Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes - 2017-12-05 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES December 5, 2017 1.CALL TO ORDER Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meetingto order at 6:31 p.m.on December 5, 2017, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. 2.ROLL CALL Present:Mayor Studebaker and CouncilorsKohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, andLaMotte Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney;Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder; Bill Baars, Library Director; Cyndie Glazer, Coordinator of Volunteer Services and Programs, Library;Bruce Powers, Park Analyst; Ivan Anderholm, Parks and Recreation Director; Kari Duncan, Water Treatment Plant Manager; Anthony Hooper, Public Works Director; Erica Rooney, City Engineer; Leslie Taylor, Communications Manager, Police Department;Dale Jorgensen,Police Captain; Paul Espe,Associate Planner; Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director; Crystal Shum, Associate Engineer;Debra Andreades, Senior Planner;Shawn Cross, Finance Director Others Present: Parker Verhaeghe, P&C Construction ______________________________________________________________________ 3.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Studebaker led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 4.PRESENTATION 4.1Lake Oswego Reads 2018 Mr. Baarsdiscussed the backgroundof Lake Oswego Reads,which is based on a program originally presented in Seattle and now enjoyedin communities across the country. With Ms. Glazer’s support, the program in Lake Oswego has been extremely successful and is now emulated by a number of other cities, he reported.Nearly 10,000 participants enjoyed the featured book and related programs in Lake Oswego in 2017.He announced that the book for City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 1of 21 December 5, 2017 2018 would be Good Morning, Midnightby LilyBrooks-Dalton, anovel. After distributing copies of the book to Council members, Ms. Glazerhighlighted various program events planned in the community. She announced the January 8 kick-off, where 800 complimentarycopies of the book would be available to guests, thanks to the Friends of the Lake OswegoPublic Library. Also through efforts of the Friends, the book’s author would be appearing in Lake Oswego onFebruary 13. 5.CONSENT AGENDA Councilor LaMotterequested that Agenda Item 5.3 (Iron Mountain Park Engineering and Construction Documents Contract Award)be removed from the Consent Agenda so that he could pose questions. 5.1Approval of Meeting Minutes 5.1.1October 3, 2017, Regular Meeting Minutes Motion: Move to approve minutes as written. Report and Attachment 5.2Resolution 17-62, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Adjusting the Compensation for Charter Officers Motion: Move to adopt Resolution 17-62. Report and Attachment END CONSENT AGENDA CouncilorGudmanmoved the adoption of the Consent Agenda with the one item removed. Councilor Manzseconded the motion. Avoice vote was held,and the motion passed,with Mayor Studebakerand Councilors Kohlhoff,Buck,O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, andLaMottevoting ‘aye’.(7-0) 6.ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 5.3Iron Mountain Park Engineering and Construction Documents Contract Award Report and Attachments Councilor LaMotteasked forclarification on progress of the creek restoration,including assurance that the contract award before the Council did not include work within the scope of the existing contract for stream restoration and relocation. Mr. Powers, project manager,described the parallel paths of work on the stream and park, noting that work was not being duplicated; rather, it would be performed under two separate contracts by the same firm. He responded to City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 2of 21 December 5, 2017 additional questions about grading and soil studies as related to design. Councilor LaMotte posed additionalquestions regarding the project timelineandopportunities for coordination with the Woodmont Park project. He expressed concern aboutuse of consultants, rather than City staff, for paperworkasshown in the memorandum from ESA Associates (Attachment 1, Exhibit A). Mr. Powersexplained that these amounts had been provided to him prior to Staff’s subsequent streamlining efforts for the land use planning process. He responded to concerns aboutconsultanthoursfor neighborhood meetings, noting that this number would be updated to reflect that the work was performed largely by Staff. Next he respondedabout opportunities for soils removed from the site. Finally, he clarified the third item listed under Exclusions in the ESA memorandum (Exhibit A, p 5), related to trails. In response to Councilor LaMotte’s additional inquiry, heexplained that this exclusion was in anticipation of an eventual trails master plan. Mr. Anderholmadded that Staff believed the most effective planningand cost containment for these trails would be achieved through a future bundled process involving multiple sites. Councilor Gudmanmoved toauthorize the City Manager to sign a contract for Iron Mountain Park engineering and construction documents to ESA Associates in an amount not to exceed $384,180.00.Mayor Studebakerseconded the motion. Avoice vote was held,and the motion passed,with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, and LaMottevoting ‘aye’.(7-0) 7.CITIZEN COMMENT Gail Grimston, 1292 Cherry Lane Ms. Grimstonthanked the Councilmembers for their efforts to make Lake Oswego great.As a swimmer since early childhood, she discussed the importance of access to a community swimming pool. A warm-water pool would afford great benefits to those healing fromjoint surgeries. An upgraded pool facility would also provide opportunities for Lake Oswego citizens to acquire swimming skills, essential in an area surrounded by water, she indicated. Maya Barba, 16965 Chapin Way Ms. Barbadescribed her family’s useof the Lake Oswego School District pool over the years, including their current involvement with Lake Oswego Swim Club youth and masters teams. Constraints of the current pool facility do not meet needs of the community, she indicated: time and space is inadequate for the various users, including young learners, competitive swimmers of various ages and skill levels, and older adults seeking recreation and fitness. She emphasized the need for adequate deck space in an improved facility. Finally, she cited potential economic benefits to Lake Oswego if competitive swimming events could be hosted at asuitable community pool. In response to a question from Councilor LaMotte,Ms. Barbaindicated that a second pool for warm-up purposes would be important in anew facility. Bob Heymann, 1156 Cherry Lane City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 3of 21 December 5, 2017 Mr. Heymannreviewed the background of his involvement with the School District effort to plan for a replacement swimming pool. Among other considerations, a study commissioned by the Lake Oswego Swim Club earlier in 2017 had led to his advocacy for a School District/City partnership. This would allow for an aquatics center that offered more than pool facilities for School District athletes, but also a centerpiecefor economic development. Council was asked to explore the partnership opportunity. Brent Washburne, 3217 Fir Ridge Road Mr. Washburnecharacterized residents’ desire for a community pool as a quality-of-life issue that deserves serious consideration. The nearest 50-meter poolsare located in other cities, requiring drives of 30 minutes or more, he noted. Such facilities offer features that would benefit several segments of the Lake Oswego community, including School District athletes and Lake Oswego Swim Club teams; young families could be attracted to Lake Oswego, with resulting increases in home values and tax revenues. Councilor O’Neillasked about his preferred configuration, and Mr. Washburneindicated that a 50-meter pool with a bulkhead to allow for adjustment of pool space would be desirable. Jim Bolland,8045thStreet Mr. Bollandspoke on behalf of the Lake Oswego Neighborhood Action Coalition(LONAC)in opposition totheproposed consolidation of the Planning Commission and Development Review Commission(DRC).Representatives of 17 neighborhoods meeting on December 2 had concurred that consolidation would be very detrimental to the land use policy in the city. He discussed the differing functions of the two bodies: the Commission’s role in developing land use policy and DRC’s focus on interpreting and implementing that policy,in compliance with State regulations. LONAC concerns about the consolidation include prioritization of the time-sensitive DRC functions that would result, at the cost of land use policy matters. Because of the negative impacts on the community expected over the long term, Council was asked not to proceed with the consolidation proposal. Charles Ormsby, 170 SW Birdshill Road, Portland 97219 Mr. Ormsbyoutlined his concerns about land use cases related to the Tryon Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant,specifically with regard to proposed code amendments that would change setbacks onHighway 43.Because of constraints already existing on this street, he was also concerned about work orders related to theNorth Anchor Project and the adverse effects on TriMetbus operators making turns at the Highway 43/B Avenueintersection; scheduling and safety considerations for passengers were other concerns. Potential negative effects on congestion and TriMet scheduling could be an issue at the railroad crossings, he pointed out. 7.1Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up No follow-up on prior Citizen Comment was presented. 8.COUNCIL BUSINESS City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 4of 21 December 5, 2017 8.1Resolution 17-67, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council Adopting an Operations Manual Relating to an Intergovernmental Agreement Between Lake Oswego and Tigard for Water Supply Facilities, Design, Construction, and Operation. Report and Attachment Operations Manual Executive Summary Ms. Duncanprovided a brief review of the Lake Oswego-Tigard Water Partnership, formalized in 2008 by an intergovernmental agreement(IGA)between the two cities. As outlined in the Council Report, the IGA had stipulated the completion of anoperations manualfor day-to-dayoperation of the facilities(Operations Plan, provided as Exhibit A to Resolution 17-67). She highlighted contents of the Plan, includingthe supply facilitiesand how they will be operated and maintained, operating standards, water-quality goals, communications protocol, and emergency procedures. The Plan had been produced by an operations team of Lake Oswego and Tigard staff, meeting numerous times throughout the course of the project. She recommended Council adoption of Resolution 17-67. Councilor Buckasked if this documentset forth the management of the Partnership going forward. Mayor Studebakeradvised that the Planwas intended to guide operations, rather than governance. He reported that, having met with the Tigard mayor, it had been agreed that for the next year the two cities would continue the Partnership as provided in the current agreement. After that period,theymight consider changes to the current system of governance.Ms. Duncan noted that the Plan had been written with the intent to accommodate changes in governance. CouncilorGudmanmoved to adoptResolution 17-67.CouncilorLaMotteseconded the motion. Avoice vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Studebakerand Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, and LaMottevoting ‘aye’.(7-0) 8.2Maintenance Center Budget Modification and Contract Amendment Report and Attachments Mr. Lazenbyexplained that the matter before the Council was related to the final reconciliation of costs for theMaintenance Center project budget and contract. The total had exceeded the initial estimates, despite the excellent work of Mr. Hooper, who led the project for the City, and the support professionals. He drew Council’s attention to the list of needed items comprising the amended Guaranteed Maximum Price amount (Council Report, Attachment 3). Also, he noted that theproject was planned with a contingencysmaller than the typical 10-15%.He noted that the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) methodology used on the project was found to be somewhat more difficult to monitor than a typical design/build approach. However, the CM/GC process will be used going forward on theCivic Center and Boones Ferry Road projects;Staff intends to provide real-time projections throughoutthese two projects, based on City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 5of 21 December 5, 2017 changes made and their anticipated effects on the final costs. Thetime lag in receiving final costs contributed to the difficulty of projecting the overage for the Maintenance Center, he noted. Mr. Hooperannounced that the project had wrapped up approximately $900,000 over budget. In addition to a budget modification, Council was asked to amend the Guaranteed Maximum Price in the existing constructioncontract to reflect an increase of $1.2 million. A large part of the overage related to necessary additional site work that was identified, notably very large boulders that had to be removed. Another factor was unexpectedly higher bids from contractors in the robust market;this essentially exhausted the project contingency, he noted.Finally, he discussed challenges of forecasting costs under the fluid CM/GC process and the extended process of reconciliation and cost verifications performed by the project manager with P&C Construction, Mr. Verhaeghe. Both factors affected the timing of the request now before Council, he indicated. Mr. Verhaegenoted that the items listed as necessary additional work were not atypical; however, the list was longer than anticipated because the full range of unforeseen conditions was encountered. An exchange of questions and answers followed. Councilor Buckinquired about negative impacts of the unforeseen conditions on P&C Construction and how responsibility forthe additional costs wasdetermined. Mr. Verhaeghenoted that virtually all of the added costs relate to work by sub-contractors to address these conditions; the contingency had been applied entirely to other items. Mr. Hooperclarified that P&C receives only a fixed fee of about $310,000, which includes their overhead, and that the additional amount for construction costs was only for payment to sub-contractors. In response to Councilor O'Neill’s question, Mr. Hooperconfirmed that approximately $350,000 of the requested increasewas attributable to upgrades requested bythe City andnot included in the original project scope. Councilor Manzasked about expected trade-offs if Council were to approve the requested changes. Mr. Hooperindicated that the difference would be paid from the Public Works Management Fund. He outlined a variety of cost- savings measures that the Public Works Departmenthad employedover time; these savings now enabledsignificant budgeted funds to be committed to theprojectoverages. Councilor LaMotte observedthat increased savings in City operations costs could be expected with completion of the Maintenance Center. In response to his question, Mr. Verhaegheconfirmed that payment to the sub-contractors was up to date.Councilor Gudman characterized the over-budget situation as unfortunate but not unlike other projects in the region that faced similar site challenges.He endorsed Mr. Lazenby’splan to provide periodic updates to the Council for thetwo major upcoming projects, to include: budget, expenses to date, and estimated total cost. Mayor Studebakermoved to modify the project budget from $13,632,000 to $14,532,000 and to authorize the City Manager to amend the existing contract with P&C Construction by increasing the Guaranteed Maximum Price forconstruction from $10,631,000to $11,869,000for the new Maintenance Center.CouncilorGudmanseconded the motion. Avoice vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Studebakerand Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, andLaMottevoting ‘aye’.(7-0) City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 6of 21 December 5, 2017 8.3Resolution 17-65, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Amending Resolutions 17-08 and 17-37 Regarding Transportation System Development Charge Rates Report and Attachment Mr. Lazenbynoted thatResolution 17-65 was the culmination of Council’s direction to Staff in related study sessions earlier.He advised that Ms. Rooney was available for any questions. Councilor LaMottemoved to adoptResolution 17-65 regarding Transportation System Development Charges. Councilor Buckseconded the motion. Councilor Gudmanstated that he would be voting in favor of adoption, while noting that there would be future related trade-offs for the actions taken. This would involvedeferral or elimination of projects that that had previously been budgeted and funded, heobserved. Councilor Manzpointed out that Transportation SDCs, if set at 100% of the maximum defensible rate, would have funded all eligible projects. With confirmation from Ms. Rooney, she advised that where public safety was at issue, funding options other than SDCs were available.Councilor LaMotteinquired about upcoming development projects that mightbe subject to the new transportation SDC rates based on the30%formula.Ms. Rooneyadvised that the new rates would apply to projects that enteredthe building permit review process after January 1, 2018. This would potentially include the 3rd and B and North Anchorprojects; she reminded Council that the full amount would not apply, however, as these developmentswould receive a credit or reduction based on the prior uses. Avoice vote was held,and the motion passed,with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, and LaMottevoting ‘aye’.(7-0) 8.4Resolution 17-69, AResolution of the Lake Oswego City Council Authorizing Leasing Land at Cooks Butte Park to the Clackamas 800 Radio Group for a Public Safety Emergency Communications Radio Tower Report and Attachments Ms. Taylor, accompanied by Captain Jorgensen, presented an overview of the Clackamas 800 Radio Group(C800) project (Council Report and Attachments) and the potential lease agreement forCouncil consideration (Exhibit 1 to Resolution 17-69). She outlined the background of the IGA between Lake Oswego and other public safety agency partners in Clackamas County. Since 2000the users, now encompassing virtually all public safety and other agencies in the County, have been served by an 800-MHz analog radio system.With passage of a2016 bond measure, the C800 board has moved forward to upgrade the analog system toa standards-based digital system.As described in the Council Report,the new digital system calls for additional tower sites to ensure that coverage goals are achieved. The current analog system does not include tower sites in Lake Oswego, and C800’s site acquisition and system design teams determined that the city needed enhanced tower coverage. They identified two potential Lake Oswego sites, based City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 7of 21 December 5, 2017 on several considerations, including availabilityof the property, coverage improvement, and effect on visual aesthetics for the community. Ms. Taylordisplayed slides to illustrate multiple photographic views of the two proposed locations: at Cooks Butte and near the intersection of Bergis Road and Upper Cherry Lanein unincorporated Clackamas County(Attachments 2 and 3 to Council Report). Simulationsof the views showing the proposed tower were compared, and advantages of both were outlined. Based on the Group’s determination that it best achieved coverage and other needs, the Cooks Butte site was favored. Availability was another advantage, as theCity owns the land. Finally, she discussed graphics showing the tower structure design and site plans. In response to questions from Councilor Buck,Ms. Taylorhighlighted construction processes, tower conversions to digital, planning, and necessary approvals as elements of a lengthy timeline. Thegoal for implementation of the new system was early2019, she reported.Conversion from analog to digital in itselfbeing a complex process, the Groupwould be involved in a significant planning effort. The coordinated work of many people in technical, first responder, and communications center roles in both Clackamas and Washington counties was required.As at present, one of the communication centers would monitor the towers themselves via remote camera. Councilor O'Neillexpressed interest in seeing that towers were painted in a color that would minimize visual impact.Ms. Taylorindicated that this determinationwould be included in the planning process. Mayor Studebakermoved to passResolution 17-69.CouncilorManzseconded the motion. Avoice vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, and LaMottevoting ‘aye’.(7-0) 9.PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.1Ordinance 2757,An Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council Amending the Zoning Map toChange the Zone Designation for Northerly Portion of the Property at 1770 Ridgecrest (21E09BA00300);from R-10 to R-15, and Adopting Findings (LU 17-0024). Ordinance 2767, An Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council Amending the Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Maps to Change the Zone, Comprehensive Plan and Overlay District Designations for the Tax Lot Located at the Southern Portion of 1774 Ridgecrest (21E09BA00400);from R-15 to R-10, and Adopting Findings (LU 17-0024). Report and Exhibits Mr. Powellread the titles for Ordinances 2757 and 2767. He reviewed parameters for thisland use request. Noting that the hearing process was shown in the agenda, he outlined the time limits for testimony. As the hearing would be conducted as a quasi-judicial proceeding, he related additional applicable parameters. Next he called for any declarations by City Council members with relation to ex parte contacts, bias,or conflictsof interest. Councilor Gudmandeclared that, having known the property owner for many years,he had spoken with her briefly at a social event City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 8of 21 December 5, 2017 and had received a telephonevoice mail message from the property owner’s daughter. Both communications were documented in the material provided to the Council, he noted, stating that it would not impacthis ability to be impartial in the matterbefore the Council. Mr. Powellnoted that any party testifying at the hearing would be permitted to rebut the information provided by Councilor Gudman, although, as stated,this evidence already was in the record.He called for any other declarations from Council members, and none was heard. Finally, he asked if there was any objection by a member of the audience who wished to challenge a City Council member’s right to hear the application; no challenges were heard. Staff Report Mr. Espenoted that the proposed amendments to the Zoning Map for the two properties were part of the City’s ongoing process to ensure consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. As detailed in the Council Report, testimonyin opposition was received in regard to the proposed R-15 Zoning Map designation for the property at 1770 Ridgecrest Drive, both from the propertyowner and from a representative of the Uplands Neighborhood Association. He noted that the merits of whether or not the zoning is appropriate for this or other parcels was neither the focus nor the scope of the map revision process. With accompanying slides, he discussed the designation of R-15 over the entire property at 1770, as shown on the existing Comprehensive Plan Map;he compared it to the 1774 Ridgecrest parcel directlyto the west, which had a split Comprehensive Plan designation of R-10/R-15.With regard to the property owner’s concern that the amendment would reduce the development potential of the 1770 parcel, he described Staff’s analysisof the property itself,including two development scenarios (Council Report, p 2-3 and Exhibit D-2); no reduction of development potential had been identified. He advised that a rezoning of the southern portion of 1770 to R-10, as requested by the owner, would be inconsistent withthe Comprehensive Plan designation of R-15 and would also be outside the scope of this application and the notification for this hearing. It was not the appropriate proceeding for seeking a change to the Comprehensive Plan designation or zoning for the southern portion, he concluded. Councilor O'Neillquestionedthe need to pursuethe zone change.Mr. Espenoted Staff’s commitment to a consistent process in resolving inconsistencies between the maps. Staff had adhered to the process with the 1770 property. Since the owner had contested the change of zoning designation, Staff was required to see the process through to its end,he observed. Councilor Buckposed questions about the background of current zoning in the area adjacent to 1770 Ridgecrest.Mr. Esperesponded, describing the Comprehensive Plan as the guiding document, but indicating that Staff also had occasion to identify and question designations in the Plan. These, too, would be brought forward through the quasi-judicial process for the sake of transparency, he advised. In addressing Councilor LaMotte’s questions about the need for zone changes and viability of future development on the 1770 parcel, Mr. Espenoted that Staff had regarded a change to R- 10 as possibly being misleading to a future property buyer, among other considerations. Councilor Gudmanasked about reasons for the Uplands Neighborhood’sopposition testimony before the Planning Commission.Mr. Espeindicated that this was largely related to the unclear designation on the 1978 Comprehensive Plan Map and the Neighborhood’s perception that the City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 9of 21 December 5, 2017 parcelat 1770 was closer in size to the parcels to the west, which were designated R-10 as opposed to R-15.The potential for future issuesof this type wasminimized by digital mapping, he added. Testimony Marie Sorensen,1770 Ridgecrest Drive,ceded her time to her daughter. Melinda Stuart,2813 Harborview Drive,Gig Harbor, Washington 98335, daughter of Ms. Sorensen, conveyedthe shock experienced by her mother upon learning of the proposed zone change. She described her difficult position,including concerns about the tight timeline and the need to hire an attorney to assist with the process. The high cost to Ms. Sorensen if she were to initiate a zone change request herself was another source of distress. She described the inequity of thezone change to R-15 in comparison to the R-10 designation for the property at 1774; also, her mother’s property was dissimilartotheR-15 properties to the east. The changeto R-15 would be detrimental to her mother as it would preclude any future possibility of development on an additional lot, she stated. The Planning Commission had failed to consider several options that might allow for future development of the lower portion of the property, which she outlined. The Neighborhood Association’s advocacy was a compelling reason for Council to change the designation to R-10. Finally, she described concerns about the process and the options afforded to the property owner. Councilor O'Neillpointed out that an R-15 designation would be advantageous to the property owner as it could allow a future buyer to build a larger home as compared to R-10designation. Brief discussion about the potential for two R-10 lots followed, with Ms. Stuartreiterating her mother’s desire for the same opportunity provided for the 1774 property.In response to questions from Councilor Kohlhoff, Mr. Espeindicated that the matter of equity was extraneous to the determination for 1770. Jamie Howsley,Jordan RamisPC, 2 Centerpointe Drive,#600 Introducing himself as Ms. Sorensen’s attorney, Mr. Howsleydiscussed background of the proposed changes initiated by the City, which had not involved conferring with his client until late in the process. The proposed changes contradict Ms. Sorensen’s understanding of the property and its zoning, he observed. He displayed a chart showing street frontage and parcel size for nearby properties with designations of both R-10 and R-15; in comparison to these properties, he suggested that the data should make it clear to Council that the correct designation for 1770 Ridgecrest is R-10. The practical question relates to Ms. Sorensen’s ability to further partition her parcel, which he believes could be developed with an additional lot; the proposed zone change would preclude this possibility.This is a matter of equity,he stated, and the most appropriate Council action would be either (1) to maintain the existing zoning and leave the Comprehensive Planunchanged and inconsistent with the zoning; or (2) move tochange the zoning designation to R-10and have the matter re-noticed. Councilor Manzasked for background on the determination that the Sorensen property was the dividing line between the parcels zoned R-10 and R-15. Mr. Espe indicated that this was unclear and had not been a subject of analysis.In response to a question from Councilor Buck, he City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 10of 21 December 5, 2017 described the extensive public process involved with adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 2014.Councilor O'Neillrequested verificationof the one-week advance notice reported by the property owner and any other communications from the Cityspecifically with Ms. Sorensen.Mr. Espedescribed the public review draft provided initiallyand a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed zonechanges a month or more before the process began. Mayor Studebakercalled for any additional testimony. No requests being heard, he closed the hearing. Councilor O’Neill expressed concern that the City had not taken the opportunity to communicate directly with the property owner when this would have offered a simple solution. Mayor Studebakeradvised that he wished to have Council address the two ordinances separately. With regard to the 1774 Ridgecrest property hemoved to adopt Ordinance 2767. Councilor Buck seconded the motion. A voice vote was held, and the motion passed, with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, and LaMotte voting ‘aye’. (7-0) Mayor Studebaker moved to adopt Ordinance 2757. CouncilorBuck seconded the motion. Discussion and additional questions of Staff followed. Mr. Especlarified zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations and lot details for 1770 Ridgecrest in response to questions from Councilor Manz.Councilor Buckopined that the testimony relating to the frontages in comparison to this property had no bearing on why the Comprehensive Plan reflected the R-15 for 1770. It was important that Council respect the Plan processand the consistent approach for making such amendments.As to equity, applying this process consistently was the priority. For these reasons, he stated, he would be voting in favor of enacting the Ordinance. Councilor O’Neillquestioned the accuracy of the R-15 designation in the Comprehensive Plan. He considered it very unlikely that the parcel would ever be split, but did not believe the City should be changing the zoning; therefore, he indicated that he would be opposing adoption of the Ordinance. Councilor Kohlhoffrequested clarification about equity between lots as a factor to be considered. Mr. Siegelreiterated that the Planning Commission goal and assignment to Staff was based on Council’s direction to reconcile the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning. He offered guidance on how the Council could proceed if they did not support the change for this property. It appeared that the owner was requesting Council to revise the Comprehensive Plan and to make the zone change to R-10 now. This was outside the scope of the matter before Council, he advised. Brief discussion of additional concerns and alternatives followed. Councilor Manzindicated that she would vote against the Ordinance, expressing concerns about the compatibility and consistency with zoning of properties on either side of 1770. A ‘no’ vote seemed the simplest means of solving the problem without an extended process, she noted. Councilor Gudmanstated that he would also be voting ‘no’, with a proviso for Staff follow-up. City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 11of 21 December 5, 2017 Aroll call vote was held, and the motion failed,with CouncilorBuckvoting ‘aye’. Mayor Studebakerand Councilors Kohlhoff, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman,andLaMottevoted ‘no’.(1- 6) At Mr. Powell’s suggestion, the Council discussed the findings that Staff would prepare to bring to the December 19 Council meeting. After several exchanges, including input from Mr. Siegel andMr. Powell,it was determined that Council’s consensus was to start with the Planning Commission, asking that the Commission undertake the process to propose a Comprehensive Plan change to R-10 for this property. Staff would return to Councilonly with findingsfor adoption. Mr. Powellconfirmed that the decision would be final upon adoption of findingson December 19 at 3:00 p.m. 9.2Road Legalization Proceedings Under ORS 223.935 for Portions of Boones Ferry Road and Lanewood Street at 16480 Boones Ferry Road (US Bank), 16444 Boones Ferry Road (Round Table Pizza), 16463 Boones Ferry Road (Olson Memorial Clinic), and 15630 Boones Ferry Road (Commercial Center at Boones Ferry and Lanewood) Report and Exhibits Mr. PowellexplainedthatStaff was recommending a continuance for the legalization proceedings for three of the four properties. With regard to the US Bank (16480 Boones Ferry Road) and Round Table Pizza(16444 Boones Ferry Road) properties, agreement on terms of legalization and other acquisition efforts had essentially been reached; additional time was recommended while documents were being prepared. The continuance was also recommended for the Olson Memorial Clinic property (16463 Boones Ferry Road), for which he reported significant progress was being madetowardsettlement. However, this property presented a number of complex issues relating to aspects of acquisition beyond the legalization; it would benefit both the City and the property owners to resolve these. Therefore, Staff recommended that the hearings on the first three properties listed be continued to January 2, 2018. CouncilorGudmanmovedto continue the road legalization proceedings related to 16480 Boones Ferry Road (US Bank), 16444 Boones Ferry Road (Round Table Pizza), and 16463 Boones Ferry Road (Olson Memorial Clinic)for public hearing on January 2, 2018.Mayor Studebakerseconded the motion. Avoice vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, and LaMottevoting ‘aye’.(7-0) Mr. Powellnoted that the next matter before Council was related to 15630 Boones Ferry Road, for legalization of certain areas on Lanewood Street and Boones Ferry as set forth in the City Engineer’s Report.Advising that the public hearing process was outlined in the agenda, he recommended that Council offer a time limit of 10 minutes for testimonyby any owner of property adjacent to the area proposed to be legalized. Next, Mr.Powellasked if any City Council members needed to make any declarations with relation to conflicts of interest, bias,or ex parte contacts. Councilor Gudmanadvised that he had attended high school with an owner of the City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 12of 21 December 5, 2017 property, David Nepom,40 or more years earlier. This would not impact his ability to be fair and impartial in the discussion, he stated. Mr. Powelldrew Council’s attention to a legal brief filed the previous day by Mr. Nepom (Exhibit 102)andalsoto a brief in response from Clark Balfour of Cable Huston LLC, who is assisting the City(Exhibit 103). Staff Report Introducing herself as project lead for the Boones Ferry Road Project, Ms. Shumreviewed the basis under State law for the legalization proposal, as provided in ORS 223.935 and noted in the Engineer’s Report (Exhibit 101, p 1-2). In the course of obtaining property needed for the road project, Staff had discovered thatdedication records could not be found for small portions of right of way of both Lanewood and Boones Ferry. As detailed in the discussion of the Commercial Center property (Engineer’s Report, p 5-6), she provided background on the property and related records from the time of its annexation to the Cityand developmentin 1978.She described how it was required by the development review approval to have dedicated a 10 foot additionalstrip to the City for Boones Ferry Road and an additional five feet on Lanewood. The 1978 staff report recommended dedication of the 10-foot and 5-foot strips as conditions of approval. She noted that these future right-of-way lines were shown in Exhibit 40 to the Engineer’s Report, the site map.She discussed accompanying PowerPoint slides(Exhibits 40-51to the Engineer’s Report). Included was the 1978 development site plan (Exhibit 40) that indicated the intended rights of way that were to have been dedicated, noting that the new right-of-way line shown for Lanewood is in line with the sidewalk improvement that was done on Lanewood. She also pointed out the proposed right-of-way line shown along Boones Ferry and noted that it corresponds with the back of the sidewalk as it is today. She stated that for this particular projectthe additional areas were supposed to be dedicated at that time, and the site map shows those to be dedicated, but the City does not have the supporting documents. Numerous photosamong theexhibits to the Engineer’s Reportwere displayed in showingthat the public sidewalks along Boone’s Ferry moved to its current location following the 1978 development and that the sidewalks on both Boones Ferry and Lanewood streets have remained in the same locations since that time. She described these as public sidewalks that connect to other public sidewalks. She also identified the power poles in the area, and noted that power poles are placed either within the right-of-way or in public utility easements. She stated that there are no utility easements for these poles, whichdemonstrates that the area is right-of-way. In concluding, she identified the right of way on a photo of the Boones Ferry/Lanewood corner (Exhibit 51) as being at the same location as when it was supposed to have been dedicated to the City in 1978. She stated that the public uses the sidewalks, without any barriers topublic use, and staff regards these as public sidewalkswithin theright of way. Questions of Staff In response to questions from Councilor LaMotte,Ms. Shumprovided information about the future Boones Ferry Road alignment and other aspects of the Lanewood intersection adjacent to the subject property. Councilor Buckrequested clarification of Exhibit 40, and Mr. Powellindicated that this showed theapproved building planfor development of the property in 1978. He confirmed that a public City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 13of 21 December 5, 2017 sidewalk would not be constructed on private property unless it was in the right of way or a public sidewalk easement. In continuing discussion, he highlighted the need for Council to consider the exhibit in the context of the preceding exhibits, which substantiated the intention that the right of way be dedicated as shown.He pointed out that the Engineer had recommended the dedication, the staff report had recommended the dedication as a condition of approval, the applicant included the recommendations, including the right-of-way, as part of the submittal which was approvedby the Design Review Board, and the sidewalks were constructed within the new right-of-way lines. He said that nodedication document can be found and that either someone failed to ask for the document, or the document was received but was misplaced and never recorded. Councilor Buckinquired about Mr. Nepom’s claim in the recent brief(provided separately to the Council) that the owners had been paying property taxon the parcel, inclusive of the right of way in question.Mr. Powellnoted that thiswasan issue separate from the matter before the Council. However, he discussed the issue briefly, touching onresponsibilities of an owner when buying property to look not just to the records but also to what can be observed visually, including public sidewalks and utilities. He also addressed considerations related to tax assessment. Councilor O'Neillinquired about responsibility for the corner landscaping as shown in Exhibit 51, dated 2016. Ms. Shumadvised that the landscape restoration work there was likely related to the curb-ramp retrofit, and as such, was amongcostspaid by First Citizens Bank for their new developmentacross the street. The owner of the private property was paying for ongoing maintenance of the landscaping, she indicated. In response to a request from Councilor Manz,Mr. Powelldiscussed various ways that road usage might be a consideration in different processes,such as a city claim of prescriptive rights, or adverse possession. He discussed similarities and differences in comparison to the legalization process. Testimony DavidNepom,3718 SW Condor Avenue, Ste. 100, Portland 97201 Mr. Nepomdescribed the ownership of the property at 15630 Boones Ferry Road and introduced himself as one of the owners. When they purchased the property in 1998, the owners relied on the surveyed records that reflected 39,000 square feet, the same as the assessor’s records related to property taxes they have been paying; they also have maintained the parking strip and landscaping area.They view the property as different fromthe other properties being considered for legalization: Unlike the other three properties, this one does not involve portions of property that extend into the traveled road. He disputedthe City’s statements about the property line, which he said meanders, and stated that the City already owns part of the sidewalk and parking strip, while he and his family own the remainder of the sidewalk and strip. .He said that the City had insistedthat the sidewalk be fixed, which he did. He also said that two or three years agothe City had required him to lower the landscaping in the parking strip that was blocking vision at the corner.He recognized the proposed condemnation of another part of the property as a different issue, but believes the City should also be required to go through the condemnation processfor the disputed property, i.e., portions of the parking strip and sidewalk. He asserted is entitled to fair compensation for the property taken, describing his compliance with City maintenance requirements for the property.The property ownerstake issue with the City’s argumentregarding City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 14of 21 December 5, 2017 the dedication that should have been done in 1978. They believe that the record shows the property was owned as designated by the plat.A bona fide purchaserfor value in good faith is entitled to rely upon the recorded record,he stated, and referred the Council to the statement in hismemo(Exhibit 102)expressing concerns about City staff’s efforts and his belief that their intent was to claim his property without compensation, a violation of the State and Federal Constitutions. Noting that the legalization statute pertained to situations where there was uncertainty about property, he denied that it applied to this property as the surveyor had identified and marked the plat. A key consideration for the Council should be the definition of road,as the statute allows the associated right of way to be legalized. He said the statute says you can legalize a road, but does not say you can legalize the right-of-way. He described the County legalization statutes as defining the road asthe part of the right-of-way that is used for vehicles. He referred to a dictionary definition of road(Exhibit 105) as the part of the thoroughfare over which vehicular traffic moves- -the space between the curbs. Hesubmitted a photo of a sidewalk at his sister’s property on Milwaukie Street showing surveyor marks in the middle of the sidewalk(Exhibit 104),stating that thisdemonstratesthat there often are sidewalks partly on private property and partly in the public way. His final point was that a definition ofroadthat includes an area used foringress and egress to property by other meanswould mean, if taken to its extreme, that a parking lot or a walkway up to a home would be a road and could be taken through legalization proceedings.. Mayor Studebakerasked if anyone else wished to testify. Hearing no requests, he closed the hearing. Following brief discussion to frame a motion, Councilor LaMotte moved to tentatively approve road legalization proceedings under ORS 223.935 for the portions of 15630 Boones Ferry Road (Commercial Center at Boones Ferry and Lanewood) as shown in Exhibit 4, and direct Staff to prepare findings, conclusions, and orders legalizing the area, to bring back to Council on December 19, 2017. Councilor Gudman seconded the motion. In responding to questions from Councilor Kohlhoff,Mr. Powellindicated that, while he could not provide specifics about what portions of sidewalk or landscaped areas might have been reflected in the legal description in the owner’s deed, it definitely would have included some of the area the City is trying to legalize. Heclarified that to consider thispointand the owner’s stated entitlement as a bona fide purchaserwas to mix the issues. He emphasized that the very purpose of legalizationwas to address situations where doubt exists as to the legal establishment or evidence of a road. Therefore, a person could not say, “You may not legalize this road unless it is clear that you have the road.” He cited portions of the statute on which the City based its legalization effort, as discussed in the Council Report. Councilwas referred to Mr. Balfour’s brief for additionaldetail. Aroll call vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Studebakerand Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, andLaMotte voting ‘aye’.(7-0) Mr. Powellnoted that Staff would return with findings and order on December 19 at 3:00 p.m. 9.3Ordinance 2760, An Ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego Amending LOC 50.06.003.4.c.vi;of Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) to Add an Exception to the Street Connectivity Standard; and Adopting Findings (LU 17-0053). City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 15of 21 December 5, 2017 Report and Exhibits Mr. Powellread the Ordinance title. Noting that this was a legislative decision, he outlined related compliance requirements.He reviewed the hearing process, including time limits for testimony, as shown in the agenda. Next he asked if any Council member needed to make a declaration with relation toconflicts of interest; nonewas heard.Finally, he asked if any member of the audience wished to challenge a City Council member’s right to hear the application; no challenges were heard. Staff Report Ms. Andreadesprovided background on the follow-up to Council’sdirection to Staff in 2017 to work with the Planning Commission in addressing flexibility in the Street Connectivity standard. As discussed in the Council Report, the standard is a planning tool that considers both existing and future needs and improvement of community-wide access, as well as regional transportation needs. Staff studied various aspects of the standard to see where a new exception might fit in, noting that any exception must comply with the Regional Transportation Functional Plan, administered by Metro. The proposed new exception (Exhibit A-1, Attachment 2, p 3 of 4) had met the Metro code criteria, as documented in Exhibits F-1 and F-2, she advised. The new exception allows another avenue for looking at a development project on a case-by-case basis. In concluding, she reported that the City had received an email shortly before the Council meeting from Jim Fisher. He statedthat he opposed the language in the Code allowing eight lots to be accessed by an access lane. She clarified for Council that this language was part of the existing Code and had been provided as context for the amendment now being proposed. The language referenced byMr. Fisher was related to a separate issue that would be considered at the Council’s January 2 meeting. Questions of Staff Councilor Gudmanexpressed support for the recommendations shown in Attachment 2. He asked if the amendment required that the limited-access street connection be constructed fully of concrete. In brief discussion, Ms. Andreadesexplained that if fire access was required, the surface would need to be drivable. Approval of the Fire Department would be required for a surface consisting of both concrete and ground cover, she indicated. Councilor LaMotte commendedStaff for providing thissolutionto an issue that couldarise more often as properties are annexed to the City.Councilor Buckasked about the number of future street connections that couldbe impacted by this decision. Ms. Andreadesexplained that no such projects are pending currently. In that the amendment pertains only to local streets, it is difficult toforecastas it depends on how land is assembled and proposed for development. Councilor Gudmanmoved to approveLU 17-0053 and enact Ordinance 2760.Councilor LaMotteseconded the motion. Mayor Studebaker called for any requests to testify. None being heard, he closed the hearing. City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 16of 21 December 5, 2017 Avoice vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Studebakerand Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, andLaMotte voting ‘aye’.(7-0) 9.4Resolution 17-59, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Revising Fees and Charges and Updating the Lake Oswego Master Fees and Charges Schedule Report and Attachments Mr.Crossintroduced the public hearing, which followed up on aNovember 21 Council study session. At that time Council had directed Staff to make changes related to non-residential sewer and water customers; this was now reflected in the 2018 Master Fees and Charges schedule, as discussed in the Council Report. He reported that a typographical error had been identifiedwith regard to the Forest Highlands water charge(Attachment 2, p 5);the 110% of the standard in-city rate would be corrected to 120%and the effective date would be changed from July 18, 2017, to July 1, 2018.As the result of an oversight, Staff also still needed to correct the projected average utility rate increase from 3% to 3.1%inthe table on the same page, as identified earlier by Councilor Gudman. He concluded by announcing that notification had been received earlier in the day that both Moody’s and S&P had maintained the City’s“Triple A”rating. Councilor LaMotte requested clarification of the Forest Highlands water rate increase and whether or not it conformed to Council’s intention. Mr. Crossconfirmed that the 10% yearly increase was based on the five-year phase-in discussed in the study session. By the end of this period it would reach the usual150% level paid byout-of-city customers. Mr. Powellconfirmed that the motion passed by Council on November 21 was to do the phase-in, with the opportunity to review the decision at this hearing on 2018 Master Fees and Charges. The phase-in would proceed as described by Mr. Cross unless Council now wishedto make a change. Brief discussion followed, with Councilor LaMottedescribing the importance of articulating the rationale for a rate that is 150% of the in-city rate. Mr. Lazenbynoted that this rate was typical of cities providing water to out-of-city customers. It reflected the fact that the city’s residents are owners of the utility and therefore bear all of the risk. Mayor Studebakerasked if anyone wished to testify on the matter before the Council. No testimony was heard, and he closed the hearing. Councilor Manzmoved to adoptResolution 17-59 with the adjustments mentioned by Mr. Cross. Councilor Gudmanseconded the motion. Avoice vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Studebakerand Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, andLaMotte voting ‘aye’.(7-0) 9.5Resolution 17-60, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego Adjusting the Budget for the Fiscal Year Commencing July 1, 2017 by Adopting a Supplemental Budget, Approving Resources/Requirements, and Making Appropriations. Report and Attachment City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 17of 21 December 5, 2017 Mr. Crossoutlined the adjustments included in the resolutionand shown in the Council Report: (1) Asdirected by Council, payment of certain design and other services related to the Civic Center would be made from the General Fund, with necessary transfer from capital reserves (Council Report, p 1). (2) Budgeting for art at the new Maintenance Center needs to be rolled over to the current fiscal year from the previous fiscal year to reflect timing of the work. (3) As discussed earlier by Mr. Hooper, adjustment would be made to the Public Works beginning fund balance as required to apply funds to the Maintenance Center project. Councilor Gudmanreiterated the earlier Council decision that in the 2018-19 budget there would be no General Funds going into the set-aside for the Civic Center; the funding would be coming entirely from the urban renewal district. Mayor Studebakerasked if anyone wished to testify on the matter. No requests being heard, he closed the hearing. CouncilorGudmanmoved to adoptResolution 17-60.CouncilorLaMotteseconded the motion. Avoice vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Studebakerand Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, Gudman, andLaMotte voting ‘aye’.(7-0) 10.STUDY SESSIONS 10.1City Involvement in Swimming Pool Funding and Operation Report Mayor Studebakerannounced that the discussion of a community swimming pool would be delayed tothe December 19 meeting. 10.2Possible Merger of Planning Commission and Development Review Commission Report Mr. Lazenbyhighlighted key points for consideration of a possible merger of the Planning Commission and Development Review Commission (DRC), as discussed in the Council Report. The timing would be opportune for this change as several vacancies exist on both commissions; also, the Planning Commission workload has decreased with the completion of various major projects. He reviewed pros and cons, acknowledging the differing roles of the twocommissions, as noted by Mr. Bolland in Citizen Comment earlier. However, other cities combine the functions in one body and find benefits to consolidatingthe members’ experience in both applying and writing code.While Staff recognizes workload as a valid concern, they would monitor it carefully and respond quickly; to reversecourse would not be difficult, he indicated.A merger would be expected to produce staff savings, although this should not drive Council’s decision. In concluding, he reported that he had spoken with both commissions and that the majority of members do not favor a merger, mostly because of concerns about workload. He noted that City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 18of 21 December 5, 2017 previous Council direction had indicated an interest in reducing the total number of boards and commissions. Councilor Kohlhoff, having served as liaison to the Planning Commission,emphasized the strong opposition of the Commission to the merger. Their greatest concern was about the loss of time for adequate discussion and thorough vetting of policy proposals. She anticipatedthat the DRC’s review activities would monopolize the time of a combined commission, while she did not believe that there was a lack of work for the Planning Commission. Short of addressing a desperate financial situation, the City should notcombinethese bodies, she indicated. Councilor Buckexpressed concern about moving forward with a merger in the face of the commission members’lack of support for the idea. The potential financial savings was not worth creating the perception that the City was skirting some of the public engagement; therefore, he was opposed to the merger. Councilor Manzechoed concerns of Councilors Kohlhoff and Buck. In addition to her concerns about the City’s many priorities at this time, the valuable roles of these volunteer commissions, and the members’ opposition, she questioned the City’s “bandwidth” for implementing this change. Councilor LaMotteobserved that increasingly he has heard concerns about the public process related to development, and he believes Council should address that topic in Goal setting.He discussed the viability of a combined body, based on experiences during his Planning Commission service. Benefits to the volunteer recruitment processmight be available, among other opportunities, he indicated. Expressing his belief that Staff could address any workload issues, he suggested that Council follow up on themerger decision afterGoal setting in January. Mayor Studebakerexpressed his interest in streamlining City processes, and his desire to try a merger for a year or two. He moved to combine the Development Review Commission and the Planning Commission for a one-year trial period. Councilor LaMotte seconded the motion. Councilor LaMottedescribed benefits of the combined approach as experienced by the cities of West Linn and Beaverton. He indicated that the City of Lake Oswego should try the approach. Councilor Bucksuggested that, rather than moving forward with a merger decision, the Council should table it and speak further with the two commissions to sell the idea more effectively. Aroll call vote was held, and the motion failed,with MayorStudebakerand Councilor LaMottevoting ‘aye’.Councilors Kohlhoff, Buck, O'Neill, Manz, andGudmanvoted ‘no’. (2-5) Councilor O'Neillproposed thatCouncil consider the matter further following Council's January Goal setting, and after talking with both the Planning Commission and the DRC.In brief ensuing discussion,Mr. Lazenbysuggested that a single monthly Planning Commission meeting might be an option. Councilor LaMotteindicated that the timing as suggested by Councilor O’Neill might be beneficial for planning purposes. City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 19of 21 December 5, 2017 11.INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL Mayor Studebakerasked the Council to reconsider whether or not to take up the idea of combining the Development Code & the Tree Code.He moved not to proceed with that. Councilor Buck seconded the motion. Councilor Manzexpressed support for the motion, based on her concerns about the current capacity of City staff and citizens to address this major issue. Councilor Kohlhoffobserved that her concern related to a different issue: that the Tree Code did not deal with its place inrelation todevelopment and that this was the source of the continuing controversies over tree removal. The updated Tree Code did not resolve that major issue. She regarded it as irresponsiblefor the Council not to begin to address this, especially since some solutions might be relatively simple with regard to code amendments. Councilor LaMotte concurred, describing this as a matter of equity in the city and stating that Council should not make any changes to the Tree Code. He described more specifically how simple changes to the Development Code and other improvements could minimize the removal of significant trees. This was a major issue for many citizens, he concluded, suggesting that Staff berequested to prepare a study to identifyDevelopment Code “tweaks” that would preserve more trees. In further discussion to clarify the motion,Mayor Studebaker confirmed that his motion was that the Council not take up the matter of tree removal as it relates to development. A roll call vote was held, and the motion passed,with Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Buck, O'Neill, Manz, and Gudmanvoting ‘aye’.CouncilorsKohlhoffandLaMottevoted ‘no’.(5-2) Councilor Gudman reminded his colleagues of the significant increase in 2019-21 PERS contributions reported recently. He described the significant challenges this will present to the Cityin relation to the PERS contribution requirements and to anticipated shortfalls in property tax revenues.A comparable increase will be seen in the following biennium (2021-23), as well. Councilor Bucknoted that there had been considerable comment from citizens about the pool facility, both at the recent open house and in Citizen Comment earlier in the meeting. The removal of the related item on this meeting’s agenda showed disrespect to the people, heopined. He reminded the Council of their commitment the prior year to setting manageable agendas so that such situations could be avoided. In ensuing discussion Mayor Studebakerconfirmed that the item would be re-scheduled for the December 19 Council meeting. He initiated brief additional discussion of how Council members might help to control the length of the meetings, which would include efforts to limit the length of future agendas. 12.REPORTS OF OFFICERS City Council Regular Meeting MinutesPage 20of 21 December 5, 2017 �A�r. �L�z+��a�by �d'vis�d that �orrre �f the rriat�ri'�I ��quest�d by Ca�anciA�r ��Matt� c�+ncerning th� p�ter�tial �'r�r parkftio�r of tV�� I�t ran I�iidc�ecrest CJrive (Ager�da ��em �.'I) �ct��Iiy had be�n in�l�aded �� the �xl�ibi#s pr�vided. H� alsa ann�unc�d the resig�n�ti�n of S�hoal C?istrict Super�nteradent k�ec9�. 1�. �4 J�9lJ�� �hd�" �'layar a�ud�baker adjc�u�rned the rrneeting �t 10:37 p.r�. Resp�ctfully submifited, ``Y��,� Anne-PVlarie �am,�sc�n, City Recard�r AP��(�V�'� BY T�i'� CI�G`�' CO�'�CI�.: C)fi�J _����,� �a,���d' ��`��.�a,�' �`r`�� �.:�, Ke�t Stud�ba'�er, May�ar ..._ Ci�y Cc�u�u�c�l Reg�ular 11�e�ton� NVpirau�es Page 21 �f�2� ��cem��r 5, 2D17