HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2010-11-16 PMLAKEosWEGO
AGENDA CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 380AAvenue
PO Box 369
hftm Tuesday, November 16, 2010 Lake Oswego, OR 97034
6:30 p.m. 503-675-3984
Council Chambers, 380 AAvenue 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.
Pape #
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PRESENTATIONS (10 minutes)
3.1 Photo Contest Winners
4. CONSENT AGENDA (5 minutes)
♦ The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require no
discussion.
♦ An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda.
♦ The City Council makes one motion covering all items included in the consent
agenda.
4.1 RESOLUTIONS
4.1.1 Resolution 10-67, authorizing a Local Agency Agreement with ODOT for the
Pilkington Pathway Safe Routes to School Project
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-67
4.1.2 Resolution 10-68, making appointments to the Budget Committee
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-68, appointing Joseph A. Vricelli and Christian Ramey to
the Budget Committee for terms ending August 31, 2013; and appointing Ron Smith
for the remainder of a term ending August 31, 2011
Jack Hoffman, Mayor ■ Roger Hennagin, Councilor ■ Dan Vizzini, Councilor
Donna Jordan, Councilor ■ Sally Moncrieff, Councilor ■ Mary Olson, Councilor ■ Bill Tierney, Councilor
Page 2
4.2 MINUTES
4.2.1 July 13, 2010, special meeting
4.2.2 September 7, 2010, regular meeting
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT (30 minutes)
The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present information or raise
an issue regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda items that do not
include a public hearing. A time limit of three minutes per citizen shall apply.
7. ORDINANCES (30 minutes)
7.1 Ordinance 2564, an ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego granting a
non-exclusive telecommunications services franchise to Electric
Lightwave, LLC
Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2564
8. STUDY SESSION (1 hour)
8.1 Natural Area Restoration and Maintenance
8.2 Natural Resource Education and Outreach Proposals
9 INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL (15 minutes)
This agenda item provides an opportunity for individual Councilors to provide
information to the Council on matters not otherwise on the agenda. Each
Councilor will be given five minutes.
9.1 Councilor Information
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS (15 minutes)
10.1 City Manager
Page 3
10.1.1 Review of Council Schedule
10.1.2 Review of Council Digest
10.2 City Attorney
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION, pursuant to ORS 192.660 (2) (e) to conduct deliberations with
persons designated to negotiate real property transactions
12 RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
13. ADJOURNMENT
CABLE VIEWERS: This meeting will be shown live on Channel 28, at 6:30 p.m. The
meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28:
Wednesday 7:30 p.m. Friday 2:30 a.m.
Thursday 7:00 a.m. Saturday 12:00 p.m.
Watch Council meetings live wherever you are via live streaming video at
mms://www.ci.oswego.or.us/live
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Erica Rooney, P.E., Assistant City Engineer `Jo—e
Engineering Division of the Public Works Department
y I.I
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
SUBJECT: Adopting a Resolution to Enter into an Agreement with ODOT and Clackamas County for the
Safe Routes to School Program for the installation of the Pilkington Pathway Project: Jean
Road to Dawn Street.
DATE: November 9, 2010
ACTION
Adopt Resolution 10-67, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council authorizing the Mayor to sign an
Agreement with the State Of Oregon and Clackamas County for a Safe Routes to School program
infrastructure project – Pilkington Pathway: Jean Road to Dawn Street.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
In May of 2008 Council adopted Resolution 08-43 supporting the Rosewood Neighborhood Association's
application for a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Agreement from the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) for pathway improvement on Pilkington Road.
Alta Planning was commissioned to conduct a feasibility study in 2008%2009. This determined the details of
what the project would look like. The City spent $29,670 on this effort. The results were used to complete
the formal application to ODOT.
In June of 2009 the City and Clackamas County co-sponsored an Engineering Application for the same
project. In April 2010 the City received notice from ODOT that the Safe Routes to School program had been
approved for Federal funding. The SRTS funds requested and approved were up to $495,000.
The FY10/11 Approved Budget and the FY 10/11 CIP both identify $35,000 in local funds to match the
efforts for the Safe Routes to School project on Pilkington to ensure staff time is covered prior to the
allocation of funds from ODOT. At this time, staff does not anticipate the overall costs will be in excess of
the anticipated $495,000 that was approved by ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration.
Page 2
DISCUSSION
The attached Local Agency Agreement between ODOT, Clackamas County, and the City of Lake Oswego is
an agreement between ODOT and local agencies to delineate responsibilities and reimbursement of funds,
if applicable. Once signed, ODOT will issue a Notice to Proceed for the engineering design to begin.
The City is responsible for awarding and managing the preliminary and final engineering contract to
develop construction plans and specifications. We have chosen to utilize ODOT On -Call Preliminary
Engineering, Design and Construction Engineering System to select and award a consultant contract.
ODOT, as the federal funding recipient, will solicit and award the construction contract. The City will be
responsible for any funds in excess of the total project amount and for any non -participating costs. The City
project manager is responsible for preliminary engineering and construction management oversight to
manage the overall costs of the project. The City is eligible to be reimbursed for staff management costs.
ODOT through the On -Call Preliminary Engineering, Design and Construction Engineering System, is
negotiating a contract with David Evans and Associates to perform the engineering and design of the
project. They are prepared to begin design work once the notice to proceed is issued, and should complete
designs and contract documents by June 2011. Construction is anticipated to begin in the Fall of 2011.
Per the Agreement, the City will be responsible to maintain the pathway improvements for a 20 -year
period after construction is completed. The City and ODOT are responsible for complying with the
Agreement requirements, including the financial reporting requirement.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
Not sign the agreement. This would result in the project being terminated with ODOT, and funds returned
to the Safe Routes to School Program. There currently are no other local funds available to do this project
with City resources.
Sign the agreement. The City will receive engineering and construction services for the installation of the
much needed and anticipated Pilkington Pathway Project. This will contribute to improved safety for
school children to access the River Grove Elementary School and Waluga Junior High School. At this time,
the City's financial impact is anticipated to be approximately $35,000 to cover staff costs prior to entering
into the Local Agency Agreement. This has been budgeted for in FY 10/11.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council approve Resolution 10-67 authorizing the Mayor to sign the Local
Agency Agreement with ODOT and Clackamas County, providing for City participation in the engineering
and construction for the Safe Routes to School Project on Pilkington Road.
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. Local Agency Agreement — Misc. Contracts and Agreements, No. 26728, Key No. 17148
Reviewed by:
i
Department Director
(if there is a financial impact)
ance DiV�—�
''�'if legal issues
( g )
City Attorn
Alex D. MCW
City Manager
RESOLUTION 10-67
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF OREGON AND CLACKAMAS COUNTY
FOR A SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT — PILKINGTON
PATHWAY: JEAN ROAD TO DAWN STREET.
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego desires to improve safe pedestrian access to schools; and
WHEREAS, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) administers the Safe Routes to
School funding program; and
WHEREAS, the Rosewood Neighborhood Association showed initiative by applying for the Safe
Routes to School program to address a need for pedestrian improvements on Pilkington
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego has consistently supported the Association's efforts,
including the City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 08-43 in support of the project, and the
City commissioned an preliminary analysis to determine a potential design; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego and Clackamas County co-sponsored the formal application
to ODOT to receive Safe Routes to School funding for the proposed improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Government has awarded up to $495,000 for the Safe Routes to School
project to be used for pedestrian improvements on Pilkington Avenue; and
WHEREAS, under the terms of the agreement, ODOT is a grant recipient of the Safe Routes to
Schools funding and the City is a subrecipient of the funding, and the expected costs for the
entire project is anticipated to be not more than $495,000; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego is responsible for developing plans and specifications for
the construction of the Pilkington Pathway, and will utilize ODOT's On -Call Preliminary
Engineering, Design and Construction Engineering Services system; and
WHEREAS, as required under the Federal terms of the agreement the State will prepare
contract and bidding documents, advertise for bid proposals and award the construction
contracts, and will be reimbursed for the construction costs under the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego agrees to maintain the improvements for the 20 year
period stipulated by the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive Safe Routes to School project support from ODOT, it is necessary
for the City of Lake Oswego to enter into a Local Agency Agreement with ODOT and Clackamas
County;
Resolution 10-67
Page 1 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that:
Section 1. The Mayor is authorized to sign a Local Agency Agreement with the Oregon
Department of Transportation and Clackamas County, in the form attached as Exhibit A, for a
Safe Routes to School program infrastructure project — Pilkington Pathway: Jean Road to Dawn
Street.
Section 2. This Resolution shall be effective upon passage
Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on
the 16th day of November, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APP VED AS TO FO R
David D. Powell, City Attorney
Resolution 10-67
Page 2 of 2
Misc. Contracts and Agreements
No. 26728
LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT
Pilkington Pathway: Jean Road to Dawn Street
City of Lake Oswego
Clackamas County
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON,
acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State";
and the CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter
referred to as "Agency"; and CLACKAMAS COUNTY, acting by and through its elected
officials, hereinafter referred to as "County"; herein referred to individually or collectively
as "Party" or "Parties."
RECITALS
By the authority granted in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 190.110, 366.572 and
366.576, State may enter into cooperative agreements with counties, cities and units
of local governments for the performance of work on certain types of improvement
projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the
contracting parties.
2. The Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Program is a federal -aid program of the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) through funding from the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Act (SAFETEA-LU).
State's SRTS program is administered by ODOT's Transportation Safety Division.
The "Infrastructure" portion of the program is managed by the Highway Division,
Local Government Section.
3. Under Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 737-025-0030 and 737-025-0040, State
may award SRTS Fund grants to school districts, qualifying schools, units of state
and local government, or private, non-profit organizations in partnership with any of
the above to perform education, engineering or enforcement projects or activities
that directly benefit a qualifying school.
4. The Lake Oswego School District schools to benefit under this Agreement are River
Grove Elementary and Waluga Junior High School.
5. Portions of Pilkington Road are under the Agency's jurisdiction and other portions
are under the County's jurisdiction (see Exhibit A).
Key No. 17148
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
6. Portions of McEwen Road are under the Agency's jurisdiction and other portions are
under the County's jurisdiction (see Exhibit A).
7. Jean Road is a part of the city street system under the jurisdiction and control of
Agency.
8. Dawn Street is a part of the county road system under the jurisdiction and control of
County.
NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing Recitals, it
is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows:
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
1. Under such authority, the Parties agree to construct a paved walkway along one side
of Pilkington Road between Jean Road and the school crossing at Dawn Street with
an extension along McEwan Road to River Grove Elementary School, hereinafter
referred to as "Project". Agency applied for this Project in June 2009 and was
approved funds from the SRTS Program on April 8, 2010. The application for the
Project is incorporated by reference. The location of the Project is approximately as
shown on the sketch map attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A," and by this reference
made a part hereof.
2. The Project shall be conducted as a part of the SRTS Grant Program under Title 23,
United States Code. The total Project cost is estimated at $495,000, which is subject
to change. The SRTS Funds are estimated at $495,000 with Agency providing any
funds in excess of the available SRTS funds, match amounts and any non-
participating costs. A cost estimate is shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this
reference made a part hereof.
3. Agency must obtain approval from State's SRTS Program Manager for any additional
SRTS Funds beyond the amount in Paragraph No. 2 above. State's SRTS Program
Manager may approve additional SRTS funds up to a total of $500,000. For additional
SRTS funds above $500,000 State's SRTS Program Manager must consult with
State's "Safe Route's Advisory Committee" and an amendment to this Agreement
must be executed reflecting any approved increase in funds.
4. The SRTS funding for the Project is contingent upon approval by the FHWA. Any
work performed prior to acceptance by FHWA will be considered nonparticipating and
paid for at Agency expense.
5. State considers Agency a subrecipient of the federal funds it receives as
2
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
reimbursement under this Agreement. The Catalog of Federal Domestic. Assistance
(CFDA) number and title for this Project is 20.205, Highway Planning and
Construction.
6. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date all required signatures are
obtained and shall terminate upon completion of the Project and final payment or ten
(10) calendar years following the date all required signatures are obtained, whichever
is sooner.
7. This Agreement shall also terminate if the funds for this Project are not obligated for
construction on or before September 30, 2012 which is twelve (12) months after the
target obligation date assigned by State.
8. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both Parties.
9. State may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to
Agency, or at such later date as may be established by State, under any of the
following conditions:
a. If Agency fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the
time specified herein or any extension thereof.
b. If Agency fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement,
or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this
Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written
notice from State fails to correct such failures within ten (10) days or
such longer period as State may authorize.
c. If Agency fails to provide payment of its share of the cost of the Project.
d. If State fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other
expenditure authority sufficient to allow State, in the exercise of its
reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for
performance of this Agreement.
e. If federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or
interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is
prohibited or if State is prohibited from paying for such work from the
planned funding source.
9
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
10. Upon termination of this Agreement, State may reassign any SRTS funds not yet
obligated for the Project and shall have no obligation to fund any remaining phases of
work through the SRTS program.
11. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued
to the Parties prior to termination.
12. The Special and Standard Provisions attached hereto, marked Attachments 1 and 2,
respectively, are by this reference made a part hereof. The Standard Provisions apply
to all federal -aid projects and may be modified only by the Special Provisions. The
Parties hereto mutually agree to the terms and conditions set forth in Attachments 1
and 2. In the event of a conflict, this Agreement shall control over the attachments, and
Attachment 1 shall control over Attachment 2.
13.Agency, as a recipient of federal funds, pursuant to this Agreement with the State,
shall assume sole liability for Agency's breach of any federal statutes, rules, program
requirements and grant provisions applicable to the federal funds, and shall, upon
Agency's breach of any such conditions that requires the State to return funds to the
Federal Highway Administration, hold harmless and indemnify the State for an amount
equal to the funds received under this Agreement; or if legal limitations apply to the
indemnification ability of Agency, the indemnification amount shall be the maximum
amount of funds available for expenditure, including any available contingency funds
or other available non -appropriated funds, up to the amount received under this
Agreement.
14. Agency certifies and represents that the individual(s) signing this Agreement has been
authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement on behalf of Agency, under the
direction or approval of its governing body, commission, board, officers, members or
representatives, and to legally bind Agency.
15. Agency agrees to comply with the conditions imposed by ORS 184.740 and 184.741,
and administrative rules under OAR Chapter 737, Division 25.
16. State and Agency hereto agree that if any term or provision of this Agreement is
declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, unenforceable, illegal or in
conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions shall not be
affected, and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be construed and enforced
as if the Agreement did not contain the particular term or provision held to be invalid.
Ell
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
17. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all of
which when taken together shall constitute one agreement binding on all Parties,
notwithstanding that all Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy
of this Agreement so executed shall constitute an original.
18. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the
Parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or
representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No
waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either
party unless in writing and signed by both Parties and all necessary approvals have
been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be
effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of
State to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by State
of that or any other provision.
19. State's Project Liaison for the Agreement is Tom Weatherford, Region 1 Local
Agency Liasion, 123 NW Flanders, Portland, OR 97209, (503) 731-8238,
thomas.l.weatherfordeodot.state. or. us, or assigned designee upon individual's
absence. State shall notify Agency's Project Liaison in writing of any contact
information changes during the term of this Agreement.
20. Agency's Project Liaison for this Agreement is Matthew Tipton, PE, Associate
Engineer, City of Lake Oswego, PO Box 369, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, (503) 534-
5680, mtipton fci.oswego.or.us, or assigned designee upon individual's absence.
Agency shall notify State's Project Liaison in writing of any contact information
changes during the term of this Agreement.
21. County's Project Liaison for this Agreement is Joe Marek, Traffic Engineering
- Supervisor, 150 Beavercreek Road, Oregon City, OR 97045, (503) 742-4705,
joeme.co.clackamas.or.us, or assigned designee upon individual's absence. County
shall notify State's Project Liaison in writing of any contact information changes
during the term of this Agreement.
THE PARTIES, by execution of this Agreement, hereby acknowledge that its signing
representatives have read this Agreement, understand it, and agree to be bound by its
terms and conditions.
This Project is in the 2008-2011 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, (Key
# 17148) that was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on November
14, 2007(or subsequently approved by amendment to the STIP).
5
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
The Oregon Transportation Commission on December 29, -J08, approved Delegation
Order No. 2, which authorizes the Director to approve and execute agreements for day-
to-day operations. Day-to-day operations include those activities required to implement
the biennial budget approved by the Legislature, including activities to execute a project
in the Statewide Transportation improvement Program.
On August 2, 2005, the Director approved Subdelegation Order No. 13 in which the
Oregon Transportation Commission approved intergovernmental agreements, grants
and personal services contracts for payments to state agencies, contractors, local
governments and other non-profit units for disbursement of state and federal funds on
safety programs. The Division Administrator will maintain a listing of all agreements and
grants and submit an annual report to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and the Oregon Transportation Commission.
Signature page to follow
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, by and through its :;lected
officials
By
Mayor
Date
By
City Recorder
Date
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
By
Deputy City Attorney
Date
CLACKAMAS COUNTY, by and through its elected
officials
By
Chair
Date
By
Recording Secretary
Date
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
By
County Counsel
Date
7
STATE OF OREGON, by and through
its Department of Transportation
By
Division Administrator, Transportation Safety Division
Date
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED
By
Safe Routes to School Coordinator, Local Government
Section
Date
By
Region 1 Manager
Date
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
By
Assistant Attorney General
Date
Agency Contact:
Matthew Tipton, PE, Associate Engineer
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
(503)534-5680
mtioton(a).ci. osweoo. or. us
County Contact:
Joe Marek, Traffic Engineering Supervisor
150 Beavercreek Road
Oregon City, OR 97045
(503) 742-4705
o�fcDco.clackamas.or.us
State Contact:
Tom Weatherford, Region 1 Local Agency Liasion
Flanders Building
123 NW Flanders Street
Portland, OR 97209
(503)731-8238
thomas.I.weatherford5odot.state. or. us
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
EXHIBIT A — Project Location Map
Cit7
8 Agency/blue shaded areas
County/non-shaded areas
Agency/County/State EXHIBIT B
Agreement No. 26728 PROJECT COST ESTIMATE.
Safe Routes to School — Pilkington Pathway: Jean Road to Dawn Street (Lake Oswego)
Preliminary Engineering $ 55,000
Utility Reimbursement $ 5,000
Construction $ 435.000
Total $ 495,000
AWARD AMOUNT = $495,000
M
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
ATTACHMENT NO. 1 to Agreement No. 26728
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
1. Agency, or its consultant, shall conduct the necessary preliminary engineering and
design work required to produce final plans, specifications and cost estimates;
purchase all necessary right of way; obtain all required permits; arrange for all utility
relocations or reconstruction; perform all construction engineering, including all
required materials testing and quality documentation; and prepare necessary
documentation to allow State to make all contractor payments.
2. Agency guarantees the availability of Agency funding in an amount required to fully
fund Agency's share of the Project. Prior to award of the contract, Agency shall
provide State its share of the Project cost upon receipt of request from State. The
Project cost is defined as the Engineer's estimate plus 10 percent.
3. State may make available Region 1's On -Call Preliminary Engineering (PE), Design
and Construction Engineering Services consultant for Local Agency Projects upon
written request. If Agency chooses to use said services, Agency agrees to manage
the work done by the Consultant and reimburse State for payment of any Consultant
costs that are not eligible as federal participating costs or that are not included as part
of the total cost of the Project.
4. Agency shall, at its own expense, maintain and operate the Project upon completion
and throughout the useful life of the Project at a minimum level that is consistent with
normal depreciation and/or service demand. State and Agency agree that the useful
life of this Project is defined as twenty (20) calendar years. State may conduct
periodic inspections during the life of the Project to verify that Project is properly
maintained and continues to serve the purpose for which federal funds were provided.
Maintenance and power responsibilities shall survive any termination of this
Agreement.
5. Parties grant State the right to enter onto Agency and County right of way for the
performance of duties as set forth in this Agreement.
6. If Agency fails to meet the requirements of this Agreement or the underlying federal
regulations, State may withhold the Agency's proportional share of Highway Fund
distribution necessary to reimburse State for costs incurred by such Agency breach.
Agency will be ineligible to receive or apply for any Title 23, United States Code funds
until State receives full reimbursement of the costs incurred.
10
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
ATTACHMENT NC. 2
FEDERAL STANDARD PROVISIONS
JOINT OBLIGATIONS
PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
State (ODOT) is acting to fulfill its responsibility to the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) by the administration of this Project, and Agency (i.e. county, city, unit of local
government, or other state agency) hereby agrees that State shall have full authority to carry
out this administration. If requested by Agency or if deemed necessary by State in order to
meet its obligations to FHWA, State will further act for Agency in other matters pertaining to
the Project. Agency shall, if necessary, appoint and direct the activities of a Citizen's Advisory
Committee and/or Technical Advisory Committee, conduct a hearing and recommend the
preferred alternative. State and Agency shall each assign a liaison person to coordinate
activities and assure that the interests of both parties are considered during all phases of the
Project.
2. Any project that uses federal funds in project development is subject to plans, specifications
and estimates (PS&E) review and approval by FHWA or State acting on behalf of FHWA prior
to advertisement for bid proposals, regardless of the source of funding for construction.
PRELIMINARY & CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
3. State, Agency, or others may perform preliminary and construction engineering. If Agency or
others perform the engineering, State will monitor the work for conformance with FHWA rules
and regulations. In the event that Agency elects to engage the services of a personal services
consultant to perform any work covered by this Agreement, Agency and Consultant shall
enter into a State reviewed and approved personal services contract process and resulting
contract document. State must concur in the contract prior to beginning any work. State's
personal services contracting process and resulting contract document will follow Title 23
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 172, Title 49 CFR 18, ORS 279A.055, the current State
Administrative Rules and State Personal Services Contracting Procedures as approved by
the FHWA. Such personal services contract(s) shall contain a description of the work to be
performed, a project schedule, and the method of payment. Subcontracts shall contain all
required provisions of Agency as outlined in the Agreement. No reimbursement shall be made
using federal -aid funds for any costs incurred by Agency or its consultant prior to receiving
authorization from State to proceed. Any amendments to such contract(s) also require State's
approval.
4. On all construction projects where State is the signatory party to the contract, and where
Agency is doing the construction engineering and project management, Agency, subject to
any limitations imposed by state law and the Oregon Constitution, agrees to accept all
responsibility, defend lawsuits, indemnify and hold State harmless, for all tort claims, contract
STDPRO-2010.doc
Rev. 02-05-2010
11
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
claims, or any other lawsuit arising out of the contractor's work or Agency's supervision of the
project.
REQUIRED S' ATEMENT FOR UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (USDOT) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT
If as a condition of assistance, Agency has submitted and the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) has approved a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Affirmative
Action Program which Agency agrees to carry out, this affirmative action program is
incorporated into the financial assistance agreement by reference. That program shall be
treated as a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of
the financial assistance agreement. Upon notification from USDOT to Agency of its failure to
carry out the approved program, USDOT shall impose such sanctions as noted in Title 49.
CFR, Part 26, which sanctions may include termination of the agreement or other measures
that may affect the ability of Agency to obtain future USDOT financial assistance.
6. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Obligations. State and its contractor agree to
ensure that DBE as defined in Title 49, CFR. Part 26, have the opportunity to participate in
the performance of contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in part with federal funds.
In this regard, Agency shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with Title
49, CFR, Part 26, to ensure that DBE have the opportunity to compete for and perform
contracts. Neither State nor Agency and its contractors shall discriminate on the basis of race,
color, national origin or sex in the award and performance of federally -assisted contracts.
Agency shall carry out applicable requirements of Title 49, CFR, Part 26, in the award and
administration of such contracts. Failure by Agency to carry out these requirements is a
material breach of this Agreement, which may result in the termination of this contract or such
other remedy as State deems appropriate.
7. The DBE Policy Statement and Obligations shall be included in all subcontracts entered into
under this Agreement.
8. Agency agrees to comply with all applicable civil rights laws, rules and regulations, including
Title V and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (ADA), and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The parties hereto agree and understand that they will comply with all applicable federal,
state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work
including, but not limited to, the provisions of ORS 279C.505, 279C.515. 279C.520. 279C.530
and 279B.270. incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof: Title 23 CFR Parts
1.11. 140 710. and 771 • Title 49 CFR Parts 18. 24 and 26: 2 CFR 225. and OMB
CIRCULAR NO A-133 Title 23 USC Federal -Aid Highway Act: Title 41, Chapter 1, USC 51-
58 Anti -Kickback Act: Title 42 USC: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policy Act of 1970 as amended and provisions of Federal -Aid Policy Guide
FAPG .
STDPRO-2010.doc
Rev. 02-05-2010
12
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
STATE OBLIGATIONS
PROJECT FUNDING REQUEST
10. State shall submit a Project funding request to FHWA with a request for approval of federal -
aid participation in all engineering, right-of-way acquisition, eligible utility relocations and/or
construction work for the Project. No work shall proceed on any activity in which
federal -aid participation is desired until such approval has been obtained. The program
shall include services to be provided by State, Agency, or others. State shall notify Agency in
writing when authorization to proceed has been received from FHWA. Major responsibility for
the various phases of the Project will be as outlined in the Special Provisions. All work and
records of such work shall be in conformance with FHWA rules and regulations.
FINANCE
11. State shall, in the first instance, pay all reimbursable costs of the Project, submit all claims for
federal -aid participation to FHWA in the normal manner and compile accurate cost accounting
records. Agency may request a statement of costs to date at any time by submitting a written
request. When the actual total cost of the Project has been computed, State shall furnish
Agency with an itemized statement of final costs. Agency shall pay an amount which, when
added to said advance deposit and federal reimbursement payment, will equal 100 percent of
the final total actual cost. Any portion of deposits made in excess of the final total costs of
Project, minus federal reimbursement, shall be released to Agency. The actual cost of
services provided by State will be charged to the Project expenditure account(s) and will be
included in the total cost of the Project.
12. If federal funds are used, State will specify the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) number in the Agreement. State will also determine and clearly state in the
Agreement if recipient is a subrecipient or vendor, using criteria in Circular A-133.
PROJECT ACTIVITIES
13. State shall, if the preliminary engineering work is performed by Agency or others, review and
process or approve all environmental statements, preliminary and final plans, specifications
and cost estimates. State shall, if they prepare these documents, offer Agency the opportunity
to review and approve the documents prior to advertising for bids.
14. The party responsible for performing preliminary engineering for the Project shall, as part of
its preliminary engineering costs, obtain all Project related permits necessary for the
construction of said Project. Said permits shall include, but are not limited to, access, utility,
environmental, construction, and approach permits. All pre -construction permits will be
obtained prior to advertisement for construction.
15. State shall prepare contract and bidding documents, advertise for bid proposals, and award
all contracts.
S i DPRO-2010.doc
Rev. 02-05-2010
13
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
16. Upon State's award of a construction contract, State shall perform independent assurance
testing in accordance with State -! d FHWA Standards, process and pay all contractor
progress estimates, check final quar"ities and costs, and oversee and provide intermittent
inspection services during the construction phase of the Project.
17. State shall, as a Project expense, assign a liaison person to provide Project monitoring as
needed throughout all phases of Project activities (preliminary engineering, right-of-way
acquisition, and construction). The liaison shall process reimbursement for federal
participation costs.
RIGHT OF WAY
18. State is responsible for proper acquisition of the necessary right of way and easements for
construction and maintenance of the Project. Agency may perform acquisition of the
necessary right of way and easements for construction and maintenance of the Project,
provided Agency (or Agency's consultant) are qualified to do such work as required by the
State's Right of Way Manual and have obtained prior approval from State's Region Right of
Way office to do such work.
19. Regardless of who acquires or performs any of the right of way activities, a right of way
services agreement shall be created by State's Region Right of Way office setting forth the
responsibilities and activities to be accomplished by each party. State shall always be
responsible for requesting project funding, coordinating certification of the right of way, and
providing oversight and monitoring. Funding authorization requests for federal right of way
funds must be sent through the State's Region Right of Way offices on all projects. All
projects must have right of way certification coordinated through State's Region Right of Way
offices (even for projects where no federal funds were used for right of way, but federal funds
were used elsewhere on the Project). Agency should contact the State's Region Right of Way
office for additional information or clarification.
20. State shall review all right of way activities engaged in by Agency to assure compliance with
applicable laws and regulations. Agency agrees that right of way activities shall be in accord
with the Uniform Relocation Assistance & Real Property Acquisition _Policies Act of 1970, as
amended, ORS Chapter 35, FHWA Federal -Aid Policy Guide, State's Right of Way Manual
and the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 710 and Title 49, Part 24.
21. If any real property purchased with federal -aid participation is no longer needed for the
originally authorized purpose, the disposition of such property shall be subject to applicable
rules and regulations, which are in effect at the time of disposition. Reimbursement to State
and FHWA of the required proportionate shares of the fair market value may be required.
22. Agency insures that all Project right of way monumentation will be conducted in conformance
with ORS 209.155.
23. State and Agency grants each other authority to enter onto the other's right of way for the
performance of the Project.
STDPRO-2010.doc
Rev. 02-05-2010
14
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
AGENCY OBLIGATIONS
FINANCE
24. Federal funds shall be applied toward Project costs at the current federal -aid matching ratio,
unless otherwise agreed and allowable by law. Agency shall be responsible for the entire
match amount, unless otherwise agreed to and specified in the intergovernmental agreement.
25. Agency's estimated share and advance deposit.
a) Agency shall, prior to commencement of the preliminary engineering and/or
right of way acquisition phases, deposit with State its estimated share of each
phase. Exception may be made in the case of projects where Agency has
written approval from State to use in-kind contributions rather than cash to
satisfy all or part of the matching funds requirement.
b) Agency's construction phase deposit shall be 110 percent of Agency's share of
the engineer's estimate and shall be received prior to award of the construction
contract. Any additional balance of the deposit, based on the actual bid must
be received within forty-five (45) days of receipt of written notification by State
of the final amount due, unless the contract is canceled. Any unnecessary
balance of a cash deposit, based on the actual bid, will be refunded within
forty-five (45) days of receipt by State of the Project sponsor's written request.
c) Pursuant to ORS 366.425, the advance deposit may be in the form of
1) money deposited in the State Treasury (an option where a deposit is made
in the Local Government Investment Pool, and an Irrevocable Limited Power of
Attorney is sent to the Highway Finance Office), or 2) an Irrevocable Letter of
Credit issued by a local bank in the name of State, or 3) cash.
d) Agency may satisfy all or part of any matching funds requirements by use of in-
kind contributions rather than cash when prior written approval has been given
by State.
26. If the estimated cost exceeds the total matched federal funds available, Agency shall deposit
its share of the required matching funds, plus 100 percent of all costs in excess of the total
matched federal funds. Agency shall also pay 100 percent of the cost of any item in which
FHWA will not participate. If Agency has not repaid any non -participating cost, future
allocations of federal funds, or allocations of State Highway Trust Funds, to that Agency may
be withheld to pay the non -participating costs. If State approves processes, procedures, or
contract administration outside the Local Agency Guidelines that result in items being
declared non -participating, those items will not result in the withholding of Agency's future
allocations of federal funds or the future allocations of State Highway Trust Funds.
27. Costs incurred by State and Agency for services performed in connection with any phase of
the Project shall be charged to the Project, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon.
STDPRO-2010.doc
Rev. 02-05-2010
15
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
28. If Agency makes a written request for the cancel'ation of a federal -aid project; Agency shall
bear 100 percent of all costs as of the date of cat t::ellation. If State was the sole cause of the
cancellation, State shall bear 100 percent of all ,;osts incurred. If it is determined that the
cancellation was caused by third parties or ciruimstances beyond the control of State or
Agency, Agency shall bear all development costs, whether incurred by State or Agency, either
directly or through contract services, and State shall bear any State administrative costs
incurred. After settlement of payments, State shall deliver surveys, maps, field notes, and all
other data to Agency.
29. Agency shall follow requirements of the Single Audit Act. The requirements stated in the
Single Audit Act must be followed by those local governments and non-profit organizations
receiving $500,000 or more in federal funds. The Single Audit Act of 1984, PL 98-502 as
amended by PL 104-156, described in "OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-133", requires local
governments and non-profit organizations to obtain an audit that includes internal controls
and compliance with federal laws and regulations of all federally -funded programs in which
the local agency participates. The cost of this audit can be partially prorated to the federal
program.
30. Agency shall make additional deposits, as needed, upon request from State. Requests for
additional deposits shall be accompanied by an itemized statement of expenditures and an
estimated cost to complete the Project.
31. Agency shall present invoices for 100 percent of actual costs incurred by Agency on behalf of
the Project directly to State's Liaison Person for review and approval. Such invoices shall
identify the Project and Agreement number, and shall itemize and explain all expenses for
which reimbursement is claimed. Billings shall be presented for periods of not less than one-
month duration, based on actual expenses to date. All billings received from Agency must be
approved by State's Liaison Person prior to payment. Agency's actual costs eligible for
federal -aid or State participation shall be those allowable under the provisions of Title 23 CFR
Parts 1.111 140 and 710, Final billings shall be submitted to State for processing within three
(3) months from the end of each funding phase as follows: 1) award date of a construction
contract for preliminary engineering (PE) 2) last payment for right of way acquisition and 3)
third notification for construction. Partial billing (progress payment) shall be submitted to State
within three (3) months from date that costs are incurred. Final billings submitted after the
three months shall not be eligible for reimbursement.
32. The cost records and accounts pertaining to work covered by this Agreement are to be kept
available for inspection by representatives of State and FHWA for a period of six (6) years
following the date of final voucher to FHWA. Copies of such records and accounts shall be
made available upon request. For real property and equipment, the retention period starts
from the date of disposition (Title 49 CFR 18.42).
33. State shall request reimbursement, and Agency agrees to reimburse State, for federal -aid
funds distributed to Agency if any of the following events occur:
a) Right of way acquisition or actual construction of the facility for which
preliminary engineering is undertaken is not started by the close of the tenth
STDPRO-2010.doc
Rev. 02-05-2010
16
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the federal -aid funds were
authorized;
b) Right of way acquisition is undertaken utilizing federal -aid funds and actual
construction is not started by the close of the twentieth fiscal year following the
fiscal year in which the federal -aid funds were authorized for right of way
acquisition.
c) Construction proceeds after the Project is determined to be ineligible for
federal -aid funding (e.g., no environmental approval, lacking permits, or other
reasons).
34. Agency shall maintain all Project documentation in keeping with State and FHWA standards
and specifications. This shall include, but is not limited to, daily work records, quantity
documentation, material invoices and quality documentation, certificates of origin, process
control records, test results, and inspection records to ensure that projects are completed in
conformance with approved plans and specifications.
RAILROADS
35. Agency shall follow State established policy and procedures when impacts occur on railroad
property. The policy and procedures are available through State's appropriate Region contact
or State's Railroad Liaison. Only those costs allowable under Title 23 CFR Part 646, subpart
B and Title 23 CFR Part 140, subpart I, shall be included in the total Project costs; all other
costs associated with railroad work will be at the sole expense of Agency, or others. Agency
may request State, in writing, to provide railroad coordination and negotiations. However,
State is under no obligation to agree to perform said duties.
UTILITIES
36. Agency shall follow State established Statutes, Policies and Procedures when impacts occur
to privately or publicly -owned utilities. Only those utility relocations, which are eligible for
federal -aid participation under, the FAPG, Title 23 CFR 645A, Subpart A and B, shall be
included in the total Project costs; all other utility relocations shall be at the sole expense of
Agency, or others. State will arrange for utility relocations/adjustments in areas lying within
jurisdiction of State, if State is performing the preliminary engineering. Agency may request
State in writing to arrange for utility relocations/adjustments lying within Agency jurisdiction,
acting on behalf of Agency. This request must be submitted no later than twenty-one (21)
weeks prior to bid let date. However, State is under no obligation to agree to perform said
duties.
37. The State utility relocation policy, procedures and forms are available through the appropriate
State's Region Utility Specialist or State Utility Liaison. Agency shall provide copies of all
signed utility notifications, agreements and Utility Certification to the State Utility Liaison.
STDPRO-2010.doc
Rev. 02-05-2010
17
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
STANDARDS
38. Agency agrees that design standards for all projects on the National Highway System (NHS)
and the Oregon State Highway System shall be in compliance to standards specified in the
current "State Highway Design Manual" and related references. Construction plans shall be in
conformance with standard practices of State for plans prepared by its own staff. All
specifications for the Project shall be in substantial compliance with the most current "Oregon
Standard Specifications for Highway Construction".
39. Agency agrees that minimum design standards for non -NHS projects shall be recommended
AASHTO Standards and in accordance with the current "Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan", unless otherwise requested by Agency and approved by State.
40. Agency agrees and will verify that the installation of traffic control devices shall meet the
warrants prescribed in the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Oregon
Supplements".
41. All plans and specifications shall be developed in general conformance with the current
"Contract Plans Development Guide" and the current "Oregon Standard Specifications for
Highway Construction" and/or guidelines provided.
42. The standard unit of measurement for all aspects of the Project shall be English Units. All
Project documents and products shall be in English. This includes, but is not limited to, right
of way, environmental documents, plans and specifications, and utilities.
GRADE CHANGE LIABILITY
43. Agency, if a County, acknowledges the effect and scope of ORS 105.755 and agrees that all
acts necessary to complete construction of the Project which may alter or change the grade of
existing county roads are being accomplished at the direct request of the County.
44. Agency, if a City, hereby accepts responsibility for all claims for damages from grade
changes. Approval of pians by State shall not subject State to liability under ORS 105.760 for
change of grade.
45. Agency, if a City, by execution of Agreement, gives its consent as required by ORS 373.030(2)
to any and all changes of grade within the City limits, and gives its consent as required by
ORS 373.050(1) to any and all closure of streets intersecting the highway, if any there be in
connection with or arising out of the project covered by the Agreement.
CONTRACTOR CLAIMS
46. Agency shall, to the extent permitted by state law, indemnify, hold harmless and provide legal
defense for State against all claims brought by the contractor, or others resulting from
Agency's failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement.
STDPRO-2010.doc
Rev. 02-05-2010
18
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
47. Notwithstanding the foregoing defense obligations under Paragraph 46, neither iAgency nor
any attorney engaged by Agency shall defend any claim in the name of the StaT;; of Oregon
or any agency of the State of Oregon, nor purport to act as legal representative c; the State of
Oregon or any of its agencies, without the prior written consent of the Oregon Attorney
General. The State of Oregon may, at anytime at its election assume its own defense and
settlement in the event that it determines that Agency is prohibited from defending the State
of Oregon, or that Agency is not adequately defending the State of Oregon's interests, or that
an important governmental principle is at issue or that it is in the best interests of the State of
Oregon to do so. The State of Oregon reserves all rights to pursue any claims it may have
against Agency if the State of Oregon elects to assume its own defense.
MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
48. Agency shall, upon completion of construction, thereafter maintain and operate the Project at
its own cost and expense, and in a manner satisfactory to State and FHWA.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE
49. All employers, including Agency that employ subject workers who work under this Agreement
in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the required Workers'
Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. Agency
shall ensure that each of its contractors complies with these requirements.
LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS
50. Agency certifies by signing the Agreement that:
a) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf
of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or
employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in
connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal
grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative
agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or
modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
b) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be
paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or
employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in
connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement,
the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to
Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.
c) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included
in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, and
STDPRO-2010.doc
Rev. 02-05-2010
W
Agency/County/State
Agreement No. 26728
contracts and subcontracts under grants, subgrants, loans, and cooperative
agreements) which exceed $100,000, and that all such subrecipients shall
certify and disclose accordingly.
d) This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was
placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this
certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction
imposed by Title 31, USC Section 1352.
e) Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil
penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such
failure.
Paragraphs 36, 37, and 48 are not applicable to any local agency on state highway projects.
STDPRO-2010.doc
Rev. 02-05-2010
20
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder
SUBJECT: Budget Committee Appointment
DATE: November 9, 2010
ACTION
Adopt Resolution 10-68, appointing members of the Budget Committee.
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
3 80 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The City Council Interview Committee, consisting of Councilors Moncrieff and Tierney, and Kent
Studebaker, Budget Committee member, met on November 3, 2010, to interview candidates for the Budget
Committee. It was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Joseph A. Vricelli and
Christian Ramey be appointed to the Budget Committee for terms ending August 31, 2013; that Ron Smith
be appointed to the Budget Committee for the remainder of a term ending August 31, 2011 to fill the
upcoming vacancy that will be created by the election of Jeff Gudman to the City Council, and that David
Berg be appointed as alternate to the Budget Committee should there be a vacancy through July 31, 2011.
ATTACH M E NTS
Resolution No. 10-68
Reviewed by:
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
RESOLUTION 10-68
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO APPOINTING MEMBERS
TO THE BUDGET COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, a City Council Interview Committee, consisting of Councilors Moncrieff and Tierney,
and Kent Studebaker, Budget Committee member, met on November 3, 2010, to interview
candidates for the Budget Committee; and
WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Joseph A.
Vricelli and Christian Ramey be appointed to the Budget Committee for terms ending August
31, 2013; and that David Berg be appointed as alternate to the Budget Committee should there
be a vacancy through July 31, 2011; and
WHEREAS, a current member of the Budget Committee, Jeff Gudman, was elected to the City
Council on November 2, 2010, thereby creating a vacancy on the Budget Committee, and
WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Ron Smith be
appointed to the Budget Committee for the remainder of a term ending August 31, 2011 to fill
the upcoming vacancy that will be created by the election of Jeff Gudman to the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego appoints
Joseph A. Vricelii and Christian Ramey to the Budget Committee for three-year terms ending
August 31, 2013; appoints Ron Smith to fill the upcoming vacancy on the Budget Committee,
for the remainder of a term ending August 31, 2011; and appoints David Berg as alternate on
the Budget Committee should there be a vacancy through July 31, 2011.
This resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular meeting held
on the 16th day of November, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
`ALD
APP ED ASQR
O
David Powell, City Attorney
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: Approval of Meeting Minutes
DATE: November 9, 2010
ACTION
Approve minutes as written.
ATTACHMENTS
• July 13, 2010, special meeting
• September 7, 2010, regular meeting
Reviewed by:
Alex D. Mclntyr
City Manager
Z-/. 7 ---
CITY
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
�a CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
C.,..-.,. A"I'M10 MINUTES
LAO
JULY 13, 2010
Mayor Jack D. Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. on July
13, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Council President Johnson, Councilors Hennagin, Olson,
Moncrieff, Tierney, and Jordan.
Staff Present: David Donaldson, Assistant City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney;
Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner; Kim Gilmer, Parks &
Recreation Director; Ursula Euler, Finance Director: Brant Williams; Economic Development
Director
Youth Council: None present
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Comprehensive Plan Video
Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner, presented the three-minute video, created to get the
public excited and involved in the Comprehensive Plan project. Mayor Hoffman and Councilor
Moncrieff were featured in the video. This video would be posted to the project web site, which
would be launching Saturday for the Centennial Festival. She encouraged everyone to stop by
their booth located in the Futures or Sustainability pavilion. Tee shirts, buttons, and surveys would
be available to help the visitors learn more and participate in the process. Kevin D' Haeze did a
great job creating the video; she appreciated his help and noted that he also did the Centennial
video. She shared that follow up videos may be created to record the project's process.
3.2 Park Naming Process for Lakefront Park
Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director, stated a name was needed for the new park at the
former US Bank site, currently referred to as Lakefront Park. Earlier this year, the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) recommended a community competition, which was last done
when Foothills City Park was named. It worked by having the community submit names, a panel
selected the name, and recommended it to the Council. PRAB was recommending the same
process for Lakefront Park; however, before initiating the process, staff was requesting feedback to
see if the Council was comfortable with that type of process or had other suggestions. She heard
the Council might already have a name or process to propose.
Councilor Jordan offered that she had a name, but did not care which name was selected;
however, she did not believe it was appropriate to call the park Lakefront Park.
Ms. Gilmer clarified for Councilor Hennagin that the fountain area was considered Millennium
Plaza, but agreed that both the park and fountain area should have the same name if connected.
That was why naming this park was a dilemma; it was not an isolated park that would stand on its
own indefinitely if those areas were connected. The question was whether the area should be
called part of Millennium Plaza, and a renaming process was needed, or should it be called
something related. The criteria set could be that the name must relate to Millennium Plaza. Staff
could determine some parameters and return to Council in September. However, Council's
guidance would be helpful to get the process on the right track.
Councilor Jordan suggested describing the unnamed park as eventually being a section of
Millennium Park and the community would be naming that section. That portion would be
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 19
July 13, 2010
separated for a while and needed to have a name or it would get lost since the development of the
rest of that area was uncertain.
Councilor Hennagin disagreed. He was not sure it needed a separate name, even if it was not
connected considering its proximity to the rest of the park.
Councilor Johnson supported having a separate name, since it was a different area and could be
used for anything. People would park up at Millennium Plaza and not know where to go. Hazelia
Field at Luscher Farm, had its own name so she believed it should be given a name.
There being no further discussion or comment, Ms. Gilmer said she had enough guidance to move
forward and would return in September with a proposal based on the Council's suggestions.
The City Council briefly discussed upcoming meeting agenda items.
3.3 Review Proposed Updates to the City's Financial Management Policies
Ursula Euler, Finance Director, presented two minor changes in financial management policies,
emphasizing it was not an overhaul of all the financial policies. She gave attention only to those
items needing top priority. An overall financial policy review was expected in a few months. The
last update was almost 8 -years ago. The first change or update was to make it official that new
contingency and fund balance percents were in place. These were included in the budget process
for fiscal year 2009, but were never officially made as a Financial Management Policy. The second
change regarded the debt section, where language was being added as requested by the Bond
Council, in anticipation of bond issues that would be presented to the Council later this month. This
change would set the stage to be explicit about an option the City has always had, but the policies
were simply silent on that subject. Cities like Lake Oswego and others could use their full faith and
credit for bond issues for utilities, if they desired. This update would assist bond agencies when
they came and rated the City of Lake Oswego.
Ms. Euler confirmed for Councilor Olson that the full faith and credit was used for the previous
sewer bond issue. As noted, the City had always been able to do so, using full faith and credit was
very common.
Councilor Olson noted the new wording presented in Item 4 of Exhibit A seemed different than
the wording used in the cover memorandum. Ms. Euler explained several people were making
modifications. The ending language that was desired was that the utility made that service
payments from its own revenue sources. Councilor Olson indicated that the first sentence stated,
"General Obligation debt would not be used for self-supporting enterprise funds" but the
memorandum stated, "General Obligation debt would not be used to fund activity of self-supporting
enterprise funds." She asked if there was a reason for the difference between the two statements,
or if was it due to a legal issue. Ms. Euler clarified it was not a legal issue and that the final
language should refer to the enterprise funds, not the activity. Councilor Olson confirmed with
Ms. Euler that the wording in the policy should be used.
Ms. Euler explained for Mayor Hoffman that Exhibit B was the old language. Staff considered red
lining, but the amount of red lining required would have made it more confusing because items
were summarized, especially for the contingency and fund balance percent. The old version was
provided as Exhibit B, and the new policy language was Exhibit A. Mayor Hoffman stated that he
preferred red lining and strike -through documents in the future. Councilor Hennagin said he did
not like red lining, which he found confusing. He preferred using the Exhibit A and B method as
presented.
Ms. Christie stated the Proposed Updates to the City's Financial Management Policies would be
back on the July 20 Consent Agenda.
Council Schedule
The Council discussed the City Council schedule.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 19
July 13, 2010
Mayor Hoffman reviewed the agenda for July 20, noting the request for annexation and Foothills
Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) would be moved, and the other items would be short, except for
the Distinguished Service Award for Councilor Johnson. Ms. Christie stated the Sustainability
Update would also be postponed, and the Distinguished Service Award could be presented on July
20 or 27.
Mayor Hoffman noted the LOIS Bond Sale overview was scheduled for July 27. It was an
important issue because it was the second round of bonds. The Policy on Media in Executive
Sessions might be moved. Councilor applicant interviews were also scheduled for July 27 at 4 p.m.
depending upon how many applicants applied.
Ms. Christie said there were three applicants for Councilor interviews. A couple applicants
requested alternate interview dates or times. With applicant process being scheduled on such a
short notice, some applicants already had appointments scheduled.
Mayor Hoffman stated it would be difficult for an alternate interview schedule, but not impossible.
The Councilors discussed having alternative interviews perhaps at 4 p.m. or 5 p.m. on July 20,
prior to the regular meeting. With such full agendas, fighting fatigue would be a challenge, but it
might work if only one or two individuals were interviewed.
Mayor Hoffman noted that the appointment to the City Council vacancy was tentively scheduled
on August 3 with Council's next session not being until September 7. Everyone would be kept
informed regarding the number of applicants, and then scheduling the applicant interviews would
be addressed accordingly.
Mayor Hoffman continued reviewing the August 3 Regular Meeting agenda. He asked Mr. Powell
to discuss the Adoption of Findings for Code Amendment scheduled on the August 3 agenda.
Mr. Powell explained that the Council had adopted the amended Section 2, which was
recommended by the Lake Corporation. He understood that since that adoption, several
Councilors would be interested in being less restrictive or applying what was called Residential
Infill Design (RID) process to those restrictions up to the cap proposed by Staff at the Planning
Commission. The RID process already applied to those properties in residential zones, except
there was no cap. With regard to water dependent structures, boathouses, etc., the RID process
would be hard to qualify for. He was trying to determine if the Councilors intended another type of
exception process or an easier RID process when on the lake than currently existed.
Rather than returning with ordinance language, staff could discuss these questions and ideas with
Council to help develop ordinance language in time for the August 3 meeting. The lake residents
were eager to have the language in place by the time of the lake drawdown. Staff was running into
issues and was unsure what the Council wanted. Council could consider applying a RID process, a
capped RID process, or a RID light around the lake, or decide to continue with their original
tentative decision.
Mayor Hoffman stated the Council was motivated to help the property owners because the lake
was going to be drained. Theoretically, a brief meeting could be held for an hour between August 3
and September 7 to resolve the issue. The intent was to try to accommodate the Lake Corporation
and residents to complete work during the drawdown.
Councilor Hennagin stated if they did anything different than they already had, Council would not
be accommodating the Lake Corporation and property owners, because they adopted their
request. In addition, it would take awhile for the lake to be drawn down. It was hard to foresee a
lake owner's construction project that included the accessory buildings taking more than the 6
months. He was not sure the amendment needed to be rushed through by August.
Mr. Powell agreed, but he had heard some owners wanted to do some preliminary work prior to
the water being down. A few had also expressed that finding contractors, bidding, etc, might also
cause problems. Council Olson stated some individuals were struggling with design issues,
because they did not know what the height and size limitations were. Lake owners were trying to
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 19
July 13, 2010
get designs and bids so that they were ready when the water did go down, so she believed that
was the urgency. She would be available to meet on August 2 or 4.
Councilor Tierney commented that this resolution was a result of trying to create something in a
restricted amount of time, rather than taking the time needed to resolve it; he was willing to have
an additional meeting in August to address such issues of importance.
Mr. Powell stated the ordinance the Council decided to adopt must be on file in its final form at
least a week before adoption. Staff would schedule appropriately.
Councilor Jordan said that it seemed like people did not understand there would be a RID
process that would apply to what they were doing. She was not sure they needed to spend more
time creating new things.
Mayor Hoffman suggested staff could work with the Lake Corporation Board and the affected
members to develop language that they all could agree upon and bring it back to the Council, as
opposed to trying to write language when it was a staff and landowner issue.
Mr. Powell confirmed staff could work with the Lake Corporation Board, however, he understood
the Lake Corporation did like what Council had already adopted.
Councilor Jordan believed the concern was that property owners around the lake were not
notified. The recommendation moved rather quickly from staff to the Planning Commission, to
make sure it was done in time, for those who wanted to do work when the lake was down. There
had not been notification for many people.
Council discussed that the Planning Commission had the proposal as part of a large housekeeping
package for almost two years but the Commission sped up the process. The package was divided
into major and minor topics, and this proposal did get some attention because it was a policy
matter, not just a simple housekeeping item.
Councilor Olson commented that the proposal was done quickly with little community knowledge
or participation. She was not sure everyone was aware of the RID process, or that Council needed
to change it now, since there was a RID. Ultimately, the Lake Corporation was the final arbiter on
whatever was done around the lake.
Mr. Powell emphasized it was difficult to get RID approval for a boathouse. While the Lake
Corporation was the final arbiter if it was on their property, most residential lake properties were
subject to the Lake Corporation Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which require
compliance with regulations, including design standards, as they relate to water dependent
structures like boathouses. The Lake Corporation would have some control over structures on
typical residential properties on the water. He could not represent that it applied 100 percent to all
properties, which could be Lake Corporation's concern; he would discuss that with them. He added
that if the residence was upland, that would be another issue.
Councilor Hennagin believed Mayor Hoffman's suggestion was the most practical approach.
Mayor Hoffman stated his only concern was he did not want to insult the Planning Commission,
since they had definite opinions in terms of lake front owners following the same rules as everyone
else. He was unsure if the Planning Commission had that kind of ownership of this issue.
Councilor Jordan did not believe the Planning Commission had the ownership of the issue in that
kind of respect. She noted what was going on around the lake right now did not conform to what
the Council already adopted. There were many exceptions, if people went to redo something and
then fell under the new restriction, it could create a different look than what was already on the
lake. A lot of what was currently on the lake was gracious and graceful as far as step backs and
larger landscape areas, than smaller 3 -ft successions. The problem was no flexibility existed with
what the Council had adopted. At the same time, there were no setback requirements on the lake
so they would not want it to get out of hand. Lakefront zoning requirements did not match citywide
requirements.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 19
July 13, 2010
Mayor Hoffman stated it seemed that Council agreed staff should work with Lake Corporation and
interested parties to develop a package for Council to review in August. Councilor Olson
suggested discussing the proposal July 27 if the Policy on Media in Executive Sessions was
delayed. Mayor Hoffman would work with staff to verify which date would work best given the
agenda items. Ms. Christie noted August 3 was quite full. Mr. Powell clarified that if the discussion
was held on July 27, the City would not be able to notice the ordinance in time for adoption on
August 3, so adoption would occur in mid-August, if acceptable to Council. Staff could do what the
Council was requesting with a 1-2 week notice.
Mayor Hoffman stated if they could get them by Labor Day, they could start to review plans.
Mayor Hoffman confirmed the Policy on Media in Executive Sessions would be removed from the
July 27 agenda, since it involved significant policy and legal issues, was complicated, and time was
needed to address the issues. Mr. Powell clarified that although the Lake Corporation liked the
proposal that Council tentatively had adopted, the Council's objective was to work toward a similar
proposal, but with flexibility, and to solicit the Lake Corporation and interested parties for ideas and
suggestions.
3.4 Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project Briefing
Brant Williams, Director of Economic and Capital Development, stated the CAC has been
meeting monthly since October. John Cullerton had presented the growth projection and traffic
analysis at the last meeting. That information would be would be critical for the various evaluation
criteria being considered for the project. He introduced members of the CAC Chair, Ellie McPeak
and Bridgette Weihart of Metro, who are available for questions. The Steering Committee meeting
was held that morning with Mayor Hoffman and Councilor Olson attending. At that meeting, Project
Manager, Doug Obletz provided a thorough project update, and Steve Siegel presented the
financing piece. Copies of the Steering Committee's meeting packet were available for Council to
review. Council was also provided with the newsletter that reflected the updated timelines.
He reviewed the three project alternatives. The No -Build option meant there would be no major
investment in transit in the Hwy 43 Corridor. The Enhanced Bus Alternative would increase the
frequency of the Line 35 bus between Portland and Lake Oswego, improve its travel time by
reducing the number of stops, and make small route changes in the Portland area. The Streetcar
Alternative would extend from South Waterfront to Lake Oswego. The streetcar would replace Line
35 between Lake Oswego and Portland, which currently goes from Oregon City, through West Linn
to Lake Oswego and ties into Line 78, which goes from Lake Oswego to Beaverton, and create
one continuous route from Oregon City to Beaverton.
He had initial conversations with TriMet on how existing bus linfdees servicing this type of corridor
were addressed when a streetcar was put in, and how they provide for those connections since the
line would start in Lake Oswego. TriMet stated they typically increase the level of service to provide
good strong connections to the rail systems being installed. Staff said that Lake Oswego could
potentially see enhanced stop service in and around the city. However, this had not been finalized
and would not happen for some time.
Mr. Williams clarified that the Streetcar Alternative would replace all bus service on Macadam
between Lake Oswego and Portland. From Lake Grove, the bus could be taken over Sylvania.
However, that depended upon TriMet's routings and how they managed their system. What was
generally seen with these rail systems was that connections to the rail line are enhanced. Given
TriMet's difficult financial situation, they would have to see how that played out.
Last time he discussed five design options, but now there were three phasing options and two
design options for the streetcar. The phasing options were related to projects in Portland that
overlap with the Streetcar Project. One project was the South Portal Project on the south end of
South Waterfront. The question was whether the Streetcar Project or South Portal Project would
occur first. He would talk later about the pros and cons of how those work.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 19
July 13, 2010
Mayor Hoffman asked if the South Portal Project would allow access from 1-5 to the South
Waterfront. Mr. Williams clarified the South Portal Project was primarily from Macadam Ave to the
South Waterfront to cleanup operations there with further future development of the South
Waterfront. He confirmed there would be a coordination effort coming off Macadam by car and the
potential streetcar crossing.
Mr. Williams continued that the second phasing option regarded the overlap of the Sellwood
Bridge Project with the Streetcar Project. As with the South Portal Project, the question was which
project would occur first. The last overlapping project would be the Foothills Project, which would
put in streets, utilities, and do some grading. How that fit with the Streetcar Project was the
question.
The two design options regarded whether the streetcar stays on the Willamette Shore Line or goes
out on Macadam Ave in the John's Landing area. The design option presented by neighbors in the
Dunthorpe/Riverdale area moved the streetcar from the Willamette Shore Line to Riverdale. Those
options could be found in the newsletter provided to Council.
Both Streetcar and Enhanced Bus Alternatives would involve a new, 300 -space Park & Ride facility
in or around the Albertson's Lake Oswego Village Shopping Center site. In addition, the Streetcar
Alternative would also include a 100 -space Park & Ride facility in the Foothills District, which would
likely be a surface lot depending upon how Foothill develops. Assuming Council adopted the Local
Preferred Alternative (LPA) with the streetcar, some final details to be considered on the Park &
Ride, using the preliminary engineering and Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS), would be
how the Park & Rides would work, function, whether they were the appropriate size, and how they
would fit in Lake Oswego.
Mr. Williams stated the project team would be submitting its third draft on July 19 of the Draft
Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) publication. The DEIS was a Federal Transit Administration
(FTA) document and they subject to the FTA's review periods. The team hoped to have the
document ready for publication in mid-August, but due to revising efforts based on comments and
FTA review time lines, the publication date was expected to be about September 27. The 45 -day
public comment period would follow that date.
Mr. Williams confirmed for Mayor Hoffman that the FTA contact person in Seattle received the
DEIS publication, which was distributed by sections, including financial and technical design
chapters. Mr. Williams confirmed good communication and coordination did occur between Metro
Staff and the FTA when the DEIS publication was released. As September approached, they would
know more about the date of publication and would keep Council informed. Once the DEIS was
published, each Councilor would receive a copy.
Mayor Hoffman suggested scheduling a briefing once the publication was ready so Staff could
walk Council through the document. Councilor Olson commented it would be great if Council
could get the DEIS document in August since they had most of that month off; fall was going to be
busy. Mr. Williams replied that as a FTA document and FTA did not want the DEIS publication
released until they reviewed it and determined it acceptable.
Mayor Hoffman suggested that perhaps Council could meet earlier with Mr. Williams to review the
different chapters and concepts. If it came out in September, Council would need a two to three
hour briefing of the document, similar to what was done with the Comprehensive Plan, but the
DEIS document may be even more comprehensive. He suggested Doug Obletz help with the
review of the DEIS document.
Mr. Williams continued, that the DEIS and LPA were together, yet separate. The DEIS was the
FTA document and the LPA was chosen locally from the alternatives and information from the
DEIS document. Following the 45 -day comment period in mid-November, they would go through a
series of processes to reach a decision for the LPA. The CAC and Project Management Group
would make their recommendation, and those two recommendations would go to the Steering
Committee, which included the Mayor and other elected officials. The Steering Committee would
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 19
July 13, 2010
make the final recommendation to all the elected boards and agencies. Those agencies included
the City of Portland, City of Lake Oswego, Clackamas and Multnomah Counties, TriMet, Portland
Streetcar Inc., and ODOT, because of Hwy 43. Once the recommendations were complete, the
Transit Project would go to Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) and then
to Metro for the final decision.
Mayor Hoffman understood the project was on Metro's December 16, 2010, agenda for a
decision. He confirmed with Mr. Williams that the LPA was the community's choice; the FTA in
Seattle or Washington, DC would not approve or disapprove the LPA. Mr. Williams added that the
LPA allowed them to apply for a New Starts Project. Mayor Hoffman said he wanted to walk
through the process with the group. He confirmed that as part of the 45 -day comment period, three
public open houses would be sponsored and organized by Metro, but the project partners would be
involved. He asked what the next step was after the LPA was sent to Seattle.
Mr. Williams replied the FTA would get the LPA, but the next step was for local agencies to submit
an application for the project defined as the LPA. Having a DEIS and LPA approved through the
appropriate processes allowed them to apply to the FTA for a New Starts Project. All rail projects
done using Federal funds have gone through the New Starts Project. He reminded that at one
point, they were trying to expedite the process to take advantage of possible extra Federal funds
through the Fast Starts Program. However, that reauthorization on the Transportation Bill had not
occurred due other priorities in Washington DC and those programs were not available.
Mayor Hoffman said he anticipated having Rick Gustafson present the federal process during a
study session to the Council about what the New Start Program entailed. Having Mr. Gustafson
provide insight on the process was important because the large amounts of federal and local
money involved.
Mr. Williams stated that budget -wise they were doing fine. $4.3 million had been spent on the
DEIS, although it was a significant amount, such projects are substantial. The sources needed to
get through the LPA phase were identified, costing approximately $478,000. Long-term funding
was still in question as funds still needed to be identified for the FTA application phase, preliminary
engineering, the FEIS, and final design phases. The three phases to get through design and the
FEIS were the New Start application, costing $1.3 million, and then preliminary and final
engineering, each costing $12 million, for a total of $25 million.
A critical point in the process was the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) where FTA and the
regional project partners reach an agreement on what the project would be and how it would be
funded with the commitments to the funding in place. If the FTA was willing to provide 50% to 60%
of the project's capital funding through FTA federal monies, the City, County, and State
jurisdictions would need to prove to the FTA that they could secure their share of funding when the
time came. Mayor Hoffman added that the FTA would not only want to know that the system could
be built, but that the jurisdictions could financially operate the system as well. Mr. Williams
confirmed for Councilor Olson that the memorandums of understanding would occur toward the
end, sometime during the FEIS and final design phases, as the last step before construction
started.
Mayor Hoffman asked Brigitte Wieghart to discuss the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project and
her experience with the timing as it related to that DEIS. That $1.4 billion light rail project was
about five or six years ahead of the Lake Oswego project.
Bridget Wieghart, Metro Transit Project Manager, stated the Portland-Milwaukie DEIS process
took about six months after completing the DEIS application. The LPA, and submitting the
application took about two months. The DEIS was larger than the FEIS, and included a lot of travel
forecasting, etc The DEIS took a couple of months to prepare, and the FTA took six months to
review the application. She believed Doug Obletz scheduled the FEIS and preliminary engineering
(PE) as about a one-year process.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 19
July 13, 2010
Mayor Hoffman explained PE would explore and identify, for example, where the streetcar would
go and how would it be designed and constructed. Ms. Wieghart clarified the PE gets to a 25%
and a 30% design stage that came typically at the end of the engineering and then they would
apply for final design. Mayor Hoffman confirmed that roughly $12 million was spent to get to the
30% drawings, which outline the rail system's alignment. He asked if the FTA gave approval after
the preliminary engineering stage.
Ms Wieghart replied that following preliminary engineering, they would have to apply for final
design, which could take about eight months based on this most recent experience. It was hoped
this smaller project would take less time
Councilor Hennagin questioned how the DEIS affected the Steering Committee's decision on the
LPA. What role did the DEIS play; could the Steering Committee ignore it; was there a rule of
interpretation or application that required the DEIS to be considered at a certain level. Ms.
Wieghart explained the need for the DEIS process, as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), is intended to ensure that enough equal information exists about all the
analyzed alternatives and that information is made public. The DEIS would become the basis of
information for the decision makers. The FTA cares about the process, that the information was
provided and publicized, and that the decision makers have had opportunity to review it and hear
from the public. At that point, FTA allows it to be a locally determined process. The DEIS was
useful, and John Cullerton's presentation would provide information that would be in the FEIS. The
actual narrative could no longer be distributed because it was a FTA document, but the information
being shared with the CAC would be the same information and Council was invited to attend that
presentation.
Mr. Williams added that for success in the New Start application or for any federal funding, they
want to be as true to the process and information presented as possible. The FTA would not
dictate what alternative is chosen but, being cognitive and using the information in the DEIS to
make decisions would place them in the best position for success.
Mayor Hoffman reviewed that after PE, they would apply to the FTA for final design, and if
approved by the FTA, they would be authorized to proceed with the project. He asked if the FEIS
was the final product, when the record of decision would occur, and when would the FFGA
received. Ms. Wieghart explained the final product included the FEIS, as well as detailed design
drawings in which 60% or more of the engineering would be completed, and the project would be
ready to move toward construction. The FEIS was prepared and completed during the preliminary
engineering phase, which involved 30% design completion. The record of decision was received
45 -days to two months after publication of the FEIS. The environmental impact statement discloses
the impacts, and then negotiation occurs about how those impacts would be mitigated. The record
of decision documents those agreements regarding mitigation.
Ms. Wieghart explained the release of federal funds was part of the FFGA, which would occur
after PE, the FEIS, and the application for final design. Once the whole final design process was
complete, the FFGA was the last stage before starting construction. Some projects front some
initial money just to get construction started before the FFGA is received.
Mayor Hoffman stated the threat of litigation was a concern on any project. He understood that
any litigation filed would be after the FEIS, and when the project was essentially owned by the
FTA, the FTA would defend the project. Ms. Wieghart confirmed that FTA would defend the
project, but TriMet and Metro would participate. Mayor Hoffman understood that money was
released when the record of decision was received. He was told the Portland-Milwaukie project
would be receiving money this month as they were getting their record of decision. Ms. Wieghart
clarified that anytime after receiving approval to enter into preliminary engineering, local funds that
are expended could be counted as the local match, so they already had a sort of approval to spend
the money. Mr. Williams added that federal funds associated with the FFGA would not be
received all at once, a portion of the funds were appropriated out each year for projects throughout
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 19
July 13, 2010
the country. Federal funding could still be going to the local jurisdiction for those projects, even
after it was fully operational.
Councilor Hennagin asked how local agencies paid for construction, they may have to borrow.
Mr. Williams stated that was part of the project's financing plan, which included the financing fees,
interest costs, etc. As part of the FFGA, the FTA has a good idea of how money would come into
the region for the project. The financing plan even included the preliminary financing and capital
costs work that Steve Siegel had been doing.
John Cullerton, URS, Transportation Planning Consultant, presented the Travel Demand
Model from two presentations he gave to the CAC involving the travel demand model and growth
forecast. He would also describe how the modeling and growth forecast information was used in
the DEIS. He reminded that they were forecasting out to the year 2035, and briefly reviewed the
transportation and development conditions that existed 25 years ago, highlighting the massive
changes seen in those 25 years. The regional population growth forecast between now and 2035
was 1.3 million above the current population of all four counties, resulting in a population forecast
of 3.1 billion in 2035. Population allocation by county showed Clackamas County as the largest
single recipient of that growth.
The travel demand model used information on existing and planned transportation systems, such
as what was happening on the roadways and in the transit system, planned projects, forecasted
growth, and travel behavior. Travel behavior information was gathered with a detailed travel
behavior survey done on regional basis. The information from the survey included how many cars
were on the major streets, how many people used transit, and the number of walk and bike trips.
Every 10 to 15 years, Metro completes a comprehensive travel behavior survey; the most recent
was done in 1994/1995 when 6,000 households were surveyed. Each household member kept a
log of all the trips they made for two to three days, allowing the survey to gather a lot of
demographic and other information as well. The simulated roadway and transit network was
essentially a computer representation of the entire freeway, arterial, and collector level system.
The travel model was a four -step model created to answer four basic questions: how many trips
there were, where the trips are going, what mode of transportation is being used, and which routes
are being used for each of those transportation modes.
The model divided the region into geographic units with about 2,000 comprising the overall region.
Trip generation was based on the household and employment forecast. A household and
employment forecasts existed for each geographic unit, as well as demographic information,
regarding age, income, and household size. That information varied dramatically by location within
the region. Determining where all the trips would go was based on the household's location in
relation to the location of employment. The employment not only represented where people travel
to work, but also shopping opportunities. People tend to travel shorter distances to meet their
needs. People tend to locate near where they worked, with the average work trip being 20-25
minutes. A typical work trip in the region was less than six miles.
Demographics, age and income played a big role in the mode of transportation used. In the
tradeoff between cost and travel time, transit could become more competitive and was more
attractive in terms of travel time. Income also figured into the mode of transportation selected. For
lower income people, cost was more important than travel time, whereas higher income people
valued travel time over cost. All of that was built into the model to weigh whether a person selected
transit or automobile for a trip.
The final question was what route would be used based on the choice of auto or transit. Auto trip
route choices were based on travel time. The model used a representation of the roadway network
to determine the shortest path between the origin, Point A, and destination, Point B. The
uncongested freeway was identified as the optimal choice, so in running an assignment through
the model, everyone chooses the freeway, making it no longer the fastest route. A number of
iterations are done to find equilibrium amongst the routes, but basically no quick way existed to get
from Point A to Point B because everyone had already figured out the routes. On the transit side,
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 19
July 13, 2010
routes were determined by the frequency of service available from Point A to Point B. This
modeled information was used to gather information on peak hour traffic conditions and transit
ridership, how transit was being used and ridership levels by different alternatives. It was important
to understand that the FTA required that all the transportation alternatives be analyzed based on
the same growth forecast at that small geography level for a level playing field.
The population and employment forecast for the region started with information from the National
Bureau of Labor Statistics, which issues national employment forecasts at the state and regional
levels. Metro used that information and worked with specialized consulting firms to determine the
2035 employment forecast for the four -county region. Population is derived according to how many
people would be needed to service that employment forecast and also account for the age core,
how many people are under 18 years old, in retirement, etc.
Overriding State and regional policies dictated how population was allocated in the region. The
2040 Growth Concept and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) provide policy guidance at the state and
regional levels, while local comprehensive plans are the implementation tool for some of those
policies. The Metro Growth model, used as a tool to allocate regional growth, takes into account
vacant and developable land and redevelopment opportunities throughout the region. Mayor
Hoffman added the Metro Growth was a complicated, but important computer model used by
Metro to determine if and when the UGB was moved. Metro considers zoning, existing zoning,
under zoning, etc. throughout the entire region. The Metro has relied on the model for the last five
to seven years to determine where people are going to move and to consider market factors as
well.
Mr. Cullerton stated the model also takes into account accessibility, in terms of regional travel
times. The model was used to develop an initial allocation of where the 1.3 million in additional
population growth would occur in the region. It then goes through a local review process and
approval at the impact level, which takes about an 18 -month process. Metro had worked closely
with the Denny Egner and the Lake Oswego staff to work out the numbers.
The forecast for the Lake Oswego -Portland Corridor, defined from northwest Portland at the end of
the streetcar line through Lake Oswego, captured about 8% of the forecasted 1.3 million in regional
population growth. Of that forecasted 100,000 increase in population, 81 % was expected in South
Waterfront to northwest Portland; 7% in John's Landing; 1 % in Dunthorpe/Riverdale; and 11 % or
7,200 additional people in Lake Oswego. He described where the 7,200 would be allocated
throughout Lake Oswego. The Foothills area east of State St would have more than 50% of that
growth allocation. A large portion was also forecast for the Albertson's site, with relatively smaller
portions west of State Street in central downtown. Those smaller portions represented some
additional household growth in terms of condominium development on certain lots.
The traffic demand growth for the two evening peak hours was used rather than the morning peak
hours because it was the period with the largest number of vehicles on the road. Other types of
trips also occur in the evening that are not counted during the morning peak hour. The model
compared the existing and 2035 forecasted traffic demand growth for all the north/south routes
from downtown Portland toward Lake Oswego, including Iowa St in the John's Landing area,
Barbur Blvd, Corbett Ave, Macadam Ave, and 1-5. Mayor Hoffman noted that in 2035, traffic on
southbound Macadam Ave would be as busy as Barbur Blvd heading out of town in the evening. At
the points where the trips were counted, Macadam Ave was two lanes and Barbur St was three
lanes. Mr. Cullerton added the current traffic count for Macadam Ave was about 4,000 trips within
those evening peak two hours, by 2035, it was getting close to 6,000 trips.
Mr. Cullerton reported that 22% of the evening peak hour trips heading into downtown Lake
Oswego came on Terwilliger Blvd versus 78% on Hwy 43. Of those 78%, 17% of the trips head
west into downtown or points west; 10% go east of Hwy 43 into the Old Town Neighborhood and
Albertson's area; 29% out McVey Ave with 38% continuing south on Hwy 43. He did not have the
current percentages of trip proportions for 2010, but it was probably similar percentage wise.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 19
July 13, 2010
He reviewed limitations and existing conditions on Hwy 43, which included narrow right-of-ways,
environmental and geological constraints between the Sellwood Bridge and Lake Oswego, and
issues related to neighborhood and home access. Engineers could widen parts of Hwy 43 at great
expense and with many impacts, but it would not address congestion problems associated with
traffic signals and the need to provide access for traffic to turn left and right onto Hwy 43 or
completely cross Hwy 43. He displayed two points where traffic was impacted by the signals, at
John's Landing and in downtown Lake Oswego.
Two fundamentals used for the DEIS were the traffic and transit operation analyses. The transit
operation analysis would be discussed at some point in the future. The traffic operations analysis
focused on congestion and travel times, which were then related to person carrying capacity. The
analysis identified a few problem areas in the 2035 future traffic conditions on Hwy 43 that were
consistent with known conditions of that area and how it performed today. The first problem area
was at the north end near Bancroft St, and the area of the South Portal Project. Part of the South
Portal Project was to extend Moody Ave further south where the streetcar would operate in mixed
traffic. Using numbers based from the forecasted growth, traffic near Bancroft St was backing up
and potentially creating problems for the streetcar's operation in mixed traffic through that area.
The City of Portland and ODOT recognize that more work was needed on the South Portal
Project's design for it to work with traffic and for the streetcar to move forward for both the state
and local systems.
The next problem area was at Boundary St, which had the highest east/west volumes of any traffic
signals in the John's Landing area and needed the most time allocated to the east/west movement,
in order to service that traffic demand. If the proposed new west interchange was assumed to be
part of the Sellwood Bridge Project, it would improve the situation of traffic queuing from the bridge.
But, as traffic associated with the growth forecast is introduced, it would still look like it did today
due to the geological constraints at the west end of the bridge. The interchange would still not be a
perfect solution forever given the continued growth and traffic, but it would be an improvement over
today.
The Lake Oswego downtown area with its many intersections was close to having problems with
the increased volumes. Many intersections through downtown are operating at a Level of Service
(LOS) that would be considered failing because cars sometimes wait for a couple signal cycles to
get through the intersection. This was a no fail condition and not related to the transit alternatives.
Mr. Cullerton explained the problems referenced involved intersections identified with an LOS
above the ODOT or City standard based on 2035 traffic. Mayor Hoffman noted today, problem
areas were identified based upon whether it was a morning or evening commute. In the evening
commute, it extended an equal distance north towards Portland, and in the morning it extended an
equal distance south toward West Linn. He questioned what was meant by problem areas because
of the backed up traffic there. Another problem area was at Burlingame, where traffic comes in
from 1-5 and Terwilliger Blvd and creates a big back up. In the evening, the problem area was west
from State St towards 7th or 8`h St.
Mr. Cullerton explained that the presentation was intended to show only Hwy 43 locations. His
intent was not to represent queuing and the extent of the back up north and south, only a
geographic signal of issues in the Hwy 43 area. Mayor Hoffman understood from the presentation
that the backup and transit time would increase significantly in 2035.
Mr. Cullerton stated both the Streetcar and Enhanced Bus Alternatives have issues related to the
Park & Rides. Typically, about 40% of the vehicles using the Park & Ride lot would exit during the
pm peak hour, adding about 25 additional vehicles heading south on Hwy 43 towards McVey Ave.
Assuming both lots were full, close to 200 cars would be leaving during that pm peak hour period.
A good portion of those vehicles would be in that area normally during that time due to people
traveling by auto and choosing to use that Park & Ride for the streetcar or enhanced bus. The 25
net additional vehicles were used when looking at the intersection impact.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 19
July 13, 2010
Councilor Olson understood the assumption in that analysis was that 200 cars would be parking
and riding the streetcar rather than driving in to town. Mr. Cullerton stated that based on the
model's forecast, assuming a maximum of 50% or 200 cars exiting in that pm peak hour, 25 were
showing up as additional trips. He confirmed that the 175 trips were commuting anyways by car.
Councilor Olson clarified the 25 cars were not creating the congestion, but rather 200 cars would
be turning onto Hwy 43. Mr. Cullerton stated those were the intersection volumes they considered
where the Park & Ride met Hwy 43. With that level of volume and the intersection south of the
Park & Ride, it netted out to be about 25 cars. Councilor Olson understood an estimated 200 cars
would come out of North Shore and by the Lakewood signal; it would be 25 more cars than what
existed today.
Mr. Cullerton confirmed for Mayor Hoffman that the traffic engineers had factored into the
analysis that not everyone using the streetcar would use the Park & Ride. It was not derived
directly from the model, but was part of the DEIS. Morning and afternoon traffic trips, as well as
traffic coming and going from various locations were also included in the engineer analysis;
however, he did not know how specifically it was called out in the DEIS document. The pie charts
presented to Council reflected some significant household growth, but was not specific per site. He
confirmed that pedestrian and bicycle traffic was also factored into the model for 2035, but
identifying the number bike trips to the streetcar was a level of specificity beyond what the model
was presenting. Mayor Hoffman believed the FTA calculated ridership, but was uncertain if that
included bicycle trips.
Mr. Cullerton explained that overall, URS reviews how similar locations perform in terms of bike
and pedestrian access. He continued that only the Streetcar Alternative would require more work
on the Moody Ave extension in the South Portal area. With Macadam Ave as currently figured, the
proposal would be for the streetcar to enter at Boundary. Since Boundary already has the most
east/west time allocated, time should be added to that east/west movement at the Boundary
intersection, and remove some time from the north/south on Hwy 43. The traffic engineers would
continue working to minimize or eliminate the time issues in those areas. A new traffic signal would
be added at the other location south of where the streetcar would return to the Willamette Shore
Line at SW Carolina. The analysis found a signal could work well in conjunction with the other
existing signals and would not cause additional delay.
In 2005, travel time by auto from the Portland State University (PSU) area to downtown Lake
Oswego took about 18 to 19 minutes, and was forecasted to take 26 minutes in 2035. That same
trip by bus took 28 minutes in 2005, and was forecasted to increase to 44 minutes in 2035. The
Enhanced Bus Alternative that would have fewer stops would take 26 minutes and was forecasted
to increase to 39 minutes. The Willamette Shore Line would have taken 30 minutes in 2005 and
about the same amount of time in 2035 due to that exclusive guide way for the majority of its trip.
With the Macadam Ave in street option, the streetcar was estimated to be three minutes slower,
due to diverting the route up, dealing with traffic and signals, etc. The streetcar was forecasted to
be a similar time in 2035, but still slower than Willamette Shore Line alignment.
Councilor Hennagin believed one problem with commuting on the Portland streetcar was that it
did not get priority over traffic signals like the MAX system. If the streetcar was built, had signal
priority on Macadam Ave been considered to speed up the streetcar's travel time? Mr. Cullerton
stated signal priority was considered at Boundary; however, concern existed about the impact on
southbound evening traffic on Hwy 43 from Macadam Ave. The study assumed it would work within
the existing signal cycles. He believed ODOT would have real concerns about providing complete
preemption where a train would change everything and have immediate access as it came
through.
Mr. Cullerton presented the additional person carrying capacity given a completely separate right-
of-way as represented by the streetcar. In conclusion, he stated all the transit improvements would
slightly reduce traffic on Hwy 43, State St, and the Macadam Ave Corridor, except for the specific
Park & Ride locations. The streetcar would reduce traffic slightly more than the Enhanced Bus
Alternative, because it was forecasted to carry more transit riders than the Enhanced Bus. No
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 19
July 13, 2010
major traffic impacts were associated with the transit alternatives, but the minor impacts included
the slight increase of traffic accessing the Park & Ride lots, and signal modifications at Boundary
and Carolina with the Macadam Ave design options. It was important to understand that if the
streetcar were selected as the LPA, mitigation measures would continue to be developed to
address all the issues he had discussed. There would also be fine-tuning of the design work during
the preliminary engineering and final design phase.
Mayor Hoffman stated he was confident that some type of modeling existed to predict the
behavior involving where riders would be dropped off. He did not believe a big traffic jam would
result because riders would not all be dropped off right at the Lake Oswego Park & Ride, but a
block away or across the street.
Councilor Moncrieff asked if the Council could get more information about what the effect would
be on Line 36. It did not make sense that Line 36 would be canceled if the streetcar ran on
Macadam Ave because Line 36 would deliver riders to the Park & Ride station. Mr. Williams
reiterated that typically TriMet enhances their connections to the rail systems. Like Line 36, if still
Line 36, it could feed the streetcar. Councilor Moncrieff asked for verification about that to
address people's concern.
Councilor Olson asked why the streetcar would reduce traffic more the Enhanced Bus. Mr.
Cullerton clarified the streetcar was forecasted to carry more transit riders because the streetcar
travel time was significantly better for a majority of the trips. A presentation would be given on the
transit and ridership forecasting, which would provide more detail.
Councilor Olson asked if Lake Oswego's population growth of 7,200 was for all the areas on the
map. Mr. Cullerton clarified the area shown indicated central Lake Oswego, and the 7,200 was
allocated within that area. It was not identifying that as the only growth being allocated to Lake
Oswego, but it regarded the area outside of Lake Oswego as indicated. Councilor Olson asked if
any of the forecasting included the Stafford area. Mr. Cullerton stated the forecast had growth
allocated to Stafford, but he was unsure how to characterize it. The forecast used for 2035 did not
include what was being done with the recent Urban Reserves discussion. He believed more growth
would be allocated given the recent process. Council Olson reconfirmed with Mr. Cullerton that
some of the ridership and population growth was based on the development of Stafford. Mr.
Williams said he did not know how much pertained to Stafford; he was shown a Metro map of the
whole area that feeds the Hwy 43 Corridor. Councilor Jordan noted it would have been
developed at the current zoning, and confirmed that eventually new figures would show the impact
of the Stafford Urban Reserve designation on population allocation, which would then increase the
numbers served through that corridor.
Councilor Tierney asked if the analysis provided a definitive conclusion about the pros and cons
of the streetcar option, or was it all part of the process. Mr. Cullerton replied the conclusion was
there would be a significant growth in traffic on the Hwy 43/Macadam Ave Corridor, regardless of
which transit project moved forward. And, implementing the Enhanced Bus or Streetcar Alternative
would have a few localized traffic impacts, without substantial further damage to that traffic
operation. He suggested waiting for more detailed information on the transit ridership before
forming a pro or con conclusion.
Councilor Tierney stated in transit and other studies of this nature, the gap between the time
spent in a car versus alternative modes of transportation seemed rather large. In light of past
transit projects, would the time differences presented when traveling by car versus the different
travel modes be a common or frightening statistic? Would people keep driving their cars because
no advantage in travel time existed? Mr. Cullerton stated the transit options considered are those
that are closest to the auto travel time, and the streetcar at Willamette Shore Line would provide
the fastest travel time. In a transit solution, the goal is get as close to an auto travel time as
possible. On public transit, there would always be stops for people to get on and off, resulting in a
slower operation than a car going straight from Point A to Point B. A subway or totally exclusive
guide way system that achieved high speeds might be faster, however.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 19
July 13, 2010
Councilor Jordan understood when they first started looking at alternatives, the number of car
trips on Macadam Ave would not be reduced with any of the transit options; traffic would be
maintained at present levels. She asked if no transit options were available would the auto travel
time remain the same. Mr. Cullerton replied it might fluctuate a minute or two. The number of trips
that would be attracted onto transit was still a relatively small portion of all the trips in the corridor.
The City was providing an alternative that operates in a separated right-of-way with a dependable
travel time day after day, but transit does not attract so many trips that traffic numbers go way
down. By attracting additional people to transit, theoretically the number of vehicles would be
reduced; however, taking more cars off Macadam Ave would make Macadam a more attractive
option and other drivers would begin using it.
Councilor Jordan said that was her point. She understood if transit were used, the number of
autos would not be reduced on Macadam Ave. If no other transit options were available and the
only way to reach Lake Oswego to Portland was by car on Macadam Ave, it seemed that the car
travel time should increase significantly given the population growth forecast. But, based on Mr.
Cullerton's presentation, cars would still be able to travel on Macadam Ave with a lower travel time
than the transit. Why did not the car travel time increase closer to 2035 than it did on the model?
Councilor Olson suggested they would be finding some other way to get into town. Mr. Williams
agreed. He understood Mr. Cullerton to say other choices were available, like other corridors to
travel in, or other places to live or work. The Macadam Corridor could only hold so much traffic.
Cars could not continue to be pushed down that corridor if transit options were removed.
Councilor Olson added more people could ride the existing bus system.
Councilor Tierney said it was the correlation between traffic demand growth and travel time in the
car. He asked if the travel time would only increase by 6-7 minutes if southbound Macadam Ave
was at 4,000 today and 6,000 in 2035. Mr. Cullerton stated travel time went from 19 to 27
minutes, adding 8 minutes to a 19 -minute base was a 50% degradation in travel time for auto trips.
He believed the numbers showed a significant growth in traffic in the corridor that would lead to
perceivable degradation in the quality of that auto trip. It would make reliable transit in its own right-
of-way a more attractive option for those located in a location to take advantage of it.
Councilor Olson confirmed that the current regional population, including Clark County, was 1.8
million and would increase by 1.3 million in the next 25 years. She asked what the population
growth had been over the last 25 years. Mr. Cullerton believed the 25 -year forecast represented a
similar annual growth rate; however, he did not have the exact numbers. Councilor Olson
confirmed that people sought to live within an average of 6 miles from their work place and that the
streetcar line was in a 6 -mile corridor. Councilor Olson confirmed with Mr. Cullerton that the trips
were based on the population growth in Foothills, which was included in the 7,200 for Lake
Oswego, asked if that was a big part of ridership. Mr. Cullerton reiterated that he did not have
ridership information, which would be part of a future discussion.
Mayor Hoffman confirmed that City Council would have future discussions on traffic and transit
forecasts as well as ridership, as the process progressed. He stated he wanted to move on to the
construction costs. Mr. Williams added the CAC would receive the briefing in August, and Council
should get their briefing on those issues in September.
Mr. Williams distributed a handout titled, "Overview of Lake Oswego Capital Cost & Financing
Issues", which was information Steve Siegel presented to the Steering Committee that morning.
The material discussed the preliminary capital costs, primarily for streetcars which were the most
complex, but some figures regarded the Enhanced Bus. The allocation of cost sharing and
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs were not being considered at this point, but both would
be discussed at a future briefing. It would take time to determine Lake Oswego's cost share. The
LPA and costs needed to be determined, as well as a negotiated, or agreed upon allocation on
how the different partners would allocate out the local match.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 19
July 13, 2010
Lake Oswego's percentage would be based on what the jurisdictions could afford and what a
reasonable share would be for the Cities of Portland and Lake Oswego. The City and its partners
would work through a process to calculate the percentage and look at all opportunities for funding.
He reviewed the Project Capital Cost Background on Page 14, and noted that due to the different
design and phasing options, 96 different combinations existed for what the Streetcar Project could
look like. Though Mr. Siegel's analysis, he selected representative scenarios for the City Council to
consider, since reviewing 96 combinations would not be feasible. Some interesting issues included
how the projects lined up. The City of Portland already had money allocated for the South Portal
Project through their Portland Development Commission. The question was whether those monies
could also be used toward the Streetcar Project to help both projects get funded. Such issues
needed to be considered not only for the South Portal area, but also for the Sellwood Bridge and
Foothills area.
Item 3, Capitol Cost Elements, included costs for 2035, reflecting what the FFGA would look like
and what would be needed to construct the project for opening day. URS provided the 2010 costs,
which had to be inflated to Year of Expenditure costs that are allocated over those years of
construction. Also included are upfront and other soft costs that needed to be factored in.
With regard to Design and Construction, URS utilized 2010 cost estimates and calculated the
range just for construction to be $150 million to $200 million. Much higher numbers were expected,
but the actual construction piece in current year dollars is currently estimated with very little
engineering. The value of the right-of-way that could be donated to the project would be
determined when the FFGA was put in place. An appraisal must be done within 6 or 8 months of
that FFGA, so real values were used for that right-of-way. The most recent appraisal done on the
right-of-way was completed in 2008, before the market crashed, so the numbers presented to
Council are based on that 2008 appraisal. The figures did not account for the downturn or what
might be in play from this point until the FFGA, only the 2008 numbers are being used.
Interim Borrowing and Net Finance Costs during project development would occur if the Federal
funds did not come in right when the project needed those funds. Costs were also associated on
the local match piece, because typically, some local matches are financed, resulting in interest or
debt services costs. Although an expense of the project, these costs could be used as part of the
local match to leverage more Federal money, and were included in the financial plan. Design and
construction costs would include hard construction costs, design engineering, administration,
management, and the purchase of the right-of-way, including property acquisitions for certain
design elements or options.
Mayor Hoffman clarified that the right-of-ways would be in addition to the Willamette Shore Line.
Mr. Williams noted some right-of-way acquisitions could also be needed along the Foothills
alignment. Eleven streetcar vehicles were forecasted for acquisition for 2035 at $4 million each
with four vehicles at the start of operations. The 2035 costs would include the 11 vehicles;
however, in the FFGA from the FTA agreement it would only show four vehicles. Mayor Hoffman
noted the plan forecasted starting construction in 2015 with completion and streetcars running in
2017.
Mr. Williams continued that the budget allowed for a maintenance and storage vehicle allowance
and art and contingency. As in kind contribution, the FTA would decide if right-of-way was eligible
and determine its real market value. Again, 2008 appraisal figures were used in the report.
Mr. Williams clarified for Councilor Olson that the FTA had to agree that Lake Oswego's transit
line qualifies for matching funds, and everything the City was doing. The history was that the FTA
does allocate the local match for property used for such projects. He believed that was why Neil
McFarland came here regarding the Milwaukie Light Rail because the City of Lake Oswego was
donating part of the Willamette Shore Line north of where the streetcar would be so it could be
used for match.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 19
July 13, 2010
Mayor Hoffman noted it was a big deal for streetcars in other cities that already had the existing
right-of-ways, so they donate it to the project. Finding the value of the right-of-way meant Lake
Oswego would own the ground under the streetcar track between Lake Oswego and South
Waterfront, while other ones are easements. The FTA values that based on $X amount per square
foot with right -or -way being valued higher than easements. After the appraisal was done on the
different parcels, the FTA would add a bonus because Lake Oswego has assembled property for
the entire route along the 6 -mile corridor, which was how it could be valued at $100 million.
Mr. Williams continued to Item 6 regarding the interim borrowing and that finance cost, one for the
federal piece and the other for the local match. Mr. Siegel's report laid out numbers for different
elements, including design, construction, the contributed right-of-way, interim borrowing interest
and that finance cost, etc. making the preliminary total cost estimate $380 million to $460 million.
He clarified Mr. Siegel's report should have included the cost of equipment and vehicles with the
construction cost estimate of $150 million to $200 million; $380 million to $460 million included all
costs not just construction. The estimate was for 2015 to 2017, the years of expenditure.
Mayor Hoffman understood the cost included the right-of-way and was also included as part of the
revenue under Item 9, it was counted twice. Mr. Williams explained the City wanted to see it twice
because it was the local portion. Likewise, the local interest and debt service costs needed to be
factored in for the same reason. He confirmed the contributed right-of-way was not a cash
donation, cash was subtracted. With a right-of-way valued at $100 million, the project would cost
between $280 million to $360 million, again, that included all the finance costs, etc.
Mr. Williams continued with Item 8. Those numbers were based on 60% Federal dollars with a
40% local match. Currently, TriMet and FTA are discussing the appropriate federal percentage for
the Milwaukie Light Rail Project. On larger projects like the Milwaukie project, the FTA was pushing
to change the percentage from the 60/40 to a 50/50 split. By law, no more than 80% in federal
funding could be used. In order to allocate more funds for more projects, the FTA was trying to
reduce their share on projects, so more projects could be done. Lake Oswego might face that
challenge also. Typically, smaller projects were funded at the 60/40 match, but that could change
based on the administration in place at the time. The City had very supportive congressional
delegates who would work hard to ensure 60/40 was retained over time. Mayor Hoffman stated
Rick Gustafson would talk with Council about the federal funding process, which is his area of
expertise. The concern was whether projects would have 50/50 or 60/40 funding percentages.
There was the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail, a $1.4 million project, the Lake Oswego project,
which the City hoped would be 60/40, and the Portland/Tigard Project on Barbur Blvd. These
projects all involved lots of money, so people were paying close attention.
Mr. Williams stated Item 9 regarded in-kind contributions, right-of-ways, shared project
contributions, which could include the South Portal and Foothills projects, Project Specific Match,
and revenues used to net finance costs. Mr. Siegel's compared two similar projects, the Riverwood
and Willamette Shore Line alignments in the Dunthorpe area, to show how funding options are
considered. The total capital costs for Riverwood were actually less than the Willamette Shore
Line, $386 million versus $400 million. However, when the 60% match by the Federal New Start
program and the right-of-way contribution are considered, which only apply to the Willamette Shore
Line, the Project Specific Match changed. This resulted in the Riverwood alignment costing more
locally at $55 million, versus the Willamette Shore Line alignment at $47 million. The analysis to
determine the LPA that worked for the communities involved and addressed project funding
concerns would be complex and intricate.
Councilor Tierney asked if the alternative was moved out of Riverwood or Macadam, could the
right-of-way be sold that was not being used for the streetcar. Mr. Williams believed that would be
considered on case-by-case basis. If the City did not use some properties for rail purposes, they
automatically revert to the adjacent property owners; other properties on the Willamette Shore Line
that the City owned fee simple, which could be sold. There was also discussion about using the
Willamette Shore Line for a bike/pedestrian facility if it was not used for rail. The question of selling
unused property could be considered once project decisions were made.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 19
July 13, 2010
Councilor Jordan stated that having some type of Local Improvement District (LID) had been
mentioned if the streetcar was moved off the Willamette Shore Line and Macadam area because
those property owners did not want a streetcar traveling by their property. In this scenario there
would be a trade, an offsetting amount of money to forward for the loss on the value for the right-
of-way. Mr. Williams replied the City of Portland would have to look at that for their funding portion
of the project. Lake Oswego would have interest in that as well, because the overall project would
be losing that local match. The City wanted the City of Portland to step-up and figure out ways to
offset that loss. The property owners say they benefit by not having the streetcar traveling by their
front doors.
Councilor Hennagin believed retailers along Macadam Ave would fund the LID because they
were hoping for an increased business from people riding the streetcar. Mr. Williams said he could
almost guarantee Portland would look at that. Previous streetcar projects had gone in that
direction. Moving the streetcar away was not a benefit; it was a benefit to have the streetcar, so
LIDs were instituted in downtown and northwest Portland an also on the east side.
Mayor Hoffman asked about the two examples involving Dunthorpe, the local match would be
somewhere near an average of $50 million. Mr. Williams added that example did not show what
the other local matches would be for the lower Foothills Willamette or upper Foothills Willamette,
which would make a big difference in the local match figure. Mr. Siegel's example only provided a
constant to show how the two would work.
Mr. Williams stated that Item 10 laid out how the overlapping projects helped or hurt the project.
The worst-case scenario for all the jurisdictions and the streetcar project was if the other projects,
South Portal, Sellwood Bridge, and Foothills, did not move forward because the entire cost of the
Streetcar would have to be funded. The second bullet presented a good scenario of all the projects
moving forward first and building the necessary improvements so the streetcar could follow and fit
adjacent to those projects; then each jurisdiction would pay for their portion of the expense. For
example, Lake Oswego would spend money for utilities a road and the road grading down through
Foothills. The streetcar project could then install some tracks and essentially be done. This would
be cheap for the streetcar project, but Lake Oswego would have had to pay 100% for the Foothills
improvements of that project. The best -case scenario would be if the two could be coordinated to
take advantage of federalizing the entire project and get the 60% federal share to make the entire
corridor work in the best manner possible. Councilor Olson understood that in the worst-case
scenario, if the streetcar moved forward without the South Portal/South Waterfront project, then the
City of Lake Oswego would be helping to pay for the South Portal project as a project partner. Mr.
Williams clarified that it would ultimately depend on how various portions of the project were
negotiated with the City of Portland.
Councilor Jordan asked since Portland got a TIGER (Transportation Investments Generating
Economic Recovery) Grant for the Moody Ave portion, would any of the South Portal engineering
be done on that Moody Couplet. South Portal was shown in the same location as the Moody
Couplet. Mr. Williams clarified it was the same name but that entire project was further north and
associated with the Portland-Milwaukie alignment.
Mayor Hoffman noted that Item 11 was incorrect and should state, "$3�90 $388 million over $8-2
milker." In addition, "$418.5" should read, "$4183". He then cited the following figures: $232.9
million for New Start; $83.4 million for In -Kind, $65.3 million, Project Match, with a total of $388
million versus $418 million. Mr. Williams explained the Lake Oswego example was showing
pulling everything constant except the two alternatives in the Foothills area. The higher project cost
was the Foothills at $418 million verses the $388 million for the Union Pacific, but then the project
match was actually lower for the Foothills than for the Union Pacific. He confirmed that the shared
project match would be zero for the Union Pacific and $13 million for the Foothills.
Mr. Williams clarified for Councilor Olson that the shared project costs in Items 10 and 11 were
included in the supplemental material. He added that the City had to consider mitigating the risks
associated with shared projects. If a plan was developed, an LPA selected, and they moved
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 19
July 13, 2010
through the whole process, but those shared projects did not happen for whatever reason, the
streetcar project could be at risk. The City would have to do a supplemental EIS or arrange for
some alternative contingency plans through the DEIS and FEIS to prevent having to do a
supplemental, and risk having a higher match associated with the project.
In Item 13, Mr. Siegel narrowed the 96 combination examples down to nine, although no specific
reason existed to select one those nine combinations. It was reasonable to mix and match any of
the combinations for each of the five design or phasing options noted on the left side. One way
staff was looking to address this was to have the CACs go out for a month or so and allow
residents to consider and determine the best design options slated for their neighborhood area,
both in Lake Oswego and in Portland. Staff would then try to mix and match the pieces to where
the CAC would be comfortable with that preferred alternative. Staff could then start looking at the
costs associated with that alternative, how the maps would line up, and get a firmer idea of where
the other sharing projects would fit.
The Project Specific Match showed a decent range of $45 million to $66 million (Item 6) which
included the Foothills. The $65 million estimate would include the Union Pacific railroad. As the
options are narrowed down to one locally LPA, it would be interesting to see how the numbers play
out. The Enhanced Bus was much less complex with an estimated 2010 capital cost of $37.8
million, and year of expenditure cost of $51 million. The local match was reported to be in the $10
million to $20 million range, depending upon how it played out.
Councilor Olson asked why as a percentage the local match would be the same. Mr. Williams
replied that was a good question, since they were not dealing with Willamette Shore Line right-of-
way. He reminded the figures were only for construction costs. He was not sure what the federal
split would be for the Enhanced Bus. It had been mentioned that the Enhanced Bus would fall
under a small Starts Project rather than a New Starts Project. He did not have the criteria for that
program.
Councilor Olson noted the lack of discussion about the Enhanced Bus earlier at the Steering
Committee meeting, and even at CAC meetings. Mr. Obletz had talked about it with her, which was
helpful. The Metro representative had said the DEIS was supposed to have equal analysis and
publication of each alternative, yet Council had not received much information on the Enhanced
Bus option. She asked if City Council could receive more information about that option. Mr.
Williams answered yes, to the extent that more information was available. The Enhanced Bus
Alternative was pretty straightforward because it involved typical bus operations and was already
on Hwy 43. The number of stops and stop locations were shown on the map in the newsletter
provided to Council. The 300 space Park & Ride was much the same at the Albertson's site as for
the streetcar option.
Mayor Hoffman believed when the DEIS was presented to Council, they would have the
opportunity to further review and discuss the Enhanced Bus. He had not seen much information on
it either, and agreed Council needed to know more about it.
Councilor Olson stated other than the Park & Ride, she wanted to know what construction costs
would be associated with the Enhanced Bus. Mr. Williams said there would be minimal costs, just
the Park & Ride.
Councilor Hennagin stated at one point, the number of turn out lanes at intersections to pick up
passengers, and taking priority at signals ahead of cars was discussed. Engineers had determined
that many of the intersection pull out lanes were not feasible, which reduced the construction cost.
Mr. Williams explained that had to do with the amount and size of the queues at those traffic
signals, and widening the road to put in the extra lanes, which got back to the issue of why not just
widen Hwy 43.
Councilor Olson asked who would be in charge of operating the streetcar. Mr. Williams replied
there had been discussions about getting TriMet involved with streetcar operation. The discussion
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 19
July 13, 2010
about operating costs and how the Streetcar and Enhanced Bus Alternatives compare was on the
next agenda for the Steering Committee.
Council Hennagin asked if a streetcar on this line would follow the streetcar line up to NW 23rd
and Lovejoy. Mr. Williams said it would tie right into that line. Once the loop was installed over to
the east side there would be options. Lake Oswego would want to partner with the Portland
Streetcar Inc. Board as well as with the City of Portland and TriMet to determine the most logical
routing for the streetcars as they utilize the loop through northwest and downtown Portland and
Lake Oswego. The City of Portland was interested in the project not only for connecting to Lake
Oswego, but also for the development potential along Macadam Ave and across the Sellwood
Bridge to Sellwood. If that extension occurred, some interesting ways to route streetcars around
Portland could be considered.
Councilor Hennagin said he noticed the tracks were already installed on MLK, and asked when
the east side loop would open. Mr. Williams said he was not sure.
Mayor Hoffman believed it was scheduled for 2012 or 2013. He asked where the $50 million to
$60 million of local match would come from. Mr. Williams replied the City would be looking at all
of the partners, the regional pot of funds available for construction, perhaps State lottery funds due
to the economic development potential along the corridor and in Foothills. Locally, those benefiting
from the streetcar should pay for it. Urban Renewal funds, TIF, LID funds, and System
Development Charges (SDCs), could be considered but that was a conversation for City Council.
Financing discussions would occur as design options were narrowed and depending on how the
projects overlap.
Councilor Jordan noted discussions also continue about local transportation fees, like vehicle
registration fees, to help fund some of the projects, including the Sellwood Bridge. If there was the
interchange with the Sellwood Bridge and Streetcar line or Enhanced Bus, that would be another
place down the road.
Mayor Hoffman added Metro was considering a regional infrastructure funding mechanism. He
said that he spoke with Mr. Gustafson who believed Lake Oswego's project would be considered a
rapid streetcar and that it would meet the New Starts Program criteria. FTA was rewriting the rules
to stress the land use components, putting less emphasis on travel time and more on sustainability
and livability. He noted cities that Mr. Gustafson had stated were already in the New Starts
Program. Mr. Williams believed those were TIGER Grants and not part of the New Starts
Program. Councilor Jordan stated they would not be part of the New Starts program as no funds
were available yet. Mayor Hoffman corrected that they were the cities that already had streetcar
programs.
Mayor Hoffman concluded that Council would be addressing the transit issue again in September.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Jack D. Hoffman. Mavor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 19
July 13, 2010
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
September 7, 2010
Council President Roger Hennagin called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:36
p.m. on September 7, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Council President Hennagin, Councilors Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan,
and Vizzini. Mayor Hoffman was excused.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Christine Kirk, Public Affairs Manager; Joel Komarek, LOIS
Project Director; Jane Heisler, LOIS Communications Director; Ursula Euler,
Finance Director; Denny Egner, Long Range Planning Manager
3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 Distinguished Service Awards:
Brent Ahrend, Transportation Advisory Board
Council President Hennagin presented a Distinguished Service Award to Brent Ahrend and
thanked him for his service on the Transportation Advisory Board as Vice Chair. He mentioned Mr.
Ahrend's knowledge of traffic engineering as a traffic engineer with Group MacKenzie. Mr. Ahrend
indicated to Council President Hennagin that he was born and raised in Lake Oswego.
Ron Gronowski, Sustainability Advisory Board
Council President Hennagin presented a Distinguished Service Award to Ron Gronowski and
thanked him for his service as an inaugural member of the Sustainability Advisory Board. He
mentioned that Mr. Gronowski's interest in the practice of sustainable design. Mr. Gronowski
indicated that to Council President Hennagin that he has lived in Lake Oswego for 23 years, and
was transferring to the Foothills Citizen Advisory Committee.
Nancy Gronowski, Natural Resources Advisory Board
Council President Hennagin presented a Distinguished Service Award to Nancy Gronowski and
thanked her for her service on the Natural Resources Advisory Board. He mentioned that she was
a landscape architect and a planner for the Portland Parks Bureau, as well as a volunteer on the
Second Look Task Force. He noted that she was transferring to the Parks & Recreation Advisory
Board.
Morgan Holen, Natural Resources Advisory Board
Council President Hennagin presented a Distinguished Service Award to Morgan Holen and
thanked her for her service on the Natural Resources Advisory Board. He mentioned that she was
a forester who also volunteered on the Century Tree project. Ms. Holen confirmed that she
worked part-time for the City as an Assistant Natural Resources Planner. She indicated to Council
President Hennagin that she was a fourth generation forester.
Adrianne Brockman, Planning Commission
Council President Hennagin presented a Distinguished Service Award to Adrianne Brockman
and thanked her for her service on the Planning Commission. He noted that she was resigning
from the Commission. Ms. Brockman indicated to Council President Hennagin that this was her
second term of service on the Planning Commission, having served her first term from 1981-1990.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 16
September 7, 2010
She mentioned getting the infill code amendments to the Council as an accomplishment. She said
that she was a lawyer with a master's in planning. She expressed her appreciation for the
opportunity to serve her community.
• Philip L. Stewart, Planning Commission
Council President Hennagin presented a Distinguished Service Award to Philip Stewart and
thanked him for his service on the Planning Commission. He mentioned that he was resigning
from the Commission. He noted that Mr. Stewart served as Commission Chair and worked to
make the development code more user-friendly. Mr. Stewart indicated to Council President
Hennagin that he served on the Commission for two and a half years. He mentioned the infill
amendments to the Code, beginning Periodic Review, and working with the Sensitive Lands
Ordinance as accomplishments.
• Robert Galante, Redevelopment Director
Council President Hennagin presented a Distinguished Service Award to Bob Galante and
thanked him for his years of service with the City. Mr. Galante recalled that he had worked with
Ms. Brockman and Ms. Gronowski early in his career at the City. He reviewed his tenure at the
City, starting as a Development Review Planner, then as a Senior Planner and Planning Director
before his appointment as Redevelopment Director. He described the City staff as his extended
family. He commented that he has enjoyed working on the many downtown redevelopment and
other City projects over the years.
Council President Hennagin mentioned that Mr. Galante was involved in the planning for
Millennium Plaza Park, the Headlee Walkway, Lakeview Village, Foothills Park, the Kincaid
Curlicue Park, and the A Avenue, State Street, First Street and Evergreen, and Leonard Street
improvements. He commented that the City would miss his expertise and experience, and wished
him luck in his retirement. He led the room in a round of applause.
3.2 Federal Legislative Update
Ms. Kirk reported on the federal legislative efforts undertaken by Capital Edge on behalf of the City
since the last update (pp. 1-2). She mentioned Capital Edge helping the City make strategic
investments of time and gain access to the Congressional delegation. She described the City staff
and Capital Edge as working together as a team. She noted the number of issues revolving
around water, such as questions from the Oregon Water Utilities Council and assistance with the
federal permitting process for the Lake Oswego/Tigard Water Partnership.
Chris Giglio, Capital Edge, attended by Skype from Washington, D.C. He noted that Congress
was currently in its summer recess, and not expected back until next week. Following the October
8 scheduled end of the next session, Congress would not reconvene until after the November
elections for a lame duck session. He mentioned the Energy Efficiency and Conservation block
grants and the formula grants to states for recreation and conservation activities (in the Energy bill)
and an extension of the bond provisions in the 2009 stimulus package (Build America Bonds) as
items anticipated for Congressional debate that were of interest to Lake Oswego.
He mentioned the expectation of much debate regarding the FY 2011 budget. He observed that
deficit reduction has been a major topic of discussion in Congress. Consequently, the budget
hawks were eyeing domestic discretionary funding for cuts in FY 2011. Unfortunately, many
programs that could assist local governments fell under domestic discretionary funding and might
not see much growth.
He reported that Representative Schrader and Senators Wyden and Merkley requested the
respective Appropriations Committees to consider the two projects that Capital Edge helped the
City officials identify earlier this year for `earmarking' in the FY 2011 budget: the Foothills planning
effort and wastewater treatment projects. He explained that these projects had significant local
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16
September 7, 2010
support and contributions, they were projects that federal money could complete, and they met the
program eligibility requirements, which made them attractive to Congress.
He described the Congressional delegation requesting both projects as showing significant
progress in educating the Congressional delegation on Lake Oswego's needs. However, due to
the deficit and anticipated budget cuts, he did not think it likely that Congress would fund the
projects in FY2011. He pointed out that sometimes getting funding for projects was a multi-year
process. He mentioned the outside chance of Congress including funding for the wastewater
projects in the FY2011 budget for the EPA.
He mentioned other projects they continued to work on behalf of the City, such as potential federal
grant opportunities, discouraging federal intrusion into local matters, and public safety issues. He
reported that the City submitted an application to the Tiger 2 grant program run by the Department
of Transportation, which was a transportation, land use, and sustainability initiative. He
commented that, although the City had a strong application, even if it failed, they hoped submitting
it would bear fruit in future proposals by demonstrating the City's commitment to combining these
three elements.
He reported that the City's early application to a program in the new health care bill about
reimbursing local governments for up to 80% of health care costs related to early retirees (or
$90,000) has been approved. He indicated to Council President Hennagin that it was a $5 billion
program conducted on a first come, first served basis. He clarified that the program intent was to
encourage local governments to continue to provide benefits. He acknowledged that an
unintended consequence would be to open up employment opportunities for non -retirees.
Mr. Giglio indicated to Councilor Vizzini that specific program in the EPA funding stream to which
the City made application was the State and Tribal Assistance Grants program (STAG). He
explained that this was an earmark for local wastewater treatment facility upgrades. The City
made its application for the Foothills planning effort to a $150 million joint program from HUD,
DOT, and EPA seeking to combine land use, sustainability, and transportation. He reiterated that
they did not expect to see increased funding to these programs due to the deficit concerns.
He indicated to Councilor Vizzini that he saw prospects for funding through EPA for the City's
anticipated watershed planning work, as watershed planning was a hot topic at conferences and
on the EPA's radar screen. He commented that, while there was not significant programmatic
funding yet, his impression was that the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the
Interior wanted to work in this area in the future.
Mr. Giglio left the meeting.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that he had not intended to bring back the Capital
Edge contract renewal to the Council for discussion, as its renewal was under his authority.
However, if the Council wished to discuss it, he would bring it back.
Councilor Olson recalled a Council conversation about discussing the results of this work after
one year to see if the Council agreed to continue it. Mr. McIntyre said that his recollection was
that the Council decided that one year was an insufficient length of time to evaluate adequately the
success of this program; it would need two to three years to show success or lack of success. He
recalled that he had explicitly told the Council that the success of this legislative effort was not in
bringing the money home, but rather in influencing decision makers in Washington D.C., and
getting Lake Oswego on the radar screen.
Councilor Tierney commented that he did measure success by bringing home the money as an
investment. He concurred that the budget discussions did conclude that a one-year time frame
was too short to assess this work. He advocated for continuing the contract for another year.
Council President Hennagin indicated that he also recalled the conclusion that they would take
two to three years to determine whether this program was worthwhile or not.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16
September 7, 2010
3.3 Water Partnership Update
Mr. Komarek reported that the team was working on project definition and assessing the
conditions of the existing facilities in order to quantify and characterize the challenges they would
be facing during construction. He mentioned the tribal burial grounds near the intake and raw
water pipeline.
He indicated that both Lake Oswego and Tigard, as joint applicants for an extension, and the
opponents filed exceptions to the administrative law judge ruling in August. He explained that the
participants felt that the ruling granted some authority to the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife
that was not part of the original conditions. He noted that the Director had no time limit on issuing
his final order, but once he did, the parties had 60 days to appeal the final order directly to the
appellate court.
He mentioned the six distinct projects identified through project definition: the Clackamas River
intake facility, 14,000 feet of raw water pipeline crossing the Willamette, connecting that pipeline to
the treatment plant in West Linn, 35,000 feet of treated water to the Waluga Reservoir, the Tigard
connection to the Waluga Reservoir, and Tigard's distribution system.
He reported that their assessment of the existing pipelines found 50,000 plus feet of pipeline with
no quantifiable leakage and a better than expected condition. He mentioned the consensus
recommendation by the expert panel and the Citizen's Sounding Board to use the conventional
water treatment method plus ozone. He indicated that they would discuss these issues with the
Oversight Committee and the Council.
He commented that there was an interested group of neighbors of the Waluga Reservoir wanting
to have input into the facility design.
Ms. Heisler discussed their good neighbor outreach efforts to engage all the facility neighbors,
particularly those neighbors who would experience the most impacts during construction. She
mentioned the Robinwood Neighborhood and the Maple Grove Plat property owners in West Linn
where the treatment plant was located, and the Waluga Reservoir neighbors.
She explained that the City had to get 75% approval from the Maple Grove Plat property owners to
use the properties to the south of the treatment plant for any type of water -related facility. The
team was sounding them out about an underground clear well and a small pump station. She
noted that the project proposed a 3.5 million gallon reservoir at the existing 1 million gallon Waluga
Reservoir site.
Ms. Heisler indicated to Council President Hennagin that about a dozen property owners out of
the 85 property owners in the Plat attended the City's ice cream social.
She discussed the joint pilot program (Treatment Plant, Engineering, and Water Conservation
Specialist) in August and September to encourage people to conserve water. She described it as
a way to raise awareness and encourage people to save money and water as a preliminary to a
fuller program next year. She indicated that the team would meet with the City's Water
Conservation Specialist at the end of September to see if it had an impact.
Mr. Komarek reviewed the meetings scheduled through the end of the year, including monthly
Oversight Committee meetings to discuss the progress towards a joint Council decision on the CIP.
He mentioned the concurrent Lake Oswego rate update work to see how well the tiered water
pricing structure was working. He presented the website address and phone numbers,
encouraging residents to log on to the website, which had up-to-date information about the
partnership, thanks to Ms. Heisler and her team's work.
Councilor Vizzini asked if the City has sufficient meter information to determine whether there
was an effect on Beat the Peak this summer. Ms. Heisler observed that that was tied to outside
temperatures, yet she doubted that they were pulling much water out of the river.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16
September 7, 2010
Mr. Komarek described to Councilor Olson the appeals process following the Director's issuance
of the final order. He mentioned the current thinking that the Director would issue that order within
a few weeks to three months. He speculated that it would take a year for the appeal to go through
the courts. Council President Hennagin commented that how long it would take was impossible
to predict. He conjectured that it could take two years.
Councilor Tierney asked Mr. Komarek to summarize the water rights decision because it was a
lynch pin for the whole process. If the City did not get the water rights, then the project stopped,
yet they were proceeding as if they would get it. Mr. Komarek explained that this had to do with
the 2005 House bill that turned the municipal water rights world upside down. Instead of the
continual extension of water rights in recognition of cities and jurisdictions growing into their water
rights over time, the State decided to allow each jurisdiction a 20 -year block of time. During those
20 years, a jurisdiction had to show that it was managing the existing water rights to the best of its
ability, and that the development of the undeveloped rights would not result in harm to endangered
species.
Mr. Komarek said that Lake Oswego initially applied for water rights extension in 2000 and was
halfway through the process when this new legislation came through and put everything on hold.
He recounted how two years ago Water Watch and the Southfork Water Board immediately
contested the Department's proposed final order approving Lake Oswego's water rights extension.
Lake Oswego's efforts to reach an out-of-court settlement were unsuccessful, and eventually an
administrative law judge issued a ruling upholding the proposed final order.
He concurred that securing the extension of these water rights was extremely important, not only to
the Partnership, but also to Lake Oswego alone for growth and economic development.
3.4 LOIS Update
Mr. Komarek concurred with Council President Hennagin that drawing down the lake has run
into Mother Nature trying to fill it back up again. He reported that the contractors have finished the
West Bay CPPP (cured in place plastic pipe) work and anticipated finishing similar work in
Lakewood Bay and Foothills early next week. He indicated that they did get the Country Club
irrigation system in place and operational before lake draw down.
He discussed several important elements in the project. He mentioned the debris sump installation
to collect and trap debris upstream of the lake to prevent debris entering the buoyant pipe and
causing difficulties. He spoke of the bypass pumping necessary in working with a live sewer
system. He described the work done on the Bryant and Foothills pump stations.
He mentioned the City's coordination work with the Lake Corp, not only on the LOIS project, but
also on the Corporation's desire to dredge during the lake down phase in order to make some
modifications to their dam for flood control benefits.
He referenced Mr. McIntyre's memo sent out last week about the City receiving the highest rating
by both bond rating agencies for its full faith and credit revenue bonds.
Ms. Heisler indicated that the team has been focusing its recent communication efforts on draw
down. She noted the Lake Corporation's efforts to advertise its intent to dredge, which meant that
owners had to get their boats out of the water. She mentioned the intense media and public
interest in the lake draw down.
She mentioned the need to update constantly the information on the website as the bypass
pumping system would move around the lake with the work on different manholes. She indicated
that staff met with three easement groups to discuss the upcoming work near those easements.
She noted that the CIPP work in Half Moon Bay, the northeast Arm, and the remainder of
Lakewood Bay would require a six-week closure of the North Shore Bridge. She said that the team
would communicate with emergency services regarding the one day when emergency vehicles will
not be able to travel over the bridge.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16
September 7, 2010
Mr. Komarek indicated that the project was on track with its schedule with some projects
completed ahead of schedule. He commented that he expected the Lake Down Phase to catch
up, weather permitting. He reported beginning initial discussions with the Portland Bureau of
Environmental Services (BES) about partnering on the Foothills sewer seismic upgrade. He
reported that the project costs were steadily decreasing over time, with the latest project total
estimate coming in at $90 million.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
Councilor Jordan thanked Mr. Komarek for the fantastic job that he and his team have done with
keeping the LOIS project moving and keeping all those impacted by the work informed and
prepared. She commended Mr. Komarek and Ms. Heisler for their skills in helping this project to
proceed smoothly. She commented that she thought the same would happen with the water
project, which made her glad that the City had talented people on staff to do this work.
Council President Hennagin concurred with Councilor Jordan regarding how well this project has
gone. He asked Mr. Komarek to address the confusion among the public regarding the need for a
larger diameter sewer through the lake to handle increased present and future sewer flow and yet
the City was not enlarging the pipe through Lakewood Bay but only re -lining it.
Mr. Komarek explained that the modeling showed that the West Bay pipeline had adequate
hydraulic capacity to pass the designed flows based on certain assumptions. He indicated that an
important assumption was that the City would continue to address the infiltration and inflow issues
in the smaller diameter collection systems upstream. He emphasized that if the City allowed this to
go unattended, then it would see overflows into the lake again.
He indicated to Council President Hennagin that the pipe in Lakewood Bay had the same 35 inch
inside diameter as the pipe running through the main lake; its size was adequate to handle both
storm and domestic flows. He mentioned their determination that there was little seismic risk to the
pipe, as it was buried. He explained that re -lining the pipe would extend the useful life and give the
pipe more structure.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Councilor Jordan moved the Consent Agenda. Councilor Moncrieff seconded the motion.
A voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Council President Hennagin,
Councilors Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and Vizzini voting "aye." [6-0]
4.1 RESOLUTIONS
4.1.1 Resolution 10-49, making appointments to the 50+ Advisory Board
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-49, appointing Gail Zimmerman, Debbie Harris and Marcia
Robertson to the 50+ Advisory Board, Gale Gipson as alternate
4.1.2 Resolution 10-50, making appointments to the Planning Commission
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-50, re -appointing Russell Jones to the Planning Commission
and continuing to recruit for additional candidates
4.1.3 Resolution 10 - 55, authorizing an intergovernmental agreement to accept a grant for
the Juvenile Youth Diversion Program
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-55
4.1.4 Resolution 10 - 56, appointing an additional member to the Foothills Oversight
Committee
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-56
4.1.5 Resolution 10-57, regarding oversight of Lake Oswego School District's New
Sustainability Fund
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16
September 7, 2010
Action: Adopt Resolution 10-57
4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.2.1 March 30, 2010, special meeting
4.2.2 April 13, 2010, special meeting
4.2.3 April 13, 2010, regular meeting
4.2.4 April 20, 2010, regular meeting
4.2.5 May 17, 2010, special meeting
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
• Jerry Ghiglieri, 667 McVey
She asked the Council to waive the fee for the use of the West End Building for the December 4
ceremony honoring the 82nd Brigade, Army National Guard. She mentioned that many of these
heroic men and women in the Guard served more than two tours, and others have made the
ultimate sacrifice.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Council President Hennagin that waiving the fee was within his
discretion, and that he would do so. Ms. Ghiglieri thanked the Council and the City Manager.
Councilor Jordan observed that this was consistent with the community covenant that the City
signed with Clackamas County to support all of their military personnel and their families. She
thanked Ms. Ghiglieri for bringing this request forward.
• Dr. Bill Korach, Lake Oswego School Superintendent
On behalf of the School Board, the children and the families, he thanked the Council for its serious
consideration of helping the School District financially. He indicated that this financial support
made a big difference to the kids, as $75,000 meant one teacher and $150,000 two teachers. He
thanked the City staff for their help in getting the Lake Oswego High School building open in time
for the students' arrival. He mentioned that Mr. McIntyre has worked closely with him through the
year, and the District felt good about its partnership with the City.
7. REPORTS
7.1 One -Time Financial Support to the Lake Oswego School District
Mr. McIntyre presented his recommendation to fund for one year on a one-time grant basis
support to the School District for the continuation of its aquatics and orchestra programs. He noted
that both these programs were consistent with the City's values regarding cultural and youth
activities. He commented that, while at any other time he might be more rigorous in defending the
Measure 5 line between cities and schools, the Council did put undesignated funds into the
contingency funds in anticipation of some future event. He described this as one future event of
$150,000 for Council consideration. He indicated to Council President Hennagin that the Council
put $256,000 into contingency.
Mr. Powell indicated to Council President Hennagin that there could be an issue with the
Measure 5 restrictions, depending on where the funds came from. He noted that staff presented
this request as a use of franchise fees. He explained that that was a defensible use, as there were
no strings attached to those funds as there were to property tax funds.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16
September 7, 2010
Councilor Moncrieff observed that the Lake Oswego schools differentiated Lake Oswego from
the surrounding communities. She described this as an appropriate expenditure of funds, as the
schools were a community value.
Councilor Olson cited an Oregonian article discussing other school districts in the state
eliminating music programs. She commented that music programs were something that
distinguished Oregon schools. She remarked that strong schools were a prime reason that people
moved to this community and a major factor in maintaining high property values. She emphasized
that this was a one-time grant. She spoke to the City and the State finding a permanent fix for the
problems faced by the School District.
Councilor Jordan indicated that she supported this request. She observed that Lake Oswego
had one of the strongest school systems in the state; supporting the schools was part of the fabric
of this community. She concurred with Councilor Olson that they needed to address school
financing as a statewide issue, since education fueled the State's economic engine. She
suggested that Ms. Kirk help create a message to send to the legislature about the importance of
schools.
Councilor Tierney stated that he would support the resolution. He asked the City Manager to
incorporate into the details of the agreement a specific linkage between the orchestra and the
community, such as holding an orchestra event at a City venue or having a performance open to
the community.
Councilor Vizzini concurred with the Councilor comments that this issue went beyond the
community. He argued that all communities in the state should be advocating for a permanent
solution to school funding in the upcoming legislative cycle. He agreed that this was a one-time
grant.
He mentioned that he saw the Lake Oswego High School fields filled with kids and their parents
every evening as he rode his bike home. He held that the linkage between the school students
and the new branding of the community was manifest. He described the students as representing
the community when they attended athletic events elsewhere in the state. He commented that he
saw the students as part of the community's economic development strategy.
He noted the action item on the League of Oregon Cities' legislative agenda to allow communities
to vote to exceed the limits of Measures 5 and 50. He argued that the time has come to return to
the Lake Oswego citizens having more direct control over the school budget.
Council President Hennagin said that he also supported this allocation of contingency funds. He
remarked that it was a sad commentary on the State tax system and allocation of funds that the
school districts had to raise funds through foundations and charitable giving in order to provide the
desired level of education. He agreed that the legislature needed to find a solution. He
commented that, while he did not like these "Band-aids," on occasion they did need to use them.
Councilor Olson moved to adopt Resolution 10-59, authorizing a resolution transfer of
$150,000 from the City's General Fund Contingency to the non -departmental budget to
provide one time funding for the Lake Oswego School District. Councilor Jordan seconded
the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motionap ssed with Council President
Hennagin, Councilors Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and Vizzini voting "aye." [6-0]
7.2 LOIS Bond Issue #2
Mr. Komarek presented his request that the Council direct a bond issue in the amount of $35
million for the completion of the LOIS project. He noted the additional $5 million for an expanded
scope of work to upsize a piece of the system. He explained that this piece could wait but if the
City took advantage of the qualified contractors already working for it, the staff believed they could
achieve some economies of scale. He mentioned staff's anticipation that the $5 million could also
pay to address some other deficiencies in the small diameter waterfront sewers ringing the lake.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16
September 7, 2010
He directed the Council to Exhibit 2.8 in the handout (p.114, packet), a table that showed the future
rate increases over four years required by a $110 million wastewater funding project, as identified
in the December 2009 wastewater cost of service analysis. He mentioned the staff's anticipation of
completing the project for around $90 million. He explained that the project was close to
consuming all of the $60 million 2009 bond issue. He spoke of taking advantage of the good credit
market climate, the low LOIS project costs, and the availability of qualified contractors for the
additional work by issuing $35 million in bonds at this time.
Mr. McIntyre commented that the City would have to do the additional work in a couple of years
anyway. Staff just thought that it made sense to take advantage of the contractors already on the
lake to do that work now.
Council President Hennagin asked Mr. Komarek to explain how doing this work now resulted in
saving substantial amounts of money. Mr. Komarek explained that the City needed to do re -line
another 4,000 feet of the main Canal trunk sewer and replace and lower 100 existing sewer
laterals serving properties abutting either side of the canal because of damage that occurred
whenever the Lake Corporation dredged the canal. He explained that mobilization was a huge
cost in any project, and with the specialized CIPP contractors already mobilized and on the lake
with their equipment, the City saved that cost for this re -lining project in the future. He reiterated
that the funds might potentially cover taking care of some additional small waterfront sewers
ringing the lake.
Mr. Komarek explained to Councilor Tierney that it was difficult to estimate how much this project
would cost if done in a few years. He mentioned inflation and mobilization as a higher percentage
of a smaller project's costs. He pointed out that the work would have to coincide with future
drawdowns initiated by the Lake Corp; when and how far they would draw the lake down were
unknowns. He indicated to Councilor Tierney that he would expect to see a $250,000 to
$500,000 higher cost in the future over the cost of doing the project today.
Mr. Komarek indicated to Councilor Vizzini that staff realized a 30% cost reduction over the
engineer's estimate for the Lake Full Phase due to doing the work during an economic recession.
He mentioned a 10% cost reduction during the Lake Down Phase. Councilor Vizzini commented
that that proved the truth that one should build as much as possible during a recession because
the pricing was good. He observed that having the workers in town was another economic benefit.
Mr. Komarek said that the contractors expected to have 50 to 60 people on the lake down phase
at any given time.
Councilor Olson mentioned another cost savings of $100,000 in bond fees if they issued this $5
million in bonds separately. She noted the current very low bond rates also. Mr. Komarek spoke
of other additional costs for design work and another bid process, as well as the question of
whether these specialty contractors would be available when the City next needed them.
Chip Pierce, Bond Consultant, confirmed Councilor Olson's estimate of $100,000 in savings by
not doing a separate bond issue. He described taking advantage of these historically low bond
yields as an economically sound approach.
Councilor Moncrieff asked why staff did not recommend Scenario 3, an additional $10 million in
bond issues to take care of the cleaning inspection and condition assessment of the sewer lines
ringing the lake. Mr. Komarek explained that staff would not have the inspection work completed
to assess the condition of the lines. He discussed his concern about the staffing capacity required
to do that work, especially in light of the Lake Oswego/Tigard Partnership coming online. He
spoke of finding the middle ground between what could be done and being sensitive to rate
increases.
Mr. McIntyre asked how soon did the City have to spend the funds, once the City received them.
Mr. Pierce said that the rule was that the City had to have a reasonable expectation of spending
90% of the proceeds within three years. Mr. McIntyre commented that that changed things slightly
for him.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16
September 7, 2010
Councilor Olson commented that if Mr. Komarek continued his stellar management of LOIS, then
the City could have an additional $5 million in contingency to use for the additional work instead of
issuing bonds.
Councilor Jordan commented that Mr. Komarek has justified increasing the scope of work, as
Council asked him to do last summer. She pointed out the decreased rate increases under this
scenario from the original 2009 estimated rate increases (p.114). She observed that the City was
decreasing the expense to the residents' pocketbooks over the next couple of years with regard to
sewer rates and still doing more work on the sewer.
Councilor Tierney asked Mr. Pierce to discuss the risks associated with the Build America Bond
provisions. Mr. Pierce indicated that, while there were elements of the Build America Bond (BAB)
program that were attractive and would achieve savings, there were also risks. He mentioned the
risks involved with the IRS -required certifications by the underwriters. He discussed the loss of the
35% subsidy on the interest with re -funding the BABs in comparison to savings achieved when re-
funding the traditional tax-exempt bonds. He explained that if the federal government decided that
the City has not used federal money it has received for a given project appropriately, then it could
withhold interest subsidies on un -related bonds.
Mr. Pierce observed that BABs sounded terrific on their face but there were factors to consider
before going with BABs. He said that they might end up issuing straight 25 -year tax-exempt bonds
at a rate in the mid -3s. He commented that BABs might have a little lower rate but he was not
certain they were worth the offset. He mentioned their intention to sell the bonds competitively, as
a more economically efficient way for the City to sell them. Councilor Tierney indicated that he
would not be disappointed if the City sold straight bonds.
Ms. Euler referenced the earlier question about why staff did not recommend the $40 million bond
scenario instead of the $35 million bond issue. She explained that, even with the lower customer
rate increases, the City was still accumulating a fund balance that seemed adequate to take care
of non -LOIS capital projects or any unforeseen major project.
Council President Hennagin commented that he had no doubt that the savings realized in the
long run from the various factors articulated by staff would be beneficial.
Councilor Tierney moved to direct staff to sell $35 million in a combination of full faith and
credit tax exempt obligations, Series 210A obligations, and full faith and credit taxable
obligations, Series 210B obligations to pay cost of or to reimburse the City for payment of
costs of capital improvements to the City's wastewater system, and to pay costs of
issuance. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion
passed with Council President Hennagin, Councilors Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and
Vizzini voting "aye." [6-0]
Council President Hennagin recessed the meeting at 8:38 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the
meeting at 8:46 p.m.
7.3 Boones Ferry Road Project Phase 2: Consultant Selection and Public Process
Mr. Egner mentioned that staff would like to return to Council on September 21 with a resolution
appointing an advisory committee and approving the project contract. He explained that Phase 2
was intended to provide a mechanism to make recommendations on the 22 refinements
recommended by the consultant during the technical analysis of Phase 1, to pin down a specific
right-of-way, and to conduct a public process.
He reviewed the consultant selection process (pp. 118-119). He presented the staff
recommendation to hire HNTB as the consultant (p.119). He indicated that staff was negotiating
the contract that they anticipated presenting for approval at the Council September 21 meeting.
He presented the staff recommendation for a seven -member Advisory Committee (pp. 119-120)
comprised of four members from the old Lake Grove Village Center Task Force and three
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16
September 7, 2010
members from the current Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). He commented that staff did not
know at this point whether this project would simply implement the Village Center Plan or develop
proposed amendments. Staff would take any amendments to the Planning Commission and the
City Council, but implementing the concepts was solely a Council decision.
He discussed the proposed schedule. He indicated that, if Council approved this approach, he
would meet with TAB later this month and convene the first meeting of the Advisory Committee in
October. He said that the goal was to have a six-month project ending in April 2011. He noted the
key decision points listed in the schedule (p.120).
Council President Hennagin commented that he had hoped that this would be the last step and
not the next step because the property owners along Boones Ferry Road needed to know where
the improvements would be before undertaking any redevelopment or property improvements. Mr.
Egner stated that this project would provide some certainty about the location of the improvements
but there were still unknowns. He mentioned that one unknown was how the City would pay for
the project. He remarked that the Homebuilders Association has tied up a Metro construction
excise tax grant in a lawsuit.
Mr. Egner agreed with Council President Hennagin's hope that this project would not result in
amendments to the Lake Grove Village Center Plan, but he noted that there were a few of the 22
refinements which, if recommended by the Advisory Committee, might require amendments.
Councilor Olson commented that she was glad to see this moving along within a six months time
frame. She referenced Mr. Egner's report indicating that the Lake Grove Village Plan Advisory
Committee had rejected some of the 22 refinements later identified by the Phase 1 consultant.
She asked if the new Advisory Committee would actually consider those items originally rejected.
Mr. Egner noted that the wording was `they were considered and rejected.' He gave an example
of putting a full service traffic signal in for all four legs of the Lanewood intersection. He recalled
that the Lake Grove Plan Advisory Committee had rejected extending Hallmark as one of the
intersection legs because of concerns about traffic going past the school. He indicated that, since
the Committee never decided whether or not that signal served the redevelopment of the furniture
store site, he believed that the question was left open regarding connecting to the furniture store
parking lot. He mentioned the Madrona intersection as another traffic signal discussion.
Councilor Olson referenced the fourth cost cutting strategy mentioned in Mr. Egner's report, using
the accurate, high-resolution aerial photos instead of detailed surveys. She asked if the City would
need those detailed surveys in the future. Mr. Egner explained that these photos were as
accurate as the staff could get without going to construction level drawings. He indicated that they
would only do spot surveys for the construction level drawings, and not a full survey of the
roadway.
Councilor Jordan mentioned that part of the issue with the 22 refinements was that some of them
anticipated growth using models with estimates of future populations. She pointed out that until
they resolved the issue at the railroad crossing on Bryant Road, nothing they did on Boones Ferry
would alleviate the traffic stacking up. She described the intent of the plan as making a more
pedestrian friendly, accessible corridor in the next five to ten years and not trying to implement the
35 -year plan right now.
She agreed that the Boones Ferry Road property owners waiting to do projects needed to know
the exact location of the right-of-way and the pedestrian facilities. She observed that the location
of the pedestrian crossings would help identify the locations of future driveway consolidations.
Councilor Vizzini thanked Mr. Egner for taking some of his comments about the Advisory
Committee into consideration. He said that he was pleased with the Committee's composition. He
mentioned his concerns about the scope of work. He discussed the need to make the aspirational
Village Center Plan real on the ground through the access management planning process
recommended by Planning Commissioner Glisson.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16
September 7, 2010
He stated that his concern was that the plan was written with the intent of completing the access
management plan and the economic analysis in order to make decisions about the engineering
plans, and of having a process to get community buy -in on the refinements. He stated his personal
opinion that the program needed more money in order to complete the economic analysis
promised to the community, in addition to the resources budgeted for the scope of work proposed
for Phase 2.
Mr. Egner indicated that the project team included an economic consultant to help with the
economic analysis. He said that the scope of work would be in the Council's September 21
packet.
Councilor Vizzini commented that he saw a significant amount of work to be done in this phase to
get to two things: certainty for the property owners regarding the location of the road, and
sustaining a community consensus about what the corridor would look like and how it would work.
He emphasized that his greatest concern was that, at the end of Phase 2, the City had a
consensus about what the corridor would look like and how it impacted the abutting properties.
Councilor Vizzini concurred with Mr. Egner that only about five of the 22 refinements identified
were controversial, but he observed that they were significant issues.
Councilor Tierney asked for clarification on Mr. Egner's statement on p. 118 stating that doing an
economic impact analysis separate from the technical engineering work required adding $10,000
to $15,000 dollars to the cost. He mentioned that he would support adding money to accomplish
what Councilor Vizzini talked about.
Mr. Egner clarified that the contract amount coming to Council in two weeks would be for $140,000
to $145,000, which included the additional money. He said that the original amount mentioned to
the consultants had been $130,000. He explained that staff had asked the consultants for creative
ideas on how to pare the costs down. Councilor Jordan noted that the recommended consultant
team included the economic piece in their proposal, which none of the other consultants did.
Council President Hennagin commented that he thought that the public would be interested to
know that staff was taking steps to maintain cost controls, as described in the written staff report.
He mentioned that he too had thought that combining TAB members and former Lake Grove
Advisory Committee members would be an appropriate composition for the Advisory Committee.
Councilor Olson concurred with Councilor Vizzini about the importance of this project and the
economic study. She questioned quibbling about $15,000 for this project when the Council was
investing over $1 million in Foothills. She commented that she hoped that the Council would move
ahead with the financing strategy, even without the Metro grant, because the Lake Grove people
have been waiting a long time for this, and the City needed to get it done.
Councilor Olson questioned including on the Advisory Committee an individual who, due to the
nature of his work, regularly appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council with
projects. Councilor Jordan explained that they had been trying to get a balance of the people
with the most involvement on the Lake Grove Village Plan and knowledge from both sides of the
issue. She commented that the City has invested over $900,000 in the Lake Grove planning
process and the property owners still had no idea of where the line would be drawn. She agreed
that they needed to keep moving on this project. She held that the recommended team would do a
good job.
Mr. Egner indicated to Council President Hennagin that he had not been looking for input from
the Council on the individual Committee members, but rather for a nod of heads to come back at
the September 21 meeting with the contract and a list of Committee members.
Councilor Vizzini summarized the Council's comments as supportive of adding sufficient money
to get the entire body of work done. He reiterated that the two end products that represented
success to him were a reasonable and accurate description of the corridor for property owners
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16
September 7, 2010
(and which honored the goals and policies of the plan) and consensus from the broader Lake
Oswego community that was investing in this plan.
Councilor Tierney concurred with Councilor Vizzini. He commented that he did not think that they
had enough public relations and energy behind this project to keep it moving forward, as the
energy has dissipated over time. He indicated that he would support the additional money for a
scope of work to move the project to the next step.
7.4 Financial Review as of June 30, 2010
Council President Hennagin invited the Budget Committee members present to come forward to
the table: Jeff Gudman, Ron Smith, and Kent Studebaker.
Ms. Euler indicated that staff had only preliminary numbers for this review because the audit was
still underway. They would have final numbers after the auditors issued their report. She noted
the sources of the $.9 million that the General Fund was returning to its fund balance and the
importance of evaluating surpluses and deficiencies in balancing a budget (pp. 125-126). She
discussed the City's revenue from property taxes, both current and delinquent (p.126).
She noted that the budget revenues overall were $500,000 below the budget projection due to
reduced revenues in other City fees. She indicated that reduced expenditures in personal services
and materials and services readily balanced that shortfall. She pointed out that staff had used very
conservative numbers in the budget for the franchise fees but the silver lining was that PGE, NW
Natural Gas, and Comcast were all reporting increases in retail sales, which meant more franchise
fee revenue. She mentioned the motor vehicle fees and street maintenance fee revenues (p.127).
She commented that she was thankful that the budget had had a bit of a cushion in it, given the
vacation and other accruals that they needed to take into account at the end of the year.
Ms. Euler confirmed to Councilor Tierney that the transfers from other funds to the general fund
to pay for administrative services charged to those funds by the general fund comprised a large
part of the other financing sources. She indicated that the only other financing source she could
think of would be bonds. She agreed with the Councilor that there should be a balance of
transfers citywide.
Councilor Tierney asked how they got so far off on debt service (57%). Ms. Euler explained that
the line of credit interest had been budgeted high at 4%. However, the most recent renewal came
in at under 2%.
Councilor Tierney asked why the capital outlays across all funds (excluding LOIS and the water
project) were substantially below budget. He wondered whether cheaper projects or not done
projects were the reason. Ms. Euler indicated that there was a variety of reasons, including
delayed projects and project funding coming in different from anticipated. She said that she could
e-mail Councilor Tierney a detailed list of the projects that might have caused the savings. She
gave an example of a project for which they budgeted a capital outlay of $980,000 in federal
stimulus funds as cash, only to have the $900,000 come in as in kind.
Councilor Tierney expressed his concern that the Council has budgeted for infrastructure capital
improvements for two years and the improvements were not getting done. He noted that taking the
$900,000 out still left $200,000, on which he would like some detail. Councilor Vizzini suggested
adding to the report a separate capital project summary giving the status of these projects.
Councilor Olson concurred that the Council needed a Capital Improvement Plan financial report.
Ms. Euler indicated that she and her staff were working on the report, per Council's earlier request,
and testing it internally to make sure that it had the right numbers and would be useful to the
Council.
Councilor Olson pointed out that Portland billed the City less on wastewater because the flow
volumes to the wastewater treatment plant were significantly lower than in previous years (p.126).
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16
September 7, 2010
Ms. Euler indicated that she would have to get the answer from other staff members on why that
was. She pointed out that her wording specified `reported,' and not `actual' flows.
Councilor Olson asked what the revenue line item in both the water fund and the wastewater fund
(p. 135, 136) called `licenses and fees' was, given that it had no budget number. Ms. Euler
explained that staff sometimes worked for other utilities, and this represented those charges. She
indicated that it was similar to transfers, but transfers were usually based on estimates and
allocations, while these items represented actual hours worked on a project.
Councilor Olson commented that, while she liked the report format very much, she would
appreciate a cover sheet that provided citywide totals. Ms. Euler indicated that staff has begun
creating those summary reports for the new year.
Councilor Jordan argued that the Council needed to understand why the reported figures for
capital projects were different from the budgeted numbers. Councilor Tierney concurred that the
why was important.
Councilor Tierney discussed the question of whether it was good to have a budget surplus at the
end of the year or not. He indicated that he thought that there was a `magic' amount in there. He
pointed out that they could get too conservative and have an unnecessary flexibility and tax rates
slightly higher than they needed to be. He observed that the City enjoyed a favorable surplus
gained over many years, but he thought that there could be more of a balance with a tighter
budget.
He commented that it was also important not to hold staff responsible to come in with a surplus
every year, especially when the year started out with a tight budget. He recalled the long Budget
Committee discussion regarding the reduction in personal services, which he thought could have
gone higher than 1 %. He indicated that he was not afraid to overspend slightly some place if they
concurred that there was a very tight budget going into the year. He conjectured that, if they did
not collect the revenue in a given year from raising the assessment to the full 3%, then the Council
could take it from contingency and manage the budget going forward.
Councilor Vizzini asked to expand Councilor Olson's request for a summary of the Citywide totals
to include a break down of expenditures in the major objective categories. He suggested tracking
the workload measures on an annual basis along with the dollars, as opposed to on a monthly or
quarterly basis.
Council President Hennagin invited the Budget Committee members to ask questions.
Mr. Smith asked what impact the $6.7 million surplus had on the 2010/11 budget. He wondered
whether Ms. Euler needed to do something different based on this information. Ms. Euler clarified
that the $6.7 million was citywide, including utilities. She pointed out that the budget was an
estimate, which their team still tried to manage responsibly as best they could. She explained that
this additional information helped them to evaluate their progress and determine whether their work
was going according to plan, based on the underlying assumptions of the plan.
Mr. Smith indicated that he would like more clarity on the assumptions made going forward. He
recalled that they cut the Community Services Officer and Traffic Engineer positions. He wondered
whether this new information would now allow them to reinstate those positions. Ms. Euler
mentioned that internally staff has worked on a five-year forecast, which they hoped to use in the
next budget season. She commented that they needed to strike a balance between capital
projects, positions, people, services, and new items, such as saving for major equipment and
vehicle replacements.
Mr. McIntyre confirmed to Mr. Smith that post -audit they would know the exact amount in the
City's bank account. Mr. Smith suggested re -visiting priorities to see if funds were available for
things cut during the original budget.
Mr. Gudman suggested that the Council consider exploring the possibility of converting LORA's
floating rate debt to a fixed rate debt with rates at these historic lows (p.144). He pointed out that
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16
September 7, 2010
with the WEB building debt budgeted at 3% but coming in at 2% for the first quarter (p.129), there
was money left on the table that could be used for other services. He advocated for a consolidated
summary showing the transfers as revenues and expenses and for a capital expenditure summary,
in support of Councilors Olson, Tierney, and Vizzini.
Mr. Studebaker asked whether the Budget Committee should expect to see a surplus in personal
services and materials and services in the next budget cycle, given that the figures were
substantially lower in the actual than in the budget. Ms. Euler commented that some of that was
real art, and she wanted to reserve judgment for a few more months. She indicated that she could
not point to reasons why the actuals were lower than the budget, but she intended to discuss the
question with staff. Mr. Studebaker commented that he would appreciate her finding out why
because it could significantly affect how they budgeted next time.
Councilor Olson observed that the City budgeted every position as filled 100% of the time, which
they all knew did not happen. She recalled that that was why they budgeted a 1 % reduction in the
personal service budget last year, which she agreed could have been higher. Councilor Vizzini
suggested looking first to the salary savings gained through turnover, such as when a lower
salaried new person replaced a higher salaried senior staff person, to determine the reason for the
difference.
Mr. McIntyre observed that Lake Oswego was the little city that loved to think big and did
everything in a robust way. He noted that Lake Oswego and Portland were the only two full
service cities in the Metro area. He commented that the complexity in budgeting made it
challenging to be the management team that the Council expected. He described the decision
making process as they went along as thoughtful and ardent. He pointed out that budgeting was
as much science as it was art in trying to find the perfect wedge that was satisfactory to both the
public and the decision makers.
He commented that, while the City did well on budgeting for utilities and the general fund, it did not
do well on budgeting for capital projects. He indicated that he has made a conscious effort to get
general fund money for capital projects because it was an area that was seriously lacking, as the
City facilities demonstrated.
He acknowledged that staff did not present the workload measures that it should have. He
indicated that they would do so in the future.
He pointed out that each year they all got better at the budget process. He thanked Ms. Euler and
her budget team for their hard work in seeking to understand the budget and knowing how the
numbers moved and what the impacts were. He reiterated that the City budget was very complex.
8. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL
8.1 Councilor Information
Councilor Moncrieff reported that Youth Councilor Ben Silbert was on his way to Northwestern
University to study economics. She wished him well.
8.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
Councilor Jordan reported on a meeting that she and Councilor Olson attended last week
organized by Clackamas County with regard to high-speed rail and ODOT's current plans to attract
federal money proposed for those types of projects. She asked to put on the September 14
agenda a discussion of the letter that Clackamas County was drafting, which all city organizations
impacted by ODOT's current rail plan would sign.
She indicated that the concern was that ODOT was looking at only one of two items that the State
should be looking at, and it was not looking at it with a good lens. She mentioned a suggestion
made at the meeting to revive the TooToo Caucus, in which all the cities affected by ODOT's
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16
September 7, 2010
proposal to stop the train service between Eugene and Portland had rallied around the service and
convinced the legislature to continue the train service. She spoke of possibly taking rail out of
ODOT and putting it with a consultant who did not have the same connections to the projects done
as ODOT staff did.
9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
9.1 City Manager
9.1.1 Review of Council Schedule
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Jordan that he would make room on the September 14
meeting to discuss the Clackamas County letter regarding high-speed rail.
The Council agreed by consensus with Councilor Olson's suggestion that the Council take two
weeks off at Christmas. Councilor Jordan suggested holding the second regular business
meeting on December 14 for the public hearing and construction contract award.
Mr. McIntyre confirmed to Councilor Olson that the November 9 special meeting on sensitive
lands was a study session. He clarified that the Code audit item on October 26 was an update and
report on the funding source.
9.1.2 Review of Council Digest
Mr. McIntyre explained that this new agenda item was a time for Council members to ask
questions about items in the Council Digest or to suggest putting Digest topics on the agenda.
9.2 City Attorney
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Council President Hennagin recessed the meeting to Executive Session at 10:05 p.m. pursuant
to ORS 192.660 (2) (e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property
transactions. Mr. Powell reviewed the Executive Session parameters.
11. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Council President Hennagin reconvened the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Council President Hennagin adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m
Respectfully submitted,
e�_4�
Robyn 4ristie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16
September 7, 2010
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910-2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: David Powell, City Attorney iS f
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 2564
Renewal of Franchise -- Electric Lightwave, LLC
DATE: November 9, 2010
ACTION
-7.
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
The City Council is requested to enact Ordinance 2564, renewing the non-exclusive telecommunications
franchise granted to Electric Lightwave, LLC.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Pursuant to its home rule authority and state law, the city may grant franchises allowing utilities and
telecommunications companies to use the public rights of way to install and operate facilities necessary to
provide services to city residents and businesses. Franchise agreements are approved by ordinance. The
agreements spell out the terms and conditions for operating in the rights of way, and require payment of
franchise fees. Franchise fees compensate the public for the commercial use of a public asset, and also
provide recovery of related costs of right of way administration and maintenance.
The city's franchise agreement with Electric Lightwave, LLC1 is in need of renewal. Electric Lightwave offers
business customers integrated telecommunications products and services. The company operates as a
Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) -- as opposed to an Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC). The
ILEC's in Lake Oswego are Qwest and Frontier (formerly Verizon).
As with other Lake Oswego CLEC franchises, Electric Lightwave has been required to pay franchise fees
totaling 5% of gross revenues from telecommunications services provided in the city. The adopted 2010-11
City Budget estimates that Electric Lightwave will pay $26,000 in franchise fees this fiscal year. Requiring a
5% franchise fee for CLEC's is common among Portland -area cities .2 However, many cities in Oregon charge
I The franchise was originally granted to Electric Lighwave, Inc. The company is now Electric Lightwave LLC, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Integra Telecom Holdings, Inc.
2 For example, Portland, Beaverton, Hillsboro (also has a few at 3.5%), Milwaukie, Tigard, Tualatin, and Wilsonville — per a 2008
survey.
Page 2
7%.3
Attached Ordinance 2564 renews and updates the city's franchise agreement with Electric Lightwave, LLC.
DISCUSSION
Ordinance 2564 extends Electric Lightwave's non-exclusive telecommunications franchise for a period of
ten years (expiring December 31, 2020).
Like the previous agreement, this renewal agreement allows Electric Lightwave to install its
telecommunication lines and related facilities in the right of way, subject to applicable city regulations, and
subject to the approval of the City Engineer. This equipment must be placed underground unless the city
specifically allows otherwise. Following installation, the company is required to promptly restore the right
of way according to city specifications. If it fails to do so, the city may complete the restoration at the
company's expense.
The city may require Electric Lightwave to move any of its facilities at the company's expense if relocation is
required for a public improvement, or if relocation is deemed by the city to be in the public interest. The
agreement specifies that this may include a requirement to relocate aerial facilities underground.
The agreement continues the company's obligation to pay franchise fees equaling 5% of gross revenues
derived from telecommunications services within the city. (The minimum franchise fee is $1500 per
quarter.) The city has the option of increasing the franchise fees to 7% of gross revenues at any time
following thirty days written notice. The company must maintain records relevant to the calculation of
franchise fees, and must allow the city to inspect or audit those records. The city can collect
underpayments as far back as five years. If an audit reveals that the company has paid 98% or less of the
fees owed, the company must pay the city's audit expenses.
The agreement requires Electric Lightwave to maintain liability and property insurance of not less than $1
million, covering the city. It is also required to indemnify the city with relation to any claims arising out of
the company's acts or omissions.
Upon discontinuing use of any of its facilities in the right of way, the company must either remove those
facilities or obtain the city's permission to leave them in place (with ownership transferring to the city).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council enact Ordinance No. 2546 — granting a non-exclusive
telecommunications franchise to Electric Lightwave, LLC.
ATTACHMENT
• Ordinance No. 2564
3 Such as Salem, Albany, Corvallis, Bend, and Grants Pass
ORDINANCE No. 2564
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO GRANTING A
NONEXCLUSIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FRANCHISE TO
ELECTRIC LIGHTWAVE, LLC
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City and its citizens to promote the offering of
competitive telecommunications services, subject to the City's lawful authority to regulate the
use of its rights of way; and
WHEREAS, the City has jurisdiction and exercises regulatory management over all public rights
of way within the City under authority of the City Charter and state law;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this agreement is to determine terms and conditions upon
which Electric Lightwave, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Integra Telecom Holdings, Inc., may
be permitted to occupy the streets, highways or other public right of way within the City, pursuant
to the power of the City of Lake Oswego under its Home Rule Charter and ORS Chapter 221,
except as to matters regulated by state or federal authorities.
SECTION 2. Parties. The parties to this agreement are the City of Lake Oswego, an Oregon
municipal corporation situated in the county of Clackamas, sometimes referred to herein as "the
City" and Electric Lightwave, LLC, qualified to do business in the State of Oregon, sometimes
referred to herein as "Grantee." All rights and privileges granted under this agreement to Grantee
shall inure to its successors and assigns. The City of Lake Oswego reserves the right to refuse to
accept the performance of any obligations imposed on Grantee under this agreement by any delegee
of Grantee.
SECTION 3. Grantee's Right to Occupy Right of Way. Subject to the other terms and conditions
set forth in this document, and subject to any applicable ordinances and regulations of the City,
including but not limited to ordinances and regulations regarding development, tree pruning or
removal, erosion control and excavation in the public right-of-way, and subject to any applicable
state and federal laws, rules or regulations, the City hereby grants to Grantee, the right, privilege and
franchise to occupy the streets, highways or other public right of way as may come within the
jurisdiction of the City during the term of this agreement, for the purpose of construction, use,
operation and maintenance of a system to provide telecommunication services. This grant includes
the right to place and maintain poles, wires, and other equipment customarily associated with
telecommunications systems. Such equipment must be laid underground unless the City
specifically permits wires or cables to be strung upon poles or other fixtures above ground. Nothing
in this agreement shall preclude Grantee from entering into a contract for the use of any portion
of its telecommunication systems with any person or other entity for such person or entity to
provide any retail or wholesale telecommunications services to its own customers, whether
Ordinance 2564
Page 1 of 9
specified herein or not, provided that said person or entity is operating under a current franchise,
license or permit issued by the City to the extent that the City requires such franchise, license, or
permit consistent with applicable law. Additionally, Grantee shall include a provision in its
agreements with such person or entity requiring them to comply with all City requirements and
Grantee shall use good faith efforts to enforce such provisions.
SECTION 4. Pre -Construction Approval. Prior to the commencement of any construction,
extension or relocation of any of Grantee's facilities upon, over, under or across any of the streets,
highways, or other public property within the jurisdiction of the City, the Grantee shall advise the
City's Engineering Division in writing of the location and shall obtain from the City Engineer
written approval prior to commencement of such work. Not less than two business days prior to
commencement of any work which might affect City utilities, Grantee shall give notice to City's
Maintenance Department for purposes of utility location. The location of all such facilities shall be
at places approved by the City. All work done by or for Grantee shall be in compliance with the
applicable rules, regulations, ordinances or orders of the City then in effect.
SECTION 5. Work within the Right of Way. Subject to the provisions of this agreement and
current applicable regulations of the City, the Grantee may make necessary excavations within the
rights-of-way of streets and highways for the purpose of installing, maintaining and operating its
facilities. Except in an emergency causing prior notice and approval to be impossible, Grantee shall
obtain from the City Engineer written approval of any excavation within the right-of-way of any
street or highway. The City Engineer shall have the authority to condition the excavation upon the
provision of adequate manpower, materials, and machinery to protect the rights of the public to safe
passage upon such street or highway. Grantee shall have the right to appeal to the City Council any
condition imposed under this section which it reasonably believes to be contrary to law or
applicable City rules or regulations, or hazardous, unreasonable, or unduly expensive under the
circumstances. Upon request, Grantee shall furnish the City with documents showing Grantee's
facilities "as -built" within the public right of way in a format acceptable to the City after such work
is complete. Grantee shall perform all work according to all federal, state and local requirements
and in conformance with industry practice for workplace and public safety. Grantee shall allow the
City access to and the right to inspect any of the Grantee's work within the right of way and shall
insure against the risk of personal injury that may be incurred by any City agent or employee in the
course of that person's access to and inspection of such work.
Whenever Grantee, or anyone on Grantee's behalf, disturbs any portion of the right of way or any
other public property or other public place, the Grantee shall properly and promptly restore the
affected portion of the right of way or other public property to good order and condition as soon as
practicable without unnecessary delay. Such restoration shall be done in strict compliance with City
specifications and regulations in effect at the time of such activity. If Grantee fails to properly and
promptly restore the affected portion of a street, highway or public property to good order and
condition, the City may make the restoration and Grantee shall be liable to the City for the actual
cost of making such restoration, including the costs of inspection, supervision, and administration.
SECTION 6. City Improvements. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to prevent or
impair the City from grading, constructing, paving, altering, improving, sewering, repairing or
maintaining any of the streets, highways or other public property within the jurisdiction of the City
Ordinance 2564
Page 2 of 9
which are occupied by fixtures, facilities, appliances or structures of Grantee, but all such work or
improvements by the City shall be done in such a manner and by such means as to prevent or
minimize impairment of use of said fixtures, facilities, appliances, or structures by Grantee. If
avoidance of obstructions or impaired use of Grantee's facilities and structures cannot be done
without additional costs to the City, the Grantee shall compensate the City for any additional actual
costs to undertake such work, if the Grantee does not perform the work required.
SECTION 7. Relocation or Rearrangement of Grantee's Facilities. Whenever it becomes
necessary to temporarily or permanently rearrange, relocate or remove any fixture, facility,
appliance or structure belonging to Grantee to permit the passage of any structure, machinery, or
other object over or upon any street, highway or other public property within the jurisdiction of the
City, the Grantee will perform such rearrangement, relocation or removal within a reasonable period
of time after written notice from the person desiring to move such structure, machinery, or object.
Said written notice shall bear the acknowledgment of the City, and shall detail the route of
movement of the structure, machinery or other object and shall provide that the costs incurred by
Grantee in making such rearrangement, relocation or removal of its fixtures, facilities, appliances or
structure will be borne by the applicant desiring to make such use of the street, highway or public
property. The notice shall further provide that the applicant will indemnify and hold harmless the
Grantee of and from any and all damages or claims of whatsoever kind or nature, to the extent
allowed by law, caused directly or indirectly by such temporary or permanent rearrangement,
relocation or removal of the fixtures, facilities, appliances or structures of Grantee. If required by
the Grantee, the applicant shall deposit with Grantee cash or a good and sufficient bond to pay any
and all ordinary and reasonable costs incurred by the Grantee. Temporary or permanent
rearrangement of facilities required by the City for a public purpose shall be accomplished by
Grantee without charge in the same manner as permanent relocations described in Section 8 of this
agreement.
SECTION 8. Public Relocation. The City, by its properly constituted authorities, shall have the
right to cause the Grantee to move the location of any pole, wire, cable, appliance, conductor,
conduit, or other plant, including the relocation of aerial facilities underground, whenever the
relocation thereof shall be for public necessity, and the expense thereof shall be paid by the Grantee.
Public necessity is deemed to include relocations required by a public urban renewal agency. The
manner of removal or replacement shall be as directed by the City so it shall not interfere with the
public work of the City. Public necessity shall be deemed to be whenever any pole, wire, cable,
appliance, conductor, conduit, facility or plant of Grantee interferes with construction of any public
improvement located in a street, highway, right of way or any public place, or whenever relocation
of such facilities is deemed by the City to be in the public interest.
SECTION 9. City Occupancy of Grantee's Poles and Innerduct. Where space is available, as
determined by Grantee, the City shall be permitted to occupy Grantee's poles and underground
innerduct for traffic signal interconnection circuits and other lawful municipal purposes. Such
occupancy by the City shall be subject to standard Electric Lightwave, LLC rates as well as all
terms and conditions agreed to by the City and Grantee.
SECTION 10. Franchise Not Exclusive. The franchise granted herein by the City of Lake Oswego
to the Grantee is nonexclusive.
Ordinance 2564
Page 3 of 9
SECTION 11. Modifications. Additions and Extensions. Whenever the City Council deems it
reasonable or necessary in the interest of the public it may, by resolution, require Grantee to make
modifications, additions and extensions to its physical equipment, facilities or plant or services
within the jurisdiction of the City as provided by ORS Chapter 221, except as to matters regulated
by state or federal authorities.
SECTION 12. Compensation.
In consideration of the rights, privilege and nonexclusive franchise herein granted, Grantee, its
successors and assigns agree to pay to the City the greater of:
1. A minimum franchise fee of $1,500 per quarter.
2. A sum equal to five percent (5%) of its Gross Revenues.
The reasonable value of any service or the use of any of Grantee's facilities used or reserved for use
by the City without Grantee's prescribed charges shall be credited toward any payment due the City
under this provision. Any such charges that exceed amounts owing to the City shall be paid by the
City within 30 days. Payment of the franchise fee shall be made on a quarterly basis on or before
April 30, July 31, October 31 and January 31 for the calendar quarters immediately preceding.
Such payments by the Grantee will be accepted by the City of Lake Oswego from the Grantee, also
in payment of any license, privilege or occupation tax or fee for revenue or regulation, or any permit
or inspection fees or similar charges for street openings, installations, construction or for any other
purpose now or hereafter to be imposed by the City of Lake Oswego upon the Grantee during the
term of this franchise. However, the Grantee shall not deduct charges and penalties imposed by the
City for noncompliance with the provisions of this franchise. Franchise fee payments not received
by the City on or before the due date shall accrue interest at the rate of one percent (1%) over the
existing prime rate as set by the bank with which the City contracts for its banking services,
compounded daily. Interest shall be due on the late payment from the date on which the payment
was due until the date on which the City receives the payment. Each payment shall be accompanied
by a written report to the City, verified by an authorized representative of the Grantee, containing an
accurate statement in summarized form, as well as in detail, of Grantee's Gross Revenues and the
computation basis and method. Such reports shall be in a form satisfactory to the City.
Except as otherwise prohibited or limited by law, upon thirty (30) days written notice by City to
the Grantee, the City may, in its discretion, declare an increase in the percentage rate of the
franchise fee to a rate not to exceed seven percent (7%) of Gross Revenues. In the event of such
a declaration, franchise fees shall thereafter be payable to the City by Grantee at the increased
rate.
"Gross revenues" shall mean any and all gross revenues derived by Grantee for the provision of any
services to customers located within the corporate limits of the City of Lake Oswego, and any
services originating or terminating within the City of Lake Oswego irrespective of where any
invoices are billed or paid. Gross revenues shall also include any and all revenue from leases,
licenses, permits, rental agreements, IRU's or any other use of any part of the Lake Oswego portion
of Grantee's system for the provision of service to customers within the corporate limits of the City
Ordinance 2564
Page 4 of 9
of Lake Oswego or services originating or terminating within the City of Lake Oswego. Gross
revenues shall also include:
(A) Services interconnecting interexchange carriers, competitive carriers, and/or
wholesale telecommunications providers for the purpose of voice, video, or data transmission;
(B) Services connecting interexchange carriers and/or competitive carriers to telephone
companies providing local exchange services for the purpose of voice, video, or data transmission;
(C) Services connecting interexchange carriers or competitive carriers to any entity,
other than another interexchange carrier, competitive carrier, or telephone company that provides
local exchange services, for the purpose of voice, video, or data transmission; or
(D) Services interconnecting any entities, other than interexchange carriers, competitive
carriers, or telephone companies providing local exchange services, for the purpose of voice, video,
or data transmission.
(E) This Franchise does not authorize the Grantee to operate as a telecommunications
provider. The Grantee represents that it has applied for and received all necessary regulatory
authority.
"Indefeasible Right of User Interest (IRU)" means a form of acquired capital in a
telecommunications system, in which the holder of the interest possesses a right to use the
telecommunications system, but not the right to control, maintain, construct or revise the
telecommunications system.
SECTION 13. Acceptance of Payment Not a Waiver. Acceptance by the City of any payment due
from Grantee under this agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver by the City of any other
obligation of Grantee under this franchise agreement. Acceptance by the City of any payments shall
not bar the City from establishing at a later time, within five years following the payment, that the
amount tendered was incorrect and collecting any balance due to the City as a result of any incorrect
tender by the Grantee.
SECTION 14. Grantee's Records; Audits. Grantee shall keep accurate record books of account for
the purpose of determining the amounts due to the City under the provisions of this agreement.
Such books of account shall be open to inspection by the City, its attorney or other authorized agent
at any time during Grantee's business hours. The City may audit said books of account from time to
time. Should such an audit reveal that payments tendered by Grantee to the City are less than the
amounts due under the terms of this agreement, Grantee shall promptly remit the amounts due
Grantor, including all accrued interest at the rate established in Section 12. In addition, upon receipt
of an invoice from the City, Grantee shall pay the reasonable costs of such audit if the audit
discloses that the Grantee has paid 98% or less of the franchise fees owing for the audited period of
time. Grantee shall maintain current maps showing the location of its facilities, fixtures, appliances
and structures within the streets, highways or other public property of the City. The City shall be
allowed to inspect said maps at any time during Grantee's normal business hours. If requested by
City, Grantee shall furnish, without charge and within a reasonable time, maps relating to specified
areas of the City.
SECTION 15. Indemnification.
(A) Grantee hereby agrees and covenants to indemnify, defend and hold the City, its
officers, agents and employees, harmless from any claim for injury, damage, loss, liability, cost or
Ordinance 2564
Page 5 of 9
expense, including court and appeal costs and reasonable attorney fees or expenses, arising from
any casualty or accident to person or property by reason of any construction, excavation or any
other act done under this Franchise, by or for Grantee, its agents or employees, or by reason of any
omission of Grantee to keep its telecommunications system in a safe condition, but not if arising out
of or by reason of any negligence or willful misconduct by the City, its officers, agents or
employees. The City shall provide Grantee with prompt written notice of any such claim which
Grantee shall defend with counsel of its own choosing and no settlement or compromise of any such
claim will be done by the City without the prior written approval of Grantee. Grantee and its agents,
contractors and others shall reasonably consult and cooperate with the City while conducting its
defense of the City.
(B) Grantee also hereby agrees to indemnify the City for any damages, claims,
additional costs or expenses assessed against or payable by the City arising out of or resulting,
directly, or indirectly, from Grantee's failure to remove, adjust or relocate all or any portion
facilities in a timely manner pursuant to Sections 7 and 8 of this agreement, unless Grantee's
failure arises 1. directly from the City's or its agents or contractors negligence or willful
misconduct,; 2. as a result of other utilities not timely removing, adjusting or relocating its
facilities necessary to accommodate Grantee's removal, adjustment or relocation; or 3. from the
negligent or willful misconduct of another user of the right-of-way.
SECTION 16. Insurance.
(A) The Grantee shall maintain commercial general liability and property damage
insurance that protects the Grantee and the City, as well as the City's officers, agents, and
employees, from the claims referred to in Section 15. The insurance shall provide coverage at all
times of not less than $1,000,000 covering all claims per occurrence, plus costs of defense. The
insurance shall be without prejudice to coverage otherwise existing and shall name as additional
insureds the City and its officers, agents, and employees. Notwithstanding the naming of additional
insureds, the insurance shall protect each insured in the same manner as though a separate policy
had been issued to each, but nothing in this Section 16 (A) shall operate to increase the insurer's
liability as set forth elsewhere in the policy beyond the amount or amounts for which the insurer
would have been liable if only one person or interest had been named as insured. The coverage
must apply as to claims between insureds on the policy. The insurance shall provide that the
insurance, shall not be canceled or materially altered without (30) days prior written notice first
being given to the City Manager. If the insurance is canceled or materially altered within the term
of this Franchise, Grantee shall provide a replacement policy with the same terms. Grantee shall
maintain continuous uninterrupted coverage, in the terms and amounts required, upon and after the
effective date of this franchise.
(B) The Grantee shall maintain on file with the City Recorder a certificate of insurance
certifying the coverage required above. The certificate of insurance shall be reviewed and approved
as to form by the City Attorney.
(C) In the alternative to providing a certificate of insurance to the City, certifying
liability insurance coverage as required in this Section, Grantee may provide the City with a
statement regarding its self-insurance. Grantee's self-insurance shall provide at least the same
amount and scope of coverage for the Grantee and the City, its officers, agents and employees, as
otherwise required under this Section. The adequacy of such self-insurance shall be subject to the
City Attorney's review and approval. Upon Grantee's election to provide self-insurance coverage
Ordinance 2564
Page 6 of 9
under this Section 16 (C), any failure by the Grantee to maintain adequate self-insurance shall be
cause for termination of this Franchise under Section 17.
SECTION 17. Discontinued Use of Facilities. Whenever Grantee discontinues use of its facilities,
fixtures, appliances or structures ("facilities") within the streets, highways or public right-of-way of
the City, Grantee shall submit to the City for the City's approval an application describing the
facility and the date on which the use will be discontinued. Grantee shall remove the facility or
request that the City permit it to remain in place, which permission shall not be unreasonably
withheld or delayed. If Grantee is permitted to abandon its facilities in place, upon the City's
consent the ownership of the facilities shall transfer to the City and Grantee shall have no further
obligation therefor. Notwithstanding the Grantee's request that any such facility remain in place,
the City may require the Grantee to remove or modify the facility in order to protect the public
health and safety or otherwise serve the public interest. The City may require the Grantee to
perform a combination of modification and removal of the facility. Grantee shall complete such
removal or modification in accordance with a schedule set by the City. Until such removal or
modification, or until the rights to and responsibility for the facility are accepted by another person
or entity having authority to construct and maintain such facility, Grantee shall be responsible for all
necessary repairs and relocations of the facility, as well as restoration of the street, highway or
public right-of-way, in the same manner and degree as if the facility were in active use, and Grantee
shall retain all liability for such facility.
SECTION 18. Termination of Franchise for Cause. On the failure of the Grantee, after 90 days
written notice and demand, to perform promptly and completely each and every term, condition or
obligation imposed upon it by this agreement, the City Council may, at its option and in its sole
discretion, terminate this agreement by resolution. The City shall have all of the rights and powers
upon termination as are granted under ORS 221.470 upon expiration of a franchise.
SECTION 19. Duration. The rights, privileges and franchise herein granted shall continue and be
in force from and after the date this Ordinance becomes effective and shall end on December 31,
2020. This Ordinance shall be subject to any and all State or Federal legislative enactments.
SECTION 20. Assignment or transfer of system or franchise. Ownership or control of a
majority interest in the franchise granted pursuant to this ordinance, or to the telecommunications
system constructed under the authority of this franchise grant may not, directly or indirectly, be
transferred, assigned, or disposed of by sale, lease, merger or consolidation, or other act of the
grantee, by operation of law or otherwise, without the prior consent of the City, which consent
shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, and then only on such reasonable conditions as
may be prescribed in such consent; provided, however, that transfers to affiliates, subsidiaries or
parent companies of Grantee shall not require prior consent of the City.
a. Grantee and the proposed assignee or transferee of the franchise or system shall agree, in
writing, to assume and abide by all of the provisions of this franchise.
b. Grantee shall reimburse the City for all direct and indirect fees, costs, and expenses
reasonably incurred by the City in considering a request to transfer or assign this franchise.
Ordinance 2564
Page 7of9
c. Any transfer or assignment of this franchise, or of the system or integral part of the
system, without prior approval of the City shall be void and is cause for revocation of the
franchise.
SECTION 21. Remedies. All remedies and penalties provided under this agreement, the common
law, the statutes of this State, the statutes of the United States and the ordinances and regulations of
the City, including termination of this franchise agreement, are cumulative and the enforcement or
recovery of one is not a bar to the enforcement or recovery of any other remedy or penalty. The
remedies and penalties contained in this agreement, including termination of this franchise
agreement, are not exclusive, and the City reserves the right to enforce any penal provision and to
avail itself of any and all remedies available at law or in equity. Failure to enforce any right
accruing to or available to City whether arising under this agreement or otherwise, shall not be
construed as a waiver of a breach of any term, condition or obligation imposed upon Grantee by this
agreement or a violation of any requirement of law imposed upon Grantee and available in favor of
City. A specific waiver of any particular breach of any term, condition or obligation imposed upon
the Grantee by or pursuant to this agreement shall not be a waiver of any other, subsequent or future
breach of the same or of any other term, condition, or obligation or as a waiver of the term,
condition or obligation itself.
SECTION 22. Additional Remedies. In addition to any rights set out elsewhere in this Franchise,
as well as its rights under the City Code, the City reserves the right at its sole option to apply any of
the following, alone or in combination:
(A) Impose a financial penalty of up to $1,000.00 per Franchise violation;
(B) Suspend issuance of any permits and/or approvals to Grantee until the Grantee
corrects or otherwise remedies the violation; or,
(C) Suspend the Grantee's Franchise rights, until the Grantee corrects or otherwise
remedies the violation.
SECTION 23. Acceptance. This Ordinance shall, if accepted by Grantee, take effect and be in
force 30 days from and after its passage and approval. Said Grantee shall, within 30 days of the
passage and approval of this Ordinance, file with the Recorder of the City of Lake Oswego its
written acceptance of all the terms and conditions of the Ordinance.
SECTION 24. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any portion of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 25. Renegotiation. In the event that any provision of this franchise becomes invalid or
unenforceable and the City Council or the Grantee expressly finds that such provision constituted a
consideration material to entering into this franchise, the City and the Grantee may mutually agree
to renegotiate the terms of this franchise. The party seeking renegotiation shall serve on the other
party written notice of an offer to renegotiate. The parties shall have 90 days to conduct and
complete negotiations.
Ordinance 2564
Page 8 of 9
Read by title and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
ATTEST:
APPROVEDA FORM:
David Powell, City Attorney
Ordinance 2564
Page 9 of 9
day of
2010.
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Dated:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE OF ORDINANCE No. 2564
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, OREGON
TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO:
WHEREAS, on the day of , 2010, the City
Council of the City of Lake Oswego, Oregon, passed Ordinance No. 2564 entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO GRANTING A
NONEXCLUSIVE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FRANCHISE
TO ELECTRIC LIGHTWAVE, LLC
WHEREAS, said ordinance was duly signed and approved on
by the Mayor of said City, and attested by the City Recorder:
WHEREAS, said ordinance was granted upon the condition that the said grantee shall,
within 30 days of the passage and approval of said ordinance, file with the Recorder of the City of
Lake Oswego its written acceptance of all the terms and conditions of said ordinance:
NOW, THEREFORE, Electric Lightwave, LLC does hereby accept Ordinance No.
and all the terms and conditions of said ordinance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Electric Lightwave, LLC has caused this acceptance to be duly
executed .2010.
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
Received on:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David Powell, City Attorney
Ordinance 2564
Page 10 of 9
ELECTRIC LIGHTWAVE, LLC
Title:
Legal Counsel
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennial 1910.2010
COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director
SUBJECT: Park Property Natural Area Management & Maintenance
DATE: November 8, 2010
ACTION
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
The City Council requested information regarding the logistics and costs of improving maintenance of park
natural areas. Staff will present this information at the November 16, 2010 study session. Dean Apostle,
from MIG, Inc., will also present preliminary information gathered for the natural area baseline analysis,
which is a component of the Parks, Recreation, & Natural Area System Plan.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
In June 2010, the City Council received information and recommendations from the Second Look Task Force
regarding the City's Sensitive Lands Code. One outcome of this lengthy review was a recommendation that
the City improve maintenance of publically held natural areas. As a result, the City Council asked staff to
provide an overview of current maintenance related to park natural areas, and possible options and costs
for improving maintenance of these natural area properties.
DISCUSSION
The following is background information for the November 16 study session. Additional information and
clarification will be presented at the study session.
Current Park Management & Maintenance
The Parks & Recreation Department manages a total of 601 acres of developed, undeveloped, natural area
park property. Approximately 375-400 acres are natural areas. The park system includes large and small
designated natural areas such as Springbrook Park, Ellen R. Bergis Natural Area, and Campbell Native
Garden. It also includes a large number of "hybrid" park sites where natural areas are incorporated into a
developed park such as in George Rogers or East Waluga Park.
Staffing consists of 1.5 FTE regular staff and .8 FTE seasonal staff dedicated to maintaining natural areas
and open spaces. The tasks performed are shown in the chart below. Very little time is available for large
Page 2
invasive plant removal efforts. As a result, staff focuses on identifying and removing new invasive plant
species (i.e. high priority species include Mustard Garlic, Field Bindweed, Japanese Knotweed, Thistle,
Kudzu, and other new types of invasive plants). Parks Maintenance has a "no tolerance" policy for these
species. According to the Oregon Department of Agriculture, prevention and treatment of new noxious
weed introductions is the most successful, cost effective, and least environmentally damaging means of
control. After initial introduction of a new invasive plant, there is a short period of opportunity for
eradication and containment. Once permanently established, a new invader becomes a long-term
management problem.
CURRENT MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
1.0 FTE
✓ Garbage & debris pick up
Seasonal Staff
(FTE)
✓ Illegal dumping
Natural Area
Budget
✓ Trail and trailhead repair & maintenance
City of Lake Oswego
✓ Vandalism & Encampment removal/monitoring
1.5
✓ Signage, kiosk, bench repair
174
✓ Hazard tree removal
$ 518/A
✓ Blackberry mowing
1,997
✓ Monitor & remove "high priority" invasive species
0.5 FTE
✓ Supervise natural area maintenance activities
$2,300,00
✓ Main public contact for natural area issues
City of Portland*
✓ Hazard tree inspection & removal
19
✓ Coordinate work & contracts
320
✓ Friends Group contact person
$ 355/A
*Note: this person serves as arborist for Parks & Rec sites well as
1,300
street tree inspections
0.8 FTE (seasonal)
✓ Mow open spaces
$675,000
✓ "High priority" invasive plant removal
Comparison with Other Agencies
Below is a comparison of natural area staffing levels and budgets for various agencies in Oregon. It is
difficult to compare on equal terms because each agency may provide a higher or lower level of
maintenance per acre at different sites, and performs different tasks.
Parks & Rec Agencies
# NA Acres
Regular Staff
(FTE)
Seasonal Staff
(FTE)
Acre per
1 FTE
Natural Area
Budget
Budget
per Acre
City of Lake Oswego
400
1.5
.8
174
$207,000*
$ 518/A
City of Eugene
1,997
15
3
111
$2,300,00
$1,152/A
City of Portland*
8,000
19
6
320
$2,845,000
$ 355/A
Tualatin Hills Parks &
Rec District
1,300
6
2.55
152
$675,000
$519/A
*$65,000 annually is for hazard tree removal
In addition, there are a number of typical natural area practices the Parks & Recreation Department is unable to
perform due to lack of resources. These include management planning for the City's natural areas; grant writing for
funding for restoration, wetland improvements, etc.; on-going monitoring of habitat improvement and restoration
Page 3
efforts; active coordination of volunteers and Friends Groups for habitat improvement; nor environmental education
and outreach due to limited resources.
Past Management & Maintenance Accomplishments
Attached is a spreadsheet illustrating a variety of natural area activities occurring between 1995 and 2009
in the City's park system (Exhibit A). Below is a summary of these activities.
SUMMARY OF PAST NATURAL AREA ACCOMPLISHMENT
1995-2005
1995-2003
2004-2007 2008-2009
2010
# Acres Purchased
189 acres
(for habitat protection)
$16,959,424
NA
NA
NA
NA
Americorps:
NA
0
116
11
0
Volunteer Work Parties
Acres of Invasive Plants
0 Volunteer
32 Volunteer
6 Volunteer
0.5 Volunteer
NA
Removed
0 Contract
30 Contract
34 Contract
0 Contracted
Acres of Habitat Replanted
0 Volunteer
1 Volunteer
0.25 Volunteer
0 Volunteer
NA
0 Contract
11 Contract
18 Contract
0 Contract
Acres of Wetlands
Created/Restored
NA
2
2.6
0
0
What is important to note is that in 2004 the City was awarded a federal grant through the Americorps
program dedicated to natural areas. This allowed the Parks & Recreation Department to hire a .9 FTE
temporary position to perform the following functions:
• Volunteer and Friends Group coordination for invasive plant species removal.
• Habitat monitoring for invasive plant species.
• Management plan development at Cooks Butte and Springbrook Park.
• Native plantings (restoration projects).
• Education and outreach (developed and managed a natural area webpage advertising work
parties, providing educational info on invasive species, etc.; produced
flyers/posters/handouts regarding environmental topics, conducted presentations).
This position worked in tandem with Parks Maintenance to collaborate restoration efforts and monitoring
in areas of highest need, and to organize supplies and debris removal for volunteer activities. The Parks &
Recreation Department was awarded a grant for an Americorps Member each year from 2004 through
2008. In 2009, the City was informed that the Americorps program was no longer offering the program due
to funding reductions. As a result, the work done by the position has ceased.
Existing Condition Analysis
In August 2010, MIG, Inc. was hired to develop a Parks, Recreation, & Natural Area System Plan, which will
become the 10-15 year vision for managing, maintaining, and developing the City's park system. One
component of this project includes an existing conditions analysis for natural areas. The purpose of the
analysis is to inventory all park natural areas and identify habitat types, ecosystem health and condition,
invasive plant species types, management issues, and suggested next steps. All park natural areas are to be
inventoried, including natural area parks such as Springbrook Park, and natural areas in "hybrid" parks such
as George Rogers or East Waluga Park.
Page 4
The existing conditions analysis is approximately 70% complete. Luscher Farm, the Golf Course, and
miscellaneous small sites have not yet been inventoried. The general ecosystem health for inventoried
properties to date is listed below.
Ecosystem Health Rating
% of Total Properties Inventoried
Good
26%
Fair
27%
Poor
47%
Good = 1/3 or less of the understory is covered by invasive species
Fair = 1/3 to 2/3 of the understory is covered by invasive species
Poor = More than 2/3 of the understory is covered by invasive species
These preliminary findings do have a bearing on the approach the City chooses to use in managing and
maintaining its park natural areas. For example, the Portland Park &Recreation uses ecosystem health and
natural resource function to determine its protection, enhancement, and restoration priorities and
management actions. This provides the agency with management priorities for allocating limited
resources, both staff and funding. Attached is an excerpt from the City of Portland's Natural Area
Restoration Plan, 2010 and includes their management priority matrix, management strategies, and
example of goals for specific natural areas (Exhibit B). You will note that Portland uses a water shed
approach by prioritizing management and maintenance efforts on activities that improve water quality,
riparian areas, and fish habitat, amongst other priorities. This information could be used as a model by
Lake Oswego in establishing strategies, goals, and priorities for its natural areas.
At the November 16 study session, Mr. Apostle will provide a review of the existing conditions analysis, an
overview of best practices for managing and maintaining natural areas, and possible options the City may
consider. This information is intended to provide the City Council with a base of information for making
future funding decisions for natural areas.
Restoration Costs Per Acre
The Parks & Recreation Department does, as funding allows, hire contracted labor from the City of Portland
Bureau of Environmental Services revegetation team (BES) for habitat restoration. The BES crew focuses
primarily on properties that have the greatest value to improving water shed quality. As a result, most of
the Lake Oswego restoration projects have occurred in parks along the Willamette River since 2004 (Tryon
Cove, Foothills, Roehr, and George Rogers Parks). The crews remove invasive species and replant with
native plants over a period of 3-5 years. These efforts require a long term commitment of funding to be
successful as well as proper oversight, which has not always been the case. The approximate cost is
$12,000 per acre over a five year period. That figure could be less if the property is not too degraded, or
could be much more if severely degraded. In addition, this cost does not include costs for restoring
wetlands or stream corridors. It is focused solely on invasive plant removal and replanting.
Based upon MIG, Inc.'s initial ecosystem health ratings, we could roughly estimate the total cost of
improving the health of the City's park natural areas to a rating of "good" to be in the range of $3,600,000
over and above on-going natural area maintenance costs. This assumes contractors will do all of the labor,
and does not include funding for staff oversight, contract management, or the on-going annual costs of
Page 5
maintaining all acres in a "good" condition from year to year. Nor does it take into account monitoring
efforts following restoration to ensure the properties aren't re -infested with weeds and invasive species.
Attached is an example of how Portland Parks & Recreation estimates costs for improving property, and
then maintaining it in a healthy state from year to year (Exhibit C). This model is useful in analyzing site
specific costs since each site will present different management and maintenance challenges. The example
was developed in 2006 and assumptions and costs most likely have been updated since that time.
However, it does illustrate a methodical approach for estimating costs. Lake Oswego will need to move
towards this approach to gain a better understanding of the long term costs involved in improving natural
area health.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
It is clear that Lake Oswego will need to establish realistic goals for improving its natural areas, and make a
long term commitment in staffing and funding to achieve those goals. Appropriating funds for a short
period of time will not succeed in long term stability of the ecosystem, and will most likely be a waste of
dollars in the long run.
In general there are three possible approaches to improving natural areas.
Option 1— Hire 1 FTE and provide funding for management, monitoring, contracted labor, volunteer
coordination, and grant writing/grant project management.
Option 2 — Enter into a memorandum of understanding with another agency that already has a
natural area program to manage the City's natural areas.
Option 3 — Hire contracted labor to perform site specific restoration.
Each of these options has its pros and cons. These will be discussed in more detail at the study session.
RECOMMENDATION
The November 16 study session will provide general information on options the City may consider, rather
than specific options and costs. Staff would like to recommend the following information be presented to
the City Council after the first of the year following completion of the existing conditions analysis.
• Strategies & Goals for restoring park natural areas, based upon a watershed approach.
• Prioritization matrix for determining management and restoration priorities
• Options for implementation, including costs, for managing, restoring, and maintaining natural areas
based upon management priorities
ATTACHMENTS
1. Exhibit A — Natural Area History of Activity
2. Exhibit B — Excerpt from Portland Parks & Recreation Natural Area Restoration Plan, 2010
3. Exhibit C — Portland Park & Recreation Cost Estimating Spreadsheet
00
00
O N t o O O O N 8 vOi V1 h
N N
In
O
O
S
O
N s
O
>
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
0
L1 O O
O
O
O O
O
m
a
`o
v
z �
v c
v
N
m
H
N
v ao
"
o
o e
H
N
o
0
�
E
C
O O
A
C
N
M
m
O
E `n
voi N
a
o
S
o
0
T
>°
E
r
w a q
8
8
�
C
O
q
r
S
8 00 8
8
8 o
0
mN
-
Oo
o
E
m
C c
N
N
c a r
o m i
N a a a a 3 m m c i
Q
ci m
div
-`L'
v_a
E m
N N N
N n
N N
N
p
8
o'
N
000
Zccooa
'oo
'o n.`'o
°
>°-2
E>° E
QW
o °o0
co
f-
W
oL- VLL
o
u°
0
a s
o o 0
3- O u
o
n
o
o
e
om
^
$
Loi
o m Loi
m o
m
o
$n
m 0
o o-
N
`
E a
Loi Loim�
nn
o
0
o
-
o o o
ooN
o
>°
E
«
0
6
R n
00
o
°
o
S �8
`
N
g
N s
N
`
E m
Loi Loi
00
g
o
a
o0
of
of
o
0
>°
E
0
0
�
0
0
0
0
0.
om
Loi o uoi
Loi
ro
o
q
mN
rriN
o
d
d
g
o`
E N
o
0
>
E
s
o
0
0
R
uii
Li g Lo,
Loi
o
Q
m N
M m N
in
O
N s
o$
N
d
In
8
8
O
O
m
M
O
O
>
A
O
S
o
O
a
p
pO
O m
o
8 O
O
O
O S
o
O
O s
N
N
o
S
O
O
O
O
>
p
p
41
O
O
q
S
8
8
q
O
o
G
8
N s
n
S
O
8
O
O O
O
O
>
n
8
O
0
O
o A
8
S
o
q
N
O
O
O
o
O
N
N
O N
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
7
8
O
G
O
In
O
N s
O
>
S
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
0
`w
a
`o
v
z �
v c
v
N
m
H
N
o
H
N
;
C
O O
A
C
x
M
m
O
> O
T
a a
E
r
w a q
m
N
r
Q
-
Oo
m
C c
Q
c m _ Y_ a
Z a Y
c a r
o m i
N a a a a 3 m m c i
Q
ci m
div
-`L'
v_a
q 9
o'
o
o
Zccooa
'oo
'o n.`'o
°
>°-2
QW
o °o0
co
f-
W
oL- VLL
o
u°
oW i Y
a s
o o 0
3- O u
d
�
�
a
�
B
§
\ :
§`=fl22la{!f;
/§
\ :
§`=fl22la{!f;
EXHIBIT B
Methodology
Many projects have been undertaken by PP&R staff or with partnering
agencies to evaluate and enhance the ecological health and connectivity
of natural areas in the five major watersheds within the city. Data on each
natural area was compiled and scored to determine the natural resource
functions and values. A matrix was created to show the current ecological
health and natural resource value of parks and natural areas in order to
determine the management priorities for allocating limited resources.
Ecological Health
PP&R inventoried and surveyed the vegetation of its natural area parkland
from 2003 to 2008 as step one in the ecosystem management process. This
field methodology identified vegetation community characteristics such
as dominant and invasive plant species, management concerns, and overall
ecological health to inform park management and citywide natural resource
planning. A total of 1,072 surveys were conducted covering 8,213 acres. The
average unit size was eight acres (17 acres within Forest Park). Forest Park
accounted for 4,743 (58%) of the total acres surveyed.
The surveys rated the ecological health of each unit from Healthy to Severely
Degraded. The following table is a summary of the ratings:
Ecological Health Score
Acres
% of total Acreage
1 - Healthy
97
1.2
2 — Good
2,593
31.8
3 — Fair
3,128
38.3
4 — Poor
1,587
19.4
5 — Severely Degraded
757
9.3
For the purpose of the plan, Healthy and Good are combined to give an
ecological health of Healthy. The category of Fair remained the same, and
Poor and Severely Degraded were combined to give an ecological health of
Poor.
Natural Resource Function and Value
The natural resource function and value is the cumulative score for the
following weighted factors (see Appendix A) for individual natural areas or a
set of natural areas that are managed as a unit (natural area complex):
• Salmon -bearing stream contained or within 100 feet of the property
• Stream (not salmon -bearing) contained or within 100 feet of the property
• Stream condition from PP&R 2007 inventory
Portland Parks & Recreation 3
Methodology
• Ecological health of the riparian area from surveys conducted in 2007 by PP&R
• Wildlife Assessment completed between 2003-2008 by PP&R
• Special habitat type identified by the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
Terrestrial Ecological Enhancement Strategy (TEES)
• Anchor habitat identified by TEES or an area greater than 30 acres
• Connectivity to Patches, Bureau of Sustainability and Planning (GIS layer updated
regularly)
• Completed invasive species removal/native plant restoration
• Mid-size restoration project requiring permits such as grading
• Capital projects that significantly improved the ecological health
• Active volunteer/stewardship group
• Organized educational activities
The data were collected through a review of geographical information system (GIS), natural
resource inventories, permits, planning documents, and interviews with PP&R staff. The
factors were selected based on state, regional, and city natural resource priorities for protection,
restoration, and enhancement. The total possible score for a natural resource function and
value is 26 points, though 22 was the highest number of points recorded.
Natural resource function and value scores were grouped as Low (0-6), Medium (7-12), and
High (13-22). Scores for all areas were graphed and break points in the scoring determined the
range for each category.
Management Priority Matrix
The ecological health and the natural resource function and value of the natural area or natural
area complex were listed in a Parks and Natural Area Management Priority Matrix to determine
protection, enhancement, and restoration priorities for projects and management actions. For
data consistency, the results from the 2003-2008 Ecological Health survey were used. Parks or
natural areas where restoration activities have occurred and the ecological health has improved
are marked with an asterisk (*) in the matrix. The parks are placed into nine management
priority categories based on a combination of ecological health and natural resource function
and value (Ecological Health/Natural Resource Function and Value) from Poor/Low (P/L) to
Healthy/High (H/H).
4 Natural Areas Restoration Plan — October 2010
n
d
N
m
0
O
O
2
N
S
O
T
O
=3
T
v
77
CD
Q
(D
N
O
7,
0
rr
CD
Z
�1
CDC
D
d
7
m
CD
3
CD
7
3
O
m
X
0 " -u
T
_ m
0
m o o
y d
N
ny c
—
3<
cmi
CD CD O
W M`<
Q <
at O
a)
— (o
v
c
o
vQ
0n
<
N
j_
C
7
°
E
v
(7
°
�
(7
(D
C
N
n
CD
m
m
CD
O
(D
�
<
to
�
n
T
C
CD
n
�
C�
G
Cn
T7
n
r
(D
ND SZW
`<
C7
T
O
C
CD
O
N
Cn
Q O O C O C
< CD c-;- 0; _=
a) �, , N S (O a) 7
fD
O
C
O
a�
NCD
S
O
N
(p
7 (D O to
v N a v
C1
(n
2
Fy
o
0
v 0 m 2 3
-u
�
O
CD
(7
S
a)
N `< n 0 CD CD
-0
CD
7
CE.
n
w
v 0 3'D v
m
n
Cl) x v C,
D
is
N
D
v o n m
o 0 ?c o
06
3° N N N .Z7 7
�►.
(D
C
N ;a N N T
(D v
W CD N CD CD is
O
f
-
wZ20 D iii
D v < n O
N 7 W
Q CD
O Cn
CD N ° O
N _<�� Z
CD D o
FD
i
v �C0 v
x
n
O
n�
,z
c� C/) -v
N * 0 a)
n�
N CD
o
3
y
zi)
a) O
C
O
N n
Q S
N
(p ,y
O
?
C p
m
FD'- o o CD
x
'c
o
C1
m
CD 0
Z
v
m
Cn o
o m
m
S°
m
o
x
.�
° °o
°
c
O
7 O
N 7c - O N
O
7
C1
3
Z
n
d
m
n
v
CD
D
W
c
(p
z
0
co
3 0° w° W
Z
m v
°
.�
N
Z
D
Q v
n
o < 3 5=
D
N
�
2
D
O
CL
�. c C) CD
X Z
D
N
m
3
9
o�?
v
Z m o
D CD D
O
o
D
(D
°
o
D
Q
Z
CD
Q
Q
T
W
O
N CD
'� v CD cn m
(7 '< O
m
Q
3
0
c
O
o
CD
D
t'
3
e
O
0 -0(0 -O -
G
a
...
o
C
„„
r
r
3 v m= T
v
<
n
m
N
3
0
CD
N
X N N
.5.
CD
x
D
v
Ot
0
o
D °i m CD
n—i
Z
O.
'D
O
-D -0 CD -"i
7
D
N
d
CD
= v
n
3
c
_ Ct) D
Z r
?> 00
m Cn
v o
m
CAK
v v
W^-0
c n 0
-1Cn0�T
v v o
T
0
N
-� c
(D 3' =
(D
.�
3 N
7 CU :E
N (D
CD
N =
N
N
M
0 0
(D
0
o
CD S
O
,,,d
p =CD
(O y
9 o
m
CD
51
a)
0 CO
N
(D
n Q
N O
N. 3 F
x
m=
vvo
°
v
w
.C..
nm
�aCn
Z
W
c
v
v Z
(0 - d
D GCD )
- m co
w O X
0
S
Z O
CD t<D
d C
C-) 7 [D
_
3 (n
N x
O
T
D T
o
0 C7
°�
N
vDa3v
N N
N _m
mCpf
O
On
CL
d D
p
N
° O i7
Z7 O O
c -0N
m o W
0 n 0
m 3
v
v
3.
0
-
c
CCD 0
(D
y
O
N
O..0 N
C CD
Q. CD a1
CD n a. O
CD
Q
CD
3 CD
O N
CD
o
O Z
c D
= o Q
m 0
7
d
CD 0
O
7°
N N N O
a1
7
(D
CQ 3
— C CD N
0
S
x y
(D !D
(O F CD
N CD O
O
N
O X
n' 0 0
O
0
7
3
0
rr
CD
Z
�1
CDC
D
d
7
m
CD
3
CD
7
3
O
m
X
Goals and Strategies
The overarching goals for the restoration plan are:
1. Contribute to the biological diversity of the Portland metropolitan region.
2. Preserve and improve the ecological health of natural areas.
To achieve these goals, PP&R management priorities are based on:
1. Size — the ability of the natural area to provide a full range of ecological
services and potential for the greatest biodiversity.
2. Location — the proximity to salmon streams, connectivity for wildlife
movement and transitional areas between habitat types.
3. Unique — sites that contain flora or fauna that is rare, threatened or
endangered as identified by the Terrestrial Ecology Enhancement Strategy.
The restoration plan focuses on six management strategies based on ecological
health and the natural resource functions and value to achieve its goals:
1. Establish a predominance of native vegetation (removal of invasive plant
species)
2. Watershed -based salmon recovery
3. Preserve and restore biological diversity
4. Best management practices to enhance water quality
5. Engage the public
6. Monitoring and adaptive management
These strategies are applied to natural areas with the greatest potential for
meeting the restoration goals.
In general, natural areas that have high natural resource value independent of
ecological health have the greatest potential for meeting the restoration goals
and are the highest management priority for City Nature. Overall, these
areas are large, complex, and connected to fish -bearing streams or are unique.
These areas include:
• Forest Park
• Oaks Bottom Wildlife Complex
• Buttes Natural Area Complex
• Marshall Park Natural Areas
• South Portland Riverbank Properties
• Lower Powell Butte Floodplain Complex
• Tideman Johnson Natural Area/Errol Heights Natural Area
• Powell Butte Nature Park
• Elk Rock Island
Portland Parks & Recreation 5
Goals and Strategies
The parks and natural area with medium natural resource function and value, and either healthy or
fair ecological health will take more resources to restore than the previous group, but they still
have good potential for improving ecological health and functions of the watershed and/or
contain unique flora or fauna. Generally, these areas are medium size, and have a manageable
infestation of invasive plants.
The larger areas in these categories include:
• Marquam Nature Park
• Johnson Creek Park
• Maricara Natural Area
• Kelly Butte Natural Area
Parks and natural areas with medium natural resource function and value and poor ecological health
generally have a predominance of invasive species, are located adjacent to a stream, and/or are
part of a hybrid parks. Improving the ecological health would potentially be costly but in the
long term would meet the goals of the plan. These areas have a lower management priority
than the sites with Healthy or Fair ecological health and medium natural resource functions
and values.
Examples of these sites include:
• Woods Creek Complex
• Columbia Slough Natural Area
• Rocky Butte Natural Area
• West Lents Floodplain
Parks and natural areas with low natural resource function and value and poor ecological health tend
to be small, disconnected from other areas, and often are part of a hybrid park. Large amount
of resources would be needed to improve these areas or the ecological return on investment
would be small. City Nature staff and resources have been reduced over the past three years
because of the economic downturn and loss of general fund revenues. Natural areas in such
poor shape will get little or no attention unless they are part of a larger project in the watershed.
Strategy 1 — Establish a predominance of native vegetation (removal of invasive plant
species)
Native plant diversity provides an array of habitat functions including improved water quality,
biodiversity, fish and wildlife habitat, tree cover, and reduction of fire risk. The ecological
objective is to increase the size of weed -free habitats and maintain or increase native plant
species. When sites are invaded by non-native plants, these functions are impacted. The City
of Portland Invasive Plants Strategy Report (2008) sets out 10 -year goals and a 3 -year work plan
for reducing invasive species in the city's natural areas. PP&R manages the greatest number of
natural area acres within city limits, and continues to fight invasive species through a number of
actions identified in the Invasive Strategy.
Using the Management Priority Matrix, the following invasive species removal actions protect
and improve the ecological health of our natural areas:
6 Natural Areas Restoration Plan — October 2010
Goals and Strategies
1. Continue the Protect the Best Program — removal of invasive species from natural areas
with Healthy and Fair ecological health and High natural resource function and value
(H/H, F/H), and Healthy ecological health and Medium natural resource function and value
(H/M):
• Forest Park
• Maricara Natural Area
• Oaks Bottom Wildlife Complex
• Buttes Natural Area Complex
• Marshall Park Natural Areas
• Elk Rock Island
2. Contract with the BES Revegetation Program or other contract crews to remove invasive
species and replant native vegetation in natural areas with F/M, P/M, P/H. Follow up with
neighborhood or friends group stewardship memorandum of understanding (MOLD to
continue the work.
3. Early detection/rapid response (EDRR) prevents new introduction of invasive species and
reduces the scale and spread of priority invasive species infestations across all properties.
Train park technicians to identify and treat EDRR species.
4. Limit investment of staff resources in natural area in F/L and P/L categorized parks and
natural areas unless there is a known special status habitat or species and/or a stewardship
MOU is in place.
Strategy 2 — Watershed -based salmon recovery
Protect, expand, and restore salmon habitat within Portland's five urban watersheds (see
Appendix B — Map of Salmon Distribution in the City of Portland). Projects will restore
natural channel processes, including reconnecting stream, wetland, and floodplains where
possible, and restoring and enhancing riparian habitat. Predicted impacts from climate change
will be factored into restoration of natural areas through the Ecosystem Management Steps.
PP&R will partner with the Bureau of Environmental Services, Metro, Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, and watershed councils to provide the necessary resources and expertise
to plan, design, and implement stream restoration, shallow water habitat, and riparian corridor
plantings to provide functioning salmon habitat. Projects include:
Willamette River
1. Complete a Habitat Management and Trail Plan for the South Portland Riverbank
Properties in 2011.
2. Restore rverbanks and floodplains:
• Floodplain enhancement at Powers Marine Park
• Riverbank restoration at Willamette Park
• Riverbank restoration as shown in the master plan for Cathedral Park
• Floodplain enhancement at Elk Rock Island
• Beach and riparian restoration at SW Greenway Central Reach
Portland Parks & Recreation 7
Goals and Strategies
3. Replace culverts at:
The railroad tracks at Stephens Creek Confluence to extend shallow water habitat in
Willamette Moorage
Oaks Bottom Natural Area to reconnect the Willamette to shallow water habitat
4. Restore riparian habitat:
• Continue to remove invasive species at Ross Island Natural Area and install native plant
species in woodland and riparian areas.
• Restore and enhance the ecological health of Balch Creek riparian habitat through
invasive removal and large woody debris placement; remove or modify artificially
created instream structures; create sustainable access.
Johnson Creek
1. Restore Crystal Springs Creek and wetland habitat:
• Restore the wetland and stream at Westmoreland Park as shown in the master plan.
• Replace Crystal Springs culverts.
• Restore the wetland and stream at Eastmoreland Golf Course.
• Remove invasive species and plant native riparian plants along the pond to provide shade
at Crystal Springs Rhododendron Garden. Explore the opportunity to restore the
stream and wetlands within the garden.
2. Mainstem Johnson Creek:
• Create meanders and place large wood in the stream at the confluence of Johnson Creek
and Crystal Springs at Johnson Creek Park.
• Complete a site assessment at Errol Heights to identify opportunities to increase the
natural resource values.
• Enhance the riparian habitat at Leach Botanical Garden as shown in the master plan.
• Remove or redesign the impoundment structure at the west end of Leach Botanical
Garden.
• Complete a Habitat Management and Trail Plan for Buttes Natural Area Complex and
Clatsop Butte Nature Park.
• Continue wetland and riparian plantings at Lower Powell Butte Floodplain to increase
stream shade and habitat.
• Assess and repair/replace if necessary the bridges along the Springwater Corridor to
allow woody debris to stay in the system for improvement of stream health.
Tryon Creek
1. Remove fish barriers along Tryon Creek to restore populations to Marshall Park Natural
Areas.
Columbia Slough
1. Monitor the placement of large woody debris and enhance riparian habitat at the Columbia
Slough Confluence at Kelley Point Park for fish use.
2. Place large woody debris at Kenton Cove.
8 Natural Areas Restoration Plan —October 2010
s
3
c
?
N
V
K
�
a o
c
3
N
<
<
ch
p vim+
f�A
o
c
y
0
O
m
o
r'o
<
3
<
m
3 H
CL
N O
CL
0.c
N
0
A
= 7
m
m
D)
7 3
CL
0
O O -�
O
0
0
C
odOs
O
�
so
8
CL
o
�
y�
Na
CL
Ck.ao
M
n
i
a<
O
3
°
M'
=
w
3
V
r
E
N N cy
N
N
r
N
V
r
N N
m
a n
N
A
N
W (n N I
to
W
N
A
N
A
N
W In
y O1
m N
M
w
oo
r r. Ow
r
r
00
w
to
w
00
r N to
y
14m0V00mv
y
N
-„
O m m O
-4wcoVOm
.im0Vm�o
<
m c
cr
O d m_
.�
N
n � O
a n
N
a?tin
co
?
00
O=
N y 3
I m
A
A
too
to
r
N
N
00
N
to
N
t!0
r?
w
ltd
O
00 A A
''C fD
0)
fD
V
W
W
A
O W A
--I
n
O
N
3 c
O a
Z m
r r aCD
Vrt
lD
W
v A C
O
O
O
V
N V W
W »
N
W
W
r V V O- �
O �
�
O fD
DQ a
O
A
r r
O< y
N
m
O
V
A F+ ,O-.
a p0
co
r
00
00 t0
<D
S O
a
X
o
A
W
W
N V O
'O
iA
H
V► V► Vf
O
0
C
(D
n
L1 Q
m N
V
Ln
tn -4p1
{l� V r
m
Ln
p�
(A n.
N CD
V
ppm
A
n�i N
Ln Ln
p
Kil
A
A V O<
CD
04
m
Ln
to
to to0
d
000
�.
�►
V, Vil 4A o
-� a
C
d
W
A
W N d
o y tD
m
N
N
bi
Oo
V90 V N v
Om1
N
N m 0
(D
w0
N Ln A fD
O. N M
�,
3e o�
O
3
N
N
N N
4A
A^
4A Vf V). C n
O
O
C
tD
W
V OD Wo
IN
O
W
N
m
(n W W
y
P...
O
V W to (D N
0�
l�Dp
4i
W N
y
to
I-
to 0o A
�Cp
p�
Grp
`�
ee
�Vp
o� T o
0)
C
---
a
n
N
CL
In
Ln
-
(N!1 Ln
*
N
to
N
't/f Vf 4^ n
00
n
l
rD O
N
CL
W
A-CL
N
P,
00 tmD V < O
N
li Wo Ln a M
Ln
Ln O A
V1
4A
In
r
N r
W
N
to
M W O_
OW
♦n
Sn N V
rn
tWD
A
to t0
V �
Lq
N
Ln
r
O
N
V>
VT V1 V> N
'O O N
M O <
C ry
[U
lwn
A
V OVD OA1 n
Ln
N
In V C rD O !D
N
N
r to W
EXHIBIT C Portland Parks Recreation
Natural Area Restoration Cost Estimating (2006)
Cost of Restoration - FAIR to GOOD —4
3. What is the estimated cost per acre to move 64%0 of the total 2,928 acres or 1,871 "fair
condition" acres to "good condition"?
For ivy and blackberry infestation.
Assumes a crew of 7 contractors can cover 20 acres per day on 1st treatment (in year 1).
Assumes a crew of 7 contractors can cover 40 acres per day on 2nd treatment (also in year 1).
Assumes $35 per hour per contractor and $300 per day chemical cost.
Assumes year 2, year 3, and year 4 follow-up spot spraying at diminishing cost per acre.
Assumes 1 person covers 5 acres per day in year 2.
Assumes 1 person covers 10 acres per day in year 3.
Assumes 1 person covers 20 acres per day in year 4.
Assumes some volunteer assistance pulling weeds in years 2, 3, and 4.
For holly, prunus, and other woody stem weeds.
Assumes about twice the time needed for moving good to healthy.
Team of 2 people can cover 5 acres in 8 days (in year 1).
Also assumes about twice the time needed for moving good to healthy in the follow-up years.
This includes a thorough inspection, and GPS location and treatment of any weed problems found.
Assume a "Botanic Specialist Zero" rate of pay at 3rd year ($19.00 per hour).
Coat per acre calculation
For ivy and blackberry infestation.
7 number of people on crew (contracted)
8 hours per day
$ 35.00 hourly rate for each crew member
20 number of acres per crew day (first treatment)
40 number of acres per crew day (second treatment)
$ 300 chemical cost per crew per day
$ 2,260 cost per crew day
$ 113.00 cost per acre, first treatment
56.50 cost per acre, second treatment
For holly, prunus, and other woody stem weeds.
2 number of people (employees)
5 number of acres
8 number of days
$ 19.00 cost per hour
30% direct overhead
17% indirect overhead
$ 715.01 cost per acre (first year)
1,871 number of homogeneous acres in fair condition
$ 1,337,780 total cost (first year)
100% assumed percentage of acres requiring GPS location and treatment of weeds
3 Number of years of follow up program for units found with weeds.
Number of treatments during the follow up program at full cost.
2nd year 1 Number of treatments during the follow up program at half cost
r
years 2 Number of treatments during the follow up program at quarter cost.
$ 668,890 50% second year total cost
$ 334,445 25% third year total cost
$ 334,445 25% fourth year total cost
$ 2,675,560 Grand Total (all years)
$ 357.50 Average Annual Cost per Acre
Assume that after the full program all acres are stabilized at good condition.
DEFECTS IN
ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT
Park Natural Areas
Management & Maintenance
Meeting Goals
Present preliminary findings on natural
resource management issues in Lake
Oswego parks.
Examine current management and
maintenance efforts.
Present approaches to improved
management and maintenance.
Parke 9 "�tural AreC�
Current Natural Area Status
375-400 acres of park natural areas.
1.5 regular FTE; .8 seasonal FTE.
"Responsive" maintenance vs. planned.
Management is based on "Protect the
Best" philosophy.
Lack a natural area management strategy
that prioritizes &s guides desired outcomes.
Park Natural Areas
What Lake Oswego has
*About 375-400 acres of semi -natural to natural areas
• Includes upland forests, riparian woodlands, oak groves, wetlands
• Well distributed across community
• Highly variable in size, from 1 /10111 of an acre to over 130 acres
Iron Mountain
Zv
Pennington Para
Park Natural Areas
Types of natural resources in Lake Oswego Parks
14 ";�4
Ook woodancis y Yon Maintain
f
Od growthfe at Can -u NA r
r
i
Rare yew trees at Cornell NA ,
l l
Park Natural Areas
Types of natural resources in Lake Oswego Parks
1 -.01
R*KOor w, -o* at Poetv Park
R0vW.beaches, rocky awes ,0G. Rogers Gr=larxlqSfepheresMeadows NA
it
i$r.
Management issues: Park Natural Areas
Invasive species
Public safety
Habitat enhancement
Restoration
Stewardship
7r
Wood placement in creeks for salmon
7
Snag erection tw t*d nes*V
firalkorm4atircomf
Park Natural Areas
Management issues: Invasive species
Takes continuous attention, knowledge, priority setting
Lake Oswego has a serious ivy problem
oC W7
FRI
xScourge ofl.okeO. lNockberry: Not worth the sweetness
A
Park Natural Areas
Management issues: Good stewardship
Erosion & unauthorized use problems
Need well designed & maintained trail system
Park Ranger program to discourage -7.
inappropriate use & id problems
Gully above Urldge V
SMrQbrook
Park Natural Areas
Management issues: Safety
Wildfire risk: Note that most Lake Oswego natural areas are
inherently low fire risk
Higher risk is where dry grass fires can spread into flammable
woodlands & climb into canopy (Iron Mountain)
Take selective actions to reduce risk (FEMA support)
('!_Jrrent Maintenance
) FTE
✓ Garbage & debris pick up
E
1
✓ Illegal dumping
✓ Trail and frailhead repair & maintenance
✓ Vandalism & encampment removal/monitoring
✓ Signage, kiosk, bench repair
✓ Hazard tree removal
✓ Blackberry mowing
✓ Monitor & removal of "high priority" invasive
species
,8 HE
✓ Supervise natural area maintenance activities
✓ Main public contact for natural areas
✓ Hazard free inspection & removal
✓ Coordinate work & controcts
✓ Frkuxk group contact parson
.8 FTE
-- -_—
✓ Mow open spaces
fsa�)
- __ _�
✓ "Hiojri prkxityr" Invasive piont remova
----- - - -- - —
Stewardship Contract,
Invasive plant removal and habitat
restoration as funding is available
Willamette River Watershed:
Tryon Cove Park
Foothills Park
Roehr Park
George Rogers Park
Cooks Butte Park
riends Group Activity
Friends of Springbrook Park
Invasive plant removal; trail maintenance; native
plantings
Friends of Brookside (Iron Mt. Park)
Invasive plant removal
Friends of Luscher Farm
Hedgerow habitat improvement
Misc invasive plant removal volunteer work
parties
11/16/2010
Accomplishments
11/15/2010
Management framework:
• Improve Safety
-Stabilize ecosystems to prevent decline
• Improve rare & high priority sites
• Work towards restoration over long term
• Monitor & adapt
• Integrate park system within wider ecosystem service
framework
6 $$ __a
SSf �S
11,111ORestore Fi* Restore
remove
patches
remote no"
�R&
!s Invasive—,
fu q
on
for �
worst
eM�i
ftot
=Kbest
nwors
26
WEVemiowing
pnttem sc�Mr.F
Removr
encroachingfir!
.ronttor b
SSf �S
11,111ORestore Fi* Restore
remove
patches
remote no"
�R&
!s Invasive—,
fu q
on
for �
Management Framework:
Create long range goals (25-50 year outlook)
Conduct detailed NA inventory
Rank sites by quality & rarity
Establish conservation priorities
Create 5 year & 1 year objectives for priority sites
Build stewardship program (staff, partners, contractors)
Begin systematic stewardship within available budget
Monitor & adapt approaches over time (annual review, 5 year audits)
Setting priorities:
Protect the best
Restore the rare
Bigger is usually better
Enhance linkages and networks
Settle in for gradual, continuous progress
towards goals
� f �.� � . ,:,� y'«�� ► ' Vis, ,. �� ,
14
1
WAY Creek WJQWs rAagroa
^ArMl=+.lil. '+n �riilaF�•mLGe•i,-"-%-•�'"�x - �' - 'z�: A _�.�s.: `. �i
rarK Natural Area
Management ideas:
Hire expert field -oriented staff to oversee & coordinate
Train & engage maintenance staff & extend their mandate
Explore MOUS with neighboring agencies to gain synergies
Contract stewardship for short term gains
Nurture volunteer -based stewardship for long term gains
Build stewardship network of city, neighborhood, & private
landowners
Possible Management Options
Hire Staff (combination direct service
and contract management)
Memorandum of Understanding with
other agency
Stewardship contracts
11/16/2010
12
11/16/2010
13
8.2
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
LAKE OSWEGO
Centennia11910-2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE
ACTION
COUNCIL REPORT
Jack Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
Denise Frisbee, Director, Planning and Building Services Department
Jonna Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner
Environmental Education and Community Outreach (PP 10-0021)
November 8, 2010
380 A Avenue
PO Box 369
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-675-3984
www.ci.oswego.or.us
No action is requested at this time. Staff seeks direction on a future supplemental budget request for
environmental education and conservation incentive programs.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
On July 20, Council adopted Resolution 10-51A "A Resolution of the City of Lake Oswego City Council
Directing Staff to Implement Revisions to the City's Natural Resources Protection Program" (Attachment 1).
This resolution directed staff to implement a package of changes intended to improve the City's natural
resources protection programs and implement the recommendations of the Second Look Task Force.
Section C of Resolution 10-51A directed staff to:
Return with a supplemental budget request for the enhanced communication and community
outreach activities identified in Staff Report Section C as follows:
1. Expand Landscaping for Conservation outreach and education programs.
2. Develop a handbook on best practices for restoration; provide some on -the -ground support and
grant opportunities.
3. Develop new informational materials for property owners.
4. Strengthen the City's connection to watershed councils and seek their assistance in these
outreach efforts.
Section D directed staff to:
Schedule study sessions on the new resources protection and environmental initiatives identified in
Staff Report Section D as follows:
3. Create a program for ongoing outreach on environmental and resource topics
Page 2
This report identifies approaches for implementing the outreach and education programs for Council
review, discussion and direction on program options and supporting supplemental budget requests.
DISCUSSION
A strong education and outreach program helps residents see the connections between environmental
programs, including sensitive lands, surface water quality protections, water conservation, and restoration
of public natural areas. A successful program should engender support and inspire community
participation in natural resources protection and stewardship programs by:
1. Promoting awareness of the array of City natural resources programs.
2. Encouraging all residents to adopt practices that safeguard environmental quality.
3. Inviting participation in voluntary stewardship programs, such as backyard habitat certification and
street tree planting.
Notably, a strong education and outreach program to inspire stewardship is an essential component in the
recommended package of natural resources program improvements, which include easing code restrictions
and offering greater flexibilities for compliance. Sensitive lands property owners should be a special focus
for program outreach and the offer of services and program benefits. Other residents positioned to benefit
from an improvement in the environmental quality of the City's natural areas, such as owners of large
properties, and residents whose land abuts parks, may also receive special attention.
Existing City Outreach and Education Efforts
The City currently has a modest group of education and outreach programs related to natural resources
education and outreach:
The Planning Division sponsors a series of six Landscaping for Conservation workshops annually.
These half-day workshops, offered through collaboration with Friends of Tryon Creek State Park,
teach residents how to improve the ecological functions of their gardens by focusing on soil, native
plants, and water use. Last year, approximately one hundred Lake Oswego residents attended the
workshops.
2. In the last two budget cycles, the City has partnered with Friends of Tryon Creek State Park and the
Tryon Creek Watershed Council to offer backyard site consulting visits and one-on-one mentoring
for those residents who attended the landscaping workshop, to help homeowners implement
changes. Last year approximately fifty residents took advantage of the opportunity for one-on-one
consultations.
3. Public works offers a program of free water audits, toilet rebates, and water -conserving giveaways
to promote water conservation. This program helps to reduce water consumption and keep water
in rivers for fish. However, it is not directed primarily at habitat conservation or local surface water
quality.
4. Public Works Department's Surface Water Coordinator has offered occasional free workshops on
rain gardens and other surface -water related topics, and the City has contributed to a regional fund
that produces public service announcements reminding people not to pollute surface water.
5. The Planning Division has offered ad-hoc consulting to residents interested in small restoration
projects through one-on-one assistance provided by the natural resources planners.
Page 3
Additionally, programs offered in the last three years have included:
6. The Planning Division offered an annual series of workshops on tree -related topics (pruning,
planting, care), an annual environmentally -themed art show, and other one-time tree -themed
events such as the Century Tree Bike Ride.
7. The Parks and Recreation Department ran a small native plant nursery at Luscher Farm to propagate
native plants for restoration efforts, and organized and promoted volunteer work parties to remove
invasive plants and plant native trees and shrubs in City natural areas.
Although such programs as the tree care workshops and heritage tree programs have been well-received
by the community over the last few years, the City has no plans to continue them in 2011 due to the loss of
Americorps funding. (The Planning Division's tree -related education events and the Parks and Recreation
Departments natural area volunteer programs were staffed by AmeriCorps members, but the Northwest
Service Academy is no longer funding these positions.)
Watershed Council Participation
There are two watershed councils in Lake Oswego: Tryon Creek Watershed Council, which serves the Tryon
watershed which lies in both Portland and Lake Oswego, and the newly -formed Oswego Lake Watershed
Council, which serves all the land that drains into Oswego Lake. The City is officially a member of both
these Councils; however, the City has not had a representative on the Tryon Creek Watershed Council since
the Natural Resources Coordinator position was eliminated from Parks in 2009. The Public Works
Department assisted in the formation of the Oswego Lake Watershed Council with the loan of a staff
person during the formation phase. However, it does not anticipate having the resources to continue
staffing this Council once it is established and begins regular meetings.
Program Improvements
As the City eases regulations for development impacting streams, wetlands, and tree groves, and
transitions to a program that balances regulations with incentives, investment in incentive and education
programs will be essential to maintain the City's environmental quality. In identifying recommended
program improvements, staff included the following considerations:
1. Programs should build on the most successful parts of the City's current or recent offerings, or on
programs that have a proven track record in other jurisdictions.
2. Programs should foster positive, one-on-one interaction between City staff or City volunteers and
residents, as these are by far the most effective ways to create behavioral change (as compared to
mass mailings, television ads, etc.).
3. The most effective programs serve multiple environmental objectives (e.g. water quality and habitat
enhancement) and connect City departments to each other and to community organizations.
The additions described below are intended to build on the current program offerings and support
residents interested in voluntary efforts to improve water quality, conserve water, and enhance local
habitat. They include new incentive, partnership and one-on-one education programs, with an
accompanying modest increase in staffing, and a one-time expenditure to develop a public presence,
communications and public engagement plan.
Page 4
• Launch a Backyard Habitat Certification Program in partnership with Columbia Land Trust,
Portland Audubon, and Friends of Tryon Creek State Park.
The Backyard Habitat Certification Program is a successful program in wide use in Portland which provides
assistance and incentives to small lot, private property owners to restore native wildlife habitat in their
backyards. The goals of the program are to assist property owners through three levels of habitat
restoration with a focus on the removal of aggressive weeds, nature-scaping with native plants, stormwater
management, and wildlife stewardship. In Portland, the foundation for the program is a partnership
between Columbia Land Trusts and Portland Audubon Society. In Lake Oswego, we could build on our
current Landscaping for Conservation Program which we have already established in partnership with
Friends of Tryon Creek, and expand the partnership and the program with the help of the Columbia Land
Trust and the Audubon Society. The joint proposal we have received from the three organizations would
offer workshops and more one-on-one assistance to homeowners in implementing landscape changes, and
provide incentives such as free and reduced -cost plants and tools. The Backyard Habitat Certification
program also publishes a monthly newsletter for participants, certifies backyard habitats at the silver, gold,
and platinum levels, and provides an attractive certification sign.
This program could be offered on a priority basis to sensitive lands property owners but be made available
to all City residents as program capacity allows. This program could also be attractive to residents who live
adjacent City parks and natural areas, where private landscape practices can help or harm restoration
efforts in the City's natural areas. A more detailed program proposal is provided as Attachment 2.
• Partner with Friends of Trees to sponsor street tree planting with their Neighborhood Trees
Program.
The mission of Friends of Trees is to bring communities together to plant and care for trees in public spaces.
Their model program has been successful in Portland, Vancouver, and Gresham in promoting street tree
planting, educating residents about the value of street trees in preventing storm water pollution, spreading
the right -tree -right -place message and promoting positive relationships between neighbors and the City.
The program makes discounted trees available to selected neighborhoods and invites and organizes
planting events for those neighborhoods. This program would provide an opportunity to support all
homeowners interested in participating in City environmental incentive programs and would deliver on a
recommendation outlined in the City's 2009 State of the Forest Report. See the Friends of Trees website:
www.friendsoftrees.ore.
• Establish a small grants program for restoration work.
The City has an existing neighborhood improvement program that provides small grants to neighborhood
groups with a current goal of leadership and capacity -building in neighborhood associations. The City could
offer a similar program to promote environmental restoration and habitat improvements both for
neighborhood associations and for homeowners. The City could provide micro -grants to individual
homeowners to make improvements identified by the Backyard Habitat Certification Program --The Tryon
Creek and Oswego Lake Watershed Councils could help to identify grant -making criteria and prioritize
applications.
Three Rivers Land Conservancy recently merged with Columbia Land Trust.
Page 5
• Arborist Services
The Council has identified a number of opportunities to assist our citizens generally and RC (Tree Grove)
property owners specifically with tree care advice and assistance. Informational materials need to be
developed on such topics as a photographic manual of invasive tree species, an informational brochure
regarding tree removal, tree selection, planting and maintenance. In addition to the need to prepare
materials, there is the need to offer the on-site assistance of an arborist. Staff proposes to offer 100-200
free site visits and individual consultations on tree and tree grove care each year with first priority to
property owners of sensitive lands designated properties. In addition, an on -staff arborist could assist in
implementation of the Urban Forestry Plan and coordinate the projects formerly staffed by the AmeriCorps
position—the heritage tree program, education workshops and other public education and outreach
activities identified each year. The on -staff arborist could manage outreach at the Farmer's Market and
summer concerts, and coordinate the City responses to tree issues that cross Parks, Planning and Public
Works department lines. Finally, if the City moves forward with exempting invasive trees from the Tree
Code, the staff arborist could develop a process for verifying invasive tree species prior to removal along
with associated code language and education and outreach materials and ensuring adequate mitigation
when required for tree removal.
Staffing Changes
The City cannot significantly strengthen its natural resources protection programs without adding
resources, both dollars and staff. The Backyard Certification and Friends of Trees programs could be
launched and supported at an efficient cost because they build on existing partnerships and would rely on
community groups with a track record of success to provide new services. However, outside programs still
require staff oversight, and additional staff will be needed to manage these programs, orchestrate and
support ongoing communication and outreach activities, coordinate such efforts across department lines,
participate in the watershed councils and provide the proposed services of an arborist to the City's
sensitive lands property owners. The recommended staffing additions are: 1) a half-time natural resources
or watershed outreach coordinator position, and 2) the addition of a full-time City arborist. These staff
members would team with existing natural resources staff, including the natural resources planner, water
quality coordinator, and parks analyst.
Natural Resources or Watershed Outreach Coordinator
This new half-time position would coordinate public education/incentive programs, including backyard
habitat certification and street tree planting described above; oversee production of City publications
(website and paper) related to natural resources; provide a clearinghouse for City staff working on water -
quality or habitat -related programs; facilitate the City's "watershed approach"; serve as the City's
representative on local watershed councils; administer the small grants program; and review and revise City
program offerings regularly. This job would be in some ways analogous to the City's Sustainability
Coordinator, coordinating both internal and external projects related to environmental quality.
City Arborist/Forester
This position would replace the City Arborist position that was eliminated by attrition in 2008. The on -staff
arborist would provide the consultation services discussed above and assume responsibility for overseeing
implementation of the Urban Forestry Plan, implementing the invasive tree species removal agenda, and
serve as the City's ambassador for tree issues and natural resources related programs. The staff arborist
would continue to perform development review duties currently paid for on contract.
Page 6
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
This memorandum is intended to provide options to Council to weigh in providing direction to staff for a
future supplemental budget request. Council may direct staff to return with a supplemental budget
request for some or all of these programs.
Estimated Costs FY 2010-2011 (Supplemental Budget)
One-time Backyard Habitat Program Start -Up $ 5,000
Public Engagement Plan & Products $ 20,000 — 25,000
6 months — Watershed Outreach Coordinator $ 25,000
6 months — City Arborist/Forester $50,000
$100,000 — $105,000 TOTAL
Costs for future budget years are also provided because costs in future years figure into the decision:
Estimated Costs FY 2011-12 Budget (Annual Costs)
Backyard Habitat Program $ 36,000
Friends of Trees partnership/Tree planting $ 10,000 — 15,000
Education and Outreach Support and Materials $ 5,000
City Forester (1.0 FTE) $100,000
Watershed Outreach Coordinator (0.5 FTE) 50,000
Small Grants Program S 2.500 — 5.000
$203,500 — $210,000 TOTAL
RECOMMENDATION
This is a study session intended to elicit Council discussion and direction on education and outreach
programs and identification of potential budget items. Staff requests direction from Council in preparing a
supplemental budget request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Council Resolution 10-51A
2. Backyard Habitat Certification Program Proposal
Reviewed by:
Department Director
L�
Alex 8. McIntyre
City Manager
RESOLUTION 10-51A
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL DIRECTING STAFF TO IMPLEMENT
REVISIONS TO THE CITY'S NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in the 1990's, in an effort to protect significant natural resources as called for
by the City's Comprehensive Plan and Statewide Land Use Planning Goals 5 and 6, the
City indentified and mapped significant resource areas, and in 1997 adopted regulations
known as Sensitive Lands regulations; and
WHEREAS the City anticipated that, with certain modifications, the Sensitive Lands
regulations would qualify for compliance with Metro's Title 3 and 13; and
WHEREAS the Sensitive Lands regulations have not been significantly amended or
modified since adoption; and
WHEREAS concerns and questions raised by the community led the City to conduct a
thorough review of the program by supporting the Planning Department in convening a
technical task force (the Second Look Task Force) to evaluate the Sensitive Lands
program and recommend program improvements; and
WHEREAS, from September 2009 to May 2010, after 17 meetings, one Public Open
House and Comment Session, and including field trips, case studies, presentations and
extensive document review, the Second Look Task Force compiled recommendations for
program improvement, which were presented to the Planning Director and reviewed
and evaluated by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, following three public comment sessions in review of Task Force and staff
recommendations held in June and July 2010, the City Council is prepared to direct
program revisions with a goal of offering greater flexibility for property owners, while
maintaining environmental protection and compliance with Metro and State standards;
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego as follows:
The City Council directs staff to prepare the following program revisions (as outlined
more thoroughly in the Staff Report dated July 15, 2010 and in the Second Look Task
Force Report dated May 28, 203.0):
Section A: Implement the regulatory changes identified in Staff Report Section A, which
recommends immediate amendments to:
1. Modify the Development Code to permit de minimis impacts, with specific
attention to allowing more uses in buffers, such as fences, gardens, lighting,
pervious surfaces, etc.
Resolution 10-51A ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of 3 PP 10-0021
2. Clarify the terms "ditch," "resource buffer," and "construction setback"
3. Exempt Invasive trees from tree removal permit requirements
4. Amend the City fee schedule to eliminate the resource delineation fee
Section B: Implement the regulatory changes identified in Staff Report Section B within
the next year, including the following steps:
1. Develop and initiate a free map correction process
2. Consider removing small, isolated tree groves from the overlay zone on private
property, not including private dedicated open space
3. improve the readability of the Sensitive Lands code
4. Develop a two -track review system
5., Develop standards for mitigation measures
6. Direct staff to return to Council with habitat friendly development codes
Section C: Return with a supplemental budget request for the enhanced communication
and community outreach activities identified in Staff Report Section C as follows:
1. Expand Landscaping for Conservation outreach and education programs
2. Develop a handbook on best practices for restoration, provide some on -the -
ground support and grant opportunities
3. Develop new informational materials for property owners
4. Strengthen the City's connection to watershed councils and seek their assistance
in these outreach efforts.
Section D: Schedule study sessions on the new resource protection and environmental
initiatives identified in Staff Report Section D as follows:
1. Direct staff to report to the City Council by February 1, 2011 on advantages,
disadvantages, funding mechanisms and an implementation plan to organize and
operate internal resources to support watershed based environmental
management, including linking the surface water resource program and sensitive
lands.
2. Direct staff to prepare by November 1, 2010 a current fiscal year and a longer
term multi-year plan to improve maintenance of City property by removing
invasive species and restoring those lands with appropriate species. The City
Council recognizes that the degraded condition of our public lands occurred over
many years and that it will take many years of dedicated sustained effort to
correct the situation.
3. Create a program for ongoing outreach on environmental and resource topics
4. Develop an on-line data service program similar to Portland Maps
Section E: Implement regulatory changes identified by the City Council as follows:
1. Consider increasing RP buffers, on City -owned land only, consistent with the
Metro Model Code
2. Review significant tree and riparian resources on City -owned lands and add
designations where appropriate
Resolution 10-51A
Page 2 of 3
3. Direct staff to return to the City Council with recommendations for an appeal
process and options, with an emphasis on fairness and equity, including a
discussion and timeline for 1B properties, by the end of the year
Section F: This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption by the City
Council.
Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego on the 27th day of T,.1y , 2010.
AYES: Mayor Koffman, Johnson, Jordan, Tierney, Moncrieff
NOES: Olson
EXCUSED:Hennagin
ABSTAIN: none
!a&. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO F
David D. Powell, City Attorney/
Resolution 10-51A
Page 3 of 3
Backyard Habitat
Certification
cjociety v
Program moo
CL
l9oti Columbia
aded 10 L A N D T R U S T
REQUEST FOR FUNDING
Audubon Society of Portland -Columbia Land Trust
Backyard Habitat Certification Program
Expansion into City of Lake Oswego
I. PROGRAM SUMMARY:
In 2009 Audubon Society of Portland and Three Rivers Land Conservancy (now Columbia Land
Trust) began collaborating on the citywide Backyard Habitat Certification Program throughout Portland.
This collaborative effort provides technical assistance to small lot private, property owners to restore
native wildlife habitat and manage stormwater in their backyards. The program is currently focused on
properties within the City of Portland and working with landowners who own I acre or less in the dense
urban landscape. With a growing list of residents in the City of Lake Oswego who have signed up for the
program awaiting its expansion, there is a significant amount of interest to work in this area.
The objective of the program is to assist property owners through three levels of advanced habitat
restoration. The program focuses on the removal of aggressive weeds, naturescaping with native plants,
stormwater management and wildlife stewardship. The certification process involves a site visit from a
trained habitat technician. Property owners then receive a written report advising them about site specific
habitat enhancements that could be implemented. Property owners receive continuing technical support as
they restore their property, access to a variety of incentives to assist with their restoration efforts, and a
sign identifying their property as "certified" when the process is completed.
Benefits to watersheds and to the community:
Our region has long been recognized for its outstanding efforts to protect fish and wildlife habitat,
improve water quality and ensure access to nature for all citizens. Many agencies currently provide
education and outreach to explain native wildlife habitat needs to landowners. The Backyard
Certification Program takes this work to the next level by certifying private landowners who take action
in restoring their land. The program provides the landowner with incentives, expertise, resources and
recognition for restoring their private property to ecological health.
To date regional protection and restoration efforts have focused most heavily on public lands,
public right of way and new development. However the largest percentage of our regional land base
continues to be already developed lands under private ownership. Efforts to prevent future introductions
and spread of invasive species, to provide safe passage for wildlife between publicly owned natural
resource anchor sites, and to reduce contaminated runoff into our waterways ultimately all depend on
developing meaningful strategies to reach out to this segment of our community.
The relationships that are built with property owners are long-term, designed not only to provide
immediate improvement in local ecology, but to work with property owners to move through successive
stages of ecological improvement on their property, to involve entire neighborhoods in the process, and to
ensure that improvement is sustained over time. It's our expectation that this program will go "viral" with
1 ATTACHMENT 2
PP 10-0021
certified property owners inspiring their neighbors to follow suit. With the first year of the program
complete, we can already say that this has occurred in many areas throughout the City of Portland.
Community Involvement, Partnerships and Educational Aspects:
At its core, the Backyard Habitat Certification Program is about public education and public
involvement. Our goal is to actively engage property owners in caring for their property and their
watershed. The program introduces the public to local and regional conservation programs and helps them
apply these concepts on their own property. The program strives to build community by promoting
habitat restoration on a neighborhood scale, creating connections between private property owners and
public conservation programs and engaging private businesses in supporting these efforts through offering
discounts and benefits.
The Program to expand into the City of Lake Oswego is being spearheaded through a partnership
between Columbia Land Trust, Audubon Society of Portland, City of Lake Oswego Planning Department,
Friends of Tryon Creek State Park and Clackamas County Soil Water Conservation District.
II. DELIVERABLES
Measures of Success: Metrics for measuring success will include number of properties certified, site
visits, acres certified, quantifying trees and shrubs planted on participating homeowners property, inkind
matches from businesses and other resources including invasive plant removal. We've attached our 2009-
2010 Accomplishments to further showcase how we measure our successes.
a. Goals July 2011 -June 2012
July — September 2011
• Media outreach and outreach to stakeholders in target areas
• Conduct at least 1 workshops or public presentations related to BHCP and living with urban
wildlife
• Engage 25 property owners in certification program, certify at least 5 property owners
October — December 2011
• Media outreach and outreach to stakeholders in target areas
• Conduct at least 1 workshops or public presentations related to BHCP and living with urban
wildlife
• Engage 25 property owners in certification program, certify at least 5 property owners
January —March 2012
• Media outreach and outreach to stakeholders in target areas
• Conduct at least 1 workshops or public presentations related to BHCP and living with urban
wildlife
• Coordinate volunteer training for Backyard Habitat to support certification site visits and other
outreach opportunities
• Engage 25 property owners in certification program, certify at least 5 property owners
April — June 2012
• Media outreach and outreach to stakeholders in target areas
• Conduct at least 1 workshops or public presentations related to BHCP and living with urban
wildlife
• Engage 25 property owners in certification program, certify at least 5 property owners
• Coordinate 1 Community Site Visit Day. Selecting a specific neighborhood to conduct site visits
and support community involvement
2
b. Program Outcomes (12 month period)
In addition to what's mentioned above
• Coordinate Backyard Habitat benefits and resources. See attachment for further details on
what's offered
• Four native plant sales (2 spring, 2 fall)
• Twelve enewsletters sent to program participants capturing regional resources and information
(i.e. workshops, native plant sales, events)
• Coordination of work crews to assist landowners with restoration work (i.e invasive plant
removal, native plants). These partnerships include AmeriCorps and Verde
-One garden tour highlighting certified properties (within city of Portland and Lake Oswego)
-Tracking of on -the -ground restoration work for certification. Tracking includes native plants
purchased through Backyard sales, work crews and invasive plants removed
Outreach to 4 community events including neighborhood association meetings, etc.
-Provide 6 Landscaping for Conservation workshops through Friends of Tryon Creek State Park
III. RESPONSIBILITIES
The responsibilities of the five organizations involved in this partnership are described below.
A. City of Lake Oswego Planning Department will fund the expansion of the Backyard Habitat
Certification Program into the City of Lake Oswego. They will advertise the program to residents
using their website and offer information about the program in the course of any relevant public
outreach to landowners.
B. The Backyard Habitat Program is run jointly by Columbia Land Trust and the Audubon Society
of Portland. They will coordinate the division of duties on the deliverables listed above including
the management of the contract with Friends of Tryon Creek State Park to conduct the site visits.
Data gathered will be tracked by their joint database and reports will be delivered to the City of
Lake Oswego Planning Department.
C. Columbia Land Trust and the Audubon Society of Portland will contract with Friends of Tryon
Creek State Park to conduct the site visits. Friends of Tryon Creek State Park will take the lead on
coordinating four workshops for landowners in the program.
D. Clackamas County Soil Water Conservation District will continue to offer technical assistance to
landowners that may need additional advice on riparian area restoration, invasive species
removal, and Naturescaping.
IV. REQUEST FOR FUNDING
Pre -Implementation (coordination prior to program launch July 1, 20120)
$5,000
Program Implementation (includes site visits, goals/outcomes mentioned above, supplies
and travel)
$36,500
Total request: $41, 500
3
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
November 16, 2010
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting - to order at 6:32 p.m. on
November 16, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A A: anue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan,
and Vizzini.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Bonnie Hirshberger, Citizen Information Coordinator; Erica
Rooney, Asst City Engineer; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director;
Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Services Director; Joanna
Papaefthimiou, Natural Resources Planner; Morgan Holen, Natural
Resources Planner; Fire Chief Ed Wilson
3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 Photo Contest Winners
Mayor Hoffman congratulated the winners of the City's Second Annual Photo Contest and
presented each winner with a gift certificate. Accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation, he read
brief statements about each first place photo and photographer. He mentioned the names of the
photos and photographers of the runner-ups and honorable mentions.
Cat. 1
Life in Lake Oswego
Cat. 2
Places in LO
Cat. 3
LO Events & Activities
Cat. 4
People & Places in LO
Cat. 5
Positive Aging in LO
Youth
Vintage/Historic
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Cyclist on C Avenue
Millennium Pool
Wooden Boat Show
Flying with Geese
Park Painter
Road to 100
Oswego Lake Head Gate 1964
Jackie Follett
Chris Thompson
Roger Nicholson
Chris Thompson
Susanna Kuo
Piers Dennis
Will Weber
Councilor Jordan moved the Consent Agenda. Councilor Olson seconded the motion. A
voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin,
Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and Vizzini voting `aye.' [7-0]
4.1 RESOLUTIONS
4.1.1 Resolution 10-67, authorizing a Local Agency Agreement with ODOT for the
Pilkington Pathway Safe Routes to School Project
Action: This item was pulled for further discussion
4.1.2 Resolution 10-68, making appointments to the Budget Committee
Action: This item was pulled for further discussion
4.2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.2.1 July 13, 2010, special meeting
4.2.2 September 7, 2010, regular meeting
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 19
November 16, 2010
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
5.1 Resolution 10-67, authorizing a Local Agency Agreement with ODOT for the
Pilkington Pathway Safe Routes to School Project
Mayor Hoffman commented that this agreement was a great study in the cooperation between a
local government, a motivated and inspired elected official, and an equally inspired and motivated
citizen/neighbor. He introduced John Turchi, former City Councilor, and Peter Klaebe.
Mr. Turchi recalled that this agreement had its roots in a controversy that erupted in 2001/2002
when the City and the School District considered annexing the thirteen areas within the City's
Urban Services Boundary and within the School District's boundary but not within the city limits.
Although the District and the City backed away from that idea, the City decided to try to create
better understanding with the unincorporated areas through conflict resolution. He indicated that
he had served as the City's representative in that 18 -month effort. He commented that, in addition
to gaining an understanding of the issues individual to each neighborhood, he was able to develop
relationships with the unincorporated area residents and build trust in the wake of these residents'
unhappiness with how the City had treated them.
He explained that they found that the City and the neighborhood could work together on Safe
Routes to Schools program, which was good for the schoolchildren and the unincorporated and
incorporated citizens. He cited Mr. Klaebe's persistence as the major factor in bringing this
agreement about.
Mr. Klaebe confirmed that the community dialog sessions helped build relationships and trust. He
expressed his appreciation for Mr. Turchi's support and guidance in navigating the City, County,
and School District politics while seeking this grant. He commented that the neighbors were
looking forward to the pathway. He cited a recent accident on Pilkington Road involving a student
as further justification for this pathway. He mentioned that it would be great to get the pathway
built before school started in the fall.
Councilor Hennagin moved to adopt Resolution 10-67. Councilor Jordan seconded the
motion.
Councilor Jordan recalled that, when she had sat on the Transportation Advisory Board, Mr.
Klaebe had come looking for money for the Pilkington Pathway and ran into an unwritten
understanding that the City would not spend money on pathways outside the city limits. She
pointed out that the children using the path attended Lake Oswego schools. She commented that
she was glad to see the City obtain this first Safe Routes to School grant.
Councilor Olson encouraged staff to find a way to complete the pathway before Labor Day.
A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin,
Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and Vizzini voting `aye.' [7-0]
5.2 Resolution 10-68, making appointments to the Budget Committee
Councilor Hennagin moved adoption of Resolution 10-68, appointing Joseph A. Vricelli and
Christian Ramey to the Budget Committee for terms ending August 31, 2013; and
appointing Ron Smith for the remainder of a term ending August 31, 2011. Councilor
Jordan seconded the motion.
Councilor Olson proposed amending the resolution to re -appoint Ron Smith to a second full term.
She cited the Council's past practice of re -appointing those Budget Committee members who
reapplied for a second term.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 19
November 16, 2010
Councilor Olson moved to amend Resolution 10-68 to appoint Christian Ramey and Ron
Smith to the Budget Committee for terms ending August 31, 2013, and to appoint Joseph
Vricelli for the remainder of a term ending August 31, 2011. There was no second.
A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin,
Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and Vizzini voting `aye.' Councilor Olson voted `no.' [6-1]
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
• Dan Williams, 17226 Tualatin Street
Mr. Williams mentioned that he has been on the Budget Committee for two years and has
personally benefited from Mr. Smith's leadership as the Committee Chair. He described Mr. Smith
as a calming voice of reason during heated arguments and a stabilizing force in allowing a fully
developed discussion among members before voicing his opinion. He argued that Mr. Smith's in-
depth knowledge of budget procedures, his years of experience, his ability to bring people
together, and his forthrightness in getting the job done benefited all Committee members.
He expressed his disappointment that the Council did not re -appoint Mr. Smith to a full three-year
term. He invited anyone with questions regarding Mr. Smith's leadership techniques or skills to
attend the meetings. He thanked Mr. Smith on the record for his service.
• Lauren Hughes, 18711 Westview Drive, Citizens for the Stewardship of Lake Oswego
Board
On behalf of the Board, Ms. Hughes respectfully requested the Council to postpone the December
13 public hearing regarding the changes to the Sensitive Lands program. She stated that the
changes under consideration were not responsive to the primary citizen concerns regarding the
trading of their private properties to allow development elsewhere. She asked the Council to show
goodwill towards the incoming Councilors and postpone the hearing until after January 1 in order to
allow the new Councilors to help with the resolution and to bring a fresh perspective to the issue.
• John Surrett, 1685 Edge Cliff Terrace
As LONAC Chair, Mr. Surrett concurred with Mr. Williams' comments regarding Ron Smith. He
commented that LONAC had been very impressed with Mr. Smith's leadership and his allowing
citizens the opportunity to speak at every meeting.
He discussed his personal concern with the Council holding its meetings on important subject
matters at the West End Building, instead of in the Council Chambers. He mentioned the
sometimes very short public notice of a little more than an hour. He pointed out that the
discussions at last night's special meeting at the WEB on the updates to the Citizen Advisory
Committee on the Comprehensive Plan and on the streetcar project was difficult for the audience
to hear because of the lack of microphones. He asked why the City had not held the meeting in
the Council Chambers or rented A-V equipment.
He noted that the Joint City Councils meeting on the Tigard/Lake Oswego water agreement was
only audio taped and not videotaped. He held that staff should post audio tape recordings to the
City website and not charge citizens $18 a copy. He argued that the City should rent A-V
equipment for meetings held at the WEB for internet streaming, whether or not TVCTV had time to
re -broadcast the meetings. He emphasized the importance of having microphones at all WEB
meetings.
He asked the Council to consider this topic carefully, as it was an important topic related to visibility
and transparency in the decision-making process. He stated that the citizens needed to know what
was going on, as they were the bosses who picked up the tab.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 19
November 16, 2010
• Gary Buford, 5 Camelot Court
Mr. Buford mentioned that, during the Council deliberations last Tuesday on the Sensitive Lands
Ordinance revision's on the construction of fences within creek areas in the city, a Council member
referenced the letter he had written to the Council on the subject. He expressed his concern that
the meeting did not speak well for the direction that the Council was giving staff, and for the way
that staff was moving ahead with items concerning the Sensitive Lands Ordinance without thinking
through whether or not what they have been directed to do made any sense.
He stated emphatically that he was not saying or inferring that either the Council or the staff lacked
intelligence. He reiterated his point that the City Council and the City staff should think through
more thoroughly how they proceeded with matters concerning the Sensitive Lands Ordinance and
other issues as well.
• Diana Boom, P.O. Box 328, Lake Oswego
Ms. Boom thanked Mayor Hoffman for bringing Peter Klaabe and John Turchi forward to explain
their item, as that did provide interesting background. She commented that she had not known the
Council protocol of re -appointing Budget Committee members if they re-applied. Consequently,
she was very disappointed that the Council did not re -appoint Mr. Smith to a second full term
because, from her perspective, Mr. Smith brought the Budget Committee meetings to a level that
was not intimidating. She stated that she liked the way that Mr. Smith ran the meetings and made
it welcoming for people to speak.
She asked that the City televise any meetings held at the WEB because many people who could
not attend the meetings depended on the televised meetings. She commented that Lake Oswego
was a city where if something needed to be done, then they got it done. She held that televising
the meetings at the WEB needed to be done, and asked the Council to get that done.
• Cheryl Salamie, 3001 Westview Court
Ms. Salamie asked the Council to delay its process on the Sensitive Lands program. She asked
what the rush was to finalize this program, which she alleged was not about the environment but
rather about development elsewhere. She described the program as arbitrary and riddled with
inconsistencies and errors at the expense of 10% of the property owners. She commented that no
one connected with the program has ever believed in it enough to surrender their own property.
She argued that the community already had Code protections in place for trees and waterways.
She said that she would like to see the Council take its time in resolving the issue and include the
two new Councilors' input along with a well -thought out educational program. She argued that,
even with the minor changes made so far, the program was still confusing and complicated.
Ms. Christie confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the Council had to use the WEB on Monday nights
because either the Planning Commission or the Development Review Commission used the
Council Chambers on Monday nights. She clarified that last night the DRC cancelled its scheduled
meeting, but she had not known that.
Mayor Hoffman indicated that last night he and Ms. Christie discussed finding a way to make the
meetings at the WEB more audible to the audience members. He mentioned that their preference
was to hold Council meetings in the Council Chambers because of the great sound system.
7. ORDINANCES
7.1 Ordinance 2564, an ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego granting a non-exclusive
telecommunications services franchise to Electric Lightwave, LLC
Mr. Powell reviewed the background information regarding the City granting franchises (p.69). He
explained that federal law required the City to treat competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs),
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 19
November 16, 2010
such as Electric Lightwave, in a competitively neutral manner. He indicated that, while the City
could charge up to 7% of a CLEC's gross revenues resulting from their activities within the city,
Lake Oswego charged only the 5% typical in the Metro area. He pointed out that, since CLECs
passed the franchise fee directly to the customers as though it were a tax, City Councils had to
balance generating revenue with a fee imposed directly on the consumer.
He reviewed the terms of the franchise agreement and the updates (p.70). He indicated that one
update was a refinement of the criteria for requiring removal of their facilities to include removal in
the public interest, including a Council determination that undergrounding the facilities was in :he
public interest. He mentioned increasing the insurance requirement to $1 million and greater,
specificity on what would happen in the case of abandonment of facilities.
He thanked Councilor Tierney for his helpful comments, which resulted in some of the changes.
He recommended adoption of Ordinance 2564.
• Council Questions
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Hennagin that Electric Lightwave primarily served businesses
in the Kruse Way area, and not residences.
He indicated Councilor Olson that he did not know of a time when the City audited a company's
records showing the basis of the calculation of the franchise fees, as allowed in the agreement. He
mentioned that the City has joined group audits of utilities in the past, but such audits were
expensive.
Mr. McIntyre mentioned that the Finance Department did order an audit of the hotels paying the
hotel/motel tax before he joined the staff, and found underpayments. He agreed that the audits
were expensive, but the staff could do them at the Council's request. Mr. Powell pointed out that
the City paid for the audit unless the payments were 98% or less of what was owed, at which point
the company paid for the audit.
Councilor Tierney spoke to the Council discussing the revenue potential of franchise fees. He
commented that he thought the historical 5% fee was appropriate for these competitive businesses
(CLECs), but the City did have more significant franchise renewals coming up, such as Northwest
Natural Gas (3%) and PGE (3.5%). He noted the potential in state law for higher fees. He
suggested holding this discussion before Mr. Powell started negotiations. Mr. Powell confirmed
that the agreements contained provisions to allow the Council to make changes during the contract
period.
Councilor Tierney discussed the Regional Cable Commission. He mentioned that 20% of the 5%
franchise fees paid by Comcast and Frontier went to the Cable Commission. He recalled the
discussions about reducing public access, noting that part of the motivation had been cities
wanting more revenue back. He suggested that the Council discuss the issue at goal setting.
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Jordan that the 2008 survey on franchise fees in the state
found a wide range of franchise fees charged to Northwest Natural Gas, PGE, and other utilities.
He reiterated that, at a certain level, the companies showed the fee on the bill as a city charge,
which has always tempered cities charging the full franchise fee allowed by the State.
He indicated to Councilor Jordan that Electric Lightwave obtained its first franchise with the City
in the late 1990s. He said that the other two active CLECs were New Path Systems and Time
Warner Telecommunications. He commented that there were some inactive facilities in the City's
right-of-way.
Mr. McIntyre informed the Council that, in the Thursday Digest, he would include a summary of the
utility rates for all utilities, including the maximum allowed and the 2008 survey. Mayor Hoffman
suggested holding a discussion on franchise fees in the first quarter.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 19
November 16, 2010
Councilor Tierney moved to adopt Ordinance 2564. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion.
A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin,
Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and Vizzini voting `aye.' [7-0]
8. STUDY SESSION
8.1 Natural Area Restoration and Maintenance
• Staff Repot
Ms. Gilmer introduced Dean Apostle, MIG, Inc. She reviewed i ,is background in management
and restoration of Pacific Northwest ecosystems. She indicated that MIG, Inc. hired Trout
Mountain Forestry to do the on groundwork. She reviewed Trout Mountain Forestry's experience
in forest management strategies.
She gave a PowerPoint presentation. She indicated that, in response to the Council direction last
June, staff hired MIG, Inc. in August to do parks and rec and natural area system planning. She
explained that staff learned from the baseline (existing conditions) analysis of the City's natural
areas that natural area and parks management was not as simple as the Council allocating funds
and staff deciding which properties to start maintaining. She said that they needed to understand
the existing conditions on the ground and how to prioritize and strategize goals in formulating their
management focus.
She explained that this presentation did not have specific options and funding proposals but rather
it presented the preliminary findings on the natural resource management issues in Lake Oswego's
parks. She proposed that staff return later with more detailed information on costs and options.
She showed a map of the park system, noting that 375 to 400 of the 601 plus acres of City park
property were in natural areas of some sort. She reviewed the City's current parks maintenance
staff (p.82). She observed that the City's maintenance approach was more responsive than
planned, although staff did try to use `the protect the best' philosophy of Portland.
Mr. Apostle continued the presentation. He commented that, while the parks and open spaces
were well distributed throughout the community, that distribution also led to higher fragmentation
and more difficult maintenance. He reviewed the variety of natural areas in Lake Oswego. He
observed that more than half the City's acreage was in upland forest, which was the most common
habitat type in the region. He noted the rare old growth forest and Pacific Yew trees at the Cornell
Natural Area, the regionally rare oak woodlands, the riparian woodlands, the Willamette River
riparian cottonwood areas, and the river beaches and rocky coasts.
He commented that Lake Oswego had some of the best examples of ash sedge wetlands that he
has seen, citing Waluga and Canal Acres in particular. He noted that the City had quite a bit of
emerging wetlands with non-native reed canary grass and non-native grassland habitat, such as
Stevens Meadow at Luscher Farm.
He discussed management issues. He indicated that Lake Oswego had a substantial invasive
species problem, as was common in the region. He spoke of safety issues, such as fire risk and
falling trees. He commented that Lake Oswego's fire risk was small because its natural areas
tended to be moist. He mentioned habitat enhancement opportunities, such as creating more dead
trees away from trails to provide more habitat and placing wood in streams.
He observed that 80% of a city's effort in an urban natural area management program related to
invasive species management. He commented that invasive species management took
continuous attention, knowledge, skill, and setting priorities. He indicated that Lake Oswego had
the biggest ivy problem in the Portland Metro area, even worse on a per acre basis than at Forest
Park in Portland. He mentioned that Lake Oswego also had all the other weeds common to the
area.
He discussed the stewardship and continuous monitoring required in natural areas management.
He spoke of ranger patrols to identify problems early on, especially erosion problems. He
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 19
November 16, 2010
explained how a grass fire could become a brush fire and then a tree fire racing up a slope. He
said that there were ways to control fuels to keep the risk as low as possible and Fire Department
training in fighting wildland fires.
Ms. Gilmer discussed the City's current maintenance work. She presented a chart detailing the
work done by the Parks Maintenance staff (p.82). She indicated that, while staff constantly
responded to concerned neighbors regarding tree issues, they removed only 20 to 30 hazard trees
a year due to the limited budget. She noted the importance of monitoring and removing high
priority invasive species (p.82). She mentioned their use of stewardship contracts (when funding
was available) in the hiring of the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) to do invasive
plant species removal and restoration activities.
She indicated that the most active Friends groups were Springbrook Park, Brookside, and Luscher
Farm, all of which had plans annually to do work. She mentioned that the number of
miscellaneous volunteer work parties was slowing down.
She presented a comparison of Lake Oswego's activities to other cities with a natural area
maintenance team (p.82). Mr. Apostle confirmed that there were no cities of Lake Oswego's size
in the region with an aggressive plant removal program. Ms. Gilmer mentioned that Eugene had
an aggressive program working with wetland and riparian restoration as well as invasive species
removal. She pointed out that comparing the per acre budget did not indicate the same level of
maintenance because not every agency was doing the same thing. She gave an example of Lake
Oswego's $207,000 per acre budget appearing to be comparable to Tualatin Hill's budget but, in
reality, $60,000 of Lake Oswego's budget was for hazard tree removal, leaving little money
available for invasive species removal.
She gave a quick synopsis of the City's accomplishments to date (p.83, 87-88). She noted the
City's aggressive acquisition program in the 1990s that bought almost 190 acres to protect habitat
but did not have a management plan in place. She indicated that, when the City received a grant
for an AmeriCorps position in 2004, it used that position to work towards developing an invasive
species removal program and management planning, including an increase in volunteer projects
involving the community. With the loss of that position in 2007, the City's efforts significantly
dropped.
She presented a chart listing the activities done with the AmeriCorps position and City staff
between 2004 and 2007 in comparison to City staff activities over the last two years. She noted
that staff has continued the ongoing maintenance and the required restored wetland monitoring at
Hazelia Field but lacked funding to do any of the other tasks.
Mr. Apostle discussed ideas for a management framework. He observed that natural areas
needed managing because they were at best semi -natural re -growth from the logging of Lake..
Oswego to the ground for the iron foundries, and much different systems than they were in the
past. He commented that the Portland area saw little natural area management prior to 10 years
ago. He noted the strong natural area management programs developed by Metro, Portland, and
Tualatin Hills over time. He mentioned Ms. Gilmer's involvement in the Urban Ecosystem
Restoration Consortium (UERC), which shared knowledge and expertise in the region at an annual
conference.
He presented a chart showing the different levels of management, from a base level focused on
safety to stabilization (holding the line) to improvement to mostly restored to fully restored. He
pointed out that the commitment of resources increased in the improvement level but decreased in
the restored levels because the focus shifted to the maintenance of a healthy system, as opposed
to caring for an unhealthy system.
He reviewed the process steps for developing a management plan, beginning with a long-range
vision for the ecological character of the property. He indicated that an early step should be a
detailed natural resource inventory that set up ecological plots to establish a baseline and to rank
sites by quality and rarity. He said that the work his company has done just skimmed the surface
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 19
November 16, 2010
of what was needed, but they would have a preliminary ranking of properties based on their
observations.
He discussed establishing conservation priorities and developing one and five year objectives for
the priority sites. He noted that Lake Oswego already had the pieces of a stewardship program in
place, from which it could begin systematic stewardship within its available budget. He commented
that they did not have all the answers today, which meant that a program needed to be flexible and
able to try something else if a given strategy did not work.
He defir-,ed the priority `protecting the best' as identifying those places that were the most natural
right now and starting with those, such as Lamont Springs. He confirmed the importance of
watching for signs of beginning invasive species invasions and immediately removing the plants
before they took hold and became much more difficult to eradicate. He emphasized the
importance of also restoring the rare habitats early on so that the City did not lose them.
He explained that the tiny City properties scattered throughout the city were dysfunctional from an
ecological perspective, covered in weeds and not worth investing much energy into managing. He
noted that the City did have some mid-size to large natural areas. He described the City
developing its natural area system as a series of networks with corridors connecting three or four
properties as linked habitats, in which the sum was greater than the individual parts.
He encouraged the City to settle in for gradual continuous progress towards its long-term goals, as
opposed to trying to do everything over night. He cited Lamont Springs as an example of a
property in good shape that could serve as a model for what the City's forested natural areas could
look like. He reiterated that the City needed to pay attention to its oak groves, which were rare
habitats.
He suggested that the City hire expert field -oriented staff to oversee and coordinate its natural
areas management program, citing the effective work of the Clackamas County manager in
obtaining grants and initiating work in the parks to restore oaks and woodlands. He observed that
Lake Oswego already trained its maintenance staff well with respect to traditional parks, but, like
many other cities, it needed to provide additional training with respect to natural areas
maintenance.
He noted Ms. Gilmer's mention of exploring memos of understanding (MOUs) with neighboring
agencies. He indicated that there were some good private sector crews available through contract
stewardship to do short-term projects. He spoke of the importance of nurturing the volunteer base
stewardship over the long term in order to build a stewardship network between the City, the
neighborhoods, and the private landowners. He pointed out that weeds would most likely reseed
in public properties from the adjacent private properties.
Ms. Gilmer discussed the pros and cons of the various options (p.85) for hiring staff to manage
and maintain the City's natural areas at a higher level. She reviewed the stewardship contracts
option. She observed that a stable source of funding would enable the City to increase the number
of stewardship contracts it managed each year. She indicated that these contracts were a proven
method for removing invasive plants and re -planting with native plants, but they did require
additional staff to manage and they did not provide any kind of management planning, ground
monitoring, grant writing, project development, or volunteer coordination.
She reviewed the option of a memo of understanding with another agency, such as Clackamas
County, Tualatin Hills, or Portland. She indicated that she knew of no such MOUs in the region,
but it was something that could be explored. She noted that these agencies did have a depth of
experience and the science resources that would be available to Lake Oswego if the City hired one
of them to manage its natural areas. She commented that she did not know if the financial
commitment would be more or less than the other options.
She pointed out that hiring an outside agency as the manager meant that the City would likely have
less involvement in determining and managing its priorities. She mentioned the uncertainty about
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 19
November 16, 2010
whether the community would accept an outside organization as the manager, since it might not be
as responsive to citizen inquiries as City staff would be.
She reviewed the option of hiring staff. She indicated that hiring one FTE with some contract labor
should develop a strong, manageable program for the City. She mentioned the City having more
control over priorities and developing the stewardship structure with planning and priorities
internally. She noted that this FTE could do all the tasks that the stewardship contracts could not
do and provide good responsiveness to citizen inqui ies She spoke of a close relationship
between this staff person and Parks Maintenance in training and the decision making process on
management planning.
She indicated that an FTE involved a greater financial commitment by the City. She pointed out
that hiring a full time staff person also meant potentially less funding for contract services. She
observed that, should the Council begin this program (under whichever option it chose), it needed
to make a long-term commitment to natural area management.
She emphasized that the $12,000 per acre over five years ($3.6 million) to restore all the
properties was a very rough estimate, given that each property was different. She directed the
Council to the materials in the staff report from Portland's natural area plan (pp.89-98). She
acknowledged that this plan was more involved than what Lake Oswego needed, but held that it
was a good model to guide the City in establishing goals, strategies, and priorities. She
commented that the City needed a long-term methodical plan in place, as she did not foresee the
City having sufficient money to deal with all the properties at once.
She suggested that staff come back with identified strategies and goals, a prioritization matrix
(reviewed by the Natural Resources Advisory Board), and options and costs for implementation of
the priorities. She indicated that, while they have identified the health of the system, they have not
identified the natural resource value of each of the sites in order to determine where the City's
primary focus should be. She explained that this made it difficult to provide a dollar figure at this
point.
Council Questions And Discussion
Mr. Apostle confirmed to Councilor Hennagin that he was recommending that, for habitat
purposes, the City connect the presently unconnected small areas it owned. He indicated that, as
part of the park system planning, they would consider whether the City should sell some of those
properties. He commented that, after seeing some of the sites, he did not understand why the City
would want to own them, citing as an example a quarter acre parcel along the side of the road
covered 100% in invasive species, which might better function as a house site. He acknowledged
that there might be legal reasons or physical land characteristics for why the City could not dispose
of certain properties. He noted that the City might want to retain small sites close to existing
natural areas that could be part of the habitat network.
Councilor Hennagin recalled Ms. Gilmer telling the Council as part of the staff report on
contracting for invasive species removal at Cook's Butte that volunteers could not keep up the
work of keeping invasive species out of large natural areas. Hence, the City contracted for the
service. He referenced the chart presented tonight that indicated that the AmeriCorps volunteer
worked extensively with volunteers. He questioned whether adding only one FTE to Parks
Maintenance would significantly affect keeping invasive species out of even just one area, such as
the Cornell Natural Area. He wondered how successful hiring a volunteer coordinator to enhance
the volunteer hours would be in combating invasive species.
Mr. Apostle recalled asking the recently retired manager of Forest Park how the ivy situation was
in Forest Park, given that the No Ivy League had been active for the past 15 years. He reported
that the gentleman told him that there was far more ivy now than when the No Ivy League started.
He commented that the No Ivy League had hundreds of volunteers, with someone working every
weekend, and it was not gaining an inch.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 19
November 16, 2010
He mentioned that, although he was an organic farmer with a farm in Damascus, he thought that a
chemical solution for the ivy problem might be the best way to go. He discussed the work of
Jonathan Saul in controlling ivy inexpensively and effectively with a mellow herbicide applied at the
right time of the year and in the right weather. Once the City used the services of a professional to
eradicate the ivy, a volunteer group could effectively maintain the area with some coordination.
Councilor Hennagin recalled reading a newspaper article a couple of months ago about someone
spreading acorns in an open field in an attempt to restart an oak grove. Mr. Apostle commenter'
that the best way to grow oaks was from acorns. He indicated that the difficulty with a thick grass
cover, such as at Steve, is Meadow, was the acorns working their way through the grass roots to
reach the soil. Eliminating some of the grass to expose bare soil in which to spread the acorns
could work, although it might take a while.
Mr. Apostle indicated to Councilor Hennagin that oak trees grew faster than one might think in
this area because of the long growing season. He recalled his assessment of some oak trees he
saw during the Westlake project as 250 to 300 years old, only to find out from the forester on the
team that her increment bore showed the trees at 80 years old.
Councilor Olson thanked Mr. Apostle for this information confirming the ivy problem in town. She
commented that she has been interested in this sort of program for a long time. She asked if the
small areas Councilor Hennagin mentioned were City -owned or developer set -asides. Ms. Gilmer
indicated that the consultant inventoried only City properties.
Councilor Olson recalled her earlier suggestion that the City consider selling some of its natural
areas in order to fund a restoration program. She mentioned her concern that the City had gone
on a spending spree to acquire properties but did not put aside any money to maintain the
properties. She commented that she thought Mr. Apostle's opinion on what pieces to sell would be
valuable.
Mr. Apostle indicated to Councilor Olson that, while he had thought that the Iron Mountain area
was the most prone to fires, his visit to the Luscher Farm complex changed his mind. He indicated
that the meadow complexes in that area were more prone to fire, although there was small
likelihood of fire transfer into a forest canopy in those meadows.
Councilor Olson commented that the information about the old growth trees, Pacific yews, and
oak woodlands at Iron Mountain was helpful information for setting priorities. She asked Mr.
Apostle for his opinion on how much value Lake Oswego's program to regulate already developed
private backyards for habitat and trees added to habitat. Mr. Apostle indicated that he was not
familiar with the program, and therefore, he could not evaluate it.
Mr. Apostle commented that one of Lake Oswego's advantages was that the tree canopy was
maintained throughout the city, which enhanced the habitat value of the City's natural areas. He
observed that Lake Oswego had some good habitat in people's backyards, and that such a
program could be a good program worth keeping.
Mayor Hoffman mentioned that he has heard before that the Council buying spree from 1995 to
2005 bothered people. Having been on Council at the time, he explained that, from his
perspective, the City had purchased lands that the owner was going to sell either to the City or to a
developer. He recalled that developers at the time were acquiring every property they could, so
the City bought what land it could with its limited funds.
He recalled that the Councils had been more concerned about maintaining the active recreation
areas during that decade, but they did want to save open save for future Councils to take care of.
Ms. Gilmer concurred that a lot of bond money in the 1990s went to upgrading active older parks
and athletic fields. Mr. Apostle pointed out that what happened in Lake Oswego was very
common in the Portland Metro area. A jurisdiction's first step was to set aside lands and its second
step was to maintain them. He indicated that Metro, Hillsboro, and Tualatin Hills have all done the
same thing. He noted that it has only been in the last six to eight years that jurisdictions have hired
professional staff to manage their natural areas.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 19
November 16, 2010
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Jordan that staff removed trees in places where it could be a
hazard to people using the park, but they left dead tree snags in the park interior, away from trails,
for bird habitat.
Mr. Apostle indicated to Councilor Jordan that mowing areas like Stevens Meadow was
important to continue until the City decided what it wanted to do with those areas. He explained
that mowing helped to keep weeds from spreading if the area was mowed before the seeds
developed.
Fire Chief Ed Wilson indicated to Councilor Jordan that the Fire Department had extensive
training in wildland fires but not much experience. He described the work the Department did
every spring to prepare for the possibility of a wildland fire in Lake Oswego, including fire
prevention education.
Councilor Jordan noted that different City departments dealt with education and stewardship of
natural lands from different perspectives. She spoke to coordinating the work of these
departments in order to avoid duplication of effort. Ms. Gilmer indicated that she was working with
Ms. Frisbee and Ms. Rooney to identify individual department priorities and how they inter -related
with each other in accomplishing common environmental goals.
Ms. Gilmer mentioned that the AmeriCorps staff member spent 10% of his/her time on education
and outreach. She spoke to the importance of putting together informational flyers and distributing
them door-to-door to neighbors living adjacent to City parks as part of taking a proactive approach
to managing City properties. She recalled talking with Ms. Frisbee about how a Parks & Rec staff
person charged with management planning and parks maintenance would coordinate educational
and outreach efforts with Planning and Engineering.
Councilor Jordan stated that the City had professional staff that did a good job and thought these
things through. She expressed her appreciation that staff was trying to solve this problem using
the best resources available at the City.
Mr. Apostle mentioned that Portland's BES did most of the restoration work in Portland parks right
now based on the watershed program and paid for out of storm water fees. Councilor Moncrieff
commented that she liked BES' watershed approach. She concurred with Councilor Jordan's
remarks about using a coordinated effort between the various departments.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that, while she did not know if the herbicide Mr.
Apostle mentioned for ivy was the same herbicide that BES used at Cook's Butte, she did know
that BES had a permit through the National Marine Fisheries when working near riparian areas and
followed the very stringent NMF guidelines for use of chemicals. Mr. Apostle explained that Mr.
Saul mixed the main ingredient in Round Up and Rodeo with a different surfactant that worked
better on ivy.
Councilor Moncrieff asked if the $12,000 an acre over 5 years that Ms. Gilmer estimated for the
cost of ivy removal in all the City's natural areas included using an herbicide or hiring an FTE. Ms.
Gilmer clarified that the figure reflected the cost of hiring BES to remove the ivy in an area using a
spray and to replant and monitor for three to five years. She referenced the spreadsheets from
Portland, in which the Portland staff attempted to quantify the cost per acre of moving acres from
fair to good condition (pp.97-98). She stated that her figures were a rough ballpark estimate
because staff has not analyzed the needs of each site.
Mr. Apostle confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that he would recommend using herbicides to
eradicate the ivy and volunteers to maintain the area afterwards. He mentioned that one of ivy's
big advantages was that it did not burn and made parks less flammable, but he did not recommend
not removing it for that reason.
Councilor Moncrieff mentioned that Lake Oswego did have ivy lovers in town who advocated
preserving the ivy, while keeping it off the trees, because it prevented erosion. Mr. Apostle
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 19
November 16, 2010
commented that it was questionable whether ivy prevented erosion because it was shallow -rooted,
and anything growing on a slope might do as good a job at preventing surface erosion.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that the Friends groups' policy enacted by the
Council did not reduce the number of Friends groups. She recalled that the intent behind the
policy had been to help guide the relationships of the Friends groups with the City, using the
Portland policy as a model. She explained that any property on which a Friends group wanted to
work had to fall within the City's priorities.
Councilor Tierney thanked staff for the report, but pointed out that it was simply more talk, instead
of the practical leadership action plan to improve City property maintenance by removing invasive
species and replanting with appropriate native species, which the Council resolution had called for.
He noted that it also missed the November 1 deadline. He stated his disappointment that the City
was not at the point where he had expected staff to be tonight, a point where the City was doing
something.
He acknowledged the need to think this through but argued that the right thing to do could be an
active program to remove invasive species while the City considered the implications and long-
term benefits of the program. He noted that 47% of 600 acres meant that 400 acres had two-thirds
of their understory covered by invasive species. He reiterated that they needed to start doing
something, and not continually think and plan. He said that he wanted to remove some invasive
species.
Mr. Apostle cautioned the Council that their inventory was a visual inventory. He indicated that,
while he was comfortable with their visual assessment of the extent of invasive species on a
property, the inventory was not a measured inventory. Councilor Tierney commented that he
understood Mr. Apostle to be an expert in the field, and therefore, he trusted his comments. He
recalled that, when the Council adopted the Parks & Rec plan and hired a consultant, he had said
that he did not want a consultant that told him that the City had a problem with invasive species in
their parks: he could see that for himself.
Ms. Gilmer explained that she needed to better understand what the City had on the ground in
order to establish goals and strategies and to do an accurate proposal for the Council. She
remarked that she could spend how ever much money the Council gave her, but in order to spend
it best, they needed to understand what the priorities were and to have the monitoring necessary to
evaluate whether or not their efforts were successful.
She asked for Council approval of a two-month extension to finish this work and come back with
some hard findings. She cited the Portland information in the staff report as helpful in Lake
Oswego creating a structure to make decisions on how to spend the money. She pointed out that
deciding what condition level Council wanted to bring City properties up to and what percentage of
properties staff would work on significantly affected the amount of money that the Council would
appropriate to do the work and the staffing levels required.
Mayor Hoffman commented that the message he heard from staff tonight was that the City could
not go out and randomly start eradicating ivy but rather it needed to set priorities as part of
protecting the best, restoring the rare, and networking properties into a bigger whole. Mr. Apostle
concurred. He gave an example of Aspen Reservoir Park as a property in such bad condition that
even throwing a lot of resources at it would not make much headway, whereas maintaining Lamont
Springs in its good condition was a more effective use of those resources.
Councilor Tierney recalled that the City has had programs in the past to eradicate ivy at Cook's
Butte and George Rogers Park. He commented that he was not discounting the need to think this
through intelligently but he was frustrated that they were still talking about it and not moving on to
doing the work. He reiterated that staff could have presented this report with a specific plan
detailing the resources that the City needed to move forward, and done so by November 1. He
stated that he wanted to spend less time and money on planning and more money on doing
something.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 19
November 16, 2010
Mr. Apostle pointed out that late winter was the season in which to tackle ivy, usually a sunny
week when ivy was growing but other plants were still dormant. He mentioned that Mr. Saul has
found that spraying ivy at the right time could achieve a 95% kill rate on the first action. Councilor
Tierney pointed out that late winter was in two months and staff proposed to come back and talk
some more about it then.
Councilor Vizzini expressed his appreciation for Councilor Tierney's call to action but noted that
this was a long-term problem, requiring a long-term dedication of resources. He argued that
whenever they started, it would be better to be able to prove to taxpayers that the :-ity was
spending the money in a targeted and effective way that would build over time. He held that it
would be unwise to start randomly pulling ivy without thinking about how to build on the eradication
and restoration work.
He mentioned that Intertwine, an effort to look at a regional strategy for habitat restoration, was
beginning to gain ground. He hoped that there would be an opportunity through that organization
to marry Lake Oswego's work to the regional effort and possibly get some regional funding. He
advocated for continuing the City's involvement and partnership with Intertwine.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Vizzini that staff did look at prison work release programs as a
resource but met with much opposition from the neighborhoods. She commented that they could
look at it again for natural areas, such as the complex at Luscher Farm.
Councilor Vizzini mentioned that Portland has been looking at ways to use its eradication and
restoration programs as training opportunities in the natural areas workforce development
programs and possibly getting some funding from those programs. He suggested that Lake
Oswego look into that possibility also.
He wondered whether the City had an opportunity to elevate the value of its natural assets to the
point where it could sell carbon credits and generate some income. Mr. Apostle commented that
that was an interesting issue because right now Lake Oswego's forests were young and still in a
carbon sequestration stage where they would build up more carbon for another hundred years
before stabilizing as a mature forest with fewer but larger trees. He mentioned his understanding
of the carbon markets was that it was easier to use carbon credits to protect a currently
unprotected forest than it was to put them into a protected forest.
Councilor Vizzini commented that he thought the future lay in thinking about natural area
management on a watershed basis, looking at ways that the work could benefit other City
programs (such as surface water management, MS4 permit, and ESA), and identifying other
funding sources (such as ratepayer dollars or federal and state watershed enhancement dollars) to
help do the work. He indicated that Portland was headed in that direction.
He stated that the point made in the presentation that they could not reach a sustainable state in
the watersheds until they went through the restoration stage was true. He argued that, even
though restoration cost more, it was worth it. He spoke to telling this story to the public so that they
understood the need to spend more money in the mid-term in order to bring both public and private
lands to a sustainable level of watershed health.
He described the City's green infrastructure as serving the City's watershed, storm water
management, and habitat restoration goals. He pointed out that it had a huge asset value just as
any other infrastructure system in the city did.
Councilor Olson asked Mr. Apostle for his thoughts on the Rassekh property. Mr. Apostle
commented that the whole Luscher Farm complex was probably historically forested and then
converted into farms with only the remnant pastures and some farming remaining. He mentioned
that his firm was working on a separate plan for the Luscher Farm complex in parallel with the
parks system plan.
Mr. Apostle pointed out that, while the area ecologically wanted to be a forest, that was not
necessarily what Lake Oswego wanted it to be. He indicated that the lowest maintenance would
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 19
November 16, 2010
be re-foresting the area but that was expensive over a long period of time until the canopy closed
up. He mentioned Portland's plan for a 300 -acre pasture at Powell Butte surrounded by perimeter
forest. Portland planned to extend the forests on the slopes farther up into the pasture along the
natural swales but still maintain some large grassy open areas. He commented that, since the
Luscher Farm area was similar to Powell Butte, that plan could also work there. However, given its
`weedy pasture' state, it would take full-blown restorative work to change it, which he doubted
would be a high priority.
Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Olson that she world find the name of the chemical that BES
used up on Cook's Butte. Councilor Olson mentioned that many neighbors had asked about it.
Mr. Apostle indicated to Councilor Jordan that he would have to check with Mr. Saul on exactly
where to use and not to use his version of Round Up. He mentioned that the normal Round Up's
surfactant was harmful to fish, but he did not know if the different surfactant that Mr. Saul used was
approved for use around water.
Mr. Apostle indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the native species better suited to preventing
erosion on slopes than ivy included salal, although salal was a fire problem. He noted the different
factors to consider, such as slope aspect and amount of shade, in deciding which of the deeper -
rooted native species to plant.
Councilor Vizzini suggested that the City make sure that the proposed FTE be a licensed
applicator. Ms. Gilmer mentioned that several parks maintenance staff were licensed applicators.
Mayor Hoffman directed the discussion to what direction the Council wanted to give to Ms. Gilmer.
Mr. McIntyre suggested a compromise to satisfy the intent of the resolution and to start moving
forward with the program while still not mis-targeting the effort. He indicated, should the Council
direct staff to return with a supplemental budget request for the next agenda item dealing with
education and outreach, that staff could request additional funds to start some targeted ivy pulling,
as recommended by Ms. Gilmer and Mr. Apostle.
He recalled that two years ago the prior Council adopted the Cook's Butte Master Plan, which has
served as a model for parks maintenance. He commented that staff was trying to accomplish
something similar here in making sure that they did the work right and that they did it well.
Mayor Hoffman spoke of staff returning ultimately with a 10 to 20 year plan that included an action
plan. He noted the intent to pick some of the low -hanging fruit by funding an immediate action plan
through a supplemental budget. He commented that, while he understood Councilor Tierney's
frustration, he did not necessarily share it.
Councilor Jordan suggested that staff identify a single parcel, determine the work it needed and
its cost, and return to Council with a budget for that project. Mr. McIntyre indicated that staff could
do that. He said that staff would return in December.
Councilor Moncrieff emphasized the need to look at watershed health and restoration. She
spoke of prioritizing the watershed issue and working together with the Clean Streams program.
She mentioned possible FEMA funding opportunities also. Mayor Hoffman indicated that his
priority would be the watershed over pulling ivy.
Councilor Tierney reiterated that he thought that a substantive discussion should have occurred
tonight. He argued that the City could move forward intelligently in parallel with actually doing
something. He cautioned staff not to make mistakes in an effort to pacify him.
Mayor Hoffman raised the question of whether to do watershed or ivy first. Councilor Tierney
expressed his hope that the February discussion would be comprehensive enough for the Council
to make decisions. Councilor Vizzini questioned whether it was an either or proposition. He
framed the question as what was a reasonable budget, what was available in terms of budget
resources for a supplemental action, and what could be productively done during this fiscal year.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 19
November 16, 2010
Councilor Vizzini commented that he heard Councilor Tierney saying that he was willing to
support a supplemental budget in order to get some work done this fiscal year. He observed that
whatever work was the most productive would ultimately serve the watershed.
Mr. Apostle asked if Lake Oswego has identified certain watersheds as higher priorities than other
watersheds. The Council indicated that the City has not formally done so. Mr. Apostle spoke of
factoring a watershed priority in along with the other priorities.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 9:14 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at
9:28 p.m.
8.2 Natural Resource Education and Outreach Proposals
• Staff Report
Ms. Frisbee introduced the two guests: Gaylen Beatty (Columbia Land Trust) and Ariana
Longanecker (Audubon Society). She explained that they would provide an overview of one of the
cornerstone programs that staff proposed as part of the City's education and outreach, the
backyard consultation series.
She reviewed the drivers behind the direction that staff received from Council through Resolution
10-51 last July (p.98). She acknowledged that the City has not done a good job in the past of
promoting awareness and communicating with property owners in general and sensitive lands
property owners specifically about the purposes and the requirements of the natural resources
protection program.
She also acknowledged that this vacuum of information contributed to the controversy last year,
and that the City has not done enough in the past to encourage and invite volunteer participation in
the City's program. She stated that the City heard clearly from the community that they were good
stewards and wished to be approached as such. She recognized that, as the City eased the
regulations affecting people's use of their backyards, it needed companion efforts to promote
participation in the City's program and to educate the public about best practices and City
opportunities.
She noted that Metro has asked for information about Lake Oswego's education and outreach
program in anticipation of the City's December compliance report including an easing of
restrictions. Metro expected the City to do more to promote voluntary compliance if it eased the
restrictions.
She presented the staff proposal for program improvements based on ideas gathered from
workshops, open houses, the Task Force, and staff discussion (p.101). She spoke of building on
the City's and the region's current successful programs, emphasizing partnerships, and one-on-
one interactions. She described outreach and education programs as the ideal vehicle for City
staff to work across departments and link the City's resource programs that have common targets,
such as sensitive lands, the MS4 permit, water quality efforts, and the City's Urban Forestry Plan.
She presented the staff key recommendations. She spoke to the importance of the City
participating in the local Watershed Council efforts, including a staff liaison to both the Tryon Creek
Watershed Council and the new Oswego Lake Watershed Council (p.100). She recommended
participating in the backyard habitat certification program, engaging in a partnership with the
Friends of Trees, and starting a small grants program for restoration work by private citizens, citing
the project in the Springbrook Creek area done by Audrey Mattison and three neighbors reported
in Thursday's Lake Oswego Review (p.101). She discussed the City continuing to provide one-on-
one arborist services to property owners (p.102).
She discussed the staffing changes needed in order to implement these recommendations,
including the work that a City Arborist/Forester and a Watershed Outreach Coordinator would do
(p.102).
Backyard Habitat Certification Program
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 19
November 16, 2010
Ms. Beatty gave a PowerPoint presentation. She explained that this program began in 2006 as a
partnership program in the southwest hills of Portland with Friends groups. It evolved into a
citywide program in Portland in partnership with the Columbia Land Trust and the Audubon Society
as a way to complement the work that Portland Parks and BES were doing on public lands to
remove invasive species and restore natural areas. She indicated that the program's mission was
to engage private landowners of one acre or less in removing invasive weeds to create wildlife
habitat and in gardening responsibly.
She reviewed the four elements of the certification: removal of certain: weeds, planting native
plants, increasing wildlife habitat, and storm water management. She :I;entioned that they
provided incentives and information to homeowners, including wholesa!e prices on native plants.
She indicated that another important piece of the program was working with neighborhood
associations in order to connect the backyards that complemented the natural areas.
She presented a map of the over 600 participating Backyard Habitat landowners today. She
mentioned that what often happened was one homeowner put up a certification sign and then
others in the neighborhood began participating in the program, resulting in groupings of
homeowners and connecting properties.
Ms. Longnecker commented that this program was a great model because it was a non -regulatory
approach to engaging landowners and providing education. She described it as a natural
complement to Lake Oswego's natural resource protection program.
Councilor Olson asked if Ms. Beatty or Ms. Longnecker felt that the onerous regulatory programs
in Lake Oswego would be necessary if the City implemented a program like this. Ms. Longnecker
said that the program was not a replacement for strong regulation but rather a good complement to
strong environmental protections.
Mayor Hoffman asked if Portland had an all -voluntary program for natural resource protection.
Councilor Olson noted that Portland did have environmental regulations but not on upland tree
groves. Councilor Vizzini indicated that Portland Planning & Sustainability was currently
developing tree protection policies to add to the City's extensive storm water management policies.
He mentioned recently adopted invasive plant removal requirements of private property owners
that allowed the City to remove from private land invasive species threatening adjacent public
property, which the homeowner did not remove, and bill the homeowner for the work.
Councilor Vizzini mentioned that Portland has seen private property owners willing to invest in
storm water management when they saw public investment in their neighborhood's infrastructure.
He wondered whether the same was true with habitat restoration efforts in the West Hills, Ms.
Beatty mentioned conversations they have had with the Portland Bureau of Transportation
regarding their work on green streets as an example of the collaborative opportunities available in
Portland.
• Council Questions and Discussion
Ms. Frisbee confirmed to Councilor Tierney that this proposal was a necessary piece of the City's
compliance report scheduled for submittal to Metro in December, based on the letter that staff
received from Metro last week. She indicated to the Councilor that the December 2010 due date
was an extension of the original December 2009 due date, granted by Metro to several cities.
Councilor Jordan mentioned her understanding that the letter said that if the City wanted to allow
the footprint of an existing dwelling to increase by more than 500 square feet, it needed to have a
good educational component in the program in order to be in compliance. She noted the need to
have a supplement budget in place as evidence to Metro that the City was in compliance and
moving forward. She suggested a $150,000 supplemental budget request to fund pulling ivy as
well as the education piece for natural resource protection on private property.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 19
November 16, 2010
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Mayor Hoffman that staff could bring forward an action plan and a
supplemental budget request before the end of the year. He said that the money would come from
storm water fees and probably contingency in the General Fund.
Councilor Tierney pointed out that this 10 to 20 year long-term program expense increased every
year. He questioned how that fit into the long-term financial health of the community and its ability
to pay for the program. He acknowledged that they could draw from contingency but noted that
contingency was reserves. He expressed his concern about the challenge of keeping everything
within the existing revenues.
He commented that he had not recognized that adopting the Sensitive Lands Ordinance meant
adopting $300,000 for education. He pointed out that there would be individuals joining the
Council in January who campaigned in disagreement with the Council's actions. He indicated that
he was challenged on how to put it altogether without asking Metro for a delay.
Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Jordan's comments. She described the staff
proposal as in line with Section C of the Council's direction to staff to return with a supplemental
budget request for enhanced communication and outreach activities per Resolution 10-51A. She
pointed out that; while it was a supplemental budget item this year, the Council would have to fund
it within existing revenues in the future.
She acknowledged to Councilor Tierney that funding it out of existing revenues this year was also
an option. She agreed with Councilor Jordan that easing up on restrictions required a
complementary outreach program, which the Second Look Task Force had also recommended.
She pointed out that it cost money to staff an effective outreach program, to maintain natural lands,
and to provide incentives. She indicated that she supported the staff recommendation.
Mayor Hoffman commented that what he heard was that if the Council relaxed the restrictions,
then it had to make it up some place else, such as reaching out to people on a one-to-one basis.
Councilor Vizzini commented that when he had testified on sensitive lands, he had clearly stated
that it would cost money and that he fully expected the stewards of Lake Oswego to support the
needed investment to bring Lake Oswego's watersheds into a sustainable and healthy condition.
He said that he expected this Council to begin to map out how to fund these efforts.
He suggested either finding program savings in the General Fund or using General Fund reserves
to jump-start a program this year. He mentioned that it took 20 years for Portland to arrive at storm
water fees three times Lake Oswego's, and yet people still argued that the fees were insufficient to
restore the damage caused by 150 years of industrialization.
He emphasized that this Council and future Councils, if they were serious about natural area
management, would have to commit to raising the funds either outside the community or within the
community and to sustaining the work over time. He spoke of also increasing private actions
significantly through incentives and programs similar to those discussed tonight. He argued that,
while they needed to spend public dollars prudently, if this was a true value of the community, then
the Council needed to invest in this work publicly and privately.
Councilor Olson concurred with Councilor Tierney. She suggested asking Metro for another year
extension. Ms. Frisbee indicated that, while she has heard others in the community suggest that
Metro would grant such an extension, in her conversations with Metro, the staff has been firm
about meeting the deadline this year. She said that she could ask but reiterated that Metro has not
wanted to talk about extensions.
Councilor Olson commented that Ms. Gilmer and Ms. Frisbee's reports tonight made it clear that
the City as a property owner has not been doing much to comply with Metro Titles 3 and 13. She
held that instead, the City has put unreasonable requirements and onerous regulations on 10% of
the citizens to accomplish an unknown, given that there was no data indicating that the Sensitive
Lands program has achieved anything since its implementation. She emphasized that there was
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 19
November 16, 2010
much more beneficial and effective work that the City could and should do on City -owned
properties.
She argued that implementing the actions and programs suggested by staff would go a long way
toward complying with Metro. She acknowledged that the programs cost money, but contended
that implementing some of these programs would have everyone in the city participating and
helping to pay for the programs instead of just 10% of the people.
She concurred with Councilor Tierney that natural area restoration should be expedited. She
indicated her yvillingness to support the financial resources to do so, but not with a supplemental
budget or out of contingency. She argued for cutting something else.
She held that the other items presented by Ms. Frisbee needed more Council discussion within the
context of its other priorities. She stated her preference that the City obtain an extension, that the
Council discuss sensitive lands compliance and a comprehensive approach to implementing these
proposals, and that staff then go to Metro. She pointed out that they have not discussed selling
some of the non -valuable properties to fund programs, as mentioned this evening.
She said that the Natural Resource Coordinator position that both staff reports indicated was
eliminated was not actually eliminated but rather turned into a management analyst position by Mr.
McIntyre. She pointed out that neither that decision nor the conscious decision to eliminate the
arborist by attrition and to use the money to hire different FTEs represented a decrease in the
budget.
Councilor Hennagin commented that he would like to see future Councils work towards a
comprehensive plan with a watershed approach but he thought that they needed to do it one step
at a time. Ms. Frisbee indicated to the Councilor that staff's first priority in offering the one-on-
one education and communication services would be to those affected by the Sensitive Lands
Ordinance.
Councilor Hennagin wondered what education resources and assistance the Audubon Society
and the Columbia River Land Trust could provide to individuals that might reduce City funding.
Ms. Frisbee indicated that their program was not a free program. She explained that these groups
would with partner with the Friends of Tryon Creek, which already offered this service at a low rate,
to expand the program with an even more efficient rate.
Mayor Hoffman pointed out that staff has done what the Council directed it to do in making this
proposal, and now Council needed to provide more direction. He indicated his support of the staff
proposal as submitted in the report.
Councilor Jordan expressed her support for the proposal also. She commented that, by stepping
forward and agreeing to start this program, the Council was spreading the responsibility to protect
the community's natural resources to all citizens because it would use taxpayer dollars to pay for
the program. She mentioned her expectation that staff would also bring back a supplemental
budget request for invasive species removal, and that the two programs would share in the
educational and outreach efforts.
She commented that, having heard much from the Councilors -elect about their concern for
sensitive lands and ivy removal, she expected it to be a priority next year, including how it fit into
the budget. She indicated that, while not taking the funding from the General Fund would be great,
if they had to, doing so indicated the Council's willingness to move forward on this issue of concern
in the community.
Ms. Frisbee indicated to Councilor Tierney that the estimated net $50,000 for a City arborist
included the $28,000 contract for the part-time arborist already working for the City. She confirmed
that staff's intention was to list both the new positions as hires, and not under contract.
Councilor Tierney indicated his discomfort with this proposal, and commented that he would be a
little more comfortable if these positions were contract until the City sorted out what it was going to
do. Ms. Frisbee committed to reviewing those positions with Mr. McIntyre.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 19
November 16, 2010
Councilor Olson observed that the City already spent much staff time and money regulating
sensitive lands property owners under the current City program. She wondered, if the City was
going to spend this kind of money, staff time, and energy to work directly with all the current
sensitive lands property owners, whether they could reconsider taking the upland tree grove
regulations off private backyards because this educational effort replaced those regulations.
Mayor Hoffman asked if it was the Council's direction to Ms. Frisbee to move ahead as
recommended in the November 8, 2010, staff report with :ire caveat of looking at independent
contractors.
Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Jordan that staff would make sure to coordinate and
integrate the sensitive lands and parks programs to avoid duplication of services, such as an
arborist in each department. He asked the Council members to let him know privately before
December what programs they would consider cutting. He noted that, otherwise he would come
forward with a supplemental budget and then, through the budget process next year, reprioritize
programs, if that was Council's desire.
Mayor Hoffman asked for a nod of heads about moving forward as recommended by Ms.
Frisbee. He indicated that there were five in support and two against (Councilors Tierney
and Olson).
9. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL
9.1 Councilor Information
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental
Committees
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
10.1 City Manager
10.1.1 Review of Council Schedule
10.1.2 Review of Council Digest
10.2 City Attorney
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 10:14 p.m. to Executive Session pursuant to ORS
192.660 (2) (e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated to negotiate real property
transactions. Mr. Powell reviewed the Executive Session parameters.
12. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Mayor Hoffman reconvened the open meeting at 10:40 p.m.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON February 15, 2011
J k D. Hoffma ,' Mayor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 16, 2010
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn 4hristie
City Recorder
Page 19 of 19