City Council - Regular Meeting

Good job, Mayor.

All right. Sylvia, roll call.

Mayor Rosner?

Here.

Council President Young is absent. Councilor Brous? Here. Councilor Stankey?

Here.

Councilor Mayes? Here. Councilor Scott?

Present.

Councilor Giles?

Here.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Sylvia. Do I have a motion for approval of the agenda?

So moved.

Second.

Got a motion and a second. All those in favor of approving the agenda say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same. Motion passes. Thank you, Council. On the consent agenda tonight, we have four items. Item A, approval of the July 21st, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes. Item B, Resolution 2026052, reappointing Jane Paris Mosher to the Sherwood Cultural Arts Commission. Resolution 2026-053, reappointing Lester Nishimura, I guess hopefully I got that right, to the Sherwood Cultural Arts Commission and Resolution 2026-054, reapporting Elizabeth Flores to the Sherwood Cultural Arts Commission. Do I have a motion? Second. And a second. All those in favor of approving the consent agenda, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same. Motion passes. Thank you, council. All right, citizen comments. Sylvia, do we have anything? I have nothing, Mayor. All right, let me look. Double check online and get my cursor to work. And we have no attendees online. I know we have attendees here. So no attendees. We have a great crowd, as always. Yes. So we will go ahead and move on to public hearings. Sylvia, we got four items on the agenda tonight. You want to read us in?

I will. So Mayor and Council, for item number A, ordinance 2026004, I'll read one statement for that item and then a following statement for the remainder of the other three items. The Sherwood City Council will hold a public hearing this evening to receive testimony on Ordinance 2026-004 amending Sherwood Municipal Code Chapter 1.01, Public Contracting Rules. This is the second hearing on this item. The public hearing this evening will be conducted as follows. Staff will present a staff report, questions, if any, by the council for staff. We will then receive written testimony. We will then open the public hearing for testimony, and the time will be limited to four minutes per person. Any interested person may present testimony. We will then close the public hearing. No other comments will be heard from the public. Final comments by staff, questions of staff, if any, by the council, followed by council discussion. This is the second hearing before the city council on this item. A decision may be made by the council at the close of this hearing, or the matter may be continued to a time and date certain. If the matter is continued to a date certain, this is the only notice of that date you will receive. If you wish to speak, please fill out a request to speak form and submit it to the city recorder prior to the time the public hearing is open for testimony. The mayor will recognize people who wish to speak and any comments must be addressed through the mayor. When you come forward, please state your name and place of residence for the record as this hearing will be recorded.

All right. Thank you, Sylvia. So I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Ryan for a staff report.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. Good evening. So this is our second second hearing on the ordinance updating the procurement code, which is Sherwood Municipal Code 1.10. As you can see in 2023, the city updated its procurement code. There's been some changes in state statutes and last Council meeting we walked through rehash that unless council has questions on it but the proposed updates would align the city code with our current state statutes i don't expect those to change for a while but i'm not sure what salem will do so i think this would this would align us with with state statute so the summary of the proposed change changes would be previously small procurements were ten thousand dollars that would the change would up them to $25,000 and what small procurement means is that it's a basically there's no competition with that staff selects whoever would be best for the city in that in that instance intermediate intermediate procurements generally you get three written quotes for those those go $50,000 up to $250,000. And there would be a requirement obviously to keep those three written quotes. Large procurements are your formal procurement. So RFPs, RFAs, things like that. And you would go anything greater than $250,000. So it would also allow the city manager to obligate city to expenditures 250,000 or less, staff authority would remain the same at $50,000. So if council has any questions, I would be happy to answer those at this time.

Great. Thank you, Ryan. Any questions for Ryan? Do we have any written testimony? I do not, Mayor. Okay, great.

Yeah, go ahead. A point of clarification. Last meeting we had on the consent agenda contract for water treatment plants. The Sherwood share was like $216,000, but the total was $650,000. Because of it being our share under the $250,000, that would not need to come to city council. Is that correct?

I think we would still bring that to council. That's a really gray area and we don't have a lot of those. I think just I know that city manager, we want council to have visibility on stuff like that. So it's a large contract we would bring it to. I think the technical

Yeah, I would bring that to you one because of the total cost to because Unbudgeted and we're gonna be bringing a supplemental budget back anyways So I I wouldn't want you to see it in the supplemental if you didn't see sure before.

Yes I know that the process would be I was curious like what you answered, I think, technically. Okay, thank you.

No, it's a great question. Just letting the public know that there's a process, because without a budget line item, you can't approve it anyways, and there'll be a separate supplemental budget process on this. Good question. So I guess if there's no more questions, go ahead and open the public hearing. Sylvia, do we have anybody? I am in there. And I see nobody online. Anyone from the audience? No? No? We'll go ahead and close the public hearing at this point. Any additional discussion? It's our second reading, so I'll take a motion.

I move we read caption and adopt Ordinance 2026.004, Administered Administrative Code, Chapter 1.01, Public Contracting Rules.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Sylvia, roll call.

Ordinance 2026-004, amending the Sherwood Municipal Code Chapter 1.10, public contracting rules. Councilor Giles, how do you vote? For. Councilor Scott? Aye. Councilor Mayes?

Aye.

Councilor Stankey?

Aye.

Councilor Brous? Aye. Mayor Rosner?

Aye.

Thank you.

Awesome. Thank you, Sylvia. We have a new ordinance. Actually, it'll go into effect in... 30 days. All right. Sylvia, I'm going to go ahead and have you read us into the next ones. I understand they'll be a slightly different process.

The Sherwood City Council will hold public hearings this evening on three items on the agenda. Ordinance 2026-005, amending Chapter 3.30 of the Sherwood Municipal Code to increase the city transient lodging tax. Ordinance 2026-006, amending chapter 2.08.095 of the Sherwood municipal code youth advisory board. Ordinance 2026-007, establishing a commercial public safety fee and adding section 3.50 to the Sherwood municipal code. The public hearings this evening will be conducted as follows. Staff will present a staff report, questions, if any, by the City Council for staff. We will then receive written testimony. We will then open the public hearing for testimony, and the time will be limited to four minutes per person. Any interested person may present testimony. We will then close the public hearing, and other comments will be heard from the public. Final comments by staff, questions of staff, if any, by the Council, followed by Council discussion. This is the first hearing before the city council on these items. Generally, the council will hold two hearings prior to making a decision. A second hearing on these three ordinances is currently scheduled for the September 1st meeting. However, in accordance with the city charter, the council reserves the right to make a decision at the close of this hearing by a unanimous vote of all sitting council members. If you wish to speak, please fill out a request to speak form and submit it to the city recorder prior to the time the public hearing is open for testimony. The mayor will recognize people who wish to speak and any comments must be addressed through the mayor. When you come forward, please state your name and place of residence for the record as this hearing will be recorded.

All right. Thank you, Sylvia. And for the first ordinance, 2026-005, we have our finance director, David Bodway.

Thank you, Mayor. As Sylvia said, this is the first reading of Ordinance 2026-005, amending Chapter 3.30 of the Sherwood Municipal Code to increase the transient lodging tax. ORS 320 permits local jurisdictions to assess transient lodging taxes. The City of Sherwood in 2019 adopted the transient lodging tax for the City at a rate of 3%. Visitors who stay in transient lodging benefit from a variety of city services and public investments, including transportation, police services, parks, public art. The proposed increase would allow a greater share of these costs to be supported by visitors rather than Sherwood residents and businesses. The city's transient lodging tax has remained unchanged, as I've said, since 2019. The proposed ordinance increases the rate in two phases to provide lodging providers and visitors adequate notice and time to adjust to the new rates. Under this proposed ordinance, the local transient lodging tax would Increased from 3% to 5% on October 1st, 2026. Followed a year later, increasing it from 5% to 6% on October 1st, 2027. And with that, I'll open it up for any questions.

All right. Thank you, David. Any questions?

I may be misremembering, but did we decide to do it in two steps last time? Yep. Okay. All right.

Any other questions?

Just for clarity, Mary, we didn't decide anything, but there was interest.

There was consensus that that was the direction we would go, but we're deciding tonight.

Correct. I misspoke. Thank you. There were several voices advocating for phasing.

Well done. Thank you, Mary.

Thank you, Keith. Well, if there's any other questions. All right. Do we have any written testimony?

I do not, Mayor.

Okay, great. So at this point, I'll open the public hearing. Sylvia, do we have anybody sign up?

I do not.

Anybody from the audience? No one? No one? And we don't have anyone online, so I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. This is the first reading. We don't have a whole council tonight, but is there any additional discussion before we close out and move to the next one?

I'll just say that for anyone interested, there was a robust work session about this a couple of meetings ago, so you can go back and watch that and hear all of our conversation around it and support, and we'll be happy to vote on it at our next hearing.

Thank you. Any other? I would just add, too, I'm supportive. And it's one of the ways cities can raise taxes on tourism, basically, because we're not like other states like Washington that doesn't have income tax, but they have sales tax. So it's helpful in that regard. All right. Good. So we'll go ahead and move on to ordinance 2026-006, submitting the chapter 2.08095 of the Sherwood Municipal Code Youth Advisory Board. Kristen, where's Kristen? I am Kristen. She's on sabbatical. Your name is on the agenda. Ryan, are you going to be speaking on this one?

I am filling in for Kristen. Awesome. Thank you. So this is an update to our youth advisory board. Previously, we had seven members on the youth advisory board. I think it's great. There's been a robust desire from our youth to participate in this. So what the proposal is is to up that number to a maximum of 12. to allow for, it doesn't have to be 12, but it allows for that many folks to potentially serve if council were to appoint them. It does change from one and two-year terms to solid three-year terms, ending two months after high school graduation. So it sort of takes a lot of the bureaucracy out of it and just says, these are what the set that just clarifies that a quorum consists of half of the presently appointed members plus one. And that's the change.

Awesome. Thank you, Ryan. Any questions for Ryan? Yeah, go ahead. So if I'm understanding this correctly, with the term changes, anyone appointed basically, let's say, ahead of their sophomore year would be able to serve the full three years without having to be reappointed. But it wouldn't preclude upperclassmen from being appointed, their term would just end up being shorter because of the age cutoff, so to speak. So it wouldn't necessarily be three years for them. It would be shorter, but you're not required to be appointed when you're... Okay, perfect.

And this was a specific request from the Youth Advisory Board. It also is a thought process to enable an underclassman to serve three years and then have maybe a three-year from a freshman on, sophomore on, so that we can have some consistency, but also have underclassmen as well as upperclassmen.

12 seemed like a large number to me when I read this the other day. It doesn't have to be 12. It's good that we have a lot of applicants this last go around.

We had seven applicants this last go around. We want to appoint five of them, which would bring us to eight. And we want to pass the net again because our past board did such a great job of recruiting one of the young men in the audience that there was a robust interest in serving on the advisory board.

So I'm I'm definitely for you know improving the numbers on this. I would I would love the advisory board the youth advisory board to also propose maybe a way that we're going to avoid bias a little bit in terms of getting I know it's easy to recruit your friends or people who are in your same social circles or things like that. And so trying to figure out, okay, looking at our board, what groups are not here and specifically try to recruit that so that we don't end up in a spot, you know, and I'm not saying that's now, but down the road, it could be a spot where we've got the exact same voices being heard over and over again. So they don't have to do it now. I think that this is a great step to getting us in the right direction. And if they want it, if they feel like it would help them do their job better and be a more effective board, then I support them in that.

Just to be clear, Councillor, I'm hearing that you're not requesting a change for the second.

I am not. It's more of encouragement to, because, you know, Renee just said they did a great job recruiting. And I just want to, you know, I know that they hang on every word, that they watch these meetings in full, I'm sure, right? No, just kidding. But if they could just be aware of that to be able to reach out and recruit from groups that are underrepresented.

Thank you.

Just for the record, there was some pretty good diversity this last go around.

Yeah. And by the way, it's one of those things where if we're aware of it, most of the time that solves a lot of the problem.

Yeah, I agree with everything you said, and I say this in a joking way, but I disagree with one thing. I already think we're on a great path, and I don't think we need to get on a better path, but I'm not saying it well. I'm making a joke. It's an amazing joke. It's an amazing joke. Thank you. Yes, Dan.

Members who are on the board already who had Agree to a one or two year term that are now eligible for three. Does there need to be language to grandfather them in if that is allowed?

I just want to make sure that the people who are already on then either serve their term and then reapply or

However that needs to happen.

Simply reappoint them and then they're covered. This would take effect going forward.

Okay.

Yeah, there's three left from the last board. One will be a sophomore, one a junior, and one a senior.

Awesome. Any other questions? All right. So we're going to, um, not completely lost Patrick or where we were. I'm sorry. I couldn't remember if you were past that or not. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Um, Sylvia, do we have anybody?

No.

You want to come up? Awesome. I was hoping we'd get you at least one time. Yeah. Go ahead and, uh, um, just, uh, uh, state your name. You don't have to state your address. And, uh,

My name is Finn McAvoy, and I live on Ladd Hill Road. I didn't really write anything out. I wasn't expecting to give any sort of public hearing, but I think this is a great change, especially in regards to broadening the board to be 12 members, because I think that allows for a more sort of diversified perspective and allows for more groups to be heard and sort of like mitigates the effects of recruiting in specific places because it allows for more applicants to then be placed into the board. Because I think if it's like a smaller group like seven people, people are going to want to be around their friends. But if it's a larger group, then that means that maybe you can even have multiple groups in there or just no groups and just individuals who want to share their perspectives. All right.

Awesome. Thank you. And thank you for serving on our board. All right. So I'll go ahead and anybody, let me check online. You know what, so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Do we have any additional discussion before we move on?

Yes. I have another question. I know when we were first passing, debating the language of the original ordinance, there was some discussion around eligibility or spots or whatever for people that may or may not go to Sherwood High School or go to other schools.

And forgive me, I was not here when you guys were debating that.

I think the intent was it was open. I think at the time we talked about, I think the Sherwood School District, but the physical district, anyone in that district.

Right, right, right, right, right. My thought here is if we're going to widen it out to 12, as many as 12, I'm wondering if. maybe we should have a reserve spot for someone who doesn't go to, a minimum of one that doesn't go to Sherwood High School just to get some representation from. Either homeschool or charter school. Yeah, it could be any of those things. Or private school. Or goes to school out of district.

I'm pretty sure that the current language does allow for that.

I will look and see. I'm saying required. If you have up to 12, you want at least one reserve for someone who doesn't attend Sherwood High School.

But if nobody applies, does that mean you don't have a quorum if nobody from a home school applies?

Assuming they apply or something. There's a way to work with it.

Go ahead. I like Doug's concept. I'd just say one is for a non-Sherwood High attendee. And if it's not filled, you need a better job of putting the word out.

We can absolutely consider that change. The language says it shall consist, it would say, of up to 12 members who are enrolled in grades 9th to 12th and are either Sherwood residents or attend the school within the boundary of the Sherwood School District. So that's what it is. It's optional so far.

That's what's in there right now. I agree. There's other kids.

I would be in favor of that addition.

Is it attends a school within Sherwood School District or lives within? It's a live within Sherwood School District. That's not what that said.

Live or attend Sherwood High School. So either residents or attend within the boundary of the Sherwood School District. But there's a group of people that... There's a group of people that could live in Sherwood. Well, they would be covered then. So I'm not saying who's eligible or not eligible. I'm saying there should be at least one person who doesn't attend Sherwood High School. Okay.

And just to put a fine point on it, we're not saying we're requiring it. We're just saying one spot is held out. So if no one applies, obviously we can't fill it.

But we can add them at any time.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

You don't have to wait a year. 100%.

I think I can get behind that idea, too. I think it also reminds us that we've got to expand our recruitment beyond just within the public school system.

And to me, also, it drives the distinction that this is not an extension of the high school. This is a city thing. Obviously, there's going to be a huge overlap between the high school population and the members of this board, but it's not a circle. The Venn diagram has a has exceptions to it.

Dan, do you have any thoughts on that?

That seems fine. I would not choose that personally, but if that's what the council is wanting, I support that.

not against it. I am not opposed to what our current language is because it allows for the homeschoolers. It allows for students to attend a private school but live in Sherwood. So I think we can get there from that. But if the majority of council wants to go the other way, I'm not necessarily opposed. I just don't want it to be inhibitor.

Yeah, my thought was it makes it a little more complicated, however, and I wouldn't want it to stay empty. Now, that's probably an unrealistic fear because I think we had several that were not in the traditional school district this last time, so I don't know that that's something, but it also... And I don't think it's a problem when I think of worst case scenario that we have an empty slot and we only have 11. That's still better than where we're at now with getting the variety of voices. So if I can live with the worst case scenario and it's actually fine, then I don't have a problem with it.

So yeah, Councilor Young's not here. So I won't pretend to answer that for her.

AB will do it. Perfect.

Yeah, bums it. Councilor Young is not here because I was going to request that we pass it one night because we're going to be delayed now another 30 days.

Kim really wanted to be here. I know. I get it. She initially said she would call in and then she called me and said no.

You're sick, you're sick.

You're sick, you're sick. All right, so we will go ahead and table that. So that'll be in our next, when's our next meeting?

September.

September, that's right. We're skipping one. That's one double check. So first meeting in September. So we'll go ahead and move on then to Ordinance 2026-007, establishing a commercial public safety fee and adding Section 3.5 to the Sherwood Municipal Code. And David, looks like you're up again.

I'm up again. Thank you, Mayor. This is the first reading of Ordinance 2026007, establishing a commercial public safety fee and adding Section 3.50 to the Sherwood Municipal Code. The City of Sherwood, like many Oregon municipalities, we continually face ongoing challenges in funding public safety services due to limitations on property tax revenue. Police service costs continue to rise with personnel, equipment, operational needs, while the city's ability to increase general fund property tax revenue is constrained. Now, we've held a few work sessions on this topic. One was July 7th, and the previous one was April 21st. That's more for the folks at home, where we kind of had a robust discussion on this topic. Numerous cities have adopted a public safety fee, often billed on utility accounts. as a lawful mechanism to provide stable, dedicated funding for police and related services. City of Kaiser is one we kind of modeled a little bit of this potential ordinance off of, and it's based off equivalent service units or ESUs. And staff recommends that Sherwood adopt a similar enabling ordinance limited to commercial, and I need to stress that, commercial, non-residential properties only, This approach focuses the new fee on business properties that generate significant demand for police services while avoiding an additional charge on residential utility customers at this time. And just a little bit to talk about what is an ESU equivalent service unit. It's a standard measurement used by cities to calculate stormwater utility fees. Over in Public Works, the billing system is set up. They currently use it on commercial accounts to calculate street fees, street light fees, and sidewalk fees. So it will be an easier implementation. And one thing I did want to cover, it provides funding for the police services, but it doesn't address 100%. I just want to make that clear. It doesn't address 100% of the needs that the chief needs over there at his department, but it helps him get to where he needs to be if the ordinance is adopted staff will bring a additional resolution establishing the initial rate structure and any preferred methodology for council consideration basically this is only enabling this is kind of the mechanism the first step in that mechanism is to get this passed and then we can bring the resolution establishing the fees so with that open up any questions you might have all right thank you david any questions

Yes, I noticed that we had not received any comments through outreach. How robust was that?

per se, but there will be, once it gets passed, notifying the businesses. But we haven't sent anything to the businesses saying you were holding a hearing tonight.

Okay.

And one thing we discussed during the work session, and this would be the additional resolution, this wouldn't come into effect if council approved this January 1st, so we have time to get that outreach and communicate with businesses.

I see where you're going there, because I think what the businesses are going to be interested in is in the rates.

Correct.

And this does not set rates. It's just, to your point, it just creates a structure that the council could set through resolution, pass a rate structure. And I agree, I think, with where you're going on this. It will definitely want to talk to our businesses so they understand what we're thinking about.

Right. Well, and this is the ordinance and the rates is just a resolution. And so I'm like, I want to make sure that we're sharing enough through this process about what we've discussed in the work sessions for what the rate structure might look like for these businesses that don't really have a say besides coming to this meeting that they don't know about.

Yeah, I agree. Is that... It's not scheduled.

There isn't.

I think... If I make a suggestion, if staff could reach out to the chamber, and I'll talk to Council President Young, because she's our liaison to the chamber, to give them a heads up and get them the data and what we're thinking. So that's probably the best route to get the word out to the businesses. I think it is. Yeah.

It was talked about at the August meeting. It was announced at the chamber meeting.

All right.

Good. Good. Okay.

Okay. When I do bring a resolution, more likely it might be some amendment to the fee schedule, which is a public hearing, but we'll make sure that gets out in case someone wants to come and speak about it as well.

And then my other question was, I didn't read any sunset clause in this. Will this ever be discussed again, or is this a one and done for this type of fee?

There is no sunset clause. The entire point of this ordinance is to create a structure whereby council could implement that fee if they chose to do so. Okay.

And additionally, we didn't include any fee structure in this ordinance because we thought this could be reviewed during the annual budget process, during the annual fee schedule, which if there's any concerns, we can address it at that time too.

Okay. The idea was to provide as much flexibility to council as possible feedback, you could do so. So this will not be, you know, numbers will be codified. That would be done by resolution.

Okay. And even the resolution process for the fees would still require a public hearing. It could. We have different types of resolutions, but certainly that one could, yeah. Thank you. Awesome. Any other questions? Go ahead. All right. All right. I would just add too that, and David, you talked to this a little bit, and I would encourage everyone to go watch our work sessions on this, It is a public safety fee, and the reason we structure it around commercials, we do see a lot of police activity in our commercial districts dealing with shoplifting, car break-ins, all the kind of different crimes that happen within that. So we're trying to be thoughtful about where we're generating the revenue based on the need. And some people might say, why are you using ESUs for this, which is a... not well understood mechanism for evaluating wastewater or stormwater consumption for a lot. And it's basically because it was the closest thing we had. We really, you know, logic would say, well, we'd go based on square foot. Well, we don't have that kind of data or, you know, so this was the closest data unit we could get that kind of matches what we're trying to accomplish. Did I get that right? Okay. Awesome. Thank you. Sorry, Mayor.

I just have one more question. Reading in this, it looked like, because this is going to be part of the utility bill with water, that my understanding is that the water bill portion is paid first with whatever... they pay towards their bill, and that if the, in this instance, the commercial fee is not paid, the public safety fee, that the water would not be shut off. But the language didn't specifically say that the water bill is paid first with the first portion of money if people are not able to pay. Is that true?

It doesn't say that. I think that's the intent of it. this would not be a shut off water, this would be a lien that follows the owner of the property.

Okay, that's how I understood it as well, but I didn't see specific language for that.

We have some other accounts like that, that they might not have water, they just have wastewater or storm, and they end up going to collection if they don't pay.

Gotcha, okay.

All right, any other questions? Awesome. Okay. We'll go ahead and do we have any written testimony? Okay. And I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. I'm not seeing anyone online. Sylvia, did you get any? Ben, want to go again? Pull them back up. All right. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And this is the first. Do you have something for discussion?

Just I'm appreciative of the conversation council and staff had. on this topic, the approach that is proposed in this ordinance with a potential fee. I'm very supportive of it. I think it's a really smart approach. And if and when a fee is adopted in some structure, I'm very happy with that approach versus we've looked at what other communities, other cities have done near to us and further away within Oregon. There's definitely some models out there that I was not supportive of mimicking, but I think this is a really nice approach. Yes, go ahead.

Yeah, I'll just echo some of that. You know, budget compression is a very real thing here in Oregon and in cities. We have very limited tools to raise additional revenue. We're capped on how much of our property taxes go up every year. And our costs across all of our city services go up quite a bit more than that little bit of an incremental raise we get every year in the property tax gain. So what that means is that that's the budget compression, right? Costs go up twice as high as your revenues go up. The only way around that are to grow or to cut. We don't grow if it's slowed. We certainly don't want to cut. So I think this is a... Cutting it more. Yeah, cutting more than we already have. I think this is a fair... and reasonable way to buy time. And that's really what we're doing here. We're buying time to be able to get us further down the road and keeping the staffing we have, increasing the staffing we have a little bit in public safety. And I think it's coming out of the place that it makes the most sense to come out

And for anyone that is watching this, be clear, this is 100% commercial, zero residential. There's no impact to residents with this proposal. If a fee is ultimately adopted, it does not affect residential bills.

Could you repeat? I think you mentioned the dates we had work sessions on this.

Yes. The dates of the work session was April 21st and July 7th.

Thank you. And I would just, anyone listening or anyone who listens to this later on YouTube, I encourage you to go watch those work sessions because if you're a business owner, you're probably thinking, how much is this rate going to be? So we had a lot of conversations in those meetings about what this could look like and make sure that it's fair and not a burden for, say, a very small mercantile shop versus a a large footprint box retailer, I won't name who they are, that drives a lot of activity for a police department. So a lot of the structures that we talked about, I thought were pretty fair, but I encourage people, if you have questions about at least what we're thinking at this point, go watch those work sessions. All right, anything else? All right, well, we will go bring this back, first meeting in September. Awesome. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Sylvia, for the help on that. And we will move right to city manager report.

evening, just a couple things. I just want to talk just about music on the green tomorrow night. It's looking like we'll probably have it at the art center. So a notice will go out tomorrow. We'll probably have to limit the number of people that we bring into the art center, but we've got to pay for the band and stuff. So we may as well use the space we have. And Shanda and her team have done a great job at the last minute putting this together. So just to let you know that, I know I said in the email to you guys, we make a decision later in the morning, but I think everything we're seeing it's going to be but so we'll make announcement in the morning movies in the park Friday night I think it's cars this week so and then I just wanted to remind everybody Washington Street over here on the hills gonna have some closures this week it'll be open in the evenings but for paving for that project so that's all I have tonight unless you have questions for myself or any of the

any potential that that would have to get moved?

It's looking like the stuff that we've seen so far, it looks like it'll clear out, but we'll make that decision as we get closer.

Could that also get moved to the Arts Center if that ends up happening? I don't know.

I think they have, might be an event going on Friday night.

Is there any chance we could reach out to the high school and see if their auditorium's open?

I'm sure Shanda and her team would be happy to do that.

They've got a nice theater there.

Craig, this stuff that's going on in Washington Street, how will it or will it affect what's happening on Saturday in downtown Truett?

I think they're supposed to be, they should be done paving by the end of the week if everything goes as planned. So we should not have an issue with it.

All right. Thank you. I'm going to look at Rich to make sure I said that right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes. On the Washington Street project, kudos to the staff and the contractor. I think the final result is going to be great, a definite improvement addressing an urgent need on underground utilities, but then helping to better manage the storm runoff in that section of the hill. So kudos to the design and the approach that was taken. Awesome. Thank you.

They did a great job. Awesome. Could you just do a quick update on the water leak we had on Ice Age Drive?

So, Rich, do you have any more details from what we talked about this morning? So it sounds like the water treatment plant that went in there, Willamette Water Supply pipe, 16-inch pipe burst on their side of Ice Age Drive, which went down, are part of the Ice Age Drive project and has created quite a bit of a mess. But not only that, you got subgrade, you got bedding for our pipe that was all washed out. We lost about 1.1 million gallons of water, which equates to about 3,900 gallons a minute. So there's a lot of water moving. That was their water, right? No, it was our water. So if you picture our reservoir at Snyder Park, 4 million, so you can just kind of 30 foot tall, kind of how round that is, what 1.1 looks like. But I know the manufacturer was going to be out today about 11 to look at the part to see if, and they'll have to figure out if it was the part, if it was construction crew, whatever that looks like. But what I do know is it will not have the project probably done by the end of December. It will delay that part of it.

And I assume that, and just for people listening, this is a 12 Valley Water District project. What's that? The contractors and vendors that put that in, that was not the city. It's part of the 12 Valley Water project. Supply project, yeah. It's the interconnect. It's the emergency interconnect between us and the plant. And we're going to be, I'm assuming, going after them for... compensation on that.

I'm sure that those details will probably be being discussed as we move forward. A lot of water. All right.

And for those listening, why we're concerned about that, that water is not free for us. It goes through our treatment plant. We pay for that water. So we want to make sure that we're whole.

If it delays the project, will that affect the We got a grant for part of that.

So those are the things we'll need to. Most of that money has been spent already on the project, but we'll have to look into all that once we have more details.

Thank you.

All right. All right, we'll go ahead. Anything else, Chief? Anything?

No. No. Actually, just bummed out. We couldn't have a national night out. A lot of work was put into that from our foundation and volunteers. But unfortunately, as we know, the air quality just didn't want to cooperate.

And I'm assuming a lot of the cities around us were canceling too.

Yeah.

I saw that a number of the cities are rescheduling to a different day. Is that something we're considering as well?

We have not had that discussion. Probably the biggest hurdle is just logistics. Yeah, of course. Okay.

Thanks, Chief. All right. Council announcements. Do you want to go first? Me? Yeah. Mixing it up.

I don't have a whole lot. Parks Board, in lieu of their normal meeting, met yesterday at Sea of Creek Trail to kind of walk the trail and look where they were going to place some benches and garbage cans that they received in the grant, the Metro grant. And then after that, they had a field trip to go look at some of the parks on this side, 99 Lady Fern and Pioneer Park. And what's the third one over there? Chris is not here to say anything. Anyway, the third park over there as well. Oregon Trail, thank you. Yeah, look at those three parks, just kind of see what they look like, because not all the park board members have been to them all. A couple of pretty small neighborhood parks there, as well as kind of getting a rundown from maintenance staff on how they maintain the parks, what the process looks like, how they look inspected, playground equipment, lifetime of those things. So I think it was an educational tour for everyone on the board. So that's it for me. Obviously, cruising, I know this will be talked about coming up this weekend, so I'm excited about that.

Dan.

All right. The Sherwood School District Board will not be meeting until the start of school year, so nothing to report for that. The library board has not met since last we met. Traffic Safety Board met a couple weeks ago, and they were discussing some type of process for community feedback for the mobile speed camera placement. They've been starting to receive essentially traffic safety concerns with a request of moving the cameras to that location. And so if we have a more formal process maybe for that, that would be helpful for the Traffic Safety Board and the community. Something else that they discussed was lowering the residential speed limit from 25 to 20, including the Old Town area. Still under discussion, they've asked staff for some additional information to review at the next meeting. And then also changing the mobile speed camera upper limit to six miles over the speed limit for school zones instead of the 11 miles an hour right now for non school zones. So all those things are being discussed traffic safety board and we should get some type of recommendation from them at some point for that. At the last meeting, I mentioned the renaming of the Cultural Arts Center, that that meeting will be held on the first Tuesday of September. That has been moved to the...

I was just going to say on that, and I was going to talk to you about it after the meeting. You're right, it's being moved, but I'm actually thinking about moving it back to a work session again for more conversations. So I didn't want you to announce a date and have it be different.

Okay. TBD? And that's all I have for tonight.

Awesome. The Planning Commission did not meet. However, I noticed out in the library the advertising for the repair fair coming up on the 15th. If you have small appliances or if you like to fix things or tinker, sign up for that. That's always fun. And I'm excited to see people at Cruise and Sherwood. And I think that's all for me.

It's nice to see you, Finn. Thanks for being here. I know you're off to college here pretty soon, but thank you for giving your input. Super excited about the direction that we might be going with the Youth Advisory Board. and the fresh talent that we will be appointing here soon, and all the great things that will come from it. And as has already been mentioned, Cruisin' Sherwood is this weekend, so downtown starts to shut down on Friday. This is going to be a big show. We're already close to 300 cars preregistered, and we expect close to 400 to 450 cars in the Old Town Corridor. and lots of vendors and food booths and all the good things. We've got an air quality control plan that has been put together thanks to this wonderful smoke. But yeah, it's going to be a wonderful show, and I hope you all come out and see it. Thank you for those of you who have volunteered to support. And I think that's all I have. Awesome. Thank you.

And it won't be raining.

It's not going to rain. Sunny and 82, I think, is the last time I saw it.

That'll be a nice change. Yes.

Keith. Yeah, cruising this weekend. Also this weekend is the fourth annual Birds and Brews or Brews and Beer. It's Friends of the Refuge beer event at Langer's. It's unfortunate that it is at the same time as cruising, but hopefully the show is so big.

Yeah.

that there'll be even more stuff for the thousands and thousands of folks that come into town to experience. So, yeah, it'll be a great weekend.

Awesome. I'm going to keep it very quick and just say another plug for the music on the greens, which might be in the art center. But yes, I wanted to mention that we have an ABBA cover band, which would be a lot of fun. So I encourage people to show up. If it's in the art center, I would get there early. Even down on the green, you want to get there early because it's usually pretty packed. And with that, I'm good unless there's anything else for the good of the order?

No?

We are adjourned, and we will go right into our URA Board of Directors meeting. No, we're not. It says we are.

We are. Do we have a separate sheet? Yeah.

Thank you. Usually it's on the back. Just asked if you moved on. What do you want to move on? All right. OK, I'm going to go ahead and call our URA board meeting to order Tuesday, August 4, 2026 at 8, or no, 7.55. Roll call. Chair Rosner? Here.

Vice Chair Young is absent. Member Brous? Here. Member Stankey? Here. Member Mayes?

Here.

Member Scott?

Here.

Member Giles?

Here.

Thank you.

All right. Before the consent agenda, I understand you might want to pull something.

Yeah, I'd like to move item B off the consent agenda and make it a new item 4 on the regular agenda.

So we'll move that to a discussion.

Second.

Well, we need to have to. Oh yeah, second. So all those in favor of amending the agenda, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion passes now. Do I have a motion to approve the amended agenda, item A, approval of the February 3, 2026 through URA board meeting minutes? So moved. OK, motion to second. All those in favor of approving those minutes, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, council. And we will go move on to a discussion about the URA Resolution 2026-002. Doug, you wanted to pull it, so I'll let you take off and start.

DOUG STEVENSON- Yeah, we had a discussion around these items. And I just really wanted to vote no on it. So I just wanted to pull it off in consent so I'd have a separate vote. not in favor of the finalized design of the template, I suppose, the logo-ish thing that's on it. Oh, yes, the logo thing. So I'm going to vote no, but I understand I'm not going to win, so that's fine.

All right, well, to vote no, you've got to pull it off, so absolutely. All right, anyone else want to comment on that? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion.

I move to approve resolution, URA resolution 2026-002.

Can we refresh what, I read this last week, so now I'm not, I need to pull it up.

Yeah, and we also, did you want to say something? I'm just curious. She's available for questions.

I just had her come up, just in case she had questions about the medallions.

This goes back to, there was several people that didn't like the S with the hat on it. Oh, we're talking about the medallions. Doug thinks, Doug, it looks like a logo.

Just to be clear, I like the artist designs that go inside all seven, I think it's seven. Okay. On the surrounding area, there's a template that's being used on all of them. It's the same, and I didn't... My concern was that the S with the Robin Hood hat over it is essentially a de facto logo, and as we've been punting on the conversation about logos for the city, I feel like it's... I get it. We're creating a logo when we don't want to talk about logos, so I don't like that.

Gotcha. Thank you for refreshing.

Yeah, and I... I mean, boy, I feel like a broken record at this time, but I feel similarly that I'd rather not have it and not just get a logo by accident than have it and then do another logo separately, right? And so that's my feeling as well, but I know that I'm sensitive to logo issues, and so...

Can I respond with the, I mean, because we did discuss this.

I was just going to ask if you could let us know what the Cultural Arts Commission said.

So we had a lot of discussion about the use of logo and branding versus public art. And we realized that if we had it, even if we had a brand new logo, the city logo would not be incorporated into a piece of public art. unless it was a commercial welcome sign or something like that, but this is a very different medium, so we really feel strongly that it's a nod of whimsy, like a monogram to this festival that the city is known for, where it implies a whimsical Sherwood festival instead of explicitly having a Robin Hood-based medallion. Yeah, I think the consensus and the recommendation of the Arts Commission is just that it's completely different purposes, and we would not ask an artist to incorporate a logo when we do rebrand the city.

Yeah, 100%. I wouldn't ask an artist to put our logo on there. I think the point that I'm making and Doug's making is that if it feels like it's a logo, then it feels like kind of a defacto logo. You know what I mean? Like we're not saying that it's a logo, but you know, there's a lot of logos that have a stylized letter that is a little bit tweaked so they can trademark it, and that is their logo, right? So I know she's not saying it's a logo, or the artist's not saying it's a logo, the Arts Commission is not saying it's a logo, it just, Looks yes That's that's the only thing we're not saying that you should include the city logo We're just saying that it could be considered to be a city logo.

So And again, we're new to public art in the city. So I mean if the shape of the bridge or a favorite duck or an animal like a deer like people are going to adopt what what they are going to adopt as a I don't know, as a beloved symbol, but that's not the purpose of it, is to be a loco.

Anyone else? Someone looks like he wants to say something.

The more you talk about it not being a logo, it sounds like you're wanting it to be the logo.

No. I want us to have a discussion about the logo. I understand that. That's the whole point.

Yes. No, I get what you're trying to do. But also, I don't know that anybody would have thought about it either.

That's kind of where I'm at. When I looked at it, it never even occurred to me that it was a logo. It was just part of the art on the medallion. I move to approve URA Resolution 2026-002, accepting the Cultural Arts Commission's recommendation for Western Bridge medallion artwork. Second. Motion to second. All those in favor of approving the resolution, say aye. Aye. All those opposed?

Nay.

All right. Motion passes. Thank you, council. Do we have any citizen comments?

I do not, Mayor.

And I don't see any online. So we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.