City Council - Regular Meeting

2026 Tualatin City Council meeting. I'll go ahead and call this meeting to order. First item on our agenda tonight is our Pledge of Allegiance tonight led by Council Hillier.

Please stand with me, remove your hats, place your hand on your heart, and let's share the Pledge of

So that brings us to announcements. Our first announcements are our intern introductions. Welcome, Megan, and our new interns. Don't be shy.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Megan George, the Deputy City Manager in Tualatin, and today I am here to introduce four individuals who are interning with the city this summer in a few different capacities. So Tualatin has a long history of supporting students and interns that are interested in pursuing careers in local government. We've done that in a number of ways. We've partnered with degree programs at universities. We've hosted students working on their capstone or final project. And we've hired interns to work on special projects. So we see a ton of benefits to this work. It provides opportunities for young people to learn about government, learn about local government, learn about what it's like in Tualatin to work. And it provides opportunities for them to gain experience and apply it to coursework and put it on their resume for future applications and employment. It also benefits our reputation as an employer. So ideally, these guys have a really good experience in Tualatin and they tell everybody they know about it. And then the next time we go out for a position, they apply and all of their friends apply. So lots of advantages all the way around. So the first person I'm going to introduce is somebody that you saw earlier this evening sitting next to Nicole. As has become the habit over the last few years in the city manager's office, we've had a summer intern, and among many other responsibilities, we have asked them to take minutes for the work session at a city council meeting. It is the highlight of their experience. So our intern this summer is Myra. Myra, can you wave? Thanks, Myra. So Myra is working on a few different projects, including developing a social media policy for the city, researching artificial intelligence use at public libraries per the request of the Library Advisory Committee. And one fun fact about Myra is that she is a recent graduate from the University of Oregon I was pausing for the cheers for the ducks. There we go. We got one. And she graduated with a degree in planning public policy and management. So the next up is our intern in the engineering division, Riley McMillan. Riley, can you wave? So Riley is working on compiling traffic and pedestrian count data and developing traffic volume estimates for each of Tualatin's streets. Thrilling. Assisting with other engineering design and construction projects. Now this actually is a fun fact. So Riley grew up in Tualatin And I think many of you will remember a few years ago when we had our grand opening of the Garden Corner Curves Project. Members of the Tualatin High School Marching Band marched through. Riley was one of those. Oh, the question was, what do you play? Clarinet. Clarinet. There you go. Okay, the next person up is Christian Flores from our Public Works Department. Christian? So Christian is working on our strategic energy management program, assisting in our electric vehicle fleet conversion, and conducting a status update on our water management and conservation plan. So the final introduction is for somebody who's not currently sitting in this lineup, and that is for our intern in the information services department, James McGee. James is optimizing and right-sizing end-user devices. which is a real thing. I'm not sure what it is, but it's real. And then fortifying and maintaining our network. So later this week is National Intern Day. That's July 30th. And we'll plan to celebrate them at a lunch at the park and get to know them a little bit better at that point. But we really appreciate the work that they're doing this summer for the city and the relationships that we've built over the years with our interns. Many of us are still in contact, and we hoped that they will have a good experience here. So I'm happy to take any questions, but I'll ask you to help me welcome them to Tualatin.

Anyone have questions? I'll definitely welcome you to Tualatin. I've met one of you before. Very excited to have the interns. As I mentioned, we've had former interns become city managers eventually. So it does help to get on your resume and work in the city of Tualatin and one day become a city manager. Looking forward, how long is the internship through?

It varies based on the position.

But most of the summer?

Correct. All right.

But looking forward to hopefully seeing you guys again, crossing paths in your different roles. But welcome to Tualatin. Look forward to the stuff that you produce and what you become because you might be back here one day. It would be fantastic to have you or all of you back as city employees. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

That brings us to our second announcement, and that's the Tualatin Science and Technology Scholarship led by Council Hillier.

I don't believe we have our person here yet.

You want to push it down a little bit?

Can we push it?

Yeah, we can push it. We'll wait for the recipient to show up. It might be traffic. Imagine that in Tualatin that the whole thing is holding them up. We'll move on to road closures. Perfect segue, Mike McCarthy. Thank you.

Good evening. I am Mike McCarthy, a city engineer here in Tualatin. And I'll be talking about some places where there will be some traffic and some people getting caught. And it's coming up on the slides now, I believe. So back to the first one. I think we've heard quite a few complaints about a couple different railroad crossings in Tualatin, and so this is a good news, bad news kind of announcement. The good news is the railroad crossings are getting fixed. The bad news is the roads will be closed for a couple days on this one and four days on the other. So that they can get fixed. The railroad will be doing the work. So it's Portland and Western Railroad, which is like a subdivision of Genesee and Wyoming. And they've informed us that the work will be happening. The first one will be on Tualatin Road at the 90 degree corner right near the Country Club or right near Chinook Street. That one is planned to start Monday, August 3rd. They'll typically close the road around 7 a.m. and get the construction work going, they'll have to pull out all the concrete panels, dig down probably a foot and a half to get the right kind of base in and everything, and then build it all back up and plan to have it done by the evening of Tuesday, August 4th. On this one, the detour's fairly straightforward, Sweet Drive and 90th Avenue. We may get some complaints about extra traffic on those roads for these couple days, but it's a fairly straightforward detour. The second one, next slide, will not be a straightforward detour. This is Boone's Ferry Road, just north of the Tualatin River crossing that I know we've heard a lot about some of the issues there. And it's a wider crossing, tougher grades to match, so the railroad anticipates it taking four days to get this done. So that'll be the week of August 10th. They anticipate Boone's Ferry Road being closed starting at 7 a.m. on Monday morning and then being closed through Thursday afternoon, opening up Thursday evening, August 13th. This closure will be particularly difficult because the alternate route is I-5, and there's only two other crossings in the city, only I-5 and 99 available as crossings in the city. We will do our best to get the word out via social media and other channels, but this will be, I think, a particularly difficult closure, and I think a lot of people will be, as much as we try to get the word out, people will be surprised by it Monday morning on the 10th. The railroad has placed a sign there saying that it will be closed. I'm not sure how big the sign is, but I talked to some people who've seen it. ODOT, this is actually a state highway, will be doing some public information, but not a lot. They will have shuttles for pedestrians that are trying to walk across here. It will be a shuttle bus that will basically go all the way around, Nyberg interchange, Bridgeport interchange, and back. But it will be closed to all traffic for about four days, from Monday morning the 10th through Thursday evening. And then we will hopefully be very happy with a nice new railroad crossing.

That's also going to impact TriMet.

Right. TriMet will have to reroute around it. And they typically will be putting signs at the stops to indicate whether the bus is actually going to come or not. Questions for Mike?

I'm curious. Are we putting out a press release about it?

I know we're doing quite a bit, but I don't think we have a press release planned.

I just think it's going to be such a big deal, and it sounds like there's not a lot of communication going, and I'm just wondering if there's like a, like it doesn't seem like it would be more than two sentences.

That's something you can quickly put on the website as an alert.

But the press release would be.

Yeah, press release, I don't know how many people are going to see that, though.

I mean, I know you do social media, correct?

Yeah, they do it on social media. We can talk at staff level about that.

Yeah, I think it might be a nice idea. What about when you post on Facebook, can you tag me, for instance, so I can spread the word?

I have a lot of people.

No, I mean, I do follow it, but it doesn't really always, I don't always pop up. But if it tags, it actually gives me a notification. That's just my, you don't have to do it. Just my question. You can say no.

I know more about road repairs than I do about social media. I'll have to forward that past that concern on to our communications folks.

So they're not doing the signs we normally do, the big amber signs? Correct. They're not doing that? As far as I'm aware. Okay. That's what we usually do, and that's what gets the message out. But if they're not doing that, okay. Yeah.

They will have to do some road closure signage. Like for this one, that will be closing it at Martinazzi and then back at the upper-lower Boone's Ferry intersection. And so they will have that out on the day of the closure. Okay. So it could be an extra messy traffic at the Boone's Ferry-Martinazzi intersection. But we'll try to do what we can to get the word out earlier.

I do believe that ODOT was putting out the news alert, which is like a press release. Yeah, yeah.

Yes. Thank you. Go ahead.

I just wasn't sure, because the way that the announcement was reading, it just sounded like there wasn't a lot of information going out. So I'm glad to hear it, and I wasn't trying to say We're not doing enough. We're doing a lot. And also, it looks like we're going to have a small amount of public transportation for pedestrians here in Tualatin, which is also something worthy of a news release. Thank you.

Captain Struckmeyer, any impact on the police? I was just worried. Well. It's out of our jurisdiction. Well, that's the Netherlands right there about calls. Well, no, you serve Durham, so impact to your officers having to get to Durham?

Yeah.

Okay.

All right. Any other questions for Mike or Captain Struckmeyer?

All right. Thank you all.

Yeah, T of F and R would be impacted, too.

Yes.

All right. Is our recipient here yet or no? We punt it. Okay. We'll punt it a little further. We'll move on then to public comment. Public comment is an opportunity for someone to address the city council regarding an item that's not on tonight's agenda. Please keep your comments about three minutes. I'll take those folks in the room first and then go over to Zoom. There's two ways to sign up. You can be signed up or you don't have to be signed up, but I'm going to do sign ups first. So my first sign up is Beth Dittman. Welcome back.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you for having me here. Early this year, after Danny O'Neill presented his concerns about e-bikes at the Byram CIO meeting, Randy Eldick from the Planning Commission reached out to me. During the CIO meeting, in response to a question from a community member about what happens at Safety Town and could e-bikes be addressed there, I shared my knowledge from my role as the project manager for Safety Town Tualatin. powered by To All and Together. After that meeting, Randy Date reached out to me and I offered to bring people together that I have developed relationships with in my community work within the schools, public safety agencies, healthcare partners, and community organizations to begin this conversation. It's important to note that while I'm here tonight as a de facto leader of this coalition, it is an entirely collaborative group and we share progress we've made together. This work began in response to two significant developments. First, House Bill 4007, which lowered the legal age to operate a Class 1 e-bike to the age of 14. And second, the Oregon Health Authority's report from the spring, which highlighted a significant increase in e-bike-related injuries, particularly among youth. Not surprising that those two things went together. Together, those developments clearly pointed to an opportunity in our community to respond proactively, specifically through education. Today, our coalition includes representatives from the city, Parks and Rec, as well as the police, our school district, Randall Children's Hospital, the Safe Routes to School Program, which is a part of the Street Trust, First Gear Driving School, neighborhood leaders, and community volunteers. Our first meeting focused on understanding the current landscape, identifying common safety concerns, misconceptions, and opportunities for education, and we agreed our work should be positive, collaborative, and centered on helping young people make safe, informed decisions rather than relying on fear-based messaging or discouraging e-bike usage altogether. Since our first meeting, we've reviewed successful programs from communities like Marin County, California, and Bend, Oregon, identifying priorities and developing a coordinated education campaign focused on informing, empowering, and equipping young riders and their families to make safe, legal, and responsible choices. In the September issue of Twelton Life, you can expect to see a full-page overview of the e-bike and e-scooter laws, as well as an article in the overview of our coalition's work. This fall, we'll launch a compulsory week-long middle school education campaign featuring assemblies, classroom lessons, hands-on demonstrations, and helmet fittings. These lessons have been informed by our work together, as well as findings from sources listed earlier, and largely created by Dan Keller with the Safe Routes to School program, a seasoned educator and educational administrator, as well as bicyclist. We're also developing supplemental education messaging, then resources for parents and guardians to reinforce the lessons students learn at home. We are teaching upstream, meaning we are focusing on middle schoolers so that they, in turn, when they turn 14 or of legal age to ride an e-bike or e-scooter, that they will then know what the rules are then. In addition, Amber Croker from Randall Children's Hospital and I are planning an outside agency grant from the city to help fund this next phase of work. Look for it in the future. If awarded, those funds would, among other things, support creation of educational materials, a passport incentive program that encourages students to participate throughout the week, and reinforces safe riding habits through positive incentives. I'm so close. Can I finish? Thank you. We also plan to continue to attend community events such as the IBAC Community CIO Fair, the pumping regatta in October and continuing to spread the words wherever we can about what the rules are. To that end, we are planning a community listening session on October 27th at 6 p.m. hosted at Hazelbrook Middle School. There we'll share what we've developed and gather feedback about the benefits and challenges of e-mobility in our community and hopefully continue to build partnerships with residents, businesses, and community organizations. As we move into that community engagement phase, collaboration with the city council will be important. We hope all of you will attend that public-facing opportunity on the 27th, where your presence can demonstrate that this is a community-wide effort supported by schools, local government, healthcare, business, and families. At the same time, to keep the coalition efficient, nimble, and action-oriented, we are not seeking regular council participation in our working meetings. The coalition is functioning well as a collaborative working group, and we continue to provide updates to you as requested, as well as invite any council engagement at key milestones, like the listening session and public events, where your participation will have the greatest impact. Because this is only a brief overview of several months of our collaborative work, I'd also like to request an opportunity for the council work session presentation for a more in-depth presentation of our findings specifically after that listening session so that we can share with you what we've heard. That is, of course, up to your discretion. Thank you for your continued support, and sorry that I went long.

Thank you. The next person I have signed up is Casey Light. I'm Casey.

Okay.

You guys hear me all right?

Cool.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. My name is Casey Light, and I am a Tualatin resident and veteran. I'm speaking tonight to address an escalating public safety and livability crisis originating from the Tualatin Station Bar and Grill. I'm not here with vague complaints. I have the city's own records. The pattern, according to public dispatch records from July 20. 2025 through June 26, sorry, 2026 police and emergency services were dispatched to a single address 50 times in 11 months. This is an average of an emergency response of once every six days. Over 65% of these calls occur between 11 p.m. and 4 a.m. right outside of neighboring resident and their homes. This isn't just background noise. The official logs document multiple physical assaults, fights, including calls on August 10th, November 27th. DUIs, hit and runs, including drunk driving arrests on November 21st and January 4th. Several medical crises, including an overdose call on May 2nd and a liquor law violation on March 1st. When a single commercial business generates 50 police dispatches in under a year, culminating in late-night violence, the burden of safety shouldn't fall on sleep-deprived neighbors to police it. My request to City Council is to protect our neighborhood. I am formally submitting this dispatch logs to the City Recorder and asking City Council to take three immediate actions. Directed enforcement. Request targeted police and code enforcement monitoring during peak late night hours at this location. OLCC and a nuisance review. Initiate a formal review of the business liquor license and operational compliance based on the 50 incident record. Interagency coordination. Require the venue management and property managers to establish enforceable noise and security protocols. Tualatin residents deserve basic peace and safety in their homes. Thank you for your time, for reviewing the data, for taking action in our community. And I'd just like to point out that there are several incidences at the bottom, if I may go over them real quick. Sure. Some of the hard numbers, total dispatches, as of when over 50 official calls in 11 months, peak hours over 65 between 11 p.m. and 4 a.m., Key categories, violent crimes and altercations, physical assault on November 27th, another assault on August 10th, disturbance with a flight on April 26th, as well as another disturbance in flight on August 1st, 2025, harassment threats August 6th, 2025, and moving on to the next category, impaired driving and traffic incidences on January 4th, 2026, DUI arrest, Um, I'll go ahead and wrap that up there since you guys have this in front of you. I will just, if I may like one more comment, these are just the ones that were officially documented. This, this doesn't even cover, you know, a majority of the calls that are actually made. So that's my final statement there.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you. I do. We have anyone else in the room would like to provide public comment tonight. All right. Seeing none. Do we have everybody in zoom, Nicole? So if you're in Zoom and you'd like to provide public comment, go ahead and raise your hand. Let Nicole know that you'd like to do public comment. If not, we're going to move on. Okay. We'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is our consent agenda. Consent agenda, are those items considered routine? They will be adopted by one motion unless someone in the council would like an item removed and heard separately later tonight. Tonight's consent agenda consists of item number one, consideration of approval of the work session and regular meeting minutes of July 13th, 2026. Item number two, consideration of resolution number 5982-26, authorizing the city manager to execute an intergovernmental agreement with Clean Water Services for final design and construction phase of the Martin-Ozzie Sanitary Sewer Trunkline Upsizing Priorities 3 and 4 project. And finally, item number three, Consideration of Resolution No. 5988-26, authorizing the City Manager to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Metro, accepting payment in the amount of $740,000 to create an urban design framework and updated design standards for downtown. Would any member of the Council like an item pulled off consent and heard later separately tonight?

I move that we adopt the consent agenda as read. Second.

I have a motion and a second to adopt the consent agenda as read. Any discussions on those motions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? It's unanimous. All right. That moves us to general business. The first item on general business is clear and objective code project update. We're back. Welcome, Teresa and Madeline. For real this time. For real this time.

Yeah, we're not live yet. I do see Kate, though, so that's promising. Alrighty. Well, thank you for your time this evening. My name is Madeline Nelson. I'm a planner with the City of Tualatin, and I'm joined by Teresa Montalvo, Tualatin's planning manager. And yes, we're returning tonight with an update on the project to revise the Tualatin Development Code with clear and objective language related to residential housing. Since our last project check-in back in January, our project consultant, MIG, has been working to draft revised code amendments, and staff have also coordinated with a local focus group of developers to obtain initial feedback on those proposed amendments. The draft amendments, as well as a summary of those focus group meetings, were included in the Council packet. Tonight, our consultant, MIG, will be presenting an update on the project and will be seeking direction on a few remaining policy questions. Just as a quick note, the same presentation was provided at the Planning Commission last month during their June meeting. And a copy of their responses, just a summary of it, was included in the staff report. So if there are no questions for staff at this time, I'm going to turn the floor over to Kate Rogers with MIG.

All right, thank you, Madeline and good evening members of the city council and mayor. Thanks for having me tonight. So, yeah, we're going to be going through kind of the updates on the updates to the update. So clear and objective code update. Um. All right, so we're going to just give a quick, quick overview of the project purpose and where we are in the project right now. Um, we'll provide sort of a high level overview of the draft code amendments, the whole draft of which is in your, your packet for tonight. Um, we'll report back on what we heard from you from the planning commission back in January and kind of where, where we went with the draft, um, in response to that direction. And then, um, as Madeline mentioned, we'll focus on some policy questions for this evening. So Madeline kind of already went through this, and you should already be aware of this, but this is, the purpose is to update the development code to align with Oregon state law, so ORS 197A-400, and that requires local governments to have clear and objective approval pathways for housing. You can also have a discretionary alternative pathway, as long as you have at least a path forward for all housing types that you allow in the city. And this work is funded through a grant by the Oregon Department of land conservation and development, or. So, we kicked off this project about a year ago, last August, 2025, we were working on a review and audit of the code. Um, and then we went into an initial draft code update. Um, also city staff met with some members of the development committee and toilet in there what they were referred to as their feedback groups in May and June to kind of run some of the draft language by them and get their, their initial feedback and input. And we've been using that information to kind of refine the draft. Um. And so we met with with planning commission last month, we're meeting with you all and then we'll take that direction and, you know, additional kind of comments and revisions by staff. And we'll work on our revised code update before heading into the adoption process in the fall. And the aim, the goal is to finish adoption by the end of this year. So, kind of high level overview of the draft code updates. So, you know, we did a full review of the code. We found places throughout the code that might need some refinements and cleaning up to. Again, to make standards fully clear and objective as applied to housing. And so that included some changes to some review procedures. And that's 1 of the things that we'll discuss tonight is specifically procedures for multifamily housing review. We needed to make some clarifications regarding retirement housing and congregate care, which are kind of lumped together currently in the code. And really, those are kind of 2 distinct housing types. Retirement housing is really just kind of. It's just housing for for folks over a certain age, whereas congregate care is more of assisted living and other types of facilities. So made some changes there and that kind of affected how we regulate uses. Um. Multifamily design standards that was 1 part of the code that needed some, some updates to make a fully clear and objective review path. So we made those clear and objective. We also had some kind of. Um, surgical changes throughout the code for certain setback provisions and parking language access provisions that were a little bit discretionary and needed to be made measurable and enforceable. So they could be clear and objective. Um, and then some other, uh, cleanups and updates to definitions and things like that. So. That's kind of a high level overview and we'll dive into some specific areas next. So just a quick kind of report back on what we discussed. Well, I know I wasn't in front of you in January, but you met with staff back then and they gave you kind of the update at that point and got your direction then. And so one of the things that we focused on was the two track review system. So this is where you have kind of parallel clear and objective and discretionary review pathways for housing. So currently the code has existing cleared objective and discretionary kind of two-track system for all housing types other than multi-family housing. So single family housing and then all types of middle housing, duplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters. However, multifamily housing, there's currently 1 set of standards, and it's a little bit of a mix. It's, you know, much of it is already clear and objective, but there's some discretionary language in there or some kind of unclear language. So we know we needed to make those multifamily standards fully clear and objective to align with state law. And so what we heard from the planning commission, and from from you all was that, um, we know that applicants need options for flexibility and some discretion. Um, so having just 1 clear and objective path with no flexibility is is not not a good approach. Um, and we also want to avoid kind of an all or nothing. Approach, um, where you either have to choose the fully cleared objective path or the fully discretionary kind of much more wide open kind of flexible path. Um, it's, it's better to not have to choose 1 or the other. Um. However, applicants generally tend to prefer to limit the uncertainty in their application. Um, they want they want certainty that their application, as long as they meet the standards, it will be approved. Um, so they tend to, um. Choose the clear and objective path over the more wide open discretionary path. And we know that multifamily development needs some new options for flexibility that aren't there in the code today. So how the draft responds, the multifamily design standards are updated to be fully clear and objective, as I mentioned. We also added new purpose statements for each standard, and those are in support of this new, what we're calling the design departure standard. process it's within the architectural review kind of procedure and it's sort of similar to you might have heard of modifications or adjustments where you like you seek some flexibility on a specific standard the code also has variances but those require the applicant to demonstrate some type of hardship some kind of unusual situation on their property whereas this design departure Is a little more flexible and it allows an applicant to request this discretionary modification to a specific standard as long as your proposal still meets the purpose of that standard. So that's why we needed to add new purpose statements. And then. In accordance with the planning commission and city council direction, the design departures for now, we're proceeding with just a limited kind of a limited framework there just for multifamily applications. Because again, the other housing types already have that kind of existing 2 track system. But if you find that this system is working well, it might be something that you could expand upon in the future. So, this is just an example of how a design departure might work with the multifamily standards. So these standards are around children's play areas, and the new purpose statement that we added talks about ensuring safe, usable, appropriately scaled outdoor play areas, supporting active recreation, and contributing to site livability. So, the specific standards that were already in the code, um. Required a minimum size, so based on the number of units in the development, a minimum size for that children's play area. Um, and a new provision is that it would need to include at least 2 different. Play amenities or equipment that's approved for use in a public playground and we have, we have some more specifics around that in the, in the draft, but, um. So, those are the standards, but say, an applicant came in and wanted to propose, maybe a smaller play area that didn't necessarily have the 2 types of playground equipment. But instead they wanted to propose something a little different, like an innovative nature play area that was more kind of integrated into the landscape. So they weren't meeting the specific clear and objective standards, but it's still. a really nice amenity for their development. So the applicant through the design departure process would just need to demonstrate that they're equally or better meeting the purpose of the standard. And that if there are any negative impacts associated with this change, that those would be mitigated. And there are a few other criteria, but those are kind of the main ones. So that is how that works. And we'll talk a little bit more about multifamily processes in our policy discussion. And then another kind of topic of the discussion back in January was multifamily housing and retirement housing in the low density residential, the RL zone. That's the city's kind of lowest intensity residential zone. Um, and currently both multifamily housing and retirement housing are allowed in the zone, but they require a conditional use approval. Um. Unfortunately, that is not allowed under the clear and objective statute. So, if you allow a housing type in a certain zone, there needs to be a fully clear objective path. So you can't make conditional use the only pathway. Just somewhat limiting, unfortunately, but the code needs to either allow those housing types outright through an objective process, or you can choose to prohibit the housing type. If you don't want to go that route. So, what staff and what we heard from the planning commission and city council was, um. Related to senior housing, you know, the code should certainly support senior housing options. Um, the decision was to regulate retirement housing again. That's just kind of age restricted. Housing, um, the same as other types of comparable housing that aren't age restricted. So if it's a. 55 plus multifamily community that should just be treated as a multifamily. Development, whereas congregate care again, that's things like assisted living facilities. Those should be regulated a little bit differently because they have different kind of. Site considerations and potential impacts and things like that. So, the decision was to separate those 2. And then for the zone to the decision was to prohibit multifamily housing in the zone, rather than trying to. Create a new set of standards and maybe. creating a pathway that was so limited that it wouldn't really be useful. It wouldn't really be well used. So prohibiting multifamily housing in the RL zone, and then maybe taking a broader look at multifamily zoning and retirement housing strategies in a future more comprehensive process where you maybe get some more community input and things like that. So that was the decision. So again, we have separated retirement housing from congregate care. The code allows retirement housing wherever the comfortable, whether it's multifamily housing or maybe a middle housing type that's age restricted, allowing them in the same locations and then retaining the conditional use requirement for congregate care. So those were the changes there in response to the direction we received. Okay, moving on to our policy questions. Okay, so we're gonna dive into some kind of wonky planning code stuff. So, but that's what this project is all about. So just a brief overview of the city's current land use review types. So there are different types depending on sort of the requirements for the review, whether it, The decision is made by staff or by a body at a public hearing, such as the architectural review board, or the planning commission. And then what type of notice is provided for the, for the application. So type 1 ministerial reviews are decisions are made by staff. In these decisions, there can be no discretion or any judgment involved. So they have to have clear and objective review standards and criteria. For type 1, there's no public notice provided because it's usually a pretty straightforward application. And there's no opportunity for a local appeal. There are remedies in, I believe, circuit court, but there's no local appeal, say, to the planning commission or city council. Type 2, or administrative review is kind of a step up. So it's still a staff level decision, but there can be some discretion involved. But whenever there's discretion in a land use decision, you have to provide public notice. So, in Tualatin, the notice is within 1000 feet of the property and also to the CIOs, the citizen involvement organizations. And then appeals are possible to the architectural review board to planning commission or city council, depending on which specific review type it is or application type. And then another step up type 3, this is your quasi judicial or public hearing review. So decisions either made by the, or by the planning commission. This is a discretionary review. Public notice is provided again within 1000 feet and to and appeals are made to the city council. So that's that's the current landscape of review types. There's also legislative type type 4, which we don't really need to get into for this discussion. So currently in the code, multifamily projects are either reviewed through Type 2 or Type 3. So if they're under 100 units, those go through Type 2 review. Again, that's a staff decision with public notice. And then larger projects, which is 100 units or more, go through Type 3 review. So they go straight to a public hearing. However, we've created a clear and objective review path for multifamily housing and there's a new state law that just passed this year House Bill 4037, which affects how clear and objective applications can be processed. So the new requirement is that for housing that's reviewed under clear and objective standards, local governments can provide limited public notice However, you cannot require a public hearing and only the applicant can appeal the decision. So you would not be able to require a type 3 review at a public hearing. That is just kind of off the table. If. Again, if an applicant is pursuing the clear and objective pathway. So, um, really the city can't require either your existing type 2 or type 3 for these clear objective applications. Um, so you can either opt for type 1 review, which is that ministerial no public notice. Or, um, this, the statute, the new statute allows this kind of modified administrative procedure. So, we've been referring to the new, um. Modified procedure as type 2 X, which we might come up with a different name for it. We can, we can figure that out. But it's still a staff level decision. Again, this, this is related to clear and objective applications and no discretion is involved. Public notice is limited now right now you have a 1000 foot public notice radius. Now it can only be 100 feet for smaller projects under 20 units. You can go up to 500 feet for a project with 20 or more units. Um, and again, only the applicant can appeal the decision. So, um. You know, basically you can, if you're a neighbor within that radius, you can receive a notice, but if you think that there was an error in the decision making, or you just don't like the decision, there's really no opportunity for you to make to appeal that to the city. Only the applicant if you. Um, reject their, um, or deny their application, then they could appeal that decision. So that is the regulatory framework that we're working under now. Um, so given given that, um, the question we asked the planning commission, and we're asking you is what review type or types. Do you think should apply to multifamily projects under the new clear and objective standards? So there are lots of different kind of shades of different options that you could consider, but the 2 main most viable options that we talked about with staff are kind of. either type one or type this type two X that kind of scales based on the number of units. So under 20 units would go through type one review. And again, that's the same review type as applies to single family and middle housing developments that are reviewed under cleared objective standards. And then if you are 20 or more units, then you would go through the type two X that kind of modified administrative procedure. The other option we talked about is just requiring that type 2x procedure, regardless of the size. So whether it's, you know, 10 units or 100 units, it's all type 2x. This would provide kind of the maximum possible notice that you are allowed to require under state law. And again, it provides notice to neighbors for every project while still complying with the limits on hearings and third party appeals. So, oh, and then also to point out, this is important that for both of these options, as soon as you're kind of leaving the clear and objective path, you're moving into either type 2 or type 3. So, if you're requesting a design departure to the standards, you up to 4 departures. So up to 4. four standards that you want to kind of modify, those would be reviewed by staff. You could apply the usual 1,000-foot notice to CIOs as well, and there could be an opportunity for appeals by participants in the process. And then if you're requesting more departures, so five or more, and I think there are currently 12 or 13 standards, like separate standards within the design standards, Uh, 5 or more departures would send you to the type 3 public hearing process with the architectural review board, making the decision. So, this would apply, um, I mean, this is our proposal that this would apply, um, regardless of which, whether you chose option. I think was a, or B, or 1, or 2, 1, or 2. So when we asked the planning commission this question, they preferred option two, which is applying that type 2X process regardless of the size. And I think there was a lot of discussion about this is kind of the most consistent with the current procedure in the code. And they also talked a lot about, you know, transparency is important in the land use process and also maintaining public trust. So that was their recommendation. I'm finally going to take a break and let you all talk and see what you think about this.

All right. Thoughts? Council Brooks.

Thank you for the update, I guess, and the work. So, if anybody knows me... would agree with the Planning Commission's recommendations as I think most of us do because we want transparency I guess my wondering around this and I don't this isn't really for the consultants more for our staff is how are we educating the community that this has changed if people cannot appeal to the city, what is the step that they would do, and whether we directly contact Community members are not, will there be a specific place on our website that would update the community on these proposed changes so that there's transparency at least for what's going on if somebody knows where to look. But I do think we need to educate people where to look.

Okay. All good questions, and we're all trying to navigate all the many different state changes that are happening. Nothing changes from the fact that we can still post the projects as current projects under review on our website, so that can still happen. We do currently have, I posted on our website, legislative changes when you go to our planning site, and it lists all the various ones that, for the past couple of years, at least the 25 and 26 sessions, and the different things, a summary of each of those, so that's there. There's been a lot of talk because these are kind of complex changes that have come down through the legislative process and trying to figure out how they are implemented on the ground is still being figured out to the best practice. So I think in the future, my plan is to come to PC and council to just do a summary of at least the last two years of changes and how they would affect land use. So that's another avenue of informing the public through that way. So, yeah, it's definitely going to be a change. The other thing would be we will be having to change, if we go with option two, which would be providing notice for all of these, we will have to change our notice letter. And our notice letter will have to indicate that, like, in response to House Bill 4037, we're informing you of this application, and it will have to also enumerate the fact that there really isn't a local appeal but for the applicant to go to LUBA. That's kind of where we are with the way that things are coming down from the state.

I'm just wondering if there's any way in the future we could have WHEN THESE KIND OF CONVERSATIONS ARE HAPPENING OR IF WE WANT TO DO AN EDUCATIONAL UPDATE THING THAT WE COULD HAVE ONE OF OUR STATE LEADERS COME AND SHARE BECAUSE I THINK WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GOALS ARE AND I ALSO THINK A DIRECT CONVERSATION WITH COMMUNITY ABOUT CONCERNS WOULD BE A REALLY IMPORTANT CONVERSATION TO HAVE. Especially right now with trust with government, I want our community to trust our city councilor in our city as much as they we've earned their trust to start with in this in this particular time feels off. And so I think I would really like to see somebody from. either, you know, Representative Walters or Senator Wagner, I can't remember all the names, but to come and have that conversation with us, with you guys here in an educational way. And I don't know what the rest of the council thinks, but I... YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THINGS ALL JUST WORK OUT, BUT THE THINGS THAT I CAN IMAGINE FROM ALL THE THINGS THAT WE GO THROUGH AND ITERATIONS THAT WE GO THROUGH AS A CITY AND THE WAY THAT THE CONVERSATION HELPS AND COMMUNICATION HELPS THE COMMUNITY FEEL SAFE AND HEARD AND HELPS US TO FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE THIS MUCH MORE INFRASTRUCTURE AND WHAT CAN WE REALLY CAPACITY MANAGE AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS I think that we need a real big conversation about it. That's my... Thank you for all the work.

Thank you. Yeah.

Council President Pratt.

I have quite a few, so excuse me, but I'm going to start out with what Councilor Brooks was speaking to. I know the state was trying to make sure this housing got built and built fast, but I've seen... We've had a few developments the last couple years, and... The community's ability to have a talk with that developer and have some power has made changes that are better for our community and that's been taken away. So it's really tough. But of the choices, option two would be my preference because at least there's a little more transparency. And then I just have some questions about the actual, the code itself. So in the... RL, would people still be allowed to have ADUs, and would, my other one in the RL would, if there's, I guess I call them foster homes for seniors, where there's a house where there's maybe four or five people living, would those still be allowed in RL?

ADUs, oh, go ahead, Kate.

I'm sorry. I'll start, and then if you want, you can chime in. Yeah, so the change really only applies to multifamily housing. Oh, okay. Yeah, 80 use any on all types of middle housing would be the same. We're already allowed and those, those are required to be allowed by the state. Um, so those would still be allowed. And then, um, I think you're referring to what's called a residential home, which also is regulated by state law, and those are required to be allowed basically wherever you allow a single-family home.

Yeah, because we're kind of limiting senior housing, and so I want to allow what we can. And then I noticed in Section 36.115, you have a couple places that just says... that bike pad routes need to be provided on-site only. No off-site facility improvements are required. Why was that change made? Is that part of the requirements? Why is there nothing?

Yeah, that was partly, partly that provision was, the language is a little bit discretionary in the current code, so it needed to be updated. But also, I think, This was a little bit beyond just the strict, clear and objective requirements, but. There were some concerns by staff that it currently sort of implied that you would have to build, say, a bike lane or a bike path. Oh, that would connect like, outside of your development, like, on someone else's property or public property. Yeah, just clarifying, and it's really how I think the code would be applied today or interpreted today, just kind of aligning with that current practice.

Okay, and I have two more little ones. One is TDC 73C-220. It says native trees are encouraged, and then you added but not required, and I'm wondering why you added not required, and I'm also, this is Councilor Gonzalez, can you help me with this, that you're not adding another word like native trees and shrubs And or drought tolerant I guess with the way I would word it why if that could be added because we're kind of with everything changing we need more than just Native trees in some instances, but that would reduce the water usage is what I'm trying to get at Yeah, yeah, that's a great point um

So, the, I think the intention was really just to clarify that if we're saying that they're encouraged, that means that. You know, your application wouldn't be denied if you, if they weren't native trees, native species. So just kind of making that clear that they're encouraged the city would love it if you did that, but it's not a requirement. And then the native tree, I mean, that was just in the current code. So we weren't, we weren't looking to change kind of the actual outcomes of that. But that regulation just making it okay.

I was just thinking since you're updating the code Let's do that. So okay, and then the last one I think is one like that, too It's almost like a Scribner's error and then this one's for the mayor, but in TDC forty dash point two one oh It refers to the raising of chickens and I think that should be changed to domestic foul or whatever language for now using

Sounds like there's some history to that question.

So it sounds like folks are supportive of the Planning Commission's recommendation option number two on this one? Because I am too. At Council Brooks' point, there was quite a bit of conversation about House Bill 4037 going through this session. League of Oregon Cities was... The first version of this was totally against it, and it was whittled away, and a compromise was made that both sides could tolerate. And the cities today are still hurting from the lack of notice to residents and stuff, all in the goal of quickly building housing. But in that vein, we're all for getting housing built fairly quickly, but we want it done quickly. per local standard and that got thrown out the window. So it's basically one size fits all for the whole state, go through this process and a lot of us are still hurting from that decision, but we'll see if housing gets built under this. Okay. Okay.

So we do the clear and objective code updates. And when Council President Pratt brought up the conversation about trees, for instance, there's no limiting around trees. Now, did these updates mean that there's nothing that we can do to support better codes for our community? There's a whole language update from the National League of Cities around sustainable code updates and how we encourage those. And I'm just curious, is this the point we do that, or when do we do that?

I'll just... jump in, Kate, you can circle back afterwards. This is discreetly just to get us right with the requirements for clear and objective in the code. It's not to say we can't draft different regulations in the future, but they will also need to be clear and objective. So it doesn't preclude us from saying we might, oh, I don't know, I'm going to use a really simple, we have 20-foot front yard setbacks and we decide we want to go through a whole code rewrite and make those 25. We can do that, but we just have to make sure whatever we change is still clear and objective.

And I feel like we've been kind of having this question keep coming up. So I'm just curious, when is that in our plan? Don't we say that's one of our goals?

Yeah, I guess, like these changes we want, would you go through the whole code at one time? Because I thought maybe you would change them as you go along. Since you're working on this section, to me it made sense you change things now. So I'm confused, like, the process, I guess.

Yeah, and you're kind of looking at some of the conversations we've had internally, even with our consultant, in that, like, we keep finding things. Maybe this would be good to change. Maybe this. We're kind of working within the confines of the grant we received. So it was very easy to have our project management team meetings kind of grow and say, like, well, this might be nice, this might be nice. And there does need to be a regrouping of keeping within that just meeting state law at this point. We've got some other things in our work plan, but we can certainly, you know, we're always looking to see what we have next. But, you know, so it will need to be a separate code UPDATE IF WE WANT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT OTHER TYPES OF STANDARDS WE MIGHT WANT TO TWEAK ONCE WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.

OKAY. AND THEN I GUESS TO, I MEAN, I GUESS I HAVE CONFUSION JUST BECAUSE LIKE JUST SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS THAT ARE COMMONLY USED NOW THAT WE HAVE NOT UPDATED. And there's already things being sent from the NLC that's already done for us. So how much time and energy? I just don't understand. I feel like it's a stuck place.

Not sure I'm appreciating what other definitions.

Well, I sent them to the city manager and to Aquila.

I don't know. We might need to circle back offline for that. Yep.

Thank you. I just would like to go on record to say anything that we can do to preserve as much notice as a higher number of housing, more than 20. I mean, my neighbors wanted to burn my house down because of this. And that was before it even became this restrictive or restrictive from my perspective for a community member to be able to... use their rights within this community as residents. And I under, I understand the spirit of this, uh, overall, but I just want to be on record to say this is crap. I don't like it. Um, I will advocate in any possible way I can to, uh, give the city and local jurisdictions back the power and the community members that we deserve. And, um, I just wanted to be on record to say that. Thank you. Crap is definitely a technical term.

Okay, go ahead proceed.

Okay, thank you. We just have 1 other policy question for you. So this is related to the commute or recreational commercial. See, our zone, um, uh, so this is an area, um, between the toilet and river and highway 99. Um, and there's currently a, um, an RV park in that in this zone. It's this kind of magenta colored area. It's kind of a pretty small area of the city. This is the only part of the city where the CR zone is applied. And this is kind of similar to the RL zone issue where multifamily requires conditional use approval. So in this zone, again, multifamily and then also manufactured dwelling parks require conditional use approval. And again, you can't have that as your only review path if a housing type is allowed. But it's important to note that the purpose of the CR zone talks about preserving an area by allowing and encouraging Commercial and related uses, um. Oriented to the traveler on the highway or oriented to the river. Um. So that's that's an important consideration when you think about the use allowances. Um, and another important point, um, this is a map showing the floodplain. So most of that CR zone is covered by the floodplain. Um. So, really, there aren't a lot of development opportunities or that, you know. Development would be much more limited, um, because of that. Um, that situation, so your options here are to permit to permit these housing types by, right? You would need to develop or apply some clear objective standards to that review. Um. And again, the option other option would be to prohibit both of those uses. Um. Again, you know, given that the purpose of the zone is to. Is related to commercial uses, um, it seems like maybe residential is not kind of the, um, the intended use of that area. So when we heard from the Planning Commission, they preferred also prohibiting new housing in that zone. There's a lot of concern about allowing more development, especially residential development in the floodplain. They also felt that given that the purpose of that zoning district just didn't seem like allowing residential outright with clear and objective standards would be their preferred approach. So they recommended prohibiting both those housing types. So that's it. So any thoughts on this one?

Ms. Mahalia.

Thank you. Will you clarify if the CR zone is where cannabis and psilocybin facilities are allowed for me, please? I believe that they are, and therefore, if that is true, I am all in favor of housing being zoned in there so that we can limit as many places for those businesses in our community.

I'll defer to staff on that one. I'm not sure about all the uses that are allowed.

I'd need to take a closer look at our current cannabis siting map. The one that's posted on the website is not the most accurate as it doesn't include where our current cannabis locations are. So there's overlap where we require 1,000 feet from other cannabis locations. So I'd need to take a closer look at where we have existing spots. Thank you.

Other comments? Council Brooks?

So I'm not a code expert, and I have confusion on this one. I'm curious around the CR commercial, what is it, recreational commercial zone, is that, are you saying that other commercial uses besides recreational use would be permitted?

Yeah, I was trying to navigate to that chapter. But yeah, right now, because it's along the highway, and again, there's existing use of that site. It's an RV park, but should the property owner decide to do something different or sell the property, then the code says what you could do with that land. And I believe there are various commercial uses that would be allowed that are kind of like convenience commercial type things that would kind of appeal to someone on a highway.

I just know there's a lot of attachment because that's historic from before I think we were even a city as a recreational zone. I think it's where people used to come out here as a place to recreate on the river. There used to be the swan boats there, I believe. And so as far as turning it into something other than recreational, I don't know why we would want to do that, why we would want to open up AN AREA THAT IS LIKE A HISTORIC AREA.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE ANY OF THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED THERE TODAY BUT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL ALLOWANCE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE. SO ALL THOSE OTHER COMMERCIAL USES THAT'S ALLOWED WOULD CONTINUE. But right now our code says if you go through and get a conditional use, you can put multifamily structures there.

I'm for no housing there. It's right on the river. We already have a lot of problems with polluting our river on 99. I mean there's been a lot of studies and That's one place that has been used as sort of a partnership between private and public for recreation on the river for Whatever they would say time immorandum or whatever and I'm just curious how we can protect that area of the river and

I'm I'm totally opposed to putting housing here.

It's in a floodplain I Think the Planning Commission was wise here again And counselor Hillier I want to circle back cannabis would not be permitted in the CR zone as it's next to the Residential zone okay, just making sure so then yeah I don't know why anybody would want to build a house on a flood in a flood zone.

Thank you

Did you have a question?

Thank you. I do have a question. On the other side, on a developer, what extra cost does this add to a developer when it comes to staff? What cost does this incur if somebody was to try to build something in this zone? We don't know whether they're going to presume, but I would presume that this is going to add cost to the developer by trying to interpret code and modify based on our requests.

Are we strictly speaking to the CR zone? The CR zone, yeah. Oh, okay. I mean, presumably it would be a heavy lift to be able to develop that area anyway. And, yeah, I mean, there would really be – assuming they could achieve and make it pencil because – There's not a lot of area that's even allowed to be developed. So, yes, it would be a very expensive and difficult piece of property.

So this current owner of this land, there will, of course, be communicated that the zoning is going to change. Thank you.

Anything else?

Okay, did you have a few? I think you have 1 more slide. I think just 1. Just wrap up side. Yeah, I mean, if there are any other questions or comments about other. Um, other components of the presentation that we didn't kind of. Kind of focus on.

I just want to chime in again to about my opposition around this. Um. YOU KNOW, AS A SOCIAL WORKER, WHEN WE WORK WITH INDIVIDUALS, WE DO INDIVIDUAL CENTERED PLANNING. WHEN WE WORK WITH COMMUNITIES, WE DO COMMUNITY CENTERED PLANNING. WE DO PLANNING, WE DO COMMUNITY CENTERED PLANNING BECAUSE THERE'S UNIQUE NEEDS THAT EACH OF THOSE ENTITIES HAVE, WHETHER IT'S GEOGRAPHICAL NEEDS, Infrastructure needs just the realities and touch points that people that living in a community understand about their community. That's very difficult to see when you're looking at a map. This is why we do so much community outreach. And this is why we do well with our community. And this is. just the exact opposite of using that kind of wisdom. If we had all assessments and diagnoses like this, you would have a cough, you would have pneumonia, you would have all these different things being put into one category. And to me, with no feedback loop. And to me, it's just one of the dumbest things, frankly, I've seen. This isn't about being nimby or any of that kind of stuff, but having real concerns in a community is part of civic responsibility. AND I FEEL THAT AS PEOPLE BECOME LESS EDUCATED AROUND CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY AND LESS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR OWN DEMOCRACY, THEY BECOME LESS ACTIVE IN A TYPE OF GOVERNMENT SYSTEM THAT REQUIRES ONE TO BE ACTIVE. That's just the Greek girl coming out of me, I think. But I think that it's a really bad move. And just from a diagnostic perspective, it makes absolutely no sense. So I'm totally against this. And, of course, I understand the need for housing.

Anything else?

Nothing from us. Okay.

Got what you need?

Yes. Appreciate the feedback. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Next thing on general business is proposed billing division fee schedule adjustment and update. Samantha Vandegrift, welcome. And Aquila.

Good afternoon. I'm Samantha Vandegrift and I'm the building official here at Tualatin. We are here today to talk about a fee adjustment for the building inspection or the building fees. I have an agenda here. We'll go through an introduction, who we are, what we do, building some of the background on why we are a dedicated fund, and then comparisons to the other jurisdictions. And then some slides that show you kind of where we're at and what we're talking about tonight. So maybe? No. Frank, I'm just going to say next slide. That one. So this presentation is to provide background information and number data to seek guidance from council to increase the fees associated with our building permits. So next slide. Who we are. There are eight of us in the building department right now. We have me and then we have three plans examiner inspectors, a permit coordinator, permit tech, code of compliance officer, and a program coordinator. And we have one open inspector position that we have not filled as of yet. So eight of us currently. What we do. So we are, well, you can see by our numbers, we are very busy. We have over 2,000 permits. This is all for 2025. Um, so, uh, we are, we are quite busy. The, the major compliance that we have is through plan review and inspections. Our inspectors and in plans examiners, uh, carried the load of that, but our support staff is also critical in what we do. Um, they provide, um, processing applications, routing reviews, issuing permits, scheduling inspections, and coordinating finals, um, outside of that, because we also have code enforcement and our program coordinator and our, in our department. THEY WORK ON ANY TIME WE GET CODE CALLS FOR WORK WITHOUT PERMITS. THEY ARE PROGRAM COORDINATED TO MAKE SURE OUR SYSTEM WORKS SO WE ARE ACTUALLY FUNCTIONING AND CAN PROCESS OUR PERMITS AND SHE DOES A LOT IN THAT AREA. THE 2025 ACTIVITY IS LIKE A HIGH POINT, I GUESS. WE ARE A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN WE WERE LAST YEAR. SOME OF THAT IS DUE TO AUTUMN SUNRISE AND LAMB. AUTUMN SUNRISE IS WRAPPING UP THIS FALL, SO OUR PERMITS ARE KIND OF WAINING AND OUR INSPECTIONS ARE GOING DOWN A LITTLE BIT. BUT WE ARE STILL QUITE BUSY. SO WE ALSO HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL Mechanical permits are down a little bit because the state enacted a minor label program for the mechanical so they can go through the state to get those permits rather than coming through Tualatin or the local jurisdiction. So our mechanical revenues are down a little bit too. Background. So as you may or may not know, the building fund works as a special revenue fund within the city. IT'S REQUIRED TO BE DEDICATED FOR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT USE. THE STATE ENACTED THIS MANY MOONS AGO BECAUSE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OR THE BUILDING WORLD IS VOLATILE AND WE NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH A REVENUE SOURCE TO KEEP THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WORKING WHEN WE HAVE THOSE UPS AND FLOWS IN THE ECONOMY. WHEN WE HAVE A DOWN, WE'RE FLOW IN THE ECONOMY, THE BUILDING INSPECTION TENDS TO BE BUSIER BUT WITHOUT THE REVENUE BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE DO SMALLER PROJECTS AND THEY DO THEM THEMSELVES, WHICH CAUSES MORE WORK FOR US, BUT WE DON'T ALSO SEE THE REVENUE THAT ASSOCIATES WITH THAT. AND ESTABLISHING THIS CONTINGENCY FUND OR RESERVE FUND FOR US KEEPS US WORKING DURING THOSE TIMES AND KEEPS THOSE SMALL PROJECTS GOING. 2023, we increased the fees here in Tualatin for the first time in 18 years. We did that with the forethought to right-size our contingency fund and keep up with our cost of living, and it does not appear that we are continuing to do that. So we're here tonight to discuss that. So this slide kind of shows you where we are with our contingency fund versus our ending our revenue balances. This shows the orange line is the 18-month contingency fund. So the state of Oregon has a recommendation of 24 months. And per our policy, our revenue and... RESERVE FUND. RESERVE FUND POLICY, CITY OF TWALTON SETS THAT AT 18 MONTHS. SO THE ORANGE LINE SHOWS WHERE OUR 18-MONTH CONTINGENCY SHOULD BE, AND THEN THE BLUE LINE SHOWS WHERE WE ARE IN REALITY IN OUR ENDING FUND BALANCES. THIS SHOWS OUR REVENUE VERSUS EXPENDITURES OVER THE LAST, WHERE DID WE GO BACK TO? 2021. And you can see that we had a spike in the last two years, and that would be autumn sunrise in those 400 lots and our expansion out at Lamb. This we don't think is sustainable, obviously. It's a one and done for Lamb, and then 400 houses are wrapping up and almost completely built out. So we expect that 23, 24 spike LINE IS KIND OF WHERE WE'LL COME BACK DOWN TO. AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S JUST BELOW WHERE THAT ORANGE LINE SHOULD BE WHERE WE WOULD BE BRINGING IN ENOUGH TO COVER ALL OF OUR EXPENDITURES. SO WE DID A JURISDICTIONAL COMPARISON AND YOU CAN SEE OUR LIST OF EVERYBODY AROUND US AND WHERE WE WOULD FALL AT WITH WHERE OUR FEES ARE NOW AND WHAT THEIR FEES ARE NOW. WE DID WE APPLIED A 10, A 15 AND A 20% INCREASE TO SEE WHERE WE WOULD FALL AT ONCE WE DID THOSE INCREASES. AND WE DID. THIS WOULD BE THE RESIDENTIAL, WHERE OUR FEES ARE. FOR A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THAT 6,011, IT WAS ACTUALLY TAKING OFF RIGHT OFF ONE OF THE AUTUMN SUNRISE HOUSES. THAT WOULD BE THEIR VALUATION OUT THERE. AND WE COMPARED THE WHERE WITH THE INCREASES, THAT IS WHERE WE WOULD END UP AT. SO WE WOULD BE Sherwood would be the only one that had lower fees with us with the 20% increase. And with the 10 and the 15, we would be the lowest ones for that same project. This is for commercial, and the $4,900,000 was one of our industrial remodels that was a bigger one. But again, you can see we are right in the middle of the pack with the 20%, and we are on the very lower end with the 10% and 15% increase. These are numbers. I'm a numbers person, so these were the actual numbers. This one shouldn't have been in here. So these are the costs that we're not currently covered. There was quite a few things where They just weren't addressed yet. So like the investigation fee is supposed to be in there. It's per hour. We don't actually have it listed in our fee estimate. The change of use fee, we get a lot of them where they just want to – they don't want to do anything. They just want to change their use, and we don't have a way to compensate for that now. The certificate of occupancy fee is not for permits that are active right now. The only time we would charge that, we get some that come in and they've lost their CFO or they've done, you know, they're like, well, we want you to do all of the work to establish what the CFO is and put all the, you know, I need to know the construction type and I need to know the occupancy type. And we don't have a mechanism to charge. RECUPERATE ANY OF THOSE ADMIN COSTS IN DOING THAT. AND THEN SOME OF THE OTHERS ARE JUST DIFFERENT ONES THAT WE JUST DON'T HAVE LISTED NOW AND A MECHANISM TO BRING IN THOSE FEES. ADJUSTMENTS AND CONSISTENCY. THESE ARE ONES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE UP. PLAN REVIEW FEES AND THE PER HOUR RATE, THEY ARE DIFFERENT ACROSS ALL THE DIFFERENT ACROSS PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL. WE HAVE HOURLY RATES THAT SOME OF THEM ARE 85, SOME OF THEM ARE 95, SOME OF THEM ARE, YOU KNOW, SO WE WANT TO JUST MAKE THOSE A CONSISTENT RATE. YOUR CONSTITUENTS TO KEEP EVERYTHING STRAIGHT IF EVERYTHING IS CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD. A couple of the other ones, the re-pipe we only charge right now, it's a flat fee for the first floor, and obviously if you're doing more floors, it costs more and it takes more work to do that, so it makes more sense to have a per floor. And then the TCO, the one on the bottom there, right now we have a, it's a $300 flat rate for however many times they want to renew a TCO, a temporary certificate of occupancy, sorry. This is a kind of a built-in incentive for them to actually get their stuff done and get your stuff wrapped up and move on so that we can get your permit all closed up. So next steps, we would like direction to return with an ordinance. But any questions? I know I kind of went through that a little fast, but.

Questions? Council President Pratt.

I guess, well, my first question, I guess, before I, is if we were to do a fee increase, is there a way to do like a COLA adjustment? Yes. So we're not doing this, because we're going to end up, even if we do the highest one, at some point we're just going to do this over and over and over. So my question would be, what would it take to get us to this 18% now, and then could we build in a COLA adjustment so we're trying to keep up with that going forward?

We have one that's in place now that expires in 2028, I believe. So we have a 5% that's built in as of July 1st.

Okay.

But they only allow you to do that for a certain amount of time. Oh, so we'd have to go back anyway. Yep. And I have to notice the state, so I could very definitely notice that so that it continues and we could do it another five years.

Okay.

And then it would just be that small incremental each year, which I've talked to the Home Builders Association before and they – THEY LIKE THE LITTLE INCREASE EVERY YEAR VERSUS... YEAH, EVERYBODY DOES, I THINK. IT'S EASIER TO BUDGET THAT WAY.

SO THEN OF THESE DIFFERENT INCREASES, THE WAY I WOULD BE LOOKING, I MEAN, WE DON'T WANT TO CHARGE MORE THAN WE NEED TO, SO WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO GET US TO WE HAVE THIS 18-MONTH AT LEAST RESERVE? WHAT KIND OF INCREASE WOULD THAT TAKE? DON'S RIGHT BACK THERE.

I would recommend the 20% only because right now we have the... You know it's going to flatten. And we know it's going to flatten. So if we... You kind of do it when you're in the upper years and we've got all of the stuff coming in so that when you have the lower years that you've already built that contingency up.

Okay. That's helpful. I'm mulling this over right now.

Okay.

So the 20% from what we have in the future, we'll just kind of think of a COLA. Is that what you were saying, Councillor Pratt?

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, you were saying?

You're saying put in what would increase the survival of that COLA.

Get us to a place where we're in... Yes. Yes.

sort of not surviving but like balanced balanced and then cola after that yeah and i just think of like well going through covet i mean because we had reserves we our city was in better shape than a lot of other cities so those reserves are very important to have yeah and that will be 20 that's what you're saying to get us to that balance

Right. But I believe even with a 20% increase, we're not going to get immediately to that 18-month reserve, right? It'll take us a few years.

It'll take us a few years, correct.

Yeah.

Council Brooks.

My question has to do with... what it looks like for somebody that just wants to do a small project. I know that there's things across the board for general building out. And I have concerns with the downturn in the economy if it costs a lot to pull a permit that somebody won't pull a permit. or that will put them in a position that they can't afford something that they need. So I'm just curious what the small permits average and what we're talking about as far as change.

So I'm going to go back. I know this is the numbers page. I don't know if that was in there. I can't see it. I know. I'm sorry. The numbers are really tiny. But with the 20% increase, you're looking at a building permit would be $6,400. So that's with a valuation of $600,000. So if you have an addition that's going in, they're usually maybe $100,000. So you're looking less than $1,000 for that type of a permit. So it's not – I mean, it scales, right? So the smaller the –

VALUATION OF THE PROJECT THAT THEY'RE DOING YOU'RE YOU WOULD STILL ONLY BE LIKE A THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR YOUR PERMIT BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE SHOWING UP THERE IS A BRAND-NEW HOUSE RIGHT RIGHT YEAH SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS MORE ABOUT PROJECTS LIKE YOU STUFF TO PULL A BUILDING PERMIT IF YOU'RE GONNA LIKE ADD A DESK OR A FENCE SO MY QUESTION IS MORE ABOUT HOW CAN WE REDUCE THOSE FEES AND and cover the balance of it in larger permit pulse so that we don't run into situations where people want to do their electricity themselves and burn down the neighborhood.

And we don't want that either.

No. I mean, that's why we have these permits. Right. But I don't know what the average cost is right now, so I don't even know if I'm being concerned, but I know just from other news that I am concerned.

Right. So you're looking, if your deck is less than the $20,000 valuation, you're maybe looking at, I would say, less than $300 for a permit. And if you're spending $20,000 for your deck, the $300 isn't, it's usually pretty comparable to what, they're not pricing them out, I guess, for a building permit.

Okay. Yes? WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT WE CAN HELP WITH THAT. BUT THAT'S THE ONLY THING I'VE GOT. THANK YOU.

COUNCILOR GONZALEZ.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS INFORMATION. SO I'M NOT FOR INCREASING ANY KIND OF FEES POSSIBLE. AS WE'RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT INCREASED COSTS IN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING, ALL THIS JUST GETS PUSHED DOWN THE LINE. BUT WITH THAT SAID, BASED ON YOUR GRAPH, We had autumn sunrise in land, which created a spike for 2025 on production, correct?

Correct.

And so as you're going, as you're seeing the markets now this year, you're seeing a reduction in permit filing, right? If we give you the 20% to increase, it's going to take a little bit of time to build that up, that balance, because people have to file permits to pay those fees, and you're going to get that, so on and so forth. As we're looking to the future, and we're looking at development opportunities, I hear that we're landlocked. I hear that there isn't a lot of new development that we really can build. And so I've always felt that government shouldn't be an employer. It should be an employer of needs only. So we're short one person, correct, in your department. And how are we doing with keeping up with the production work?

We're busy. And I keep taking the temperature of my staff because we are pretty busy.

Like overtime busy? Some. 40 hours?

Yep, some. I have one. My inspector three, my plans examiner three, he is all things LAM right now. So he has, they submitted like over the top of each other. So we had multiple projects all going at one time.

So it's heavy right now, totally understood.

Yep.

As we go into the future, LAM's out of the way, Adam Sunrise built. We don't know what's coming other than residential permit filing, okay?

And that's why I haven't filled that third, that other position is autumn sunrises is wrapping up this fall and I'm kind of waiting to see where everything shakes out.

So you're trying to build the reserves now in this high market because people are finding totally understandable. Okay. I just, and I, I see that you show graphs of our surrounding cities as well, which is great. I sometimes care what other cities do. Sometimes I don't care. That's just my opinion. It's simply because Westland is super expensive. Why? I have no idea. I know they have their own budget. And then as you go through your graphs, there's different cities that have different cost of operations, different staffing models. So sometimes I just don't like to see that Tigard is more expensive than, well, Beaverton is more expensive than Tigard, and Westland is more expensive, and Lake Oswego is more expensive. So why can't Tualatin just be low? Why do we have to compete with the other cities? We don't have to. You're managing without one less staff. I would imagine as permits begin to file less because of big development needs, you're going to get back the engineer that's working with landmining. You're going to get it back. But I get it. You're looking towards the future. You want to build some budgets. I'm just worried. The city council here just passed the fee increases across the board on everything last council meeting. And now we have another increase that we're asking for. Why wasn't this fee part of that fee schedule? Just curious.

Because we're a reserve fund and I have to go through a different process.

Cool. Okay. Thank you for that. So I'm just concerned. I know that 20% is a good graph because 2025 was so busy, but things are starting to peter down. We're going to build budget. I just worry that we're trying to build affordable housing. We're trying to build all these things to cost less, but we cost. You staff cost money. That gets pushed down to the consumer.

Yeah, it's a hard balancing act. It's a hard balance. It is.

And when we're talking about landlocked, that we don't have big developments coming in, this is now just to all the constituents living in a nice, affordable city with inexpensive government. That sounds really good to me. Yes. But that's not the reality that you're facing. You need to found budgets. I'm torn, because I am not about increasing any kind of fees, but I understand the business has to be handled. So this is probably one that I may consider either at a moderate size or to keep pace for what you're trying to do in your department. So thank you. It wasn't really a question. It was just rambling. So thank you.

So going forward, yeah, we've all heard that, you know, that we're kind of, well, we will have development, though, commercial on 124th in the future.

We do have some. We have some warehouses. We have some, well, we have the Salt Creek is.

Right, okay.

But for the building department, we don't know. We don't know yet what they're going to do out there.

And when. Yeah. Okay. And when. Yeah. But even if that weren't to happen for a while, what I think I'm hearing you say is that you also have people, because we live, you know, our houses, people add things and remodel because we don't want to move and we like our nice backyards, which doesn't come with new construction anymore. Right. So you'll still be busy. But then each year when you do budgeting, you look, you kind of project, right, and keep your staffing to try to meet that.

That's right.

Okay. Yep. I just wanted to clarify and make sure I understood.

Other questions or comments? Looking at your graphs, I'm the one guy who's focusing on the 15% increase because I do look at other cities. I do listen to other mayors. I am at all these economic development forums. Sherwood is going to have a big growth here pretty soon once they get through all the core challenges of the UGB. So I want to be competitive right where they are in terms of residential. Because if someone's looking at Sherwood, they're going to look at Tualatin. They're going to look at Wilsonville as far as housing. In the commercial zone, I do not want to be in front of Gresham. Gresham is a financial juggernaut right now. They have got so much development occurring out there because they're seen as affordable, well-located, and a lot of focus on them with high tech. Uh, that's the kind of thing I want to be slightly below them to make us attractive more than Gresham. Um, Beaverton, I'm not worried as much about because they don't have the land to do the kind of things that we can do. But Gresham is a big compared to us as is happy Valley. Um, So that's my take is I would be in the middle for a 15% increase. The residential zone, it gets us basically where Sherwood is, and a 15% increase keeps us competitive to Happy Valley and Gresham because a lot of love is going their way in terms of development.

I would support that, too. I was looking at that as well. I mean, I know 20% seems to get us there in balance, but I feel like... In this case, I also want to be in a way where people are we're attracting Development here as well and not being too restricted or too expensive enough to pay for your Salaries and your staff and be comfortable but not to the point where we're Instead of bringing people in or pushing people Because first prep

I think you've found a good balance where we're, you know, we're not, we're trying to keep the fees down for people as much as we can, but we're trying to cover our costs too, so it's a good balance to me.

And part of the proposal is to fix all the things, the loopholes, the missing holes you found, you're going to fix that too? Yes. Yes. All right. So how do people feel about 15%? Well, we're now voting on the 15% to send you a direction of coming back with a 15% increase.

Then are you going to include the continuation of the COLA sort of format?

Yeah.

Okay.

Is that what you need?

That's what I needed.

All right. Great.

Thank you.

Have a good evening. Our last item on general business is consideration of the recommendations from the council committee on advisory appointments. That's Councilors Reyes and Pratt.

Thank you, Mayor. A couple, not a couple weeks ago, probably some time ago, we interviewed two awesome students that are going to join our committees. And as always, very proud of these young generation and young people out there. They're like super smart, way better than I was at their age. So I'm very proud to have interviewed them and meet them and learn a little bit more about our community.

And so we'd like to recommend Jane Norris as our student representative on the Library Advisory Committee and Keziah O'Toole as the student representative on our Arts Advisory Committee. So I move that we... ADOPT THESE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.

SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON CITIZEN APPOINTMENTS. CITIZEN APPOINTMENTS? RESIDENT APPOINTMENTS? THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON ADVISORY APPOINTMENTS, SORRY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THOSE MOTIONS? I THINK WE'VE GOT TO GO HEAD BY HEAD HERE. COUNCIL HILLIER.

AYE.

COUNCIL REYES.

YES.

COUNCIL GONZALES. YES. COUNCIL BROOKS.

AYE.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRATT.

AYE.

CHAIR VOTES AYE. IT'S UNANIMOUS. So can we do the science and technology on August 10th? We've got room if the recipient comes.

I got an email from him saying, he said, I apologize dearly for not showing up. A family member has been in the hospital for the last few days and my whole schedule collapsed and asked if he could come on the 10th.

Okay. Yep. All right. We had no items removed from consent. Council Communications, Council President Pratt.

I just would like to see if anybody else would be interested. I've been hearing so much in the community about this issue with the e-bikes and other motorized vehicles. And I've talked to the police department, a couple of the officers and the chief, and they have some big concerns. So I would really like a work session and include the police and what they're seeing as part of that.

Isn't that what Beth was basically asking for?

Yes, that's what she was asking for. But it's a big issue.

Can I just clarify, and I totally agree it is a big issue, she was asking for a work session once they get their community forum. Yeah, after October 27th. Okay, okay, okay.

Yeah, no, what Beth was asking for, but I would like input from the police along with their presentation.

That's great. The police are on their coalition and working with them so that, yeah, you can include them as well.

Anybody else want to hear about it? Okay, thank you.

OTHER COUNCIL COMMENTS?

THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO LAST MEETING IT WAS DISCUSSED THE MAC AND I WAS ASSIGNED AT THE BACKUP AND SO I'LL HAVE A MEETING WITH JONATHAN HERE ON AUGUST 5TH AND I WILL PLAN ON ATTENDING ALL MEETINGS EVEN IF I'M NOT THE VOTING DELEGATE. I'LL BE AT ALL MEETINGS. THANK YOU.

ANYTHING ELSE?

I move to adjourn. Watch this. Second.

I have a motion and a second to adjourn this meeting for this evening. Any discussion on those motions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. Good night. Have a very good evening.