City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening, everyone. This Tuesday, July 7th, 2026, meeting of the Lake Oswego City Council is now called to order. Ms. Hawkins, will you please call the roll?

Yes. Mayor Buck?

Here.

Councilors Edmonds-Manz? Here. Atkin? Here. Maboup?

Here.

Councilor Wendland is remote. Burdick? Here. And Corrigan?

Here. Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone, for your patience with us with the late start tonight. Will you now 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. Well, July is Disability Pride Month, which recognizes the achievements, contributions, and lived experiences of people with disabilities while commemorating the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990. This year's theme is The World Works Better with Us. It reminds us that our community is stronger when everyone has the opportunity to participate fully and is treated with dignity, respect, and inclusion. The City of Lake Oswego is proud to recognize Disability Pride Month for the fourth consecutive year and encourages all residents to help build a community where everyone is welcomed, valued, and able to thrive. You will find this proclamation as well as all other proclamations on the city website. I saw that we have the Disability Pride flag flying from the flagpole, which is great. All right. Now is the time on our agenda for public comment. Is there anyone here who would like to provide public comment? All right, I don't see anyone. We are now going to move on to the consent agenda. We have one item on the consent agenda. This is resolution 26-29, authorizing the sale of geobonds for the South Shore Fire Station. Is there a motion to adopt the consent agenda?

Move to adopt the consent agenda.

Second.

All right, the motion was made by Councillor Corrigan, seconded by Councillor Burdick. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Oh, and Councillor Woodland. Yeah, okay, motion passes 7-0. Okay, we have two public hearings to conduct, both on annexations into the city. I'll invite Paul Espy, our Associate Planner, forward. And we haven't seen you in a while, Mr. Espy. It's good to have you here. But before we begin, we will ask Mr. Toyin to please read the hearing procedures for these two legislative hearings.

We will now open the legislative public hearing on the annexation of 4951 Oak Ridge Road, starting with a presentation by staff. Testimony will then be received by the public. And now we're ready for the staff report. Thank you.

Very good. Honorable Mayor, members of the council, we have before us this evening two annexations, one on 4951 Oak Ridge Road and another one on 16676 Babson Place that Michael McNamee, who is here with us this evening, will be presenting. So the property is currently under Clackamas County's jurisdiction and is zoned low density residential R8.5 in the county. It is designated R15 low density residential in our comp plan and will be zoned R15 upon annexation. Sanitary sewer can be made available from an existing 10-inch public sedentary line located in Oak Ridge Road east of the subject property, and it's owned by the City of Lake Oswego. The property owner wishes to connect to the city sewer system because the septic system has failed. The property is served by a 6-inch Lake Grove Water District line located in Oak Ridge Road along the site frontage. And the nearest fire hydrant is located approximately 185 feet east of the site on the southeast corner of the Oak Ridge Road, Willuga Drive intersection. We find that these properties are within the urban services boundary and the public services can be provided in a timely and orderly and efficient manner. Opposed annexations are timely with regards to public facilities and recommends approval of this annexation and enact the ordinance.

Thank you, Mr. Espy. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Espy? Okay, we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing then on ordinance 2975 for this property on Oak Ridge Road. I'll ask, is there anyone here who would like to provide any testimony on this annexation? Okay. Seeing no one, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion to enact this ordinance.

Move to enact ordinance 2975.

All right, motion was made by Councillor Mboup and seconded by Councillor Manns. Any discussion? Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, motion passes 7-0. Thank you, Mr. Espy. You bet. All right. Mr. McNamee, good to have you here. Annexation number two.

All right. Good evening. So this is a proposed annexation of 0.4 acres at 16676 Babson Place, including the right of way adjacent to the property. The property is currently under Clackamas County's jurisdiction and is zoned R10, low-density residential. On the City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan map, this property is zoned R75, also low-density residential, and it will be zoned R75 upon annexation. Sanitary sewer service can be made available from an existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer main located in Babson Place to the south of the subject property. Development will be required to extend the 8-inch sewer line to the northern boundary of the site under a public improvement permit. The property owner wishes to connect the sewer so they can partition the existing property. The property is served by a Lake Grove water district line located in Babson Place along the site frontage. and the nearest existing fire hydrant is located approximately 20 feet south of the site on the east side of Babson Place. Staff finds this property is within the urban services boundary, and public services can be provided in a timely, orderly, and efficient manner. And therefore, staff recommends approval of the annexation and to enact the ordinance.

Back to me. I just have, is that Babson Place, is that kind of an, is part of that unimproved roadway? Yes. When would that unimproved part be improved?

That I'm actually not sure about. That would be the engineering department. Oh, oh, oh.

I'm just curious. It looks like a...

Good evening. Jessica Numanalu, Community Development Director. So this particular application, they are annexing to partition. And so as part of the partition, we could require some street improvements. Now, we wouldn't be able to require the full street improvement, the full length of the right-of-way, but we could require frontage improvements. I can't determine that at this point, whether or not frontage improvements are going to be required because they have not submitted for their partition, and we have to make sure that the exactions are roughly proportional to the proposal. But that could be improved partially as part of that partition.

The neighboring properties are in the city. And don't they abut the unimprovement?

Most of them are actually out in the county.

They are, but those ones just to the south.

You are correct, and it's possible because I believe that was the subject of a partition by looking at the configuration. I think that was a three-parcel partition. It's possible that we might have required some improvements along Washington Court, but I'd have to go back and look at... BUT NOT UP THE ENTIRE BABSON PLACE. BUT I NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE FILE TO SEE THE REASONING WHY WE DIDN'T REQUIRE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR THAT CASE. I SEE.

OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU. COUNSELOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNSELOR MANCE. OH, YOU HAD A QUESTION. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO? OKAY. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this Ordinance 2976, and I'll ask if there's anyone here who would like to testify on this annexation. Okay. Seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing and entertain a motion to enact Ordinance 2976.

Move to enact Ordinance 2976. All right.

Motion is made by Councillor Manns and seconded by Councillor Corrigan. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. OK. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you, Mr. McAmee.

Thank you.

OK. So now we are going to move on to item 9.1. This is a study session on the criteria for the new library site selection and the reuse of the existing library site. We are joined here this evening by our library director, Melissa Kelly. Director Kelly, it's great to have you here.

Thank you. Good evening, mayor and council, and thank you for the opportunity to present to you again today. My name is Melissa Kelly, and it's my privilege to serve as the city's library director. And I'm before you today because of the 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 clarify council direction on two sets of criteria to guide community task force recommendations in future decision making. And as you'll recall, we spoke about this on June 2nd and we wanted to follow up and get more clarification. And the two sets of criteria are around selecting a new library site and criteria related to future reuse of the existing library site. We'll also cover the findings of a pre-building program study that informs the size needs for a future library site and an updated timeline for this early phase of facility and site planning. And for community members who may not know the background of this project, I wanted to quickly review why the library facility needs to be replaced in the coming years and why a new site is necessary. The existing facility is quickly nearing the end of its useful life with significant and worsening seismic deficiencies, water intrusion issues, building system failures, and accessibility deficits. And these conditions negatively impact our ability to provide services safely, reliably, and equitably. And furthermore, the issues and their costs will continue to escalate over time. Estimated costs to address our current needs were approximately 10 million as of 2024 and that figure has and will continue to escalate and 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 the core building limitations or constraints of the site itself. The existing library was rebuilt on its 1.1 acre site in the early 1980s, despite the fact that a citizen work group at the time recommended a site of at least two acres. And due to the constraints of the site and opposition from the surrounding neighborhood at the time, 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 through the bond measure. In the decades since the building opened, the service population has more than doubled. The borrowing rate of physical materials has more than tripled. And the role of the library has expanded significantly from a book repository to an active hub of community learning. More and more community members, particularly young families, teens, and adults. I'm on the wrong slide here.

How did I do that?

Teens and adults who do more than borrow books are not being well served by the facility's lack of room for modern library services and community spaces. In other words, size constraints limit the library's ability to meet core community needs and expectations. That is why community input continues to highlight the need for a replacement library, while ensuring the new facility is financially feasible for the community. Council has given direction to continue engaging the community in a public process for this long-term facility planning. And in the most recent statistically valid community survey in 2025, more than 70% of respondents expressed a need for a modern facility that includes the community spaces listed on this slide. The majority of these spaces are core offerings in modern libraries, creating synergy with the book stacks that remain central to the library's role as the community's learning hub and an important partner in our city's education system. I also want to recognize that some residents are content with our library as it is. We do have an excellent book collection and friendly, knowledgeable staff, and we maximize the current facility to the best of our ability to serve the community. Yet to continue to satisfy those needs in a facility that is nearing end of life and to meet additional needs of the community as reflected here, we need to plan for the future. 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. So 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. Council has approved a two-track three-phase public process to begin the long-term planning for a replacement library. One track is focused on identifying and narrowing options for the preferred scope and site location for a future library. The other is focused on identifying and narrowing options for future reuse of the existing site. Each track will be guided by a community task force that will form recommendations to Council. We are currently in the first phase in which council is developing criteria for decision making. In the second phase, the task forces will identify and analyze options pertaining to their scopes of work. And in the third phase, council will receive task force recommendations and adopt future site decisions. And these three phases will extend through fall, winter 2027 to allow for deep engagement with both task forces and with the broader Lake Oswego community. In 2028 and beyond, there will be additional phases of work for this long-term project, including financial and conceptual planning and seeking broad community support. Dependent upon community support, architectural design and construction could take place no sooner than the 2029 to 2031 timeframe. So within this larger context, I want to return to our present goal here today, which is to talk about criteria that the task forces would be utilizing. Again, the library site reuse task force and the future library task force will be studying, analyzing, and ranking site options to present recommendations to council over the coming months. At the study session that we had on June 2nd, council discussed potential criteria that would guide the respective task forces in their work. And based on that discussion, staff would like to clarify today if council would like to adopt criteria to be used to evaluate and rank options using a no stone unturned approach, or if any criteria are must have requirements that would limit the options a task force could consider. The no stone unturned approach was employed by the South Shore Fire Station Task Force, which council noted as a successful task force to model after. The no stone unturned approach would mean that the task forces would be able to consider all options for a new site or for reuse of the existing site, respectively, and would then utilize council's criteria to narrow, assess, and rank the options. This would help address questions from residents who are not part of the task force and want to know, did you consider X or Y? And then task force members, staff and community leaders would be able to answer, yes, we did. We heard from the South Shore Fire Station task force members that that was really a good process for that project. On the other hand, council may feel that some options are truly not on the table and may want to guide the process so that community members do not get attached to options that the majority of council will not ultimately support. And another option is to establish a mix of both. Council could decide on some must-have requirements alongside additional evaluation criteria that would be used in assessing and ranking options. So this isn't just an overarching question that we wanted to get clarity on after our last study session where we were hearing a range of opinions from Council. But we'll circle back to that with examples after we talk about the detailed criteria. But first, I wanted to review the criteria categories that council generally agreed on at the last study session, starting with what is an adequately sized site for a new library. A pre-building program study was just completed that provides this information. To meet community needs and expected growth, we now know that a site in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 acres is needed. A site of this size would accommodate an adequately sized two-story facility in the range of 50,000 to 70,000 total square feet, as well as parking, usable outdoor space, and local zoning requirements for landscaping, setbacks, et cetera. The study was based on community staff and city council input regarding Lake Oswego's needs for a library facility and site. Sources of input include the 2023 library visioning process, where we heard from over 3,000 community members, the 2025 community survey, and city council and library advisory board meeting discussions over the past few years. And so that we don't potentially miss a good option that is just under 2.5 acres, staff recommend broadening the future search to include sites 2 acres or larger with the clear understanding that a site 2.5 acres or larger is ideal to allow for a two-story building and adequate parking and outdoor space. Again, there could be something just under that that we don't want to miss. So that is our recommendation there. An additional criteria that council discussed in relation to a future library site selection include an equitable and accessible location, more geographically central to the city's population, in a more visible prominent location near an arterial road and allowing multimodal access, in a location that is financially feasible with the potential to utilize urban renewal district funding, and in a location that is appropriate to be zoned for a public library. I wanted to just pause and make sure that, have all the criteria been captured that council would like to adopt related to future library site selection?

Looking good. Okay. Yes. Wanted to make sure.

We seem to be on that page last meeting, but wanted to make sure. Perfect. Thank you for that feedback. Now let's revisit the question of must-have requirements. And here are two examples, again, based in our discussion last month. If council establishes that a future site must be within or near enough to be brought within an urban renewal district with the capacity to fund the project, and or if council establishes that the site must be centrally located within a particular geographic area, then the task force would be limited in considering only such properties. versus the no stone unturned approach of looking at every two plus acre option across the city and then giving a higher ranking during the evaluation process to the options that are centrally located or to the options that are within or could be brought within the urban renewal boundary. So looking at the options, are any of these must have criteria for council? I kind of highlighted these on the screen based on our conversation last time. I wanted to get some clarity from you all.

Okay, we'll give you some feedback. Councillor Corrigan, then Councillor Mann.

In my role as the South Shore Fire Station Task Force historian, I'd like to point out that really was a successful process, but it wasn't completely no stone unturned. They knew that they had to locate that station. within the FMA, the fire management area for 212. So they had a piece of a map. And then what they had was wonderful help from the city's GIS department in locating specific properties. It was almost like magic. They were so good at it. And then they carefully picked through each and every one of those properties to see if it fit the criteria they were looking for. So I would say that the South Shore Fire Station was actually a combination. I think we would be most successful if we took that approach with this project.

Yeah, I kind of wondered that same thing. You know, if we kind of make a ballpark of sorts and then turn over all the stones within that ballpark. Councilor Manson.

I did want to bring up that if we're thinking of moving this forward sooner rather than later, that we probably don't want to include foothills necessarily because of the timeframe of foothills and what it would take to get foothills ramped up. I'm concerned about how quickly that could actually come to be. And perhaps I could get some clarity from someone on what we're looking at. I have not onboarded myself with foothills yet, so I'm not 100% sure of timelines. Is there something that you can speak to, Mayor, or anyone else on the council or staff?

Well, yeah, the foothills development is just a much longer time horizon than we're looking at for the library project, you know, given its current condition.

Right. Okay. So I would add that as say something that would be, if we're going to go with a hybrid or a mixed project, no stone unturned except for the foothills should probably be kept off the list or added as an addendum if we, all things being equal, we could have foothills. Yeah, that'd be a great place.

Thank you, Councilor Manz. I was going to make the same comment, but from a different angle. Foothills is not as central to our city population. So that brings it out. And from my perspective, fire station was very successful. It was a combination of all of the stuff you're putting in front of us. I'm a process-oriented person, so let the process speak for itself as opposed to from the get-go say no, no, no, no. You just rank them and whatever presents itself, then we'll talk about it.

Thanks, Councillor Afghani. Could you help us, Director, understand the amount of, I'm hearing openness to like, well, let's explore some, well, we hear that it should be like a ballpark of some kind. I think the reason we're looking towards urban renewal is I think we understand that there is not going to be an appetite for voters to fund a lot of the size that would be required of a bond to pay for the facility. So, we don't want to waste time either having the staff run around town looking at options that we really know are not going to be feasible outside urban renewal area. And when it comes to library, I mean, the modern library, it's kind of location, location, location, right? I mean, these are civic hubs of the community and you can't have a civic hub off in the hinterlands somewhere or like an industrial area or whatnot. It would lose a lot of that's purpose. So I think what we've identified here, I would say these are kind of like must, I mean, I think they are kind of must-have requirements. I mean, and so just from an efficiency standpoint, I don't know if it's like, oh, it's no big deal. It'll take us five minutes and we could turn over every stone in five minutes. Or if it's like, well, no, it's going to take us a significant amount of time and we're just going to end up turning over a lot of stones that, you know. So I don't know if you can speak to the time it would take to turn over stones.

I think it would take a good investment of time to be able to do that. And I think if council wants to be able to say to any community member, yes, we looked at all those options, you know, we could certainly invest that time.

What do you all think about, you know, are these kind of must-have? Yeah. Uh-huh.

Uh-huh. Uh-huh. I THINK, MR. MAYOR, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST TIME. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. IF WE LOOK AT EVERYTHING, THE PROCESS WILL RESULT IN THIS AREA BECAUSE OF THE BUDGET CONSTRAINTS. RIGHT. SO WE CAN START DOCUMENTING THESE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS. 10 years from now we wanted to know why didn't we look at that area then we can say this was the boundary condition because the results would have been right here so um i think for efficiency sake i'm okay to go in that direction having the boundary conditions so from the get-go we say financially feasible that means it has to be in this area okay

Everyone on board with that? Does Councillor Woodland have any comments? Yeah, he's good? Okay. Okay, so what we're hearing is these are kind of must-haves, the financially feasible and the equitable and accessible criteria.

Thank you. That's very helpful. I'm definitely hearing what you say about wanting to have those boundary conditions to ensure that project is financially feasible and that's something that staff will take into the process and be able to hone in on what properties are being considered by the task force. And I think it's a really, Your information is really clear about why this is a community priority, and I think will be something that we can clearly explain to community members who are wondering, well, why didn't you consider those other options? This is the really strong reason why, and I think everyone will really understand and be on board with that.

Well, one of the main things will be explained to folks. I mean, we already have articulated, but we will need to continue to articulate, is why aren't we rebuilding the current site? Why aren't we remodeling the current library? Those options will probably be continuing to talk. Those will probably be the biggest options, just like with the fire station. Why aren't we remodeling the fire station? Why are we even touching the fire station?

Yes. We definitely have our messaging points on that. Yes. And we're honing them in further to be able to answer that for the community.

Yep.

All right. Okay. Next, moving on to the existing site reuse criteria that council discussed at the previous study session. We discussed generating revenue that would effectively lower the cost of a future facility is a potential criteria for future reuse of the existing site. and then understanding and abiding by any land use requirements, including zoning restrictions, code regulations, and any other requirements is another important criteria. Staff are in the process of gathering more information related to these areas to share with the task force and council. So we'll be able to bring that forward in the future. And does this capture all the criteria that council would like to adopt related to the existing site reuse discussions with the task force?

Yes. I think so. Okay. Yeah.

Good. Just wanted to make sure about that. And then again, we can see if any of these are must haves. Again, highlighting the area that had the most discussion from council at the last meeting. And again, trying to seek direction on whether this is a must have requirement. And as an example, if all the reuse scenarios developed by the task force must generate some level of revenue, is that council's intent or is the council open to considering options that do not generate funding? Both points of view were expressed by council members at the last study session. If generating funds to help pay for a new library is a council priority, it's important to establish clear expectations around this. There's a concern that it could be harmful to community relations for the task force or community to fall in love with an idea that the majority of council would not ultimately support. However, if council does not want to restrict the task force in considering all ideas for the future reuse of the site, it could be made clear that, for example, two out of the three recommendations must generate funding and that the recommendations need to be evaluated and ranked based on that council priority. So again, I wanted to kind of talk about those two sides of the coin and hear your feedback on this policy question.

Okay, let's have some discussion. Council Corrigan.

I'm wondering if we could put in kind of a tiered system saying, we know we need to generate revenue. This will be an expensive project, but what revenue does is it supports public purpose. So would it be possible as these people look I mean, I can't even imagine what it would be, but if there were some sort of a public purpose that this could be used for that would generate value for the city without going through a monetary process, would we consider that?

Intrinsic value.

Something that brings value to the city that perhaps doesn't have a dollar revenue stream.

Not necessarily something that would support the future library.

Yeah, I mean, could we, but I think I would prefer, it's gonna be such an expensive project and we wanna do it well, but it's a, this is gonna be, this is a sticky wicket. Is it possible that if we were unable to do that, that we could tier a second choice as bringing value to the community in some way? I don't know, that's what my thought, I wanted to share.

Kind of a combination.

or just a fallback position if they really can't do it. I think I would prefer to see the site generate revenue, but I don't know. These people are gonna have a tough job, so I don't know.

Yeah, okay. Thank you, Council Corrigan. Council Ruby?

I agree with Councilor Corrigan. I think sometimes value, we always wanna put in terms of dollars, but there are other types of value, and I think we shouldn't ignore that. Again, it would be nice if we could generate some funds from the property. What that looks like, I'm not sure. We also might have some money that needs to go back into the site for one reason or another. So I don't want to necessarily restrict the funds that potentially could be raised from the site to have to go into the new library. It might need to go into that whatever has come up with that site. So I want to be careful that we're not so strict that it has to. I kind of want to limit it to the site. or the library. But I just don't want to be so strict that we kind of pigeonhole ourselves later. And I do think the intrinsic value is there. So I do like the potential of I think we should get some recommendations that include funding. It might be some different levels of funding. Yeah, I don't think that should be ignored, because I think most of us are like, we need, this is going to be expensive. We need to make sure we get some funds. But yeah, options are going to be important.

Options. Okay. Thank you, Council Verdict. Council Manns?

very hard to make this determination for a site that has been a library since the 1970s, 74, and put that funding, if you will, completely into a future facility at this point in time. It's difficult for me to consider it. And I think going, looking at the intrinsic values of at least a portion of that site might be useful. But then again, this is going to be a very expensive project. So I think options are what we are looking for most definitely.

Okay.

Thank you, Councillor Vance.

Thank you. Councillor Boone.

I'm kind of lost. Like, we want to reuse the site.

Future use.

Yeah, the future use. Like, what do you think we can do that to generate money except, yeah, okay, yeah. And then I, yeah.

That's one reason, that's what the task force needs to kind of come up with. That's why we're asking them to kind of say what could the site, what could the existing site be? So I don't know that we can answer that question because you don't know.

Yeah, that's why, but like... We have to cut to the chase. There are two things. You sell the site to put the money on the future project. It's like I said, we have to know like the attachment, emotional attachment that is in that building for people who live around, who grow up, and stuff like that. But there's always some time when we make policies that things can hurt. We have to be objective and also realistic. What can we put there to generate money? If you folks don't have an idea on it, what it can be, I don't think that the task force can have. We all know when I'm saying that, like, you don't have an example. Like, sometimes we can have say that, oh, we can have a boutique or stuff like that. But nothing is realistic there that we can make to generate money except sell the lot. Yeah, that's the only thing. Or you build something. No, that's like I want to be realistic and be respectful.

So do you think that it should be a criteria that it generates?

Yeah.

I mean, the criteria is if yes, I mean, yeah. Yes. And what do you think, Council African? You know. Go on.

Yeah, but that side, you know, that side. You know, this is not a black and white answer for me right now. I don't have enough information to say no or yes. I understand what Councillor Mahbub says, but at the same time, let's look at options. At the end of the day, it may be a no answer or it may be a yes answer depending on what the options are. That's what I'm thinking.

Thank you, Councillor Winland.

Well, I'm in agreement with Councillor Maboub. I totally understand the emotional part and the possibilities that you might have for the site. But I think we need to look at in the larger picture, the, uh, enormity of a new library at 50 to 70,000 dollars and the urban renewal district. Dollars that could offset that cost and we're going to come up pretty short and I just have a problem. Um. trying to take a task force and have them create some something that we don't even have any ideas about and it would be hard pressed unless you want to open up a food court place just kidding but it in the in the big picture If we want to move the library, and I think this council has said that we need to. I think we need to leverage on behalf of the taxpayers, the. Maximum amount of money that we can get out of the, the old property and put it into the new library. And make the new library, the very best possible facility, we can that will serve our community for the next 50 to 100 years, and so I. I tend to look at it from a financial standpoint of view and folks we don't have money to spend on the library current library to re envision it and to make it. And I don't know when you say. money generating, is that like a rent or is that, I'm looking at sale of property and then making sure that we do the very best possible service to the first edition neighborhood to say, hey, what are the ideas that you would like to have here and help guide that decision. But knowing that we're going to sell the property and maximize our offset for the library. Because we're talking to, I mean, we haven't even talked talked about costs for the library, but I have a feeling when it comes out, it's going to be a pretty big number and we're going to I don't want us to fail standpoint. And I want to, I want to provide as much. Financial. uh comprehensive study that we can to ensure that we're making the maximum uh effort of of uh um building a new library at the at the least amount of cost but having a great library and a facility with a good financial plan so anyway that's my my thought no thanks councilwoman yeah i i agree with that we we want to

We just met, Council Verdick and I, with Director Kelly earlier today in selecting members for the task force that are going to look at that site. And I think it's really important that the community has a voice in what happens to that site. But we're also going to have folks voicing their perspectives on the future library. And I'm sure they'll be just as robust as they were on the Lorac, which went from one pool to two pools to, you know. So, you know. And we do want to be realistic because if we're not selling the site and we retain the site, that means we're investing in the site. Where's that money coming from? So I'm all for options, but I don't see a path forward to a new library unless we generate money. And I don't know for certain, but we did, the family that donated the site for the use of the library, I do think they want to see it kind of springboarded into a new library, not repurposed into a non, you know, that they want to see it sold and that money reinvested in the new library, I believe. I don't know if Mr. Toyin has a...

All right, there we go. Yes, I've spoken with one of the heirs of the original donors, and they did express that they are hopeful that the money generated, if we do decide to sell that property, is used for the future library. That kind of goes with the original donor purpose from the original donation in the 1960s. So that was, and they did ask that, and I had to explain. this whole process, but would pass that along.

Council Verda.

That was my question. So I think it's very important to me that we keep that intent in mind, which does kind of say at least, and again, I want to be careful what I say because I really would like the task force to be able to brainstorm what these options are. But I think there's got to be, my hunch is that there's, I'd be surprised if there's an option available that doesn't raise or generate at least some dollars. Now, does that maximize every square inch? I don't know. So I guess that's where, when I'm looking at it, I don't know that we have to. That's where I'm wanting some flexibility in there. But I think we definitely need to be leaning or moving forward with the intent of that deed and the families, what they're asking. To me, that's really important.

Yeah, you agree with that, too. Okay, yeah. Councillor Manson.

Sadly, I agree with all my colleagues, which only muddies the water a bit, but the one X factor that we haven't determined is what the the current value even of that property would be. I can make up a number in my head that might be more or less in a ballpark, but I don't know what that particular raw land would be, and if that were to be sold, would that cost of taking down a library factor into it? I mean, there's many different factors involved. So until we have clarity around that number, I think that's kind of a, I'll use the word squishy, a little bit of a nebulous area that needs to be determined. So certainly It would support the future library. And we certainly would try to do what we could do to pay homage to the old library site in the neighborhood. I don't know what that looks like. And I would hope the task force might be able to come up with some solid ideas around that. Thanks.

Thank you.

OK. Thank you, Councilman. Council Afghan?

I look at it this way. If the building isn't good enough for us, it isn't good enough for anybody else to do business there. So that's one factor. The other factor is I don't know what are the options without the building, with the building, how much the property is worth I'M MAKING THESE NUMBERS SO I'M GOING TO GO SO BIG THAT NOBODY CAN CHALLENGE ME. IT'S $100 MILLION WORTH OF PROPERTY. IF IT DOESN'T GENERATE ENOUGH MONEY TO JUSTIFY THAT COST THAT WE CAN APPLY TO THE LIBRARY, THEN THE ANSWER IS NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO THAT DIRECTION. BUT IF IT PAYS FOR ITSELF IN 10 years, then it's like, hmm, maybe we should consider this. That's why I was saying I don't have enough information to say, let's do or let's not do. But the gut feel says, at the end of the day, that building is not worth anything and the value is in the property. And is there somebody who wants that property so bad, who wants to give us so much money every year for the rest of our lives, at least my life, that we would consider it. Probability is very low, but the question is, do we want to explore it or do we want to take our experience and our gut feeling and our past experience and say, it's just the value of the lot.

So thank you, Council Afghan. So what I'm hearing is there's an emphasis on the need to generate revenue, first priority. But if there's creative ideas that involve some that, in addition to generating revenue, involve some other scenario that none of us can envision here, then we would love to hear them.

Yeah, I think, yes, I'm just going to restate what I think I heard you say, which is that it is, you do want to see options that generate revenue, generate funds for the new library, but you're also open to perhaps part of the site having another public, good public value, and one that can be I don't want to say that every square inch needs to generate revenue, but that you want to prioritize generating revenue and see options that do.

Because it's not like generates revenue or doesn't generate revenue. It's almost like it generates revenue or it incurs cost. So that's the problem. I mean, that's a problem. We can't be doing a project there and another. I mean, that's... So there would have to be some kind of like a Jack and the Beanstalk, Miracle Beans type of thing going on with that plan. You know, the Miracle Beans. We need Miracle Beans. So they'd have to have a Miracle Bean component. You know, some Miracle Beans. Yeah, they need Miracle Beans to fund some other thing. Yeah. Anyway, so yes, they'd have to, there would need to be some kind of plan, not pie in the sky type of, wouldn't this be, it's like, well, yeah, where's the money going to come from? Yeah, yeah, exactly.

That makes sense to me.

Okay.

Time and effort are we talking about? Looking at options. If we're talking about six months with 10 people, community people working so long, it's like, We have about a task force of 20 people.

And five to six meetings.

Five to six meetings.

Yep. And so it'll probably be in the range of three of those meetings that they would be looking at the different options, analyzing them and ranking them with kind of an orientation meeting to start and then follow up after they hear your feedback on their top recommendations to conclude the task force.

And Council Verdict will be our liaison to that committee. Thank you, Council Verdict. Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Right.

Those magic beans.

Okay, I think we're ready to move on to the next slide, which is just to let you know what comes next. At our next meeting on July 21st, there will be a council business item for adoption of the criteria we've discussed here today at the last study session, and a council business item to establish the future library task force, as well as a consent agenda item to appoint the members to the library site reuse task force. We'll continue moving forward with the process. Here, if you have any other questions, but otherwise, thank you so much for your time and for clarifying the criteria for the task forces. And it's going to be a really exciting and busy process working with the community to talk about these options and coming up with recommendations for you all to consider.

It's very exciting. There was a lot of interest in the reused task force, too. So thank you to all the neighbors who applied to be a part of that. We really appreciate the engagement. Yeah. Yeah. It's great. Excellent. Thank you, Director. Everyone good? Yes.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you very much. All right, folks. Now time for information from Council. Council Manns.

Thank you. I'd like to give a shout out to our parks department for the fabulous job they did with the parade. I was just having the best time. I must have counted 500, maybe 1,000 Trader Joe mini tote bags hanging over the barriers.

Very popular.

Also trick-or-treat bags, every sort of bag you can imagine. The kids were great. The parents were great. The staff was amazing to allow me the opportunity to engage with the community as I did. Also, I do have to say I met a 2008 water polo Olympian who was there with her daughter. And they were all dressed up in their 2008 Olympic gear. And the daughter called her mom out and said, yes, my mother was an Olympian. So that was really, really fun. But again, thanks to the staff wherever you are. Thank you. Oh, and police and fire. Thank you. I have the city manager reminding me. Police and fire maintenance, were they involved? Maintenance was involved. Anyone else? Executive team? Youth Council, City Council, City Council, my colleagues. It was a true Lake Oswego City team event. Have I forgotten anyone? Library was there, if not in person and spirit, certainly. The Rover was there, of course. The Rover was there.

The Rover was there.

The Rover was there. So thank you to the whole city for making this event just awesome. Thank you all.

Yeah, thank you very much. It was great. And thank you, Councillor Afghan and I sat in the dunk tank. It was awful. No, it was fine. It was fine, except my family has some kind of water fetish or something. I don't know what's going on. We love attacking each other with water, so they all dunked me. It was horrible, including my own mother, who paid for the guaranteed dunk, so she didn't have to throw the ball. That's so... There will be revenge.

My family also showed up and after they missed the target, they just walked and dropped me in the water. But thanks, Mr. Mayor. We were able to... I raised a few thousand dollars. So that's great.

How much did you raise?

And, well, I think that director, parks director, Jeff, had a lot of employees paying to throw that ball. And then Captain Simon, you know, it's a lot of tickets. He was back on that motorcycle.

I didn't have change of clothes. That's why I didn't. I'm sure.

COUNSELOR VERDICT AND COUNSELOR AMANDS, WE ALL ATTENDED A CEREMONY HERE THIS PAST WEEK FOR SOME NEW OFFICERS. THE LARGEST GROUP THAT WE'VE HAD HERE IN A WHILE, WHICH IS GREAT. SO THEY'RE ALL AT THE ACADEMY AND ONE NEW DISPATCHER AS WELL. WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO THEM JOINING THE TEAM. WE APPRECIATE THE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING US IN THOSE CEREMONIES. YES, ANYTHING ELSE?

I also want to thank the staff, the entire city, for putting on such a great parade and all of the events. It was just, it was overwhelming how many different pieces of the puzzle that came together and made it. And I had so many people walking up to me and just saying, thank you. Thank you for this event. Whatever event that was that I was at, they were very appreciative. So thank you for being so supportive as well. Oh yeah, and the Rover. Everybody and the Rover. Also just wanted to make sure that it was on your calendar that we've got the Willamette River Greenway Trail opening on the 15th. It's not opening, I'm sorry.

The groundbreaking.

The groundbreaking. It's not done yet. I'm getting ahead of myself. But the groundbreaking on the 15th, which will be a special event that the city has waited several decades for. So congratulations.

Thank you, Lynn. Okay. All right. Thank you, everyone. So now at this point, we are going to convene an executive session, and I will ask... City Attorney Erika to please read the statutory basis for this executive session.

Lake Oswego City Council will now meet in executive session under ORS 192.660-2-i to review and evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer of any public body, a public officer, employee, or staff member who does not request an open hearing in subsection F to consider information or records that are exempt by law from public inspection. Representatives of the news media and designated staff shall be allowed to attend the executive session. All other members of the audience are asked to leave the room. Representatives of the news media are specifically directed not to report on any of the deliberations during the executive session except to state the general subject of the session as previously announced. No final decisions will be made in executive session and we will adjourn the meeting after the session.

Okay. Well, this will conclude the broadcast portion of the meeting. We are going to recess and then we will reconvene in the side room. Thank you very much, everyone.