Bill, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, cool.

I would like to call to order this work session of the Forest Grove City Council.

The topic is parks and recreation assessment and fee study.

Just a friendly reminder that no public comment will be taken, and the council will take no formal action.

I'm going to turn it over to our city manager first and then over to our parks and director.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council.

We have 45 minutes tonight on this before we move on to the next work session.

But I just wanted to provide some kind of broader opening statements regarding this assessment and fee study.

So that's kind of one part of it.

It covers some fees, but not all fees.

And that's kind of layered on top of this fee proposal that Ann had 110% look at and propose.

And so I I think I just kind of going over this when staff has met internally.

And so I would just encourage that if at any point you have any kind of question about what's being done now, what this may look like if this if this program is or policy is adopted, whether in full or in part, uh to please ask so that we can kind of talk through it and provide as as good a scenario as we can or as good of information as we can.

So anyways, with that, um I'd like to turn it over to uh Ann Lane, Director of Parks and Recreation.

Thank you, Jesse.

Thank you, Council.

Um, I'm gonna do my best not to lecture at you tonight, but um, like Jesse said, this is complex, and I just really want to make sure that I hit everything correctly.

So bear with us here.

This uh this presentation tonight in work session is a continuation from the last time we met on September 8th.

So we are making good progress.

Um, and I I'm certain that if if we stick with it and work together, we're we're gonna get there.

Um, so thank you for your dedication on this, and uh we'll just we'll keep it going.

Uh at the last work session, council directed staff to bring back further details on the concept of adding a nonprofit rentals category to the continuum with a cost recovery range of zero to twenty-five percent.

Uh council also directed staff to provide calculations of the potential financial impacts to the nonprofits as it would relate to a zero to twenty-five percent cost recovery rate.

In addition to the new category, there was expressed interest to explore various other pricing methods as they relate to facility use.

These methods include, but may not be limited to reciprocal use agreements, individual agreements, and reoccurring use agreements.

Utilizing a rate model provides staff with direction and a consistent approach to administering fees for services.

As parks and recreation continues to evolve and respond to community interests, having a rate model established provides a solid foundation for that evolution evolution to occur.

Um, the rate model is not intended to generate additional revenue.

But before we get much further this evening, I'd like to take a little side step to share some budget background and data that I'm I'm hoping will help with the discussion.

All the data shown in tonight's presentation was taken from fiscal year 2023-24.

The parks and recreation operating budget is largely supported by the general fund, as shown here in orange at a rate of 75.5%.

As required by City Code 3401, the department collects fees for services.

That amount is shown here in blue at a rate of 24.5%.

Sure.

Brian, could you back up one slide?

So as Ann mentioned, we so the existing rates and fees that we charge essentially at the pool or of any of the services that we provide comprise about almost 25% of the overall revenue that Anne collects.

Just to kind of benchmark that, so to speak.

So if you and that would compare to some of our self-sustaining funds, like the building department, for example, that's 100% funded by rates and fees.

If you look at our water fund, that's 100% funded by the water, by our water rates and fees.

If you look at light and power, same thing.

So those, I'm just kind of offering this kind of um, I'm not sure what to call it, but a range, if you will, of some of our funds are 100% funded by rates and fees, others are 100% supported by the general fund.

And this in this case, parks is 25% rates and fees, 75% general fund.

Shown here is a breakdown of how each division within parks and recreation uh collected uh in fees for services.

Uh 75% was in the aquatics division, 17% was in the recreation division, and 8% was in the parks division.

Of the fees collected for parks and recreation services, 10.4% was from facility rentals, and 89.6% was from other services like classes and programs.

Rental fees collected by parks and recreation are for either pool facility use or park facility use.

14.6% was for park facility use.

When I say park facility use, that's not just athletic fields, but it's also picnic shelters, uh, any sport courts that we may have a received a fee for.

So all of the background budget information that I just shared with you in the previous four slides has been compiled here to illustrate the breakdown of fees collected in fiscal year 2324.

The top section shows 100% of the parks and recreation budget at 2,24,722.

That is what we operate with.

The next section down is the amount of fees collected for services, 24.9% or 547,675 dollars of the total department budget.

Continuing, the middle section illustrates that 2.6% were roughly $57,000 of all fees collected for services was for rentals.

The next to last section represents the amount of those rental fees collected.

So 2.2% was for pool rentals, and approximately 0.4% of the total parks and recreation budget was collected for park rentals.

So transitioning back now to the direction that council provided at the last work session on the eight.

Um, first was to explore adding a nonprofit rentals category to the cost recovery continuum and have it land somewhere between community events and drop-in activities with a cost recovery rate of zero to 25%.

I put question marks uh here just temporarily because the the cost recovery range hasn't been established for this.

Uh, once it is, uh if this is the path we're going, then those will be filled in with with the numbers.

Um the next directive was to show the potential impacts to nonprofits.

To make those calculations, a baseline was required.

So shown here are all the reservable spaces owned by the city of Forest Grove and managed by the Parks and Recreation Department.

Since the Aquatic Center can accommodate many different usage options, you'll see the aquatic center spaces listed in a variety of ways on this image.

Athletic fields, picnic shelters, and sport courts are much more straightforward and are shown as such here.

The figures shown represent the total operating expense for one hour of each space.

This is not a proposed fee.

Shown here are rates ranging from 5% to 25%, broken down into 5% increments.

A cost recovery rate of 0% would indicate that zero fees would be charged for all rental spaces and was therefore omitted from this image.

As mentioned previously, the column heading that's circled in pink are the baseline amounts that represent the total operating expense for one hour of each space.

Again, these are not proposed fees.

The next column as you move toward the right of the image is circled in pink and labeled per hour CR, which is short for cost recovery, 5%.

The amounts shown in this column represent 5% of the baseline amount indicated in the operating expense per hour column.

For example, a 5% cost recovery rate for one hour of an athletic field is $2.41.

The chart demonstrates cost recovery rates at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25%.

So I've shared a lot of information, and maybe we should take a little check-in right now.

Are there any questions?

I don't see any.

How does that derive from terms of just leave it at that?

Yeah.

How did we get the number?

Yeah.

Okay.

So when we worked with 110%, we provided all budgeting data, um, current budgeted amounts and then historical data of actual amounts that were spent in our parks maintenance department.

And then we went through with the park supervisor and and determined you know how many hours does staff spend mowing an athletic field, maintaining an athletic field, um, and what are the dollar amounts that are committed to an athletic field for maintenance and repairs.

Um we did that with everything.

Everything to derive those numbers.

This is uh an average over uh a month or quarter or something per hour.

Annual, actually.

Yes, especially with athletic fields as they fluctuate with seasons and seasonal usage and maintenance demands change throughout the year.

Um, but they are direct and indirect costs.

Uh, we we calculated in uh a percentage of our administrative time that's also required to have those spaces.

Yeah.

Um also curious about the the nature of the fees, and maybe use an example of the athletic fields and the pool, like what what the uh your staff are regularly maintaining.

So parks maintenance is is constantly maintaining all park spaces.

Um, a portion of their time is spent on athletic fields, not 100% of their time.

Um administrative time is spent um across all services, uh parks, recreation, and aquatic.

So again, a portion of all administrative time is put towards that.

I'm sorry, um I meant was the some of the specific things like uh like a baseball field.

I assume it would be any fencing, uh, dugouts, mowing, edging, you know, anything beyond that, and then for a pool, it's obviously cleaning chemicals and yeah, the pool is is quite a bit more expensive per hour.

There's a lot more that goes into running the pool facility than the athletic fields.

Um, and there's uh huge staffing costs there, but there's also a lot of chemicals and uh licensing it and such that that it's connected to the pool for operations.

Um I don't see any other questions.

Okay.

So also at the last work session, council uh directed staff to show the potential impacts to nonprofits.

Uh again, data from fiscal year 23-24 was utilized to determine those potential impacts.

Shown in the chart on the left is a listing of all nonprofits that utilized rentable athletic field space and pool space during that fiscal year.

The yellow highlighted column illustrates the total number of hours each of those nonprofits reserved athletic field space for that period.

The pie chart in the middle, titled Athletic Fields is a representation of the data from the chart on the left.

The pie chart on the right provides a visual of the total number of hours that were reserved, 2,462.75 of the total annual number of hours available, which is 2,699.

The remaining number of hours shown, 236.25, is the number of hours the athletic fields were available for general open public use.

Like the last slide, this is the same approach but focused on the pool facility rentals.

The yellow highlighted column illustrates the total number of hours each of the nonprofits reserved pool space during fiscal year 23-24.

Also included at the bottom is a line titled Private Parties.

These include birthday party rentals, which really are quite popular at the pool, and uh I felt like it was reasonable to include this as more of an informational element at this point.

Pool facilities aren't as straightforward to calculate as athletic fields.

Uh, use of the pool facilities varies and ranges from use of one lap lane for one hour up to multiple days of the entire facility being reserved.

For ease of demonstration and communication in this forum, the pool facility usage was combined into one total sum of hours for each user group.

The pie chart in the middle, titled pool facility is a representation of the data from the chart on the left.

Pie chart on the right provides a visual of the total number of hours that were reserved, uh just over 35,000 hours of the total number of annual hours available, which the just getting close to 43,000.

The remaining number of hours shown, 7,447.75, is the number of hours the pool facility was available for general open public use and for scheduled classes and programs offered by parks and recreation.

So swimming lessons, lifeguard classes, etc.

Another question council asked staff to answer was how much money do the user groups pay.

To address the question as accurately as possible, staff used the same reservation data collected from fiscal year 23-24 that encompassed all confirmed reservations that occurred between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2024, and calculated the fees collected for those rentals.

The amount shown for Forest Grove Swim Club is representative of 1,000 paid for swim meets, and the remaining $7,645.20 cents was the amount received from memberships associated with the club for a total of $8,645.20 cents in collected fees from Forest Grove Swim Club.

Forest Grove School District paid $8,899 and 26 cents for pool facility use associated with the student services adaptive PE program.

Question.

Yeah, I have a question.

Almost three times more than the school district that pays less on this current fee model.

It is based on the the usage.

How did they use the facility?

Where I am going to give you a yeah, it's okay.

No, thanks.

Um, we'll get back to that.

Uh Kraken Water Polo paid $783, and private parties like birthday party rentals paid $45,561 for pool facility use.

So shown here is a compilation of the various pieces of information shared with you in the last couple of slides.

Uh working from left to right is a listing of the nonprofits that reserved parks and recreation facilities during fiscal year 23-24.

The next column is the total number of athletic field hours reserved by those groups.

The column after that is the total number of pool facility hours reserved by those groups.

Next, the total amount of rental fees collected from those groups.

Now the following five columns are cost recovery rates ranging from 5% up to 25%, shown in 5% increments.

The amounts listed under each of those columns is a calculation of the associated cost recovery rate based on the total operating expense for the hours reserved.

The final column on this table represents the total operating cost of those hours that were reserved.

So for example, Santos Soccer reserved 380.25 hours of athletic field space.

The operating expense for one hour of an athletic field is 48.23 cents.

This amount is the total operating expense for those reserved hours.

If a 5% cost recovery rate is applied to the total operating expense for Santos of the $8,000 $18,339 and 46 cents, then the fee for those reserved hours would be $916.97.

I'm gonna get to your aquatics question now.

I have another question.

Okay.

Sorry, keep on.

That's okay.

Well, I don't see the Forest Grove High School swim team.

Or yeah, the water water polo team.

So where do they fall?

Just Forest Grove School District.

But we rolled them all together.

Yeah, so did their revenue that the city receives for those clubs or those teams?

Sorry.

I thought you said the only funding was through adapted PE through student services for adapted PE pool use.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

So we have Forest Grove School District use.

Um primarily it's the swim team and the water polo team and uh the adaptive PE program.

Uh the adaptive PE program does pay.

Um I I think that's a historical agreement.

I I've not seen anything written on that.

Um, but that that is what what was paid in that year for those services.

So uh oh, yeah.

So say I'm just in my mind, I just the field is a hardest thing, it's uh sorry, the easiest one for me to kind of do the math with.

What's the break-even?

Because if you're saying that we it's 48 dollars and 23 cents an hour, and you're renting it for let's say 10 hours a day, that's 480 dollars per day to use that, and you're doing that seven days a week, that's a lot of money.

It doesn't, I don't know that it there's that much use or that much put into the field that that that amount.

I mean, if you're looking at I mean 48 times, I mean you're looking at 10 hours a day, that's 482 a day.

I mean, and you're looking at seven days a week.

I mean, you're looking at 4374 a week to maintain that field.

That's what it's costing.

Yes, our parks maintenance is um expensive.

It's I don't know.

Do you have any response to add to that?

Yep.

I think partly the explanation of that would be kind of what's in the number for the hours, what's in the number for the overall expense?

Um, and so um if you could maybe go back, Mariah, to the one that chose the bill right there.

Thank so Ann, can you maybe expand a little bit on what goes into the operating expense per hour?

I think this is a little bit of what Counselor Schimmel was also asking.

And one of the things I think that's correct me if I'm wrong, Ann, you know more about that number than I do.

But the athletic fields are not open as much as the pools are.

So can you maybe explain a little bit of that and how that might factor into the number?

Yeah.

So we did these calculations a while ago.

So I apologize, it might be a little dusty to get myself there.

But these are direct and indirect costs.

And like Jesse said, the athletic fields are have fewer available hours than the pool.

And we we looked at that as based on the hours that the parks are open with sunrise to sunset.

We took an average of you know what is that length of time over the course of a year.

Um all of the costs, all of the expenses to having those athletic fields are based on also calculated and based on the number of hours that that space is available, which when we looked back at the pie charts where it was athletic fields and it was pool, and it's a drastic difference in number of hours that the space is available.

So that's less hours we have to spread that cost across.

Um all of our maintenance equipment, staffing personnel, um, and chemicals that we use, fertilizers, um, all of that was taken into consideration in doing these calculations.

Um there's like I had said earlier, there is a margin of indirect cost.

It was pretty pretty small.

Um that was also added into the cost of one hour of uh athletic field.

I do still want to address your question about the aquatic center.

Okay, so um there we go.

So as you may recall, back on slide 20, I said that use of the pool facilities varies and ranges from use of one lap lane for one hour up to multiple days of the entire facility being reserved.

The calculated amounts shown in the far right column for pool facility reservations represent how that user group used the pool facility.

So Forest Grove Swim Club primarily utilizes uh lap lanes for their reservations, and Forest Grove School District, student services adaptive PE program reserves the entire facility.

So as shown on slide 11, the cost for one hour of one lap lane is 12.43 cents, and the cost for one hour of the entire facility is 381 dollars and nineteen cents.

So the differences in facility use has a significant impact on the total operating cost for that usage.

Just another follow-up.

Um CBAP in the summer is that part of the student services through the school district, community-based activities program.

Yeah, so um CBAP, I think was under that private party rental and not the school.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Oh, go ahead, cancel it.

Yeah, go ahead, Counselor Martinez.

Okay, so I just want to clarify.

Um I know primarily we're talking about the athletic fields, and sometimes you say parks.

So I don't know if that's just misspeaking or because we that that we don't want to, I don't think maybe just speaking for myself.

See park fees and are the maintenance and the cost included in the athletic fields.

Does that make sense?

Athletic fields are are actually quite costly to maintain.

Um just the the turf care alone is pretty expensive.

Um, and it's it's far more than um just regular turf in a park that is you know just an open green space.

Um in our uh budgets, there's kind of three buckets and parks is one of those buckets.

Uh there is um revenue that goes into that from the the from park rentals, and that park rentals includes athletic field use and picnic shelters.

Um, and if we would like to start offering our sport courts um for reservation as well.

So we did do a calculation just kind of preemptively, and that's why that's listed up there as a future growth opportunity.

Um but yeah, though all of those spaces are calculated based on the maintenance of that space.

A picnic shelter is far less expensive to maintain than an athletic field, and that's reflected up here on the hourly rate right there.

So, like a picnic shelter, seven dollars and fifty-eight cents versus an athletic field at just over 48 dollars.

One other question.

Um so I know that community members, um, parents they've been involved in the maintenance of those fields to some extent.

Um how does that cap?

Does that make sense?

So when we uh calculated the cost to the city for maintaining athletic fields, the work that clubs and such have done on those spaces was not subtracted from that expense.

So you can't we have a baseline maintenance program.

Um if uh an athletic team wants to rent and use um an athletic field and they want it striped, that's not a service that parks and recreation provides.

Um so that is part of what they're doing in their give to the facility.

Um to some extent, I because I know I have granddaughters involved in softball, and I know they do their own striping, yes, and maintenance in that way.

So I didn't and you can correct me if I'm mistaken because you know a lot more about the numbers than I do, but I I think that expense it's represented up there is the expense to the city.

Correct.

And so if there's something additional that's done by clubs or something else, um uh it's not factored into that as Ann mentioned, that would be um something uh that that uh would be additive, so to speak, to that number.

And just I actually had a just a clarification question.

I think if I understood your question, Counselor Martinez was the maintenance for the parks outside of the athletic fields included in the athletic fields rental price or not rental price, excuse me, included in the hourly cost of the athletic field.

That's kind of what I was trying to clarify, correct?

Right, and I I want if you can maybe address that yes, so I'm gonna try and succinctly answer this for you.

When we went through and gathered the data with the consultant, they were asking us questions like how many hours do your guys spend mowing athletic fields?

How many hours do you guys spend mowing open green space?

Um we can show the cost of open access, which is on the continuum on the low end, and that that's general part access.

Um, and we had a bar chart at the last one that showed how much money is spent on open access.

That's that's the cost per maintenance of those spaces, not athletic spaces.

So those were calculated separately from each other.

Um we really truly wanted to capture what is the cost of an athletic field, not the whole of Thatcher Park, but Thatcher Park Field one.

You know, so that we we went through and and did all that that separating.

So the maintenance on um on Thatcher, for example, is actually $96 and 46 cents an hour then for two fields for both of them.

So that's how much it is to maintain the whole the whole area, the whole green space.

The athletic space.

Okay, yeah, not the rest of the park.

That was the last of my slides.

How many fields are at Joe Gail?

One, just one.

Okay, so the discussion um is the nonprofit rental category category, the pricing methods, reciprocal agreements, individual agreements, and reoccurring.

I guess I'll start if that's okay, because I see people doing math and looking at things.

One of the this is a really complex situation.

And as I was like chewing on it since our last meeting and trying to unpack it, I was like, there's just so many sometimes it's like you make one decision and there's another unintended consequence.

Um then also I want to like move forward, right?

Like you don't want to be so afraid you're gonna make a mistake that you don't go anywhere.

So it one of the things that I've been concerned about since the last work session is I know that our current city policy is that out of city is 30% more.

Um I guess what I'm concerned about is if, and I'm just gonna throw if another municipality, an organ a nonprofit from another municipality comes in and that price for our field usage is still less than the city there from that they could take up rental space and then it wouldn't be used by our nonprofits or be open for community members.

So one of the things I would like to propose is that anyone well, I guess I have a question is how do you determine if the person's out of Force Grove or in Force Grove?

Is it where the nonprofits located?

Is it the number of people or youth that participate?

Um, so I guess that's a policy question for us, but then I'm leaning towards out of district being a rental, being an 80% rental and not a 30% because I don't want that to happen.

And then I see your hand, Angel, get back to it.

Um then where I'm at with the prop nonprofit rental is for in-district or forest grove to be somewhere between 10 to 20 percent is where I feel like I'd like I'd like to see I mean I feel fairly comfortable with that, but I'd also like to have a reciprocal agreement with Pacific and with um Forest Grove School District because I do think like the I I just think that I mean I'm gonna be in the I'm speaking the interest of the city right now during the winter months when you know we're trying to build a recreation program, and I want Cody to be able to potentially use space at Joe Gale or Neil Armstrong for drop-in basketball, drop-in pickleball, badminton.

There's you know, this is I but I believe the one of the reasons we're doing this cost recovery is because we're trying to build a program.

Um, and we are building a program.

And I know we're it's we are in the correct lane to be concerned about cost and trying to keep costs fair, but I also believe that people will pay to have convenience and services.

So those are my thoughts.

And then I'm gonna turn it over to Angel.

Can I just quickly provide one response to that?

Yes, one minute, Angel.

Go ahead, Ann.

I'm sorry, thank you.

Um early on you in your statements, you you asked, you know, how do we know if they're in the president or or not?

Um we trust the person that's making the reservation.

And that's the best that we can do.

Um we try to be really ingrained in the community and know who are our local groups and who are not, who are for profit, who are not, um, and kind of keep our thumb on that.

Um but really we're we can only provide as good of assistance as as the person is sharing information with us.

And I we have some people that aren't really very forthcoming sometimes.

So we just have to, you know, understand that that may happen.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, counselor Falkner.

Um we received a letter from Scott Crowell.

Um, and he proposed um a preferred community partner program, which to me sounded a lot like at least what I was trying to say at our last meeting um about sort of agreements with these sorts, these local youth sports organizations, and I think it would answer a couple of the different questions and concerns that were raised, both you know, just now, Mayor, and also both at our previous meeting about frequency, like how many, how many times what would it what is reoccurring mean?

And I think it also at least some of the questions that he put forth in his you know, sort of draft question, you know, application um would resolve the issue of in-city or out of city, um, because I think providing that documentation for the nonprofit um you know would guarantee that we were dealing with with a local nonprofit that was that was working with our local local patrons.

So I just wanted to sort of raise that again um as a potential for resolving some of those questions and concerns.

And did you have a chance to look or to like investigate that at all?

I mean, I know we asked you to do a lot of stuff, and then you got a community letter response, but yeah, I actually I met with Scott um shortly after he sent the the letter.

Um we had a really great discussion, and he's he is invested to sit down with me and and help get us down that path um with equal perspectives of the user and of the city that we can both bring to the discussion and put together some sort of uh approach that is serves both interests.

Um and we both acknowledged that we understand our area better than we understand other areas, and so uh we're both open to collaborating on that.

He sent me I asked him some some questions.

He sent me a follow-up email with a lot of information.

Um I I would be more than happy to sit down with him and draft up an agreement.

Um and I think what we'll find as we go through that process that there's gonna be a lot more questions that come up as we sort of really get down into the details of it.

But I think it's a really viable option that's worth spending a little time with.

But to more directly answer your question, no, I was I spent the last week really crunching numbers, so yeah, and I think you know, as I guess the question I have for staff and council is well, I I guess uh more of a statement, right?

As we're building this approach, there's gonna be missteps, there's gonna be things, and so you know what is that that we mean is there a path where we could start laying the groundwork for both of these things to kind of be, I mean, because there's actually three things I think need to be looked at, right?

The cost recovery for nonprofit rentals, maybe a reoccurring or preferred partnership program, and then the larger organization shared use agreement.

I mean, I see all three of these things really have to be like intersecting or you know, be worked on at the same time.

Yeah, I I agree.

Um I I think we can kind of start to formulate these components and bring back um maybe we start with some definitions of things.

What do we what are we wanting to achieve with each of those opportunities?

Counselor Schimmel.

So the what are the the first question I asked on the topic after joining council was what what was the financial imperative to this project?

And and it was really a question on behalf of Ann.

It's like what like why is Ann being saddled with a problem that appears to be one point four percent of her budget?

Like what why?

And I that's I'm sorry, I um I I was I don't mean that to be the answered.

Um that was a question that was never answered.

We and since then we've balanced the budget and through that whole process, not once that I hear that if if we don't recover funds parts and rec programs go away.

Um so um so that question is still open.

It appears to be 0.4%.

We're we're we're stuck on a point four percent of your budget.

Um I I fully want your a program to be you know fully invested, but uh um I want to be careful about how we go about this.

And um I'm hearing contradictory statements.

So in the presentation, it says it's not to generate additional revenue.

The report says generate revenue to reinvest, and and I thought I heard that from you.

So that's that's there seems to be a contradiction in what's what's being said.

So I'll pause there, but I want to add some follow-up too.

Yeah, sure, no problem.

So first I want to clarify that I brought this forward.

I brought this situation forward.

Um I alerted Jesse early on in my employment, and I said, I'm really concerned about this.

Um what as I'm trying to implement the fee schedule.

Um some people are readily accepting that and paying it, others are kicking and screaming and saying we've never paid anything before.

That was concerning that we had an adopted fee schedule that wasn't being um administered, how it's intended to be administered.

So that was that was a concern of mine that came up early on, and I knew this was a lot of work.

I knew this was a big lift.

I knew there'd be pushback from the community, but it's a hurdle that we we really got to get over to be able to grow and be successful.

Um as a as a department serving this community.

We have endless opportunity, it's very exciting.

The community is behind us a thousand percent.

It showed up in the 2040 vision repeatedly.

So we are we did, we got a little stuck here, and uh I find it interesting that the the whole rest of the plan people were fine with on board with supportive, it made sense.

It was the rental category that just really dropped anchor, and it it stopped progress.

Understandably, I mean, these groups have have operated in a certain way with a certain understanding for a very long time, and that's okay.

I I'm glad they came forward and spoke up so we can talk about it, figure out a path forward.

I think the other thing that's important to understand is decisions that are made today aren't forever.

And we can put something together, take a run at it, take another look at the data, the response, see how it goes, and then come back and fine-tune it, turn the dials.

So this is about being fair in our delivery of service, that when we have two groups come to us and say, I want to rent the baseball field, that they both get the same deal.

And if they aren't getting the same deal, that we have that documented somewhere, and that that's in this cost recovery model.

You didn't get the same deal because you're a for-profit or you're from out of town, and it was decided that local nonprofits are at this rate, other rentals are not.

So it is a backstop for our administrative staff to be able to have these conversations with renters and be able to say this is how much this costs, this is why.

And this is what the plan that's been adopted.

Um you had asked and made a few other statements that I can't recall now.

Sure.

Yeah.

So I think just to clarify kind of the intent of the the of this effort was not to raise additional revenue.

Maybe another way to phrase that is it was not to fundamentally kind of change the cost center balance between the general fund and rates and fees.

So it wasn't intended to let's raise more money on rates and fees so that there's less dependency on the general fund.

That's really kind of a strategic consideration.

That wasn't part of the consideration here.

It may result in some additional revenue simply because in some cases we don't have a cost structure in place.

There's not a fee structure in place.

But in theory, the only things that would result in additional revenue to parks would be those things that would be um uh in excess essentially of 100%, because the rest of them would be recovering less and would require some form of general fund contribution.

So I don't the stated aim of the project was not to reduce the dependency of the general fund or fundamentally alter the 2575 cost recovery balance of all the programs that parks and recs offers.

That wasn't the goal.

I think the goal of the program, at least one of the goals that I've heard from Anne was to try and get a structure or a foundation in place so that you can begin to build some programs that the city may offer in terms of recreation programs that right now we don't necessarily have a fee structure associated with that.

So I I just heard another contradiction.

What what you just said is in contradiction to what the slide says, this is not to generate additional revenue.

So I'm I'm hearing we want to expand our programs.

So I'm I'm hearing we want to expand our programs I I disagree with doing that on the backs of clubs that are in my mind providing the community benefit as in that I would if if we if we were to measure uh community benefit and in a broad sense in terms of how it supports our values these these clubs are doing a tremendous value and so I I don't want to rob from them the pay for a program that can't match that benefit.

I I want to be I don't think that's what I was trying to trying to say counselor schimmel um in other words if there's um and we we can we can have a further discussion about this but I don't think the intent of the program was to alter that balance of cost recovery between what's being recovered now and what is being funded by the general fund um and and you can correct me if if mistaken so for example if one group um uh is paying uh X fee right now uh I don't think the intent of this was to in some cases raise fees over here to pay for something over here I don't think that was the intent of the program in some cases we just don't have a fee structure put in place so we don't necessarily know what to charge or what or what the council would like to base the foundation of that before but I don't I don't think there was ever a time when we were intending to say well we'll raise money over here so we can go pay for something here.

Um I can correct me if mistaken but I don't believe that was ever the intent um additional revenues as a result of implementing a fee somewhere maybe it's for pickleball or something or maybe it's for Camp Grove or something like that there is going to be some fee and there already is a fee associated with that um but I I don't I don't think it was intended to um as you kind of rob from Peter to pay Paul so to speak so no I think the only thing that I would add is um the end result that we're going for is more on our deli on how do we deliver services and how do we assess a fee for those and what's the mechanism to do that that's what we're really striving to do here in addition to that is not burden the general fund beyond where we're at um so it it's a it is a balance if we want to offer more programs um we have to charge for those at a rate that cost recovers a certain percent of that if you'll recall the continuum that we have presented almost every one of those categories has some degree of cost recovery some degree of general fund support so um that is that's an indicator that we are not out to try and capture a hundred percent of our costs um this community has has spoken to us pretty clearly that they we need the city's support to offer these programs at a at as a reasonable rate as we can did you have a follow-up question so much on this but I I just you know like I've said before I I've come in and toward the end and I I I wish I was there when this this started and and identifying the guiding principles for you know what what we value today why I think I can understand what Tom Gamble did before and and where I sit today uh that they it maybe had been a different perspective they may have done the wrong thing but for the right reason now we're trying to get it do the right thing for the right reason and and that's just getting it on paper uh through operating agreements I mean I I think that the senior center is probably a a good benchmark for how we provide senior services and community services there.

I I think if I I would hope maybe you you looked at that operating agreement as just uh a baseline to see how does how does the city and a nonprofit organization cooperate together on a on a facility or property um but I I don't I don't see I don't see what what exists today as a is a bad thing I think it's a good thing we just have to get it documented in a operating agreement and and I think I'm glad you and Scott are are talking and I think that's could be a good catalyst for what what we might do um so yeah so we're running over time like just to wrap up what do you need from council before moving on I think in order to make good progress and keep moving

Um so we're running over time like just to wrap up.

What do you need from council before moving on?

I think in order to make good progress and keep moving this this forward is you know I can get consensus from the group on on the three items that you had kind of rounded up that is there consensus on that from the council I said the shared use agreement with Pacific and school district.

Yeah, reciprocal use agreement um and then the 10 to 20 percent cost recovery for nonprofit rentals and then 85 to 11% cost recovery for out-of-city rentals.

Yeah.

Uh and then reciprocal use agreements with local nonprofit organizations.

Yeah, so sort of three different things, and um if I can have consensus on that, then I can start to make some progress on addressing those.

Counselor Falconer has her hand raised, and then uh I want to ask the question.

I I guess I don't know that I do agree with the 10 to 20 percent when I look at this, you know, when I look at the impact to the various clubs, I see that some you know clubs will go from zero to you know almost five thousand just to you know, just so twenty percent would be like clubs going from zero to seventeen thousand dollars a year all of a sudden.

So I don't think I can go there.

And so I don't know if others I don't I haven't heard anybody else speak to that, but that's that's a concern for me.

I can't agree with Counselor Falconer.

Okay, so let's throw out some numbers then.

I mean, I think we should go back to that chart.

So that I mean when we throw out numbers, that was why we asked for for the thank you very much for this slide, because it's really important to recognize that 20% to baseball would be 17,500.

Yeah, I was so just to give some context.

If you looked at the the fee, there was a 10% like the the chart that the rec commission had approved and agreed upon, all the other categories had like a 15% range range, and so I was going for a 10% range to keep that um just to keep that uniform or the same type of thing.

So that's why I had the range on there.

Um just as but you know, I'm open to anyone else giving a range.

I kinda I guess I would just sort of sorry, it's hard, it's a little difficult to go with the flow, but um I think maybe if the question is can we if some if we are if you can get consensus for somewhere between zero to twenty, is that what you're asking?

And not saying absolutely one of them for any one of them, but then I think we can move forward.

Yeah, yeah.

Are we going we're not actually voting on we're not kind of getting any idea of what we're doing price-wise, we're just getting the documentation in line to um kind of dictate what we would do from there.

So we haven't actually we haven't discussed the actual monetary amount yet.

Yeah, this just work session giving and some more things to come back to us with.

Thank you.

I appreciate that clarification.

Go ahead, Councillor Govson.

Everybody stop talking, so thought I'd jump in.

Um I wanted to ask Counselor Marshall his opinion on the did you say zero to twenty?

I said ten.

Ten to twenty, okay.

Based on what you know of of the sports, I know you're really connected, uh, because I would lean towards only because of the nonprofit section, I would lean towards zero to ten.

I know that's really low, but it's really important to me, but I want your opinion.

Based off of that, just kind of rough estimate on how many kids actually play.

Um the field use of that 10% would roughly be about $350 extra per kid.

That's a lot.

That's a lot.

That's just that's kind of an estimate because only actually um one to two groups of those that age group actually use it.

I mean, even if you break it down to a lot more, it's 72.

So it would actually be about 125 dollars per kid extra.

That's not include that's only basically with one field use is not saying that they rent multiple fields for those kids.

And so I mean that's just kind of a rough estimate.

I'd have to get exact numbers from the different organizations to get the exact number.

On the flip side, though, if you look at the pool facility fees, like what actually been collected, you're looking right at 15%, 10% between 10 and 15% is what they're paying now.

And so I mean, and that's one of the things I'm concerned about too is you know, the longer this continues is we're not treating everyone equally right now.

Field usage is not paying, and people using the pool are paying.

And so trying to figure out that you know the number that's fair, I think matters.

Counselor Falkner.

Sorry, one more clarifying question on the pool.

Um, right now the fees that are being collected, that's that's for memberships.

And I just wanted to clarify that this model would change that so that there wouldn't be required memberships for the individual swimmers, so it wouldn't be 8,600 on top of if it's 10%, another 7,400.

Wait, can you say that again?

You're saying it would be $15,000 instead of that's my question.

I'm just asking to make sure that that's not that that's not what's being contemplated here.

No.

Um it would be our preference that if we move to a model like this, that um the swimmers don't have to have a membership to the pool to participate in the swim club, and that it becomes just a straight agreement between the aquatic center and the club that's much more clean and easy to implement and manage.

Um and it's not an in addition to, it's in replace of.

So counselor Schummel.

What is another notion I hear is that we don't want to burden the general fund.

I I don't know why not.

I mean, we are police and fire and library burden the general fund.

I think long term I would want to have a general fund that pays for the services we want to provide.

Um I also want to give um Michael or Counselor Marshall credit from last meeting saying realistically we're gonna we're gonna choose zero on this category.

Um so I think zero needs to be a starting point from zero up, and we might want to consider and say in your conversations with Scott, like what is what is the what how can we reconcile the a literal cost of operating a field relative to the investment they're putting into it to try to you know figure out can we figure out a way to break even on operating because I I certainly appreciate the the cost of recovering the field use you know after it's been stomped on uh quite a bit.

Um so maybe that those conversations because it bears some some fruit on that extent, but I I'm thinking in terms of you know what what can we do short term or what's what's necessary and then where do we want to get to long term um so what in whatever we do short term, I want to make sure that it's consistent and and puts us on that that path.

But I I would say that in terms of what the direction I would appeal to my colleagues at zero as a starting point, working up to whatever other percent on that specific category.

I will say that when the um moratorium was put into place, we certainly saw an uptick in reservations.

So uh and I think that's reflected in the usage hours as well.

So I've heard from multiple counselors about general funds paying for it and it being zero, and I think that that's our pers that's some of our perspectives up here as individuals, and we've been listening to people involved in youth sports, but we really haven't done that work uh, you know, with the whole community and asking that question.

And I think that if that's something we're interested in asking, then when we start talking about our next levy and what people are willing to because that will be an increase to our that will be a proposed replacement levy of increasing our tax rate, is if we're I mean, which I and I'm not saying I'm against or for, but we have a responsibility to engage all community members in making that decision, right?

So later so I think that that's something we you know I'm hearing that this council at least would like to explore if the community's interested in you know the general fund taking more of a role in perks and recreation so is there I heard zero starting at zero for um is it is zero to fifteen is there anywhere I mean we're trying to narrow it down some because I think Ann already brought back the zero to twenty I'm not really comfortable with zero to be honest because it's not open access like people are using it there is a value I mean it's like drop in you take someone there they're exclusively using it.

So I would say I'd be I mean I would say five I think there has to be some cost to someone like going and exclusively using city property and it not being open so I would I would like to start at five percent and I'm fine going five to fifteen yeah I'm not personally open to 15 so we're gonna so what are we what are you um offering counselor martinez more zero to 10 if we have to do anything higher but um as we already discussed um we this is still a long road I think I think we still got a ways to go um before we come to any final agreement and maybe not long road but I don't see it um resolved next week you guys already know my opinion on it so we'll say say it again because it was zero the highest I would even remotely like think of would be five percent at the very most counselor Falkner if we need I I think we it's and I I think we end up somewhere but I think if we just need to move forward why don't we say zero to ten and that's not where we're gonna land okay so there's to fix something three, four, five so there's three that say zero to ten counselor shimmel.

And I'm in agreement with the consensus um it it seems unfortunate that we're we're forced into this trying to dial in a percent when we when counselor marshall's already stated the answer that I think we're all gonna fall onto I think we're missing the whole point of the value proposition that these clubs bring I I balk at the notion of exclusivity when the value they bring is superior to whatever we can bring.

That's why we outsource senior programming to a nonprofit that's that's why we want these nonprofit clubs to continue doing what they do um exceptionally we have to get our head wrapped around that first I don't like being forced into this but you know it's like we're 20 months into that it's just it's just unfortunate and frustrating if if we need to like move forward with a policy and and treat this uniquely like we there there's it's not like it's unprecedented we do treat things uniquely so let's treat it uniquely document it set out these operating parameters and and figure out you know what what are what are some literal expenses that you know the uh a club can decide whether they they could cover those themselves or if they need the city to well what I heard is Ann's also going to be exploring or examining the prefer preferred partner agreement right like so the the percentage is one aspect that she's bringing back the reciprocal the 80 to 100 for out of district there's like four things.

There's like four things.

So it's not I mean we're there's still I I hear your frustration.

I'm not trying to minimize it at all, but I feel like we are moving in a direction where we're trying to vet as many options to address this as possible.

So I think just for the exercise moving forward, um if we have a range in there of zero to whatever.

I mean that knowing that that's that's not a final adopted decision, um, just to at least start to massage the three pieces.

And um I think what I'm hearing that the zero percent really you're wanting to see that reflected in a reoccurring use agreement with the clubs that are represented here.

If those clubs are under a reoccurring use agreement, then they won't be impacted by whatever the adopted range is that's on the cost recovery model.

Right.

That nonprofit rate would be for a different local nonprofit that may have a one-time rental.

So uh I think just clarity and awareness of that um may help us move the needle on this one.

Yeah.

Is does anyone have any final thoughts or do you have enough from us?

I think so.

I think on that nonprofit cost recovery.

I'm I'll just kind of leave it broad right now, and then as we get things we're gonna start topic is urban reserve planning area, and I'm gonna turn it over to community development departments and Dan Reardon to begin.

Thank you, Mayor, members of City Council Dan Rurdin Senior Planner with the community development department.

Um, I do have a PowerPoint presentation, but uh we'll get that loaded.

Um I can maybe give some opening remerge, mayor.

Yeah, go for it.

Well, Dan's doing that.

So one of the reasons that staff I think wanted to start this conversation with the council is, and I know we're limited on time, we have 15 minutes tonight, so we can get some kind of some awareness uh about urban reserves and what it is to forest grove and where they're at and how it relates to the urban growth boundary and things like that.

But I think the overarching thing that we saw from a managed growth perspective in 2040, but also in terms of what we've seen down at the state legislature for the past three legislative sessions is a lot of conversation about this, whether it's urban growth boundary, whether it's urban reserves, whether it's growth, um strategic growth, managed growth, smart growth, um the urban reserves for the city of Forest Grove factor into that conversation.

Um, and so I think tonight our intent is to try and build some awareness around this issue, um, and then uh just kind of hit this conversation going uh in terms of kind of where does the council and the community want to position itself with regard to urban reserves.

So, with that.

Thanks, Jesse.

So we have we laid out an ambitious agenda for the uh work session this evening.

Of course, we're not gonna get through all of this, but uh we can at least get the conversation going.

Um the first part of the presentation is basically just to provide some context uh for planning the urban growth boundary and also the urban reserve area.

Then we'll dive deeper into what is an urban growth boundary, what is an urban reserve area, and then specifically the characteristics of the David Hill urban reserve planning area, and then we'll touch on um probably at a subsequent work session on what the process is for developing a concept plan, that's a plan use plan for the urban reserve area.

And then in closing, we'll highlight some of the recent state legislation uh that affected urban reserve planning, and then lay out some potential next steps for the city council to consider and provide guidance to staff on how to proceed moving forward.

Next slide, please.

So the purpose of tonight's work session is basically providing an opportunity for city council to learn about and discuss the uh David Hill Urban Reserve Planning Area.

It's urban reserve planning area URPA, uh, so it's differentiated and distinguished from the uh so it's not confused with the urban renewal area UR.

So we're referring to it as URPA.

So this topic specifically addresses one of City Council's 2025 goal objectives, specifically goal objective 1.1, which is to initiate a policy discussion on an urban reserve growth strategy.

And the recently adopted Vision 2040 plan also provides some context for how to proceed with planning within the urban reserve area and specifically the goal statement related to community growth.

It's up here on the screen.

I won't read it, but it does provide some good context for what would be envisioned in terms of long-term growth for the community generally and the urban reserve area specifically.

And then one of the 2040 vision plan outcomes related to housing supply and affordable housing specifically is something else to consider as we move forward with planning for the urban reserve area.

Next slide.

And then there are some outcomes related to infrastructure and other things that are sort of peripherally related to this.

So to provide some context and make sure that everybody has a common definition for an urban growth boundary.

This slide shows what the statutory definition is for an urban growth boundary.

And it's pretty dry.

But that's the bureaucratic definition.

A more common wording definition would be an urban growth boundary is basically a line identified on a map that separates urban land from rural areas that could be urban.

So not reserved for agriculture long term or farming long term, but areas that could be urbanized.

And the purpose of an urban growth boundary is to identify enough land to meet forecasted 20-year development needs for all types of activities, including residential, commercial, employment, and institutional.

Next slide, please.

So this map just shows the urban growth boundary.

And these colors don't have trying to modify the colors for the presentation, but they don't show up real well on this.

They're too close together.

Resolution isn't really good.

But the urban growth boundary is a larger area.

Shown in the orange boundary and the city limits is more of the red.

Next, please.

So shifting into urban reserve.

What is an urban reserve?

An urban reserve is established by state law, and the urban reserve areas for the Portland region were adopted by Metro.

And these are areas that are adjacent to the Portland Urban Growth Boundary.

Washington County adopted rural reserves identifying areas that would be protected long-term, at least 50 years for agricultural purposes.

And the Oregon Administrative Rules provided provides a definition for an urban reserve.

It means lands outside an urban growth boundary intended for future expansion of the earth urban growth boundary over a long-term period and to facilitate planning for the cost-effective provision of public facilities and services.

And you'll see that repeated.

So that next next step, so longer term growth.

And again, for purposes of this presentation, urban reserve planning area refers to the David Hill Urban Reserve.

So this map shows the urban reserve area up on David Hill, bounded by the yellow line, the urban growth boundary in orange, and this current city limit boundary in red.

And the urban reserve areas in northwest and the northwest forest grove area adjacent to the forest Gale Heights neighborhood.

It's north of Gales Creek Road on the south, that's the South Line.

And David Hill Road straddles basically bisects the urban reserve area.

Next slide, please.

So just to provide a little bit of background, there has been a lot of work, a lot of planning efforts related to long-range development needs going back at least 20 years.

One planning effort was done back in 2006 through 2008, and that's the great communities planning process.

And I'm going to talk about that on the next slide.

But there was also the Washington County Urbanization Forum that was done in 2009.

That was an agreement between the county and the cities in Washington County.

It stipulated that any further areas that are urbanized would have to be served by a city.

So no more Louis, no more Bethany.

So annexation would be required.

There was the regional urban reserve planning process from 2009 to 2014, which culminated in the grand bargain in 2014.

After the urban reserve process was essentially complete, the city had a group of graduate students through the Masters of Urban and Regional Planning Program at Portland State University to take a look at the David Hill Urban Reserve Area and come up with some concepts.

Talk a little bit more about that in a couple of slides forward.

There was the West Side Refinement Plan that was done in 2017 that looked primarily at the city's urban growth area inside the urban growth boundary, but did touch a little bit on the urban reserve area.

There's an urban urban planning area agreement with Washington County that lays out roles and responsibilities for planning within the city's urban growth area, including the urban reserve area.

And then the water master plan, which was adapted or updated in 2021, looked at long-term needs for providing water service within the city's urban growth area inside the EGB and also somewhat peripherally in the urban reserve area, but it was looked at to some.

Next slide, please.

So this slide shows the gray community's land use concept.

And this is really where the planning for the urban reserves began.

It provided the baseline.

And really the focus was on looking at future land use needs north of Council Creek, going out towards Verbort.

And you can see that there's also the Puritan Road area kind of on the west side, northwest side, I guess, of the image showing Council Creek and the area that was brought into the UGB.

The colors on the map are the lower density, residential and yellow that would now include middle housing in the in the yellow, higher density development in the orange, commercial in the red, and the area north of Cornelius in the lake color was intended for industrial and employment.

This was a multi-jurisdictional effort.

This shows the forest growth Cornelius area and looked at what would make sense for long-range planning and future development moving forward.

Next slide, please.

So this is the preferred land use concept that came out of the Portland State University planning process.

And it really shows it's it's pretty this really does show that because of the characteristics of the urban reserve area, which we'll get into a little bit later, that really there's only a relatively small portion of the urban reserve area that has true development potential.

And that's shown in the in the orange and yellow areas, primarily north of David Hill Road, which again straddles the uh bisects the urban reserve area.

But there's a lot of area because of topography and other considerations, natural features that would either be retained as open space or would be more rural residential type development, which is somewhat problematic for an urban reserve area to have sort of rural residential development.

So there isn't much overall the urban reserve areas, about 320 acres when you net out the natural areas, areas needed for rights of way, and uh other public utility needs.

It's probably about 50 percent of the urban reserve area at best.

It could probably be urbanized.

That's something that needs to be looked at further moving forward.

The planning concept that came out of the Portland Say process assumed in those orange areas that development would hit about 30 units per acre, and that's gonna be somewhat challenging in terms of providing utilities to support that type of density.

And so, one thing to maybe consider moving forward is is that really feasible and shouldn't there be additional analysis done to look at that more in depth?

And shouldn't there be additional analysis done to look at that more in depth?

That is a pretty significant, pretty high density for urban reserve areas.

Next slide, please.

So why the David Hill Urban Reserve Planning Area?

Well, the David Hill Urban Reserve Planning Area was part of an initial proposal that included other areas.

The Burden Road area, north of David Hill Road, which did go all the way up to Burton Road.

Through the Grand Bargain, only about 50% of that area was brought in north of our south of Council Creek.

And on the far south end of town, there was the Elm Street Urban Reserve Area that was brought into the urban growth boundary through the Grand Bargain, which was identified for industrial land use.

And the reason I point this out is that when you look at everything together, it made more sense in terms of looking at David Hill as potential for potential urbanization because combined these three areas supported a variety of land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial.

The combined area also provided an opportunity for more efficient public service delivery.

And so because it was kind of a natural progression of the city kind of growing north, not just northwest, which is more problematic in terms of providing efficient services.

And including the David Hill urban reserve area, though, also allowed for protection of natural resources after land is annexed into the city.

If it's brought into the city, brought into the urban growth boundary and into the city, there are more protections through the city's development code for protecting the natural resources than there are outside of one.

That was a benefit.

Next slide, please.

So this again just shows the the uh urban reserve planning area boundary.

The next slides will get into more detail about the characteristics.

So it looks like uh yeah, this will be actually a great place to stop.

We can see the uh characteristics of the urban reserve area.

Well, thank you for the presentation.

And sorry that we short shorted you on your time.

Okay, so I'm gonna adjourn this work session.

We will reconvene in about five minutes.

I think we'll just stay up here.

Gather Brown.

Okay, wait, sorry, let me do my job.

Jeez Louise.

One meeting to the next meeting.

Okay, I would like to call to order this work session of the Force Grove City Council.

The topic is street light fee.

No public comment will be taken.

The council will take no formal action, and I will turn it over to our city manager, Mr.

Jesse Vandersannen.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council.

So tonight we have a work session plan for the streetlight fee.

I'll take a little bit of time to kind of give some history on it and then talk about uh the current status of the of the streetlight fee.

So next slide, please.

So in our vision 2040 plan, if you look into the economy goal statement, it says to envision a thriving inclusive forest grove with a vibrant downtown, diverse economy with high-paying jobs and a strong sense of identity in place.

Those last two words I think were pretty key identity in place.

One of the outcomes is to revitalize downtown.

And then if you look into the specific actions, one is actually install decorative lighting downtown.

The other one is to encourage and attract more events downtown to promote food traffic.

So as the mayor mentioned earlier, this kind of identifying the sense of place, creating this sense of place.

So the purpose for tonight's uh work session is really to reach a consensus on downtown decorative lighting uh and to reach a consensus on the use of the street light fee.

So next slide, please.

A little bit of background on the street light fee.

The street light fee was established in 2013 by ordinance, so the ordinance actually established the fee and the uses and the sources of the streetlight fee, but it did not establish the fee itself.

The fee itself was established by resolution that same, probably the same meeting or at the second reading of a dollar fifty per month per account.

Uh at the time there, and there still are, there was a few there was a fewer accounts then, uh, but at the time when it passed, they basically took the expenses for the street lights, they added it up, and then they looked at a fee that would that would compensate for the maintenance and operation of the streetlights, and it was about a dollar fifty uh at the time.

As I as it says there, the purpose was to cover the streetlight expenses with a separate fee to avoid using gas tax monies prior to the street light fee.

The street fund was actually used to pay for the street lights.

And so one of the arguments for creating the fee was that it was siphoning off gas tax money that could otherwise use be used for roads and um and increasing our our uh our pavement condition.

Um, the revenue shall be used to pay direct and indirect costs associated with the operation, maintenance, installation, and replacement of street lighting owned and operated or controlled by the city, and that all revenues would be placed in a dedicated account within the street funds.

So, in essence, if you look at kind of the top line of a street fund, and you would have underneath that a sub-account called the street light fee account or whatever you would want to label it, that is kind of an all-inclusive self-sustaining fund.

So with that, if you could go to the next slide.

So the fees remain unchanged since its passage in 2013.

There are 2,236 street lights that are maintained by these revenues.

And this is where it gets a little bit interesting.

In 2019 and 20, um, essentially light and power uh uh took out a loan, if you will, from the street light fee, and they replaced all of the sodium lights with LED lights that reduced the power usage by approximately fit about 50%, and so it saved approximately 50% in our power expenses.

Um that you'll see in a subsequent slide that that averages that averaged about uh $55 to $60,000 a year.

And so the savings that were accrued from doing the LED lights were front funded by the LD were front funded by the street light fee.

So over the past three years, um those extra savings essentially funded those capital improvements.

And we're now done essentially paying off those lights, which kind of brings us to today.

So if you go to the next slide, please.

So prior to 2023, we would take in approximately 175,000 and we'd spend it all.

Uh you'd spend about $50,000 every year on maintenance expenses, and then you would spend $125,000 on power expenses.

Since then, uh we've been saving approximately $62,500 a year because we have LED lights.

That money for the last one uh actually two years, if you count a full fiscal year this year, um, they reside in the street fund.

And so we've got a slight overage, if you will, in the street fund of street light funds currently.

Um just for some kind of cost numbers.

I asked Keith Horman, director of light and power for the annual cost of street tree lights, power and maintenance, and this would be uh including the capital purchase of the street tier lights, the installing the street tree lights, maintaining them if they go out, um, the power, etc.

If you do the uh main street and 21st Avenue that was included in a glow-up project, it would cost approximately $1,500 a year.

And then I asked Keith, what about the annual cost of the holiday decorative lights, the power and maintenance?

Those are the lights that are put up uh during the holiday by Light and Power that historically has been a program that's been a volunteer program uh through the Chamber of Commerce, uh but more recently uh it's turned into a program that has some expense associated with it, principally with the cost of the lights because the some of the lights are um are either getting old or in disrepair.

Um and the way it currently works is um the lights will be laid out.

Uh I think some of the lights used to be purchased with a CEP grant every year as well, so there was some funding there.

Um but kind of long story short, the lights get put out and then light and power puts up the lights.

So I asked Keith, if you were just to say, you know, if you put the holiday lights that are essentially in that same kind of downtown area, uh if you were to purchase lights, keep the lights up up to par, get them, you know, have somebody install them every year and take them down about what would it cost every year.

Uh and Keith said about $5,000 a year.

Um then if you look at uh the last line item there, the approximate annual cost of annual capital expense reserve.

Right now, there is not a capital expense reserve in the street light fee account.

So essentially that $62,000 five hundred that has been an overage.

And talking with Keith, there's been no dedicated funds for any kind of replacement of the 2,230 some street lights that we have.

Typically speaking, those lights when they are installed is not a city expense.

It's not a light and power expense.

They're normally installed as part of a development project.

However, um when their life cycle runs out, then it does become incumbent upon the city, and it's the city's asset at that point, and so there has to be some kind of replacement.

And so there has to be some kind of replacement.

Our lights range in age anywhere, some are 50 years old, some are as new as 10 years old.

For example, we installed a couple essentially street lights at Pacific University in an area that was dimly lit, that was three years ago.

We've installed other lights in some of the uh downtown areas uh 40 years ago.

Um there's it it's it's uh there's a wide wide range here.

So if you go to the next slide, please.

So now a little bit of a little bit of background.

So that's the streetlight fee kind of background.

Um and we actually did run some kind of actuarials on what uh a reserve account could look like for the 2200 and some odd lights.

Um if you were to replace them at a 50-year interval, at a 60-year interval, 75-year interval, etc.

Uh I the short answer to all of that is is the 62,000, approximately 62,500, would do it at um at an interval of about 75 years, somewhere in there.

Um moving on to the background for the street tree lights and the decorative lights.

Uh, we recently replaced the trees that were everybody knows about the glow up project, so I don't know how much I need to go into that.

Uh but the difference between 21st Avenue and Maine is that we have power outlets at the base of each tree.

And that does distinguish that area from kind of all the other areas in the city, if you will.

One item that was not finalized as part of the glow up project was the purchase installation and maintenance of the tree lights in that area.

So, kind of like how are we going to do the tree lights?

At the time, we did talk about using the streetlight fee, uh, but it wasn't anything formal at the time.

Um the maintenance of the street trees is actually the responsibility of the adjacent business and landowner in the city code.

This area, the CDBG community development block ground area that is characterized by bricks and an enhanced streetscape, so the trash cans, the grates, the bricks, etc.

That has always historically been assumed kind of by the city in terms of planting the trees, replacing the trees, putting the decorative trash cans up, etc.

It was federally funded by a community grant.

And so, in inherent in that grant assurance, the city has assumed some level of maintenance responsibility associated with that with that area.

Uh, and that's part of the reason why some of the funds are being spent now, of course, to upgrade some of that area that's subsequently kind of fallen into disrepair.

Uh, and then the city does own and maintain all of the street lights within the city.

So currently, the city does not have a fee to recover the operation, maintenance and installation and replacement of the downtown street lights or the downtown holiday lights.

I will add at this at this juncture, we've talked with Cornelius, Carleton, um Newburgh, McMinnville, uh, and a very common way to do downtown holiday lights and or downtown tree lights.

And there's there's a lot of different models, but a pretty common theme that we heard is that the city would own the lights and they would have some type of contract with the private provider or a nonprofit, it could be uh to to operate, maintain, and and install the street lights.

And so essentially the city would allocate some money for the either the decorative and the tree lights, and then they would have some type of contract that would that would manage them.

And in all the cases, there was also some level of whether it was in that contract or whether it was by a separate policy, the city also prescribing kind of what types of lights it wanted to see.

So the city would describe kind of what type of holiday lights it would want to see, what type of tree lights uh that could be in conjunction with the business community, but a lot of it was to try and look at some type of uniform look, some type of operating procedures, like the lights would turn off at a certain time every night.

They had to be of certain certain illumination, etc., so that it didn't bother people that may live in that area.

So there were other kinds of um policy considerations that were associated with it, but most of the time it was contained in some type of management agreement uh with an outside entity.

Um getting back to the streetlight fee in the code, the street light fee did not actually define streetlights.

Uh so it allows a fairly broad interpretation by the council.

It did define how to use the revenues, but it actually didn't define what an actual street light is.

So in consultation with the city attorney's office, while tree and decorative lights are not considered a streetlight, they are a type of street lighting.

In some cases, they can be used to illuminate a street.

And so it could be interpreted to fall within the code and not necessarily require a code amendment.

However, it would require some type of clarification by the council as to what the street light fee could be used for, and in doing so, clarify the definition of what a streetlight is.

So next slide, please.

So these are just questions for discussion.

Does the council want to purchase and maintain street tree lights and decorative lights within the CDBG enhanced streetscape area?

I think this was envisioned as part of the glow-up project, but there was never really a policy decision about the street tree lights and/or the decorative lights.

But at this point, it doesn't appear as it will require an increase.

If you try to plug in too much, it'll uh trip and it'll turn off.

So it's it's designed for very low voltage type of light.

Um so those are the questions.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, members of the council.

I'm happy for any questions.

Uh questions before we start with the discussion items.

Counselor Schummel.

Uh you alluded to the care of the trees themselves.

Uh regarding the business owner's responsibility, do they have the latitude to remove trees that visually impair their their business storefront?

So I'd have to check about the past practice.

The past practice, as I understand it, Counselor Shimmel was during the CDBG project initially, and this was some this was decades ago, uh, the city did install the trees.

Um and it's been the business owner's responsibility to maintain the trees.

So if a branch breaks or uh when the tree when the leaves fall, the you know the business owner is responsible for the leaves.

Um and then during this project, uh the city did replace some of the trees that were um impugning some of the public infrastructure or raising the sidewalks, etc.

Typically repairing the sidewalk would also be um the business owner's expense as well.

But in this case, because it was in this federally funded community development block ground area, the city assumed that responsibility.

Uh specifically, if the if the business owners have been allowed to remove the trees in that area, I that's a good question.

I I don't I hesitate to answer.

I don't know that I know the answer to that part.

So I could check with Greg, Robertson, the public works director and get back to you.

So any other questions.

Counselor Martinez.

So any lights that are chosen to be put on the trees have to be done by light and power, correct?

Well, in this particular it um they don't have to be.

Uh we could actually, depending on on what the council would decide.

What's most common in most communities is actually to have a private provider do it, but the city pays for it.

So the city would buy the lights and then somebody else would install them and maintain them besides light and power.

It typically is a little bit less expensive that way.

The um yeah.

Right now, the way that the decorative lights work is um the chamber of commerce, a nonprofit will um uh they they have some volunteers that prep the lights, replace some of the burnout bulbs, etc.

And then they have volunteers that lay them out alongside each of the street lights, and then light and power will come and install them.

That's a little bit different than most communities where uh the city would just pay somebody to do kind of all of that and put them up on the street lights as well.

So I know the ones that go on the polls.

I mean, that's fairly simple.

But just sticking them up there.

Yeah.

But on trees, you know, that can depending, be kind of complicated.

And labor intensive.

So yeah, I think a lot of it depends on the size of the tree and how many strings of light you have and the power that it uses.

So there are some variables associated with it.

But yeah.

What we have seen and looking at other cities is they do try to have some kind of um you know, the type of light is consistent.

Um the colors may vary, uh, but they're not necessarily blinking.

That tends to be distracting.

They tend to turn off at a certain hour, so that they're not if somebody is has an upstairs apartment in downtown, it doesn't create um additional light.

Uh and so there's there's um you know certain kind of policies and maintenance that go along with it.

So any other questions.

So let's go through item, let's do bullet point one.

Does the council want to purchase and maintain street light?

Maintain street tree lights and decorative lights within the C D BG enhanced streetscape area.

Sure.

Saying yes, yes.

I'll start with no.

Okay.

But we're missing an important question.

And if we the Lorax were here, he would want to speak for the trees in our our situation and in light of the the glow up as we have ununiformed trees.

Yeah.

And businesses on it, you know, frankly, don't maintain the trees.

And frankly, I don't want them to maintain the trees because they're not arborist.

And if if we're gonna con if we're gonna do the lights and contract or contract it out, then um you know there's you know, there's gotta be some proper maintenance done to those.

So I I think it's important.

I think it would be incumbent upon the city if we're going to venture into this, that we we whether it requires changing the code or or just take an initiative to an assuming responsibility for maintenance of the trees um before we purchase and and install because I think the ones that did not get pulled absolutely need the maintenance.

And do you want you know five to ten different business owners doing that, or do you want them done by an arborist and get them as uniform as possible?

I mean, uh are we gonna have I would imagine that we're gonna have another work session about this.

So I think it would be I mean, uh, is there consensus to ask maybe how that would affect the cost, or if that's possible?

Yeah, I could find I could definitely talk with Keith and find out what it may cost.

If it's limited to that area that's on 21st as part of the glow up project with the with the plugins, I'm guessing it's probably not very much, but I I definitely could check.

That area has historically, as Counselor Schimmel kind of alluded to, been maintained a little bit differently because of that federal streetscape area and because of the federal funds that were associated with it.

Um but yeah, I can I can definitely find that out.

There the other thing that's um a little bit detailed is in some communities they wrap just the bases of the trees, and in other communities they put lights in the canopy of the trees.

So I don't know if if that's uh one I think is probably a little easier than the other, um, because one may involve more maintenance potentially.

Um so that's uh just another thing.

The the cost estimates that we provided were based on I believe three strings of lights per tree for 21st in Maine.

So counselor Falkner.

I was just um because Councillor Schimmel asked a question, I just went to our website, and we do require a permit to remove or prune trees in the right of way, but I do um see that it that it's not necessarily at least on the form on the on the website, it doesn't require that an arborist be um involved.

And so I I kind of agree with counselor Schummer.

I I want to move forward with this.

I think this is a great idea, but it could maybe require a little bit more code work um for maybe our urban forestry um department to kind of take a look at, you know, maybe beefing some of that those protections up for these trees in particular.

Yeah.

Okay.

Counselor Gusin.

Um I think Jesse, when you said the base of the trees, it's the trunk that you're talking about.

Okay.

Um so the the businesses really want that trunk wrapped now.

They actually wanted it before it started getting darker.

But um the city club met with Keith and brought um a tree wrap.

It's a commercial tree wrap with that stretches along with the tree's growth.

And the businesses want to know if they can if they can put those up now and just plug them into the outlets, even if there's going to be a decision in the future about having a contractor do it, which is very expensive.

This is just around the um the trunks.

And I know we can't make decisions here, but I didn't know if that's like a consensus thing or what that is.

I don't know.

I don't think we can make any decisions like that right now at a work session.

Right.

I mean, there's no formal actions taken.

That would be my thing.

I don't know if Jesse has a different answer, but yeah, there's there's not supposed to be any formal action taken during the work session for Councillor Gussen, but yeah.

Um one of the things to maybe uh, you know, that I didn't put into the presentation is I think there's still seven trees that have yet to be planted.

Um it's principally because we've had a very uh the the window in the early part of the strength in the spring, the the city missed that window.

Um and it's been just a very, very dry summer.

So normally you can plant a tree and in mid to late September, but in this particular year, because it's been so dry, um, it's looking like we're not going to be able to probably plant in that I think it's seven remaining trees.

I'm not somewhere in there.

Uh we're not we're not gonna really be able to plant those until the rains come.

Uh and so typically that that may be all the way into mid-October.

So if if we want to have a high survivability.

So um, so I'm seeing consensus.

I'm seeing address the tree maintenance, like bring back some information for us about you know, tree tree maintenance.

But then there is a consensus to move forward um with the decorative street tree lights.

And so then the next bullet points is do we want to use the fee revenues to fund these services?

Um, and then hence we would change the code to do that.

Um and I'm in agreement to do that.

I I think it's better to for me.

Okay, go ahead, Counselor Falkner.

Sorry.

Oh, I was just gonna say the question is or and I I so I I would do we need to change the code or can we pass a resolution?

It doesn't say and you you can just pass a resolution if you would like.

The in the resolution I would recommend that you clarify the usage of the streetlight fee revenues.

Um, but you don't necessarily have to amend the code if you want to implement this.

No.

Is there one that's I mean, which one is better to do um I I did talk to the city attorney.

I think this the city attorney said as long as it's clear in one and one or the other, then it's fine because the fee itself is implemented by resolution.

So the dollar fifty was done by resolution.

Okay, but the code itself says the operation and maintenance of the street lights.

And so if it's clarified by resolution, uh then you're you're basically interpreting what is intended to be said by the code.

Okay.

You can also amend the code if you'd like.

You can you can do both.

Um if you want.

But right now there's not a streetlight definition in the code.

And so you would essentially be defining what that is in the resolution.

Okay.

So is there consensus for bullet point two?

I think my this we have a preference.

I mean it's I'm fine with the resolution or either or is fine with me, but I say yes.

Okay.

But does anyone can I just want to make sure from Key standpoint that the long-term operating expenses covered for the maintenance of tree lights?

The power outlets, because you know, those are gonna get used a lot.

Yeah.

They do the the um the $1,500 covers the we're estimating that the $1,500 per year would cover the cost of the tree lights, the electricity for the street lights or tree lights, and the maintenance of the tree lights.

Um then do we agree that there should be usage policy and guidelines?

And then I mean I didn't see a bullet point on this, but for me, like I definitely want to do an RFQ for a contractor.

Like I don't want to be paying light and power wages for hanging up lights.

So I would like to see, I mean, I didn't see that bullet point, but is that just an unspoken?

Yeah, it would be an RFQ type process.

We would put together some scope of services and then Yeah, and I definitely think like one of the points that we've heard about creating like placemaking in downtown is it has to be uniformed.

It all has to look and so like that's why I'm also willing to use city funds through this fee to pay for it so that we contract it out so that's all the same people are doing like the guidelines are because that's what's gonna make it look good.

If we allow like one business person to like do their own light, and then what the next person doesn't do it, like that's for me why I think that this is important.

So I am good with bullet point three and the RFQ.

Um and bullet point four.

But I don't know how you guys feel gonna um you mentioned the different lights, not having different lights up, so it's all uniform.

Um the the businesses have been voting on on what they want to agree to.

So there is a there is a record of what what they're looking for.

And the vote is warm white lights.

It's the state, but they all want to use the same light, right?

Yeah, they want the same lights, and when there was the vote, they you know, there's the cool white and then the warm white, the warm white one out.

That's that's a pretty popular gentler and and they're not twinkling because we can't have twinkling lights in town.

Yeah, that's a that's a pretty common popular type of downtown street street tree light.

And that's why I said, you know, they're it they're ready to install them now.

And the contract would include the holiday because I mean the the chamber and there actually used to be a holiday decorating team of volunteers.

I mean, I'm like dating myself, but it would be really nice if we're doing this that that is also covered by the contractor, so we're not you know relying on volunteers to do it to age out and then you know, and okay.

Yeah, the idea was to kind of combine the two because it's a very similar type of activity.

Um do an RFQ based on kind of all of the decorative lights, if you will.

Are there any concerns about any of these things?

Is there consensus to move forward with this?

I'm seeing hit the councillor Martinez, do you like inquisitive?

Um yeah, I'm thinking because I know the the tree light, it sounds like will be something that's there all year round.

Where's the Christmas lights only go up?

Yeah, for a short period of time.

Yeah, the tree lights would typically be year-round.

Yeah, so they and then the decorative lights would be like uh I think our current time frame is six weeks or two months.

So they wouldn't necessarily go up at the same time.

No, that would be the same entity would be in charge of both.

Well the same RFP or RFQ.

Sorry, sorry.

I just didn't oh RFQ, okay.

Yeah, okay.

So also Mayor, just uh just to clarify, I can go back and bring some additional information uh to try and clarify the street tree maintenance, this street tree maintenance itself, if the council would like.

I can I can talk to staff about that and see if we can bring something back that may clarify in the code that this area is recognized as um as I for lack of a better way to say it that the city assumes some additional responsibilities in this particular area regarding street tree maintenance.

Yeah.

So okay.

Sounds good.

Do you need anything else from us?

Nope, I don't.

Thank you.

Okay, any other additional comments from council.

Okay, I'm gonna adjourn this work session.

Thank you very much.