City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, Canby. Welcome to the urban renewal meeting for June 17th, 2026. We have, do we have, we don't have any in the audience. Do we have anybody online for citizen comment, Maya? Okay, we'll go straight into the consent agenda. Mike, sorry. before we move on.

My name's Jason. I move to approve the consent agenda that includes the minutes of the February 4th and March 18th, 2026 Urban Renewal Agency meeting. Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Padden to approve the consent agenda that includes the minutes from the February 4 and March 18, 2026 Urban Renewal Agency meetings. All those in favor?

Aye. Passes 4-0.

Oh, I need my script. Oh, it's right here. We will now move into the public hearing for URR 26002, which is a resolution to adopting the Urban Mineral Agency annual budget in the amount of $1,206,620 for the 2026-27 fiscal year to complete one remaining project. The matter presently before the hearing body requires a public hearing. All interested parties in attendance shall be heard on the matter. This public hearing was noticed and those who wish to speak were instructed to contact the city recorder. We did not receive any requests to speak. Have we received any since this printing? Okay. Those people that are interested in testifying as either proponents or opponents, please indicate your desire to speak by raising your virtual hand at this time or handing your card to the city recorder. Seeing none, for longer presentations, proponents and opponents may buy time from one another. In doing so, those in favor or opposed may allocate time to a spokesperson who will represent the entire group. All questions must be directed through the chair. Any evidence to be considered must be submitted to the hearing body for public access. All written testimony received for and against shall be summarized by staff and presented briefly to the hearing body during the staff report. The public hearing shall be conducted as follows. Staff report, questions if any by the hearing body. Open the public hearing for testimony. Opponents will have three minutes. Opponents, three minutes. Then we'll close the public hearing. Questions if any by the hearing body and then discussion by the hearing body. A decision shall be made by the hearing body at the close of the hearing or the matter will be continued to a date certain in the future. This will be the only notice of that date you will receive. Does anyone have any questions about the procedure of the hearing? Seeing none, Denise, do you have a staff report for us?

Hello. Good evening, Chair Hensley and commissioners. Staff is asking for your consideration in adopting resolution URR26-02 of the Canby Urban Renewal Agency, adopting the annual budget, making appropriations and imposing and categorizing taxes for the fiscal year 2027. As a reminder, we will not be imposing taxes, it's just what the process is called. We're only looking for the appropriations for the one remaining project. The Oregon budget law requires adoption of an annual budget by June 30th of each year. On May 14th, 2026, the URA budget committee met to deliberate over the FY2027 budget. The proposed budget was approved by the committee and moved to the URA commissioners for adoption. This resolution allows for the ability to proceed with one remaining capital project in the urban renewal agency. Staff requests that you consider the resolution and allow staff to pay on the remaining first street project.

May I answer any questions? I guess not. I think we got it all during the budget, so thank you very much, Denise. I will open the public hearing. Did anybody jump online, Maya? Okay, I will close the public hearing. Any other questions or comments from the hearing body? then I will take a motion.

I move to adopt UR Resolution 26-02, a resolution adopting the Urban Renewal Agency Annual Budget in the amount of $1,206,620 for the 2026-2027 fiscal year to complete one remaining project. Second. Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Stearns and seconded by Commissioner Davis to approve UR 2602, a resolution adopting the Urban Renewal Agency annual budget in the amount of $1,206,620 for the 2026-2027 fiscal year to complete one remaining project. All those in favor?

Aye.

4-0. That concludes our business for urban renewal. Stay tuned, Kami. We have more business to come. We are going to have a work session regarding some charter updates. Is it Randy or Emily that's going to kick us off on this?

Your call. Up to you.

We'll kick it to Randy. Okay, so our subcommittee, this is Randy Ely, Interim City Administrator. Our subcommittee on this topic met... A week ago? Yeah. And so that would include Councilor Stern. Council President Hensley. Councilor Padden. Okay. And Emily and I. Anybody else in that meeting? Of course, Maya.

The glue that holds us all together.

And that committee has made a recommendation to bring back to this body for your consideration a few pieces of questions to put to the Canby community on the City of Canby's charter. And Emily can help guide us on that. One is with regards to the Canby utility, which is Chapter 10 in the charter. The other is the authority to spend over $550,000 to $100,000. And the last piece is a edit to the residency requirement using waiver language. So that said, it's for your consideration. Those are all printed out in front of you tonight. We would need a council vote I believe at some point too, but maybe not tonight because you'll hear later that Camp Utility is still getting some bond council advice that Emily is working with them on as well on the words, if the words are good enough to meet what they need. So I'll stop talking because Emily is the expert on this one. So at the pleasure of the council, which topic would you like to pick up first tonight?

If I may just roll, if I may real quick, just as a backstory about what we discussed in the last few, and this is primarily for Jim because you're here and I was gonna listen. Council President Hensley had attended a League of Oregon Cities event and it was made clear that it's best to take this in small bites rather than huge chunks. And so the subcommittee had kind of decided that really we could maybe do two like big things this in November and the ones that we were that we're going to be kind of focusing on was the updates to the camp utility because they need some wiggle room in order to do the bonding for the water treatment plant as well as some language changes for the residency restriction for the city administrator. The updating the amount that the city administrator can sign off on is one that was already kind of in the oven and baking, and so that's why I think that one's in here, but there was, and correct me if I'm wrong, other members of the subcommittee, the idea was to maybe hold off on this one, depending on how these ones get a feel, and then it may do this one and another one, and then each election cycle for the next however many election cycles will do one or two different updates until it's all done. So that way we don't overwhelm people. And because of what's happened with some of the other bonds or the other ballot measures and stuff that have come down the pike, we wanna make sure to not over task ourselves or city staff in the education and public outreach of these changes. So by doing two, and these are actually like, the CAMB utility one is pretty beefy. And so, and I will just say too, that we leaned heavily on CAMB utility to kind of do the language that they wanted, because for many years, there's been this sort of push and pull with CAMB utility. And I'm not sure about others, but I wanted to make sure that Canby Utility felt that they had some control of their destiny through this process. So that's kind of what has happened to get us to the point where we're at today. Thank you, Jason.

That's a good synopsis, good summary. My question is this. CAM Utility isn't quite prepared to go forward with this is what I think I just heard you say.

I'll just chime in with the status on that. So last week, Carrie sent over a proposal for revisions to chapter 10, the CAM Utility chapter. I think she sent it to Randy and then sent it also to me for me to look at. And so what you have in front of you is me working off, me and Chad working, Chad and I working off of Carrie's proposed revisions and her proposed revisions were to, as you said, put the water and the electric functions of CAMB utility on the same footing, meaning they're both the authority to handle both delegated to CAMB utility through the charter rather than through an IGA and the charter. And so Carrie got a copy of our proposal. revisions earlier today, and she has probably not had a second to look at it yet. And I imagine their board is going to also want to take a look as well, though I can't speak for them. So we're kind of moving forward in two parallel paths here. But the hope is to get this in front of council tonight so council can start noodling on it. And then hopefully in the next couple of weeks, we will have consensus from both bodies to bring a resolution forward to council to get some form of the language on the ballot. And then for the other proposed revision before each day, the city administrator residency requirement, you don't need CAMU utilities input for that one. That one we're here today to talk about, answer questions, hopefully get some consensus on language to prepare for the ballot and then bring a resolution forward to put it on the ballot in a very near future council meeting.

Okay, I would suggest, colleagues, that we talk about CUB, obviously, but even though we're not gonna do, necessarily, the contractual obligation, the spending authority one, maybe we approve both of these so that if this doesn't get its act together in time, we can just go forward with these two in November. And if they do get their act together, we drop the spending authority and do the residency in CUB. But that way we got this in the hopper just in case. We good with that idea? Yeah. Okay.

And I will just throw out one more thing in this conference when it comes to the CAM utility thing. And correct me if I'm wrong, Emily. We made very few changes, like CUB sent over their request. We made very few changes when it came to what they sent us. There was some stuff about the process of appointing board members and making it more of a council driven thing rather than a mayor driven thing. and knowing that that will be solidified more in policies and operating guidelines. But the bond issue thing, we didn't really touch anything with that. That's just a matter of waiting to hear back from the bond board. So if they came back and said everything is great, then community utility shouldn't have too much of a problem. But, yeah. Is that correct?

That is correct. So, yeah, the subcommittee discussed very few changes. There's also the reporting thing that you'll see in there, too. On the lawyer side, we made what looks like a lot more changes. Nothing substantive. We took it as an opportunity to do a little housekeeping to standardize terminology, make sure that... the same concepts are referred to using the same language throughout so that there's no interpretation issues. Also, what are two other little housekeeping things that I couldn't help myself from doing? But I believe that's it. So it should be, in addition to that, there are at least two areas of policy decision to talk about tonight in regards to Chapter 10 as well that I have not made changes on or adjusted because I will need some council direction on those areas too. Well, let's start there then. Okay.

Would everyone flip to the Chapter 10 document? And to be clear, you've got the red line copy that you're working from. This other is what Chapter 10 would look like if this was incorporated? Correct. Okay. Absolutely correct. Thank you.

So red line copy. Can you see my comments on the printout version? Okay, great. So I'm going to go to... So first comment... You'll see I say discuss. In section one, last sentence of section one, or last line of section one, there is the phrase revenue producing that is struck through. And revenue producing in the current charter language refers to the utility services, water and electric revenue producing utility services. Okay. That is the only instance in Chapter 10 current language that uses the phrase revenue producing. It doesn't appear elsewhere. It also isn't clear what it means or is intended to mean. I asked Carrie. She also didn't really know. This may be a relic of something. This may be just... a relic of drafts that got through from a lawyerly perspective. I would like references to be consistent all the way throughout. So we're interpreting phrases the same, but because I don't know what revenue is meant producing is meant to mean here. This is something for council to discuss. And I don't know if anyone has the history on this phrase either, but if you do, I'd love to hear it. So if you look at section one. Section one, the last line. Yep.

Section one, last, oh, last line.

Yeah, where it says purchase and distribution of all water or electric revenue production utility services of the city that revenue producing services.

So you want to strike revenue producing utilities and dispute utility services?

Yes, unless there is a reason we know for including revenue producing. And I was racking my brains to think of what would be water or electric utilities that would not be revenue producing. Perhaps the utilities that the city itself consumes. But I don't know.

And Carrie didn't know either. I think I'm good with this revision to make everything consistent. Are you seeing nods over here? How about down there?

Yeah, the only thing I can think is that when this was put together, they were making every effort they could to try and throw people off the scent of the water system so that if they did go bankrupt, that that was with the city. And so perhaps they only mentioned revenue for the electricity and not the water in an effort to try and clear that off and make that focus more on the electrical part, which they kept rather than the water system that they handed off to the city, but still maintained.

Yeah, that could be, you definitely can feel the ghostly hand of that situation on other parts of the language, in current charter language.

Yeah, I'm for clear, consistent, and understandable.

Love it. OK. You'll see that the current Section 2 has been struck and has been folded into the proposed Section 1 and the proposed Section 2 to keep water and electric on the same footing. The next area to point out to you is that big chunk of red line at the bottom of the section titled CAM Utility Board. So it should be at the bottom of the very first page in front of you. So part of the Charter Subcommittee Review Subcommittee's discussion was how do we make it... Is there a way to protect the city from liabilities that may arise from the operation of the board and from the water and electric department? We talked a little bit about how there may be language that we can put in the charter to kind of underscore that intended line between CUB side of things and other city side of things. We also talked about that there is likely not ever going to be silver bullet language to put into the charter and whether the city may ultimately be held fully or partially liable for anything arising from CUB or the department conduct will really depend on the laws under which such a claim may be brought against the city. But we like to give things our best shot in the charter if possible. So that language that we put there is meant to underscore the intent and then put a sort of practical process for dividing up liability. So maybe the city ultimately does become liable, but it is the board based under this language that has a responsibility to carry insurance to cover all liabilities arising from the department and its conduct. And in the case the city is ever held liable or needs to defend itself against the liability, it is the board's insurance that would cover the city for that.

Any questions on this section? Okay.

We're going to wash our hands of it. This may be random, but it came up at the Cambria Utility Board meeting on last Tuesday with the charter. And there was a question which they didn't know the answer to. Maybe they already contacted their firm about whether or not the utility board could actually make a profit. And they were talking about this charging station. And the question was whether or not the charter would allow the Canby Utility Board to do things to make a profit on it, or they're only able to do costs. And I just bring it up because it came up at the one last Tuesday, and they didn't seem to know the answer to that question. And there's a question whether the charter allowed it, and if the charter didn't allow it, do we want to make that change sometime?

Is it, they were wondering, could the board impose fees calculated to not only cover like operational costs and projections for future revenue needs, but also to make a profit? Is that kind of the question?

Yeah, the context was this new charging station they're doing right over there. And they were trying to decide what to charge for it. And the question was, was it legal for them to charge something to make a profit because one of the issues was if you have to charge too little, then they just stack up and wait. And if they charge too much, then are we making a profit? And that was the question as I remember it from the latest utility board meeting. Since it was sort of a charter issue, and I figured we're going to change it for the utility. I should have brought it up on Thursday, but I sort of spaced on it because it's just the two days before that.

So the charter does contain language already, as we all know, about how the board sets rates for water and electric utility services. And so I guess the question is, would the fees charged for the EV charging station be water and electric utility services? I... I don't want to do a close reading here while y'all stare at me and I waste your time.

You don't have to answer it right now, but I thought it would bring up the issue so that way. Yeah. If there's a decision to modify the charter in order to do something that, because obviously, like I say, if you charge too little, then basically you'll just be, people will be going there instead of going home, you know, and they've charged too much.

Yeah, I mean, as an owner of an EV vehicle myself, I would. I have known, so you've been known to camp out at free or cheap charging stations, as you described. So let me look into that. That's a good question. Let's see. I'm scrolling on my side. OK, so over to one, two, three. The third page, I think. I should have put page numbers on these. The section titled Organization of the Department and it has a single subsection employees. And we had talked about a little bit with the subcommittee about how this works operationally. So this language here doesn't mirror, for example, how the city council hires a city administrator and then delegates authority to the city administrator to hire and do all personal actions for all of their employees. This is a little bit different. I talked to Carrie a little bit about this. appear to have no heartburn with how it is, this charter language is right now. And it might be maybe a little bit more than people have appetite for to crack this all the way open and maybe consider putting in language that aligns more with the city council, city administrator, all of their employees format that we have in the other part of the charter that deals with that. But that was something the subcommittee talked about a little bit, so I wanted to give you a little update there.

Okay. So this is something we're not really working on right now. It's more about the bond stuff right now. I mean, how they're structured, we could talk about later in our charter conversations.

That could be another update for another day. Okay. I think the bonds, setting up the charter to get them in the best position available to get the bond that they need is probably the priority. And we may not want to, but then we can shoot there. Okay. Okay. I'm scrolling again. Okay, second to last page. It is subsection H, bond issues. Here's the big thing. And it is that second half of subsection H, which requires a majority vote of the voters to approve the board spending more money or incurring more debt for certain types of development for, current language says energy sources, an amount greater than the department's gross revenues for the preceding fiscal year. Right now the language used is energy, which is also ambiguous. It could mean electric, it could mean other types of energy, it could mean all the above. This is a good opportunity to, and this is something that CUB also flagged on their end, clarify what the intent here is. What kind of development triggers this requirement to go to the voters for approval? Water, electric, both, neither strike the voter requirement altogether. This is an area I think we need council to discuss and give a little direction on.

So basically the question is, can they just vote? borrow money on their own or do they need voter approval to borrow money? Is that what the question we're trying to answer?

More specifically, what kind of expenditure? Get rid of energy and make it abundantly clear what the intent is. Water and electric versus energy.

Yeah, then the voters would approve that still.

Yeah.

But it wouldn't have to come through us as a city council. I guess that's, is that the policy question?

The policy question is whether to change to water and electric or just water or just electric.

Okay, but for the purpose of having them bypass the city council, is that the practical effect of, say if we just said electric, does that mean the new water plant has to come through us or?

No, it means that the water development would be exempt from this requirement that the board go get voter approval before spending or incurring debt. Okay.

Yeah. So the board can issue bonds right now legally if the charter says so without going to the board? I always thought the bonds had to be approved by the voters. Maybe I'm wrong.

If this chart language would require them to go to the board of voters if they're going out for bonds of more than their gross revenues for the preceding fiscal year.

So if it was less, then they could go out for bond without...

But if they're going to add water, we need to add water instead of just energy. It needs to say water and electric.

Well, I'm fine with being more specific about it. I'm just wondering if there's a policy question other than just clarifying what kind of already is the practice.

I understand your question, Counselor, what you're trying to get at. Do we have an answer? I think the question is, when do they need to go out for a water or electric bond?

Currently, if it's electric, when do they have to go, Councilor Pratt?

Yeah, so I think I am for leaving this a little bit more, I don't know if you would say ambiguous, but leaving it more in the hands of the Camp Utility Board, because we talked about earlier about we're trying to bake in language here that if something goes south over there, we have limited responsibility of what's going on over there. And if there's a lawsuit or if there's a bankruptcy or something, that at first it's them rather than us. My suspicion would be if we say that over here, but then when it comes to bonding and stuff, we say, well, this is all well and good, but when it comes to bonding, you have to come through us for that. That kind of makes it sit more on us. Mm-hmm. And my suspicion is, and if I was a lawyer, I'd be like, well, wait a second, city. You're trying to get out of the responsibility of this over here. But in this other thing, it says they have to come through. So technically you do have some responsibility and skin in this game. So for me to kind of make it, in my opinion, to make it all sort of this is really their chicken, to say the charter language says these are the responsibilities you have. and you do not need to come to council to get our blessing on anything you can come to us and say hey we want to do this thing similar to the school board said hey we'd like you to to endorse this and if we choose to that's fine but as far as getting approval from us for anything like that i think that opens up more the potential for more liability if something happens

Yeah, I see that. And so the idea is we're admitting the charter right now and we're saying that if they're going to... And let's talk about concrete example that's going to happen is the water plant, right? That's going to happen. And so they're going to go want to do a bond to build that. I don't think there's really any other way around it, at least unless somebody drops a water treatment plant from the sky at the... So they're going to go and they're going to vote on it and vote for the bond. And... and we're not gonna be like, we're like, oh, they're over there doing it, and that's fine. And so I think that's okay, but the charter right now as it stands does put us ultimately in charge of the utility board, because we can, at any time, for whatever reason we want, wake up and fire them all and replace them. That's in the charter right now. And I'm wondering, and I'm not saying that we should do one thing or the other, but I'm wondering how much we should formalize that or remind that that's in there or we pretend that that particular clause is not in there at all and that we just say it's just a nuclear option in case they all go real crazy. Because as long as we have the authority to change the board, then I think that we have some authority over the board. Maybe loose, maybe we don't wanna use it, but I don't think we should forget that.

Councillor Davis.

Point well taken, but I agree with Jason. Just leave it the way it is because ultimately we know we would have that authority.

But do we want to change? I think the question she's asking is do we want to change the word energy to the words water and electric? Yeah. Okay. That was a long way around the block, but there you go.

All of that's very relevant policy discussion too. Okay. Okay.

Councilor Patton.

A question that I have in here, and silly me for not bringing it up during the subcommittee meeting. In here, it says short-term loans. It says the board may borrow money for periods not to exceed five years. As I understood it, that sort of tied them in a way that when they were talking about building their new offices and stuff over there, the read that I got in chatting with some of them was like, the fact that this says we can only borrow money for five years really ties our hands in being able to do these big projects like this. Like we have some of the cash on hand to do the thing, And we want, we're going to need to borrow money to do the rest of it. And trying to make sure we have enough cash on hand to have that loan paid down in five years is really difficult. Like a five-year loan is pretty short when it comes to building things like this. So is it standard for it to be five years or does it make more sense to do it longer than five years?

I don't know if it's standard language or not. I can check on that. Carrie did not flag this particular sentence, but I can also follow up with her as she and I talk about the draft I sent over to her earlier today to see what heartburn there may be on their side about this in more detail. But thank you for flagging that. It might be a place where we should also consider some updates.

Anything else on this section?

Okay. Oops, sorry. Down the page to the very last page, Section 7, Annual Accounting and Budget Quarterly Operations Reports. That is, you'll see a new sub paragraph B, that is language that comes from the subcommittee's discussion about making sure that council is informed of what's happening operationally over at the board. and the idea, well, someone jumped in and explained this better than I am, but the idea being that this requirement's in the charter, but the way that we're gonna arrive at how to satisfy this requirement will be a joint conversation with the board.

Councilor Patten.

Yeah, so as Emily had said, The reason some of the language in these are becoming a little more vague than what they were in the past is it is a lot, and this is for folks out in TV land as well, it is a lot harder to make changes to the charter than it is to make changes to policies and operating guidelines. So by... I won't say watering down, but by allowing more flexibility in the charter, it then gives future councils the ability to make changes to policies and guidelines that if something comes up and they're like, whoa, we didn't expect this thing to be a problem, but now it is. And rather than waiting to do a city charter amendment, it's something that can be fixed in policies and operating guidelines. It still takes a vote of the council, but they're able to fix the problem faster. And so that's kind of where... the ambiguousness of this language comes into play and why. The other thing that kind of struck me about this and them, this fly is really driving me crazy. I just took a shower, so I do not understand what the problem is.

You have snacks in your pocket?

No, it's crazy. So anyways, the... The other thing is for all of our like Canby disposal and those businesses that have franchise agreements with us, a lot of those franchise agreements have language baked into them that they need to be providing the city with reports on their activities because essentially they operate within the city with the city's councils and the city's permission. So this kind of... by adding this language in, it sort of puts them on a similar footing to any other utility that is getting an easement within the city for operations.

And then it says that they'll give us a budget report prior to July 1st as a council. Has that happened already or did I miss it last year? Maybe I did, maybe it was slipped under my radar, I don't know.

I feel like it's been kind of sporadic at best. Even though it's in the charter, this is supposed to kind of help.

Yeah, no, I'm just saying is that if we don't really care about it, then it shouldn't be in the charter. If we do care about it, it should be, but it should be like enforced kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah.

Anything else? One other thing. The board did request that terms of office for board members be increased from no more than two successive terms to three successive terms.

To what?

Three.

Yeah, right now they have term limited at two, but they're asking for three instead. We didn't have any heartburn with that.

Okay. I'll just offer a friendly, we did some research. The last time that question was asked in a different way, it did go down. It was about increasing the length of the term, maybe from two to four years.

I can find that.

I just researched that the other day. So

Well, maybe then we address the bonding issues with CUB first and separate it from length of service and stuff. Councilor Patton.

When did that go out to vote?

It was a while ago.

I just sent that around. 2009. 2009? It's been a while.

You know, I think...

And that was a single question.

I will throw this out there for, this is my thoughts on it. A lot has changed in Canby over that period of time. There are a lot of people who have moved into this city that were not here during that period of time who may not have had such strong feelings about that sort of thing. And I think the read that I get from the Canby Utility Board folks is that they get bummed out at times when they have a really good member of the board and they're only able to be there for a short period of time, essentially. And by offering a longer term, there's still a term limit, but they're able to serve for longer and they're able to, you know, get more use of them, I guess you would say. They're two or four year terms.

Right now.

They're four-year terms.

Okay. So they want to go from eight years to 12.

Yeah. Okay. I think that if we do, I think if Canby Utility and the city does its job in explaining things and answering questions of the voting public. Because as I had said earlier, my goal, what I envisioned in all of this is that the reason we're doing this now is so that we can, once this is sort of baked, then we can start going to our constituents and having conversations with them about this. And saying, look, this is what's happening. I've already been quizzing, letting people know that this is coming down the pike. And I've been sort of answering some of those questions. And by getting folks used to the language and getting their feedback now, and my goal would be that we do some public meetings and some workshops like community sessions to get feedback on the changes, that if that really is a problem, we can pull that out before the deadline and then move forward with that. But in my opinion, I think with as many things as we're changing in here and they all kind of make sense, I have no problem leaving that in there.

You want to just do all the Chapter 10 in one measure?

I am a fan of that, yes.

I would be, why not take it out for now and then put it in the May. I mean, like I say something, I hate when you have a ballot measure where you agree with part of it and you disagree with part of it. And you have to decide whether to vote yes or no on it. And usually I just vote no on the whole thing if I agree with part of it and disagree with part of it. Even with the... thing that I'm actually for, if I read it and I say, well, I don't know about that one spot of war for it. No, so it may, if it's any way controversial, then let's just not think the other part of it, you know. But I guess we can do surveys or figure it out beforehand. Yeah.

I have a little bit more information about that specific question to the voters. That measure would have amended the charter to remove term limits for Canby utility board members, which based on that phrasing, I don't have the exact language in front of me. This situation is a little bit different. And then it failed by three votes.

Only by three votes?

Yes.

Oh, I don't know. I mean, removing term limits completely to just extending it by one more term, I...

I don't think removed term limits will pass since there are people instituting term limits on several councils in the region, so... Removing them completely, I don't know if that would fly.

Oh, no, I'm not saying to remove them completely. I'm saying if the question then that failed by three votes was remove them completely, and we're just saying we're going to extend it by one more thing, I don't see where that would be a problem.

That might be more palatable.

And then, at least in the ballot language, just reiterate if there ever was a rogue utility board member, the council can remove them. that somebody decided to go.

Yeah, that wouldn't be in the ballot language necessarily. Not in the ballot, but in the pamphlet or whatever. Yeah.

Not the whole thing.

How much education time do we think we're really going to have?

Tight window.

Yeah. I mean, I guess I'm for leaving it in there as long as we do the due diligence of the public education, and if we get a bunch of people with red flags on that term limit, then we pull it out. Councillor Davis.

I'm in favor of leaving it in there. Okay. And then I think we need to move this on so we can get to the next one, too. Yeah, we only got 12 minutes left.

The other two are actually going to be pretty easy. This is the meaty one. Okay.

Okay, got that down. I'm going to talk to Carrie about the specific language. There should probably, I don't know if time would allow for a joint work session if it might be needed, but we'll make sure that at the staff level we keep talking to CUB staff about this. Okay, which one do you want to do next?

The residency, because that seems to be the most important. That's one we want to definitely get on in November. Okay. He's coming to step out for this conversation. No. Do you feel that he needs to step out for this? Nope.

Okay.

That's fair. We didn't kick you out last time. We're not going to kick you out this time.

OK, so you'll see the current language up top. Sorry I didn't do that for chapter 10, but the chapter 10 revisions are already long enough. Current language up top, proposed revision right down below. And so the red line that you see there is the proposed revision. The standard is still that the city administrator has to be a resident of the city, at least pretty quickly upon becoming the city administrator, except now that this language would allow council to develop rules by which it may waive or alter that requirement. case by case. So this language doesn't put the actual substance of how council may do those things, but gives opens that little bit of the door as circumstances may arise. So the idea is then that there will be a separate document policy maybe even to establish the rules to govern the grant, the consideration of a waiver or alteration. Yeah.

I still have a little bit of heartburn about this, but I would feel better if we have the language for said policy in place before we go to the ballot. So that people ask, well, what would be the rules to govern? We'd be able to show them. Councilor Patton.

Yeah, so because there's nothing up on the screen for the folks watching at home, when we're talking about this language, essentially, and I'll skip to where it was pertinent, it says a city administrator need not be a resident of the city of Canby or the state at the time of appointment, but promptly thereafter shall become and remain a resident of the city during the term of the office. The language that we are proposing to add is after that sentence of term of the office, the council may waive or alter this residency requirement and shall adopt rules to govern any such waiver or alteration. And the ultimate goal that we had talked about during the meeting was if other members of council are comfortable with this language, Next will be feedback on what some of those restrictions should be, whether it's drive time, whether it's distance, whether it's, you know, those sort of things that we will then create that policy so that when it comes time to do the education part of this, we can say we are not saying we wanna do this thing and then once you vote on it, we are going to create the policy. It is we would like you to vote on this thing and this is the policy that would go along with it that would get adopted at the time this is voted on and we want your feedback on that as well. So that way it kind of hopefully breaks down some of the heartburn that someone might get on this.

Any questions? Councilor Tavis.

First of all, I appreciate your work on this, you know, and I appreciate how this has been structured in the fact that we can establish those, but we need to keep it as simple as possible for the voters. And then we as council can decide what the rules are for that.

Anything else? Okay, I think we agree on the language.

Gotcha. For developing those rules, what would council like to see next? Sort of a couple drafts, some ideas. Staff can go out and look at whether other cities have similar policies or rules in place.

Yeah, and then we probably need to have a work session to craft the policy together.

Mm-hmm.

But yeah, some boilerplate starting points would be helpful. Especially when we are in such a time crunch. Of course, we don't have to have the policy before the filing deadline. We just need to have it before we're marketing the measure. So that gives us a little bit of wiggle room. Are we ready to move on to the signing authority? It's pretty cut and dry, too.

Okay, so the thought from the subcommittee here is to, one, increase that $50,000 limit to $100,000, and then looking forward from that one-time increase, increase that $100,000 by the CPI every year so that the city doesn't lose money or I guess Randy doesn't lose purchasing authority due to inflation. Right, and we don't have to keep going back and asking for them to approve more. If we attach it to the CPI, then good.

I agree.

So I'll just explain really fast here. So the date of increase based on CPI would be January 1 of each year. So it'd be a calendar year, not a fiscal year, but we can change that to fiscal if you want. I've specifically identified which index to use because there are a bunch and we need to be clear about which one. The CPI for all urban consumers for all cities in the Western region for the 12 month change between, it would be December to December because that's the last, the soonest or the most recent data that the BLS would have available for a January one increase. There is negative inflation sometimes. That hasn't happened, I guess, in a very long time, but I think there were some years in like the early 2000s where there was a negative inflation. So that's why I have that last sentence in there. In no event will the amount be less than the previous calendar year's amount. So it would not be reduced for negative inflation. Okay. Councilor Davis?

Yeah, why wouldn't we want to make it fiscal year rather than January to January?

That was my question, so he asked it first.

Because that way, accountability-wise for finance department and anything else is on fiscal year.

Okay, we can change it to fiscal for sure. Is there an advantage to having it in January or is it just the way it was already written? Say that again. Was there an advantage to having it in January or is that just the way it was written?

That's what I just put in for now. Okay, I think fiscal year makes more sense too. Okay, I will make that change. Randy, you have a question coming?

Final question from staff.

Mm-hmm.

If you look at the current language, it says in excess of $50,000 shall be authorized by an ordinance. Question to council, do you want to keep the word ordinance or make it a resolution?

I like ordinance because it's two readings. We always have the emergency clause factor for the 30 days to be waived, but it gives the public more opportunity for input.

Just asking the question.

Okay, anything else for Emily on this one? Councilor Patten, you good?

I am fantastic. I'm super excited.

Great.

Okay. Well then, unless you have something more for us Emily. I just want to make sure I have everything clear. So we are good with the contractual obligations language, keeping it in our back pocket. It's not one of the main two we're putting on. Good with the residency requirement language. And we're going to start working towards a work session with some ideas to get a policy in place. And then I'm going to continue to, I have balls in my court on chapter 10 to go back to Cub to talk about what we talked about here today and see what they have to say. We all good with that? Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much for the direction. That's awesome. All right.

Perfect. Okay. Well, with that, we'll adjourn the work session and we'll resume here in four minutes.

Four minutes.

Recording stopped.

Good evening, Kami. Welcome to the June 17th, 2026. Wow. Regular city, regular city council meeting. We've concluded our work session. We're going to move into our regular meeting here. So if you please stand for the invocation and then the pledge of allegiance. So Father, thank you so much for this amazing community. Thank you for our first responders and our men and women who serve every day to protect our community and keep it one of the safest in our state. I just ask for the continued blessings of great weather and great fun and safety during that great fun as we enter the summer season here for our city. Please continue to bless us and provide us grace. I want to say a special prayer for all those that graduated this year and from high school, from college. just trade school, wherever their paths may take them, that you light their way, Lord. I ask this 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. All right, Madam City Recorder, roll call, please.

All right, for the record, we have Councilor Maldonado and Councilor Waterman absent this evening. Councilor Patton.

Here.

Council President Hensley. Here. Mayor Hodson.

I am also here.

Councilor Davis. Here. And Councilor Stearns. Here. Here.

I don't think we have any staff introductions this evening, Mr. Randy, no? All right, we will move into item four, which is citizen input public comment on non-agenda items as well as community announcements. There's an opportunity for citizens to address council on non-agenda items. If you wish to address the council, there are these fabulous white cards on the back podium there. Please fill that out, hand that to our city recorder, and I will get that, and you will be able to address the council for up to three minutes. If we can handle the situation during the meeting, we will. If not, we will... Make it a point to get back to you as quickly as possible. I have no white cards. Is there anyone online? Okay. Making it easy tonight. Item five this evening, we have a special presentation from the Heritage and Landmark Commission with an update. and the infamous Carol Palmer.

This is our right of the screen? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you all for having me. I'm going to give you an update on what we're doing, what we've accomplished in the last year is the first thing, then what we're planning for the next year, and then also some thoughts about things that could be done differently that would help us from you folks to do our job better. These are just a reminder of who our Heritage and Landmark Commission members are. And that's, again, the agenda that I just told you about. So I went through our meeting minutes and there was a whole lot more of accomplishments that I remembered ever seeing. So I'm not gonna talk about every one. I'm just gonna point out the ones that I think are most important. First of all, we were renewed this last year as a certified local government. What that means is we get access to a pot of money that's restricted to certified local governments. And so it is the thing that it's really our lifeline in terms of funding. We have been a certified local government since 2013. And in that time we've gotten approximately $150,000 just from that particular grant program. It's also great because it gives us access to SHPO staff, And it also gives us access to the workshop that they hold once a year, which is a great opportunity to network. We don't have a lot of depth in staff in terms of understanding of historic preservation and preservation planning, but because of that networking opportunity, I've really connected with staff in other communities that I know I can call on, and they're super helpful. A really big deal in terms of our city is the National Register application is turned in. I am so happy. A week from Friday, I will be testifying in front of the State Advisory Commission on Historic Preservation. They're holding their meeting at Tryon State Park. And so after that is done, the next step will be going to the National Park Service, but none of us have to go there. They take care of it. The SHPO staff takes care of that part of it. And at that point, then it would be about sometime in the fall when it would actually come through as complete. And so another honor for a really important building in our downtown. The intensive level surveys, we did eight of those, hired Willamette Cultural Resource Associates to do the surveys. And there were a couple of great things that happened out of that. First of all, we had six out of eight of the survey properties were designated or were identified as potential for national register candidates and certainly for local register candidates. And also we got important historical information in particular about two of the buildings downtown. If you're familiar with Oregon, Texas Oregon Line Fitness, and then also with Oura Salon, which is right next door, I have always suspected the builders of those properties were one of the Kaler brothers. If you're not familiar with the Kaler brothers, John and George, in the 30s, 20s, 30s, and 40s, they were... sons of German immigrants, the German immigrant families. There were one of the families that founded Canby Evangelical Church and Zion Memorial Cemetery. And the Kaler's sons became super active in the community. George Kaler served on city council for 10 years. John served as superintendent of roads for I have no idea how long. That's not exactly, I don't think, like it is today where we have an employee structure. They had a very weird employee structure. I am very familiar now with 1930s city council minutes because I'm doing the National Register property. So very interesting how we ran the city then. But these folks were really important and the reason this building is important is because between Mattress World and the police building, we have five properties that were built by either George or John or the combination of the two. One of the buildings is, again, Aura Salon, where the facade improvement program that you all approved as members of the urban renewal body, that is just now completed. And so I'm really hoping, I've sent Tyler a note to say, we need to talk about what we can do, some kind of ribbon cutting, but also use that as an opportunity to educate the public about the fact how much the Caitlers have contributed to this community, so. Okay, that's more than you probably wanted to know. No, it's interesting. The other thing, Ron, you might notice I have names under each of these because I thought the people that did the work on these projects deserved the recognition. So Ron LeBlanc really did a great job with putting us to, you know, sitting us down and saying, we guys, we need goals. And so he helped us do that also to develop a handbook. And we worked with Don's staff to integrate the historic preservation plan into the comp plan. This is probably the most important one from my perspective. We spent a lot of time working with individual owners who either, they either approached us or we approached them. The first one we approached. If you're familiar with the night house over by the high school, If you've been by it lately, it looks really good. There's the grasses in, the shrubs are gone, there's actually ADA ramps in there now, and there's also a nice parking spot that's off the street, which we need for, there's five units in that building, that little tiny building has five units, but we want to have off-street parking, so... When we saw that there was some work being done, I worked with Emma Poricolo, and so her name is up there. Emma's gone from us now, but I surely appreciated her while she was here, to help find out who the owner was. And then we reached out to that property owner, had a conference call with them, and made sure that they understood this is a historic site. And we had already done a design review hearing for that site, and you had an order out for that. And I wasn't sure, did the new property owner know that? And so we were able to educate him and to make sure that we were all in the same direction. And so it's just great to have those kind of conversations before things go bad. Also, There's three ways that you can get an authorization, get approval to move forward with an alteration to a designated site. It can be either under maintenance because you're replacing your roof, which is a maintenance item, or you're doing some other kind of maintenance, or it can be considered a minor alteration, in which case the planning department can approve it. Don can approve it. If it's not that kind of approval, then it has to go to a public hearing. So what we're trying to do is to actually, it was, again, Emma who really worked with me to work with some of the issues that came up, but to try and make sure that the property owners understand that even if it's maintenance and it's minor, you still have to follow the guidelines. And also to, in some cases, try and help them make sure that they didn't get into the point where we were gonna have to have a public hearing. Public hearings are fine. It's not that we're opposed to them, but it's a lot of work for staff. And it also is really inconvenient for the property owner, especially if they've got a building plan in place and they're thinking that they're going to need to buy equipment or they're going to need to buy supplies. And it can take another five to six weeks maybe before the public hearing. And in that time, who knows what tariffs or supply chain issues are going to come into. So it makes it really difficult for the property owner to plan. So we're happy when we don't have to have a public hearing. We did also do design review training for all of our Heritage and Landmark Commission staff. And again, Emily was great from our legal department, was really helpful with that. We want to make sure that if we make alteration, if we make orders, that they are based on criteria and not arbitrary and capricious. The worst thing you can do to historic preservation in a community is to have arbitrary and capricious decisions.

Thank you.

One more, initiated meeting, we did get together with Chris Bailey. We initiated that meeting. I know Chris from again, networking and my certified local government workshops. And Chris is the head of the Tribal Historic Preservation Office for the Grand Ronde. And given what's happening with the rulemaking that's going on, and I can't talk very much about that, but I know Don can. It's very important that we've got some kind of relationship with the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde.

And then, you want to try it?

Okay. We aren't sure this is going to work. We're going to see. One of the things I really wanted to do was to update our website. There we go. If it doesn't work, it's fine. That's it. That's what most of the city websites look like for our commissions and advisory boards. So now you can go to the other one. I wanted to see something a little better than that. I'm not interested in having people have to come to our website to read code. So we now have a banner. We have some new color. We have a tagline. Thank you, AI. And if you go down, keep going down a little bit, you will see. Keep going down. We have buttons where you can find out who we are, what we're doing, what we're working on. And if you keep going down even further, you'll see that we have a slide show. So we've really tried to make this more colorful and more attractive and to really let people know what we're all about. Couple of those are kind of I noticed as I looked at it this morning They're sort of sideways, but we can get those fixed now if you go up to the Historical sites and click on that can you do that? Go back down a little bit See where the city hall, no, keep going down. Nope, oh yeah, that's it, right there. We also have a page two now, where if you want to know what the historic sites are in Canby, this is something that probably should have been there forever, and we finally have it accomplished. So all six of our historic sites that are designated are there, and you can see the photos, and if you click on read more, which we don't need to do, you can get more information about every one of them. Okay, we can go back if you can.

I know there's a, is there a Knight's Elementary School? Is that connected to the Knight's house?

That's his house.

Okay.

He was a city recorder starting in 1893 until I think 1915 or something like that. He really did a lot in this community. Okay. Okay.

So this house is now apartments?

Yeah. Yeah, it was. I drive by it a lot. Pardon?

I drive by it.

Yeah.

I drive by it a lot.

Yeah.

I've seen the improvements over the last few months.

Yeah, it's great. Okay, so the project plans for the next year. There is a pine grove that you may be familiar with on the fairgrounds. That was apparently planted by a work progress administration team. And it is old enough and there's enough significance with being associated with the WPA that we can probably get an Oregon Heritage Tree designation for that. So I have already run it by the board. I've been on that board for about a year now. And I've learned that you want to test the waters first before you jump in and give them a presentation. So I've done the test of the waters and they gave me a thumbs up. We want to also continue doing design review training for the Heritage and Landmark Commission, adopt and adapt design guideline material from other communities for property owners, and include that in a mailing to designated site property owners. In front of you, you've got two pages of... When people see adopt, I think they think we're adopting new code. We're not adopting new code. That probably is not the word I should be using. We have in our code what the guidelines, what the criteria is, what the standards are. It's the Secretary of Interior standards. That's 180 pages. And I get lost in it sometimes. So what we've done, what other communities have done that we want to imitate is they have created sort of, they've taken that material and adapted it so you can hand it out. You've got an example of it there. If you wanted to do it in addition to your house, That's something that the Ashland Planning Commission would hand out to you so you know what is allowed and what isn't allowed. It makes life easier for the planning staff because they're the first step in any kind of alteration. That's the pre-application meeting. And so if somebody comes in and says, I want to add on something to the back of my house because I've got three more kids, then this is the kind of material that could be handed out that would answer their questions and they wouldn't have to go dig through 180 pages online of the Secretary of Interior standards. Oregon City has a great one that they have for maintenance projects. So it tells you if you have masonry, this is what you should do and this is what you should not do. And that all comes from National Park Service employees who are professionals in taking care of heritage sites. So it's good stuff to know even if you don't own a designated property. If you just own an old property, it's good to know what works well and what doesn't. We're also looking at developing a historic preservation award and a recognition plan. We're exploring a historic district option for the fairgrounds. Brian Crow has approached me about that, and I haven't heard back from him, but I'm certainly going to pursue that with him. And we're going to try and leverage at least several upcoming opportunities for ribbon cutties, block parties, that sort of thing. And we'll get ready for the 2027 CLG grant. Some things that would really help us. Improve the volunteer recruiting application and onboarding. One of the reasons I really did everything that I, and Tyler, by the way, gets total credit. I was giving him the content, but he made all of that happen in terms of the website. So I want to make sure that that's very clear. anything that we can do to make it market ourselves rather than just showing people code. Simplifying the process, having fewer clicks when you go in to actually apply. Timely notification of changes, and this would be not necessarily for every board and commission, but for us, Grant rules, when the finance directors change, the grant rules change. It's almost like one follows the other. And we don't sometimes know that until we've submitted the grant, or we haven't submitted the grant, but we've got it ready to go and suddenly it gets kicked back to us. And those have deadlines. And so when things get kicked back, we may miss out. RFP requirements. It really helps to know ahead of time. If we're going to change the RFP requirements, let us know ahead of time. Contracting rules, those change. Again, I think that's finance. If we don't know that those are changed, we'll put out an RFP with a PSA attached that'll be wrong. The other thing is I know from Councillor Patton that you all are going to be maybe discussing some of the ways that you can sync things up in terms of the commissions and the boards so that they look more alike. I would just ask that you be very careful with our code. We want to keep our CLG status. And there are ways that you could change that code that we would lose that. And so just make sure that that gets double checked. The last thing is supply property owner information. It's really helpful for us if when we reach out to a property owner that we don't send a letter that says, dear resident. I don't know what you do with your resident letters, but most people just toss them. But finding out who owns a particular property is really, apparently really difficult. And I don't understand. Nobody's explained to me why. It seems to me like... As a property owner, I remember getting every single month a bill from the city for parks and roads and all of that kind of stuff. So that material is available upstairs somewhere. And I want to know, but every time we ask for property owner information, some poor staff person has to go interface with the county to get it. So it's not private information. Anybody can get it. But I'm not sure why we have to go to the county to do it because they apparently are very difficult to deal with.

You can get that information online on the website. I can go to any property, if I know where the property is, and find out who the owner is in this Clackamas County.

On CMAP?

Let's go to the assessor's maps, and then you can click on them, or you can put the address in. I mean, I do it like every day because I do tax returns. I've got to find out what the property tax is and when property is transferred.

Could you send me that?

Sometimes, you know, they'll have some sort of LLC as the owner, then you've got to do some more work.

I haven't been able to find it on CMAP, but I know I can go to Multnomah County and I can find it for anybody in Multnomah County. Unfortunately, we don't serve Multnomah County.

Yeah, Clackamas County. It's something I do every day. That's why I don't point out.

So anyway, we really want to make sure that we're really dealing, letting people, you know, it's just so much more personalized to have the person's name on it. And then one of the things that I've said a lot, but get public input on the budget earlier in the process. By the time you folks have a public hearing on the budget, it's pretty much sealed, signed, and delivered. It's baked in. And so if anybody's got any new ideas or new thoughts, it's really hard to get those in at the last minute. So that's it.

Any questions? No, Carol, thank you. Sounds like you guys have been very, very busy and very, very active for sure. Yes, Councillor Patton.

Yeah, so I just wanted to let you know, and I think we've talked about this a little bit, that the application process for applying for these boards and commissions, correct me if I'm wrong, Maya, but it was added into the budget to get a new program for that. So that will be a thing that is coming to make it easier to do that. And then also when it comes to changes to commissions and boards and stuff, I'm not sure what my colleagues opinion is on this, but my opinion has always been that we will include the folks from those boards and commissions in that process of updating it to make sure that they are driving that bus along with us as we make those changes. I also just want to thank not only the members of the Heritage and Landmarks Commission, but also Carol for the work that they've done. Carol really takes all of this very seriously and has a tremendous passion for this. And through her efforts, the Heritage and Landmarks Commission continues to be one of the top active boards, along with... traffic safety and the planning commission and stuff among the boards that we have. And so I really appreciate the time and the effort that you put in to that position as chair and also to all of the members of the commission that dedicate their time towards that work as well.

Tremendous for sure. Thank you, Carol.

Real quickly, Carol, can you tell us about the picture on the front page of the Canby Herald today?

I didn't see.

Have any of you seen this? It's the old city hall. And it's being considered for historic. Yes. National historic registry, correct? Yeah.

I sent a press release to John Baker. So it's good to know it's there. It's on the front page. Awesome. It looks good. Front page. I'll have to run over to Cutsverse and buy one. Right.

Carol filled out this very long, very intense application for that, has gone through a lot of hours to make that happen. So really, she's the reason why things move and happen on that committee, so I'm very impressed.

And that's why she needed a month-long vacation.

Well-deserved.

Yes, thank you, Carol. Appreciate the update. Thank you, I know.

Is it too late to add this?

No, do you want to comment off of hers? Yes, I can work backwards, Olivia. You bet. You want to give that to Maya and we'll unless you want to stay to the very end of the meeting when we do public comment again.

Yeah, I can start now.

Please come to the table. You bet. Yes, Ms. Olivia.

So our house and our studio is located on 489 North Holly Street. Almost everybody has been there since I've done all your business portraits. So what we have is the parade route and our sidewalks are a major area for people to create those slip and fall claims. I've had two recently. Recently, I just had one that was... The lawsuit was for $400,000 and it was stated that it was done on the 4th of July. The traffic on that strip of our sidewalk is so heavy that there's literally no way to control the traffic ourselves. It was recently settled, so I think the person ended up getting $50,000 for falling and saying that they had all the injuries and lost work and all the things due to this. So the big trees, you guys have all seen these huge trees. Mm-hmm. The roots create the sidewalks to buckle. We go in with, luckily we have people that we know and can be excavating, and they let us use machines to lift up these pads, these belong to the city, lift up the pad, cut the roots, take those, then put it back into place so that it is more level. We can only do that every couple of years, but the roots, they're big trees. They just go like this all the time. So we try our best, but honestly, our sidewalk looks amazing. But if you were to walk over to Knight Elementary, it's buckled by this much. We just happen to be a really great spot for someone to go, oh, that's a residence. Oh, that's a business. I'm going to sue them. So what's happening is we have a lot of liability coming to our property and no protection for the homeowner or our business. We're just a sitting duck basically. But we have no control over the traffic on the sidewalk or last year we tried, Officer Tro, I reached out to the police and I asked them, hey, can you guys send some people just to stand there and make sure people move along? And what happens is people are looking at the parade Because they're looking at the parade, they're not looking down at their feet and watching where they're stepping. So they can very easily just literally, you know, a one-inch fall off into my grass. It's people who pick up their feet. So what can you offer? us as a homeowner as protections against such things in the future? Do you have resources you can help us with to fix those pieces of issues with the sidewalks? Can we close the sidewalk? I'm looking for some sort of solutions. And honestly, I didn't even think that I can ask this until tonight when I was actually coming for a whole other reason. I was like, I should ask this. This is a perfect opportunity. So that's what I'm hoping you can help me with.

I'm looking to correct me if I'm wrong, but typically sidewalks are the responsibility of the homeowner. And I know that's very frustrating.

Can they close them then?

Yeah. So I'm just saying, she asked, what are some things we can do? One of the things that we did in Beaverton was a 50-50 program. where we would, if you get a quote to fix your sidewalk for $5,000, because there's a tree and lots of big roots, we would go habsies with the property owner. We don't have that stood up yet here, but it's something we can explore if we get council direction to do that.

Yeah, I would say at minimum, I mean, because it is the homeowner's sidewalk, you could block it off.

Technically, it's not our sidewalk. The trees, the parking strip, the sidewalk, all belongs to the city.

Yeah, so I think there are restrictions. And so I guess what I would say is I think it would make sense for this to be kicked to staff to consult with the planning department to see what can and can't be done I would find it very, I would be very surprised if you could block the sidewalk off completely because even though it is a responsibility of the homeowner, it is still public easement. And so if you were to block that off, then you are running the risk of ADA compliance things and stuff. So that opens up a whole nother can of worms, whether it is, partnering with the city to put bollards or the little temporary things up that force people to stay on the sidewalk and not stand in the lawn. And that will sort of, if people are blocking that sidewalk, people will sort of self-manage their movement of that.

The issue is the volume. If you've ever been to Disneyland, you understand. They are smart. They have things and they get people moving and they don't let people stand. And I am a homeowner. I'm not going to stand in my front yard and have stuff on to tell people what to do. But those are things that are above... my knowledge. I should be able to have resources from the city to take care of the sheer volume of people that come to our front yard for that particular event. It's so big that Officer Trow, he even said there was no way that we had enough people to cover this whole event on the 4th of July. He came by on the 5th and was like, I'm sorry, I didn't even get over here because it was so busy. And we didn't know how full it was going to be.

What's your address?

Why would he? 489 North Holly Street.

It's next door to Jason.

It's 5th and Holly. Yeah. So...

Thank you.

Yeah, there just has to be some other resource other than, you know, hey, good luck. Hopefully insurance covers it. Because it does. Our insurance covered it, and I'm really thankful that we have that. But there's going to be a point. I mean, this is our second claim that I'm not going to want to live in that downtown area because I'm just going to keep on getting sued because some drunk person decides that they've fallen and, you know, needs to sue us.

Yeah, I think to Councilor Pratt's point, I think if... you know, Randy and team can take a look at even like what you're saying property wise, how is that? Because again, typically like for us on the South side, that is, you know, the sidewalk is our responsibility because we have to grind down.

Yeah. We have the same thing going on, right? So maintain it to tens of thousands of dollars. Those trees we've trimmed and done a really great job of maintaining the sidewalks we maintain, but it's, it's a never ending thing. So we'd have to do it every year, take it down by two inches every single year. And that's, If we were to grind that old sidewalk, there'd be nothing left of it, you know, because it's like 66 years old, so.

Right. And every time you're taking out the roots, you're doing damage to the tree.

Not really. They're so old and established, it's not really an issue.

Okay. So we'll look at it.

Yeah.

And see what we can come up with. Just a question. Randy, would it be possible to send Spencer over there just to look at it and see if he has any ideas? Sure.

Who is Spencer? Public Works. Do you have an arborist anymore?

We do not.

That's too bad. I know, last one I met.

Enforcement does trees. Enforcement does trees.

So I will just throw out too, and I've mentioned this before, and I will say this again. For several years now, I have been advocating for, we've been using the tax that's generated from the gas tax to update the ADA ramps and stuff when different sections of the street are updated. And I have been an advocate for many years of creating a program at the city where... If a homeowner wants to put sidewalk in front of their house or update it, there would be an option to say, you know, the city will go 50-50 on a grant process and stuff. And if the homeowner can't do the 50-50, but they still want to take care of the program, maybe the city covers less, but offers a no interest loan to the homeowner through monthly payments through the street maintenance, through their bill, utility bill that comes to the city. And so, you know, again, I'm bringing this up. I would love to see us work towards some sort of program like that.

I think the issue is not whether or not it needs to be a new sidewalk. It's a moving sidewalk. It moves every single year all the time. And I don't necessarily think it needs to be replaced because if you were to put a brand new one down, the same exact thing would happen. In fact, most companies won't even take it on because it's going to move again because those roots are so big. The trees are so established. In fact, actually, there's one going into the street now that's new. And the public, you know, the old arborist and the public's work people have said it to us in the past. As soon as it starts going into the road, that's when we might start thinking about taking the tree down. And I'm like, I love those trees, but I don't love them to the tune of I'm getting sued. You know, I'm just not a fan.

Well, we'll have our public works supervisor go out and take a look at it. And we'll have staff start working on something to see what we can do. What are some of those rules around that?

People walking by.

get a volunteer to, so high school kids need volunteer hours, have them move people on.

Well, and for major events. So you've got car shows and the, you know, those things. Most other things are fine. You know, there's a lot of walking traffic on that area, but those bigger ones are a big deal.

Yes, sir. Just an idea. I noticed when I'm on the bike trail and stuff, Public Works does use white spray paint.

Oh, yeah. I do it. It just goes away. I mean, you can do spray paint. We've done cones. We've done the concrete where you make a little mound. We've ground. We've lifted the pads.

I'm just talking temporary. Yeah. Just temporary.

We do it, but still get sued. Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right, item six tonight, I don't think there's anything we're removing from the consent agenda, so I will take a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda that includes approval of the May 6th and May 20th, 2026 City Council meeting minutes.

Second. Motion's been made by Council President Hensley and seconded by Councilor Patton to approve the consent agenda, which include the City Council meeting minutes for April 6th and May 20th of 2026. Any discussion or comment? All those in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Passes 4-0. We have no appointments this evening. We are going to move into our... favorite part of the evening for the second meeting in June. This is where we do all of our budget approval readings and conversation to close out one year and begin the next year, fiscal year for the city. So the first, I will read the public hearing. We have a couple of things. I know that Emily's not here, but I can read this once for all of these, correct? Or I have to do it each time? Okay. Just thought I would save us all from having to listen to me the whole evening. All right, our first public hearing this evening is regarding state revenue sharing funds. The matter presently before the hearing body requires a public hearing. All interested persons in attendance shall be heard on the matter. The public hearing was noticed and those who wish to speak were instructed to contact the city recorder. At this time, we did not receive any requests to speak. Those people that are interested in testifying as either proponents or opponents, please indicate your desire to speak by raising your hands here in the auditorium or virtually. And if you do, please fill out a white card and hand that to the city recorder. Not seeing any. For longer presentations, proponents and opponents may buy time from one another. In so doing, those either in favor or opposed may allocate their time to a spokesperson who will represent the entire group. All questions must be directed through the mayor. Any evidence to be considered must be submitted to the hearing body for public access. All written testimony received both for and against shall be summarized by staff and presented briefly to the hearing body during the staff report. The public hearing will be conducted as follows. We'll get a staff report from our finance director, Denise LaRue. Questions, if any, by the hearing body. I will open the public hearing for testimony. Pro opponents and opponents will not have more than three minutes. I will close the public hearing. Any additional questions, then discussion by the hearing body and a decision shall be made by the hearing body at the close of the hearing or the matter will be continued to a date certain in the future. This will be the only notice of that date you will receive. Are there any questions about the procedure of the hearing? Great, seeing none, we will go into our staff report. Ms. Denise.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. Tonight, we are asking you to consider resolution number 1457, which is a resolution certifying and declaring the city's eligibility and election to receive state revenue for fiscal year 2027. We are required for this to be adopted before the new fiscal year begins on July 1 of 2026. The state revenue sharing law requires cities to annually pass an ordinance or resolution requesting state revenue sharing money. Certification of these hearings are required with the Oregon Department of Administrative Services prior to July 31st. The estimated amount of the state revenue sharing funds for the city for this next fiscal year is $215,000. Staff requests that you consider approval of this resolution as part of the overall budget adoption process. May I answer any questions?

Any questions? No? Thank you, Denise. No questions, I will open up the public hearing. I don't think there were any proponents or opponents on this one. Anybody that does not want the city to take the funds? Didn't think so. We'll close it. All right. Any discussion, questions or discussion? All right. I will take a motion to approve.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt Resolution 1457, a resolution certifying and declaring the city's eligibility and election to receive state revenue for the fiscal year of 2027. Is that right?

A motion has been made by Council President Hensley, seconded by Councilor Davis, to approve resolution number 1457, a resolution clarifying and declaring the city's eligibility and election to receive state revenue for fiscal year 2027. Any further discussion or comment? All those in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? We want the funds. So 4-0. Great. Thank you. Our second public hearing this evening is regarding the 26-27 fiscal year budget as recommended by the budget committee. And so I will read in that piece for the public hearing. Public hearing regarding fiscal year 2017. regarding the 2026-2027 fiscal year budget as recommended by the budget committee. So resolution number 148, a resolution adopting the budget, making appropriations and imposing and categorizing taxes for the 2027 fiscal year. So again, the matter presently before the hearing body requires a public hearing. All interested persons in attendance shall be heard on the matter. This public hearing was noticed and those who wish to speak were instructed to contact the city recorder. Again, we do not receive any requests to speak. Those people that are interested in testifying as either proponents or opponents, please indicate your desire to speak by raising your virtual hands. At this time, we're handing a card to our city recorder. For longer presentations, proponents and opponents may buy time from one another. In so doing, those either in favor or opposed may allocate their time to a spokesperson who will represent the entire group. All questions must be directed through the mayor. Any evidence to be considered must be submitted to the hearing body for public access. Any written testimony received both for and against shall be summarized by staff and presented briefly to the hearing body during the staff report. The public hearing will be conducted as follows. There will be a staff report presented by our finance director, Denise LaRue, Questions, if any, by the hearing body. I will open the public hearing for testimony. Proponents and opponents will have not more than three minutes each. I will close the public hearing. Questions, if any, by the hearing body. Discussion by the hearing body. A decision shall be made by the hearing body at the close of the hearing or the matter will be continued to a date certain in the future. And this will be the only notice of that date you will receive. Does anyone have any questions about the hearing this evening? Great. Ms. LaRue, it is all yours.

Okay. So now we will consider resolution number 1458, which is a resolution adopting the budget, making appropriations and opposing and categorizing taxes for the 2027 fiscal year. The resolution is required to be adopted before the new fiscal year begins on July 1, 2026. Oregon budget law requires adoption of an annual budget by June 30th of each year and requires the city to submit tax certification documents to the county assessor by July 15th. The city passed a local option levy of 0.49 per 1000 of assessed property value on November 8th of 2016 to fund the swim center operations. The city also levies the taxes provided for in the adopted budget at the permanent rate of 3.4886 per thousand of assessed property value. On May 14th, 21st and 28th, 2026, the City of Canby Budget Committee met to deliberate over the FY26-27 proposed budget. The FY26-27 proposed budget was approved by the committee. By adopting the FY26-27 annual budget, this allows the City of Canby to continue operating from July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027. Staff requests that you consider this resolution as part of the overall budget adoption process. May I answer any questions?

Any questions? None? Okay, I will open the public hearing. The public hearing is now open. I have no proponents or opponents, so I will close the public hearing. Questions on the matter by the hearing body at all? I have two. My first question is usually in years past, we've had some sort of cleanup that we've needed to do when closing out the books for one year and opening for the next year. I'm not seeing that this time. Do we have no cleanup that needed to be done?

There's actually a resolution just a little farther down in the agenda, but it did not require a public hearing because it is for an item that is an exception according to local budget law.

Perfect. That'd be item D later on, thank you. And my other question is, do we have or when can we anticipate, because a big part of the budget conversation was the ending balances and results from after we close out, pay all the bills that were outstanding, when would those numbers be ready for us to know and be presented to us?

The estimated numbers will be complete about the 1st of September. They will not be audited. And that will be complete by December 31st.

Okay. So by then, when we were talking about the potential, I don't want to use the word extra, but we'll say extra or carryover. We'll know what those exact numbers are probably closer to the end of the year. That's correct. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Any other questions? No, okay. Discussion items at all regarding the budget and things? Yes, Councilor Patten.

So it's in the packet, but I thought for the good of the order for the folks there in TV land, we would just talk about the numbers real quick here. So 30,000 foot view on this is the total appropriations that we are talking about approving tonight is $52,862,796. That's money that will be budgeted to spend. And that will leave 37... $517,612 in unappropriated reserves. So the total budget that we are talking about approving that was sent to this body from the budget committee and city staff is $90,380,408.

Did you have another comment?

No, I was going to make a motion if you're good with that.

Any other comments? The only other piece that I'll say before we move into this is I want to thank the budget committee members. I want to thank staff, Brandy and Denise and the whole team. This was probably one of the better budget cycles that I've been a part of. I liked the layout. We talked about this, Denise, was the ability of just staff to include the comments as to why numbers were higher or lower, and just some of that continuity through the budget. I just thought the whole process was just a lot better all around, and I think the whole aspect of And I do appreciate the community budget members that were involved in the process. I know one of them is here right now, but those that might be watching at home. It's a big deal to be handling and overseeing numbers that are, what was that number, 95?

$90,380,408.

I think Council President Hemsley and I can probably remember when we first got on the council and you as well, Councilor Patton, when we were approving budgets around the $30 million range. So you look at that and go, well, gosh, the cost of government's gotten expensive. Yes, it has, but it also speaks to the fact that we have grown so much as a community in that length of time. And so it's a lot to deal with us as a city council. We don't live in it every day like city staff does and our city manager and you, Denise, especially. So those city or those community members that come in and are... having to dive in quickly and understand public budget law and process is a lot to take on. So I do thank them tremendously. And again, thank you, Randy and Denise and the whole team for pulling this together as great as it went. So thank you.

Yes, sir. I also echo your comments in regards to the budget process. This was seamless, very smooth, very direct and to the point. And the other part I like is moving forward with the establishment of a reserve budget. I think that that's going to help the city out fiscally in the future by starting to allocate when apparatus are gonna be replaced, how much money is needed to be put in every year to replace those apparatus, which can be very costly when you're looking at police vehicles and public works vehicles. things like that and or major expenditures around city hall, whether it's a canopy or whatever, so that we're not taking a one lump sum of money and trying to fit it into the budget that year that we appropriate accordingly so much money every year towards those major expenditures. So I really appreciate that in the reserve budget as well.

Any other discussion or comments? If not, I will gladly take a motion on this portion of the budget meeting.

So Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt resolution number 1458, a resolution adopting the budget, making appropriations and imposing and categorizing taxes for the 2027 fiscal year. I second.

The motion has been made by Councilor Patten, seconded by Councilor Davis to approve resolution 1458, the resolution adopting the budget, making appropriations and imposing and categorizing taxes for the 2027 fiscal year. Any further discussion or comment? All those in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Carries 4-0. Next is, thank you Denise. Next up on nine C is our last public hearing this evening regarding setting fees for services and repealing resolution number 1450. So there's public hearing regarding setting fees for services and repealing resolution number 1450, consider as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Canby, Oregon for setting fees for services in repealing resolution 1450 from last year. The matter presently before the hearing body requires a public hearing. All interested persons and attendants shall be heard on the matter. This public hearing was in fact noticed in those who were instructed to contact the city recorder, which there were none. those people that are interested in testifying as either proponents or opponents, please indicate your desire to speak by raising your virtual hands at this time or handing a card to our city recorder. No one's racing to the table. For longer presentations, proponents and opponents may buy time from one another. In so doing, those either in favor or opposed may allocate their time to a spokesperson who will represent the entire group. All questions must be directed through the mayor. Any evidence to be considered must be submitted to the hearing body for public access. All written testimony received both for and against shall be summarized by staff and presented briefly to the hearing body during the staff report. The public hearing will be conducted as follows. The staff report will be provided by Randy Ely, our interim city administrator. Questions, if any, by the hearing body I will then open the public hearing for testimony, where we will hear from no proponents and no opponents, and then I'll close the public hearing. Questions, if any, by the infamous Canby City Council, and then discussion by said council. Any decision shall be made by the hearing body at the close of the hearing, or the matter will be continued to a date certain in the future. This will be the only notice of that date you will receive. Does anyone have any questions about the procedure for the hearing this evening? Seeing none, we will go into our staff report. Mr. Ely.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Very high level, we are considering tonight your fiscal year 2027 master fee schedule for the city of Canby, sort of a rite of passage every year, annually you've looked at this. This list has grown to over 32 pages. So what we did with your direction through the budget meetings where you indicated an interest in tying fees to inflation, some sort of an inflationary index, We went and huddled up at staff. Jamie Stickle is here. She led an internal team that broke down. She called every department director into a meeting with finance to justify the fees that they were charging. We added a column to this. You'll see on page one called last date change, where you can see the last time the city council took a look at a fee for every single one of these line items. and some date back to 1991, so on and so forth. The directors were asked, do you still use this fee? Is this fee still valid? If not, let's make a recommendation to council to remove these fees and then take a look at your existing fees for whatever department you're in, and make sure that you're getting your costs covered, and that we take a look at indexing to an inflationary CPI of some nature. That said, some of these fees are baked into the budget that you just passed a few minutes ago as well, so recognize that. For the horse, maybe. However... We do not need to run out the door and start charging new fees. This does not have to be passed tonight. If you have concern that you would like to talk further about or would like us to go back and maybe think about some of these fees are going from, let's say, $10 to $50, like a late fee for a business license on page one that hasn't been touched since 1991. That's just one example. Do you want us to take a look at similar jumps and consider a phased approach? So with that context, that 30,000 foot level, I can stop talking now and entertain any questions on our process and what you have in front of you tonight for your consideration for all of Canby's fees. Yes, Councilor Stearns, thank you.

Okay, well, I don't necessarily want to go through every single fee here tonight, unless you guys are really bored. Thank you. Just looking at these things directly and scanning through them, I noticed that some of the fees have been more than doubled or double or more, and some of them are left untouched. And I'm sort of opposed to... both things. For example, and I'm just throwing out random, a dollar per sheet for photocopies. Surely the cost has gone up since 2010. And so you would think that there would be at least a minimal increase due to just inflation and cost inflations. And then the problem with not ever touching these fees is that when you actually do have to you end up doubling them or more like some of these police fees and other things. I personally would prefer to see a cost, you know, an inflationary adjustment every year automatically, and anything more than that could be something that you'd have to sort of justify. But anything less than that, I don't know why we would expect costs to stay the same, at least since I've been on the council, things have gone up in just those last three years. It costs a lot. So that's kind of my overall... I guess we say critique or criticism of these, the theses I've read them through, like I say, don't wanna go through every single line item on here, otherwise we weren't gonna do anything for the next three days. But I don't know if there's any way of addressing that. 1994, I see there hasn't been a change in liquor, well, the light line item. Yes, you know, and to not have a change in the fee means, one, it was way overcharging in 1994, because $75 in 1994 is way different than $75 today. And so that's my overall... issue, and if you want more examples, I can show you on the list.

Mr. Mayor, if I could, just a quick response. I did push back, Consular, on some of these that have no change with staff. I said, come on now, a little bump in 50 or 40 years, depending on the length, that costs have gone up. Some of these are governed by state law and statute, so within our court system, there's some state governance with So Maya helped guide me on that. The OLCC note you can see there. So I probably could have done a better job of describing in that last column under no change why we're coming in front of you with no change in 20 plus years in some cases. So that answers your questions on the low ones that weren't touched.

There's still sums like from 19, or not 19, 2010 that haven't been touched since then. And so, like I said, I would prefer to see a small increase now rather than... a doubling, waking up sometime in the next three or four years and saying, hey, we are undercharging. Let's double everything. But the problem with double things or arbitrary increases is that it limits people's ability to plan. If everybody knows it's going to go up a little bit every year, you can plan.

We can certainly go back and do a little more homework for you. This is early in the process, it's June 17th. So July 1 is your next first official fiscal year meeting coming up. I think we could have, based on your direction, unless you're comfortable tonight moving forward, I don't wanna stop you from doing that either, so.

Randy, street maintenance fee?

Let's talk about that right now. Jamie has prepared remarks, prepared update we met today. And they've done a wonderful job, so we, sorry to put you on the spot a little early. Jamie.

What's this, is the street maintenance fee on this? Can somebody say what page?

Utility fees.

Oh, it's on page six. It ends on, it's the last line of page six and the beginning of page seven.

And so Mayor and Council, Randy had asked that I prepare some comments, not necessarily as it relates to the Master Fee Schedule, but just as an update on where we're at and how we're bringing that forward to you. So the work with Kittleson is underway and it's currently being refined in order to bring forward recommendations to the Street Maintenance Task Force and City Council. Staff has met with the Street Maintenance Task Force in April to review the proposed changes to the Canby Municipal Code. And we felt that that was important to at least be moving that piece of the conversation forward and receive any input that they had on those changes. Kittleson has modernized the business classifications that we use using that Institute of Transportation Engineers 12th edition trip generation manual. And through that effort, they've consolidated the previously used categories of which there were 14 into seven land use classifications. Staff has initiated a structural review to align billing rate descriptions with actual customer classifications and eliminate reporting inconsistencies. And then through this process, staff and Kittleson are working on refining that cost allocation framework so that we can equitably distribute infrastructure costs among designated truck routes, arterials and collectors, and local residential roads. Ruth has created an auditing process which links utility geographic information system or GIS map directly with the current Cassell account data and active business licenses which will allow for better connection between the commercial and industrial buildings and those businesses within them. And while this first piece would not be surprising to any of you, while looking at neighboring cities, staff was able to confirm that Canby's current $5 frozen rate remains among the lowest in the region, which is why we're looking at this update. One of the things that we found is that that proposed adjustment, and this will be a piece that you'll consider moving forward, but that proposed adjustment to $7.50 actually remains significantly below comparable utility fees, including Tigard and Oregon cities. Oregon City at $14.11 and $16.47 respectively. We are finalizing options for the fee structure with Kittleson and Associates based on input that we had received previously from the Street Maintenance Task Force and City Council and looking at the scenarios which is based on an annual revenue target And essentially what they do is they reverse engineer that from that target to determine what the calculation would be, which is how the very similar to the process, different numbers, but the process for the current street maintenance fee. And we are working toward a July 8th city council joint work session with the street maintenance task force, you all and Kittleson.

So Mr. Mayor and Council, Spencer reminded me today that he used to be able to say, with X amount of dollars, we can pay four miles of streets per year in Canby. And now we're down, due to inflation, down to one and a half miles only. So we're gonna plug in a number. like a million dollars, let's say, making this up, for the next five years, that'll get us to back to paving four to five to six miles, depending on what your appetite is, of streets per year. So that's what this is doing. That's the reverse engineering that Jamie's talking about. You start with the number you need based on all of our studies, our TSP, the pavement quality index that we've gotten. And that's how you get this, the number that comes out in the formula on the other side. So we can do X number of miles. per year and can be and get back out there. And now we're, you know.

Well, the other piece to that too is the decision by the council of where we want to keep the payment condition index. That's it. Are we wanting it at seven or are we wanting it at nine? Because that also dictates how much we can do every year as well. Thank you.

Yes, sir. So just a question. What's on here isn't what we're going to be discussing later on. How will that change in the amounts that we charge for this July 8th meeting when the council makes the decision on that?

So the July 8th meeting will be a work session to discuss those fees. And then what we would do is similar to what we did with the, for instance, Independence Day fees. that we charged, we amended those in January of this last year, and we would just bring, the whole master fee schedule comes back through, but it would only be changing those fees.

Okay, that makes sense, okay.

We're working on equity, and not to get in the weeds, but, There are companies in town that have a lot of deliveries, a lot of use on the streets, and so we wanna sit down with them and talk to them about fairness across all sectors of commercial and industrial activity, fast food, warehousing, 18 wheel, yeah, yep, produce delivery. So sit down with those folks and talk about a fair way to make sure that they're equitably contributing because the chapter 12 has some interesting numbers that it's computed out and we'll get more to you back on that later. Yes, sir.

Just a comment. You know, I think that this is a good way to go in regards to we all know, I think that the streets are dilapidating quicker than we can get on top of them by far. All you have to do is drive around town, drive through neighborhoods, drive out by, you know, can be disposal areas. or Cahoot's, right outside of Cahoot's, and you can see where their trucks are starting to sink the road and stuff like that. So we need to do something to get this equal or improve it for sure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jamie. Any other questions right now? Yes, Councilor Patton.

So I guess for me... Here's my thoughts and some concerns. As I understand it, and this is something that counselors before us have talked about, is charging fees and adjusting the fees to the point where we are at least capturing the cost of doing that work. And from what I understand of this conversation here is that instead of making the adjustments towards capturing costs, none of these fees will still not capture costs. Like some of them might be close, but there's still fees in here. If we're not adjusting any of them, then that means that these fees are not capturing costs. And we are not moving the needle towards capturing the costs. And when I have conversations with citizens and they complain about the taxes and the fees, I try to explain to them that the city can only levy 3% more in tax annually. Yet for years now, probably not decades, but for years, the cost of doing business has increased by a little bit more or a whole lot more than 3%. And so even though we are charging these fees, the taxpayers are still subsidizing people who are utilizing these fees to do business. And in a way, that is not fair. As a resident, I should not be subsidizing a developer or a business or those folks to do what they need to do. I don't get a subsidy for what I'm doing, so why should they? I pay taxes. Right? So to me, this is very frustrating to see that some of these are not moving at all. Now, I understand that some of them move less than others annually. And so whether that means some fees that we know adjust more often should be put on a one-year adjustment, others identified as a two- or three-year adjustment. But every year... And every fee should be tied to some sort of adjustment. So I guess that's a seed that I'm going to plant for as the discussion continues with this, is that... If staff is concerned about raising certain fees each year, then look at doing a, like tying them all to some sort of increase, but maybe it's a two, three, no more than a four-year rotation, okay? That's just a thought that comes to mind. The other thing I will say is regarding the street maintenance fee. I sat on the committee that created that fee because we were faced with a problem that the city streets were failing at a fast rate and this was going to be the way to fix it. And I have for years said that this needs to be adjusted and I guess what is frustrating to me is I understand that we need input from the citizens on making this change. But we are now going into another year where there is no change being made to this fee, not even an inflationary mechanism to at least try to start to move the needle. because we don't want to make any changes until we have all the exact information and the formulas and all this stuff. Well, I can tell you right now that the formulas are going to tell us that the fee needs to be here and there's going to be no way of raising the fee to that amount without citizens in here waving pitchforks and torches saying that they want to take this to a vote. And every year that nothing is done with this, is another year that we fall further behind. So I just continue to be frustrated with this whole thing. And I was part of the group that was talking about this. And due to various reasons, and some I will say that were political, I stepped back from that group because I got very frustrated. But I... I don't know whether we need to do a vote or whatever, but this street maintenance fee has got to be updated by the next fiscal year or otherwise I'm going to start making a motion at every single meeting that we need to adjust this fee because kicking this can down the road another year is ridiculous. And that's my comments.

Okay. Any other questions for staff? I just, yeah, for Jamie. Thank you. Jamie, did you also, did you say that if we adjust this, to Jason's point, if we adjust this in July, when could we change that street maintenance fee? By right away or by January?

Whenever the public... I believe there's just some public notice that has to happen a little bit more than for a meeting, but it could, I would say within the next month or so. Maybe it's a two week period, I just don't know what that notice is. The finance department helped us with that last time, but it would not have to wait for a whole another fiscal year. Okay, thank you.

And I would say too that that would be something I think we would need to work on. in terms of how we roll that out. To suddenly vote on it and then hit everybody 30 days later with an increase, I don't think it's the right thing to do. Public hearing and stuff like that. For sure. Okay, are there any other questions for staff? Because I still need to open and close the public hearing, which I'm going to do right now. I'm going to open up the public hearing. We have nobody, no proponents or opponents up into this conversation. Is there any new ones? No, then I am closing the public hearing. Any further questions? Yes, Mr. Ely.

Mr. Mayor, council, I would just call the question that It feels like, in looking at this now, having an opportunity to digest, the SDCs and the two fees feel like different unicorns than... general master fee schedule items. So I don't know if I need to separate those going forward or just keep it all rolled up into one like you've traditionally done it as a city. Nothing wrong with it. It just feels like you can see how the passion is for certain fees versus day-to-day recovering costs. So I don't know if it's fine to do it all under one like you've been doing, that's fine. But I just wanted to call the question because SDCs are very different than photocopy.

No, for sure.

Yes, Councillor Davis. Yeah, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to see them separated out because I think that the street maintenance fee is its own item. Park maintenance fee is its own item. And I think, yeah, on the STCs. And then we can also, for instance, the Park and Rec Committee is definitely going to want to have a piece of that as well. So I think specifically, because more or less, we're gonna be calling them out by having the July meeting, right? And we'll be looking at new fees potentially in July or August or sooner if we can for the street maintenance fee. So it might be the same thing with park maintenance fee as well and separately.

Is there any other? Yes, Councilor Sturges. Yeah, I'd personally like to see the... It'd be nice if the fee discussion or approval would be postponed until we have all these fees written down because there's no point in saying, hey, now your fee's this, and then, like I say, 30 days later, no, now your fee's this. It's going to seem like it's jerking people around. And I'd like to...

Can we come back on July 1st?

Settle these out. Right now, I don't think I'll be voting for this fee schedule just for the reasons I said, because I just, yeah, I think that it's been long enough that these fees don't have any inflationary thing on them, you know? Okay.

Yes, Mr. Davis? Yes, Mayor. Jamie, I hope that the department heads will be able to support the increases. In other words, if somebody calls City Hall and says, why is this increasing? That the department heads can justify that increase. Not typically the cost of living increase, but where it's doubling and things like that. I think that's important.

So I wanna just clarify, obviously I am agitated about this, but I just wanna make it clear that I am not agitated with staff as a whole or any one staff member or any member of management or anybody like that, because I understand that while we are a small city, that staff understands that the things that they do and the fees that we charge impact the people that live here. And so I appreciate the fact that they wish to isolate folks from the impact that these fees and stuff have on them. So that sympathy and apathy and such for the citizens, I understand and I can appreciate. But in the 21 years that I have been interacting with this city, either on council, on the budget committee, or on the planning commission, This has been a topic every single year about how do we capture the costs of doing business? And I am come to the point where I will no longer sit and allow this can to get kicked down the road. I will not vote for this fee schedule unless there is a significant effort towards tying every single fee on this schedule to some sort of inflationary mechanism. Or a plan to say these are the fees that we're tying this year, next year we're going to work on tying these fees, and year three we're gonna work on tying these fees. but I can tell you right now that if I see another chart where most of it says no change, I will not vote on it, 100%.

Mr. Mayor? Yes, Council President Hensley.

Reading the tea leaves, I count three no votes, so I move that we table ordinance, sorry, resolution number 1459 to a later date. Second.

Second. Okay, the motion's been made to table resolution number 1459, resolution of the City Council of the City of Canby, Oregon for setting fees for services and repealing resolution number 1450. Do we have a date that we want this repeal or a table till?

I say at least until after the July 8th meeting about street maintenance fee.

Okay.

I mean, we did.

Now, again, that is one that we can revisit, which we've done in the past. You know, if it's a matter of approving what's here, but I'm not hearing that that's the desire. The desire is to go line by line and figure out. you know, is this truly, are we recovering the cost of doing business? And so that's what I'm hearing that we would do. So it's, it's a whole table thing, period.

Approving for $5 on street maintenance fee to turn around two months later and check it up. So some consistency would be nice. So.

Okay, so there's a motion and a second. Any discussion? Councilor Patten and Councilor Davis.

So I just want to make sure that we're not like, correct me if I'm wrong, but is there a drop dead date of when the fee schedule has to be approved?

No. No. We can keep our current fees the way they are.

Yes, but that will impact the budget, correct? Correct.

Because some of the budget numbers are tied to these increases.

So to me, there seems to be a built-in date that this has to be done. What is that date?

July 1, if you're going to anchor back to some of the fees, like the cemetery fees that went up in the budget. Mm-hmm.

So if that's the case, what I will throw out for people's thoughts is to create a plan A and a plan B for the July 1st meeting of saying that all the fees that are currently planned to be increased split those out into a separate schedule and say, these are all the ones that were proposed to increase originally. And these are ones that the budget numbers are tied to these fees increasing. And then all of these ones that say no change, put them on a different document and say, this is the plan to deal with these fees. So that way on July one, we have the option of approving those fees that are tied to the budget and continuing if need be to work on the fees that are not. Does that make sense?

Won't be ready either. Okay. Yeah. STCs are still a little bit ways out, but you know,

Councilor Davis. Yes, I'm gonna speak against the motion. I'd rather move forward with the direction that Jason's suggesting so that because we did ask the department heads to get together And they did a good job getting together based upon the increases that they thought was necessary. It's in the budget. And breaking them out, like Jason suggested, I would support a motion later that would support what Jason was recommending. But I would speak against the current motion on the floor.

Okay. Councilor Patten. So I guess what I would say is, and based on what I'm hearing from you, Councilor Davis, if we were to fail the table of this, I would be willing to make a motion to move all fees that are currently indexed to increase for approval tonight with fees that are not tied to some sort of increase to be kicked to a later date. Is that something that makes sense?

Are all the fee increases part of the budget or just some of them? Some. So some of the fee increases are not part of the budget and some are part of the budget, right? And do we have, are they marked in, I mean, maybe another column on the spreadsheet? They're not. It's not big enough, the spreadsheet. That's a fail, yeah. It's not a fail. But no, I'm just saying that if what we're, the reason why we wanna approve some fees is because they were already part of the budget that we already approved. then we should probably know which fees those are. And if that's the reason we're doing it, we should probably only approve those fees.

I think there's two, Councilor, Mr. Mayor, if you would like me to, there's two. Look at the cemetery and the sewer. We bumped sewer rates 5% to $48. Those are the two, Denise, correct me if I'm wrong, but those are the two that stand out to me out of all the fees that we increased. proposed to be increased that was in the budget that just passed. STCs are still on hold. Don's still working on that, so they don't count. They're not going anywhere. And then there's all the rest.

Okay, I'm cooking up a motion here. And the fees aren't gonna go away if we don't vote for them. They'll just stay what they were last year. So it's not like.

Okay, so there is a motion and a second to table this conversation to a date after the work session, the work session regarded on street maintenance fee with that working group. Any further discussion on that? Okay, all those in favor of that motion? Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Okay, anyone opposed? No. So, two.

You get to vote.

I do. So, two for tabling the entire document to a later date, and then two for not doing that. I will vote for, let me think about what I just said.

To table or not to table?

I think that we need to move forward with what's been approved. or what's been forecasted here. So I'm going to say to not table it. So nay. So that one's out. Councilor Patton.

Mr. Mayor, I would like to propose a motion. I move to approve all fees that are related to, in this fee schedule, that are related to sewer, the cemetery and fees set by state and other regulatory agencies outside of the purview of the council.

Second.

Question.

Motion by Councilor Patton to do what he just said. Second by Councilor Davis. Questions and discussion? Council President Hensley.

Does the motion include the park maintenance fee?

For the record from staff, it does not. Was that not part of the budget?

That's not what he did a motion for, though. He said sewer, cemetery, and state regulatory.

Yes, Councilor Stearns. I have a question on that, whether or not the motion is clear and specific enough to know exactly what we are voting on, because some of it seems to be vague, which ones are set by the state, which ones are not set by the state. It's right here. or which ones are in the budget exactly and which ones are not in the budget. But I just, you know, it would be interesting to pass a, whatever, resolution ordinance that, is not clear exactly what was being passed. I would prefer to have it staff separate them out and put them on a platter and please vote. The next meeting we can vote yes or no on it. It's July 1st, not gonna lose any first day of the fiscal year. It's not gonna lose anything if we have a little more clear. But that's what my thoughts are. Councillor Patton and Councillor Davis.

I would be willing to make a motion to amend my motion to include the park maintenance fee increase.

I don't think you have to make a motion.

You can amend your motion. The second person has it. I agree.

Because I was very specific that they were ones related to sewer increase, cemetery increase, and things like it says on here fee limited by OLCC. And there are some others that are specifically listed in here that they are set by other agencies. And so I would amend it to also include the park maintenance fee.

And I agree. So the motion is amended and seconded. So now we need to vote on the amendment.

The amended motion. It's all one package.

It's all one package. It's all one. Okay, great. As far as throwing me off there. Thank you. So any discussion or comment on the now amended motion?

Well, I'll change my vote now.

Okay. No other comments or discussion. Did you have a comment, Mr. Ely? Okay, all those in favor of the proposed motion stated by Councilor Patton, will you read again for the record, please?

Right now?

Yes.

So I moved to approve all fees that relate to sewer, cemetery, and those set by state and other agencies amended to include the park maintenance fee.

Okay, motion made. Seconded. All those in favor?

Aye.

Anyone opposed? I'm just gonna say name.

Obviously, because I'm still trying to look through all the ones I voted on. Thank you. I'm sorry. I was trying to underline or something. I gotta know what I'm voting on and what I'm not voting on. So that was my reason for voting. We'll be back July 1, Mayor, regardless.

But you gotta vote. It sounds like.

I don't know why everyone is so infrequent that the mayor gets to vote. Twice in a meeting now. Wow. It's been years. So just to clarify, Councilor Patton, these are the items that were already denoted in the budget that are tied to budget numbers and are set by... state agencies or statutes. Correct.

Yes, because in here it says very clearly street, or it says like sewer fees, and it says cemetery fees.

Right, and all these fees were discussed and batted around and approved by the budget committee. which we approved earlier this evening, approving that budget. Correct.

So when you say parks, though, it's not just the schedule. It's the park maintenance fee only, not the park, all the other rental, the gazebo. Park maintenance fee. Park maintenance fee is its own separate line. Okay.

It's under utility fees.

I'm just trying to know what I'm voting on. No, I get you.

Okay. So I'm a yes for the motion.

Okay. Thank you for all that work. Appreciate it. Learning for us all. I'll take it back to staff.

Here's my piece on this as we move on to the rest of the agenda so that we can make Counselor Davis' 9 o'clock dismissal time. Is that Every year this comes up, this fee sheet, and I think every year there's more conversation about it because we do start to understand that we are not recouping the cost of doing business. And we do need to take a look at what that is. But I also think that we also need to understand that there may not be a way to recoup the cost of doing business. So I think that there needs to be that lens when you look at this fee sheet to come back and make adjustments or whatever, that the amount that you're going to increase to try to recoup business costs are just unattainable for a business. And even when we get into the street maintenance fee, it's just unattainable. We're killing business in the state of Oregon, and I don't want that for the city of Canby. So I think that we've got to keep that lens on that as you're looking at this. There are just some things that we are gonna have to not, we're just not gonna, I don't believe there is a way to recoup costs on everything on this fee sheet. So, okay. Back to my agenda. All right. Item 10 this evening, ordinances and resolutions. We have a calendar of second readings. Ordinance number 1676, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to execute the first amendment to the personal service agreement. with Heard Farms for wastewater sludge hauling services and declaring an emergency, and that is for a second reading.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt ordinance number 1676, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to execute the first amendment to the personnel service agreement with Heard Farms for wastewater sludge hauling services and declaring an emergency.

Second. The motion's been made by Council President Hensley and seconded by Councilor Davis to approve ordinance number 1676, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to execute the first amendment to the personal service agreement with Heard Farms for wastewater sludge hauling services and declaring an emergency. Questions, Councilor Patten?

Yeah, so when I, I'm sorry, I was unable to attend the meeting the other night, but where this was talked about, but I did watch it and there was some questions and comments regarding why this contract is set at a year compared to many other contracts being multiple years. And I did have this conversation with Randy when we had a meeting and if memory serves me correctly, the reason that might be is years ago, the city looked at purchasing that sludge drying machine. And there was talk about once the sludge drying machine was online, then there would be no more need of this contract with Heard Farms, but they weren't sure when that was gonna come online. So rather than doing a multi-year contract, They were going to do a one-year contract so that it would be easier to get out of it once the machine was online. And then it was a total crap fest, both literally and figuratively. The machine never worked. I think there was a lawsuit. I think the city sued and all this thing. And my suspicion is that... that one year limit just kept coming back and back. So for me, I don't see any reason why next time this comes up that it could be looked at as a multi-year contract, but I believe that that is why this one got out of sync with others.

Thank you for that.

Okay.

Any other comments or discussion on this? Miss Maya, roll call vote.

Councilor Patten.

Aye.

Councilor Davis. Aye. Councilor Stearns.

Aye.

And Council President Hensley. Aye.

Motion carries 4-0. 10B, resolution number 1460, a resolution authorizing an interfund loan from the Cemetery Perpetual Care Fund to the Library Fund in the amount of 500,000 and authorizing repayment of the interfund loan in fiscal year 26-27. Minister Ely.

I am going to make it my personal agenda to workshop this with staff, so maybe we don't have to do this next year. It's going to take a lot of research, a lot of homework, but I swear as I sit here tonight, we are the only city that does this, and I'm trying to figure out why. But that said, we've got the money. Let's move forward and do it. Okay. Okay.

Does anybody want to, Randy, do you want to explain what this inter-fund loan is and what it's for?

This, Mr. Mayor, thank you for that. This allows the library to operate until it gets its first distribution of the county share of library funds, I believe end of December, first of January. So it bridges that upcoming six months with an infusion of half $500,000. Thank you.

Yes, Councilor Davis. Are you ready for a motion? I am indeed. I move to adopt resolution number 1460, a resolution authorizing the Interfund loan from the Cemetery Perpetual Care Fund to the Library Fund in the amount of $500,000 and authorizing a repayment of the Interfund loan in 26-27. Second. Second.

The motion has been made by Councilor Davis and seconded by Councilor Patten to approve resolution number 1460, a resolution authorizing an Interfund Loan from the Cemetery Perpetual Care Fund to the Library Fund in the amount of $500,000 and authorizing repayment of the Interfund Loan in fiscal year 2026-2027. Any discussion? Yes, Councilor Starnes. Is there going to be interest charge on this? I think we determined in the budget committee meeting that we would not be doing that.

Our interest rates are going down. So it was projected to be about $10,000. So the staff recommended budget was to not charge interest.

Let's go around. Okay. And if we don't charge interest on it, then that means we're making a vote to sort the cemetery fund, right?

Yes.

By $10,000.

In effect, yeah.

So it may be something that we're kicking the can down the road. We might have the can bounce back up at us later on.

Well, we will charge more for mausoleums and...

Does that explain the 30% increase in the cemetery fees this year? Correct. Yes, Councilor Patton.

So I appreciate the fact that the library is not going to have to pay that interest back. And I do understand the... that could be caused by after my last performance of not paying interest back into the cemetery perpetual care fund. That fund will be an albatross around the city's neck till I'm dead buried in that cemetery and found by archeologists. So it is what it is. But my question is, did we forego the interest payment for this year? Because I believe it was budgeted last year that they were going to pay the interest on the loan that they got for this fiscal year. Are we foregoing that interest for this year?

Okay. Are you talking about current fiscal year budget? Current fiscal year. Collecting it. $15,000.

I really would like us to consider not collecting that from them.

Really? Yes. Mayor? Council?

It's not really related to the motion on the table, though, is it?

No, it's not. Well, it is in the fact that we are talking about interest. We're talking about the interest. But that was a question, and I'm willing to fight for my cause after the fact.

Well, thank you for thinking out loud. Appreciate that. So any comment on the motion on the table?

I already did my comment on the motion on the table.

Yes, got it. All right, all those in favor?

Aye.

Anyone opposed? Thank you. Anyone abstaining?

I'll say aye for yes on that. Okay. Thank you, guys.

The motion carries 4-0. Item 10C, resolution number 1461, a resolution extending workers' compensation coverage to volunteers of the city of Cambie and repealing resolution 1439.

I'm going to call our HR director, Mr. Mayor, Pete Wood. I know we're running short on time, but Pete can cover this quickly.

Mr. Wood.

Good evening, just real quick. It's my understanding that SAFE requires us to do this annually for a resolution to cover all of you, cover all of our committees and all of our volunteers throughout the city. So we currently have outside of the committees, the library has 30 volunteers and we currently have three interns as well, one paid and two unpaid interns with the city.

Great, any questions for HR Director?

No, Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt a resolution number 1461, a resolution extending workers' compensation coverage to volunteers for the city of Canby, and repealing resolution 1439. Thank you.

Thank you. A motion has been made by Council President Hensley and seconded by Councilor Davis to approve resolution number 1461, a resolution extending workers' compensation coverage to volunteers of the City of Gamby and repealing resolution 1439. Any further discussion or comment? All those in favor? Aye. There are none opposed. That passes 4-0. Thank you, sir. Item D, resolution number 1462, a resolution approving amended appropriations for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. Mr. Ely? I was moving ahead.

Was that Ms. Denise?

Denise on the script. It's the last one.

It's the last one. Yep. I'm going to call Denise up.

This is the one she alluded to earlier.

Yeah.

So in order to be in compliance with local budget law, we need to make an appropriation transfer. So we need a resolution for this. This falls under an exception to local budget law of ORS 294.338, section two. And in July of 25. it was determined that there was a grant that was a pass through between Clackamas County and the Canby Center for $218,000 for the city-led homelessness initiatives grant. And this was not recorded in the budget. So there's a net zero effect on the city. It just is coming in, moving out, but we need to be able to record it properly to stay in compliance. And so that's what this resolution is doing is just keeping us compliant. Again, zero dollars to the city.

That was easy. Other years have been a whole lot of moving around. That's good. Thank you. Yes, Counselor Patton. Sorry.

Go ahead. You go first.

I'm sorry. I move to adopt resolution number four. Oh.

Hold that thought. Sorry. We have a question over here.

No, I was going to make a motion too. Oh, okay. But Randy's got a question. He was going to make a motion.

Then you do it. Do it, man. You don't do it very often, so I've already done one tonight.

Okay. Mr. Ely. Just to clarify, I've heard a couple references to a lot of moving around. Are you referring to the supplemental budget process, which we do do later in the fall? That's what he's referring to. That's a lot of moving around that's coming your way. We recalibrate how we're ending this fiscal year. So supplemental budget. I'm a couple months ahead of myself then.

We're talking about this is a duck egg. We've been talking about chicken eggs this whole time.

Okay. Do you want to make a motion, Mr. Stearns?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. I would like to move to adopt resolution number 1462, a resolution allowing the admitted appropriation transfer for the 2025 through 2026 fiscal year. Great. And, Councillor Patton, would you like to second that?

I'm happy to second it.

Thank you. Motion made by Councilor Stearns and seconded by Councilor Patten to approve resolution 1462, a resolution approving amended appropriations for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Anyone opposed? Carries, four, zero. Thanks to these, appreciate it. We have eight minutes to nine. Do we want to continue on with the agenda? Okay, do we want to set a time? 9.15.

9.30?

I'm for 9.30.

9.30 is fine. I don't know if I can make this answer.

Okay, so consensus being that we'll extend the meeting until 9.30. Great. All right, there's no other business that I'm aware of, Randy. City Administrator Business and Staff Report, sir.

Okay, I'm gonna call a couple of my department heads up, Jamie and Don, for a couple items. Jamie first on a couple announcements. Will you come up, Sandy? You can both sit there, it's fine. News on 4th of July and a new thing we're doing this year on downtown pressure washing. So very exciting. Spruce up for the businesses.

So I'll start with the downtown pressure washing. Randy and I were having a discussion about just downtown and ways that we can continue to beautify, and so we're bringing in a local pressure washing business that's going to start downtown tomorrow. We have sent an email blast through our Tourism and, or Economic Development and Tourism Coordinator to our local businesses. We've put things on our City of Canby Facebook page, Canby Business. alerted the Chamber of Commerce in case they get questions. But really this is just a way to spruce up downtown, make it look good before our summertime events and part of the timing was to do it after the Chamber of Commerce's wine and chocolate event that they just had because they had a chalk artist come through. So we let them know that we would be removing that chalk art at some point and they were on board with that. So we're excited for that to happen and you'll see some pressure washing downtown. If there's any questions, you can send them my way.

What, when we say downtown, what zone, what's the boundary?

It is a bit of a fragmented map, just staying kind of in the core of downtown, trying to not go to areas that are residential necessarily, really focusing on that downtown business district.

So first and second?

Yep, around Wake Park.

Yes, exactly.

Sidewalk.

I think it's a great idea. Who do we give credit to for this?

The business is Foam and Flow and they're a local Canby business and we looked at businesses that had Canby business licenses. Two of them that we reached out to were from Canby. One was a business out of Portland and Foam and Flow had the lowest bid and away we go. So we're excited to work with them and Yeah, excited, eager. They're going to be meeting with Spencer at I think nine o'clock in the morning to get things started.

Cool. When does this turn?

Tomorrow.

Wonderful.

Yes. Great.

Thank you, Jamie.

And then about the Independence Day celebration. So we just wanted to give a, I know that many of us know about this event and the different pieces, but it's easy to get kind of caught up in certain pieces and forget about others. So just a quick overview. The Canby Independence Day celebration returns to downtown Canby on Saturday, July 4th. We anticipate that it's going to be a very busy event because it's a Saturday and with the 250th celebration. The parade kicks off at 10 a.m. And this year, the Canby Rotary Club will be assisting with the parade. It's still open to entries. So there'll be cars, tractors, fire, police, youth crews. youth groups, dancing troops, and more. Registration is open until Monday, June 30th. So anyone interested in participating, registration is on the city's website. We've also pushed that on our social medias as well. Currently we have 32 parade entries and the day of the parade is at 10 and the parade awards are in Wake Park at 1230. The official kickoff is held at 11 a.m. with the American Legion. So they lead the parade and then they come to Wake Park and they lead the crowd in the flag salute. After the national anthem, the Grand Marshal will be announced and Mayor Hudson will offer a welcome as he always does. Around Waite Park we have our street fair resuming with local vendors with some handcrafted items and incredible food and drink choices. It is complemented by the kids zone, game truck and live music. Currently we have 65 vendors signed up which might sound like considerably less from previous years but that's just the number of vendors that doesn't include their spaces. So, for example, a food truck has to take three different spaces, and I didn't have the full spaces. One of the things that's the most amazing to me, and I will never get over it, this is our 10th year, is that we will have people sign up for vendor spots all the way until July 3rd. They'll contact the city, and whether that's paying the... rate for the food, which is quite a bit more than how it starts. People are excited and they know that Canby is a fun and attracts a lot of people. Our car show is also a popular attraction. We have classic and vintage vehicles that will line the streets. And this year, the city of Canby is partnering with Canby Kiwanis to oversee the car show. Registration is open from 7 to 9 a.m. that morning, and the car show awards happen in Wake Park at 1. Canby Historical Society's Pancake Breakfast returns this year to Knight Elementary from 7.30 to 10. They weren't able to come last year, but we're excited that they'll be back this year. The Canby Fire District is going to bring their obstacle course downtown, which allows children to spray fire hoses and learn the ropes of firefighting. And it's conveniently located on North Grant Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues. And as I mentioned previously, we have live entertainment in Waite Park, as well as in our family-friendly beer garden, which features local wines and brews, and that's located on Northwest 2nd Avenue between North Holly, I'm sorry, between North Grant and North Holly Streets. And the entertainment in Waite Park will be the 21 Turns Band and then in the Beer Garden is Infamous Soul. One small change this year is that the event will end in Waite Park and the Beer Garden in both areas at 3 p.m. Previously, we had held the Beer Garden about an hour later and really with the flow of people and what we've seen from prior years attendance, we thought that it would be best to close those at the same time. and end at three. Most people go home and have some food, have a rest so that they can come back out for the fireworks, which are organized by Candy Fire. And that occurs at dusk at Trost Elementary. And I Googled it before I came down today. Dusk is approximately 9.39 on July 4th. So set your clocks. Thank you all so much.

Real quick, Jamie, do you have enough volunteers? Yes.

We are always open to more volunteers, but I would say that one of the great things that we have this year is Canby Rotary has stepped up and Canby Kiwanis has stepped up and using their networks, but we are always looking for volunteers, even if it's having someone sit in the information booth and answer questions or point people in the right direction. So if they're interested in volunteering, they can contact either myself or Tyler Neiser, our economic development tourism coordinator. Perfect.

Awesome. Thank you, Jamie.

Thank you.

Thank you. A couple of leadership position updates. We announced this afternoon that we are moving forward with Jason for our next police chief in Canby. Did you want Don to come up? Yes, Don's gonna come up and Pete's gonna come up. But you know, we only have till nine, so I'm trying to be efficient here. It's a conditional offer, so there's a six-week background check. So enough said on that. Congratulations to everybody that contributed with that robust selection process. I have named Spencer as Interim Public Works Director. and on July, and we will go out and recruit for public works director. And then on July 11th, the day after Chief Trow retires, we've named Jose Captain Gonzalez the interim police chief until the new police chief can come on. So I just want to make sure you're... And I wrote all that in the email earlier today. Thanks to Jamie for helping with the press release.

No, that's perfect. Good moves. Do we know when Chief Trow's retirement get-together is? We do.

It's July 10th at 2 p.m.

We're at?

At the Canyon Police Department. I'll forward the invite out to council.

Okay. Yeah, please, mayor and council. Thank you. Okay. Let's do Don. Don, we've got to keep this one tight. That's hard to explain. I spent an hour with Don today asking questions. It was not just on this stuff. Okay, so... We had a ruling from the state, some state legislation that's going to impact the way our planning, he reviews subdivisions and whether or not it goes to planning commissions or he can just approve them. So Don.

So I'll be quick. Good evening. There's two pieces of legislation, both effective July 1 of this year that came through the legislature, Oregon Senate Bill 974 and House Bill 4037. The intention behind this is really to provide expedited, more expedited housing and provide more housing in Oregon. Consequentially, in terms of what this all means for Canby in terms of procedural changes in the land use process is Oregon Senate Bill 974 requires limited land use decisions, which is a type two administrative review with notice. And House Bill 4037 requires clear and objective standards to be used for housing reviews. So what this all means in effect is that subdivisions, plan unit development subdivisions and residential projects like townhomes and apartments will now be reviewed as a type two administrative review with notice instead of a type three planning commission hearing process. Okay, let's pause there. Let that marinate. That's what's going down. And this is something that most jurisdictions are a bit ahead of perhaps where we're at in the metro area. They've already made a lot of these changes. And it doesn't mean that there's less review. I just want to assure the council of that. I mean, we're still reviewing our code. Our code is still being reviewed and enforced. It's just at an administrative level. And it's challenging because like this kind of comes without a lot of notice. And so we're scrambling a bit. And so we will be doing an interim targeted code update. You will see that through this year. We're gonna be targeting that. In the interim, we're relying on the Oregon Revised Statutes that allow us to implement the changes. But we will notify Planning Commission of this change in our next meeting on Monday. We're also going to be putting out on our website information on this. But it is a difference for your constituents that probably will be asking, why isn't there not a hearing for this item? And that's because the state law has changed. so will it be the city planning department not the county no the county is still going to be doing building permit reviews so that's still in play here it's just the idea is to remove the discretionary elements to the process is really essentially it and that's challenging that's kind of where the home rule comes in and like having local control and it's My personal feeling is there needs to be more incentives versus taking away authority. But that's, again, another discussion for another day. But the state is basically saying we're pretty much taking over the housing arena. In terms of the regulatory piece of things, most of the housing review is basically being mandated by the state.

Again, the continued erosion of home rule. We no longer have any say. Sorry.

We have some. No, I hear you. I think it's been a bit of a piecemeal situation, and this is the final straw, so to speak.

Death by a thousand paper cuts, Don. I mean, this is... Yeah. I mean... Part of Canby and what we do and the planning commission and our community has always been about is our ability to advocate for our city, direct our city, plan our city. And that over the last four years, five years has quickly been chipped away. You know, so, wow, that's really disheartening. So what does this mean for our planning department, you? in your team in terms of the workload now?

I mean it's we still have all the responsibilities we're still writing a full-on staff report if anything we probably have a bit more at stake here because it's our decision it's my decision ultimately it's a planning director's decision so it's equally the same amount of work and for commercial I just want to be clear commercial industrial will still go before the planning commission So commercial projects, industrial projects, but housing has been targeted by the legislature and the governor in particular. And so it doesn't really diminish our workload. I would say it's about the same, perhaps slightly increased because we have a little more at stake here and we're gonna have to document everything very carefully. And it's also gonna require a bit more outreach to the folks that get notification because another layer of this is that they've taken away the appeal process as well for these. And you could go to Luba, but you can't elevate it to the planning commission or city council. So these are pretty big changes. I just want to make sure you're all aware of those. We will, I guess the one thing I was gonna mention when we're gonna be doing our code update, we will be providing a discretionary path as well as this state path when we have our code update. So we will still be giving an option for a discretionary review. We're trying to incentivize that process so people still take that and so there's still some creativity around the development of residential developments, whether people take that path, whether developers take that path, the optional path or not, we can still create it, but we have to have the mandated path by the state, which is what I just mentioned to you all. So we can all try, but they ultimately have to say in what, the altering is? Well, they will not have a say. We can create our own path, but a developer can choose the state path, which is the one I just mentioned, where by type two review, non-discretionary, that, you know, again, it's going to require some higher incentives if they have to go through some sort of planning commission review versus that. But there could be an alternative that could be equally enticing, which is part of that code update process that we'll be looking at.

I have a jillion questions right now running in my head, but Councilor Patten.

This, I suspect, is where we are going to pay the price for not updating the codes for so long. Because the codes drive the process, and our process is back when neon was one of the popular colors people wear. That's why it is imperative that we not lose sight of updating our codes after this process.

We would not, just to be clear, we would not have vested ourselves had we done this. I mean, the state's saying, we don't care what your code is, you know, but we're a bit behind the eight ball trying to catch up, though, in terms of all these elements that are coming down. And every year there's a set of It's crazy how much legislation happens here in the state. It's just, it's a lot. I mean, every year there's just a ton of things like, oh, they're not done. And so we have another thing and like, yeah, it's just, you know, but to your point, Councilor Patton, I agree that it's, you know, it's difficult to be, you're going from a starting point of way behind and it's a lot harder to catch up. Yep, yep, yep.

And you've started the code audit, correct?

We have. We're working on that, and we're going through that process now, identifying areas of our code. And, you know, Ryan Potter's leading that up. We're going to be, again, looking at optional, you know, development path versus the state path. That's part of this. And what are we mandated to do with the state path? And then what can we do in the optional path? And so those are all part of things that we're going to be... You'll be seeing that, like, early next year. That's really... where we're at we're doing the work the base work now and then we'll be going through and it won't be a really a voter resolution will be more like an input piece of this like what are we on the right track etc and then the code update will follow that okay thanks don you're welcome thank you that was great thank you you're always the bearer of good news yeah i'm just kidding uh

Speaking of good news, Dawn is hosting a listening session next week on our UGB expansion. So you're all invited. You should have the invite. Jamie, I think we've said three or four times, please come out. It's gonna be here in this chamber. And I reviewed the slide deck. We're narrowing the presentation, but we wanna, Dawn's doing a great job of getting what needs to get out on. for that meeting.

Thank you, Don. Just to clarify, we will be having a community meeting later. This meeting's intentional for property owners in the area, the study area, but still, it's an important meeting for you to attend, but just so that people listening online, there will be a formal community meeting that'll be much larger, probably at Baker Prairie. This room will not hold. Thanks. I'm just trying to, yeah, this is intended for those people that, you know, are property owners that are in the urban growth boundary study area. And there's been a mailer, a postcard mailer, and then Jamie did another blast this morning. For those that attended last time, we've had two previous listening sessions before. So you're welcome to attend. You're encouraged to attend.

Can you send that information out to me so that you have it for next time?

What are the dates again?

It's June 24th here in this council chambers, June 24th, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Another calendar item for your pleasure, Mayor and Council, the school district is having a public meeting, a work session, I believe it's public, next Tuesday night. where they are reviewing the aftermath of decisions that they need to make going forward. I believe that's a multi-hour meeting Tuesday night over at the board where they have the school board meetings. And good relations, good working after the vote. They were very disappointed, of course, but working well with Jennifer Patterson, school superintendent on next steps. Okay, another calendar item, July 8th. We are going to attempt to present you with three work session items. Again, July 8th. So we're gonna talk street maintenance fee. We're gonna talk illegal fireworks. We have several examples to bring forward for your consideration from several other cities in Oregon. And e-bike, the e-motor discussion, Chief Trow and Maya are working on bringing that. So we'll divide that up into three chunks, July 8th, where I can move it if I don't have quorum. What time? We thought we might start at six for that one. It's at the pleasure of the mayor and council.

So for your information, I will not be attending that meeting. July 8th. I'm going, I had planned a vacation. I planned it on deliberately on a week that wasn't the regular council meetings, but yeah. Okay. If you're looking for whether a quorum is going to be there or not.

Well, I'm happy to depend. Mayor and I can offline this and talk about it.

Yeah.

Okay. Um, last night at the parks and rec committee, uh, counselor Davis is the liaison. I was there, um, And they took a unanimous vote. Jim Simnett's family, apparently back in the day, used to own that property where Auburn Farms is being constructed and grew Daphne's on there. And the Parks Committee voted on a name for your recommendation called Daphne Glynn Park. and Glen means a narrow valley, apparently, and the park is kind of narrow, so you like that. Anyway, that's for your consideration. I don't know what your process for naming is, council.

It's kind of new. Agenda item?

Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, this is the first one we've had, so.

Do we do it by resolution then, or? Probably. This is a new program, so I guess probably a resolution, I would imagine.

Okay. Yeah, what do you think? Coming up. Coming up next.

What do you got, Randy? Keep going. You're doing good. I want to thank Pete and Spencer. They went over to OSHA today and hammered out a settlement agreement. You recall a year ago, approximately, we had a surprise OSHA visit down at Public Works and a $5,000 fine. The agreement they settled on, and thanks Pete and thanks Spencer, $2,000 settlement fine. And all of our stuff is now in place to their satisfaction.

Cool. Good job.

Thank you for that, Pete and Spencer and everybody else that worked, the whole safety committee, Emily Sasse, Haley, there's a long list of Natalia folks that meet monthly for internal safety committee. It's fun to watch them. They take it very seriously. Good. Okay. I'll end there because I know we have council and mayor updates. If you've got more, I mean- Well, Kitty Hawk is a big conversation around town right now. So I want you to know that I'm plugged into that discussion about whether or not they're going to be a go, no go, and decide to build back or not. So communicating with the fire chief, communicating with Carrie, the general manager. She invited me to a staff. They've asked for a staff presentation from Kitty Hawk because their staff was affected traumatically, of course, and they have concerns. So Carrie invited me to come and listen to that presentation. They're going through insurance and doing an after action report right now. So the decision has not been made. And I cannot say what the decision is going to be publicly because I don't frankly know. But I am monitoring it proactively to get ahead of it because we will ultimately be asked to. be involved in the permitting of the Build Back, if that were decided. Go ahead. I hear it in the green. Thank you for that.

Councilor Patten and Councilor Davis.

Would other people be able to, upon approval from the folks at Camp Utility, be able to attend this presentation if they're available?

I will make the ask, I kind of anticipated that question. So I will ask, and then just note there is also going to be a CAMB utility board they're gonna present to the board too. So there's two opportunities there.

Okay, Councilor Davis. Yeah, I've been talking with the interim city administrator and my thoughts on this is based on the presentation that I heard the other day, we need to get in front of this and we need to involve our legal counsel, not only with our planning, but we need to make sure our legal counsel is present during those discussions with the city because the city potentially could have some liability there. And also during the presentation that I heard anyway, there's actually some businesses and or residential insurance potentially that could be canceled if they rebuild there. So we need to make sure that our information is lined up and that we have legal in front of this.

July 3rd, city's offices are closed. July 4th, library is closed. That's end of report. Great. See, that was good. Okay.

There's only two more minutes. Great. I've got 12 to do mine. Great. So Clackamas County Coordinating Committee, we did our annual work session retreat out at Mount Hood Resort. I will bring more at the next meeting or the following meeting. Just a lot to digest from an economic development standpoint for the state and county. on transportation as well as transit was a big conversation piece. Region one area commission on transportation. We had a presentation I may have covered at the last meeting, but just upcoming summer maintenance and repairs for the summer. I will try to bring some of that back for conversation at the next meeting. And then I wanna thank the council and city staff and all the community members that came out for the meet and greet for the two chief candidates. It was a really great turnout, I thought. There was a lot of great dialogue and conversation being had with the two candidates as well as with the public. And so, As Randy said, we have an offer extended, so we'll see where we go with from that. That is all that I have right now. We'll start with Councilor Stearns. Do you have anything, sir?

I went to the Canby Tutility Board meeting. The main thing that stuck out to me there is that they're related with the charging station online. They were talking about exactly what rate to charge for that. And then there's some questions about how much they could legally charge based on the city charter. The... I was just gonna tell everybody that I wasn't gonna be here for the July 8th meeting, because I had a previous vacation planned. And just to respond to the mayor earlier, I don't really necessarily, all the fees don't have to represent the cost. For me, the idea is that if you don't have a, increase every year, you are effectively voting for a decrease in the fee. So anything that hasn't been raised for 10 years and we vote to keep it that way, we're voting to reduce the fee, not to keep it going. And that's just my whole thing about that is that I have to explain to my clients all the time, inflation's a real thing and you have to really plan it and put it into your plans.

Perfect. Thank you, sir. Mr. Davis. Thank you. No liaison reports, just I would like to ask the citizens of Cambie as we approach July 4th to pay attention to what's going on up in Washington right now. The Upper River Fire, they've lost multiple houses as well as a death caused by a wildfire man caused. So as we get into the 4th of July, you know, it is lining up to be a very, very, very dry 4th of July potentially. And even if we did get some rain, it's not gonna have an impact on the vegetation. So as the fire agencies have asked for your cooperation to come over and enjoy the fireworks display at Trost Elementary, and even safe and sane fireworks can cause arborvitaes to go up very quickly and spread to a fence and to a house. And so please really, really think about this year, whether or not you even need to buy safe and sane fireworks and come over to Trost Elementary and watch the fireworks display, because this could be a very dangerous year. And I've lived up in that neighborhood that just got wiped out up in Spokane. And it was caused by fire. an open campfire, essentially, that destroyed the houses. But there's other multiple fires that are burning up in Washington State and Oregon State, as you know, is under an emergency declaration as we speak throughout the rest of the summer fire season. So please be careful. Thank you, sir. Council President Hensley.

Just one item for the Traffic Safety Commission. We are one person short, and so we are taking applications. I know of somebody who inquired. I don't know. Did we get an application yet from someone? I'm not sure. I'd have to check and see. Okay. Well, I had an inquiry at least. So anyway, there's a position open on the Traffic Safety Commission. So if you're interested in all things traffic, then consider applying. That's all I have.

Councilor Patton.

Yes, so I was not able to get to the planning commission meeting last time, and the Heritage Landmarks Commission is on hiatus for the summer. I did want to say I did attend the chief meeting, and I thought they were both very good candidates, and so I'm glad we're moving forward with that. Okay. To piggyback on what Councillor Davis was saying, the press release went out that no more campfires or backyard fires in the city. So please make sure not to do that. At least like wood fires and stuff. I'm sure little propane fire pits and stuff controlled is just fine. But the big one is I did attend Pride in the Park this weekend. It was a fantastic event. There was a ton of people. It gets bigger every year. They had three or four different food vendors and they had a bunch of craft folks and advocates for the LGBTQ plus community. And so it's always a pleasure to go to that and see those folks and welcome them to Canby. So that is all I have for my report.

Great, thank you, sir. Another opportunity for citizen input. Seeing none, Ms. Benham, action review.

You have approved the consent agenda, adopted ordinance number 1676. There was a lot of discussion and motion around resolution 1459 to table it to a later date. There was also approved all fees related to the sewer cemetery and fees set by the state and other agencies, including the parks maintenance fee. adopted resolution numbers 1457, 1458, 1460, 1461, and 1462.

This meeting always is. America to vote twice.

Make a special note in the minutes for that.

Great. There's nothing else. I will take a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

I've got to move in a second. Second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. One opposition from Councilor Davis.

Really? Oh, my God. All right.

Can't be. Good night. Thank you.