The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - 2007-03-05 SpecialCity Councilors Judie Hammerstad, Mayor Ellie McPeak, Council President John Turchi Frank Groznik Roger Hennagin Donna Jordan Kristin Johnson CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Monday, March 5, 2007 4:00 p.m. Main Fire Station 300 B Avenue Also published on the internet at: ci.oswego.or.us Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder E -Mail: public_affairs@ci.oswego.or.us Phone: (503)675-3984 This meeting is in a handicapped accessible location. For any special accommodations, please contact Public Affairs, (503) 635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. REVIEW EVENING AGENDA 4. REVIEW FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 5. STUDY SESSION 5.1 Metropolitan Area Communications Commission Report on Verizon CableTelevision Franchise............................................................................................ 1 5.2 Urban Forestry Update.................................................................................................. 7 5.3 Foothills Boat Dock........................................................................................................ 11 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to ORS 192.660(2), if needed 7. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION 8. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE ROLLING UPDATE DATE MORNING MEETINGS EVENING MEETINGS — 7:30 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, No Meeting Scheduled — March 13 National League of Cities Con erence Tuesday, • Agenda Review pular Meeting, 6 p.m. Council Chambers March 20 . Future Schedule • Adoption of agreement with MACC • Urban Forestry • Water Issues Program Update • Foothills Boat Dock Update Public Hearing Tuesday, No Meeting Scheduled March 27 Monday, Citizens' Budget Committee, 6-8 p.m. April 2 Tuesday, • Agenda Review Regular Meeting, 6 p.m. Council Chambers April 3 . Future Schedule Public Hearing • Request to annex 13560 Goodall (AN 006-0015) • Request to annex 5337 Bonita Road (AN 06-0014) Monday, Citizens' Budget Committee, 6-8 p.m. April 9 Tuesday, Special Meeting, 6 p.m. Council Chambers April 10 . Neighborhood Plan Overlays Tuesday, • Agenda Review Regular Meeting 6p.m. Council Chambers April 17 . Future Schedule • Metro Presentation, Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis Public Hearing Monday, Citizens' Budget Committee, 6-8 p.m. April 23 Tuesday, No Meeting Scheduled April 24 Tuesday, • Agenda Review Regular Meeting 6 p.m. Council Chambers May 1 . Future Schedule • Council Goal Update • Public Hearing Monday, Citizens' Budget Committee, 6-8 p.m. May 7 Tuesday, Special Meeting. 6 p.m. Council Chambers May 8 • Tuesday, • Agenda Review Regular Meeting, 6 p.m. Council Chambers May 15 . Future Schedule Public Hearing Tuesday, Special Meeting, 6 p.m. Council Chambers May 22 BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule Items known as of 3/1/07 N:\Agendas\Agendaforms\Schedule.doc CITY COUNCIL / LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE ROLLING UPDATE Tuesday, No Meetinz Scheduled May 29 Tuesday, • Agenda Review Regular Meeting, 6 p. m. Council Chambers June 5 . Future Schedule Public Hearing Tuesday, Special Meeting, 6p.m. Council Chambers June 12 • Tuesday, • Agenda Review pular Meeting, 6p.m. Council Chambers June 19 . Future Schedule Public Hearing TEesda No Meetinz Scheduled Ju AWAITING MEETING DATE FUTURE ITEMS • Council goal update .................................... • For Lease Signage ....................................... • Lake Grove Village Center Plan ................. • Infill Report ................................................. • Dark Sky Study Session/Ordinance............ • Sewer Interceptor Report ............................ • Water Mgt. and Conservation Plan ............. • Water Providers 2nd Meeting ..................... • Phosphorous Follow-up .............................. • Update on FAN Alleys ............................... • Residential Permit Process .......................... BOLD ITEMS — New issues added to schedule Items known as of 3/1/07 N:\Agendas\Agendaforms\Schedule.doc STATUS ................... Every other month ...................To be scheduled ................... Spring 2007 ...................Study Session, Spring 2007 ................... Spring 2007 ................... Spring 2007 ................... Spring 2007 ...................To be scheduled ...................To be scheduled ...................July 2007 ...................October CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: March 5, 2007 SUBJECT: Metropolitan Area Communications Update on Verizon Cable Television Franchise Councilor McPeak with review the attached report with the Council. If there is Council support a resolution will be prepared for approval at the March 20 meeting. Motion: none ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF COST: $ BUDGETED: Y N FUNDING SOURCE: Finance Director approval required for items with a fiscal impact: ATTACHMENTS: MACC Update NOTICED (Date): Ordinance no.: Resolution no.: Previous Council consideration: CITY MONAGER 0�?��4o2 signoff/date SA 03/05/07 EXHIBIT C COMCASTNERIZON FRANCHISE COMPARISON Metropolitan Area Communications Commission February 13, 2007 FRANCHISE PROVISION COMCAST i § VERIZON § SERVICE AREA i Build-out]Density All MACC jurisdictions in areas 13.2 All of Verizon's MACC jurisdictions 3.1 - Requirement that meet Density requirement meeting the Density requirement 3.2 of 10 homes/quarter mile. of 10 homes/quarter miles except Banks, Gaston, (due to construction cost) and North Plains because it is not served by Timeline: system upgrade within three years of franchise 11.1 Verizon. date. Timeline: System built in initial service area within four years of franchise date. Additional areas to be reviewed every two years. FINANCE Franchise fees 5% of gross revenues 3.1 5% of gross revenues 7.1 Gross Revenue Comparable Net Effect 1.18 Comparable Net Effect 1.23 Definition Audit authority Authority to audit once each 3.6 Authority to audit once every two 7.4 12 months; years; If franchise fees are underpaid Until Verizon has more than by 3% or more, Comcast pays 10,000 subscribers, if franchise the total cost of the audit fees are underpaid by 5% or less, Verizon pays the total costs of the audit up to $10,000; When Verizon has 10,000 subscribers or more, if franchise fees are underpaid by 3% of less, Verizon pays the total costs of the audit up to $15,000. Letter of Credit $100,000 5.4 $20,000 (approx. 20% of Comcast f 13.6 amount due to difference in I number of potential subscribers Incidental PEG / $800,000 5.6 $149,600 (see MACC Staff Report 14.5 PCN Payments --"Verizon Cable TV Franchise Recommendation") Insurance Limits General Liability: $2 million 5.1 General Liability: $3 million 10.1 Broadcasters Liab: $1 million Broadcasters Liab: $1 million Auto BI/PD: $2 million Auto BI/PD: $2 million Employers Liab: $2 million Employers Liab: $2 million PEG PROGRAMMING PEG Channels 1 6 channels, trigger for 9.3- 6 channels, trigger for additional 6.1 additional channels $1.00 per subscriber /month 9.8 channels PEGIPCN Fee 9.7 $1.00 per subscriber/month 6.4.2 PEG Origination Seven Activated Origination 9.5 Five Activated Origination Points Exh Points Points i B CUSTOMER I SERVICE i Telephone 90% of the calls answered 6.3 90% of the calls answered within I Exh Answering within 30 seconds 30 seconds D(2) Local office One center conveniently6.2 No local office requirement. Exh located in the franchise area to D(3) provide pick up/drop off Verizon must pick up or drop off equipment, bill payment, and equipment free of charge (using complaints representative visit, prepaid mailer, or establishing a local business office) I side/side 2/13!2006 Reporting Required quarterly for: • Franchise Fees • Complaints • Construction Activities • Subscriber Information • Service Call Statistics . Telephone Activity • Other Information "as appropriate and reasonable." Fines OTHER FRANCHISE REQUIREMENTS 3.4 Required quarterly for: 7.1 j • Franchise Fees 7.4 I • Installations • Service Call Statistics • Telephone Activity On an on-going basis: • Complaints • Other Information "as reasonably necessary." Telephone answering: Failure 15.2 Telephone answering: Failure to to meet standard — meet standard — $10,000 first violation; $2,000 first violation, $20,0002 n, violation; $4,000 2nd violation; $30,000 3'1 violation ( $6,000 3rd violation (Fine amounts reflect differences in number of potential subscribers.) Other Violations: $250/day May be reduced by 50% if no No cap on total fines. fines levied in first 42 months. Other Violations: $250/day $25,0001year cap on total fines. Term 15 years Franchise termination -omcast may abandon the system during the franchise erm except that Grantors may )perate system temporarily, )ursue legal remedies to naintain service and/or re- ;lrant the franchise as )pplicable. 2.3 15 years 3 7.2 9.4 Exh. D 13.5 2.3 16.1- At the end of 4 years; if video 3.9 16.2 services are not commercially viable, Verizon must provide Grantor and subscribers advance notice to terminate services side/side 2/13/2006 n Emergency Must comply with FCC 6.9 Must comply with FCC 5.3 Alert requirements, and local/state requirements, and local/state EAS Plans and remotely EAS Plans and remotely override audio and video on all override audio and video on all channels channels Technical • 550 MHz System Required_ 11.1 . 860 MHz System Required. 5 Standards •12 -hour Main backup power, 14 • 24-hour Main backup power, 2 -hour Remote backup 4 -hour Remote backup power. power. • FCC technical performance 12 • FCC technical performance standards apply. standards apply. • NECA, NESC. OSHA 10.1 . NECA, NESC. OSHA Standards apply. 3 Standards apply. • Grantor may inspect • Grantor may inspect facilities. 10.1 facilities. Institutional Upgrade of existing network 11.2 No requirement. There is no n/a Network (PCN) (PCN subscriber service rates MACC—area market for a second reimburse Comcast for PCN I -Net like the PCN. investment over 15 yr. term.) Public Building Complimentary "Standard" 13.3 Complimentary 'Basic" service to 3.3 Connections cable service to public use unserved public buildings. buildings. side/side 2/13/2006 THE VERIZON FRANCHISE Effect on Lake Oswego: those residents who have telephone service from Verizon, rather than from Quest, will have a choice of an additional cable television and internet provider. More competition (the oligopoly model, rather than the monopoly model) will result in better customer service, more choice of packages or bundles of services, more services for the dollar, and more stable prices (fewer price hikes). It probably will not cut the cost of cable television and internet services, but price hikes will be more conservatively initiated. There will be no "cherry picking" of customers (serving affluent communities, skipping others) as the franchise requires build -out to the same density requirement as Comcast's. The UGB makes meeting density requirements here more attractive than elsewhere in the country. I see no downside to the consumers if this franchise is granted. The proposed franchise has been negotiated by highly knowledgeable people at MACC, with the advice of Pam Beery, a recognized authority on telecommunications issues in Oregon, and nationally. Why now? Advances in telecommunications technology allow traditional telephone companies to install updated fiber optic networks that can also carry high-speed internet and cable TV signals. Comcast is now competing with telephone providers by offering telephone services. Traditional phone companies feel they must also offer advanced services in order to maintain revenues as telephone customers depart. The telecommunications industry is constantly morphing, with previously distinct markets blending with others. Verizon has been awarded over 650 cable franchises, mostly on the east coast, TX, and in Southern CA. The MACC area is the largest concentration of Verizon phone customers upgraded to Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) in Oregon, with about 123,000 of Verizon's statewide 159,000 upgraded subscribers. The future of local governments' ability to franchise the use of the right of way is uncertain. The FCC views this right as inhibiting competition (this new franchise proposal indicates otherwise), and may shift the authority over franchises to the state level. This proposed agreement is taking place in a more controlled environment for Verizon than may exist in the future, but the franchise locks in (subject to a cancellation provision, etc.) the MACC authority on our behalf for 15 years. Comcast's opposition is totally understandable. Another competitor changes Comcast's freedom of action. The consumer cannot lose under this change. Why aren't all MACC members included? Verizon's cable service is an electronic signal on their FTTP (Fiber to the Premises) telephone network. That network exists only in some places. It is absent in No. Plains, most of Lake Oswego, and portions of Beaverton and unincorporated Washington County. Banks and Gaston have not yet been upgraded to FTTP. They will be upgraded when population, economics and technology make service there practical. Other: 1. We must grant additional franchises (MACC/Comcast Franchise and Fed. Law) to proposed companies that are viable, and if their proposed franchise meets the needs of the jurisdictions affected. All franchises granted must be non-exclusive, and must be "reasonably comparable" to the MACC/Comcast agreement. 2. Are the franchises "reasonably comparable?" a. Comparison Chart handout: Federal and OR law require "reasonably level playing field" for competitors. The proposed franchise meets this standard. Comcast can ask MACC to change existing requirements that it believes should be changed. In most sections where requirements differ between The franchises, the differences reflect the smaller size of the Verizon market. b. The Verizon franchise considered here is considerably more restrictive than its national model. Comcast fine levels were the result of previous cable operators' violations of telephone answering standards. c. There is no need to require that Verizon provide free cable service to institutions already served by the Comcast franchise. Verizon will be required to provide free cable service to any new unserved sites within their service area, reducing the Comcast obligation. d. Verizon subscribers will also support PEG programming and the PCN by paying $1/subscriber/month. e. Incidental Payment: Special circumstances resulted in the higher Incidental Payment in the 1999 franchise renewal with Comcast. f. Verizon can terminate within 4 years, with notice. Usually their franchises have a 3 year provision. It is unlikely they will exercise the provision, but given the risks of a new operation like this, it is prudent to allow them this right. 2. The Comcast letter: don't discuss, except to take down questions if need MACC advice. 3. a. "Cherry Picking" refers to the illegal choice of service areas according to income levels. This is not involved in the Verizon franchise agreement. Density requirements are the same for both franchises. b. Comcast has no termination provision because they never asked for one. In fact, they would be delighted if Verizon exercised the option and left the market. c. Incidental payments are included in cable franchises to account for unique circumstances in particular situations. Comcast did recover its payment through reduced PEG/PCN Grant fund payments during the first 4 years. Verizon's incidental payment is an advance to the PEG/PCN Grant Fund, which they will fully recover in a similar manner d. Letters of Credit: should be, and are, scaled to the number of potential subscribers and the amount of potential fines. Verizon must provide such a Letter continuously throughout the franchise term. e. Customer Service Requirements are set to ensure Verizon meets the same general standards as Comcast. They were written while working with a specific business model and environment at different times in a negotiations setting. Inconsistencies between the franchises are inevitable. f. Fine caps: Comcast never requested a cap during the 1999 negotiations. We would discuss such a cap, based on the same methodology, if Comcast requests MACC do so. The whole area of franchise -granting authority is up for grabs in Washington. The ability of jurisdictions to control the use of the right of way and retain franchising authority in the future may be curtailed in the future. Approving this franchise now provides certainty regarding Verizon's obligations and activities, and Verizon's presence will help discipline Comcast's activities in the MACC area. METROP01il-AN MACC )VINIUMCATiONS COMVIiSSiON REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITIES OF BANKS, BEAVERTON, CORNELIUS, DURHAM, FOREST GROVE, GASTON, HILLSBORO, KING CITY, LAKE OSWEGO, NORTH PLAINS, RIVERGROVE, TIGARD, TUALATIN AND WASHINGTON COUNTY >Important Update Verizon Cable Television Franchise And Your Community Prepared by The Metropolitan Area Communications Commission February 2007 Your jurisdiction is a member of the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (MACC), an intergovernmental agency which administers and regulates cable television franchises for thirteen cities and Washington County. MACC currently administers two Comcast cable television franchises on behalf of its members. VERIZON'S CABLE SERVICE As you may be aware, Verizon began upgrading their telephone plant in 2004 in those portions of the MACC area where they are authorized by the Oregon Public Utility Commission to provide telephone services. Verizon's upgrade is known as FTTP or "Fiber to the Premise". FTTP enables Verizon to offer improved telephone services, as well as high-speed Internet Access and video (cable television) services. At this time, Verizon has upgraded most of its network to FTTP in Hillsboro, Beaverton, Aloha/West Union (unincorporated Washington County), Durham, King City, and Tigard, and is beginning work in the Tualatin area. Verizon expects to complete this upgrade by 2008 to most of its Tualatin Valley service area. At the urging of MACC in early December 2005, Verizon formally requested a franchise to enable it to provide video services over the FTTP network. On December 15, 2005, the Commission directed MACC staff to enter into negotiations with Verizon. Those negotiations began a month later, in January 2006, and recently concluded (on January 18, 2007). On February 8t'', the Commission held a public hearing and voted to recommend the proposed Verizon Franchise to your jurisdiction, and the other affected jurisdictions. Consideration of this item will come before you in the next two to seven weeks. YOUR ROLE IN THIS PROCESS AS A DECISION -MAKER -- If approved by all jurisdictions, the franchise will allow Verizon to use its existing FTTP infrastructure to provide video and other broadband services to your constituents for the next fifteen years. The franchise opens the door to the first direct landline video competition in our area. Before you are asked to consider adopting the proposed Verizon Franchise in your jurisdiction, MACC will provide you with: the Commission's recommendation; the proposed Verizon Franchise; a MACC staff report; and other information for your review. MACC staff and Verizon representatives will also be present at your meeting to answer any questions you have. Your important role in the franchise approval process is to be an impartial decision maker. 1815 NW 169th Place, SUlte 6020 • Beaverton, Oregon 97006.4886 • Phone (503) 645-7365 • FAX (503)645-0999 • Web Site: www.maccororg 25 YEARS Of 'i1 00 EX -PARTE CONTACTS -- Since each jurisdiction is voting on whether or not to grant an agreement to Verizon, it is important that local government officials do not make any public statements about this issue prior to the decision, so that we convey our impartiality at the time of the decision. We also ask that you refrain from participating in private meetings to discuss issues related to these agreements with any representatives of Verizon, or with representatives of Comcast Cable who obviously have a vested interest in the outcome of this process. All written and oral communication between interested parties and the decision -makers of these agreements should occur only through the formal public process. If communications take place outside of the public process, they should be publicly disclosed as "ex parte" contacts at the earliest opportunity. If representatives of Verizon or Comcast contact you about this process, please promptly notify MACC staff. HISTORY OF MACC CABLE FRANCHISING -- The original MACC jurisdictions joined together in 1980 to maximize their authority and negotiation leverage for cable franchising. In 1982, the MACC jurisdictions granted a non-exclusive franchise to Storer Cable. Storer constructed most of the physical cable system that still serves the area today. Portions of that franchise agreement were renegotiated in 1984, and again in 1988. Ownership of the cable system was transferred several times: to Tidel/Willamette; to Columbia Cable in 1988; and to TCI in 1995. In February 1999, AT&T acquired control of TCI. At the same time, the TCI Franchise agreement was renewed by MACC and its member jurisdictions for fifteen years. In 2002, AT&T's agreement was again transferred to Comcast, the current cable operator. Comcast is the largest cable company in the US with over 24 million subscribers (about 120,000 are in the MACC area). Potential Cable Competition in 2000 — In 1999, MACC was approached by two cable operators who were seeking competitive franchises to serve parts of our area. These companies. RCN and Wide Open West (WOW) hoped to offer bundled telephone, cable, and Internet services to directly compete with AT&T (the area's cable operator during that time). After several months of negotiations with both companies, the Commission recommended that RCN be awarded a franchise to serve those MACC jurisdictions where RCN applied for a franchise (Banks and Gaston were excluded because of low housing density). However, due to the downturn of the US economy later that year, RCN withdrew its request before all jurisdictions could approve the franchise. WOW decided to not pursue a franchise agreement. That left AT&T (now Comcast) as the only traditional cable television provider in our area, with only satellite television service as an alternative for subscribers. COMPETITIVE FRANCHISING CONSIDERATIONS -- Federal Law requires that all cable franchises are non-exclusive. MACC and its members, therefore, are required to consider any legitimate request for a franchise. In addition, any company seeking a franchise must negotiate with MACC and obtain approval from MACC and its affected members. No one may use the public rights of way to provide video services without the approval of the affected jurisdictions. ■ The current Comcast Franchise formed the basis for our discussions with Verizon. When granting a competitive franchise we need to assure that the new agreement is "reasonably comparable" to the existing Comcast Franchise as to its material terms. ■ Competition usually means consumers have choices. If Verizon is granted a cable franchise, consumers can choose between Verizon and Comcast for traditional cable services. Satellite -delivered television services will also remain as an alternative for area subscribers, as will the continued availability of over the air local television channels, which are free to viewers. Generally, customer service also improves when competition is present. When customers have a choice of providers, they can "take their business elsewhere" if they become dissatisfied with the service offered by one company. Therefore, in most areas where competition is present, competing companies make their customer service a priority — customer calls are answered efficiently, new service is installed quickly, repairs are prompt, and billings are accurate. Rates for services generally do not drop dramatically with cable competition. However, all franchised operators will probably be more careful in setting rates and charges so, over time, subscribers should benefit from competition. Customers may also find that competition means more services for their dollar and a choice of different packages or bundles of services from different providers. ■ Franchise fee revenues will probably grow only marginally over time, because- - It takes time for a new operator to build a cable system and begin to provide service to subscribers. During the first few years, a new company will probably serve just a small percentage of potential subscribers. Since Comcast serves about 57% of the homes on a given street (referred to as "penetration"), a competitive operator generally only takes a portion of the existing subscribers served by the incumbent — resulting in no net increase in franchise fee revenue. Verizon forecasts acquiring only 20% of Comcast's subscribers. - Sometimes the incumbent operator and the new provider(s) reduce prices to subscribers as a competitive marketing strategy. Although these strategies are often only temporary, they reduce the gross revenues of both operators, and therefore reduce the franchise fees for cities and counties. - Verizon, as well as Comcast, plan to offer new services over their networks. This may result in some additional franchise fee revenues over time. If you have any questions about this process please first contact your MACC representative. For more information, you may also contact: • Bruce Crest, MACC Administrator at 503-645-7365 ext. 200 (e-mail bcrest@maccor.org), or ■ Fred Christ, MACC Policy & Regulatory Affairs Manager 503-645-7365 ext. 206 (e-mail fchrist@maccor.org). CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY MEETING DATE: 5 March 2007 SUBJECT: Urban Forestry Update Motion: No action is required at this time. ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: N/A STAFF COST: $0 BUDGETED: IY N FUNDING SOURCE: Finance Director approval required for items with a fiscal impact: ATTACHMENTS: • Council Memo NOTICED (Date): Ordinance no.: Resolution no.: Previous Council consideration: L" ISION MANAGER DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR CITY MkNAGER 3/1 �07 signoff/date signoff/date signoffldate 5.2 03/05/07 Urban and Community Forestry Update Progress report on Urban and Community Forestry Plan What is Man? Parks, right-of-wav trees, homeowner education. Not regulatory; not an update he tree code B a ckgron nd• What has been done so far? Ntet with 5 neighborhood associations V Consulted relevant City staff Researched best management practices (BMPs ) Ft P"t :m Policies and goals that support the Plan Comprehensive Plan Council and NRAB annual goals Neighborhood Association Plans Key players Staff and NRAB form working group 4wj Public input at open houses'. 1 \ Next steps Form goals and reconivendations based on research . vieet «ith t�orkin;� group Hold community- open houses Finalize the Plan Timeline . Open houses planned for April. June. , Plan will be completed by the end of] CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT TO: Douglas J. Schmitz, City Manager FROM: Deb Wechselblatt, AmeriCorps Community Forestry Coordinator David Odom, Associate Planner — Urban Forestry Specialist SUBJECT: Urban Forestry Update DATE: February 27, 2007 ACTION No action is required at this time, this is an informational report. INTRODUCTION This report is being prepared to update Council on the current progress of the Urban and Community Forestry Plan and to describe the process outlined for involving the community in development of the plan. The proposed Urban and Community Forestry Plan is intended to outline strategies and best management practices for maintaining and enhancing Lake Oswego's urban forest. The plan will primarily focus on strategies and practices that will help the City care for trees in public parks and in public rights-of-way. A secondary focus of the work will be to develop educational materials and incentives so that private property owners will do a better job of caring for their trees. This plan is not intended to be a regulatory document or an update of the tree code. BACKGROUND In fall 2006, AmeriCorps volunteer Deb Wechselblatt joined the City to begin work on an Urban and Community Forestry Plan. Deb has met with five neighborhood groups; organized meetings with Planning, Maintenance, and Parks and Recreation staff; and conducted research on Best Management Practices for urban and community forestry. The next step in the planning process is to form goals and recommendations based on this research. A working group is being formed to advise on technical issues, and the open houses with the public will provide direction on community values as this planning effort moves forward. Council Report 02/28/07 Page 2 DISCUSSION Tree preservation, maintenance and habitat enhancement are identified as important goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Seven neighborhood plans also specifically call out the need for a community forestry program. The NRAB has made development of a community forestry plan their top priority for this year. In recognition of this fact, the City Council identified development of an Urban and Community Forestry plan as an annual goal for 2007. The Urban and Community Forestry Working Group will be comprised of City staff from Maintenance, Parks and Recreation, Engineering, Planning, and Building departments that represents City interests and expertise. The group may also include two members of NRAB. This group will meet bimonthly to review draft plans, provide technical advice, and provide general support and input throughout the planning process. The purpose of the community open houses is to engage community members and stakeholders in planning for the future of Lake Oswego's urban and community forest.. The open houses will include map displays, historical background, information on the tree code, and the current status of trees in Lake Oswego. The open house will be designed to elicit feedback on community priorities for inclusion in the Plan. ALTERNATIVES Move forward with community open houses Request additional information before moving forward Appoint a formal advisory committee that would include neighborhood association representatives and stakeholders. CONCLUSION Staff recommends moving forward with community open houses and the proposed staff/NRAB working group. CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO 5.3 AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY 03/05/07 MEETING DATE: March 5, 2007 SUBJECT: Foothills Boat Dock Motion: No motion required. ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: STAFF COST: $ BUDGETED: Y N FUNDING SOURCE: Finance Director approval required for items with a fiscal impact: D PARTMENT DIRECTOR 7-/11( /07 sign /ffo de a t ATTACHMENTS: • Gilmer Memo, February 13, 2007 NOTICED (Date): Ordinance no.: Resolution no.: Previous Council consideration: Sept. 19, 2006 — -4el— CITY MA AGER 15-44- 07 signoff/date Parks and Recreation Department To: Doug Schmitz, City Manager Memorandum From: Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director Subject: Boat Dock Date: February 13, 2007 ACTION Staff requests approval from the City Council to proceed with development of design and construction documents for the proposed transient tie up facility in Foothills Park. BACKGROUND In 2003 the City pursued a grant through the Oregon State Marine Board (OSMB) to construct a transient tie up facility in Foothills Park. The grant consists of a total of $529,000 in funding from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and from Oregon State boaters fees. The grant also requires an in-kind match of $157,602 from the City. The OSMB determined that the restroom and pathway connections constructed in Foothills Park, along with city administrative overhead to oversee the project, constituted the City's in-kind match. Grant Project Cost: Grant Funds*: $362,250 $166,750 $529,000 Matching Funds: $157,602 Federal Boating Infrastructure Grant Oregon State boater dollars City in-kind contributions 'Note: Grant funds of $529,000 are for direct construction costs. Staff worked with citizens and the Council on various designs and locations for the proposed tie up facility. An agreement was reached on the final location and general design parameters in early summer 2006. At this time, it was determined that the cost to design and construct the project may exceed the amount set aside in the grant by $129,000. On June 20, 2006 the City Council directed staff to pursue the design and construction of a transient boat dock at Foothills Park with grant fund from the OSMB and also authorized up to $129,000 of city funds for the project. On September 12, 2006 the City Council adopted Resolution #06-36, authorizing the Mayor to sign a Facility Grant Cooperative Agreement with the Oregon State Marine Board to develop a transient tie-up float project in Foothills Park. This action allowed the staff to prepare a Request for Proposals to hire a consulting team to for permitting, design development, and preparation of construction bid documents. DISCUSSION Four proposals were received for permitting, design, engineering, bid document preparation, and construction oversight. Costs for each proposal far exceeded the anticipated budget for the work. As a result, staff recommended no further steps be taken to hire an outside consultant, and instead initiated discussions with the OSMB to determine if they could be of assistance. The OSMB has agreed, at no additional costs to the City, to assume responsibility for submitting and monitoring environmental permits, design and engineering of the dock, assist the City in preparing construction bid documents, and provide on site inspections of construction activities. This commitment by the OSMB reduces the overall cost of the project by eliminating the need to pay a consultant to perform these tasks. However, it is still possible that the permitting agencies may require additional environmental assessment and/or removal of some or all of the existing piling and barge loading structure to comply with environmental regulations. If this were to occur, staff anticipates these costs to not exceed the $129,000 appropriated by the City Council on June 20, 2006. RECOMMENDATION No recommendation is required. Staff would like the opportunity to meet with the City Council to discuss the project and answer questions prior to initiating permits and design work with the OSMB. 2