Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2010-09-28 SpecialCITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES September 28, 2010 Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. on September 28, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, Jordan, and Vizzini. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Brant Williams, Director of Economic and Capital Development; Interim Police Chief Don Forman 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project Briefing Mr. Williams introduced Doug Obleitz, Project Manager, Shelley Lomax, TriMet, Dennis Van Dyk , TriMet, and Karen Withrow, Metro. He mentioned that he was working on answering the 80 plus questions he received from Council regarding this project. • Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Mr. Obleitz reported on the status of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). He said that last week they submitted the third and final draft to the Federal Transit Agency (FTA) for its review. He explained that the FTA owned the document and had to give permission to publish the document in the Federal Register. He mentioned their expectation of receiving comments on the third draft from the FTA expeditiously. He mentioned that if the scheduled publication date of November 19 held true, the 45 -day public comment period (including open houses and public hearings) would commence, closing on January 7. He indicated that any comments received would go to the Steering Committee as part of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) process in 2011. He reviewed the LPA process steps, culminating with the LPA approval by the Metro Council in late winter 2011. He explained that the LPA would be the selected mode from the three options analyzed in the DEIS (no build, enhanced bus, and streetcar). He mentioned that it would also address the selection of design options in Lake Oswego. He indicated that the handout summarized the three workshops held with the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) and the feedback received from the Lake Oswego, Riverdale/Dunthorpe, and John's Landing areas. 0 Transit Project PowerPoint Presentation Mr. Obleitz gave a PowerPoint presentation "Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project". He read the list of issues covered with the CAC (Slide 1). He addressed a question frequently raised with respect to ridership: How well did TriMet do in projecting ridership figures? He mentioned that Metro was known nationally for its modeling. He reviewed the information on Slide 2 showing Metro's projections for the various transit and/or light rail projects in the Metro area and the actual ridership numbers. He noted that Metro has done a good job of projecting ridership. He clarified that the Portland Streetcar numbers were not from Metro, since that had been a locally funded project with no federal dollars and no requirement to follow the FTA guidelines for modeling. However, the organization did its own modeling. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 16 September 28, 2010 Mr. Obleitz indicated to Councilor Olson that they used the terms 'ridership', 'boardings', and 'trips' interchangeably. He confirmed that a round trip would count as two trips, one going, and one returning. He explained that they projected the ridership figures for the three options for the Lake Oswego transit line only to the South Waterfront because the streetcar currently went to the South Waterfront, and they did not want the double counting that would happen if they projected the Lake Oswego line into the Portland downtown. He reviewed the projected numbers (Slide 3). He noted that the enhanced bus service was not an express service but rather an upgraded, faster service for Line 35. He indicated that the streetcar had more riders the more it stayed within the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way because it operated faster than if the alignment jogged onto Macadam Ave and into the John's Landing area. He indicated to Councilor Vizzini that the modeling did not find the ridership significantly different in the John's Landing area. He discussed travel times to PSU Urban Center, Portland City Hall, and Pioneer Square (Slide 4). He noted that the travel times did not include the time it would take to get from a house in Lake Oswego to the Lake Oswego terminus. Councilor Olson mentioned hearing from others associated with this project that the FTA did not allow the use of population numbers other than the current numbers. She wondered about the 2035 ridership numbers. Mr. Williams explained that the DEIS looked at the existing zoning and what could potentially develop in those areas. The modeling showed the areas in Foothills not zoned industrial, such as Oswego Pointe, that could re -develop to a significantly higher density. He noted that the planning also included some development out in the Stafford area. Councilor Olson commented that she had understood that the CAC had been told that the ridership numbers did not include Foothills and Stafford. Karen Withrow, Metro, clarified that the distinction was that the population employment forecast that informed the model looked at the whole region, including estimated growth in Lake Oswego under current zoning and some assumptions about areas such as Stafford, in determining the ridership numbers. Ms. Withrow explained that, while the DEIS could only look at what was allowed under the current zoning, Metro also looked at the economic development potential of changed zoning. She confirmed to Councilor Jordan that the model included the capacity of Stafford under the current County zoning, and not its potential as urban reserves. Mr. Obleitz indicated to Councilor Vizzini that they assumed the same number of stops for the enhanced bus as for the streetcar from the Sellwood Bridge to the Tram, which were fewer than the current stops of Lines 35 and 36. He reiterated to the Councilor that the ridership numbers were based on current zoning, and acknowledged that there was interest in upzoning to higher densities in areas along the Macadam corridor, such as in the John's Landing and Corbett neighborhoods. He reviewed the noise and vibration mitigations suggested by the tests conducted as part of the DEIS (Slides 5-6). He mentioned that they could build low sound walls for streetcars because the noise came at the wheel level. He indicated that TriMet was getting good at dealing with noise issues in residential areas and had multiple methods for mitigating noise and vibration. He explained that a ballast mat was the use of rock as a lining for the rails. He noted that the streetcar currently was almost exclusively paved track in the South Waterfront area. He spoke of keeping the wheels round (they developed flat spots sometimes) to reduce noise. He indicated that mitigation of the potential noise and vibration impacts of the streetcar would reduce the impacts to zero (Slide 7). He noted the areas potentially impacted (Slide 8): Riverdale/Dunthorpe and John's Landing. He mentioned that the Willamette Shoreline track ran within a dozen feet of some houses and decks in some locations in the John's Landing neighborhood. He spoke of possible design changes, including moving the alignment to Macadam or Riverwood Road. He commented that they found no noise and vibration impacts for enhanced City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16 September 28, 2010 bus (Slide 9). Councilor Hennagin observed that .01 % meant one bus for every 10,000 cars. Mr. Obleitz indicated that the figure should be one bus for every 1,000 cars. Mr. Obleitz presented a comparison of the transit capacities of the three modes on Highway 43 at peak hour traffic (Slide 10). He noted that the streetcar could provide more carrying capacity than the no -build or enhanced bus options. He discussed Slide 11, showing the Highway 43 peak hour auto capacity. He observed that more buses on the road meant more interruptions to auto traffic and frustrations for drivers. He discussed the estimated annual operations and maintenance costs (Slide 12), shown in 2035 dollars. He explained that the streetcar cost almost $1 million less per year to operate than the enhanced bus service because it had more people per operator, which meant lower labor costs. He cautioned the Council that TriMet was fine-tuning these numbers now, and they could shift by the time the DEIS came out. He indicated to Councilor Vizzini that streetcars had a longer useful life than buses. He discussed the estimated capital costs for construction (Slide 13), using 2017 dollars (year of construction). He explained that the $379.6 million for the streetcar low was almost $289 million in 2010 dollars, while the $458 million for the streetcar high was $347 million in 2010 dollars. He indicated that the enhanced bus figure of $51 million would be $37.8 million in 2010 dollars. Councilor Olson observed that $400 million divided by $1 million a year in savings meant that it would take 400 years to recoup the costs. Mr. Obleitz explained to Councilor Tierney that finance referred to the local agencies having to borrow money against the anticipation of the federal revenue appropriations. He said that the FTA now considered those as eligible project costs. Escalation was the construction inflation estimate of3to4%. He discussed the potential funding resources (Slide 14). He indicated that they based the federal funds on an anticipated 60% federal funding level. He explained that they felt this was a reasonable planning assumption because it was a smaller project than the $1 billion plus Portland- Milwaukie project, which ended up at the 50% funding level for mega -projects. He emphasized the critical piece of the local jurisdictions' ownership of the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way ($94 to $97 million in 2017 dollars) as part of the local match, which reduced this to a relatively low cost project ($217 to $274 million in 2010 dollars). He noted that the right-of-way value in 2010 dollars ranged from $71.6 million to $73 million. Councilor Vizzini asked why the difference between the right-of-way land value and the sensitive lands value was more meaningful in the streetcar low estimate. Mr. Obleitz indicated the other right-of-way components that played into the equation. He explained that a cost in both the enhanced bus and streetcar scenarios was the acquisition of right-of-way for a park and ride, although the extent of that right-of-way varied with each scenario. He mentioned that if they moved the streetcar alignment to Macadam, then they lost that portion of the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way for the local match, and the Macadam right-of-way was not eligible as a local match resource. Councilor Hennagin commented that he had thought that the low estimate for the streetcar meant keeping it in the Willamette Shoreline right-of-way all the way to Portland, and the high estimate was for the Macadam and Riverwood alignment. Mr. Obleitz confirmed that the other factors outweighed that difference. Mr. Obleitz indicated to Councilor Olson that, while they might get an updated appraisal soon, they would not do a full re -appraisal of the right-of-way until they got closer to needing to establish the value for the full funding grant agreement, which was perhaps two or more years away. He said that they were using the 2008 appraisal value. Mr. Williams explained that the right-of-way value was over $100 million, but he took out the property north of the project limits. That reduced the available value to $85 to $90 million. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16 September 28, 2010 Mr. Obleitz indicated to Councilor Tierney that there was no rule of thumb for estimating what Lake Oswego's share would be of the local match dollars. He said that they would get into more detail on the financing plan after the LPA decision. He explained that, in these sorts of projects, they had to identify a variety of sources from different entities, and then figure out how to fill up the pot. Although they could not project Lake Oswego's share at this time, they would be developing alternative funding sources over the next 18 months and setting targets. Mr. Williams indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the local communities had full discretion to decide how to pay for their share of the local share. He mentioned possible Lake Oswego funding sources of tax increment financing, system development charges, local improvement districts, and private investment dollars. He stated that he did not foresee using general fund money (property taxes) for this project. Councilor Hennagin concurred. Mayor Hoffman agreed that the use of property taxes or GO bonds as part of the local match was a non-starter from the Lake Oswego side. He remarked that this Council might at some point feel comfortable in formally stating its resolve not to raise property taxes. Mr. Williams commented that one of his challenges in developing a funding strategy has been to look for funding sources that would potentially benefit from this transit line. Mayor Hoffman asked for a nod of heads from all Councilors agreeing that this Council would not advocate for either a GO bond or higher property taxes to fund this project. Councilor Tierney questioned how the Council could pick an LPA without knowing the financial cost to the community. Mr. Williams clarified that the LPA decision did not mean that the option selected would get built. That decision simply moved the process forward to the next phase of preliminary design and funding strategy development. He said that the City would not commit to a project until it had a full funding grant agreement with the FTA (probably in 2014), which required a commitment from all the funding sources. Mr. Williams indicated to Councilor Tierney that, while staff would have a total amount required for the local match (a number subject to change during the design phase), they would not have it broken down into the individual contributions by each jurisdiction. Councilor Olson asked if there has ever been an LPA selected and the project not done. Mr. Obleitz mentioned that the voters turned down the original south -north light rail project. Councilor Olson pointed out that that had been when voters got to vote on the project; since then, the public no longer voted on these projects. She asked if it has happened since then. Mr. Williams said not to his knowledge. He credited Metro and TriMet for laying the groundwork that allowed these projects to get done by developing funding strategies that worked for each jurisdiction. Mr. Obleitz presented a comparison of the three alternatives in six factors (Slide 15). He noted that the streetcar had a better or best rating in all categories except capital cost. He introduced Shelley Lomax, TriMet Executive Director of Operations and former Director of Security and Safety, Dennis Van Dyke, TriMet Operations Department, Transit Police Commander Mike Krebs, and Lake Oswego Police Chief Don Forman. • Safety and Security Ms. Lomax explained that she had been responsible for the safety certification on both the Green Line and WES. She mentioned her understanding that the governance of this project has not yet been decided. She stated TriMet's definition of safety: freedom from unintentional dangers (i.e., slips, trips, falls). She gave TriMet's definition of security: freedom from intentional dangers (i.e., the bad guys out to do harm). She indicated that both TriMet's system safety and security plans were clearly laid out with clear lines of authority and assigned duties, and updated annually. She observed that the Portland police shared the security plan's goal to reduce crime and the fear of crime on their system. She discussed the Transit Police, overseen by Commander Krebs of the Portland Police Bureau, City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16 September 28, 2010 serving under a contract. She mentioned that the over 50 sworn officers in the unit came from the various jurisdictions served by TriMet. These officers informed TriMet of areas of concern within their jurisdictions, and then returned to their units with an in-depth knowledge of how they could partner with TriMet and other jurisdictions to make things better in their own communities in general. She spoke of the TriMet Police Partners Forum, a quarterly meeting of representatives from all the participating agencies to discuss what was going on in the community. Mayor Hoffman asked for discussion of the safety concerns brought up at the last CAC meeting in July. Ms. Lomax indicated that TriMet moved a small city every day. With over 315,000 rides a day, they had approximately three reported crimes a day; more than half of those were minor. Mr. Williams indicated that staff's intent was to share TriMet's model as one option, given that they have not yet determined the governance of the Lake Oswego to Portland streetcar. He commented that TriMet had a good system in place to insure that crime did not become a problem. He mentioned that Chief Forman did some background research on different issues and talked to professionals around the region about different systems. Chief Forman reported on his research and the professionals with whom he spoke, including Portland Streetcar, Wilsonville Police Chief Nick Watt, Commander Mike Krebs, and Mark Johnson, Director of Transit Operations for the Eugene/Springfield MX enhanced bus system. He indicated that Portland Streetcar relied on the Portland Police Bureau for any safety and security issues on the line on an on call basis, and not on the TriMet Transit Police. He noted that the Transit Police would assist if nearby, as any police department would do. He reported that Chief Watt of Wilsonville described the WES (commuter rail line) as well-run and a welcome addition to his community. He said that Chief Watt recalled that there were concerns that there might be problems in a rough area near the terminus of WES, but there have been no problems whatsoever in that area. In the past year, there have been three car prowls at the Park and Ride lot. He described the MX enhanced bus system at Eugene/Springfield as operating similarly to rail with doors on both sides of the buses and platforms as well as stops in the middle of roadways. He indicated that the ridership was mainly University of Oregon students and commuters. A private security contractor provided security for the line with cameras on the buses and at the platforms and stops and enforcement of the ridership ordinances and rules, including a no tolerance policy. He mentioned Mr. Johnson's comment that they had more problems with the rest of their bus system than on the enhanced bus system. He commented that all those with whom he spoke indicated that the factors to consider with respect to crime or problems were ridership and the area to be served. Ms. Lomax concurred that one had to plan for what was going on in the areas to be served. She indicated that one of the first things required by the FTA on these projects was a preliminary hazard analysis, which TriMet conducted in partnership with the participating communities. Chief Forman commented that the Lake Oswego community set the tone for what went on in the community relative to quality of life issues. He noted that if the community saw a condition that was not acceptable, they reported it and the police responded to take care of the issue. He pointed out that Lake Oswego had a municipal court and therefore could address behaviors related to transit in town on a daily basis. • Council Questions Mayor Hoffman noted the two items of concern raised by the community over the years with respect to a streetcar: increased crime in Lake Oswego and transporting into the community "undesirables" who might cause problems. Ms. Lomax indicated that that was a very common fear. She recalled similar concerns expressed about the Yellow Line, which went through some bad areas. She indicated that today things were flourishing around the Yellow Line on Interstate and Lombard; it was a model of what transit could do for a community. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16 September 28, 2010 Commander Krebs agreed with Chief Forman that the community set the tone. He commented that if he were a criminal, he could not come to Lake Oswego to commit a crime because of the security cameras on the trains and buses and because Lake Oswego citizens paid attention to what went on in their community and reported loiterers to the police. He observed that Lake Oswego was not one of the communities that was more tolerant of some crimes. Ms. Lomax indicated to Councilor Vizzini that the transportation mode (rail or bus) could make a difference in crime activity. She said that they tended to have fewer problems on buses because the operator was right there. However, on an overall per capita basis, it was a tough comparison between rail and bus. Councilor Vizzini commented that the Clackamas Town Center statistics showed an increase in crime (primarily shoplifting) at the Center itself, as opposed to on the MAX line. Ms. Lomax commented that she has not looked at the Town Center stats but she did know that the transit line has seen a double-digit reduction in reported crimes in the last two calendar years. Chief Forman indicated that he has looked at those statistics. He observed that statistical figures were not always what they seemed. He explained that one had to mine police statistics deeply and identify all the variables affecting any given statistic, such as shoplifting being up 140% at JC Penney's at the Town Center. He mentioned that the information behind the Clackamas Town Center statistics that would explain those statistics was not available. He described how police self -initiated activity — in which the police targeted a certain violation or a certain area for a concentrated policing effort— could create a misleading statistic. If the police targeted talking on cell phones while driving and wrote 50 citations in one day, that did not mean that there was a huge increase in the use of cell phones while driving in Lake Oswego. Councilor Jordan mentioned hearing that the Clackamas Town Center management reduced its security staff. She agreed that they had to look at this information from all sides, as one number did not tell the whole story. Commander Krebs reported that the head of security at the Clackamas Town Center told him that they were not seeing the Green Line bringing many problems to the Center. Commander Krebs indicated to Councilor Hennagin that his understanding from the Downtown Central Precinct officers handling streetcar issues was that officers did not ride the streetcar but rather responded on an on call basis. He mentioned that the transit police rode trains and buses quite often. Councilor Hennagin observed that the streetcar was more like a bus in that the operator could see what was going on throughout the streetcar. Chief Forman noted that the private security for the MX enhanced bus system in Eugene/Springfield rode the buses randomly. Councilor Jordan asked if there was a mix of local police and transit police handling the oversight of the platform and terminus areas. Commander Krebs said that region wide the local police had control over the bus stops in their jurisdictions. He described the transit police as an overlay for the local police department. He indicated that the mutual aid rendered by one police department to another also came into play. Ms. Lomax mentioned that TriMet did pay attention to the statistics and moved resources to address issues as quickly as possible. Councilor Vizzini asked if TriMet saw spikes of criminal activity during certain hours of operation. Ms. Lomax said that it depended on the type of criminal activity. She gave the example of car prowls, which occurred most often on Wednesdays with few if any car break-ins on Thursdays and Fridays. Commander Krebs indicated that they saw disorderlies on the train and bus after dark and car break-ins during the day. Mayor Hoffman asked if TriMet anticipated seeing any change in the number of incidents currently reported for Lines 35 and 36 for bus rapid transit or streetcar in the future. Ms. Lomax indicated that she expected any change to be negligible because Lake Oswego's current ridership City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16 September 28, 2010 population would transfer to whatever option the City provided, and Lake Oswego's bus riders paid attention to what was going on. Councilor Jordan asked who collected the information during the 45 -day comment period. Ms. Withrow said that Metro would collect all comments and summarize them into a report with an executive summary going out to the jurisdictions, the Steering Committee, and the CAC. She mentioned that the report would also include a summary of all the outreach activities Metro conducted throughout the DEIS process. Councilor Jordan asked if each jurisdiction could decide how to conduct the LPA process or if there a prescribed process. Ms. Withrow said that the local jurisdictions had discretion in determining how to process the LPA through their jurisdiction. She indicated that Metro would contact neighborhood, business, and civic groups as part of its public outreach. She mentioned that the local jurisdictions also had discretion about holding a public hearing process related to the local decision. Mr. Williams stated that he would get responses to the Council for all the questions that the members asked. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 8:03 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 8:13 p.m. 3.2 West End Building Site Study Work Group Report Mr. McIntyre recalled that the Council's direction to staff in January had been to return with a financing strategy for the West End Building (WEB). He directed the Council to the previous staff report that presented background information that he would not cover tonight. He mentioned three other reports in particular: the Strategy for the WEB and other City facilities (June 2009) (pp.11- 14), the City Manager's June 2010 report discussing his concerns related to refinancing the facility (pp.5-10), and the Davis Hibbitts & Midghall report summarizing the focus group activity (pp. 15-19). He introduced John Horvick, Davis, Hibbitts, S Midghall, and Brian Jackson, the architect hired by the City to help the Workgroup. He began the PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed the steps taken earlier to move towards a resolution (Slide 2). He noted that the Council's June 2010 discussion on the need for a permanent use of the WEB came from his conclusion that he could not develop a refinancing strategy until the Council told him what the building use would be, because the use dictated the strategy. He noted the Workgroup composition and charge (Slide 3). Councilor Tierney continued the presentation. He stated that he was the spokesperson for the three Councilors who served on the Workgroup. He indicated that the Workgroup took its charge from the guiding principle that the WEB was a long-term City asset. Its challenge was maximizing this asset in light of other City issues. He described the elaborate brainstorming process used (Slide 4), and the conclusions reached (Slide 4). He noted that the City Hall and Library sites were the two sites of vacated land under consideration. He commented that the Workgroup worked with the cards it was dealt. He indicated that these scenarios were not those that the participating Councilors would have developed if the Workgroup had had a clean slate. However, these scenarios addressed the constraints involved. He reviewed the initial building blocks (Slide 5). He noted the foundation elements of a freestanding building to house police, LOCOM, and the court, which addressed the seismic issues for essential functions and security issues for the police department, and the existing Parks & Rec uses retained in the WEB. He observed that the three options represented an increasing intensity of uses on the site, including moving City Hall or the Library and enhancing the Parks & Rec functions. He reviewed the factors considered during the Workgroup's discussions (Slide 6). He noted that they did not find any public/private shared use of the site that worked. He commented that the City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16 September 28, 2010 question of remodeling versus reconstruction was still open, as the costs were virtually the same. He mentioned that the site did contain sensitive lands that were not developable. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that the reference to turf fields at the high schools meant including replacement turf fields in the funding package presented to the voters as a potential assist to the high schools. Councilor Tierney reviewed the reasons behind the Workgroup deciding to seek further input to test their assumptions and scenarios (Slide 7). He noted that ultimately the public had to vote on this. He described their best strategy as bringing forth a realistic option that the community could and would support. He reported on the results of the two focus groups (Slide 8). He indicated that the Workgroup added two scenarios that were not part of the facilities strategy (sell and maintain the status quo) for a total of eight scenarios to test the full range of options. He reviewed the specifics of the focus groups (Slide 9). He mentioned that the Workgroup made a conscious decision not to attend the focus groups (with the exception of Mr. Jackson) on the recommendation of Adam Davis. He described the focus groups as a good, solid cross sample of the community that were as statistically valid as any focus group would be. He discussed the focus group findings (Slides 10 — 12). He mentioned that what the Workgroup heard was, once the City provided the information, the community was prepared to make this investment decision. He indicated that the information that the City would have to sell the property at a $10 million loss influenced the lack of interest in selling the building. He remarked that this did not mean that the citizens have overcome their objections and the strong emotions associated with the purchase of the building, but rather that they have moved on and were ready to make the best of it. He noted the findings on the police/911 and library facilities (Slide 11). He mentioned that Mr. Davis had both a summary report (pp. 15-19) and a detailed report (pp.21-83) on the focus groups, which brought out some subtleties and nuances regarding the library. He commented that his reading between the lines on the focus groups' strong opinion that the Council needed to make a decision on the WEB was that the Council was going too slow on this issue. He reviewed the information provided to the focus groups to guide their final choices (Slide 12). He mentioned that one focus group member (who might have worked at the School District) had stated that the Lake Oswego High School pool was susceptible to closure, which influenced people. He said that the Workgroup confirmed that, while it was a possibility, a closure was not on the immediate horizon. He reviewed the narrowing down of the options (Slide 13). He explained that the Workgroup eliminated moving the library to the WEB because of the opposition to moving the library out of the downtown. He discussed not moving the ACC to the WEB. He described the three options (#4, #6, and #8) forwarded by the Workgroup (Slide 14), which moved from the basic building blocks to a full option. He noted the slight variations between the options (Slide 15). He indicated that the cost ranged from $50 million to $75 million. He discussed the key considerations as they moved from one option to the other (Slide 16). He recalled the demographics presentation last week with the information that younger families looked for additional services, such as a pool. If the School District closed its pool, then the community might need to provide one. Councilor Jordan recalled hearing after the close failure of the bond measure three years ago that people did not want to pay for the building without knowing what the City intended to do with it. She mentioned that her purpose in going through this exercise had been to develop a scenario that laid out for the public how the West End property could fit in with the rest of the City facilities. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16 September 28, 2010 Councilor Tierney mentioned that the packet given to the focus groups included a schedule for the different amounts a household would pay based on assessed value for the different borrowing amounts across the different scenarios (p.19). Councilor Tierney indicated to Councilor Vizzini that any activities existing at the WEB today, including teen activities, would continue. He confirmed that the activity rooms and recreation facilities were an enhancement of what already existed. Councilor Tierney indicated to Councilor Hennagin that City Hall would fit in the west wing with a surplus of space. He noted the assumption that, in addition to the municipal court locating in the police building, the IT Department would locate there as well because one of their main functions was to support 911 dispatch. He agreed that locating the municipal court in the WEB and having police officers walk across the plaza to get to court was a possibility. Mr. Jackson continued the PowerPoint presentation. He mentioned that the Workgroup discussed extensively the quality level and costs behind the design assumptions. He pointed out that the renovation (as a complete investment in the building with the expectation of the building lasting a long time) was the equivalent of building new. Therefore, the costs of the two options were very close. He reviewed the drawing depicting Option 4 (Slide 17). He pointed out that City Hall was on the west side and the existing recreation programs on the east side. He mentioned that he included future expansion areas in all three options. He noted the drop off community plaza area between the WEB and the police station. He indicated the police secure parking lot next to their building and the public surface parking lot to the north. He observed that turning the center bay of the WEB into a public space would allow people to move from the north parking lot through the WEB and over to the police station. He commented that the budget numbers were a rough order of magnitude based on previous studies of renovation costs. He indicated to Councilor Vizzini that these drawings were preliminary, and they could easily align the drop off access road with the street across from it to form a full intersection. He indicated to Councilor Jordan that he did not include the natural resources area to the north of the parking lot in order to provide a large enough scale to see what was on the eight acres of usable land on the fourteen acre site. Councilor Hennagin asked if Mr. Jackson considered attaching the police/LOCOM section to the WEB. Mr. Jackson commented that that depended on the options and future planning. He pointed out that putting all the possible programs on the site in one building created a huge building with security and circulation issues. Councilor Moncrieff observed that this exercise had been to see how many uses could fit on the property; design was not an issue at this point. She reported that the Workgroup used all the studies done over the past four years in looking at building quality, sustainable buildings large enough to handle the City's capacity going forward. Mr. Jackson referenced the master spreadsheet (p.18) showing all the various numbers for the various components. He observed that spreading the site development costs around to the different program components along with the soft costs and other outside development costs created a complicated calculation. He emphasized that the cost figures were orders of magnitude. Mayor Hoffman commented that a $300,000 assessed value home would pay $120 a year to cover the land cost of roughly $40 million. Mr. Jackson reviewed Option 6 (Slides 18-19) that increased the program components on site to include a lap pool and expanded recreation programs. He noted the single level parking structure with parking on top needed to park the expanded uses. He mentioned the $37 million cost plus $57 million in land costs. Councilor Moncrieff commented that this would cost $170 per year for a $300,000 assessed value home. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16 September 28, 2010 Mr. Jackson confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that essentially the City Hall functions would move from 30,000 square feet to 45,000 square feet and the police/LOCOM would move from 9,000 square feet to 17,000 square feet. Mr. Jackson presented Option 8 (Slides 20-21), which added a leisure pool, a two court gymnasium, and a full fitness center for the full expansion option. He noted the two level parking structure with parking on top. He clarified to Councilor Vizzini that the two story volume spaces would be a little taller than the rest of the building, but not significantly so. He mentioned the cost with land at $79.4 million. Councilor Moncrieff indicated that this option would cost $226 per year for a $300,000 assessed value house. She observed that there was a $50 spread between the three options. Councilor Hennagin commented that building Option 8 would cost less than building Option 4, and then moving up to the next two options every five to ten years, because construction costs would be more doing it in three stages. He observed that a phased approach would spread the costs out. Mr. Jackson pointed out that the spreadsheet did not tell the Council what the market would do. He noted that a three -stage approach involved constructing the skin of the building three times plus the disruption costs and other soft costs. Mr. Jackson indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the chart on p. 19 came directly from Chip Pierce, which the consultants used for the focus groups. He clarified to Mayor Hoffman that the costs for construction were rough order magnitude numbers based on what was happening in the market; they were today's numbers. He mentioned that the numbers did not account for any potential escalation or inflation. Mr. Horvick answered questions regarding the focus groups. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that his team first contacted the participants by random phone number dialing. Their team then worked to make sure that those who agreed to participate were similar to Lake Oswego's demographics (pp.39-40). He said that no City staff attended the meetings, although Mr. Jackson was there to present information and answer questions. He described the focus group process (pp.42-44). He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that it was a 3 hour focus group (most focus groups were 1.5 to 2 hours), and that the participants received an honorarium. Councilor Tierney explained that the chart on p.37, which showed the focus groups' rankings of the eight options, helped the Workgroup decide on Options 4, 6, and 8. He indicated that the Workgroup took guidance relative to next steps from the final comment on p. 22 that the participants thought that the status quo unacceptable and they wanted the Council to make a final decision. Councilor Tierney continued the PowerPoint presentation. He mentioned Mr. Davis and Mr. Horvick's comments that this issue was ripe and ready for a vote as early as May 2011, once the Council made its recommendation. He observed that an informed voter would be very important. He reviewed the next steps, calling for more refined information and detailed scenarios (Slide 22). He mentioned developing design, construction, and operations costs and determining the structure of the financing package and GO bond (Slide 23). He noted that Slide 24 was a potential timeline for a vote. • Council Questions Councilor Olson asked if the Workgroup did any analysis for the operations and maintenance costs of the options. Councilor Moncrieff said that they considered operating efficiencies throughout every step of the process, including which services to combine for staff and energy maintenance savings. She noted that the leisure pool would generate revenue to cover much of the operating expense for a lap pool and other recreation programs. Councilor Tierney commented that they did not get into that level of detail, although they intuitively factored in things like the operational savings of renovating the building up to current energy standards. He suggested modeling it. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16 September 28, 2010 Councilor Olson recalled that historically the City Manager has resisted efforts by the School District to transfer their pool to the City because it was a money pit. She mentioned her involvement in a study 18 years ago when she was on the Parks & Recreation Board, and observed that pools were notorious for operating in the red. Councilor Jordan concurred that the lap pool alone would not generate revenue, but argued that adding the leisure pool would generate revenue because it could be rented out. She pointed out that a consideration in addition to operating costs was what the community was willing to support with its taxes. She observed that there was the potential for significant savings in operational costs through the energy savings of an energy efficient building. Councilor Olson commented that the total costs for all three options looked low to her. She recalled the $60 million plan for a community center developed by the earlier Task Force. She questioned whether $19 million was a realistic number for a major revamping of the WEB and $10 million for a new police building. Mr. Jackson indicated that the $10 million accounted for a new police station at $225 per square foot. He mentioned that Kaiser just built a new station at $175 per square foot. He pointed out that the $10 million was up from SERA Architect's 2009 estimate of $6.5 million. He observed that these numbers have been looked at closely with respect to the previous estimates. Councilor Tierney suggested a next step of refining and testing the costs given on the spreadsheet. He observed that the Council did not want to ask for an amount and then have to go back and ask for more. He reiterated the need to model these things in order to get comfortable with the costs before moving forward. Councilor Olson suggested re-looking at the estimated sale price of City Hall, given that the figures were two years old and from the beginning of the economic downturn. She referenced the facilities comparison on pp. 13-14. She asked why the WEB was not at the end of its service life when the other city facilities were, and the WEB was a couple of years older than City Hall and the library. Mr. Jackson explained that the insurance company took exceptionally good care of this building, including doing seismic upgrades, because it saw it as an essential service-type building needed to service its clients and to pay out claims in a catastrophic event. He said that the only upgrade not done was up to the current seismic code for an essential service building. Councilor Jordan recalled that the costs coming from the original community center study centered on building a new community center around the east side of the WEB. The task force had not been able to decide what to do with the west side of the building. Mr. Jackson mentioned that the building was about 116,000 square feet. Councilor Tierney argued that these were good solid costs for this stage of the process, developed by the professional (Mr. Jackson) engaged to come up with them. Councilor Olson observed that Chief Forman did not sit on the Workgroup. She asked if the Police Department has had any input on the findings. She asked if the Workgroup looked at any other sites for the police/LOCOM building. Mr. McIntyre indicated that the Workgroup did not look at any other sites. Councilor Tierney pointed out that the Workgroup's charge was to maximize the West End property. He acknowledged that a police/LOCOM building was not the highest and best use of the site, as stated by the Urban Land Institute study, but this was the reality. Councilor Olson wondered whether the police might like to be more separate from City Hall. Councilor Jordan commented that she did not think that the Department would oppose a site with good access and a new secure facility. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that a skate park near City Hall and the police station (similar to Tigard) was one of the considerations reviewed by Councilor Tierney. Mr. Jackson pointed out that he included a potential skate park on Option 8 with its structured parking, which would also work in Option 6. However, in Option 4, that land was needed for the surface parking. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16 September 28, 2010 Councilor Olson asked if the Workgroup discussed what to do if the City put out another bond measure and it failed. Councilor Tierney said that they did not discuss that far along. They wanted to put something forward that they had a high degree of confidence would pass. Councilor Olson concurred with that goal. Councilor Hennagin asked why the recommendation to re -grade the existing parking. Mr. Jackson explained that they needed a 2% grade in the parking lot to meet the ADA requirements. In addition, they wanted to increase the parking efficiency of the surface lot and provide enough spaces to accommodate the programs. He acknowledged that this was not inexpensive but noted that it cost less than structured parking. Councilor Hennagin asked if there was a way to pose a bond issue to give the citizens the option of either doing the whole project or Option 4 with the possibility of future add-ons. Mr. Powell indicated that they could have two different measures contingent on what happened to the other. Councilor Tierney asked Mr. Horvick if he saw an attitude in the focus groups respecting the quality of what they expected to see in this building. Mr. Horvick said that what they heard was 'plan it right, do it right, and do it right the first time.' Councilor Jordan commented that another possibility for discussion was seeing whether the School District might want to move its administrative offices into the extra space in the west wing and share the space with City Hall. She spoke to making sure that the people understood the options with a bond measure. She framed one option as whether to sell the building for $10 million and give up $10 million worth of services or pay X dollar amount per year to get a full service facility that would provide something in the long run for all citizens in the community. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Workgroup did not factor into the discussion about the leisure pool the fact that the property was only a mile away from the Mountain Park leisure pool, which served 25% of Lake Oswego's population. Councilor Olson asked if there was any information about the existing drainage issues in the current lower lot. Mr. Jackson said that he had not been aware of those problems. He mentioned his discussions with City planning about restoring the water quality treatment area to treat the water before it entered the creek system. Councilor Vizzini asked if the numbers on the sale of the City Hall property (p.17) included the demolition of City Hall. Mr. McIntyre agreed that, given the condition of the exterior walls, it would be prudent for the City to manage the building demolition. He pointed out that fine-tuning these numbers was one of the next steps. Councilor Vizzini mentioned that he would like a discussion about the community conversation to come. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Olson that the Workgroup did discuss including the $2 million needed for South Shore Fire Station in the bond. He recalled that Mr. Davis recommended not asking the focus groups about it. He mentioned the possibility he saw of using the savings accumulated over time by not paying interest on the WEB site out of the general fund to create enough of a new resource to pay for the fire station out of the general fund. He observed that the Council made the decision about what to include in the bond issue. Councilor Vizzini spoke of trying to preserve a quality of experience in the planning of this facility, and making it a place where people would want to come. He commented that, from a municipal business point of view, the site could lose its attractiveness if it had too many activities on site. Councilor Tierney recalled the discussions about a combination of public and private uses to make the facility a 24/7 facility, but they did not find any that would work with Parks & Rec, the Police Department, and City Hall. Councilor Vizzini asked if the Workgroup considered adding stories for a four to five story building at this site. Mr. Jackson indicated that the building was not structured for additional stories and it would be cost prohibitive to add floors to the building. However, other buildings on the site could City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16 September 28, 2010 have more stories. Mayor Hoffman recalled an example from Vancouver, B.C., of a police station with three to five floors of condominiums on top of it. Mr. McIntyre mentioned that the Workgroup kept the constraint of the current zoning. Mr. McIntyre mentioned two questions that the Workgroup asked Mr. Jackson: putting a commercial use along Kruse Way and putting housing somewhere on the site. He indicated that the site constraints meant sacrificing everything else to a commercial use along Kruse Way. Mr. Jackson indicated that neither a commercial development nor housing on the site penciled out. Mr. Jackson confirmed to Councilor Olson that the police building was three stories plus parking underneath. Councilor Moncrieff commented that these recommendations were what the Workgroup ended up with after looking at the City's facility needs, at every possible configuration of what they could realistically put on the site, at what made sense on the site, and at what affect a service going away had on the site. She concurred with Councilor Tierney that these three options represented the best options for solving the City's facility needs, given the cards in their hand. Councilor Tierney commented that the focus groups had not had a problem with either renovating the existing facility or building a new facility on site. Mr. Horvick concurred, noting that the similarity in costs was the primary factor. Mr. Jackson recalled that the groups always brought the discussion back to saying that if renovating the WEB yielded a 21 sc century facility that would last as long as a new building, then keeping the WEB was fine. Conversely, if building new structures did not cost substantially more than a renovation, that was fine also. Mayor Hoffman asked how one built a 50 to 75 year building. Mr. Jackson indicated that there were many factors that went into the design and construction of a building, from the early planning through the detail implementation to a quality builder. He pointed out that mechanical systems would only last so long. He commented that one always hoped that a building would last 50 years if not closer to 100 years. Mayor Hoffman commented that some would bring up the condition of City Hall after only 30 years and the School District's experience. He remarked that, at some point, someone from this table would have to reassure citizens that the City knew what it was doing. He cited the City's recent track record with the LOIS project, Hazelia Field, and Millennium Plaza. Councilor Hennagin mentioned that one of his concerns was to design and build a building that would last. He spoke of another concern of having sufficient expansion space to accommodate the increased services and personnel needed to serve a larger population in the future without having to re -build on a new site. Mr. Jackson commented that a large enough population (75,000 as an example) raised operational issues and the probability of multiple facilities. He noted that the building was originally designed to double the size of the west wing to the north, so there were future expansion opportunities. He observed, however, that a site could only hold so much based on its size. Mr. Jackson indicated to Councilor Hennagin that a new building designed to add stories on top of it would be a pro in the building a new building scenario. Councilor Tierney asked if the Council needed any additional information. Councilor Olson asked for more information on the water on site and better information on the pools. Mr. Jackson commented that Option 6 would likely operate at a loss due to the lap pool but Option 8 had a high chance of being a cost neutral facility because of the revenue -generating elements of the leisure pool, the fitness center, and the rooms available for rent. Councilor Tierney mentioned his expectation that the newspapers would cover this (the Review and the Oregonian). He said that he and Councilor Moncrieff had an opinion piece coming out on Thursday intended to establish the framework of what the Council was trying to do. He indicated that feedback and questions received from the community should go to Mr. McIntyre. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16 September 28, 2010 He referenced the public comment piece that Councilor Vizzini and Mayor Hoffman mentioned. He indicated that he had a sense of urgency to do that which the community was waiting for them to do. He described this as a positive sense because the focus groups heartened the Workgroup to say that there was an opportunity to deal with what the City had and to move forward. Mayor Hoffman spoke of developing a strategy to get the information on the eight options out to the Council, to its Advisory Boards and Commissions, to community groups, and to the public. He suggested a survey to verify if the Council was doing this work quickly and doing it right. He commented that the Council did not want to put a forwarded option on the ballot if 55% of the people preferred one of the other options. Councilor Moncrieff discussed her concern about time, given that they needed at least six months before the vote to get the information out. Therefore, the Council had to decide in October on the one option to put on the ballot for a May 2011 election. She expressed her hope that the Council could agree to move forward on refining the financial and other information and answering Councilor Olson's questions on the forwarded options. She explained that the Workgroup eliminated Option 3 because they felt strongly that the library was the economic driver and civic presence critical to the Downtown. Councilor Jordan mentioned the focus groups' minimal knowledge about the North Anchor study and the possibility of moving the library somewhere else. She concurred that they needed to educate the public and get the facts out about the costs. She agreed with Councilor Moncrieff that the Council needed to make a decision. She spoke of consistently presenting one option, but, if Councilor Hennagin's suggestion to put two options on the ballot was possible, then that was another option. Councilor Olson concurred with making a decision. She argued that the survey would be the results of the bond measure. She pointed out that the bottom line was that the City needed to pay for this property. Therefore, the Council needed to decide on what was the best option for achieving that goal. Councilor Vizzini remarked that this remarkable report provided a solid foundation for the level of planning where the City was right now. He argued that they needed to make a decision soon about one option and make the best case for it. He agreed with the analysis' finding that either the City did the full complement of pools or it did no pools. He observed that the outlook was sketchy for the plan to break even, even with a full complement of pools and sharpening up the numbers. He wondered what the City would do if the plan did not break even. He cited the context of the course of recent and anticipated development in the city and the existing community constituencies in arguing that the Council could make a solid case for Option 8 as the best option in the long-term. He cautioned the City to be very conservative in its cost estimates. He commented that a precinct analysis of the 2007 vote on the bond measure found that the East End did not vote and that the precincts with the highest support for keeping the building also had a high rate of defection in voting to pay for the building because of the unknown risk. He held that the electorate was ready to go. He suggested not going through a huge public process to get to the decision but rather that the Council select an option, tighten the numbers up quickly, and make its best case to the public. Mayor Hoffman commented that he could support moving forward quickly as long as the seven Council members all supported whatever the decision the majority made, and no one campaigned against it, whatever his/her personal preference might have been. Councilor Tierney commented that he saw an educational benefit in taking the options out to the community as well as obtaining a reaffirmation of what the three choices were that made the most sense to the community. He noted that each option had risks, with Option 4 having the lowest risk, based on the sense of the focus groups. He concurred with Councilor Vizzini that they needed to include the information on the long-term service aspirations over the next 30 years. He described City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16 September 28, 2010 Option 4 as managing what the community had, while the more risky Option 8 was leading the community. He agreed with Councilor Hennagin's suggestion to ask the City Attorney to craft a measure that allowed those options or perhaps Option 4 plus add-ons. Councilor Vizzini indicated that he liked the structure of the two measures as one for the base case and one for the enhancement to see what the people wanted. He argued that this facility was part of the branding of the community as a special place in the region for both younger families and active seniors. He pointed out that the $226 per year for Option 8 meant $20 a month for a state- of-the-art facility. Councilor Tierney cautioned that this was in addition to all the other City fees and taxes. Councilor Moncrieff commented that she heard the group discussing only Options 4 and 8. She suggested refining those two options with operating expense models and answered Council questions. Staff could then take the two refined options round to the Boards with the Council making a final decision by the end of October. She mentioned also asking Mr. Powell about the double measure possibility. Mr. McIntyre expressed his concern that the Boards and Commissions met only once a month. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the Council could convene them. Councilor Hennagin suggested holding a joint meeting. Councilor Olson observed that the Boards and Commissions already shared the Council's mindset. She suggested doing a survey similar to the We Love LO survey that the planners put together so quickly, or asking the question on Open City Hall in order to get additional public feedback. Councilor Moncrieff commented that she saw educating the public on the facts as critical to this effort, but she did not see surveys as educational. Councilor Tierney recalled that staff spoke to Adam Davis about whether the Council needed more research to inform its decision, and Mr. Davis said no. The Council needed to decide what to do and then inform the people so that they understood. He described going to the advisory boards as part of that informing, while Mayor Hoffman described it as a check in or a reaffirmation of the seven Council members' direction. Mayor Hoffman observed that the focus groups, while informative and helpful, were not scientifically and statistically valid. Mr. Horvick commented that the 16 people selected at random were representative of the community but not the Council's advocates. Councilor Olson mentioned that the focus groups were more valid to her than the advisory boards. Councilor Jordan commented that it was important to remember that the focus groups ended up saying that they would rather do everything at once rather than have the City keep coming back asking for more money in a phased approach. She suggested checking in with the advisory boards, the Chamber, and some other organizations in tune with the city to see what their reaction was to the Council's direction. She concurred with Councilor Vizzini that it took courage to leap out on the edge and go with the full option. She agreed that education in the next six months would be key. Councilor Hennagin agreed with focusing on Options 4 and 8 and dropping Option 6. He mentioned hearing anecdotally complaints from families (who did not live in Mountain Park) having to take their children to Tigard or southwest Portland for a recreation pool: they would like one in Lake Oswego. He said that he wanted to know how many people would use a recreation pool and how much revenue it would generate. Councilor Vizzini suggested taking this out to the interest groups who would campaign either for the bond measure or against it in order to identify the arguments that these groups would use for and against the ballot measure. He spoke to doing this before October 31. Councilor Tierney concurred with focusing on Options 4 and 8, with putting together an outreach strategy for implementation in October, with getting answers to Council questions, and with setting this for a decision at the last meeting in October. He agreed with Councilor Vizzini in terms of City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16 September 28, 2010 developing a strategy to reach those in the community both for and against the WEB to learn what their arguments were. He asked Mr. McIntyre if this was doable before the end of October. Councilor Olson questioned whether it was doable, given how much the Council had on its plate. She emphasized that it was time to make a decision. She indicated that she liked the idea of reaching out to groups other than 'the usual suspects.' She commented that, while she was interested in exploring the answers to her questions about Option 8, she did think that Option 4 had the best chance of passing in this economy. She reiterated that her bottom line was getting the building paid for and getting a new public safety building. She argued that the Council needed to select the option with the best chance of passing in order to accomplish those goals. Mr. McIntyre discussed his concerns about whether staff could accomplish this task in a quality, thoughtful manner by the end of October, especially in light of everything that the Council and the City going on right now. He indicated that staff could make it happen but he would have to pull resources from other efforts. He pointed out that, while the discussion has focused on the May 2011 election, the Council could put the measure on the ballot whenever it wanted to. He observed that this big decision has been on the Council's plate for many years. He advised the Council, as policy makers and decision makers, to think this decision through thoroughly, looking at all the strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons, around all the options. He indicated his desire that the Council feel certain that whatever it put forward would be successful, and that the decision not feel rushed. He held that the Council as a whole needed to feel comfortable and supportive of its decision as the right direction in which to go. He mentioned his concern that giving the voters too many choices was a tactic that could dilute the message. Mr. McIntyre suggested that he put on the next meeting's agenda an item to discuss when to hold a public hearing on the Council's choice of an option. He indicated to Councilor Olson that he presumed that the Council would want public input before making a decision from the dais. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON em r 10 Jack D o an, Mayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 September 28, 2010