Approved Minutes - 2018-11-06 O�`A E �s�
v o
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
OR E G O. November 6, 2018
6. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Studebaker called the regular City Council meeting to order at 3:27 p.m. on
September 18, 2018, in the City Council Chambers, 380 A Avenue.
Present: Mayor Studebaker and Councilors Gudman, Kohlhoff, O'Neill, Buck, Manz,
and LaMotte. Councilor Kohlhoff joined the meeting by telephone.
Staff Present: Scott Lazenby, City Manager; David Powell, City Attorney; Anne-Marie
Simpson, City Recorder; Erica Rooney, City Engineer; Crystal Shum,
Boones Ferry Road Project Lead; Leslie Hamilton, Senior Planner; Scot
Siegel, Planning and Building Director; Ivan Anderholm, Parks and
Recreation Director; Megan Phelan, Assistant City Manager; Shawn
Cross, Finance Director.
7. CITIZEN COMMENT
• Meg Wilkinson, 17304 Marjorie Avenue
Ms. Wilkinson stated she had sent a letter to Council regarding concerns about Parks Bond
Question 25. First, the golf course project was the only one that had to provide its own funding,
while other funding options, such as system development funds or reserve funds, could be used
for projects like the swimming pool and tennis court. Second, she believed Question 25 should
be removed or rewritten because the existing either/or question did not provide an option to
oppose both. What if someone did not want the lots sold and was fine with the project not being
funded by the bond?
• Deborah Wilkinson, 17304 Marjorie Avenue
Ms. Wilkinson stated she had sent an email to the Council last night and for the first time she
had not received an immediate response, which she speculated was due to the busyness of the
election. She wanted to delete "at the municipal golf course" from survey Question 11, because
residents might support a recreational facility, but maybe not at the golf course. Other residents
questioned why the golf course had to be decreased from 18 to 9 holes. She did not believe any
question had been asked about changing the golf course's size so she wanted to add, "Are you
in favor of continuing the golf course in its current, 18-hole format?" She agreed with deleting
Question 25, adding other questions asked how important programs were but not about where
the funding should come from.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 13
November 6, 2018
• Neil James, 18485 SW Donlee Way
Mr. James stated his concerns regarded the exclusionary tone of proposed resolutions related to
annexation. He lived in the Rosewood Neighborhood Association and, after being annexed into
the city in the mid-1980s, had been a city taxpayer for over 35 years. He and his neighbors inside
and outside the city felt overlooked. The taxpayers and citizens of Lake Oswego should all have
the same rights and privileges. No neighborhood association recognized by the city should be
excluded from being able to waive neighborhood association fees in a Development Review
Commission decision being appealed to City Council. He did not believe the resolution
represented the City well. It sent the wrong message to neighborhoods like Southwood Park and
neighbors in the Rosewood area that might or might not want to annex. He did not believe there
had been any outreach to the citizens or community.
• Bonnie Robb, 18782 Benfield Ave
Ms. Robb said Peter Klaebe had asked her to speak to Council, adding she was also on the
Rosewood Community Planning Organization (CPO) Board. She believed the resolutions were
discriminatory against City taxpayers within the neighborhoods who would not be able to be
represented by their neighborhood associations. The Rosewood CPO has had a very positive
contribution to the City, having joined with the City to get the $500,000 grant for the Safe Routes
to School. The CPO did not want to break that relationship. Resolution 18-50 sent the message
that the City wanted to deal only with neighborhoods that were more"in"than "out"and Rosewood
would be considered "out". They were not opposed to the City adopting a clearer annexation
policy, especially if it led to new ideas and approaches, for example, using Local Improvement
Districts (LIDs). There was room for the neighborhood and the City to work together. Finally,
receiving figures about the cost of an annexation would be helpful and had been requested in
previous meetings.
• Debbie Craig, 1008 Spruce Street
Ms. Craig said she and a number of her neighbors were present to urge City Council to remember
Hallinan Woods as they considered renewing the upcoming bonds. She also believed there was
strong support throughout the city for the Hallinan Woods project regarding the block of property
behind Hallinan School.
• Gail Wallmark, 1755 Kilkenny Rd
Ms. Wallmark stated she and her husband were new residents and as an avid golfer, she
believed the golf course was a great resource for the town and supported keeping it a golf course.
She had an extensive career in marketing and communications, and specifically in survey
research. She supported other testimony about changes to the survey including deleting "at the
municipal golf course" in Question 11. Tying support for building the Parks and Recreation
headquarters muddled the survey finding if tied to the location. Question 25 should be omitted.
The survey was trying to answer too many questions, and she urged the Council to consider two
surveys, each with more focused information goals. The first one could be limited to
understanding the interest in renewing the bonds and support for a permanent home for Parks
and Recreation. A second survey sometime next year could help prioritize all the project options
being considered by Parks and Recreation. Questions 11 through 24 were extremely difficult
because of their phrasing and 14 different options, and difficult to pay enough attention to answer
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 13
November 6, 2018
intelligently, especially as a phone survey. She encouraged Council to read the email she sent
today detailing more changes. Lastly, the City should ascertain if and how Riley Research
Associates would ensure the ending sample of respondents representatively reflected the city's
residential population on key demographics like geography, household composition, and income.
She confirmed that she understood no plans existed to not have golf at the golf course.
• Sarah Ellison, 208 Ash Street
Ms. Ellison Acting Chair, Hallinan Heights Neighborhood Association and member of the
Coalition for Hallinan Woods Nature Park, stated the Association supported the Park's Board's
recommendation that the City purchase the two-acre parcel adjacent to Hallinan Woods to. She
described the process of raising funds and support over the past six years for expanding the
nature park. City Council would vote tonight to finalize approval to develop the property into a six-
lot subdivision. The Coalition was grateful that Council voted to require removal of the fence
separating the existing park from the private property's protected riparian area as a condition of
approval. However, the community continued to advocate expanding the park by two acres. In
light of today's anticipated approval of the property's development application, the matter was
urgent and they hoped Council would discuss the Park Board's recommendation to make a viable
offer on the property at the next City Council meeting.
• Jan Castle, 16181 Parelius Circle
Ms. Castle Chair, McVey-South Shore Neighborhood Association, agreed that once the 1107
Yates Street application for a six-lot subdivision was approved, development could start right
away or another offer could be received. She hoped Council would discuss how the property could
be acquired by the City and find a solution that worked for the Coalition for Hallinan Woods Nature
Park, the neighborhood, and owners of the property.
• Chip Corbett, 1040 Upper Devon Lane
Mr. Corbett stated he and his wife were new to the area and he wished to speak for the trees.
The Hallinan Woods Committee was very interested in keeping the woods open and he supported
adding the proposal to acquire the two-acre property as a line item at the next Council meeting.
• Dave Beckett, 17738 Kelok Road
Mr. Beckett stated that in his experience serving on the Three Rivers Land Conservancy Board,
it was very difficult to acquire new, natural areas. Hallinan Woods could be easily expanded by
two acres. It would not be a substantial burden on the City because it was adjacent to property
already maintained by the City. As a Budget Committee member for several years, he was very
conscious conserving money and choosing priorities carefully. Purchasing these two acres should
be a priority. He implored the Council to acquire the property and let it become a natural area.
• Don Wayne, 1491 Koawood Dr.
Mr. Wayne stated he was under the impression that there would be something more substantial
in the form of a public hearing on the Parks Bond Survey. He was disappointed Council did not
agree. He read a statement into the record in which he reviewed the survey's history and
questioned the neutrality of the survey company, the survey, and Parks and Recreation Director
Anderholm's involvement. He also noted omissions in the draft survey, particularly in Question
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 13
November 6, 2018
25, with regard to project costs and the strong opposition to the sale of golf course land for
residential development.
• Charles "Skip" Ormsby, 170 SW Birdshill Rd, Portland
Mr. Ormsby stated he lived in the City's urban growth management area. He asked Council to
delay consideration of Resolutions 18-49 and 18-50 until the new Council convened in 2019.
Resolution 18-50 was extremely disparaging to residents in the dual interest area shared between
Clackamas County and Lake Oswego. Should Council pass that resolution, multiple complaints
would be filed. He expressed concerns about efforts to make the Tryon Creek interceptor line
resilient, plans to excavate 12,000 cubic yards of material from Tryon Cove Park, and the
cumulative cost of the projects, noting that citizens needed to receive notification and be involved
in these decisions. He also said further investment in any design for urban renewal, transit-
oriented development in the Foothills was extremely wasteful given the demise of Marylhurst
University. The University's 53 acres were out of the flood plain and not adjacent to the sewer
plant.
7.1 Prior Citizen Comment Follow-Up
No follow-up on prior citizen comment was presented.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 Resolution 18-47, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council Authorizing a
Special Procurement Using the Competitive Proposal Process of Contracting in
Lieu of Competitive Bidding for the Construction Contract for the Boones Ferry
Road — Phase 1 Project.
Report and Attachment
Mr. Powell opened the public hearing and reviewed the time limits for testimony as shown in the
agenda.
Ms. Shum explained Staff was before Council because Oregon Revised Statues required getting
permission to use a bidding method different from the typical low-bid method for construction
contract awards. She presented the Council Report regarding Resolution 18-47, and provided an
update on the progress of the Boones Ferry Road Project since she was last before Council. She
reviewed the project details, including cost estimate changes and increases, as well as the
anticipated project schedule. The project had not changed; only design modifications and
refinements had been made. Extensive underground utility conflicts had resulted in prolonged
delays in the project design. She clarified the cost estimate provided at 95 percent design was $2
million more than today's cost estimate due to a double counting the construction management.
Currently, the estimated total was about $36.5 million. As discussed by Council, Staff had added
the cost of acquiring the staging area, which the City would sell for an expected profit when the
project was complete. Staff would return in December with clearer cost estimates and for contract
awards for construction management, the engineer of record (EOR), and the design engineer.
Construction would begin as quickly as possible after Council awarded the contracts in April or
May. She reviewed the benefits of the Competitive Proposal Selection process, noting its use by
other cities and by ODOT. Staff asked City Council to adopt Resolution 18-47, which would allow
the Competitive Proposal Selection bidding method to be used for construction.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 13
November 6, 2018
Councilor LaMotte understood if a regular bid was sought, the lowest bidder would receive the
contract, but might not have the experience for a sophisticated, complex street like Boones Ferry
Rd. With the proposed procurement method, the City could fine-tune the language to be able to
find the right person or company. Noting the $4.8 million for construction and project
management, he wanted to clarify that a contractor was being sought to build the project, not to
add more management. Ms. Shum replied the construction management component was
required by ODOT, but the contractor was not necessarily being asked to do the same
management work; they would be managing their subcontractors and, hopefully, the utilities. Staff
supported the Competitive Proposal Selection method because they could request examples of
completed projects and ask questions about how they had worked with utilities, contractors,
subcontractors and, especially important, how they worked with the public. Councilor LaMotte
noted that Katy Kerklaan and the communications staff had already been doing community
engagement for six months, and asked why the City would pay a contractor to do the same thing.
Ms. Shum explained that community involvement done by a contractor was different from that
done by Ms. Kerklaan. The contractor works with the business owners to discuss important items,
such as timeframes for accessing their business. Staff wanted a contractor to do more of the
construction-side public outreach. Contractors who did not know how to engage the public made
people very upset and generated animosity between the people who live, work, or had businesses
around the construction project and with the contractor. The project would take long enough that
it was necessary to make the process with the community as easy as possible. Councilor
LaMotte said he was unclear what ODOT was doing on the project for $3 million when City
engineers and other Staff would be on the project, in addition to $1.8 million for project
management. Ms. Shum explained the contract management was not only for day-to-day
management of the project, but also included inspectors. An inspector was required to be on-site
almost 100 percent of the time, both day and night. Huge paperwork requirements were also
imposed by the State. Many components made up construction management. On smaller
projects, she could easily handle the construction management herself. However, the Boones
Ferry Road Project would have multiple crews on site to manage and paperwork to submit to
ODOT. Most of the money for construction management would be for the inspectors' time.
Councilor Buck said he appreciated Staff's proposal to use this type of bid process as the project
would be arduous and lengthy, so communication and getting the right contractor for the job was
critical. He knew more delays had occurred due to the requirements involved with the City getting
the$5 million State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)Grant. He asked what additional
requirements resulted from the City receiving the STIP grant. Ms. Shum replied one item was the
contract ODOT had with WH Pacific, which meant the City lacked a certain amount of control
because adding more people or tasks required a long amendment process. A recent amendment
required to add a couple tasks that the City did not know about had taken six months to process.
If the City had processed the amendment, it would probably have taken only 1'/2 months. A lot
more paperwork also needed to be done by Staff, for example, documenting that the City was
buying American, which was also required. Larger right-of-way takes were also required for
temporary construction easements that the City would have to pay for. Normally, the City would
not have done some of the temporary construction easements and simply asked for a right-of-
entry to use a property for a short time. As the work progressed, Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) requirements changed, so the City's ADA plans had to be reviewed and redesigned.
Councilor Buck said he did not realize the City did not have the contract with WH Pacific because
of the grant. Ms. Shum explained the City's control came via its agreement with ODOT and,
through that agreement; ODOT had the contract with the City's designer.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 13
November 6, 2018
Mayor Studebaker confirmed there was no public testimony in favor of or opposed to the
proposed Resolution and closed the public hearing.
Mayor Kent Studebaker moved to approve Resolution 18-47. Joe Buck seconded the
motion.
Councilor Gudman believed that for financing purposes, Council should assume that the staging
area would not be sold. He recommended that Staff return to the next possible Council meeting
to initiate the expansion of the capacity of the Urban Renewal District which could be done in a
relatively straightforward way. There had already been a gap earlier between Phase 1 Parking
and Phase 2, so the capacity needed to be expanded, which would not increase taxes.
A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Kent Studebaker, Jeff Gudman,
Theresa Kohlhoff, Skip O'Neill, Joe Buck, Jackie Manz, and John LaMotte voting 'aye.' (7-
0)
8.2 Ordinance 2797, An Ordinance of the Lake Oswego City Council Amending LOC
Chapter 50 (Community Development Code) for the Purpose of Clarifying and
Updating Various Provisions (2018), Including Increasing Setbacks on Lots Zoned
High Density When They Abut Lots that will be Zoned Low Density Upon
Annexation; Solar Code Tree Terminology; Solar Access Permit Removal; Utility
Undergrounding Exemptions, and Adopting Findings (LU 18-0035).
Report and Attachments
Mr. Powell read the Ordinance title and hearing parameters, and reviewed the time limits for
testimony as shown in the agenda. He asked if any members of City Council wished to declare
any conflicts of interest. There were none. He asked if anyone in the audience wished to challenge
any City Council member's right to consider the application. No challenges were heard.
Ms. Hamilton presented the annual Code amendments package, noting how the amendments
originated and describing the significant proposed amendments as follows:
• The Solar Code amendments clarified language regarding types of trees allowed to make the
Code more user-friendly and deleted the solar access permit, as none had ever been issued.
Solar access standards were deleted for partitions creating only two or three lots, but retained
for subdivisions of four or more lots as such partitions often create a street and were more
likely to be able to orient to solar standards.
• With a few exceptions, new developments were required to underground utilities. A Code
amendment added exceptions for projects that usually receive a waiver of the requirement,
like an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) or a remodel, in order to streamline the Code.
• An existing Code provision increased setbacks in high-density zones that abut low density
zones in the City, and an amendment would apply the same increased setbacks if the high-
density zone abutted a low-density zone in the City or one that would be zoned low density if
it were annexed. This would apply to approximately 16 properties in the county.
• Recent Uplands Overlay Code updates were made regarding flag lots, impervious surfaces,
and setbacks. Code language was made clearer on when the overlay standards applied.
• The deadline for submission of written materials on the day of a hearing was moved from 5
pm to noon to allow Staff adequate time to manage them. Materials submitted after noon
would need to be submitted at the hearing, instead.
• A series of clean-up amendments were also highlighted.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 13
November 6, 2018
Mayor Studebaker called for any testimony in favor of or opposed to the Ordinance. Seeing
none, he closed the public hearing.
Mayor Kent Studebaker moved to adopt Ordinance 2797. Jackie Manz seconded the
motion. A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Kent Studebaker, Jeff
Gudman, Theresa Kohlhoff, Skip O'Neill, Joe Buck, Jackie Manz, and John LaMotte voting
'aye.' (7-0)
Mayor Studebaker called for a recess at 4:31 pm and reconvened the meeting at 4:41 pm.
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
9.1 Annexation and Service to Unincorporated Areas
Report and Attachments
This item was delayed to the December 4, 2018 City Council meeting.
9.2 Parks Bond Renewal Survey
Report and Attachment
Mr. Lazenby stated Staff was seeking Council feedback on the Parks Bond Survey, and
acknowledged the citizen comments received. Further vetting would likely take place regarding
survey instrument design by the survey firm.
Mr. Anderholm briefly noted the history of the public perception survey, adding the survey firm
selected had extensive experience in the area of parks and recreation. Mike Riley of Riley
Research Associates was not able to attend tonight's meeting. The survey tried to capture critical
topics, such as whether the public was willing to support a bond measure, and to gauge the
population or interest in of the Park Board's and Parks and Recreation Department's prioritization
of projects. The survey also attempted to get an impression of where the public stood on certain
hot topics, like the golf course. He had received some input from the Councilors already which he
had passed to Mr. Riley. Some of that feedback was reflected in the latest draft of the survey;
however, some topics and phrasing received from individual Councilors was so far apart that it
was not included given the anticipated discussion at tonight's meeting. He confirmed he had
discussed the multiple comments received earlier in the meeting on Question 25 with Mr. Riley,
and asked if Council wanted to learn the community's preferences regarding the golf course via
Question 25. He believed continued conversation and outreach to the public would be done
concerning the golf course. The survey was not about making that decision, but to discover the
preferences of the community. As discussed with Mr. Riley, Question 25 could be omitted or
reworded to make more sense.
Mayor Studebaker and several Councilors suggested omitting Question 25.
Councilor O'Neill believed Question 25 should be changed to a yes or no question. He
suggested rephrasing the question to ask if the golf course land should be sold to a homebuilder
to help pay for the golf course redesign, yes or no. Councilor Buck noted no one had spoken in
support today of selling the land. Councilor LaMotte stated it began with the bigger question of
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 13
November 6, 2018
whether the golf course should be upgraded, yes or no. If so, the question about a 9-hole or 18-
hole golf course was not needed because the public would not have the necessary information.
The professionals had indicated a nine-hole course was necessary to make it viable. After the
yes or no upgrade question, then ask if the lots should be sold to pay for the upgrade. Otherwise,
the golf course would go into the bond. Mayor Studebaker stated that Council had been very
clear about continuing to have a golf course, so that question did not need to be asked. Whether
or not to sell the property to accomplish the upgrade was a legitimate question. Mr. Anderholm
confirmed he would ask Mr. Riley to make Question 25 a yes or no question for clarity.
Councilor LaMotte believed Council supported having a new, permanent home for the Parks
and Recreation Department, but uncertainty existed about the golf course location and/or if the
space should be rented. Question 11 could ask if the Parks and Recreation Department should
have a permanent home, yes or no. If yes, then ask where it should be located: at the golf course,
at Lakewood Junior High in conjunction with a pool, or other places that could be leased or built.
If Council was set on locating Parks and Recreation at the golf course, then no location questions
should be asked, just ask if the location should be supported as part of the bond. The Council
agreed with his suggestion. Mr. Anderholm explained Mr. Riley included the location topic after
receiving the prioritized project lists and interviewing Mr. Powers and himself, asking specific
questions about location and various separate topics to get a greater level of detail. He had talked
with Mr. Riley this morning and he described some variables in some of the questions would be
removed, such as the phrase, "at the golf course". Did that really add anything to the question
other than describing a location? People were familiar with the golf course.
Regarding Question 11, Councilor LaMotte noted if Council had decided on the golf course, and
other locations, rentals, or construction were not being considered, the sentence was okay; the
text should be left. Councilor O'Neill replied the problem was people could say they did not want
the Parks and Recreation Department at the golf course, but a new facility. He suggested finding
out first if the public wanted the facility. Councilor Buck reminded that the options for locating
the facility were limited, which was why Council had gone through the process that led to the golf
course. He did not want to start the process all over again. Councilor O'Neill said Council needed
to know if the public voted it down because it was at the golf course or because they did not want
to build a permanent Parks and Recreation facility. Councilor Buck suggested the question ask
if the public was supported a permanent home for Parks and Recreation and leave the location
out, because Council was trying to determine if there was general support for a new facility.
Councilor LaMotte noted the Council approved the 30 percent design to get a handle on the cost
so perhaps that was misleading. Mr. Lazenby noted the question had three parts, which was not
a good design for a survey. He believed it was written based on the package recommended by
the Parks Board. He agreed no alternative location existed and Council was not giving the public
an option to choose between locations. He agreed with removing the location and confirmed
discussion Phases 1 and 2 of the project would be confusing. Mr. Anderholm said that after
answering the question about having a permanent home for Parks,the survey's goal was to gauge
the public's interest in supporting a bond for the projects listed, which would help prioritize that
project list. The reality was the math did not add up. The survey was trying to determine the top
priority projects so, if there was an interest in a bond, the bond language could be specific so
people knew what to expect for the renewal bond question. Councilor Gudman clarified the bond
measure would potentially have a rollover of$20 million to $22 million. If a question on the survey
asked if the public wanted a permanent home for Parks and Recreation for$20 million, that option
would be the only item on the bond measure. Mr. Lazenby said Staff would return with the survey
results, and the Council and Parks Board would prioritize the list. If the cost was going to stay
within $22 million, Council would decide what would be in or out. Mr. Anderholm noted a number
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 13
November 6, 2018
of the projects were not relying entirely on bond dollars. Partial funding and other funding sources
existed for a number of projects, such as System Development Charges (SDCs). Right now, the
projects needed to be prioritized, and then Staff would return to Council with full information on
how the projects could be funded if a bond was part of funding any one of the projects. He
confirmed the bonding capacity would be mostly absorbed if the City proceeded with a new
building.
Councilor Kohlhoff stated she did not like the way the questions were written, specifically
Questions 11, 22, 23, and 25. The questions tried to get too much at once, so it was hard to know
what might be the stumbling point. Someone might be okay with a Parks and Recreation facility,
but did not want the cost to go up to $20 million or the location at the golf course. In that case, the
question would not give Council any information unless it was a buildup. A question should be
asked, and then direction given to another question based on that answer. Also, the questions
needed to be in the same format and should say where the money would come from, which might
make a difference when prioritizing projects. Question 22 was a concern because she did not
know if the word lobby referred to changing the Charter so the building could be extended beyond
its footprint. She also doubted anyone would be willing to talk to a survey taker for 10 minutes;
she would not do it. Question 22 had to be specific about extending the footprint or trying to
change the Charter; further explanation was needed. Question 23 regarding a City-owned pool
was poorly written and too many variations were involved. The City might go into a partnership or
only be the pool's administrator, none of which was in the survey. The question merely asked if
the City should pay $13 million for or contribute to a pool. The question needed work or no useful
information would be received. For Question 25, she agreed there had never been any support
from the community for selling the lots. She asked if they were presently actually residential lots
or part of the golf course, which might make a big difference to the public. Just saying six to seven
residential lots was not informative. She noted had other concerns, but those were her comments
for now.
Councilor O'Neill commented that the Council had never discussed two pools, so Question 23
was very confusing. He preferred the question to read something like, "Should the City invest $X
million into the new Lake Oswego School District pool to make it a larger community pool?"Then,
the public would understand the money would be going into an existing, voter-approved pool to
make it a bigger, grander facility.
Mr. Anderholm confirmed the survey would be available online by Riley Research Associates
who would control the website and host the survey. The statistically-valid information would be
based on phone responses.
Councilor LaMotte stated Question 14 still needed to say, "...build a new artificial turf field at the
City-owned, Rassekh property" so the public knew the City was not buying property. Question 16
did not include specifics for the $3 million placeholder which opened the door for asking whether
a line item should be available to purchase open space and park land where it was lacking. People
would question what area the $3 million figure was for, so a few areas should be listed. He was
not sure the phrase, "areas where parks are lacking" would help because the public would be
suspicious of the $3 million. Question 22 discussed constructing a lobby and upgrading ADA
access to the existing tennis center at a cost of$1 million. He asked if the $1 million was over and
above the reserves. If the reserves were available and could be used, why ask the question? Mr.
Anderholm replied the total project would cost about $1 million, and reserves were available to
cover approximately 50 to 60 percent of that, but it would be a project that the Parks Department
would be considering for bond funding. Councilor LaMotte noted the question sounded like it
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 13
November 6, 2018
was the whole $1 million, but half was already in reserve. Someone might think $1 million was
available to fund it when only half of the money was available. Mr. Anderholm said Mr. Riley
explained that having dollar amounts gave a perspective of the total project cost, not necessarily
the funding cost. In the context, people did not know that an athletic field costs $6 million as
opposed to a dog park that costs $1 million, and that the information needed to be put forward.
Describing what portions would be funded for each project would turn a 10-minute phone call into
a 45-minute phone call. Councilor LaMotte noted that with regard to a bond renewal, if he heard
the survey question, he would think $1 million would have to come out of the bond versus at a
cost of$1 million of which $500,000 was already funded. He shared Councilor O'Neill's concern
about Question 23, which should address whether the City should partner with the school district
to get the pool developed. Councilor Gudman noted that more than 20 years ago, the bonds
had a line entry that did not specify specific properties, but did specify properties on the perimeter
of the city, or something like that. It let the public know that the City was looking for properties to
purchase in the Stafford area, Luscher Farm in particular. He was concerned that if the City
expressed an interest in specific properties, the owners of those properties would raise their
prices. With the exception of the Hallinan Woods property, he believed the question should be
generic. Mr. Anderholm stated he had supplied Mr. Riley with the 1998 and 2002 bond language
to use as a tool when writing the questions. Councilor LaMotte stated if the City was going for
bond renewals, the language needed to be fresher, because if it was just for outside the City, it
was different than what was needed as far as parks, internal or external.
Councilor Buck said instead of asking about very specific projects with specific dollar amounts,
he suggested asking something more general, such as, "Would you prioritize the purchase of new
open space projects that would expand outdoor recreation opportunities?", which would guide
Council in terms of the projects. Mr. Anderholm said Staff had told Mr. Riley the City had a list of
projects that could possibly be funded and wanted to identify and prioritize those the public was
interested in. Mr. Riley had said he needed some specifics if that was really how the City wanted
to use the tool. Mr. Anderholm said he decided that part of the survey direction was to find out if
the public had an appetite to renew the bond, but also to use the tool to help Staff prioritize the
projects in order to have data if people wanted go out for a bond. Even though some projects in
the survey had been prioritized by the Parks Board or the Department, people in the community,
maybe the majority would not want to support them. Staff would use the survey to know what
projects the community supported before including the language in a potential bond. Mr. Lazenby
added that in the past, Lake Oswego had been rather specific about what the public would receive
for a bond, and the bonds had passed. They may have passed with more general language. Staff
wanted the Council's sense on how much detail the voters would want. He cautioned that it was
easier to go from specific in the survey to general in the ballot language, it would not work the
other way around.
Mr. Anderholm reviewed the suggested changes to the survey questions as follows:
• In Question 11, eliminate the location; it would not state, "at the municipal golf course"
• Question 14 would be clarified to not specifically identify the Rassekh property, stating, "...to
build an artificial turf field on City-owned property across from Luscher Farm"
• Put Question 22 in the context of staying within the existing footprint of the tennis center, and
to involve the public in the process. As far as adding money to the question, he believed it
needed to be consistent: either add how much bond funding was being sought for the project
or just include the amount of the overall project. He confirmed that once yes or no responses
were received, the projects would be added to the priority list and Staff would have to return
with a funding proposal on any prioritized project.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 13
November 6, 2018
• Change the language of Question 23 to state, "...contribute to the capital expense of the
school district's community pool."
• Following a brief discussion, Council agreed Question 25 should be changed read, "Should
the City sell golf course land to upgrade the golf course."
Mr. Lazenby confirmed the questions asked during public testimony had all been addressed
except that the cost and acreage of Hallinan Woods was not in the survey. He confirmed the line
item for open space would remain in the survey. He noted that the current wording said it was
based on the Parks Plan 2025 where there was missing park land, which wasn't accurate. Mayor
Studebaker stated he did not want to get into that.
9.3 Trends in Fire Cost of Compensation
Report
Ms. Phelan presented the Council Report on trends in the cost of compensation for firefighters
as requested by Council at the October 16, 2018 meeting. Staff focused specifically on
compensation over the course of the last collective bargaining agreement and the recently
adopted agreement that would expire in 2020. As detailed in the report, the median cost of paying
benefits was projected to total $211,000 per employee per year by the end of the new agreement.
The estimate did not include administrative personnel or fire management staff. She confirmed
that pay for firefighters was a result of union negotiations and contracts, except for PERS which
set its own rates. Everything else, including personnel salary, health insurance, overtime
projections, and additional payroll taxes, was generally subject to negotiations.
Councilor Gudman requested that Ms. Phelan or Mr. Lazenby bring Council possible alternatives
to deal with this large expenditure, which might include doing nothing. Councilor LaMotte
confirmed there was $1 million in overtime pay in a typical year. He wanted to address that issue
in the future and asked if additional staff were needed instead of having overtime, and if overtime
was needed. He wanted to know how that would work from a management perspective because
overtime was continually added to some of the salaries. Ms. Phelan agreed to bring the requested
information to Council.
9.4 Findings, Conclusions and Order, Appeal of a Development Review Commission
Decision on a Request for Approval of a Six-lot Subdivision and Modification of
Delineated RP District at 1107 Yates Street (LU 17-0084/AP 18-08)
Report and Attachment
Mr. Powell provided the background regarding the appeal, noting that on October 30th, Council
affirmed the DRC's September 24, 2018 decision to approve the six-lot subdivision and to grant
some tree-cutting permits. Council also agreed with the DRC's denial of the request to reduce the
Resource Protection District. The only condition added by Council regarded the permanent
removal of a chain-link fence along the perimeter of the open space tract. New Condition of
Approval (D.4) required the Applicant to remove the chain-link fence along the southern and
eastern perimeter of the open space tract, the portion abutting Hallinan Woods, the park and
natural space area, and required that the area would remain permanently unfenced, as well as
the interior of the open space, which had not been specified in the tentative motion. Nothing would
prevent property owners from having fences along the borders of Lots 4, 5, and 6 around the
stormwater facility. Staff recommended approval.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 13
November 6, 2018
Mayor Kent Studebaker moved to approve LU 17-0084. Joe Buck seconded the motion. A
roll call vote was held, and the motion passed with Mayor Kent Studebaker, Jeff Gudman,
Skip O'Neill, and Joe Buck voting 'aye.' Theresa Kohlhoff, Jackie Manz, and John LaMotte
voted 'no.' (4-3)
City Council proceeded to the Consent Agenda at this time.
9.5 Occupational Requirements for the Development Review Commission and Voting
Eligibility for Youth Members on Advisory Boards
This item was addressed after the consent agenda.
10. CONSENT AGENDA
10.1 Award of a Public Improvement Contract for Construction of WO 246- Country Club
Road Infrastructure Improvement Project
Report
10.2 Resolution 18-41, A Resolution of the Lake Oswego City Council Authorizing a First
Lease Modification Agreement for the Police Training and Evidence Storage Space
Report and Attachments
10.3 APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
10.3.1 September 18, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes
Report and Attachment
Joe Buck moved the adoption of the consent agenda. Jackie Manz seconded the motion.
A voice vote was taken, and the motion passed with Mayor Kent Studebaker, Jeff Gudman,
Theresa Kohlhoff, Skip O'Neill, Joe Buck, Jackie Manz, and John LaMotte voting 'aye.' (7-
0)
Councilor Gudman commented that the Country Club project came in lower than the engineering
estimate, but the total of the four portions from the funding sources previously approved in the
budget, Road Preservation, Water, Stormwater, and Sewer, was less than the low bid Council
approved. The $300,000 difference resulted because one side of the project became more
complex when pipes were found unexpectantly that needed to be replaced. That was partially
offset by the reduction in the scale of the road preservation on Country Club Rd. Another$300,000
was needed for the project to go forward.
11. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
No items were removed from the Consent Agenda.
9.5 Occupational Requirements for the Development Review Commission and Voting
Eligibility for Youth Members on Advisory Boards
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 13
November 6, 2018
Mayor Studebaker stated it was difficult to find people for DRC positions because code
specifically listed occupational requirements that few people could meet, particularly those related
to architecture and landscaping. He proposed the code be changed to indicate occupational
preferences rather than a list of requirements, and asked Staff to draft the language and return to
Council for further discussion.
Mayor Studebaker went on to state his belief that having youth members on boards and
commissions with full voting rights did not work and should be changed. Councilor Buck stated
the reason youth members were on the boards was for their input, which he saw as valuable. The
proposal to remove the youths' voting ability arose from a situation where there was low
attendance among youth members and from them not making informed decisions. However, adult
members of the boards should be shepherding the youth members and helping them to make
informed decisions. Like adult board members, youth members should follow the same
attendance policy. Adult members not attending meetings could not make informed decisions
either. The question was more about being able to manage members of the boards, whether
youth or adult, and make sure their attendance record was good enough to allow them to make
informed decisions. He did not believe removing their ability to vote was a good solution. Mayor
Studebaker stated it was clear to him that youth members were making decisions on large
amounts of money that they did not have the expertise to understand. He believed it was
inappropriate. He asked Staff to bring the item forward for further discussion.
12. INFORMATION FROM COUNCIL
There were no comments.
13. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
There were no reports.
14. ADJOURNMENT, CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Studebaker adjourned the meeting at 5:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
a/VWe`"YKI
Anne-Marie Simpson, City Recorder
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
ON a22 .20 I
Kent Studebaker, Mayor
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 13
November 6, 2018