Remarks by Trista Ugarte
41 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 2 of 2
- Play at 2:24:20
“Thank you, Councillor Ugarte. Thank you for being here tonight, Emily. I know it's getting late. I have three things coming to mind. One, we're about 10 minutes away from council rolls ending at 9.30 p.m., so I would like to ask Council President DeForge, if he's looking for consensus to continue past 930 or tonight's meeting.”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:24:48
“Agree. I'm good. Okay. Thank you. And then the other question I had, Emily, we just appointed a new city councillor tonight. And as you can imagine, there's a ton of data and acronyms. And I'm curious, Is tonight's newly appointed city councillor able to vote on this particular topic, given that there's so much history and background? I don't know if anyone would feel prepared to vote, but I'm just curious if that person is eligible to vote.”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:25:56
“Okay, thank you. And then just the last thing I wanted to touch on just to make sure we're all understanding correctly, So if we do not do anything with the HNA and we move forward, I'm sorry, let me back up. If we adopt the HNA as it is currently stands based on the old PSU population forecast, that essentially locks us in to the density requirements that allow lower density for the city of North Plains. Is that correct? So lower density, we don't adopt it. We have to, anytime we want to expand the UGB, we have to do an OHNA and then that is subject to the state's higher density…”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:27:22
“Yes. So we, if we make no action tonight, we do not adopt ordinance 489. We, if we ever want to expand even an acre within the city, we would be subject to the state's rules for density, i.e. high density housing, middle, not middle housing, but multifamily housing, et cetera. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And then the other question I have is if we do nothing with Ordinance 489, do we or we are still subject to that higher density at a future date either way, right? So if we make no action, we're going to be subject to the higher density. But if we at least adopt the ordinance, we…”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:32:48
“Emily, I have a question. And I'm going to put you on the spot a little bit. But there's been a lot of money invested in Ordinance 489. I'm not a risk taker. I don't like the idea of risking potentially submitting something after January 1st and being able to maybe defend it. So I'm curious, one, do we know how much we've already spent on the existing HNA? And then I can ask you my follow-up questions now or later regarding expenses and what that's gonna look like for either trajectory.”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:34:21
“No, I appreciate it. I think it's more so, you know, what have we already spent? What would it cost to appeal it potentially or argue it if we did adopt 489 versus what would it take financially to scrap this whole thing and start over and start from ground zero. So I'm just trying to weigh cost comparison between those two existing options.”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:41:58
“Thank you, Councilor Ugarte. I'm going to, I'm going to make a motion and I want to have some, some thoughtful discussion regarding this. So please refrain from pitchforks quite yet. But Councilor Ugarte, I move to adopt ordinance 489. So I have a second.”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:44:02
“Thank you, Counselor Ugarte. So I want to discuss this a little bit more. So Emily, I know you had mentioned that we're not clear on numbers of how much we've already spent. But my understanding, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is that we've already invested, I'm just going to throw out tens of thousands of dollars, in the H&A. And The risk is that if we move forward with adopting ordinance 489, that Luba or DLCD will contest it and we will have to fight that. And that cost of BEH fighting it is 10,000, 20,000. I mean, if you could ballpark above or below 50,000 or something like…”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:45:49
“Okay, so... Would you, again, I don't want to put numbers in your mouth, but if we proceeded forward with 489 and most of the work is already done, is it what, another 10% worth of work that needs to be done to bring us to the finish line versus starting back over at zero if we don't adopt 489?”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:46:20
“Okay, so we're like hovering over the finish line as we're currently projecting for 489. However, if we don't adopt 489, we've just shot ourselves in the foot and we are all the way back at the starting line and we have to figure out how we're going to pay for a new study and going through that entire process and time as well. Does that capture that correctly?”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:46:58
“Okay, so at any point in the next, and I'm just going to throw out 20 years because that's what we're revisioning, any time in the next 20 years we ever want to expand the UGB, even by an acre, we would need to pay those tens of thousands of dollars to start this process over again. Is that right?”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:47:23
“Okay. Thank you for clarifying. So I think there's so much information here and I know this is such a sensitive topic. I think, again, I've spoken my piece. I don't want data centers. I don't want my backyard to turn into high density. On the other side, I also want us to have affordable housing and I want my own children to be able to afford living in North Plains. So I don't want to discredit any of those statements. However, taking a step back and removing the emotions from this, logically, if we're already 90% to the finish line, to me, and who does not like risk, it is worth taking the…”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:51:54
“AGAIN, I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF RISK EITHER. HOWEVER, I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF NOT HAVING OPTIONS. AND WE ARE GOING TOWARDS SOME FISCAL cliffs within our city that we'll visit in the coming years. And so the idea of we'll just throw this away for now and we'll deal with it in the future, knowing that that is a huge financial burden that we would need to take on if we ever want to expand and we don't have a plan for it. So for me, I, yes, I don't want to spend taxpayer money, but I also don't want us to let the idea of 10 or $20,000, if I'm quoting Emily correctly, to get in the way of us…”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:55:26
“Councilor Ugarte, are we able to explain our reasoning for our vote before placing our vote, because I'm sure that we're probably going to do a verbal roll call with those. I'm just curious, this council's thought process and why they're voting a certain way, whether it's for or against.”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:55:57
“That's what I'm proposing. But again, I'm open to hearing feedback and thoughts with the rest of the board.”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026
- Play at 2:56:28
“Again, I'm fine if that's the will of the council. Again, I'm basically seeking transparency amongst my peers for the community because I think us stating our reasoning really helps squash the rumor mill that happens. And so take your stance, make your vote, and stand behind it and share why. So again, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, but I want to think through the lens of transparency for the constituents that we represent. Thank you, council.”
City Council · Sep 21, 2026