City Council - Special Meeting

Good evening, Cami. We are here on February 11 for a city council work session. We're going to hear a presentation about the SDC update process, and I will turn this over to Don Hardy for, introduction for Todd, and we'll get our presentation. I'm going to turn off my camera now.

Good evening, council president, Hensley and council members. Todd Chase is going to be running us through the system development charge presentation tonight with the hope that we can get to the back of the presentation, slide 27, on the items that are part of the methodology that will be moving forward for the system development charges. Thank you. And just to maybe just a framework here about where we're at in the process. We have submitted a ninety day notice, which is required by the state for notifying the building community, the community in general.

We sent out about 115 emails to various folks, so it's out there in terms of updating the system development charges. The ninety day process would take us to May 6 for the hearing, but within the sixty days from the notice, we have to do a methodology report, which is gonna be March 6, which is the reason we're here tonight is to be able to get to the March 6 methodology report to be able website to release that. There are still some items here. We have covered a number of these things before, but there's still some items that we will be wanting your input on tonight. And then we will also have another work session next week, next Wednesday, specifically on the parks, the twenty year parks list, project list, because tonight we will not have enough time to go through that.

And that's intended to prioritize the parks list, which is a robust list, and we asked Parks and Recreation Advisory Group for a robust list. It has a pretty robust price tag with the list and part of that is the relationship between the list and the system development charges that would be anticipated and then also realistically what projects could be built within the next ten to twenty years. That's part of that discussion for next week. But we will touch on that briefly and with that I'm gonna turn it over to Todd to run us through the presentation. It will be a fairly rapid presentation.

We're totally here though for commentary if you guys have questions while he's going through this. But we would like to get to that final slide on page 27, slide 27 to get your input on the methodology piece here tonight. So Todd, Todd Chase with FCS is going to lead us. Go ahead, Todd.

Thank you, Don. Thank you counsel for allowing me to video in for this presentation tonight And as Don mentioned, we do have about 30 slides, you know, one per minute could be thirty minutes. I'll try to go faster, but please stop if you have a burning question. We'll try to get through this tonight. I know there's another council meeting next week to continue conversation on this fame, so we'll get to all your questions hopefully tonight and if not tonight, next week too.

Next slide please, Don. And I know we've been working on this project for about a year now and let's see, next slide please, Here we go. So we're going to cover the methodology, I think we've been through this before, there'd be a little bit of review there, but the new information is a summary of preliminary findings and that includes both preliminary calculations of the potential new SDC rates for Canby and we'll be talking about sanitary sewer and storm separately from parks and transportation. Each one deserves its own chapter and its own discussion. We'll focus on the SDC methodology tonight in terms of council direction as we move towards completing our public review draft SDC methodology report, which is due sixty days before the first public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for May 6 this time.

So that public review draft will be out in March. We're going to talk about long range facility plans and other issues with regard to SDC implementation. So overview on the methodology. Next slide please. As you might recall, SDCs are a one time charge upon the time of building permit approval.

You only get one chance to charge an SDC as a city and that's when a developer comes in to improve some property. And typically, those SDCs are based on the impact that property improvement will have on the local system of city facilities and transportation, includes streets and pathways, parks and trails, wastewater and storm water systems. The revenue must be spent on a project that's included in the adopted capital plan or project list. You can change that project list every year if you like, but we need that capital project list to be adopted prior to the adoption of the SDC methodology. Some cities do that in the same meeting by opening up a hearing for the project list and then closing that hearing and voting on that list and then opening up the hearing on the SDC methodology.

And some staggered the two, but they do have to happen concurrently. There are three types of SDCs in the methodology. You can see in the equation there, there's an improvement fee. There can be a reimbursement fee, we'll talk more about what that is, for facilities that have already been built that are sized to accommodate future development in the city. And then there can be an admin fee typically for updating the SDC methodology and just accounting for the expenditures.

So we'll talk about each one of those fees. Next slide, please. There are two types, as I mentioned, of SDC projects. There's those in the reimbursement fee calculation, and those include examples that have just shown here just for illustrative purposes, where the city might have already invested, you know, 7,000,000 in a wastewater treatment plant capacity expansion a few years ago and that size to handle development for the next twenty years. It's not a planned improvement, it's a completed improvement, but it still has remaining capacity.

Another example would be if you built a dog park recently, then you could assume that that park would be there for future residents in the next twenty years to utilize as well as existing residents. And these projects are really designed to accommodate future growth and so we can adjust the cost basis to account for the remaining capacity when we adopt the new methodology by say June 2026. So some capacity of those facilities will have been used up, but much of the capacity will still remain. The improvement fee projects are based on plans that the city has to address, say, transportation improvements to accommodate future development such as turn lanes or a roundabout on an existing intersection that's needed to accommodate trip growth based on future development, or plans to develop a new community park around a future neighborhood. And these are projects driven by the city's desire to maintain your policy level of service in the face of growth.

And that way, your current level of service doesn't depreciate over time. So the SDC improvement fee calculations are adjusted based on the expansion in the capacity of the system. So that that's kind of examples of the two. We'll talk about where those come into play in your different facility types. Next slide, please.

Yeah. The charge basis for the SDCs are based on different types of demand. For wastewater, you currently are basing demand on equivalent residential units in gallons per day of usage of of of water and sewer. Stormwater tends to be based on changes in vehicle trips generated by new development because most of the stormwater systems are along streets, and this the stormwater systems that are gonna be built in the future are also gonna be along streets. So we tend to base that on vehicle trips.

Same with transportation, of course, vehicle trips is the unit of demand there. And parks, we tend to base that on population, by dwelling units, and with employees, we also have what's called equivalent residential units based on employee generated demand for parks, typically afternoon hours of the city's park system. Next slide, please. So this is a this is a graph that shows where you are currently. Your current existing SDCs in the city, including water, which you don't control, are about $26,000 per single family home, and you can see that's on the low end of the region right now.

It's been about ten years since the city did a wholesale revamp of your STCs, and so most cities are now kind of towards the right side of the margin on this graph. The ones that we're talking about tonight, if we add them all together and you fully adopt them as they stand, would take you up to about 58,000 per dwelling unit, again, including water, which would be about on par with what West Lynn charges, a little bit above King City and Wilsonville citywide rate, but below what we see in in Hillsborough, West Hazel Village, and South Hillsborough and North Bethany, and Wilsonville's Frog Pond West area. So it kinda puts you in the ballpark of what we're seeing in in a lot of the surrounding communities. We're gonna talk tonight about phasing this in over time and fine tuning the the numbers based on your input. Next slide, please.

So first, we'll talk about sanitary sewer and storm. These should be pretty, you know, kinda innocuous, I guess, compared to the other ones. Next slide, please. Because what, you know, we have is a is a good master plan that Kern McLeod completed and updated last year. It includes new CIPs, capital facility plans, and SDC assumptions to come up with the new new fees.

And the new fees, in our work, we just adjusted them to $20.26 dollars, which is a slight increase over what the current McLeod engineers were recommending. And the updated SDCs per unit actually is pretty close to what they're currently charging in the city of Camby. It would be about $4,400 for a single family home, for sanitary sewer, and storm combined, and about 3,500 per dwelling unit or apartment unit for multifamily, and about $1,644 for a mobile home. And that's about $269 higher than what you're currently charging today for single family homes, $216 higher than what you're charging for apartments, and about a $101 higher than what you're charging for mobile homes. So they're, you know, pretty slight increase over your current rates for sanitary sewer and storm, and there's a lot of detail that goes with this in their report.

So we probably don't want to dive too deep into that unless you have a burning question about it. Transportation. Now this one could be a bit a sizable jump because it's been about twelve or more years since you did your transportation SDCs. So we now have a transportation system plan that DKS is preparing for the city. It hasn't been adopted yet.

It's planned to be adopted, I think, come May, by May, March or April even. And within that are some growth forecasts. Now, what we've done is work with DKS to look at the projected growth over the next twenty years of the city of Camby, and some of this growth will occur outside your city limits currently and even into the new UGB at some point, but the land that will be eventually annexed into the city is expected to accommodate a lot of jobs and a lot of dwelling units and those will create a lot of trips. Once annexed, this planned growth over the next twenty years would result in about 7,100 net new peak hour vehicle trips throughout the city and I think about half of those trips would be within the current city limits and about half would be outside the city limits in the UG urban growth boundary that's been planned. We can convert those to person trips as opposed to vehicle trips by applying a multiplier, about 1.5, 1.6, which is a standard of people per per vehicle, and also the account for other nonvehicle trips such as transit and bicycle ped trips to come up with a total amount of person trip ends over the ton twenty year time period.

So that 7,100 vehicle trips is an important number because that becomes the denominator in the SDC equation for transportation. And it also generates a gross share of 29%, roughly 30%, which basically says that if you're driving on Camby Streets in your 2030, 2045, about one out of three vehicles would be net new to the city at that time. So about one out of three vehicles would be responsible for the cost of the of of the improvements to the system at minimum. So remember that 29% number, we're going to come back to that. Next slide, please.

As we looked at the capital facility plan that DKS generated, this is a fiscally constrained list they say, still has 72 projects at a cost of about 196,000,000. Once we kind of take out kind of the non eligible projects because they're kind of repaving or striping, they're not really adding capacity to the system as much as other projects where we're retrofitting to add bike lanes and sidewalks or we're adding turn lanes or roundabouts. You know, so we we we basically account for these projects in different bins. The the safety improvements are not eligible, 0% eligible for SDCs. The minor facility retrofits that preserve level of service and extend the useful life of existing facilities are assumed to be about 29% SDC eligible.

The major retrofits where we're adding right of way and widening certain streets are 75% eligible in our analysis. And the brand new roads that are required to address growth, most of these are on the perimeter of downtown or perimeter of the city, would be a 100% eligible. And as we do that accounting, we're we're coming up with about a 142,000,000 of SDC eligible projects, which is 72% of the total cost. And now this detailed table shows you the 195,000,000 total in the the total price tag of all those 92 projects. We take out the non capacity projects, we're left with about 142,000,000.

We take out the current SDC fund balance for transportation, it's about 3,100,000.0, leaves us with about a $139,000,000 of SDC cost basis plus the compliance cost of 2.5% for the administration of the program over twenty years, leaves us a cost base of 142,000,000 divided by 7,100 net new trips, gives us a trip rate of about $20,000 per net new vehicle trip and in the city. And then we look at that per residential unit, it would equate to about $18,800 for a detached home where you're currently charging about 4,600 and about $10,200 per multifamily dwelling unit, whereas you're currently charging about $3,200. So those significant increases were recommended that you could phase those in over time. Some cities phase those in over three or five years. We're going to show you an example of phasing it over five over three years and you can see your this transportation rate of about 18,800 is still well below what we see in Wilsonville.

It's about 22,000. King City, 25,000. South Hillsborough, 37,000 per unit. So it is definitely on the lower end of the ballpark there, but it is a significant increase of what you are currently charging. Next slide, please.

Parks and trails. This one would also be a wholesale rewrite of your SDCs, because it's been so long since you've updated it. We've been given kind of this draft project list by the Camby Parks Committee in the summer, and we're fine tuning this list based on current appraisals the city has received over the last few months. And I I think Don's gonna hand out kind of a current list, which is a little bit different than this list, which shows about a $178,100,000 in total project cost with a 182 acres. I think the price tag is actually gonna go down a little bit because the appraisal the appraised values have come down a bit than what we thought they would be on some of the projects, and the total acreages are a little bit lower as well.

But we're gonna ask at the February 18 meeting that you really ponder through this list, ask staff some questions, and try to come to that meeting with kind of your top three project priorities. Don't worry as much about the price tags for now, but think about the projects that you think the city would be kind of really really proud of to build over the next ten to twenty years. And we'll try to build as many of those as we can using SDC funds. Next slide, please. When we do the STC analysis, we really focus on what's called level of service, and what you see in this table here is kind of the category of the various park types.

We have community parks, we have neighborhood park, and pocket parks, we have developed linear trails, and we have natural areas and open space and some undeveloped parkland. Current inventory of the city is about a 106.8 acres spread around those categories. So your current level of service is about 5.5 acres per thousand residents and of which about 3.3 of those 5.5 are considered developed. The other the other spaces are natural areas and undeveloped parkland. So your current level of service for developed parks in the city is 3.3 acres.

The city council adopted a policy level service of 10 developed acres per thousand, and it's going to take you a long time to get there, but with this with this draft project list, your developed level of service basically goes from 3.3 to 7.4 acres potentially per thousand residents over twenty years. You're getting close to 10, your total parkland does go about, a little above 10, from 5.5 to 11.4 in year '20 and as we do the math, what we are finding is that the eligibility for each park project type averages about 38% of the total cost. Some are higher than others depending on kind of the current level of service and how much you're planning to add. But on average, we're covering about 38% of the cost using SDCs. The rest, 62%, would have to come from other forms of funding.

Some cities pass bonds, some create parks districts, some bump up their parks utility fees, you know, big sales. But, you know, those, you know, it's difficult to build all these parks, I know it is, but you're going to need a variety of funding tools to do that. Next slide please.

Todd, there's a

question here.

Can I ask

a question? Sure.

Yes, you may.

Thank you, Mayor. Todd, getting back to that talking point of Park SDC eligibility per Park Masters plan. You can see the different percentages of SDC eligibility for each of the different segments. Community parks is only 31.7% eligible, whereas neighborhood parks and pocket parks are 88.5% eligible. Developed linear parks trails is only 45%.

This is important to staff because when we're trying to build parks, we wanna have a 100% STC eligible than a perfect world. How can the council, and maybe you're getting to this, change those percentages if they wanted to? Is it by the project list? Or

Yeah. The project list would certainly help kinda diving deeper into that and trying to determine which parks are going to be more or less a 100% eligible and which ones are we're going to kind of wait for a bond or something like that to to get passed by voters. These percentages are intended to be kind of averages, and some parts can be higher and some can be lower, but based on the level of service for the citywide population, this is the fair share that developers would be would be eligible to pay for or the nexus based on their demand, based on the total system in the city.

Yeah. Okay.

Thanks. There's another question, Todd.

Yes, sir. Go ahead.

You. I do have a question in regards to the projects, and this kind of folds into what the city administrator was asking, and that is the park master plan, which was approved. Yeah. You go back on that the list

Yeah. Of Prior slide, please.

Yeah, if you go back on that list of projects, some of these are not addressed in the Park Master Plan. So the Park Master Plan would either have to change the Park Master Plan or address the projects that are in the Park Master Plan.

And I believe, Todd, that these, this project list adoption, you talked about that at the beginning of the presentation, that that list could, without having to readopt the Park Master Plan, we could adopt the project list as part of the SDC program, is that correct?

Yeah. This would be an amendment to the park's master plan basically and and and adopted prior to the adoption of the SDC project list. There, the the relative priorities shown there reflect what staff received from the Canby Parks Committee in July, and they were, of course, aware of the Parks Master Plan project list, and there are a number of projects that were identified in the parks master plan that aren't reflected on this list, but they were trying to kinda get it down to, you know, to a manageable list, I guess, for SDC purposes? Because I think when I get to it, you'll see that based on this current list, you would you would definitely have the highest SDC, Parks SDC in Oregon you went with this list. Yeah.

I agree with that as well, and I attended that meeting, and I think that these projects definitely have to go back to the committee with that understanding, but also the understanding that we have to change the park master plan first to address those projects. We can't have two separate two different lists going at the same time.

What what I think Todd is saying is we could amend we could use the project list if whatever the council decides that list is and amend the parks master plan as a singular action. So this so so the whole park master plan does not need to get readopted. This list would end up replacing the list in the park master plan.

Who would have to change the park master plan then?

I think the the adoption could be through the same hearing as the SDC hearing. I believe that that could be the same hearing.

Yeah.

Yeah. I think it's just adopting this list. It's really adopting this list as that is a meant as an amendment to the list in the park master plan.

Right. I think it's important to go back to the committee with that information and also the understanding to the committee anyway that whatever they decide when we're talking about new parks and a 100% reimbursement on SDCs versus 31% reimbursement on SDCs. That might change their mind as far as what projects to consider.

The hope we are hoping to have you all input next week, next Wednesday, as a first cut to that, and we can definitely go back to the committee on this. I think there ultimately will be some decisions that council will have to make on which projects what recommended projects are remaining on the list. We haven't quite got through all of this, but there's the collection amount anticipated versus the amount of the entire project list, those are quite a bit different in terms of the numbers as well. So there's a financial piece to this as well as to what theoretically could be collected over twenty years versus the entirety of the list. And that that's what we're hoping to cover next Wednesday with you all as well.

So, but I do agree with with councilor Davis. I do agree with what you're saying. I think, Todd, I was thinking when Randy mentioned that eligibility issue that we should provide a slide that shows what that percentage is on this table for those because I think that would help in terms of sorting this out as well for the council to make your top three recommended projects. And then I think if you'd like us to, as a body, to go back to Parks and Rec, I think it needs some guidance from counsel to bring this down because I'm not sure, you know, they may say, well, we that's the list we told you we wanted, but I think in the end it needs some guidance to narrow this down.

Well, agree. I just don't want to blindside them and say that the council made these decisions without having input from you.

No. I understand completely. Yeah.

Yes. So I guess it sounds like that the this list came up without that information of understanding the percentage of the SEC's. Okay. Yeah. And so and that there's some projects still on the master plan that aren't on here. So we can't just go back with just this list because we don't know what the percentages are on the other things that aren't on this list yet. So for us to be able to make that decision, we'd have to see what those percentages are on this list and the other things as well.

Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way. Once we know what the typically, we have a project list that's adopted and we use that to create the SDCs. We don't use the SDCs to create the project list. I mean, that's the way it usually works. And the the percentages are driven by the acreages and the levels of service provided to, you know, the city's residents based on the acreages of parks that are that are on the ground today and planned in the future.

So once we really feel confident in the types of parks you wanna build over the next, say, ten, fifteen years, then we then we could fine tune the percentages. That's kind of the unfortunately, the way the way it it needs to go.

Yes, sir.

I understand that, but I agree that, the counsel for us to make those decisions need to, as we define this list, what is SDC eligible because that would definitely have input to me as far as which ones we move forward with and which ones we don't. And I understand your side of the world, but we're telling you what we need to make the decision.

Well, the next slide does show you the percentages on average of what is eligible based on that list.

And Todd, I think the conversation here is we just need, I think we need to add those percentages to each project so that when the council sees that next Wednesday, what you know, we're actually gonna send it out in advance, but that that will help inform them, think, what the the conversation is on their recommendation. What

I'm saying is all the community parks on average are 32%. All the neighborhood parks on average are 89%. All the near parks are 45%. All the natural areas are 39% on average. Some could be higher, some can be lower. But based on the acreages that we've been given, those are the averages.

And I think that's clear. I just think that that just needs to be part of the discussion next week. I don't think there's a disagreement on that. I think it's more like the metrics of this are that will weigh into counsel's formative decision on this. And I think also when we get to the collection amount that I think that's the next slide. We'll get into a bit more detail, but there's some other questions here.

Yeah. I just wanted to clarify too. The the reality is too is we kinda have a time crunch on this in order to get because we have to do this in in a succession. And the fact that this whatever we choose next week or whatever, we could still change that. It it's not like that's locked in for the next twenty years. We can get something going so we can get the plan submitted, but we could still adjust that later with some more information. So is that

Yeah. Yeah. I I I believe I mean, I don't wanna do this every year, but I believe we can adjust this list every year.

I'm say if we can't get it done in a week, then

we don't I would hope we want to adjust this every year.

So yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. I think if we looking at what we whittled this down to, like, what are those high priority and medium priority ones Mhmm. That we at least get those called out and then anything that might be, you know, low medium to low, we juggle in when we can or get part of the next conversation in fifteen years. Didn't want

to hit on Council Waterman's point though. I mean, this could extend the timeframe overall for adoption. I mean, if we're going back to parks, I mean, we have no issue going back to parks and rec, But given the methodology, we're this is all kinda stacked here and but it may push this out a bit. But we clearly want your input next week so we can then go back to parks and rec hopefully quickly and then continue to develop the park methodology or the system development charge methodology. Todd, did you have anything more? Should I advance the slide?

No. I think that's, you know, the the the STC methodology is really intended to just identify the highest maximum defensible rate for our, you know, charges and transportation. And the project list on how you kinda spend those funds, those project lists can change and do change every year sometimes. So, yeah, it's just intended to give you a start on on on that the list, and then we could update as time goes on. But then I don't wanna spend a lot because we're gonna get into this slide next week, Don.

But based on the the the 182 acres on that draft project list. The city would need to kinda figure out where that can be accommodated, and we're gonna talk more about this next week. But in in red here, down below, you can kinda see follow this table. If if we can put the big sports complex up in kind of the future employment areas, which would be a great amenity for businesses and residents, That would that would be a big chunk, and it doesn't have to be 62 acres. I think the current estimate that we we put forth in Don's table that is handed out today is about 32 acres.

So we don't really know what that number is yet, but that's a big chunk. And then we already have 5.6 acres already of miscellaneous undeveloped parks the city owns. The former adopt center, the city's considering purchasing is actually about two acres, not one. So that would lower it a bit. So I guess down about a 110 acres of additional park needs.

And then the city's thinking about or contemplating some acquisitions to Camber Utility, school district, some other right of way acquisitions. If all those things could happen and all that land is already inside UGB, we would only need about 14 acres of additional park land in the urban in the new urban growth boundary for the residential areas. If you don't acquire all these properties, of course, that number goes way way up to about a 113 acres of additional UGB expansion areas or parks around residential lands. So you can see how this all kinda plays into the conversation of urban growth boundary needs.

So, Todd and Don, so looking at under plan a item a calls out that there's a one acre of the former adult center. So that's dirt that we don't own. So that should not be factored into that correct?

Yeah, I mean I that's a really good question and we can I think we can take that out if?

I mean,

it's It's, a municipal I guess we the building, the land is owned by the school, the building is owned by us, by the city, is that Correct. Okay. Todd, I'm not sure what the answer is to that. I mean, can that be removed?

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I know it's in the it's in the master plan, or the long range plan list of projects. Okay. But we can put it down here.

I mean, yeah, mean, the school district, you know, wants to to have conversation about that itty bitty piece of land, you know, for the city, I think we could have that conversation. Right, Randy?

Any piece of land with a high appraisal.

Yeah.

None of those are definite right now, so we might need to see how much acreage we could put around some of the residential areas for parks and as you do that urban planning, Don, that'll kind of come in from a different direction.

And there's another question here as well.

Go ahead, Counselor Davis, and then

Counselor Okay, thank you. So are you saying then under Plan A, so I understand this, that you wanna take out the 62.5 acres for future sports complex?

One idea is that, you know, with the Cambie economic opportunity analysis, we we identified the need for 04/1944 net total acres for employment land. The gross amount of land would be well above that, I'm sure. And this sports complex, however big it is, whether it's 30 or 60 acres, could potentially be accommodated or, know, around that future employment area. It's one option, and I'm sure you're gonna get a lot of input on that as you've done kind of works through the urban growth planning study, but that's that's one way. And it was, by the way, one of the objectives, the council objectives of the economic opportunity analysis was to build this kind of sports and recreation complex, We don't even know if it's going be publicly owned.

It could be run by a nonprofit or a for profit entity.

Sure. Well, I've heard different numbers. As we've gone through this process, I've heard 41 acres and now we're up to 62.5 acres. I'd like those numbers checked because it keeps needle keeps moving in regards to the amount of acres that we need for that. Originally when we were talking before it was around 40 acres or 41 acres for a sports complex so I' not quite sure where the 62.5 comes in.

And just to the point here on the economic opportunity analysis, that was the maximum amount of land that could be set aside for that. Not that that was the acreage, but that was in the economic opportunity analysis is the maximum amount. That's another item for next week as well as to we're not giving that number to you all as necessarily what that number should be that we're just identifying that that could be the maximum based on the economic opportunity analysis in the employment future employment area. And this is a bit more for next week as well. Could, and I was gonna see if I could just summarize this and we can talk about this next week because we got some other slides.

The gist of this slide here, I think, is twofold. One is the level of service we're identifying here is 11.4 acres per thousand. Currently, the adopted amount is 10 acres per thousand. That has an influence on how much acreage is required overall. Secondly, there's an interrelationship between the decisions we make on the system development charges and what we're dealing with in terms of what's included in that and what we're going to look at as our urban growth boundary need for urban park space for expansion.

There's a relationship there between those two. Todd is correct that would be looked at during conceptual planning for the urban growth boundary expansion. We're starting that process this week with ODOT through concept planning, and that would be looking at land and what potentially there might be for park areas within the urban expansion. There's a lot here. We could probably spend about thirty minutes on just this slide, but I was hoping we could move that into conversation for next week. But I just those are the key issues that we would wanna talk about next week.

Yeah. Thank you. Okay.

Councilor Patton.

Yeah. So something I will just throw out is that, like the adult center, the land the pool is under is not ours as well. And so if that is figured in NA calculations, that should probably be taken out as well.

So noted.

Yeah. Next slide, please. More on that later.

That's like three acres, Todd. And we can, it's like, it's similar to the adult center. Okay. So I'm to go ahead and advance this.

Go ahead, Todd.

Yeah, like the prior methodology for parks, SDCs for the city, which I personally got to work on ten years ago or so. The city of Canby does allocate some of the parks costs to nonresidential land uses, such as businesses, industrial properties, and central hotels. And what we've come up with is by looking at the hours of of service that are available between residents and workers who work inside the city but live outside the city. We've concluded that the availability of park hours ranges is kind of distributed about 82% to residential and 17%, almost 18% to non res, similar to what we did in the prior methodology. Next slide, please.

This slide shows you kind of what if you do if you do want to include a parks reimbursement fee, how we would calculate that. We've been talking about the improvements, future improvements, but the city is actually you've already invested quite a bit in parks over the last, say, five years, close to about $3,500,000. And when we back out the demand that has occurred over time, the remaining capacity that's left on that, on those recent facilities that have been built equates to about 3,400,000.0 is our estimate, About 82% would be allocated to residential, about 18% would be allocated to non res. So the residential, what this would do is when we look at the number of residential units projected over the next twenty years, this would equate to about $1,200 per average dwelling unit for the reimbursement fee portion of the ARPS SDC calculation. So this would be different than the improvement fee calculation, which is on the next slide.

So the improvement fee calculation would be based on the park project list, take out the noneligible pieces based on the levels of service that we calculated, and that would give us an adjusted cost basis after we take out the fund balance of $1,100,000, about $61,000,000 for SDC improvements for parts. That's the amount kinda that we're saying could be paid for using SDCs, 61,000,000. And and then we divide divvy that up. When we add add the reimbursement component, you can see to come up with a total cost basis of $66,000,000. We allocate that between res and nonres, and divide that by units or jobs.

And so this would equate to about $23,800 per dwelling unit on average and about $1,700 per job, which we would then convert to square feet per buildings. We we did some back of the envelope analysis to take out the $50,000,000 for the sports facility building. We still bought the land and took out one of the lower priority projects, the Ivy Street Bridge, PED bridge, and that backed our total eligible cost down. And it took our our rate from $23,800 to $16,200 per dwelling unit. So you can see that those are the kind of things I wanna talk with you more about next week as we fine tune the project list, how that influences the rate.

The new rate under this current calc of $23,800 per home would be higher than the highest we've seen in Oregon, which is Lake Oswego, 17149 Dollars, and Wilsonville's 14,000. So, ideally, you get closer to those numbers as we fine tune the project list.

Next slide, Todd.

Sure. And then we took the non residential fee as a fee per per job, and then we we've made some assumptions about jobs per thousand square feet to come up with what this parks fee could be per square foot of floor area added of certain buildings based on the type of building proposed in the city. So you can see the industrial will be about $2 a square foot, retail about $2.47, office about $4.80, and lodging about a 1.15 And that's what a lot of cities do now. Charge based on square feet.

So Todd, I'm going to move this up because we're getting close to the hour here. So summary of draft SDCs.

Yeah. For residential, we talked at the last oh, I guess it was last year about about scaling the fees as opposed to just one one fee for all home sizes. And we're showing you if you had five types of home sizes, five categories, one up to 500 square feet. These are primarily the accessory dwelling units. One, the 500 to a thousand square feet.

These are primarily the apartments or small condos. One for a thousand to 1,500 square feet. These are primarily the cottage homes, manufactured homes. And then the standard dwelling units would come in about 1,500 to 2,000, and then the larger state homes would be over 2,000. And the fees that would result based on what we have before you today would range from about 27,000 to 58,000 per dwelling unit depending on the home size.

And, you know, so having five bins of home types would simplify the work for administration, but it would also create a little more equity for folks to wanna build smaller units, more affordable units. Of course, you could if it's de restricted housing, you could you could further reduce the fee or even waive the fees, but this would help promote some equity. And finally, I think we have Oh. Oh, I guess Sorry. The phase in slide, Don, which was showing if you did wanna phase in the parks and transportation over three years, how that would work out.

And this is what a lot of cities do. Sorry. Yeah. Next slide. There you go. Okay. So your current rate is about $16,500 per dwelling unit excluding water. And then if you phase in so year one, we're gonna get to 50% of our max for transportation and parks. That'll take us up to about 32,000 per average single family home, excluding water. And then year two, we'd go up to 75% of the max, and year three would be at a 100% of the max.

And some phases in over five years, some phase it in quicker, but this is one way to kind of alleviate the burden on developers who are already running pro formas on subdivisions. And now the next steps. So the the key discussion items we hope to counsel tonight, we hope that to get your input on the idea of scaling the SDCs by home size with five cohorts for housing types. We are proposing one citywide SDC district rate. It is possible that when you do an urban growth boundary expansion area and designate that, we could come back with an SDC overlay for that area if additional projects are required to serve that area.

And that's what Tigard and Beaverton and Hillsborough and Wilsonville do. So one citywide SDC rate is what we're proposing. Bays in the SDC for transportation and parks over three years. I'm gonna talk more about SDC waivers or discounts for deed restricted affordable housing in the future. We don't have to deal with that tonight, but it is something that's I know the council's gonna be working on.

And then the long range project lists have been worked over for transportation and sewer and storm quite a bit. We recognize the parks project list will need to be refined, and we're gonna start that conversation next week and any other issues you wanna bring up. But these are the key items for confirmation tonight. And then next steps, I'll come back to that prior slide, Don. But the next steps are the city issued the ninety day SDC notice on January 29.

We have another council work session next week, February 18. The first adoption hearing for SDCs and the project lists would be May 6 potentially. And the draft so the draft SDC methodology report needs to be issued by March 6. We'll get input from stakeholders right up into the final hearing. That input can be used to fine tune the the project list and the final calcs right up to the final adoption. And the new charges can go into effect as soon as the new methodology report is adopted. I'm kind of thinking July 1, but it could be sooner. And there we go.

So just back on slide 27, and we can continue this conversation next week, but we're hoping that we get confirmation from you all that having the scale residential home size would be something we could include in the methodology. One s t c district which is appropriate for the size of can be instead of having multiple it' easier to implement that as well. The phase in which we can speak about this next week but the phase in and the other piece of this is as the numbers get adjusted we' have more information but it' a lot to take in. These are big jumps it' important to have this done in a way that you're feeling comfortable with the information.

There's a lot here Don. So, I mean, those are staggering increase for sure. So can you go back to the slide of the the with the five cohorts broken out? Yeah. So, obviously, a lot of focuses in this particular slide and maybe in a lot of the document here was the focus on, SDC calculations on housing single family homes.

Right? 83% versus 17% on businesses, obviously, and it seems like and and Todd may need to revisit, maybe not tonight, but next next week's meeting about what drives that calculation. Because I think I understood it to be based on the amount of people working in Canby versus living in Canby that dictates how STCs are broken out between residential homes and what businesses would necessarily take on. Am I in a nutshell, am I close to that explanation? Todd, does

that Yeah. That's correct. It's based on the hours the parks are available to residents versus nonresident workers.

Okay. And that's strictly just the parks SDC. Correct? Yeah.

Yes.

Okay. Which makes sense because, I mean, some I know the argument has been made that some of the businesses think that why why should they be why should they would they be paying more into a Park SDC when, you know, they don't live here, but yet, that' one or the other. A couple of things I think that need to be thought about here for the council and even for all of us in this conversation. When we look at STCs and how they enable for growth for parks, transportation, sewer, and stormwater, I think we need to also keep in mind that this is increasing the city's operating costs. That's more for us that we've gotta take care of as we grow.

So we're gonna add more parks. We're gonna add more roads, etcetera. SDCs do not cover operating costs. And so I guess my question, and and I'm glad our finance director is here, is when we look at that, will our fine will our tax revenue of added growth that we're projecting cover the increase in the operating costs. 3% property tax increases each year don't already creates a bit of a constraint in that regard, so I worry about that aspect.

And again, whether we're talking about SDCs in general, it's just growth in general. So it's not necessarily picking on, SDCs. Do we have anything out there regarding the impact, on the development of housing? Like, will we have communities when we look at it where and I this is something for the council to think about. Do we wanna be that far up the SDC chain?

Do we wanna be the one setting the bar as a community for SDCs and development. So the counter pendulum to that to me, the the countermeasure is what is that gonna look like in terms of housing development. Right? We've got a housing strategy that we want to achieve. And our biggest piece that we talk about as a group, as a council, and we have for a number of years, and it's not just can be, it's just about every city, I think, across the Willamette Valley and we'll say even the state, is that middle housing bandwidth.

So I like the cohort idea because it seems like it it's not sorry. I need glasses these days. It's not $58,000 across the board, but there is a breakdown where it's based on square footage, which I do like. It's still a huge hit when I look at if we're trying to meet that middle housing ground, which to me is that 1,000 to so cohort three and four, that we're, I mean, we're already blowing ourselves out of the water in terms of housing costs. And I know not all of that is SDC charges, But that's if I'm a developer, I mean, there you go.

We talk about what it costs a developer just to stick the shove before they even stick the shovel in the ground. I mean, I'll go back to in council president Hensley and I've heard this conversation with former senator Alan Olson, who was a builder. Like, I mean, at the time, this was council president Hensley was just, like, six years ago, seven years ago. He you know, his comment was, like, I'm a $150,000 into the into the project, and I even stuck a shovel in the ground. So that was then. This is now. What is the builder looking at before they even turn dirt? So that's a that's a a concern for me just in general. Right? And so I one of my questions, and and Don and I think you and I have talked about this in terms of ADUs.

You know, we've had how many ADUs built in our community? Very, very few. Very few. Right? Because they've gotta shell out $25 in it Yeah. SDCs. Yep. And it that's more than what it cost to build the ADU. Right? So Mhmm.

And, again, strategy for this council and future councils is, do we want ADUs as a growth option? You know? So do we is this hydraulic in terms of these cohorts, Don, in terms of I mean, if we want to see the development of cohort sizes three and four and maybe even one one through three, one through four, does five become a bigger chunk? Or do we add a six? Or do we look at it again?

I'm this is first night having this conversation. These are just things that are rattling around in the mayor's head this evening on this, Again, I'm not looking for answers from you and Todd or even the rest of the council tonight. Just think it's good food for thought in that regard.

Great commentary and I think that the price point in some ways is ultimately up to the Council as well so we have the demand side which transportation is a little more quantitative. Parks is a little more subjective in some ways perhaps it's quality based. Roads are based on level of service and safety parks are there' a different measure to that. As we talk next week I think these giant numbers hopefully might come down as the numbers for the park system come down but still it' a ginormous number even without parks at all in terms of a jump. That' what happens in some ways when fifteen years go by since we' done this last time.

And so that's, you know, it is, it's big jump. I think in the end game though, council also has a directive to identify, you're getting to sensitivity analysis pieces of this about where we think we should land on this and then that could also be part of this process as well. This doesn't have to be our conversation necessarily saying we're providing options but in the end you can give us direction to identify where you would like to land in that spectrum options and we could work that backwards.

Again jumping in the way back machine to Don and the counsel like when we talked about the goal being 10 acres per thousand right And that number is fluctuated and there was conversation like, did that include school, you know, school park land? You know? Yes. No. I mean, that's gone back and forth, but let's just say it is on all on us.

And I know that when we look at some of the park development that we've done, some of that is just green space. There's nothing that we have to necessarily maintain, but it's still factored in as as parkland. Right? And so I think as we look at that, you know, long term operational number for us going forward is how much of that is active use parkland versus passive parkland. That makes

It totally makes sense. You're dead on.

Comments? Yes. Councilor Stearns.

Can these SDCs be indexed for inflation? It seems like

They actually are and they go up every year based inflation. There's an index. Regardless of what happens with this increase every year we're going

So for the last fifteen years ago when this was redone, they've gone up the inflation to 26,000 and now we' proposing 125% increase. That seems a little bit

it' going

to take a little bit to sell me on 125% increase I just did a calculator on my phone on that.

There's a there's an engineering index that all jurisdictions use each year as inflationary. It it it's what they use. It has not kept up. I mean, I know the math may seem strange, but you just look at the spectrum of where CAMBI is and you look at the other jurisdictions, it's, you know, we've fallen behind because we've not we've not upgraded our cost index. Just looking at transportation costs back in 02/2010 on transportation compared to 2026 is dramatic.

Just in the last four years it's been dramatic. It' a big sweep and I don' t disagree but they are there' a percentage increase they go up by every year but it does not account for that percentage increase doesn't carry the day in terms of bringing those up to what the costs are.

I think we need to think really carefully. I was just at a meeting last night with the utility board that says they're going to up the cost of the new plant maybe, officially, by a $100,000,000 more than previously said. We said the rates increase that they were proposing can be very soon be a very, very expensive place to be in. Mhmm. And I have a feeling that your growth ain't gonna happen if it gets that that that expensive.

Mhmm. Well, again, I think a lot of that these, you know, these numbers when we talk about the wastewater or, you know, water treatment plant, you know, these aspects, it's all based on what the growth is. So if the growth is not there, then the STC revenue we're not building, and so that STC revenue is not there either. Right? So that's that weighted scale piece of what we're looking at.

Yeah. Well

well We we could very well, like, yeah, price ourselves out of Mhmm. Out of development. I don't know. And that's the piece where I I don't know. Like, if we have an SDC level like this, does that mean that all that's being built are homes that are above the 2,500 square foot mark and start at $550,000.600000 dollars

If you look at that, just the numbers you're gonna be on the cost per square foot, it goes down the greater the house size is when it comes to these fees. Just doing my own mental math on this. I don't know I know this time for this meeting is probably over but will we have time to actually engage in conversations next week?

Yeah. I think Yep. It's part of

Joseph mean, there is a lot to absorb here, and we obviously,

you know, we will take

the time that's needed to get through this. We've been given a directive to push this thing through, and I that's you know, as council goal. But, I mean, it's really your prerogative on Sure. Where we go with all this.

No. And this is the homework that we needed to do. So Yep. Yep. Last question, councilor Patton, and then we'll need to move into our council meeting this evening. Councilor Patton?

Yeah. So I guess for me, one of the things I would say is that this whole thing about the cost of housing and stuff. One of the reasons this this is my opinion. One of them. One of the reasons we are in the situation we are in is because none of the stuff was adjusted over time.

And so the reason we're looking at these huge increases is because there was no changes made over that period of time. So the goal would be to ensure that in the future, these things are adjusted in a reasonable time so we don't have these huge spikes in these charges. And I've heard for years that we don't wanna price ourselves out of the market, yet we still have a ton of people building homes in this city. So I don't see I don't see a huge problem at this point in time for people who wanna build 2,500 square foot homes that are bringing cash into the city. Now I believe in an earlier conversation, we had said that there are ways of adopting these fees and stuff so that if people are actually wanting to build multifamily homes, affordable housing, and stuff, they can actually get discounts and stuff on these SDCs to make it more feasible to do that.

And I think incentivizing builders to come in and build those units makes sense. But if they wanna come in and build these gigantic homes that take up all this land, then I don't see why these people shouldn't be paying for the services. So that's just my opinion on that. I'm sure some people's hairs are hairs on fire after saying that, but it is what it is. The other thing I wanna say is that you're talking about us having sorry. I am getting over the flu. You're talk you were saying something about we're gonna have another meeting next week. Is the slide deck for that meeting of a similar size to the slide deck to this one?

It will be shorter is the hope. I mean, this was a lot to take in, and I know it's a lot of slides. Yeah. Yeah.

So here's the deal. Yeah. Yeah. I am curious as to when people are gonna come to the realization that this council is unable to swallow this much information in an hour. That's the whole reason why we have the off Wednesday work sessions. That's why we started it. Was so that so these conversations, we would have two hours to actually tackle this and not be rushed through it. So I'm gonna encourage you, folks, even though the next meeting is actually one of our normal city council meetings, you have got to schedule in a reasonable amount of time for us to die to to get our thoughts out so that that way we can all be heard and go forward from there.

And, councilor Patten, I totally agree with you in that statement, and that is I'm gonna own that because I control the agenda. The piece that, put us into needing to do council meeting this evening was regarding, the public hearing on there regarding the noise variance, because there's a time limit on that, and that's why this got truncated because of that aspect. Going forward, this meeting, this time, this particular day and time, it absolutely needs to be con considered just for work sessions and not an additional council meeting. So that going forward, that that I I own that for tonight. But going forward, that will not be the case.

Well and that's all well and good. But if that's the case, then what should have happened was two hours or an hour and a half or an hour and forty five minutes should have been given to this meeting, then the city council meeting started after that.

Well and, I mean, I we just posted it for 07:00. Doesn't mean we need to start at 07:00. We can control that as well. I mean, if there's more to have dialogue on this, then, you know, we can do that.

We'll build in more time next week.

Okay. Maybe you and I can connect tomorrow on the agenda for I know a preliminary went out.

Yeah. The focus next week is really on parks, but yet so noted.

No, it's okay. Council President Hensley, and then we gotta, I guess, move on.

Well, I just wanted to address councilor Patton's concern. If he has more that he wants to talk about, we, announced or we we noticed for the council meeting to be at seven. That just means we can't start it before seven. So if he has more he wants to flush out, let's get it done.

No. Concur. I mean, I mean, Cal I mean, is there more that you guys you again, knowing my counsel, we just got, you know, taken out to the woodshed on STCs, and this group generally does, when that occurs, likes to noodle before they get into much deep dive conversation and reflection, which is fine, and that we have now a week to to do that, or we can do that now. Councilor Patton.

Yeah. So I would say if that's the case, that I strongly agree that these SDCs need to be phased in over a period of time. In my opinion, those SDCs that are close to what they currently are could probably be done in a one year, like, over one or two years. But for the great big ones, I straw I I think it would be more than reasonable to do a five to six year phase in. And that would give us time to sort of track how that SDC funding is coming in because a lot of these models say this is what it's gonna look like, and this is how much is gonna come in.

But then once we actually start collecting the money, sometimes we realize that actually we're getting less or we're getting more where we're tracking. And so by doing it in a phased process over that time, it would give us the opportunity to make those adjustments as we went along. So if we found that we were actually increasing too much or there was too much coming in, I hate to even say that, but, you know, let's say it's an absorbent amount and it makes us blush that that's how much money is coming in, then it would give us an opportunity to adjust those future increases so that that way we're making things relatively fair and equitable. And I would also and and and I guess I saw some heads nodding, but correct me if I'm wrong. Back to my question about one of the ways that we help sort of stimulate the growth of those housing affordable housing units or multi multi housing units is to incentivize builders to build those units to get certain SDC waivers or reductions in the numb in the SDC's amount.

Is that correct? Am I remembering that correct from the further from future or past meetings? Pardon me.

Councilor Patton. So there's a housing production strategy that's been adopted by council. That those are strategies those strategies do talk about qualified affordable housing and having waivers for them. However, that's just the strategy. Each of those strategies is to have to come before the council to be approved in terms of the details of that.

But, that did pass through department of land conservation and development as what we're planning to do over the next four years. That's a bit separated I mean but they're intertwined but that separated we can separate those out and we're intending to do that with our code update is to address those issues separately from the SDC update. But if that's the desire of the council to weave those into this, we're also open to that as well. That conversation though really was more intended to be like with the code update, we'd be addressing that more holistically on what those qualified affordable housing units are and the parameters around those and more detail through a council discussion and ordinance process. But you're correct.

That was something that council did give the approval for the strategies, those, I guess those could also at the same time at the council's directive could be woven into this SDC update, and we could just adopt that as part of this process. It's up to the council to decide what to do on that.

Okay. So I it sounds like the answer is that, yes, we do have the ability to do those.

You absolutely

To cut the pie that in in smaller pieces to to help stimulate that growth.

Just trying to give our staff thought process on that. I know. Yeah.

No problem. I I'm on, like, a gallon of cough syrup, so just bear with me. So another question that I had is, I I agree with councilor Waterman that when we see, I'm all for the parks board, parks advisory board, taking a look at the the sort of the list of projects that are here and how it marries in with the projects list that was part of the parks master plan. But I really would like to see I I I am also advocating to see even some sort of percentages of what of those can be, like, assigned to each one of those park projects of what could be covered under the SDCs even if it's saying that, you know granted it can be said, well, this falls in this category, that falls in that category. I'm gonna be lazy in saying that it would be nice to just see the percentage right there as we're looking at the list rather than having to, like, cross reference back to another chart to say that this is what that part falls under, and this is what that amount is.

We intend to show that up to the council in advance and during the meeting, Todd. We just talked about that briefly earlier. I think Todd gave the head nod to say, yeah, we'll add that percentage to the columns.

Okay. And I think for me, at this point in time, those were the ones those were the things that kinda stuck out to me.

Great thank you councilor paddon. Councillor davis.

Mayor we noticed the council meeting for seven and we've got people on the lobby waiting so I'd recommend we end this meeting and continue this discussion at a later date.

I appreciate that. Is there a comment now or can't wait until next week?

Well, just a comment now but real quick. Can we actually schedule time to discuss it next week? Because I know the presentation is very long and everything, but it sort of annoys me when we have a presentation that doesn't give me time for discussion afterwards.

Duly noted. And, city administrator, Healy, and I will look at the agenda next week to make sure that space is put in there.

Thank you.

Todd, Don, thank you. It's a heavy lift and we appreciate it. Thank you. We will adjourn or end the work session here and get ready for our city council meeting. Councilors here, anyone need a break before we roll into it?

No? Okay. We'll get started here shortly. Thank you. Good evening, Camby.

Welcome to our city council meeting. I apologize for the late start. This is not unusual. It was a special called meeting this evening for us, so appreciate your patience. We had a a very detailed and heavy conversation work session here this this evening about system development charges.

So I won't rehash much of that now, you can go back and watch the tape if you wish or join us next week when we will talk more about that. So if you please stand for the invocation and the pledge of allegiance. For tonight's invocation, just ask for a moment of silence for our first responders, police, our fire, paramedics, and our military personnel around the world. Great. Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The

United States Of America and

to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

for all.

Thank you. So we have a couple of things this evening. So we'll move into roll call vote, miss Teresa.

Counselor Patton.

Present online.

Council president Hensley. Present on Zoom. Counselor Maldonado.

Not not, he and nothing was reached out to me about him not being here this evening either.

He told me, he didn't know that we had a meeting tonight. Mayor Hudson. Here. Councilor Davis?

Here.

Councilor Stearns?

Here.

Councilor Waterman?

Present.

Great. Thank you. Randy, do we have staff introductions this evening?

Mr. Mayor, we do not.

According to our HR manager, we do.

I didn't see it on the agenda. Come on up. We thought it was next week. Our bad. Welcome.

I introduce

you guys to Jacob Frostick at the Swim Center. He's our new program coordinator.

Welcome, sir.

Comes from a pretty storied history in aquatics. He's worked in both private and public side, including most recently at the Multnomah Athletic Club and Hawthorne Farms, and we're super excited to have them. We have lessons starting next week, so it'll be trial by fire.

Good. Leave it

to you. Welcome. Good evening, counsel. So mentioned, I'm Jake Frosik. I'm coming on as the program coordinator for the swim center. I've had over a decade of experience in aquatics. I have a background in Red Cross training primarily with lifeguarding, teaching CPR first aid classes, overseeing swim programs. My primary duties will be the overseeing of our swim program. So I'm just very excited to be coming out to you guys and getting to work with the city and especially focusing on the quality of our swim lessons and bringing the overall safety for the swim center. So thank you for the opportunity.

Appreciate it.

Welcome to welcome to the city.

I'm welcome. See you. Thanks.

Next on the agenda is an opportunity for citizen input and public comment. It's an opportunity to address the council on non agenda items. I do have I almost said yellow card again. We have one white card, but that's for our public hearing this evening. So I don't think we have anyone online tonight.

So okay. We will move on. Item five this evening, ordinances and resolution. The first one is ordinance number one six six two, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to execute a contract with Canby Excavating Incorporated in the amount of $3,479,492 for the South Walnut Street Extension Project and declaring an emergency to a second reading on 02/18/2026. Mister Healy.

Thank you, mister mayor. I was gonna call a few people up to the podium. Kurt McCloud is here, our project manager for this project. Neil's here, and Spencer Public Works is here. So we got a good a good team working on this. You will note that, we did elect to invoke the declared emergency clause. I really like to keep this project moving forward, as there's a lot of moving parts. So I know that's at your discretion. After you hear our presentation, feel free. I know you use that very rarely. It wasn't taken lightly that we put that on there.

Appreciate that. Thank you, sir. Kurt?

Well, we're bringing you a contract proposal tonight. We had 17 bids, so very competitive. Prices range from 3,500,000.0 to 7,100,000.0. The estimate was embarrassingly high at 6.8, but we're paying less today than we paid two years ago for things. Canby Excavating is well known in Canby. They've done a good job for us for many years. So, we're asking for council approval to award a contract for 3 point I think it's $3.493479000.000.

Remind me, Kurt, this portion of the project is to do what?

We have three phases this is the second phase this builds from the end of the curb returns at 99 E so it doesn't touch 99 E and it builds all the way up to 1st Avenue and the curb returns. So the complete project from the end of the curb returns at the highway all the way to 1st Avenue. There's just a lot of moving parts on this project. We're still working to get ODOT approval on the third phase and that's the actual signal and the realignment of lanes on Highway 990. In fact, they've made a condition of even this project they want us to have the ODOT approval before the county wants us to give us a permit on this. But we're pushing to make all these things come together at the same time.

I appreciate that and that was my question for you was going to be where we were at with I know the signaling and odot has come back a couple of different times with a new list of demands and wanting more ransom money for the project.

They haven't built this yet but they will.

No, for sure.

We're waiting for the fifth review back and I imagine they will have some comments but hopefully those can be resolved quickly. We'll see.

Questions? Yes Councilor Davis.

Have we seen the actual design for what this road will look like?

Certainly we have with these highways. I don' know if you' seen them and we' provided them to public works so we have 50 sheets plans for the street improvement and then we have another maybe 40 sheets for the signal itself. Then there was another 10 or 12 sheets for the sewer cross ings of the three phases that we have. Everything has been designed for a long time, for this full year it's been designed. ODOT has us tweak it so we keep having to tweak it and change things. If you want to see it I can certainly email you a PDF set. Can see that.

Would be helpful. I'm interested as to whether or not there's any center dividers or is it wide open road?

It's wide open road. Okay.

Thank you.

It's dual left turn lanes as Walnut Street approaches 99 E. There's a right turn lane dual left turn lanes and a single southbound lane.

You.

Randy since that's come up and I know the initial it sounds like this has gone through a couple of different reiterations since we first dreamed of this punch through. Would it be possible maybe for our one of our meetings in March to get, I guess, the most current kind of drawing or look at it for us to talk about or at least see it? I don't know if It would be helpful. Kurt needs to be here for that, just to kinda just put some eyes on it and maybe, you know That would be nice. Have a, you know, the project manager go through it for us just kinda get get a feel for it because I know we're like we got Big road.

We got boring coming up we've got all sorts of stuff for this project and so it would good to just have that visual. Does that work? You bet. Appreciate that. Thanks. Any other comments or questions? Councilor Patton, council president, anything? I'm not seeing any hands.

I'm good.

I do have one. I just wanna confirm the stoplight that's gonna be at this intersection will be owned by ODOT. Correct? It's not gonna be a city stoplight. Right?

No. Think the city's gonna be responsible for operation and maintenance. So I don't know who owns it. I think the city is going to I guess the essence of that, the city is going be responsible for all operation and maintenance. So, we will end up going under contract probably with Clackamas County, I would expect, for the operation and maintenance of that signal. It will not I don't believe it'll be an ODOT signal.

I can check on that.

Yeah. Yeah. That's a new Oh.

That's a new wrinkle.

Oh, really? Interesting. Because I know that I I believe that all the other because we've had this conversation about some of the other stoplights. If And memory serves me correctly, all the ones that are currently on 99 are all ODOT ones. And the only one that we actually own is the one there at the intersection for Fred Meyer on Redwood Street. So I would be curious about that because I have been I have been telling people that this is an ODOT stoplight and not a City Of Camby stoplight. So I would like to make sure I'm not lying to people.

Yeah. Let's That was my understanding too.

Mhmm. The, signal at 13th And Ivy is also a City Of Camby signal.

Right. Oh, see, I'm learning something new tonight.

13 Mister Mary, we're at 13th Township.

13th And Ivy. So now the new one at at at Ivy And Township. I thought we contracted with the county to maintain 13th?

We'll verify all that

let's figure that out.

We'll verify

the new new light there at Sequoia and or Walnut in '99. Okay. Council president Hensley?

Yes. I I wanna go back just a quick second to 13th And Ivy. It was my understanding in our conversations at the Traffic Safety Commission that they they wanted to put a dedicated left turn lane there. And the reasoning for it not happening yet was they were waiting for the Ivy to come into our possession. It's a county light, not ours is what I understood. So I would like confirmation on that. Spencer?

Yes. That is correct, counsel Prenzel Henczey. We will not take ownership of that light until after the completed transfer of Ivy Street. Right now, the only light that the city currently owns is at Hazel Dell in Sequoia.

Mhmm. Okay. Thank you.

And Ivy. Thank you, sir. Okay. We all good? We know what we own and don't own right now. Yes. Councilor Davis, what would you like to do?

I would like to make a motion.

Oh, well, fabulous. Let's go with it.

I move to approve ordinance number sixteen sixty two, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to execute a contract with Canby Excavating Inc. In the amount of 3,479,492, dollars for the Southwest or South Walnut Street Extension project declaring an emergency, moving to a second reading on 02/18/2026. Second.

Motion is made by councilor Davis, seconded by councilor Waterman to approve ordinance number, one six six two, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to execute a contract with Cambia Excavating Incorporated in the amount of $3,479,492 for the South Walnut Street Extension Project declaring an emergency to a second reading on 02/18/2026. Any other comments or discussion? All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Alright.

Anyone opposed? That carries Thank you. Five zero. Thank you all. Thank Appreciate it very much. Thank you. I'll just add a piece too. I know we do a lot of paving projects in our city, and I know Canby Excavating does an amazing job on a lot of the projects that they do get to do here in our city. And so I'm really thankful that they are I know we've got usually in projects we have to take the low bidder, but it's nice to see that Cambiax, at least it's a local company that we get to plug and play here for this, so this is really good. I'm excited for them to have that project.

So thank you guys. Okay. Next up is a public hearing for this evening. Our public hearing is to approve order number 26Dash03 in order granting a modification extension for the noise variance application to Trammell Crow Company to allow completion of the concrete pour and site work between the hours of 05:30AM and 10PM on February 2 through 04/01/2026 at 2121 Southeast Township Road. And I think so we're that's our hearing for this evening.

So I will open up with so the matter presently before the hearing body requires a public hearing. All interested persons in attendance shall be heard on the matter. This public hearing was noticed, and those who wish to speak were instructed to contact the city recorder. At this time, I don't think we've received any to speak on the issue. Those people that are interested in testifying as either proponents or opponents, please indicate your desire to speak by raising your hand either here in the council chambers or virtually online.

We have those. Thank you. For longer presentations, proponents and opponents may quote unquote buy time from one another. In so doing, those either in favor or opposed may allocate their time to a spokesperson who will represent the entire group. All questions must be directed through the mayor. Any evidence to be considered must be submitted to the hearing body for public access. All written testimony received both for and against shall be summarized by staff and presented briefly to the hearing body during the staff report. The public hearing will be conducted as follows. There will be a staff report, which Mr. Hardy will provide.

Questions, if any, by the hearing body, then I will open up the public hearing for testimony. So proponents will have three minutes and then opponents may have three minutes. I will then close the public hearings. And then again any further questions by the hearing body and then a discussion by the hearing body. A decision shall be made by the hearing body at the close of the hearing or the matter will be continued to a date certain in the future. This will be the only notice of that date you will receive. Does anyone have any questions about the procedure of the hearing? Seeing none, Mr. Hardy, floor is yours, sir.

Good evening mayor and council members. This is essentially a renewal of the noise variance that you all heard on 11/05/2025. Essentially the same operational elements are in I play did want to give some background tremel crow and perlo construction the folks on the ground are here as well tonight to speak more specifically to the issues. Randy reached out to several neighborhood representatives that were here last time during the hearing and I will go through that briefly in terms of the commentary there. I'm going to try to keep this at a high level and I'll let those folks that want to speak both from Trammell Crow and the neighborhood speak on this as well.

I think the essential elements here that Trammell Crow has provided and this is in the staff report is they have been adhering to the 05:30 mobilization time and six a. Start time which is a concern of one of the neighbors that they maintain that they have been doing that they' been doing noise monitoring during concrete pours they also have received access permit from Milano which is allowing them to come in that entry way which is away from the neighbors and not closer to the neighbors. Trying to do the things they' trying to do to minimize noise out there. Focused on that. Like I mentioned, there's two neighbors that Randy reached out to.

We called that identified that as resident A and resident B. And again, one concern was on the 05:30AM that that be mobilization and not start time. They fairly clear about that, that they did not want them doing construction at 05:30, but mobilization I think was okay. And then the other resident was said they were doing a really good job and they've lived up to their end of the bargain. They said it's super quiet, not extending not extended the light poles, light blights are low and noises though they've been doing an awesome job and this other president verified with his neighbors that he hasn't received any complaints either.

With that in mind staff is recommending approval for this We do recognize that there may be opportunities for us to come back up here and speak more to this, but I'm going to leave that to both the applicant team to come up and speak as well as the neighbors that may have concerns around this. Happy to answer any questions.

Don, other than Randy's call down have we had any complaints come in at all?

No we have not.

Any questions for Don here at all? Councilor Patton?

Yeah. I just wanna confirm with the other one with the other one that we did. What did we say mobilization at five, or did we say say work start at five?

I I think the spirit of that was mobilization, but and and I think Tramble Crow read that as the spirit. And even though the order, I think, was 05:30, I don't think it was absolutely clear on that, but they they kept with the spirit of that and have maintained that. And I have we have written commentary commentary from trample crow on that.

Councillor davis?

Yes so just clarification that was mobilization of 05:30 start work at six

six yes. Any other questions?

No. Did the representative from Trammell Crow wanna add any input at all? You guys weren't planning on being called up here, were you?

Well, it's just further echoing what Don already said. I mean, obviously, we know the the concerns around the noise, so we're trying to do everything right and proper and upfront. We have taken some readings from various locations from the streets surrounding the project, and all of those readings during the construction work are coming in around 50 decibels. We talked last time we met about 85 decibel concerns. The only times we're seeing that are when large trucks unrelated to construction are driving by and stopping.

So those readings are all coming in really well. And then we've just recently, as Don mentioned, got that approved permit for the Molino Road County, right of work right of way work. And so we cut in a new entrance that's much further from any of the residents. There was one councilman last time who mentioned the possibility of constructing berms around the project. We looked into it.

It wasn't quite feasible for the extent, but we did have some stockpile rock. So we did try to stockpile that rock in a way on the North End to help with that as much as we could. So we feel we're doing, as much as we can to help, and we we feel we're not, causing any further issue to our knowledge, and our being a good neighbor.

Appreciate it very much. Great. Anything else, gentlemen?

Think we did a great job.

Good deal. Alright.

Appreciate it. We'll Thank you.

Get the we'll open the public hearing here. Any other councilor Patten, do have another question?

Yeah. I was just curious. Is April 1 because we're doing this extension. Do they feel that they will have this done by April 1, or do they think they're going to need to be coming back with another extension?

That's a great question. April 1 is our ideal date, but if we wanna limit the times of coming back, if we wanna be certain, I would say June would be a very reasonable date. But I don't know the the concerns with pushing for longer. It it really ultimately is weather dependent. The first time that we came through and we had the requested date, that was when we were assuming we were gonna get the full.

So there's been quite a few times where we couldn't pour, where we thought we would be able to because we didn't have that extra time. So April's doable, but it's aggressive and completely weather dependent. So, I think June would be without doubt we would be in the clear. Somewhere in between, if that's a concern, would be more reasonable. So I don't know if that walked around and circles your question, but

okay. It seems to me yeah. Obviously, it's been a very rare February where and January where it's you've had the weather to work. And if it stays that way, yeah, that would make sense, but all of a sudden, March and April gets soggy. Yeah. Yeah. For sure. Council president Hensley and then councilor Davis.

Have the residents been talked to about the idea of it going until June, or are they thinking we're only gonna approve this until April?

That is a good question. April.

April. April.

Okay. So we should

Then I'm not for going to June without having to talk to those those citizens as well. I I know it takes another meeting to extend it from April to June, but I want as much conversation and transparency as possible. So I would not be for extending it to June at this time if they haven't been talked to about that.

Okay. Appreciate that input. Council president Davis. I'm sorry. Councilor Davis.

I'm good. You're good. Okay.

Okay. Great. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. I will open up the public hearing. So we are I know we don't have necessarily a proponent or opponent. We have a middle of the road. Barbara, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

You're very welcome. Thank you for being here and again thank you and everyone for the patience for our longer intro this evening.

That's all right. I wanted to thank also the construction company for sticking to their plan and sticking to their word. Know, unlike maybe some of our southern neighbors that, you know, work outside of what the agreements were, they hold the line, and so I appreciate that. And truly, there's been there's no noise until, like, 6AM, then you hear some beep beep beeps, but they're absolutely following the plan, so I appreciate that and I think our neighbors do, too. So, I've walked through the neighborhood and talked to our neighbors that border the Malala Forest Road and as a circle around, and no one has any complaints as far as noise goes.

They all are also in agreement that they really feel strongly about the work not starting till 6AM, like you know, the arrival and the setup at 05:30, but keeping what they have right now online. They're feeling pretty strongly about that, but don't have any issues. So

So the question was posed or they asked from the construction company was, you know, not necessarily April, but possibly even going out to June. Is that I kind of do you have initial thoughts on that?

I think that our neighbors would wanna have a voice before that's decided. No,

and that's Yeah. I wanted to ask that question. Okay.

And that's it.

All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Uh-huh. I have no other cards or opponents of any kind, so I will close the public hearing. Anything else, Don, or from the gentleman there from Trumbull Crow and and cohort there?

No. We're

good. Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you all.

Counsel, any other questions and discussion?

I would just like to make a motion

Okay.

To approve an order granting a modification or extension of noise variance of application to Tremell Krop company to allow completion of concrete pours and site work between the hours of 05:30AM to 10PM on February 2 through 04/01/2026 at 2121 Southeast Township Road. Second.

Motion has been made by councilor Davis and seconded by councilor, sorry. Made by councilor Stearns, seconded by councilor Davis. I'm batting a thousand today. Sorry. Councilor Patton, did you have a question?

It can wait until you're done and we get into discussion.

Okay. So the motion has been made to approve an order grant an order granting a modification or extension of noise variance application to Trammell Crow Company to allow completion of concrete pours and site work between the hours of 05:30AM to 10PM on February 2 through 04/01/2026 at two thousand one hundred twenty one Southeast Township Road. Discussion. Councilor Patton.

Yes. I would just like to thank Trimble Crow for it sounds like from the neighbors, and I have been asking if we have been hearing anything from them, and there had been nothing up to this point. So in in here pardon me. In hearing what was said tonight, you know, I really wanna thank you for sticking to your word. I know that I was a bit harsh when we initially came when this initially came through, but I know that those folks in that neighborhood have had some trouble.

And so I wanted to make sure that they were duly represented and, they would not have even more trouble than they currently have. So thank you very much for that. And also for the folks in that neighborhood, thank you very much for staying, engaged and active with this whole thing. It is helpful to know that things are plugging along on course rather than at the last minute hearing that everything is going south and we have a huge problem. So I I appreciate everybody on both ends of this for, for their lines of communication and sticking to their words. So thank you.

Thank you, councilor Patton. Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye. Anyone

opposed? Aye. Alright. That extension and modification is granted, five zero. Thank you for coming and staying engaged. Thank you, gentlemen, for your hard work and sticking to the plan. We really do appreciate it. So thank you. Alright. We're gonna move into item seven, other business, which I don't think we have any, tonight. Randy? Yes? No? We

do not Mr. Then we'll

go into item eight, the administrator business and staff report.

Mister mayor and council, I defer to any questions, that you might have. We kinda got through our agenda pretty well tonight. I did have a couple brief items. Theresa, were you gonna help me on posting one? So as you know, staff does not testify in Salem without council approval on certain bills.

And we just this is just FYI only. This has kinda been, put on the back burner for now. But representative Christine or senator, excuse me, Christine Drazen is on this committee. And so she's reviewing this, legislation, but the League of Oregon cities and other cities, are supporting reducing the match for smaller cities, cities under 20,000 for grant projects from 40% down to 7% match. So obviously, the small cities are excited about that.

Now, I I ran this through to staff because senator Drazen is on the committee just making sure we're not stepping into something. And so this is like just FYI. And as legislation comes to our office for support always bring that to this body because you guys are all connected to the legislature legislators the process. This was the first one so I just thought I' share that really quickly.

Tracy can you scroll? Thank you.

That' from the mayor. Go ahead and go Mayor of the need to Okay. So there's I I have about six of these letters different cities as Takeda

That is

other communities that are

Signing on in in support. Counsel I'm again these are we're in a very short session and is there thoughts on drafting a similar letter or signing on in support? Obviously we're still under that 20,000 threshold for the time being but

yeah does this affect or relate to like the water plant etcetera for looking for funding for that?

There is a bucket, and I I apologize I don't have it with me, of, the different types of eligible. I wish I had brought the League of Oregon City staff, but there's a bucket of different programs for infrastructure, major infrastructure, like streets, the money we get from the state gas tax, and the way it's split. Is it how is it, mayor? The it's sixty forty. State gets 60. Cities get 40. Something like On the gas tax? Yeah.

Fifty thirty twenty.

Fifty thirty twenty. Thank you. So, this is, separate from that, though. This kind of requires our local this is our own local match, that we would be putting towards any grant capital projects that we were able to get. And so the city of Florence, for example, here is submitted an example of how reducing from 40 to 7% really helps get them over the top when making a project for roads, water, and essential infrastructure.

That was my question. Are we assuming we're going out for any grants for

the water project? That's more

direct. Professor. Was

a small city.

Not? Sorry to answer Councilor Waterman's question. They

are in fact planning for several different types of financing. In fact, have talked to the mayor about scheduling a joint meeting with can be utility out in the future perhaps in April where you can get on the floor with down there with cam utility board and talk about their upcoming water project. As councilor stearns referenced earlier tonight their new number is a 100,000,000 more than their other number. I mean unofficially I don't know its specifics yet but that's a big number and they're gonna be looking at things like with the loans from the federal government, federal support, and, of course, they do have an application right now through representative Bunch to try and get, which the mayor and I learned about meeting representative Bunch last week to try and get some money from the state to help with their engineering and and kick to kick this off. The answer is yes.

Like a yes. It sounds like it would be a very Yeah. Worthy Mhmm. Thing to

Could be. Very much so.

Yeah. And then

to answer your question, think it's, yeah, 20,000 for cities under 20,000 in population. Mhmm. So we still make that cut. Yeah. So do we

have to stop the

urban growth expansion until we No. Until until until this goes?

I don't think so. No. This will this will Okay. This is not handled here in in the next, like, two weeks, then maybe it makes it to a long session. I don't know. Councilor Patton, question?

Yeah. So I guess just to, councilor Stern's point, from what I can tell of reading the rundown of this legislation, it just creates different brackets for smaller cities. So, like, it's like incorporated cities with a population not greater than 5,000 may be required to provide matching funds not greater than 3% for amounts under a $100,000, 5% for amounts greater than a $100,000, and then it creates a breakout for cities that have populations between five and seventy five hundred citizens and then 7,500 to 10,000 and then 10,000 to 20. And so it kinda breaks it out so there's different brackets.

K.

So it makes it little more attainable for people with a lower population count within their cities. So I was just gonna throw that out there, which I think makes total sense. I did not get a chance in the header of this. It has all the sponsors of this bill, and I did not get a chance to look up each one of those people. But correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like this is getting fairly bipartisan support in within the legislature. Is that a correct understanding of this?

That's that's what I've seen and heard. Yes.

Okay. So I guess for me, I I do not see this as a middle finger letter to the governor or anybody else in government, and so I would be totally for supporting this thing.

Okay. I'm kinda sensing consensus that that might be the case. I guess my question then to the council is do we want, would we like city staff to draft something? And then do we want it to come from, our interim city manager, or do we want it to come from us as the council?

I'm comfortable with the mayor signing it. Mayor, yeah. It's your job.

Okay. Yes, I agree.

Okay. Council Council President Hensley.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The work session and public hearing has already been held. I'm noticing that the city of Florence actually erroneously labels this a house bill. It's a senate bill. And they already held the public hearing, so testimony at this time is done

Oh.

In that chamber. So if we wanna do something, we have to send it to the house committee when it's assigned. Also, while we're talking really quickly about, legislation, I have a number of about a half a dozen or so bills that, Trent rattled off in the c four meeting that I will be following up on to see where we are, if we can have a voice in those if we want to, and I can report on that next week. But this is thirty five days of chaos. Everything moves so fast. Mhmm. So there are a lot of deadlines that have already passed.

Got

it. But I will, be able to give you a a fuller report at our next meeting.

Great. Thank you, counselor.

I can put an agenda item, like legislative update or something for next week that you guys can look at it.

That could be good. Yeah.

I'll be in Salem tomorrow.

Mayor, obviously, you helped me with the agenda. So

Yeah. We'll talk tomorrow about the agenda. Okay. Fix it. Not fix it. Sorry. That's the wrong term. But

Massage mass massage it.

Yes. Yeah, if the council's comfortable, if we can get at least then when we find out, we can, you know, send it into the the house packet for them for at least get our support on there. So yes.

Is it possible for you to get that letter signed tomorrow when you're meeting with Randy?

I don't know how quickly staff can put that together, but as soon as they can, I will I will sign it?

Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Do

we have the agenda in front of us? Just before I move on, I want to thank the leadership team that's here. Todd Wood is here. He's our interim public works director, so he's helping us through the transition. Mister Pete Wood is here, HR director. We have a first batch of public works director resumes that are in. For reviewing. Obviously, it's a huge hire, so we'll keep you posted as we move through that process. Denise Larue, finance director is here. We meet tomorrow to kick off our internal budget meetings and discussions.

And we are looking to set aside some time. We're talk to you, mayor, tomorrow, agenda wise, where we can have a work session half day ish on just budget high level based on the two presentations you've seen already this year. We want to make sure staff is calibrating towards your council goals that you already established for the next couple of years so and any new priorities that have emerged most recently so that's being kicked off Jamie stickler and if she's still here but she's helping me with the issue with the procedural steps to close out the urban renewal agency, get the money tax increment going to all of the tax jurisdictions and send the letter to the county. We're working with legal counsel on that. Don, you can always see Don.

Pretty good representation of the team. Spencer has been doing great at public works, helping out with a lot of our projects that we have up in the air. Neil is here for Walnut. I appreciate the staff staying late on a council night and just wanted to share everything they've been up to. Thank you.

I do have one item that I that is on here called process for legal review of legal services. So I think every single one of you have asked me when can we have a conversation with the firm. And the so I have notes from the firm because the firm is has a five a. Flight tomorrow morning so couldn't be here. So she's asked me to kind of articulate procedurally what it looks like to have that conversation.

First and foremost, are a firm they're not a person so executive session doesn't apply in their estimate estimation. What the recommendation is you can talk in open session with the firm or we can go three by three so and the mayor does not vote so he can join both conversations as I believe so you you can meet with the firm that way so those are two real crisp choices If the council has any other ideas I'm agnostic on this of course because I don't report I report directly to you and so does the firm. I'm just presenting you with next step options to get make sure that conversation takes place. I'm sure many of you have questions about that and ideas but those were the two options that were put forth. You want to be real careful in public obviously because there' attorney client privilege on a lot of discussion items but you can meet without forming a quorum and then bring back performance or conversations to the full body.

I know I said a lot there in two minutes.

You're well caffeinated tonight.

What we're looking at.

Councillor Stearns, first finger up. I think

so there's no way we can do this in an executive session? No. Because a lot of the subject matter that I I think needs to discussed. I mean, it'd be nice to be able do it. Mean, I don't have anything opposed to being public session other than the fact that if we wanna have any particular reference to something that is in executive session, then all of sudden, you know Yeah. There goes the exec, there goes the privilege and all that stuff.

I'll walk that back. The firm did say that if it is the, you know, overwhelming desire to do this in executive session, then it would be worthwhile to consult OGEC, just to ask, before we did it, Oregon Government Ethics Commission. Yeah. And I can certainly do that for you if that's the preference tonight.

Counselor Patton.

Yeah. So I am not a fan of this three by three thing. It seems shady. And then we run the risk of if one other person talks to another person, now we got a serial meeting and all that fun jazz. So, you know, I think we either do it in open session or we do it in talk to ODAC or whatever and see if it can be done in some sort of executive session. Mhmm. But I I am just not a fan of doing this this three three on three side conversation thing. It just looks shady.

K. Thank you, sir. Council council president Hensley.

Thank you, mister mayor. I don't know about it looking shady so much as there is obviously the opportunity for people to slip up and make a mistake and end up in a serial meeting by accident. Also, I would prefer Randy go in and talk to Ogek and see if we can do this in executive session. Honestly, I'm just I'm just over everything being so dramatic, and I would like to just get this done. And I'm not trying to hide anything from the public, but it's just like, we've been airing so much dramatic stuff that I think the public is fatigued.

I've heard reports from constituents that they're fatigued. Don't even wanna watch our meetings anymore because they're fatigued. So let's just get this done in the most simple way possible and within the rules.

Okay. Okay. Any other thoughts? I've got two that feel let's maybe, consensus wise, have Randy reach out to Odek and find out if that's a worthwhile venture. And then if not, then we can figure out something different. Councilwoman?

Yeah. I I think just, you know, following up to find out what we can or can't do, that's the most prudent thing. And then also, if we have to do public sessions, then, you know, we can talk. We'll we'll just have to talk performance without talking non you know, other details. And so are you doing a good job? Yes? No? You know, it's it's a performance review as well, so, we just have to be careful. Well stated.

Well Yes. Councilor Sterns.

I mean, the purpose of this is to give feedback to, you know, our employee, the firm or or

or whatever you call it,

not employee, whatever it is, the firm. Mhmm. And in order to give good feedback, they kinda have to know what we're talking about. And if we say, you know that one thing that you did that we didn't like that thing, it it kind of vague like that. It makes it really hard to be effective at giving feedback. It's not just to give a a grade or, you know, thumbs up or thumbs down. It's to basically say, hey, maybe you should do this different or maybe, you know, have some something like that. But it's hard to do that in an exec in a public session without being clear. And then if it's not clear what their feedback is, then what's the whole point?

Well and that's kind of been my talking points and argument from day one about this conversation. You know, I mean, we're here trying to Randy and I trying to meet this this ask, and this is what, you know, I think was anticipated that we would run into.

Mhmm.

So we'll go to, you know, thank you, Randy, for offering to talk to Odek. We'll ask Odek, and we'll go from there. If not, then Sounds good. We have a different dialogue. So k. Golden. Thank you. Alright. Randy, anything else for you?

That's it, mayor. Thank you.

Seeing no other business except to adjourn. Well, we should do action review, Theresa, since you haven't really seen anything. Oh, sorry. Yes.

I just wanted to Jamie did you want to mention the grand opening of the bike path?

Thank you, sir.

Good evening, mayor and council. Hello. I'm Jamie Stigle, economic development director. And, next Wednesday, before the city council meeting at 5PM, we're gonna have a grand opening of the Logging Bridge pathway to Highway 99. And so the location will actually be up on the Logging Bridge on the south side of town.

Millar's S Point Tires has said that if people park in that parking lot, then they would be more than okay with that, so there's parking nearby. And, we're gonna have some speakers to talk about the project. We're going to have the Camby Area Chamber of Commerce on board or on hand to do a ribbon cutting. The community is welcome. We'll have some light refreshments, and we hope that all of you, as well as the community our local business community, are able to join us so that we can celebrate this pathway which helps to move people around can be better.

This project was one of the final projects of the Urban Renewal Agency. And so it was a long time coming and and and discussed for a very long time on the ways that we could make that work with the funding that we had available, and it's a project that if you've driven past it or or walked past it, it it looks absolutely incredible. They've done a wonderful job, and I'm glad to see it completed. And I'm very excited to celebrate it with a grand opening. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Patton.

Yeah. I just wanna double check the parks board people. I know it was an urban renewable project, but it's we're tied to one of our parks. The parks board people are invited to this. Have they been specifically invited to this as well?

I I have not sent it out to them. I have an email started, but I got into a meeting this afternoon. So, I have an email started that will go out to all city staff and all of our boards and committees. Obviously, parks is very important and and it the Logging Trail is one of our one of our beloved canopy parks. But, making sure that bike and pedestrian committee are invited traffic safety committee those two will also see the impacts of this project. If transit wants to join or one of the other boards and committees planning commission, we try and send all of our grand opening invites to all of the boards and committees as well as our city staff and then it is on our City Of Canby Oregon Facebook page as an event and we'll continue to push information through those channels.

Thank you

so much.

Thank you.

Theresa we haven't heard much from you this evening so action review.

Alright. You approved ordinance number sixteen sixty two to a second reading on 02/18/2026 and declaring an emergency. You also approved order twenty six zero three extending the per for the modification of the noise variance to tremble crow. There was a consensus to have the mayor sign a letter of support for senate bill fifteen eighty five and also consensus to have the city administrator contact ogec in regard to an executive session for reviewing legal service.

Great. Thank you very much. Alright. I will now take a motion to adjourn.

So moved. So moved.

It's been moved. Moved by Everyone. Yep. Stern, seconded by Councilor Waterman. All those in favor.

Aye. Aye.

Alright. We are adjourned. Good night, Camby, Councilor Patton, Councilor Hensley feel better.