Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - 2009-04-07
QF LAKE OSw�, �� CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING trir !‘,MI AGENDA Tuesday, April 7, 2009 c :7 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. Page# 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ELECTION OF PRESIDING OFFICER 4. PRESENTATIONS 4.1 Distinguished Service Award: Sandy Leybold and Henry Germond, Budget Committee; Betsy Fontenot and Patt Bilow, Library Advisory Board 4.2 Neighbors Helping Neighbors 4.3 Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer Update (LOIS) 5. 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 April 7, 2009 5.1 REPORTS 5.1.1 Resignation of Tamra Brosseau from the Historic Resources Advisory Board 1 Action: Accept Resignation 5.1.2 Tourism Action Plan 5 Action: Approve the 2009 Tourism Action Plan and authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Clackamas County recognizing the Chamber of Commerce as the administrator of funds, should they be forthcoming from the County 5.2 RESOLUTIONS 5.2.1 Resolution 09-14, authorizing an amendment to the service boundary of the 17 Lake Oswego and City of Tualatin Wastewater Collection and Treatment Agreement Action: Adopt Resolution 09-14 5.2.2 Resolution 09-17, authorizing the formation of a golf-tennis subcommittee to 29 assist the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board during the analysis for long term options for the Golf Course and the Indoor Tennis Center Action: Adopt Resolution 09-17 5.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5.3.1 February 17, 2009, regular meeting 37 5.3.2 February 19, 2009, special meeting 53 5.3.3 February 24, 2009, special meeting 63 Action: Approve minutes as written END CONSENT AGENDA 6. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 7. 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 April 7, 2009 8. ORDINANCES 8.1 Ordinance 2512, an ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego amending the Lake 65 Oswego Citizen Involvement Guidelines. LU 08-0031 Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2512 8.2 Ordinance 2539, an ordinance of the City of Lake Oswego authorizing the 83 issuance of Sewer Revenue Bonds in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $140,000,000 (collectively, the Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer "LOIS Bonds"); authorizing the preparation, execution and delivery of a Master Sewer Revenue Bond Declaration to provide for the issuance of Sewer Revenue Bonds; authorizing the City Manager and Finance Director to establish the terms of one or more series of LOIS Bonds and execute and deliver one or more supplemental bond declarations, agreements and other documents in connection with the issuance of LOIS Bonds; authorizing the City to pledge its full faith and credit to repayment of one or more series of LOIS Bonds; and related matters. Motion: Move to enact Ordinance 2539 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 Water 101 93 12. ADJOURNMENT City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 3 April 7, 2009 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 April 7, 2009 CITY COUNCIL 1 LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE ROLLING UPDATE ..rw......�.t. .. _ ......... ........................�..........:.....xr:.t:t'.•a'•;:.v:•-^':wi:i�ww:::.,1......,.u.......L::l�li;-E"1„;;:`i'1;.... ...1...^ss s.i.;:::w�.M�v.,µ;• .....E .... si..s.a.........c...,s__.._.....1.__..,i..r...�.-.�,, s .......... ,, _I.i:,i:i:,iii:i"U-w•;::i,i:i:i•i:•�;zaia��:rcE�E:r:::S':�r�,...:.�..i.......................i.i.r..........i..................................,».•.f,s.. ...... ,, ...........x........v.,._....n............. ... - ....1.... .m...s.ft.... x., 1..�...1..1.E._E.1..........,1.1...s a,..t t✓•,.1.,...aa^.._.11....,...m.s..,..✓CiM-e:.r....,.._ , rt 1.{....r .s..Sx........1_....1 Z:............. .,i.mot„ser,. �_._. 1 1...3.....^1...€..__...__...,a.r; ...1..,1.1..:w£...1.1_,l.t.„^n...,...- ....t r....... .E. ... ...n..s.a....t....u....,.t..-..Is..tl........r..- .. ....... .............................s............., -.s,n:x.�..1.1........E....�r..-.z..i...,i, xi .. i.....:ss E.i,4..::rii,i vrvy::s:::r.•::rm:•...........i.....E..i..........,r n i.,_..-.^..... .� ........... s<<v,a...a.....is...1.1.........., 11.. s ....1.E....E..1_.:w_t_...1.__................ ---..-............. .. .... ,s ..... _.._.... 3. .�.1.-a..v.a.^......s.tt.t.c...z,z,....s,sL.....n,•1.,l_.. ,. .• ..:rx:,:3::.s ...^....�... .....x.......�.....s........E..........._'^s._._....._.. .. ._. .. ...E.c...........,s..........ue^s.......^.1....�..._-....--....E.tE........... �v....,1.1 r t: s. 4 - ...............-...1... .11...... , s^__.^-_....E........1... n....e.ni,u.,...ua,»�.1C11.11..1.1.1C.ri................. ..t.tr...„.a.,..i..,.....I•w�;<E .E.tt....,..........,n.s...,.. .-., _... ..a....^..._s......1.E 1.1...,1......................._-"1..........^-_...........,,ni........ .............,.. ,1..1,1......,1...........,iy.,.;sM...Mc.::u...i..::t:u•r....... •x...r..._..-.......1. ,a..... �-. sr...__ -.-. .. ..--....... ss......E,s.i...a...s.......,s.i................[...........- � .,3,11._...1 a...n..s.x......t.,t.c.........,r s.....�^-.._._...,t..t....t...c...tt.t.t.1....�.......1_,a..., , .a. ...^............r......u� ...................�......^. _.._ .................s.............s...........-......^....--•-__,....E..1 i.i.....•e.i.., 1...._._t.......«..1 uE.r,.a�...,11.1.E..1.1 r...s....sa,........,....... .. .. .11.......u.......s.._._,... -.. � i ..i....^_....^-...,1.....1.._._t...,x............t.:,a...,1...s..................x...�.. .....-...--.,.1.1....1....,........ ..�,1..� ..._.i,s...[.:w::::a..........._.c.. . .. ........... ... ..x.[...1.................. ... a,a..^-x,tt..s..t.t...a...sss.......t.1 r...,.a.s�,,u,,at........„__.1.....1...1..,x................1...... �...E..1.1..11...i,,1..............„- .. ...............,x............. ..^........^...-.-....^--....1.....1.....1 ....... .. <<..� -:.C.^_......., 1,.,.,.....E.4r..�......,a.t.t.e.t...1 tat..�....,1.1...t..s...a,......s............... ..................... .. a........^s...................r..x.._._.s ,a..^-.^- ....... � ^sr....1...................a•::x,F^ a,.;<,:Ellt€tv�€E�%4.^.^...... ..s.........�.i�-,�..s..,..... -.. .. .i....�.i i..........,i...s.......a... i......1.....1.c .. i.�ii�S....,........^... i�,i....i.i,i..i... ..1........�...s�. ..._.. - .^-_.................. , s .....-................._.^...^_.....,... ,,rr,..ii,.a.x.i.€i.c.:.....:s...........i.......c... I.., i.....i....i.................. .3.s..... _. ... �...-,..........^-_-.^_..................1_... .. :.....,::r::::i::1r 11..1._...1...1..ta-::m i:9�:•<,...�w...�::-:3a�!:rt.:..t.. £.^,a._.?-:=..,1>:i.�..x.1. ..�. .....,,»,.....:x..�.. .. _ .... .. .......1.. e.•...•..,:•:......^._:.._s....1..........1....1.......:...........................^......i....._-_a.t. .,.i......^....._..-_..................0 1,rr......y a..........1 E:,1...1.......1...........n.sn.,a;.....v..^.... ........ x ...-.....1.--_"----... ............... ..�11......s.n.s.....s...........s.».. ...^, � �a....s.^.,111........1.£:,.3,s.,s..........�.,..^..»,11 uE.t.,...........^_........E....1...1..i......ii..i wrtt��r > > ..e.......:.....a•r'.`i'":..,w.r.--._.,.E•:Eet..•::•::xt i 4 ...-...'M.E.�T.I.. ... ..._.....,.... ...-.... .�.�............. ...,......�................. x.........._...�......�.........................�...�....�.................�....x-.....x.....�..,x�..;.�..�.,.,..�...........n...............:.,.....sa.c......,...,..;.,...,..;[..�...-,....,. .�...,�.�,;.E. .. ....^....-1....-_-."".......^.......---........................... � .6. s.,t.t.,.....t.:.s.i.,is.n.........r„_1.1..1.............^_.-.._......1...........✓:....i...i..ii. n,...........E.., 1.1., u .. .. .'�' .a.Ft.•:i._..i ..,............»........ .. �... .C..-.......^................i i......x....t..1...F. .......... ,.. -. .i.i.i.i.i.i..ii...i.i�i.:.:i•iwi....•e•�;�::::✓s::r.:i::::s:•...s::^.i::.:^i..:.::^•:u.:.^r^.�•-,^..PRIERNIPOPIR ...........x ,. ..1... tE s......n.s........... .. ....1.E1.E...............^w. ..,3✓^..,, �.,x.�«................s........, ,.. -,^.» � �.. 1...........^__.-..........,1...........,1.1.1, v. .. i . .......�...E.........,1.....1.1.........�................................................_...:r••.x•,.•.,.,1�...Et..........,..^..,x........ -._ �E.............-......^...........,c......_4...._.,tt s..... .. ss s,3 n...[..1....11..__ttt...tt._t.._1£r..........,........111....u......^^..L..u.....:[...^�.1..^.__._..1111.....c...a€ i � , ......3.........�...is.s..i......,.-.._..,..1.,.11.1...-......^__..........t.........n....x.:l.1. ,... i.......s ... , ,. >> ^..... E.............^. ..11 ...at.,:....._.-..x£.£...._.......�,.v.. .. ,.5...111.....5..t tx...G...._.., .........�...,[.. 3 53 xx[,.....^...,Eet�.t...t.,tt....^,......................tt..^.^..^.....1..�:�,_..a..__..t...t.._i::;�.:E...^..^...i..--.... [ .t..i ii ...^-...x......i........c.....1�....1..1. .F, -, � ..�E1�.-_ttt.E.........i.✓.-__... ..........�.... ..1 F 1 5 ..........,......E........i..,...�.....s.........,.,..............r:,_^...»^:::,...»..x....,.'..r..-.:':i:e.•.::�.... ...1..............t � s x 1 1..1..1.1111.....111...,..,.,............1r..C.:............... ...a..tF.-� ..0 .. ........ � � .._>>.. ..a..............^--.... 1.."\ E ... .[...uE..,r..............�....,^ E ..,....x...ix..._......w..., v^., .1. ..,[�,, � � 5 I .---"11E€.............1...... _ .��.... , ......i..x............... .. .- ..�..,.. ...�.,..^. r.. .....-...0.i....✓-iw..i..........^ ...t.v..:v. _ s.� "; -- ....^.. ...........x......v.....,..- ...- .....................,. «^, �.. i.. ...:[..1...1..1......,r.,.[.». , E E...«...---5.e i«.................s...i............. «�� .e e a,.v.e .. s ..., ...n.....LL...n._-........,a., ......................,t., s ...^--...�...............�....................,..,dr. ,.. � ,K ..�<<lr•.........�.�...,..,w.a,n........t 5.........5_.__,.t.............x....,..�..,.�, s r , ..,..............s..3.....E.s s..... .. -. .. -........1.1...........1 w_.1.....1...1_.__...,�s,..,s,..4...x.....tn.....,.ss...s.s.s sss.......x_- 1 ....11£......,awa_.............:w.1........11...� .,E a ....................e.....v........,sa..................s__.._..e.....x„....,n..e. ..�€..i..--.�.0.............5..................1......1......�. F �iiw...................53.....x.s...tKa....t..,......i..,a.....5 s..,,i ,, .i 1...........tr.......,11..1..............0 .....-....c..t..............1..1..1..1 1...✓....F.. , s ...s..,s...x..a.......n.i.....1.......... �.€EE tE........^s.s.v...,1.s.....u...s.a... �., , e ..-....1......--_.....,c...S.x.t.z,:xt..,t...e...... � ...,.i..,sn.i.....s........... u,r., r..».,� .. .. .,,.,.,3.............t.e...• .........tt..is t,t ...x.....-... ». � [r � ...S....-_..-.^........._E..,....... ��.,..tt,.,�...............�.......,, r�.�i z_^....�...........t..tw...en..i........11..�..1..F F 1 ..,4 .. ..rwU..i.5......^.....[..i..e.....3................. ^, 'S < < .........,.. .. E i..ii.,.. ..v.i...^. .i................i�.. ((... --._....��...._.....�....�.�..��.�..�......�.., 3 5 x..�.�.....t�..........s..s.......t...., i...........�,t.t...�.....t....,t,t,,..r,;. �..€t.r....11:w..^..1._...4.1.1.._..1.1.€.4._u...........3..'E__' ., .. .. ._.... ......[........ax..,.......,r...... ....�».......a......c... �7... , ..... EE 1.E.•.•., s.s.....a.....................t.» .n S F .�...c.t.. ............1.....1...�.....,..... r• x 1......................s...n•,...................,i.............. n.„.. 1,,. i�........ .. i. , ,�5.,...^.5:5^.5.. x..^......�......,t....t,sits...,..t.».�.. -... n � .£,i...�--'?.................1......✓....... 1... U -. E........ 1:w..✓�...4....L....1....S..1.....................1. ....... ,s ,x....•e�,.......n........s.,.....,s s...c..1....�.�. �� 1..\ ,�tt.^.............�...............s , � -..-._.....1...-..._.€....Et._t..4 r^.S.t..x....1 ,,,.. s s 1..1...1.....1.E..a.a......,sa s.........,u............u.....s.,.. .......... ...^._c..............s s.s........,. --, i.Eaw11E..E..�....✓.-.................,u.......�..�.....1...�F.E s u.....„.,................�...xsi i � .�.. .. ...�a.......✓....a.,..x,is...ee. � C...^_......Et....-......s.__t.._.1.11....,e. ,, 1......E..........• v..s..n.....,,.,.«. , ,.,�.. ..^.s s..........a.sr.................t.v.v.ss.,ss�.s,s.�......c. .1 E_:w_t.....1.......11.. ..........................,i..�..... .. .3 .. v.... ........................1...1_.11.,ft...1.,. .�...s:s.......[....r.ss;..t..x,.u....:.t..„,.n.. ..._-.»-.................. � .3s....x.1...«.�...,aa.......,.,r.,....-s.,!^»:s:s,:::::s:s:--x:[:s•ni!s::::<:,:::::^:e::..e•a•:?::^^:n£I•i.,...i En�•..•ri:::: �-E.....i...-.......1.............1.....1.1.......1..........�.�5..........5........................s...,i...Hss...... t ....�...,ztw✓............a,.......»....?`...,r.....C'i ii......-.1.......................................1..F.1.. -, , €.. ............�t...t........1..,.......1.3,F.........1....a.s.1..F.1.....^.......6^5...........�......,.....�,u.t.t.i..,.. ^i. _ e^.s.-..�.c.c....s... �e•^..3,s.t..x :y E ..^v............s.s r i....., r .. .1 ...- .-....E 1.....-........1...................0...:...,... ........... ,....�.....Y..,L.ut..»....-^............... ........1........,..1..e.-.._.1.1.E....�........s...r,s....,ss.,......s...................s............sn....r.t............�x i...�t».,.,,t.-..t...::::r.. ................ ..�.......,i........_.,... ..r. 3..........1..Z-1.F s............E.l.c.:-1�................-.._to. -. f�E.i..E.n..i....i.........S..t...v......�..1........x...,........1..1..F... -...--.. ..».... ... , ,r.-..E.Ui�,�...:.............�.s..3.r......�..x...1.......�w..�i.i��,..,.^-..-.......t^..........e.....1....1..T ,t , ....5.55..,...,5........................x...s s.....1�............,..:........... .�.E�E�:•:t�'•�::.•�-:................u.i <..._^.....tEE.E.......^....1...........1.1......11.1.._..., rz .. 5� r 1.1.........1.�...5.5....,.,....a.,...........s....................t......t...z,........t..._�.......,t,.�. .... , . .. . ....................[L.....................,...s.. ,s. ... r.. .� •�Y.....i ..14.1....F�FF.-,T�e .1 , .. ...�...��.�...�...-..-.....^.........................................1....................,. ,,,.. �............�.,.»:.,:� ...:w..t.t.....t-..1-.....----__....:w..14•:................................,..,,t.».»..1..�... .........,....,..,......^.. ..t.t.._........,.....-.......-....t;E.�.1.�......1............1....-. Monday, Citizens'Budget Committee, 6:30 p.m. WEB April 13 Tuesday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers April 14 • Tentative adoption of findings NW Housing Appeal • Contract Award for Lake Full Construction - LOIS • Capital Improvement Plan • Metro Urban Reserves • Metro Local Aspirations �. • Periodic Review • WEB Discussion •;. :. Wednesday, Stud Session 6:00 .m. Council n rs *Council will convene at 6 to hold a cl session. . April 'I 5 „/ The study session will begin at 6:3O . el • /. :: • Closed Session: Labor • WEB Discussions - Saturday, Qommunity Round :: 10:00 a.m. : it Chambers April 18 Monday, Special Meeting, 4-5:3 April 20 • Dr. H "Bud" Kass 3 in rou h Public � _. g g 40A, 'Budit4 Committee . :3 g •.m. WEB Tuesday, lie ula► s t Yfy: f :. ouncil Chambers April IS L =7 e '4'14.11 • a na Action Month Presentation • C :unity e Award to TVF&R Assistant Chief and Lak we o: sident Paul LeSage for lifesavingefforts g � g a, • Distill' shed Service Award, Ralph Thronburg g '1111 Adopt of findings for Sensitive Lands (Ord. 2527) ubl,• �. Engagement Update • cial Report F Public Hearing • Business Recycling Ordinance • Annexation of vacant parcel on Knaus Road (AN 09-0001) • Annexation of 13990 Stampher Road (AN 09-0002) Study Session • Sewer Rate Increase BOLD ITEMS- New issues added to schedule !hpmc knnwn ac of 4/9/na CITY COUNCIL I LORA TENTATIVE SCHEDULE ROLLING UPDATE DATE Ni 1109•011111§poiliquoipiptigninpooplailipM10.10111.•••••••••IIIN pfpUMIMil•41agP4t"aqili,itlitllNgtlgov,pop•ENfuppkmsuutmjpppoRlfn Monday, Study Session, 6:30 p.m. WEB April 27 • Joint meeting of the City Council and Lake Oswego School Board "Tuesday, Citizens'Budget Committee, 6:30 p.m. WEB April 28 Thursday, 5fiecial Meeting, 7 p.m. Mountain Park Rec. Center April 30 • Joint meeting with the Mountain Park Irl. .:„:.Owners Association Board ., :, i:4,,,, :40, Monday, Citizens'Budget Committee, 6:30 p.m,..i.PEB ',k' ::'- ,eeded - May 4 ,,,,,„ -'‘,, •.,,,,,,,., , 4k, Tuesday, Regular Meeting, 6:30 p.m. Co ',( il Chambers • May 5 • LOIS Update 4,1''' -40>,,,:,,• :- • Farmers' Market postercail*winnj*, • Intergovernmental Agreement'-; -y ofportland Environmental Services for the 1jJn Creek Restoration -A'::„. Project *' '-‘4,e,':4,,,. , :. . ..,, .,,,, Public Hearing ,, "0,•, s ,,,,,,(04,, V-.:i:' ,,,:.::,,, • Sewer Rate Increa‘e,' .4r„0:::,':::':::,•:,-. ,, ,, 1 ,:.:::::$4,„,,„g• . Monday, Citizensudget CommietSvil.30 ; !r.:':':.::EB - if needed - 7- , ,„- - ,,,,..::,, May 11 ,:::;::*"0,,, Ei41'. 4e''44,*:, . Tuesday, StQ, , essio WVAP6:30 p.m. Co,O pcd Chambers May 12 . Tuesd ..,f,--:,:otfr: .9' lar Au:A,:•g, 6:30,iik Council Chambers , , May : • .-4:.:, Li pif , /,‘:,,, • J '' ::k, , eettrigirt he Commission for Citizen Involvement -3 .--,.. "4,. *.' 4'. 9)) ,Public 1+-wiing ' 0b "t ,.. Apprck{:: Work program to update Comprehensive Plan VO' (R-09E43) - PP 08-0012 5;al, 0!:::,,, '111,4,,,,,, ,,,,, - Tuesday, Sttri)8 ession 6:30 .m. Hosted b Cityof Tigard , ,. ,,,,, May 26 • edoint Meeting with the Tigard City Council BOLD ITEMS—New issues added to schedule Ifelryic lertc,Airt .nc "f A ioina 1 o�tnKe osw 5. 1 ■ C:00V Fro CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCILREPORT �REGOH TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder SUBJECT: Resignation of Tamra Brosseau from the Historic Resources Advisory Board DATE: March 30, 2009 ACTION Approve the resignation of Tamra Brosseau from the Historic Resources Advisory Board. ATTACHMENTS 1. Brosseau letter received March 27, 2009 Reviewed by: Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. Alex D. c ntyre City Manager 1 Jane McGarvin, CMC Deputy City Recorder Lake Oswego 3/27/09 Dear Jane, I am writing to inform you that I must resign from HRAB effectively immediately. My first obligation is to my employer, the Sisters. My work load has significantly increasing over the past few months and will continue to increase throughout the rest of the year. With these changes I simply no longer have the time available to fulfill the required HRAB obligations. I am sorry that I must leave for this is a very talented and committed group that has accomplished a great deal and will accomplish much more in the year to come. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Tanga Brosseau §2iii'a 3i'oecw EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HOLY NAMES HERITAGE CENTER 17425 HOLY NAMES DR. LAKE OSWEGO,OR 97034 503-607-0595 www.ho ynarnesheritagecenter.org 3 5. 1 .2 G Q CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Robyn Christie, City Recorder SUBJECT: Tourism Action Plan DATE: April 2, 2009 ACTION Approve the 2009 Tourism Action Plan and authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Clackamas County recognizing the Chamber of Commerce as the administrator of funds, should they be forthcoming from the County. ATTACHMENTS I. Tourism Action Plan Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation.e0 Rev i e by: AI x . cl ntyre Cit ana er 5 Lake Oswego 5 i .1/41.,0,,,,....,.. , „.. I.1%, a y OS EGO , cr Tourism Action Plan A Visitor Destination Guide Prepared For: City of Lake Oswego with assistance from Clackamas County Tourism & Cultural Affairs Updated April 2009 1 7 Introduction The following Lake Oswego Tourism Action Plan has been prepared based on three workshop sessions held on October 14 and 30, and November 6, 2003. A total of 12 participants were involved in this community visitor planning process representing vari- ous city departments, visitor industry attractions and hospitality services, visitor desti- nation organizations, and several community advocacy groups. The purpose and en- suing benefits of the process were five-fold: 1. A clear understanding of the community visitor situation 2. An identification of visitor product investment opportunities 3. A determination of the community visitor positioning vis-à-vis the destination brand 4. A specification of visitor projects to advance community visitor growth 5. An enhanced destination team development among communities and the county The Action Plan is to be used as a directional and guideline document for various or- ganizations and/or individuals interested in economic development and sustainable visitor growth in Lake Oswego, especially the City of Lake Oswego, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce, various community advocacy groups and Clackamas County Tourism & Cultural Affairs. Its strategic intent is to enhance the community visitor ex- perience, to reinforce visitor communications and to give proper support to visitor pro- jects advancing these former initiatives, and subsequently increasing visitor economic impact. The Tourism Action Plan was updated in meetings in August and September of 2005. The list of participants in the update meetings has been added to the list of original participants. The Tourism Action Plan was again updated in March and April of 2007, again in April of 2008 and now again in April of 2009. Those attending the 2009 meetings are in- cluded in this update. Visitor Destination Situation Given the SWOT (strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats) analyses below, it was generally found: • Excellent base of unique Lake Oswego visitor strengths are in place with great po- tential to capitalize on new opportunities in cultural/historical/arts, event/meeting and shopping development. • Several visitor destination weaknesses were recognized and are now being ad- dressed, but more attention is required to improve waterfront accessibility, signage and connecting the attractions and lodging district. • Excellent Lake Oswego marketing/visitor servicing capabilities are present but en- hanced marketing partnerships with focus on arts, shopping and culinary visitors are needed. • Development of a community visitor positioning and brand is needed with priority market segments identified. 2 8 Product Development SWOT Analysis Strengths Weaknesses (present advantages) (present disadvantages) • Community aesthetic appeal (nationally rec- • Highway 43 traffic congestion ognized by America in Bloom for floral dis- • Access division between Lake Oswego and plays) Kruse Way/Lake Grove—difficult to find down- • Numerous festivals and events including town from 1-5 and 1-205 Festival of the Arts, Holiday Market, Daffodil • Limited public meeting space (up to 500 Festival, Collector Car/Wooden Boat Show, person capacity for receptions) Sculpture Tours, Antique Faire & Lake Oswego Reads. • Limited evening entertainment in off-season • Farmers Market (Agri/culinary activities) • Community historical beginnings to be better • Lakewood Center activities and new theatre understood and linked to visitor experience. stage • Perception that there is a lack of diversity • Growing cultural presence(public art and • Limited public transportation, especially in music events) the evening • Mormon Temple • Lack of visual art galleries • Parks, trails and pathways • Unique dining and boutique retailing (including Lakeview Village shops) • Old Town Historical and Sculpture Garden walking tour • Educational visitor segment(Marylhurst, PCC and L&C) • Good public safety record Opportunities Threats (potential advantages) (potential disadvantages) • Willamette riverfront development with rec- • Oregon Department of Transportation lack of reational access (personal watercraft access, focus on community needs boutique/resort hotel, rentals, etc.). Foothills • Continued increase in volume of traffic on dock open to public Summer 2010 Highway 43 • More evening entertainment options • Traffic congestion and parking in core down- • Iron furnace restoration and interpretation of town area historical roots of communities • Foothills Park (boat dock) and Bridgeport developments • Lake Grove Village Master Plan. • Willamette Shore Trolley to Portland/ enhanced transit corridor(streetcar) • Regional pathway trail to Portland and West Linn _ ik, • Expanded public meeting space - • 100 Year Lake Oswego Anniversary 2010 • Yearly development of cultural diversity • Having Marylhurst University as a partner 3 9 Marketing SWOT Analysis Strengths Weaknesses (present advantages) (present disadvantages) • High awareness by locals of community • Weak presence in outside visitor target mar- events kets • Strong local media support • No destination brochure • Strong community pride among residents • City web site hard to navigate for non-city busi- Good college tie-in with visiting friends and ness purposes • relatives market • No strong universal visitor positioning/identity • Marketing partnerships developing • Not having a current visitor profile survey on Individual promotion to greater metro area file. • residents happening • Visitor information not staffed on weekends • New Collateral includes Riverfront Walking Tour of Historic Places, Walking Tour Bro- chure, a new Chamber Dining Guide and Parks & Recreation Department Activity Guide. Opportunities Threats (potential advantages) (potential disadvantages) • Promote variety of outdoor opportunities in- • Uncoordinated process of marketing/media cluding biking, boating, hiking and Petanque. partners • Better(more accessible) collateral distribu- • Lack of Leadership resources to link market- tion including Gramor, West End Bldg, infor- ing efforts and understand/implement cross- mation at city's signage kiosk etc. marketing opportunities. • Downtown visitor information center accessi- • No integrated streetcar system. ble 24/7 • Identify target markets and focus cultural and shopping message to visitors • Further marketing of unique shopping experi- ence with Portland/Pearl and south water- front district via the streetcar. • Culinary visitor potential • On-going website development and coordi- nation among owners of web sites like city I is and chamber • More visitor packaging including shopping tours (i.e. Lake Grove packaging with Wood- burn Outlet Mall) ` • Familiarization tours for local front-line em- ployees �.h �; � 1� Wiz. -,- �^;.�'.�' • Make new Dining Guide "visitor friendly" by iiersie .••9 extracting map/descriptions to overprint and also putting into PDF format for the website. • New Lakefront Park on State St., adjacent to the Lake Twin Cinema. 4 _t 10 Challenges The top challenges facing the Lake Oswego visitor destination are as follows: • Directed freeway accessibility to downtown area • Full attention to riverfront as well as lakefront development potential • Agreement on a compelling visitor market identity/branding • Land availability for new visitor product development • Resident attitude towards visitor development and its benefits • More knowledge of visitor needs and behaviors in community • Coordination of community's visitor marketing/servicing efforts (Chamber, City and visitor industry owners/operators). 4t pip�'4c `a S r;r"4• - ram �•' ti 9c ` q a4�r FY vi-4-Lir 1 ts:-_. r ,,,,,„ ,•:;,,,,.__ f ,,,,, ware Critical Success Factors • For the Lake Oswego visitor destination to prosper, the following factors need to be acted upon: • Formation of a Tourism Committee to coordinate and implement the Tourism Action Plan with agreement from city officials and other key groups like Lake Corporation. • Development of strategic visitor destination goals for implementation • Accountability measured on all visitor destination initiatives in order to provide re- turns record to residents. '<it- ...e" f 4r , -_,-,,j SV ;*: 5 11 Visitor Destination Experiences The following product opportunities by visitor market were identified. 66.4 Business Travel—Commercial ,' ` " �" Type Product Opportunity O Ca©y11 ht 2co Patrick Pr othe Corporate/Government • Potential need for new hotel/resort property in or near downtown area • Enhanced guest/visitor communication offerings such as high speed Internet, exercise facility and amenities (e.g., spas) Meeting/Conference • Inventory and evaluation of existing public meeting space (hotels, centers and others) • Packaging for leisure stay-over and free time visits to attractions Leisure Travel—Vacation/Holiday � ;_;"•i Type Product Opportunity Cultural/Heritage • Group tour potential for festivals and performing arts events • Enhanced historical visitor offerings through integrated community story and new development Shopping/ • High quality retail store portfolio but further effort required in packaging and Antiquing programming Outdoor Recrea- • River development/accessibility lending to boating, fishing, hiking, sightseeing tion and ancillary services, such as rentals Festival/Events • Assessment of current festivals on calendar scheduling and visitor value with some attention to fostering further agri- and culinary visits with farmers market and natural foods R f4 VFR Travel—Visit Friends and Relatives i=u d Ii Type Product Opportunity FIT{ I' lu 4911 t 111 1 Local Residents • Better informed and visitor friendly family-based evening entertainment • River accessibility to public Referred Visitors • Incentives to tell others back home • Portland resident market potential 6 12 Visitor Destination Future Direction A visitor destination vision statement for Lake Oswego was prepared as follows: In 2015 Lake Oswego is a welcoming center of cultural and historical happenings ,r_ ^- within a unique village environment treasuring its natural setting. --, Visitor Market Positioning The destination images of Lake Oswego were identified as such: _` 11 • Attractive setting of river/lake, trees and flowers "-k 4 • Affluent community - �` ( , 1f • Cultural and arts focus • Quality visitor offerings i- .' " • Can do' spirit. y 1 Given the above images, the unique appeals for the city were considered to be: • Upscale people entertainment place • Urbane and sophisticated village lifestyle • Cosmopolitan and artistic flavor. To reinforce these appeals, the visitor positioning of Lake Oswego would be influenced by the following additional elements: • Celebration of the good life • Share the dream • Attention to aesthetic details. A visitor market positioning statement for Lake Oswego was then composed as follows: Lake Oswego, surrounded by lake, river, trees and flowers blends natural beauty with arts and culture, in a upscale and livable village setting of boutiques, restaurants and entertainment. t fi it . =-� _... - '- err _ 0 1 _„_ . .., ,,. LI -, UES t PLUA r . STIV4L OF THE A = ., +,._� ftJ2O7TS 06', ,„ 7 Afe e' 7 13 Visitor Destination Activities and Accountability The projects to be undertaken to realize the destination vision for Lake Oswego are as follows: Potential Project Organizations Connection between downtown area and Kruse City of Lake Oswego Way and Lake Grove areas Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce • Signage • Public transportation • Maps • Attractions identified between the areas to create a "trail" Expansion/promotion of Festivals and Events City of Lake Oswego • music, classic car show, antique fair, farmers Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce market and others Oswego Heritage Council • enhancement of Festival of the Arts Lakewood Center for the Arts Arts Council of Lake Oswego Coordination and Production of Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce Community Promotional Collateral City of Lake Oswego • inventory of materials Oswego Heritage Council • city visitors service guide-what to do and see in LO, local maps Arts Council of Lake Oswego • website enhancement to develop "ease of use" for visitor • Cost effective restaurant menu books welcome packets for conference/meeting attendees Enhancement of our new Foothills Park City of Lake Oswego • William Stafford pathway, amphitheater and Arts Council of Lake Oswego tribute plaques • Other stages including dock, proposed resort hotel to follow Development of Welcoming Presence City of Lake Oswego • signage and information kiosks Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce • hospitality training Clackamas County Tourism & Cultural Affairs • Expand public art Art Council of Lake Oswego 8 14 Development of Historical Interpretive Center genealogy Oswego Heritage Council part of riverfront parks City of Lake Oswego industrial — iron furnace Official Arts District Designation Arts Council of Lake Oswego appropriate zoning and tax incentives Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce arts studio development Lakewood Center for the Arts City of Lake Oswego Head lee Walkway along the Lakefront City of Lake Oswego Completion of Millennium Park Plaza Oswego Heritage Council Lake Corporation Arts Council of Lake Oswego List of Visitor Destination Action Plan Participants Jerry Wheeler, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce Andrew Edwards, Lakewood Center for the Arts David Donaldson, City of Lake Oswego Kathy Kern, City of Lake Oswego Wendy Popkin, Clackamas County Tourism & Cultural Affairs Cheryl Brock, Arts Council of Lake Oswego Jude Graham, Oswego Heritage Council Doug Cushing, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce Beverly Meehan, Lake Oswego Chamber of Commerce tho tom: -44ip r J A Art 15 5.2. 1 ( %M(EQS „,4t. City� Q of Lake l Counci' Re .--c --0REG.,-)J4 il TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Guy Graham, Director of Public Works PREPARED BY: Russell Chevrette, Engineering Tech. Ill SUBJECT: Resolution 09-14---An Amendment to the Tualatin/Lake Oswego Wastewater Collection Agreement DATE: March 26, 2009 ACTION Staff requests City Council adoption of Resolution 09-14. LNTRODUCTION The City of Lake Oswego and the City of Tualatin have been parties to an intergovernmental agreement (1GA) for wastewater collection since 1982. The proposed amendment is for a small modification to the boundary of the affected territory. BACKGROUND The 1982 IGA established a territory comprised of certain properties in the City of Tualatin whose wastewater would be collected by Tualatin's system, but which would ultimately be conveyed to Portland's Tryon Creek wastewater treatment plant via Lake Oswego's collection system. Administrative procedures were established to compensate Lake Oswego for its role as "middleman." The original agreement can be characterized as a broad brush attempt to respond to the needs of the time--it was understood that amendments would be required from time to time in response to unanticipated administrative and other needs. Section A, 2 of the 1982 agreement states: "The service area may be modified by mutual agreement in writing of Oswego 17 Council Report and Tualatin." In 1992, the two city councils approved a boundary amendment to permit a number of properties in Lake Oswego's service area who were experiencing septic system failures to drain into Tualatin's collection system. Again, the wastewater's destination was the Portland treatment plant, but in this instance Tualatin assumed the middleman role. The impetus behind the current proposal is a recent development approval of a 12-lot subdivision in Lake Oswego that has no reasonable access to Lake Oswego's wastewater collection system, but which has access to Tualatin's. This is also an opportunity to include a small area that was inadvertently overlooked in the 1992 amendment. DISCUSSION Proposed Service Area Boundary Amendment The proposed boundary amendment is illustrated on the Service Area map attached to this report as Exhibit A. The proposed amendment modifies the service area boundary at two locations. Close-up illustrations of Areas A and B are attached to the proposed Amendment Agreement. Area A: This area encompasses a newly developed 12-lot subdivision in Lake Oswego located on the westerly extension of Frost Street, and two lots of record abutting the subdivision's north boundary. The site cannot obtain gravity sewer service from Lake Oswego's system, but is able to obtain gravity service from Tualatin's sewer system on the south side of the rail road tracks. (The south side of the railroad right of way is the common city limit line between Lake Oswego and Tualatin.) In the early planning process for the subdivision, the applicant and the City Engineers of the two cities agreed that Tualatin's sewer system was better situated to provide sewer service. Lake Oswego offered to initiate an amendment to the service area boundary to include this site. In the design process, it became apparent that the two abutting lots to the north should also be included for topographic reasons, and a pipe was extended to the subdivision's north line to facilitate future connection. Area B: This area is proposed to correct an inadvertent omission in the 1992 boundary amendment. This area is located at the east end of McDuff Court, and includes Lot 4, part of Lot 3 and part of an open space tract in the plat of Childs Road Estates. Administrative Process A. Lake Oswego' City Council adopts a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an amendment to the IGA. B. The Mayor executes the amendment to the IGA. C. Staff forwards the executed amendment and any necessary supporting documents to Tualatin's City Engineer with a request to place a corresponding resolution on the Tualatin City Council's agenda. 18 Council Report The amendment will become effective upon Tualatin's Mayor's signature. No other administrative follow-up is anticipated. Lake Oswego will maintain the collection system within Areas A and B, including the encased pipe under the railroad tracks. Conclusion The proposed amendment to the Lake Oswego/Tualatin IGA is consistent with its original purpose and with the mutual understanding of the Tualatin and Lake Oswego City Engineers. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve Resolution 09-14, authorizing the Mayor to execute a service boundary amendment to the Tualatin/Lake Oswego intergovernmental wastewater collection agreement. Attachments: Resolution 09-14 Amendment to Agreement Reviewed by: Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. --, ,,----) 6.):4- r - ., 64 Department Director ,„,...„ - , f ill 77/ -":J'i % ----Z-C, k------1- , City Attorn- \ A4,kit k „ilk Alex D. i.,cintyre 7 City Manager 19 "I ' 16 4A]Sere! .4rJZr:•ce easwego / Tualatin wastewater532r rr rnm a e ental A reem n e t9 g �a ..: ..-__,:,_ _...,..._ .1., L. f, -,,,,i,„Atv.:',fn ith"1,to, :0 Room IR'''' El,' 1.1 iii 0 FIlilt i L. ' 1�� sea7 1 saa• N ��..�• �.N[E OSYoE GP 6�°�t . ........,..........., ,� i,-,:.,,,,iiii.::. ��ti 1rG•71�� 117�i•Ti.........................aa ;fir='•_�_��,...-" �::";.=-. .::::.:..„,... ::.,:i.:(4,,,,.. 0...,,. i-,-1,,,,Lifi ,, I,'.L____.•:'_ ! !,- !Illb,„-,,,,.„,, RRSEWOO[3 STREET �`TC • ,'" F ROSEWOOD r2 3 m cnAl' it mum ..., ,;,:•:. • \. F,,,, . il _.i :. Qb 76650 7245 1fi655 K � � 37387 � '37.:.[7 1 6'‘ NIN//11 AFTt71V LANE 7250 44 ' f. 77448" �r �`� a � ;� i 41111111 --. . ' ---. loll '&' !' t•'ae:'y a+::l�f:k�3,.y�iEl 7535 'dS ra,' ak 8• ;y[ =':;. �,• :R " r WILLOW LA�E w ,,,,,,,:,,,,,,,,,, 61i IIIIU , 3S79Q � Ii r� �r'x`�..•- t�" .. ,,: 'AT-,--- , 1,,.i.k: m.�.... �w.�c• crryl � r- ,. ,. .... .,.:00, II . L ... MINI 7/ ! ccw-.. dp .. i SOUT]L f am ;�ns rv ' �7727 t 557 II -- ..� FB93p --- -T - ¢r.s ,4•Aita ;,r.:° 5835 ' MEF21p1AREIARE S825'� 's+��. �sy a0 dr6 r.� , �^ Q 12,�V,''57835' T 13~ 58f7 ..:. `;j', p`r 4,..., 1151111441 Sa09 aw.r." J ` Cj aP 58C5�eAN ExET • � 290 �''1y =; ; `' 7850 I-N 4 BOON ES FERRY ROADaii .: :� ,'w:"' y.. 0 MI 7io i7]34 O •fi:�a. k£l3r; ;�,�;�:,.: w .�.., tia .r 17835 Q',e,d�`-,• •:■ .��,•'"^L::s- +' `c';.,111 r L,L mar' , FVB`S. 3791p.7997 w o s .%<:�,' ':r'y^' Y , i rRuss r�►�a �.! 17698 R. ....IAN *ii ?71 fi0 1-pop.:. � J 1Z` � a•r i' y r'.;r:,`::7;- N 11..,‘,''' '1,..,!.,,PiF,,,;',...,,, -"�` �L, yf, A g •7 r �`^:F"' `;i;� Y - � SHOF $ �BQQs" :.. till' Iflv-- ` =; tea .•. -�• Boaz ¢- t , A ,:- L- _="_ �;"~�,. - .:F>;. ";�-�� 3-,,�:.� A Ma 795 rgif3;v�r�" aQ6A 7�DDD 411 : i 4•, .c . ,., ..,� N; .ji :::;' �'�^"^";:�. NYy 4 }s7 pitio ♦ ,p + '�y r J 3�:- i \ p180048a J \S_]t_�V ^�,' Y -'� •..>� _ u tea". "':�•i • -BELlIL1RE t ��� Q 38fD6 Lir 4 ,r 780d tY 'IV Y, M^ �p :._ g Y O'NFI FP in 8a■ y`v g c G 111,40,1,„.„ :41,1.1:;Ii. 1 ‘4 ,L4r* :Ay:1 2:: $17S ‘117,,,, ,,,lili . � ! -w ww.\,.. _ ^:`:z,:•:-s;-"....:.�..-�•�.w.�".,vim:.�3-,:�: 3 If r0 W#\ � ,�•.. ;r.itir .lommiNvi • '�' �a`r(N �rr„z:�'-�•"•-�^:�'..�'i:•:•a: ; id 11V �... :113itip ". '��<,;.... ..�,.'' �...,.-mayt8123 Oar •::+j V �� FC�I�• " r 18275 0° .°'i TI .o' \i �.",:a -=""x� t. N� o o �'a w t m". ✓i t•'"2•rc•,�w`•'z7i„ip,„. :' v i is a w• , 1-. $ ��� ,azf 5 ice, tk 0 .. ,-,: 0=�>�"'^ 'u�y--�'• 'a x C. , „ .,,,...... ,..,,,,,:.,,,:,,,„..„,,„,,, ..,,,,..„, z # 4 : '„; y�� .y^ m111i� s� � �,83r6 601❑d lit fill �\''' 'w. • • +z 383d• 5976 1 i'-' m oe �� WAY Hik„,..".. „Am, TNBR2001,8ST ills_„0„.L.:40„. FERNB4R07 IT \,#,,, NLL' ,•-' \• s""-'"'�� .►� Jd1!LJVWL!! -:„ ma AI ! LVA6111IN IIIIii: ,,,,, .-: - P-:--• r- 4 / '. � 0 ;� ,•.•�,. _:::.: ��i .11./ - - t�fi`=4p,- .;M:�"'"" Z ,8470;, �,M - ..,,,, • Ariel � 853D WI .,f, ki'7 F. �?`cu .r,• � - .:e•J' 1' -� � � 38$3�f 860 rWnmS¢� `a_ ': _7 II e m 4a5•, `fSG38$4 v S�+ rn �w N16645i ear rib 1fl6�R4•37s38 �' • �� �' ,'m m ru lel A� '- LI. 1 BDDD „,,,,,-I p.01 rrf 78667 18723 ..... w._ _ in 1 .. .... . 1111 II "--' al... 4., 0� 1 ill.. i*:14-41 * - -,,, ,.... r..1 ft3M OEss NIA 7 7 D:•.��■n _ � Tas4v h i+yl F8930 f 823C ��r►*'1 n 111112 �,. ",.••iiiiiii 7 �■'`�' �07 A 7 Sg0,,,,,,4047 ■ ����] . CSAWN 8957 988 9457 .: �•imes 13T- .r...•+!'- �a 0,fr,O c. ro ■ fi825- �� ...`""''%r ,r �iptift� h, ��, 6531 ,8Von Lake Oswego I Tualatin Wasterwater n4. m :G^;.;r`' Intergovernmental Agreement 4. 'm II h w 6>� ,., :; ' 110 • 6735- � Service Area ,,,.,,,,,T41,1. ;2,,..., —Wait% '•.1.11-L,II, ko.,........--.".-.:.-- ..._-..• ..._....... _. #4.t:ei:lip#,,,,, , ',, original Territory . ' M._ ,,.." •`.. 41 ' ' '.;;:: 8Ci � a�8i14 1993 Amendment . 1ft .--.....,...... '-,.... :,rt.''. Proposed Amendment F 1 ~- J S: Lake Oswego City Limits 5 � Other City Limits 2 RESOLUTION NO. 09-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A SERVICE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT TO THE LAKE OSWEGO AND CITY OF TUALATIN WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT AGREEMENT. . ... .... ... . . .. . : WHEREAS on September 27, 1982 the City of Lake Oswego and the City of Tualatin entered into an intergovernmental agreement for sanitary sewage collection and treatment within a certain service area, the service area boundary having been modified by an amendment effective on January 25, 1993, and WHEREAS it is necessary and expedient and in the best interest of public heath and welfare to again modify the service area boundary, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that the Mayor is authorized to execute an agreement, in the form attached as Exhibit 1, modifying the boundary of the service area of the 1982 Lake Oswego-Tualatin intergovernmental agreement for sanitary sewage collection and treatment. This resolution shall be effective upon passage. Considered and enacted by the Lake Oswego City Council at a meeting held on the 7th day of April, 2009. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder Approved as to Form: -7"e-k4 David Powell, City Attorney 23 Amendment to the Tualatin/Lake Oswego Intergovernmental Agreement for Sanitary Sewer Service THIS AMENDMENT is entered into by the City of Tualatin, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as "Tualatin," and the City of Lake Oswego, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as "Lake Oswego." WHEREAS on September 27, 1982 Tualatin and Lake Oswego entered into an intergovernmental agreement (amended on January 25, 1993) for sanitary sewage collection and treatment, which identifies a service area boundary; and WHEREAS Tualatin and Lake Oswego desire to modify the service area boundary; NOW THEREFORE,the parties agree as follows: A. The service area boundary of the intergovernmental agreement between Lake Oswego and Tualatin for sanitary sewage collection and treatment(executed on September 27, 1982 and modified on January 25, 1993) is hereby modified to include the areas shown on Exhibits A and B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. B. The effective date of this amendment is the last date of signature by the parties. This agreement is executed in duplicate originals. CITY OF LAKE O S WEGO CITY OF TUALATIN By: By: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Lou Ogden, Mayor Dated: Dated:_ Approved as to form Approved as to form EXHIBIT .......... 25 I P S ' ,.�. X . r� .-, u- -----.--- �.vxwwvww., .,w,.W._ a.. .r r��•' , •• F al , i::3-) 2 1 m . -r.:: , co ;: a .. o i . 4,,,, , o . 00 1.\,) J 4, ,.. 'IX t. 6c45 - . D. �- 3:' , t. 7 ``' c 1 88, �*° cr# = 860, 01 - 16890 A r4 A ,.,-.64,_ , ,,,, v. ._ . , , . , ,w, . cou,,,,,,,, . . ki , 1 ._ , (,) „,:,- Nc-, ,.. :1,..u: ,. ...r.• , •. -A) -‹: ---* ocy) Li j . :,,,:. 16925 >--'. A :.... . ., .._, ,,,,,•..- .,...., . , „.....,,,,,,,,,,,„ . ,. /-....,69„,,.. •,694, ,D „ __ 0 ,„ ,_, _:. ,,, __.... .. ,.., , .. 8,:, ..., - wo ...../ ' 1 iv -j',11.3 16960 ' i' '''''' '-: t:CY '-'''''' )(3. . .69 ,_„,i rq '1;?1. g , :.)t-.i..-':-_:.:p_ �„�, - ,+'. _ -_ 700 1702'.• 8' Y 7 8 :.: CI 1 FROST T . U �.. 17040 ,1,,,i-.- '4'4''7-:.,'..'-'-.'/.-''7'.'',.''7'.'.'',,:,--x.-,:,-:'_:-V"''-,.\•i','''',,'_-(,),V,,,...' ,',0,',,..;,‘.,-,'_:••..' 0cr.,, . ,ta) ,,' asismani., s7 I", ,.„3 . `• ,� ; MI ,t, . ANE , 5934 5966 •_... .. .),(4),..:4 --1-1+i,44 . ,v ill i '41„, •-,...7'..0 i i ti! cr) to 0 co cn4: & STERN "AtLRDAD ',. • ni.,,,,c_i , i , ,. , l ! ' , ( , , „. 47,,,,, _- , 4_,i,,,,I,,..1.--lt---strl, A ,', .' '''-'4-4-7' ,, .__,..--,-.::::-\-:'' ' 1 :: (0 in . , -,,„ et . 0 to ''..•. -;.-: /5<'—'ANL :; LO n S>s, dr f S --. k',' '->f),- °A ROSEW. , . ., ... i-. 0 ,x\, e" D STREE ` t . ;:,; --4.- -,.,,?'''f-•-• i , ,,,,f-- i \ mnnw.nn:-,—n.v..xr.n.-nm„ sg '-v,x,.o,� 1+�. �4 w.' � u�x'aw�rxrrv.a'rr�vmnvnnrrery .'L � r� " - iicL �•<"� 'T � 17650 � . .,.,...... ... ,,.. .,,,,rd,,,,i:'. illr_ •< GI JOES FL SAFEWAY 1, ,i) -,-,;:,.'.... A„:„„ :,, ...,_ .: _ T� kw 5i r, }1 �N f ' rM 17720 MERDA QUAKE' LLI :ii--.: 7 ,r ;� � . . _ mn �� 5.2.2 2 A.,All ,,,0,t.p.,,,Eo ,tc. iiii7 a CITY LAKE OF OSWEGO ,.... _______K: ::7 COUNCIL REPORT , ,...,„...... OR EGOS TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Kim Gilmer, Parks & Recreation Director SUBJECT: Formation of a golf-tennis subcommittee DATE: April 2, 2009 ACTION Staff requests City Council's approval of Resolution 09-17 authorizing the formation of a golf-tennis subcommittee to assist the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board during the analysis for the long term options for the Golf Course and Indoor Tennis Center. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The Parks & Recreation Department is in the process of hiring a consultant to determine the feasibility of upgrading the Municipal Golf Course to meet the needs of the golfing public while generating enough revenue to pay for operations and future capital needs. In addition, the consultant will also be asked to look at the feasibility of a combined golf-tennis facility at the Municipal Golf Course. DISCUSSION Attached is a memo from John McComish, chair of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board requesting City Council approval to form a citizen subcommittee to assist and advise PRAB during the Golf and Tennis planning process. The Board discussed this issue at their March 18, 2009 board meeting and unanimously recommended the formation of the subcommittee. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact 29 Council Report 4/2/09 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution 09-17. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from John McCornish, PRAB Chair dated 3/18/09 2. Resolution 09-17 :f)( Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. (-1 Reviewed by: Department Director City Attorney\-, Alex D. c City Man el' 30 Nizo Parks and Recreation Department Memorandum To: Mayor Jack Hoffman From: John McCornish,Chair Parks&Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) Subject: Formation of Golf-Tennis Subcommittee Date: March 18,2009 The Parks & Recreation Advisory Board is requesting City Council approval to form a golf- tennis subcommittee to provide feedback to PRAB during the feasibility study for the Golf Course and Tennis Center (Section 12.50.030, item 6 requires boards to seek city council approval before forming a subcommittee). As you know, the City is hiring a consultant to study the long term feasibility and options for the Golf Course and Indoor Tennis Center. This study is anticipated to take approximately 6 months during which time the consultant will meet with PRAB to develop options for City Council consideration. The Board is interested in obtaining as much input as possible from the community, and in particular from those who use the Golf Course and Indoor Tennis Center facilities. We are recommending the formation of a 16 member subcommittee made up of 5 citizens interested in golf, 5 citizens interested in. tennis, 2 neighborhood representatives from both the Palisades Neighborhood Association and Uplands Neighborhood Association, and two at-large citizens (non golfers or tennis players). This subcommittee will work with PRAB and provide input in generating ideas and commenting on options developed during the process. We are suggesting that positions on the subcommittee be filled through an open application process to be initiated in late March/early April. PRAB would then select suitable candidates from the applicant pool to fill the subcommittee. The subcommittee would be disbanded following the completion of the Golf-Tennis Feasibility Study. In addition,we anticipate very little additional staff time required to manage the subcommittee. In fact, the subcommittee will assist PRAB and staff in informing the golf and tennis playing community about the project which will help staff improve its outreach efforts. I would appreciate knowing at your earliest convenience whether City Council approves of PRAB's request. Thank you for your consideration. 31 RESOLUTION 09-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE FORMATION OF A GOLF-TENNIS SUBCOMMITTEE TO ASSIST THE PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD DURING THE ANALYSIS FOR LONG TERM OPTIONS FOR THE GOLF COURSE AND INDOOR TENNIS CENTER. WHEREAS, the City of Lake Oswego is hiring a consultant to conduct an analysis of the Municipal Golf Course and Indoor Tennis Center; and WHEREAS, the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board will work with the consultant to develop a recommendation for City Council consideration; and WHEREAS, the citizens of Lake Oswego have an interest in outcome of the analysis and can provide the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board with important insight for development of the Board's recommendation; and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board unanimously recommended the formation of a golf-tennis subcommittee at its March 18, 2009 board meeting; and WHEREAS, Section 12.50.030, item 6 of the City Code requires boards to seek City Council approval before forming a subcommittee; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego that: Section I. The City Council approves Resolution 09-17 authorizing the formation of a Golf-Tennis Subcommittee. Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon passage. Section 3. The term of the Golf-Tennis Subcommittee shall be from the date of this Resolution until the date the consultant's report and Parks & Recreation Advisory Board's final recommendation is presented to the City Council. Section 4. Committee membership will be determined by the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and made up of the following: ■ 5 citizens interested in golf ■ 5 citizens interested in tennis ■ 2 representatives from the Palisades Neighborhood Association ■ 2 representatives from the Uplands Neighborhood Association ■ 2 at-large citizens (non golfers, non-tennis players) Resolution 09-17 Page 1 of 2 33 Considered and enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego on the 7th day of April 2009. AYES: NOES: EXCUSED: ABSTAIN: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: David Powell, City Attorney Resolution 09-17 Page 2 of 2 34 5.3 of%AKE o (-> 111 o air I 1 CITY OF LAKE COUNCIL REPORT f TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Jane McGarvin, Deputy City Recorder SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes DATE: March 30, 2009 ACTION Approve minutes as written. ATTACHMENTS 1. February 17, 2009, regular meeting 2. February 19, 2009, special meeting 3. February 24, 2009, special meeting f Reviewed by: Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. Alex D. tyre City Manager 35 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ' ► K ; MINUTES February 17, 2009 OR EGOS Mayor Jack Hoffman called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. on February 17, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Johnson, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney. Staff Present:Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director; Jane Heisler, LOIS Project Communications Director; Guy Graham, Public Works Director; Susan Millhauser, Sustainability Planner; Denise Frisbee, Planning and Building Services Director; Jonna Papaefthimiou, Environmental Planner Youth Council Present: Youth Councilors Dod, Menashe, and Silbert. 3. PRESENTATIONS 3.1 Distinguished Service Award, Stephan Lashbrook Mayor Hoffman presented a Distinguished Service Award to Stephan Lashbrook, Community Development Director, and thanked him for his service to the City since 2001. He mentioned that Mr. Lashbrook was one of three planners in the Metro region who were always included on regional task forces because of their expertise. He described Mr. Lashbrook as a problem solver, compassionate, and someone who paid attention to the individual. Mr. Lashbrook commented that it was an honor to work at Lake Oswego with its excellent staff. 3.2 Lake Oswego Interceptor Sewer Update (LOIS) Mayor Hoffman thanked Ms. Heisler for the tour of the staging areas on Saturday. Ms. Heisler informed the Councilors that staff would be happy to take any of them on a similar tour. Ms. Heisler presented the construction update. She described how the contractor on the Kelok project effectively handled the problem of finding more water in the trench than expected; the project was now back on track. She mentioned March 19 as the bid opening date for the lake full project phase with the contract award scheduled for April 7. She reported that staff met with the bond counsel. The City now had a schedule to follow to make sure that they sold bonds at the appropriate time. She indicated that staff was applying for funding through the appropriations process of the federal stimulus package in hopes of alleviating some of the ratepayer burden for this project. She reviewed the handout showing the reporting system that staff developed in response to Council questions and concerns. Mr. McIntyre clarified to Mayor Hoffman that the `projected' line referred to the actual to date. Mr. Graham indicated that the `planned' line should never change. Ms. Heisler reviewed another graph showing the Bryant Kelok financial pieces, including administration, design, construction management, and construction costs. She indicated to Councilor Hennagin that staff determined the City administration costs for one phase, while working on different phases simultaneously, by proportioning out the staff time as best they could. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 16 February 17, 2009 37 She indicated to Councilor Olson that while the problems that Canby Excavating ran into did increase the cost, staff had no reason at this point to think that the project would go over the contingency amount allowed for the program. She indicated to Councilor Jordan that staff would provide Council with the total amount of the different pieces of the lake full work, and have the breakdown for the individual contractors available for those who wanted to see it. Councilor Tierney said that this reporting system worked for him, although he thought that the financial part still needed work to make it clear. He suggested showing what staff has spent to date and what staff projected to spend. Mr. McIntyre explained that staff was trying to find a meaningful way to show the Council whether the project was on target, not on target, or ahead of the target. He indicated that staff would continue to fine-tune the reporting system. Councilor Hennagin suggested that staff present an updated chart to the Council once every six to eight weeks. Ms. Heisler indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the list of contractors to whom staff sent the RFP for the lake full work were the only people who could respond because they were prequalified. She mentioned that staff was working on a LOIS lesson plan for the School District to use in its new science lab, as suggested in a recent Lake Oswego Review article. She noted the excellent project overview published in a regional realtor newspaper. She presented a video staff made of the work going on at Maple Circle last Friday. She said that they would post it on the City website and on Facebook. She indicated that they hoped to continue making these videos as the project progressed. She presented a detailed schedule for the project. She explained that staff built the schedule around the known critical key dates for the project, and that it was subject to change once the City hired the lake full contractor. She mentioned that the lake full RFP documents were available at the library, the West End Building, and the Engineering Department. Mr. McIntyre recalled that the prior Council had requested that staff do as much public outreach on this project as possible, given that the LOIS project was the most dramatic project in this community of any project historically. He cited the video clip as an example of the various types of outreach that staff was doing in its efforts to communicate with citizens. He acknowledged the good work done by Ms. Heisler and her staff, and thanked her. 3.3 Community Warehouse Mayor Hoffman mentioned that he asked for this presentation after visiting Community Warehouse and seeing its commitment to sustainability. Mr. Lashbrook introduced Roz Bavener, Community Warehouse President. He recalled that the Mayor suggested he research this non-profit organization, which could provide an opportunity for the City to help promote an effort that benefitted the lowest income people in the region, as well as supporting sustainability. Ms. Bavener explained that Community Warehouse began in 2001 with the mission of providing furniture and household items to low income families and individuals. She indicated that they continued this mission today in collaboration with over 100 different social service agencies in assisting people who really needed the help. She said that they worked primarily in the tri-county area, as well as in Clark County. She mentioned that their Warehouse was the third largest out of the 27 furniture banks across the U.S. She asked the citizens of Lake Oswego to donate the `stuff that they no longer used to the Warehouse either by drop off at a collection site (often a business doing a collection drive) or by requested truck pick-up. She mentioned requesting a tax receipt. She spoke of having the truck City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16 38 February 17, 2009 available in the Lake Oswego area on the first Saturday of every month. She invited the community to their annual Chair Affair, a fundraiser at which they auctioned chairs created by artists. She indicated to Councilor Hennagin that currently their truck came to the Tigard/Tualatin/Lake Oswego area one day a week. Their proposal was to dedicate the first Saturday of the month to Lake Oswego. She noted that unlike Goodwill, they picked up items, and they took mattresses and box springs. Councilor Jordan referenced her volunteer service on Boards that dealt with the people served by the Community Warehouse. She described this as a great opportunity for Lake Oswego citizens to clear out their attics and basements of things that they no longer wanted, but would be of tremendous help to those transitioning from homelessness to a home. Mr. Lashbrook mentioned that the Warehouse currently served 65 families a week. He pointed out that this program was a form of recycling and sustainability, in that items such as mattresses and bedsprings were reused and not sent to the landfill. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he would work with Ms. Bavener regarding how the Lake Oswego community might adopt the Community Warehouse. He would then present the idea to the Council at a study session. Councilor Olson mentioned that she became aware of this wonderful program several years ago, and wholeheartedly supported it. She observed that it was not a well-known program in Lake Oswego, but she thought that the community would support it if it knew about it. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hoffman pulled Item 4.1.2, Resolution 09-09, for discussion. He noted that Councilors Jordan and Olson submitted corrections to the minutes. Councilor Jordan moved the Consent Agenda. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Johnson, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney voting `aye.' (7-0) Councilor Hennagin explained that while Tia Ross (a former chair of the Historic Resources Advisory Board) was willing to serve again on the Board. However, a review of her application found that she did not reside within the city limits or within the City's Urban Services Boundary. Therefore, she was not eligible to serve on the Board, and the Council regretfully could not re- appoint her. He mentioned her dedication to the Board, and thanked her for her tireless efforts to preserve and protect the city's historic structures and sites, efforts that he was confident would continue in the future. 4.1 RESOLUTIONS 4.1.1 Resolution 09-05, approving appointments to the Library Advisory Board Action: Adopt resolution 09-05 approving the appointment of David White to the Library Advisory Board for the remainder of a three-year term ending January 31, 2011, John Ferrel, Richard Slaven, and Shelby Campion for three-year terms ending January 31, 2012, and Ann Pritchard as alternate 4.1.2 Resolution 09-09, reaffirming support and endorsement of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, and authorizing Mayor Jack D. Hoffman to sign the agreement. Action: This item was pulled for further discussion. 4.1.3 Resolution 09-10, approving appointments to the Historic Resources Advisory Board Action: Adopt Resolution 09-10, approving the re-appointment of Tim Mather to the Historic Resources Advisory Board for a three-year term ending December 31, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16 February 17, 2009 39 2011, the appointment of Kasey Holwerda and Marylou Colver for three-year terms ending December 31, 2011, and Craig Foster as alternate 4.1.4 Resolution 09-11, approving an appointment to the Planning Commission Action: Adopt Resolution 09-11, approving the appointment of Jon C. Gustafson to a four year term on the Planning Commission from June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2013 4.2 REPORTS 4.2.1 Resignation of Alison Webster from the Planning Commission Action: Accept resignation 4.3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.3.1 January 20, 2009, regular meeting 4.3.2 January 27, 2009, special meeting Action: Approve minutes as written END CONSENT AGENDA 5. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 5.1 Item 4.1.2 - Resolution 09-09, reaffirming support and endorsement of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, and authorizing Mayor Jack D. Hoffman to sign the agreement. Ms. Millhauser recalled that former Mayor Hammerstad signed the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement in 2005. She indicated that more than 900 mayors across the U.S. have signed this agreement, including 12 cities in Oregon. She explained that the Greg Nichols, Mayor of Seattle, developed the agreement when the U.S. declined to sign the Kyoto protocols. She indicated that the staff report (pp.5-12) described the actions to which the agreement asked cities to commit. She reviewed the 12 actions listed for cities to perform (p.6). She mentioned that Lake Oswego had one of the highest percentages of citizens and businesses purchasing renewable energy from POE. She noted that this resolution reflected the Council's goal to incorporate sustainability in all City work. Councilor Tierney moved to adopt Resolution 09-09. Councilor Jordan seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Johnson, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney voting 'aye.' (7-0) 5. CITIZEN COMMENT • John Surrett, 1685 Edgecliff Terrace He described as `shocking' the Council's majority vote to spend $120,000 to replace toilets and urinals in City buildings and at the Safeco building, given the recession/depression times facing the country. He mentioned that the equipment worked fine, and that it would take 27 years to realize a payback in water savings. He noted the over 100,000 gallons per month water consumption at the Safeco building to water the grass and English ivy. He questioned replacing this equipment, given that Lake Oswego did not have a water shortage now or in the foreseeable future. He argued that the City could better use the money to repair the leaky and aging roofs at the ACC and City Hall, as described in the 2007 SERA Architect report, or on other neglected maintenance repairs at other City buildings. He observed that prudent homeowners maintained their properties. He asked why the City has not kept public buildings in good repair. He argued that following a 2001 report informing the Council of needed building repairs, the City could have accessed a $250,000 FEMA grant to help make the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16 February 17, 2009 40 repairs, but it did not do so. He asked why the City has not implemented the recommendations made by SERA Architects in 2007 to repair City Hall. He referenced the SERA representative's negative comments at the February 10 Council meeting, which he described as making it sound as though City Hall was almost uninhabitable. He said that after studying the SERA report, he wrote his July 12, 2007, column in the Lake Oswego Review, in response to Council members' incorrect recounting of the report's statements in an effort to make a case for moving City Hall to the Safeco building. He contended that there now appeared to be an emerging campaign to disparage the condition of the downtown City buildings in order to justify the purchase and retention of the West End Building. He argued that survey results have been neglected. He cited the Campbell DeLong citizen attitude survey that found only four out of 400 respondents mentioning a community center as a priority. He mentioned the Hibbetts survey results that showed only 17% with an interest in that use. He asked why the community center proposal has re-emerged as a WEB use at a huge initial investment. He wondered whether Wells Fargo Bank would be willing to extend its full $20 million line of credit in July when the City's credit line used for the purchase came up for renewal. He pointed out that the property value has sunk to $8 to $9 million. He described the loan as secured by a lien on the property, and used to make interest only payments on the loan and other Safeco property expenses. He asked where the money would come from to pay for the new toilets and urinals. He asked what the City's current cash balance was in the property tax reserve fund balance. He asked where the money would come from if Welts Fargo called in the loan to be paid in full. He asked if the fund balance policy of not spending more than 25% for real estate purchases and refinancing has been reinstated by the Council. If not, why has it not been reinstated to protect Lake Oswego taxpayers from these types of expenditures? He held that these very important questions required thoughtful and accurate answers by the Council. He argued for inviting the public to make remarks at Council workshop actions to give input on these important matters prior to the Council taking action. 7. ORDINANCES 7.1 Ordinance 2536, amending the Lake Oswego Code relating to the City's Budget Period and the terms of appointed Budget Committee members Mr. Powell explained that this ordinance would restore the City's budget cycle to an annual budget. He indicated that while the Council could opt for a one-year budget by resolution, his understanding from staff and the Council's consensus was that the City would be returning to a one-year budget for the foreseeable future. He indicated that the ordinance would also change Budget Committee member terms from four years for a two-year budget cycle to three years for a one-year budget cycle, per the requirements of state law. Councilor Hennagin moved to enact Ordinance 2536. Councilor Tierney seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Johnson, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney voting `aye.' (7-0) 8. RESOLUTIONS 8.1 Resolution 09-06, establishing the terms of appointed Budget Committee members Mr. Powell explained that this resolution would stagger Budget Committee member terms in compliance with state law and the City Code requirements. He indicated that the Council Interview Committee for the Budget Committee developed the recommendations for staggering the terms so that one-third of the membership turns over each year. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10 February 17, 2009 41 Councilor Jordan moved to adopt Resolution 09-06. Councilor Johnson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Johnson, Moncrieff, Olson, and Tierney voting `aye.' (7-0) 9. INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL 9.1 Councilor Information Councilor Moncrieff mentioned serving on the interview boards for the Historic Resources Advisory Board and the Library Advisory Board. She thanked all the citizens who volunteered for the City. She observed that the talent and dedication of Lake Oswego citizens was impressive. 9.2 Reports of Council Committees, Organizational Committees, and Intergovernmental Committees 9.2.1 JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) Councilor Jordan reported on the hearing on the flexible funding for 2010 through 2012. She mentioned the Committee's interest in placing those MTIP funds into bicycle/pedestrian trail projects that could not find funding elsewhere. She mentioned that the Technical Advisory Committee did not recommend Lake Oswego's Kerr Parkway bike trail project, as it did not meet the requirements in the same way that other projects did. She noted that no one from Lake Oswego testified in support of Lake Oswego's project. She spoke to increasing citizen interest and education in City projects in order to have citizen involvement at the JPACT hearings. 9.2.2 Regional Water Providers Consortium Councilor Johnson reported that the Consortium had a significant discussion at its last meeting regarding its work with sustainability and water conservation. She mentioned the upcoming four months of radio ads and some television ads promoting water conservation. She noted the Consortium's work on emergency management for water and insuring that citizens around the region had a supply of clean potable water in case of emergency. 9.2.3 Metro Urban Reserves/Rural Reserves Committee Mayor Hoffman reported that at the meetings last Wednesday, the Committee starting drawing lines on Washington and Clackamas County maps in terms of urban and rural reserve candidate areas. He commented that Lake Oswego needed to stay involved and to pay attention to how this affected Stafford. He mentioned that by statute, Metro had to decide by the end of 2010 on whether to expand the UGB. He described the complicated process, which involved population projections and density capacity. He said that Metro has asked each jurisdiction how it wanted to grow in the next 20 to 50 years. He pointed out that the answers to this question affected Lake Oswego because it was a city on the southern edge of the UGB expansion area. 9.3 Making The Greatest Place Mayor Hoffman introduced Metro Councilor Carlotta Collette. Councilor Collette recalled the Metro region's request in 2007 to the State legislature for a new approach to expanding the UGB, since expanding the boundary based on soil types was not the most effective method of doing so. She mentioned criteria such as how many people could the region accommodate and what infrastructure could the region support. She spoke of the individual jurisdictions working cooperatively as a region to accommodate an increased population while maintaining the region as a livable and sustainable place. She indicated that in response to a request from the region's cities and counties, Metro was working on a regional climate action plan. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16 February 17, 2009 42 She mentioned Metro's work with the local jurisdictions to identify aspirations and needs to create active town and regional centers, as detailed in the State of the Cities Report. She spoke of measuring a vibrant, livable, and active downtown by how many hours people could play in the downtown. She described a sustainable urban community in which people lived close to where they worked and shopped. She discussed the financial incentives document, which presented a toolkit of innovative ways for a community to fund the kind of things that it wanted to see in its downtown. She noted the design toolkit also developed by Metro to provide ideas for making the new urban communities in downtowns vibrant. She said that Metro was developing more toolkits that would come out in the next couple of years. She discussed Metro's work on integrating the Regional Transportation Plan with infrastructure planning in order to create a more inclusive process the next time it looked at expanding the UGB. She spoke of the importance of local governments working with Metro to identify what worked and did not work. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he wanted the Council to get up to speed on the UGB issue because it was in the City's backyard. 10. REPORTS OF OFFICERS 10.1 City Manager 10.2 City Attorney 11. STUDY SESSION 11.1 Business Recycling Requirements Program Councilor Collette said that over the past eight years, Metro has spent around $3.5 million working with businesses on recycling programs. She mentioned that 85% of the region's businesses had recycling programs in place. She noted the area's recycling rate peaked at 59% (the State goal was 64%) and has fallen to 56%. She described Metro's work with committees over the past five years to find a way to get the last 15% of businesses to send their 100,000 tons of recyclable garbage to places where it could be used instead of to the landfill. She said that they developed two alternatives: should they continue their educational effort, or mandate business recycling? She indicated that when the alternatives finally got to MPAC, MPAC voted 10 to 3 for the mandate business recycling option. She emphasized that this idea did not come solely from Metro but rather from the committees representing the cities and the counties. She recalled that the previous Lake Oswego City Council had been supportive of the idea, as was the Lake Oswego Chamber. She stated that the intent of the ordinance was to get the last 15% of the businesses to recycle. She observed that it was easy to implement and did not require garbage cops. Ms. Millhauser reviewed the next steps as outlined in the staff report. She proposed working with the City's annual business licensing process to track business recycling. Businesses would self- report on their recycling activities and the City would offer technical support and compliance information. Staff would send the businesses currently without a program to the Clackamas County Recycle at Work program for free education on waste reduction recycling. She indicated that the code enforcement piece was a last ditch effort, used only when all other avenues were exhausted. In those rare cases, staff would work within the City's existing code enforcement system. Mayor Hoffman observed that the next step was the Council directing staff to come back with a business recycling ordinance. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16 February 17, 2009 43 . .... .. ....... Ms. Millhauser confirmed to Councilor Tierney that code enforcement would be done with the City's existing resources. She indicated that staff had 18 months to get the enforcement piece in place from when the ordinance was passed. Ideally, they wanted to avoid code enforcement by working with the businesses to resolve issues. She indicated to Councilor Tierney that Metro had funds available for the educational piece. She noted that the City would have minimal expenses in providing notices and forms. Councilor Olson commented that she thought that the business license tie in would work well. Ms. Millhauser clarified to Councilor Jordan that bagged shredded paper was recyclable. She confirmed that all the information would be available prior to people coming in for their business license, and that staff has developed a list of pointed questions to ask regarding their recycling practices. She noted that this would also allow the City to start tracking recycling practices for sustainability. Councilor Jordan observed that the Lake Oswego business community was actively involved in recycling. She wondered whether Lake Oswego had less of a problem with business recycling than the greater Metro region did. She mentioned that a Sustainability Advisory Board member worked with large corporations on reducing the amount of packaging entering the waste stream in the first place. Councilor Hennagin asked how staff intended to reach business owners, such as himself, who mailed in their business license renewals, and did not come down to City Hall. Ms. Millhauser indicated that staff would send out information with the renewal paperwork. She noted that staff would work with Metro and the County to reach the businesses exempted by the State from having a business license, such as realtors and insurance agents. Councilor Tierney asked how they would know if they succeeded. Ms. Millhauser explained that the regional level data would indicate whether the program was succeeding on a regional level. She indicated that they would now have local information data, which would hopefully tell them whether they were succeeding. Marta McGuire, Metro Senior Planner, said that Metro would do a performance report on the program at the two-year mark, after all jurisdictions have implemented the system. That, combined with performance surveys, would give them a good sense of how the program has progressed. Councilor Hennagin asked if staff has looked into helping restaurants recycle food waste. Ms. Millhauser said that Portland had a voluntary program for food waste, in which a few Lake Oswego businesses participated. Staff has discussed the idea with Allied Waste and other partners. She mentioned that one problem was the lack of a food composting facility in the Portland area; everything was shipped up to Seattle. Councilor Collette said that a problem they have run into in trying to locate a food composting facility in this area was resistance to putting it too close to urban centers. Ms. McGuire concurred that the biggest challenge was the facility, as there was a willingness in the region to participate in the program. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 8:04 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 8:15 p.m. 11.2 Sensitive Lands Community Development Code Amendments Ms. Frisbee noted that the sensitive lands work program for 2009 has three components. The first was the housekeeping amendments before the Council tonight, which the Planning Commission has vetted and recommended. These would correct, clarify, and in some limited circumstances streamline the process, as well as bring the City Code into compliance with Metro Titles 3 and 13. She said that the second component was updating the maps to reflect fully the Sensitive Lands Inventory. The third component was identifying and evaluating policy issues and options City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16 44 February 17, 2009 associated with the review and implementation of the Sensitive Lands protection program. She indicated that staff expected a fuller discussion of the last two components in the periodic review process. Mayor Hoffman complimented Ms. Papaefthimiou on the impressive report she complied in 48 hours or less. Ms. Papaefthimiou gave a PowerPoint presentation. She began with an overview of how the current sensitive lands program worked (p.82) in identifying whether a development project affected a mapped resource, delineating the resource, minimizing/mitigating the impact, and recording the map. She confirmed to Councilor Jordan that recording the map guaranteed that the landowner would not need to make another delineation in the future, even if the resource changed over time. She said that the owner could apply to re-delineate the resource, such as wetlands that changed over time. She gave another example of once the landowner delineated 50% of a tree grove, he/she was committed to that square footage --the City could not ask the owner to make the delineation larger but neither could the owner ask the City to make it smaller. She showed a graphic of Lake Oswego's Sensitive Lands map. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the fieldwork for the map was done in 1993 and 1994 but the map and code were not adopted until 1998. She explained to Councilor Olson that this was the base map from which staff worked, and would continue to work until they made the changes. She indicated to Councilor Hennagin that the water resources depicted on the map did not include the buffers. She said that that was a proposed code change because people found that confusing. She described how the stream buffers were measured. She reviewed the criteria for selecting which 50% of a tree grove would be preserved. She compared the Lake Oswego Sensitive Lands code to Metro Titles 3 and 13 (p.88). She explained that Lake Oswego's code protected both water quality and wildlife habitat, while Metro had Title 3 for water quality and Title 13 for wildlife habitat. She indicated that after discussions with Metro staff, they believed that Lake Oswego could substantially comply with the Metro Title 3 standard by making minor changes to its own code; the City would not need to adopt Metro's model ordinance. She explained that compliance with Title 13 differed from compliance with Title 3 in that a jurisdiction could have any comparable program that achieved the same performance objectives as Title 13, or adopt the model ordinance. She mentioned that a jurisdiction had to first comply with Title 3 before it could comply with Title 13. She speculated that once Lake Oswego complied with Title 3, the City would look to its own habitat protection programs to meet Title 13. She pointed out that Metro had broad protection for water resource buffers, while Lake Oswego had more flexible protections. On the other hand, Lake Oswego had far stronger tree grove protections than Metro did. She indicated that while the Lake Oswego code allowed low impact development approaches, it did not currently have the incentives that the Metro Code did to encourage their use. She described Metro's two review tracks, a clear and objective standard that almost anyone could meet through a non-discretionary process, or a more flexible approach that achieved the same level of habitat protection. She noted that Lake Oswego had only one review track. She indicated to Councilor Tierney that the objective standards in Lake Oswego's program included elements such as the 25 to 35 foot setbacks for stream buffers. Discretionary elements included balancing the eight criteria for tree grove protection. She mentioned that the Lake Oswego code had detailed development standards, which the Metro code did not. On the other hand, the Metro code had detailed mitigation requirements, which the Lake Oswego did not. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16 February 17, 2009 45 Councilor Jordan asked why Lake Oswego chose the path of detailed development standards over Metro's broader standard of`avoid, minimize, mitigate, and using best practices.' Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated that it was a reflection of how the Lake Oswego code developed historically. She pointed out that Lake Oswego put its Sensitive Lands program in place before Metro Titles 3 and 13; it developed its own model based on its regulation of development in other zones. Mayor Hoffman recalled that Metro went with the broad standard because it had region-wide applicability and was performance-based. Ms. Frisbee suggested re-visiting the different approaches during the policy discussion component. Ms. Papaefthimiou reviewed the minimum changes required for the Lake Oswego code to comply substantially with Metro Title 3 (pp.89-90). She noted that staff developed these in consultation with Metro staff, and that the Metro Council would have the final say. She confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that based on her understanding of the discussions with Metro staff, if Lake Oswego submitted these changes, its code would likely come into compliance with Title 3, which would turn into compliance with Title 13. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Mayor Hoffman that while there were some discrepancies between Lake Oswego's maps and Metro's maps, she thought any issues could be resolved without making changes to Lake Oswego's maps because Lake Oswego's map were most likely correct. However, they needed to reach an understanding with Metro about that. She commented that they could then comply with Title 13 without any code changes, but staff would need to present the City's program to Metro. She reviewed the housekeeping changes (pp.90-94). She explained that none of these changes would change how the City did things in the office, as they represented current practice and interpretations. She mentioned that one item that engendered a lot of discussion at the Planning Commission was the change to adjust the review area to match the regulated area. She passed on the Planning Commission's strong request that the City give people back their money if someone had to apply to correct a map error, and it turned out to be a true map error on the City's part. She clarified to Councilor Olson that the current code stipulated a review of development within the mapped resource area or within 25 feet of the resource area. The Planning Commission re- wrote the item to eliminate the number (since many stream buffers were 30 feet wide) and to regulate within the mapped resource and its buffer. That way, if the buffer changed, so did the reference. She explained to Councilor Hennagin that the reason why a stream buffer could count as a tree grove was that protected tree groves often stood adjacent to a stream. Since an applicant had to protect a riparian buffer along the stream, and protect 50% of the tree grove, staff's approach has been to count the riparian buffer towards the 50% of the tree grove, as long as the buffer had trees in it. She mentioned the wording clarification regarding building straight up on the existing foundation of a legal conforming house. She noted the clear and objective wildlife friendly fence standard for a four-foot tall fence with a foot at the bottom passable to all animals. She observed that there were many ways to design wildlife friendly fences, and therefore, the code also allowed any other design approved by the City Manager. She clarified to Councilor Moncrieff that a wildlife friendly fence would be in the protected portion of a tree grove or within the riparian buffer. Fences at the property edge were not regulated by the Sensitive Lands code. Councilor Johnson indicated to Councilor Jordan that one could build whatever kind of fence one wanted, as long as it was not on sensitive lands. Once the fence went onto the sensitive lands, then it had to be wildlife friendly. Ms. Papaefthimiou commented that the intent of wildlife City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16 46 February 17, 2009 ..................................................... friendly fences was not to provide wildlife passage but rather to keep wildlife from being trapped in people's yards, thus avoiding unfortunate confrontations between skunks and dogs. Councilor Hennagin expressed concern regarding the item "development should not alter drainage in any harmful way." He asked who would define what was harmful and not harmful. lbs. Papaefthimiou indicated that the City already had a drainage standard in place that substantially used the common law meaning. A development could not concentrate the flow across adjacent property such that it would cause erosion. Mr. Powell pointed out that the code language did not use the word `harmful' but rather said `to not adversely impact the functions and values of the resource.' lbs. Papaefthimiou indicated to Councilor Tierney that the language in (C) on p. 124 regarding trams accessing Oswego Lake was left over from when staff had thought it might create a new overlay district for the Willamette River and need to address transit. They were not going to do that now. Councilor Jordan asked how decks could be considered in the same way as patios, since a deck on stilts would not damage the buffer area the way a patio would. lbs. Papaefthimiou explained that staff followed an avoid, minimize, and mitigate standard. They first tried to avoid impacting the resource area at all with a deck or patio. If there were no other place on a constrained site to put a deck or patio, a deck (permeable) was less impactful than a patio (impermeable) for water quality. However, a deck still took the land under it out of play in terms of wildlife habitat value. Councilor Jordan noted that (f) existing landscaping on p. 131 should read `altered or modified,' and not 'be modified.' The Council discussed extensively the change on p. 93 "to remove the word 'new' from the requirement that "new structures, parking areas, active use recreational facilities, streets and driveways shall be set back at least 10 feet from an RP district buffer." This means that both new and remodeled structures should be set back 10 feet (e.g., primary structures within 10 feet of the resource buffer are nonconforming). Councilor Olson asked if `remodeled structures' meant that an addition to a house had to be set back 10 feet. Ms. Papaefthimiou explained that the intent was to clarify misunderstandings about what was non-conforming and what was conforming with respect to the setback and the construction setback. She referenced the code language for Section 13(a)(1) on p. 134. She noted that interior remodeling did not fall under review for the sensitive lands code. Councilor Jordan described the buffer as referring to where one could build a structure and the construction buffer as referring to how much room one had to protect while building the structure. lbs. Papaefthimiou clarified to Councilor Johnson that a building already existing in a sensitive lands area, while a legal use that could be maintained in perpetuity, was also a non-conforming one. If a non-conforming use were destroyed and rebuilt, it would have to come into conformance at that time. She confirmed to Councilor Jordan that the building would have to be built somewhere else, or the owner could apply for buffer averaging or re-locating the 50% of the tree grove. She confirmed to Councilor Olson that the Infill Task Force was discussing the issue of non- conforming uses (p.88). She said that she expected a recommendation to come forward proposing something provided for in the Metro model code. If a house were destroyed by a natural disaster or something beyond the owner's control, then the owner can rebuild on the same footprint, even for a non-conforming use. She confirmed that this code language did not include that compassionate clause. She noted that it would be a policy change, and something to consider as well for houses that were non- conforming to setbacks other than the sensitive lands setbacks. She indicated to Councilor Tierney that the Planning Commission has not considered this issue when looking at policy issues City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16 February 17, 2009 47 because the Infill Committee has not yet put forward the recommendation, but staff would bring it to the Planning Commission at that time. She indicated to Councilor Olson that taking out the word `new' was not making policy because the change reflected the current practices of the City. 'New' was misleading because other sections of the code already said that the structure was non-conforming. Mr. Powell clarified that staff has interpreted 'new structure' to mean 'new construction' as opposed to a wholly new structure. He indicated that codifying staff practice met the definition of `policy neutral' in terms of housekeeping changes. However, since it has been a staff interpretation, the Council could take it up during the policy component. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed to Councilor Jordan that this did not change what happened now if a non-conforming house burned down and the owners wanted to replace the house on the exact same footprint. Mr. Powell pointed out that the code was clear about that. The interpretation issue focused on whether the construction buffer and the RP district buffer including expanding existing buildings or wholly new buildings. Mr. Powell explained that the code used attrition to bring non-conforming uses into compliance with the current code. If a non-conforming structure was destroyed, then the wholly new structure should comply with the code. He pointed out that allowing instances where a non-conforming use was rebuilt as non-conforming meant that non-conforming uses would never go away. However, that was a policy choice. Councilor Olson commented that she preferred to take this item out of the housekeeping changes. Councilor Jordan asked how many homes would be severely impacted if the owners were not able to rebuild on the property. Ms. Papaefthimiou said that her best estimate from CIS was that there were 31 lots in Lake Oswego completely covered by a resource area. She noted the special code section guaranteeing that any legal lot had the right for a reasonably sized single family home. All other affected lots presumably had a building footprint outside the resource area. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Mayor Hoffman that staff proposed this as a housekeeping change because it was current staff practice and reflected the interpretation of the code as a whole. She explained that they called out the use of the word 'new' because they felt it was misleading and did not follow with other sections of the code. She emphasized that this was simply a correction to make the code clearer. Mayor Hoffman noted that although this might shortly change, for right now this provision applied to both new structures and remodeled structures. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that there were other places in the code where the use of the word 'new' was contradictory to other parts of the code. She reiterated that the code as a whole said that existing uses not in compliance with the current code were non- conforming. The word 'new' was misleading and contrary to the larger body of the code. It should be deleted for clarity and internal consistency. She confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the issue Councilor Olson raised dealt with remodels on the existing footprint, and not with new structures. Ms. Papaefthimiou commented that the housekeeping changes for the construction standards addressed construction practices, such as protection fences and managing the drainage during construction. She reviewed the three substantive changes to the graphics. She spoke of the importance of providing more realistic images that were to scale. She mentioned the proposed definition of `steep' (with respect to `steep slopes') as 25%, a common definition used in the region. She noted the proposal to change the method for measuring the top of a bank that was filled from estimating where it was historically to simply measuring it from where the top now existed, unless City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16 48 February 17, 2009 ... . ........... there was evidence of a code violation. A new graphic showed how to find the top of a bank around a culvert, which was not currently addressed in the code. She explained that the two text changes related to the graphics changes stated that the buffer would be shown in the Sensitive Lands Atlas in order to give landowners a better picture of what land was affected by the code. She indicated that the last group of housekeeping changes proposed to simplify the review process for property owners repairing or replacing existing legal structures by taking these projects out of the Sensitive Lands review process. The changes also exempted projects falling under the definition of development that did not involve new structures or removing plants. Councilor Hennagin asked how staff distinguished between replacing something on a resource- protected site and something that could not be done under the previous section that the Council discussed. lbs. Papaefthimiou explained that most of the exempted projects did not require a building permit, and they met the code definition of `exempt development.' Ms. Papaefthimiou noted that the changes to made it easier to do resource enhancement or restoration projects and interpretative designs in natural areas. She indicated to Councilor Jordan that staff was combining the existing native plant list and negative plant list into one list. Councilor Hennagin asked staff to provide (during policy discussions) a simple explanation of the differences between the Metro approach and the Lake Oswego approach. Councilor Tierney recalled that one of the challenges was to improve citizen service in the Community Development Department. He asked if these changes brought the City closer to providing the quality of service that staff was striving for. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated that while it did not get staff all the way there, the housekeeping changes were a step in the right direction. The changes did tell people what staff was actually doing and provided for consistent staff answers in the future. Ms. Frisbee acknowledged Councilor Tierney's point that the code was technical and complicated material to begin with, something difficult to streamline. She commented that moving to GIS overlays that people could click on to see where the sensitive lands delineation lines were would help. She indicated that staff was not ready to do that yet, but they were looking forward to doing so. Councilor Jordan commented that she saw a misunderstanding and confusion in the community about sensitive lands. She speculated that people had not realized in 1998 how much the newly adopted maps affected them. This latest round has raised citizen awareness about the impact of sensitive lands designations, which might be why the City was receiving more public input today than it did in 1998. She noted that the designation of sensitive lands was also part of the urban/rural reserves process. She held that the only way to prevent development impacts on sensitive lands in the future was to identify those lands before development took place. Adopting these changes would help prevent future confusion by property owners. She pointed out that there was the legal thing to be done, the right thing to be done in protecting the resources, and the political reality of dealing with people's private property. She observed that this work looked at the situation from a code sense, as opposed to what happened to individuals personally. She commented that even with a process allowing rebuilding on lots completely covered by a resource, it was still a difficult process for property owners to go through. Ms. Frisbee indicated that the goal for staff was to minimize surprises and to give clear notice. She concurred that it was difficult for an individual to understand the impacts unless he/she sat down with staff to talk about it. She mentioned that once people understood why the City was City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16 February 17, 2009 49 asking for an adjustment, most were happy to make the adjustment. She said that staff was also willing to work out trade offs with people willing to do resource enhancement. She spoke of the importance of staff continuing the kind of customer service that Ms. Papaefthimiou has been providing on an individual basis with property owners in working with them to understand the overall benefit. She mentioned being as flexible as they could be, while remaining true to the goal of protecting sensitive lands through the application of the code. She agreed that the process would never be easy. She emphasized staffs intent to make it work as well as it could. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the system allowing a citizen to type in his/her address and see the sensitive lands was already up on the website. She recalled the Council question raised at the last study session regarding why staff mapped the lands in the City's urban services boundary (USB) that were not within the city limits, when the City could not regulate development outside the city. She explained that the Comprehensive Plan required the mapping because the City was supposed to have a plan for all the area within its USB. She said that the work to complete the mapping process supported the 'no surprises' idea, in that people considering annexing to the city could know what their options were with respect to the City regulating sensitive lands on their property. She presented a map showing the existing sensitive lands resources and a draft map showing potential additions to the Sensitive Lands Inventory. She indicated to Councilor Olson that the gold highlighted resources that did not achieve a significant habitat assessment score, such as the ponds on the golf course. She noted that the consultant had looked for wildlife habitat and water quality functions. She indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that this map was on the Planning Department page of the City website. She confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that she listed all the resources within the USB because the Comprehensive Plan required the listing of any zone and overlay. She noted that there were many areas that could be added in Birdshill and several in Skylands. She mentioned that even though resources in the open space tracts of planned developments could not be developed, she added them to the map for consistency. She explained to Mayor Hoffman that many resources in Lake Forest were not mapped because the consultant found that the understory of the trees was developed with lawn and landscape-type plants, which did not provide significant wildlife habitat. Councilor Jordan commented that one reason why the previous Council thought it was a good idea to map the resources outside the city limits was piecemeal annexations. She recalled an annexation involving a tree grove that was part of a larger tree grove that remained outside of the city limits even today. She pointed out that it did not do any good to identify a tree grove or important resources if they could not maintain continuity in the resource. Ms. Papaefthimiou explained to Mayor Hoffman that the lake was not a wildlife resource because it was a manmade lake, and Metro did not require protection of manmade lakes and reservoirs. She acknowledged that fish lived in the lake and the lake provided some water quality functions, yet it was already developed (usually with lawn) right down to the edge of the water. She said that the code was oriented to protecting existing resources but it did not try to put things back that were already developed. She confirmed to Mayor Hoffman that the consultant visited the proposed RC resource tree groves to perform habitat assessments. She described the process they used to obtain permission from property owners to go on their property (which not everyone gave). She discussed the map update process staff went through, including collecting data in the city and the USB, publishing draft maps, and holding open houses. She indicated that staff was moving forward with the energy, social, environment, and economic (ESEE) analysis. She said that the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16 50 February 17, 2009 .. ..... ....................... next step was staff recommendations on map changes, which it would bring forward to the Planning Commission and the Council in the spring. Mayor Hoffman commented that staff had to balance the ESEE analysis with the wildlife habitat assessments. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed that if staff decided that the economic benefit outweighed the wildlife habitat benefit, then it could recommend excluding the property from the inventory. She noted that part of the ESEE analysis was showing that the City was treating like properties alike. If the City has already protected many lots zoned single family, it would have to show how a single-family lot was different from those other lots in order to remove it from the inventory. She indicated to Councilor Hennagin that property taxes paid to the City for a large house were an economic benefit that staff would consider, along with the property value to the property owners. She commented that the result of the balancing was that the code neither totally prohibited development nor totally gave up the environmental protections. She noted that the usual result of an ESEE analysis was that everybody got a little bit. She clarified to Councilor Olson that staff asked for an ESEE analysis only on properties proposed to be added to the inventory, but not for properties already on the map. She confirmed that in a situation where someone had a small house on a totally encumbered lot and he/she wanted to subdivide and build two houses as their retirement, staff could propose reanalyzing the lot. Councilor Tierney spoke to the City purchasing the 31 totally encumbered lots in order to preserve the resource, instead of losing half of it to development. Ms. Papaefthimiou confirmed to Councilor Jordan that the ESEE analysis done in 1998 looked at properties from the perspective of their potential development within the adopted zone. She presented the staff recommendations contained in the work plan. Staff would move forward with the current code updates and the ones that the Planning Commission was working on now. Following that, staff would move on to the mapping update. She said that she hoped to finish the housekeeping changes and updates before Periodic Review began in earnest in the fall. She confirmed to Councilor Jordan that staff would add the buffers to the map on the website. She indicated to Mayor Hoffman that following the Council decision on Ordinance 2527 in March, the Council would next consider the policy clarification recommendations made by the Planning Commission. Staff would bring the map changes forward this summer. She clarified to the Mayor that the maps right now were good enough for compliance with Metro Titles 3 and 13. She confirmed that she would present a report to Council of what she would present to Metro. She indicated that her report would include the resource conservation overlays for tree groves, the tree code, the City's natural area parks, natural area restorations, and Clean Streams. Councilor Olson asked why the maps could not go forward at the same time as the Planning Commission was working on the policy questions. Ms. Papaefthimiou said that the housekeeping changes coming out of the March public hearing could potentially change the maps, in that staff was adding water quality as a purpose, which would add perennial streams. Councilor Olson questioned whether a housekeeping change that changed the actual definition of a stream was merely a housekeeping change. Ms. Papaefthimiou explained that housekeeping changes meant clarifications to the existing policy. She noted that there were changes to simplify review, to make graphics more understandable, and to comply with Title 3. This was a change to comply with Title 3. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Councilor Johnson that all the perennial streams were included on the draft maps published to the website. She pointed out that if they did not move forward with City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 15 February 17, 2009 51 .......................................................................................................................... a code change intended to comply with Title 3, then that would change staff's approach on the map updates. She said that staff has been assuming that that would not happen. Ms. Frisbee commented that this was also a staff resource issue because the mapping would require community engagement plus staff involvement. She noted that the same was true of the policy changes, which would surface during the periodic review community engagement phase. She said that staff proposed sequencing the processes this way, but it was open for discussion. Ms. Papaefthimiou pointed out that this was a big deal to the people potentially impacted by the map update, and they deserved the staff time and resources to do site visits and make a fair and specific consideration of their individual property. She commented that with the housekeeping changes, staff was looking at the big picture and engaging people already interested in environmental issues. She observed that those two groups did not participate well in the same process because one group was interested in specific properties, and the other group was not. Councilor Jordan concurred with Ms. Papaefthimiou's comment about handling a general policy question versus an individual situation, noting that it also showed up in the tiered water rate discussion. She asked staff to create a direct link to the sensitive lands maps on the front page of the City's website. Councilor Johnson mentioned a concern regarding waiting on the maps. People would not know that their lot was under consideration. If they had known, they would have been more active in the process. Ms. Papaefthimiou said that the Planning Commission shared that concern, and held an open house in December specifically for those potentially affected by the map updates. She mentioned the second open house held in January, open to all owners of sensitive lands and those with proposed sensitive lands to provide input on the code changes. She indicated to Councilor Johnson that all that information was on the website and available to the citizens. Ms. Frisbee mentioned that staff would continue to do targeted outreach to the affected property owners. Councilor Olson confirmed that one of the Planning Commission's biggest concerns had been a citizen not knowing that his/her property might be put on the map, and, therefore, he/she did not testify before the Commission or the Council. Ms. Papaefthimiou indicated to Councilor Olson that staff has included the owners of properties with perennial streams in the process since 2003. She said that staff has sent two letters to property owners with potential sensitive lands specifically notifying them that their land was under consideration. Councilor Hennagin asked what kind of attendance staff got at the open houses after doing targeted mailings. Ms. Papaefthimiou said that 20 people came to the December open house and 40 to 45 came to the January open house. Mr. Powell pointed out that property owners of potential RC/RP areas outside the city limits could attend the hearings about the designation, and they had 15 days after annexation to give notice of a challenge to that designation. 12. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:53 p.m. APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Respectfully submitted, ON e-satm__ t), Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Robyn hristie l City Recorder City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 52 February 17, 2009 .... ............................................................................................................................................ '...ON I-AKE Os* AO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES sie .................. February 19, 2009 OREGOS Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. on February 19, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Jordan, Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson. Staff Present:Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Brant Williams, Director of Economic and Capital Development; Bob Galante, Redevelopment Director 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Facilities and West End Building Decision— Next Steps Mayor Hoffman noted that the decision trees presented by Mr. Williams represented hundreds of hours of staff work but not an endgame. The endgame was up to the Council to decide, in consideration of the previously obtained community input. He indicated that he expected to get a sense of the group through the nodding of heads. He spoke to thinking about both the short-term and the long-term impacts as the Council went through the decision-making process. He pointed out that, in addition to the financial aspect, the decision-making process had a social aspect too, as buildings were part of the social fabric of the community. He described the interconnectedness of individual elements, such as City Hall, the Library, Foothills, or the WEB (vilest End Building), noting that everything had a ripple effect. Mr. Williams recalled that the fundamental question before the Council was whether to keep or to sell the WEB. He stated the process goal as the Council being able to make as informed a decision as possible, and one which the community could support. He referenced the staff summary of the background information collected on the six buildings over the last seven months presented at the February 10 Council study session (West End Building Decision Process report). He indicated that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to review and agree upon the next steps in the decision-making process. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the next steps developed by staff were not necessarily the correct steps or the only steps. Councilors were free to add steps throughout this review. Mr. Williams reviewed the nine next steps identified by staff and listed on p. 27 of the WEB Decision Process report, presented to the Council at the February 10 study session. He noted that, while each step was important, the Council would need to prioritize them because staff could not take them on all at one time. He indicated that the first six were the key to moving forward with a decision making process. Councilor Tierney spoke to formulating guiding principles to use as a litmus test for any decision the Council made. He argued that a consensus on the Council regarding certain principles could help eliminate options and drive the decision-making. He suggested a guiding principle of "government belongs in the downtown." He described Mayor Hoffman's suggestion to consider both the long term and short-term effects as another guiding principle. He mentioned public engagement and public acceptance of the plan as other guiding principles. He indicated his preference that the Council take only one decision back to the community, but no more than three options. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 10 February 19, 2009 53 .. ................................................... Councilor Hennagin stated that he disagreed that the City civic center be in one commercial district as opposed to another commercial district. He commented that City Hall has been downtown for 50 years. He wondered whether, it should be in the west side commercial district for the next 50 years. He agreed with Councilor Tierney that they could discuss the concept, and that reaching some agreement on it might be beneficial. Councilor Olson concurred. Councilor Jordan agreed that discussing concepts on which the Council had some consensus was a good idea. She compared this issue to a Rubic's Cube: she has been pushing the pieces around for two years and still was not certain she could solve the puzzle. She mentioned the siting issue of where to put police services. Should they locate police within City Hall or in a separate building? Councilor Tierney concurred that deciding which facilities were in the discussion would bring some clarity. Councilor Jordan mentioned her preference for bringing at the most two options (with their price tags) to the community. She commented that, while the Council has learned that just because someone said that he/she wanted an option did not mean that he/she was willing to pay for it right now, the public acceptance of one option over the other would give the Council an idea of which option to go for. Councilor Johnson proposed discussing how many options the Council wanted to have at the end of the process. She referenced her e-mail stating her preference for one option, two at the most. Councilor Hennagin recalled a suggestion from a few years ago about putting the Library on the Safeway block. He mentioned a possible combination of the Library and City Hall by locating the Library in the brick building next door to City Hall. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he was not comfortable setting a number of options at this time. He mentioned that he preferred going out with three or four options. Councilor Olson indicated that she preferred one option on which the Council could agree and two at the most. Councilor Johnson commented that a single option could be amended as the Council heard from the public. She held that they needed to have only one option in order for it to be workable and efficient in getting to an end of the process. Councilor Jordan discussed deciding the priorities with respect to the buildings first, as that would make it easier for the Council to have fewer options to take out to the public. Councilor Hennagin indicated that he was undecided. Mayor Hoffman noted that the majority of the Council was comfortable with one or two options as a guiding principle. Councilor Tierney suggested discussing Councilor Jordan's point about deciding what buildings were in the discussion, and where to locate police services. He spoke to talking only about the WEB and City Hall. Councilor Hennagin questioned leaving the ACC and the Library out of the discussion. Councilor Moncrieff concurred that they did not need a full facilities discussion and that they could concentrate on the WEB. She noted the Council goal to develop a facilities maintenance plan, into which the other facilities could fall within a priority order established by the Council. Councilor Olson argued that the Safeco property complicated the facilities discussion. She pointed out that the City would still have to deal with the existing facilities issues, whether or not it owned the building. She suggested leaving it out of the discussion. She noted that the City could lease office space to relocate City Hall temporarily at a cheaper rate than it would cost to remodel the WEB to house City Hall. She contended that it would be beneficial to consider making some of these decisions without the WEB in the equation. Councilor Jordan commented that, while she understood Councilor Olson's point, the WEB was what started the whole facilities discussion in the first place. They could not ignore a property that a previous Council purchased as a long-term investment for the community as a way to provide additional community service space. She acknowledged that the City might never use it but rather City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 10 February 19, 2009 54 do something creative with it. She emphasized the importance of recognizing that it was a facility that the City owned, and that the Council had to address. She recalled that the community center study left 44,000 square feet empty at the WEB for the Library. She argued that if they did not include the Library in a discussion of facility needs, then they would be missing one of the key components that have been a facilities requirement for a long time. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that this was the WEB decision process, and therefore, they needed to consider the WEB. He mentioned Mr. McIntyre's admonition to the Council that it had to deal with this building that the City owned, as it was costing the City money. He spoke to discussing the WEB, City Hall, and the Library, as the need to increase Library space had been a driving reason behind the previous Council's purchase of the WEB. Councilor Johnson held that a crucial part of this discussion was looking at the facilities within the larger context of community needs. She indicated that she was comfortable discussing each facility and its needs individually (outside of the WEB) and then looking at how meeting those needs would fit into the overall plan, including the WEB. Councilor Moncrieff recalled that the reason that the WEB was purchased was that over a decade ago, City leaders and citizens decided that Lake Oswego needed a community recreation center. She held that that was the best use for the building. She spoke to taking a long-term visionary view with respect to City facilities, and asking questions such as, just because City Hall could fit into the WEB, was that the best place for City Hall? She held that they should not rush to fill the WEB with other needs simply because it had available space. Councilor Olson commented that that consideration was part of her point that because the WEB was sitting there, everything defaulted to it. She disagreed on its use as a community center, based on only 17% of the Hibbetts Davis focus groups wanting a community center. She stated that she was not saying that they should not talk about the WEB, given that the Council had a huge financial burden looming because of it. She spoke to looking for creative approaches to dealing with the facilities issues that went outside the box of the WEB. Councilor Hennagin held that he had an obligation as an elected official to look at all the options in order to determine which would be the most cost effective and efficient. He pointed out that, even if they looked at each facility individually, the Safeco building would always be the elephant in the room. He noted the possibility of selling the ACC, and the ACC, the Library, and Parks & Recreation sharing activity rooms and space at the WEB. Councilor Olson noted that there were strong majority opinions supporting keeping the ACC downtown. Mayor Hoffman returned the discussion to guiding principles, as opposed to options. Councilor Johnson suggested that another guiding principle be that the Council look at all six facilities, and decide in the one plan whether to address them. Councilor Tierney reiterated that they needed to focus on a limited number of buildings in order to reach a conclusion on this complex issue. He spoke to focusing on the inter-related buildings. He indicated that he was comfortable with including the Library, but that he saw no reason to include the South Shore Fire Station or the Maintenance Services Building, as they were tangential to the task. Councilor Johnson asked what the task was: to look at all the facilities and decide on a master plan, or to figure out what to do with the WEB, City Hall, the Library, and the ACC? Councilor Tierney said that the Council goal was to deal with the WEB. Councilor Jordan suggested discussing the priorities within the facilities list in order to decide which ones were important for right now. The Council could build a package around the priorities and then deal with the lower priority ones later. She held that all six facilities merited attention within the next two years, but they did need to designate which ones should have the initial focus. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 10 February 19, 2009 55 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Mayor Hoffman agreed that they should discuss all the facilities. Councilor Olson concurred, but acknowledged Councilor Tierney's point that the Council would have a hard time focusing and getting to a decision point. Councilor Hennagin agreed with Councilor Tierney that they should focus the discussion on the WEB, City Hall, the Library, and the ACC first. He hoped that they could get to the fire station and the maintenance building later on, as they also needed attention. Councilor Johnson clarified that she wanted all the buildings in the discussion, but not necessarily in the plan. Mr. Williams recommended keeping all the facilities on the table. He pointed out that, while the Council was not likely to discuss the fire station or the maintenance building very much, it might want to factor some of those buildings' needs into a bond measure or implementation strategy. Mayor Hoffman summarized the second guiding principle as the Council would discuss all the facilities at some level. Councilor Jordan commented that, while a decision about where to site a temporary City Hall was way down the road, she was not willing to concede that it would be cheaper to lease space around town than to place the staff in one facility that the City already owned. She mentioned a possibility of moving the Library to the WEB and City Hall to the Library; if they held only City Council meetings and hearings at the WEB, then they would not need to make temporary office renovations to the WEB. She observed that they clearly needed to make a decision about City Hall, and keep all the options on the table. Mayor Hoffman spoke in support of Councilor Olson's suggestion to be creative. Councilor Johnson suggested 'be creative' as a guiding principle. Mayor Hoffman indicated that they would set aside the guiding principle 'city government buildings belonged in the downtown area' in light of Councilor Hennagin's strong reaction to it. He commented that he did not want a guiding principle with a majority in favor and a strong minority opposed. He pointed out that it would come up during the decision making process anyway. Councilor Olson pointed out that if the Council did agree on that as a guiding principle, then it could dismiss the discussion of having City Hall at the WEB. Mayor Hoffman indicated that he was not comfortable making a decision on such a complicated concept right now. Councilor Jordan mentioned including private/public partnerships in the 'be creative' guiding principle. She suggested a guiding principle of making a decision on how to finance the options. Mr. McIntyre commented that, while a discussion on guiding principles was valuable, staff was ill- prepared to participate, as they based the presentation tonight on last week's meeting and the past six months of work. He suggested bringing a facilitator to help the Council work through the guiding principles, as it was a thoughtful and time-consuming process. He reviewed the question before the Council tonight: should the City keep the WEB? He commented that, while the previous Council might have purchased the WEB for a community center, that idea has gone away, and the City was left owning the building. He explained that the staff analysis showed opportunities for the Council to consider on how to integrate the WEB into the City's facilities needs. He pointed out that those facility needs were very real and occurring all at once. Mayor Hoffman concurred that the guiding principles discussion was premature. Councilor Tierney disagreed. He held that it was late, as identifying the underlying value statements that all Council members shared would help facilitate decision-making. He stated that he was comfortable with whatever decision the Council made, but pointed out that the decision trees would raise questions regarding guiding principles. Mr. Williams mentioned his expectation that the Council would not have much consensus on the different branches on the decision trees. He described the work tonight as testing the waters with the decision trees to see what principles came out. Afterwards, they could revisit the guiding City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 10 56 February 19, 2009 ....................................................... principles and have solid discussions on them. Councilor Olson concurred that discussing the steps in the decision trees would help the Council define its guiding principles. Mayor Hoffman returned the discussion to the possible next steps. He noted that he did not hear anyone saying that they needed any other steps than those listed, or that these were not the correct steps. Mr. Williams concurred with Councilor Jordan that the steps were not in sequential order, but pointed out that they could revisit any of the earlier steps in this general order while discussing a later step. Councilor Johnson suggested moving directly to the decision trees (Step 4) to see where people were at on the various options, even without reaching a financial decision. • Step 1 Mayor Hoffman noted that Councilor Jordan answered 'yes' to the first step: there were other facilities options that needed to be considered. Councilor Jordan mentioned her earlier suggestion of moving the Library to the WEB and moving City Hall temporarily to the Library building. Councilor Moncrieff recalled an earlier suggestion to combine Parks & Recreation, Library, and ACC functions at the WEB. Mr. Williams cautioned the Council regarding proposing other facilities options. He pointed out that there were an infinite number of possible configurations, but if there were some that the Council thought were viable, then staff wanted to put them on the table. Councilor Jordan commented that there were other political options possible as well, such as a joint aquatic center with West Linn. She noted that Mountain Park was renewing its Recreation Center, and therefore might not support a pool, although that area was very supportive of the Library. ■ Step 2 Mr. Williams continued to answer questions raised by the Council last week. He indicated that staff estimated a $49 million cost for Councilor Moncrieff's suggestion to repair City Hall, to add a new main Library to the City functions already at the WEB, to build a new police/9-1-1 center on the WEB site, and to sell the Library property. He said that staff would proceed with hiring a consultant to provide updated City Hall cost estimates in order to answer the question of whether it really was cheaper to replace the building than to repair it. Councilor Hennagin disagreed, arguing that any new estimate would not be substantially different enough to justify the cost of the consultant. Mayor Hoffman acknowledged his point, but said that, given the public skepticism over a 23-year-old building being obsolete, he would feel more comfortable with a peer review of the SERA Architects' work. Councilor Tierney concurred with Councilor Hennagin that hiring another consultant was not the best use of City resources at this stage. Mr. Williams said that he could get a cost estimate for doing a peer review of the SERA report, which he assumed would be much less than $20,000. Councilor Jordan concurred with getting a cost estimate for the peer review. Mr. Williams indicated that Police Chief Duncan and the LOCOM facility manager should have the citizen-requested analysis of contracting out 9-1-1 dispatch to Clackamas County completed in two weeks. He mentioned that contracting out the service had both cost implications and service level implications, as Clackamas County did not offer all the services that LOCOM did. The Council discussed whether staff should proceed with this analysis. Councilor Olson pointed out that the Council members agreed that providing the 9-1-1 service was more important than whatever the cost savings might be. Councilor Jordan recalled that seismic concerns about City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 10 February 19, 2009 57 .................................................................... emergency services facilities were behind the request. Councilor Tierney described it as a question of benefits versus costs. Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Tierney, Hennagin, and Moncrieff supported staff finishing the report, while Councilors Johnson, Olson, and Jordan did not think it necessary. Mr. Williams commented that he thought that the information would be helpful in responding to citizens. Mr. Williams presented a corrected list of City-owned properties based on Councilor Olson's identification of several properties not listed in Exhibit R. He said that he would work with Ms. Gilmer to make sure that all City parks and open spaces were on the list. He presented a corrected list of funding options. He explained that he added on tax increment funding because it would be a good funding source for civic buildings located in the downtown redevelopment area. He noted that they needed to schedule the Council tour of City facilities. He directed the Council to the sheet providing answers to additional questions asked by Council members. He did not recommend including the interest costs on bonds sold and the line of credit in the estimated costs of purchasing the WEB because the time value of the money and the tax- exempt interest costs for GO bonds almost cancelled each other out. Mayor Hoffman concurred. Mr. Williams indicated that the Wells Fargo Bank line of credit came due this July. He said that Wells Fargo was interested in reissuing the line of credit with renegotiations. Mr. McIntyre explained to Councilor Olson that the loan collateral was not the WEB but rather the City's good faith and credit. Mr. Williams cited the work done for the community center planning effort in stating that the Library and Parks & Recreation could have some joint usage of meeting rooms, although their programs both tended to occur in the evenings. He concurred with Councilor Hennagin that the ACC would use those rooms during the day. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that there was not a good answer to the question of how low the City reserve funds could go before jeopardizing the City's AAA bond rating. He explained that the rating depended on a number of factors, of which the reserve fund balance was only one. However, if the City started dipping into its reserves, staff would wonder how the bond raters would respond to that action. He noted that, while the ACC property could address some of the Library's space needs, they would have to adjust the services provided at the ACC in order to do so because the ACC was currently used to its capacity. The ACC itself would most likely use any extra space on site, and the Library preferred to keep all its services under one roof, although it could always use extra collection storage space. He indicated the City could purchase or lease the new office building right across the street from City Hall to help address space needs at City Hall. He said that about half the building was still unleased. He pointed out that, while leasing office space in the city would address the overcrowding issues, it would not deal with the fundamental problems of City Hall. He said that staff has not spent much time looking at whether partnering with the School District on common functions could help address the deficiencies with the City's maintenance yard. He indicated that the City already partnered with the School District on a number of maintenance functions and shared a fueling system. Also, the District's maintenance facility sat on a constrained site behind the Lake Grove Elementary School. He indicated to Councilor Jordan that staff could look into the costs of upgrading the WEB kitchen to provide the meal preparation services currently handled at the ACC. Councilor Hennagin asked staff to research whether tax increment funding would reduce the cost of facilities to the City if they were able to use tax increment funding to construct the facilities. Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:06 p.m. for a break. He reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 10 58 February 19, 2009 • Step 3 Mr. Williams responded to the question of which facility issues needed to be addressed and which could be eliminated. He reviewed the significant facility issues for each of the six facilities, as presented in detail at the February 10 meeting (West End Building Decision Process staff report). • Step 4 Mr. Williams indicated that he would review the options and public opinion research for each facility individually in terms of how the City might use the WEB to address the significant facility issues (West End Building Decision Process staff report). • City Hall The Council discussed the decision tree for City Hall. Councilor Olson observed that an updated peer review of the SERA report would help with the question of whether to repair or to replace City Hall. Mr. Williams explained that if the Council did not want to address the issues with City Hall (the do nothing option), then staff would take a reactionary approach and deal with the issues as they came up. The Council agreed by consensus that it wanted to address the problems at City Hall. Mr. Williams clarified to Councilor Tierney that the choice to repair City Hall over time as needed intended a more aggressive repair program than has occurred in the past. Councilors Johnson and Jordan said no to repairing the building over time. Councilor Tierney said yes, but commented that it was annoying to have to spend so much money to repair a 23-year-old building. Councilor Olson concurred with Councilor Tierney. Councilor Jordan pointed out that City Hall was not in this condition because staff has neglected it, which was the public perception. Staff has done maintenance on the building over time, but some systems have reached the end of their life cycles and needed replacement. She emphasized that the building problems came from the way the building had been built and the use of the wrong materials. Councilor Tierney commented that one of his guiding principles was if the Council agreed on one option, then that would be the best decision; the best decision would then be sellable to the community because it was sellable to the Council. Mr. Williams mentioned that there was no timeline associated with the City Hall options. Staff conducted regular air quality tests and they were doing fine. They could stay here for another few years. Councilor Johnson spoke to having more discussion of the different options involved in the `repair or replace' fork. She commented that deciding what stayed in City Hall and what left City Hall was an important element in the discussion. Mr. Williams noted that the 'yes' fork of repairing the building had two options: repairing it in its entirety or repairing it over time. Councilor Hennagin spoke in support of doing the repair work all at the same time. Councilor Jordan asked to include another option for the temporary facility needed if they either repaired the building in its entirety or replaced the building. Councilor Olson indicated that, while she could not decide at this time, obtaining accurate cost estimates through the peer review of the SERA report, and Councilor Hennagin's tax increment funding information, could help answer the question. Councilor Jordan pointed out that using tax increment funding would effectively locate City Hall in the downtown because that was the only redevelopment district the City had at this time. Mr. Williams indicated to Councilor Tierney that the current information indicated that it was less expensive to replace City Hall in its entirety on its present site than it was to repair it. Councilor Tierney observed that, from a financial perspective then, replacing City Hall was the better idea. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 10 February 19, 2009 59 Councilor Hennagin indicated that he concurred with Councilor Tierney that replacement was the better option. He pointed out that if they repaired it, they would need to add on to the building in order to address the overcrowding issue. Councilor Olson commented that adding on space depended on whether they left police and the 9-1-1 Center in City Hall; if they moved it out, then other City functions could move into the second floor. Mr. Williams indicated that the space needs analysis found that City Hall was the right size in the long term if police and the 9-1-1 Center moved out. Councilor Jordan agreed that the location of police and the 9-1-1 Center was an essential element in their decision. If they decided to separate it out, then they had to build a Class 4 seismic facility on a different site, and those costs should be included in both the repair and replace estimates. Councilor Hennagin reiterated that he wanted to know whether they could save money by using tax increment funding to keep City Hall in the downtown area, as opposed to relocating it to the WEB. Councilor Jordan questioned whether there was a third site for City Hall, other than downtown or the WEB. Mayor Hoffman mentioned Foothills as a possibility. Councilor Hennagin recalled that the Urban Land Institute recommended looking at sites other than the WEB, such as the Providence Medical Center site, and doing comprehensive planning for that area. Councilor Johnson commented that, for her, determining the location would depend on what made the most financial sense. She said that, while she preferred a downtown location, she was not opposed to moving City Hall out to the WEB if that made the most sense. She asked to see the different financing options. Mayor Hoffman indicated that financial sense was also his primary criterion, but he saw financial sense in terms of financial repercussions. He mentioned a theory of place that hypothesized that when civic buildings left the downtown, that action sent a message to developers and to retail businesses. He cautioned the Council to consider carefully in the decision-making process both the long-term (economic development) and short-term financial costs of moving an important civic building out of the downtown, which was, by definition, the City's commerce and retail center, Councilor Tierney concurred with Mayor Hoffman that the primary driver was what option was the most financially prudent. He commented that, while he preferred a downtown location, his preference should not stand in the way of an intelligent decision. Mr. Williams indicated that staff was looking for general direction, and no commitment because they needed to explore more thoroughly the financial issues. Mr. Williams asked if the general direction from the Council was for a downtown location with some caveats about financial situations. Councilors Olson and Moncrieff each indicated that she agreed with a downtown location. Councilor Hennagin argued that the proposed Foothills development, along with the Wizer block development, could provide sufficient residential support for the downtown economy to render negligible the impact of City Hall employees on the economic vitality of the downtown businesses. He suggested taking a poll of City Hall visitors to see how many used other facilities downtown when they came to City Hall. Mayor Hoffman acknowledged the Councilor's point about multiple visits in the downtown on a trip to City Hall. He argued that there were other issues involved, including the symbolism of the downtown as the center of Lake Oswego, and sending a message to the private sector. He commented that if the City sent the wrong message to the private sector, then there was a danger of returning to a 1980s Lake Oswego, with a falling tax base and assessed values. Councilor Johnson suggested including in the next discussion the option of splitting up City services, and identifying which ones were critical to have in the downtown. She commented that she saw the Library as more of a draw in terms of economic development than some City Hall functions. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 10 60 February 19, 2009 Councilor Olson concurred with Mayor Hoffman's remarks about the heart of the downtown and economic viability. She mentioned a fourth consideration, that a vast majority of Lake Oswego citizens have expressed interest in keeping City Hall in the downtown area. She commented that they could not ignore Lake Grove, and that public safety services were not necessarily needed in the downtown. She spoke to looking at the Mercantile property as a creative option. Councilor Jordan pointed out that the majority of the Lake Oswego population lived on the west side of town. She held that they needed to put some kind of civic function on the west side. She said that she favored leaving downtown City services, such as finance and building permits, or the kinds of things people came from outside of the city to utilize. She agreed that the heart of the business district was the downtown and that they could not forget the other side of town. • Police/9-1-1 Center Mr. Williams reviewed the options for locating police and the 9-1-1 Center. The Council discussed the decision tree. Councilor Johnson spoke in support of locating these functions outside of City Hall, citing the seismic concerns. Councilor Olson concurred. Councilor Hennagin commented that it would make more sense to locate these services more centrally to the population for better response times. Councilor Jordan concurred, but questioned whether the public supported moving police/9-1-1 Center out of City Hall in order not to have to improve the whole building to the higher seismic standards required for emergency services. She wondered whether the public had seen moving these functions out as simply making it easier and cheaper to repair City Hall. Councilor Tierney commented that he would not discount the option of keeping police19-1-I Center with City Hall because the public might be willing to fund a City Hall that included public safety but not a City Hall by itself. He said that he had no preference on the question, although he thought the idea of allocating civic resources to different parts of town had some value. Mr. Williams reminded the Council that a significant issue with the police was security and the post-9-11 security issues. He indicated that, even pre-9-11, employee and citizen safety had been a concern when combining typical City Hall functions with police. He said that, while he could not say why the focus group respondents responded the way they did, the security issues were probably a major consideration along with the seismic issues. Councilor Moncrieff concurred that security was an issue as well as the seismic concerns. She observed that a stand-alone police/9-1-1 Center facility was easier to keep up to code. She described the public survey response as clearly identifying public safety as a priority. Councilor Jordan suggested obtaining more information on the options of keeping police/9-1-1 Center with City Hall in the downtown or separating it out and putting it on the west side. Councilor Tierney suggested asking the Police Department to weigh in on the issue. Mr. Williams asked if there was a preference about the WEB property as a police station site versus another site on the west side of town. He recalled that the Urban Land Institute felt strongly that a police station was not the best use for the West End property. Councilor Olson agreed that it was not the best site. Councilor Jordan noted that, based on the information that it currently had, the sense of the Council was to separate police and the 9-1-1 Center from City Hall. She mentioned that that could change as they received more financial information. She commented that the financing information would also affect the decision on locating police in the downtown versus the west side. The Council discussed whether to continue the discussion tonight or to continue it to another meeting. Councilor Tierney observed that this discussion has not yet gotten to original question of what were they going to do with the WEB. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that he did not think that the Council was prepared to discuss that question right now. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 10 February 19, 2009 61 Mayor Hoffman indicated that he was not opposed to discussing the WEB with respect to City Hall, although he preferred to keep City Hall in the downtown. He commented that an expert on downtown revitalization might hold Councilor Hennagin's position that a City Hall was not necessary in a downtown any more because of other economic generators. Councilor Johnson commented that the Council has discussed City functions as opposed to City facilities. Councilor Jordan pointed out that Lake Oswego was a unique community in that it was located by a lake and it had two distinct business districts, representing the two original towns. She held that part of what they were trying to achieve was how to keep these two joined cities functioning as one. She commented that she would like to see a second downtown centered on Boones Ferry Road. She wondered if that happened, whether they would ask about these same drivers in order to keep this second downtown going. Councilor Hennagin observed that relocating Parks & Recreation, the Library, and the ACC to the WEB and leaving City Hall in the downtown could provide economic drivers at each end of town. Councilor Jordan recalled that the original Boones Ferry plan called for locating a public function at the end north end of Boones Ferry, which the previous Council thought it fulfilled with the purchase of the WEB. The Council decided to continue the discussion to another meeting, which the Mayor and Mr. McIntyre would schedule. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, (?-11144 Robyn Christie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ON Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 10 62 February 19, 2009 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. LAKE° ll 400P sw ,0° CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING GMINUTES x February 24, 2009 ............. OREGO$ Mayor Jack Hoffman called the special City Council meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. on February 24, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue. Present: Mayor Hoffman, Councilors Hennagin, Moncrieff, Olson, Tierney, and Johnson. Councilors Jordan and Hennagin were excused. Staff Present:Alex McIntyre, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Robyn Christie, City Recorder; Denise Frisbee, Community Development Liaison; Sidaro Sin, Senior Planner; Denny Egner, Long Range Planning Manager/Assistant Planning Director; Brant Williams, Director of Economic and Capital Development 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 Visioning, Steven Ames (no written report) Mayor Hoffman indicated that the Council was looking for insight and perspective on how to reach out to the citizens and ask them where they wanted the city to be in 20 years. Ms. Frisbee introduced Steven Ames. She mentioned that he was Oregon's resident expert on visioning, having worked locally, nationally, and internationally. She said that he wrote the APA's Guidelines on Visioning. Mr. Ames mentioned that he has done some brief consulting work with the Lake Oswego staff on a potential visioning process. He stated that there was no perfect way to do visioning; rather each community should develop the visioning process that worked best to deliver the product that the community needed and that would inform the Council and staff decisions. He explained that visioning processes ranged from `whole of community' to more narrowly defined processes. He described the `whole of community' visioning process as the entire community discussing the full range of issues facing the community's future, from land use/planning to education to community welfare to arts & entertainment. He said that Oregon was a national leader not only in land use planning, but also in the use of visioning processes to inform and broaden the scope of land use planning as a means of making it more responsive to other community needs. He mentioned his work on visioning processes in 20 plus communities in Oregon. He defined a visioning process as a way that a community could look at the emerging trends and issues confronting it, and chart a strategic vision for the future that responded to the changing trends. He said that civic visioning processes yielded a statement of community values and a visioning statement, which were the civic version of a corporate mission and values statement. He mentioned the Hillsboro 2020 visioning process, a highly acknowledged and awarded visioning process, which developed a strategic community action plan designed to turn the vision into reality over time. He noted that this action plan worked in addition to the land use planning process and provided an umbrella plan for implementing the non-land use planning elements. He cited the example of the 1989 Corvallis visioning process, the first comprehensive community visioning process done in Oregon, which set the template for how an Oregon community did visioning and integrated it into its ongoing land use planning and periodic review process. He said City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 12 February 24, 2009 63 that Corvallis had two goals to start with: involving as many people as possible, and being creative. He cited the example of the Envision Gresham project from the early 1990s, which used a narrowly defined community visioning process to revive the Gresham downtown and to integrate the sudden addition of a large physical area into the city. He said that they focused their process on the future urban form (how the community worked and looked at the physical level). He discussed the Hillsboro 2020 visioning process more in depth, describing it as a long (2.5 years), expensive ($450,000), and ambitious process. Following adoption of the vision in 2000, the City immediately launched into an action planning process formatted in the style of a detailed business strategic plan. Hillsboro was now in the second generation of their plan, updated in 2005. He emphasized that it had been a `whole of community' visioning process that developed strategic guidelines to reach their primary goals of physical connectivity and community cohesion in the face of a changing population. He mentioned that Hillsboro citizens felt that they were losing their sense of place and connectivity as a community in light of their fast-paced growth. He said that one thing that came out of the Hillsboro process was a call for major public spaces, or third places, where community members could gather and connect. Hillsboro's vision called for a new cultural arts center, which they now have through a serendipitous confluence of events: an elderly couple gave $1 million to the community and a church was abandoning its downtown facility to move to a new one. He commented that he saw nothing exceptional in the Hillsboro vision itself. What was exceptional about the Hillsboro process was the City's commitment to follow through with it, which it has done successfully over the past 10 years. He mentioned that Hillsboro was the first city in Oregon to get private sector funding for its vision (Intel gave a large grant). He said that Hillsboro estimated that in the first four years, it leveraged close to $10 million in City projects alone. He mentioned the Vision Portland projects, which involved over 17,000 people in direct participation. He reiterated that a community could design a visioning process to be whatever it wanted it to be. He cited the Flagstaff, Arizona, project from 10 years ago, which was a public/private `whole of community' visioning process. Flagstaff then focused the `whole of community' dialog in on the future urban form and land use development of their community to address their fast growth. He indicated that as a result, Flagstaff created the only urban growth boundary in the state of Arizona. He explained that Flagstaff created a series of overarching principles that it used to update their General Plan (land use plan). These principles spoke of strategically managed growth, quality urban design, balanced transportation, and pedestrian-friendly development. He observed that currently the country was in strange and challenging times. He noted that during such difficult times, communities often retrenched and made conservative decisions to simply do the basics well, which was an honorable goal. He encouraged the Council, given that communities only did visioning processes every 10 years or so, to think carefully about the objectives in doing the visioning process. He commented that they could design a process to give guidance and direction to the periodic review process, or they could take this golden opportunity to think strategically about the future of Lake Oswego, its role in the region, and what it would look like in 20 years as it addressed its changing population needs. Councilor Tierney asked what the difference was between the Comprehensive Plan and a vision. Mr. Ames discussed the example of Flagstaff in halting all its major planning efforts for one year in order to concentrate on the visioning process and find out what the people wanted the City to do. At the end of that one year, the City updated their land use plan based on the vision articulated by the people. Mr. Ames pointed out that the public did not think in terms of the Development Code but rather in terms of"what do I like about my community?" A visioning dialog that focused on the broader City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12 64 February 24, 2009 community values engaged more people than a narrow conversation about design and development standards. He agreed with Ms. Frisbee that the timeframe of a Comprehensive Plan and a vision could be different. A Comprehensive Plan tended to look five years out while a vision looked 20 years out. He cited the recently completed Columbia River Gorge visioning project, which demonstrated how thoughtful the local, ordinary people could be with respect to the future of their community. Councilor Moncrieff asked what model Mr. Ames thought Lake Oswego in particular should consider. Mr. Ames commented that it was not his role to say, but he had confidence that the Council would make a good decision. He encouraged the Council not to lose an opportunity to look at the bigger picture for the community beyond land use planning. He reiterated that Lake Oswego could design exactly the vision that it wanted to achieve. It was up to the Council to set the framework parameters for staff to use in designing the process. Councilor Johnson asked if moving forward with a visioning process during these challenging economic times presented any unique issues, as opposed to waiting a couple of years. Mr. Ames acknowledged that there might be a reaction from the community with respect to the City spending money on a visioning process at this time. The City needed to be prepared to answer that legitimate question. He held that strong arguments could be made that now was exactly the time to be thinking about the future of the community, and to investing a little extra money in getting the vision right. He suggested, regardless of whether the Council used the broad or narrow process, that the City give the public a chance to think about the change that is happening and the bigger picture. He recalled hearing staff talk about doing a speaker series to start the community dialog. He commented that given that the country was going through a major shift right now, he would want to be able to look back on it and say, "We took the time to take stock of the changes, we involved the community, and we came up with our best shot." He asked whether Lake Oswego wanted to be a community that faced the tough changes without a strategic vision for the future, or a community that faced those same issues with a strategic vision of where it wanted to go. Councilor Tierney asked what the three most important elements were to making a visioning process successful. Mr. Ames replied they were, public engagement, informing the dialog with good information on trends and issues, and branding the process in order to sell it to the public. He clarified that a visioning process was not a process to develop a wish list but rather a process to engage the public, including those who did not normally participate in civic activities. He spoke to creating a dynamic name and logo for the process in order to stand out in the midst of everything else that was competing for the public's attention. He cited the example of the Corpus Christi, Texas, visioning process called 'Bold Future for the Coastal Bend.' He said that the City has done an excellent job of engaging the public on all socio- economic levels and in the schools, which has attracted many volunteers. Mayor Hoffman noted that the next steps were for the Council to decide on whether to incorporate some aspect of visioning into the Periodic Review, and if so, how much. Ms. Frisbee concurred with Mr. Ames that public engagement as part of a visioning process opened people's minds up more to look further than just infill standards or other typical planning issues. It also could potentially involve more people. She indicated that in any case, Periodic Review had a public engagement component. Mayor Hoffman mentioned several issues in Lake Oswego that concerned him. He spoke of the declining school population, Mountain Park (which would be a 70-year old community in 30 years with a large number of investment properties, i.e., apartments), Lakeview Village (which would hit old age for retail in 30 years), and aging in place (with respect to affordable housing in particular). He noted other issues, such as Stafford and infill issues (which would spread across more of the community as the newer neighborhoods aged). City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12 February 24, 2009 65 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................ He observed that Lake Oswego had the most economically well off zip code in Oregon, yet the community has not stepped back to ask itself what it wanted to be. He pointed out that they could do nothing and allow the market to shape the community, or they could do something to control their destiny. He described the four basic elements of a visioning process: where are you now, what are the community values, where are you going, and where do you want to go. He said that he wanted more discussion about visioning in terms of how it fit in with the Comprehensive Plan update, and in terms of how it would deal with an aging community. Councilor Moncrieff commented that her first reaction upon hearing about a potential visioning process was to question whether this was the right time to spend money on a big holistic visioning process. She indicated that after dealing with the every day issues facing the Council, she could see the value of a good `eagle eye' vision of where the community wanted to be in helping both the Council and staff to move forward in an efficient way. She mentioned her concerns, including connectivity, aging in place, children, and economic development. Mayor Hoffman commented that in 20 years, oil would be more expensive, and the community needed to address what it would look like in 20 years. He noted that communication and engagement was one of the Council goals. While meeting with individual groups was one method of engaging the public, visioning might be another way to do so. 3.2 Periodic Review— Evaluation and Work Program Mr. Sin noted that next week staff would ask the Council to approve the Periodic Review evaluation and work program, and give direction on the visioning, or public engagement, process. He commented that whether the Council chose a `whole of community' or a more focused `vision light' visioning process, it would mesh with the Comprehensive Plan update because of the update's inherent visioning component: the Comprehensive Plan planned out for 10 to 20 years. He asked what was the end product that the City and the community wanted to get out of this process. He said that the City would be in compliance with the State requirements for periodic review. Staff would update many public facilities plans and land use analyses. He spoke of updating the Comprehensive Plan through a sustainability lens. He mentioned addressing community issues, such as density transfers between different areas. He spoke to the community discussing the future of Lake Oswego with a unified voice. He discussed the process for achieving the end product. He indicated that the Periodic Review (State planning process) provided an opportunity to revisit the community's direction (after 15 years) in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner that engaged the community. He said that the Periodic Review process focused on five major areas housing, transportation, economic development, public facilities and services, and urbanization but it also looked at the other nine chapters of the 14-chapter Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the first of the two major steps in the Periodic Review process was the evaluation and work program. He reviewed the four Periodic Review questions used in answering the question of what the City needed to do to update the Comprehensive Plan in order to comply with Statewide planning goals. He said that the evaluation asked if there were any changes in circumstances upon which the regulations were based, if there were any inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan and Statewide planning goals, if there were any issues of regional or statewide significance that have changed, requiring a plan update, and if the Plan continued to meet the intent of the Statewide planning goals. He referenced the community input staff received at the Planning Commission public hearings regarding what needed updating through the Comprehensive Plan update. He directed the Council to Exhibit F- .2, the evaluation and work program document. He mentioned the housing issue of finding the balance between providing housing according to the Metro Housing Rule and maintaining quality of life and compatibility. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12 February 24, 2009 66 .............................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. He noted the economic development and redevelopment issues in the downtown, Foothills, Lakeview Village, and the Lake Grove industrial area. He indicated that they would have to bring the City's Transportation System Plan into compliance with the update of the Regional Transportation System Plan, which Metro should have available this year. He characterized the public facilities issues as how to maximize and maintain facilities for the projected population in the city, which involved updating master plans, such as the sewer master plan. He explained that urbanization focused on how to coordinate and distribute future populations throughout the community. He noted that the Stafford area, the urban reserves process, and the pending UGB process would all affect urbanization in Lake Oswego. He reviewed the work program and timeline, which identified how and when these things would happen (Exhibit E-4). He noted the elements of research and background, visioning and outreach, developing policy alternatives, refinement and adoption (2011), and plan implementation. He presented the Planning Commission's recommendation that the Council adopt the evaluation and work program. He said that the Commission did not give much direction on the visioning process other than the Council should focus on the minimum requirements for Periodic Review, and it should be fiscally conservative if it decided to pursue a visioning process. The Commission also recommended continuing the hot community issues of infill, natural resource planning, neighborhood planning, and the Community Development Code update concurrently with the Periodic Review process. Mr. Egner explained that staff designed the process to work with either a broad visioning process, in which the planning component was only one element of the larger process, or a focused visioning process that fed directly into Periodic Review. He indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the City had to be through the Periodic Review process in three years. He said that while the plan numbers, etc., were out of date and some community values might have changed since its adoption, the plan itself was still a good plan in terms of its basic structure and policies. He commented that even if the Council chose not to change much in the document, he thought that they still needed to ask the bigger policy questions in some categories, such as affordable housing and aging in place. He asked the question of how to incorporate sustainability into the Comprehensive Plan, such as how to reconcile the solar ordinance and the tree code. He confirmed to Councilor Tierney that staff's evaluation of the plan against the criteria found a need to update the plan content. Councilor Tierney spoke to producing a useful document that provided relevant and understandable information that the Council could use to actually do something with, as opposed to a voluminous and unreadable document that sat on a shelf. Mr. Sin described how updating the housing analysis and its numbers would help inform Council and staff decisions regarding density transfers between areas. He commented that updating the City's utility and transportation plans would help inform the Council discussion on the Stafford area. Councilor Tierney noted that affordable housing was already an element in the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that affordable housing had no traction on the community level, and therefore, no traction on the Council level. He argued that one of the benefits of visioning or a Comprehensive Plan update was obtaining community buy in on proposals, such as cluster housing or multiple family housing on corner lots. Mr. Egner observed that visioning documents tended to be more strategic plans with measurable actions tied to them. A Comprehensive Plan was primarily a policy document that the City used to guide land use decisions with few action items specified and no follow up on the `recommended action measures' required. He expressed his hope that this time they would include in the Comprehensive Plan only actions about which the City was serious, and set within a timeframe for implementation. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12 February 24, 2009 67 ............................................................................................................................................................................... ....... He identified the Transportation System Plan as one of the master plans that the City should revisit, as it was quite out of date. He indicated that updating the Sewer Master Plan would help staff plan how to serve areas such as Lake Forest, Rosewood, and Highlands. Currently the plan did not set out an implementation strategy or good financing mechanism for serving those areas. Councilor Moncrieff asked for clarification on the order of doing the plans. Mr. Egner indicated that ideally they would do the utility and facility master plans updates on a parallel track with the Comprehensive Plan update, so that the two processes would feed each other as staff moved forward. He noted the question of whether the City utility plans were adequate to implement the Lake Grove Village Center plan. He commented that the land use piece was sort of first but running on parallel tracks was better. Councilor Olson concurred with Councilor Moncrieff that updating the Comprehensive Plan and some level of visioning would inform Council decisions. She said that given how much the City already had to do, she would defer to Mr. McIntyre regarding the timing of the work. She commented that on the other hand, she sensed frustration in the community because the Council was always saying, `let's wait to do something until staff has finished some other process.' She argued that the Council could not keep putting off making major decisions or policy visions because it was waiting for something else. She spoke to keeping the momentum going on issues such as infill, sensitive lands, Safeco, facilities, and utilities, while doing a certain level of Comprehensive Plan visioning at the same time. Mayor Hoffman commented that he shared Councilor Tierney's frustration in trying to pick out of the report what the most important elements were. He said that he settled on pp.FI-87 because it seemed dead center on the five major focus areas. He asked if issues such as the tree code would be included in the other plan elements section. Mr. Sin indicated that while those could be part of the other plan elements, the Planning Commission had recommended continuing to pursue the natural resource-related planning issues concurrently with the periodic review. Mr. Egner observed that the question with respect to the tree code was whether to move it up to a higher priority or to do it as part of the overall development code update. He mentioned staff's hope that a code audit conducted this year would develop strategies for improving the code and help inform tree code decisions as well. Mayor Hoffman pointed out that the issue was the community decision on what kind of an urban forestry program it would have for the next 50 years. He observed that it was a Comprehensive Plan discussion because policy issues arose, such as was it more important to preserve trees or to provide secondary dwelling unit housing for the elderly. He mentioned that people have told the Council that the tree code conflicted with the solar ordinance, while others argued that the Douglas fir was not an urban tree that the City should encourage. Mr. Egner concurred that the basic question was what was the community's vision in terms of an urban forest. He noted that most of the conflicts involving the City's urban forestry program occurred most frequently on private property. He mentioned three questions to answer in the process: what was the community's vision for private properties, how did they embed that vision into the Comprehensive Plan policies, and how did that drive the code and other types of actions. Councilor Johnson asked when did the Council do that. Mr. Egner indicated that the Council could make short-term changes to the code, which it could re-evaluate as the vision was set and the plan policies evolved. He emphasized that nothing they did was static in the sense that it could not be revisited as necessary. Councilor Johnson spoke to figuring out how to frame the discussion, and deciding whether to address immediate future needs in the Comprehensive Plan or to move towards a visioning process. She asked what was the most efficient way to do that. Mr. Egner said that while the Comprehensive Plan in theory was a 20-year document, the Council could do it in shorter increments. He commented that one of the advantages of visioning was that City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12 February 24, 2009 68 . ....................................................................................................................................... one could go out further than 20 years. They could describe what the community was going to be in 20 to 40 years and build that vision into their actions. He described a vision as creating the bigger framework structure for the Comprehensive Plan to build on. Councilor Olson noted that they also had the realities of the expense and the Periodic Review deadlines to consider. Mr. Egner described the three-year process. The first year was spent collecting background data through a visioning process. In the second year, they evaluated the policy options for implementing the vision. In the third year, they would refine the policy options and adopt them. He emphasized that the proposed staff process would adapt to either a large community visioning process or a more focused planning visioning process. Councilor Moncrieff asked whether the holistic visioning process and the directed visioning process would require the same data collection and community outreach processes, as well as the same timeframe and expense. Mr. Egner indicated that the two processes would have the same timeframe but the expense would be different because the background material needed for the holistic approach was so much broader than the background material needed for Periodic Review, which focused solely on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Egner pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan component would only be a portion of a `whole of community' vision. In using visioning as the larger umbrella to talk about the overall direction of the community and the larger issues, they got an opportunity to ask people interested in schools and the arts questions about planning. A `whole of community' visioning process was a City Manager's project, while a planning vision remained a long-range planning project. Councilor Tierney commented that he saw the Comprehensive Plan as more comprehensive than simply a planning effort. He referenced earlier comments that the Comprehensive Plan was a good document with goal statements still valid today. He suggested updating the plan by tweaking it into compliance, and moving forward with some of the foundation plans. Mr. Egner recalled that in 2003, when the City launched the 2025 project, the Planning Commission spent a year reviewing each chapter in the Comprehensive Plan and concluded that the plan was not broken. It had out of date information but structurally it was still a good document. He noted that the City did not undertake an extensive outreach program to reach that conclusion; they only met with the Planning Commission and the advisory committees. Councilor Tierney asked what policy issues staff saw today that the City needed to deal with. Mr. Sin mentioned the Stafford area as a pressing issue because of the urban reserves process and the pending UGB decision. He spoke of the development of the industrial areas in Foothills and Lake Grove, the availability of affordable housing, density between different neighborhoods, and infill compatibility. Mr. Egner said that sustainability was another issue because the City had not used it as a filter for the Comprehensive Plan. He spoke of testing the plan against the three tiered sustainability approach of social, economic, and environmental concerns. He mentioned that a few neighborhoods felt that the City got their zoning wrong and wanted a re-evaluation of it. He explained that the City had to continue to meet its commitment to the region and Title 1 of the Metro Functional Plan with respect to density. If it reduced density in one area, it had to be sure that it was still meeting that commitment. He acknowledged the possibility of adding density in Foothills and on redeveloped Lake Grove industrial land, but pointed out that doing so would use up their limited industrial land, raising the question of where would those uses relocate. Mayor Hoffman mentioned another policy issue of the relationship between the City and unincorporated Clackamas County, citing a Council goal that spoke of the City initiating island annexations. He commented that Lake Oswego has not discussed the idea of neighborhood commercial nodes, similar to the Portland concept of a 10-minute neighborhood, where residents could walk to a commercial area. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12 February 24, 2009 69 ................................................................................................ ...................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................. Councilor Tierney asked what questions would the Council answer at the Tuesday meeting. Mr. Sin said that the primary questions would reference Exhibit F-1.2 (p.F19). Did the Council agree that those were the major evaluation issues based on the Periodic Review factors? Has staff addressed those factors in the work plan? Did the Council want a `whole of community' approach or a more focused visioning light process with respect to public involvement? Mayor Hoffman recessed the meeting for a break at 8:17 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 8:23 p.m. 3.3 Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trail Project Staff Report Mr. Williams gave a PowerPoint presentation. He noted that this project was the third priority transportation project for the region, following close behind the Columbia River Crossing project and the Milwaukie Light Rail project. He reviewed the project history (p.15), noting that the Willamette Shore Line was purchased in 1988 for$2 million primarily to provide a rail transit system between Portland and Lake Oswego along the highly constrained Highway 43 corridor. He noted that the alternatives analysis for the project took three years to complete, with Metro adoption in 2007. The analysis reduced the original eight alternatives down to three (streetcar, bus rapid transit, and no build), and evaluated the three remaining options, concluding that all three options should move forward into the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) analysis. He distributed a handout showing the basic alignment and issues associated with the project. He discussed the issues (p.16), including minimizing the impacts on through the residential areas in John's Landing and Dunthorpe, and deciding on the terminus point in Lake Oswego. He described the three possible alignments in the John's Landing. He indicated that all design issues would be looked at as part of the DEIS. He indicated that the next major step was to move forward with the DEIS and not lose the momentum gained with the alternatives analysis. Unfortunately, they would not be getting the federal money needed for the planning phase until 2012. So the staff work done over the past year has been primarily to figure out funding strategies for moving forward with the DEIS before then. He discussed the proposed funding strategy that would allow the DEIS to move forward this spring using an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Lake Oswego's regional partners on this project: Metro, TriMet, Clackamas County, and Portland. He indicated that there was a significant amount of federal dollars allocated for the DEIS, the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), and the preliminary engineering. He explained that federal dollars always required a local match, which would come from the local partners on this project. He said that Portland has agreed to cover half of the local share cost ($1 million) with Clackamas County willing to pick up $850,000, leaving $150,000 for Lake Oswego to contribute. He indicated that the final draft of the IGA would come to the Council for consideration at one of the next two business meetings. He indicated that the DEIS and the FEIS would take place over the next 2.5 years, leading into the final engineering and construction. At that point, assuming that the Federal Transit Administration approved the project and dedicated money for construction, staff would return to Council to consider a funding arrangement to build the project beginning in 2012 and finishing in 2014. He mentioned that they could phase the project. The first phase would extend the line ending in the South Waterfront to a location probably south of Macadam, near the Sellwood Bridge. He indicated that they would prefer to fund the whole project at one time, if possible. He discussed the strategy they developed to advance local funds to cover the federal funds needed this year for the DEIS that would not be coming in until 2012. Portland was willing to set aside two of its projects and allow those federal funds to be put towards the Transit and Trail project, and use the future federal funds to pay off those two projects down the road. Lake City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12 70 February 24, 2009 ...................................................................................................................................................... . ................................................................................................................................ .................................................................. Oswego would float a $1.5 million loan of its local money to TriMet, the lead agency, with TriMet repaying Lake Oswego $1.8 million (a 5% rate of return) when the federal funds came through in 2012. He pointed out that the $1.5 million plus the $150,000 meant that Lake Oswego would be putting in $1.65 million now and receiving $1.8 million from TriMet in 2012. He described it as a good arrangement overall for Lake Oswego, and one which would allow the City to move forward on a project at this time. He noted that this project was a Council goal and a regional goal. He indicated that TriMet would do the DEIS work, but Metro was leading an initial effort right now, the Refinement Study, to try to resolve some of the John's Landing and Lake Oswego terminus issues before TriMet got into the actual DEIS work. He said that if all agencies adopted the IGA, staff would use a public process in the next couple of months to try to evaluate which of the two Lake Oswego terminus locations to move forward into the DEIS process. He said that the DEIS would take a year, the FEIS and the preliminary engineering another year, and the final engineering about 16 months. That meant, ideally, a construction window of 2012 through 2014. He mentioned that the City of Portland, and not TriMet, owned the Portland Streetcar. It contracted the streetcar operations out to a non-profit group called Portland Streetcar, Inc. He said that the non-profit Board has extended an invitation to Lake Oswego to have a representative on the Board. He mentioned Councilor Jordan as a designee for the Mayor, as she was the Clackamas County Cities representative on JPACT. Council Questions Councilor Moncrieff asked if the Bus Rapid Transit option would include the full length of the bike/pedestrian trail along the railway. Mr. Williams said that the bike/pedestrian trail had to be looked at for all three options in the DEIS. He pointed out that depending on how the study turned out, they would have to find other funding for most of the trail, because the Federal Transit Administration, which would fund the transit project, did not fund trails. He mentioned that the trail and access between Lake Oswego and Portland was one of the issues raised by the large group participants during the WEB study. Mr. Williams confirmed to Councilor Moncrieff that the engineering of the trail was as `iffy' as the funding. He indicated that staff was working with Metro and Clackamas County on finding ways to package some funding outside the actual DEIS work that would allow staff to move forward more proactively with the trail. He clarified that the DEIS would look at the trail from a planning standpoint, to make sure that any of the work done on the transit side would not preclude the trail. However, funding for the transit piece would not go for any trail design work. Councilor Johnson asked what happened to the right-of-way between John's Landing and Lake Oswego if the preferred alternative were the bus rapid transit. Mr. Williams said that staff would have to do some investigation, as some portions of the right-of-way would revert to the adjacent property owners if it were not used for rail. He indicated that the idea was to figure out ways to allow portions of the public right-of-way to be used for some type of public purpose. Councilor Johnson said that she understood that if they wanted a trail in that right-of-way, it also had to be used for rail. Councilor Olson concurred. Mr. Williams indicated that there were a variety of arrangements for the Willamette Shore Line right-of-way, which staff would have to research. Councilor Tierney asked Mr. Williams to speak to the certainty of the federal funds in 2012. Mr. Williams said that those federal funds were the funds that the region has received on a regular basis for years, and which JPACT allocated. He said that this March JPACT would decide on the allocation of the 2012 funds. Councilor Tierney asked what the source would be for the $1.5 million Lake Oswego would loan to TriMet. Mr. Williams mentioned the LORA cash reserves. Mr. Powell noted that the draft IGA City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12 February 24, 2009 71 .......................................................................................................................................... ... . . ................................................................................................................................ stated that Lake Oswego would not loan the money until there was confirmation that the MTIP funds were available for 2012. Councilor Tierney observed that if the Council decided to spend money on LORA projects during the time period of the loan, then that cash would not be available. Mr. McIntyre explained that the LORA cash sitting idle in the bank could be dedicated towards any LORA project; the Transit and Trail project was an identified LORA project. He noted that the Council could also use general fund reserves or some combination of LORA and general fund reserves. Mr. McIntyre indicated to Mayor Hoffman that the City's general fund reserve was at over $20 million. Mr. Williams indicated to Councilor Moncrieff that Clackamas County and Lake Oswego were not splitting the $1.5 million loan because Clackamas County was putting up the lion's share of the $1 million local share, because Lake Oswego was pushing to make the project happen, and because Lake Oswego had the reserves available to do this relatively good loan at an attractive interest rate. He indicated to Councilor Olson that the ballpark project cost was $270 million, but the DEIS would determine a more accurate cost. He said that provided that the preferred alternative was the Willamette Shore Line right-of-way, the value of that right-of-way would cover the vast majority of the local match required to receive the federal dollars funding the majority of the project. He estimated that $12 million of local money would go towards the project. The preliminary financial strategy had Portland contributing $6 million and the southern end partners, including Lake Oswego, contributing $6 million. Councilor Olson discussed her concerns with the loan. She questioned making this loan in light of the uncertain economic times and the $20 million loan up for renegotiation this July for the West End Building. She mentioned TriMet's current operating financial problems. She held that this loan would be an unwise business decision and poor stewardship of taxpayer money. Mr. Williams indicated to Councilor Tierney that TriMet would be the lead agency for overseeing the DEIS. He confirmed that the repayment of the loan was tied to federal funds that would be allocated prior to making the loan, and not to TriMet operations. Councilor Tierney commented that the risk the Council would have to evaluate was the risk of the federal funds not showing up in 2012. Mr. Williams reiterated that the City would only make the loan after allocation of those federal funds in March. If for some reason those federal funds did not come in, TriMet still had to pay back the loan. If it did not pay it back by a certain point, then the interest rate increased to 9% from that point on. Councilor Johnson pointed out that the LORA funds proposed for the loan could not be used towards paying off the $20 million line of credit for the WEB. She indicated that while she would be uncomfortable if the loan funds came out of the general fund, she was comfortable using LORA funds for this LORA project in light of Lake Oswego's commitment to economic development. She commented that if the City was serious about economic development, then it had to be serious about providing alternative transportation, especially in the downtown. She agreed that these were uncertain economic times but said that she felt comfortable moving forward because of the loan agreement structure. She emphasized the importance of moving this project along in support of economic development and alternative transportation for their citizens. Councilor Olson recalled that last week in the facilities discussion, the Council talked about using LORA money for a new City Hall and library. She pointed out that the City also had other obligations to pay out of its general fund. She stated that she was uncomfortable doing this in light of the City's other debts and before doing a budget and making a facilities decision. She commented that she was also uncomfortable with TriMet putting out an RFP and considering the loan a done deal. City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12 72 February 24, 2009 ................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................... Mr. Williams indicated to Councilor Olson that over the past four years, JPACT has allocated the federal funds scheduled for 2009 through 2011. Portland decided to move two of its 2009 projects further out in order to free up that federal money for this project. Councilor Olson said that she agreed with Councilor Johnson about encouraging economic development but she was not certain what the rush was. She mentioned that she was uncomfortable learning that they had to pick a terminus point in the next two months. Mr. Williams explained that they would not be making any decisions during the refinement study. The intent of the study was to look at the pros and cons of the options, go through some public process, and try to narrow down the issues associated with the design options for John's Landing route and the Lake Oswego terminus, as a means of facilitating the DEIS process. He mentioned that the overarching issue behind moving the project forward sooner rather than later was the ever-increasing cost of construction. Waiting a year or two on $250 to $300 million projects could make it much more challenging to find sufficient funds to finish the project. He discussed the possibility that the new federal reauthorization bill for transportation might include funds for streetcar projects. An Oregon congressional representative who was very interested in streetcars sat on the Transportation Subcommittee; he was interested in figuring out how to use the Small Starts program to fund streetcar projects. Mr. Williams said that the region wanted to put itself in a good position to access those funds, should they become available, and moving this project forward would do so. Councilor Johnson commented that it has actually taken a long time to get to this point of federal recognition of streetcars as a priority for federal funding. She spoke to not missing this opportunity. Councilor Tierney noted that the Council did adopt the Lake Oswego/Portland transit project as a goal. He commented that he did not see a public agency loaning money to another public agency as a high-risk loan. He mentioned that he thought that the money was available to be spent, and likely would not be spent until 2012. He suggested providing more information to the Council before it made its decision, including whether the City had the money to loan and how secure that loan would be. Mayor Hoffman observed that this project was consistent with the Council's sustainability and economic development goals. He asked what would happen if Lake Oswego did not loan the $1.5 million. Mr. Williams said that the other regional partners would have to figure out how to fund the shortfall. He noted that it would also raise the question of Lake Oswego's commitment to the project, given that Portland has pushed off two projects to help fund it and Clackamas County has stepped up significantly to help fund it. Mr. Williams indicated to Mayor Hoffman that there was no easy answer to the question of what would happen if this project were put on hold and no longer the third priority project for the region. These sorts of project were very complex and required a lot of time and nurturing to get them to the point of receiving federal dollars. He commented that there were lower priority projects willing to advance forward. He said that he did not know how it would pay out. Councilor Olson stated that while she strongly supported the Council's sustainability and economic development goals, she still questioned the wisdom of Lake Oswego making loans to anybody in this economic climate. She asked for clarification on the terminus discussion with respect to the DEIS. Mr. Williams explained that if, after going through the process over the next two months, the City could decide on a single terminus, that would facilitate the DEIS process. If the City could not, then staff would take into the DEIS process the information it gathered through the refinement study. He emphasized that upon completion of the DEIS, the Council would vote on all aspects of the project, including the terminus location. Mr. Williams indicated to Councilor Tierney that there was a little under$100,000 left in the streetcar operating budget for this year. Councilor Tierney suggested including those monies as City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 12 February 24, 2009 73 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................ ................................................. ........................................... part of the equation. Mr. McIntyre said that staff would provide a breakdown of funding sources with the IOA. Councilor Moncrieff indicated that she would be more comfortable if she knew exactly what the financial situation was in LORA and where the funds were coming from. She spoke of making sure that the lGA protected the City as much as possible. She commented that it was disheartening to be asked to loan money to TriMet when TriMet was looking at cutting Line 37, the only line connecting the Lake Grove area to the downtown area. Mr. Williams indicated that staff would consider that in future conversations with TriMet. Councilor Johnson acknowledged Councilor Olson's strong support of sustainability and economic development. She commented that Councilor Olson's and Councilor Tierney's comments about thoroughly investigating the financial implications of this loan and where the money would come from would be an important part of the discussion as it moved forward. Mr. McIntyre pointed out another goal of the Council was intergovernmental relations. He spoke of Council members going to Washington, D.C., and to Salem to meet personally with representatives and help them remember Lake Oswego at funding time. 4. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hoffman adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robyn C ris ie City Recorder APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor City Council Special Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12 February 24, 2009 74 ... ........................................................................... .. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. „�,AK�p8. 1 t` o CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO COUNCIL REPORT oREG0,4 TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: David Powell, CityAttorney � SUBJECT: Ordinance 2512 Amendments to the Citizen Involvement Guidelines (Findings and Conclusions LLB 08-0031-1700) DATE: April 1, 2009 ACTION The City Council is requested to enact Ordinance 2512 amending the Citizen Involvement Guidelines and adopting Findings and Conclusions. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND On March 3, 2009, the City Council held a public hearing to review the recommendation of the Planning Commission to make certain amendments to the Citizen Involvement Guidelines. Following the hearing, the City Council tentatively approved the recommended amendments. Attached Ordinance 2512 finalizes this tentative decision. DISCUSSION Proposed Ordinance 2512 amends the Citizen Involvement Guidelines to include: • Additions to, and clarification of, the procedures to remove neighborhood recognition; • New guidelines relating to neighborhood association boundary amendments; and • Addition of procedures relating to notice and opportunity for citizen comment at the annual meeting held to review the citizen involvement program. The text changes, as recommended by the Planning Commission and tentatively approved by the City Council, are found in Section 2 of attached Ordinance 2512. 75 Council Report April 1, 2009 Page 2 ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT The alternatives are: 1. Enact Ordinance 2512, amending the Citizen Involvement Guidelines. 2. Do not enact Ordinance 2512. No fiscal impact is anticipated. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council enact Ordinance 2512. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance 2512 Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. Reviewed by: Thr-} (47 AA,4„/11 David Powell City Att rney Alex . lntyre City Manager 76 ORDINANCE No. 2512 AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAKE OSWEGO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LAKE OSWEGO, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS LU 08-0031-1700 WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing for consideration of this Ordinance was duly given in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, and Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 1, Citizen Involvement,require the City to establish a Citizen Involvement Program; and WHEREAS,the City has adopted Citizen Involvement Guidelines in order to establish an effective and responsible program for citizen involvement in the land use planning process in Lake Oswego; and WHEREAS, as required by Statewide Planning Goal 1 and Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Goal 1, the City has also established a Commission for Citizen Involvement to assist with developing and maintaining the Citizen Involvement Program; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission (which also serves as the Commission for Citizen Involvement) on September 22, 2008 to review proposed changes to the Citizen Involvement Guidelines; and WHEREAS on.March 3, 3009, the Lake Oswego City Council held a public hearing and reviewed the Planning Commission's recommended amendments to the Citizen Involvement Guidelines; Now,therefore,the City of Lake Oswego ordains as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings and Conclusions attached as Exhibit A (LU 08-0031-1700). Section 2. The Citizen Involvement Guidelines for Lake Oswego are hereby amended as follows: The PROCEDURES AND METHODS section of the Guidelines is amended by making changes to subsection C.4, and by adding subsection C.5., as follows (new text shown with bold, underlined type, deleted text shown with strikeout type): "4. Procedure to Remove Recognition: It is in the best interest of the community and city government for neighborhood associations to remain active. The City recognizes, however, that neighborhood associations may become more or less active depending on issues facing the neighborhood at a particular time. Neighborhoods will be allowed some flexibility to remain less involved when their attention is not needed on neighborhood issues. If a neighborhood association has not been organized and actively involved in solving current problems for Ordinance No. 2512 Page 1 of 3 77 three years, the City will notify all members of the association to encourage reactivation of their association and offer assistance in complying with the Citizen Involvement Guidelines. The City Council can, however, consider removing a neighborhood association's recognized status upon CCI's recommendation if any of the following occur. a. Failure to adhere to the association by-laws or the Citizen Involvement Guidelines. b. , or failure of the officers Failure of the association's officers to keep the members of the neighborhood association informed of City actions, plans, or policies affecting them. ■ • • • ' • ■ • ■ • . • • • • ■ ■ • Should the neighborhood association fail to pursue these strategies and comply with the Neighborhood Association Criteria, the City will provide written notice of the intent to remove recognition to all members of the association. The notice shall set forth the City's reasons for removing the neighborhood association's recognized status. The association is entitled to an opportunity to appear before the Commission for Citizen Involvement and show cause for its continuance continued recognition. The City Council may complete termination of the association's recognition by written notice. 5. Neighborhood Boundary Amendments: Neighborhood association boundaries shall be reviewed by the Commission for Citizen Involvement during Periodic Review of the City's Comprehensive Plan and on an as-needed basis. Neighborhood associations or citizens may propose neighborhood boundary amendments to the Commission for Citizen Involvement at any meeting of the Commission. Proposals for boundary amendments must explain the reason for the desired amendment, should demonstrate that the request is not based on a narrow issue, and demonstrate that a boundary amendment is the best way to resolve the problem when compared to alternative approaches. The group requesting the amendment must also demonstrate how many members of the affected association/s or area/s support the proposed change. The Commission may ask the neighborhood to explore alternative approaches to resolve the issue, such as association bylaw changes or new communication strategies. If the Commission recommends amending the neighborhood boundary after these Ordinance No. 2512 Page 2 of 3 78 alternatives are explored, its recommendation will be considered by the City Council for a final decision." Section E of the PROCEDURES AND METHODS section of the Guidelines is amended as follows (new text in bold, underlined type): "E. Evaluation of Continuing Citizen Participation The Commission for Citizen Involvement shall hold at least one meeting annually to evaluate the citizen involvement program. Notice of the meeting shall be given to all neighborhood associations and other organizations and groups with an interest in citizen involvement of the opportunity to be heard. The notice and agenda shall clearly state that those wanting to testify can raise for consideration by the CCI any issue not on the agenda which relates to citizen involvement. In addition to meetings to meet continuing responsibilities, the CCI will meet annually with City Council to evaluate these Citizen Involvement Guidelines. The CCI will then prepare drafts of any proposed changes for presentation to Council for approval." Enacted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lake Oswego held on the 7th day of April, 2009. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: EXCUSED: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED A-TO FORM David Powell, City Attorney Ordinance No. 2512 Page 3 of 3 79 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO A REQUEST FOR A LEGISLATIVE TEXT ) LU 08-0031-1700 AMENDMENT TO THE CITIZEN ) (City of Lake Oswego) INVOLVEMENT GUIDELINES ) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS [ORDINANCE No. 2512] ) NATURE OF PROCEEDING This matter came before the City Council pursuant to a recommendation by the Lake Oswego Planning Commission to amend the text of the adopted Citizen Involvement Guidelines for Lake Oswego (CIG), for the purpose of clarifying and updating provisions relating to neighborhood boundary amendments, the procedure to remove neighborhood association recognition and the annual meeting to review the citizen involvement program. HEARINGS The Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered this application at its meetings of June 9, 2008 and September 22, 2008. The City Council held a public hearing and considered the Planning Commission's recommendation at its meeting of March 3, 2009. CRITERIA AND STANDARDS A. City of Lake Oswego Community Development Code LOC 50.75.005 Legislative Decision Defined LOC 50.75.010 Criteria for Legislative Decision LOC 50.75.015 Required Notice to DLCD LOC 50.75.020 Planning Commission Recommendation Required LOC 50.75.025 City Council Review and Decision LOC 50.75.030 Effective Date of Legislative Decision FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (LU 08-0031-1700) 1 - [City of Lake Oswego, LU 08-0031-1684] EXHIBIT A 81 B. Statewide Planning Goals or Administrative Regulations Statewide Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement (City Comprehensive Plan, Goal 1 —Citizen Involvement, Policies 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6) Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning (City Comprehensive Plan, Goal 2—Land Use Planning, Section 1, Land Use Policies and Regulations, Policy 23) FINDINGS AND REASONS The City Council incorporates the staff Council Report, dated February 17, 2009 for LU 08-0031 (with all exhibits) and the May 23, 2008 Staff Report (with all exhibits) and supplemental reports, as support for its decision, together with the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 2008 and September 22, 2008, the entire record of the proceedings before the Planning Commission and the entire record of the proceedings before the City Council. To the extent they are consistent with the approval granted herein, the City Council adopts by reference its oral deliberations in this matter. CONCLUSION The City Council concludes that LU 08-0031-1700 complies with all applicable criteria and is consistent with applicable Statewide Goals and Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan Policies, and that the recommended changes should be incorporated into the Citizen Involvement Guidelines. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (LU 08-0031-1700) 2-- [City of Lake Oswego, LU 08-0031-1684] EXHIBIT A 82 c- 0 CITY CIFLEOswEGo COUNCIL REPORT ©R EGO$ TO: Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager FROM: Darin Rouhier, Finance ❑irector SUBJECT: increased Revenue Bonds Authorization for Lake Oswego interceptor Sewer (LOIS) Project DATE: March 30, 2009 ACTION Move to adopt Ordinance No. 2539 authorizing: 1. Up to $140 million in revenue bonds to fund the LOIS project, 2. Preparation, execution and delivery of Master Sewer Revenue Bond Declaration, 3. City Manager and Finance Director to establish the terms and execute and deliver one or more supplemental bond declarations, agreements and other documents in connection with the issuance, 4. City to pledge its full faith and credit to one or more series of LOIS bonds. 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. 83 Council Report March 19, 2009 Page 2 DISCUSSION At the March 24, 2009 Study Session, Council heard and discussed the benefits of authorizing a bonding amount greater than the $124.5 million project cost to allow for funding the debt service reserve, issuance costs and, if necessary, up to 10% in completion bonds. Staff recommended an amount of $140 million to demonstrate adequate authorization to bond rating agencies during presentations scheduled for April 10, 2009. ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of Ordinance No. 2539 stems from the debt service that would result from issuing the revenue bonds. Based on current rates and the tentative financing schedule, estimated debt service will be $3.4 million for FY-2010, $6.3 million for FY- 2011, $7.9 million for FY-2012 and approximately $9.8 million per year thereafter until the bonds are retired. Wastewater rates, which are the primary source for repayment, will need to increase by an estimated 30% in 2009, 30% in 2010, 27% in 2011, 13% in 2013 and annually thereafter consistent with CPI. The impact of these estimated increases on a typical ratepayer was presented at the March 24 Study Session and is included here as Attachment B. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving Ordinance No. 2539. ATTACHMENTS 1. Attachment A - Bond Ordinance No. 2539 2. Attachment B - Forecast of Factor Influencing Wastewater Rates Reviewed by: Sustainability has been considered as part of this recommendation. Finance Directors 7 /7 City A o ney Alex cl my City Manager 84 ORDINANCE NO. 2539 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 $140,000,000 (COLLECTIVELY, THE LAKE OSWEGO INTERCEPTOR SEWER "LOIS BONDS"); AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION, EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A MASTER SEWER REVENUE BOND DECLARA►.TION TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SEWER REVENUE BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ESTABLISH THE TERMS OF ONE OR MORE SERIES OF LOIS BONDS AND EXECUTE AND DELIVER ONE OR MORE SUPPLEMENTAL BOND DECLARATIONS, AGREEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF LOIS BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO PLEDGE ITS FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO REPAYMENT OF ONE OR MORE SERIES OF LOIS 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 more series in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding S 100,000,000 (the "Previously Authorized Bonds"); WHEREAS, to finance and refinance the Project (as such term is defined in Ordinance No. 2521), the City has determined that an additional $40,000,000 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 S40,000,000 (the "Additional Authorized Bonds" and together with the Previously Authorized Bonds, the "LOIS Bonds"); WHEREAS, when combined with the authorization provided in Ordinance No. 2521, the total amount of LOIS Bonds authorized by the City Council shall be $140,000,000; 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 "Revenue Bond Act") and is authorized to pledge its full faith and credit and taxing power to the payment of such bonds pursuant to ORS Section 287A.315 (the "Full Faith and Credit Act"); 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. C71-1S West:260621798.3 43294-8 1,AI I/G5B 85 (a) The City Council hereby authorizes the issuance of Sewer Revenue Bonds in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $40,000,000 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 aggregate principal amount of sewer revenue bonds authorized by the City Council in Ordinance No. 2521 and this Ordinance is $140,000,000. (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 sewer revenue bonds (including the LOIS Bonds), future sewer revenue bonds, subordinate sewer revenue bonds and other obligations payable from sewer revenues. (c) Pursuant to the Revenue Bond Act, the Authorized Representative is authorized to determine the date or dates of the issuance of LOIS Bonds, and any other terms, conditions or covenants regarding any series of LOIS Bonds, the Project or the revenues that are necessary or desirable to effect the sale of any series of LOIS 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 any series of LOIS Bonds. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Ordinance or Ordinance No. 2521, the Authorized Representative is authorized, on behalf of the City and without further action of the City Council, to pledge the City's full faith and credit and taxing power to the payment of one or more series of LOIS Bonds, if in the judgment of such Authorized Representative, based on advice from the City's financial advisor, such pledge will allow the City to finance the Project on terms more favorable than if such pledge were absent. Section 2. LOIS Bonds Payable from Sewer Revenues; Pledge of Full Faith and Credit and Taxing Power. The LOIS Bonds shall be payable from the sewer revenues that the City pledges to payment of the LOIS Bonds pursuant to the Revenue Bond Act and the resolution or ordinance adopted by the City authorizing the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds. If the full faith and credit and taxing power of the City is pledged to the payment of one or more series of LOIS Bonds pursuant to the authority granted in Section 1(d) of this Ordinance, each such series of LOIS Bonds will be payable from any lawfully available funds of the City (as described in the Full Faith and Credit Act), in addition to sewer revenues pledged by the City. Section 3. Establishment of Responsibilities and Terms of LOIS 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, series designations, the maturity dates, principal amounts, redemption provisions, interest rates or method of determining variable or OHS\Vest:260621798.3 - 2 43294-8 I.lAI-I/05B 86 adjustable interest rates, denominations, and other terms and conditions of the LOIS Bonds; (b) establish the date or dates for a public competitive sale of the LOIS 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 LOIS Bonds as required pursuant to applicable law, and as directed in Section 4 hereof, or if the Authorized Representative determines to sell the LOIS Bonds pursuant to a negotiated sale, to make arrangements for a negotiated sale of the LOIS Bonds and approve, execute and deliver a bond purchase agreement in connection therewith; (c) appoint a registrar and paying agent for the LOIS Bonds; (d) take such actions as are necessary to qualify the LOIS Bonds for the book- entry only system of The Depository Trust Company; (e) approve, execute and deliver one or more Continuing Disclosure Certificates pursuant to SEC Rule 15c2-12, as amended (17 CFR Part 240, § 240.15c2- 12); [f) approve of and authorize the distribution of one or more preliminary and final official statements for the LOIS Bonds and the execution of one or more final official statements; (g) obtain ratings on the LOIS Bonds if necessary or desirable; (h) determine the need for a Credit Facility (including without limitation, letters of credit or municipal bond insurance) or a Reserve Credit Facility for the LOIS Bonds, and if purchased, direct expenditure of LOIS Bond proceeds to pay any Credit Facility or Reserve Credit Facility premium, set forth terms for the LOIS Bonds reasonably required by a Credit Provider, and execute and deliver any reimbursement agreements, insurance agreements, certificates, or related documents or agreements that are reasonably required by a Credit Provider; (i) approve, execute and deliver the LOIS Bond closing documents and certificates, and direct the deposit of proceeds of the LOIS Bonds; (i) approve, execute and deliver any agreement, certificates or other documents necessary or desirable in connection with pledging the City's full faith and credit and taxing power pursuant to Section 1(d) of this Ordinance; (k) enter into covenants regarding the use of the proceeds of the LOIS Bonds and the projects financed or refinanced with the proceeds of the LOIS Bonds, to maintain the tax-exempt status of the Bonds; [1) execute and deliver certificates, supplemental actions, written declarations or other documents specifying the actions taken by the Authorized Representative pursuant to this Section 3 and to execute and deliver any other certificates, documents or OILS West:260621798.3 - 3 - 43294-8 LAI-I/G5B 87 agreements that are reasonably required to issue, sell and deliver the LOIS Bonds in accordance with this Ordinance. Section 4. Procedures for Sale of the LOIS Bonds. If the Authorized Representative determines that the sale of the LOIS 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 LOIS 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 LOIS Bonds. The Authorized Representative may postpone the sale of the LOIS Bonds to a later date, cancel the sale based upon market conditions or enter into a negotiated sale of the LOIS Bonds, and if it is determined by the Authorized Representative to sell the LOIS 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 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 $140,000,000 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 L150-2 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. (.)T IS West:260621798.3 _.. 4 43294-8 LAI I/( 5B 88 Section 6. Effectiveness of Ordinance No. 2521. Except as expressly amended or supplemented by this Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2521 shall remain unchanged and remains in full force and effect. Section 7. No Further City Council Action Required. This Ordinance provides complete authority for the issuance of the LOIS Bonds in one or more series. No further action of the City Council is necessary to issue the LOIS Bonds, subject to the limitations set forth in Ordinance No. 2521 and in this Ordinance. Section 8. 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 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on the thirtieth (30t1)) 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 ATTEST: By: Robyn Christie, City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: /1 d David D. Powell, City Attorney OHS West:260621798,3 — 5 43294-8 LAI-I/G5B 89 . . . . . Forecast of Factor Influencing Wastewater Rates Future Amounts are Estimates of a Typical Bi-Monthly Sewer Bill Bl-Monthly Rate Factors .- q.� . .art -a ^ x y � h"i interest�y . -3 Sy :�. W Y '' tag VO x5 N � '.��"^.. . .' M�s "`am+T.' ..: r $• „v'�>.� .‘A' _ .ter Wi;,w��'.n^,^-� M� " SDC Revenue v M a y r 1 � : < .yam�„.. 3= ^1, 6.•i aam`',xM YI `. ��.r� i � ��� ^ ar.� . Decrease_ .)�_'_a.'_ ,F h . .�� � =��l�a# - �4a=�7.:,:- 3r". :r7. it C Kt ""✓3Lr^C: •" ^am" t 5•r y+. . ,:?::ii ::: ,,,: S f"- � "n5\. -i `,`~ '.A '�-•:<^=^" `i>�` .:,�-. 37R :S %- =.;.r :. i ^•f f7u ice`:'ti^ z" �� _ fi Ee Effect of ' �i^ r':. \%`.:.= r '. ` ;L Conservation__ _ ':r,x.Y .W, 9•• s>c� i ter•` "==.�;"' ',,--2:,,,,;.,-.:, c,"{.''.%r%.`= ^ ''z^, 4\ , =���:=��� `fit . , �� ���'N� yr r v' �:�:.. Mom;�,"-: .f�`,",�- "rti' ^i z.• r"�>Fya'x" ma's H° .,' •�'�" rC ;y'x •fir: ne• v;�r•. ^z� "+is� ! i r�; Debt Service "L^ '". win t'S." "'"Y^...s.`� ^�^.<..^`c•x�x Yam• x Y.s. ram' <:��:� �.^.�=�n for Additional �20 w�s m. i 's t ��m ��at"=" `N:z, :;tom �ti`3. -N $24.5 million - - ci.,i�� - :tip .'>;i ih �,r w�" i i 5. i�' IC` . 1 -�:_� �,-:-- Debt Svc on i Kv�✓" f \" 'l 00 zn. I :i =`ire ; .�.. ;�: DDm"�=�M above a ` " r D/ Pla n n- 1� ww x:5.� - .\ \` .f - �""� eta. ;i '3;;:',;', .`Y"`; is H;":."4;ram"', �.ti yn :�:' - -G �•iw„' J /'•r` fir; I,, - i $80 :4i, ���^.:. 111 •1 "(w ^�5 \vr �'�� �;n�rx .1 R�yx , i. , - F"r,.YN i Debt ��'�= li � Svc on vF.��i "nS YS^:'FnFr u' S DDm �F"� �e to .3_F� '^z r if �;� within 10% Pl an n/� :x e '3 E- r J 0 xF''rq ,e-s ��r o _ - Y .[ 1. t Svc on , _ _:; Debt _ ...... ' fr1r: ifF t.0 Ns: ..... . $100m within" t n Y f' ^ ,� •V pp .{ ��ynnrC 'Ni 3'S Y� ^:C u { ti' ;P n! �.� Current ��J J� ar., Rate d ^nn= 'r �=' i�g Yy .r `r J V fi=µ rr.r „:,rF.. SN r. r l�•E r1 , :7 � Y rt N :r1, � _ON, '� h' ice`".: „�. 'f y `tL n• 'L 'i„'zr�. ��n y, _ 1, .L `'J^ �� 0:,...:, 2 3^ t' 2'=`� .� :°� 1 r}�IT� .'r $r Fri 9� ��� \:;,t;, � 3 za F�.'{•� � � � �d �.. .�,' s�=:s,���� �w�," DHistorical ,1 r x', .. S, jtrN p F rf r t r +x �''s g it ffr �• FG:=a S w�wM`z^" Jy` � .F " � ry �r ��' 'r�r" •. `1ji�r r W�Mmr -`.t=� r' :'�i,s •r y, 'r� .,.? 1�. `a.• 6g1.1 ';c Y .i .,,,: Rates, less ` rU<Ji -c 3 z F� ��N� S � r''75 r 5 r. 7 nF� ,e', `Sf�•�-'' ^{ `�r.^<.. �^.{ .. [+,h�,� c',r❑$���7i �� tiY�e ".^ 'BM� r'•i M$1� iw o "$ ?` NKra � �'i:"` ylNS^.' �r �ti.=w �l�r r��r .'e^s ^�;s{v5'hit.; �� -�'' '�„7 �ti,•`rf!!�33 `::"' ,•� I r ,� ;5; N' .e4'S C 1.. >1`..i' '•. �. i `'.<..^* r r� (. r,,lirfrf.. x Y �• !,:e n, AS/S�', �y Fr y Operating kr� �' f, M`^^a: t�t' ' � 1� :✓=i.�^,t,..0, �.�"?i- '�;;'w::.� �i�i ',1 ]I ^`.,3 'xt..'`-'." 1 .1 '.i>"n ^ V� S•"� I ,E � iC'•Vl!•k Cost �„r;. � .rFr� y�� :& ,{ `z"y..Fr rr'" 5 Y'� ✓ .;a::' 7 [w fir.;"•"S.• ! ligiz•� ,vim �,y `�'"' ,AR:.: y ,� RAS Sip$ frj.� y , r �,r,: � Cry i�:C,�1' <<.".a.., ;�",w,;� ���-',�, ,,La F, ij� = TMw,_ lgig Ng _ _ "� "� �-� System �w .e..""..n.•..=`•:7f ° '.�.'.:� „N.: ..�..-•...._.S^ .........r.., r.^�,� ..,...�.r...�e?� � &y�`,A :»...�w'3�rr'� =r31.Yk•�.,x� �r•..er4♦1..«Sf....s ,,.._.t.t Operating .4. to co co o) v T- N c.") d■ ux CO © 0 0 © 0 Cost t7 r r r r r- it... r- r CO d' 1.0 CO 1` Ga 0) © r N Cl 10 CO CA o v v c3 0 Tr- �- w-. /.. v- r r G Q CI © v © © v © v © o © 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Draft Wastewater Rate Forecast (for discussion purposes only) Estimates are based on the following estimates and assumptions: 1) $68.0 million of A rated Senior Revenue Bonds(2009 issue)and$64.7 million in Subordinate Bonds backed by a General Fund pledge(2010 issue)at current market rates. 2) Refunding of up to$12 million in Bond Anticipation Notes(BANs)with 2009 bond issue. 3) Funding of$124.5 million in project expenses(includes expenses funding with BANs). 4) Funding of$8.2m debt service reserve within the 2009 issue. 5) Debt service coverage> 1.8X for$68m senior bond issue. 6) Debt service coverage> 1.0X for$64m subordinate bond issue. 7) Stable "winter average water usage"throughout the forecast period at 2008-09 levels. 8) Annual increase in system operating expenses of 3.3%throughout the forecast period. 9) Stable interest and SDC revenue at 2008-09 levels throughout forecast period. Prepared by:Darin Rouhier March 23,2009 Darin Sewer Projections 3 20 09(A Rated)V3.xls 91 1 1 . 1 ..),_.,.....atiAl.g.LOti,...J...... ..0:7•... .......:-.7.%.,..: . '. ...., ', ..;:',..::..:...: Ty 0F.:. viii....,...,.A-K.HE..• •,,„.,..„,s.,..'••'.',,,,•,',',''."••,',....:'•'EGO. ......•• .•,..4,, :,". ..,.......:,:. lott All .!z,,....:::,,....011.ti,..l'elt..: l‘:EPORT \.\\. .:,. .)................:ii. .. ... ....„.........:.............,.:, ... ••• OREGOI4•• • . TO:, :Jack D. Hoffman, Mayor Members of the City Council . .AleX'D..1‘.11.d.rity.te, City Manager FROM: Joel B. Ktitta:rek.,..P E. N. ‘ , Project Director- L01:1,'"'/' .,.. SUBJECT: Water 101 DATE: March 31.,, 2009 • . ...._.. ,,,,,..,,:,..,,:..,,::::.............., .., .. . ,.......,..... ... . ., .. .„. . . .. . ... .......:. ......... .... • . . ACTION No Council action is requested,. Staff...will present•a brief overview of the cits(8 water supply system and provide opportunities for the Council to ask questions about the system and related water supply issues.:.• INTRODUCTIONIBACKGROUND The City of Lake Oswegp,.s.•water sup* system has been .providing:clan.,.....safe..drinkino water to oiti2eris.:a00..8ivh00010:.00$t0$:for OVOri:80'.9i001. :...,;. moo(..$001)4, infrastructure...constructed...in-the 1.9607i:.•:.:is'aging and water supply demands aowOodhih4•the'..::.0fe treatment capacity Of op(troothlent.::.010t. Environmental issues,: Ornate change, economics, the events of..9/1 1.i:,.drinking.woter regm.latioos..!.antt..po.01lo expoctotion$:reitujre:the.C.ity:.t0.:pr.gactiveiy.t4ke. ste0,,to..ensure:our•water..supply. system can respond to these challenges for..continued..economic:vitality and quality of life. DISCUSSION: See...attached'.white'paper: ALTERNATIVES & FISCAL IMPACT No. 93 Council Report 03131/2009 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION nia ATTACHMENTS White paper Reviewed by: partrnent Director Ale Mc re City Manag r 94 Lake Owego 11111111111011111139.114.1111111101110$ . 11111,11,1111111101111.9111,01,., Lake,....:0**Ys..wotee:Supply History., Challenges and Opportunities management for sustarabie fuWre • . .................„.„..„.. . . Background The City of Lake.0swegos'water supply system has been providing clean, safeHdrinking....waterto clilensi..aki..whole$*.:custpmers,..for.over..89:years. Major sppply.,.infrasruqureconStructed.in the 1960'S.is agingand water supply geriNnOS'..:are....aittproaoing.th.4..sofe..t.reatv:poit..00004,of our treatmentplant. Environmental issues, climate change, econ.Ort)it „the events of 9.111, drinking water regulations and public...expectations.requirs:the.City to proactively take steps to ensure our water:supply:system can respond to these challenges for continued economic vitality and quality of life. A brief review.of bake pswoet91 ...:Writtet::supply history .6. In 1925 the City of Oswego purchased the water..mippiy...,system...a,ssetsiiof.theoswego Lake Water,..ught.and.Power, :Company for.$15,000. The system consisted of I reservoir, 1.pump...:station..and:approxiniately.7.,miles of pipelines. Thesource,O.supply was.a spring located in the vicinity a Foothills Road. A typical customer of the water utility piaid...abOutl.$7.:70.HeVery..two months for.an unlimited supply of drinking water. in 1965 the City Council commissioned an engineering study to identify a long term source of water.supplytareplace:the:system.olweRs.the.City.'had relied on for its drinking water.. Source.options..evaluated included:Portiancrs..:Bull Run system,the. Willamette River,Tualatin...10v0t; Clackamas River and an expansion of its well system.. oi in.1966 th0:::.Cdtilitil:SelOdt01:the Clackamas River.aSits:.sOle:Hiongtet.tri tburte.'of.Supply for municipal use and in.196Tsetuted a permit from the Oregon watot.Resources Department(.QWRD)to divert up to 323 million:gallons per day1MG0).:of.water from . the..Clakartis..systern. • Based:0par') planning data furnished by..the.CittOlhe•:.0V.V.R0 in 1.967,:41tfatilities necessary to diVert, pump,:convey and treat the full .32.3 MGD:.would be constructed and...in:service....by July:1.4995 the date when Lake Oswego was fotecasted.toreach.,a service area.population.of.55,400,. Four decades.later our service population including wholesale cUst0:.mte. .wit,Wn..00r Urban Service Boundary..(USB)...is about 40„000. and peak day.water demands are about 15 MGD. 95 Water Supply White Paper. Page I,• By. DeteMbe.r.196.a,:the•City hod..funded construction of its present day river intake structure on the.Clackamas.,River,..over:50;000,:feet of large'diameter water transmission ail0.8:IVEGO:water.treatment..p.lantin West Linn (then.unincorporated Clackamas COunty),..a.:4-MGte.rminal reservoirldcated.in.West Waiuga Park., several smatter. reservoirs, pump stations and several thousand feet of sm4lier diameter distribution • piping. Most of these systems are still in service today. • On.fuly.5"...I973,..the City.'appilledfOr.and secured a second permit from the OWRD granting the right to divettup.,..to..an,additional 5.81...IVIGO of water from the Clackamas River for..eriptikip01.:•Ose. The stated purpose for thispermitiwas...t0H.servehe,Cittes of Tualatin and the Tigard Water.District. • 41.1975 concern for having all yd&eggs in one basket" caused the then City Council to securea permit.from.the OWRD•to.divert.up.to.3,88.MGD..of Willamette River water near present day Mary S..Young.State:Park,. This small source of water was secured as an..:ernergency•backu.p..source.of sum*should the..City.sHintake.:or raw water transrnISSiptiirralti..becOme.ino.per.0:10.for any tengthHoltirn .preVenting.diVerSiob.s from the Clackamas • •1111980 the City..expand.edits!water.treatmeht.platitto the current'day capacity of 16 IVI•GD.. The.plant.property tools 6;05.acres.. In the...mid-90's..the citypurchasedHan. additional 3.3 acres to the south of the plant property for.possiblefutur*Hplarq..n0eds. This.proporty.iS encumbered by testrittive.covenants. 75%..itif the residents in the plat would have to approve a change in plattoveriantS'befOrethis property could be used for Want expansion purposes. • Today the City serves water to its.retail customers i.e.,city residents and wholesales water to several water districts.and cities by intergovernmental agreement. Wholesale. customers are the cities of Portland,Tigard, and Tualatin, the.:..$kylan.d[si,.Water.COmpany, Lakei•GroVe.Water.Distriai RiVergrtv.e Water Distritt,.:..Gle4MOrrie Water Cooperative and the Alto Park Water District. Historically, wholesale.sales..repres6nt about....3%of total annual.consumption excluding sales to City of Tigard. o Sales to.Tigard peaked: FY:94/95 at.443%,..of.tOtat water produced and diminished to 0%iri...FV.02/Q3, .500s.:to..Tigard resUMed in et.,05/06 and.:081erage'about.1..MGO Due to "take or.pay"'contractual:provisions,Tigard has resurnedtaking.most.of its water from. Portland. challenges 64 the Horizon Aretehttelephorte survey of 300...L .kei.OWejgo residents provided sotto interesting insights into our community's perceptions regarding their water. Responses to questions.showed: That 90%of respondents thought the City was doing a'"good to excellent"job of providing drinking.wat.erthat is!safe.and.pleaSarit.taStin&..and 96 Water Supply White.Paper Page Almost 7 of:10 respondents believe....the...Cityls.working.to maintain:and.preserve the water source; and More than roSporidents.-..40:...not.believe the'CitV11a. :.OrEviiii.i have in the near• future.'a'Water supply problem. W.h11e.thisits.good...news:...and..our.water utility employees including plant operators, engineering; maintenance, and billing department staff should give theitiSeive .epat on the back",these reSpon.seS also indicate a general lack of awareness of What is involved in making tOri.iSurre..e.kottatititS.for Safe'Water in tfuarititie$.demanded are:met. Particularly troubling is the perception that the City'doesnot nor will it-experience any.problems in Water'supply.. Significant challenges drinking water industry today and our ability to.responatathese OialiOrtges.'tpday.an4 tomorrow will tequite a. new.paradigm—one that is inclusive rather than. exclusive, one that:th'.0.11.,0..n.gs.'.tra.01tional:::thitiking:!..and.orr.e.that.acknowledges the incalculable value of water to sustainable, .economically vibrant communities. Lake..0SWego'Sithallenges. like many communities across the..nation A in :.in..ftastruOure—Many of rityis.cOtital supply system.coMponent .ii..—water intake structure and pumps,raW.and.finiShedwater.transthiSSion-mailiS and.:.Water treatment plant are operating at the upperlirffit...of best practices conditions and have done to'for the last decade with no redundancy. Duringthe...rieaki:5ummer supply season,these critical.cOmponents. operate under:demanding..conditions.....24/7.. .Anyfailure.of a pump,pipe.or treatment process could severely impact our supply capacity.and.require immediate and:severe.curtailment.of water supply. Recent studies and.C.O.n.ditiOn..a$!teSSM.e.nts.:of..th is:Critical'infrastructure have.. ider.itifrOd.apprOxiiiiOtely'S3M-$.5WW.ortil of"capital triage" needs just to remedy critical deficiencies in our intake.and water treatment plant and:this:still..tavet:Only,::6he, 40-year old pipeline..servingthe entire City. As our infrastructure..continuesto:age,..,:capital.a.nd.:operating. .and maintenance:costs...will-rise pressuring the City to increase rates. C100100gperoogrOhit —AS reSidents'tifthe.tdnirOnity.ago expectations for the quality and costs of water will also change,. Elderly cOnstimert arelikeiVto be MOreiinterestedin.....emerging. contaminants from.,a.health.:.'perspective because'larger percentages of elderhi may be imrnurtgcompromised. Treatment costs to remove these contaminants from our raw water. supplies will be expensive. Communities.$0.: 11.:.as...Lake.asi40.go..ekperiening....sloW.or negative double digit ini4reaSesiti...housirigtostS, and shrinking birth rates will have fewer rate. payers across.whom-to?:tpt6adrising...capital...and operating costs,thus holding the potential for higher water rates. Higher water rates will.disproportionately impact:the:elderly:on fixed incomes,or families whose maximum earning years are behind'them. Rat&base,growth through water supply pafther$hips.With Oth0f..:.coreOunities.nlay..be....orte,. .trategy to realize economies of 501e:Ortd•thus..redut0Etht::..gtowth of rate increases needed for operating and capitaFekperisei. 97 Water Supply White Paper page I.4 Workforce Succession Planning'.--Recruitin:g,:traihing.and.fetainint.skilledi.committed utility .operators.:willHchallengemu.nicipal..utilities.as..never..before... Marketing utility operations jobs in the public sector in competition with the private:.sector.will require..local..governmentsto.offer. cOrrkpetitNe...WagOs,..grOwth...60.0ortOitieS.,..:w0ii.pla(e flexibility and thallertirg::.aigo.theots.if the youngest and brightest of those interested in utility operations are to be attracted to public service:. The City currently has.7:highly:skilled plant.operatOrsfourof whom...,are..at..or within a.. few years of eligibility to retire. Replacing these.. k11.1.sets.and institutional knowledge where competition for a shrinking pool of qualified plant operators is high will need to be.addressed through a.carefully dovoiopoi.'ili4riOtietg.014.ettiplO010,61..stealt0. :that.;*111.:cause.00tential candidates to "look here first". 'EK01060t.:000.0trttinitistp!. hare.:'labor assets between public utilities may be one...Strategy to address this.issue. EggE.0.0.),,v....:cholloogo. ..for:Water Treatment...—Two rules recently promulgated under the Safe Drinkint:Wato.r.Aoi(S.DWA)j:n response to public health conternS.:aSsoCioted.*itti.OsihfOttiOn. by-..products.:and.'.Water-bornepatKpg0Aic...oita0isrn$.'.are having a significant impact on utilities across the nation. Retrofit.of existing treatMent.,plants.With'advanted treatment technologies and requirements increased'monitoring:and.repoeting.of water:ctuality'conditions within utility...distribution...systems.areithe:..n.ew.paradigm for:community.watersystems. In response, our utility is instailing..watet.cOality inohitoririg:,stations:City-wide and:conducting increased sano.pling..titritivantify-the presente:.aild..teV.Os Of disinfection by-products. fountains at the.City'.:s...WTP have been disconnected and plant"personnel•thay-Otity..ditik bottled wt.er..due: to inad.equate..chtorine:contact times within the plant. MuOicioalwater:itights:—..-HB 3038 upended historic precedent with respect to..:municipal.:water rights, NEW..stat4tOr.y[ow.:(ORS'Chapter.537):Odimplerneriting,Adthinistrativo,.:Rtits.(OAR 315) concerning municipal water rights'.01ace...Watertystems•With undeveloped water rights.like ours in positions of uncertainty with.the'attendantrisksto.planning:for:water demand growth, capital facilities planning and:securing financing in.:the:bond.market for new.capital. .,Regionalization signatory to Intergo.Vprornoital. Agreement creating the Regional Water Providers Consortium (MK);the City..0f. ake•OSwOgd. has:,demonstrated its commitment to being..a.regional partner with other Water.providers on water supply issues, in addition to the partnership with the RWPC, Lake-Oswego:also:partners with other cities andwater supply districts that use the Clackamas River fortheirdrinking water supplies. •Sih02q0();:th.O.Cfack4Mas:Wter.:managet.. ..Group.tcww)...'hos.:.:joiothifoodod.and managed significant activities in the Clackamas watershed including: Annual monitoring anddataitollettion on the presence of giardia aritt.tryptOSOO.riditini... (pathogenic.orgartisms)in the river as required under the.SOWA. o Several'watershed assessments identifying sources of pollutants,general watershed health,.water:guality'pOraitOttS..suih...as total organic carbon;pH,..cifssolved..oxygenand alkalinity.. 98 Water Supply White Paper Page I 5 .41bPublic outreach in Clackamas County regarding issues in the watershed. • Funding activities of the Clackamas.River Basin Council. • Stream flow monitoring and data • ReStitidejherbitide'sa."mplingH,•00 analyses conducted in partnership•with the USGS, • Development of..a-coraprehenSive.computer'model of the river from:RN:errant:Darn to: the moUth.: • Water availability stu410s:and.water rights.evaluations.. Of intreaSiOg.inipOrtant ...to..Wator providers today.are'iri$ks of supplyinetrUptiOn...duetO natural disaster or Access to an source of supply and system redundancy is a critical strategy that responds to:these risks. The.'''Regional-Transmission and Storage Strategy" (RTSS)commissioned..by.:the.RWPC in.199.8,,was:developed:in response to., these...:ebitcons.e0.:.reSod. by.th :•tegitifi$:Water supply agencies. The recommended.strategy pf linking supply sources e.g., B.0.11ROri;WiR001.0-te;Clackamas and:Trask/Barney Reservoir system relies on ai.netwofk...of large.dtamtet.:trartsntis'sion.'MAihs.ta0abte..of.'mOVin$water throughout theregion::.north...to-south; east to west. :One proposed eastiwestlinkage.istomprised of a. large diameter main:that..would connect.the,Clackamas River s9urce.with..the.:Trask River/Barney Reservoir source and the:WillarnettO.:RiVer..source (at the time of the RTSS stOdy. still UndeVeloped). The report Suggests th...0..lbest:.oppOrt0..4ity fat Oeveloping:thes .tirikagOs will be realized through total.partnerships. .Actess..to::alternate.:soUrtes.,and developing system redundancy for Lake Oswego can:be achieved through.Hpartnerships.with.providers using sources other than the:.Ciackamas.River.. Potential partners include: • City of Portland—Bull.Run system and SOUth...•Shbre..*Ielifietils • city of Tigard Interconnected to Bull Run and Trask/Barney systems • City of Wilsonville-Willamette System • joint Water Commission—•Trasik/Barney...systems. Interconnections to any Of the.:above:sources...and: ystems.will.requir ..atiVante planning; poSsible new governmental entities and signifitantta:Pital.expenditures.. Thank you for the opportunity to provide you thisinformation...about..our water supply system and these of concern. If you have any questions ot,.need...clatificatiOn..on.: he.subjects: discussed herein, please let the.know, 99