Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2010-10-26 SpecialCITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 2010 Mayor Jack D Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. on October 26, 2010, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Olson, Moncrieff, Tierney, and Vizzini.Excused: Councilor Jordan. Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Denise Frisbee, Director of Planning, Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner; Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director; Susan Millhauser; Glen Lamb, Executive Director, Columbia Land Trust; Brock Howe, Environment Oregon; Amanda Dalton, Northwest Grocery Association. 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Glen Lamb, Executive Director of Columbia Land Trust Glen Lamb presented an overview and brief history of the merging of the Three Rivers Land Conservancy with Columbia Land Trust. The organization has four main focus areas: helping and offering incentives to landowners who want to conserve habitat land; working farms, working forests [pt 1 4:35] and also protecting urban green spaces via positive collaborative solutions. He gave a brief summary of the different programs that will continue, such as the Backyard Habitat program, noting that the Trust will continue with some programs established by Three Rivers including the program related to trails. Councilor Moncrieff was pleased they were committed to completing the Rosemont Trail and asked that it continue to be kept a top priority. 3.2 Statewide Plastic Bag Ban Information Susan Millhauser, City Sustainability Coordinator, introduced information on a potential Oregon statewide plastic bag ban. The program was brought up before the Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB) at their meeting in September. SAB determined it was an important project and asked that Council consider this proposal. Brock Howe, Environment Oregon, presented further information via Power Point about banning single use plastic checkout bags. More than 100 jurisdictions around the world have "banned the bag" including China and 40 cities and counties in the United States. The four main reasons to ban the bag are the oceans, consumers, taxpayers and business. An island of trash twice the size of Texas is in the Pacific Ocean that kills millions of sea life every year, and 12 percent of Oregon's marine debris was plastic bags. Consumers in Oregon use approximately 500 plastic bags per person, and more than 25,000 people have signed petitions in support of banning plastic bags. For taxpayers, the City of Portland estimates that it cost approximately $2.3 million to clean up storm drains and roadside litter from plastic bags and plastic film that cause flooding and damage infrastructure. A number of municipalities are responsible for waste disposal and landfills, and fences must be built to keep plastic bags on the landfill site to comply with federal law. For business, recycling companies have substantial cost to remove the plastic bags and film from sorting machines. Plastic bags cannot be recycled and only gum up the recycling process. Although plastic bags are free to consumers at check out, they pay for a portion through the cost of goods and retailers pick up the remaining cost. Large retailers pay 1 to 2 cents per plastic bag City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10 October 26, 2010 compared to 3 to 4 cents for paper bags. Small retailers can pay as much as 50 cents per plastic bag. A statewide effort to ban plastic bags was underway. Senator Mark Hass of Beaverton is making substantial progress. There is significant opposition from the chemical industry who has spent millions of dollars fighting the ban, as well as from out of state interests. More than 300 businesses have endorsed the ban campaign plus 20 plus in Lake Oswego. Amanda Dalton, Northwest Grocery Association, stated their priority was to implement a statewide solution as opposed to addressing local bans and ordinances throughout the state. They encouraged the Council, should it choose to take action, to implement a resolution supporting the statewide efforts. Ms. Dalton confirmed for Mayor Hoffman that the ban had the support of Senator Hass and Jason Atkinson as well as Representatives Gilliam and Dingfelder, who were aware of local efforts. She and Mr. Howe would be going into about ten cities and a couple counties in the next 90 days to ask for joint support. All those supporting jurisdictions would be brought to the state legislature in 2011. It was definitely a bipartisan effort. Ms. Millhauser clarified for Councilor Tierney that the City of Portland recently passed a resolution supporting a statewide ban, and implementing a Portland ban if statewide legislation does not happen in 2011. She was asking Council to support a statewide ban and if no statewide ban exists in two years that the Council would look at a local ordinance. Mr. Howe confirmed for Councilor Vizzini that there was a biodegradable alternative but it also required a high heat compost heap to decompose, so having bags in the oceans would still be an issue, for instance. Making compostable plastic also results in more greenhouse gas emissions. Ms. Dalton clarified for Councilor Vizzini that the statewide legislation would allow some plastic bags as long as they can be reused, and the ban involves all retail, not just groceries. The statewide solution would set a minimum paper bag charge at 5 cents. Mr. Howe added that Ireland had the equivalent of a 38 cent charge on plastic bags; Washington D.C. introduced a 5 cent charge on both paper and plastic last January and saw an 85 percent reduction in usage. The City of Seattle tried to impose a 20 cent charge, which was not well received. Seattle was now considering a bag ban instead of a fee approach. Mr. Howe, in response to a comment from Councilor Olson, agreed that plastic bags were reused by consumers. There would still be plastic bags around newspapers, bread, etc. Plastic bags could be purchased. Newspaper could be used for picking up dog waste. Mr. Howe confirmed for Councilor Hennagin that the biodegradable plastic water cups also required a high temperature to degrade. Plastic bags around newspapers were not included in the ban, only retail store check out bags. About 80 percent of the plastic in the ocean was from land based sources. Some plastic bags were recycled but were at the bottom grade of all plastics and could not be turned into other plastics very easily. A lot of plastic film is baled and sent to be burned at an incinerator. There had been some innovation in regard to turning recycled plastic into energy; however, the ways in which plastic bags become litter would still exist. Councilor Moncrieff was convinced it would be a good idea to direct Staff to return with a resolution supporting the statewide ban. Councilor Olson supported a statewide measure but not a local fallback measure. Mayor Hoffman supported the recommendation as requested and noted the support of the Northwest Grocery Association. Lake Oswego had a long history of taking independent progressive actions, such as being the first city to ban smoking in restaurants. Councilor Hennagin preferred the resolution to say the "Council may find it necessary to enact regulations" as opposed to "Council will find it necessary." As this would not come to Council until City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10 October 26, 2010 2011, he did not want to commit future Councils. Ms. Millhauser assured they would craft a resolution that would not commit the Council to taking action at this point. Councilor Vizzini noted that part of the political strategy, and the reason grocers were supportive, was to have enough municipalities around the state put the Legislature on notice that if it did not act grocers will have to deal with a crazy quilt of regulation at a local level. He wondered if "may" as opposed to "will" was significant enough. Ms. Dalton replied it was significant enough. David Powell, City Attorney suggested an affirmative statement be included supporting the citywide legislation. Councilor Vizzini confirmed it should be added not as a "whereas" but as a "therefore." Mayor Hoffman stated that City Council unanimously directs Staff to return with a resolution supportive of statewide legislation for Council review with the language of "may" as opposed to "will" as discussed. 3.3 West End Building Next Steps Councilor Tierney presented via PowerPoint a continuation of the topic discussed on September 28th regarding the City Manager's recommendation to offer certain options relative to the use of the West End property. He was asked to represent the Council from the City Manager's Task Force on the issue where he was a member along with Councilors Jordan and Moncrieff. Following previous discussions with Council, two options were chosen: Option 4, use the facility as a City Hall and police LOCOM court facility; and Option 8 which would include expanded recreation facilities. Brian Jackson, Architect, addressed space programs and associated parking. Option 4, roughly calculated to cost $19.4 million, $39.4 million with the land cost, was to build a new police 911 center and court facility at the corner of the West End Building (WEB) site; renovate the WEB for a new City Hall and for the existing Park & Recreation (P&R) programs; retain current surface parking of 385 stalls at the back of the site; design for future expansion. Option 8, with a rough estimated cost of $79.4 million including land, had the police 911 center at the corner, the renovation of the WEB for City Hall but also included the expanded P&R programs with the added enhanced fitness center, dual court basketball gymnasium, two pools, etc. This option also required structured parking with 525 parking stalls. He presented detailed options for space usage. In response to the suggestion of Councilor Vizzini that the administrative offices related to P&R be put under City Administration, Mr. Jackson stated Option 4 was dependent upon the P&R offices remaining where they were located as they were responsible for supervising the space. Mr. Jackson responded to Councilor Hennagin stating they could consider combining municipal court with the City Council meeting area. Laureen Livingston, The Sports Management Group, presented the cost and revenue projections via PowerPoint. They updated the analysis from 2007 for demographics, trends and service providers, including Mountain Park. Sustainability involved having a mix of programs and spaces to support those programs that provides something for everyone as well as a balance of revenue generating versus subsidized programs. The typical approach to municipal recreation and community services in terms of price setting was the private sector model, which was to charge the lowest possible price to encourage the highest possible use, so it was assumed that the goal was to be revenue neutral. The metric was how to engage the community to utilize the facilities with a strong base of consistent users. The city of Livonia, Michigan saw a rise in home sales and change in demographics almost immediately after building a very large recreation center. Recreation pools generate more revenue than their expenses. The gymnasium space could be used for a wide variety of programming and was very important to providing programs for youth and teens which were generally highly subsidized but could then generate revenue from adult leagues. A rental banquet hall for social gatherings could be used to generate revenue for other subsidized programs. The City's current City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10 October 26, 2010 operating subsidy was estimated at $747,000 in Option 4, not including the current interest payments on the land. Kim Gilmer explained an estimate of what was attributable to community center related expenses was included in the operating subsidy figure. Ms. Livingston continued that the cost recovery was about 31 percent currently. Option 8 projects a 91 percent cost recovery on subsidized operations. She shared examples of community centers enjoying 80 percent and even higher with greater cost recovery. Ms. Livingston responded to Councilor Olson that the populations of the communities given as examples varied and ranged from approximately 15,000 to 101,000. They did study facilities such as Club Sport and 24 Hour Fitness and considered in their analysis what their business has been like during the recession. They also considered the Clackamas Aquatic Park and the fact that they were currently operating in the red, but this a different kind of facility and was not on the same scale as the proposed Option 8 center. Councilor Moncrieff added that she was told that they originally wanted to construct Clackamas Aquatic Park to be a revenue generator, but in order to save up -front capital cost, they did not add the revenue producing spaces that the Board had originally recommended. Councilor Hennagin commented there were young families with children going to the Gabriel Park Recreation Center and Tigard Aquatic Center. He did not know that they would want to vote for a bond issue to build one in Lake Oswego in the current economy. Councilor Vizzini summarized that Lake Oswego's success depended on the space being designed to respond to changes the community demanded, the programming delivering value at a price and programming diversity into the space to get close to parity or beyond breakeven. He asked what the building needed to conform to these points. Ms. Livingston agreed it was about designing something that created value for the community it served. She also noted the importance of multigenerational facilities and cross cultural activities. Mr. Jackson stated that although Southwest Community Center and Firstenburg were comparable, the larger square footage of Firstenburg resulted in increased cost recovery. Ms. Livingston confirmed that Option 4 would not get to breakeven and that the greatest cost recovery it could achieve was 40 percent. Fee structure used, less than southwest, room in the market for higher fees. Mr. Jackson confirmed for Councilor Olson that Southwest Community Center was done with a parks bond measure that included trails and other improvements. The East Portland Community Center and Mount Scott were part of the same bond measure. Lake Oswego's citizens would be paying for the bond measure and for the fees. Ms. Livingston stated the highest fees used were $3.00 for a child, $4.50 for a youth or teen, $6.00 for an adult and $5.00 for a senior. The annual fee for a family was $725. The add-on fee for childcare was about $2.00 an hour. The fee structure used for the model were less that those at Southwest, so there was room in the market for higher fees. Ms. Livingston confirmed for Councilor Tierney that the breakeven projections and the confirming economics were based on operating expenses not on paying back capital. Additional supporting information could be made available in the form of supporting documentation for the numbers presented. As higher education resulted in higher participation, she expected Lake Oswego to be a community of higher participation. If revenue generating options were added to Option 4, it would look very similar to Option 8. Councilor Moncrieff said they needed to figure out the perfect mix to get away from subsidized and move toward revenue generating spaces. They needed to find the balance of how much upfront and capital expenditures the voters were willing to pay in exchange for reducing the need for the General Fund to subsidize the P&R operations. Option 6 was eliminated because they did not want to build anything that was financially unsustainable and cost more operating revenue than b ing currently expended. The goal was to break even or reduce operating expenditures. Ms. Livingston explained that the success rate of their projections depended on numerous variables, City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 October 26, 2010 but especially the facility's staff and management. Waivers to community room rental fees could cost $100,000 in revenue for example, as well as cost accounting practices. She believed they were conservative in their cost recovery numbers. Mayor Hoffman confirmed that Mountain Park was not still charging fees for use of the facility. It was included in the homeowner's fee. He wanted to know if Option 4 could become an Option 4 plus and drive the cost recovery from 40 percent to 70 percent. Ms. Livingston answered that Option 4B had explored what could be added to the existing facility and the resulting cost recovery money generated. The average cost recovery of that option was 46 percent as opposed to the current 31 percent. Because the facility was larger, the operating subsidy was the same, about $800,000. The pool was largely responsible for the difference. They could consider adding that to Option 4, which was basically Option 6, but the subsidy on Option 6 was $1.2 million. Councilor Tierney posited that they could consider Option 6 with a rec pool as opposed to a lap pool. Mayor Hoffman stated that would be similar to Mountain Park who had a rec pool and just two lanes of a lane pool. Ms. Livingston stated adding a rec pool onto anything by itself would not generate a lot of cost recovery. It was the combination of the pool with other facilities such as fitness so everyone would be engaged. Ms. Livingston confirmed for Mayor Hoffman that hospitals would partner with fitness facilities by providing to their patients a pass purchased from the facility at a discounted rate. A number of the patients would go on to renew their membership at the facility. Some orthopedic practices would set up clinics within fitness facilities for their patients. There were communities in the process of attempting to decrease the number of doctor and ER visits and increase the overall health of the community as a whole by partnering with fitness facilities such as in Kirkland Washington. She did not know if there were any other cities with a healthy city initiative. The City Council took a brief break at 8:32 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:44 p.m. Mr. Jackson presented facility expenses and cost planning via PowerPoint. At the West End Building, current actual expenditures are $264,671 per year; City Hall and the police station are $225,485 per year, for a total annual facility expense of $490,156. These figures included utility costs, landscape and grounds upkeep, janitorial services and all the regular direct expenses, but not any deferred maintenance or major projects, property taxes or interest on the building. Projected Option 4 facility expenses would be $146,351 for City Hall, $176,849 for Police/911/Courts and $145,000 for the Community Center for a total of $468,200. Projected Option 8 facility expenses would remain the same as Option 4 for City Hall and Police/911/Courts but the project expense for the Community Center would increase to $571,672. There would be an additional expense for the parking structure. The total projected expenses under Option 8 were $978,000. Regarding cost planning, the provided figures were just the rough order of magnitude, a detailed cost estimate would need to be considered. No engineering has been done to date, and all numbers assume the sale of the City Hall property at $4.1 million. He detailed the various facilities and presented a space planning design for Option 4. Total project cost for Option 4, less the property sale, was estimated at $19.4 million, plus $20 million for the financing of the site. Total project cost for Option 8, less the property sale, was estimated at $59.4 million. Although there has been substantial erosion to the market, the City Hall property was still considered high end and very desirable. Ms. Gilmer stated in addressing the groundwater issue that a small wetland exists on the property behind the WEB, and the groundwater was probably coming from a seep of some sort. The wetland would need to be delineated as part of the project. It lacked habitat value, so would not be placed on the sensitive lands map. As a wetland, it would most likely be under the jurisdiction of the Division of State Lands. On the north end of the property, a wetland area was delineated at the time of the Community Center study. There is also a stream that runs on the east side of Daniel Way. All of that would need to be addressed during the development. The wetland and stream are on a sensitive lands map. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10 October 26, 2010 Mr. Jackson confirmed for Councilor Olson the $4.1 million valuation was rendered in January 2009 and was net after building demolition. Not many people were buying land, but this was a prime location, and the right buyer might be out there for a property like this. Councilor Hennagin recalled that the value of the land was estimated at $6 million in 2007. rework, eliminate comma use, makes for a smoother sentence. Mr. Jackson responded to Councilor Vizzini that solar energy options were not in the current cost numbers, but would be easy to do as it had great south exposure. Lease partnerships were available as well as other mechanisms to explore. Councilor Olson recalled that last time there was some consensus around Option 4. They looked at putting forward something that would pass. The goal was to pay for the WEB and build a police building. Now, they were back to discussing a community center. She asked for clarification about the goal. A family membership pass at $725 yearly with property taxes added was $1000 per year. This was not what people had in mind to pay for the WEB building. Mayor Hoffman did not recall the consensus was to go with Option 4; Council had asked for more information. Councilor Hennagin agreed with Councilor Olson that there was more agreement about putting Option 4 to the voters. They reserved the possibility of having a second option for the voters to vote on the Community Center. The Community Center option was only half heartedly considered as a potential bond issue. Councilor Tierney recalled they decided to examine Option 4 and Option 8 in more detail, specifically with regard to questions that were addressed in tonight's presentation. This was all leading toward Council's deliberation and ultimate recommendation to the voters. Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Tierney that at the last meeting, Council decided to examine Options 4 and 8, refine the costs and consider the operating costs of both. After the information presented, she understood Option 8 could reduce the ongoing operating expenses. Although it would cost more upfront, Option 8 was more financially sustainable long-term and would allow them to provide expanded recreational opportunities for all members of the community while actually reducing P&R's draw from the General Fund. For years, the community has been expressing the desire for a community swimming pool and community center, which was the reason for the purchase of the West End property. She wanted to go back out and seek input from the community, particularly in light of the example given of Livonia, Michigan, where the trajectory of the entire city was changed by building a community center. Ms. Gilmer stated the 1990 P&R Comprehensive Plan suggested a community center, and there was a bond measure to acquire property for that. The 2001 P&R Comprehensive Plan also identified the need for community center spaces and aquatics facilities. A 2004 needs assessment identified the need for a community center/aquatics facility as the highest unmet need in the community. Councilor Moncrieff stated she was not prepared to take this opportunity away without more certainty that the constituents were not willing to pay for a community center at this time. Mayor Hoffman was also concerned about making a decision given the vicious cycle of Council having to defend its decisions. A mechanism was needed for engaging the public. He wanted more information about the Healthy Communities Initiative from Kirkland. A public-private partnership of some sort could drive down the cost. Councilor Hennagin stated that Option 4 did not exclude the possibility of adding pools and a gym at a later date when the economy was more robust. He agreed the biggest unmet need in the community was for an aquatic center, but the question was when it could be afforded. Councilor OI on was concerned they were getting off track, and that ultimately, they would have a bond measure that would not pass, and then there would be no public safety building or City Hall, City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10 October 26, 2010 again, and the WEB building would not be paid for, again. She suggested putting a bond measure out for Option 8 on the WEB site for a real community center, rebuilding City Hall at the present location and finding another site for a public safety building. She was still concerned about the study done two years ago that revealed most people in the community did not want City Hall to leave the downtown. Alex McIntyre, City Manager, reminded the City needed to maximize the use of the WEB to justify the $20 million cost. The 2007 plan left a lot of square footage vacant. The focus group showed the public was tired of the topic and wanted a responsible decision made. They wanted whatever was done to be done well and right. He did not feel Council had enough information to make a decision; they needed to define a process for moving forward and determine when to ask the voters this particular question. Last week, he met the Morgan Hill Parks Director and visited their Centennial Recreation Center. He was impressed by the activity at the center and understood the vision for Lake Oswego. The synergistic combination of services contributed to the success of Morgan Hill's center. The business model presented by Ms. Livingston was a proven business model. He suggested going back to the working group and returning with a recommended process to narrow the choices from two to one. Councilor Vizzini wanted something that would pass without too much trepidation. He suggested putting a two-step decision on the ballot and asking the voters to choose, but wondered if that process would doom both options. More information was not needed; the numbers needed to be firmed up to build a campaign around a two-step decision where they would make the case for each option and let the voters decide. He would support both Options 8 and 4; Option 4 was absolutely necessary, and Option 8 was integral to the City's future. Mayor Hoffman stated that he needed more information and would like a process. Councilor Moncrieff wanted time for both Council and the working group to digest all the material presented, and for the City Manager to return with a recommended process for moving forward. Councilor Tierney concurred and asked that Option 8 be brought back with a recreation pool as opposed to a lap pool. The recreation pool brought in revenue while the lap pool required a significant operating subsidy. He clarified for Mayor Hoffman that the lap pool was not factored in as a benefit to the community because it would save the school district $100,000 to $150,000 per year. The Task Force had not wanted to stray into political arguments versus gathering information to create a ballot measure. Mr. McIntyre stated that, anecdotally, putting both items on the ballot would doom the measure due to potential ballot confusion. Legally, the ballot could be constructed to have both items, but the question was what it would take to make the ballot measure successful. Mayor Hoffman clarified for Councilor Olson that he hoped they would all support whatever option the majority agreed on. Councilor Vizzini stated he would like to see a present value analysis of the operating deficit or surplus and project that over 20 years to see the cumulative affect of surplus or breakeven in the mix of options. Mr. Jackson replied that type of analysis would be challenging and expensive. Councilor Tierney stated that there could be minority opinions unless they went to the lowest common denominator. Mayor Hoffman reiterated that the model was that everyone would support any Council decision going forward, whether one was in the majority or minority. He agreed this needed to be addressed as part of the process. He and Mr. McIntyre would talk about the two or three things they wanted more information on and also work on the process and fit it into the agenda before the end of the year. Mr. McIntyre, in response to a request from Councilor Olson, agreed to gather more detailed information behind the analysis. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10 October 26, 2010 3.4 N ighborhood Enhancem nt and Neighborhood Program Review Sarah Selden, Neighborhood Planner, stated the Neighborhood Enhancement Grant Program was a longstanding program awarding grants on a competitive basis to neighborhood groups for various community enhancement projects. Staff identified neighborhood capacity and strength as an indicator of success for the Neighborhood Program overall and believed the grant program would provide an opportunity to pursue neighborhood planning goals. They proposed a shift from grants for community enhancement through landscaping in the right-of-way primarily, to enhancing the City's neighborhood involvement. The City would maintain the neighborhood signs as part of enhancing the right-of-way. Past neighborhood enhancement programs have encountered difficulties and challenges with landscaping projects. Page 23 of staff report featured a menu of different project categories as a starting point to explore ways of enhancing community and building capacity in neighborhood partnerships between neighborhood associations and business, schools and other community groups. Staff sought Council feedback as to whether the proposed grant categories and shift in focus would support Council and community goals, and conducting the program every two years rather than annually. Staff also proposed limiting the grants to neighborhood associations and the community organizations they want to partner with as opposed to allowing homeowner associations to participate in the program. Limiting the grant award to $2,500 per association project was also proposed to spread out the opportunities. Denise Frisbee, Director of Planning, in response to a question from Councilor Hennagin, stated the reason for shifting focus was that a review of the grant program revealed most of the grants had gone to landscaping projects, and problems arose regarding long-term maintenance, including irrigation, etc. A review of the Neighborhood Planning Program revealed uneven neighborhood membership participation, which makes a difference in the quality of the neighborhood plan implementation process. Councilor Hennagin noted the City was most likely to receive applications from the most active associations with the best leadership. Ms. Frisbee replied a core group of people are needed who want to build community capacity, and those were the same people Staff anticipated coming forward with a grant application. With limited Staff, they could not seek out neighborhoods that were not participating. This proposal would help stretch City resources to obtain the best long term results. Ms. Selden stated extra outreach could be done by calling the less active neighborhood associations to encourage them to apply or brainstorm projects with them. Some neighborhoods lack the involvement needed to take on projects. Ms. Frisbee noted that the proposal was vetted with the neighborhood chairs that were able to attend the quarterly neighborhood association meeting, and they liked the approach. Councilor Tierney said he was comfortable with the presentation as proposed. Councilor Moncrieff stated the purpose of neighborhood associations was to communicate land use issues to all the residents so people have an opportunity to talk to the City. A challenge in keeping a neighborhood association going was communication, which costs money; website development, maintenance, mailings and community building events all cost money. Emergency preparedness takes coordination and funding to do neighborhood inventories and training. She believed the menu was great and, as a past neighborhood chair, she fully supported the proposal. Councilor Olson said she liked most of the menu, especially the emergency preparedness. She did not agree with spending this money on Natural Step Training or neighborhood recycling, which was being done citywide by the Sustainability Board. She wanted to see the grants more focused on more tangible items for neighborhoods. The community wide garage sale day and dumpsters for a neighborhood cleanup day were a good idea. Ms. Selden clarified for Councilor Olson that the neighborhood signs cost between $550 and $600 a piece. Councilor Vizzini concurred with comments made. He asked how much staff time is associated with running a $25,000 grant program for ten grants. At this scale, it would be better to sit down with the neighborhood chairs as a group and plan the work described in the menu to form a program, rather than go through a grant process that needed to be administered and managed. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10 October 26, 2010 That program would then be shaped in partnership with Planning Staff and the neighborhood chairs, giving them ownership of the program. This would reduce the administrative burden and deliver the capacity building desired. Ms. Selden explained for Mayor Hoffman that Staff had considered expanding the Neighbors Helping Neighbors Program through this funding program under Community Building. She confirmed that two or three neighborhoods could apply jointly to do a community building event. Councilor Vizzini hoped the grant program would be used to strengthen the council of neighborhood chairs and strengthen neighborhood associations, which was the best way for the Planning Department to create a constructive, trust building relationship that is needed at the neighborhood level, while also increasing their capacity to lead and to communicate with Council and the City. Lake Corporation Request Jeff Ward, Lake Oswego Corporation, noted the letter sent to Council by the Board of Directors asking Council to reopen the matter of rear yard setbacks on Oswego Lake regarding boathouses and zero setbacks. He pointed out that if two neighbors agreed to push their boathouses to the property line, the Lake Corporation would allow them to make a common wall boathouse. Bob Barman, former Palisades Neighborhood Board Member, stated no opposition existed with the Lake shareholders. He noted that the Board had previously asked such property owners to move the structures together for easier painting and to avoid debris gathering between the buildings. He clarified that they did want the setback on other structures, so it was important for the additional wording to state that boathouses were allowed to go to the setback. Mayor Hoffman believed the Council agreed that the issue needed to be resolved. He stated the two options were to reopen the prior hearing or send it to the Planning Commission. He recommended it be brought back for the agenda for a decision next week about whether Council would address the matter or send it back to the Commission. Councilor Hennagin requested an opinion from the City Attorney next week about the process of reopening the hearing versus sending it to Planning Commission. Councilor Vizzini stated he was willing to commit to a process for Staff to move forward to get the issue resolved. He did not know if it was legal to reopen a hearing for work that had already resulted in an ordinance. Mayor Hoffman stated the choices were to direct Staff to send the issue to Planning Commission that night, or it could return to Council for deliberation. Given the time, he suggested that rather than a having a long legal explanation, it should return to Council next week. City Attorney Powell stated that referring the matter to the Planning Commission was the most appropriate option. However, the Municipal Code did not give Council a timeline for when a hearing is closed or not. Though reopening a hearing regarding a recently adopted ordinance was not typical, he could defend it. Staff could expedite referring it to the Planning Commission if that was the Council's direction. Councilor Vizzini expressed concern about proceeding in such an expeditious manner, but could agree with Council moving forward if parameters were clearly defined so this would not become common practice. After discussion of noticing requirements and how the timing might affect a shareholder trying to get a boathouse done, Council consented to reopen the hearing on December 7, 2010. Councilor Vizzini announced nominations were still being accepted for Unsung Heroes. The deadline was November 1. Any questions could be directed to the Citizen Information Office at City Hall. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 October 26, 2010 Councilor Ti rn y stated the MACC meeting for the public access issue would be discussed on Thursday. He accepted an invitation to appear at LONAC with Joel Komarek at their November meeting to discuss the water partnership. The other Councilors were invited to attend as well. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m Respectfully submitted, Robyn 6hristie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: N FebEiary 1 201 c D. Hoffma ayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 October 26, 2010