HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - 2009-03-24 QF LAKE OSw�,
Cgt �� CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
trir AGENDA
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
6:30 pNm.
oREGON Council Chambers
2009 City Council City Hall
Jack Hoffman, Mayor 380 A Avenue
Donna Jordan, Council President
RogerHennagin Also published on-line: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us
Kristin Johnson Contact: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
Mary Olson E-Mail: rchristie@ci.oswego.or.us
Sally Moncrieff Phone: 503-675-3984
Bill Tierney
The meeting location is accessible to persons with disabilities. To request accommodations,
please contact Public Affairs at 503-635-0236, 48 hours before the meeting.
Pape#
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PRESENTATIONS
3.1 Distinguished Service Awards: Tia Ross, Bruce Pomazal and Sarah C.
Neitzel, Historic Resources Advisory Board and Alison Webster, Planning
Commission
3.2 Neighbors Helping Neighbors
3.3 Children's Center of Clackamas County 1
3.4 LOIS Update
4. CONSENT AGENDA
• The consent agenda allows the City Council to consider items that require
no discussion.
• An item may only be discussed if it is pulled from the consent agenda.
• The City Council makes one motion covering all items included in the
consent agenda.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 1
March 24, 2009
4.1 REPORTS
4.1.1 Resignation of Sarah C. Neitzel from the Historic Resources Advisory Board 5
Action: Accept Resignation
4.1.2 Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan — Phase I Contract 7
Action: Award a contract to DKS Associates in the amount of $112,479 for
Phase I of the Boones Ferry Refinement Plan
4.2 RESOLUTIONS
4.2.1 Resolution 09-15, requesting Council to endorsing an application for a grant 19
from the State Transportation and Growth Management Grant Program to
update the City's Transportation System Plan
Action: Adopt Resolution 09-15
4.2.2 Resolution 09-16, approving an appointment to the Historic Resources 33
Advisory Board
Action: Adopt Resolution 09-16, approve the appointment of Craig Foster to
the Historic Resources Advisory Board for the remainder of a three-year term
ending December 31, 2012
4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
4.3.1 January 7, 2009, special meeting 37
4.3.2 February 10, 2009, special meeting 49
Action: Approve minutes as written
END CONSENT AGENDA
5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
6. CITIZEN COMMENT
The purpose of citizen comment is to allow citizens to present
information or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda or
regarding agenda items that do not include a public hearing. A time
limit of five minutes per citizen shall apply.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 2
March 24, 2009
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 Resolution 09-08, a resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council approving a
work program to update the Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan and directing
the Planning and Building Services Department to submit these items to the
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development for State
approval consistent with the requirements of periodic review. PP 08-0012
Motion: Move to con tin ue PP 08-0012 to May 19, 2009
7.2 Appeal of a Development Review Commission (DRC) Decision to deny a
development application, following remand from the Oregon Land Use Board
of Appeals (LUBA), for a 45-unit Congregate Housing facility. The site is
located at 4255 Oakridge Road (Tax Lot 400 of Tax Map 21 E08 CB)
Public Hearing Process:
Review of hearing procedure by David Powell, City Attorney
Staff Report by Debra Andreades, AICP, Senior Planner
The testimony portion of the hearing was completed on March 10.
Council Deliberations
Motion: Move to tentatively approve Findings, Conclusions, and Order
to:
• Affirm the DRC's decision and deny LU 07-0031,
OR
• Overturn the DRC's decision and approve LU 07-0031 with the
original conditions of approval (and if needed, additional
conditions of approval).
8. REPORTS
8.1 Resolution 09-13, a Resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council Authorizing the 59
City Manager to Sign an Intergovernmental Agreement between TriMet, Metro,
Clackamas County, City of Portland and the City of Lake Oswego for the
Portland to Lake Oswego Transit Corridor Project
Motion: Adopt Resolution 09-13
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 3
March 24, 2009
9. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
This agenda item provides an opportunity for individual Councilors to
provide information to the Council on matters not otherwise on the
agenda. Each Councilor will be given five minutes.
9.1 Councilor Information
9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and
Intergovernmental Committees
10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
10.1 City Manager
10.2 City Attorney
11. STUDY SESSION
11.1 Wastewater Revenue Bonds 113
10. ADJOURNMENT
CABLE VIEWERS: the Regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel
28, at 6:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on
Channel 28:
Wednesday 7:30 p.m.
Thursday 7:00 a.m.
Friday 2:30 a.m.
Saturday 12:00 p.m.
Sunday 4:00 p.m.
Monday 11:00 p.m.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 4
March 24, 2009
CITY COUNCIL I LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
ROLLING UPDATE
W........... ...... .......:.....:......::.:._..
.:...:....:..:.............
.:...DATE MEETING
Tuesday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
March 31 • Business Recycling Ordinance Overview
Redevelopment Agency, 7 p.m. Council Chambers
(following Council Meeting)
• Redevelopment Agency 101 (with David Leland)
• Appointments to LORA Budget Committee
Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
April 7 • LOIS S Update
�'' ,
p
• Distinguished Service Awards, San ybold, Budget
Committee; BetsyFontenot and P Library
�
Advisory Board
• Authorization to issue avast r evenu ds
• Tentative adoption of findin W Appe
• Adopting of findings for C' n I nvolcment Guideli
• Bid award for Kincaid C rli rporridjjQ3) Trailhea ase
II Project
rrrG
Monday, Citizens'Budget Committee 6:30 . EB
April 13
Tuesday, Study Session, 6:30 cii Chamb
April 14 • Capital Im roveme .. Pla
�,p p
• Water 101
/ 74/ /
,i
• CI sion. Laboe gotiation /
• ntra ; . and for L Full Construction w LOIS
Monday, pe f eeti O 4-5 30 .m.' B
April 20 • Dr. ',r BB in Trust through Public
r - g g
//s/Z;
ngag t
I Citi ud ittee 6:30 .m. WEB
Tues ;�, Regular etin 6:30 .m. Council Chambers
April 21 • LOIS date
Com inity Service Award to TVF&R Assistant Chief and
ak swego resident Paul LeSage for lifesaving efforts
® tenance Building Exhaust System
® stinguished Service Award, Ralph Thronburg
• Adopting of findings for Sensitive Lands
Public Hearing.
® Business Recycling Ordinance
Monday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. location WEB
April 27 • Joint meeting of the City Council and Lake Oswego School
Board
BOLD ITEMS—New issues added to schedule
Items known as of 3/19/09
CITY COUNCIL 1 LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
ROLLING UPDATE
DATE MEETING
Tuesday, Citizens'Budget Committee, 6:30 p.m. WEB
April 28
Monday, Citizens'Budget Committee, 6:30 p.m. WEB - if needed
May 4
Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers
May 5 • LOIS Update
• Farmers' Market poster contest winner
• Intergovernmental Agreement with Cityortat d
g 9
Environmental Services for the Tryon ;, Restoration
Project �/�
Public Hearing '%
• ///'
Monday, Citizens'Budget Committee 0 p.m. tiyEB - if need //-
May 11
r/
Tuesday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Council r* iers
Tula 12 • , �
Tuesday, Regular Meeting, :3 r ncil Charn '
May 19 • LOIS Update ' , '°
//
• Joint meeting with the/Co i ,v itizen Involvement
Public ,
• y/ /A
Tuesday, Sir fSessio r ; .30 p.m. H.170ted by City of Tigard
May 26 • eet- with the Ti City Council
7// //// ,/7,/
//
/2/-
//
/// /
r„
f
ir/
BOLD ITEMS New issues added to schedule
Items known as of 3/19/09
3 . 3
itio.li
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
--",.. . .„.,,
COUNCIL REPORT
c7._) ,
REGos
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
SUBJECT: Presentation on Children's Center of Clackamas County
DATE: March 13, 2009
ACTION
No action is required. Tonia Hunt, Executive Director of the Children's Center of
Clackamas County requested an opportunity to present information to the Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1. About the Children's Center of Clackamas County
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation.
Reviewed by:
/ 7
A x D. M• ntyre
City Manager
1
4
hildren's
About the Children's Center of Clackamas County
enter The mission of the Children's Center of Clackamas County is to support and medically assess
4 lades children who are suspected victims of abuse or neglect.
..:.......:.:...:..... .............
County
lEsc c tv i !Icahn. County
�
3 The Children's Center of Clackamas is a child abuse medical assessment
,_ �[. rr .
center. The Children's Center sees cases of suspected physical
...:,. ed abuse, sexual abuse,
p
neglect, drug endangerment, and witness to violence.
Board of Directors
Assessments include a medical check-up to identify and document signs of abuse as
John� Foote,Chair well as a video-taped forensic interview so children can tell their history of abuse in
Clackamas County District Attorney
their own words in a safe and neutral environment. Family support Services help
Craig Roberts,Vice Chair
children and families move on to healingfollowingconcerns of abuse.
Clackamas County Sheriff
Terry ,Treasurer
Community Volunteer The Facts
Helen :kart, Secretary • The Children's Center of Clackamas County provided child abuse assessments
Lake Oswego Police Chief, Retired for 260 children in the last 12 months and expects to serve over 300 children in
Bill Dolan 2008.
President/Creative Director, • Two-thirds of the children served at the Children's Center are girls and half are
Spirit Media younger than seven years old.
Allyson Ford • Seventy percent of child abuse assessments provided by the Children's Center
Community Volunteer are for suspected sexual abuse of Clackamas County children.
Janet Gravdal
• Wait times for assessment services can stretch to more than two weeks for
Attorney, McE yen Grisvold LLP children who have disclosed abuse if funding and staff are limited at the
Greenman
Children's Center.
Diane
Community if o unteer' • Demand for urgent assessments of suspected physical abuse cases is an
emerging unmet need in Clackamas County. The Children's Center's demand
Jelin Grimes for physical abuse assessments has nearlytripled in the last six months.
NorthAmericaMarketing:Director,
p
'Tectuura Corporation ® On average,there are over 4,000 reports of suspected child abuse in Clackamas
County.
Sally LeFeber
Community Volunteer
ReinhardRuss unding
President, Willamette Falls Hospital Roughly half of the Center's fundingis secured through state and countycontracts
g Y g
JamesR sk,MD for services. A portion of funding comes from insurance reimbursements. Public and
Pediatrician
insurance funds cover
Greg gr
approximately two-thirds •State CAMI Funds
Mitchell&Rogers
of the total cos
t of care
Senator Ku
rt
Schrader, v
0
29
a
for each child leaving a
Clackamas County e��rinats
C iackamasY
Ct .
Lundinggcippf
Contract Service
r o Se cc
approximately
atel 104a per
Executive cuvStaff: child. Corporate,
Me
dical cad Insurance
Michael Chen,M.D. individual and foundation Reimbursement
Medical Director support is needed to fill
Tonia Hunt t this funding gap.
•Private
Executive Director r 20% 20% Countributions and
Grants
The Children's Center of Clackamas County, 1811 15th Street, Oregon City OR 97045
www.childrenscenter.cc 503-655-7725 fax—503-655-7720
3
0
0
es
a
4. 1 . 1
Al
�`�j CA 4AKE Os�,fCO
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
iii
ic: ::2 COUNCIL DEPORT
oREGON
____
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
SUBJECT: Resignation of Sarah C. Neitzel from the Historic Resources
Advisory Board
DATE: March 13, 2009
ACTION
Approve the resignation of Sarah C. Neitzel from the Historic Resources Advisory
Board.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Neitzel letter received March 13, 2009
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation.
Reviewed by:
i /
A ex D. McIntyre
City Manager
5
Jane McGarvin, CMC
Deputy City Recorder
Lake Oswego
Dear Jane,
I'm writing you to let you know that I would like to resign from HRAB effectively
immediately so that the alternate can be appointed as soon as possible. I have
thought about this for some time when I saw my workload expanding at PCC. I
feel that I'm spreading myself too thin, and my first obligation is to my
students and thus HRAB has to go. I'm sorry about that because this
committee has been one of the most positive committees on which I have
served.
If you could expedite my resignation then the alternate could attend the April
meeting and HRAB would have a full complement of members. Thank you for
your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Sarah C. Neitzel
6
4• 1 •2
_, ostv
O
1:0
ti CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
-,--------,.
OR EGOS
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Leslie Hamilton, Associate Planner
Denny Egner, Assistant Planning Director
SUBJECT: Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan — Phase I Contract
DATE: March 16, 2009
ACTION
The Council is requested to award a contract to DKS Associates in the amount of
$112,479 for the Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan Phase I.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Council action is required to award a contract of this type in order to comply with City
and State contracting and purchasing procedures.
The Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan is a project identified in the Lake Grove
Village Center (LGVC) Plan adopted in April 2008. The Refinement Plan is intended to
result in preliminary design for roadway improvements that implement the concepts
outlined in the LGVC Plan. The LGVC Plan identified a design concept for Boones
Ferry Road between Kruse Way Place and Madrona Street that includes four travel
lanes (two travel lanes in each direction), landscaped center medians, bike lanes,
minimum nine-foot wide sidewalks including tree wells or landscaped planters, and left-
/u-turn lanes. The Refinement Plan will result in a more detailed plan for Boones Ferry
Road that establishes right-of-way needs and access points so that residents and
businesses have greater certainty regarding the roadway design. Phase I of the project
is primarily technical and focuses on traffic analysis and roadway needs. Phase II, to
be initiated later in the year, will focus on roadway design and right-of-way location.
The City published a request for proposal on January 9, 2009. On Friday, February 6,
2009, the City of Lake Oswego received proposals from three firms: DKS Associates,
Kittelson & Associates, and Group Mackenzie.
7
Council Report
03/16/2009
Page 2
Staff assembled a review panel that included City Councilor Donna Jordan, Planning
Commission Chair Julia Glisson, and Lake Grove businessman Mike Buck as well as
two representatives each from the City's planning and engineering divisions.
Interviews occurred on Friday, February 20, 2009.
DISCUSSION
Based on the interviews and a thorough analysis of the written proposals, the review
panel has determined that the proposal from DKS Associates best addresses the goals
of the Lake Grove Village Center Plan. DKS has assembled a strong team that
includes OBEC (engineering); Harper Houf Peterson Reghellis, Inc. (planning); and JLA
(public involvement). The team proposes a system-based analysis of the transportation
issues and brings a fresh perspective to the plan area. City engineering staff found that
the modeling program proposed for use by DKS encompasses a larger area of impact
compared to the models used by the other consultant teams. This broader analysis
was viewed by the review panel as an important aspect of the refinement process. The
review panel found that the public involvement program designed by DKS is extremely
thorough and transparent, and will help launch the refinement plan into Phase II. DKS
has successfully performed other work within the City of Lake Oswego, as well as
several relevant projects in Oregon.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
The alternatives are to: 1) not accept the panel's recommendation, reject all proposals
and develop an alternative approach and a new RFP, or 2) accept the panel's
recommendation and award the contract. The 2007-2009 includes funds budgeted for
Phase I of the project. Phase II will need to be funded in the 2009-2010 budget.
8
Council Report
03/16/2009
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council award a contract to DIES Associates in the amount
of $112,479.00 for Phase I of the Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan.
End: Scope of Services
Reviewed by:
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation.
Department Di ctor
F i a n ce 'rector
A x D. lntyre
City Manager
9
jectives
Scope of Services
The adopted Lake Grove Village
The consultant services for the Boones Concept Plan will be evaluated and
Ferry Road Refinement Plan are refined to consider the following
presented in the following sections. traffic and transportation issues:
Phases ® Assess and mitigate potential
therefinement plan is impacts of"cut-through" traffic
The purpose of
to developa more detailed plan for and delivery trucks within
Boones FerryRoad that builds on and adjoining neighborhoods as a
result of changes to local
is consistent with the g
recommendations in the Lake Grove circulation and access within the
(LGVC)Center
VillagePlan. This study area
contract covers onlyservices in the ▪ Evaluate the ability to serve large
r vehicles and small
first phase. The focus of this work passenger
base is on the traffic anal trucks in making u-turns at
p sis and Y
related technical evaluations designated intersections
associated with refining the adopted
• Evaluate traffic performance along
p
conce t lan. corridor for representative peak
p p hours and a potential
e of
The next work phase, not included in development scenarios for the
this contract,will prepare engineering Village Center
plans, specifications and cost Evaluate safety and traffic flow
estimates to advance the project to impacts for pedestrian crossings
construction, along with an economic that are not located at
analysis of options for the community intersections controlled by traffic
to finance the improvement. signals
Review Prtcess Recommended refinements tot e
Narrative or mapped deliverables adopted LGVC plan to mitigate or
noted in the work tasks will be resolve issues evaluated through this
submitted to city staff for review in study will be presented in a
draft form. The consultant budget Refinement Plan.
assumes no more than one review
cycle fora given deliverable, except as Task e ject M n !e nt
noted below. I. Consultant team leaders will meet
with City staff to discuss and confirm
project coordination, objectives,
The refinement plan is for Boones methods, timeline and milestones,
Ferry Road between Kruse Way Place work products,and issues.
and Madrona Street.The Village
Center is located in the western The team project web site will be
Oswego portionof the Cityof Lake Oswe o and initiated, and training for city staff will
is one of two town center commercial be provided at the conclusion of the
districts within the City,the other kick-off meeting.
being Downtown Lake Oswego.
Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan 05 Mar 2009 Page 1
11
2. Obtain and review existing the right technique for sharing
documents, data, surveys, plans and information over the course of the
other relevant information including project::
traffic data and projections. A Createand
® a maintain an email
summary of key issues will be posted mailing list utilizing existing
the project web sitefor
information con act t from the City.
consideration through this study. The invited tojoin public will be
3. Consultant project manager will the mailing list through the City's
prepare status reports every two website and at public events.
weeks and discuss with the city's Draft and send periodic email
project manager by phone. Consultant updates to the email list.
team leaders will meet to coordinate n Provide text, images and PDF
on project. materials to the City for inclusion
on the project website.
Consultant lieliverables:
▪ Initiate project collaboration web Newsletters and Articles
site, including project milestones Throughout the project up to two short
® Summary of key issues posted to informal articles (600 words or less) will
the project web site be drafted and edited for the Hello LO
▪ Status reports to city's project City newsletter. In addition to the short
manager every two weeks and articles, we will draft and finalize up to
phone calls. two meeting announcements for
publication in the Hello LO newsletter
Task lc Inv,,Ivement that could also be used on the City
project website.
1„ Stakeholder -WYe t
Outreach to key groups will include a 4, Open House/Publictns
mix of phone calls and emails initiated Two public meetings provide the
by JLA. These contacts will be made at opportunity to check-in with
the initiation and conclusion of work, community leaders and the general
and in preparation for each of the two public. The first is planned early in the
public meetings. Two groups will be process to make sure that the
contacted personally: research is on track and test the
▪ Former LGVC Plan Implementation
team's assumptions. The second
Advisory Committee members
meeting provides an opportunity to
▪ Business/Commercial Association
review the draft plan and would occur
before the Planning Commission work
leaders
session.
2„ Website Email updates The consultant will assist with
Email updates will be sent to let notification communications to be
people know that materials for review distributed by the.City, coordinate the
are available on-line, Three meeting logistics (agendas, supplies,
involvement methods have a proven refreshments, etc.), facilitate the
track record we have used in the past meetings, and produce summary meeting
to involve the public and stakeholders. materials.
JLA will work with the City to identify
Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan 05 Mar 2009 Page 2
12
. :ork Sessi with Fanningcorridor, or 24-hour counts.A total of
Corm ,ission $6,000 is budgeted for data collection.
As part of the overall public involvement Collision data will also be collected for
and project communication,the DKS the most recent threeyears along. o g the
team will attend and participate in one corridor to help identify ntify potential
work session with the Planning
Commission to help facilitate clear
safety locations to focus on during the
understanding of the refinement plan.
alternative conceptual design
refinements.
Consultant Deliverw les:
.peratkns Analysis
▪ Stakeholder outreach to key
The LGVC plan transportation
groups concepts will be assessed to identify
p
▪ Email notices and updates to
potential opportunities and
project web sites
constraints along the corridor, along
▪ Develop materials and facilitate
with related impacts and solutions in
two general public meetings
the adjoining neighborhoods. The
• Present project findings and
operations and safety analysis will
recommendations at a public work consider existing conditi
session with Planning Commission
ons based on
data collected in Task C.1, and future
conditions based on new travel
The consultantwill forecasts for long-range regional
complete a traffic
n f growth along with several local
operations
and safety analysis to
impacts development scenarios along the
identif
y potentialp cts to
aoperations,business access,
p J
neighborhood "cut-through" traffic, New 2035 travel forecasts will be
and safety. developed using the Metro travel
demand model,with refinements to
1,, Data Collection capture details for the neighborhoods
The consultant will meet with city in the study area. The model street
staff to develop a data collection plan network will include all local and
that targets key locations and times of neighborhood streets. The consultant
days to monitor and evaluate. It is will work with city staff to identify up
anticipated that this will be a to three (3) future scenarios that
minimum of two-hour turning represent potential thresholds of re-
movement counts at all of the public development along the corridor.
street intersections along Boones
FerryRoad, and at all driveways The detailed future operating
Y g
Boones FerryRoad through the studyconditions will address the
g
area.Volume counts will show Transportation Action Measures cited
trucks, in the LGVC plan, and other aspects
passenger cars, buses,
edestrians and bic including:
p cles at each Y
location.Additional data collection ® Effect of right turns at key
will include counts during other peak driveways and the impact to
periods (midday or weekend), through auto travel
selected travel time runs through the
Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan 05 Mar 2009 Page 3
13
• Best locations for u-turn elements for the refinement plan,
movements to accommodate Innovative techniques that could be
motor vehicle and freight to applied include:
minimize impact and maximize Transit signal priorityoptions -
corridor performance
g p
p Use of queue bypass lanes in the
▪ Signal warrants for proposed
appropriate locations can help
signals facilitate better travel times for
• New pedestrian crossing locations
transit, and can provide additional
to minimize distance between space on the opposite side of the
existing signalized locations
road at intersection to help
® Queuing at signalized intersections
accommodate u-turns for larger
to accommodate future motor vehicles.
vehicle demand for through and Adaptive traffic signal application
turning movements
- Innovative technology such as
• Driveway access at key locations
this allows for future corridor
to accommodate access by motor improvements that reduce green
vehicle/freight minimize p
house a an
d gases a d increase
pedestrian conflicts, and efficiencyin travel time while
accommodate sight distance
g minimizing delay on side streets.
▪ Median locations and length that
minimize impact to all modes of In the event of a conflict between the
travel and business access various goals of the LGVC Plan, design
® Assessment of potential motor refinements for mitigation shall give
vehicle diversion due to median priority to pedestrian facilities
placement, and neighborhood cut- including retention of recommended
through minimum sidewalk widths, pedestrian
Potential options for delivery crossings, and pedestrian refuge areas
trucks and freight access routes, within medians at pedestrian
on-street parking and the impacts crossings.
on traffic flow
Consultant e er es:
Corridor performance outcomes will Traffic data collection plan
be tabulated and mapped for review
by city staff and stakeholders. In
Intersection and driveway traffic
addition,the corridor operations will count data, and other data as
p specified in the data collection
be simulated for presentation using p
SimTraffic,which is an extremelyplan
valuable tool to communicate with the ® Existing conditions and safety
public and foster confidence in the analysis findings and key issues
proposed solutions. map
:FL Plan Refinements ® Future travel forecasts (2035) for
up to three alternative local
Utilizing all of the elements of the development scenarios
future conditions assessment, as well
as input from the community, DIES will
develop alternative conceptual design
Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan 05 Mar 2009 Page 4
14
▪ Future conditions and safety Consultant Deliverables:
analysis findings and key issues Scaled drawings for selected
maps segments and intersections
Plan refinement conce is and illustrating plan refinements (up to
p 4 locations)
recommendations
▪ Illustrations of key locations
T - -,treet showing travel path of design
We will review existing available data vehicles making turning
from earlier studies, Metro GIS movements (up to 4 locations)
mapping and as-built information. In
▪ Typical standard design details to
addition, the consultant team will
r recommendations preliminary engineering
provide ecommendat ons for
alternative con cept a u 1 i n [Phase 2) related to median width,
des g
adverse traffic
u-turn clearance needs, corner
refinements to mitigate
c
radii, etc.
operations and safety impacts, and to
advance the goals of the LGVC Plan
Plan
(Task C3 outcomes).Anticipating that
The refinement plan will capture the
the refinements necessary will require
process, outcomes and
adjustments to the conceptual
recommendations for LGVC plan that
alignment, intersection geometry and ,
access strategies, consultant may
fits the community and City's needs.
utilize the following approaches: Plan elements will be reviewed to
▪ Utilize creative geometric
identify an area (or areas) of the plan
that could be implemented in the
improvements including curb
short-term along the corridor.This
notches to accommodate U-
would allow the project to move
turning vehicles where space is
forward in a cost effective manner.
limited
Two versions of the Refinement Plan
▪ Utilize AutoturnTM software to
will be developed for review by city
model alternative intersection
staff and stakeholders. The
configurations and property
preliminary plan will be prepared for
accesses the second p
pubic open house event.
® Refine geometry based on City, Feedback and staff direction will be
community, and team input to incorporated into that document, and
mitigate or diffuse impacts the resulting draft plan will be ready
In addition to the street desi n for the work session with Planning
g
component,there is also the element Commissioners.
of urban design and streetscape to Consuftant , l e a es:
consider. The consultant team is well m PreliminaryRefinement Plan
q encompass pp equipped ed tothat aspect of
of the process,but expects that work Draft Refinement Plan
to occur in phase 2,which is not
included in this contract.
Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan 05 Mar 2009 Page 5
15
Boones Ferry Road Refinement Plan Scope of Services Estimate Post-Interview
DKS 1 i .1 LA
•
. •.
.. OBEC 1 .
Protect Eng. Support P1 P1 Actrnin Project Prated
1 tanager Engineer Assistant Staff Expenses Specolist Specialist Manager Expenses Manager Engineer CAD E,pie nsi,s
$160 $115 $90 $80 -1 s111 $80 $94- $1 $133 $99 $77 $.1
Task A.Project Management
Local/Regional Agency Kick-off Meeting $1,796 4 4 2 4 ' ' :
. 4 1
Team Meetings $4,172 8 8 1 ' 8 8 $24
Project Administration $8,232 40 a . 4 8
Subtotal(Hours) 52 8 2 8 16 0 8 12 0 0
Task Subtotal $14,200 $8,320 $920 $180 $640 $0 $1,772 $0 $749 $0 $1,598 $0 $0 $20
Task B.Public Involvement
Stakeholder/Property owner outreach $6,600 2 2 38 22 $80
Open House 1 $5,583 - - - 12 2 $50 16 16 $140
Open House 2 $5,558 4 4 12 2 $25 16 16 : $140
Planning Commission Work Session $2,880 4 4 12 $25 6 $10
Subtotal(Hours) 14 14 36 4 76 54 0 0 0 0
Task Subtotal $20,621 $2,240 $1,610 $3,240 $320 $100 $8,419 $4,322 $0 $370 $0 $0 $0 $0
Task C.Transportation Analysis
,
'
Data collection $7,500 2 4 8 $6,000
Review existing plans $1,180 4 8
Existing conditions comparison $2,320 2 8 12
Neighborhood model development $10,320 4 16 80 8 .
Neighborhood cut-through/safety analysis $3,720 4 8 24
Future conditions/impacts $9,240 8 24 40 20
- -
Refinement to traffic elements . $6 1,720 8 16 40 Subtotal(Hours)i 1
28 : 80 212 1 28 0 0 0 0 0 0
Task Subtotal! ;41,000 $4,480 i $9,200 $19,080 $2,240 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . $0 $0
Task O.Street Design
Conceptual design refinement ,
$15,893 8 8 .
20 64 60 $50
. -Auto-turn on plans for truck/heavy vehicles I $2,027 : 8 16
Subtotal(Hours);i !
8 j 8 • 0 0 0 0 1 0 : ' 20 1 72 76
! i
I
Task Subtotal! $17,920 $1,280 • $920 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' $0 $0 $2,664 • $7,156 $5,850 $50
Task E.Refinement Plan
Develop phasing/priority for projects $3,000 4 8 16
Preliminary Refinement Plan 00,341 8 I 16 i 24 40 i., 2 4 . 2 4 8
1.
Draft Refinement Plan $5,437 2 T 8 16 8 6 6 2 , 4 4
Subtotal(Hours) 14 1 32 56 48 . 8 10 0 4 1 8 12
,
Subtotal $18,738 $2,240 1 $3,680 $5,040 $3,840 $0 $886 $800 $0. $0 $533 1 $795 ; $924 $0
Project Budget $18,560 $16,330 $27,540 $7,040 $6,100 $11,078 $5,122 $749 si'70 $4,795 $7,951 $6,773 $70
Project Hours 1028 116 i.42 306 88 140 64 8 36 80 88
Team Total Budget $112,479 1$105,879 r 1.
•. $75,570 $17,319 1 $19,590
DKS Assoc,ates Team revised budget following presentation.xlsx I Refined 2126/09 I 8:19AM
-%,
....,1
4•2 • 1
0,,L,..osiv
-,
Lti cQ
alit „iiii
KN,,,,..._ )11,, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
OR EGOS
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Massoud Saberian, PE
Principal Traffic Engineer
Guy Graham, PE
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: TGM Grant Application for TSP Update
Resolution 09-15
DATE: March 13, 2009
ACTION
Staff requests the approval of Resolution 09-15 endorsing an application for a state
Transportation and Growth Management Grant to fund an update to the City of Lake
Oswego Transportation System Plan.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The City of Lake Oswego's Transportation System Plan (TSP) was last updated in
1997. It is a City Council goal to update City's Master Plans as needed. The purpose of
this project is to update the City of Lake Oswego's Transportation System Plan (TSP)
and adopt implementing ordinances (as necessary) to comply with OAR Chapter 660-
012 which requires development of a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system.
DISCUSSION
In 1992 the transportation chapter of Lake Oswego's Comprehensive Plan was updated
to reflect the requirements of the newly adopted Transportation Planning Rule. In 1997,
the TSP was again updated. During the twelve years since that update, the City
19
Council Report
03/16/2009
Page 2
believes that the economic, resource, and environmental climate has changed to a
degree that an update is critical at this time considering:
• Periodic Review
• Sustainability
• Redevelopment Opportunities/Transfer of Density
• Streetcar
• Regional Planning and the Regional Transportation Systems Plan
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
In order to update the Transportation System Plan, the City must allocate funds and
resources from other programs. The required local match for the grant is at least 11%
which is approximately $24,000, which will be paid from Public Works and Community
Development Department funds.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Lake Oswego City Council approve Resolution 09-15 endorsing
the application for a grant from the Transportation and Growth Management Program
(TOM) Program to fund City of Lake Oswego TSP update.
ATTACHMENTS
1. TOM Grant Application
2. Resolution 09-15
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. Yes.
Reviewed by:
Department ■ ector
Finance Direc,
AsAi
AAA-
Cit Attorn
Alex D. Mc` tyre
City Manager
20
RESOLUTION 09-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
ENDORSING AN APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FROM THE STATE
TRANSPORTATION AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT GRANT PROGRAM TO
UPDATE THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN.
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego is striving to comply with OAR Chapter 660-012
which requires development of a safe, convenient and economic transportation system;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego Transportation System Plan (TSP) was last
updated in 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Grant Program, which
is administered by the Oregon Department of Transportation, has issued a "Call for
Grant Applications"; and
WHEREAS, the City's Transportation Advisory Board has endorsed the TGM Grant
Application for funding the TSP update; and
WHEREAS, City of Lake Oswego's Public Works Department has the available funds to
meet the 11% matching funds required for TGM grants; and
WHEREAS, The TSP update is one of City Council's Goals;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego endorses the grant application for Transportation and Growth Management
Program funding for the City of Lake Oswego Transportation System Plan update.
This resolution shall be effective upon passage.
Considered and enacted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular
meeting held on the 24th day of March, 2009.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
Page 1 of 2—Resolution 09-15
21
APPROVED M,TOFORM:
LL
David Powell
City Attorney
Page 2 of 2—Resolution 09-15
22
/1/0tit '' TRANSPORTATION GROWTH MANAGEMENT (TGM)
GRANT APPLICATION FORM
litMPO:RIADON AND
kolif4 tAMIT
Please read the Application Packet carefully before completing this application.
Sample applications and application tips are available on the TGM Grants and
Incentives page on the Web: egov.oregon.govILCDITGMIgrants.shtml.
Complete this application (please limit to 8 pages), print it out, sign, and then submit by
postal mail.
The answer fields below will expand as you type.
ORGANIZATION NAME PHONE
City of Lake Oswego 503-635-0274
CONTACT PERSON NAME AND TITLE CONTACT PERSON E-MAIL
Massoud G. Saberian, PE, PTOE msaberian cimswe o.orus
Principal Transportation Engineer
Section 1: Project description and background
1. Provide a brief statement of project purpose and transportation relationships and
benefits:
The purpose of the project is to update the City of Lake Oswego's Transportation
System Plan (TSP) and adopt implementing ordinances (as necessary) to comply with
OAR 660-12-012 which requires development of a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
In 1992 the transportation chapter of Lake Oswego's Comprehensive Plan was updated
to reflect the requirements of the newly adopted Transportation Planning Rule. In 1997,
the TSP was again updated. During the twelve years since that update, the City
believes that the economic, resource, and environmental climate has changed to a
degree that an update is critical at this time considering:
• Periodic Review—In May 2008, the City was notified by the Department of Land
Conservation and Development to begin Periodic Review. Coordinating
transportation planning with land use updates will ensure the most efficient use of
land and the most appropriate transportation modes for those uses.
• Sustainability— Since the last TSP update, more emphasis has been placed on
sustainability. The City has developed a Sustainability plan (focused on city
operations), created a Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB), and is supporting the
SAB's efforts to develop a City-wide Sustainability Plan. An updated TSP with
City of Lake Oswego-TOM Grant Application I of 8
23
greater focus on walking, biking and transit, would help improve air quality,
reduce the use of fossil fuels and reduce transportation costs.
• Redevelopment Opportunities/Transfer of Density — There has been some
discussion in the community to consider redeveloping perceived underutilized
industrial areas of the community or to shift intensity and density to other parts of
the community. The TSP update would help to inform those policy decisions.
• Streetcar—The City is one of seven regional governmental entities in the region
who joined together over 20 years ago to purchase a rail line between Lake
Oswego and Portland. The region has conducted a Federal Alternatives
Analysis to review transit options (streetcar is the locally favored option) in the
Hwy 43 corridor, and is now beginning a Draft Environment Impact Statement
process. The addition of street car will require redevelopment in the downtown
as well as rezoning and redevelopment in an underutilized industrial area
adjacent to the rail line. Tying these transportation and land use changes
together in the TSP will bear on the success of these efforts.
• Regional Planning and the Regional Transportation Systems Plan — Metro is
currently in the process of updating the RTP. Updating the Lake Oswego TSP
will allow us to respond to any changes in the RTP in a timely manner
2. List the key project objectives and expected outcomes and relate them to TGM
objectives:
The proposed TSP Update is intended to:
• Provides for a safe, efficient, multi-modal transportation network, to support
existing and planned land uses;
• Prioritize transportation facilities and services considering likely future revenues;
• Analyze and determine the appropriate means for managing the state highways
to meet both local and through traffic needs as well as improving safety and
mobility;
• Strategically plan for a reliable network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities to
reduce air pollution, traffic and livability issues by increasing transportation
choices;
® Prepare Safe Routes to Schools plans for local schools;
® Address the needs and preferences of transportation system users and obtain
broad public support for the plan; and
• Ensure compliance with Metro's Regional Transportation Plan, the
Transportation Planning Rule, Oregon Transportation Plan, and Oregon Highway
Plan.
The plan is intended to achieve several TGM Objectives:
• Result in a balanced, multimodal transportation system that enhances the
existing opportunities for walking, bicycling, and using transit;
• Preserve or enhance the "through movement" function of a state highway;
City of Lake Oswego-TGM Grant Application
24
• Increase convenience and availability of alternative transportation modes to
reduce reliance on the automobile and make alternative modes a primary choice
for short trips; and
• Reduce emissions that contribute to climate change.
3. List the final products that will be prepared for adoption and which government
agencies (e.g., city, county, state agency, transit district, etc.) will need to take action
in order for each to be adopted:
The final product will be the Updated TSP and associated ordinances adopted by the
City of Lake Oswego, including Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, prioritized
multi-modal project lists, and potential funding sources. The Clackamas County Board
of Commissioners may be asked to amend the County TSP to adopt those portions of
the Updated TSP within the Dual Interest Area of the Urban Growth Management
Agreement.
4. Address the timeliness award criteria: explain why this is the right time for the
project. Identify ongoing initiatives or actions to be completed that may affect the
project timeline:
As noted previously, the City is in Periodic Review. An updated TSP would serve the
City well by providing timely and pertinent information to help inform growth
management and transportation policy decisions.
In addition to an updated TSP, the Periodic Review work program proposes to update
the following items; Buildable Lands Inventory, Housing Needs Analysis,
Industrial/Commercial Inventory and Needs Analysis, and Waste Water Master Plan.
5. Provide additional background and context for the project that will help us
understand your project:
The City and the region are at a crossroads with many regional and local decisions
looming within the next year. Providing an updated, comprehensive TSP will put the
City in a better position to make decisions on:
* Oregon Transportation Plan
* Regional Transportation Plan
® Rural/Urban Reserves Process
• Stafford Area
• Streetcar
• Underutilized industrial areas such as the Foothills Area and the Lake Grove
Industrial Center
• Sustainability
q: w City of Lake Oswego-TGM Grant Application 3 of 8
25
• Re-zoning considerations
6. If the project addresses a TGM focus area, describe how:
One of the key outcomes of the TSP update is to integrate sustainable practices into the
community. The City has embraced this idea by developing sustainability plan (focused
on city operations), created a Sustainability Advisory Board (SAB), and is supporting the
SAB's efforts to develop a city-wide sustainability Plan. An updated TSP with increased
transportation options would not only help increase air quality by reducing emissions,
but it would help the City reach its goal of becoming a sustainable community.
Section 2: Project specifics
1. Will a consultant be used on the project?
If yes, describe the expected roles of consultant and local staff:
A consultant will be used. The consultant will have an active role by performing most of
the project work, including data analysis, modeling, alternatives development and
analysis. City staff will provide data, review products, and perform support logistics for
the public involvement aspects of the project. Extensive public involvement will be one
of the key elements of the process. City staff will take the primary responsibility for
presenting the plan before the Planning Commission, Sustainability Board,
Transportation Advisory Board and other groups, and for adoption by the City Council.
2. Outline the major project tasks, expected timeline, and general methods. Include a
discussion of data and analysis needs and an overview of the expected public
involvement process (e.g., technical and citizen committees, workshops, surveys,
project Web page):
The project is expected to take 13-15 months to complete and during its course it is
expected to identify City of Lake Oswego's need for roadway improvements,
intersection improvements, Safe Routes to School, pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities,
transit system improvements, transportation demand management, and the overall cost
of projects and potential funding sources.
General approach with task objectives and timeline.
Task 1: Project Management, Regional Coordination, & Public Involvement - - (Months
1-2)
Agree on a structure for project oversight/management and public engagement
process to ensure adequate and broad public involvement, resulting in a TSP
that responds to community issues and values.
*4%
26 s .
City of Lake Oswego-TGM Grant Application 4 of 8
• Develop Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizen Advisory Committee
(CAC) role/roster and design public involvement into the remainder of the tasks.
Task 2: Review Relevant Plans & Policies - - (Months 3-5)
• Review existing plans, studies, reports, laws, standards, policies applicable to the
City's TSP.
• Prepare Transportation Models
® Prepare draft issues report identifying conflicts/discrepancies and strategies to
address them.
• Solicit TAC, CAC, and public input.
Task 3: Existing Conditions - - (Months 3-5)
• Ensure existing conditions are accurately documented.
• Prepare up-to-date maps, tables, graphics, description, etc.
• Solicit TAC, CAC, and public input.
Task 4: Needs & Deficiencies Analysis - - (Months 5-7)
• Determine the City's transportation system needs and deficiencies to inform
policy alternatives.
® Review transportation projects list against system needs and deficiencies.
• Solicit TAC, CAC, and public input.
Task 5: Transportation System Solutions/Financial/Implementation Report - - (Months
7-10)
• Identify draft and final transportation system alternatives consisting of
solutions/financial /implementation options.
® Solicit TAC, CAC, and public input.
Task 6: Draft TSP, Refinement, and Adoption - - (Months 10-13)
• Prepare draft TSP based on technical work and public engagement process.
• Prepare New or revised plan policies, maps, and regulations as needed.
3. In addition to data and analysis that will be gathered or performed as part of the
project, list any, including mapping, traffic counts, or transportation analysis, that
must be completed before the project can begin:
None.
4. Provide an estimated budget breakdown for the major tasks. If a consultant will be
used, separate the costs for local staff and consultant:
City of Lake Oswego-TOM Grant Application 5 of 8
27
Budget breakdown:
LOCAL CONSULTANT
TASK COSTS COSTS
1. Project Management, Regional Coordination, Public $2,200 $15,000
Involvement
2. Review Relevant Plans and Policies — Issues Report $2,500 $15,000
3. Existing Conditions $4,500 $40,000
4. Needs and Deficiencies Analysis $5,000 $33,000
• N
5. Transportation System $5,500 $50,000
Solutions/Financial/Implementation Report
6. Draft TSP, Refinement &Adoption $4,000 $35,000
Totals: $23,700 $188,000
5. Describe the experience and capability of the proposed project manager to manage
the project.
City of Lake Oswego's Principal Traffic Engineer, Massoud Saberian, PE, PTOE, will
manage the Project to assure continuity and completeness. Mr. Saberian has been
employed by the City for three years and has over 18 years of direct transportation
engineering and planning experience. Prior to working at the City he was a Senior
Traffic Engineer with Oregon Department of Transportation for three years and over 12
years with Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation as a Traffic
Analyst and Traffic Engineer.
6. Project Area
8.5-by-I I-inch map of the project area X Map attached
Description:
The City of Lake Oswego is located within the Metro Boundary and in three different
counties, including Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington; with a majority of its land
area in Clackamas County. The City has a certified estimated population of 36,590.
There are 7,241 acres within the City limits and 8,363 acres within its planned Urban
Services Boundary.
City of Lake Oswego-TGM Grant Application 6 of 8
28
/.re:;1Vtir
7. Submit letters or resolutions of support for the project from local officials that clearly
indicate an understanding of the intended project outcomes and support of the
project objectives. Submit letters of support from other interested parties as
appropriate. Note: these may be submitted separately from the application. Letters
and resolutions of support may be submitted through April 7, 2009. Those submitted.
after March 13, 2009 must be submitted electronically to
cirri .l.lesmeister odot.state.orus.
List letters and resolutions attached and expected:
SOURCE ATTACHED EXPECTED
1. Transportation Advisory Board Recommendation to City Council
2. City Council Resolution X
ArA:.
City of Lake Oswego-TGM Grant Application 7 of 8
29
Y :
0. .., ._.,::,.... ,
\,,, \ .-.0 lii..ds, -,,,,,
4
..£.x� +1�•„if' w,uc5rr.c..,..s-.w"""'+..�e•.,.c:rmw x�..�ix.,r_.f•:y'�, {
y ..,' .„.1. 1---- \
' 7- v.,11/ \' '' -''' ' .7
.wr...u.wwnrn�m�,,.nxaU ¢,Rm •' "'t'GS F;• ! '�' �, `�
arrn''� ,f e� - _ w. "�'y�se •
�, ea��.,. :.�., .�': :'_�,tip• --•-.---•:-•' ":1 i.;.C4`w...i�L Y:�.,.1;...:i:��i
..,,,,,• ,.��yx�. ..-_,G''•Y -n5..:.`., ".'•.J.w;.�„ a:_Jl
f i. I, r•+s,' .irtskiAntr •' �Y�,r i r Is>I�L _�
•
>r n •}• F' ,'r. :..sir,y f 1 :�y r� IU ••Sr1 {
!ll1M.t11 a �.a ,+d�',>Y� r�'7` ^ `` „��. ',', ,,(ri `�h•'-:, ;
i
s� -4 ��,, r ,` �:M?p •l;� � .•' '^y,.• y. c�.5 ;!''r•, `4y� �'`_;•'
Vim• • �•. •� •1• N °,%, 1 •1 •''ISO.° z 'y.,�
_. , .a.,. ,v ..f •'LF�i''�r r, :,,,,•4. C'!L�a 1 .
t !. �� r ,y" �'M r511 z-^`a'•ry..c rLt gr_I �" ��.� a>;��"
,. Cr yid a0 yi„ l' `e'•' - ji, ,::'` lj 1 z, Wil,'..f`rn;l ,,I,w sr m
,^'"" �,ilr L '.� 3 4� ai r,"�""P��� L �I'.�5�� r�ytiv. ,n,7Z-s S�`6���, l��IF' �n�'II�F'r��nr'`�3'I i`�pj
yu' -Y '' j�,��' �' "'" s��r,�r�,5' �1Y rl" 1.4•s
} i ' <p f ^ 4,'. y.r I,,,,,,A,,,,`I�- ' •, ,,L'N r'•�'f,kI 4' � �""�"S?/
x �7"=Via,' ,ib;.����Fr a�y'�S�'ei 5•
a10
'r' .r yr-.•_r •'�+ ✓ �� Ji.i''i'';',..1..i'r.;''11:'':;';,.',1:ili";`:1)'/,,til,''''''
i� ''fr•!4. 2''i I.��',',rIH .".,,,� f i.r�,� , v : _��'yI H �taf.v1z '•`• ,•Iy�"I'r.�fM„ ��y�•"T• �.,� s U•ti��rL.i�w3��^�yt'T'Ir n��C i" . �..i�/,�".+r lr'�� G - +Y:��fFenAn•".:�V r�:���� 1��1�-` ,.� °�T 1� 'Sys'lY,n
N �{IFN N L 1 J`^��'"r 1f,�'",. n y'. I� G•`1t'�'`�" 'f-��5.fir, `�'�m��``a �� I �ir,"
-e-i %r4rL,.,,,,:.,; a,� , , _ _ r.,.,:;.r•� '!�,g'�a 7 �" t s F 1 "
6.;`. .., F j.`.- r r,�v ' ' ,,' �,•,5; ! �r11 a sy If'r', .�h� ""�:.e-�",w� P� n��rN '`�
_ n x* .*,ax:.. ,�+iR 1 , 'f.` f ` ].i;�y~'�,,,,1�7 ',,ro,.�`f"a9�S•B a ,,'.y
li
y w Pf kA',.r 11 1 .r ti"y¢Gt" ., ^ :� /ya'� h L' ,iS �. aW yP JS`.,Q 6¢"�'.a"•F'e.�4'i�.
1 '},� i: y 1],"nrl I.••�'>I �'u � 54•�i��� I'z��.,51"S'�^'�'o�v�� r.!•- �:;'ir.
" € 1: .ara..M.�-. "^, n"4, y ,.... '�)', 'f I ,n�"I f'>'.'t9'-�-G'' s'.yr,. :-:r,•y
�N- ::' :.
.q ' ;u :t,i• .... Ip4' :r
.':'ri;-�f<�.iL; •"90-�i S--v,-:'.fi r• << ay,i^.a r : ry,. . _ .�"-iaS��i..,�a `1 }..r.ORr.�fie,,. ,r-+'•'�•..?.•a.. •-% r �n_.S' v�y�ay'��yle�•', .1 r• ..F F:•., 1''r V:,, {'�1 e,,,,-n t 'y�.JI -
k�+i!_�}F)lY rR- =-,"r�^..+:=.f�:���':H: v, n��.0 ����� s,"• l'•Cr,%Ly'a"...>�. ' l-•iel=: IacT S �4, .� b"
,::
•J r•
.a. r ray:•. ,,,,,,,;.,,,,,,,,4',44141141?''',1-:•:' -.'-''''.';'-
•w�� .tom`";=,'.
Irk
r$ >r r" ;Lq�� • ^
•
-r ter%:%.>-,!>r
.. .:,,LA:;''.ter:. '4. IL�::n" �I�
• - ''}t Nam.." 15.i.'�;:,r:
p .1-
..-L"r.....9r,r..." 'stet ac i' cY'•'�i`< i N'x.'^:.:c.i•' U
ram:;r; n 1.r.-J•.r',"".;.nr-�_;;y,,, LFrc,rf '.J�i��„�- 'yJJ.. I`'.:•.Y'•:..�.
I .'t'�/n .any Cdd .I :7..n��_;,.^ '.„4�'.
"xa u � -
,wr1. �. ,I
r
:r1
ems•
, a� � /a .w��3a a
• ��}-'•; x ii?:es it"-9:=',':�;:i%=r
ct, 'irk"" +""[� s >:K:` ,'�y,a .��:r...�- h � ->�:..,...'- �'':�=:
-'�r=:' ?•i> t::� L>.C,r l/:;?=-• -}Ii%%'r::yca'r'°iH'•.
,,,,''',ii..P.-'.--: : --,:-',Z;;.--,---:--.-',',:'-::::'--',.':•-',,,,,,.,::::-- i'-',-,:i'V.,',.'24:).:•'.';','',' ,' ''- -- -',,'.-',..r11-
•�f
. ',..,:i"-, : , -,,e,, • .- ,-,-• - ---,,-' •• --='"-• • --• •.-••-- .;',,,,.r:•••.:.:• - '' ',,,,,_•. ' • . • :- - . `;,-4.,• - -: :,'4--,-'-'''.':,•-'k,,,',:,".'',;•.•:g.i,,.-;',.=,;',g,,',:•,;,,,..''' -, -' •.,' • ----- • ,`,,,,R.-••.-•:-.:',,,••'.• .-••-• • • .•-- ,,,..•anli
,,
..LY.I i. ',.,''':':7':''''...'-'', ''V-Itliiiit''', 1'' ':''','.''. - - " '' ' ' '-- -----
H?." :•J.. :e;+'SI:•. .�]i)'---"�;. .' 5're,
(t .
�,^_ ..�r�n • $ ,�C".
s
. '.;„i ,NSF e= -+F•r�'j;'-
'''',) - .... •.,-',,,,,=1:,,,-A, i
7
' '',',", :,'''.,'''' ,'.,'•,', ,•. :'•,:'•'.; q 'rl
F.
�r
111.
.,,• ,•,..,,,,,,,,,,,,-,..„, -
•. ,,„,,,.-,"-.,„;.,-,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,A,-,,,,,,,,0,,,,,,,:,,,-,„,,,,,,,,,,,.,-,\4,...4a.,,,1-,,.,,,.,,,t g,•*rk 0.,.k2.e..,,,,wi,,,t,t,_4,,te,,:1,,t,.V,wd4,Vo,s*piot,.,Ar.fr4o:11,.2g,0o1;T4,w,OV-,
,:e, (I\f
7•-,",,y,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-"„,,,,.,.,;,,,,,m,,,,:,,.. 1 ;s % fir,.
yidx
, , , \,,...,•,:r.,.;••,••..,...,,......,.,...•,
al_ 1j
\ ' " .' ,:,,,,,,4i4-'.., -.,..-'.„,,,:-:. ,. ,,,,I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.',..\.,',i,'20:: --
.,„;,/,,,,,-,„,,,,..-.----,.\\, 1
t\ .
' ' tl' ' :I': '
,...,„,.,,../ , ,4,03,0g-4;.,- '§',,,41., -.• , •-,-,',,i-,,,),',',.:',,„',„`,n•,,:•'-,,,,,,,,,, _4.1 ':,,'.-,
" ii \ i
1 i';,:',''rr,,';;:2,,,,.:<''','•'''':;''',,'''':,'•'' ''..• '' ,• '''',1'''' '',,,,'''S'':',''',11',.*7''..•:',"'i'::'''''''''' • ., „ ' '..,444. 14,..,..::,..‘,•...-..; • I r:: II.;r \J
'',:'''At:''•''', ',':ili.• - ' • -• ..-•')"„ I :: 1.1'' -,..„,,------
,,,,,,,,,,,,„.....„„. . ,. , . - - '....
' , .. '.,-,'':,:,,,, ,.."-
- • ,,,,..p:,, , . ,,,,,,,i,,, . ,.. , ,,,,.:-,,,,,,,,,..,,:,..,,,,,,;,,,I, ,.. , , , ,;, _
, .71, I .,„
c. --.-. -,,,,,,, _... ...„.,„
,.......,,,........,....... . . ,
Iiiiiiiiihr. ',, -!:::-, ' loc, „ .._.
- s. ..,„„ ...4 : ,,„ L......
i iliv,.:., ,,,,,,,,:_z:....,,,::,...,-.,, , --, , --'''404', "
/ ,.,,-.-,,',,,•,--•,.1.::,,•,--- , ,,,6,F,i,,,,,,:',Y,''''..,',: s' '''' r' -'' ''' -''''',':4';','...:3::',,':::,-;'':','''&*^'"'''..''''':'''-'''' ''''
rY--' h
/ '• •
- �' 4 • -'':''`�: �:�+??'::'' I .-,',-:.;.,,,,..--,',...:.,'Ls,„?-,-',:
Si.
��ff "F
•J rM'�h:t
e
:',-:,/,-::1-,,,',,,,-,-,-,.,-;:,-;...-,:7,--',':7,',-S.,.,-,...:.!:,',:-:::::,,,Iii.':::-.;,-,,,..,--,-!:,:.:-..!„,..-:-,,,:;,;,,,,,,..,,::::::,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;::::::::::,;:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
f t•��l<
•.�;�;�;�--ter`'`n.
,-'' i , -::::.....-:i.if,;-,,=.'.'.':§k,,, - . ',.'.:-.,.:,..:'`‘'.J.,S,- - .' ,,,,,,.A0'; ,---..-:- -,-,4.:•Iol,,',,,,,,,,k,,:':,;r,-:.':',.-;,,,,'.V:-':-T-„.,f::•.-,,,„'-.=-...,z.:,,,,,---',•;:,:,..-":„:;',:3,,,',.. ,..,,,,,,f,I::X" 1
,• • 'Jrz
I
,, I .,,,, ,,,,r,,,,,,:., -.. ,,,,,...,„,,,,:,,,,,,,-„i,„,,..i..,.„,:,,,,,e,,,,,,e4p:„.._,,,,,..-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-:,:,-_.,„.:.,,.„,,,,,,,,,-..„...:.„.,,,,,,,, 40,„,,,,,,.
r�ww. .} - w''•-- .r.,..,,,,,,,_,,,,,p: - ,m,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„:,,,,,-,---,,,...tomeiviritc.,/,..s..1.-..-,:',,,,.,..-, .,,,,..:,,,,-...,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,s,".. i "se,,..,--- %., t
• t�;�\' '''"'r,°'rs -'' i ^ < •
A� m" ,Y,s qy #t q. 9 ? 1.
-G•.
liratiPktr. ri 0 ,.
..,,,f,,,,,,,,,„,,-,,,,,, ,,,,,,:,,,
IJ < .� = oy .�;s•5 X
-
, ".
,:::,,,,,:...,
" ,'- �`s" ,i 4Fei,'" "T A y r `i , :,,
A 'j .,,,r •.."`zu""r+m7 r W_n+" - ' 4r k e3'7 ca,F�n�'3y ,,' w' ya '�.�.r ' .rC _ _
Vate
.,,M1,,,rz,,,,,,,,,,:?:•:, ,,•:',,'':!;:,':,•\,,,,,,,,'.,','..,•,-!•,:-,1••:•,,,:::;:.::',',:,
,,;7,„,7:-''''j:li,,i,:::•„,„ '''*iiliiiic,.
',•,-,TieS,,',,,,,,',.,.,„':„,,;.-:.:,'',":::':./1.,-',..'iinititt;:11Y3:"•::`:•-•-•,. -. "I:iiii,' ''' .)p, ' ,,,.,,,,,'''
,,::4/ ,,,,,.-.,,,,,,,,„,,,,,„0##,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,c-....-,.',,,.,,,,,. ..,,. ,,,tA,,,,;:.
u ? � •_,: v
9, y .."tiv 6"�.S�•a%Wti4%"': ry,��'91f�.;,rK'" ••p�,p HYy °:r'
--, ,,�i�?^s1 S x t, �.�/eS+• ya'i e;iti 4.>•,`'FJ,, _ S ,.nr<w,,.-•."
4,!:, <-.:.•
,,D _ „,,,,,
Ywr + 5;,,,,,,,4�r 9,is,�t•�?rrm,,,�y,,��?SS3,.$p,_,';:-„_,�:. 'y`"; .vR+h:...[". - ;` .`t
,,,,,
,..„,,......„,,,,,...„,,
.,....„....„,...,,,„
• 1��j` .,� ,fi"�Y,?€��``••55�11.:;1M1; gyp' v " i
-� •.�:qy•�...�ti r1ia:4`�,}tr��sy��"1�JY'�iyy ri4;S "�rrWi"�:` `"-,,�. _ _
"".
/``� y� .S.F!•.. .�1 l/ „�,.�x A si:'L Tf,. ,-al��a`r L�
.. ..,. ..,,... ._,......,... ..•
.,,,,. .
/� •Y�H•'.�! J^ +:` M Y••`,.,„`J�'" C�M...,.,r,,,,c�ew.rv.. ,,,,,,,,,,,mm,,,,,,rrrn n•wri,,,,,
�fn • cn
i y�S�F� � '•>+� nn,.aw v"ww „.^^w enrwnrvev rsw,w„e s.^.•.,ryr•mni,rc.v� y ._„,, ._`..;.�:.,•�`'•'t: ,.
-._40e? ._:Ti
„,,8,,,,,,,--,,,,
_ , CD ,„--,-- , ,„,e-,,2,..:9 ri
rcrryywHrrcr p!' •=,� ,..'+I "4( r 1 ..„.. �WSnN •�<r,n n'�•+rnwNn� .•.C.�"
F'""�Wam,nrr,vewwnrrm...0 L N y„,5, %
4F:.,r F
:;pfi,-.u`_,�,- City of Lake Oswego-TGM Grant Application 8 of 8
30 {
1 f
it r ,,F
'.�k ihH
0,LAKE C),..-.
f - March 9,2009
¢:.AI
Lake Oswego City Council
chtEGob, P.O. Box 369
Lake Oswego. OR 97034
Subject: Oregon Department of Transportation- Transportation Growth Management
(TGM,) Grant Application to Update the City's Transportation System Plan
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT Dear Councilors:
DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING The Transportation Advisory Board(TAB)strongly recommends that the City submit a
grant application to the Oregon Department of Transportation under the Transportation
I)vsO Growth Management(TGM) ro ram in order to obtain funds to u date the Ci 's
g p g p City's
Transportation System Plan(TSP).
CITY OF
LAKE OSWEGO The City's TSP is one of many plans included in the Comprehensive Plan that provide
guidance on growth management and transportation-related issues. Specifically, the TSP
380 A Avenue identifies the City's transportation strategies, needs, and priorities. Updating the TSP is
PO.Box 369 ty pp g
La �Oswego critical in maintaining a safe and efficient transportation system. Additionally, the TSP is
kOregon 97034 a required task identified in the City's Periodic Review work program.
503-635-0270 The TSP was last updated in 1997, 12 years ago. Since then, many regional and local
Fax 503-635-0269 events have impacted this community; including the need for sustainability, a significant
www.ci.oswego.or.us update to Metro's Regional Transportation System Plan, and urbanization and
redevelopment opportunities within and around the community.As a result of these
changes, an update to the TSP is critical at this time.
Finally, OAR 660, Division 12(Transportation Planning) implements Statewide Planning
Goal 12(Transportation),with the purpose of providing and encouraging a safe,
convenient and economic transportation system. In this OAR a major emphasis is placed
on the coordination of land use planning with transportation planning. The local TSP
must be consistent with regional and state transportation plans and an update to our TSP
at this time will help insure this consistency.
Thank you for consideration of this proposal. The Board looks forward to working with
the community and the Council on the City's transportation planning.
Sincerely,
7i://;,,,"—c..._------
/'//14-' ---- - -- .:,',/
,/ '',,,,,::-'
Trryl y'es, P.E.
e Chair,Transportation Advisory Board
*,'If,
c: Guy Graham,P.E., Public Works Director
TAB members(via email)
® K.
c
, - i,„
31
%,AKE Q� • 2
0
CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
OREGQS
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder
SUBJECT: Resolution 09-16, approving an appointment to the Historic
Resources Advisory Board
DATE: March 16, 2009
ACTION
Council is requested to approve Resolution 09-16, approving an appointment to the
Historic Resources Advisory Board.
BACKGROUND
The City Council Interview Committee consisting of Councilors Hennagin and Sally
Moncrieff, and Jeannie McGuire, Co-Chair of the Historic Resources Advisory Board,
interviewed seven candidates on February 5, 2009. On February 17, 2009, the City
Council approved the appointment of Craig Foster as alternate on the Historic
Resources Advisory Board should there be a vacancy through November 30, 2009.
Sarah Neitzel, member of the Historic Resources Advisory Board since July 2, 2002,
has submitted her letter of resignation effectively immediately. When contacted, Mr.
Foster indicated he was willing to serve on the Historic Resources Advisory Board.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 09-16
11/
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation:.
Reviewed by:
1 ty Att o n
Alex D. cl ntyre
City Manager
33
RESOLUTION 09-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
APPROVING APPOINTMENTS TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY
BOARD
WHEREAS, a City Council Interview Committee, consisting of Councilors Hennagin and
Sally Moncrieff, and Jeannie McGuire, Co-Chair of the Historic Resources Advisory
Board, met on February 5, 2009, to interview candidates for the Historic Resources
Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, it was the consensus of the Interview Committee to recommend that Craig
Foster be appointed to the Historic Resources Advisory Board as alternate should there
be a vacancy through November 30, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor has made the appointments recommended by the Interview
Committee;
WHEREAS, a member of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, Sarah Neitzel has
submitted her resignation effective immediately, that will be accepted by the City
Council on March 24; and
WHEREAS, Craig Foster has indicated his willingness to be appointed to fill the
remainder of Ms. Neitzel's term which expires December 31, 2010.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Lake Oswego approves the appointment of Craig Foster to the Historic Resources
Advisory Board for the remainder of a three-year term ending December 31, 2012,
This resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego at a regular
meeting held on the day of , 2009.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
EXCUSED:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
AP /ROVE* AS TO FORM:
67avid Powell, City Attorney
34
01 1-AKE cap
o;aii
eir"All
OF L
ril
,_.„,„.
':: 70R,c,,,,--Jg
COUNCIL REPORT 4. 3
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder
SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes
DATE: March 24, 2009
ACTION
Approve minutes as written.
ATTACHMENTS
1. January 7, 2009, special meeting
2. February 10, 2009, special meeting
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation.
R-viewed by:
g„../tdt / /
A -x D. Mcl tyre
City Manager
35
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
January 7, 2009
ORtGU$
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 2:04 p.m. on
January 7, 2009, in the Santiam Room, West End Building.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Johnson (4:17), Olson, Moncrieff, and
Tierney; Councilor Hennagin was excused
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Stephan Lashbrook, Assistant City Manager; Bob Galante,
Galante, Redevelopment Director; Joe Hertzberg, Facilitator
3. ORIENTATION FOR NEW COUNCIL
• Legal Structure
Mr. Powell reviewed the legal structure of the City of Lake Oswego government. He explained
that the City had a home rule charter with a traditional Council-Manager form of government. The
`general grant' charter gave the Council broad authority to do whatever a municipality could legally
do. He recommended that the Council members read the City Council Rules of Administrative
Procedure. He reviewed the different types of meetings, agenda basics, the Consent Agenda, and
Citizen Comment.
The Council discussed Citizen Comment. Mayor Hoffman recalled that, during the campaign,
people complained about the three-minute time limit. Mr. Powell indicated that the Mayor could
extend the time at his discretion. He explained to Councilor Tierney that the testimony time limits
at public hearings related to the type of public hearing it was. He clarified that, with respect to
Citizen Comment, the past Council's practice has been not to answer a question but to direct the
citizen to staff.
Councilor Jordan confirmed that the three-minute time limit had not been absolute. She held that
the issue was one of fairness in allowing people to talk for the same length of time.
Councilor Jordan pointed out that, if Council decided not to have the Tuesday morning meeting
(when Council usually noted changes to the minutes), then a decision was needed on when
Council members could make those changes.
The Council discussed taking things off the Consent Agenda. Councilor Jordan recalled that the
Council has taken large contract awards off, which Council had discussed at a previous study
session, in order to make sure that the citizens understood that the Council had discussed it earlier
and was not simply passing it through. Mayor Hoffman commented that he had pulled items that
he wanted the public to know about, or to give staff an opportunity to explain, such as contract
awards.
Mr. McIntyre described the challenges of building an agenda. He pointed out that pulling things
off the Consent Agenda lengthened the meetings. He spoke of the balance between consideration
of the Council's time as public officials and the public's need to know about expenditures. He
mentioned that pulling contract awards off the Consent Agenda had caught him by surprise when
he came here.
Mr. Hertzberg commented that the Council needed shared expectations regarding why someone
might pull an item from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Lash brook mentioned his experience with other
City Councils that Councils usually made poorer decisions after 10:30 p.m.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 11
January 7, 2009
37
The Council discussed guidelines for Mayor Hoffman and Mr. McIntyre to use in deciding what to
put on the Consent Agenda. Mr. McIntyre indicated that he would not put items on the Consent
Agenda that he now knew were controversial. Councilor Tierney mentioned time and simplicity
as criteria for building the agenda as a whole.
Councilor Jordan pointed out that the Council did not have a procedure in place to dialog with the
public regarding agenda items. She described the Consent Agenda items as information items.
Mayor Hoffman commented that he and Mr. McIntyre would get a sense of what was important to
the Council over the next several months as they developed the agendas.
Mr. Powell discussed the rules of debate. He explained that, while Roberts'Rules of Order was
the fall back, the Council did not strictly adhere to those rules. Rather, if the Council debate
process was working fine, then it was working fine. He mentioned that the formal rules required a
motion and a second prior to discussion, but he has not insisted on that procedure because this
Council has worked by consensus.
Councilor Jordan recalled that Council members asked for clarification from staff prior to a
motion, and then discussed the question following the motion. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he
would look to Mr. Powell for advice if needed, but, in his experience, they did not need a formal
procedure to move things forward.
Ms. Christie requested that motions be clearly stated, as opposed to a Council member saying
during discussion 'so moved.' Mayor Hoffman commented that he saw his role as summarizing
discussion and encapsulating what the Council was trying to move forward.
Mr. Powell indicated that, when they occurred, he would walk the Council through the procedure
for friendly amendments. He discussed the procedure for reconsideration of a vote, noting that
only a member who voted on the majority side could ask for reconsideration. He noted the rules
for discussion. Mr. Hertzberg pointed out that an important element was trusting the chair to
facilitate a fair debate, and not to allow one side to dominate the discussion.
Mr. Powell discussed voting. He explained that a vote only passed with a majority of votes, such
as 4-3. Both a tied vote with a member absent and a tied vote with a member abstaining failed
because there was not a majority. He discussed the difference between recusing oneself from
participating in the vote and abstaining from the vote, which was still participating in the vote. He
noted that the Council policy on abstentions discouraged abstentions because the Council
members were there to vote.
He stated that it was important to distinguish between creating a Council subcommittee and asking
Councilors to bring back information. Since a Council subcommittee would come back with a
recommendation, the public meetings law requirements applied to subcommittee meetings.
The Council discussed the order of the vote. Ms. Christie indicated that the roll call vote order
used to rotate, beginning with the Mayor and the Council President. Mr. Hertzberg said that they
would come back to this topic later.
Mr. Powell discussed how to handle motions. He explained to Councilor Tierney that the
difference between `suspend' and `postpone' was that `postpone' simply put something off to a later
time, while `suspend' (or `table') put an item on the shelf until someone who voted on the majority
side moved to bring it off the shelf.
Mr. Powell pointed out that only the Charter Officers (the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the
Municipal Judge) actually worked directly for the Council. The Charter mandated that City
Manager handle all employee affairs and prohibited City Council members from trying to influence
his management of employees. He said that, as City Attorney, he represented the City and the
Council collectively, and not individually. He indicated that he was also the Chief Legal Officer
doing legal work for the City Manager.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11
38
January 7, 2009
He clarified to Councilor Olson that a Council member could inform the City Manager of concerns
he/she has heard about an employee, but he/she could not try to influence the City Manager in his
handling of the personnel situation.
Mr. Powell discussed Lake Oswego's status as a court of record. He reviewed how the Council
exercised its powers by ordinance and resolution. He explained that, while the City Charter and
ordinances mostly controlled governing the city, federal and state laws could override local laws.
• Land Use Procedures
Mr. Lashbrook discussed the regulation of land use through federal, state, and local laws. He
spoke of the State administrative rules and the statewide planning program and goals. He
mentioned the Big Look Committee's recent work on revising the procedures for implementing the
statewide planning goals. He noted the Metro Charter and Code, the County coordination
requirements, and the City's Charter and Comprehensive Plan.
He indicated to Councilor Jordan that the Metro regional goals were not different from the
statewide planning goals. He explained that the State land use system in Oregon expected cities
and counties to figure out how to balance the 19 statewide planning goals in applying them to their
jurisdictions through a Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinances.
Mayor Hoffman clarified that Metro's statutory authority was limited to issues of region-wide
concern, including but not limited to housing, sensitive lands, parking, and traffic.
Mr. Lashbrook concurred with Councilor Jordan that having both statewide planning goals and
region wide planning goals created a confusing situation. He noted that another confusing factor
was the Metropolitan Housing Rule, which did not come from the regional authority Metro, but
rather from the State in an effort to regulate housing density throughout the state.
He confirmed to Councilor Tierney that Metro had statutory authority from the State, in addition to
a charter voted on by the people in the region. He mentioned that Metro was a unique entity in the
United States. Mr. Powell observed that Metro's planning and enforcement authority was not well
defined. He indicated that he did not know what would happen if a local jurisdiction refused to
comply with Metro mandates.
Mr. Powell discussed legislative and quasi-judicial hearings and procedures. He explained that in
the first, the Council functioned as a legislature in adopting laws, while in the second, it functioned
as a judge in determining whether an application met the stated criteria in the Code. He discussed
the roles of the Planning Commission (legislative) and the Development Review Commission
(DRC) (quasi-judicial). He emphasized that if an application on appeal from the DRC met the
criteria set forth in the Code, then, no matter how much the public did not want the development,
the Council had to approve it.
He clarified to Councilor Moncrieff that, with respect to a quasi-judicial hearing, the Council
members were supposed to stop someone from giving them information outside of the record,
whether in conversation or through e-mails. If it unavoidably or accidentally happened, then there
was a procedure for declaring ex parte contacts, but the idea was to avoid muddying the record.
He indicated that a good rule of thumb was that if an issue was going to the DRC, then it was
appealable to the Council, and Council members should avoid any discussion of it.
Councilor Moncrieff asked how to handle the information on a potential quasi-judicial appeal,
which she, and Councilors Tierney and Olson, might have received prior to being elected. Mr.
Powell reviewed the ex parte contact declaration procedure used to cure the problem. He
explained that the intent of the quasi-judicial hearing was to have a level playing field for all parties
and to let the citizens participating in the hearing know what was in the minds of the judges.
Councilor Jordan commented that often e-mails, which unexpectedly turned out to address a
quasi-judicial item, contained no new information outside the record. However, a Council member
should still declare them up front. Mr. Powell suggested forwarding such e-mails to himself or to
the planner for inclusion in the record.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11
January 7, 2009
39
He explained that, even after making a final decision, the Council members still needed to avoid ex
parte contacts because the losing party might appeal it to LUBA.
Councilor Jordan pointed out that site visits could either be a deliberate viewing of the property in
question or a familiarity with the property due to going by it every day. Mr. Powell explained that,
while staff has given up on preventing the Council from making deliberate site visits, they did
discourage those visits and required site visit declarations at the beginning of a hearing. He asked
the Council members not to investigate specific evidence of the case, such as measuring where
setbacks would be.
Mr. Powell indicated that, while ex parte contacts were not supposed to happen, even LUBA
recognized that they would occur, and has stated that it would not reverse a decision because of
an ex parte contact. He emphasized the importance of declaring not only the contact (oral, written,
and site visits) but also the substance of that contact in sufficient detail to allow the participants to
rebut the information received.
Councilor Tierney observed that it was difficult to make land use decisions without seeing the
land. Mayor Hoffman concurred. He commented that the difficulty with site visits came when
there was a traffic issue because traffic was not static like the land was.
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that there were few instances outside land use that
required a quasi-judicial hearing by the Council; noise abatement issues or an appeal on
licenses/permits were two examples.
Mr. Powell discussed bias, which was only a concern during quasi-judicial proceedings. He
pointed out that a challenge of bias was difficult to prove. Only the individual could truly determine
whether he/she was so vested in an issue, that he/she could not render an impartial judgment.
Therefore, only the individual could disqualify him/herself for bias.
Mayor Hoffman explained that what Council members have done in the past was to talk over their
issues and concerns regarding a particular hearing with the Mayor or the City Attorney or the City
Manager. Mr. Powell concurred. He discussed the issue of needing a quorum and a majority vote
(one way or the other) as factors Council members have considered in addressing the issue of
bias.
Mr. Lashbrook reviewed the land use procedure timeline for a final decision on an application in
light of the 120-day rule. Mayor Hoffman indicated to Councilor Tierney that the 120 days
included appeal time. Mr. Powell noted that the applicant could extend the 120-day rule, which
was what often happened if the process ran up against the deadline.
• Ethics
Mr. Powell discussed the difference between an actual conflict of interest and a potential conflict of
interest. He explained that a Council member had to announce the nature of the conflict of
interest, and recuse him/herself for an actual conflict of interest, but not necessarily for a potential
conflict of interest. He indicated that the two exceptions to recusing one's self over an actual
conflict of interest where meeting the quorum or minimum number of votes necessary to make a
decision requirement, and the class exception.
He discussed the definition of`relative' and `business' with respect to a conflict of interest. He
reviewed how to handle conflicts of interest involving law firms (which often served as agents for
clients on appeals), such as Councilor Jordan's husband's law firm. He indicated that he would
recommend (at a minimum) the conservative approach of declaring a potential conflict of interest.
Mayor Hoffman noted that he had to go through a complicated process in order to determine
actual or potential conflicts of interests with respect to the law firm that employed him.
Mr. Powell indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that, while it depended on the circumstance, it was
unlikely that a customer of her husband's consulting firm appearing before the Council would
represent a conflict of interest for her, unless the Council decision would benefit her husband's firm
in some way.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11
40 January 7, 2009
He discussed with Councilor Tierney the situation of an employee of a publically traded
corporation who did not have $100,000 worth of stock in the company. He indicated that a ruling
benefiting the Oregon City School District as a whole did not represent a conflict of interest for
Councilor Olson, although a ruling that would benefit her or her position would be a conflict of
interest. He encouraged the Council to read the booklet provided.
Councilor Jordan recalled hearing at the League of Oregon Cities that compensation, including
gifts given to relatives, was a big deal that people had to be careful about in order to avoid an
ethics violation.
Mr. Powell reviewed the current rules for gifts, compensation, not using a public office for private
benefit, food and beverages, travel and lodging, entertainment, and honoraria. He encouraged the
Council not to accept gifts (even under the $50 per year aggregate limit) from someone with a
legislative or administrative interest that was distinct from the general public interest in a matter.
He suggested that the Council review the chart handed out to identify such situations.
He indicated to Councilor Tierney that if a public official exceeded the cumulative gift limit, then
he/she has committed an ethics violation and could be charged and fined. Councilor Jordan
noted that it was self-reporting.
Mr. Hertzberg recessed the meeting for a break at 4:25 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 4:35
p.m.
• Public Meetings Law
Ms. Christie reviewed the rules for complying with the Public Meetings law with respect to open
and closed meetings. She pointed out that, while the press could not report on the discussion of
the subject of an executive (closed) session, it could report on off topic discussion. Therefore, it
was important to stay on topic during an executive session. She noted that the Council could not
make a decision in an executive session.
She encouraged the Council members not to give the appearance of discussing City business at
social gatherings. She discussed the use of e-mail, which was a public record. She cautioned the
Council to avoid meetings over e-mail because a discussion of City business at any time by a
quorum of the Council qualified as a public meeting. Mr. Powell concurred.
Ms. Christie noted the exception to the rule: Council tours. Mr. Powell recommended that any
conversation during a tour relate solely to the onsite inspection, leaving any deliberations for a
public meeting.
The Council discussed how to handle questions about an agenda item via e-mail. Mr. McIntyre
asked the Council to send technical questions to the appropriate staff member. He indicated that if
a Council member discussed a policy question with a staff member, then he/she should forward
the answer to everyone. He explained that they should not send the question to everyone
because, if everyone weighed in, then they have effectively convened an unintentional online
meeting, which they should avoid.
Mr. Lashbrook pointed out that questions to staff members on a quasi-judicial matter were not ex
parte contacts. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Councilor Tierney that he preferred Council members
to communicate directly with the author of a staff report, which would always be the department
head, no matter which staff member actually wrote the report. He indicated to Councilor Johnson
that he did not mind a Council member sending him a copy of the e-mail with the question.
Mr. Powell emphasized that a quorum of Council members at a social gathering trod a fine line
with respect to an ethics violation. He urged caution in any situation that presented the
appearance of Council deliberations, whether or not the Council members were actually talking
about City business. He noted that three members talking together did not represent a quorum,
and therefore was technically not a public meeting, but appearance was still an issue.
• Public Records
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11
January 7, 2009
41
Ms. Christie emphasized that every communication dealing with City business, including e-mails,
were public records, which someone could request. She stated that the Council members were
required to maintain public records.
Councilor Jordan suggested forwarding an e-mail received at a Council member's personal e-
mail address to the member's City e-mail address, and answering from the City address. Mr.
Powell confirmed that if a Council member consistently did so, thus separating City e-mails from
personal e-mails, then hopefully a judge would not order an inspection of a Council member's
computer hard drive at home, in such an event that that became necessary. He pointed out that if
Council members sent City business e-mails to the City distribution list, then Ms. Christie would
take care of archiving the records.
Mr. Powell discussed confidential records versus public records. He emphasized that a
communication could reasonably be considered confidential if the City was not obligated to
disclose it, or when the public interest would suffer by the disclosure. He urged caution with
respect to frank communications, as conditional exceptions were always conditioned on the public
interest disclosure outweighing what one wanted to protect. He recommended the safe route of
considering everything as disclosable.
Mayor Hoffman commented that something to be wary of was a mistake that he has made in the
past of forgetting whether he learned a piece of information in executive session or open session.
• Councilor Communications
Mr. Hertzberg noted the importance of Council members having the same expectations with
respect to Council communications.
Councilor Jordan recalled that the past Council's practice regarding discussions between two
Council members on a current issue has been for the Council members to have a private phone
conversation regarding the matter. She commented that it was important not to feel ganged up on
by four members who decided something together without talking to the other three. She indicated
that, while she was not aware that situation has occurred at Lake Oswego, she did know that it has
happened in many other places.
Councilor Moncrieff said that she preferred one-on-one phone conversations or face-to-face
conversations over e-mail. Councilor Johnson indicated that she also preferred one-on-one
conversations, as long as they were used to talk about things generally, and not to lobby for
something. Councilor Tierney stated his preference for e-mail communication. Mayor Hoffman
spoke keeping others informed to avoid being surprised.
Councilor Jordan said that she thought that the e-mail exchange system proposed by Mr.
McIntyre would help with Council communications by removing the possibility of potential
deliberations. Councilor Olson commented that she saw too many one-on-one phone
conversations as an unhealthy sign. She stated her preference for e-mail.
Councilor Johnson recalled that the only time she called people individually was to bounce an
idea off someone before possibly embarrassing herself in an e-mail. She pointed out that it was
difficult during a meeting to raise new issues not on the agenda. Mr. McIntyre suggested that
Council members use him or Mr. Powell as a sounding board for new issues. Mayor Hoffman
commented that the Council has raised new issues at study sessions for discussion before setting
it as an agenda item. The Council agreed on the importance of the no surprises' rule.
• Study Sessions
Mr. McIntyre explained that study sessions were an invaluable staff resource for shaping the staff
work and educating the Council on a given issue. He discussed how study sessions helped insure
that there were no major surprises during public hearings.
Councilor Johnson suggested holding meetings every Tuesday evening and discontinuing the
Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning meetings. Councilor Tierney spoke to holding as many
study sessions as needed to do the work, but preferably not at 2 p.m. Ms. Christie clarified that
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of I I
42
January 7, 2009
study sessions were televised on a delay basis. Councilor Jordan commented about the need to
coordinate additional Council meetings with the other meetings Council members attended outside
of City Council meetings.
Mr. Hertzberg summarized the Council agreement as holding meetings only when needed, and
holding either business meetings or study sessions every Tuesday night in the City Council
Chambers so that they could be televised.
• Tuesday morning meeting/Council Packet/Consent Agenda
The Council discussed the 7:30 a.m. Tuesday meetings. Councilor Jordan explained that their
purpose had been threefold: to review the evening agenda and to request any additional
information from staff, to discuss pulling items from the Consent Agenda, and to present minutes
corrections. She concurred with Councilor Johnson that sometimes the morning meetings went
into study sessions or executive sessions.
Mayor Hoffman mentioned that, because of his complicated conflicts of interest checks, he
needed to get the packet on Thursday, instead of on Friday. Mr. McIntyre said that staff could
produce the packet whenever the Council wanted it produced. He suggested that Council
members submit their minutes corrections directly to Ms. Christie.
He also suggested, since Council members would have five days to review the packet before the
Tuesday meeting, that they contact him and/or staff with any questions before Tuesday in order to
allow staff adequate time to respond. He said that he would call everyone on Monday to touch
base on whether a Council member had any issues or questions. He pointed out that the tradeoff
to discontinuing the Tuesday morning meeting was potentially longer Tuesday evening meetings.
The Council discussed how to handle pulling items from the Consent Agenda. Mr. McIntyre
indicated that his preference was for Councilors to call him about pulling an item off the Consent
Agenda, as he might be able to clarify their questions or concerns. If an item did end up being
pulled, he would notify the other Council members via e-mail.
Councilor Jordan spoke to making a Council consensus decision to pull something off the
Consent Agenda. She pointed out that if she had a question about an item, probably someone
else did too, but he/she might not realize it until the reading of the Consent Agenda during the
meeting. She suggested going through Mr. McIntyre first to get an answer, and then
communicating both the question and the satisfactory answer to the rest of the Council.
Councilor Jordan suggested having a deadline, such as 3 p.m. on Monday, for Council members
to bring agenda questions forward. She held that waiting until 3 p.m. Tuesday to raise a question
was unfair to staff. Mr. McIntyre indicated that he did not want to preclude anyone from asking
questions on the agenda at any time. While he did not want to pull things off the Consent Agenda,
he believed that the Council could pull something from the Consent Agenda up to the minute it was
read. He stated that his desire was to help the Council run an efficient meeting to the extent
possible.
The Council discussed reading the Consent Agenda. Mr. McIntyre questioned the purpose of
reading the Consent Agenda. He described it as an inefficient use of time, and stated that he did
not see any value in doing so. He suggested putting the Consent Agenda titles up on the screen
with the camera focusing on them while the Council talked about the Consent Agenda. People in
the audience could read it in the packet. Mr. Powell indicated that that was fine as long as it was
displayed so people could see it. Councilor Johnson spoke of putting it up long enough for
people to read through it.
Councilor Johnson indicated that she was fine with questions or items pulled from the Consent
Agenda going out through e-mail (after going through Mr. McIntyre), as long as it did not engender
discussion. The Council concurred with the process suggested by Councilor Jordan. The
Council indicated to Mr. McIntyre that it was not important to know who asked to pull an item.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11
January 7, 2009
43
Councilor Jordan indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the Council has resolved the issues she had
with discontinuing the Tuesday morning meeting. Mr. Hertzberg noted that there was consensus
not to hold a Tuesday morning meeting.
• Meetings
Mr. Hertzberg asked how to bring the new Council members up to speed on the issues with which
the senior members were familiar. Councilor Johnson suggested using study sessions, not so
much for educational information, but for the Council to discuss where things were now and how
the Council got there. She spoke to the importance of all Council members being on the same
page.
Councilor Moncrieff commented that these study sessions would help with the spirit of
transparency, in that the new Council members could ask questions and get clarification in front of
the public, so that everyone would know where the Council was at.
Councilor Jordan asked for clarification on the meeting schedule, noting that she had planned her
vacations around the old schedule of no meetings on the fourth Tuesday. She commented that
she did not want to miss out on important decisions while she was absent. Mr. McIntyre indicated
that the first and third Tuesdays would remain business meetings, while the second, fourth, and
rare fifth Tuesday would be study sessions.
Mayor Hoffman pointed out that they could also hold study sessions following the regular
business meeting. He acknowledged Councilor Jordan's concern but noted that he would have to
miss meetings if he had an out-of-town trial. Councilor Olson suggested agreeing that the
Council make no major decisions during study sessions. Councilor Jordan spoke of the
importance of publicizing the changed meeting schedule and the intent to record and later televise
every study session.
Mayor Hoffman commented that, while he was okay with televising the study sessions, he did not
want them driven by where the camera was. If necessary, the Council could meet some place
else.
The Council discussed Mayor Hoffman's proposal to change the meeting time from 6:00 p.m. to
6:30 p.m. It agreed by consensus to do so.
The Council discussed Mr. McIntyre's suggestion to hold executive sessions during the dinner
hour when people were fresh, instead of after the meeting when people were tired. It agreed to
hold executive sessions at 6:00 p.m. while eating dinner.
Mr. Powell mentioned that the Council would have to vote to reschedule the starting time. Mayor
Hoffman asked for a resolution on January 20 changing the meeting time to 6:30 p.m.
• Expectations of Mayor Hoffman as Presiding Officer
Mr. Hertzberg mentioned hearing expectations from Council members, such as helping to build
consensus but not going overboard with that, and recognizing that there was a time to bring things
to closure and keep the Council on track.
Mayor Hoffman described his style. He mentioned preferring a nodding of heads indicating the
sense of the Council in making a decision to the more formal motion style of Roberts'Rules of
Order. He stated that his role was to be a facilitator, as Mayor Hammerstad had been. He
indicated that all Council members were equal. He emphasized the importance of transparency
and no surprises.
• Council Interaction with Citizens
Councilor Jordan raised the issue of how the Council should interact with citizens during the
Citizen Comment period, which was different from interacting with the public during a public
hearing. Councilor Tierney commented that he thought it was a disservice to the citizens taking
the time to testify at a public hearing for the Council not to interact with them.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11
44
January 7, 2009
Mayor Hoffman pointed out that typically Citizen Comment involved an unexpected issue for
which the Council had no immediate solution. Therefore, the Mayor usually thanked the citizen for
the testimony and directed him/her to meet with the appropriate staff. With respect to a public
hearing dealing with a specific issue, he indicated that the Council as a group needed to decide
how to handle interacting with citizens. He spoke of handling it on an individual case basis
because the Council's response depended upon the situation.
Councilor Olson described how the Planning Commission started handling Citizen Comment,
which resulted in informal conversations with the public about topics raised by the citizens. She
said that the benefit from doing that far outweighed the longer meetings. She concurred with
Councilor Tierney that a citizen bothering to testify deserved some interaction, whether at a public
hearing or during Citizen Comment. She suggested extending the time limit to five minutes.
Councilor Johnson indicated that she would look to the Mayor to make the decision on how much
the Council interacted with the citizens at any given meeting, because the amount of that
interaction depended on the subject under discussion and on the meeting agenda. She
commented that, since the Council usually let people go over the three-minute time limit, she did
not think that they needed to change it.
Mayor Hoffman indicated that he did not mind Citizen Comment exceeding the three-minute time
limit.
Councilor Jordan discussed the differences she saw between Citizen Comment and a public
hearing. Citizen Comment was a time for a citizen to comment on something not on the agenda,
which made it difficult to prepare information or to answer off the cuff. She spoke of the
importance of balancing out the fairness issue of people receiving equal amounts of time. She
commented that, as individual Council members, they needed to be careful during public hearings
when responding to a particular person or issue in order to avoid that person concluding that the
Council was supporting his/her position.
Councilor Tierney spoke of finding a process that allowed people concerned enough about an
issue to testify about it to feel like the Council has listened to them. He also mentioned that staff,
when answering citizen questions, needed to speak into the microphones because the acoustics of
the back of the room were not good.
Councilor Moncrieff concurred with Councilor Jordan that giving testimony as a citizen was
intimidating, and that people could easily draw the wrong conclusion from a Council member
talking with them. She agreed with Councilor Johnson that handling testimony was up to the
facilitator. She spoke of the fairness issue with respect to public hearings, recalling that if she gave
her testimony and sat down after the time limit, and then the next person got into a dialog with a
Council member, she had felt that that was not fair.
Mr. Hertzberg summarized the goal as demonstrating respect for people and letting them know
that they have been heard.
• Meeting Process
The Council discussed using a formal versus informal process during the business meetings.
Councilor Johnson commented that she saw having rules and a respect for the process as an
important part of the respect for the office. Therefore, she preferred more formality during the
business meetings, although more informality during the study sessions was fine.
Councilor Olson indicated that, based on her experience at the Planning Commission, she
preferred a more informal approach. She spoke of being flexible when possible within the meeting
structure. Councilor Jordan commented that the benefits of the formal process were making
everyone feel like they knew what was coming next, and maintaining order. She suggested setting
aside one of the Tuesday nights for a Town Hall meeting with informal give and take between the
Council and the audience, while keeping the business meetings more formal.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11
January 7, 2009
45
Councilor Tierney indicated his preference for a formal meeting process. Councilor Moncrieff
said that she preferred structure and process. She mentioned that she liked the idea of a Town
Hall meeting separate from the regular meetings.
Mayor Hoffman indicated that he expected to receive feedback from the Councilors regarding his
conduct of a meeting, especially through non-verbals as he looked around the dais. He spoke of
interacting with the community in combination with the Council working as a group as efficiently as
possible.
• Order of the vote
The Council discussed the order of the vote. Councilor Tierney expressed a preference for the
vote order rotating each week, but with Councilors remaining in the same seats. Councilor
Jordan pointed out that the Council rarely did a roll call vote. Mr. Powell indicated that the rules
called for the order of the vote to rotate each week but did not require that the Mayor vote first.
Mayor Hoffman said that Mayor Hammerstad had told him that she had wanted to be first as the
group leader.
Councilor Olson indicated that she did not feel strongly about the issue, and would support
Councilor Tierney's expressed wish. Councilor Moncrieff agreed with Councilor Tierney that the
order should rotate each week. The Council agreed that it was up to the Mayor to decide whether
he would go first. Mayor Hoffman elected to go first.
The Council agreed that the order of the vote would rotate each week with the Mayor going first.
Ms. Christie would keep track of it and notify the Councilor going first after the Mayor.
Councilor Jordan suggested that, at the start of a meeting, the Council ask for all cell phones to
be turned off, and to announce the availability of hearing aid devices. lbs. Christie noted that she
published the information about the hearing devices on every agenda.
• Goal Setting
Mr. Hertzberg directed attention to the list of topics that he gathered from his interviews with the
Council members. He mentioned two items to keep in mind: what were the milestones that the
Council wanted to see this year, and how did the Council communicate on each of the issues? He
asked if there were any items (after the top five), which a Council member felt needed more
attention during the presentation.
Councilor Olson spoke of bringing the Council up to speed on the upcoming planning issues,
including periodic review, visioning, the code, the Matrix study, and infill and sensitive lands.
Mr. McIntyre asked for clearer direction on some of the one or two word topics, as he did not know
what the original question had been that led to a Council member mentioning the topic. He noted
that all the department heads would attend the Friday meeting, but not the Saturday meeting.
Mr. Hertzberg said that the question he had asked was what the Council member saw as the most
important goals for the Council and the City in the next year. He pointed out that some of the
topics meant different things to different people.
Councilor Tierney asked what they were defining as `a goal.' Mr. Hertzberg said that, in the past,
the Council has defined 'a goal' as something that the Council needed to keep its eye on over the
course of the year. He spoke of a goal as having an endpoint for the year, an `x' amount of
progress that would be made. He pointed out that there was a real difference between Council
goals and City goals, with which the Council had little to do.
Mr. McIntyre commented that he believed that the Council wanted quality results from staff. He
described a goal as a task to which the Council was willing to dedicate resources, which would be
at the expense of a lower priority item. He said that, in order for him to set a budget and start
moving forward, he needed the Council to identify the top x number of items it wanted pursued this
year.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11
46
January 7, 2009
Mr. Hertzberg recalled that one of the most effective goal setting techniques the Council has used
occurred last July when the Council used a triage process in deciding what it could get done in the
next six months before the new Council came in.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
?woe a(Pii:104L
Robyn Christie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11
January 7, 2009
47
01 r�KE oswt
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
A446MINUTES
February 10, 2009
Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. on
February 10, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, and
Tierney. Councilor Johnson was excused.
Staff Present: Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie,
City Recorder; Brant Williams, Director of Economic and Capital Projects;
Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director
3. STUDY SESSION
3.1 Background Presentation Facilities/West End Building
Mayor Hoffman observed that City facilities had not only physical capital for the community but
also social and economic value as well. He noted that, while the Council has known for some time
that these City facilities had difficulties, it has not focused on them until the last six to eight months.
He explained that the Council was trying to get to a comprehensive understanding of the
community's assets, including the West End Building (WEB). He reminded the Council members
that they should not rush to a decision on this issue; it might take several study sessions to
address it.
Mr. McIntyre pointed out that an important factor was to acknowledge that this was a problem or
opportunity that the City owned. Even though six of the Council members had nothing to do with
the WEB purchase, this Council needed to decide what to do with it. He noted that the issue was
complex, and involved a large amount of data. He described the information in the Council binder
as the first major snapshot in time on where the City was with the WEB.
He commented that he thought it remained to be seen whether the WEB was part of the problem
or part of the solution to the other facility problems. He said that staff needed direction from the
Council on whether to include the WEB in the entire facilities study. He described the presentation
tonight as providing a foundation for the decision makers to use in giving staff direction on the next
steps on how to move forward.
• STAFF REPORT
Mr. Williams gave a PowerPoint presentation of the information contained in The West End
Building Decision Process Report(pp.1-27) and Exhibit A (pp.1-8).
He reviewed the history of the WEB, beginning with the City purchasing it from Safeco Insurance in
2006 for $20 million with the intent of using it as a multi-generational community center. He
mentioned the Community Center Plan, developed by the 20-member citizen steering committee in
the summer of 2007, which the City immediately put on the shelf in order to deal with the
November 2007 advisory vote on whether to keep the WEB, and with the May 2008 vote on paying
for the building (which failed).
He indicated that the Council adopted the WEB decision process as part of deciding what to do
with the property within the context of other City facility needs. One question was whether the City
could use the WEB to resolve other facility problems. He stated that the goal was to provide
sufficient information to the Council to enable it to make an informed decision, which, ideally, the
community could support (WEB Report, p.1).
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10
February 10, 2009
49
He reviewed the major work plan reports and studies conducted by staff, beginning with the City
Facilities Assessment (WEB Report, p.1-2). He explained that, since Solarc Architecture was
already looking at the Maintenance Services Building, staff incorporated their report into the report
that SERA Architects did on an additional nine significant City buildings, for a City facilities
assessment of 10 buildings. The assessment looked at the physical condition and the current and
future space deficiencies at the four fire stations, the indoor tennis facility, the Maintenance
Services Building, the WEB, City Hall, the Library, and the Adult Community Center (ACC).
He reviewed common problems found in the buildings (WEB Report, p.2). He emphasized that the
seismic deficiencies were most critical with respect to the facilities that provided emergency
services. He commented that the life span of most mechanical systems was 20 to 30 years, and,
therefore, many of the mechanical systems on buildings built in the 1970s and 1980s needed
replacement in the next few years. These buildings also pre-dated the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements, and needed upgrading.
He identified City Hall, the Maintenance Services Building, and the South Shore Fire Station as the
buildings with the most deficiencies (WEB Report, p.2). He described City Hall as the most critical
facility in terms of health and safety issues and space needs.
He noted that the West End Building Property Appraisal (WEB Report, p.2) appraised the building
and property at $21.3 million in September 2008. However, with the change in the economy since
then, staff asked CB Richard Ellis to conduct a real estate and office market analysis for City
facilities (WEB Report, p.2-3). Their work assessed the current market values of City Hall at $4.1
million, the Library at $2.7 million, and the ACC at $4.7 million. Under current market conditions,
they concluded that the WEB would likely sell for $8 to $9 million.
He reviewed the recommendations made by the Urban Land Institute expert panel (WEB Report,
p.3). He discussed the findings of the staff review of existing City policies (WEB Report, p.3-4).
He described the various public outreach efforts (WEB Report, p.4-5). He explained that the public
opinion research conducted by Davis, Hibbetts, & Midghall, inc., looked to hear from the bell
portion of the bell curve of Lake Oswego citizen opinion by using a large group study format (WEB
Report, p.4).
• QUESTIONS OF CONSULTANTS
Mr. Williams invited Don Eggleston of SERA Architects, Mark Fitkin of CB Richard Ellis, and
Adam Davis of Davis, Hibbetts & Midghall to the table to answer Council questions on their
reports.
Councilor Hennagin commented that he had been surprised that the CB Richard Ellis valuation of
the ACC was higher than the valuations for City Hall or the Library. Mr. Fitkin confirmed that the
amount of land at each site primarily drove the valuations. Mr. Williams pointed out that, if sold,
both the Library and the ACC properties would likely return to single family residential: 13 lots on
the 2.8-acre ACC property and 8 lots on the 1.1-acre Library property.
Councilor Olson asked whether CB Richard Ellis would change its recommendation to keep the
WEB for at least three years if it knew that the City has not paid for the building and was losing
money every year that was kept. Mr. Fitkin explained that they based their valuations solely on
the market conditions today: they did not use the acquisition price. He commented that they did
consider the purchase price in concluding that this was not a good time to sell the building
because, under current market conditions, the $8 to $9 million the City would likely get for the
building would not recoup the City's $20 million investment.
Mr. Fitkin indicated to Councilor Tierney that, given the fact that the commercial real estate
market on the West Coast was virtually frozen at this time, it could take more than a year to sell the
WEB for$8.5 million. He noted that the Farmers Insurance building sat on the market for 17 to 18
months before it sold.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10
February 10, 2009
50
He concurred with Councilor Tierney that the excess land on the WEB property had value, which
the City could partition off to provide additional uses. He confirmed to Councilor Jordan that the
City could potentially realize less money selling the property as a whole than it would selling it in
partitions. He explained that the challenge was that the demand for development was virtually
non-existent right now.
At Mayor Hoffman's request, Mr. Davis provided background information on his firm, which
specialized in public policy and planning work. He mentioned that, with the increasing difficulty in
obtaining opinions via telephone surveys, his firm was using other research techniques, such as
focus groups, more and more.
Councilor Tierney asked if the large group study sample truly represented the bell shaped curve.
He wondered whether there would be any changes in the results if Mr. Davis conducted the study
today. Mr. Davis indicated that they worked hard to make sure that the three large groups in this
study were representative of the Lake Oswego community, including the young people. He stated
that the Council could feel confident in what they learned through the study.
He described the information learned as `tough news.' A majority of citizens wanted the City to
keep the building, and a majority of citizens did not want to pay for it. He commented that the
situation has changed since they conducted the group study, and not for the better because of the
economy.
He mentioned seeing more anti-tax sentiment than ever in communities, and a need for
communities to set priorities on their identified needs. He indicated that the item that trumped
everything else in issues like this was maintenance. He described the message from the citizens
as the Council needed to make sure to preserve the public investment in these buildings before
asking for more money to expand existing facilities or build new ones. He emphasized that these
were very tough times for the average Oregonian across the state.
Councilor Hennagin commented that the lack of information provided to the study participants
regarding the details of the health and safety issues in City Hall caused him to question the benefit
of their responses to the Council in making a decision. Mr. Davis said that the information sheet
provided to the participants did include information about the conditions in each of the several
facilities under consideration during the three-hour study. He indicated that the skeptics in the
group simply did not believe the information, while another contingent held that the City could take
care of the mold problem, do basic maintenance, and get the building back into shape.
He confirmed to Mr. Williams that he had not seen the cost information as critical because they
were looking at policy direction. He explained that if they had given the participants the cost
information, then they would have had to translate it into how it affected their pocketbooks. He
indicated that they had wanted to get the participants' opinions based on the information that they
brought in with them, since the study group was also representative of the different levels of
awareness in the community.
Councilor Jordan recalled that she had shared Councilor Hennagin's concerns with regard to the
study. She commented that she had been amazed to realize that the background information
provided to the participants apparently did not matter to them. She raised the question of whether
it was a good investment of public money to spend money on a building that the more one poured
into it, the less one got out of it. She asked how to translate that to a skeptical public that did not
see any problems with the building.
She described the situation as a 'Catch-22' because staff has done maintenance in keeping up
appearances. Therefore, the public did not see the damage in City Hall. She observed that it was
difficult explaining to the public why it would be cheaper to rebuild City Hall from the ground up
than to retrofit the existing building.
Mr. Davis recounted an anecdote of speaking before the Revenue Restructuring Task Force,
which was thinking about implementing a sales tax as a replacement tax for income and property
taxes. He told the Task Force that the negativism and cynicism among the people at this time was
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10
February 10, 2009
51
so great that even conducting 40,000 focus groups across the state would only give them a chance
of convincing the public.
Councilor Tierney asked if the information received from the public was sufficient at this stage. If
so, how should the City best approach the issue in terms of public engagement and
communication? Mr. Davis said that, in his opinion, a specific proposal developed by the City,
which included the cost to the average taxpayer in Lake Oswego, would be worth doing additional
research on. He indicated that simply asking general questions about how people felt about the
WEB would yield no different information than the Council already had.
He reiterated that any tax measure would have a tough go at this time. He encouraged the Council
to think creatively about tax measures, including possible public-private partnerships. He cited an
example of a wealthy individual in the North Clackamas Parks District who offered to put in $1
million if the taxpayers would commit to a given amount. He spoke of an extensive public outreach
process, including building coalitions around specific issues, such as the Library.
He indicated to Councilor Tierney that he would recommend taking out no more than three
options to the community for discussion.
Councilor Hennagin stated for the record that he had outside knowledge of single-family homes
coated with the same EFIS building skin as used on City Hall, which had to be skinned down to
their studs and re-done with new materials.
Mr. Davis suggested framing the facilities question in terms of infrastructure, as the citizens were
in the frame of infrastructure moving forward for the next couple of years. He pointed out that
taxpayers tended to respond to opportunities for matching grants, as they did not want that money
going somewhere else.
Mr. Davis indicated to Mayor Hoffman that if his team picked another representative sample of
Lake Oswego citizens and replicated the study, he was 100% confident that the numbers would be
more or less the same. Mayor Hoffman mentioned that that was important to him in terms of the
study findings being statistically significant.
Mayor Hoffman noted that the classic public participation program had four steps: inform, listen,
engage, and problem solve. He asked if there was a collaborative participation model that the
Council could use to work with the community in arriving at a solution. Mr. Davis said that in order
to do the problem solving and reach consensus, the City would have to provide the cost
information to the public.
He clarified that presenting the facilities cost information in isolation was problematic because the
public was also thinking of all the other things that their tax dollars paid for. Taxpayers wanted to
know what the cost meant relative to the impact on other City services. Without the cost
information, the Council would not end up with the valid information that it was looking for. Mayor
Hoffman observed that the buildings also had a social value attached to them, in addition to the
physical value.
Mayor Hoffman asked if the consultants have used methodologies other than the large focus
groups to create a collaborative public engagement process that yielded a solution. Mr. Davis
mentioned survey research techniques, such as the Delphi technique of holding several rounds of
interviews to build consensus. He pointed out that the key to any technique was the recruiting and
who came to the table.
Councilor Moncrieff asked how the online survey results compared to the large group study
results. Mr. Davis said that the patterns were similar, although there was more polarization in the
online survey.
Mr. Williams asked Mr. Eggleston, President of SERA Architects, to discuss their analysis of the
cost to replace City Hall versus the cost to repair City Hall. Mr. Eggleston provided background
information on his firm and his experience. He mentioned that he was also a resident of Lake
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10
52
February 10, 2009
Oswego. Mayor Hoffman said that he could not remember whether SERA Architects was a client
of his law firm.
Mr. Eggleston recalled that the estimate his firm did two and a half years ago for City Hall looked
at the building as an `essential facility,' a facility that housed the first responder units of the police
and the 9-1-1 call center. He explained that this meant upgrading the building to a standard 25%
higher than the current seismic code for Zone 3 (the area had been zoned Zone 2 when City Hall
was built).
He reviewed the problems with City Hall, including mold, an overtaxed electrical system, an aging
roof, failing windows, and the deteriorating EFTS building skin. He described the difficulties
involved with renovating an occupied building. He explained that their analysis concluded that by
the time all the needed work was done and systems replaced for the existing building, it would be
cheaper and simpler to demolish the building and build a new one.
Mr. Davis mentioned that they saw a real concern in the groups respecting seismic safety,
especially as it related to the emergency responders. He stated that sustainability was another
element that resonated with the public. Whatever the City did, it should commit to doing in a,
sustainable way. He recalled that one of the most powerful campaign themes for the recent
Oregon Zoo bond was that the Zoo would do all the construction in a sustainable, green kind of
way.
Mr. Eggleston indicated to. Councilor Olson that their estimate to build new included both a green
building and the demolition costs.
Councilor Olson asked how urgently were the repairs or replacement needed. Mr. Eggleston
pointed out that, with the mechanical systems nearing the end of their lives, the building was near
the end of its useful life too, unless the City made some major investments in it. He explained that
`major investment' meant replacing the systems, redoing the exterior basically taking the building
back down to the structure. He raised the question of how did one replace a mechanical system in
a building with a mold problem.
Mr. Eggleston confirmed to Councilor Jordan that, if the City relocated the police department and
the 9-1-1 call center to somewhere other than a new City Hall or the WEB, then those two buildings
would not have to meet the higher seismic safety standard required for buildings housing
emergency and essential service providers.
He confirmed to Councilor Olson that the seismic requirements for assembly space were in
between the requirements for emergency responder services and regular office space. He
mentioned that Safeco seismically upgraded the WEB following the Northridge earthquake. He
explained that, not only have the code requirements for seismic safety changed since then, the
earthquake zone for the building has changed from Zone 2 to Zone 3.
Councilor Tierney asked how Mr. Eggleston would answer a skeptical citizen who asked how the
City got into this situation with a 22-year-old building. Mr. Eggleston reiterated that several of the
systems were near the end of their life. He commented that, while he could not give the history of
the exterior skin of the building, he knew that there were two-year-old townhouses just down the
street tented for exterior work.
Mr. Davis mentioned that they heard that question in the groups: there are 150-year-old buildings
on the East Coast and even older buildings in Europe, so why is this happening to a 22-year-old
building? Councilor Jordan observed that back then, they built with stone and not with EFTS.
He clarified to Councilor Hennagin that the majority supported moving police and the 9-1-1 call
center to the WEB, partly because of its central location. Mayor Hoffman noted that the Urban
Land Institute had suggested that the WEB was not a good place for those services because of
other land use and development issues. Mr. Williams stated that the large group participants had
supported police/9-1-1 and additional library services as reasonable uses at the WEB.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10
February 10, 2009
53
Mr. Williams indicated to Councilor Hennagin that CB Richard Ellis provided a cost estimate for a
WEB remodel if the City moved its offices (not including emergency services) to the WEB.
Mr. Eggleston indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that, since the WEB as already an office building,
the City would only have to re-do the office space at the WEB to meet staff needs and to
accommodate the assembly space. He said that there was localized water intrusion in different
spots. He reiterated that the building has been seismically upgraded since it was built.
Councilor Moncrieff asked if there was any assurance that the WEB was not at the end of its life
cycle. Mr. Eggleston indicated that the City would need to take a serious look at upgrades
needed for the building. He suggested taking advantage of whatever sustainable design upgrades
it could in order to try to get the building to LEED Silver status, and obtain business energy tax
credits. He confirmed that the WEB was in much better shape than City Hall.
Mayor Hoffman asked what someone would see on a tour that would tell himlher that City Hall
was at the end of its useful life and had all these problems. Mr. Eggleston said that City staff was
doing a very good job of maintaining the interior and checking for air quality inside the building. He
indicated that if one walked around the outside of the building, one would see windows failing. He
emphasized that they did not want to open up the exterior wall because that was where the mold
was.
He referenced photos contained in their report on City Hall that showed the damage inside the
exterior walls. He confirmed that if they removed the outside building skin to show the large group
participants what was there, the participants would see mold. He said that he would take a tour
group upstairs to show them the boiler and electrical closet and the substandard space for
employees. He spoke of taking the group up on the roof to show its poor condition and the
deteriorating mechanical systems, some of which they were having difficulty finding replacement
parts for.
Mr. Davis concurred that such a tour would undoubtedly have an impact on the participants,
especially if one pointed out that the police and 9-1-1 were downstairs. He reiterated that the first
thing the participants would ask was how the building got into this shape in only 22 years.
Mr. Williams indicated to Councilor Olson that finding replacement parts for the mechanical
systems depended on what type of system had been put in. There were systems at both the WEB
and City Hall for which they could not find replacement parts because those systems were no
longer made.
Mr. Eggleston confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that there were opportunities to upgrade the
WEB to the LEED Silver standard. He mentioned a recent State requirement that 1.5% of the
construction cost of any building intended for public use be spent for solar initiatives on the
building, such as solar hot water, a passive solar system, or solar panels.
Mr. Fitkin pointed out that if City Hall were a multi-tenant building, it would be tagged as tainted
and next to impossible for his firm to lease on the open market. He observed that, in such a case,
the dictates of the law were irrelevant: people simply would not use the space.
Councilor Jordan referenced the history of City Hall. She commented that the City built the
building for a price tag that it thought the people could accept; it did not necessarily build
something for all time. She pointed out that when one bought something less expensive than
something else was, one usually ended up paying for it many times during its lifetime. She
concurred that citizens found it hard to believe that City Hall had all these problems because the
City kept up the building's appearance, and most of the problems were hidden.
Mr. Fitkin mentioned his credentials as Managing Director for CB Richard Ellis, an international
commercial real estate services provider.
Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:05 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at
8:20 p.m.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10
54
February 10, 2009
• Facilities Assessment Report, (WEB Report, pp.9-27)
Mr. Williams presented a PowerPoint presentation of the report detailing the assessments of six
facilities: City Hall, Library, Maintenance Services Building, South Shore Fire Station, Adult
Community Center (ACC), and West End Building (WEB). He explained that, for each facility, they
looked at four elements: building conditions, space program needs, options (including estimated
options costs), and public opinion.
He reviewed the multiple and significant building and systems deficiencies in City Hall (WEB
Report, p.8). He noted the need for more office space, especially for police and 9-1-1 dispatch
(WEB Report, p.9). He explained that he derived the recommended City Hall square footage
increase to 80,000 square feet based on an eventual Lake Oswego population of 50,000. He
presented pictures illustrating the serious mold problem inside the walls, and the water leakage in
the basement.
He reviewed the main four options and associated costs for addressing the City Hall issues (W►EB
Report, pp.9-10). He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the $25 million cost for Option 1
including the purchase price of the WEB. He clarified to Councilor Olson that the $20 million
purchase price of the WEB did not include the $3 to $4 million already spent by the City because
those were 'sunk costs,' which the City could not recoup regardless of what decision the Council
made.
He indicated that staff could easily provide costs for the additional five options listed (WEB Report,
p.10), including locating police and 9-1-1 at a location other than the WEB (although that would
add a property purchase price to the building a new center cost).
He clarified to Councilor Olson that he did not include a land purchase price in (2) (c) in Exhibit Q
(building a new City Hall at another downtown location) because it should be mostly offset by
selling the current site.
He concurred with Councilor Jordan that the estimates did not include the cost of the additional
land needed to expand the parking for any of these options. He indicated that he used $25,000
per stall in his cost estimate for a parking structure.
He noted that SERA Architects' cost estimates for repairing City Hall versus rebuilding City Hall
were two and a half years old. If the Council wanted to go in that direction, and, given the
significance of the issue, he suggested taking the prudent step of getting another estimate by a
different firm for a peer review of those numbers in today's market.
He indicated to Councilor Hennagin that he would provide him with more information about the
pros and cons of transferring 9-1-1 dispatch to Clackamas County.
He mentioned that he and Mr. McIntyre have discussed developing a decision process for the
Council to use in working through these issues and deciding on which option to move forward on.
He indicated that Mr. Eggleston concurred that getting a second opinion on the costs was the right
thing to do.
He indicated to Councilor Jordan that all the scenarios proposed keeping the courtroom with the
City Hall functions, and not separating it out with a new police and 9-1-1 dispatch center. He
commented that, in talking with the Police Chief, the Chief felt that the priority was to keep 9-1-1
dispatch with the police. Councilor Jordan mentioned that the municipal judge had told her that
he was comfortable with separating the court facility from the police facility.
Mr. Williams clarified to Councilor Olson that a new police station would include a bigger
evidence storage area, but storage for large evidence (i.e., vehicles) would likely remain at the
Maintenance Services yard.
He reviewed the public opinion results for dealing with City Hall, noting that 71% supported
repairing the existing building (WEB Report, p. 10). He indicated that the participants knew that it
would cost less to rebuild from the ground up than to repair the existing building (Exhibit K, p. 94).
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10
February 10, 2009 55
Councilor Hennagin commented that he had interpreted that result as the participants thinking
that the City could replace things over time, rather than incurring the cost all at once. Councilor
Moncrieff concurred. Mr. Williams clarified that they did not do a study on how much more it
would cost to do incremental improvements over time, but staff did think it was a safe assumption
to say that it would cost more to do repairs incrementally than all at once, because that was an
inefficient way of working.
He clarified to Councilor Moncrieff that the participants did not have any financial information.
The information sheet only said that the study found that it would cost more to repair City Hall than
it would to replace it.
Mayor Hoffman suggested asking Mr. Davis to come back for a more in-depth discussion of the
public opinion research results.
Mr. Williams reviewed the results for locating police and 9-1-1 dispatch (WEB Report, pp.10-11).
He noted that the results would move these services out of City Hall (63%). He reviewed the
funding priorities, noting that funding police and 9-1-1 had the highest priority (WEB Report, p.11).
He confirmed to Councilor Olson that the participants were only given four options, and they had
to rank all of them, whether or not they wanted a particular option. He mentioned that the online
survey differed from the large group study, in that the online survey broke the tie between the City
Hall and the community center, with the community center coming in fourth.
Mr. Williams reviewed the Library building analysis (WEB Report, pp.12-14). He noted that,
overall, the building was in decent shape. He indicated that its major problem was a need for more
space for all functions, including parking. He said that the two independent studies done on the
library recommended between 60,000 to 65,000 square feet for a new library building.
He stated that including land costs in the estimate for building a new library in the downtown raised
the $19.1 million cost given in the report to $24 million. Councilor Jordan mentioned that there
was money from the County and the Friends of the Library available for library use. Mr. Williams
pointed out that the community center project had looked at building a 50,000 square foot library
and adding space on as necessary.
He reviewed the public opinion research results for the library, noting that 65% of the large group
study participants favored keeping the library at its present location, with or without additional
library services located elsewhere. He pointed out that 82% thought that the City should find a way
to provide expanded library services to meet demand; 65% favored the WEB, and 20% favored a
downtown location. He indicated to Councilor Olson that the online survey results were
consistent with the large group study results.
He reviewed the Maintenance Services Building analysis (WEB Report, p.15-16). He discussed
the various building condition problems, including health, safety, code, seismic, roof, and program
space issues. He noted the $7 million cost to replace the building, unless they relocated it to
address the seismic constraints with the maintenance yard (which would increase that number
considerably). He mentioned that public opinion split between repairing the existing building or
replacing it.
He indicated to Councilor Tierney that contracting out maintenance work to Clackamas County
was an option. He recalled that Councilor Johnson had suggested checking with the School
District about consolidating yards. Councilor Jordan mentioned that the Lake Grove study looked
at moving the School District bus barn out of the middle of Lake Grove, but found that it was a
money issue because the District contracted for their bus services. She commented that finding a
site large enough to house both facilities within Lake Oswego could be very costly.
Mr. Williams reviewed the South Shore Fire Station building analysis (WEB Report, p.17-18). He
explained that the fire department wanted to store a particular truck at this location but the vehicle
bays were too short for the vehicle. He mentioned the inadequate space for a variety of uses. He
noted the City's purchase of the residential property on the east of the fire station with the intent to
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10
56
February 10, 2009
build a replacement station on that site. He indicated that the public opinion research found 53%
wanting to keep and repair the building and 47% wanting to replace it.
He indicated to Councilor Jordan that there were options for looking at expanding the existing fire
station to accommodate larger bays without re-doing the entire station. He commented that doing
so would be challenging, given that the cost of a new fire station was $2.6 million.
Mr. Williams reviewed the Adult Community Center building analysis (WEB Report, p.19-20). He
mentioned that the building had been put together piecemeal in the 30 years since it was built in
1975. He discussed the building condition deficiencies, but pointed out that, compared to the other
buildings, it was in relatively decent shape. He indicated that it would cost $840,000 to fix the
building problems, but that would not address the program space needs. The public opinion
research found 73% wanting to keep the ACC on site and 27% wanting to move it to a new
community center.
Councilor Hennagin asked why the ACC needed more space if there were a declining number of
people using the programs and facility. Ms. Gilmer explained that the social service programs
offered at the ACC were increasingly busy, but the recreational programs have leveled off because
the facility was outdated and not able to offer the more active recreation, and health and wellness
programs that the members wanted. She indicated that the average age of the facility users was
68 to 70.
Mr. Williams reviewed the West End Building building analysis (WEB Report, p.21-26). He noted
the financing for the WEB, and the average of$894,000 in annual interest and $250,000 a year in
operational costs. He discussed the building condition deficiencies (pp.21-22). He pointed out that
this was the only City facility currently underutilized. He mentioned the six potential public uses for
the building (p.22), and listed several potential private uses, such as office and education.
He reviewed the options and costs for different scenarios utilizing the WEB for various
configurations of City Hall offices, a library, and police/9-1-1 dispatch. These included moving City
Hall permanently to the WEB, using the WEB for a temporary City Hall while the City either built a
new one in the downtown or repaired the current building, and either leasing or selling some or all
of the WEB property. He pointed out that they could mix and match the individual elements in the
scenarios however the Council wanted.
He mentioned the suggestion from the Urban Land Institute to consider longer-term development
strategies for an east end anchor for the Kruse Way corridor, and redeveloping the property to
make a better connection between the Kruse Way and Lake Grove corridors.
He reviewed the public opinion results on the various WEB options (p.26). He indicated that, while
no one option received majority support, 30% would sell the building and the remaining 70% chose
options in which the City kept the property. He mentioned that police/9-1-1 and a branch library
received the most support as the types of services to move out to the WEB.
He commented that, while staff identified several funding options for addressing facilities needs,
they needed Council direction on the types of public uses involved before exploring funding options
further.
Councilor Jordan thanked Mr. Williams for the thoroughness of the report.
The Council discussed scheduling another study session to discuss the next steps. Councilor
Jordan suggested holding off on having Mr. Davis back until the Council has discussed the options
and removed the obvious ones from the table. The Council agreed by consensus.
Mr. Williams asked the Council to inform him of any other options that the members wanted to
look at, so that staff could start gathering that information. Councilor Olson asked for an updated
cost estimate for replacing City Hall versus repairing it. She indicated that she had options
questions as well as the overall issue of making decisions on the facility management plan.
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10
February 10, 2009 57
Councilor Tierney spoke to holding off on refining cost estimates until after the Council has
narrowed the decisions and options. Councilor Jordan expressed interest in the mix and match
of various options.
Councilor Jordan asked if the City had a property survey of the commercial properties around
Lake Oswego of an appropriate size to accommodate what the City was doing, or parcels that
could be put together. Mr. Williams commented that, while some of that information was
undoubtedly available, he would like direction in terms of what types of facilities the Council wanted
to move forward on before really studying that question.
Councilor Hennagin commented that, following his tour of the Maintenance Services Building, he
found it hard to believe that any repair or remodel of that building would make it viable. He noted
that the South Shore Fire Station also had issues, but he did not know how pressing the need was
to address those two buildings. He pointed out that the other four buildings interrelated with each
other. He spoke to dealing with the interrelated facilities first, unless something had to be done on
the first two facilities within a couple of years.
Mayor Hoffman spoke to working with the options presented tonight, so as not to overload staff
with too many additional options. Council members could bring up more options during the next
steps discussion. He asked for a tour of the buildings, looking at them from a skeptic's
perspective, before the next study session.
Councilor Olson spoke to taking some steps at the study session, as opposed to simply
discussing the matter further. Mr. Williams said that staff would lay out a strategy for looking at all
the different options so that Council could decide what to take off or leave on the table. Mayor
Hoffman confirmed that the Council would make some decisions at the next meeting.
Mr. McIntyre asked those Council members with additional options they would like to consider to
talk to Mr. Williams about them. He commented that Mr. Williams might have information on a
given option that could clarify things for the Council member, or he might need to obtain hard data
on the option. He spoke to making the next study session as productive as possible.
The Council discussed the next study session, and scheduling it as soon as possible.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robyn hristie
City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10
February 10, 2009
58
X
es
0
!"F
8 • 1
0,t.N.Eos
A., .t,
0,Al
C1
ark ! ite, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
--,,--„_..
OREGa14
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Brant Williams, Director of Economic and Capital Development
Darin Rouhier, Finance Director
SUBJECT: A Resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council Authorizing the City
Manager to Sign an intergovernmental Agreement between TriMet,
Metro, Clackamas County, City of Portland and the City of Lake
Oswego for the Portland to Lake Oswego Transit Corridor Project
DATE: March 19, 2009
ACTION
Adopt Resolution 09-13 of the Lake Oswego City Council authorizing the City Manager to
sign an Intergovernmental Agreement between TriMet, Metro, Clackamas County, City of
Portland and the City of Lake Oswego for the Portland to Lake Oswego Transit Corridor
Project.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
At its March 24 meeting, City Council will consider the Intergovernmental Agreement
(lGA) for funding the next phase of the Portland to Lake Oswego Transit Corridor
Project. The IGA also includes defining project oversight and contracting
responsibilities. The eventual project will be improved transit service between Portland
and Lake Oswego on or adjacent to Highway 43. This phase of work includes a
refinement study, the development of a Draft and Final Environmental Impact
Statement, an application to FTA for selecting and funding a preferred alternative, and
preliminary engineering of this alternative. This work is necessary in order to apply for
and receive Federal funding for final design and construction of a future transit project.
As stated in Resolution 09-13, a number of previous planning processes and actions
have occurred leading up to this phase of the project. These include the purchase of
the Willamette Shore Line right-of-way, the adoption of transit projects in regional
transportation plans and funding programs, and most recently, Metro Council's adoption
in December 2007 of the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives
Analysis: Alternatives to Be Advanced into a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
59
Council Report
March 19, 2009
Page 2
and Work Program Considerations. The alternatives being advanced are a streetcar
line generally on the Willamette Shore Line right of way, two alternative streetcar
alignments in the John's Landing area, two terminus options in Lake Oswego at the
Albertson's and Safeway sites, one minimal operable segment for streetcar, enhanced
bus service on Highway 43, and the no-build alternative.
DISCUSSION
The Portland to Lake Oswego Transit Corridor Project is the region's next funding
priority for transit behind the Milwaukie to Portland and the Columbia River Crossing
light rail projects. Funds for the refinement study, environmental impact statement and
preliminary engineering will come from local agencies and the Metropolitan
Transportation Improvement Program's (MTIP) Federal flexible funds, which are
authorized by Metro. The funding plan for this phase of the project includes local funds
from the City of Portland for $1 million, Clackamas County for $850,000 and the City of
Lake Oswego for $150,000. The MTIP will provide, directly or indirectly, $4 million of
Federal flexible funds.
This week, Metro is scheduled to approve $4 million of MTIP funds for the Portland to
Lake Oswego Project. These funds, however, are programmed for 2012-13. The
partnering agencies wish to advance the project now instead of waiting until 2012.
Doing this will: 1) ensure to the extent possible that improved transit service in the
Highway 43 corridor will occur in a timely manner; 2) minimize financial risk associated
with escalation costs; and 3) position the project to best compete for Federal
construction dollars. Additional Federal funds may be available in the next six-year
Federal Transportation Bill, which is scheduled for adoption later this year.
To accomplish this, staffs from Portland and Lake Oswego have jointly developed a
funding strategy that would allow the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to
begin this spring. The funding strategy as provided for in the IGA has the City of
Portland reallocating MTIP funds to this project from one of its existing MTIP-funded
projects in the amount of $972,673. The City of Lake Oswego will advance $1.5 million
of its general funds to TriMet to pay for work performed on the DEIS between April and
September 2009. On September 30, 2012, TriMet will in turn repay the City of Lake
Oswego $1.8 million.
Lastly, the IGA defines Metro as the lead contracting agency for the refinement study.
TriMet will be the lead contracting agency for the DEIS, the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS), FTA application and preliminary engineering.
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT
The IGA commits the City of Lake Oswego to $150,000 as follows:
• $57,000 payable to Metro by April 15, 2009 to support the Refinement Study;
these funds are currently available in the 2008-09 budget;
• $37,000 for the DEIS and FTA Application, which shall be paid to TriMet upon
notification from TriMet that full funding for the DEIS/FTA Application phase is
60
Council Report
March 19, 2009
Page 3
secured, with the anticipated payment to be made on November 1, 2009; these
funds will need to be approved as part of the 2009-10 budget;
® $56,000 for the FEIS and preliminary engineering work, which will be paid to
TriMet no later than March 31, 2010; these funds will need to be approved as
part of the 2009-10 budget.
Lake Oswego will advance $1,500,000 of general funds to TriMet to support the DEIS.
These funds will be provided to TriMet in monthly draws in 2009 based upon verification
of expenditures for the DEIS with draws anticipated from April to September of this
year.
TriMet will repay Lake Oswego $1.8 million in unrestricted general funds on or before
September 30, 2012. If TriMet fails to make the repayment by September 30, 2012,
interest on the outstanding amount owed shall accrue at the rate of 9% per year.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council adopt Resolution 09-13.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 09-13
2. Attachment A— Intergovernmental Agreement for the Portland to Lake Oswego
Transit Corridor Project including Exhibits A, B and C
Reviewed by:
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. IF
!r /- i / .4. 9
, .
Department Director
„-------77-77- 77-.)
Fin p nce Direc
ii
x x
i ( i ,i'
ity Att o n e
v v
lex D. clntyre
City Manager
61
RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO SIGN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN TRIMET,
METRO, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, THE CITY OF PORTLAND AND THE CITY OF
LAKE OSWEGO RELATING TO THE FUNDING OF THE DRAFT AND FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS, FTA GRANT APPLICATION AND
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR THE PORTLAND TO LAKE OSWEGO TRANSIT
CORRIDOR PROJECT
WHEREAS, in 1988 a consortium of seven government agencies including the City of
Lake Oswego purchased the Willamette Shore Line right-of-way for the purpose of
preserving the right of way for future rail transit in the geographically constrained
Portland to Lake Oswego Highway 43 corridor; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego has adopted a Transportation System Plan as a
component of its Comprehensive Plan that states that Highway 43 is a congested
corridor, and that the Willamette Shore Line right of way should be preserved for future
high capacity transit; and
WHEREAS, the City, along with other regional partners, has through its actions over the
past 20 years, supported efforts to encourage future high capacity transit between Lake
Oswego and Portland by contracting with the Oregon Electrical Railway Historical
Society to operate a seasonal trolley on the Willamette Shore Line right of way in order
to preserve its use for future transit; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Plan, adopted by the Metro Council in 2004,
called for a corridor refinement plan for evaluating high capacity transit options for the
Lake Oswego to Portland Highway 43 corridor; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego appointed a
Downtown Transit Alternatives Advisory Committee (DTAAC), consisting of
neighborhood, business and transportation representatives, which examined preferred
transit options for the City of Lake Oswego and concluded that streetcar, with multiple
stops along State Street, is the type of transit and alignment that will best achieve the
community's goals; and
WHEREAS, in 2005, Metro applied for and obtained Metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Program funds in order to conduct a Transit and Trail Alternatives
Analysis to examine transit and trail options in the Highway 43 corridor, including the
Willamette Shore Line right of way, and the City of Lake Oswego contributed funding for
a portion of the local match, along with the City of Portland and TriMet; and
WHEREAS, the Portland to Lake Oswego Transit Corridor Project was authorized in the
Federal Transportation Bill signed into law on August 10, 2005, and as part of the
Page 1 of 4--Resolution 09-13
63
authorization, Metro received Streetcar Corridor Funding to support work on the
Portland to Lake Oswego transit study; and
WHEREAS, in 2005, Metro initiated an alternatives analysis consistent with Federal
Transportation Administration (FTA) requirements to assess the feasibility of transit and
trail alternatives between Portland and Lake Oswego; and
WHEREAS, a wide range of transit alternatives was evaluated in the alternatives
analysis that included a no-build alternative, bus rapid transit with multiple alignments,
streetcar with multiple alignments, river transit, and accompanying trail alignments; and
WHEREAS, the alternatives analysis confirmed that highway widening in the Highway
43 corridor is infeasible and costly, and that reversible lanes are not warranted; and
WHEREAS, an extensive public involvement process was undertaken as part of the
alternatives analysis that included testimony before and after every meeting of the Lake
Oswego to Portland Project Advisory Committee (LOPAC), community design
workshops, open houses, small group meetings, neighborhood group meetings,
individual property owner meetings, a bus rider survey, newsletters, and targeted
mailings, resulting in over 1,200 direct citizen contacts; and
WHEREAS, on October 2, 2007, the Lake Oswego City Council approved Resolution
07-57 that supported the Steering Committee's recommendations for the Lake Oswego
to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2007, Metro Council adopted the Lake Oswego to
Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis: Alternatives to Be Advanced into a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Work Program Considerations; and
WHEREAS, the transit alternatives adopted in the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and
Trail Alternatives Analysis and that are being advanced to the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) include a streetcar generally on the Willamette Shore Line
right of way with two alternative alignments in the John's Landing area, two streetcar
terminus options in Lake Oswego at the Albertson's and Safeway sites, one minimal
operable segment for streetcar, enhanced bus service on Highway 43, and the no-build
alternative; and
WHEREAS, the adopted Transit and Trails Alternatives Analysis requires that Metro
perform further study of alignment options for streetcar in the John's Landing
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Portland to Lake Oswego Corridor Project is the region's next priority
for FTA funding, following the Milwaukie to Portland and the Columbia River Crossing
light rail projects; and
Page 2 of 4 -Resolution 09-t 3
64
WHEREAS, the refinement study began in December 2008 with a budget of $471,000
and will continue until June 2009, and will prepare information to support the DEIS; and
WHEREAS, this Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) concerns funding the completion
of the refinement study, the development of a DEIS and FEIS, the FTA application for a
Federal grant, and initial preliminary engineering; and
WHEREAS, the IGA also defines that Metro will be responsible for oversight and
contracting the refinement study, TriMet will be responsible for contracting the DEIS,
FEIS, FTA application, and preliminary engineering, and both TriMet and Metro will
provide oversight over these aspects of the project; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to advance the next phase of planning and engineering at
this time to ensure that a future approved project moves forward in a timely manner to
meet the transportation needs in the corridor and to minimize costs to the City and
other local agencies by both avoiding escalation costs and taking advantage of potential
Federal funding opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the City, in its desire to begin work on the DEIS, will provide $150,000 as
part of the local matching funds for the project along with $850,000 from Clackamas
County and $1,000,000 from the City of Portland; and
WHEREAS, since Federal funds to pay for the DEIS will not be available until 2012 at
the latest, the City will provide $1,500,000 of its general funds to TriMet, the lead
contracting agency for the DEIS, between April and September 2009 to pay for work
performed on the DEIS; and
WHEREAS, based on this advance payment, TriMet will repay the City $1,800,000 in
unrestricted general funds by September 30, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City of Portland, in its desire to begin the DEIS this spring, will likewise
redirect $972,673 of its Federal funds to TriMet in 2009; and
WHEREAS, the parties listed in the Intergovernmental Agreement desire to enter into
this Agreement for their mutual benefit; and
BET RESOLVED by the Lake Oswego City Council that the City Manager is authorized
to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement with TriMet, Metro, City of Portland, Clackamas
County for the funding of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements, the FTA
grant application and the preliminary engineering for the Portland to Lake Oswego Transit
Corridor Project in the form presented in Attachment A.
Page 3 of 4—Resolution 09-13
65
This Resolution shall be effective upon passage.
Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake
Oswego on the day of
111
111
AYES:
NOES:
EXCUSED:
ABSTAIN:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APP OVEDAST FORM:
David Powell
City Attorney
Page 4 of 4—Resolution 09-13
66
ATTACHMENT A
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN TRIMET, METRO, CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO, CLACKAMAS COUNTY AND CITY
OF PORTLAND FOR
THE PORTLAND LAKE OSWEGO TRANSIT CORRIDOR PROJECT
THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and
between Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District, a mass transit district organized under
the laws of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as "TriMet," Metropolitan Service District
hereinafter referred to as Metro, Clackamas County, hereinafter referred to as "Clackamas", City
of Lake Oswego, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as
"Lake Oswego", and the City of Portland, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon,
hereinafter referred to as "Portland". The parties to this Agreement are collectively known as
Project Sponsors.
RECITALS
1. The Portland-Lake Oswego Transit Corridor Project ("Project") was authorized in the
reauthorization of the Transportation Bill ("SAFETEA-LU") signed into law on August 10,
2005. This Agreement concerns the completion of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement ("DEIS") and Federal Transit Administration ("FTA") approval to enter into and
commence preliminary engineering ("PE").
2. The Regional Transportation Plan, adopted by the Metro Council in 2004, called for a
corridor refinement plan for evaluation of high capacity transit options for the Lake
Oswego to Portland Highway 43 corridor.
3. In 2004, the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation ("JPACT") and the Metro
Council allocated $1.16 million to study the transit and trail alternatives in the Lake
Oswego to Portland Willamette Shore Line Corridor.
4. In 2005, Metro initiated an alternatives analysis consistent with FTA requirements to
assess the feasibility of transit and trail alternatives between Lake Oswego and Portland.
5. A wide range of alternatives was evaluated in the alternatives analysis, including No-Build,
Bus Rapid Transit with multiple alignments, Streetcar with multiple alignments, River
Transit, and accompanying trail alignments.
6. On December 13, 2007, Metro Council adopted the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and
Trail Alternatives Analysis: Alternatives to Be Advanced into a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and Work Program Considerations, which is attached hereto as Exhibit
A and incorporated by this reference herein, which required that Metro perform further
study of the alignment in the John's Landing neighborhood (the Refinement Study").
7. In the reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU signed into law on August 10, 2005, Metro
received Streetcar Corridor Funding that has been used to support work on the Portland
Lake Oswego Transit Study. Work on the Refinement Study began in December 2008,
with a budget of $471,000. Work on the Refinement Study is to be conducted from
December 2008 to June 2009, and will prepare information in support of the DEIS.
8. The parties desire to enter into this Agreement for their mutual benefit.
Page 1 of 10 67
NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing Recitals, which
shall be considered a part of the Agreement, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as
follows:
TERMS OF AGREEMENT; PROJECT DESCRIPTION & COSTS
1. The beginning date of this Agreement is December 1, 2008. The termination date of this
Agreement is December 31, 2013. Metro is leading the Refinement Study, which will
identify the options that will be formally considered in the DEIS. Once the Refinement
Study is completed, TriMet will assume the lead contracting role for the Project, with Metro
as lead agency for NEPA work. Metro has received federal funding for the Refinement
Study. Local funding has been committed by Portland ($57,000) and by Lake Oswego
($57,000). Metro shall comply with all applicable federal laws, regulations, executive
orders, rules, policies, procedures and directives, whether or not expressly set forth in this
Agreement.
2. This Agreement is subject to a financial assistance agreement between TriMet and the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). TriMet shall comply with all applicable federal laws,
regulations, executive orders, rules, policies, procedures and directives, whether or not
expressly set forth in this Agreement, including but not limited to the following, which are
incorporated into and made a part hereof: (1) the terms and conditions applicable to a
"recipient" set forth in the October 1, 2008 FTA Master Agreement between TriMet and
the FTA; (2) 49 CFR Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments; (3) OMB Circular A-87, Cost
Principles Applicable to Grants and Contracts withState and Local Governments; and (4)p pp � ......... .................. ...........
FTA Circular 5010.1 D.
3. Costs incurred after December 1, 2008, which are deemed allowable costs for this
Project, will be reimbursed once all parties have signed this Agreement. Metro shall
maintain the budget, contracts and reporting for the Refinement Study phase of the
project. TriMet shall maintain the budget for the DEIS phase and each additional phase of
the Project as determined by the Project Sponsors.
4. Upon Metro's completion of the Refinement Study, TriMet will assume the lead contracting
role for the Project, on behalf of the Project Sponsors, beginning with the DEIS. Metro, as
lead agency for NEPA work, shall participate, guide and support TriMet on the DEIS.
Metro's role as lead agency for NEPA work shall be further defined by an
Intergovernmental Agreement (the "DEIS-LPA IGA") between Metro and TriMet. The
initial funding is intended to complete the DEIS and receive FTA approval to enter and
commence PE for the entire Project. The Project is described in Exhibit B, which is
attached hereto and incorporated by this reference herein. The Project Sponsors agree to
establish a Steering Committee to establish the policy commitments and a project
management group to oversee the preparation of the technical analysis and
recommendations.
5. The Portland-Lake Oswego Transit Corridor Project is intended to address the transit
access needs for the entire corridor. The process calls for the analysis of options,
preparation of the DEIS, selection of the locally preferred alternative, application to the
FTA for capital funding, engineering design and construction of the locally preferred
alternative. While the Project may be developed in phases, all Project Sponsors are
68 Page 2of10
committed to selecting a solution that best suits the entire corridor and support its
consideration as a single project.
6. A combination of funding sources will be used to finance the Project. Funding in the
amount of $465,355 to support the Refinement Study, which will be conducted in 2009, is
identified and committed in this Agreement. The Refinement Study will be funded as
follows: $351,355 existing federal streetcar funds from Metro, $57,000 of local match
funds from Portland, and $57,000 of local match funds from Lake Oswego. Approximately
$21,000 of the local match funds provided by the Portland and Lake Oswego will be used
as match for Refinement Study expenses incurred prior to December 1, 2008. Portland
and Lake Oswego will pay these local match funds to Metro no later than April 15, 2009.
Work on the Refinement Study will be performed by both TriMet and Metro, and will be
further described in Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement between TriMet and Metro for
Lake Oswego Transit Alternatives Analysis (Metro Contract No. 927168 and TriMet
Contract No. OH070180TL). Other than the Refinement Study work described in this
Paragraph, no funds will be obligated or expended until the DEIS-LPA IGA is executed
between TriMet and Metro.
7. Funding in the amount of $5,586,000 has been identified to support the DEIS, FTA
application and Preliminary Engineering. The Project Sponsors agree to pursue additional
grants from the FTA 5339 program for $4,000,000 toward funding the DEIS and concept
design in order to reallocate MTIP and local match toward the completion of the FEIS and
engineering design of the Project. The Project Sponsors agree to seek alternative
sources of funding in the event the Section 5339 funds are not obtained.
8. Federal sources of unding are proposed and pending approval from Metro and FTA.
Federal FY 12-13 regional flexible transportation funding through the Metro allocation
process totaling $4,000,000 will be sought to support the Project, with final Metro approval
anticipated by August 2009. Due to the need for program funding for this Project before
October 1, 2009, Metro will seek to execute funding commitments to advance $972,673 of
funds to the Project by reprogramming funds from other transportation projects such as
Portland's Central Eastside Bridgeheads (Key#13528).
Regional flexible transportation funding of $1,227,327 is being sought for the DEIS/FTA
Application portion of the Project. Funding approved through this process can be
obligated beginning October 1, 2009. It is understood that if funds are expended at that
time, the reimbursement from these funds would not occur until FY 2012-13. In that case,
one of the Project Sponsors in this Agreement will have to advance funding to enable
expenditure as scheduled. In that case, the Project Sponsors agree to work in good faith
to identify an advance funding source and arrangements for repayment. If no such
funding source is identified by August 30, 2009, work on the Project will stop after October
31, 2009 until such funds are identified.
Metro approval of the proposed and pending federal sources of funding set forth in this
paragraph is expressly conditioned upon the execution of a mutually satisfactory DEIS-.
LPA IGA with TriMet
9. Clackamas County commits $850,000 to the Project, of which $220,000 is committed to
match funding for the DEIS phase of the project, which will be paid to TriMet no later than
April 1, 2009. The remaining $630,000 will be provided to support the preliminary
engineering phase of the project, and will be paid to TriMet no later than March 31, 2010.
Page3of1O 69
10. Lake Oswego commits $150,000 in support of the Project, as follows: $57,000 payable to
Metro by April 15, 2009 to support the Refinement Study; $37,000 for the DEIS/FTA
Application, which shall be paid to TriMet upon notification from TriMet that full funding for
the DEIS/FTA Application phase is secured, with the anticipated payment to be made on
November 1, 2009; and $56,000 for the FEIS and preliminary engineering work, which will
be paid to TriMet no later than March 31, 2010. Lake Oswego also agrees to advance
$1,500,000 to TriMet to support the DEIS, which will be provided to TriMet in monthly
draws in 2009 based upon verification of expenditures for the DEIS with draws anticipated
from April 2009 to September 2009. Lake Oswego's obligation to provide these advance
payments is contingent upon Metro appropriating $4 million of 2012 MTIP funds to the
Project. TriMet agrees to repay the $1,500,000 to Lake Oswego by September 30, 2012.
However, the total amount of the repayment shall be $1,800,000. TriMet's repayment will
be in unrestricted general funds. If TriMet fails to make the repayment by September 30,
2012, interest on the outstanding amount owed shall accrue at the rate of 9% per year.
11. Metro agrees that, conditioned upon the execution of a mutually satisfactory DEIS-LPA
IGA with TriMet, Metro will request programming of regional flexible transportation funds
for FY 2012-13 that support the Lake Oswego Transit Corridor Project totaling
$4,000,000. Funding would be apportioned $972,673 to City of Portland for street
improvements listed in item 13528 of the STP, $1,227,327 for Portland Lake Oswego
Transit Corridor Project, and $1,800,000 to TriMet for STP funding for preventive
maintenance.
12. Portland has identified the sources of funding for the full commitment contained in this
agreement through the DEIS process. This includes $57,000 payable to Metro by April
15, 2009 to support the Refinement Study and $83,000 ($23,000 payment and $60,000 in-
kind services) for the DEIS and FTA application as match for MTIP funding of $1,227,327.
The DEIS payment shall be due on November 1, 2009 upon notification from TriMet that
the regional flexible transportation funding can be utilized to support the DEIS work.
Portland agrees to seek an additional $860,000 from the Portland City Council in the FY
10-11 budget to support the FEIS and preliminary engineering.
13. The sources of funding for the DEIS, DEIS and FTA Application and FEIS/Preliminary
Engineering are attached hereto as Exhibit C, which is incorporated by this reference
herein.
TRIMET RESPONSIBILITIES
1. TriMet shall perform the work and provide the deliverables adopted by the Steering
Committee. The description of phases is included in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. TriMet shall perform the work under this Agreement as an independent contractor. TriMet
shall be exclusively responsible for all costs and expenses related to its employment of
individuals to perform the work and for providing for employment-related benefits and
deductions that are required by law, including, but not limited to, federal and state income
tax withholdings, unemployment taxes, workers' compensation coverage, and
contributions to any retirement system.
70 Page 4of10
3. In the event that TriMet believes that the funding set forth in this Agreement is insufficient
to complete the work, TriMet shall so notify the other Project Sponsors. In such event, the
other Project Sponsors agree to work in good faith in order to authorize sufficient funding
to complete the work. If sufficient funding is not promptly forthcoming, TriMet may
terminate this Agreement.
4. TriMet shall present progress reports and deliverables, as applicable, to the Project
Sponsors once a month.
5. TriMet shall maintain all fiscal records relating to this Agreement in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. In addition, TriMet shall maintain any other
records pertinent to this Agreement in such a manner as to clearly document TriMet's
performance. TriMet acknowledges and agrees that Project Sponsors and PTA shall have
access to such fiscal records and other books, documents, papers, plans, and writings
that are pertinent to this Agreement to perform examinations and audits and make copies,
excerpts and transcripts. TriMet also acknowledges and agrees that TriMet shall retain
such documents for a period of three years after termination of this Agreement, or such
longer period as may be required by applicable law. In the event of, any audit,
controversy or litigation arising out of or related to this Agreement, TriMet shall retain such
documents until the conclusion thereof. Copies of applicable records shall be made
available to Project Sponsors upon request.
5. If TriMet engages a personal services contractor(s) to accomplish any of its work under
this Agreement, TriMet shall:
a. Provide Project Sponsors with the opportunity to participate in the personal services
contractor selection process;
b. Select personal services contractor(s) in accordance with TriMet procedures and
applicable law, and advise Project Sponsors of TriMet's recommendation;
c. Provide a TriMet project manager to:
i) be TriMet's principal contact person for the personal services contractor(s) for the
Project;
ii) monitor and coordinate the work of the personal services contractor(s);
iii) review and approve bills and deliverables (work products) produced and
submitted by the personal services contractor(s); and
iv) advise Project Sponsors regarding payments to the personal services
contractor(s).
7. All work products that result from TriMet's agreement(s) with personal service
contractor(s) for TriMet's work under this Agreement shall be considered the joint work
products of the Project Sponsors. The Project Sponsors intend that such work products
be deemed "work made for hire" of which the Project Sponsors shall be jointly deemed the
author. If, for any reason, the work products produced by any personal service
contractor(s) are not deemed "work made for hire," TriMet agrees to jointly assign rights,
title, and interest in and to any and all of the work products to the Project Sponsors,
whether arising from copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, or any other state or
federal intellectual property law or doctrine.
Page 5 of 10 71
8. TriMet shall ensure that any work products produced pursuant to this Agreement include
the following statement:
This Project is partially funded by the Federal Transit Administration.
9. TriMet shall submit two hard copies of all final work products produced in accordance with
this Agreement to Project Sponsors.
10. Within 30 days after the termination date of this Agreement, TriMet shall provide Project
Sponsors with a completion report. The report must contain:
a. A summary of qualified costs incurred for the Project, including reimbursable costs
and matching amount;
b. The intended location of records (which may be subject to audit); and
c. A list of final deliverables.
11. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, TriMet expressly agrees to comply with (I)
Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Sections V and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS.659A.142; (iv) all
regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (v) all
other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes,
rules and regulations.
12. All employers, including TriMet, that employ subject workers who work under this
Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the
required Workers' Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under
ORS 656.126. TriMet shall require each of its contractors to comply with these
requirements.
METRO RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Metro shall perform the work and provide the deliverables for the Refinement Study, as
set forth in the attached Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Metro shall perform the work under this Agreement as an independent contractor. Metro
shall be exclusively responsible for all costs and expenses related to its employment of
individuals to perform the work and for providing for employment-related benefits and
deductions that are required by law, including, but not limited to, federal and state income
tax withholdings, unemployment taxes, workers' compensation coverage, and
contributions to any retirement system.
3. In the event that Metro believes that the funding set forth in this Agreement is insufficient
to complete the work, Metro shall so notify the other Project Sponsors. In such event, the
Project Sponsors agree to work in good faith in order to authorize sufficient funding to
complete the work. If sufficient funding is not promptly forthcoming, Metro may terminate
this Agreement.
4. Metro shall present progress reports and deliverables, as applicable, to the Project
Sponsors once a month.
72 Page 6 of 10
5. Metro shall maintain all fiscal records relating to this Agreement in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. In addition, Metro shall maintain any other
records pertinent to this Agreement in such a manner as to clearly document Metro's
performance. Metro acknowledges and agrees that Project Sponsors and FTA shall have
access to such fiscal records and other books, documents, papers, plans, and writings
that are pertinent to this Agreement to perform examinations and audits and make copies,
excerpts and transcripts. Metro also acknowledges and agrees that Metro shall retain
such documents for a period of three years after termination of this agreement, or such
longer period as may be required by applicable law. In the event of, any audit,
controversy or litigation arising out of or related to this agreement, Metro shall retain such
documents until the conclusion thereof. Copies of applicable records shall be made
available to Project Sponsors upon request.
5. If Metro engages a personal services contractor(s) to accomplish any of its work under
this Agreement, Metro shall:
a. Provide Project Sponsors with the opportunity to participate in the personal services
contractor selection process;
b. Select personal services contractor(s) in accordance with Metro procedures and
applicable law, and advise Project Sponsors of Metro's recommendation;
c. Provide a Metro project manager to:
i) be Metro's principal contact person for the personal services contractor(s) for the
Project;
ii) monitor and coordinate the work of the personal services contractor(s);
iii) review and approve bills and deliverables (work products) produced and
submitted by the personal services contractor(s); and
iv) advise Project Sponsors regarding payments to the personal services
contractor(s).
7. All work products that result from Metro's agreement(s) with personal service contractor(s)
for its work under this Agreement shall be considered the joint work products of the
Project Sponsors. The Project Sponsors intend that such work products be deemed "work
made for hire" of which the Project Sponsors shall be jointly deemed the author. If, for
any reason, the work products produced by any personal service contractor(s) are not
deemed "work made for hire," Metro agrees to jointly assign rights, title, and interest in
and to any and all of the work products to the Project Sponsors, whether arising from
copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, or any other state or federal intellectual
property law or doctrine.
8. Metro shall ensure that any work products produced pursuant to this Agreement include
the following statement:
This Project is partially funded by the Federal Transit Administration.
9. Metro shall submit two hard copies of all final work products produced in accordance with
this Agreement to Project Sponsors.
10. Within 30 days after the termination date of this Agreement, Metro shall provide Project
Sponsors with a completion report. The report must contain:
Page 7 of 10 73
a. A summary of qualified costs incurred for the Project, including reimbursable costs
and matching amount;
b. The intended location of records (which may be subject to audit); and
c. A list of final deliverables.
11. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Metro expressly agrees to comply with (i)
Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Sections V and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS.659A.142; (iv) all
regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (v) all
other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes,
rules and regulations.
12. All employers, including Metro, that employ subject workers who work under this
Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the
required Workers' Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under
ORS 656.126. Metro shall require each of its contractors to comply with these
requirements.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Budget modifications and major adjustments from the work described in Exhibit B must,
as applicable, be processed as written amendments to this Agreement signed by all
Project Sponsors and as written amendments to any personal services contracts).
2. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of all parties.
3. Metro may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to Project
Sponsors, or at such later date as may be established by Metro, under, but not limited to,
any of the conditions set forth in this Paragraph.
TriMet may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to Project
Sponsors, or at such later date as may be established by TriMet under, but not limited to,
any of the following conditions:
a. Failing to timely receive financial commitments from Project Sponsors as specified
in this Agreement.
b. If federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such
a way that either the work under this Agreement is prohibited or either Metro or
TriMet is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding source.
c. If TriMet or Metro fails to receive appropriations, limitations or other expenditure
authority sufficient to allow TriMet or Metro, in the exercise of its reasonable
administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for performance of this
agreement.
d. TriMet has performed its obligations under Paragraph 3 of TriMet Responsibilities,
above, and the parties are unable to obtain sufficient funding to complete the work.
e. Metro has performed its obligations under Paragraph 3 of Metro Responsibilities,
above, and the parties are unable to obtain sufficient funding to complete the work.
Any termination of this agreement shall not prejudice any right or obligations accrued to
the parties prior to termination.
74 Page 8of10
4. In the event of litigation by or against a third party or parties related to this Agreement or
the work or work products created hereunder, the Project Sponsors agree to work in good
faith to establish a fair allocation of costs to be shared associated with such litigation,
including but not limited to attorney fees and expert witness fees.
5. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, any communications between
the parties hereto or notices to be given hereunder shall be given in writing by personal
delivery, facsimile, or mailing the same, postage prepaid, to each Project Sponsor at the
address or number set forth below, or to such other addresses or numbers as any party
may hereafter indicate by giving notice in accordance with this Paragraph. Any
communication or notice so addressed and mailed is considered to have been delivered
five (5) days after the date postmarked. Any communication or notice delivered by
facsimile shall be deemed to be given when receipt of the transmission is generated by
the transmitting machine and confirmed by telephone notice to the Project Sponsor
representative. Any communication or notice by personal delivery shall be deemed to be
given when actually delivered.
6. All communications between the parties regarding this agreement shall be directed to the
parties' respective Project Sponsor representatives as indicated below:
TriMet—Joe Recker Metro— Ross Roberts
710 NE Holladay Street 600 N.E. Grand Avenue
Portland, OR 97232 Portland OR 97232
Phone (503) 962-2893 Phone (503) 797-1752
Lake Oswego— Brant Williams Clackamas County— Elissa Gertler
380 A Avenue Public Services Building
P.O. Box 369 2051 Kaen Road
Lake Oswego, OR 97024 Oregon City, OR 97045
Phone (503) 635-6138 Phone (503) 742-5900
Portland — Paul Smith
1120 S.W. Fifth Avenue, #800
Portland, OR 97204
Phone (503) 823 7736
7. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Oregon without regard to any jurisdiction's conflict of law principles, rules or
doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "Claim") between any Project
Sponsors that arises from or relates to this Agreement shall be brought and conducted
solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Multnomah County for the State of
Oregon or the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in Portland, Oregon,
as applicable. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by any the parties of
any form of defense or immunity from any claim or from the jurisdiction of any court.
8. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties
on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or
representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver,
consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind any party unless in
writing and signed by all parties. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made,
shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The
Page 9 of 10 75
failure of any party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver
by that party of that or any other provision.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and their seals as of the day
and year hereinafter written.
Clackamas County Lake Oswego
By: By:
Lynn Peterson, Chair Jack Hoffman
Clackamas County Commission Mayor
Metro
By:
Michael Jordan
Chief Operating Officer
City of Portland TriMet
By: By:
Sam Adams Fred Hansen
Mayor General Manager
By:
Gary Blackmer
City Auditor
APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY OF APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR TRIMET:
PO RTLAN D:
By: By:
Mark Moline Lance Erz
Deputy City Attorney Assistant General Counsel
76 Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT
2 0'.
5 -
BEFORE THE METRO COUNCIL
FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING ) RESOLUTION NO.07-3887A
ALTERNATIVES TO ADVANCE INTO A
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT FOR THE PORTLAND TO LAKE )
OSWEGO CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT ) Introduced by Councilor Rex Burkholder
WHEREAS, in 1988 a consortium of seven government agencies purchased the Willamette Shore
Line right-of-way for the purpose of preserving the right of way for future rail transit in the
geographically constrained Portland to Lake Oswego Highway 43 corridor;and
WHEREAS,the Willamette Shore Line right-of-way has appreciated significantly in value since
its purchase and can be used as local match for federal transit funds,and
WHEREAS,the Regional Transportation Plan,adopted by the Metro Council in 2004 called for a
corridor refinement plan for evaluation of high capacity transit options for the Lake Oswego to Portland
Highway 43 corridor;
WHEREAS, in 2004 the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation(JPACT)and the
Metro Council allocated$1.16 million to study the transit and trail alternatives in the Lake Oswego to
Portland Willamette Shore Line Corridor;and
WHEREAS,in 2005,Metro initiated an alternatives analysis consistent with Federal
Transportation Administration(FTA)requirements to assess the feasibility of transit and trail alternatives
between Lake Oswego and Portland;and
WHEREAS,a wide range of alternatives was evaluated in the alternatives analysis that included
No-Build,Bus Rapid Transit with multiple alignments,Streetcar with multiple alignments,River Transit,
and accompanying trail alignments;and
WHRERAS,the alternatives analysis confirmed that highway widening in the Highway 43
corridor is infeasible and costly,and that reversible lanes are not warranted,and
WHEREAS,ridership and cost information was developed in the alternatives analysis that
evaluated an extension of the proposed Milwaukie light rail line to the Albertsons terminus on an
alignment parallel to the Portland and Western Railroad;and
WHEREAS,an extensive public involvement process was undertaken from July 2005 to the
present that included testimony before and after every meeting of the Lake Oswego to Portland Project
Advisory Committee(LOPAC),community design workshops,open houses,small group meetings,
neighborhood group meetings,individual property owner meetings,a bus rider survey, newsletters,and
targeted mailings,resulting in over 1,200 direct citizen contacts;and
WHEREAS,on July 16,2007,a public hearing was held by the Steering Committee and public
comments were received on the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis
Evaluation Summary Public Review Draft:and
PageI Resolution No.07-3887A
77
WHEREAS,on July 31,2007,the Lake Oswego to Portland Project Advisory Committee
(LOPAC)adopted their recommendation to the Steering Committee regarding transit and trail alternatives
to advance for further study in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement;and
WHEREAS,on August 29,2007 the Lake Oswego to Portland Project Management Group
(PMG)adopted their recommendation to the Steering Committee regarding transit and trail alternatives to
advance for further study in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement; and
WHEREAS,on September 10,2007 the Steering Committee,after consideration of LOPAC and
PMG recommendations,public input,the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives
Analysis Draft Public Comment Summary report,and the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail
Alternatives Analysis Evaluation Summar),Public Review Draft report; adopted the Steering Committee
Recommendations on Alternatives to be Advanced into a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Work Program Considerations, attached as Exhibit A;and
WHEREAS,the transit alternatives adopted by the Steering Committee on September 10,2007
included No-Build,Enhanced Bus and Streetcar,including streetcar alignment alternatives on SW
Macadam Avenue,the Willamette Shore Line right-of-way,or combinations of the two that may include
all or parts of the Johns Landing Masterplan alignment through Johns Landing,a temporary minimum
operable segment terminus in the vicinity of Nevada Street in Johns Landing,the Willamette Shore Line
right-of-way from the vicinity of Nevada Street to the existing trolley barn and south to the Albertsons
terminus option or west via A and B Avenues to the Safeway terminus option in Lake Oswego;and
WHEREAS,the Lake Oswego to Portland Corridor Project could be the region's next priority for
FTA funding, following the Portland Streetcar Loop Project and Milwaukie to Portland Light Rail
Project;and
WHEREAS,the bicycle and pedestrian trail element of the alternatives analysis received a high
level of public support,and the Steering Committee Recommendation from September 10,2007 included
a recommendation to advance and refine the pedestrian and bicycle trail options in the corridor,including
additional design work,cost reduction strategies,potential trail phasing strategies,resolution of legal
issues and identification of construction funding sources;and
WHEREAS, on November 19,2007,the Steering Committee amended their September 10,2007
recommendation to add a permanent Johns Landing terminus to the alternatives to be advanced,and to
initiate a Refinement Study in the Johns Landing area prior to the start of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement,attached as Exhibit A,based on public comment and recommendations from the LOPAC Chair
and Vice-chairs, and
WHEREAS,the Lake Oswego City Council,Portland City Council,TriMet Board of Directors,
Multnomah County Board of Commissioners and Clackamas County Board of Commissioners submitted
letters of support and/or resolutions endorsing the Steering Committee recommendations,attached as
Exhibit B, and
WHEREAS,the Metro Council has considered previous public comments,public testimony at
this hearing,and public agency endorsements of the Steering Committee Recommendation as amended
November 19,2007;now therefore
rage 2 Resolution No.07-3887A
78
BE IT RESOLVED,that the Metro Council adopts the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and
Trail Alternatives Analysis Alternatives to be Advanced into a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Work Program 19,Considerations dated December 13,2007,attached as Exhibit A.
ADOPTED by the Metro Council this day of December 20074
David Bragdon,Council President
Approved as to Form:
Daniel B. Cooper,Metro Attorney
Pao 3 Resolution No.07-3887A
79
Exhibit A to Resolution No.07-3887A
Lake S swe • o to ' ortland
Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis
Metro Council Action
Alternatives to be Advanced into a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Work Program Considerations
Adopted December 13, 2007
‘t,
METRO
81
Metro Council Action
Alternatives to Advance into a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Adopted December 13, 2007
I. OVERVIEW
This document presents the Metro Council adoption of alternatives to be advanced into a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for the Lake Oswego to Portland corridor. The transit
alternatives and their accompanying trail components have been fully evaluated against the
projects purpose and need and goals and objectives, and this evaluation is documented in the
Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis Evaluation Summar),Public
Review Draft dated July 12, 2007.The Metro Council action considers recommendations from
the Transit Alternatives Analysis Steering Committee dated November 19, 2007, the Lake
Oswego to Portland Project Advisory Committee(LOPAC) dated July 31, 2007, the findings of
the Project Management Group dated September 3, 2007, public input received during the two
public open houses held on June 27 and 28, 2007, a public hearing before the Steering
Committee held on July 16, 2007, testimony before the Council on December 13, 2007 as well
as all other comments received as described in the Public Comment Summary dated
September 10, 2007 and updated to include public comments through December 13, 2007.
This action by the Metro Council selects transit mode, terminus of the transit project and specific
alignments to be studied in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, a strategy is
presented for further development of a trail connection in the corridor. The mode section
presents findings and recommendations regarding the No-Build, Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)and
Streetcar alternatives.The terminus section presents findings and recommendations about the
three terminus options including the Trolley, Safeway and Albertsons termini sites.The
alignment section describes findings and recommendations for the three potential streetcar
alignments within the Johns Landing area; the Willamette Shore Line right of way, SW
Macadam Avenue and the Johns Landing Master Plan alignment.
IL FINDINGS
Context
The Lake Oswego to Portland corridor is environmentally,topographically and physically
constrained. Future roadway expansion is not anticipated and previous planning studies have
concluded that a high capacity transit improvement is needed to provide additional capacity. In
1988, a consortium of seven government agencies purchased the Willamette Shore Line right of
way connecting Lake Oswego to Portland for the purpose of preserving the rail right of way for
future rail transit service. The 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) identified the need for a
corridor refinement plan for a high capacity transit option for this corridor, which was the genesis
of this alternatives analysis.
Existing and future traffic conditions in this corridor are projected to worsen as population and
employment projections for Portland, Lake Oswego and areas south of Lake Oswego in
Clackamas County continue to grow. The corridor already experiences long traffic queues, poor
levels of service and significant capacity constraints at key locations. Travel times in the corridor
are unreliable due to congestion on Highway 43.
Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis 2
Metro Council Action—December 13, 2007
82
Project Sequencing
A transit project in the Lake Oswego to Portland Corridor is one of several regional projects that
would seek funding through Federal Transit Administration's(FTA) New Starts and Small Starts
funding programs.The financial analysis prepared during this alternatives analysis evaluated
the sequencing of funding for this project based on current regional commitments.The
Milwaukie to Portland Light Rail Project is the region's top priority for FTA New Starts funding
following projects currently funded and under construction. The Columbia Crossing Project
would also include a New Starts transit component and is proceeding concurrently with the
Milwaukie to Portland LRT Project.The Portland Streetcar Loop project is the region's priority
project for FTA Small Starts funding.
The Lake Oswego to Portland Corridor Project could be the region's next priority for FTA
funding,with construction funding capacity becoming available starting in 2012 and continuing
through 2017. In order to fit into the regional sequence of projects, the Metro Council recognizes
that the Portland to Lake Oswego Corridor Draft Environmental Impact Statement would need to
be initiated in Fall 2008 as the Milwaukie to Portland Light Rail Project Final Environmental
Impact Statement nears completion. In the Work Program Considerations section of these
Metro Council findings,a number of steps are outlined which would need to be taken prior to the
initiation of the DEIS, including preparation of a more detailed schedule that identifies key New
Starts milestones and deliverables for the project.
Willamette Shoreline Right of Way
The Willamette shoreline rail right of way was purchased from the Southern Pacific Railroad in
1988 for$2 million dollars by a consortium of local governments including Metro,the cities of
Lake Oswego and Portland, Clackamas and Multnomah counties,the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) and TriMet. Knowing that the Highway 43 corridor is very constrained;
the purchase was made with the intent of preserving the corridor for future transit use.
The value of the right-of way has increased dramatically over 20 years.TriMet estimates
currently value the right-of-way at $75 million in 2007 dollars. This value is critical to a transit
project that would use the right-of-way because the value of the right of way can be counted as
local match for federal funds. A request for New Starts project funding from the Federal Transit
Administration would typically be for 60 percent of a project's capital cost leaving 40 percent to
be supplied locally. If$75 million in right of way value were applied as part of local match,the
remaining share of local funds required would be significantly reduced.
For the reasons stated above,whether an alternative uses the Willamette Shore Line right—of
way is a significant factor in project funding. For the Streetcar alternative, the$75 million value
of the Willamette Shore Line right of way could leverage as much as$112.5 million in federal
funds. Because it would not be using the right of way,the BRT alternative would not be able to
leverage value of the right of way as part of its funding plan.
A. Transit Mode:Streetcar
Streetcar is the transit mode that best meets the project's purpose and need and the goals
and objectives for the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis.
3 Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis
Metro Council Action—December 13, 2007
83
The Metro Council finds that the Streetcar mode should advance for further study in a DEIS
because:
• Streetcar would have the highest ridership of all the transit alternatives.
▪ Streetcar travel times would be up to 18 minutes faster between key corridor
destinations and would be more reliable than the other transit alternatives. In peak
travel periods, the Streetcar would provide faster travel times than autos between
downtown and Lake Oswego. Faster travel time and higher reliability is gained
through operation of streetcar in exclusive right of way on the Willamette Shore Line.
▪ Streetcar would have the lowest operating and maintenance costs of any alternative,
including the No-Build. This is due to the marginal cost of extending a line that
already operates in the corridor,the carrying capacity of the Streetcar vehicles
compared to buses and the travel time advantage over BRT and No-Build. The
Streetcar also replaces some corridor bus service,which results in a cost savings.
10 The Streetcar alternative could leverage up to 3.3 million square feet of total new
transit supportive development within three blocks of the proposed alignments.
▪ Streetcar is compatible with the existing transit system and would operate as an
extension of the existing streetcar line that operates between NW 23 Avenue and
the South Waterfront.
s The$75 million of value in the Willamette Shoreline right of way could leverage as
much as $112.5 million in federal funds if the project proceeds as a Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) News Starts project.
The Metro Council finds that the Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)mode should not advance for
further study in a DEIS because:
• It may not be a practical option to achieve the travel time and ridership as modeled in
this alternatives analysis. The queue bypass lanes used to bypass congestion at key
intersections in the BRT alternative would have to be extended to between 500 and
1,000 feet instead of the 200 feet in the current designs and cost estimates.
m The BRT alternative would include property impacts at the key intersections where
transit improvements are constructed. There would be additional property impacts
associated with the additional queue jump length required to bypass congestion. This
also would include removal of trees within the sidewalk area.
• Initial BRT capital costs were the lowest of all the transit alternatives, however,these
do not include the additional costs of the longer queue jump lanes, which would be
required.
• The BRT alternative would have the highest operating cost due to the greater
number of vehicles required to meet demand, and the fact that the BRT line would
require added service, unlike the Streetcar alternative which would replace existing
bus service.
• For the entire length of the corridor, BRT travel times are subject to the same delays
and congestion as the general traffic in areas where queue jump lanes are not
provided, resulting in decreased reliability.
• The BRT alternative would not leverage transit supportive economic development
beyond what would be expected with the No-Build alternative.
te The BRT alternative would not leverage the$75 million value of Willamette Shore
Line right of way,which could match federal transit funding of up to$112.5 million.
The Metro Council finds that an enhanced bus alternative should be studied as a more
practical option for this constrained corridor. Such an option would avoid the property
impacts of the BRT while providing improved service, bus pullouts where possible and better
shelters and lighting at stations. Enhanced bus would act as the base case for comparison
Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis 4
Metro Council Action—December 13, 2007
84
to Streetcar alternatives in the DEIS. It would operate in mixed traffic, though this has
implications for travel time, reliability and long-term efficiency of the line.
B. Alignments: Willamette Shore Line and SW Macadam Avenue
During the alternatives analysis process three alignments were evaluated in the John's
Landing area: the Willamette Shore Line right of way, SW Macadam Avenue and the John's
Landing Master Plan alignment. The Metro Council recommends that two alignment options
be studied further in the John's Landing area north of the SeMood Bridge: the Willamette
Shore Line right of way alignment and the SW Macadam Avenue alignment.
In addition, combinations of the two alignments should be evaluated to maximize the
potential benefits and minimize impacts in the John's Landing area. The Metro Council
recognizes that alignments, which would avoid or minimize impacts through John's Landing,
may need to be developed that are not part of either the Macadam Avenue or Willamette
Shoreline alignments. These could include all or portions of the John's Landing Master Plan
alignment or other rights of way.
The Metro Council finds that the Willamette Shore Line right of way alignment should
advance for further study for the following reasons:
• Streetcar on the Willamette Shore Line right of way would yield higher reliability and
faster travel times than the other alignments due to the 100%exclusive right of way.
In the DEIS, Issues of pedestrian and vehicle safety and proximity to private
properties must be considered in the analysis of this alignment.
• The Willamette Shore Line right of way is in public ownership and could potentially
be used as local match towards the capital cost of the project. Current estimates
value the entire right of way at$75 million. For the portion north of SW Nevada
Street, the value of the right of way is estimated at approximately$35 million,which
could leverage an additional$58 million in federal funds.
• The Willamette Shore Line Right-of-Way alignment has received public support from
Lake Oswego residents because it has faster travel time, better reliability and less
impact to Highway 43 traffic operations and safety than an alignment that would use
Macadam Avenue in John's Landing.
The Metro Council finds that the SW Macadam Avenue alignment should advance for
further study for the following reasons:
• The SW Macadam Avenue alignment was the preferred alignment of the LOPAC
based on community support, development potential, and the ability to avoid
residential impacts of the Willamette Shore Line alignment. The LOPAC emphasized
that the alignment should be on SW Macadam Avenue for as much of the length of
the route as possible from the South Waterfront to the vicinity of the intersection of
SW Macadam Avenue and SW Nevada Street.
• The SW Macadam Avenue alignment would leverage the most potential transit
supportive development, approximately 2.2 million square feet of total new
development in John's Landing.
• The SW Macadam Avenue alignment would avoid some of the potential property
impacts associated with use of the Willamette Shore Line right of way.
• The SW Macadam Avenue alignment has emerged with the most public support from
residents and businesses in John's Landing.
5 Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis
Metro Council Action-December 13, 2007
85
• As LOPAC recommended, a bicycle and pedestrian trail could be established along
the Willamette Shore Line with the Macadam Avenue alignment. This trail has the
potential to reduce conflicts between recreational and commuter user groups on the
existing Willamette River Greenway trail by providing a more direct route through
Johns Landing.
Note: The Metro Council recognizes ODOT's expressed concerns regarding the SW
Macadam Avenue alignment option and will ensure that questions related to potential
streetcar operations in mixed traffic on SW Macadam Avenue are addressed.
South of the John's Landing area and north of the Trolley Terminus site in Lake Oswego,
the Willamette Shore Line right of way was the only alignment to advance to the completion
of the alternatives analysis. As part of its design option narrowing decision, Steering
Committee eliminated Highway 43 south of John's Landing from consideration as a
Streetcar alignment for safety and operational reasons, making the Willamette Shore Line
alignment the only option in this segment of the corridor.The Evaluation Summary Report
contains a description of the alternative and design option narrowing decisions that were
made during the alternatives analysis.
C. Lake Oswego Full-Length Termini:Albertsons and Safeway
The Metro Council finds that the Albertsons and Safeway termini should advance into the
DEIS. The Trolley terminus should not be advanced into the DEIS. These termini options
are preferred because they would serve more population and employment, have higher
ridership, disperse park and ride spaces, and have greater potential for transit-supportive
development while demonstrating similar traffic impacts.
The Metro Council finds that the Albertsons terminus should advance for further study for
the following reasons:
• The Albertsons terminus would allow for the possible future extension of Streetcar
south to West Linn or Oregon City.
• The Albertsons terminus has strong public support from the residents south of Lake
Oswego and citizens within Lake Oswego. In 2006, Lake Oswego's Downtown
Transit Alternatives Analysis Committee(DTAAC) recommended the Albertsons
terminus site, partly because it would intercept traffic from the south before it reaches
the center of downtown,
II The Albertsons terminus could generate substantial transit supportive development
in Lake Oswego (0.9 million square feet).
The Metro Council finds that the Safeway terminus should advance for further study for the
following reasons:
▪ The Safeway terminus would allow for the possible future extension of Streetcar to
the west.
▪ The Safeway terminus could provide park and ride access west of downtown Lake
Oswego, intercepting traffic before it reaches the center of downtown.
M The Safeway site could leverage the most potential transit supportive development
(1,1 million square feet in Lake Oswego), as compared to the Albertsons or Trolley
terminus options.
Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis 6
Metro Council Action—December 13, 2007
86
a The Safeway site would allow the Streetcar to act as a circulator for trips within
downtown Lake Oswego between the Foothills district and the west end of
downtown,
The Metro Council acknowledges that an at-grade crossing of streetcar with Highway 43
under the Safeway terminus option would require additional study and coordination with
ODOT and the City of Lake Oswego to ensure that a safe and efficient crossing is feasible.
Additionally, the Metro Council acknowledges that it may be necessary to construct a project
that would utilize the Trolley Terminus as a temporary Interim terminus while joint
development construction plans are finalized at either the Albertsons or Safeway terminus
sites.
D. Temporary Johns Landing Short Terminus.Minimum Operable Segment
(MOS)
If a full-length project cannot be built for financial or other reasons,the FTA allows for
Minimum Operable Segments (MOS)to be considered as interim termini for a project. In
this corridor, preliminary analysis was done for a MOS for Streetcar that would terminate in
the vicinity of Nevada Street in John's Landing on either the Willamette Shore Line right-of-
way or the Macadam Avenue alignments. A streetcar terminus in Johns Landing should
include enhanced bus service to Lake Oswego as part of the complete alternative. The
Metro Council finds that this alternative advance for further study for the following reasons:
• Significant public support was expressed for this option from participants in the
process all through the corridor.
a A minimum operable segment(MOS) provides flexibility to initiate a project with
available funding while pursuing additional funding to complete the remainder.
E. Johns Landing Permanent Terminus
A permanent terminus in Johns Landing was selected by the LOPAC along with a full-length
Streetcar alternative as their preferred options to be advanced into the DEIS. The LOPAC
preference was that this terminus be paired with the Macadam Avenue alignment; in Johns
Landing however this terminus option could be paired with either the Willamette Shoreline or
Macadam alignments. A streetcar terminus in Johns Landing should include enhanced bus
service to Lake Oswego as part of the complete alternative.. The Metro Council finds that
this alternative should be advanced into the DEIS for the following reasons:
a There is strong community support for this option in both Johns Landing and
Dunthorpe.
a Analysis of a permanent terminus in addition to a temporary Minimum Operable
Segment terminus would allow a full range of choices that could respond to funding
constraints, environmental impacts and community preferences.
a This terminus option could maintain the ability to cross a new or reconstructed
Sellwood Bridge in the future.
Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis
Metro Council Action—December 13, 2007
87
III. TRAIL CONSIDERATIONS
Context
As part of the Willamette River Greenway vision,a trail was proposed to run along the
Willamette Shore Line right of way from Willamette Park in Portland to downtown Lake Oswego
between Highway 43 and the Willamette River.As part of this Alternatives Analysis, the
feasibility of a continuous trail between Portland and Lake Oswego was evaluated. Each transit
alternative carried with it a complementary trail component. The BRT alternative would have
used the Willamette Shore Line right of way for exclusive trail use. The Streetcar alternative,
which the Metro Council advances for further study, would require shared use of the Willamette
Shoreline between Streetcar and a trail.The discussion below focuses on the trail components
that would accompany the Streetcar alignments.
A. Trail Component
The bike and pedestrian trail component of this study has received tremendous community
support. A trail in the corridor would provide a critical link in the regional transportation
system, connecting other regional and local trails. A continuous, safe and level trail
component is a desired outcome in this corridor.
However, as currently designed, the trail component may not be practical to build for its
entire length because of the high capital costs associated with shifting the Streetcar
alignment to accommodate the trail in a tightly constrained right of way and very difficult
topography. Because some portions of the trail are more easily implemented than others,
and because funding for the entire trail may not be available at one time, the trail may need
to be developed in phases.
B. Trail Component Refinement Next Steps
The Metro Council finds that a trail component should be advanced for further study.
However, additional refinement is needed to determine how to advance the trail and the
transit alternatives,either together or separately.The following identifies additional
considerations for the trail and next steps:
s Further consideration is required to determine trail project sponsors and potential
funding sources. Metro may or may not be the appropriate agency to lead the effort
to advance a trail in the corridor.
Additional design work is needed to identify ways to design and construct a trail in
this corridor with lower capital costs and impacts while still accommodating the
transit project. The trail design should change and adapt to constraints in the
corridor.The width of the trail does not need to be the same for the entire alignment
and flexibility will be required with regard to various jurisdictions design standards
and requirements.
a Trail phasing should be considered so that the most cost-effective segments could
move forward. The additional design work required for the more difficult and
expensive portions will take more time and effort.
Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis 8
Metro Council Action-December 13, 2007
88
'a Additional study is needed to evaluate the potential for the Portland and Western
railroad bridge and an eastside connection to the SeMood Bridge to provide a useful
pedestrian and bike trail connection between Lake Oswego and Portland
a Further study is needed regarding the outstanding legal questions in order to
facilitate decisions about the Willamette Shore Line right of way and its use for a trail,
IV. WORK PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS
The Metro Council finds that several actions are needed prior to advancing the project into the
Draft Environmental impact Statement phase of project development. Because a DEIS for the
Lake Oswego to Portland Corridor is not included in Metro's current fiscal year budget, it is
recognized that there will be a gap before the DEIS can commence.
1. The Metro Council finds that the following actions are necessary to advance the
project Into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement:
a. Metro should work with the FTA to Publish a Notice of Intent to Prepare a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal Register, and initiate
the DEIS Scoping Process.The FTA has recommended that this action be taken
immediately.This action would ensure that all of the work completed during the
alternatives analysis would be documented under the National Environmental
Policy Act(NEPA). Public comment received prior to the Metro Council action on
advancing the project into the DEIS phase would also be included as part of the
NEPA record. The Scoping phase of a DEIS includes meetings with the public as
well as local, state and federal agencies and affected tribal jurisdictions. The
dates of the public, agency and tribal meetings would be published along with the
notice of intent.The Scoping meetings present proposed alternatives and solicit
input on potential additional alternatives that could be included in a DEIS.
b. Metro should prepare a work scope, budget and schedule for the DEIS. In
order to secure funding for a DEIS, a cost estimate is required. The estimate is
based on a scope of work and schedule that meet all appropriate FTA and NEPA
requirements. This DEIS will need to meet new requirements for public and
agency participation covered under Section 6002 of the SAFETEA-LU Act.
Metro staff will convene the PMG to discuss and review the scope of work,
schedule and budget, including agency roles and responsibilities during the DEIS
phase.
c. Metro should work with project partners,through the Project Management
Group,to Identify and secure funding for the DEIS.Along with the scope,
schedule and budget, Metro will work with project partners to identify potential
sources of funding for the DEIS, as well as the next phases of project
development, Preliminary Engineering and the Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Potential sources of funding include FTA Section 5339 or other funds
through the MTIP process, and local jurisdiction, TriMet, or ODOT contributions.
9 Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis
Metro Council Action—December 13, 2007
89
2. In order to advance the goal of implementing a bicycle and pedestrian trail that
connects Portland and Lake Oswego,the Metro Council directs that the following
steps be taken:
a. Metro,with assistance from project partners through the TAC and PMG,
should develop a process to undertake the Trail Refinement Next Steps
listed above.The result of this process would be to resolve key issues and
determine the relationship of the trail and the transit project during the DEIS
phase. Of particular importance are:
I. Involvement of the public and advocacy groups in improving the trail
concept
Definition of the lead agency for advancement of a trail
iii. Development of an approach to reduce capital costs
iv.Analysis of possible phasing of trail segments
v. Identification of potential trail capital funding sources
3. The Metro Council finds that prior to initiation of the DEIS, Metro,with the
assistance of the PMG, should develop actions or conditions for each
participating agency that would help to ensure that the project can meet FTA
thresholds with regard to ridership and financing and achieve the important
development objectives for the Corridor.
These could include:
a. Development of local funding mechanisms
b. Demonstrated progress toward development objectives
c. Resolution of technical issues, e.g. ODOT concerns regarding the SW Macadam
Avenue alignment
d. Threshold criteria for selecting a full-length option over an MOS or vice versa
4. The Metro Council finds that the following concerns need to be addressed by
Metro and its project partners as the project moves forward into a DEIS:
a. The alternative should be constructed in such a manner as to allow coordination
with transportation alternatives across the Sellwood Bridge or its replacement.
b. Maximize the alternative to establish a safe and attractive transit, pedestrian and
bicycle route from Lake Oswego to Portland. Minimize negative impacts to
residents and property values.
c. The DEIS should include an analysis of the conflicts between use of the corridor
as a commuter route and the stated desire of Johns Landing residents for a more
pedestrian and retail friendly environment.
d. Continue to analyze redevelopment opportunities in Johns Landing and Lake
Oswego.
e. Strive for closer integration of Johns Landing and South Waterfront urban
planning and work to improve pedestrian, bicycle, automobile and streetcar
connections.
Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis 10
Metro Council Action—December 13, 2007
90
6. The Metro Council finds that the PMG should undertake a Johns Landing
Alignment Refinement Study that would precede the start of the DEIS. This study
would support the DEIS detailed definition of alternatives and should focus on:
a. The operational, design and cost trade-offs between the various alignment
options in the Johns Landing segment.
b. Financial mechanisms to capture the full value of the Willamette Shore Line so
that the value of the WSL right of way could be used to leverage federal dollars
and be applied to a project as local match. These mechanisms could include
purchase by adjoining property owners,formation of a local improvement district
and/or a right of way trade that could be counted as local match
c. Design solutions through and/or around the most constrained parts of the
Willamette Shore Line alignment
d. Initial operating concepts for the Streetcar in Macadam Avenue that address
ODOT concerns regarding shared traffic operations.
e. Refinement of temporary and permanent Johns Landing terminus locations.
f. Funding for the refinement study should be equitably shared by the participating
agencies.
1 I Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis
Metro Council Action—December 13, 2007
91
RESOLUTION 07-57
A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTING THE
LAKE OSWEGO TO PORTLAND TRANSIT AND TRAIL ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL impArr STATEMENT STUDY FOR THE HIGHWAY 43
CORRIDOR
WHEREAS,the Regional Transportation Plan(RV) designates Highway 43 between
Portland and Lake Oswego as a„.planned frequent bus.line and the Willamette Shore
Line Rail right of Way as a planned/proposed streetcar line;and
WHEREAS,in 1988,the City of Lake Oswego,along with six other agencies,purchased
the Willamette Shore Line rail right of way for the purpose of preserving the line for
future high capacity transit;and
WHEREAS,the City of Lake Oswego has adopted a Transportation System Plan as a
component of its Comprehensive Plan that indicates that Hwy.43 is a congested corridor,
and that the Willamette Shore Line right of way should be preserved for future high
capacity transit;and
WHEREAS,the City of Lake Oswego,along with other regional partners,has through its
actions over the past 19 years,supported efforts to encourage future high capacity transit
between Lake Oswego and Portland by contracting with the Oregon Electrical Railway
Historical Society to operate a seasonal trolley on the Willamette Shore Line right of way
in order to preserve its use for future high capacity transit;and
WHEREAS,in 2004,the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego appointed a
Downtown Transit Alternatives Advisory Committee (DTAAC),consisting of
neighborhood,business and transportation representatives,which examined preferred
transit options for the City of Lake Oswego;and
WHEREAS,in 2005,Metro applied for and attained Metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Program fun.4s in order to conduct a Transit and Trail Alternatives
Analysis to examine transit and trail options in the Highway 43 Corridor,including the
Willamette Shore Line right-of-way,and the City of Lake 0sweg9 contributed funding
for a portion of the local match,along with the City.of Portland and TriMet;and
WHEREAS,an Alternatives Analysis,consistent with Federal Transit Administration
• requirements,was conducted;and
WHEREAS,representatives on the Transit and Trail Steering Committee,consisting of
elected and appointed members from the City of Lake Oswego,the City of Portland,
Multnomah.and Clackamas Counties,Trirviet,Metro,Oregon Department of
Resolution 07-57,Supporting the Recommendations of the Lake Oswego to Portland Steering Committee
Page 1 of 3
93
Transportation,and Portland Streetcar,Inc.(PSI),have reviewed the Evaluation
Alternatives Report as well as recommendations from the Lake Oswego to Portland
Advisory Committee (LOPAC),and have recommended that the project alternatives as
outlined in Attachment A should be forwarded to Metro Council for further study in a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement;and
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego:
ection.1. The Lake Oswego City Council hereby supports the September 10,2007
recommendation of the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis
Steering Committee,attached as Exhibit A,generally including streetcar and enhanced
bus modes,two alternative streetcar alignments and two termini options and one
minimum operable segment.
ection 2. The City Council urges that Metro incorporate the recommended project
alternatives into the study for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Highway 43 Corridor.
Sermon 3. The City Council conveys that support for study of the MOS to Nevada
Street should not be viewed as support for streetcar to Nevada Street as a project
terminus as it would not meet the identified Purpose and Need for the project and
would significantly increase the cost of the project
it
Resolution 07-57,Supporting the Recommendations of the Lake Oswego to Portland Steering Committee
Page 2 of 3
94
Section 4. Effective P . This Resolution shall take effect upon passage.
Considered and enacted at the meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego
held on the 2nd day of October,2007.
AYES: Mayor Hammerstad, MaPeak, Groznik, Hennagin, Jordan, Johndon
IMES:. none
EXCUSED: Turchi
ABSTAIN: none
4041, 6466....40
die Hammerstad,Mayor
ATTEST:
ea/am:Aim_
Rol;;Eistie,City Recorder
APPROVED 0 FORM:
David Powell
City Attorney
Resolution 07-57,Supporting the Recommendations of the Lake Oswego to Portland Steering Committee
Page 3 of 3
95
Martha Schrader
Chair
Lynn Peterson
Commissioner
nitt gennemer
Commissioner
CLACKAMAS
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNT', COMMISSIONERS
rusLIC SiRVICir% BUILDING
December 7,2007 Z051 KAM ROM) I ORIECiON CITY. OR 97045
David Bragdon,President
Metro Council
600 NE Grand Ave.
Portland,OR 97232-2736
Dear President 3ragdon:
The Clackamas County Board of Commissioners has reviewed the Lake Oswego Transit and
Trail Alternatives Analysis Steering Committee recommendation to advance alternatives into a
Draft Environmental impact Statement and we support the recommendation of the Steering
Committee. While we are supportive of this recommendation,we would like to emphasize
several issues,
We agree with the need to continue to study a Streetcar as the preferred mode,especially
recognizing the limitations of bus rapid transit.However,we believe it is important to study all
modes more thoroughly in the next stage of analysis. Additionally,though we have agreed to
further study of a minimum operable segment to Nevada Street,we believe that this would not
meet the purpose and need of the project and would add significantly more cost to the project.
Regarding the alignments through the Johns Landing area,we support continued study of both
the Willamette Shore Line right of way and SW Macadam Avenue.We recognize and want to
maximize the value of the Willamette Shore Line right of way but also realize that a Macadam
Avenue alignment could potentially provide a positive tradeoff between benefits and impacts.
While the segment of the corridor that is within unincorporated Clackamas County does not
anticipate increased development,there are key development opportunities In the Lake Oswego
town center.The county supports further study of both terminus locations in order to better
understand the benefits and impacts of both options.Additionally,we are fully supportive of the
predevelopment efforts currently underway by the City of Lake Oswego.
Providing a bicycle/pedestrian component is very important to Clackamas County.We
recognize the physical constraints involved as wet as the possible legal Issues of the Willamette
Shore Line right of way.We are willing and eager to play a leadership role with Metro,project
partners and the public to address the challenges of creating a safe,continuous trail through the
corridor at a reasonable cost.We look forward to future opportunities to develop and consider
creative options and make recommendations as appropriate.
We thank you for this.opportunity to lend our support to this project that will provide new
transportation choices In the corridor and beyond,into broader Clackamas County,where our
population and employment continue to grow and demand additional transportation capacity.
Sincerely,
Martha Schrader L n Peterson Bill Kennemer
Chair Commissioner Commissioner
P. 503,655.8581 I r. 503.742-5919 I www.co.cLAct(AmAs.ocus
97
0 TedWheeler, Multnomah Count Chair
4ii,,,,,,z0
Z „ .,:._:0 ..;,4, , 501 SE Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 600
to
va 1041W- 1,0! 0*2\\\:61. .- '
Portland Oregon1� '�7214
� Phone. � ��� ��3 308
" -� Email:mu t.cl1air co.multfomah.or.us
November 26, 2007
David Bragdon, President
Metro Council
600 NE Grand Avenue
Portland, OR 97 32 2736
Dear President Bragdon:
The Multnomah County Board of Commissioners has reviewed both LOPAC's and the Steering
Committee Recommendation for the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trails Alternatives
Analysis. This letter will offer alternatives into a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
provide the following recommendation.
After reviewing the Steering Committee Revised Recommendation we agree with the need to
continue to study a Streetcar as the preferred mode,especially recognizing the limitations of
bus rapid transit. That said,we encourage that a streetcar to Johns Landing and enhanced bus
to Lake Oswego be studied as an alternative for this corridor,as well as the Steering
Committee's recommendation of studying Streetcar to Lake Oswego as an alternative.
Regarding the alignments through the South Waterfront area,we support continued study of the
Willamette Shore Line right of way and SW Macadam alignments. We recognize the value of
the Wi l lamette Shore Line right of way, but we do not wish to see its value as the driving force,
only that it and the SW Macadam Avenue alignments each be given full consideration.
With respect to a terminus in Lake Oswego we believe that a Trolley Terminus be considered
while the advantages of the other two locations(Safeway and Albertsons)receive further study.
We recognize that there are several advantages that accompany streetcar development. First is
the transit demand at the terminus as well as the potential for continuation of the line, and second
the potential for economic development that might occur along an alignment. Therefore,
consideration of a Trolley Terminus is also important to allow some flexibility before
committing to one terminus or the other.
At our briefing we also heard from citizens from unincorporated Multnomah County as well as
members of LOPAC and wish to support their recommendation. While their recommendation(s)
is included in the Steering Committee's Revised Recommendation,there are some key
differences that bear consideration. First,we would like to reiterate our desire to see the
SW Macadam alignment studied as per LOPAC's recommendation. Second,while we wish to
see the Trolley Terminus as an alternative,we again concur that studying a terminus in Johns
Landing should also be reviewed as an alternative with enhanced bus service to south to Lake
Oswego.
98
IW David Brain
November 26,2007
Page 2 of 2
Providing a bicycle/pedestrian component is very important to Multnomah County. We
recognize the physical constraints involved as well as the possible legal issues of the Willamette
Shore Line right of way,, We encourage establishing a subcommittee to closely review the
options and make recommendations as appropriate.
Finally,the effect of any of the alternatives on the environment must be a component of the
DEIS. We continued to be concerned about the potential impact any of the alternatives may
have on the environment and believe that the preferred alternative be one that also meets key
sustainability measures.
Multnomah County supports moving ahead with the DEIS as recommended by both LOPAC and
the Steering Committee. We thank you for this opportunity to tend our support.
Sincerely,
72:17)
Ted Wheeler
Multnomah County Chair
99
114,11.4A,
CITY OF Sam Adams,Commissioner
1221 S,W. Fourth Avenue, Rm. 220
411.7
Portland, Oregon 97204-1994
'4417, P • TEA: D OREGON (503) 823-3008*Ait4:.?fvi FAX (503)823-3017
° 4 0
E:aproadams@ci„portiand.ccus
OFFICE OF PUBLIC UTILITIES www.commissionersam.corn
80,
Metro Council
600 NE Grand Ave.
Portland,OR 97232
Honorable President Bragdon and Metro Councilors:
As Commissioner in charge of the Portland Office of Transportation and City of Portland
representative in the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis Steering
Committee, I support the Steering Committee recommendations as amended and approved at the
November 19th,2007 meeting.
In advancing the Steering Committees Recommendations, I appreciate the hard work that citizens of
Portland and along the corridor put into the project for over two years.
I understand that planning for high capacity transit in this corridor has been a controversial endeavor
going back to the master planning efforts of the 1970s.Given this history,the recommendations of
the Lake Oswego to Portland Project Advisory Committee and the Steering Committee are important
steps toward a workable solution.
Though this study resolved many issues,many questions remained unanswered. I believe this
refinement study is the best way to continue to explore options with the community and try to build
towards an agreement on the options to be studied as part of the environmental impact study work
(EIS).
In advancing this project to the next level of planning, the City of Portland is interested in a process
that will lead to solutions that meet the City's and the region's transportation and land use objectives
and reflect the needs and aspirations of stakeholders along the corridor.
As such, I am recommending that as part of the refinement study referred to in the Steering
Committee's recommendations, the following elements be incorporated:
1. This refinement study is for the area of Johns Landing between South Waterfront and the
Sellwood Bridge,and should be conducted with active participation from businesses and
residents along the corridor,
2. The refinement study should be consistent and supportive of the NEPA process;
3. The refinement study work should be scoped for and executed so that the end result will be a
narrowing of streetcar alignments in the Johns Landing segment to be advanced into the EIS;
4. The refinement study should be conducted concurrently with trail planning, and if that is not
possible,the refinement study should consider the impacts on trail development in its
alternative selection process;
5. Opportunities and constraints to build a citywide streetcar system should be part of the
criteria for alternative selection;and
6. The scope of work and execution of the refinement study should be done in a cooperative
effort with the City of Portland, Metro, TriMet,ODOT and the public at large.
Sincerely,
Commissioner Sam Adams
101
T RI-at
December 11,2007
Metro Council
600 NE Grand Avenue
Portland,OR 97232-2736
Dear President l3ragdon:
On behalf of TriMet,I recommend that you adopt the Lake Oswego to Portland Steering
Committee Recommendations as amended on November 19,2007. These
recommendations propose a sound range of project alternatives that present the public and
decision-makers with sensible choices on how to proceed with transit improvements in the
Lake Oswego to Portland Corridor. Each of the alternatives will benefit from the careful
analysis of impacts and mitigations that can only take place within the NEPA process.
As the project moves forward,TriMet,Metro and our regional partners will seek to
develop creative design solutions that address the community concerns expressed during
the alternatives analysis,while maintaining reliable andquick transit options Hugh the
corridor.Balancing the regional transportation needs with local impacts will be particularly
challenging in this highly constrained corridor.
TriMet also wants to emphasize its belief that the value of the Willamette Shore Line
railroad right of way should be preserved as local match for FTA funds and not given up
prematurely. Whether the match is created through direct use of the right of way or by
separate funding that ensures that the value is captured by other means,capture of the right
of way's value will need to be addressed as we advance into the DEIS.
We look forward to working with you on this important project.
Sincerely,
3-03) lAf3.
Fred Hansen
General Manager
Tr ounty Metropolitan Transportation O strkt of Oregon 4012 SE 17th Avenue,Portland,Oregon 97202 • 5O3 238-RIOE • TTY 503-135- 81 • trim:t,ory
103
STAFF IMPORT
IN CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 07-3887,FOR THE PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING
ALTERNATIVES TO ADVANCE INTO A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT FOR THE PORTLAND TO LAKE OSWEGO CORRIDOR TRANSIT
PROJECT
Date: December 13,2007 Prepared by: Ross Roberts
BACKGROUND
Council Action
This resolution would effectively advance the Lake Oswego to Portland Corridor into the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement phase of project development,and would identify transit mode,terminus
and alignments to be studied in the DEIS. In addition,this action would set in motion activities to prepare
for the DEIS including development of work program,budget,schedule,and funding plan for the DEIS.
At the completion of the DEIS,the Council would select a locally preferred alternative.
Policy+ op ext
The Region 2040 Growth Concept calls for high capacity transit connections between centers.The 2004
Regional Transportation Plan called for a corridor refinement plan in the Lake Oswego to Portland
Corridor to examine high capacity transit improvements. Subsequently,the Lake Oswego to Portland
Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis was initiated by Metro in July 2005 to evaluate transit alternatives
that would connect the Portland Central City with the Lake Oswego Town Center.The Council funded
the alternatives analysis through two MTIP allocations.Metro is lead agency for the project,and TriMet,
ODOT,the cities of Lake Oswego and Portland,Multnomah and Clackamas Counties and Portland
Streetcar Inc are project partners.
Project Decision-Making
The Metro Council has final authority for this project decision and is acting on a recommendation by the
Transit Alternatives Analysis Steering Committee. The Steering Committee provides policy oversight
and includes elected officials or executives from all of the project partners. Councilors Burkholder and
Colette are the Council's representatives on the committee and serve as co-chairs. In addition to the
project partners,the chairs of the Lake Oswego to Portland Project Advisory Committee(LOPAC)and
the Portland Streetcar Loop Project Advisory Committee have seats on the Steering Committee.The
LOPAC and the Project Management Group,made up of jurisdiction senior staff,made recommendations
to the Steering Committee on alternatives to be advanced into a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS). The Steering Committee considered those recommendations as well as technical analysis from
the Evaluation Summaty Report Public Review Draft,and public comment as heard at a public hearing in
July 2007,and as summarized in the Public Comment Report.
Public n9Ivern
An extensive public involvement process was undertaken from July 2005 to the present that included
testimony before and after every meeting of the LOPAC. Community design workshops were held early
in the process in May 2006 to identify a wide range of alternatives for transit and trail options in the
corridor. Small group meetings followed from September to November 2006 to refine alignments.
Project staff met with neighborhood groups throughout the corridor,including West Linn. Two open
105
houses were held to review the technical analysis in June 2007. Individual property owner meetings were
held as needed throughout the process. A bus rider survey was completed of 670 transit users in the
corridor.The project also utilized newsletters,and targeted mailings to advertise meetings and provide
updates. In all,the public involvement effort resulted in over 1,200 direct citizen contacts.
Steering Committee Reeom mepdation
The Steering Committee Recommendation was adopted on September 10,2007. Subsequent to that
adoption,concerns were raised by Chair and Vice-Chairs of LOPAC and residents of Dunthorpe. After
meetings with the interested parties that included Council President Bragdon and Councilor Burkholder,a
proposed amendment to the recommendation was forwarded to the Steering Committee by Councilor
Burkholder,and was adopted on November 19,2007. The amendment added the permanent Johns
Landing terminus preferred by LOPAC to the alternatives to be studied in the DEIS and added language
to the work program considerations that would add an alignment refinement study in Johns Landing that
would precede the DEIS and be undertaken by Metro,TriMet,the City of Portland and ODOT.
The Steering Committee Recommendation,as amended is summarized below:
▪ Context. After the Portland to Milwaukie Light.Rail Project and Portland Streetcar Loop,the
Lake Oswego to Portland Corridor would be the region's next priority for Federal Transit
Administration funding.The publicly owned Willamette Shore Line right-of-way is valued at$75
million(2007 dollars)and as local match for FTA New Starts funding,it could leverage as much
as$112.5 million(2007 dollars)in federal funds.
• Transit Mode. Streetcar was recommended to be advanced for further study because it would
have the highest ridership, fastest travel times,highest reliability,and lowest operating and
maintenance costs of any alternative including the No-Build. Streetcar could leverage substantial
development-up to 3.3 million square feet of total new transit supportive development within
three blocks of the alignment. Streetcar would also be compatible with the existing transit
system,operating as an extension of the existing streetcar line. The Steering Committee did not
recommend that Bus Rapid Transit be advanced due to the impracticality of proposed queue jump
lanes,but did recommend that an enhanced bus alternative be studied further in the DEIS.
• A Ii gnn-eat. Two alignments were recommended to be studied further in Johns Landing:the
Willamette Shore Line right-of-way and SW Macadam Avenue—with combinations of the two
primary alignments and all or part of the Johns Landing Masterplan alignment to be evaluated to
maximize the potential benefits and minimize adverse impacts in the Johns Landing area.The
Willamette Shore Line was recommended because it would provide higher reliability and faster
travel times,and could be used for$75 million(2007 dollars)in local match. This alignment
received a high level of public support from Lake Oswego residents.The SW Macadam Avenue
alignment was selected because it was the preferred alignment of LOPAC,could leverage the
most potential transit supportive development and would avoid proximity impacts of the
Willamette Shore Line alignment. This alignment received a high level of public support from
residents and businesses in Johns Landing.
▪ Terminus. The Steering Committee recommended two Lake Oswego full-length terminus
options,the Albertsons and Safeway sites. A Temporary Johns Landing Terminus option was
included as an interim step to a full length project. A Permanent Johns Landing Terminus option
was added by the November 19,2007 amendment.
• �. A continuous,safe bike and pedestrian trail between Lake Oswego and Portland's South
Waterfront area received tremendous community support. However,as currently designed,high
106
capital costs make trail implementation difficult. Additional refinement is needed to determine
how to advance the trail either separately or with the transit alternatives. Other refinement issues
include identification of funding sources,determination of lead agency, additional design work,
development of a trail segment phasing strategy,evaluation of the potential for use of the
Portland and Western railroad bridge and an eastside connection to the Sellwood Bridge and
evaluation of outstanding legal questions.
to Work Program Considerations. The Steering Committee Recommendation also includes
activities would be initiated by Metro and our project partners in preparation for the DEIS:
o Iniate the FTA Draft Environmental Impact Statement process.
o Prepare DEIS scope,budget and schedule.
o Develop actions or conditions for each participating agency that would help to ensure that the
project can meet FTA thresholds with regard to ridership and financing and achieve the
important development objectives for the Corridor.
o Undertake a Johns Landing Refinement Study prior to the start of the DEIS
o Develop a process to refine trail options in the corridor
o Continue coordination with the Sellwood Bridge project and ongoing planning activities in
South Waterfront
o Ensure that impacts to residents and property values are minimized
o Continue to analyze redevelopment opportunities in Johns Landing and Lake Oswego.
ANALYSIS/INFORMATION
1. Known Opposition
▪ Opposition my be encountered from Johns Landing residents,business interests or LOPAC
members that have advocated for removing the Willamette Shore Line from further study in the
Johns Landing segment. The LOPAC recommendation would have taken the Willamette Shore
Line off the table in favor of a SW Macadam alignment. The Steering Committee felt that the
Willamette Shore Line's value as local match,shortest travel times and highest reliability made it
too valuable to drop at this early stage of project development.The Macadam alignment is
included in the Steering Committee recommendations,however added work is needed to refine
the alignment and address operational challenges on SW Macadam. In their November 19
amendment,the Steering Committee called for Metro to undertake a Johns Landing Alignment
Refinement Study along with PDOT,ODOT and TriMet prior to the start of the DE1S.
w Dunthorpe opposition could be encountered,although the inclusion of a permanent streetcar
terminus alternative in Johns Landing is an option that could end the project north of Dunthorpe.
Opposition to the full-length streetcar alternative can be expected.
▪ Clackamas County and Lake Oswego voted against the November 19 amendment to add a
permanent Johns Landing terminus to the Steering Committee recommendation,citing the
project's purpose and need to connect Lake Oswego and Portland.
2. Legal Antecedents
The proposed action,initiating a DEIS in the Lake Oswego to Portland Corridor would fall under the
jurisdiction of the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)and would be undertaken in
accordance with Federal Transit Administration policies,guidance and rules.
107
Further,there are several Metro Council resolutions that provide legal antecedents including the
following:
Resolution No.86-715 For the Purpose of Entering Into an Intergovernmental Agreement and
Expending Funds to Preserve the Southern Pacific Right-of-Way(Jefferson Street Branch)Between
Portland and Lake Oswego.
Resolution No.05-3569 For the Purpose of Confirming Metro Council Representatives to the
Eastside and Portland/Lake Oswego Transit Alternatives Analysis Steering Committee and
Identifying Other Representative Categories to the Committee,
Resolution No.05-3647 For the Purpose of Approving a Consultant Services For the Lake Oswego
to Portland Transit Alternatives Analysis.
3. Anticipated Effects
Adoption of the Steering Committee recommendation would define the alternatives to be evaluated in
the DEIS and direct staff to prepare a DEIS scope,schedule and budget. Staff would also begin the
Johns Landing alignment refinement study and begin to seek funding for the DEIS from FTA and
local partner jurisdictions. In addition,work would begin to refine the trail alternatives and find
funding sources for trail construction.
4, Budget Impacts
Metro's FY 2008 budget includes the second half of the SAFETEA-LU Streetcar Earmark,and some
of those funds can be used for the Lake Oswego to Portland Corridor. This funding should be
sufficient for the alignment refinement study in Johns Landing and to prepare for DEIS start-up.
Approximately$5.5 million would be required for the DEIS,based on recent experience with the
Portland to Milwaukie Light Rail SDEIS. Metro staff prepared an appropriations request for$4.0
million in FTA Section 5339 funding for FY 09. The remainder of the DEIS funding would be
sought from local partners.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve Resolution No.07-3887,For The Purpose of Identifying Alternatives to Advance to A Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Portland to Lake Oswego Corridor Transit Project.
108
Portland to Lake Oswego Transit and Trail Alternatives Analysis
Project Description
Exhibit B
The Portland to Lake Oswego Transit and Trails Alternatives Analysis is intended to identify the
feasibility of a federally eligible project for improving access in the Highway 43/Willamette
Shore Corridor connecting Lake Oswego to Portland.
Metro has conducted the alternatives analysis to date and will continue to lead the refinement
analysis,Draft Environmental Impact Statement and selection of the Locally Preferred
Alternative.
TriMet will serve as the contracting agency commencing with the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Lake Oswego,Portland, Clackamas County will participate on the Steering
Committee with TriMet,Metro and the Portland Streetcar,Inc. (operator of current streetcar in
Portland)to conduct the analysis and participate in the implementation of the locally preferred
alternative.
The project intends to seek federal support through the Federal Transit Administration capital
grants program. TriMet will be the grant recipient
The project will be conducted in phases based upon selection of alternatives. Funding has been
identified for the initial phases of the analysis. The agreement includes provisions that allow for
conducting the engineering and construction of the locally preferred alternative. Funding for
subsequent phases can only be identified once the LPA is selected.
The following phases have funding identified in the agreement:
Refinement: Metro has received $357,000 in Streetcar Corridor Funding money from FTA
which has been matched by$20,000 from the City of Portland and$94,000 from Lake Oswego.
The purpose of the refinement study is prepare alternatives for the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement(DEIS). The refinement will also address the role of the trail considerations in the
DEIS.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Metro will serve as lead and TriMet will serve as
contracting agency for the conduct of the DEIS and selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA). A combination of MTIP,Lake Oswego loan to TriMet and match from Clackamas
County will fund this effort which is scheduled to be completed in November 2009.
Final Environmental Impact Statement and FTA Application: The Final Environmental
Impact Statement and submittal of the grant application to FTA would prepared in this phase
based upon the selection of the LPA. Funding for this phase would come from MTIP and match
provided by the City of Portland.
1 09
Preliminary Engineering: With approval from FTA to proceed with preliminary engineering,
TriMet would authorize design work to begin on the LPA. Partial funding for this phase has
been identified which includes a request for FTA Section 5339 funding,City of Portland,
Clackamas County and Lake Oswego funds.
110
Portland Lake Oswego Transit Corridor
Cost of Phases
EXHIBIT C
im4HiiiHHvgwo ipowywrirlp.
Refinement Study Dec 08-Apr 09
Corridor Funding $351,355
City of Portland $57,000
Lake Oswego $57,000
Total $465,355
DEIS Apr-Nov 09
MT1P $2,472,673
COP Swap 13528 $272,779
COP Swap /3528 $699,894
Lake Oswego Advance Payment $1,500,000
Clackamas $220,000
Total $2,692,673
DEIS Publication Nov 09-Mar 10
MT1P $1,227,327
Lake Oswego $37,000
City of Portland $83,000
Total $1,347,327
FTA Application/FEIS/PE Mar-Dec 10
City of Portland $860,000 *
Clackamas $630,000
Lake Oswego $56,000
$1,546,000
5339 Funding $4,000,000 Requested
Total Funding Committed to TriMet $5,586,000
TriMet pays Lake Oswego in 2012 $1,800,000
Lake Oswego Transit $1,227,327
TriMet (STP Funding) $1,800,000
City of Portland $972,673 $4,000,000
* Contingent upon Portland City Council approval
in the FY10-11 budget.
Shiels Obletz Johnsen
03/19/2009
LOPTIGA Exhibit C 3-24-09.xls
111
( jI \
t)
CITY OF LAKE ❑SWEGO
COUNCIL REPORT
°REDO
TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
Members of the City Council
Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
FROM: Darin Rouhier, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Study Session - Wastewater Revenue Bonds
DATE: March 19, 2009
ACTION
The primary purpose of the study session is to:
• Review the updated Financing Schedule
• Review the draft Bond Ordinance that, if approved at the April 7 meeting, would
increase bonding authority by up to $24.5 million
Time permitting, two discussion topics will follow:
• Senior and subordinate lien financing options
• Emerging factors that will influence future wastewater rates
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The Project: The LOIS system will replace the interceptor sewer line, the backbone of
the City's wastewater system, located in Oswego Lake. Replacement of the interceptor
is critical to ensuring the environmental protection of Oswego Lake and maintaining
sewer service for residents. The existing interceptor is undersized, resulting in overflows
during heavy rains, and is vulnerable during an earthquake. The first major construction
phase will occur later this year.
Funding: The total present worth costs for the project, originally estimated at $100
million, was revised to $124.5 million in February 2009 to account for design and other
changes. This figure includes initial design, construction, estimated escalation, and
contingency costs. In October 2007, the City commenced the first phase of financing by
selling $12 million in bond anticipation notes (BANS) to fund costs through the start of
construction. In July 2008, the Council authorized the issuance of up to $100 million in
revenue bonds to retire the BANs and finance the remainder of the project. In light of
the revised cost estimate, an increase in the $100 million authorized limit is necessary.
113
Council Report
March 19, 2009
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Financing Schedule (revised): The revised financing schedule (Attachment A) will be
reviewed with the Council. Key dates include:
April 7 City Council approval of the resolution for additional bond authorization
April 10 Presentation to the rating agencies
April 29 Bid opening
May 13 Closing
Proceeds from the initial bond sale are scheduled to be received by the City in late May.
Draft Bond Ordinance: The draft Bond Ordinance (Attachment B) authorizes the
issuance of up to $24.5 million in additional sewer revenue bond to finance the increase
in the project's cost. The draft Bond Ordinance also delegates authority to the City
Manager and/or the Finance Director to prepare, execute and deliver the Master Sewer
Bond Declaration. This ordinance will come before Council on April 7 so as to precede.
the presentation to the rating agencies scheduled for April 10.
Senior and Subordinate Debt Options: Based on market interest rates and other
factors, issuing a single $124.5 million bond series to fund the full project may not be
the most cost-effective approach. An option that includes a combination of senior and
subordinate debt, which would be issued in stages, is currently being developed to
minimize the City's financing costs. An overview of these financing structures will be
provided and discussed.
Factors Influencing Future Wastewater Rates: Several factors have emerged that will
have a bearing on the wastewater rate increases necessary to meet debt service
requirements in the coming years.
1) "Gross Revenue" changes will reduce the amount that would otherwise be available
for debt service coverage:
a) Market forces have reduced interest earnings and system development charge
revenue over the past 12-24 months.
b) A reduction in winter average water usage from 2006-07 to 2007-08 diminished
the net effect of the 2008-09 rate increase from 10% to about 8%. Usage data
for this winter is due out in late April, which could influence the net effect of a
rate increase enacted for July 1, 2009.
2) "Operating Expense" changes will reduce the amount that would otherwise be
p
available for debt service coverage:
a) Transfers to the General Fund and the Community Development Fund were
excluded from `Operating Expenses" in past analyses. Based on the draft Bond
Declaration, most of these costs must be recognized as Operating Expenses.
114
Council Report
March 19, 2009
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL. IMPACT
The Council has the option to provide additional bonding authority over the $124.5
million amount contemplated in the draft Bond Ordinance to provide flexibility for
unforeseen future developments. The City's Financial Advisor will discuss the pros and
cons of a less restrictive authorization if the Council so desires.
RECOMMENDATION
No action is required at this time. The finalized Bond Ordinance will be forwarded to
City Council at its April 7 meeting for consideration.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Attachment A — Financing Schedule (revised)
2. Attachment B - Draft Bond Ordinance
Reviewed by:
Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation.
Department Director
Fina ce Director
City Attorn y
Alex D. McIntyre
City Manager
115
Attachment B
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF SEWER REVENUE BONDS IN ONE OR MORE
SERIES IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING
[$24,500,000]; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A MASTER
SEWER REVENUE BOND DECLARATION TO PROVIDE FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF SEWER REVENUE BONDS; AND RELATED MATTERS.
WHEREAS, the City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Lake Oswego,
Oregon (the "City"), a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, previously enacted
Ordinance No. 2521 on July 15, 2008 ("Ordinance No. 2521") authorizing the issuance of sewer
revenue bonds in one or moreseries in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding
$100,000,000;
WHEREAS, to finance and refinance the Project (as such term is defined in
Ordinance No. 2521), the City has determined that an additional [$24,500,000] of funding will
be required;
WHEREAS, the City finds that it is financially feasible for the. City and that it is
in the City's best interest to authorize the issuance of additional sewer revenue bonds to finance
and refinance the Project in an amount not to exceed [$24,500,000];
WHEREAS, when combined with the authorization provided in Ordinance No.
2521, the total amount of sewer revenue bonds authorized by the City Council shall be
[$124,500,000];
WHEREAS, the City is authorized to finance the Project by issuing revenue
bonds pursuant to the authority of Oregon Revised Statutes ("ORS") Section 287A.150 (the
"Act");
WHEREAS, the revenue bonds will not be general obligations of the City, nor a
charge upon its property tax revenues, but will be payable solely from the revenues that the City
pledges to payment of the revenue bonds; and
WHEREAS, the City shall prepare a plan showing that the estimated sewer
revenues that will be pledged or designated to pay the bonds are sufficient to pay the estimated
debt to be incurred by the City under the revenue bond issue authorized by this Ordinance.
The City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows:
Section 1. Sewer Revenue Bonds Authorized.
(a) The City Council hereby authorizes the issuance of Sewer Revenue Bonds
(the "Bonds") in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding
[$24,500,000] to finance and refinance the Project. Such authorization is in addition to
the $100,000,000 of sewer revenue bonds authorized by the City Council in Ordinance
No. 2521. The combined amount of sewer revenue bonds authorized by the City Council
in Ordinance No. 2521 and this Ordinance will be [$124,500,000].
OHS Idest:260621798.2
43294-5 LAB I/G 5B
117
(b) Pursuant to the Act, the City Manager of the City, the Finance Director of
the City, or their designee (each an "Authorized Representative"), are each hereby
authorized, on behalf of the City and without further action of the City Council, to
prepare, execute and deliver a Master Sewer Revenue Bond Declaration (the "Master
Declaration") to provide for the issuance of revenue bonds (including the Bonds), future
revenue bonds, subordinate revenue bonds and other obligations payable from sewer
revenues.
(c) Pursuant to the Act, the Authorized Representative is authorized to
determine the date of the issuance of Bonds and any other terms, conditions or covenants
regarding the Bonds, the Project or the revenues that are necessary or desirable to effect
the sale of the Bonds including, without limitation, authorizing the preparation and
distribution of any disclosure or offering documents. The Authorized Representative is
authorized to select a trustee, paying agent, registrar, credit enhancer and municipal bond
insurance provider, if any, with respect to the Bonds.
Section 2. Bonds Payable Solely From Revenues. The Bonds shall not be general
obligations of the City, nor a charge upon its tax revenues, but shall be payable solely from the
revenues that the City pledges to payment of the Bonds pursuant to the Act and the resolution or
ordinance to be adopted by the City authorizing the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds.
Section 3. Establishment of Responsibilities and Terms of Bonds.
Pursuant to the Act, the Authorized Representative is hereby authorized, on behalf of the
City and without further action of the City Council, by certificate, supplemental action, written
declaration or otherwise, to take any or all of the following actions:
(a) determine the dated dates, the maturity dates, principal amounts,
redemption provisions, interest rates or method of determining variable or adjustable
interest rates, denominations, and other terms and conditions of the Bonds;
(b) establish the date for a public competitive sale of the Bonds and approve
the final form of and cause an Official Notice of Bond Sale (the "Notice of Bond Sale"),
substantially in the form as approved by the Authorized Representative, or a summary
thereof, to be published electronically, award the successful bid or reject the bids for the
Bonds as required pursuant to applicable law, and as directed in Section 4 hereof, or if the
Authorized Representative determines to sell the Bonds pursuant to a negotiated sale, to
make arrangements for a negotiated sale of the Bonds and approve, execute and deliver a
bond purchase agreement in connection therewith;
(c) appoint a registrar and paying agent for the Bonds;
(d) take such actions as are necessary to qualify the Bonds for the book-entry
only system of The Depository Trust Company;
(e) approve, execute and deliver a Continuing Disclosure Certificate pursuant
to SEC Rule 15c2-12, as amended (17 CFR Part 240, § 240.15c2-12);
of IS West.2606321798.2 — 2 —
43294--8 LAI VG 5B
118
(1) approve of and authorize the distribution of one or more preliminary and
final official statements for the Bonds and the execution of one or more final official
statements;
(g) obtain ratings on the Bonds if necessary;
(h) determine the need for a Credit Facility (including without limitation,
municipal bond insurance) or a Reserve Credit Facility for the Bonds, and if purchased,
direct expenditure of Bond proceeds to pay any Credit Facility or Reserve Credit Facility
premium, set forth terms for the Bonds reasonably required by a Credit Provider, and
execute and deliver any insurance agreements, certificates, or related documents or
agreements that are reasonably required by a Credit Provider;
(i} approve, execute and deliver the Bond closing documents and certificates,
and direct the deposit of proceeds of the Bonds;
j) enter into covenants regarding the use of the proceeds of the Bonds and
the projects financed or refinanced with the proceeds of the Bonds, to maintain the tax-
exempt status of the Bonds;
(k) execute and deliver a certificate, supplemental action, written declaration
or other document specifying the actions taken by the Authorized Representative
pursuant to this Section 3 and to execute and deliver any other certificates, documents or
agreements that are reasonably required to issue, sell and deliver the Bonds in accordance
with this Ordinance.
Section 4. Procedures for Sale of the Bonds.
If the Authorized Representative determines that the sale of the Bonds shall be a
competitive sale, the Authorized Representative shall cause the Notice of Bond Sale, or a
summary thereof, to be published electronically on the Internet prior to the sale date stated in the
Notice of Bond Sale. For a competitive sale, bids to purchase the Bonds will be received and
reviewed on the date specified by the Authorized Representative in the Notice of Bond Sale or
upon such later date determined by the Authorized Representative if the sale is postponed based
on market or other conditions. The Authorized Representative is authorized, on behalf of the
City, to accept or reject the bids for the Bonds. The Authorized Representative may postpone the
sale of the Bonds to a later date, cancel the sale based upon market conditions or enter into a
negotiated sale of the Bonds, and if it is determined by the Authorized Representative to sell the
Bonds pursuant to a negotiated sale, the Authorized Representative is authorized to approve,
execute and deliver a bond purchase agreement in connection therewith.
Section 5. Reimbursement.
(a) The City Council hereby finds:
(i) the City intends to incur expenditures in connection with the
Proj ect;
(ii) the City expects to pay certain expenditures (the "Reimbursement
Expenditures") in connection with the Project prior to the issuance of
of IS West:260G21798.2 _ 3
43294-8 LAII/G5B
119
indebtedness for the purpose of financing costs associated with the Project on a
long-term basis;
(iii) the City reasonably expects to issue revenue bonds, bond
anticipation notes, or other debt obligations in an aggregate principal amount not
to exceed [$124,500,000] and that certain of the proceeds of such revenue bonds,
bond anticipation notes, or other debt obligations will be used to reimburse the
Reimbursement Expenditures; and
(iv) Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations (the "Treasury
Regulations") requires the City to declare its reasonable official intent to
reimburse prior expenditures for the Project with proceeds of a subsequent
borrowing.
(b) This Section 5 of the Ordinance is adopted solely for purposes of
establishing compliance with the requirements of Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury
Regulations. This Section 5 of the Ordinance does not bind the City to make any
expenditure, incur any indebtedness, or proceed with the Project.
(c) The City hereby declares its official intent to use proceeds of bond
anticipation notes, general obligation bonds, revenue bonds or other debt obligations to
reimburse itself for Reimbursement Expenditures.
Section 6. Effectiveness of Ordinance No. 2521. Ordinance No. 2521 shall remain
unchanged and remains in full force and effect.
Section 7. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable. If any
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on the thirtieth (30t ) day
following enactment by the City Council.
Enacted at the regular meeting of the City of Lake Oswego held on the [ 7th ] day
of April, 2009.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
By:
Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor
CST IS West:26O621798,2 — 4
43294-8 LAH/G5B
120
ATTEST:
By:
Robyn Christie, City Recorder
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
David D. Powell, City Attorney
of IS Wcst:260621.798.2 - 5
43294-8 LAI-I/G5B
121
Attachment A
City of Lake Oswego
Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2009A
Financing Schedule
FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY
SMTWT F S SMTWT F S S M T W T F S S ll! T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15 16 17 18 1.9 20 21 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 1.4 15 1.6 17 18 1 O 11 12 13 14 15 16
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Key to Participants:
LO=City of Lake Oswego
Bond Counsel=Orrick Herrington
FA=Western Financial Group
WG=Working Group(all of above)
Fri-Feb-20-09 Distribute 1st draft of draft indenture BC
Wed-Mar-4-09 Working Group meeting to review draft Declaration WG
Mon-Mar-16-09 File.Form One with Oregon State Treasurer FA
Mon-Mar-16-09 Distribute 2nd draft of Declaration BC
Thu-Mar-19-09 Distribute 1st draft of rating presentation FA
Thu-Mar-19-09 Distribute 1st draft of preliminary officials statement FA
Wed-Mar-25-09 Comments due on 1st draft of rating presentation WG
Wed-Mar-25-09 Comments due on 1st draft POS and 2nd draft of Declaration WG
Tue-Mar-31-09 Distribute 2nd draft of rating presentation FA
Tue-Mar-31--09 Distribute 2nd draft of preliminary officials statement and 3rd draft of Declaration BC,FA
Thu--Apr-2-09 Resolution provided to City for inclusion in Council packet BC
Fri-Apr-3-09 Working Group call to discuss POS and Declaration WG
Mon-Apr-6-09 Deadline for Structure revisions LO
Tue-Apr-7-09 City Council approves Authorizing Resolution LO
Tue-Apr-7-09 Final draft of POS and legal documents distributed BC,FA
Tue-Apr-7-09 Send rating agencies draft POS,legal documents FA
Wed-Apr-8-09 Printing of Rating Presentation FA
Fri-Apr-10-09 Rating Agency Presentations in San Francisco LO,FA
Fri-Apr-17-09 Ratings received FA
Fri-Apr-17-09 Electronic posting of POS FA
Wed-Apr-29-09 Bid Opening LO,FA
Page 9
123
City of Lake Oswego
Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2009A
Financing Schedule
FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY
SMTWT F S SMTWT F S SMTWT F S SMTWT F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. 2 3 4 1 2
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Key to Participants:
LO=City of Lake Oswego
Bond Counsel=Orrick Herrington
FA=Western Financial Group
WG=Working Group(all of above)
Thu-Apr-30-09 Transcript preparation begins BC
Thu-Apr-30-09 File Form Two with Oregon State Treasurer FA
Fri-May-1-09 Preparation of final official statement FA
Tue-May-5-09 Closing documents distributed to WG BC
Tue-May-5-09 Final official statement to printer FA
Wed-May-6-09 Final official statement to underwriters FA
Tue-May-12-09 PRE-CLOSING WG
Wed-May-13-09 CLOSING WG
Page 2
124