City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. This Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026 meeting of Lake Oswego City Council is now called to order. Ms. Hawkins, will you please call the roll?

Yes. Mayor Buck?

Here.

Councilors Burdick?

Here.

Corrigan? Here. Edmunds-Manz?

Here.

Afghan?

Here.

Maboub? Here. And Winland?

Here. All right. Now, before we begin the regular meeting, we are glad to welcome back to the dais Councillor Manns, and we have Municipal Court Judge Amy Lindgren here to administer the oath of office.

Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Take your microphone.

Tess, Tess.

Raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, Jackie Edmonds-Manz. I, Tacky Edmonds-Manz. Do solemnly swear. Do solemnly swear. That I will support the constitutions and laws. That I will support the constitution and laws. Of the United States of America. Of the United States of America. And the state of Oregon. And the state of Oregon. And the charter and ordinances of the city of Lake Oswego. And the charter and ordinances of the city of Lake Oswego. I also solemnly swear. I also solemnly swear. I will faithfully and honorably. I will faithfully and honorably. Conduct myself to the best of my ability. Conduct myself to the best of my ability. In the office of counselor of the city of Lake Oswego.

In the office of counselor of the city of Lake Oswego.

Congratulations. Thank you. You're welcome.

I would like to thank everyone that's here today and the public at large. This is quite an honor to be selected to come back to this body of folks. I'm only here for six months. I want to make that perfectly clear. I think I made that clear the other night. And I will do my best to support the citizens, the staff, and, of course, my colleagues in whatever I can do during those six months. So thank you all very much.

Welcome back. Thank you. Good to have you here. Now, everyone, will you please stand, remove your hats, and join us in the pledge. 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. We have two proclamations tonight for the month of June, the Pride Proclamation and Gun Violence Awareness. Pride Month is an opportunity to celebrate the diversity, resilience, and contributions of LGBTQ plus individuals while reaffirming our community's commitment to dignity, inclusion, and equal opportunity for all residents. We'll be celebrating Pride as a community on June 7 this upcoming Sunday from 12 to 4 PM at Millennium Plaza Park in partnership with LO for Love. Gun Violence Awareness Month is an opportunity to honor the lives lost to gun violence, to recognize survivors and families impacted by tragedy, and to reaffirm our shared commitment to community safety efforts. Both of these proclamations acknowledge the ongoing importance of fostering welcoming spaces where every person feels safe and respected. You'll find these proclamations as well as all other proclamations on the City website. Now is the time on our agenda for public comment. If you are here to provide public comment and have not already done so, please fill out one of the white public comment forms and hand it to Ms. Hawkins. But Donna Jordan, you are first up. It's good to have you here.

I should have come and become another interviewee for the empty council position, but I think you guys are going to do a great job. So here I am. My name is Donna Jordan. I represent the homeowners at Riverbend on the Willamette, down on Furness Street. And we've been working with Kira and Bruce in the planning department. We've been working with the parks department. We're very excited that you are bringing that pathway north and south for George Rogers Park and Foothills Park because I think it's a great thing. I know we worked on it when I was on council. We've been trying to do it a long time. So it's wonderful to see it come to fruition. But we live down there and we walk our dogs. We see people there every day, little kids in strollers, people who are riding scooters. We are very concerned that right now class one is 20 miles an hour, and people on electric bikes and electric scooters and what have you will be riding on that path. It will be a great shortcut. It will mean they are not out there in the traffic on State Street, but we do need to be safe. So we are here to ask you, if you haven't already considered it, to go forward with a local ordinance that puts a speed limit of 10 miles per hour on that pathway where everyone has been walking for years, because it will only take once to knock someone down, for someone to get hurt, a dog to get tangled, and I don't think that's really what you're after. We want this to be a happy, successful improvement for the city. I know that Ms. Peterson has worked on this for a long time, So I think it's a great thing and we want to see it happen, but we would love to see a local ordinance that puts a speed limit on that path before it gets built and opened.

Thank you, Donna. We appreciate those comments. Diana Schmidt. Good evening. Good evening.

Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. I'm Diana Schmidt. I'd like to offer comment regarding the landscape practices set out in Consent Agenda Item 7.3. The Urban Community Forestry Plan states that the urban forest ecosystem composes more than just trees. It also includes understory vegetation, ground cover plants, and soil. It emphasizes that healthy soil is vital. A key component of healthy soil is the organic matter provided by the trees and shrubs themselves, including needles, leaves, small twigs, and more. They're nature's compost. Allowed to remain in place, this organic matter decomposes, transforming into a nutrient-rich substance that improves soil structure and fertility. When leaves fall, they provide a protective layer of mulch that insulates the soil, retains moisture, and regulates temperature. Insects and other invertebrates play a role by shredding and consuming leaves, contributing to the nutrient cycle. Soil carbon is key to a plant's access to nutrition and to the soil's moisture holding capacity. The publicly funded backyard habitat program encourages leaving leaves in planted areas, understanding the critical role that leaves play in the life cycle of insect populations, which are in crisis. A recent two-year study out of Maryland found that when you remove the leaves instead of retaining them, you dramatically reduce the numbers of moths, spiders, and beetles. The study also concluded that the removal of leaves year after year degrades the soil. The proposed contract stipulates the removal of all leaf and organic matter from all landscaped areas. It specifically requires that fallen leaves be removed from all shrub beds and tree circles. Just one example of how this looks in practice, at the recently dedicated heritage tree grove in first edition, the former water tower site, all needles and organic matter are routinely blown and removed from the understory year round, needlessly desiccating the soil and a certain detriment to the future of that grove. Instructions for the worker's cottage include the removal of all leaf, litter, and debris for the entire site, soft and hard, at all times. This is in direct conflict to the sustainable practices called for by the certified backyard habitat on site. Please direct public works and others to adopt sustainable practices, including allowing leaves and organic matter to remain in place in the appropriate areas. In addition to the numerous environmental benefits, doing so will result in significant savings. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Schmidt. Is there anyone else who would like to provide public comment? OK. Thank you, everyone. We'll now move to the consent agenda. We have four items on the consent agenda. The appointment of Kendra Lundquist as municipal judge pro tem, approval of an IGA with the city of Milwaukee for public safety communication services, the award of a contract for landscape maintenance services, and approval of meeting minutes from March and April of 2026. Is there a motion to adopt the consent agenda?

MOVE TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA.

MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SECOND?

SECOND.

THE MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNSELOR BOOP AND SECONDED BY COUNSELOR MANS. MY BAD. NO, YOU'RE GOOD. A QUESTION? YOUR QUESTION. IT'S A CONSENT AGENDA.

IT IS REGARDING AN ISSUE THAT WE JUST HEARD ABOUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

DO YOU WANT TO PULL SOMETHING OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA?

I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION AND THEN We'll find out. But in regards to some of the specific areas in terms of if there's a native habitat or so forth, do we have the flexibility to request that they don't remove the leaves and so forth?

I would have to look into the contract. I would suggest that you approve it and we find sustainable ways to make sure that we're taking care of our spaces. OK. Thank you.

All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, motion passes 7-0. We now have a public hearing in consideration of Resolution 26-21, approving a special procurement for administration of city public arts programs and approving an agreement with the Arts Council of Lake Oswego. I'll invite the Assistant City Manager, Ms. Megan Phelan, forward and ask our city attorney, Mr. Toyin, to please review the hearing procedures.

We will now open the legislative public hearing on the special procurement for administration of the city's public arts programs in agreement with the Arts Council of Lake Oswego, starting with presentation by staff. Testimony will then be received by the public. We're now ready for the staff report.

Thank you.

Good evening, mayors, the council. My name is Megan Phelan, assistant city manager. Of course, I'm here before you this evening ask for approval of Resolution 2621. This, of course, is approving the Arts Council contract. You had a presentation from Nicole Nathan at our last city council meeting that covered the details of the agreement, which is also outlined in the staff report you received. The purpose for the public hearing, frankly, is to ensure that we're following special procurement rules with regards to awarding this contract. And so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions? Okay. Well, thank you. We did have a study session on this at the last meeting. We'll now go ahead and open the public hearing, and I will ask, is there anyone here who would like to testify on this Resolution 26-21? Okay. Seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing, and I'll entertain a motion to approve Resolution 26-21. Move to adopt Resolution 26-21. All right, motion was made by Councillor Winland and seconded by Councillor Corrigan. Any discussion?

All right, all those in favor say aye.

Aye. Any opposed? All right, motion passes 7-0. Thank you. Thank you, Megan. Okay, we are now going to recess the City Council meeting and call to order the Redevelopment Agency meeting. There is one agenda item for the Laura meeting. As regards to the North anchor project, this is the sixth amendment to the disposition and development agreement. I'll invite our redevelopment economic development program manager, Megan Bronstein. Welcome to the meeting. MEGAN BRONSTEIN.

Thank you. Chair Buck and board members, my name is Megan Bronston, your new redevelopment and economic development manager here at the City of Lake Oswego. This evening we're here to talk about the Sixth Amendment to our Disposition and Development Agreement with Urban Development Partners, i.e. UDP, for the North Anchor site. UDP came and presented to the board a month ago on Cinco de Mayo. Please remember those wonderful tacos. And they provided an update as to what had been happening along with the project over the past six months, since the last time they were before the board. Later that evening, the board went into executive session where we talked about potential terms for this DDA amendment. Since that time, staff has been working with UDP to negotiate what the amendment would include. And I believe that the amendment before you does include terms that met our discussion that evening. This evening, I ask that you please listen to my update on what terms are included with the Sixth Amendment. We'll then open it up for discussion. And then I invite you to decide if you would like to vote to authorize the Laura Executive Director to sign the Sixth Amendment to the DDA. Before I do that, for the record and for those who happen to be watching at home, a quick update on the North Anchor project. This involves three parcels that the Laura Board did own on the north side of B Avenue, starting from State Street on the east side, heading west. The programming that our development partner, UDP, is currently planning to do on these three parcels, for the first one, Parcel A on the west, they're planning to do a boutique hotel. This will include one four-story building, 88 hotel rooms, And last month they let you know of an update to the programming so that the commercial portion of it would actually be increased to two floors of a thermal spa, making up to 10,000 square feet between the spa and a restaurant concept that has been changed to more of a wellness flair than the previous restaurant concept. It will include on-street and off-street parking. To do that increase in the space of the spa, they did remove some of the parking from on-site and therefore are in negotiations for a nearby lot that they hope to develop parking for specifically valet. The second portion of the project is Parcels B and C for a single project that will be mixed-use residential. It will include two four-story buildings with 66 apartments total, including at least eight units that are affordable to households whose incomes are 80% area median income or below. On the bottom floor, we hope to have 5,700 square feet or more of ground floor retail, and this one also includes on-street and off-street parking. Last fall, these two parcels were sold to Urban Development Partners. However, Laura does continue to own parcel A that is slated for the hotel. So last month, UDP came and talked about both of these portions of the project, specifically regarding funding updates on the project. The first was about the hotel. They had some good news. The county had just passed C-PACE funding, which allowed the financing portion of the, i.e., the debt that goes into that project to be funded at hopefully a slightly lower rate than what they had currently been assuming. With that, they then hoped to be able to take it out to get equity. However, at that time, they had not identified an equity partner. The mixed-use residential, however, came with a little bit better news. They had all financing identified, the majority of the equity had been found, and they were ready to move forward. At that time, we discussed that they had discussed updating the land use permits with our staff, and I'm here to tell you that they have continued to discuss that with us, and they are moving forward with hopefully staff-level approval. With that, it means that they will be able to turn around and reapply for building permits within the next couple months for the residential specifically. So let's talk about the specific terms before you today. Given that update last time, the first update is to really separate the schedule of the hotel with the residential. They're ready to move forward with the residential. We're not quite ready with the hotel. So previous amendments had included the schedules being the same. So for the residential, this new amendment includes a provision to start demo this fall. Specifically, they want to start with the office building on parcel B and then start construction as soon as they have construction permits, excuse me, building permits. Specifically, the amendment allows them to wait until up till July to start, but they do anticipate being able to start by December, i.e. meeting their land use requirements without having to apply for a new land use application. For the hotel, on the other hand, oh, and for the residential, it would be a two-year construction period. Please note that last month when we were talking about this, there was a discussion of possibly separating parcel B from C. That was not what we moved forward with. This amendment includes it as one project that both parcels will be completed within that two-year period. For the hotel, this amendment includes a new check-in by the end of the year. At that check-in, the UDP is going to present to the board with either a presentation showing that they have received all of their funding that they need to move forward with the hotel, or to provide alternatives for different uses for that site. After that presentation at the end of the year, by March 1st, 2027, if we have not come to an agreement on how we would like them to move forward with the development on parcel A, the Laura Board has the opportunity to remove, they may terminate UDP's rights to that specific parcel. If, however, they come to us with great news, they have found all of the funding that they are needing, then they hope to start construction by August of next year, which is what is shown on this timeline in front of you. Other terms within the amendment, first was to update the default section of the DDA. Specifically, it included reducing the cure period. So if default is triggered, we had a cure period of 270 days. This reduces it to 150 days. along with removing the inability to secure equity and financing from a list of unavoidable delays. So this was part of the default section that was a list of, frankly, mostly acts of God that said, we have no power over if these things happen. And therefore, if these happen, what will now be 150 days will not be triggered. We removed the inability to find financing from that list. So if for some reason they aren't able to find financing, then the default would be triggered in 150 days. Clock would start. Next, we did some clarifications regarding Laura's remedies if construction of the mixed-use residential component did not occur per schedule. And finally, updating the contact information for both parties as that had not been done in a little while. At this time, I'd like to open it up for discussion and then invite you to determine if you'd like to vote to authorize the Laura Executive Director to sign the Sixth Amendment to the DDA with Urban Development Partners.

Thank you, Megan. Colleagues, questions? Councilman?

Yes, can you go back to the slide that had the timeline? That one, yes, thank you. You'll have to forgive me, I might be a little confused here. That's okay. The proposed extension on all of the mixed-use parcels is now 2027. for specifically the proof of financial wherewithal?

Yes, it's June 3rd, so currently they would have to start construction by July 8th, and so essentially this timeline has a list of things including proof of financial wherewithal by June 3rd. And that includes showing us the contracts they have with each of their partners. I believe.

Of 2027. This next year, yes. Yes, next year. Okay. And the hotel parcel, has there been any movement on financing or is that something that they are still considering at this point in time?

My understanding is last year's update said they didn't have their debt financing and they didn't have their equity. Their update in May said because the county had passed this great new C-PACE program and had expedited this specific project to be one of the first ones funded by it, they basically now have the debt portion.

Okay.

With that news, they're hoping to take that out to their equity partners.

Out to their equity partners. Okay, great. Thank you.

You're welcome and welcome. Yes, there is.

Councillor Afghan. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As I was looking at the information, there were some connotation that started confusing me. And I'm OK with the dates, but there are a couple of clarification I'd like to ask you to make if it's not in the contract.

OK.

When we say on the table mixed use residential parcels B and C, then on the second line of the same category, it says demo of office buildings on parcel B. That means parcel C is not demoed.

You didn't ask a question. I'm sorry.

And what I want to make sure is that Just because the parcels are legal properties, legal description of properties, they don't conflict with the activities we're stating. So as far as I understood, there is two projects. One is the hotel, and one is the mixed-use residential. And when I read it like this, it gives me the perception that there are two different timelines and or two different projects. Is my perception correct? And or does anything needs to be revised on these documents?

So I can state that the chart that is in front of you is something I created in Excel and is not part of the legal document. OK. And so all of the words on there were meant for PowerPoint presentation.

OK.

Thank you. And I'll let Erica point to her opinion on the document itself.

Thank you. From what I understand from UDP's presentation last time is they wanted to use one parcel as kind of staging immobilization, which is why they're going to demolish the, is it B first? But the timeline for that entire project is one timeline. So they will demolish one first, use the other parcel as, you know, staging, but the timelines are one timeline. one set of timelines versus the staggered timeline they had presented last month.

And I can state that none of our previous versions stated how we thought they should do construction other than when they should start and when they should end and so staggering construction is an appropriate method that they may have always been assumed.

I just wanted to make sure that as they're sitting in the audience listening They understand how I view the information, and there is no misunderstanding between what we are talking about as our information versus what their contract is. The other thing is when we show complete construction 18 months, when I look at the dates, it's really 24 months. So begin construction July 8th of 2027 and finish construction June 30th at 29th. So that's 24 months.

Where are you seeing the 18 months? I realize I verbally used those words last month and it was an error.

Where it says complete construction line. Oh. Yeah.

Thank you. That was my mistake. This amendment includes it's 24 months. You were correct.

All right.

And you'll see that it's, I believe it's 24 months for both projects.

Yeah. I see the 24 months. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Afghani.

Councillor Boop.

yes i saw that and another thing i saw was the building permits like i just i'm not a good construction guy but building permits july 8 2026 is moved one year But construction begin the same day of the building permit. Is it like they get the building permit?

They start their day here at the counter, and they pick up the piece of paper, and they walk over, the general contractor, and they walk over, and they start construction.

I just wanted to clarify that it's not a mistake. I know building permit is six, eight months, something like that.

Yeah, this is when that part of the process would be completed, and we're saying we're done, and you're ready to pick them up.

So I mean, I'm happy about what you did, good work. And I also want to just say that no, thank you. It's been something like that's a long journey. Jackie is shocked, probably, to find it again. But I think what UDP is doing is wonderful, at least now. They are showing us the light. It's like there's light. at the end of the tunnel that now we are even approaching the end of the tunnel, which is wonderful. I think, you know, you and also the act of God and all of that. It's I'm very comfortable going along with UDP and hope for the best that these deadlines will be met. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Boob. Councillor Winland.

I think I want to thank UDP for meeting us with all the kind of concerns that we had from the initial presentation in May on Cinco de Mayo to now. I think it pretty much summarizes what we need. The one question I had, and I know the B and C parcels are somewhat separate, but we wanted them developed at the same time, and we have a completion date. But if I read everything correctly, we have financing secured for parcel B, and we're part of the way on C. What happens if things go sideways and B is all done? Do we have any backstop to ensure that C gets done if for some reason equity doesn't come through for the C parcel?

Yes, Councillor Wenland, if you look at page Four of the agreement, it talks about the remedies for failure to timely commence or complete construction. So it depends on where we are in the timeline. If they have not already commenced construction, then we have a repurchase right, and there's timelines associated with that. Once the repurchase right ends because they have obtained a lender mortgage to start, Construction, they have to provide us with a completion guarantee, which is a guarantee that's personal by UDP's managers that says that they will actually complete construction. And if they don't complete construction, Laura could complete it and then seek costs and expenses from UDP.

Okay. And then that includes the certificate of occupancy. I mean, that's kind of our deadline. I mean, building could be done, but we need the occupancy permit. And that's tied in there as well with the same date?

I'd expect that to be tied in with the completion guarantee, getting it through all the way.

OK. And then the other part is we need to be upfront with everybody. And I want to make sure that's public. Hotel financing right now is really hard to get. We've heard that for the market. I've gone out and talked to a number of people. And there's just not a lot of people writing checks. Although I did see PSU is presenting a 150-unit hotel project for part of their whole Keller auditorium reorganization thing. So that still has to go before the council. And God only knows what happens in front of the Portland City Council these days. I guess I want to be upfront with everyone to say that we're hoping that the hotel financing equity piece can get through with this new financing that, what is it called, space or pace, whatever. I think that's a big incentive. But we really need to work with UDP to continue to pull the full court press to try to get financing and put all of our effort, because what I'm afraid of is it's only seven months from now, the end of December, and that's a lot of, or it's not a lot of time to get financing totally complete, but we just have to make sure that we are prepared for news in December to say, hey, the market's still soft. There's no money out there. And then go into plan B. I just hope through this agreement that they're going to put 100% effort into getting the hotel financing and not just say, oh, well, we can just build some more housing. Because I really think the council needs to be supportive and insistent that we love the hotel. And we think it will be an anchor point of our downtown urban renewal district that we've been waiting for. So I hope the incentive is there. I see Mr. Nadeau sitting there shaking his head, and that gives me great confidence. He's still part of the game and still wants to make this happen. So I appreciate that. But just know that we have to probably buckle up and go through some interesting times in the next seven months. Thanks, Councilwoman.

I agree. I think this agreement here reiterates the council's support for this project, our faith in UDP, and our hope that both projects, the hotel included, will be able to move forward, but also provide some flexibility and alternatives so that the council, if it's not the right time, the council can continue its relationship with UDP, who has invested a lot of time and resources into getting this done. I know to the public, they see the buildings, they think like, oh, these years, nothing has happened. It's important to recognize that there has been a large amount of work that's been performed both on the part of UDP and on the part of the city over these past years, bringing these concepts all closer to life. This project has been a council goal and a priority for many years now. I think this timeline and the parameters that we're setting, they both recognize the current financing environment while also ensuring that everyone involved makes this the same kind of top priority as we move forward. And so I appreciate UDP's coming to the table with us on this current agreement that I think meets those objectives. Great report, Megan. And for the work you've done, and Erica, thank you as well for your work on this. Okay. All right. Was there a, is there a motion to adopt resolution? What's the resolution?

I move to authorize the Laura Executive Director to sign the Sixth Amendment to the DDA.

Thanks. Thank you, Board Member Wendland.

Thank you.

Okay. Motion made by Board Member Wendland and seconded by Board Member Mboup. All right. Is there any further discussion?

Councillor Afghan. Thank you. When I look at this schedule, I see 2026 being a turning point because we have moved the dates several times and now I see a whole lot of things happening in 2026 including proof of financing, proof of this, proof of that, start demolition. So I want to make sure that we all see the next seven months to be very critical for this project. And I love what you said, Councillor Wendland, that we need to be supportive of this. I'm supportive and you've heard all of my concerns with the schedule, with financing, and the next seven months for me is very critical and it's going to be make it or break it because I today I noticed that our mayor is not going to be with us when this project is completed based on today's schedule and that was heartbreaking because there's so much that everybody has done and it's now it may end up being that we stop throwing good money after bad money everybody has done so much but it's not happening and we do need to see visible progress so next seven months is going to be critical for this project. Thank you. I am also concerned with what John Whetland brought up with the phasing of parcel B and C because we talked about this and if I understand that the schedule is for the entire project, but that's a Not a red flag, but it's a yellow flag for me right now. So I do not ever want to go and start enforcing a contract and start being nasty with each other. So I ask UDP to keep that in mind, that the expectation is parcel B and parcel C schedule is what we have shown here. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

Councilor, or board member, thank you, board member. Yeah, board member, right. I keep forgetting them, so.

I would have to agree with what Councilor Wendland said and Councilor Afghan. Hotel financing is not an easy thing at the moment and all the more reason that I'm sure that we will remain diligent over these next seven months in making sure that we're doing everything to support our partners as they find their equities funding for this project. That said, this has in fact been going on for eight years now, nine years, in one iteration or another. So I will be very excited to see what happens in December of 2026 as far as the hotel is concerned. I do understand that the mixed-use housing is a different animal, but the time has come TO MAKE A DECISION, I WOULD THINK, FOR THE CITIZENS OF LAKE OSWEGO, AT THE END OF THE YEAR, MIND YOU, NOT TO RUSH THINGS ALONG. BUT ALSO SO THAT WE CAN DECIDE WHAT WILL GO INTO THAT PROPERTY THAT LAURA OWNS, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. HOPEFULLY IT IS THE BOUTIQUE HOTEL, SOMETHING THAT I HAVE HAD ON MY LIPS FOR like I say, eight, nine, ten years. So, thank you.

Thank you, Board Member Vance. Okay. All right. All right. Ready to vote? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. The motion passes 7-0. Thank you, Megan. All right, this meeting of the Lake Oswego Redevelopment Agency is now adjourned. We'll reconvene the Lake Oswego City Council meeting, and we are going to move into a study session on the new library site selection criteria, reuse the existing library site. I invite Library Director Melissa Kelly to come forward. Good evening, Director Kelly. Great to have you here.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Melissa Kelly, and it's my privilege to serve as the City's Library Director. And I'm here before you today because of your council goal to develop a strategy for an expanded and modern library facility, prioritizing west side of town and urban renewal funding options, allowing it to serve as an all ages and all activities community center. And to support this council goal, today's study session is intended to start to facilitate council discussion and seek council direction regarding criteria that council would like to establish for future library site selection and reuse of the existing site after the library is relocated. As well as to make sure that staff are taking the right approach to prepare for two community task forces on each track of the project. And later on today's agenda is a resolution creating the first of the two task forces, the library site reuse task force. And for community members tuning into this meeting who may not know the background of this project, I'll quickly review why the library facility needs to be replaced and why a new site is necessary. The existing library facility has reached the limits of its useful life with significant and worsening seismic, water intrusion, building system, and accessibility deficiencies. THESE CONDITIONS CONSTRAIN SAFE, RELIABLE AND EQUITABLE SERVICE DELIVERY AT THE LIBRARY AND WILL CONTINUE TO ESCALATE OVER TIME, LIMITING THE LIBRARY'S ABILITY TO MEET CORE COMMUNITY NEEDS AND EXPECTATIONS. ESTIMATED COSTS TO ADDRESS CURRENT SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS WERE APPROXIMATELY 10 MILLION AS OF 2024. THIS IS ON TOP OF THE 2.5 MILLION ALREADY SPENT ON EXTENDING THE LIFE OF THE FACILITY OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS. While maintenance can extend operations in the short term, it does not resolve core building limitations or the constraints of the site itself. The existing library was built on its 1.1 acre site in the early 1980s, despite the fact that a citizen work group recommended a site of at least two acres. Due to the constraints of the site at 706 4th Street, the facility was ultimately built 23% smaller than voters approved, opening in 1983 at only 27,100 square feet, compared to the 35,000 that was approved by the bond. At that time. In the years since the building opened, circulation of materials has more than tripled. The role of the library has expanded significantly from a book repository to an active hub of community gathering and learning, and the city's population has continued to grow. For the library to meet community needs and expectations for 21st century library services, the facility needs to expand in size, and a larger site is required for that to happen. Given all of these factors, developing a replacement strategy for the library is the most responsible course of action that aligns public investment with lifecycle value, risk reduction, and long-term community needs. Based on council direction, staff are continuing to fine-tune the schedule for the two-track, three-phase process that council approved at the May 19th meeting. And specifically based on council direction, we're now planning for two task forces with slightly offset schedules. The library site reuse task force will meet from approximately August of this year to March of 2027 over a longer timeline than originally proposed. and the future library task force will meet from approximately October 2026 to May 2027. The goal is for both task forces to make recommendations to council in the March to June 2027 timeframe, supporting council decision making regarding the high level scope and location of a replacement library and the future reuse of the existing site after the library is relocated. With the need to move to a new site to rebuild the library, the future of the existing site is of high concern to the surrounding neighborhoods and other key stakeholders, understandably. Representatives from the surrounding neighborhoods, downtown business community, and other key stakeholder groups will make up the site reuse task force. The task force will utilize criteria established by council to guide their work to develop reuse scenarios, analyze them, and present their recommendations to council. Which brings us to the question, does council want to formally establish site reuse criteria to direct the work of the task force? If so, staff are seeking to confirm the criteria that council would like the task force to use. And as a reminder, this is the first opportunity for council to discuss criteria. We do have a second study session tentatively scheduled for July. So based on the previous council discussion around this topic, does council want to direct the task force to create scenarios that generate revenue to help fund the replacement of the library, that stay within deed restrictions and land use requirements? This includes making it clear that if the task force is looking at scenarios that would require rezoning the site, that would need to be done within the bounds of deed restrictions and land use requirements. And do not that these scenarios do not include a library facility since council has determined that the library needs to be relocated to a larger site and that the city cannot afford to operate and maintain two libraries and Are there any other? Criteria that council would like to discuss today in this first of two study sessions are on this topic So I will pause there for council feedback and thoughts on site reuse criteria

Thank you, Director. All right. Colleagues, feedback on the criteria?

Yes.

Councilman Boo?

Yeah, no. Thank you, Jessica. I just, it's, I mean, it's a very difficult, like, to talk about. If we move the site, when we know that this is the very site we talk about, necessitate $10 million to be repaired. So why would we think of doing anything about that site? Do something with the site. No, yeah. But like I say, are we going to repair it? Because if you are doing something, it means we are going to redo that site.

Well, I think just to clarify, this is knowing that the library is the plan is to move.

Yes.

And to engage the community and what will be the next use?

No, yeah, that's what I know. That's where I'm coming. Like now, I, like I always said before, we have our, like we have the folks who live there. I talk to many people. We just, first of all, on everything we do to, And I know you are doing that. Engage that community. Talk to them. It's a hard talk. We just cannot tell them. We have to be blunt and say this thing. After what all you did here, the move is to move the library. city does not have the money to operate two sites or three sites. And it's like, let's be realistic. We even have a problem operating this one. So how can we operate two sites? It's not possible. So that's one of the things for me. We should focus on, like, what we're going to, we have to do something for the, I don't have a solution, and that's why I want to hear everybody's brain. We have to do something also for the people over there, like something that can make them say that it is fair, because the thing is not one lose and the other one win, like we have. But what is that? And that's what I invite my

Yeah. Thank you, Councillor Burke.

Well, I think that's what we want this task force to help us do, to figure out what to do with the site. And so... I'M NOT SURE I'M FOLLOWING YOUR QUESTION OR STATEMENT.

I'M SORRY.

LET'S GET FEEDBACK ON THESE CRITERIA. THESE ARE BASED ON PRIOR DISCUSSIONS. WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A BROAD ENOUGH STRUCTURE FOR THE COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK WITHOUT NO FENCE POSTS IN PLACE WHICH CAN PROVE A DIFFICULT EXERCISE. SO WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT THESE KIND OF FENCE POSTS HERE?

I think that we have to go beyond good financial stewardship in this case to exemplary financial stewardship. I know that there is sensitivity in our community to right now we do have an affordability crisis. We have asked for a new fire station, which we desperately needed. We are going to do that. We need to do this. We need to do this library project. The reason why we're doing this library project is to be good financial stewards. We have a crumbling building. Putting more money in it seems like good money after bad. So a good place to start is how we're going to reuse this site. And I think, yes, we do need to have this committee look at how it could generate revenue from the sale of the property or the lease of the property. I think that's absolutely required. meeting the zoning requirements code regulations and deed restrictions I think are absolutely required so I think those should be the criteria for the reviews committee perhaps there is something else I don't know I hope that they would be open to input from the from the neighborhood and anybody else who has a good idea thanks can we have legal like on like

Eric would ask, can we sell the building, for example, outright? Is it something we can sell?

Well, this is all part of what the discussion they would have.

No, but legally, I'm just saying the legal aspect.

These are part of the thing. That's why they have to look into how the library is owned, potential restrictions on the deed. That's all for the process. Councilor Burdick.

Do we at this point have any more information on the deed on the, I guess is it four of the lots that were

So four of the lots have a deed restriction that says the property must be used as a library. It has a subsequent clause that's not so clear, and there's inconsistent opinions on what that means. So we are, as of today, trying to reach out to the grantor's heirs to try and see if they will release any purported restriction and negotiate that so their title would clear.

So with that, I think, you know, I'm very much in alignment with Councillor Corrigan. I think we do need to stay within land use requirements. I think we just have information we need to learn more about the deed side of it to figure out what that looks like before I can really comment on that. Because as we know, and as Councillor Moop said, we can't afford two locations. We know we've outgrown this location. So that puts us in a little bit of a quandary with half the lots. So again, I think more information for me on that piece needs to come. But I'd like to really try to keep our parameters pretty loose to let this task force come up with some ideas and see what they have to say. I think ideally it would be great if we could generate some revenue off of this property or some of it, maybe not all of it. I'd like to explore that. You know, maybe it's something that Again, maybe not a must, but that's a really strong, we'd like that to happen because, again, as we know, we've just passed the bomb for the fire station. There's not a lot of money flowing right now, so every little bit helps. But first and foremost, I want to make sure that we... that we really work with first edition neighborhood and businesses and so forth, because as Councilor Mboop stated, this is really hard. This is a big change for that community, that neighborhood. And so I want to make sure that within this task force that they are strongly represented, more than just probably one or two people on that committee. And that, again, we kind of help. I don't want to be so strict that we stifle the ideas. So, again, I would like, I think we do need to stay within the land use. I think the deed is yet, is kind of to be determined. And ideally, we're going to be generating some revenue, at least off of part of it. Does that help?

Thank you, Council. So you're okay with these ideas?

these uh criteria that are listed on the in the staff report again with that i think for me that that revenue is is the ideal right you know i'm not opposed to them giving one recommendation if for some reason they can't come up with right thank you very much i'm not sure if my button is working so i keep pounding on it

Well, that was something we did with Councilor Rapp. We took away his money. We need to reactivate it.

My initiation to council? Thank you. Thank you. I would have to agree. That neighborhood has lived with the library there for 50 years, as has the South Side, for that matter, Old Town, Palinan, Evergreen, that has been their library, whether they walk there, some may drive there if they live a little further out, but that has been the library. So I think it is vitally important to have that representation. I think it would be wonderful to have within that mix younger folks who are going to be seeing the fruit of what's going to happen there. I know it's difficult. People have children in school. But I would deeply encourage new people to join in with new ideas who are going to be physically using or missing, I would say, that space or thinking that they're living there and they had that space and now the space is gone. I think that would go a long way to help folks. There's always value engineering, and I know everybody loves that word, not, but... In passing the bond for the fire department, there could be an idea that the more that we value and engineer the things that we are currently building, we may be able to convince people that everything that we're doing is for the benefit of the whole. And I would like to see us do that as much as possible. For me, it's sad, I would say, that the library is leaving there. I'm not a first edition neighbor, but I am on the side of the lake. However, I see the need and the good of the whole. And I don't have small children. And most of our population is on the other side of the lake. So how do we mix those two things up? Do we park Rover at that site? There's a number of things, but I'd like to see us invite our younger folks in to come up with creative ideas as to how we can lessen or dampen some of the sadness that will go along with losing this space.

Thanks, Councilman. Thank you. We'll assemble this task force similar to how we assembled the South Shore Fire Station task force.

WE ARE FOLLOWING THAT TRACK DEFINITELY WITH THE FUTURE LIBRARY TASK FORCE. IT'S MORE ALIGNED WITH THAT PROCESS. I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SPEAK TO HOW THE REUSE OF THIS SITE MIGHT COMPARE TO DEVELOPING THE FIRE STATION. BUT I'M DEFINITELY WORKING CLOSELY WITH DEPUTY CITY MANAGER WHO IS VERY MUCH A PART OF THE TASK FORCE DEVELOPMENT AND SHE'S BEEN GUIDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS TASK FORCE. We're trying to utilize all the lessons learned from that process.

Right. Okay. And just, yeah. So in the composition, well, this will, you know, we'll work to put it together and bring it for council approval and everything.

Yeah, we talked about the composition last time, but do you have some notes to remind council on the composition?

That's actually the next business item on the agenda to talk about the composition of the site reuse task force. And then we'll come back in July to talk about the composition and charge of the future library task force.

OK.

So we will get to that.

But your answer is yes and.

Yes. OK.

Thank you. Councilor Woodland. Well, I echo a lot of the comments about the library. And I went to that library in its original form before it was remodeled. And I just want everyone to know, 50 years ago, when you said that we were already 25% or whatever less in space than what we approved, I just looked it up, and if Google is right, there's 19,700 people living here in 1976. So that was 50 years ago. And we've doubled plus. We're now at 42,000. So the idea of having a library to have for the size of our community is 50 years overdue. That is a side note. I think we need to be... I'm just putting the 60,000 foot cap on. I agree it's going to be hard for first edition to give up a library. I also look at first edition gaining this whole north anchor, which was not here 50 years ago. Things change. Unfortunately, we can't please all people at all times. But here's the thing that we have to look at as a council for the long term. When we define generate revenue, is that ongoing revenue, like renting it out? I don't think so. I think generating revenue is mirroring, I mean, if I had my crystal ball, I would say to, and I didn't know about the deed restriction. That's new to me, and I had never heard of that before. So that's new news, so that's interesting. But... I look at it as taking that piece of property and exchanging it for a bigger and better library. And that will have to contribute to that and to maximize the value out of that by putting in maybe eight residential houses. I'll be just up front. I don't think we should keep it as a park. I think we need to use it as revenue to build a better library than what we could afford if we didn't have that money. And it's like anything else when you sell your house to buy a new one. 99% of the people sell the house and put the proceeds into their next house, and it's a bigger, better house. And so I guess I'm going to use that analogy. And I don't know if we could deed restrict, re-deed restrict to say it has to be single-family homes, and it can't be... a strip of clusters. I don't know whether that's possible or not, but to give, I think, the assurance to First Edition that we're going to try to make it just like the rest of First Edition, and that would be my big picture, is that we need the money to fund the next project. Because there's just not enough money to go around. And just to keep things in priority, we've got foothills, which is going to be a huge drain on resources of any dollars that we can come up with. Even if we get an urban rural district, we're going to have to have money to spend to develop that as well. We've got some pretty big ticket items ahead of us that I don't want to steer this. I guess my last point is I don't want to get the reuse committee to say, oh, great. We've got this fabulous idea. It's only going to cost you $25 million. I guess my thing is the number one part is to maximize revenue as one of their biggest tasks to give us options. If they want to give us other options that we can consider, great. But I think we need to say generate maximum one-time revenue as their first bullet point. And then you can put any other criteria on. And if they want to figure out how to get I mean, if they have a money-generating idea that's going to be a huge cash cow, great. I mean, if they're that creative. But we've been around this city long enough that I think it's generate one-time revenue and maximize it. So that's the number one criteria that I would give this direction. OK, thanks. And maintain civility and character of first edition, whatever the replacement is. So that would be my feedback. Thanks, Councillor Wilmich.

Councillor Afghan? If that wasn't enough feedback, I'll give you more. A little bit of everybody's comment. We need to be flexible. So it's not black and white rigid. So I don't know what generate revenue means. Is that like $20 membership every year or is that $20 per minute of usage, whatever it is. So I don't know what that is and I don't think we need to define what kind of generation this is, revenue generation it is. From my perspective, this is about first addition and the city needs. So it's not like the foothills redevelopment that the sky is the limit right now, let's go vision big and then scale back. This is very limited property lines we have. One of the things we talked about last time was we need to do our homework about why we're going to be moving the library so there is no room for arguing. And one of the thing is, you have us convinced. We're all on board. But when we go out sometime in the future to get that money from the residents, everybody has to be on board. So we talked about this last time, and I know you're going to be doing it. We need to know what's our bare minimum library size. 99.9999% convinced that it's not going to fit here. So we have to go someplace else. So you have it written here, but I want to make sure we have that data that so when you put this team together, there are going to be people who are resisting this opinion. So we need to bring them on board. We need to get them on board so they can start thinking a new paradigm. Financial and fiscal responsibility, we're expanding, and I don't know when the lines are going to cross each other and we don't have the money to do X, Y, and Z. So this is not just you. I'm looking at the city manager, Peterson. We've got to think about 10 years from now, 20 years from now, and make sure we don't run out of money. Land use requirement, definitely yes. Deed requirement, a consideration. Because we're not going to be able to put a library there. Well, maybe our mobile library is a library, and we park it there at night. But legal. But it is a deed right now. But we can't limit ourselves just because that limitation is there. And we have to talk with the trustees and convince them that this was a great idea 40, 50 years ago. Now things have changed and shifted. So I wouldn't let that become a limiter for what they come up with. Knowing you, you're going to bring a whole lot of people on board and do a collaborative conversation moving forward. So I'm not concerned about first edition. They're going to participate and you're awesome at pulling it together. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Afghan. Follow-up, Councillor Burdick? Oh, Councillor Vance.

One button. One button. It's working. Oh.

OK.

I have a question for our acting city attorney program. I'm not sure what we call you, but there we go. The deed restriction is the entire property, or how many lots is that, as some people weren't aware of the deed restriction? Yes. If you can clarify that for me.

It's four of the eight lots. It's four of the eight lots. And I'm not sure which direction.

And those are 5,000 square foot lots? Do we know the dimensions? Generally, they were five in first edition, five or six. OK. OK. So there's still substantial land, if you will, that falls outside of that deeded restriction. And then finally, and I don't want to oust this off the cuff. I'm sure we'll hear more later. As far as deed restrictions go, Is it difficult to remove a deed restriction in general? I can imagine it would be, but I'm not an attorney.

It can be. So the issue we have now is that even if we found it's unlikely we would find a buyer because they wouldn't be able to obtain title insurance. So if they took the property and wanted to build homes and someone sued them because it's no longer a library, they couldn't go back to the title company and say, you need to defend title. They'd be on the hook themselves. So that makes actually.

On those four laws.

On those four. OK. So the title company has told us that they read this as an exclusion from title. And we need to figure out how to get that released. Great. That would be the easiest.

way to do it otherwise it is pretty difficult thank you appreciate the clarification okay thanks councilman okay so i think we have kind of everyone's on the same page with these criteria um echoing conversations we've had in the past and this the the process itself you know is very important i think is kind of counselor afghan uh was talking about the that we've all been thinking about this for a little while so we're all kind of seeped in it we have ideas of what's needed, but you know, we, and some of the community has too, but we need a lot of the community to kind of catch up to that, and these processes can be very important in helping people understand, you know, what the direction that we're moving, why it's important to raise revenue. Councilor Corrigan made a great point about the need to be really fiscally responsible here. I mean, that is why we're making this decision. So we do not keep investing money in a facility that's not serving the needs of our community, that's not ever going to be kind of up to snuff, and has been eating millions of dollars over these past years in kind of Band-Aid fixes. So we do want to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollar, but we don't want to leave the criteria vague enough, like Council Verdict was saying, or open enough so that there can be some discussion. And our goal as a council right now is to come in and define it so narrowly that there's really only one answer. I mean, we want to hear, you know, creative solutions. But at the same time, we know that it's going to take money to build a new facility, and hopefully the existing facility will help, you know, THE NEW ONE. AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN WORK THROUGH ISSUES ON THE DEED. THAT SEEMS TO COME UP ON A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT WE DEAL WITH. AND AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT ELIMINATING THE LIBRARY, WE'RE LOOKING AT ENHANCING THE LIBRARY SERVICES IN OUR COMMUNITY AND MAKING THEM MORE RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF THE MODERN DAY COMMUNITY. um so this seems great we will look forward then to putting this group together i really appreciate the engagement of the first edition neighborhood especially this is a big it is a big deal i mean this is i mean as long as all of us have been here in the community i mean this is how it has been so We understand what a change it is. We really appreciate the engagement of the neighbors, their cooperation, and that community mindset that sometimes we have to do something that can be difficult for us for the greater good of everyone in Lake Oswego. Okay, so does that sound good, Director? Oh, yes.

Can I get some clarification before we move on? Of course. Just while we're here. I heard from the council that the revenue, we need to be more specific about the revenue. It's a one-time. It's not an operating. It's not overtime. Our intent as staff was to make sure that it was used so that one time. So I just want to make that clear and see if there's agreement that that was the intent. Is that what you understood? And is that what you want? Because we're not looking, you're not looking, are you looking to lease the land? If you want that as a part of a conversation, we can put that in there.

Well, I think it's, I mean, I go back to like what we, this is a library, it's not a fire station, but there were some things I would say we went into the fire station process thinking were kind of obvious answers, but we let the committee kind of come up with those answers, and it was helpful in bringing people on board. So I would say We can go into it open, you know, ish, and yes, and then I think the process will narrow it down to the correct.

I just wanted to clarify. Second, the, I heard deed restrictions or negotiations, the requirements that will come out of any negotiations as a clarification on the deed restrictions, because there might be requirements that come out of the negotiation. Did we put that in there?

What do you mean specifically?

Can we kind of wait to fine-tune that piece of it until our next discussion? Yes.

And hopefully we know more then?

Yep, yep. Because I don't really want to. Well, I don't know if we'll know enough, but yeah, I just wanted to clarify. And because I don't, I don't know, I kind of want, I feel like I don't know enough.

We can just leave it for now. We can just leave it for now. Yeah. But I just want to ask the question because it did come up. And then the last one, the maintained character of first edition, do you want to leave that to the task force to have that discussion? Or do you want to put that as a criteria?

I would imagine that if we assemble the neighbors of first addition, they will act in the best interest of their neighborhood.

I just wanted to make sure. Well, yeah.

I mean, I think we've all said that we want to honor first addition. And they definitely have to have a say in this, but I don't think they're going to be the majority on the committee.

So I don't want to have a committee all of a sudden go, well, you know, I don't live in First Edition, and I don't really care about what your things are.

Well, we're about to talk about that, and the intent is to have a majority for First Edition.

I think it's mostly neighbors. Okay. I mean, if it's going to be mostly neighbors, then I think that's great. Okay. But I just want to make sure that... they have a heavy influence in maintaining their neighborhood and figuring out how they best can do it and what they can live with.

OK.

Thank you.

Just wanted to check with the whole council because it was put out, but I didn't hear any.

OK. And we are just recently kind of learning of the deed issues, a very fresh issue. And here we are in the council meeting. So no one's trying to be vague about anything, but it's like a kind of a today even thing. So let's give the staff the opportunity to research the issue more, and I don't think it needs to be the certainly the centerpiece of this conversation, probably something we kind of work off to the side on at first. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Lynn.

Thank you.

Melissa.

Well, just wrapping this up, as you've stated, we are going to continue working on researching the deed requirements, zoning and code restrictions. So those are clearly identified for council and for the task force. And then we do recommend an appraisal to evaluate potential resale and lease valuation so that that information is also available to council and the task force. So that data gathering is recommended as one of the next steps on this track. And then if we're ready, we can talk a little bit about the other track, which is the future library task force. We do need to identify a suitable location for the library to be rebuilt.

Go ahead.

AS COUNCIL DIRECTED, STAFF WILL COME BACK TO YOU SOON WITH A PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO CREATE A FUTURE LIBRARY TASK FORCE. AND THE SECOND COMMUNITY TASK FORCE WOULD HELP GUIDE THE PLANNING FOR REPLACEMENT LIBRARY IN A WAY THAT IS FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AND SUSTAINABLE. FOR THIS TASK FORCE WE WILL BE LOOKING FOR BROAD PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACROSS THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS ENSURING THAT THE NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR THE URBAN RENEWAL AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN ARE REPRESENTED GIVEN COUNCIL'S INTEREST IN PRIORITIZING THAT GENERAL LOCATION. And tentatively, the work of the task force would include refining the evaluation framework and the high-level scope for the facility, identifying and analyzing properties of interest, and making recommendations to council. And like the first task force, that work would be guided by criteria established by council. And so again, this is the first study session where we're talking about criteria, but we do have some aspects that we wanted to start a discussion with you on and to get some direction. We are seeking direction from council on the site selection criteria that you would like to use. So the question really is, does Council want to formally establish criteria to be applied to site selection? And based on previous Council discussions, staff are bringing forward the following aspects of site scope and suitability as a starting point for that Council discussion. So an important aspect is, of course, that the site is adequately sized. The current facility was rebuilt on a too small lot, and Council has commented on that lesson learned and not wanting to repeat that misstep. It's important to select a site that's large enough to accommodate core needs of the facility, including parking and usable outdoor space and all the other site requirements. This could be a lot or multiple adjacent lots that could be purchased, or it could be a private or public shared site with redevelopment potential, keeping those options open. We'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Shape and topography of a site are also important factors in site selection to ensure there is an adequate buildable footprint. as is understanding if any part of a site would be considered unbuildable due to sensitive lands. And as Councillor Afghan commented, to really determine that, we are getting hard data, so to speak. We have a library building consultant hired that's studying our facility space needs and will be providing a range of square footage estimates for three different building scopes. And that's going to be coming to you at the next study session. So there will be a base scope that's meeting base requirements, those minimum requirements for the facility, a mid-level scope with a few more options, and an optimum scope with even more options. And those options are based on community priorities, the community survey, visioning process, and other data from the community, as well as some research of other libraries and the core services that they are now providing in other communities. Another important aspect that's been discussed is making sure the future site is in an equitable and accessible location, a site that is more geographically central to the city's population, a site in a more visible, prominent location near an arterial road, and a site that allows multimodal access by pedestrians, bike, car, ideally public transit as well. And it's also a council and community priority that the project be financially feasible. This means a site within or able to be brought into an urban renewal district with capacity to help fund the project. I don't need to tell you, but for those listening, urban renewal funding is a key part of council's financial strategy to significantly reduce the cost of the project for taxpayers. So that's an important aspect. And then, of course, a future site would also need to be appropriate to be zoned for a public library. SO THOSE ARE THE FOUR AREAS THAT WE WANTED TO START A CONVERSATION WITH YOU ABOUT.

CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? WHEN YOU SAY ZONE FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES, IS THERE A SPECIFIC LIBRARY ZONE OR CAN IT BE A COMMERCIAL OR?

THERE IS A PUBLIC USE. PUBLIC FUNCTIONS. THANK YOU, JESSICA. There is a public functions zoning. My understanding is that it is in the council's, you know, span of control, if you will, to be able to rezone property for that function. But we would want to make sure that it's an appropriate site to be a public library and that there aren't adjacent uses that would be problematic.

That would be looking at the compatibility of that site with the surrounding uses. so that if it were rezoned, we'd be able to have that conversation.

But it's not very restrictive, right? OK, good. AS HIS OWN. NEXT TO A CHEMICAL PLANT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE GOOD.

OKAY. ARE YOU READY FOR FEEDBACK ON THESE CRITERIA? YES, I AM. COUNCILOR AFGHAN, KICK US OFF.

TWO COMMENTS. FIRST ONE IS I don't know if we have made a decision to be on the west side of the city, but I also know that there isn't any space on the east side of the city. So every time we say west, it may create an unnecessary tension. We may just want to leave that. word out, even though most likely we end up on that side of the city. The equitable and accessible, the way you have it, the result may end up being the same. This is how I think. What are all the properties that could have this library there before we put criterias around it and force ourself into a decision? Does that make sense what I'm saying? It's like, what are all the options? And what are the pros and cons of each option before we have a shortlist? This way, when we have it this way, it may just shortlist everything to two properties. So the criteria is maybe too constraining to see options. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Afghan. Colleagues, feedback on these criteria? Councillor Rance?

sorry this is just uh for clarification the building consultant will bring back recommendations regarding what a supposed um core need of the facility is as far as being adequately sized outdoor space what that may look like in theory. Is that what we're getting back on the 7th at the next study session? Yes. OK, so that would help to narrow down spaces around the entire city, to your point, where a library community center could go in, correct?

Yes. We want to make sure that the future site is adequately sized and that we don't have another situation where the site is too small to meet the community needs. Perfect.

Hence, adequately sized. Bear with me. I'm getting there.

No, it's a great question. Thank you. Yeah.

Councilor Corrigan.

Well, I guess I'm just not, maybe not clear with regard to the, where we're gonna be looking to site the library, excuse me, it's under the category of financially feasible. And I think the only place it can be financially feasible is in the Lake Grove Urban Renewal District area. And the reason why I know that is because I was involved in the Boone's Ferry Road rebuild. And for those of you who aren't familiar with that, the way we paid for that was we floated a bond, but it was only $5 million. All the citizens of Lake Oswego had to pay for that new road. We had an ODOT grant that I think it was $4 or $5 million. And then the rest was supported by TIF funding. And as we look at that today, we realize what a great investment that was and how that road has benefited the whole west end of town. So I think to say that we're looking anywhere else is gonna be more or less a goose chase if we're gonna keep this thing as financially responsible as we can.

I agree with that, Councillor Corrigan. That's why the council has targeted the west side for multiple reasons, one being it's where the active urban renewal area is, and two, being near the population center of town in a more convenient location. one of the pieces of feedback we've been hearing through the community feedback. So I think it is wise to continue our focus as stated in the council goal of siting the facility on the west side of town. Councilwoman.

I agree. I was going to say, I understand you don't want to put handcuffs and we have to be all creative and all this kind of stuff, but I think we're down that road already. The one thing that I'm going to be really excited about is to see what the building consultant recommendation is because we had building consultant recommendations twice and They were gigantic facilities, and they went down in flames when we tried to get the taxpayers to fund it. So we went to the urban renewal funding model, and we're still going to need some money on top of that. So we need to piece this together. I wish we could dream and say, hey, we've got acres and 25 parcels that we could choose from and meet all these criteria and whatever. But in reality, we're out of space, folks. You know, Jessica has come before the council so many times and says, we've got 12 lots left or whatever. I mean, we really don't have parcels of acreage in Lake Oswego to consider. And so to Councilor Corrigan's comments, we don't have options. And I don't want this to be a wild goose chase. And I think we want to have a tight criteria for this group so they can work productively. And I I look at it as again, you know Cobbling together funds different different groups of money to try to fund the best possible Library we can and it may be smaller than what the consultant says But we still want a class a project and so we're going to have to fight for this and in the same way that the I think one of the reasons why South Shore Fire Station got such round of a big support system was that the community was involved, but they also heard the realistic parts of, hey, we don't need a community workroom, and we don't need a meeting space, and we don't need this. We could have had a $30 million fire station. And we said, no, no, no, no. Let's do what's right for the firefighters and give them a great facility to and it's going to survive an earthquake. And we kind of went in it. And I think it's going to be a beautiful station when it's done. But we needed to set the criteria and expectations. And I know that there's a lot of dreamers in Lake Oswego. And they're going to say, hey, let's have a 100,000 square foot library. And that's probably what we need. But we can only afford and cop together a 60 or 50,000 square foot. So let's make whatever we can do, utilize in the best possible ways. And I think the idea of want versus need is something that we have to balance. And that's, right now, what we have is not working. do that. This city hall could have been a lot more opulent and bigger, and the city council said no. We have X number of dollars that we can use, and this is what they did, and this is a beautiful facility. We're living in it, and so far we're not outgrowing it. So anyway, that's my feedback on that.

I think even though that's good feedback, I think even the language we use in talking about, because for instance, we know the current library is undersized. So building something that's just a hair larger, well, that's clearly not going to work. But we heard from the last consultant that we could have a 60,000 square foot library. And I mean, that's also 70,000 square feet. So I'm worried about we have, as a community, done this before where we go down these very opulent plans, and then they fail because the community sees them as unaffordable and too outside of the scope of reality. I don't want to see us present the smallest option as the bare bones option and the largest option as the best option and then make the community feel like, well, we're having to compromise, you know, because that's not I mean, we're going to be setting ourselves up for trouble, you know, right out of the gate. We have to be realistic with what we can afford, the sites that are available. And so I think just looking at different, it's going to be a matter like everything else of priorities. And so we're going to be choosing between different programming options, what mix of services we're able to offer. And it's not to say one is better or worse than the other. It's just one, we have to find the kind of optimum one that will blend all of the different restrictions that we face around getting this project done and just be realistic about it.

UM COUNCILMAN SO THERE CANNOT BE A LIBRARY IN FOOTHILLS BECAUSE ON FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE WE TALK ABOUT URBAN RENEWAL THERE'S A NEW URBAN RENEWAL ON FOOTHILLS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE THOUGH COUNCILMAN YEAH YEAH NO I AM IT'S A CAPACITY IN THE RENEWAL DISTRICT IT'S A PROVOCATION HERE THAT I AM LIKE I have to speak. I have my ideas that I am giving. That urban renewal in Lake Grove, what if we can't find a site? Because there's a possibility that we cannot find a site there. If we can't, what are we going to do? When Ali said we have to have multiple, that's what I understood when you saw. We have to be open to everything. People told me about Safeway. What if Safeway was selling this thing? We need at least 1.5 acres. one and a half acre to build a library that's like 60,000 square feet or stuff like that. Where are we going to find the place if it's not in Lake Grove? The only place is the school. If they build the school, the left over of the land, if the school board wants to work with us, which I think they should and would, work with us to have a school. What better place can you find of having a school and a library next to it? But we need to talk to the school board. And I think they should be on board, because it's for everyone. It's even better for them as a school district. But if we don't have there, where else In Lake Grove, can we find a like?

That is the purpose of this committee. No, yeah. We don't know. I mean, to make comments like there's only one, we haven't done that work.

There's a school on Boone's Ferry that A what? A school on Bloomsbury. But that school is not for sale.

That school is not for sale. Not today, not tomorrow, not at any time. Oh, if you can put us, if I can give you the school to build a two-story library on our school, I would do it.

Yeah. But you bring up good questions that the community will ask. I think what we're trying to do is look at what's before us right now. You know, we don't have a 20-year timeline that we can pursue, right? And the Safeway building isn't in an urban renewal area anymore. So you're just kind of bringing up great options that are kind of more pie in the sky. We're looking at what's concrete.

Yeah, but what's concrete can mean, like what's concrete depends also on That over there, what I look is, yeah, if you can build over my building, yes. If not, that's the city, the school district. What if they refuse?

I think we're just establishing criteria. I think you're kind of foreclosing possibilities here. Again, we haven't done the work. Let's keep an open mind. Please, Councillor Afghan.

I need to make two clarifications. I'm not suggesting we go chasing wild goose here and there and chasing ghosts. I'm asking for let the data speak for itself. So if there are no properties over on the east side, case closed. If there are properties on the east side and the west side, the data is going to say that if you put it over here, it's going to cost a lot less. So let the data speak for itself. So we don't have a case here that one person says over there, one person says the team needs to go do their due diligence. Even though we're all convinced it's going to end up in certain places, we need to look at options. That's clarification one. And clarification two is that a whole lot of residents have talked to me about how nice they want their new library to be with the rooftop gathering place. And I think, hold on. Don't shake your head. I think we need to put that in front of them. You want this? It's going to cost this much. You want that? It's going to cost that much. Which one do you want? And we are going to be, of course, the decision makers. But we can't start strategizing or positioning for the smallest and the least expensive. It's like, let the consultants come through, and then we will have those discussions, just like the fire station. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Afghan. Councillor Burke? Oh, Councillor Vance. It works, yes. It's been working.

Just a clarification on the consultant. They were given certain criteria. They know what we're looking for. They are going to come back and present, I'm assuming, available areas. where the library could be built, correct?

That is not part of this current scope of work. That would be the next phase. So they're really giving us the solid numbers of like, what is the minimum building size, but giving us a range and the lot size so that we can then look for sites that would be adequately sized.

Thank you for clarifying that. So we will have... than what their range is. And they're clear that we need a range, obviously, for financial reasons and so on, I would imagine, right? Yes. Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Burdick?

Are they going to kind of keep in mind, again, there's the cost and how many floors? Like, you know, it might be that we can't afford to do three stories. So I want to make sure when they're doing this that they're sizing appropriately, again, whatever we decide, is it a two-story building or whatnot?

Yes, the current assumption for the models is a two-story building. And certainly that could be, you know, those numbers could be crunched to make it a one-story or a three-story. I would definitely prefer to not... have a three-story in the new library because the operational costs are much higher. And when we're talking about the long-term financial sustainability of operating the building, having two stories would be an improvement. One story would be amazing. That would save us a lot of money operationally as well as in the building construction because it's around 5,000 square feet to put the stairs and elevators and things like that. And that's significant square footage that could go to something else or not be built at all and save money. But we also, I think, with the limited number of lots that we are likely limited in available lots in Lake Oswego, we're assuming a two-story building.

Can they maybe provide us a one-story building would need this many acreage and a two-story?

Yes, that is part of the scope, is to give us some of those ranges.

And personally, I kind of see a three-story as not, I mean, maybe there's a rooftop thing, but not, I just don't see that operationally as being very smart.

The current library is three stories, isn't it?

It is. It is. So we know how to do it, but it's not the best.

I worry about the operational expenses. And maybe we could do it if those spaces on one story really get, you know, depending on how it's used. But I just want to be a little bit, you know, oftentimes people are like, well, just build up and not understanding the impacts of building up. So I want to... as we're looking for sites, just make sure that we're keeping that in mind. And then the other thing I think and this goes on what the mayor and councilors have been saying, but maybe a little more succinctly have a list of this is what absolutely this is what we have to have. This is what the nice to have. And this is pie in the sky. And I think sometimes dividing it into those three buckets is a little bit easier for people to kind of get their head around of, you know, like this is a if we don't have this, it's a no go.

That is the intent. And I can say that staff have worked very hard to think really critically about what those must haves are. And I think if that is the direction that the council and the community go, we will have an excellent library. We've really thought about multiple uses for the spaces. We've really listened to what the community has said their priorities are and make sure that those are included in that base model.

Great. And I know that the Library Advisory Board, as well as your staff and the community, is like, again, how can we use the spaces as multi-use? How can, you know, like right now, we have an area to give speakers between the stacks, as well as it can be used daily just as a normal library. Hopefully we can do a little better job than that. But it might be, too, that there's areas that could be, again, just multi-purpose so that we're not having empty fewer empty spaces throughout the day.

Absolutely. Good feedback, everyone. So we're kind of hearing general agreement around these criteria as listed on the slide here. Are we shaking hands? OK. Thank you. Good, with some ..

I just want to be sure to thank you for the direction you provided this evening. It has been very helpful. I think we've gotten a lot of really good feedback and kind of highlighted areas that are true requirements that council wants to see as part of this, as well as areas that are very important and you want to have flexibility for these task forces. But some of these criteria could be evaluation criteria for how the options are ranked. I think that that's helpful for us. So the next steps do include a second study session on criteria so that we can hone in and get those adopted so those task forces can move forward with their work. We'll also come back with a resolution to create the second task force. AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA IS CREATING THE FIRST TASK FORCE. BUT BEFORE WE WRAP UP THE STUDY SESSION AND GO TO THAT NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE THIS EVENING? Okay, excellent. Well, the next order of business on your agenda is the resolution that creates the first task force, the library site reuse task force. The resolution outlines the charge and membership of this ad hoc task force as well. The charge of the task force includes using criteria set by council to develop reuse scenarios for the existing site after the library is relocated. Selecting and analyzing the top three scenarios so that that analysis can be presented to council. for your feedback. Based on your feedback, the task force would fine tune and analyze the top two scenarios, ideally if we're able to narrow, based on your feedback. And then the task force would return to council with a final reuse recommendation for the site for the future when the library is relocated. The timeline for the task force's work is from approximately August 2026 to March 2027. And the task force would include no more than 20 people, including at least one representative from the First Edition Forest Hills Neighborhood Association, the Evergreen Neighborhood Association, the Old Town Neighborhood Association, the Downtown Lake Oswego Business Community, the City Council, the City's Library Advisory Board, the City's DEI Advisory Board, the City's Parks, Recreation, and National Resources Advisory Board, the city's planning commission, the city's youth engagement network, and the adult community center's user group. Additional at-large community members will be selected through a public recruitment process. And it's intended that the task force will be composed so that a majority of its members are residents who reside in neighborhoods within walking distance of the site. So some of the categories that I just read, again, they would have at least one representative. They could have more than one. Certainly for the surrounding neighborhoods, they would have more than one. And there can be some overlap as well. For example, a library advisory board member who lives in the neighborhood or you know, a youth that lives in the neighborhood, so that we definitely have the majority of members residing within walking distance of the site, as I believe is Council's goal for that task force, so that it can really be neighborhood-led in making those reuse recommendations to Council. I will also say that our goal is that timeline of August 2026 through March 2027, but that can be adjusted if we need more time to gather information about the deed restrictions or other data points that are needed for that task force to do its work.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Melissa. So we will solicit folks to apply as we have done before. The task force will fill the various billets. Is that the process?

Yes. I believe there were, oh gosh, let's see. One, two, three. It looks like there's 11 categories by my quick count where we will ensure that there is a representative. And then the additional spaces will be done through the at-large application.

I see. So there's different applications.

Yeah. We will likely reach out to those groups and solicit folks.

Self-selected?

Yes. OK. And I believe the process is that the mayor So as part of that process to put together that slate, and then the city council would approve that. And we do have that on a future council agenda to come back for you to approve the members of the task force.

Great. Have any questions or feedback on Councilor Afghan?

I think we want to re-emphasize that we want to have heavy involvement from the neighborhood. So one or two representatives is not heavy. We want more. Now, if they want 32, then we can talk about it, but definitely more than one or two. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Afghan. Councillor Burke.

Yes, I was going to say something very similar. I just want to make sure that, you know, we are, that first edition specifically is represented well. And again, kind of targeting that walkability too, because that's who's going to be impacted by this, I think is very important. And then do we, and I believe you just said this, but I just want to reiterate, how many meetings do we have for that task force scheduled right now?

Tentatively, five to six.

Okay, perfect. And it sounds like we have flexibility if needed. That's correct. But hopefully, I think five to six, I think, is about what we had for the fire station as well. So that sounds like that should be good. But I appreciate it. I know at one point I think we had less, so I appreciate the adjustment on that. Thank you. Yes, that's correct.

Can I make a motion? I was just going to say, yeah, I hear the feedback on it. We'll make sure there's good. And I like this process because it does, we typically will go to the, because we have associations, you know, we'll go and they'll say, I'd like this, you know, to serve. But then we do that broader recruitment because sometimes we get folks who aren't necessarily involved who live in the neighborhood and they might have good perspective. And so it's a good process to get a lot of different voices around the table. Go ahead, Councilwoman.

I move to adopt resolution 26-30. I second.

All right.

Motion was made by Councillor Winland and seconded by Councillor Verdick. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. Well done. All right. Any information from council? We might have to, we might rejigger some board assignments so that we, you know, can include Councillor Manns and make sure that she's not, don't want you to get bored or anything, you know, so little board assignments. Don't you worry. And I'm trying to think of anything else to share. No, no one's got anything. We do have the, I mean, we talked about it at the beginning, but this weekend, the Pride Festival at the park, the city partners with L.O. for Love to do that.

Yeah, and there is, we walk with the, The park board, we walk the new path. It's going to start in the summer. But the park will be open, but the left-hand side won't be available to people. And it's wonderful when you see what they're going to do there. We talk to the neighbor. one of the property owners, and they, you know, it's good, but it's heavily, like, it was left, like, it's a wilderness, complete wilderness, and So it was interesting to see what Parks is doing. So we walked there with Kerry. And I was very happy that they even started to see the tree they were going to. Not a lot of trees. And they were moss ash trees. So it's, and also like that steep, I have never noticed that, how steep it was. They're going to fix all of those. And like it's going to be some level down the path, you know, from that to the, it's amazing. And I think they're going to be done by the end of, by fall. That's what they think, or at the most end of the year. Okay. City Manager.

Good evening. Thank you for that great discussion on the library. I want to thank Melissa, our amazing library director, for all of the hard work she's put into getting us to this point. We've been on a fast track to get to this point, so I'm very, very happy that you guys are on board for this very fast, higher speed rail that we're on. I also want to thank the police department. They had quite a... A NUMBER OF INCIDENTS THIS WEEKEND, AND THE CHIEF HAS BROUGHT YOU UP TO SPEED ON SOME OF THOSE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THEY ALSO WENT OUT AND SUPPORTED THE SANDY POLICE AND THE INCIDENT OUT THERE. SO A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON THIS SUMMER. And I had also looked up the population of Lake Oswego back when the library opened as 1,900 residents, and it was 23% undersized then. It's just amazing what we've been able to do for that long with that library and how much loved it is. So I just thought that was an amazing set of statistics that we should keep talking about. With that, the only other thing I had is I mentioned to you all, but Chief Johnson is moving forward with discussions with the National Guard to do what they did in Happy Valley and have a team come out and help us do fuel reduction somewhere on a space yet to be determined, on a date yet to be determined. But when we finalize that, we'll be inviting you to join us. Fuel reduction, public, kind of that public interface with private residences to make sure that If there is a fire, it doesn't jump into the residential area.

Great.

So we'll keep you apprised.

Thank you so much. Thank you, everyone, for a great meeting. We're adjourned.

Thank you.