Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 2010-10-26 Special
LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 lowTuesday, October 26, 2010 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 6:30 p.m. 503-675-3984 Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue www.ci.oswego.or.us Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder Also published on the internet at: Email: rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us www.ci.oswego.or.us Phone: 503-675-3984 The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations, please contact the City Recorder's Office at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting. Page# 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Glen Lamb, Executive Director of Columbia Land Trust(5 minutes)—no written report 3.2 Statewide Plastic Bag Ban Information (15 minutes) 3.3 West End Building Next Steps(60 minutes)—no written report 3.4 Neighborhood Enhancement and Neighborhood Program Review(30 minutes) 4. ADJOURNMENT CABLE VIEWERS:This meeting will be televised on Channel 23. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Wednesday 2:30 a.m. Saturday 3:00 p.m. Friday 7:00 p.m. Sunday 7:00 p.m. Also available on live streaming video at mms://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live. Jack Hoffman, Mayor • Roger Hennagin, Councilor • Donna Jordan,Councilor Dan Vizzini, Councilor • Sally Moncrieff, Councilor • Mary Olson, Councilor • Bill Tierney, Councilor 3 , CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 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: Susan Millhauser, Sustainability Coordinator City Manager's Office SUBJECT: Statewide Plastic Bag Ban Information DATE: October 18, 2010 ACTION No action is required at this time. The study session is intended to provide information to the City Council and garner feedback and direction. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Concern over the environmental impacts of plastics in our oceans has been mounting for years. This trash, or marine debris, poses a serious threat to our oceans and marine life, our food supply, public health, and tourism and the economy it supports. Many of the plastic bags that we discard enter our waterways through storm drains and watersheds, damaging marine systems and entering the marine food web. Plastic bags, designed to be used for only minutes, last hundreds of years in the ocean. According to Environment Oregon, from 500 miles off the Oregon Coast to Japan, the North Pacific is filled with trash. An oceanic current known as a "gyre" slowly stirs this mess into a concentrated area known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch," an area that is about twice the size of Texas. There are five gyres and at least eleven garbage patches around the world. Ninety percent of this trash is plastic that never biodegrades, but will only break up into smaller and smaller bits through photo-degradation. The amount of plastic in our oceans has tripled since the 1980s. There is now 40 times more plastic than plankton—the fundamental food source for marine life—in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. This toxic soup of plastic debris kills more than 1 million seabirds, 100,000 sea turtles and marine mammals, and countless fish each year. In all, more than 267 species die every year due to plastic in our oceans. On a global level, plastic pollution kills wildlife that mistakes it for food or become entangled. Page 2 At the Council's October 26 meeting, Brock Howell from Environment Oregon will present a summary of this information to the City Council. See Attachment 1, Environment Oregon's Summer 2010 Campaign fact sheet, for more details. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, less than 7 percent of all plastics generated were recovered for recycling in 20071, with single-use plastic bags being one of the most difficult plastics to recycle. On a local level, plastic bags contaminate material processed through the Metro region's curbside recycling programs. Plastic bags jam recycling machinery and cost local material recovery facilities between $30,000 and $40,000 every month. Facilities in the Portland metro area estimate that 20 percent to 30 percent of labor costs are spent dealing with plastic bag film.' Concern over the environmental, health, and financial impacts of single-use plastic bags has prompted action by governments across the U.S. and internationally. More than 40 jurisdictions worldwide have banned single-use plastic bags, including China, Bangladesh, Ireland, and Mexico City. (A comprehensive listing of proposed or existing retail plastic shopping bag regulations can be found on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's website— (http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/retailbags/pages/mapsandlists.htm.) A variety of environmental and economic arguments have been made in support of these regulations. For example, Bangladesh banned polythene bags in 2002 after it was found that they were blocking drainage systems and had been a major culprit during the 1988 and 1998 floods that submerged two-thirds of the country. China's ban focused on reducing litter and the amount of fossil fuels needed to produce plastic bags. The cost of litter removal is also often cited as a motivation to ban plastic bags. In early 2010, Washington, D.C. passed the first-of-its-kind law in the United States to charge shoppers five cents for disposable plastic and paper bags as a way to cut back on trash and clean up the Anacostia River. Plastic bags are already outlawed in San Francisco and other California cities—Malibu, Fairfax and Palo Alto—as well as Westport, Connecticut; Bethel, Alaska; and Edmonds, Washington. In October 2010, a ban in North Carolina's Outer Banks was expanded from large retailers to all stores. Plastic bag bans take effect in January 2011 in Brownsville, Texas, and Hawaii's Kauai and Maui counties. In February 2011, American Samoa's ban goes into effect. After much debate, California lawmakers rejected a bill in late August 2010 that would have made the state the first in the nation to ban all plastic shopping bags. The legislation had gained widespread support from the governor and a diverse coalition including the California Grocers Association, labor, business, and environmental groups. Opponents of the bill argued that the ban went too far to regulate personal choice. The measure, AB 1998, which passed the Assembly in June, would have eliminated single-use plastic bags in grocery stores and pharmacies starting in 2012, and in liquor stores and convenience stores in 2013. Closer to Lake Oswego, the City of Portland passed a resolution in July 2010 (included as Attachment 2) urging passage of state legislation during 2011 to reduce the proliferation of single-use, disposable shopping bags, including a statewide ban on single-use plastic shopping bags and a five-cent fee on recycled paper shopping bags (with 40% or more postconsumer recycled content). The resolution covers • large bags used at store checkouts, not produce or other smaller plastic and paper bags. The resolution also commits the City of Portland to pursue a local ordinance in 2011/2012 if the State bill fails. Attachment 2 1 http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-rpt.pdf; accessed October 18, 2010 2 http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=309298; accessed October 18, 2010 Page 3 also includes a draft of the proposed State legislation. DISCUSSION Environment Oregon and the Northwest Grocery Association have approached the City to request support for the State legislature to pass a statewide ban on single-use plastic shopping bags and include a minimum five-cent charge on recycled paper bags as a means of reducing harmful waste and promoting sustainability in Oregon. Representatives from both organizations attended the September 20, 2010 meeting of the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) to share information about this proposal. Letters of support submitted to the SAB are included as Attachment 3. The SAB passed a motion in support of the proposal, encouraging the Council to consider a resolution. As noted in the letters of support and as presented during the Board's September meeting, the Northwest Grocery Association and Environment Oregon strongly support local adoption of a resolution calling on the Legislature to enact a statewide solution in 2011. Both organizations encourage Lake Oswego to join other cities and jurisdictions across Oregon calling for a uniform approach. Environment Oregon is also conducting similar outreach to other local governments in Oregon, including Bend, Cannon Beach, Hood River, Lane County, Lincoln City, Newport, and Oregon City. While the City of Portland's resolution also commits Portland to enact a local ban in the event statewide legislation does not pass, Lake Oswego staff do not recommend the Council consider something similar to the second element of Portland's resolution at this time. Instead, a Lake Oswego resolution could call for statewide action, as described above, with consideration of a local plastic bag ban and associated elements if the State legislature does not act by the end of 2011. This would give Lake Oswego an opportunity to have a conversation with stakeholders at the regional level first, as well as further ascertain how local bag bans are faring across the U.S. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council direct staff to draft a resolution for Council review in support of statewide legislation banning single-use plastic shopping bags and imposing a five cent fee on paper shopping bags with minimum 40% recycled content, with consideration of a local ban in 2012 if proposed state legislation does not pass in 2011. ATTACHMENTS 1. Environment Oregon Fact Sheet, Summer 2010 Campaign. 2. City of Portland Resolution, July 2010, including draft of proposed State legislation and letter of commitment 3. Letters of support submitted to the Sustainability Advisory Board, September 2010 Reviewed b : De artment 'rector DEFECTS III ORIGINAL DOCUMENT • t. ` The Great Pacific Cleanup ENVIRONMENT _ 9W2NREG Summer 2010 Campaign N Off the Oregon Coast floats an island of trash twice the • size of Texas. This "toxic soup" of plastic bags and 1',:' Styrofoam kills more than a million seabirds, 100,000 sea ' turtles and marine mammals, and countless fish each year. 11 gri Ninety percent of the trash is plastic. The most abundant types x, of plastic marine debris are plastic bags, Styrofoam, and :. Polystyrene food containers and lids. This wasteland is a "soup" of plastic because it never biodegrades, it just fragments into smaller and smaller pieces — mostly the size of • .: • •• plankton. In the Pacific Garbage Patch there is six times more ,,,.." j.' plastic than plankton. - This wasteland is "toxic" because plastic absorbs persistent organic chemicals at 1000-times the rate of the surrounding water. This means Toxic that when fish and other animals mistake the plastic as food — and the - -- frequently do— the toxic chemicals work their way up the food chain. This is not only potentially devastating to fish and wildlife, but to human health too. -1:".11.."- Marine debris affects 267 species worldwide. Larger plastics, such as cigarette 4 lighters and bottle caps, are mistaken as food by birds and other wildlife, 51k. taking-up room in their stomach and causing internal injuries, intestinal blockage, and starvation. Birds mistake plastic for nesting material. And sea turtles find their hatching migration frequently blocked by plastic marine debris. The problem is growing. The amount of plastics in our ocean has tripled since the +tom` • ' 'Y' . p\`. 1980s and the "Pacific Garbage Patch" has become so big that it has combined with a garbage patch in the western North Pacific, so now the wasteland stretches from 500 miles off the West Coast to Japan, encompassing an area more than double the size of `'" t ' ' _ ,. , the continental United States. - - ` The devastation to our ocean affects our economy as well. Coastal-related activities of tourism and commercial and recreational fishing contribute $1.2 billion each year to ;7Tr'" ,,,'': ` Oregon's economy. In addition, Litter, whether it's along the road, in streams, or on _ � " �`-_ beaches, is ugly and lessens the enjoyment of the outdoors. Recycling not an option. Plastic grocery bags get stuck in recyclers machines, requiring them to shutdown operations and manually remove the bags— making plastic bags ,their biggest business cost. No wonder only 1% of plastic bags around the world and -/ 5% in the United States are recycled. ‘,4 "Willy the Sea Lion". During the spring of 2009, this Stellar sea lion got a plastic .�--- .,�. '"'� )IN�1 ring stuck on his neck. Over the course of the year, the sea lion grew and the � ' ', 'l ring became more and more constrictive, cutting into its flesh. Fortunately, . 1�, Oregon State University researchers at the Hatfield Marine Sciences Center in r Newport were finally able to free "Willy" of the plastic ring this March after ®KI' „�„' capturing him. TAIIII.■ Whale of a Story. A gray whale died and was beached this April in the Puget Sound. Twenty plastic bags were found in its stomach. Although it's not clear = 4tt t whether the bags killed the whale, our wildlife should never have to mistake ►. plastic bags for food. ' --. rPlostim - Raqs The Solution: Ban Plastic Bags Country Bans. Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, China, Egypt, Eritrea, France, India, Italy, Kenya, Macedonia, Rwanda, Somalia, Somaliland, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, Tanzania, Uganda United States Bans & Fees. Alaska: 30 villages • California: Fairfax, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Oakland, Palo Alto, and San Francisco • Connecticut: Westport • Washington DC• Washington State: Edmonds • Iowa: Marshal County • Hawaii: Maui and Kauai • North Carolina Outer Banks • New York: Suffolk County We know we can win, but we first need to build up the grassroots support all across Oregon and make this a priority of the state legislative leadership. Senator Mark Hass of Beaverton sponsored a bill to ban plastic bags during the February legislative session, and it could have passed with support from both Democrats and Republicans if only it had been a priority of the environmental community and had grassroots support. That's why Environment Oregon is knocking on doorsteps, on the streets, and over the phone to talk with average Oregonians about protecting our oceans. And we need your help to do it! GIT.1' oc_ poN.TL D RESOLUTION No. Promote use of reusable bags: prohibit the provision of single-use plastic or non-recycled paper carryout bags at specified stores,require regulated stores to charge a minimum of 5 cents per bag for recycled paper or compostable plastic bags,and provide reusable bags,at no cost,to seniors and low- income residents. (Resolution) WHEREAS,on June 28,2006,the Council adopted Resolution No. 36423 establishing goals for the solid waste and recycling system; and WHEREAS,one of those goals was to promote sustainability of the solid waste and recycling system that includes maximum efficiency, equity and economic vitality, improved worker safety and reduced environmental and human health impacts over the entire life cycle of the materials; and WHEREAS,one of the goals was to minimize the impact of harmful wastes by targeting toxicity and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and WHEREAS, one of the goals was to reduce per capita waste generation below 2005 levels by the year 2015; and WHERAS,one of the goals was to increase recovery of all waste with a target of 75 percent by the year 2015 and promote highest value use of the recovered materials; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2009, Council passed Resolution 36748 to adopt the Climate Action Plan that includes the goals of reducing total solid waste generated by 25 percent and recovering 90 percent of all waste generated; and WHEREAS, the expansive usage of single-use shopping bags and their typical disposal creates an impediment to the City's waste reduction and recycling goals; and WHEREAS,single-use plastic bags are difficult to recycle and frequently contaminate material that is processed through the City's curbside recycling and composting programs; and WHEREAS,recycled content paper carryout bags are a high value recyclable collected in the City's curbside recycling program and are made in paper mills located in the region. While papermaking has environmental impacts, when made with 40 percent or more postconsumer content,paper bags provide a positive alternative to plastic bags; and WHEREAS, reusable bags are considered to be the best option to reduce waste and litter, protect wildlife and conserve resources; and WHEREAS, Council acknowledges that many Portland businesses have taken affirmative steps to accomplish this goal and recognizes their proactive efforts; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the Council to encourage and enable the location of a viable reusable bag manufacturing operation in the City of Portland; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the Oregon Legislature to provide statewide regulation of the proliferation of single-use shopping bags; and WHEREAS, members of the Oregon State legislature will introduce legislation during the 2011 state legislative session to pass legislation banning plastic bags and imposing a five-cent minimum charge on recycled paper bags, to benefit all of Oregon; and WHEREAS, members of the Oregon State Legislature and the City of Portland City Council hereby recognize our mutual and collaborative efforts to ban plastic bags and impose a five-cent minimum charge on paper bags as a means of reducing harmful waste and promoting sustainability in Oregon; and WHEREAS, if the State does not act to regulate the proliferation of single-use shopping bags the Council will find it necessary to enact regulations governing the City of Portland; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in the event that the State is not successful in passing legislation substantially similar to the draft bill attached hereto as Exhibit A by sine die of the 2011 State Legislative Session and with an effective date of no later than January 1, 2012, the Mayor, with the support of the State Legislative leaders noted in Exhibit C, will bring forward an ordinance substantially similar to Exhibit B attached hereto in order to implement a ban on plastic bags and five-cent fee on recycled paper bags in the City of Portland. Adopted by the Council: LaVonne Griffin-Valade Auditor of the City of Portland Mayor Sam Adams By[signed Clerk's office] Prepared by: Megan Ponder Date Prepared: 07/23/10 Deputy 2 EXHIBIT "A" • LC 688 7/9/10 (DLT/ps) DRAFT SUMMARY Prohibits use of single-use checkout bags except in certain cases. Allows Department of Environmental Quality to impose civil penalty. Repeals stat- ute requiring retail establishments that offer plastic bags to customers to also offer paper bags. Declares emergency, effective on passage. A BILL FOR AN ACT 2 Relating to bags; creating new provisions; amending ORS 459.235 and 3 459A.115; repealing ORS 459A.695; and declaring an emergency. 4 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: • 5 SECTION 1. As used in sections 1 to 4 of this 2011 Act: 6 (1) "Recycled paper checkout bag" means a paper bag made of at 7 least 40 percent recycled fiber. • 8 (2) "Retail establishment" means any store in this state that sells 9 or offers for sale goods at retail. 10 (3) "Reusable checkout bag" means a bag with handles that is spe • - 11 cifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and is made of: 12 (a) Cloth or other machine-washable fabric; or 13 (b) Durable plastic that is at least 2.25 mils thick. • 14 (4)(a) "Single-use checkout bag" means a bag made of paper, plastic 15 or any other material that is provided by a retail establishment to a 16 customer at the time of checkout. 17 (b) "Single-use checkout bag" does not mean a bag made of paper, 18 plastic or any other material that is provided by a retail establishment 19 to a customer at a time other than the time of checkout. 20 SECTION 2. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is never,,matter]italic and bracketed]is existing law to be omitted_ New vertices,are lu boldfaced type. 3 LC 688 7/9/10 1 a retail establishment may not provide single-use checkout bags to ,2 customers. 3 (2) A retail establishment may: 4 (a) Make reusable checkout bags available for sale to customers. 5 (b) Provide reusable checkout bags at no cost to customers. 6 (c) Provide recycled paper checkout bags at no cost to customers 7 who present a voucher issued under the Women, Infants and Children 8 Program established in the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 9 409.600. 10 (d) Provide recycled paper checkout bags to customers if the retail 11 establishment charges at least five cents for each recycled paper 12 checkout bag. 13 (3) The Environmental Quality Commission may adopt rules neces- 14 sary to implement sections 1 to 4 of this 2011 Act. 15 SECTION.3. (1) The Department of Environmental Quality may 16 impose a civil penalty on a person for a violation of section 2 of this 17 2011 Act. 18 (2) A civil penalty imposed under this section may not exceed 19 $-. 20 (3). Civil penalties described in this section shall be imposed in the 21 manner provided in ORS 183.745. 22 (4) All penalties recovered under this section shall be paid into the 23 State Treasury and credited to the General Fund and are available for 24 general governmental expenses. 25 SECTION 4. A local government, as that term is defined in ORS 26 174.116, may not impose any tax, fee, assessment, surcharge or other- 27 charge on: 28 (1) Recycled paper checkout bags; 29 (2) Reusable checkout bags; 30 (3) Single-use checkout bags; or 31 (4) Bags made of paper, plastic or any other material that are pro- [2] 4 LC 688 7/9/10 1 vided by a retail establishment to a customer at a time other than the 2 time of checkout. 3 SECTION 5. ORS 459A.695 is repealed. 4 SECTION 6. ORS 459.235 is amended to read: 5 459.235. (1) Applications for permits shall be on forms prescribed by the 6 Department of Environmental Quality. An application shall contain a de- 7 scription of the existing and proposed operation and the existing and pro- 8 posed facilities at the site, with detailed plans and specifications for any 9 facilities to be constructed. The application shall include a recommendation 10 by each local government unit having jurisdiction and such other informa- tion the department deems necessary in order to determine whether the site 12 and solid waste disposal facilities located thereon and the operation will 13 comply with applicable requirements. 14 (2) The Environmental Quality Commission shall establish a schedule of 15 fees for disposal site permits. The permit fees contained in the schedule shall 16 be based on the anticipated cost of filing and investigating the application, 17 of issuing or denying the requested permit and of an inspection program to 18 determine compliance or noncompliance with the permit. 19 (3) In addition to the fees imposed under subsection (2) of this section, the 20 commission shall establish a schedule of permit fees for the purpose of im- 21 plementing this section and ORS 90.318, 182.375,279A.125, 279A.155,279B.025, 22 279B.240, 279B.270, 279B.280, 459.005, 459.015, 459.247, 459.418, 459.995, 23 459A.005, 459A.010, 459A.020, 459A.030 to 459A.055, 459A.070, 459A.110, 24 459A.115, 459A.475, 459A.480, 459A.500 to 459A.685[, 459A.695] and 459A.750. 25 The fees shall be based on the amount of solid waste received at the disposal 26 site. 27 (4) Notwithstanding any other fee or surcharge imposed under ORS 28 459.005 to 459.437 or 459A.005 to 459A.120, for the disposal of solid waste, in 29 order to encourage the use of suitable material other than virgin material 30 for daily cover at a disposal site, the only fee that may be charged for the 31 disposal of substitute material that is also used for daily cover is the permit [3] 5 LC 688 7/9/10 1 fee established under this section. 2 SECTION 7. ORS 459A.115 is amended to read: 3 459A.115. (1) From January 1, 1992, to December 31, 1993, the schedule of 4 fees as established by the Environmental Quality Commission under ORS 5 459A.110 (1) is increased by 35 cents per ton. The portion of the fees attrib- 6 utable to the 35 cents per ton increase shall be deposited into the General 7 Fund and credited to an account of the Department of Environmental Qual- 8 ity. Such moneys are continuously appropriated to the department to imple- 9 ment the provisions of this section and ORS,459.005, 459.015, 459.235, 459.247, 10 459.418, 459.995, 459A.005, 459A.010, 459A.020, 459A.030 to 459A.055, 459A.070, 11 459A.110, 459A.500 to 459A.685[, 459A.6951 and 459A.750. 12 (2) Beginning January 1, 1994, the schedule of fees as established by the 13 commission under ORS 459A.110 is increased by 31 cents per ton and shall 14 be deposited into the General Fund and credited to an account of the de- 15 partment. Such moneys are continuously appropriated to the department to 16 implement the provisions described in subsection (1) of this section, exclud- 17 ing ORS 459.418. 18 SECTION 8. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, 19 sections 1 to 4 of this 2011 Act, the repeal of ORS 459A.695 by section 20 5 of this 2011 Act and the amendments to ORS 459.235 and 459A.115 by 21 sections 6 and 7 of this 2011 Act become operative on January 1, 2012. 22 (2) The Environmental Quality Commission may adopt rules before 23 the operative date specified in subsection (1) of this section, or take 24 any other action before the operative date specified in subsection (1) 25 of this section, that is necessary to implement, on or after the opera- 26 tive date specified in subsection (1) of this section, sections 1 to 4 of 27 this 2011 Act, the repeal of ORS 459A.695 by section 5 of this 2011 Act 28 and the amendments to ORS 459.935 and 459A.115 by sections 6 and 7 29 of this 2011 Act. 30 SECTION 9. This 2011 Act being necessary for the immediate pres- 31 ervation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is de- [4] 6 LC 688 7/9/10 1 dared to exist, and this 2011 Act takes effect on its passage. 2 • [5] 7 EXHIBIT "B" 17.103.010 Definitions. Except where the context otherwise requires, the definitions given in this Section govern the construction of this Chapter 17.103. A. "Compostableplastic bag" is capable of composting, consistent with the timeline and P g P specifications of the American Society of Testing and Materials(ASTM)Standard Specifications for Compostable Plastics D6400, as published in September 2004. B. "Recycled paper bag"means a paper carryout bag provided by a store to a customer that meets all of the following requirements: 1. Contains a minimum of 40 percent postconsumer recycled content 2. Is accepted for recycling in the City of Portland recycled program C. "Reusable bag" means a bag that with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and is made of durable material specifically designed for and provided to consumers with the intention of multiple, long-term use D. "Single-use carryout bag" means a bag that is provided by a store to a customer and that is not a reusable bag. 1. A single-use carryout bag does not include either of the following: a. A bag provided by a pharmacy to a customer purchasing prescription medication b. A non-handled bag used to protect a purchased item from damaging or contaminating other purchased items when placed in a recycled paper bag or reusable bag. E. "Store" means a retail establishment that 1. Is a full-line, self-service retail store with gross annual sales of$2,000,000 ($2 million), or more, and which sells a line of dry grocery, canned goods, or nonfood items and some perishable items; or 2. Has over 10,000 square feet of retail space that generates sales and has a pharmacy as defined in ORS 689.005 and which is subject to the rules of the State Board of Pharmacy. 17.103.020 Purpose The purpose of this Chapter is to prohibit stores from distributing single-use carryout bags to their customers, to encourage the distribution and use of reusable bags, and to permit stores to sell to consumers recycled or compostable bags for carryout use. 17.103.030. Carryout Bag Regulation A. On and after October 1, 2011, a store is prohibited from providing a single-use carryout bag to a customer, except as provided in this Section. B. A store must make reusable bags, available to customers, either for purchase or at no cost. 8 C. A store may make available for sale to a consumer at the point of sale a recycled paper bag at a cost not less than five cents ($0.05) per bag. D. A store may make available for sale to a consumer at the point of sale a compostable plastic bag, at a cost not less than five cents ($0.05) per bag providing that the City is accepting compostable plastic bags in the citywide curbside composting program. 17.103.040. Bureau Director's Authority The Director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability is authorized to promulgate administrative rules and regulations to interpret, implement and execute the provisions of this Chapter. 17.103.050. Enforcement and Penalties A. Any store that violates this Ordinance shall be subject to the following civil penalties, but, in no event shall a store be liable for a civil penalty for more than one violation per day: 1. a written warning for the 1st violation 2. $100 for the 2nd violation 3. $200 for the 3rd violation: or 4. $500 for the 4th and each subsequent violation in a 365-day period B. The Director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, upon determination that a violation of this code or regulations duly adopted pursuant to this code has occurred, will send a written notice of the violation by certified mail to the store which will specify the violation and appropriate penalty. C. Any store receiving a notice of violation may appeal that determination to the Code Hearings Officer pursuant to Chapter 22.10. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the violation notice. D. The Director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability is hereby authorized to administer and enforce rules of this chapter and can adopt rules, procedure, and forms to implement the provisions of this chapter. 17.103.060. No Conflict with Federal or State Law; Severability Nothing in this Chapter shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any requirement, power or duty in conflict with any federal or state law. If any provision of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstances, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this ordinance, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected. 9 EXHIBIT "C" v"'IO Y' MARK HASS MAYOR SAM ADAMS STATE SENATOR CITY OF PORTLAND DISTRICT 14 July 22,2010 We recognize our mutual and collaborative efforts to ban plastic bags and impose a minimum five-cent charge on recycled paper bags as a means of reducing harmful waste and promoting sustainability in Oregon. Based on our meeting on July 21,2010,we agree to the following: • The Mayor will bring a resolution to the Portland City Council to urge the Oregon • Legislature to a pass a state law in 2011 banning plastic bags and imposing a • minimum five-cent charge on recycled paper bags.The resolution will also indicate that should the legislature not be successful by sine die of the 2011 regular legislative session,the Mayor will bring forward an ordinance to implement a ban on plastic bags and a minimum five-cent charge on recycled paper bags in the city of Portland. • The members of the Oregon Legislature who have signed below will actively support the city of Portland's resolution before City Council as well as the city's ordinance to ban plastic bags should the legislative effort not succeed during the 2011 legislative session. We are committed to working together to protect Oregon's environment. 44. Ille•-•• W—peD Mayor Sam Adams Senator Mark Hass d,„44,4.„&ifrihi _D � Senator Jackie Dingfelder Senator Diane Rosenbaum Representative Ben Cannon Cc: Commissioner Nick Fish Commissioner Amanda Fritz Commissioner Randy Leonard • Commissioner Dan Saltzman Cm'oi=PORTLAND 900 COURT STREET NE,S-419 1221 SW 4TM AVENUE,SUITE 340 SALEM,OR 97301 PORTI,AND OR 97204-1995 503-986-1714 503-823-4120 • 10 ttORTHWEST 8565 SW Salish Lane, Suite 100 • Wilsonville, OR 97070 503-685-6293 • 800-824-1602 • Fax 503-685-6295 Grocery Association E-mail info@nwgrocery.org or Visit Web site wwwnwgrocery.org V SE0. PAL�� *11* WHOLESALE .94 Brock Howell Environment Oregon 1536 SE 11th Ave. Portland, OR 97214 September 9, 2010 Dear Brock: Thank you for partnering with us on your efforts to pass a local resolution addressing the need to shift to reusable shopping bags and banning single-use checkout bags. As you know, this is an issue that the grocery industry and environmental community has been engaged in for some time. Our industry is proud of the collaborative legislation as presented by Senator Mark Hass (D, Beaverton) and Senator Jason Atkinson (R, Central Point). The bill is a result of many years of hard work, research and bi-partisan collaborative efforts. We believe implementing a local resolution supporting the statewide bill is a step in the right direction and a needed tool as we work to establish a uniform statewide strategy to combat litter and waste across Oregon. This cannot be done by one group or jurisdiction alone. The Northwest Grocery Association strongly supports local adoption of the attached resolution and encourage other cities and jurisdictions across Oregon in adopting this uniform resolution calling on the Legislature to enact a statewide solution in 2011. Please contact our local government advocate Amanda Dalton at amanda@daltonpr.com or 503.884.0415 with any questions you may have. We are glad to assist in anyway as you engage in this debate. Sincerely, 401 .e Gilliam 41"r President Northwest Grocery Association joe@nwgrocery.org Enclosure: -Model Single-Use Bag Act September 16, 2010 TO: Members of the Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board Thank you for the opportunity to present the following comments on passing a local resolution addressing a ban on plastic bags. As you are likely aware, this is an issue that the grocery industry and environmental community has been engaged in for some time. Our industry is proud of the collaborative legislation as presented by Senator Mark Hass and Senator Jason Atkinson. We are confident it has resulted from many years of hard work, research and mutual and collaborative efforts. We believe implementing a local resolution supporting the statewide ban is a step in the right direction and a needed tool as we work to combat litter and waste across Oregon. The Northwest Grocery Association strongly supports local adoption of the attached resolution and encourage you to join other cities and jurisdictions across Oregon as they adopt this uniformed resolution calling on the Legislature to enact a statewide solution in 2011. Please contact our local government advocate Amanda Dalton at Amanda@jdaltonpr.com or 503.884.0415 with any questions you may have. We are glad to assist in anyway as you engage in this debate. Sincerely, Joe Gilliam President Northwest Grocery Association Enclosure: -Model Local Plastic Bag Resolution Model RESOLUTION Promote use of reusable bags: prohibit the provision of single-use plastic or non-recycled paper checkout bags at all retail stores, but allow regulated stores to charge a minimum of 5 cents per bag for recyclable paper bags containing at least 40% recycled fiber, and provide reusable bags for purchase by consumers. WHEREAS, single-use plastic bags are difficult to recycle and frequently contaminate material that is processed through the City's curbside recycling and composting programs; and WHEREAS, recycled content paper checkout bags are a high value recyclable collected in the City's curbside recycling program and are made in paper mills located in the region. While papermaking has environmental impacts, when made with 40 percent or more recycled fiber , paper bags provide a positive alternative to plastic bags; and WHEREAS, Council acknowledges that many local businesses have taken affirmative steps to accomplish this goal and recognizes their proactive efforts; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the Oregon Legislature to provide statewide regulation of the single use checkout bags; and WHEREAS, members of the Oregon State legislature will introduce legislation during the 2011 state legislative session to pass legislation banning single-use plastic and paper checkout bags, but allowing retailers to charge a five cent minimum on recyclable paper bags containing at least 40%recycled fiber, to benefit all of Oregon; and WHEREAS, members of the Oregon State Legislature and the City of Council hereby recognize our mutual and collaborative efforts to ban single-use plastic and paper checkout bags . but allowing retailer to charge a five cent minimum on paper bags containing at least 40% recycled fiber s a means of reducing waste and promoting sustainability in Oregon; and WHEREAS, if the State does not act to regulate the single-use checkout bags the Council will find it necessary to enact regulations governing the City of NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that in the event that the State is not successful in passing legislation substantially similar to the draft bill attached hereto as Exhibit A by sine die of the 2011 State Legislative Session and with an effective date of no later than January 1, 2012,the Mayor,will bring forward an ordinance substantially similar to Exhibit B attached hereto in order to implement a ban on plastic and paper checkout bags and allowing a five cent minimum charge on recyclable paper bags containing at least 40% recycled fiber in the City of u bnn NBvk we- Ms a( Aa i. t-e. kx 3jçei9 ©°[t1fo/Jo . 3 .c/ CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 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: Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner SUBJECT: Neighborhood Enhancement and Neighborhood Program Review DATE: October 18, 2010 ACTION This memo provides an update and evaluation of the Neighborhood program for Council consideration, and outlines a proposal for revisions to the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) for FY 2010-12. Staff requests Council feedback on the NEP program proposal before opening the grant application process in November. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND As part of the City Council's April 27, 2010 Citizen Involvement study session packet, the Council received the attached memo from the Planning and Building Services Director to the City Manager. The memo summarized the status of the Neighborhood program, and identified program review issues. This memo was not discussed at the meeting, but may be relevant to the discussion below (see Attachment 1). DISCUSSION Neighborhood Program The City provides services to neighborhood associations within two main categories: neighborhood planning (development and implementation of neighborhood plans), and general neighborhood association support. While the tasks associated with each are distinct, the success of neighborhood planning is linked to the particular Neighborhood Association's organizational and community-building capacity and the effectiveness of its communications and outreach efforts and organizational strength. Neighborhood association capacity and strength is a key indicator for successful neighborhood plans. 1. Neighborhood Planning Program. An assessment of the neighborhood planning program suggests mixed results. Some groups have moved smoothly through plan development and implementation, relying on and at the same time building association leadership and neighborhood cohesion through the process. Other groups have faced challenges in moving plans or codes forward with the requisite broad neighborhood support. Page 2 To assist with some of the planning-specific issues, and help bring some consistency to the neighborhood planning challenges (and partly in recognition of the challenges involved in indentifying and addressing purely neighborhood planning issues), the Planning staff launched development of the Neighborhood Planning Kit in 2009. The goal of that effort was to provide content and process guidance for new plan development and clarify issues appropriate for neighborhood planning. Over the next three years, as the City focuses on updating the Comprehensive Plan, those issues common to multiple neighborhoods—density, housing types, walkability, stormwater management— will be addressed. The overall result of these two efforts—to identify purely neighborhood issues and resolve common neighborhood issues through the Comprehensive Plan update—should help bring greater efficiency and clarity to the process of creating and implementing neighborhood plans, resulting in more successful planning efforts and higher quality plans. 2. Neighborhood Association Strength and Capacity. In order to effectively engage neighbors in this process, neighborhood associations also need energy, effective leadership, organization, neighborhood involvement and relationships. Staff sees this pause in the development of new neighborhood plans as an opportune time to help neighborhood associations strengthen their organizational capacity. A commitment of energy and resources towards strengthening neighborhood association capacity should yield results with multiple benefits, including more effective planning processes, a more connected and engaged community, and collaboration to enhance livability. The Neighborhood Enhancement Program provides an additional such opportunity—to enhance the effectiveness of longstanding community organizations and their leaders. Neighborhood Enhancement Grants As part of the FY 2010-11 Budget, the Council allocated $25,000 to the Neighborhood Enhancement Program. For over ten years, the Neighborhood Enhancement Program has supported partnerships between the City of Lake Oswego and its neighborhoods by providing grants to qualified organizations for projects that provide a public benefit to a neighborhood or community. Through a competitive application process, qualifying neighborhood organizations are awarded grants for specific projects that would not be accomplished under another City program. In past years, a neighborhood enhancement project could include landscaping, tree planting, beautification projects, or other physical improvements on public land within the city limits. Eligible groups have included recognized or forming neighborhood associations, or groups such as homeowners associations, schools or civic groups with endorsement of their neighborhood association. Over the last several years, the majority of grants have been given to support either signage or landscaping projects within the right-of-way. Staff has found that implementation and maintenance of landscaping projects come with particular challenges, including perpetual maintenance by the grantee and extensive staff time for coordination amongst City departments. Staff is proposing to maintain the grants for neighborhood signs, but shift additional grants from landscaping/physical improvements, to community-building activities that can help to build the capacity of neighborhood associations and increase neighborhood involvement. Grants would be awarded in the following categories. (The descriptions provide only a general guideline or idea; associations would be encouraged to propose creative projects). Page 3 ■ Emergency Preparedness. Help your neighborhood to be more resourceful and resilient. Develop a neighborhood-wide or sub-area directory with contact information and any pertinent info on neighborhood resources available in the event of an emergency. ■ Neighborhood Sustainability. Help to reduce your neighborhood's carbon footprint. Ideas include holding a large-scale recycling event with multiple dumpsters where your neighbors could recycle items such as electronics, furniture, appliances, oversized plastic, etc., or organizing a day-long sustainability training for neighbors through The Natural Step, an educational non-profit organization. ■ Association Leadership and Capacity Building. Help your organization to be more effective. Funds may be used toward projects such as meeting facilitation or communication training, newsletter or web site development. ■ Community Building. Help to build community partnerships, build neighbor-to-neighbor relationships and get more people involved in making your neighborhood a great place. Grant funds may be used for a neighborhood event, or a program/project to help build partnerships between neighborhood organizations or help underserved populations. ■ Neighborhood Signs. The City would continue to award grants for the fabrication and installation of neighborhood signs to help strengthen neighborhood identity. In addition to the new focus, staff is proposing changes to eligibility, schedule and award amount. ■ In the past, homeowners associations have been eligible, however these organizations pay dues that could be used for such projects. Staff proposes limiting the eligibility to neighborhood associations and their partners. ■ The NEP program has historically been administered following the biennial budget cycle. Staff would like to continue this schedule by soliciting grant applications for both the 2010-2011 and the 2011- 2012 budgets at one time. This winter, applicants would be selected for both project years, with the 2011-2012 grants contingent upon funding. ■ In order to maximize the number of neighborhoods that may receive a grant, staff proposes limiting each award to $2,500. If a neighborhood would like to fund a more costly project, they may partner with another association to increase their funds. Update on Neighborhood Plan Implementation • Glenmorrie—In May 2010 the Council approved the Glenmorrie Overlay District, which added two code modifications. The Glenmorrie Overlay project involved approximately 600 hours of neighborhood planning staff time. • Lake Grove—In September, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed Lake Grove Overlay District, and on December 14 the proposed overlay will be discussed with City Council in a study session. Staff has worked with Lake Grove on their neighborhood plan implementation fairly consistently since 2005. The development of the overlay required approximately 720 hours of neighborhood planning staff time over the past 2.5 years. • Waluga—The Waluga Neighborhood Association is in the process of surveying the neighborhood to gauge support for overlay concepts similar to the landscaping component of the Glenmorrie and Lake Grove overlays. Staff has worked with Waluga for two years and spent approximately 300 hours with the neighborhood. • Lake Forest—Staff worked approximately 200 hours with the Lake Forest neighborhood on Page 4 identifying goals and policies in their neighborhood plan that still need an implementation strategy. The neighborhood is now taking the project forward on its own. It will be tracking the comprehensive planning process and will get involved at junctions critical to the neighborhood. • For additional information, see the April 20 memo (Attachment 1). ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT No policy alternatives or fiscal impacts have been developed or analyzed for this study session. ACTION Staff welcomes Council input on the NEP grant approach specifically and on the Neighborhood Program generally. ATTAHMENTS 1. April 20, 2010 Neighborhood Planning memo from Denise Frisbee to Alex McIntyre Reviewed by: Dep rtment irecto 44-Tr C " Alex D. McIntyre City Manager CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO LAKE OSWEGO Centennial 1910-2010 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 • Lake Oswego, OR 97034 MEMORANDUM 503-675-3984 www.ci.oswego.or.us TO: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Denise Frisbee, Director Planning and Building Services Department SUBJECT: Neighborhood Planning Program Review DATE: April 20, 2010 ACTION This memo provides background on the Neighborhood Planning Program in order to frame an assessment of the program's effectiveness. Staff is responding to budget-driven discussions regarding provision of core services and corresponding staffing levels, including: o A proposed temporary, partial reallocation in staff resources from neighborhood planning to the comprehensive plan update; o Prioritization of neighborhood support activities and desired outcomes; and o Revisions to the Neighborhood Enhancement Grant Program. Staff requests feedback to ensure Council and community goals are met while making efficient and thoughtful use of City resources. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Lake Oswego's Neighborhood Program Lake Oswego has a network of 22 recognized neighborhood associations. As defined in the Citizen Involvement Guidelines, these organizations help to implement Goal One (Citizen Involvement) of Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan by representing neighborhood interests and communicating land use planning information to and from the City. The City's Neighborhoods Program and its two full-time Neighborhood Planners currently support recognized associations with the following activities: • Neighborhood Planning o Development of new neighborhood plans: The last plan adopted by the City Council was the Palisades Neighborhood Plan in 2008. The updated Neighborhood Planning Kit was developed in 2009 and sets specific direction for the development of future plans (a copy of the Kit is included in the CCI memo for this meeting). Attachment 1 Page 2 o Implementation of adopted plans: In 2008, staff began working with four neighborhoods that have adopted plans which have not been translated into neighborhood-specific development regulations. This plan implementation work has included carefully reviewing the adopted plans, identifying and prioritizing outstanding items, and developing implementation strategies. ■ Neighborhood Association Program Support o Neighborhood Enhancement Grants: Staff administers this competitive bi-annual grant program to fund neighborhood-proposed projects that would not be completed through other City programs (see discussion below). o Neighborhood newsletters: Staff reviews and provides printing and mailing services for up to two mailings per year for each neighborhood association. o Pre-Application conference training: Staff periodically trains neighborhood members to serve as neighborhood representatives at pre-application conferences. o Neighborhood News quarterly e-newsletter from the neighborhood planning staff: Staff began distributing a newsletter in 2008 to provide all neighborhood association board members with information about pertinent City projects, highlight the work of various associations, and provide helpful organizational tips. o Quarterly meetings with neighborhood association chairs: Staff began holding these meetings in 2009 to enhance communication among association chairs, neighborhood planners, and the planning department, and share information on topics of interest to neighborhoods. o Neighborhood Coalition of Lake Oswego (NCLO): Staff administers this program which provides general liability insurance for association meetings and events. o Miscellaneous support for neighborhood associations: Additional periodic activities within this program include securing meeting locations and speakers; updating bylaws; assisting with questions about local projects or issues i.e. traffic calming, pathways, development proposals; and organizing drop box applications for neighborhood cleanups. DISCUSSION The FY 2010-11 Proposed Budget was released for consideration by the Citizen Budget Committee on April 12, 2010. There are no staffing increases proposed for the Long Range Planning Division; however, the Division will be involved in a significant multi-year effort to undertake and complete Periodic Review and an update of the Comprehensive Plan. One staff person has already shifted workloads to work on the comprehensive plan full-time. As reported to the Council on April 12, 2.5 FTE staff will be needed in total to accomplish the update. 1. The staffing reallocation raises several questions regarding the direction and priorities of the Neighborhood Planning Program. Is the Neighborhood Planning program adequately providing a mechanism for neighborhoods to establish a shared neighborhood vision that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan? 2. During the period of time when Neighborhood Planning staff is assigned to the Comprehensive Plan update process, should efforts focus more on neighborhood capacity building or neighborhood plan development and implementation? 3. Should neighborhood planning services be provided to all neighborhood associations equally or should priorities be established to serve neighborhood associations in the city first and prioritize Page 3 services to areas outside the city based on the number or percentage of city residents within the neighborhood? 4. Should broad based involvement and participation be criteria for the continued provision of City planning services? Depending on the responses to these questions, it may suggest articulation of different goals for the Neighborhood Planning Program, either on a temporary or more long-term basis. Neighborhood Plan Development The Neighborhood Planning program receives a significant level of staffing resources and is valued by the community. One of the core services provided to neighborhoods is the development and implementation of neighborhood plans. Prior to embarking on the development of new neighborhood plans, staff has worked with a committee to reframe the planning process. The resulting Neighborhood Planning Kit (the Kit) asks neighborhoods to respond to their neighborhood's context within the city, region and beyond, while focusing their actions to localized issues and opportunities. The Kit emphasizes that neighborhood plans must address the neighborhood's context within a changing region and help to support the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the broad framework within which all other plans must fit. The Comprehensive Plan update will clearly articulate the conditions and trends to which neighborhoods must respond. Importantly, neighborhood plans must not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The Kit emphasizes that Neighborhood Action Plans should focus on unique neighborhood conditions. However, many of the issues that are of concern to neighborhoods are also broader citywide issues such as housing density, transportation, stormwater management and tree preservation. These issues have neighborhood implications but need to be addressed as part of a coordinated citywide effort and would likely be deferred to a citywide process if identified through a neighborhood plan. The Comprehensive Plan update process offers neighborhood planning staff an opportunity to address broader neighborhood concerns so that unique neighborhood issues can be the focus of subsequent neighborhood action plans. The staffing reallocation can assist with the goal outlined by the Neighborhood Planning Kit of ensuring that neighborhood plan topics do not conflict with city-wide Comprehensive Plan policies . Neighborhood Plan Implementation Over the past few years, the Planning Commission and City Council have supported the development of neighborhood overlay zones to implement neighborhood plans by adding a layer of zoning changes specific to a neighborhood or part of neighborhood. The development of overlay zones involves highly detailed, time-intensive work that has generally been carried out by a small core of dedicated neighborhood volunteers. In 2007, City Council adopted the Evergreen R-7.5 Overlay District which includes three refinements that modified the development code to better fit the neighborhood. The Planning Commission last month recommended that the Council approve the Glenmorrie Overlay District, which will add two to three code modifications (one will likely be adopted citywide through the new infill standards). The Glenmorrie Overlay project has involved approximately 600 hours of neighborhood planning staff time. A Council hearing is scheduled for May 18. Neighborhood Planning staff have also been working with the Lake Grove, Waluga and Lake Forest neighborhoods on plan implementation. Lake Grove will be proposing the adoption of an overlay zone that Page 4 includes seven code modifications, including two that are very similar to that of Glenmorrie. Staff has worked with Lake Grove on their neighborhood plan implementation fairly consistently since 2005. The development of the overlay has required approximately 720 hours of neighborhood planning staff time over the past 2.5 years. The Waluga neighborhood may bring forward a proposed overlay zone that addresses landscaping requirements similar to the Glenmorrie and Lake Grove overlays. Staff has worked with Waluga for 1.5 years and spent approximately 300 hours with the neighborhood. Work with the Lake Forest neighborhood is progressing slowly. Staff started meeting with the neighborhood 2.5 years ago and after approximately 175 hours is now almost finished analyzing the plan. The next step is to determine how to implement identified policies, goals and recommended action measures. Due to the slow pace and low participation, this work could continue for several years. Observations about the Neighborhood ood Planning Program The condition of Lake Oswego's neighborhood program is not dissimilar from that in many communities across the region or nation. Based on surveys, participation levels, and discussions with neighborhood representatives, the planning staff has made the following observations about the program and its challenges. • Neighborhood associations are generally driven by a small but dedicated group of citizens. Meeting attendance is often minimal with spikes in attendance occurring around "hot topics." (Attendance ranges from 3-15 people; average of 7-8. See Survey results in February 23, 2010 memo to Planning Commission from Neighborhood Planners). • Two-thirds of active neighborhood associations have less than 8 percent of the neighborhood's households represented at general membership meetings. • Participation around land use issues—a common focus for associations—can be controversial and can foster adversarial relationships within the community. • Some City projects have required lengthy time commitments by neighborhood participants. • Participation in neighborhood-sponsored social or recreational events is generally higher than at neighborhood meetings. Some neighborhoods hold additional events besides meetings, while others do not. • Associations are interested in increasing participation, however City assistance may be needed to generate ideas and assist with logistics. • People's time is increasingly stretched thin and they want to participate in ways that feel meaningful or where they can feel a sense of accomplishment. What are the City's goals for the program and how can we achieve greater success? In addition to the land use planning role outlined in the introduction to this report, neighborhood associations offer an opportunity to help build relationships, share resources, enhance members' connection to place, and improve quality of life within their area of the city. Committing more time to fostering a positive relationship between the City and the neighborhood associations as well as focusing on building community through positive, engaging activities could be beneficial to many residents. Staff would like to help neighborhood associations to increase participation, engage new people, and build leadership. By focusing the Neighborhood Program more on capacity building efforts, staff hopes that neighborhoods can gain the tools necessary to more successfully accomplish projects, communicate with their neighbors and partner with the City and other community members to achieve mutual goals. Ideas for Capacity-Building Activities: • Provide associations with a how-to guide for a few relatively easy sustainability projects that would Page 5 bring people out into the community (e.g. Storm drain marking program established by Lake Oswego Engineering Division). • Hold an annual day-long neighborhood association training summit with community speakers on topics such as organizing events and developing a neighborhood web site. • Encourage associations to hold fun events, and help to facilitate City processes like street closure permits for block parties on National Night Out. ■ Conduct more outreach to new association board members, and connect them with veteran board members for mentoring. Neighborhood Enhancement Program Revisions Since 1999, the City has awarded $300,000 as part of seven Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) cycles to support enhancement projects in neighborhoods throughout Lake Oswego. Community organizations apply for grants to fund specific projects that would not be accomplished under a different City program. The grants have generally focused on beautification and been used to install new landscaping and to fund neighborhood signs. The budget for FY 2010-11 has been reduced to $5,000, and staff proposes shifting the focus of the program to provide maximum benefit with limited funds. Staff proposes limiting the eligibility to recognized neighborhood associations, and focusing the program on funding new neighborhood signs and neighborhood association capacity building activities such as training, communications and community events. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT The proposed program changes in the neighborhood planning program would temporarily shift the emphasis from individual neighborhood plans to broader-based community building and the components of the comprehensive plan that are of concern to neighborhoods (density, housing, transportation). There are no proposed staff increases or decreases related to the shift. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City maintain the baseline support services of neighborhood planning program but temporarily shift the emphasis to the Comprehensive Planning effort. Much of the work related to the Comprehensive Plan will be focused on outreach and communication with neighborhoods and ultimately with having a Comprehensive Plan that provides a solid framework for neighborhood and special district planning. 10/26/2010 Ott tie Next Steps Refine information to aid Council in West End Property Options recommending one option going forward WEB Site Study • Create a more detailed scenario that begins Follow up Report and Update from with: Council Work Session dated 9/28/2010 Police/911/Courts October 26, 2010 - City Hall • Current Recreation Programs !c'nf LAKEtil��it�ktun rmtid OSWEGO Brian C Jackson . • Architect lLC o i F + o N ♦ t1':•iC.aclxi.AtAIOd.i.� 1 10/26/2010 • Next Steps ' ; • Questions Raised • Further develop concept designs, Space programs and associated parking construction, and operational costs quantities • Determine total financing package — G.O. - Operational costs for the Community Center bond, sale of property, ... • Existing and proposed annual facility expenses Respond to questions, concerns and issues Quality level and assumptions for cost estimating 2 10/26/2010 w z 4.; ,a,' - ._ i Overview d the Selectee Options 1 r..-,. I a 71 .i+i Questions Raised r :x Option #4 l! 40' i : I'� 1# �� i i• Build new Police/911 Space layout for renovation of WEB a• tt Center/Courts f•�..; —, I• Renovate WEB for City New construction v. renovation of the WEB • ' : r - 1 Hall. i 1 -. I• Renovate WEB for Concerns regarding possible ground water ;;;,......_.--.. . I existing P & R Programs. '41.' • Allows surface parking. • Confirmation of City Hall valuation ilk,. ' ' t• Design allows for future � • ,� 1 ` ' �,,� o' i expansion. -. M r' ' Project Cost= $19.4 m P ._. .`-4.- N-�` .4 • Cost w/Land = $39.4 m 3,w,C.e:ucn A,cnuect,�C l�,.. , ,\,1 .l linen C.,w*so,'e•c tact LAC ah 3 10/26/2010 tr.:.:` "•'�+) - �` ,A. O erneN eJ the Selected Oc1ir.. / 3 'T��+Y, Overview of the Selected Options 'it 4 f , • II Option # 8 ist Floor / i I. Option # 8 2nd Floor I, ... I _ �" _ _ _ I"? I ' Build new Police/911 '`- : - �� 1 I '``� ,� ''� / Center/Courts ' � ,I '� ' Renovate WEB for City i „ a I Hall. u• I "' i Renovate and expand "" I ',• , ,.,.. „_ t WEB for existing P& R f,:::7:. __ , 41► \ 4.r!'='- r � Programs plus Fitness / I -•- Center, Courts,Activity . •� -r , Space, Lap Pool & �'\ .� • `�,\\ I Leisure Pool. ,�•..,, / I Project Cost= $59.4 m ._A • Requires Structured `\ v f Cost Cost - $79.4 m ; ;:`. C Parking. '�'�1 I - �4y w..• .. ... `\•I _.n'....:_.s.-i.cr.u.:l•.(. it wc....w e.wu. 1 ,�•I � yr,anC.,ac.rwr.wrrn:en It eh 4 10/26/2010 c decize Space Program Summary gia Space Program Summary Police/911 Dispatch/Municipal Courts City Hall LOCOM/911 5,192 SF City Administration 34,300 Sq. Ft. Police Dept. 19,609 SF Municipal Court 3,464 SF Community Center Information Tech. 4,091 SF Option #4 28,000 Sq. Ft. Common/Shared/Circ. 11,065 SF Option #8 99,720 Sq. Ft. TOTAL. 43,421 Sq. Ft. Juan C_ecteo�ac:ea L.0 Au,ar C Ancabcn.A,cmect L..0 5 10/26/2010 F � os Space Program Summary , ! Space Program Summary Site Parking— Option 4 Site Parking — Option 8 Police/911/Courts 150 stall (w/40 secured) Police/911/Courts 150 stall (w/40 secured) City Hall 113 City Hall 113 Community Center 122 Community Center 262 TOTAL: 385 stalls req'd. on-site TOTAL: 525 stalls req'd. on-site )., 'c ss:Kw• AC :a-.L.0 9ianc salon.amr,r:L.0 6 10/26/2010 .P. ~ `' : • The Sports Management Group ■ National recreation consulting firm Community Center • 24 years of practice —over 400 public Operational Cost Analysis community recreation clients • Facility planning and financial feasibility Presented by she Spurts Management Group • Pacific Northwest experience rho Son IR aa•:.$,n,, IG'Jo- • 10/26/2010 Jima", • Methodology wet Annual Operating Costs • Review of 2007 study • Developed operating assumptions • Identified staffing needs and costs • Demographics update • Projected operating costs by • Service provider update expense category • Analysis of trends and impact on program and • Identified program expenses project economics • Estimated maintenance costs • Projected probable energy costs rw 3._vs Ala^eyurwx%..a_ I'm Snci:a 4aapwne'I^,roo 8 10/26/2010 1-- e Revenue Potential Financial Sustainability ■ Mix of program spaces that provides • Identified potential uses, programs, something for everyone activities, and classes • Strong and consistent user participation • Developed fee assumptions • Balance of revenue generating and subsidized • Estimated usage and rentals programs • Projected market penetration • Community social and activity hub for pass sales • Shaping the future of the community 'he Sports MaruceneN G v,p •u Jputlx Managera i; . 9 DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 10/26/2010 ,....... . ._. , ....74.....,, initx_.. h a\-4r14.4. -,„ ---. ......,, . 1 • . 11111/4. 1 tioo, la 1 t. 4 . iota . MitS - r WI to 1 pip dr Pik 1 1 1ff - 0 P 11 I I ;1110 .' . ,Il c ,....' )as Ni 4L--- - - . ' . 1111441,11-16.: • r 3 1 i r 1 It AL, li I . 4 'n : t"--C1- ill IN • —- - . likt - .4: ,...i 4 .* , .... ..,.., f - ....ji •T,-, .• 3 V- i 4641 iimpp, 44 0 •• _•=4 7.4Pe. -. 4.41 4 ow•II,II —'..I'''''I t - .1 1 a • ,;• go- • .. . - -.)-- .... . ... •••• • .....• - ..',1111. ..... .,,,....ir. ...---..---- Social Space -NI Sport.11Anducerrent Gm tmA Recreation Pool • 1 0 10/2G/2010 • -1114/SKiiii.i �•�.._ / li -mow • ,lli . . _-16 . * r V.:71711r . .......' ...... ,,' 1-)., .I' 'o I j L. . "+.,�,/ �.a .... ` �r c • s. Special Events Room ,..svo.1l Manae,....0...p Gymnasium .Spnrs Management p,oup 11 10/26/2010 f1111/4 t ■... MEM a _ ..RI sir, • -. � • • J • rr 1 `i�r �, ).�a r • w t ..1 ,- .1,�` '.." `, t—r _ r✓ -I.S4 _ 1" r A i ' A t ,. t �1._ i.��•' ' S ' ` v imilik Fitness &Wellness a soons ri..aw b-,�,. Group Exercise The Sprite Menage rer cira.p 12 10/26/2010 . 2,11,_bir.„ t • Current Operations . A T R .,_ Option `" 011* Revenue(FY10-11) $336,000 c i 1 Operating Cost(FY10 11) $1,083,000 • - 71 - 411111. Operating Subsidy ($747,000: Cost Recovery 31% (Direct&Indirect) lie .. Social Gathering a'. ••e•• Tne Spots Manugr^en Cwp 1'3 10/26/2010 '' :,i• Cost Recovery Potential wit Cost Recovery Summary Low Average High Option 8 Low Average High Current Cost Recovery 31.0% oct•o"a Potential Revenue $2,477,000 $2,714,000 $2,951,000 Current Subsidy ($747,000) Probable Operating Cost $3,192,000 $2,975,000 $2,758,000 Cost Recovery Potential 77.6% 91.2% 107.0°' Operating Subsidy or Opt v Net Revenue ($715,000) ($261,0001 $193,000 Operating Subsidy ($715,0001 ($261,0001 S193,00: Cost Recovery Potential 77.6% 91.2% 107.0% :he S110116 kW-608111en•Gm.p The.Smits Vangefrent C:;>.t. 14 10/26/2010 :;4 N Confirming Economics r :,G Confirming Economics TSMG Actual rirstenburg Low Average High Southwest Portland 2004 TSMG Projection 95.3% 103.0% 1 1,Y Community Ctr. 82% 83% Mill Valley Community Ctr. 116% 117% West Valley Recreation Ctr. 81% 85% 2008 Actual Cost Recovery 117% Durango Recreation Ctr. 95% 97% • 2009 Actual Cost Recovery 98% Morgan Hill Recreation Ctr. 96% 123% 2010 Current Cost Recovery 128% '.w Suxta A...640r41-1 Gen:n. P.Sows Mw.apa:rar,.Group • 15 10/26/2010 : _• Annual Facility Expenses ' • Annual Facility Expenses Existing Option 4 - Projected WEB Facility Expenses $264,671 City Hall $146,351 City Hall & Police $225,485 Police/911/Courts $176,849 Community Center $145,000 Total Facility Expense $490,156 All facility expenses excludes personnel Total Facility Expense $468,200 gnu"C_ucksc`^Al_^.lr-t.L- B,,Bn C.i,caecr A?cnlsd L_C 16 10/26/2010 ' Annual Facility Expenses '' •M Annual Facility Expenses a Option 8 - Projected Summary of Net Impact Option 4 Existing Expenses $490,156 City Hall $146,351 Police/911/Courts $176,849 Option 4 $468,200 Community Center $571,672 Total Savings $21,956 Parking Structure $83,650 Total Facility Expense $978,522 Ba-C Jecax,Nc ,u.l..' B',,'C..act t"ACh ncr l;,C 17 10/26/2010 • . A Annual Facility Expenses ,M.. Cost Planning Summary of Net Impact Option 8 • , � Costs are Rough Order of Magnitude "budgets" for Existing Expenses 5490.156liZ` `� oat h i planning Option 8 total cost $978,522 i ,; „ K� , Detailed cost estimates after _ selection of a Program Total New Expense $488,366 .>t Option and Design Concept '• 4 41. + y On a scale of 1-10, we have T . P assumed a 7 for quality level equal to SWCC or Firstenburg • No engineering to date • Assumes sale of property Stir C...mon WZn!a7__C - 9.,an C-ackw^Ar:ed.:7. 18 10/26/2010 mom— row— N Cost Planning - • Quality Level & Design Goals Components of the Building Systems 1.=11 P,a«,ca,,, •,,, Total Project Cost "Pt .. . n _ • Optimize energy use • Project deliverymethod- '1ii1A*'` o+ae�Waken A��iiil • Protect and conserve Remeinnp Unknowns Competitive bidding based ! .. _� M� water. Spur,W innese Cenn me on complete design j �mPut • Environmentally we drawings '`h ,:.:1:'_, -_ .. Accae L ParAInp - ,r preferable products. InhaUuo4ae • Ensure quality end product sO""°yegfap°' that is durable and timeless — • Indoor environmental • AMP r.e Contingencies and market _ —.• _ w "'Ai_%i quality-fresh air. owl, conditions-design and '• ;sip • Operational and mama+alr,::.:r Cadgwn,on Mom, construction , �, • rt maintenance practices. sww.,w • Exterior building • Direct Construction Cost v. ,,_..: •`_____� -_ Total Project Cost . ..i : # T— enclosure and daylight. Components Variables FORM 9•,bn C.JeiJlea,P.�Ir:_,C #� ' _ - ' 9••,C,actor n•ct,•ed I I C i 19 10/26/2010 •�� Quality Level & Design Goals = Space Adjacency — Option 4 • • Sustainable Design MIN • LEED equivalent to `°'"„"AC Parks&Rec it ` t Silver/Gold/Platinum? _ Dept " t Wlllamene - ^ z ., '•••' Comm.Hall i- ,,, 1.' • Pools present particular challenges _ r rw ,. .__. .___ McKenzie A '/ • Life cycle costs and CD staff w ^er ,.,46- r i , • energy analysis support -5 MI Le » y mist- i ••! Operational practice Finance i. ; Dept 74,comm.cwnex nm f tt 0. CD Mgmt • f) 3n•°C.....hrc+^ec:..C B.e^C Ja:xeon NPtletl..0 Mb 20 10/26/2010 c ' • Space Adjacency — Option 4 Cost Allocation Option n. Sanfam Sano Police/911/Courts $10,500.000 �'1 ._ City Hall $6,750,000 ...Lcoluntla Community Center $5,750,000 Site Development $500,000 Fac us A DP/mg` r: Property Sale ($4,100,000) 1 1 Offices Building +HRIPA " Total Cost (R.O.M.) $19,400,000 Support 'aawaar."' N.I l 0N.C.a:rycr A,'Cluea 1C ,, B,.an C Jar.<6o-A•V AC'L LC 111 21 10/26/2010 :hi Cost Allocation ' • Q & A - Discussion Option 8 Police/911/Courts 510,500.00c •• City Hall property valuation City Hall $6,750,000 Substantial market erosion in region,state,and locally. Community Center $36,250,000 Still considered high value land due to prime location. Site Development $2,000,000 Ground water issues at WEB Parking Garage $8,000,000 Council Discussion Property Sale ($4,100,000) Total Cost (R.O.M.) $59,400,000 m ar C.s-,W A't,•rtet* '_C 8r MCecs.v.A•c•41ud.,C 22 6 LAKE OSWEGO COMMUNITY CENTER Option 4 The following is the current cost recovery for the WEB Community Center. Current Cost Recovery * Cost Recovery 31.0% Annual Subsidy ($747,000) Annual Operating Costs $1,083,000 Annual Revenue $336,000 *Includes expenses and revenues identified in the Parks&Recreation FY10-11 budget that are appliced to "community center"related functions at the WEB. Also includes a portion of current WEB operating costs. ©2010 The Sports Management Group 10-11 "Communit Center" Related FY y Approved Budget Expenses Revenues PARKS&RECREATION BUDGET Parks&Recreation: Management Services $ 1,309,000 $ 321,350 $ 19,000 Sports&Fitness 493,000 130,240 101,500 Cultural,Specialized&Events 1,179,000 435,150 215,500 Park Maintenance 2,575,000 0 Park Acquisition, Development, Pathways 326,000 0 Adult Community Center 1,025,000 0 Public Golf Course 965,366 0 Indoor Tennis Center 733,879 0 Percent for Art 111,028 0 $ 8,717,273 $ 886,740 $ 336,000 38% Cost recovery for all indirect and direct expenses PUBLIC WORKS BUDGET Facilities Management: West End Bdlg Related Expenses* 196,000 0 $ 1,082,740 $ 336,000 31% Cost Recovery *Assumes that 75%of current expenses to maintain/operate the WEB are"community center" related LAKE OSWEGO COMMUNITY CENTER Option 8 October 24, 2010 The economic analysis is developed in a "low"to "high"range of probable operating costs and revenue potential. The "high"cost recovery is determined by subtracting the highest potential revenue by the lowest probable expenses. "Low"is determined by subtracting the lowest potential revenue by the highest probable expenses. "Average"cost recovery is determined by subtracting the average potential revenue by average probable expense. Cost Recovery Potential Low Average High Cost Recovery Potential 77.6% 91.2% 107.0% Annual Subsidy or Net Revenue ($715,000) ($261,000) $193,000 Probable Operating Costs $3,192,000 $2,975,000 $2,758,000 Potential Revenue $2,477,000 $2,714,000 $2,951,000 ©2010 The Sports Management Group DEFECTS IN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT MorganElill"himes.com Rcc boom steadies general fund Page 1 of 2 MORGAN' Hill. TIMES Rec boom steadies general fund Thursday,May 06,2010 By Michael Moore (mmoore@morganhilltimes.com) Standing out as an exception among city services that have been cut piecemeal in recent years is Morgan Hill's booming recreation and community services department, which has seen revenues generated by the use of its flagship public facilities climb drastically since they were built. ! And that's not only good for the city's bottom line in a department that used to gobble up more than $1.6 million from the general fund, according to the department's supporters. It's also a sign that Morgan Hill is increasingly secure as an attraction for sports and fitness enthusiasts, 'P''"- and that families and children are taking advantage of tf- unique and healthy options. "It's an outstanding success story, and one that people should be proud of," Councilman Greg Sellers said. "It irks me when people say all you need to do (to reduce the deficit) is to slash recreation funds. That's naive and short-sighted. Not only would you not achieve your budget Amanda Sequin and her daughter Elle,3,pretend to be starfish dunng beach day at family yoga at the Centennial Recreation goals, but you would put more kids on the street and Center Tuesday create more problems than we could solve." Photo by: Lora Schraft The city's Recreation and Community Services Department includes the operation and upkeep of the Centennial Recreation Center, the Aquatics Center, the Outdoor Sports Center, the Community and Cultural Center, and - �1.t the Community Park's picric pavilions and tennis courts. Olutt • • San Martin resident Mary Fuentes and her family have" r I' been members at the CRC for only about three months, -' but they visit the facility up to three times a week. One - recent afternoon she had just finished swimming with her � �` +� daughters, age 9 and 4. Her 12-year-old son plays (. •- _ f; ,.. ' basketball at the indoor courts. She added that she - '1 attends aerobics classes. She and her husband started the � ear membership mostly for their children. The new fitness center at the Centennial Recreation Center will be about 5,000 square feet when completed. "My children need to make more friends and get more Photo by: Lora Schraft exercise," Fuentes said. "And the whole family spends more time together." As of March, city staff expected the department to recover about 87 percent of its expenses for the year. That spells a total projected net expense from the general fund of about $$255,800, according to city staff. Just four years ago, in fiscal year 2006-2007, that cost was about $1.6 million. The sharp decline is due largely to an equally sharp rise in memberships and fees to use the facilities, and overall greater demand, according to department director Steve Rymer. The department began offering monthly memberships in July 2006, when the CRC was constructed. As of Feb. 2010, the total number of membership units for both the CRC and Aquatics Center is about 3,095. About half of those are family memberships, which cost about $80 per month for each facility, bringing the total members close to about 9,000. http://www.morganhilltimes.com/printer/article.asp?c=265461 9/21/2010 MorganHillTimes.com I Rec boom steadies general fund Page 2 of 2 "When the CRC came online the community really embraced it right from the get-go," Rymer said. Revenue from memberships alone is about$2.4 million this year. Daily passes to al of the department's facilities are projected to generate about $401,000. And the Aquatics Center continues to open more programs that draw competitive swimmers and beginners, Rymer added. Part of the city's marketing strategy was to combine use of the CRC and Aquatics Center under a single membership, Rymer said. Plus, some of the facilities, such as the Aquatics Center and the OSC, are intended to draw regional as well as local use. Most of the CRC members are Morgan Hill residents, with most of the rest from San Martin, Gilroy and south San Jose. The OSC draws sports teams from all over northern California. Gilroy resident Mary Beth Peddle has a family membership to the CRC. Her daughter teaches swim classes, and her son uses the facility's extensive weight training options. The family has been a member for about a year, and Peddle said the CRC is nicer and "cleaner" than gyms and public recreation facilities in Gilroy. "We're really impressed with it," Petty said. "They have something to offer everybody." The recreation department is also expected to generate another$671,600 from rentals of the CCC, OSC and parks and fields by the end of the fiscal year June 30. That includes the rental of part of the CCC to Gavilan College. The facilities were all built with Redevelopment Agency funds in two-year steps - the CCC was built in 2002, the Aquatics Center in 2004, and the CRC in 2006. Construction is currently underway on an expansion of the CRC's fitness center, which will add more aerobics and weight lifting options when it opens later this month. But it's not just the continually rising use and memberships that feed the department's success. Rymer added that in the last three years, revenues have grown 45 percent, and expenses have grown by about 11 percent. That has been achieved by moving staff around to work at a number of different facilities instead of keeping them at just one. "They work at the areas where the demand is," Rymer explained. An 87 percent rate of revenue recovery in a public recreation department is rare across the country, according to city officials. "It's not just better than most cities - it's incredibly better than most cities," Councilman Larry Carr said. "Most cities strive for about 25 percent recovery." Michael Moore Michael Moore covers county and law enforcement issues for the Morgan Hill Times. Reach him at (408) 779-4106, ext. 202, or rnmoore4 morganhihtimes.com. http://www.morganhilltimes.com/printer/article.asp?c=265461 9/21/2010 MORGAN HILL INDOOR RECREATION CENTER Cost Recovery Potential Low Average High Cost Recovery Potential 85% 96% 108% Annual Subsidy or Profit ($305,000) ($82,500) $140,000 Probable Operating Costs $1,822,000 $1,945,000 $2,068,000 Potential Revenue $1,763,000 $1,862,500 $1,962,000 ©2004 The Sports Management Group 4/5/05 n -Histdijt � Tv, 700 McVey Avenue Lake P.O. Box 203 /� Lake Oswego, OR 97034 Oswego 503-636-1422 Office Lti 503-636-3226 Fax CORPORATION www.lakecorp.com October 26, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman and City Council Members PO Box 369 Lake Oswego OR 97034 Dear Mayor and City Council: The Lake Oswego Corporation Board of Directors would like to request that the Lake Oswego City Council reopen the matter of rear yard setbacks on Oswego Lake. Under the current code, boathouses are not zero setback structures. The vast majority of boathouses on the lake are pushed as close to the side yard property line as possible to help preserve view and open space. Often this leaves a very small space between boathouses which is unusable and difficult to maintain. Where neighbors are in agreement, we have traditionally allowed common wall boathouses. These are still allowed in instances where the boathouses are entirely on Lake Oswego Corporation property but not where they are all or partly on shareholder property. We would like to see if the code can be changed to allow common wall boathouses where neighbors are in agreement. Very truly yours, ] 4 ÷14 Todd Van Rysselberghe Lake Oswego Corporation President 4 • .. CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING �+ +� MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2010 !� ayor Jack D Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. on October 26, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Vizzini.Excused: Councilor Jordan. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Denise Frisbee, Director of Planning, Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Susan Millhauser; Glen Lamb, Executive Director, Columbia Land Trust; Brock Howe, Environment Oregon; Amanda Dalton, Northwest Grocery Association. 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Glen Lamb, Executive Director of Columbia Land Trust Glen Lamb presented an overview and brief history of the merging of the Three Rivers Land Conservancy with Columbia Land Trust. The organization has four main focus areas: helping and offering incentives to landowners who want to conserve habitat land; working farms, working forests [pt 1 4:35] and also protecting urban green spaces via positive collaborative solutions. He gave a brief summary of the different programs that will continue, such as the Backyard Habitat program, noting that the Trust will continue with some programs established by Three Rivers including the program related to trails. Councilor Moncrieff was pleased they were committed to completing the Rosemont Trail and asked that it continue to be kept a top priority. 3.2 Statewide Plastic Bag Ban Information Susan Millhauser, City Sustainability Coordinator, introduced information on a potential Oregon statewide plastic bag ban. The program was brought up before the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) at their meeting in September. SAB determined it was an important project and asked that Council consider this proposal. Brock Howe, Environment Oregon, presented further information via Power Point about banning single use plastic checkout bags. More than 100 jurisdictions around the world have "banned the bag" including China and 40 cities and counties in the United States. The four main reasons to ban the bag are the oceans, consumers, taxpayers and business. An island of trash twice the size of Texas is in the Pacific Ocean that kills millions of sea life every year, and 12 percent of Oregon's marine debris was plastic bags. Consumers in Oregon use approximately 500 plastic bags per person, and more than 25,000 people have signed petitions in support of banning plastic bags. For taxpayers, the City of Portland estimates that it cost approximately $2.3 million to clean up storm drains and roadside litter from plastic bags and plastic film that cause flooding and damage infrastructure. A number of municipalities are responsible for waste disposal and landfills, and fences must be built to keep plastic bags on the landfill site to comply with federal law. For business, recycling companies have substantial cost to remove the plastic bags and film from sorting machines. Plastic bags cannot be recycled and only gum up the recycling process. Although plastic bags are free to consumers at check out, they pay for a portion through the cost of goods and retailers pick up the remaining cost. Large retailers pay 1 to 2 cents per plastic bag City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10 October 26, 2010 compared to 3 to 4 cents for paper bags. Small retailers can pay as much as 50 cents per plastic bag. A statewide effort to ban plastic bags was underway. Senator Mark Hass of Beaverton is making substantial progress. There is significant opposition from the chemical industry who has spent millions of dollars fighting the ban, as well as from out of state interests. More than 300 businesses have endorsed the ban campaign plus 20 plus in Lake Oswego. Amanda Dalton, Northwest Grocery Association, stated their priority was to implement a statewide solution as opposed to addressing local bans and ordinances throughout the state. They encouraged the Council, should it choose to take action, to implement a resolution supporting the statewide efforts. Ms. Dalton confirmed for Mayor Hoffman that the ban had the support of Senator Hass and Jason Atkinson as well as Representatives Gilliam and Dingfelder, who were aware of local efforts. She and Mr. Howe would be going into about ten cities and a couple counties in the next 90 days to ask for joint support. All those supporting jurisdictions would be brought to the state legislature in 2011. It was definitely a bipartisan effort. Ms. Millhauser clarified for Councilor Tierney that the City of Portland recently passed a resolution supporting a statewide ban, and implementing a Portland ban if statewide legislation does not happen in 2011. She was asking Council to support a statewide ban and if no statewide ban exists in two years that the Council would look at a local ordinance. Mr. Howe confirmed for Councilor Vizzini that there was a biodegradable alternative but it also required a high heat compost heap to decompose, so having bags in the oceans would still be an issue, for instance. Making compostable plastic also results in more greenhouse gas emissions. Ms. Dalton clarified for Councilor Vizzini that the statewide legislation would allow some plastic bags as long as they can be reused, and the ban involves all retail, not just groceries. The statewide solution would set a minimum paper bag charge at 5 cents. Mr. Howe added that Ireland had the equivalent of a 38 cent charge on plastic bags; Washington D.C. introduced a 5 cent charge on both paper and plastic last January and saw an 85 percent reduction in usage. The City of Seattle tried to impose a 20 cent charge, which was not well received. Seattle was now considering a bag ban instead of a fee approach. Mr. Howe, in response to a comment from Councilor Olson, agreed that plastic bags were reused by consumers. There would still be plastic bags around newspapers, bread, etc. Plastic bags could be purchased. Newspaper could be used for picking up dog waste. Mr. Howe confirmed for Councilor Hennagin that the biodegradable plastic water cups also required a high temperature to degrade. Plastic bags around newspapers were not included in the ban, only retail store check out bags. About 80 percent of the plastic in the ocean was from land based sources. Some plastic bags were recycled but were at the bottom grade of all plastics and could not be turned into other plastics very easily. A lot of plastic film is baled and sent to be burned at an incinerator. There had been some innovation in regard to turning recycled plastic into energy; however, the ways in which plastic bags become litter would still exist. Councilor Moncrieff was convinced it would be a good idea to direct Staff to return with a resolution supporting the statewide ban. Councilor Olson supported a statewide measure but not a local fallback measure. Mayor Hoffman supported the recommendation as requested and noted the support of the Northwest Grocery Association. Lake Oswego had a long history of taking independent progressive actions, such as being the first city to ban smoking in restaurants. Councilor Hennagin preferred the resolution to say the "Council may find it necessary to enact regulations" as opposed to "Council will find it necessary." As this would not come to Council until City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10 October 26, 2010 2011, he did not want to commit future Councils. Ms. Millhauser assured they would craft a resolution that would not commit the Council to taking action at this point. Councilor Vizzini noted that part of the political strategy, and the reason grocers were supportive, was to have enough municipalities around the state put the Legislature on notice that if it did not act grocers will have to deal with a crazy quilt of regulation at a local level. He wondered if"may" as opposed to "will" was significant enough. Ms. Dalton replied it was significant enough. David Powell, City Attorney suggested an affirmative statement be included supporting `she citywide legislation. Councilor Vizzini confirmed it should be added not as a "whereas" but as a "therefore." Mayor Hoffman stated that City Council unanimously directs Staff to return with a resolution supportive of statewide legislation for Council review with the language of"may" as opposed to "will" as discussed. 3.3 West End Building Next Steps Councilor Tierney presented via PowerPoint a continuation of the topic discussed on September 28th regarding the City Manager's recommendation to offer certain options relative to the use of the West End property. He was asked to represent the Council from the City Manager's Task Force on the issue where he was a member along with Councilors Jordan and Moncrieff. Following previous discussions with Council, two options were chosen: Option 4, use the facility as a City Hall and police LOCOM court facility; and Option 8 which would include expanded recreation facilities. Brian Jackson, Architect, addressed space programs and associated parking. Option 4, roughly calculated to cost $19.4 million, $39.4 million with the land cost, was to build a new police 911 center and court facility at the corner of the West End Building (WEB) site; renovate the WEB for a new City Hall and for the existing Park & Recreation (P&R) programs; retain current surface parking of 385 stalls at the back of the site; design for future expansion. Option 8, with a rough estimated cost of$79.4 million including land, had the police 911 center at the corner, the renovation of the WEB for City Hall but also included the expanded P&R programs with the added enhanced fitness center, dual court basketball gymnasium, two pools, etc. This option also required structured parking with 525 parking stalls. He presented detailed options for space usage. In response to the suggestion of Councilor Vizzini that the administrative offices related to P&R be put under City Administration, Mr. Jackson stated Option 4 was dependent upon the P&R offices remaining where they were located as they were responsible for supervising the space. Mr. Jackson responded to Councilor Hennagin stating they could consider combining municipal court with the City Council meeting area. Laureen Livingston, The Sports Management Group, presented the cost and revenue projections via PowerPoint. They updated the analysis from 2007 for demographics, trends and service providers, including Mountain Park. Sustainability involved having a mix of programs and spaces to support those programs that provides something for everyone as well as a balance of revenue generating versus subsidized programs. The typical approach to municipal recreation and community services in terms of price setting was the private sector model, which was to charge the lowest possible price to encourage the highest possible use, so it was assumed that the goal was to be revenue neutral. The metric was how to engage the community to utilize the facilities with a strong base of consistent users. The city of Livonia, Michigan saw a rise in home sales and change in demographics almost immediately after building a very large recreation center. Recreation pools generate more revenue than their expenses. The gymnasium space could be used for a wide variety of programming and was very important to providing programs for youth and teens which were generally highly subsidized but could then generate revenue from adult leagues. A rental banquet hall for social gatherings could be used to generate revenue for other subsidized programs. The City's current City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10 October 26, 2010 operating subsidy was estimated at $747,000 in Option 4, not including the current interest payments on the land. Kim Gilmer explained an estimate of what was attributable to community center related expenses was included in the operating subsidy figure. Ms. Livingston continued that the cost recovery was about 31 percent currently. Option 8 projects a 91 percent cost recovery on subsidized operations. She shared examples of community centers enjoying 80 percent and even higher with greater cost recovery. Ms. Livingston responded to Councilor Olson that the populations of the communities given as examples varied and ranged from approximately 15,000 to 101,000. They did study facilities such as Club Sport and 24 Hour Fitness and considered in their analysis what their business has been like during the recession. They also considered the Clackamas Aquatic Park and the fact that they were currently operating in the red, but this a different kind of facility and was not on the same scale as the proposed Option 8 center. Councilor Moncrieff added that she was told that they originally wanted to construct Clackamas Aquatic Park to be a revenue generator, but in order to save up-front capital cost, they did not add the revenue producing spaces that the Board had originally recommended. Councilor Hennagin commented there were young families with children going to the Gabriel Park Recreation Center and Tigard Aquatic Center. He did not know that they would want to vote for a bond issue to build one in Lake Oswego in the current economy. Councilor Vizzini summarized that Lake Oswego's success depended on the space being designed to respond to changes the community demanded, the programming delivering value at a price and programming diversity into the space to get close to parity or beyond breakeven. He asked what the building needed to conform to these points. Ms. Livingston agreed it was about designing something that created value for the community it served. She also noted the importance of multigenerational facilities and cross cultural activities. Mr. Jackson stated that although Southwest Community Center and Firstenburg were comparable, the larger square footage of Firstenburg resulted in increased cost recovery. Ms. Livingston confirmed that Option 4 would not get to breakeven and that the greatest cost recovery it could achieve was 40 percent. Fee structure used, less than southwest, room in the market for higher fees. Mr. Jackson confirmed for Councilor Olson that Southwest Community Center was done with a parks bond measure that included trails and other improvements. The East Portland Community Center and Mount Scott were part of the same bond measure. Lake Oswego's citizens would be paying for the bond measure and for the fees. Ms. Livingston stated the highest fees used were $3.00 for a child, $4.50 for a youth or teen, $6.00 for an adult and $5.00 for a senior. The annual fee for a family was $725. The add-on fee for childcare was about $2.00 an hour. The fee structure used for the model were less that those at Southwest, so there was room in the market for higher fees. Ms. Livingston confirmed for Councilor Tierney that the breakeven projections and the confirming economics were based on operating expenses not on paying back capital. Additional supporting information could be made available in the form of supporting documentation for the numbers presented. As higher education resulted in higher participation, she expected Lake Oswego to be a community of higher participation. If revenue generating options were added to Option 4, it would look very similar to Option 8. Councilor Moncrieff said they needed to figure out the perfect mix to get away from subsidized and move toward revenue generating spaces. They needed to find the balance of how much upfront and capital expenditures the voters were willing to pay in exchange for reducing the need for the General Fund to subsidize the P&R operations. Option 6 was eliminated because they did not want to build anything that was financially unsustainable and cost more operating revenue than being currently expended. The goal was to break even or reduce operating expenditures. Ms. Livingston explained that the success rate of their projections depended on numerous variables, City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 October 26, 2010 but especially the facility's staff and management. Waivers to communityroom rental fees could P Y Y 9 cost $100,000 in revenue for example, as well as cost accounting practices. She believed they were conservative in their cost recovery numbers. Mayor Hoffman confirmed that Mountain Park was not still charging fees for use of the facility. It was included in the homeowner's fee. He wanted to know if Option 4 could become an Option 4 plus and drive the cost recovery from 40 percent to 70 percent. Ms. Livingston answered that Option 4B had explored what could be added to the existing facility and the resulting cost recovery money generated. The average cost recovery of that option was 46 percent as opposed to the current 31 percent. Because the facility was larger, the operating subsidy was the same, about $800,000. The pool was largely responsible for the difference. They could consider adding that to Option 4, which was basically Option 6, but the subsidy on Option 6 was $1.2 million. Councilor Tierney posited that they could consider Option 6 with a rec pool as opposed to a lap pool. Mayor Hoffman stated that would be similar to Mountain Park who had a rec pool and just two lanes of a lane pool. Ms. Livingston stated adding a rec pool onto anything by itself would not generate a lot of cost recovery. It was the combination of the pool with other facilities such as fitness so everyone would be engaged. Ms. Livingston confirmed for Mayor Hoffman that hospitals would partner with fitness facilities by providing to their patients a pass purchased from the facility at a discounted rate. A number of the patients would go on to renew their membership at the facility. Some orthopedic practices would set up clinics within fitness facilities for their patients. There were communities in the process of attempting to decrease the number of doctor and ER visits and increase the overall health of the community as a whole by partnering with fitness facilities such as in Kirkland Washington. She did not know if there were any other cities with a healthy city initiative. The City Council took a brief break at 8:32 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:44 p.m. Mr. Jackson presented facility expenses and cost planning via PowerPoint. At the West End Building, current actual expenditures are $264,671 per year; City Hall and the police station are $225,485 per year, for a total annual facility expense of $490,156. These figures included utility costs, landscape and grounds upkeep, janitorial services and all the regular direct expenses, but not any deferred maintenance or major projects, property taxes or interest on the building. Projected Option 4 facility expenses would be $146,351 for City Hall, $176,849 for Police/911/Courts and $145,000 for the Community Center for a total of$468,200. Projected Option 8 facility expenses would remain the same as Option 4 for City Hall and Police/911/Courts but the project expense for the Community Center would increase to $571,672. There would be an additional expense for the parking structure. The total projected expenses under Option 8 were $978,000. Regarding cost planning, the provided figures were just the rough order of magnitude, a detailed cost estimate would need to be considered. No engineering has been done to date, and all numbers assume the sale of the City Hall property at $4.1 million. He detailed the various facilities and presented a space planning design for Option 4. Total project cost for Option 4, less the property sale, was estimated at $19.4 million, plus $20 million for the financing of the site. Total project cost for Option 8, less the property sale, was estimated at $59.4 million. Although there has been substantial erosion to the market, the City Hall property was still considered high end and very desirable. Ms. Gilmer stated in addressing the groundwater issue that a small wetland exists on the property behind the WEB, and the groundwater was probably coming from a seep of some sort. The wetland would need to be delineated as part of the project. It lacked habitat value, so would not be placed on the sensitive lands map. As a wetland, it would most likely be under the jurisdiction of the Division of State Lands. On the north end of the property, a wetland area was delineated at the time of the Community Center study. There is also a stream that runs on the east side of Daniel Way. All of that would need to be addressed during the development. The wetland and stream are on a sensitive lands map. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10 October 26, 2010 Mr. Jackson confirmed for Councilor Olson the $4.1 million valuation was rendered in January 2009 and was net after building demolition. Not many people were buying land, but this was a prime location, and the right buyer might be out there for a property like this. Councilor Hennagin recalled that the value of the land was estimated at $6 million in 2007. rework, eliminate comma use, makes for a smoother sentence. Mr. Jackson responded to Councilor Vizzini that solar energy options were not in the current cost numbers, but would be easy to do as it had great south exposure. Lease partnerships were availa )le as well as other mechanisms to explore. Councilor Olson recalled that last time there was some consensus around Option 4. They looked at putting forward something that would pass. The goal was to pay for the WEB and build a police building. Now, they were back to discussing a community center. She asked for clarification about the goal. A family membership pass at $725 yearly with property taxes added was $1000 per year. This was not what people had in mind to pay for the WEB building. Mayor Hoffman did not recall the consensus was to go with Option 4; Council had asked for more information. Councilor Hennagin agreed with Councilor Olson that there was more agreement about putting Option 4 to the voters. They reserved the possibility of having a second option for the voters to vote on the Community Center. The Community Center option was only half heartedly considered as a potential bond issue. Councilor Tierney recalled they decided to examine Option 4 and Option 8 in more detail, specifically with regard to questions that were addressed in tonight's presentation. This was all leading toward Council's deliberation and ultimate recommendation to the voters. Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Tierney that at the last meeting, Council decided to examine Options 4 and 8, refine the costs and consider the operating costs of both. After the information presented, she understood Option 8 could reduce the ongoing operating expenses. Although it would cost more upfront, Option 8 was more financially sustainable long-term and would allow them to provide expanded recreational opportunities for all members of the community while actually reducing P&R's draw from the General Fund. For years, the community has been expressing the desire for a community swimming pool and community center, which was the reason for the purchase of the West End property. She wanted to go back out and seek input from the community, particularly in light of the example given of Livonia, Michigan, where the trajectory of the entire city was changed by building a community center. Ms. Gilmer stated the 1990 P&R Comprehensive Plan suggested a community center, and there was a bond measure to acquire property for that. The 2001 P&R Comprehensive Plan also identified the need for community center spaces and aquatics facilities. A 2004 needs assessment identified the need for a community center/aquatics facility as the highest unmet need in the community. Councilor Moncrieff stated she was not prepared to take this opportunity away without more certainty that the constituents were not willing to pay for a community center at this time. Mayor Hoffman was also concerned about making a decision given the vicious cycle of Council having to defend its decisions. A mechanism was needed for engaging the public. He wanted more information about the Healthy Communities Initiative from Kirkland. A public-private partnership of some sort could drive down the cost. Councilor Hennagin stated that Option 4 did not exclude the possibility of adding pools and a gym at a later date when the economy was more robust. He agreed the biggest unmet need in the community was for an aquatic center, but the question was when it could be afforded. Councilor Olson was concerned they were getting off track, and that ultimately, they would have a bond measure that would not pass, and then there would be no public safety building or City Hall, City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10 October 26, 2010 again, and the WEB building would not be paid for, again. She suggested putting a bond measure out for Option 8 on the WEB site for a real community center, rebuilding City Hall at the present location and finding another site for a public safety building. She was still concerned about the study done two years ago that revealed most people in the community did not want City Hall to leave the downtown. Alex McIntyre, City Manager, reminded the City needed to maximize the use of the WEB to justify the $20 million cost. The 2007 plan left a lot of sq.;are footage vacant. The focus group showed the public was tired of the topic and wanted a responsible decision made. They wanted whatever was done to be done well and right. He did not feel had enough information to make a decision; they needed to define a process for moving forward and determine when to ask the voters this particular question. Last week, he met the Morgan Hill Parks Director and visited their Centennial Recreation Center. He was impressed by the activity at the center and understood the vision for Lake Oswego. The synergistic combination of services contributed to the success of Morgan Hill's center. The business model presented by Ms. Livingston was a proven business model. He suggested going back to the working group and returning with a recommended process to narrow the choices from two to one. Councilor Vizzini wanted something that would pass without too much trepidation. He suggested putting a two-step decision on the ballot and asking the voters to choose, but wondered if that process would doom both options. More information was not needed; the numbers needed to be firmed up to build a campaign around a two-step decision where they would make the case for each option and let the voters decide. He would support both Options 8 and 4; Option 4 was absolutely necessary, and Option 8 was integral to the City's future. Mayor Hoffman stated that he needed more information and would like a process. Councilor Moncrieff wanted time for both Council and the working group to digest all the material presented, and for the City Manager to return with a recommended process for moving forward. Councilor Tierney concurred and asked that Option 8 be brought back with a recreation pool as opposed to a lap pool. The recreation pool brought in revenue while the lap pool required a significant operating subsidy. He clarified for Mayor Hoffman that the lap pool was not factored in as a benefit to the community because it would save the school district $100,000 to $150,000 per year. The Task Force had not wanted to stray into political arguments versus gathering information to create a ballot measure. Mr. McIntyre stated that, anecdotally, putting both items on the ballot would doom the measure due to potential ballot confusion. Legally, the ballot could be constructed to have both items, but the question was what it would take to make the ballot measure successful. Mayor Hoffman clarified for Councilor Olson that he hoped they would all support whatever option the majority agreed on. Councilor Vizzini stated he would like to see a present value analysis of the operating deficit or surplus and project that over 20 years to see the cumulative affect of surplus or breakeven in the mix of options. Mr. Jackson replied that type of analysis would be challenging and expensive. Councilor Tierney stated that there could be minority opinions unless they went to the lowest common denominator. Mayor Hoffman reiterated that the model was that everyone would support any Council decision going forward, whether one was in the majority or minority. He agreed this needed to be addressed as part of the process. He and Mr. McIntyre would talk about the two or three things they wanted more information on and also work on the process and fit it into the agenda before the end of the year. Mr. McIntyre, in response to a request from Councilor Olson, agreed to gather more detailed information behind the analysis. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10 October 26, 2010 3.4 Neighborhood Enhancement and Neighborhood Program Review Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner, stated the Neighborhood Enhancement Grant Program was a longstanding program awarding grants on a competitive basis to neighborhood groups for various community enhancement projects. Staff identified neighborhood capacity and strength as an indicator of success for the Neighborhood Program overall and believed the grant program would provide an opportunity to pursue neighborhood planning goals. They proposed a shift from grants for community enhancement through landscaping in the right-of-way primarily, to enhancing the City's neighborhood involvement. The City would maintain the neighborhood signs as part of enhanc+ng the right-of-way. Past neighborhood enhancement programs have encountered difficulties and challenges with landscaping projects. Page 23 of staff report featured a menu of different project categories as a starting point to explore ways of enhancing community and building capacity in neighborhood partnerships between neighborhood associations and business, schools and other community groups. Staff sought Council feedback as to whether the proposed grant categories and shift in focus would support Council and community goals, and conducting the program every two years rather than annually. Staff also proposed limiting the grants to neighborhood associations and the community organizations they want to partner with as opposed to allowing homeowner associations to participate in the program. Limiting the grant award to $2,500 per association project was also proposed to spread out the opportunities. Denise Frisbee, Director of Planning, in response to a question from Councilor Hennagin, stated the reason for shifting focus was that a review of the grant program revealed most of the grants had gone to landscaping projects, and problems arose regarding long-term maintenance, including irrigation, etc. A review of the Neighborhood Planning Program revealed uneven neighborhood membership participation, which makes a difference in the quality of the neighborhood plan implementation process. Councilor Hennagin noted the City was most likely to receive applications from the most active associations with the best leadership. Ms. Frisbee replied a core group of people are needed who want to build community capacity, and those were the same people Staff anticipated coming forward with a grant application. With limited Staff, they could not seek out neighborhoods that were not participating. This proposal would help stretch City resources to obtain the best long term results. Ms. Selden stated extra outreach could be done by calling the less active neighborhood associations to encourage them to apply or brainstorm projects with them. Some neighborhoods lack the involvement needed to take on projects. Ms. Frisbee noted that the proposal was vetted with the neighborhood chairs that were able to attend the quarterly neighborhood association meeting, and they liked the approach. Councilor Tierney said he was comfortable with the presentation as proposed. Councilor Moncrieff stated the purpose of neighborhood associations was to communicate land use issues to all the residents so people have an opportunity to talk to the City. A challenge in keeping a neighborhood association going was communication, which costs money; website development, maintenance, mailings and community building events all cost money. Emergency preparedness takes coordination and funding to do neighborhood inventories and training. She believed the menu was great and, as a past neighborhood chair, she fully supported the proposal. Councilor Olson said she liked most of the menu, especially the emergency preparedness. She did not agree with spending this money on Natural Step Training or neighborhood recycling, which was being done citywide by the Sustainability Board. She wanted to see the grants more focused on more tangible items for neighborhoods. The community wide garage sale day and dumpsters for a neighborhood cleanup day were a good idea. Ms. Selden clarified for Councilor Olson that the neighborhood signs cost between $550 and $600 a piece. Councilor Vizzini concurred with comments made. He asked how much staff time is associated with running a $25,000 grant program for ten grants. At this scale, it would be better to sit down with the neighborhood chairs as a group and plan the work described in the menu to form a program, rather than go through a grant process that needed to be administered and managed. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10 October 26, 2010 That program would then be shaped in partnership with Planning Staff and the neighborhood chairs, giving them ownership of the program. This would reduce the administrative burden and deliver the capacity building desired. Ms. Selden explained for Mayor Hoffman that Staff had considered expanding the Neighbors Helping Neighbors Program through this funding program under Community Building. She confirmed that two or three neighborhoods could apply jointly to do a community building event. Councilor Vizzini hoped the grant program would be used to strengthen the council of neighborhood chairs and strengthen neighborhood associations, which was the best way for the Planning Department to create a constructive, trust building relationship that is needed at the neighborhood level, while also increasing their capacity to lead and to communicate with Council and the City. Lake Corporation Request Jeff Ward, Lake Oswego Corporation, noted the letter sent to Council by the Board of Directors asking Council to reopen the matter of rear yard setbacks on Oswego Lake regarding boathouses and zero setbacks. He pointed out that if two neighbors agreed to push their boathouses to the property line, the Lake Corporation would allow them to make a common wall boathouse. Bob Barman, former Palisades Neighborhood Board Member, stated no opposition existed with the Lake shareholders. He noted that the Board had previously asked such property owners to move the structures together for easier painting and to avoid debris gathering between the buildings. He clarified that they did want the setback on other structures, so it was important for the additional wording to state that boathouses were allowed to go to the setback. Mayor Hoffman believed the Council agreed that the issue needed to be resolved. He stated the two options were to reopen the prior hearing or send it to the Planning Commission. He recommended it be brought back for the agenda for a decision next week about whether Council would address the matter or send it back to the Commission. Councilor Hennagin requested an opinion from the City Attorney next week about the process of reopening the hearing versus sending it to Planning Commission. Councilor Vizzini stated he was willing to commit to a process for Staff to move forward to get the issue resolved. He did not know if it was legal to reopen a hearing for work that had already resulted in an ordinance. Mayor Hoffman stated the choices were to direct Staff to send the issue to Planning Commission that night, or it could return to Council for deliberation. Given the time, he suggested that rather than a having a long legal explanation, it should return to Council next week. City Attorney Powell stated that referring the matter to the Planning Commission was the most appropriate option. However, the Municipal Code did not give Council a timeline for when a hearing is closed or not. Though reopening a hearing regarding a recently adopted ordinance was not typical, he could defend it. Staff could expedite referring it to the Planning Commission if that was the Council's direction. Councilor Vizzini expressed concern about proceeding in such an expeditious manner, but could agree with Council moving forward if parameters were clearly defined so this would not become common practice. After discussion of noticing requirements and how the timing might affect a shareholder trying to get a boathouse done, Council consented to reopen the hearing on December 7, 2010. Councilor Vizzini announced nominations were still being accepted for Unsung Heroes. The deadline was November 1. Any questions could be directed to the Citizen Information Office at City Hall. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 October 26, 2010 Councilor Tierney stated the MACC meeting for the public access issue would be discussed on Thursday. He accepted an invitation to appear at LONAC with Joel Komarek at their November meeting to discuss the water partnership. The other Councilors were invited to attend as well. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn hristie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Feb a 1 201 c D. Hoffma ayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 October 26, 2010