STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.
The Independence City Council held its regular meeting on Tuesday, September 8, 2026 at 6:30 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kate Schwarzler and included approval of previous minutes, public comments, various reports, and action on several resolutions including LED streetlight conversion, budget amendments, grant applications, a municipal judge agreement, recreational immunity opt-in, and legislative priorities. All councilors were present: Evan Sorce, Dawn Roden, Bill Boisvert, Kathy Martin-Willis, and Shannon Corr.
7.1 Pacific Power LED Streetlight Conversion Public Works Director Dustin Lueckenotte presented a proposal to convert approximately 407 Pacific Power-owned streetlights to LED as a single project. The City would initially pay about $85,000, with ~$75,000 reimbursed by the Energy Trust of Oregon, leaving a net cost of ~$10,000. The conversion qualifies the City for a lower rate, resulting in estimated annual savings of ~$13,000, recouping the net cost in about nine months. Long-term savings over 40 years were noted at up to $500,000. Funding would come from the Transportation Fund contingency, separate from the General Fund. Council discussed the temporary use of contingency funds and the reimbursement timeline. Pacific Power will continue to own and maintain the converted lights. Action: Motion to approve the project and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. Passed 5-0.
7.2 Proposed Resolution 26-1660 (Budget Amendment) Finance Director Amanda Carey explained the need to transfer $85,841 from the Transportation Fund contingency to a capital expenditure line item to pay for the streetlight project. Reimbursement from Energy Trust would be restored to contingency later. The transfer does not affect the General Fund. Action: Motion to approve Resolution 26-1660. Passed 5-0.
7.3 Proposed Resolution 26-1659 (Regional Infrastructure Fund Grant – Wetlands) Assistant City Manager Shawn Irvine presented a grant application for a feasibility study on wetland mitigation challenges that limit housing and industrial development. The study would evaluate regional solutions, including mitigation banking, in coordination with Monmouth, Polk County, Dallas, and others. No City matching funds required; no obligation to implement recommendations. Council discussed the impact on development readiness, staff capacity, and the benefits of a regional approach. Action: Motion to approve Resolution 26-1659. Passed 4-1 (Councilor Roden opposed). Councilor Roden expressed concern about focusing on land outside current city limits rather than developing existing land.
7.4 Proposed Resolution 26-1662 (Regional Infrastructure Fund Grant – Habitat for Humanity) Assistant City Manager Irvine presented a second grant application for infrastructure improvements (cul-de-sac, water/sewer) supporting Habitat for Humanity's planned 10-unit townhome development on 7th Street. The grant would supplement a CDBG application. Council expressed support for affordable housing and creative use of regional funds. Action: Motion to approve Resolution 26-1662. Passed 5-0.
7.5 Agreement for Municipal Judge Services City Manager Kenna West presented an updated agreement with Judge Butterfield, increasing monthly compensation from $750 to $1,000 (a $250 increase) plus a one-time $3,000 payment to account for the delayed adjustment. The increase is due to increased court activity (over 100 cases on docket for several consecutive months, more than pre-COVID). Funded through the separate Court Fund. Council discussed the caseload increase. Action: Motion to authorize execution of the agreement. Passed 4-1 (Councilor Roden opposed). Councilor Roden stated she did not support the retroactive $3,000 payment.
7.6 Executive Session The Council recessed at 7:22 PM to meet in executive session pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(e) for deliberations on real property transactions. The session was closed to the public, with media representatives allowed.
7.7 Potential Action from Executive Session The Council returned at 7:47 PM. No action was necessary based on the executive session.
7.8 Proposed Resolution 26-1661 (Volunteer Policy and Recreational Immunity) City Attorney Greg Goebel presented information on recreational and discretionary immunity. The proposed resolution opts the City into expanded recreational immunity protections (addressing a loophole from a court case, fixed by 2024/2025 legislation). A draft parks volunteer policy was discussed but not part of the resolution; additional work is needed on labor agreements, insurance, oversight, and equipment before a volunteer program can be implemented. The resolution only covers the expanded recreational immunity. Action: Motion to adopt Resolution 26-1661. Passed 5-0. Councilor Roden expressed concern about making decisions without complete financial information on insurance costs and savings, but it was clarified the resolution has no expected fiscal impact.
7.9 League of Oregon Cities (LOC) Legislative Priorities Having discussed the LOC legislative priority ballot at a prior work session, the Council considered the motion to submit the ballot. Action: Motion to authorize the City Manager to submit the City's LOC Legislative Priority Ballot with five issues: Public Meeting Law Clarity, Land Availability and Land Use Streamlining, Strengthening Economic and Workforce Development, Infrastructure Funding, and Ratepayer Assistance. Passed 5-0.
Good evening. We are in September already. Welcome to our September eighth work session. Mark and we do how source. Counselor Mark Willis. Here, Councillor Cornell. Here. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Madam Aaron. Good evening, Council. I'm going to present a short little presentation on special districts. You guys don't have it displayed in front of you, but you guys should have that in your hand out. So for the special district formation, just provide a high-level overview of the process. There's some hearings that are done on it. And the county issues a final order, either setting up the district or dismissing the petition. I guess one thing to know there, you'll note at the bottom. Normally this process takes years. So this wouldn't be something that's set up overnight. There's a lot of work that goes into the petition before it's even circulated among the voters. And we'll go over that a little bit. So kind of looking at this slide, um, some few things to consider when uh you know anyone's contemplating creating a district. Um so first is going to be where is it going to be at? You know, where is this going to overlap with the cities? Um, what is the service that's going to be provided? What similar services are okay? Um no duplication generally, so you can't you wouldn't have overlapping districts that provide similar services. Um counties again, these are technically managed by the counties, they're normally self-governing, but the county in which most of the areas located would be the one that manages the special district. So like Polkfire District One is one example. So most of it's located in Bolt County, although the lab and Marion County, but it's overseen by Bull County. Um principal acts. So that's referenced in the memo. So kind of what the principal act is, is each special district has their own set of statutes that applies to that district. So when you're talking about the principal acts for that district, it'd be that set of statutes. Um special districts generally, they're found under ORS 198 who discusses the formation process, but each district has their own chapter dedicated to how they how they form how they're drawn. So normally how these start again, these are led by citizens, but a lot of legwork is done before even the petition is circulated. Um so they normally start with the citizen committee. So again, you get a an interest group or a group of people to come together and say, hey, we were think about getting this set up. Um, you know, a lot of legwork goes into, you know, what I guess what kind of district are we looking to set up, who's going to be serviced by it, um, what is the community support? But again, most of these districts are funded by a levy for their operations. So figuring out what what is the likelihood that that passes? Uh next step, a lot of public education outreach. So again, kind of seeing, hey, what's the level of community interest in getting this set up? Um, you know, what you know, the publishing fact sheet, setting up social media, those kind of things uh all go into it before the process really starts. Yeah.