Budget Adoption & Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors (location change)

Board of Directors

Date: Mon June 23, 2008

Contact: A Budget Hearing and Regular Meeting of the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District Board of Directors was held at the Elsie Stuhr Center, Manzanita Room, 5550 SW Hall Boulevard, Beaverton, on Monday, June 23, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. Present:
Joseph Blowers President/Director
Larry Pelatt Secretary/Director
Bob Scott Secretary Pro-Tempore/Director
John Griffiths Director
William Kanable (via telephone) Director
Doug Menke General Manager Agenda Item #1 – Call Regular Meeting to Order
President, Joe Blowers, called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Agenda Item #2 – Election of Officers for Fiscal Year 2008-09
President, Joe Blowers, stated that he would open the floor to nominations for Board officers for Fiscal Year 2008-09, taking effect on July 1, 2008. Bill Kanable nominated Larry Pelatt to serve as President of the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District Board of Directors for Fiscal Year 2008-09. Bob Scott seconded the nomination. Hearing no further nominations, roll call proceeded as follows:
John Griffiths Yes
Larry Pelatt Yes
Bob Scott Yes
Bill Kanable Yes
Joe Blowers Yes
The nomination to elect Larry Pelatt to serve as President for Fiscal Year 2008-09 was UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Larry Pelatt nominated Bob Scott to serve as Secretary of the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District Board of Directors for Fiscal Year 2008-09. Joe Blowers seconded the nomination. Hearing no further nominations, roll call proceeded as follows:
Bob Scott Yes
John Griffiths Yes
Larry Pelatt Yes
Bill Kanable Yes
Joe Blowers Yes
The nomination to elect Bob Scott to serve as Secretary for Fiscal Year 2008-09 was UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Bob Scott nominated Bill Kanable to serve as Secretary Pro-Tempore of the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District Board of Directors for Fiscal Year 2008-09. Larry Pelatt seconded the nomination. Hearing no further nominations, roll call proceeded as follows:
Bill Kanable Yes
John Griffiths Yes
Larry Pelatt Yes
Bob Scott Yes
Joe Blowers Yes
The nomination to elect Bill Kanable to serve as Secretary Pro-Tempore for Fiscal Year 2008-09 was UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Agenda Item #3 – Adopt Fiscal Year 2008-09 Budget
A. Open Hearing
President, Joe Blowers, opened the Budget Hearing. B. Staff Report
Keith Hobson, Director of Business & Facilities, provided a brief overview of the memo included within the Board of Directors information packet, noting that Board of Directors approval is requested this evening of the resolution to adopt the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Budget as adjusted, make appropriations, and levy ad valorem taxes. Keith noted that staff is recommending three adjustments to the Approved Budget to be included in the Adopted Budget. The three adjustments are related to the appropriation of grant funds awarded that were not reflected in the Approved Budget. D. Board Discussion (taken out of order)
Bob Scott asked whether the grant for fiber optics was awarded to the Park District because patrons would benefit from the service or rather for the benefit of the District.

• Keith replied both, noting that the grant was awarded through a program for local government agencies to benefit their internal systems as well as public outreach to their constituents.

President, Joe Blowers, stated that he would entertain a motion to approve the recommended adjustments to the Approved Budget. Bob Scott moved the Board of Directors adjust the Budget as outlined by staff; $5,525 for the Jenkins Estate; $10,000 for natural resources; and, $85,000 for fiber line installation to the District’s wide area network. Larry Pelatt seconded the motion. Roll call proceeded as follows:
John Griffiths Yes
Bill Kanable Yes
Larry Pelatt Yes
Bob Scott Yes
Joe Blowers Yes
The motion was UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. C. Public Comment (taken out of order)
There was no public comment. E. Close Hearing
President, Joe Blowers, closed the Budget Hearing. F. Board Action
Bob Scott moved the Board of Directors approve the resolution to adopt the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Budget as adjusted, make appropriations, and levy ad valorem taxes. Bill Kanable seconded the motion. Roll call proceeded as follows:
Larry Pelatt Yes
Bill Kanable Yes
John Griffiths Yes
Bob Scott Yes
Joe Blowers Yes
The motion was UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Bob Scott thanked Spence Benfield for his efforts as Chair of the Budget Committee, as well as the individual members of the Budget Committee. Agenda Item #4 – Audience Time
There was no testimony during Audience Time. Agenda Item #5 – Consent Agenda
Larry Pelatt moved the Board of Directors approve Consent Agenda items (A) Minutes of June 2, 2008 Regular Meeting, and (B) Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Grant Application Resolution. John Griffiths seconded the motion. Roll call proceeded as follows:
Bob Scott Yes
Bill Kanable Yes
John Griffiths Yes
Larry Pelatt Yes
Joe Blowers Yes
The motion was UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Agenda Item #6 – Unfinished Business
A. Future Funding Measure Recommendation
Doug Menke, General Manager, noted that to date, a number of important steps have been taken in evaluating the feasibility of, and seeking public input regarding, a funding measure for the Park District. Doug introduced Don Goldberg, Project Manager for The Trust for Public Land (TPL), who is in attendance this evening to present the results of the second survey, as well as TPL’s recommendation regarding a November 2008 Park District bond measure. A detailed PowerPoint presentation was given that included the following topics pertaining to a November 2008 bond measure. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation was entered into the record.

• Rationale for a Bond Measure
  • Doug provided a brief overview of why the Park District is considering a bond measure, noting that it would be the first such measure for the District since 1994 and that the District has grown substantially in population since then.
• Bond Measure Proposal Public Outreach Program
  • Bob Wayt, Director of Communications & Development, provided a detailed overview of the Public Outreach Program that has occurred to date regarding a potential funding measure, including outreach efforts such as open houses, informal surveys, the establishment of a Bond Measure Task Force, and various information distributions via the Park District’s website, facilities, and the media.
• The Trust for Public Land Support
  • Don Goldberg, Project Manager for TPL, provided a detailed overview of the results of the second statistically valid survey regarding a November 2008 bond measure for the Park District, noting that 63% of voters continue to show support for a $100 million bond measure. However, when presented information regarding a community center to be funded via the bond measure, overall bond measure support decreased to 50%.
  • Don explained that consistent with prior research, the new research suggests that a bond measure funding land preservation and recreational projects in line with Park District voter priorities stands a strong possibility of passing.

Larry Pelatt referenced the survey results stating that close to 90% of respondents had a favorable view of the Park District and asked whether this is an unusually high result. He questioned whether such a high level of support could skew the survey results.

• Don confirmed that it is a high result, but believes it is merely reflecting that residents are happy with the efforts of the Park District and doubts that it would skew the results.

Bob Scott asked what favorability rating is more common.

• Don replied that he does not believe there is a typical result, noting that it depends on the community being surveyed. He stated that the local competing funding measures do not poll nearly as well as the Park District’s. Another indicator that the District is doing a good job is that these high support levels are being seen during an economic downturn.

President, Joe Blowers, stated that it appears the Park District’s residents realize they are receiving value for their tax dollars to the District and that is a good indicator for a bond measure. Larry referenced a previous comment by Don that respondents who are undecided in surveys usually vote in favor of the funding measure once the informational and campaigning efforts take place. Larry asked that given this trend, would not a bond measure including a community center still have a good probability of passing since the current support of 55% plus the support of just half of the 15% of the currently undecided would equal a total support of 62%?

• Doug noted that a follow up question during the survey provided more information regarding the community center component and the results were even less favorable toward the overall bond measure with support dropping to 50%.

Larry expressed that with a margin of error of 4.9% and the undecided voters potentially voting favorably, a bond measure including a community center could still pass.

• Bill Kanable commented that it depends on whether the Park District wants to take a risk and include a community center within the bond package at the jeopardy of the entire measure, or have a successful bond measure and explore other ways to fund a center.

Larry elaborated that he is not willing to sacrifice the entire bond measure for the community center component, but a community center is expensive to fund and the Park District does not have the opportunity for substantial blocks of funding very often. He stated that he wants to be convinced that the District should not include a community center in the bond package.

• Don Goldberg replied that support for the bond measure overall went from 63% to 50% when respondents were asked about a community center. He stated that although TPL could not guarantee that the bond measure would not pass if it included a community center, including a center would make TPL uncomfortable in moving forward.

Joe expressed that another way to view the survey is that the results reflect what the public wants from the Park District. A question to ask is not just whether a bond measure including a community center would pass, but whether the District would be giving the public enough of the components that they said they wanted.

• Bill noted that there are other options available to the Park District to fund a community center other than a bond measure. Although he understands Larry’s comments, the pollsters are providing the information and the Board of Directors needs to make the best decision for the District.

The PowerPoint presentation continued with the following topics:

• Proposed Bond Measure Package
  • Hal Bergsma, Director of Planning; Jim McElhinny, Director of Park & Recreational Services; and Keith Hobson, Director of Business & Facilities, provided a detailed overview of the projects proposed to be included within a bond measure as noted within the Board of Directors information packet. Two packages were presented, one totaling $86,270,000 and the other totaling $99,670,000. An overview of the bond measure projects in five categories was provided: parks, trails, recreational facilities, natural resources, and athletic facilities. In addition, a map showing all of the proposed bond measure projects throughout the Park District was provided as a handout, a copy of which was entered into the record.
• Financial Impact
  • Keith Hobson, Director of Business & Facilities, provided a brief overview of the financial impacts a successful bond measure would have on the Park District and taxpayers, including the operational impact and the annual property tax per household.

Joe asked for confirmation that staff is recommending the level tax rate structure.

• Keith confirmed this.

Joe referenced the scenario presented regarding a successful bond measure’s effect on the general fund and replacement backlog and asked whether a scenario was run that included the impact a community center would have.

• Keith confirmed that such a scenario was run, noting that it resulted in a much longer payoff of the deferred replacement backlog due to the additional operational costs, but that even with the community center, the Park District reached a sustainable point eventually. However, in 2017 there was still some level of backlog in the range of $2-3 million.

The PowerPoint presentation continued with the following topics:

• Proposed Bond Information Program
  • Bob Wayt, Director of Communications & Development, provided a brief overview of the information program that would commence for a November 2008 bond measure, including hiring a consultant experienced in creating such programs.
• Action Requested
  • Doug noted that the action requested of the Board of Directors this evening is as follows:
    1. Approval of a November 2008 bond measure package and amount,
    2. Authorization to work with Park District legal counsel and The Trust for Public Land to take the appropriate legal steps and prepare the appropriate documents in placing a bond measure on the November 2008 ballot, and
    3. Authorization to move forward with a bond measure information program.
  • Doug stated that staff will return to the Board of Directors at the August 4, 2008 Regular Board meeting to present the proposed ballot title, question, and summary statement for adoption.

President, Joe Blowers, opened the floor to public testimony. Greg Cody, 13955 SW Barlow Place, Beaverton, is before the Board of Directors this evening regarding a community center being included within the bond package. He expressed his opinion that the question of the community center was phrased negatively within the survey, noting that if another component of the bond measure, such as acquiring natural areas, was called out within the survey in such detail, he questions whether the survey would have had the same response. He encouraged the Board to consider including a community center within the bond measure package. President, Joe Blowers, opened the floor for Board of Directors discussion. Bill Kanable stated that although he understands the public testimony, due to the survey information received, he is inclined to agree with the staff recommendation. He believes the Park District has a strong chance of a successful measure using the proposed package and that other options should be explored for funding a community center. Bob Scott stated that he was initially concerned with having a bond measure in the amount of $100 million due to the psychological impact of such a number, but after reviewing the staff recommendation regarding the types of projects and distribution throughout the District, as well as the survey results indicating that there was very little difference between that amount and a lesser amount, he is supportive of a $100 million package without a community center.

• President, Joe Blowers, asked Bob whether he supports the recommendation to purchase land with this potential bond measure funding for the site of a future community center.

Bob confirmed this and described Hillsboro School District’s efforts in acquiring land for future growth, noting that due to today’s environment, he believes such strategy is a good use of public tax dollars and would benefit the Park District greatly in the future. John Griffiths expressed concern regarding the decline in support for the measure reflected within the survey due to the inclusion of a community center. In addition, he expressed concern with the strategy of partially funding a community center via the bond measure, noting that this would not provide a guarantee to the public that a facility would actually be constructed. He described the potential for cost overruns, noting that the Park District is not very experienced in such large construction projects. He described the importance of a successful bond measure for the District, stating that he believes that if the District offers what the public has expressed support for, there is a good chance that the measure will be successful. John noted that while he understands the need for seismic upgrades, especially for the Park District’s older facilities such as Cedar Hills and Garden Home Recreation Centers, he also believes that the District needs to have a strategy in place for the eventual replacement or whole scale upgrade of such facilities. He questions whether the District should use the bond measure funds for seismic upgrades, or whether that funding should be set aside for something greater. John referenced the $5 million proposed to acquire land for a future community center, noting that this land should present multiple possibilities for development should the Park District go in another direction due to the upgrade of existing facilities or in the event that the community center concept become obsolete. President, Joe Blowers, asked for additional information regarding the seismic upgrades needed at various Park District facilities.

• Doug Menke, General Manager, noted that at facilities other than Sunset Swim Center, the seismic issues were centered around key elements dealing with egress issues. Beaverton School District has included seismic oriented funds to complete the same basic work in their aging schools within their last three bond measures. Since replacement of Cedar Hills or Garden Home Recreation Centers is not forecasted for the near future, an investment of some range of funds seems relatively prudent, especially considering that a new community center is not proposed for the bond package. Maintaining reasonable integrity and safety within the current facilities will be money well spent and is a relatively small portion of the entire bond amount.
• Keith added that Park District staff is also currently completing the performance contacting study on mechanical systems within these facilities so the upgrades would be both structural and mechanical through two different means: structural through the bond and mechanical through the performance contracting (or energy efficiency). Leveraging both at the same time will realize some economy of scale. In addition, investing the seismic funds in the facilities will result in at least a 20-year life. The only issue that would make the facilities obsolete would be a change in the way the facility is used and by design the facility could not meet such needs. Also, the structural upgrades being discussed would likely be a prerequisite to doing any type of future renovation or expansion of the facilities.

John stated that he is not opposed to the funds for the seismic upgrades, only commenting that the facilities are old and that it requires funding to keep them up to date and that at some point, for various reasons, such facilities become too costly to operate and obsolete in terms of the Park District’s needs. He believes the District needs a plan in place for a future community center, along with an outline regarding when the public can expect the older facilities to be replaced with newer ones, taking into account how long the seismic upgrades will prolong their lifespan.

• Joe replied that his understanding is that evaluations have been completed on such facilities and that some information has been provided in order to create such a path.
• Keith noted that a more detailed structural evaluation would be completed that would outline where the seismic upgrades would go, but that staff is also exploring more detailed studies, beginning with Garden Home Recreation Center.

Bill expressed agreement that a replacement plan is needed in order to help the Park District and Board of Directors with long-range planning. Joe noted that there has been past discussion regarding an expansion at Garden Home Recreation Center, but one of the reasons it is not included within the bond package is because the long-term future of Garden Home Recreation Center is unclear.

• Doug confirmed this, noting that first the initial seismic-oriented study needs to be completed, and then a more detailed comprehensive study similar to what John has described that would create a road map for the future.

John agreed, noting that he believes Beaverton, Sunset, Harman, and Aloha Swim Centers need to be evaluated along with Cedar Hills and Garden Home Recreation Centers. Larry commented that the phrasing of the bond is important in that he does not want to tie the Park District to improvements as specific as seismic upgrades. He noted that staff will be required to return to the Board for approval of such studies, as they are not inexpensive. The terms “facility upgrades” or “renovation” are broad enough to accommodate a variety of improvements that may come as a result of the studies. He stated that he is still concerned about not including a community center within the bond package only because it could be some time before the District receives another large sum of funding, although he does not disagree with any of the other Board members’ comments regarding why it should not be included. Larry questioned whether $5 million would be enough to purchase land for a new community center and suggested reducing some of the funding proposed for neighborhood park acquisition in order to ensure that the land purchased as a site for a new community center is versatile and a large enough footprint to include adequate parking. Or perhaps such funding does not need to be identified so specifically and can be included within the general terms of land acquisition.

• Bill commented that there are other funding sources the Park District could explore in the purchase of a site for a new community center and expressed the need to be cautious in moving funding from other areas of the bond measure.

Larry expressed concern that the Park District would be restricted to allocating only $5 million of bond funds to acquire land for a community center.

• Joe asked for confirmation that such aspects of the bond package are opportunity driven, noting that some items in the bond package may cost less than expected or not happen at all, making such funding available for other land purchases.
• Doug confirmed this, noting that the key broad category will be land acquisition and that the audit or steering committee will be monitoring the allocation of bond funds. He agreed with Bill’s comment that the Board has access to other funds in order to offset projects if need be.

Larry noted that the District has been, at times in the past, a little dogmatically driven and he wants the bond package to be as focused on what the voters say they want and driven by the survey, while allowing opportunity to capitalize as well.

• John commented that the Board will be able to have a more intelligent discussion regarding a future community center once the capital study is available, as it will outline when certain facilities will come off-line and what is planned to replace them.

Larry agreed that the capital study will be very critical in how the Park District plans to move forward over the next ten to twenty years.

• John agreed, noting that a future bond measure could address the results of such a study.

Joe noted that the Park District would also be able to begin building a case to the public that some of the facilities are wearing out and need to be replaced. He does not believe the District currently has the information necessary in order to make such a case right now and that may be part of the reason the support for the bond measure falls when including a community center. John described Metro’s 1995 bond measure, noting that Metro identified regional target areas and that the public was able to identify a target area near them. He described the need to be able to display to the public how well the bond package is distributed throughout the Park District, noting that there are improvements identified in every quadrant. He described that another successful aspect of Metro’s 1995 bond measure was that Metro pledged to purchase 6,000 acres of land, but ultimately purchased 8,000 acres, so when the constituents were asked to vote on a new Metro bond measure in 2006, the trust had already been established and it passed. To the extent that the District can provide the public with what was asked for and over deliver, the District will be in a good position for the next bond measure. President, Joe Blowers, stated that he understands the public testimony received this evening, noting that each Board member was excited about the possibility of a new community center. However, the survey numbers fell to a point where a community center could result in the failure of the entire bond measure. He stated that the Park District needs to be able to show the public that it will provide what they say is important, more than the District needs a new community center. It does not mean that the need for a new community center does not exist; it just means that the District needs to do more research and return to the public in the future with more evidence regarding why a new community center is needed. Joe referenced the seismic upgrades proposed, noting that he understands that these upgrades are not about making the building survive, but that they are about getting patrons out during a large earthquake. He stated that he fully supports such seismic upgrades. Joe commended the Bond Measure Task Force and Park District staff, stating that the proposed bond package mirrors what the public expressed. He expressed support for the $100 million bond package as proposed, without a community center. Bob Scott moved the Board of Directors approve the November 2008 bond measure package of $100 million, direct staff to work with the Park District’s legal counsel and The Trust for Public Land to take the appropriate legal steps and prepare the appropriate documents in placing a bond measure on the November 2008 ballot, and direct staff to move forward with a bond measure information program as outlined. Larry Pelatt seconded the motion. Doug Menke, General Manager, requested that a designation of the package “as presented” be added to the motion on the floor. Bob Scott amended his motion to include Board of Directors approval of the November 2008 bond measure package of $100 million as presented. Larry Pelatt seconded the amended motion. Roll call proceeded as follows:
Bill Kanable Yes
John Griffiths Yes
Larry Pelatt Yes
Bob Scott Yes
Joe Blowers Yes
The motion was UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Agenda Item #7 – Board Time
There was no discussion during Board Time. Agenda Item #8 – Adjourn
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Joe Blowers, PresidentLarry Pelatt, Secretary Recording Secretary,
Jessica Collins

Elsie Stuhr Center, Manzanita Room - 6pm
5550 SW Hall Boulevard
Beaverton, OR 97005

6:00 PM 6:05 PM 6:10 PM 6:25 PM 6:30 PM 6:35 PM 9:50 PM 10:00 PM

Call Regular Meeting to Order Election of Officers for Fiscal Year 2008-09 Budget Hearing: Adopt Fiscal Year 2008-09 Budget Open Hearing Staff Report Public Comment* Board Discussion Close Hearing Board Action Audience Time** Consent Agenda*** Approve: Minutes of June 2, 2008 Regular Meeting Approve: Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Grant Application Resolution Unfinished Business Approve: November 2008 Bond Measure Package Board Time Adjourn

*Public Comment: Please note there is a 3-minute time limit per person/roup regarding the FY 2008-09 Budget. **Audience Time: If you wish to be heard on an item not on the agenda you may be heard under Audience Time with a 3-minute time limit. If you wish to speak on an agenda item, please wait until it is before the Board. Note: Agenda items may not be considered in the order listed. ***Consent Agenda: Consent Agenda items will be approved without discussion unless there is a request to discuss a particular consent agenda item. The issue separately discussed will be voted on separately. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), this material, in an alternate format, or special accommodations for the meeting, will be made available by calling 503-645-6433 at least two business days prior to the meeting.