REGULAR MEETING OF THE WOOD VILLAGE CITY COUNCIL

September 11, 2018 AGENDA

6:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

1. Citizen Comments (non-agenda items)

2. Parks Commission Appointment:a. Michelle Asivido

3. Public Safety Report (MCSO)

4. Consent Calendar:a. Review of bills paid in August, 2018

b. Contracts $2,500 - $50,000• Professional Pipe Services – Shea Liftstation Vactor and

TV: $4,709.33

5. Resolution 34-2018 Parks Master Plan Update – John Niiyama

6. Resolution 35-2018 Residential Speed Study and Reduction of Speed Limits – John Niiyama

7. Discussion: Recap from 3-Cities Meeting on Plastic Bags – Bill Peterson

8. Nite Out Debrief – Greg Dirks

9. Discussion: Tree Lighting Event – Greg Dirks

EXECUTIVE SESSION: 192.660(2) (e) To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions.

ADJOURN The meeting location is wheelchair accessible. This information is available in large print upon request. To request large-print documents or for accommodations such as assistive listening device, sign language, and/or oral interpreter, please call 503-667-6211 at least two working days in advance of this meeting. (TDD 1-800-735-2900).

NEXT MEETING: Thursday, September 27, 2017

9/4/2018 2:05:37 PM Page 1 of 3

Check ReportCITY OF WOOD VILLAGE By Check Number

Date Range: 08/01/2018 - 08/31/2018

Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Amount NumberPayment TypePayment Date Discount Amount

Bank Code: AP River-AP Riverview Bank

0431 76 FOODMART 08/06/2018 2255367.39Regular 0.00

0970 ADVANCE AUTO PARTS 08/06/2018 2255430.45Regular 0.00

0134 AQUA-TECH BACKFLOW SERVICE 08/06/2018 22555285.00Regular 0.00

10033 CHR CREATIVE 08/06/2018 22556270.00Regular 0.00

0505 CITY OF FAIRVIEW 08/06/2018 2255764.84Regular 0.00

0510 CITY OF GRESHAM 08/06/2018 2255833,063.51Regular 0.00

10081 CORRECT EQUIPMENT 08/06/2018 22559800.00Regular 0.00

1054 FIRWOOD DESIGN GROUP, LLC 08/06/2018 22560206.25Regular 0.00

1076 FLASHALERT NEWSWIRE 08/06/2018 22561196.00Regular 0.00

0340 GRESHAM LOCKSMITH, INC. 08/06/2018 2256245.00Regular 0.00

1429 JOHN DEERE FINANCIAL 08/06/2018 22563183.98Regular 0.00

1448 KELLER ASSOCIATES, INC 08/06/2018 225641,275.00Regular 0.00

1571 LOWES COMPANIES, INC 08/06/2018 22565380.25Regular 0.00

**Void** 08/06/2018 225660.00Regular 0.00

1640 MARIE KIZZAR 08/06/2018 22567222.04Regular 0.00

1775 MULTNOMAH CO. TREASURY 08/06/2018 225688,083.79Regular 0.00

10122 NET ASSETS 08/06/2018 2256976.00Regular 0.00

2210 PARKROSE HARDWARE 08/06/2018 2257025.56Regular 0.00

1056 PORTLAND WEB DESIGN 08/06/2018 22571110.00Regular 0.00

3122 WEST COLUMBIA GORGE 08/06/2018 22572350.00Regular 0.00

2260 ADVENTIST HEALTH OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE 08/14/2018 22573394.00Regular 0.00

0520 CITY OF GRESHAM 08/14/2018 22574692.75Regular 0.00

1200 GLOBAL NETWORK SUPPORT INC. 08/14/2018 225751,595.00Regular 0.00

10164 JOHNSON ECONOMICS LLC 08/14/2018 225764,087.50Regular 0.00

1500 LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES 08/14/2018 225771,620.00Regular 0.00

10159 LRS ARCHITECTS, INC 08/14/2018 225787,271.25Regular 0.00

1610 MASTERTECH SECURITY SVC 08/14/2018 2257980.85Regular 0.00

10166 MIG, INC 08/14/2018 22580405.00Regular 0.00

1780 MULTNOMAH COUNTY (SIGNS) 08/14/2018 225814,106.43Regular 0.00

2046 OPENONLINE, LLC 08/14/2018 22582115.00Regular 0.00

2350 POSTMASTER 08/14/2018 22583730.00Regular 0.00

1335 PUMPTECH, INC 08/14/2018 225841,160.00Regular 0.00

10003 RIVER CITY ENVIRONMENTAL 08/14/2018 225851,872.42Regular 0.00

0287 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC 08/21/2018 225862,068.22Regular 0.00

0505 CITY OF FAIRVIEW 08/21/2018 2258711,829.00Regular 0.00

0730 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE, INC 08/21/2018 22588483.60Regular 0.00

1290 HACH COMPANY 08/21/2018 22589205.12Regular 0.00

1648 MERINA & COMPANY, LLP 08/21/2018 225908,000.00Regular 0.00

1960 OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN 08/21/2018 22591490.36Regular 0.00

2020 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INC 08/21/2018 2259242.00Regular 0.00

10167 PLATINUM LANDSCAPE MAINT LLC 08/21/2018 22593175.00Regular 0.00

2415 PROFESSIONAL PIPE SERVICES 08/21/2018 225944,709.33Regular 0.00

10165 SERVICE MASTER BUILDING SERVICES 08/21/2018 22595880.00Regular 0.00

1049 FEI PORTLAND WATERWORKS #3011 08/28/2018 225962,712.72Regular 0.00

0960 KIP EDGLEY 08/28/2018 225973,130.00Regular 0.00

1762 KNIFE RIVER 08/28/2018 22598393.39Regular 0.00

1760 MOEN MACHINERY COMPANY 08/28/2018 22599209.95Regular 0.00

2015 OLYMPIC FOUNDRY INC 08/28/2018 226001,045.20Regular 0.00

2172 OTAK 08/28/2018 226016,497.40Regular 0.00

10011 PIXIS LABS, LLC 08/28/2018 22602419.40Regular 0.00

0081 AFLAC 08/28/2018 22603123.35Regular 0.00

0637 CONST & GEN LABORERS' UNION LOCAL 737 08/28/2018 2260476.00Regular 0.00

0170 AT & T MOBILITY 08/06/2018 DFT0001086447.34Bank Draft 0.00

0920 CIS TRUST 08/06/2018 DFT000108730,901.02Bank Draft 0.00

Check Report Date Range: 08/01/2018 - 08/31/2018

9/4/2018 2:05:37 PM Page 2 of 3

Vendor Number Vendor Name Payment Amount NumberPayment TypePayment Date Discount Amount

1120 FRONTIER 08/06/2018 DFT000108889.99Bank Draft 0.00

2270 PGE 08/06/2018 DFT0001089105.81Bank Draft 0.00

2270 PGE 08/06/2018 DFT000109020.50Bank Draft 0.00

2270 PGE 08/06/2018 DFT000109120.38Bank Draft 0.00

1390 INTEGRA TELECOM 08/14/2018 DFT00010921,223.42Bank Draft 0.00

2270 PGE 08/14/2018 DFT0001093954.94Bank Draft 0.00

2270 PGE 08/14/2018 DFT0001094142.12Bank Draft 0.00

2270 PGE 08/14/2018 DFT000109517.77Bank Draft 0.00

2270 PGE 08/14/2018 DFT0001096339.28Bank Draft 0.00

2270 PGE 08/14/2018 DFT00010973,225.78Bank Draft 0.00

2270 PGE 08/14/2018 DFT000109825.04Bank Draft 0.00

2270 PGE 08/14/2018 DFT00010991,517.50Bank Draft 0.00

2270 PGE 08/14/2018 DFT000110043.56Bank Draft 0.00

2270 PGE 08/14/2018 DFT00011012,097.70Bank Draft 0.00

2270 PGE 08/14/2018 DFT0001102673.27Bank Draft 0.00

2270 PGE 08/14/2018 DFT000110322.31Bank Draft 0.00

1120 FRONTIER 08/21/2018 DFT000110426.93Bank Draft 0.00

1710 MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP 08/21/2018 DFT00011051,452.00Bank Draft 0.00

1920 NW NATURAL 08/21/2018 DFT000110616.08Bank Draft 0.00

2704 STERICYCLE COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS 08/21/2018 DFT000110761.07Bank Draft 0.00

2153 OREGON DEPT OF JUSTICE 08/31/2018 DFT0001110600.00Bank Draft 0.00

0920 CIS TRUST 08/28/2018 DFT000111113,273.52Bank Draft 0.00

1358 ICMA 08/28/2018 DFT00011121,500.00Bank Draft 0.00

1880 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOL. 08/28/2018 DFT00011131,400.00Bank Draft 0.00

2200 OREGON PERS 08/28/2018 DFT000111414,247.50Bank Draft 0.00

1120 FRONTIER 08/28/2018 DFT000111548.84Bank Draft 0.00

1920 NW NATURAL 08/28/2018 DFT0001116225.16Bank Draft 0.00

1920 NW NATURAL 08/28/2018 DFT0001117101.85Bank Draft 0.00

10107 RIVERVIEW CC - CA 08/28/2018 DFT000111815.00Bank Draft 0.00

10108 RIVERVIEW CC - FD 08/28/2018 DFT0001119403.00Bank Draft 0.00

10109 RIVERVIEW CC - HR 08/28/2018 DFT00011204,415.89Bank Draft 0.00

10110 RIVERVIEW CC - PW 08/28/2018 DFT00011213,027.69Bank Draft 0.00

Regular Checks

Manual Checks

Voided Checks

Discount

PaymentCountPayment Type

Bank Code AP River Summary

Bank Drafts

EFT's

51

0

1

34

0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

86 0.00

Payment

113,355.30

0.00

0.00

82,682.26

0.00

196,037.56

PayableCount

80

0

0

99

0

179

Check Report Date Range: 08/01/2018 - 08/31/2018

Page 3 of 39/4/2018 2:05:37 PM

All Bank Codes Check Summary

Payment Type DiscountPayment

Count PaymentPayable

Count

Regular Checks

Manual Checks

Voided Checks

Bank Drafts

EFT's

51

0

1

34

0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

86 0.00

113,355.30

0.00

0.00

82,682.26

0.00

196,037.56

80

0

0

99

0

179

Fund Name AmountPeriod

Fund Summary

01 POOLED CASH FUND 196,037.568/2018

196,037.56

City Council Agenda Item Staff Report Meeting Date: September 11, 2018

TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John Niiyama, Public Works Director DATE: September 11, 2018 SUBJECT: Citywide Parks Master Plan Requested Parks and Recreation Commission Action Adopt Resolution 34-2018 updating the Park Master Plan. Background The current Park Master Plan was adopted in October of 2015, and is a strategic guide to the development and enhancement of the current recreational areas including the Donald Robertson Park and trail systems, and provides options for the future expansion of the parks and trail systems throughout the community. During the creation of the 2015 Parks Master Plan, residents made public their desire to have additional nature trails and viewing areas. The proposed update to the plan includes specific enhancements to the Donald Robertson Park including: futsal court, skate park, and sports field enhancements. Those proposed updates were brought forward by the City Council, as well as potential grant opportunities to add additional park facilities. The update also includes a conceptual layout of the existing trailhead connection at Hawthorne Ave., which will provide connectivity to the proposed nature enhancement area adjacent to Treehill. Developing a plan for the use of this area of the park property is the most cost effective method the City has to expand park capacity. The developed trailhead will also enhance service and emergency vehicle access (solid waste, street sweeper, City Public Works, police and fire), as well as provide some parking to access this area of the park.

The population of the City has grown by 1,200 since 2000. With an estimated population of over 5,000 in the next 15 years (per 2015 estimates). Serving existing and future residents will require improvements to existing parks and expansion of the park, trail and recreation system. Funding is available from State and Metro resources

for park development. The Park Master plan is critical and necessary to demonstrate the commitment to connectivity, expansion, and fulfilling the needs/wants of our citizens. Seeking opportunities to incorporate under developed sites within the City. Examples include the 0.6 mile Arata Trail Concept—providing safe connectivity for residents and Town Center visitors access to the nature trail, as well as the one-acre site near Treehill that can be enhanced for further recreation and educational opportunities.

It is important to note that the inclusion of a project does not mean that the project will be constructed. The inclusion of a project simply enables the project to be considered for completion and funding. The size and potential impact of a project will determine the specific public outreach and engagement efforts and approach. All projects will go before the Parks Commission, Budget Committee, and City Council prior to becoming funded. The draft was presented to the Parks Commission on August 14, 2018. A quorum was not present, so a formal recommendation was not made. However, the majority present recommended its adoption by the City Council.

Fiscal Impact Funding for the Parks Master Plan was allocated through the 2017-2018 Parks Capital Budget.

High Level Estimates Provided by Conservation Technix 2016 ‐ 2020 Capital Facilities Plan Donald L. Robertson Park Upgrades Park Signs $ 25,500 Gorge HUB $ 45,000 Trash Enclosure $ 15,000 Restroom Improvements $ 45,000 New Parking Area $ 234,550 Sport Field Improvements $ 323,960 Play Area Improvements $ 7,500 Paths and Trails $ 72,500 Site Furnishings $ 24,600 Landscaping $ 74,950 Futsal Court $ 155,000 Hawthorne Trailhead Area $ 111,900 Splash Pad $ 150,000 Skate Park $ 252,000 Open Space / Wetland $ 550,000 Robertson Park Trail Extension (Cherry Park Market) R $ 75,000

Glisan ‐ Arata Trail Connection $ 450,000 Arata ‐ Halsey Trail Connection $ 572,940 Halsey ‐ Fairview Woods Wetlands Connection $ 425,000 City Goal Adopting the Citywide Parks Master Plan supports City Goals: GOAL 1: A safe, clean, livable community with a sense of pride, quality housing, and

strong identity. GOAL 3: High quality, cost-effective public utilities, parks and events. GOAL 4: Long-term financial stability, economic vitality and growth. Recommendations and Suggested Motion: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution to update the Citywide Parks Master Plan.

I move to adopt Resolution 34-2018 adopting the updated Citywide Parks Master Plan.

RESOLUTION 34-2018

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE UPDATED CITYWIDE PARKS MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF WOOD VILLAGE

WHEREAS, the proposed Citywide Parks Master Plan addresses the changing needs of the community, future growth and development, connectivity throughout the City, and updated technical data since the Plan was last adopted November 9, 2015. WHEREAS, the Plan provides an assessment of the current and future needs, WHEREAS, the primary goals of the Plan are based on community and Council input along with environmental analysis to guide City decision making to ensure that the parks and trail system meets the future needs of the Wood Village community, WHEREAS, the Plan provides a Capital Improvement Program, WHEREAS, Conservation Technix provided outside professional consultant services. Updating the 2015 Master Plan, WHEREAS, presented to the Parks Commission August 14, 2018, although a quorum was not assembled, the majority present recommended to present to Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wood Village that the Citywide Parks Master Plan amendment be APPROVED. Motion to approve by , seconded by and adopted this 11th day of September 2018

YEAS NAYS _

______________________ TIMOTHY CLARK, MAYOR

ATTEST: _____________________ GREG DIRKS, CITY RECORDER

45

Parks Master Plan | 2015

The Donald L. Robertson Park (Robertson Park) is a 20-acre park located on the eastern boundary of the City of Wood Village. The park is located directly south of NE Halsey Street at NE 244th Avenue. The park is bounded by residential uses on the north and west sides and commercial and institutional uses on the east and south. This popular park is the primary recreation site for Wood Village and an important gathering place for community events such as the annual Wood Village Easter Egg Hunt – the thousands of eggs full of candy and prizes that are distributed attract hundreds of children and their parents every year. The park features active and passive recreation amenities and is patronized by the greater community, as well as by park neighbors. Park features include an expansive playground structure, a multi-purpose recreation field, a baseball backstop, basketball courts, picnic shelter and event gazebo, picnic areas, nature trails, interpretive signs and an arboretum, along with restrooms and parking areas.

BackgroundIn October 1989, the Wood Village City Council appointed a committee to investigate and prepare plans for the development of the property then known as Wood Village City Park. The committee established the following goal that provided direction for future planning efforts at the park:

This committee, recognizing the need to provide a focal point for community pride and an identifying symbol for our City, proposes to develop a plan for the Wood Village City Park that will help meet these needs by providing for a well-maintained, functional, and fully developed City Park. - Donald L Robertson City Park Master Plan Update, February 2002

The development plan for the City Park was presented on April 11, 1990 in a

6Donald L. Robertson Park

46

CITY OF WOOD VILLAGE

report to the City Council and citizens. In 1996, the City received grant funding to make park improvements and create the 1996 City Park Master Plan. The plan, which outlined recommendations and suggestions for park improvements, was presented to and adopted by the Wood Village City Council on June 21, 1996.Since the adoption of the 1996 master plan, many improvements have been made to the park. They include the expansion and re-grading of the playground to include installation of new playground equipment; the placement of wood benches, light poles, and a drinking fountain; drainage improvements for the softball fields; sidewalk and Americans with Disabilities (ADA) restroom improvements; the conversion, resurfacing and striping of the tennis courts for use as additional parking; the re-alignment, replanting, and development of Arata Creek, including a new footbridge; the placement of a retaining wall at designated parking areas and the east boundary of the park; the location of trail signs; and the planting of numerous trees and the installation of a new sprinkler system. On January 10, 2001, the City Council changed the name of the Wood Village City Park to the Donald L. Robertson City Park to honor a former mayor. Since then, the City has upgraded the park and repaired various facilities and amenities. Robertson Park continues to provide important recreation and open space opportunities for the Wood Village community.

Existing ConditionsThe park includes both active and passive recreation areas with a range of development intensities across the site. The wooded, northern 3.2-acre section of the park along NE Halsey Street was the first to be built and is the most intensively developed. This zone of the park includes the park entry and parking, restroom and picnic areas, playground and sport courts. South of the core park area, a 4.8-acre natural grass multipurpose field provides open space for organized sports, community events and other active recreation. These sports fields include baseball/softball backstops. Though once heavily used for league play, today the fields are used primarily as a youth practice facility. The irrigation in the area of the sports fields no longer functions. A woodchip trail and park benches are located around the perimeter of the fields. Further south, the park becomes less developed and more natural in character. The park area along Arata Creek is approximately 4.8 acres in size and includes an arboretum, amphitheater, boardwalks over the creek, and interpretive signs. This passive use area is bordered by residential and institutional neighbors and includes a trail that continues south to the bluff area along the park’s southern boundary. At the southwest corner of the site, a 5.4-acre wooded park area is surrounded by residential uses. This intact natural area includes many deciduous and coniferous trees and several small springs flow to become tributaries of Arata Creek. Informal trails bisect this natural area and provide informal connections to the park from the adjacent Treehill and Cottonwood Condominium complexes. South of the natural area, an informal earthen path climbs approximately 100 vertical feet through a 2-acre north-facing bluff to a small concrete plaza lookout.

47

Parks Master Plan | 2015

The park property continues south and abuts land owned by the Reynolds School District near NE 238th Drive. This section of the park provides panoramic views of the Columbia River, but it is visually isolated and is downgraded by vandalism and litter. Pedestrians coming from the adjacent residential areas can access several areas of Robertson Park. Pedestrians can also access the park from the sidewalks along NE Halsey Street. The existing trails in the park are well used. Access by vehicles is currently limited to one location off NE Halsey Street. Parking facilities appear to be adequate but, especially during softball games, frequently overflow onto NE Halsey Street. ADA access has been improved since the park’s original construction. Over the years, the City added wheelchair ramps to sidewalks, installed accessible parking stalls, modified accesses to park toilets and the drinking fountain, and added ADA accessible engineered wood fiber surfacing in the playground and wood chip paths around the park. Additional ADA improvements may be required, and it is recommended that an ADA assessment of park facilities be completed in the future.

Site InventoryA site inventory conducted in April 2014 identified existing amenities and assessed the general condition of park facilities, and a pedestrian survey documented and photographed existing conditions. The inventory of the park amenities is as follows:

Figure 15. Robertson Park Amenities & Condition

Amenities Condition

1 concrete plaza and overlook poor

220 linear feet of dirt trail / railroad tie stairs unimproved compacted / deteriorated

12 park benches new, good condition

200 linear feet boardwalk over wetland new, good condition

1 small amphitheater good, under utilized

2 older baseball backstops with bleachers in disrepair, bleachers broken

1 bike rack good condition

1 large 20’x36’ covered pavilion structure good condition

1 restroom building 31’x35’ fair condition

1 small 20’x15’ covered gazebo good condition

1 basketball half court new, good condition

1 large playground play structure good condition, clean and well used

11 picnic tables good condition

5,300 linear feet of improved mulch trail good condition, some areas muddy

2 trash receptacles near parking area fair condition

66 parking stalls good condition

1 fenced in trash enclosure with two dumpsters good condition

1 large entry monument sign good condition

1 large fenced in park maintenance area good condition

48

CITY OF WOOD VILLAGE

Basketball Court Restroom Structure

Playground Picnic Shelter

Outdoor Learning AreaGazebo

49

Parks Master Plan | 2015

Park Use and Community InputAs Wood Village grows and as demands on Robertson Park change, the City should plan on-going improvements and repair work at the park to keep it functional, safe, and attractive. Because of the site’s prime location and high utilization, many opportunities exist to make additions and improvements. The planning process included a community survey that asked respondents how often they, or members of their household, had visited Robertson Park over the last year. Over half replied that they had visited the park at least once per month in the last year. The survey also asked about activities when visiting the park. A majority of respondents said their primary activity was walking along the trails and wildlife viewing. Picnicking and attending community events were also popular. Fewer than one in five reported participating in field or court sports while visiting the park.Finally, respondents were asked what improvements they felt were most needed at Robertson Park. Nearly 80 percent supported expanded wildlife areas and arboretum plantings, which may reflect respondents’ high participation in nature and wildlife observation. The respondents also requested additional parking, benches, picnic tables, and landscaping and enhanced playground and sports fields. Additional ideas included a water spray park, safety improvements, and improved signage. Additional input for the planning process came from stakeholder meetings and a community open house.

Figure 16. Most Needed Improvements at Robertson Park

The survey and the meetings resulted in a list of issues and improvement opportunities - itemized below.

IssuesVandalism and graffiti abatement at restroom and lookoutRepairs needed to restroom facilityRepair or replace drinking fountainReplenish engineered wood fiber surfacing at playground and park pathwaysRemove invasive plants like blackberries and ivy

■

■

■

■

■

0.0%

26.3%

26.3%

31.6%

31.6%

36.8%

36.8%

36.8%

36.8%

78.9%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

Signage

Paved/soft surface trails

Safety improvements (lights, fencing, signs, etc.)

Improved sport fields and facilities

Splash pad / water spray feature

More parking

More benches and picnic tables

More landscaping and irrigation

Expanded playground

Expanded wildlife areas / arboretum plantings

50

CITY OF WOOD VILLAGE

Repair existing irrigation system in parkRepair or remove existing underutilized sports facilities (backstops and bleachers)Relocate dumpsters to be a little further away from playground and picnic shelter

OpportunitiesImprove the playground area with new equipment and safety surfacingAdd distance markers for trailsDevelop consistent theme for park signs similar to Gorge HUB signsRepair and enhance the lookout on south bluff and improve visibility to site through thinning of trees and vegetation Enhance the trail connection between the golf course and park trail. Encourage trail connections through state and Metro grant funding and partnership with Troutdale and McMenamins to complete the Bluff Trail networkConsider land acquisitions to expand park to the south and provide connection to NE 238th DriveProvide additional educational and recreational programming in parkRenovate sport fields with irrigation and lightingExpand arboretum plantings and add interpretive signageMiscellaneous park improvements including:

Add on-site storage area or buildingAdd lighting to amphitheater and sport fieldsDevelop a spray park Add Gorge Bike Hub maps/signage to the site to support local tourism and biking experienceAdd trails and parking area near Treehill CondominiumsInstall public art Add a covered bridge along trail

Park Master Plan UpdateAfter careful consideration and analysis of the existing site conditions, an updated conceptual master plan was prepared that addresses the opportunities and issues identified by the inventory and community input. The improvements proposed in the concept plan would build on the positive park attributes identified by the community, expand recreation opportunities and enhance user enjoyment. They also would address maintenance and operations challenges by relocating and renovating specific park amenities. The park master plan was updated in 2018 responding to additional community input and new public-private partnership opportunities. These updates include the addition of new recreation amenities and relocation of existing park facilities. In addition, several improvements noted in the 2014 master plan have been constructed or are currently under construction.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■♦

♦

♦

♦

♦

♦

♦

51

Parks Master Plan | 2015

Building upon the 2014 plan, the proposed improvements include the following elements:

Enhanced multi-purpose sport fields with new irrigation and potential future field lighting to expand seasonal useNew Skate Park near NE Halsey StreetNew open-air Futsal CourtExpanded parking area to support increased demand from sport field improvements and community eventsNew park entry gate and bicycle hubExpanded play area including splash padImproved picnic areas and repairs to restroom facilitiesRelocated trash dumpsters with screening and provision of on-site storageEnhanced arboretum and native plantings to increase wildlife viewing opportunities. Provide interpretive and educational signageImproved Treehill park access, trailhead, landscape restoration, and nature play area

Multi-Purpose Sport Field The concept plan includes the renovation of the existing southwest baseball field and the conversion of the existing northeast baseball field to a multi-purpose sport field to accommodate use by various organized sports and for general open active recreation. The improved baseball/softball diamond and backstop would be located in the southwest corner of the site, allowing soccer and other field sports to function as overlays in the outfield area. This section of the site would be graded to accommodate fields of different configurations - sized according to the programmed sport and the players’ ages. The natural grass turf would be renovated and new irrigation would keep the fields playable throughout the year. Lighting for the baseball/softball field would accommodate adult-league play. A perimeter walking path would be installed around the sport field area.

Vehicular Circulation and ParkingElements of the concept plan address many of the issues brought up by stakeholders and members of the public. The plan includes an expanded parking lot with a loop road and designated drop-off area near the sport field and play area. Expanding the parking in this area would better accommodate those who attend organized sport activities and larger community events. In the plan, the existing dead-end parking near the picnic shelter has been removed and an enhanced picnic area has been added; elements of the plan formalize ADA parking and add paved pathways from the parking spaces to the playground and picnic facilities. The plan also proposes relocating the dumpster to a screened enclosure along the loop road and adding a new park access, as well as trailhead at the Treehill area.

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

52

CITY OF WOOD VILLAGE

Playground AreaThe plan proposes the expansion of the main playground area to accommodate new play equipment including a splash pad water feature. The expanded play area would be located near the picnic shelter and adjacent to new grass picnic areas. The plan also would add a perimeter walkway to improve ADA accessibility to the play areas. A small nature play area would be created with enhancements at the Treehill park entrance.

Skate ParkThe plan proposes a new 3,600 square foot skate park facility located in a lawn area between the existing parking lot and NE Halsey Street. This location offers good connectivity to parking, park amenities, and sidewalks along NE Halsey Street. The skate park will be visible from the adjacent public streets and provide an active, year-round use for Robertson Park.

Futsal CourtThe plan proposes a 50-foot by 82-foot open air futsal court located near the picnic shelter and the multi-purpose sport fields. Futsal is a popular offshoot of soccer that is played on a hardcourt and focuses on ball-control, passing and footwork. The City is exploring partnership opportunities with local youth sport leagues to develop and manage a futsal court at Robertson Park.

Architectural ImprovementsThe existing park structures are in relatively good condition. New exterior stone veneer and new fixtures are proposed by the concept plan for the existing restroom building. The proposed lighting enhancements would improve security and deter vandalism. The City should consider embellishing blank building walls with murals, interpretive signs and/or other forms of public art. The addition of a covered footbridge over Arata Creek would draw users into the arboretum area and encourage the use of the park’s pathways and boardwalks. A new trash enclosure near the entrance to the park would screen the dumpsters and fencing would buffer the maintenance area near the Treehill entrance.

Pathway ImprovementsThe concept plan recommends renovating existing pathways and creating new paths through the main park areas, including a new trailhead at the end of NE Hawthorne Avenue. A new path would connect the Treehill entrance a to the new nature play area. The plan proposes restoring the earthen trail leading to the lookout with new stairs and switchbacks to accommodate the steep grades in this part of the site. Beyond the lookout, a new trail would continue south to NE 238th Drive and connect to the Troutdale Bluff Trail linking Robertson Park to the neighborhoods to the east.

53

Parks Master Plan | 2015

Landscape Improvements The improvements included in the concept plan would create new planting areas in the parking area while preserving larger existing trees on site. The plan proposes enhanced shade garden plantings under the existing tall conifers and habitat enhancement near the nature play area. The plan also proposes additional arboretum plantings and would support habitat plantings with native plants. The native plants will enhance habitat for wildlife. With the proposed improvements, the existing trees along NE Halsey Street would be limbed up to improve the views into the site from the main road and the natural grass turf of the sport field would be renovated.

Signage and Wayfinding The concept plan proposes to relocate the park entry sign when the parking lot is expanded and to enhance signage at the arboretum. In addition, wayfinding signs and maps consistent with the Gorge Bike HUB plan are being installed at Robertson Park to support the bikers and walkers exploring the Columbia River Gorge. Distance markers would be added to the walking paths around the park.

SummaryToday, Robertson Park remains an important open space and recreational amenity for the residents of Wood Village, and the park must support a growing and changing community into the future. The concept master plan outlines long-term actions for park improvements and is intended to help guide decisions about funding and development.

54

CITY OF WOOD VILLAGE

Page left intentionally blank.

56

CITY OF WOOD VILLAGE

Page left intentionally blank.

City Council Agenda Item Staff Report

Meeting Date: September 11, 2018

____________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John Niiyama, Public Works Director DATE: September 11, 2018 SUBJECT: Public Safety Residential Speed Reduction Requested Council Action Adopt Resolution 35-2018 reducing regulatory speed posting for residential streets (upper village & original village) from 25 mph to 20 mph in accordance with ORS810.180(10) within the City of Wood Village. Background On several occasions each month, the City receives requests, inquiries, or complaints regarding the posted speed in residential areas of the City. The posted speed in all residential areas of the City is the statutory speed of 25 mph. Until last year, the City was not able to take any action on the requests to reduce the regulatory posted speed without a ODOT Speed Study. In 2017, ORS 810.180(10) which covers speed regulations was revised as follows: ORS810.180(10): A road authority may establish by ordinance a designated speed for a highway under the jurisdiction of the road authority that is five miles per hour lower than the statutory speed. The following apply to the authority granted under this subsection:

(a) The highway is located in a residence district. (b) The statutory speed may be overridden by a designated speed only if:

(A) The road authority determines that the highway has an average volume of fewer than 2,000 motor vehicles per day, more than 85 percent of which are traveling less than 30 mph; and

(B) There is a traffic control device on the highway that indicates the presence of pedestrians or bicyclists.

This means that municipal organizations are able to override and reduce speeds by 5 mph if the above-conditions are met. The City of Portland City Council approved an ordinance on January 17, 2018, reducing the speed limit on all residential streets to 20mph. The City of Fairview approved Ordinance 10-2017 reducing the speed limit in Historic Fairview from 25mph to 20mph effective December 1, 2017. Other agencies around the Portland Metropolitan Area have also approved their own Residential Speed Reduction. The Public Works Department undertook a speed and traffic study, which produced the following results: Maple (east of NE 238th) 347 vehicles 85th Percentile 21 mph Birch (east of NE 238th) 243 vehicles 85th Percentile 17 mph Birch (south of NE Halsey) 182 vehicles 85th Percentile 15 mph Ash (east of NE 238th) 149 vehicles 85th Percentile 19 mph NE 239th (north of Glisan) 1,499 vehicles 85th Percentile 20 mph Based on the collected information, the City can reduce the posted speed in the Original Village and Upper Village neighborhoods from 25mph to 20mph. Additional signage will be required at all main entry points, and an example of the required sign is below: Example of Speed Sign with additional traffic control device the follows the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Fiscal Impact The cost for revised signage for speed limits (9), pedestrian signs (9), and City staff labor $5,000. The cost will be allocated through the Street Improvement Budget.

City Goal Adopting the Public Safety Residential Speed Reduction Resolution will support City Goal 1 : A safe, clean, livable community with a sense of pride, quality housing, and strong identity. Alternatives At Council’s direction staff will

1. Proceed with posting all City of Wood Village residential streets at 20 mph and pedestrian sign.

2. Proceed with posting City of Wood Village residential streets located in the upper village and original village at 20 mph and pedestrian sign.

3. Leave regulatory 25 mph as is. 4. Postpone to a later date.

Recommendation and Suggested Motions It is recommended that the resolution to reduce regulatory speed posting for all City of Wood Village residential streets be adopted. “I move to adopt Resolution 35-2018 reducing the regulatory speed for all City of Wood Village residential streets to 20 mph under ORS810.180(10).”

RESOLUTION 35-2018

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE REDUCTION OF THE POSTED SPEED TO ALL RESIDENTIAL STREETS WITHIN THE CITY OF WOOD VILLAGE TO 20 MPH

WHEREAS, the Oregon Revised Statutes grants local government road authorities the ability to reduce speed limits on residential streets if certain conditions are met, WHEREAS, a traffic study was conducted by City of Wood Village Public Works meeting the requirements under ORS810.180(10), allowing the road authority to reduce the speed limit from 25 mph to 20 mph, WHEREAS, ORS810.180(10) road authority determines that the highway has an average volume of fewer than 2,000 motor vehicles per day, more than 85 percent of which are traveling less than 30 miles per hour, WHEREAS, supporting regional safety improvements for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles on residential streets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wood Village that the posted speed for all residential streets within city limits under the jurisdiction of City of Wood Village be 20 mph. Motion to approve by , seconded by and adopted this 11th day of September 2018

YEAS NAYS _

_________________________ TIMOTHY CLARK, MAYOR

ATTEST: _________________________ GREG DIRKS, CITY RECORDER

City Council Agenda Item Staff Report Meeting Date: September 11, 2018

TO: Mayor and Councilors FROM: Bill Peterson: City Manager and Greg Dirks, HR&Records DATE: August 31, 2018 SUBJECT: Single Use Plastic Bags; Ban or Regulate in other Manner? Participate in

Task Force Requested Council Action Select representatives to the multi-city task force on single use plastic bags, and discuss the plastic bag issue. The purpose of the discussion will be to provide direction to our representatives, and to the staff, on the character of approach that the City Council would desire. Background The City Council placed the exploration and consideration of action to ban single use plastic bags 2018/19 Annual Performance Plan. The APP has the effort beginning in October, and going through April of 2019. Mayor Tosterud of Fairview attended the July 17, 2018 City Council meeting to express his interest in a plastic bag ban, and set a three-cities meeting to discuss the issue. The three-cities meeting occurred on August 16th at the Fairview City Hall. Elected officials from all three cities were present, as were representatives from Multnomah County, Metro, Gresham, and Sen. Monnes-Anderson. Nathan Clark from Multnomah County provided a presentation regarding the issues with single-use plastic bags, and the main issues presented included impacts on the waste stream and littering. The elected officials had a robust conversation about potential actions and next steps. A consensus on the issue and next steps was not formed, and an ad-hoc committee was developed to further review the issue. The membership of the committee has not yet been decided, and the request is to have two-elected officials from each city on the committee. Representatives from Gresham, the County, and Metro were also invited to attend the committee meetings. The City of Troutdale has not taken action on appointing any officials to the committee, and indicated that it will not until at least October. Fairview did not hold a Council meeting in August, and the next scheduled Council meeting is on September 19th. It is not known if anyone from Fairview has been appointed to the ad-hoc committee. Mayor Tosterud indicated that he would like to have a ban in place by Thanksgiving of this year. The timeline set by Tosterud is aggressive, and may not fit the model and approach of each jurisdiction. Your staff has begun the research necessary to determine how other jurisdictions have approached the issue, and the character and type of information available about single use plastic bags, the extent of its regulation, and the lessons that have been learned.

In Oregon, Portland was the first to eliminate the single use plastic bag, with a bag ban in 2011. Subsequent to that time, the state legislature considered and rejected a ban, voters in Newport rejected a ban in 2013, and subsequent to the time, bans have been enacted in Eugene, Corvallis, Portland, Ashland, Manzanita, McMinville, and are under consideration in Salem. Single-use bags are largely composed of polyethylene, a substance derived from natural gas and petroleum, both of which are linked to climate change. Cities and municipalities who ban these bags cite their long-term cost to the environment, including their contribution to warming, the litter they add to streets, parks and trees and the damage they do to ocean life. Plastics pollution has a direct and deadly effect on ocean wildlife, says the Center for Biological Diversity. “Thousands of seabirds and sea turtles, seals and other marine mammals are killed each year after ingesting plastic or getting entangled in it. Endangered wildlife like Hawaiian monk seals and Pacific loggerhead sea turtles are among nearly 300 species that eat and get caught in plastic litter.” In 2008, an Ocean Conservancy study showed plastic bags as the second most common form of ocean litter. Ocean plastics are estimated to kill a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals each year. One year after its 2011 ban, the City of Portland noted that reusable checkout bag use had increased 304% and highly recycled paper checkout bag use had increased 491% (PSU). While both of these statistics appear positive initially, there are good reasons certain products are designed for just one use, many of which center around promoting health and hygiene. Eliminating those products because they are made of plastic would deprive consumers of everyday products we depend on, such as bandages, contact lenses, diapers and the vast majority of our food packaging. (And that’s before we get to medical necessities, such as IV tubes and sterile packaging for things like syringes, pharmaceuticals, sutures, and gauze.) The reason these and other essential products are made with plastic is because plastic does its job better than alternatives. Strong yet lightweight, plastics are incredibly efficient and often let us do more with less material, and that’s critical for reducing environmental impacts. Using less material in the first place is a tremendous environmental benefit that results in dramatic reductions in resource and energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste. A 2016 study by the firm Trucost found the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging is nearly four times less than if plastics were replaced with alternative materials. In other words, switching from plastics to alternatives would dramatically increase environmental impacts. The summary of research thus far appears to provide the following key points:

1. Single use plastic bags are a major source of litter, and are accumulative in the environment, and

2. Alternatives to the single use plastic bag (re-usable or paper) are more energy intensive in creation and cause more greenhouse impact that the single use plastic bag, and

3. While recycling of the single use is by definition not occurring, they are welcome back to area stores for disposal or attempted re-use, and

4. Nearly all “single use” bags, are reused as trash bags, litter bags, or other similar uses, and

5. Single use bags are a significant impediment to plastic recycling, creating difficulties for sorting and processing machines dealing with plastics, and

6. The use of a fee to capture the “environmental externalities” is a way to allow consumers to retain a choice while realizing the actual costs of the plastic bag (fees between $.12 and $.19 are calculated in different communities), and

7. The use of single use plastic bags for meat products, produce, pharmaceuticals, and in some instances, convenience purchases, are not included in many of the bans, and

8. Some of the codes eliminate establishments smaller than some specific floor area from the bag ban (6,000 sq ft), and

9. Statistical information on the effectiveness of the ban is not easily found. It is difficult to prove the elimination of the single use plastic bag impacts the waste stream very dramatically, as trash bag sales increase dramatically when bans are in place, as do other forms of containers utilized for transport of materials and goods.

The summary of the literature we were able to gather to date is that the ban on single use plastic bags for environmental purposes is probably not effective, but if the purpose is to reduce litter and waste accumulation, it may be a wise action. The pricing of the bags through a fee or a direct price (Corvallis ordinance, other models) in lieu of a ban may provide a more effective consumer choice. Other findings and summary information is attached to this report. Next Steps Appoint two council members to represent Wood Village on the task force. Further discuss the issue of single-use plastic bags, and provide guidance on how to move forward. Alternatives The Council may determine:

1. Not to appoint representatives to the task force, and to take no further action, or 2. Council may wish to have a special presentation or study session devoted only to this

issue, or 3. Council may appoint two members that volunteer to serve on the task force, and provide

direction on how to proceed. Fiscal Impact The impacts of choices in this ban will be determined when the character of the ban is established. If a complicated ban is established, education and enforcement will have a significant initial cost. If fees are enacted, specifically fees that are utilized to clean refuse disposal areas, a mechanism for collection and the costs of actions will be included in the actions. City Goal If enacted, the Council envisions that a single use plastic bag ban would further City Council GOAL 7: Environmental Responsibility. Suggested Motions It is requested the Council by motion appoint two members to the task force and summarize the direction preferred for the progress on the single use plastic bag.

Newport, voted against a plastic bag ban in 2013 2017-2018 Legislative Summary At least 73 bills have been introduced in state legislatures this session regarding the use of plastic bags in retail settings. Though the majority of bills propose a ban or fee on bags, or improve recycling programs, most enacted legislation in recent years deals with preemption of local government action.

States with Enacted Plastic Bag Legislation

Recycling Programs States have a long history of pursuing legislation related to labeling, recycling, and reusing plastic bags. In 1991, Maine became the first state to enact legislation requiring recycling efforts at retail stores. The law prevents retailers from supplying plastic bags unless they provide a convenient storefront receptacle to ensure used bags are collected and recycled. Since then at least four other states—California, Delaware, New York and Rhode Island— and the District of Columbia have followed suit.

ENACTED PLASTIC BAG STATE LEGISLATION

State Citation Status Summary

Arizona*

2015 Ariz. Sess. Laws, Chap. 271 (2015 SB 1241)

Enacted

Prevents a city, town or county from regulating the sale, use or disposition of plastic bags and other “auxiliary containers” by an owner, operator or tenant of a business, commercial building or multifamily housing property. The law does not prevent a city, town or county from continuing a voluntary recycling and waste reduction program.

California 2014 SB 270

Put to Referendum, Passed

As of July 1, 2015 certain large stores are prohibited from providing a single-use plastic carryout bag to a customer, unless the retailer makes that bag available for $0.10 and certain conditions are met.

California 2011 CA S 567 Enacted

Prohibits the sale of plastic products labeled as compostable, home compostable, or marine degradable unless it meets standard specifications. Provides for a civil penalty for a violation.

California

Cal. [Public Resources] Code § 42357.5 (2010 SB 228)

Enacted

Requires manufacturers of compostable plastic bags to ensure that the bag is readily and easily identifiable from other bags. Prohibits a compostable plastic bag sold in the state from displaying a chasing arrow resin identification code or recycling symbol in any form.

California 2006 AB 2449 Enacted

Retail stores must adopt an at-store recycling program. Plastic bags used at retailers must have clearly printed “Please Return to a Participating Store for Recycling” on the bag.

Delaware 2009 HB 15; Amended by 2014 HB 198

Enacted

Encourages the use of reusable bags by consumers and retailers. Requires a store to establish an at-store recycling program that provides an opportunity for customers of the store to return plastic bags and requires all plastic carryout bags to display a recycling message.

District of Columbia 2010 B 150 Enacted

Protects the aquatic and environmental assets of the District of Columbia, bans the use of disposable non-recyclable plastic carryout bags, establishes a fee on all other disposable carryout bags provided by certain retail stores, and establishes the recurring Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Fund.

Idaho* 2016 HB 372 Enacted

States that any regulation regarding the use, disposition or sale of plastic bags or other “auxiliary containers” shall be imposed only by a statute enacted by the legislature.

Illinois 2016 HR 1139 Adopted Establishes "Recycle Thin Film Friday” in the State of Illinois as an effort to reclaim used thin-film plastic bags and to encourage consumers to use reusable bags.

Maine 2010 SB 131 Enacted Convenes a work group, through a partnership with

*Preemption bill Bans and Fees In August 2014, California became the first state to enact legislation imposing a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags at large retail stores. The bill also required a 10-cent minimum charge for recycled paper bags, reusable plastic bags, and compostable bags at certain locations. The ban was set to take effect on July 1, 2015, but a referendum forced the issue onto the ballot in the November

state agencies and other appropriate entities, to work towards a viable solution to the checkout bag issue to achieve environmental benefits, maintain financial viability for manufacturers and retailers and avoid cost impacts, provides for a report to the legislature.

Maine 1991 LD 1166 Enacted

Retailers may only provide customers with plastic bags if there is a receptacle to collect used plastic bags within 20 feet of the entrance and all plastic bags collected are then recycled.

Mississippi* 2018 SB 2570 Enacted (Preemption)

Missouri* 2015 HB 722 Enacted

Provides all merchants doing business in the state with the option to provide either paper or plastic bags. Prevents localities from imposing a ban, fee, or tax upon the use of either paper or plastic bags.

New York 2008 AB 11725 Enacted

Plastic Bag Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Act; retailers of stores are to establish in-store recycling programs that provide an opportunity for the customer to return clean plastic bags to be recycled. The plastic carryout bags provided by the store must have printed on them “Please Return to a Participating Store for Recycling.”

North Carolina 2010 SB 1018 Enacted

Reduces plastic and non-recycled paper bag use on North Carolina's Outer Banks. A retailer subject to certain provisions shall display a sign in a location viewable by customers saying “[county name] County discourages the use of single-use plastic and paper bags to protect our environment from excess litter and greenhouse gases. We would appreciate our customers using reusable bags, but if you are not able to, a 100% recycled paper bag will be furnished for your use."

North Carolina 2017 HB 56 Enacted Repeals the eight-year ban on the use of plastic bags by

retailers on the Outer Banks.

Rhode Island 2008 SB 2565 Enacted

This legislation promotes the use of paper bags by retailers. Retail establishments must offer the use of a paper bags to the consumer. Every retail establishment that provides customers with plastic bags must provide conveniently located receptacles where customers can return their clean and dry plastic bags to be recycled. Failure to comply with these laws is punishable with fines up to $500.

2016 election. Proposition 67 passed with 52 percent of the vote, meaning the plastic bag ban approved by the Legislature remains the law. A detailed summary of the law can be found below. Voters also rejected a second measure, Proposition 65, which proposed to create an environmental fund with proceeds from a 10-cent charge for alternative bags. Hawaii has a de facto statewide ban as all of its most populous counties prohibit non-biodegradable plastic bags at checkout, as well as paper bags containing less than 40 percent recycled material. Bans in Kauai, Maui and Hawaii counties took effect between 2011 and 2013, with Honolulu becoming the last major county to approve the ban in 2015. In 2009, the District of Columbia enacted legislation requiring all businesses that sell food or alcohol to charge 5 cents for each carryout paper or plastic bag.

Oregon Cities Banning Plastic Bags Eugene, Corvallis, Portland, Ashland, Manzanita, McMinville Pending in Salem This winter, the city of Manzanita became the fifth city in the state and the first on the Oregon Coast to ban single-use plastic carryout bags. The banning ordinance, passed by a unanimous vote of the Manzanita City Council, was an effort to reduce plastic debris on beaches and in the Pacific Ocean. In its September 5 vote, Manzanita followed Portland’s similar ban in 2011, Corvallis’s 2012 ban, Eugene’s ban in 2013 and McMinville’s ban in 2017. Speaking about the matter Linda Kozlowki, Manzanita City Council President said, “As the first coastal community in Oregon to ban single-use plastic bags, Manzanita is a leader, taking action on an issue important to its residents that will inspire other coastal communities impacted by plastic pollution.” Opponents of single-use bags admit they offer short-term convenience, but note that after carrying goods from store to home, they last in the environment virtually forever, never fully degrading. The bags don’t begin to decompose for 700 years and plastic is so durable that the EPA say, “every bit of plastic ever made still exists.” Single-use bags are largely composed of polyethylene, a substance derived from natural gas and petroleum, both of which are linked to climate change. Cities and municipalities who ban these bags cite their long-term cost to the environment, including their contribution to warming, the litter they add to streets, parks and trees and the damage they do to ocean life. Plastics pollution has a direct and deadly effect on ocean wildlife, says the Center for Biological Diversity. “Thousands of seabirds and sea turtles, seals and other marine mammals are killed each year after ingesting plastic or getting entangled in it. Endangered wildlife like Hawaiian monk seals and Pacific loggerhead sea turtles are among nearly 300 species that eat and get caught in plastic litter.” In 2008, an Ocean Conservancy study showed plastic bags as the second most common form of ocean litter. Ocean plastics are estimated to kill a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals each year. One year after its 2011 ban, the City of Portland noted that reusable checkout bag use had increased 304% and highly recycled paper checkout bag use had increased 491%. In banning plastic bags, the city of Manzanita followed 17 communities in the state of Washington, including Bainbridge Island, Bellingham, Edmonds, Ellensburg, Friday Harbor, Kirkland, Lacey, Mukitlteo, Olympia, Port Townsend, Quil Ceda Village, San Juan County, Seattle, Shoreline, Tacoma, Thurston County and

NOTABLE CITIES/COUNTIES WITH PLASTIC BAG BANS AND FEES

Cities with Plastic Bag Bans Cities/Counties with Plastic Bag Fees

Austin, Texas Boston, Mass. Chicago, Ill. Los Angeles, Calif. Portland, OR San Francisco, Calif. Seattle, Wash.

Boulder, Colo. Brownsville, Texas Montgomery County, Md. New York, N.Y. Portland, Maine Washington D.C.

Tumwater. In 2014, California became the first state to enact legislation imposing a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags at large retail stores. More than forty countries have also banned, partly banned or taxed the bags, including China, France, Rwanda and Italy. In 2017, Kenya joined the list with the world’s toughest punishments so far; producing, selling or even using single-use bags will result in up to four years imprisonment or fines of $40,000. In Salem, thousands of single-use plastic bags are still given out at grocery and drugstore retailers, including Fred Meyer, Winco and Roth’s every day. Only Costco, Natural Grocers and LifeSource do not distribute them. Roth’s and LifeSource offer 5 cents credit for customers who bring their own reusable or reused bags. With estimates that less than 3% of bags are ever properly recycled (which in our area is in the bins at the front of grocery stores) the resulting trash causes problems, including impeding the recycling efforts of Garten Services, the Salem agency that recycles cans, bottles and paper. “Plastic bags have consistently been a problem when placed in mixed recycling,” says Marion County’s Jolene Kelley. “They have remained a top contaminator of recycling material, and the county has encouraged alternate recycling methods for many years.” Although Marion County actively encourages people to use reusable shopping bags, Kelley notes that any county ban on single-use plastic bags would only affect the unincorporated areas outside of city limits. Since by far, most grocery stores and other retail establishments using plastic bags are located within city limits, a county ordinance would have virtually no effect on Salem usage. Over at the coast, the City of Manzanita granted its stores and retailers a 60-day grace period after the September vote so everyone could adjust to the no-bag ordinance and change over. On November 5, 2017, Manzanita’s enforcement went into effect. Governments. Businesses. NGOs. Everyday citizens. Today, many of us are taking important steps to help reduce waste and protect our environment. I think we can all agree that’s a very good thing. But earlier this week, the Editorial Board at the LA Times called for California to phase out all “single-use” plastics. This was a serious proposal. But if our goal is to reduce waste and shrink our environmental footprint, then acting on it would be a serious mistake. There are good reasons certain products are designed for just one use, many of which center around promoting health and hygiene. Eliminating those products because they are made of plastic would deprive consumers of everyday products we depend on, such as bandages, contact lenses, diapers and the vast majority of our food packaging. (And that’s before we get to medical necessities, such as IV tubes and sterile packaging for things like syringes, pharmaceuticals, sutures, and gauze.) The reason these and other essential products are made with plastic is because plastic does its job better than alternatives. Strong yet lightweight, plastics are incredibly efficient and often let us do more with less material, and that’s critical for reducing environmental impacts. Using less material in the first place is a tremendous environmental benefit that results in dramatic reductions in resource and energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste. A 2016 study by the firm Trucost found the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging is nearly four times less than if plastics were replaced with alternative materials. In other words, switching from plastics to alternatives would dramatically increase environmental impacts. Of course, no one wants that. That’s not to say we as a society can’t do more to reduce waste, to reuse more, and to keep the plastic we do use out of the environment—including our oceans. That’s why America’s plastics makers support efforts to phase out microbeads in rinse-off products, allow customers to choose not to take a straw if they don’t need one, and bring reusable bags shopping or recycle the bags they do use. Plus we led the formation of a global declaration aimed at bringing together plastics groups in other countries to help end marine litter.

In addition, we and our partners are investing in solutions to keep plastics in use and out of our oceans. Our vision is for every piece of post-use plastics to be recycled or remade into raw materials for new products—including, new plastics. Innovative technologies and programs promise to make this possible. Some of these include: Chemical recycling (or depolymerization), which converts used plastics back into the building blocks (i.e., monomers) of new plastic raw materials Recycling programs for wraps, bags and other flexible packaging, like WRAP and Materials Recovery for the Future Compatibilizers, which can boost the compatibility and performance properties of mixed recycled resins Programs that allow residents to bag non-recycled plastics and place them in their recycling carts to be processed into fuels or manufacturing feedstocks. The quest for a more circular approach to managing our plastics resources is real, and it’s happening right now. Innovative approaches already underway are making real progress, so the plastics we use today can become the plastics we’ll rely on—for better health, hygiene and efficiency—in the future. But doing the R&D and investing in these technologies is not enough. Because if editorial boards at major daily papers seriously think we can or should ban essential products like these, then that should be a wake-up call for all of us. Science from leading environmental researchers demonstrates plastic bags are better for water quality than alternatives, such as cotton reusable bags. The UK Environment Agency compared plastic bags to cotton reusable bags and found reusable bags have about 173 times as much "global warming potential." You would have to reuse that bag every week for more than three years just to break even compared to plastic bags. Those same cotton bags generate 300 times as much water pollution. Cotton bags require fertilizer to grow, some of which runs off and aggregates at the mouths of rivers, creating "dead zones." Cooley promises "the next year will be filled with bag giveaways" around Tacoma, but that means more cotton for reusable bags and more water pollution. Tacoma’s own analysis backs this up. The city’s staff report noted that paper bags cause "greater atmospheric acidification, water consumption, and ozone production than plastic bags." Ironically, they did not mention reusable bags are even worse. His concern about dead zones is one reason Dr. Chris Reddy, senior scientist at Wood’s Hole Oceanographic Institute, drove to Rhode Island to testify against a proposed plastic bag ban. Reddy called claims of plastic bag opponents "borderline comical." He testified that instead of being the first state to ban plastic bags, Rhode Island should be the first state "that almost passed a plastic bag ban and said, ‘No, let’s stop,’ and do some really good research that is not hype." Even Greenpeace acknowledges claims about plastic bags and marine life are nonsense. In 2008, The Times of London quoted a Greenpeace scientist noting, "It’s very unlikely that many animals are killed by plastic bags. The evidence shows just the opposite." This is not to say that plastic bags cause no impact, but bag bans do far more environmental damage than they prevent. Finally, ban advocates claim plastic bags end up in landfills and that few are recycled. Actually, about 80 percent of plastic grocery bags are reused, either as trash liners or to pick up after pets. The mantra of environmentalism is "reduce, reuse, recycle." Plastic bags are better than alternatives at reducing resource use — requiring less energy and causing less water pollution — and are reused at high rates. Supporters of a ban focus on low recycling rates because it is the only argument they can make, ignoring other environmental costs.

Emotional paeans to the end of plastic bags now substitute for science. There is growing frustration among scientists who fight every day to make our oceans cleaner, as they take time out from that effort to rebut feel-good but unscientific policies. Sadly, the chance Tacoma City Council members will admit their error is small. The political praise they crave is tangible while the environmental damage of the ban is hidden. Such is the state of environmental policy today. Todd Myers is environmental director of the Washington Policy Center, a Seattle-based think tank. Read more here: https://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/article91388747.html#storylink=cpy Bag the Ban Web Page www.bagtheban.com

Plastic retail bags – the kind you get from your grocer or at the corner store -- are being targeted for bans and taxes in communities around the country, regardless of the unintended consequences. Bans and taxes have a negative impact on working families and seniors on fixed incomes, but they don’t help the environment in any meaningful way—in fact they can cause bigger problems.

Banning and taxing recyclable, reusable products doesn’t make sense, even in the most well-intentioned scenarios. Keep reading to find out why.

Environment Plastic bags are the most environmentally friendly option at the checkout. Find out the surprising green truth for yourself.

Recycling Plastic bag recycling is simple and effective, thanks to thousands of recycling drop-off locations across the country.

Jobs and Economy Bag bans and taxes make trips to the grocery store more expensive, especially for low- and fixed-income families – with no meaningful impact on the environment to back them up. They also threaten thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Health Be mindful with your reusable canvas and non-woven bags. Without frequent washing and appropriate storage, reusable bags can harbor dangerous bacteria.

Reuse Nearly 90% of Americans reuse plastic bags. What do you do with yours?

Plastic bags are the most environmentally friendly option at the checkout. They’re 100% recyclable and highly reused. Studies show that alternatives which seem “greener” actually place a greater burden on the environment because they require more natural resources to produce and transport, they emit more carbon throughout their lifecycles and they need more energy to recycle – if they’re recyclable at all. On top of that, studies show bag bans and taxes haven’t meaningfully reduced overall litter or waste anywhere they’ve been tried.1

• ENERGY SAVINGS: Plastic bags require 70% less energy to manufacture and consume 96% less water than what’s used to make paper bags.

• DISPOSAL ADVANTAGES: Once disposed, reusable bags take up to 9.3% more space than plastic bags in landfills.

• REUSABLE COTTON BAGS AREN’T REUSED ENOUGH: Standard reusable cotton grocery bags must be reused 131 times "to ensure that they have lower global warming potential than" a plastic bag used only once.2

• NO OIL INVOLVED: American-made plastic bags are produced from byproducts of natural gas, not oil.3 The results are in: Bag bans and taxes don’t help to reduce waste, litter or marine debris. Ban and tax ordinances have never been successful at meaningfully reducing litter, waste or marine debris. Not anywhere. What they have been shown to do is heap unfair costs on low- and fixed-income families and add more red tape to local businesses. The environment doesn’t benefit, and neither do people.

• LANDFILL WASTE INCREASES: Plastic bags account for just half of 1% of U.S. waste, and without plastic grocery bags, people purchase replacement bags — often made of thicker, heavier plastic — and then send those bags to the landfill instead.4

o In Austin, landfill waste increased after a bag ban because shoppers used and disposed of thicker plastic reusable bags in the place of standard plastic grocery bags.

• LITTLE TO NO IMPACT ON OVERALL LITTER: Plastic retail bags comprise a very small portion of litter – less than 2% – making bans and taxes ineffective when it comes to reducing overall litter.5

o In Washington, D.C., a bag tax hasn’t improved litter or reduced bag use at all.6 According to a Washington Post investigation, D.C. collected roughly $10 million since 2010 without making any environmental progress. And the tax revenue keeps growing every year.7

o A year after California implemented a statewide ban on plastic bags in 2016, an Ocean Conservancy survey showed a negligible 0.2% decrease in plastic bag litter as a percentage of overall litter.8

• UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: o In Thurston County, Washington, a bag ban resulted in double the use of more

resource-intensive paper bags.

1. Environmental Protection Agency, “Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures”; April 2016

2. U.K. Environmental Agency, “Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags”; February 2011

3. U.S. Energy Information Administration, "How much oil is used to make plastics?"; April 2016

4. The Scottish Government, "Proposed Plastic Bag Levy - Extended Impact Assessment"; August 2005 and The Advertiser, "Bin line sales double nation average after plastic bag ban"; August 2011

5. Environmental Protection Agency, "Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2014 Tables and Figures"; December 2016

6. The Washington Post, "Tax data cast doubt on claims about declining use of plastic bags in D.C."; January 2014

7. The Washington Post, "Is D.C.’s 5-cent fee for plastic bags actually serving its purpose?"; May 2015

8. Ocean Conservancy, “Together for our Ocean: International Coastal Cleanup 2017 Report.” 2017.

City Council Agenda Item Staff Report

Meeting Date: August 21, 2018

TO: Mayor and Councilors FROM: Bill Peterson: City Manager Authored by: Greg Dirks: HR/Records Manager DATE: July 30, 2018 SUBJECT: 20th Annual Wood Village Nite Out Background The 20th Annual Wood Village Nite Out took place on Friday July 20th. The event was coordinated through a joint effort between the City, the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office, and the Wood Village Baptist Church. The estimated number of people in attendance was approximately 1,500 people. The event featured free food and beverages, live music, free soccer equipment for kids, police demonstrations, children’s activities, and community service vendors. The annual Nite Out Parade was not conducted this year due to construction on Arata Road. A Life Flight helicopter was able to land at the event, and remained onsite for about an hour. A Red Cross blood drive was scheduled, but was cancelled due to a lack of Red Cross volunteers to run the event. Fiscal Impact Total Cost: $4,635 Budgeted Amount: $6,000 Sponsor Donations: $1,500

• $1,000 Morasch Family • $500 76 Station

Community Partner Support: $8,400

• Platinum Member – Advanced Metal and Wire • Silver Member – Joy Teriyaki

In Kind Contributions:

• Fred Meyer: Donation of $1,500 worth of food and beverages (actual cost, not retail) • Village Baptist Church: facility, volunteers, ice cream, popcorn, and children’s activities • Waste Management: Waste Services • Loop Hi-Way Towing: Police/Fire Demo Car

City’s Expenses:

• Band $1,000.00 • Pony Rides $600.00

• Stage Rental $571.00 • Pop Corn $170.00 • Soccer Equipment 1,000.00 • Banners $450.00 • Food $321.00 • Cotton Candy $150.00 • Helium $108.00 • Misc/Volunteer Supplies $265.00 • Total $4,635

Out of pocket cost for the City: $3,135 City Goal The completion of this event helped achieve City goal 3 for high quality cost effective events. Suggested Motions No motion suggested. The report is informational only.

City Council Agenda Item Staff Report Meeting Date: September 11, 2018

TO: Mayor and Councilors FROM: Bill Peterson: City Manager Authored by: Greg Dirks: HR/Records Manager DATE: August 31, 2018 SUBJECT: 2018 Tree Lighting Event Requested Council Action Review the information, and provide staff with a direction on how to proceed with the Tree Lighting event. Background This year marks the eighth (8th) year for the City’s Tree Lighting event. The event has occurred at City Hall, except for the first event, which was located at the Town Center. Lights on the large 85’ fir tree were damaged two years ago, and were not functional at last year’s event. Due to the pending redevelopment of the City Hall site, it was assumed that the event would not be held at City Hall this year. The redevelopment timeline has been revised, which could enable the event to be at City Hall. Discussions have occurred with the owners and business representatives of the Town Center to hold the event at the Town Center this year. While discussions have occurred, final plans have not been presented. Initial ideas for an event at the Town Center include a large artificial tree in the plaza area near Fred Meyer, a roaming school choir through the center and stores, and the Reynolds High School Choir performing in an event tent, where refreshments would be served. Santa would also be located in the event tent. Initial discussion with the Town Center owners indicated the potential to purchase a large artificial tree for the event, but nothing has been decided or finalized. It is also possible to hold the event at City Hall again this year. While the large tree does not light up, the star at the top still functions. The choir and Santa can still come to City Hall as well. Alternatives The tree lighting event can take many forms. Additional concepts and ideas are outlined below:

• Move the event to the park. Additional lights would need to be purchased, as well as additional electrical capacity. Estimated cost is several thousand dollars.

• Relight the large tree at City Hall. The estimated cost is $4,000. • Hold the event at City Hall in a manner similar to last year, while supporting an event at

the Town Center. • Not have an event at all this year.

Fiscal Impact There is $5,000 in this year’s budget the event. City Goal The successful completion of this event will help achieve City Goal 3: High quality, cost effective public utilities, parks and events. Suggested Motions I move to approve the 8th annual Wood Village Tree Lighting Ceremony as presented or modified.