City Council - Regular Meeting

Three, two. Good evening, Camby. Welcome to the June 3rd, 2026 City Council regular meeting. If you please stand for the invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. Dear Heavenly Father, I thank you so much for our great community here in Canby. I want to take a moment and say just thank you for the men and women that step up and serve and protect our communities. I especially want to, though not in our community, but in the community of Sandy, I just want to lift up that police officer, his family, the family that had such a tragedy occur over the holiday weekend. Lord, just lift them up. rally around that community. I know people here in our city touched by the incident and we've had our own officers involved as well, helping out over there in the city of Sandy. Just ask for your love and holding that family and that officer and his family in your hands. In your name, amen.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance It's my roll call this evening.

All right, for the record, Councilor Padden is absent tonight. Councilor Maldonado is going to be joining soon. Council President Hensley.

Here.

Mayor Hodson.

I am also here.

Councilor Davis. Here. Councilor Stern. Here. And Councilor Waterman.

Here.

Next on the agenda is staff introductions. I think we have Spencer here to introduce a new team member.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Excited to be here tonight to introduce Nick Irwin as our newest parks employee. Nick joins us, we stole him from the school district, Hopefully they don't hold too hard feelings about that. But no, Nick's been great in the couple weeks he's been on so far. Can be resident for a long time. Can be grad. Did 13 years in the school district and another 12 to 13 years kind of in the landscape business for progress. So we're super excited. He hit the ground running and has been a great addition to the team so far. Great. And you want to...

Spencer hit all the high points.

He did.

I usually like to have the new employees to say something, but Spencer did all the talking. That's good. Well, you can still pick on him a little bit. I'm trying to. I'm trying to think of something to pick on him about.

He's more used to picking on you. I know.

I have so much fun with Spencer. Well, welcome aboard and thank you for doing what you did for as long as you did there at the school district and greener grass over here in the city, maybe. But no, he'll make it greener. There we go. No, our parks definitely, you know, several crown jewels here in our community and And so Spencer and the team have done a great job, and I have no doubt that you'll be able to add to it. So welcome to the Canby team. We're glad to have you. Appreciate it. Yeah.

What year did you graduate?

99.

99?

Yeah. I told them we weren't going to bring that up, so it's funny that you bring it up.

All right. Well, again, welcome. Thanks very much. Thanks, Spencer. All right, next item is citizen input and public comment on any non-agenda items and community announcements. If you wish to address the council on a non-agenda item, there are white cards on the back podium there. Please fill them out, hand them to our city recorder, and we will give you an opportunity to address the council. If we can keep the comments to three minutes, that would be great. And if we can deal with it or answer the question tonight, we will do so. I have no white cards. Is there anyone online tonight? No? I'm seeing none. All right. We will move on. Item five, we don't have any proclamations or special presentations this evening. Nothing's being held over from the consent agenda, I don't believe. So I will take a motion on the consent agenda.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda that includes the approval of the April 15, 2026 City Council regular meeting minutes.

Second. Second. Motion has been made by Council President Hensley and seconded by Councilor Montanaro to approve the consent agenda, which include the approval of the April 15th, 2026 City Council meeting minutes. All those in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? That carries 5-0. Item eight this evening, appointments. We have two appointments this evening. Member Kerry Matthews to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board with a term ending June 30th, 2027 and approval of reappointments to other various committees, commissions and boards.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the appointment of Member Kerry Matthews to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with the term ending June 30th, 2027, and approval of the reappointments to various committees, commissions, and boards, whose terms were set to expire June 30, 2026.

Motion made by Council President Hensley and seconded by Councilor Davis to approve the appointment of member Carrie Matthews to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board with a term ending June 30th, 2027 and approve the reappointment to the various committees, commissions and boards whose terms were set to expire on June 30th of 2026. Any further discussion or comment? All those in favor?

Aye.

Anyone opposed? All right, item nine, ordinances and resolutions. We have second readings this evening. First one up is ordinance number 1673, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to execute a contract. with Roy Houck Construction LLC in the amount of $713,812.50 for the 2026 Street Maintenance Project second reading. Last meeting we went over basically what's planned for the summer paving and the lowest bid was Roy Hawk. It's been a while, but they do great work and they'll be out busy paving and sealing, correct? Or just paving? Just paving. So. It's a calendar. You're supposed to do both of them. Excuse me. I guess then item two under the second readings is ordinance number 1670, an ordinance adopting the city of Canby comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan map changes, including the revised strategy 1.1, which is also for a second reading.

Mr. Mayor, I move to adopt ordinance number 1673, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to execute a contract with Royal Construction LLC in the amount of $700 $13,812.50 for the 2026 street maintenance project and ordinance number 1670, an ordinance adopting the City of Canby comprehensive plan and comprehensive map plan changes, including in revised strategy 1.1.

Just a minute for staff input, Mr. Mayor. Mayor and council members, in your packets, there is revised language and totally support what you all are doing right now on the second motion and the vote on that. If you're all comfortable with that language, that is in there in terms of the revision and the staff report. Otherwise, I can go through, I have two slides, PowerPoint slides, if you'd like to revisit that language. This is regarding... the last hearing and Councilor Patton's comments regarding septic systems and trying to put a framework together, which ultimately will be an ordinance that will address this collectively for all the various issues that relate to that. So at your discretion, I can go through this quickly. So yeah, I'd like that. It's at the will of the council. So I just wanted to give a re-status of where we were on May 20th. And there's a number of issues here. And this, again, gets into the framework of septic systems, which is a little bit more complicated than perhaps just whether or not we want them to be hooked up or not. There's some variation to that. So I went ahead and put some points together. And so part of this is to discuss hookups for existing development, also new development within the city limits and upon annexation, completion of annexation for existing development with redevelopment when redevelopment will be occurring. And that relates to properties that would be annexed but have plans to develop and so they're very well would likely be development that it was already connected to septic systems and giving the opportunity for those to be connected to sewer when they're doing their final development plans over a period of time. And then addressing the complexity of the coordination of this issue we were feeling should come back an ordinance form to you all. and address the incentive programs that you all talked about to incentivize existing septic conversion, both in the city and the urban growth boundary. And really the comprehensive plan is intended to be a kind of framework policy level item and not a code, not really a code level item. So with all that being said, We made a change to the policy, the strategy to 1.1 and revised that to say within city limits, failing septic systems will be required to connect to city sewer. Existing property functioning septic systems will be permitted to remain in use, but connection to city sewer will be encouraged. The city will develop an incentive program for conversion of existing septic systems within the city limits and urban growth boundary. for city limits and urban growth boundary areas and annexations, require new development to connect city sewer associated with annexations, require sewer connection agreements with annexations with stipulated timeline for city sewer connection for existing development. That's a lot of words, but I think that covers the multitude of scenarios that we would come back in ordinance form to you all. What we don't really wanna do is force people to connect a sewer for existing structures that they're gonna tear down after they annex them if they have plans to do subdivisions and those kinds of things. What we don't really have a good thing in our code is like an agreement on stipulation on when that would happen. And I think we could work that out as part of that code that we would address. So within a certain amount of time, maybe there is a reasonable expectation that if someone's not gonna develop over several years, that they actually end up having to connect to our system. Whereas if they were gonna annex and redevelop with specific plans, there would be some leniency. So hopefully that all makes sense. It was a little more complicated than that last conversation where it's not exactly black and white on this. And so hopefully this frames it up in a way that if with this addition to the comprehensive plan, that's the final final version of the comp plan. And if you wanna accept that and adopt the comp plan, we would be appreciative of that.

Any questions for Don at this point? Thanks, Tom. Thank you. Thanks, Tom. So motion is on the table. Any further discussion? No. All those in favor? Roll call. Roll call. I knew that. I was just testing.

Testing us.

Councilor Maldonado.

All right. Councilor Maldonado.

Aye.

Councilor Davis.

Aye.

Councilor Stearns.

Aye.

Councilor Waterman.

Aye.

And Council President Hensley. Aye.

Motion carries 5-0. Next up is 9B, ordinance number 1676, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to execute the first amendment to the personal services agreement with Herd Farms for wastewater sludge hauling services and declaring an emergency.

Mr. Ely. All right, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Many of you have history with this contract going back many years. Patrick's here who oversees this contract on our wastewater treatment plant. There is a bump in the request for the renewal due to obviously they drive the semi trucks from our plant down to Roseburg, Oregon and fuel prices have escalated. So we're asking for a little bump in the contract. Hence, I am back. in front of you for that. I'm also back because I won't get into too much of the details. We talked a lot about procurement during our budget process and this is a very complicated process a contract that you set up for my time, which requires, even though it's a multi-year contract, it requires coming back to you every year to ratify it. So you wanted to, it sounds like you wanted to keep a close eye on this one. So we're back again per the terms of the contract, but just wanted to flag that they've asked for a little bump from 225 to 240, a $15,000 increase to cover fuel. Anything else you would add? Mr. Mahoney?

They had mentioned that the cost their drivers had went up several dollars an hour as well on top of the fuel prices. And within the contract, if the fuel prices were fluctuating more than 50 cents, they had the right to ask for this increase. So here we are with this.

So when... when, because I'm trying to be optimistic here, the prices go down, will we be able to go back to them and adjust the contract?

That's a good question. I can't give you a straight answer on that one, but it would be something we would discuss. A crooked answer. A crooked answer. We can definitely discuss that with them. We have a very good relationship with their owner, so it's something we could discuss. How many years have you been in a contract with them? I think we're going on... 14 years? 10 plus, something like that, for sure.

And is, they're still the only one around that does this, right? What was that? They're still the only one that does this, right?

That I know of, yes.

Paul, did you have a question? No. I was going to say, I'm assuming that since in the contract that specifically states that they can raise it if the price goes up, I'm curious if the contract does say anything the other way.

Yeah, I didn't read anything that said that, so.

Yeah.

I'll ask. Okay. That's a good point. We'll follow up on that. We can go backwards, too. When the economy settles down. Hopefully, fingers crossed, right?

Okay.

The whole reason we're here, though, on this tonight is because of the bump in costs. Because I feel like we had this conversation last year with this whole source thing that we weren't going to have to do this every year. It's because of the increase.

Exactly. It's written into our agreement with them that we would kind of touch base on this every year regardless of an increase or not. Okay.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

I move to approve ordinance 1676. The ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to execute the first amendment to the personal service agreement with Heard Farms for wastewater sludge hauling services to a second reading on June 17th, 2026 and declare it amended. Thank you.

Second. The motion has been made by Councilor Waterman and seconded by Councilor Davis to approve ordinance number 1676, an ordinance authorizing the interim city administrator to execute the first amendment to the personal service agreement with the Heard Farms for wastewater sludge hauling services to a second reading on June 17th, 2026 and declaring an emergency. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Anyone opposed? That carries 5-0. There is no item 10. Item 11, urban growth boundary update.

I've got a handout coming. Can you hand this to Don? Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Don is here with our consultant team. I have a one pager that I just handed out that might be, you can keep next to you as Don gives his presentation. These are some high level questions you might have as we walk through this. You've been through this numerous times, but we're about ready to really put a full sprint together to the end of this year. to get this urban growth boundary expansion approved through yourself, your planning commission, the county commission, the county planning commission. We've hopefully had a DLCD route, if it's a . And then at the end of the year when that's done, just so you know, we move into full concept planning for zoning and whatnot in 2027, and then the annexation. So I just wanted, before we started, to give you a high level. Here's where we're at. Don's going to walk through some slides with 3J. And... Feel free to refer to this. Ask questions. You're gonna see some land that's not coming in, some land that's being recommended to come in. Those are non-exception versus exception lands. Don has defined those for you. It's like a cheat sheet here. All of the different sub areas, their acreage total, what's residential, what's industrial. So I hope this will help. cheat sheet is helpful as he walks through 25 or 27 slides, Don and his team are the PowerPoint gurus. So any questions before we, you're well versed on where we're at and what's,

Okay, Don. Thank you, Randy. Good evening, Mayor and council members. We will get through the slides tonight quickly. So don't be intimidated by the number. They're fairly brief. A few of the council members were able to participate in our project advisory committee. So this information will be a bit secondhand for them. But tonight we're really going through an overview of The framework really here is the state requires us to go through a fairly defined lens in terms of properties that can come into the urban growth boundary and those that cannot come into the urban growth boundary. And there are some choices for council as well that we have before you tonight as well. And some of those relate to ultimately, and the decision, we're not asking for a decision tonight, but we would like your input on this. This is the beginning of this discussion to kind of start to frame out what acreage we are going to request for Department of Land Conservation and Development, ultimately going through the Planning Commission and the City and the City Council, going through the County Planning Commission and the County Board of County Commissioners. So there's a number of steps. Also very important in this is the listening session we're planning to have for the urban growth boundary residents, the property owners in those areas, really important to have that. That's something that's on the horizon in June, and we'll have a community meeting in July. Then we'll start to get into the hearing work sessions for Planning Commission and City Council as we go through this. We're trying to make the schedule work so that we can get this hopefully done by the end of the year. We have a fairly ambitious schedule to do that and we're trying to make all efforts to be done by the end of the year. With that, I'm gonna turn it over to Steve. We will have kind of a summation of this process on urban growth boundary, and then I'll talk a little bit about next steps on beyond this, which Randy alluded to, like what's coming after this process. So I'm gonna turn to Steve Faust with 3J.

Thank you, Don. Could I have the clicker, please? Yeah, absolutely. Good evening, Mayor Hudson and counselors. Good to see you again so soon. A different topic though this time. As we get started, just a few notes about the Urban Growth Foundry expansion proposal or recommendation. It's important to note that the urban growth boundary amendment, what that does is change the urban growth boundary. It does not assign land uses. We don't assign land uses at this time. However, we talk a lot about land uses because we need to in order to understand where it makes sense to expand the boundary. Our residential land need, which I'll go over in just a moment, includes land needed for homes, parks, there's an opportunity to add a small amount for neighborhoods serving commercial, and then associated infrastructure right of way. We also have an employment land need. Virtually all of that strictly employment land need is for industrial use. There's less than one acre of land need that is needed for commercial uses, and that kind of stems from the economic opportunity analysis from a few years ago. Important, Don wanted to note that employment or industrial land can represent a wide variety of land uses ranging from a business park to manufacturing. As you go further down the process, the city of Canby may look to add new zones or change their zoning to make sure that you're allowing the types of uses that you want on these lands, any lands that are brought in for industrial use. And then as I go through the presentation, I'll note that through this process of preparing this draft report, some of the sub areas that we're looking at within the study area are deemed appropriate for residential use, some just for employment use and others really at the discretion of the city and city council. And we'll talk about that in more detail. So again, the land need for residential, we have up to 102.5 acres. The one number that is fixed is that 73.1 acres for residential, for homes. That is a fixed number. And associated infrastructure. parks. I know you've been working a lot with Don on system development charges and looking at park lands. There was an identified need of 25.7 acres. That's at City Council's discretion of how much of that 25.7 you might want to bring in. And then neighborhood commercial is something that came a new part new legislation that is recent and actually is a safe harbor for future cities and their urban growth boundary expansions. But in talking to the state, they said that if the city was interested in that, they could propose a small amount of commercial. I believe it's up to 5% of the residential land need. And then we have that employment land need of 439.2 acres. Again, less than one acre of that is commercial. The rest of it is an industrial land need. And for a total of 541.7 acres of land need.

Question, Steve. When you talk about the housing and infrastructure piece being static, why did it come out? Why did that come about?

Yep, not an attorney, though my understanding is that there is state law that states that once you establish your residential land need, that the city is required to bring that number in and you can't bring in any more or less. That is the identified need. There is not that state requirement for employment land. You can't bring in more than the 439.2 acres, but you can bring any amount less than that as you desire.

So after it's brought in, can we change it?

Again, when you bring in the land, we're not identifying land uses, but it's going to be important to meet that 73 acres of residential and to meet whatever number of acres you bring in for employment. And I think Don has had some conversations about how residential interrelates with parks, and maybe you could speak to that, Don.

The parks piece of this... And this gets into desirability of amount and desirability of location and there's a bit more to this dive, a deeper dive that we're gonna have to go into with the slides that are coming for you to fully understand this. Because there's exception lands that we have to start with and those have to be developed first and so that. Brought in first. Brought in first, thanks Steve. But I think part of this is the 73.1 acres came out of the housing needs analysis as a demand need for housing. The park land is based on our 10 acres per thousand and that's an optional thing. We could bring in some of that, we could bring in all of that. If that's not developed as park land, it could be developed as residential land. Part of this is kind of overlapping into the concept planning that we're doing concurrently with this through a state grant through ODOT, which starts to tease that out in terms of the process of identifying where those might be specifically on the ground. Oregon's process is a bit clunky because you have to define the boundary first, but you're really not defining the land uses, although you have to consider them because it's based on the demand that's part of your housing needs analysis and your economic opportunity analysis. So they're not really merged together exactly other than you have a land need and you have a boundary. And then from that boundary, and we're now forecasting where those areas would be appropriate for residential, appropriate for industrial, appropriate for park, for example, those things that we're teasing out, those would be more specific, specifically defined in concept planning that we're also concurrently doing and that's gonna have its own outreach processes as well that will be completed by June 27. So that's another piece that's going on here. But for example, and it may or may not be where council may say, well, 25.7 acres in the area we need to put that in may not be appropriate, for example. maybe five acres of that is appropriate. I'm just throwing that out there. And that would be your decision. And could we, and this is part of the expectation around the community as well as, if they're not built out as park, they would be residentially available. And that's part of this dynamic as well. I don't want to get too far astride, but also we're going to be talking to some degree about goal exceptions. I don't want to start with that, but there's a potential for more residential land to come in under goal exceptions for some sub-areas. We'll touch on that briefly. It's another subset of this whole thing, but not part of these acreages here now. All right.

And Don, maybe to wrap it up and correct me if I'm wrong, but lands that are brought into the urban growth boundary would initially, because the city doesn't own land and can't necessarily say a park goes here, a park goes there, they would be brought in as residential initially with a comp plan designation. And then in the future, you would identify where your parks go. Is that correct?

there would be an overlay. Yes. I mean, so basically the designations are going to be, um, you know, basically residential or employment essentially will be the designations that, and those would be the underlying land uses with the intention on parkland areas where we would show an overlay over that, not committing those to parkland because we don't own the property. But obviously that plays into this. Like if that's something that's desirable that we might acquire as part of a city process, um, we would obviously follow through with that. So there's a bit of sinking with this. This boundary discussion starts to get into visioning like where we might end up having parkland. And again, back to the council's discussion, there could be, there could either be, there could be none or there could be up to 25.7. And that's a council decision at the end.

Okay, so this was the study area that we looked at. We've gone over in the past kind of how we got to the study area. Happy to revisit that with you. But in the end, we needed to have at least twice the amount of the demand in our study area. So our demand was about 541 acres. Our study area is 1,500, so we met that criteria. So now I'm going to go through our preliminary recommendation here. And when I say recommendation, it's really a recommendation for you all to think about and respond to. And so hopefully this format is helpful. I do want to mention that for Mayor Hodson in particular, who was at our project advisory committee meeting, the acreages here are going to be a little bit different than they were at that project advisory committee meeting. As we get closer and hone in on things here, we get... Down into the details, Clackamas County pointed something out to us about how we were counting acres. We consulted with DLCD and they agreed. So the recommendation is the same as the recommendation we presented essentially to the project advisory committee, but the acreages are a little bit different. Oh, sorry. And so how we are looking at acreages is, you know, we have our gross acres, but what is actually buildable for a developer, you know, doesn't include these environmental constraints. So essentially the acreages that we're recommending to bring in, there's a gross number, and then there's a number without constraints, and that's the number that we use to meet the need that I showed on the previous slide. And I'll show some details of that as we go forward. As Don mentioned, the first priority for an urban growth boundary expansion is exception lands. These are non-farm lands, not EFU lands. Canby has a few of these that we've set aside in sub areas 1A, 1B, and 1C. There's a 1A, which is... to the northwest. There highlighted in yellow is 115.9 acres. That is essentially enough land to accommodate all of the residential need. all of that park need and potentially close, not quite all of that neighborhood commercial need if the city were to decide to pursue that neighborhood commercial. And I'll mention here, I mentioned that different sub areas were deemed appropriate for different types of development. To the northwest, That's where the community throughout our process said, that's where we want our residential development primarily to occur. To the east, there's some areas to the northeast that could be residential or employment. More directly east, the community thought that's appropriate for employment. And then to the south, again, employment or residential, and we'll touch on each of these. So 1A is essentially where all of the residential need and parks need can be accommodated. Sub areas 1B and 1C, therefore, if those are to be brought in, would need to be used for employment purposes. Again, so the recommendation here would be to bring in sub area 1A for that 73.1 acres of residential use up to 25.7 acres of park and up to 3.7 acres for neighborhood commercial. 1B and 1C, you can see that 1B is 50 gross acres, but there are some constraints there, 7.7 acres. 1C is 34.3 gross acres, no constraints. So the recommendation is to bring in sub areas 1B and 1C. That would be 76.6 acres that would go towards that employment land need. Now we get to what is essentially the fourth priority. There's a third priority that's low value farmland, of which Canby doesn't really have any in this study area. So we move to the fourth priority, which is high value farmland. And I'll go into each of these in more detail, but sub areas seven, eight, and nine are recommended to come in for industrial use. Four, five, six, 10, and 11 are recommended to not bring into the urban growth boundary at this time. And sub areas two and three are kind of unique cases that I will touch on right now. So sub area two, and just if people wanna look at where sub areas two, three, and four are, that's what I'm gonna talk about next. That's just south of 1A in the northwest portion of the study area. Sub area two is 13 acres with no constraints. It would be very suitable for residential use. It's surrounded by the city. Unfortunately, we've already accommodated our entire residential use in that sub area 1A. There is an opportunity subsequent to this process to potentially add that area to the urban growth boundary through a different process, what's called a goal exception process. If you have questions about that process, I think Don can maybe speak to that a little bit. So at this time, we're saying let's not include it in this urban growth boundary expansion and potentially pursue adding it through this other process subsequent to the urban growth boundary expansion.

Can I ask a question? No, no. Go for it. Going back to that map, Steve, we're creating through this process, it looks like more, even more islands. Is there a reason why the council shouldn't, if assuming this property owner, which I understand is a willing property owner, why we wouldn't move on that?

At this time through that goal exception process?

or through this urban growth boundary expansion?

Sure, I think in terms of the urban growth boundary expansion, and this goes for two and three, because we've accommodated our residential land need in that sub area 1A, those would have to be employment uses. And we heard from the community that that's not desirable for that part of the city.

Go ahead, Don. So we have this process that we're working on right now, which is the urban growth boundary process. And there's a way to finish this process up and finish up the concept planning process up and then come back. And if that's council's desire for us to look at sub area two and three, then there would not be jeopardy for us addressing two and three. We cannot really address two and three as part of this process. It could be done afterwards, but it will, um, It's not something that we're able to really add in based on the fact of the demand for residential and employment lands. Those two and three are suitable in our belief for residential. Two in specific is a very similar type of situation that's happened previously in Canby. There was a 40-acre goal exception in 2005, which was also surrounded in a similar area to that, not north of Territorial, but in that vicinity that's in the northwest and was successfully completed. They call that irrevocably committed to development, essentially, when it's completely surrounded. But it would take Council's initiative to say, we want staff to pursue that as a goal exception. but it can't really be baked into the urban growth boundary process that we're currently doing now. I mean, it's not possible to do that. So, but we could come back and then three has a slightly different scenario because it's not irrevocably committed like two is based on state standards, but it would have to be proven out that access was needed to access part of 1A through sub area three to make that exception. So those could happen subsequent, but not part of this process.

So essentially, hopefully, we're not creating new islands here. We're not addressing the islands that exist in two and three, but we have a plan to do so. But I don't think we're creating any new islands, hopefully. But essentially, it's a shell game of sorts where if we were to put residential in sub-area two, then we'd have to put employment in 1A or vice versa. And what we heard from the community is there's not a desire for employment uses in that part of the city.

Okay. Councilor Waterman. I guess my question is, What's special about 1A that you have to use all of that land instead of only using some of it and then including two and three in that?

The state priorities say that first priority is to bring in non-resource lands or non-rural or farm or forest lands. And these parcels have development and zone designations of rural residential forest farm. I think there are. Yeah, of two acres, I believe, or something like that. So they already have some level of urban development. So it's all about the state wanting to protect farmland. And so they say you need to bring it in these areas first.

So two and three have a designation already that prevents it from being a priority over 1A? Yeah.

So 1A has a priority actually over 2 and 3. And that's kind of the historical planning pattern that's happened, which makes it not exclusive farm use. And so this is the challenge here on the dynamics of what has previously happened. But because 1A is exception land, it is mandatory by state law that it has to come in first before any other lands. So it's a rule that we cannot, there's no variation from that rule, essentially.

1A is already not farmland, I guess. It has to come in first because 2 and 3 are already farmland. Got it. Okay. I get it. Unless I'm wrong, but that's fine. Thank you. Thanks.

Okay, so again, sub area two, we'd recommend the city consider pursuing through a subsequent process. The same goes for sub area three. I know Don's already working on this, but you can potentially make a case that sub area three is needed to serve 1A with transportation and other public utilities. So that is an option for sub area three. Sub area four, which is the Dahlia Farm, it's an important social, cultural, and economic institution, and therefore we are using those reasons to say we are not bringing that sub area into the urban growth boundary. All right, next I'm going to talk about areas five and six, which are to the far northwest. I just populated these maps every once in a while so I don't have to flip back and forth. But as I mentioned before, essentially we've already accommodated our entire residential land need. So five and six, because the community said we want residential development there, not employment lands, we recommend not bringing in five and not bringing in six. And now we'll move on to seven, eight, or nine, I can't remember exactly, but seven. Seven is important to note. You can see it to the northeast there. That is surrounded by some of those exception lands, 1B and 1C that we talked about earlier that will need to be brought in for employment land uses. Therefore, we also recommend certainly a choice here for the city, but to consider bringing in sub area seven, it's 40.5 acres, but 38.7 of those unconstrained acres that would again, accommodate part of the land deficit. Sub areas eight and nine are kind of those primary parcels that the community said would be most appropriate for industrial use. Sub area eight has about 213 unconstrained acres and sub area nine, has about 112 total acres, but there are 43 constrained acres, and this is a choice for council, and I'm gonna, despite saying that I'm not gonna flip back and forth, go back to this map that shows resources, sorry about this, this one right here, you'll see sub area nine is in the southeast and you'll see at the very bottom of it there are resources there. There's floodplain and there is a stream. Through conversations with staff and the community, it's possible that that might be a good opportunity for parkland. However, if the city does decide to bring that land in, that would count towards the land need, even though it's... constrained that's one of the big changes from from the project advisory committee because if we don't want that to count towards that land need we should just leave it out because it was the guidance from the state if we want to bring it in it needs to count towards that land need these these sub areas are kind of while we while there was intent and how we created them they're not um There's no reason why we can't bring in some or part of some of these. We could bring in some of eight and some of nine, some of seven and some of 10. So in this case, there's a decision to be made. Do we want to bring in all of sub area nine or do we want to bring in only the part that is north of that stream and that is not constrained? Hopefully that makes sense.

So can we take part of nine and then add in something else somewhere else?

potentially, well, we'll look at the totals at the end, the total acreages at the end. There are choices, I don't know.

A little three-card Monty here, but, you know. It really is. Because that's down there by the cannery, correct? On the south end there? Thanks. I mean, we looked at that. There was a conversation a couple, what, two years ago, and the reason that it didn't happen was because it's all floodplain and it's in that area. So I'd be curious to know if we could, if we take the top half or top two-thirds of nine, does that open that up for something else industrial land-wise? along that eastern part of the border there.

If we may, I'd say let's revisit at the end, but I will say that sub-areas 7, 9, as you mentioned, and 10 are really the opportunities for council to have some options. So I'm going to go back to... We talked about seven, eight, and nine. That brings us to sub-area 10, which is to the south. Due to the getting close to the land need, we recommended at this time to not bring 10 into the urban growth boundary. There was mixed opinions on whether this land is most suitable for employment or for residential land need. If the city brings it in now, it would have to be used for industrial use. If we hold off and leave that out, it could be added in a future urban growth boundary expansion for residential use. So again, these recommendations are just a first preliminary recommendation for you all to consider. It's not set in stone by any means.

Maybe I didn't quite understand what you were saying earlier, but we'd say this gets approved. and we proceed, were you saying earlier that we could decide one of the things that we thought were industrial to make it residential afterwards?

I think you could move your acreages around, but in the end, you need to meet those residential unemployment targets.

So if we approve this and then say seven years from now, change your mind and say, hey, I think that we can put houses there, is the state going to come back and say... No.

I mean, I'm not going to speak to how closely they track things, but in theory, if you were to say, oh, we're going to make this land we thought was going to be employment residential, that means that somewhere in that northeast area you would need to make some of that land employment residential.

Okay. It could have a bearing on the next round, which will be 10 to 15 years after this. And so that may not play well if that worked. Again, I'm not sure of the legality of the question to do that. But if let's say that was something that we basically let go at the state, it would have a bearing on our future areas of development and perhaps specifically more than Northwest would possibly be compromised. if we were to make that switch.

Okay, I'm just hypothetical, obviously, I don't know if I'll even be on the council then or anything, but just trying to figure out how much we are locking ourselves in to these decisions. And then I guess the Land Use Board has a long memory.

And we can, that's something Don and I can maybe revisit with state staff and get some really clear direction on how they look at that type of situation. But my understanding in the end is what's important is that you're meeting your identified land need. The urban growth boundary doesn't dictate where you do that. It just, we're expanding for those specific numbers that we mentioned before. So somehow the intent is for those to be accommodated.

So I get a little confused when you say it doesn't dictate it, but then you say that 10 would have to be industrial, so it is dictating it. So I'm a little confused.

Yep, understandable. And this is what I mentioned earlier about while the urban growth boundary expansion itself does not dictate land uses, it's really hard to talk about these topics without thinking about land uses. For instance, that the community would prefer to see residential development to the northeast. And because we have to bring in that 1A first, and because that 1A... it has been, people have said, is desirable for residential and it can accommodate the whole residential need. That kind of means that everything else needs to be adjusted.

So the context of the have to is not because we legally have to, it's because based on how the plan is set up, there wouldn't be room for anything else. So it's more of a contextual have to. Correct. Got it.

Okay. Although I do want to add that this does need to be consistent with the concept planning that we're going through, which ODOT is... in charge of. I mean, we're taking their money and their grant. So those decisions that are made have to be consistent. I mean, I don't think they would approve or let us approve a plan that was not consistent.

The plan has changed. And as long as we can justify why and make accommodations to meet the needs, I think that's the intent. But yeah, thanks.

And even going forward, if down the road the city can show a new residential land need five or 10 years from now, there's a potential to change those land uses as long as you've established that land need. And then sub area 11, which is the new area, there's a manufactured home park and a cemetery there, really no capacity and not recommending to bring that in. So back to Mayor Hodson's question from before. So just as a starting point, this recommendation, the total unconstrained acres, so the buildable acres, comes out a little above our stated land need of 541.7 acres. So that's if the city were to bring in all of that 102.5 acres for residential parks and that neighborhood commercial, which we only added that potentiality recently. one B and one C, seven, eight, all of nine, that would equal 543.3 acres. So if the city decided to bring anything less than the full amount of parks or neighborhood commercial, we pretty much get under that number. To your specific question, Mayor Hodson, If we were to remove that 43.1 acres and not bring that in from sub area nine, that would mean that we'd have 43 acres that we could bring in from sub area 10. So that is a possibility. But it would have to be for employment. It would still have to be for, in theory, contextually for employment uses.

You can dream about it.

You just can't do anything about it.

Potentially. Again, we're trying to meet these land needs that we've established through our H&A and our EOA. So when we amend the boundary, it just amends the line itself. Right. We can move the land uses around through the concept plan process, but we still need to meet those.

So if you have 43 acres in area 10 and 43 acres, and I'm just throwing this out because I don't remember, like area four, you could swap them. Right? Sure. So you're still meeting the same needs, but where you put it, you can pick and choose. Exactly.

But our recommendation is based on what we heard from the community about where they want residential and employment. But legally, we don't have to say 10 is only industrial. Correct.

That's it for... Let me just go through just zone changes.

Thank you. Yes, sir. Looking at this slide, this has been a great discussion and I know you guys have done a lot of work on it, a lot of community input, great numbers. Just wanna point out that I think the next time you're gonna get another crack at this is maybe 15 years down the road. And if you look at this chart, you're putting all residential urban growth boundary expansion in 1A, I invite the conversation for you all as policy leaders of your city, is that the only part of this city that you feel needs to come in as residential? I mean, I look down to the south at 10, there's neighborhoods all around that area. Area 10, are there other areas that you want to work with our consultants and Don as you recognizing the next crack at this is 15 years down the road, there's gotta be some housing going in in 10 down the road, I would think. It's all neighborhoods down there.

And that's why we didn't recommend bringing 10 in at this time, because it would, in theory, have to be for employment uses.

Because that 1A has to be residential right now, technically. So that's what's throwing the kink in there.

Sorry, I'm trying to be clear. It doesn't have to be residential. It just has to be brought in first. But you could decide, you know what, we are going to put employment there and we are going to put residential somewhere else. That's a decision you can make.

Can you divide up 1A, or is it only one or the other? Yeah, make it smaller. Can you put some residential and some business in there?

Yes. Okay, so it's not all one or the other. Correct. Okay. I think what the community has said, though, is that they don't quite want a factory in that spot. And if they're going to put a factory, they want to put it in 9 or...

but I guess we could put a factory there. But the question for you as policy makers and leaders of your city, why, sorry, I'll stand down. Why do we have to bring in 1A first? Can you push back on that? I know there's other cities. We play really nice. Don has a great relationship with the ultimate authority in this.

That's what I asked. That's your question. There's a special thing about it that says that has to come first before anything else.

And again, because, real quick, Don, and then because it isn't farm use or forest use, because it has some urbanization, I would say I'd have to look at the maps again. 1B and 1C, maybe 1B in particular, is a pretty sloped area. If the city were to decide, you know, we... don't want to bring that area in, even though it's first priority, we could go down that path and start looking at that. We already excluded the Madrona Road area right there, but 1A is pretty unconstrained land, so it would be a very hard case to make with the state to not bring that land in.

We have had some of the conversations with the state, although we can have others, as Randy was mentioning. This is probably something that the property owners would not want to see in 1A, but if they were to commit their properties to being exclusive farm and removed from consideration, that would end up reducing 1A. That's a big ask for people that they're going to commit their property in perpetuity to farm use when that horizon may not be completely visible to them. But that's the only suggestion the state has provided.

We're assuming these people want to come in in 1A? Is that an assumption?

It's mixed. We've had listening sessions and we've had multiple community meetings and there definitely are some people that are eager to come in. Not all of them, some of that property is being farmed, but even the property that's being farmed now, we're not sure if those folks would really want to have their property designated as EFU to remove it, which would then free up other land in the city to be used. For housing?

Yeah. Councilor Malinato.

So I just want to clarify a little bit. So sub area nine and eight, or eight and nine are suitable for employment use only. These are not suitable for residential at all.

Again, that's really based on community feedback and desire for the direction of growth. I wouldn't say that those are not suitable for residential development.

Now, whenever they're saying suitable for employment use, is that only for factory and industrial, or could that be businesses and whatnot?

Business park, as I mentioned earlier, the industrial can be defined a number of ways. It wouldn't have to be manufacturing or warehousing. It would really be up to the city to decide what the allowed uses would be in that area.

Okay. Thank you. And just, so there was a community visioning and there's, we came up with a map as part of our comp plan. And just to echo what Steve's saying, that was definitely something on the east side, largely, I think, because the industrial park's already there, that it made sense that you would have industry there, but it could be, it could look different. It could look different than what that zoning and what that becomes is part of this whole concept planning discussion as well, which ultimately will come in and be amended as a comp plan amendment for those areas that are brought in.

So tonight, are you looking for, is this more of an update or are you looking for some direction from us to be able to go to the next?

If there's anything you'd like us to look into more deeply in terms of areas left in or out, that would be great guidance. Don's gonna go over the process in a minute, but that's what I would say. I've heard a lot of great questions tonight, and if you want us to dig deeper on any of these, we'd be happy to do that.

Yes. Just so I understand, the areas two and three They're not included in this process, but there's an exception somewhere that after this is done, we can just sneak two or three in. I mean, or...

Yes, and the owners are... They're willing participants. It's IFA, and I mean, they're willing to come in, and I think... Logically, and this is the illogical part of the whole thing, if those exception lands weren't there, we probably would be looking at those first if we did not have those exception lands. Because it would make natural sense to go that direction and just continue the city upwards. But so to the extent like to, you know, I mean, the state is completely on board. That would be a fairly easy goal exception. Two would not, I mean, as these goal exceptions go, which are not easy in Oregon, that would be an easy one. Three would be a more challenging one. And we cannot give you certainty on three because someone could challenge that and say, no, you don't actually need transportation through three to get to part of 1A, which is really the issue is utilities and transportation would have to be justified. Okay. to make that claim, but both of them are candidates for goal exceptions. And again, this would be something that we have to be a bit patient here to wait until we're unfolded with this current process because we can't weave it in, but near term and it is somewhat near term. I mean, even though we're talking like next summer this time, we could in earnest be moving that stuff forward. We likely would need some consultants. These are complicated things to do, goal exceptions. So that would be something on the horizon for next year and we could budget for that to take that on if that was council's directive.

It just makes no sense to have this farm in the middle of the city.

That's agreed and there is this to be full disclosure. I mean, we've had a lot of meetings and people are very concerned about soils and farm soils being really high value and better than anything else in the Willamette Valley. So there is some of that sentiment. That's not the owner sentiment, but there is some of that sentiment there is there. And so we're dealing with some of those issues too. But to your point in terms of stuff that's completely or almost completely surrounded by city, that logically would mean you would probably end up developing it over time.

I don't quite like somebody else's land to play with.

So just feedback. Reality is here. August 24th, it looks like your planning commission is going to hear this. And then back to you. I guess, Don, I don't want to jump over you. You're going to do this, aren't you? Sorry. The schedule? Yeah. So... Sorry, Don.

No, it's all good. Um, so just kind of like where we're at now. And so thank you, Randy. Um, yeah, that meeting is not, I mean, I've got to actually reserve this room. Hopefully no one's in here, but this is going to be where it would be. But that is where we would like to be is on the 24th, having a listening session. We'll send out a postcard like we did before. This is to the urban growth boundary, um, Owners who are outside of the city limits for those areas that are being contemplated to be brought in, we would do the same thing. We've done two of these previously throughout this process. We'd do another one for this and give the update that we just gave tonight. And that's our next piece. And then we're looking at a community meeting. That would be something that we're targeting sometime in July, a public meeting towards the end of July. Those are kind of the next steps in this process and maybe that's the piece of this that we would like your acceptance for us to move forward with those items unless you have, if you had concerns about us moving forward, maybe that's another part of this discussion. But we'd like to move forward with a listening session, get people's input that are owners, then come back with a broader community discussion, which will probably have a Baker Prairie because there may be a larger crowd. and address that during the community meeting. And then that input will obviously come back to you all. We'd engage the planning commission as well. And this is twofold. We'd be going through work sessions with them and with council before we went to hearings. And those would be the next steps. And we've met with the county staff, they're on board. They're willing to try to make the dates that we're trying to hit here to get to the end of the year to get this completed. And with their planning commission in November and their Board of County Commissioners in December. even though their board is quite busy, they're willing to try to make that all work. And this again, the schedule could vary depending on public and community input, how many meetings, how many hearings we have, et cetera. We're just trying to keep the momentum going and work this forward. So if you're good with us proceeding ahead, that would be where we will go ahead and move in that direction to the listening session and the community summit process.

Yeah, I mean, I think right now, as you've said, if we squeeze on one end, it's going to expand in the other, which we may or may not be able to do. Or if we squeeze on the other end, it'll bulge out in an area that we definitely can't do anything in. So it seems like we've got... where we really start dicing up areas to try to accommodate, right? I'm thinking about Area 10 as an example, right? So that's South Canby. That's really, right now, I believe it's Filbert Farm, right? And that's gun, the Rod and Gun Club property that's there in Area 10. So, yeah, I mean, and I, it's been a while, but I don't, my understanding is that it's going to be a while before they want to do anything, if at all, with that property. So things change.

And there was kind of mixed, and this is my recollection and some of the meetings, mixed feelings about coming into the boundaries. Some people were pretty vehement about not coming in that were on 10. Some people I've talked to were interested in coming in on 10. So it's definitely a mixed bag on 10. You know, that's part of that discussion. It's intriguing to... I mean, I guess that will ultimately be the council decisions when we get further into this process. But the question, Mayor, you mentioned about taking off the tip of nine and then what do we do with that 43 acres is an intriguing idea to, you know, several things could happen. It could be spread somewhere else, or it could just be, no, we're not going to deal with that at this point in time. And so those are going to be, when we get more into the work sessions and hearing processes, that's going to be the difficult or the more challenging items of this.

Because I mean, we're the urban rural reserve conversation is locking us on the East. So we're pretty much what we can add on the East is what we're asking for. So there's nothing further beyond that that we can do. And we're really either looking at if we chop off that bottom third of nine, where do you add it? So are we just, again, do we try to bring in as much as we can and figure out how to use it the best way that we can? I don't know. I thought I saw Paul or Council Waterman, did you have your hand up? No, okay. So council, I think move forward with council.

I'd honestly be interested to see like how we can move things around a little bit instead of just putting it all up in one section. Nine is definitely, it looks like a pretty decent area for I would say a business park of some sort, even just, I don't know. I'm not too keen on putting everything up in one area. So you're talking about kind of the same thing about nine, just that lower... Yeah, it wouldn't lob off the bottom half of it or the bottom third of it. Well, in that aspect, what happens to that bottom third? What do we do with that?

If we don't bring it in, I think it just stays outside the UGB.

Okay. Sorry, Steve. It's not lost forever. I mean, everything that we don't touch will be revisited again in the next plan, whenever that is, like 10, 15 years. I mean, this is the map that essentially we'll be going back to. The properties that were skipped over, will there be enough of a demand? What is that demand? Residential employment. It'll be revisited until it's exhausted. And there's still quite a bit of... There's abundant residential potential. There's not abundant industrial potential. I would make that statement. I think that it's pretty clear to me that there will always be residential land available as we go into the Northwest. That area is huge in the Northwest. It's like a thousand acres roughly. And so we're taking in a small amount of that because of- Down 13th and hang a right on Milano Road. It's all that area right in there.

Okay. but that if we kept it, that actually counts towards land use.

That's kind of a pain in the butt, isn't it? Well, but it's kind of what we ran into on some of the slopey area, you know, around Willow Creek down here with some of the development. We lost a lot of acreage because of the slopiness of the area, which inhibits lots, can inhibit lot sizes and things like that. And so, but that's the stuff that gets factored in. So, yeah, we might, it includes in the numbers, but... You know, what do you do with land in a 100-year floodplain? Yeah. Unless it's a beautiful, marshy wetland.

You know, some sort of... I mean, honestly, like a business park with waterfront views. Stilt them.

Yeah.

We can go New Orleans with it. A whole new meaning of a concrete tilt-up.

Exactly.

Okay. Are there other, I guess, shifts that you want them to look at? So I guess move forward with the next two steps. Okay. kind of head nods I think you've got.

And we will not go into radio silence mode. I'm sure you'll get beginning updates as we go through these processes. I mean, we will continue to communicate. We won't wait until we get to the work session. I just want to point that out. And that might just be staff, but we will continually give you updates, I think, as this starts to form and shape.

Don, you've worked here how long now? What was that? How long have you worked here? A little over five years. Have you known this group in any shape or form up here on this dais to ever go radio silent or want radio silence? No, I have not. We will expect a lot of conversation. Yeah. Well, thank you. Is there anything else for these two gentlemen? No. Don, Steve, thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right, we'll move into item 12 this evening, City Administrator Business and Staff Report.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Gonna have Chief Trow and Pete come up, if they don't mind. I'm making an announcement here that A press release will be issued within the next half hour by Jamie, she's watching. We have narrowed our list of candidates for the next Canby Police Chief down to two finalists, which I've just handed out the resumes to you. And we're scheduling a community forum for next Wednesday, I believe June 10th at 6 p.m. at the PD. I wanna thank both Chief and Pete. We had several boards where candidates interviewed, seven candidates, seven finalists interviewed in front of. We're going to announce that the council and mayor publicly will be there because you have to notice a quorum. So you'll be a big part of this community piece. We'll have the candidates have some face time with each of you. But tonight we are publicly announcing Mitch, James Mitch Cooley and Jason Lindland as our two finalists. And their resumes are in front of you. Anything else? Our HR director, Pete, or chief, want to say?

Sure, I'll say a couple things. One, Pete has done a great job in putting this process together. It's been very good. Lots of community input, lots of different panels. Great process, great questions overall, and I think we came out with two very good, qualified candidates.

Thanks, Steve. Appreciate that. They actually, the candidates went down to the police station and visited with officers, too, as part of this. So we had feedback from the officers. Right. Yep.

What time is that meeting again? 6. 6. 6 p.m. Okay.

Yeah. You want to talk a little bit about the process that you've, since it's a great process you put in place for that meeting?

Yeah, so we received 16 applications for the police chief. Chief Trout and I did the initial HR screening, got us down to seven candidates, and then at the first interview stage, we brought in nine members of a law enforcement panel. Six of those nine were and then the other panel members were a member of the Cambie Police Department. Then the other panel were nine members of our community panel. And so those included various organizations throughout Cambie. And so each board met with each candidate for 45 minutes and evaluated each candidate and then from there we went down to four for the second round and that those four individuals interviewed with but mostly our department directors and members of the K&B Police Department and then we narrowed that down to from there for our finalists.

I meant, that was great, thank you, Pete. The process for the community forum, which you put a lot of thought into.

Yeah, sorry. It's all right. The community forum, so we'll do a quick introduction of just the general rules and how the layout will be for the community events, kind of go over some ground rules. And then in each seat will be two about like kind of basically evaluation cards and one question card, very similar to how we do our comma cards here at city council. And then to get to provide some time to write a question down, I will ask the candidates to introduce themselves. They'll spend three minutes with a quick professional introduction of themselves. And then I'll ask one question and kind of pull a name out of the hat to see who goes first. And that will kind of start us off to which one of us will start. And so there'll be a general question to get it going. And then by that time, we'll have enough, hopefully, questions that will come in from the audience. Then we'll ask a handful of questions from the audience that I will read off. as the emcee and then after that we'll close the event you know and have about 45 minute time for members of the community yourself to interact with both candidates directly and we'll provide light refreshments and drinks for the event. Great.

Sounds like a good plan. And we'll introduce you all. You can help welcome the crowd as the mayor and council. We hope you do that for us. We anticipate a rather good turnout, so we'll work with you on the front end for that. Whoever can make it, that'd be great. Does it take a minute or two? 6 p.m. June 10th, we'll make sure you get your personal invite through our office, and Jamie's press release should be hitting momentarily. Can you follow up with her on that? It's June 10th, correct? Yeah, June 10th and Wednesday. Yeah, no. Yeah, there will not be a work session for the council. It's gonna be at the, let me be clarified, it's gonna be up at the police station.

An alert to community room at the police station.

Okay, before you leave, talk a little bit about Touch Truck. It's tomorrow, 5 o'clock.

Touch Truck, our third annual event, teamed up with, right, first Thursday. And there's going to be a little mini car show right at Thriftway. I believe the library is going to have, like, an open house event also at the time. So the weather looks good. We're going to have lots of different vehicles and trucks that families and kids can check out. Should be a great event. It's grown every year, and it's been fantastic.

It's a great, no, it's a lot of fun. It's fun watching the kids climb up in the trucks and stuff. Good.

Okay.

There you go. Just a couple scheduling items. Charter Review Committee, which is Council President Hensley, Councilor Patton, Councilor Stearns, June 11th, the next day, June 11th, 11 a.m. meeting. So Maya will help coordinate that. And then that will be followed up by a charter work session on June 17th here in this chamber. So you guys will have a work session. That's at least the plan as I understand it. Anything you would like to hear in particular in terms of updates, happy to take questions. But just we're wrapping up the budget, so working a number of projects, having a lot of power meetings as we expand the urban growth boundary. So today we met with a developer, property owner, and talked about power capacity. And then next week we're going to meet with BPA, PGE, planning, and CUB to really talk narrowed some of that discussion down. So that's top of mind. Working on e-bike safety, the chief's reviewing that ordinance right now. Happy Valley passed theirs, so he's taking a look at that one. Fireworks is coming up, so we're about to, this is the 250 year anniversary of this country, so we are going to, we've already started pushing messaging about illegal fireworks. and may even have officers and fire folks riding along together Saturday night, 4th of July, educating folks that might be using illegal fireworks. So we confirm that. With that, I'll end there, unless there's any questions. Thank you. It's a light report. I can keep going. I mean, it's 824, Mayor, but I know you all have your reports, too. Well, we're always so much fun to listen to. Yeah.

Okay, well thank you, I just really appreciate it. Item 13, mayor's business, a whole bunch of stuff. Region one area commission on transportation met on Monday night and we basically had a lot of conversation about summer project updates in the Portland metro area. So plan on delays on Abernathy, So 205 is Abernathy's going to go through some closures and movements to get some more of the bridge work done there. There's going to be joint, like joint, not two groups together, but joints on the bridge for Boone's Bridge that'll be done. That'll be being looked at this summer. So that'll also bring up a lot of rerouting of traffic and delays. Both of those will impact 99E and us here in Cambie. So as that keeps moving forward, I'll let everyone know. Also, Rose Quarter is gonna be starting to go through early stages of work. So there's gonna be delays in rerouting of traffic up there in the North Portland area this summer as well. Clackamas County Coordinating Committee has their work plan meeting this weekend. So there'll be more on that. I want to thank our Legion for its Memorial Day remembrance here in town. It was great. Well turned out, well attended turnout by Canby citizens. So thank you for all those that came. My, Ms. Maya. So parade info, if people wanna be in our Independence Day parade, can they pick up information at the city, and if so, where? Trick question.

I'm going to have to send them to maybe Jamie and Tyler.

Okay. So Tyler Neiser is the guy. If you want information about being in the Independence Day parade, a float, you've got a marching band, you want to juggle, dress up as a clown, Tyler Neiser is the guy that you need to see and get that information to join in that. Okay. Last week was a very busy week for us as a city. We had a, really, truly amazing trade delegation from the country of Vietnam here in our community. And really a big move. So as many of you know, we've been talking about creating a city, a sister city relationship with, I always butcher this, Buc Ninh province in Vietnam, but it's kind of expanded into more than that. A lot of conversation for the rest of the day on potential trade opportunities between Camby on the agricultural side of things with the Providence in Vietnam. They had a great time in Camby. They really enjoyed the visit. It was interesting. They kept referring to us as a small town at 22,000 people, considering where they're at, it's 6 million people. So, you know, definitely some different perspectives there. Yeah, I mean, it was really, really great. Some great conversation. Canby High School graduate and Olympian, Jackie Wiles was at the high school last week on Friday doing a... just revisiting her home turf and showing off her metal and, uh, and all that and did a great just conversation with the students about, um, being able to bounce back and just being strong people. She had, um, she started skiing at two competing at three. Um, she told me she's had, um, Two shoulder surgeries and five different knee surgeries. And one of them, she was a total blowout of her knee, ligaments, meniscus, nerves. It took her 18 months just to learn how to walk again and still came back to ski. And so just talking about her passion for that sport and just being able to overcome that kind of adversity was pretty amazing. We did a groundbreaking ceremony on Saturday for Walnut Street, which is coming out of the industrial park to connect into 99E. So yeah, so thank you to Canby Activating who, man, they just unleashed and once they got the go-ahead and yeah, it's gonna look great when it's all done. Right now they're still moving earth and we just can get through that eight, is it eight changes, Ryan? that we get from ODOT now to try to correct and get ready to tie into 9090, that'll be great. So that was a fun event. So thank you to staff for putting that together. And finally, the city did hold its last budget committee meeting last Thursday. So that'll be coming to us, the council, to approve at our next meeting amongst a whole myriad of other things. So it's a long meeting, council. So drink your coffee, come prepared. Um... I think that's all that I've got. But thank you to the budget committee, thank you to the city staff for attending those three long meetings with us as a budget committee and council, and for the budget layout. I really appreciate the finance team's layout of this year's budget and the work that went into that. Tremendous amount of detail, some really positive outcomes coming out of this fiscal year going into the next one. And we'll get into more of that in our next city council meeting. We will start with Council President Hensley this evening for council comments.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My liaison assignments are later in this month. It is only the third of the month. I likewise attended the event with the Vietnam delegation. That was a nice event, and so thank you to everybody who put that on. And also the ground, I think I just followed you around. I went to the ground. I don't think we're all at the same time. Chamber luncheon with Representative Matt Bunch yesterday. Just gave a quick legislative update for some. Introduced himself to the community because he's a newer legislator. That's it. I'll have a fuller report next time. Thank you.

Thank you. No liaison reports to report. However, we do have a few announcements. Touching on the floats for the 4th of July parade, I believe this year we are going to have our first Canby wrestling team float. So they're trying to get that put together now. On top of that, we are currently doing the freestyle wrestling. It is free for the kids to go to and kind of learn the ropes, get things going. They meet every Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday after school. Mondays and Thursdays are at Ackerman. Wednesdays are at the high school. We need students. We need kids for that one. That one's really fun. A big, big, big, big kudos to the Baker Prairie Band, middle school band. Over the weekend, they went to Seattle for a concert with their advancing jazz band. Canby generally, or Baker Prairie generally meets or competes against schools within the 600 student range. This year they went against much bigger schools, 700 plus. Came home with first and second place. So those kids absolutely whooped. But to touch on that, please get a hold of a band booster member. These kids are not funded. These instruments are not funded. This is all funded through the boosters program. So any donation you can do, any type of help you can do with them, they are greatly appreciated. They do the fireworks stands at O'Reilly's and at Fred Meyer's. So go out, buy fireworks, take a shift, help them out out there. They'll accept that gladly. Mm-hmm. Lastly, to the people, I will say, that are dumping at Knightsbridge, you have been noticed, you have been, there are pictures taken, your black Kia will be put out there. So I would suggest that you not do it anymore.

All right. Council Waterman.

So no liaison yet early in the month. I wanted to thank Chief Trow and the police department for the bike rodeo. That was really nice to see all the kids and their families out there getting their helmets and going through the obstacle course. It was pretty fun to watch. And then... It was exciting to have the groundbreaking go as well. So for the new Walnut Creek extension. And I think that's all I have for now. Thanks. Thank you. Councilor Stearns.

Too early in the month for liaison reports. Just a couple things. I was curious about the street maintenance fee, where that was at. I was told that that would be coming soon, right? And the other thing was just as a side note, I think there does need to be some sort of rule clarification for the e-bikes and the other modes, electric modes of transportation as a frequent pedestrian. It's fun to dodge the bikes, whether they're e or not e, on the sidewalks and on the crosswalks. And going on the logging trail the other day, they were zooming real quick. It was, you know, just watch out, another one coming. They're going fast. But also a question about the street maintenance fee, because it's been about three years since...

I'll work with the mayor on putting it on the agenda to give you a full update. I know the engineers are reworking the numbers for us, and we've got a resident. We have proposals coming for the council, so... Just glad I bring it up because. Yeah, Jamie and team are working really hard. Spencer, Ruth, great team working on it. So I think I can get something on the next agenda just to give you a full update with Spencer and Jamie on our timeline to roll this out.

Oh, if you want me to say anything. Councillor Davis, yes, go ahead.

Compliments again to the city administrator staff and the budget committee. That was a great process and I really appreciated it. keeping it to the point and reports from the department heads and making the adjustments into the budget. So great process. The park and rec of course meets later on in the month. Today we did have the Canby Adult Center and lots going on at the Canby Adult Center with their remodel. One is that they had to switch contractors. The contractor who had the contract had to back out because they weren't able to make the deadline. And so they were able to, they're in the process of negotiating a new contract with the new contractor, but they're staying on target date. That new contractor is going to be able to meet their target date. which their target date right now is March of next year, which raised a question too, because they're budgeting for nine months, Randy, for the income coming to the city for the current adult center. Did we budget for that? We have that in there, the lease payments?

Yes, for the shorter year.

For the shorter year, okay. So that's nine months. They are in the process of continuing to raise funds for meeting the goals that they need and they're doing very well as far as the actual amount of money that they need to raise. The Rotary Club of Cambie, of course, I did the painting up in the picnic area, and the Rotary Club's gonna change out the library box that's up there as well. They're on target. You're gonna be seeing a lot of activity. They started moving some things out of there and moving it up to the adult center and taking it up there for now. like the organ and piano and things like that. And then they'll be moving those back. But again, they're looking at the completion date of hopefully moving in March of next year. So yeah, that's it.

Okay. Item 15, citizen input again. Anybody wish to run to the microphone, say anything, words of wisdom? Nothing, all right. Action review.

You have approved the consent agenda, adopted ordinance number 1670 and 1673, approved ordinance number 1676 to a second reading on June 17th, 2026 and declaring an emergency.

Excellent. Before I ask for a motion to adjourn, Canby High School seniors graduate on Friday. So to those that I'm sure are watching at home, please be safe. Yeah, right, yeah. Or to the parents, congratulations on making it, but also the students, congratulations. Enjoy the day, enjoy the night. The grad night will be a lot of fun. But again, just congratulations to the seniors of Canby High School for class of 2026. I will take a motion to adjourn. Moved and seconded, all those in favor?

Anyone opposed?

All right. Good night, Camby. We're adjourned.

My ride's not here yet.