City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, Kami. Welcome to the July 1st, 2026 regular city council meeting. If you please stand for the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. Dearly Father, thank you so much for this great community. Thank you for the grace that you provide us. I thank you for the leaders that we have in our community. I want to thank you for allowing me and those gathered to live in a great country as the United States. And we are able to celebrate 250 years as a country. So so few years on the grand scheme of things, but so much and so many freedoms that we are thankful for. I ask that you continue to bless this community, keep it in your grace, and protect the men and women that serve to protect it and all the other first responders in our community. I ask this in your name. Amen.

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

Thank you. Sugar. Miss Meyer, roll call.

Councilor Patten. Here. Councilor Maldonado is absent. Council President Hensley. Here. Mayor Hodson.

Here.

Councilor Davis.

Here.

Councilor Stearns.

Here.

And Councilor Waterman.

Here. Thank you. Mr. Ely, there's no staff introductions this evening. All right. Next item on the agenda, item four, citizen input and public comment on non-agenda items and community announcements. Opportunity to address the council on non-agenda items. If you wish to address the council... Please fill out a white card and bring it up here to our city recorder, and you'll be given three minutes to address the council. If we can handle it and solve it tonight, we will. If not, Mr. Ely and I will figure that out and solve it at a later date. Not seeing anyone rushing the table. I do have one white card, but that's for a public hearing piece later this evening. Next on the agenda is item five, which tonight we have a special presentation. We're making a presentation of the Hometown Hero Award. Before we really further embarrass the person that's getting it. The Hometown Hero Award, so just a little history, and I'll hold it up when I come down, but we have a plaque that's held up in City Hall, and it's got a list of a number of community members that have been nominated by other citizens, so we asked that more than one person just walks in and says, hey, I want to make this person a hometown hero. It is a number of people that come together to make the recommendation for the council. And this one was pretty unanimous when it was brought up. I mean, I guess. But it's had some very, very high-profile people that have been in our community, superintendents, former city councilors, longtime volunteers in our community, and other figures that have contributed to our community for for a long time. And so tonight, we are going to be recognizing as our newest hometown hero, Chief George Trow. So we'll read this. The City of Canby Hometown Hero is being presented to Chief George Trow. True heroism is not about the uniform you wear, but the heart you bring to the Canby community every single day. In recognition of your exceptional leadership, unwavering protection, and deep love for our community, Through long nights, tough challenges, and daily acts of quiet courage, you kept our family safe. You did not just lead our police force. You served as a pillar of strength, kindness, and hope for every citizen in Canby. Thank you for your sacrifice, your grit, and your dedication to public service through community-specific policing. To our town, you are more than the retiring chief of police. You are our neighbor and our true Canby hometown hero. This is given to my hand this first day of July in 2026. And we should have put your wife's name in here as well, cuz we know that it doesn't happen without big support at home.

Thank you. This really means a lot to me. I don't know. Most of you know that I grew up in Southern California. I was all in Southern California. I was a surfer kid. I was a skater kid. I thought I would live and die in Southern California. But I met a girl, and guess where she was from? Canby, Oregon. And I was like, where the heck is Canby, Oregon? Anyways, we ended up getting married. I took her down to California for a couple years, and she says, heck no, I want to go back to Canby, Oregon. So I tell people she... brought me kicking and screaming. Wasn't that bad, but got here. But let me tell you, when we got here, we were all in candy. We bought a house here. We had our kids here. Our kids went to school here. I jumped into various coaching, right? From softball to soccer to football to baseball, mainboards, rotary. And let me tell you, it became my hometown. And I love this place. I'll continue to serve in this community, even as a citizen. So thank you.

So this is the plaque that ended up in City Hall, and the newest badge added to it, Chief George Stroman. So congratulations, sir. Thank you. Thank you for all your service. Another photo. Of course. Right here.

Photo up. You've got to pay attention to all your photogs.

And you've got to say, all these officers here, because one of them, Jose Gonzalez, as you know, he's going to be acting chief for the first thing that he ordered everybody to come to him.

I do understand that there's an official retirement party for you, Chief, on July 10th at two o'clock. So there'll be snacks, treats, and hazing, and all sorts of crazy stories about Chief Trow. So everyone, please show up, say your thanks.

I was gonna invite any hazing tonight. Oh, any good stories? Are we waiting?

Nate, I'm sure you've got a couple. Schmoda?

Kerry, you got anything?

Again, not appropriate for here.

I'm still chief for seven more days. We'll get to hear him at the next meeting.

Yeah, there we go. Well, as Chief Trost said, Captain Gonzalez will be Stepanizzi interim chief for a while. So I appreciate him doing that. And that's... Yeah, that's a big step in, and we appreciate that. So thank you for doing that. George, I know that we'll see you around after retirement. Maybe not fully for a little while, but again, thank you so much. It's been great working with you and having you as our chief for as long as we got to have you. So thank you. Great. You guys going to stick around for the whole meeting, or do you want to take a moment and go? All right. Thanks, you guys.

Hi, Sugar. Hi, Sugar.

It's like everyone's saying my name. Where do I go?

Yeah, right there.

This is a pretty neat letter. It's a very good letter.

I think when I made a recommendation letter, I was like, I fully support this, but I couldn't read the letters.

All right, item six this evening. There's nothing that's been removed from the consent agenda, so we'll move into the consent agenda.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the consent agenda that includes approval of the minutes of June 3rd, 2026 City Council meeting.

Thank you. Second. a motion made by Council President Hensley and seconded by Councilor Davis to approve the consent agenda, which include the minutes of the June 3rd, 2026 City Council regular meeting. All those in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Passes 5-0. We have no board appointments this evening. We do have two public hearings that we get to go through this evening, so we'll launch into that. The first one here, is regarding resolution 1463, approving updated system development methodology and charges. So the, The matter presently before the hearing body requires a public hearing. All interested persons in attendance shall be heard on the matter. The public hearing was noticed and those who wish to speak were instructed to contact the city recorder. At this time we have, I do have one card here and then two letters on the matter which will be addressed later. but I don't think there's anyone else regarding that right now. Those people that are interested in testifying as either proponents or opponents, please indicate your desire to speak by raising your hands at this time or handing a card into the city recorder, which I think we got one of those. So thank you, sir. For longer presentations, proponents and opponents may buy time from one another. In so doing, those either in favor or opposed may allocate their time to a spokesperson who will represent the entire group. All questions must be directed through the mayor. Any evidence to be considered must be submitted to the hearing body for public access. All written testimony received both for and against shall be summarized by staff and presented briefly to the hearing body during the staff report. The public hearing will be conducted as follows. There will be a staff report... to be provided by Don Harding, our planning director. Then there will be any questions by the hearing body or additional staff. I will then open the public hearing for testimony. Proponents will be given not more than three minutes and opponents not more than three minutes. And from there, I will then close the public hearing and then any additional questions, if any, by the hearing body and then discussion by the hearing body. A decision shall be made by the hearing body at the close of the hearing or the matter will be continued to a date certain in the future. This will be the only notice of the date you will receive. Does anyone have any questions about the procedure of the hearing? Okay, seeing none, we will begin with our staff report.

Mr. Hardy. Good evening, Mayor Hodson and council members. I have Todd Chase here with FCS Group, a Bowman company. He'll be going through our PowerPoint presentation tonight. FCS assisted the city greatly in this process over the last two years, putting the system development charges together. I did want to have a few comments before Todd got into the PowerPoint. this evening. Just kind of summarizing the overall focus here tonight on the system development charges. It's been a while since system development charges have been updated since 2013 for parks and transportation. So you might hear some testimony tonight about the quantum increases. That means, I think looking at this, from the perspective of housing prices since 2013, probably reflects almost the same increase that we're talking about in terms of percentage increases for SDCs that are before you tonight. So just a perspective here on this. I did want to mention tonight, we're going to be looking at stormwater, sanitary sewer parks and transportation system development charges tonight to update those. There are recent work processes that we went through for both parks and for transportation. We adopt our transportation system plan that is in the process of being acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The parks list, the 20 year parks list was heavily vetted through numerous discussions with Parks and Rec Advisory Board and through council discussions. And these are fairly large increases, and there's also the vision for Canby having 10 acres per thousand, which is aspirational. and thus the increase that is there. They were higher to begin with, just from context. They were higher at the beginning of this process when council first laid out the overall park list and then Parks and Recreation had their list and then it further got reduced from there. A few things in terms of like the process here. So we are looking at residential rates. We're proposing that there be five cohorts in that. Those are scalable by home size. That does reduce the square footage. It's proportionate to the square footage. So there'd be five cohorts here. We are proposing a three year period for parks phase in given the magnitude of the parks increase. That'll be one item for discussion tonight and I'm sure you all will be discussing about that. We are not going to be addressing affordable housing as a rate reduction. That's gonna be a separate ordinance. We'll be going through that separately. That's a pretty in-depth item by itself, and that gets into what kind of covenants we would have for either waivers or partial waivers or a flat-out multiplier that would reduce rates for affordable housing, which would generally be 80% or less of medium family income. We would recommend that the rates, if you all are in favor of adoption tonight, that there be a 60-day implementation timeframe, which would put us to August 31st. That's for a couple reasons. One is just a fairness issue to the development community to put that as a line out there to basically allow for some consideration of that, as well as staff needing some time to put together revised templates, because this methodology is slightly different than what we currently have. and we want to be able to tell people immediately what their SDCs are upon implementation. The other part of this which kind of ties into that is if folks submitted a building permit and they were in a building permit process, not issued but submitted building permit before August 31st, they would be vested to the prior SDC rates and that's a fairness issue for financing. I did wanna mention in your packets, you have it before you, we did a couple of small changes on the resolution. I just wanted to tie that back in. So this would be, there's several things in your packet. So the adoption really tonight is really the two items are the system development charge update methodology report. That's a system development charge update. And then there's a sanitary and sewer stormwater 2025 SDC update is also being adopted. That's a compliment to the methodology report. And then also we're adopting the capital improvement plans as part of this resolution as well. Since the capital improvement plans are included in the SDC methodology, the resolution serves to adopt both the methodology and the capital improvement plans in the document that's pursuant to our legal counsel. So with that, I did, before I turn it over to Todd, we did receive several letters. They were of concern on the the need to have some phase in. There was a request to phase in the transportation over a three year period and the parks over a five year period. We are proposing an immediate, there's no phase in for transportation and we are proposing a three year for parks. That's part of a discussion tonight. We're happy to have that discussion. of phasing in the transportation. The transportation SDC did go down quite a bit. There's some changes in state law regarding financially constrained list, which is our 20 year list and our project list. Previous to that, you could do financially constrained and unconstrained, and that was a much higher number initially, and so that transportation fee went substantially down, thus the reason we are requesting as part of our recommendation that there would not be a phase in, but we're open to discussion on that. And as I said, the request from the two letters are regarding a five-year phase-in for Parks SDC, and that's from Home Building Association of Greater Portland, and I think Ben will be speaking on that tonight. We've got another letter today from Polish Homes requesting the same consideration. So again, we're open to that discussion on that topic issue about phase in over time. So I just wanted to let you know that's some items before you. So with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Todd for the PowerPoint.

Thank you. Thank you, Don. Nice to be back in Canby. I appreciate the opportunity to work with the city for now over 32 years on different projects. And this is a long due update of your development impact fees, also known as system development charges. in Oregon, I believe we worked on your last round of updates for parks and transportation. I did personally about 14 years ago. And in Oregon, cities don't have the luxury of sales taxes and business and occupancy taxes and real estate transfer taxes. So when you're growing a city like Canby, impact fees are really your only chance, your one shot at getting some revenue from new development to help pay for the cost of growth. So it's a very important topic for cities like Canby that are growing. We're going to cover a lot tonight and I apologize in advance for all the numbers. It's going to be a lot of numbers. We're going to try to get to the bottom line where you'll see that your proposed system development charge rates for Canby will go from basically among the lowest in the region to about the middle of the pack. still well below cities like Tigard and Wilsonville, but definitely in kind of a competitive area for other cities in the region. We're gonna cover the background, the methodology. We're gonna focus on sewer, storm, transportation, parks. And as Don mentioned, talk about some of the implementation recommendations and policy considerations, as well as jurisdictional comparisons. We issued this draft methodology report over 60 days ago, so state requirement, put them in the street for 60 days to get input. We have some input now, so I think we've done that procedural item. And tonight, we can adopt the report, I think, with amendments. There might be some amendments, or we can, after public input, we can consider another adoption hearing before full adoption can occur. SDCs have a legal framework in Oregon. It's very well spelled out. They are charges by government agencies that establish a charge for capital improvements needed to serve the growth created by development of a system. So not local streets, but collector streets and not... not small sewer and water connections, but trunk lines and larger system improvements like catch basins and things like that. They're one-time charges. They don't affect existing homes unless you're going to come in for a building permit and you're going to basically do something different that's going to require a land use approval that's going to increase demand on the system, whether it be more water, more sewer, more trips. That will trigger the SDC calculation. They're for capital, not operations, not maintenance, and they can be for existing improvements that have excess capacity to handle future growth that are already paid for, already constructed, and they can be for future and planned improvements as well. So you'll see in this methodology we have some of these facilities with both what's called a reimbursement charge for existing facilities, and some with just the improvement fee for future improvements. The components of the SDC calculation, as I mentioned, include the reimbursement fee for some facilities, the improvement fee for planned facilities that are in the adopted long range capital facility plans, and a compliance fee for administering and updating the SDC program. We have different capital project lists for each of the utility types. This one is for parks. This one was heavily vetted with the Parks Advisory Committee, with council itself. We had lots of input. We got it down to some high priority improvements over the next 20 years. It's a 20 year list. It's doable. We have 103 million in project costs, 103.35. And the SDC eligibility share is about 45%. So you're gonna need to come up with some additional funding sources beyond SDCs to pay for these facilities. We could talk about that. Some jurisdictions pass bonds to do this. Sometimes we do partnerships with other agencies or with special districts to implement some of these facilities. Sometimes we use urban renewal funds. to pay for some of these projects. But in total, we have about 46.7 million in SDC eligible costs. And these projects are really defining projects for the city of Canby, I feel, to continue to make you a very attractive community in light of growth. And as you add more jobs in the planned employment expansion areas, these can become great amenities for those businesses that want to hire workers to the local area. We're also gonna be talking about scaling the fees by home size. Canby doesn't do this currently. You have one fee regardless of home size in Canby. And using information from the Census Bureau, we can now kind of correlate the relationship between occupants in a home and the size of the home square fee. And it's a logarithmic equation. It's not linear. And it tends to decline in terms of occupancy as home size increases. So it does reach a peak at about 3,500 square feet, and then it starts going down. So we're going to recommend a fee, maximum fee, for homes over a certain size. So we're gonna cover all these utilities. I'm gonna pull these two together, sanitary, sewer and storm. You had master plan updates conducted over the last year. And based on those master plans, and this will be attached to the methodology report in the appendix. What it's basically concluding is that these fees will not change much. Your current existing sanitary sewer and storm SDCs are shown on the top box there. It's about $4,148 for a single family home, $3,286 for multifamily. And your updated SDCs actually go down a little bit for the stormwater category and up a little bit for sanitary sewer. So they don't change much. You have a lot of projects on your list that have been constructed and moved to the reimbursement charge, and you still have some future projects in your long-range plan that are included. But overall, the fees are about sized appropriately for your community for sanitary sewer and storms. We're not touching water because that's handed by Canby utility. It's a whole separate charge, but these are the ones the city can control. Transportation and parks are the ones with the biggest change. And we have a large transportation system plan project list. It's been narrowed down to the fiscally constrained projects, which still add up to about $196 million over the next 20 years. Oh, I'm sorry, the total project list is 196 million. If we take out the less financially unconstrained, pull those out, then we're down to 51.775 million for the fiscally constrained list. And we pulled out some outside funding, which can come from ODOT, potentially with grants, or some developer contributions for other projects. And we pulled out the fund balance that you currently have in your STC account to come up with your total current system development charge cost basis of $34.89 million. and we add in the compliance costs to come up with a adjusted cost base and divide that by your peak hour of vehicle trip total projected growth rate over 20 years, 3,370 is what the DKS transportation system plan predicts. Inside your current city limits, UGB really, There will be growth beyond that that's not included in this list. And there will be projects beyond this list that aren't reflected because we're really focusing on that area inside your current UGB. If you do expand to UGB in a year or two, you're going to probably want to come up with a supplemental transportation impact fee or STC for those areas. And they'll probably be the only ones paying it, but it will be a higher rate for those areas probably. So the new TSDC rate per peak hour trip would be about $10,716. And we then translate that into different types of housing units. We average it out for single family. Single family, as I mentioned, has a, in this case, a 0.91 peak hour vehicle trip rate. So it's slightly lower than the 1.0. And so they come up with a slightly lower rate than your peak hour vehicle trip number. But you can see that you're currently charging $4,612 for those single family homes. The new average rate would be $10,394. So what we're going to do is we're going to recommend that you scale these by home size. So the smaller homes pay about half this. Standard homes will pay about this amount. Larger homes will pay a bit more. And that will still be revenue neutral, depending on the amount of development you get in the different categories. And we might want to come back and recalibrate this in five years. That's what a lot of cities are doing. We also, for the first time, have an affordable housing unit rate from the IT trip generation handbook, 12th edition. We now have a new trip gen rate for affordable housing units that we can apply to this. And so we would... That would bring us down to about $5,036 per affordable housing unit. And that's for deed-restricted affordable housing. And you can define what that is at some point in time. But that's a new rate that we're recommending you carry in. And what you'll see in this methodology report is basically we're identifying what is the maximum defensible charge. Cities can always charge less. And so this methodology report, once it's adopted, will be the basis for the detailed rates that you adopt subsequently down the road. Time real quick. Sure.

I'm sure Ely has a question.

Very briefly, thank you, Mayor. On this slide, just putting it in a sentence structure, we are looking in Canby, you have determined, and with Don, a total TSP worth nearly $200 million, correct, of projects.

Yeah, that's in the TSP. Yeah, they're all identified.

So I'm just trying to drill down on how you get all the way down to the maximum defensible SDC rate of only $35 million. You're backing out a lot of dollars, right? So for the council's edification and mayor and staff, that seems really low, like a low number for us to have to come up with as a small city to do $200 million of project costs. Am I reading that right? You're saying ODOT's gonna give us funding potentially, I'm not sure about that. We can get grants and then there's the language of fiscally constrained versus fiscally unconstrained, which is, I'm just curious how the math works that we're only eligible to charge STC off of 35 million when we have a $200 million list. Am I saying that right first of all?

Yeah, I understand the question. And if you were to include the total project cost, and some cities do this, they do include the total project cost. And what they'll do is they'll justify a fee that's four times higher than this, which is $40,000 per housing unit. The narrow interpretation of the recently revised state law is that a fiscally constrained project list needs to guide your SDC development in terms of how you create it. And so that's to be based on what's likely to be funded based on the city's rates and charges and bonds and gas tax revenue and all those other sources of funds. To the degree, there are a couple of additional projects you think could be added to this list. you have that option. And if they're very important projects that aren't in the fiscally constrained list that the council really wants to see on this STC list, you have that prerogative.

That's all. Thank you. And Todd, so the state law change, I think, in a nutshell, is fiscally constrained plus another 25% is the statute. So there are limits to what can be collected here legally. So just, I mean, we've done the best, essentially, we only stand, we've done the best we can within the state law parameters. We're charging what should be charged for transportation and not more than that. I mean, that's really the message here.

And I would add that if you do expand the urban growth boundary around Canby, it's a time to revisit that project list again, and maybe pull some of the projects that were in the unconstrained list into that new SDC supplemental fee that might get mostly assessed to the development that's happening around the city. You have that option as well. So yeah, those are important. Parks, parks is another biggie. With parks, we have the SDCI, First Comm, which is the future improvements, and the SDCR, which are the projects you've built in the last 10 years. And so you have 103.4 million in future projects. For parks, you have 3.5 million in projects you've built. We have a non-eligible share we pulled out, which is the portion that does not increase your level of service. It's the portion that maintains your level of service, doesn't increase it beyond what you currently have. And so... your net project cost for capacity is what we're using for the SDC basis. We did pull out the current fund balance and we added in the compliance fee. It's a little less than transportation to come up with the adjusted cost basis for parks. we did allocate it between residential and non-residential, which is something you currently do, I believe. And yeah, you do. And that gave us a residential share and a non-residential share. And then we divided that by growth in dwelling units or growth in projected jobs. In this case, because you do have some projects outside your current UGB potentially, we did use the bigger number for parks to come up with the rates for jobs and dwelling units. It did still result in a very high parks SDC, compared to what you're currently charging compared to the region too, we'll talk about that. But basically, your current rate per single family home $7,784. The updated rate per average home would be $19,344. So it's a significant increase. And that's why we're recommending that you phase this in over three years. The rate per job also, your current rate per job is $628. The updated rate is $1,316. So we don't charge per job directly. We charge per square foot in our calculations. But that does result in a higher fee per square foot for non-residential development. So that's how parks plays out. If we were to phase in the parks, which is what we're recommending, your current rate for single family home would go from about $7,784 on average to $11,607. Again, we're going to scale this by size. And then the next year, we go to $15,476. Year three, if you adopt a three-year phase, it would go to $19,344. Some cities might freeze it at 80%. Depending on the amount of development that happens in the next couple years, you might decide you don't wanna go beyond the 80% phase-in. So councils have that prerogative as well. So that's how that plays out. You can see how the multifamily rate would go from about 8,068 to 10,060 in year one, 13,414 in year two and 16,767 in year three, which proposing that you charge those based on the dwelling unit, not the square foot. It's a little easier to administer that way. Now, when we talk about parks STCs for employment, what we're gonna recommend is that you begin to aggregate some of these employment categories into a number of categories. We're showing industrial, warehousing distribution, storage, retail slash commercial, service, which is typically office, accommodations, recreation, which is lodging primarily, I guess the fairgrounds would fall into that category. And then we end up with a rate per square foot, a maximum rate. And we could phase that in as well. And then in more detail, the way you do this is when we have these categories, we'd have to identify a national North American industrial classification code for each category. Every business in Oregon that reports unemployment insurance to the state has to list their NAICS code to the state. So it's pretty easy for businesses to identify what that is. But depending on that NAICS code, primary, purpose of the business, they would fall into one of these categories. So the implementation side of life, if you adopt this methodology report, we adopt the maximum defensible fees. Next question is, what are the procedures? How do you administer this? And we're recommending a three-year phase-in for parks, as I mentioned, just to keep this in balance with other city charges for parks. And the transportation, it could be higher, sure, if we add more projects to the list. But the way it pans out now, we recommend you just go ahead and adopt the increase in year one. Sanitary sewer and storm, not much of a change. So that seems pretty straightforward in how you'd implement this. Water, we don't control that. It's not scaled by home size. And so we can phase in this rate for parks, add these other fees, and then using that, we can begin to scale the fees. And as Don mentioned, this is where we'd like some council input and public input. You have the option of... of doing a couple things. One is you could group these homes into five cohorts, very small, which is like the accessory dwelling units, 500 to 1,000, which are kind of cottage homes, small, kind of alley loaded, detached homes or single family attached homes, 1,000 to 1,500 square feet, two to three bedrooms there. Larger standard size, 1,500 to 2,000. And then the large peaks out about 2,500 square feet is where the maximum fee would be, which peaks out about 37,750 total, including water. So we recommend you could either go with these cohorts Or you could come up with a fee per square foot for parks, storm, sanitary, sewer, and transportation, and just let that be the fee per square foot up to the maximum, $37,750. $37,750, and then that's the max. So that's an easy way to do it. Again, these are gross rates. If somebody is knocking down one house and building two, they wouldn't pay for two homes. They'd pay for the one, the one increase, one net new home. So if somebody is taking down a retail center and building a mixed use center, we'd have to discount the retail rates and what they would have been before we calculate their net fee. So these are really gross fees on raw land is what these are showing. So yeah, we look forward to input on that. There's a couple other items we'll talk about for input when we get to that slide. This slide shows where you are currently on the left, just above Silverton in terms of your current average SDCs per single family home. Year one, you'd get above Malala, just below Oregon City. Year two, you'd be just above or equal with Hillsborough. below Tigard and King City. Year three, you'd still be in that category. So, you know, and you can see the parks is the green bar in the stacked bar. So a lot of your fees are going towards parks. Parks, transportation is in red, and the hatched red. So I think the market would support this overall. These are your fee comparison tables, how these fees by non-residential use type would change. Don did a good job giving me all these prototypical examples to talk about. We can study this. And basically, this one's just showing transportation. So you can see some of the fees will go up, some will go down. The ones that would go down include the community center goes down a bit for what you're currently charging. A memory care facility would go down. The golf course driving range would go down a little bit. Fairgrounds fee would go down a little bit. Your hotel fee would go down a little bit. The other ones would go up. you know, measurably at full phase in. Parks, they pretty much all go up except for one, the manufacturing category. And the reason that goes down is, well, because you're increasing the fee per job. True, but we're also decreasing the job density. We have some current data for job density per square foot for manufacturing. And it goes down a bit over what you were assuming 10 years ago or 14 years ago. Non-residential fees for parks in year two, you can see it just basically changes the situation a little more. And year three, even more. So the fees that went up, went up a little more. Fees that went down, went down less. Combined transportation and parks, same deal. We still go down with the community center. We go up, you know, food, I put the charge per unit. Food cart pods would go up by $946 per pod, roughly. Restaurant, up $6.13 per square foot. Community center down seven, almost $8 a square foot. You can see how these pan out. The big ones, the commercial shopping center would go up by $10, 35 cents per square foot. Some of the others will go down. Hotels will go down by 347 per room. Todd question.

Sure. What if it's purely methodology and, and I apologize for not grasping it, but something like the fairgrounds or a memory care facility, those are significant decreases. And why, why the, what leads to the decrease?

It's because we put it into a category that resulted in less trips and less jobs per thousand square feet.

So it's purely job related in regards to like the memory care and the fairgrounds.

Yeah. I mean, if I go back to transportation on memory care and fairgrounds, You can see this goes down. Now, I believe your current methodology for transportation is based on equivalent length average daily trips. This is based on peak hour vehicle trips. So, you know, that's a difference. They don't generate a lot of peak hour vehicle trips. And that's one reason why that goes down. Parks goes up. So it's mostly transportation there. And then we compare this to Wilsonville as well. Are those in here? Maybe not. Oh, there it is. Okay, that's year three, year two, year one. So compared to Wilsonville, you can see Cambie would be a lot less, a lot lower in every category. significantly lower. In year one, in year two, and year three.

Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir. Todd, is that because of what I was raising earlier? Is Wilsonville one of those cities that's charging the full boat for the entire project list? I mean, that's pretty, this is crazy right here. Probably.

And yeah, and these are their citywide fees. I mean, they don't have a lot of non-residential development in Frog Pond. Frog Pond would be twice as this rate if they did. And I'll tell you, we're doing some work in Wilsonville. They're not getting a lot of development right now. So their fees might be a little too high for the market.

So is this... you know, not to say we roll up the sidewalks and say close for business, but too much, we get that same piece.

So it's really interesting. You know, you do this work in kind of the bottom up, and then you look at it. Here's how we stand. Yes, Councilor Stearns.

So I noticed these are 20 year projections on costs and if you factored in inflation, basically just doing a quick math in the top of my head, in 20 years, a three to 4% inflation would double any costs 20 years from now than they are today. Are those factored in?

Yeah, these are in 20, $26. So, you know, we'd recommend every year you escalate it depending on the inflation rate. Some years it may not go up.

And so as part of our annual process, and this is the SDC portion, when you all see that, we're adopting this tonight, but there is an inflationary index to our fees every year. Engineer daily record. It's ENRD, I think is the abbreviation. And so there's an inflation index that we're using and everybody else uses in Oregon as well. So we are indexing these per year automatically every year.

Yeah, a lot to think about. So, you know, the policy options, you know, on phasing is one for parks. And now we've been, you know, we have the transportation question as well. Scaling, do you charge us to rate per square foot up to a max? Or do you go ahead and create, you know, five cohorts or so? When's the effective date? Don talked about that being end of August.

August 31st is our recommendation.

And then the grace period for permits in process.

Can we go back to the comparison of the other cities?

All cities?

Yeah. Is this the slide you wanted? Yeah. Okay. So right now, so this is the assumption that while we go up, you know, up to our year three, that's the assumption that all the other cities stay the same is what we're looking at here, right? So... even by the time we get the year three, we could be back down into the lower 25% of everybody else by year three. So just wanna try to keep that in mind as well, as far as looking at, you know, buildability and affordability compared to neighboring communities.

Other, yes. Mr. Mayor, council, can Todd and Don just clarify what the action items are again for council tonight? What you're asking them to do versus what can be maybe saved for later when it comes to phasing, is that tonight? When it comes to scaled by home size, is that tonight? a larger discussion we can have later with the development community. Just what are the musts tonight versus the nice to haves for council?

We would like, the phasing is pretty important. I think you're gonna hear in public testimony that the phasing is important. We're happy to have that conversation. We'd like that to be included. We'd like the cohorts to be included. We think that's a, That's an affordability issue. Our housing production strategy reflects that as a strategy as well. So that would be consistent with what's already been adopted as a housing production strategy. We'd like to have this effective 60 days after it's adopted, whether that's tonight or on July 15. And those are the main considerations tonight. And we're open to discussion on any of those items. So basically all four of these.

Okay, that's what we wanted to know.

Okay. Councillor Stearns. There's maybe a question for Randy or the finance director is the current STD fees that we have, STC fees, sorry, that we have, Are there any projects that are now constrained because there are not enough money in, in other words, is there a surplus or a deficit according to the currently budgeted process? And the point I'm trying to get is the timing of when the money comes in, how important that is.

I don't want to speak for Denise, but I'll answer that question with one word, deficit. For example, in parks, we have a balance of $550,000 in parks SDCs, and we just had a conversation earlier tonight about costs. But I would be interested in going back to the slide on the cohorts really quick, and wondering if there's a policy conversation to be had about how do you incentivize starter homes for first time home buyers that are building for builders that wanna build in Canby of a home for 500 to 1,000 square feet if they promise to put it on the market for say $450,000 and we waive STCs to incentivize that and you get families. That's how we lean into that conversation. I don't know if that's something...

I mean, if that could be baked into a future conversation, we would have... Yeah, that to me seems like that'd be a future... I mean, we're fine tonight if that's... We don't want that to be a stumbling block, but we clearly are going to come back. And I totally agree with what Randy's saying that it's more than just maybe the 80% or less MFI, which is extremely difficult to hit that mark because housing is so incredibly expensive. But like there's a multitude of other things that we could do as a discussion with council, which I think is like, what about the more, you know, What is the affordability price point? How can we get to that? Whatever that MFI is, it's more affordable. It's maybe not affordable, but it's more affordable in that sense. And we clearly could have that conversation later if that's something you all would like to defer.

Mr. Pound, you have a question or?

Yeah, so I just want to make sure I understood what I think just came of this whole thing. Is that you wanted an opinion from us tonight about whether we're going to do cohorts or square foot. But if we say cohorts, we don't necessarily have to say this is the cohorts. Or we say this is the cohorts, but we're going to... This is just for now. And then later we can have a more in-depth conversation and then change these cohorts after that.

We could do it in a number of ways. What you just said could be an option. There's nothing that would prohibit us from coming back and having a separate ordinance that addressed more targeted housing that was kind of identified separately from this. I think it would probably make sense to adopt this generally speaking at whatever price point these are at and then have another conversation later as part of affordable housing where we could look at what Randy was talking about as a 450 as the price point. What do we do as a separate ordinance? I don't think that needs to be baked into a broader STC conversation. That's a housing affordability conversation that could be done later as a separate ordinance. which we're already tracking as housing production strategies as well. So I think that could be completely separate from this conversation. I do think there's a bit of equity in this though, that I would recommend that we adopt this because I do think, you know, right now, if you're building an ADU, you should not be paying the same rate as you're paying for a 2,500 square foot home. It's crazy. And that's about what our current situation is in our current SDCs.

Well, and that's been to that point, that has been a big, I mean, we, made it possible for ADUs in our community. And I think last kick time, we talked about it. Now this has been a couple of years. I think we had five.

We get maybe one or two a year. I mean, that's about all we get. And then they find out what the SDCs are. If we're lucky. I mean, it's really difficult to do that.

Any other questions before I open the hearing? No, okay. Todd, if you could bring up the decision points that you need for tonight just for us as a reference point here in our, as we get into testimony and in our conversation. Okay, perfect, thank you. All right, I will officially open the public hearing. So any proponents that wish to address the council? I don't have any or cards speaking to any, so I will move on to opponents. So first, I do have a couple of cards, but I do have some letters that had been asked to be read into the record. The first one is from the Homebuilding Association of Greater Portland. Dear Mayor Hodson and counselors, the Home Building Association of Greater Portland represents builders across our region, including many of the businesses engaging in home production in Canby. When you consider the adoption of your updated SDC methodology on July 1st, we urge you to adopt a longer phase in, three years for the proposed transportation SDC and five years for the proposed parks SDC. Home building continues to face headwinds across the region from continued cost escalation to a flagging economy. These challenges are reflected in the numbers. In 2025, Oregon permitted approximately 33% fewer homes than it did in 2019. Many of the issues the home production industry is confronting are far beyond the scope of a local government to address. However, choosing to phase in a transportation STC increase of 125% and a parks STC increase of 148% over multiple years would emphasize Canby's commitment to aiding new housing production and providing cost certainty for the homes already planned for construction in the near term. Extended phase-ins now during a down market will preserve the city's cost recovery when the market improves. As mentioned in our previous letter on March 31st, we continue to have concerns about the size and scope of the parks SDC. As proposed, parks SDCs will increase from 47% of the total city imposed SDC charge to 56%. representing over $19,000 of the proposed $34,257 cost for each single family home built in Canby. This fee exceeds those of peer cities in the Metro area as much as 50% and does nothing to address long-term maintenance needs for both new and existing infrastructure. Parks STCs may only be used for construction of capital projects related to growth, not for maintenance. The Canby City Council has mentioned on numerous occasions that the community has expressed a desire for a more robust park system. This is an opportune time to pause adoption of the parks STC for a broader discussion on how to best develop and maintain a park system that meets community goals. While STCs may play a role in funding future parks and recreation facilities, current residents will surely have to bear the cost as well. The full funding and maintenance picture of Canby's park system remains fuzzy. The second letter we received from Palish Homes Dear Mayor Hodson and Councilors, Palace Homes supports the phase-in period recommended by the Home Building Association of Greater Portland in its June 30th letter. Three years for Transportation STC and five years for the Parks STC. As a production builder, Pallage Homes plans and prices communities years in advance of vertical construction. STC increases of this magnitude proposed, 125% increase to transportation STCs and 148% increase to parks STCs land differently on a master plan community than on a single lot. They apply across every unit in a project already underwritten, platted and priced often before construction begins. A multi-year phasing gives builders like Palish the ability to honor commitments already made on homes in the pipeline while the city works towards a full cost recovery target. We also share HBA's concern regarding the size of the proposed parks STC relative to peer jurisdictions and its limited use of capital construction rather than maintenance. A phased approach allows the city and the development community time to continue the conversation about how Canby funds and maintains the park system residents have asked for without imposing the full increase on homes already committed to production. Palish values its relationship with the city and looks forward to continuing to build in Canby. We appreciate the council's consideration of a phase-in that supports continued housing production while the city works towards its infrastructure funding goals. Sincerely, Jason Meyer, Chief Communications Officer, Palish Homes. on the card front here. I have Ben Hemsin with HBA to talk about the methodology. Please, sir.

Well, thank you, Mayor Hodson, members of the council, Ben Hempstead with the HPA. I didn't realize the mayor would read my letter, so thank you. You covered a lot of the points I wanted to make. I think our members at Polish really emphasized what I wanted to touch on here tonight, that there are commitments in the near term and have a pipeline here in Canby. And a phased-in approach, both for transportation and parks, and we asked for three in five years, I think would be more than happy just to see a phased-in approach on both at some level. Phased-in approach gives them the cost certainty to work through that pipeline under their existing pro forma, their existing financial analysis. The only other point I do want to make, and you had a great chart up here earlier, at the full freight on parks, Canby is an outlier in the entire Portland metropolitan region. 19,000 is the highest that I've seen. Other cities that, I'll be frank, our members kind of roll their eyes looking at Wilsonville's, Lake Oswego's parks SDCs are a good 50% lower, or Canby's proposed SDC would be 50% higher. That's really because of three large projects, and they're ones your community wants, the total $85 million on your parks capital improvement plan. I mentioned in my earlier letter that other cities, Sherwood and Lake Oswego among them, have funded community centers through bonds. I think that's an opportunity in Canby. I looked at your parks master plan, one of your that was adopted in 2022 and Mayor Hudson, I know you're involved with that. One of the key goals in there was a financial feasibility study for an athletic complex. And my reading of the plan was before kind of moving forward, on gathering the funds here. And I may be wrong on that, I was kind of looking hastily today. But this does seem like an opportune time to make sure you don't end up too far out on the fringe on just one component of how you're gonna fund infrastructure. I'm sure down the road, you're gonna have a need to increase sewer and water, storm water, and transportation as well. And if you kind of pin yourself down with parks, suddenly that full freight as you move down the road looks more and more outside of the market. And Mayor Hodgson, you missed the end of my letter. I did note at the end that we really appreciate the work Canby's doing around growth. You adopted a new comprehensive plan. You're looking at urban growth boundary expansion and considering that, which not every city in our region is doing. And I will say Don Hardy has been an excellent partner, very accessible for us and our members. So we appreciate your partnership, but wanted to make sure we got those concerns on the record. Thank you.

No, appreciate that. Thank you very much. Next card I have is from Mr. Sean Verwig, also on the STC methodology.

Well, good evening, Mayor, Council. I wasn't sure if I was gonna speak to you guys about this or not, but just looking at the numbers up there, I just wanted to bring a little bit of light. Just for the record, I live at 840 South Elm Court here in Canby, and I'm a local realtor. And so, as you guys all know, housing affordability is a big issue right now. People are having a hard time being able to purchase homes. As you increase fees, that increases prices of homes. And so when I look at a nearly $20,000 increase on your SDCs, that's going to equate to probably a $40,000 increase on price of homes. If you notice, the new construction homes are already priced in the 700s and 800,000s, and that's a take-home income of almost $200,000. And so... we're pricing homes outside of the realm of people who work in Canby because the wages aren't $200,000. If there is one, let me know, I'd like to apply for it. because $200,000, it seems like a lot of money, but at this point, that's what you need to make to be able to buy one of these homes. So when families are facing affordability issues, they're looking at what other sacrifices do they have to make and what does a community offer? And so they're going to places that have the community centers, that have the park systems, that have more than what Canby has to offer. And so I guess I would just say that if you choose to increase the park fees, especially going straight for it versus the phased approach, which I think is a great approach, I would say make sure that you're also having some action on providing services that equate to what you're charging the SDCs for. So that's all I wanted to say and just ask you to really consider what you're charging and what people can get for that. So thank you. Thank you, sir.

That's why I was writing my note really slowly, because I knew there was another card coming. Sorry, Mr. LaVassa? You are up, sir. Good evening, sir.

Good evening, Mayor, good evening, Councilors. My name is Levi Lavasa. I represent Venture Properties, Stonebridge Homes. We're actively building and developing in Canby, specifically in the North Holly Development Concept Plan area. So kind of want to echo what Ben had said and some of what Polish had said. I think the phase in, It's very helpful just like they were saying for underwriting purposes. These are things that we commit to early on and they take a lot of time to build through. One good example anecdotally, we just got deemed complete on an application for 47 lots that we are working through the land use process and we're not going to be able to start construction until on site development until next year and so by that point we're in year two and we've been working on this project for almost a year already. And then by the time we're done with development, we'll be getting our first home building permit submitted by the time it's year three. So for us, a three-year phase-in, we appreciate that consideration. I don't think everybody around the region does that and so we appreciate the consideration but if we can push the parks to a five-year and transportation to a three, That's at least allows us a few of the homes to accommodate our initial underwriting. Because at the full freight of the SDC increase in year three, that's almost a million dollars more than we were planning on. And that has a huge impact on local builders and developers, which I think are doing the bulk of the building right now in the city of Canby. Can't be certain, but that's what it seems like. So just in terms of phase in that makes a huge difference to us. A couple other ideas, I know it's a little late for some of this, but in terms of vesting for the SEC fees, if rather than just being right now, like for anybody that's has building permits, but vesting for all future building permits. So if we submitted on, June 30th of 2027, we're locked into the year two, even if we don't pull that building permit for another couple weeks, you know, because fees usually go up July one. So vesting when building permits are submitted is something that other jurisdictions do, and that's very helpful for us. And then one other item is delayed or deferred collection at certificate of occupancy. And that allows us to, again, not have that cash out that we aren't selling homes on for six months as we build through vertical construction. And that's something that I think Tiger does very well, and it's been very helpful. And so that's just a couple other things, but overall, working in Canby. Been doing it for about 12 years. Many subdivisions. It's a beautiful place to build and to work with Don's been great and all the staff really. So yeah, appreciate the consideration and look forward to continuing to work here.

Quick question, Mr. LaVassa. The piece that you brought up about you were saying pay the STCs at sale versus up front.

Not even at sale, but at certificate of occupancy. So when we're actually done with the house and we can sell it, then we pay the fee then because that's about $40,000 that we're not just out of the bank and sitting in an unfinished home for six months. So that can be really helpful for us, especially when we're looking to try and find the next piece and that all takes money. So, yeah. Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions?

Thanks. Thanks. All right, seeing no other proponents or opponents, I will close the public hearing. Our group, questions, yes, Councilor Stearns.

I guess this is the time for the discussion, right? If they're, yeah, I'm going to question the staff or whatever. Well, a couple of things that I've gone through and looked at these fees and thought about and ponder them and there's a couple things that I just kind of want to, ideas I want to give to the council. One is, it's very curious and it seems to be an affliction that happens with people in government more than anything else. They think for some reason they can lower the price of something by raising the cost of it. And you see it all the time. Some people think more tariffs will lower the cost. Some people think that more taxes will lower the cost of it. And if we're worried about affordability... Now, I know that STCs are not the only driving force of costs, but they are a driving force. So I just think it's ironic... that we're talking about how to lower housing costs by raising them. So I just wanted to point that out. Second point, I thought about these parks. A lot of these parks that we want to put on this list are not new parks for new residents to come in, there are parks that we want for the residents that are already here. And so the SDCs to raise money for a new thing that we all want and not a new thing for the new people coming in, I think, like was said earlier, kind of felt this all along. If we have a nice big project that the city of Canby wants, we should lay the cost on the general residents of the city of Canby and I'd expect this and basically amounts to a sales tax on new homes to be what is gonna raise the funds for this for one. the development might not ever come, in which case the park, the new park won't ever come, even though we all want it, or not enough new development. And then the third thing I wanna say is I, being in business for a long time, there's a lot to be said for cost, predictability, and stability. When costs come up all of a sudden by a lot, and we're talking about 125% on some of these, it's worse then unpredictably is worse than the actual cost itself. The developers don't actually pay these costs. It's the people who buy the houses that pay the costs if they're doing their business right. If they're doing it wrong, if they're not in business very long. So what we're effectively doing is we're having highly unpredictable costs And so if we do want to do this, I am in favor of a five-year approach rather than a three-year approach because it gives price certainty. And price certainty allows for planning. And if you can't plan, projects come to an end. At least that's my experience in doing business. The ability to plan is a really important part of doing business. So that's kind of my thoughts on this. So you're saying five-year phase-in for all of it, or? I would prefer a, you know, from a... Predictability of business, which means projects can go more in the pipeline where it can be reliable, that a five-year development phase in for everything is what I would prefer to see because I think something like that gives predictability. When we have unpredictability, that creates uncertainty and can't get financing. You're not sure what your costs are. You're not sure what the price point is to sell it. And we all say, well, that's developer's problems, but that's really our own growth problem because we can shoot ourselves in the foot. We don't have any SDCs if we don't have them. new projects coming in and we'll have more new projects if we are reliable, dependable, predictable. It doesn't necessarily matter in cost. It's the predictability is that what creates projects. So that's what my recommendation on that is for five years for everything. And that's for me as a business person, person that counsels business. This is the one that we plan business all the time. I like the idea of a grace period for somebody that's coming in. It's, it's, it's, produce a lot of unpredictability. I've heard that comment from other people besides tonight that it's hard, these things take a long time to plan to gather, and then all of a sudden, like you're on final stages and oops, your primary most expensive line item just popped up just because of a council meeting or something like that that happened. I know there's been, I don't want to accuse of being that abrupt, but that's kind of the way people look at it.

Okay.

Yes, Council Member Waterman.

So I agree with the cohorts. Phase in, I could be a little flexible. I think when you talk about consistency, I think not changing the SDCs in 14 years is about as consistent as you can get. So I was just getting in line. Okay. So at some point, there's going to have to be a change. So it's just the fact of life. And it's unfortunate sometimes it happens when there's already things, there's always something in the pipeline and something's always going to be affected. We can choose how we, you know, how we go about addressing that with the phase in on the parks. The affordability, I have heartburn with the affordability in SDCs, honestly, because when you look at a community where we're the second lowest in the entire region, and then admit that the pricing of the houses are still as high as everybody else that's charging a lot higher SDCs, that's not a profitability issue to me. You're getting a good deal here in Canby, and the piper's getting paid a little bit because the prices happen to go up. So that's kind of how I look at that. So I'm for the five cohorts. I can be flexible a little bit on the phase-in and I'm good with the 60 days and the grace period. And I think the ideas that were presented as well, some of the ideas for the lock-in, et cetera, make things even a little bit more predictable are good as well. So that's where I'm at right now.

Okay, thank you, sir. Councilor Biden.

So I guess my question is, are we in the question, are we still in the question phase of this process or are we in the deliberation of the phase of this process? Because from what I understand normally how this works is now we move on to, we have questions of city staff, we ask them those questions, they conclude, then we start to deliberate.

Yeah, and it didn't seem like anybody had questions, additional follow-up questions. I do. Okay.

Based on what was said earlier. So I guess, Don, if you folks could come back up.

Yeah, feel free to ask them then.

of different areas of the process? When we have done it on planning commission in the past, we have the question and answer portion, and then that part is closed, and then usually a motion is made to then start to talk about the thing, and that's when deliberation starts to happen. So that's why I'm just a little confused about this process.

I asked if there were questions, so feel free to ask your questions.

The gentleman that spoke last was talking about either paying the fees at the time of occupancy or putting some sort of flag in the process to say, look, we want to peg the fee here. what and you know because we've submitted the permit and now this individual had mentioned in and then a few months it'll be ready but from what i understand sometimes the permit comes in and then it's not a few months it's actually quite a bit longer so is there a way of getting some wiggle room on that without the ability of a developer to come in and say i'm going to submit 100 permits for my thing and now the flag is planted here and i'm going to spend the next four years building all of these houses and that's how i'm going to get out of this

No, I the great question and these are good topical discussion I think I'll try not to get way into the weeds here and try to stay kind of high level, but I think essentially we are all in favor if the developer can keep their building permit active and they The line in the sand on when we choose to say this is the line when it's effective from that day backwards If you're in the process and you have an active permit, I don't see any reason why we would not honor that. Now it's a bit complicated in Canby because we do not have our own building department and these other jurisdictions do. There is completely statutory ability to have this based on occupancy. It's a very significant challenge for Canby, however, because 100% of the occupancy review is done by Clackamas County. And we are completely outside of that once we sign off on what we call our site plan review, which essentially is the building permit release. We really have no interface with them on that at all. That's a bit different than when we deal with commercial and industrial buildings where we have the authority under temporary and final occupancy, because we're reviewing those, that's a different scenario. But residential, we really have no way of really dealing with that. And it would require us to probably establish another ordinance to effectively do that. Because I think we could have a serious problem of collection, given the fact that the county is reviewing and issuing the occupancy independent of our review authority. We've let them have that authority. In 2012, we had a building department. All those folks got laid off because there was not enough work. We did a contract with the county and essentially that's not part of that contract. We would have to reform that process. I would suggest we do not go there. It is an avenue. If we had a building department, I would be all for it because we would have the authority here built inside our city, but it would be a mess in my opinion to do that here in Canby. It just, it would not work well. We would, we would be stumbling. We'd be trying to collect on things. We might even be having to collect from the homeowner. It would be a mess. And so I would highly strongly recommend we do not go there. We are totally, on the other hand, flexible on the length of the building permit. If somebody files that and they've been through land use and I'm not suggesting somebody gets to file a building permit that's not been through land use, that's not part of the discussion tonight. But if you've been through land use and you've got a recorded plat and you have building permits in line and you've submitted that, whatever status that is, if you keep it active, we're fine with vesting of that.

Okay. So let me just make sure I understand what you're saying here. So you would be, because of the way the building permits are done through Clackamas County, you would be opposed to the idea of collecting those fees at the time of occupancy rather than up front.

We simply are not set up for that. Sure. It's not that I don't think it's a good idea. for the developer and maybe how does that get passed on for the savings would be a question I think council might be interested in. Is there a savings that gets passed on to the ultimate buyer? We don't know.

It's fine. So that's that. But what you aren't opposed to would be once the permit is set, then saying, okay, now when it comes time to collect those fees, we're going to collect it at this rate because you submitted it last year, even though the price has now gone up this year.

So if someone, I mean, I think the question really was like, if I'm submitting a building permit, you know, I mean, we would charge that rate at the time that they submitted. If they're in the building permit process, you know, let's say the date is August 31st on the effective date and someone's in that process and they've submitted, we would honor that for the life of that. And typically you can do, I think a six month and then another six month extension on a building permit. So someone could theoretically before August 31st pay their fee under the old rate and we would honor that for that duration. That's about as far as we can go. We can't go out to a date certain unless you all want to waive the requirement for SDCs happening for a year arbitrarily. I don't think that's, that's up to you folks. But we're not collecting fees that I think are necessary for infrastructure and building capacity in the city.

okay but that recommendation a recommendation to to do what to if the permit is submitted now it gets collected at the time of submittal that is not currently in here that's something we would need to direct we would need to add in here correct i i think what we're really getting to is that if someone you know and this would be administrative the

administrative part of the record here. If someone were, yeah, we should add it in. I mean, it's like, I think if the effective date of, you know, if someone is in the building permit process prior to the effective date, you know, where we will honor that as the prior rate for SDCs, which we would do, we would do that as a practice anyway. I think that would be part of what we would do. Yes, it should be part of the record.

Okay.

One quick addition. I mean, tonight's hearing is really about adopting the methodology report which sets the maximum defensible fee. You can change the administrative procedures down the road at any time.

So there is title four of the CAMBI code is the administrative procedures, which we're not addressing tonight. But I think your motion tonight, if you all make a motion, I think should include for the record that we are including that period. And then we will probably come back with a title four amendment, which is the administrative procedures Todd is talking about.

Yeah, because I guess the reason I want clarification on that is because you had told us that we can't necessarily say we want to do cohorts and not establish the cohorts tonight. That is a thing that really you want done tonight. So to me, just a second. It would lead me to believe that if we want to do this pegging the fee thing, that we also need to do that tonight because the clock starts ticking on that for the 60-day rollout, correct?

It does. Okay. And the cohort thing is, I mean, I think that should be put in no matter what. What else happens tonight? I mean, that needs to be baked in, in my opinion. I think it's an important thing for housing fairness. If we're dealing with any kind of housing fairness, and I get the fact that fees going up, things cost money, infrastructure is not getting less expensive. So we have to do something. Sorry it took 14, 13, 14 years. None of us were here at that point on our team. And so we're simply trying to course correct this and bring it back to where it should be. It is a large jump, I agree. But yes, I would like the cohorts to be included because I think that is a fairness issue as part of your motion. I think that answers my question.

Yes, Mr. Ely. Thank you, Mayor. Don, can you speak to why we might not as staff we're not recommending phasing the storm and wastewater SDC changes to the council?

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, those really are in a nutshell, not really changing substantially. And I don't think there's resistance on that. And I think from a staff perspective, You know, really, I think the bottom line is we want the SDCs to be adopted. What phasing scheme is on this, we're open to that discussion to council. I mean, that's really up to you all. We don't have a strong position on that. Mainly, it's trying to get something in order so we can collect fees and build parks that develop capacity, continue to have roads that don't, you know, roads for infrastructure for capacity building that we know we need in our transportation system plan. Those are the core elements here. Storm and sewer are important, but because of the way those are structured and there's a lot of capacity there already, those fees are less.

Okay.

So my last question then is, is if a motion is made, we have one that's in this packet to make, but it doesn't mention anything about these things specifically. Do we need to bake that into the motion? Or is that assumed as part of this?

The SDC methodology, Todd, is that?

I think the methodology report, the draft methodology report, can be amended based on this motion that you make. And so if we go a five year, we'll amend the report to reflect five years. Any other changes you indicate regarding cohorts?

I think the cohorts are in the methodology report. Okay, so to that point, it's not like we're necessarily, you're adopting the methodology report, which has the cohorts in them.

Okay, I think I got what we need to do here. Okay.

Okay.

Is anyone up here opposed to changing the phase-in from three years in parks to what was suggested by our gentleman in the audience?

Five years, I think.

Five years on parks and three on transportation. Is there anybody against that idea? Or do you want to just deal with phasing in parks and go full boat on the transportation?

Well, if I may, what I think we should do is make the motion that says that we're, with the caveat that we're adopting the methodology report with changes proposed tonight, okay, to capture what we're gonna do, and then start to have a conversation about how far, how long do we want the thing to phase in? Do we wanna adopt this, scale methodology? Do we want to peg the various fees and those things and then you and then get that fleshed out and then approve that to go into all of this?

I mean, wouldn't that be the purpose of the discussion piece to get that fleshed out before the motion?

Yeah. Because the motion should be what we're proposing to pass.

Right. Isn't that the case? I guess I'm looking, I mean, that's how I... That's how I would have done it too.

We flush it out now and then come up with the motion that includes everything that we wanted to say.

Okay. Yeah.

I think it's cleaner for Maya to know what the motion is though, exactly.

So I guess, so... There's the issue of the five cohorts.

That's based on the mythology of your question, he said.

Okay, so. Yeah, but we have to approve whether we're going to do the five cohorts or a square footage.

Right. And we would recommend the cohorts. I mean, just to make this simple. Sure. Yeah. So I guess, is there?

The cohorts are based on square footage.

So I'll kick it off. I'm good. I prefer the cohorts. Of the two options, cohorts or square footage, I'm for cohorts.

You're with cohorts as well? Cohorts, yeah. Councilor Stearns? I'm fine with it. Okay. So then the STC phase in three years for parks is the recommendation. We're hearing five as a throwback. I feel more comfortable with that. High five. Council President.

So I just want to make sure that I have this because there's been talk about phasing in of the transportation at three and then phasing in of the parks at... Three or five.

Three is the ask from staff. Correct. Five is the ask from. Correct.

But right now there is no ask from staff for a three-year for transportation.

Right. So transportation is separate. I guess would that be a separate line that we could put in between those two?

So I guess for me, I would not be, I'll kick off, I would not be opposed to doing a three-year phase-in on the transportation. but I am opposed to doing a five-year phase-in on the parks, because as Councilor Waterman said, yes, we are at this point now, but in five years that increase does not take into effect any inflation. And if all of a sudden we have the economy do what it did a few years ago, and we have inflation at 14%, now we have lost the gains that we've made.

Well, I thought they just said that all these would have an inflationary component. There's an inflation.

Yeah, but it's not an inflationary mechanism that goes back three years to when the fee was originally set. So the inflationary mechanism, so if we do five-year phase-in, and it's at $1 one year, $2, $3, so on, that inflationary mechanism in year three is based on the three-year price, not what it would ultimately be in five years. So now we are losing the gains on the inflation for what we actually wanted it to be at five years ago.

But we could bake into it. Like we could say, we want this raise adjusted for inflation phased in over five years. I think it could be worded in such a way that it takes into account, because you know me, I'm in favor of inflationary adjustments. I'm not opposed to that. They could say, we're making a $5,000, just throw in a number, not the real number, And that's going to be phased in over five years. And each of those phases will be indexed to the inflationary point that started as of today. So maybe in one year, it'll be $1,000. and $30 if it's 3% inflation, and the next year it would be 2,060. And so that would, if it was structured right, you could structure an inflation into this phasing.

To get my head wrapped around what you're saying, what I think you're saying is instead of saying the inflationary mechanism is based on the fee at that time that it is that year, the inflationary mechanism will be based on what the fee would be at the end of the phasing. So if we say that we want the fee to be $15 in year five, but it's $10 in year two, we're basing the inflationary mechanism on the ultimate $15, not the five.

Yeah, that's kind of what it's like.

I can get behind that. But I'm not sure if I can get behind five years.

I'm more for four. Maybe I could add a bit to the conversation, but hopefully not derail it further. So in this discussion, we will be revisiting, as Todd mentioned in his presentation, when we do the urban growth boundary expansion, and I would say two-fold. We'll probably look at both in the expansion area, I mean, it's gonna be collectively for the whole city, But we're going to have to look at the expansion area as well. So that will be a re-look at this in a few years. We're going to be reassessing that situation. I would prefer not to necessarily have an index that you all, even though it might make more sense mathematically, I don't know if legally we can do things. anything beyond the engineer news record for inflation per year, which is, that's the standard. It's, this is a standard that all the jurisdictions use and it's that, that's the index on, on inflation. And this year, like inflation was almost non-existent compared to where it was before. At one point it was 12%, you know, during like the whole COVID thing. And so, I'd prefer not to, that could be challenged and I would prefer not to go there, but rather to revisit this whole thing in a couple of years when we're going to be back with the urban expansion and that issue after we, we're going to have to amend the comp plan and the transportation system plan, but that's in the next two to three years.

We could tie to this, whatever index that you're referring to, obviously, that doesn't have to be the consumer price. No, exactly.

I'm just saying, to sound like you guys were maybe going with your own formula and we,

I was gonna, as an example, I was saying as a hypothetical 3%, but I wasn't saying 3%, I was saying whatever the rate is. Okay, so you want transportation at three years and parks at four?

At a maximum, yeah. I would not, no, because we're, we have- So if I commit, you commit to three? Three or four, but I won't do five. Okay. I won't go for five.

Okay, Councillor Waterman. I'm good for three and three. And as Councillor Stearns has mentioned in the past, the more complicated you make things, the more money and more expensive it gets. So I think we should try to keep it as simple as possible. Okay.

Yes, Councilor Davis. Thank you. And Don, appreciate your guys' work on this. It's not the first time that we've seen the parks. You spend a lot of hours up here already with us reviewing the whole parks, STCs and the projects and what the impacts would be. So I'm good with sticking with the recommendation of the three. And on the transportation, I'm good with three on the transportation as well. But this isn't the first time. We're playing catch up.

Yeah.

We are playing catch up. There's no way around it. And frankly, my own opinion is we've had very low STCs and the prices continue to go up on the houses. So somebody's earning a profit on that, right? And we need to catch up to where we need to catch up. So I'm good at three and three.

Okay. I guess I'm not good at three. Three it is.

Okay.

It adds the transcreation to it, so.

So the.

I got you that much.

I went five and five, just as my. Five and five. The recommended effective date being 60 days from now, everyone's. Yep.

Yeah.

Okay. And then the grace period for keeping those that are in the process, allowing that.

Yeah, this is where we talk about if they pull a permit in year two, they get that year two. versus the year three.

And what marks in the process? That's the big question.

Is it because I thought about it last night or am I in the process? No, I mean, the line is going to be, I mean, I should just be clear on this because we're not talking about delaying this for a year. It would be from the effective date, which would be August 30th, if you're in process, you know, you have a building permit that's in process. Before that date, you know, you're vested. I mean, you're in the process. We can't... We can't make this like arbitrary and it needs to be a bright line. You're talking about currently in process, not somebody who put something in process.

Let's just say on August 31st, right? Yes. If they put it, if I walked in August 31st, I would lock in the current prices.

You would, the full price. I'm sorry, that sounds different than what I said. If they're currently in the process as of today, They get locked in.

We locked in at the current STC.

If they put it in after it's been approved. This is the effective day, Council Waterman. So if we were going to go 60 days out and say that's August 31st of the effective date, anything that was submitted before that time that's in process as a building permit, that would be. September 1st. Yes.

August 31st, okay. September 1st, new fee. But the question is, if I do it on... August 31st, the next year, am I on the first year's phase-in or am I on the second? Is that grace period gonna be applied for every increment? Okay, I see the point.

Okay, I got you. That would be, yeah, I think it would have to be from, I think it's simplest is every year it renews on that date, yeah, so September 1.

Okay, so if I put a permit a year from now, August 31st, I would get the first year step, but not the second year step. Yeah, yeah.

That's what I was getting at.

That's what I understood.

Your rates and charges change on July 1st, though. So this one would be delayed. Is what you're saying.

Oh, so you're...

I was thinking all your rates and charges change on July 1st. So year two would begin July 1st, 2027.

So I only get to June 30th on the next year.

The grace period or whatever.

You're right. Year two, that's a great question. I'm sorry I didn't catch that earlier. Year two, it would have to be, yeah, because otherwise we're on the fiscal year and you guys are going to be adopting fees again during this time.

We can spell out the fiscal year. It's in our methodologies. FY 2026, 2027 is... year one, 2027, 2028, year two, so.

But it'll go by when they pull the grant. So they pull it last week in June. They don't, they pay the last year's fee and not the July one. Yes, yes.

That part, sorry, I think that was the question and I kind of got lost in the year one. I'm sorry. It's almost nine.

I get it.

So we get an extra 60 days this year, but not the next year.

Right. Okay. It'll make sure it's clear. Okay.

So I think we've got all four points covered for you, Don. I think you do. I believe you've got it. Councilor Patton.

Can I make this motion? You most certainly can.

I move to adopt resolution number 1463, a resolution to adopt the system development charge update, SDC methodology report, as... directed by council tonight and sanitary sewer and stormwater 2025 SDC update with associated rates and the capital improvement plans that are part of the methodology report.

Thank you, sir. Second. The motion has been made by Councilor Patten and seconded by Councilor Davis to adopt resolution number 1463, a resolution to adopt the system development charge update STC methodology report as directed by council and sanitary sewer and stormwater 2025 STC update with associated rates and the capital improvement plans that are part of the methodology report.

Any other discussion? Yes. Is this motion specific enough to when we say as directed by the council or does it need to be a little more specific?

Maya, did you get the notes of the three years and the three years for transportation?

I just want to make sure we know what we're voting on.

Yeah.

For the record.

We'll have it reflected in the minutes specifically as well. Yes.

Cool.

So I have discussion now.

So again, thank you for coming out and also for the builders to come out, but here's the thing. Some of the things I take umbrage with what has been said tonight is, Canby has been a cheap date for many, many years. And the reason we know this is because there's a lot of buildings that have been going up in the city. And one of the things that really chaps me is that when people say, well, if you raise the fees, it's going to prevent affordable housing. Well, if we have fees that are so low that we are the lowest in the state, then why don't we have oodles and oodles of affordable housing? And it's because the builders will sell the house for what they can. And in the case here in Canby, it's 800 and some odd thousand dollars. Now, if some builders were to come to us and say, hey, we could sell these, we could build a 3,500 square foot or a 2,500 square foot home and sell it for $800,000. But we see the need in Canby is smaller homes that are more at a 300 to $400,000 price point. And we're going to be willing to put our profit aside and we're going to build some of those homes. Then I would be way more willing to feel some sort of pain for what's going on out there. But that is not what is happening. What is happening is maximum house for maximum profit and people are buying. Now we have kicked the can down the road for years of investing in our community. One of the things about these SDCs that I learned many years ago was this is our only chance to get the money that we are going to need for stuff in the future. Because once the builder builds, they're gone. And then it's up to the homeowners that have purchased this house to foot the rest of that cost. And I don't think that's fair. I think that we should be gathering as much money as we can up front because we've had conversations about buying park lands and stuff where if we can't necessarily buy it now, we got to buy it later. And it's going to be way more expensive then than it is now. And we got to rely on this money that we're collecting now in order to do that. And so all we are doing is then costing the citizens who have bought a home in this town more because now the developer's gone and we're coming back to them and asking them for increased taxes to build something that a lot of it could have been funded through SDCs. And I'm not willing to do that to the citizens of this community. Thank you. So to me, that is some of the stuff that really gets under my skin. And like the talk about, you know, this is going to put us 50% over other people. Well, we're still in the middle. And after three or four years, who knows where we're going to be? We might be in the top one quarter. Instead of the middle. Because we don't know what inflation is going to do. We don't know what the economy is going to do. So for me, I mean, and again, what really, really irks me is this whole thing that it's like, well, you can't raise the fees. Otherwise, people aren't going to buy the houses. And they're going to be too expensive. And we're not going to be able to do affordable houses. Show me. Show me you're willing to come to the city and build some of your houses at 800 and some odd thousand dollars and then build others of them at 300 or 400 thousand dollars and actually get this city to where people can come in with families and not just a bunch of wealthy retired folks coming into this community. I'm tired of it. And that's all I have.

Thank you, sir. So we have a question on the table. Any other discussion or comment? No. All those in favor?

Aye.

Anyone opposed? No. Okay. Thank you, sir. Motion carries. Thank you. 4-1. Good job, you guys. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Yes, sir. We are at 8.56. You are correct. So I'm curious as to how much time you think we will need to get through the rest of the agenda.

An hour.

I mean, we got a master fee schedule, administrator's report, a transit consideration for quarterly meetings instead of monthly. That's a short piece. Year reports. Yeah, we have another public hearing. Yeah, usually another hour.

Hopefully my ride will be away.

We can come back next. I was going to ask about vacation schedules when the next meeting is. Nothing's urgent for tonight. The 15th is the next meeting. Yeah, 15th. Well, we're the eighth of the work session. What's that? Eighth of the work session.

We just do, say, an hour, and if we're done early, great. At least we don't have to try to stop and redo it again.

Councilor Waterman's throwing it out on the table in an hour. Councilor Patten.

I'm good for an hour, but could we reorder things so the transportation thing is first and get that done and dealt with and then we roll into the fee schedule?

I'm okay with switching it around if that works for me. Okay, so we're going to rotate the agenda here a little bit and go for another hour. All right, so we're going to skip 9B for the time being and we're going to go to 10A. Resolution number 1464, a resolution of the Canby City Council amending resolution number 1255 to modify the meeting frequency of the Canby Transit Advisory Committee and our transit director, Mr. Wood. Hello, sir.

Hi. This is pretty simple. Transit's a fairly stable... We don't change a lot in six meetings a year is a lot. There's not a lot to talk about often. So we tend to cancel from here. from time to time and currently it says we have to meet six times a year. Committee said this, can we do a four? Four aligns with our quarterly reporting, it's easier to do and there's little bit more we can talk about at that point. So we're just asking that modify the requirement from six to four. We can always meet more, more is easy to do. Current resolution says it has to be six. We'd love to.

Lower it to have to be four. Yeah. Once a quarter. I think it's a fair request. Yes. You ready for a motion? Mm-hmm. I move to adopt resolution number, is it 1464? It is. Okay, a resolution of the city, Canby City Council amending resolution number 1255 to modify the meeting frequency of Canby Transit Advisory Committee.

Second. Second.

Motion made by Councilor Davis, seconded by Council President Hensley to approve resolution 1464, the resolution of the Cambridge City Council, amending the resolution number 1255 to modify the meeting frequency of the Cambridge Transit Advisory Committee. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you. There you go, Todd. Thank you. Thanks, Todd. All right. I'm going to go back to 9B. So resolution 1459B, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Canby, Oregon, setting fee for services and repealing resolution number 1450. Short handout. This is a public hearing. So I get to read my piece. The matter presently before the hearing bar requires a public hearing. All interested persons in attendance shall be heard on this matter. The public hearing was noticed and those who wish to speak were instructed to contact the city recorder. City recorder, do we have any requests? No, okay, and I have no cards. Those people that are interested in testifying as either proponents or opponents, please indicate your desire to speak by raising your virtual hands or your real hands at the time, like now. Okay, is that Mr. Williams? Are you raising your hand? Okay. That's like, you know, an auction. You raise your hand, you're going to get dinged. Okay. For longer presentations, proponents and opponents may buy time from one another. In so doing, those in favor or opposed may allocate their time to a spokesperson who will represent the entire group. All questions must be directed through me, the mayor. Any evidence to be considered must be submitted to the hearing body for public access. All written testimony received both for and against shall be summarized by staff and presented briefly to the hearing body during the staff report. The public hearing will be conducted as follows. We will have a staff report by our interim city administrator, Randy Ely, and our finance director, Denise LaRue. After the staff report, we will open with, where we will have questions. I will then open the public hearing for testimony. Proponents will have questions. three minutes, the opponents will have three minutes. I will close hearing, then we will have questions. In case Councilor Patten needs questions. We will then have discussion. A decision shall be made by the hearing body at the close of the hearing where the matter will be continued to date certain in the future. This will be the only notice of that date you will receive tonight. Does anyone have any questions about the proceedings? I'm not seeing any, so we will move forward. Mr. City Administrator and Ms. Finance Director.

Yeah, Denise is here if we have any questions specifically to finance. But I wanted to just do a high-level introduction first. Last time we were with you on June 17, I believe, we heard you loud and clear. With regards to fees, gradual is better than big steps. And... Tying or indexing fees to a CPI, which is about 2.7% this year, is critical and preferred. And as you look at the chart that I handed out, you can see in the column right next to notes, the last date change, some of these were changed. So going back to 2010, on some of these fees, some much earlier. 1991 is one I'm looking at on the first page, was the last time that was changed. So this is a good time for us to press pause, take a hard look at these. I apologize for the length, but just wanna let you know what's not in here. We decoupled the parks maintenance fee, the street maintenance fee, all system development charges, which you worked on earlier tonight, set by council, and any fees that you approved through the budget process were pulled out. So this is just the remaining, the last standing fees that are day-to-day fees, I'll call them, that are anchored to staff time. in terms of photocopies, public records requests, and they're broken out by department. So tried to be as clear and straightforward as possible because this is a massive undertaking. It's over 10 pages long, even at this hour. And another thing we did, which was encouraged by you all, if we're not using the fees and they're not, they're dormant or they're extinct at this point, then just flat out remove them. So you'll see the word remove folded. So thank you for that feedback. So that said, in the notes section, we tried to point out that, because you wanted us, cost recovery was a big anchor for our work this past week, cost recovery, and a lot of the notes sections show how when Denise met with each person, each staff member responsible for the department, It says fee covers costs if it does, if we've determined that the current fee covers the cost. But we still made a CPI adjustment with a rounding to the nearest dollar in the, you can see the proposed column in the right smack dab in the middle. The other thing I'll point out before I pause and answer questions, is on all of the Main Street ones, you just did that in January, so we're not recommending another bump six months later. Those are all on the front page for Ms. Stickle's department. So that said, I'll note that there's a lot of staff time that is baked into this, so the rates go up and the hourly cost per staff to do some of these tasks is baked into the new rates that we've proposed. So I think I can report that staff heard you in the last week. This is the product of our work to true up actual cost recovery and bake in gradual increases going forward versus the big jumps that aren't necessarily fair.

Thank you, sir. Yes, Councilwoman, question? Yeah, so the one that I've noticed in here is the removing parking ticket and parking ticket late fee, and if we're removing it, is it recorded somewhere else, or do we just not have it anymore? What is that? It is page three, the third page, about right in the middle under court. Under court? Yeah. Okay, that's nice.

Parking ticket late fee. Well, a parking ticket was also removed.

It just says, remove parking fine, not a court fee. I don't know what that means. This is Maya's apartment. Maya?

Thank you. So we were suggesting to remove it because we haven't had, you know, an actual... we felt that I was falling more under police rather than court. And so we were trying to move that around to make it a better organization. And I also think that, I really didn't want to say this all out, but I don't think we're heavily on the, the PD is heavily on the parking tickets, except for like more in the neighborhood zones or if there's a vehicle that's being there for too long. So it's been something that we haven't utilized for a while.

So you're saying we don't issue parking tickets? Is that what you're saying? I mean, if that sounds like it.

Well, the court doesn't.

Yeah.

But I don't see it moved to the police column either. Are we going to be moving it there?

That's something I would need to probably discuss more with police. I thought it was under... Yeah.

Yeah. Jamie's saying it's a citation.

Okay, so we are capturing that somewhere.

Yeah.

Yeah. Okay.

And there's also a late payment fee.

I know we do still have a parking plan and all that stuff, and I'd hate to remove something that would be part of the enforceability of that versus, okay. So if it's, we're good there.

No, it's a good question. That's why we're here. Thank you. Keep them coming, there's a lot in here that date back 15, 30 years in some cases, so this is the time to.

I do have one more question on that. So the one that the banner hanging fee says we don't do that anymore, so we don't do that anymore, like wait park and stuff like that, so everybody's responsible for hanging their own banners on the gazebo and whatnot.

Yes, please come to the mic. Team effort here. Thank you.

I was trying to pull it up on my phone so I could read, but I believe that that might be listed Gazebo banner fee and then the Grant Street banner fee. So I think that what we did is we... took that one generic line and removed that, but that since we have the Grant Street arch, there's a banner. So that's still there. And then also in Wake Park above the gazebo. So essentially we're removing the generic language that is outdated because a year or two years ago, we added in the two other fees. And that was a partnership between planning, public works, economic development.

I missed the Wake Park one.

It's on page four under parks. In that category, it's the last line under where it says rentals. Wake Park banner installation. And then the Grant Street one is under public works.

So when Grant Street became, or the Grant Street Arch became a thing, we basically created a new fee for that, revisited the fee, which included staff time for the Wake Park banner, and then had not thought to remove the more generic line.

Perfect, thank you.

Yes, question.

Well, it's not... No, you're right, it is a question.

I don't have any questions. Just for fun, I could highlight a couple really quickly, because I know we're in a time crunch, but if you looked at page four... under parks, rentals. This is something that you probably have a lot of care over as a councilor. Some of this is a little bit arbitrary, but just trying since it's been since 2019 to adjust the bump, the in-city and out-of-city rates a bit. So I'll tell you that that's a CPI bump, but it's also sort of arbitrary. 132 to rent a gazebo in Waite Park currently. So bumping that to 150 at six years, it hasn't been touched. And then the out of city bumping that from 264 to 300. Again, six years that hasn't been touched. We don't want to discourage people from renting the gazebo, but this is sort of the exercises we went through line by line to carefully modernize the fees in 2026 dollars. Those are some examples that jump out of the line by line work. Public works, labor is tied to staff rates. So you can see how Spencer, since 2019, he and his team and Todd's fleet team collaborated to bump up the hourly rates from, for example, the Vactor truck, we shipped that out at 85 bucks an hour. We're bumping that to $110 an hour. It's been six years since we looked at that, so. with this product and we'll check back in annually and index to CPI as directed by council.

Mayor? No, very thorough. Appreciate it. Thank you, Denise, for your extra work and the department heads for going through this with a fine tooth comb. Any other questions from the staff? No, I'll open the public hearing. Any proponents or, I still had to do that. Proponents or opponents? Closing the public hearing. Any other questions?

Councilor Patten.

Okay, any questions from new input from none of the proponents or opponents? Great, just any discussion pieces?

or statements.

I'd like to thank you for doing this. The thing I was opposed to with the SDC fees was because the dramatic increase. I don't think that our negligence means other people need to be punished. This way we can gradually increase the fees as the costs go up and we don't have to punish anybody for our particular lapse of judgment.

we've had this conversation a lot about incremental versus big chunks. And we've had both tonight when we talk about the big chunks of the STCs and the incremental pieces of this is very different.

I actually just found one question.

How do you know? Yes.

Railroad parking lot event fee. We're not renting that out anymore. Is that why we're removing the fee?

We have not rented that out since we removed the railroad parking lot. Sorry, I didn't mean that. No, so when... Before I even came to the city, when the railroad owned that parking lot on northwest first, then we rented it out as part of this fee. We don't typically rent the parking lot, but I think there is still a mechanism for it, but it would probably be under the street closure request. And so it's more so that we don't rent just the parking lot, and that was something that just was one of those items that just stayed on there, even though we haven't had... the railroad parking lot since 2012. Well, right.

My brain transferred it to the existing lot that we have. So that doesn't happen. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you, Jamie.

Okay.

and if I may regarding that I don't think the city ever collected it because in all the years that I helped the Camby Lions Club sell Christmas trees in that parking lot I don't ever remember filling out paperwork to pay for a fee so probably didn't because you're a non-profit we could go back on that well no because the club has been shut down so good luck with that and it was waived for non-profits it was waived for non-profits so okay all right no other discussion I will gladly take a motion

He had a statement, I thought. I'll wait until the discussion part. This is the discussion party. You wanna wait till after a motion's been made. Oh, good Lord.

Mr. Mayor, I'll make the motion.

Thank you.

I move to adopt resolution 1459B, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Canby, Oregon, setting fees for services and repealing resolution 1450. Second. Second.

Motion has been made by Councillor Davis, seconded by Councillor Patton, to approve resolution number 1459B, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Canby, Oregon, for setting fees for services and repealing resolution 1450. Any other discussion? Yes, Councillor Patton.

So I want to thank... Thank you Randy and city staff for going through this. I know that I was really riled up the other day when we had this conversation, but one of the things that I have noticed is that there are, comparing this new document to the old document, There are fees that are marked for removal in this one that were not marked for removal in the original. There's ones that are being adjusted in this one that are not being adjusted in the original. And there are notations about doing things on different cycles. And I really think that having some of these fees done on a different cycle will help make the whole process more efficient and less of a burden on staff. because if you don't have to review every single fee every year, but you set it up where you're reviewing some of the fees one year, and then the next year you're reviewing others, that way not only are we doing the incremental work, but it's not such a burden on staff every year to go through all of the fees. So I think even though it was very stressful and it was a lot of work this time, the gains that will be made in these comprehensive changes now and then setting that plan for the future is going to make that lift a lot easier for city staff moving forward as well as a more palatable opportunity impact on the citizens as these fees roll out to them. So I greatly appreciate all of this work. And I would like to, and I would say that the way this new document is set up with the notes and such, I think should start to, should be the standard for next time. So that way the council can see, instead of seeing just saying no change, seeing no change, but then an understanding of why there is no change to that. And it goes to Councilor Stearns' point where any fee that's not updated is essentially a fee reduction because of inflation. So yeah, so I really appreciate all of this. Thank you.

Great. All those in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you all, thank you Denise and staff, appreciate it. Item 11 is other business, which we have none. Item 12, city administrator staff reports.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanna do a bit of a calendar check with you all, seeing who might be traveling so we can base, the mayor and I, as we build out these agendas, make sure we get the right projects for the right amount of eyeballs that are gonna be here in terms of key projects that we're looking at. July 8th is next Wednesday. We really don't have anything scheduled at this time. I could do a city administrator work product update. Our department heads right now are loading into a shared drive all of our projects that we are trying to complete by the end of this year. And I could spend time with you all next week sharing that out. Um, uh, other than that, July 15th, that's a week of my vacation. Uh, so Ms. Stickle will be acting and that's a loaded agenda. You're going to have a proclamation. It looks like, um, you've got the UV update and the wastewater treatment plant. That's a over a million dollar, one and a half million dollar project. That's getting off the ground. Very excited. Yes. You're going to get an e-bike presentation, e-bike coordinates, uh, A city prosecutor contract did confirm that you will be taking a look at that ordinance for redoing that. And then you're doing a few resolutions for the November ballot on the 15th. So those are all time-based and our attorney will be helping you all with that. And then July 22nd. I know, July is a crazy month because everybody is traveling. We have promised you a work session. Jamie will be leading with Spencer and Ruth on a street maintenance fee update and scheduled placement on an agenda for you to adopt the new street maintenance fee. So you're booking all of our Wednesdays? That's right. Jesus. There's a fifth Wednesday. There's a fifth Wednesday. Okay, that's right.

Leave it alone.

We can leave that one alone. And then we move into August, and that's where you're doing final ballot titles for November. You're renaming the park for Auburn Farms, and you're working on your UGB expansion, teeing all that up for September public hearings. So busy days. busy work plan, but I just wanted to make sure if any of you had any concerns with any agenda items on meetings you might not be able to make, let me know, just so I can make sure I'm planning. I told you already, I'll be gone next week, so I won't be missing from any. Next week, traveling. Councillor Davis is traveling. Yeah, I'll be gone the 15th of the next week.

Yeah. The other part that two councillors requested an executive session to talk about the city administrator contract. Yes. Got that.

I'll work with the mayor on scheduling executive session.

Okay.

Okay.

Yes. So just so I make sure, because I was trying to figure out time zone differences.

What corner of the world is patented?

Exactly. So the 1st, the 8th, the 15th, and the 22nd, you're proposing stuff.

Yeah.

Okay.

8th is still up in the air. That's next week.

I was on the docket for that one.

There's nothing right now. Nothing right now.

Oh, I had it in my calendar so we didn't have something. Maybe I had street maintenance on my brain for that day.

You did. Okay. And we have moved that to an actual council meeting.

So on the 8th, I would be available after 7. Okay. because I'm going to be in Ohio and I'm going, I'm taking the day off to do the Cedar Point. And so I might be in a horrible state after many hours of roller coasters, but I would be, I'll still be in the park at six. So if you do, if you want to do something and not have me be here and rail on and such, then I would say start it at six, but otherwise I'll be available at seven.

Can't you zoom from the roller coaster?

I mean, I could, but it could be a little, it could be a little weird. People are like, what are you doing?

You don't want to know. I'm challenging. That would be funny. So, I mean, we don't have to do the 8th. I mean, we've held that as a space for work sessions and things like that.

But we're going to have one on the 22nd instead. Right.

Yep. And then I have Ms. Stickle here. We have a huge weekend coming up. Offices are closed Friday. Library's closed tomorrow and Friday. But Jamie and Tyler are in full go on 4th of July. So if you have any questions of her as the weekend, I know each of you are participating. So I'm speaking. So make sure that those lines of communication are flowing as we- Sorry, before we get to you, Jamie.

Get rolling. Do we have a decision on the 8th, Council? Okay. Yay or nay? Well, it sounds like we don't have an agenda, so I'd say no. Okay, that's fine. Well, we could have one. I just, so no it is.

We could get together and talk about Daniel while he's around.

Okay, so nothing on the 8th. Thank you. Is that okay, man? That's fine. I just want a decision from these guys. That's all. Okay, thank you. Ms. Stickle.

We're tired, it's late. Good evening. Get over it. Come on. DB Stickle, Economic Development Director, and I will not go through all of the different pieces for Saturday's big show, but earlier tonight when we were listening about the long-range planning work that's happening, and I think that when you talk about the residents and city council, people who build or work in Canby, everybody can agree that Canby is a special place, and this is a really special week for us, so... Tomorrow night is our first Thursday night market, which happens downtown. We bring in vendors that line the streets. We'll have music. And then our local businesses participate as well. And so there's usually a scavenger hunt where you go around, you find a specific item. It gets people in the businesses. Those people are hopefully gearing up for the 4th of July weekend. So while City Hall is not open on Friday, Tyler and I will be working in anticipation of the big event on Saturday. Parade, car show, street fair. We have, I think, even more vendor spaces filled this year than we did last year. We've got two great bands. So we have the 21 Turns bands that does classic rock, R&B, new pop hits, and then also Infamous Soul, which does... They're a classic rock cover band, so they'll be playing in our family-friendly beer garden. This year, we're really excited. We have a flyover of F-15s occurring at 11.30, and so that was... a relationship that was set up by Pete Wood, our HR director, and Tyler Neiser made that contact and able to confirm that we will have an 11.30 flyover here in Canby. So be sure to be on the lookout for that. And it's going to be a great event. We have lots of free kids activities. So we have bouncy houses again, the game truck, which is an arcade truck. Bricks and Minifigs does a Lego play area, and then we'll have a tie-dye booth event. And Mayor will be there to welcome everybody and introduce the Grand Marshal. So stop by Waite Park at about 11 and find out who the Grand Marshal is. Thank you so much for asking. I was hoping that that would lead into that. The Grand Marshal is announced at the event. And so in order to hear who it is, either see the parade that kicks off at 10 a.m., you'll see the Grand Marshal, or come to the park and you'll get to hear from that person themselves.

Wonderful.

We keep it as a surprise just so that it makes it extra special for that day.

The Canby Historical Society will be doing their pancake breakfast at Knight Elementary. It's starting at 730.

That's inside at Knight Elementary. Yes. Inside the cafeteria. Yep.

So get your pancakes and sausage. fruit and juice and get carved up for the day.

And they're one of the many nonprofits that is helping us. So Canby Rotary, I spoke about last time, is helping with our parade. The Canby Kiwanis is helping with our car show. Canby Christian comes and helps with our tie-dye booth. So there's a lot of Canby showing up for Canby and those outsiders who decide to come to Canby and... It's a lot and we expect a very big showing this year and I'm very eager to see all of you downtown and anybody else who wants to stop by and snag us as we're running around making sure everything goes off without a hitch.

It'll be probably the first time in a couple years that it's a cooler 4th of July.

It should be cooler, but still great weather. And so, you know, be ready to spend the day in downtown Canby. Then at dusk, the fireworks will occur over at Trost Elementary. And that is put on by our Canby Fire District. So dusk is... I looked it up last time at 9.39 p.m., so roughly 9.40 fireworks. And Canby Fire, Canby Police, and the City of Canby are urging people to be very considerate with not issuing illegal fireworks this year and even being very careful with legal fireworks just because of how dry it is around here. We've been pushing a campaign urging people to leave the fireworks alone and just come out and experience the fireworks show as a community.

All right. Did you have a comment, sir? Yeah, since Rotary's doing the setup for the parade, just put a plug in that the registration is going to be set up at Cedar and Fifth by Eccles Elementary School because people ask all the time, where is the registration going to be? And I assume the Grand Marshal will still be on the antique fire truck? Mm-hmm. Okay. Yes. Good to know.

And the best way to access that registration point is on Cedar. So a lot of those internal streets closer to the park are shut down or blocked off. So the best way is to try and go around downtown, down Cedar, to get to the registration.

Right. And so you're right, Jamie. We ask people to, if you're going to be coming into the registration, go to Elm. then go over to Cedar and go directly up Cedar. Don't try to take the side streets because they'll be closed with barricades or come down off of Knightsbridge to Cedar and 5th.

On the firework thing, I'm sure people are like, oh, it's been raining now, and so it's going to be fine. And the answer is no, it's not, because everything was really dry to begin with, and the grass is still tall and dry and dead, and a couple of days of nice weather is just going to get it back to super flammable. So... Folks in TV land, don't just think that the rain is going to have fixed everything. Don't set the city on fire. Because I was over watching the fireworks last year with the fire department, and someone set their house on fire. So it happens. Don't do it. The F15 flyover, is it 11 or 11.30?

It's 11.30.

11.30. Okay, great. Yeah, no, I'm excited. I've been tapped to be a judge at the car show, so I may or may not be bribable when it comes to getting rides in very nice cars. We'll see what happens. Are you doing the judging, too, or are you just doing your mayor's choice?

I just do mayor's choice.

Okay, so I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to help with the parade lineup.

Rotaries get that.

Okay. Because you had told me you would harangue me for that. So, yeah. So I'm looking very forward to it. It's going to be a lot of fun. Everybody come downtown.

Thank you all. We'll see you then. Have a great weekend. Have a safe weekend. And happy Fourth of July.

Yes. Thank you.

See you soon.

Oh, there was one other thing. You're fine. the person that came in with the concerns about their lawn and stuff and all that, has there been any progress for folks along the parade route as far as like flagging off their lawns and that sort of thing?

Well, we have done a lot. Everybody in this room here has been working on it. Maya, our insurance carrier, Denise, Pete, and they actually met on site at her home to take a look at the sidewalk. We... definitely have a policy that it's the homeowner's responsibility to keep up the sidewalk. So that's why she unfortunately received the lawsuit and not the city. So in terms of the parade, we cannot, I've been assured that we're not allowed to block the sidewalk because you can force pedestrians to walk into the street unsafely. So, but there are things they can do to encourage caution around their homes with, chairs in their lawns and so on and so forth. So we have been proactive. Anything else staff would like to add that I've missed? Because I know you guys worked on it all week. Doesn't sound like it.

And I guess I was not saying about shutting the sidewalk down. When we had talked, I had said something about, is there a way to work with not just that particular homeowner, but other homeowners along the thing to say, hey, if you want... put in your lawn along the edge of the sidewalk to keep people from coming into your lawn and sitting on it and those sort of things. Was there... The whole thing, right? Well, or reaching out, like maybe not this year, but what I would say is... In the hometown that I grew up in, there was a thing where the people who were doing the parade would go around, and if different homeowners wanted their property marked off, they would put little sticks with tape around and say, essentially, along the edge of the sidewalk to say, you are not to come into the front lawn. And I think it might be a good... good gesture towards the community folks along the parade route to kind of offer that as an option to them to say, hey, if you're okay with people just being in your lawn, that's fine. But, you know, because this is a thing that's happening in front of your house, whether you like it or not, we would be willing to put stakes and flags up to keep people on the sidewalk and make it clear that they shouldn't be coming into your lawn. That is what I was thinking.

But the issue is not the lawn, it's the sidewalk.

Yeah, the issue is the sidewalk. I'm not talking about it. Yeah, she's got to deal with her sidewalk. But the problem is people are clogging up the sidewalk because they have the ability to walk through the person's lawn. If they don't have the ability to walk through the person's lawn, the people who are trying to get by are going to get raging mad, and they're going to tell the people who are clogging the sidewalk up to get the heck out of the way, and I think it would be a self-dealing, it would fix itself. Yeah. That's what I'm looking for.

Okay. For 10 years, I lived on the parade route. And the parade would go by our house every year. And I never had to get anybody off my lawn. But they did set their chairs on the sidewalks. The sidewalk basically became a non-sidewalk during the parade. You could not walk on the sidewalk. You had to walk in the street if you were walking. And I'm not saying that to... have any opinion at all about what the solution is. I'm just saying that was the fact, having observed it for 10 years from my front yard.

Yeah. We'll take that under advisement of the staff. Thank you, Councilor Patton. Anything else, sir? That's it for me tonight.

End of report. Okay. Mayor's business, I just... 250 years as a country and a great time to celebrate. And thank you, Mr. Woods, for lining up F-15s. That's fantastic. I hope I'm done with the parade so I can watch the skyline for some jets. That's really cool. So thank you. That's all I've got for my report. I'm just looking forward to Saturday and spending time downtown and hanging out with everybody. So that's it. Councilor Patten.

I've talked enough. I'm done.

Council President Hensley.

Real quick, Traffic Safety Commission, we are still looking for one member and we are accepting applications through the 10th of this month. So if you're interested in things about traffic, please go to the website and get your application filled out. We're going to be doing, we did one interview today, but we're going to be doing some more after the deadline of the 10th. Also, oh, that's, I just also wanted to, they're all gone now, though. I wanted to congratulate Canby Police Department on their 24 to six victory over the fire department in the softball on the weekend. So, go, go, go, Canby PD.

I wasn't planning on that.

They had, well, it was sick, yeah. Cammie Fire got six, and yeah.

I heard they were making the Cammie PD pitch left-handed, so. That's how it is. Anything else?

That's all I have.

Counselor Davis. Thank you. Former Fire Chief Davis. Thank you. Oh, sorry.

For those that didn't get to watch the soccer match, USA won two to nothing. Oh, nice.

I don't have to watch it tonight now, thanks.

That was a nomination.

You just turned your mic on.

Thank you. So anyway, Parks Report, everybody knows we're going to celebrate the opening of the Auburn Farms Park and rename that at a city council meeting coming up in August. A sad thing was that the other day when I was over at Maple Street Park putting in books in the library there, one of our officers was playing pickleball or going to play pickleball and found that somebody had been setting off fireworks on our pickleball courts. And the, I don't know if we have those pictures.

I'll just pass my phone down.

But anyway, I took some pictures and they actually damaged the pickleball court. And so I've asked the city administrator if we can see about locking up until after the 4th, locking up the gate after nine o'clock when the park closes, at least until after the 4th. to keep people off those pickleball, but it raised a question is I certainly hope they're not gonna set them off on the turf, on the softball fields. So I know that the police officer that was playing pickleball put the word out to the other patrols to patrol heavily in there when the fireworks are going off or when people are setting off, but please, We worked so hard to make some nice fields and pickle bowl courts and splice pads and everything and legacy park, the new physical fitness area. Please use some common sense and don't set off fireworks on those courts because we have to pay to get them repaired or our insurance company does. So, um, Again, the fireworks display, please attend the fireworks display, leave the fireworks to the experts, and enjoy, save the money. Save the money and go over to the fireworks display. The adult center, very briefly, Kathy, the director over there, basically said they have hired a construction company to do the work of the remodel, and their experience is Christ the King Church and a variety of other schools and churches throughout the Portland metro area. They've actually started the pulling out the asbestos out of the current church. So they broke ground on doing some construction over there, which is a good thing. And they are still working on the progress of the grant for the generator for the new adult center. And that's looking very good. So that's all Kathy had to say. So that's it. Okay, thank you, sir.

Councilor Stearns. I think I've said all I need to say tonight, so. Okay, thank you. Councilor Waterman.

We have two interviews for the Bike and Pet Committee in the next week, so it'll be good. Hopefully, we can get that filled up with no open spots. And unfortunately, I missed the library meeting last month, or last, yeah, last month now, for a family celebration, so I don't have anything on that right now. Okay, that's it.

Thank you, sir. Second opportunity for citizen input. Anyone wants to opine to the City Council? None, okay. Ms. City Recorder, action review.

You have approved the consent agenda and adopted resolution number 1463 as directed by council, 1459B and 1464.

Wonderful. Thank you. If there's nothing else, I'll take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. And seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Aye.

I knew it.

Good night, Camby. Thank you. Have a great Independence Day on Saturday.