City Council - Regular Meeting

Justin, can you hear us?

Mic check. Yes, I can hear you.

Thanks, Councillor Giles.

Awesome.

Welcome, everyone, to the Sherwood City Council Work Session 538.

Excuse me, PM. On July 7th, everyone had a good 4th of July. We're not going to have a regular meeting tonight, but we have three items on our agenda for the work session. First is a roundtable with our planning commission and welcome planning commission and everyone is welcome to sit at the table. And then we're going to talk about public safety fees and transient lodging tax. But for the Planning Commission section, I'm going to kick it over to Eric.

Yeah, I'll just say we have, I'm going to kick it quickly over to Jean. I'm just going to say we have a few potential, welcome Commissioner Vance.

Hey.

have a few potential discussion items, open format. We want to encourage from any, either the council or the planning commission, if there's kind of burning items you guys want to discuss, leave that absolutely open to be on the table. If these four items help guide the discussion, great. And with that, turn it over to Chair Simpson.

Hello. I don't know if we need to introduce ourselves.

That's a good idea.

All right.

Do you want to? Yeah, I'm Tim.

I'm the mayor.

I'm Renee, council.

I'm Joe, Joe Tillotson. I'm on the planning commission.

Kim Young, city council.

Rick Wydola, planning commission.

Greg Schultz, city manager. Kristen Zweitzer, assistant city manager.

Jake Mayes, council.

Eric Relich, staff.

Sean Conrad, staff. Gene Simpson, planning commission. Brett Scott, city council. Dan Stamke, city council. Lorraine Adams, city attorney. And then the advance planning commission.

All right. And I'm Taylor Giles city council. I'm just heading back into town.

And Justin Kai city council, or sorry, planning commission.

No, no, no.

I'm very happy with planning commission. Thank you.

Thank you very much for inviting us and having this opportunity. Um, and thank you to Eric and Sean for putting this list together. I always. List that might sound a lot more intelligent, but I just walked in the door so. I think the 1 topic that I want to make sure we have time for. Is the legislative matter that's coming up for us, which is the tree code update. I realize it's not in that order, but it's a legislative matter, so we don't have ex parte contact, but we do have a need to understand like the council's goal and vision with the tree code. If there's anything pressing that hasn't already been put on the table, we don't want to go through a hearings process and then have it kicked up here and you guys say, oh, well, you missed doing a heritage tree program. And we're like, well, okay, well, let's get it back. So if there's something specific that we need to include or not include in the tree code, that's kind of what I'm

And that would be great. And that's not just that specific issue, but that's why we're having these conversations. We've been working on kind of closing the loop of how we work with the different boards of commissions. You know, we started with the end of the year, used to be the SWOT analysis, and now we just get together and talk, but we decided it was really important. As we see it, it's really important to have that conversation. too, so that you kind of understand where counsel's at, you know, at 50,000 feet on these ideas as you start looking at things. And vice versa, we want to hear from you and the rest of the planning commission on where your thoughts are. You are much more in the weeds than we are, you know, and we value that, the time and effort that you put into this, and we value your input and your thoughts and your processes that you go through. And you're a quasi-judicial consultant. Commission or board, you make decisions. So it's important that we talk. So anyway, didn't mean to hijack that, but yeah, let's jump right into the tree code. It'd be great.

Can somebody give the brief synopsis of the legislative update?

Yeah, so the tree code is on the council goals, of course. So we had one work session with city council maybe two months ago or so. We heard a few different ideas. Since then, staff has been ruminating on that and figuring out the best way forward. So first, there is a requirement that the code as it relates to regulating removal of trees has to be clear and objective. Planting doesn't have to be, but any regulations that govern the removal of trees moving forward has to be clear and objective. That's state law. So we have to check that box. after that is pretty open we heard a lot of ideas floated at the city council at the city council work session we heard a little bit about a heritage tree program in just doing the work over the last few years as staff i think mainly what we've seen and heard is a desire to preserve trees during development was a big was a big one especially residential development commercial industrial as well but in large part subdivisions that come in you know those sites are being designed they're laying out a plat and is there an opportunity to preserve you know large intact tree stands you know that have value we can pull up one more chair for you commissioner barnes um So that, I think that, from staff's perspective, is some low-hanging fruit, is like when a development comes forward, especially a subdivision, how can we preserve those large intact trees and not have clear-cutting, essentially. So I think that's one, I think that's a low-hanging fruit. After that, if there were kind of additions that you guys wanted to add to the tree code, heritage tree program, street tree list, you know, I'd say that's kind of like bonus stuff that we can definitely look at and advise on and potentially bring forward.

and that's that would be the i was about to jump on that thank you is we have a historic chapter in our code this is my history which is but it didn't really get off the ground because you would have to go to owners of individual properties and say we're going to designate you as an historic building and people go similar in nature, you would go to someone and say, your tree's a heritage tree and we value it. And so it would be problematic, but I've heard it thrown around a few times. And so if council is wanting us to, if that's your goal and vision that we implement that, I'd want it on the table. Or if you want to have a heritage tree light program where people can volunteer for it, maybe we do that. But I just wanted to hear from the council what your

You know, if a tree doesn't do the heritage tree, what does that mean?

That's that's what we would be defining in the code. Under what circumstances could it be removed if it's removed? What would you be?

And is that I mean, I guess what we would determine what. A heritage sheet by age by size by.

Were you the one mentioning that?

Okay. Maybe Dan has some. All right.

It was just an idea to identify in specific trees in Sherwood. When I walk Sherwood, I see specific trees and I'm like, I'd be cool if that stayed a tree. And so this would just be, and I think starting as a volunteer registry would be the lowest lift and building off the program from there to at least get something established. That would be my preference.

There's like this, we'll go have a heritage tree program. It was like, I remember something in the past that, They had something in that line that maybe has code we can look to.

I'm not sure if they do, but there are certainly heritage tree programs anywhere. I don't know about like Oswego specifically.

I can picture a heritage tree criteria being thought of just like for buildings where people would desperately want it, people would desperately not want it. And so having really objective standards on

I think that would be the way to go if you're forcing designation. To me, if you're doing a voluntary program, I'd like my tree to be as hard as trees. But I'd almost go the other way with it, where I don't know that you'd ever want to or be able to write such clear and objective standards that you know, like sometimes it may just be an interesting tree. Maybe it's not, does it meet the age requirement or a hydrograph or something, but there's something unique about its location or the way it grew or how it's used, been used by the community that would make it a heritage tree that maybe it wouldn't qualify if you had very specific parameters, so to speak. But again, that would be more in the line of an application for a volunteer process.

And then on the volunteer process, when the property owner changes. Yeah. Is it fall off the list? You know, I mean, who tracks that?

If I may, this is where I've done a lot of my actual careers, harvest work and city planning. So for harvest trees, for heritage trees, you know, it comes down to usually a size, a height, a character, or some value to the community. Once it's determined to be a heritage tree, it meets the criteria, it's a heritage tree, and then you have the teeth that come in to protect that tree. So if we're writing a code, then you have to have the criteria and then you have to have the implementation so that it stays and that it's not necessarily tied to a location or a deed or anything like that. It's actually tied to a city code that says, trimming of a heritage tree shall not occur unless approved by an arborist and whatnot. So there's another round of kind of burden to that.

It's true that also with living, some species might be great, but if the tree needs some criteria, that that species of tree will not survive alone if all the non-native trees around it go away. So big, tall, fur, surrounded by its younger siblings and all the siblings And then that tree is going to be vulnerable to windstorms around here. So I just don't know. It's part of the, they worked on quite an objective standards of some species just aren't eligible. I don't know if that makes sense or not.

So I guess the question to go down the path before we go to hearing, as the elected officials, do you want to stand behind a tree code or a heritage tree program? Or do you want us to implement something that's a volunteer, see how it works and then future day do something? Because without the code, it's gonna be voluntary. So it's not gonna have a lot of teeth in it. It's not gonna be more than just a placeholder in the code and it's not gonna be clear and objective for removal. It's just gonna be a voluntary participation.

What community did you say has a heritage tree program?

I'm not sure. There are many, I'm sure.

I'd like to see an example of one. But as I'm hearing you all speak, based off of an example, I think a volunteer program might be something to look into. But not a forced.

I can think of volunteer programs. could take that one step farther and say if a property owner wants to designate a 300 property that meets the criteria as a heritage that's their choice and then the code applies that's what i was looking at and to kind of yeah in this question that property of owner you know if that devalues the property and that's their call. But I think from my point of view, I would like that level. But I don't think we should walk in and onto someone's property and say, sorry, that tree, you know, probably too far.

I agree with that position. And then potentially, if the tree becomes a heritage tree, and then there's requirements about maintaining it, then maybe the city can step in and support. some money, some grants.

Because I think we'll have people who will volunteer for sure because people love their trees and are not sure if it's trees.

I have a comment about that. So if we were to create a voluntary program, and I agree with the comment that said it should remain a heritage tree, When we do the design standards where we say, hey, you got to pick from this list of design elements in your plans, could a heritage tree be part of that so that it's like, hey, yes, you have to keep the tree because it's a heritage tree, but it doesn't really diminish because we use that as a design element in establishing clear and objective standards for the lot or the thing that you build on the lot. Is that a possibility?

I understand.

I think the way I'm understanding that is that, Taylor, if I may, if you're developing either a property that had heritage freeze on it that was undeveloped or maybe redeveloping an existing property that had heritage freeze on it or that if you because you have the air industry and you are preserving that in your development and redevelopment, you get some sort of credit, quote unquote, if you will, of course. Right. Because of that, you get a little more leeway on a different part of your site plan.

Yeah, I just, and again, it's been a while since I looked at the code, but it was like, you know, hey, you got to have two different materials and you got to have, you know, these architectural elements elements I can't remember what we call them interest or something like that and there was a list of them and you had to pick five of them or something and this would be on that list right so you get credit for that and then the other thing I would say is that I do think that if somebody volunteers it that it should keep with it and it should be up for renewal should be some outs like safety of the tree and health of the tree and stuff like that right if it's going to become a you know if it dies or if it gets hit by lightning or something we got to have a way to remedy that and say well we can we can take it i assume that's a part of a normal tree code yeah that would be the part of a normal tree but if i'm understanding it if you're the property

potentially get some kind of waiver on a particular design standard, whatever that looks like. I'd leave that to the Planning Commission to figure out. But if you bought a property that already has that designation, I wouldn't think that would flow through at that point.

I don't know why not, right? I mean, again, if we're making your job harder to design around it, why not let that be something that you get credit for? I don't know. I would have to see it, I guess, but...

Most of my experience from citizen input and testimony during planning commission meetings around these treaties are, it's a developer sold, it's a private person sold their property to a developer and there's a tree in a corner, like the seven condos here on Sherwood Boulevard that it went in. There was a tree on the corner that that community all really liked and wanted that tree to be capped up. didn't have anything to help them with. And then when Southover here was developed, a lot of the neighbors there, they just, how do you get people to do something with property that's not their property? You know, that's hard, but there's a need to recognize our history of the city. We just need to figure it out, but it's not, I'm not seeing like individual homeowners. I haven't heard that testimony where an individual homeowner wants to, you know, protect their tree from some, and it's not there, but mostly it's a developer, and the developer's going to raise their costs. They have to work around a tree.

I would add one more thing, which is we're talking about an individual tree, but another concern is that when a developer comes in and takes out the law and wipes it out, I would also ask if the council would be in mind of density transfers. You save a grove of trees, the amount of... heritage tree grove that you save, the density could be transferred to another part of the property. So I still have to have 12 units per acre, but I'm preserving a third of an acre so that old 12 units can be built in a smaller section. So that I've reserved this grove of trees. If that's, I see people shaking their heads yes or not.

So in my practice, what I The states are mitigation. And so there's a definition that we have to establish between a contracted tree, a heritage tree, and a woodland tree. have teeth for it. Like if there's some thing that the city has to do, that's one thing. But if it's a private developer coming in and we say we got Dougford, you've got a nice stand of Dougford, and that's a tree that we see as a protected tree in Sherwood, it meets the criteria for this protected tree. You have to cut that down. Okay, that's going to be a five to one mitigation ratio. And you're going to be planting those on site or you're going to be preserving them somewhere else. I don't want to necessarily state that, you know, we're going to limit development because we're going to hamstring them, but. If we are a tree city, and we are going to be maintaining trees, but we're cutting down at the lot level. We need to somehow replace those and that should be part of an ordinance. Moving forward, I think, uh, in my opinion. Heritage trees, you know, if there's additional protections that are on top of the protected tree. Setbacks and whatnot.

I would agree with that. As long as the underlying goal is with that designation, we are increasing the number of trees that would have been there otherwise. Because I am concerned with a lot of the pre-inchments coming from Salem. Next thing you know, they're going to say this out loud. They're going to say that we can't have any setbacks in the front yard. We're getting denser and denser and denser. And there's this voice out there that says we need more trees, but we're reducing the amount of land you can actually put those trees on.

What I've seen in practice is similar to clean water services, no net loss. So if you're going to be impacting one, you can't preserve another one. You have to actually plant one or create another wetland. It's not a one-to-one, it's a two-to-one or three-to-one, depending on how many you're taking down, where they're located, and the value of them.

So before we go into specifics, is that, are we on base, off base? Okay, so we're tracking on a mission and having the commission here with the councils here and y'all who are going for this is going to be coming to us pretty soon, so.

I'll just, on the bigger picture of treaties in general, I think what sparked Because from a community perspective, all of a sudden there's lots of trees and there's no trees. Right. And, you know, the question that came up to my mind is, and I think you addressed this, but I'll just throw it out there, that cutting down a tree for the convenience of construction is, doesn't think but sometimes I wonder how much of the clear cutting is done in those bigger projects just because it makes it easier for them to maneuver trucks and get cranes in and that kind of stuff so I would like to limit that it's just not realistic especially if you're going to build you need to grade it but

With mitigation measures and making sure our code, because one of the things I wanted to ensure when we did some of this is that we don't just replace with deciduous because during the winter it creates a barrenness. And so making sure that we have a proper mix of evergreen and deciduous on those bigger areas.

I think in industrial and commercial zones, you know, Certainly we could probably do better at preserving trees along the perimeter, right? So on the edge of the property lines, obviously in the center, you're going to have all your building. I think there are times you probably could save more trees along the property line.

Taylor, did you have something else?

Oh, sorry. Can that, yeah. Can that be addressed by the ratios that we say, hey, one tree that's cut down for the convenience of construction is 10 new trees you've got to plant. You know what I mean? You can still give them the option, but we're going to get more in return from it if you're going to do that. I'm sure some city has figured that out already. If you absolutely have to cut one down to make it easier for your trucks to come in and out, Well, we're going to get 10 or 20 trees instead of just the five.

For commercial industrial, we already have tree canopy requirements. Yeah, okay. We need a like for like, I think, depending on everything. And we got that out of the 12th and industrial deployment area. Spencer stepped up on that one.

Yeah, they did a good job in

Making sure that one example I thought of is, you know, that there's that. And I didn't look at it all before it was developed at that new development. You know, we built some, there's some parks in there and I'm willing to bet those parks had trees on them before the construction started. So that those, you know, that kind of thing. That's what I've been wondering. Did those, did those trees need to go?

Yeah. Very good point. All right. And then we have those lots of other things that are coming up. They're not all as imminent. Next week, we're doing our, I'm going to call it the mission launch party for the TSP. I mean, we're not going to go to hearings until 2027, but Joy's going to about do an introduction to the TSP. So we'll have an opportunity to interact with the council. I'm sure we're going to have opportunities. have multiple hearing sessions and field work sessions on that.

My only comment on that, as you're thinking through the projects, the priorities and those types of things, I think everyone's heard me say this before, for the importance of everything we can do to get grant ready, so we work we've done for like 30% design on a project, we're more likely to get the project from the state or the federal government. So as you're thinking through priorities and stuff, kind of have that in the back of your head. Does that make sense?

It does. And I know staff has already done exceptional work in getting a grant from Metro, and they've got another grant coming in for our housing needs analysis. So thank you, Sean. Thank you, Eric, for doing that. And then the housing needs analysis is coming. That's a deadline for end of next year with the new state processes that they're asking us to abide by.

Sounds like we might have some meetings coming up.

We might have a lot of very intense meetings coming up. I guess the other thing was the Old Town Strategic Plan, just kind of a debrief from the process. I guess as a commission, we just want to see how it's going to be coming through it looked like it was going to be pretty high density depending on what happens at the state level if you know if we're allowing four four um stories and then they get a bonus story of a fifth story i just wanted to you know since we own what we the city on a lot of land just being mindful of how how it looks and Do any other commissioners have any comments on that?

Do we also need, I know that one of the purposes of getting that done was that we were going to get some recommendations on, okay, how do we now incentivize, you know, do a facade upgrades or do different things to get certain businesses that, and this is a partnership with Eric, And again, I don't know if now is the right time, but at some point we wanted to do that, give us some recommendations on what we can do to incentivize and get a code that's in place there so that all the new stuff that comes in or facade upgrades or whatever would be matching and we wouldn't have a mismatch of styles as much anymore. Is that something that's on track for the Old Town Overlay?

Yeah, I can speak to that. Yes, we're looking at a few different programs. One of them would be the vertical housing development incentive program. So that would be up to city council whether or not you ultimately approve that, be it be an ordinance likely, tax abatement on 20% of the residential floors above commercial. So it would encourage mixed use basically as a requirement to do commercial and then you get the tax abatement on the residential. But in developing that program, the city can set approval criteria to qualify. So you could say, you really want this tax abatement, here's the design. Guidelines some some control back. Yes, if they take care if they take the care that they correct, but it would get you. The ground floor commercial, because they don't get the incentive otherwise, and it would get you the design and they would get the tax payments. Otherwise there is a risk. If you don't have the program and they come in. They could potentially take advantage of some state laws around both those issues.

There was a gentleman who sat on that old town strategic plan through. We were sitting and chatting one time. And he still has some concerns or wasn't sure how it could be stopped. But if one owner is buying up property, other property, what would stop it from coming up strip mall somewhere down in old town? Atmosphere instead of keeping like this. Old town charm.

The state laws, you know, they're like creating incentives on property. We do not own. I think will help us a lot because I do believe developers will be. Interested in those incentives it isn't, especially if they're going to. Whoever ends up owning it and managing it, those are those will be some pretty good incentives. And then, thankfully, a bunch of the developed plan is in the control of the city and. to remind us that we own it we control it and don't give up that control when you you know have a developer um well yep so is there is there an action plan or a program on that's funded for

A hearing to come through the planning commission to do that vertical housing. Incentive program, so that we get the code in place before we get any applications.

Yeah, so we're in the implementation phase of old town strategic plan of course. So city staff have been looking at that. program and we're planning to bring forward really it's going to be a menu of options for city council to consider hey here's the vertical housing program hey here's longer term urban renewal and see and basically get the green light to go full steam and then it would go planning committee potentially planning commission first and then city council for ordinance this probably doesn't need to go to the planning commission because it's just an ordinance um It probably wouldn't modify the development code. It would be like a vertical housing. It would be an incentive program somewhere in the municipal code or by ordinance that a developer just takes advantage of. And there's a tax abatement for it. So, but if you guys want to planning commission to look at the requirements to qualify, we could do that. But short answer is, yeah, we're, we're, we're, yes. The short, the short answer is yes. We're bringing forward a menu of options. targeting, it's really going to be both the publicly owned city sites and the private sites that we don't own, and trying to incentivize the right outcomes on those properties.

I would add that, yeah, I would love to have Planning Commission's input on what that looks like, because I think it's closely related to the incentives we create. What I'm hoping for is we can fund this out of our URA, because even a couple hundred thousand dollars a year out of the URA for incentives would go a long ways. And our URA is going to, I don't know what our balance is now, but total is going to generate $84 million over the next 30 years. So it's not a lot to pull out for these types of programs. And it doesn't impact our general fund, which is a different conversation.

And it's doing better than when it had.

estimated anywhere yeah it'd be nice if we can make the thing that we want to see the easy thing so that we you know you don't have to go through a full planning commission hearing to do something if you be if your plan looks like our plan it's so standard then you can go right through Yeah, but I know that's what states wait and they want, they want clear and objective standard. I want that. We want the easy button on the clear and objective that looks like our old town.

Eric, isn't there a, there's some design guidelines in the old town strategic plan about like, oh, we're going to have it. Americana facades with brick and stone facing, and we're going to have overhead, you know, there's some stuff like that. Can't the planning commission give us a first take on, on that so that we don't have, you know, French Renaissance and new age angled. And, and we say, Hey, this is the overlay for the design standards in old town, like they've got in Bend and other places.

Are they still legally enforceable through the states? Yeah. I'm just throwing out a softball for staff. Is that legally enforceable?

Even if it's not legally enforceable, we incentivize you by doing facade grants. That was one of the big points of doing the the strategic plan is to say, hey, we'll give you these incentives if you design it this way.

Yeah. I mean, most of the – so we have a base code now. I'd say it's a decent code. There are some – allowances in there that have resulted in some outcomes that we're not happy with. So as a starting point, we could look at a code update to close those loopholes, I guess, close those gaps. A developer, in theory, could still take advantage of the state laws. Even with some of those state laws, there's boxes they got to check. There's criteria. So, you know, to the extent that they qualify for that, yes, they could potentially get an out on some of those design standards. One example is 17 units per acre. So if they're not hitting that 17 units per acre, a lot of these concerns we have, the developer's not going to qualify for it. So it's not just a straight up blanket outright. You just get out of local code. They still got to check all those boxes. But if they check all those, in theory, they could get out of many of our design standards. But To your question, Taylor, really what we're talking about is an incentive program, which, frankly, it's really good timing for it. We have one project going in now. For the most part, market rate, non-incentivized housing is not moving forward in Oregon right now. Multifamily, single family is still moving forward. Mixed use, three stories and above, multifamily. It's basically not moving forward. It's really slow right now. So it's a great time to adopt one of these programs and say, hey, we'd love to partner with you on the housing. We're just asking for these design standards. And by the way, now into the program, you get your project pencils, actually, potentially. And that's what we've been hearing. Eric and I have been doing a lot of tours in Old Town. we've probably given 10 tours to very reputable developers. Looking at the city-owned sites and some private sites, none of them have moved forward in part because it's just not penciling. Construction costs are too high. Interest rates are too high. Rents right now, interestingly, are about the same and actually going down a little bit in this region. It's just not penciling. So it's the housing right now and if and if if we put forward that carrot there's potentially a match with the outcomes that we're looking for so um yeah we'll bring something forward yeah but if other commissioners have items on your list that you want to bring up

You're looking at me.

You have notes, and you have notes.

I was curious, Eric, I didn't understand at the very end, what's an example, if what you're saying is true, which I strongly believe it is, what kind of incentive could make someone want to build something that otherwise isn't going to pencil out as profitable? What's an example?

The one that we're looking at right now would be a 10-year tax abatement on a certain percentage of the residential portion of the development. That costs us something.

It does.

After lifespan of a building, at least 50 years, so you're still going to get at least 40 years of full taxes on it, plus the housing. SDC waivers, that's a very specific conversation that this council would need to have, but any way that you can reduce the cost either up front or over the early periods of the construction and life of the building, that's what developers need to see. They need help on the pro forma, either at construction or in the first few years of the project.

Is that where you program? dollars can come in and incentivize.

And that's why I was leaning into the ERA monies, you know, because, you know, the fact of the matter is in many cities are feeling this right now are with a 3% property tax increase cap and where our expenses are going, creating, binding those monies or giving up future revenue is, It's one thing that, as mayors, we're talking to Salem about quite a bit, because even on economic development, they said, oh, just give that business a property tax abatement, and they bring in a bunch of new jobs, and the state gets all the income tax that comes from that, and the city doesn't. So, I mean, from my point of view, giving a property tax revenue, given where our general fund budget is right now, is a tough sell.

But a one-time SDC credit.

One-time SDC, or maybe funding that with ERA dollars, if we can smartly configure the map of our ERA, something like that. Yeah, actually, they started using SDC dollars.

We need to have a bigger conversation about You can potentially do that, but the time when you start creating that kind of program, from my perspective, is when you update that SDC. You update that SDC, you build in there some opportunities for some credits, so that you're still getting the target. The baseline. Yeah. You need.

targeted to specific STCs because I know some of our STC funds are better shaped than others for long-term capital projects.

Yeah, but if you're from the way I, my approach would be to look at it so we're not at any risk with the loan.

No, I get it.

I'm just saying that the one that we have control over, you know, sewer, we have really good control over. We have control over parks.

Hey, Eric. When you mentioned the 10-year tax abatement, that only applies to city taxes, right? It's not relevant to, say, like school taxes or anything like that. Is that right?

It's a good question. I don't know the answer, actually. Certainly, before anything passes, we would take a look at that. And if there's outreach, to your point in your question, if there's impacts, we would certainly reach out to the impacted agencies.

Okay. Okay, thank you. I don't think we have the authority to impact other taxing jurisdictions unless you have the enterprise zone from the state, which we don't.

Don't qualify for it. Would developers find any incentive in spreading their SDCs out over time? Yes. Like 10 years or something? I mean, we need the money. but we use it later. So could we, they pay so much upfront.

That's a great question. Yeah. I don't, you know, I don't know. There are some state, there is state law that governs SDC, regulates SDCs. We have to make sure that, that it would be a local program like that would be allowed. My guess is probably might be up to the local jurisdiction, but that's a, that's a, that's a, that's a great title change.

You know, there's ownership changes in the course that window, you know,

It would have to be paid off at sale or something. Whenever the contract was made. Yeah. Or they're laying on the property.

Laying on the property that they paid over a period of time or at time of ownership change.

That's a great idea. You know, to be disturbed too.

Yeah. Yeah. Maybe if the administration did. Anything else? I'm not going to stare at you guys.

I need to step across from you.

Any other commissioners? Old Town, talking about just kind of the design and all that stuff. So just to kind of piggyback on that with the height of the buildings and so forth, that was the one thing that struck me about that plan is if that all happened down there, kind of down toward Oregon Street, you have these four or five-story buildings, the density is down there. Just when I compare that to what Old Town over here looks like, it just looked very lopsided. And that's what I would be mainly concerned about when we're thinking about that city-owned property down there and what we're building. If we're allowing them to go way, way up, and very, very dense. It's going to look very, very different from what's over here, despite I know we have incentives and other things we're trying to do over here. That's going to take a long time to redevelop and do the rest of Old Town. So in the meantime, we would have kind of a weird lopsided scenario. And that was kind of one thing that struck me out of that.

I agree with you. I guess the reason I wasn't not too concerned is we own the property. So as part of the sale, we can put conditions on it so that

I also think, I mean, I don't know how that's not inevitable, right? Because if you eventually want the stuff to redevelop to be taller and higher density, like what an old town is supposed to be. But if you said you can't do that over there and you build smaller, then this eventually builds and now that has to get redeveloped again to match that, right? You're just, so it almost feels like somewhere you need to start with what you're, you know, ultimate goal would be somewhere, and yeah, it's going to take 30 years to get there, but if you don't start now, then it's going to take 50 years to get there.

Well, who knows? Next year, the state might say, well, you get a three-story bonus instead of one-story.

Just to be clear, then, that is the objective of council. We want five-story buildings, packing, I don't know. I think we talked about five. I think we talked about three before.

Three before.

Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, I mean, I mentioned this to... Certainly, I'm talking about Pine. I look at Old Town and the grid, there's like a diagonal line through it, right? And you have like the Pine Railroad triangle that I think is what I would like to see that built up into two or three floors. The other triangle is more residential. I don't think any of us are really gung-ho about seeing that redevelop any time soon.

I think that's fine. good healthy mix of restaurants and shops and stuff and all the time and all the studies that people give a give counselors to read and maybe planning commissioners too over the time is is you need to have more bodies residing deep down here and it can be Two primary categories. It's your short-term, so it's your hotels, so you're still getting fresh people. They're there to, yeah, let's go see something cool and check stuff out. You want the hotel types or you want the live people who live here. I understand it's balance, yeah.

Yeah, I mean... Like my wife, like, why do you like Old Town? Well, because it's little, you know, okay. And if we build it up, it can still feel little in some ways, but we have to get there too. And that was one of the things brought up is parking. Like I have four kids, you know, when they were little, I'm not, you know, we can't walk from where we live down there very easily. We've got to drive the minivan, you know, we've got to park somewhere. So, but if we can't do that, it's not going to come. And that'll be the case, I think, for a lot of families, I'm sure, too, if we're not going to have kids.

for parking, particularly if you think about on the perimeter of Old Town, right? Maybe some in the core as well. We talk about that a lot.

I mean, I've been through some nice Old Towns that are still utilizing the old buildings of their Old Town without having to make them now look not Old Town. With three and four stories that are very vibrant Old Towns in the downtown area.

We clearly have a handful of buildings that really great for redevelopment or being raised and rebuilt whenever those landlords... A small house being used as an office is an example I use.

A one-story house with a huge yard being used as an office space is not the highest, best use of an old town.

A nameless bank. A nameless bank.

And unused. Can't all help.

Is there... Eric, I know we've talked about this before. Is there any way to say, hey, we only want to incentivize these types of businesses so that we don't end up with, you know, 11 of the same kind of business in Old Town? Because that kind of also seems like it would dampen the flow of people, right, if it's all... an incentive standpoint absolutely if the city's offering incentives you would set the parameters for the incentive yes okay because some of them are you know like what i'm not interested in is more appointment type stuff like doctors lawyers hair salons i want more discoverable stuff like you know small shops, restaurants, where there are things that are changing and it's always something to discover in Old Town versus, hey, I go there, I get my hair cut, I leave. That's not as exciting to me.

That's the whole point of incentives. Destination. We can be specific on what we're looking for. We can try.

Let's take them.

I know our dog's up, so if there's any Parting towards or we have we have no regular meeting. So there's no time. So I didn't even hear anything.

We know that annexation policy or income and we need to work out.

I don't want to think about an annexation. So I'm hearing.

There's no new laws impacting us that we're aware of. And hopefully there won't be the current city for councilors phase rolled annexation agreements part of, you know, so we and we decide how much of the granular details is in that proposal with the laws, my perspective of all the laws, the way they are, the more specific we are with that piece of land that comes in, that there's a very clear understanding where community and the developers that know we're gonna get is beneficial.

It creates certainty on both sides. There is some rumors going around Salem that they might try to introduce some legislation to preempt annexation rules. You know, so that's one of the reasons we asked the voters for that charter amendment change to kind of get in front of that. But we'll watch that closely too, so.

If the Senate said it in different spaces, but if we do this and we do it well, and we're able to deliver the mix of housing and the type of development that fits in our community that we all like. There's some other, some various, you know, different housing price points. The state should look favorably upon it if they give us a chance. There's nothing else you guys need our help with right now?

Yeah. Okay. The, the annexations will come to planning commission, which is new. They didn't used to come to planning commission.

We added that.

We added that. So we adopted new code. Like, counselor may has mentioned, there's an agreement that's now required. Planning commission will take a look and advise city council on that agreement. 1st. So we do have 2 annexation applications in now. They're a little slow right now. We're talking with the developers, but that code is in effect now. And so.

I thought I remembered that there were some qualifications. Some would, some wouldn't. Is that incorrect? Is it all annexation applications would come before? Very good memory.

Well, all of them would come to planning commission for sure. Whether or not they require an annexation agreement, that's at the city's discretion. But all of them require public hearing and would come to planning commission first. Yeah.

But can I change gears just a little bit? I'm trying to think like future planning annexation with old town, uh, My background is a little bit more green engineering. Just trying to figure out with the notices we've gotten from, you know, we're drawing from the Willamette. Hey, retain your water. Don't be watering and whatnot. Are there any thoughts of including like subterranean cisterns or bioswales to capture rainwater as part of new development? Like in the city to say, I know we have our wells that we're pulling from the city or from Willamette, but more or less a way to supplement our water that we use here to water the plants, that we use to water the fountains, that goes to evaporation. Is there a way to draw from an underground source that we're using as part of development for future projects, things like that?

Are you talking about purple pipe stuff?

Well, I mean, perhaps as one, I'm thinking more of an actual subterranean cistern. If we are redeveloping a downtown building to go, you know, four stories up, at that time, I think that we should be thinking about, you know, all right, where is the rainwater going to go and can they put in a cistern as part of their development so that the city can tap into that and use it for water? I mean, obviously, it'd have to tie into subsystem. I mean, I'm just future...

One of the things we would have going for us is we have water rights of 20 million gallons a day out of Willamette right now. I think peak we use about five to six. We have the infrastructure with the exception of the intake facility to go all, we can push 20 with the exception of that big facility. So we have lots of capacity for growth. use of that rainwater.

Yeah, that's environmentally friendly.

Are you future looking for scarcity with water in Willamette? Well, yeah, we're going to have far fewer snow melt. Things are changing. We're going to have more people drawing on it. And if we're going to have more people living in downtown utilizing the water, right, we're going to be pulling more. And our capacity may be high, but there's also opportunities to

Peter proof somewhat if we're capturing that, or is it, we're just preventing it from falling back into the strong water, which it all goes back into the system there anyway.

So temporarily, but this would incur less costs for most like what's the cost for us to pump it versus having a developer put it in as part of an incentive, like, Hey, this is part of our plan.

So if we're capturing it, then like I said, using it to water the grass, that's an example.

Yeah, you can't, it's not, it wouldn't, you would never capture stormwater.

No, you wouldn't capture stormwater, it'd just be the rainwater coming out, it would be impervious. But it all goes into the same place.

Yeah.

We've talked about using our emergency wells, they used to be our primary wells, back in the day, you know, for, like, watering school districts for lawns and parks and stuff like that. Yeah.

That's been... We have some really high-capacity wells.

So while we have plenty of water, plenty of capacity, I don't understand where he's coming from as far as that.

Yeah, like green roofs, things like that. And now it's part of like, hey, we're going to be using more power. We don't want a data plant. We don't want a data facility out there sucking up everything and charging us higher rates. Like maybe solar should be built into your system. Again, it's something that the developers would have to choose to do. But that could be like, hey, incentive A, level A as you do this, level B, almost like a LEED certification. If you're going to go here and here, the more incentives you get based on the more improvements you do and the more feedback that you provide to the city.

I have solar on my house and I've had it for however long and I'm thrilled that I have it. New construction, you know, homes require to be wired for solar and It's just crazy to me that there's not solar put on every house that's built. But it's a cost. You know, when I pay my meter bill, $17 a month, that's literally the meter. That's my power. And my gas is, again, the meter, $12.

Then I watched my neighbor who needed their roof replaced have to fight with their solar company to get out to remove this panel so the roof company could fix it.

Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. And you're not wrong. That's why I waited until I had replaced the roof when I put it on.

Yeah. Sorry. I went back. I don't know what happened.

I didn't hear it. And I couldn't see who made that comment, but I think that also is very... development, mainly because I know that we've got... We do a lot of water capacity, but I think we have kind of a mess pipes and sewage and so we may we may not be able to do it there but in sherwood west we certainly should think of those kind of green technologies as part of our code i know that um you know wiring even if you don't put a battery back up or or alternate power supply or anything it's a few dollars at the cost of building versus retrofitting and doing it after the fact and so um you know, let's look at it, certainly get some recommendations for the sure request stuff.

Well, great. Well, thank you so much for coming to the meeting. And if there's, as we work through these things, Gene, if there's something you feel like you need to back together again and have a conversation, just let us know or Kim.

yeah the worst thing that can happen is you guys put a lot of work into something and it gets to the council or like what the heck is that about that's why i wanted to spend the time on the tree because i didn't want to you know create some wild wild west show at the planning commission that y'all kick back to us anyway so i'm and i'm thankful for the commissioners that were able to attend this evening i think everyone's here everyone's here as i say yeah

One other thought just about getting back to that, the point you just made about not wanting to submit something that is off the mark. It's submitting something that's a preview to get early feedback instead of waiting, doing a lot of work before presenting. Yeah, the outline, breaking it up front. Yeah.

Yeah.

It's really important. And I have to say, and I think Council would agree with me, I think we are You guys do amazing work. You dig in. I hear from my fellow mayors about their planning commissions, you know, so I'm just telling you guys do an amazing job. Really appreciate it.

It's Jean. Don't ever let her go.

I'll second that.

Yeah. So it's the past. Yeah.

All right. All right. Here's the word here.

The rest of your evening back. Then we do have a work session in a week. Everybody needs a slot.

We'll take a five minute break.

All right, everyone. We are on to item two on our agenda tonight, which is public safety fee and a discussion of that potential, what it could look like. And I'll turn it over to David.

Thank you, Mayor. So this is just a follow-up from the work session we held on April 21st. I know Council asked for us to bring back a little bit more information. You know, we had split apart some of these businesses, and there's still a lot of cleanup work. So Kathy over in Public Works, she did a great job, worked countless hours on getting all these various commercial accounts, business accounts split up into the proper categories. So this is just more for the folks that might be listening at home. You know, the objective here tonight is just to present various options. We're going to go through a few options in this presentation slide, but I do have an interactive model. We could go through whatever numbers, whatever scenarios you would like, and I will automatically update the numbers so we can just kind of play around with some numbers. Get any kind of feedback and identify next steps for future council consideration. For understanding ESU units, equivalent service units, just really quick, it's a standard measurement used by cities to calculate stormwater utility fees. Typical impervious surface is 2,640 square feet. That's kind of the typical single-family resident. ESUs are currently used on commercial accounts to calculate sidewalk fees, streetlight fees, and street fees. So why would we consider using ESUs? It just makes the billing fair and consistent. Like I already said, single-family homes equals one ESU. And, you know, for larger properties, like let's just say, I don't know, I'm thinking of the shopping ones, like a Walmart or a Home Depot, you know, they have a bigger surface, so they'd be paying more. And so...

And it's something that we already track for other reasons. So we're not making up something new, a new administrative.

Yeah, I know we had talked about, well, what if we use square footage and that's just something currently right now our billing system cannot handle. It'd be a significant.

I think we already settled on the last time we met. Yeah.

So one of the options we're floating out the account, this is just to get the conversation started, is what if we charged everyone $10 a month, every account, just a flat $10 monthly per ESU, commercial. Commercial and industrial, not residential. Yes. That would bring in roughly about 727,000 dollars a year and collections would be used to fund 2 new officers. And I didn't put the presentation side in there. What we previous talked about this would just help the police department 2 new officers. We get 2 new officers. You always. Got to get a vehicle for them, police equipment and all the technology over there that the chief would like to implement. 1 of the biggest advantages, as we've already stated, it's, it's fair. It's consistent. every business is paying the same for ESU.

What's your cost of a new officer in front of this calculation?

New officer, we roughly estimate it is about 220,000 to 230,000 vehicles are getting up. Just for the officer? Just officer, about 240,000 per year for you.

So two officer would be 440? Yes. Okay, so then that's roughly 280 that we're using on one-time expenses. police cruiser and police equipment technology, but we get that money every year. So year two, we don't need to buy another new cruiser. Presumably the police equipment and technology don't need to be re-bought every year either.

It isn't every year, but it is more often than once.

Sure. I'm just saying that this is one-time money and ongoing money.

So some clarification on that. Some of the technology such as some of this, we're on that equipment.

It's not a one-time thing. So that would be picked up in the cost of this? Yes. What is that per year?

Well, depending on what we do. Right now, our contract is $607,000 for five years. That's continuing to go up. That doesn't include any VFR program.

And as you add up, there's been a cost increase? Yes.

Because everybody has to get this stuff.

So we have $440,000 per year for the two officers and $200,000 per year or the technology, more than we're spending now, but again, so that's, that gets, that spends 640, that leaves about 80,000, which you used to buy a police cruiser the first year, where you're not buying another, so you have 80,000 extra the next year, year three, year four.

Yeah, yeah, and you know, one thing, In the asset plan, you know, every year we're needing to replace these vehicles. And we've actually stretched, I think, some out beyond the point.

This would be like the replenishment fund as well, where you buy a new cruiser every year. It's not to replace the one you bought the year before. It's to replace the eight-year-old one.

Exactly. And we talked about, and correct me if I'm wrong, that we've always wanted to have a spare fleet. Another option we wanted to throw out there was what if we charge $12 per ESU? You can see, of course, the amount's going to go up to about $873,000. And what we thought about is, well, could we look at funding one current officer as well as the two new officers, police cruiser equipment technology, one current officers? You know, we all know what we went through the last biennial budget. We had some layoffs. This would help protect a future layoff potentially in the police department. I'm not saying... That's what's coming down the pipeline, but it just kind of help to give the chief a little bit of protection of not.

Losing what he's trying to build over the basically free from funds in the general fund.

Yeah, but you said officer was 220. Yeah, this doesn't quite get us there, but it'll just help the part of that. Exactly. Another option we wanted to look at, let me just see if I can move these folks a little bit there.

Okay, so what if we take it and we charge everyone $12 per ESU except for commercial and industrial? What if we cut them down in half, say $6? You know, or manufacturing, industrial. You know, one thing, these are large businesses. I know you folks still patrol out there. I don't know if it's quite as intensive as, say, other commercial buildings. I'll leave that up here and not put you on the spot.

No, I mean, obviously, as we've talked about, we're a proactive agency, so we're there, we're in and out. We have a program called Night Eyes, so we're in there knocking on doors, checking parking lots. One of the things that I think I need to remind people is that although these big vacant buildings and parking lots are not utilized 24-7, people do go there. They do go and commit crimes. We contact a lot of people in these slots at nighttime. It's off the beaten path. It's not in the retail arena where they can be seen. So they'll go and do their thing somewhere else. We do spend a fair amount of time patrolling it. Now, is it a calls for service drain? Not necessarily.

This would accomplish the same as option one.

Yeah, with just collecting a little bit less because option one had about $727,000. So this would be about $5,000, $6,000 less, but it would give those larger industrial... manufacturing businesses a little bit of a break. Because when you looked at them, I'm not going to get into the details, but some of these manufacturer industrial were paying maybe just as much as or more than some of the larger retails that consume a lot of the PDs. Yes. So we're trying to see, okay, if we didn't do equal across the board, how can we make it fair for some of these that might not be such a drain on the PDs resources? Last option is, what if we did $11 per ESU, $6 for manufacturing industrial, and then $15 for retail, just all the retail. I know last time we had kind of split out small retail versus large retail, but we just put retail all under one because...

you're already getting because they're smaller they're paying they have less units anyway exactly so yeah well and i think too it's it's complexity is compounded because you might have a landlord that controls a whole strip mall and the bill is going to the landlord versus the individual tenants versus a uh someone who owns a small business like a restaurant that owns their own property so trying to

Not that the landlord probably also won't pass it all down.

They'll pass it down, but we can't control how they pass it down, right? Exactly. And that was one of the challenges that I know Public Works was having is some of those multi-use properties where you might have A restaurant, say, a retail shop. A dentist office, and then some kind of fitness, you know, overall, I can know a Walmart area where it's really hard. You can't just say, well, we're going to put. This in restaurant. Well, you have some retail in there too. So we had to create a multi use category as well. And really well, as the mayor were saying, it's, it's up to that. Property owner to pass that down if they would like to to their tenants, our proposal would be building this by.

In the scenarios, it would then be by the use on it, not necessarily the zoning. You have retail in light industrial areas. So if you were to do a variable rate, which I'm very supportive of, that retail should be the highest of any of the rates. Not saying option four is the right answer, but kind of a scenario. All right. What accounts are predominantly retail? I would put restaurants in a retail category. Is that essentially... Actually, we did split restaurants out in non-retail, but we can... So if that's in a mixed use, I think you have to throw it in the bucket of retail. Yeah. From my perspective.

I love the idea of just keeping a commercial and that bundles retail and everything because it's so difficult to break it out because of all the different structures that are out there. We don't need an administrative burden yet.

Right. That's what I'm saying. Of the two options of a strip mall, is it a commercial strip mall or is it a retail strip mall? You look at it and it's like, that's really retail.

Because in this scenario, some could fall under commercial, some could fall under retail in one of the same shopping centers.

makes the phones click.

And then making sure you look at the... Making sure you're not using bad terminology. So, yeah, I think it's... Can we go back to option three real quick? I think it's going to be easier to administer by lumping retail, commercial, and all that together because you have... You can have a landlord that's controlling a whole strip mall. It has a mix of all that. So how do you do that? Right?

Could the bills go into that one landlord?

Well, maybe not. Sometimes those have multiple meters on the building.

Some do and some don't, by the way. Or maybe multiple meters and they're all built individually. Maybe multiple meters and they're all built centrally. I don't want to deal with that.

Yeah, because what's going to... Do you think it shows that? Yeah. Do we have that data?

Do we have the data that shows, like, which ones are split out? Or is it just one?

It's hard to tell. It depends what they developed it. How many is it? Peter. Okay.

Exactly.

Yeah, that's why you got to lump them together.

Yeah. Because then you're just setting yourself up because the tenant's going to go, hey, wait a second. I'm really retail. You know, it's just you're billing me the retail rate. I'm not retail. Yeah.

So the option three scenario, which I can't support, unless we put caps on manufacturing, because a big box retail would pay only double the rate of a large manufacturer. And the service needs of those two are massively different. Select a four.

I have a fundamental question on this. Does this actually meet our needs?

I thought we needed four officers in order to get up to where the chief wanted.

Back from the, uh, when she talked counselor, it was, uh, four, I supported two with this fee at the time. And that's what we brought forward because we can't fund all four officers out of just commercial.

Okay, thanks. We're looking at the residential side.

Yeah.

Yeah, I do remember that being brought up.

Yeah. That's my biggest concern is our, however many of our really large manufacturing companies putting a rate that's half the rate of what a large retailer

Okay, let's go back to that. So, for me, for as a non starter, I'm 0 interested for it's way too cumbersome for staff to try to manage. I don't want anything to do with it.

Go ahead.

Well, my issue is the commercial and retail separately that for had that just feels that's the whole conversation we just had about how hard it would be to.

I'm trying to understand case concern because in both 4 and 3, the manufacturing and desperate rates the same. A 7 retail is going from.

12 to 15. Yeah. But go back to three. I mean, we can just tweak. We can tweak the rates on three to get to Keith's point.

Go to 15 on the per ESU monthly and commercial and $6 on your manufacturing industrial.

Or we go 13 and four.

Would you like to play around with some scenarios? I can pull up that spreadsheet.

Yes, please.

Oh, I'm muttering.

Sorry. Which would also be an administrative nightmare is taking the number of ESUs and having like, if you have between this many and this many ESUs in commercial, your rate is this and this and this.

I just think you're... Well, you also don't point to it because the ESU itself is already graduating your rate.

Right.

Like you're just double graduating your rate now.

Does it cause more administrative issues? No.

So this is kind of just the makeup, and let me just... We got the all other commercial category where it's auto bank construction. Lodging medical, and then I had split out manufacturing industrial because we kind of thought about, okay, what if we charge them a lower rate? And then I just kept retail split out because based off the last work session. So, from there, what would you like to see? Is it 15, 6 and 15? So, if we did 15. 6.

Well, we're saying that even though on the spreadsheet you have all other retail split out, that we don't think that's manageable. So we would have to keep them the same. Yeah, yeah. And that's why you split it. Yeah, yeah.

So that would bring us $863,000. Oh, wow. That's higher than any.

$18,000 is high to me.

Then you drop it down to $13,000. $13,000 is like. So number sixty eight and what's the amount that we need for this? Two officers.

Plus one, like, seven, twenty five. Yeah, about seven, twenty five is seven, twenty seven. Okay. The existing one. Yeah. Then we want to get up in about eight hundred twenty four. What can happen? Oh, no. Eight hundred seventy three thousand.

So that means in our scenario, what happens if you change industrial to or manufacturer to four?

And keep those at 30. I always want to go higher, but just to just to see what that is.

So, we need that we need 873 to get 2 new officers in a current.

And yeah, just basically, it's kind of that buffer to. I don't maybe shield an officer for future layouts. 12, 5, 4. What did you say, $12,512? $12,512. Okay.

And Keith, if you look there, it does have, for manufacturing industrial, it gives you a breakdown of the average of the 38 accounts that fall in that category. So you can kind of see their average annual costs.

So each account at $5 is roughly about $3,300 a year per account.

And what does 14, 5, and 14 do? 14, 5, and 14? 790. 13, 5, 13.

I felt like I was close to our targets. Without helping pay for a current officer? Yeah. I agree.

our large manufacturers. I'm just, that's what I want to incentivize.

Do you think this would?

Would it necessarily stop?

No, but it's just, you know, what would the average pay? $3,300.

My question is, what is, what is that, what is the high and low that look like, right? Okay, so $3,300 average, what is the 100,000 square foot place.

I mean, we have some accounts in this category that have 300 ESUs.

Okay, so it's greater times five. In the email that was sent out with some work session material, there was discussion about having a cap. Right. I think that's what... Specifically for, I think, the industrial.

It was interesting when I did the cap, say I did a cap of 50, 50 ESUs, and there was, I think it was 19... 19 out of our 38 accounts, or maybe affected like, yeah, customers, the savings was $528. By putting that 50 cap, 50 ESU cap, because there's not a ton of businesses over that 50 cap. There's a few in the 300 range, and then it gets down to the 70 and 60s, but there was a couple that were 300 ESU.

500 a month, I think, in that scenario. That was when they were talking at 10.

Yeah. So there wasn't like really much of a savings when you're talking 528 across every one if we put that cap in or across some businesses messaging. Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I think your cap makes sense.

So I know in the email when I sent it out, it was at 75, but we also looked at it. When I said we were still tweaking around with it, we went down to the 50, and that seemed a lot better for the manufacturing businesses.

And I'm fine with, you know, if somebody is truly, if somebody is in an industrial area and it's not retail and it's not commercial, I don't know, more of a warehouse. I'm not necessarily saying put a cap on warehousing.

But it's hard to, you get a catalog.

I know, I'm just saying it, you know, if you want to. My biggest, number one concern on this is the optics to many large, medium and large manufacturers that are here, coming here.

You know what would help is maybe looking at the other areas in the region that are growing in terms of industrial job growth. useful analysis. Now, what Kaiser are they going?

So the Kaiser went with a $10 and some odd cent ESU from July 1st to January. Then they're looking to go up to $14.38 or something like that in ESU January 1st. For everyone.

Yeah, residential and commercial. So they have a little different set up.

Yeah. And to get the number, I'm buying whatever you want to do to retail.

Is there any consideration for a discount for the non-profit?

I know we had discussed that last time, and I think, Keith, you brought up what I thought was a good point, where they don't pay property taxes right now. So, yeah, they pay for some city services, whether it's water, but they're not paying property taxes for other city services. So I think we kind of discussed a little

cheap about whether we get calls to non-profit churches and we do we do pay for our services but it is because it's not all churches no it's not you have the province on schools this we don't have school or we don't have the Sherwood Sherwood school district is the one that's

What's included?

I think other private schools, charter schools.

Yeah, charter schools, private schools. That doesn't seem fair.

Well, the charter school is a public school.

Well, I should say they probably paid through a church that they ran through. So the church is probably getting charged. That's a good point. And the school district pays for the school district.

It seems like if we just say, hey, we're really trying to hit the people that use the services the most, that's not really why we're... We all pay into the police department even if we don't use it. Correct. We all pay into the public schools even if we don't use them because it makes our community a certain way. And so if I'm a manufacturer and I want my people to be working in a place that is safe and that they feel safe living and all the other stuff. I feel like I'm fine with there being some sort of a cap, but I don't know that we want to say, Hey, we're going to stick it to the retail because we all can immediately visualize, Hey, there's theft or whatever. Everybody likes living in Sherwood because it feels safe. I feel like we almost have to, you got to pay for that, whether you personally are committing the crime or not, you know, or whether it's happening at your building. So that's kind of my feeling on it.

Bill, you're here. I just haven't been.

Welcome back, Tim.

So is there a direction you want to move? Do you want to maybe another work session? Because I know...

Different directions.

Yes.

What are we on now? What are our numbers?

Right now the numbers are 14, 5, and 14. We're looking at about $791.

I like 13, 5, 13 better, I think. This feels like we're not enough to get the third officer.

We could still pay for the two new officers.

I'm good with that. And then what would, well, if we had the cap, rough estimate of what that would do to our number,

it might bring it down a few thousand dollars. What cap would we be looking at? Less than $5,000.

Okay. But it's meaningful to the few businesses that give a message. Yeah, there's a handful of businesses that show a cap of 50.

Or all or just industrial? Just industrial.

What if you do all? Is it the same message? Yes.

Well, yeah, your large retailers are your major utility, major service.

Yeah, I think one large retail is five hundred dollars. Five hundred dollars. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay.

So now they tap on over there as well.

So the large. They don't have quite the conversation you missed is that it's very difficult.

Retail and other commercial. Properties because of the cap of the body to is what I think is true.

It was just manufacturing. Yeah. And industrial that you got those places.

No, that's what probably hit the campaign.

I'd say none of the nonprofits would probably hit the cap.

I can check, but I just didn't want to get into details here, but I can look after the meeting and he emailed out to counsel.

But you're talking about a cap of 50. You're talking about 120,000 square feet.

I guess here's an example. So nonprofits right here. Nothing pervious. Number of accounts, 16. Number of ESUs, so 260 divided by 16. Yeah, they're not meeting that 50 cap.

Right. But Doug, isn't that like churches? Yeah, churches. Big church.

Yeah, the big church. Providence. Yeah. Providence, right? It depends on how much of the parking is applying to Providence versus not applying to Providence. I have no idea. Okay.

Yeah. I'm good with this scenario, although I would prefer to get some more to help the general budget on an existing officer, but we can future... What are their conversations about?

four we're asking the business community to fund two that feels fair to me asking them to fund three feels unfair to me i mean residential still consumes a pretty high percentage of our yeah it does yeah yeah good point okay so just agree yeah so cap of 50 five dollars on many true manufacturers

manufacturing and industrial. If it's warehouses, it's, and everybody else is 13. If it's warehouses, it's 13.

Is it easy to split that up?

Well, I think, I think it should be, it should be, it's the multi-use as we talked about is where we really need to focus. But if it's not manufacturing, then it's going, if it's, if it's just a warehouse.

It's really just, you're going to have two categories, manufacturing, industrial, all others.

Yeah.

I think it's probably for actual use. And I know Public Works is going to start in accordance with development too. We're looking at when businesses actually apply for their business license here. We can get them in the correct categories. Exactly. Because we're just trying to make everything consistent between departments now that we might build as we go into this.

So this is like our second or third Work session on this. Have we had any businesses reach? Have we heard from anybody? Good, bad, or?

I haven't, but I would ask Eric about this.

Paying this commercial. Have you heard from any business?

We haven't pitched this to anybody.

Anybody who might have listened to work sessions, have we heard any phone calls or anything?

Not from mine.

No, nothing in relation to fees. Okay. So next steps then would be to bring something back probably at our, I don't know if we get everything by 7-21, but in August, if not before, go through two. Did you look that up, Ryan?

So we can do it either way. They're going to return our resolution versus ordinance. Yeah. So it's really going to be council's preference on this. Some cities want two readings.

I want two readings.

I want an ordinance. There's a lot of cities that do an ordinance and then bring a resolution along with it the next time.

Yeah, ordinance resolution, thanks. And then, so you can probably see it at one council meeting in August, we'll talk about, it goes through twice, then we'll do some public education on this, and Eric can- I can repeat that it begins? Yeah, I would say right now, looking at January 1st. Yeah, that's fair. So Dan just brought up- Give us some time.

Mike, do you have a follow-up? Eric, are you free to read?

I think so.

I think, yeah, I think we keep moving forward. Yeah. Yeah. I think we just need to get educational use to be sites.

Yeah.

There's been a few, I think, in the past, I brought resolutions to where we.

okay at this future date is when this will be i think had to do with parks or something like that so well you've got the chamber exec here too they could put it in some of the chamber correspondences and then the first reading on the 21st they potentially show up so you'll see the ordinance will be a little it may be more lengthy than a normal ordinance on something like this one of the things that we really need to make sure we don't need is the difference between really like a balancing test on that without getting into it. But I think, you know, from the way that this is presented, it falls squarely within the fee type of analysis.

But I think other cities have done it.

And I would assume that I haven't seen a successful challenge, if any.

So I think I think just making sure it's important that we clarify that in the staff report, the language that we use. Okay, awesome. Thank you. Thank you, David. Thank you.

Holden here. She's Holden. I'm wearing a sweater on.

All right. Now we're on to, are we with the TLT here? Do you need a minute? We are, it's just the TLT. There we go.

All right. Thanks, Chief. Back up here. Thank you. Get one more. Thank you.

Oh, there is. Do I stop to share on the whole one now?

It's not my fault. I'm wearing shorts.

Yeah, I'm wearing a sweater. She's seeing me trying to use the CEP meeting. Technology. Ready right here.

We are ready. We're off to item number three, which is a large blotting pack. And we have David and Eric and Eric here to help us out. And David, your name's on the sheet, so I'm going to kick it to you.

Yeah, and I'm going to kick it right over to Eric just to start it off.

Thanks, Mayor. We last talked about the PLT, Trans-Atlantic Tax Point 45. At that work session, City Council requested some information, some additional information, really that was clarification of all in when we take into account county, state, and city, and where insured would compare. So we have that information for you, true apples to apples with some other jurisdictions. And we just heard through another meeting that there's a desire to bring us back. So here we are. Go to the next slide, Eric. This is, we're requesting some direction from you. There's really two main questions. Should the TLT be raised? And whether the answer to that is yes or no, there's still allocation will make the same or be changed. So potentially a yes or no on the first question and then we still need to answer the second question. So that's what we're looking for feedback for you on it. Eric's going to talk a little bit about the details.

Yeah, just a quick refresher. I think we talked to you several months ago on this. So just a very quick recap. TLT, transient lodging tax, just a tax on short-term stays. This is tax on visitors who come and visit our city, hotels, Airbnbs. We've only got the one hotel. We've had one or two dozen Airbnb short-term rentals, and sure, we're very Not a huge amount. Funds tourism promotion, tourism related facilities and activities, economic development. Our state rate right now is 1.5% TLT. County rates 9%, which is the highest in the state. Washington County, very high. And so that keeps a lot of cities in our county very low. So we're at three. And that's our total TLT rate is 13.5%. And supports statewide tourism marketing, local visitor infrastructure.

Can I? Yes. Does any of that county money flow back to us? Yes.

And that is... We did present that in the last session. Yeah, we get about two and a half, 2.8% or something of that nine back to us.

And does that also go into our TLT account or is it just going to go?

It goes in the TLT account and then it gets split out across the three different funding mechanisms that council decided back a few years back.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for...

So we got about a third of it back. A little less than a third. Almost. Yeah, exactly.

So just another recap, the Hampton Inn, 73 rooms. I called the Hampton Inn sales director and got a number for this year, January through June, 62% occupancy rate so far this year, not the greatest, but their bookings are very high for the remainder of the year, a much higher percentage of that. I don't know what that's going to put them for the year, but they're 62%, just something to keep in mind. They're feeling good now.

What's that? They're feeling... On the positive side.

Yes.

Well, things are very good for the rest of the year. Do we have any idea why they were so low? Is it just weather, economy, everything? Okay. Yeah, because historically it's been much higher than that. I just didn't know if it was like we didn't have sports tournaments in town or if we didn't have, yeah, it's probably the economy.

I think wine tourism is down a little bit as well and some other things. Gen Z is screwing that up.

I'm making up for it, don't worry.

Seriously, have you seen it? It's like $13 billion down to $2 billion or something.

That's a lot. But the positive thing is they're looking good the remainder of the year. And then the rest of our funds come from short-term rentals, which is approximately two dozen. And I'll hand this one over to David real quick, just kind of a breakdown of how it goes.

So this is a few years ago, we held a work session, Transient Logitech's work session, just to try to determine how we were going to spend the resources because prior to the hotel opening, we would receive maybe $4,000 to $5,000 from the Airbnbs that are around the city. And then we all of a sudden, we started accumulating a large balance once the hotel opened up. So what council decided at the time is, let's just, you know, we approximately get about $160,000. So out of that, under the old state law, you could use 30% of that for unrestricted expenditure. So 30% of that goes to the art center right now. But technically, that is one actually eligible tourism related facility that can be funded by a transient lodging tax. So we kept 30% Of the total and the general fund and the remaining was split up 66.6% to the development promotion fund and 33.3% to the public art fund. So that's kind of just how things are split up currently. But like we said. That could be a topic for discussion tonight.

If you as counsel, we are funding a. The whole town thing with the 66%.

Yeah, that came up, did that come out of my, I think that came out of... Part of it came out of my budget, some of that.

A portion of it was paid for from the Community Development Fund and the General Fund and a portion of that was paid in the Development Fund, that contract.

That's from the TLT revenue.

My memory is just wrong.

Okay.

That's right. They paid for it out of that.

Yeah, I thought that was the, I thought, My memory was, yeah, we had this project that was in a cost blank. So we said, okay, let's pay for that, you know, out of the gate with this dollar amount, with that 66%. And then once that project is paid for, then we would reassess where that money went. But if we're, you know, free for the conversation, if I'm misspoken and we're just saying, we're two-thirds going to the economic development and the Economic Development Department is paying for this project, and it's still potentially ongoing.

I would like to, like the 30% to the Art Center, that, I don't know, needing the information on cost money to run the Art Center. Public Art, 37,300, I know we probably paid for those deer and the basalt and all that, things, I don't know what else so far. But besides the Old Town strategic plan, what else is the $74,000 covering in the EFTA? Like, what are we using it for?

Part of Eric's salary. Part of his salary is paid out of that fund. And then some of the expenditures. You know, right now, Eric's Part of this time is over in the part of it's here in the development, um, find a little bit in the general fund, but since that's kind of his. Job, you know, economic development, there's travel some travel costs in here that kind of gets split between the and, uh. And that development.

Yes, I didn't I missed that. We always had an economic development for years, but this was kind of a newer created fund.

probably within the last two years.

We're just using that for moving money here so that less pressure on the general fund.

Yeah.

Makes sense. I like the idea of TLT helping things like the art center break even. Is that number as the art center improves bookings. I mean, it's busy, busy, busy, but it do.

It used to do better financially.

Yeah. Or if, if at the end of the day, the, the Delta shrinks, then do you, do we. We lower that to 20%. Right. And then, because I mean, I don't want the Arts Center to ever be a general fund, you know, have an impact on the general fund. And with this, I think it's not. Similarly, like with the field house, if the field house isn't being squeezed by the, isn't, this general fund doesn't have to contribute to the field house, one way or the other, I like that concept.

They'll have to pay for themselves.

Yeah, I mean, the field house used to pretty much, pre-COVID, it was really close. And we haven't got back there.

What's the new state law percentage rate, though? 50-50?

Yeah. Oh, OK.

Sorry. Can the library be considered something that draws tourism? Could that go in here?

It's interesting the way the law is written. I think it's other tourism.

It's unclear.

Yeah.

It's very well back about friends too.

You'll find a lot of gray area in the TLC. Yeah. I mean, it's very gray with a lot of cities.

Library for all those women are going to be to our public library. Yeah. So what they, what they, well,

But because we're on the county line here, if they had a better, we're not that far from another jurisdiction. Yeah, sometimes we would literally go just for a change of scenery, right?

And put some of our summertime programs, such as Music on the Green and Movies in the Park, that type of thing, be considered part of this.

Yeah, I think I could argue that. The question is, yeah, would a reasonable person say that this would draw tourists?

I'm just curious as...

Another way to think about it, because it does provide some relief to the general fund is, you know, in the, the transient lodging tax law, it talks about tourism related facilities. And other improved real property, but they don't define what other improved real property is. So that's kind of where the. A tourism-related facility is a conference center, convention center, visitor information center, and other improved real property that has a usable life of 10 or more years and a substantial purpose of supporting tourism. You might be able to argue the library. I know the library also has a lot of various programs they offer that brings in folks.

Signs that are directing tourists to the library now. Right.

We've also talked about, as I just said, the visitor center, which the chamber hosts the visitor center. We've talked for years about TLT. When we knew the hotel was coming, it's, of course, the TLT going to help our chamber who heads off all the visitor hotels.

Yeah, I think that'd be good news. The promotion fund, you know, maybe as we're looking at a city brand of some sort. We found that of those dollars.

I like the idea of protecting some of our core services, you know, like the art center and some services like that. I don't want to be in a position where we have to choose between police officers and air centers. We can make the art center self-sufficient and the field house and other related facility. I think that's great. I think the other good news is this is going to grow. in for a new hotel. It's just a question of when they're going to do it. I think we're going to be coming back to this.

Did the approved hotel go away or did it get extended?

Our understanding is that right now it's on pretty solid hold. But if they got the approved project and how long is that approval valid? Or that developer until they develop the site with something else it's vested because of the other improvements they made on the site. So they can pull building permits anytime. Great opportunity, unless they develop something else. Yeah. Um. Don't want to speak for that developer, but it's been we've heard a lot.

It'll be a little bit. But not forever. It could be a couple years.

As I look at these numbers personally, speaking solely for myself, I think the 30% continuing for the general fund for the arts center, if we look at the 70%, the only one that I would feel comfortable having up for conversation is the 33.3%.

Yeah, because otherwise if you make a change to either the arts 30 or the 66 you're just shuffling money exactly we're we're not gonna let's just say we don't want to pay it for active out of this anymore because you want to pay for this well that frees up this money that's not on paper active out of the job i mean it's just and yeah and and from and this is just a recap most of you there at the budget committee in june you know we're

We have a little bit of a hole in the general fund we're looking to try to fill with why we're coming up with other ideas. So yeah, if we did strip away some money, we'd have a bigger hole to fill.

And 37,000 is a huge number. What else could you do with that? Do we have any more public art conversation coming up?

So on the art side, there is more ideas. It's just a matter of Building a balance and then do something. There's some low-cost things people want to do and then there's higher-cost things. It's just a matter of if you want to continue to put money into that socket.

I guess I would say we've had this money flowing into the public art fund for years and we spent six figures on public art. If we're going to keep the 33% going to someday,

It doesn't, it feels like... Or in other scenarios, you grow the pot and you look at the radio.

Well, can it be shifted to active?

Well, or to, we can shift more to the art center too, because now we can go up to 50%. So if the art center's, if 48,000 isn't enough to break even, The $60,000 goes closer.

I recommend we have a few other slides that would help. Because I could help you answer this question that we're on now of allocation. I think one question that could answer first is, do you want to rate increase?

Because then those numbers are going to change. I guess I was thinking that at first too, but I'm also thinking like, well, I don't know if I want to rate increase until we know how we want to spend it. It kind of goes, it's a chicken and egg conversation. Yeah. Let's do the next slide.

You want to skip this one?

Yes, go ahead. Which one?

Yeah, go back.

Okay.

This one? Yeah.

Okay. So we're just going to look at some scenarios. You know, the state law is going to go to 50-50. Well, this allows cities to be flexible. It's not a requirement. So you can see where the orange one baseline right now, 13.5%. We bring on an average of 160,000 a year. It could fluctuate, you know, based on how many visitors, 800,000 every five years. you're to go up one percent to four four percent we've laid out all the numbers of the amount that will come in over the next few years um the three-year total will go up uh almost a couple hundred hundred and eighty thousand or something like that um the five-year total would would go up significantly as well and you can do whatever percentage

Any of those changes puts us at the highest in the county, correct?

We'll talk about that, yeah. But my last point was just you can even do 4.5. It doesn't have to be an even number. But yes, so here's where we are. The orange baseline right there lays out where we are right now. If you were to go to, say, a 4% citywide TLT, so put us at 14.5 for the combined rate at the hotel. And that would put us right up just below Portland and Gresham and right at Warrington and near Troutdale. If you're only at 5%, you'd be one of the highest in the state, but you'd still be right at where the several cities in Portland metro area are. So again, when we laid, we had an example a few months ago on how much, how many dollars does that add to $170 a room night? It's a few bucks.

I just pulled up my receipt from the hotel this weekend that I was at, and I'm like, I don't even know how much I paid. I'm like, $18 a night on my taxes.

I know, but you don't even know that until you're checking out.

When you book it, I mean, you can find it. Go to Disneyland, you pay $900.

Based on location. That just kind of lays out where a lot of other cities are.

All right.

We'll go back to the other one where it tells you how.

So these are some of the small ones right here. Does the city want to do that? They're just their piece is 9%. Their county rate is only 1%, I think, in Yamhill, so it's pretty low.

You can literally imagine back in the day, which of that and acted first.

Yeah, I'm in favor of five percent.

I'm in favor of six actually. I'm good with that too. I think, I mean, I'd rather get it from people that are visiting us and on vacation and good moods than get it from our citizens.

Do you have plans for this income?

I want more trails. I want more of all that stuff, right? I want all the stuff that we just talked about. I don't want to take it out of the art fund. In fact, I want to say, hey, I want to see $50,000 worth of art every year or at least $100,000 every two years. And I want to I want people to be able to notice it, right? If you don't drive down Oregon Street, you don't notice that we've got new art. But I think we have to set priorities. I know, but it's not going to be like, hey, we can do that by cutting it to $5,000 a year. And so whatever the discussion is, the first discussion, I think, is I want more.

What is the deficit on the Arts Center per year?

I could run upstairs. You guys could continue this conversation. I could be back within three minutes and let you know. Yeah, I'll be right back. Okay.

And is the Fieldhouse making money?

Fieldhouse too, David. No, it's just staff, right? The building's paid for.

I don't know the intricacies, but you also have the before and after partnership with the school district played a role. I don't care about before. I care about him. I know. I know. And I don't know what it is.

I'm not... We had parks board last night. Lance was actually there and did a presentation. I think we brought in $175,000 in revenue at the field house this year, which is the best we've done since 2011. But with the costs, yeah. The cost is probably is higher. It's higher. I mean, it's definitely higher. I'm going to say maybe as much as 40% more. Where's your salary? Oh, yeah.

It's management.

And we have two full-time employees and the rest are on top.

And is it still hosting all the different.

So we're still driving people during the day. The uses down quite a bit because public works is so busy. There's no place to park. So if somebody is busing kids in this, you know, that's.

So, so operational hours and operational hours is a limitation basically 4 to midnight.

And then Lance also schedules and coordinate stuff at Snyder park. And so we bring in revenue there, but that goes into the turf replacement fund.

Parking and public works from employees or just from our own city-owned vehicles?

Employees, yeah.

So I'm supportive of IRA. I'm supportive of at least in the interim freezing the art contribution and then looking at where else to allocate if there is a whatever type of program is mine.

What are the different things that we'd like to fund? We've heard, continue to fund, I've said trails, some library, is there anything else we want to put on the list and then we can debate the priority of those things relative to each other? Well, we talked about

you know, we haven't really funded the new park structure over at, we talked about the all-accessible parking or place structure at the Burdock. You know, we don't, you know, so we could say, hey, that would be a tourism destination if it was, what's that? We decided not to put that in. Not the full, not the full thing, but like the surface or something, the spongy. Yeah. Anyway, That kind of thing, if it is a, again, that could be a tourism, you know, thing that we could also connect public money or, you know, general fund with.

I think the chamber should be part of the conversation. We've been saying that for, since I've been on council. I agree.

I don't think it's a great policy to try to drive tourism to a New Grand Park that doesn't have, like,

And parks has revenue. They have a very significant revenue.

Well, we talked at one point about finding some quick wins on connecting trails so that we have more of a throughput. And we connected this extra 50 feet. We would have a, I don't know if we actually did the work to figure out what that

The library gets a lot of funding and they just are going to get a bump in funding.

I was going to say, with the WCCLS levy and the increase, we will be at a break-even point right now. It's not going to stay that way necessarily for long. It's going to be a break-even point when it's been at $400,000 or $500,000 deficit? Correct. We're going to be bringing in 1.5.

That's how the general looks fine. We haven't taken that into consideration, have we? Yeah, we have.

Once it passed, we did. We haven't been on that trail to connect. We don't yet.

We're getting on the route. It'd be different possible. I could say... I could give you a ballpark, but I don't have any. If you did the bridge over, you're probably looking at 1-4, 1-5, somewhere right in there. That's just a rough... That's about the same.

It's a great feasibility.

Yeah. For me, it's a great way to help. It might be less than that.

Just call it off. It would have to be whatever there is. We have park SDCs. That's your five social parks. Eagle Scout.

Yeah.

And if we're needing some trail money, there's some of this. But we have park STCs typically to put stuff on trails. Yeah. Park STCs. Absolutely. New trails. You can't do maintenance.

You can do new features on a trail.

You can expand the capacity of a trail. With SDC? Yeah, you can't replace, you can't do maintenance of a trail. Maintenance is the thing, yeah.

So why have we not talked about that at Park Sport? SDC 101, sorry.

We have with Cedar Creek Trail. I mean, we've got SDCs.

Since the last couple of years, the recurring conversation on Park Sport is how do we get these trails built that we have no money for and we've never talked about. What's the SDC balance?

3.3? Yeah, 3.3 million, Doug. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just wondering why. So we've got one of the...

He's been acquiring land and...

Acquiring land.

Acquiring land was the main priority. So, yeah.

So no, I obviously we said that priority, but we can pick away a little bit of it to do some of this trail work.

It's not three. I think we talked about it. The council meeting was Murdoch Park acquiring land and then the fitness equipment at Langer Park. So those were the three priorities. And they talked about again last night. We're going after grants for that.

So David, what did you find out about the board center?

Yeah, so the art center right now, based off the 26-27 budget, running a deficit of about $160,000, just rounded up. And the field house... We have to combo. I assumed if I don't combo with the recreation department, it's about $140,000 deficit. But if you put the recreation in there, it's about $176,000 deficit. But you have to remember, we are shifting over $88,000 roughly that the field house, the recreation that that department earns and putting it over in the general construction fund for turf replacement. So just kind of take that into consideration a little bit too.

offsetting that.

But it will. But we're just, yeah, make sure we can replace that turf.

So we're losing 150 grand a year running the dealers.

Why do we keep putting the money?

Yeah, but now if we were to reduce by that 80, let's say $85,000, now you're looking at probably about $60,000, $70,000 deficit, the fieldhouses. Is it going to keep

Potentially.

Good question. I certainly don't want to replace that if we're going to be moving in.

I don't want that stuff. The turf is for Snyder.

Yeah.

Oh, OK. Yeah, for that. And the money that comes in paying for the turf is mostly how much does Snyder Rentals bring us?

It's about 86,000. 86,000.

Roughly what it would. So the Snyder Rentals alone almost cover the cost of turf replacement.