Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2009-06-02 OWE cso Us,YF�O 'IOW � CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 2, 2009 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. on June 2, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan (5:45), Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; David Donaldson, Asst City Manager; Brant Williams, Director of Economic and Capital Projects; Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Director; Police Chief Dan Duncan 3. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Hoffman convened an Executive Session at 5:34 p.m. under the authority of ORS 192.660(2) (d) to conduct deliberations with persons designated to carry on labor negotiations, and (f) to consider information and records that are exempt by law from public inspection, specifically the May 28, 2009, confidential memo from the Asst City Manager, David Donaldson. Mr. Powell reviewed the Executive Sessions parameters. He noted that labor negotiations were an exception to the rule allowing the press to attend. Mayor Hoffman reconvened the open session at 6:48 p.m. 4. PRESENTATIONS 4.1 Distinguished Service Award for John Marandas, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Mayor Hoffman presented a Distinguished Service Award to John Marandas, and thanked him for his eight years of service on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (three years as chair). Mr. Marandas thanked the Mayor for this opportunity to give back to the community. 4.2 Lake Grove Elementary School Singers Sue Deboy, Lake Grove Principal, introduced the student group. She explained that the children developed the song concept and wrote the lyrics with the help of Steve Saskin, an artist in residence, who composed the music. Ben Haynor, the Oak Creek music teacher, accompanied the students. 5. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Jordan moved the Consent Agenda. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting "aye." [7-0] 5.1 REPORTS 5.1.1 Resignation of Jeffrey DeWitt from the Sustainability Advisory Board Action: Accept resignation 5.1.2 Resignation of John Ferrel from the Library Advisory Board Action: Accept resignation City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 21 June 2, 2009 5.2 RESOLUTIONS 5.2.1 Resolution 09-34, making an appointm nt to the Library Advisory Board Action:Adopt Resolution 09-34, appointing Ann Pritchard to the Library Advisory Board for the remainder of a three-year term ending January 31, 2012 5.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5.3.1 January 17, 2009, Goal Setting Meeting 5.3.2 March 24, 2009, Regular Meeting 5.3.3 March 31, 2009, Special Meeting 5.3.4 April 7, 2009, Regular Meeting Action: Approve minutes as written END CONSENT AGENDA 6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 7. CITIZEN COMMENT Mayor Hoffman referenced the Lake Oswego Review's critical scrutiny of the Lake Oswego Police Department at the behest of one or more disgruntled former employees, which he described as seeking to undo all the good accomplished by the Department under Chief Duncan's leadership. He noted that Police Chief Dan Duncan was present at the meeting. He expressed the Council's complete confidence in Chief Duncan. He thanked him for his commitment to the community and his professionalism during this time. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 Proposed Strategy for the West End Building and City Facilities Mr. Powell reviewed the standard hearing procedures and testimony time limits. STAFF REPORT Mr. Williams noted that the strategy for the West End Building and other City facilities (adopted in draft on April 21) was a two-phase strategy involving five guiding principles. He reviewed the guiding principles and priorities (pp. 81-82). He described the extensive public outreach conducted by staff and Council following the April 21 meeting (Exhibit A). He described the feedback received from the various events and the web survey (Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, and G). He indicated that in general terms, the results of citizen responses to the Open City Hall question regarding the disposition of the West End Building (Exhibit G) were consistent with the Adam Davis research done last fall: the majority of respondents favored keeping the West End Building but there was no consensus on what to put into the building. He noted a high priority placed on making sure that the City's public safety and maintenance facilities were adequate for the public safety providers. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony. • Yvonne Campbell, 4330 Orchard Way She indicated that while she had been neutral on the original strategy, she was opposed to the revised redline strategy. She read her prepared testimony. She commended the Council and staff for their productive effort to evaluate this thorny situation. She stated her personal preference for the priorities (see attached letter). City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 21 June 2, 2009 She held that a majority of citizens did not want to move City Hall, the Library, or the Adult Community Center out of the downtown, nor did the City want to sell those properties. She commented that given that the majority did not approve a $20 million bond, they would not approve a $100 million bond in this economy. She argued that the only way to retain the West End property for posterity would be to lease it so that it paid for itself until the community had a viable, affordable need. She noted that in nearly four years, that has not happened. Councilor Johnson asked if Ms. Campbell thought that the citizens would be willing to pay for an $8 million bond to pay off the loss if the City sold the $20 million property for $12 million. Ms. Campbell indicated that while she supported an aggressive selling price, she was not suggesting a fire sale of the building. However, if the City hoped to get $20 million out of it, it could wait a long time. She spoke to not wasting more money holding on to the property, but if people were serious about keeping it, then lease it in order to generate revenue in the meantime. Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Olson that the public hearing was on the original April 21 guiding principles and strategy. Councilor Jordan noted that the redline version was a strategy offered by one Council member. • Kathy Worsley, 1877 Woodlawn Terrace She commented that she too had been confused by the redline document, as she had understood from the newspaper that the City was finally going to sell the West End Building. She expressed her disappointment that the Council would consider keeping the building while still not knowing what to do with it or how to pay for it. She argued that they no longer had a community, but rather a divided city. She characterized the situation as the City, instead of facing facts in these difficult economic times, continuing its non- sustainable behavior. She held that Lake Oswego deserved better. • Carolyne Jones, 2818 Poplar Way She asked that the City make available a full disclosure of the terms of the loan. She referenced an article in the Review that mentioned the interest rate dropping but did not provide sufficient information to give the citizens a clear picture of what was going on. She asked that the City make a full disclosure of all the revenues and expenses associated with the West End Building in order to provide the citizens with a full picture of what was going on. She noted the reference to an $11 million loss but stated that that did not take into account the building expenses. She spoke of identifying which way offered the weakest loss. She cited the references in the minutes to the West End Building as the demographic center of Lake Oswego. She acknowledged that that might be true, but pointed out that it was not the geographic center of the city. She argued that moving City Hall and other services out to the West End Building would be a disservice to the southeastern and southern neighborhood associations. She noted the requests for a community center. She pointed out that community centers in the area were closing because they were losing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. She suggested that those wanting a community center be good neighbors and go use those community centers. She expressed her concern about the potential of a bond passing in this economic climate, should the Council decided to keep the building and go out for another bond. She encouraged the Council to discuss that issue. • John Surrett, 1685 Edgecliff Terrace He read from his prepared testimony (see attached letter). He spoke in support of selling the West End Building now, and using the proceeds to pay off part or all of the line of credit. He suggested City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 21 June 2, 2009 financing a lower line of credit for a maximum loan term of two years. He discussed his concern regarding the $115 million plus debt burden on the City's current financial condition and long-term financial stability. He cited two reasons that he found compelling for selling the building now: the financial burden of the building on the proposed budget and not paying down the loan principal, and the ability of the Lake Oswego residents' ability to afford that burden, in light of the other budget expenditures, such as LOIS and the joint water system with Tigard. He referenced the 2008 City attitude survey, which found that many Lake Oswego residents had no steady employment or were retired and living on fixed incomes. He contended that continuing to expend property tax reserves or use them as credit was irresponsible and represented taxation without representation, as property tax payers voted down the property tax financing option in the May 2008 election. He argued that the City has depleted its reserves balance in order to maintain the Safeco property to the point where it has lost accumulated interest income of over $2 million on the reserves. He held that the City has lost over $200,000 in property tax revenues, had the building stayed in private hands for the past three years. He disagreed that this building could be used, as it has never generated any leasing revenues. He reviewed the dollar amounts of expenditures by the City for citizen surveys, consultant reports and appraisals, and focus groups over the last year. He referenced the survey findings and the recommendations of consultants and the original appraiser. He argued that the testing of public sentiment, expert opinion, and bond measure reductions were compelling reasons not to keep the property. He referenced the report at the May budget meeting that the West End Building has cost the City an additional $4,216,320 out of the general fund, over and above the $20 million purchase price. He reiterated his concern about the financial condition of the community and the taxpayers' ability to pay for this debt. He questioned why the Council did not recognize the facts behind all these reasons for letting the Safeco property go. • Glen Brivic, 1030 Terrace Drive He stated that he supported the Council's strategy and guiding principles, except for Guiding Principle 3, which spoke to foregoing the idea of a City-initiated community center and selling the building. He said that if the Council could pull that principle out of the package for the vote, he would appreciate it, as he supported retaining the West End Building for civic uses, such as a community center, a library branch, or a public safety center. He asked the Council to consider keeping the building and using it to its highest potential. He supported leasing it to earn revenue. Mayor Hoffman closed the hearing to public testimony. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Tierney commented that he thought that the Council has achieved the public outreach guiding principle, in that it has done a good job of taking the guiding principle concepts out to the community. He noted that the feedback they have received confirmed some of the preliminary research done by the professionals. He referenced Mayor Hoffman's comment that part of the community wanted to keep the building, while another part did not want to pay for the building. Councilor Olson observed that the original goal had been to draft a long-term plan for all the City facilities, and not to draft a plan only for the Safeco purchase. Their intent had been to devise ways to solve the numerous problems with all the facilities and to manage the facilities in a better way in the future. She held that it has evolved into a question of whether the City should sell or keep the West End Building. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 21 June 2, 2009 She commented that if the Council kept the West End Building, then it still had to figure out how to pay for it and what to use it for. She expressed her concern that a bond measure to pay for the building competing on the same ballot as the community's number one priority (public safety) would jeopardize funding public safety facilities. She asked for a fuller discussion of the facilities strategy as a whole, rather than the simple question of whether to buy or sell the West End Building. Councilor Hennagin asked staff for a report on its investigation into alternative financing strategies for the West End Building. Mr. McIntyre discussed the new line of credit he renegotiated, at Council's direction, as a two-year extension. He said that it had a variable rate with a cap tied to the LIBOR Index, which right now meant an interest rate of 1.86%. He spoke of pursuing a quarterly adjustment instead of a monthly adjustment. He indicated that if the rate remained steady for a year, it translated to a $369,000 interest payment for the 2009/2010 budget year. He noted that the Citizens Budget Committee (CBC) budget reflected the $800,000 interest payment. He mentioned that for the sake of the City's finances, he needed to secure this line of credit and to put the issue to the side. He said that doing so would allow the Council to have an independent conversation around the future uses of the facilities or sale of the building. He indicated that short-term interest rates right now were very favorable, whereas long-term interest rates were much higher. He described this as a very good position for the City to take. He discussed `collaring' the rate, or putting a top and a bottom figure on it anywhere from 2% to 3%. He indicated that they would pay more of a premium because they were now hedging the interest rate, should the LIBOR index shoot up. He referenced the information on the LIBOR index that he had provided to the Council. He commented that given how low the index was right now, it would likely take a significant amount of time for it to shoot up dramatically enough to supersede the City's collar. He said that he would likely proceed with executing the deal but he wanted to hear the Council discussions first in order to determine whether this was the right structure. Councilor Hennagin concurred with Councilor Olson that this strategy was a strategy for all City facilities, looking at long-term maintenance and/or repair/replacement needs across the board. He mentioned the needs of the South Shore Fire Station and the Maintenance Service building. He spoke of it as an issue of timing and priorities, as discussed in this strategy document. He reiterated his concern with doing a second technical analysis of City Hall, given the expense and detailed report of the analysis done two years ago. He indicated that this was not his only disagreement with the strategy, but overall, other than the fact that the public feedback the Council has heard over the past three weeks has strongly favored keeping the West End Building, he thought it was a good strategy. Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilors Hennagin and Olson that this was a long-term strategy for all City facilities, of which the West End Building was one facility. She spoke of the importance of putting a time frame on the strategy and prioritizing dealing with each facility. She mentioned looking at the financing also. She indicated that a separate police/911/municipal court facility, the South Shore Fire Station, and the Maintenance Services facility were priorities. She mentioned keeping City Hall in mind as well. She stated that she agreed with the strategy. She reiterated the need to deal with all the facilities, to prioritize, to firm up a time frame for a bond for public safety facilities, and to firm up the costs. Councilor Jordan concurred that this was a strategy to look at all City facilities. She speculated that they received so many comments on the West End Building because their stated intent to prepare it for resale surprised many people. She noted that she also heard many comments on other City facilities, as well as community concern regarding health and safety issues, and a desire to move that part of the strategy ahead of other elements. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 21 June 2, 2009 She mentioned the studies coming forward on the Maintenance facility and the South Shore Fire Station. She spoke of including the siting of a public safety facility on property already owned by the City in the options under consideration for dealing with the issue. She recalled hearing people say that if the Council put together a plan and a proposal for how to use the West End property, they would be willing to vote on it. She acknowledged that it would take the City eighteen months to two years to get to that point, but it was something to work towards. She concurred that the West End property should be part of the Council's consideration in dealing with all the facilities. She noted that they also heard from many people that it was not important to keep the Library and City Hall in the downtown. She commented that it was one thing to get information from the professionals on the land value or the best use of the land, but it was another thing to get input from their own citizens on how they wanted to use the property. Councilor Olson acknowledged Councilor Hennagin's concern about the expense of a second technical analysis of City Hall. She clarified that she lacked confidence in the cost estimate numbers from that analysis, and that she would like to see a firmer and more current cost estimate of the repair versus replace options. She spoke of using the first technical analysis to develop better numbers. She commented that she thought they would need a technical analysis of the West End Building, should the Council decide to keep it. She asked for a cost estimate for repairing the building based on a technical analysis. Mr. Williams indicated that SERA Architects' analysis of the West End Building was in the big book given to Council. He noted that it had not been as in-depth as the City Hall analysis but SERA did identify numerous deficiencies, and gave forecasted estimates for repairing those deficiencies. He agreed that they needed to do more detailed estimates if they were going to make those improvements. Councilor Olson concurred with Councilor Moncrieff's comments about timeframes and funding. She mentioned the feedback they heard that the Council needed to be more decisive and develop specifics on what to do with the building and what it would cost. She concurred with Councilor Jordan's comments. She mentioned her surprise at hearing how many people did not think it important to keep City Hall and the Library in the downtown. She recalled that more people thought that City Hall could be moved than the Library. She agreed that public safety concerns were the number one priority named by almost all the people with whom the Council members spoke. Councilor Johnson commented that she had found taking a comprehensive look at all the facilities a very useful step, as well as utilizing the guiding principles format suggested by Councilor Tierney. She pointed out that the City now owned the West End Building. She spoke of needing to get the most that they could out of the building. She argued that putting it on the market did nothing for the City, in as much as the City got nothing out of it and still had to pay for the building, which was fiscally irresponsible. She spoke of looking at the property as an economic driver for the Lake Grove area, and exploring what the best use would be for that building on that site and in that part of the city. She argued that no matter what they did with it, they needed to have some control over what it would look like and they needed to make sure that their decision was in the best economic interests of the corridor. She commented that she had been surprised that after two and a half years of dealing with this issue as a Councilor, at the amount of feedback that the Council received on the strategy over the past few weeks of this public outreach effort. She expressed her appreciation for everyone who had been willing to comment. She speculated that part of the reason why the Council received so much feedback was because it had been looking towards making a decision. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 21 June 2, 2009 Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Tierney that the intent was to adopt something this evening, whether it was the original proposal or an amended proposal. Mayor Hoffman discussed his proposal for modifying the preliminary strategy for the West End Building and property, and other City facilities. He described the factors behind his proposal to amend the strategy. He mentioned the past four weeks of listening to citizen comments through a variety of venues. He commented that it had surprised him that only 25% of the community really wanted to sell the building. He cited the 75% response of comments at the Peak Democracy forum, which supported keeping the building. He spoke of his conversations with commercial brokers over the past few weeks, who indicated that this was not the time to sell any commercial property. He discussed the presentation, "Living with the Great Global Recession," made by Dr. Torto, Chief Global Economist for CB Richard Ellis, at a conference sponsored by Portland State University on May 27, 2009. Dr. Torto said that there were 66 months (peak-to-peak) in the cycle, which meant that the U.S. would not return to the highest peak for jobs in the third quarter of 2007 until the third quarter of 2013. Mayor Hoffman explained that the importance of jobs was that without jobs, one did not need office buildings; this meant that no one was buying or leasing office buildings. He mentioned Dr. Torto's prediction that the Portland commercial building vacancy rate would hit 22% in 2012. He read Dr. Torto's summary comments (directed towards private parties). Dr. Torto indicated that it was too late to sell for owners but too early to buy for buyers. The commercial real estate market has not yet reached bottom, and cash was king. Mayor Hoffman observed that essentially, Dr. Torto was saying that in four or five years, there would be opportunities in the private sector. He reported that the recommendation he received from the brokers was that it would be foolish to sell the building. He indicated that he felt comfortable with that recommendation upon realizing that 75% of the community wanted to keep the building. He concurred that the Council heard that public safety facilities were important. He explained that his modifications focused primarily on Guiding Principle 3 because they did need a public facilities plan, as discussed in the other guiding principles. He presented his proposal, beginning with Guiding Principle 3: • To forego at this time the idea of a City government-initiated community center at the West End Building, but not to preclude a community-based request for said community center. • To maximize the use of the West End Building as a property in the near term (three to five years), including leasing (if economically and fiscally prudent) the vacant portion of the West End Building. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that brokers have contacted both he and Mr. Williams regarding a possible tenant. He noted that the math did not work out at present, as the leasing price was $15 per square foot, but it cost $7 per square foot to maintain the building and $10 to $15 per square foot to make the tenant improvements. • To use the unleased portions of the building for community and non-profit associations and organizations and for increased Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation programs. • To develop a financing strategy in the long-term that does not require using general fund revenues or reserves to pay the debt service on the West End Building and property. He noted his wordsmithing of the refinancing the debt on the West End Building under Guiding Principle 4. • For each facility, including the West End Building and property, explore all opportunities for financing, including the use of LORA funds, leasing, cost sharing options, public/private partnerships, GO bonds, etc. He indicated that this provided the Council with the flexibility it needed to enter into discussions and opportunities over the next four to five years for using the building as an asset. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 21 June 2, 2009 He said that he wordsmithed Guiding Principle 5, the listing of priorities. He stated that he was comfortable, based on the public outreach effort, that the Council was not out ahead of the community and making a decision that the community would not support, which had been his biggest concern. Councilor Tierney asked if it was inherent in Guiding Principle 3 that the West End Building would remain as a part of the City's portfolio of properties to be used for public purposes. Mayor Hoffman indicated that that was included as an option under the financing strategy bullet. Councilor Tierney asked how the Mayor defined long-term.' Mayor Hoffman said that he did not know, as he could not predict when the economy would come out of the recession. He reiterated that at some point, they had to stop paying for the West End Building out of the general revenues. Councilor Tierney concurred, adding that he would also like to stop paying interest only. Councilor Hennagin noted that at least two Councilors have reported hearing that people were not interested in maintaining the City Hall in the East End. He observed that the Mayor's re- phrasing of Bullet 1, Guiding Principle 2, appeared to him to make a stronger commitment to keeping City Hall in the East End than the original proposal did. Mayor Hoffman clarified that his change was actually a return to the original language of the April 21 draft. Councilor Hennagin suggested going back to the 'near term' language, citing the public feedback they heard on the structural and size inadequacy of the building for use as a city hall. Councilor Olson brought up other comments that she heard from the public. She mentioned people not liking the phrasing of the rezoning the property bullet under Guiding Principle 5; they felt it was inappropriate for the City to rezone the property without knowing what its anticipated use would be or who would buy it. She suggested removing that from the strategy. She reported hearing comments about not using LORA funds for any of this, including a new library or city hall. She said that several people pointed out that the strategy left out the Adult Community Center completely. The Council discussed the process to use tonight for this discussion. Councilor Moncrieff suggested going through the guiding principles one-by-one. Councilor Jordan suggested starting with the original strategy as proposed, and the community comments, and then comparing that discussion with Mayor Hoffman's proposal. She acknowledged that the items under Guiding Principle 1 were not in priority order, yet many people commented on health and safety issues. She suggested listing the 911 facility above the Library and City Hall to reflect what the Council heard from the community. Councilor Jordan commented that she thought that they had an opportunity to fund a new library sooner rather than later, if they were wise in the way that they preserved their funding mechanism. She observed that the other elements would probably need a bond measure or partnership. Councilor Tierney concurred that the majority of the community told the Council that it did not want to sell the West End Building. He expressed his concern that the Council do something with enough specificity so that the community knew what it was doing. He advocated for the Council making a decision. He questioned whether this process was just more muddling along. Mayor Hoffman acknowledged that the Council was limping along. He pointed out that the world was in the worst recession since the Great Depression. He argued that brokers would advise the City that it could not say to the public what would be a wise and prudent decision within the next three to four years. He emphasized that brokers were advising people to wait until the market came back, and then make the decision. He clarified to Councilor Tierney that he was suggesting that the City maximize the use of the building. The first option was to lease it where it was fiscally prudent to do so. If they could not lease it, then maximize the use through Parks & Recreation and with non-profits. Councilor Ti rn y indicated that he hoped that they could get more specific than that. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 21 June 2, 2009 Councilor Tierney indicated that he was uncomfortable with the financing aspect, especially paying interest only on a loan. He pointed out that that practice was largely the source of this economic downturn. He argued for figuring out how to finance the building today. He noted the significant reduction on the interest only that staff obtained. He speculated that there might be an opportunity to start paying the principal down and get some equity. He spoke of treating the property as something that the Council thought was a valuable asset worth keeping. Councilor Olson concurred with Councilor Tierney that they needed to figure out a way to pay for the facility, if they decided to keep it. She commented that hearing that the people wanted to keep the building but not hearing how they would be willing to pay for it was not valuable information to her. Mayor Hoffman indicated that people at the Farmer's Market were asked if they would be willing to pay $120 a year for the building. He reported that most said yes, but not everybody. Councilor Olson referenced the page in the facility study that Mr. Williams provided to Council a few months ago that listed $5 million worth of anemic repairs to the West End Building. She pointed out that these were not tenant improvement repairs or remodel. She commented that the cost of the building was not merely $20 million. She commented that if they could not sell the building, then they could not lease it either. Mayor Hoffman concurred, yet noted that two brokers were calling the City about leasing. Councilor Olson clarified that the original strategy had been to wait about three years before selling the building. She agreed with Councilor Tierney that they needed to 'bite the bullet' one way or the other on this question. Councilor Johnson agreed that the Council needed to make a decision on this issue. She pointed out that where the Council was now in the process was developing the guiding principles. She held that adopting this strategy brought the Council closer to making these decisions, but emphasized that making those decisions was part of a longer process. She argued that it was obvious that if the City kept the building, then it had to pay for it. She commented that one of the ongoing issues in trying to develop an end strategy has been getting real numbers. She reiterated that this strategy would get the Council closer to making the decisions mentioned by Councilors Tierney and Olson. Councilor Jordan indicated that she agreed with all three Councilors that they needed to pay for the building. She said that she worked on the bond measure for that reason. However, what she had heard from the people at that time was that they wanted first to see a plan for using the building. She argued that the Council needed to state in this strategy that it would develop a plan for how to use the property, and a plan for how to pay for it. She commented that there were possible strategies that the City could use that did not require a bond for the whole $20 million, but found some money in other ways. She spoke of the need for developing a strategy during this low interest rate window. She expressed her concern about adopting the leasing language proposed by the Mayor, when they already knew that leasing was not fiscally prudent because it would cost more to maintain and improve the building than they could get in a lease rate. She asked what the break-even point was, and how much was the Council willing to lose. She pointed out that City Hall was in desperate shape. If they had to move everybody out, then they would have to lease office space until they found another building. However, they already had a building. She cited this as an example of the elements that still needed detailing out. She stated that she did not want to pass this issue on to another City Council. Councilor Hennagin observed that the Council has informed the public in the past that both City Hall and the Library were too small for their functions. He mentioned the 13.5-acre site with a 90,000 square foot building on it, and the additional 20,000 square feet allowed by the current zoning. He argued that the City had the space that it needed on this site. He noted the Council's agreement that it could not sell the building in the short turn. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 21 June 2, 2009 He discussed his plan for the site. He advocated moving City Hall into the West End Building, and adding on 20,000 square feet to house police/911. He spoke of exploring the possibility of locating a main library branch on this site. He mentioned the estimated $22 million cost to locate a library in the East End, which did not include the $4 million for the land or the cost of a parking structure. He held that selling the City Hall and Library sites to a developer would provide sufficient monies to substantially pay off some of the remodeling costs and hopefully part of the purchase price. Councilor Moncrieff agreed with the need to develop a permanent, long-term funding strategy that paid down the principle. She agreed that they could not sell the building, that they needed more space, and that the West End Building was a City-owned facility. She expressed concern about the need to revisit the loan in 2011 —even with the attractive low interest rate —given Mayor Hoffman's information about not coming out of the recession until 2013. She spoke to providing the City Manager with direction to pursue a long-term funding strategy if they intended to keep the facility for long-term City use. She agreed with Councilor Tierney that the Council did a good job on the public engagement process, and obtained feedback from many different people. She commented that what had struck her was people saying that they wanted to keep the building because they did not want to lose the future opportunity, as opposed to wanting a specific plan. She mentioned also hearing many people speak against the Council making a permanent decision in this economy. She recalled that people urged the Council to proceed with patience and careful attention. Councilor Jordan expressed concern that if they filled up the West End Building with new programs, then they might be over-committing themselves to something that the City could not sustain. She commented that she did not hear people speaking to filling the building up with more things to do. Rather, she had heard that if the City retained the building, then it needed a plan that it could finance by a combination of methods. She said that she did not think that they could do two civic buildings in the downtown using redevelopment funds. She held that the City would have to replace City Hall sooner rather than later. She noted that the library had issues that the community has been discussing for 20 years. She spoke of balancing what they did and how things fit into what categories. Councilor Tierney agreed that many people described the West End Building as a valuable asset that the City should keep and not sell. He asked if the Council needed something more specific that the people could identify with and vote affirmatively. Councilor Jordan observed that that was the $20 million question. She recalled that on the last bond measure, the Council had tried educating the public that having an interest only payment on the building in perpetuity was spending down City reserves in a fiscally irresponsible manner, but that argument had been insufficient for some people. She commented that some people wanted to know what the City intended to use the property for so that they could vote without feeling as if they were giving the City a blank check. She reiterated that the question was how the community saw the West End Building fitting in with other City facilities as part of a City Facilities Plan. She mentioned another question of how much would it cost. She commented that if after providing that information, the citizens still did not like the proposal, then the City should sell the building, as the market should have turned around by then. She held that they have heard from enough people about keeping the building that the strategy the Council should move forward with was developing a plan for the building that would be marketable in a bond measure strategy. Councilor Moncrieff indicated to Councilor Tierney that the main bond question had not been posed as 'do you want to pass the bond to tax yourselves $120 per$300,000 or should the City sell the West End Building or should the City continue pulling the money out of the general fund?' Councilor Tierney advocated for including in the guiding principles what it would take to pass a bond. He spoke of doing things in a reasonable timeframe. He observed that this was the beginning of the process. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 21 June 2, 2009 Mayor Hoffman commented that the Council could either develop a plan or let a plan evolve over the next four years through community input. He held that a strategy to evolve the plan would allow the public to make a judgment about taxing themselves based on an increasing familiarity with the building and its uses. Councilor Olson concurred with Councilors Jordan and Tierney about needing a bond to pay for the building. She recalled that although she had opposed the original building purchase, she had encouraged the Council to go out for a bond measure because of the fiscally responsible aspect. She reiterated her concern about a bond measure competing with another bond measure to address the community's first priority of the public safety needs of the City's first responders. Mayor Hoffman indicated that the Council would work its way through the proposed guiding principles (dated April 21, 2009). He would suggest his changes during the process. • Guiding Principle 1 Councilor Hennagin moved to amend the April 21 proposed strategy and move the third bullet point(building a public safety facility) of Guiding Principle 1 up to the first bullet point. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion. Councilor Tierney suggested that the Council establish its priorities in Guiding Principle 5, and then re-order the document to make it consistent with those priorities. Councilor Hennagin indicated to Councilor Tierney that he would withdraw his motion if the Council approached the discussion that way. Councilor Tierney moved to strike the second technical analysis from the document, with the understanding that it could be re-instated if necessary. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. Councilor Olson said that she could accept taking it out, but she would like to add in 'obtaining a better financial analysis of the repair versus replace options.' A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, Johnson, Jordan, and Hennagin voting `aye.' [7-0] Councilor Olson moved to add in 'to perform an updated financial analysis to determine the cost b nefit analysis to repair versus replace City Hall.' Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. Councilor Hennagin asked for clarification on why Councilor Olson was uncomfortable with the original numbers. Councilor Olson mentioned the voluminous pages of options and cost estimates that the Council had received for all the facilities. She described the cost estimates provided for the West End Building in that document as 'fast and loose.' She recalled the Council discussion about auditing the SERA analysis (a peer review), which she thought should include a definitive financial statement laying out the repair versus replace costs. Councilor Tierney indicated that if Councilor Olson wanted this analysis in the document in order to resolve her issues, then he would support it, although he did not see a true need for it. Councilor Johnson concurred, as did Mayor Hoffman. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, Johnson, Jordan, and Hennagin voting `aye.' [7-0] Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 8:37 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 8:49 p.m. • Guiding Principle 2 Councilor Hennagin moved to delete the language `retain City Hall in the downtown' and to am nd `r plac or r pair th building' to `r plac or r pair City Hall.' Councilor Olson second d th motion. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 21 June 2, 2009 Councilor Hennagin reiterated that they needed to keep all of their options open. Councilor Ti rn y indicated that while personally, his first guiding principle was to keep City Hall in the downtown, he would support the motion in order to keep all their options open for keeping the West End Building. Councilor Jordan asked if there was a way to assure people that the Council intended to keep at least one major civic facility in the downtown core without specifying which one stayed or went. Councilor Tierney reiterated that if the City kept the West End Building, then the Council could leave nothing off the table in its discussions of what to do with it. From a financial and practical perspective, he concurred with Councilor Hennagin's comment. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he supported keeping City Hall in the downtown. He cited the memo from Mary Bosch in January/February discussing the economic benefits of having a City Hall downtown and the multiplier effect. He held that moving City Hall out of the downtown would send the message to private investors and the community that he did not want to send. He noted that he has always strongly supported civic buildings in the downtown. Councilor Olson recalled that in developing the original draft strategy, both she and Councilor Moncrieff had felt it important to agree on keeping City Hall in the downtown. She concurred with Councilors Hennagin and Tierney that the Council needed to keep its options open. She commented that if the City kept the building and looked at the bottom line, then Councilor Hennagin was right in holding that the fiscally responsible thing to do was to move City Hall, the Library, or both, over to the West End Building. She mentioned sensing that people felt more strongly about keeping the library in the downtown than they did keeping City Hall there. Councilor Johnson suggested a compromise of retaining some City Hall functions downtown, although not necessarily the City Hall building itself. She recalled the discussion about decentralizing some City services. She noted that Parks & Recreation, now located at the West End Building, was a City Hall function already located at the building. She concurred with Mayor Hoffman that a City Hall downtown was good for the downtown. Councilor Moncrieff indicated that she would support the motion because she heard people wanting to keep the library downtown but not City Hall. She agreed with keeping the option open. A hand vote was taken, and the motion passed with Councilors Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, Johnson, Jordan, and Hennagin voting `aye.' Mayor Hoffman voted 'no.' [6-1] Councilor Johnson moved to retain some City Hall functions in the downtown. Mayor Hoffman seconded the motion. Councilor Johnson withdrew the motion, noting that the Council has left its options open. Mayor Hoffman agreed to withdraw his second. Councilor Tierney moved to strike `retain a library in the downtown,' and complete the sentence `consider building a new larger library.' Councilor Olson seconded the motion. Councilor Moncrieff indicated that she would not support the motion because she had heard many people speak of the importance of keeping a library in the downtown. She noted the better mass transit and accessibility in the downtown. Councilor Jordan recalled that one of the major studies on building a new library had identified a corner of Mercantile Plaza as a site for a new library, which concerned no one at the time. She pointed out that with downtown redevelopment taking off in the past six years, things have changed. She thought it likely that they would have to keep at least one main civic building in the downtown, but she supported keeping their options open. She argued for having similar language for both facilities. Councilor Tierney spoke to the importance of keeping all options on the table for discussion during this decision-making process. He held that saying that they did not want to move the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 21 June 2, 2009 Library or City Hall to the West End Building was not being as responsible as he thought the Council had to be. Councilor Olson concurred with keeping their options open for both buildings. Mayor Hoffman recalled that the Library had been one of the most divisive things with respect to the bond, with many people voting against the bond because they did not want the Library to leave First Addition for the downtown. He acknowledged that throwing the Library into the mix might make sense fiscally, but he pointed out that politically, it was a hot potato issue that has divided the community. Mr. Powell advised the Council to use either voice or roll call votes, but not hand votes. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Councilors Olson, Tierney, Jordan, and Hennagin voting `aye.' Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Moncrieff, and Johnson voted 'no.' [4-3]. Councilor Johnson moved to strike 'more centrally located" from item 3 under Guiding Principle 2. Mayor Hoffman seconded the motion. Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Hennagin that striking the language provided more flexibility. Councilor Hennagin said that he would support the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, Johnson, Jordan, and Hennagin voted `aye.' [7-0] Councilor Olson moved to amend the language to read 'site and fund a new police/9-1-1/municipal court facility, maintenance yard, and South Shore Fire Station.' Councilor Moncrieff seconded the motion. Councilor Tierney questioned placing 'siting and funding' under the guiding principle that addressed obtaining public support. He suggested modifying Guiding Principle 1. Mr. Williams explained that the original language for this task had included the words 'Lake Grove,' which the Council has changed to 'more centrally located.' He said that this task was originally included in response to keeping City Hall and the library downtown. He noted that the implementation task under Guiding Principle 1 now took care of these three facilities. He recommended eliminating Guiding Principle 2. Councilor Jordan expressed concern that if they continued to discuss the public safety facility separately, instead of in the context of the big picture, they would have to buy another piece of property somewhere. However, neither the Council nor the community was willing to buy another piece of property. She commented that they needed to decide which different pieces came together in order to identify what needed funding, which would be a bond. She acknowledged the probable accusation that the Council was funding the West End Building using public safety. She contended that a thoughtful strategy that made the argument to the community that this was the place to site these things required that they leave this question open. Councilor Olson acknowledged Councilor Jordan's point. She said that she did not think that buying a different piece of property in the future was out of the question in and of itself. The idea was that the Council needed to sell other properties in order to do that. She acknowledged Mr. Williams' point that Guiding Principle 2 was redundant with the modifications made to Guiding Principle 1. Councilor Tierney observed that they still needed Guiding Principle 2 in terms of strategy. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the Council has already implemented Guiding Principle 2 with the recent public engagement effort. A voice vote was taken, and the motion failed with Councilor Olson voting `aye.' Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Moncrieff, Tierney, Johnson, Jordan, and Hennagin voted 'no.' [1-6] The Council decided to deal with Guiding Principle 2 differently. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 21 June 2, 2009 Councilor Moncrieff moved to amend the fourth bullet under Guiding Principle 2 to read `provide civic services in the Lake Grove area that are consistent with the Lake Grove Village Plan.' Councilor Olson seconded the motion. Councilor Jordan suggested moving the final two tasks under Guiding Principle 2 up to Guiding Principle 1, which would change Guiding Principle 1 to cover all the issues under the first two guiding principles. She agreed that the Council already implemented the strategy described in Guiding Principle 2, and, therefore, they could eliminate it and move Guiding Principle 3 up to the second position. Councilor Olson concurred. Councilor Olson moved to amend the third bullet under Guiding Principle 1 to read `design, site, fund, and build a separate police/911/municipal court facility, a new fire station, and to improve the maintenance yard.' Mr. Powell indicated that there was already a motion and a second on the floor for the Lake Grove amendment, which the Council should deal with first. Mayor Hoffman indicated that they would focus on Councilor Olson's motion first. Mr. McIntyre suggested including 'design' in the list of verbs in order to give greater flexibility to staff in pursuing options. Councilor Johnson seconded Councilor Olson's motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, Johnson, and Jordan voting `aye.' Councilor Hennagin voted 'no.' [6-1] Councilor Hennagin explained that he did not think that language added much to the task. Councilor Moncrieff restated her motion to amend the fourth bullet. Councilor Olson restated her second. Councilor Olson proposed amending the bullet to call out the provision of public parking. Councilor Jordan indicated that provision of public parking was a major element in the plan. Councilor Tierney made a friendly amendment to move this item, currently under Guiding Principle 2, up to Guiding Principle 1. Councilors Moncrieff and Olson accepted the friendly amendment. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, Johnson, Jordan, and Hennagin voting `aye.' [7-0] Councilor Jordan moved to move the last task under Guiding Principle 2 up under Guiding Principle 1, and to eliminate Guiding Principle 2 in its current form. Councilor Tierney seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, Johnson, Jordan, and Hennagin voting `aye.' [7-0] Mayor Hoffman moved to amend the language of the last item under Guiding Principle 1 to read `develop a strategy for siting and funding a future recreation center.' Councilor Moncrieff seconded the motion. Councilor Olson commented that she did not think that the language change was necessary. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Moncrieff, Johnson, Jordan, and Hennagin voting `aye.' Councilors Olson and Tierney voted 'no.' [5-2] The Council discussed whether it had moved everything out of Guiding Principle 2 up to Guiding Principle 1. Councilor Jordan pointed out to Councilor Hennagin that the first bullet under Guiding Principle 1 had been amended earlier to include the 'repair or replace City Hall' language. Mr. Williams noted that the reason for Guiding Principle 2 had been to provide some certainty for the downtown and Lake Grove. He indicated that changes made by the Council removed those certainties. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 21 June 2, 2009 • Guiding Principle 3 Councilor Hennagin moved to amend Guiding Principle 3 to read as Mayor Hoffman proposed on his revision. Councilor Moncrieff seconded the motion. Councilor Tierney proposed a friendly amendment to eliminate the language `using the vacant portions of the building for community and non-profit organizations and for increased Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation programs.' He argued that increasing programs was a budget item in and of itself, and that the 'lease if economically feasible language' captured the non-profits. Councilor Tierney proposed a second friendly amendment to strike 'in the long-term' and add in 'by February 15, 2010, develop a financing strategy...' At Councilor Hennagin's request, Councilor Tierney read the language as it would change with his friendly amendments: 'maximize the use of the West End Building and the property in the near term. This includes leasing, if fiscally prudent, the vacant portions of the West End Building. By February 15, 2010, develop a financing strategy that did not require using general fund revenues or reserves to pay the debt service on the West End Building and property.' Councilor Hennagin asked if Councilor Tierney would revise his friendly amendment to remove the specific date, and instead say 'develop a financing strategy in conjunction with the budget process for the 2010/2011 budget. Councilor Tierney indicated that he picked that date in order to allow for a potential May bond measure, but he would accept the revision to change the date to July 1, 2010. Councilor Olson observed that that was a tight deadline to get a measure on the November ballot. Councilor Hennagin accepted Councilor Tierney's revised friendly amendment. Councilor Moncrieff did also. Mayor Hoffman read the motion as amended: "maximize the use of the West End Building and property in the near term. This includes leasing, if fiscally prudent, the vacant portions of the West End Building. By July 1, 2010, develop a financial strategy that does not require use of general fund revenues or reserves to pay the debt service on the West End Building prop rty." Councilor Jordan spoke in support of the motion. Councilor Olson agreed that they needed a firm deadline. She suggested a June deadline date for developing the strategy, instead of July 1, because the budget would be already done by July 1. Mr. McIntyre asked if the Council's intention in this motion was to go out for a vote on the bond issue. Councilor Tierney indicated that that was his intention. He pointed out that most people believed that there was no other financing strategy than a bond measure, but he was open to staff bringing forward alternatives. Councilor Olson pointed out that the direction was to develop a strategy by the stipulated date; the strategy might include a date for a bond measure. Mayor Hoffman concurred that there was no date applied to the financing strategy itself, only to the development of the financing strategy. Mayor Hoffman explained that he had put in 'lease unused portions of the building for community or non-profit organizations or increased Parks and Recreation programs' because he did not know what else they would use the building for, other than as a city hall. He conceded that eliminating that language did not preclude that use. Councilor Hennagin clarified that his motion has included the second bullet point in Mayor Hoffman's suggested revision. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he proposed changing 'provide a concept plan' to 'develop a concept plan,' and eliminating 'consider rezoning and consider leasing.' A voice vote was taken, and th- motion pass-d with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Moncri ff, Olson, Ti rn y, Johnson, Jordan, and H nnagin voting 'ay .' [7-0] City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 21 June 2, 2009 • Guiding Principle 4 Mayor Hoffman moved to modify Guiding Principle 4 to call out refinancing the debt on the West End Building and to explore opportunities for each facility, including the West End Building and property. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion. Councilor Olson argued that Guiding Principle 3 already called out the West End Building. Therefore, doing it under Guiding Principle 4 was redundant. Councilor Jordan argued that by calling out the refinancing of the West End Building debt in the next paragraph, they would make sure that people understood that the Council was not looking at this current short-term financing deal as the long-term financing method. Councilor Olson acknowledged the point, but reiterated that their emphasis needed to be on the strategy for all the facilities, and not merely on the West End Building. Councilor Jordan asked for a friendly amendment to say 'each facility covered under this strategy.' She pointed out that the City had other facilities not covered under the strategy. Councilor Johnson supported Councilor Jordan's friendly amendment. Mayor Hoffman accepted the friendly amendment, as did Councilor Jordan. Mayor Hoffman restated the changed language `finance the debt on the West End Building by July 15, 2009. For each facility included under this strategy, explore all opportunities . . .' A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, Johnson, Jordan, and Hennagin voting `aye.' [7-0] Councilor Olson pointed out that they have not addressed the Adult Community Center. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 9:45 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 9:51 p.m. Mr. Williams indicated that the Adult Community Center was one of the ten facilities at which staff looked. He explained that it did not rise to the level of significant problems in comparison to City Hall, the Library, the Maintenance facility, and the South Shore Fire Station. He said that staff would address the ACC's deficiencies through a facilities management plan. Councilor Hennagin suggested that given the possibility of shared program facilities and rooms with Parks & Recreation, that the Council at least contemplate moving the ACC to the West End Building as part of the ultimate plan for the use of the West End Building. Councilor Johnson commented that not calling that out in the strategy did not preclude the Council from considering it, but leaving it out did allow for more flexibility. Councilor Olson indicated that she had forgotten that they had discussed the ACC and consciously decided to leave it off. • Guiding Principle 5 Mayor Hoffman reviewed his changes to the priority of tasks. He noted that they have completed the tasks listed under 'Next Three Months.' He reported that Mr. Williams suggested at the break that they list the following as short-term goals: the West End Building, public safety, Lake Grove, and management of City facilities. The library was a medium term goal, while City Hall and the future recreation center/swimming pool were long-term goals. Mr. Williams explained that he made this suggestion because the Council made many changes to the implementation tasks. Staff would fill those in wherever the Council indicated its priorities. Councilor Jordan spoke to moving City Hall up to medium or short term, as the issues at City Hall needed to be addressed. She suggested a priority order of public safety facilities at the top, followed by the West End Building. She spoke of moving Lake Grove to medium term, as it would take a while to figure out what was happening in the Lake Grove area and to fund anything over there. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 21 June 2, 2009 Councilor Olson agreed with moving City Hall up to medium term. She suggested better defining what the Council meant by short-term, medium-term, and long-term. She commented that she saw the public safety facilities and figuring out the financing for the West End Building as immediate- term. She described the future recreation center as long-term and everything else as medium- term. Mr. Williams noted that staff did not put dates down. He held that a realistic schedule, given the amount of time and energy it would take to implement these, was for each City Council to take on one or two of the significant issues. He questioned whether it was realistic to list three of them in the short-term for one Council to do. He explained that he looked at these descriptors as four-year terms. The West End Building and public safety facilities could be addressed over the next four years (short-term); four years from now, the next Council could take on the Library (medium-term); four years after that the Council could do City Hall and the recreation facility (long-term). He commented that those priorities could change as opportunities came up. Councilor Jordan expressed concern at listing City Hall as long-term, if they needed to replace the roof and the HVAC system. She pointed out that this separated facilities out, and yet the plan discussed looking at all the pieces in the context of the big picture in order to decide on the best strategy. She commented that City Hall in the long-term and the West End Building in the short- term might not be how things worked out. She mentioned that improving the management of City facilities was a separate thing to her from siting and planning for buildings. Councilor Hennagin commented that in light of the Mayor's comments about the economy not coming back until 2013, he suspected that there would be little development in Lake Grove until that happened. He suggested Lake Grove and City Hall as medium-term. Councilor Olson commented that Lake Grove has been waiting a long time for something to happen. She acknowledged the point about the economy's impact, but said that she wanted the Council to move forward with funding all the studies and to position itself to take off when the opportunity arose. Councilor Jordan held that studies were different than buildings, and the issue under discussion was siting facilities in Lake Grove. She pointed out that the improvements to Boones Ferry Road were listed in the JPACT transportation financially constrained list from now to 2035. It might receive federal funding sometime, but it would be a long time before it did. She commented that private development would occur first because the City had the Lake Grove Village Center Plan in place. Councilor Tierney concurred with Councilor Jordan. He pointed out that this was not a linear project, but rather a project with many things going on at the same time. He described the Council's work tonight as giving direction as the priority order for the tasks. Councilor Tierney moved to move the `enhance Lake Grove area' to the medium term, and to add 'the underlying health and safety problems with City Hall, etc.' and move that to the medium term. Councilor Hennagin seconded the motion. Mayor Hoffman said that he would support the motion, although he was concerned about losing momentum on the Lake Grove Village Plan, the Boones Ferry Road corridor, and the economic analysis. He indicated his belief that Mr. Williams would somehow address that concern. A voic vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Johnson voting "aye." Councilor Olson voted 'no.' [6-1] Councilor Olson commented that she thought that Councilor Jordan gave a good argument for moving it up to short-term. Councilor Ti rn y mov d to t out ind p nd ntly 'improv manag ment of City faciliti .' Th r was no s cond. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 21 June 2, 2009 He pointed out that the management of City facilities was an ongoing, overarching task Councilors Olson and Jordan concurred. Councilor Olson asked for a recap of what was in short-term, medium-term, and long-term. Mayor Hoffman reviewed the priority order: Short-term: Public safety facilities, West End Building Medium-term: City Hall, Library, Lake Grove Long-term: Recreation Center/Swimming Pool At Mr. Williams' request, the Council discussed what years to put on the descriptors. Councilor Olson suggested short-term as less than three years. Councilor Jordan pointed out that the only date included for the strategy was for the financing plan. She commented that that strategy would help guide the timing of the other short-term priorities. Once they developed the strategy, then they would have a better idea on the dates. Councilor Hennagin expressed concern about binding future City Councils in this way. Councilor Tierney pointed out that the guiding principles did not have the force of law. Councilor Jordan moved to send the strategy as amended this evening back to staff to bring forward for the Council to adopt with final language. Councilor Olson seconded the motion. Councilor Jordan asked if they should set a date for staff to bring it back. The Council discussed the question. Mr. McIntyre indicated that staff would bring it back on June 16 with the expectation of the Council adopting it that night. Councilor Tierney suggested giving the revised document to the Council at least a week in advance. The Council agreed that Mr. McIntyre could put it on the Consent Agenda. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Johnson voting "aye." Councilor Olson voted 'no.' [6-1] 8.2 Ordinance 2540, an ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council amending the Special District Chapter of the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan to add a map to the Palisades Neighborhood Plan (LU 09-0010) Mr. Powell reviewed the standard land use hearing procedures and criteria. He asked if any Council member had a conflict of interest to declare. There were none. There were no challenges. STAFF REPORT Ms. Frisbee stated that this ordinance amended the Special District Chapter to add the Neighborhood Character Map to the Palisades Neighborhood Plan. She indicated that the map had been inadvertently omitted from the plan adopted by the Council last fall. She mentioned that a Palisades resident raised a concern about designating an undeveloped parcel next to a residential home on the map as 'open space.' She commented that while 'open space' was an appropriate descriptor, it had connotations as `undevelopable land.' Therefore, staff changed the map to group privately owned, undeveloped lots as part of the area of the development of the adjacent lots. She noted other changes, such as updating the tax data and more accurately labeling some of the properties. She reported that staff asked the Palisades Neighborhood Association review the changes, and Mr. Wicklund made three requests, all of which staff supported. Ms. Christie distributed a handout detailing those requested changes. Those changes were to include natural area in park and open space, to increase the font size for the Palisades easement on the map, and to identify the Palisades Pools as `private open space,' instead of as 'developable area.' QUESTIONS OF STAFF City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 21 June 2, 2009 Ms. Frisbee clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the areas designated as 'private open space,' such as the area off Childs Road, were not precluded from developing. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Hoffman opened the hearing to public testimony. Seeing none, he closed the hearing to public testimony. COUNCIL DISCUSSION Councilor Jordan moved to tentatively approve Ordinance 2540 and direct staff to return with a final ordinance and findings on June 16. Councilor Hennagin seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting "aye." [7-0] 9. RESOLUTIONS 9.1 Resolution 09-26, granting recognition as a neighborhood association to the Birdshill Neighborhood Mayor Hoffman noted that the Council pulled Resolution 09-26, granting recognition to the Birdshill Neighborhood, for rescheduling at a later meeting. 10. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL 10.1 Councilor Information 10.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees 11. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 11.1 City Manager 11.1.1 Review of Council Schedule Mr. McIntyre raised the issue of no meeting scheduled for June 9. He encouraged the Council not to meet on the capital improvements program (CIP) in advance of the June 16 meeting, at which staff would present the recommended budget, including the first year of the CIP. He stated that staff intended to discuss the remaining four years with the Council in greater depth later on. He noted that this was a fifth Tuesday month. Therefore, even with taking a break on June 9, the Council would have four meetings in June. He indicated to Councilor Olson that the Council would hear the sensitive lands ordinance and the urban forestry plan at the June 23 work session. On June 30, staff would walk LORA through potential projects to consider initiating. He noted that both the LORA and the City budgets were scheduled for June 16. Mayor Hoffman spoke of linking the Birdshill Neighborhood recognition with the neighborhood plan implementation update on July 7. The Council discussed when to hold the mid-year review. The Council tentatively decided on Thursday, July 9. 11.1.2 Library District Advisory Committee Mr. McIntyre indicated that the Council needed to appoint Bill Baars to the District Advisory Committee for the Library District before the intergovernmental agreement came to the Council for adoption on June 16. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 21 June 2, 2009 Councilor Jordan moved to appoint Bill Baars to the District Advisory Committee for the Library District. Councilor Ti rn y cond d the motion. A voice vot was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson voting "aye." [7-0] 11.1.3 City Budget Mr. McIntyre described to Councilor Tierney how he would present the new budget for adoption on June 16. He mentioned the remaining policy question of how to cut $250,000 from the budget. He indicated that he would present some different scenarios for accomplishing that task, which he would send to Council in advance in the Thursday packet. He said that he would also send Council a memo making small recommendations to modify some items that staff has discovered since the Citizens Budget Committee (CBC) finished its work. Councilor Tierney observed that there was obviously disagreement on the Council regarding the adoption of the CBC's recommended budget. He asked that staff provide the Council with any policy questions or changes significantly in advance of the meeting for the members to think about. Mr. McIntyre observed that a quarter of a million dollars cut from a $150 million budget was relatively minor, but that same amount cut specifically from the $42 million general fund budget was more significant. Therefore, the question was how the Council would arrive at those cuts. Mayor Hoffman described the situation differently. He indicated that he saw this as the CBC preparing and recommending a governing budget document, which the City Manager presented to the Council. The Council was free to accept the budget or amend it before adoption. Mr. McIntyre concurred, noting that this was no longer the City Manager's budget. Mr. McIntyre pointed out that the CBC directed him to address the one quarter million dollar piece, which staff would do. He indicated that he would make his suggestions for elimination of items or re-instatement of items, on which the Council would rule. He noted that this was also a public hearing, and the public might have suggestions for Council consideration. Councilor Tierney expressed concern at mixing together a public hearing on the budget and the high-level policy changes. Mayor Hoffman noted that the public hearing would be on the CBC's budget as presented by the City Manager. Mr. McIntyre indicated that per the CBC's direction, he would present alternatives to the Council to reduce the general fund by $250,000. Councilor Olson asked when they would start sharing the financial reports given to Council with the CBC, as discussed previously. She commented that this was part of the education process of the Committee, so that the members would be more familiar with the City budgeting process and documents next year. Mayor Hoffman agreed that they needed to discuss that matter. Mr. McIntyre noted that tomorrow was Mr. Rouhier's last day. He explained that while David Donaldson, who would serve as Interim Finance Director, was an excellent manager, he lacked Mr. Rouhier's technical financial expertise. Therefore, the quality of work from the Finance Department would not be at the same high level. He asked the Council for its patience as they worked through issues and recruited another Finance Director. Mayor Hoffman asked Mr. McIntyre to express the Council's appreciation to Mr. Rouhier for all the work he did. 11.2 City Attorney City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 21 June 2, 2009 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, byn Christie Jane McGarvin ity rder Deputy City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: O Sept b , 2009 .Q-Hoff ayer- Donna Jor n, Council President City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 21 June 2, 2009