City Council - Special Meeting

Good evening, Kambi. Welcome to a special July 22nd, 2026 City Council meeting and work session. First up, we're going to handle the City Council meeting portion, and tonight we have a public hearing. The public hearing is to consider adopting Order 26-04-20. in order granting a noise variance application to the Zuniga household to host a family gathering with music and socializing at 840 North Grant Street from approximately 10 p.m. on August 1st, 2026 to 3 a.m. on August 2nd, 2026. So since it's a public hearing, we will go through and read the public hearing script. The matter presently before the hearing body requires a public hearing. All interested persons in attendance shall be heard on the matter. This public hearing was noticed and those who wish to speak were instructed to contact the city recorder. Have we had anyone?

No, sir.

No, thank you. Those people that are interested in testifying as either proponents, so for the noise variance exception, or opponents, those against it, please indicate your desire to speak by raising your hands at this time. Are you going to want to address the council this evening? Okay, when we get there, I'll let you know. Each presentation, or sorry, each proponent or opponent will have three minutes to address the council. Those that are for longer presentations, proponents, and opponents may buy time from one another. And so doing those, those either in favor or opposed may allocate their time to a spokesperson who will represent the entire group. All questions must be directed to the mayor. Any evidence to be considered must be submitted to the hearing body for public access. All written testimony received both for and against shall be summarized by staff and presented briefly to the hearing body during the staff report. The public hearing will be conducted as follows. We'll get a staff report from interim city manager Randy Ely. Questions, if any, by the hearing body, I will open the public hearing. So for those that are proponents, you'll be given three minutes and then each opponent will also be given three minutes. I will close the public hearing. Any additional questions and then conversation by the hearing body. A decision shall be made by the hearing body at the close of the hearing or the matter will be continued to a date certain in the future. This will be the only notice of that date you will receive. Does anyone have any questions about the procedures of the hearing? All right.

Minister Ely. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, and our guests, the Street Maintenance Fee Task Force. We are in front of you quickly this evening with a request for a noise variance that will take place approximately 10 p.m. on August 1st. to about 3 a.m., August 2nd. We have published this noise variance request in the Oregonian. We got it a little late, so we weren't able to hit the Camry Herald, but we did the Oregonian. And we also sent notice to 13 adjacent property owners and have not heard any formal testimony. The actual, as I understand it, the birthday celebration will take place at another site in Canby, and this is for friends and family to come back before they get on their planes and head home the following day, as I understand it. That is, I think I'll wrap my comments there. If there's any questions, happy for staff to take it before we move on to public hearing. Thanks, sir.

Any questions by Council of Staff? Yes, Councilor Stearns.

I'm curious to how much noise they're going to produce. A ton. I mean, I've seen parties that you can hear like 10 blocks away and some just like music.

We can ask the applicant when they come up. We'll ask when she comes up.

Other questions? Okay. Okay. Ms. Zuniga, would you like to come up and talk to us about the event and... answer Councillor Stern's question about how much noise do you think you'll produce?

It's only going to be a little bit of music, no live bands, not like Hair Fest or anything like that. But my family's just visiting from California, so we just want a place after the party to just kind of decompress and relax and just have a good time together before we don't see them for another year or so. But it should just be probably laughing and talking and then just some music on a speaker.

Okay.

Yeah, pretty low key. But I just wanted to get the noise permit just in case so there's nothing, you know, crazy, just so I have all my bases covered.

Because I've been to, you know, quinceaneras where you can't hear what you're...

Yes. Yeah. So that's going to happen at the venue. And then when we come back, we'll be a little quieter. Okay.

Perfect. Yes, Councillor Patton. Thank you.

So I just wanted to say thank you for going through this process. I think in all the years that I've been on council, you are the first person who is having a backyard party that's going to make noise to ever come here and actually make this formal request. And I don't think that... And so one of my questions is the process of like in going through this process to get this noise variance for your gathering, did you find it particularly... Easy, self-explanatory, was it arduous? What were your thoughts about the process as a citizen going through this?

Yeah, extremely easy.

Okay.

It was just the form, filled it out, they reached out to me, paid the bill, and then now I'm here.

Okay. Well, I know that other people do these sort of things, and so for those of you out in TV land, I will just say that... If you plan on doing these things, this is what that process is for so that your neighbors are notified of such an event. And that way, if something is said and you've gone through this process, you have a much easier time of defending what you're doing and not being pestered. So I encourage others to go through this process. So thank you very much for doing this.

Yeah, no problem. I did want to add that the price is different online than when I did have to pay, so maybe just to update the website.

That is good. Thank you very much for letting us know.

No problem. Great. Thank you. Appreciate you doing this. As Councilor Patton said, this is the first time I think in 12 years I think I've had anybody come as a private homeowner to do this. So thank you for the consideration. Being just below Harefest is probably a safe bet. Perfect. Just a tad under. Well, perfect. Well, good. Well, thank you. I will open up the public hearing. Any proponents or opponents? Seeing none, we're going to close that right quick. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Any discussion?

Yes, Councillor Davis. Mr. Mayor, are you ready for a motion? I will take a motion, sir. I move to order 26-04, an order... An order granting the noise variance application to the Zunga?

Zuniga.

Thank you. Household to host a family gathering with music and socializing at 840 North Grant Street from approximately 10 p.m. on August 1st, 2026 to 3 a.m. on August 2nd, 2026. Second.

A motion has been made by Councillor Davis to approve order 26-04, order granting a noise variance application to the Zuniga household to host a family gathering with music and socializing at 840 North Grant Street from approximately 10 p.m. on August 1st, 2026 till 3 a.m. on August 2nd, 2026. Any further comment or discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed? So it passes, congratulations, have a great party. Awesome, thank you guys. Happy birthday. Thank you. You're welcome, awesome.

Thank you.

Before I take a motion to adjourn, just a brief announcement. Hot off the presses today, minutes before the meeting was just told that we have received word from ODOT that they have approved the application for state highway approach. which means that we can connect Walnut Street to 99E, and the bids are out, and the bid opening will be on August 12th, and then it'll be at the council meeting for discussion and approval on the 19th of August. So it's coming fast and furious, but thank you, Spencer, thank you, city staff, and Randy for getting us keeping us moving along. That's been a process in its own right. So this is great news. So thank you for that. Very excited. Our road is one step closer. All right. With that being said, I'll take a motion to adjourn.

I move to adjourn.

Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, can be that concludes our city council meeting this evening. We are now going to move into our work session this evening on the street maintenance fee and getting an update on information and all that. Before we get going, we'll just do some quick introductions around the table. For those of you who don't know, I'm Mayor Brian Hodson.

Interim City Administrator Randy Ely.

Council Member Jason Padden.

Jackie Jones, Street Maintenance Task Force member.

Dan Stearns, City Councilor.

Ruth Kyle Reyes, Finance Technician. Jamie Sickle, Director of Economic Development. Good evening, everyone.

Andrew Mancini from Kittleson & Associates. Tony Roos with Kittleson & Associates. Spencer Pollack with Public Works.

Paul Waterman, Council Member.

Laura Hubbard, Street Maintenance Task Force member.

Jim Davis, City Councilor.

Teresa Sasse, Street Maintenance Task Force Co-Chair.

Tracy Hensley, City Council President.

Perfect. Well, great. Appreciate everyone being here on a warm, hopefully, it'll be interesting if we do get thunder and lightning this evening.

Oh, it's booming here.

Oh, really? Has it been already happening? Okay.

I already texted Eric that he better get off that golf course.

Yeah. Well, so again, thank you. Tonight's session has really been, I think, a labor of love for much of the task force, and I mean that somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I know it's been a process to get us to this point. Up to date, there's been six task force meetings to get to where we are tonight. The council has had a number of updates throughout the process to get here as well. and so I just want to thank the task force for your work and city staff for just continuing to press forward. I know there's been a lot of data mining and straightening out and recalculating and things of all that nature, so thank you to city staff. Tonight is about updates and sharing information between you know, for what the task force needs to be able to make a decision and for us as a council just to kind of know where we're at in the process. And so, Kittleson, thank you for being here to help us weed through these waters tonight. We're not making a decision tonight. Tonight's just about information about, you know, the council being able to hear the same information that the street task force committee is hearing. I'm hoping that it's a friendly conversation. This has been a passionate topic for a number of people for many, many years. So I'm hoping that we just continue to work forward and not spend too much time belaboring what was and we look ahead. I think the biggest thing that I can say for tonight is that our purpose here is to make sure that we're sharing all the latest and greatest information so both groups know what's going on. And that the task force feels comfortable with the information that is presented to be able to go back and meet, discuss it, and come back with a recommendation to the council. You know, there's, I think, two decision points that the, and maybe I'm wrong, and I'm sure Kittleson will correct me on this as well, but the two decision points to come back to the council with from the task force are, pavement condition index recommendation. where do we want to be as a city, and then what's that cost going to be? What's the recommendation? And I'm hoping that the task force can have that back to the council for our first meeting in October so we can keep this moving along. It's a heavy lift, but I think we're at a point where we can get this completed here before the end of the year and get this going. So those are my comments, and I think we're turning it over to Ms. Tickle. Sorry, Jamie, before that, sorry. Did you have anything you wanted to say, Madam Chair? Not at this point.

Great. So I just wanted to provide a bit of an overview for tonight's work session, and then I'm going to hand it over to our consultants. And so the concept around creating this joint work session was to bring both the Street Maintenance Task Force and City Council together to be able to hear from the consultants the way that the fee is being engineered. You know, as Mayor noted, that a lot of work has gone into this and a lot of time has gone into this. And we felt that it was best for everybody to hear the information from the consultants to have a better understanding because we've spent a lot of time getting a good understanding of what the current street maintenance fee looks like. And so now that we have that, Essentially, we're asking you to somewhat forget some of that information and learn a new fee. So to kind of provide a baseline, we've worked with Kittleson. So the numbers that you hear tonight, whether it be a monthly number or a yearly target, that serves as a baseline for this conversation. So those numbers can change. They can be amended. We hope for a recommendation from the Street Maintenance Task Force. And without giving too much away, those baseline numbers for the discussion are based off of maintaining the current pavement condition index of 75. So again, it's just a foundation for the conversation, nothing set in stone. And we needed to have a number to plug into the system that they have built and reverse engineered. So we thought that kind of keeping things at that baseline of that PCI, pavement condition index was an important way to start that conversation. As I mentioned, some of the discussions from the past around good, better, best scenarios or that residential and non-residential would all receive the exact same amount increase changed a bit as we started to work with Kittleson and have a better understanding of what the new trip generation manual looked like. And they are going to hit more on these with finer points. I'm just trying to give a broad basis. And so, you know, We found, as you all know, that a comprehensive or a more comprehensive approach was needed and that's when Kittleson came on and they started working with us in February of 2026. And so, how the fee is currently billed, what the increases look like, we're gonna be looking through some of those things. And so I would encourage you to think of potential increases as an overall target rather than each individual business or resident or non-resident. And as I said, they'll go into that a little bit further. A couple of just quick definitions that I wanted to touch on. I've said one already. So PCI, you might hear, it's Pavement Condition Index. So that is the actual status of the roads. And then CPI or CPIU, which is about inflation and cost of living increases to deal with inflation and cost of living. And because those are the same letters just put differently, I thought I would call those out specifically. And staff has been working on standard operating procedures or process manuals as it relates to this entire process. And in addition to those manuals, some of the discussion pieces that you'll hear tonight, including the CPI and PCI, the PCI update specifically that Spencer is working on, and then even updating to the newest edition of the IT manual, we believe that all of those things will help to make sure that this fee is successful over time so that we don't find ourselves 20 years down the road saying this stagnant fee has not been updated and it cannot do what we need it to do. So with that, I will turn it over to Tony and Andrew who have spent time putting together a presentation for you and we'll go from there.

Someone sharing that on the screen.

There you go.

Fantastic, all right.

Again, my name's Tony Roos, I'm with Kittleson. The street maintenance fees have been a fun addition to our skills at Kittleson. No two are alike, other than they charge across the board, businesses, churches, schools, and residents. Other than that, they're all different levers you can throw. So thank you for the city for bringing us on to help with this, and I'll jump in. All right, so tonight we're gonna go through the context of the street maintenance fee, why update it, what's gonna change, why are we recommending changes, and then we'll close with an anticipated timeline of implementation, and then any questions you might have. And feel free to interrupt me at any point in time and ask questions. I'm an old Army guy, so if I use an acronym that you don't understand, call me out on it. I'm trying to. It's one of my yearly goals to get better at that. So context for the street maintenance fee. It's a fee that's added to everybody's maintenance street to their utility bill for the city, right? You guys did it for 2008. It's collecting roughly $650,000 a year to be applied to all the roads in the city on a rotating basis. One of the things that... I haven't bounced this off Spencer yet, but to make sure, you collect the money at $650,000 a year. Some years, you'll spend $400,000 a year. Others, you'll spend $800,000. Depends on what road you're working on. But it's going to average out over a five, 10-year period to $650,000 a year, right?

So the fees get collected, yes. But yes, we spend different. And that's why we've gone to a two-year payment.

Yep. So then you can do longer stretches of road, what have you. Yeah. What's changed since 2000? What black swan event did we have in 2020 that changed people working from home, the advent of remote ability and not commuting? Did Amazon exist in 2000 where you're getting grocery deliveries at your house or ClickList at Fred Meyer's? A lot of travel patterns have changed in the last 26 years because of advancements in shared the shared economy with Uber and Lyft and all these home deliveries that are happening. So the ITE manual that's the go-by for us for predicting what a different business will generate for traffic, it gets updated every couple of years. And so in 2000, it was released version 8. We're at version 12 now. And every year they go through and they do case studies on all the different land uses and update them and say this, you know, Costco was generating this number of trips, a Costco-like development was generated this number of trips in 2000, released nine and updated it, 10 it updated, 12 it updated. So every release they're updating those trip generation rates. So using travel patterns predictions from release eight to apply it today, there's a potential for some inequities in how that's rolled out. So updating is good best practice. Your population is greatly increased. It's a really thriving community. So it needs to reflect that. And then you've also added roads. With the growth adds roads for Spencer to maintain. So that's why we need to update the rate and make sure everything's accounted for. He said, where does it go? It's going to go to keeping your PCI high. Nobody wants to get a road down the zeros and tens. And this is one of the best parts about the street maintenance fees is maintaining your assets. The roadway infrastructure coupled with sewer and water are in the top three assets that a community owns. And by doing the street maintenance fee to put it to a pavement maintenance program maintains that asset. That's why you re-roof your house on a regular basis because you want the roof shingles to fail and not the subsurface. That's what this PCI and maintaining a higher PCI does. When you're in a PCI range of 0 to 10, you can't just chip seal it. You can't just overlay. You've got subgrade failure. And to repair a road that's gone to complete potholes and just rutting, you've got a full dig out. You have to do what we did on Ivy Street. It's a full replacement of the road base. And that cost... is five to 10 times more than it is just to maintain in a good condition. So you guys sitting in an average PCI of 75 right now is a really good spot. It means you've maintained it. You're not letting it fail. And when pavement fails, it fails slowly at first, and then it falls off a cliff. So once it starts to fail, it is gone. And the cost to maintain it, to bring it back to good the further it goes, that lift to get it back to good condition, it's prohibitively costly. So this program to maintain what you have and do true asset management in your payment systems is a great policy to have and maintain.

Anything else you want to cover on that restoration? Mr. Mayor? Yes. On that slide, Tony, thank you for that. There's a bullet there that says, costs roughly $1 million annually to achieve a very good rating. Is that number still accurate in real time today, this $1 million? For the city of Canby, yes. It is? Yeah. Okay, good to know.

Thank you. And that's what your CAPS, I think, is doing your study right now. They're going to come back and they're going to do an evaluation on your pavement system. So they're going to assign a PCI to all the roads. Pretty fun process to do if you go out and you all drive the roads here so you know if you see cracks, that takes you from 100 to a 90. If you see ruts, it takes you a little bit more. If you see another type of crack, you know, longitudinal cracks, there's different things that bring that PCI down and they go and they're going to evaluate all the roads in the city. The key to that, it's not a one and done when you're doing that PCI inspection. That is something that has to be redone on a regular basis because not all roads fail at the same geometry. They're not going to fail at the same rate, be it additional traffic on it, be it just different road subgrades. different wetness, you know, they may not have the right storm drainage on it that's going to let it fail faster. So you need to maintain, you need to do this PCI inspection on a regular rotating, you know, every two years to, I wouldn't recommend go more than five years between PCI. And the tool that they're going to use tracks that over time for all the roads. And they'll be able to better, the more data points you have, the better they're going to have predictive analytics to tell you where that goes and how that fails. And why that's important is that also plugs in what it's going to cost to keep that PCI or raise it. So the cost, as costs go up, asphalt, you know, 2000 asphalt, we were seeing it for $15 a ton. We just opened bids yesterday for a project and the bid was for $180 a ton. So, you know, you think about... Yeah, so asphalt is just ridiculous. Yes, sir.

Just as a reference point, what would be the PCI of, like, Pine Street near the fairgrounds?

I just drove it. If I was to ballpark that, I think you're mid to mid 50s.

That's about what I was going to throw at. Like maybe the high 40s, mid 50s, somewhere in there.

But it's also at that point where it's not going to take much for it to drop down into poor. And the utility cuts, all that's been done in those patches, they don't hold up as long as a good mainline pavement does.

Along the lines of the update to our current PCI, I seem to remember at some point in time, years ago or whatever, there was talk about getting, and it might have been at a budget cycle, some sort of piece of equipment that attaches to the street sweeper or some function of the street sweeper that while it is traveling the roads doing its job, it is also doing a real-time job update and tracking of what the conditions of the road is. Is that something we actually move forward with, or is that still in the works, or did I hear wrong?

No, there is a lot of those new devices coming out with AI processing. I don't know what your guys' experience is with them. My personal opinion, I think it's cool technology. I don't think that it is 100% ready for launch for what we would need it for. I want to give it a year or two, see if they get a few more bugs worked out.

Personally.

I was just curious. The advancement we've seen in that predictive analytics from screening the videos is where it was five years ago to where it is today is just tremendous. A couple more years, I think it's going to take our inspectors off the ground doing that PCI inspection and let it be done by a street sweeper. But I don't know that it's quite ready. I think it's a cost prohibitive more than being ready for use. So the costs are still high because it hasn't been fully implemented yet. All right. So where does it go? It goes to all the city streets and excludes 99 as a state road. And the city having just adopted all the old county roads within city limits. That may take a bit of a hit on your overall PCI. The PCI that was done at 75 was just city streets and excluded the county roads. The county roads weren't as high of a PCI, so that's going to have a result of dropping your PCI down a little bit, I would predict. Under the recent settlements that have been happening for ADA and ADA regulations, PROWEG, the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guideline. Anytime you do something more than a crack seal or a slurry seal on a roadway, you have to bring the ADA ramps up to current code, truncated domes and all the slopes being correct. The street maintenance fee dollars are also impacting that, so rebuilding those ramps in addition to just doing the pavement and the chip seals. All right. So why update it now? Travel patterns have changed. How we get our groceries, how we get deliveries. There's been new land uses that have come in since 2000. Did food trucks exist in 2000 food truck pods? We had gut trucks back in the Army, but those were, you know, they'd drive to you. You wouldn't drive to them. The... We talked about the fairness and equity of it, how the rates have changed since 2000. That's a fairness issue. We want to make sure that people are being charged what they are, the damage they are doing to the roadways. So that's the intent of the street maintenance fee is to take the number of trips that somebody is generating in a business or residential or school and say those cars are beating up our roads. Therefore, you should pay your proportionate share of that damage to the roadways. And then... redistribute the bills using the updated methodology. So how is it changing? As Jamie mentioned, we've set a baseline of a million dollars, just under a million dollars, but for presentation sake, I think we're 978, rounding up to a million dollars a year, up from 650. There is the ability and the tool we're building for the city, we can phase that in. We just punch in the number you want to generate for the year and it'll automatically update all of the rates for the businesses and the homeowners, property owners. We did set a million dollars for a single family residential at $7.50 a month and The multifamilies, the manufactured home parks, they are slightly less. They just parade down a little bit because they generate less traffic. Single-family homes, 9.8 trips per day. Multifamily is a little bit less because one garbage truck covers six, seven homes. So overall, they're generating less traffic. The non-residential accounts... Sorry, the residential accounts would account for $620,000 a year out of the million. And non-residential would pick up the balance of that at $380,000 in this current model that we have. What did you call it, Jamie? Our play box that we're using? Our baseline. Thank you. But remember those two numbers, 620 and 380, because we're going to come back to those. So residential account changes and charges. So the current is at $5 a month. Lake Oswego is $4. We're going up to $7.50. Wilsonville just raised theirs. And... One of them just raised it up, here we go, Oregon City, they're now at $16.89, effective July 1. So across the board, but what's lost in there is how much money, how many miles of road they maintain. They're all different than what can be. You have 70 miles. Hillsboro has got 160. Lake Oswego has 115. So the cities have different amounts of roadway and different amounts of ADA ramps now that they have to maintain and bring up to speed. Trip generation categories. So when we talk about non-residential... a high cube warehouse, all right, that you're going to, one person goes to get stuff out of storage once a day or once a year to get to their locker. Big footprint, very low generation of traffic versus the other end, a drive-thru McDonald's where you're seeing from five in the morning till 11 o'clock at night, just cars running through the drive-thru, going into the store to buy food. We have, I got to say, when I did Newberg Street utility fee from scratch, I had in my career worked five overnighters. Four of them were doing what Ruth did for the city, for the city of Canby, and classifying all of the codes, all the non-residential codes. uses in the city. It was a labor of love for Sharon, for her, but it was a huge lift to get all of the codes, an ITE code.

There's how many different codes, Andrew? 100, 200 plus, and 55 of them here.

Yeah. So there's multiple codes, and she had to read through the book and say, okay, this one is a hair salon, so that falls under ITE code this. This is a red box that falls under ITE code that. And she had to figure out the square footage for each of those buildings or for the school district, how many students are attending the school. So the work she did cannot be stated enough. That was a huge lift. So hopefully you don't have to work overnight like I did when I was doing it. But that's the general idea of the trip generation. We look at the high generations and in progressive order of what they are. So there's some samples of what that different ones would be. Here's an example, diving a little deeper into industrial manufacturing. ITE code now, 1.38 trips per thousand square feet of warehouse versus a fast food with a drive-through is 116 trips per thousand square feet. So you can see that relative difference of why. And when we looked at the existing bill, the cannabis charging based on the 2000 model, those numbers were not in line, not matching what we know today as trip generation for these types of uses. So the example fee calculation. So how do we get the fee? I have a question. Oh, yes, sir.

So I noticed on the slide, and also I was wondering that, The size of the vehicle, I think, contributes a lot to the road wear and tear. Absolutely. One semi probably does more damage than, I don't know, 100 cars going on the same route. And it says do not factor in heavy vehicles in the trip generation. Is there a way to do that? Because it would make sense that the ones that are really tearing up the roads are the ones that may be charged to pay a little bit more.

There are some communities that have that into their code. I think the practical side of that is your heavy industrial users are bringing those big trucks in, are situated off the state highway. They're situated off of major arterials and collector roads and not on the local roads.

We got Clarios and we got the, you know, yeah, we have, I think we have...

It does take that into consideration. I think what Tony's trying to say is that rather than if you're a resident, let's say, who works in Canby and you might be driving to do all of your business in Canby or much of your business, that these trucks are going to the distribution center and then relatively right back out to the highway then to... So, yes, there is some road access that they use, and some of those are local streets like residential streets. Much of them are more collector, and so the amount that they're staying on the local roads is less. Is that correct? Correct.

Yeah, and if I can just add a little bit, and Tony can expand if he needs to, but we have different design standards for the different classification of road. A local street in a brand new subdivision on the interior does not get built to the exact same depth and extensiveness that Highway 9090 would be built to.

I think your residential is three inches of asphalt on eight inches of rock? Our residential, I believe, is four on 12. Four on 12, okay. Good section whereas Ivy Street when we rebuilt that was nine inches of asphalt on 16 inches of rock so it's a heftier section that can handle a lot more that That abuse from a truck where the thinner you get the more asphalt a flexible pavement So trucks will the thinner it is the more they will beat it up. I agree with that.

That's a great question

All right. So how the fee is calculated. So it really starts from right to left, but we have to do the math left to right. So the monthly fee is your building square footage divided by 1,000, by the trip generation from ITE, and then the fee per trip that's calculated. And the fee per trip that's calculated is the spreadsheet that Andrew's been managing for us. take all the work that Ruthie did, apply all the trip rates to it, and we get a total number of trips generated in the city. And then you take those total number of trips generated in the city and divide it by the amount that you want to generate. This is really rudimentary summary. To get a fee per trip. And then... Canby takes it one step further and a lot of agencies do for ease of processing. They put the non-residential into buckets or classes. And so your similar trip generating rated uses get the same average trip generation rate and the same fee. So the lowest ones...

Warehouse...

Yeah, but they would be in one bucket. So they have the same trip generation rate applied to them. That's really an average in that class. So each bucket represents, we have six buckets plus a seventh one, which is the unique ones in ITE. Gas stations are unique. You don't do this by 1,000 square feet. You do gas stations by the number of pumps at the gas stations. Schools are by the number of students. Movie theaters. Movie theater by number of seats, hospitals by the number of beds. So there's a handful, I think a dozen or so, unique ones that are Class VII that are based on not 1,000 square feet. But each of the buckets, the six buckets that are 1,000 square feet, represent, as close as we could, one-sixth of the total non-residential trips generated in the city. Okay. So we just went down until we got a sixth of the non-residential trips. Okay, that's bucket one. Rounding to the nearest up or down so an entire classification is in that bucket. Hope that makes sense.

Okay. Next.

Really small to read, but this is the brains behind the system. This is the rate table that's going to create by land use. Okay. And what you have on the top section, I've got a pointer here. I can use it without blinding somebody. Sorry, Mr. Mayor, if I blind you. Does it reach? All right. That's kind of faint. The top box is all of your residentials. The middle is the buckets one through six. And then below that is our unique fees, unique... trip generation rates. What's highlighted in green is the flexibility for the system. And right now we have $978,000 plugged in there. It rounds up to a million as what we want to generate year over year. And then we have a split of how much of that million dollars is going to be assigned to residential, how much of that million dollars is going to be assigned to non-residential. There's A lot of ways you can skin the cat on this one of what that split is. What we've recommended is based on local roads versus more commercial generating roadways. And when I would do that math in the city's network, 62% of the roads in Canby are local in nature. 38% are commercial. Use your words. A little bit more commercial. More commercially generated. So when you saw the previous number of 620,000 coming from residential, 380 from non-residential, that's where that split comes from. But that is a very quick, if you want to talk about phasing, if you ultimately want to build yourself to a $1.5 million street maintenance fee, But you want to do an increase in $100,000 a year, Ruth, when she does her yearly update, can just type in $1.1 million. Next year, $1.2 million. And she doesn't have to go through all the reclassifications of the system. She just has to put the new and changed ones in that she knows of. And we can talk about how that percentage fee split occurs year over year as well. But we built it now based on the number of roads in the city, the types of roads in the city. I don't know if you want to know about what other folks have done for their split. They've done it by the total number of trips generated by residential and non-residential. Some have said, let's just split it 50-50.

So there's a couple different ways you can do it to be justified. This 620 and 380, that plays into this, depending on what you want to do more of, residential or industrial.

I think I was going to adjust what you were going to say. The split is based off of the roads that we currently have that we're updating. The actual numbers themselves are based off of that roughly $1 million number that we talked about with the PCI. If, through the Street Maintenance Task Force, the Street Maintenance Task Force said, rather than phasing, we just want to see that number set at 1.5. Or our recommendation is that it's set at 1.5 and it's split 50-50. Or we want to see this... So the numbers, when we were talking kind of at that overview of the inputs... We had to use something to be able to show some of this work. But as far as the single family residential, that number could change. The million dollars at the bottom, that number could change. If we want to say we just want it 50-50 so that it's split out that way, that can change. And I think what Tony's trying to say is that that's a relatively easy process. It's just... one of the ways or one of the, I'm going to say best practices, but that's just my understanding, I could be wrong, is to split it based on the roads that you have. So this is a baseline?

This is a starting point. I thought you were going to say, does that mean we're going to put every year 60% to local roads and fix those? Okay, that's good. Because that's not how it works. One of the things we did do a little behind the scenes was some gymnastics with this. If you wanted to say raise your residential to $10 a month, what would that do? And there's a couple of different ways we can do it. We can just update the amount of revenue that's collected and keep the same split. And so if you adjusted your revenue to get your residential, single family residential to $10, that would generate about 1.3 million a year. in fees using the current 62-38 split. If you want to maintain the million dollars and adjust the split, it would be 83% of the revenue would be generated from the residential and 17 from non-residential to stay at a million dollars, but put the residential at $10. A lot of numbers right there, so I apologize.

Can you say what that split was? You said 18 and 72?

17 and 83. 17 and 83.

Oh, yeah.

Or $1.3 million if you keep the proposed split that we have. Yes, sir.

That's maybe a question for the city staff more. So right now, or maybe not, is the proposal on the... Street maintenance fee going to be per something billed per building or per tenant? Or how is that going to work out in practice? And if somebody sub-sub-sub-sub leases what they're leasing, I'm just curious if we have infrastructure for that or is it going to be per business license? I mean, I'm just curious how that's going to work out.

So it's for the land use. Sorry, did I, were you going to?

No.

It's per the land use. So through some of the work that Ruth has done, she's been able to track some instances where business licenses didn't exist. And so having better accounting and a better understanding of how the system works so that people who are operating without business licenses, which they're not supposed to do, would then have a business license and that that would be updated so they would be paying their street maintenance fee. but it would be for the business. And Ruth can correct me if I'm wrong. If a property owner wants to receive the bill for each tenant in his business or her business, then it can be broken out where it could be billed to the property owner and they can recoup that money in any way they'd like to see fit. But that ongoing... kind of system maintenance of making sure that I didn't own a small convenience store in your building and then I decide to go out of business and then Ruth opens up a nail salon, which are completely different uses. So the better tracking that has been put into place and that better process system so that there's not the sub, sub, sub, sub, sub lease

So what you're proposing to do is to create a street maintenance fee bill by business license?

It is.

I mean, so basically I have a business license and that's how it's going to be in the city system.

Well, that's one way for us to be able to track.

I mean, I think it may be a good way. Yeah. Because currently, of course, I'm a business owner in Canby. I don't get a street maintenance fee bill from the city for my business license. But I think that goes currently to the property owner.

So if the property owner wanted to keep receiving those bills, and they would do a tenant agreement, so they would provide an agreement to the city that says, we'll receive that bill or those bills for multiple businesses in my property, and we will recoup that money in the way that we see fit, that is one way that it can be done. But the system is really set up so that for each location... For each license, yeah.

Okay. And so as far as when you're doing the license, currently, because I get a city business license every year, I don't think I provide anywhere what my square footage is or I don't even know that my business is classified.

Sorry, can I take this one?

Yeah, I'm just using myself as an example just so I can understand.

Yeah, of course. Your landlord has provided that.

Okay.

We have that.

Okay, but my license itself, what does it say? What class it is? How many square footage?

Oh, that will actually also be modified because I will be working with the business licensing department to add all of this information. It's the reactivation of the communication in between departments.

Okay, so the license process will change maybe in the future to not necessarily, it might not change on your side.

It might change on our side so that we're sure that we are able to track it. And part of that is some of that, you know, those process manuals so that it's not just one person that works for the city or two people that work for the city that have an idea of how this works or who provide input, you know, Through this process, you've seen economic development, public works, finance, but then also we talk about land uses, which is planning, our business licenses, which is admin. So it's going to be a group effort moving forward to make sure those checks and balances are in place.

Okay, because I'm just imagining, because right now I just fill out the form, pay the fee every year. But since I've been in Canby, I've changed the square footage of my business four different times. And I don't know, I might do it again sometime just for fun. But I'm just wondering, I don't believe that was tracked according to my license earlier, but you're saying that you're going to start trying to track how much square footage that I'm using? Okay.

Thank you.

All right, maybe a table we can read now. So some quick breakdowns of following here. We looked at what are the bills and we used generic land use. These are actual bills in the system. Since it's not finalized yet, we don't want to publish what actual buildings were, businesses were. So these are the bills that are changing more than $400, or their bills will be above $400 in this new proposed rate change. And again, if the numbers change, the amount collected, this is based on that baseline fee of $1 million with the 62-38 split. You can see who's going to be changing by, or whose bills will be above $400, and whether it goes up or down. Post office, that's a lot of trips that in the 2000 model weren't generating as much traffic as they are now. Supermarkets, fast food restaurants, these are the ones that make sense to me. what that change would be. The high cube short-term storage warehouse, current bill 1,000 dropping to 845. So huge footprint, less traffic being generated under the new IT manual. So it made sense to us that it went down. What's another big one? The very top multi-purpose recreation facility. Going up, I mean, that is a... not surprising that it's going up because that's our, you're generating more traffic to attend that in the current model. I'm sure you're all sitting here thinking, what store is that?

I have a quick question. So I'm looking at this, and up, one, two. The second one down from the top says freestanding discount superstore would go from $702 to $1,641, which would be a $930 change. But if you go all the way to the bottom, it also says freestanding discount superstore, and it says current bill 89. It's perfect.

Correct.

Oh, so this is, it just doesn't say that one is a bigger superstore than the other.

Correct. We stripped out the names, but you have multiple superstores in the city.

Okay, because that seemed weird, but now, okay, if you say if those are two different superstores based on different square feet, that now makes sense. Okay.

And I just want to reiterate, because it seemed like there was a lot of shock on some people's faces, that none of these are a definite or a proposal. These are all just examples for what we have currently plugged in based on this hypothetical. All of this can be changed, and that's what we'll go into more detail with the Street Maintenance Task Force for their recommendation to Council.

All right, so now we're looking at the question. Yes, sir. So an interesting piece, there's the amount in change at the high school. What causes that fluctuation?

You want to come start, or it's just a word?

Yeah, so it was the ITE in 2000, the eighth version, was doing it by 1,000 square feet, and now it has gone to the 12th edition is by the student, actually the last two editions have been done by the student account.

And it's decreasing.

And so the rate is decreasing to reflect that. Okay.

And so one thing I just want to note, and especially I think it's good to kind of pause on this slide for this point, but in the beginning of the presentation, you know, the talk about why we would bring this to the 12th edition and bring this forward in this way to make it fair and equitable. And I think... It makes everyone go, oh, well, that means that everybody increases the same amount. But what it means is that based on the way that trips are generated and that land uses are assigned, that the fee is then applied fairly for that kind of business. That being said, I understand and I think staff and the consultants as well understand that some of these numbers, even if we don't know who we're talking about, are not easily digestible. And so I just want to, again, that's why Spencer's saying we're not necessarily proposing anything. This is to give us that conversation so everybody understands when we're saying we're working with the consultants, it's tweaking, talking, having a better understanding of what this is and what the impacts to our community really mean.

Okay, I've noticed a couple of them I was looking at there doing some math in my head. I think the current proposal is like the car wash having a 3,000% increase. The fast food having a 1,000% increase or more than that. Is there a way to phase that in a little bit more? Because although we talk about fairness, it's sort of difficult for a business to have a cost go up by that much without having to major...

And again, not to cut any of this short, but all of this can be phased. It's all proposal. It's all hypothetical.

I realize it's proposal, but I'm not saying it's for sure. But if we are going to do something like that, to be aware that having that, a 4,000% increase in cost on a bill is not something that's easy to swallow by any business.

And this might be something you're going to talk about later. And I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt because I know your question's next. But even when we're talking about the potential of phasing, that's one of the items that we've talked to these guys about. And I said, when the question comes up about phasing, is that something we're able to do? And Tony kind of chuckled. And I thought, oh, he's probably like, she's asking for something else. And he said, it's very, very simple. We go back to the number. provide those inputs. We change them a little bit. It could be that staff phases that over several years. It's something that is important to ask and it's something that definitely has been top of mind for us and also for the consultants moving forward.

It's the beauty of the green box.

I'm just saying that even though in theory it may be equitable practicalities, that kind of a cost increase isn't something that you just...

Yeah, so I think a couple of things. The first thing I was going to say is that, so I don't lose track, but I have my finger on my note. First, to Councillor Stern's point, by us having the members of the task force here with us tonight and being part of this conversation, they now, and this has been a conversation at that table for the meetings that I've been a part of, there has always been a talk about maybe this is something that would need to be phased in. So that is on the front of the minds of those folks sitting around that table reviewing this. With us having that conversation here, now they're hearing it from us as counselors, And so now they're getting that information firsthand that as they do their work, this might be something that they want to look at as far as recommendations and something that I was going to throw out, but this seems like an opportune time to do it. in being part of this council and working as a member of the council, but working on task force and groups similar to this and feeding information up to the council, I've always found that a menu of options, so not just one recommendation, but saying, hey, we looked at this, here are a few options for you to choose from that we have vetted, so that way the council can kind of chew on that, mull that over, and then from that make a decision always has worked well in the past. So that is a seed I will plant with you folks. Now, something I will say when it comes to the fair and equitable part of this, I think what I take away from seeing the drastic change in these numbers is that if this system had have been built to use versions 9 through 11 of this system, ITE manual, then we wouldn't be seeing changes like this now, because those changes would have been phased in over manual nine, and then there'd be a little change in 10, and so on and so forth. So I think by going through this process and really building this whole thing out a little stronger than it was before is going to put some resiliency in it that we're relying on this. I also think, at least as a counselor, when we talk about our work with the comprehensive plan update and all these things. To me, this drives home the fact that when we are making the decisions as counselors, we really need to be looking far into the future when we make these decisions. And we need to be saying, well, what do we need to build into this process in order to make this more resilient? Because this, unfortunately, is not the only thing like this at the city that we have these problems with. There are many processes and fees and things that have not been updated for years, and then it takes this big jump. And so I think in going through this and hearing all of this, it really wakes me up to the point that we need to start asking more questions about, okay, we're moving forward with this thing, but what are some of the... future aspects of this that we might have missed and how are other people doing this and making sure that we revisit that on a regular basis so that we don't fall behind. So that's, that's just something that, that stuck into, that really popped out to me with this whole process.

Thank you.

Yes, you may.

So I have a question then on that because just throwing this out there, when I see these numbers as a business owner, that scares me for some of these businesses because we're so taxed as it is and to see these numbers hike as much as they are. So just for instance, if we recommended, say we're at 750 now and we recommended 10. So the difference in that is you know, two and a half dollars, $3, maybe for a residence, but we've got to somehow come up with a better system. So we're not killing the businesses. That's, that would be huge for a business. And I would, I'm just going to bat for him.

Great. I would just say that, um, A, we can't wait to get back with the task force to kick around those kind of questions, which is our next stop, I think. And yes, untethering is what we're working with these brilliant folks who work with many cities on figuring that out. How can we untether? If you want to go to 10 for residential... how can you fix this a little bit gentler in the machine behind the wizard, the big curtain? Correct. But I think you can.

I think I heard earlier. Absolutely. You can. Yeah, that was the analysis we ran. To go from $750 to $10, you have two things. It either raises your revenue total or it changes the split.

I would say this is a good slide because I think there's been a lot of conversation or some thoughts that it needs to be equitable. If we're gonna raise residential by, seven percent, then we got to do businesses by seven percent as well. As we see, as we look at that number, seven percent on businesses is a lot different than seven percent on household. And so I think this is an important slide as we talk about the impact on businesses. It's substantial, you know, and not saying that it's not, I mean, homeowner, you know, and I've got three kids at home for the summer that all drive, and, you know, our trip generation is probably astronomical. But, you know, so I do think that this is a good slide to keep in mind as we bat this around, what is that going to look like? Council Member?

Yeah, I agree with a lot of that. But also, I think we have to make sure that we're taking into account that the equitability of the businesses, even though we're going to change, if we adjust the housing to go up to bring down the cost of the businesses to make sure that the businesses are still, because it's going up for a reason. And if it goes up, you know, 50%, if we drop it down to 40%, is that still the equitable contribution of that business to the damage or whatever the the maintenance of that road and so making sure that we're we were justifying that part of you know not reducing it just to reduce the impact on the mythic going up but that in the long term over because like we did with the secs we phased it in because we if that was about the impact now but to be equitable in the future and we're not just lowering it now just to be make it loose and that's an impact, but in the future it will still be equitable for what those businesses are contributing to the road maintenance. And so, and make sure that communication is going out. We're not making a change just to make the business pay less and make the residents pay more, if that makes sense. So.

Yes, Council President.

Yeah, and I would say just to expand on where Councilor Waterman was going there. While I am cognizant of the costs and stuff for businesses, I think what this shows is that based from Manual 8 to now 12, is that the residents have actually probably been subsidizing the businesses quite a bit over the years for their use of the streets. And while I think it's important for us to support businesses, I am not a huge fan of the residents subsidizing a bunch of the wear and tear to the system that a business is creating. So with that being said, if upping the amount of... the fee on single-family homes and apartments and all that stuff will help lessen the total blow for a business. What I would really be interested in seeing is if we talk about this phased approach, the goal would be to get all those users up to a particular number, but do that over the course of five years. or some odd year period. We would know, similar to when we were having our conversation about the SDCs and stuff, that we would technically be losing a bit of money in the system. But ultimately, it's getting us to where we need to be. It's not hitting the people all in one big, huge shot. And so it allows for some adjustment. So like in the case of, where's the biggest one here? The car wash. Okay, so like with the car wash, where is that one?

Auto car wash, yeah.

So where this is saying $427 needs to be the increase. maybe by doing, and this is just hypothetical, these numbers won't make any sense, but this is just how I see it in my head, that if we raise the fee up from seven to 10 on homes, then maybe that 427 might get knocked down to 300 and some. And then, just a second, and then over the course, so it's like, well, asking a business to have a 300 and some odd dollar increase in one year is a lot. So let's divide that up over five years and like, Per month, yeah. So per month, let's divide that over five or six years or something like that and say, okay, in year one, it's going to be this much. And then just so you know, next year, it's going to be a little bit more and so on and so forth. So eventually over the course of a period of time, that will get up to where it needs to be. Knowing that, if we do phase it in over a certain period of time, most likely there is going to be updated manuals that will change all of these numbers again. So by doing that phased approach, it's adding another layer of complication to it, but I think that it would be much more fair to those people who are seeing such a drastic increase to have that phased in over a much more extended period of time. Because it's not their fault that we have not made these updates to the system over the years. So it's not fair for us to penalize them by all of a sudden saying, oh, by the way, freestanding discount superstore of X size, now your fee is $939 more a month. That just won't work. Yeah.

appreciate everything that's been said. I do want to just also remind everyone that we're not really making decisions tonight. We're not asking for decisions. It's strictly just informational. So if we can get through the rest of these slides, I think you'll have a little bit more of this conversation will be answered centrally. And then when we go back for recommendations, then a little bit more of these details of are we phasing this in? Are we not phasing this? All of that will be worked out by then.

Yes, and I will just say the reason I'm sharing this thought now is because when this meeting is done, and folks, I want to make sure that so when the recommendation comes from the Street Maintenance Task Force... while we're sitting up there on the dais to review it, this is the thoughts that's going to be running through my head. And so if the last thing I want to do is to not share those thoughts with this group and then them do all of this work, and then all of a sudden they come up with a thing and are then blindsided by the fact that I'm going on about this rant about phasing. So I'm sharing this information now so that there is a window into my brain of how I'm looking at this. So when they do their work, because I will not have any, I will not, you know, I will not be giving more input after this meeting. This is a decision for these folks. The next time I will weigh in on this is when it's across the dais as a council. So that's why I'm getting this information into the space.

That generated a lot more conversation, I thought. All right. The next one we looked at was a proposed bill with the greatest increase. Very similar, but you'll see some that are less than $400. So this is more of that same conversation. The one that stood the most after me, they're highlighted. A fast food joint, a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru paying only $40 is... It's a travesty of not updating the system, updating the process. Same thing with a fuel station with a convenience market. $7 for a fuel station seems really outlandishly low. You know, some of the higher bills, the multipurpose rec facility that's, you know, going up $500.

What's an example of that?

The fairgrounds.

Oh, gotcha. Okay, thank you.

But we didn't say that out loud. It's a business like the fairgrounds.

Okay, gotcha. Thank you.

A business like the fairgrounds.

All right. And then the other one we have is the greatest decrease. So the opposite end of the spectrum. So high schools up there is a big decrease. Manufacturing. So these are the ones that are manufacturing, warehouse, high cube storage, Those are the ones you're seeing on here. They have a really big footprint, but they're not generating a lot of traffic. So the change from the version 8 to today, to the 12th edition, those chip generations have changed significantly. Those predictions of how many trips those are going to generate have significantly changed, and that's what's really seen reflected on here. Their footprint didn't change, but the number of trips they generate per that thousand square foot has changed significantly.

Tony, you have utility twice.

What's that about? So each of those lines is an individual business, but we stripped off the business and put their generic land use title in. So you have two different utilities, two different high-Q warehouses.

But these are all real current customers. They're just generic so that we can be objective as we look at them.

And I think next time I'll get Jamie and the street maintenance fee another slide with this that talks about the percent change, how many of the businesses are changing plus or minus a range. So we'll commit to getting that piece of data to you as well so you can see the bigger picture across the spectrum.

So here's the devil's advocate part of that discussion.

thought process about phasing in of folks that have high is... Are you going to argue yourself right now? No. What I'm going to do is extend this to say if we're phasing people that are getting a high increase, then we need to equally phase people that are getting a decrease to the decrease. Because, yeah, and this is why. It's because it is not fair to the business that's seeing a huge increase to for the business that's seeing a huge decrease to all of a sudden get that decrease. They need to be, I would say they should be proportional. And by phasing in the decrease, you're help filling the gap that's being caused by the phasing of the increase. So.

That's a hard sell. How is it, how, how? I'm sorry, if I'm a business and I've been paying more than my fair share, I'm going to want that reduction sooner than later.

I'm just telling you. If we have to skin this cat, I guess it would really depend on what the total numbers look for all of this. Because if phasing in an increase for some businesses and... giving other businesses the decrease right out of the gate ends up putting us in a deeper hole than what we originally started out with, then what is the point? Then we are cutting ourselves off in trying to fix the problem. So we're being punitive to the ones that are... We are being punitive to everybody equally. Or you can say we are being fair with the phasing to everybody equally. If your fee is going up, we're phasing in that increase. If your fee is going down, we're phasing in that decrease. I'm just saying.

I get what you're saying. I just disagree. You're welcome.

Jason, I think that we're going to come up with a compromise somewhere along the line. As the task force, we're going to come up with recommendations that maybe will ease all this. And then you guys can, excuse me, hash that out.

Are there any slides left? No, counselor's turn. Go ahead.

So one business I don't see in here is if I were decided to supplement my income with doing DoorDash or Uber Eats or Uber Drivers, the city of Canby currently requires me to pay a transit tax and therefore have a business license. Correct? If my understanding is correct on those rules. And so if I have a DoorDash or Uber Eats business... Okay. Do the DoorDash and Uber Eats businesses get charged a street maintenance fee, even though they probably do all their business driving on the streets?

You have perplexed me, and I'll have to look into that one. And that is something that we will... Do you have any background on?

I do. Okay, go for it. So that's part of the reason why the rates have changed over the years is the advent of Uber Eats and DoorDash and Amazon is that they've increased the number of trips that are generated by the businesses and the residential that are using those services. So where DoorDash isn't paying the fee directly to the city, the end user is paying that additional fee from the trips that are generated from them using that service.

So every time DoorDash comes to your house, you're paying. Or your neighbors. You've generated the trip.

So we sell this to the people as a DoorDash fee.

All right. So basically that's being read into the residential part? No, across the board. Across the board. Okay, so you're just saying in general it's just been kind of added in.

What you're saying is the DoorDash business owner doesn't have to pay a street maintenance fee. No. So they're an exempted business.

They're not calculated.

Just under the MRI.

But they are accounted for. When you order lunch when you're at work, when Jamie orders DoorDash to deliver here, that's a trip that's baked into the rate that City Hall is going to pay. So I did go a little deeper on some of the street maintenance fees in the cities around us, if you're curious. I didn't have a chance to get all the numbers in there, but you can see Lake Oswego and their approximate population and the number of miles to maintain. Newberg's 65.5 miles, 1.2 million generated, and there's 660. So that really gets into showing what the variance is between the agencies, between the cities, the number of lane miles, but also the split that they have between residential and non-residential. I won't even go into what the rate is and how it's calculated in Pendleton. They do it based off water meter size, and that's really weird.

The last I Google searched, there is approximately 32 cities throughout Oregon that have some type of a street maintenance fee. Yeah, these are just the ones that are close to us.

Well... And what I find fascinating about that is I think when the original Street Maintenance Task Force met and started doing this work, I think there was only a couple of cities. And then we were actually looking nationwide. And there was only a few cities even nationwide that were doing it. So I think it's interesting how much... how prevalent it has become over the years since we've done ours.

Every agency across the nation is looking for ways to maintain their asphalt. I call it the Snickers bar theory of pavement maintenance. In 1993, how big was a Snickers bar?

Right?

It's two ounces, a full two ounces. How big is it today? It's one point. It's 14% smaller. It's one point. How much did it cost in 1993? Yeah. Depending on what store you go into, probably 50 cents maybe. How much is a Snickers bar standard, Snickers bar today? Two and a quarter, 275? Apply that same theory to asphalt. And we're collecting the same federal gas tax at 18 and a half cents a gallon to pay for the same asphalt that's gone up from $15 a ton to $170 a ton. So this is why agencies are looking for alternative ways. And it's all cities. It's too big of a lift to do a countywide or statewide street utility fee, but there's a lot of cities that are looking for an option like this to fund their pavement maintenance, to keep that asset maintained.

And Mr. Mayor, I don't know. I don't know. I noticed that Council President Hensley had her hand up when I was looking at that, and I don't know if she had gotten missed.

Thank you, Councilor Patton. I was actually just going to say that I tend to agree with your comment about the phasing in of the fee should also phase in the discount.

I'm writing this down.

I'm writing this down. All right, and then big picture next steps.

So we've got to work street maintenance fee, come up with the recommendation of how much to gain, how much revenue we want, how to split that, how to phase it in. update the code to reflect that, what the minimum rates are, the trip fees, all that. And then Ruth would develop a draft rate change to go out to all of the customers within the city and give them, I think we've talked about two months to review it and protest and say, you know what? I'm only 100 square feet. You've got me calculated at 1,000 square feet. Or the one that stands out to me in Newburgh was we had what we thought was just a coffee shop, but it was a huge footprint. Coffee shops are big generators. It turned out it was a small coffee shop with a big bookstore within it. So she protested and said, I'm really a bookstore with a coffee shop. Can I get this adjusted? So her rate dropped significantly. So that's the intent of this. As much work as Ruth has done to get things coded, there's going to be things that have slipped through because we can only see so much from Google Earth or doing a drive-by and going to the business. So that's a two-month period and potentially roll this out in January of 27 before the next edition of ITE comes out.

Councilor Davis.

Are there any exemptions built in?

One.

One city. The city hall? The city.

Yeah, it's not.

So that includes all city dump trucks, shop trucks, all those type of things are exempt? Yes. So city hall, public works facility, the police station.

That includes the police department vehicles?

Yes.

There's also ones in here that are vacant, so they've been discounted out of the system, so they're not going to get a bill.

Why would the city be exempt? My answer, and I wasn't here, probably goes back to a policy level discussion when it was created. And I don't have those records, but I think that's the answer to your question. Okay.

It's not abnormal for that to happen because cities are relying on the same tax base that the street maintenance fee would come from.

Okay. So then what about the fire district? They have to. The fire district has to respond to emergencies. They don't have a choice. Just like a police officer, they have to respond. They don't have a choice. So why would the fire district be charged with street maintenance?

Because they're not under the city.

In Lake Oswego, they have a city police fire department. I assume they're not being charged because there's a city fire department. So isn't that double taxation?

I don't know the exacts of how Lake Oswego, but I...

Points taken. I think we can bring this to the... Task Force Mayor and Explorer, because I don't know the history.

We've talked about this, actually.

You did? Okay.

Councilor Patton. So along this vein of thought, what I would be curious to see when we have this conversation, and maybe this would be something the task force would be interested in seeing as well, is... We are taking a certain amount of our general fund every year, the tax money that we create and putting that into our public works department that goes towards maintaining our streets. So if you were to treat the city as one of these entities and do these trip generations with city facilities, are we taking a proportionate amount of general fund money from all the various departments essentially and putting it into the streets into maintaining the city streets? If the answer is yes, then I think that that would say that the process is fair and equitable. But if it is off greatly, then maybe there would need to be a look to see how do we make that more of a thing. Because technically, we're just moving... If the city was to get charged that fee... Because as you know, I am not a fan of any exemptions, period. So if that's the case, then the city shouldn't be exempt. And what would it look like for the city to pay their proportionate section of the fee and how much money is being put from the general fund into streets on behalf of the city on top of what's coming in on the street maintenance fee? I think would be an interesting number to look at.

So we could calculate it into the city overhead by department? just like tech services and all that so the money then that so basically we would so the trips generated by public works for street maintenance would then be trip generating so therefore we would pay ourselves for the generation of trips that you generate and your team for taking care of the streets okay Yeah, I don't. That's another one. I just can't buy that one. It could be really increasing the police budget again.

Well, I'm not saying you have to do that. But no. But what I'm saying is if we say the city generates X number of trips, and based on that generation, it would need to pay X amount in street maintenance fee. And we take, let's say, if it turns out that we would generate $300,000 in street maintenance fee money annually as a city. But then we look at our budget and we say, okay, here's all the lines of the budget. Here's for asphalt. Here's for this. Here's what's coming in for street maintenance fee. But then here's all, here's like for all the different buildings. parts of public works, and we're actually taking $500,000 out of the general fund and putting it into the streets department for work on the streets and stuff, then technically the city is paying its proportional amount of the street maintenance fee because we are putting in more than $300,000 from general fund. And instead of making that an individual line item like tech services or whatever, we just audit that to make sure that we are always putting in more money than the city would generate than a street maintenance fee from the general fund into activities for public works.

Yes, Council Waterman and then Council President Hensley.

I think we're kind of getting ahead of ourselves a little bit anyway because we don't even know what our department would have to be paying. It's very small square footage and it might be the trip rate. We only go out a couple times a day maybe. So it may be like $50 a month. We don't know. So we don't want to make this big overhead to try to save it. I think we should...

We can, yeah, we'll do that. 85? Yes.

So they currently have a bill, the fire department currently does have a bill from the street maintenance fee, and the projection is it would go down under this new 12th edition. I'm sorry. The fire department does currently have a bill on the street maintenance fee, and in this projection it would go down.

Council President Hensley? Yes.

Thank you, I think my question has partially been answered or at least pre asked. I'm wondering about the generated trips from police and public works. And for that matter, Kat, Um, how, how is that different than I, I'm asking you mayor, you said you didn't agree. I'm wondering how is that different than tech services and things? And why wouldn't we calculate it on that same level? I, I'm just trying to understand how that would be different. It seems to make sense. So prove me wrong. Okay.

Well, I'm not going to get into that tonight. I mean, okay, I guess we can. I just find it, again, I find it that we're robbing Peter to pay Paul, you know, and that it just doesn't, it's just not sit well with me. I can't monetarily quantify that call, but it's like we're the ones that are collecting the fee because we are trying to maintain the streets to a satisfactory level. Yes, we use them, but I don't understand why we're taking tax dollars from one silo and putting them into another silo.

Well, then why are we doing it for IT and tech? To me, it seems like the same thing. We need to give public works the dollars to maintain the roads if another department's using it, just like we would need to give IT the money from different departments for their services. To me, it makes sense. So until I have more information to prove that theory incorrect, I would tend to agree that it would go into the overhead adjustment.

Well, the overhead adjustment piece has been a budget conversation and argument for the 12 years that you and I have been on the council as to whether it should be charged or not be charged and how much because it puts strain on some of the departments from a budget standpoint almost every year, one of those being the library.

And I agree with that. It should be completely comprehensive or maybe we get rid of it altogether. That's a conversation for a different day, but I just, I wanted to throw that out there that I'm really noodling this now that it's come up.

We will table it to another day.

Are our slides? That's the last slide. I guess there's one fancy one that says questions. That's the last one.

Councillor Davis. I'm going to, you know, when this hits the dais, I'm going to, for the most part, go along with what the task force comes up with. You know, that's what you're here for. Thank you. But I would ask you to really give a second thought to why are we charging emergency agencies? Because of the fact that the citizens are already paying their tax for them to respond. And it's not like they can increase the budgets just to cover street maintenance fee, if you'd give that some consideration.

Councilor Patten? To that point, then, if you give an exemption for fire, then the school's going to want an exemption. And then churches are going to want an exemption. And then on and on it goes. And I can tell you that... When we originally sat around the table years ago to create this, there was a tremendous amount of conversation about should there be exemptions for various groups, organizations, so on and so forth. And it was decided by that group at that time that there would not. Because if you do for one, then all the others are going to want something else. And eventually you will erode the system to where you... where certain people are now paying an exorbitant amount to subsidize all the other folks. And was that fair decision? Some will say yes, some will say no. But I can tell you historically that's why that was decided.

Well, I appreciate that. The counterpoint is 9-1-1 and emergencies are not a church. They're not a school. It's something that they have to respond.

Yes, Laura.

Can we go back to the slide where it has the letter that you're going to send out to the customers? So in there, it says that they're going to have a two-month time period to appeal. What's that process going to look like if someone wants to appeal it?

Maybe, Tony, you could talk about how it worked in Newburgh, the example you shared earlier, and if that's what we're trying to emulate here in Canby.

Yeah.

It could apply to residential, but it's a hard argument to make that you're not a home. Right, that's true. But an apartment building could protest and say, you've got me down for nine units and I have four. So that could be a potential protest for a residential side. The protests in Newburgh were handled mostly at a staff level where they responded to Ruth and said, okay, Ruth, can you verify this? And she would go out and confirm it and say, oh, yep. Or, and she'd call me and say, what do you think about this? Is this really the classification it should be? We'd handle it like that and either agree or be able to tell the property owner why. If they still disagreed, then it would go to the city manager. And then if they still didn't agree, they could protest all the way up to city council for a final determination.

Okay, I have that appeal process.

And so I'll let you go over, but this is proposed. So this is part of that code that we looked at at the last street maintenance task force meeting. But so a proposed process.

Okay, so Tony, I want to give kudos to you guys. This was really good. really good information. I would suggest, Jamie, I guess we need to get another meeting set, a date set, so we can reconvene and kind of hash out some things, Ruth. It's hard, because from day one, when we started meeting, there were decisions, there were comments made that no way would we ever vote for a penny increase or anything, but I think we're beyond that. We've got to move ahead and keep Camby and the roads secure and, you know, trust public works to give us the information they need. I think we've been at $5 for how many years? A long time. And I would certainly forego a Starbucks drink once a week for helping to pay a little more to make things stay the same. So thank you for everything you guys have attributed.

This was fun. And then Ruth has that appeal process.

There are four steps to the appeal process. The first one is written appeal. The second is submission of evidence. The third is administrative decision. And the fourth is a final appeal to counsel. And I can go into detail if you would like, but that's just the steps.

At the staff level, is it the finance director?

It is city administrator or the finance director.

Also, at one of our past meetings, I wanted to bring this up. Jamie, maybe you would have this information for us, but does the ordinance still have to be updated? Because we do have the ordinance that we talked about.

Yes, so the ordinance that we talked about, that was to get us ready so that when we had this information to bring forward, that we're still starting to move that all forward at one time. And then that adoption slash code amendment ordinance The code amendment, it would have an ordinance to change that. So that would change the code, which is what we reviewed. It would have the ordinance to go with that to codify that, and then also the adoption of the new fees.

So we have some work to do before January 2027. So, okay.

Council President Hensley, Stearns, then Patton.

I actually forgot to lower my hand, but thank you. I just, since I have the floor for a second, I just want to thank the task force for all of their work on this and city staff. This has been a long road to hoe and longer than we had certainly anticipated. So I just wanted to thank them all for sticking it out and getting this over the finish line.

Thank you. I think just my suggestion to the task force is there's a right thing to do and there's also the right way to do the right thing. I would strongly encourage you to create a, like I say, five or six year schedule of increases for those who are being increased by a lot so that we don't just throw a switch and and give them an extra $5,000 a year bill. For some of these, because of the profit margins on some of these businesses are probably not, some of them probably couldn't handle the increase. Some of them probably couldn't, and I wouldn't know for sure without looking at their books, but there's a right way to do the right thing. So I would just encourage a phased in approach so that the business can project, forecast, make proper adjustments to their price and other kinds of things to accommodate for the new for the new schedule fees. Second thing is $750 per household is about what I decided already a long time ago it should be raised to. So that's kind of fine for me personally. Although if you want to change it, we can talk about it then. And the third thing is I don't know if it's possible, but I still think that there should be some sort of allowance for vehicle weight somehow or other because one trip a day by a dump truck full of stuff is a lot more wear and tear on the street than 20 trips in a compact vehicle. So I don't know if there's any way to make that in the system. But I think a business like a warehouse, which may not have as many trips per day but has trip weight per day, that probably is a lot higher amount. I think that should be somewhat factored in to equalize things out a little bit. So that's just kind of my mind. Why are we giving a pass for those who are doing maybe the most damage due to vehicle weight versus maybe your fast food restaurant, which is immediately has a lot of trips and probably should be charged a little more, but they're not doing as much damage as something that's heavy.

If I can add something just on me is those trucks are already paying a higher registration fee that goes back into feeding the gas tax and that revenue is generated that then comes back to the city. Does that actually revenue come back to the city? That's part of the gas tax revenue that the city gets every year. Okay.

State highway fund revenue just for your reading pleasure at home.

Yes, Laura, go ahead.

Just as, I mean, obviously as a member of the Street Maintenance Task Force, we also need to ask that the council realizes that this was brought to us two years ago and there was an immediate need then. So there is going to be some kind of impact all across the board. You know what I mean? Whether it's phasing or not phasing. But you guys definitely do need to consider that and not just say... know if we don't agree with our percentages or something like that. Because this is obviously a need. And like I said, it's taken us over two years by the time this is done to even get something done about it. And it's been like 16 or 17 years, I think, since the initial $5 fee came about. So we need to open our minds up to an actual increase across the board.

If I can add a little color to this, Newberg didn't have a street maintenance fee. So they went from zero across the board to a, what we call the big box grocery store with a gas station. Their bill went from zero, didn't exist, to $1,800 a month. Okay. And other than, I think we had 12 protests that we had to go through, but they were all based on being misclassified, not protesting what the bill was. So we feared that same pushback. We had a street maintenance fee equivalent, an ad hoc committee to stand out opposed mixture of businesses and residents. And to go from zero to the bills from four, five, six to $1,800, the fear of that shock, of that change, wasn't as much as we predicted or feared it would be. Interesting.

So... Oh, who does? Oh, I'm sorry. No, she's good. So just a few things in closing here that I had written down and then thought. When it comes to the appeals process, and this is for you, Ruth, and Jamie, when it comes to the appeals process, what I would really prefer to see is, like, if you're a new business coming into this, you're getting some touch points with your new business. business license and you're getting some more direct contact with the city in preparation for this is what your fee is going to be. But we have a lot of established businesses that are going to be seeing this kind of for a first time and some of the stuff is going to the landowner and some of it's going to the business. So I think when this first rolls out I would really like to see us have a higher amount of touch points and follow up with all of those existing businesses that this is going to impact so that they for sure know what's coming and are aware of the dispute process and they would have to be living in a hole in the ground to have not known what is coming. Because the last thing I would want is for a business to come in in the middle of a council meeting and say, hey, you sprung this on me, and then say, well, we went through the regular process, whereas we can say, look, we went through this, we understand, but we've reached out to you X number of times, really kind of drive it home in the initial rollout.

And I think that that is a smart way to approach it. And when we talk about having lots of departments participating, obviously economic development, we interface with the businesses. So even though Tyler's not here tonight, he has been following this conversation. So you have a touch point of person to person, but also my other hat is communications and how do we pass that information out far and wide. and making sure that we do a communication effort around it, not just check the box we sent. We mailed you the paper. You didn't see it. That's not our problem. So I think that it's a given that we will be generous in our outreach.

Awesome. So the next thing is one of the big stumbling blocks for... There were two essentially from what I understood for the task force folks. There were really a couple of big stumbling blocks. One was the update of this ITE manual, which now they will have with all of this work. The other was there was concerns that some businesses were not getting charged the right amount. They were misclassified. I'm under the impression that that audit work has been done. And I was curious as to, I'm assuming that the task force will get an update on the results of that audit work. I would be curious as to what those numbers were as well, like how many businesses were actually misclassified, those sort of things. It doesn't have to be presented now, but if when the task force gets that information, we as a council could get that information as well, because that's something that's kind of been on our radar as well, I would appreciate that. And then I would like to thank you folks for the work that you have done. You know, city staff here is great and they have done a lot of work on this, but their plates are already full with all their other day-to-day tasks. And I think by bringing you folks on board, you have really expedited the whole process and have gotten us all to a much more educated level of this whole process than we could have done on ourselves. And this is no slight to city staff. I really think that... Through the comprehensive plan update process, we have started to really lean on consulting firms and stuff more to do some of that specialized work so it frees up staff to do more of the things that they would normally do. And I think that is something that we need to continue to look at moving forward. I think that is going to help across the board. And I guess the last thing I would say is for members of the task force, You have now sat through this whole thing. You've heard some of us talk and share our thoughts and stuff. Are there any questions that you have of us as a council or thoughts or concerns that you want to share with us before we break and you folks do your work and then come back to us later? Ruth, go ahead.

I just want to answer one of your questions regarding the misclassification and What is being done right now, as a business moves out, a new business moves in, they are not updated by an ITE code. So it makes the business not appropriately categorized. created a new utility account and the old business categorization is carried down. So just so you have an idea that most of our businesses today are misclassified.

Misclassified. Because of the older manual?

Yes, and because the businesses were not updated by their individual ITE code.

That's changing. If we had stayed with the CPI on an annual basis, where would, and we started at the $5 for, I think, basic number of $5 for single-family homes, where would we be today? Because some might think 750 is inaccurate.

2008 today. So you'd be at 850 using a 3% inflation.

We'd be at 8, so we're a buck off just on our basic numbers right now. Okay. So, thank you for asking that question. Lori... Jackie, any questions, comments, anything else from you, Ms. Co-Chair?

No, other than just we would ask the council, final decision is yours, correct, is just to hear us out, and we're going to make the best recommendation we possibly can for the city to get us where we need to be.

Well, and I would say to your... I can't remember if both of you had mentioned this or whatever about, you know, I don't know... FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I HAVE BEEN RAILING ON CITY COUNCIL WHEN I WAS A MEMBER OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE THAT THIS NEEDED TO BE UPDATED A DECADE AGO. SO I AM ALL FOR GETTING THIS UPDATED. SO UNLESS YOU COME TO THE COUNCIL WITH SOME CRAZY PLAN, I AM A GO FOR GETTING IT. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE YEARS AGO, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A DECISION THAT THE COUNCIL COULD HAVE MADE YEARS AGO AND DID NOT. And now you folks are putting in the effort to provide us with a recommendation. So yeah, I am ready for that to come across and for us to do an adjustment and start getting the money in to get these streets updated. So just so you know, that is where I sit on this whole thing.

Jamie, did you have something? And I'll close this out.

I just wanted to thank everybody for being here at the Street Maintenance Task Force and Mayor and Council. Kittleson especially, they've been great to work with. And, you know, I think I speak for staff when I say that we really appreciate just the acknowledgement of the amount of work, particularly the work that Ruth has done and the lift that she has taken on for this effort. And, you know, Now, at the end of the meeting, you can kind of see why we thought we would bring everybody together and roll this information out so that now we're starting to have a better understanding of what a new street maintenance fee can look like in K&B, which doesn't look like just increasing old or using what was there. So, you know, just... Thank you to all of you for your time this evening. I know that there are other things on your list probably that you'd like to be doing, but we really felt like we were at a time to bring this forward to be able to have these discussion points and hear these questions. And I've taken good notes and I know my counterparts have as well. So thank you all.

Thanks, Jamie. So I just, again, before we close out. So our purpose that I laid out today for tonight was information sharing. We're all on the same page. Was that accomplished this evening? Yes, and nods, thank you. That we leave the task force with information to meet and prepare their recommendations for the council. Do you feel that that's been accomplished? Madam co-chair? Yes. Members? Okay. The last thing I asked for was can this get in front of the council beginning of October at our first meeting? Is that doable or is that too much of a lift? I wanna just set realistic expectations for the council and for the task force.

I think we can make recommendations if we can get together.

I would agree. I would like to work back from a target of January one implementation, Mayor Kosher. So January one is the target. Can we work back from that date?

That can work with Jamie and staff to put together a schedule that backs us out from that.

And just to make sure that we're following then the boxes of getting this in front of the task force for a recommendation. Hopefully we could do that in one meeting, maybe one long meeting and we provide sandwiches and Teresa provides brownies. She told me about brownies today so now I'm going to hold her to it. And the hope is that we can then move this forward As quickly as possible. But yes, we'll backwards plan and start working with Kittleson on some of the information that we received tonight and questions that we received tonight and how to best bring that forward to the street maintenance.

And here's why I say October. Because not all, I get it, not every business in Canby runs a... you know, a calendar year for their budgeting and start of their business year, et cetera, but a majority do. And if we can get that information out as they're finishing up their budgeting process as a business for in the months of September, October, November, then they at least know and can adequately budget for their next fiscal year as best as possible or, you know, the second half of their year, however that's going to work out. So that's why I'm pressing for that October, that October date. So thank you. Councilor Waterman. Yeah.

So it's for, confirmed for me. First, I want to thank all of you. Thank the, The task force and everybody has been two years and it's been a long time getting here. I'm excited to finally see this get over the finish line. So just to confirm, there is no other additional information that needs to be gathered to make a decision. We have all the information. It's now just taking that information and figure out the best way to implement it, right? Okay.

I think we have all the info we need.

Yeah, that's a great question. But that's what this time of kind of being quieter has been was getting the information, getting it to them, and getting it refined. So, yes, it's about now figuring out exactly what the task force wants to do with the inputs, the residential, and some of those other questions. But the information, they have that on that spreadsheet and ready to go. Okay.

Awesome. So from that standpoint, then, trying to get out to October, I mean, I'm not saying it's not a hard task, but a lot of the time was spent gathering information and waiting on information, not making the decisions, right? So if we have all the information, then...

Well, and to that point, though, I will say that the last thing I want to hear is when the task force comes to us with a recommendation is that they felt rushed in their decision and forced. So if they start their work and it's like, wait a second, we need an extra meeting and we might need to push it out a little bit further, the last thing I want is for these folks to be rushed and stressed and make a decision under duress and I don't like that. So they need to be given the ability to do the work that they need to do.

I'm just saying, do we have the information? Because that's what we've waited on the most amount of time over these last two years. Not them deliberating, but waiting on information.

We've had a change in personnel and stuff that we've had to deal with. But I think one of the biggest frustrations moving forward for us would be going into January with a whole new council. and having to reinvent this again and explain and give history. And so, therefore, I think it's time. We've been waiting for this.

Okay.

Yes. Great.

Any other comments, thoughts?

Is there... Councillor Davis, did you have a... Oh, sorry, Laura, go ahead. I was just going to make a comment. I'm sure our interim city administrator will get her done.

Yes.

Laura, go ahead.

I'm just curious, like when the committee comes up with a recommendation, do we have to approach it to or give it to Kittleson and then they have to do things? Like is there a work period?

Okay, gotcha. So we'll have a meeting with them, whether they are Zooming in or in person. Okay, gotcha. And then work on that to see, you know, what some of those kind of numbers that we've talked about tonight, for instance, how they change, what that looks like.

Right, okay, perfect.

Yeah. Tony and Andrew, so you're going to see him again.

Okay. To the task force, Kittleson, thank you very much for being here this evening. Council, thank you for the dialogue and the questions. I will adjourn our work session and call it a night. Good night, Candy. Good night to all of you. Thank you.