Establish/Maintain Effective Partnerships
AGENCY, in order to enable data linkages, information sharing, and
ongoing collaboration between partners to most effectively meet and
address needs, shall ensure that appropriate staff attend CYF
contractor's meetings, and training sessions, and participate in other
activities as required by COUNTY.
AGENCY shall develop and promote continuous communications with
similar organizations.
4. Utilize a Balanced SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,
Threats) Approach
AGENCY programs and services shall address both the
risks/deficiencies, challenges and the strengths/assets/opportunities in
their communities.
5. Implement Research Based Accountability
• AGENCY, in order to ensure programs and services are based on
research -based, proven practices, shall complete and submit the Best
Practices Assessment as required by CYF. In areas where proven
practices are not available, AGENCY is encouraged to develop
innovative strategies based on research principles.
• AGENCY programs and services shall include research -based
measurements of success to enable tracking of effectiveness toward
7
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
meeting planned outcomes. These data shall be monitored by CYF on
the Quarterly Report. Quarterly Reports are to be submitted on or
before date due.
1 st Quarter, Jul 1 — Sep 30: due on Oct 31, 2011
2nd Quarter, Oct 1 — Dec 31: due on Jan 31, 2011
3rd Quarter, Jan 1 — Mar 31: due on Apr 30, 2011
4th Quarter, Apr 1 — Jun 30: due on Jul 31, 2011
6. Reflect and Incorporate Diversity
• AGENCY, in order to provide programs and services that meet the
needs of diverse cultures and people with disabilities, shall complete
and submit the Cultural Competency Assessment and Action Plan as
required by CYF.
• AGENCY, in order to provide programs and services that meet the
needs of girls, shall complete and submit the Gender Specific Services
Assessment and Action Plan as required by CYF.
7. Internal Controls
AGENCY shall submit a completed Annual Fiscal Capability
Assessment to CYF on or before October 31, 2011.
8. Funder Recognition
• AGENCY shall demonstrate good faith efforts to acknowledge the
COUNTY's Commission on Children & Families when communicating
with media representatives and when creating and distributing flyers
describing services, workshops and other contract related details.
9. Resource Expansion
AGENCY shall demonstrate good faith effort to secure other funding to
increase program capacity, enter into collaborative efforts and
initiatives, and/or decrease dependence on long-term Commission on
Children and Families funding.
10. Use of Grant Funds
No grant funds shall be used, directly or indirectly, to promote or
oppose any political committee, or promote or oppose the nomination or
election of a candidate, the gathering of signatures on an initiative,
referendum or recall petition, the adoption of a measure or the recall of
a public office holder.
11. HIPAA Compliance
• If the work performed under this Contract is covered by the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act or the federal regulations
implementing the Act (collectively referred to as HIPAA), AGENCY
agrees to perform the work in compliance with HIPAA. Without limiting
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
the generality of the foregoing, if the work performed under this
Contract is covered by HIPAA, AGENCY shall comply with the
following.-
Privacy
ollowing:
Privacy and Security of Individually Identifiable Health Information.
On or after April 14, 2003, AGENCY, its agents, employees and
subcontractors shall protect individually identifiable health
information obtained or maintained about Department's clients from
unauthorized use or disclosure, consistent with the requirements of
HIPAA. This Contract may be amended to include additional terms
and conditions related to the privacy and security of individually
identifiable health information.
Data Transaction Systems. Any electronic exchange of information
on or after October 16, 2002, between AGENCY and COUNTY to
carry out financial or administrative activities related to health care
will be in compliance with HIPAA standards for electronic
transactions published in 65 Fed. Reg. 50312 (August 17, 2000).
The following types of information exchanges are included: Health
care claims or equivalent encounter information; health care
payments and remittance advice; coordination of benefits; health
claim status; enrollment and disenrollment in a health plan; eligibility
for a health plan, health plan premium payments; referral
certification and authorization; first report of injury; and health claims
attachments. This Contract may be amended to include additional
terms and conditions related to data transactions.
iii. Consultation and Testing. If AGENCY reasonably believes that the
AGENCY's or COUNTY's data transactions system or other
application of HIPAA privacy or security compliance policy may
result in a violation of HIPAA requirements, AGENCY shall promptly
consult the COUNTY's HIPAA officer. AGENCY or COUNTY may
initiate a request for testing of HIPAA transaction requirements,
subject to available resources and the COUNTY's testing schedule.
12. Diversion Panel Cases
* AGENCY shall use the misdemeanor classification and criteria for
referral to the juvenile diversion panel.
13. Oregon Juvenile Crime Prevention Screen/Assessment
* AGENCY shall assess level of risk in juveniles for determining eligibility
for appropriate services using the Oregon Juvenile Crime Prevention
Screen/Assessment instrument.
14. Clackamas County Diversion Agreement
* AGENCY shall use the Clackamas County Diversion Agreement with
youth participating in the local diversion program.
E
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT 1 continued
Diversion Panel Work Plan
Focus Issue: Juvenile Crime
Outcome(s): HLO 15: Decrease Juvenile Recidivism
Outcomes
1) By June 30, 2011, a minimum of 85% of Diversion Panel participants will
successfully complete an Individual Diversion Agreement (IDA). As
measured by standard "successful completion" protocol. Reported quarterly
as number of cases closed; number of cases closed and successfully
completed; percent of cases successfully completed.
2) By June 30, 2011, a minimum of 85% of youth who successfully complete an
IDA will not be referred to the Juvenile Department for another law violation
during the 12 -month period following termination of services. Reported
quarterly as number of youth who successfully completed an IDA during the
12 -month period following termination of services; number of youth without
another law violation during the 12 -month period following termination of
services; percent of youth without a new law violation during the 12 -month
period following termination of services.
Outputs
1) By June 30, 2011, a minimum of 88 youth will have been put on an IDA.
Reported quarterly as number of youth put on an IDA and by submission of
Local Diversion Programs Quarterly Report.
Developmental Activities
1) By December 31, 2010, primary provider will complete the CYF Cultural
Competency Self -Assessment and initiate implementation of Action Plan.
Progress on Action Plan implementation to be reported quarterly.
2) By June 30, 2011, participate in State or County -sponsored Gender and/or
Cultural Specific and/or evidence -based training and/or contractor's meeting.
Meeting title and dates to be reported quarterly.
3) By June 30, 2011, participate in four quarterly Diversion Panel Coordinator's
meetings and one annual Diversion Panel Training. To be reported quarterly.
10
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT 2
PAYMENT PROCEDURES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. PAYMENT PROCEDURES
The compensation authorized in this agreement shall include reimbursable
expenses as prescribed in the COUNTY -approved budget in Exhibit 3 and in
accordance with OMB Circulars A-87 if agency is a local government, A-122 if
non-profit, A-133 if college. This amount does not include expenses for unusual
and special activities or materials not included in the scope of services. Such
unusual and special expenses will not be incurred without prior COUNTY
approval. In addition, expense totaling an amount greater than the total budget
for this project shall not be incurred without prior written consent of the
COUNTY.
a) Payment Options:
AGENCY shall submit a monthly Request for Funds and Fiscal Report within
15 days of the end of each month. COUNTY reserves the right to reduce
monthly payment by the amount of unexpended funds during the previous
month. The monthly fiscal report shall be in accordance with the approved
budget in Exhibit 3.
OR
AGENCY shall submit a quarterly Request for Funds and Fiscal Report
within 15 days of the end of each quarter. COUNTY reserves the right to
reduce quarter payment by the amount of unexpended funds during the
previous quarter. The quarterly fiscal report shall be in accordance with the
approved budget in Exhibit 3.
The COUNTY shall make payment to AGENCY within 30 days of receipt and
approval of each funds request and fiscal report submittal. AGENCY shall
submit a quarterly "Program Performance Progress Report" in accordance with
Exhibit 1, and section 3 of Exhibit 2 of this contract.
Reimbursement request required to be prepared and submitted by AGENCY to
the COUNTY shall be accurate and correct in all respects, supported by
attached documentation and traceable to source documents through AGENCY's
accounting records. Should inaccurate reports be submitted to the COUNTY,
the COUNTY may elect to have AGENCY secure the services of a certified
accounting firm. Cost of such accounting services are to be borne by AGENCY
and not reimbursed from funds authorized by the agreement unless specifically
agreed to between AGENCY and COUNTY in writing.
11
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
AGENCY shall submit a financial statement covering all expenditures within 30
days following the end of the contract. When the total funds advanced does not
equal the AGENCY's total actual expenditures and the total budget, the financial
statement shall include either:
A. A request for rembursement of program: expenditures. Such request shall
not bring the total of funds received by the AGENCY in an amount in
excess of the budget; or
B. Contract amendment suitable to both the COUNTY and AGENCY.
C. The return of all unexpended funds to the COUNTY.
AGENCY shall return all unexpended funds to the COUNTY within 10 days of
the contract's termination when such termination is due to the AGENCY's failure
to provide services in accordance with the contract.
Withholding of Contract Payments: Notwithstanding any other payment
provision of this contract, should the AGENCY fail to submit required reports
when due or submit reports which appear patently inaccurate or inadequate on
their face, or fail to perform or document the performance of contracted
services, the COUNTY shall immediately withhold payments hereunder. Such
withholding of payment for cause may continue until the AGENCY submits
required reports, performs required services, or establishes to the COUNTY's
satisfaction that such failure arose out of causes beyond the control, and without
the fault or negligence, of the AGENCY.
RECORDKEEPiNG
AGENCY shall keep detailed records of time and expenditures incurred and
funded by this contract. Such records shall adequately identify the source and
application of funds for activities within this contract in accordance with the
provisions of OMB Circular (A-110 for non -profits, A-102 for local governments).
These records shall allow accurate statements pertaining to grant awards and
authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, liabilities, outlays, and
income in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices.
AGENCY shall maintain a system of internal control comprising a documented
plan of all coordinating procedures adopted to account for and safeguard its
assets, check the adequacy and reliability of its accounting data, promote
operating efficiency, and assure adherence to applicable regulations.
Expenditures shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records,
invoices, vouchers, or other source documentation evidencing in proper detail
the nature and propriety of charges. All accounting documents shall be clearly
identified and readily accessible.
12
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Financial records and supporting documents pertinent to this agreement shall
be retained by AGENCY for a period of three years from the date of completion
of the contract except as follows:
Records that are the subject of audit findings shall be retained for three
years or until such audit findings have been resolved, whic -ver is later.
3. PROGRAM REPORTS
AGENCY shall submit program performance reports for each quarter of the
fiscal year. These quarterly reports are to include: 1) Demographic form, 2)
work plan outcomes, services and development activities performance report.
The quarterly reports are due to the COUNTY within 30 days of the end of each
fiscal year quarter.
AGENCY shall complete and submit Juvenile Crime Prevention risk screen and
reassessment screen data for all youth served and other reports as required
and supplied by the COUNTY.
4. DATA FOR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
AGENCY shall use the Juvenile Crime Prevention (JCP) risk tools, including the
Risk Assessment instrument and required forms for parental consent and youth
assent, for all youth receiving direct services supported with this grant. The
Risk Screen Assessment will be administered at the beginning of program
service and at six month intervals, or the end of service (whichever is first).
AGENCY shall enter the collected data in the online JCP Data Manager.
5. MONITORING
COUNTY shall evaluate the services provided under this contract primarily by
quarterly workplan progress reports. The COUNTY may also conduct on-site
monitoring of services. These site visits usually include on-site monitoring of
client case files, client/parent/staff interviews, and review of program and
agency policies, procedures, and files. COUNTY shall give written notification
of problem areas related to performance under this contract, including
requirements and time lines of corrective action.
The AGENCY will gather data necessary to complete quarterly workplan
performance and budget, and any other reports required by the COUNTY.
The AGENCY will provide the client confidentiality releases necessary to
facilitate annual site visits by the COUNTY. Site visit activities include, but are
not limited to, review of client case files, program personnel policies, and
program services procedures.
13
INTERGOVERNMENTALAGREEMENT
At any time during normal business hours and as often as the COUNTY, or
other appropriate state or federal representatives may deem necessary, the
AGENCY shall make available to the COUNTY for examination all its records
with respect to matters covered by this contract for the purpose of making
surveys, audits, examinations, excerpts and transcripts.
Should any records not meet the min4num standards of grant administration of
the COUNTY, the COUNTY reserves the right to withhold any or all of its
funding to AGENCY until such time as the standards are met. The COUNTY
may require AGENCY to use any or all of the COUNTY's accounting and
administrative procedures used in planning, controlling, monitoring and reporting
all fiscal matters relating to this contract.
The COUNTY reserves the right to dispatch auditors of its choosing to any site
where any phase of the project is being conducted or controlled in any way. If
any audit or examination determines the AGENCY has expended funds which
are questionable or disallowed, the AGENCY shall be given the opportunity to
justify questioned and disallowed expenditures prior to the COUNTY's final
determination. Any disallowed costs resulting from the final determination shall
be remitted to COUNTY from AGENCY's non COUNTY -administered funds,
payable by check within 30 days of final determination.
6. AUDIT
AGENCY shall have an annual audit performed of projects funded by this
agreement unless specifically waived in writing by COUNTY. Audits shall be
performed by an independent certified accountant in accordance with GAO
Audit Standards, OMB Circulars (A-133 and A-110 for non -profits, A-128 for
local government agencies), and generally accepted auditing standards. Audit
schedules shall clearly show statement of COUNTY -funded assets, liabilities,
fund balance, revenues, and expenditures separately from non COUNTY -
funded assets, liabilities, fund balance, revenues and expenditures.
Auditor shall be selected competitively and AGENCY should contract with
auditor to assure proper scope, reports and timelines are maintained.
Audits are not required for cost reimbursement contracts under $25.000.
Audits are due 120 days after the end of the contract period.
14
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
7. CAPITAL PURCHASES
Capital purchases through children and youth services grants are subject to
Oregon Administrative Rule 436-010-0036 which indicates capital purchases to
be the property of the COUNTY unless the COUNTY determines otherwise.
Capital purchases through children and families services grants are defined
according to State of Oregon purchasing rules; initial value of more than $5,000.
15
EXHIBIT 3
BUDGET
1. AGENCY shall submit for COUNTY approval a budget indicating the
amount of COUNTY funds allocated for project pei :•rmance as described in
the scope of services. Budget shall be in sufficient .retail to provide a sound
basis for the COUNTY to effectively monitor compliance with the contract.
Any allocations of budgeted costs not directly allocable to the project shall
be made in accordance with OMB Circular A-87, A-122 and A-133, and
shall be properly documented by budget attachments.
2. Program income defined as amounts generated by the use of COUNTY
funds shall be used to expand the program. AGENCY shall keep records to
accurately record and report the use of program income.
3. AGENCY and the COUNTY shall administer budget adjustments and
balances through the following processes:
ADJUSTMENTS
AGENCY shall not make minor or major budget adjustments without prior
written approval of the COUNTY.
Major budget adjustments are defined as:
those changes that move funds between the major budget categories
of Personai Services, Materiais and Services, Capitai Outiay or
Equipment, or
those changes that exceed 10% within a major budget category.
Minor budget adjustments are those changes where less than 10% of the
funds within a budget category (Personal Services, Materials and Services,
Capital Outlay or Equipment) are moved between expenditure line items.
The COUNTY, working through the Commission on Children & Families and
staff of the Children, Youth & Families Division, will work with the AGENCY
to manage budget adjustments.
BALANCES
The AGENCY is to forecast any expected grant balance and notify the
Children, Youth & Families Division by April 30 of each fiscal year. See also
Payment Procedures in Exhibit 2.
4. Line item budget (COUNTY provided form attached).
16
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Exhibit 3
Diversion Panel Budaet
BUDGET
Personnel (List salary, FTE & Fringe costs for each position)
Total Personnel Svcs
Total Administration
0.25 FTE Diversion Panel Coordinator
TOTAL PROGRAM COST
Grant Funds Matching Tota!
Funds, If any
$24,990
Additional (please specify)
Total Grant Costs $24,990
17
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Brant Williams
Economic & Capital Development Director
41. i. �/
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
SUBJECT: Additional Appointment to Foothills District Framework Plan Oversight Committee
DATE: August 30, 2010
ACTION
Adopt Resolution 10-56, appointing an additional member to the Foothills District Framework Plan
Oversight Committee.
DISCUSSION
On August 3, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution 10-48, establishing an Oversight Committee for the
Foothills District Framework Plan. At this time staff would like to recommend that John Stirek be added to
the committee as a citizen member at -large. Mr. Stirek joins fellow citizen member Ralph Tahran, Mayor
Jack Hoffman, City Councilor Bill Tierney, and City Manager Alex McIntyre on the Oversight Committee.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council adopt Resolution 10-56.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution 10-56
City Manager
RESOLUTION 10-56
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING AN ADDITIONAL MEMBER
TO THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR THE FOOTHILLS DISTRICT FRAMEWORK PLAN
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2010 the City Council adopted Resolution 10-48 establishing an
Oversight Committee for the Foothills District Framework Plan; and
WHEREAS, one citizen member at -large position was not appointed;
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL:
Section 1. In addition to those members previously appointed pursuant to Resolution 10-48,
the following member is hereby appointed to the Foothills District Framework Plan Oversight
Committee:
John Stirek Citizen member at -large
Approved and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on 7th day of September 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APP OVED AS TO F M:
David D. Powell
City Attorney
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
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
Ly/ it
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
SUBJECT: Resolution 10-57 Regarding Oversight of Lake Oswego School District's Use of Proceeds
from the Grow and Gather Dinner
DATE: August 31, 2010
ACTION
Adopt resolution 10-57 regarding City oversight of the Lake Oswego School District's use of net proceeds
from the Grow and Gather Dinner for sustainability education.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
On August 28, 2010 Lake Oswego celebrated its centennial with the Grow and Gather dinner at Luscher
Farm. Net proceeds from the Centennial Grow and Gather dinner have been designated for contribution to
the Lake Oswego School District to enhance and integrate sustainability into the classroom based on a
recommendation from the City of Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB has
recommended that the City ask the District provide a proposal for how it intends to use the funds once the
amount has been established and prior to distribution of the funds to the District. The SAB has also
recommended that the City request from the District a brief report on the accomplishments made as a result
of the funds, including a budget summary.
DISCUSSION
The SAB would like to assist the District by reviewing their proposal and providing input to most effectively
and efficiently use the funds to integrate sustainability education into the classroom. This may mean
building on a successful District program or providing continuing education for teachers in the field of
sustainability, among other options. The SAB has also suggested the District provide a final report to the
City on how the funds were used to better understand the effectiveness of the strategy selected. The
estimated amount of funds raised from the Grow and Gather dinner will be known after receipt of all
tn
invoices, likely during the week of September 6
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve Resolution 10-57.
ATTACH M E NTS
1. Resolution 10-57
City Manager
RESOLUTION 10-57
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO REGARDING OVERSIGHT
OF THE LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT'S USE OF PROCEEDS FROM THE GROW AND GATHER
DINNER FOR SUSTAINABILITY EDUCATION
WHEREAS, the net proceeds from the City of Lake Oswego Centennial Grow and Gather dinner
have been designated for contribution to the Lake Oswego School District to enhance and
integrate sustainability into the classroom based on a recommendation from the City of Lake
Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, the mission of the Sustainability Advisory Board is to promote the sustainability of the
community as a whole, considering public and private actors and their effects on ecological,
economic, and community systems; and
WHERAS, the duties of the Sustainability Advisory Board are to: 1) advise and assist the City
Council in efforts to make City operations more sustainable; 2) assist in the development of
plans and policies to enhance the sustainability of the city as a whole; 3) educate and support
other Lake Oswego organizations to become more sustainable; and 4) educate and engage the
public in efforts to make the community of Lake Oswego, including residents, businesses, and
institutions, more sustainable; and
WHEREAS, the Sustainability Advisory Board can serve as a resource to the School District and has
offered to meet to discuss how to best optimize use of the funds and if a permanent fund should
be established.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1. The net proceeds from the City of Lake Oswego Centennial Grow and Gather dinner
shall be distributed to the Lake Oswego School District on the following conditions:
a. The proceeds will be used by the School District to enhance and integrate
sustainability education into the classroom;
b. Prior to distribution of the proceeds, the School District will provide its proposal
for use of the proceeds to the Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board for the
Board's review and approval; and
C. Following use of the proceeds, the School District will provide the City with a
budget summary of how the proceeds were spent, together with a brief report on the
accomplishments resulting from the use of the funds.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on
the day of 20_.
Resolution 10-57
Page 1 of 2
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO.FORM:
�A d
David Powell, City Attorney
Resolution 10-57
Page 2 of 2
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Approval of Meeting Minutes
DATE: August 30, 2010
ACTION
Approve minutes as written.
ATTACHMENTS
• March 30, 2010, special meeting
• April 13, 2010, special meeting
• April 13, 2010, regular meeting
• April 20, 2010, regular meeting
• May 17, 2010, special meeting
�'/ 2,
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
4.2.1
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
March 30, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. on March
30, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson (6:39), Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff,
Tierney, and Jordan.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Christine Kirk, Public Affairs Manager; Guy Graham, Public
Works Director/City Engineer; Anthony Hooper, Management Analyst; Erica
Rooney, Assistant City Engineer; Denny Egner, Assistant Planning Manager
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Federal Legislative Update
Mayor Hoffman explained that they were using Skype to speak with Chris Giglio, Capital Edge,
in Washington, D.C. Ms. Kirk indicated that this was the staff quarterly update on the lobbying
work done by Capital Edge at the federal level on behalf of the City. She spoke of the excellent
working relationship that City staff had with Capital Edge.
Mr. Giglio commented that, following Capital Edge's visit to Lake Oswego last November, they
have worked with staff to identify federal funding opportunities from which the City could benefit.
He described the Congressional system of `earmarking' funds for specific projects, which Congress
has scaled back in recent years. He indicated that they found two opportunities within the
Congressional earmarks, for which they have submitted request forms to the Lake Oswego
congressional delegation. These were $300,000 for Foothills planning from HUD and $550,000 for
wastewater line rehabilitation from EPA.
He indicated that the process was now at the point of the congressional delegations deciding which
of the numerous requests received from across the state to submit to the House and Senate
Appropriation Committees for consideration. He mentioned that the visits by Mayor Hoffman in
February and Councilor Tierney in March helped Capital Edge's advocacy for these projects by
making strong cases to the congressional delegation about the importance of these two projects
and how they fit within the larger goals of the community.
He reported that Rep. Schrader has made requests to the House Appropriations Committee for
both projects, while Senators Wyden and Merkley have made requests to the Senate
Appropriations Committee for the wastewater project. However, today was the deadline for Senate
submissions for the HUD budget, and they did not yet know whether the Oregon Senators made
this request.
He indicated that they expected to know in June or July whether the House budget bills included
the Lake Oswego projects. However, the Senate had a slower process with results expected in the
fall. He mentioned that many observers did not expect the final 2011 budget (hammered out in
Conference committee) completed until after the fall election.
He discussed the other issues on which Capital Edge has been working with the City. These
included convincing Congress that local governments would be a good vehicle for managing the
funding in the pending Jobs bill, identifying competitive grant opportunities, and providing staff
support for City officials visiting Washington, D.C.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 18
March 30, 2010
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Councilor Tierney asked what the Council could do in terms of helping the lobbying effort on the
earmarked requests. Mr. Giglio suggested making contact with the congressional delegation
when they were in town and emphasizing the importance of these two projects with the local staff.
Councilor Jordan expressed her appreciation for Capital Edge's work on these projects and on
transportation issues. She asked Mr. Giglio to keep in contact with Ms. Kirk regarding
opportunities for federal funding for the arts, citing Lake Oswego's strong local arts program. Mr.
Giglio mentioned competitive funding for local arts programs from the National Endowment for the
Arts, some arts funding included in the stimulus bill, and a little bit of money in National Park
Service programs that could potentially help local arts.
Mayor Hoffman asked Mr. Giglio to comment on the importance of the City keeping in contact with
the local congressional staff. Mr. Giglio indicated that doing so was very important, as the
Senators and Representative relied heavily on their local staffs to keep them informed on local
issues, including prioritization of the projects submitted for the earmarked funds. He commented
that educating the local staff on the Lake Oswego projects could only help the cause.
Mr. Giglio indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that he and Ms. Kirk discussed the question of which
was the better strategy: keeping the requests down to a certain number or asking for everything
possible. He said that they decided that focusing on one or two City priorities would send a
message to the congressional delegation that these few projects were important, and that the City
intended to complete them. He explained that Congress liked projects that had a significant
amount of local contribution, and projects that it could finish, as opposed to projects that it could
start.
Mr. McIntyre clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the wastewater rehabilitation request was for
collector sewer lines in neighborhoods.
3.2 Electric Vehicle presentation by PGE
Councilor Tierney introduced Joe Barra, PGE Director of Customer Energy Resources. He
mentioned that he asked Mr. Barra to speak to the Council on electric vehicles and their public
policy implications for local governments.
Mr. Barra gave a PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed the history of PGE and electric vehicles
which spanned 100 years. Most recently, PGE has been working with hybrid vehicles. He
presented statistics about Oregon's population distribution, with 70% of its 3.7 million living along
the 1-5 corridor. He mentioned that PGE had a green customer base with 10% of its residential
customers paying a premium for renewable power. Oregon, as the No. 2 state in the country for
hybrid ownership per capita, had over 500 electric vehicles already. He presented photos of
current electric vehicles from Mitsubishi and Nissan.
He explained that Oregon's intergovernmental collaborative approach drew manufacturers to the
state. He mentioned the Governor's Executive Order for Alternative Fuels and the Oregon Way
Advisory Group as helping with this collaborative approach. He indicated that the urban growth
boundary (UGB) and the compact urban form also helped because these electric vehicles initially
had a range of around 100 miles (Portland was approximately 40 miles by 35 miles with most
round trips around 40 miles). He cited local governments' commitment to sustainability and the
residential green customer base as other attractive factors. He mentioned that four electric vehicle
manufacturers have already started up in the state, and as well as charging station manufacturers
looking to locate in Oregon.
He recounted how the Urban Sustainability Conference in Portland in July 2008, to which Toyota
brought its plug-in hybrid and PGE its charging stations, led to a memo of understanding with
Nissan to introduce its Leaf hybrid in Portland as the lead market, and to another memo of
understanding with Mitsubishi. He mentioned that Oregon was one of the five markets selected by
E -Tech for its $100 million grant program for charging stations. He indicated that E -Tech intended
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 18
March 30, 2010
to invest $20 million in installing 2,000 charging stations in Oregon, half in homes, and half in
public places.
He observed that this program would make things happen much more quickly than PGE had
anticipated. He indicated that E -Tech would begin installation of the charging stations in the third
quarter of this year. He noted Nissan's intention to introduce its Leaf this December, and the
competition from Mitsubishi and Daimler. He spoke of Navistar's panel truck that PGE expected to
put into service soon, and of Smith's light duty cherry picker that PGE intended to use for lamp
work. He speculated that Toyota would likely enter the market following the introduction of the
Nissan Leaf. He mentioned PGE talks with General Motors and Ford about their hybrid vehicles.
He explained that PGE was working to bring electric vehicles into the market in response to
customer needs. Therefore, the company made sure that it was involved in the planning and
getting the work done right.
He discussed charging stations as a natural fit to PGE's core business. He indicated that, given
the expected rapid expansion, PGE was looking into owning Level 3 charging stations in the public
right-of-ways, in addition to those it already owned on its own property. He explained that it took
48 hours for a full charge at a Level 2 station (240v) and half an hour for an 80% charge at a Level
3 station (480v). He presented a map showing the locations of their 20 charging stations.
He mentioned the Oregon vision of establishing Oregon (particularly the Portland area) as a launch
site for test e -vehicles and as the lead markets. He discussed getting the infrastructure in place
before the vehicles arrived. He reported that PGE was working closely with E -Tech on where to
locate the charging stations coming under its $100 million federal grant. He commented that
Oregon had good data on vehicle usage, which would give them a leg up in putting stations in the
right places.
He indicated that PGE was talking to customers about fleets and helping manufacturers
understand the potential for fleet purchases. He noted the educational efforts underway with 0 -
Track and PSU.
Mr. Barra finished his presentation. He indicated that the conversation at PGE currently was what
its role would be in moving forward. He mentioned their desire to avoid the lengthy time that it took
to get charging stations in place in New Jersey after owners purchased e -vehicles. He noted that
Nissan intended to pre-screen potential purchasers to make sure that they had a reasonable
location for a charging station. He speculated that households with attached garages would
purchase e -vehicles as a second car, but they would quickly switch over to the e -car as the primary
vehicle.
He reported that PGE was also talking with E -Tech about coordinating the deployment of the
charging stations. He indicated that one would be in every purchaser's home, where 80% to 90%
of the charging would occur. He speculated that drivers would initially use the public charging
stations lightly. The stations would function primarily as a safety net and assurance that customers
could get a charge if necessary. He commented that, since most public stations would be Level 2
(taking four hours), they intended to locate them near locations where people typically parked for
four hours, such as movie theaters, malls, and park and rides.
He discussed locating Level 3 charging stations in between Seattle and Portland or Eugene and
Portland as a way to extend e -vehicle usage. He mentioned talking with British Columbia about
creating a corridor up and down the northwest to accommodate e -vehicles.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Mr. Barra confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that Lake Oswego's current charging station was
110v only but its wiring allowed an upgrade to 220v. He mentioned that earlier this year, the
Society of Automotive Engineers standardized the Level 2 charging plug (220v/240v). He
indicated that, while he thought it unlikely that PGE would charge a fee to use the public stations in
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 18
March 30, 2010
the immediate future, he did think that, in the long term, charging stations would charge a credit
card for the session length.
He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that a Level 1 charger (110v) in a home would take a full day
for a full charge; a Level 2 charger would take three to six hours. He confirmed that e -vehicle
owners would need to add a 240v line to their garages for the more practical Level 2 charger,
although all chargers would be equipped with 110v for emergencies. He described how an e -
vehicle owner could get a Level 2 charger installed inexpensively with tax credits or free if he/she
participated in E-Tech's data collection program.
He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that one company has looked into a charger sharing the
dryer circuit on an alternating basis, but it would require a panel upgrade. He confirmed that an e -
vehicle owner had to have a charger in his/her garage, and not just a 240v outlet. He mentioned
that the Nissan car would be able to log all the data and that the car owner could program a charge
at will. He explained that, from PGE's perspective, it was important that owners charged their
vehicles at night during off-peak usage (when the system had plenty of capacity) in order to avoid
straining the system during peak usage.
Mayor Hoffman pointed out that, given that PGE power came approximately 40% from coal and
use of electricity still contributed to greenhouse emissions. He asked how PGE matched the
electric vehicle with green power. Mr. Barra expressed PGE's appreciation for Lake Oswego's
support of its green power program. He mentioned that the charging station outside used
renewable power. He explained that PGE's system mix was 35/40% coal, 35/40% natural gas,
and 20/25% hydro. He indicated their expectation to move away from coal in the future, noting the
proposal to phase out the coal plant by 2020.
Mr. Barra observed that e -vehicles with their high-capacity batteries provided an opportunity to
store the large amounts of electricity generated by the wind at night. He speculated that, in 10
years, the batteries might become stout enough to feed electricity back into the system to get the
grid through a rough spot. He described e -vehicles as complementing the system well and
working with renewable energy, which could be intermittent.
He discussed their exploration of using e -vehicle batteries, which would last for five to ten years
and still have 80% of their potential left, as second life batteries stored in the garage and available
as a backup system for a house and storage for the utility for use in taking load off the line.
Councilor Jordan asked how PGE would plan a grid pattern to put charging stations in the right
locations in Foothills and other redevelopment areas. She asked whether PGE would have
charging stations that could charge multiple cars in a parking garage. Mr. Barra indicated that
currently charging stations could handle only two cars, but they could install them in series with a
smart head unit. He said that PGE would love to work with City on a plan for mixed-use
development.
Mr. Barra noted that many of PGE's greener customers lived in areas in Portland without suitable
locations for an in-home charger. PGE would have to work with cities in locating charging stations
in public places. He observed that it was cheaper to install the appropriate electrical connections
in a parking garage at the time of construction as opposed to installing them after the fact. He
indicated to Councilor Tierney that he did not think that Level 3 charging stations would ever be
located in homes.
Councilor Tierney asked if there were any zoning issues with regards to locating these charging
stations in the public right-of-way. Mr. Barra speculated that PGE would handle charging stations
in the public right-of-way similarly to the three options used with streetlights: PGE owned,
maintained, and provided electricity to streetlights, PGE maintained and provided electricity, or
PGE provided electricity. He noted that PGE was already in the right-of-way and that
municipalities were unlikely to want to see a mix of manufacturers in the public right-of-way.
Mr. Barra confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that nighttime electricity was more likely to be wind -
generated electricity, as there was more wind at night than there was during the day. He indicated
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 18
March 30, 2010
that he could not say that night electricity was greener than day electricity because the coal plant
ran flat, and the percentage of power used skewed more towards the coal plant.
He indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that day charging was more of a safety net. He recounted an
example from Tokyo. It was not until the city put some charging stations outside of the downtown
loop that people began to drive their e -vehicles outside the loop. However, the people did not use
those charging stations; all that mattered was that the charging stations were available, should
they get stuck. He commented that the stimulus money allowed this capital investment during the
initial period of light usage; once there were sufficient e -vehicles on the road, these more distant
charging stations would see more use.
He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that he would be happy to inform the City when e -vehicles
were in town for viewing by the public.
3.3 Community Attitudes Survey 2010
Ms. Kirk asked the Council for feedback on the survey, as revised per earlier Council feedback.
Martha DeLong, Campbell DeLong Resources, reviewed the proposed timeline for the survey.
She mentioned starting with a pre-test early next week, followed by the phone interviews. She
indicated their desire to be out of data collection by April 18 in order to avoid calling in conjunction
with the upcoming primary election. She spoke of a report to Council by mid to late May.
Councilor Johnson commented that she thought that the changes looked good, but she had
another question that she would like to add. She observed that, while the Council has discussed
setting as a priority attracting families and young professionals to Lake Oswego, it has never
established that doing so was a priority for the community. She indicated that she thought putting
"The City should attract families and young professionals to move to Lake Oswego" on the survey
made more sense than asking the question through the Open City Hall.
Councilor Jordan questioned what kind of information the Council would gain from that question
without follow-up questions, since it sounded like a money issue. Councilor Johnson indicated
that she saw all the questions on the survey as resource or money questions. She argued that the
Council needed a gauge on whether this was important to the people or not before it discussed
methods for achieving it. Councilor Hennagin expressed his preference for `young individuals'
over `young professionals.' Mayor Hoffman indicated that he was comfortable with `young
families.'
Ms. DeLong indicated to Councilor Tierney that this was the eighth Lake Oswego survey,
conducted roughly every two years. She confirmed that they tracked trends over time by asking
many of the same questions each time, such as overall satisfaction with local government.
Mr. McIntyre wondered whether the survey respondents would be aware of the fact that Lake
Oswego was an aging community, and that perhaps the City should be doing something to try to
balance that demographic. Councilor Johnson confirmed that this was an awareness question.
Ms. DeLong pointed out that `are you aware that the community is aging' was a leading question.
Ms. Kirk asked if Councilor Johnson wanted to find out if there was an importance in having
younger families and individuals in Lake Oswego or if the City should be doing something about it.
Councilor Johnson reiterated that all the survey questions were City resource questions.
Councilor Jordan concurred,
Councilor Jordan pointed out that the questions were also factors over which the City had some
control. She noted that the City did not control the cost of housing or many factors that might
attract young families. She held that the City could only control how it advertised itself in promoting
attractive factors, such as the schools, safety, and recreational activities. She commented that she
did not think that this kind of survey got into the resource questions of housing stock, etc.
Mayor Hoffman argued that governments, by regulating where people lived, also regulated how
expensive houses and land were. He described it as directly proportional and related to zoning. A
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 18
March 30, 2010
city could zone for lower priced housing, such as cluster housing, or higher priced housing, such as
the great house.
Councilor Johnson observed that there were many ways that the City could attract young people
that did not include housing, such as a dynamic downtown or jobs nearby. She contended that
inter -related factors, as opposed to a single factor like lower housing prices, would attract young
people. She spoke of setting a goal of attracting young people.
Councilor Moncrieff indicated that she understood Councilor Johnson's comments because she
too wanted Lake Oswego to be an attractive community for young professionals and families. She
pointed out that the rating services question on p.4 included senior services and activities but not
schools, nightlife, a vibrant business/retail district, or other elements that would attract young
professionals and young families.
The Council agreed on the wording of `The City should look for ways to attract young individuals
and families to move to Lake Oswego.'
Councilor Tierney indicated to Councilor Olson that he was okay with the wording on Question 9
#3, on page 6.
Ms. DeLong indicated to Councilor Olson that they included trend information in the survey
report.
Ms. DeLong mentioned talking with the Fire Chief and deciding to change the wording from `fire
services' to `fire and rescue services.'
3.4 Review of Capital Improvement Plan
Mr. Graham indicated to Mayor Hoffman that he could supplement his Clackamas River memo
about the low flows when the new data came in about the new snow pack.
Mr. Graham noted that this was the second annual update of the capital improvement plan (CIP)
coordinated by the Public Works Department. He reviewed the update process with a public open
house and a Planning Commission discussion and public hearing. He reported that the Planning
Commission found the CIP in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the
Commission had some comments primarily related to formatting and visual layout suggestions.
He indicated that the Planning Commission also asked for clarification on projects shown in
multiple areas, and that the document include the stimulus fund projects. He mentioned that staff
would not include the Royce Way and McNary Parkway road project, as staff would complete that
by June 30. He clarified that the stimulus funds did not come directly to the City; those funds were
received and disbursed by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).
He explained that the staff would complete the blank pages in the draft document for the final
version, once the Budget Committee has solidified the funding. He mentioned that they were
waiting to print the final version until then in order to save on staff and printing costs. He reviewed
the changes in this year's CIP from last year's CIP (p.6). He gave special recognition to Erica
Rooney, Nancy Flye, Donna Broadhurst, and Melissa Olsen for their work on the CIP.
He commented that staff would continue to refine the CIP over time with the goal of providing a
document of enhanced clarity, transparency, and utility for the Council to use in its decision-making
process regarding future capital improvement projects. He observed that the CIP would also help
the ratepayers and taxpayers better understand how capital investment decisions impacted the
types and levels of City services provided.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Councilor Tierney commented that the CIP project evaluation criteria on p.16 were very thorough.
He asked if staff could show the scoring system used correlating the criteria to each project. Mr.
Graham indicated that staff was developing such a scoring system and hoped to bring it to Council
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 18
March 30, 2010
in the fall for input on it. Councilor Moncrieff asked to include the sustainability lens in a scoring
system (CIP, p.17-18). Mayor Hoffman remarked that this was something that a Council
subcommittee could work with staff on developing.
Councilor Tierney asked why the tennis facility and golf course were not on the Parks &
Recreation list on p. 24. Mr. Graham indicated that he would check with Ms. Gilmer and report
back.
Mr. Graham indicated to Councilor Tierney that the water main rehabilitation program (p.120)
was an ongoing program in which the City annually rehabilitated old water lines in the street (water
distribution system) that were failing or wearing out. Ms. Rooney clarified that the number of
rehabilitation projects done each year (site-specific projects pulled out of the Water Master Plan)
would generally stay the same. Mr. Graham commented that the condition assessments would
help staff to determine when to do which pipes and to link the CIP funding for infrastructure
replacements to the City's financial rate models in order to avoid future `rate shocks.'
Councilor Tierney commented that the introductory narrative to the Surface Water Management
section (p.137) failed to mention that the Council adopted a surface water management plan
(Clean Streams Plan) this year. Ms. Rooney agreed that staff needed to update the section. She
indicated that staff did include projects from the Clean Streams Plan in the CIP. Councilor
Tierney asked that staff use the same nomenclature and titles in the CIP that they used in the
Clean Streams Plan, as he could not correlate the capital items of the two plans.
Councilor Tierney commented that the funding for utility projects seemed to be in good shape but
the funding for general fund projects was not. The CIP included projects with costs 10 plus times
the amount of funding available. He questioned whether including these projects relayed
expectations to the public that the City could not meet. He noted in particular the $3.8 million worth
of street maintenance projects and the doubling of the fee to $240,000.
Mr. McIntyre pointed out that the City needed to know what the deficiencies were in facilities
before it could address them. He described the CIP as a reminder to himself as the City Manager
and the Council as policy makers that they needed to figure out what to do about it. He
commented that in recent years the City has not been investing adequately in its public buildings
for their upkeep. He acknowledged that much of that had to do with competing interests for limited
funds. He remarked that it was his job to provide the Council with a recommendation on how to
shift more resources towards facilities' upkeep.
Mr. McIntyre clarified to Councilor Olson that staff requested funding last spring for the Westlake
Park picnic shelter, and not the East Waluga Park picnic shelter (p.28).
Councilor Olson asked why there was only $200,000 in the annual pavement preservation
program when the Council just increased the fee for a $1.6 million budget next year (p.40). Mr.
McIntyre explained that staff did not include the increased budget because the CIP document
came out before Council decided to increase the fee, and it would have been presumptuous to give
a dollar figure. He said that the budget would reflect the higher investment in the streets resulting
from the increased street maintenance fee. He indicated that they were shifting $400,000 from
projects that the City would not be doing to asphalt for the streets. He mentioned that the Street
Fund has become a catch all to pay for many other types of services; staff was re -working the
mechanics of the fund in order to focus it more on the kinds of street utility work expected by the
Council.
Councilor Olson asked where the other $1 million was of the $1.2 million street maintenance fee
funds prior to the increase. She recalled staff telling her that the gas tax money and DMV fees
went to beautification and other street projects. Mr. McIntyre confirmed that the money went for
other projects and not for paving.
Ms. Rooney clarified to Councilor Olson that the Lake Oswego Transit Center Roadway
Rehabilitation project received funding from both LORA and the City. She explained that LORA
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 18
March 30, 2010
only paid for new facilities or upgrades, and not for the rehabilitation or maintenance of existing
facilities.
Mr. McIntyre confirmed to Councilor Olson that the Maintenance facility discussion (p.204)
should reflect the fact that the Maintenance facility was a Council goal.
Councilor Olson noted that there were a series of editing errors from p. 209 on. She indicated
that she would go over them with Ms. Rooney.
Mr. McIntyre clarified to Councilor Olson that the transit project summary (p.115) was a
placeholder to give the Council a sense of the magnitude of the investment. He indicated that he
did not believe that TriMet's repayment of the Lake Oswego loan would reduce the dollar amount
listed for the City's contribution to the project.
Councilor Jordan concurred with Councilor Tierney that the document did not detail the criteria
and prioritization methodology that staff used in scheduling the projects for each year. Mr.
Graham reiterated his intent to work with the Finance Department to develop the financial models
that would help clarify that process.
Councilor Jordan argued that if taking City projects through the hoops of the City's development
review process added to the cost of those projects, then the City was not doing its citizens justice.
Mr. McIntyre commented that staff was finding out firsthand how challenging the City's process
has been for citizens. He indicated that the application process represented one-third of the cost
of the original capital investment. He said that this was why staff was trying to streamline the
process while still keeping it a quality process.
Councilor Olson asked if the Boards, such as TAB (Transportation Advisory Board) or PRAB
(Parks & Recreation Advisory Board), provided input on prioritizing projects. Mr. Graham
mentioned that PRAB looked at the parks but he did not know what level of involvement TAB had.
He indicated that Mr. Hooper would coordinate the public engagement effort to obtain community
input in an efficient manner that kept the process moving forward. He encouraged the Council to
continue to provide feedback on the CIP document as it evolved. Councilor Olson commented
that she would appreciate input from TAB regarding future pathway and roadway expenditures.
Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Jordan about the need to streamline the City's
process. She agreed that whatever cost the City more money cost the citizens more money
because the City was the taxpayers. She encouraged staff to get the ranking system up and
running, as an empirically -based ranking system would be helpful in handling emotional pleas from
citizens during the budget process. She commented that it would be helpful for citizens to see
where their project requests fit into the priorities of the overall picture.
She suggested sharing the list with Ms. Kirk and the Washington, D.C., lobbyists in case there was
anything in the five-year plan for which the City could seek appropriations and potentially need
matching funds. She described the CIP as a helpful tool, especially in seeing what was coming
down the road.
Ms. Rooney indicated to Councilor Tierney that staff would provide the Council with a final CIP
document following the budget process but before the budget adoption.
Councilor Tierney remarked that they needed to include the builders, developers, and citizens in
addition to the City when discussing the City's development review process and the added burden
it could put on a project.
Councilor Olson asked to put the e-mail received today regarding the Lakeridge tennis courts in
the hopper for consideration. Councilor Moncrieff commented that part of the reason for the
criteria and ranking methodology was to look at various citizen requests, such as the dog park, and
evaluate their priority in terms of all the needs citywide.
Mayor Hoffman discussed his frustration with CIP projects as placeholders, which the City pushed
from year to year and never built. He agreed with Councilor Olson that they needed more
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 18
March 30, 2010
involvement from the Boards and Commissions because these projects would never be funded.
He commented that he did not know what the answer was but he thought that there had to be a
better way of doing it.
He spoke to finding some mechanism to get the CIP document out to the community with the
explanation that this document was how the City identified the issues. The question then before
the community was, if the citizens agreed with the project list, were they willing to tax themselves to
build the projects. He reiterated that he did not know where they would get the money, since Parks
& Rec and pathways used general fund money.
Mr. Graham pointed out that, in addition to building costs, a project had operations/ maintenance
and replacement/renewal costs. He reiterated that staff's goal was to provide the Council with the
best tools possible to make the tough decisions and to explain to its constituents why the City
chose one project over another.
Councilor Olson commented that the CIP would be more helpful once staff fully implemented the
City's ranking system and included the selection criteria in the document. Mayor Hoffman
observed that either staff or the Boards and Commissions could develop a ranking system. He
spoke of having a conversation about whether any infrastructure projects rose to the level of
justifying a utility rate increase. Otherwise, the projects were just placeholders.
Councilor Tierney pointed out that the general fund items were the placeholders, as opposed to
the utility fund projects. He commented that the utility funds did a reasonable job of re -investing
the funds. Mayor Hoffman remarked that an interesting community discussion would be whether
the community wanted to fund those general fund projects in the next five to ten years, and how to
do it. Councilor Olson suggested holding that conversation with the Budget Committee at some
point in time.
Councilor Hennagin spoke in support of Councilor Moncrieff's suggestion to have the lobbyists
look at the CIP to see if there were any projects suitable for federal programs.
Councilor Jordan discussed LIDs (local improvement districts) as possible funding mechanisms
for neighborhood pathways. Mayor Hoffman agreed with discussing different funding options for
pathways.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:23 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at
8:30 p.m.
3.5 Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan
Mayor Hoffman explained that he wanted the Council to have a good understanding of the basics
of the Comprehensive Plan, to stay informed with respect to the Comprehensive Plan work, and to
stay ahead of the other groups once staff's public engagement process started.
• Land Use Planning and Regulations in Oregon
Mayor Hoffman stated that property law was about human relationships; its basis was British
property law going back to the Magna Carta. Zoning law began in the United States in 1919 with
numerous regulatory takings and court cases from the 1930s through the 1990s. He explained
that Senate Bill 100 (SB100) was the genesis of Oregon land use planning. The legislature passed
it in March 1973 at the behest of Hector McPherson, the father of land use planning, who was
concerned about urban sprawl.
He indicated that SB100 set out the hierarchical structure of land use planning, beginning with
goals, followed by plans, regulations, and actions in subordinate order. The 19 standards set by
the legislature in the 1970s became the statewide goals, which all comprehensive plans had to
include per state statute. Comprehensive plans were the basis of all local regulations.
He discussed the major changes that came with ORS Chapter 197, the driver behind all local
statutes. The State required all cities and counties in Oregon to develop a Comprehensive Plan
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 18
March 30, 2010
and submit it to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for approval. Once
approved (called the acknowledgment), all local community regulations had to match that
community's Comprehensive Plan. Any regulatory changes to the Comprehensive Plan required a
post -acknowledgment plan amendment from LCDC, which verified the amendment's consistency
with the statewide goals.
He explained that an action was making a decision on a given issue. The State required that all
actions comply with the Comprehensive Plan. He mentioned that the State required jurisdictions to
provide a 45 -day comment period on any amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, as
amendments meant changing the land use constitution of the city.
He discussed the periodic review process, which the State required each jurisdiction to go through
every five to ten years in order to keep its Comprehensive Plan reflective of the changing city.
LCDC reviewed the revised Comprehensive Plan. He mentioned that if the State developed a new
rule, such as the Transportation Planning Rule, then the jurisdictions had to amend their
Comprehensive Plans to follow that rule in order to maintain consistency with the statewide goals.
He reviewed the elements of periodic review, including reviewing the plans and ordinances,
actively involving the citizens, developing a work plan, and assessing the community to identify any
needed changes to the Plan. He mentioned the 45 -day notice to DLCD (Department of Land
Conservation and Development).
He reviewed the 19 statewide goals, mentioning the steps involved in the ones that related to Lake
Oswego. These were Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement), Goal 2 (Planning), Goal 3 (Farmland), Goal 4
(Forest Land), Goal 5 (Natural Resources), Goal 6 (Air, Water, Land), Goal 7 (Natural Hazards and
Disasters), Goal 8 (Recreation), Goal 9 (Economic Development), Goal 10 (Housing), Goal 11
(Public Service and Facilities), Goal 12 (Transportation), Goal 13 (Energy), Goal 14 (Urbanization),
and Goal 15 (Willamette River).
He noted that Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) required active citizen involvement throughout the
entire planning process. He commented that sustainability was likely to fall under Goal 13
(Energy). He described Goals 9 (Economic Development), 10 (Housing), 11 (Public Services and
Facilities), 12 (Transportation), and 14 (Urbanization) as key goals for Lake Oswego. He
mentioned the 20 year planning horizon for Goal 9 (Economic Development).
He pointed out that population and demographics drove Goal 10 (Housing) in terms of current and
future housing needs. He mentioned the Metro Housing Rule and other statutes requiring a mix of
50% attached and 50% detached houses, the use of clear and objective standards in making
decisions on housing, and an urban density of 10 units per acre.
He indicated that Goal 11 (Public Facilities) required the planning and development of facilities in a
timely, orderly, and efficient manner. He mentioned the Transportation Planning Rule in
conjunction with Goal 12 (Transportation), which required municipalities to reduce vehicle miles
traveled and to encourage alternate modes of transportation. He noted that the State legislature
mandated Metro to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by certain time frames. Goal 12 also
recognized the relationship between land use and transportation.
He explained that Goal 14 (Urbanization) required a transition between urban and rural areas and
separating rural land from urbanizable land. He mentioned that Metro based its UGB decisions on
balancing various factors, which was a different process than satisfying the criteria in local land use
decisions.
He reviewed the history of Metro from its beginnings in the 1970s as the Columbia Regional
Association of Governments (CRAG) to its 1990 charter and its birth in 1993. He explained that
State statutes set Metro's authority and purview over land use, transportation, solid waste, and any
matter of regional concern. He noted that Metro's Regional Framework Plan and Functional Plan
served as its Comprehensive Plan and statutes respectively.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 18
March 30, 2010
• Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan
Mayor Hoffman indicated that the public engagement process for the periodic review would be
similar to the one used for the 1994 Plan. He noted that the Plan updates adopted after 1994 were
all post -acknowledgement plan amendments approved by LCDC. He described the
Comprehensive Plan as the City's land use constitution.
He pointed out that the Table of Contents showed the basic architecture of the Plan. He reviewed
the history of the original 1978 Plan, as discussed in the preface (p.1). He directed the Councilors
to read the Plan introduction for a good foundation in the direction that the Plan set for the
community. He emphasized that the Plan provided policies, and not specific standards for
development. The Zoning and Development Codes provided the specific standards and
procedures. Misunderstanding this distinction led to frustration on the citizens' part.
He described Goal 1 (Citizen Involvement) as an important foundational goal. He indicated that,
during the periodic review process, the City would reach out to more of the community than the
Planning Commission and a Citizen Review Committee. He spoke of getting the word out to the
citizens that the Lake Oswego's land use system belonged to the people, and not to the City or to
the staff.
He described the Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) section as providing a good Land Use 101 text for
how land use planning worked in the City. He highlighted items, such as the requirement for
densities appropriate to the scale and character of Lake Oswego's neighborhoods Section 2.1.2)
and the summary of major issues (Section 2.1.3). He observed that, since Lake Oswego has
remained 'mostly developed' since 1994, the elements important in 1994 would be equally
important in 2010.
He commented that Goal 5 (Open Spaces, Historic, and Natural Areas) would be important when
the Council considered the Second Look Task Force Report and the information received from
Lake Oswego Stewards and other citizen groups. He noted that Section 3 (Wetlands) discussed
the 1975 and 1992 physical resources inventories. He reviewed the policy in Section 4 (Stream
Corridors) to protect, restore, and maintain stream corridors. He mentioned that he expected to
see policies for a citywide watershed council put in this section.
He referenced the policy of enacting and enforcing standards and development regulations, which
the City would have to change if it went to an all -voluntary program. He commented that if what
came out of the Second Look Task Force was different from the Comprehensive Plan policies,
then the City would have to work on those changes during periodic review.
He reviewed Section 5 (Sensitive Lands), noting the policy of the City protecting, enhancing, and
maintaining the wooded character and natural features of Lake Oswego. He pointed out the
history of the sensitive lands program (Section 5.5.2). He mentioned the policy discussion about
supplementing the Sensitive Lands Atlas (Section 5.5.3). He commented that staff had been trying
to update the Atlas per the policy. He noted the policy of no net loss (Section 5.5.4).
He mentioned that staff would add the various open space bond measures since 1990 to Section 6
(Open Spaces). He indicated that any policies emphasizing open space management would go
here, such as eliminating ivy in City open spaces. He commented that he was not certain why
Section 7 (Oswego Lake) was in the Plan. He noted the policy of exploring ways to remove the
sanitary sewer lines from Oswego Lake, which prior Councils did explore.
Mr. Egner pointed out that such items were recommended action measures, and not goals or
policies. He described recommended action measures (RAMs) as ideas put in the plan to carry out
the policies and other ideas that did not merit policy status. He confirmed to Councilor Olson that
RAMs did not carry the same weight as the policies; they were more a set of strategies to carry out
the plan than set policies that staff must follow. Mr. Powell noted the description on p. 5 of the
introduction detailing the difference between goals, policies, and RAMs.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 18
March 30, 2010
Mayor Hoffman mentioned that Section 8 (Historic Resources) included the furnace, the worker's
cottage, and the head gate. He indicated that he would put sustainability under Goal 6 (Air, Water,
and Land Resources).
He clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the Council, as an informed group of seven citizens, could
make suggestions to staff regarding the goals, policies, and RAMs in the Comprehensive Plan,
which staff would then take to the citizen Boards and Commissions.
Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Jordan that staff hoped to put a better timeframe on the RAMs
during the re -draft of the Plan as a way to indicate that these were actions that the City was serious
about carrying out. Mayor Hoffman commented that, in the conversation with staff, Boards &
Commissions, and other citizens, the Council could bring forward elements that the citizens have
mentioned, such as the quality of life indicators
Mayor Hoffman continued his review of Goal 6 (Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality). He
indicated that a serious conversation about solid waste management would begin with Goal 6,
Section 3. He explained that Goal 6, Section 4 (Sound Quality) dealt with privacy issues and
keeping the houses from being close to each other with side yard setbacks.
He discussed Goal 7 (Natural Disasters and Hazards), noting the many flood hazards listed in
Section 1. He pointed out that Section 2 (Earthquake Hazards) was cross-referenced with Goal 11
(Public Facilities). He moved on to Goal 8 (Parks & Recreation), mentioning the Parks &
Recreation Master Plan. He noted that pathways came in under both Goal 8 and Goal 12
(Transportation). He speculated that a future community goal, if the community decided that it was
serious about funding Parks & Rec capital improvements, would be to explore future bonding.
He mentioned Goal 9 (Economic Development), which included the history of the business districts
and PUDs. He noted the possibility of a change in the preference not to have a downtown with a
regional draw, given Lakeview Village and Ms. Blackstone's economic development strategy.
He discussed Goal 10 (Housing) as an important goal for the community. He noted the issues of
attainable housing, infill, and the Metro Housing Rule. He suggested that the Council discuss the
basics of Goal 10 with staff, including what did `protecting the character of existing neighborhoods'
mean to the Council. He commented that he thought it would be useful to discuss the policy of
providing for needed housing while protecting environmentally sensitive areas.
He mentioned the need to address Section 1 (Public Safety) under Goal 11 (Public Facilities &
Services). Mr. McIntyre indicated to the Mayor that he thought the municipal wastewater
treatment plant (abandoned in 1962) had been located near Foothills Park. Mayor Hoffman noted
the discussion about schools in Section 5.
He commented that Goal 12 (Transportation) along with Goal 10 (Housing) and Goal 5 (Natural
Resources) were the biggest chapters, as they related to what made Lake Oswego what it was.
He mentioned his expectation that the Metro mandate on the reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions would come under Goal 12. He speculated that Goal 13 (Energy Conservation) would
focus on sustainability, although the City would use a sustainability lens in looking at all its goals.
He discussed Goal 14 (Urbanization) and the policies about controlling urban sprawl in conjunction
with adjacent jurisdictions, and resisting efforts to expand the Urban Services Boundary (USB),
especially in Stafford. He noted the discussion about not reducing the quality of life if Lake
Oswego was required to expand its USB. He spoke to discussing Section 14.7 (initiating island
annexations) in the context of the compact urban form and providing urban services.
Tom Coffee explained that the voter -approved annexation for Stafford policy was in the charter
and not an amendment in the Plan because technically annexations were legislative, and not land
use decisions. Mayor Hoffman suggested discussing whether to include voter annexation in the
Comprehensive Plan, and how voter annexation in Stafford affected land use decisions in Stafford.
Mayor Hoffman commented that the quality of life indicators (Section 14.9) were a RAM that
perhaps should become a policy or a goal.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 18
March 30, 2010
He confirmed to Councilor Olson that Section 14.5.2 did require new development in an
expanded USB to pay the full cost of extending urban services. He remarked that the
municipalities in this area and the County have consistently said that private dollars needed to
provide the public infrastructure in Stafford because the jurisdictions did not have the money to
build it. He commented that some of the reasons why he was comfortable in not joining West Linn
with respect to the Stafford challenge were voter -approved annexation and the City policy of not
paying for infrastructure. He pointed out that not wanting to impact negatively the existing Lake
Oswego neighborhoods of Palisades and McVey drove the City's position.
He recalled that the City had had to do certain things in Foothills Park in order to comply with Goal
15 (Willamette River Greenway). He mentioned the special district plans, such as the
neighborhood plans. Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that including the Palisades
Neighborhood Plan and other plans directly into the Comprehensive Plan was part of the updating
process.
Mayor Hoffman mentioned that he wanted to schedule a study session for a discussion with staff
about which issues to explore. He indicated that the City would not be doing a Hillsboro -type
visioning process but rather follow a process of inventorying the City's existing situation, analyzing
where the City would end up if it did nothing, and deciding as a community where it wanted to go.
He reviewed the proposed elements in the public engagement process this fall that he and Mr.
Egner have discussed. He spoke of having the Planning Commission attend the study session
with staff. He mentioned the Boards and Commissions and the public outreach to civic
organizations, homeowners associations, and neighborhood associations, asking what the citizens
wanted the community to look like in 2030.
• Periodic Review
Mr. Egner directed the Council to the Periodic Review Work Program document in the packet
(pp. 17-35). He said that the State had not yet approved it, but would do so upon the City's
request. The approval started the three-year clock. He mentioned staff's hope that the State
would also provide a grant at the same time to do some additional technical work.
He explained that the periodic review program required that the City do only four things: develop a
new housing needs analysis, do an economic opportunities analysis, update the Transportation
System Plan, and update the Public Facilities Plan. He pointed out that it did not require the
desperately needed general update of the Comprehensive Plan or the integration of sustainability
into the Plan. He indicated that staff would begin right away talking with the advisory boards about
establishing an overall framework for updating all the plans. He explained that staff thought of
using the 2008 vision statement (p.35) as a framework, which would provide a foundation for
updating all the different City plans.
He indicated to Councilor Olson that the first year of the three-year program involved the
background work and the framework element, the second year involved discussing the policy
alternatives for carrying forward the framework, and the third year involved the Plan adoption and
incorporating the Plan language.
Mr. Egner clarified to Councilor Tierney that staff was looking at updating the entire
Comprehensive Plan, even though the State only required updating four sections. He indicated
that there was very good material in the Plan, but the background sections were out of date, and
the language did not reflect the sustainability lens that the City was now using.
Councilor Tierney suggested that the Council discuss a policy decision on whether to concentrate
on the four sections, since that was quicker and cheaper. He questioned what prohibited the City
from dealing with sustainability just because it was not in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Egner confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the City could buy itself another year by
immediately starting the process recommended by staff to develop the structure of the work, and
then, a year from now, asking the State to approve the plan and to start the clock. He commented
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 18
March 30, 2010
that the more work that staff could complete before starting the clock, the easier the periodic
review should be.
Mayor Hoffman commented that if the Council wanted to discuss Councilor Tierney's suggestion,
then it needed to do so soon. He argued that there have been enough changes in the last 16
years to warrant a comprehensive update of the Comprehensive Plan, especially since the
sections all inter -related. Councilors Olson and Moncrieff indicated that they would like to have
that conversation.
Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that staff could provide information on the difference
in time and resource allocation for the four sections versus the whole plan. Councilor Olson
asked for input from staff on the advisability of both approaches. Mr. Egner commented that
updating the four sections comprised the bulk of the work; updating the rest of the plan would be
around one-third of a total effort. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that this was a 20 -year document
that the City would not revisit for another 10 years. Councilor Tierney argued that that did not
preclude the City from revisiting the other sections over time; it just did not have to be within the
three-year time frame.
3.6 Stafford Next Steps
Mr. McIntyre mentioned his earlier meetings with the West Linn and Tualatin City Managers
regarding the Metro designation of Stafford as urban reserves and their discussion of what were
the next steps. He noted that West Linn intended to explore legal options to change the proposed
urban designation to something else (rural or undesignated). Tualatin has expressed interest in
joining that effort, while Lake Oswego has not yet offered its opinion.
He indicated that both he and Mr. Powell considered this a major policy decision needing Council
discussion. He asked whether the Council wanted to join the West Linn effort to explore legal
opportunities to reverse Metro's apparent direction. He raised the issue of unintended
consequences. If there were opportunities to reverse the designation legally, was this action
limited only to Stafford, or did the cities upset the multi-year Metro process? He asked if the
Council wanted to invest in jointly funding a legal analysis to see if such opportunities existed.
Tom Coffee (a former Lake Oswego Planning Director now working as a consultant with West
Linn) indicated that the cities' next opportunities to object would be continuing their arguments at
the Clackamas County and Metro levels, and at the LCDC level. Only if LCDC did not uphold
those arguments would the legal action of appealing the decision at the Appeals level come into
play. He commented that if the cities wanted the option to appeal, then they had to continue to
make arguments until the final land use decision was made.
Mr. Powell confirmed that the Council did not need to make a decision about an appeal tonight.
He noted that Lake Oswego's position has been that it opposed the designation of Stafford as an
urban reserve. He indicated that there were some issues as to whether the record made before
the County and Metro when they made their IGA decision automatically became part of the record
before each body when changing their Comprehensive or Functional Plans. However, Metro
intended to put everything into the record, so Lake Oswego's arguments in opposition would likely
be included and carry through.
He stated his understanding of West Linn's intent as the city wanted to augment the arguments in
the record opposing the designation. He indicated to the Council that it was its decision on
whether to join that effort or to conclude that Lake Oswego's position was adequate to carry
through or to change its position. He explained that, in order to have standing for an appeal of the
final LCDC decision, a jurisdiction had to file an exception to the LCDC staff report and
recommendations.
Councilor Hennagin asked what arguments West Linn would make that it has not already made.
Mr. Coffee mentioned that the February 21 County staff report to the County Planning Commission
made some statements that were not consistent with the record, and that the Commission decided
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 18
March 30, 2010
not to make a recommendation on Beaver Creek. He said that West Linn planned to attend the
County Board's April 21 hearing to restate its arguments before the Planning Commission and to
point out that the County's entire record up to December 7 stood against Stafford as urban reserve.
He noted that the factors that the County cited were not met for urban reserve, yet the Commission
reversed its position on February 25.
Mr. Coffee confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the Clackamas County representative on the
CORE 4 initially voted against Stafford as urban reserve but then she changed her vote. He
clarified that everyone concluded that the 28,000 acres recommended by President Bragdon and
Councilor Hosticka was the `magic' number. However, to justify that number, they had to change
from a 40 -year projection to a 50 -year projection.
He confirmed that an additional issue was the 10,000 acres of foundation farmland in Washington
County designated as urban, to which certain interest groups intended to object. He indicated that
their objections included their argument that the population assumptions were too broad; a 40 -year
projection was fine, and therefore, the number of acres to bring in should be 10,000 acres less. If
those groups succeeded at LCDC with the argument that the region did not need to bring in the
farmland, then the justification of bringing in Stafford first because the region needed the farmland
in Washington County became arguable.
Mayor Hoffman agreed with Councilor Hennagin that the development of Stafford depended on a
private developer being able to afford to put in the infrastructure, as the cities could not afford to do
so. He pointed out that the opponents based their challenge to the inclusion of the Washington
County farmland on its status as foundation farmland. However, Stafford was conflicted land. He
speculated that LCDC, in looking at the situation from a regional perspective, would conclude that
it was better to use the conflicted land for urban purposes and to leave the foundation farmland as
rural land.
He indicated that one of the two ways to challenge Metro's decision was to challenge a specific site
based on it not meeting the factors. However, the use of "factors" as opposed to "criteria" gave
LCDC, Metro, and the Counties great discretion in terms of its decision regarding Stafford. He
discussed his reasons for not recommending that Lake Oswego join West Linn in this analysis. He
commented that West Linn was asking for a not insignificant amount of money, and that money
was tight.
He said that he did not see a downside to the designation of Stafford as urban reserve because he
did not see it becoming urban for 20 to 40 years. He pointed out that the neighboring jurisdictions
have clearly told Metro that they did not want the governance or planning of Stafford, nor would
they pay for installing the infrastructure. He remarked that unless a developer had several hundred
million dollars available, no developer would install the expensive infrastructure either.
He mentioned that Lake Oswego had voter -approved annexation for Stafford. He emphasized that
an urban reserve designation did not automatically bring the land inside the UGB. He pointed out
that, prior to bringing land inside the UGB, Metro required a concept plan for that land approved by
the County and the adjacent cities specifying who had governance. He commented that, from his
perspective, he thought Lake Oswego could be looking at North Stafford as a way to expand family
housing in Lake Oswego, as it was part of the Lake Oswego School District.
He indicated that his biggest concern was that, in 20 years, someone could build a development
that would generate traffic coming down McVey. He speculated that those cities that wanted the
land would cooperate with private developers to develop their areas before Stafford. He
mentioned that Metro would revisit urban reserve designations in 20 years anyway.
He reminded the Council that land did not come inside the UGB unless the region needed more
land for houses and urban development. He speculated that the 3,000 to 4,000 acres that Metro
would bring inside the UGB in 2010 and 2011 would be St. Mary's and other areas where the
infrastructure was already in place. He pointed out that the region revisited the UGB expansion
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 18
March 30, 2010
decision every five years. He recalled a point made for some time that, following the establishment
of the UGB in 1992/1994, 95% of all development has occurred within the existing UGB.
He mentioned an October 14, 2009, 29 -page letter from several state agencies, including DLCD,
which strongly supported Stafford as urban reserve and a 40 -year period. He commented that the
principles in the IGAs (intergovernmental agreements) signed by the counties and Metro required
buy -in from the different cities. Mr. Coffee pointed out that Title 11 of the Functional Plan allowed
Metro to add land to the UGB, the concept plan notwithstanding, because Metro could not let a
local government hold it up from moving forward with its charge. Mayor Hoffman reiterated that
he did not think that it was in the City's interest to spend money at this stage.
Mr. Coffee indicated to Councilor Olson that technically the next three stages before the County,
Metro, and DLCD did not require an attorney. He clarified that the intent at this point was to have
an attorney evaluate the legal strategies and prospects for a successful appeal before the cities
spent major money on a retainer. Mr. McIntyre reported that $5,000 total (split between the
participating jurisdictions) was the amount mentioned during the meetings.
Councilor Olson commented that she thought it was money well spent to hire an attorney to do an
analysis of their chances of success, if they did end up appealing the decision in the future. She
said that she saw no harm in continuing to testify as the process moved forward. They could make
their decision later about whether to take any legal action. She mentioned that LCDC was bound
to look at the ODOT report, which rated Stafford as the worst of all the areas in all the
transportation factors.
She pointed out that Metro's population projection figures for Lake Oswego had been 45,000 by
2010, which was not true. She recalled hearing Mayor Hoffman and Mr. McIntyre talk about
developing North Stafford with affordable housing. She noted that the water project assumed
Stafford. She indicated that, consequently, she had a hard time believing that the City did not want
Stafford and would ignore it.
Councilor Hennagin agreed with Mayor Hoffman that Stafford was unlikely to develop within the
next 30 to 40 years, unless it was around the 1-205 and Stafford Road intersection. He asked,
given that Lake Oswego's position was to oppose the urbanization of Stafford, whether
participating in augmenting the record would hurt them. He asked if they had to go to outside
counsel to do the analysis. Mr. Powell indicated that they did not have to do so, but it would be
quite an effort and benefit from in-house counsel coordinating with outside counsel. He said that if
the Council wanted him to spend his time on the analysis, he would do so.
Councilor Hennagin indicated that, while he was willing to cooperate with their neighbors in
augmenting the record, he was not inclined to go so far as the legal analysis. Mayor Hoffman
stated his understanding that West Linn was asking for $2500 to hire Jeff Condit to give the
jurisdictions an opinion on the their likelihood of prevailing, should LCDC uphold Metro's decision
regarding Stafford. He questioned whether the conversation included augmenting the record.
Mr. Coffee clarified that the issue was not whether Lake Oswego continued to participate in the
process as it moved forward. The issue was the extent to which the Council wanted to participate
in the preliminary analysis and the cost to do so. Mr. Powell concurred. He indicated that, should
an attorney be hired, he saw the next step as the attorney working to augment the record before
Metro and the County.
Mr. Powell advised the Council that, if it chose to participate, it would be best if Lake Oswego
helped defray West Linn's cost for hiring an attorney in exchange for sharing the information, as
opposed to Mr. Condit serving as Lake Oswego's attorney. That way, should the two cities take
different approaches further along in the process, Mr. Condit would not face a conflict of interest
problem. He commented that it was also best to be upfront with West Linn from the beginning that
Lake Oswego wanted to preserve the option of taking a different approach.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 18
March 30, 2010
Mayor Hoffman phrased the question as whether the Council wanted to pay West Linn $2500 now
for a look at the report or wait, let West Linn pay the entire cost, and let someone else share the
information with Lake Oswego later on.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that the Tualatin City Manager had expressed interest
in participating in the analysis but she needed direction from her Council before doing so.
Councilor Tierney indicated that he shared Councilor Hennagin's views about maintaining the
City's policy and assisting their neighbors. He commented that he too was indifferent about
whether Stafford should or should not be urban.
Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Mayor Hoffman that the City has done enough and made the
City's position clear.
Councilor Jordan wondered what an analysis of the likelihood of a challenge's success did for the
City, as neither a positive nor a negative conclusion would change the City's policy. She
commented that testifying at more meetings would not change the policy either. She described the
City as being in the position of asserting its ordinance and charter, which the Council would
continue to do.
Councilor Tierney asked what the history of Lake Oswego's prior involvement was. Mr. Coffee
referenced the 72% response in the 2000 survey in favor of the City continuing to oppose the
Metro designation of 2,000 acres in Stafford for urbanization with its appeal to the State Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA). He recalled that the courts reversed Metro's decision, leaving Metro
unable to designate urban reserves or move the UGB. Metro tried again in 2002 to take in an area
next to Wilsonville, which Wilsonville successfully appealed.
Mr. Coffee noted that SB 1011 rewrote the rules to make the factors broader and more defensible
in a legal venue. He explained that the reason why the policy makers in West Linn and Tualatin
wanted a legal analysis was the question of how far to go in expending public money to oppose
something that the citizens have indicated they oppose. He indicated that West Linn, in light of the
rewritten rules and the move of this issue from a legislative venue to a political venue, wanted to
know whether it was worth the cost of extensive legal proceedings to resist this Metro decision all
the way.
Councilor Hennagin mentioned that he preferred Metro designating the 10,000 acres of
foundation farmland in Washington County as rural reserves and leaving Stafford with its urban
reserve designation.
Mr. Coffee clarified to Councilor Johnson that he did not say that they should keep spending
money regardless but rather he said that they should spend a small amount of money to determine
whether it was worth spending any more. He commented that the analysis would give the Council
a basis for a policy decision as opposed to how the members felt about it tonight.
Councilor Johnson emphasized that the City has clearly stated its opposition to urbanizing
Stafford. She said that she preferred spending $5,000 and staff time on something else. She
argued that leaving Stafford up to the market would address many of the issues because
developing the area was cost prohibitive. She stated that it was not a priority for her to get the
information back.
Mayor Hoffman asked for a show of hands of those in favor of contributing $2500. Only one
Councilor raised a hand.
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Olson that the Council would need to discuss with staff
whether it was necessary to testify at the County hearing on April 21.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:26 p.m.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 18
March 30, 2010
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn C ristie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON September 7, 2010
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 18
March 30, 2010
I/. 2 2_1
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MINUTES
April 13, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. on April
13, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin (5:40), Olson (5:36), Moncrieff,
Tierney, and Jordan. Councilor Johnson was excused.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Comprehensive Plan/Periodic Review Scope
Mr. Sin commented that staff needed clear direction on whether the scope of the periodic review
should be pursuing only the five major Periodic Review topics or doing a full Comprehensive Plan
update. He noted staff's recommendation to do the full update. He indicated that staff's
investigation into the question raised by the Council regarding any cost or time savings between
the two options found that staff could be more efficient if the scope went beyond the narrow scope
option.
He presented the questions raised in the staff report regarding the process (pp.2-3). He mentioned
needing 2 FTEs (full time equivalent) staff for the narrow scope and 2.5 FTEs for the full scope
over the three years (p.2, Question 1). He indicated that there was not any time savings between
the narrow and full scopes of work (p.2-3, Question 2) because both efforts included the five most
complex and time-consuming core chapters to update; the remaining nine chapters in the full
scope only needed tweaking.
Councilor Moncrieff expressed her frustration with the number of maps done by different groups
on the same topic, such as the several bike path plans. She asked if this process could pull the
different plans and groups together to communicate with each other regarding what needed to be
done. Mr. Sin responded that one of the major objectives of the project was better coordination
between the different departments and the 24 different plans created since 1986. He explained
that they would use the plans as part of the foundation and background upon which to build the
rest of the plan.
Councilor Moncrieff observed that sometimes a City plan became out of date before the City got
around to implementing it. She cited the economic development plan model as an example of a
planning process that only took a year from initiation to plan implementation. Mr. Sin discussed
plan implementation as one of the Periodic Review process outcomes. He mentioned staff's
proposal to replace recommended action measures with an implementation action plan that
identified action items in each chapter.
Mr. Sin indicated to Councilor Olson that staff intended to use the quality of life indicators
(updated) as part of the background and trending information. Mayor Hoffman commented that
the quality of life indicators, while a good project, had proved too costly to implement. He spoke of
using those indicators as a background and the community deciding whether to use those as
indicators of success.
Councilor Jordan mentioned that Mr. Sin has been working to refine the quality of life indicators
into something that functioned as meaningful performance measures. Mr. Sin remarked that
City Council Work Session Minutes Page 1 of 5
April 13, 2010
implementation needed a way to measure effectiveness. If the quality of life indicators were
absorbed into the implementation, then staff developing measuring sticks to gauge effectiveness
might be a possible avenue for incorporating the quality of life indicators.
Councilor Jordan pointed out that she thought it was difficult for the public when the City
developed plans for projects that included rights-of-way or properties that it did not own, and which
it could therefore not complete. She suggested showing in the City transportation -oriented plans
what the City owned and what pieces were missing, as that might help explain to the people who
wondered why the City was not building the pathways on the map. In addition, showing what was
real on the plans and what was aspirational would be helpful.
Mr. Sin indicated to Councilor Tierney that the work plan that the Council adopted in February
gave cost estimates of $700,000 to $900,000, which staff has since translated into 2.5 FTEs.
Mr. McIntyre discussed his efforts to approach the Comprehensive Plan update differently than
the traditional approach as part of avoiding the outcome of the plan sitting on the shelf and the
departments never talking about it. He mentioned his goal of forming a multidisciplinary team,
similar to the LOIS and Tigard Water teams, to create a dynamic planning document. Planners
would lead the team of department heads who would then understand the importance of the
different pieces and take ownership.
He mentioned his fear of spending a lot of money to develop a great planning tool; he preferred to
spend a little more money to get something usable (that the City could implement), and something
comprehensible to the community and the Council (for explaining prioritizations and direction).
He indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that this effort should integrate the 24 different plans into one
plan that would have relevance to the City departments for use in an integrated and
comprehensive manner. Mr. Sin clarified that they would integrate some of those plans (utility and
facility master plans, parks master plan) by reference. He described the Comprehensive Plan as
the broader guiding document and the subsequent plans, such as neighborhood plans, as area
and site specific.
Councilor Moncrieff commented that she thought the reason that the City had all these different
plans with nobody communicating was because it was overwhelming; the Comprehensive Plan
alone took up a whole wall. She suggested using a pyramid structure linking the different parts
together as a means of simplifying what most people considered a too complex and convoluted
plan. Councilor Olson observed that the Comprehensive Plan referenced those parts, rather than
integrated them. Mr. McIntyre concurred. He pointed out that often people did not have the
energy or capability to drill down to the source document to find the supporting statement in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Councilor Tierney commented that the work plan seemed solid in terms of what it would
accomplish. He asked if the update of the City's Sensitive Lands Atlas (listed as part of the work
plan) would be done without consultants. Mr. Sin indicated that there would be additional
discussion on that.
Councilor Olson commented that she found it odd that the list of elements that were not required
included sensitive lands, natural resources, and land use planning. She pointed out that all the
consultants and two of the 2.5 FTEs would work on the required elements. She asked if the non -
required elements would get short shrift. Mr. Sin stated his understanding that there was money in
the budget to do the additional mapping needed, but staff needed additional discussions with the
Council on the specifics.
Councilor Tierney observed that, while the Parks & Rec Master Plan was not part of the
Comprehensive Plan, it did inform this section. He concurred with Councilor Moncrieff that the
number of plans that the City had was mind-boggling. He commented that the City had good staff
people, and that he did not want to change the work plan, but he wondered why they were taking
this approach if it would not satisfy the Council in the end.
City Council Work Session Minutes Page 2 of 5
April 13, 2010
Mr. McIntyre indicated that the cost issue and public tolerance were the two reasons for this
approach. He pointed out that limiting the number of people working on the plan resulted in a
narrower plan that lacked the broader perspective, although it would still be comprehensive and
meet the letter of the law as well as the spirit of the community and the Council.
He expressed staff's hope to reach out to public groups that have not necessarily participated in
the process. He acknowledged the importance of the opinions of those from whom staff regularly
heard, but mentioned their hope to reach earlier in the process the person not paying attention,
who suddenly realized that the Comprehensive Plan changes would dramatically effect his/her
quiet enjoyment of life in the community.
He commented that the public involvement element of periodic review was about getting the
public's input and feedback through dialog. However, there was no inexpensive way to do that.
He cited the example of his receiving a lovely brochure from the City of Portland (where he lived)
about the Portland Plan, glancing at it, and tossing it away, and he was a City Manager, not a
layperson. However, if the City called and invited him to a focus group to share his opinion, he
might show up. He clarified that his point was that he was not that different from the average
citizen, and that he knew what it took to get a layperson's attention in Lake Oswego
Councilor Moncrieff asked if staff was informing the people about what the Comprehensive Plan
was and how the City used it, so that the people understood why the City was spending this much
money with two FTEs to do a three-year plan update. She commented that the City did a good job
with its public outreach and getting feedback from the citizens but then the citizens never heard
from the City again.
Mr. Sin described the proposed public engagement process that staff hoped to kickoff this summer
and culminate with a large meeting in the fall. He indicated that, after gathering feedback on
several issues, they hoped to have direction by the fall meeting regarding the framework that staff
would use in reviewing the Plan chapters.
Councilor Hennagin commented that applying the quality of life indicators to each chapter
appeared to him to be an almost insurmountable task that would lengthen each chapter.
Councilor Jordan expressed her concern that the Plan was a way to look forward, yet the public
input was likely to speak to what was happening right now. She commented that, while she hoped
to be living in Lake Oswego 20 years from now, her perspective on what she wanted in the
community then would be more narrowly focused than she hoped the Comprehensive Plan would
be now. She spoke of making sure to touch base with the age group that would be the most active
in the community (raising kids, socializing, shopping, etc.) in 20 years and finding out what they
wanted the city to look like in 20 years.
Mr. McIntyre discussed the idea of impaneling juries of people (using whatever categorization
desired) and funneling information through these panels to find out their response. He emphasized
that this was not intended to be exclusive but rather a way of engaging more people, especially
those who did not usually participate in the process. He commented that the question for him
focused on the minimum level of effort the City could take to produce the plan. He described the
different levels of public engagement. He pointed out that the proposed public engagement plan
did not get the City to a level where the public would feel that they participated and informed the
Plan, so that it was a truly relevant document to the community.
Councilor Jordan asked if they could expand the scope of work down the road if the finances
began looking better. She observed that the fundamentals would be the same; the question was
more the approach used in reaching those fundamentals.
Mayor Hoffman commented that, from his perspective, the key element was public engagement.
He argued that it was the Council's obligation and challenge to sit down at the same table with
citizens, civic groups, Board and Commission chairs, and other interest groups to hear the same
information. He said that one of the advantages of the Mayor's Round Table was forcing people
City Council Work Session Minutes Page 3 of 5
April 13, 2010
focused on one issue to listen to other people's issues. He remarked that people listening to
people would be the real secret in achieving a useful document.
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the PSU Institute of Metropolitan Studies,
which Executive Board he served on, was doing a big project on regional indicators that would
involve the private sector, non -profits, and the public sector. He mentioned that the Institute, which
had a good data -gathering capability, was working with other groups, including Metro, on these
region -wide indicators.
Councilor Jordan referenced the quality of life indicators relating to affordable housing. She
commented that she had found it interesting that the further away a community got from houses
within the reach of a median family income, the lower the quality of life. She noted that many
people in Lake Oswego did not see less diversity in income levels and the ability to purchase
homes as a lesser quality of life. She commented that she was trying to figure out what that
contradiction meant and what it was that they wanted to say about their community.
Councilor Moncrieff commented that, even after reading the affordable housing report, she still
did not know what affordable housing meant. She questioned how they knew what they had and
what they needed. She observed that Lake Oswego was overachieving on its required density
with 10.4 units per acre when it only needed 10.2 units per acre. Mayor Hoffman agreed that that
would be a good conversation to have.
Mr. Sin indicated that staff has done preliminary work on the question and was trying to finalize
reports on it for Council discussion. He mentioned discussing the HUD definition of affordable
housing and how it related to income levels in the city.
Councilor Tierney commented that he thought that the existing Comprehensive Plan stood pretty
well. Mr. Sin concurred that the policies in the Plan provided good direction. He mentioned seeing
room for refinement to update the additional nine chapters with respect to things that have
occurred since 1994.
Councilor Tierney argued that, in the next 20 years, baby boomers would still be the predominant
demographic group driving the development of the community and City services. He discussed
framing the community discussion as how the community accomplished a specific goal using
policies in the Comprehensive Plan, such as secondary dwelling units or attainable housing, rather
than as an esoteric planning discussion. He agreed with Mayor Hoffman on the importance of
obtaining feedback from all the different parts of the community.
Mr. Sin concurred that the baby boomers (born 1946-1964) were the largest age group in the
community currently. He discussed how Goal 10 (Housing) would inform the community
discussion, given the regional and state requirements for the City to provide housing capacities
and a wide range of housing options. He reviewed the City's options for providing that capacity on
the limited land available: to continue the City's current low-density housing pattern, or to
concentrate development in town centers and along corridors in order to provide more affordable
housing in a different range of housing types in order to keep the baby boomers in the community.
Councilor Tierney pointed out that the goal of keeping baby boomers in the community involved
more than housing; it included transportation, urbanization, transportation, etc. He confirmed to
Mr. Sin that having different planning scenarios available for public comment would be one tactic.
He commented that the Comprehensive Plan was in good shape as it was. He argued that their
efforts should focus more on communicating to the community any shift in direction caused by
tweaking the plan, as opposed to focusing on the words and the supporting documentation.
Councilor Moncrieff asked if the City would have the 2010 Census data available in time to use
for a more accurate picture of the community demographics. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that the
City has hired Todd Chase from FCS Consulting to provide the City with its own demographic data.
Mr. Sin explained that the Census data was available in stages a year or two after the data
gathering. He indicated that they would have demographic data available from different sources
but not the actual Census data.
City Council Work Session Minutes Page 4 of 5
April 13, 2010
Mayor Hoffman suggested that, as part of the Comprehensive Plan update, the City ask questions
about how the demographic data affected what it wanted to do. Mr. Sin indicated that staff aimed
to have a report to Council with the community profile by early June.
Councilor Jordan asked for information on how many people moved into the community since the
last Comprehensive Plan document, and where they came from. She recalled a time when
Oregon houses were so much less expensive than housing in California that many Californians
moved up here eight to ten years ago, which helped to change the City's demographics. Mayor
Hoffman mentioned that the turnover in an urban environment was every seven years. He
suggested including those questions as part of the public engagement process, as they did not
include them on the community survey.
The Council agreed by consensus to move forward with a comprehensive look at the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Hoffman indicated that he wanted to hold a number of 45 -minute study sessions with staff
in order to discuss basic policies. He observed that the seven Council members were more or less
representative of the City's demographic. He confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that the Council
would discuss this with the Planning Commission/Commission for Citizen Involvement at their
upcoming joint meeting.
Councilor Tierney commented that, while he thought the adopted work plan was okay, he
concurred with Mr. McIntyre that the Council should set up its expectations regarding both a
preliminary and a final document. He spoke of refining the plan to make sure that staff met the
Council expectations with the resources available. Mayor Hoffman spoke of having an action plan
with financing and public engagement components as opposed to a document that sat on the shelf.
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that he thought that a comprehensive look at
the comprehensive plan was very different from the Hillsboro 2020 visioning process. He spoke of
his realization that Lake Oswego already had its own identity, as opposed to Hillsboro, which spent
over 18 months trying to find its identity. He described Lake Oswego's efforts as more of a
framework plan similar to the Foothills framework plan in determining how it achieved its goals and
what actions it needed to take.
Councilor Jordan commented that she saw the strongest part of the Hillsboro plan as their
continued revisiting of where they were, where they were going, and what they were doing. Mayor
Hoffman indicated that that could be Goal 1. Councilor Moncrieff agreed. Mr. Sin noted that the
major outcome of this effort would be an implementation plan, which included periodically revisiting
it to evaluate how things were going. Councilor Jordan pointed out that the Commission for
Citizen Involvement should be doing that. Mayor Hoffman suggested including a Commission
review with public engagement every three years.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m.
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON September 7, 2010
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Respectfully submitted,
'Robyn Christie
City Recorder
City Council Work Session Minutes Page 5 of 5
April 13, 2010
L1, Z 3
SAKI I WIN ItACITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
April 13, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:41 p.m. on April
13, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and
Jordan. Councilor Johnson was excused.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Real Estate Development Workshop
Mayor Hoffman referenced Councilor Hennagin's e-mail asking why the Council was having this
seminar. He explained that he understood from a number of experts around the country and the
region that developments following the 2007/2008 market correction would not be the old kind of
developments because there was not much money being invested with private developers to
construct projects. Consequently, there would have to be some public involvement at one level or
another.
He argued that, given that the City would be partnering with a developer, it was important that the
Council understand what the constraints were under which its partner worked. He recalled the
emphasis on transparency in the public/private partnerships in Vancouver, B.C. He commented
that public/private partnerships were the new normal and required finding creative ways for the
public and private sectors to work together on urban development.
Mayor Hoffman introduced Bruce Wood and Will Deneke. Mr. Wood indicated that he was a
local developer, in business for over 20 years. He mentioned that he started a real estate program
at PSU in the School of Urban Planning over 10 years ago and agreed to teach in the program
because he believed that planners and others had no clue what developers did. He said that he
hoped teaching planners how developers operated would make them better planners, as things
worked better if people understood how things worked and how the math worked.
Mr. Deneke said that he had a planning background. He mentioned working on mixed use and
residential developments in Oregon, as well as being involved in a nine-year battle to expand
Woodburn's UGB. He indicated that he consulted for Mr. Wood and Opus on a number of projects,
including Bridgeport. He recalled the opportunity he had in the early 1980s to build a multi -billion
new city from scratch in Saudi Arabia on the Red Sea.
Mr. Wood gave a PowerPoint presentation on the general conditions in commercial real estate
development. He emphasized that commercial real estate was about cash flow: if a project did not
make money, then it would not be funded. He explained that the bankers and capital markets
looked a pro forma and primarily wanted to know what the rate of return would be on it.
He described how to calculate the rate of return on an investment and how the rate of return
affected the value of a building. A building worth $10 million that earned $1 million a year yielded a
10% rate of return. However, if the investor wanted a 20% return on an identical building because
of higher risk factors, and it earned $1 million a year, then that building was worth $5 million. He
emphasized the need to think about risk reward in commercial real estate and its implications in
terms of value. He pointed out that the more value created, the more money one had to use for
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 11
April 13, 2010
other things. He commented that the more risky a development was, the higher a rate of return the
investors wanted, which translated to higher rents.
He confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that the return referred to the net cash in one's pocket at the
end of the day.
He indicated that he was a merchant developer who built a building and sold it to someone else, as
opposed to other developers who held on to their projects. He explained that the Council needed
to know what type of company a developer had, and what his/her business model was. He
recalled that Bridgeport Village worked so well for the County and for the developer (Opus)
because the County wanted to make as much money as possible from the project and Opus
wanted eventually to sell it. After a specified time, they calculated the value of the project, and
everyone settled up. He commented that it was more difficult to settle up with a company that
wanted to keep the project because there was never a point where the parties had a true
understanding of the value of the project.
Mayor Hoffman noted that Gramor continued to own Lakeview Village. Mr. Wood clarified that
the different approaches were neither right nor wrong; they simply represented the different types
of developers in the industry. He mentioned that bankers would underwrite a project based on the
assumption that the developer would sell it, even if the developer intended to hang on to it,
because they were looking at the value created.
Mr. Wood clarified that he did not think that the City should care which type of developer it
selected, but it should be aware that different types of developers were out there, and it should
consider the worst-case scenario. He stated his opinion that all aspects of a project should be
looked at as though the building would be sold because the City could not know if the developer
would still be there at the end of the day.
He mentioned that the market did not allow quality projects to be built cheaply any more. He spoke
to carefully evaluating a proposal, especially by someone who has not done a project before,
because banks usually would not lend to a first time developer due to the high costs of
construction. He cited the $460 per square foot ($25 million) it cost to build the 50,000 square foot
building across from Crate & Barrel in Bridgeport Village. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that
they needed rents of $40 to $50 per square foot to justify the cost of construction. He commented
that Bridgeport Village would not be built today under the current market conditions.
He presented a chart showing risks and rewards. He pointed out that the higher the risk, the
higher the return needed to be. He noted that the business school textbooks gave a 10% return on
the stock market. He indicated that the return on real estate investments was between 15%
(industrial) to 25%. He explained that the return was lower on industrial projects than on
residential projects because it took less stuff (infrastructure). He noted that an industrial project
was less risky than a retail project because it did not require major modifications when a tenant
moved out. He mentioned that he had to show a 25% return on Bridgeport Village in order to get it
approved by his company's board and financed by the bank.
He presented a chart comparing how developers used to do their projects and the new reality
following the July 2007 market crash. He explained the process previously used in which a
developer obtained a first trust deed (example, a bank loan for 80% funding) and then some
mezzanine debt (example, a loan from somewhere else to cover an additional 15% funding), and
then invested a little bit of his/her own money in the project (example, 5% equity in cash).
He pointed out that the less of his/her own money a developer had invested in a project, the lower
a rate of return he needed for himself and the higher a rate of return available for the investors. He
continued with his example, showing that once the project was done, he had a $95,000 cash flow
after he paid all his debt service. Dividing the cash flow by the $500,000 investment gave a 19%
return.
He described what happened after the market crash. Banks became incredibly conservative and
the mezzanine lenders went away. This meant that a developer could not borrow as much from a
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11
April 13, 2010
bank and he had to put more equity into the project. Using the same example, he showed how a
cash flow of $230,000 divided by the $3 million investment yielded a return in equity of 7.7%. He
stated that such a project would not be financed because the return was too low. Investors still
wanted a 15% to 25% return on a real estate investment. There were other, less risky places
where investors could put their money and get a higher return.
He commented that things have gotten worse this past year. He said that the last loan quote he
received was for 60%, which meant that he had to put in 40% equity, which required a high rate of
return. However, the rents were not high enough and the costs have not gone down enough to
yield that return, and so nothing would pencil out.
Councilor Jordan asked if Mr. Wood ever saw mezzanine lenders coming back. Mr. Wood said
that he suspected that there were hundreds of billions of dollars on the sidelines right now but the
lenders were waiting for the situation to change. Since mezzanine lenders could earn 15% to 16%
with mortgage backed securities (low to no risk), he did not think that any would buy distressed
debt.
He discussed the current banking situation. He commented that he saw a fair amount of working
things out that helped move things along. He expressed a hope that the situation might return to a
point where people did not have to lose everything. He mentioned that some banks were willing to
increase the loan amount by putting in a reserve for the debt service in order to keep their loans
performing. He observed that this did not recognize that the value of the land was worth 10 to 20
cents above its worth at the time of the original loan.
He explained that, with respect to commercial real estate, they were in the first inning of a very
long and painful correction. He indicated that the average decline in commercial value was 40%.
He used Bridgeport Village as an example. He said that they had 20% equity in the project worth
$32 million and an 80% loan on it. Given the 40% decline in value, they would be $6 million
underwater on the project, except that they had sufficient cash flow to keep the lenders happy and
the loan was not due for eight years. He observed that, in this environment, people would not
move commercial projects forward.
He explained to Councilor Hennagin that investors would not see a 7.7% return as a positive,
even in this environment, because the expectations of return have not changed: investors still
expected to get 15% to 25% returns on real estate investments. Therefore, in his opinion, until
there was another correction, people would not make those investments.
He discussed how to create value in real estate: divide the building net operating income ($1
million) by the rate of return (10%) to yield a $10 million value. If it cost him $8 million to build the
building, then his profit upon sale was $2 million. However, if the same building had a $5 million
value (20% rate of return), then he lost $3 million when he sold it. If the market were hot and he
could sell the building for $15 million, then his profit increased from $2 million to $7 million.
He emphasized that the issue was always the amount of risk involved in the investment. He gave
an example of a national chain restaurant being worth more than a local restaurant because the
local restaurant was always more risky than a national chain restaurant. He commented that if
Portland wanted to develop a $100 million venue for local retailers, it would not be financed
because it was too risky. However, if Portland added a national chain or two as anchors, then the
project might be financed, provided that the national chains were strong enough.
He presented a basic project pro forma, noting the components of the land, the hard costs (bricks
and mortar) and the soft costs (planning, permitting, debt service, etc.). He commented that if he
could not do the math for a proposed project in his head, then he probably would not do the
project. It did not have to be complex. He would divide the amount that the tenant wanted to pay
by the risk and compare the result to his knowledge of what the construction costs would be. He
said that usually the two figures were very close. He indicated that in a public/private partnership,
the public sector usually needed to provide the gap financing, which occurred for a variety of
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11
April 13, 2010
reasons, such as the costs were too high, the site was contaminated, it was an historic building, or
the developer had to lower the costs in order to make the project work.
Mr. Deneke distributed the pro forma that the Urban Land Institute did for Trinity Episcopal Church
for a mixed -used project with parking. He pointed out that the figures showed that the project did
not work because there was a lot of parking, the rents were not high enough to justify the $23.3
million development cost and its very small margin, and the parcel was only 20,000 square feet.
Today, the projected figures for this project would be underwater.
He mentioned that structured or underground parking drove many projects. He recalled that a
criticism of Bridgeport Village was that it did not have enough parking, but that was because
Durham would not allow Opus to build a fourth story on the parking structure. Even so, the
$23,000 cost per stall indicated an efficient project. Other parking projects have cost $35,000 to
$60,000 per stall.
He commented that Bridgeport Village was the most successful project in Opus history when it was
sold. Although the costs rose by $6 million before the end of the project, the capital rates had
dropped so much below the 9.25 cap rate assumed on the pro forma that the margin had a $7
million swing.
Mr. Wood mentioned that Bridgeport Village developed in record time because the County
government wanted to get as much money as possible in the shortest time. He recalled that the
biggest issue had been the road and the transportation. However, the former head of the
Washington County Road Department (which owned the site) was now the head of ODOT.
He observed that without everyone being in the same boat, pulling the same oar at the same time
with the same objectives, this project would probably never happened. He gave an example of
ODOT requiring the developer to lower a road with two bike lanes by 2 inches in order to meet the
14.5 feet clearance for an overpass, which would cost the County $2 million. The County called
ODOT and ODOT informed the developer that it could live with a 14'4" clearance.
Mr. Deneke mentioned that Opus had had $4 million of hard costs sunk into the project, which it
would have lost if things had not come together (including the contract for Crate & Barrel), and they
had to abandon the project. He discussed another example where Opus had $6 million in hard
costs in Ladd Tower before it broke ground. Then the company needed to convert the project to
apartments because it missed the market. It went ahead with the project, ending up with $100
million in the project and a building worth much less than that. In hindsight, it would have been
more prudent to lose the $4 million, but they did not know that then.
Mr. Wood indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the cost of a parking structure per stall would kill
a project because no one paid for the parking, and rents would only cover half the cost of the
parking stall.
Councilor Hennagin mentioned seeing prefabricated parking structures built in Las Vegas. Mr.
Wood indicated that that was a completely different deal. He explained that parking structures
were one of the most complex engineering marvels. He noted that the larger a garage was, the
more efficient it was; the cost per stall was high for smaller garages. He emphasized that parking
drove projects.
Mr. Wood presented a chart illustrating how the project cost, project profit, and project financing
worked together. He gave an example of how steel prices doubling midway through the project
drove the cost curve up to the point where a project could get in trouble. He noted that the less
financing available, the more equity a developer had to put into the project.
He commented that the challenge in public/private partnerships, especially in urban renewal areas,
was when the jurisdictions added things that added cost, such as requiring LEED certification,
apprenticeship hours, prevailing wage, or the use of minority or women -owned or emerging small
businesses. He explained that there were not enough of those small businesses, and a developer
had to pay one to get off a job in order to work on his/her job.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11
April 13, 2010
He indicated that taking public money on a project made the project cost increase significantly,
which squeezed the project profit. This was when a developer went to the jurisdiction for a subsidy
to knock the project cost curve back down to where he/she could maintain the same amount of
profit. He reiterated that without the profit, the project would not be financed. He commented that
he did not think that tenants today would pay more rent because the project was green, although
they liked a green project. However, he thought that that might change one day.
He discussed the amount of profit required, using rough numbers: 15% margin on an industrial
project, 20% to 25% on retail, 25% on residential (high-rise condominiums), and 20% on office. He
explained that a developer could find this profit in a variety of places, such as leasing fees,
development overhead, profit on return, etc.
He presented a reality check in a 2 x 2 matrix with quadrants of low market demand/low developer,
low market demand/high developer, high market demand/low developer, and high market
demand/high developer. He explained that he would rate a developer low or high based on his
"financibility" and experience, and a market based on the amount of competition in the immediate
area. He mentioned that, in his experience in the competitive market of development proposals,
those most frequently beating him where those who told the community what they wanted to hear
and got the community behind them, even if they had no experience and no bank has ever lent
them money.
He gave examples of projects in the three quadrants with a low element, illustrating how projects in
those quadrants did not get built. He discussed strategies for moving into the high market/high
developer quadrant (where a project would get built), including larger subsidies or re -working a
project to bring it more in line with market forces. He identified five elements to include in the
strategies: flexibility, entitlements, being intellectually honest, understanding market dynamics, and
efficient use of resources.
He indicated that if a jurisdiction could mitigate the development risk by fronting the money to
answer questions regarding the development (e.g., traffic, survey work, zoning, mitigating
environmental concerns, getting landowners to agree to develop the site), it could negotiate a
better deal later on because it took the risk through these entitlements, and not the developer. He
advocated for honesty in discussions and not wasting time and money discussing things that were
not going to happen but rather spending those resources on answering the big questions first. He
argued that better projects happened when everyone sat around the table and tried to reach a
meeting of minds on the big elements first.
He cited the example of an entertainment district for the Rose Quarter in Portland, a project that he
did not think would happen or, if it did, it would not happen for a long time. Yet the City has
appointed a thousand people on 95 teams to discuss and research the idea, which he held was a
waste of their time and effort. Mr. Deneke pointed out that this was an example of the importance
of political leadership as an element because it took courage for someone at the City to point out
that the Coliseum was falling apart. He mentioned that Portland did spend $400,000 six years ago
trying to develop a financially feasible plan to redevelop the Coliseum but never issued the report
because they could not find one.
Mr. Wood observed that understanding market dynamics was difficult because the market was
always changing. He commented that he did not see a market for vertical mixed-use
condominiums in Oregon for the foreseeable future because the state did not have sufficient job
growth. He indicated that job growth, and not land use, drove the development industry. He
pointed out that lenders were not willing to lend money for developing vertical mixed-use
condominiums because of the `carnage,' with so many development companies (including Opus)
going out of business overnight.
Councilor Jordan asked for an explanation of yield -based land prices. Mr. Wood explained that
when they did not know how much something was worth, they solved the development equation for
the yield (needed profit divided by known income equals cost limit). If his costs could be no more
than $10 million in order to maintain the profit margin, and the land cost $2 million, then he had $8
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11
April 13, 2010
million for the other costs. However, if his costs came in at $9 million, then the question became
whether the agency was willing to take $1 million for the land and maintain the yield of 10%.
Mr. Wood used Bridgeport Village as an example. He said that, having no idea what the project
would be when they started, Opus told the County that it would solve the equation for a 12.5%
return and guarantee no less than X price for the land. Opus then designed the project and
projected the costs and rents in order to arrive at the land cost. He mentioned that the County got
four times the X amount because of the market dynamics of high profit and high income. He
commented that the creativity inherent in not knowing what project would move forward allowed
the developer to put more of his/her resources at risk because he/she knew that he/she would
make a return on the project. Mr. Deneke concurred that it was a more creative partnership when
the agency mitigated the risk.
Councilor Jordan asked if the City benefited from a successful project with subsidized land. Mr.
Wood commented that it depended because there came a point when the value was realized and
everyone settled up. He reiterated that all parties having the same objective and incentives
allowed a creativity and flexibility that made it easier to move a project forward. He speculated that
the only reason Bridgeport Village moved forward was that they had that kind of consensus
working to solve the problems with flexibility. He emphasized that hard and fast rules made it
difficult to move a development project forward. Mr. Deneke remarked that Bridgeport Village
would never have happened had a private entity owned it because the site consolidation work had
been much too complicated.
Councilor Hennagin commented that a developer could not insulate himself from the risks of
unforeseen issues arising during construction, such as bedrock or gas coming out of the ground.
Mr. Wood concurred that that was always a risk, but, in the case of the methane gas at the
Bridgeport Village site, the floor to the land price (no lower than X amount) protected the County,
and it was willing to take a risk on solving the problem.
Mr. Wood mentioned that timing was another factor. He explained that Crate & Barrel drove the
project because they wanted a store there. Mr. Deneke commented that Crate & Barrel negotiated
a very good deal for itself because it could play Washington Square as an alternate location.
Consequently, Opus paid for their store.
Mr. Wood said that their goal was to try to be efficient with their resources. He indicated that he
tried to educate the public during the public involvement portion of a project regarding the math
and the realities of what they could and could not do based on engineering or other factors, which
he felt the public appreciated. He advised the Council to be honest with the citizens to the extent
possible. He remarked that the development community could do a better job of that.
He discussed the current economic environment. He indicated that what happened in July 2007
was that the collateralized mortgage backed securities market collapsed overnight. He explained
that, since 2003, the capital market for commercial development had been around $300 billion
dollars a year with $250 billion coming from mortgage backed securities (the debt market) and $50
billion supplied by the traditional lenders (banks, insurance companies, etc). After the collapse,
banks refused to lend developers or owners the money to pay off their 2003 mortgages that came
due in 2008, which resulted in foreclosures because the developers did not have the cash to pay
off the loan and they could not get another loan to cover it.
He said that, in 2007, the market went from $250 billion a year in mortgages to $12 billion a year
overnight, and to zero in 2008. He mentioned seeing $2.5 to $3 billion in the market this year, an
indication that it might be starting up again. He stated his opinion that the commercial real estate
market would be "ugly" for the foreseeable future. He commented that that did not mean that they
should not try to move projects forward, but the reality was that, until the market found a substitute
or healed, there was no ability to move anything forward because no one could get any debt.
He discussed what kinds of projects would get built, such as projects with really good credit or no
risk -tenants. He spoke of smaller projects that community banks or the Small Business
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11
April 13, 2010
Administration could finance. He noted that this was a great time for tenants because of the low
rents. He remarked that cities have become more realistic and started looking at what caused
obstacles to development.
He discussed what kinds of projects would not get financed, such as vertical mixed use or
speculative developments. He referenced a Gramor project in Progress that had been almost
100% pre -leased and the company still could not get a construction loan. This increased the
company's equity in the project to the point where it no longer penciled out, and this excellent
project was now on hold.
He commented that owner -users with strong and well underwritten sponsorships might be able to
make deals on building smaller projects, but, even so, all deals would require much higher equity.
He commented that he had 40% equity on some of his projects. He stated that only borrowers with
an A+ project or A+ credit had a chance of getting financed, but, even so, it was a challenge to get
a bank loan. He reiterated that they were just in the first inning of this game. He mentioned
hearing that there was money available through HUD and other programs for affordable housing
projects.
He observed that fewer quality developers remained in business. Consequently, more of the RFPs
were design -driven and responded to by architects and out -of -work consultants than by
developers. He mentioned that he often received calls asking him to partner on an RFP by
allowing the respondent to use his name on it because it required a developer, only he has done
no work on it.
He mentioned the disconnect between the market reality and the local land use policies, codes,
and ordinances. Oregon land use law still required things that the market would no longer finance.
He used Washington County's requirement of a .5 FAR (floor area ratio) as an example. This FAR
required structured parking or less surface parking. However, a bank would likely not make a loan
on a project without the 5,000 square feet of parking needed to accommodate whatever tenant
ended up there.
He explained how they creatively got around that requirement in Beaverton by saying that the
overall development met the FAR, even though their particular site did not meet it. He commented
that having to figure out how to put their developments within a box that could be financed has not
changed. He indicated that they were able to work with planners and City officials to work out the
problems and allow the project to move forward, but it was challenging.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Mayor Hoffman mentioned hearing that Metro was talking about creative ways for public entities to
finance projects because, with their AAA bond ratings, they could go to the market and get money.
However, there was considerable risk involved, so it might not happen with public dollars. Mr.
Wood agreed that there were creative ways to get around the rules, such as the Portland
Development Commission (PDC) creating debt instruments that functioned like equity as a way to
overcome the regulation barring them from being an equity provider in a project.
Mr. Wood reiterated that it was all about cash flow and risk. If an agency could spend the money
to mitigate the risk, then a project could move forward. He commented that, even so, entitlements
could take several years to get through. He spoke of meeting with Treasury and Federal Reserve
people in Washington, D.C., recently who had no clue what developers did, although they tracked
the debt side. He had had to explain why, even if they fixed the debt, it would still take two to three
years before anyone got a project out of the ground.
He discussed what a jurisdiction could do in the meantime. He suggested spending money now to
position projects to move forward immediately when the markets turned around instead of having
to wait another 2.5 years. He commented that if the jurisdictions mitigated the developer's risk,
then the developer should earn less of a reward. He reiterated that jurisdictions taking the risk
meant more ways to make things happen.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11
April 13, 2010
Mr. Deneke mentioned that the EPA had quite a bit of recovery money available for assessment
and clean up and were looking for projects. Jurisdictions could move the environmental process
forward through this sort of entitlement. Mr. Wood recalled that Mr. Deneke had found some
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) money to help a city design a project along a
riverbank.
Mr. Wood commented, as a private developer, that one challenge facing the Council, as
landowners in Lake Oswego, was getting all the parties involved to agree to do what was in their
best interests. A developer would not take the time to get that agreement between people with
their own agendas. However, the cities or agencies serving in that role and aggregating the land
beforehand set up a more attractive development opportunity.
He recalled that the original design for Bridgeport Village had SW 72 Id Avenue bifurcating the site
because that was what ODOT wanted. However, that design involved getting 30 property owners
to agree to donate their right-of-way to make it work, and he told the County that that was not going
to happen. The re -design required getting an agreement from only one private property owner (the
rest were public agencies). Even so, it took two years to get the agreements, but the project did
move forward.
Councilor Hennagin commented that one thing he could never understand was how to decide
what kind of development to build in a location, such as the City's redevelopment district. Mr.
Wood remarked that if one could understand that, then one could make a lot of money. He
explained that the trick of the challenge was to not put a square peg in a round hole. He gave an
example of not putting 1 million square feet of office space in downtown Lake Oswego because
Kruse Way — with its central location next to converging freeways — was the jewel of the office
market in Oregon. The Downtown was a much smaller office market opportunity.
Mr. Wood observed that neither would a lifestyle center work in downtown Lake Oswego because
it needed half a million people to support it and Lake Oswego did not have that demographic. He
mentioned that banks would no longer finance lifestyle centers because, with the decline in retail
value, the tenants were not willing to pay high enough rents to justify the cost of construction. In
addition, retailers have figured out that people wanted to shop differently, and Lake Oswego
already had retail serving the market.
He spoke of asking honest questions about what the community wanted and needed. He
mentioned three factors necessary for a project: a community wanting the project, the capital
markets wanting to finance it, and the tenants wanting to locate in the project. He emphasized the
importance of dialog in figuring out what the project should be.
Councilor Jordan mentioned receiving a survey call yesterday about the market in Lake Oswego
for a grocery store, either a large supermarket, a specialty supermarket, or a one-stop shopping
supermarket. Mr. Wood commented that grocery stores were difficult. He stated his opinion, as a
developer, that one needed two grocery stores wanting the same site in order to get anything
done; otherwise, in his experience, a grocery store never made a decision.
Councilor Jordan mentioned that many people in Lake Oswego have indicated their desire to
support local businesses in the city's commercial areas, yet Mr. Wood had said early on that the
risk of having local businesses only was such that developers wanted national or regional retailers
mixed in with local businesses. Mr. Wood clarified that it was not an issue of local versus national
retailers but rather a question of risk and the bank wanting to make sure that the rent was paid. He
spoke of the City mitigating the developer's risk respecting the local players through entitlement
money, or creating an environment to renovate existing space, or providing other kinds of support.
Mr. Wood pointed out that retail was one generation deep. A developer building a retail center
with the expectation of a local retailer occupying the space could not say who might occupy the
space if the first retailer moved out because Oregon land use laws did not allow playing favorites.
Councilor Jordan confirmed to Mr. Deneke that her question focused on new construction from
the perspective of the developer assembling a mix of tenants. She acknowledged Mr. Wood's
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11
April 13, 2010
point that either the City subsidized the local business rents or the development had a mix of
stronger tenants and local independent businesses.
Mr. Wood commented that if a developer used all the buzzwords in order to get an agency to say
yes, then it was likely that his/her project proposal was not grounded in reality. He said that he did
not think that the good developers did that. He described the developers in the local community as
good at their job and honest.
Mr. Deneke commented that Lake Oswego would likely have to address the issue of building
height limitations in Foothills and the Downtown. He pointed out that, if the market came back to
the higher land prices normally found in the community, then there would be a disconnect between
the economics and the height limits in making projects pencil out. He explained that it was difficult
to make a three-story building pencil out at $150 per square foot.
Councilor Olson pointed out that the conversation about development in Foothills has focused on
vertical mixed-use development, yet Mr. Wood described that as challenging for the foreseeable
future. She asked if Mr. Wood or Mr. Deneke had any experience with transit -oriented
developments (TOD). She asked how to support a streetcar if vertical mixed use was not viable.
Mr. Wood mentioned providing a big public subsidy to support the streetcar. He said that planners
have told him that the best way to raise density was to build parking garages in a TOD. He cited
the Round in Beaverton as an example of a heavily subsidized TOD project that did not provide
sufficient parking, and therefore, no one located there. He commented that, although Orenco
Station was an excellent TOD project, the reason why no one built another one was that no one
made any money off it; it had been too expensive. Mr. Deneke explained that Orenco Station had
had a lot of front end planning and a major capital investment by PacTrust; the return investment
took a long time to develop.
Mr. Wood indicated that developments did occur along streetcar routes but they needed a heavy
amount of public money to work. He reiterated that the private sector would not fund vertical
mixed-use residential development in the foreseeable future because of how much money has
been lost on those projects. He discussed the types of projects that could happen if the
demographics were there to support them, such as senior housing.
He spoke to moving Foothills forward, since the entitlements would take years anyway. He
encouraged making it as flexible as possible. He suggested developing corporate office use in
addition to housing and creating smaller blocks for smaller projects. He described the retail side as
a challenge, noting the 300,000 square feet of big boxes vacant in the market right now. He
commented that trying to figure out how to re -use what existed was smarter than building new.
He encouraged creating an environment for local businesses that supported creativity and
innovation. He mentioned that many businesses wanted to move out of Portland just to escape the
taxes and bureaucracy; Lake Oswego could take advantage of that by using its tools to encourage
and foster business.
Councilor Tierney mentioned the City's consideration of locating the library in a mixed-use
development in the redevelopment district one block north of City Hall. Mr. Wood directed the City
to look at the research Professor Jerry Milner at the PSU Center for Real Estate Studies was doing
on schools and libraries in urban environments, including in commercial developments. He
described the library as a great opportunity to activate an area, but reiterated that having a source
of cash flow was the key element.
He indicated that if they had the cash flow, then the next question became what uses were
compatible with the library. He commented that there was money available for apartments, which
were an attractor in a community with good schools. He pointed out that 10,000 square foot of
incidental retail was not enough to create a mass.
Mr. Wood indicated to Councilor Tierney that he did not think that a commercial developer would
count on the foot traffic to the library to support the retail. He doubted that underwriting the library
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11
April 13, 2010
itself would be enough. There would have to be other dynamics, such as a demand for retail that
was not already met, or if the library lowered the cost of some impact.
Councilor Tierney indicated to Mr. Deneke that the Council has not discussed the option of a
public/private partnership in which the developer built the library and leased it back to the City. He
mentioned the model of the City building the library as an anchor to the north and tying it into the
redevelopment, similar to Lakeview Village to the south.
Mr. Wood commented that the aesthetics and the bigger mass were positive, and could enhance
the other site. However, his opinion was that the financial underwriting of the commercial site
would have to stand on its own. The library was a benefit but it would not make or break the
development. Mr. Deneke concurred that if the City guaranteed the cash flow of the library as an
anchor tenant of a privately financed development, then it potentially became an attractive project
to a developer. Councilor Tierney pointed out that, in Oregon, jurisdictions could borrow money
for construction but not for operations and maintenance.
Councilor Jordan commented that the foot traffic generated by additional housing units and the
library combined might add vibrancy to the retail mix at the north end. Mr. Wood agreed that it
would add vibrancy and help move the project forward from a conceptual standpoint, but he
reiterated that such a mixed-use project would not be large enough in and of itself to move the
project forward in terms of financing.
Mr. Wood commented that the requirement that all mixed-use projects have ground floor retail did
not work because there was insufficient demand for all that retail. He indicated that he agreed with
David Leland's report, which argued that they should have concentrated retail along certain
boulevards and allowed development elsewhere to do apartments and other uses instead of
ground floor retail.
Mayor Hoffman asked if making Foothills successful required a lot of public investment. Mr.
Wood clarified that he understood Councilor Olson's question as referring to the streetcar in and of
itself. He indicated that the streetcar would be an amenity for Foothills but he did not think that a
lender would finance a condominium project just because a streetcar was there. He explained that
there would have to be an area wide demand for condominiums (which meant that all the
condominiums vacant right now needed to be full), a demand for more vertical housing, and the
capital markets willing to lend on a vertical mixed-use condominium project. He said that he did
not know when the capital markets would be willing to put money into a condominium project
again.
Mr. Wood clarified to Councilor Jordan that the problem with apartments was that the rents were
not high enough to support building the complexes. Mr. Deneke mentioned that it was different
with three or four story apartment complexes. He commented that he saw unknowns in terms of
how the streetcar would facilitate redevelopment, given that it moved from an urban setting to a
suburban setting.
Councilor Moncrieff asked if she was correct in understanding that the best bet for development
right now was senior or low income apartments, and that the City could best help developers by
doing the legwork of permitting and bringing all the parties to the table, making it easy to do
business, and providing subsidies (most likely in the form of a parking garage).
She asked if the Ladd apartment building had penciled out with the planning, permitting, and
parking costs included. Mr. Wood explained that the Ladd project penciled out at the time they
started the project, but then the market crashed. Mr. Deneke concurred that no one would think of
doing that project in today's market, as the building was worth half of what the developer had
invested in it.
Mr. Wood discussed the example of a five -story apartment building. The developer needed to
allow sufficient land to surface park the building, instead of building for a higher density. He
remarked that honesty about parking requirements was also important. While some held that
people would not have two cars, the reality was that most two-bedroom apartments would have
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11
April 13, 2010
two cars. Insufficient parking meant more street parking. He agreed with Councilor Jordan that a
senior development required less parking.
He observed that there were opportunities in the retail market today, as primarily, the high-end
retailers were hurting because their customers have moved to the less expensive stores, such as
Wal-Mart and Costco. He commented that a project like Bridgeport Village would never be built
today because there was no demand for it. Councilor Olson mentioned the pull back from an
Oregon City retail development. Mr. Wood indicated that he was not sure why the pull back
because the anchor Target was a strong sponsorship. Apparently, the timing was not right right
now.
Mr. Wood confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that a developer could tell the City, based on the
land price and development costs, how high and dense it would have to allow apartment buildings
in Foothills in order to make the project pencil out. He commented that there were many
consultants who could provide information on whether the apartments themselves would pencil
out. However, as Councilor Olson pointed out, it was the offsite infrastructure costs that would
stop the project, which was where urban renewal money came in.
Councilor Jordan asked if Mr. Wood or Mr. Deneke have been involved in the stacking parking
that did not require so much land for parking. Mr. Wood said that he has looked at the robotic
parking idea, which would decrease the cost per stall, but he has not actually been to that kind of
parking structure. He commented that the hardest thing about parking was creating a market
where people paid to park. This would not happen as long as cities allowed free street parking,
which the public did not want to lose. Therefore, the cities would have to either build parking
garages themselves or have parking -challenged areas.
Mayor Hoffman thanked Mr. Wood and Mr. Deneke for the presentation. Mr. Wood commented
that it was a credit to the Council that it invited them to discuss this matter.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON September 7, 2010
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11
April 13, 2010
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
April 20, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. on April
20, 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; Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney; Robyn
Christie, City Recorder; Guy Graham, Public Works Director; Officer Matt
Gill; Police Chief Dan Duncan; Kathy Kern -Schilling, Events Supervisor;
Maggie Ovenell, Farmers Market Manager; Paul Espe, Associate Planner;
Denny Egner, Long Range Planning Manager
3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 Amy Carlton, recipient of Prudential Spirit of Community Award
Mayor Hoffman recognized Amy Carlton for her work over the past two plus years in creating the
non-profit organization, Teens Fighting Hunger, to help fight childhood hunger in Oregon. He
congratulated her on being named as one of the top two teen volunteers in 2010 for the 15th
Annual PSC Award, a national program honoring young people for outstanding volunteerism.
Ms. Carlton explained that she recruited fellow teenagers to make various products for sale with
all proceeds going directly to the cause. She mentioned that she discovered the problem of child
hunger in America as part of her freshman history project; 17 million children went hungry every
month in America. She reported that her non-profit has raised over $65,000 in nearly three years,
involved over 350 teens, and educated tens of thousands about the problem.
She thanked the City and the community for their support in making this effort successful. She
thanked Kathy Kern -Schilling and Maggie Ovenell for allowing them to be at the Farmers Market.
She mentioned their online store and website.
3.2 National Public Works Week Proclamation
Mayor Hoffman proclaimed the week of May 16-22, 2010, as National Public Works Week in Lake
Oswego to honor the individuals who designed, built, maintained, and operated public
infrastructure systems, buildings, and other works, and to recognize their contribution to the
community's quality of life. He presented the proclamation to Guy Graham, Public Works
Director.
3.3 National Police Week Proclamation
Mayor Hoffman described `trust' as the social glue that kept the community together. He
commented that they were fortunate to live in a society and community where the citizens could
trust their police officers, as this was not the case in many other countries. He observed that, in
Lake Oswego and other U.S. communities, safety of self, family, and home was the priority of all
families; Lake Oswego had confidence that it could trust its police officers to respond to a call in as
little as four minutes.
He recounted a story from the Water Africa event last Saturday, in which he realized that the
organizers had not contacted the police department about managing the busy traffic on Hwy 43 in
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 19
April 20, 2010
order to allow the 400 participants to cross State Street safely. He said that, after he called
LOCOM to request police assistance, a motorcycle officer and two police cars were there within
three to four minutes to calm the traffic down.
He mentioned a conversation he had with a Tigard participant who had not expected the police to
come quickly, since he had seen them on the other side of Lake Grove "making money for the City
with photo radar." He stated that he informed this gentleman that Lake Oswego was not about
making money, but rather it was about trust and safety in the community, which the police worked
to provide.
He explained that National Police Week (begun in 1962) honored those police officers who made
the ultimate sacrifice by either death or disability. He recalled the two police officer deaths in which
he was involved as an attorney: Frank Word who died on a domestic call in 1992, and Thomas
Ward who died in a helicopter accident during a search and rescue operation. He mentioned his
ride-alongs with Officer Gill, in which he realized the vulnerability of police officers outside of their
cars in putting their lives on the line to protect Lake Oswego citizens 24 hours, 7 days a week.
Mayor Hoffman read the proclamation designating the week of May 9 —15, 2010, as National
Police Week, honoring the police officers of Lake Oswego for their dedication and service. He
presented the proclamation to Officer of the Year Matt Gill and Police Chief Dan Duncan.
3.4 Centennial Update
Ms. Kern -Schilling discussed the three upcoming Centennial events. She described the pavilions
and events at the all -day Festival at Luscher Farm on July 15. She mentioned the August 28
Growth and Gather dinner celebrating sustainability, also held at Luscher Farm. She indicated that
the ticketed dinner (sponsored by Whole Foods and New Seasons) would feature local wines and
bounty from Luscher Farms.
She noted that the community could make suggestions throughout the summer on what to include
in the time capsule, scheduled for burial at Millennium Plaza on October 10, 2010. At the Festival,
they would narrow the suggestions down by a vote. She mentioned the raffle for an electric car
with tickets available at all events.
She mentioned the Centennial Sunday concerts and the Noon concerts. She invited the
community to visit the Centennial website at www.LO100.com to find all the partner events in the
community. She indicated that they would hold the Furnace dedication in late summer or early fall.
Ms. Ovenell announced that the Farmers Market opened on May 15 this year with 86 vendor
spaces available. She mentioned 40 farmers, 29 refreshment vendors, and a number of non-
profits, artists, and kids' corner sponsors throughout the season. She noted the chef cooking
demonstrations and the musicians.
Ms. Kern -Schilling indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Mr. Galante has promised to have the
park finished in time for the Farmers Market, although there would be some fencing still up. She
explained to the Councilor that the time capsule space was located under the center stage in front
of the grassy knoll.
Ms. Ovenell indicated to Councilor Jordan that this season she would assess the Farmers
Market to determine how many vendor spaces she could add and to identify what products still
needed representation at the market. She mentioned doing patron counts and dot surveys to find
out from the community what they were looking for in the Farmers Market.
Ms. Kern -Schilling indicated to Councilor Jordan that Thirstquenchers' Thursdays was a new
idea for a happy hour in the extra space at the plaza.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 19
April 20, 2010
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Jordan moved the consent agenda. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A
voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson,
Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." [7-0]
4.1 RESOLUTIONS
4.1.1 Resolution 10 - 24, approving appointments to the Library Advisory Board
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-24, re -appointing Dick Raymond and appointing David Short
to the Library Advisory Board
4.1.2 Resolution 10 - 25, approving appointments to the Historic Resources Advisory
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-25, re -appointing Joanne Naylor and Jeannie McGuire and
appointing Erin O'Rourke -Meadows to the Historic Resources Advisory Board
4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.2.1 January 9, 2010, community roundtable
4.2.2 January 22, 2010, goal setting (part 1)
4.2.3 January 26, 2010, regular meeting
4.2.4 February 2, 2010, special meeting
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
• Charles B. Ormsby, 170 SW Birdshill Road, Portland, Clackamas County
He asked the City to post on its website the materials presented by the Mayor last February
regarding his trip to Washington, D.C. He asked the City to unify all PowerPoint presentations on
the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project (LOTPTP) in one place so that everyone accessing
the presentations could look at the same information. He indicated that he would send PDF files to
the Council regarding his concerns about the project prior to their right-of-way tour.
He referenced a CD containing documents relating to the South Corridor Light Rail Project. He
discussed his concern that those public documents were under such tight security that one could
not clip a portion of the document for use in a presentation or do anything with the information
except take screen shots. He asked that the security features for anything coming out for the
LOTPTP be much less rigorous than this.
He pointed out that the LOTPTP maps did not mention Birdshill by name. He asked that, when
speaking about the corridor, the City mention Birdshill in addition to Dunthorpe, as they were two
very different jurisdictions in the same geographic area. He commented that he spent four years
getting Birdshill recognized, and he saw this ignoring of Birdshill as discriminating against his
efforts to get Birdshill recognized.
Mayor Hoffman commented that Mr. Ormsby would go through the City Recorder to obtain public
records. Mr. Ormsby argued that that should not be necessary for every request, as Oregon land
use law specifically said that all documents pertaining to any land use decision had to be available
in a public space. He described the records kept in the library on this process as being of very
poor quality. He mentioned that one could not access file transfer protocol sites.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 19
April 20, 2010
• Gary Buford, 5 Camelot Court
He addressed the Second Look Task Force. He described it as a group of nine people whom the
Planning Department staff has educated over the past several months on information they needed
to know in order to make recommendations to that same staff on improvements to the current
Sensitive Land Ordinance. He commented that only three members on the Task Force were
stakeholders (those whose properties had sensitive lands overlays), while the remaining six were
not affected in any way by the overlays.
He asked if the recommendations would address stakeholder concerns. He commented that, in
2004, Metro proposed a voluntary non -regulatory Sensitive Lands Ordinance in response to the
public outcry and objections to the abuse of private property rights and control of private properties
by Metro. He referenced writings by the Metro President acknowledging that Metro's method of
trying to control private properties was unreasonable and unfair.
He argued that, still today, the City government was saying that a voluntary non -regulatory form of
a Sensitive Lands Ordinance would not work and would be too expensive. He contended that the
City staff, Council, and Mayor have never provided any documented proof that such a program
would not work, nor provided any information or findings on the cost to implement such an
ordinance. He questioned the City making such a statement with no supporting evidence.
He recalled discussion at a recent Task Force meeting about the City of Beaverton's Sensitive
Lands Ordinance being a user-friendly ordinance with flexibility in dealing with the public. He
indicated that City staff agreed that changing Lake Oswego's ordinance would take a long time and
a lot of money. He spoke of looking at that possibility at some time in the future.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 Ordinance 2550, request to annex approximately 0.92 acres located at 5957 Seville
Avenue (AN 10-0002)
Mr. Boone reviewed the standard land use hearing procedures and testimony time limits. He
asked the Council to declare any ex parte contacts, bias, or any conflicts of interest. There were
none. There were no challenges.
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Espe gave a PowerPoint presentation on the request to annex approximately one acre of land
on Seville Avenue and its associated right-of-way on Seville and Melon Avenues. He indicated
that the land's County designation of low-density residential R-10 would change to the City's low-
density residential R-7.5 upon annexation.
He explained that staff elected to require the applicant to connect to the Melon Avenue sewer line
upon development, which involved a 700 -foot extension to the subject property, instead of through
Ford Place (p. 62, 67). He indicated that the property could not use the existing storm drains. The
City would require the developer to provide a storm water infiltration system designed specifically
for the site. He mentioned that the Seville Avenue was on the County's road maintenance list but
not the local access roads; upon annexation, Melon Avenue would transfer to the City for
maintenance.
He stated that this owner -petitioned annexation complied with all applicable State laws and Metro
code. He reviewed the agencies from which the property would withdraw upon annexation (p.62).
He noted that this property would annex into the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Mr. Espe described to Councilor Tierney the current condition of the roads involved in the
annexation. He indicated that staff would put the roads in the queue with all other roads for
continued maintenance by the City. He noted the roadwork that the City would require of the
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 19
April 20, 2010
developer, which included asphalt on graveled sections of Melon Avenue. He mentioned street
construction up to rural standards.
Mr. Espe confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that none of the storm water on this property would go
into the City's storm water system. He mentioned learning from Engineering that the storm water
system at Melon Avenue and Washington Court was constructed to serve the existing three lots on
Melon Avenue; therefore, any additional annexed properties had to provide their own on-site
infiltration systems.
Councilor Olson commented that she drove down Melon and Seville Avenues, and found them
horrible, which meant that there would be a cost to the City to improve and maintain them.
Mr. Espe indicated to Councilor Olson that this annexation would create a cherry stem
annexation (p.79). He explained that the timing of the staff's invitation to adjacent neighbors to join
the annexation process, given the quarterly annexation schedule, put those who might respond to
the invitation on the next annexation hearing opportunity in July.
Mr. Espe clarified to Councilor Jordan that the middle section of Melon Avenue was currently
graveled, while the northerly and southerly sections were paved. He indicated that the Melon
Avenue right-of-way to the north of Seville Avenue was platted as a future through street to
connect with Seville and provide circulation.
Councilor Moncrieff asked if the residents or developer had to bring the streets up to City
standards before the City began maintaining them. Mr. Espe explained that the larger roadways
remained in the County upon annexation until the City processed a transfer of jurisdiction, which it
did not do until those streets were brought up to City standards. However, the local streets passed
seamlessly to the City upon annexation, and the City had the responsibility of bringing the streets
up to City standards and maintaining them. However, the City usually did that through
development applications.
Councilor Jordan asked if requiring a developer to improve the street up to City standards could
be a condition of development. Mr. Boone clarified that the City Council decided which streets to
improve and to what level. Mayor Hoffman summarized the situation as the City had an obligation
to maintain Melon Avenue but it was the Council and the City's decision on when to do so in terms
of priorities.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony.
• Bob Randall, 5957 Seville Avenue
He explained that he bought the property as an investment for a possible future home site, but he
did not want to have to put in a new drain field when the sewer was close by. He stated that he
was applying for annexation for the sewer option, which he anticipated extending, if the Council
approved the annexation.
He mentioned to Councilor Hennagin that they would have to sort out with the Planning
Department whether the deed history showed one or two lots of record. He commented that,
although it would be zoned for five lots, he thought that four lots was the ideal configuration.
Mayor Hoffman closed the public hearing.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Tierney moved to enact Ordinance 2550. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion.
A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson,
Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." [7-0]
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 19
April 20, 2010
7.2 Ordinance 2551, request to annex approximately 0.13 acres located at 16211 Waluga
Drive (AN 10 - 0001)
Mr. Boone reviewed the standard land use hearing procedures and testimony time limits. He
asked the Council to declare any ex parte contacts, bias, or any conflicts of interest. There were
none. There were no challenges.
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Espe gave a PowerPoint presentation on this request to annex approximately .13 acres of land
(5,600 square feet) located between a property in the City and one outside the City. He explained
that the lot line adjustments for these two properties were conditional upon the successful
annexation of this land by the City. He indicated that the property owners were adding this square
footage to the existing property to the north (p.101)
He indicated that the land's County designation of low-density residential R-8.5 would change to
the City's low-density residential R-7.5 upon annexation. He noted the utilities provided to the site
(p. 86), which was on septic, and the service districts from which it would withdraw upon
annexation. He mentioned that the owners did not intend to extend sewer or develop the property
any further.
He stated that this annexation complied with all applicable State laws and Metro code. He
reviewed the agencies from which the property would withdraw upon annexation (p.62). He noted
that this property would annex into the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Mr. Espe clarified to Mayor Hoffman that this was not `split zoning' on one parcel but rather a lot
line adjustment, in which the annexed parcel would become part of the northerly parcel (Tax Lot
8600 in the city), and the southerly parcel (Tax Lot 900 in the county) would decrease in size.
Mr. Espe clarified to Councilor Olson that the garage would remain in the county and, following
the lot line adjustment, sit 17.5 feet away from the new southerly lot line of Tax Lot 8600.
Mr. Espe answered Mayor Hoffman that staff did ask the property owners about annexing Tax Lot
900, but they were only interested in annexing this portion of the property at this time. He indicated
that the benefits of annexing Tax Lot 900 would be additional tax revenue and providing for better
planning.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony. Hearing none, he closed the public
hearing.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Jordan moved to enact Ordinance 2551. Councilor Tierney seconded the motion.
A voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson,
Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan voting "aye." [7-0]
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 7:47 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at
7:56 p.m.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 19
April 20, 2010
7.3 Ordinance 2523, Infill (Comprehensive Plan Change) Recommendation from the
Planning Commission to amend a Goal 2 (Land Use Planning) Lake Oswego
Comprehensive Plan policy to clearly support zone district overlays as a means of
implementing neighborhood plans (LU 08 - 0053)
Ordinance 2524, Infill (Code Changes) Recommendation from the Planning
Commission to amend portions of the Lake Oswego Code, Chapter 50 (Community
Development Code) and to promote compatibility of new residential development
with the character of existing development (LU 08 - 0053)
Mr. Boone reviewed the standard legislative hearing procedures and testimony time limits. He
asked the Council to declare any conflicts of interest. There were none.
Mr. Boone indicated to Mayor Hoffman that one could have a conflict of interest if one owned a
property significantly affected by a legislative action, but that rarely happened.
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Egner gave a PowerPoint presentation on the policy amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
(Ordinance 2523) and the amendments to many sections in the Community Development Code
(Ordinance 2524).
He reviewed the history of the infill process (p.107), beginning in 2001 with the Council appointing
the first Infill Task Force. He commented that, throughout the process, the concern about infill has
focused on how to make infill more compatible with the community, and not on how to build more
housing units in town. He noted that the second Infill Task Force was more or less equally
balanced between developer and neighborhood interests. He mentioned the additional items
considered by the second Task Force: duplex lots, the residential infill design review process
(RID), variances, sloped lots, flag lots, and serial partitions. He indicated that one-third of the Task
Force's time dealt with design review.
He explained that the Task Force recommendations addressed the theme of whether standards
should be appropriate citywide or whether they needed adjustment on a neighborhood -by -
neighborhood basis (overlays) [Ordinance 2523]. Another theme was house size and relationship
to the neighboring houses [Ordinance 2524]. He mentioned changes adding flexibility to the Code.
He described the Task Force recommendations as a balance between neighborhood concerns
regarding impacts and developer concerns regarding flexibility. He noted that the Task Force
reached consensus on the majority of the recommendations. He read the categories of the Task
Force and Planning Commission recommendations (p.110).
He reviewed the recommended changes, beginning with design review. He explained that the
Task Force discussed this controversial issue more than any other topic. On a split vote (7 to 5), it
recommended establishing a separate procedure for single-family design review, although staff
never nailed down the triggers because staff wanted feedback on whether the idea was
appropriate for the community. He indicated that the Planning Commission voted against it.
He explained that design review was not the same process as the existing RID (residential infill
design) review process, which the Council adopted in 2003 as an alternative for building a
compatible house that did not exactly meet the Code requirements. He described the RID
process. He noted that the main concern of both the Task Force and the Planning Commission
had been that the RID review process allowed houses that were too large. Each group made
adjustments decreasing what could be allowed and adjusted through the RID review process.
He presented a graphic illustrating that the majority of RID review requests since 2003 came for
houses close to the lake, and dealt with house size issues. He discussed the major change in
calculating lot coverage. The Task Force recommended smoothing out the abrupt changes
caused by calculating lot coverage based on whether the house was more than 22 feet in height or
less than that by developing a formula for a sliding scale for lot coverage. The Planning
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 19
April 20, 2010
Commission thought that gave back too much in the amount of lot coverage allowed, and reduced
the percentage of lot coverage allowed.
He discussed the major change in calculating FAR (floor area ratio). He explained that the existing
table in the Code, which set how much FAR the City allowed based on lot size, also created abrupt
steps. The Task Force and Planning Commission developed a formula to eliminate those steps
but the formula also reduced the amount of FAR allowed.
He discussed changes to the front setback and side yard planes that helped make the houses fit
better in the neighborhood by pushing the bulk around the site. He mentioned adding the options
of landscape screening, smaller wall plane offsets, or window bays to help mitigate a large
sidewall.
He described the change related to height adjustments, which addressed the unintended
consequences of the current Code in First Addition. He indicated that adding an additional four
feet of height at the down slope side of each lot would add flexibility and avoid excavations for one-
story houses. He mentioned that there were other changes to sloped lots as well, which tried to fix
problems encountered with front setback planes and to simplify height measurements.
He mentioned changes to variances to add flexibility, especially for remodels filling in near non -
conformities. He described the proposal to change a flag lot driveway to a shared access lane,
which would allow orienting houses to the lane. He directed the Council to Exhibit D-1, which
addressed the criteria listed on p.108 of the staff report.
He presented the staff recommendation to take testimony on both ordinances and to conduct
deliberations on Ordinance 2524 but to delay deliberations on Ordinance 2523, the neighborhood
overlay zone, until staff returned with more information about neighborhood overlay planning in
progress.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Hennagin that adopting the ordinance without amending the
Comprehensive Plan would not put the ordinance in conflict with the Plan. He explained that the
Plan policy amendment was a minor change to the Plan, and that the Code amendments
implemented existing policies in the Plan related to neighborhood compatibility issues in the Plan.
Mr. Boone mentioned that the Planning Commission did not reach consensus on the design
review process. The Commission expressed concerns on the cost and time burdens of the
process, and recommended that the Council support developing an Infill Design Handbook instead.
Councilor Olson commented that she did not understand why staff wanted to delay the Plan text
amendment. She described the amendment as simple, minor, and an essential part of the
Commission's recommendation. Mr. Egner explained that staff wanted to discuss with the Council
the staff resources needed to implement some of the overlay zones. He indicated that staff felt
that it would be awkward if the Council acted on the policy amendment and then discussed the
process later. He agreed that it was a non -controversial element, and said he had no problem with
the Council adopting the policy tonight.
Councilor Moncrieff pointed out that the City has not yet created the lakefront overlay zone
proposed in the Palisades Neighborhood Plan. She asked whether these recommended changes
would apply to the lakefront and other areas in Palisades still waiting on overlay zones. Mr. Egner
commented that staff needed to initiate a process to create a lakefront overlay zone, which might
adjust some of the proposed standards.
Councilor Moncrieff asked if the neighborhood overlays would supersede the infill
recommendations. Mr. Egner explained that the idea behind overlay zones was to customize the
citywide standards to better fit the needs of a particular neighborhood and its lot sizes. He recalled
the Task Force and Planning Commission's discussions regarding the use of the R-7.5 and R-10
zones to blanket the city, regardless of the underlying lotting pattern. He indicated that the R-6
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 19
April 20, 2010
zone was an actual zone, and not an overlay, created for First Addition, but the tool staff switched
to with later neighborhood plans was overlay zones.
Councilor Moncrieff observed that Mr. Egner had constantly referenced First Addition in his
presentation. She commented that she did not think that this Infill code necessarily worked in other
areas, especially areas with large lots or lots fronting on the lake. She indicated that she had
difficulty adopting code language that she thought went in the wrong direction for other areas in
their diverse city.
Mr. Egner indicated that he used the R-6 zone and First Addition as examples because First
Addition had some of the city's smallest lots. He explained that the larger the lot, the more
flexibility there was in applying these standards, except for the skinny lots on the lake. He
described the Task Force and Planning Commission approach as if something worked in First
Addition on its limited lot sizes, then the concept tended to work on a larger lot elsewhere in the
city. He pointed out that the City put the RID review process in place in an effort to address the
varying lot sizes within the two main zones. He agreed that they needed to look at how these
standards applied to the lakefront lots.
Councilor Moncrieff commented that she thought that the criteria used for developing this code
was visual and aesthetic, and not necessarily sustainable (economic, social, and environmental).
Mr. Egner acknowledged that they did look at the issues primarily from a visual compatibility point
of view, as the Task Force's charge had been to find solutions to compatibility issues. They did not
apply the filter of sustainability in the way that staff hoped to with the Comprehensive Plan update.
Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the City needed to address separately the lakefront properties all
around the lake, and not just in Palisades. Mr. Egner recalled discussion about using a lakefront
overlay for Palisades as a model for the other areas around the lake. He indicated to the Mayor
that, once the Council gave direction to staff to work on such an overlay, staff would figure out how
to staff the project.
Councilor Jordan asked what happened if the Council decided to exclude waterfront properties
from the infill process for the time being and allow the current RID process to work on
developments occurring before development of the lakefront overlay. Mr. Egner indicated that
staff would have to craft some exception language for the Code requirements causing problems for
the narrow lakefront properties. Another option could be a two-tiered RID process.
Councilor Jordan pointed out that developing a lakefront overlay zone would not happen quickly,
yet these standards would apply to any property developed after their adoption, including lakefront
properties, until the Code changed with a new lakefront overlay. She asked how they could keep
development moving forward in constrained situations, while at the same time, trying to simplify the
Code. Mr. Egner recommended that staff return with strategies on how to address the issue of
lakefront properties, rather than the Council simply excluding them from the process at this time.
Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Jordan that the only situation he could think of in which the new
side yard setbacks could restrict the now expanded FAR would be on an extremely skinny lot. He
speculated that the new RID process could address that very unusual situation by adjusting the
wall plane standard.
Councilor Jordan asked, given that the wall plane and side plane issues related to privacy, how
bay windows became part of what made a side plane. She pointed out that bay windows allowed
more visual access. Mr. Egner explained that the wall plane standards from 2003, which set the
maximum surface area for the walls, had not addressed privacy but rather breaking up the wall
expanse. He agreed that the bay windows did not offer privacy.
Councilor Olson responded to Councilor Moncrieff's comments. She recalled that she had heard
a lot of discussion at the Infill Task Force and Planning Commission meetings about social
sustainability with respect to privacy and noise issues.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 19
April 20, 2010
Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Tierney that the Planning Commission did not discuss the
neighborhood overlays in terms of the broader Comprehensive Plan policies. Rather, the
Commission, as well as the Task Force, viewed the overlays as a tool for fine-tuning things for
each neighborhood. He commented that there had been a general understanding that the Plan
supported the recommended changes because the changes worked towards increasing
compatibility, which was the main focus of neighborhood planning work. He remarked that staff
might run into some issues that conflicted when they used a stronger emphasis on sustainability in
updating the Plan.
Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Tierney that, hypothetically, developing a lakefront overlay
would take 300 to 600 hours spread over 18 months. He concurred that hypothetically the City
could do it within the proposed budget.
Councilor Tierney pointed out that most of the large houses allowed by the RID process lay
around the lake. He asked if the immediate neighbors or the members of the general community
complained more about the two big houses. Mr. Egner replied that it was the general members of
the community. Mr. Boone pointed out that the City's notification process allowed the
Development Review Commission to work out the complaints from immediate neighbors.
Therefore, he would expect more comments from the general public.
Councilor Tierney asked what would be the result of the Council adopting the ordinance but
leaving the current RID process in place, and adjusting it in the future after the overlays were in
place. Mr. Egner said that that would create a greater degree of flexibility in implementing the new
set of standards because the current RID process allowed lot coverage and floor area adjustments
that the proposed RID did not. He commented that those were some of the greatest concerns for
some of the lakefront properties.
Mayor Hoffman asked if the Infill Task Force and the Planning Commission considered the
lakefront property issue. Mr. Egner indicated that the issue of increased flexibility for lakefront
properties surfaced through testimony very late in the process at the Planning Commission. He
said that he did not recall the Task Force discussing lakefront properties, other than with issues
related to slopes.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony.
THOSE NEUTRAL
Ralph Tahran, 13741 Knaus Road, Infill Task Force 1 and 2 Chair
He commented that Mr. Egner summarized their work accurately as much as one could summarize
10 years of work. He indicated that they accomplished 90% of their original charge. He noted that
they spent a lot of time on several items that were not in their charge. He mentioned that about
10% of the issues came down to a split vote, with "the devil being in the details."
He said that, as an architect, he did his own calculations regarding FAR, and he thought that the
compromise worked fairly well. He commented that, as a practicing architect in town, he thought
that the flexibility they achieved in the lot coverage and height requirements helped.
He concurred that the Task Force focused an inordinate amount of time on First Addition, Lake
Grove, Lake Forest, Waluga, and Evergreen. He commented that those neighborhoods were
similar in character, and the Task Force addressed the problems in them comprehensively, finding
standards that generally worked in them. He said that he did not believe they addressed lakefront
properties and Palisades. He predicted that Palisades would likely have problems with meeting
height and setback requirements, once its remodeling wave began. He spoke to taking a serious
and comprehensive approach to those properties also.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 19
April 20, 2010
He commented that the tear downs that occurred on Douglas Circle and in First Addition occurred
because the serious restrictions on remodels, especially applied to non-conforming lots, left the
property owners with no other alternative. He stated that, with these additional restrictions, almost
every one of those homes would become non-conforming upon adoption of the ordinance.
He discussed the issue of remodels. He commented that, while some of the recommendations
made remodeling a little easier, the City did need to examine what would happen when it
encouraged remodels in other neighborhoods, and how to treat all the lots that would become non-
conforming. He indicated that he has run into these problems with remodels in the course of his
business.
He said that he had not supported the design review process for single family homes because,
based on the criteria, 90% of Lake Oswego homes would need to go through design review. He
argued that it was an unnecessary burden, given that the City already regulated setbacks, setback
planes, lot coverage, FAR, and height. He remarked that there was not much left to regulate. He
pointed out that, as was to be expected, not everyone was happy with all the Development Review
Commission (DRC) decisions. Consequently, having a single -family design review process did not
guarantee a perfect world. He described the process as expensive and extremely time-consuming.
He wondered where the City would get the staff to do it.
He discussed the issue of steep slopes. He commented that this was a complex topic, on which
the Planning Commission did a comprehensive study. He held that the Task Force developed a
simple solution with its 45-foot height recommendation. He stated that a number of properties on
the lake and in Palisades (30% plus slope) would have difficulty meeting the Planning
Commission's height requirement of 35 feet.
He spoke in support of an overlay to address the unique properties on the lake and in Palisades.
He said that, although none of them wanted more work, he thought that the overlay was necessary
work.
Councilor Olson asked what it was about the homes in Palisades that led Mr. Tahran to his
conclusion that many of them would be non-conforming. Mr. Tahran cited an example of a current
remodeling project of his in Palisades, in which the rear yard and side yard setbacks did not meet
the current requirements. The property owners needed either to request a variance or move the
house. He stated his professional opinion that most houses in Palisades would be dealing with the
same situation.
Mr. Tahran pointed out that most of the Palisades homes were built when the height requirement
measured to the midpoint of the roof. The maximum 35-foot height measured to the midpoint
allowed a 45-foot height when measured to the peak; this caused the outcry in First Addition. The
Task Force changed the measurement to a maximum 28 feet at the peak. He suspected that most
two-story homes in Palisades would not meet this dramatic reduction in height. He speculated that
a building on anything but a flat lot would have great difficulty meeting the height requirement. He
commented that he did not want the City to get into something that was asking for more problems,
although he thought that many of the houses in Palisades looked fine, no matter what the height.
Mayor Hoffman commented that the Council could not craft code language. He noted that the
Council's options tonight were to accept the recommendations in total, to accept the
recommendations and go back for the overlay, or to reject the recommendations and send it back
to the Planning Commission to look at Palisades and lakefront properties.
Mr. Tahran spoke to narrowing down the focus to understanding fully the steep slope/height
calculation as it applied primarily to Palisades and the lakefront properties. He indicated to the
Mayor that, as the Infill Task Force Chair, he would like to see the 45-foot height recommendation
reinstated, the lakefront/Palisades overlay completed, and Infill 2 adopted.
Mayor Hoffman observed that the Task Force did not address Palisades because it has not been
much of a problem in the past. He agreed with the prediction that an aging Palisades (built in the
1970s) would see teardowns and remodels soon.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 19
April 20, 2010
Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the standard for a sloped lot was the same,
whether the lot sloped up from the street or down from the street. Councilor Hennagin observed
that the situation of the house on a sloped lot would make a substantial difference in its
appearance.
THOSE OPPOSED
• Skip O'Neill, 16731 Greenbrier Road, Lake Corporation
He mentioned that he was speaking for the lakefront residents of Lake Oswego. He pointed out
that the Task Force had no lakefront property owners on it. He noted that 35 of the 45 RIDs since
2004 involved lakefront properties. He urged caution in using the designation of developer
because of its connotations of someone coming in from outside the city. He stated that he was a
builder who worked for the Lake Oswego citizens. He pointed out that only one developer
requested an RID in Evergreen; citizens requested the rest of them.
He commented that the other nine RIDs for non -lakefront properties were not done in First
Addition, Lake Grove, or Evergreen, yet the majority of the Task Force members were from those
neighborhoods. He mentioned that those neighborhoods saw a lot of development in the past 10
years, but today there was no development in them. He pointed out that none of those nine RIDs
had been for larger houses.
He indicated that 90% of the RIDs for lakefront properties had been for remodels, and not for the
teardowns for bigger homes (as has been inaccurately claimed). He acknowledged that the
remodels resulted in larger structures, but he contended that someone walking by those homes
would not necessarily conclude that the bigger homes were the result of the RID process.
He recommended that the Council retain the current RID process. He argued that changing it and
adding restrictions lost the spirit of the process, which was to provide a means for citizens to fix
problems. He acknowledged that it was not a perfect process, but held that it was better than the
Class 2 variance process had been. He commented that the 135 Class 2 variances in 10 years for
properties around the lake had been a huge burden on staff and one reason for creating the RID
process in the first place.
Mr. O'Neill indicated to Mayor Hoffman that his objection to the proposed RID process was
adding another layer of restrictions on Lake Oswego citizens. He commented that, even though he
was in the industry, he had to get professional advice from Mr. Tahran and Curt Olson in order to
maneuver through this difficult document.
He confirmed to the Mayor that he did not support the amended RID process as proposed by the
Planning Commission, but favored keeping the existing RID process. He argued that eliminating
the lot coverage and FAR ruined the spirit of flexibility in the current process, while additional
restrictions rendered the process unusable.
Councilor Hennagin commented that he would have thought that the RID process was as
complex and time-consuming as the variance process. Mr. O'Neill explained that the difference
with the variance process had been the requirement to show hardship, which was impossible in
most cases. He emphasized that the RID process allowed people with problems to move forward
with their plans, even though it was still an eight to twelve month process and cost a minimum of
$10,000. He confirmed that he was suggesting that the Council retain the RID process citywide.
He stated that it was a fact that the process did not create the huge houses that people claimed it
did.
Bob Barman, 1445 Oak Terrace, Palisades Neighborhood Association Area 1
representative
He mentioned that neither he nor the Neighborhood Association Chair have heard from staff
regarding the overlay, which was an important issue in the neighborhood. He cited his nine years
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 19
April 20, 2010
serving on the Lake Corporation Board in indicating that he was well aware that the lakefront
properties had issues. He explained how examples of homes on West Bay Road, Lakeview Blvd,
North Shore would not work under the proposed regulations if they were rebuilt. He argued that
flexibility was needed to insure a variety of architectural styles, and that height restrictions were
needed to maintain the views of neighboring homes.
He contended that testing the regulations against existing homes needed the political will and
financial decision of the Council to set this as an important issue and to move forward with it. He
agreed with retaining the existing RID process during the two years it might take to do the testing,
so that they did not stop home building and remodeling. He suggested that Council flat out exempt
lakefront properties and consider exempting the Palisades neighborhood in light of the problems
discussed tonight.
He commented that he did not want to stop the process, as it has done a great job in First Addition
and Lake Grove. He recommended putting a timeline on staff to work with the Lake Corporation
and the Palisades neighborhood to develop a template for the Palisades area. He mentioned his
concern that no one on the Palisades Executive Team had known that this process has been going
on for six years, as the neighborhood was not invited to participate in the process.
Councilor Moncrieff asked whether Mr. Barman was recommending the adoption of the whole
infill process and excepting Palisades and lakefront properties, or was he recommending keeping
the original RID process citywide. Mr. Barman said that he believed that the Task Force
represented some neighborhoods very well, and that he did not support stopping a 10 -year
process. He recommended keeping the RID process citywide because of its flexibility, while
exempting lakefront properties, as the City has done in the past. He recalled that the Council
granted the lakefront homes in the Country Club neighborhood an exemption from the
neighborhood height restriction of 28 feet because of the steep slope area. He spoke to asking
staff to work with the lakefront homeowners via the Palisades Neighborhood Association to work
on those issues.
Mr. Barman commented that he would hate to see such a damaging policy to their neighborhood
passed without the neighbors having an opportunity to comment. He suggested exempting
Palisades until after the City completed another study.
• Todd Van Rysselberghe, 227 North Shore Road, Lake Oswego Corporation
He commented that it was clear from listening to the Council's questions and comments that the
members were listening to the kinds of concerns shared by the Lake Corporation.
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Mr. Van Rysselberghe that the Council received the letter from the
Lake Corporation.
• Carolyne Jones, 2818 S Poplar Way
She referenced the discussion about lakefront lots in reminding the Council that there was a great
deal of contention in the city over the extreme sensitive lands use restrictions on stream corridor
lots while lakefront properties on the city's largest water resource were excluded. She requested
on the public record a uniform code for all lots fronting on water resources.
She asked that the proposed 45 -foot height limit for steep lots be applied to all steep lots
throughout the city and not just in certain areas.
Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Olson that the Planning Commission rejected the Task Force
recommendation of 45 feet and lowered it to 35 feet.
Mayor Hoffman closed the hearing to public testimony.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 9:29 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at
9:43 p.m.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 19
April 20, 2010
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Mayor Hoffman reviewed the issues that he heard raised in this controversial discussion of infill.
He mentioned that the Second Infill Task Force recommendations have been tested in Lake Grove,
Waluga, Lake Forest, Evergreen, and First Addition. He noted the concern raised by the Council
as to whether those recommendations have been tested in Palisades, Glenmorrie, and Hallinan.
He recalled that the First Infill Task Force tested its proposals with examples in Lake Forest,
Waluga, and Lake Grove.
He indicated that the second issue was lakefront zoning, an issue that has been around since
1999. He mentioned getting neighbor buy -in and finding the staff to do it. He discussed the third
issue of the timing of the ordinance adoption and testing it in Palisades. He stated his opinion that
the City would not see infill pressure from intense tear down/rebuild or significant remodels or the
next two to three years, and therefore, there was time to test the recommendations.
Councilor Moncrieff said that she was inclined to send the ordinance back to staff to determine
whether this code worked for the unique nature of waterfront properties, as she believed it did not
work for them in its present form. She asked staff to look at the treatment of steep slopes citywide
in regards to the height restrictions. She supported retaining the current RID process, citing the
testimony indicating that it worked well. She indicated that she was not ready to adopt the
ordinance as is.
Councilor Jordan referenced the comments that these proposals worked well in various
neighborhoods, including her own. She mentioned that the original owners of her home, which sat
on a lot larger than the zoning required, kept the house under the height requirement simply
because they did not want to go through the RID process. However, they could have built the
house larger and it would have still fit in with the neighborhood.
She discussed her concern with creating a citywide overlay (except for Mountain Park) when the
city had such a variety of lot sizes and topography. She argued that keeping the existing RID
process provided sufficient flexibility while the City tested the proposed changes to see where they
ended up. At the same time, the City could see how the changes affected the later neighborhoods.
She pointed out that one reason the City was going through its Development Code was because it
was for new subdivisions. With the city pretty well built out, they would see more infill and
redevelopment in the coming years than new development. She indicated that she was not certain
that she could adopt a more restrictive RID process without looking at how the changes (which
were proposed in response to specific situations that occurred over the past six years) affected the
whole city.
Councilor Tierney recalled that Mr. Egner told the Council at the study session that these `infill'
code amendments applied to the entire community. He commented that, while he wanted to
respect the work of the Task Force and the Planning Commission, he also did not want to be short-
sighted about it. He asked Councilor Moncrieff whether retaining the existing RID process,
adopting the rest of the ordinance, and directing staff to deal with waterfront properties satisfied her
concerns. Councilor Moncrieff indicated that she needed to hear from the landowners and
developers as whether the RID process would take care of their concerns.
PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED
Mayor Hoffman reopened the hearing to public testimony.
Mr. O'Neill stated that the existing RID as written would give people the opportunity to work
through their issues. He commented that the other issues would likely come up in future
amendments to their complicated Code. He indicated that he would vote the ordinance in but not
the RID portion, and then work through the issues with the neighborhoods and the lakefront
community.
Mayor Hoffman asked if anyone wanted to comment on Mr. O'Neill's comments
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 19
April 20, 2010
Mr. Barman agreed with keeping the current RID process with the caveat of doing an overlay for
Palisades and the lakefront community.
Councilor Tierney spoke of continuing to refine the proposed changes for those particular
neighborhoods using overlays. He acknowledged that there were resource issues involved, but
noted that this solution would give flexibility and another vehicle to those wanting to move forward
to reach the same end.
Mayor Hoffman asked if anyone wanted to comment on Mr. Barman's comments. Hearing none,
he closed the public hearing.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Councilor Olson indicated that she too would like to honor the work of the Task Force and the
Planning Commission. Therefore, she had a problem with keeping the current RID process for the
whole city. She agreed with the citizen comments that the Task Force was oriented towards
certain neighborhoods heavily affected by infill in the past (Evergreen, First Addition, Lake Grove,
Lake Forest, and Waluga). She suggested applying the new RID to those neighborhoods. She
concurred with Councilor Moncrieff that they should refer this back to staff to bring back
recommendations from the Planning Department's perspective.
She spoke to revisiting the steep slope lot issue. She commented that she thought some of the
problems with RID and infill in the past have not been because of the Code or RID themselves, but
rather how staff applied the Code and handled the applications. She mentioned poor noticing
practices in particular. She argued that if they kept the current RID process, then they needed to
improve it at the City services level.
Councilor Hennagin stated his appreciation of the Task Force and Planning Commission work.
He mentioned that he has always been suspicious of neighborhood overlays because he did not
want the Council perceived as playing favorites in letting a given neighborhood retain larger lots
than another neighborhood when the City faced infill development pressures. However, he could
see that these recommendations were appropriate for some areas of the city and inappropriate for
other areas. He wondered if another option might be to let the neighborhoods decide whether to
adopt the recommendations for their neighborhood or to keep the current RID process.
Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the Council, and not the neighborhoods, adopted standards and
zoning. Mr. Boone confirmed that the Council could not delegate the zoning functions to a non-
governmental body. Councilor Hennagin clarified that he meant that the neighborhoods would
come back to the Council with their overlay recommendations.
Mayor Hoffman observed that the City has dealt with the topography of First Addition, Lake Grove,
Waluga, and Lake Forest — all of which were relatively flat. He described the next iteration of the
infill discussion as dealing with the height and setback issues of Palisades. He commented that
staff has always told the Council that this was code that would apply citywide. He mentioned
hearing that the new RID process was problematic, and that the old one would work for lakefront
zoning, although he knew that there were other issues relating to lakefront properties. He spoke in
support of adopting the recommendations with the exception of the RID process and tweaking the
35 -foot height limit. He remarked that it would be a challenge to deal with another topographical
sub -area of the city.
Councilor Jordan expressed her concern that the Council was adopting more layers of code (the
overlays) while the City was paying a consultant to simplify the current development code. She
agreed with Mayor Hoffman and Councilor Tierney on adopting the standards and leaving in the
existing RID process for flexibility while the staff cleaned up the development code.
She discussed the issue of a handbook illustrating the code versus a design review process. She
mentioned that the Code auditor suggested providing better drawings to illustrate the City's
expectations as a way to make the Code simpler and more user-friendly. She argued that a
handbook would go a long way to help inform the development review process. She stated that
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 19
April 20, 2010
she would support adopting the recommendations this evening with the exception of maintaining
the current RID process.
Councilor Olson recalled asking Mr. Egner earlier why the Council was not adopting a
Comprehensive Plan text amendment that said that the Planning Commission recommended using
overlay zones to implement neighborhood plans and protect neighborhood character. She
commented that she thought that was very important, as did the Task Force and the Planning
Commission, since the issues boiled down to protecting neighborhood character.
She expressed her concern that not adopting that Comprehensive Plan amendment, when and if
the Council adopted the Code amendments, was not recognizing the importance of neighborhood
character and neighborhood plan implementation to the community. She agreed with Councilor
Jordan that the recommendations contained a lot of flexibility for flag lots and remodeling. She
commented that she did not want to hold up the many improvements in this Code language that
should be applied citywide.
She stated that she shared Councilor Moncrieff's concerns about the individual neighborhoods.
She expressed her concern that these recommendations applied citywide when the orientation of
the Infill Task Force had been towards certain neighborhoods and not others.
Councilor Moncrieff indicated that she could adopt this iteration of the Infill recommendations with
the exception of keeping the current RID process as long as the Council made a commitment to
work on the waterfront overlay and steep slopes. She explained that her main concern was not
making it more difficult to build or remodel in Lake Oswego at a time when the City should be
encouraging redevelopment and building (by making it as easy as possible) in order to help the
economy along. She mentioned recently receiving calls from people from other states considering
a move to Lake Oswego who asked about the property restrictions. She commented that people
moving here were looking at how much flexibility they had on their private property.
Mayor Hoffman clarified that what he meant by `test' was what Ron Kellette did 10 years ago with
the first Infill Task Force. They tested the rules on existing properties to see if they would work
before development occurred. He anticipated staff doing something similar.
Councilor Moncrieff reiterated that she wanted to make sure that the City did not put any
roadblocks in the builders' way. Mayor Hoffman concurred.
Councilor Johnson spoke in favor of passing the ordinance with the exception of keeping the RID
process for the whole city. She commented that a lot of good work went into the
recommendations, which she felt the City needed to look at in a more holistic nature as the Council
looked at where it wanted to go and made sure that people knew what they could do with their
properties. She described the lack of clarity about what one could and could not do with one's
property as one of the biggest problems in the city.
She agreed with Councilor Jordan that they needed a `crosswalk' to get from where they were to
where they wanted to go, which she thought the RID process allowed them to do. She expressed
her hope that they could address the more specific issues through overlays and other tools. She
spoke of fixing the Code so that they might not need a RID process because the Code was
straightforward enough that people knew what they could and could not build.
Councilor Hennagin commented that this was morphing into something that was not brought to
the Council with the ordinance. He described the proposal as adopting the ordinance as proposed
for citywide application but retaining the RID process, which allowed exceptions to the building
code at staff discretion. He asked whether they were overly complicating a system that they hired
someone to simplify.
Mayor Hoffman commented that he heard people saying that they were comfortable with these
amendments to the zoning code with the exception of Section 6 (RID review). He described the
proposed Council action as directing staff, with input and assistance from neighbors and builders,
to examine the application of this amended zone to specific neighborhoods, such as Palisades.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 19
April 20, 2010
Once staff reported back, Council would decide if it wanted to accept the staff recommendations
and direct staff to develop the Code language and take it through the City's process. He held that
this process would expedite matters more than creating an Infill Task Force 3, and address
Councilor Moncrieff's timing concerns.
Councilor Tierney pointed out that the existing RID process delegated the authority to the City
Manager, who, at his discretion, delegated the process to the Development Review Commission.
He commented that history showed that the City Manager used his discretion well in delegating
controversial applications to the DRC to deal with it.
He argued that they should not confuse simplifying the Code with adopting policies. He described
the Council action tonight as adopting policies around development. He commented that the
policies could also benefit from simplifying the language for clarification purposes.
Councilor Olson disagreed that the RID process has always been used well. She argued that the
problems that the Council has heard from certain neighborhoods were the result of not using the
RID process well. She concurred with Councilor Hennagin that they should apply the RID process
on a neighborhood -by -neighborhood basis, and allow those neighborhoods that did not think that
the current RID process worked well to switch to the new RID process.
Councilor Jordan moved to adopt Ordinance 2524 with the exception that the RID process
be maintained as it currently exists. Councilor Tierney seconded the motion.
Councilor Jordan spoke of the City moving forward with testing the new language to see how it
would work in the neighborhoods, and of staff reporting back to Council on any issues or problems
that came up.
Councilor Hennagin commented that there seemed to already be somewhat of a consensus that
the infill ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission, did not work everywhere in the
city, yet the motion proposed adopting it for citywide application. He indicated that he could not
vote in support of doing that.
Mayor Hoffman disagreed that there was a consensus that it did not fit but rather a question of
whether it fit. He clarified that he supported testing the regulations the same as the City did years
ago with Infill 1.
Councilor Jordan observed that adopting this language or having an exceptions process did not
create beautiful homes. She commented that there was a lot of room for disagreement over what
constituted a good-looking house. She described the language crafted by the Infill Task Force as
creating flexibility, especially for the remodels that would be occurring in the older neighborhoods.
She mentioned her uncertainty that a lot of this did not apply to the rest of the city. She speculated
that maintaining the RID process would set a new tone for what people would look at in the RID
process.
Councilor Moncrieff indicated that, while she shared Councilor Hennagin's concern, she thought
that there was more benefit than detriment in this new code. She described retaining the old RID
process as providing a safety valve for the non -conforming homes. She commented that she
respected the work that the Infill Task Force and staff have put in. She stated that she would
support the motion, but she did want to look at how to fix the things that they knew were not
working.
Councilor Tierney commented that he thought there was a consensus that there were concerns
with the recommendations. He agreed that the RID process would provide a safety valve and relief
for remodels during the testing period. He mentioned that he has reviewed the RID book and
agreed with Mr. O'Neill that the houses looked good, although beauty was in the eyes of the
beholder. He concurred with Councilor Moncrieff and Mayor Hoffman.
Councilor Olson commented that, in his staff report, Mr. Egner mentioned that one issue with the
current RID process was the limited number of neighbors receiving notice of the review process.
She suggested tweaking the current process a bit. She indicated that she would vote no on the
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 19
April 20, 2010
motion, not because she did not think that the Task Force did a good job, as there were many
good elements in the recommendations, but because she knew how strongly some of the
neighborhoods felt about the RID process. She reiterated her suggestion to apply the new RID
process to certain neighborhoods.
Mayor Hoffman stated that he would support the motion with the caveat that he was uncertain
about the timing. He suggested that staff, with input from the neighborhoods and the builders, test
how the regulations applied to Palisades and Hallinan and return with a report to Council by
September on what needed tweaking. He argued that a delay of another five years benefited no
one. Mr. Egner indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that staff could look at waterfront properties as
part of this process.
Councilor Tierney offered an amendment to the motion to modify the language dealing with
notice for the RID process (Supplemental Report, p. 58, Section 6, line 3) from 100 feet to
300 feet for consistency with other City notifications.
Mr. Boone mentioned the compatibility issue. He noted that the Planning Commission discussed
defining the neighborhood as the 20 units closest to the subject site. Currently, the language said
to look at all lots within 200 feet. Councilor Tierney clarified that his motion was about informing
people, and to leave it at that.
Mr. Boone clarified to Councilor Jordan that the notices of both the tentative and the final RID
decision would go to property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the contiguous site where the
application was made. Those property owners then had the opportunity to comment on or request
a hearing on the tentative decision or to file an appeal of the final decision.
Councilor Jordan accepted the amendment as a friendly amendment. She commented that
300 feet was acceptable, but she did not want someone four blocks away deciding that the house
was not right for the neighborhood. Councilor Tierney noted that he seconded the original
motion.
Mr. Egner mentioned that Mr. Boone caught an error on p.33 (Exhibit A) where staff accidentally
struck out the minimum lot area and floor area per dwelling for the R-5 zone; that minimum should
remain in at 5,000 square feet. Councilor Jordan indicated that she had included that correction
in her motion. Councilor Tierney concurred.
Councilor Olson commented that there was more than anecdotal information regarding the limited
notification because, in his formal report, Mr. Egner identified notification as one of the issues
discussed by the Task Force.
Councilor Hennagin stated that he believed it was a mistake for the Council to adopt a standard
citywide and put it on a test basis. He argued that they should send it back to staff first for testing,
and then vote on it. He indicated that he would vote against the motion.
A roll call vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Mayor Hoffman, Johnson, Moncrieff,
Tierney, and Jordan voting `aye.' Councilors Hennagin and Olson voted `no.' [5-2]
INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL
8.1 Councilor Information
8.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
9.1 City Manager
9.1.1 Review of Council Schedule
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 19
April 20, 2010
9.2 City Attorney
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Hoffman convened an Executive Session at 10:35 p.m. pursuant to ORS 192.660(2) (d) to
conduct deliberations with persons designated to carry on labor negotiations. He reviewed the
Executive Session parameters.
11. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Mayor Hoffman returned the meeting to open session at 10:56 p.m.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON September 7, 2010
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 19
April 20, 2010
wcec,�a'ecc� CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
May 17, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. on May 17,
2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Johnson (5:12), Hennagin, Olson (5:12),
Moncrieff, and Tierney. Councilor Jordan was excused.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Debra Andreades, Senior Planner; Jane Blackstone,
Economic Development Manager
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Housing Options Tour Recap
Mayor Hoffman noted that Paul Lyons and Ralph Tahran were present to add their comments to
Ms. Andreades' recap of the Council's Housing Options tour. Ms. Andreades introduced Peter
Englander from the Portland Development Commission and a resident of Hastings Green
Ms. Andreades gave a PowerPoint presentation of the various housing projects visited by the
Council on May 2. She commented that periodic review was an appropriate time to consider
housing options, as the City would be updating its housing goals and standards as part of the
process.
She began with Hastings Green, a condominium project on one (1) lot located between SE 70th
and SE 71St Streets on SE Clinton Avenue in Portland. She noted that the Council looked at the
ten cottage units built around a center green during the first of the two phases. Mayor Hoffman
pointed out that the lot was essentially a double R-15 lot with 23 units total. Mr. Englander
clarified that the lot was broken into 10,000 square feet on one side and 20,000 square feet on the
other.
Ms. Andreades mentioned the high-quality design of the cottages, and the separation achieved
through offsetting. Mayor Hoffman recalled that the offsetting had been specifically designed for
privacy purposes. Ms. Andreades noted the community garden area.
Councilor Moncrieff commented that she thought Hastings Green was a development that would
fit in any neighborhood in Lake Oswego. Councilor Olson recalled that she had not thought the
units were very affordable. Mr. Englander discussed the original sale prices of the units. They
ranged from $199,000 to $235,000 in 2003, which at the time, was relatively affordable. He
indicated that the units now sold for between $300,000 to $350,000.
Mayor Hoffman pointed out that one could build two (2) $2 million homes on two (2) R-15 lots
adjacent to one another or one could build twenty (20) $200,000 homes for the same $4 million of
value.
Mr. Englander described the age diversity of the people living at Hastings Green from retired
people to young couples wanting to start their families. He mentioned that the development has
seen a fair amount of turnover with couples who decided that the space was too small after they
started their families. He noted that many singles have moved in, especially single women
attracted by the design that encouraged safety. He explained that each home had a front porch
and the kitchen at the front so that people could see what was going on on the green and in the
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 9
May 17, 2010
parking area. He mentioned the strong community aspect of this development where people knew
their neighbors.
Mr. Tahran recalled that, when he first went to see Hastings Green as an example of infill, he had
had a hard time spotting it because it fit so well into the neighborhood. He pointed out the care
taken and the privacy respected, as evidenced in the excellent design of the development.
Mr. Englander indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the surrounding neighborhood had been
impressed with the design and how Patrick Jackson, the architect/developer, worked with them to
get the conditional zoning he needed to do the project. He mentioned that the immediate
neighbors had not been interested in having 23 homes replace the former nursery. He commented
that it was a mixed bag in terms of the neighbors' acceptance of the project but most were
impressed with its appearance.
Mr. Englander indicated to Councilor Hennagin that there was one neighbor who did move away
because they were used to having nothing behind them. He discussed the parking at Hastings
Green, where each unit had a garage. He indicated that they saw a lot of on street parking
because either people had more than one car or they used their garage for storage.
Mr. Englander indicated to Mayor Hoffman that underground parking was not considered for
Hastings Green. However, a number of the designs submitted to the Bureau of Planning and
Sustainability competition a few years ago included underground parking.
Mr. Englander indicated to Councilor Olson that he was not aware of any neighbors who moved
out of Hastings Green because they did not like the closeness of the other houses and the lack of
privacy.
Ms. Andreades continued her presentation with Sabin Green in northeast Portland, designed by
Mark Lakeman, on two interacting lots with two primary houses and two 800 square foot accessory
dwelling units (ADUs) behind them. She explained that the two lots were later consolidated and
the buildings turned into condominiums to create one (1) 7500 square foot lot with four (4) units on
it and a central common area. Mayor Hoffman commented that First Addition had many 7500
square foot lots, and that Norma Heisler had a 10,000 to 12,000 square foot lot.
Ms. Andreades continued her presentation with Graham Street Commons, built under the
Portland Common Green Provisions (2007) on two (2) 7500 square foot lots. She described the
three existing buildings and the reconfiguration of the lots into two (2) 4000 square foot lots, two (2)
2500 square foot lots, and a central common gathering area. She mentioned the intent of building
a duplex on the currently vacant lot.
At Mayor Hoffman's request, Mr. Tahran explained that the Common Green Provisions'
elimination of the requirement for frontage on 25 feet of a public right of way allowed this
development to do what was best for the property and for privacy. Ms. Andreades mentioned that
the Common Green Provisions also did not specify the type of access; it could be pedestrian or
vehicular.
Ms. Andreades noted that the last stop on the tour was the Bohnsen cottages on Vista. She
indicated that these 550 square foot cottages on an 8500 square foot lot (built in 1926) sat in the
middle of a low-density residential zone with really large houses. She commented that the
designers were creative in how they provided open space, given the topography on the site.
Mr. Lyons recalled that this dialog on housing began almost a year ago as a continuation of the
community conversation on housing in relation to aging in place. He reminded the Council that in
2000, about 21.5% of Lake Oswego's population was 55+; today that population was approaching
29% with the expectation of reaching 40% in seven years. He mentioned that there were many
people in Lake Oswego who were 65+, and living alone. He remarked that a constant refrain they
heard was that there was nothing `right-sized' to move to in Lake Oswego in downsizing from a
larger home.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 9
May 17, 2010
He posed the question of whether Lake Oswego wanted to have a vision for creating the kind of
lifelong community that other communities were creating that allowed a person to age in place. He
suggested that staff assemble the tools developed by other communities and work with the Code
and the Planning Commission to see which of those tools would work in Lake Oswego.
Mr. Tahran spoke of creating a community that accommodated both ends of the age scale. He
mentioned that his 24 -year-old son would like to live in a modestly sized home and start his family.
He argued that, in thinking about both bookends of age, they would provide for a more sustainable
lifestyle in the community.
Mr. Tahran indicated to Mayor Hoffman that Oregon City already had a cottage -style ordinance.
He commented that they could easily remodel someone else's code to fit Lake Oswego. He
concurred that they were not breaking new ground here.
He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that he has read code from other cities. He commented that
the Oregon City code had impressed him with its simplicity and how they wrapped it together. He
noted that Sabin Green and Graham Station illustrated the evolution of accessory dwelling units
(ADUs); the developer built Sabin Green under a code with an 800 square foot maximum for the
ADU, but Graham Station developed under a more flexible code that looked at the total square
footage and allowed for a smaller primary unit and a larger accessory unit.
Ms. Andreades indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Portland has changed its code to remove
the 800 square foot limitation. She mentioned that in 1996 Portland removed the provision
requiring the owner to live in one unit, which allowed four units under for separate ownerships
rather than two lots, each with a primary and secondary structure. She said that Lake Oswego's
Code still had the 800 square foot maximum and the owner resident requirements.
Mr. Tahran indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Portland did not count the garage square
footage as part of the square footage of an ADU over a garage.
Councilor Olson asked if the Oregon City Code addressed cottage housing only or did it speak of
ADUs. She wondered if Oregon City changed its zoning throughout the city or only in certain
areas. She asked if Mr. Tahran has seen any projects done under the cottage -housing ordinance.
Mr. Tahran indicated that he has not seen any projects done under the cottage housing code. He
said that the code did not address ADUs.
Councilor Tierney asked about the walkability aspect of these developments in relation to
commercial development. Mr. Lyons commented that he saw the denser cottage style, located
closer to restaurants, public spaces, and public transportation, as the right way to create a
walkable community. He indicated to the Councilor that he has focused on cottage developments
built next to existing commercial areas. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that these were examples of
small infill projects that would not justify a new commercial development; neighborhood commercial
required hundreds of rooftops.
Mr. Englander indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that Hastings Green was on a transit line, and
close enough to the commercial area on Powell and 82nd Avenue to walk. He stated that one could
live in Hastings Green without a car. He mentioned that Portland increased the zoning along
Division to allow for more commercial uses on that street, which, over time should increase the
walkability of the neighborhood. He concurred with the comments that building cottage housing in
closer proximity to commercial was the right thing to do.
Ms. Andreades indicated to Mayor Hoffman that she has identified impediments to ADUs and/or
cluster housing in the Lake Oswego Code. She reiterated the 800 square foot maximum
requirement for an ADU and the owner resident requirement. She indicated that one could build a
development like Hastings Green under the City's planned development standards in a high-
density zone, but there was a question of whether it would need design review to look at the
impacts of the development. She mentioned that determining the right amount of parking and
locating it appropriately was also an issue of concern.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 9
May 17, 2010
Mayor Hoffman mentioned attending a presentation at the Adult Community Center yesterday
titled "To Move or Not to Move: Lifestyle Options for Older Adults in Lake Oswego." He reported
that the variety of panelists related to senior care discussed the difficulty older Lake Oswego
residents had in finding a place to live when they could no longer maintain their current residence
but did not want to move out of the community. Because there was no housing alternatives for
them in Lake Oswego, they were forced to move some place else.
He recalled the discussion regarding what was important for people in their late 70s through their
80s, and how the community could accommodate seniors' desire for safety and companionship.
He pointed out that those who have lived in the community for 40 years were the ones who made
the community the way it was today. He mentioned that one of the presenters told him afterwards
that there was a demand for ADUs and cluster housing. He suggested having someone from
Marylhurst talk to the Council specifically about the demand for this product. He mentioned
another point made by the panelists that the aging baby boomers in Lake Oswego had aging
parents to take care of.
Councilor Moncrieff observed that the community was not questioning the need for this housing
option. She spoke of moving past the study level and proceeding with the next steps.
Mr. Lyons commented that the high land value in Lake Oswego required them to develop a
methodology to allow two to three houses on a lot (instead of one large house) and thus reduce the
price to something more affordable. He mentioned that his calculations found that two to three
houses on a lot had the same benefit to the tax revenue and schools as one large house. He
mentioned that the National Association of Homebuilders was seeing a trend towards a smaller
average house size and that local realtors indicated that there was a demand for smaller houses.
Mr. Tahran mentioned three examples of smaller home developments in or near Lake Oswego:
the Headlee cottages in Old Town, the Winfield development on Bonita Road, and the Green at
Glenmorrie. He pointed out that all of those examples were at half the density of cottage housing
and at twice the density of the normal Lake Oswego subdivision. He commented that these well-
designed, smaller homes rarely came up for sale and then did not stay on the market long. He
cited that as evidence of a demand for this house size. He commented that Norma Heisler's First
Addition project was a good project along these lines, but it has gone away.
He indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that he was willing to volunteer his time to figure out how
Lake Oswego could do cluster/cottage types of development. Ms. Andreades said that she has
been researching several codes to see if they would work in Lake Oswego, which was a good
place to start. She reiterated that periodic review was an appropriate time to review their approach
to their housing policies.
Mayor Hoffman described the next step as directing the City Manager to allocate a certain amount
of resources to start moving this project through the Planning Commission. Staff would identify
what tools the City needed to make it reality and what aspects of the current Code were obstacles
to achieving this product. He noted that it would be complementary to the Comprehensive Plan
periodic review process and informed by the staff present tonight. He mentioned that at some
point Council would adopt the Code language amendments and roll it into the Comprehensive
Plan.
Ms. Andreades indicated to Councilor Hennagin that she would like to see this work tie in
smoothly with the Comprehensive Plan update, as staff could do the work and the public
engagement concurrently with periodic review. Mayor Hoffman explained that it was a matter of
Ms. Andreades coordinating her project with the staff planners working on the Comprehensive
Plan.
Councilor Hennagin asked how specific the Council direction should be. Mayor Hoffman
described the iterative process, in which staff took Council's direction regarding a housing policy,
started working on it, and checked back in with Council on a periodic basis to verify that their work
lined up with the Council policy direction.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 9
May 17, 2010
Councilor Olson advocated for discussing this allocation of FTEs to different planning efforts in
the context of the current budget process and the concerns about neighborhood planners. She
asked why this housing options project was not part of the large housing component in the
Comprehensive Plan process. Mayor Hoffman indicated that this project would inform the
Comprehensive Plan housing component but they did not want to wait three years before moving
this project forward.
Mayor Hoffman argued that it was in the purview of the Council as elected officials, and not the
Citizen Budget Committee, to direct the City Manager regarding the housing policy of Lake
Oswego. He pointed out that the Council was not saying how much staff time to allocate.
Councilor Olson cited comments she has heard from people that the ADU permitting and
planning process in Lake Oswego could be prohibitively expensive. She mentioned hearing also
from senior citizens on fixed incomes that the combination of increased fees, charges, and rates
were making it too expensive for some to stay in Lake Oswego.
Ms. Andreades indicated to Councilor Olson that she has been working with Mr. Sin on the
Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal for the last year. This housing options project would segue
into what she was already doing.
Councilor Johnson commented that the finished product of this project was in addition to the
housing component of the Comprehensive Plan. She advocated for doing this project within the
next couple of years. She described the allocation of staff resources as a timing issue, which then
became a budget issue. She raised the question of whether the Council wanted to address this in
the immediate term or put it off for a couple of years.
She asked several questions regarding affordable housing and affordable services for seniors.
She pointed out that the increase in certain fees would be balanced by the cost savings from using
other services offered through the Adult Community Center and from public transportation. She
noted that the questions around younger families included the availability of jobs nearby to
decrease the transportation cost and the availability of parks and other activities in the community.
She described this as a complicated issue with many other issues tying into it.
She recommended that the Council look for the low -hanging fruit in the process of making ADUs
simpler, which would require staff time. She acknowledged that the ADU process was difficult, as
she has gone through it herself, but she found talking things through with staff very helpful. She
commented that she thought that solving the affordable housing problem would take a long
process into the future. Therefore, finding the small steps would be important.
Councilor Hennagin asked how direction to staff to develop zoning ordinances to facilitate ADUs
related to the current project to simplify the code. Ms. Andreades explained that the Code audit
was more of a structural issue looking at how the Code was organized. She agreed that staff
always wanted to simplify things, which a conversation with the community would help them do.
Mr. Tahran recounted an obstacle in the ADU process, in which the SDCs (system development
charges) of the primary unit applied to the ADU, making ADUs expensive. He recalled that
Portland ran into a similar problem a couple of years ago and exempted ADUs from the SDCs. He
commented that he did not know that Lake Oswego had to go that far, but he did think that the City
should not apply the SDC to an ADU the same as it did to the primary residence. He described
increasing their housing options as a way to make the community more sustainable, or face
becoming a community of only second or third time homebuyers, and the loss of kids to attend the
schools.
Councilor Tierney argued that the policy should articulate the Council's vision of what it was trying
to accomplish and leave it to staff to figure out how to do it, as opposed to the policy addressing
the resource question. He agreed with Councilor Moncrieff that they did not need more study.
Mayor Hoffman described the next step as starting the process on its way through the land use
system.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 9
May 17, 2010
Councilor Olson commented that a public engagement process would help Council find that
vision, but they have had no public engagement on this topic. Mayor Hoffman disagreed, citing
the plans developed by committees over many years to address senior issues and affordable
housing needs. Councilor Johnson asked what it would take to get the Council to the point of
making a decision.
Councilor Hennagin moved to instruct the City Manager to start developing code to enable
cluster/cottage and ADU housing options.
Mayor Hoffman asked if the Council wanted to move forward now or wait five years. Councilor
Moncrieff indicated that she was ready to move forward with staff crafting the language for
Planning Commission review and the public process.
Councilor Tierney asked for a friendly amendment to direct staff to report back to the Council
during the process, as opposed to waiting until the end of it. Councilor Hennagin agreed.
The Council indicated by a nod of heads that the members agreed with the motion. The Mayor
restated the Council direction as directing staff to move forward with allocating resources to
accomplish the will of the Council to provide different types of housing options, including
cluster/courtyard housing and SDU/ADUs, and to report back at a Council study session in six to
eight weeks.
Mayor Hoffman asked Ms. Andreades to address the Council at a study session regarding how
this housing options direction fit in with the Comprehensive Plan update.
3.2 Strategic Investment Zone Discussion
Ms. Blackstone introduced Renata Mengelberg, Clackamas County Economic Development
Manager and Project Manager for the Strategic Investment Zone. She asked for Council
direction on the three options for distribution of the community service fee and interim tax payment,
and on whether the Council would like to approve the draft IGA (intergovernmental agreement),
which staff would forward to the County Commission on June 20.
Ms. Mengelberg explained that the County based its Strategic Investment Zone on a successful
model of Gresham's zone. She recalled that, at her last presentation, the Council had seemed
comfortable with the requirements of companies laid out by the County (p.2). She reviewed the
three community service fee options (p.2-3): to prioritize the funds to address the impacts of the
businesses first, to create a community enhancement fund, or to divide the money up among the
taxing districts.
Ms. Mengelberg indicated to Councilor Hennagin that, in addition to 25% of the deferred fees,
50% of the income tax revenue from the employees hired by a company in the zone would come
back to the community.
Councilor Olson noted that the City would get the first $562,000 worth of property taxes because
the company still paid regular property taxes on the first $100 million. She commented that the
City could, if it wanted to, use that money (plus the SDCs) to take care of impacts to the
businesses. She asked how the State figured out the income of the employees. Ms. Blackstone
explained that the State correlated the employer code on the tax statement to the business and
obtained the information that way.
Ms. Mengelberg indicated to Councilor Olson that West Linn chose not to participate because it
did not have significant industrial land. She noted that the County targeted the zone primarily to
industrial.
Councilor Hennagin indicated that Option 3 made the most common sense to him. Councilors
Olson and Tierney concurred.
Ms. Blackstone indicated to Councilor Olson that the cities did not have to agree on the same
option.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 9
May 17, 2010
Ms. Blackstone asked if the Council had any questions or other direction regarding the IGA, which
staff was in the process of massaging. Councilor Olson asked if there was anything in the IGA
that staff wanted the Council to take note of.
Mr. Powell advised the Council of his concern with the first source hiring agreement (p. 19)
because of the conflict between the title and the recitals (first two paragraphs). He explained that
the recitals talked about the first source for external referral, while the rest of the agreement talked
about the employer agreeing to fully consider employing any qualified applicant referred. He
reported that the Assistant County Counsel told him that they would discuss reconciling that
conflict tomorrow.
He commented that the conflict might be intentional, as there was an equivocal state statute
defining first source agreement as simply referral. He indicated that if the County read the statute
as allowing a true first source agreement, then he would advocate for moving the word `first' into
the subsequent paragraphs. Ms. Blackstone commented that they included first source because
the program was in use today.
3.3 Economic Development Strategy Metrics
Ms. Blackstone recalled the Council's direction on April 6, asking staff to return with a more
specific proposal for metrics on an economic development program. She described her research
in identifying possible metrics. She observed that it was challenging to find measures that directly
equated dollars spent to outcomes, which made economic development metrics a very inexact
science. She indicated that, even so, there was a wide range of metrics used in economic
development, from which she put together what she hoped was a balanced and tailored program
that responded to the community's economic development program
She discussed the three types of metrics proposed: economic indicators, output measures, and a
business survey (p.46). She indicated that the intent behind the economic indicators (p.47) was to
keep good track of what the Lake Oswego economy looked like over time by keeping data
consistently from the same sources year-to-year. She described the output measures (p.48) as
tracking whether the program was doing what the Council instructed it to do in terms of various
identified strategies. She said that she would collaborate on constructing a business survey to
gather data that would be helpful to both public and private business support efforts.
Ms. Blackstone indicated to Mayor Hoffman that she proposed an annual business survey, as
opposed to a semi-annual survey, given staff capacity issues and over -surveying issues. Mayor
Hoffman suggested doing a six-month Survey Monkey to a target list of businesses to see if the
program was making any difference in how the businesses related to the City. Councilor
Moncrieff questioned whether six months was a long enough time. She held that an annual
survey would give a better indicator, and avoid over -surveying.
Councilor Hennagin commented that one component he thought was missing was how
successful Lake Oswego businesses were. Ms. Blackstone indicated that her outreach visits and
directly talking to business owners would help `take the temperature' of the business community by
gathering anecdotal information. She explained to the Councilor that she gathered this
information in confidence. Consequently, people were remarkably forthcoming about how their
business was doing.
Jerry Wheeler, Chamber of Commerce Executive Officer, indicated to Councilor Olson that
the Chamber surveyed its membership on a regular basis, and could survey their membership on
behalf of Ms. Blackstone. He commented that he expected the Chamber to use its Survey Monkey
more often now in conjunction with Ms. Blackstone's work. He mentioned that Ms. Blackstone has
done much in establishing relationships with businesses, such that they could gather information to
get a good idea of what was going on.
Councilor Tierney complimented Ms. Blackstone on a good start. He expressed his appreciation
for her work. He observed that hard information was better than soft information. He asked what
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 9
May 17, 2010
the return on the Council's investment was. He commented that the year-to-year comparisons
would be helpful. He suggested asking another demographic question on whether there were
other retail vacancies outside the Downtown, such as in Palisades, Mountain Park, Lake Grove,
and Rosemont.
He mentioned that he had discovered the economic development plan was not readily accessible
on the City's website. He asked if the plan included linkages between the metrics and the
redevelopment strategies relating to Foothills and the streetcar. Ms. Blackstone indicated that
she discussed the metrics with Mr. Galante and Mr. Williams and included their milestone projects
with specific due dates under the strategy of leveraging quality of life in place. She remarked that
she expected to embed in the outcomes of those projects good analytic information regarding what
to expect if one did or did not proceed down a certain track.
Ms. Blackstone indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the metric for the number of businesses closing
was the changes in business license applications and non -renewals (p.47).
Mayor Hoffman observed that some retail was less desirable than others, and that the presence
of certain kinds of retail might be an indicator of a struggling downtown. He commented that he
thought the higher price per square foot in lease rates, the more high quality the retail
establishment. Ms. Blackstone indicated to the Mayor that they could easily track the number of
events in the Downtown and the number of event attendees.
Mayor Hoffman suggested first answering the question of whether retail related to feet on the
pavement. The next question was whether they were getting feet on the pavement from events
like the Lake Run, followed by whether the City could leverage events in the Downtown to benefit
the Downtown. He asked how they could measure success in Palisades or other commercial
nodes that lacked events, other than by the number of stores opening. Ms. Blackstone indicated
that the services provided and the vacancy rate were the appropriate metrics.
Ms. Blackstone pointed out that retail vacancy was a function of time, and a challenging statistic
to provide because it changed all the time. She described the statistics in her report as providing a
snapshot of the summer of 2009 based on the City's retail market analysis. Councilor Tierney
commented that, since any number represented a snapshot in time, if one used the same
methodology from snapshot to snapshot, one could see the trends.
Councilor Moncrieff explained that one reason why she thought it important to give time between
surveys was that the Council just adopted the economic strategy, which included the clustering of
businesses. She observed that it took time to put the right businesses together in the right place to
generate sales. She cited the example of Carol Winston's business down the street from
Accessories from the Heart in Palisades seeing an unexpected and substantial increase in sales.
Ms. Blackstone indicated to Mayor Hoffman that they had the business license data to identify
home businesses but she has not done anything specific yet to reach them. She mentioned that
9.4% of Lake Oswego business licenses were for home businesses, which was a high percentage.
She speculated that a survey with specific questions might yield good information on what Lake
Oswego could do as a community to better support home businesses. She noted that most home-
based business owners met in coffee shops, so providing alternate meeting spaces might be a
possibility.
Mayor Hoffman indicated that any Councilor with additional ideas for Ms. Blackstone should e-
mail them to her.
Councilor Moncrieff suggested making it easier to find Economic Development on the City
website. Ms. Blackstone explained that they could not list more departments on the drop down
menu on the website, which made things challenging. She said that they were working on an icon
to put on the front page, and developing a new website accessible through the Business tab on the
front page. Mr. Wheeler indicated that the new Chamber website would have an Economic
Development link.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 9
May 17, 2010
3.4 Miscellaneous
3.4.1 Sensitive Lands
Mayor Hoffman reported that he was working with Ms. Christie on scheduling the sensitive lands
process. He mentioned his conversation with Councilor Tierney about losing touch with the
process and reviewing the supporting documentation from the Second Look Task Force meetings.
He suggested that staff send the summaries of the discussion to Council, as the documents
answered many of the questions raised. Councilor Tierney asked staff to send out that
information sooner rather than later, and not to wait for the report.
Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Hennagin that if the Council changed the Code to relax
the standards, then the Code amendment had to go through the Planning Commission. At
Councilor Olson's request, he described the potential public process. He mentioned the several
public hearings inherent in the process. He asked whether the Council wanted public input before
voting on the Task Force recommendations.
Councilor Hennagin questioned the need for more public process, given how much has already
occurred. He mentioned that if there was a minority report from the Task Force, he would like to
see it. Councilor Tierney commented that the extensive public process indicated a high level of
public interest, which could argue for even more public process. He suggested that the Council
would be better served by opening it up than by the perception that it was closing down public
input. Councilor Olson concurred, recalling that Ms. Frisbee said several times at the Task Force
that there would be a citizen comment night following the presentation of the report to the Council.
Mayor Hoffman indicated that he and staff would figure out the best format to gather public input
in a meaningful way for the Council. Councilor Tierney spoke to engaging the public in the
middle on a topic, since those representing the two ends of the spectrum usually participated in the
process on their own. Councilor Hennagin advocated for a more formal listening process than a
round table.
3.4.2 Council Tour
Mayor Hoffman asked the Councilors to let Ms. Christie know if they were available to take the
Water Project tour. He described the tour route, beginning at the water intake site and ending at
Bonita. He mentioned inviting Tigard elected officials to participate also.
3.4.3 Mayor's Round Table
Mayor Hoffman indicated that the Mayor's Round Table on Saturday, June 5, would give people
who could not attend evening meetings the opportunity to talk about the budget.
He announced that Congressman DeFazio has requested a streetcar tour, which Representative
Kurt Schrader's office was coordinating.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
ON September 7, 2010
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn C ristie
City Recorder
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 9
May 17, 2010
a
nnial1910.20
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex McIntyre, City Manager
SUBJECT: One -Time Financial Support to the Lake Oswego School District
DATE: August 30, 2010
ACTION
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-635-0270
www.doswego.or.us
Consider the Lake Oswego School Board's request for one-time City support for the orchestra and aquatics
programs.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Request
On July 2, 2010, the Mayor and City Council received a letter from Curt Sheinin, Chairman of the Lake
Oswego School District Board, requesting City financial assistance in coping with the impacts of the
decrease in State school funding. The request includes the options of providing City support of the
District's orchestra and aquatics programs. The total of the financial request is $150,000 and would be for
the 2010-11 fiscal year only.
City Support of Schools, Arts, and Cultural Programs
Lake Oswego is a community that strongly values and enjoys the benefits from investments into the arts,
cultural, and its educational organizations and programs. These public and private investments are
important factors that make Lake Oswego one of the most livable and well-regarded communities in
Oregon.
The City is a strong partner with the local school district, recognizing that "education is one of the
foundations of an enlightened community and a learned civilization, for education benefits the whole
community, and funding education is a community responsibility" (City Council Philosophical Statement
Regarding Education, 9-26-1995). In this spirit of partnership, the City has supported the School District
through school resource officers, joint fueling operations, constructing artificial turf fields, negotiating
reduced rates for waste hauling services, and sharing maintenance responsibilities at school athletic fields.
Additionally, the City's Parks & Recreation Department provides a range of educational programs and
opportunities for children of all ages. The programs, such as the Teen Center, are seen as opportunities
that supplement the educational experience at the local schools.
Page 2
The City is also a strong supporter and contributor to arts and cultural programs, providing funding for the
Lake Oswego Arts Foundation and the Festival for the Arts, as well as offering many enrichment programs
and opportunities through our Parks & Recreation Department. Through this support, our residents are
able to enjoy a quality of life that may not be afforded in other communities.
The financial difficulties of public school districts, brought about by the impact of the continuing economic
recession on State funding, is a situation that threatens the entire community at -large. Without adequate
funding, arts, music, and cultural programs that are most effectively provided by the schools are at risk of
being cut. These programs are important factors in what makes the Lake Oswego educational experience
unique. Continuing to keep our schools distinct is essential to maintaining our community's high quality of
life.
DISCUSSION
Funding & Funding Source
At the conclusion of the 2010-11 Budget Adoption process, the City Council's actions resulted in additional
funds being appropriated to the General Fund's contingency over what was originally proposed. This
appropriation represents one-time resources in the General Fund contingency.
If the Council chooses to grant their request, to avoid complications with Measure 5 restrictions, the source
of the funds would be franchise fees. For fiscal year 2010-11, the City will receive approximately $1.9
million into the General Fund in franchise fee revenue. Considering the restrictions on other sources of
funding, $150,000 of the City's franchise fee revenue could be allocated to the School District as a one-time
expense. Staff will create a School District Grant line item and note it as a one-time Franchise Fee expense
in the General Fund's Non Departmental budget.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
1. Provide $150,000 in one-time financial support through franchise fees to the School District for
their orchestra and swimming programs.
2. Provide one-time financial support through franchise fees to the School District in another amount
specified by Council.
3. Do not provide financial support to the School District at this time.
The fiscal impact, if Council decides to grant their request, would be a one-time expense from the General
Fund. The spending authority would require a transfer resolution to move the monies from the General
Fund's Contingency to a General Fund Department.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopts resolution 10-59, authorizing a resolution transfer of
$150,000 from the City's General Fund contingency to the Non Departmental budget to provide one-time
funding for the Lake Oswego School District.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 10-59
RESOLUTION 10-59
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ADJUSTING THE
BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 2010 BY TRANSFERING
CERTAIN APPROPRIATIONS.
WHEREAS, Certain conditions and situations have arisen since the initial
preparation of the FY2010-11 budget and necessitate changes in financial planning, now, therefore,
WHEREAS, City Council has authorized $150,000 of Franchise Fees as a source of funding
to support certain programs of the Lake Oswego School District,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes the transfer of appropriations within the General Fund
budget for FY 2010-11 from Contingency to Non -Departmental in the amount of $150,000
as listed below.
General Fund Adopted
Requirements
Revised Difference
Non -departmental 1,005,000 1,155,000 150,000
Contingency 7,270,000 7,120,000 (150,000)
Section 2. The City Manager or his designee shall certify, file with, and give notice to
the County Clerks and County Assessors of Clackamas County, Multnomah County,
Washington County, Oregon and the Oregon Department of Revenues, information as
required by ORS 294.555.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Considered and enacted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 7th day
of September, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED
ABSTAIN:
Jack Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS O FORM:
City Attorney's Office
Resolution 10-59
Page 1 of 1
q/ -7//C) --2,1
Schools
Should the City support the Lake Oswego School District through a one-
time $150, 000 grant for orchestra and aquatics programs for the 2010-
11 fiscal year?
Public Comments as of September 7, 2010, 5:19 PM
nr LAKEdcI*
SWEGO
Schools
Should the City support the Lake Oswego School District through a one-
time $150, 000 grant for orchestra and aquatics programs for the 2010-
11 fiscal year?
Introduction
On July 2, 2010 the Mayor and City Council received a letter from the
Chairman of the Lake Oswego School District Board, requesting City
financial assistance in coping with the impacts of the decrease in State
school funding. The request includes the options of providing City
support of the District's orchestra and aquatics programs. The total of
the financial request is $150,000 and would be for the 2010-11 fiscal
year only. The funding would come from franchise fees in order to
address restrictions set forth in Measure 5.
The Council will consider if they should:
1. Provide $150,000 in one-time financial support through franchise
fees to the School District for their orchestra and swimming
programs.
2. Provide one-time financial support through franchise fess to the
School District in another amount specified by Council.
3. Not provide financial support to the School District at this
time.
This item will be discussed in the September 7 Council meeting. The
full Council Report for this item follows.
www.PeakDemocracy.com/516
Public comments as of September 7, 2010, 5:19 PM from all participants. 1 of 6
Schools
Should the City support the Lake Oswego School District through a one-time $150, 000 grant for
orchestra and aquatics programs for the 2010-11 fiscal year?
As of September 7, 2010, 5:19 PM, this forum had:
Attendees: 93
Participants: 25
Hours of Public Comment: 1.3
As with any public comment process, participation in Lake Oswego Forums is voluntary. The
statements in this record are not necessarily a representative sample of the whole population.
www.PeakDemocracy.com/516
Public comments as of September 7, 2010, 5:19 PM from all participants. 2 of 6
Schools
Should the City support the Lake Oswego School District through a one-time $150, 000 grant for
orchestra and aquatics programs for the 2010-11 fiscal year?
All Statements
Steve Bennett in Lake Oswego September 7, 2010, 12:23 PM
Yes, the City should support these programs.
Semi -anonymous in Lake Oswego September 6, 2010, 3:18 PM
No. Although I believe school arts programs are important, I do not believe the city should fund
them. In Oregon, public schools and cities are funded separately, and this appears to be an
attempt to circumvent state law.
The tendency for some communities to fund schools with separate foundations is harming
schools overall. Oregon is developing two types of school systems: rich and poor. And that's
bad. How about a value-added or sales tax?
Finally, why didn't Parks and Rec add these programs into their 2010-11 budget?
Semi -anonymous in Lake Oswego September 6, 2010, 8:46 AM
Yes - Support the schools if our City budget can afford it. This is one of the main reasons why
people live in Lake Oswego and not other places.
Jackie Manz in Lake Oswego September 5, 2010, 11:17 PM
Music programs in our schools provide extraordinary educational benefits to our children and
community. That said, I did not see a breakdown for the grant dollars. How much is the
orchestra portion of the grant? What exactly are the orchestra monies to be used for? Please
support our community's music and art programs when possible - they are a core part of what
makes Lake Oswego a truly special place to live.
Jennifer Curran in Lake Oswego September 5, 2010, 6:34 PM
I support the proposed grant for orchestra and aquatics programs. Programs such as these enrich
both the lives of our students and the community as a whole. Skills learned by students by
participating in these type programs help them gain necessary skills they can't always get with
school alone. Well educated people are the backbone of a strong economy. This is an excellent
use of the unexpected funds which have come available. Our schools are a critical part of our
vibrant community and I applaud the city leadership for partnering with them.
Semi -anonymous in Lake Oswego September 5, 2010, 3:28 PM
Although I believe that the arts and athletic programs are important for students, I am firmly
against the City making a "ONE-TIME" GRANT OF $150,000. City revenues are down, (LO
has a decidedly "older" population), and school enrollment is down. The only thing "up" is our
taxes. Whatever happened to living within your own means?
Darryl Boom in Lake Oswego September 5, 2010, 3:17 PM
Do not provide financial support to the School District at any time. This is a function of the
state.
While I support the activities in question I do not want the city in the business of funding school
www.PeakDemocracy.com/516
Public comments as of September 7, 2010, 5:19 PM from all participants. 3 of 6
Schools
Should the City support the Lake Oswego School District through a one-time $150, 000 grant for
orchestra and aquatics programs for the 2010-I1 fiscal year?
All Statements
activities. If we want to underwrite a community orchestra or aquatic program, add them to the
Parks and Rec budget and offer them to the citizens of Lake Oswego.
Sheri macDowell in Lake Oswego September 5, 2010, 1:27 PM
No. The schools have never been able to budget expenses or control their spending. And there
is NEVER any accountability or independent audit of funds spent. We live in a very affluent
school district. If parents want their children to participate in the programs, let the children
work at fundraisers, and ask for donations. It's a great experience for kids to work for and
towards a goal. The schools have been given so much money already. Honestly, how will things
ever get better if we keep patching holes instead of fixing what is wrong? I am so tired of the
district and the city using our kids as ploys and props for get us to approve of all the money they
burn through.
Semi -anonymous in Lake Oswego September 5, 2010, 12:09 PM
Yes.
Semi -anonymous in Lake Oswego September 5, 2010, 11:07 AM
Yes, I support transfer of these funds. Lake Oswego schools are a key differentiator from many
other communities, and contribute squarely to the city by making it more desirable to live in
Lake Oswego. As a result, citizens invest and spend in this city. By supporting programs that
reflect the community's belief in well-rounded education, LO continues to stand apart from
others.
Rick Pross in Lake Oswego September 4, 2010, 9:42 AM
No, city taxes and school taxes are levied separately with the intent they be used for their
respective purposes. We need the city taxes to pay for badly needed infrastructure upgrades. If
the school district needs more funding, then we should increase school taxes or pass a school
bond measure.
Terry Keyes in Lake Oswego September 4, 2010, 9:09 AM
No. While schools are certainly a critical part of our community, they have their own funding
sources, just like cities do. Transferring $150K of city funds to the school district will result in a
$150K reduction in city services.
Moreover, the city is facing its own budget crisis. During the creation of the 2010-11 budget,
the City had to make numerous cuts to existing services to balance the budget. Future years
promise to bring only more painful cuts to city services.
Finally, the timing of this request is inappropriate. This type of large funding request must be
considered during the budget setting process in the Spring. During the budget process all
funding requests can be thoughtfully considered against other city priorities.
Semi -anonymous in Lake Oswego September 4, 2010, 12:23 AM
No thank you unless the grant will come from funds found on the bottom of the lake when they
drain it for the remedial sewer upgrade. There are enough parents who can take care of the
expense of these programs should they want it for their kids. It a want, not, a need and is not
www.PeakDemocracy.com/516
Public comments as of September 7, 2010, 5:19 PM from all participants. 4 of 6
Schools
Should the City support the Lake Oswego School District through a one-time $150, 000 grant for
orchestra and aquatics programs for the 2010-11 fiscal year?
All Statements
fiscally responsible at this time.
Jozsef Lukacs, MD in Lake Oswego September 3, 2010, 9:32 PM
Yes, I support this proposal! The budget constraints make it imperative that we make every
effort to preserve the variety of school programs, including sports and the arts. Our children are
greatly enriched by these programs.
Lisa Shaw -Ryan in Lake Oswego September 3, 2010, 9:07 PM
Yes. We have to find more ways to partner with our schools, a key asset to this community.
Kate Miller in Lake Oswego September 3, 2010, 7:39 PM
I favor the transfer of funds This is s critcal juncture that will be a time to remember. Our
schools and our children are our future.Our schools are now the single most important asset that
distinguishes LO in the greater metropolitan area of Portland . I am working with the school
district to recommend a resource conservation manager whose slary would easily be ofset by
utility savings. Please take great care to leverage available resources , including the City to help
the district maintain it's excellent quality of service. We all benifit in terms of property value in
keeping our schools strong . let;s stand together , work smarter and harder .Thanks in advance
for the current and future students I am a Mtoerh of tow sons - one graduated and one in
prrocess adn have nothering but the highest prasi for the district and especail;ly the teachers at
Lakeridge and Principal Mike Lehman. Let's carry on to a new time when education is a right
and not a a privilage
Semi -anonymous in Lake Oswego September 3, 2010, 7:37 PM
I am always supportive of school budgets and bond measures, but this does not feel right to me.
It blurs the lines between funding for government and education. In fact, I'm wondering if the
City charter will allow it. I'd like to hear from the City Attorney on the subject. And, while this
is represented as "one-time", we all know these events are precedent -setting. Once a funding
source is available, the use of it is compelling.
Semi -anonymous in Lake Oswego September 3, 2010, 7:22 PM
An emphatic YES. I cannot articulate it any better than Mr. O'Leary did
Semi -anonymous in Lake Oswego September 3, 2010, 5:14 PM
I think this is reasonable. I hope the city can work with the school on future funding issues. I
know the district is funded from the State and taxes but it sounds like they can use some help
bridge the gap in the next few years.
Walter Ledesma in Lake Oswego September 3, 2010, 4:40 PM
Orchestra and aquatic programs enrich the lives of our children. Well funded programs
featuring music and exercise foster good citizens. The city can afford the grant and should help
bridge the budget shortfall during this difficult economic time.
Ruth McKendry in Lake Oswego September 3, 2010, 4:28 PM
Yes, this is a legitimate use for the funds.
Paul Lyons in Lake Oswego
www.PeakDemocracy.com/516
Public comments as of September 7, 2010, 5:19 PM from all participants. 5 of 6
Schools
Should the City support the Lake Oswego School District through a one-time $150, 000 grant for
orchestra and aquatics programs for the 2010-11 fiscal year?
All Statements
September 3, 2010, 3:26 PM
The key value in our community is our children's future. The value of arts and sports engages
students in creativity and problem -solving. That's a sound investment to make. I support this
one time request for funding.
Chuck O'Leary in Lake Oswego September 3, 2010, 3:23 PM
Yes. Our schools are the heart of our community, and the number one reason we chose to live in
Lake Oswego. The School Distict has done a tremendous job in reducing costs these last ten
plus years, while continuing to deliver the finest educational experience in the state. The City
should provide whatever support they can in these difficult times. Chuck O'Leary
Les Furnanz in Lake Oswego September 3, 2010, 3:07 PM
The one-time request in these times of reduced state revenues seems perfectly reasonable. Based
on the importance of music and sports in education and the ongoing work of the school district
to reduce expenses, I support the city's one time grant for the request.
Semi -anonymous in Lake Oswego September 3, 2010, 3:03 PM
No. The city does not have excess funds for this request. The city foolishly squandered
$100,000 on the Centennial events. Perhaps the city should have thought about the ecomomy
before spending money that could have been spent in a better place. We need to be very careful
how money is spent now and in the future,because we really don't know what lies ahead.
www.PeakDemocracy.com/516
Public comments as of September 7, 2010, 5:19 PM from all participants. 6 of 6
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
COUNCIL REPORT
www.ci.oswego.or.us
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Joel B. Komarek, P.E., Project Director
LOIS
SUBJECT: LOIS Bond Issue #2
DATE: September 1, 2010
ACTION
Council is requested to direct the sale of $35M dollars in a combination of Full Faith and Credit tax exempt
obligations ("Series 2010A Obligations") and Full Faith and Credit taxable obligations ("Series 2010B
Obligations") to pay costs of, or to reimburse the City for the payment of costs of, capital improvements to
the City's wastewater system, and to pay costs of issuance.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The LOIS project team, including outside consulting engineer Brown and Caldwell, continue to deliver LOIS
on time and within budget. Opportunities to accelerate work, refine designs, and consolidate project
components have been identified and, with Council support, have been implemented. Poor economic
conditions continue to benefit the City in terms of creating very competitive bidding climates. As a result,
further savings have accrued to the City such that the Project Director's current best estimate of program
costs is $90M. Using the current program cost estimate of $90M net of the $60M in proceeds received
from the 2009 Full Faith and Credit Obligations ("Series 2009A Obligations"), results in a remaining
financing need of approximately $30M to complete LOIS. The Project Director has noted for Council in
prior meetings that the $90M includes a combined construction contingency of $4.5M.
DISCUSSION
LOIS and Non -LOIS Capital Requirements
On August 3, 2010, Council approved Resolution 10-40 authorizing the issuance of up to $40,000,000 in Full
Faith and Credit Obligations to finance capital construction and improvements to the City's wastewater
system. As noted above, approximately $30M dollars is needed to complete LOIS. However, more than
Page 2
20,000 feet of small diameter collection sewer lines ring the main lake and occupy the main Oswego Canal.
Because access to these lines is difficult or impossible from land, inspection and maintenance of these lines
since their installation has been limited and in some cases non-existent. Concurrent with the Lake Down
phase of LOIS, these lines are being cleaned, inspected and their condition assessed by a subcontractor to
the Lake Down Contractor, James W. Fowler Company ("JWF"). Also, concurrent with the Lake Down phase,
the West Bay Trunk and the main interceptor in Lakewood Bay and Foothills Rd. area are being
rehabilitated using cured -in-place plastic pipe ("CIPP"). Consequently, the City, through JWF, now has
access to contractors qualified to clean, inspect and rehabilitate or replace the many thousands of feet of
collections sewers and laterals located within Oswego Lake, and its bays and canals. The LOIS Project
Director believes the City has an opportunity to leverage the availability of these qualified subcontractors
over the next six to ten months to implement a renovation program of other in -water wastewater lines.
Wastewater System Rates
In December 2009, the City engaged FCS Group, a municipal finance consulting firm, to undertake an
analysis of revenue requirements to fund the ongoing capital and operating requirements of the
wastewater utility including the financing of the LOIS upgrade project. At the time this analysis was
undertaken, LOIS was estimated to cost $110M. The analysis determined that a series of rate increases was
needed to fully fund LOIS and non -LOIS capital and operating needs. Rate increases recommended by FCS
Group were as follows:
FY 2009/2010 FY 2010120111 FY 2011/2012 FY 2012/2013 FY 2013/2014
30% 30% 30% 14% 3%
Several factors, some of which are noted above, and including the City's strong financial condition, record
low interest costs on municipal credits and access to federally subsidized bonds, have created very
favorable financial conditions for the City's wastewater utility. A recent update by FCS Group to their
December 2009 wastewater rate work reveals that prior rate recommendations for FY 2011/2012 and going
forward can be materially reduced. Rates to match revenue requirements for several scenarios are shown
in the table below:
Scenario #
FY 2011/2012
FY 2012/2013
FY 2013/2014
(1) LOIS @ $30M plus non -LOIS
capital and operations in
16%
16%
3%
approved budget
(2) Scenario 1 plus an
additional $5M for additional
wastewater collection system
17.25%
17.25%
3%
renovation
(3) Scenario 1 plus an
additional $10M for additional
wastewater collection system
18.5%
18.5%
3%
renovation
1 30% rate increases for FY 2009/10 and FY 2010/11 have been implemented.
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
Noted above are several financial scenarios that will result in fully financing the completion of LOIS and all
non -LOIS capital and operating needs of the wastewater utility for the current adopted budget and future
budgets.z Taking advantage of historic low interest costs on municipal credit, federally subsidized taxable
bonds and the current availability of contractors qualified to clean, inspect and renovate wastewater
collection lines located in marine environments, the City could expand the scope of the LOIS program to
include CIPP of the Oswego Canal trunk sewer and lateral replacement and limited renovation and
replacement of waterfront sewers ringing Oswego Lake. This additional work is estimated to cost $5M
dollars and the current thinking is that this work could be accomplished during and shortly after the refill of
Oswego Lake but before the Lake Down contractor and its subcontractors have demobilized. Alternatively,
should the Council desire to issue bonds up to its maximum authority of $40M dollars, then the LOIS
project team believes a more comprehensive program could be undertaken that could result in the
potential replacement and renovation of all collection sewers ringing the lake, including all work in the
Oswego Canal.
RECOMMENDATION
The LOIS Project Director recommends the City Council select funding scenario #2 above for the following
reasons:
• The additional $5M in bond proceeds would be used to rehabilitate the Oswego Canal Trunk sewer
including replacement and lowering of approximately 100 laterals serving homes along the Oswego
Canal. The replacement and lowering of these laterals will improve service, facilitate maintenance
and reduce the risk of lateral breakage or damage from future dredging of the Oswego Canal as
contemplated by the Lake Corporation. CIPP lining of the Oswego Canal Trunk will extend the life of
this 40+ year-old line and minimize future maintenance and inspection costs.
• Funds remaining could be used to replace lines located in Oswego Lake that are not buried and that
can be more economically replaced while Oswego Lake is dewatered.
• There is higher confidence in the cost estimate relating to CIPP and lateral replacement for the main
canal trunk.
Cleaning, inspection and condition assessment of in water sewer lines ringing Oswego Lake is on -
hold and the full extent of replacement/renovation needs cannot be fully understood before the
sale of the Series 2010A and 20106 obligations. Therefore it is more difficult to justify a
recommendation to issue an additional $10M in debt when funding needs and the City's capacity to
implement a larger additional capital program are not better understood.
' Future utility revenue requirements were estimated using a variety of assumptions. For detail on these forecasting
assumptions, please see "Final Report for Wastewater Utility Financial Plan and Rate Review", December 2009 by FC5 Group.
Page 4
Reviewed by:
Ca4z �& 4aa::4�
Dep ent Director
Exhibit 2.7 - Proposed Wastewater Rates - Alternative 1: Across the Board Rate Adjustment
Alternative 2 increases only the fixed charge portion of the rate design to align with how the City incurs annual
costs. The fixed fees are designed to target approximately 82 percent of the revenue to be generated by the fixed
rate component.
Exhibit 2.8 - Proposed Wastewater Rates - Alternative 2: Increase Fixed Rate Only
FY 2009-2010
FY 2010-2011
FY 2011-2012
FY 2012-2013
Residential
Residential
First Dwelling Unit
$ 25.49
First Dwelling Unit
$ 25.49
$ 33.14
$ 43.08
$ 49.11
N
V)
Each Additional Dwelling Unit
23.00
29.90
38.86
44.31
O
Non-residential
W
5
Non-residential
-
$ 32.97
$ 46.26 $ 54.33
U
Cr
Z
5/8" - 3/4"
$ 22.74
$ 29.56
$ 38.43
$ 43.81
0
49.63
69.65 81.79
2"
51.79
°C
1"
28.78
37.42
48.64
55.45
118.32 138.95
LU
4"
75.70
109.76
154.03 180.89
1-1/2"
34.23
44.50
57.85
65.95
LU
2"
51.79
67.33
87.53
99.78
V)
3"
58.15
75.59
98.27
112.03
0
4"
75.70
98.41
127.93
145.84
Q
6"
93.13
121.07
157.39
179.43
Volume Rate (All customers; ccf)
$ 1.68
$ 2.18
$ 2.83
$ 3.23
Alternative 2 increases only the fixed charge portion of the rate design to align with how the City incurs annual
costs. The fixed fees are designed to target approximately 82 percent of the revenue to be generated by the fixed
rate component.
Exhibit 2.8 - Proposed Wastewater Rates - Alternative 2: Increase Fixed Rate Only
Items for consideration on the two rate alternatives include:
Consumption history used is from 2007, 2008, and 2009 and does not account for reduced water
consurnption that is forecast as a result of a new water- conservation based rate structure that went into
effect July 2009. This could mean the units used to calculate revenue projections may be overstated or
higher than what may actually be billed.
FY 2009-2010
FY 2010-2011
FY 2011-2012 FY 2012-2013
Residential
First Dwelling Unit
$ 25.49
$ 36.96
$ 51.87 ¢ $ 60.92
Each Additional Dwelling Unit
23.00
33.34
46.79 l 54.95
O
Non-residential
W
5
5/8"- 3/4"
$ 22.74
$ 32.97
$ 46.26 $ 54.33
U
Cr
1"
28.78
41.73
58.56 68.78
?
1-1/2"
34.23
49.63
69.65 81.79
2"
51.79
75.09
105.38 123.76
p
3"
58.15
84.31
118.32 138.95
LU
4"
75.70
109.76
154.03 180.89
6"
93.13
135.03
189.50 222.55
Volume Rate (All customers; ccf)
$ 1.68
$ 1.68
$ 1.68
$ 1.68
Items for consideration on the two rate alternatives include:
Consumption history used is from 2007, 2008, and 2009 and does not account for reduced water
consurnption that is forecast as a result of a new water- conservation based rate structure that went into
effect July 2009. This could mean the units used to calculate revenue projections may be overstated or
higher than what may actually be billed.
City of Lake Oswego
Wastewater Utility Rate Study
Rate Design Options
Option 1- $30 million (16% in 2011-2012 & 2012-2013)
Option 2 - $35 million (17.25% in 2011-2012 & 2012-2013)
Residential
Residential
First Dwelling Unit
$ 36.96
$ 44.91
$ 54.14
$ 55.59
Each Additional Dwelling Unit
33.34
40.52
48.84
•
Non-residential
Non-residential
5/8" - 3/4"
$ 32.97
5/8" - 3/4"
$ 32.97
$ 40.06
$ 48.29
51.41
1"
41.73
50.71
61.12
74.64
1-1 /2"
49.63
60.31
72.69
` 3"
2"
75.09
91.25
109.99
`
3"
84.31
102.45
123.49
166.35
4"
109.76
133.37
160.76
$ 1.68
6"
-------------------------------------------
135.03
164.08
197.78
Volume Rate (All customers; ccs 1,-$
1.68
$ 1.68
$ 1.68
Option 2 - $35 million (17.25% in 2011-2012 & 2012-2013)
Option 3 - $40 million (18.5% in 2011-2012 & 2012-2013)
Residential
First Dwelling Unit
$ 36.96
$ 45.54
$ 55.59
Each Additional Dwelling Unit
33.34
41.08
50.15
•
Non-residential
5/8" - 3/4"
$ 32.97
$ 40.61
$ 49.58
111
41.73
51.41
62.76
1-1/2"
49.63
61.14
74.64
2"
75.09
92.51
112.93
` 3"
84.31
103.87
126.79
4"
109.76
135.21
165.06
6"
135.03
166.35
203.07
Volume Rate (All customers; ccs 1
$ 1.68
$ 1.68 1
$ 1.68
Option 3 - $40 million (18.5% in 2011-2012 & 2012-2013)
Residential
First Dwelling Unit
$ 36.96
$ 46.16
$ 57.05
Each Additional Dwelling Unit
33.34
41.64
51.47
Non-residential
5/8" - 3/4"
$ 32.97
$ 41.17
$ 50.88
111
41.73
52.11
64.41
1-1 /2"
49.63
61.97
76.60
2"
75.09
93.77
115.91
3"
84.31
105.28
130.13
4"
109.76
137.06
169.41
6"
Volume Rate (All customers; ccf)
135.03
$ 1.68
168.62
$ 1.68
208.43
$ 1.68
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Denny Egner, AICP, Assistant Planning Director
--?.3
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
SUBJECT: Study Session - Boones Ferry Road Project Phase 2: Consultant Selection and Public Process
(PP 10-0011)
DATE: August 27, 2010
ACTION
Approve the consultant selection and the general direction for the public process. Staff will return for
contract approval and the final approach regarding the public process and the advisory committee on
September 21.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
This report provides a general overview regarding the objectives of the refinement plan, describes the
consultant selection process, outlines the proposed advisory committee process, and describes the overall
schedule/approach. The project objectives are addressed below.
Objectives of the Refinement Plan - Phase 2 of the Boones Ferry Road refinement plan is intended to meet
the following objectives:
• Provide greater certainty to the City and property owners regarding the proposed roadway design
and the amount of right-of-way needed to build a "great street" consistent with the concepts set
forth in the Lake Grove Village Center (LGVC) Plan;
• Define the approach for providing a "green street" as part of the final Boones Ferry Road
improvements;
• Incorporate appropriate recommendations from the Phase 1 Boones Ferry Road Refinement Study;
and
• Utilize an efficient and open public process to develop recommendations for the refinement plan.
Phase 1 of the refinement plan was completed in October of 2009 and provided a technical review of the
concepts outlined in the 2008 Lake Grove Village Center Plan including the proposed center median and u -
turns at intersections. The Phase 1 transportation consultant found that the plan concepts could be
Page 2
designed to work and function at acceptable levels of service. The consultant included a list of 22
refinements, which in the consultant's opinion, would make the road function better. Some of the
refinements are new ideas and some were ideas that the LGVC Plan Implementation Advisory Committee
had previously discussed and, in some cases, rejected. Some refinements could require actual
amendments to the LGVC Plan (requiring a formal land use decision) and others are simply alternative
strategies for implementing plan concepts. Phase 1 was primarily a technical analysis and did not include a
decision-making process to determine which of the refinements needed to be incorporated into a more
detailed plan. Recommendations for which refinements to include in the plan will be part of the Phase 2
work scope.
DISCUSSION
Consultant Selection - The City is in the process of hiring a consultant to provide technical traffic
engineering assistance and design for Phase 2 of the Boones Ferry Road refinement plan. Because it is for
more than $100K, the contract requires a Council award in order to comply with City contracting and
purchasing procedures. This is a professional services contract that places significant importance on the
quality and breadth of work being performed, in consideration with the overall cost of the service.
When the refinement plan was originally scoped in 2008, we were told by consultants who reviewed the
scope that it would cost about $250K to go to the next level of detail. In late, 2008 the Council provided
direction to split the refinement plan into two parts - with the first phase addressing the technical traffic
analysis work and the second phase focused on pinning down the needed right-of-way along with the
economic impact and financing components. The first phase was completed last fall for $112K.
We issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the second phase in April with the assumption that we need
about $130-150K to complete the work. Proposals came in at more than double that amount. We then
met with the five consultants who submitted proposals and discussed ways to cut the cost of Phase 2
down to about $130K.
Cost cutting strategies included the following:
Internalize the public involvement element with City staff and the consulting engineer. Each of the
proposing teams had a public involvement specialist costing about $50K.
2. Separate the financing strategy from the technical engineering work. We intend to develop the
financing strategies as part of a separate project by including this task in the $50K Metro
Construction Excise Tax grant that we have been awarded to prioritize projects in the LGVC Plan
and identify funding strategies. This task may be delayed because the Construction Excise Tax
program has been appealed by the Home Builders Association and it is unlikely that these funds will
be released this fiscal year.
Separate the economic impact analysis from the technical engineering work. Some consultant
responses included this task and some didn't. If we want it as part of this phase, we will need to
add $10-15K more to the project total bringing it up to about $140K.
Page 3
4. Use existing data and minimize the need for detailed surveys. A primary goal of the project is to
produce a more detailed plan of the roadway but not to actually create the more costly,
engineered plans. The final product needs to be an accurate map drawn on an aerial photograph
showing the ultimate encroachment of ROW onto abutting properties. This can be accomplished
without a detailed survey of the entire corridor. In response, teams proposed spot surveys and use
of new accurate, high resolution aerial photographs.
The five consulting teams submitted amended proposals that ranged from $130-140K. The five consultant
teams were led by the following firms: OTAK, HNTB, Kittleson and Associates, Group MacKenzie, and
Wallis Engineering. Each of the firms is well qualified to do the work.
Staff assembled a review panel consisting of Councilor Donna Jordan, Planning Commissioner Julia Glisson,
business owner Mike Buck, City Engineering Technician Rob Amsberry, and Assistant Planning Director
Denny Egner. The review panel met and based on the proposals narrowed the list to two teams for
interviews. On August 2, the panel interviewed the OTAK and HNTB teams and selected the team lead by
HNTB, a national engineering firm with a Portland office. Terry Song, project manager, is the design
engineer who was part of the team for Phase 1. It was felt that Terry's involvement will provide continuity
by providing a strong link between the phases. Staff is working on finalizing a contract with HNTB (the
HNTB proposal includes an economic analysis component). The contract will be provided to the Council in
their September 21 packet for review and approval.
Public Process/Advisory Committee - An advisory committee should play a role in reviewing final
recommendations for refinements to the concept plan for Boones Ferry Road. The focus of Phase 2 project
is to provide better definition of the right-of-way impacts on private property. The product of the work will
be detailed drawings of the right-of-way and planned improvements on aerial photographs. To develop the
more detailed plan, there will need to be a number of trade-offs considered related to roadway alignment
and improvements. Vetting issues and developing recommendations at an advisory committee level
should help the City Council in their ultimate approval of the plan.
The role of the advisory committee will be to make recommendations. The City Council will have the final
approval of the refinement plan. City staff may provide additional input to the Council following the
committee process. The advisory committee charge statement will specify that its role is to implement the
adopted concepts set forth in the Lake Grove Village Center Plan and not to revisit the overall plan concept
for the Village Center and Boones Ferry Road.
Three options have been considered for the advisory committee including: 1) a new ad-hoc committee; 2)
the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB); and 3) reforming the Lake Grove Village Center Plan
Implementation Advisory Committee. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages. Key points are
that previous LGVC Plan Implementation Advisory Committee members would bring a high level of project
understanding to the committee and that TAB members would bring a city-wide perspective to the process.
An approach that incorporates TAB also allows planning staff to take better advantage of the current
administrative support to TAB for meeting preparation. TAB involvement would also position TAB to gain a
more complete understanding of the project in advance of any recommendations they may make regarding
the City's Capital Improvement Plan.
Over the past few weeks, the planning staff has worked with Mike Buck, Julia Glisson, TAB Chair Terry Keys,
Page 4
Dan Vizzini, and Donna Jordan to develop the following recommendation for an expanded TAB
subcommittee (TAB Plus) to serve as the advisory committee for the project.
TAB Plus would consist of seven members including three current TAB members plus four additional
members familiar with the Lake Grove Village Center Plan. The four additional members would include a
Lake Grove business owner/property owner, a representative of the Lake Grove Business Association, a
neighborhood representative, and a Planning Commission member.
The following three individuals have volunteered to participate on TAB Plus:
• Julia Glisson — Planning Commissioner and former LGVC Plan Implementation Advisory Committee
Member;
• Mike Buck — Business and land owner, member of the Lake Grove Business Association Board and
former LGVC Plan Implementation Advisory Committee Member; and
• Ken Sandblast — Former chair of the LGVC Plan Implementation Advisory Committee and former
Planning Commissioner.
To fill out the committee, one neighborhood representative is being sought. At this point, Barbara Zeller of
the Lake Grove Neighborhood Association and Carolyne Krebs of the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association
have expressed interest. Three willing TAB members also need to be identified. Staff will include a full list
of proposed committee members as part of the September 21 Council packet.
Schedule/Approach - The RFP for the project called for the following steps in the scope of work:
• Project Start-up;
• Public Involvement;
• Data Collection;
• Design Alternatives;
• Evaluation of the Alternatives;
• Preferred Plan; and
• Funding Strategy.
The approach proposed by HNTB follows similar steps. Based on the RFP, the consultant proposal, and the
interview materials, a preliminary schedule and list of key decisions is provided as an attachment to this
report. The approach and schedule have been written with the assumption that the TAB Plus option is
selected for the advisory committee. The approach and schedule may need to be modified if another
advisory committee option is preferred by the City Council. Key advisory committee decisions are
highlighted in italics.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
Consultant Selection — Alternatives related to consultant selection include:
Select HNTB;
Reject HNTB and interview additional firms; and
Reject the proposals and re -advertise.
Page 5
Analysis: Selecting HNTB allows the City to efficiently initiate this phase of the Boones Ferry Road project.
The contract with HNTB will be for approximately $140K. Alternatives 2 and 3 will potentially add costs to
the selection process and delay the project from two to five months. No significant cost savings would be
achieved by selecting another firm given that all five firms that submitted proposals included similar
budgets for the work.
Public Process/Advisory Committee — Alternatives that have been considered include:
Create a new ad-hoc committee;
Assign the committee tasks to TAB; and
Reform the LGVC Plan Implementation Advisory Committee.
Analysis: In working with stakeholders, staff is recommending that a three-person TAB subcommittee be
assigned the advisory task and that the subcommittee be supplemented with four people familiar with the
LGVC Plan. This approach results in a committee that is well grounded in the LGVC Plan process but will
also provide a broader community -wide perspective.
Schedule/Approach — Alternatives are dependent on the public process/advisory committee approach that
is selected. The approach has been designed to include open public meetings as well as committee
meetings.
RECOMMENDATATION
Direct staff to return at the September 21 meeting with a final consultant contract and a final list of
advisory committee members.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A — Schedule/Approach
Reviewe by:
Department, Director
k 14 -
Alex D. Mcl t e
City Manager
Page 6
Exhibit A
Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan — Phase 2
Preliminary Approach and Schedule
September
• Consultant and staff finalize work scope; Council approves contract and approach.
• Council approves a TAB Plus charge statement and the appointment of members.
• TAB meets and receives a background report on the LGVC and the Boones Ferry Road project. (This
informational report may occur prior to TAB Plus being officially appointed.)
• Consultant assembles background information and base map.
• Staff and consultant evaluate 22 refinements and categorize as: 1) impacting ROW width; 2) not
impacting ROW width; 3) consistent with LGVC Plan; and 4) potentially inconsistent with the LGVC
plan.
October
• Staff and consultant conduct a public workshop to inform citizens about the project and collect
comments regarding refinements outlined in Phase 1 (former members of the LGVC Plan
Implementation Advisory Committee are invited).
• Consultant produces a base line map showing existing ROW, parking, and buildings. The map shows
a composite "best -fit" alignment to highlight hot spots and issues.
• Consultant defines a range of green street options.
• Staff meets with former LGVC members to discuss evaluation criteria.
• TAB Plus meeting—TAB Plus discusses evaluation criteria; reviews 22 refinements from Phase 1; the
consultant presents a range of green street options; an open discussion is held with former LGVC
Plan Implementation Advisory Committee members to focus on key issues.
November
• Consultant team generates graphics and design alternatives related to green streets, refinements,
street and intersection design, and alignments. Specific alternatives will be produced to address
the Bryant, Lanewood, and Madronna intersections.
• Key Decision: TAB Plus approves Evaluation Criteria.
• Key Decision: TAB Plus provides direction to consultant regarding a green street approach.
• Key Decision: TAB Plus provides direction on the majority of the 22 refinements from Phase 1 -
controversial issues are carried over to December.
December
• Staff and the consultant conduct a public workshop to inform citizens and collect comments on the
alternatives (former members of the LGVC Plan Implementation Advisory Committee are specifically
invited).
Page 7
• Consultant and staff conduct an evaluation of the alternatives. Consideration is given to
conformance with evaluation criteria, conformance with the LGVC Plan, economic impacts, relative
costs, and public comments.
• Consultant works with property and business owners to minimize impacts of alternatives and
develop mitigation strategies.
• TAB Plus reviews the draft evaluation and provides comments and direction. Consultant team
identifies new issues based on alternative development and the evaluation process.
• Key Decision: TAB Plus provides direction on the remaining 22 refinements from Phase 1.
• Key Decision: TAB Plus provides direction on new issues.
January
• Consultant continues to work with property and business owners to resolve issues.
• Consultant provides follow-up to recommendations on new issues and final refinements.
• Key Decision: TAB Plus provides final direction on any of the remaining 22 refinements and new
issues.
February
• Consultant provides additional analysis and refinement.
• Key Decision: TAB Plus provides direction on a preferred alignment.
March
• Consultant provides a draft narrative and plan graphics for review.
• Staff and the consultant conduct a public open house on the draft and collect comments.
• Key Decision: TAB Plus makes a final recommendation.
April
• Consultant prepares a final refinement plan for City Council review.
• Staff evaluates the plan and determines if LGVC Plan amendments are needed.
• City Council accepts the plan and provides direction for implementation and adoption.
7 �/
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Ursula Euler, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Review Proposed Financial Information Year -to -Date June 30, 2010
DATE: August 27, 2010
ACTION
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www doswego.or.us
Review and discuss preliminary financial information for the Fiscal Year that ending 30, 2010.
INTRODUCTION
Finance staff works until mid- September to reconcile all major assets and liabilities as of June 30, 2010,
and to review all revenues and expenditures for budget comparison, for the annual audit and for the
purpose of issuing the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Until then, and until the audit is complete
sometime in November 2010, we have preliminary results for Fiscal Year 2009-10.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
To summarize the preliminary results, the following table gives a snapshot of each fund's surplus or deficit
for the year, which equates to a contribution to or use of fund balance. This is then compared to the
original and the adjusted budget (both without contingency), where the adjusted budget is the original
budget plus budget supplements. Surplus here means all revenues minus all expenditures and does not
take beginning or ending fund balances into account. All funds balance, of course, when beginning fund
balance is taken into account.
The General Fund is contributing nearly $0.9 million to its fund balance. The fund was originally budgeted
to use almost $0.9 million of fund balance. Spending for Personal Services and Materials & Services was
below budget, partially off -set by lower than expected total revenues. We have compared previous
biennia's actual Personal Services expenditures to budget and have found that the differences city-wide
ranged between 3.1% and 6.6%. On one hand, it is required to only spend what has been appropriated —
you will recall that the FY 2008-2009 Audit resulted in a comment about overspending, including several
Personal Services budgets — while it is prudent to also strive for some flexibility in the budget.
Page 2
Fund
General Fund
Tourism
Trolley
Golf Course
Tennis Facility
Percent for Art
Water
WstWtr W/o LOIS
LOIS
Surface Water
Street
SDCs
Mnt & Mtr Pool
Engineering
L.O.-Tigard WP
Debt Service
Assess. Project
Bicycle Path
City-wide W/o Lora►
$(864)
32
(35)
(1)
(111)
(5)
(1,276)
1,516
(38,425)
78
64
618
(370)
215
2,280
9
(63)
72
641
$(2,725)
32
(100)
11
(113)
(5)
(1,649)
1,397
(54,372)
(282)
67
618
(542)
210
200
9
(63)
72
7 7
$888
140
(87)
(24)
18
(5)
568
4,337
(50,973)
222
680
604
(492)
(253)
1,292
5
126
16
42
A large part of the under -spending in Materials &
Services is due to the start-up mode of Economic &
Capital Development. Fiscal year 2009-10 was this
Department's first operating year and consulting
services were not needed as early as thought.
Otherwise, departments across the board spent less
than budgeted.
Current property tax collections were higher than
expected by about $94,000, while delinquent property
tax collections were lower than expected by about
$40,000. Current year property taxes had been
budgeted with the assumption of the allowed 3%
increase in existing assessed value and 1% growth.
The FY2010-11 Adopted Budget is built on the same
assumptions. Licenses and Fees appear to be healthy
because the Building and Permit Center's revenues
proved to be healthier than budgeted, while other
license and fee revenues were not as strong as hoped.
Similarly, Fines and Forfeitures include a large one-
time $150,000 restitution payment, without which a
lag in this revenue stream would be apparent.
LORA Revenue from Hotel/Motel Tax in general and in the
Debt Service $(389) $473 $(389) Tourism Fund has been lagging. As a result, staff has
Capital Projects $(7,125 $(1,816 $(7,125) taken a cautious approach to spending in the Tourism
p 1 ) )
Fund. The surplus in FY2009-10 increases fund
balance to allow this fund to reimburse the General Fund for the cost of the Iron Furnace as planned (about
$300,000 for three years), even with possibly lagging revenues in FY2010-11 and thereafter.
The Municipal Golf Course used Beginning Fund Balance and needed $66,000 of transfers from the General
Fund to support its operations.
The Tennis fund remains strong.
Revenue in the Water Fund reached budgeted levels despite several refunds resulting from a billing
adjustment amounting to $216,000 for overbillings. Several customers were also under -billed and their full
billing amount has been corrected. Going forward, the net effect on the Water Utility is nearly zero.
Expenditures were much lower than budgeted, due to lower than expected contracted services, equipment
repair costs, electricity costs, and delayed capital spending as the L.O.-Tigard Water Partnership gains
shape.
Wastewater Sales and Service revenues were lower than expected after adjustments totaling $188,000 for
customer over -billings and the resultant refunds. Again, other customers had been under -billed and their
full billing amount has been corrected. Going forward, the net effect on the Wastewater Utility is
negligible. Wastewater treatment costs billed by the City of Portland to the utility were significantly lower
than expected and operations staff reports that flow volumes to the wastewater treatment plant were
significantly lower than in previous years. Capital spending on LOIS and non -LOIS projects was lower than
anticipated and contributed to the under -spending.
Page 3
Street Fund revenues from the State Motor Vehicle Fees and the Street Maintenance Fee were on target; a
Federal Grant of $900,000 will be received in-kind and not cash, causing the remainder of revenue to
appear to be an under -performer.
The Maintenance Services & Motor Pool has held its own by using its beginning fund balance, but is, with
FY2010-11, beginning to make higher and self-supporting monthly charges to its customers, other City
departments and funds.
When disregarding the two major capital projects, LOIS and the L.O.-Tigard Water Partnership spending,
the City overall generated a surplus of $6.7 million, mostly generated in the General Fund and the utilities.
In all cases, surplus is simply returned to ending fund balance. In the General Fund it becomes a one-time
resource for future years, and in Water and Wastewater utilities it builds capacity for future capital projects
or bonding of current capital projects.
We know of one large year-end adjustment that will be made for the final financial statements, the
recording of a $1.5 million receivable from Metro. This will increase assets and decrease accrual -based
expenditures for FY2009-10. For budgetary purposes it is shown as a cash outlay and is included as
expenditure for the purpose of the above surplus summary.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Exhibit A - City of Lake Oswego Budget Report, June 30, 2010
Reviewed by:
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2 City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
010
A,,,_ , June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
Printed - 813112010 11:08 AM
Page 1 of 17
BUDGET
% YTD
BUDGET
ACTUALS
ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
BUDGET
GENERALFUND
Beginning Fund Balance
20,002,978
20,003,080
0
102
100.00%
Total Beginning Fund Balance
20,002,978
20,003,080
0
102
100.00%
Property Taxes
25,430,000
25,484,337
0
54,337
100.21%
Franchise Fees
2,195,000
2,126,633
0
68,367
96.89%
Intergovernmental
4,122,000
4,087,668
0
34,332
99.17%
Licenses and Fees
2,090,000
2,042,439
0
47 561
97.72%
Fines and Forfeitures
1,122,000
1,129,228
0
7,228
100.64%
Sales and Services
3,311,000
3,319,911
0
8,911
100.27%
Special Assessments
0
0
0
0
NaN
Miscellaneous Revenues
1,070,000
1,218,469
0
148,469
113.88%
Other Financing Sources
4,565,000
4,052,397
0
512,603
88.77%
Total Revenues
43,905,000
43,461,082
0
443,918
98.99%
Total Resources
63,907,978
63,464,162
0
443,816
99.31%
Ending Fund Balance
12,882,222
0
0
12,882,222
0.00%
Total Ending Fund Balance
12,882,222
0
0
12,882,222
0.00%
Personal Services
29,340,000
27,905,519
0
1,434,481
95.11%
Materials and Services
11,543,000
9,834,799
0
1,708,201
85.20%
Debt Service
600,000
345,927
0
254,073
57.65%
Transfers to Other Funds
3,419,000
3,292,188
0
126,813
96.29%
Capital Outlay
1,728,000
1,194,906
0
533,094
69.15%
Contingency
4,395,756
0
0
4,395,756
0.00%
Total Expenditures
51,025,756
42,573,339
0
8,452,417
83.43%
Total Requirements
63,907,978
42,573,339
0
21,334,639
66.62%
Resources Over / Under Requirements
0
20,890,823
0
20,890,823
Printed - 813112010 11:08 AM
Page 1 of 17
LAKEoswEc10
City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
Centennial 1910-2010
June 30, 2010
(100% of Budget)
BUDGET
% YTD
BUDGET ACTUALS
ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
BUDGET
TOURISM FUND
Beginning Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Beginning Fund Balance 0
0
0
0
NaN
Licenses and Fees
320,000
258,669
0
61,331
80.83%
Miscellaneous Revenues
12,000
352
0
11,648
2.93%
Total Revenues
332,000
259,021
0
72,979
78.02%
Total Resources
332,000
259,021
0
72,979
78.02%
Ending Fund Balance
32,000
0
0
32,000
0.00%
Total Ending Fund Balance
32,000
0
0
32,000
0.00%
Materials and Services
175,000
0
0
175,000
0.00%
Transfers to Other Funds
0
0
0
0
NaN
Capital Outlay
125,000
118,808
0
6,192
95.05%
Total Expenditures
300,000
118,808
0
181,192
39.60%
Total Requirements
332,000
118,808
0
213,192
35.79%
Resources Over/ Under Requirements
0
140,213
0
140,213
Printed - 813112010 11;08 AM
Page 2 of 17
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
-4 !\ -\
City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
BUDGET % YTD
BUDGET ACTUALS ENCUMBERED BALANCE BUDGET
TROLLEY FUND
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Beginning Fund Balance
Intergovernmental
Miscellaneous Revenues
Other Financing Sources
Total Revenues
Total Resources
380,674 474,775
11,000
4,964
20,000
20,000
91,000
84,964
471,674
559,739
0 94,101 124.72%
0 0 100.00%
0 6,036 45.13%
0 0 100.00%
0 6,036 93.37%
0 88,065 118.67%
Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Materials and Services
191,000
172,111
0
18,889
90.11%
Transfers to Other Funds
0
0
0
0
NaN
Contingency
280,674
0
0
280,674
0.00%
Total Expenditures
471,674
172,111
0
299,563
36.49%
Total Requirements
471,674
172,111
0
299,563
36.49%
Resources Over/ Under Requirements
0
387,628
0
387,628
Printed - 813112010 11:08 AM Page 3 of 17
CAI�osentennial 9wEco ]� City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
AL, , June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
GOLF COURSE FUND
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Beginning Fund Balance
Sales and Services
Miscellaneous Revenues
Other Financing Sources
Total Revenues
Total Resources
BUDGET % YTD
BUDGET ACTUALS ENCUMBERED BALANCE BUDGET
12,998
24,366
0
11,368
187.46%
12,998
24,366
0
11,368
187.46%
778,000
661,619
0
116,381
85.04%
11,000
21,762
0
10,762
197.84%
56,000
66,000
0
10,000
117.86%
845,000
749,381
0
95,619
88.68%
857,998
773,748
0
84,251
90.18%
Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Personal Services
554,000
502,868
0
51,132
90.77%
Materials and Services
248,000
238,405
0
9,595
96.13%
Transfers to Other Funds
32,000
31,996
0
5
99.99%
Capital Outlay
0
0
0
0
NaN
Contingency
23,998
0
0
23,998
0.00%
Total Expenditures
857,998
773,268
0
84,730
90.12%
Total Requirements
857,998
773,268
0
84,730
90.12%
Resources Over/ Under Requirements
0
0
480
Printed - 8131/2010 11:08 AM Page 4 of 17
LAxEOSwEG10
City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
Centennial 1910-2010
June 30, 2010
(100% of Budget)
BUDGET
% YTD
BUDGET ACTUALS
ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
BUDGET
TENNIS FACILITY FUND
Beginning Fund Balance
368,013
462,879
0
94,866
125.78%
Total Beginning Fund Balance 368,013
462,879
0
94,866
125.78%
Licenses and Fees
3,000
2,347
0
654
78.22%
Sales and Services
327,000
405,463
0
78,463
123.99%
Miscellaneous Revenues
11,000
7,857
0
3,143
71.43%
Total Revenues
341,000
415,667
0
74,667
121.90%
Total Resources
709,013
878,545
0
169,532
123.91%
Ending Fund Balance
150,000
0
0
150,000
0.00%
Total Ending Fund Balance
150,000
0
0
150,000
0.00%
Personal Services
144,000
138,495
0
5,505
96.18%
Materials and Services
176,000
137,692
0
38,308
78.23%
Transfers to Other Funds
108,000
105,582
0
2,418
97.76%
Capital Outlay
26,000
16,642
0
9,358
64.01%
Contingency
105,013
0
0
105,013
0.00%
Total Expenditures
559,013
398,411
0
160,602
71.27%
Total Requirements
709,013
398,411
0
310,602
56.19%
Resources Over I Under Requirements
0
480,134
0
480,134
Printed - 813112010 11:08 AM
Page 5 of 17
CAxEostennial 9w>20o City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
&2-(V June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
PERCENT FOR ART FUND
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Beginning Fund Balance
Miscellaneous Revenues
Other Financing Sources
Total Revenues
Total Resources
Ending Fund Balance
11,867
0
BUDGET
% YTD
BUDGET
ACTUALS
ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
BUDGET
11,867
0.00%
Materials and Services
93,000
93,000
16,867
14,028
0
2,839
83.17%
16,867
14,028
0
2,839
83.17%
0
303
0
303
-Infinity
100,000
100,000
0
0
100.00%
100,000
100,303
0
303
100.30%
116,867
114,331
0
., :
97.83%
Ending Fund Balance
11,867
0
0
11,867
0.00%
Total Ending Fund Balance
11,867
0
0
11,867
0.00%
Materials and Services
93,000
93,000
0
0
100.00%
Transfers to Other Funds
0
0
0
0
NaN
Capital Outlay
12,000
11,500
0
500
95.83%
Total Expenditures
105,000
104,500
0
500
99.52%
Total Requirements
116,867
104,500
0
12,367
89.42%
Resources Over/ Under Requirements
0
0
9,831
Printed - 813112010 11:08 AM Page 6 of 17
LAKE OSWEGO I
Centennial 1910-2:��City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
Centennial 1910-2010
A,, June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
BUDGET % YTD
BUDGET ACTUALS ENCUMBERED BALANCE BUDGET
WATER FUND
Beginning Fund Balance
7,815,300
8,484,209
0
668,909
108.56%
Total Beginning Fund Balance
7,815,300
8,484,209
0
668,909
108.56%
Intergovernmental
0
0
0
0
NaN
Licenses and Fees
0
13,735
0
13,735
-Infinity
Sales and Services
5,537,000
5,456,217
0
80,783
98.54%
Miscellaneous Revenues
105,000
134,583
0
29,583
128.17%
Other Financing Sources
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Revenues
5,642,000
5,604,534
0
37,466
99.34%
Total Resources
13,457,300
14,088,743
0
631,443
104.69%
Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Personal Services
1,394,000
1,364,567
0
29,433
97.89%
Materials and Services
2,174,000
1,518,594
0
655,406
69.85%
Debt Service
944,000
941,779
0
2,221
99.76%
Transfers to Other Funds
1,116,000
976,749
0
139,251
87.52%
Capital Outlay
1,663,000
235,267
0
1,427,733
14.15%
Contingency
6,166,300
0
0
6,166,300
0.00%
Total Expenditures
13,457,300
5,036,956
0
8,420,344
37.43%
Total Requirements
13,457,300
5,036,956
0
8,420,344
37.43%
Resources Over / Under Requirements
0
9,051,787
0
9,051,787
Printed - 91112010 5:21 PM Page 7 of 17
CAS o0oal191City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
&.., - June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
WASTEWATER FUND
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Beginning Fund Balance
Licenses and Fees
Sales and Services
Miscellaneous Revenues
Other Financing Sources
Total Revenues
Total Resources
BUDGET % YTD
BUDGET ACTUALS ENCUMBERED BALANCE BUDGET
57,966,185
62,054,877
57,966,185
62,054,877
0
7,816,000
201,000
0
669,992
7,748,064
40,624
121,189
8,017,000
8,579,870
65,983,185
70,634,747
0 4,088,692
107.05%
0 4,088,692
107.05%
0 669,992
-Infinity
0 67,936
99.13%
0 160,376
20.21%
0 121,189
-Infinity
0 562,870
107.02%
0 4,651,562
107.05%
Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Personal Services
1,134,000
952,830
0
181,170
84.02%
Materials and Services
3,499,000
2,453,584
0
1,045,416
70.12%
Debt Service
14,579,500
14,578,144
0
1,356
99.99%
Transfers to Other Funds
1,205,000
1,041,662
0
163,339
86.44%
Capital Outlay
40,574,000
36,189,762
0
4,384,238
89.19%
Contingency
4,991,685
0
0
4,991,685
0.00%
Total Expenditures
65,983,185
55,215,982
0
10,767,203
83.68%
Total Requirements
65,983,185
55,215,982
0
10,767,203
83.68%
Resources Over / Under Requirements 0 15,418,766 0 15,418,766
Printed - 9/1/2010 5:21 PM Page 8 of 17
LAKE
enntennioSwEal oo 10 City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
A,, June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
SURFACE WATER FUND
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Beginning Fund Balance
Sales and Services
Miscellaneous Revenues
Total Revenues
Total Resources
Ending Fund Balance
0
0
BUDGET
% YTD
BUDGET
ACTUALS
ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
BUDGET
0
NaN
Personal Services
270,000
262,048
1,350,328
1,350,328
0
0
100.00%
1,350,328
1,350,328
0
0
100.00%
1,758,000
1,827,527
0
69,527
103.95%
25,000
17,375
0
7,625
69.50%
1,783,000
1,844,902
0
61,902
103.47%
3,133,328
3,195,230
0
61,902
101.98%
Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Personal Services
270,000
262,048
0
7,952
97.05%
Materials and Services
386,000
279,845
0
106,155
72.50%
Debt Service
235,000
234,526
0
474
99.80%
Transfers to Other Funds
832,000
685,594
0
146,406
82.40%
Capital Outlay
342,000
161,124
0
180,876
47.11%
Contingency
1,068,328
0
0
1,068,328
0.00%
Total Expenditures
3,133,328
1,623,138
0
1,510,191
51.80%
Total Requirements
3,133,328
1,623,138
0
1,510,191
51.80%
Resources Over I Under Requirements 0 1,572,093 0 1,572,093
Printed - 91112010 5:21 PM Page 9 of 17
LAKEOSwEG10
nnial 1910-2010 City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
Cente
June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
BUDGET % YTD
BUDGET ACTUALS ENCUMBERED BALANCE BUDGET
STREET FUND
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Beginning Fund Balance
Franchise Fees
Intergovernmental
Licenses and Fees
Miscellaneous Revenues
Other Financing Sources
Total Revenues
Total Resources
177,031 47.732
177,031 47,732
2,480, 000
1,508,354
1,214,000
1,254,307
15,000
27,548
249,000
249,000
4,458,000
3,539,210
4,635,031
3,586,942
0 129,299 26.96%
0 129,299 26.96%
0 971,646
60.82%
0 40,307
103.32%
0 12,548
183.65%
0 0
100.00%
0 918,790
79.39%
0 1,048,089
77.39%
Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Personal Services
484,000
466,289
0
17,711
96.34%
Materials and Services
1,203,000
1,006,641
0
196,359
83.68%
Transfers to Other Funds
911,000
733,354
0
177,647
80.50%
Capital Outlay
1,793,000
652,669
0
1,140,331
36.40%
Contingency
244,031
0
0
244,031
0.00%
Total Expenditures
4,635,031
2,858,952
0
1,776,079
61.68%
Total Requirements
4,635,031
2,858,952
0
1,776,079
61.68%
Resources Over / Under Requirements
0
727,990
0
727,990
Printed - 91112010 5:21 PM Page 10 of 17
Centeno w>20o City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
�,— L IAA June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
SYSTEMS DEV CHARGES FUND
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Beginning Fund Balance
Licenses and Fees
Special Assessments
Miscellaneous Revenues
Total Revenues
Total Resources
Ending Fund Balance
0
0
BUDGET
% YTD
BUDGET
ACTUALS
ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
BUDGET
0
NaN
Materials and Services
30,000
2,970
1,135,041
1,993,140
0
858,099
175.60%
1,135,041
1,993,140
0
858,099
175.60%
580,000
581,333
0
1,333
100.23%
3,000
2,229
0
771
74.30%
65,000
23,887
0
41,113
36.75%
648,000
607,449
0
40,551
93.74%
1,783,041
2,600,588
0
817,547
145.85%
Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Materials and Services
30,000
2,970
0
27,030
9.90%
Capital Outlay
0
0
0
0
NaN
Contingency
1,753,041
0
0
1,753,041
0.00%
Total Expenditures
1,783,041
2,970
0
1,780,071
0.17%
Total Requirements
1,783,041
2,970
0
1,780,071
0.17%
Resources Over/ Under Requirements 0 2,597,618 0 2,597,618
Printed - 813112010 11:08 AM Page 11 of 17
LAKE 21 City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
Centennia11910-2010
June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
BUDGET % YTD
BUDGET ACTUALS ENCUMBERED BALANCE BUDGET
MAINT SVC & MOTOR POOL
Beginning Fund Balance
551,134
551,134
0
0
100.00%
Total Beginning Fund Balance
551,134
551,134
0
0
100.00%
Licenses and Fees
0
1,578
0
1,578
-Infinity
Miscellaneous Revenues
225,000
182,847
0
42,153
81.27%
Other Financing Sources
716,000
583,416
0
132,584
81.48%
Total Revenues
941,000
767,841
0
173,159
81.60%
Total Resources
1,492,134
1,318,976
0
173,158
88.40%
Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Personal Services
846,000
836,173
0
9,827
98.84%
Materials and Services
480,000
347,084
0
132,916
72.31%
Transfers to Other Funds
2,000
1,376
0
624
68.80%
Capital Outlay
155,000
75,687
0
79,313
48.83%
Contingency
9,134
0
0
9,134
0.00%
Total Expenditures
1,492,134
1,260,320
0
231,814
84.46%
Total Requirements
1,492,134
1,260,320
0
231,814
84.46%
Resources Over i Under Requirements
0
58,656
0
58,656
Printed - 813112010 11:08 AM Page 12 of 17
LAxEos9oo City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
' June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
BUDGET % YTD
BUDGET ACTUALS ENCUMBERED BALANCE BUDGET
ENGINEERING FUND
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Beginning Fund Balance
Licenses and Fees
Miscellaneous Revenues
Other Financing Sources
Total Revenues
Total Resources
Ending Fund Balance
Total Ending Fund Balance
Personal Services
Materials and Services
Transfers to Other Funds
Capital Outlay
Contingency
Total Expenditures
Total Requirements
Resources Over / Under Requirements
0 0
ob5,uuu
owl'000
50,000
24,861
2,597,000
2,097,000
3,212,000
2,631,517
3,212,000
2,631,517
0 0
NaN
0 0
NaN
0 55,345
90.20%
0 25,139
49.72%
0 500,000
80.75%
0 580,483
81.93%
0 580,483
81.93%
0
0
0
0
NaN
0
0
0
0
NaN
2,401,000
2,239,938
0
161,062
93.29%
355,000
138,508
0
216,492
39.02%
226,000
220,662
0
5,338
97.64%
20,000
15,264
0
4,737
76.32%
210,000
0
0
210,000
0.00%
3,212,000
2,614,372
0
597,628
81.39%
3,212,000
2,614,372
0
597,628
81.39%
0
17,145
0
17,145
Printed - 91112010 5:21 PM Page 13 of 17
LAKEOSWEG10
Centennial 7910-2010 City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
Printed - 813112010 11:08 AM Page 14 of 17
BUDGET
% YTD
BUDGET
ACTUALS
ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
BUDGET
LO - TIGARD WTR SUPPLY
Beginning Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Beginning Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Intergovernmental
5,741,000
4,848,759
0
892,241
84.46%
Licenses and Fees
0
474,561
0
474,561
-Infinity
Sales and Services
10,000
9,540
0
460
95.40%
Miscellaneous Revenues
86,000
5,372
0
80,628
6.25%
Other Financing Sources
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Revenues
5,837,000
5,338,232
0
498,768
91.46%
Total Resources
5,837,000
5,338,232
0
498,768
91.46%
Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Personal Services
300,000
248,990
0
51,010
83.00%
Materials and Services
175,000
65,172
0
109,828
37.24%
Transfers to Other Funds
80,000
76,152
0
3,848
95.19%
Capital Outlay
5,082,000
3,655,849
0
1,426,151
71.94%
Contingency
200,000
0
0
200,000
0.00%
Total Expenditures
5,837,000
4,046,162
0
1,790,838
69.32%
Total Requirements
5,837,000
4,046,162
0
1,790,838
69.32%
Resources Over/ Under Requirements
0
1,292,069
0
1,292,069
Printed - 813112010 11:08 AM Page 14 of 17
LAKt oIWEGO
City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
0 18,556
1=2 2010
0 26,581
-Infinity
0 164,713
599.13%
0
23.88%
June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
608.78%
0 206,805
272.70%
99,078
0
922
BUDGET
% YTD
19,751
BUDGET
ACTUALS
ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
BUDGET
BONDED DEBT SERVICE
99,078
0
20,673
82.74%
Total Requirements
Beginning Fund Balance
690,810
729,780
0
38,970
105.64%
Total Beginning Fund Balance
690,810
729,780
0
38,970
105.64%
Property Taxes
3,310,000
3,318,437
0
8,437
100.25%
Miscellaneous Revenues
45,000
31,524
0
13,476
70.05%
Total Revenues
3,355,000
3,349,961
0
5,039
99.85%
Total Resources
4,045,810
4,079,741
0
33,931
100.84%
Ending Fund Balance
699,810
0
0
699,810
0.00%
Total Ending Fund Balance
699,810
0
0
699,810
0.00%
Debt Service
3,346,000
3,345,165
0
835
99.98%
Total Expenditures
3,346,000
3,345,165
0
835
99.98%
Total Requirements
4,045,810
3,345,165
0
700,645
82.68%
Resources Over / Under Requirements
0
734,576
0
734,576
ASSESSMENT PROJECT FUND
Beginning Fund Balance
Total Beginning Fund Balance
Licenses and Fees
Special Assessments
Miscellaneous Revenues
Total Revenues
Total Resources
o,a,vvU iyi,113
4,000 955
37,000 225,249
119,751 326,556
0 18,556
122.42%
0 18,556
122.42%
0 26,581
-Infinity
0 164,713
599.13%
0
23.88%
0 188,249
608.78%
0 206,805
272.70%
Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Capital Outlay
100,000
99,078
0
922
99.08%
Contingency
19,751
0
0
19,751
0.00%
Total Expenditures
119,751
99,078
0
20,673
82.74%
Total Requirements
119,751
99,078
0
20,673
82.74%
Resources Over / Under Requirements
0
227,478
0
227,478
Printed - 8131/2010 11:08 AM Page 15 of 17
City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
BUDGET % YTD
BUDGET ACTUALS ENCUMBERED BALANCE BUDGET
BICYCLE PATH FUND
Beginning Fund Balance
71,867
71,776
0
99.87%
Total Beginning Fund Balance
71,867
71,776
0
99.87%
Intergovernmental
15,000
15,236
0
236
101.57%
Miscellaneous Revenues
1,000
832
0
-
83.20%
Total Revenues
16,000
16,068
0
68
100.42%
Total Resources
87,867
87,844
0
99.97%
Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Capital Outlay
87,867
0
0
87,867
0.00%
Total Expenditures
87,867
0
0
87,867
0.00%
Total Requirements
87,867
0
0
87,867
0.00%
Resources Over / Under Requirements
0
87,844
0
87,844
LORA BONDED DEBT SERVICE
Beginning Fund Balance
388,129
695,721
0
307,592
179.25%
Total Beginning Fund Balance
388,129
695,721
0
307,592
179.25%
Property Taxes
2,748,443
3,161,045
0
412,602
115.01%
Miscellaneous Revenues
30,000
34,159
0
4,159
113.86%
Total Revenues
2,778,443
3,195,204
0
416,761
115.00%
Total Resources
3,166,572
3,890,926
0
724,354
122.88%
Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Ending Fund Balance
0
0
0
0
NaN
Debt Service
1,748,000
1,303,333
0
444,667
74.56%
Transfers to Other Funds
1,418,572
1,418,572
0
0
100.00%
Contingency
0
0
0
0
NaN
Total Expenditures
3,166,572
2,721,905
0
444,667
85.96%
Total Requirements
3,166,572
2,721,905
0
444,667
85.96%
Resources Over/ Under Requirements
0
1,169,021
0
1,169,021
Printed - 813112010 11:08 AM
Page 16 of 17
LAKEOStennial 9WE City of Lake Oswego Budget Report
� , June 30, 2010 (100% of Budget)
,rinted - 813112010 11:08 AM
Page 17 of 17
BUDGET
% YTD
BUDGET
ACTUALS
ENCUMBERED
BALANCE
BUDGET
LORA CAPITAL PROJECTS
Beginning Fund Balance
7,132,438
7,700,966
0
568,528
107.97%
Total Beginning Fund Balance
7,132,438
7,700,966
0
568,528
107.97%
Miscellaneous Revenues
144,000
110,705
0
33,295
76.88%
Other Financing Sources
1,418,572
1,418,572
0
0
100.00%
Total Revenues
1,562,572
1,529,277
0
33,295
97.87%
Total Resources
8,695,010
9,230,244
0
535,234
106.16%
Ending Fund Balance
7,010
0
0
7,010
0.00%
Total Ending Fund Balance
7,010
0
0
7,010
0.00%
Materials and Services
888,000
708,660
0
179,340
79.80%
Capital Outlay
7,800,000
2,636,572
0
5,163,428
33.80%
Total Expenditures
8,688,000
3,345,232
0
5,342,768
38.50%
Total Requirements
8,695,010
3,345,232
0
5,349,778
38.47%
Resources Over / Under Requirements
0
-
0
5,885,012
,rinted - 813112010 11:08 AM
Page 17 of 17
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING:
MINUTES
September 7, 2010
Council President Roger Hennagin called the regular City Coum'-!.E meeting to order at 6:36
p.m. on September 7, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A avenue.
Present: Council President Hennagin, Councilors Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan,
and Vizzini. Mayor Hoffman was excused.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Christine Kirk, Public Affairs Manager; Joel Komarek, LOIS
Project Director; Jane Heisler, LOIS Communications Director; Ursula Euler,
Finance Director; Denny Egner, Long Range Planning Manager
3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 Distinguished Service Awards:
M Brent Ahrend, Transportation Advisory Board
Council President Hennagin presented a Distinguished Service Award to Brent Ahrend and
thanked him for his service on the Transportation Advisory Board as Vice Chair. He mentioned Mr.
Ahrend's knowledge of traffic engineering as a traffic engineer with Group MacKenzie. Mr. Ahrend
indicated to Council: President Hennagin that he was born and raised in Lake Oswego.
• Ron Gronowski, Sustainability Advisory Board
Council President Hennagin presented a Distinguished Service Award to Ron Gronowski and
thanked him for his service as an inaugural member of the Sustainability Advisory Board. He
mentioned that Mr. Gronowski's interest in the practice of sustainable design. Mr. Gronowski
indicated that to Council President Hennagin that he has lived in Lake Oswego for 23 years, and
was transferring to the Foothills Citizen Advisory Committee.
• Nancy Gronowski, Natural Resources Advisory Board
Council President Hennagin presented a Distinguished Service Award to Nancy Gronowski and
thanked her for her service on the Natural Resources Advisory Board. He mentioned that she was
a landscape architect and a planner for the Portland Parks Bureau, as well as a volunteer on the
Second Look Task Force. He noted that she was transferring to the Parks & Recreation Advisory
Board.
• Morgan Holen, Natural Resources Advisory Board
Council President Hennagin presented a Distinguished Service Award to Morgan Holen and
thanked her for her service on the Natural Resources Advisory Board. He mentioned that she was
a forester who also volunteered on the Century Tree project. Ms. Holen confirmed that she
worked part-time for the City as an Assistant Natural Resources Planner. She indicated to Council
President Hennagin that she was a fourth generation forester.
Adrianne Brockman, Planning Commission
Council President Hennagin presented a Distinguished Service Award to Adrianne Brockman
and thanked her for !-ger service on the Planning Commission. He noted that she was resigning
from the Commission. ills. Brockman indicated to Council President Hennagin that this was her
second term of service on the Planning Commission, having served her first term from 1981-1990.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 16
September 7; 2010
She mentioned getting the infill code amendments to the Council as an accomplishment. She said
that she was a lawyer with a master's in planning. She expressed her appreciation for the
opportunity to serve her community.
• Philip L. Stewart, Planning Commission
Council President Hennagin presented a Distinguished Service Award to Philip Stewart and
thanked him for his service on the Planning Commission. He mentioned that he was resigning
from the Commission. He noted that Mr. vtewart served as Commission Chair and worked to
make the development code more user iendly. Mr. Stewart indicated to Council President
Hennagin that he served on the Commission for two and a half years. He mentioned the infill
amendments to the Code, beginning Periodic Review; and working with the Sensitive Lands
Ordinance as accomplishments.
• Robert Galante, Redevelopment director
Council President Hennagin presented a Distinguished Service Award to Bob Galante and
thanked him for his years of service with the City. Mr. Galante recalled that he had worked with
Ms. Brockman and Ms. Gronowski early in his career at the City. He reviewed his tenure at the
City, starting as a Development Review Planner, then as a Senior Planner and Planning Director
before his appointment as Redevelopment Director. He described the City staff as his extended
family. He commented that he has enjoyed working on the many downtown redevelopment and
other City projects over the years.
Council President Hennagin mentioned that Mr. Galante was involved in the planning for
Millennium Pla-a Park, the Headlee Walkway, Lakeview Village, Foothills Park, the Kincaid
Curlicue Park, and the A Avenue, State Street, First Street and Evergreen, and Leonard Street
improvements. He commented that the City would miss his expertise and experience, and wished
him luck in his retirement. He led the room in a round of applause.
3.2 Federal Legislative Update
Wis. Kirk reported on the federal legislative efforts undertaken by Capital Edge on behalf of the City
since the last update (pp. 1-2). She mentioned Capital Edge helping the City make strategic
investments of time and gain access to the Congressional delegation. She described the City staff
and Capital Edge as working together as a team. She noted the number of issues revolving
around water, such as questions from the Oregon Water Utilities Council and assistance with the
federal permitting process for the Lake Oswego,rTigard Water Partnership.
Chris Giglio, Capital Edge, attended by Skype from Washington, D.C. He noted that Congress
was currently in its summer recess, and not expected back until next week. Following the October
8 scheduled end of the next session, Congress would not reconvene until after the November
elections for a lame duck session. He mentioned the Energy Efficiency and Conservation block
grants and the formula grants to states for recreation and conservation activities (in the Energy bill)
and an extension of the bond provisions in the 2009 stimulus package (Build America Bonds) as
items anticipated for Congressional debate that were of interest to Lake Oswego.
He mentioned the expectation of much debate regarding the FY 2011 budget. He observed that
deficit reduction has been a major topic of discussion in Congress. Consequently, the budget
hawks were eyeing domestic discretionary funding for cuts in FY 2011. Unfortunately, many
programs that could assist local governments fell under domestic discretionary funding and might
not see much growth.
He reported that Representative Schrader and Senators Wyden and Merkley requested the
respective Appropriations Committees to consider the two projects that Capital Edge helped the
Ci-Iy officials identify earlier this year for `earmarking' in the FY 2011 budget- the Foothills planning
effort and wastewater treatment projects. He explained that these projects had significant local
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16
September 7, 2010
support and contributions; -they were projects that federal money could complete; and they met the
program eligibility requirements, which made them attractive to Congress.
He described the Congressional delegation requesting both projects as showing significant
progress in educating the Congressional delegation on Lake Oswego's needs. However, due to
the deficit and anticipated budget cuts, he did not think it likely that Congress would fund the
projects in FY2011. He pointed out that sometimes getting funding for projects was a multi-year
process. He mentioned the outside chance of Congress including funding for the wastewater
projects in the -FY2011 budget for the EPA.
He mentioned other projects they continued to work on behalf of the City, such as poteriiial federal
grant opportunities, discouraging federal intrusion into local matters, and public safety issues. He
reported that the City submitted an application to the Tiger 2 grant program run by the Department
of Transportation, which was a transportation, land use, and sustainability initiative. He
commented that, although the City had a strong application, even if it failed, they hoped submitting
it would bear fruit in future proposals by demonstrating the City's commitment to combining these
three elements.
He reported that the City's early application to a program in the new health care bill about
reimbursing local governments for up to 80% of health care costs related to early retirees (or
$90,000) has been approved. He indicated to Council President Hennagin that it was a $5 billion
program conducted on a first come, first served basis. He clarified that the program intent was to
encourage local governments to continue to provide benefits. He acknowledged that an
unintended consequence would be to open up employment opportunities for non -retirees.
Mr. Giglio indicated to Councilor Vizzini that specific program in the EPA funding stream to which
the City made application was the State and Tribal Assistance Grants program (STAG). He
explained that this was an earmark for local wastewater treatment facility upgrades. The City
made its application for the Foothills planning effort to a $150 million joint program from HUD,
DOT, and EPA seeking to combine land use, sustainability, and transportation. He reiterated that
they did not expect to see increased funding to these programs due to the deficit concerns.
He indicated to Councilor Vizzini that he saw prospects for funding through EPA for the City's
anticipated watershed planning work, as watershed planning was a hot topic at conferences and
on the EPA's radar screen. He commented that, while there was not significant programmatic
funding yet, his impression was that the US Army Corps of Engineers .and the Department of the
Interior wanted to work in this area in the future.
Mr. Giglio left the meeting.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that he had not intended to bring back the Capital
Edge contract renewal to the Council for discussion, as its renewal was under his authority.
However, if the Council wished to discuss it, he would bring it back.
Councilor Olson recalled a Council conversation about discussing the results of this work after
one year to see if the Council agreed to continue it. Mr. McIntyre said that his recollection was
that the Council decided that one year was an insufficient length of time to evaluate adequately the
success of this program; it would need two to three years to show success or lack of success. He
recalled that he had explicitly told the Council that the success of this legislative effort was not in
bringing the money home, but rather in influencing decision makers in Washington D.C., and
getting Lake Oswego on the radar screen.
Councilor Tierney commented that he did measure success by bringing home the money as an
investment. He concurred that the budget discussions did conclude that a one-year time frame
was too short to assess this work. He advocated for continuing the contract for another year.
Council President Hennagin indicated that he also recalled the conclusion that they would take
two to three years to determine whether this program was worthwhile or not.
City Council Regular Meeting (Minutes Page 3 of 15
September 7. 2010
3.3 Water Partnership Update
Mr. Komarek reported that the team was working on project definition and assessing the
conditions of the existing facilities in order to quantify and characterize the challenges they would
be facing during construction. He mentioned the tribal burial grounds near the intake and raw
water pipeline.
He indicated that both Lake Oswego and Tigard, as joint applicants for an extension, and the
opponents filed exceptions to the administrative law judge ru.i�ng in August. He explained that the
participants felt that the ruling granted some authority to the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
that was not part of the original conditions. He noted that the Director had no time limit on issuing
his final order, but once he did; the parties had 60 days to appeal the final order directly to the
appellate court.
He mentioned the six distinct projects identified through project definition: the Clackamas River
intake facility, 14,000 feet of raw water pipeline crossing the Willamette, connecting that pipeline to
the treatment plant in West Linn, 35,000 feet of treated water to the Waluga Reservoir, the Tigard
connection to the Waiuga Reservoir, and Tigard's distribution system.
He reported that their assessment of the existing pipelines found 50,000 plus feet of pipeline with
no quantifiable leakage and a better than expected condition. He mentioned the consensus
recommendation by the expert panel and the Citizen's Sounding Board to use the conventional
water treatment method plus ozone. He indicated that they would discuss these issues with the
Oversight Committee and the Council.
He commented that there was an interested group of neighbors of the Waluga Reservoir wanting
to have input into the facility design.
Ms. Heisler discussed their good neighbor outreach efforts to engage all the facility neighbors,
particularly those neighbors who would experience the most impacts during construction. She
mentioned the Robinwood Neighborhood and the Maple Grove Plat property owners in West Linn
where the treatment plant was located, and the Waluga Reservoir neighbors.
She explained that the City had to get 75% approval from the Maple Grove Plat property owners to
use the properties to the south of the treatment plant for any type of water -related facility. The
team was sounding them out about an underground clear well and a small pump station. She
noted that the project proposed a 3.5 million gallon reservoir at the existing 1 million gallon Waluga
Reservoir site.
Ms. Heisler indicated to Council President Hennagin that about a dozen property owners out of
the 85 property owners in the Plat attended the City's ice cream social.
She discussed the joint pilot program (Treatment Plant, Engineering, and Water Conservation
Specialist) in August and September to encourage people to conserve water. She described it as
a way to raise awareness and encourage people to save money and -water as a preliminary to a
fuller program next year. She indicated that the team would meet with the City's Water
Conservation Specialist at the end of September to see if it had an impact.
Mr. Komarek reviewed the meetings scheduled through the end of the year, including monthly
Oversight Committee meetings to discuss the progress towards a joint Council decision on the CIP.
He mentioned the concurrent Lake Oswego rate update work to see how well the tiered water
pricing structure was working. He presented the website address and phone numbers,
encouraging residents to log on to the website, which had up-to-date information about the
partnership, thanks to Ms. Heisler and her team's work.
Councilor Vizzini asked if the City has sufficient meter information to determine whether there
was an effect on Beat the Peak this summer. Ms. Heisler observed that that was tied to outside
I
emperatures, yet she doubted that they were pulling much water out of the river.
City Council Regular 10eeting Minutes Page 4 of 16
September 7, 2010
Mr. Komarek described to Councilor Olson the appeals process -following the Director's issuance
of the final order. He mentioned the current thinking that the Director would issue that order within
a few weeks to three months. He speculated that it would take a year for the appeal to go through
the courts. Council President Hennagin commented that how long it would take was impossible
to predict. He conjectured that it could take two years.
Councilor Tierney asked Mr. Komarek to summarize the water rights decision because it was a
lynch pin for the whole process. If the City did not get the water rights, then the project stopped,
yet they were proceeding as if they would get it. Mr. Komarek explained that this had to do with
the 2005 House bill that turned ii a municipal water rights world upside down. Instead of the
continual extension of water rights in recognition of cities and jurisdictions growing into their water
rights over time, the State decided to allow each jurisdiction a 20 -year block of time. During those
20 years, a jurisdiction had to show that it was managing the existing water rights to the best of its
ability, and that the development of the undeveloped rights would not result in harm to endangered
species.
Mr. Komarek said that Lake Oswego initially applied for water rights extension in 2000 and was
halfway through the process when this new legislation came through and put everything on hold.
He recounted how two years ago Water Watch and the Southfork Water Board immediately
contested the Department's proposed final order approving Lake Oswego's water rights extension.
Lake Oswego's efforts to reach an out-of-court settlement were unsuccessful, and eventually an
administrative law judge issued a ruling upholding the proposed final order.
He concurred that securing the extension of these water rights was extremely important, not only to
the Partnership, but also to Lake Oswego alone for growth and economic development.
3.4 LOIS Update
Mr. Komarek concurred with Council President Hennagin that drawing down the lake has run
into Mother Nature trying to fill it back up again. He reported that the contractors have finished the
West Bay CPPD (cured in place plastic pipe) work and anticipated finishing similar work in
Lakewood Bay and Foothills early next week. He indicated that they did get the Country Club
irrigation system in place and operational before lake draw down.
He discussed several important elements in the project. He mentioned the debris sump installation
to collect and trap debris upstream of the lake to prevent debris entering the buoyant.pipe and
causing difficulties. He spoke of the bypass pumping necessary in working with a live sewer
system. He described the work done on the Bryant and Foothills pump stations.
He mentioned the City's coordination work with the Lake Corp, not only on the LOIS project, but
also on the Corporation's desire to dredge during the lake down phase in order to make some
modifications to their dam for flood control benefits.
He referenced Mr. McIntyre's memo sent out last week about the City receiving the highest rating
by both bond rating agencies for its full faith and credit revenue bonds.
Ms. Heisler indicated that the team has been focusing its recent communication efforts on draw
down. She noted the Lake Corporation's efforts to advertise its intent to dredge, which meant that
owners had to get their boats out of the water. She mentioned the intense media and public
interest in the lake draw down.
She mentioned the need to update constantly the information on the website as the bypass
pumping system would move around the lake with the work on different manholes. She indicated
that staff met with three easement groups to discuss the upcoming work near those easements.
She noted that the CIPP work in Half Moon Bay, the northeast Am,,, and the remainder of
Lakewood Bay would require a six-week closure of the North Shore Bridge. She said that the team
would communicate with emergency services regarding the one day when emergency vehicles will
not be able to travel over the bridge.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16
September 7, 2010
--Mr: Xomarek indicated that the project was on track with its --schedule with some projects
compieted ahead of schedule. He commented that he expected the Lake Down Phase to catch
up, weather permitting. He reported beginning initial discussions with the Portland Bureau of
Environmentai Services (BES) about partnering on the Foothills sewer seismic upgrade. He
reported that the project costs were steadily decreasing over time, with the latest project total
estimate coming in at $90 million.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Co -.cilor Jordan thanked Mr. Komarek for the fantasticjob that he and his y am have done with
keep;ng the LOIS project moving and keeping all those impacted by the work iiformed and
prepared. She commended Mr. Komarek and Ms. Heisler for their skills in helping this project to
proceed smoothly. She commented that she thought the same would happen with the water
project, which made her glad that the City had talented people on staff to do this work.
Council President Hennagin concurred with Councilor Jordan regarding how well th.is project has
gone. He asked Mr. Komarek to address the confusion among the public regarding the need for a
larger diameter sewer through the lake to handle increased present and future sewer flow and yet
the City was not enlarging the pipe through Lakewood Bay but only re -fining it.
Mr. Komarek explained that the modeling showed that the West Bay pipeline had adequate
hydraulic capacity to pass the designed flows based on certain assumptions. He indicated that an
important assumption was that the City would continue to address the infiltration and inflow issues
in the smaller diameter collection systems upstream. He emphasized that if the City allowed this to
go unattended, then it would see overflows into the lake again.
He indicated to Council President Hennagin that the pipe in Lakewood Bay had the same 35 inch
inside diameter as the pipe running through the main lake, its size was adequate to handle both
storm and domestic flows. He mentioned their determination that there was little seismic risk to the
pipe, as it was buried. He explained that re -lining the pipe would extend the useful life and give the
pipe more structure.
4. COHSE IST AGENDA
Councilor Jordan moved the Consent Agenda. Councilor Moncrieff seconded the motion.
voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Council. President.-Hennagin,
Councilors Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and Vizzini voting "aye." [6-0]
4.1 RESOLUTIONS
4.1.1 Resolution 10-49, making appointments to the 50+ Advisory Board
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-49, appointing Gail Zimmerman, Debbie Harris and Marcia
Robertson to the 50+ Advisory Board, Gale Gipson as alternate
4.1.2 Resolution 10-50, making appointments to the Planning Commission
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-50, re -appointing Russell Jones to the Planning Commission
and continuing to recruit for additional candidates
4.1.3 Resolution 10 - 55, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement to accept a grant for
the Juvenile Youth Diversion Program
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-55
4.1.4 Resolution 10 - 56, appointing an additional member to the Foothilis Oversight
Committee
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-56
4.1.5 Resolution 10-67,, regarding oversight of Lake Oswego School District's New
Sustainability Fund
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16
September 7, 2010
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-57 — -_— --- -
4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.2.1 March 30, 2010, special meeting
4.2.2 April 13, 2010, special meeting
4.2.3 April 13, 2010, regular meeting
4.2.4 April 20, 2010, regular meeting
4.2.5 May 17, 2010, special meeting
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
• Jerry Ghigiieri, 667 McVey
She asked the Council to waive the fee for the use of the West End Building for the December 4
ceremony honoring the 82nd Brigade, Army National Guard. She mentioned that many of these
heroic men and women in the Guard served more than two tours, and others have made the
ultimate sacrifice.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Council President Hennagin that waiving the fee was within his
discretion, and that he wouid do so. Ms. Ghigiieri thanked the Council and the City Manager.
Councilor Jordan observed that this was consistent with the community covenant that the City
signed with Clackamas County to support all of their military personnel and their families. She
thanked Ms. Ghiglieri for bringing this request forward.
• Dr. Bill Ko-ach, Lake Oswego School Superintendent
On behalf of fine School Board, the children and the families, he thanked the Council for its serious
consideration of helping the School District financially. He indicated that this financial support
made a big difference to the kids, as $75,000 meant one teacher and $150,000 two teachers. He
thanked the City staff for their help in getting the Lake Oswego High School building open in time
for the students' arrival. He mentioned that Mr. McIntyre has worked closely with him through the
year, and the District felt good about its partnership with the City.
7. REPORTS
7.1 One -Time Financial Support to the Lake Oswego School District
Mr. McIntyre presented his recommendation to fund for one year on a one-time grant basis
support to the School District for the continuation of its aquatics and orchestra programs. He noted
that both these programs were consistent with the City's values regarding cultural and youth
activities. He commented that, while at any other time he might be more rigorous in defending the
Measure 5 line between cities and schools, the Council did put undesignated funds into the
contingency funds in anticipation of some future event. He described this as one future event of
$150,000 for Council consideration. He indicated to Council President Hennagin that the Council
put $256,000 into contingency.
Mr. Powell indicated to Council President Hennagin that there could be an issue with the
Measure 5 restrictions, depending on where the funds came from. He noted that staff presented
this request as a use of franchise fees. He explained that that was a defensible use, as there were
no strings attached to those funds as there were to property tax funds.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16
September 7, 2010
Councilor Moncrieff observed that the -Lake Oswego schools differentiated Lake Oswego from-- -
the surrounding communities. She described this as an appropriate expenditure of funds, as the
schools were a community value.
Councilor Olson cited an Oregonian article discussing other school districts in the state
eliminating music programs. She commented that music programs were something that
distinguished Oregon schools. She remarked that strong schools were a prime reason that people
moved to this community and a major factor in maintaining high property values. She emphasized
that this was a one-timrz.grant. She spoke to the City and the State finding a permanent fix for tt:
problems faced bre the :school District.
Councilor Jordan indicated that she supported this request. She observed that Lake Oswego
had one of the strongest school systems in the state; supporting the schools was part of the fabric
of this community. She concurred with Councilor Olson that they needed to address school
financing as a statewide issue, since education fueled the State's economic engine. She
suggested that Ms. Kirk help create a message to send to the legislature about the importance of
schools.
Councilor Tierney stated that he would support the resolution. He asked the City Manager to
incorporate into the details of the agreement a specific linkage between the orchestra and the
community, such as holding an orchestra event at a City venue or having a performance open to
the community.
Councilor Vizzini concurred with the Councilor comments that this issue went beyond the
community. He argued that all communities in the state should be advocating for a permanent
solution to school funding in the upcoming legislative cycle. He agreed that this was a one-time
grant.
He mentioned that he saw the Lake Oswego High School fields filied with kids and their parents
every evening as he rode his bike home. He held that the linkage between the school students
and the new branding of the community was manifest. He described the students as representing
the community when they attended athletic events elsewhere in the state. He commented that he
saw the students as part of the community's economic development strategy.
He noted the action item on the League of Oregon, Cities' legislative agenda to allow communities
to vote to exceed the limits of Measures 5 and 50. He argued that the time has come to return to
the Lake Oswego citizens having more direct control over the school budget.
Council President Hennagir. said that he also supported this allocation of contingency funds. He
remarked that it was a sad commentary on the State tax system and allocation of funds that the
school districts had to raise funds through foundations and charitable giving in order to provide the
desired level of education. He agreed that the legislature needed to find a solution. He
commented that, while he did not like these "Band-aids," on occasion they did need to use them.
Councilor Olson moved to adopt resolution 10-59, authorizing a resolution transfer of
$150,000 from the City's General Fund Contingency to the non -departmental budget to
provide one time funding for the Lake Oswego School district. Councilor Jordan seconded
the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Council President
Hennagin, Councilors Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and Vizzini voting "aye." [6-0]
7.2 LOIS Bond Issue #2
Mr. Komarek presented his request that the Council direct a bond issue in the amount of $35
million for the completion of the LOIS project. He noted the additional $5 million for an expanded
scope of work to upsize a piece of the system. He explained that this piece could wait but if the
City took advantage of the qualified contractors already working for it, the staff believe- they could
achieve some economies of scale. He mentioned staff's anticipation that the $5 million couid also
pay to address some other deficiencies in the small diameter waterfront sewers ringing the lake.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16
September 7, 2010
He directed the Council to Exhibit -2.8 in the handout (p.114, packet), a table that showed -the -future
rate increases over four years required by a $110 million wastewater funding project, as identified
in the December 2009 wastewater cost of service analysis. He mentioned the staff's anticipation of
completing the project for around $90 million. He explained that the project was close to
consuming all of the $60 million 2009 bond issue. He spoke of taking advantage of the good credit
mar -at climate, the low LOIS project costs, and the availability of qualified contractors for the
additional work by issuing $35 million in bonds at this time.
Mr. h5cintyre commented that the City would have to do the additi,,7al work in a couple of years
anyway. Staff just thought that it made sense to take advantage o the contractors already on the
lake to do that work now.
Council President Hennagin asked Mr. Komarek to explain how doing this work now resulted in
saving substantial amounts of money. Mr. Komarek explained that the City needed to do re -fine
another 4,000 feet of the main Canal trunk sewer and replace and lower 100 existing sewer
laterals serving properties abutting either side of the canal because of damage that occurred
whenever the Lake Corporation dredged the canal. He explained that mobilization was a huge
cost in any project, and with the specialized CIPP contractors already mobilized and on the lake
with their equipment, the City saved that cost for this re -lining project in the future. He reiterated
that the funds might potentially cover taking care of some additional small waterfront sewers
ringing the lake.
Mr. Komarek explained to Councilor Tierney that it was difficult to estimate how much this project
would cost if done in a few years. He mentioned inflation and mobilization as a higher percentage
of a smaller project's costs. He pointed out that the work would have to coincide with future
drawdowns initiated by the Lake Corp; when and how far they would draw the lake down were
unknowns. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that he would expect to see a $250,000 to
$500,000 higher cost in the future over the cost of doing the project today.
Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Vizzini that staff realized a 30% cost reduction over the
engineer's estimate for the Lake Full Phase due to doing the work during an economic recession.
He mentioned a 10% cost reduction during the take Down Phase. Councilor Vizzini commented
that that proved the truth that one should build as much as possible during a recession because
the pricing was good. He observed that having the workers in town was another economic benefit.
Mr. Komarek said that the contractors expected to have 50 to 60 people on the lake down phase
at any given time.
Councilor Olson mentioned another cost savings of $100,000 in bond fees if they issued this $5
million in bonds separately. She noted the current very low bond rates also. Mr. Komarek spoke
of other additional costs for design work and another bid process, as well as the question of
whether these specialty contractors would be available when the City next needed them.
Chip Pierce, Bond Consultant, confirmed Councilor Olson's estimate of $100,000 in savings by
not doing a separate bond issue. He described taking advantage of these historically low bond
yields as an economically sound approach.
Councilor Moncrieff asked why staff did not recommend Scenario 3, an additional $10 million in
bond issues to take care of the cleaning inspection and condition assessment of the sewer lines
ringing the lake. Mr. Komarek explained that staff would not have the inspection work completed
to assess the condition of the lines. He discussed his concern about the staffing capacity required
to do that work, especially in light of the Lake Oswego/Tigard Partnership coming online. He
spoke of finding the middle ground between what could be done and being sensitive to rate
increases.
Mr. Nrtclntyre asked how soon did the City have to spend the funds, once.the City received them.
Mr. Pierce said that the rule was that the City had to have a reasonable expectation of spending
90% of the proceeds within three years. Mr. McIntyre commented that that changed things slightly
for. hi<<,.
City .,ouncil Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16
September 7, 2010
Councilor Olson commentedthatif Mr. Komarek continued his stellar management of -LOIS; then
the City could have an additional $5 million in contingency to use for the additional work instead of
issuing bonds.
Councilor Jordan commented that Mr. Komarek has justified increasing the scope of work, as
Council asked him to do last summer. She pointed out the decreased rate increases under this
scenario from the original 2009 estimated rate increases (p.114). She observed that the City was
decreasing the expense to the residents' pocketbooks over the next couple of years with regard to
sewer rates and still doing more work on a',e sewer.
Councilor Tierney asked Mr. Pierce to discuss the risks associated with the Build America Bond
provisions. Mr. Pierce indicated that, while there were elements of the Build America Bond (BAB)
program that were attractive and would achieve savings, there were also risks. He mentioned the
risks involved with the IRS -required certifications by the underwriters. He discussed the loss of the
35% subsidy on the interest with re -funding the BABs in comparison to savings achieved when re-
funding the traditional tax-exempt bonds. He explained that if the federal government decided that
the City has not used federal money it has received for a given project appropriately, then it could
withhold interest subsidies on un -related bonds.
Mr. Pierce observed that BABs sounded terrific on their face but there were factors to consider
before going with BABs. He said that they might end up issuing straight 25 -year tax-exempt bonds
at a rate in the mid -3s. He commented that BABs might have a little lower rate but he was not
certain they were worth the offset. He mentioned their intention to sell the bonds competitively, as
a more economically efficient way for the City to sell them. Councilor Tierney indicated that he
would not be disappointed if the City sold straight bonds.
Ms. Euler referenced the earlier question about why staff did not recommend the $40 million, bond
scenario instead of the $35 million bond issue. She explained that, even with the lower customer
rate increases, the City was still accumulating a fund balance that seemed adequate to take care
of non -LOIS capital projects or any unforeseen major project.
Council President Hennagin commented that he had no doubt that the savings realized in the
long run from the various factors articulated by staff would be beneficiai.
Councilor T iet ney moved to direct staff to sell $35 million in a combination of full faith and
credit tax exempt obligations, Series 210A obligations, and full faith and credit taxable
obligations, Series 2108 obligations to pay cost of or to reimburse the City for payment of
costs of capital improvements to the City's wastewater system, and to pay costs of
issuance. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion
passed with Council President Hennagin, Counciiors Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and
Vizzini voting "aye." [6-0]
Council President Hennagin recessed the meeting at 8:38 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the
meeting at 8:46 p.m. -
7.3 Boones Ferry Road Project Phase 2: Consultant Selection and Public Process
Mr. Egner mentioned that staff would like to return to Council on September 21 with a resolution
appointing an advisory committee and approving the project contract. He explained that Phase 2
was intended to provide a mechanism to make recommendations on the 22 refinements
recommended by the consultant during the technical analysis of Phase 1, to pin down a specific
right-of-way, and to conduct a public process.
He reviewed the consultant selection process (pp.1 18-119). He presented the staff
recommendation to hire HCS T B as the consultant (p.119). He indicated that staff was negotiating
the contract that they anticipated presenting for approval at the Council September 21 meeting.
He presented the staff recommendation for a seven -member Advisory Committee 'pp.119-120)
comprised of four members from the old Lake Grove Village Center Task Force and three
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16
September 7, 2010
members from the current Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). He commented that staff did not
know at this point whether this project would simply implement the Village Center Plan or develop
proposed amendments. Staff would take any amendments to the Planning Commission and the
City Council, but implementing the concepts was solely a Council decision.
He discussed the proposed schedule. He indicated that, if Council approved this approach, he
would meet with TAB later this month and convene the first meeting of the Advisory Committee in
October. He said that the goal was to have a six-month project ending in April 2011. He noted the
key decision ;paints listed in the schedule (p.120).
Council President Hennagin commented that he had hoped that this would be the Iasi step and
not the next step because the property owners along Boones Ferry Road needed to know where
the improvements would be before undertaking any redevelopment or property improvements. Mr.
Egner stated that this project would provide some certainty about the location of the improvements
but there were still unknowns. He mentioned that one unknown was how the City would pay for
the project. He remarked that the Homebuilders Association has tied up a Metro construction
excise tax grant in a lawsuit.
Mr. Egner agreed with Council President Hennagin's hope that this project would not result in
amendments to the Lake Grove Village Center Plan, but he noted that there were a few of the 22
refinements which, if recommended by the Advisory Committee, might require amendments.
Councilor Olson commented that she was glad to see this moving along within a six months time
frame. She referenced Mr. Egner's report indicating that the Lake Grove Village Plan Advisory
Committee had rejected some of the 22 refinements later identified by the Phase 1 consultant.
She asked if the new Advisory Committee would actually consider those items originally rejected.
Mr. Egner noted that the wording was 'they were considered and rejected.' He gave an example
of putting a full service traffic signal in for all four legs of the Lanewood intersection. He recalled
that the Lake Grove Plan Advisory Committee had rejected extending Hallmark as one of the
intersection legs because of concerns about traffic going past the school. He indicated that, since
the Committee never decided whether or not that signal served the redevelopment of the furniture
store site, he believed that the question was left open regarding connecting to the furniture store
parking lot. He mentioned the Madrona intersection as another traffic signai discussion.
Councilor Olson referenced the fourth cost cutting strategy mentioned in Mr. Egner's report, using
the accurate, high-resolution aerial photos instead of detailed surveys. She asked if the City would
need those detailed surveys in the future. Mr. Egner explained that these photos were as
accurate as the staff could get without going to construction level drawings. He indicated that they
would only do spot surveys for the construction level drawings, and not a full survey of the
roadway.
Councilor Jordan mentioned that part of the issue with the 22 refinements was that some of them
anticipated growth using models with estimates of future populations. She pointed out that until
they resolved the issue at the railroad crossing on Bryant Road, nothing they did on Boones Ferry
would alleviate the traffic stacking up. She described the intent of the plan as making a more
pedestrian friendly, accessible corridor in the next five to ten years and not trying to implement the
35 -year plan right now.
She agreed that the Boones Ferry Road property owners waiting to do projects needed to know
the exact location of the right-of-way and the pedestrian facilities. She observed that the location
of the pedestrian crossings would help identify the locations of future driveway consolidations.
Councilor Vizzini thanked Mr. Egner for taking some of his comments about the Advisory
Committee into consideration. He said that he was pleased with the Committee's composition. He
mentioned his concerns about the scope of work. He discussed the need to make the aspirational
Village Center Plan real on the ground through the access management planning process
recommended by Planning Commissioner Glisson.
Citv Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16
September 7, 2010
He stated that -his concern was that the pian was written with the intent of completing the access
management plan and the economic analysis in order to make decisions about the engineering
plans, and of having a process to get community buy -in on the refinements. He stated his personal
opinion that the program needed more money in order to complete the economic analysis
promised to the community, in addition to the resources budgeted for the scope of work proposed
for Phase 2.
Mr. Egner indicated that the project team included an economic consultant to help with the
economic analysis. He said that the scope of work would �.�,e in the Council's September 21
packet.
Councillor Vizzini commented that he saw a significant amount of work to be done in this phase to
get to two things: certainty for the property owners regarding the location of the road, and
sustaining a community consensus about what the corridor would look like and how it would work.
He emphasized that his greatest concern was that, at the end of Phase 2, the City had a
consensus about what the corridor would look like and how it impacted the abutting properties.
Councilor Vizzini concurred with Mr. Egner that only about five of the 22 refinements identified
were controversial, but he observed that they were significant issues.
Councilor Tierney asked for clarification on Mr. Egner's statement on p. 118 stating that doing an
economic impact analysis separate from the technical engineering work required adding $10,000
to $15,000 dollars to the cost. He mentioned that he would support adding money to accomplish
what Councilor Vizzini talked about.
Mr. Egner clarified that the contract amount coming to Council in two weeks would be for $140,000
to $145,000, which included the additional money. He said that the originai amount mentioned to
the consultants had been $130,000. He explained that staff had asked the consultants for creative
ideas on how to pare the costs down. Councilor Jordan noted that the recommended consultant
team included the economic piece in their proposal, which none of the other consultants did.
Council President Hennagin commented that he thought that the public would be interested to
know that staff was taking steps to maintain cost controls, as described in the written staff report.
He mentioned that he too had thought that combining TAB members and former Lake Grove
Advisory Committee members would be an appropriate composition for the Advisory Committee.
Councilor Olson concurred with Councilor Vizzini about the importance of this project and the
economic study. She questioned quibbling about $15,000 for this project when the Council was
investing over $1 million in Foothil!s. She commented that she hoped that the Council would move
ahead with the financing strategy, even without the Metro grant, because the Lake Grove people
have been waiting a long time for this, and the City needed to get it done.
Councilor Olson questioned including on the Advisory Committee an individual who, due to the
nature of his work, regularly appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council with
projects. Councilor Jordan explained that they had been trying to get a balance of the people
with the most involvement on the Lake Grove Village Plan and knowledge from both sides of the
issue. She commented that the City has invested over $900,000 in the Lake Grove planning
process and the property owners still had no idea of where the line would be drawn. She agreed
that they needed to keep moving on this project. She held that the recommended team would do a
good job.
Mr. Egner indicated to Council President Hennagin that he had not been looking for input from
the Council on the individual Committee members, but rather for a nod of heads to come back at
the September 21 meeting with the contract and a list of Committee members.
Councilor Vizzini summarized the Council's comments as supportive of adding sufficient money
to get the entire body of work done. He reiterated that the two end products that represented
success to him were a reasonable and accurate description of the corridor for property owners
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 cf 15
September 7, 2010
(and which honored the goals and policies of the plan) and -consensus from the broader Lake
Oswego community that was investing in this plan.
Councilor Tierney concurred with Councilor Vizzini. He commented that he did not think that they
had enough public relations and energy behind this project to keep it moving forward, as the
energy has dissipated over time. He indicated that he would support the additional money for a
scope of work to move the project to the next step.
7.4 Financial Review as of ,dune 30, 2010
Council President Hennagin invited the Budget Committee members present to come forward to
the table: Jeff Gudrnan, Ron Smith, and Kent Studebaker.
IVIS. Euier indicated that staff had only preliminary numbers for this review because the audit was
stili underway. They would have final numbers after the auditors issued their report. She noted
the sources of the $.9 million that the General Fund was returning to its fund balance and the
importance of evaluating surpluses and deficiencies in balancing a budget (pp. 125-126). She
discussed the City's revenue from property taxes, both current and delinquent (p.126).
She noted that the budget revenues overall were $500,000 below the budget projection due to
reduced revenues in other City fees. She indicated that reduced expenditures in personal services
and materials and services readily balanced that shortfall. She pointed out that staff had used very
conservative numbers in the budget for the franchise fees but the silver lining was that PGE, NW
Natural Gas, and Comcast were all reporting increases in retail sales, which meant more franchise
fee revenue. She mentioned the motor vehicle fees and street maintenance fee revenues (p.127).
She commented that she was thankful that the budget had had a bit of a cushion in it, given the
vacation and other accruals that they needed to take into account at the end of the year.
Ms. Euler confirmed to Councilor Tierney that the transfers from other funds to the general fund
to pay for administrative services charged to those funds by the general fund comprised a large
part of the other financing sources. She indicated that the only other financing source she could
think of would be bonds. She agreed with the Councilor that there should be a balance of
transfers citywide.
Councilor Tierney asked how they got so far off on debt service (57%). Ms. Euler explained that
the line of credit interest had been budgeted high at 4%. However, the most recent renewal came
in at under 2%.
Councilor Tierney asked why the capital outlays across all funds (excluding LOIS and the water
project) were substantially below budget. He wondered whether cheaper projects or not done
projects were the reason. Nis. Euler indicated that there was a variety of reasons, including
delayed projects and project funding coming in different from anticipated. She said that she could
e-mail Councilor Tierney a detailed list of the projects that might have caused the savings. She
gave an example of a project for which they budgeted a capital outlay of $980,000 in federal
stimulus funds as cash, only to have the $900,000 come in as in kind.
Councilor Tierney expressed his concern that the Council has budgeted for infrastructure capital
improvements for two years and the improvements were not getting done. He noted that taking the
$900,000 out still left $200,000, on which he would like some detail. Councilor Vizzini suggested
adding to the report a separate capital project summary giving the status of these projects.
Councilor Olson concurred that the Council needed a Capital Improvement Plan financial report.
Ms. Euler indicated that she and her staff were working on the report, per Council's earlier request,
and testing it internally to make sure that it had the right numbers and would be useful to the
Council.
Councilor Olson pointed out that Portland billed the City less on wastewater because the flow
volumes to the wastewater treatment plant were significantly lower than in previous years (p.126).
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16
September 7, 2010
Ms. Euler indicated that she would have to get the answer from other staff members on why that - -
was. She pointed out that her wording specified `reported,' and not `actual' flows.
Councilor Olson asked what the revenue line item in both the water fund and the wastewater fund
(p. 135, 136) called `licenses and fees' was, given that it had no budget number. Ms. Euler
explained that staff sometimes worked for other utilities, and this represented those charges. She
indicated that it was similar to transfers, but transfers were usually based on estimates and
allocations, whiie these items represented actual hours worked on a project.
C;iuncilor Olson commented that, while she liked the report format very m:.sch, she would
appreciate a cover sheet that provided citywide totals. Ms. Euler indicated that staff has begun
creating those summary reports for the new year.
Councilor Jordan argued that the Council needed to understand why the reported figures for
capital projects were different from the budgeted numbers. Councilor Tierney concurred that the
why was important.
Councilor Tierney discussed the question of whether it was good to have a budget surplus at the
end of the year or not. He indicated that he thought that there was a `magic' amount in there. He
pointed out that they could get too conservative and have an unnecessary flexibility and tax rates
slightly higher than they needed to be. He observed that the City enjoyed a favorable surplus
gained over many years, but he thought that there could be more of a balance with a tighter
budget.
He commented that it was also important not to hold staff responsible to come in with a surplus
every year, especially when the year started out with a tight budget. He recalled the long Budget
Committee discussion regarding the reduction in personal services, which he thought could have
gone higher than 1 %. He indicated that he was not afraid to overspend slightly some place if they
concurred that there was a very tight budget going into the year. He conjectured that, if they did
not collect the revenue in a given year from raising the assessment to the full 3%, then the Council
could take it from contingency and manage the budget going forward.
Councilor Vizzini asked to expand Councilor Olson's request for a summary of the Citywide totals
to include a break down of expenditures in the major objective categories. He suggested tracking
the workload measures on an annual basis along with the dollars, as opposed to on a monthly or
quarterly basis.
Council President Hennagin invited the Budget Committee members to ask questions.
Mr. Smith asked what impact the $6.7 million surplus had on the 2010/11 budget. He wondered
whether Ms. Euler needed to do something different based on this information. Ms. Euler clarified
that the $6.7 million was citywide, including utilities. She pointed out that the budget was an
estimate, which their team still tried to manage responsibly as best they could. She explained that
this additional information helped them to evaluate their progress and determine whether their work
was going according to plan, based on the underlying assumptions of the plan.
Mr. Smith indicated that he would like more clarity on the assumptions made going forward. He
recalled that they cut the Community Services Officer and Traffic Engineer positions. He wondered
whether this new information would now allow them to reinstate those positions. Ms. Euler
mentioned that internally staff has worked on a five-year forecast, which they hoped to use in the
next budget season. She commented that they needed to strike a balance between capital
projects, positions, people, services, and new items, such as saving for major equipment and
vehicle replacements.
Mr. McIntyre confirmed to Mr. Smith that post -audit they would know the exact amount in the
City's bank account. Mr. Smith suggested re -visiting priorities to see if funds were available for
things cut during the original budget.
Mr. Gudman suggested that the Council consider exploring the possibility of converting LORA's
floating rate debt to a fixed rate debt with rates at these historic lows (p.144). He pointed out that
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16
September 7, 2610
with the WEB building debt budgeted at -3% -but -coming in at.2% for the first quarter (p.129), there-_ -- - -
was money left on the table that could be used for other services. He advocated for a consolidated
summary showing the transfers as revenues and expenses and for a capital expenditure summary,
in support of Councilors Olson, Tierney, and Vizzini.
Mr. Studebaker asked whether the Budget Committee should expect to see a surplus in personal
services and materials and services in the next budget cycle, given that the figures were
substantially lower in the actual than in the budget. Ms. Euler commented that some of that was
real art, and she wanted to reserve judgment for a few more months. She indicated that she could
not point to reasons why the actuals were lower than the budget, but she intended to discuss the
question with staff. Mr. Studebaker commented that he would appreciate her finding out why
because it could significantly affect how they budgeted next time.
Councilor Olson observed that the City budgeted every position as filled 100% of the time, which
they all knew did not happen. She recalled that that was why they budgeted a 1 % reduction in the
personal service budget last year, which she agreed could have been higher. Councilor Vizzini
suggested looking first to the salary savings gained through turnover, such as when a lower
salaried new person replaced a higher salaried senior staff person, to determine the reason for the
difference.
Mr. McIntyre observed that Lake Oswego was the little city that loved to think big and did
everything in a robust way. He noted that Lake Oswego and Portland were the only two full
service cities in the Metro area. He commented that the complexity in budgeting made it
challenging to be the management team that the Council expected. He described the decision
making process as they went along as thoughtful and ardent. He pointed out that budgeting was
as much science as it was art in trying to find the perfect wedge that was satisfactory to both the
public and the decision makers.
He commented that, while the City did well on budgeting for utilities and the general fund, it did not
do well on budgeting for capital projects. He indicated that he has made a conscious effort to get
general fund money for capital projects because it was an area that was seriously lacking, as the
City facilities demonstrated.
He acknowledged that staff did not present the workload measures that it should have. He
indicated that they would do so in the future.
He pointed out that each year they all got better at the budget process. He thanked Ms. Euler and
her budget team for their hard work in seeking to understand the budget and knowing how the
numbers moved and what the impacts were. He reiterated that the City budget was very complex.
8. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL
8.1 Councilor information
Councilor Moncrieff reported that Youth Councilor Ben Silbert was on his way to Northwestern
University to study economics. She wished him well.
8.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
Councilor Jordan reported on a meeting that she and Councilor Olson attended last week
organized by Clackamas County with regard to high-speed rail and ODOT's current plans to attract
federal money proposed for those types of projects. She asked to put on the September 14
agenda a discussion of the letter that Clackamas County was drafting, which all city organizations
impacted by ODOT's current rail plan would sign.
She indicated that the concern was that ODOT was looking at only one of two items that the State
should be looking at, and it was not looking at it with a good lens. She mentioned a suggestion
made at the meeting to revive the TooToo Caucus, in which all the cities affected by ODOT's
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16
September 7, 2010
proposal to stop the train service between Eugene and Portland had rallied around the service and
convinced the legislature to continue the train service. She spoke of possibly taking rail out of
ODOT and putting it with a consultant who did not have the same connections to the projects done
as ODOT staff did.
9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
9.1 City Manager
9.1.1 Review of Council Schedule
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Jordan that he would make room on the September 14
meeting to discuss the Clackamas County letter regarding high-speed rail.
The Council agreed by consensus with Councilor Olson's suggestion that the Council take two
weeks off at Christmas. Councilor Jordan suggested holding the second regular business
meeting on December 14 for the public hearing and construction contract award.
Mr. McIntyre confirmed to Councilor Olson that the November 9 special meeting on sensitive
lands was a study session. He clarified that the Code audit item on October 26 was an update and
report on the funding source.
9.1.2 Review of Council Digest
Mr. McIntyre explained that this new agenda item was a time for Council members to ask
questions about items in the Council Digest or to suggest putting Digest topics on the agenda.
9.2 City Attorney
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Council President Hennagin recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 10:05 a.m. pursuant
to ORS 192.660 ( 2) (e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property
transactions. Mr. Powell reviewed the Executive Session parameters.
11. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Council President Hennagin reconvened the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Council President Hennagin adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
0 a
k�k_
J ck . Hoffman, ,ayor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16
September 7, 2010