City Council - Regular Meeting

Lammit had tried an incident this morning with the Yeah. I'm sure if there's city manager report, we'll have a night. I will talk about that. About that. The road was destroyed. Wow. They had to be

Oh, yeah. There was a whole. To be.

Now it's awkward. Always you're always Oh, I can't make the awkward.

I think it'll be I think it'll be brief.

You don't need to be here. Get a while.

But we're unmuted, so we're on the meeting.

Let's see. Well, we're at five after 05:30, city council is president. Are we broadcasting live and ready to go?

I have started streaming.

I thank you, Kathy. Uh-huh.

This webinar is being transcribed and summarized. You need the agenda?

I'm just pulling it up on the phone in because I I didn't oh, no. I got it. Yeah. Here. That's good with it. So we will we have a nice

We have one right here.

Meeting tonight.

That's an old one.

Public comment as always, and then mayor and council report. We can report our advisory groups, city business, and then the one that's based with the council on community advisory group appointment. Anybody have a a would folks folks like to send their recommendations to staff and have them compiled, or how is the count count?

Can do it verbally now?

I might have to take some note. Oh, no. You're good. Wondering if that would be better? What? Yeah. Sending it to staff. Uh-huh. I think it'd be better too. Yeah. Okay. And or or you can orally staff in between the meeting if you have a Okay. Note. Because then we can do it at the end of the meeting too if we need some interest.

Let's do that.

Finish that. So we'll finish the meeting with the community groups appointment, and we'll we'll be in a a afternoon. Okay. So give us some time to put out the list. We've got council liaison. We can talk about or go into it in the first meeting of January. We just redistribute the liaison appointment. And then agenda, any questions about the minutes for the attorney contract? I think

Yeah. Just one. So there was a identification of a property that apparently has joined the city, and it was by lot number. I looked up the county lot number to try to figure out That's agenda.

Are you are you asking about the energy?

Station. What else to that

We're gonna get to that just a second. This is just consent agenda. I just question on the attorney contract. Because we don't we won't discuss it. We'll just approve the consent agenda, which has a meeting minutes and amendment to attorney contract, and we can yeah. If we wanna discuss it, we have to pull it off the consent on that. Nobody and we go to the business meeting. And first item is an ordinance on the

What you're talking about?

Ordinance, the 1766. Adopting tax numbers to the weapon plan, chapter two, and for the town center boundaries. I Yeah. I

actually entered the tax lot information into the there's a county website that basically supposedly maps tax logs into a map. But for some reason, it gave me an address in the Gladstone.

We're we're one ahead. I thought we're right here. This is the one that

you're

interested

in. Yeah.

Perfect. So the town center matters, we talked about it at work. And I think we're good to go.

Yeah. The town center was presented by Darren. Right. At a recent meeting, any comments from you, Steve, or will you be presenting that? Or Darren will be. Darren will We we kind of affirmed them already, but we're Yeah. Caught in line. We received no additional public. Thank you for that. Okay. And then the next item is the annexation. Al Capronus. Sorry about that, Cole.

Go ahead. So, basically, it's described in terms of a lot number. I looked up the lot number, and I wound up with an address in Gladstone. I don't know how that it's a problem with the county site, obviously. It's not us. But it'd be nice to have an address when we talk about a lot.

Right. So there's no there's no house on the property. There's no address.

So maybe a street or a street intersection?

A lot. If you look

in the staff report for the and and Aaron will present that. You will show the location.

Oh, yeah.

I'm happy to. Yeah. In the pocket.

There's some office park

We haven't done an annotation for a while. Have our two

step process.

And Aaron will take you through the proceedings and the motions are provided for you. But we went through a little phase for a few years. We were doing a whole bunch of annexations. We've had conversation with counsel in the past about maybe doing some sort of larger set of properties. But as of right now, it's protecting them just as the property owners choose to come in.

Good refresher then because it counts on what they did. Yep. Are

there any other inclusions that we should be aware of?

There are. There are a number of islands remaining in the city, and it would be advantageous process wise and probably finance wise. We view them on that, but there are folks who don't necessarily wanna be incorporated until they wanna be. You know, you pay a city taxes. You're subject to extra rules. You have to go on to the utilities. And so a lot of homeowners don't wanna do that. In some cases, you're you'll be forcibly creating an issue where there might not be one. So that's why the situation is as it is.

Okay. Thanks. Yep. We'll have staff report with the. And is there a script for that

hearing? I found one attached for an email.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Any other questions on the I think Jason. I remember if I've done one before. I think it's that. I don't see

not that I recall.

Property happened before, maybe right around my time when I was getting involved. Maybe. It might've been the last one. Maybe. Good day. Yep. Now the right. Nice house. Okay. Moving on then. We'll talk about the resolution twenty twenty five eighteen, which is authorizing the full base of credit funding for the less needed city operate enter.

Thanks, Steph. You've been building for this for a long time. This is a great way to end our year. After doing a tremendous amount of work to get this material together. Lauren will be here to answer any questions in the meeting you have about how this works and timelines and and all of that. But, I guess,

as always in the pre meeting, if

there's anything, if there's any information that you don't have that you need, tell us now. We'll magically get it in twenty five minutes until you're ready to speak. I'm only hardly kidding. We do wanna be able to answer any of your questions in the meeting. So let us know if there's something that wasn't in the packet that you need.

Do we know who the lender is?

Lauren? No. We won't know who the lender is until we go up for a competitive sale. So we'll our counsel and financial advisers will get together and put together an offering statement, and then we'll go out for a competitive sale. And then we will choose whoever is the best offer from that.

And other than interest rate, are there other considerations?

They'll do the financial advisers will put together kind of like the it it's mostly based off the interest rate, but, of course, there's, like, some timing and if, like, payments match up the way that we wanted to. But they'll put that package together, and they'll say, like, this is how we would like it to align so that it's, you know, amortizing the in the same amount over the certain number of years and whatnot. And so they'll base it mostly off the interest rate. But if there's differences in the proposal, then they might go with a higher one just because if there's an issue with the timeline or whatnot.

Thank you. Overview? Mhmm. Anything else on that? We'll time for discussion and questions. Quite a big decision. You've read the resolution. There's a lot of legal leads in there.

Think That's a big resolution. I reviewed it, but, really, it was from our outside bond counsel who's accurate on that. So I that's a contract to the outside counsel. Yeah. Resolution. Yeah.

It has a lot of legal leads in them.

It does. It's a I figured

it was written by some parents. Yeah. Okay. Then the last item on the agenda is Park opportunity update.

Yes, sir. And the reason this is on the agenda is that there's recently been a pre application meeting where developer or the potential developer on the open line of sight presented three layout possibilities. We wanted to review those with counsel. And since there had been some discussion at your recent meetings in October and November about possibly using bond money to pay for this for a potential acquisition here, wanted to make sure you have the conversation conversation now. We've laid out the timelines for bond measures, very tight, soon upcoming, technically feasible.

And so we wanted to make sure you have the opportunity to talk that through, give us any direction that is needed at this point in time. As an editorial note, I will say that I think they I think the layouts that were provided in the pre app are really the best, most workable layouts for two different kinds of uses you might contemplate putting on there. It's gonna be a smaller part. It makes sense to have it upfront. It's gonna be larger with the multiuse field area at the back probably makes more sense, and that's just because of where the trees are, where the roads are, all of that.

But we laid out the pros and cons as we saw on each of those. We do think it's really important to be thinking through the implications of this in terms of long term operational maintenance as we add to our as we add to the past that's workload. So we're happy to answer any question during

the meeting. Any questions about this that you'd like to have answered in that? Wanna give everybody the opportunity to get is there questions on the table if they have any good staff in research.

For the last two options with, I guess, the north and the south end of the park, is there a significant difference in operation cost?

Yeah. Those from the three acres to one one. Yeah. They're significant. If those let's see. One on the north three acres has athletic fields, that's change in cost. That one shows the best room, potential shelter. If we do neighborhood park, those have amenities that you would include. So it has essentially, like, a playground and a walking path and, like, big table areas to gather. It would be a significant change in long term. And that's even.

To be clear, significantly less on the neighborhood in the front.

Right. Right. Thank you so

are expensive. They will take care of

And one of the columns double the size. The is larger than the one in the

More than total. Yeah. Any other questions? I hope that's good about that. Any financial plan manager, council priorities on that.

We don't have to

come to business tonight, but if you can provide any sort of direction, I know that the staff would appreciate having the time over over the next month before we come back in January to have robust discussion on it. That's my plan for tonight to prompt everybody about that.

Yeah. I I appreciate all the information out of the survey attached in the packet information. I just wondered if have we had any I didn't see any comment on these these new proposed layouts. Have the public seen them yet? Or is it, like, gonna be the first time the public seen them?

Well, they've been available through

the planning pre application process, but they haven't been promoted in any

way. Okay.

But we haven't heard people responding to this particular okay. Okay. Else? Last

item on the business deal.

Okay. Well, Megan, anything to add?

Apart from the art? Okay.

Well, with that, that's $5.45, so we can turn until 06:00. Awesome. Thank you. Yeah. Bye.

Mayor, I would just take one note. You mentioned I'll make the and I think it can. Take a peek at that budget advance because it may have been a little while since we have done it. It's a two step process. So you'll do a land use decision, and then you're gonna make the policy and legislative decision, which is the board did.

So there's, like, two steps. Nope. I haven't heard any object there. Is there any

Yeah. Do you wanna do we normally x that off or

mute that? Just

It's Tuesday, 12/09/2025, and the first item of business on the agenda is the pledge of allegiance. So I will ask everybody to please rise and face the flag.

Ready to begin? I pledge

allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you everybody. Good tradition. And I just I did notice apologies. I just had to notice that when I picked up the gavel, it was a different one. So I had to notice that. It is just a little bit of a smaller one. So that's cool. Nice and fancy. First item of substance is the approval of the agenda. So I'd entertain a motion, and we're gonna move the appointments of community groups just to the end of the meeting.

Thank you, mayor. I move to approve the agenda for the 12/09/2025 Westland City Council meeting with the one change of moving item four b and c, the CAG appointments to the end of the meeting.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. Moving item four b and four c to the end of the meeting. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, please call the roll.

Councilor Bonington? Yes. Councilor Bright? Yes. Councilor President Baumgartner? Yes. Councilor Broner? Yes. Mayor Bildesnowski?

Yes. So the motion passes. And the next item is public comment, and I don't see any community members here in the room. Any signed up online?

There are none.

Okay. Moving right along then to mayor and council reports, which is reports from community advisory groups. Any report or city business in general? I enjoyed attending a meeting with the city manager today of the with the Clackamas County chair. He had her monthly mayor's call and discussed the supportive housing services measure, the storm response, and other things like that. So that was nice. And then I'm attending Youth Advisory Council tomorrow. Councilor Bragg?

Yes. I attended the Planning Commission meeting last Wednesday, and they got an update on the vision 43 plan.

Anything else to report? I do. Council president, please.

I attended the, Willamette Falls Locks Authority meeting, our monthly meeting, and also an event held with partner cities and other stakeholders regarding the locks, and we called it a relaunch event for the locks informing some of our partners about our money ask and our of the legislature that's gonna be upcoming and the status of the locks. And the mayor was there.

Yes. Enjoyed enjoyed being in that room.

And a lot

of people were there from all the different organizations and elected officials, mayors, county commissioners. It was great.

We rated the county chair. County commissioner chair. So

It's awesome. Looking forward to what happens with the locks going forward. Hopefully, we'll get some funding for them as well. Councilor Bonington?

Yeah. Last Thursday, the economic development committee met and continued work on the SWOT analysis, And they're very much looking forward to the new year. And then of course we had that wonderful tree lighting on Friday. And I'm glad you were all able to join. So that was a lot of fun. Thanks to Parks for that.

Agreed.

It was a nice tree lighting. I enjoyed the chorus.

Abs absolutely. Great tree lighting community events. Always good to do that around the holidays. Any other Councilor Grom, do you have anything else to report? Okay. Well, then with that, we can move on to the consent agenda. Any objection to any item on the consent agenda from city council? Okay. Well, then I would entertain a motion to approve.

Thank you, mayor. I move to approve the consent agenda for the 12/09/2025 Westland City Council meeting, which includes the 11/18/2025 meeting minutes and the amendment to the city attorney contract.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded, to hang on. I don't have the motions with me anymore. Sorry. Moved and seconded to approve the consent agenda for the 12/09/2025 Westin City Council meeting, which includes the 11/18/2025 meeting minutes and the amendment to the city attorney's contract. Please call the roll.

Councilor Bryke? Yes. Councilor president Baumgartner? Yes. Councilor Groner? Yes. Councilor Bonington? Yes. Mayor Buscotti?

Yes. So the consent agenda is approved, and those items are hereby approved by the city council. And with that, efficiently moving right along, in part because we delayed the more lengthy conversation of community advisory groups to the end of the meeting for the benefit of everybody. We'll move to agenda item six a, which is a public hearing on ordinance seventeen sixty six adopting text amendments to the Westin comprehensive plan chapter two land use planning, adopting the Bolton and Willamette town center boundaries as required by the Oregon administrative rules chapter six sixty Division 12 and title six of the metro urban growth management functional plan and get used to me saying that because I think we're gonna have to read that title a few times tonight when we vote. Mister Weiss, welcome back.

I'll turn it over to you for the staff report.

Yes. Thank you, mayor. I believe there's some preliminary preliminary legal issues.

Yes. So you have your script, mayor, to kick off?

We're doing the

public hearing?

Oh, yep. Since we're doing the

matters?

Yes. I because we are doing a comprehensive plan amendment, it requires a different process. And I don't know if we've how we don't do that very often. Thank you. A legislative public hearing on a PLN twenty five zero three, a proposal to adopt text amendments to the Western Conference of Plan, Chapter two land use planning is called to order.

The proposed amendments will adopt the Bolton And Willamette Town Center boundaries as required by Oregon administrative rules chapter six sixty division 12 and Metro Urban Growth Management functional plan title six. The testimony and arguments we hear will be used to come to a decision on these amendments. After the preliminary legal matters, staff will make a presentation. Council have an opportunity to ask questions, and then the council hear testimony, and then have an opportunity to ask final questions of staff. And the hearing will be then be closed and the council will discuss the proposal. If if anybody signed up to speak, wait to be recognized by the city council until speaking. I will now ask the city attorney to cover the preliminary legal matters. Thank you.

Thank you, mayor. I'll begin with the applicable standards and appeal rights. The council's decision must be based on consideration of one, the statewide planning goals and administrative rules adopted under o r s chapter one ninety seven, the applicable federal or state statutes or rules, the applicable plans and rules adopted by metro, and on the city's comprehensive plan and development code. The council may consider any relevant testimony we receive. Any party with standing may appeal the decision of the city council to the state land use board of appeal according to the rules adopted by that board.

Persons with standing include those who submit written comments or who present oral arguments. Next, I'll move to the conflicts of interest questions. Do any members of this council wish to declare a potential or actual conflict of interest?

The record should reflect none.

Okay. Seeing none, I note for the record that no counselor has raised a potential or actual conflict of interest for this matter. That concludes my legal matters for this issue.

Thank you. And we will now proceed to the staff presentation. But first, if it's possible, a a couple of our computers aren't on up here. I don't know if we can get the monitors on to see this staff report or we can just do our best to look around. Just want I didn't know if we knew that.

IT resets it. Know if that's the word.

Sorry. Okay. Okay. Sounds good. Well, then we will you can proceed with your slideshow and we'll

Alright. Thank you, mayor.

Oh, came up. Oh, you're you yep. Go ahead.

Alright. Good evening, mayor and councilors. So again, we're here tonight for a legislative public hearing to adopt the metro town center boundaries that are located here within the city of West Linn. In your packet for tonight, you found the agenda bill with some background information on the climate friendly and equitable communities rules, the metro urban growth management functional plan, information from the Planning Commission work session, the Planning Commission public hearing, and then council held its own work session back in November on this topic, then staff recommendation. There were several attachments.

The first attachment being the actual ordinance, that should say one seven six six, not one seven six five, which will adopt the Bolton Town Center and Willamette Town Center boundaries into the Westland comprehensive plan. The planning commission recommendation memo from their their public hearing back in October, and then the staff report findings that were presented to the planning commission and now is before the council. So just wanna start off with what is a town center. So Metro has a twenty forty growth concept map that was adopted back in the mid nineties with with the help of all the cities within the metro Metropolitan Regional District. It includes central cities central city which is Downtown Portland, regional centers such as the Washington Square Regional Center, town centers, main streets, corridors, and station communities.

So they're they're distributed all around the metro region. Again, West Linn has two town centers, one in the Bolton neighborhood, one in the Willamette neighborhood. With the adoption of the town center boundaries that makes makes those areas eligible for regional investments and also some lower mobility standards when development comes in. And there are rules in place in the metro urban growth management functional plan that that outlines what the what the city has to complete in order to be eligible for those investments in those lower mobility standards. So why adopt the town center boundaries?

So again, the climate friendly and equitable community rules, which were adopted in 2022 and 2023, created created several items that the city was city and other cities in the in the state were going to have to comply with. There were four of those. One was parking reform. Second one was electric vehicle charging infrastructure. And if you'll remember back to last year, about this time, we adopted the parking reform and the EV future infrastructure items under ordinance one seven five four.

The third was transportation options, so it requires a transportation system plan updates, which the city will do over the over the next several years when funding is available from the state. And then the fourth was adopting the metro town center boundaries by 2025. And again, that's why we are here tonight. So again, West Linn has two town center boundaries. There's the Bolton Town Center boundary staff and then the Planning Commission recommended adding two small additions to the existing boundary as shown on the Metro 2040 map.

One is to incorporate about a dozen properties that are also in the Vision 43 focus area, and then also adding a small addition on the south end to capture the entire mill parking lot that's within the waterfront waterfront planning area. So instead of splitting that property in half with the town center boundary we just expanded it to include the entire property. And then the Willamette Town Center, is centered around the historic Willamette Main Street. We proposed adopting boundary as shown on the 2040 map, and Planning Commission made that recommendation to council. So here's here are the here are the two areas where we're we're recommended to add to the Bolton Town Center boundary again on the left is the about a dozen properties in the vision 41 of the vision 43 focus areas and again the the mill parking lot to encapsulate the entire entire property.

And here is a here's a map with an aerial photo showing the exact boundary or the the boundaries of the Bolton Town Center as proposed, recommended by the Planning Commission. And here's what the actual map that will get adopted into the comprehensive plan looks like. And then again, the Willamette Town Center boundary recommended to adopt it as shown on the Metro 2040 map growth concept map. Again, the aerial photo just showing what areas are inside that boundary, and then here's the actual map that will get adopted into the comprehensive plan. So just a little bit of background on how we got here tonight.

So the adoption process, we had a work session with the Planning Commission in August. They had a few few questions and then found consensus to have staff bring it forward into the legislative hearing process. They held their public hearing, the planning commission that is in October, found that it complies with all of the codes that the city attorney read off earlier. Again, it will amend the comprehensive plan chapter two, and they recommended adoption in that that recommendation memo was part of your packet. Council held a work session November 4.

I've got a briefing on the proposal and the process. Council asked a couple of questions. One about the process to expand town center boundaries, and then again what types of funding was available from from Metro, which the city city manager eloquently answered for you. And then again, we're here tonight for the final decision on the adoption of those boundaries. So with that, that was a quick overview, but I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any.

Thank you. Any any questions from the city council? I see no questions. So at this point, then we can proceed to public testimony. Is anybody signed up to speak on this ordinance?

There are none.

Okay. So then I will close the public hearing, and we can go to deliberations or motions. Would anybody like to make a comment or a motion? Council president, you are recognized.

Thank you, mayor. So we're doing two readings. Is that right?

If it's if it's approved unanimously, we can go to the second reading. The first one is for ordinance seventeen sixty six.

Okay. Thank you. I move to approve first reading for ordinance one seven six six adopting text amendments to Westland comprehensive plan chapter two land use planning adopting the Bolton and Willamette town center boundaries as required by Oregon administrative rules chapter six sixty division 12 and title six of the metro urban growth management functional plan and set the matter for second reading.

Second.

Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve the first reading forward in 1766, adopting text amendments to the Westland Plan, chapter two land use planning, adopting the Bolton and Willamette Town Center boundaries as required by Oregon administrative rules chapter six sixty division 12 and title six of the Metro Urban Growth Management functional plan and set the matter for second reading. Any discussion? Thank you to our planning department and city staff, city manager for making sure we're in compliance with these administrative rules and metro regulations. And hopefully, town centers will continue to thrive.

Seeing no other discussion, go ahead and call the roll. Thanks.

Council president Baumgartner? Yes. Councilor Bronner? Yes. Councilor Bonnigsen? Yes. Councilor Bright? Yes. Mayor Belodzhansky?

Yes. Thank you. So the motion passes. The first reading is complete, and it was approved unanimously. So we can move to the second reading.

Thank you, mayor. I move to approve second reading for ordinance one seven six six, adopting text amendments to Westland comprehensive plan chapter two, land use planning, adopting the Bolton and Willamette town Center boundaries as required by Oregon administrative rules chapter six sixty division 12 and title six of the metro urban growth management functional plan and adopt the ordinance.

Second.

Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the second reading for ordinance seventeen sixty six, adopting the text moments to the Westland comprehensive plan chapter two land use planning, adopting the Bolton And Willamette Town Center boundaries as their crowd program administrative rules chapter six sixty division 12 and title six of the metro urban growth management functional plan and adopt the ordinance to the community. They probably think we sound crazy reading that over and over, but I think it's required in the city charter to adopt an ordinance to do that. So that's why we do it. City recorder, Molusky, you can call any discussion? Seeing none, you can call the roll, please.

Councilor Groner? Yes. Councilor Bonington?

Yes.

Councilor Bike? Yes. Councilor president Baumgartner? Yes. Mayor Bialystovsky?

Yes. Always complying with parliamentary procedure. So the second reading is approved unanimously. The ordinance is adopted. Thank you, everybody.

Thank you, Darren. Another project off your list. And now we will transition, to another legal planning matter, which is the proposed annexation, which we have two ordinances before us for relating to property along Parker Road. So I will go into the script here for annexations. The city has received a petition for the annexation of property at tax slot number 21 E 25 C C 00300 to the city of Westland.

The petition and also includes annexation to the tri service Tri City Service District and withdrawal from the Clackamas County Enhanced Law Enforcement District. The petition has been found to be sufficient and per Oregon revised statute two two one point one one one, the city council shall fix a time for a formal hearing upon the annexation petition. I would entertain a motion to set the public hearing.

Thank you, mayor. I move to accept the petition and hold a public hearing on the annexation of property at Tax Lot Number 21 E 25 C C 00300 to the city. Second.

Okay. It's been moved and seconded to accept the annexation petition and hold the public hearing on the annexation of property Tax Lot Number 21 E 25 C C 00300. Any discussion from the city council on the motion? I see no discussion. So we can call the roll, please.

Councilor Bright? Yes. Council president Baumgartner? Yes. Councilor Garner? Yes. Councilor Bonington? Yes. Mayor Bialystovsky?

Yes. Thank you. So the motion passes, and we will accept it. The petition is hereby accepted, and we will now hold the public hearing on the annexation tonight, which we are allowed to do. So tonight, we are holding a public hearing regarding application number ANX2501 for the annexation of property at Tax Lot Number 21 E 25 C C 00300 to the city of Westland. Annexations are a two step process. Step one is a quasi judicial land use decision. Quasi judicial rulings must be grounded in the relevant code, and if the application meets the code, the city council must approve it. Step two is a legislative decision. The hearing will proceed as follows after the preliminary legal matters.

Staff will make a presentation followed by the applicant, then any citizens who wish to address the issue will be given the opportunity. And then there will be time for rebuttal by the applicant. Any members of the audience who wish to speak must complete a sign in and testimony form and turn it into staff in order to testify, and the counselors may ask questions of the applicant, staff, or anyone else who testifies. And I will now call to order the public hearing and ask the city attorney to cover the preliminary legal matters for which there are a few this time.

Yes. Thank you, mayor. Because as you noted, step one is a land use decision, the legal matters are more substantial than the prior agenda item we covered. So first, I'll start with the burden of proof, the criteria and appeal rights. Annexations, as you mentioned, go through a two step process. Both steps can be done at the same hearing date. Step one is a land use decision. The council determines whether the proposed annexation is consistent with the intent of the Westland comprehensive plan and CDC chapter 81. The council will designate a zone for the property in step one. Step two, reviews annexation proposals.

Review of annexation proposals is a legislative or policy decision that applies the standards of Westland Municipal Code 2.93. During step two, which is a policy decision, the council in its decision May 1, decide to set a public hearing for the annexation request, two, delay a public hearing on the requested annexation, or three, pass a resolution placing the annexation request on a ballot for an advisory vote. At the conclusion of step two, the council may approve an annexation request if it finds that the annexation is in the best interest of the city based on the report prepared by the planning director. Testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing and any other information evidence or analysis the city or city council deem deems relevant to the application. The applicant has the burden of proving that the application is consistent with their approval criteria of ORS two two two point one one one, Westin Municipal Code 2.93, Community Development Code chapter 81, and Metro Code section 3.09.

As the city council is sitting quasi judicially now, any testimony argument or evidence that speakers give the council must be directed at these criteria. If your testimony would be repetitious but you would like the opportunity to appeal the decision, you must sign the sign in testimony form. Only those who have appeared before the council in person or in writing will have standing to appeal this item to the Land Use Board of Appeals. Prior to the conclusion of the first public hearing on the application, the applicant or anyone who takes part in the hearing may request a continuance or ask that the record be left open to present additional information. If there is such a request, the council will either continue the public hearing to a date certain or leave the record open for at least seven days for additional written evidence, argument, or testimony.

Failure failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to allow the council and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based on that issue. Thanks for bearing with me with that procedure. Next we'll go into the conflicts of interest. Do any members of the city council wish to declare a potential or actual conflict of interest or bias?

Seeing none.

Seeing none. Yep.

We none, I note for the record that no counselor has declared a potential or actual conflict of interest or a bias. Ex parte contacts. Do any members of the city council wish to report any site visits or ex parte contacts? Seeing none, I note for the record that no council members wish to declare ex parte contacts. Challenges to the city council's jurisdiction. Does any member of the audience wish to challenge the jurisdiction of the city council to hear this matter?

Staff members as well?

Seeing none I note that there were no challenges raised. Last but not least, are there any challenge this will cover challenges to impartiality of any member of the council. Does any member of the audience wish to challenge the impartiality or ex party disclosures of any member? Again, seeing none, I note for the record that no challenges were raised. Mayor, that concludes the legal matters.

Okay. Well, with that, we can proceed to the staff report. Aaron, welcome. Miss John, do you have any introduction we'd like to do?

Nope. Not

at all. Aaron will take it away and do a fantastic job.

Thanks for being here. Welcome, Aaron. Thanks for being here.

Thank you, mayor Bialis Bastosky Council. Tonight, I'll be presenting, an annexation here, Annex 2501. The tax lot number 21 E 25 Z C C 00300 is the identifying marker for this property right now since there's no existing homes on it. So there was no address with this. For reference, this lot that is in question here tonight is adjacent to 3945 South Parker Road, which may be easier to look up for future reference.

Okay. So as we sort of all said here, the annexation will go through a two step process. So step one is the quasi judicial decision decision, which establishes the zoning for the property. And then step two is the policy decision that will outline all of the approval criteria through the community development code, public facilities, infrastructure, so so on and so forth. So tonight, in your packet is an agenda bill that has some background information on the property and the application.

There's the two ordinances for the step one and the step two of the process. Ordinance seventeen sixty seven is the quasi judicial decision for the zoning, and step two is ordinance seventeen sixty eight. And then also the staff report with the applicable criteria and municipal code findings. There's also noticing requirements for an annexation. They have to get notice to a lot of agencies around here, all of our neighborhood associations.

So, those are outlined in the staff report, all of the agencies that were notified. So just a brief background on this. So again, this is Tax Lot 2100825 CC 300. It's about 59,000 square feet 1.3 acres. Currently, it's a vacant site.

There's a small shed on there, but there's no existing land use on the site. Currently, it's an f u 10 Clackamas County zoning. Part of this process, obviously, tonight would be establishing a city zoning for this property. Just some clarification. Recently, this the property the subject property went went through a lot line adjustment through the through Clackamas County that essentially changed the configuration of the lot.

So as you see it on the map and and as it's presented in the staff report is what's shown here. The the the red outlines are what the lot would be if the annexation was approved tonight. Currently, the property is just a little bit deeper and there there is frontage along Parker Road, but that would essentially be eliminated and and given to that adjacent parcel at 3945. Just this is a point of clarification. This is not part of the annexation application, but we just thought it's good to mention because this was this was done just a couple months ago by the applicant at the county level before we got before we received the annexation.

So that line is the current line after the county process?

That is the line that that the annexation would establish and the county has processed the that lot line adjustment. So this is how it's shown there with the with the black or red lines is

Okay. The lot as it as it is today. Thanks.

Alright. So just step one, just gonna go over some of the processes here. So step one is assigning the zoning designation for the and that's through the ordinance seventeen sixty seven, which is part of the the council's packet. So currently, the property in the in our comprehensive plan is low density residential. As I mentioned before, in Clackamas County, the zoning is f u 10.

The applicant, which this this application was initiated by the applicants, the applicant is requesting an r seven zoning for this property. And the approval criteria for this step one is outlined in CDC chapter 81, and it talks about some site characteristics that happened to discuss the sloping of the lots, some minimal trees that are on the property, and public access to roads and and infrastructure, which are all available to this site. Alright. Then step two, which is ordinance seventeen sixty eight, is the policy decision. And this tackles some important issues outlined in the municipal code 2.93.

This talks about impacts on the school district, if this school district can handle the increased citizens within the school district, cost to infrastructures for the city, and and some possible tax implications. There's also requirements outlined in metro code three zero nine, and then again, the noticing requirements that go along with an annexation application such as this.

And

so the staff report findings in there outline some of the development code and municipal code findings that were required as part of this metro code 3.09 and some ORS statutes related to annexations. So again, just this is this is the two step process, the step one and the step two here. Step one establishes the zoning, and then step two is essentially accepting the the property into boundaries of the city. So, that concludes what I have to say here tonight, and I'm happy to take any questions or defer to the applicant here who will have a brief presentation if there are no questions at that time. But I'm happy to take any at this point.

Any questions for Aaron? Councilor Bragg, please.

I'd just like to confirm on the maps that kind of the gray color that is those are item parcels that are not in the city limits. Right? That that those are the unannexed.

That's correct. I'll just go back to the map just while we're talking about it. Yes. So so those gray properties, the subject property, the property to the south, and then those properties to the north are technically, within the boundaries of Clackamas County. And then all of the surrounding properties that you see sort of the I guess it's a lighter brown or a dark yellow with the R 7 designation, and then the lighter yellow with the R 10 designation. Those are all properties within the city of West Linn. Okay.

And this property doesn't have access to Parker Road. Will access to the development come from Roxbury Drive? Is that the intent?

That's correct. So there the the the frontage along park Parker Road was eliminated from this lot with the Clackamas County lot line adjustment application that I was discussing just earlier. So the the street frontage for this for this subject lot will be on Roxbury Drive.

Thank you.

Council president, please.

Thank you, mayor. And thank you for the presentation. I just I also had that same question about access, so that was helpful that it I could see how it could be accessed from Deer Hill Lane and Roxbury Drive. And I'm assuming that this has been it meets the requirements for emergency services access. I was wondering how many, if it's zoned r seven, how many homes could potentially be in this particular configuration of lot eventually? Not that that that's the intention. I'm just curious.

Yeah. Good good question. Just to answer your first question about fire access, so the applicant is required to get a TVFNR permit as part of the application, and that was submitted as part of this. It's included in the staff report just for reference. And then to for the potential development of the property, the ultimate highest density that they could do, I believe it's somewhere around 30 units.

Maybe I think it's in my reporting, it off the top of my head, let me just believe it's 36 units maybe, is the maximum. Although our discussions with the applicant have not, said that that is the intention of this property. In fact, they likely intend to do significantly less than that. They did include a a traffic study that talks about the possible impacts of potential development on this on this property. That was not a requirement of this application.

The applicant just did that voluntarily to show what sort of impacts that development could have on there. So if you if you care to discuss that, we can go into the traffic study. But, essentially, to answer your question, the maximum development would be, I believe, 30 to 40 units if it was all townhouses is is what they would be. Single family homes or single family detached homes would likely be significantly less than that would would be probably less than 10 would be the most reasonable development.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you very much.

Well,

I see no other questions. We can proceed then in the process to the applicant's presentation. Are representatives of the applicant here?

Looks like we do have one here. Hi.

Welcome. Just make sure the green light on the microphones are on. Oh, no. You're fine. We know you're our special guest. Okay? Just no. Just state your name and city residence just for the record when you start, and we'll start the clock for twenty minutes if you need to hold twenty minutes.

Alright. Well, thank you. My name is

are we good to go?

Yeah. Yep.

My name is Rob Matthews. I am the owner or the future owner of the property. We're gonna be closing on it here fairly soon. And next to me is Jeff Vanderdoss, and he is the actual applicant, and he's also the engineer that's that's shepherding the the property through the different land use processes that we have.

First of

all, I wanna thank the city, especially the city staff for for processing this application. They did it very well, very expeditiously. Appreciate that. And also, if you guys appear, the councilors, mayor, to listen to our application. Thank you. We do not have a presentation tonight. Everything that Aaron has said is pretty much covers the application as we understand it. However, I do wanna clarify that we do have some layouts that are tentative on the site. And in terms of the maximum amount of townhome units, it's about 20. 20 to 21, 22.

The maximum number of now that's given an r seven zone or an r 10. The maximum number of single family residential detached units is, six, a maximum of six. Once you get the right of way in there and then you have the loss of some North South connections that we're required to have as well. So just to be very clear about that. And then for the rest of the time that we have here, we're just here for for questions. Do guys have any other specific questions that we can answer that maybe beyond what Aaron understands, we'll be open for it. Thank you.

Did your traffic study contemplate those two scenarios that you laid out? Not that it's part of the application. Just thinking down the line if there's probably a big difference in traffic between 20 units and six.

Yes. They did.

Okay. Sounds perfect. Any other questions? That was the only thing that came to my mind. Councilor Groner, go ahead.

Yes. I'm just curious what the motivation is for wanting to be annexed?

For wanting to annex?

Be annexed.

Specifically for the intent of developing the property to construct and build single family homes.

Okay. Thank you.

Council president, please.

Thank you. Thank you for presenting tonight. And I'm just curious what, if any, concerns have been communicated from the neighbors or how much communication that you have had with the neighbors?

Yes. Thank you for actually asking that question. We've one of the reasons that we're able to let me back up. We performed a property line adjustment within the county prior to prior to our application to annex. And in part of that was because the we we wanted to do a bit of a land swap with one of the neighbors, and they were absolutely outstanding to work with. So aside from that particular individual, we've had no contact with anybody else.

Thank you.

Anything else? Okay. Well, I also wanna thank you for your short presentation tonight and for your kind words about our city staff as well. I'm glad they not surprised that they did a good job process in the application. So seeing no other questions from the city council, then we can move along in the process and see if there are any members of the public who would like to speak. And if there are, then you get to rebut their testimony if you'd like to. But I don't see anybody.

There are none.

Okay.

Well, then the there's an opportunity for rebuttal. I'll just give you an opportunity for any closing comments that you'd like to make since there's no

I don't think that we need to say anything else. Thank you.

Okay. Well, moving right along then into the request for continuance. Are there any requests for a continuance tonight under the process? Say none? None? See none. Then we'll move right into, final questions of staff. Any final questions or, clarification needed for mister Goodell? None? Then the public hearing is officially closed, and, I would entertain a motion from city council. We've got two ordinances before us. One to establish the zoning, and then one to approve the annexation.

Thank you, mayor. I move to approve first reading for ordinance one seven six seven establishing the zoning designation as Residential R 7 upon annexation of Tax Slot 00300, Clackamas County assessor map two one e two five c c, and set the matter for a second reading.

Second.

It has been moved and seconded to approve the first reading for ordinance seventeen sixty seven, an ordinance establishing the zoning designation as Residential R 7 upon annexation of Tax Lot 00300, Clackamas County assessment at 2 1 E 25 C C, and set the matter for second reading. Any discussion? Seeing none, you can call the roll, please.

Council president Baumgartner? Yes. Council governor?

Yes.

Council boning son? Yes. Council bright? Yes. Mayor Benescovsky?

Yes. So the first reading is approved unanimously, which allows us to move to the second reading.

Thank you, mayor. I move to approve second reading for ordinance one seven six seven, establishing the zoning designation as Residential R 7 upon annexation of Tax Lot 00300 Clackamas County assessor map 21 E 25 C C and adopt the ordinance. Second.

It has been moved and second to approve the second reading for the 1767, an ordinance establishing the zoning designation as Residential R 7 upon in the station of tax law zero zero three zero zero, Clackamas County assessor map two one e two five c c, and adopt the ordinance. Any discussion? Nope. Call the roll, please.

Councilor Bonington?

Yes.

Councilor Bright? Yes. Councilor president Baumgartner? Yes. Councilor Garner? Yes. Mayor Wiedznotsky?

Yes. So the motion passes unanimously and the ordinance is adopted. And with that, the zoning is now established and we can move on to the actual annexation. So that is the step two, the policy decision, and there's an ordinance there to for consideration. Ordinance seventeen sixty eight. So I would entertain a motion.

Thank you, mayor. I move to approve first reading for ordinance seventeen sixty eight approving the annexation of real property located in Tax Lot 00300, Clackamas County Assessor Map two one e two five c c, removing the property from special districts and set the matter for second reading.

Second.

One second. I have a different the script had a different motion, but it does the same thing. I'm gonna go to this motion sheet that you're using. It's been moved and seconded to approve the first reading for ordinance seventeen sixty eight, approving the annexation of real property located in Tax Lot 003300, Clackamas County assessment 21 E 25 C C, removing the property from special districts and setting the matter for second reading. Any discussion? I see none. So you can go ahead.

Councilor Bright? Yes. Council president Baumgartner? Yes. Councilor Garner? Yes. Councilor Bonington? Yes. Mayor, we just ask this one.

Yes. Was that a motion okay? Are you talking about the motion over there? The there was think it's pretty much the same.

Yeah. I see the title versus what's in your script. This is something that planning proposed in terms of whether you need to have it adding the property to special districts. Do you have a comment on that, Aaron or Steve?

So,

hang on a second. I'm just making sure that this is

I'm trying

to look.

I don't know if that was a

the language just didn't have adding the property to special districts.

Yeah. These are the law enforcement districts, fire districts.

Does that we wanna make sure the title of the ordinance is what we read, I'm guessing. So I gotta check the title then.

The ordinance title does not have adding to special districts. It only has removing. Then we're

good And

that that's what we read when we adopt ordinances. But because there was a discrepancy, I just wanted to check with staff if they had intended that additional language to be in the title or not.

Not not in the ordinance. No.

Okay.

Yeah. No. Clerical error.

Yeah. Good. Apologies. Okay. No. It's it's fine. We're so we've the script is fine. We have approved the first reading. Or wait. We call we motion second.

And then correct. You read it correctly by dropping

the Call the roll.

Yep.

If you haven't already on that then. She did. Oh, she did?

Yeah.

Okay. We voted on the first reading. We've done several readings tonight. Several wires got all across. Now we'll go to the second reading.

Okay. Thank you, mayor. I move to approve second reading for ordinance seventeen sixty eight approving the annexation of real property located in Tax Lot 00300, Clackamas County assessor map 21 E 25 c C, removing the property from special districts and adopt the ordinance.

Second. It's

been moved and seconded to approve the second reading for an seventeen sixty eight, approving the annexation of real property located in Tax Lot 00300 Clackamas County assessment map two one e two five c c, removing the property from special districts and adopt the ordinance. Any discussion? Seeing none, go ahead and call the roll.

Council president Baumgartner? Yes. Councilor Groner? Yes. Councilor Bonington?

Yes.

Councilor Bright? Yes. Mayor Mielendowski?

Yes. So the motion passes as the ordinance is adopted. And I have to say, welcome to the city of Westland, gentlemen. We'll get you a street address so you can have not as big of a mouthful of a title there with the tax lot soon. Yeah. We'll we'll see what the that's for the planning department to decide. So thank you very much. Appreciate that. And always good to refresh ourselves also on annexations in general. We don't do them very often, but we'd see there's even on that map, there's properties in the city limits that aren't annexed.

So it's an interesting issue. And so I appreciate everybody and appreciate you, Aaron and Steve, for getting us through that. What is a legal and complicated process of all those different ordinances and issues. And thank you city attorney as well. Now we can continue on to agenda bill twenty twenty five twelve nine zero five, resolution twenty twenty five eighteen.

And I'm not gonna read the full title yet, But it's a our key financing piece for the operation center where we will be issuing a full faith and credit obligation in the amount of 45,000,000 to finance this critical piece of city infrastructure. And I'll turn it over to city manager to introduce the topic.

That's exactly right. Thank you, mayor and council. Great way to finish off the year is by taking the big formal action on a subject you've been working on all year long, which is the development of a new city operations facility and replacing our outdated facility on Norfolk Road. All through this calendar year, you have worked on design elements, cost elements, financing elements, funding elements. And previously, most recent meetings, you gave us direction to return back with this action that's in front of you tonight.

This is a what we call a full faith and credit obligation to finance the construction of project. Is separate. Lauren and I really didn't rehearse this presentation, but I'll keep going. It is separate from an another kind of bond, general obligation bonds, which must be approved by taxpayers because they generate new money paid by taxpayers. These are not that.

This is obligations. They're still bonds, but they are covered by existing funding streams. And so as you've reviewed in the past, the main way that this project will be funded is through our existing utility rates on all of our kinds of utilities, the streets, the sewer, the storm, the water and the parks. You have also given us direction return in January with a slight increase or a $5 a month increase potential to supplement the general fund component of this project, which is the Parks Fund. We are not here tonight with the neat drawings of the design or discussions of the any of those elements or the timeline.

It's really just for the action on the full faith and credit obligations. Lauren is our in house expert on how those kinds of bonds work, and she can explain a little bit about what this actually does, your decision tonight, and what the timeline is from here, which will last a couple more months. We also have Eric and Megan are here if there are questions about the facility or any of that. And I think they wanted to make sure to show up so that we the seven of us would get this done tonight so they could move ahead with their project. So Lauren, if you could just share a little bit more about what the FFCO is and what happens after tonight if it's approved.

Yep. Great. Thank you. So a full faith in credit obligation is a issuance of debt. We're talking about issuing $45,000,000 tonight, and it will be paid back from the general resources of the city, and that could be our water rates, our utility rates, our or general funds, but it's secured by the general funding.

So this does not have a additional tax that goes on taxpayers' property taxes. This is paid for with the revenues that we already receive or, as we mentioned, potentially increasing fees to help pay for a component of it. We the resolution has been written by our bond counsel. It will we once we get the resolution approved, we will then go forward with our financial municipal advisers to draft our offering statement that will then we will then go through a credit review process with, like, more than likely Standard and Poor's, where they will rate our municipal bonds based off of our credit status. And then after that, it will go eventually out to the market, the competitive market.

It will be competitive sale, and it will be bid on by a number of investors, hopefully. And then we will select and with the help of our financial advisers, the best bid with the lowest true interest cost generally. And then it usually takes another few weeks to a couple months to actually finally issue that debt and receive the money from that. And then we have I believe this is a twenty five year payback on this, so we will be paying over the next twenty five years to pay back this debt. Of course, that's with interest.

And that payback is detailed in the agenda bill, but it is about $962 to the street fund and then 561,000 to each of the sewer, storm, water, and parks or general fund. So it's a pretty significant payback each year. And like I said, we'll be paying for that from the different funds with the rates that we receive from them. And so, generally, we we plan to hopefully be issuing in March as of right now. That's usually takes a few months, and with the holidays in there, maybe takes a little bit longer.

So with this, though, we do have a reimbursement clause in here. So as soon as this is approved tonight, any expenditures that happen related to the project, we are a even though we haven't issued the debt, we'll be able to reimburse ourselves for that with the debt. Also, we will be able to reimburse ourselves, I believe, sixty or ninety days previously, but all of the design costs and things like that can also be reimbursed as far back as we need to. So we will be able to recover the cost with the debt for all the money that we've spent doing the design and architecture. And I'm happy to answer any questions about it.

I have one I have one question, but I'm happy to open the floor up to others first. Well, I I've been thinking a lot about this project. This is a huge financial decision for the city where it's probably the biggest I mean, I know it's the biggest financial expenditure that many of us on city council have ever made. It might be the biggest project in the city's history. And there's kind there's a little bit of a misnomer out there because we're talking about we have existing revenues to cover it.

This this type of bond is paid for by existing revenues, but we've been talking about needing to raise the parks fee $5 a month to kinda help offset the impact. And we really don't I just wonder if you as finance director could set talk about the state of our funds in general and just kinda give a statement about why that is important. Because we really if we don't raise fees this small amount, we would have to postpone some projects and things would get not good. So I just wanted to maybe city manager also has some thoughts. I just wanna make the record clear about that this issue of, you know, why why we don't actually have the money.

Exactly. Yeah. So as you'll remember, when we approved our biennial budget in the spring for this current fiscal year that we're in and the following fiscal year, we came to you with the balanced budget. Everything was looking pretty decent. And but for the five year forecast, so two years out from there, which is the next biennium that we're gonna be coming back to in about a year and a couple months with.

That bound that budget wasn't looking as good, especially for the general fund. The general fund was struggling. This full faith and credit obligation was included in that, but it was a little bit lower of a cost. Not not not much, but a little bit lower for the for the parks portion. And so our general fund looks like we're gonna have some issues in the coming biennium.

The other funds, we can't as easily some of the other funds we can't as easily raise revenues for, raise cost fees. But those funds, our public works department has looked through and gone through the schedules of the capital maintenance. And of course, when we do something big like this, they say, you know, yes, we can afford the debt service on this. However, it does decrease our ability to do other maintenance and repairs and things like that. So while the other funds are, I will say, it still does set us back on our maintenance and our other capital projects that we can we would have been able to do if we weren't issuing this debt.

So it is a big financial commitment. It really impacts I mean, it impacts all five of these funds, but the general fund is the one that is has the most difficulty and the most gloom on the horizon. So that is an area where we can talk about potentially increasing parks maintenance fee to help cover component of this or potentially all of it.

And we talked a little bit about the streets fee also.

Yes. Exactly.

I don't we don't wanna put off critical maintenance projects if we can avoid it and Exactly. You know, if we do have a general fund deficit, then that means cutting. And we also don't have any non essential staff that we can cut. I mean, we're already pretty lean and I always I would just wanted the record to reflect our financial status as Citi where we our property taxes were frozen low in the nineties at $2.12 per thousand and we we we can't change that rate. So this this this fees are kind of the only way we can pay for projects.

And it's a huge financial expenditure for a city that has a revenue cap at that $2.12 per thousand. And so if we do have to raise fees in January and and talk about it, even if it's a modest amount, you know, it's just important to recognize that we can't just come up with 45,000,000 as a city. There has to be a process for that.

Exactly.

Yes. Councilor Groner, and then we'll go to councilor Bragg. Thank you, everybody.

Thank you. It's also my understanding that the Parks Department fee was supposed to match the Parks Department expenses, and that has not been done for several years. There's a catch up phase. Do you mind Yes. Either validating that belief or We

while we were digging into all these expenses, you know, we've read the municipal code. It doesn't necessarily say something direct to that effect in the municipal code. However, when we went back to the council minutes from when they implemented it in 2007, there was an intention that eventually that it would catch up to the 100%. So from the code, it wasn't very obvious to us. We didn't know that we were supposed to be hopefully recovering a 100% of our parks maintenance fees or parks maintenance costs every year.

However, it does look like from the council minutes that that was the intent that they were gonna start with one amount and then over the years, hopefully cover a 100% of those fees. We are not covering, I believe, a half 1,000,000 approximately every year, or at least for this last year. So we'll continue to monitor those, but that's another topic that we can discuss when we talk about raising the or increasing the fee for this, potentially increasing another $5 for that.

So

Thank you. You're welcome.

The cost have gone up, inflation and project cost. This project years ago might have cost a lot less than 45,000,000. Yeah. But would we can only raise 3% every year. The property taxes go up five 3%. Right? And then the rates usually go up 5% every year, which doesn't keep up with the cost of construction and labor and personnel, etcetera. Councilor Bright.

Last few years.

Well, do want to say when I was on the budget committee before I got on council, even that biennium, the prior biennium, we were talking about this project. And money was being maintained in reserves to help fund it when we got this close, and now we are this close. The other thing is we just annexed some properties in to the city that, particularly after being developed, will increase our tax base, which will help a little bit as well.

Yes. And and that is a great point that councilor Rick made. We have been planning for this for a number of years. So that is why we do those five year forecasts and those twenty year forecasts in certain funds because we want to look further out than just this biennium and know what projects we have. So some of the funds might look pretty flush, but really that's because we are saving for things like this. So usually the funds that we have a good reserve and are because we have projects on the horizon that we're looking for.

Thank you for that. And council president.

Thank you, mayor. And I just wanted to acknowledge and appreciate that you're doing that kind of planning and and appreciate also all the work that you've been doing in the transparency with processes like this so that the public can see and understand, which is not always easy to to make it accessible to people to understand this process. So I appreciate that a lot. Thank you.

Thank you. And if anyone ever has any questions about it, I'm happy to sit down and chat about it and go through.

Anything else from the council? I appreciate all your answers on the spot there to some of those questions. Just wanted to help build build the record a little bit and address concerns from the community that I've heard a little bit about just that, you know, we already have the money. Why do you need to raise people? If we don't raise fees, then we're cutting essentially, which is not acceptable or delaying maintenance projects. Mister Williams, any any thoughts on your part before the we take a motion and vote?

No. I think you've covered all the all the relevant topics. This is a huge project for us. It's taken us years and years to get the work to this point. It's taken us years and years to muster up the courage to venture into a project this large.

That's why we are ninety years into this property and facility on Norfolk Street because it's been sort of big and overwhelming. And I think the work that's been done to make sure the design is good, to make sure the cost estimates are good, all the owners rep decision was a fantastic decision. This design build has been a fantastic decision. And so I think we've done everything possible so we can assure the community that we are making wise use of the funds that they are providing to us for this purpose. It is gonna be frustrating and it's gonna be frustrating for a number of years to have less money for our infrastructure projects in each of these utility funds.

It's not ideal. But at some point, you gotta make the tough tough decision and have a facility that works for the crews that do all of this and all of the advantages we've talked about of having a larger facility in a more convenient location. And so we just appreciate that you've been willing to take this journey with us. We'll all get we'll all get fancy decorative hard hats at some point, I'm sure, and be able to look back at this as I as I think as a defining moment of making this project happen. So I appreciate your attention to this.

It's been a council priority for It has. Couple of years because we all went on the tour of the current site and saw the how it's in not so great a shape and certain parts in disrepair and time to modernize our city and help our crews do the important work that they need to do, and keeping our parks and streets and everything maintained to the appropriate level. Maybe they'll even get even better when we have the new space and can store more materials and things like that. So anyway, any other comments from council? We can take a vote. Okay. We can entertain a motion on the resolution.

Thank you, mayor. I move to adopt resolution twenty twenty five dash 18 authorizing the execution and delivery of a financing agreement, escrow agreement, and related sale documents pledging the city's full faith and credit to the financing payments due under the financing agreement authorization authorizing the execution and delivery of the city of West Linn, Oregon, full faith and credit obligations in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $45,000,000 for purposes of financing the development, construction, and equip equipping of a centralized operations center designating authorized representatives and delegating authority, declaring an intent to reimburse and related matters.

I second that extraordinarily long title.

Thank thank you. It's been moved by council president, seconded by councilor Garner to, adopt resolution twenty twenty five eighteen authorizing the execution delivery of a financing agreement, escrow agreement and related sale documents pledging the city's full faith and credit to the financing payments due under the financing agreement authorizing the execution delivery of City Of Westland, Oregon, full faith and credit obligations in one or more series in aggregate principal amount not to exceed $45,000,000 for the purpose of financing the development, construction, and equipping of a centralized operation center for public works, designating authorized representatives and delegating authority and declaring an intent to reimburse and related matters. Any any discussion from the council? I said a lot earlier, so I'm not gonna say it again. Just glad we're at this point to be able to move to construction.

Happy to open the floor up.

Got nothing.

Oh, no. No. Okay. Well, I will then call the roll, please.

Councilor Bonington? Yes. Councilor Bright? Yes. Council president Baumgartner? Yes. Councilor Garner? Yes. Mayor Bialystovsky?

Yes. So resolution twenty twenty five dash 18 is passed unanimously. And we'll look to January to have further discussions about rates and hopefully some communication strategies at that that time about the the importance of the project. Anything else on that topic?

Thank you again to all of staff who've worked so hard and long on this.

Happy New Year, everybody. We're gonna start on a new operation. A very exciting, agreed council president and several of them back there. With that, we can move on to agenda item six d, which is Oppenlander Park opportunity update. And I can turn it over to the city manager. I also see in the back. I don't know if Harlan, did you wanna sign up to speak? I didn't put it

in park, but I can answer the question.

Okay. Well, we can we can turn it over to city manager, and then we can bring Harlan up in just a few minutes.

That's great.

Thank you, mayor and council. Last business item of this agenda and your last business item of the calendar year is a discussion of possible park property on Ottoman Lander. I'm not going to read everything we wrote in the staff report, but I would like to point you towards some highlights including that back in September, you provided direction to move forward with the concept of securing part of the property on the Lander Road on the Ottoman lander property on Rosemont Road as a park. You requested community input, and we had fantastic response to a community survey that went out in late September, early October, more than a thousand responses. We provided the full content of the community survey responses in the staff report, and that is why the staff report is something like 70 pages long.

Is because it has all of the results and then it has all of the free response. So that you can see that there was a variety of opinions and folks felt free, which is their right, to comment on a lot of different things, not all of which were related to the survey. But there were some really interesting survey results that we drew your attention to in the staff report. And the the pieces that I wanted to particularly highlight is that the highest ranked single amenity on this Ottoman lander property was the Grove Of Trees. We asked folks to say, if you could choose one aspect of the current property, what is the most important piece to you?

And Grove Of Trees scored the highest. And 60% of respondents, just shy of 60% of respondents, when asked, should the city move forward even knowing there might be a cost to taxpayers, said yes to that. We had more than 400 responses on the free response. And if you've looked through those, you'll see there is a lot of nuance in there about things they like, things they don't like, frustrations, excitement, all sorts of things that we would expect. So that community survey, important to say non scientific.

It was just put out there and folks could respond. But I think it gives us a really good background for having this conversation. What you have in front of you is a couple of options that have been presented to you by ICON Development, ICON Construction and Development, who is working with the school board on potential development of this site. They conducted their pre application in late November, and there were a couple of there were a couple of site layouts for the full 10 acre property. We provided those in the packet.

And really, there were sort of two different options for a park on this site that I think make the most sense. There's an option for a smaller property on the a smaller park on the south side of the property, so on the Rosemont Road side, that would have some potential to save some of those large trees that everyone loves. And then there's an option with a three acre park on the north side of the property that would be kind of where that existing back couple of ball fields are and but would not encompass any of the large growth of trees. So one is about 1.2 acres, one is about three acres. And we wanted to wanted to talk about a couple of couple of pros and cons related to those different sites.

I think the community survey gives us some really good input, but it's really worth thinking through what kinds of facilities could be on which of these locations and and what cost those would come with. We discussed this a little bit at the pre meeting. The smaller park would be considered a neighborhood park, which is really meant to not be a regional draw, not even a citywide draw, but really function as a gathering spot as a little bit of open space for a neighborhood. And in an area with some added houses potentially, a neighborhood park is always a nice draw. That neighborhood park comes with a more passive style of use and lower costs in general, not just from the size of the property, but also because of the kinds of amenities that would be there.

If we're thinking about a multiuse sports field on the back of the site, there's increased cost for the city in maintenance, installation, upkeep. It's it's a it's a much different it's a much different thing. So between the community survey, between the cost to the city of to purchase, to operate, to maintain these different kinds of parks, and considering the city's needs, our recommendation, if the council wants to move forward with the park in this area, our recommendation would be that front area. But it's really important, and we had a whole paragraph in the staff report about this because we think it's really important, is that we don't have funds identified at this time for an acquisition of a park. You just spent a few minutes talking about the the concern that you and and we share about the general fund ability to support the park's maintenance function, the fact that it's needs to be fully funded by utility fee increases, and when we add area, we add expense.

And so even though parks acquisition is appealing and they're not making any more land inside the city limits and development does happen, there it comes with a cost. So it needs to be thought about very, very carefully. The reason this item is on the agenda tonight is in October, November, even earlier this month, you have discussed the possibility of using floating a bond with the community in order to possibly pay for an acquisition of a property here. And we wanted to make sure that you know the timelines for election measures. They sneak up on you pretty fast.

So even though May feels far away, May would be the next election opportunity for a bond. But we would have to have every piece of work done, all of the ballot language, all of the cost estimates, all of the way that we would describe something to the community by the February, which is certainly coming right up on us almost sixty days from today. And so if you were inclined to move towards that election, we would need some pretty firm and specific direction really tonight to get that ball rolling. And then you would have quite a bit of work in January, and we would too in communicating, in making financial decisions, all of those pieces. The next bond after that would be in November, and that gives you more time.

Those materials would be due in in August. And so, again, not my intention to read the entire staff report, but we do want to make sure that the cost concerns both for purchase and for operations and maintenance of parks is front and center in your mind as you're thinking this. That's why we expressed some pretty significant reservations in the staff report. But we are fully aware that counsel in previous meetings has indicated an interest and asked us to keep moving forward with discussions of this possibility. So we are here tonight, Lauren and I, and Megan, Steve of the land use process, Kaylee, city attorney, and we have a representative from ICON in the back.

Harlan, thank you for joining us. Harlan knows things about the timeline, about the considerations of the lot layout and all of that in much more detail than than we know at this point. I think that's enough for me to start this conversation moving. There's a lot of information in the various parts of the packet, and we are happy to to point you towards things or to facilitate your discussion here tonight. I think that covers it for starting.

I appreciate that. And maybe I could prompt Harlan to come up, if you wouldn't mind on a on a probably the question that several counselors have. Welcome back, Harlan. Is just related to and you may not have the firm answer nor are we trying to bind you tonight to its specific answer. But in a ballpark sense, if we if you went forward with the one acre park version, what would the cost be? Do you think? Kind of a ballpark without binding you, if you know.

I can't really tell you a number right now, unfortunately. We're just took a long time to get through the contract negotiations with the school district. So we just started our due diligence recently. We had the pre app. The surveyor is going out this week to do the existing condition survey and actually locate where all the trees are in relation to the layout.

Because right now, we've just been working off of aerials and hard to tell where the tree is and where the shadow is and all that. Because as you as you're aware, I think we talked about before or if you saw from the pre app or the staff report, we're kinda limited in terms of the way the road has to come in because it has to be perpendicular road across Rosemont. So there may be some trees that would be need to be removed just for the roadway. The other thing we're doing this week is we're doing the geotechnical evaluation, go out and doing some test pits, figure out the ground material, whether there was fill in the past and so on. So we're still pretty early in our due diligence.

Feasibility right now runs until, like, the January. And once we have this information and we can look at our layout, what I can tell you is that the area for the 1.2 acre park that's at the South end, the cost of that would be the same cost as any other land there. So it's it it'll just work out, you know, and we'll certainly sit down with the city and try and if you decide that you wanted to move forward in that direction, try and work out a deal.

Okay. Thanks for that

As far as timing, because I know John asked me about timing as well. If we were to move forward after due due diligence, then we'd go in through the normal land use process and that takes, you know, several months to get to approval, and that we'd be back in front of you all. So if you were and then there's engineering, and that takes a while to get approved. And then there's development. So, you know, it's easily a year plus before any ground moving would happen.

So that gives you kind of an idea on when, you know, because the whole idea of the park is that the roads and everything have to still be built, and all the development for the lots have to happen. So it's just a question of whether or not that area at the front, sorry, that area at the front is is developed for lots or left alone, but the road around it still has to be built because we have to tie in to miles over there and down to Rosemont, around the

park. Understood. Councilor Goner has

a question. Yeah. To follow-up on the timeline, there are at least two or possibly three options that seem to be on the table. When would you need the city to make a decision as to which of those options are necessary are going to be taken?

So what we would probably do is pursue the no park option with our application. Because that allows or leaves open the other options depending upon what your thinking is. But it would lay out with all the lots. And then if you decide you wanna do the park in the front or the park in the back, then that would modify. But we would apply for all the lots, the 30 lots.

So it sounds like we can delay that decision for some period.

Yeah. I mean it's it's the it's the most general way to do it. It would be at the 30 lot option.

Okay. So that does give us some time to get community input on which of those options are preferable. Thank you. I

think the main issue is related to just giving direction on to go forward or not. That if staff need to work on it, because we don't have any funding to fund a potential purchaser improvements. So we would have to just give a direction on that, I think. Sooner rather than later if if the council does wanna go with a potential May ballot measure. Is that correct?

Well, if a May ballot measure was desired, that would need to start moving tonight, really. But I'm not sure you're hearing that from ICON tonight that we would need a decision in May.

No. I don't think so. I mean, if we apply as I expect we would on the 30 lot option and we submit that application sometime late February, early March, the review process through the city completeness and then hearings and so on would go past May. And then we'd have to go through engineering, and really the engineering doesn't change much depending upon whether there's a park or not because it's all the streets. It's really just like for the park in the front whether or not we would engineer the utility connections for those lots or not.

And and so it, you know, you could even go out. I think there was an August one too. Right?

Well, the if if voter approval of a bond measure is required, the dates next year are May and November.

November. So I mean, it's really just a question of when would be the right time to sit down and talk about what it would cost the city. And that would inform your, you know, we probably will have a lot more information about that before February 9, I think it was. But they would need to start working on it sooner. And, you know, I I don't have an idea right now to give you a ballpark number, but we could probably sit down with staff and try and figure that out.

Okay. Harlan, can I Okay? Just to spin out an option, let's say the November election was in play. Was November too late to give you an answer about, you know, given given everything you

just said about the

Yeah. I don't think so. Because again, if we do the 30 lot option, it's really just a question of modifying what lot engineering we do. The roads are gonna be pretty much the same, unless you do the North Ballfield Park. That takes some road out. But the South Park, everything else is the same. It's just whether or not there's lots there or not.

Thanks. Good question, mister Williams. Appreciate that.

Council I think, you know, if you wanted to go to November, you you probably could. And we would have a, I think, a much better understanding of purchase, the development costs, things like that to know what the land value would be. And then we'd also have an idea what the market is to know kind of what the land value would be.

Thank thank you for that. Council president, please.

Thank you, mayor. And thank you for all the information. And also kind of allowing for us to be able to work and give us some leeway and time, I appreciate that. However, I will remind counsel that although we're being allowed extra time, there are factors that won't change, which is the cost that we've been hearing about from maintaining a park with ongoing with ball fields, for instance, the the higher cost, I'm understanding, of that versus the more passive natural park with the trees in the toward the front of the development. And and upon reading the survey questions and listening to years of community input and and given everything, not that this is an easy decision to make, at this moment in time, if I had to decide, and I I think we should consider that we should decide tonight, that we go for the park in the front of the development that saves the trees, and that we potentially, if we all agreed, move forward on a bond that we've discussed as early as possible and include some of these other projects that we've also talked about, like the Parker Road property communities space, which would potentially be a first phase of a community center.

Bigger conversation, I know, but that's what I would say from all of the conversations we've had about this property. And I know that won't please everyone, but that would be my 2¢ at this point. Thank you.

Thank you, council president. I think you bring up an important issue. It's kind of an inflection point when you're talking about the back part of the property, that's three acres, that's more for ball field. And the front property is more for passive parks, so we're really talking about whether to have a ball field or or a passive park. And I appreciate your thoughts, and I I also kinda tend to agree with that that it's kind of a compromise proposal with our staff and the community about what we can afford to maintain with 1.2 acres versus three acres.

And another thing that doesn't change is the constrained parking area for having ball games occurring simultaneously. And I I just think we need to have bigger areas for accommodating ball fields. And and I I just don't wanna make another shoe horn ball fields in and then have the neighbors be having to accommodate all that parking and and foot traffic and that comes along with that, which is wonderful to have ball games and ball playing spaces. I'm all for it. I love baseball, just for the record. Love youth baseball, but maybe not in this exact spot.

Council president, thank you. I'm going to go to councilor Groner, councilor Bonington, and then councilor Bragg had a comment as well.

Yeah. I'm not opposed to baseball either. But it seems to me we ought to get if we do have some time, then we ought to get some more community input. It seems to me the earlier survey was based on sort of earlier assumptions that are have now been revised. We now have two specific options. It seems to me on the table. I guess three. And maybe we ought to get input from Friends of Oppenheimer and other community groups before we make the decision.

Do you have a leaning one way or the other? If on the would you your your preference is get community input before having a leaning?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you, councilor Groner. Councilor Bonington?

At this point, I fear that we might be at the point of having community input fatigue on this issue. The more we ask them questions, the more confused they're going to become about what's really going on and what the plan is here. I think we're at the point where we need to show kind of a direction we're going to go in. But at the same time, to pursue this as soon as May feels a little bit like having chocolate cake before vegetables. We have a lot of very serious needs and concerns that I feel like we need to have a plan for at least at the same time or first.

So, yeah, I'm I'm completely in favor of pursuing at least the the smaller version of the park. But as an item on a ballot, it definitely needs to be along with other needs. And those need to have plans for them as well before we move forward at all.

Thank you, Councilor Barton, for that comment. I actually agree with you on your statements. Councilor Bright, please.

Thank you, mayor. I personally am in favor in the smaller park in the front saving the trees. I don't think having a road go through the neighborhood and paying the money that it costs for the three acres to include a parking lot is is our best and highest use of our funds. And I think the traffic through the neighborhood when there are ball games there, if that were the case, think that could end up being problematic. I think we could end up getting a lot of complaints about that.

So I'm in favor of saving the trees in the front, making that a neighborhood park. And I do agree that if we can wait until a bond measure in November, we have more time that we can talk about some of the other needs and kind of putting together a package of what we need and what we believe our residents would approve of and and be in favor of.

Thank you for that comments, councilor Breich. I I tend to agree with what several of my colleagues have said. I think the one point the smaller park is is I don't I know it'll disappoint some people. I wanna preserve as much of Opinelander as we can. It's been something we've been talking about since 2021, if you can believe believe that.

And I'm glad that we have an opportunity to do something and appreciate the options. We're just kinda at an at a point where I think it's helpful to at least give some direction on the size of the park to to pursue. And I do I feel like this community survey that we did is that gives us, you know, there's a divide, but the you know, we can base our decision off some data that says that the number one priority is is preserving those trees and other folks want open space. And I just tend to agree with the logistics of having a ball field in the in the back of the property and the impact on on neighbors and that the future neighbors that live in the at the site too would would have. And also appreciate the maintenance costs and it's kind of a, like I said earlier, good compromise with with our our parks department staff about, you know, we're not we're keeping it an acre 1.22 acre acres instead of larger to keep our maintenance cost down long term.

So that's my thoughts on the issue of Opinlander. I I am do I do agree also with what folks have said about including some other projects in a potential bond measure. And, you know, I if if you're asking me, I would say something for Ottoman Land or something for the the Parker Road property, like council president said, making music in the park improvements there to make that a really nice venue with pavilion, with food hall, food carts there, for example, places to sit nicer parking area, nicer bathrooms. Really, we it's a gem site that we have there. And I'm kinda pivoting away from rec center just because community reactions to that.

But I it's worth, you know, it really just is a nice pavilion that we could have there with. And then some park funding for other parks projects. And we keep hearing from the community about public safe public pedestrian safety, public safety projects in all sorts of different neighborhoods. And I think, you know, what if we got some funding for 20 flashing beacons across town that the RRFB flashing crosswalks and sidewalks and things like that for all this could be pretty cost effective too. And, you know, in the $1,015,000,000 range, I would imagine, through work with city staff.

Now on timeline, I do wanna discuss that with council because just looking at next year, there's a primary election in May, and then the governor election, city council elections in November. And so there are some considerations about, you know, what what would be best for having something on the ballot. And and and I but I also understand the May ballot is is pretty coming up pretty soon. I don't know how like, I feel like we could pick some pedestrian projects and other and to put in about measures, have a list of prioritized projects. We could do that in January.

But then when you start talking about a if there's consensus on Parker Road, food hall type of or pavilion, music in the park. I'll call it the Music In The Park Pavilion. I don't know how long it would take to get a cost estimate, do some community feedback on that. So if I'm up to up to being swayed on the timeline one way or the other. Councilor Bright, those are my thoughts. Thank you, everybody.

I understand your concerns about trying to get something on the May ballot. I just don't think we know what the ask is. And I don't think we have time to come up with that by the February.

Understood. It would be a rush first year. It may not be the best product, and then also gives time for the the deal with with the school district. ICON is school just to close. So we have some certainty there about what what we're looking at on costs and and things like that. And I was just under the assumption that to move forward, we needed to have the funding place by May for you all to for ICON really to have the certainty about that.

Yeah. No. I think when we were having earlier discussions back a while ago when it was we were going together, that's where we needed to know what the commitment was ahead of time. Now, we're just going forward. We're going forward with the 30 lot option and that works for us. And if it does, you know, if the city decides you wanna do some park in the front, then we would work at it if we can deal with you to make that happen. So it's not necessary to know what your commitment is at this point.

Okay. So, Samura, any other any thoughts on timeline from other counselors?

I I guess the the biggest risk is, in my mind, not so much that we would have to rush it out and it would be a bad product that we'd be putting out in May. But that is optically perilous if we then need to look at some stabilization components that would come in an election after that. We've then very much looked like we've spent all the money on fun things, basically, and that wouldn't necessarily be the case. But if we haven't worked out a plan to go with it, even if it's at a later date, even if it's phased in, just doesn't look responsible when we need to look responsible for what we're going to be asking for help with.

Understood. Thank you for those comments. Councilor Groner, any other comments? Council president?

I have a motion that I could that we could I could put forth and then we could discuss it more.

Okay. That would be great. Thank you.

I move to direct staff to work with ICON to develop cost estimates and a time frame for this project and prepare options on bond measures.

Second.

Okay. It has been moved and seconded to direct staff to work with IGON to develop cost estimates in a time frame for this project and prepare options on bond measures. That's the motion in the packet. So that is it is that too ambiguous?

Well, I I think your discussion has evolved a little bit past the the vagueness in that. And so if it's a starting point for where you're headed, then I think that can be good.

Maybe the motion should be on the particular part of the property.

That would be helpful, and also a timeline would be helpful. Those are the two key pieces to me tonight. And I

As soon as November 2026 instead of as soon as May 2026?

I I'm just reacting to your conversation. Yeah.

So I can withdraw the motion if we want to be more specific about the language.

Okay.

Could you

would just second John's opinion. I think ICON has given their perspective and that there's timeline, but from staff's perspective and speaking from the legal department, if there is clarity, it really does help us. We're doing research and trying to figure out the structure of how something like this would work. Megan's looking at cost estimates for different park amenities. And so if there is clarity, which I did start to hear something forming there, it is helpful for us to take a vote and express whether you have a preference for the options that are provided in the packet, which is the park you were coalescing around the park there, the 1.22 acres versus a baseball field.

And then also the timing clarity of whether you're seeking a May ballot or November ballot measure. If you're comfortable and you're at that place, does help us with clarity.

Okay. I withdraw my motion.

Council president has withdrawn her motion. Councilor Groner, you withdraw your second?

I withdraw my second.

Okay. So the motion and second have been withdrawn. And we can entertain a new motion or have discussion.

Can we make sure that with the motion, it it is November 26 or potentially May 27 so that we're not boxed into just one group of options?

How about as soon as Yeah. November 25?

As

soon as.

Okay. At some point, ICON's gonna need to know if we're gonna end or not before they break ground. So but I appreciate you giving us to November. And really, if it's November, we're talking about having everything finalized by August pretty much. Just for a point of clarification of our process and public engagement and timeline on that, correct? Because that's when the

Yeah. We would have everything in for the ballot for November. We wouldn't obviously know about the vote until after November and the certification. So we wouldn't actually be issuing the debt until much later, but we can figure that out from there.

Thank you for that clarification. And can I before council president makes a motion, can I just pull the council on the the timeline? Councilor Breich, you were in no May going at least November if we're gonna go at all. Council president, how are you feeling about that?

November.

Sorry. How are you feeling? It sounds like no. Okay. No. Just so she didn't make a motion, then we had to change it afterwards. So no. November soon as November 2026 ballot measure, which requires things to be pub finalized on the city side by August. And then it sounds I it sounds like there was some consensus earlier on the the pursuing the park at the front versus the back. Front meaning on on Rosemont Road versus the largest parcel in the back, which would be also more cost effective for the city. So I'm looking around for head nods on. Okay. So council president, can you reflect that in a motion?

Thank you, mayor. Yes. I can. I move to direct staff to work with ICON to develop cost estimates for a for the park frontage on Rosemont Road and a time frame for this project and prepare options for a bond measure for the November 2025 ballot or as late as the May 2026? I'm sorry, '27. I'm sorry. Oh my gosh.

The first year would be '26.

I'm all

second it yet. Don't second it.

Don't second it. Sorry.

Please restate the motion.

Thank you. I move to direct staff to work with ICON to develop cost estimates for to develop the nature park. Does someone else want to do this motion? I'm sorry. I I'll let you do it. Sorry.

Okay. I will make a motion. I move to direct staff to work with LIGON to develop cost estimates and a time frame for the approximately 1.5 acre park in the front of the Ottoman Lander property and prepare options for a ballot measure as late as as soon as November 2026.

Second.

Okay. It's been moved and seconded to direct staff to work with ICON to develop cost estimates in a time frame for a, approximately 1.5 acre park, at the front of the open landed property along Rosemont Road and and prepare options on bond measures as soon a bond measure as soon as November 2026. Any discussion? Okay. Call the roll, please.

Councilor Bryke?

Yes.

Councilor president Baumgartner? Yes. Councilor Garner? Yes. Councilor Bonington?

Yes. Mayor

Miyazowski? Yes. And then at this time, do you need further specificity on what could be in that or should we revisit that at an early work session in May?

Well, I think with the time pressure taken off, I think we can if you would like anytime you'd like to provide more specific direction, we can start working on things. That's fantastic. For example, mayor, you had a you had a short list of items that might be working on. So if you wanted, you know, a list of the priority transportation safety projects, for example, one of the things you mentioned, we could start working on that. And if you wanted, council wants a work on the upgraded upgrades at Parker Road for the Music in the Park, we can start working on that if that's council direction.

So I think the as soon as you know, it's incredibly helpful. What we don't want is to find ourselves in this time frame next summer. So the earlier we cannot do all of this community conversation, thinking through options, explaining the need, all of those things is better. But I understand you may not be able to get all the way tonight, but some initial direction would be

super

helpful. Perhaps, counsel, just like I did, could say what would be helpful to just have bring brought back for a discussion in at at an upcoming work session in January. So I had my shortlist of things to start working on just for you know, so we can have a menu of options per se to look at at as before.

Just to recap, what I heard in your shortlist was this project,

Yes. Yeah. That yep. All subject to what the end of cost cost to put up the community is. You know, we don't want it to be too too high, but we wanna accomplish some of the high priority things that we keep hearing about and and potentially, you know, definitely benefit our community, I think. So any other thoughts at this time to add to that? Councilor Bonington, go ahead.

I might suggest we make that last bid be facilities maintenance and upkeep. And then maybe a component that allows us to cover some of the deferred water system maintenance or anything else we wouldn't necessarily be able to do while the operations complex is being done?

Thank you. Thanks for bringing that up. Councilor Groner, anything on your mind?

No. Not yet.

Okay. Sounds good. Well, given the hour, we can take those thoughts and comments and then bring them back in January for for the discussion. And if anybody feels like noodling on them over the holidays, you're welcome to as as to city staff.

Great. Thank you, mayor and council. I appreciate that. And council president, sorry about the confusion on the motion. That is what I had in the staff report, but I felt like your conversation had moved past it. And so as as city attorney also said, having that increased specificity is incredibly helpful and I think useful for the public as well. Thank you for your flexibility on that.

Also, of course, thanks to Harlan and Mark and team and ICON for being willing to partner with us and try to help bring the community some sort of park at Oppenheimer. We appreciate the opportunity. Though you did didn't have to do that. So

Happy to help.

Yes. Thank you for that.

Anything else on that topic? Okay. Well, then we can can move on on the agenda, onto the next item at at this oh, yeah. So would anybody like a short recess before we jump into the CAG community advisory group? No. No. No recess. Okay. Well, at the begin at during our pre meeting, we talked about sending our choices to staff. I don't know if folks have done that because we've been in the meeting.

But in from just my taking the the pulse of city councilors my individually and myself, I realized that there was some distant potential differences of opinion on this topic. So I can place some names for the city council or folks can weigh in. Kind of do would everybody like to share their their pics? I didn't participate in the interview, so I'm kind of due to finals, I'm kind of relying on relying on my colleagues. But I did wanna clarify one point before we begin this discussion.

Now police review and recommend. You have three openings. Does that number three include the alternate, or are there three openings plus the alternate? Three openings.

If you move the alternate, there'll be a little different alternate, which is

Okay. So so what what I was thinking about was if we appointed the three that are currently on the committee, including the alternate Jack Snook, we could still have an alternate. I've heard the alternate has been useful at the meetings to have for quorum purposes, and they're they're basically a functional member of the committee that is just we we created that as a compromise because we had two great people that we wanted on. So now we can keep that tradition if it's since it's been helpful. So that would allow us to appoint basically, to have four names going on to the committee.

That's Jack Snook, Steve Kramer, Michael Harper, and and Tim Dooley as alternate was what was put in front of me by one person. But so I'm open to feedback on council has to approve my appointment. So I can place these names before the city council and see what happens that are in front of me, or councilors can weigh in. And we can we can react to those or weigh in. How does how would folks like me to proceed?

I would like to comment on that particular appointment that I would agree with what you have proposed there. I will also make a note for the record that we've had a purse one of the applicants let us know they were withdrawing their name and that Jeff Krug is a wonderful potential participant, but we only have the number of spaces that we have. So he's also serving very well in the Transportation Advisory Board, and I appreciate his input and expertise. But I would agree with your suggestions for police review and recommend at this point.

Yes. I collected individual thoughts, and then I realized that there was a there was an interest in mister Tim Dooley after the interviews. Okay. Well, I appreciate that hearing that. Councilor Bragg, any any thoughts on the process for how you would you like me to just place some names before the council and react, or would you like would councilors like to share their thoughts?

Well, do we wanna do them all together, or do we wanna do one advisory committee at a time? Because we do have multiple applicants. Whatever whatever makes it easier.

Why don't you read your names?

Okay. On the list that I have, I have, for Arts and Culture Commission, Sheridan Corey and Lauren Beanie. For the committee, for community involvement, I have Lance Wynard, Andrews Young, Suzanne Gringard. For Economic Development Committee, I had Lance Wynard, Russ Russell Williams, and Robert Lauren. And for library advisory board, I had reappointing.

Robert Lauren withdrawed himself.

Oh, Robert Lauren withdraw withdrew himself. Okay. So cancel that. Russ Williams and Lance Weinard. For library advisory board. I had reappointing Rachel Hyde, then there's another opening. And I need to review those applications of the four. And then for planning commission, I had reappointing Kate Schulte Hillen, and then Elizabeth Dietz. And then for police reunitement, as earlier stated, Steve Kramer, Michael Harper, Jack Snook, and then Tim Dooley as the functional alternate. And then SAB Michael Carlson is up for reappointment and has done an outstanding job.

So that was kinda my that was a list that council council president provided me. So any

I I would agree with that list.

Okay. Any other any other?

I would just make one additions, additional suggestion. Since one of the people that you had suggested for Economic Development Commission has apparently withdrawn their name, that we would appoint Sherry Wargrin.

I'm looking at your application right now. Looks it looks qualified. Yep. Uh-huh. Okay.

So and there was some earlier conversation about planning commission to myself and a counselor, and I'm wondering if anybody wants to discuss that particular applicant. Because the the concern raised was that the applicant for planning commission has testified at a previous hearing on a topic that will be become before the planning commission. And there's some issues with potential recusal and bias there that we wanna make sure we root out. And I understand there's interview and some folks who are satisfied with explanation.

Yes. The applicant did indicate their interest started as a result of a planning decision and process of a a use proposed use in their neighborhood. And they indicated their interest and engagement kind of led them to be in wanting to be involved in processes of the city. And I from the person's interview, answers and reactions, I believe they could be a good neutral decider, and I think they would be also willing to recuse themselves from that decision if that were to come before them that particular topic. So I was not concerned about their ability to be neutral decision making.

Thank you for that, Counselor Bryk. And then Counselor Groning.

And I would agree. I believe in the interview, it was clear that there was a broader interest than just the one topic.

Yeah, that seems like an effective avenue for people to become interested because they are involved in one issue. So, no, I have no objections.

Okay. Thank you. Well, this has been an easy easy process then. Thank thank you everybody. And I'm I was not suggesting we disqualify somebody over that. I just wanted to make sure that was

Yeah.

Wrote it out amongst the the city council at at during the meeting here tonight. Thank you. Before we made the appointments. I could I will now then place before the city council, Sheridan Corey and Lauren Bean to the Arts and Culture Commission, Lance Weinard, Anders Young, and Suzanne Gringard to the community community for community involvement, Russell Williams, Lance Weinard, and Sherry Walgar Wargren to the Economic Development Committee, Rachel Hyde to the Library Advisory Board, Catherine Schulte Hillen, and Elizabeth Dietz to the Planning Commission, Jack Snook, Steve Kramer, and Michael Harper as members of the Police Review and Recommend Committee, and Tim Dooley as the alternate to that committee, and Michael Carlson to the Sustainability Advisory Board.

I would just say that we did not suggest two for the library advisory board. There's two openings. Did you say two names?

I said Rachel Hyde. She's the reapplicant.

Okay. So there's

Any? Yeah. I understand that there may be a couple of more applicants for the sustainability advisory board.

No. I was talking about library.

Yeah. For so for the library advisory board, we've got one, two, four.

Yeah. I'm talking about sustainability.

Okay. You're bringing up sustainability advisory board. Okay. So and there's some new applicants cases that have come in.

Should we

All the council has had a chance to review those. So maybe we can do that one in January.

The sustainability?

Yes. Sustainability January. I mean, we can put one person on. We have Michael Carlson who applied on it. But you're bringing up so we can review that in in January. Is that

Yes.

Acceptable? They just came in. I just had to the esteemed Teresa sent us those applications today. They were okay. I think they came in over the weekend. So with regard to library advisory board, should we do that one in January as well? Yes. There's a few applicant. I'd like to take a look at those applications. But we can Let's Rachel Hyde is a reappointment. So she's

Okay.

Okay. I'm gonna go back and restart my list. I with I withdraw my placing before the council. You are no longer placed before the city council. And I re I'll re rebegin. Restart. I placed before the council appointing Sheridan Corey and Lauren Beaney to the Arts and Culture Commission. Lance Weinert, Anders Young, Suzanne Green to the committee for community involvement. Russell Williams, Lance Weinert, and Sherry Walgrin to the Economic Development Committee. Rachel Hyde to the Library Advisory Board, Katherine Schultz Hillen, and Elizabeth Deeds to the Planning Commission, Jack Snook, Steve Kramer, and Michael Harper to the Police Review and Recommend Committee with Tim Dooley as the alternate.

And with regard to sustainability advisory board appointing Michael Carlson to that committee. And we have vacancies on the transportation advisory board and utility advisory board as well with no applicants, but some may have come in more recently. Would somebody like to move to approve the mayor's appointments?

I move to approve the mayor's council liaison appoint oh, whoops. Nope. That's the wrong motion. I move to approve the mayor's council appointments. Sorry.

Community group appointments. It's been moved and second to approve the mayor's community advisory group council appointments. Any discussion? I appreciate council providing feedback today. We'll roll. Call the roll, please.

Council president Baumgartner? Yes. Council Groner? Yes. Council Bonington? Yes. Council Wright? Yes. Mayor Wiedelstoskie?

Yes. So the mayor's appointments are approved to the those community groups. And I wanna thank all those applicants who applied to serve on our committees. And I, of course, I wanna the council, I do send a letter out to folks who are selected and also gracious thank you for applying letter to those folks who are not selected.

And maybe we could let people know who didn't get appointed that there's other openings on other

That'd be great.

Advisories.

That would be great.

Thank you.

We could change the letter. We'll do that this time. And then they'll have some time to decide if they wanna apply to those other boards before our January meetings. So Hold

off on liaison.

Oh, yeah. The other thing we need to decide at some point, whether tonight or in 2026 can you believe we're saying it? We're 2026 almost everybody. Unbelievable. Time's flying.

I've been here since 2021 on city council. Is council liaisons, and those can rotate every year, or you can keep your own, what you have already, depending on needs. So perhaps the process can be, if you have any desire to switch liaisons, take on new roles, or or change your or keep your current ones, just let me know. And then between now and January, send me an email individually, no serial meetings. And then we can bring them to a meeting in in January and formalize the finalized appointments of of the liaison roles.

So you keep your current ones at least through December. We would have a vote in January on that. Is that acceptable to everybody? Unless anybody wants to go through them all right now at 08:00. No? Okay. Well, efficiently, we got through those matters, and I appreciate you putting it at the end of the agenda so we could have more of a discussion on that. And thanks for covering for me on the interviews. With that, we have a city manager report, the last before the holidays.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council. Another meeting full of decisions on a variety of topics, and I as always, I appreciate your attention. Earlier in the meeting, I had a moment and I looked on your meetings page and I found 60 meetings that you have held this year in 2025. And that includes your work sessions, your business meetings, your executive sessions, your meetings to discuss committee appointments, potential quorum notices.

So but it's a lot of work. And if you think about it, it's a tremendous amount of work. And I just wanna say thank you for the the time and effort and the thought that you put into it. I think you're doing an excellent job representing your community. Our next meeting is right now, it's not till the business meeting in January, January 13. The meeting next week has been canceled. We left that one open, and there's nothing that needs to be done at that. We do have a work session on January 6 that was originally gonna be canceled. Still still has nothing on it, but we're gonna talk internally about whether it would make sense to use that to pick up some of the items that you talked about this evening. Otherwise, the next scheduled one is the January 13.

We'll do the council liaison appointments, elect the council president, and we have a few other topics that may be on that agenda as well. So you have almost a month off.

Are we gonna have a retreat again in January?

Yes. So next on next on the list is weather and and what topics. I'm not gonna ask you to decide this tonight. I'll work with the mayor on it. But traditionally, we would do a priority setting retreat at the beginning of the year.

We may want to bring the maybe that the top priority is to finish the discussion you had tonight about the financial strategic plan. So this would be putting together some elements for a possible bond measure that you discussed, thinking about the timing of other things that need to be done, and really putting that together so that we could talk to the community about here's what we're doing when on each of the pieces. So that might be the top priority item to spend a concentrated bunch of time on in 2026 in January. And I think that would be fantastic. So 60 meetings, I think I've said just about everything I could say.

Today, the last couple of days, crazy days in the city with the weather. I know our folks were out chasing inlet chasing, as Eric said, chasing water all over the town. Lots of blocked inlets, lots of little minor floods here and there. We've noticed people in neighborhoods doing their part to rake out storm drains. We appreciate that when they see it.

If they can do it, that's a great way to go. Obviously, we're available to show up to take care of the big emergencies. We've had a few problems here and there. Obviously, the biggest one was the tree down on Willamette Falls Drive, and the power lines all twined into that, and power out for a good chunk of the day. I know PGE had to take the lead in dealing with the power lines that were on the ground before our crews could get in there and start chopping up the tree and moving it out of the way.

But I appreciate everyone. I spent some time out in the rain the last couple of days just seeing what people were up to. Saw our workers in the full raincoats out doing things, and I just think it's I just think it's fabulous, the work that they do. So I appreciate them. On our upcoming calendar, the only other thing I could think of is the holiday parade this Saturday evening. So I think some of you will be there. And that's about it. I think I have for staff report tonight.

Thank you. Mister Williams, any

Yep.

Anything else from city council for the good of the order? Alright. And we are adjourned. Happy holidays, everybody, and happy New Year as well. We'll see you in 2026. Thank you.