City Council - Regular Meeting

What you guys do plays a really important role, not just on this topic, but many topics that you cover. We need that more than ever. Thank you for doing what you do.

Welcome to Insight. I'm Wendy Brokaw. Take 73. We talk to those on the front lines of this heartbreaking battle. That's a business.

And I cover up the mess and repair these endless holes

Right now in the United States where each week the equivalent to a classroom of high school students dies of overdose across the country. This is truly unprecedented.

These are completely fake pills and a lot of young adults in America are getting these pills on social media.

You don't even know what is in the drugs that you're about to consume. Even if it's your first time using it could be your last. That's the scary reality now.

We'll be right back.

How many times will the hurt seep right through Can I ever finish up this job inside my head? Oh, this old house is fortified

Northwest Senior and Disability Services is an agency on aging that serves both seniors and people with disabilities. An Area Agency on Aging is a public or private nonprofit agency designated by the state to address the needs of those populations at the local level. Northwest Senior and Disability Services has information about the long-term services and supports available in your community. We have volunteer advisory council openings on the Senior Advisory and the Disability Services Advisory Council. Call 503-304-3451 for an application. Information about Northwest Senior and Disability Services can be found on the agency's website, www.nwsds.org.

All right. Welcome, everyone.

I'd like to call to order this meeting of the City of Salem Urban Renewal Agency for September 14, 2026. Please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Will the recorder please call the roll?

Sorry.

Board member Teigen?

Present.

Board member Nishioka? Here. Board member Matthews? Upset. Board member Gwynne? Here. Board member Brown?

Present.

Board member Vang?

Here.

Board member Nordegg?

Here.

Board member Varney?

Here. Chair Julie Hoy? Here. All right. Moving on to approval of additions and deletions to the agenda.

I move to approve the consent calendar for the Urban Renewal Agency. Motion and a second by Gwen. Councillor to the motion. Yes, the consent calendar consists of minutes from August 24, 2026. And resolution, there's no resolution. Action item is amendments to the intergovernment agreement between the City of Salem and the Urban Renewal Agency for the creation of the Downtown Advisory Board. And that concludes the consent calendar. Great.

Any questions? Will the recorder, oh, Councillor Teigen, go right ahead.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor. I just wanted to, before we take the vote, highlight the changes that are coming to the Downtown Advisory Board in terms of the composition and who can now be a part of it. In the past, we've had a particular position or folks needed to have a banking, finance, or commercial real estate background for some of the positions, and now that's just sort of a general preference. And we're really opening the doors to more folks coming into the Downtown Advisory Board, including more spaces for residents of downtown, which I think reflects the changes that we're seeing across downtown. And then the other one, in the past we've held a position open for business owners, property owners. We're also adding employees as folks who can now be on the downtown advisory board. Employees, you know, they pay into the parking fund by buying a permit from the city. They have a real vested interest in the success of downtown as much as property and business owners do as well. And so I'm really glad to see these changes and we have vacancies on the downtown advisory board right now. It meets the third Thursday of the month and I'd love to see more folks join.

That's great. Thank you for that, Councillor Teigen. Councillor Nishioka. Thank you, and thank you, Councillor Teigen. I appreciate that. I was also going to say that I have served on the Downtown Advisory Board and also on the Boards and Commissions Committee, and I'm glad that the Boards and Commissions Committee has made these adjustments because I know many people have wanted to serve on the Downtown Advisory Board, but they didn't meet the requirements. This has opened up the door and it gives opportunities to those that probably have contributions that they can bring forward and just were not in a position to do that. So I appreciate that the boards and commissions bringing this forward. So I just wanted to also agree to that this is a good thing.

Anyone else, comment, question? All right, will the recorder please call the roll?

Board Member Brown?

Aye.

Board Member Vang? Aye. Board Member Nordyke. Aye. Board Member Varney. Aye. Board Member Teigen.

Aye.

Board Member Nishioka. Aye. Board Member Matthews, absent. Board Member Nguyen. Aye. Chair Julie Hoy.

Aye. Motion passes. We have no public hearings, no special orders of business, and no information reports. So, urban renewal is adjourned. All right, I'd like to call to order this meeting of Salem City Council for Monday, September 14th, 2026. Will the recorder please call the roll? Councillor Teigen?

Present.

Councillor Nishioca? Here. Councillor Matthews, absent. Councillor Gwynne?

Here.

Councillor Brown? Aye. Councillor Vang?

Still here.

Councillor Nordyke? Here. Councillor Varney? Here.

Mayor Julie Hoy? Here. Chair Nishioka, would you like to go over the approval of additions and deletions to the agenda?

I move for approval of revisions and additions. Second. Motion and second by Gwynne. Counselor to the motion. Thank you. We have added a staff report for 5.4. We have added a presentation for 5.1. And an addition, a presentation was added to 5.2. And then the 5.4, there was actually three. The presentation was added, revised findings to the resolution, Exhibit A, and additional findings and footnote. So we had 5.1, 5.2, and 5.4 had additions. Great. Thank you.

Okay.

Will the recorder please call the roll? Councillor Varney? Aye. Councillor Teigen?

Aye.

Councillor Nishioka? Aye. Councillor Matthews, absent. Councillor Gwynne? Aye. Councillor Brown?

Aye.

Councillor Bing? Aye. Councillor Nordyke? Aye. Mayor Julie Hoy?

Aye. That motion passes, and we're moving on to council and city manager comment. Did anyone have anything they'd like to share this evening? Councilor Nordyke, go ahead.

Thank you so much, folks. I want to thank all my volunteers for joining me at our sixth garbage cleanup project. We've been doing this once a month now for several months. And if you missed this week's or this month's cleanup project, please join us. We are now on a routine schedule, second Fridays, 8 to 10 a.m. Everyone is welcome. The city of Salem does a terrific job providing free safety vests, sterile gloves, garbage bags, the garbage pickers, and just the oversight that is just incredibly helpful to us. But mostly, I really appreciate the fact that we are building momentum and that I'm seeing a wide variety of folks who are coming out. Folks, there are new people every month who are coming out to be a part of these garbage cleanups. We work closely with the city of Salem to decide where to clean up garbage for that particular month. And so we will be taking that feedback into consideration for October's location. Also, if you have ideas for me for where you would like to see us assist with garbage cleanup, let me know. I also appreciate the fact that the more I do this, the more I have volunteer organizations who are looking for volunteer projects step forward. And they, too, are saying, hey, can we piggyback on your session? You've already got a time. You've already got a place. How can we support this? So I really hope to continue to do this work, and I hope to see you all there. Now, I post these cleanup locations in the RSVP link on my Facebook page, so be sure to check it out under the Events tab on my Facebook page. I've not posted it yet for October, but as a final reminder, those are second Fridays, 8 to 10 a.m., and we do this in partnership with the City of Salem. Thank you so much.

Councillor Nishioka, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to say that I hope some of you had the opportunity to get to the Salem Art Fair. It was the 77th year for the Salem Art Fair. I have been volunteering probably about 25 years and so it's always fun to see the crowds come. It was a great opening night and there were new artists there and artists that have returned from previous years. It sounded like they had a pretty good show, and later on we'll hear the numbers, but it was a true Oregon weather with a bit of rain, a bit of wind, and some sun, so probably better than being way too hot. But it was a wonderful event. I also want to make note that I attended the Hallie Ford Museum, the presentation that John Obrance did. He is now retiring, passing it on. And the work that he has done, the... Funding that he has been able to acquire for Hallie Ford is quite amazing over the last 28 years plus, I think. And if you haven't had the opportunity to go to Hallie Ford, I would encourage you to stop by. It's a wonderful asset to have here in Salem. It's sort of hidden. You don't really think about it much. But if you have the opportunity, I encourage you to go to the museum and see the wonderful exhibits. There's a whole... section devoted for Indigenous art, and they've just renovated that. So anyway, it was a very full weekend. Thank you. All right, anyone else?

All right, I do have a few things to share. One is I had the pleasure of attending the Rock Recovery event down at Riverfront. It was really quite something, as it was last year, to see all those tents with resources available set up for folks dealing with addiction and mental health struggles. And it was just a great time to see them in action and see the community and the support, the network that we offer to one another. in dealing with those issues, so quite something. And that was at the north end of the park. At the south end of the park was the Boot, Scoot, and Brew, which I'm wearing the T-shirt for, but put on by Center 50+. It was quite something. There was line dancing throughout and live music and vendor booths and such. Yeah, it was a great time. Anyone else? Okay. Seeing nothing. we are moving on to proclamations. I was hoping for our first proclamation, which is for National Hispanic Heritage Month, that Angelina Martinez would be here from the Latino Business Alliance. She's not here right now, and every time I do attend the Latino Business Alliance meetings, and every time I walk in the door, Angelina is all things LBA, and she tells me in Spanish about how she's so sweet, that the ants won't leave her alone. So it's possible that she's running from ants tonight, she's that sweet. Anyway, everyone at Expo Negocio gets up to introduce themselves, and I enjoy introducing myself, and it brings a smile when I say, which means, I'm Julie Hoy, today, tomorrow, and always, because my last name Hoy means today in Spanish, so we have fun with that. Anyway, it's my pleasure to read the proclamation for National Hispanic Heritage Month, and it will be an honor to deliver it to them myself at the next meeting. Whereas National Hispanic Heritage Month celebrates longstanding cultural traditions and honors the achievements of Hispanic and Latino communities nationwide, and whereas first established by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968 as Hispanic Heritage Week, Congress in 1988 authorized National Hispanic Heritage Month by public law 100-402 to recognize the contributions of Hispanic and Latino Americans, and whereas President George H.W. Bush issued Proclamation 6021 honoring National Hispanic Heritage Month, noting that Hispanic Americans have continued to make their mark across the country and in virtually every aspect of American life. And whereas Hispanic and Latino residents are a vital part of Salem's diverse community and contribute to business, government, education, and the arts, and whereas our city is enriched by Hispanic culture, and we will continue our partnership with those who contribute so much to Salem and nearby communities, Now, therefore, I, Julie Hoy, Mayor of the City of Salem, do hereby proclaim September 15th to October 15th, 2026, as National Hispanic Heritage Month, and encourage everyone to celebrate the heritage and achievements of Hispanics and Latinos, and recognize their contributions to our country and our community, dated this 14th day of September, 2026. I would also add that the Latino Business Alliance is the host for the Expo Negocio 2026 this year. There she is! Angelina! Did the ants get you? This is Angelina, everyone, so thank you. We already read the proclamation, so come up and we'll have a picture together, okay?

checkity check you may not feel prepared but I know you are and I was just telling them about Expo Negocio so yeah here you go ahead yeah so Expo Negocio is coming up we are almost ready we are expecting about between 400 to 500 people hopefully fingers crossed we have what I want to talk about we have 44 exhibitors tables, and the event goes from 7.30 to 3 o'clock. Everything is free. We give free lunch, free workshops, and a lot of connections. I don't know what else to say.

You did so great. So the proclamation is yours. What's the date of Expo Negocio, November?

November 12th, second Thursday of the month.

Okay, beautiful. And just tell them about LBA and when they meet.

LBA, we have Cafe Pan Dulce twice a month, one in Salem, the second Thursday of the month at the Chemeketa Center for Business and Industry, and then the third Thursday of the month in Woodburn at the Chemeketa Community College. And normally we get between 50 to 80, 100 people in Salem. And in Woodburn, it's a little bit, attendance is a little lower because of know whatever is going on lately last couple years but normally we get from 30 to 50 people gather twice a month and what do you do for small business we give classes to prepare them people who want to open a new business we prepare them with all the information and how to how to run their business, where to register their business, and all that good information. And if they're business owners, then we prepare them to make their business more successful. And when they're done with the program, 12-week, they can apply for a small loan from minimum $1,000 to, let me see, $15,000. We don't charge a lot of interest. It's mostly per percent, never more than that. We mainly do it to be able to help somebody get the money back and help other people.

And what's membership for LBA cost?

If you're less than 25 employees, $150 only a year. And if you have more than 26, 500 a year. if you want to become a member of LBA. And I am the director of operations. I basically run the whole, I run the show.

I already read the proclamation, so you can take this with you, okay? And thank you so much for being here. Angelina, thank you for your hard work, your tireless efforts with our Latino community. And the benefits are great. I watch at every meeting people learning from each other and learning how to do business in the area. So thank you so much. Bless you. All right, we have one more proclamation this evening. And I don't know if the answer after her, but I would like to call Holly Nelson to the stage, the Chief Workforce Innovation Officer from Chemeketa Community College. Okay, thanks for being here. Whereas more than... Oh, and this is the proclamation for... National Adult Education and Family Literacy Week. Whereas more than 43 million American adults lack foundational reading skills, over 62 million lack basic numeracy skills, and more than 28 million lack basic digital skills. And millions more need education, credentials, and workforce training to fully join today's economy and 69% of American employers report difficulty finding workers with needed skills. And whereas low literacy and skill gaps cost the United States economy over $300 billion each year, a strong adult education system strengthens our workforce, increases economic mobility, and builds healthier, more resilient families and communities. And whereas adult education providers, including community colleges, school districts, literacy organizations, correctional education programs, workforce partners, libraries, and community-based groups deliver life-changing opportunities every day. And whereas, as our nation marks its own 250th anniversary, expanding access to adult education honors the promise and opportunity and helps more Americans fully participate in civic and community life. Whereas National Education and Family Literacy Week recognizes adult learners and the educators, volunteers, and partners who support them, And now, therefore, I, Julie Hoy, Mayor of the City of Salem, do hereby proclaim September 13-16, 2026 as National Adult Education and Family Literacy Week in Salem and encourage all residents to recognize the value of adult education, celebrate the achievements of adult learners, and support the programs and educators who create pathways to opportunity for individuals, families, employers, and our community. Dated this 14th day of September, 2026. Thank you.

It's always promised you never have to say something, and then someone asks you to say something, right? I asked that question before I left campus today, just in case that might happen. To give you a little bit of a sense of what we do for literacy in the community, and many of the things were actually mentioned in this, so Chemeketa, if you didn't know, means the gathering place, and we often find that, and the central part of our name is being community. So we really, truly try to live into that space and help students find their way to get on a path. And we call this in pre-college programming and in the literacy portion of what we do. So that may be in GED, English as a second language, and high school partnerships, for example, and the different things that we do. Just to give you a sense, we serve about 1,000 students a term. So two weeks from today, we start fall term, and we expect about 1,000 students alone in our literacy programs to be getting a start at Chemeketa. Now, that's region-wide for us. That's in Marion, Polk, and Yamhill counties because those are the three counties that we serve. But that gives you a sense of how big of a need that is within our communities. And then also we serve about another 250 adults in custody in our three prisons. So Chemeketa works with Department of Corrections to do literacy work also inside the three prisons in which we serve, which is amazing work as well. We've been doing that for a long time in partnership with the DOC. We're grateful that the city is recognizing this work. It is true, meaningful work for a vibrant community, and we are very grateful for this. So thank you so much.

All right. We have no presentations. We do have folks signed up for public comment. I will call two names at a time. And please come forward to the podium here. Hit the button on the front of that black box so the green light comes on. You'll have three minutes to speak. Please announce your name, your award, or your address for the record. And I'd like to call Melinda Yost. and Celine Rilletour. How about this one, Armando?

Oh, there it goes. Okay.

Melendios Ward 1, that father-to-be who spoke a while back. He has a 30-year mortgage and can't move his family. He thought he would be bringing his newborn back to a safe, peaceful environment out on Turner Road, outside the middle of their city, but instead got this bomb dropped on him by the very city government he has paid for. He mistakenly thought that the government would be looking for the best interests of the city, not multinational corporations whose CEOs already own local vacation homes and private planes. They solely look at our city as a way to make millions, billions more that has some expendable ponds living there. They are in no way committed to our community other than to milk it for every dollar's worth to their bank accounts. Honestly, would any of you really ask that newborn baby that is probably here already to listen to that awful noise for 24 hours a day for all of his first years on this earth? Would any of you want that for your child? That child's backyard is now uninhabitable thanks to the data center yield fast track cutting people out entirely. The parents will not have the comfort of the ability to keep an eye on their child while he enjoys a bit of independence playing in the backyard. He will not have memories of playing and turning cartwheels in his backyard or shooting hoops with siblings and enjoying barbecue dinner while visiting with his grandparents. You have robbed him of all those memories that most of us will cherish for the rest of our lives. I know I do. I still think about those every day. And I will cherish them until the day I die. I want every one of you to think seriously about the kind of environment you'll force that newborn to grow up in. Each of you should think about that child at least two times a day. When you drift off slowly to sleep at night and wake peacefully every morning, just what environment is that child in because of your actions? You certainly owe that child a hell of a lot more than that. City staff should be horribly ashamed of themselves. They could have easily stopped this from happening, but if they knowingly chose to sign an NDA and keep their mouths shut, they'd be denying citizens that pay their salary any knowledge of what was happening to our city behind our backs. virtually saying to hell with the people of our city and what they want. We will disregard that and make decisions unilaterally for them without any input from these people who are the ones most affected. Our input should have happened long ago. We should have had these meetings from the beginning. We have been royally and completely screwed over by our city government.

Celine Relatos. I'm so sorry. I'm probably butchering your name. Please correct me. And Judy, is it Muschamp? And the button's already pushed there, so you don't need to do anything, except maybe pull the microphone a little closer.

Mayor Hoy and members of the Salem City Council, my name is Celine Relatus. I'm a member of the Selects Tribal Council. I am also the Sergeant of Arms for our Selects Tribal Council. I am providing the following comments of the proposed policy on the provision of city services to tribal trust land. The Selects Tribe has been deeply connected to the Salem area since time immemorial, as confirmed by the federal government, including when the Bureau of Indian Affairs took land in Salem into trust for our tribe. The Siletz tribe is a legal and political successor to the tribes and bands that historically resided at and occupied the area in the Willamette Valley. That includes Salem, including under the 1855 treaty with the Kalapuya. Excuse me. Commonly referred to the Willamette Valley Treaty. Many members of the Willamette Valley Treaty signatory tribes and bands were removed by the federal government to the Siletz Coast Reservation. Siletz' deep connection to Salem continues to this day, as Salem is home to the largest population of Siletz tribal members outside the Siletz Reservation. A significant number of our tribal youth have attended Shemalwa Indian School, which moved to the Salem area. In 1885, many sluts youth still attend Shmela, and sluts have provided government services to tribal members out of our sluts area office for nearly 50 years, since shortly after restoration of the federal recognition of our tribe in 1977. Siletz and the city have enjoyed a positive working relationship for a long time, including in recent years, a growing member of agreements between our two governments. In 2021, Siletz and city entered the MOU in order to strengthen our government to government relationship. In 2023, we entered into a cooperative agreement establishing a framework for the provision for the Clash-Illahi houses. For the past several years, the Siletz tribe and the city of Salem have been working cooperatively to develop an agreement providing for the Siletz voluntary payments to reimburse the city for services it provides to the Siletz growing trust lands within Siletz. You may recall the agreement came before the city council last year. We look forward to continuing our partnership with this city on all this important work. And we appreciate your hard work that has gone into this process, and thank you for your time this evening. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, Judy Muschamp and Gerald Ben.

Thank you, Mayor Hoyt and members of the Salem City Council. My name is Judy Muschamp and I'm a member of the Siletz Tribal Council, Tribal Council Secretary. I'm standing here before you in support of the memorandum of agreement or policy related to tribal trust services that you will be considering this evening. We have many concerns about this policy, however, we recognize its importance. The Siletz tribe has had many ties to the Salem area, and we have many properties held in trust. However, our concern is that tribal trust properties are being treated differently than other non-taxed properties in the Salem area. It's discriminatory to treat tribal trust properties separately than other tax exempt properties such as churches or other properties that are not subjected to these policies. However, we believe that this policy is a framework for future negotiations and provision of services. So we're willing to work closely with the city on future properties and services and look forward to working with you in the future on our properties. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Gerald Ben and Leanne Easton.

Good evening. My name is Gerald Ben. I live in Ward Salem here in South Salem. I've lived in South Salem for approximately 70 of my 77 years. I am also a council member for the Siletz tribe. And I couldn't believe that you would bring this policy to this board tonight on the same night that you chose to listen to and consider granting $1.3 million to developers to develop property when you want to state a policy that says that the tribe will pay everything when they want to develop property. You have no policies for other, like that's been pointed out, you have no policies for any other individual exempt properties, churches, benevolent organizations. You've singled out basically one entity based on race and ethnic background. I hope that you consider just tabling this proposal and working with the tribe. As has been pointed out, we have worked with you voluntarily. We were the ones who said we will pay you a voluntary amount to provide services to the tribe. We developed our own housing out in North Salem. We asked nothing from the city. But you're willing to give millions of dollars to private developers. So think about what you want to vote on tonight and how you're going to vote.

Thank you for your testimony. Leanne Easton and Marissa Lemus.

Good evening, my name is Leanne Easton. I'm one of the attorneys for the sluts tribe and I first wanted to thank Dan for all his hard work with my colleague Katie Gargan On a proposed MOU that we hope comes to the council for approval soon The tribe has been working with the city. I think for three years on this MOU and We understand that the city Decided as a policy matter that you needed to adopt the The policy that's in the council's packet this evening with all due respect many other cities that we work with have engaged with the sluts tribe and entered into MOUs for trust lands in their jurisdictions without having this kind of a policy in place we've paid willingly to be good citizens and share our costs for the operation of our properties. So we're a little bit taken aback by this delay in getting this MOU in place. The city's left money on the table for the last three or four years as we've worked to try to get this MOU in place, and we certainly hope that you'll take action on it in the very near future, regardless of what happens with this policy this evening. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Marissa Lemus and Carrie Handley.

Hi, my name's Marissa Lemus or Marissa Lemus. I live at Cornerstone Apartments. I'm just here to tell you that Cornerstone Apartments is awesome. I have lived there for almost over seven years. It's low-income housing. I've been disabled since 2017. It's been just a godsend to be there. I don't know what the other political issues are, but I can just say that the grants that have been given to Cornerstone have helped. There's a pantry that every month I get a couple of toilet paper, I get a roll of paper towels, I get things that help, that stretch my budget, and it's helpful. And they work with us, the people that from Fifth Avenue, the maintenance team, just everybody there is just wonderful. The owner asked me to speak and I said that I would because it's just a godsend for me. And I know that it is for a lot of low income people that live there. And I just wanted to let you hear that. that we are thankful for the grants that have been given, and they are useful. The transportation grant that was given, I'm not exactly sure of the, where it's, I know it's, I don't, they know more, but I was able to get a bus pass for the month, and that was able so that I could go to doctor visits. And I have a lot of medical and mental health visits to make myself better. So I'm thankful for that. And so I just wanted to say thank you and to let you know that it's not just about money. Cornerstone Apartments is a safe place for a lot of people there. There's families, there's It's just safe, and it's nice, and I wouldn't choose to live anywhere else. So thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. Carrie Handley and Beth Hayes.

Good evening, Mayor Hoy, excuse me, and the councillors. My name is Carrie Morne Handley, and I work for the Office of Ceded Lands with the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde. I'm a policy analyst. I know that you've received the tribe's comment letter dated July 10th, and I'm not here to repeat those comments, but I would like to make a few more points this evening. To summarize the Grand Ronde tribal history in the Salem area very briefly, all of Salem is within the ratified Willamette Valley Treaty of January 22nd, 1855. Grand Ronde continues to exercise stewardship of its homeland since time immemorial and has reacquired some parcels. This includes tribal ownership of land within city of Salem. Grand Ronde has significant historic active interest in all laws, policies, and activities that may impact the tribe's rights in this treaty homeland known as Salem today. In Grand Ronde's general comments on the proposed policy, there is one need and one question, both of which we feel remain outstanding. The need stated is the need for an opportunity for affected parties, including Grand Ronde, to review and comment when a tribe seeks services agreement with the city. I restate that need today. The question stated exactly how and when will actual service demands, land use, infrastructure needs, and operational impacts associated with the tribal project be addressed. I restate the question today in hope that the draft policy will add mechanisms for review. For the comments that have already been addressed in the policy language, we express our thanks. But here are a few more that I'd like to emphasize that remain unaddressed. Section 1.1, non-discrimination. Our concern that this statement could be interpreted as automatic city support for all future tribal fee to trust applications remain outstanding. Section 4.1. land use approval. The city changed the language in this section from consulting with all tribes to consulting with the tribe, singular. This was not the intent of commenting on this section. Grand Ronde maintains that as the treaty tribe of record in the Salem area, we are necessarily impacted by developments proposed by other tribes in Salem. Both the proposing tribe and Grand Ronde should be consulted in good faith. Section 4.2, scope of agreement.

I'm sorry, your time is expired. Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Beth Hayes and I believe it's Sandy Arenas.

Good evening, Mayor Hoy and city councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. My name is Beth Hayes, I live in Ward 1, and I am the Executive Director of Community Resource Trust. I'm here tonight to voice my strong support for our request for $1.37 million from the City of Salem Livability Bonds Affordable Housing Fund. to help fund the development of our new affordable housing community, Casa Loma. Casa Loma will bring 279 additional affordable homes to our community at a time when Salem families are struggling to find stable, affordable places to live. As a non-profit affordable housing developer and operator, Community Resource Trust is intentional about creating housing that does more than provide a roof over someone's head. We work to create communities that help our neighbors find and maintain stability. Casa Loma is designed as a supportive housing community for working families and it is modeled after our successful cornerstone apartments. a 180-unit affordable housing community that is consistently more than 97% occupied and has a long waiting list of people ready for more affordable housing in Salem. Like Cornerstone, Casa Loma will provide on-site wraparound services and opportunities that help residents build stronger futures. These will include, but are not limited to, GED preparation, resource fairs, individual case management, transportation assistance, dental care, leadership and volunteer opportunities, and youth programs. These services matter because affordable housing is not simply about affordability. It's about creating stability that allows families to succeed. Unfortunately, delays in state funding along with a required change to a different state funding model have created an approximate $1.4 million gap in our project financing. That is why we are asking you tonight to approve this $1.37 million investment through the City of Salem Livability Bonds Affordable Housing Fund. This request meets the criteria established by the City Council, and your investment will fill the final gap in our $64 million project. Most importantly, Casa Loma is shovel-ready. With this final piece of funding in place, we can break ground in early spring and begin opening the first doors to families by March of 2028. This is an opportunity to make a significant and lasting investment in Salem, to add 279 affordable homes, provide supportive services to working families, and strengthen our community for years to come.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.

Sandy arenas I believe and Leslie Caudillo Good afternoon my name is Sandy I come on behalf of Cornerstone which would be a sister property to Casa Lomas I I have been at a short period of time over at Cornerstone. In the time that I've been there, I have experienced a different amount of families coming for help, assistance, and they've all been able to get at least some sort of resources listed to them. Many of our residents have lived at a Cornerstone for many years. Their stories have shown that Having a safe and affordable place to live can provide the stability people need to move forward. At Cornerstone, along with what we're helping Casa Loma, we also understand that housing is only part of the solution. We work to connect residents with resources, transportation, education, and other services that can help them overcome challenges. That is why I believe Casa Loma can make a meaningful difference in Salem. With 279 new affordable housing units, we have an opportunity to provide more families, seniors, and individuals with a safe and stable place to call home. The need for affordable housing is not something that can be solved overnight, but every new development can make a difference. Casa Loma has more than 279 new units. It represents 279 opportunities for people to find stability, remain connected to their community, and work towards a better future. I have seen through my work at Cornerstone that when people have a stable home and support around them, it can make a real difference in their lives. I believe Casa Loma can bring that same opportunity to even more people in Salem. At the end of the day, affordable housing is not just about buildings. It's about people, families, and giving our community members a place where they can feel safe, supported, hopeful about their future.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Leslie Cudillo and Kathleen Trepa.

OK. Hello, everyone. My name is Daseca Odile. And through the wonderful partnership with Catholic Community Services and FHI, I have the honor of serving as the full-time on-site community health worker at Cornerstone. In my years working in social services field, I can tell you that I have never seen housing opportunities structured like Cornerstone. It's groundbreaking. When I think of Cornerstone, I think of a place where professional titles fade away and immediate help begins. Cornerstone operates as a one stop shop right here on site. Residents can connect directly with management, receive assistance support, access vital resource, and a wrap around services put changing life opportunities for our residents hands. It's been an absolute joy to witness this community thrive, and every single event we design is driven by the five protective factors. Parent resilience, social connections, knowledge of parenting and child development, concrete support, and social-emotional competency for children. By keeping these powerful factors as core of our mission, we unlock incredible potential. When you support this initiative, you are not just investing in a housing development, you are investing in the real individuals who live and thrive here. On-site amenities alone set Cornerstone apart from any standard apartment complex, providing a full ecosystem of direct support on-site. We here at Cornerstone have a fully equipped computer lab with working internet and printing capacities. Not only we have a non-perishable pantry that residents get access monthly, we have six community events and community cafes hosted just monthly alone. Quarterly mobile dental vans provided free screenings and a dedicated space for community garden, community room, a dog park, a children's play and a splash pad. We also have recreational spaces like basketball court and a splash pad. At Cornerstone, we meet people exactly where they are. We proudly support low income households, single income families, and seniors. But the most inspiring part of this initiative is the community spirit. Our residents actively volunteer their time to support our events. We keep and keep our pantry running beautifully. We are also thrilled to partner with local agencies to expand our impact. Together, we have hosted major events like a community resource fair, a career fair, GED preparation classes, and our annual Thanksgiving meal and food box giveaway. These are open not just for community, but also for our Cornerstone residents as well. Cornerstone has truly become a hub for hope. And now as Casa Loma begins the process to open their doors and become our sister property, the future is incredibly bright. This expansion means double the resources, double the support, and double the impact for our entire community. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Kathleen Trepa, and then we have one person signed up under item eight tonight. And if you're up for it, we'd let you go now after. Ms. Trepa, and that person's name is Katrina, I think it's Randkiv? Randkiv, thank you. So you can come forward after Ms. Trepa.

Kathleen Trepo, Ward 7. I have comments on several items this evening. I'd like to give a big shout out to the Salem Police Department's domestic violence team. I strongly support the grant application to keep this program alive. Domestic violence is a rampant problem in this country, and Salem is no exception. The vast majority of domestic violence is male on female, and it crosses all socioeconomic, racial, and living environments. In fact, just last week in Sacramento, California, a woman was shot and killed in front of a Panera restaurant in the parking lot after she was dropped off from work by a longtime stalker. We need to do everything that we can to stop the cycle of power, control, and violence in this country. As for the Casa Loma request for an additional $1.3 million on top of the $3 million plus that this project has already been allocated, I actually recommend that the council not approve this additional funding. This project alone would consume almost 40% of the $10 million in bond funds that have been allocated to support affordable housing. And while I support affordable housing, this location does not make any sense to me. It is in an area that does not have neighborhood services, a grocery store, or even a bus line. It is located near the Mill Creek Corporate Center, but I don't see any mention of any survey, employer surveys, indicating that there's a need for housing for their lower wage employees. but it is located next to Corbin University, where only 57% of those students actually live on campus. So I don't understand the location for this affordable housing project. It doesn't meet any of the typical requirements to support low-income residents, and I wonder if it'll actually be filled with students and faculty that are associated with Corbin University. This project site is literally located beyond the edge of any suburban development. With regard to Councillor Varney's request to amend her previous motion to direct staff to consider policy language related to the use of NDAs, I agree with her request to broaden the application of this policy. In my humble opinion, there appears to be an excessive use of NDAs related to development, this city or this state, which exceeds what I have experienced in my prior professional life. Staff needs to push back on a developer's desire to operate in secret, NDA should only be used to protect corporate financial information and proprietary information, not used to protect that the developer is considering a location in town. You don't need to advertise the work that you're doing with regard to development, but you also shouldn't be hiding it. As for the proposed moratorium, I'd like to commend staff for their very quick work to notify the state of the proposed moratorium, and I fully support a determination that this is necessary due to a compelling need. I think it would be helpful, though, if the city attorney could clarify if the application of this moratorium will apply to any existing applications, i.e., the VAERS application, or if that is based on some sort of determination for substantially complete. Thanks very much.

All right. Madam City Recorder, I should have noted for the record that Councillor Matthews has arrived. Thank you, yes. That was about 20 minutes ago, so thanks for being here. I noted it. Thank you. Thank you. Katrina Randcleave.

Good evening. My name is Katrina Rankleve and I am a resident of Wallace Marine Park in Ward 8. Tonight I'm speaking on behalf of the entire community with a request for an emergency halt on the camp clearings. Some camps in Wallace are posted for eviction for next Monday and Salem Police Officer Bennett posted the rest of the park for October 14th. About 65 of us remain hidden behind the tree line behind the softball fields. This aggressive push directly contradicts what was stated last month to the press. Mayor-elect Nordyke explicitly said if shelter beds are not available, they must pump the brakes so we don't just push people onto sidewalks. City Manager Nanbury also stated the timeline can change if people are not connected to resources. That connection has not happened. The flyers have been updated to 211 where available shelter beds for individuals, couples, or people with pets are completely none. A real solution requires compromise from both sides, and allowing us to remain until we are properly connected to actual resources gives this council, the city, and city the critical time needed to establish what's missing. It is not the responsibility of unhoused individuals to find or create the infrastructure we need to survive. That is the legal and moral responsibility of the city council and the state government. Instead, the laws and bans that are put in place systematically trap us in homelessness. It creates the very crisis that's complained about. By stripping away park shelter, you force us onto the city streets. You force the community to see us in doorways, which in turn directly creates the public hostility. and hatred directed at us. This week poses an imminent risk to our lives. You are forcing us into the elements posed by this year's severe El Nino winter with expected atmospheric flooding, while city laws completely strip away our legal right to protect ourselves from the elements of the weather. Inside of the park, we have established stable, dry conditions to survive. If you grant an emergency halt, our community is prepared to self-regulate. We pledge to immediately eliminate piling garbage in the camps and park. We will enforce the strict zero tolerance policy for violence. Anyone who violates it will be required to leave immediately. Furthermore, this is for an emergency halt. It's strictly for our already existing community. It is not an open door for newcomers. We will actively ensure community size does not increase. Any new person attempting to camp or anyone who has previously left and tries to return will be required to leave. This is about protecting the existing 65 residents who have nowhere to go, not establishing a new legal campground. This section of Wallace we occupy has no attractions and the general public does not venture back there. Furthermore, city construction plans for Marine Drive bridge connection to the park isn't scheduled to begin until 2028 and there is no reason to force us out right now. Our community is fully aware that city manager Numbree has the direct administrative authority to place an emergency stop order on these camp clearings. Every one of us is leaning on this council and the city manager tonight to stand by the words she publicly gave us last month through the press, that you hear us and that you stand by us. I urge you to fulfill that promise, accept our compromise, and halt the clearances. And we are fully willing to negotiate on the terms of this compromise if needed to get this emergency halt in place. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. Okay, that's it for, we didn't have anyone signed up online? No. Okay, we are moving on then to item three, the consent calendar. Chair Nishioka. I move to approve the consent calendar. Second.

Motion and a second by Gwynne. Councillor to the motion. Thank you. The consent calendar consists of minutes from August 17th, 2026, the City Council work session minutes, and August 24th, 2026, draft City Council minutes. Consists of resolutions 3.2.1, transfer of appropriations within the city's fiscal year 27 budget, and the general fund for city manager's office. Action items 3.31, amendments to the intergovernment agreement between the city of Salem and the urban renewal agency for the creation of the downtown advisory board. 3.32, Salem Police Department application for the Oregon Department of Justice Stop Violence Against Women 2027 through 2028 formula grant. 3.33, recommended response to the League of Oregon City's survey on the priorities to inform the League of Oregon City's legislative priorities during the 2027 and 2028 Oregon legislative session. 3.34, Recommended City of Salem 2027 Legislative Session State Funding Priorities. And that completes this consent calendar.

Great. Any input? Yes. Councillor Vann, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. Before we vote on the consent agenda, I wanted to speak to item 3.2.1. I'm excited to see this on the agenda for the possibility that this council would invest in North East Salem. When I'm out at my neighborhood association meetings, the top feedback that I always get from constituents are, that they're not getting enough resources to address their concerns. And I'm glad to be part of this Northeast United Initiative and at the table during these important conversations. It takes a lot of consistent effort, getting creative, and showing up to do the hard work. I look forward to what the Northeast United Initiative can do, especially if this passes on the consent calendar. and what this investment will bring to Northeast Salem. Because I really, truly believe that when we invest in Northeast Salem, in Ward 6 and Ward 5, other parts of town also flourish. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Yes, Councillor Brown.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I am going to echo the good Councillor from Ward 6, Councillor Vane. I, too, am very excited to see this. When I think about Northeast Salem, One of the things that our constituents are routinely sharing with me, even from last Friday when I connected with some business owners, and I quote, we would love to see more love and funds given toward Northeast Salem. And so the very fact that this is here to help with the vision of Northeast Salem, Northeast United. I'm in favor of that. I wish I could add three more zeros to this amount, Madam City Manager, but I know I can't. But this is good to see. It's good to see, and hopefully our business owners and constituents will know that Northeast Salem is definitely making some changes for the positive. So thank you, and I yield the floor.

Councillor Nordyke.

Thank you so much. So I want to say I have noticed that with counselors Brown and Vang, there are some powerful champions for Northeast Salem in the room. So I really want to thank you for speaking up tonight, but you've spoken up many times on behalf of your constituents, and I really do appreciate that. I've been on council a long time, and I notice when our colleagues speak up to advocate for especially our underserved communities. So I wholeheartedly agree. This is needed. I am more than happy to support the authorization of additional funding, which really means additional resources, an additional 600 hours of personnel support for the Northeast United Program. So I'm so pleased to see this in the agenda. And I know this is everything to do with how outspoken that our Wards 5 and Ward 6 members of this body have been. The other comment I wanted to make, I too will be voting in support of the Stop Violence Against Women Formula Grant. Domestic violence is an issue near and dear to me. It comes up every day in my work at a nonprofit serving children in foster care. But even before then, when I was a lawyer at the Department of Justice, I handled far too many domestic violence cases to count. So I know that the Victims Assistance Programs, like this one, is of the utmost importance. When people enter the system as a victim, they often feel like they're the last to know, the last to find out, the last to understand and be made aware of what their rights are. We have enshrined the rights of defendants accused of crime in our Constitution, and rightfully so. But far too often victims feel unseen and unheard. They don't have the support. And more often than not, they are absolutely terrified. Many times they're being asked to testify against their abuser. They've got to look that person in the eye and tell that jury exactly what they did in excruciating detail. So victim support programs are not hypothetical. They can be life-changing. And they are essential to ensuring that offenders are held accountable. I also appreciate the fact that this grant fund includes some support for emergency housing. people don't often realize how many times that people are afraid to leave because they don't know where they would go. They don't know where, not just for themselves, where would they take their children? Where would they take the family dog? Where can they safely leave? How can they safely leave? So programs like this speak to my heart and to the years of service that I've given to the community. So to me, Voting in favor of a grant program to support the domestic violence response team is a no-brainer. Thank you.

Anyone else? Well, I'd like to add to the sentiments about Northeast Salem and the help that's coming to that area. I would be remiss if I didn't mention where that help has been coming from. It's been a long time coming. with the help of the Bloomberg Harvard Cities Leadership Initiative that I took part in, choosing the public safety as our priority issue, our key priority, and then the fact that our Courtney Knox Bush and Interim Chief Ditto drove that for downtown to create a downtown blueprint for greater public safety and livability in that area. From that, our Bloomberg Harvard A fellow came, Alessandra, and the addition of Ashley Dunn to our community services team, creating then a blueprint for Northeast Salem. So that's what's happening there, and it's very exciting. I'm a 35-year resident of Northeast Salem, and I have felt that sort of we're out there somewhere feeling And it's good to know that we're being connected with the kinds of services and potentially programs that can be of help in that area. So thank you to everyone who took part in that. Anyone else have comment? Okay. We have no public hearings. We're moving on to special orders of business.

Excuse me, Mayor. We need to do a roll call. Oh, we sure do. Thank you, Madam City Recorder. Councillor Teigen.

Aye.

Councillor Nishioka. Aye. Aye. Councillor Matthews.

Aye.

Councillor Gwynne. Aye. Councillor Brown. Aye. Councillor Vane. Yes. Councillor Nordyke. Aye. Councillor Varney. Aye. Mayor Julie Hoy.

Aye. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now we have no public hearings and we're moving on to special orders of business. And we will start with the city attorney on item 5.1, city council policy on the provision of city services to tribal trust properties.

Good evening, Dan Atchison, City Attorney. So I'm going to go through this fairly quickly, but please stop me if you have any questions. So we've got a draft council policy in front of you that establishes guidelines for the city to provide services to tribally owned properties that are in trust status. So essentially, if one of the recognized tribes owns a property in the city, Within the city limits, they can apply to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to put that property into trust status. It basically means that property is the same as a property that would be on an Indian reservation. So it's not subject to property taxes. It's not subject to our general laws. They aren't required to submit a land use application for development, that sort of thing. What this would do is essentially allow us to provide utility service and other city services for that property. The purpose of this policy is just to ensure equitable treatment and service delivery. As you heard in some of the testimony, there's concerns that tribal trust property might be treated differently than other properties in the city. This would ensure that we're treating all trust property the same and the same as other properties in the city. I would hope to foster cooperation between the city and tribal governments and mitigate impacts to city infrastructure in the community. It also outlines responsibilities for services, utilities, and compensation for those services. So one of the elements of the policy is that we acknowledge that the tribes have sovereignty over the land, including properties that are in trust status. So they're not required to comply with our laws. They're not required to take services from the city, but they can request them and we can provide them. So our services are various, as you're aware. They're utility services, fire service, law enforcement. We provide transportation services as well. When a property would come in on trust status, they would come to the city and ask for services, and we would negotiate an agreement with them. Because it's essentially sovereign land, our typical lien procedures that we would use for utility service, if a customer didn't pay the utility account, we could eventually lien that account. That wouldn't apply to sovereign land. So there would be a provision in an agreement with the tribe to provide for other types of financial security. I wanted to mention one response to one piece of testimony that was received regarding the Casa Loma application and differences between how we would provide bond funds for that versus other projects. The Selects Tribe does have a affordable housing development on trust status in the city. As was referenced in the testimony, we have a 2023 agreement. with them to provide city services. That agreement, by federal law, were prohibited from collecting property taxes on that agreement or even a payment in lieu of property taxes. So under federal law, the most we can collect from services other than just street utility services, which they're paying for, would be $150 per unit. So that MOU that was executed, the cooperative agreement that was executed with the tribe for that property, allows for us to collect $150 per unit plus the standard charges for utility service.

That $150, is that per unit per month, per year, or one time?

It's per year, but it's per unit per year. So infrastructure development is one of the issues that comes up when a property develops. The on-site improvements for a trust property are taken care of by the tribe. We don't get involved in that. We don't have inspections performed. We don't issue permits, and they're not required to because they're sovereign land again. If there's off-site improvements that are needed or if they need to run additional infrastructure like water lines or if the impact of the development requires additional streets or stoplights, that sort of thing, they do need to go through the standard process that the city has for those offsite, outside the trust land impacts. So a standard for other types of developments, typically the developer would contract to have those improvements improved, and once they're final, they would give them to the city, the city would inspect them, and if they meet our standards, they would be accepted by the city, and then the city would then own those offsite improvements. We also provide a provision for non-standard services. Those might be just other types of city services that the city would provide to other folks in the community. And we have a fee schedule that the council adopts every year and those standard fees that would apply for that type of service as well. So instead of property tax, because they are exempt, we would request that the tribe would pay a payment in lieu of property tax to compensate for those city services. There were some comments that we received regarding how that would be calculated. The policy is not really the place to have that sort of detail about the calculation, but essentially it would be the equivalent of what their assessed property taxes would be based on the city's levy rate. And we would also seek that the tribe would pay the operations fee that is a charge that comes on our utility bill It's to compensate the city for city services that fee would be in addition to our standard utility charges Sdc's is another type of charge that goes along with development it's intended to pay for the oversizing of public facilities and the requirement for public facilities to serve properties and STC's would be paid on the same basis as any other property that develops in the city. And of course, as I mentioned, the utility fees and associated fees for that would be the same as any other property in the city. So land use approval is not required. So city land use approval isn't required when a property develops within a tribal trust land. So our unified development code simply doesn't apply to it. We would like to have a provision in any subsequent agreement that the city and the tribe work in good faith to support compatibility with the surrounding development patterns. And through any services agreement, the city would seek mitigation of any reasonably anticipated impacts on the community and the neighborhood from that development. Services agreement is not an endorsement or approval of any particular use It's just that they are requesting the standard city services, and we would work in good faith to provide them When services are requested the city would evaluate the needed service levels and potential impacts on infrastructure the surrounding residents and the surrounding land and The evaluation is addressed through service agreements and at the city's regulatory process at the time of the request. So the agreement might vary a bit depending on what type of development is requested and what type of needs the development might have and what type of impacts it might have on our community. I'm happy to take any questions.

Councillor Brown.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. Mr. City Attorney, thank you for the presentation. I'm not going to speak for us. I'm going to speak for me. Can you connect the dots for me? Because I'm a little bit confused as to some of the comments that were shared during public comments and the presentation that you just gave us. So I don't know what the rub is. What's the issue here when it comes to the money being used or this particular property being used, like I'm missing, there's a disconnect for me.

I am not going to speak on behalf of one of the tribes, so you'll need to glean their testimony from that. But, you know, we've had good, frank discussions with both the Siletz and the Grand Ronde. I've been working for quite a long time with the Siletz on different agreements, including this policy. And we've met with the Grand Ronde on different occasions to discuss the proposed policy. Obviously, both tribes have a very deep interest in this area, and they feel that, you know, development in these properties affects them, whether it's their development or a different tribe's development.

I'm pretty sure I'll have another question. How did you process what you just shared? Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Councillor Teigen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Dan, for the presentation. I have specific questions about Section 3, which is the compensation for services. And I just want to know when shall means shall in this section. We say the tribe shall make voluntary payments in lieu of property taxes. That seems to be different than, say, Section 3.4, the utility services, where it says the tribe shall pay applicable utility rates. I guess I could understand the shall part in the utility services, where if they take a certain amount of water as part of their connection, we would charge them for that. Is the voluntary payments in lieu of property taxes an actual shall, or is that a...

bargaining position to start like when we get into conversations with the tribes I think that the voluntary language is in there to represent the fact that they are sovereign and they're not required to pay property taxes However, they can voluntarily agree to pay property taxes and that would be our desire.

Okay. Thank you

or a payment in lieu of those taxes.

Yeah, I understand that technical difference. What would you say about the others though? Sorry, Madam Mayor, if that's okay. Are other entities who have some other form, I don't like to compare the state with the tribes or even the BLM office with the tribes, they're different. But if there's an organization that doesn't pay property taxes because of their either tax status or their federal status, do they still pay the operations fee? Do they still pay system development charges? Do they still pay for utility services?

Yes, they do. So even whether it's a nonprofit or a governmental entity or any other institutional use, the way our operations fee is fashioned, it's part of our utility service. So when you sign up for utility service, the operations fee is part of that. STC is the same way. You're paying for your impacts. It's just because in this case we have a sovereign nation who is contracting with us. We have limits on what we can require them to do under our code. So a services agreement is a way to otherwise require them to do that.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Matthews.

SO I UNDERSTAND THAT A SOVEREIGN NATION IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY THE PROPERTY TAXES OR PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PROPERTY TAXES. BUT TO COUNSELOR TIGAN'S QUESTION, SO BECAUSE ALL THOSE OTHER ENTITIES ALSO WHICH AGAIN AREN'T THE SAME AND SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL THE NUANCES OF DIFFERENCE PER SE. Because the other ones also already pay the operations fee. Would that be something that even a sovereign nation, if they were to get utilities on any property with or without this agreement, they would still have to pay the operations fee? Or is that part of their exemptions as well?

The operations fee, as I mentioned, is part of the utility structure. So if they are signing up for utility service, everyone who signs up for utility service is required to pay the operations fee.

So it's not part of the exemptions that exist under...

However, because tribes are different and they are sovereign, we are not able to lien the property if they don't pay the utility fee. So we would need an agreement in place for security. I understand. Got it.

Councillor Barney. Thank you very much, Mayor. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on this. So currently, do developments on trust property pay SDCs?

We only have one agreement right now. It's with the Siletz Tribe regarding the Blossom Drive affordable housing development. They were not required to pay SDCs on that.

So would this change that? That's what I thought I understood.

For affordable housing developments on Indian land, including trust land, they're not subject to those fees. So there's a federal law in place that would prohibit us from charging that.

So what if it's not affordable housing and it's just other types of development?

Absent an agreement, they would not be required to pay any of those fees.

Okay. One more question. Will trust properties fall under the restructuring of our operations fee?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Councillor Gwynne.

I have a couple questions. So how many properties are we talking about and how many acres? That's my first question.

I don't have the acreage. I believe the Siletz Tribe has a cluster of properties on Chumaba and I-5 on the east side of I-5 there. I believe it's three or four, but it depends on, you know, whether it's a separate lot or attached to another lot.

So it's not like 100 acres or anything like that?

Again, I don't know the acreage. I apologize. I will say that nothing would preclude a tribe from purchasing property in the future and going through the trust status to convert it.

So this is going to be like probably a stupid question, but they are sovereign, right, and they don't have to necessarily follow city ordinances. So what would preclude them from putting in, say, a data center on one of their properties? I'm just curious.

They would need our infrastructure to support that, and that would be subject to discussion with the city. But yes, our zoning doesn't apply.

I'm sorry, I missed the rest of that.

Our zoning doesn't apply to their properties.

Councillor Brown, go ahead.

All right. Thank you. I did have a couple of questions. So I am, again, looking at the draft agreement, Section 3, compensation for services. 3.1 talks about payment in lieu of property tax. And then after that, 3.2 is operations fee. 3.3 is system development charges. And 3.4 is utility services. And that is the conclusion of Section 3. So I understand why they would pay ops fee, SDCs, and utilities because other nonprofits and other entities who normally are tax exempt pay those. But 3.1 says payment in lieu of property tax. Is that in addition to the ops fee, SDCs, and utility services? Or is that more of an introductory paragraph in explaining why we would be charging an ops fee, SDCs, and utilities?

Thanks for the question. No, payment, 3.1 payment in lieu of property taxes is a separate fee beyond those other ones. So they, we would ask them to pay the equivalent of what their property taxes would be for the property. That's one of the reasons why the affordable housing developments are often non-profits is exempt under federal law.

Okay, so then to be clear, we would be asking them to pay this payment in lieu of property taxes, but we don't Normally assess that we don't normally ask for this sort of payment from Nonprofits or religious institutions is that correct?

That's correct It's more in the nature of the development so one of their properties is developed as a mini storage There's other types of developments that can be commercial in nature There's no requirement that it be a typical nonprofit use not not that nonprofits can't run for-profit enterprises and But that would be the backing for requiring that.

And I think, you know, so I think through it, you know, if there's a difference between the 911 call volume to a storage unit and 300 apartments with 300 different heartbeats, 300 potential opportunities for 911 calls.

Also much different between a strip mall, a hotel, any other commercial use or industrial use. Thanks so much for the question, Councillor Gawain. Yeah.

Beg your pardon? Okay.

Thank you. Councillor Brown.

Thank you. So, Mr. City Attorney, just bear with me. So, tribal lands are sovereign, correct?

Tribal trust lands and, of course, reservation land.

They're sovereign. So, I'm still stuck on why we're imposing taxes upon them if they're sovereign.

Because the property's in the city and they're requesting services, and so otherwise we're We would not be able to collect any fees, including property taxes, from the property that's developing.

And would it be fair to say that the Siletz and Grand Ronde, they are at the table with us as we create this? Are they with us? Are they not with us?

Explain what you mean by with us. Do they agree with this proposed policy? You heard their testimony, so again, I'm not going to put words in their mouth.

Okay, so yeah, I didn't hear their testimony. I am really stuck because if you have folks who are here tonight are folks that want to build property and they are part of a sovereign, they're part of the tribes, and we have us over here, us meaning us, these policymakers and implementators, are they at the table with us when it comes to these policies? Or are we doing something imposing on them?

We are asking you to consider and adopt this policy. We have been in consultation with both the Grand Ronde and the Siletz. I don't know that either tribe thinks you need to have a policy. We, as staff, are suggesting you have a policy to ensure you treat all trust properties equally and in fairness with other properties in the city.

So that's the ask in a nutshell. That last statement, that's the ask, correct? Sure. And again, I'm not speaking for anyone else. It just seems to me that there's a lot of gray here, at least for me. I don't know about the rest of this team. There's just a lot of gray for me when it comes to processing this and understanding what a tribal nation is. And then here is city government imposing something upon them just because we want to make sure that they're doing something that we impose upon other folks in a similar land trust. That to me does not connect, because if they're sovereign, they're sovereign. And I don't know why it is that we are trying to impose upon them a policy to ask for more taxes.

I think in its simplest terms, we would like to be compensated for providing services to properties that are in the city of Salem. These properties are miniature reservations, right? They're in trust status. They're sovereign. But they're within the city. We provide services to them. Those services cost money beyond what utility rates are, and we would ask to be provided fair compensation for those services.

Well, again, I appreciate the presentation. I think for me I'm just thrown off a little bit because, yeah, I'm just thrown off by this.

Take it in comparison to the efforts by the city to seek payment in lieu from the state of Oregon, who is obviously tax-exempt. We've been asking at the legislature and with the state of Oregon to pay compensation for the services the city provides, even though they're tax exempt.

And I understand that part. The part that no one has said, and I'm just going to say it, all the land belongs to them. Every inch belongs to them. Where we are right now, this belongs to them. And so if it belongs to them, they are the rightful owners. And yet we are coming behind them telling them, hey, we're going to impose this policy on you because you owe us money for the land that we stole from you. So no one's going to say that. So I said it for everybody else that didn't say it. And I'm going to say it out loud. It just seems to me that that doesn't seem fair at all. I can understand us asking the state of Oregon. I can understand us getting into that pocket. I can understand us getting into the pockets of our tribal nations. That to me seems a nice long stretch.

Personally, I feel like this is an act of good faith for both parties to come together and try to come to an agreement and to give and take. So I feel comfortable with that and I I want to see progress. I know you all have been at this for a very long time, working together for three years at least at this point. And it feels like a step in the right direction. And it's not committing to anything except providing the services that come up to the property and allow them to use water and utilities. That's as simple as it seems to me. And no disrespect, sir. But when I think about going to the state, we're still going to the state for money on their land. So I just feel that this is a good faith effort for all parties. Matthews, go right ahead.

I apologize if you already answered this, but I think for me it makes sense when you talk about, especially if it's a revenue-generating entity or building that is built on this property or any tribe property. If it's a revenue-generating business, I could see getting a payment in lieu of taxes or something in a similar fashion. However, if it is for the public good, does this actual agreement allow for that type of flexibility? If a free clinic goes up on one of these properties, I'm not incredibly interested in getting a payment in lieu of taxes on something that we traditionally would have had as a non-profit that would have not paid that tax likely. And so does this current agreement allow for that kind of flexibility if there is public interest or public good on the property?

I would say this is a policy, not an agreement. So a subsequent agreement would be subject to your consideration and in particular use if you didn't want to impose that, you could do that as a council. Okay, thank you.

Anyone else? Councillor Varney.

Thank you very much, Mayor. Can you clarify a little bit, one of the speakers that came up talked about discrimination. Can you go into a little more detail and just clarify or describe that and would

adoption of this change that As I understood the testimony counselor they were referring to the Casa Loma affordable housing development that has received City bond funds and is seeking additional bond funds, and I think they were drawing a distinction between those Grants that are being provided for that development versus this proposal which would apply property taxes to their developments as I mentioned The Siletz currently has an affordable housing development in the city on trust land that's subject to a cooperative agreement with the city. And we are not charging property taxes or other taxes to that. They are paying the utility fees as well as the operations fee.

Okay, thank you. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't in provision of services or anything else that was that had come up, so I appreciate that. So I see this as a request or an ask. It's better than a handshake. And yet, it's not really binding, but we're just putting a request in writing, pretty much.

The purpose of the policy is really just to set a framework for how we're going to look at subsequent agreements. having a council make a policy statement that we're not going to discriminate against trust lands and we're going to treat the requests equally. It doesn't bind us to provide services. It doesn't bind us to impose any particular fee. Subsequent agreements that would come forward for trust properties will be considered on the merits and on the specific development for that proposal.

Anyone else? Councilor Vang.

Thank you, Mayor. This isn't really a question for you, Dan. I'm just kind of listening to everybody's questions and the conversation. And I think for me, when it comes to this agenda item, I think I'm okay with the operations fee as part of the policy. I think I'm okay with the system development charges. I think I'm okay with the utility services. I think it all makes sense for services that the city is providing. I think my hesitation is on 3.1, where I think Councilor Brown makes a good point that they are a sovereign nation, so their land is not, it's in the city, but it's not something that we have jurisdiction over. So is there, okay, now I think the question is for you now, Dan. Is there a way to go back into this agreement and list the other types of fees? and just take out the property in lieu of taxes, or is this kind of like a, these are the four that we're proposing council consider and can't parse them out?

The council can make any amendment to this policy they like. What I would say is that, one, subsequent agreements will come to you, and if you don't want to assess a particular fee depending on the development, you're welcome to not require that. Secondly, I would say, you know, we don't know what types of developments might come forward. Is it a 100,000 square foot big box? Is it a hotel? Is it other types of uses that you may want to assess payment in lieu of property tax for?

Thank you. That helps.

Anything further? Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you.

If seeing nothing further, will the recorder please call the roll? Or do you want to state the motion?

Thank you. I move to adopt resolution number 2026-38 to implement a council policy on the provision of city services to tribal trust land. Second.

Motion and second by Gwyn. Anything further? Councillor Teigen?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll be voting for this policy statement and I think we've had a really good conversation, and I do believe that future negotiations with tribes as they develop tribal trust land will really revolve around this 3.1 question, right? I think what we're saying in this document is that based on the nature of development that comes to the community, voluntary, we're not saying they have to pay the payment in lieu of taxes, But there could be some developments that would have much greater impact on city services than others. And it's also the tribe's sovereign right to provide their own police services or provide their own fire services or their own EMS. But if they, through negotiations and consultation with the city, recognize that it'd be necessary for the city to procure perhaps a ladder truck or something like that to provide services to a hotel or something of that nature, then that's the basis of the conversation and the consultation for why they would pay a payment in lieu of taxes. And I think what we're saying here is that that's a conversation we wanna have when we enter into these consultations, not a take it or leave it type offer. And so as I vote yes for this, I look at it with the best intention that we have, which is to treat each tribe equally and enter into those consultations earnestly.

Anything further? Councillor Nishioka. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Teigen. I, too, feel that this is setting the policy. Thank you for the presentation, Mr. Atchison. I feel that it provided sort of the layout of the policy and the opportunities to allow the sovereign nations to make requests or changes they can ask. Councillor Teigen said if they choose to have their own police or fire department, then negotiations can work to make sure that they're not paying for the services from the city because they're supplying themselves. So I think this is a great policy and it sets up the rights for other tribes. So thank you very much. Anyone else?

Councillor Varney.

Yeah, me again. I really kind of like Councillor Vang's idea of taking out the property tax part of it. One of the things that bothers me is when we offer tax abatements to developers. I'm just thinking of the whole fairness issue here, but then I appreciate Councillor Teigen, the fact that this is more to kind of open up the conversation and get the conversation going on it. And I think having this framework is important. So I'm going to be supporting it based on that. But there are some things I obviously don't care for.

Anything else? Councillor Nordyke.

Now, in my mind, this opens the question, opens the door to me in terms of where else are we looking at payment in lieu of property taxes? I know that that has long been a goal for us to seek that form of compensation from the state, which makes it considerable, takes a considerable toll on our public safety services. Millions of public safety dollars are spent on the Capitol Mall every single year. where and how we choose to implement that, we need to always keep an eye on equity and determining where it makes the most sense to do that. And as Councilor Teigen pointed out, this is voluntary. If they choose to, as he said, you know, have their own tribal police department, law enforcement and such, that is their prerogative. They are a sovereign nation, and I take their sovereignty very seriously. If, on the other hand, they see a benefit instead of standing up the considerable expense of standing up your own public safety services and using our own excellent public safety services, I don't blame them for wanting to take advantage of that also. So every conversation, especially with sovereign nations, has to be measured as be careful. And I want to continue to hear from the tribes because that certainly informs my perspective. And I very much appreciate the testimony here tonight. Thank you so much. I think it's fair to say that every member of council heard you and had a lot of questions because of the concerns that you raised. So thank you for taking the time to share your point of view with us.

Anything further? Seeing nothing, will the recorder please call the roll?

Councillor Nishioka? Aye. Councillor Matthews?

Aye.

Councillor Gwynne? Aye. Councillor Brown?

Nay.

Councillor Vane? Aye. Councillor Nordyke. Aye. Councillor Varney.

Aye.

Councillor Teigen.

Aye.

Mayor Julie Hoy. Aye. Okay, we are moving on to item 5.2. I believe city staff. Michael, are you coming? Yes.

Thank you. I'm on the Livability Volunteer Committee, and this came before us. I declared a potential conflict. At that time, I think that until I get further word from Oregon Government Ethics Commission, I will declare a conflict, and I have percentage property

Ownership that neighborly ventures manages, so I think I should just go ahead and step away Okay, that sounds great We are talking about item 5.2 the supplemental funding request by Casa Loma affordable housing development for an additional 2022 livability bond funds Go right ahead Good evening madam mayor council a few weeks ago the bond committee considered this request from neighborly ventures and community resource trust which is

You heard from Ms. Hayes earlier this evening. And bond committee basically concluded that it wanted all of council's input. So that's why you have three options on your staff report from which to choose. So just to orient the general public and for those councillors who were not members of the bond committee, the project location on the right is a broad view of the city. That red dot right in the middle is where the property is. Up in the upper left-hand corner there is the Salem Airport, and adjacent to it, of course, is the Mill Creek Industrial Park, and then Corbin University is just there to the southwest. And then on the left-hand side there, I've outlined in very rough freehand, that blue piece is where the property is, and as you can see, that's Corbin University's athletic fields there. So the description is, and I apologize for the appearance of the slides, my excellent colleague Nicole Miller usually takes my slides and makes them look with some pizzazz. This is a reflection of my pizzazz. So the project is two phases, 183 units which are fully funded and then 96 units which I know that they intend to pursue, owned by Community Resource Trust and built by Neighborly Ventures. I think Ms. Hayes mentioned that it's a $63 million project, total development costs at this point. $51 million of that's coming from OHCS. They're taking out a $9 million loan. And then right now, they have $3 million city affordable housing bond funds for the public infrastructure piece. And that's kind of an important component to this because these affordable housing bond funds, the way the bond was structured, whatever those purchase need to remain in public ownership. So the money that they're using with these bond funds is to put in water sewer lines and the things that are there to support the development. Excuse me. They've made a request increase by that amount. We've identified, they've identified that $271,000 is attributable to the city asking them to oversize the pipes for what they actually need so that for future development that may come in in that area, we don't have to tear the streets up again and do it again. The other, the remaining little over a million is a difference in the engineering estimates from when they asked back in July of 24 to now. With respect to the scoring criteria the council recently adopted, If council considers the entire development, not just the funded phase one part, and the applicant has already agreed to triple the number of type A accessible units, then it does meet the minimum points that laid out previously. Ten million dollars in total funds, of which six and a half million are unpledged Right now so if council were to approve the full amount then that's going to leave about five point one million dollars in your affordable bond funds All right, thank you for that any questions yeah councillor Teigen Thank You madam mayor just start on that last point first.

What does the pipeline look like for a other projects to spend the remaining $5.1 million in affordable housing bond funds.

There are no other active applications in front of the bond committee. I know that there will be one coming up very soon and that would take up a lot of that.

Okay. Thank you.

Anyone else? Councillor Matthews.

You mentioned that 200 and some thousand of the cost was from the city kind of requiring a larger infrastructure upgrade due to potential future developments. I may be misunderstanding, but I thought there was already a mechanism within the city for a developer to get refunded back for that in later years.

Is that not correct? I would have to defer to my colleague, Robin Dahlke, because I am not an expert in that. Okay.

Robin Dahlke, come on down.

Good evening, Robin Dahlke, Development Services Division. So yes, there is a SDC reimbursement option for oversizing water sewer mains. Those upsized mains need to be on an adopted 309 list, which would come to council, and we're in the middle of a master plan update process. So If we were to go the route of getting an SDC reimbursement option for the oversize, we would need to bring a report to council that mainline would be eligible, but it'd have to be adopted on a new list. So this alternative is looking at funding that oversize with affordable housing bond money instead of SDC reimbursements.

And I think I just don't understand the process well enough. So explain to me a little bit better on that, because if we're requiring the upgrade, Why would it be different than any other upgrade that we were requiring that would also be eligible for you? I know you mentioned a list that it needs to be on, but what's governing that that says it must be on this list?

I think saying required is a little strong, no offense to Michael here. It was a voluntary request since we are in the master planning update process. So it was identified by our infrastructure planners as a need. And since we're still in the design build phase of the development, We asked the engineer to look at those cost increases to bring that service in while they're doing construction to avoid those future street cuts, which once our master plan is adopted and those mains are shown in our 309 list, it would be a requirement that would be mandated by a new land use decision if one were to come in in that area. Does that make sense?

Yeah. So if we weren't to, for whatever reason, this wasn't to happen tonight, then there would still be a mechanism to... If that 309 list basically put this project or this street on that list, there would still be a mechanism for them to recover those fees?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Rob, could you clarify that if the improvement's already built and then we put it on the 309 list, would it be eligible for reimbursement?

Trying to think of timing. We'd want to consider, so depending on when the development phasing comes in, we typically will do an improvement agreement with the developer. So we would want that improvement agreement to specify reimbursement eligibility. So we'd want it on the 309 list before that stage. So at this point, we've reviewed plans, but we haven't issued permits for anything at this site yet. the funding request at you tonight is one of those factors that's needed to move forward with the project. So I might ask you, Dan, if there's any flexibility there. But before we reimburse costs, that is one of the qualifying criteria that's on that 309 list.

I apologize for dominating some questions here. But I figure while you're here, I think you're the right person for this. I might be wrong, Lou. So I was kind of looking through the original just the timeline of this and it looks like the original fire review is way back in 2021 and so obviously we're in 2026 now we know inflation is higher all costs have gone higher so I recognize why all costs would be higher now than the original thoughts in 2021 but but what's caused this massive delay I mean a six-year delay and at the moment we don't have anything actually fully approved or or completed on this project so what's caused the delay and then what's the actual timeline. I did see the projected timeline, but I assume in 2021 the projected timeline didn't go out to 2030. And so help me understand some of the timeline problems.

I'm tapping memory, but I believe a lot of the timeline delays were related to application for housing grant monies, not related to the land use or permit review process, because these permits were approved two years ago. But I don't know if that housing developer's still here, but I believe there was a delay related to the funding of the housing grants that required a new application.

Sorry to interject, but the federal funding was slow to come.

Yes.

Anyone else? Thank you. Yes, Councillor Varney, go ahead.

Of course. I'm trying to remember on our scoring criteria, what was our cutoff point for being acceptable and unacceptable? It was at 80. Okay, and this one scored right at 80.

Right at 80, with considering the full development, all 270 some odd units.

Right, so we, they're, planning on doing phase one and then phase two, but they're using phase two as criteria to help qualify for this.

Well, that gets them enough points to 80, so yes.

I was just looking at the comparison between Casa Loma and Gussie Bell. Why was the cost per unit so much more for Casa Loma? Any idea?

Well, with Gussie Bell, the Gussie Bell is the green light development and the affordable bond funds were just used as a bridge loan to purchase the property from the original owner to afford the subsequent owner that developed Gussie Bell to purchase it. So the city's investment in Gussie Bell is just limited right now to the half million dollars for the pedestrian improvements and the CONSERVATION PARCEL THAT THE BOND COMMITTEE JUST SAW. THE PER DOOR COST I PRESUME IS WHAT THE DIRECT QUESTION IS AND I'M GOING TO I DON'T KNOW A GOOD ANSWER FOR IT. I'M GOING TO SAY THAT THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS THAT GO INTO THE PER DOOR COST OF ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL Affected by its location how many and how much infrastructure is already there or how much has to be added?

Okay, thank you I'm looking at the location and I'm thinking of lines. It's not within the urban renewal area. Is it it's not okay? Okay Would it qualify for a property tax exemption?

Once it's built It would qualify under the low-income housing tax exemption program, yes.

I have a question. I heard along the way, was it March of 2028, that these would either potentially... That's what Ms. Hayes represented, yes. Okay, and that would be for groundbreaking or for opening? Opening. Thank you for clarification. I saw two hands. Councillor Vane, go right ahead.

Thank you. A couple of questions. So I am looking at, I think, the previous slide that kind of outlines why there was that increase in requests. And so I understand the 270 for the increased piping makes sense to me. What I don't understand is this 1.097 cost. Did the developer explain to the city where this cost come from? Is it just an increase in labor, increase in materials? Why is it such a big difference in a short time span?

It's an excellent question, and the best answer that I can give you, it's a combination of a lot of things. There's the general inflationary pressure, but obviously that's not an explanation for all of it because This is a 25% increase in cost, and inflation hasn't been 25% increase over the last two years. I'm going to say that I think that the engineer's original estimate may have been too low, and the contingency accompanying it too low as well, but that's kind of speculation on my part. But that's about as best as I can give.

Are you all done?

For now okay councillor Brown go ahead the mayor mr.. Brown, so I'm gonna follow councillor veins Thinking there because that's where I'm stuck at so This additional funding request that they're asking is because they didn't they didn't plan well enough the engineers in plan well enough I'm not prepared to say that You don't have to. I'm prepared to say it. Again, it doesn't seem like the folks who are asking for money had a good enough budget because now they're coming back and asking for more.

Some of it, as I said, counselor, is attributable to just general cost increase over the period of time that they had to wait for their OHCS funding until now when they're fixing to close. Some of it is attributable to The engineer perhaps underestimated it, I think, in my personal opinion, but that's just my personal opinion. So some of it, as we said, is attributable to what the city's asked of them to make things bigger.

And Mr. Brown, you said that if fully approved, we would have 5.1 remaining? That's what you said? And you said that there's already an application somewhere in the works?

I know that there is another organization that is going to make an application for Bond Fund, yes.

And you're not allowed to speak on that at the moment?

I think it would be appropriate for the Bond Committee to hear it first, sir.

Okay. No, I appreciate the presentation. I'm just stuck on that's just a huge jump to go from, you know, roughly $300,000 on, you know, pipes and infrastructure. I get all of that. I'm just stuck on this difference of the engineering estimates. from 24 to May of 26. That to me just seems like poor planning. And not on you, but it seems like poor planning. You have the floor.

Councillor Bain, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. So I am reading a public comment that was submitted for today. And in its public comment, they mentioned that at the bond committee, the committee was advised that the project will go forward with or without the additional bond funding. Can you verify that, confirm it, not confirm it? I'm just kind of like, I was just reviewing that.

At the bond committee's meeting, the development team did represent to the bond committee that it could go forward, but it would do so at a cost, the cost being that they would not be able to fund the kind of services that you also heard testimony here tonight as well. And that is a result of the need to get to a certain loan-to-value ratio so they would have to reduce their operating pro forma down to satisfy their private lender.

Okay. And I see in the recommendation section of the agenda item you've given counsel About three options to kind of move forward on this project and it's one authorized up to what the developer is asking authorize less than what the Developer is asking or just not authorized any additional funding. Is that right?

Those are the three options.

Yes. All right. Thank you mayor.

Thank you Wouldn't it also contribute to the cost of their loan? Like they would be paying interest on a loan?

Yes, because they have to increase their private loan in order to close the gap.

Right. So money, yes, sir.

Representative of developers here, if folks have questions.

Oh, great. Do you want to state that?

I've been informed that the developer is in audience tonight and can come forward if the council has questions for them. Okay.

Yes, go ahead, Councillor Matthews.

I had a question, and maybe it is for the developer. I'll let you kind of decide who it's best for. But what I'm reading this, kind of the only option that it sounds like the developer has is to receive these funds in some way, to either increase his loan or to have us contribute towards it or some other option. I guess, like any other household, when a problem comes along, there is a Alternative option that's to reduce your expenses and so looking at that I don't know anything about the amenities of this particular development But going off the cornerstone development and kind of their amenities Like I see they have granite countertops Obviously, that's a great amenity, but the mic is cheaper things like the splash pad excellent thing to have for the community, but is it necessary if it's going to make the difference between cutting services and which are necessary for this development versus having the splash pad. And so I guess my question is, is there an alternative third option for a developer where they re-look at the actual structure that they're building to see if there's $1.3 million there, or potentially really closer to one, because it sounds like there's a potential for them to already rehab a portion of their upsizing of their utilities that we're requesting. Is there an option that they could re-look at their development in that way?

I would have to defer to the developer on that one.

Is the developer present? Would you like to come forward? And when you do come forward, if you would hit the button on that box and then announce yourself for the record, that would be great.

I'm Beth Hayes with Community Resource Trust.

And I'm Richard Brunsberg with Neighborly Development. We figured we'd both come up to save you guys time because there's probably questions that may be better answered by each person.

Was it your question? Councillor Matthews, would you mind just restating?

Yeah, I mean, my essential question was just have you guys already looked at your development to see if there were any opportunities there to reduce whatever it was you were putting in? And like I used as an example in Cornerstone, it mentions they have granite countertops and a splash pad. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS THOSE. I HAVEN'T SEEN A FINAL PLAN FOR THIS OR ANYTHING ELSE, BUT ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES SIMILAR TO THAT WHERE GREAT TO HAVE AND IF THE FUNDING WAS THERE, EXCELLENT, BUT WHERE THOSE COULD BE REDUCED BEFORE HAVING TO TAKE OUT AN ADDITIONAL LOAN FOR YOURSELF?

WE'VE LOOKED AT COST SAVINGS THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. THE PROCESS TO GET THE MONEY FROM THE STATE, WHICH WE'VE RECEIVED REALLY HUGE SUPPORT FROM THE STATE THAT WILL REALLY BENEFIT THE CITY OF SALEM, HAS BEEN AN ARDUOUS AND REALLY LONG PROCESS. And so throughout that time we've looked at at saving money the The program though we really want to keep that the Program intact just putting up sticks without The services really is not the the mission the goal and we don't think we'll have the community impact with regard to some of your specific items granite countertops using that now has a long-term benefit to the finances of it. You don't have to replace them every year, so you actually have a benefit for operating costs long-term by putting some of those things in as well as the usability and the feel of the community. The splash pad as well, we added that to Cornerstone at the end when we actually had extra money, and it has been an incredible piece that Beth and the other people can talk about Really community center, so we really and that that's not going to be you know 1.2 million dollars 1.4 million dollars in Expense so cutting that isn't going to make The need for this grant go away, and we really think will lower the community benefit With regard to kind of the greater question of will this go forward I And Beth testified to the bond committee that it will because we're committed to it. And this is the final piece. This has been working for six years. We've worked very hard to get a ton of grant money to get through the land use process, to work with the neighborhood, to work with the community and get this to where it is. And this is kind of the final piece that the delay caused. And if you guys decide you guys don't want to fund it or want to fund less, We're committed to finding a way to make this work, whether that be additional loan proceeds, although there's limits to what we can garner based on the income we're providing, but also continuing to reach out for grants. We just really want to get this across the finish line and feel like we meet the criteria of this. And per unit cost, this is really low. I built a lot of affordable housing in this community. I see what people built throughout the state. We're building at a really low cost and really providing something that's really great for the community.

Thank you, Richard. And I'd like to just speak to the planning question regarding our development team. And well, one thing, the main thing that has caused such a difference is are things that have been beyond our control uh... we've been uh... community resource trust has been working on this particular project for over two and a half years now and we have uh... originally uh... submitted a request for funding to o h c s uh... their very first year that they launched their new application process for funding uh... Anyhow, due to an error in their new process, our application was kicked back erroneously. OHCS has since, and the governor's office have all since said that that did happen. However, by the time we were able to meet with them, the funding for our area was allocated, and we had to wait for the next long session, that current long session, for more funding to come in. OHCS received less funding than they had requested from the legislature, and so then they, after a year of assurances that our application would go through as requested, we, last minute, 11th hour, found out that we had to change our entire funding structure, which we were now required to utilize the low-income housing tax credit funding model which Added a lot of costs a lot of soft costs as well as Higher higher loan requirements which are federal regulations required to take out a certain percentage of our budget needs to be funded through private activity bonds which are then converted to conventional loans. And so we had a lot of contingencies in place. We had a lot of room. And all of those contingencies that we put in place covered all but just this last bit of funding. And as Richard said, we will find the funding. We're hoping that it won't involve INTERESTS SO THAT WE CAN CONTRIBUTE MORE FUNDING TOWARD OUR SERVICES AND OUR NEIGHBOR'S HARD-EARNED RENT WILL ACTUALLY GO BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY RATHER THAN PAYING OFF INTERESTS ON LOANS. SO ANYWAY, I HOPE THAT THAT MADE SENSE. BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS that have changed the picture since we last approached the city council two years ago.

Dr. Brown?

Thanks, Madam Mayor. So thank you for that clarification. But I need to go back to something you said. You said the application was kicked back. It was kicked back from the governor's office or by OHCS?

By OHCS staff.

And what was wrong with the application?

Well, there was a section of the application, there are standards that your application needs to meet, your project needs to meet. One of those standards is called the Minority Women Emerging Small Businesses, MWESB standard. When we built Cornerstone, we were the first lift project. I'm not sure if you've heard of the lift program, but it is state funding for affordable housing. It was brand new in 2016 when we applied for funding through OHCS. When that application, or excuse me, when that new funding source was rolled out, they had a new standard called MWESB. And so for that application for the LIFT funding, we described how we would meet that standard. It's very similar to, maybe city staff can help me. It's very similar to a standard for federal funding, MWEB.

You're talking about Section 3.

Yeah, so it's also... women and minority small businesses. So we did track it. We were able to, you know, we actually submitted that reporting to the city, which had, for Cornerstone, we had utilized home funding. So we did track that standard. We did meet it. At the time with OHCS, their compliance was people emailing us for things and us sending it to them. And While we were closing on Cornerstone for converting from the construction loan to the permanent loan and moving on to stabilization, OHCS was developing their MWESB program. So we finished our project before they developed the program for the standard that tracks it and everything. And so while we met the standard, we didn't get into their database.

Because we finished before they were ready for us and so So we checked a box that said we've met this standard before and they kicked it back to say no you didn't they say it's not a database Yeah, and it was first come first serve for that grant money. So as soon as we were kicked back we lost our place in line and And they put other people ahead of us. And then we explained, well, we had did it. We did it. Here it is. You did it. And they're like, oh, we're sorry. You weren't in our database because you did it before they had developed a database.

So their mistake, and looking at this box that was checked and they missed it, their mistake now is costing us 1.3?

Well, it's costing us more than that because we've had to increase our sources a lot.

Thank you. I wanted you to correct me, so thank you.

I yield the floor. Thank you. Well, go ahead, Councillor Teigel.

Well, I'm ready to make a motion.

I would love your motion. I would just like to, or so we can have a little discussion after. Great. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you. I would make a motion to authorize up to 1.368762, $1,368,762 in supplemental funding from the 2022 livability bond funds for infrastructure improvements associated with the Casa Loma affordable housing development. That's option number one.

second thank you may i add my discussion points you may i was in the bond committee meeting and i was ready to say yes to this then because of what i heard and i heard that community resource trust has a proven track record they're doing what's working at cornerstone and it's working beautifully and we've heard from a few folks tonight about that it's a strong example of success Cornerstone creates stability for families, and Casa Loma will do the same. Salem needs more affordable housing, urgently. We don't have another plan in the pipeline right now, and this can get done, 279 affordable homes by, we hope, March of 2028. That's a big deal. That'll make a meaningful difference for working families who are struggling to find housing they can afford. Also, this project is ready to move forward. City funding is an investment in Salem families. That investment also helps protect the quality of the property in that there won't be a high interest loan or even a low interest loan hanging out there, taking away from programs and sustainability. This is about more than 279 units. It's about creating stable homes where families can put down roots, raise their children and become part of the community. We need housing now. The city has an opportunity to make a tangible impact in this decision and I will be voting yes. Thank you. Anyone else?

Councillor Varney. Thank you for your comments. I look at this and I look at You know, the voters trust us as stewards of their money that they've put into this, into the infrastructure bond. And of the 10 million, I mean, right now, we have spent 30, or we have allocated 30% of that 10 million already. If we add this on to, it'll be more than 40% of the available funding in that pot of money to one project. And in my, to me, Yes, we need more housing, but there are lots of other projects out there, and it sounds like there's another one coming forward, and I don't know what that ask is going to be. I'm concerned. I'm not very happy with what occurred at the state. I'm sorry about that. It's my understanding, didn't Cornerstone get, what is it, $40 million in lift funds? Yes. Was it something like that?

4.88.

Okay, okay, I was just curious. I think the state should have stepped up more. But anyway, it's a great project, but I will not be supporting it just because of the fact that there are other projects out there that we need to help too. And I don't think we should be backfilling for something the state has messed up on.

Councillor Teigen.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm not part of the Bond Committee, so this is sort of a matter of first impression for me. I am ready to support this tonight. When I look at the cost of sort of what we know about developing affordable housing in this state right now, with the $10 million that we set aside in the Bond Committee, if we just went out and tried to buy affordable housing, we'd be lucky to get 25 units. Lucky. And so these units, based on the math that I'm looking at, we've committed the $3 million, and for the amount of units we're getting, 279, that's like $11,000 per unit, as opposed to between $400,000 and $500,000 is what they might cost to construct. If we give them another $1.3 million, then we're looking at something closer to $15,000 per unit, which is still a bargain. And not only that, but it's a bargain that would come online within a year and a half, or 2028, as the mayor rightly said. So we know from our other work that the state funding is highly problematic. It's a huge pot. People are going after it. But it's rarely turning into things in the way and in the speed we need them to. As the mayor said, I think the right thing to do is to spend the money that the community gave us to projects that are going to come online during the life of the bond. That this would come online in 2028 is, I think, highly promising. I would like to know that there's going to be a bus stop that's closer to this location than there is right now. It didn't score well in the transit, but I do think that this number of units close to that chariots line demands improvement. But I'm going to support this tonight because I think this is as good of a thing as we've got going for this pot of money and it's something that we need to be able to point to the community that they paid for.

Councillor Nordyke, I think I saw your hand first.

Thank you so much. So I appreciate the conversation and I appreciate the fact that this council spends a lot of time vetting projects and deciding very carefully after a lot of questions and deliberation how to spend the people's money. So I commend the staff and the developer and everyone else who has actively participated in this project because it is the public's money. And the public voted years ago, several years ago, for us to make this pot of money available. And here we are. And this will be, what, the third project? There are not many projects that are shovel-ready right now Community Resource Trust is shovel-ready right now. As the mayor said, we need affordable housing today. We needed it yesterday, and I'm sure Madam Mayor agrees with me on that. If there was a suite of five different shovel-ready projects coming before us that scored higher, maybe I'd vote for them instead, but there isn't. And it's not for lack of information. We've had the Bond Implementation Committee for a while. I have personally talked to affordable housing people in the area to make sure they know that this money is available. And I'm not going to wait around for the perfect project to score 100 out of 100 points for me to award this money. Because guess what? That $10 million is worth less and less every single year. And it's not just inflation. It's the cost of labor. It's the cost of materials. If we keep waiting, this money will stretch even, it will not go as far. It will go far less. There are projects out there, but they're not in front of us right now, Councillor Barney. There's only one project that is in front of us right now. They're ready to go right now. There may be, I think our city staff said there's one other project that might come before us. What are they waiting for? I've been telling people, for goodness sakes, we need to spend this money, we need to spend it right away because I am painfully aware of the fact that it is worth less and less every year and people are struggling more and more every year. If you look at how little people are making in take-home pay these days and how much rents are going up every single month like clockwork, I feel a sense of urgency here. So while I know that this is not a perfect project, I recognize the full value of having the suite of services that they have mentioned. I appreciate the desire to invest in long-term materials so you don't have ongoing operational costs. Thank you, Councillor Matthews. That was a great question. But I think you answered it. And I think you answered it effectively. When you invest in cheap materials and you have renters, it's a matter of time before ordinary wear and tear Going to mean replacing it and then what do you do then you have unusable units units taken offline because they need a full suite of repairs and Now you have to find a separate pot of money that you may or not have planned for so I really value the conversation But I feel a true sense of urgency here. They've met the criteria that I need as councillor Teigen said the per door price is is right on the money as far as I'm concerned. So I think it is time to wrap up our debate and make a vote.

Thank you. Wow, Councillor Gwynn, go right ahead.

I just wanted to say I absolutely am going to be supporting the motion made by Councillor Teigen. say every week that we want to eliminate homelessness in salem we have what's called if you talk to any senior advisor a silver tsunami coming and i have spent my entire summer trying to get my blind 85 year old mother into housing and it has been full-time job dealing with the state so I can only imagine what you guys are dealing with with your application so I applaud you for the work that you are doing and the work that you've done and I wholeheartedly support your thank you for sharing that counselor when yes counselor Matthews I am a

I'M STRUGGLING A LITTLE UNDECIDED ON THIS AS A WHOLE. AND UNFORTUNATELY I THINK I'M THE FIRST VOTE. SO THAT MAKES THIS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT. BUT OF THIS COUNTY AS WE WERE GOING AROUND. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT I COMPLETELY AGREE COUNCILOR TIGAN AND COUNCILOR NORDEYK OUR COST TO THIS AND OUR OUTCOME TO THIS IS FANTASTIC. THE AMOUNT WE'RE ATTRIBUTING COMPARED TO THE AMOUNT THAT WE ACTUALLY RECEIVE SORRY THE AMOUNT OF UNITS ACTUALLY BUILT AND THE COST PER UNIT FOR US SPECIFICALLY IS EXCELLENT. However, from a holistic perspective, the taxpayer, through other sources, are paying $55 million as a whole for the project. And so that's how much is being allocated out of tax dollars from a state level and our level. At least that's what I read. So we have the lift funds at $33 million, the LIHTC equity at $17.5 million, and then city livability bond currently at $3 million, and then this would be another $1.5 million or so. And so either way, it pulls the cost per unit somewhere closer to $200,000 per unit. Still fairly reasonable in cost per unit. I think one of the parts I'm really struggling with, and maybe Robin, you can help me answer this a little bit, it goes back to that reimbursement piece. And so what is the... what is the benefit to covering that reimbursement of that upgraded utility in this funding source, as opposed to pulling that section out, reducing the overall amount to the one million, essentially, so that they can utilize the more traditional source that we have in this scenario.

So I think there's just some unknowns. Our SDC budget for reimbursements is also struggling. So if we're looking at trying to reimburse out of our SDC fund and get those infrastructure improvements on the 309 list, which will require council vote and action, Getting funding and reimbursements for those infrastructure improvements may not be as timely as having the bond funds allocated, which are specific to just to this project versus a larger fund that is competitive in each budget cycle as to how we reimburse the SEC reimbursements we have 15 years. by statute to reimburse, whereas this bond fund reimbursement would occur as soon as the infrastructure is built and costs are certified. And I do want to remind, I don't recall how clear the staff report was, that we're not guaranteeing these funds. It's based on what the actual certified costs after the infrastructure is built comes back as. So if the cost to build this infrastructure is less, that's what the reimbursement will be. We'll very carefully audit and review the contractor's invoices and the as-built conditions and the costs, and that would be what the reimbursement total would be. So it could be that it's less than what the engineer has estimated.

So just as a devil's advocate question, and maybe this is more of a question for the developer, Does that also mean it could be more ultimately and that we could be back in this exact same room in a month and we could be having the same conversation and asking for more money?

Yeah. Or we could be asking for SDC reimbursements if at that point we've added these projects to the list. Some are already on there. And that's the struggle here is that these are for the most part considered off-site improvements that in some of the infrastructure types are 100% reimbursable. So we're looking at either way than being eligible for city reimbursement, be it through SDCs or through bond money. The difference here and the reason we brought this to the bond committee is that we have this second option where citywide we're struggling to cover all of the other development reimbursement requests out of SDCs alone.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Anyone else? Councilor Vang? Thank you, Mayor. Man, I'm chatty tonight. So I agree with Councillor Varney in that we only have limited funds for development and in bond money. And I want to make sure that there's enough available for future developments because we want to encourage that as much as possible. However, I also appreciate and commend the developer, you guys' commitment to making this project become a reality, build homes that people can live in dignity with, with amenities that make a house a home. So I am generally in supportive of increasing the funding to the attributable cost that the city has asked the developers to undertake in increasing this pipe of the size. But I'm not comfortable with authorizing up to that 1.3, that full amount that you guys are asking for. because I, again, want to make sure that there's enough funds for other developments that are coming through the pipeline. So that's kind of where I'm at with this motion and this development, but I really commend you guys' commitment to making this development come online. Thank you.

Anyone else? Councillor Varney.

Thank you very much. I, too, commend you for all the work, and it shows from the previous projects, too, I'm curious how long, I mean, I'm thinking of lower income housing and affordable housing is what I mean. How long, is there a limit as to the number of years or if the property sells or something, does it stay? Forty years minimum. Forty years minimum. And then does the property qualify then for low income housing tax credits?

Yes, this is a low-income housing tax credit project So it will we will It's bringing in 17 million and in private equity as well as some financing and

There's kind of multiple funding sources, and they all have their kind of limit or how it works. LIFT funds have a 30-year, 40-year, and then you have to give all the LIFT money back, which no one's going to do at that point, or you can extend it for another 30 years. And the ownership entity is Community Resource Trust, which is a Salem-based nonprofit specifically to develop affordable housing. So there's no intention that this is ever going to become

for-profit or profit-making center this is a nonprofit building owning a affordable housing for the duration councillor Matthews all right I've had more time to reflect on it I think in the end one of the thesis of this project I really do like and it's something we don't see in all of our projects is your ami percentage and it's 60% or less and so many of the projects that we end up seeing subsidization for are 80% or less. And really when you get to 80% or less, you're, I mean, this is my personal opinion, very close to market value in a real life scenario. And so I think because of that, I think I can support this piece also with kind of the premise that It sounds like this project really is shovel-ready and really is going to move very quickly from here and not have any additional funding gaps like this. So I think in the end I could support this.

Well, if nothing further, will the recorder please call the roll?

Councillor Matthews?

Aye.

Councillor Gwynne? Aye. Councillor Brown?

Nay.

Councillor Vane. Nay. Councillor Nordyke. Aye. Councillor Varney.

Nay.

Councillor Teigen.

Aye.

Councillor Nishioka is recusing herself. Mayor Julie Hoy.

Aye. Motion passes. Is that correct, Madam City Recorder? Yep, it does, 5 to 3. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for your time and your testimony and the presentation. All right, is everyone doing OK? Shall we power through, or do you need a break? Power through. All right, we are moving on to item 5.3. Councillor Varney.

OK, another long one here. I move that City Council direct staff to expand the scope of the draft policy on data center NDAs to include all NDAs and incorporate the current administrative policies and processes, including to incorporate an overall policy and practices related to NDAs, to incorporate considerations for when the city should agree to an NDA, limiting language in NDAs and when they should expire, consistency with Oregon public records law, and other considerations. Provide that the city manager will inform city council prior to signing an NDA and provide a specific prohibition on NDAs for data centers.

I'll second it. Thanks. Councillor, to your motion.

Thank you. This is an expansion of the motion that I brought forward on July 27th regarding developing policy on NDAs, and the staff has done a great job doing some research and bringing this back. Also, our city manager implemented an internal process weeks ago where she advises council that she has received an NDA, provides details about it, and asks council members to respond. And so this is codifying some of that. So we're moving forward, and I look forward to the discussion here.

Just a question. Is this what's already happening, what staff is doing?

I'll ask the city attorney to respond to that. So he does have that information.

In answer to the question, yes. In looking at the Councilor Varney's motion and doing work on that, we had planned to come back with an overall policy regarding NDAs in general. The city manager has already changed some of our processes. So word goes out to the city council when she's been asked to review an NDA. And she's directed us to have a part of that policy be a specific prohibition for NDAs regarding data centers.

Thank you. Anything further? Will the recorder? Oh, sorry, Councillor Noidike, go ahead.

That's all right, Madam Mayor. So, Councillor Verney, I want to make sure I understand. The motion says it would expand, if granted, it would expand the scope of the draft policy to include all NDAs of any kind. And what I'm hearing, though, what I'm reading, I should say, in your motion is that you're not at this time proposing a policy that would create a prohibition on all NDAs for all entities. Rather, your motion merely has a bullet point that says provide a specific prohibition on NDAs for data centers. I just want to make sure you're not proposing a blanket prohibition on all NDAs ever, correct? That's correct. Thank you.

Madam City Manager.

Yeah, I know the city attorney has already covered it, but I just want to kind of repeat that. But I have decided not to execute any NDAs for data center as an internal policy. So I just want to kind of clarify. Thank you for that.

Could she repeat?

Yeah, could you repeat that? They didn't catch it on this end.

Okay, so I think the city attorney has covered it, but I just want to kind of repeat that. As part of the internal policy changes, our internal practices, you know, I have been sending, oh, the practices, if I receive a request for the NDA signature, I am sending that to, the details of that NDA to the entire council, and then... gave some time for the council to ask any questions and then sign the NDA. So that's kind of an internal practice. Part of that also, I have decided not to execute any NDAs for data centers, which is kind of what Councillor Varney's motion also.

Anyone else? Seeing none. Oh, Councillor Teigen, there you are.

Yeah, I guess I would just like to say the council and to the city staff that i look forward to discussing this in more detail when we have more information from the city staff um i don't know that i want to know about ndas that the city's signing you know we have a different set of responsibilities to the public to work in transparency and the city might have legal authority to sign an nda because i don't know they're trialing a a piece of software or something like that. You know, there's other things that the city could be signing NDAs for that aren't about land use and aren't about the things that data centers are about. But I don't have a real strong understanding of my responsibilities to transparency under Oregon law and how that relates to the existence of NDAs. And so I Just want to say out loud that I look forward to this conversation when we have all the information.

Great point. Thank you. Anything further? All right. Will the recorder please call the roll?

Councillor Gwynne. Nay. Councillor Brown.

Aye.

Councillor Vane.

Aye.

Councillor Nordyke?

Aye.

Councillor Varney?

Aye.

Councillor Teigen?

Aye.

Councillor Nishioka?

Aye.

Councillor Matthews?

Aye.

Mayor Julie Hoy?

Aye. Motion passes. We're moving on to item 5.4, update on the proposed moratorium on data centers.

The best part about this is I get up to stretch my legs. How about this? Can you hear me now? All righty. Okay, so I wanted to update you on the moratorium for data centers, the data center task force, and a quick update on our code amendment process. So some background. August 3rd, City Council directed staff to initiate the process to adopt a moratorium on data centers and initiated code amendments to address data centers. August 5th, this notice was sent to DLCD to inform them that we were considering a moratorium. And today, the agenda for the special meeting on September 21st was published on the website. That September 21st special meeting will be the public hearing for the moratorium that's required. under state law. Under the proposed moratorium, it'll be effective on the date once it's passed, so that would be September 21st and expire 120 days later on January 19th. There is an opportunity for an additional extension up to 300 days in total if additional findings are made on that. The moratorium would prohibit data centers as a primary use, regardless of what size or capacity or purpose that they're for. We'll talk about that in a little bit. And it would prohibit larger accessory data centers. The public hearing is required. It'll be scheduled, as I mentioned, here in this Laux Auditorium at 6 p.m. on September 21st. The meeting will be broadcast on YouTube and residents will have an opportunity to provide testimony in person or online via Zoom. At the conclusion of the hearing, council will decide whether to put the moratorium into effect. So we've broken it up into data centers as primary uses and data centers as accessory uses. Under the moratorium, all primary uses would be prohibited A primary use is essentially the principal activity on a site. There can only be one primary use on a site. An accessory use, our code doesn't provide an express definition but provides a number of different characteristics of accessory uses. In essence, they are supporting of the primary use. They're dependent upon the primary use and they're incidental too. that primary use. In addition, they're usually a much smaller size than the primary use on the site. What we have proposed is that accessory data centers that have an energy demand of two megawatts or less and a power usage effectiveness of 1.5 or less be allowed. Accessory data centers that have a demand of over two megawatts or a higher PUE would not be allowed. As I mentioned, accessory data centers must be located on the same site as the primary use and typically would support an office or commercial development. So to talk a little bit about accessory data centers, just data centers in general draw power, collect, manage, and process information. Larger data centers contain more processors, process more information, and take on more complex operations. Larger data centers, regardless of what type they are, consume more energy, create more heat and noise, and require more cooling. The two megawatt limit on power demand will ensure that these accessory data centers can be developed safely with minimal impact to the community. For comparison, the state data center located, I believe, on Portland Road near Highway 22 is a primary use because it's on its own site and it has an energy demand of approximately 775 kilowatts and a peak demand of 1 to 1.25 megawatts. So while the allowance for up to 2 megawatts is more than twice as large as the state data center, it's still on the relatively small side of what a data center would be. And it's really going to be more driven by what the primary use is. So for instance, the city's IT building at 295 Church has a server room that's a form of data center. It's about 100, 150 square foot of office size. And we have a number of servers in there that run to maintain and collect and manage our data. So an accessory use allowed under the moratorium could potentially have a higher energy demand than the state data center, but would be within that smaller range, as I just mentioned. Again, it must be accessory use, and it's gonna be driven in size based on what the need for the primary use is. By comparison, the city of Hillsborough, who adopted a moratorium on data centers, they also adopted that moratorium on data centers as a primary use, but they limited it to 20 megawatts in electrical capacity. So PUE, or power usage effectiveness. So if an accessory data center has a PUE of 1.5 or less, it would be allowed. If it's over that, it would not be. So PUE is essentially a way of measuring how energy efficient a data center or any other use is for that matter. PUE is the total power consumed by the use divided by the amount of power used for IT functions. So uses that have a lot of high demand IT functions are gonna have that higher PUE. But if you can lower your other energy demand And so all of your power demand goes into those IT functions. You can get your PUE down to one. So 1.0 would be the ideal, meaning all the power used by the facility would be devoted to those IT functions. In general, a PUE of 1.5 means that the operation has a fair to good efficiency. We're not proposing a more stringent standard so that lower PUE just because there's a lot of different types of primary uses that are out there. Some are going to need a lot of data center help. Some won't need any. And because this is just based on accessory data center use, a more stringent standard, at least at this point, wouldn't probably be appropriate. And we wouldn't recommend you going any lower than that. So moratoriums must be based on either a compelling need to avoid irreparable harm or it has to be based on a lack of public facilities. This particular one, we're proposing it based on a compelling need in that data centers may pose threats to public health and safety in terms of water and power usage, heat, noise, and injury to the environment. In particular, Salem is uniquely situated in that we draw our water from the North Santiam. The North Santiam is home to Detroit Reservoir. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is proposing a deep drawdown of the Detroit Reservoir to protect juvenile salmon, to provide better habitat for them as they spawn or as they make their way back up the river or down the river. In this case, that deep drawdown is going to cause a lot of sediment to flow through the North Saniam. Our slow sand filters at Garin Island don't take well to sediment. We have a very low tolerance for sediment. It's unclear how much sediment it's going to be caused when the drawdown occurs, but it's almost certainly going to be in levels in excess that our filters can handle. So what that means is we're going to have to close the gates at Garin Island and not draw water. that prevents us from providing drinking water from that facility. As you're well aware, the city has, you passed an emergency declaration last year to allow us to expedite contracting and expedite work to provide alternative wells to work on our intertie with the city of Kaiser and to also improve our aquifer storage. That has resulted in us feeling very confident going into this year's drawdown that will have adequate water supply for the community. As the drawdown occurs annually over time, that sediment will continue. We're not sure how bad the sediment's gonna be in years two, three, four, five through 10. There still will be sediment released and it's still probably gonna likely cause us to close the gates from time to time when that sediment occurs. Over time, just organically, the city's demand for drinking water will improve or increase. as population increases and as more businesses come online. If a high water volume user comes online and takes our capacity away we have serious concerns that we will not have adequate drinking water and we will not have adequate water for other users in the system as well. So a compelling need based on the state law requirements for us is particularly imperative because of the drawdown that we put a pause on data center development while we address different methods to limit the total amount of water that a particular user might use as well as find ways to provide additional capacity to the city. Other than that, the findings in the moratorium also talk about other impacts and threats to public health and safety from data centers. We've talked about low frequency noise. We do have a noise ordinance that regulates total noise in decibels. We don't have a low frequency noise regulation. It's a new type of noise that we would be regulating. We would need to do that. Heat emissions, you've heard of the heat island effect from data centers. That's another thing that's not regulated. Greenhouse gas emissions we although we have the climate action plan There's potential for regulations to help us address that as well as threats to water quality from runoff or from leaks and whatnot as well as discharge into our water sewer water system Before I go on to the land use regulations that you have any questions on the moratorium I

Councilor Tuggy yeah, I just want to make it really clear for folks at home who are still with us. I'm sure What you're talking about in terms of the effect of the moratorium essentially closing the door to Data centers as a primary use and then these restrictions on accessory uses This is our this will be the city's posture on applications during the moratorium. It doesn't represent Final decision on the future of our relationship to data centers in the city.

It does not that would be the land-use piece But you reminded me before I moved to the land-use piece unless you've got a note No, that was just I wanted to tee up you saying yes.

This is how we're gonna We're gonna treat data centers during the moratorium, but only during the moratorium Thank you for that excellent segue, but I'm gonna screw it up by going back for a second. Nice. Okay. Thank you. I

The question was asked during public testimony whether this moratorium applies to any pending applications. Yes and no. The answer is moratoriums apply to the development and construction of whatever use you're placing under a moratorium. So this moratorium would allow us to prohibit them from developing or constructing a data center. It would not, however, prevent us from or allow us to simply disregard their applications. There are state laws in place that this moratorium would not override It's called the goalpost rule and the 120 day rule so as we talked about back in July There's a state law that requires local governments to apply the standards that are in place at the time an application is submitted So those standards will be applied and The other piece of that is we have to issue decisions in 120 days after an application's been deemed complete. In this case, that is a very important consideration for us here. So if we take the position that we don't have to issue a decision because of the moratorium and don't issue a decision, the next step for an applicant would be to file a writ of mandamus in circuit court against the city. When that happens, basically, the circuit court can order us to approve it. It basically says if you meet the standards, the city has to approve it. We don't have opportunity at that point to place additional conditions on the development. It's really up to the circuit court judge on what they feel is appropriate. In addition, there's a potential, not a great potential, but a potential for a takings claim, which shouldn't be scoffed at, but they probably wouldn't have a great argument at that point, but they could still bring a takings claim, they would certainly get their attorney's fees and I'm not really too concerned about either of those, maybe more concerned about the takings. What I am concerned about though is the circuit court ordering us to approve it without us going through our process. So that's where we stand with moratorium. As far as the land use regulations go, we are hoping to have interim code amendments to you before the end of the year to give you a chance to adopt those before the end of the year. I don't want to speak to what specifically we're proposing, but I think as an interim measure, we'll have those in place. We will then have the task force recommendations as well as the governor's data center advisory committee final report, which should be out probably within the next few weeks or months. and we can take that information and take the feedback we've gotten from the public. And if we decide that the interim amendments aren't adequate, we can open that up and have a more comprehensive regulation of data centers. I think I jumped ahead a few slides during that. So just to speak to the task force briefly, we held our first meeting on September 2nd. Ken Byerly was selected as chair, Councillor Varney selected as vice chair. We have our first town hall coming up tomorrow on the 15th at Broadway Commons from 5 to 7, and a second occurring on October 6th from 3.30 to 5.30 at Centre 50+. These first two town halls will essentially be for an opportunity for the public to give feedback, to provide us guidance on what they're looking for as far as regulations go, and overall management of data centers. This first town hall is set up into more of a tabletop exercise where you're going to have different subjects at different tables. Staff will be there to talk through those issues with folks. We'll get that feedback. There's also an online survey. And then the second town hall, geographically separated a bit, will also be pretty much for the purpose of receiving feedback. And then it'll go back to the task force. We'll then develop some preliminary recommendations, take that back to the town hall, get some feedback on that. and then the Data Center Task Force before December would make their final recommendations to Council.

Anyone have questions? Councillor Varney.

Thank you for the great presentation. That was excellent information. On the moratorium, the 120 days, you said it could be extended. Can there be any modifications like the energy demand limit or anything when you implement an extension?

The state law is unclear on that. I think if we were making some Relatively small scope modifications, you know such as the PUE or the megawatt limitation. I think we'd be okay I don't think we could expand the use. I don't know that really applies here You need to be careful because you you want to give folks reasonable notice of what you're prohibiting under a moratorium But yeah, I think we probably could make some changes The other piece of that counselor if I could just add to that as I'm thinking through it is I We could always issue 45-day notice again during that 120-day period if we find that we need to do something different.

Councillor Brown, did you have something?

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I think I got it answered. Mr. City Attorney, thank you for the presentation. So the task force, even after they meet for these three times, will they come back after each meeting or they'll come back at the end of all three town halls to give us a presentation?

The at this point we're not planning on bringing a presentation to you until December when the task force made their final recommendations Yeah in the task force.

They just give us recommendations. It'll be the council against the final approval. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

All right Was it councillor Nordic did you have your hand up I?

Did Thank You madam mayor well first of all I want to commend you city attorney and the city staff for We directed you to initiate this moratorium process on August 3, and on August 5, you sent out the 45-day notice. You've got the task force up and running. You've got the town halls reserved and ready to go. So I really commend you and the entire team for moving swiftly. I also want to thank Councillor Varney, who brought some great motions at the very first opportunity, because I think we all have different concerns, but we all have concerns. And we're all very aware of what you've shared with us early in this process, that although at this juncture it's unlikely that this matter might come before us, we have to avoid claims of bias. We have to look at what the evidence is, we have to listen to folks, but we also have to be thoughtful of what we say because we are potential adjudicators of a land use matter, whether it's on appeal or remand or what have you. So I have been very careful with what I say publicly, but I do think it's completely appropriate for me to point out how swiftly you and the city manager and all the staff have responded to the concerns we've raised about nondisclosure agreements, about public input, about what this might mean for our water and energy supply, I really appreciate the language that you have in your staff report. I was going to pull up something specific in here. You mentioned that the moratorium will allow the city to quote, develop and implement regulations to address potential negative impacts, including water usage, water quality, and other environmental impacts, heat and light pollution, and energy consumption. I think it's very timely that we do this because I saw an article in OPB about our growing energy gap. They recently published an article showing results of a study commissioned by 22 electric utilities across the region, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, portions of Utah and Wyoming, And they found that our region is not moving fast enough to address energy gaps left by retired coal plants. So the entire six-state region is facing a nine gigawatt energy gap by the year 2030. And if power companies don't find new sources of electricity to meet that growing need, the region's grid could struggle to deliver enough energy to power electric heaters during extreme cold, or cooling systems during heat waves. So that's taken directly from the OPB article. So I feel that the time permitted by a moratorium, assuming we follow through the process, assuming that everything goes according to plan and we have this 120 days to take a hard look at these things, we can finally consider the real natural resources strain that we are under. including water and i want to thank you again for pointing out the fact that due to the drawdown we have heightened concerns about our water supply and the city staff report also talked about that the potential of high volume water demand is particularly concerning end quote during the drawdown and for an unknown period afterward the volume of water the city can provide is limited A moratorium on data centers which may use high volumes of water is needed to avoid water shortages that may occur. And what I also find concerning, as you pointed out here, this will be my last point, the development code, our code, doesn't have specific standards for data centers. Our code was not designed with data centers in mind. Data centers were nothing more than a twinkle in a billionaire's eye at that time. We don't have regulations in place right now to address water usage or energy usage or the noise or the heat emissions. Our code was just designed long before data centers were taking a hard look at City of Salem. So I want to say thank you. Those are my comments for now, and I look forward to next steps.

Madam Mayor, can I respond to that? Councillor Varney, thank you. It has been a huge amount of work for staff in legal and planning, development services, public works. We're not trying to give us laurels, but they've heard your desire and council's desire to move forward in this as well as the public's concerns. And they have put in a heck of a lot of work to get to this point. So thank you for that. It shows. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Thank you very much, Mr. City Attorney. All right, we are moving on to information reports. Did you have something, Councillor Nishioka?

I just wanted to make sure that this was information. There's not a motion to be. No motion. Thank you.

Okay, information reports. Item 6.1, purchase is approved administratively from July 1, 2026 through July 31, 2026. And we're moving on to item 7.1, first reading.

Ordinance Bill number 1126, an ordinance relating to the Salem Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, a component of the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan and amending Salem Revised Code section 64.005 and 200.005.

I move to conduct a public hearing for Ordinance Bill Number 11-26 before City Council to consider amendments to the Salem Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, a component of the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan, and amendments to the associated definitions in SRC 64-005 and 200-005. Second.

Motion and a second by Gwynne. Councillor, anything to the motion? No? Anyone have any question, comment? Okay, seeing none, will the recorder please call the roll?

Councillor Brown?

Aye.

Councillor Vang?

Aye.

Councillor Nardike? Aye. Councillor Varney?

Aye.

Councillor Teigen?

Aye.

Councillor Nishioka? Aye. Councillor Matthews?

Aye.

Councillor Gwynne? Aye. Mayor Julie Hoy. Aye. Motion passes. Moving on to item 7.2, second reading. Ordinance Bill number 926, an ordinance relating to the Fire Prevention Code amending SRC 58.175. Councillor Vang. Aye. Councillor Nordyke. Aye. Councillor Varney.

Aye.

Councillor Teigen.

Aye.

Councillor Nishioka. Aye. Councillor Matthews.

Aye.

Councillor Gwynne. Aye. Councillor Brown?

Aye.

Mayor Julie Hoy? Aye. Motion passes.

We have no public comment, and we are adjourned.