The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 04/21/1998 Revised 4116198 >i' ::iv:.^<is2:?:%>,i:?,^?ii:{.fi:i5ii `L:i3!ih:h>:i.:''/.i:?}r,•%:• :fr,;:k. ,rPf i. •::,k:.: }.,wyf`;r.{ . k:vr::r~ • .:i' •~i , y~h :•:r•r.isre,.•;:.#:'s:.'~<:i::••,':#>!'w :4; {',<24 ,#f.}{',:;2 •,<:v~.~:'f:.~/,:~;x5"';•.'3f/•. CITY OF TIGARD ~'}~'ui:: .y ~h' F.: f4:CUJ is .v~i i:.~,~r. '>.:.i i ' f, 9'.•S,#n~f,•:~°i:lx^f.,f~'•,'<1.s1+yy}F#S.k. 'k :.n i:;c:n::;; i4. 5'o-:. , '$:~.h...::,',v„•r.k :'„;{;::{;i.:ai.:ti::" . : ,..f.+., :k~i.'• A : ~ixr3'Yr.;'r +t r. : $~Lg: ,.:{.:%h~rL.},XS<.4iT;;Ck.;C;{ ~`f',, # :SM1}. .:?~.:h2:5r.;~.:i,;r::}Si.::.: :..~0'4..~',h,~.^.~:hn;i:•,'.#'.'•.:' ::.:•\,'{T;$`,:9•rti3'#`f:l`f:••h~:•;~ v::<i;1,f~.?:•,,',+,•:,':~Yf::iiV~tDli::#~f i°;'::.r.:.{..: is ..:;+,:i;;<. 4.:r:r.i.tir0:::::;•;}::.;v::Y.:.:}ish;•ir}:is:•rrrS'f..r}.}'}rf:•kk:~.`:i:::::: i'?:'i'4;;?{i:;: u~.N: ; {.Y•}y .r v:'•h:.i::...{ i.4hr:•r:%h•Y,.;rri>•i'rj.} b;{i y M k::{iyii{i v:{}:q: •.:y:t:::ri i~'k: ..lN!I#::r'ii:'f.}'.::: {•rr:•i:i{~k~N::: ::>'.ii):i. ri\itv:::::i}:~::.G~iti:}##:Jv.'~•:42<~.'„~i•\: .min:.. :....n ?v: '.:{:!h'.y ti}:.{}+ i:{5:~}:h)'•rkhii;>i(#y:>;:h:::%:$::K <:.v.ti:+. v.uv:•i^r: >,.r'1.y}:}4r'•: ~i±t+#}}vir i'i ;•j}}: i:? ..•R•.:tir':::v.:uh}::•::::::::.~::;; riA•Y.•#'!~~:#~..'i:: ::.i:1:•':•~%j{r##v~(:{ti•.;5:; PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as such lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 21, 1998 - PAGE 1 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING -APRIL 21, 1998 AGENDA 6:30 p.m. 1. COUNCIL MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications/Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 6:35 p.m. 2. JOINT COUNCIL/SCHOOL BOARD MEETING • Introduction - City Manager 7:30 p.m. 3. SUMMERLAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN • Staff Report - Engineering Department 0 8:30 p.m. 4. DISCUSSION - PROPOSED PUBLIC DRINKING ORDINANCE • Staff Report - Police Department 8:45 p.m. 5. UTILITY BILLING ISSUES ® Staff Report - Finance Department 9:30 p.m. 6. DISCUSSION - PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS e Staff Report - Community Development Department r 9:45 p.m. 7. RECIPROCAL PARKING AGREEMENT DISCUSSION (CHAMBER OF COMMERCE) COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 21, 1998 - PAGE 2 a 10:00 P.M. 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10:10 P.M. 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 10:30 p.m. 10. ADJOURNMENT i:\adm\cathy\cca\980421.doc LM COUNCIL AGEI\IDe4 -APRIL 21, 1998 - PAGE 3 Agenda Item No. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of / ri MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21, 1998 1. COUNCIL MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Nicoli called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Council Present: Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Moore, Rohlf, and Scheckla. Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Library Director Melinda Sisson; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; and Associate Planner Duane Roberts. 2. JOINT COUNCIL/SCHOOL BOARD MEETING School Board Members present: Merrily Hawes, Al Hieb, Pat Biggs, Tom Sharp, Russ Joki, Superintendent; George Fisher, staff, and Ron Hudson, staff. A. School District/City Bond Measures Mayor Nicoli stated that the Council was looking into a facilities bond measure for a new library and new city buildings in the City Hall complex but has not yet made any decisions. They were waiting on the results from a survey to be conducted by Hibbitts to assess taxpayers' thoughts on the matter (which they would share with the District). In addition, they were starting to look at a road bond measure to go out for in two or three years once the current bonds were paid off. Bill Monahan, City Manager, clarified that the City has looked at its 20 year space needs and determined that with a new library and new police building, they could remodel the existing library and police wings of City Hall into the office space they needed for expansion and to house personnel currently located offsite. He said that the survey asked about a full package and a partial package to build the new facilities. Russ Joki, School Superintendent, suggested that in the future, the City and District discuss doing joint opinion polls. Tom Sharp, School Board, commented that he received a City survey on parks two to three weeks ago. He felt that the results of the poll would be valuable information to the District. Liz Newton, Asst. to the City Manager, explained that staff sent that poll to one out of every four households that received Cityscape. Merrily Hawes, School Board, stated that they were talking about setting up a task force to look at a district bond measure to cover future needs. B. City of Tigard Parks Master Plan Mayor Nicoli explained that this master plan was more to plan where parks were needed for the Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 1 long term throughout the city than it was to determine how best to utilize existing parks. He said that they have asked their consultant to investigate whether or not it was feasible for the City to use District property for neighborhood parks. He met. `ioned that the City would contribute funds towards field maintenance and related costs if they jointly used District property. Pat Biggs, School Board, asked if the City was looking at USA lands also, mentioning a site near a school that might be usable for practice fields. Mayor Nicoli noted that that site was surrounded on three sides by District or City property. Rich Carlson, School Board, asked if the Master Plan referenced playing fields in addition to parks. Mayor Nicoli said that the plan included passive areas, active areas, wetlands, and the pathway system. He confirmed to Dr. Joki that the plan included Bull Mountain property also. He mentioned the City's attempts to acquire parkland on Bull Mountain with money they had currently available and noted their frequent loss of properties to higher paying developers. Duane Roberts, Associate Planner, reviewed the process for the Parks Master Plan, including a consultant and a Citizens Advisory Committee. He mentioned the inventory of all parks (physical condition, equipment condition, etc.), and the public involvement elements (a survey, community leader interviews, community workshops, small group meetings). He explained that the next steps included evaluating all the information collected and looking at specific properties. He said that they have used their local-share money from the Metro Greenspace bond to purchase land on Bull Mountain in cooperation with the County. Mr. Roberts pointed out a possible grouping of parcels adjacent to the Water District property for an opportunity for a 25-acre natural park on Bull Mountain (with another 8 acres possibly donated). He said that they have talked to property owners of land around the school. One 7- acre parcel on Bull Mountain Road was owned by the Oregon University Foundation as part of a life estate; they would sell it once they had full rights to it. Dr. Joki mentioned that the District purchased a small portion of the OSU Foundation property for top-market dollar. He suggested that if the District and the City jointly expressed interest, perhaps they could present a compelling argument for a sale price that was beneficial to the public. He said that the property would be an excellent expansion to the District-owned 10-acre Riley property. Mr. Roberts said that staff has talked with the Foundation whose policy was to sell at market value. He pointed out that that property was desirable for development as a view property. Dr. Joki explained that their bond money for land acquisition was all committed now and they had no additional funds for property acquisition. He spoke to the City and District staffs discussing how to make the Foundation aware of their joint interest. Councilor Hunt commented that their ability to use Greenspace money was dependent on the use intended for the property. Dr. Joki said that they intended to use it for recreational fields and parking. Mr. Roberts commented that staff heard a strong interest for parks on Bull Mountain from the non- city residents who lived there. Mr. Roberts said that staff would take the Advisory Committee on a bus tour of the sites in town identified by staff as suitable for parks. The Committee would evaluate the properties for the priorities in terms of needs and potentially available properties. C. Joint City/District Projects: Easements requested by City for Fowler and Mary Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 2 Woodward. Mr. Roberts reported that the City had six active trail projects currently underway to fill in the gaps of the trail from Scholls Ferry Road to City Hall. He explained that one segment crossed the Fowler School property, pointing out the only possible place to put the trail was along the creek. The City needed an easement from the District to complete that segment. Mr. Roberts commented that with the difficult wetlands regulatory process, they tried to avoid encroaching on wetlands. However, for this segment, they had to slightly encroach on wetlands in a couple of places; the encroachment did not impact the development potential of the property as the trail was within the required setbacks from a wetland. Mr. Roberts pointed out that this trail would improve pedestrian access for the schoolchildren, connecting to the trail through Woodward Park that ran along the river, and providing an alternate route to Walnut Street. Ron Hudson, District Staff, explained that the Mary Woodward School principal wanted to put in an environmental garden in an open field area that the District has been maintaining in the mistaken belief that it was their property. He said that he found out from Mr. Roberts that it was actually City property but City staff had no objection to the school using it. Mr. Roberts suggested asking the District to allow the City to mitigate their wetlands encroachment for the path by planting native wetland vegetation within the existing wetland area. He said that the consultant would calculate the aggregate figure for all the small wetland fills necessary for the pathway, and that would determine how much mitigation the City had to do. D. Tigard High School Pool Remodel Mr. Hudson reported that the Board awarded the remodeling contract to Woodbird Construction. He reviewed the proposed remodeling work for the pool to expand the facilities and bring it up to ADA standards. He explained that the remodel would begin once the Tualatin pool was back in use (projected for late July) and should be completed in six months (early January). Councilor Scheckla reported a concern of senior citizens that the water at the Tigard High pool was too cold. He asked if during the remodel that concern could be addressed. E. Recreation District Proposal Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, reported on the joint City/District recreation program during Spring Break that was held at Fowler Middle School for K-12. He said that Jeff Munro of the City and Tom Kirk of the District worked this pilot program up very quickly in response to the Visioning process, using an outside provider, Kids & Company. He said that 39 K-5 children and an older group signed up but they got no response from the middle-school ages. Mr. Wegner said that for a first-time program it was very successful. He commented that Kids & Company made $15 on it but knew it was an experiment and was willing to gamble with the City and the District to see how it went. He mentioned that it did not become the "baby-sitting week" that they thought was a possibility. He said that the program was open to all kids in the Tigard-Tualatin-Sherwood School District, and they bussed kids in from Tualatin as necessary. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 3 _IMIIIIIINI Mr. Wegner said that if the City and District decided to go with full time recreational programming, they needed to hire staff to run it. He mentioned that Mr. Munroe and Mr. Kirk took time away from their other responsibilities to get this going. F. joint City/School Projects: Tigard Tree 2000 Program Mayor Nicoli explained that the City's tree mitigation fund was now approximately of $200,000. The Council decided to use the money to fund a four-phase program to plant 2000 trees by the year 2000. He said that during Phase 1 (Needs inventory), staff identified a need for 8000 trees throughout the city. He said that the City has already begun planting those trees with the goal of getting them all planted within two to three years. He mentioned that they were also included an irrigation system in some areas in hopes of a better survival rate. Mayor Nicoli said that Phase 2 involved replacing older street trees (where roots were destroying sidewalks and asphalt curbs) with trees with more appropriate root structures. Phase 3 addressed new subdivisions that needed street trees while Phase 4 involved planting trees on District property. He explained that the City's intent was more to train children how to plant and care for trees by hiring professional arborists to identify appropriate tree locations on school property and to teach the children about trees while providing them an opportunity for a hands on experience. He noted the need for discussions on how to make this idea work. G. Joint City/District Projects: Library Services Melinda Sisson, Library Director, reported on the joint meeting between City and District librarians to discuss how to implement the Visioning goals and objectives. She said that immediate action measures they identified included training school librarians to help register students for a public library card, assisting school librarians in searching databases, putting homework assignments on a LIPServe, teachers sending lesson plans to the library via e-mail so librarians could pull the appropriate materials together, and sharing computer lab space for Internet training. Ms. Sisson mentioned longer-term goals such as establishing benchmarks and sharing information about what different programs and services were available at the public and school libraries. Mr. Sharp asked if they could do on-line book searches of both the public and school library collections. Ms. Sisson said that they were getting close to that. She explained that there was dial-up access to the public library database from the District. She mentioned discussions on an inter-library loan program. George Fisher, District Staff, commented that District staff would be asking for Board approval of a Union Catalog System in May that would bring all the school library collections on-line for common access. He agreed with Ms. Sisson that links between the public and district libraries was possible. Councilor Scheckla commented that renegotiations with the TO cable franchise were coming up, and asked if there was anything that the schools needed. Mr. Fisher said that generally they were happy with their PCN access, although there were some traffic problems with all the schools in the County gaining access through only one line up to the ESD in Seattle. He mentioned the rumor that the cost of the PCN connection would be going up significantly. He said anything that could be done to hold that at bay would be greatly appreciated. G. Police/School Program Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 4 Mr. Monahan mentioned that today he signed a training request from the Police Chief to send an officer to DARE training out of state, for which the District was paying half the cost of the training. Icon Goodpaster, Police Chief, reviewed the cooperative programs the Police Department had at the schools. These included a third officer working with the middle and elementary schools (a Community Service Officer) in the gang and drug resistance education programs, a School Resource Officer at the high school assisting with security coneerns and investigations, and Rick Petersen, the primary DARE instructor at the middle schools, who helped with counseling and investigations also. Chief Goodpaster mentioned the success of the Peer Court program, begun 1.5 years ago, in which first-time offenders were judged by their peers. He said that some high schoolers have indicated interest in legal careers as a result. He commented that the kids were advocating student judges; however, the program has not been amended. Chief Goodpaster said that the newest program coming on-line was a Police Explorer i'ost. The Youth Services Officer would develop and manage that program as the final part of her duties and responsibilities. Chief Goodpaster reported on the use of funds from the Law Enforcement Community Development Block Grant program to assist the schools for security and other elements (with the advice of a Citizen Panel). He commented that the department and the district were in constant communication in a good working relationship. Dr. Joki commented that this was one of the strongest daily partnerships that they had with the City. He mentioned the Chief's help in the purchase of traffic signs warning of double fines in schools zones, emergency radios and other equipment available to schools. Councilor Hunt suggested changing the speed-limit signs on Hall beyond Durham where they were confusing. Councilor Scheckla asked if the speed bumps installed by the City caused any maintenance problems for the school buses. Mr. Fisher said that he did not think there have been any mechanical problems. He commented that there should not be if the bus drivers were crossing the bumps at the right speed. Dr. Joki mentioned that they were happy with anything that slowed traffic down near schools. Mr. Fisher said that the crosswalk bump at Metzger was very welcome as that was a critical area. Mr. Sharp mentioned that the Tigard-Tualatin School District received the largest grant in the state from the State of Oregon ($109,000) for their tobacco awareness and education programs. He reviewed Operation Storefront, a "sting" program conducted by the Washington County Coalition to gently remind clerks and merchants that it was illegal to sell tobacco products to minors and to reward them if they refused to do so. He said that they were targeting businesses near the perimeters of the schools. He suggested that the City work with the schools to coordinate these kinds of programs and activities in their attempt to police a non-smoking environment, both on school grounds and around the perimeter. Chief Goodpaster said that they were in close contact with Connie Raemaker regarding the tobacco issue. He mentioned that, not knowing about Operation Storefront, one month earlier the police had conducted a stronger effort to enforce the tobacco laws but found no takers. He commented that many stores gave financial incentives to the clerks not to sell tobacco or alcohol Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 5 products to minors. Councilor Scheckla suggested including mini-stores that sold gas as a target business. H. Realignment of Walnut at Fonner and Tiedeman Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the City purchased the necessary land to allow the realignment of this crucial intersection near Fowler Middle School. Gus Duenas, City Engineer, reported that staff has gone out for proposals for the realignment design with the intent of finishing the design this summer and constructing the improvement next year. I. Train Day Mayor Nicoli reported that he asked the new railroad owners to bring a diesel engine to Tigard and let the school kids climb on it, as they would not get a chance to do so otherwise. The owner agreed to bring up a couple of engines from Albany in September. Mayor Nicoli reported that he has also arranged for the private company who owns the steam engine that pulled the Freedom Train to display the engine in Tigard on the same days. Mayor Nicoli said that on Thursday and Friday mornings, the fourth and fifth graders from all the schools would be bussed in for a hands-on tour of the engines with the afternoons free for other kids to come with their parents. The steam engine people would offer rides on the weekend from Lake Grove to Hillsboro to raise money to cover their costs, and then move on to Beaverton for a similar school program. He mentioned that many local businesses, in addition to the City, were helping to offset the $3000 per day cost for the steam engine. J. Non-Agenda Items Dr. Joki announced that the District was replacing the light poles at the Tigard High School and stadium with money received from the lottery vote last November. Councilor Scheckla asked how the city-wide events worked for the District, such as the Fourth of July, the Balloon Festival, and Broadway Rose. Dr. Joki said the Broadway Rose event went very well. He expressed concerns about parking for the Balloon Festival and potential damage to the fields with irrigation systems in them but said that he has talked with staff about that. Mayor Nicoli commented that Cook Park was the only place left in the city where they could hold community events and disturb a minimal number of people. He said that the Balloon Festival was one of the best community events around. He stated that if the District had any problems, they needed to inform City staff for corrective action. Mayor Nicoli confirmed that the City would get the railroad bridge for a footbridge to continue the pathway system on to Tualatin. > Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting for a break at 7:50 p.m. > Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 8:00 p.m. 3. SUMMERLAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN Mr. Duenas reviewed the Council direction to staff in September 1997 to study the deterioration Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 6 MEN= of Summerlake and to identify options to correct the problem. He mentioned the Citizens Advisory Committee from the neighborhood that worked with staff to reach an amenable solution. He introduced the consultants Jim Harper of KCM, Inc., and Harry Gibbons, a limnologist, the City staff who worked on the problem, and the members of the Citizen Advisory Committee. Mr. Duenas presented a slide show to illustrate the problems at Summerlake. These included weeds, algae, poor water quality, poor aesthetics, lack of wildlife, bank damage, lack of bank vegetation, too many resident ducks, and non-existent fishing. He mentioned that the lake did flush with the winter rains but deteriorated during the low flows and low rainfall of the summer. He noted the potential beneficial uses of Summerlake as fish habitat, recreation, wildlife migration stopover, and aesthetic beauty. Mr. Duenas presented the draft plan developed by the consultant, staff, and the citizen committee. He said that a main goal was to improve water quality by increasing the dissolved oxygen, reducing the nutrient concentration and sediments, and lowering water temperature. Other goals included improving the aesthetic appearance of the lake, managing the shoreline and island vegetation, improving fish habitat to help the fish breathe (not for fishing - the fish controlled the production of plants and algae), and developing bench management practices (BMPs) in the lake watershed. Mr. Duenas reviewed the aerial view of the area, pointing out the geographic context of the lake. He presented more slides demonstrating different view 3 of the lake and its current state. Mr. Duenas said that the team considered in-lake measures to improve the lake and lake watershed measures to prevent pollutants from getting into the lake. He mentioned that four management scenarios were developed in detail by the consultants. He said that the team recommended the scenario presented in the draft plan. Jim Harper, KCM, explained that of the four activities identified in each of the four scenarios, three were common to all scenarios: shading of the shoreline, alum treatment, and education. Their application in each scenario vaned only in intensity and timing. • Mr. Harper reviewed Scenario 1, harvesting plant and algae material from the lake with a mechanical harvester and bottom barriers to inhibit plant and algae growth in areas where the harvester could not reach. He explained that shading the shoreline involved vegetating the shoreline to minimize bank erosion and shade the water to reduce water temperature. He said that alum treatment used a salt that combined with phosphorus to precipitate out the phosphorus from the water and send it to the bottom, thus resulting in water clarity and less algae growth. The Education activity was to inform everyone living around the lake and in the lake watershed what they could do to help improve water quality in the lake. Councilor Hunt asked if any of the costs listed were one time costs in the next 10 years. Mr. Harper said that the one time initial cost of the harvester and trailer was estimated at $51,000. Councilor Moore noted the financial breakdowns for each scenario on page 33. Mr. Harper said that Scenario 2 used an aquatic herbicide to inhibit aquatic plant growth that killed the entire plant, including the roots. He noted the overall cost o $160,000 for this scenario as opposed to $151,000 for Scenario 1. He explained that Scenario 3 used a systemic herbicide; to kill the plants immediately but since it did not kill the roots, the herbicide had tp be applied on an annual basis. The five year cost for this scenario was $150,000. Mr. Harper said that Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 7 Scenario 4 was the most environmentally invasive: dredging the lake in the first year and purchasing the harvester in the second year. This option cost $250,000. Mr. Harper recommended Scenario 1, the harvesting program with bottom barriers but without dredging the lake. At Mayor Nicoli's request.. Mr. Harper explained in greater detail how the alum worked to enhance a naturally occurring process that precipitated out the phosphorus. He said that over time, building up alum in the bottom sediments created a sink for phosphorus. They would eventually not have to treat the lake for phosphorus as often. Councilor Hunt asked if all four alternatives would resolve the odor problem. Mr. Harper said that all four scenarios were developed to meet the same goals and would have the same effect. Mr. Duenas mentioned a concern with the stricter requiren:znts on the use of herbicides on a long term basis. Councilor Scheckla asked if the water leaving the area would be contaminated. Mr. Harper said that the water in Scenarios 1 and 4 was not contaminated, as the alum stayed behind the weir. However there was a risk of downstream migration of the herbicides in Scenarios 2 and 3 if the treatment came too early in the year. Mr. Duenas presented a video demonstrating a harvesting operation. Mr. Harper commented that an advantage in using a harvester was leaving habitat available for wildlife and insects. Mayor Nicoli asked how much vegetation occurred in Summerlake. Harry Gibbons, Limnologist, said that in the summer time the vegetation covered almost the entire lake. Mayor Nicoli commented that a harvester was similar to a lawnmower for the lake. Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, presented the staff concerns regarding this program. He said that staff agreed with the concept but was concerned about the costs and manpower involved. He mentioned that their research found only two harvesters in use in the U.S. - on a lake in Wisconsin and in a canal in Florida. He said that the Florida people confirmed that the equipment maintenance for a harvester was intense. Mr. Wegner reviewed the difficulties with disposing of the harvested vegetation. He said that in Florida they used a crane to offload the baskets of vegetation, following the harvester down the canal. He commented that Tigard would have to find some other way to get the vegetation to a dump truck. He said that in Oregon, anything taken to a landfill had to be dewatered. While Tigard shared a small dewatering facility with Beaverton to handle storm debris, they would have to build their own facility to handle this amount of vegetation. Mr. Wegner said that they have found only one landfill willing to consider taking the dewatered vegetation (Grabhorn) - there were restrictions on how much of a landfill could be vegetation. He mentioned that no matter how they dried out the vegetation, there was likely to be a smell associated with it. Mr. Gibbons described a method commonly used to dry out vegetation yet avoid the odor problem. Mayor Nicoli asked if the vegetation could be burned or given to farmers as compost for their fields. Mr. Wegner said that he did not know if it could be burned. Mr. Harper commented that dewatered vegetation made great compost, citing a Metro program that gave away harvested materials on a volunteer pick-up basis. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 8 Mr. Wegner reviewed the manpower requirements. He said that it would take two personnel (one to operate the harvester and one to operate the boat) 30 days per year (10 days for each of 3 cutting cycles). He reported that both the Florida people and the literature indicated that seasonal laborers did not do this, so they would have to use full time employees (potential cost of $200 to $1,500). Mr. Wegner said that they would need to build a boat launch ramp, get wetlands permits, and figure out how to secure the boat from theft. He stated that staff could do all of this but there was a cost involved that he thought Council should know about. He mentioned that harvesting was very noisy and would probably have to be restricted to between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. He reported that the Florida operator's biggest complaints were the equipment breakdowns and the noise of the whole system. Mr. Wegner commented that they would probably harvest the lake once a month, same as they mowed the parks and open spaces. IIc pointed out that they would be spending $51,000 on equipment they would use three to five times a year. He said that staff has not been able to find anyone else in the area interested in using it, including Lake Oswego and USA. Councilor Scheckla asked about a warranty. Mr. Wegner said that Florida had a warranty only on the motor, not the harvester itself. He suggested sending a diver into the lake to flag any rocks or other obstructions prior to using the harvester. Councilor Moore mentioned a concern that citizens unhappy about the lack of common areas would question the City spending $5u,000 for a harvester instead of on mowing grass. Mr. Wegner reviewed the impacts that running the harvester would have on staff, parks maintenance work, and their budget. He said that they could juggle schedules (they have projected hiring three new people in the next two years) to incorporate this additional maintenance work. He reiterated that staff favored the management study so that maintenance of the lake could be addressed properly but the program would take some juggling of schedules and would cost money. Mayor Nicoli stated that the Council realized that the Parks Maintenance staff n°eded more people to maintain and manage the increasing amount of open space and parkland acquired by the City recently. He pointed out that Summerlake Park was the second largest park in the City, and spoke for preserving it. He commented that the costs were less than he had anticipated. Mr. Wegner noted that the Parks Maintenance staff of five people maintained 123 acres of park and 123 miles of greenways. He mentioned a problem of not being able to find part-time people, even at a salary of almost $10. He said that another possibility was working with surface water management funds. Councilor Hunt asked that Mr. Wegner be sent to view a harvester in operation. Councilor Moore noted that in spite of the many difficulties and unanswered questions, Scenario 1 was probably the best scenario to take care of the lake. He asked for continued investigation into sharing the harvester. Mr. Duenas suggested contracting the work out if they could. Mayor Nicoli invited the Advisory Committee members to comment. Van Camp mentioned the time and effort put into this project over the past two years. He concurred with the need to Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 9 locate the debris at the bottom of the lake. He asked if the consultant had invc ;tigated the harvesting machine in Olympia. Mr. Harper explained that the Seattle machine and the California contractor's machine used in Olympia were much larger than what Tigard needed and very expensive. Councilor Hunt suggested giving staff three weeks to bring back a report addressing these questions and concerns. Councilor Scheckla asked what they did at Devil's Lake. Mr. Harper explained that they used grass carp to eat the plants but in Oregon waters contingent to salmon waters, grass carp was not encouraged by the State. John Cook asked about the ducks and the lack of a dam. Mr. Harper said that duck control was part of the education program and discouraging feeding of the ducks. Mr. Duenas explained that dam regulations have gotten stricter and the Corps of Engineers would not allow new dams, though they did grandfather in the weir because it was a natural pond area. A neighbor asked if the alum would affect the fish. Mr. Harper said that alum was the chemical used most frequently in water treatment plants. It would not affect the fish if used properly. A Committee member spoke to the qualifications of Mr. Gibbons, the limnologist, to answer these questions. He commented that the Committee asked these same questions and concluded that the recommended scenario was realistic in terms of cost. Councilor Moore commented that most of the Council agreed. Mayor Nicoli thanked the Committee for their work. Mr. Monahan recommended scheduling the staff report for the May 19 study session. Mr. Duenas mentioned the importance of finding out how quickly they could get a machine that was custom built. Councilor Hunt asked staff to send a diver into the lake to see how much debris was on the bottom. > The Council discussed Item No. 5, Utility Billing Issues. 4. DISCUSSION - PROPOSED PUBLIC DRINKING ORDINANCE Mayor Nicoli asked if a policeman, in enforcing this ordinance, would stop people on sight from drinking beer at a cul-de-sac block party or when their behavior became irresponsible. Chief Goodpaster explained that the intent and purpose of the ordinance was to serve as a tool to resolve a problem, not to create a problem. He explained the discretion policy used in law enforcement as a guideline to enforce ordinances when their violation caused a problem. He concurred that technically those in the Mayor's scenario would be violating the ordinance but said that the police would not be present at that situation to enforce the ordinance unless those drinking starting misbehaving and were reported. He reiterated that the intent of the ordinance was to give police a tool to deal with an existing problem, since at present they had no such tool. Mayor Nicoli commented that if a family who opposed public drinking reported that someone was drinking on public property, the officer responding would be in an awkward situation if the person drinking was not misbehaving. Department policy might say one thing but the law said he was breaking the law and should be arrested. He asked if language could be added to put it in the judgment of the officer to determine whether or not the person was causing a problem. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 10 Mayor Nicoli said that drinking on public property, and drinking and creating a problem were two different issues. He suggested adding language requiring the officer to observe or be told of a secondary problem resulting from the drinking before the officer took action. He said that he supported dealing with intoxicated individuals who caused problems but was concerned for the citizen who was drinking responsibly. Chief Goodpaster said that he read the language of the ordinance now as allowing discretion on the part of the officer to determine whether or not the individual drinking was causing a problem. Mayor Nicoli disagreed that that was what the law said. Chief Goodpaster stated that every law on the books had discretion attached to it. He explained that the department always developed policy guidelines for the enforcement of ordinances so that officers had guidelines to take reasonable actions based on the circumstances, and not do just blanket enforcement. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that selective enforcement of an ordinance was grounds for a lawsuit by a citizen who realized what was going on and provided evidence to the court. He expressed concern that this ordinance placed the City in the position of selective enforcement. Mr. Monahan said that the ordinance created a threshold beyond which the officer could use his/her discretion. He commented that in situations of public behavior, either the person misbehaving was dealt with or the situation eased. The police had to exercise the proper discretion and apply it uniformly but they did have discretion in determining how significant a person's activity was to becoming a public problem. Chief Goodpaster reiterated that once an officer was at the scene, it was the person's conduct that determined what the officer would do. He mentioned that for the first time in history, the State passed a law allowing officers to physically restrain and stop citizens whom officers suspected of "being up to no good." However, with that law came a requirement that each police department adopt policies and guidelines so that the new law was not aimed at minorities. He said that with those guidelines, the law was working. Chief Goodpaster stated that if someone reported drinking on public property but the police arrived to find no misbehavior, then the police had no cause to make an arrest. He said that there were only two laws in Oregon that required an arrest: domestic violence and warrants. He reiterated that this ordinance was a tool for officers to use in deteriorating situations. He emphasized that the key to the ordinance was the directive to train the department in the guidelines and how to apply them. He mentioned that the law was aimed at those individuals creating problems in the downtown corridor and elsewhere. Councilor Moore said that he was comfortable with the wording and recommended approval. Councilor Hunt noted that drinking beer in parks was allowed and suggested incorporating a requirement for permit for a party in the park. Chief Goodpaster said that the ordinance included a stipulation for an OLCC permit. Chief Goodpaster said that he would return with the proposed discretion policy for Council Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 11 review. Mr. Monahan mentioned that this was scheduled for May 12. > The Council considered Item No. 6, Proposed Noise Ordinance, at this time. 5. UTILITY BILLING ISSUES Wayne Lowry, Finance Director, referenced the outline in the packet regarding utility billing. He reviewed the history of the decisions made about utility billing. He said prior to 1985 the City billed quarterly on postcards for sewer and storm to customers within the city. In May 1987 the Council decided to bill monthly for sewer and storm using the same postcard and hiring additional staff. When the water districts merged, they ended up with three staff billing all water district customers with city storm and sewer added on to the customers they had in common. This reduced the number of bills from 18 a year to 6 a year. Mr. Lowry explained that by incorporating the sewer and storm bills with the water bill, the City gained the leverage it needed to force payment of delinquent sewer and storm bills. If the bill is not paid, the water is turned off. Mr. Lowry reviewed the different pools of people billed for water, sewer and storm. The City billed the Cities of Tigard, Durham, and King City and the unincorporated areas for water (except for Metzger which was in a different water district). They billed the City of Tigard (including Metzger) for sewer and storm but not Durham, King City or the unincorporated areas. This broke down to 62% of all customers were billed for water, sewer and storm, 11 % were billed for storm and sewer only, and 26% for water only. He said that this was important because the increase in rates for the Willamette River project would appear differently to the different pools. Mr. Lowry explained that 90% of their accounts were residential (all voters), 4% were multifamily, 5% commercial, and .6% were irrigation and industrial. Mr. Lowry discussed the difference between winter and summer water usage. He directed attention to the samples of current bills included in the packet. He said that water usage tripled in the summer compared to winter usage. He observed that people would notice a rate increase in the summer, though not necessarily in the winter. Mr. Lowry reviewed the impact on water rates that Tigard's potential $40 million share of the Willamette River project costs could have. He noted that he assumed a worst case scenario, not C taking into account future SDC increases or grants and loans. He said that under a worst case scenario, the per unit water rate increased by 84%. He explained that timing of the rate increase was an important consideration also, noting that they needed the rate increase in place in 2001. Mr. Lowry reviewed a specific example of a City of Tigard water bill where the water portion increased by 73% but the total utility bill only increased 24% because these bills included sewer and storm. However a customer who was billed for water only would see the entire increase. He said that this got very confusing because the apparent amount of increase depended on jurisdiction and customer type. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 12 Mr. Lowry reported that a Tigard Times reporter visited him today regarding this information. He said that he emphasized that these numbers were very preliminary and that they did not know by what percentage the rates would go up. Mayor Nicoli indicated his discomfort with this presentation, stating that he had expected a discussion on the appearance of the utility bill, not what the new water system would cost. Mr. Monahan said that the discussion he had with the Tigard Times reporter yesterday focused on the appearance of the billing. Mayor Nicoli said that this presentation was so premature that it may have damaged the City's position because of the numbers given, which he held were incorrect since SDCs and other funding sources would play a part in reducing the share to be paid by the City, and thus the percentage of rate increase. He said that he understood the intent to demonstrate that the percentage increase would appear smaller if they kept the bills combined. He expressed his concern that the press would bypass the Council discussion and print sensational headlines. Mr. Monahan said that he spent time emphasizing to the reporter that the packet information dealt with making the billing more user friendly. He observed that Mr. Lowry had moved beyond the packet information on the assumption that Council had absorbed it. Mr. Wegner pointed out that whichever option Tigard chose (water from the Willamette or buying Bull Run water), the rates would increase. Mayor Nicoli stated that he supported breaking out the water bill from the sewer and storm because with bi-monthly billing, people were frightened at the large single amount for the total. Splitting them out could alleviate that concern. Councilor Hunt cited his experience in running a data processing bureau that did utility bills. He stated that this bill was very confusing, and spoke to designing a bill that used words instead of codes and that clearly differentiated between the amounts for sewer, storm and water. He said that he preferred keeping all three on the same bill, just making it clearer. Mr. Lowry presented a mock-up bill that separated water and non-water amounts into two columns. He observed that during the staff review they looked at other jurisdictions' bills and discovered that their bill was one of the most understandable. Councilor Hunt suggested rearranging water and sew;. r information so that the water amount was next to the meter reading. Mayor Nicoli asked when staff anticipated a discussion on the financing option alternatives for the Willamette River project. Mr. Wegner said that probably that would occur in September. He explained that they have had to put everything off five and a half months because Wilsonville was not coming on board until the end of March. He commented that in September they should have a better number than the $40 million. He observed that they would have to do the preliminary work now on raising rates or going out for a bond in order to meet the 2001 timetable. Mr. Wegner reported receipt of a memo from the Oregon Environmental Council requesting that Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 13 they do more with corservation. He said that he would send Council a memo on using inverted block rates for water during the summer (charging more to the person who used more water) as an incentive for the residential customer to use less water. He mentioned that this was the year to adjust water rates. Mayor Nicoli asked why they could not start adjusting their water rates this summer since they kwn w that they had to increase them in the future anyway. They could put the money in a reserve account. Mr. Lowry commented that they had to justify increasing water rates, and to do so, they would need more details than they had now. He recommended not adjusting water rates until they were ready to report on what they were going to do. Mr. Monahan mentioned the importance of having sufficient information to answer public questions regarding increased rates. Mayor Nicoli noted the remaining issues: whether to split the bill or how to clarify a combined bill. Councilor Hunt volunteered to discuss the bill design with Mr. Lowry. He supported retaining a combined bill. Mr. Lowry reported that Finance has made a budget request for funding to upgrade all their software for the year 2000. He explained their intent to buy a new utility billing software program from the same vendor to replace the Water District's 1991 system still in use. He said that this new program gave them greater flexibility, more efficiency, and allowed the monthly billing that could become necessary as the bi-monthly bill amounts increased substantially due to the impacts of the Willamette River project. > The Council considered Item No. 4, Proposed Public Drinking Ordinance, at this time. 6. DISCUSSION - PROPOSED NOISE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Mayor Nicoli said that he did not understand the issue, since DEQ set the noise levels for the state and the City has adopted them. Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, introduced Matt Scheidegger, Code Enforcement Officer. He said that Officer Scheidegger has done an excellent job with code enforcement (which moved from the Police Department to Community Development last June). He explained that one of the problems Officer Scheidegger ran into was the noise ordinance because the City had conflicting standards in the Code. He said that there were the use standards for industry and the city standards. Officer Scheidegger explained that four situations have come up in which the issue was creating appropriate levels of noise for commercial zoning abutting residential. He said that currently the Code said that commercial had to conform to the residential standards if there was a conflict. However it was almost impossible for commercial to meet a noise standard of 50 decibels during the day and 40 at night. Mayor Nicoli commented that he understood that DEQ interpreted their current noise requirements as requiring any commercial or industrial activity next to a noise sensitive zone Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 14 (such as residential) to meet the residential requirements. The intent was to protect the residents. He said that that was how he saw it applied in Beaverton, which has adopted the state DEQ requirements. Mayor Nicoli held that this ordinance request was a request to waive the DEQ requirement. He said that he did not think the City could do that since it was a state law. He expressed concern at making things easier for commercial customers adjacent to residential neighborhoods who already caused a noise problem and made no attempt to correct it (he cited a well-kAbwn situation on 99W). Councilor Scheckla concurred. Mr. Hendryx pointed out that they had more commercial/residential noise conflicts in the City than the one on 99W. Councilor Moore asked if this ordinance was more stringent or relaxed. Officer Scheidegger said that it was more relaxed because it allowed a greater range over 50 decibels before there was a violation. Mayor Nicoli discussed the difficulty in taking proper decibel readings to screen out the background noise and focus solely on the noise created by the use in conflict. He reiterated that he did not want to change the ordinance at this time if it would give a break to the commercial user in violation of the current ordinance. Councilor Scheckla suggested bringing the ordinance back in eight or nine months when the Council might be more receptive. He pointed out that the Police Chief first raised the public drinking ordinance in 1994. Councilor Hunt expressed concern at changing or not changing an ordinance for one person, instead of considering the city at large. Mr. Monahan pointed out that the intent of the ordinance was not to make a current noise violation legal but to give Officer Scheidegger an ordinance he could enforce. Mr. Hendryx reiterated that this was a problem throughout the city. Councilor Moore commented that this ordinance made it easier for the City to enforce its current Code by giving it some teeth. Officer Scheidegger explained that people did not notice a change in noise level until there was a 10 decibel change. He reviewed the DEQ regulations and enforcement levels in which Level 1 was 75 decibels continuously for one minute. Mayor Nicoli asked if someone hitting a sheet of metal with a hammer with 10 to 60 second intervals between the taps was considered continuous. Officer Schedeigger said no. Mayor Nicoli said that was the problem in this 99W situation where the commercial owner has demonstrated a total disregard for the residential neighbors. Councilor Moore asked if this commercial owner could be cited under the Code as it was written today. Officer Scheidegger said that he has given this owner different options. He explained that the owner needed to cut back his hours of operation to daytime only, keep the doors closed, and put in a ventilation system. However the owner claimed that open doors was crucial to his business. Mr. Monahan said that if the City had an ordinance requiring him to close his doors, Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 15 OEM then that needed to be enforced. Mr. Hendryx explained that the Code was not clear on whether a continuous noise was one that lasted for a specific period of time or the cumulative amount of noise that built up. He said that he has taken a hard line and gone for the cumulative interpretation but he felt that his position was weak and that this ordinance would beef it up. The Council discussed whether or not this ordinance would strengthen the City's ability to enforce the noise ordinance or give an advantage to those currently violating the ordinance. Councilor Hunt supported moving forward with the ordinance, as it would help Officer Scheidegger in more than one situation. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the Council made a commitment to that neighborhood to try to resolve this issue. He expressed concern that this issue was under discussion without the neighborhood in the audience to listen. Mr. Monahan pointed out that this was a study session to look at a city-wide ordinance. Councilor Moore asked if approving this ordinance would provide Officer Scheidegger with the tool he needed to deal with the 99W situation. Officer Scheidegger said yes, commenting that either way, the owner was in violation of the noise ordinance. He explained that he has not done anything in that instance because the question came up about how to enforce the ordinance. Mr. Monahan said that with the new ordinance, Officer Scheidegger would be better able to document a sustained problem before the municipal court judge. Mr. Hendryx reported that one person in violation of the noise ordinance has contested the City's interpretation of the Code, arguing that the City should use the DEQ standard since they adopted it. Mayor Nicoli reiterated that as he understood the DEQ requirements, a commercial business within so many feet of a noise sensitive use had to meet the residential criteria. He cited his experience in Beaverton in his business when he was held to that standard. Councilor Hunt asked if staff was having trouble enforcing the Code because it was inconsistent. Officer Scheidegger said yes, explaining that the ordinance softened the DEQ requirements and rewrote the language in a way that he could work with it. Mayor Nicoli stated that he did not want the requirements softened, although supported a rewrite to clarify intent. Mr. Monahan suggested that Officer Scheidegger return with a comparison of the current Code provisions and his proposed ordinance. In addition, he suggested asking the municipal court judge for his opinion on the interpretation and application of the proposed ordinance. He noted that the judge might want to wait until after he heard the noise case coming to court on May 14. Mayor Nicoli suggested contacting DEQ for their interpretation on a commercial use next to a noise sensitive area. 7. RECIPROCAL PARKING AGREEMENT DISCUSSION (CHAMBER OF COMMERCE) John Cook, Chamber of Commerce, presented the Chamber's proposal that the City allow them to count 12 of the City's 16 parking spaces (adjacent to the Chamber's proposed building site) ii, meeting their parking requirement of 14 spaces (they have two on site). He explained Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 16 that the Chamber decided to build a larger building than it strictly needed in order to provide community meeting space and additional display space. He pointed out that typically people were in and out of the Chamber in two to three minutes, and therefore the spaces would not be pre-empted all day long from use by patrons of other downtown businesses. Mr. Cook said that he saw a longer use of the spaces in the evenings when most meetings were held. He commented that the Chamber did not want to see that parking lot turn into a park and ride (noting its proximity to the transit center). He pointed out the outside staircase added to allow public access to the meeting rooms when the Chamber office was closed. He asked the Council to allow them to use the parking spaces rather than amending the Code. Mr. Monahan reviewed the Council's intentions in purchasing the property as a parking lot for the benefit of the entire downtown area. He mentioned the upcoming discussions of City staff with the downtown merchants on what direction the downtown should take. He said that he could almost guarantee that the merchants would want more parking. He noted the Council discussions on whether this should be free or for pay parking or lease the lot (possibly to the Chamber). Mr. Monahan noted that a reciprocal parking arrangement to allow the Chamber to meet the Zoning Code was another option for use of the lot. He pointed out that the Chamber could reduce the size of its building and meet the parking requirements on its own property. Another option was changing the Code on downtown parking requirements as discussed a couple of years ago. He questioned whether or not the Council would meet the intent of the Code if they did not reserve the parking spaces for the Chamber's use during the day, and allowed them to be used on a first-come, first-served basis. Mr. Hendryx said that the Code required offstreet parking and did not allow for any deviation of that for low usage periods. He said that the Chamber had to have their required number of spaces. Under this request, during certain hours the City would not meet the intent of the Code. Mr. Monahan pointed out that the City has already granted the right to everyone to use that parking lot. He questioned how the City could grant the right to use the spaces to someone in particular when they have already granted everyone else that right. He indicated that he was not certain that the City could do a reciprocal parking agreement. He asked for Council direction on whether staff should pursue this issue further or whether it could not be done and the Chamber had to consider their other options. a Mayor Nicoli commented that this issue was further complicated because it was the Chamber that made the request. The Chamber was a non-profit organization that promoted the City, and was building a larger facility than it needed so that the meeting space could be used by all citizens. He said that if a retail or service merchant made this request, he would say no but a non-profit opening up the building to the community was a different scenario. W J Councilor Moore said that he could support the use of the City's parking lot to meet the Chamber building requirement because the usage of their building did not require the mandated number of parking spaces. He suggested that the Chamber employees park elsewhere to free up Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 17 the two on-site spots for the public. Councilor Hunt expressed his opposition to this request. He contended that even if this Council agreed to this, a future Council could rescind that agreement, and the building would then be out of compliance with the Code. He held that the Chamber should have been able to foresee this difficulty. He stated that he had no objection to selling the lot to the Chamber but pointed out that the City did not buy a parking lot for the American Legion when their building went in. Councilor Scheckla asked what had been required of the American Legion. Mr. Hendryx said that the American Legion arranged a reciprocal parking agreement with Payless for 30 parking spaces in the Payless lot. Councilor Scheckla said he would like more information on that situation. Mr. Monahan pointed out that with the American Legion building, the City made a determination that Payless had excess parking spaces in their lot which the Legion could use. He said that staff could do further legal research on the Chamber situation to determine whether or not the City could give something more to an individual than to the general public. He commented that, as a result of the upcoming visioning discussion with downtown merchants, he was expecting a discussion on amending the Code to remove the requirement that downtown businesses had to provide more than two parking spaces. Mayor Nicoli concurred, noting his and Mr. Monahan's work on a plan to increase parking in the downtown. He noted that the City waived parking places for the Dolans. Mr. Hendryx explained that the Dolans asked for a variance from the parking standards which the City granted them. He mentioned (with regard to the American Legion and Payless) that the Code allowed two uses for a parking lot - daytime and nighttime. A reciprocal parking agreement was possible between two businesses whose hours of operation did not overlap. Mayor Nicoli asked why that would not apply in this situation, as the meeting room would be used primarily after business hours. Mr. Monahan said that the issue was how the City would enforce the parking lot, something not yet determined. Mr. Hendryx pointed out that the Council had the option of requesting a Code amendment to eliminate parking for a specific use or for the whole downtown. He commented that a variance request would be difficult to grant because the hardship was that the Chamber could not build a 4000 square foot building. Mr. Cook stated that the Chamber did not anticipate reserving the 12 spots for the Chamber, as they did not intend to buy the land. He said that he envisioned it being used like a public street, on a first come first served basis. He pointed out that 98% of Main Street did not meet this requirement either. Mr. Monahan summarized the issue as whether or not the City could grant a reciprocal parking agreement, given Councilor Hunt's point about a future change which rendered the building illegal. He pointed out that if the Chamber decided to sell, they then had an encumbrance because the City would not grant the same arrangement to a business. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 18 Mr. Monahan said that the Chamber was asking the City to grant permission to use the City parking lot on an as needed basis. However for the City to grant the reciprocal parking agreement to comply with the Code, they had to be able to commit to those spaces as available on an assumed basis. If the Council directed staff to make the parking lot a "for free, first-come first-served" lot, then staff could not conclude that the City has given the Chamber what it needed to comply with the ordinance. Mayor Nicoli disagreed with Mr. Monahan's interpretation, citing the American Legion situation. Mr. Monahan pointed out that Payless could control the use of its parking lot. He reiterated that in this situation the City could be circumventing the Zoning Code. He said that to meet the Chamber's request they would have to take away the Code requirement for offstreet parking. Mr. Hendryx mentioned another option of leasing the parking lot to the Chamber. Councilor Hunt pointed out that leasing did not change the problem of creating a building out of compliance if the lease was not renewed by a future Council. He reiterated that he would support selling the lot to the Chamber. Mr. Cook said that the Chamber did not need 16 spots all day long and did not want to prohibit the downtown merchants from using the lot. Mr. Monahan commented that if the Chamber did own the lot, they could control the parking spaces and have them available at the times they needed them. Councilor Scheckla asked to see the American Legion/Payless agreement for clarification on how it worked. Mr. Monahan said that staff would return with a report on the Council's concerns regarding reciprocal parking agreements, how they worked, and the pros and cons of the City granting one. He said that Council direction to staff to see if the downtown merchants' showed any inclination to look at the parking ordinance during the upcoming meeting would be useful. Councilor Hunt said that changing the parking lot was fine. Councilor Scheckla mentioned another issue of allowing churches to have gravel parking lots. Mayor Nicoli commented that the Council was in favor of allowing that. He asked if the Chamber got any reduction in the parking requirement for their location on a bus route and near a transit center. Mr. Hendryx said that staff could review those requirements with the Chamber. Mr. Cook commented that he had wanted to bring the issue of reducing or eliminating the parking requirements along Main Street to the Council tonight but only raised the Chamber request because they needed to get on with their building. He mentioned that the visioning process was not yet to the point of considering this issue either. He reiterated that the Chamber was only asking for what already existed on Main Street. Mr. Hendryx commented that in his experience, changing parking standards was a contentious issue. He spoke to giving careful consideration to eliminating the parking requirements on Main Street or in the whole downtown before initiating such a change. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the Council has been told that eliminating this type of parking requirement has worked well in Portland, creating positive activity as residents moved into the downtown. He commented that Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 19 this provision effectively prohibited merchants from improving their property. He mentioned the possibility that the railroad might open up property which the City could use for parking. Mr. Cook commented that if the parking restrictions changed, then that eliminated Councilor Hunt's concern about a future Council's actions. Mr. Monahan mentioned that Council could grant a short-term reciprocal agreement, although that would only delay a tough decision. Mr. Monahan asked if the Council wanted a free lot or a for-pay lot. Mayor Nicoli supported a • free lot. Councilor Hunt supported a free lot for a limited amount of time (not a free lot for employee parking). Councilor Moore; supported a free lot during the day. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that someone renting office space in the Chamber building would use up more of the parking. Mr. Monahan said that he thought any other use in the building would have to have turn over parking like the Chamber. Councilor Hunt mentioned that there was not enforcement of the parking regulations in the downtown as it was (the two-hour period). Mayor Nicoli concurred. He spoke to having the police check occasionally. 8. NON-AGENDA ITEMS > Mr. Monahan asked for Council direction on what role the Council wanted him to play when the committee looking into management benefits made its report to the Council. He mentioned a discussion on insurance for next week's Executive Session. He reminded Council of the Volunteer Dinner this Thursday, and of the staff's meeting with the downtown merchants tomorrow night. > Ms. Newton presented the revised questionnaire for the survey. She mentioned Councilor Moore's request to change "street repair and maintenance" to "transportation improvements," and to resequence the elements in No. 7 so that they fell in a more logical order. > Councilor Moore commented that the Council needed to be more cautious about allowing staff to finish their presentations before asking their questions. 9. ADJOURNMENT: 11:10 p.m. i Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder ity` of igard Date: 6 (C ~ 1:W DM\CATHY\CCM\980421. DOC Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - April 21, 1998 - Page 20 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9095 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard ° ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard,Oregon 97223 • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit • Accounts Payable ° AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) ' 1, Kathy Snyder__ being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of the Tigard-Tualatin 'imes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tigard in the aforgsaid county and state; that the City Council Contract Review Meeting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ()NP successive and consecutive in the following issues: April 16 1998 Subscribed and sworn before me thisl6-th_day of A= r; 1 , 19 9 8 OFFICIAL SEAL tary Public for Oregon ROBIN A. BURGESS NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON My Commission Expires: COMMISSION NO. 062071 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT The following meeting highlights are published for your information. Full agendas may be obtained from the City Recorder, 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING April 21, 1998 - 6:30 P.M. TIGARD CITY HALL - TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARD, TIGARD, OREGON • Joint Meeting: City Council & TigardMalatin School Board • Discussion Items: Utility Billing Proposed Public Drinking Ordinance Proposed Reciprocal Parking Agreement with the Chamber of Commerce Options for Summerlake • Executive Session M095 -Publish April 16, 1993. Please Sign In 1. OAj f -►~Satil i T-S~ U 4. JJ' 5. ~-e Y t 40-ae, I~Irs- 6. 7. 7aiK~WA2p -TS0 9..L -7.G.C.. 10. G . C 11. /CE~t/ ~S C /~E C KL.f~ Ti e. C,. 12. 7 S~ ti 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. p1e e Si n In 1• ©N _S J"T T' ~~fzG f`' !J 2' SS Yt~ r. 3 ISO ~ ~ 6. ~Qd 10. ;2' ~Cf L,~ ~ c Gi c 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. IT z 18. n 19• J 0 20. 7 J J -7C pF~. i A APR " 1998 l For City ouncil Meeting tonite ask Tim Ramis for his opinion on the Martha Bishop letter to city staff regarding: 1. The need for better staff research, pre application meeting notes being available to people neighboring proposed sites etc. to make sure neighbors are aware of the development issues, AND 2. If Tim can work with Staff to get wording that will address these issues for the code update so council can review and consider adding to the code. -~?2~/ o~ ;4~' ~ -y Revised 4/d 6198 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 04-21-98 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Joint Meeting - Tigard City Council & the Tigard-Tualatin School Board PREPARED BY: Bill Monahan DEPT HEAD OK Wk _"CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Joint meeting with the Tigard-Tualatin School District. INFORMATION SUMMARY Agenda items suggested are as follows: • School District/City Bond Measures • City of Tigard Parks Master Plan • Tigard High School Remodel • Police/School Programs • Recreation District Proposal • Joint City/District Projects > Tigard Tree 2000 Program > Library Services > Easements requested by City for Fowler and Mary Woodward I: \ADM\CATHY\CO U N C I L\SC LBO R D 1. DOC milli ""IN 11M • • r • r • s 1 DATE: April 9, 1998 C--\ l a ~ 1 ~ FROM: Ron Hudson, Facilities Manager SUBJECT: Board Report - Easement granted by the City of Tigard to the Tigard- Tualatin School District for an Environmental Garden The attached document provides a description and conditions for an easement requested by the District from the City of Tigard. The area of this easement is on the east side of the entry driveway. It will be utilized as an Environmental Garden for educational purposes. With the limited scope, I believe the easement would not have a negative impact on the District. Also the City is providing this easement at no cost to the District. I therefore recommend the District sign the easement so as to improve the educational opportunities of Mary Woodward Elementary School. a N Y F- J C.'D W J '>b S I 0 ® a ® A oil AFTER RECORDING, RETURN TO: Attn: Dominic G. Colletta O'Donnell Ramis Crew Corrigan & Bachrach LLP 1727 NW Hoyt Street Portland, OR 97209 UNTEL A CHANGE IS REQUESTED, ALL TAX STATEMENTS SHALL BE SENT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made the day of April, 1998, by and between the CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon municipal corporation ("Grantor") and the TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 233 ("Grantee'). RECITALS A. Grantor is the owner of certain real property more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. Grantee is the owner of adjacent real property more particularly described on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. C. Grantee desires to obtain, and Grantor desires to grant, a temporary non-exclusive easement for access to a portion of the property of Grantor and for the installation and maintenance of a professionally designed environmental garden for the use and benefit of students of Mary Woodward Elementary School upon the terms and conditions described herein. GRANT OF EASEMENT 1. Grant of Easement. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee, for the use of its administrators, faculty, students, contractors, guests and invitees, a temporary, exclusive easement for access to and use of the property described in Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Easement Property") for the purpose of installation and maintenance of a professionally designed environmental garden. The easement granted herein is for the benefit of Grantee, and is not appurtenant to Grantee's property, described on Exhibit "B" and does not run with Page I - EASEMENT AGREEMENT C:\ORCC\DGC\TIGARD\school.eas.%pd(nak) the land. 2. Conditions Precedent to Right to Use of Easement. Grantee agree that its right to use the Easement Property is limited to the purposes described in Section 1 of this Agreement. As a condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement, Grantee shall obtain the prior written approval of Grantor to a site plan and design for the garden proposed to be installed and maintained on the Easement Property. Grantor may condition or withhold its consent and approval of the site plan and/or design in its exclusive discretion. Grantee agrees that it shall not enter onto the Easement Property prior to approval of the site plan and design by Grantor. 3. Termination of Easement and Restoration of Easement Property. The easement granted by this Agreement may be terminated at any time by Grantor effective six months from the date of written notice of termination delivered to Grantee in the manner hereinafter provided. Upon notice of termination by Grantor, Grantee agrees to remove all improvements and plantings placed by Grantee on the Easement Property, and to restore the Easement Property to its condition at the effective date of this Agreement. 4. Maintenance of the Easement Proper. From and after the date of Grantor's approval of the site plan and design for Grantee's use of the Easement Property, Grantee shall, at all times, maintain the Easement Property, and all plants and improvements thereon, in such a manner as to prevent excess surface water run-off across, erosion of, and trespass to the property of Grantor described in Exhibit "A" and not included within the Easement Property, and shall not permit waste nor cause or permit a public or private nuisance to exist on the Easement Property. 5. Indemnity. Grantee shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold Grantor and Grantor's elected officials, employees and agents harmless from and against any and all actual or potential claims, proceedings, lawsuits, liabilities, damages, losses, fines, penalties, judgments, awards, costs and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, that arise out of or relate in any way to Grantee's use of the Easement Property, including those which may arise from the storage, transfer, generation, disposal, or discharge of Hazardous Materials in connection with Grantee's use of the Easement Property. This indemnity shall survive the termination of this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, "Hazardous Materials" means: 5.1 All substances, waste, pollutants, contaminants, and materials now or hereafter regulated, or defined or designated as hazardous, extremely or eminently hazardous, dangerous, or toxic, under the following Federal Statutes and their state counterparts, as well as the implementing regulations thereof: the Comprehensive Environmental Response, compensation and liability act of 1980, 42 USC § 9601 et seq.; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 USC § 136 et seq.; the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 USC § 2011 et seq.; and the Hazardous Material Transportation Act, 49 USC § 5101 et seq.; and 5.2 Any additional substances or materials that are now or hereafter become defined as Page 2 - EASEMENT AGREEMENT C:\ORCC\DGC\TIGARD\school.eac.wpd(nak) "hazardous substances", "hazardous waste", "toxic substances", or "toxic waste" under any other federal law or under any state, county, municipal or other law applicable to the Easement Property or under any regulations promulgated under any such law; and 5.3 Petroleum and petroleum products including crude oil and any fractions thereof, and 5.4 Asbestos; and 5.5 Natural gas, synthetic gas and any mixtures thereof. 6. Notice. Any notice required or permitted to be given by any party hereto to another shall be deemed to have been given when sent via facsimile, overnight air courier, or deposited in the United States mail certified, with first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: If to Grantor: City of Tigard Attn: Duane Roberts 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 If to Grantee: Tigard-Tualatin School District 233 or addressed to a party at such other address as such party shall hereafter furnish to the other party in writing. 7. Attorney Fees. In the event suit or action is instituted to interpreter enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party such sums as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees at trial or on appeal or review of such suit or action, in addition to all other sums provided by law. 8. No Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by Grantee by operation of law or otherwise, and any attempted assignment in violation hereof shall be null and void and constitute an act of default of this Agreement. 9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and Page 3 - EASEMENT AGREEMENT C:\ORCC\DGC%TiGARD\school.cas.wpd(nak) ti . supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties or their predecessors in interest with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. GRANTOR: GRANTEE: CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon municipal TIGARD-TUALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT corporation 23J By: _ By: Its: Its: STATE OF OREGON ) ss County of ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of 1998, by , the of the CITY OF TIGARD, an Oregon municipal corporation, on behalf of such corporation. NOTARY PUBLIC for Oregon My commission expires: STATE OF OREGON ) ss County of ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of 1998, by , tile of the TIGARD-TUALATIIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J, on behalf of said school district. a NOTARY PUBLIC for Oregon* } My commission expires: J m Hy J Page 4 - EASEMENT AGREEMENT C:\ORCC\DGC\TIGARD\school.eas.wpd(nak) 112- 04/15/98 WED 13:40 Fi_Y 503 684 2296 TIGARD TUALATIN SCHOOL 1-(1]001 WELCOME TO THE MONTHLY BUSINESS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS - TIGARD-TQALATIN SCHOOL DISTRICT 23J - 0_740tr`p.m. at Tigard City Hall April 21, 1998 Public participation on agenda items occurs at the discretion of the chair. Please indicate your interest by signing the sheet provided at the agenda table. Nonagenda items and public hearings are governed by the policy found at the agenda table. At 9:00 p.m., the Board will take a five minute recess and the chair will review the agenda for possible rescheduling of items. The public meeting will not go beyond 10:00 p_m. For assistive listening/speech It'call 684-2201 (voice) or 684-2296 (FAX) no later than 24 hours prior to the meeting. JOINT MEETING WITH CITY OF TIGARD Merrily Haas (TCSD Board Chair), Jim Nicoli (City of Tigard Mayor) r 3 P~-AA NDA- 1. School District Bond Measures 2. City of Tigard Parks Master Plan 3- Tigard High School Pool Remodel 4. Police/School Programs 5. Recreation District Proposal 6. Joint City/District Projects: • Tigard Tree 2000 Program ® Library Services z Easements requested by City for Fowler and Mary Woodward A 7. Phil Lewis Sale update j it of pa9os " J Post-It" brand fax transmittal memo 76'1,11 To ✓o o Fro U Co. 7 Co. Dept pnone # . Fa: !i FEM A AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF April 21, 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Improvements to Summer Lake PREPARED BY: G. N. BeiT -0 DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the attached "Summer Lake Management Plan" be implemented? STAFF RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the recommendation of the draft plan and direct staff to prepare a budget and schedule for implementing the plan. The budget and plan shall be promptly submitted to Council for approval. INFORMATION SUMMARY At its November 12, 1996, meeting; Council heard the concerns of residents near Summerlake Park that the appearance of the lake was deteriorating and directed staff to find options available to improve its appearance. Council received the report on September 23, 1997 and directed staff to request proposals from consulting firms to prepare a preliminary lake management plan to improve the appearance of the pond and appointed an Advisory Committee to guide the effort. The resulting draft plan is attached. The plan recommended by the Advisory Committee includes the purchase of an aquatic plant harvester. This would require expenditures not included in the draft plan such as the cost of a ramp providing the harvester with access to the lake and the cost of disposing of the weeds collected by the harvester. The Public Works Department is currently evaluating these costs. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The draft plan includes four alternatives considered by the Advisory Committee. FISCAL NOTES The draft report includes preliminary cost for the various alternatives. At Council's direction, a budget will be prepared. ilcilywidelsumisum-I. doc o ir Sum. er Lake Management . Dry April 1998 J KCM HCM, Inc. 7080 SW Fir Loop { Portland, Oregon 97223 City of Tigard SUMMER LAS MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT April 1998 Prepared for: City of Tigard Engineering Department 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 Prepared by: KCM KCM, Inc. 7080 SW Fir Loop Portland, Oregon 97223 (503) 684-9097 Project #2840015 MMUM Sumner Lake Management Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page No. 1. Introduction I 2. Evaluation of Management Alternatives 4 Mechanical Control Methods 11 Hydraulic Dredging 11 Mechanical Dredging 12 Diver-Operated Suction Dredging 14 Mechanical Harvesting 15 Rotovation 16 Chemical Control Methods 16 Fluridone 16 Glyphosate 18 Endothall 18 Diquat 19 Aquashade 20 Aluminum Sulfate 20 Biological Control Methods 22 Triploid (Sterile) Grass Carp 22 Waterfowl Management 23 Physical Control Methods 25 Hand-Digging 25 Hand-Cutting 26 Bottom Barrier 27 Artificial Circulation 28 Sediment Oxidation 28 Water-Level Drawdown 28 Watershed Management Measures 28 Landscaping Practices 28 Household and Commercial Practices 30 3. Recommended Management Plan ..................................................33 Management Scenarios 33 Recommended Scenario 34 Appendix Harvester Manufacturer's Specifications i ...TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page No. 2-1 In-Lake Management Alternatives 5 2-2 Watershed Management Alternatives 10 2-3 Recommended Substitutes for Common Household Products 31 3-1 Summer Lake Management Scenarios 33 LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Page No. 1-1 Aerial View of Summer Lake and Surroundings 2 2-1 Possible Scheme for Dredging Summer Lake 13 ii CHA gER L I TlODUCTION Summer Lake, a ponded portion of Summer Creek in the City of Tigafd, Oregrn, is surrounded by Summer Lake Park. Figure 1-1 shows an aerial view of the lake. Problems at Summer Lake in recent years have raised citizen concerns about the park's aesthetics, the lake's water quality, and the volume of aquatic plants and algae. To address these concerns, the City commissioned KCM to assist in production of a comprehensive management plan for the lake. This document presents the recommended plan. The Summer Lake citizen advisory committee identified the following problems for the management plan to address: • Excessive production of rooted aquatic plants, which interfere with recreational use of the lake • Nuisance summer and fall algal blooms, which generate odors and unsightly conditions • Poor fishing • Poor water quality in the pond and flowing downstream through lower Summer Creek to Fanno Creek 0 Poor aesthetics • Lack of wildlife • Bank damage from nutria (a rodent, also called coypu) • Too many resident waterfowl • Lack of bank vegetation. The beneficial uses of Summer Lake were listed as follows: • Fish habitat • Recreation • Migratory wildlife habitat • Aesthetics. The Summer Lake citizen advisory committee developed the following goals for the ` management plan (the committee did not rank these goals, and their order here does not indicate priority): • Improve water quality; specifically, increase dissolved oxygen, reduce sediment and nutrient concentrations, and lower the water temperature. • Improve aesthetic appearance. • Manage shoreline and island vegetation. 1 I JL~ ei 1 l ~,I'Ilj s sew ,~a ~ Ill : ~•.j~ ~}A ~ 1N:3h w Y~~~ ,..ISM y - -u City of Tigard Figure 1-1. KCM SUMMER LAKE AERIAL VIEW OF SUMMER LAKE 7080 Sd,FirLoop Portland, Oregon 97223 MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SURROUNDINGS 1. INTRODUCTION • Improve fishery habitat, but not necessarily for recreational fishing • Control production of aquatic plants and algae. • Develop best management practices (BMPs) for use in the lake's watershed. 3 CEL4 PTER 2. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES A consideration of management alternatives must take into account the productive state of the lake, the limited ability of watershed control measures to affect the water quality of the lake, compatibility with the Fanno Creek Watershed Plan, and the inability to use herbicides without restrictions. In designing a management plan, not only must the various alternatives be carefully considered, but the expectations of the residents for the condition of the lake may need to be revised in light of what is financially, scientifically, and politically realistic. Management alternatives for Summer Lake fall into two categories, in-lake measures and watershed measures. In-lake management activities are designed to decrease nutrients in the lake and reduce its productivity, or physically remove aquatic macrophytes and algae. In this chapter, management alternatives for Summer Lake are described, the advantages and disadvantages considered, and a preliminary cost estimated. Watershed management activities improve water quality by reducing the quantity of pollutants entering the lake from point and nonpoint sources in the watershed. Regardless of the amount, all nutrient inputs to the lake should be minimized. In-lake and watershed techniques to improve water quality, reduce nutrients, and limit plant productivity are summarized in Tables 2-1 and 2-2, respectively. Some of the alternatives are large-scale, entailing substantial labor and equipment costs. Others are small-scale, low-cost approaches to controlling aquatic macrophytes in localized areas. Planning and regulatory permits may be required for some activities, and costs associated with obtaining these permits are not included in the estimates. A variety of methods (chemical, mechanical, biological, physical) is currently available for treatment of nuisance aquatic plant populations to protect beneficial uses of a water body. These methods run the gamut from very intensive removal of target species to less intensive, short-term control strategies (described as maintenance or cosmetic). Also, control methods for maximum effectiveness against a target plant species depend on the particular morphology and structure, physiology, growth requirements, and growth habit of that species. In other words, control methods that might be successful against one species may not be effective for another. Currently available treatment methods for aquatic plant control are evaluated below, both in general and specifically for use in Summer Lake. Because the primary nuisance plant in Summer Lake is a state Class B noxious species, the review will focus on aggressive control methods, aimed at long-term management of tke lake environment. Potential options presented for review are the large-scale treatments: aquatic herbicide application (e.g. fluridone, endothall, glyphosate), hydraulic dredging, mechanical dredging coupled with drawdown, sterile grass carp introduction, and mechanical harvesting. Also considered are methods appropriate for smaller areas: hand-removal, bottom barrier application, and diver-assisted suction dredging. These techniques vary with respect to intensity and effectiveness against rooted plants. 4 2. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES TABLE 2-1. IN-LAKE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Advantages Disadvantages Estimated Cost' Hydraulic dredging • Deepens lake • Punctures organic seal and drains • $3-25/m3 (Removal of lake • Removes nutrient-rich lake • Total: sediment) sediments and aquatic lift: • Resuspends sediments $197,000-$2,430,000 s o • Reduces internal cycling • Temporary destruction of benthic • Usually long-term solution habitat (>20 years) • Dredge spoils disposal difficulties • Removal of entire plant, • Expensive including roots • Temporary bottom disturbance and • Additional benefits of increased turbidity in water column deepening lake, removal of • Not species-specific, for plant enriched or toxic sediments control Drawdown • Useful for repair or • Not species-specific Variable maintenance of shorelines • May affect wetlands and structures • Loss of recreation • May enhance growth of • Dissolved oxygen decrease emergent plants (waterfowl • Benthic invertebrate impact habitat) Diver-operated • Site-specific • Labor intensive $1,100-2,300/day dredge • Species-specific • Slow 0.5 acre per day) (coverage depends on • No depth constraints • Potential fragment production plant density) • Used near obstacles • Temporary bottom disturbance and increased turbidity Aluminum Sulfate: • Lowers lake phosphorus • Short-term measure $1,000-2,500/ha-m Sodium Aluminate content • Temporary decrease in pH and Total: $5,000 to $15,000 Treatment • Inhibits release of phosphorus alkalinity (Addition of an from sediments • Potential increase in aquatic aluminum salt to • Increases water column macrophytes remove phosphorus) transparency • Effectiveness limited by high • Reduces occurrence of blue- loading een algal blooms Dilution + Reduces nutrient • Requires large quantities of low- • Treatment plant design & concentrations in the lake by nutrient water construction: $400/m3-d dilution • High capital and operation costs for • O&M: $13/year/m3-d • Increases flushing rate treatment plant • Reduces minor phosphorus source to lake Artificial Circulation • Provides aeration and • Does not decrease algal biomass • Construction.: $250,000 oxygenation • May decrease water clarity • O&M: $15,000-25,000/year • Increases aerobic habitat • May adversely impact Coldwater • Redistributes algal biomass fish Sediment Oxidation • Reduces internal phosphorus • Not appropriate for Summer Lake • $27,000 to $37,000/ha loading because iron redox reactions are not the primary mechanism of phosphorus release Aquashade • Non-toxic • Expensive to use in large water • Materials cost: $102/ha-m bodies • Whole lake: $600 1 • Repeated application needed • Repeat application at 2- • Downstream impact week intervals; total April • Mat increase water temperature to Sept. cost: $15,000 5 Summer Lake Management Plan... TABLE 2-1 (continued). IN-LAKE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Advantages Disadvantages Estimated Costa Bioenzymes Non-toxic • High expense • Materials cost: • Limited effectiveness $141/ha-m • Repeat applications needed • Whole-lake cost: $800 for • Not proven in large-scale maintenance dose, $5,000 applications for initial dose. Bottom sediment • Non-toxic • Too expensive to use over large • Materials cost: barriers • Immediate plant removal areas $0.15 to $0.75/sq. ft. • Materials reusable • Annual inspection and maintenance • Installation: • Site-specific required $0.25 to $0.80/sq. ft. • Useful around obstructions • Not species-specific • Benthic organism impact • Maintenance required Grass Carp Reduces plant biomass • May remove all plants or have little • $4 - $7 per fish, planted at • Non-toxic effect 40-60 fish/ha • Long-term effectiveness (8 - 10 • Permitting not available because of • Total: $1,825 ($1,000 plus years) fisheries issues $825 delivery) • Low cost over life of fish • Containment structures required • Monitoring and • Triploid fish are sterile • Monitoring needed to assess impact containment structure of grass carp and restocking costs are additional and schedule may triple costs • Potential impacts on nutrient cycling & water quality • May stimul_ `.e algae blooms • May negatively impact fishery • Restocking or removal of over- stocked fish may be necessary • May alter composition of plant community without decreasing total biomass Hand Pulling • Site specific • Slow, labor intensive, expensive • $0 with volunteer labor • Species-specific • Short-term turbidity increase • $500 to $2,800/day for • Minimum impact on native • Diver visibility can restrict contract divers plants effectiveness • Use near obstructions Hand-cutting • Immediate plant removal • Slow • $100 to $1000 for • Fragments generated equipment + labor • Short-tern, increase in turbidity Harvest Aquatic • Immediate plant removal to • Reduces internal loading of • $300 to $1,000/acre (May Plants cutting depth (4 to 8 ft.) nutrients vary with transport costs) • Minimal bottom disturbance • Fragments produced • Three cuttings per year: • Materials may be composted • Impact on fish and invertebrates $20,000 • Reduces internal loading of • Slow nutrients • High initial capital cost • Operating depth limited • Operations depend on weather • Not species-specific 6 -ills 2. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES TABLE 2-1 (continued). IN-LAKE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Advantages Disadvantages Estimated Costa Rotovation Winter treatment minimizes • Bottom disturbance /increased $1,000 to $2,300/ha summer season recreation turbidity (depends on plant density impact • Long-term efficacy only on and area of treatment) perennials • Bottom obstructions limit use • Not species-specific Waterfowl Reduces nutrient loading • Requires establishment of and Variable. Minimal for Management compliance with no-feeding signs, low fences or bushes ordinances along shoreline. Some • Landscaping practices by lakeshore staff time required to residences may need to be modified install signs and for • Public resistance to disturbing birds enforcement • Reduces habitat available for • Use ReJeX-It AG-36 migratory birds (methylanthanilate) as • Deterrent activities need to be bird repellent on grass: repeated $14/L materials cost $15.000 - $25 000/ha Copper Sulfate • Effective, inexpensive • Algae can develop tolerance • Materials cost for CuSO4: Treatment • High doses kill snails to control • Causes shift from green algae to $300/ha-rJJ (Adds copper to kill "swimmer's itch" blue greens Cost to treat lake: $1,800 algae) • No water use restrictions • Causes oxygen deficit and, release • Total treatment cost: • Increases efficacy of other of nutrients and toxins from algae $5,000 herbicides when applied with • Toxic to some fish, invertebrates, Repeat applications them and zooplankton species needed at 2-week intervals No biomagnification • Potentially inhibit smoltification of for an annual cost of salmon $125,000 • Requires multiple treatments each season, algae may recover in 7 to 21 days • Accumulates in sediment • Reduced efficacy at high pH because copper precipitates • Downstream impact Cutrine Plus • Effective algicide • Restricted to use in water with • Materials cost: $100/ha-m (Copper- • Has greater efficacy than carbonate hardness >50 parts per • Cost to treat lake: $5,000 ethanolamine CuSO4 and is less sensitive to million if trout are present ($600 plus labor) complex) high pH . Same disadvantages as CuSO4 • Repeat applications • Multiple treatments per year may needed at 2-week intervals be required for an annual cost of $125,000 Komeen a Contact herbicide • At recommended dosages fish kills • Materials cost: $300/ha-m n n (Copper • Has greater efficacy than have occurred e Cost to treat lake: $5,000 ethylenediamine CuSO4 and is less sensitive to . Same disadvantages as CUS04 ($1,800 plus labor) _ complex) high pH • One season duration of effectiveness J J J 7 Summer Lake Management Plan... TABLE 2-1 (continued). IN-LAKE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Advantages Disadvantages Estimated Costa Diquat • Contact herbicide • Water use restrictions: 24 h for • Materials cost: $225/ha-m (6,7-dihydrodipyrido • Effective against many plant swimming, 14 d for domestic use & • Cost to treat lake: $5,000 pyrazinediium species irrigation, recommended 60 d for ($1,500 plus labor) dibromide) • No bioaccumulation fish consumption & 210 d for potable water • Persistent, especially in sediments • Non- to moderate toxicity to most animals, high toxicity to amphibians, fish kills have occurred at recommended application rates • Is mutagenic, teratogenic under certain conditions • Kills plants rapidly and may cause oxygen deficit, release of nutrients and toxins • Repeat applications needed • Only one season of control Aquathol K - Contact herbicide • Water use restrictions: 8 d for • Materials cost: $300/ha-m (dipotassium • Not persistent, rapidly swimming, 35 d for domestic use, 3 • Cost to treat lake: $5,000 endothalic acid) degraded by bacteria d for fish consumption ($1,800 plus labor) • Not toxic to most aquatic • Not very effective against Elodea, animals generally applied with Komeen to • No bioaccumulation increase efficacy Contact herbicide at high • Repeat applications needed Hydrothol 191 ° Experimental use as algicide may • Materials cost: $811/ha-m (dimethylalkylamine concentration and algicide at low concentration be possible • Cost to treat lake: $10,000 endothalic acid) ° Not persistent, rapidly ° Water use restrictions: 8 d for ($5,000 plus labor) degraded by bacteria swimming, 35 d for domestic use, 3 • No bioaccumulation d for fish consumption • Toxic to fish at levels used to control macrophytes • Repeat applications needed Sonar • Systemic herbicide • Water use restrictions: no Materials cost: (1-methyl-3-phenyl- • Effective for one year or more application within 0.25 miles of $3,200/ha-m 5-(3-trifluoromethyl • Kills plants slowly so oxygen potable water intake, no irrigation Cost to treat lake: $25,000 phenyl)-4(1N)- deficit, nutrient and toxin for 7 to 30 d ($19,200 plus labor) pyridinone) release are limited • Will drift to non-target areas due to • Little or no bioaccumulation high solubility • Low toxicity to most aquatic • Persist in hydrosoils for extended animals period a • Repeat applications may be needed Glyphosate • Systemic herbicide • Non-selective herbicide $300/acre N • Non-toxic • Emergent plants only • No label restrictions on swimming and fishing J '-r CZ Shoreline • Vegetation reduces sediment None • Minimal to $275/linear m J Stabilization and and nutrient loading • Maintenance costs vary Revegetation • Attenuates velocity of runoff • Improves wildlife habitat 8 2. EVALUATION OF M"AGEMENT ALTERNATIVES TABLE 2-1 (continued). 1N-LAKE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Advantages Disadvantages Estimated Costa No Action Short-term financial savings • Use of lake limited by dense plant beds and algal blooms • Potential public health hazard from toxic blue greens • Restoration becomes more costly and less successful in reversing degraded conditions • Safety impaired a. Does not include associated costs such as taxes, permitting, National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) review, environmental monitoring, or construction management. Total project cost including permitting is about 1.5 times these estimated costs. O&M = operations and maintenance cost. C1_ N r J O] UJ UJ J i 9 Summer Lake Management Plan... TABLE 2-2. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Advantages Disadvantages Estimated Costa Stream and Wetland • Reduces streambank erosion • May require land conversion • Capital: ($042,500) per ha Buffer Zones and down tream • May require fencing • O&M: Minimal sedimentation • May require seeding or planting o • Provides shade and lowers stream temperatures • Improves fish and wildlife habitat • Vegetation assimilates nutrients and reduces the mass of nutrients entering the stream Improved • Reduces quantity and velocity • Requires regulatory and inspection Borne by industry Development of surface runoff personnel Practices • Reduces erosion and sedimentation of receiving waters • Reduces nutrient and organic matter loading to surface and groundwater Improved Roadside • Reduces sedimentation of • Requires inspection and regulatory $750/kin Ditch Maintenance receiving waters personnel • Provides bioltration (nutrients removal) prior to infiltration • Removes some toxins Conversion of On- • Reduces nutrient loading • Requires inspection and regulatory • Varies site Septic System to • Provides an increased level of personnel Sewer System service • Most of watershed already sewered Alternative • Reduces nutrient loading • Requires resident participation, • Minimal Household Practices • Reduces amount of toxins substitution of products, and • May actually provide long- entering the lake acceptance of nature term savings • Reduces the amount of runoff water Roof Drain • Reduces nutrient loading • Requires conversion of existing roof • Varies Modifications • Reduces amount of toxins drain systems entering the lake • Reduces the amount of runoff water Implementation of • Provides education and • Requires committed organization $3,000 to 8,000 per year Public Awareness increased watershed Program awareness • Does not include associated costs such as taxes, permitting, National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) review, environmental monitoring, or construction management. Total project cost including permitting is about 1.5 times these estimated costs. O&M = operations and maintenance cost. 10 2. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Hydraulic suction (barge) dredging, hand removal, bottom barrier, and systemic chemical applications such as SONAR® (flur:aone) and RODEO® (glyphosate) are intensive methods aimed at killing or removing all of these nuisance aquatic plants, including roots, and are considered aggressive methods with the potential of achieving long-term reduction. Use of herbivorous grass carp, offering potential long-term control, is also treated in the review, but permit restrictions rule out this approach. Depending on target species, scale of problem, stuc'xing rate, and other site-specifics, effective use of sterile grass carp can range from eradication of species to no control. Mechanical harvesting and contact herbicides (e.g., Aquathol) are useful for short-term removal of large areas of surfacing plants, and are included in the discussion as less intensive forms of maintenance control. Other types of control methods, such as mechanical rotovation (bottom tillage), and lake-level drawdown by itself, are not considered appropriate for use in Summer Lake due to site and species constraints, and are therefore not discussed. Drawdown by itself is ineffective in western Oregon and Washington lowland lakes for long-term control of invasive, non-native plants, and may be useful only when used in conjunction with appropriate dredging methods. Each treatment alternative is reviewed in terms of its principal mode of action, effectiveness, human and environmental effects (safety, water quality, non-target organisms and plants), costs, and other special political and administrative concerns. Potential mitigation measures are presented along with estimates of mitigation costs, where possible. TAECV-VTICAL CONTROL METHODS Hydraulic Dredging Principle: This is an intensive technique that involves removal of littoral sediments and associated rooted aquatic plants using hydraulic dredging equipment. Lake sediment removal is most often performed by means of a cutter-head hydraulic pipeline dredge (Cooke et al. 1993). During operation, plants and sediment loosened by the cutter head travel to the pickup head. The slurry is suctioned up and carried back to the dredge barge through hoses. The sediment slurry is then piped off-site for disposal. Control Effectiveness and Duration: Large-scale sediment removal techniques can often provide multiple benefits to an aquatic system (Cooke et al. 1993). Depending on the water body, possible enhancements include not only rooted macrophyte control, but also increased depth of the water body and removal of nutrients or toxic substances. Efficiency of removal depends on the equipment and sediment type and condition, with conventional dredges performing well on harder sediment. However, various types of portable hydraulic dredges available in the U.S. are more effective for small lakes with softer, flocculent substrate. Longevity of control depends on a number of factors, including sedimentation rate (the lower the better), watershed-to-surface-area ratios (at least 10:1), and hydraulic residence times (the longer the better). Advantages: Dredging removes entire plants, including root systems, so regrowth is minimized. Plant pieces are collected and retained, and fragmentation spread is minimized (this is important for control of Brazilian elodea and Eurasian watermilfoil, which spread 11 Summer Lake Management Plan... by fragments). Hydraulic dredging can be used to cover areas larger than practicable for diver-operated dredging or diver hand-removal, or where herbicides cannot be used. Human health and safety concerns are negligible where operations are prudently conducted. Drawbacks: Hydraulic dredging is very expensive and highly disruptive to the local environment. A major problem often involves finding suitable off-site disposal areas and transporting dredged materials to these sites. As a result, specialized equipment and materials are required and the process is much more costly. Short-term environmental effects include resuspension of sediments and localized turbidity increases in the area of treatment. Release of nutrients and other contaminants from enriched sediments can also be a problem. In addition, some non-target aquatic organisms and vegetation will be inadvertently removed during the process. However, if only a portion of the lake bed is dredged, the impact on benthic aquatic life should be short-lived (Cooke et al. 1993). Costs: Dredging costs can vary greatly, depending on density and volume of sediment removed, equipment condition, transport requirements of dredged material, and eventual use of dredged material (Cooke et al. 1993). Hydraulic dredging costs typically range from a minimum of $3/m3 to $25/m3 (not including disposal costs), although figures as high as $50/m3 have been reported in special cases. Applicability to Summer Lake: The idea behind dredging for long-term aquatic plant control is to remove enough sediment to deepen the lake bottom at least below the photic zone (approximately 16 feet) so that plants can no longer receive enough light to grow. When used in such large-scale applications, this alternative is likely to produce highly effective immediate and long-term control, but is very costly and can result in extensive and immediate environmental impact. In Summer Lake, only 1 foot of sediment depth would have to be dredged to remove plants and roots. This would greatly reduce the cost of dredging. This alternative could be a highly effective solution. If a dredge spoil disposal site is found in the vicinity of Summer Lake, the cost of treating a 6.5-acre area of plant beds would likely be in the neighborhood of $197,000, assuming a cost of $25 per cubic meter, including planning, engineering, environmental, and permitting costs. Figure 2-1 shows an example of portions of the lake that could be dredged and where the dredged material could be used to build up a new island in the lake. Mechanical Dredging Principle: Mechanical dredging is the physical excavation of sediments similar to hydraulic suction (barge-mounted) dredging described above, but using land-based mechanized equipment (e.g., drag-line dredges). This type of dredging can be used in conjunction with lake-level drawdown so that the equipment can operate more effectively, if optimal environmental, operational, and jurisdictional conditions are present. Advantages, Drawbacks, Costs: Similar to hydraulic dredging, with the added problem of access and higher costs. Applicability to Summer Lake: This alternative has limited potential for aquatic plant control at Summer Lake because of access problems. However, as a partial technique applied to redefine the shoreline of the lake, it is potentially usable. 12 r' I ' L 1 `i: vw f. F 5 7~ Z - y H~':5•N ~ 'S~ . I 49 A' r• ~ L. r t w ' :bid' . ~ C-Z A s' <<y:.:u'd - _ ® _ , Figure 2-1. - - - City of Tigard POSSIBLE SCHEME FOR YC SUMMER LAKE DREDGING SUMMER LAKE 7080 SW Fir Loop MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 on 97223 _ Portland. Ord 13 SOME Summer Lake Management Plan... Diver-Operated Suction Dredging Principle: Diver dredging has been used since the late 1970s in British Columbia as an improvement over hand removal for sparse colonies of Eurasian watermilfoil. More recently, this method has been successfully used in several lakes in Washington State for small-scale removal of non-native watermilfoil plants. The technique employs a small barge or boat carrying portable dredges with suction heads that are operated by Scube divers to remove individual plants (including roots) from the sediment. Divers physically dislodge the plants and roots with sharp tools or by hand. The plant/sediment slurry is then suctioned up and carried back to the barge through hoses operated by the diver. On the barge, plant parts are sieved out and retained for later off-site disposal. The water sediment slurry can be discharged back to the lake or piped off-site for upland disposal. Control Effectiveness and Duration: Diver dredging can be highly effective under the proper conditions. Efficiency of removal depends on sediment condition, density of aquatic plants, and underwater visibility. It is best used for localized infestations of low plant density where fragmentation must be minimized. Depending on local conditions, milfoil removal efficiencies of 85 to 97 percent can be achieved by diver dredging. This technique is currently being used for aggressive control of EWM populations in Silver Lake (City of Everett) and Long Lake (Thurston County). Advantages: The method is species-selective and site-specific. Disruption of sediments is minimized. Plant pieces are collected and retained, and spread of fragments is minimized (which is important for control of milfoil). Diver dredging can be used to cover areas larger than practicable for hand digging or diver hand removal, or where herbicides cannot be used. Diver dredging can be conducted in tight places or around obstacles that would preclude the use of larger machinery. Drawbacks: Diver-dredging is labor-intensive and expensive. In dense plant beds, the utility of this method may be much reduced and other methods (e.g., bottom barrier) may be more appropriate. Returning dredged residue directly to the water may result in some fragment loss through sieves. Where upland disposal of dredged slurry is used, more specialized equipment and materials are required and the process is much more costly. Short-term environmental effects can include localized turbidity increases in the area of treatment. Release of nutrients and other contaminants from enriched sediments can also be a problem. In addition, some sediment and non-target vegetation may be inadvertently removed during the process. Costs: Dredging costs can vary greatly, depending on the density of plants, equipment condition, and transport requirements of dredged material. In addition, the use of contract divers for dredging work is subject to stringent State regulations on certification, safety, and hourly wage payment, which can affect total project cost. Costs range from a minimum of $1,100/day to upwards of $2,800/day (not including transport of dredged material). This corresponds to $6,000 to $20,000 per acre. 1 Applicability to Summer Lake: Diver-operated dredging may be useful in Summer Lake to remove small, isolated patches of aquatic plants. Its use in this lake is most appropriate for small-scale, supplementary work. 14 a@1 2. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Mechanical Harvesting Principle: Mechanical harvesting is considered a short-term technique to temporarily remove plants interfering with recreational or aesthetic enjoyment of a water body. Harvesting involves cutting plants below the water surface, with or without collection of cut fragments for onshore disposal. To achieve maximum removal of plant material, harvesting is usually performed during summer when submersed and floating-leafed plants have grown to the water's surface. Conventional single-stage harvesters combine cutting, collecting, storing, and transporting cut vegetation into one piece of machinery. Cutting machines are also available that perform only the cutting function. Maximum cutting depths for harvesters and cutting machines range from 5 to 8.2 feet with a swath width of 6.5 to 12.1 feet. Cooke et al. (1993) summarize aquatic plant cutters and harvesters available in North America. Control Effectiveness and Duration: Since harvesting involves physical removal and disposal of vegetation from the water, the immediate effectiveness in creating open water areas is quite apparent. The duration of control is variable, however. Factors such as frequency and timing of harvest, water depth, and depth of cut influence the duration of control. Harvesting has not proved an effective means of sustaining long-term reductions in growth of milfoil. Regrowth of milfoil to pre-harvest levels typically occurs within 30 to 60 days (Perkins and Sytsma 1987), depending on water depth and the depth of cut. Aquatic plant researchers Johnson and Bagwell (1978) and Schiller (1983) also suggest probable short-term benefits provided by mechanical harvesting of nuisance aquatic plants, but caution against possible spread of infestation through stem fragmentation. Advantages: Harvesting is most appropriate for large, open areas with few surface obstructions. There is usually little interference with the use of a water body during harvesting operations. Harvesting has the added benefit that removal of in-lake plant biomass eliminates a possible source of nutrients that can be released during the fall when aquatic plants die back and decay. This is an important consequence in water bodies with extensive plant beds and low nutrient inputs from outside sources. Furthermore, harvesting can reduce sediment accumulation by removing organic matter that normally decays and adds to the bottom sediments. Depending on species content, harvested vegetation can be easily composted and used as a soil amendment. Mechanical harvesting costs can be relatively low compared to other physical or mechanical techniques. Drawbacks: Since harvesting removes only the upper stem material, regrowth from roots does occur, requiring annual, or more frequent, harvesting. Cut plant material requires z collection and removal from the water. Harvesting also creates plant fragments. Harvesting can be detrimental to non-target plants and animals (e.g., fish, invertebrates), Y which are removed indiscriminately by the process. Harvesting can also enhance the growth of opportunistic plant species that invade treated areas. Capital costs for machine purchase are high and the equipment requires considerable maintenance. Costs: Harvesting program costs depend on factors such as program scale, composition and density of vegetation, equipment used, skill of personnel, and site-specific constraints. Detailed costs are not uniformly reported, so comparing project costs of one program with another can be difficult. However, average costs of local harvesting operations range from 15 Summer Lake Management Plan... $200/acre to $1,000/acre, including capital amortization. Because harvesting is mainly a long-term maintenance operation, costs would continue year after year. Applicability to Summer Lake: Harvesting in Summer Lake would be expensive due to limited access and small basin size. However, three to five harvests per year would improve the aesthetics of the lake. Rotovation Principle: A rotovator looks like a harvester, but instead of mowing aquatic plants, it dislodges the roots by tilling the sediments up to about 20 cm. Rotovators work best in water 1 to 3 meters deep, and are ineffective in water less than 1 meter deep. Control Effectiveness and Duration: Rotovating is specifically designed for non-woody rooted aquatic plants, and is not applicable to most wetland plants. Rotovation is more expensive than harvesting, but it can keep an area free of plants for up to two years. Plant density is generally reduced after successive treatments. Advantages: Rotovation can be done in the winter to provide summer control. Drawbacks: Disadvantages of rotovation include disturbance of sediments, which can increase turbidity and release nutrients and contaminants into the water column. Rotovation may kill fish and benthic invertebrates and temporarily destroy spawning areas. Rotovation has limited effectiveness against non-rooted plants, such as Ceratophyllum, and plants that use fragmentation as a dispersal mechanism. Rotovation is not appropriate for Summer Lake. Costs: Rotovation costs about $1,000 to $2,300 per hectare, for a capital cost of $140,000. CHEMICAL CONTROL METHODS Historically, the use of aquatic herbicides was the principal method of controlling nuisance aquatic weeds. However, in recent years there has been a move away from widespread herbicide use, toward more selective herbicide use following a thorough review of effectiveness, and other environmental, economic, political, and social factors (Ecology 1992). Three aquatic herbicides commonly used to control aquatic weeds are the systemic herbicides fluridone and glyphosate, and the contact herbicide endothall. Systemic herbicides are absorbed by and translocated throughout the plant, which kills the entire plant, roots and shoots. In contrast, contact herbicides kill the plant surface with which it comes in contact, leaving roots alive and capable of regrowth. The systemic herbicides, fluridone has the best potential for use in Summer Lake. Systemic and contact herbicides are reviewed in more detail below. Fluridone Principle: Fluridone, 1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-[3-trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4(1H)-pyridinone, is a slow-acting, systemic herbicide. Fluridone is available as the EPA-registered herbicide 16 2. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES SONARO (SePRO) for use in the management of aquatic plants in freshwater ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and irrigation canals. It is formulated as a liquid (SONAR1814AS) sprayed above or below surface, and in controlled release pellets (SONARO 5P, SONAR® SRP) spread on the water surface. Fluridone is effectively absorbed and translocated by both plant roots and shoots (Westerdahl and Getsinger 1988) Control Effectiveness and Duration: Fluridone demonstrates good control of submersed and emergent aquatic plants, especially where there is little water movement. Its use is most applicable for lake-wide or isolated bay treatments to control a variety of exotic and native species. Eurasian watermilfoil is particularly susceptible to the effects of fluridone. Fluridone demonstrates "good" control of Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa), common elodea (Elodea canadensis), and some pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.) (Westerdahl and Getsinger 1988). Typical fluridone injury symptoms include retarded growth, "whitened" leaves, and plant death. The effects of fluridone treatment become noticeable 7 to 10 days after application, with control of target plants often requiring 60 to 90 days to become evident (Westerdahl and Getsinger 1988). Because of the delayed nature of toxicity, the herbicide is best applied during the early growth phase of the target plant, usually spring or early summer. Advantages: As a systemic herbicide, fluridone is capable of killing the roots and shoots of aquatic plants, thus producing a more long-lasting effect. Many emergent and submersed aquatic plants are susceptible to fluridone treatment. As a result of human health riEk studies, it has been determined that use of fluridone according to label instructions does not pose any threat to human health (Ecology 1992). Fluridone also has a very low order of toxicity to zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, fish, and wildlife. Drawbacks: Fluridone is a slow-acting herbicide, and its effects can sometimes take up to several months to become apparent. This means that the concentration of the herbicide in the lake must be kept at or above the effective level for as long as eight weeks, which often requires multiple applications. Because of this long uptake time, fluridone is not effective in flowing water situations. Also, lakes with high flushing rates (such as Summer Lake) may reduce the effectiveness of the active ingredient and increase the risks of downstream impact on non-target plants. Because of the potential for drift out of the treatment zone, fluridone is not suitable for treating a defined area within a large, open lake. With fluridone, the potential exists for release of nutrients to the water column and for consumption of dissolved oxygen from the decay of dying plants. Non-target plants may also be affected, as many plants show susceptibility to fluridone treatment. Mitigation of lost non-target vegetation may be necessary. As fluridone-treated water may result in injury to irrigated vegetation, there are label recommendations regarding irrigation delays following treatment. Costs: Treatment costs (materials and application) by private contractor for any of the formulations are $1,500/acre or more, depending on the scale of treatment. Applicability to Summer Lake: Proper use of fluridone (at optimal rates and exposure) offers the most practical, potentially effective means of controlling large infestations of tenacious weeds. The potential for success is increased with repeated, large-spale, intensive treatments. Treatment in successive years is a strategy being considered for Summer Lake. 17 Summer Lake Management Plan... Glyphosate Principle: Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine) is a non-selective, broad spectrum herbicide used primarily for control of emergent or floating-leafed plants such as purple loosestrife and water lilies. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide that is applied to the foliage of actively growing plants. The herbicide is rapidly absorbed by foliage and translocated j throughout plant tissues, affecting the entire plant, including roots. Glyphosate is formulated as RODEOO' (Monsanto) for aquatic application. Control Effectiveness and Duration: Glyphosate is effective against many emergent and floating-leafed plants, such as waterlilies (Nuphar and Nymphaea spp.) and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). According to the manufacturer, RODEOO is not effective on. submersed plants or those with most of the foliage below water. The herbicide binds tightly to soil particles on contact and thus is unavailable for root uptake by plants. As a result, proper application to emergent foliage is critical for herbicidal action to occur. Symptoms of herbicidal activity may not be apparent for up to 7 days, and include wilting and yellowing of plants, followed by complete browning and death. Advantages: As a systemic herbicide, glyphosate is capable of killing the entire plant, producing long-term control benefits. Glyphosate carries no swimming, fishing, or irrigation label restrictions. Glyphosate dissipates quickly from natural waters, with an average half-life of 2 weeks in an aquatic system. The herbicide has a low toxicity to benthic invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals. Drawbacks: As a non-selective herbicide, glyphosate treatment can have an effect on non-target plant species susceptible to it. While the possibility of drift through aerial application exists, it is expected to be negligible if application is made according to label instructions and permit conditions. Use is restricted where glyphosate is applied within 1/2 mile of potable intakes in either flowing or standing waters. Current label restrictions require that active potable water intakes be shut off for a minimum of 48 hours after application or until the laboratory-measured glyphosate level in intake water is below 0.7 parts per million. Costs: Treatment costs (materials and application) by private contractor for any of the formulations average approximately $300/acre, depending on scale of treatment. Applicability to Summer Lake: Since glyphosate is most effective against certain emergent or floating-leafed plants, it is not appropriate for large-scale use in Summer Lake. Endothall Principle: Endothall is a contact herbicide that is not readily translocated in plant tissues. Endothall formulations (active ingredient endothall acid, 7-oxabicyclo[2,2,1] heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid) are currently registered for aquatic use in either inorganic or amine salts. Aqueous or granular forms of the dipotassium salt of endothall, Aquathol (Elf Atochem), are permitted, with stringent use restrictions on water contact, irrigation, and domestic purposes over and above label restrictions. Due to its toxicity, the liquid amine 18 2. EVALUATION OF MA-NAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES form Hydrothol-191 is not permitted for use in fish-bearing waters in the State of Washington. Control Effectiveness and Duration: As a contact herbicide, endothall kills only plant tissues it contacts, usually the upper stem portions. Thus, the entire plant is not killed. It is therefore used primarily for short-term control of aquatic plants, not for complete eradication. Duration of control is a function of contact efficiency and regrowth from unaffected root masses. Effective reductions in plant biomass can range from a few weeks to several months. In some circumstances, season-long control can be achieved. Carryover effectiveness of endothall treatments into the following growth season is not typical. Advantages: Contact herbicides such as endothall generally act faster than translocating herbicides such as fluridone; evidence of tissue death is often apparent in 1 to 2 weeks. There is usually little or no drift impact from proper application of this product. Overall costs of treatment are less than for fluridone applications over the same area. Drawbacks: Because the entire plant is not killed, endothall causes only temporary reductions in aquatic plant growth. As a variety of aquatic plants is susceptible to endothall, non-target plant impact is possible. The recently amended label for Aquathol K has no swimming restriction. There are also label restrictions on fish consumption and non-food crop irrigation. Costs: As with fluridone applications, endothall treatments vary with total area and dosage rate. Average costs for a small to moderate area application can run about $500 to 700/acre. Applicability to Summer Lake: Since endothall kills only the plant tissues A contacts, usually the upper stem portions, it is most appropriately used for short-term control of aquatic plants. Thus, endothall treatment would be a short-term management only. Diquat Principle: Diquat dibromide (6,7-dihydrodipyrido (1,2-a:2'1'-c) pyrazinediium dibromide) is a non-selective broad spectrum contact herbicide and algicide. It is effective against submersed and emergent plants and some types of filamentous algae. Currently the maximum application rate is 0.074 mg/L; previously it was 1.5 mg/L. Diquat's mode of action is to generate reactive oxygen radicals, which disrupt photosynthesis. Control Effectiveness and Duration: Diquat, as a contact herbicide, is effective in controlling submersed plants. Treatments are effective for 6 to 12 weeks of control. Advantages: Diquat is a fast-acting contact herbicide that has little or no drift. It kills only the leaves and stems of the plants it contacts. Drawbacks: Application of diquat to waters in the State of Washington has not been permitted since 1992 because of concerns over its toxicity to animals, including humans, and because a less toxic contact herbicide, endotholl, is available. 19 Summer Lake Management Plan... Label restrictions include water use restrictions of 3 days for drinking, E days for irrigation of food crops and 5 days for irrigation of non-food crops, and one day for consumption by livestock. The restriction for swimming of 24 hours was dropped in October 1995. In all states except Florida, application by individuals is restricted to ponds, lakes, and drainage ditches that are totally under the control of the product's user and have little or no outflow of water. Diquat has no to moderate toxicity to most animals. It has slight to moderate toxicity to freshwater fish, and is slightly to highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates Additional studies are needed to determine toxicity to non-target aquatic and terrestrial plants. These risk assessments were obtained from the EPA's R.E.D. Facts on diquat dibromide (EPA 1995). Data collected for the 1992 Aquatic Plant EIS for Washington State found the amphipod, Hyallella, and were sensitive to acute exposure expressed concern about toxicity to amphibians. The level of concern for endangered species is exceeded for all use patterns of diquat (EPA 1995). Diquat kills plants rapidly, so depletion of oxygen from the water column and release of nutrients and toxins from plants and algae is a potential problem. To protect aquatic organism, diquat can be applied to no more than one-third to one-half of the dense macrophyte areas in a water body, and subsequent treatments are prohibited for two weeks. As with all contact herbicides, repeated applications are needed for long-term control. Costs: Material costs for diquat are $225/ha-m, plus labor and monitoring costs. Aquashade Aquashade is a non-toxic blue dye that reduces plant productivity by limiting light penetration of the water column. It is fairly effective in controlling plants and algae in shallow bodies of water. However, Aquashade is expensive, and application must be repeated at two-week intervals during the summer. Materials cost is $102/ha-m or $15,000 to treat the whole lake. Aluminum Sulfate Principle: Aluminum sulfate (alum) added to a lake lowers the lake's phosphorus content by precipitating phosphorus and retarding release of phosphorus from the sediments (Cooke et al. 1993b). Alum forms a polymer that binds phosphorus and organic matter. The aluminum hydroxide-phosphate complex (commonly called alum floc) is insoluble and settles to the bottom, carrying suspended and colloidal particles with it. Water clarity typically increases markedly immediately after an alum treatment. Once on the sediment surface, alum floc retards phosphate diffusion from the sediment to the water. Control Effectiveness and Duration: Alum is used extensively in the United States to reduce phosphorus levels in lakes and as a coagulant in drinking water and sewage treatment plants. Alum treatment of lakes has been successful in controlling phosphorus release from bottom sediments (Cooke et al. 1993b). In most cases, alum treatments reduce phosphorus levels for several years; in some lakes for up to 20 years (Garrison and Knauer 20 2. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 1984; Cooke et al. 1993b). When alum treatment was not effective, failure was attributed to insufficient dose, lake mixing, inadequate reduction in external nutrient inputs, or a high coverage of macrophytes. If external phosphorus sources are not controlled, the effectiveness of alum will decrease with time as nutrient-rich silt and organic material cover the alum layer on the sediments. The duration of effectiveness is difficult to predict for a specific lake. Long-term water quality monitoring is required following treatment of a lake with alum to assess the duration of the treatment's effectiveness. The appropriate alum dose for a lake depends on the lake's pH and alkalinity, and the potential for aluminum toxicity (Cooke et al. 1986). As alum is added to a lake, pH and alkalinity decrease and dissolved aluminum concentrations increase. Hardwater, alkaline lakes can tolerate higher alum doses than can softwater lakes. Relationships to determine appropriate alum doses are presented in Kennedy and Cooke (1982) and Cooke et al. (1993a). The addition of alum to a lake with low to moderate alkalinity, such as Summer Lake, requires careful testing to ensure that pH and alkalinity are not lowered to levels that would stress aquatic biota, generally a pH of less than 6. A buffering agent, such as sodium aluminate or sodium carbonate, can be used to minimize the fall in pH caused by alum. If the pH falls below 4.5, toxic soluble forms of aluminum such as Al(OH)2+ and A13+ are generated. A buffer for alum will probably be needed in Summer Lake because of the lake's low alkalinity. A buffering agent was applied with alum to several northeastern United States lakes, and to Green Lake in Seattle, with high success in maintaining pH and alkalinity levels (Dominie 1978; Cobbossee Watershed District 1988; Jacoby et al. 1994). The use of sodium carbonate in the October 1991 alum treatment of Long Lake (Kitsap County, WA) was successful in maintaining safe pH and alkalinity levels, as well as in improving lake water quality (Welch, E.B., 13 October 1992, personal communication). Other phosphorus inactivation techniques have been used with less success than alum. Calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2] or calcium carbonate (slaked lime) is used in hardwater lakes in Alberta, Canada, to control nutrient supply and algal growth (Murphy et al. 1990; Kenefick et al. 1992). However, lime would not offer the same phosphorus-binding benefit in a softwater lake such as Summer Lake because formation of a hydration shell around the mineral would retard its dissolution (Cooke et al. in press). Iron, in the form of FeC13 or FeSO4, has occasionally been used to precipitate phosphorus in streams or drinking water plants. However, these compounds are potentially toxic and their efficacy in lowering phosphorus concentrations in lakes is unproved (Cooke et al. 1993b). Advantages: Alum treatment will not reduce the productivity of rooted macrophytes, and may actually increase their productivity by improving water clarity (Cooke et al. 1993b). Increased water clarity allows macrophytes to colonize greater depths, up to 7 m based on Canfield's estimation (1985), and to grow at higher densities. It is probable that plant beds would expand if light availability were increased by an alum treatment. Drawbacks: The improper use of aluminum salts may cause toxic conditions (Cooke et al. 1986). Alum treatments of hardwater lakes have generally not resulted in adverse impacts to fish (Cooke et al 1993b) or had long-term effects on invertebrate populations (Cooke et 21 Boom- 1 1121611:11 !1 E Summer Lake Management Plan al. 1986; Narf 1990). However, alum treatments may reduce invertebrate populations in softwater lakes. A decrease in density and species richness of benthic invertebrates was observed following alum/sodium aluminate treatment of Vermont's Lake Morey, a softwater lake (alkalinity of 30 to 50 mg CaCO3/L), and Green Lake in Seattle, Washington (alkalinity of about 45 mg CaCO3/L) (KCM 1995, Smelzer 1990). Costs: Costs for alum in 1991 were $0.28/kg and for aluminate, $1.32/kg, including application. Thus, estimated materials and application cost would be $5,000 to $50,000. BIOLOGICAL CONTROL METHODS Interest in using biocontrol agents for nuisance aquatic plant growth has been stimulated by a desire to find more "natural" means of long-term control as well as to reduce the use of expensive equipment or chemicals. The possibility of integrating biological controls with traditional physical, mechanical, or chemical methods is an appealing concept. While development and use of effective biocontrol agents for aquatic plant management is still in its childhood, potentially useful candidates have been identified, These include plant- eating fish or insects, pathogenic organisms, and competitive plants. Control of nuisance plants using biological agents is a gradual process, although the effects should be long- lasting. In the State of Oregon, the only biological method currently available for aquatic plant control is the introduction of triploid (sterile) grass carp; however, carp introduction is restricted to irrigation canals. Triploid (Sterile) Grass Carp Principle: Grass carp or white amur (Ctenopharyngodon idella Val.) are exotic, plant- consuming fish native to large rivers of China and Siberia. Known for their high growth rates and wide range of plant food preference, these fish can control certain nuisance aquatic plants under the right circumstances. In theory, grass carp are most appropriately used for lake-wide, low-intensity, long-term control of submersed plants. However, achieving and sustaining a desired plant density may be difficult if not impossible given the environmental variability over time at any lake. Appropriate fish stocking rates are difficult to estimate. Experience has shown that too few result in little or no plant control, while too many fish may cause all the plants to be eliminated from the water body. Stocking rates are determined based on climate, water temperature, type and extent of plant species, and other site-specific constraints. r Control Effectiveness and Duration: Effectiveness of grass carp in controlling aquatic weeds depends on feeding preferences and metabolism; rates do appear to be temperature- dependent (Ecology 1992; Cooke et al. 1993). Triploid grass carp exhibit distinct food preferences, which apparently vary from region to region in the U.S. Recent research suggests that feeding preference and rates can also depend on fish age, water chemistry, and plant composition (Pauley et al. 1994). Laboratory and field studies in Washington State have shown that some plant species appear to be highly preferred, such as the thin- leafed pondweeds (Potamogeton crispus, P. pectinatus and P. zosteri.formis); other plants were variably preferred, such as coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), and some plants were not preferred, such as waterlily (Nuphar) and watershield (Braser is schreberi), 22 ...2. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES although watershield was heavily grazed in Silver Lake. Grass carp appear to graze Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa) fairly effectively (Miller and Decell 1984; Pine and Anderson 1991). However, researchers in Washington State report in lab tests that Egeria densa was highly preferred by large fish, but nearly unpalatable to fingerlings (Pauley et al. 1994). Preliminary results of grass carp grazing in Silver Lake (Cowlitz County) suggest a drastic impact within two years on Brazilian elodea and Eurasian watermilfoil, as well as other species of pondweed, coontail, bladderwort, and watershield (Gibbons 1998). Grass carp control effectiveness and duration are site-specific. Management studies in Washington waters indicate that substantial removal of vegetation by sterile grass carp may not become apparent until 3 to 5 years after introduction. Advantages: Depending on the problem plant species and other site constraints, proper use of grass carp can achieve long-term reductions in nuisance growth of vegetation, although perhaps not immediately. In some cases, introduction of grass carp may result in improved water quality conditions, where water quality deterioration is associated with dense aquatic plant growth (Thomas et al. 1990). Compared to other long-term aquatic plant control techniques (e.g., systemic aquatic herbicides, bottom barriers), costs for grass carp implantation are relatively low. Drawbacks: Since sterile grass carp exhibit distinct food preferences, they do not graze all plants equally well, limiting their applicability. The fish may avoid areas of the water body experiencing heavy recreational use, resulting in less plant removal. Plant reductions may not become evident for several years. Overstocking of grass carp could result in eradication of beneficial plants and may have a serious impact on the overall ecology of the water body. The fill ecological impact of grass carp introductions in Northwest waters is still being determined. An escape barrier on the lake outlet is currently required to prevent movement of fish out of the system and avoid impact on downstream non-target vegetation. Fish loss due to predation, especially by ospreys and otters, is possible. Phytoplankton production in lakes with grass carp tends to increase, but this increase is not always observed based on turbidity of water. Costs: Costs can range from approximately $50/acre to $2,000/acre, at stocking rates ranging from 5 fish/acre to 200 fish/acre and average cost of $10/fish (range $7.50/fish to $15.00/fish). Applicability to Summer )take: The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife does not permit the introduction of grass carp at this time. Waterfowl Management Summer Lake supports abundant waterfowl. Control of phosphorus in bird droppings is unlikely to have any obvious impact on water quality. However, any reduction in phosphorus loading will be beneficial. Also, use of the lake by waterfowl may increase in the future as existing flocks attract more of these gregarious birds. Therefore, discouraging birds from nesting around the lake or becoming year-round residents will yield long-term benefits in water quality. The following approaches to bird management are largely taken from fact sheets prepared by the United States Department of Agricuiture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 23 Summer Lake Management Plan... Waterfowl are an important part of lake ecosystems, and a moderate number of birds is compatible with high water quality goals and is much appreciated by bird watchers. However, large flocks can exceed the carrying capacity of lakes and increase their productivity (Scherer et al. 1995). Birds leave accumulations of feathers and droppings that foul beaches and create potential public health risks since waterfowl can be vectors of salmonella bacteria and parasites. Canada geese have adapted particularly well to urban lakes, attracted by the fresh water, lack of disturbance by hunters, and well-manicured lawns of lakeside residences and parks. Canada geese graze extensively, and can denude sections of lawns. Their large droppings can impair the aesthetics and recreational uses of beaches, shorelines, and lawns. At many lakes, a major attraction to geese and some ducks, especially mallards, is supplemental food offered by people. Feeding encourages migratory birds to become residents at a lake, increasing the likelihood of water quality problems and habitat destruction. Feeding is detrimental to the birds as well, concentrating them and producing a higher risk from predation (even by pet dogs and cats), disease, and botulism poisoning from decaying food matter and feces. Young birds fed low-protein diets such as bread and popcorn can developed deformed wings and lose the ability to fly. Feeding also attracts rodents, and rats can become a problem. Feeding waterfowl should therefore be strongly discouraged. This may entail drafting an ordinance that includes the authority to enforce the regulation. Several approaches can be used to discourage waterfowl from settling at a lake. These measures are much more effective if applied as soon as the birds arrive at the lake. Once birds become acclimated to an area, it is difficult to convince them to leave. ® Shoreline vegetation. Geese graze on short, newly growing grass, and prefer mowed areas to areas where the grass is allowed to grow long. Geese are less likely to enter areas where the grass along shorelines has not been mowed. Alternatively, vegetation along the shoreline can be changed from grass to a groundcover, such as pachysandra, periwinkle, and euonymus. • Barriers. Geese normally walk between the water and feeding areas. Low fences (0.5 to 0.75 m tall), netting, or bushes along the shoreline are often enough to discourage waterfowl from entering residential property. Also, a wire strung 2 to 2.5 m off the ground with attached streamers, reflectors, Mylar tape, spirolum whirlers, tin flashers, or balloons will deter geese because they don't like to walk under things. 0 Scarecrows. Any excuse for a scarecrow will work as well as an artistic one. Birds may become acclimated to scarecrows, especially ones without any moving parts. • Terror Eyes. Balloons with concentric black rings that appear to be large eyes are often successful in scaring waterfowl. b Chemical repellents. A commercial product, ReJeX-iT, with the active ingredient, methylanthanilate, is very effective in keeping geese from grazing an area. However, ReJeX-iT is expensive and must be reapplied after rain or irrigation. 24 MEN 2. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ~F1i • Noise devices. Pyrotechnics, automatic exploders, and recorded distress bird calls are effective, but must be used repeatedly. It is probably not practical to use this approach in Summer Lake due to noise pollution. Hunting is very effective, but not practical in residential areas. • Dogs. Periodic patrols of shorelines by a handler and trained dog is very effective in discouraging waterfowl from using an area or nesting. • Addling eggs. Eggs immnests can be addled (killed) by shaking or applying mineral oil. • Relocation of waterfowl. This approach is not recommended because the birds usually return within a short period. Public resistance to disturbing birds may make implementation of strategies to deter birds difficult. A public education program can be established to address people's concerns about the welfare of waterfowl and discourage feeding waterfowl. PHYSICAL CONTROL METHODS Hand-Digging Principle: Hand-digging and removal of rooted, submersed plants is an intensive treatment option. This method involves digging out the entire plant (stem and roots) with a spade or long knife, or by hand, and disposing of the residue on shore. In shallow waters less than 3 feet deep, no specialized gear is required. In deeper waters, hand removal can best be accomplished by divers using Scuba® or snorkeling equipment and carrying collection bags for disposal of plants. The technique is most appropriately applied to small areas (i.e., area less than 5,000 square feet). Control Effectiveness and Duration: Efficacy of plant removal depends on sediment type, visibility, and thoroughness in removing the entire plant, particularly the roots. A high degree of control over more than one season is possible where complete removal has been achieved. Advantages: The technique results in immediate clearing of the water column of nuisance plants. The technique is very selective in that individual plants are removed. It is most useful in sensitive areas where disruption must be kept to a minimum. Because the technique is highly labor-intensive, it is most suitable for small-area, low plant density treatments. In these cases, the technique is very useful for aggressive control of sparse or small pockets of rooted Eurasian watermilfoil. This method can also be useful for clearing rooted pondweeds or small patches of watershield from areas around docks and beaches. > Drawbacks: The technique is time-consuming and costly, especially where contract divers may be used. Diver visibility may become obscured by turbidity generated by swimming and digging activities. Also, it may be difficult for the laborer to see and dig out all plant roots. Environmental impact is limited to mostly short-term and localized turbidity J increases in the overlying water and some bottom disruption. 25 Summer Lake Management Plan... Costs: Costs will vary depending on whether contract divers or laborers are used, or if removal activities are the result of volunteer efforts. In the case of contract divers and dive tenders, expenses can run upwards of $1,000 to $2,800/day, with the area covered depending on the density of plants. In other words, this can take three divers 2 to 6 days per acre of moderate density plants. Applicability to Summer Lake: Hand digging of plant stems and roots could be used for small-scale, intensive removal of plants around private dock areas and short shoreline segments. If root systems are completely removed, this technique provides a more long- term means of control (as compared to hand-cutting described below). Unfortunately, Summer Lake has plant beds that are too large to be addressed by hand-removal alone. Hand-pulling used in conjunction with other control methods, especially for follow-up efforts, is a likely approach. Hand-Cutting Principle: This technique is also a manual method, but differs from hand-digging in that plants are cut below the water surface (roots generally not removed). Because roots are not removed, this is a less intensive removal technique. Implements used include scythes, rakes, or other specialized devices that can be pulled through the weed beds by boat or several people. Mechanized weed cutters are also available that can be operated from the surface for small-scale control. Control Effectiveness and Duration: Root systems and lower stems are often left intact. As a result, effectiveness is usually short-term as regrowth is possible from the uncut root masses. Duration of control is limited to the time it takes the plant to grow to the surface. Advantages: The technique results in immediate removal of nuisance submerged plant growth. Costs are minimal. Drawbacks: Like hand-pulling, this technique is time-consuming. Visibility may be reduced by turbidity generated by cutting activities. Also, since the entire plant is usually not removed, this technique does not result in long-term reductions in growth. Duration of control of rooted plants like EWM would be minimal. Environmental impact is limited to mostly short-term and localized turbidity increases in the overlying water and some bottom disruption. Cut plants must be removed from the water. Costs: Where volunteer efforts are employed, costs are mostly limited to purchase of a a cutting implement. This can vary from under $100 for the Aqua Weed Cutter (Sunrise Corp.) to over $1,000 for the mechanized Swordfish (Redwing Products). Applicability to Summer Lake: Hand cutting of plant stems in Summer Lake would be appropriate because it does not eradicate the plants. However, 6.5 acres is a very large area to harvest by hand. W J 26 2. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Bottom Barrier Principle: Barrier material is applied over the lake bottom to prevent plants from growing, leaving the water clear of rooted plants. Bottom covering materials such as sand- gravel, polyethylene, polypropylene, synthetic rubber, burlap, fiberglass screens, woven polyester, and nylon film have all been used with varying degrees of success. Applications can be made at any depth, with divers often used for deeper water treatments. Usually bottom conditions (such as the presence of rocks or debris) do not impede most barrier applications, although pre-treatment clearing of the site is often useful. Control Effectiveness and Duration: Bottom barriers can provide immediate control of nuisance plant conditions upon placement. Duration of control depends on a variety of factors, including the type of material used, application techniques, and sediment composition. Elimination of nuisance plant conditions for at least the season of application has been demonstrated for synthetic materials such as Aquascreen and Texel. Where short-term control is desired for the least expense, burlap has been found to provide up to 2 to 3 years of relief from problematic growth before eventually decomposing (Truelson 1985; 1989). After satisfactory control has been achieved (usually several months), some barrier materials can be relocated to other areas to increase benefits. Advantages: Bottom barriers can usually be easily applied to small, confined areas such as around docks, moorages or beaches. They are hidden from view and do not interfere with shoreline use. Bottom barriers do not result in significant production of plant fragments (critical for Eurasian watermilfoil treatment). Bottom barriers are most appropriately used for localized, small-scale control where exclusion of all plants is desirable, where other control technologies cannot be used, and where intensive control is required regardless of cost. Drawbacks: Depending on the material, major drawbacks to the application of benthic barriers include some or all of the following: high materials cost, labor-intensive installation, limited material durability, possible suspension due to water movements or gas accumulation beneath covers, or regrowth of plants above or below the material. Periodic maintenance of bottom barrier materials is required to remove accumulations of silt and any rooting fragments. In some situations, removal and relocation of barriers may not be possible (e.g., natural fiber burlap does decompose over time). Bottom barriers can also produce localized depression in populations of bottom-dwelling organisms such as aquatic insects. Costs: Costs vary from approximately $0.30/sq. ft (Texel) to $0.35/sq. ft (Aquascreen) for materials, with an additional $0.25-0.80/sq. ft for installation. Locally, prices for rolled burlap material (available in fabric stores, outlets) average from $0.15 to $0.25/sq. ft for materials only. Applicability to Summer Lake: Because most of the better screening materials are costly and proper applications can be labor-intensive, bottom barriers are best suited for spot and limited area treatments. Thus, potential use in Summer Lake would be limited to small areas; nevertheless, this approach will be an important part of a long-term integrated management program. 27 Summer Lake Management Plan... Artificial Circulation Artificial circulation injects compressed air from a diffuser on the lake bottom. The objective of artificial circulation is to completely circulate the lake using pumps, jets, or bubbled air. Stratification is thus prevented or disrupted. The main improvements in water quality from artificial circulation are aeration and chemical oxidation of substances in the entire water column (Pastorok et al. 1982). Artificial circulation also expands habitat for aerobic organisms in lakes where the hypolimnion is anoxic. However, artificial circulation may decrease water clarity, and would not decrease algal biomass. Algal oiomass may even increase because resuspension of sediments would increase the nutrient concentration in the water column. Artificial circulation may also adversely impact the cold-water fisheries by increasing whole-lake temperatures. Sediment Oxidation Sediment oxidation is a technique to oxidize the top 15 to 20 cm of anaerobic lake sediment (Ripl 1976; Cooke et al. 1993b). A solution of calcium nitrate [Ca(N03)21 is injected into the sediment to stimulate denitrification and oxidize organic matter. Increased oxidation of organic matter results in greater binding of sediment phosphorus with iron hydroxide compounds, and thus lower phosphorus release rates. Very few lakes have been treated this way, and evidence of success is limited (Cook et al. 1993b). Water-Level Drawdown Water-level drawdown controls aquatic macrophytes primarily by exposing the plants to freezing or desiccation. Drawdown has also been' used to consolidate sediments and to deepen lakes by subsequent dredging or excavation. Drawdown is most effective in controlling macrophytes in areas with cold climates, and has little or no effect in the marine climate of western Washington (Cooke et al. 1993b; Olem and Flock 1990). Aquatic macrophyte control by drawdown in a western Washington lake lasted only one year before plants returned to pre-drawdown densities (Jacoby et al. 1983). WATERSHED MANAGEMENT MEASURES Landscaping Practices Shoreline development along Summer Lake has typically replaced native vegetation with houses, driveways, lawns, gardens, docks, and bulkheads. Problems associated with these disturbances include nutrient release from fertilizers, detergents, and yard waste; toxic chemical release from herbicides, pesticides, and paint products; and excess surface runoff from impervious surfaces or areas of low permeability such as lawns. Landscaping practices can prevent erosion, reduce runoff, and minimize organic and toxic chemical use. Preserving native vegetation will reduce erosion, lower landscaping costs, facilitate infiltration of rain into the soil, and provide wildlife habitat. The following landscaping and yard maintenance practices are recommended for the long-term improvement of the waterways. 28 2. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES • Vegetated filter strips, berms, swales, or buffer zones should be maintained down-gradient of houses, parking areas, driveways, and lawns. • Yard wastes, such as grass clippings, tree cuttings, ashes, and debris, should not be discarded in, or close to, the lake, wetlands, or ditches. A good alternative is to establish a backyard or community compost area that is protected from surface water. Composting saves money by reducing garbage disposal costs, and produces soil with a much higher organic content than commercial potting soils. • If herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers are used, apply them carefully and only when needed. Use less-toxic, short-acting chemicals instead of hazardous, long-lasting ones. Look for fertilizers with a 3-1-2 ratio of nitrogen to phosphate to potash, or, better yet, use a phosphorus-free fertilizer. Don't use combination fertilizer/herbicides; you're probably applying chemicals you don't need. Avoid application on windy or rainy days. Follow label directions and use limited quantities. In general, frequent application of small amounts of chemicals is more effective than applying large amounts once or twice. • Limit the amount of water running off property by minimizing impervious areas or areas of low permeability. Impervious areas include concrete or asphalt driveways, sidewalks, and patios, and houses. Constructing driveways and walkways with gravel, bricks, interlocking pavers, or pre-cast concrete lattice pavers can reduce runoff. These modular pavers allow rain to enter the soil. Planting Corsican mint, moss, or woolly thyme will crowd out weeds and add beauty. Wood decks are attractive, and the spaces between the decking allow rain to soak into the ground. Redwood, cedar, or treated wood is as durable as most paved surfaces. New porous materials, such as porous asphalt, are also available. • Plant shrubs and trees to soften the force of the rain as it falls. Lawns and areas where there is only groundcover are poorly permeable to water. Shrubs and trees break the force of the rain so that it can infiltrate the ground. • Don't use landscaping plastic. It blocks diffusion of water and oxygen into the ground, so runoff is increased and the activity of beneficial microbes in the soil is reduced. Instead, substitute mulch, such as compost, leaves, grass clippings, newspaper, or straw. Mulching adds nutrients, makes the soil more workable, aids water penetration, controls weeds, and improves the moisture- retaining capacity of the soil. Bark is preferable to plastic, but should not be used if it could be washed into waterways. The fibers clog drains, increase the acidity of water, and damage fish gills. r • Direct downspouts from roofs or driveways away from the waterways, streams, and wetlands. Instead, drain the runoff into properly designed storage systems, such as french drains, detention basins, or grass lined swales. Increased infiltration of rain helps supply the waterways with a steady supply of clean water. • Stabilize cleared or eroded areas by spreading straw or planting annual grasses such as rye, cereal rye, and gray oats. The prime times to seed grasses are from April 20 to June 1, and throughout September. 29 Summer Lake Management Plan • Reduce landscape and lawn watering by planting drought-resistant plants. Water early in the morning using a soaker hose rather than a sprinkler to reduce evaporation. The second best time to water is early evening, but late watering may encourage plant diseases if dampness remains frequently through the night. • Water infrequently; generally one thorough watering a week is sufficient. Infrequent watering encourages deep root systems that help plants survive hot sunny days. Excessive watering decreases the effectiveness of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, and generates polluted anoff. • Mow lawns to the proper height. Mowing height determines the degree of runoff by affecting the depth the roots grow and the density of grass shoots. Mowing height for perennial ryegrass and fescues should be 4 to 8 cm. Cut your grass frequently so that no more than the upper third of the blade is removed. The aim of many of these recommendations is to conserve water and increase the rate of groundwater recharge, and maintain a flow through the lake during the summer. Water conservation by lakeshore residents would improve the water quality of the lake by decreasing overland flow, which carries nutrients, pesticides, oils and greases, and sediments. Household and Commercial Practices Establishing and maintaining good water qualit;= depends on the willingness and cooperation of everyone to minimize waste, dispose of toxicants properly, and conserve water. The following practices should be part of the routine operation of any house or business. • Proper disposal of all hazardous waste Recycle solvents (e.g., paint thinner, rust remover, turpentine) by taking them to a household hazardous waste collection service. Don't wear contact lenses when working with organic solvents. They can absorb and trap the solvent next to your eye. Keep unused portions of hazardous products in their original containers. Preserve the labels for directions and lists of contents as a reference in case of accidental poisoning. Store chemicals and solvents in a safe, cool place. Give unneeded paints (oil-base or water-base) to a friend, neighbor, or • community group to use. To dispose of less than a quart, allow paint to evaporate in well-ventilated area away from pets and children. Discard resulting can of dried paint in trash. Give excess pesticides and herbicides (e.g., weed killers, slug bait, rose dust, mothballs) to a friend or business to use, or take to a household hazardous waste collection service. 30 2. EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES _ Use household cleaners (e.g., bleach, furniture polish, spot removers) according to directions, or give to a friend to use. _ Recycle waste oil (most full-service gas stations accept used oil). Dispose of antifreeze and brake fluid only at hazardous waste disposal areas. • When handling paints, solvents, or preservatives, never wash brushes in areas where the wash water will drain directly into natural receiving waters. • Whenever possible, use biodegradablellow phosphate cleaning products. "Low" phosphate means less than 0.5 percent phosphate by weight in laundry detergent and less than 4 percent by weight in dishwashing detergents. The use of detergents within the lake area should be restricted to low or non-phosphate brands. Ideally, phosphate-containing detergents should not be made available for purchase within the watershed area. However, even some biodegradable cleaning products can cause water quality degradation if they enter the lake in large quantities. • Reuse and recycle whatever possible. • Use less toxic products or commercial product substitutes, such as those listed in Table 2-3. TABLE 2-3. RECOMMENDED SUBSTITUTES FOR COMMON HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS Household Product Recommended Substitute Glass cleaner 2 tablespoons of vinegar to 1 quart water. Oven Cleaner Pour salt on fresh spills in the oven and scrape them off after the oven cools. A water solution of baking soda will remove grease. Paint ammonia on spills with a paintbrush. Refrigerator deodorizer.......... Baking soda. Keeping a refrigerator clean prevents strong smells from developing. Air freshener Use vinegar in an open dish or open a window. Chlorine scouring powder Use a non-chlorine powder or baking soda. Drain cleaner Plunger followed by a handful of baking soda with 112 cup vinegar; cover drain and let sit for 15 minutes followed by two quarts of boiling water. Mothballs Cedar chips enclosed in cotton sachets. Keep only clean clothes in closet. Toilet bowl cleaner Scouring powder Household detergents Simple phosphorus-free soap Tile cleaner Baking soda Bleach Borax Stain remover Rub with cornstarch paste, brush off when dried Disinfectant cleaner Ammonia Mildew-stain remover............ Vinegar solution Coffee of cleaner Vinegar solution 31 mill ® Summer Lake Management Plan • Read labels of all cleaning products carefully and follow directions. Use products with lowest phosphate content. Make sure that the wastewater used with detergents (e.g., when washing the car) does not enter the stream system through storm drains or by overland runoff. Washing the car in the driveway or parking area will not always prevent the wastewater from entering the lake. Use the lawn, so that the grass and soil can filter the wash water. a Water conservation awareness. The way water is used strongly affects lakes, wetlands, and streams. Unrestricted use of fresh water not only threatens water supply, but excess runoff from car washing, lawn watering, and other activities can speed up the eutrophication process. Additional water running through the septic field creates a hydraulic burden. State regulations to address domestic water conservation may be forthcoming. Possibilities include low-flow faucet aerators (which use 40 percent less water), flow restricters for shower heads, plastic bottles filled with water for toilet tanks, and water-conserving lawn and garden sprinklers. 32 CEAPTER, 3. RECONd MNDED MANAGEMENT PLAN MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS The advisory committee reviewed the management alternatives described in the previous chapter and formulated four scenarios to meet the goals defined for the management plan. The management scenarios are summarized in Table 3-1. TABLE 3-1. SUMMER LAKE MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS Estimated Cost Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 5-Year Total Scenario 1 Harvesting $51,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $75,000 Bottom barriers $8,000 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $0 $14,000 Shade and shoreline $24,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $32,000 Alum treatment $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $20,000 Education $2,500 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $10,500 Total 95,500 $13,000 $10,000 $23,000 $10,000 $151,500 Scenario 2 Systemic herbicide treatment $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $75,000 Shade and shoreline $24,000 $4,000 $2,000 $4,000 $2,000 $36,000 Alum treatment $10,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000 Education $2,500 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $10,500 Total $61,500 $16,000 $29,000 $16,000 $39,000 $161,500 Scenario 3 Contact herbicide treatment $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 Shade and shoreline $24,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $40,000 Alum treatment $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $50,000 Education $2,500 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $10,500 Total $46,500 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 $150,500 Scenario 4 Dredging $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Harvesting $0 $51,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $69,000 Alum treatment $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $30,000 Shade and shoreline $32,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $40,000 Education $2,500 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $10,500 Total $144,500 $65,000 $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $249,500 33 Summer Lake Management Plan... Each scenario includes four or five basic elements. All are ongoing programs that will change with environmental conditions and the development of new technology; and all include public education on BMPs and watershed awareness. In each scenario, the lake will require some annual activity to meet the management goals and maintain beneficial uses. The first element of each scenario is the main functional activity in the first year of implementation. The scenarios' key elements are as follows: Y Scenario 1 calls for harvesting aquatic plants, applying bottom barriers, providing vegetative shading, adding alum to control algae, and providing public education. Scenario 2 employs a systemic herbicide t"o kill aquatic plants and includes shoreline shading, alum addition, and public education. • Scenario 3 uses a contact herbicide treatment to burn off existing aquatic plants and includes shoreline shading, alum addition to control algae, and public education. • Scenario 4 relies on dredging sediment and harvesting aquatic plants and includes shoreline shading, alum addition, and public education. RECOMMENDED SCENARIO The Summer Lake citizen advisory committee recommends Scenario 1. This approach requires the purchase of an aquatic plant harvester in the first year to harvest (cut) aquatic plants to a depth of 4 feet below the water surface. Harvesting will have to be done three times during the growth season (April through October). A small harvester such as Aquarius Systems' EH-120 with trail would be purchased at a price of approximately $45,000 (see appendix for specifications). The estimated operation and maintenance costs are $6,000 per year. To supplement the harvester in areas that the machine cannot reach, bottom barriers would be positioned to limit the growth of aquatic plants. A sustainable vegetative cover on the shoreline and the islands will shade portions of the lake water, providing some temperature control. To address algal blooms, aluminum sulfate would be added to the lake to remove phosphorus and limit phosphorus loading from lake sediments. This would prevent algal blooms and clarify the water. Newsletters and other forms of communication would be produced to inform the public about the program and to encourage BMPs. Table 3-1 provides estimated costs for the first five years of the plan. Years 6 through 20 would be an extension of Years 2 through 5; so the 20-year cost for implementing Scenario 1 would be $375,000, with an average annual cost of $10,000 to $23,000. The advantage of Scenario 1 is that it allows the system to function as a wetland environment, with the associated water quality benefits, while still serving as an aesthetic environment. The program will improve water quality and temperature in the lake, in turn enhancing downstream conditions and the park's aesthetic setting. If implementation is delayed for administrative, funding or other reasons, treating the lake with a contact herbicide in the interim could give short-term, immediate relief to current conditions. The herbicide could be applied in mid-summer to kill off the top of the plants, creating an open water zone in the lake until a harvester is purchased. This would not 34 3. RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT PLAN provide long-term benefit but it would generate immediate aesthetic improvements. It is estimated that it would cost $10,000 for this type of treatment. s 1 35 APPENDIX. HARVESTER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS Summer Lake Management Plan April 1998 1 "f S EH-SERIES AQUATIC PLANT H AnVESTQfYG EQUIPMENT .f~• t ~ is Y I i YL,e- EH-120 AQUATIC PLANT HARVESTER Market demand for an economical, highly maneuverahle, version of our tip quality line of harvesters mspifecl us it,, introduce the EH-120. Its low profile, twin pontoon st; ling and t 500 pound storage Capacity make it a dependable solution to the vegetative problerns of small lake and pond owners A combination of several proven design features, the EH-120 ,ncorporates a live storage bed conveyor .,;ith 1,!Ie cut and collect function. This conveyor stores the vegetation and hydraulically discharges the load at a d,sposal site on shore. Unique twin archimedean screws propel the EH-120 These screv s which are located in lire •.vith the pontoons enable this unit to maintain a narrow 6' operating width No asserTIbly or disassembly, is required making over the road transport a simple task. The EH-120 is equipped with the customer's choice of a gas or dresei engine. and all functions are hydraulically controlled. A thermally cured epoxy finish over a white sandblasted substrate provides excellent protecimn against corrosion Each Harvester comes with a lockable tool box and battery box for added security Several options are available with the EH-120, including stainless steel and aluminum construction, sunhair canopy, and stainless steel mesh Custom options are also available to meet the customer's needs Accessory equipment available includes: Standard Trailers. Trailer-Conveyors Shore Conveyors. and Hi-Speed Transports P t) BOX 15 AOUARJUS T EMS NORTH PP-(' r. 1 y T. t E. rr .Ir`~3 1 A Division of DO Products Inc EH-120 HARVESTER STANDARD EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS DIMENSIONS Operating Length 32.33' (9.86 M) Operating Width 8.17' (2.49 M) Operating Height . 5.08' (1.24 M) Shipping Length 32.33' (9.86 M) Shipping Width 8.17' (2.49 M) Shipping Height 6' (1.52 M) Harvester Weight 3,500 lbs. (1,591 I<G) FLOTATION Pontoon Length 22.5' (6.86 M) Pontoon Diameter 2' (.61 M) Maximum Displacement 8,026 tbs. (3,648 KG) Hull Material . Steel Hull Finish Epoxy coating after white sandblast POWER PAC;; Engine Briggs "rratton 15 h.p. gasoline engine Hydraulic Pump Variable volume, pressure compensated Hydraulic Reservoir 18 US gallons w/temperature & level gauge Fuel Tairks 2 portable tanks, 6 US gallons (23 Liters) each CONTROL BRIDGE Hydraulic Controls r-ingertip levers Operator Seat '.djustable, ergonomic style System Controls Full Instrumentation System Protection Pressure relief valves HARVESTING HEAD Harvestnig Width 4' (1.22 M) Harvesting Depth 0 to 4' (0 - 1.52 M) Cutter Knives Reciprocating 3" stroke (75 MM) Shear Faigers Horizontal - forged steel Vertical - formed steel Conv'~ !ing 1" x 1" galvanized mesh LOAD CONTAINER Length 20' (6.1 M) Width 4.33' (1.32 M) Volume (Load) 130 cubic feet (3.68 Cu M) Weight (Load) 1,500 lbs. (682 KG) Conveyor Belting 1" x 1" galvanized mesh PROPULSION Archimedean Screw (2) Hydraulic drive, independently operated Forward & Reverse FASTENERS Fasteners Stainless steel 18/8 throughout OPTIONS Stainless steel or Aluminum configuration also available J w DUE TO CONTINUAL INNOVATION & DESIGN J SPECIFICATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE CITY OF TICARD FACT SHEET 13125 Sw Hall Boulevard Tigard, DR 97223 Contact: Greg Berry, (503) 639-4171 Ext. 373 AGENDA: April 21, 1998 TOPIC: Improvements to Summer Lake BACKGROUND: At its November 12, 1996, meeting; Council heard the concerns of residents near Summerlake Park that the appearance of the lake was deteriorating because of the growth of aquatic plants. On September 23, 1997 Council directed staff to request proposals from consulting firms to prepare a preliminary lake management plan to improve the appearance of the pond and appointed an Advisory Committee to guide the effort. A draft plan has completed and submitted to Council for review. The plan recommended by the Advisory Committee includes the purchase of an aquatic plant harvester that would remove a portion of plants from the lake. The plan includes an evaluation of available options. Council will be requested to direct staff to prepare a budget and schedule for implementing the recommended plan. a COST: V1 Y J r-r d] iAd ide\1ads\sum4.doc LLJ W J r•++•o.•r•.ur.•. e.....•....••......••••..... •.a.a•rs••a.a. •.c.a.: .•aaur•.raa•a •••a• ...•••..a... •a a..rasa ...............•a............. a i AKE MER L 1,A i a • VLAN -W T EN V . 11\4PRO EM ~ a N.r U...aaaaaaa Hra..• ..........a r r.NrJ.r.a.aa•.a.a..ar s •...aa uarr••.. as.. • n.....n ir••...a..•r•.. u ra.u• n 0 tl®ns to presentation ® p • City coijncil 1 April 21,1999 ntroductions ♦ KCM, Inc.: e Jim Harper, Project Manager . Harry Gibbons, Limnologist City Staff • Gus Duenas, City Engineer o Ed Wegner, Public Works Director . Greg Berry, Project Manager April 21,1998 Advisory Committee Members a Howard Banta ♦ Van S. Camp e Greg Collier o Bill Pucker ♦ Jim Wing April 21, 1998 3 WWI= Problems on Summier Lade ♦ excessive aquatic plants (weeds) ♦ Algae blooms ♦ Poor wader quality Poop' Aesthetics Lack of Wildlife ♦ Bank Damage April 21,1998 LEGIBILITY STRIP Problems on Summer Lade ♦ Lack of Bank Vegetation ♦ Too many resident waterfowl ♦ Poor Fishing April 21, 1998 1BILITY STRIP Potential Beneficial Uses ♦ Fish habitat ♦ Recreation ♦ Migratory wildlife habitat ♦ Aesthetically pleasing April 21, 1998 6 RON Actions Taken ♦ City Council appointed advisory committee ♦ City selected consultant (KCM, Inc.) to assist in preparation of comprehensive management plan for the lake ♦ KIM worked with City staff and advisory committee ♦ Draft flan prepared by KCM April 21, 1998 Coals a Improve water quality e Increase dissolved oxygen o Reduce sediment and nutrient concentrations . Lower water temperature ~ Improve aesthetic appearance April 21,1998 Goals ♦ Manage shoreline and island vegetation ♦ Improve fishery habitat, but not necessarily for recreational fishing ♦ Control production of aquatic plants and algae ♦ Develop best management practices (BMP's) in the lake watershed April 21,1998 view= ~A Aerial Photo z . I I II I a.: ti l. April 21, 1998 10 it N:.............................. Aerial Photo f 4' S 1 te- 'yam _ 3jCl II, ' I I I !I. • ~l i Y t r ~ 0. {-t iY :mot Sv: ~ ~„y a. f.41 d MIS A; I 1 1911, ti.....•.•.•..•.•.•...•.........•.••.•.•.•.• R~• ......................••...v....••• € April 21, 1998 11 LtbIbIL11Y STRIP 1K.............................. S-ulm-mller Lake .It a m ~S~r 3✓vi G`'ta:'~t! kNSS ,~.~h ~i :s .r~+iii. a' y,,~,ar. ..e............................................e............e....e..................................................t April 21, 1998 . 12 'milli LEGIBILITY STRIP :l Summer Lake .t: wQ6 YM' I t s . -,ten !5 } d ti April 21, 1998 13 i LLGIBILITY STRIP Summvf-,%r Lake ~'i..11{ ~.~1i..~~~ii~ ~~at,~~~uu►~~~►►li~uul t~►Ili~i ►11Yi~~'s~ ~ t i~~ t t , ^a`i _"":`^'Y `~wrs L'A♦+,N +MtYMA, w-.~ f'1.. t r w- r i a i , 5 4 j.....................................................................................................................r April 21, 1998 14 Summer Lake r~Pr 1 1 ` aeZ... • s ~ t t ~ d t r ' ....................................................................................................................f April 21, 1998 15 •..•••.•..•a.•....••a•.••••.•........•..•....•.•....••..••...•.........•...•....•...••...••..a.••........•a .............•i..•............................., Summer Lake v it r t + s e » I li it I it III I 0 1 III . r n S.......................................... t•..•.••.••••.•.••.•••••••.•••..•••••.•..•••.•.•.•••.•....••••......••..•.•••..•.••....•.•....•....••••••....•.•..••.•.l jy',' April 21, 1998 k' 16 LtbIbIL1 rY STRIP r S-ummmuter Lake :Fpti V . w ~ ..ty..w + .h.~„~ da ` gyrr ~.'~~hM~,:4•+`jw•i . ,y,, ~,p,9~,~p~ 1~,f~y~, c~ y(' . s " '~~e1arE~~1`"`..ny,: rr'~ G: ¢ ~ ~3Ti-fiT'+~'g~,? ` ialY~ ~•~►fi. e' . r 1 f i i ~~A f 9 ~ 1 1~ , v {ly il ti ............................................................................•.........•..........................a....~ ..a A~~A April 21, 1998 '?ti 17 - vt YV-fit 81 `d rk S661 'I Z tip d . .........................................ti t i~i1 r ~•r r , a i ~'t~ "+•a + Jowwns :i . . LEGIBILITY STRIP . Summ---er Lake 4 F.d C°~ o j '4t mss: ti April 21, 1998 19 L"M -1 ...............................................................................e........................................ wt.............................. Summer Lake tk m -711 WIN 3a It RY:. 1~ `!14.c~ 1 .4p i~ te/ Y % 1i ..................................................................e..................................................es~ April 21, 1998 r 20 SOL- Management Altematives ♦ In-lake measures . designed to decrease nutrients o Designed to remove aquatic plants and algae ♦ Watershed measures . Reduce pollutants entering the lake ~ Minimize all nutrient inputs to the lake April 21, 1998 21 Develolmment of Options ♦ Consultant, advisory committee and staff examined a wide variety of options ♦ 4 management scenarios examined in detail o Drat Ilan in your packet summarizes the findings ♦ Consensus of the group is the recommended scenario presented in the Draft Plan April 21, 1998 22 Management Scenario ♦ Activity ♦ 5-Year Costs • Harvesting s $ 75,000 • Bottom farriers . $ 1400 . Shade and shoreline +$32000 e Alum treatment o $ 20,000 o Education . $ 10,500 e Total Cost ♦ $151,500 23 April 21, 1998 Manaflgl-,rement Scenario 24' ♦ Activity ♦ 5-Year Costs • Systemic herbicide • $ 75,000 treatment ~ Shade and shoreline , $ 36,000 • Alum treatment . $ 30,000 a Education *$10500 e Total Cost ♦ $161,500 April 21, 1998 24 7i V Management Scenario 3 ♦ Activity ♦ 5-Year Costs e Contact herbicide ♦ $ 50,000 treatment ~ Shade and shoreline *$40000 • Alum treatment , $ 50,000 s Education ♦ $ 10,500 ♦ Total Cost ♦ X150,500 April 21,1998 25 Manacrement scenario 4 ♦ Activity o 5-Year Costs o Dredging . $140,000 s Harvesting *$69000 . Alum, Treatment +$30000 • Shade and Shoreline . $ 40,000 • Education *$10500 ♦ Total cost ♦ X249,500 April 21,1998 & 26 Summary of Costs ♦ 5-Year Costs ♦ Scenario 1 • $151,500 ♦ Scenario 2 ♦ $161,500 ♦ Scenario 3 • $150,500 ♦ Scenario 4 • $249,500 April 21, 1998 27 Recommendation Scenario 1 ♦ Purchase of an aquatic plant harvester ♦ Application of bottom barriers ♦ Provide vegetative shading ♦ Add alum for water clarity ♦ Provide for public education ♦ Total 5-year cost: $151,500 April 21,1998 28 Video Presentation ♦ Harvester in operation ♦ Shows harvesting in progress ♦ Shows storage of vegetation on the boat ♦ does not show transfer of vegetation from the boat : April 21,1998 Staff[Concems ♦ Long-term equipment maintenance costs v Disposal of harvested vegetation ♦ Manpower requirements . Requires at least 2 personnel . 3 cuttings per year/10 days per cutting . 2 personnel @ 30 days per year required April 21,1998 30 Staff Concerns Boat launch ramp required ♦ Noise level presently undetermined-1t 1S loud ♦ Lake does flush out during winter and spring-appearance poor only 4-5 months out of the year April 21, 1998 31 Council Direction Requested ♦ scenario 1 recommended in Draft Plan ♦ Staff concerns ♦ Direction requested . Do we pursue Scenario 1? Preparation of budget and presentation to Council for approval? . Do we explore contracting initially? April 21,1998 32 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 04-21-98 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Joint Meeting - Tigard City Council & the Tigard-Tualatin School Board PREPARED BY: Bill Monahan DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Joint meeting with the Tigard-Tualatin School District. INFORMATION SUMMARY Agenda items suggested by the City are as follows: • Train Day - September 1998 • City of Tigard/School District Visioning Results • Recreation Activities - Results of Kids & Company Program • Recreation District Potential • City of Tigard Tree 2000 Program - Suggestions for Planting Trees at School Sites • City Space Needs and Plans for a November Ballot • School District Bond Measures (Are there any on the horizon?) • City of Tigard Parks Master Plan - Coordination with School Sites • City Library Resources and How They can Enhance the Efforts of the School District • Police Programs that Impact the Schools (A report from Chief Goodpaster on DARE, Peer Court, School Resource Officers, GREAT and Explorer Posts.) I: W DWCATHMOUNCIL\SCLBORD.DOC AGENDA ITEM # J FOR AGENDA OF 04/21/98 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Nev., Ordinance - Drinking in Public PREPARED BY: Ronald D. Goodpaster DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL r The issue before Council is to adopt a new ordinance that would prohibit drinking in public places in the City of Tigard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve the proposed Drinking in Public Ordinance. INFORMATION SUMMARY Unlike most all law enforcement jurisdictions surrounding Tigard, the City of Tigard does not have a Drinking in Public ordinance. Having this type of ordinance in Tigard would give the Police Department another tool in dealing with people that are drinking in public that frequently end up creating problems and disturbances that result in police being dispatched. The drinking in public frequently leads to fights, littering problems, trespass problems, urinating in public, and vandalism. Currently, since we do not have the ordinance, when we find people drinking in public, we can take no action with them until after a crime has occurred or there has been another issue that requires another response from the police. By having this ordinance, on the first contact with someone drinking in public, we could take enforcement action that would hopefully resolve the issue without it escalating into a criminal activity and without having to re-dispatch the police to a later incident caused by continual drinking. In the ordinance that we are proposing, based on reviewing a variety of other city ordinances and recalling the conversations with Council previously regarding this issue, an exclusion has been made in the ordinance for not including parks. The ordinance would prohibit anyone from drinking any alcoholic beverage in or upon any public place or premise open to the public which would include parking lots and other places where the public would normally go. There is a stipulation to allow for Oregon Liquor Control Commission permits and also a specific exclusion that public places and premises open to the public does not include City parks. The request for this ordinance comes from the police officers that deal with this problem on a daily basis. 11101 Now what may happen is an officer responding to someone drinking in public that may be sitting on a curb next to a street or 2 or 3 people behind a building or drinking s,)mewhere in the public area, not necessarily causing a disturbance, but causing enough of an issue to cause some public concern or alarm. In those types of situations now, the best the officer can do is warn them, and frequently those people will be seen walking away from the area still drinking and the officer knowing that soon they will be responding back to the area to resolve an issue, a pedestrian accident or some other problem resulting from the drinking. As with any ordinance, the officers would have discretion as to when they take action, and the direction of the Department would be that if all else fails in a contact with the person that would be violating this new ordinance, and if no other resolution resolved the problem of drinking in public, the officer would then exercise his rights under this new ordinance. This proposed ordinance is patterned after Beaverton's. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not adopting the ordinance and leaving the situation the way it is. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY This issue also falls under Goal #1 of the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow visioning process. The goal is "The community residents, business owner, and service providers will form partnerships to effectively enhance public safety and emergency service." This type of issue, drinking in public, does effect the livability issue of the downtown area and several residential and aparttment areas we have, and I believe the adoption of this new ordinance would directly address this specific goal and would enhance our general public safety. FISCAL NOTES The adoption of this ordinance would create minor additional work load for the court clerk and judge in adjudicating citations that are issued, and I don't' believe that any additional moneys would be needed in those budget areas because of this ordinance. We do not anticipate a tremendous amount of these types of citations being written and will rely heavily on just the fact that the officers have it as a tool available which they don't have now which hopefully will stop the behavior. C1IYONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 Mar 31,98 17:33 N0.012 P.02 ~ o CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON . ORDINANCE NO. . AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLB 7 OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING ANEW SBCTION 7.32. 180 PRORSITING CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN PUBLIC PLACES WHEREAS, the City of Tigard City Council finds that it is in the best interest of public peace, safety and health to prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages in unlicenced public places, now; therefore; , 7M CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section 7.3 is added to Title 12, Chapter 32 of the Tigard Municipal Code to read as follows: 7.3 Public Consumnt~ieu e~(~ohoLc Beverage. (a) No person shall consume any alcoholic beverage in or upon any public place or premise open to the public, unless the public place or premise open to the public has been licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. For the purpose of this section, "public place" and "premise open to the public" does not include parks. (b) A person who violates this section commits a violation punishable by a fine of not more than $250. PASSED: By vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 1998. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder APPROVED; This day of . 1994, Jim Nicoli, Mayor Page 1 Ordinance No. ° I3IONNELL RAMIS ET AL 503-243-2944 72*rMar 31.98 17:33 No. 012 F'.03 Approved as to form: City Attorney Date Page 2 Ordinance No, AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of April 21. 1998 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Utility Billing Issues PREPARED BY: Wayne DEPT HEAD OK AZAV~:~ CITY ADMIN OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Councilor Paul Hunt asked for information to be brought to the Council about City utility bills and the potential impact on them from future rate increases due to the potential Willamette River project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION INFORMATION SUMMARY The Finance Director will make a brief presentation to the Council showing typical utility bills and potential impacts of future rate increases. Various strategies for utility billing in the future will be presented including the estimated costs of various alternative billing solutions. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A FISCAL NOTES Discussed in presentation. City of Tigard, Oregon Utility Billing Issues related to future water rate increases City Council study session April 21, 1998 Outline 1. Review of City Billing History. 2. Review of current utility bill. 3. Potential rate increase - How much and when? 4. Impact on current bills 5. Billing alternatives • Current Bimonthly bills • Monthly bills • Separate bills for water and sewer • Redesign bill layout 6. Questions and further direction City of Tigard, Oregon Utility Billing Issues related to future water rate increases City Council study session April 21, 1998 History of Utility Billing Prior to 1985 Quarterly billing of sewer and storm drain charges. Each customer was sent a postcard bill every three months in advance for the next three months charges. Delinquent bills were turned over to the County assessor at the end of each fiscal year for collection on the property tax. 1987 Moved to monthly billing of sewer and storm drain charges. Added a position to perform the extra work associated with monthly billing. Billed City customers only. 1990 Delinquent sewer and storm drain charges could no longer be turned over to the Assessor for collection due to passage of Measure 5. 1993-present Merged City monthly sewer and storm billing with Water District Bimonthly water billing. At that time, the City had two billing clerks for sewer and storm drain and the Water district had three billing clerks for water. A result of the merging of the two similar functions was the elimination of two of the five billing clerk positions. All customers are currently billed bimonthly. Water meters continue to be read every other month. The merger condensed 18 bills in a year to 6 for customers and solved our delinquency issue with Sewer and Storm Drain charges. Kim City of Tigard, Oregon Utility Billing Issues related to future water rate increases City Council study session April 21, 1998 Potential rate increase How much and When The City of Tigard has been in discussions with several water partners to build and operate a water treatment plant on the Willamette River and a system to transport the water to the City of Tigard. Although much of the discussion is in it's early stages, the City has estimated it's share of the cost of the new facilities could be $40,000,000. In order to raise this amount of money, the City would most likely issue water revenue bonds. The bonds would be repaid by raising water rates in the future. The increase in water revenues would be used to pay the interest and principal on the bonds over the term of the bonds which would most likely be 20 to 30 years. The City currently sells water to about 16,000 customers in Tigard, King City, Durham and the Bull Mountain area which amounts to about 3,000,000 units of water sold each year. Residential customers currently pay $1.32 per unit of water. This rate was in effect prior to the merger of the City and the District. Commercial customers pay $1.53 per unit. The City purchases the majority of it's water from the City of Portland, Tualatin Valley water district and from Lake Oswego. Although the rates for water from these three agencies varies, the average cost to the City is about $.80 per unit. Annual debt service on a 20 year bond is estimated at $4,830,000 or $1.61 per unit of water sold. If Tigard took water from it's own plant, it would no longer have to pay wholesale for water but it would have to pay for the debt service on the new plant and it's share of the operation and maintenance of the new plant. Taking these into account, the cost of water would increase by a net $1.11 per unit. The resulting rate that customers would pay for water would therefore increase from $1.32 to $2.43 per unit. This represents an estimated increase of 84% in the per unit water rate. At this time, it appears that several million dollars will be needed over the next several years to fund land acquisition, engineering and design. The issuance of Bonds, however, should not be necessary until the year 2001. Adjustments to the water rates must be in place before bonds are issued. It is possible to phase in the increase in rates over several years. This would lessen the immediate impact on rate payers and would create a reserve which may lessen the amount to be borrowed for the project. City of Tigard, Oregon Representative Utility Bills - Current Residential Customers Units Current Potential % King City Summer 15 23.36 40.01 71% a Winter 7 12.8 20.57 61% Summerfield Summer 24 80.76 107.4 33% Winter 7 58.32 66.09 13% Tigard Bull Mtn. Summer 51 127.03 183.64 45% Winter 13 83.08 97.51 17% Tigard Summer 42 115.66 162.28 40% Winter 18 83.34 103.32 24% City of Tigard, Oregon Utility Billing Issues related to future water rate increases City Council study session April 21, 1998 Billing Alternatives Current Bimonthly Bills with water and sewer This alternative would continue our current billing practice billing customers on a bimonthly basis. Average residential customers would see an increase in the water portion of their bill of 79% and an overall increase in their combined utility bill of about 40%. Monthly Bill with Water and sewer This alternative would bill customers half of their combined charge each month. City costs would increase an estimated $50,000 to process the monthly bills. This cost could be offset by increasing the billing charge which is currently $3.56 per billing. Monthly billing would result in the same percentage increases in overall utility charges but the customers monthly bill would be half of the bimonthly billing. Separate bills for water and sewer This alternative would be to separate the water and sewer billings. This could be accomplished by billing water every other month like we do now and bill the Sewer and Storm Drain charges every two months opposite the water bill. A customer would get a water bill one month for the previous two months usage of about $105 and then receive a sewer bill the following month for two months of about $60. This alternative could cause some collection issues because of the separation of water and sewer. Redesign current bill layout Our current utility bill is sometimes confusing. One of it's weaknesses is the lack of subtotals by service type. Because there are two charges for water and two for sanitary sewer, it is difficult for customers to determine the total charge for each service. To fix this problem, our utility billing program would require modification along with the forms used to print the bills. Such changes could be made as part of our conversion to an upgraded utility billing system contemplated for 1998(99. ACCOUNT NO. DUE DATE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE CITY OF TIGARD UTILITY DEPARTMENT 9009449 05/01/1998 83.34 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET P.O. BOX 230000 tTlun AMOUNT PAID IF OTHER THAN UEB~RDiF_\T TIGARD, OREGON 97281-1999 i. (503) 639-4171 or TOTAL AMOUNT DUE (503) 639-1554 D OCCUPANT COPPER CREEK - SOUTH TIGARD TIGARD OR 97224 PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO C.O.T. UTILITIES & RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT NAME OCCUPANT ACCOUNT NO. 9 0 0 9 4 4 9 SERVICE LOCATION 10 2 4 8 SW KENT CT TYPE OF RE S SERVICE FROM 02/26/1998 TO 04/24/1998 SERVICE METER READING USAGE IN SEWER WATER BILLING PREVIOUS PRESENT 100 CU. FT. CODE CODE AMOUNTS 649 667 18 CCF 23.76 CSTCG 3.56 BASE 28.59 USAGE 19.95 SWM 7.48 CURRENT BILLING 83.3 LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION PREVIOUS BALANCE SAME BILLING PERIOD LESS PAYMENTS RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 83.3 KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE CITY OF TIGARD UTILITY DEPARTMENT EVEN ACCOUNT NO. DUE DATE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE CITY OF TIGARD UTILITY DEPARTMENT 9009449 09/01/1997 115.66 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET IT un. P.O. BOX 230000 AMOUNT PAID IF OTHER THAN (I~ee~enit:~T TIGARD, OREGON 97281-1999 ® 1 (503) 639-4171 or TOTAL AMOUNT DUE J (503) 639-1554 OCCUPANT COPPER CREEK - SOUTH TIGARD TIGARD, OR 97224 PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO C.O.T. UTILITIES & RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT NAME OCCUPANT ACCOUNT NO. 9 0 0 9 4 4 9 SERVICE LOCATION 10 2 4 8 SW KENT CT TYPE OF RES SERVICE FROM 06/10/1997 TO 08/07/1997 SERVICE METER READING USAGE IN SEWER WATER BILLING PREVIOUS PRESENT 100 CU. FT. CODE CODE AMOUNTS 649 691 42 CCF 55.44 CSTCG 3.56 l BASE 29.10 USAGE 19.95 SWM 7.61 i CURRENT BILLING 115.661 LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION PREVIOUS BALANCE SAME BILLING PERIOD LESS PAYMENTS RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 115.66 KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE CITY OF TIGARD UTILITY DEPARTMENT ACCOUNT NO. DUE DATE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE CITY OF TIGARD *H.% UTILITY DEPARTMENT 3602929 03/01/1998 83.08` 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET P.O. BOX 230000 iTwn AMOUNT PAID IF OTHER THAN 3 IWPAUiNL%T TIGARD, OREGON 97281-1999 1 (503) 639.4171 or TOTAL AMOUNT DUE `r (503) 639-1554 f OCCUPANT BULL MTN RESIDENT TIGARD OR 97224 PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO C.O.T. UTILITIES & RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT NAME OCCUPANT ACCOUNT r!O. 3 6 0 2 9 2 9 I SERVICE 14246 SW 133RD AVE LOCATION TYPE OF RE S SERVICE FROM 12/18/1997 TO 02/18/1998 SERVICE METER READING USAGE IN SEWER WATER BILLING PREVIOUS PRESENT 100 CU. FT. CODE CODE AMOUNTS 755 768 13 BOOST 3.18 CCF 17.16 CSTCG 3.56 BASE 31.10 USAGE 19.95 SWM 8.13 CURRENT BILLING 8 3 . 0 8 LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION PREVIOUS BALANCE SAME BILLING PERIOD LESS PAYMENTS RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 8 3 . 0 8 KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE CITY OF TIGARD UTILITY DEPARTMENT w DUE DATE 9TOTAL AMOUN CITY OF TIGARD ACCOUNT NO. 127.03 UTILITY DEPARTMENT 3602929 09/01/19 TDUE 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET ITIIJn, P.O. BOX 230000 AMOUNT PAID IF OTHER THAN neelNTlk'.\T TIGARD, OREGON 97261-1999 f~ (503) 639-4171 or TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ` Y (503) 639.1554 COCCUPANT BULL'MTN RESIDENT TIGARD OR 97224 PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO C.O.T. UTILITIES & RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT NAME OCCUPANT ACCOUNT NO. 3 6 0 2 9 2 9 SERVICE LOCATION 14246 SW 133RD AVE TYPE OF RES SERVICE FROM 06/19/1997 TO 08/14/1997 SERVICE METER READING USAGE IN SEWER WATER BILLING PREVIOUS PRESENT 100 CU. FT. CODE CODE AMOUNTS 755 806 51 BOOST 2.87 CCF 67.32 CSTCG 3.56 BASE 28.09 USAGE 17.85 SWM 7.34: I CURRENT BILLING 12 7 . 0 3 LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION PREVIOUS BALANCE SAME BILLING PERIOD _ LESS PAYMENTS RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 12 7 . 0 3 j KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE CITY OF TIGARD UTILITY DEPARTMENT CITY OF TIGARD ACCOUNT NO. DUE DATE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE UTILITY DEPARTMENT 5400730 03/01/1998 61.27 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET P.O. BOX 230000 crlun AMOUNT PAID IF OTHER THAN ue~nunuaT , TIGARD, OREGON 97281-1999 1 f (503) 639-4171 or TOTAL AMOUNT DUE (503) 639-1554 OCCUPANT SUMMERFIELD RESIDENT TIGARD OR 97224 PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO C.O.T. UTILITIES & RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT NAME OCCUPANT ACCOUNT NO. 5 4 0 0 7 3 0 SERVICE LOCATION 8640 SW LAKE SIDE DR TYPE OF RE S SERVICE FROM 12/29/1997 TO 02/24/1998 SERVICE METER READING USAGE IN SEWER WATER BILLING PREVIOUS PRESENT 100 CU. FT. CODE CODE AMOUNTS 1768 1775 7 CCF 9.24 CSTCG 3.56 BASE 30.10 USAGE 10.50 SWM 7.87 2 z n CURRENT BILLING 61.27 H LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION PREVIOUS BALANCE SAME BILLING PERIOD LESS PAYMENTS RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 61.27 KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE CITY OF TIGARD UTILITY DEPARTMENT ACCOUNT NO. DUE DATE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE CITY OF TIGARD ti UTILITY DEPARTMENT 5400730 09/01/1997 80.76 i 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET mun P.O. BOX 230000 AMOUNT PAID IF OTHER THAN ur:r.~krNr~T TIGARD, OREGON 97281-1999 (503) 639-4171 or TOTAL AMOUNT DUE (503) 639.1554 ¢ OCCUPANT SUMMERFIELD RESIDENT TIGARD OR 97224 PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO C.O.T. UTILITIES & RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT NAME OCCUPANT ACCOUNT NO. 5 4 0 0 7 3 0 SERVICE LOCATION 9640 SW LAKE SIDE DR TYPE OF RE S SERVICE FROM 07/01/1997 TO 08/27/1997 SERVICE METER READING USAGE IN SEWER WATER BILLING PREVIOUS PRESENT 100 CU. FT. CODE CODE AMOUNTS 1768 1792 24 CCF 31.68 CSTCG 3.56 BASE 28.59 USAGE 9.45 SWM 7.48 CURRENT BILLING 8 0 . 7 6 LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION PREVIOUS BALANCE SAME BILLING PERIOD LESS PAYMENTS RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 8 0 . 7 6 KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE CITY OF TIGARD UTILITY DEPARTMENT litill ACCOUNT NO. DUE DATE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE CITY OF TIGARD UTILITY DEPARTMENT 8501661 05/01/1998 12.80 } 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET y P.O. BOX 230000 inl.m AMOUNT PAID IF OTHER THAN f I)F:Y,\NTIE\7 TIGARD, OREGON 97281-1999 (503) 639-4171 or TOTAL AMOUNT DUE (503) 639-1554 OCCUPANT KING CITY RESIDENT KING CITY, OR 97224 PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO C.O.T. UTILITIES & RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT NAME OCCUPANT ACCOUNT NO. 8501661 SERVICE LOCATION 15440 SW ROYALTY PKWY A4,417-4-,X TYPE OF SERVICE FROM TO SERVICE RES 01/26/1998 03/23/1998 METER READING USAGE IN SEWER WATER BILLING PREVIOUS PRESENT 100 CU. FT. CODE CODE AMOUNTS 1501 1508 7 CCF 9.24 CSTCG 3.56 CURRENT BILLING 12.80 LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION PREVIOUS BALANCE SAME BILLING PERIOD LESS PAYMENTS RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 12 . 80 KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE CITY OF TIGARD UTILITY DEPARTMENT CITY OF TIGARD ACCOUNT NO. DUE DATE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE w *K UTILITY DEPARTMENT 8501661 10/01/1997 2(3.36 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET s P.O. BOX 230000 Inun AMOUNT PAID IF OTHER THAN a 11r.1RUIE>T TIGARD. OREGON 97281-1999 f~ (503) 639-4171 or TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ~f (503) 639-1554 OCCUPANT KING CITY RESIDENT KING CITY, OR 97224 PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO C.O.T. UTILITIES & RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT NAME OCCUPANT ACCOUNT NO. 8501661 SERVICE LOCATION 15440 SW ROYALTY PKWY TYPE OF RES SERVICE FROM 07/25/1997 TO 09/19/1997 SERVICE METER READING USAGE IN SEWER WATER BILLING PREVIOUS PRESENT 100 CU. FT. CODE CODE AMOUNTS 1501 1516 15 CCF 19.80 CSTCG 3.56 CURRENT BILLING 2 3 . 3 6 LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION PREVIOUS BALANCE SAME BILLING PERIOD LESS PAYMENTS RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 2 3 . 3 6 KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION I ON REVERSE SIDE CITY OF TIGARD UTILITY DEPARTVAENT S CITY OF TIGARD UTILITY DEPARTMENT 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET O O P.O. BOX 230000 TIGARD, OREGON 97281-1999 (503) 639-4171 OR CD (503) 639-1554 NAME ACCOUNT NO. v SERVICE LOCATION TYPE OF SERVICE SERVICE FROM TO METERAEADING USAQE IN SEWER/SWM WATER PREVIOUS " ' PRESENT - 100 CU: FT. BILLING CODES BILLING AMOUNT BILLING CODES BILLING AMOUNT TOTAL $ - TOTAL $ WATER CONSUMPTION HISTORY CURRENT TOTAL BILLING $ 40 30 -23 PREVIOUS; BALANCE a 30 f- 211- 20 - 18 LESS.PAYMENTS LL 20 RECEIVED U 10 z. i R - - 0 k TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ Q`O)~ MORE INFORMATION P , P Qe cP~ QQ ON REVERSE SIDE ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF ` _ _ _ PLEASE MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO C.O.T. UTILITIES & RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT CITY OF TIGARD ACCOUNT NO. DUE DATE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE UTILITY DEPARTMENT 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET ~ P.O. BOX 230000 N TIGARD, OREGON 97281-1999 AMOUNT PAID IF OTHER THAN I (503) 639-4171 OR TOTAL AMOUNT DUE (503) 639-1554 J n Li NAME J ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP AGENDA ITEM # vI FOR AGENDA OF - a --ag CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Amendment to TMC Chapter 7.40.170 Nuisances relating to Maximum Noise Levels PREPARED BY: Mathew Scheidegger DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council amend Chapter 7.40.170 of the Tigard Municipal Code to include DEQ Noise Standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of this amendment. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard has standards to regulate noise as a part of its nuisance code provisions. The last change to the noise ordinance, made in 1996, set up a chart with three distinct categories, "residential, commercial, and industrial." Those standards did not take into consideration areas that have different zones abutting one another. The proposed amendment has been taken directly from DEQ standards, which were adopted and referrenced in the zoning code and comp plan. Therefore, the proposed amendment would be compatible with the zoning code and comp plan by adjusting Table 1 in the nuisance code and by adding three new procedures from the DEQ standards. The new amendment to the ordinance will be easier for compliance officers and residents to understand. This amendment will allow for consistency and flexibility in the noise ordinance while providing and complementing the needs of each zone. It also corresponds to other jurisdictions and standards that noise consultants are accustomed to interpreting. The previous 1996 noise ordinance provisions were interpreted to require commercial and industrial uses to meet residential noise standards. That is not the intent of the DEQ regulations. Noise experts indicated that even HVAC systems used by Fred Meyers and other existing commercial uses cannot meet the standard as recently interpreted. Commercial and residential uses in residential zones, would still have to comply with residential standards if the proposed amendments are adopted. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Change the comp plan and zoning ordinance and nuisance code to clearly require all commercial and industrial landuse adjacent to residential property to meet residential standards. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION CON y =E STRATEGY This amendment would fall under goal #1 of the Growth & Growth Management section of the Tigard Vision Task Force, "Accommodate growth while protecting the character and livability of new and established areas." FISCAL NOTES This amendment would have no fiscal impact. AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 4/21/98 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Reciprocal Parking Request of the Chamber of Commerce PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan DEPT HEAD OK tl,-9'0TY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City and Chamber of Commerce enter into a reciprocal parking agreement to allow the Chamber of Commerce to use the proposed City parking lot on the corner of Tigard Street and Main Street for Chamber parking, and should public parking be allowed on the Chamber parking lot during non-business hours? STAFF RECOMMENDATION INFORMATION SUMMARY The City and Chamber each purchased a portion of the former Burlington Northern property at the corner of Tigard Street and Main Street. The City will construct a public parking facility while the Chamber will build its headquarters along with associated parking and landscaping. The Chamber has determined that it will need additional off-street parking spaces to accommodate its proposed new building. The Chamber has proposed that the City allow it to designate some spaces from the City lot as available for the Chamber and its tenants during business hours. To do this, a reciprocal parking agreement is needed. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Take no action. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal No. 3 of Community Character and Quality of Life of the Visioning document calls for the City to work proactively with CBD property owners to set the course for the future of the downtown. The action plan elements of the goal call for developing an amenity improvement list for implementation and revising parking regulations. Parking has always been identified as a need in the downtown area; thus additional off-street parking is likely to be an element in any plan for the CBD. FISCAL NOTES i lcdywide\sum%parking doc MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: William A. Monahan, City Manager DATE: April 14, 1998 SUBJECT: Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the Chamber of Commerce Recently, representatives of the Chamber of Commerce met with City staff to discuss the proposed construction of a new Chamber building on the corner of Tigard Street and Main Street. The location is part of the former Burlington Northern property, of which the City of Tigard purchased the reapportion. The City's plan is to develop a parking lot during 1998. The Chamber of Commerce building proposal calls for a structure which requires on-site off- street parking facilities. Due to the limitations of the Chamber property, the Chamber is unable to provide all necessary off-street parking on its property without making arrangements for reciprocal parking approval on other properties. Our present regulations have been identified in the Visioning document entitled "Tigard Beyond Tomorrow" as requiring review. Some communities have found that by reducing or eliminating the requirement for off-street parking, revitalization of business districts is encouraged. Attached are minutes from City Council meetings in 1995, when discussion was held on the reasons why the City should purchase the subject property. As meeting minutes of June 20, 1995 illustrate on Page 6, Michael Marr of the Downtown Merchant's Association had surveyed some downtown property owners to determine the level of interest in utilizing off- street parking on the subject site. At that time, Mr. Marr suggested that some merchants were interested in either leasing space or putting up contributions on a one-time basis toward the construction of the lot. The City Council took the information under advisement, but did not indicate that the parking lot had to be financed by private contributions. In fact, as the minutes of July 18, 1995 illustrate on Page 25, Mr. Marr appeared at that meeting and pointed out that there were ways the City could minimize its outlay for the purchase of the property over time. He was implying that by leasing spaces to businesses for employee parking or otherwise during the daytime, the cost of purchase and development of the parking lot could be recovered. Memo to City Council April 14, 1998 Page Two Based on my review of the Council minutes and my recollection of discussion by Council, I believe the City chose to purchase the property and develop a parking lot to provide off-street parking in the downtown as part of®a long-term plan to increase parking opportunities. No determination was made that any specific rental arrangement of the spaces was to be completed. The option was open for the City to consider leasing spots, once construction occurred. It was earlier discussed that the Chamber of Commerce could be the collector of revenues and could in fact oversee the parking lot. No arrangements were made with the Chamber. The question is open today whether the parking lot should be available for free on a first- come, first-served basis, should be metered, should be leased on a weekly or monthly basis, or reserved in part for the Chamber. Discussion of this topic is timely because the Chamber needs to make application for its building permits in the coming months. When application is made, they must show how they comply with the zoning standards for off-street parking. Until Council reviews parking standards and makes a determination whether to continue the present standards or make modification, the Chamber must comply with present standards. Other opportunities for increasing off-street parking in the downtown should also be discussed. I expect that once the effort to involve downtown property owners and the public in establishing a new focus for the downtown will lead to designation of other properties for acquisition by either private or public means to develop off-street parking. WAM\jh attachments i:1a d m\b i l l\0414983. d oa Make sure information is getting back to the CITs as to what happened with their Council input Maps periodically in the Cityscape outlining the CIT boundaries Include CIT maps as part of the New Citizen packet Get response and feedback to CITs from others (for example, letters from organizations such as ODOT) Facilitator Training - Encourage people to come to CIT meetings • Ms. Newton advised she would be sending a questionnaire to anyone who has attended a CIT meeting at least once. • Facilitator Nancy Smith opened discussion with regard to the neutrality of the Facilitator. Ms. Newton advised that Facilitators should remain as neutral as possible so people who do not agree with the general tone of the conversation do not become intimidated by the person who is facilitating the meeting. There was discussion on the Facilitator's role. Councilor Rohlf noted that if there is an issue a Facilitator feels strongly about, then the Facilitator could call upon another Facilitator to preside over that meeting. Councilor Scheckla advised he also thought the Facilitator should remain neutral. Council meeting recessed at 7:35 p.m. Council meeting reconvened at 7:46 p.m. TIGARD FEED STORE OPTIONS • City Administrator Monahan updated Council on this agenda item. Also present were members representing the following interests: Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce, Tigard Area Historical Preservation Association, and the Downtown Merchant's Association. City Administrator Monahan distributed handouts which included the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce proposal to City Council relating to the Johnson Feed Store property; a letter dated June 16, 1995 from Gary Lass of TAHPA; a letter dated June 12, 1995 to the Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce; a document labeled "Exhibit 1" (sales agreement from TAHPA between TAHPA and the Chamber of Commerce); and a document labeled "Exhibit II; (Historic Conservation Easement). Mr. Monahan introduced the next step in the discussion which was for a compromise. Chamber of Commerce representatives Nancy Novak and Pam Benson addressed Council. Ms. Novak, Chamber of Commerce President, apprised CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995 - PAGE 4 MININNI Council of the Chamber's proposal (see packet information for written text). In summary, the Chamber is looking for a permanent home. They believe the costs involved will be a financial obligation they can meet. The Chamber recognized the importance of working with the Downtown Merchant's Association with regard to space for parking. A building with 1,200 to 1,500 square feet would meet the Chamber's needs. The Chamber is also willing to work with the Historical Society to provide room for historical exhibits and use of the office during non-Chamber hours. The Chamber is prepared to reimburse the City for the cost of the property. There was a brief discussion on a possible joint purchase (City of Tigard and Chamber of Commerce) of the property from Burlington Northern. Tigard Area Historical Preservation Association representatives Gary Lass, President, and Judy Fessler, member of the TAHPA organization, outlined their interests and concerns. Mr. Lass advised that last December the TAHPA organization was contacted by a relative of Mr. Johnson's with regard to TAHPA's possible interest in the Tigard Feed and Seed building. Mr. Johnson wishes to retire. TAHPA began inquiries with the Railroad to acquire the land. Mr. Lass then summarized the possibilities of this building both as an historical focal point as well as a building offering multi-purpose rooms. TAHPA, in their talks with the Railroad, found the Railroad was not flexible with regard to purchase of the land. In May, the Mayor, Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Merchan.'s Association, and TAHPA met. At this time it was learned that the City may have an opportunity to buy the land. The Downtown Merchant's Association wanted a parking lot. There was discussions of moving the building forward and restoring the building as an office building. It was noted a drawing had been done which depicted saving the original structure (2,300 square feet) plus providing for 24 parking spaces. Mr. Lass advised the TAHPA group should not have to donate the building without compensation. Ms. Fessler also commented on the negotiations to date. She noted the railroad was requiring the building be moved. She advised this would probably mean the building could not be placed on the National Historic Register. She also noted there is an offer on the table from TAHPA to the Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Fessler distributed a document dated June 20, 1995, outlining options and possible scenarios that could happen with the Tigard Feed Store, the City of Tigard, Chamber, Merchants, and TAHPA. (This document is on file with the Council packet material.) Also distributed to the Mayor and Council was a chronological history of the project undertaken by TAHPA, as well as drawings showing possible layouts for the building and parking spaces, and a drawing of the Tigard Feed and Seed building moved forward on the lot. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 9995 - PAGE 5 There was discussion on the negotiations by the TAHPA and the Chamber of Commerce. In addition, the TAHPA organization could assist Mr. Johnson insofar as he could receive a tax benefit because he is donating the building. There was discussion on accommodating the interests of TAHPA and the Chamber of Commerce with the resources the Chamber has available. Pam Benson, Chamber of Commerce member, advised the Chamber has funding available; however, there are difficulties with determining how much the Chamber could afford, given the proposed cost of the building of $24,000 payable to TAHPA, the need to address the condition of the building, the cost of moving of the building, as well as the fact that there may be some costs associated with removing hazardous products from the Feed Store. Michael Marr of the Downtown Merchant's Association advised that the Downtown Merchants are looking at long-term revitalization of the downtown on Main Street. The merchants are hoping to create a downtown similar to the Sellwood or Belmont areas. They believe the downtown area is something special, and would serve as a focal point for community identity. He noted the need to maintain the central business district, advising of short-sighted planning in the past. There is a great need for parking. Mr. Marr referred to a poll which he had done with the Downtown Merchants. He mailed out, and received approximately 20 responses out of 60 distributed. He advised there were different funding options identified with regard to parking. He advised that some merchants have parking already and do not feel they should also contribute to additional parking in the area. Some merchants feel this is public parking, and therefore, their tax dollars should be used to purchase the property for parking. Four merchants expressed an interest in putting in $2,500 to $3,500 for a one-time contribution. Leasing parking spaces was also an option. Mr. Marr was hoping the Chamber and TAHPA groups could come to agreement in a "win-win" situation. He advised fie hoped the Chamber of Commerce could maintain a presence on Main Street and the Feed and Seed Store would retain a historic flavor on the street. He advised the area has strong potential and he fully supported TAHPA; however, he did not know whether the historical society should make "money off of this deal." Mr. Marr advised that he hoped the City would recognize that making a purchase of the property would be an investment. He advised he did not believe the City was taking a risk by purchasing this property, because of the property's value. The purchase for the intent of parking is for the public good. In response to a question from Councilor Hawley, Ms. Fessler explained the negotiations efforts by TAHPA in their attempt to obtain the land from the Railroad. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995 - PAGE 6 These strategies were not fulfilled because the City became involved. TAHPA would like to use the building for their meetings once a month, noting they recognize the need for parking by the Downtown Merchants. The TAHPA meetings would be held in the evening, and would not conflict with most of the other businesses. Mr. Monahan advised that Council would discuss the property purchase in Executive Session. He also noted the three groups would need to continue to work on a coordinated proposal with regard to the building and use of land. Meeting recessed at 8:35 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. JOINT MEETING WITH TREE TASK FORCE Tree Task Force members who signed up on the sign-up sheet included the following: Christy Herr, Sally Christensen, Robert Gillmor, Kent Patton, Doug Smithey, Dan Mitchell, and John Benneth. Mr. John Benneth gave an overview of the Task Force efforts over the past several months. Mr. Benneth referred to the group's success in working out a consensus incorporating a wide range of viewpoints. Mr. Benneth reviewed elements of the proposed ordinance which are contained in the Council packet. The ordinance attempts to deal with trees in sensitive lands and respects the property rights of the average homeowner. In addition, the ordinance includes a prohibition against commercial forestry. Mr. Benneth expressed his appreciation on behalf of the Task Force for the staff members, Senior Planners Dick Bewersdorff and Carol Landsman who gave up many evenings to meet with the Task Force. He also acknowledged Councilor Hawley for her work with the Task Force. Mr. Dan Mitchell presented a video tape of trees throughout Tigard. The video tape illustrated trees in neighborhoods and trees in sensitive land areas. It also depicted developments that were done with saving trees, those developments which removed the trees, and illustrated what the Task Force was hoping to achieve. The Task Force also noted the importance of saving dead trees for wildlife habitat. Tigard City Council members expressed appreciation for the work done by the Task Force. It was noted this appeared to be a good solution for both the tree and property rights protection issues. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1995 - PAGE 7 property category in calculating the TIF charge at issuance of the building permit. Mayor Nicoli said that he saw no relationship between the TIF charges assessment process and the other parts of the zoning ordinance under consideration. He recommended that Mr. Shonkwiler go through the established process for TIF adjustments; if he disagreed with staffs assessment, he could appeal itJo Council. Mr. Ramis commented that the issue of which report to rely on could be resolved by taking the report least favorable to the City - ATEP's report. He said that the applicant's data showed a certain dollar level of impact which was greater than the amount of impact on the applicant of the exaction. • The Council discussed the process for the continuation of the hearing. They agreed to leave the record open to August 2 for written submissions and to August 16 for rebuttal to those written submissions but with no new evidence. They set August 29 as the date for continuing the hearing but would decide later if they wanted to push the August 22 meeting agenda items on to the August 29th meeting. Mayor Nicoli favored having only the hearing on the August 29 agenda. He suggested that the City prepare a written statement of the arrangements made regarding submission of evidence and rebuttal and have both parties indicate that they understood these arrangements so that there would be no misunderstanding. 6. PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FROM BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD • Mr. Monahan presented the Council with a letter received today from the Chamber of Commerce. • Mr. Monahan reviewed the events regarding this issue. The City entered into discussions with the Tigard Area Historic Preservation Association (TAHPA), the Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Merchants to consider the possibility of a united proposal by them to utilize the Burlington Northern property at the corner of SW Tigard and Main Streets (site of the Tigard Feed & Seed Store). After the City's first meeting with those three organizations, Burlington Northern proposed that the City submit an offer to purchase the land but not the building (which was independently owned by Mr. Johnson). The City submitted the 'appraisal and the Level 1 environmental assessment they had done on the property to Burlington Northern and agreed on a potential purchase price. Though staff was still exploring with the three groups how to divide the property up to suit them, Mr. Monahan proposed at this time that the City purchase approximately two thirds of the site with the Chamber of Commerce purchasing the remaining approximately 4900 square feet at the same time. This proposal also included that the City utilize the back portion of the property for a public parking lot CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE 24 and provide the street improvements necessary to make the property useable, that the Chamber either retain the store or build a new building on the site, and that either the Chamber or the Merchants operate the parking facility. Mr. Monahan said that Burlington Northern has given them until August 1 to submit an offer. He stated that there was still opportunity for TAHPA and the Chamber to work together to make use of the building on the site. He recommended that Council authorize him to prepare an offer to Burlington Northern that the City make a down payment prior to August 1, and that staff perform a minor land partition to sever the parcel from the remaining Burlington Northern land and create a separate lot for the Chamber. In addition, that staff work in harmony with the Chamber so that they submitted their portion of the payment to Burlington Northern, and that staff begin the formal work to survey the property and develop plans for an off- street parking lot. In response to a question from Councilor Rohlf, Mr. Monahan stated that the negotiated purchase price was exactly 10% above the appraisal price. • Mike Marr, Tigard Downtown Merchants Association, referred to a letter from the Association which he had submitted to Council earlier. He stated that they supported the purchase but were not taking a strong position on whether or not the Feed & Seed store was retained or moved. He said that they had no problem with maintaining its historical presence on Main Street but that their main concern was the limited parking available both currently and potentially in the downtown area. He said that the Association encouraged the City to look for ways to continue to improve the economic revitalization of the downtown area. Mr. Marr pointed out that his letter contained some comments about how the City could minimize its present outlay over time. He stated that the merchants needed to know exactly how many parking spaces would be in the lot before they could determine what financial arrangements they needed to make. • Nancy Novak, Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber would like to pursue purchasing the land for the Chamber. She said that they had the needed funds right now and that they would be willing to take over the care of the parking area and work with the Downtown Merchants Association. She said that they would like to sit down with TAHPA to find a way to work out the situation for both of their benefits. • In response to questions from Councilor Rohlf, Pam Benson of the Chamber, stated that the Chamber would be willing to lease the portion of the property for parking purposes and take direction from the Council and the Merchants on the best way to lease the property. They were thinking of charging $20 a month per space based on an estimated 15 spaces. Councilor Rohlf expressed concern that nothing had been worked out in terms of the relationship between the Chamber and TAI-IPA regarding the building. He stated that he had a strong bias that the building should be there but thought it a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE 25 risk that the TAHPA and the Chamber might get into a dispute that would result in nothing happening on the property for a lengthy period of time. Ms. Benson stated that it would take some money for TAHPA to do something. She did not know if TAHPA could secure the necessary financing if they chose not to work with the Chamber. She said that the Chamber was willing to look at either retaining the building on site or moving it. They wanted to talk to TAHPA. They did contact TAHPA earlier but TAHPA wanted time to explore the issue themselves. Councilor Rohlf asked if the Chamber had a planning timeline. Ms. Benson said that they would work with TAHPA and Mr. Johnson regarding a timeline. She said that they wanted to make this work without making enemies. The Chamber understood that many people felt the feed store had value. • In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Benson explained the restructuring of the finances of the Chamber that enabled them to save money for a down payment. They also secured some preapproved financing. She stated that the Chamber was doing very well now. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Ms. Benson explained that the 15 parking places she mentioned earlier were simply an estimate used to show the City how the Chamber could pay back the City's investment. Mr. Monahan explained that at this point in time staff did not know how much of the 4900 square feet the Chamber would use because they have not yet decided what to do about the existing building. He said that he thought it likely that some of the Chamber property would mesh with the City property resulting in a minimum of 12 parking spaces but possibly more. • In response to questions from Councilor Scheckla, Mr. Monahan said that the Level One environmental assessment they had done five or six iveeks ago indicated no problems. He stated that they had talked with Mr. Johnson, the owner of the building, and that Mr. Johnson has signed an agreement with TAHPA on the building. The City wanted to buy the land exclusive of building, although they would accept the responsibility for the lease. Ms. Benson said that Mr. Johnson's current lease stated that he had to move the building off the land once he stopped operating the store. However, the building had to be moved in any case because of the 25-foot setback requirement. The Chamber was willing to pay $25,000 for the land and to honor Mr. Johnson's lease; Mr. Johnson has made it clear that wanted to leave. The Chamber felt comfortable that the property would continue to appreciate and that the $4800 annual rental income would adequately compensate them for their investment, if Mr. Johnson chose to continue his operation. Mr. Monahan pointed out that the City, as the owner of the rear portion of the lot, faced a similar decision on whether or not it wanted to honor the lease and work with the Chamber. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE 26 • Gary Lass, TAHPA, reviewed the sequence of events regarding TAHPA's involvement with the feed store building. After being been contacted late last year by a relative of Mr. Johnson's asking if they would accept the feed store building as a donation, TAHPA decided to accept the donation, provided they could make some arrangements with the Railroad. They began talking to the Railroad in January and to the Merchants Association in March or April. In May they were contacted by the Mayor, the Chamber, and the Merchants Association and were asked to consider giving the building to the Chamber and working on a proposed parking lot behind the building. At that point TAHPA began negotiating with the Chamber in good faith. Mr. Lass reviewed the history of TAHPA as an organization since 1979 and pointed out that they had forged a good working relationship with the City during the restoration of the John Tigard house in 1991. He said that they did not want to damage that. Mr. Lass stated that on June 12 they submitted a proposal for the Chamber to purchase the building; the Chamber has not yet responded with a counter offer nor addressed any of TAHPA's primary concerns. He said that they were willing to work with the Chamber and the City. If they could not come to an agreement with the Chamber to save the building, they would lease whatever portion of property was necessary to save the building and work toward a continuation of the plan proposed by the three groups, including restoration of the building. Mr. Lass said that they have gathered 200 signatures as public support for this process but have not done much heavy publicity. He said that they acted in good faith but were shocked to discover that the Chamber and the City have pushed them aside and moved forward with the process. He said that their primary concern was saving the building; they were willing to work to do that. • Judy Fessler, TAHPA, reiterated that they felt the process has moved forward without them, citing the proposal to divide the land between the City and the Chamber, of which they were unaware. She stated that she felt that Mr. Johnson thought that TAHPA was his best opportunity to save the building (which he wanted to do). She said that they had not asked the City for help, preferring to focus on negotiating with the Railroad and the signed agreement with Mr. Johnson. She stated that the City's willingness to become involved with this project took them by surprise and that they felt left out of the negotiation loop for the past two and a half months. Ms. Fessler said they began their negotiations in January, and, if the City had come to them and asked how they could help, TAHPA would have said let's think about it. She contended that the feed store was a unique resource recognized by the region. She submitted their records on their actions to the Council. Ms. Fessler reiterated that their interest remained the building. Though they did not have capital funds right now to invest in the project, they could raise funds, once they were certain of what their project was. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE 27 Ms. Fessler said that the City should purchase the entire property from the Railroad and work out the division later. She said that she thought the building was in peril now and hoped that the Chamber would preserve the building because of the many people who felt it was an important resource. Ms. Fessler said that if the Council did not move forward with the negotiations, TAHPA could make a long-range plan. She said that they already sent a proposal to Burlington Northern but the Railroad won't talk to them while in negotiations with the City. She said another option was to break off negotiations completely and encourage the railroad to donate the land to the citizens of Tigard. • Councilor Hawley asked about TAHPA's responsibility to move the building once they owned it. Ms. Fessler contended that, since the building has set a foot and a half within the right of way since 1950, it should be grandfathered in. She said the Railroad was concerned about the liability which TAHPA thought could be worked out. Mr. Monahan explained that Burlington Northern has placed three conditions on the sale of the property: 1) they receive money for the property; 2) the property be moved to maintain the 25-foot right of way; and, 3) a fence be erected along the 25- foot right of way. He stated that the Burlington Northern property manager told him that in the 20 years he's worked for the Railroad, no building has ever been grandfathered in; they have always required a 25-foot right of way. The building had to be moved. He stated that the Railroad did not care if the building was designated as historical; they had a firm policy on the structure of the sale that was not negotiable. Councilor Hawley stated that she wanted to make sure that TAHPA understood that owning the building meant moving the building or changing it in some way to maintain the right of way. Ms. Fessler said that they would be willing to move the building if they could lease the property. Councilor Hawley asked if TAHPA had the funds to move the building. Ms. Fessler said they did potentially. Mr. Monahan pointed out that upon purchase of the land by the City, Burlington Northern was likely to give an ultimatum and deadline for moving the building. They would have no option but to insist that the leaseholder move the building within the time specified in the sale. Ms. Fessler pointed out that moving the building was a very big project dependent on factors over which they had no control. She contended that the City could ask the Railroad to give them up to a year to move the building. Councilor Hawley asked if TAHPA could follow through on the requirement to move the building, stating that the City would not have much say in the timing requirements because the Railroad wanted it done prior to their potential merger. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE 28 MOM Mr. Lass stated that TAHPA had an unlimited funding source in other associations, a public trust, and grants which they could not presently go after because they didn't have a tangible project. Councilor Hawley asked if TAHPA was willing to commit to moving the building to another piece of property if it was decided that they couldn't leave it on that parcel. Mr. Lass said that they explored that option but that there weren't many pieces of property left available. Ms. Fessler said that the answer was no at this point in time but something could open up in the future. • Councilor Scheckla asked if the Railroad could take a foot and a half off the right of way. Mr. Monahan said yes, and Mr. Lass said they have recorded that as one of the options. • Councilor Rohlf stated that leaving the building where it was meant fewer parking spaces in the plan proposed by the Mayor, the Chamber and the Merchants. Ms. Fessler stated that TAHPA felt that it wouldn't if they brought the building down to 2400 square feet. She cited a City staff study which stated that by restriping Main Street, they could get 11 more parking spaces. Though they might lose four or five spaces by keeping the building intact, with the additional parking on the street they wouldn't lose that much. She said that she thought there were other solutions for parking. • Scheckla asked if TAHPA had been left out for two months. Mr. Monahan said that he thought two months was inaccurate. He reviewed the sequence of events, noting that Ms. Fessler did come to a late June Council meeting asking the City either to make a decision by July 11 or to step aside to let TAHPA go forward. He said they took that as direction to decide and discussed it in Executive Session. He said that the City has not talked with TAHPA since then nor as TAHPA contacted the City. Mr. Monahan said that he informed Gary Lass last Friday that this was on the agenda for tonight and that the City has been talking with the Chamber and the Merchants. He noted that the Chamber and the Merchants have been consistently in contact with the City on their own, not waiting for the City to make contact. Mr. Monahan stated that the direction he had was to work with Burlington Northern to find a way to purchase the property. Only two of the three groups were willing to participate financially - the Chamber through its own funds and the Merchants through a reallocation of the City funds made available to them for downtown projects. He said if TAHPA had come to him willing to participate financially, he would have been willing. Ms. Fessler said that was never indicated to them. • Councilor Hunt read a memo stating his reasons why he could not support the purchase of the railroad property on Main Street. He disagreed with the process that was used to reach the conclusion and with parts of the recommendation for the use of the property. He objected to staff developing the proposal before bringing the idea to Council for approval. He did not think that TAHPA has been given the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE 29 same information as the Chamber and the Merchants; he has not talked about this matter with Judy Fessler who was the only person he knew in TAHPA. Councilor Hunt reiterated his prior statements that he would not support the purchase unless he saw a formal, detailed layout of the property and how it would be used; he has not seen this. He was opposed to the City going into the parking lot business. He stated that a previous Council had felt that the City should not be in the business of renting property and that staff could better utilize their time in more productive efforts. He said that the City required a certain number of parking spaces from new commercial operations and did not subsidize that parking, so why should they subsidize the Downtown Merchants. Councilor Hunt said that at one time the Council was told that negotiations were underway to purchase the entire railroad property and sell a portion to the Chamber; however, to meet the requirements of law, it was deemed advisable for the Chamber to purchase a portion directly. He said that the objective appeared to be providing an area for the chamber as much as increasing parking for the downtown. He suggested that the City not purchase the land but assist the Chamber to purchase the portion they needed and work with the other groups interested in purchasing the balance of the property. Councilor Hunt contended that there has not been enough time to explore all the ramifications of the various options. He said that he supported the concept and objectives but not the process or suggested results. He did not think any business would buy property with so many unanswered questions, and neither should a municipality. He was in favor of working to see that the Chamber got the land but he was not in favor of continuing on their current course. • Councilor Rohlf asked if the Railroad was willing to sell just the front portion of the land. Mr. Monahan said he has not asked the railroad that question but he thought that they wanted to dispose of the entire piece of property to get out of having a lease on property that extended into their right of way. He said that doing so would dispose of the future potential of a railroad spur. He pointed out that Burlington Northern was discussing a merger with Santa Fe. He thought that was why they were willing to sell the property. • Councilor Rohlf asked if there were other willing buyers who might convert the parcel into a parking lot. Mr. Monahan said that Burlington Northern has told him that they have no interest in dealing with the private concerns who have tried to contact them; they wanted to deal directly with the City, and were not talking to anyone else. However, apparently there were interested parties. Councilor Rohlf commented that he thought that the Railroad would rather sell the property to a willing buyer for money as opposed to giving it away. Mr. Monahan stated that the Railroad has expressed no interest in donating the property; they wanted to be paid for the property. • Councilor Rohlf asked what was the importance of the August 1 deadline. Mr. Monahan said that he thought it related to their merger. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE 30 • Councilor Rohlf stated that when he looked at that lot, he saw a parking lot. He commented on the efforts of the Downtown Association to revitalize the area and felt that this was a "golden opportunity" to enhance the downtown area. • Councilor Rohlf expressed great concern over splitting the ownership of the property because of the possibility of other interests disputing what happened to the building. He saw the building as a liability with no value that needed to be radically altered or moved. He said that he appreciated TAHPA's desire to preserve a part of Tigard's history but he wasn't sure "what they brought to the party." He said that the current proposal meant losing parking spaces, and that if they could get 11 more spaces by repainting downtown and 15 spaces in that lot, they should do it. Councilor Scheckla agreed with Councilor Hunt that the City should not be in the property management business. He did not think that 12 or 15 parking spaces would break the City of Tigard one way or another. He asked if they were going to make it paid parking, and then put meters up downtown, that would drive people out. He said if someone else wanted to buy the back half, they could provide parking there. • Councilor Hawley read from a letter from the Chamber in which the Chamber stated they would take responsibility for managing the parking lot by entering into a lease with the City. Also the Downtown Merchants have committed to taking care of the property; the City would not be in the property management business. • Councilor Hawley reviewed the various elements mentioned by staff which she saw as a thought-out plan. She said that she was not uncomfortable allowing the Chamber to purchase a piece of the property with the City getting the other part. She mentioned the possibility of the City and the Chamber having to pay for moving the building if TAHPA could not do so. She thought it was very clear, in the negotiations with the Railroad, that they would not allow any "grandfathering" in and that they would insist on their 25 feet of right of way and their fence. • Councilor Hawley addressed the comments made regarding process. She stated that she was certain that the Council lines were open to the City, and that the only way to get things done was for groups to get together. She did not object to the way the proposal came forward to Council; she found it helpful that it came forward together enough for her to understand what the direction was. She said that she was in favor of purchasing the land and authorizing the City Administrator to go ahead with the down payment. • Mayor Nicoli said that he was in favor of the City moving ahead and purchasing the property. He explained that when he started this process he thought that he had consensus from three groups but that one of the groups "did an about face." He stated that he did not think the building had any historical significance of any kind but in talking with downtown merchants he found that they were willing to preserve the building. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE 31 Mayor Nicoli acknowledged that there were philosophical differences on the way he brought issues to Council, but that he was comfortable with the process. He stated that at no time did he leave TAHPA out of the negotiations. Mayor Nicoli commented that the downtown did need parking and that they would never again have an opportunity to buy this land at this reasonable of a price. If the City did not buy it now, the Railroad has indicated that they won't sell it at all. He saw this as a wise purchase taking advantage of a window of opportunity. He said that if TAHPA was interested in saving the building, the opportunity was still there. He challenged them "to step up to the plate" and not make everyone else "step out to their place." He said that everyone has dealt fairly with TAHPA, and that he was saddened that the opportunity to save the building was now out of his control. • Councilor Rohlf raised the issue of splitting the property ownership. He said he was still concerned that the City would own half a piece of property with a liability on it, if TAHPA and the Chamber could not resolve their potential conflict over the building. He said that he would rather buy the whole property and deal with the building as a separate issue, keeping it in City control while trying to balance the interests. He noted that, because of the City's bidding process, perhaps the Chamber wouldn't end up owning the property underneath the building; the City might have a public building used by both the Chamber and TAHPA. Councilor Hunt pointed out that legally the City could not buy the property with the intention of selling it to the Chamber; any City purchase had to serve the public interest. Councilor Rohlf said that he thought providing parking in the downtown area was in the public interest. Councilor Rohlf stated that perhaps they would have to come up with some other arrangement but that this was an opportunity to provide parking desperately needed downtown. Mayor Nicoli said that he did not see anything wrong with Councilor Rohifs suggestion since the intention was to use the land for a public use. • Councilor Hunt asked if they could legally use an appraisal for guidance. Mayor Nicoli said they could get an appraisal for information to help determine a price. • Councilor Scheckla asked if there was a price tag on the property. Mr. Monahan said that they haven't mentioned the price at the request of Burlington Northern not to discuss it publically until they have made an offer. • Mr. Monahan stated that he was asking Council to authorize him to draft a proposal, based on the terms discussed in Executive Session, to submit a down payment, and to begin discussions. • The Council discussed the question of whether or not to purchase the entire property or split it. Councilor Rohlf favored purchasing the entire property. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that the Chamber contributing to the purchase price would keep the parking lot project even more reasonable than the original purchase price would CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE 32 indicate. Councilor Rohlf said if the two parties could assure him that they would work out their differences, he would not mind splitting the ownership. Mayor Nicoli noted that Chamber was not only willing to pay their share and work with TAHPA but was also willing to guarantee that the City got reimbursed for its share. Mr. Monahan said that they had enough money set aside to purchase the entire property but not to add the parking facility this year. Mayor Nicoli commented that the Chamber wanted to own rather than lease. Councilor Rohlf asked TAHPA if they would agree to work with the Chamber and commit to making a deal that included a minimum of 12 parking spaces. Ms. Fessler said yes. Mr. Monahan clarified that they were asking TAHPA to agree that the back two thirds of the property would not be encumbered by a structure and would be available for parking facilities entirely. Whatever portion of the building was preserved would have to be pulled to the front property off the back two-thirds. Ms. Fessler said that they have always been willing to reduce the building to approximately 2400 square feet. Mr. Monahan said that a 2400 square foot building could fit on the front portion and still allow the landscaping and Chamber parking, if the building were pulled close enough to Main Street. However, he did not think it could be done in TAHPA's plan to set the building at the rear of front one third and maintain a courtyard; due to lack of safe access they could not use the courtyard as a parking lot. Ms. Fessler stated that they have felt from the beginning that there would be room for all three. Councilor Rohlf commented that he saw the building as a liability while TAHPA put some value on it. He did not want to see the Chamber held up for an artificial price for a building that was worthless, even if historical. Ms. Fessler explained that in their offer to the Chamber, they stated their willingness to accept money or goods and services in exchange. Mr. Lass reiterated that they have yet to hear a counter offer from the Chamber. Mayor Nicoli stated that he would like to have the Chamber work with TAHPA to save the building and leave the rear two thirds for parking. He did not want to place stipulations on the discussion that the Chamber had to reimburse TAHPA for the building. He wanted to keep any conditions as simple as possible to get the groups to work together. Mayor Nicoli said that it bothered him that TAHPA has placed a sale price on a building given to them and wanted the Chamber to pay in either money or goods and services. He thought that they should throw all their money to saving the building if that's what they wanted to do, not say "You pay me and I'll allow you to save it." Councilor Hunt stated that he thought TAHPA understood they had to give. He suggested that the Council defer the decision for a week to allow TAHPA and the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE 33 Chamber to try to come to terms. Mayor Nicoli said that he was not opposed to that but expected to see a lot of movement from TAHPA. Councilor Rohlf stated that his vote was already committed to support this even if TAHPA and the Chamber did not come to terms. The Mayor and Councilor Hawley said that their votes were also committed in support of the purchase. 7. ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE (TIF) CREDITS • Randy Wooley, City Engineer, presented the staff report. He explained that the TIF ordinance con:aioed a list of streets with projects that could be funded with TIF money and another list of streets eligible for TIF credits. When people built a development and made those improvements, they received credit towards their TIF fee. Mr. Wooley stated that Magno Humphries was asking for TIF credit for the safety improvements they were required to make to Commercial Street in order to build their new building. Though Commercial Street was not on the list of TIF eligible streets, Magno Humphries contended that the improvements were intended to benefit the intersection at Hall and Commercial; Hall was an approved street and therefore the TIF credit should apply. The improvements included regrading to improve sight distance and widening the intersection to maintain turn lanes. Mayor Nicoli asked if the main safety concern was that, with the large hump in Commercial Street, cars didn't have enough time to see cars stopped at the intersection. Mr. Wooley said that the problem was the same in either direction. Councilor Hunt asked if Magno Humphries still had to put in the half street improvements even if Council did not approve this request. Mr. Wooley said yes. • Terrance Kay, Magno Humphries attorney, reviewed the history of the project and why he thought that the TIF fee should be required to be approved by the Council. He explained that Magno Humphries has been in Tigard for 10 years and that its $1 million business manufacturing of vitamins and food supplements with over 50 employees has outgrown the present facility. He stated that Mrs. Humphries has looked into relocating elsewhere and has received very attractive offers but would prefer to stay in Tigard. Mr. Kay contended that what was being imposed on Magno Humphries was beyond the circumstances necessary for their building. He reviewed the required street improvement, commenting that it was one of the most taxing he had ever seen. He said that the improvements were as much for Hall as they were for Commercial. He stated that the ordinance required the City or County to allow this credit to be used for this kind of safety hazard work. Mr. Kay stated that this street improvement would cost $63,000 which was far and beyond any half street improvement that would otherwise be required for a commercial manufacturing operation. He said that the $16,000 TIF credit was not only required but simply seemed fair. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 1995 - PAGE 34 CITY OF TIGARD Community Development ShapingA Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD TO: Tigard City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: April 17, 1998 SUBJECT: New Building for Tigard Chamber of Commerce The Chamber has submitted a letter, dated 4/14/98 (attached), for Council consideration regarding reciprocal parking. This memo is intended to provide background. The Chamber is proposing to construct a new building on the former Feed & Seed site. The building will be 1 1/2 stories and approximately 4,000 square feet in size. They are proposing to provide two off-street parking spaces. With exception of parking, their plan appears to meet all development standards. The Community Development Code requires offices to have one parking space per 350 square feet of size. The proposed Chamber building would require 12 off-street spaces. The parking lot that the City is currently designing accommodates 15 off-street spaces. The Chamber's request for reciprocal parking would involve 10 spaces on the City lot. Engineering anticipates constructing the parking lot in August and September. ' l \ Agenda Item No. ` L IGARD AREA Meeting of 4 D 1 Chamber of Commerce April 14, 1998 0 I t' 'FP 7'raa I APR 15 I f s KJO Tigard City Council + ~.~f Tigard City Hall ~.J u 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 Honorable City Councilors: The Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce is moving ahead with its plans to build a new building on Main Street. The building will help to continue our service to new residents, visitors, the established community, businesses, service organizations, the school district and the City of Tigard. The Chamber plan for lot design provides two parking spaces to meet our employee needs, but no additional off street parking is available on site to meet code. The City will have 18 spaces adjacent to the building that could be available for the overlap in chamber businesses use and public parking. The board meets only once a month during pre or post business hours or at noon. Public meetings held in the Pearson Room would take place primarily in the evening. Chamber use would be minimal, leaving the City lot available for public use. The Chamber would like to propose to the City Council a solution to a problem the Chamber is experiencing with the construction of the new building. The Chamber respectfully requests your consideration of the following proposal: ♦ Reciprocal parking with the City in their parking lot. Our citizens have everything to gain and nothing to lose by city government and the Chamber of Commerce working in harmony for the betterment of downtown Tigard. Co-oping the parking area behind the building to comply with code is a perfect example of joining together for the greater good. This public/private partnership will allow the Chamber to construct a building which meets its needs and gives the city a facility which is useful to its people. Additional benefits to the City and the community would include availability of electrical outlets and water. With the successful completion of the building both city and Chamber will have demonstrated the willingness to find a way to further enhance the quality of our community. Sincerely, ~j John E. Cook, Chair Facilities Task Force Committee 12420 S.W. Main Street, Tigard, Oregon 97223 503-639-1656 • FAX: 503-639-6302 mll~ i ~I)I N G SF oljl:~ 1 COMWJNI'f IL Furf-URE AIGN CAMF XP~ ti fit ]\1'. IBUIR ss 0 VI -R WE Visitor Center in Resource and numerous other for a new Business making plans curt much like the Cham Tigard A ber in Tea Chamber that is the Chamber would ow The Tigard, a building ,first impression" that is so do~v,ntaN' ve that ` well yvould g i If you have an attract i`'le. the Oregon cotnmum ties. lard merce growing office building T ~t community like ig , tourists, business poop Chamber Of Com. T and conveniently located building, yell run Chamber of p "state of the a~ world and to a n the business an - ~yill feel the Chamber to d ;successful ail t important l riately furnished Chamber attractiVned. ap and ps°P visitors to the the future. An Space, for sma14 meetings, designed- and a plan for Cession"• buildinS h vitality and Tigard community all positive "first imp a newt constructed . indicates a communiT . e the comma fanned and y It needs an would g well p in the county- Commerce %yill be available in the resource information information ea sii. receptions- etc. the largest assortments °tisitors can access neti~ resident, as one of We11 lighted area where their The Chamber h destination for the traveler , stop ~e comfortable and the a welcome p attracti ants to be would be of Commerce au~e pew buitdin~ The Tigard Area Chamber A convenient, terac Garden whomever. businesses or T the look of the reed orating old buildiand the incorP <mag:e from the journey the architect is si Tigard, porch roof, . Main St. and the front with a on the corricr of windows on wide fund Store. Entry' door and final buisuch lding. buildin , organizing a Comi~u Of the orig in turn clean basic design will becoi1le the Chamber i g, The building a - To secure reate the building, the funds necessary for -eCt will help c ` pro ur im~estm eCt future. dr jVe. Yo the seeds for a strong M W Sf_R VICES RM T WILL BL OrITRID Small art shows Leadership seminars Enhanced Visitor's bureau Business education classes Enhanced Chamber services Conference rooms for business meetings Chamber open houses (or the business community National and international visitor dignitary receptions Provide a positive impact on the image of downtown Tigard • Community service clubs meeting (TAPHA, garden clubs, etc. ILI 1 A J v p dx~ O I Q I YJ r~1 -a it 1 ~ s I' I• I. II ! I I I ~ i II I~ II -'I I~J~ I I I I I II ~I II I I I rr~u . S y I I !ri ~ I I I I I I I' I I I ~I Z ZT 1 N Cy ILOo--1 i I II II i1 I-- I ~ I 1 it II I' I II I II II = II D I b P L- AY C. f'L I I M E ZZAf~) I N E LC) CD f-. P L N t-!