City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you so much for our great community. Thank you for everyone that has gathered here this evening. Really do thank you so much for our great community. We have so much to be thankful for, and we ask for your continued grace as we move out through this year in our planning and our execution to make our community a better and safer place. I just ask you, again, just continue to watch over our men and women that put their lives on the line every day for us to keep us safe and sound. I ask these things in your name. Amen.

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.

Before we do roll call vote, I think I made this announcement earlier, but there are cupcakes in the back, so please help yourself. We don't generally have snacks. Are they good? See, if you're at home and you wanna run down here, partake in our meeting, there is cupcakes and water. So couldn't ask for a better combination. Roll call vote, please. Roll call,

Teresa. Counselor Patton. Here. Counselor Maldonado.

He's been excused for tonight.

Okay. Council President Hensley? Present. Mayor Hodson?

Here.

Councilor Davis?

Here.

Councilor Stearns?

Here.

Councilor Waterman?

Here.

Great. Thank you. Next on our agenda this evening is opportunity for citizen input. If you are interested in addressing the council on any non agenda items, they're on the back podium there are our new white cards. If you wanna fill those out and bring them up to our deputy recorder, she'll make sure that we get them. It's your opportunity just to, like I said, address the council. I have three minutes to speak on anything that you'd like. If we can do something about it tonight, we will definitely look into that. I have no white cards here with me. Theresa, is there anyone online that's no?

Okay. Then we will move on. Oh, we don't have any item five, we don't have any proclamations or presentations. I don't think we have anything that's been removed from the consent agenda. We'll move into the consent agenda.

You got it, Paul? Go for it.

I move to approve the consent agenda that includes approval of the 01/21/2026, City Council Work session and regular meeting minutes, approval of the on premise, OCC license for On The Lake Kitchen at 117 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Approval of the full on premise LLCC license for Sip and Slice at 272 North Grant Street and approval of

the letter of expectations. Second.

Great. Motion's been made to approve the consent agenda by councilor Waterman and seconded by councilor Davis, and that includes the 01/21/2026 city council work session and regular meeting minutes, approval of the ULCC annual liquor license renewals, approval of a full on premises commercial ULCC liquor license for Andalay Kitchen located at 117 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Approval of the full on premises commercial, OLCC liquor license for Sip and Slice at 272 North Grand Street and a letter of expectations. Any discussion? Yes. Councilor Patton.

Yes, mister mayor. I just would like to go on record that I think there is one item on the consent agenda that could use a little more transparency, but I am only one member of counsel and one member does not make a quorum. So I just wanna go on record as saying that.

K. Thank you, sir. Any other comment, discussion? No. Okay. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Anyone opposed? Any abstentions? Passes five zero. Next up item eight appointments to, boards and committees. Yes, sir. Thank you.

I move to approve the appointments of members Stephanie Boyce and Ted Hensley to the Transit Advisory Committee with terms ending 03/31/2029.

Second.

Motion has been made by Councillor Davis and seconded by Councillor Waterman to approve the appointment of members Stephanie Boyce and Ted Hensley to the Transit Advisory Committee with terms ending 03/31/2029. Any comments or questions? All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Black. Also curious, five zero. Item nine this evening is ordinances and resolutions. Item a, ordinance number one six six two, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to execute a contract with Camby Excavating Incorporated in the amount of $3,479,492 for the South Walnut Street Extension project and declaring an emergency. Second reading. And Spencer has handouts.

Do Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

The first reading, you had asked for an update of what, the road is currently going to be looking like.

I can put it on the screen too. Thank you.

So on your handout there, the first page, shows the location of the road. I think she is pulling it up for everyone on Zoom. And on the printout, it kinda shows there's a red mark kind of right there by the highway. So this phase of the Walnut Street project that Kimiex is going to be doing is from 1st Avenue all the way up to just short of the highway where that red mark is. Then the second page will kinda show you the layout of what the signalized intersection will look like once we finish up with ODOT getting the last of our permits, together.

So you had asked for that, and I couldn't I didn't make the deadline to make it into your packet, so that's why they get the printouts.

No. Appreciate it. Yeah. Appreciate the printout and the screenshot here so everyone can kinda see what, again, what a reminder of what Walnut Street's gonna look like as it starts to come together and get finished. So, and I know

we had a little bit

of this last week, Spencer, but any progress with ODOT on that intersection?

We are getting closer. We're still officially waiting to hear back. There was a few comments that were getting addressed that was resubmitted. So we're whittling it down.

Okay. I think Thank you, Spencer. Visually speaking, if you look again at that map where Walnut intersects at the top of the picture here through the trees. Correct me if I'm wrong, Spencer, but is that sort of the first phase that we would get into with you were mentioning removing trees?

Yeah. Yeah. So with the emergency clause, we can start in on this probably I think we have already scheduled a pre construction with the contractor for next week, so hopefully here within two weeks or so that they can schedule to start moving in, clearing some of the trees, and start doing some of the prep work Perfect. For building the road itself.

Great. Yes, councilor.

So I just wanna double check. So if we're gonna if the plan is to remove some trees up there, I know that at that, initial part there, there's talk of probably locating the dog park and stuff up there. Will there be any plans to salvage any of those trees for a later project, or are you planning to clear the whole lot?

To be honest, I haven't gone out there to specifically see which trees are in the right of way for the road. Per the contract with can be excavating is it's just where the road is going. So anything outside of that shouldn't really be effective at the moment.

Yeah. I I guess I would say if that's the case and there, it can be conveyed to them to just you know, if there's any trees that can be saved there that are of good health or whatever, it's better to keep them. And then if they have to be cut down later, do it rather than cutting them down now and wishing they hadn't been there for later. So thank you.

Great. Spencer, anything else we need to know about this fun project?

We're excited to finally start moving dirt here shortly.

No. That's gonna be great. So thank you for bringing this visuals for today. Mhmm. It's a little bit more encouraging. So thank you. Alright. Yes. Councilor Patten.

I would like I move let me make sure I'm in the right place here. I move to consider ordinance I move to approve ordinance number sixteen sixty two, an ordinance authorizing interim city administrator to execute a contract with Canby Excavation Incorporated in the amount of 3,479,492 thou or $492 for the South Walnut Street extension project and declaring an emergency with a roll call vote.

Second.

Motion has been made by councilor Patton and seconded by councilor Davis to adopt 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 declaring an emergency and roll call vote.

Counselor Patton?

Aye.

Council President Hensley? Aye. Councilor Davis? Aye. Councilor Stearns? Aye. Councilor Waterman?

Aye. That passes five zero. Thank you, Spencer.

Appreciate it.

Item b is considered ordinance number sixteen sixty three, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to extend by nine months the contract with MS and W Group LLC in the amount of $113,760 for the remainder of the year for custodial services for the city of Canby. First reading. And is that Teresa, you can take that. You. It's me. Hello, sir.

You get all fun jobs. So we have a contract with the custodian, and this is one of those things that, unfortunately, with everything that's gone on, it got a little away from us. The plan was to figure out how we wanted to deal with custodial services. But with everything that's gone on in the last, six or seven months, we had to push it in the back burner. So we're just asking to extend it to December so that our interim city administrator and the finance director and us can get together and decide where we actually wanna go with custodial services, then bring that back to the council with a more permanent option or a permanent plan in the future. So this is just an extension of our current one to give us more time to figure out what we actually wanna have done.

Okay. Any questions for Todd on this?

K. While while we have your attention, one of the things that we'll be looking at when we come back to you as part of the budget process is whether or not we would like to take this on in house, which requires FTE headcount, but would that save money in the contract? That's one of the options that we're gonna be kicking around with you all during budget season here shortly. Okay. Great. Counselor. Sorry. Sorry, Mayor. Since

you brought that that up. Oh, sorry. Yeah. So you're gonna be we're gonna be making that decision by budget time?

It'll be part of our budget discussions. Okay. Whether or not we would include or ask for two full time equivalents to cover our janitorial.

Okay. So that discussion so I guess what you're saying because you're planning on sending it till December, so that discussion, you still wouldn't have enough information to make a decision before the beginning of the fiscal year.

Well, because even if we sorry for jumping in.

Yeah. No.

Go ahead. Because one once we map this out, if that's the decision that we'd like to create FTEs, that we couldn't even start to recruit till July. Right. And then you're talking about, you know, a period of several months to recruit those folks, get those folks trained up. So this just buys us time. We could kill the contract earlier if we wanted.

Okay. So you can't terminate early. Yeah. But we

just we just wanna give ourselves leeway because Okay. We don't know how well the recruit if we went that way

Yeah.

And that's a big if. Right? Because we have to map that out first. We wanna make sure we have plenty of time to go with that, get everything done. Financing. Right? Is that fair? Yeah.

Alright. Thank you. Great.

Anyone wanna make a motion?

Do you got it? Yeah.

Go for it, council Mormon.

The move to, approve ordinance sixteen sixty three authorizing the interim city administrator to extend by nine months the contract with MSNW Group LLC in the amount of $113,760 for remainder of the year for custodial services for the city of Canby to a second reading on 03/04/2026.

Second. Thank you, councilor. Motion has been made by councilor Waterman, seconded by councilor Patton to approve ordinance number one six six three, authorizing the interim city administrator to extend by nine months the contract with MSNW Group LLC in the amount of $113,760 for the remainder of the year for custodial services for the city of Camby to a second reading on 03/04/2026. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Alright. That passes five zero. Item c this evening under ordinances and resolutions is ordinance one six six four, an ordinance approving interim city administrator to enter an agreement with PumpTech to purchase the diesel engine trailer in the amount of $59,690 in its first reading. And I think, mister Ely, you were taking that one.

I think so. Yeah. Standing in for Patrick tonight. So this if you have any questions, feel free, but just a broad overview. If you haven't been down to the wastewater treatment plant lately, you're happy to set up a tour. It's fascinating process and they keep it perfectly manicured down there. So this piece, just very high level, is a pump, it's a backup pump. So if there was an issue with our primary raw pump at the plant, this pump would move the wastewater into the treatment system. That makes sense. This is full stop. That's high level of what we're doing here, buying an emergency backup pump.

So this is for power outages and just the main pump fails?

That's right.

Okay. Gotta be able to move that sludge along.

It is a requirement under our d with DEQ, under our NPDES permit to have redundancy. So see this as a critical buy. Great.

Thank you. Yes. Councilor Patton.

Mister Mayor, I move to approve ordinance number sixteen sixty four, an ordinance authorizing interim city administrator to execute a contract with PumpTech to purchase a diesel engine pump trailer in the amount of $59,690 to a second reading on 03/04/2026.

Thank you. Was that you, councilor Waterman? Yeah. You. Motion has been made by councilor Patton and seconded by councilor Waterman Yep. To approve ordinance number one six six four, an ordinance approving interim city administrator to execute a contract with PumpTech to purchase the diesel engine pump trailer in the amount of $59,690 to a second reading on 03/04/2026. Any further discussion? Yes. Councilor Stearns.

This amount is 59,000?

Yes, sir.

It's over my authority. Yeah.

Oh, I know. But I here we have a $57,006.90. Oh.

Thank you for catching that.

On the invoice the script. And Oh. I was just curious about the difference between the two.

Yeah. And the sorry. The script has got 57,000.

And the and the invoice you have quoted says 59 is only if you're buying it on a credit card.

Well, our credit card's got a big one. Okay. Randy wants all those frequent flying miles.

I I agree. Yeah.

Yes, councilor Patten.

So if that's the case and it's the 59,000 if it's purchased on a credit card, and so that's the maximum amount that it could possibly be?

We don't we wouldn't do this on a credit card.

So So then I guess

The 57 I

will amend my motion to change the amount to $57,690.

Is that what's on is that

the invoice is 57? Yeah.

The quote says. Yeah. Okay.

I mean, let's called it

not to exceed the 59 just in, sorry, just in case there's any any possibility that it would be more than the 57, but not more than the 59. You could not say not to exceed the 59 amount. And that would allow for some wiggle room.

I was just curious about different numbers.

That's a good catch. Thank you.

And if that's the case, I retract my amendment to the motion to leave it as is.

Thank you. So but you

wanna add the words not to exceed?

If it comes in under I mean, fine. I amended to add the verbiage not to exceed the original amount that I had said.

Okay. Great. We'll be back for the second reading, and I'll confirm Thank you. Before that.

And, councilor Waterman, you're good. Second reading. Version. Okay. So okay. So motion has been amended to not exceed the $59,690 for a second reading on the fourth. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Alright. Anyone opposed? Not seeing any. That passes five zero. Thank you. Next on the agenda is resolution number fourteen fifty one, a resolution authorizing the interim city administrator execute a memorandum of agreement with Willow Creek Estates Homeowners Association. And I remember that one is also for you,

mister Okay. Yeah. Thank you, mister mayor. Members of the council, exciting moment here tonight to have a conversation with you all about a great neighborhood in Camby, Willow Creek Estates, and the city after several years has been working with their homeowners association, so I'd like to invite Kara Hawkins up to help me with presenting this memorandum of understanding that the homeowner association and the city staff have cooperatively and collaboratively worked out, and she can lay a little groundwork for me at 30,000 foot top why this topic is critical to the homeowner association, how this helps the city and also helps the association. There's a nice picture of the area on your screens right now of the wetland in question, and the part that's carved out is, I believe, pickleball or tennis courts.

Yep.

But you can see the creek going through. There's a protective fence, which we'll get into in a little bit later here. There's some grass area that and trees that are tried you know, we try to maintain with our great parks department, but the homeowner association does some maintenance as well. And so I think this agreement, principle, and memorandum of understanding sort of lays some ground rules of how the homeowner association can get in there safely, do some light maintenance themselves to keep up keep up with it and with some of the maintenance, and then we'll get to some of the more specifics. But I'll stop there and let Kara paint a better picture of what they're experiencing, their lived experience out there.

So there's a pole fence that was placed years ago, in an agreement with the city placed. They we weren't asked they we didn't ask for it. We were just told that we were going to get this fence that delineates between the park areas that we maintain. They are the city's property, but we've always maintained them mowing, keeping the flower beds, trimming the shrubs, all of that stuff. Because we were told when when the neighborhood was first established, we were told there were no resources to do that.

And so if we wanted them to be park spaces, that we needed to make them park spaces, that they were, like, dirt clod, dumped concrete from contractors, nasty yeah. It was a mess. So we cleaned it all up, put in park picnic tables, the whole thing. Then we got this fence and it's been, you know, thirty years since the fence was put in and it's falling down and we needed to either do some maintenance on it or have it completely taken down.

It's represented by the orange line here Thank you. In your picture. That's the fence.

Right. So we started and this was a year and a half ago. We started talking about and trying to figure out how to do it. And as we've talked, it's fallen further into disrepair and got to be where we really didn't feel like we wanted to take on that financial burden. And so, then we started being concerned about protection of the wetlands and protection of the HOA's liability in regards to the wetlands, and, we just felt like there should be some sort of a historical understanding between the city and the HOA, to make sure that everybody's interests are protected.

And the the wetlands are considered a sensitive environment, and so they are at a higher level. So yeah. So that's where where we're at. So we just wrote something up, and it we've we met, I think, three or four times and kind of, I think the city attorney went over it, and everybody gave their 2¢. And we have a document that we feel pretty good about. And the last item has been liability for the contractor. Mhmm. And my understanding is that we were going to cohire this contractor so that we share? I mean, we the HOA isn't willing to

Yeah.

Bear liability for a contractor. He's licensed and bonded, and we feel like that that any missteps on his part should be his liability. So that's kind of where we're at.

Okay. Yeah. That would be a compromise and and per legal counsel that would be adopting option two in your staff report where we we recognize that the homeowners association is not held responsible for violations by the contractor. However, the city needs to then participate in that that process is all we're asking.

And we are in the process right now of getting the documentation for because we haven't done it, like, on a yearly basis to get his bonding and all of that certification. We we feel like it's important for us to have that in hand, especially given this whole circumstance. So we are in the process of doing that as well right now. So if you know, when when we're ready to sign this, if we wanted, like, rehire him, we are happy to do that. So

And so yeah.

So

I I would later I'll make a friendly amendment regarding our procurement rules, which I'll just add in there a couple extra words, but go ahead if there's any questions.

Yeah. So my question so this is just, again, determining liability and whatnot. Like, what's what's gonna be the city's responsibility for, it sounds like, repairs of the fence and that kind of thing? I'm write down what you want, then

we can just read

it here.

Do you wanna tackle that?

So we may just remove the fence, just because it's a pretty much an eyesore at this point and it's falling down. Spencer has said that if we bring the debris from the fence over, that they will dispose of it, and we are willing to supply the labor to do that. There's quite a bit of blackberries in the wetlands, and so in the MOU is the agreement that our contractor I think it's from May to September, can we meet the blackberries five feet in from the path just to keep that down and away from people's yards. K. We do the mowing, the weedy weeding, the trimming of the shrubs.

We this fall, we had four plum trees that were really diseased and, from the ice storm had a really hard time, and so we had those taken out at our expense. This is before we had all of this going, so we had that taken out, and then we replaced them with serviceberry trees, which are native trees. But in the agreement, it says that going forward, if there are big issues like that, that the city will take care of them. And as part of this discussion, there were two very large disease trees that, Steve came out and took a look at and said, yeah. They need to go.

And within a couple of weeks, the fellows came and took them out and ground the stumps, it was very good to have the safety issue addressed and so yeah. We wanna be good partners.

Oh, for sure.

Realize we're getting the benefit of this this area.

Yeah. It's been great. It's nice part of that community over there for sure. And and again, so not to get too far, off topic about just an MOU, making sure that liability rests with the contractor, not with either the HOA or with us, I think is more the crux of the conversation. K. Yes. Councilor Patton?

Really quickly, and this is some this is something that was brought to my attention several months ago where I was under the impression that some one of the homeowners that backs up to this particular wetland had gotten a little ahead of themselves and had done some improvements of the wetland that they should not have. Was that mitigated?

Or

The actual pictures. So, well, I'm not sure I agree with the characterization of improvements. This person, sprayed crossbow in the wetlands. I I reported it to the state because that's where our drinking water comes from. It's important to all of us.

The that had nothing to do with my participation on the HOA. Sure. I just did it as a citizen, and, it's public record, so I you know? And, they did come out and do testing. They found five different chemicals that had been put in the wet lens there, and that is a a big concern to me personally.

Several of the board members are very environmentally conscious and really don't want this to happen. So we feel like having the big well, the weight of the city behind us in saying this is not okay is beneficial and maybe carries more weight with folks than what we can do on our own. Because, you know, the reality is we we as a HOA don't have a whole lot of teeth to do anything about violations like that. So we were dependent upon the city and the state, and so that's a big part of why we want you know, that's that piece that's in the MOU because we wanted to make sure that you guys understood that we understand that and the importance of protecting that and, know, authorize any sort of chemical use in there. But, yes, we've had

Okay. Great. Cool.

Alright.

Any other comments, questions for Yep. Okay.

I'm told that, mister mayor Yes. In the now, therefore, be it resolved item number one clause, it says that if it's approved substantially as the same form as the MOU attached, we're good. So we don't need to amend our motion for number two, which is at this point staff recommendation.

Okay. I think his motion stands as

Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Councillor Davis.

I move to adopt, resolution number fourteen fifty one, a resolution authorizing the city administrator to execute a memorandum of agreement with the Willow Creek Estates Homeowners Association.

Second.

Thank you, council president.

Sorry if I could interject. Did the motion identify which of the two options?

The motion was for, option two.

Okay.

Thanks. As the recommended staff motion that's in our packet.

Well, the proposed motion is different from option two. So it says options one, two, three

Yeah.

That wording is different than the proposed motion.

So I don't know

whether you have to read just read.

I'll change the motion.

Okay.

Okay. I move to adopt resolution fourteen fifty one, an auth resolution authorizing the interim city administrator to execute a memorandum of agreement with Willow Creek Homeowners Association and to include option two in the staff report.

I'll second it again.

Okay. Thank you. Good. Perfect.

Any other discussion or question?

All those in favor? Aye.

Anyone opposed? Alright. That carries five zero. Great. Thank you for that.

Thanks, Carrie.

Thank you.

Next on the agenda item 10, we do not have any public hearings this evening. We're gonna move into item 11, other business, and it's a continuation of our Parks SDC discussion. So city council last week had a work session on SDC charges, and we're looking at just the different things that go into the SDC charges, if there's cost changes that need to be made, and that was part of upcoming or that was debate and conversation. The biggest one was looking at our parks STCs, which we've broken out from the last last week to continue into this week to have that conversation. Did I leave anything out, Randy and

Don? You you got it, mayor. Thank you. Okay. And Don and I worked really hard on his opening together, his opening talking points, so I'm gonna defer to Don from this point forward. Go ahead, Don.

Thank you. Good evening, mayor and council members. We also have Todd Chase from FCS on he's our consultant online as well for this. I wanted to give a brief overview. We're gonna try to really focus heavily on the list, the Parks SDC list tonight.

There may be opportunities for more discussion on some of the other items as well, but that is the focus tonight. So just in context, we did talk last time about looking at the the twenty year parks master plan list and coming tonight to discuss prioritization of that list and possible reductions. Just a parallel to that, we did meet with Parks and Recreation Advisory Group last night as well. That discussion was to review and make recommendations for prioritization and reductions and they dove right into discussion. We're not providing that those the commentary in detail tonight, but we can give a summation of where if you if you all would like to have that about which projects they thought could be guess, Councilor Davis?

Thank you. Thanks, Don. I understand the city administrator does have those notes from the meeting last night and would like to have that entered in tonight.

Sure. That sounds great. Yeah. And so if I could just give a brief overview of he'll go through those details and then I was hoping to, as we have time, to talk about some of the other residual items from the last discussion, which is the three to five year phase in of the SDCs and looking at tiered the tiered single family square footage charges based on home size. And there was also some discussion by counsel last time about residential exemption criteria.

Those are also secondary to tonight's purpose of discussion. And just before Randy, our administrator, goes through the list, Councillor Davis, did want to mention we will be going back to Parks and Recreation Advisory Group on March 17 with your input and then married on top of what they are already suggesting for that. We will also be looking at the 2022 parks implementation plan that was to look at the comparison between that and the list that we have together. They're generally consistent. There are a few projects that and they're not really project per se on the 2022 implementation plan.

Many of those things were aspirational. They were explore, look at master planning, those kinds of things. And that was much less granular. The implementation plan is a more of a roadmap than it is a precision development kind of thing.

Yeah. I'm sorry to keep interrupting, You're talking the implementation plan and it the name of it is the Park Master Plan that was put together. Is that

what you're referring to? So there was, councilor Davis, there was a, a session with councils, I understand it, and it went to the the mayor and, city council on 10/19/2022. And there was a and we have, I believe, handouts

for that.

It's in your binder Yeah. When you open your binder. Yeah. And This memo he's referencing is right inside the when you open your binders.

Right. But the park master plan, just to clarify, was adopted by the city council.

It absolutely wasn't. And I believe the implementation plan was as well, which was intended to be a further refinement of the list of of park projects. However, it was really more like I said, it was more broad brush than the list that we're now looking at for SDCs, which is quite specific. Thank you. With that A

lot of paper.

I'll turn it back over to

Yeah. I think we would really wanna get you've you've got the slide deck. You had it well in advance. Thank you for all doing your homework, and we were we're here for robust discussion. Todd is here. We do not have to walk through this. We could just entertain questions and get and we could be nimble and flip to different pages in the slide deck as you work through this. As you know, what we're trying to do here is maybe potentially land the plane and we have a runway. So we have a public hearing coming up in a couple months or May.

May 6 is the target.

Yes. So we're working back from that. We're gonna go back to the parks and rec committee. You will ultimately decide how you want to phase these in. It could be like a three to five year ramp.

That's one of the choices that you looked at last last time you met. You can parse this out in different tiers for smaller homes versus larger homes. So it's a smaller SDC for smaller square footage, and we could do four or five tiers. So you're looking at those two things in the background while you navigate this list, which will drive the ultimate price of the system development charge. So the the more we truncate overlapping projects or maybe take some out that are already budgeted for that we're working on, which we're gonna have that exercise tonight, That'll drive down the the ultimate cost of a to develop in Canby for the Parks SDC.

And and I think I'll just kinda leave it at that because we want we want feedback from you all for that for the next hour.

Okay. Great. Councilor Davis.

Thank you. And just so that, the other counselors, we have some, new counselors that haven't or weren't here when the park master plan was implemented. So I ask you to look on page 115 under the goals and objectives of the park master plan and consider those. There's goals in there that would specifically address some of these projects and I don't think that these were taken into consideration when the list was established as far as the under the park basket plan, 01/2015, it is in

01/15. Okay. What am I doing here? Okay.

There's goals and objectives that have been set in there. Now some of them, will not have an effect on what we're doing tonight, but there are some that do have an effect on what we're doing or considering, tonight. The second question I have is have we approved any of the other STCs yet, transportation or anything at

this point? No. It's gonna be one large package and that's that's all moving forward together at once. So it'll be storm, sewer, transportation, and parks would be all together.

And those all combined would put the cost on when somebody comes in to build a

new They do. And and so the only way to really soften that blow is to either reduce the list by consolidating maybe some redundancies and or reduce the price tag for each item to bring that down. That's really the only thing that we can control here on our end of things. I think the transportation system plan piece of that is pretty objective kind of thing. It's not really qualitative in the sense it's health and safety issues.

We're talking about level of service specifically measured on roadways. So it is a bit easier to quantify that. Parks is a little bit more quantitative I'm sorry, qualitative versus quantitative. So it's a bit more subjective on that piece of it. I did want to on the slides here in terms of like a metric and getting to that, Todd Chase can go into this a bit more, but there is a general metric in transportation and SDCs for all SDCs combined, which is the general rule of thumb is it should be no more than 8% of the base cost of a home.

And there's a metric, and I can go to that slide, if that's okay. I want to go to this slide first. And this, again, gives kind of a perspective here about where are we at now. So you can see on the top can be existing SDCs right now is 3.8% of the home price of a home. And so you look at the bottom and without any adjustment to this list that we were looking at previously, it's 8.2%, which is pretty hefty.

That would be the highest in the entire state of Oregon. And so it's definitely higher than anything in the metro area. And again, this is some parameters. Todd can speak a bit more about where this information came from, but I believe it's been economically tested. So there's a tolerance level where you get to a certain point and development just doesn't happen because it's too expensive.

And thus, both the cost element here is important and I think the phasing element is important as well. Those two kind of run parallel to them to with this. And I think those are really the pieces that we have to work with. Obviously, we want a vision and we we gave the direction initially to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Group to dream big. We were believing that we were high on our estimate per acre cost of land and we were not high.

We were low because we had appraisals done and there are quite a bit more than what we were even thinking per acre charge. So everything's gone up. And and so that becomes kind of this this new reality. We knew we'd be changing this pretty dramatically, but we didn't realize that we were suddenly at the level we were. This is just the evolution of the process that we are going through here.

Thanks, Don. Staff rests, we'd we'd love to entertain questions. Mayor?

Yes. Councilor Waterman.

So your recommendation is to go from 8% to the five or the around 8% to the 5%?

That would be one way of handling that. I mean, I think whatever we can do now and just as an order of magnitude because our consultant actually did back up a napkin from last night's meeting at Parks and Rec Okay. And it's about 7.8% with the reductions they made. But I would say 5% would be better than eight, but it should be no more than eight.

To reach that 5%, what would the cost estimate reduction be necessary? How much money would be how much would have to come off of that to reach that five?

Todd, do you have a quick just a thought on that?

Well, the 5.2% is based on that three year phase in with the first year just being frozen for that for that one time period as we get up to the the larger number in the bottom. So what what the objective of the SDC update really is to identify kind of a maximum legally defensible charge the city could charge. And a lot of cities don't charge the maximum. They they as Don mentioned, they can phase it in. They can decide not to charge a 100% of the parks maximum.

They can just keep it at 50% as as a council decision, or they could try to phase it into the 100% level. So you can kinda see in this chart, the total STC fees at at the full maximum of the weights calculated now, it can be we go from $25,009.23 to 56,111. This includes water, which is not a city charge. So it's really out of your control there. But the other fees you do control Right.

So Yeah. I think but what we're what we're trying to do here is we're being asked to remove something off of here. We need to know how much do we need to actually remove to meet that or to go above it? So we need to know if we're gonna remove the top number one and it's $20,000,000, does that meet 5%? Or do we have to like, how much do we have to remove in order to reach that 5%?

Fair question.

Great question.

The input from the committee, the parks advisory committee took the total project cost for the SDCs down from 168,000,000 to 150,000,000. So they they took off

Eight. Yeah, 18. 18,000,000. 18,000,000

and that that bumped the fee per unit down by $2,550

And the metric, Todd, was at 7.8% at that what that was suggested.

Okay. Point 8% at the max.

After they removed those?

So yes.

So we see really help. So if that if that took it so what did that start at then?

Started at 169,000,000, I believe. The percentage? Yeah. The it was eight about it was 8.2. 3.2.

So it only

went down a half percent by taking up

No. It went down from 8.2 to 7.8.

Seven. 8.2 to 7.8?

Yes. Yes. About 2,500 per dwelling unit on average.

We're having a hard time picking you up, Todd.

So we'd so and that was how Volume. How much? How many millions?

So that was about 18,000,000 that was reduced.

So 18,000,000 didn't get us even a half

Of a percent.

Half of a percent. So in order to get to around five or even six, we'd have to lop off about another $4,050,000,000 dollars.

And and the metric here, I mean, it could be somewhere in between five and eight. And, Right. We don't have an exact recommendation here. This is why counsel But

the maximum to reach that would be that

so we can Exactly. Like, you know, the scenarios are that, one, would be, you know, what we what we get in reduction now. Let's say we get down to seven, and then we phase it in over time, which maybe that's over a five year period, which softens that. Or do we go to a point where we make it a bit less, and how much cutting does that mean or consolidation does that mean? And we haven't really quite done that exercise yet. So I know you're asking a great question about what do we need to get there, and that's dead on as a metric. That's one piece of this is ultimately it's a judgment call between five and eight.

Yes, Councilor Davis.

Don, on page four of the projects, under the cost estimate, where did those estimates come from?

The estimates, we got the land value from appraisals, which were done on on those park acquisition pieces. The other estimates, they're they're rough estimates that we work with public works, planning and public works. These are they're they're guesstimates. They are they're not these are not necessarily like an architectural bid estimate, but they're broad brush estimates. They are not like something we've done a lot of detail analysis on, but I think they're in the ballpark.

Yeah. Well, that's where the Park and Rec Committee last night was, kind of shocked by some of the numbers like Wade Park, you know, at, is that 9,000,000? Yes. And, you know, and the master plan just, spotted out that we should do a study on Wade Park. And that's kind of my what my concern is, not addressing the master plan on some of these things too because $9,000,000 seems like an awful lot of money, for what we need to do at Waite Park.

Don't even know what needs to be done there yet because the master plan called out doing a study to find out what needed to be done and to receive public input. So, you know, that's that's one definitely that, Park and Rec Committee recommended we bring down and I think we could even bring that down further, by just addressing that we need to do a study, find out what needs to be done at Wade Park.

Yes. So noted.

I have a question.

Yes, sir.

And it's been a while since we've dealt with this park's master plan. Could you jive my memory? How many years does the park's master plan look out? Is it twenty years? Ten years?

It's it's twenty, I believe, well. Yes. Yeah.

Okay. So it's essentially And couple years behind this because this this is already underway by a few by a few years. Mhmm. So there these two documents are gonna essentially be two or three years apart out of sync. Right? Okay. I just wanted to confirm that. And then I guess what I will say is I've been looking I just went through this these pages from 01/15 on, And a lot of these things there's quite a few things in here in the park's Mhmm. Master plan that are called out in this document. There are some like the disc golf course is not is in here, but not mentioned in here.

Right. Like, to Eco Park and Timber Park and Redwood Landing and 19th Avenue Loop and some of these here. Mhmm. Are these projects that have to be, pardon me, in this plan in order for us to spend money on them? Or I I was under the impression that essentially this document would kinda get folded into this document here for the final review, and that's when all that would marry up. Is that an incorrect understanding?

There there are prioritizations. And so we have the implementation plan for parks, which is the 2022 plan. And this is a a further refinement per se of that plan. However, the both the parks implementation plan and this system development charge list are both priorities. I I think it's gonna be one of these items that we're gonna have to narrow down the system development eligible projects as the highest priorities. Maybe there's high, medium, and low. But I don't believe it'll be possible to include everything in that park's master plan on an SDC list or we're gonna have this number above 8%.

Yeah. And I guess that's kinda what I was getting at because some of these things sound like updates and stuff. So, like, updating the disc golf course is probably something that we could carve out money from somewhere else to fund that rather than baking it into this SDC plan is kind of the read that I'm getting

from. But it's and that's, I think, the verbiage. Right? We're updating an existing park. SDCs are not used for that. That would not be in Eligible for this.

In this document. Exactly. Okay.

A binder document because that's something, again, we've talked about doing.

Yeah. Correct. Okay. So, essentially, the money for many of these projects that are listed in here but not in here, in some cases, can't actually be listed in this document.

There there's in some cases, there's not enough definition as Councillor Davis is talking about master planning, and there's visioning. There's a lot of statements about that. There's not as much granular stuff in the master plan about complete, that word like complete a project, is what we're now at that level on these SDCs. This is essentially the the list. But, again, even within the SDC list, it's not clear as to what high, medium, and low is. I mean, it's all kinda one bucket, really.

I mean

Okay. But it it made the it it I think the the challenge here is to make the list, but they also the realization is, let's say next year, something else comes up. We can readopt the list. We could do that

every gonna be my next question. Yeah. Just because we set this list now, it doesn't mean we're locked into this list forever. If you No. We get if someone rolls into city rolls into the chamber Mhmm. With a wheelbarrow full of cash and says, put it towards building this thing that we could say, oh, great. Now we've got most of the money to do this, and we can use, like, a couple million dollars of SDCs to finish building the athletic the sports complex or whatever. And then it takes there's a process for updating this that isn't like we do it in a meeting or two, but there is a way of of changing this as we move forward. Correct?

There absolutely is. Yeah.

Okay.

And so, I mean, maybe that takes a bit of this out. And I think, you know, it's great. There's, you know, there's a lot of energy behind doing parks in Camby, I love that. I think the challenge is really that narrowing down the SDC list, but recognizing that that list still doesn't mean that other projects are not important as well. And that's really the message I'm trying to convey.

We're not wiping out the years of work on the parks master plan by this SDC list. That is not at all what's happening here. But there's an importance of of being able to justify the amount and to also make sure that it's not so high that we're not gonna have any development and we therefore would have no collection of SDCs whatsoever. And we probably would also be legally challenged on it as well, which would make this even more difficult, which has is happening. Barry Eisner Hammond is actually, this year, had to defend, jurisdiction on SDCs. So Okay. Just letting you know this is there's some realities to this. Sure. And

and I guess just one last thing. I I have I have done some homework about priorities and stuff. So I think I'll let you folks do your thing, and then I'll weigh in in a little bit when you're ready.

So, Don, I think you hit on a key point here. Again, it's it the list is about justifying why we are charging the STCs that we are charging. Yeah. Because at the end of the day, like, know mister Healy and I received an email from a developer, you know, about the concerns on the STCs. And, again, like, we've gotta be able to back up the reason why we're charging.

If we're gonna lead the state in STC charges, there's gotta be a reason for it. And I agree with you in that. Does that stifle? I'll go back to our last meeting last week. Does that stifle development, or does this and and or does it stifle development that we we want to see, again, to attract families to Camden to use some of these parks that we're talking about here and whatnot. So I think that, again, going back to key phrase was we've gotta it's to justify why we're charging what we're charging. Councilor Davis and then Counselor Stearns.

Thank you, mayor. For the rest of the council, if you'd look at the Park and Rec Committee's recommendation and priorities, maybe ask the city administrator to cover those and see if we can come to an agreement that recommendations from Park and Rec would be taken off the, you know, reduced out of the priority list? Yeah. Randy, did you wanna cover those?

Sure. Thank you, counsel Davis. Before you

go that route, counselors turns, did you have a question before we go through that list?

Yeah. This kind of goes to the policy issue. A couple of policy questions I think need to be thought about. Currently, and I was on the phone with you today, Randy, you said about 17,000,000 right now is in the piggy bank from the SDCs?

Yes. I have another handout here for you.

Okay. Lots of paper tonight.

I know. Can't keep it off.

We're going

It's so going old school. That money has not been spent because we don't have partially for part reason because we don't have the operating budget to run the new stuff that we might wanna build. Is it right?

I'll

Kinda high level.

Yeah. High level, counselor. This handout I just sent is a roll up from our balance sheet, January 31, last month. So 60% of our fiscal year has elapsed. This comes from our fantastic finance department who's direct our directors here.

This shows that we have 15.9 in SDCs in our combined cash fund. What's nice about this handout is it just FYI, it breaks out which different SDCs and how much. So you've got storm reimbursement and improvement, sewer reimbursement and improvement, parts improvement, no reimbursement yet. And I'm getting way down in the weeds here, but you can just see how they're broken out. Mhmm.

So when we had that discussion during budget committee, counselors, about our $30,000,000 in capital projects that are in this year's budget that we're trying to move forward on, like Walnut that we just discussed tonight. But there are other projects like Maple and the ones that are on this list as well, which we can get to because words matter. Some of those are are in fact on this list that we're discussing with you, maybe taking off because they're already budgeted for. Anyway, I digress. This is the SDC list, And we are trying to move more and more of that capital forward to finish those projects and get on to new projects with these SDCs.

And the new ones that will come in, counselors Stearns, that when you pass this, there'll be new STCs for new projects that we can move forward.

So So we do but the point we have the well, 16 mill almost $16,000,000

Yeah.

In unused STCs. And the and so one of the things I'm getting at if all of a sudden we just said, okay, now we'll get the Cadillac plan for parks and everything and are we going to be able to actually spend that kind of money on new park facilities and stuff that without budget without having money to run those particular parks? Because I don't understand we have a lot of undeveloped park land space that and just talking with constituents, even this Auburn Farm ones, they're like, I moved here and my kids grew up and no longer need it. I moved there because they said the park would be built and now my kids are grown, and finally,

it started.

And I heard that for more than one person there. They're like, that was so great. It's finally happening. But, you know, we moved

there kids are gone.

With

the expectation of my little kids would play in that park. And I'm wondering if I one of the big reasons, my understanding is that we spent a while to time to get that developed is because we did lack the operating funds to run it. And so if we suddenly have this big huge piggy bank full of money for new projects, we have to either one, find a way to run the thing we're gonna put in and that might strain other aspects of the budget. And it might just be very tempting to say, let's build something that we can't afford to to run. So that's my one of my concerns, kind of a high level thing.

The other thing that I concerned a little bit about is so if I wanna go buy build a house and you're gonna charge me $5,056,000 dollars, for some parks and for some streets and some other things that I'm gonna pay for, which is in theory, fine. But I'm wondering if some of these giant projects that we have here, you know, the $50,000,000 projects, the which just seems there were two of them in there, might be better off might not be something that I'm interested in my little community to do. It might be what I what I would consider special projects, and the special projects probably should be financed in a special way rather than than everybody put in there. So that's a policy thing. The third thing is these are the fees that we control.

Right? So if we say we're going up to the Cadillac plan, $56,000, well, isn't Canby Utility gonna say, well, if they got their raise, might have can we get ours as well? And so we're going all of a sudden higher than even the $56,000 per per house easily when the other entities, fire and other people that contribute that get their STCs wanna say, hey. Look what what they got. You know?

And all of sudden, we're not only the highest in the in the, state, but we're the highest by a long ways. So those are some of my concerns I have with this proposed plan that we basically could either say, have a a revolt against, you know, SDCV so that all the other entities don't get their extra money unless they're perfectly happy where they are, but I know not not everybody wants a little bit more, or we're going to so we gotta watch out we don't squeeze out the other entities.

I would just add that, counselor, I've heard a lot I know words matter, and I've heard a lot of talk about being the highest in the state. I have never heard one of you come to me saying we want to be the highest in the state. So if people are listening, I wanna be very clear especially with the development community that that's not staff's intention. We're here to, in fact, maybe consider a little bit of the opposite of that notion by truncating this list. In our opinion, the staff, you're the leaders, you're the policymakers, you'll make that decision, but but thank you for framing that up. Mayor? Yes. Oh, I didn't know if you had anything to add on to

No. Councilor Starr. A great job. Okay. And so shall we go through this list here?

It's I'd like to if we could go back to having Randy cover with the Parks Rec Committee.

That's Yeah.

And and speaking on behalf of the Parks and Rec Committee last night, they they wanted to make sure that we didn't lose all those great voices that you had when you built this Parks parks and and Rec rec Master master Plan plan that you have in front of you. So just a nod to them and nod to you to make sure that we're continuing to pull on that thread that community many community voices built this. So no disrespect to that process and that's what we're trying to carry forward. On the list, there was a certain amount of conversation about some of these seem fairly repetitive. So you'll note that numbers one, four, and eight possibly reference not only school district land, but recreation center, land acquisition, different types of athletic complex.

So can that all be truncated and consolidated into one sort of category that we could put those numbers together and maybe pick, you know, a smaller number than that's reflected in this. I'll just I'll just point that out as the first bullet. The second was Wade Park and really a ton of sensitivity, of course, around the crown jewel of Camby and the the living room of Camby, not to, you know, dismiss that there might need to be some maintenance that, you know, but certainly not to the level of $9,000,000 in in the opinion of the committee. So maybe, it was recommended councilor Davis brought this up to a study, a small study, work with the community about what types of improvements, whether it's just, refreshing the bathrooms, maybe refreshing some of the playground equipment, but certainly a lot of respect and paid towards the tree canopy and Wade Wade Park. So so we just the the committee said, hey, how about $2,000,000 instead of 9 in that to help keep the SDC cost down?

Number three, the Honda Pits, which are up by the police station, a lot of open land. Its bear its barrier is the from a safety perspective is a train. So there's been a number of projects that I understand through the years have been, not put forward because of that safety barrier. But possibly, again, with that number, we understand that there might be some interest in a pedal park, which is sort of a hybrid of bike and and skateboard park that's the city of Sandy Oregon recently that you all have visited for about a million dollars or 1,500,000.0. So, again, there's a high number in here for Honda Pits Action Sports Park, Pedal Park for 6,000,000, maybe that could be truncated down to a couple million to help get the the overall SDC price a little lower.

So that was the thought process there last night. We wanted to really attack this notion that some of these projects on here are about to be completed that are already in our SDC budget and accounted for. And maybe perhaps they can be removed and checked off from the list that they're done. So Auburn Farms fell into that category. I understand that there was comments made last night when we were there about the Ivy Street pedestrian bridge.

Some of the members of the committee really had a certain amount of skepticism that that project could could ever be completed. So maybe put that on the back burner versus on a priority list. And, again, these are just suggestions that kick around and we are gonna go back to parks later in March as part of a check-in, but this is good visibility for you all to see what what they talked about last night. Delete Project 10, that would be the former adult center, Canby Adult Center. So a lot to unpack there.

We have, as you know, the school district owns that property. It's your facility, and the adult center is moving out. So there could be some horse trading here with the school district if they need it to to run an operation or use it for I don't know. I'll just throw out, like, day care. I'm I'm making this up, but I'm not speaking for the school district.

Perhaps there's some trade we can do with our lease, the swim center. That's up to you. It's a policy decision. Maybe that can cover our lease costs and buy down that. I know there's been I haven't had any official talks with any of you about what to do with the adult center, but that topic came up as a sort of a lower priority that the council needs to resolve from an SDC perspective.

I don't see any a lot of interest in adding money into renovating that building from the council, at least I haven't heard that yet. So that was why we parked it at potentially removing that. Ivy Ridge, we've talked to that community. They're really interested in some sidewalks, so we think we can get that done and some little minor improvements in Ivy Ridge as per the recommendation of neighborhood, and that could be for a lower price that's estimated here. 15 and 16, just consolidating those two.

It's 5 and a half million on this list for some trail improvements, land acquisition and facilities. There was some talk about restrooms. Eco Park would be nice and some parking, additional parking for the broad term of logging road trail improvements and that that could possibly be a lower number than the 5 and a half million that's listed here. And then lastly, the Molalla River Camby unit utility property, which is 67 acres. That's where the Camby Utilities intake is from the Malala River right now.

And as you know, it's heavily treed and canopied. It is FEMA flood zone, I understand, but could be potential opportunity for trails for Camby or but it wasn't a real high priority from the Parks and Rec Committee. And I will stop there if if I Did I cover You did a great job. Thank you.

Alright.

So I guess, is there any concern

about Yes. Councilor Waterman, what do you got?

I think, honestly, a lot of my my personal notes kind of almost match the parks and recs recommendations.

Oh, now my computer locked.

Sorry.

So my other question was the the Walnut Street dog park. Isn't that already budgeted? That was that dog park was budgeted before, so I'm not sure why this would need to be on this list.

There's 500,000 in this year's budget and 500,000 in next year's budget.

Right.

But does it I don't see why it needs to be on this

It shouldn't have to be on this Right.

So that should come off too. Right?

Yep. Yeah. It's budgeted.

If we're following that same logic that we've Okay. We've set up, correct, counsel. Right.

Okay. So that that could come off.

And then

yeah. And everything else pretty much, think it really matches my notes. My other question was just be so just to clarify, just because it's not on this list doesn't mean that in the future we can't spend SDC money on a project. Is that correct? The

to spend SDC money, it doesn't need to be targeted on this list

on this twenty years, whatever is Yeah. If it's not on this list, we can't use SDC money

on it. That's correct. But it doesn't mean it's not that does not mean that other priorities cannot be put you can you can change the list, and it doesn't mean that the other things that perhaps are not on this list are still not priorities.

So ten years from now, we can put something else on the

list Yes.

And then spend SDC money?

You could. But it

needs to the connectional point, it needs to be project specific because it's being paid for out of these buckets. And there's a mathematical formula that has to be justified to charge developers for what that is.

Okay. That's all I have.

So could we, Don, can we just expand this list and lower the dollar amounts to include everything that we ever hope and dreamed to put to create in the city of Cami?

I mean, that's a that's another option to

I mean, even if it's a great it's a million dollar per project and we get we get to that, at least there's money there. And if we use it or we decide to allocate it to a different project on the list,

I mean

Yep. That's a good idea.

Another way to do it, you know, with the notion that, again, not having a specific here, but there's a general fund obligation likely depending on the reimbursable amount that's you know, so they're again, not, I think it's a good idea. I'm just making that note that that would spread the money, but it might not solve it if there's not enough general fund money to back it up.

Okay. There's always that general fund caveat.

Can Eight.

Yes. Councilor Stearns, go ahead.

One more question I asked kind of last week, but I'd like to explore a little bit more. If I recall correctly from last week's conversation, are the SDCs are indexed somewhat to some sort of inflationary index. However, it would seem like from our from in the conversation that that index was not sufficient or wasn't a good index, because the because it didn't adequately reflect costs going up the way they are. And so I'm wondering if there's a way to fix this iteration so that rising costs for projects can be factored in without just saying in, say, five years, oops. Now what we passed five years ago wasn't adequate for what the new facts on the ground are, because I think as a policy, having a having a plan that doesn't reflect the certainty that prices will go up is gonna be flawed and have to be revisited.

Mayor, can I, bring in Todd? Todd, I don't wanna throw you on the spot here, but I'm you've done a ton of SDC projects in other cities. Any thoughts on that?

Yeah. I mean, I think this calibration you should do calibration about every five years, generally. It shouldn't wait ten years because the the construction prices change, the land costs change

Yeah.

And your growth forecast change. So that that's good practice.

So you're saying that if I understand this right, just to be really critical, you're saying that whatever we pass today will not keep up with inflation?

Review every five years.

I Almost certainly. So there's no way to bake in the plan something that will keep keep keep the

cost of

There there is I think you're correct. And because there is an engineering index that we're using to do the inflationary index, it's not just we are not creating that. It's coming from other sources. And I think to Todd's point, if you're thirteen to sixteen years away from your initial STCs, which is what we're talking about thirteen to sixteen years ago for transportation and parks, that the inflationary rate obviously did exceed the amount that the engineering index were allowed to do per year. And I understand the math that you're trying to get to, but I think the roads, for example, on just road costs, I mean, you went back sixteen years, it would be amazing what you could afford with budget, the dollars today.

It just comparison wise.

What you're saying though is that that inflationary index, the engineering is flawed because it doesn't actually take into account actual costs going up. I mean, if I'm

I think it presumes

you're saying

it presumes you're not waiting thirteen to sixteen years. I think that to Todd's point, you're you're really refreshing this every five years.

And if I may add, you know, that Taunton Hill Parks and Rec is another one that we've worked on and they've come up with an index that we use where we weight the real estate prices different than the construction costs and we take both into account every year. And so if we know that, you know, 30% of your parked costs are related to land and 70% to construction, we would have a different factor for land costs and a different factor for construction and we'd adjust your we'd adjust your SDC every year based on that. And that that does a better job of keeping up with accurate costs.

Okay.

Thank you, Camby. We are back. Our technical difficulties are repaired. So, councilor Patton, you left off before our feed feed died. You're back on, sir.

I am jazzed because I have been doing my homework, and I have been crunching the numbers. I am one of the counselors that loves to use their calculator up here. And so here here's what I here's what I here's what I will say. This is this is my recommendations and the whole nine yards. So one of the things that stuck stuck out to me about this whole thing was that there was a lot of money at earmarked for sports fields.

And if you remember correctly back when Maple Street Park was approved and we were turfed that, what I had said was I hoped that the parks board would start to prioritize parks that a larger number of people in the community could use instead of turfing more land. And when I saw this, it reminded me of a quote. And so this is from a movie from the early two thousands. Hope. It is the quintessential human, delusion, simultaneously the source of our greatest strength and our greatest weakness.

And so I took that to heart as I went through and started hacking and whacking away at these things. So this is what I will point out. According to this list, and this is all gonna change, how I looked at it was $70,000,000 was gonna be put towards athletic fields, which would be used for baseball, softball, soccer, and maybe football. And if you play those sports, congratulations. I would bust my ankle first time out of the gate, but not a lot of people do those things in the city. $46,000,000, and these were the 10 priority projects. $46,000,000 for the pool, which is something that this council for many years has been telling the community we wanna prioritize and actually build an aquatic center. So to me, that was an important

How much did you say?

$46,250,000 was earmarked towards aquatic Center in this original thing. And then of that, other high priority projects, six projects were just general parks, both updating parks and adding new parks of 21,900,000.0. Then for medium projects, there were seven. One of them is use of school property, and I'm glad to see that the parks board cut that because I over my rotting dead corpse, will I ever vote for this city to spend a dime of taxpayer money building infrastructure on land that it does not own. I will never saddle another city council or city with the burden that we have with the pool and the adult center.

So there was that. Gone. The Malol River Camp utility property, I also cut that because that is a huge thing. We don't even know what's going on there. So what's the point of even including that?

And then that included four parks to be rehabbed at 7,000,000 and new parks at 8,000,000. So if I took the this is what stuck out to me and really kinda fired me up, was that we were wanting to spend $70,000,000 on athletic fields, but $37,000,000 was going to update 11 parks that many people in the community could use at half the price. So you can imagine where I was going with my cuts. And then even if we put in the swim center to that 30 some million dollars, it was $84,000,000, which was only 10 more million dollars than building these athletic cent these athletic fields that would, again, only service a few sports. So that was all of that.

Now I've taken the essentially, the backside of my sheet with all this information that we have now gotten is a moot point, so I'm not gonna go into that. So this is what I'm going to throw out to you all as something to consider. So get your pens out and bring up this little thing here because we're gonna make some notes. Okay? And I wanna get your thoughts on this.

So I understand. I agree with many of the things that the parks board put out. And I went down through here, and I looked at what they said, what I think is reasonable, you know, my thoughts about the athletic complex and stuff, and these are the numbers that I am gonna throw out here. For the for project number one, I agree that we need to work on that we need to keep an eye on the ball for acquiring land for parks. And so I think that that should stay in at the $20,000,000 because there is no knowing how much that's gonna cost.

When it comes to number two, the aquatic center, I rec that wasn't necessarily called out by the parks board, but I think leaving that in at $45,000,000 would make sense. For the Honda Pits, I don't think I think just picking if one says six, another says two, I'm more of a split it in the middle kind of guy. So I was like, you know, maybe we put that at $3,000,000. For an athletic complex, well, I think that it is a good idea to do this and that we need to keep the eye on the ball. So I figured $20,000,000 as a placeholder in the plan in order to keep our eye on that should someone come into the council with a with a wheelbarrow full of cash to build it.

At least we've got it in the plan, and we can pivot quickly, for that. So I put 20,000,000 there. Project number five, Maple Street, Park. I kept it at $900,000 because I know there's some other stuff that they wanna still do over there.

So just before you're working your list, I get it. Maple Street Park, are we not done with Maple Street Park? No.

No. It's the parking lot, and there's some others in the bathrooms and all that other stuff.

Nope. Totally. Okay. Good. I'm tracking that. That's I know. Have we already budgeted that though?

Correct, Mayor.

So then that should come off.

So that million can come off?

That's how I would understand that.

That's how we understand it.

We have budgeted for that. We have used dedicated STC funds that we already have for that.

Okay.

So take that off of that.

So five, cut that. So that's saving us. Now we can bump that up to 58,000,000. So project number six, Wake Park improvements. I think that park needs a lot of work. And even with the master plan, that's gonna take some time. So instead of cutting it from nine to two, I would say leave that at five so we have some wriggle room. Number seven, other aquatic center improvements. That is to our current one. That is a levy and all that stuff, so I say cut that completely.

Hey. I know. Again, follow-up question. Is that not the improvements we're already planning and making and doing that are going to be underway here soon or those additional?

I think this is the party room and all that stuff.

Think these are additional I don't that is I don't think the cost of the improvements now are

yeah it's for above and beyond what we've already been talking about doing that we already budget for moving yeah that's an add on project okay

yeah so 5,000,000 for

And I do have good staff here, so that has historical knowledge. So feel free to come up with Don if you'd like to chime in on some of these. You're more than welcome.

So are you recommending keeping the 1,200,000.0 in for the aquatic center? I was recommending cutting it all out.

Well, I guess it depends. I mean, again, I think that's a policy or what we feel as a group. Right? Like, much more money are we gonna continue to dump into building

that city? Here's the

let me send

it down through my list. And if there's questions Yeah. Let me let me throw this out there, and then you guys can weigh in. So I'm saying cut that completely. But as far as project number five, I did not know that that was already budget for, so that can just be cut. Project number eight, which is city, school, district property use, cut that. Community river park improvements, keep that at 2,000,000. Number 10, former adult center. What I had written down was in here is $3,600,000 for property acquisition, but it's gonna take anywhere from one to one point five million dollars to update that building even if we buy it. And so that's why I say cut number 10 completely.

You mean if we buy the dirt?

I say we just cut it. Mhmm. Get rid of the whole thing.

So demo

If we

can buy the dirt, then that's a hurdle we're gonna jump. But I'll tell you what. I have been running into that hurdle since I was on council and Melody was the mayor, and I am tired of tripping over that freaking hurdle. And so I want it gone. And if they roll if the school district wants to sell us the property, then you can, you know, put that deed in front of me, and I'll eat it. Whatever. I don't care. I'm not gonna pay for it, but I will eat the paperwork. So I say so then so that's cut the former adult center completely. Project number 11, cut that because it was determined that we've already completed that project.

Mhmm. Project number 12, Ivy Ridge Estates Neighborhood Park, keep that at $2,000,000. 13, the Walnut Street off leash dog park, that's been paid for, and so cut that out of here. Project number 14, the Malala can be, utility property. Cut that. Number fifteen and sixteen was recommended by the parks board to combine those and put those at $4,000,000. Sounds great to me. Put those at $4,000,000. Project number 17, $350,000 for Redwood Landing improvements. Keep that as is.

Project number 18, the emerald necklace. This is something that the city has been working towards for decades, and I think we need to make sure that we keep our eyes on the prize with that because a lot of the especially out there where, the new developments are going there along the, Pudding River, right, or Malala River. Which one is it there over on Malala.

Malala.

A lot of that was put into worked into those plans for those developers. And so it would be slap in the face to them for us to then go back and say, oh, by the way, we're not doing that. We need to keep our eyes on the prize, and so keep that $8,000,000 in there. And then $19,000,000, I had put it down with a question mark. The, parks board said go ahead and cut it.

Personally, I would like to see the bridge built over to that industrial park by the space age and the Walgreens before we put in a pedestrian bridge. So I say cut that as well. So with that, with all those cuts, it ends up bringing the total cost of all of the projects to 1.9 $109,250,000, give or take a few $100,000. You'd have to check all that math. And so that reduces the total number by about by almost $59,000,000, and I think that gets us to where we need to be.

So I say, I welcome you folks to use that as a starting point to see where if you agree with or disagree with anything that I've thrown out, and then we go from there. And that's it.

And you said that your numbers you just calculated is 59,000,000. It cuts 59.

Yeah. 58 point. It for when I just did the rough here, it said it came out at 58,600,000.0. So, you know, it's about 59,000,000.

Doctor. Yes. Councillor Davis.

I agree with a lot of Jason's cuts. A few recommendations was the Park and Rec recommended combining one, four, and eight, but I would also move that one four and eight down to 20,000,000 rather than the 50,000,000 and combine those instead of the $50,000,000 keep that at $20,000,000 cut that down as well. The honda pit, I really believe that we can do that for $2,000,000 based upon and that' a high number already and I think Jason you mentioned $3,000,000 on that or something like that for the honda pit. Think we can keep can bring that down and keep it at $2,000,000 as recommended by the park of America committee. On 12 Ivy Ridge Community Park that' $2,000,000 we' agreed they were in here already asking us to put in the sidewalks.

I would say we' already agreed to put in the sidewalks but to eliminate the Ivory Ridge Park. Dog I get dog park on my brain tonight.

You were putting a dog park on?

Yeah yeah but to scratch out the $2,000,000 for Ivy Ridge. The emerald necklace I don' think You'

saying cut 12?

No cut it entirely down to zero.

You' saying you want to

cut it? Ivy ridge.

You want to

cut it to zero?

Yeah.

Then the emerald necklace, the park and rec had some lengthy discussions on that. We really didn't think that that's going to be achievable because of so many different variables on that and didn' t see that that was a priority to keep that going. Understand where developers are doing that but there' the gun club there' land acquisition to get from the logging road over to the ferry and that whole thing. If we want to keep some money in there a placeholder in there so we can keep it alive I would agree with that. Moving that down to just $2,000,000 at this point like we said we can always change that in the future.

Then the Ivy Ridge pedestrian take that down to zero as jason recommended to those would be the ones that I would add.

I just want to make sure I got my notes right. I had recommended $40,000,000 for the athletic $20,000,000 complex. You wanna take it to $20,000,000

Mhmm.

Okay.

And the reason I'm

Yeah. Why?

Well, I'm concerned well, we got a placeholder, right? In the future, we can always change that as we move forward. Not necessarily comfortable with even the goal we' trying to hit and the reason I say that is because I' really a strong believer in creating affordable housing in Can be which we don' have. After my discussion today with the school district in regards to how badly they' hurting within their budget and stuff because of no kids coming into these developments and there' no kids enrollment is way way down for the school district That' because there' nothing people can buy in can be and these developers don' want to build affordable housing in can be based upon the sdcs. That' why I' concerned about the total sdcs.

I'm proposing trying to lower the sdcs as much as we possibly can to encourage or build incentives for developers that they don't have to pay sdcs based upon a certain amount on planned developments if they're building affordable housing. That's why I'm saying we need to try to keep these SDCs down as much as we possibly can so we can start. Estacada is not seeing enrollment going down they' going up

dramatically

in Estacada. The reason for that is their sdcs are a lot lower and developers are developing in s Takeda now. We need to try to flip that switch back over to can be so people can live in can be and bring kids into can be.

So just as a placeholder, so you know, based on what Jim the cuts Jim recommended on top of what I did is another $29,000,000 in savings.

Other

discussion items here?

I just wanted to agree with Jim. I think that you're going to have to make it. Mean we can't control all the market forces that are out there but we can control some of them Having a lower

I

know and he's going look at me a lower tax on building houses, I call it a tax, it reduces the overall cost of living in Canby because if you have a high tax to build a house, you're going to have a much more expensive house. That much more expensive house soon calls all the other housing prices in Canby to go up as well or put pressure for that to happen and makes Canby all the more unaffordable for people. Also, current fee structure says if I'm a developer, get the maximum bang for my buck for the biggest house that I can build on that lot, which is going to attract people who are already established enough money. I think that needs to be a very big consideration. Also, if anybody paid attention to the Camden Utility Board meeting last week, they currently upped and like it's not final numbers and so she doesn't look at me like it but the final number but there's they were proposing $250,000,000 for the water treatment plant, one of the iterations.

There's some other ones that were less expensive than that but they were but just a chart of what our rates will go up just for water for that adds to less affordability for living in Camby. Certain costs we have to do but we need to really keep in mind that there are other forces besides just the city of Camby that want higher prices for living in Camby. That's why I think we should cut as much as Jim's saying and even more. Wouldn't mind. Could maybe a place for athletic but if you don't play those sports, what percentage of the citizens of Camden play those sports?

Of the youth, I mean, it never declined. It's substantial. It's substantial.

But if we come to the point that why isn't the Canby School District utilizing their land that they already have for sports facilities and having the city basically take over what the school district was doing before. Basically, the citizens of Canby get taxed twice, one for the school district so they can have their sports facilities and then one for city of Canby so they can have their sports facilities. I don't think it it doesn't make sense to have the citizens being taxed twice for the same function, you know, and the school board is maybe putting up a levy on the ballot soon and that's going to raise the costs some more.

Chair Councilor Waterman.

I agree with everybody so far that it's the right direction. I do think there's something we do need to be cognizant of and noodle on stuff like that too because we're saying we're the reason we're going through this is because we're saying our sdcs are already really really low too low for us but the in general they're lower than almost everybody else around us. Right? Correct. So if we're already losing

if people

aren't moving into Canby and the builders aren't building and we're already losing students because they cannot go to school because of this, but this is already happening with us already having the lowest SDCs around. Yeah. So that's an issue. Why? So so that makes it even more doubly important to make sure that we're not going crazy in having to increase STCs, but we also have to support ourselves so we can't, you know, we can't not do that. So, one, why are we already having this issue with the lowest STCs around? And then, two, we need to keep focus on making sure we don't out price ourselves even more. So I'm on board with what we're talking about today.

You know, again, it's it's an interesting you guys remember the toys as a kid, the water weenie. Right? You squeeze one end, the other end blows up. Right? I look at so economics being what they are.

Right? So to the point. Right? So if we can even go to land use policy at the state level and what it dictates we can and can't do or how quickly we can grow. I mean, if we want to write supply and demand, there's less supply and is that what drives, again, this is all a lot of like philosophical,

this

is the stuff that keeps me up at one and 02:00 in the morning is like if, you know, how do you how do you balance the the growth boundary, right? We're looking at expanding our UGB, right? And so well, does that afford us to build new housing? It does because that's part of the plan and then part of the reasoning behind it. But what's what's that gonna look like and how quickly is that gonna get built out?

Because, again, myself and mayors across the the metro area, it's like, well, we can't build out, so we gotta build up. And that's I mean, the land use policies have been designed to build up, not out. And so when we're looking at houses on smaller lots, they build up, not out. That's why they're not single level ranch style homes. Mhmm. They're two level homes. You know, to your point, Paul, where we are the lowest as near the lower end of the STC scale, but yet the market is dictating that builders can build $600,000 homes in Canby and sell them. Right. Right? They're not doing a so you wanna move to Canby?

Fabulous. And you have how many kids or how many kids are you planning on having? Like, oh, okay. Perfect. You can come in. We'll sell you our house. It they just it doesn't work that way. It's like, here, I I I got cash.

Fabulous. I'm in. Let's go. And so how do you how that's

Yeah. That's the piece, but are we not seeing the the family, the two, you know, the families of with 2.2 kids moving into Canby because the amenities are not there. And that's a lot of the conversation that the Park Board has been having and pressing on is that we just those type of amenities that draw families to Canby are not there. And that's where a lot of this master plan in this document and what we're talking about is trying to address. So I guess it's that's the balancing act.

Right? Are we more parks and trails and wetlands, or are we trying to develop more, you know, active recreation areas? Don't. Councillor Patton?

Yeah. I would just before I before I chime in with some extra thoughts, I think it might be good to check-in with council president Hensley to see what her thoughts were on all of this.

And and you have eight minutes before your 09:00.

Yeah. That was my my next piece, so thank you. Hey. Councilor councilor president Hanzley, did you have any thoughts on any of this?

I mean There's a lot that I'm absorbing with you guys' conversation of cutting this and cutting that and that's enough right fast enough to keep to keep up with y'all. I understand the need to lower the amount that we're charging overall so that we can hopefully entice more building, but I have to be honest and thinking that I don't I don't I'm not confident that will work. I think the builders are gonna build what they build and build how much charge what they want for it unless we tie some kind of discount for SDCs for affordable housing. Yep. I'm also worried that if we cut too much for SDCs, then we're not being forward thinking enough for developing amenities.

So I I I'm torn. I I I don't really have any more cuts to offer. You guys have cut a lot, and like I said, I couldn't keep track of everything you were jotting. I was trying to jot down as fast as I could, but, you know me, mayor. I I gotta noodle this for a while. Sure. I'm torn.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. We are at 08:52 according to the clock on the back of the room and on Cupertino time. We still have quite a bit here, I think, worth discussing and then the rest of the agenda. Is there a to extend till 09:30 or sooner? So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. We'll reassess at 09:20 where we're at. Okay. Yes. Councilor Patton.

So I guess I would say here's what I'll throw out. I like I like where Jim's going. But, again, we've done this we've we've done this real quick. And so I would be curious as to where different things fall into the numbers. Right?

So what I will throw out for people's thoughts is take the cuts that I recommended and throw them into the calculation and then take add in the cuts that councilor Davis recommended, which, by my rough calculation would be $87,600,000 in cut in in cuts, which would bring the $167,000,000 down to about 80,000,000 point 80,250,000.00 and see where those fall as far as where we need to be. And similar to councilor Waterman and and and and the rest, I will say this. I I can I can understand why people are going to Estacada to build because it's cheaper there? Mhmm. But when is Estacada gonna have a similar problem to what we've had?

Then they did not pivot and update their fees. And then all of a sudden, they've had bunch of builders come in and make their money and put in all this infrastructure that starts to crumble, now they're screwed. Right? Because that's kinda why we're in the situation that we're in. Right? And so I agree that we should make things we should incentivize builders to come to this city to build affordable housing. But to me, cutting these SDCs to the bones is not what's gonna do that because I'm sorry. I'm a pessimist when it comes to this. They're gonna wanna make as much profit as they want. And they can say, oh, you know, well, you know, because we've heard it before.

Oh, you know, you raise these fees, then we're not gonna make a bunch of money. And yet they come they come and they build, and they build these 600,000, you know, 150,000 square foot homes that are 500 they're like 800 to $1,000,000. It's like, no. They're this is ridiculous. Right?

So to me, incentivizing that is to say, you wanna come in, you wanna build a 250,000 square foot two bedroom home, and the one bedroom's an office? Then great. You're you're coughing up all this money. But you wanna come in here and you wanna build an you wanna build an affordable housing complex, then we're gonna give you some incentives to do that by cutting these SDCs. But you're gonna agree that you're not gonna move the goalpost because I'm gonna and I know there's this is a sore spot, but those apartment complexes out there by Fred Meyer.

When I was a lowly member of the the community, I was under the impression that they were gonna be affordable housing. But in the end, they weren't. And it's like, oh, well, that was a misconception on your part. BS. So if you wanna come into this city and you wanna build affordable housing, you're gonna get breaks to do it, but you're gonna be held to the you're gonna be held your nose is gonna be held to the grinding stone that that's what you're actually putting in and that they're gonna be affordable for an extended period of time.

You're not gonna build affordable housing, and then someone's gonna come in and buy 20 of the 40 units because they're gonna put them out as Airbnbs. This is ridiculous. So that to me is how we incentivize people building affordable housing is to incentivize them through a reduction in the fees and then making them sign agreements that if that's not how it works, we're coming after you. Mhmm. That's how you do it. Similar to my theories about economic development. Yes. I am all for building things that will entice people to come into the city to patronize our businesses, but I am not for handing checks to businesses. That just doesn't work. And so yeah.

So that's where that's where my thoughts are on all

of that.

So I will throw in real quick to I think what so the the Sequoia project, they always stated it was going to be market rate apartments, they never said low income housing.

Whatever.

So I'm just going to put that to rest. The other piece I think as we look here to to the point, right, like in council president Hensley, her point to decrease decreasing and cutting into the bone does not look down the future in terms of what can be could be in SDCs. Again, it's the development side of it. We can develop every day and all day long, especially around Park, but at the end of the day, we gotta take care of whatever we decide to develop. That's another side of the coin.

And I think with the housing piece, Don, I think we've gone through with our looking at our housing needs assessment, a lot of the policies and things we talk about are code. There's a lot in there that I think that we can be looking at and we could probably look at from a a code standpoint to help, I guess, put some of these development pieces into the box that we're talking about here for, you know, that that middle housing or that figuring out what is that bandwidth that we can develop within Mhmm. So that it's not $600,000 homes, but it's, you know, I guess, I used to say closer to 300. Now I think I'm more at, like, 400, 425. Is kind of that seems like the low end or that middle middle low end but so I think again policy and code I think is another angle here as well.

Yes, councilor Davis.

I don' think we' talking about cutting to the bare bones I don' t think we' done that I think we tried to reach to a goal of 5.2 that was a goal for tonight and I think we' pretty close to that So when we say we're cutting to bare bones I don't think we are cutting to bare bones. We're trying to be realistic and go along with the recommendations of the consultant. So counsel

councilor Patton suggested again, right? So we've got some numbers for Don for you to work on.

And we'll run those scenarios. Yeah. Todd, I'm sure you we can connect on this, but I mean, we can run those back obviously, and that will be given to Parks and Rec Advisory Board on March 17 when we go and meet with them again because that's the next step in this process. Explain where you all came from, what they were already suggesting to do and then talk about the parks implementation plan as well and are there other thoughts? Is there something missing I guess is the question from that list? That would be the question for parks and rec. I really appreciate the exercise and the discussion this has been excellent.

So next time we can see this done is going to be when?

I think my hope, and I have not talked to Randy about this, that we would come back after parks and rec on the seventeenth and come back on March 25 which would the week after the Wednesday after the seventeenth. I again have not even spoken with Randy about that.

I just want to make sure again I get it right. So massage the numbers, see what the new calculation comes out to, and then the parks board, I guess, will make their recommendations of adding adding or subtracting or pivoting. Doctor.

And I think they just want to feel a sense of comfort. Mean, I get it. Mean, there's been a lot of buildup to this, and I think part of this is, you know, I think they get the cut piece. I think they're just their concerns are, you know, are there things missing? And they feel an ownership to that and a responsibility around the fact that Parks Master Plan was a fairly large effort for the community to bring all that together.

That piece I think will come back and talk specifically about what that implementation plan looked like. It was a lot more visioning and master planning than it was projects. I think there's very little there may be one project I went through quickly this morning. There's like one project maybe that's on there that might be added in my view. But, again, we want their input.

Sure. Appreciate

that. Is everyone good with that direction and timeline where we're at?

The only thing I'd ask, Don, when you and the consultant put a draft together if you could send that out to the council so

we can

see it

as soon as possible so we can start massaging a little bit.

And I think so it sounds like you all would like the for sake of definition like the Patton Plan plus the Patton and Davis Plan so to make one. And the Park and Rec, yeah. Okay. Yeah. But you're interested in where this brings us down to first?

Mean

Doctor. Andy The three different I'm curious as

I to where this think it's a great question. I think we should give you those scenarios. Like, what does it look like with what you suggested and then added onto councilor Davis' suggestion.

Yeah. So I what I'm getting is, like, start with option a, which is what the parks and rec board said

Yep.

Without any edits. Yeah. Then mine, which cuts more, and then Jim's, which cuts even further.

And we have the one from Park and Rec. We just don't have yours.

Yeah. I'll I'll make sure that that Randy gets a picture of it

or whatever.

Okay. Thank you.

And I think on the reductionexemption, there can be continued discussion on that. I understand we could do this administratively, and that is not that big of a deal to do in administrative way. We're gonna need to tool that anyway administratively to talk about affordable housing and what those tie ins are into that. I think this is a timely conversation. Probably not enough time tonight to talk through that, but just wanted to let you know I heard that.

Doctor. Don, we will be having that discussion as we look at incentives for developers then in regards to

I'd like initially that was something I was just trying to get to the end and we had definitely earmarked to do that. I just didn't know if it should be in this round, which it probably should be since we're updating these. Or should we do it separately and have another review?

Doctor. Think separately, but I just wanna make sure we do have that discussion.

Yeah. And I think, I I mean, I, you know, I think we can throw out what our suggestions are. And if it's a topic that needs more attention, there'll be a decision point as to do we move ahead and move forward and adopt these and then come back and revisit that issue, or do we bake it in? So that'll be, I think that's a, there's a decision point out there on that. We need to come back with a recommendation. This is an advancement of the housing production strategy we all agreed to in terms of principle on those those topics, and I'd like to get your input on that.

That's great.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yes. Councilor Fadden.

So I would just say as far as that point about incentives, based on what I have done with all this thing here, I think trying to bake those incentives into this plan would not make sense because we want those to be more malleable. So Mhmm. Understanding that we want those incentives, but to me, it would make sense that those incentives are gonna be part of the code updates Correct. Or an entirely different policy which will come Yes. Towards the end of us getting to the finish line with everything.

Yeah. And I to be solidified. You're totally fine going that direction. Just, you know, is kind of splitting this up not to get into the weeds but like some of this are fairly easy like our accessory dwelling units. Most of the jurisdictions will just, you know, they'll say yes or no we're going to fully exempt those And that may be, there may be a feeling about that. Other things are way more complicated, like you, we're all talking about basically alluding to conservation or covenants basically running with the land, those kinds of things. How long? Is it in perpetuity? How do we guarantee perpetuity? Or is it ten years? These are all dynamics that jurisdictions have to deal with. Don, I

brought this up earlier purely just being cheeky, you know, and but can can we just look at, like, great, how many toilets are in each house to determine, you know, some of the SDCs for water and sewer? Or, like, I mean, versus square footage or just flat rates, you know? I mean, I it sounds I like I said, it's kind of joking, but kind of serious at the same time.

Those are actually foundationally part of that discussion when you' dealing with the metrics of equivalent residential units the sewer and storm do have those factored into them and There are metrics behind these equations. These seem really complicated and it is complicated but there is actually logic to some of this stuff which is what that gets into what is your impact to the public services. Don't know if we can skip the methodology process because it's baked into state law. But I would love to be able to say it's a lot simpler.

Toilet tax.

What's that? Toilet tax.

Individual home toilet usage fee for little meters on there. That was Canby utility could come up with that. Right? Like

If that's the case, I want it based on the toilet. It's numbers, not the size of the toilet because I hate them tiny toilets in the hotel rooms. Old hotel rooms. It's ridiculous. And

a a and a break for a bidet, you know? So just one more thing I'd like to just a a request that I gave the city when we're talking about affordable housing. I think we established that Estacada is cheaper than Camby and maybe Woodburn is cheaper than Camby and other cities may be more expensive. I think it might be just a good use of time to maybe do a study on maybe some of the reasons why that's the case. Think I think I kinda know the reasons, but I might be wrong.

And it might be some some there might be something that comes out of why one place is cheaper than another place. So I'm sometimes we think we all know, yeah, it's a wood burn. But the idea is is why is wood burn wood burn when it comes to cost for housing unit? And as Takeda rather than just saying, yeah, that's just Takeda. But, you know you know what I'm saying?

Right. Right. We love all of our neighbors equally, counselor Stern.

No. I'm just saying that that it's good to say if we're what has worked for other places There

you go.

And and instead of theorizing based on Yeah. Yeah.

Well, we could also pick on Malala as well. Yeah. You know? I don't want

But I think it's obvious.