City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, Kami. Welcome to our July 15th, 2026 regular meeting. If you please stand for the invocation and then the Pledge of Allegiance. Father, thank you so much for so many things. I can't even list the things that I'm thankful for. I appreciate the grace that you give us. Give me the protection you provide for the city of Canby and just the amazing people that make up our community to do some of the heavy lifting that goes on in our community to make sure that others are served. I just ask that you continue to bless our community, bless our volunteers, our first responders, and the leaders of our community to do right by its citizens. I ask these things in your name. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Ms. Teresa, roll call, please.

Councilor Waterman?

Here.

Councilor Stearns?

Here.

Councilor Davis is absent. Mayor Hodson?

I am here.

Council President Hensley? Here. Councilor Maldonado?

Here.

Councilor Patton?

Present on the line. Great, thank you. Staff introductions, real quick. I wanna welcome Jamie Stickle, who is our economic development director. She's sitting in for our interim city manager. He wanted to go on vacation or something, and I guess we approved it. So yeah, so thank you for sitting in tonight, and we'll try to be courteous. Take it easy on you.

Wonderful. How can we hear any different?

Yeah. And then also, if Interim Chief Gonzalez would stand up and say hello. As you know, Chief Trow retired last week, and so our Interim Chief will be holding down the fort there at this police station with all the men and women there to keep us safe and sound. So thank you, sir, for stepping into that role. All right. Next on the agenda is citizen input and public comment on non-agenda items or community announcements. So an opportunity to address the council on non-agenda items. If you have something, please fill out a white card on the podium there, behind there, out back. And then bring it to the city recorder. And then you can address the council for up to three minutes on that. Anything that's not on the agenda? I have no white cards, so I'm presuming unless there's somebody that wants to race up and do that now. All right, seeing none, I will move on to item five, which is a proclamation for Zordler Lutheran Church and Canby Kiwanis community. So it's community support and volunteer appreciation proclamation. Whereas Zora Lutheran Church has been part of the Canby community since 1892. Whereas the Kiwanis Club of Canby has been part of the Canby community since 1938. Whereas members of both organizations in cooperation provided a weekly free dinner for anyone in the Canby community since July 14th of 2011. Whereas over 75,000 hot meals have been served over the past 15 years. It's amazing. Whereas these volunteers have provided 25,000 hours of service to our community through this program over the past 15 years. And whereas both organizations are committed to this ministry and service to the Canby community by continuing to provide hot food and warm fellowship to anyone in need each Tuesday from 5 to 6 p.m. at Zoar Lutheran Church. Now, therefore, as mayor of Canby and on behalf of the citizens of our community, I offer our sincere appreciation and thanks to the dozens of volunteers and donors that have provided so much to our neighbors that need a little extra food and companionship, and to Zora Lutheran Church and the Kiwanis Club of Canby for supporting these volunteers for the past 15 years and for many, many more years to come. given under my hand this 15th day of July, 2026 in the city of Canby, Oregon. And I think we have Lori Carmen and Barbara Kendall here to receive this tonight.

I think everybody else that helps and comes to the dinner needs to stand up. And Chris?

Come on.

I think I see who's in charge.

Great.

Everybody that helps at the dinner needs to stand up.

We're not the only ones. Stand up.

It's... Just talking to it? It's been an honor to serve. Bob and Sally Boonstra started the dinner 15 years ago, and I think they had like 30 or so people attending. And now we have 130 or up to 150 attending. It's free. We have lots of donations, which are appreciated. And it's just a fun time. I look forward to Tuesday nights. And I think all of my... other people would say the same thing. We just feel good about it. We have a good time. And it's gotten, when we started, we served mostly, or a good share, Hispanic families. And that's changed over the years. And now it's gotten to be very social. People sit at the same tables each week and visit and talk. just have a good time, so it's an honor to be doing this.

Thank you very much. Thank you, we appreciate it so much, and I know it's, that number, 75,000 meals served is very, very impressive, so.

Mayor, real quick, I just, I did the quick math on it, that's 104 meals a week. That's a lot. That's a lot.

Good job, guys.

So thank you very, very much, appreciate it, great job. Now, you're more than welcome to stay the whole rest of the meeting if you'd like, or I can give a momentary pause, and you can make your way out if you wish. Thanks, David.

Enjoy a summer evening. Yeah. We're not that excited.

I don't know. We've got a couple of good topics tonight.

Well, you said it gets spicier.

Little time.

Little time to rest up.

I would have never said it was rest.

I know. I know your wife. It was not rest.

All right. So item six. I don't think there's any items that we're looking to move from the consent agenda. So we will. Well, there's only one item on the consent agenda. Go right into the consent agenda.

So Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda that includes the approval of the June 17, 2026 City Council meeting minutes.

Second. The motion has been made by Council President Hensley and seconded by Councilor Maldonado to approve the consent agenda, which include the June 17th, 2026 City Council meeting minutes. Any discussion or comment? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Seeing none, that passes 5-0. I don't think we have any appointments this evening. There are no public hearings. We have a slew of heavy hitting ordinances and resolutions. So 10A is considering ordinance number 1674, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to enter an agreement effective until June 30th, 2029. with a not to exceed amount of $437,192.95 between the city of Canby and Lucy Hill. Did I say that right? Hi, excuse me. Our city prosecutor first reading. And...

Good evening, Mayor and City Council, Maya Benham, Administrative Director and City Recorder. I'm here with Jessica Roberts, Court Supervisor, and Ms. Lucy Heil, our City Prosecutor. You may recall we were before you last May because Ms. Heil's contract exceeded 50K and we needed council approval. This year, we're bringing her contract back, proposing to extend it up to three years and also include an annual cost of living COLA increase, similar to how city management receives the COLA increase, but not to exceed 5%. This 26-27 year the contract would increase a total of $2,175 and it's been budgeted. The contract has a not to exceed amount of $437,192.95 for the entire initial term which goes to 2029 and with the option to renew to 2032. Ms. Heil's been our city prosecutor, as you well know, from 2020, and is in good standing. We really appreciate Ms. Heil and the work that she brings to the municipal court and to the community of Canby. With your approval, council, we look forward to continuing this contract with Ms. Heil, and we're here for any questions.

Yes, Councilor Stearns. I was, I mean, and maybe just me being kind of dense, but I was, so three years, $437,000. So that comes out to about... $145,731. A year. So that's what the contract's for, because I was reading the contract, and maybe I just read it too quickly, but is that what it says per year on it?

So it's an initial three-year term to 2029 plus the option, if all goes well, to extend for another three years under the exact same terms of the contract. So the not to exceed number is worst case scenario, not worst case scenario, best case scenario. It goes for the initial term and the renewal term. So the language in the contract is that in no event will it exceed that amount of money over both the initial term and the renewal term.

And the renewal terms.

Yes, but each year is going to be an amount definite based on what the CPI is. So it's not possible to get to that entire amount within two years, three years, four years. It would take the entire six years. Six years. So it's a three-year...

to six-year contract? Yes. Okay, that's what I was getting because I was looking at that number.

So the 437 could be for six years. The 437 could only be reached over a period of six years. Gotcha, okay.

Makes the number a lot different.

I know that's a little bit confusing with how we titled everything, so I'll be kind of revamping that for the second reading. Okay.

Any questions or comments at all on this one? I just think the language could be revamped a little bit, that's about it. Okay. Okay.

I'll take a motion.

Okay, Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve ordinance number 1674, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to enter into an agreement effective June 30, 2029. effective bond. Until 2029, sorry. With a not to exceed amount of $437,192.95 between the City of Canobie and Lucy Heil, City Prosecutor, to a second reading on August 5, 2026. Second.

All right, motion to be made by Council President Hensley and seconded by Councilor Waterman to approve ordinance number 1674, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to enter into an agreement effective until June 30th, 2029, with a not to exceed amount of $437,192.95. Between the city of Canby and Lucey Hill, Ohio, city prosecuted to a second reading on August 5th of 2026. Any further comment or discussion?

Yes. Just maybe a question is, and reading through it, it's based on a certain number of hours and workload that's expected per week. Yeah, so but if for some reason there would be next six years or five years an increase in the amount of work the court was doing, at that point we would need to redo the contract because I guess I understand since we took over misdemeanors, there was a higher workload. And so I'm wondering if that's projected to increase or have we kind of leveled off on it?

Yeah, because current work levels are reflected in the scope of services attached to the contract. If the service level needed to be expanded, then we would have to amend the scope of services, which would be amending the entire contract as well and would probably open up discussions about compensation on top of it.

Okay, so...

So the current amount of money in terms are based on the services described in the scope of the... So right now, there would be a trigger...

Because my fear is a scenario where a higher workload was needed, but since we're only paying for a certain number of hours, then the work would be done, so to speak. That's my, I guess, the fear in the back of my mind. I don't know if there's any flexibility or arrangement for being able to report and say, okay, now we've got twice as many misdemeanors to do than we did earlier, and then is now... the case resolution gonna be twice as long, or is there gonna be a trigger to revisit the issue?

I would suspect that if the three-year option, if there was an increase in the workload, that would be the time to have that conversation. Again, like the number is right now based on six, but like I was saying, coming... somewhat tongue-in-cheek was, you know, we're leasing for three years with an option to buy for three more. But, you know, so if the workload changes at the three-year...

Right before the three-year. The thing I want to be monitoring is case resolution time because I think that would be the sacrifice to be made if we're only going to pay for some number of hours.

I wouldn't expect case resolution to increase. I would just expect the amount of hours to increase if our workload increased. Okay, and at that point we would come back.

in the same amount of time. Okay, yeah. So in that case, do we just... Okay. That was just... Did you want to come up?

You most certainly can. We are addressing your contract, yes.

No, we don't want any... We'll get a chair.

Yes, thank you.

Physical chairs. Thank you very much for entertaining this. I just wanted to speak to you, Councillor Stearns, and to everyone. I will get the work done. I don't base... how much work I do on hours in a day. If the work demand increases, I expect to address the work demand regardless of how much time it takes. In the next three years, I wouldn't be asking for additional compensation based on an increase in workload. if that helps at all. I wouldn't stop doing my job because I had too much work or requesting additional compensation at that time. I will do what needs to be done to get the work done is what I'm trying to say. If it takes longer, it takes longer, but that is my goal is to do whatever comes my way in the best way I can. Okay.

You know, you've always been a consummate professional.

Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you. I just wanted to try to assuage your concerns. No, that's good.

That's good, yeah. And just for the record, I did look her up on the bar. I'm sure you did. No complaints or anything.

Okay. So it's good. Hey, we are dutiful doing our research. Councilor Patton, comment, question?

Yeah, I guess from my perspective, if the workload was to shift dramatically, then essentially it would be in violation of the contract and would trigger re-evaluation of the contract anyways. So... I guess, to me, that sort of mechanism is already built into all of this, based on any other contract process we utilize here in the city. Okay, agreed.

That's fair. All right.

Can I make a motion?

Sure. Okay.

Actually, we have a motion. We have a motion and a second. You seconded it, Paul. I thought it was for the last one. Sorry.

That's okay.

I guess then any other comment? If not, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Next up is 10B, ordinance number 1675, an ordinance of the City of Canby, Oregon, amending title 10 of the Canby Municipal Code to add chapter 10.13, regulating the operation of electric-assisted bicycles, motor-assisted scooters, or e-scooters, electric personal-assisted mobility devices, and vehicles manufactured for off-road use and declaring an emergency. And I think we've got Interim Police Chief Gonzalez and Police Captain James Murphy.

Mayor and council members and acting city administrator, obviously support staff. If I may, before we go through this process, I'd like to make a short statement for about 30 seconds. Is that cool?

Absolutely.

I just want to thank you first for the nice introduction earlier about being interim chief of police for the Tampa Police Department. And I just want to say it's a tremendous honor and privilege to to be serving as the interim chief of the department in our community. My priority as the interim chief, it will be to support our employees and to maintain a high level of police services for our community, local business, and nonprofit organizations in the city. I also like to say that I appreciate very much from the bottom of my heart your confidence and support and for me being as an interim chief of the police department. With that all said, I think I'm going to have Captain Murphy. He's done a tremendous work on this ordinance. He's been researching it along with having an assistant city attorney. I'll have him to... I'm happy to answer some of the questions and I see the same with them, so.

Yes, good evening. Good evening, sir. All right. Sir, as you pointed out, the purpose of the ordinance is to regulate electric-assisted bicycles, motorized scooters, electric scooters, electric personal-assisted mobility device, which is quite a mouthful, and vehicles not authorized for use on roadways. The reason for that is public safety. The reason for that is reducing conflict in our community spaces. I don't take adding additional law lightly or ordinance in this case. I don't like restrictions against people's freedoms, but at the same time, we are seeing a drastic increase in incidents, accidents, injuries, violations due to the rapid influx of this new technology with no regulation. The ordinance would be not replacing the Oregon Vehicle Code. It would be supplementing the Oregon Vehicle Code. And Mrs. Benham was kind enough to put together a slideshow for me, which is illustrated by this lovely chat GPT photo to start off with. But moving on into the numbers, I'd like to show you guys some of the reasoning behind this, if you'd be so kind to add. I have access, I have never used this before, so. Scary, all right. I'm gonna see if I can not mess this up. So if you wanna look at the local statistics, the local statistics coming from the Oregon Health Authority. So according to the Oregon Health Authority, between 2021, 2025, looking at the numbers, you can see that the injuries in the state of Oregon have increased from 211, excuse me, 2021, And to only nine months of 2025 is up to 509 injuries. So every year it's increasing quite rapidly. I don't have the numbers for the complete of 2025, but it is a drastic increase, more than doubling, likely tripling the numbers from 2021 as far as injuries. As noted by Dr. Wright, they're not minor injuries, they're not scrapes. Frequently, they're head injuries, broken bones, and serious trauma. Those are the things that are being captured. If you want to look into the more serious end of it, the fatalities, 17 deaths by e-scooters or motorized, excuse me, e-scooters or motorized scooter use. If you look at the numbers, seven of those out of 17 occurred in 2025. That's 41%. So again, the numbers are increasing drastically due to the influx of this technology and the increased use in our communities. We're not alone. We're not on an island. If you look at the numbers nationally, it's kind of staggering. It breaks it down into the self-balancing scooters, e-scooters. But overall, the number of injuries are catastrophic here. You're looking at almost, well, over half a million, almost three quarters of a million injuries from 2017 to 2024. and then breaking it down into the reported fatalities. Obviously, it's tragic. I don't want to see these things happen in our community. We've been quite fortunate. Unfortunately, we've had one very serious injury which required hospitalization, which was a near miss and could have very easily been a fatality of a child on an electric scooter on Highway 99E. One of our neighboring municipalities has had three catastrophic injuries requiring hospitalization due to electric vehicle use. It's the manner in which these devices are used which lacks regulation. There is some regulation in it in the Oregon Revised Statutes. Like I said under the Oregon Vehicle Code, what we're hoping to do is to supplement that. And I don't want to put you guys to sleep by going into the weeds too much. I would say with the supplementation it's going to address the behavior of these devices within our community and it's going to give the police the opportunity once the education component has been pushed in because let me back up a little bit. Our goal isn't to initially go out and start writing citations for this right out of the gate. What we've been trying to do since the end of this last school year when this was really brought to our attention is education. So using the schools, using our social media, we've been pushing out message about the legalities of these and the proper usage of them and who should be using them. So we've already begun that messaging. If an ordinance was passed, we would continue that messaging. We would provide information through our social media of the police department. We would request it as well of the city of Canby websites, as well as using our school resource officers and the connections they have to bring that information to the students and to the students' parents. So our goal is education. If the education isn't successful, then we would move into potential citations of the violators. one of the portions of the ordinance would allow us to cite parents. So when we're talking about very young kids, 11 years and younger, there would be no citations going to children. The citations would be going to the parents, which I think as parents we can all agree would be... appropriate for a child of that age. When the children start getting older, 12 and up, it becomes a discretionary matter to the police officer to then cite the offender or the parents, not both, but one or the other. Having quite rambunctious siblings, I'm aware that teenagers can oftentimes do things without their parents' knowledge, find ways to circumvent the rules, getting quite creative. So in some cases, it might be the child that's responsible, not the parent. But very often, hopefully, if the parents are doing their job, they're going to restrict these behaviors and prevent these things from happening. Do I have any questions? I believe you guys. Yes, sir.

So I actually do have a couple questions just kind of based on what you've spoken on thus far. Citing the parents is absolutely a great idea. I think parents should be held more accountable for their children anyways. However, if you go to cite the children, how... What would that entail for the children? Obviously, there's no monetary citation. You can really give a child. So what would you propose on that?

Well, depending upon the age, it can be a referral to the juvenile department. So it depends upon the age of the child. But oftentimes, referrals to the juvenile department in the form of citations come with... I'm forgetting the word. Diversion. Thank you. A presumptive diversion for the populations. So oftentimes that would be the case depending upon the age of the child.

Okay. The other thing I would have a major question with is what classification of e-bikes? Because I know the majority of the ones that we're talking about are the ones that look like dirt bikes. Yes, sir. They're phenomenally fast. The only reason why I ask that is because my son has a mountain bike one. Mitch just has a little motor on it. It goes 15 miles an hour. He wears his gear. He wears everything. He knows to stay in the bike lanes. How are we classifying what we're actually intending this to go for? Yeah, absolutely. And on the flip side of that, my father also has a motorized scooter. So I'm looking at all of that.

Ends of life.

Yeah. Yeah.

So some of that's already covered by the Oregon by Statutes of the Oregon Vehicle Code. So if you look at the definitions, you can move down to the definition for a vehicle manufactured for off-road use. If it doesn't have pedals on it, that's the category it's going to fall into. Okay. If it's an electric bike, and I say that with air quotes because oftentimes that's what people refer to them, and they don't have pedals, it's an electric motorcycle. It's really going to fall into this category, which there is no authorization for use in our roadways in the state of Oregon. So that would be a violation immediately already. As far as the bicycles, it's going to fall into one of the three categories, the Class 1, Class 2, or Class 3. And then, of course, the vehicle code is going to determine what ages are appropriate for the uses of those. Our definitions mirror the definitions per the Oregon Vehicle Code. So for the Class 1 starting in January, it's going to be 14 years of age and up. For the Class 2 and 3, it's going to be 16 years and up. Okay. For the scooters, it's going to be 14 and up starting in January. Okay.

Yeah, I vaguely remember Baker Prairie launching and doing kind of a soft launch on this. Officer Rollers obviously spoke with all the kids and everything about it. And I kid you not, not even a week later, there were seven more e-bikes just parked in the bike rack. Absolutely. So I'm sitting here going, just confiscate the bikes at this point. All right. That touched all of them. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. I appreciate it. Yes, sir.

One of my concerns... that I've always kind of had and something that's kind of missing from the statistics is what are the... I would assume that the e-bikes have maybe a greater accident rate than regular bicycles, but as a frequent pedestrian, I don't see the big difference being hit by an electric bicycle versus a regular bicycle. And I'm wondering how the operation of non-motorized bicycles It's treated differently than the electric pedal-assist bicycles. Are the pedal-assist bicycles being treated just as another bicycle, or is this going to be more than that as compared to motor versus non-motor bicycle?

That's a good question. It's different. The Oregon Vehicle Code covers bicycles pretty extensively as well, and it classifies these differently, and I think that's due to the sheer speed and the maintainable speed of the devices. If you look at the speeds listed for the class one, class two, and class three, 28 miles per hour, I don't know if you guys have experienced this, but on a platform that's very close to the ground, it's pretty darn quick. And I think the challenge with that that compounds it is the fact that they are not experienced drivers. who are operating them. These are kids. They're people that haven't had drivers at training. They haven't had any formal requirement to take a driver's test. So they don't understand the rules of the road and they don't understand the physics necessarily of vehicle operation in a roadway. And so we're taking our youth who don't have any of those experiences, we're increasing the speeds with this new technology, and I think that's where the challenges are coming from. They aren't yielding at stop signs, they aren't providing notification for turns, they're not riding on the right side of the roadway oftentimes, and that's where some of these injuries are occurring. Yeah.

So basically you're saying this is primarily geared towards the youth. Am I understanding correctly?

Yes, sir. So if you notice, a lot of it is applied to the youth as far as the age and the actual age that they can start using them. There are absolutely adults who use electric bikes. From my experience in the time that electric, excuse me, assisted bikes have been around because I can say the motorized version of bicycles or assisted bicycles have been around for quite some time. We haven't seen the injuries or the inconvenience or the complaints from communities because oftentimes those were adults riding them. And now, because of this cheaper, newer technology, there are a lot of youth writing them, and I think that's where a lot of the challenges are coming from. Okay, but adults would have the same... Rules of responsibility, absolutely.

Yes, as children, yeah.

The code is covering the usage across the board. So a big part of the usage is an age requirement. But then the behavior while operating them is going to apply to adults, children, everyone across the board, with the exception of things like helmet laws, right? Adults are old enough they can make those decisions at the age of 18. Children are going to be required to wear them. But outside of those helmet laws, the behavior requirements are going to be the same for a juvenile or an adult.

And currently you don't have to wear a helmet if you're a kid on a regular bicycle?

So 16 and under for a regular bicycle in the state of Oregon.

You have to.

So there's no difference on... The headgear. So the proposal and the ordinance would actually bring it up to 18 for the electric devices. Okay, but keep it at 16 for the non-electric bikes? There is no addressing of bicycles in this part of the ordinance.

Okay. Yeah, my thoughts when reading this and going over this is, It would be nice if it was consistent on all two-wheeled vehicles to make it simpler to know the rules and maybe for the police officers to, you know, they're going to look at the, you know, whether it has a motor. Because some of these electric assist bicycles, it's not, I mean, you can tell, but it's not readily apparent, you know, as with the motorized bicycles. Yeah. Anyway, those are kind of my thoughts, whether it's consistent for all of them or not. And then we also have our city code chapter 12, which deals with some bicycles as well. And I was interested in the integration of this with the electric versus non-electric. But I don't know if that's more for the discussion section or questions. No, I mean it's... Oh, one more question. Fair question. How often does or has in the past the Canby Police Department issued citations towards people on... motorized bicycles or non-motorized bicycles. Is it common for the city of Canberra to issue citations?

We definitely did one. The 11-year-old girl that crashed into a truck. Officer issued a citation to the parents. The specific is about a month ago. We have done that. Our main purpose right now, obviously, we see kids using this bike. It's very popular, sometimes in groups, and it creates a hazard to them and to others. And I think by educating them, the parents and the kids, it's going to help prevent a serious accident to a pedestrian or to the kids themselves riding the bike.

And then the other question I was asked is how is this going to apply? I saw streets, sidewalks and stuff mentioned, but like the logging trail, I wasn't sure when I was reading this how that would apply to logging trails and the general rules about helmets and stuff. It's not really, it's not a sidewalk, but it's not a street.

So it's right. So the logging trail is a park as far as the state of Oregon is concerned. So surely it's going to cover sidewalks, park boardwalks, which could be applicable to the logging trail. But there is a rough edge on the logging trail as well. So arguably, could you then be on the rough edge of the logging road? as you're traveling across it. Or other public properties designed for pedestrian use. Now the logging road, it's kind of dual use. We see bicycles up there and we see pedestrians up there. By this definition, I think park boardwalk could be applicable. But I think that's possible if you would use the outside edges of the logging road. So I think there is a usable portion of the park that they could be used, keeping the paved, clear portion open for pedestrians, if I'm interpreting it properly.

Well, I'm just wondering how, because we're still changing the recipe at this point if we wanted to apply. But I have been a frequent traveler along the logging road. The bikes do come up. whether they're electric or not electric, come up pretty fast. And let's say most people, they'll ride around you or warn you. But I think it's an interesting issue on whether somebody who can get an e-bike can use that e-bike on the logging trail or not and whether we want that to be the case.

We discussed this quite a bit last night at the Bike and Pet Committee. We were reviewing the ordinance as well. It had come up about the multi-use part of the logging trail, but it is a multi-use trail. The same rules would apply whether you're on the street or whether you're on the trail, is making sure that you're following the signs. It says in the ordinance that if you're gonna pass somebody, you have to give a verbal or an audible warning that you're making the pass, et cetera. So all those things are technically still viable, whether it's on a logging trail. Also, there's some gray area in the parking lot public or private open areas, like parking lots, like Fred Meyer's parking lot, et cetera, even though it's not public and it's kind of private, but it's open to the public. So, you know, those type of things where there's a little less enforcement, but there's still expectations of following the rules and, you know, et cetera. So there's a lot of talk on those type of things at the committee. Yes, sir.

Just one more quick question. You had mentioned earlier, obviously, we're not just going to go gung-ho and start citing everybody. What are your plans for education on it?

Excellent question. I'm going to go back a little bit further and say that if it's an egregious offense, we most definitely could cite someone out of the gate if the ordinance is passed. Of course. But that's not the goal. The goal... like I say, to just educate first because we just want people to comply because our goal is the safety of the community. Our goal is to push it out through every means we have available to us. Obviously, city council meetings, we're broadcasting, so our public's becoming aware more now than they were previously. We're going to be using the avenues and resources our school resource officers have available to us because I think that's the big audience. That's the group of people we're really concerned about.

Mm-hmm.

that where we see it's being, where I should say they are being abused in potentially hazardous ways We'll be using our social media and I believe we'll be able to put it on our website as well. I would request that the City of Canby also mirrors us and provides that information, not just on the police side. We've got a great partnership with the Fire District. I would love to talk to the Fire District about sharing this information as well because it's a community issue and they are the ones that are going to be showing up if there is some sort of catastrophic injury to a child or they're transporting them. I think all of our community partners would definitely chip in and help get the information out that, hey, we have new rules and we need to make sure that people are abiding by them. And we would use all of those avenues.

I just, to add a little bit to that, I would also, I'd probably search some sort of an avenue of some sort of temporary signage stating intent on what's going on, what's to be expected of e-bikes, something stating, you know, e-bikes with riders ages group restricted or whatever. Just something to be visible whenever we can be. Yeah, no, that's an excellent point. Yeah.

Yes, thank you. I think that this is a good first pass at how we're going to evaluate and tackle this. This technology is changing rapidly, and I foresee us having to revisit this from time to time in order to make the necessary updates. Case in point, it's been mentioned about pedal assist bikes and ones that have limiters and stuff on them. There is information readily available online on how to hack into these machines, how to remove the limiters, how to boost them so they go faster. So even though it might be a pedal assist bike, it can very easily be turned into something that will go much faster than what it was ever intended to be done. be going by the manufacturer's specifications. And I also dare say that if someone is able to get a pedal bike, a regular pedal bicycle, up to some of the speeds that these are, then they need to enter the Tour de France tomorrow because they will surely win it. It is very difficult to do that unless you're going down a significant slope, from what I understand. The other thing I think that is important for people to remember is that while we are putting this in place, this does not mean that it can't be police. We're going to get that officers are going to be patrolling the logging trail road or essentially clamping down on this in any significant way. This is a tool for, I see this more as a tool for when people are complaining or when both, just like lights, They are not going to be dedicating 100% of their time to catching kids on e-bikes or teenagers or adults on e-bikes who are violating this rule. So I think that is a good expectation to put out there for folks as we roll this out.

May I? You may, sir. That is 100% accurate. So our first job is to reduce crime and the fear of crime, to protect the public. This definitely falls into the protection of public, but we have many jobs that we must do on a daily basis. I will say that oftentimes things jump out in front of us when we're out on patrol, when we're out doing our job. things happen and when we see kids or adults or people who are committing the violations, we will contact them and we'll attempt to educate them first. So it's absolutely right. We're not gonna make a goal and a mission of going out and trying to enforce this ordinance. It's an additional tool that will help us out. As the counselor pointed out, we receive complaints. So when we receive those complaints, we can then make contacts and provide that information. If we happen to witness or see something, again, our goal is to provide that information. I don't believe any officer I know within our agency wants to be punitive against anybody in our community. That's not the goal. But our goal is to keep everybody safe. And, you know, at some point we may have to issue the citations, but out of the gate, definitely not. And, yes, like I said, we have bigger fish to fry on a daily basis than e-bike riders, unless it's a call that comes in.

And as far as the police department, we have a lot of – a few community engagement – situations like the back rodeo. We got little kids, but it's a time for us because we're in a friendly environment to educate the public, educate the kids. The grill and chill, we get a lot of kids over there. We can have officer educating, have any opportunity we can when it's a friendly environment with people having fun to educate the public. Having this ordinance will help us to educate the families, the parents, and the kids.

This is an interesting, it is, the technology. I mean, I've seen this a lot over the years. And so initially, I think we were just trying to make sure that logging trail and sidewalks were safe for pedestrians. And here we are, we're talking about You know, as you started Captain Murphy with, like, I want to impinge on rights and, you know, whatnot. And so this is an interesting path that we have to kind of look at and take. I mean, I go back to when. I was a kid, and it was 10 or 12 of us on our bikes wheeling through the neighborhood or through, you know, whatever convenient mart we were going through the parking lot. Then it became skateboards and, you know, the little skater punks on the sidewalks, and I being one of those, you know, and using anything and everything to jump off of or whatever, and rules and regulations get made and put into place. So... Yeah, I get the safety component for sure. I wanna make sure we're not being punitive and I don't wanna make sure that we're not being preventative of being able to use these items, but at the same time, what's the balance between that and safety? So that's my interesting tidbit on it. Council President Hensley?

Well, I am all for this. Seeing many posts on the lovely Facebook, I know that this is an issue in our whole city. But I did want to... say that I did speak with a constituent last night whose kids own these and he is all for it. And he thinks that the parents should be held accountable. And given that, I think any responsible community member wouldn't have a problem with this. If you're doing right, it's not gonna affect you. So I'm all for passing this.

You know, and to touch on that, a lot of this stems from the fact that these new e-bikes that are out, they're actually dirt bikes. They are dirt bikes that are just electric. That's all they are. And that's what you're seeing a lot of on the road nowadays. I mean, you do see the electric mountain bikes and electric bicycles, but these are going 15, maybe 20 miles an hour on a good day downhill with a strong wind behind it. But these electric dirt bikes, I saw it firsthand 4th of July. They're zipping through the streets, doing wheelies down the streets in the dark. And these are black bikes, and these kids are wearing dark clothes. And it's just asking for problems.

Any other questions for Captain Murphy or Chief? Yes, sorry.

Actually, I don't. wait till we do comments. I don't have any more questions. Did you have another question?

No, it would be safe for discussion. Yes, Emily.

Just a process matter. So we've been working on this up till tonight. So I think you have two copies of Exhibit A that are perhaps different than what was published in the packet in front of you. The two copies are the same, looks like. One just shows red lines in my comments. The other is the clean version that I think you threw together based on that. Yep. So what staff is proposing is the hard copy with you tonight, not the copy in the packet. And the differences are a bit of a tweak to a couple of definitions to align with the vehicle code, and then a tweak to the age restriction section to also align with the vehicle code. And then I'll just quickly say on that point, as Captain Murphy said, a lot of this is just a reflection of what's already a violation under state law. So what this proposal is doing is flushing it out to make it more applicable to the conditions that Canby is experiencing. So PD already has the ability to cite offenses under the vehicle code.

So this coffee here.

Point it towards me a little more. Yes, that's it. Those are, the two are the same. It's just the red line one is a little messier and the pretty one is prettier. So let's look at that one.

Okay. Council President Hensley, then.

I do have one final question. There's an e-clause on this. I'll pass it up. What's the reason for the emergency clause?

Yes, ma'am. So the statistics that I brought you at the beginning of the presentation are the reason. We're seeing a drastic increase in the injuries and fatalities. I want to get ahead of the curve. I want to be able to push this information out sooner than later. I would like to be able to provide this information at the next major community event. I would like to be able to provide the ordinance at the very least at the beginning of the school year. I look at it as an opportunity to provide a chance to stop kids from getting injured or potentially worse.

I don't have a problem with that. I just wanted that on the record. Fair enough. Okay. With that, Mr. Mayor, I move to approve ordinance number 1675, an ordinance of the city of Canby, Oregon, amending Title 10 of the Canby Municipal Code to add Chapter 10.13, regulating the operation of electric-assisted bicycles, motor-assisted scooters, or e-scooters, electric personal-assisted mobility devices, and vehicles manufactured for off-road use, to a second reading on August 5th, 2026, the version presented tonight, and declaring an emergency.

Second.

Okay, motion has been made by Council President Hensley and seconded by Councilor Maldonado to approve ordinance number 1675, an ordinance of the City of Canby, Oregon, amending Title 10 of the Canby Municipal Code to add chapter 10.13, regulating the operation of electric-assisted bicycles, motor-assisted scooters or e-scooters, electric personal-assisted mobility devices, and vehicles manufactured for off-road use and declaring an emergency. Any further discussion or comment? Councillor Stearns?

Okay. So this is... I'm very much in favor of having an ordinance and in favor of the way it is written, so I don't want to take this the wrong way. Plus, what comments I said earlier, I'm much in favor of people getting warnings first for a while before getting citations. My issues I have... with it is having a particular job of trying to interpret enforced vaguely written laws sometimes or contradictory laws that do that on a daily basis. I'd like to see if it's possible to maybe do some clarifications in this that might make it a better law. The first thing refers to the logging trail. You know, under section 10, 13, 30, it says no person is gonna operate an electric bicycle or motorcycling scooter. Number two, on a sidewalk, park, motor walk, other property that's designated for pedestrian use. I'm thinking it might be good to have some sort of line three or something that either says it's okay to ride one of them on the logging trail or not on the logging trail. That's sort of our little... multi-purpose and to take the ambiguity about whether that's allowed or not. So that's one of the things that I think could be useful. So you're suggesting an all or nothing like either it's... No, I'm suggesting that something be descriptive of what's allowed on the logging trail since that's sort of a unique thing and can be that may... The way it's written right now, you said, well, it could be considered a boardwalk or might not.

So what you're saying is you're thinking there should be another line item stating or removing the logging trail from those stipulations.

Or just saying what is allowed on the logging trail. So on the logging... notwithstanding section one or two or whatever, on the logging trail, e-bikes are allowed or not allowed or whatever category we have on there. So that's a little bit more clear of what is allowed.

I think in order to do that, we have to have a clear designation of what the logging trail actually is. We discussed it tonight that it can be considered or construed as kind of multiple things here. So we would have to first define the logging trail as to what it actually is.

Or in the ordinance itself, we can say on the logging trail because we can make it that specific that says on the logging trail, this is what the rule is.

I mean, whatever we decide the rule to be. If you do that, though, you have to mandate it through because the state law states one way or the other. So we have to clearly define what the logging trail is. Is that correct or could we carve out our own rules?

We can carve out our own. That's what chapter 12.4, your bicycle, existing bicycle code already does. Carves out specific geographic locations by name.

Okay. So I would suggest having the ambiguity of the logging trail. removed so that it's clear what is allowed and what's not. I would say, my personal opinion would be electric-assisted bicycles, yes. I would say no for the ones that are really motorcycles or whatever. But that would be my particular opinion. But I think it would be easier for enforcement if it was made while we're crafting this so we don't have to go back to ambiguity later. So that's one of the things I think could help this ordinance to make it a little better. The other thing we're talking about, 12 of the city code, which addresses bicycles, skateboards, scooters, and rollerblades. And it has definitions of bicycles there. And I think it could be an opportunity to make sure that is updated. And it's clear that that the definition be updated and clear in 12 that some areas are prohibited, some areas are not prohibited, and maybe say something notwithstanding what's in section 12.4, you know, 12.40 in the current municipal code, that that be made consistent. I personally also think And I don't know if the council wants to entertain this, but I think when we say that on section 10, 13, and 30, no person shall operate an electric assistive mobility device on a sidewalk, all that prohibition, because that's That's sort of the meat of that, and then the restrictions on age are the meat of this, the definitions are the definitions. But I think a regular bicycle should be included on things that are not allowed on sidewalks, or other property that's designated for pedestrian use. I say that from experience. One, walking, I walk regularly all the time in the city of Canby. I commute often to work. And I do dodge bicycles on sidewalks that are going fairly quickly. It doesn't happen often, but it happens often enough to remember the close call where somebody almost runs you over, even on a regular bicycle on a city sidewalk. And so it would be nice to specify that the regular bikes don't go on the sidewalks either. Also, having a while back in my life, my... basically lived on a bicycle in the streets of Europe and over there bikes are just cars, you know, they have the same rules and the same things and if you ride on a sidewalk, it's an immediate citation because we there's places for for walkers and places for for and I also, you know, I've seen I've seen accidents here in Canby with regular bicycles versus cars and stuff, so that happens too. So I'm thinking it might be a little clearer if bicycles were thrown in on a lot of these restrictions about what goes on the sidewalk and not on the sidewalk. And then of course that brings the fact that we have some places allowed sidewalks with bicycles and some not. In the current city, municipal code, and we have a map, the north side of 3rd Street, I'm reading right now, south side of 1st Street, no, 2nd side, and then with the thing that the Safety Commission can choose other places if they want to, which is, I'm reading that, and I'm thinking that that should be sort of coordinated with what we already have in Chapter 12, so... Those are my comments.

I got you. So just to address a couple of things, I think we're convoluting what would be the electric bike issue by trying to weave in bicycle pieces. I agree that the logging trail is designated as a park. We designated that as a park. I mean, five plus years ago, I think. But I do like the idea of having it carved out as a separate. I don't think there should be any motorized vehicles on what is considered the logging trail at all. But that would have to be a carve out, I think, if that's something that the council wants to do.

Council President Hensley and then I'll- To that point, is there not already a sign? I don't know if police can answer this, maybe perhaps Spencer can answer. Isn't there already signage at the entrance at territorial that says no motorized vehicles? There we go. So that tells me, I mean, it's an e-bike, it's electric, it's motorized, it's not allowed on the logging trail. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Yes, Councilor Waterman. I think where some of that comes into from the motorized and the pedal assist, whereas you have a lot of citizens that may have disabilities or aging or etc., where the pedal assist as far as just enough to get the bike going where they can't stand to get it going, but the rest of it is pedaling, but the motor is there just to assist it going. This is where these classes try to designate between what that is versus... you know, a only motorized, you know, device that has a handle or a throttle, et cetera. And so that's where it gets tricky. It came up even, you know, lots of conversations even in the Bike and Ped Committee where, you know, we don't want to discourage the members of the community that still would like to bicycle, but need a little assistance to help to get going versus the ones that are just, you know, cruising down, down the road. And so I think that's where we need to try. We're trying to accommodate.

So then the caveat would be, does the device have a pedal? If it doesn't have pedals. Right. And that's what it says.

And that's what it says. That's the difference between the e-bike and the motorized. bikes without the pedals.

Yeah, I can understand the point on the pedal assist. So I would think that if it doesn't have pedals, it doesn't belong on the logging trail.

I think that would be kind of what I would consider that no motorized vehicles. would kind of follow, I mean, that interpretation. And it did come up in the meeting as well about the logging trail, and that's what section area says, designed for pedestrian use. And about, you know, if it is multi-use for bicycles and pedestrians, that could be confusing to not just educating the community, but the community trying to interpret themselves as well, whether they can take a pedal-assisted bike on the trail or not. So some clarification there could help at least on. And then I would say not just a logging trail, but in the future, really, I would say any multi-use trail that includes bicycles would include pedal-assisted e-bikes.

The way current reading is that the electric assisted bicycle could be considered not eligible for the logging trail because it says electric assisted bicycle is one of the categories of what's prohibited. And I agree with you, I was on the Bike and Pet Committee represented before you were, and so that was the general consensus is that a lot of people with disabilities or weak legs, that helps them get out is the electric assist. And so if we want to do a carve out, I think it'd be a good idea, but it could be a good idea if the council wants it to, but I think it should be specified so that way it's not ambiguous in the future where people are wondering. We could say, I mean, no motorized vehicles Technically means no electric, because it's got a motor on it, right? But in that case, an electric wheelchair would also be prohibited, right? It's got a motor on it.

I think also we can alleviate that with the logging truck infusion with a new sign that could state no non-pedal-assisted motorized vehicles.

We could do that, but it should be in what we're passing.

Yes, no, of course. I'm pretty sure when that sign went up, they were assuming... combustible engine. We weren't really doing electrical vehicles when that sign was put up probably 20 years ago.

Yeah, I would agree. I mean, an update probably wouldn't hurt at all.

Just really quick. The logging road, I see many e-bikes being used by elderly individuals to enjoy the logging road. And we're looking for behavior that is reckless. Somebody's riding an e-bike at a normal speed, giving an announcement, and you're right or you're left with a pedestrian in front of you. That's all right. So I think having e-bikes allowed... especially for people that need it, to enjoy the bugging road and be beneficial for all of us, all residents. I can see the conflict that I think we're looking for safety is that reckless driving or riding the bikes at a high speed or behavior like that.

Essentially, you're wanting to target the reckless behavior more than you are the usage.

Yes. I mean, it's nice to have it. Some people need it. For instance, let's say early couple, one person can do a cyst, but the other can't, but they want to be together and enjoy the logging road. I think it will be, like you suggested earlier, we don't want to infringe people's rights to enjoy themselves. So there's a balance that we gotta walk. So I think that we gotta consider. Does that make sense?

Yeah. And I think that's great if we said electric. Assisted bicycles are allowed on the logging trail as a... Make sure it's clear so that when this passes, it's clear. And if it's clear, then people have an easier time obeying it. And you can throw in something as long as they stay less than 15 miles per hour. I think it's probably getting over 15, 20 miles per hour, even on a regular bike. And people can get 20 miles per hour on a bike. It's the... It'll hurt.

20 miles per hour. Councilor Pat, do you have a comment?

Yeah, I think so I think all these are very valid concerns. And what I would say is this. There is always going to be ambiguity in laws and ordinances and stuff that will be discovered over time and need to be corrected. To me, it has been clear that KMPPD needs something sooner than later to start to address this behavior. And I think that what is being presented tonight is an excellent first pass.

Could there be some corrections?

Yes. But I am for holding this up and getting to the minutiae of details of what is the logging trail and what isn't the logging trail. What is this? What is that? I think we can express those concerns. and they can look into those and then either when it comes time for the second reading or if things come up after the second reading, this can be amended. But I am more interested in getting the police the tool that they need to start to correct the behavior rather than going into a death spiral about definitions and all of that jazz. The other thing I will say is I've heard people talk a lot about rights and all of that stuff. The last time I read our Constitution, there isn't a right for you to ride a bicycle. There isn't a right for you to run somebody over with a bicycle. Just like there isn't a right for you to drive a car or kill somebody's car. So if you're behaving properly using these machines, you're not going to suffer some sort of undue consequence. But if you're being an idiot or you're being obnoxious or you are being reckless towards people in our community, then you are going to have to see some sort of consequence. So I guess that's where my thoughts are as I continue to hear this conversation.

No, thank you, Councilor Patton. I mean, we don't up here in the dais don't write these ordinances and whatnot. That's why we have a fabulous city attorney that helps us out with that. And then for you all to be fine tuning what we've said here. Hopefully there's something that can be tweaked or if not, but I agree with Councilor Patten, like something needs, we need to keep it moving so you guys have the tools for sure. Yes, Emily.

It sounds like the parks, because this trail is designated as a park, is a hot spot for like, yes, people want to enjoy it, but it's also, it's a high use area. So people driving recklessly is the area of specific concern. Maybe a solution here is to put something in that says that for designated city parks, it may be possible to operate electric assisted bicycles or whatever subject to rules. And then those rules can be adopted administratively by staff based on I'm, you know, your existing parks already have rules, right? Like open and close periods. How are those established? Is that in the code or is that just something that staff did based on best practices and in their experience?

My experience has been it was best practices and then, you know, approved in that way by council.

Could do something similar with this. Would you be interested in seeing language to that effect for the second reading? Sure.

Yes. I think, yeah, I think. It just, I hear Pat, because I do want to push it forward, but if we have an option to make it better while we're pushing it forward, then let's make it better.

Yeah, I just took a look at your charter. It doesn't prohibit changes to an ordinance between first and second readings. There is a general rule out there that I don't know very well off the top of my head that says you can't change a lot between a first and second reading, but this might be something that is minimal enough where we can toss it in and keep things moving to a second rating. But I'll double check that part.

Okay.

So the question has been called. So all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That passes 5-0. All right. Gentlemen, thank you very much. Thank you both. 10C, resolution number 1465. Yes, resolution referring a measure proposing an amendment to waive or modify a city administrator residency requirement to the city charter to the voters for the November 3rd, 2026 election. And Emily Gaimon, our city attorney will present.

All right, so this is the official ballot measure language for the proposed revision to your charter. The question put in front of the voters is whether to add that language to chapter five, section two of the charter that would give council the authority to waive or modify the general residency requirement already in the charter, subject to rules. I can talk about that part more if you want, but I think we've talked about that extensively. So what I have for you today, just to get in front of you so we can start thinking about it, is a draft policy put together based on our conversation at the work session last time. We can talk about this a little bit right now if you want to. We can hold it for some other time and just keep moving the ballot measure forward. What would you like to do?

Well, the ballot measure stuff is time sensitive, so we can get it done in time to put it on the ballot. I think there's time to talk about the policy. Well, do you just want to take a quick look at this?

Okay, here. There should be enough copies if you take one and pass it down. So to quickly summarize, it has a title, it has a purpose statement saying clearly that the intent of this policy is to effectuate the charter language, assuming in this hypothetical that the voters approve the change, and then a policy statement that reiterates the importance of the city administrator position, reiterates what council spoke about the work session last time as the reasons why we have this general residency requirement being available within the city, being connected to the community, understanding and appreciating the issues that can be faces. reiterating that it's the position of the council that living within the city is the best way to satisfy these requirements, but also acknowledging that under certain circumstances to be evaluated on a case by case basis, it may be there may be cause to waiver alter the general requirement. And then really the meat of it is kind of that last third of the page. This draft right here says that the council at its discretion may waiver modify that general residency requirement if the council finds all four of the following factors. And this is based on our conversation from last time, these factors are entirely up for discussion on your end, whether they match intent, if anyone has any thoughts. But it includes both a mileage limit of 30, of course that number is up for discussion, and a travel time limit of 30 minutes based on a commute in order to make an 8 AM start time at City Hall. reiterates that the waiver must not impact their ability to do the job, recognizing the importance of the job within the community, and then finding that requiring a move to Canby would create an undue burden for the city administrator based on a specific set of facts that would be determined on a case-by-case basis. So that's just the first run at it. It's always easier to talk and edit once you see something actually on paper. So that's for everyone to think about. Yes.

I agree with Councilor Henson. We probably can defer this discussion on the details of this for later. But my one question is, if we said, if we were to raise our hand and say this is our policy, can we violate the policy afterwards? Change the policy? I'm just saying how binding. Yeah, you can change it.

How about change it? That's not valid. Never recognize it.

I'm just saying how legally binding is it? Can somebody say, you should have chose us because I did live with them 30 minutes or something? I'm just wondering how binding would it be?

That's a good question. I see that as kind of two questions in one. The first being, what happens if we violate the actual written word of our policy? I never recommend doing that because it leaves you open to attack that you acted for discriminatory reasons, for other kinds of unlawful reasons, arbitrary and capriciously. Second part of that is someone disagrees with how you interpreted and implied your policy. That's always a risk no matter what the policy is. I've drafted this one to walk a line between having discrete metrics that are pretty much unassailable. I guess someone could argue a little bit about commute time, the 30 minutes, but 30 miles to the city's border is a pretty black and white fact. But at the same time, build in the discretion for the council to evaluate things based on the facts of the certain situation, which is number four. So someone may not be able to argue with the 30 miles part, but they could argue that I had what should qualify as an undue burden, and you found that it was not an undue burden, and I disagree with you. on those grounds.

So we're saying that this would be the heading and the language that would go in the ballot?

No, no, no. This is because council wanted to start looking at what policy language would be should the ballot pass. to kind of injunction with the ballot measure process as like an accountability measure. I think it was Councilor Patton who spoke to that.

It could change the policy though.

What was that?

After we adopt it, right?

Yes, you can see this policy may only be amended by resolution of the city council.

The ballot is basically just saying that we are giving the waiver based on the discretion of the policy.

It says that you shall adopt rules to govern the application of the, and these are those rules. And the rules would give you a layer of discretion. Thank you.

So do we want to talk about these rules or do we want to just? I would say that tonight is not the night to talk about the rules. It's okay. But I think what's in, I just looked at, re-looked at the packet. I think what's there is what we're wanting to move forward with tonight's

Things have to be referred. Oh, Maya walked out. I think it's early August. Early August. So the ballot measure doesn't require you to adopt this. I just said I'd bring something for you guys to look at at the next council meeting. So here we are. All right.

Councilor Patton.

yeah i think what makes sense here uh and what we've sort of what at least i have recommended in the past is that this that members of council review this draft version of the policy make notes with suggestions, questions. I believe it was mentioned to send those to Emily or Maya or the city administrator or whoever. They will compile them and then there will be another meeting of the subcommittee to sort of review those things and begin to hammer out what this policy would look like.

information there, Emily, we should know about.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt the resolution 1465, resolution referring a measure proposing an amendment to waive or modify city administrator residency requirement to the city charter to the voters for November 3rd, 2026 election.

So a motion has been made by Councilor Waterman, seconded by Councilor Maldonado to approve 1465, a resolution referring a measure proposing an amendment, sorry, an amendment to waive or modify city administrator residency requirement to the city charter to the voters for the November 3rd, 2026 election. Any further discussion or comments? No one opposed, it's five-zero. Okay, 10D, resolution number 1466, a resolution referring a measure of proposing an amendment to chapter 10 of the city charter to the voters for the November 3rd, 2026 election. And this is also Ms. Gaimont.

Everyone gets to hear me talk a lot tonight. Okay, so these are, this is the ballot measure sending the revisions to chapter 10, the chapter that establishes the Canby Utility Board to the ballot for the decision of the voters. What would be most helpful for council right now? We've talked about this a lot. I can go do a high level overview of all the changes or if that would be best.

I would say for those that are here as well as those maybe viewing at home and watch this later, a brief overview of what we're what we're proposing and why.

Okay, got it. So current status right now, Chapter 10 establishes the Canby Utility Board. It establishes an electric department of the city and a water department of the city. It gives Canby Utility Board, and Carrie's here tonight too, thank you, sorry. Gives the board exclusive control over the electric department. gives the council control over the water department, that gives the council the ability to delegate its control over the water department to CUB. And council did this back in 1982 via an IGA that's been in place, you know, basically ever since then. So for the past 40 plus years, CUB has effectively acted in control of both the water and the electric departments. So the meat of this proposed amendment to the charter would be to change charter language to reflect that reality. To merge the electric and water departments into a singular department and then to give CUB exclusive control over that singular department. as it currently has with the electric and as it currently has with the water through that IGA. This is going to be beneficial to CUB for a few reasons. First and foremost, it will help them get funding that they need for the new water treatment plant project. Yes, so that's the main thing right there. In order to effectuate that intended rearrangement, there's lots of different little red lines throughout the entire chapter. I don't think I need to go into those, though. Does that? Okay, great. A couple other things that this ballot measure does, it proposes to amend Chapter 10 to... modernized language and grammar, so chairman becomes chair, and I added Oxford commas throughout. Sorry if that's controversial. It also increases board members' maximum number of successive terms of office from two terms, so they can serve two terms back to back right now, increases that number to three terms back to back. It doesn't change the number of years within each term, however. And it also changes language to clarify the general manager position's role. So the general manager is like the city administrator equivalent for CUB. Carrie acts in many of the same ways as Randy does with that same delegated authority to her from the board. So this ballot measure would revise language to match that as well, which was a request from CUB. That's the most of it right there.

Great review.

Thank you. Councillor Lowry. So I just wanted to add that if anybody would like more information about the discussion of that, I believe it was just last week, they're running together, so I have so many meetings, that you can go back and review last week's work session where we delved into a lot of those details of what the high level that we just talked about. So those discussions are available. Absolutely. Thank you for saying that.

Councillor Stearns? Yeah, well, I... As far as I was aware going through the process being on the subcommittee, all of these pretty much just codify things that are already practices right now. Correct? I don't know if there's much anything new that's can be to the board will start doing. They won't start... paving the roads or anything like that. So I just want to make sure that's clear because I think that was most of the intent of these updates was just to put in the writing what was already the practice.

Yes, it brings language in conformance with how things are currently working and sets CUB up best shot of getting funding for projects coming down the line.

Okay, and they already talked to bond council about that. I remember that was one of the things they were going to do.

Thank you.

So I guess for me, first and foremost, this is something that was one of my goals right out of the gate of this.

Does Canby Utility and the Canby Utility Board feel that these changes are going to remove some of the impediments and roadblocks that they have historically felt about how the city charter has been written in the past? And if yes, Yes or no. Does this fix the things that they want fixed so that they are not hamstrung by this city charter and their operations?

I'm seeing a big nod from Carrie. Carrie Duncan, CUB general manager. There you go. She's nodding yes.

Excellent, because that is what I have heard for years. the city charter has been an impediment to the campus really board. And I'm hoping that these changes will correct that.

Great, thank you, Councilor Pratt.

All right. Yes, Councilor Orman. I move to adopt resolution 1466, a resolution referring a measure proposing an amendment to chapter 10 of the city charter to voters for the November 3rd, 2026 election. I'll second.

The motion has been made by Councilor Waterman and seconded by Council President Hensley to adopt resolution number 1466, a resolution referring a measure proposing an amendment to chapter 10 of the city charter to the voters for the November 3rd, 2026 election. Any further question or discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Passes 5-0. Next is consider resolution number 1467. A resolution referring to the electors a measure proposing the renewal of the five-year local option levy for the Cambie Swim Center. swimfront operations and maintenance at the rate of 49 cents per $1,000 of assessed value beginning in fiscal year 2027-28. And I think Nathan and

I'll kick it off and then I'll turn it over to you. Okay, so this is a proposed renewal of your existing swim center levy. Swim center levy expires with the end of this current fiscal year. And this would ask the voters to renew the levy for another five years at the same tax rate.

I mean, obviously we're thankful that we've had five successive five-year levies. So we've been operating for 25 years under this system. And as has been stated in other meetings, we do not survive without that. So it provides about 85% of our operational budget. It allows us to continue to serve our community, provide swim lessons, and keep kids safe.

No, it's an important levy. And I think, and again, we're keeping it at the same rate. We're not asking for more money to do our operations of the pool. So the pool team has done a great job with keeping the pool running and operating. So we really appreciate that.

Mr. Mayor, may we adopt resolution 1467, resolution referring to the electors a measure proposing the renewal of the five-year local option levy for the Canby Swim Center operations and maintenance at the rate of 49 cents per 1,000 assessed value beginning fiscal year 2728. Second.

A motion's been made by Council President Hensley and seconded by Councilor Maldonado to adopt resolution number 1467, a resolution referring to the electors a measure proposing the renewal of the five-year local option levy for the Canby Swim Center operations and maintenance at a rate of 49 cents per $1,000 assessed value beginning in fiscal year 2027 to 2028. Any further comment or discussion? Councilor Stearns.

Just a question. I mean, this is for the next five years, so we don't anticipate the need for more operating revenue during that time? I'm just saying. No.

We have historically been able to live within our means. Okay. That's good.

nothing else. All those in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Aye. That passes 5-0. Great. Thank you very much. All right. Moving into other business, we have the UV project update.

Great, how are you? Good.

Is this your first presentation to us?

I believe it is. All right.

Perfect.

So I was just coming tonight to give you all an update on our longstanding UV project that's been in the works since I've started working here a little over two years ago. There's been a lot of research and looking into different equipment options. And we even had Kern McLeod do a study on historical flows for our plant. Last June, he was able to give us a report on all that. But over this last winter, We saw a very wet December with the city being inundated with rainwater. We did see flows hit the plant that were somewhat unprecedented for that facility. So looking down the road of this UV project, I'm seeing that there's a possible change in the design of the system with this last winter's flows that we hadn't previously seen before. So this is new information that was presented to us because of this winter we had. So currently our UV channels are designed for 4.5 million gallons a day. And the system we're wanting to put in, the new system that we're wanting to put in would be 4.8. So it'd be sized just a little over the capacity of the actual physical characteristics of that channel. Being that we saw 5.6 hit the plants, I'm thinking that DEQ may require us to add a third channel to increase the capacity of that UV system. It's not something that they've told us we have to do yet, but looking down the road of design, I'm seeing that there's that possible crossroad of us adding a third channel, which would change the scope of this project and add some cost to it as well. So the next time I come in front of you, I'd like to come in front of you with an ordinance. But I'll explain these slides to you real quick. So what we're looking at here is our current UV system. The system itself is getting to be about 20 years old. And it's an end-of-life system, so they're no longer manufacturing parts for it. The things that we are buying, they keep telling us, hey, you have the last motherboard in existence for this UV system, so good luck. So that's where we're at with this current system. So it is very important that we keep this energy of this project going and get things going. But it's important that we... take a breath and make sure we're sizing this appropriately. A DEQ ultimately will be the deciding factor on the size of the system. But it's definitely gonna be a substantial increase in the project cost because it's gonna be a new piece of infrastructure instead of re-utilizing what we have now. So, I've never used this clicker, so I'll see what I can do here. So yeah, this is on the left side of the screen here would be one of the UV vessels themselves. What we call this type of UV vessel is an inline UV vessel or reactor and that just means that it's in the pipeline. The one we'll be switching to will be an open channel and we'll be reusing old infrastructure that's already existing in the plant. And that's what you're seeing on the right side of the slide here is the two existing UV channels that already are in the plant. those are the ones that are sized for 4.5 to go through. So a third channel would have to be added to increase capacity. So we're gonna get away from this inline system and use those channels. It's gonna be a much simpler system for maintenance and everything involved with taking care of it. So it's definitely the right option as far as moving away from the inline. But I just see that issue with the capacity. So if you could go to the first proposal for me. That's the one, yep. So this is the initial proposal from the group we're working with, which is Gordian. It's kind of a unique situation working with Gordian, but it's going really well because it's a unique situation I've never worked with before. where you work through Gordian and they have a certain set of contractors and they have a certain set of price points and agreements with the state. It's been easy to work with them, but this is the initial proposal for the two channel system. And I don't know if the price is on. That one necessarily. Yeah, it's right there. Okay, so this is our two-channel system, and it does break down line by line what the cost is. The UV system itself is one of the larger expenses, obviously, to buy the system, and then the engineering that goes into it. And that's just putting in what we already have. So that's not adding infrastructure. That's just building the new system and putting it into the channels we have. And then on the next proposal, this is their bid for adding the third channel. So as you saw, the two-channel system is sitting a little bit under 1.4 million for the project. And this... Proposal for the third channel is gonna land us up in the ballpark of 600,000 for adding. So it would bump us really close to a $2 million total cost for the project if we end up adding this third channel. Right now, we're not budgeting for that third channel. So when we run into the design phase of this, if DEQ says, hey, you need to add it, then we're gonna have to come back here and talk about that. But I just wanted to make you all aware of the effort that's been put into this and getting to this point now and then seeing the possibility of something changing even after all the research and effort we put into it. And I just want to make sure you're all aware that if I come up here and say, hey, we need to add a third channel, you understand why. So I just want to make sure everyone's aware of what's going on because This is a very important system that we get going. And so I want to, like I said, next time I come in front of you, have an ordinance ready for all of you and we get going on it. But I just, for the future, if I come back and ask for that third channel, I want you to know why.

So Patrick, you talked about how much more, again, because of the rainy winter, what's been the trend? Are we seeing that happen more? more frequently, and by more frequently, we've seen that every five years, every three, like what's that?

So historically, the plant sees very little I&I, which we call inflow and infiltration. It's from... basically a not tight collection system. There's cracks or something along the line and water can get in. We see very little increase during normal rain events, like a 10% increase the plant, which is amazing for I&I intrusion in any system. But this last December, we saw flows just increase and increase. As the city started to just flood over, people's clean outs will start to become drains. And so we just saw a lot of flow hit in the plant. And I haven't seen rain like that hit the valley in a long time. So looking back on our history, I don't see that. So this is sort of anomalous this winter, but it's something that, you know, it's real hard facts that we have to consider. And being that it did push the plant a little bit past what we intend, because the current system we have with the inline, It says it's rated for 6 MGDs, so we never went past the design of that system, and that's where I'm getting at with going back to the old channel and us going to, you understand. So I don't normally see INI in our system, but this winter was just very, very well.

So you're pitching a proactive... I don't want to say doomsday, but pardon the pun, a rainier day than usual to be situated to be able to handle it in a better fashion.

And I would like to add the third channel to increase the upper limit capacity, and it would give us... When we have extra equipment that we're not using in the wastewater plant, we rotate that equipment to keep the hours on equipment really similar to each other. So it would just be rotated in and out as we need. But if we see a high rain event, we could turn on that third channel and know we're treating the wastewater how it needs to be.

Are we looking at a 20-year cycle for these improvements?

So when Kern McLeod did their study, he said that incremental increase that we see just from the system is good for the next 20 years or so without us needing to add capacity. But that was without this winner included in his calculations. Okay.

Councilor Patton and then I'll come to you, Councilor Waterman.

Yes, thank you. So first question, sooner or Will we need to put in a third channel to handle the expanded capacity, to handle the growth of the city of Canby?

Eventually, yes, a third channel will need to be added, but from the engineered projections, it won't be a requirement for quite some time. But like I said, that was without this winter included in those calculations.

Okay, next question. Do we have the money to put the third panel in now?

Yes, but I didn't budget for it this year, so we would have to supplement our budget and add it in. I understand that.

By putting in the third channel, requires to put in the UV system at the same time, or could the channel be put in and then the UV system come later.

That's a good point. I didn't consider just adding the channel itself and not having the UV system added with it. That's something I could price out pretty simply though with the contractor.

Okay. So I guess for me, if If a third channel would have been beneficial this winter, knowing that seasons become crazier and crazier each year, if we have the money to do it, concrete is not going to get cheaper. These UV things are not going to get cheaper. None of this stuff is getting cheaper. So if we have the ability to do it, I would say we should do it now. Get it in there and get it done so that way if something comes up, we have it as a backup before something happens and then DEQ comes down on us and starts fining us because we don't have it and now we're in a rush and have to pay more to put it in. That's my thought on it.

Absolutely, the capacity would be very important when we switch back to having open channels because the UV system we currently have is the inline system that I showed in those slides, and they are rated for 6 MGD. When we go back to open channel, we'll be actually cutting capacity out of the UV system, so adding the third channel would be putting the capacity closer to where it's at now.

Okay, so trying to make sure I'm clear on this. Going to the two channel cuts our capacity, but Kermit Clown says even with that, we're still good for 20 years barring any acts of nature. Yeah, correct. Okay. So that's my one thing. So we don't necessarily absolutely have to have it sometime in the next 20 years for regular use or growth.

Yes, on a normal day. But seeing that this winter pushed our flows as high as it did, DEQ is going to put that into consideration for the sizing and approval of the system. Okay. And I'm just not sure what they're going to think about seeing that flow.

So really it's coming down to what DEQ is going to tell us we need or not. It's really going to define what the project is going to require.

Yeah, absolutely. So the engineering firm will come up with a design. And they'll submit that to DEQ, and they'll either approve or deny that.

Okay, so assuming the DEQ says, no, you're good, then technically... we don't need it right now or technically for the next 20 years.

Yeah, and that would just be based on requirements. It doesn't mean we can't add the third child if we want.

Got it. Okay. And so the other question is, assuming this happens once every five years for the next 20 years, what is the, I guess, the result? What's the... What's the downside if when we have that, if that capacity is exceeded for a couple days once every couple years?

So it would be considered a sewer spill. Okay. And we'd have to put signage out at the river by the outfall. for untreated wastewater. We'd have to inform the public through the news and the OHA would have to be informed as well. So it would be bad publicity for one and then the fines that are included with that. So you have to submit to DEQ how long you were violating your permit and then they base the fines off of that.

So assuming our consultants say you're good to go and DEQ writes it off and says you're good to go, and then something happens down the road and we have an act of nature and there's an issue, they're going to come back and say, well, you're doing something wrong, even though they approved it.

It gets a little complicated because they start looking at your collection system as well. So I can't tell you exactly what they're going to say with that. But they look at the whole system once you start having large flow events. I know one of our neighboring cities is having an issue with not being able to even build another home in their city for having I&I problems that are so bad. They have to address them, right? So... We don't have that problem normally, so I just don't think that DEQ would have an issue with our two-channel system, but this winter was such a high flow.

Right.

And I would be fine with just going with two-channel and pushing this along with two-channel, but that was just up.

Okay.

I'm just trying to make sure I understand both sides of what are the conditions that we can deal with and the consequences. Even if we're going to go forward, I agree with Councilor Patten. I think it would be good to find out what phases, if it's kind of, can we do in multiple phases, maybe multiple budget years or something like that to kind of help alleviate some of that, but still plan for the future and appreciate you looking forward, looking out and being proactive on that. That's all I got.

One, thank you for bringing an update to us. The only question I really have is what is the efficiency between the end line and the trough style?

Performance-wise, it comes down to just characteristics. So what we're seeing with this in-line system is a massive underperformance from its lamp life, and that's one of the highest costs of running the system besides powering it is the lamps. So when they sold the system to us, they guaranteed 8,000 hours of lamp life, and we're only seeing about two or under. So we're replacing lamps about four times more often than we need to with this current system. And so switching to the channel system is going to be beneficial to us in multiple ways. The lamp life is going to be 12,000 hours guaranteed lamp life. and also the maintenance on it will be much easier because we can individually work on modules while the system's on, so we don't have to take the whole system down to do maintenance on it either. So it's a lot simpler.

And on the trough styles, does it use the multiple lamps or is it still using a single lamp?

So it's going to be switching away from a medium pressure, smaller sized lamp to a low pressure, large, longer lamp. So it's going to change the physical characteristics of the lamp, but it'll still essentially do the same sort of treatment.

Which could also lower maintenance costs as well. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Councilor Stearns and then Councilor Patton again.

You mentioned that there's a lot of infiltration with the flood, flooding this last winter. Is there things that can be done by the city to mitigate from the, I guess, the collection side of the, to keep these from happening, or is it something that just, I mean, I assume the water was overflowing into people's drains, or is that stormwater overflow into the city system, or how does, I understood the stormwater separate, you know, and...

Yeah, we don't have a combined sewer here, luckily, right? So if an area, people's yards, anything like that floods enough, the normal vents for the sewer will become drains for the sewer. So any opening, it could be the holes in the manholes or whatever, if a neighborhood's flooded, the sewer system becomes the new storm system. And so any neighborhood that was flooding or puddling up or anything like that... becomes a dream for the Super Bowl. Okay, and there's not much you can do about that? Not during those events. It's just an act of God, really.

Counselor Patton.

Yeah, so you're saying that the... How old again is the inline system?

The inline system is in a 15 to 20 year age range.

Okay, and you were saying that they guaranteed a certain lamplight.

I'm sorry, the GPS lady is yelling at me. I apologize if that's coming through.

The lamplight was set to be at a certain... number of years and it's not even close to that. Is that correct?

Correct. So the current system we have, they guaranteed 8,000 hours of performance out of the lamps before the performance drops, essentially. And we're seeing 2,000 or less. And this was something that After they installed it, it has been years of research, engineers, reprogramming of the system to try to get it to function correctly. And what we've ended up doing at the plant is adding a lot of maintenance and two weekly cleanings of most of the plant to keep the disinfection system running properly. So when we switch to this new UV system, it's gonna alleviate all that extra work we have to do to keep it running, so.

So have we gotten a refund from this company for this? Have we taken them to court to say that they have sold us equipment that is inadequate and is defective? Or are we continuing to pay them?

We had an agreement and the agreement ended this last year that they would prorate and warranty any of our lamps that were under 2,000 hours that either broke or just malfunctioned in any way. But if we chose to remove the bulbs that were still working before that 2,000 hours, they won't warranty or rebate us, so we have to pay full price for those ones. And we're doing that right now just to keep the UV system working. So we're spending a lot on lamps. We had an agreement with them. where, and like I said, it just ended this year, we had an agreement with them where when we would purchase eight lamps And these are eight lamp systems. We have 16 lamps between the two. If we purchase eight lamps, then they send us eight for free. So we are essentially paying 50% for lamps up to a certain amount every year. So we would hit our money amount guaranteed every year and get our 50% price discount. But this year it ended. So now we're paying full price. So it's just getting more expensive to run the system.

Goodness gracious.

That is a good way to put it, Councilor Patton. Sorry. Yes, Councilor Waterman.

Just one second. This is why I am all for looking at doing this now rather than later because if we need to pivot or something like that, this just makes me want to advocate even more for at least getting more of this work done now rather than later because... Bert was the sludge drying machine that was crap, and we ended up having to go and sue for that. Now it's this system. It's getting very frustrating.

That's all I have. Okay. Thank you, sir. Councilor Waterman. Just so I understand, you have a current proposal written up, but you're saying you may need to modify that. And when will we know what DEQ wants?

After we award the contract to the contractor, they'll start the engineering and design work. And then after that's submitted, then we would know. So it wouldn't be until it's awarded already.

So we have to pay for the design work, submit it, and then they come back and say, no, that's not enough, and then pay for more design work to make a change to what they think? Something along those lines. I don't know the exact details of how that goes. Okay. So should we just go and assume that we're going to do the design work for the three and then we can scale it down if we decided to go that way?

Either way, Councilor Waterman, it sounds like we're paying. We're paying twice for design work, whether it's to add or to take away.

We can just go with, hey, let's do a third channel and go. And then that removes any ambiguity about system capacity. So it would benefit us to go with a third channel, but it's not something we're required to do at the moment.

So Patrick, thank you for the update. It's huge. The light issue has been an issue. So that, I mean, we're at that point where this project's got to get moving. Based on, I think, the question, and I'll look at head nods here, that I would say put pencil to paper and bring us back, you know, I guess that third channel as a proposal and...

Do you want the whole thing as a three-channel proposal? Because right now they just have that third channel as a modifier that they would just add on to the initial proposal.

I personally would do the third channel because overall, like you said, they can use that until they have to actually open it full-time. They can use that as a bypass to help maintain the other troughs and all the systems and everything. So it would be beneficial. Okay.

What are your thoughts? You're in it every day. We're not.

I would like to see a third channel because in wastewater, we always prepare for the worst because it tends to happen. And so having what we call redundancy on hand is our lifeline. And so that's basically having a backup to a system that's critical. And a third channel would be redundancy for us. So it would be another way of knowing we're going to be compliant. And...

If we already have the money, I think it's probably a safe bet that the system's not going to go on sale any time in the next few years. So it might be the least expensive that we can get.

Government and stuff for sale. I'm not seeing that work. If we have the money, I would go for the third. So it sounds like bring back with building it out for the three, not as an add-on, but as like... This is what we're going to submit and move towards. Okay. Yeah, we'll go from there. Okay. I'll say my question that just came to me when you bring it back to us. So does that seem suitable? Is that what I'm seeing head nods to do? Okay.

Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Thank you, everybody.

It's 9 p.m.

nine o'clock, thank you. No, according to Cupertino, it's nine o'clock. So I need a motion to either continue the meeting or to adjourn and push everything to a date later in the future.

I move to adjourn and push things to a later date. Okay.

I'll second.

Okay, so the motion has been made by Councilor Maldonado and seconded by Council President Hensley to adjourn the meeting. I have a question.

Okay. I don't have the agenda in front of me because I'm just getting out of my car. What is left on the agenda to tackle?

I'd see under item 11, other business, there is still the issue of the hotel rendering update. Then there's item 12, city administrator business and staff report. And then mayor's business council report, so on and so forth.

I have a question. Jamie, how long is your report?

For the hotel? It's eight or nine slides and then some text about that. I'm happy to give it to you and I'm happy to bring it back either way.

Well, she's prepared to give her, I will, if the motioner is friendly amendment, we listen to Jamie's report and then we pontificate later. We end after her report. I'd agree.

Maybe she's going to give the report and we're going to save her comments. We'll save our council comments for next time. Or council comments, not comments on her project. Correct. Okay, that's fine.

Yeah, that's fine. So let me just get this straight. We're going to hear the presentation... And then we're not going to be able to comment on the presentation. And then at some point in time, it's going to come up again?

No, Councilor Patton, please. Everyone just take a deep breath. The motion's been amended to not to continue the meeting until we get through presentation and any questions by the council regarding the hotel rendering and then deciding if we want to move through the rest of the agenda or adjourn. Okay. So head nodding, we've removed the motion. Miss Tickle, would you like to do a presentation on hotel renderings? Like 15 minutes? Yeah, we'll extend the meeting to 9.15. Do you want 9.20?

I like a challenge.

All those in favor extend the meeting to 9-15. Aye. Anyone opposed?

So, tonight I'm going to give you an update about the hotel renderings that we had completed. We worked with Scott Edwards Architecture, and as you'll remember, they worked on the Civic Center. They're doing work at the Swim Center currently. They helped to create our Grant Street Arch, so they are very familiar with Canby, and That's something that's important because as we're talking about a project like this that we are doing renderings for and creating concepts around, it isn't just about putting a big box hotel on a parcel of land and saying that's good enough. It's really about taking in the the culture and the agriculture, the aspects that are true to Canby, so the agricultural roots, the river and the natural elements. We consider two parcels that are vacant along Highway 99E, one towards the Wild Hare Saloon and one towards what would be considered Special Area J. And this project aims to kind of create the idea or the concept of a roadside attraction. So as we started this project, I was reminded of renderings that were done for downtown back in I think 2008, before my time with the city. And it has a city hall, which I think maybe downtown living above the city hall. And the city hall was situated on First Avenue. So it's not necessarily meant to be cookie cutter. This is exactly what it should look like. But more so to inspire the conversation and inspire, hopefully, the decision to develop a hotel in Canby. So these are the two sites that we looked at, as I said, one towards the Wild Hare, one near Special Area J. One of the aspects and considerations that Scott Edwards Architecture, or SEA as I'll refer to them, took into consideration was the development of the Walnut Street extension. And for site two, which is that site that's by special area J, we also essentially acted as if that land was already annexed into the city because a development of a hotel would take some time. The projects for that area of development are already underway and concept planning has begun. So really planned as if that had already happened. So these are the two design concepts. I know that it's a little bit tricky to read, but essentially for site one, the design team included three elements. So highway lodging, river and road, forest retreat, and these are, again, stylized elements where you can include different aspects and different themes into the actual lodging itself. So for highway lodging, the focus was on creating a destination that would be a bigger part of the reason for the journey. So not just necessarily having a hotel, but a hotel that was something that people would want to stay and engage at. River and Road, so it's the play on the highway meeting the Malala River, highlighting the site as a culmination of transportation, both in the water and the roadways. And that river and road really kind of also developing the concept of the roadside attraction of maybe hotels of the 1960s, where you would stop because you were just along the way and you would come across something that was worthy of stopping at. And then forest retreats. So since the location is tucked away on a bluff overlooking the water, it creates sort of a hidden destination. So that could be paired with a spa, a retreat, or a river overlook. And some of that is based on the conversations that we had with mayor and council about potentially developing the natural resources around sites as a way to help support hotel development. And then the Site 2 concept, the three elements included there were agricultural heritage, roadside respite, and then front porch. And obviously, there's some pictures in both of those that look similar. And Canby's not so big that something that is a highway lodging couldn't also be front porch related. It's just to create two distinct looks and feels for these renderings. As I mentioned, this coordination utilized the Canby Municipal Code and Canby Planning Department participated in some of the original planning to make sure that our SEA architects or SEA was falling within the code and wasn't saying put a 17-story hotel on this spot and then when it comes to to the planning or to the design review that that's not something that could happen. We wanted something that would be inspirational, but also very much realistic in its ability to come to fruition. So the two layouts, and I recognize that's a little bit difficult to see, but essentially both of those original kind of site plans as you look down included, they believed that they could include about 145 rooms, a total footprint of 72,500 square feet, and this is the same for both sites. two stories tall, including maybe a 7,500 square foot ancillary space, and with the thought that that could be a spa, restaurant, retail. For parking, both sites included 109 hotel parking spaces and 25 ancillary parking spaces. And so from there, we started to actually lay out the space and utilizing the space of how big a typical room would be and how much parking was actually needed. And so you'll see that these are a little bit more of a refined look. So this is site one over by the wild hare. So it ended up with 136 rooms. Total square footage is 70,000 square feet, three stories tall, which includes a 6,000 foot ancillary space, and that space could be whatever the hotelier wanted it to be, whether that was a restaurant, obviously with the wild hair right there, maybe it's a meeting space or a space where you could have a small meeting, a small wedding. And then parking for 102 hotel parking spaces and 40 ancillary parking spaces. And so the first concept, so this is actually looking at the site, looking at Canby. That would be the wild hare to the very left-hand side. One of the reasons they needed to do the roundabout to be able to move the flow of traffic. But one of the things that you're looking at is that large tree in the center is a tree that is actually on the site. So how to actually utilize the natural resources that are so unique to Canby and that are already there rather than cutting everything down and building new. They take into consideration the flow of traffic as it relates to parking and even down to where a trash bin should be located. And so then they developed also a little bit more of a concept on that look and feel of what could maybe keep people. So that site is very unique because it overlooks the water. The water that you're looking at there is not the river though. And that was something that we clarified. I said, are we supposed to be assuming that you're going to build right up to the river and that people are going to walk outside? And what they were saying is that if you developed using or inspired by the natural resources around there, you could do something like a spa area that had a look and feel and complementary to the natural resources and that would essentially then be a man-made space. And one thing I'm just going to go back that you'll see that there's an overlook and so that overlook would take you further out so that you could see over the Malala River and you can see it reflected there in the background. A lot of the spaces have the indoor outdoor activity so that it would be something that you were not just going to spend the night, but also being able to maybe meet other visitors to the area, create a weekend away or a weekend in town if you lived here. The second site is the site that is over, you'll see the Walnut Street extension down the left hand side. And so this site, they really developed, instead of having that ancillary space, they called it a greenhouse, but they were thinking retail, restaurant, spa, something along those lines. And in this case, it's actually a separate building, and so it could be run by a completely separate business. And they developed the parking around that so that you could have someone who was coming maybe just for dinner and being able to park over by that greenhouse area or if you were staying at the hotel and wanted to walk over for dinner. This site was unique because of the topography and there is actually you know special area Dre is there's natural wetland and so how to position the hotel so that it would overlook that space. For this one, it was developed with 143 rooms in mind. They say keys, but a key for each room. Total square footage of 75,000 square feet. Again, three stories tall and 75,000... square feet of ancillary space. And then this parking slightly more than before with 107 hotel parking spaces and then 50 ancillary spaces. And I think that that's because of the separation between the restaurant area, the greenhouse area and the hotel. So this space, they really, you'll remember I talked about the front porch concept. And so one of the things that they were, SEA wanted to focus on is that when you're coming down Highway 99 from Oregon City, really one of the first spaces that you get to, there's a lot of natural greenery and rocks that one of the very natural, first breaks that you receive is right here where Jarvo's restaurant is. And so using that as kind of a front porch and creating something that, you know, again, plays to that agricultural heritage, could be inspired by some of the nurseries in the area or the farmland in the area, but that would create that welcome where it fits kind of Canby's uniqueness, but then also you know that something's there and it encourages people to pull off then on this space especially so you can see if you're looking straight ahead that greenhouse space is in the back which is parallel with 99 and then the hotel to the right and really utilizing the outdoor space that's there to maybe create games fire pits you know restaurant space it could be something that they do you know they even said you could do a a happy hour, for instance, where people are engaging in that, but really creating a space where people want to gather, whether you're staying at the hotel, whether you're going to the greenhouse for dinner or shopping or a spa, but that it would be some sort of kind of community gathering space as well. And so we've included this on our website and created a page for the Canby Hotel development so that we have one landing page for, we have an area on our website for studies and plans, but create something specifically for the hotel development. So there's a link to those hotel renderings on there and then a link to the three studies that we've done with Johnson Economics. I wasn't able to include this just because of the trying to capture the page, but below the hotel renderings and hotel studies is my contact information. We want to make it really easy for people to say, okay, I'm going to call and I want to ask some questions about this. And the hope is to not just use this and send it to the hotel developers, but also to kind of create the package Recently I reached out to Greater Portland Inc. which is the economic development association for the Greater Portland area to talk about who in the Portland area are they able to connect with as far as hotel development companies go and using them as a resource because they have access to data and access to relationships and so they're looking into some of that. those pieces on ways that we can further our reach, not just with people who are contacting Canby. And there are people who are active and eager to see something developed here that are outside of Canby and believe that at some point they will be the ones to bring a hotel to fruition here. And I believe every single one of them, and I can't wait for that to happen. So relatively short report, but I'm happy to take any questions if you have them.

Stunning concepts for sure. Very much so. Yes, Councilor Waterman.

We actually had one great job on that, by the way. On the second rendering, I didn't see, was that right off Walnut 99 right there where Jarboe's is? Yes. So that would take all of that entire space there.

Correct. But I will say, just to make sure that I'm clear, we talked with the property owners before doing these renderings, so we weren't just doing renderings on people's property. We talked with the property owners and they're very aware. Again, it's to try and inspire, not necessary to say this is the only way to do it. That inspiration, we went big with how can this look and what is the best use of the space for the parcel that that property owner knew we were looking at.

Both of them are really great. Personally, I'm more... Partial to lodge style anyway, so the number one one was really great.

Yeah. Yeah, you know it was it's interesting process Also, because when we first started looking and before we brought in planning department, you know at that that second site They said well you can do camp campsites potentially you could maybe do you know this and that and then the third option was or if the if the zoning change you could do a hotel and we're like that's That's what we're talking about. We want to see what the real possibility is there, not just what could happen now, because we know that the property owners out there are eager to move that, bring it within the city limits and development. So, yeah, it's an interesting process, and I'm a visual person, so if you tell me, here's a site, I think of... And so then to see the inspiration behind it from people who have worked, the person who led this project for SEA is Sarah Rosenberka, who's been at, she was at our grand opening of the Grant Street Arch in the pouring down rain in November. giving a speech and she's great to work with. So it was an interesting project and it's just one more piece where I think it shows that Canby is so eager to see something move forward. And I think that it shows that the The desire is here. We've got the studies that say that the support and the visitors are here and just putting that piece together. So if you happen to be somebody who knows somebody, we're trying to make it as easy as possible and put it on the website and make it touch as many people as possible, really.

You did a great job on it. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I think this is exactly what we've been looking for.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I'm kind of partial to the river one myself, but this is because I like water.

Yeah, great job. It's exciting to see what could be. I know one of the things that when we started this whole conversation on hotel many moons ago, what seemed to come back from businesses in Canby, big and small, was the shortage of potential conference space or meeting space. Were those considerations, I mean, obviously... in a rendering, it's not what the final product is, but is that taken into consideration when they look at the room counts?

Yes, one of the things, so knowing that the Clackamas County Fairgrounds and Events Center was creating their 45,000 square foot multi-purpose building, which is divisible by three, and I think they hope to have it completed by the end of the year, that was something that we took into consideration. That's why none of those sites have a humongous you know, conference room addition. It was more, well, if that's happening in order to, you know, if that's a possibility and a business or a hotel developer wants to see that happen, absolutely. But, you know, in order to kind of honor that work that's going on over there, what should we be looking at with the space and how should we be developing that to be able to best use it? And if it's that we have a big multipurpose building that's going in, And that's divisible into smaller rooms. Maybe it's that we don't need a big conference type space or a big ballroom type space, but more so that we need something that is smaller retail, the spa aspect. And part of that with the spa concept, not just at site one, but both of them said that ancillary space could be used that way. it's, again, it's to create a destination. And we even talked about, you know, wouldn't it be great if we could create something that when you have a, you know, a weekend free from your kids because they're going to grandma's house that you say, hey, instead of going here, we're going to stay in Canby and just get away, but here in our hometown, which people do. Staycation.

Councilor Patten.

Yes, thank you, Jamie. Excellent work on this. And I guess the question that I have is, one of the things that I have stressed is that, you know, we've done studies, now we have some renderings, we've chosen some potential locations. Ultimately, now it comes down to someone wanting to come into the city and make the investment. The council has decided multiple times that we are not interested in building a hotel. So I guess the one seed that I will plant or one thing that I hope not to see is that every couple of years we spend money creating new renderings and all of this and hear from people say, oh, we really want to build a hotel in Canby, and we really would love to build a hotel in Canby, but ultimately it's like, similar to what we're dealing with with some of the other stuff in the city, it's like, then do it, right? If the studies show it, and the renderings show it, and you say you want to do it, then it's time to do it. I just hate to see us continue to spend taxpayer money on renderings and all this stuff in perpetuity to never actually have something relevant. That's the one thing I would say.

Jamie, anything else on this?

Nothing else on this.

Okay. We're at 9.22. Is there a motion to adjourn or two? Okay. I guess the motion's been made and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Aye. Are you eyeing to stay or to go?

to go. It's now 1230 here in Columbus, Ohio, and I'm ready to go to bed.

Don't blame you.

All right. I guess we're adjourning. Good night, Camby.