Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2001-11-05 Joint 0:Ct0 LAKE ofie, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 111► November 5,2001 WEwr A voice vote was taken on a motion to select Councilor Rohde as Presiding Officer and the motion passed with all members present voting in favor. Presiding Officer Karl Rohde called the City Council joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to order at 4:05 p.m. on November 5, 2001, in the Municipal Courtroom. Present: Councilors Rohde, Schoen, Turchi, Graham, McPeak and Council President Hoffman(arrived 4:05 p.m.). Mayor Hammerstad was excused. Staff Present: Doug Schmitz, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Chris Jordan, Assistant City Manager; Gary Evans, Recreation Superintendent; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Terry Reckord, MacLeod Reckord; Tom Beckwith, MacLeod Reckord PRAB Present: Susanne Rimkeit, Cary Strauch, Stephanie Wagner(Chair), and Dan Eller (arrived 4:55 p.m.). Jerry Trageser, Marcia Robertson and Craig Dewey were excused. TSAC Present: Gene Mildren Presiding Officer Rohde turned the meeting over to Council President Hoffman at 4:05 p.m. 3. INFORMATION SESSION 3.1 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Terry Reckord, MacLeod Reckord, introduced Tom Beckwith, the principal consultant on the City's Parks & Recreation Master Plan. He noted that the City chose to split out the open space element from its parks plan, and that the Council has already adopted the Open Space Master Plan. He observed that this recreational element planned for the future of active recreation in Lake Oswego over the next 20 years. Tom Beckwith, MacLeod Reckord,noted the revisions to Chapter 8 (page 454) since the draft in June, including the graphics. He observed that this master plan was a standard document except for the lack of a financial chapter and a public opinions chapter. He reviewed the basic kind of information in each chapter. He mentioned meeting four times with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), four times with the Team Sports Advisory Committee (TSAC), one time with the Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) and two to three times with staff. Doug Schmitz, City Manager, indicated to Councilor Rohde that the next step was taking the final draft to the advisory boards and committee; PRAB would meet with the interested parties and make a recommendation to Council for adoption. Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director, confirmed that staff intended to let PRAB, TSAC and other groups who submitted input on the plan, review the draft before taking it out for general community input. Ms. Strauch observed that this was the first time PRAB has seen the draft document with the changes incorporated into it that the Board recommended. She mentioned that the Board had wanted to meet with Mr. Beckwith after receiving the plan summary but that did not happen. Ms. Rimkeit described the Board's frustration in not receiving a presentation of the revised plan City Council Information Session Minutes Page 1 of 9 November 5, 2001 Council President Hoffman opened the floor to questions. Ms. Rimkeit asked if the plan would contain more specific conclusions, which were pertinent to Lake Oswego or similar communities, as opposed to conclusions that were pertinent to communities in general. Mr. Beckwith explained the methodology in Chapter 5, the standards chapter,which he used to calculate ratios for establishing a comparative quantitative value for each of Lake Oswego's facilities in its parks system, from playgrounds to trails to boat launches. Mr. Beckwith explained that the two common sources for standards in the recreation field were the National Recreational Parks Association (NRPA), which used nation wide standards, and the Pacific Northwest ratio, which was a series of studies conducted in Oregon, Washington and Idaho in the 1980s that gathered data on what percentage of the population engaged in 24 listed activities. He said that they developed the Pacific Northwest data into facility requirements and expressed them in the same ratio per 1,000 population used by the NRPA as a basis for comparison. Mr. Beckwith noted that the Pacific Northwest model also allowed them to look at the percentage of population by age group and to follow the ripple effect through time. He mentioned the expectation that the demand for playgrounds would decline in the future as the percentage of the population of children declined. He explained how they projected the number of facilities needed in the future based on maintaining the same ratios as the population grew (Chapter 8). Mr. Beckwith commented that Lake Oswego was a unique community that did not fit the standards exactly. He indicated that they developed standards for Lake Oswego based on the NRPA standards, the Pacific Northwest standards and Lake Oswego City staff input. Mr. Beckwith reviewed their recommended uses for an additional 16 acres of land to supplement the available City's resources. He explained that the City did not have certain kinds of facilities or its land was not distributed within the city to meet all the neighborhoods needs. These uses included trails, a new recreation center, special use facilities, more picnic tables, more launch ramps and other facilities as described in Chapter 5. Mr. Beckwith emphasized that Lake Oswego's plan needed to reflect the unique assets it had available to it, such as a private lake, a boathouse and a trolley. He indicated that it was more accurate to assess Lake Oswego as Lake Oswego (in comparison with the Pacific Northwest standards) than it was to look for a comparable community X because there was no other community with Lake Oswego's demographics,physical situation and context. Ms. Strauch commented that the Board found the document confusing with its many statistics but lack of substance. She mentioned her interest in tennis courts. She questioned why the study did not reflect the usage in all areas, especially the tennis courts. She referenced page 5, where the study did not state how many tennis courts the community needed, although it gave a specific recommendation on the number of fields needed. Ms. Strauch spoke of figures prepared by City staff, which she interpreted as showing conclusively that the community needed more indoor tennis courts. She expressed her disappointment that the study did not provide a specific number of courts. Mr. Beckwith explained that they had advice to put extra emphasis on the athletic fields usage in this system wide plan. He noted the detailed analysis they did on the athletic fields, which provided the data for a recommendation on a specific number of fields. He commented that the issue was not quantity but quality and availability. He observed that they did not do a detailed assessment for every facility. Mr. Beckwith said that he looked at the inventory with respect to tennis courts,per Ms. Gilmer's questions, and concluded that he could not make a recommendation on a specific number of tennis courts without the same detailed analysis as they did for the athletic fields. He said that the best forecast he could make was that the community might need more tennis courts. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 2 of 9 November 5, 2001 Mr. Mildren pointed out that the study on page 50 stated that there was no data for projected football fields. Mr. Beckwith explained that the Pacific Northwest model did not contain that data at the time of the study. Mr. Mildren noted the large growth in kids' football since the 1980s. Mr. Beckwith referenced Lake Oswego statistics (page 51), which showed a ratio of.17 fields per 1,000 population. Mr. Mildren noted the statement (page 50) that Lake Oswego needed four more baseball fields and the conclusion in the chart that identified no additional land for baseball fields. He calculated that four new baseball fields required approximately 16 acres. He asked where in the system did Mr. Beckwith think that land was available. Mr. Beckwith said that the city had property available adjacent to Luscher Farm and the possibility of joint venture fields. Mr. Mildren observed that the joint venture discussed had been with Marylhurst and Portland Community College. He commented that, after seeing the development plans for Marylhurst, he disagreed that they had 16 acres available for baseball fields. He referenced the recommendation for seven soccer fields (20 acres) but no additional land. He reiterated his question of where was this additional 36 acres within the City's present land holdings. Mr. Beckwith reiterated that the City had plenty of land available at Luscher Farm and its adjacent properties. He commented that the first issue to consider was how the City chose to use those facilities. He spoke to the City upgrading fields and fully developing currently under- developed park sites. He held that until the City had master plans for all of those sites, it did not need more fields. He conceded that if the master plans did not put fields on those sites, then the City would need more land. Mr. Beckwith described the summary document as presenting the incremental growth that the City would need over the next 20 years. He reiterated that, depending on how the City utilized its existing assets, it did not need any more ball fields right now. Mr. Mildren commented that the TSAC has not seen the June draft. Ms. Wagner indicated that neither has PRAB. Mr. Beckwith reiterated that the summary document stated that for baseball and softball, depending on how the City used its existing assets, it did not need more fields now but it would in the future (Chapter 5). He said that the City needed more fields for soccer and football immediately but not additional land because the old Luscher Farm master plan and the adjacent properties had sufficient capacity. He emphasized that he would not recommend purchasing more property until the City resolved the Luscher Farm issue. Mr. Beckwith described the potential use of Luscher Farm as an open space active recreation field without any structures (such as backstops). He said that Luscher Farm was `greenspace,' which was flexible space for sports like soccer but not baseball. He commented that they could go across the road for baseball fields. Mr. Beckwith confirmed to Ms. Rimkeit that the numbers used in the draft were the 1980s numbers from the NRPA and Pacific Northwest studies. He mentioned just completing an update of the Pacific Northwest study for Washington State and that Oregon was doing its own update beginning in January 2002. Ms. Rimkeit observed that there were fewer families involved in sports in the 1980s compared to today. Mr. Beckwith indicated that the Washington State update surveying 400 households did find that certain sports, such as soccer, had a wider involvement of both kids and adults. He mentioned that the percentage of the population that engaged in those sports was not a significant portion of the population total, yet they were highly visible in the community. He said that the Bellevue data showed 7% of its total population involved in baseball with 60-70% of the children population playing at some point in time. Mr. Beckwith reiterated that the standards depended on how the community used its facilities and how many used them, rather than the NRPA or Pacific Northwest standards. He observed City Council Information Session Minutes Page 3 of 9 November 5, 2001 that that was why the key issue seemed to be athletic fields, which was where they spent their discretionary time in analysis. Mr. Beckwith indicated to Ms. Wagner that staff scheduled him to meet with them last summer, in addition to the earlier meetings with PRAB and TSAC. Councilor Graham asked if the study was done before or after the Mary's Woods development at Marylhurst. Mr. Beckwith said that he did not know and conceded that the numbers and the availability of acreage could have changed, had Mary's Woods been taken into consideration. Mr. Beckwith discussed the master planning process in Washington State, which required a 20- year planning horizon and coordination with all other elements in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the last chapter was specific financial strategies for the short term(6 years). He explained that because the City could not pursue an element that was not listed in the 20-year vision, it tended to include items it was uncertain of in the present in order to allow consideration of those items in the future. Mr. Beckwith indicated that staff raised questions when his team identified those `candy' items because of uncertainty regarding the present and the future. He recommended leaving in those items with the caveats. Councilor Graham referenced the Portland State University population census figures of a Lake Oswego population of 39,000 by 2015. She recalled other population projections for Lake Oswego of 50,000, although not by 2015. She asked if a change in the population growth rate affected the numbers. Mr. Beckwith indicated that faster population growth could dramatically change the plan in terms of some of the long-range future projections. He mentioned possibly seeing more pressure to build a recreation and/or swimming center sooner. Councilor Graham asked if the fact that Lake Oswego had an aging population was taken into consideration for elements in the plan, other than the picnic tables. Mr. Beckwith said that he tried to take that fact into consideration in the strategy for every facility. He mentioned that the Pacific Northwest model used county projections for age, as no one projected aging for cities because there were so many dynamics involved. Mr. Beckwith observed that a city often developed a lifestyle and facilities attractive to certain age groups and those age groups moved to that city; as long as the city maintained those facilities, it tended to maintain an appeal for that population. He pointed out that Lake Oswego has kept single-family houses as a mainstay, which catered to a youth-oriented community requiring more facilities, as opposed to condominiums and townhouses aimed at households with no children. Mr. Beckwith mentioned that, in some communities in Portland and Seattle, the aging population stayed in place rather than moving on after the children grew up, thus diminishing the need for playgrounds and schools and increasing the need for buses and senior centers. He indicated that when the market provided alternative housing opportunities for the aging population, there was a faster turnover in the neighborhoods, replacing the older adults with families with children. Councilor Rohde observed that it sounded like PRAB has not finished evaluating and debating the document. He asked if they have established a timeline for this plan and its eventual adoption. Ms. Wagner asked what PRAB's responsibility was with respect to the draft, as this was the first time that they have seen it and they did have questions. Council President Hoffman described the next steps as Mr. Schmitz and Ms. Gilmer developing a timeline based on the concerns they heard from the Council and PRAB, and involving Mr. Beckwith with PRAB and TSAC. He mentioned his concerns with the use of 1980s data, with the assumptions Mr. Beckwith made, and the need to make sure that those assumptions fit Lake Oswego. He noted that this study would form the basis for any potential bond, so they had to have it right. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 4 of 9 November 5, 2001 Council President Hoffman asked for Council concurrence with sending this matter to staff to develop a timeline involving the advisory groups (PRAB, TSAC, Adult Community Center, Library Advisory Board) and to run it by the School District to verify the assumptions with respect to youth. Mr. Schmitz observed that it would take longer than a couple of meetings if they started attacking the assumptions. Council President Hoffman suggested the timeline as part of a first phase culminating in a recommendation from PRAB. Dan Eller(PRAB) arrived at 4:55 p.m. 3.2 Park Rules Ms. Gilmer reported that PRAB reviewed the items that Council had questions on in the park rules resolution it passed earlier, and made recommendations. She noted that the definition for city park clarified that 'city park' did not refer to Lake Oswego School District properties. Ms. Gilmer mentioned the PRAB recommendation, with respect to serving only beer and wine at the Adult Community Center, to require those serving alcohol to get a permit from the OLCC when required or from the City. She noted that those selling alcohol had to get a permit from the OLCC; those simply serving alcohol would go through the City permit process only. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Graham that it was a simple process to get a permit from the OLCC. Councilor Graham asked if the liquor liability insurance was part of the permit system and what was the cost. Ms. Gilmer indicated that the OLCC required liquor liability as part of their permit process for selling beer and wine; the cost was minimal. She said that the City required those serving beer and wine to show liquor liability coverage, which was typically covered under homeowners insurance. Council President Hoffman explained to Councilor McPeak that the insurance covered both the server and the City's liability. David Powell, City Attorney, confirmed that a homeowner's policy did cover that type of liability without an additional premium; the City permit process required the alcohol server to obtain verification from his/her insurance company that the City was named as an additional insured on the homeowner policy. Councilor Rohde asked why the rules limited alcoholic beverages to beer and wine. Ms. Wagner explained that allowing beer and wine was consistent with other cities' practices and appropriate to the Adult Community Center. She commented that they did not discuss other kinds of alcohol. Councilor Rohde recalled that the restaurant at the golf course used to sell cocktails, which he did not think was a big deal. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor McPeak that the OLCC required a trained server for events selling beer and wine. She explained that staff did not include that information specifically in the park rules because it was part of the OLCC permit process; the City did not require a trained server for simply serving beer and wine. Ms. Gilmer noted that staff modified the language in the golf course section to match the Adult Community section, and listed the same requirements for Millennium Plaza Park. Mr. Powell recommended adding the phrase `except as provided in the subsection below' to clarify in the red portion that citizens could bring alcohol to the concerts for personal consumption but otherwise alcohol was limited to permits. He indicated to Council President Hoffman that doing so would make it clear that both PRAB recommendation C(i) and C(ii) applied. Council President Hoffman directed the discussion to Councilor Rohde's issue of allowing other alcoholic beverages, in addition to beer and wine, when there was a provider. Ms. Wagner recalled that allowing beer and wine had been a community compromise, as some had not wanted any alcohol at all. Council President Hoffman wondered whether serving alcohol at an outside bar at Millennium Plaza Park was more offensive than serving alcohol at an inside bar at the Adult Community Center. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 5 of 9 November 5, 2001 Councilor Rohde spoke to substituting `alcoholic beverages' for 'beer and wine.' He mentioned other non-regulated alcoholic beverages, such as Zima or hard lemonade. Ms. Wagner observed that the question of expanding the definition beyond beer and wine was not an issue brought to PRAB. She indicated that if PRAB were to look at it, they would want statistics on the behavior and cost associated with the different types of liquor served. Councilor Turchi described the compromise last time as going to the first level of liquor licensing, which was beer and wine. He indicated to Councilor McPeak that the different levels of liquor licensing went back to Prohibition. Councilor Rohde commented that the State maintained control over liquor sales now because it was a cash cow. Council President Hoffman, Councilors McPeak, Turchi and Schoen supported leaving it at beer and wine. Ms. Gilmer explained to the Council that the reason why the rules were different for the Roehr Park amphitheatre than for Millennium Plaza Park was because the Roehr Park rules included references to the viewing dolphins and the Millennium Plaza Park rules allowed serving and selling beer and wine at events other than concerts. She confirmed to Councilor Graham that in Roehr Park, one could not get a permit to serve or sell beer and wine outside of the concerts. Ms. Gilmer mentioned that PRAB felt that it was important to maintain the prohibition against certain types of amplified sound. She noted that PRAB handled the Council's concern about PA systems during ball games through an exception for city-approved or sponsored special events. She indicated to Councilor Graham that the City allowed the kids who wanted to play at Pilkington to play at Millennium Plaza Park under a permit. Ms. Gilmer reviewed the rules limiting fires to the provided barbeque pits and allowing portable barbeques. Mr. Powell suggested amending the language to say `except in areas where barbeque pits or fireplaces or provided or allowed' in order to make it consistent with the entire rule. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Rohde that staff has not yet developed the process for obtaining a permit to build a fire at Millennium Park. She hypothesized providing information at the park directing people to call the Parks and Recreation Department for a permit, which would probably not include a deposit unless problems arose. Councilor Rohde spoke to maintaining the spontaneity of a family deciding to get together around the fireplace in Millennium Plaza Park and finding a way for them to get a permit after 5 p.m. on Friday. Ms. Rimkeit suggested asking the fire department to handle the permits. Ms. Gilmer said that she would talk to the fire department to see if that would work. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Council President Hoffman that, although the City has not had problems with people building fires in the fireplace, PRAB wanted to address the issue before it became a problem, as the park was becoming more well known and used. Ms. Gilmer mentioned the prohibition of fishing and bathing only where posted. She noted the clause on prohibiting the molestation of animals in parks. She referenced the clause prohibiting damage to public art. Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Graham that vandalism to things like waste cans and fences was covered under Section 18, public property Ms. Gilmer noted PRAB's recommendation to name a chapter dealing with the uses of a variety of recreational tools only in designated areas as `Hazards and Nuisances.' She reviewed the rules about dogs, including the leash law except in designated off leash areas, and the prohibition of dogs at concerts or City events. She indicated to Councilor Graham that dogs were not allowed in sensitive wildlife habitat, even on leash, because they could be disruptive to the habitat. She mentioned that the Natural Resources Advisory Board wanted park rules for natural areas, which she thought might allow dogs in certain natural areas with trails. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 6 of 9 November 5, 2001 Council President Hoffman asked why the City needed these rules. Ms. Gilmer explained that the problem the City ran into was that without these rules regulating disruptive behavior, the police could not enforce reasonable behavior. Mr. Powell observed that most of these things were not illegal elsewhere in the Code. Council President Hoffman held that many of these rules were self-explanatory. He stated that the argument could be made questioning whether the City really needed these rules. Councilor Graham asked about field closures and artificial turf. Ms. Gilmer pointed out that the rules dealt only with City property. Mr. Powell confirmed that the rules specifically did not refer to facilities owned by the School District. He indicated that the intent was to allow the joint use agreement to govern the artificial turf fields, which did have closure provisions in it. Councilor Rohde explained to Councilor Graham that the reason that Westlake was not included as a park where beer and wine could be sold or served was because a certain group of citizens did not want alcohol served there. He held that attendance at the Westlake concerts was sparse. Council President Hoffman noted that Westlake fell under the general park rule that prohibited alcohol in parks. Council President Hoffman recalled that the neighborhood association had spoken strongly on the issue. He observed that the Council could direct PRAB to hold a public hearing on the question if it wanted to look at it again. Mr. Schmitz suggested putting the question on the website as question of the month. 3.3 Cost Recovery for Maintaining and Lighting Athletic Fields Ms. Gilmer gave a PowerPoint presentation. She indicated that PRAB would like guidance with respect to a policy for recovering the costs of maintaining and lighting athletic fields, as part of its work on the master fee schedule. She mentioned that, although the City initiated lighting fees several years ago, there was no policy for establishing the fees or policy on what degree of the costs should be recovered. She noted the significant capital improvements made by the City to both City and School District fields over the last five years (page 2). Ms. Gilmer reviewed the annual increases in the cost of maintaining and lighting fields since 1998 (page 3) for a total increase of 53%up to this fiscal year. She mentioned the annual maintenance cost of$10,900 per acre of playing field ($294,000 a year School District athletic fields and $141,700 a year on City fields) (page 4). Ms. Gilmer noted the anticipated 57% increase in athletic field lighting costs this year(page 5) for the five lighted fields paid for by the City: George Rogers, Waluga, Westlake, Waluga Junior High and Lake Oswego Junior High. She reviewed the lighting field costs over the past five years (page 6). She commented that the drop last year was due to fields going offline. Ms. Gilmer discussed the approximate cost per Lake Oswego participant for a one-time use of the field(page 7), looking at both youth and adults. She explained to Councilor Graham that, given the number of different fees charged by the City, she chose the resident fee to use in this example demonstrating the costs. She indicated to Councilor Turchi that the difference in average season length between youth and adults was the youth playing both practice and competitive games and adults playing only competitive games. Ms. Gilmer reviewed a comparison of Lake Oswego's costs to the costs of other communities in the area (page 8). She indicated to Councilor Graham that, other than Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation District (THPRD), she did not know if other communities charged a parks & recreation tax. She indicated to Councilor Schoen that Lake Oswego had 17% to 20% non- residents participating in the adult leagues and 12% to 15% non-resident youth participating in the youth sports. Councilor McPeak asked if there was a quality difference between the fields Lake Oswego offered and other fields. Ms. Gilmer mentioned that Oregon City had some fields of City Council Information Session Minutes Page 7 of 9 November 5, 2001 significantly lesser quality than Lake Oswego fields, although THPRD and Hillsboro both had nice fields. Ms. Gilmer reviewed the registration fees charged by different organizations for different sports (page 9), both youth and adult, including organizations outside of Lake Oswego. She presented a comparison chart of the cost of maintenance to the revenues collected since FY 1997/98 (page 10) and the costs of field lighting compared to light card fees collected since FY 1997/98 (page 11). She commented that staff felt that the lower revenues from light cards resulted from the teams not buying cards from the City. Ms. Gilmer concurred with Councilor Turchi that they needed more data before they could draw a fair conclusion with respect to whether Lake Oswego private organizations were charging more than other cities. She indicated that staff tried to get additional data but did not get the information back. Councilor Turchi described staff's goal as finding out whether or not there was a mismatch in comparing Lake Oswego to other places in terms of how much people spent privately to participate in sports versus how much public expenditure. Ms. Gilmer noted the current funding sources and amounts (page 12) while observing that the fees collected have averaged at 10% of the overall costs (page 13). Ms. Gilmer noted the two basic options to reduce reliance on property taxes: reduce maintenance standards or raise revenues (page 14). She reviewed possible options to increase revenues: lighting surcharge, increased field fees and increased tax revenues (page 15). Ms. Gilmer mentioned that the City budgeted $33,000 this year for lighting costs, and expected light card revenues of$1,300, which represented a 4% cost recovery (page 15). She discussed the option of lighting surcharges (page 16). She indicated that the PRAB discussion of this issue yielded no solutions but the Board did feel that the sports organizations, as major users of athletic field lighting and directly benefiting from them, should share in the lighting costs. Ms. Gilmer discussed the option of increasing field fees (page 17). She presented a chart estimating the cost to user impact of increasing the cost recovery percentage for field maintenance from 10% to 15% and 20% (page 18). She reviewed the impacts on user groups (page 19). She emphasized the importance of discussing any increases with the user groups prior to adoption of fee increases. Councilor Schoen asked to see a breakdown of the numbers by sport. Councilor McPeak asked how the fees have changed over the last ten years. Ms. Gilmer said that the City started with a $5 per user fee for youth five years ago and increased it to $7 per youth last year. She noted that that was a 40% increase but pointed out that the fees collected went up 71% over a five-year period. Ms. Gilmer reviewed the four options for recovering the cost of maintaining and lighting athletic fields (page 20): user fees, user fees and property tax, property tax and no change. She indicated to Councilor McPeak that she believed they could negotiate with the user groups to achieve something more equitable, if Council chose to recover whatever percentage it designated solely through user fees. Councilor Schoen asked for a breakdown on the use of the fields. He mentioned his concern about adding new fields when the City could not maintain its existing fields. Ms. Gilmer indicated to Councilor Graham that the $10,900 per acre figure was probably based on last year's budget. She referenced the historic increases in considering a five-year projection of field maintenance costs. Chris Jordan, Assistant City Manager,pointed out that any projections were simply guesses because there were too many cost variables outside the City's control. City Council Information Session Minutes Page 8 of 9 November 5, 2001 Ms. Gilmer clarified to Council President Hoffman that the lighting costs were for more than City fields; the City paid for lighting the Lake Oswego and Waluga Junior High fields but not the high school fields. Councilors Rohde, McPeak, and Ms. Strauch left at 6:00 p.m. Council President Hoffman observed that some field maintenance was necessary regardless of field use by organized activities. He asked if staff could figure out what the incremental costs were for field use by organized activities. Ms. Gilmer indicated that the differential between how much it cost to maintain the athletic fields and how much it cost to maintain grass in a park would be the athletic fields maintenance cost. Council President Hoffman held that staff needed to know the costs for the different levels of maintenance before the City charged the whole cost of maintenance. He asked that staff talk to both public and private user groups, given the significant use of fields by the high schools. He clarified that by public user groups he meant the School District; private user groups were organizations like Lake Oswego Soccer Club. Council President Hoffman spoke to asking the question `should the City reduce its reliance on property taxes' before asking the question 'how it could do so.' He commented that the community might find property taxes an appropriate funding source. Mr. Jordan clarified that the question for the Council, from staff's perspective,was should the City maintain recovery of 10% of its maintenance costs through user fees or should it seek a higher or lower recovery rate through user fees; a policy for 0% user fees meant 100% reliance on property taxes. Councilor Graham noted that tennis and golf were successful in sustaining themselves. She suggested looking at how to make these other sports self-sustaining, as there would come a point when taxpayers would not pay any more. Ms. Gilmer pointed out that the costs of golf and tennis in Lake Oswego, compared to the costs of other similar agencies in the area, were medium to low; Lake Oswego did not price itself out of the market, as it had control over what it did in those facilities. She observed that others besides sports groups used the athletic fields. Councilor Turchi noted that Lake Oswego charged a relatively large amount to play tennis compared to soccer. Councilor Graham commented that she thought that there was something wrong in running a business that recovered only 10% of its costs. Councilor Turchi mentioned the argument that these services were a community good and should be supported by general property tax revenue, similar to taxes paid to support parks or a library. He observed that he might never go to a park or a library but he thought it was good for him to pay taxes for a library. Councilor Graham reiterated that the question was how to make it self-sustaining. 4. ADJOURNMENT Council President Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Ch istie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON January 15, 2002 l ; 1 v -9.��.'/rli� J ie Hammerstad, Mayor City Council Information Session Minutes Page 9 of 9 November 5, 2001