Yes.

Mayor Buck?

Here.

Councilor Corrigan.

Here.

Councilor Raff?

Here.

Counselor Afkin.

Here.

Counselor Maboop.

Yeah.

Councilor Wenlin.

Here.

And Councilor Verdick is excused.

Thank you very much.

Now everyone, will you please stand, remove your hats and join us in the pledge.

I pledge to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which 180.

Under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, now is the time on the agenda for public comment.

If you are here to provide public comment and have not already done so, please fill out one of the white requests to provide public comment forms on the back table and hand it to Ms.

Hawkins.

But we have a Stephanie Stephanie Halleck.

Good afternoon.

Do I need to push a button?

Just go ahead.

No, you'll be fine.

Just to go ahead and introduce yourself.

And well, good afternoon, Mayor Buck and members of the council.

Um I'm Stephanie Halleck, and I'm president of the Board of Friends of Lusher Farm.

And thank you for your ongoing support of Lusher Farm and for the opportunity to speak to you today as you consider your priorities for 2026.

As you may know, the hundred plus acres of Lusher properties are all zoned exclusive farm use.

This means that most of the activities and programs under the purview of the parks and rec department are currently illegal under Oregon's land use laws and have been for some time.

An official complaint was filed in 2022, and the city is now poised to submit a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change application to Clackamas County.

Without a fix by Clackamas County, all non-commercial agricultural activities at Lusher must cease.

Approval of meeting minutes uh from November 18th, December 2nd, and December 16th.

Uh ordinance 2971, and we have three resolutions.

26-04, 26-07, 26-11, and then a public improvement contract for work order 355.

Is there a motion to adopt the consent agenda?

Move to adopt the consent agenda.

Second.

Right, motion been made by Councilor RAF and seconded by Councilor Corrigan.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, that motion passes six uh zero.

I oh wanted to say something before we start the meeting.

So you don't want to wait till for council business.

It's nothing we still do, but this is fine.

It's just recognizing before the study session.

Yeah.

Okay, before the study session.

Okay.

Um the uh moving on to council business.

We have item 7.1.

This is ordinance.

Um this is uh approval of ordinance two nine six four.

These are and findings for the home occupation code amendments.

This was LU 25-002.

Um is there a motion to enact ordinance two nine six four and adopt findings for LU25-002.

I'll move to enact ordinance 2964 and adopt findings for LU 2500 two.

Nine.

Is there a second?

Okay, the motion has been made by Councilor Row.

Council seconded by Counselor Poop.

Uh any discussion.

All right.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Abstaining.

Okay, one abstention.

Uh any opposed?

No.

Okay, so we have uh four ayes.

Uh nay from Councillor Corgan and abstention from Councillor Wenland.

All right.

Um that motion passes.

Okay.

Um next we have uh item 7.2.

Uh this is resolution 26 08.

This is the South Shore Fire Station referral for the May 19th, 2026 election.

And we have assistant fire chief Chris Artman here to talk to us about this.

Good afternoon, Chief.

Good afternoon, Mayor Buck, City Council.

Owen here.

I am here tonight, uh, this afternoon about resolution 2608.

Two weeks ago, we brought the conceptual design for the South Shore Fire Station project and the final estimated bond amount at 20.6 million dollars.

And today, staff recommends adoption of resolution 26-08.

If adopted, it's important to note that the last day for submission in county voters pamphlet for uh support or opposition is on the 23rd, and staff cannot assist with any of those submittals.

And during the time between now and the bond, staff will continue with community engagement, um, presenting to community advisory groups, uh, continuing to have open houses, and we'll focus on the South Shore fire station deficiencies and also just general knowledge about the fire department operations.

Finally, in conclusion, staff recommends that you adopt resolution 26-08.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you.

I want to recognize all of uh your good work and leadership carrying this project forward now from the start.

You know, it's been quite a process with the South Shore Fire Station Task Force.

Thank uh Councillor Corgan for representing us on that effort and all the community members uh who participated under your guidance and in helping us reach um this um uh this uh solution that's uh before us today in terms of knowing that we have to replace this uh station.

Um it's uh you know we're seeing despite all the the great support that it's it's um it's a good thing that we took the time to really look at what all of our options are.

Is this the right location?

Is replacing the station the right action as opposed to remodeling the station or moving the location or simply not even having the station.

So I just want to thank you and um all the community members who have participated so that we can move this referral to the ballot forward with great confidence knowing that this is the correct solution, that rebuilding this fire station is the right move for the uh safety and security of the community for the welfare of the men and women who work uh for the fire station and for the good uh protection of all the folks in in um in in Lake Oswego.

Uh so thank you.

Thank you.

Comments, anyone?

Can I make a motion?

Yes, please.

I would enthusiastically move to adopt resolution 26-08.

Second, yeah.

Okay, the motion was made by Councillor Winland and seconded by Councilor Corgan.

Any discussion I just want to make sure that we duplicate all the comments that our mayor made uh in orchestration of uh loud volume from all of us.

Um I think we all agree.

Um you eloquently put it all together, but I think everyone needs to be um uh enthusiastic about this.

Uh and I have to tell just uh he's in the audience tonight.

Um uh councillor uh Jeff Goodman who served and has consistently served this community in so many ways, uh including city council uh for eight years.

And um I can tell you this much.

If Jeff approves this, uh everyone should approve this because it has been thoroughly vetted to no end.

Um it is uh uh it gets his seal of approval, and I think it's uh well worth the um the effort that uh just for Jeff, we should all vote.

Uh yes, so anyway, along with everybody else, but I just wanted to call out Jeff.

Thank you, Councillor Will.

Counselor Rabb.

That's good.

That's great.

Um I do want to reiterate something that I mentioned in the last council meeting, which is progress has costs, right?

And um I think that there's it's hard, I think it's hard to find people that would say no to a no to a fire station.

I'm sure there are people though, and like us we go who don't want to who don't want to go to bond, don't want to increase their taxes by what, like three dollars um per square foot.

But uh I just want the community to understand that um and reiterate that we're here to do a job, and that job is to make our community better and safer and more fun in a place that people want to move to and people want a place where people want to raise their families, we want to increase diversity.

You know, we have all these really lofty goals and we're as we go into goal setting.

Um all those things that we want to do that you've asked for come with cost and then comes with trade-offs.

Sometimes they're cutting down trees, sometimes they are uh taking over land, sometimes they are increasing how much money you have to pay in taxes.

But that's we live in the greatest city in the state of Oregon, and it comes with those costs.

And so we're here to trust us.

We're managing your money very well and very tightly.

We manage it like our it's our own, and and we're trying to do great things with it, and just understand that um not everything everyone's gonna agree with, but we're doing the right thing.

So thank you, thank you, Councilor Raph.

Counselor Boop.

Yeah, no, I just uh like my friend.

If Jeff approves something, it means no, yeah, because Jeff would say how do you do it and what add the costs and everything.

So I'm saying it just to say thank you to Jeff Goodman for your service to this great community.

But yeah, I mean, we have Chris Dirk, like honestly, you folks.

I'm not talking about Kristen.

She knows how I feel about her, how great she is and everything she's doing.

But Chris has been also someone who really like he didn't take a moment every single day.

It's about this thing.

And we of course our colleague and all the member of the task force.

But uh what we should know is global warming is not something we can that's no longer a tale.

It's something we've seen what happened in California, we've seen some in many places in the world and in America.

People are losing their homes to fire lives and everything.

So this is uh honestly something that I know we are in a democracy, but they should have said, oh, council just pass a resolution and redo the bond.

But we are in a democracy, we have to go through the process.

But everyone, everywhere you go, you should tell people that this is of a seminal importance to support this thing.

In Lakos we go lives are saved because of the fast responses we have from North.

And you know, we as an occurrencies that can we can witness every single day.

So 100% likely say we support this.

We have to campaign hard every single day for this one not to pass, even 70% is a loss.

It should be in the 19 percentile, like 90% of Lake Oswego should support this thing and we move on.

Thank you.

Send the bar high.

Yeah, 90%.

I told you 70 for the roundabout.

Yes, well, yeah, so 90 percent.

Well, I want to thank the the community group under uh Chris Durkey's leadership that has now already formed to support this bond, even before we uh referred it to the ballot, which is great and really speaks to the community uh support um that is present uh to ensure this project goes forward.

Uh Councilor Corgan.

So there's not much I can add except for I really do deeply appreciate everybody who contributed to this.

This has been kind of a long-term effort.

Um, but what I'm hoping that we will be able to communicate to to the community is that over time we have slowly been developing a big hole in our safety net, and we are very wise to do this now.

It will be a lot less expensive than it could be coming up, and we're gonna be a lot safer for it.

So I hope we get the word out, and thank you everybody for all your efforts.

Thank you, Councilor Corgan.

Okay.

Right to vote.

Yeah, okay.

All those all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, motion passes 6-0.

Chief, thank you very much.

Thank you.

On to May.

On to May.

Okay.

Next we have a study session on the Oregon housing needs analysis update.

Invite uh Eric Olsen, our long-range planning manager.

Uh, who is here with the DLCD housing policy analyst.

Yes, here he is.

Uh Samuel Goldberg.

Good afternoon to you both.

Good to have you here.

Um, Mr.

Olson.

Uh, I just want to be sure you understand that this could be the first meeting we can complete in under an hour.

So we've never done that in the six years.

No, we have had we done it.

Well, I did want to.

You've been missing a lot of things.

No, I didn't want as a president mine was 40.

You got 30.

You got under an hour?

Yeah.

30 so 40 minutes.

Yeah.

We'll see what you we'll see what your appetite for questions is on this topic.

Okay.

After everyone in Costco Pine.

Okay.

Okay.

We'll keep it short.

We will.

Um, but you know, this is of significance here.

So we really want to bring it to you.

Um in case uh, you know, I I guess I'll just give a uh high-level overview, really quick, some opening comments before Samuel goes into a little bit more detail.

Um, but really wanted to give you an update on the new Oregon housing needs analysis sort of statewide system.

Um it's different than the system that we used for our 2023 housing needs analysis, and there are some implications there.

So um we're just kind of now, at least as a city, um, me personally, I'm just starting to now kind of personally understand the implications of how this impacts us in terms of our housing needs projections and allocations um for the city itself.

Uh the methodology for this new system was passed in late 2024, and the rules themselves are passed late last year.

Um so it is pretty new information and really want to bring this to you um primarily because we have so many major projects, um, really two major projects with the rezoning and the code audit coming up in the coming years, really prior to the next time we will be updating our housing needs analysis, but um because of the sort of changing landscape when it comes to this framework.

Um, I really wanted to present this information to you before we got underway with those projects, just because um there will be some significant changes to those predictions.

So we adopted you know our our HA prior to these new statewide changes.

We're in kind of a unique position where our 2023 HA, um, you know, we had this projection of anticipated need for 20, or I'm sorry, 2,000 uh units over the course of a 20-year time frame.

At that time, we knew that that projection was extremely low.

It was essentially taking what we knew, you know, for the last few years was a essentially a 1% growth rate per year and saying we'll grow 1% over the course of 20 years.

So actually within the HA, we had a footnote that noted that, you know, hey, this seems quite low.

You know, we we should take this with a grain of salt more or less.

Um so you know, essentially um, you know, the numbers that um are likely to impact us in our you know next revision of our HA, which is required every six years.

So we're gonna be required to do this again in 2029.

And just kind of thinking about long range planning.

These things take place over the course of long you know ranges of of time.

So um really 2029 is not too far from now.

It's only three years.

Um it's only been three years since we did our H A.

So this is a good time to talk about this.

Um, but you know, that's something that we should start thinking about now, how these numbers will change.

Um essentially, you know, Samuel will go into a little bit more um detail about this, but uh, you know, just in in short, our projection of housing need as a city is likely to more than double based on what we had in the 2023 HA.

So instead of 2,000 units over the course of 20 years, it's gonna look like more more like 48 or 4800, 4,850 units over the course of 20 years.

So that's currently kind of what our projection is for 2026.

That's something that will be updated and changed on a regular basis um with the new framework that um the state is putting in place.

Um but that's kind of the high-level overview of how this impacts us, and there are some mechanics as to how you know that sort of ended up being the case that Samuel will explain, but that's the sort of big picture for you.

Uh thank you, uh Eric.

And uh thank you, uh Mayor and and counsel for the record, Samuel Goldberg, uh housing policy analyst with the Department of Land Conservation and Development, or DLC D.

Uh, I'm pleased to be here to talk about uh give a real high-level overview of the Oregon housing needs analysis and then get into that allocation and explain why it's so different.

Uh so very briefly, um, what is ONA?

It's got three stages, right?

So, first, there is the new statewide methodology for establishing housing need for all cities uh in the state, um, particularly cities over 10,000 and in the the metro area um cities every six years are going to have to take um steps to uh meet those housing needs and also affirmatively furthering for further fair housing.

Um, of course, that was the housing production strategy that uh Lake Oswego adopted in the end of 2024.

And uh from there uh there will be uh several new obligations.

So it's it's a real complex tree of new processes uh that that happen to make sure that every city in the state is uh meeting their their housing needs.

Uh and to get to that housing target, there's really three uh agencies involved.

That's the Department of Administrative Services, they run the uh methodology and they develop those housing production targets, and the inputs to that come from um Oregon housing and community services and uh DLCD.

And then OHCS uh Oregon Housing and Community Services are the ones that are responsible for um tracking that that permitted and produced.

So the the uh city now submits permitted and produced data every year and uh makes we can we can track year by year uh how close the city is to reaching those goals that are established by the Department of Administrative Services.

Okay, so let's get right into uh how ONA has changed the the nature of housing planning in the state.

So we now have a calculation of housing needs uh that accounts for things like underproduction, homelessness, population growth, and second and vacation homes.

Um prior to this uh housing need was uh developed at a very local basis, and it was very much on that projected population growth figure.

Uh it didn't account for underproduction, it didn't account for homelessness.

And so you see over a period of time a bigger and bigger gap between what cities think they need on paper and what they actually need.

Uh we the ONA also establishes uh these processes, these planning processes on a regular timeline now.

Previously, there was no regular timeline for cities to adopt uh housing needs analysis.

Uh and now, as I mentioned, cities in the Portland Metro are adopting them every six years.

Uh follow-through actions to actually explain what you're gonna do to meet those needs.

That's the housing production strategy part.

Um realistic estimates of long-term and near-term residential capacity.

So that's a real change to the uh how we do the housing uh capacity analysis, which is the new name for housing needs analysis that you'll hear me use.

Um so that's things like what you will find out about in your next planning cycle, the development ready lands um process, which is not just how much square footage or or or acreage do you have to build housing, but um, what's actually ready to be serviced by utilities, what's uh you know, easily able, realistically able to be developed in over a uh a certain period of time.

Um and then uh cities will amend urban growth boundaries outside of metro, cities will amend urban growth boundaries more smoothly.

Uh and uh there's an urban reserve process to for uh cities to plan for their for the future.

Within Metro, uh nothing is really changed.

This is still based on the Metro growth report that is done every six years.

However, these types of deficits are a good factual basis that Metro can use to determine residential need.

Uh so as you can see through what I've laid out, there's this big uh process now from the point of allocation all the way to uh the the housing production strategy and uh housing acceleration, uh which is a new process to make sure that cities are staying on track with the actions that they've committed to in the housing production process.

Okay, so I promised we will get to the uh allocation.

What is what is uh the allocation?

Why is it so different?

So uh the big change process-wise, is that rather than the population research uh center at uh Portland State University giving a population growth number directly to the cities, which then becomes a statement of housing need, um, instead it now goes to the state.

And then the state looks at those that need on a regional level and divides it up among cities based on a number of factors.

So within Metro, uh that is based on um population growth, which is again that's what it has always been uh really based on.

Demographic change, so that's things like as uh population or as uh members of the community get older, uh, you know, maybe they need less fewer units, or as uh as people age from childhood into adulthood, they end up living on their, you know, going out and living on their own.

Um so there's an increase in uh residential demand, even if there's not an increase in population per se.

Um so that that kind of demographic change that that feeds into the uh allocation.

Second and vacation homes, I I already mentioned, and so that counts towards that underproduction number, and then the current rate of homelessness.

That was not something that was uh counted in previous um calculations of need uh, but will now be accounted for.

And so you can see that that figure which came from DAS's allocation report, that's the the grand total for the metro region over 20 years uh is 188,276 units.

And then that is divided among all of the cities in Metro and the unincorporated uh urban areas in Metro based on a couple different things.

So there was the population growth uh that I already talked about, all those factors that I already talked about.

But then there's some additional weights that go into determining who gets what.

Uh job access by transit.

So in other parts of the state outside of Metro, that's a uh what what's counted is the employment share of a given region.

Um so a particular city has 50% of the the employment for their given area.

They're they are uh you know being asked to have a different uh you know a higher amount of that housing production target because we want people to live closer to where they work, right?

Um in Metro, uniquely it's based on this job access by transit.

So the uh that red boundary is the uh transit access or zone um and uh within that zone and based on the number of employed residents, uh particular tracts get get higher allocation.

Um and then the big one, and this is the real reason that it's so much higher, is that Metro has what's called inverse weighting, uh, which is that cities that have historically underproduced market rate or affordable housing are responsible for a greater proportionate share of housing on under production.

So if uh neighboring city has taken on more of the share of market rate and affordable production based on what has been produced before, uh then the idea is that we and there's an allocation that will balance that out.

Um so to make up for for previous uh underproduction.

Um on top of that, I want to also uh I want you to also pay attention to the fact that there's a 20-year total and a one-year total.

So the one year uh housing target is 322 uh for this for this most recent uh methodology, and the 20-year is 4,850.

If you divided 4,850 by 20, uh it would be, I think it's like 244.

And so the reason for that discrepancy is that we were directed uh by the governor's office to wait underproduction to basically front load underproduction on the beginning of that, or you know, early on in that 20-year cycle.

So the one year target goes down progressively uh throughout the the 20 years as the underproduction is made up for.

Um then from do you want questions now or at the end?

Yeah.

Can we wait till that?

Up to you.

I think we can answer some questions along the way.

Can we can we just wait to the end if that's okay?

This is I am about at the end.

So okay, so what is still within the uh the city's uh purview?

You know, what is what is Eric going to be working on uh in the next housing production cycle?

So from that target that the state uh delivers, uh the city then is still responsible for developing what's called a contextualized housing need.

And so they will dig deeper into those numbers, talk to the community doing community engagement, and figure out you know what more uh can we can we dig into this?

How does this translate into types and characteristics of housing and and what's actually needed and where?

Um it there will additionally be some assessments about you know affirmatively furthering fair housing and uh you know assessing past discriminatory actions and and and how to overcome that and then taking that into the next housing production strategy.

Uh so that brings me to the end of my slides.

Uh and I'm sure that you all have questions.

I'm happy to uh move backwards to any slides uh if we want to go through.

Thank you for the succinct presentation.

Yeah, okay.

Thanks for your patience, Counselor Afkin.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Can we go back to page 10?

I don't have the numbers.

On the bottom.

Nine.

Oh, there it is.

Okay.

Yes.

Nine, nine.

Thank you.

Uh this question may be for uh Mr.

Olson or or you.

But I think the first one is for Mr.

Olson.

You guys were talking about uh this has changed the equation such that the outcome is different.

I don't remember the outcome from the previous studies we have done here.

It says 4,850 in 20 years.

What was our number previously?

So our our previous number again, it was based on a very different projection over 20 years in terms of population growth.

Um, but our previous are honestly it's our it's under our current housing needs analysis is about 2,000.

So it's 1,968.

Um and again, that was based on a projection that we would grow within 20 years, the same amount that we were at that time growing within just one year.

So at that time, we said, hey, this doesn't seem right.

And that's what we heard from you at the city council, the planning commission, the public.

I mean, we we heard that from a lot of different places at that time.

So in a lot of ways, this reflects a lot more of what we understand to be the context of housing need within the city.

Um that makes sense.

Next question.

When we say first year, when does the clock start?

Good no, I think this is based on a dashboard that's going to be updated uh on a yearly basis.

Um so it will lock in as a factual basis when the next housing capacity analysis is adopted.

So for the purposes of your current when, which is when 2029.

Um so for this for this planning cycle, the the factual basis is still your adopted housing needs analysis, which has the that 1,968 units.

Um I think it's important that we are that the city is looking forward to uh you know this this higher need that that the city has.

Yeah, I don't want us to get to a place in you know 2029 where we say, I mean, obviously we're looking at a 20-year cycle, but if we think that we have all of our housing needs accommodated, and then we we redo our housing needs analysis and all of a sudden it's twice as high or more, you know, I I don't want that to come as a surprise.

So I'm kind of trying to get out ahead of that right now.

Thank you.

And that was going through my mind as I was listening to the numbers.

I think when we had uh over 2,000 units that we were talking about in the next 20 years, I did the calculation and I said, yeah, we can do that.

But 4850 and front loaded with various specific requirements, that raises a flag for me.

So it may be 2029, but the first year being front loaded, I think we need to stop planning right now.

2029 is when we need to adopt this as a target, right?

So it's really that we would adopt, you know, we would construct those units, you know, if if that were the case again, if if this 4850 remains the case, which it won't.

You know, I think it'll go down because we will produce more housing by then.

Um, but you know, if it were to remain the case, we would need to produce 48,850 units by 2049, is how that would work.

Understood.

But when I look at the AMI's number of units, that is also a challenge to how do we overcome that?

And I'm asking all these questions because we're going into a goal setting on Saturday.

Is there something we need to consider there?

Yeah, I you know, this is certainly going to require a more ambitious effort than you know, the other target would have.

Um, I I one thing I I would point out though is that this is this is always changing.

So, you know, I think we'd had this 2,000 number in our heads for a while from the 23 housing needs analysis, and one of the big sort of um messages I want to relay here is that this is a changing number, and you know, we we still are gonna have that 2023 housing needs analysis, 2,000 um units number that we're kind of beholden to for a little bit, but that's going to change pretty quick.

Um so you know, it's just kind of something to keep in our minds, and even you know, this was um we uh had a dashboard figure that was produced for us in 2025.

Um, and you know, we produced some housing last year.

We produced some affordable housing that finally came online, was permitted, et cetera.

Um, and our figures changed, you know, our our our results, you know, we it was reflected in the totals, and you can see that those respond to the data that we're providing DLCD.

Um you know, and these things will reflect our progress.

That information that we have, how much of it uh included the A AMI that's listed here.

It it well, the information that we have included that, but um, you know, we don't have uh that there's not too much, you know, other than the you know, small number of affordable um developments that we know about that would have that broken down, right?

Uh I'm I'm glad that somebody is looking at AMI and making sure equity exists in the future or more in the future.

So I'm glad for that.

But I think it also raised the bar, and now we have a bigger challenge to solve.

So thank you so much.

Thank you, Ms.

Thanks, Councillor Afghan.

Counselor Winland.

Thank you for the presentation.

As always, it's always fun to talk about housing, especially in Lake Guswego where we don't have any land.

Um, but I do want to look at um a couple things.

I um after looking at this, and I did some quick, you know zillowing.

Um when I look at the AMI, um, which is the average median income in the acronym world, uh, most people need to spell things out at our level.

Um so uh in Lake Oswego it's 140,441 dollars.

Okay, so that's a benchmark.

So I looked at um uh what the average household income in Lake Oswego is 27,000.

So it's those two are kind of pretty far apart, and I'm not quite sure which numbers you actually use, but going with the AMI.

Um I think we've got some real challenges on this inverse weighting, and I think that is a uh policy that um I'm all for increasing housing.

Okay, I'm not saying let's not create housing, but I think when you put in the inverse weighting for allocation, um I'm not quite sure you had an economist in the room when you were making policy, because when you look at the pre-market, and like us, we go.

I'll just give you a few few simple statistics.

Um we're gonna have to build um a thousand and nine units um for somebody who has an AMI of uh 42,000.

Um that's a lot of units.

Um in 20 years, and AMI will go up, but um we have 870 units that we have to do with income between 42,000 and 84,000.

And it it keeps going on, and and um we have to build a lot at the lower end.

So I just looked on Zillow and I asked, okay, in that first sector, that zero to thirty percent, how many um houses have we sold in Lake Oswego uh between um 131 and 201,000, which is what you could afford um if you were um in that range.

We had 37 houses.

Um 250 to 300,000 dollars, which is in that 31 to 60 percent range.

Uh in the last three years, 209 houses.

And we're supposed to uh do 870.

Uh and it gets it it continues to go down um the road.

I'm not sure how we we can even do that, especially when we had what I would call a successful cluster housing project here in first edition.

That well, some people think it's successful.

Um we have two of them.

Um, you know, the neighborhood was not exactly super happy, but they built houses, they're all um priced between 700 and 950,000.

So I guess my thing on this is that as a council, the math doesn't work.

Um, and so that's my concern.

I don't know, policymakers.

I know that you have these um metrics, and I agree a thousand percent we need more affordable housing in the Portland metro area.

But um, I think you need to um talk to an economist and find out um really the what the targets really should be, because uh you know, you look at Eco Northwest and they come out with their reviews, and um and I'm not sure uh whether they were involved in this study or not, but um we just don't have that kind of um housing.

And and I don't, unless we have big checks that we can offset the private industry to build all this stuff.

Um I don't know how we're gonna build a 150,000 dollar house uh and we're gonna build a thousand of them in Lake Oswego.

So that's I guess my hardship in this.

Um, and I'm not quite sure how we need more information from the state on how we could accomplish that.

Um I think that would be helpful to us.

And I know we have a long time, I know 2029 when this starts, um, is a little while from now, but it's not that far.

Um, and I guess the the big picture is um our successful projects have been pretty expensive.

Um, and I'm not sure how you can fight the free market uh evaluation unless we build little tiny little cells for families to live in.

So that's the thing that I don't I can't put together.

And it's uh I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption to say that anything in this you know under 120 percent AMI is going to require significant subsidy.

It's not going to be market rate housing.

Yeah, that's in our housing production strategy too, isn't it?

Absolutely.

Yeah, although we're I mean small uh um addendum is that there's no expectation that all of those units are home ownership units either.

So correct okay.

There's you there haven't been things sold, there haven't been units sold at that at those income levels, but right.

But you're okay, but even I I could I'll go and do an analysis on rentals in Lake Oswego, and you're gonna find the same thing where if you're gonna spend 30 percent of your income on a house um housing, um your rents are are going to be too high.

Um and and I get this subsidized part, but that's a huge number.

Um I I guess these numbers are and and I don't know, Oregon's not, I mean, we're not um we're not really in a huge uh surplus right now.

Um so I'm not sure where that money is gonna come from.

So anyway, that's the challenge.

So thank you, counselor.

Well, the council group yes.

Thank you.

Uh it's always a pleasure to see what you put together.

And you my understanding of this data is uh when we say housing, it's just like it's not that one person will buy a home.

It's not how they see the thing, and also in building housing, it's not more.

Let's take one example that's very concrete.

We have 55 units that are under 30 to 60 percent AMI out there in uh on Boons Fei.

And it's on one year, if you are counting it's next year, and it's in Lake Osego, and it's 55 families, like you but how many people when you say in those 55 units, how many people are living there?

I just see you know that uh like you say, and honestly, the people who are at uh the state, I've been research on like Econorthwest and all these guys are economists, they know what they're talking about, they just don't throw things.

No one expects a 200,000 dollar unit in Lake Oswego.

It's not possible.

We live here, we all know how much we bought our home, and we bought them a long time ago.

Now you check.

So but my like the question that some constituents have that I there's some consumer have this question that are we overproduction, and in their thing they think we are pushing the like the agenda, like we are in New York, that we are that even the 400 units that we think of the 12 acre land in it's too much, you cannot do that.

And in their thing, they think we are pushing the like the agenda, like we are in New York, that we are that even the 400 units that we think of the 12 acre land in it's too much.

You cannot do that.

We are already past, and that's where I wanted Eric to, you know, shed some light, because I don't share those views, but these are view that some of our constituents say that, oh no, I we think Lake Coswego is good for the next 20 years, even is what we built, which I think is not true.

And also that we have to understand that the housing production strategy is not for low income.

That's not what the governor is thinking, you know, that when we produce homes in Lake Oswego, it's not for low income.

No one.

The things, even the clusters we are building that it should not for low income.

No one on the three on the 30% AMI can afford what is built there.

None, none of them.

No.

Yeah, that's yeah, but that's why I think we should understand the housing production strategy in a way that we want they want to build homes, but how much it will cost.

But but when we build those homes, also we have for the sake of equity, for the sake of uh, you know, like social justice, that we have some homes for those who cannot afford them.

And that's what we've been building in Lake Cosigo, and it hasn't caused a problem.

We have 100 units that are already occupied in there, like Mayor Hust, and we'll have 55 and 27 on the the as a side of the road, next not far from our homes.

And those are, you know, it's what what is fair in a society.

We just cannot have a society where some places don't like the there's an underproduction of things.

We just clutch or we're not touching the urban growth boundary, and we're not building homes.

It's just not possible.

That's like we have to build these homes.

And we have also to have place for those who are represented.

And I think that's uh the main philosophy that's in this, that's what I think.

But I just want that answer that like people say if that there's no use building the 400 units because we are over the limit of the what uh house bill 2003 was asking.

Yeah, I really appreciate that comment.

I think that's you know, in some ways, a lot of why I'm here presenting this information because I know we are going to have, you know, particularly with the rezoning, uh a large opportunity to make up a lot of the um deficit in our city.

Um, you know, first of all, Lake Oswego is not unique, but relatively unique in having a deficit in the first place.

So, you know, that's a little bit of context there.

But um, you know, when we talk about addressing our housing needs, you know, it um, you know, again, we we kind of already in the 2023 HA identified that that was that seemed low from the outset.

And we can't take credit for housing until it's built, until it's permitted or produced.

Um, we take credit for both of those things at different points in the process when we report to DLCD.

And so even you know, we know about certain things that are likely to transpire within the city.

So obviously those 55 units, um, we know very well that those um you know were occupied recently.

They're not reflected in this data yet, but they will be reflected soon.

So we know we're making progress here.

We know, you know, obviously with the rezoning that is happening, our capacity will um, you know, we're chipping away and we're increasing our capacity, we're we're working towards these goals.

We're already pursuing efforts that are going to help out with this immensely.

Um so it's good to keep these all sort of within context, but we can't take credit for that until it happens, and these things are changing on a regular basis.

Um, so it's really important to think that to sort of keep that in mind.

Um it's also just important to know that um, yeah, you know, I think uh when you get a rezoning, it's you know a little bit different than actually producing housing.

So there's a capacity versus actual having you know production.

Um there's there's sort of different questions there.

Um, but you know, in general, it we will have a long way to go, and we will continue to have a long way to go until we meet our housing needs.

Um we're not necessarily going to, you know, I'm trying not to speak too much for DLC or the state right now, but you know, we're not going to get punished for not hitting the exact number at the exact time that we're required to do so.

You know, we're um, you know, we're cities aren't going to be punished for going over, although I think that's viewed as a good thing to have more supply than you uh might need.

You know, that's kind of a way to um produce a good economy, I guess sort of good sort of reasonable amount of um supply to meet the demand that you're anticipating.

You don't want to have the exact same amount of supply as demand.

You you want to have a little bit of flexibility, some vacancy, et cetera.

It's kind of built into the equation, but for the most part, you don't want that to be exactly the exact same.

That's not necessarily a healthy market.

Um so you know, there's a lot of things to think about here, but I think at least we're starting to triangulate on a number that makes more sense and is at least real to us in terms of what we think the needs are based on what we know about the growth patterns within this city.

Um so again, we have a lot of opportunities.

You know, I think getting back at some of your statements on the HPS.

You know, the HPS looks at both market rate and affordable housing.

So it's not just one or the other, but it is very importantly looking at both.

It doesn't not look at affordable housing.

You know, I think um there are a lot of strategies that are really you know oriented towards methods of producing affordable housing through tax increment financing um or uh public-private partnerships or um you know different sort of tax exemption programs.

So we have a lot that gets at ways to produce affordable housing.

The city is limited in what we can do for affordable housing, so a lot of that is leveraging other resources, other things that exist at different you know levels at either at the state or at the federal level, most likely.

Um that's often public-private partnership related.

That's probably our best strategy to sort of get more of the AMIs um taken care of that we want to get um that we want to hit to actually meet our needs there.

But um, yeah, you know, I think in general, um, you know, it's good to keep track of these things, but having sort of this dashboard that updates on a yearly annual basis, you know, it will be really helpful to continue to be able to point to this.

Of course, we know you know we have this sort of set number for our 2023 HA, but I think this is a little bit more real.

Thank you.

Um Counselor Ref.

Sorry, I don't agree that having more supply than demand is the right strategy for Lake Oswego.

I think Lake Oswego is a destination place for families and people that want to own homes.

They buy houses in Lake Oswego because those assets appreciate and they count on that appreciation.

Just many homes are people's retirement funds.

You know, it's way they can provide money for their kids when they grow up and need help.

And so I think simple like Counselor Wenlin said, we need to be pay attention to simple market economics here.

Um just producing housing just to produce housing is in my opinion, the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

Um we need to make we need to follow what sells, what people are buying, and not just overproduced just because we're a mandate to overproduce.

We know this.

We we've been rallying against the state for for a while.

Um I I have a problem with the inverse weighting like Councillor Wenland did.

It doesn't make sense to me, and maybe I'm hearing it wrong, but to compare neighboring cities like Lake Oswego and Tiger, maybe Tiger's the wrong one, Tiger, but maybe Westland to Portland and with has which has so much more land, but we're held to the standard of why didn't we produce as much housing as Portland did?

I mean, I'm hoping that there are other factors involved in that inverse weighting that we're not hearing, because that just seems inane to me.

It's a lot more complicated than I sure hope it is.

Yeah, and it's it was developed by Eco Northwest just to sort of directly answer Councilor Wenland.

And I'll say the and the final thing I'll have to say, and I've said this many times over the last six years, and it's not a popular opinion, and but I don't particularly care.

It's that uh not everybody should be able to move to Lake Oswego.

Pure and simple.

My wife and I saved up for 20 years to buy a house here.

It was a goal for us, and it's a goal for many, many people.

It's a destination.

And I don't think that you should give it away.

I think people should earn the right to live here by hard work and saving and good fiscal management.

That is my philosophy.

Call me old school.

I'm Gen X to the core, right?

Um and I and if you own a home in Lake Oswego and you're listening to this stuff, you should be very nervous about what this does to your home values for all of us that have spent years scraping pennies to live here.

And so I I don't think that we should be producing um affordable housing in Lake Oswego.

Let the cities around us that have homeless problems and have issues that need to be solved around home uh houselessness, produce the weight of the of the of the housing production.

That's I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm not sorry, but that's it.

You've been consistent.

Thank you.

You can't fall down to Counselor Afghan G.

Uh counselor Raf and I have completely opposite view on this topic, but we usually sit in the back room and discuss it.

I wanted to bring up two items.

We are doing the right thing by rezoning the applicants who want to go from commercial to residential, as we just approved the 4,000 cruise weight.

That's perfect.

Those are the type of strategies we need to have.

But I'm not sure if we are in control or driving seat for AMI.

Because as I brought it up, we have 500 units that are going to go up, but we did not put any restriction or condition around it.

So they could all be studios for $800 a month, or they can all be Mac condos for $10,000 a month.

But I'm I'm bringing this up so for the future applications, maybe we do have some consideration.

So we start dry driving some of these requirements.

Yeah, it becomes really important to identify leverage points, right?

Yeah.

And it's not okay, 30% has to be this, but we need to make incremental uh move on these topics.

That was one.

And the second one is I don't know if those who sat down and come up with these numbers looked at the baby boomers, the investors, and what is happening with the population increase rate?

Because if I have my information right, the population increased rate is coming down.

That means we may not need all of these housing.

If I have my information right, the baby boomers, a lot of them are investors that as they start getting retired, they're gonna start selling, and then what's going to happen to all of this housing.

So is there a feedback loop?

Like every five years, every 10 years that somebody's looking at these numbers and readjusting so we don't build all of a sudden all of these units and be in trouble.

I don't need to have an answer for any of those two.

I just wanted to put them on the table.

Yes, but you can't answer.

Okay.

Well, uh, yeah, I I moved back to that.

So demographic change is a factor.

We have one minute before counselor rap pauses on the top.

Uh uh and and then number two, there will from from here on out, now that we're under the ONA framework, there's not going to be any big jumps in numbers.

And the reason I say that is because each subsequent year is averaged with the year previous.

So the next the next number that comes out in December, the the base number is going to be averaged with this year's, and that's going to be the actual target going forward.

So there's not going to be any big jumps.

But the the total number here for the um the metro region, the 1880 that what what type of of growth, what type of growth rate does that represent.

Um that is the that is Portland State University's projection, but you know, the population research center's projection uh for population growth.

I I don't know the percent off.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, I just thinking along the same lines as you know, as long as we're adjusting it because you know, Oregon's growth rate right now is very I mean, we're uh we're we're already sitting on underproduction, you know.

Um, but it's very flat.

You know, point, I think was it just like 0.2 percent that just came out, you know, for the last for the 24 or 25.

Um but it could change.

I mean, in 10 years, who I don't know, it could get worse, it could get better.

I'm kind of wondering what um so well, like my colleagues are pointing out.

I mean, there's there's you know, we have our housing production strategy, and we're doing everything that we can to fulfill the variety of housing needs at the different income levels, utilizing the tools that this you know states provided.

Um but then at the same time, you know, there's things kind of um outside of our control as well, and I want to like uh see if you have any comments or uh perspective on like the bigger picture.

One, you know, how does this information, how is kind of um how are UGB uh decisions being like factored in here?

We're in like the third plus year of this housing crisis.

Um it's declared by the governor, and you know, like no real movements around UGB, you know, and it's all like coming coming into the cities.

So it's like how how are we changing that kind of framework, if if if at all?

For cities outside of the Metro, I mean, the the HCA is a much better factual basis for urban growth boundary amendments.

You you will see more of them at a faster rate.

It's a it's a much more organized process, much, much smoother.

As far as Metro goes, Metro still controls the urban growth boundary for Metro.

And as I mentioned, deficits in capacity that are uh identified it by by cities, um, will feed into Metro's urban growth boundary decision.

Of course, there was a reason the reason amendment in Sherwood, um, which was a uh you know, substantial one for relatively speaking.

Um but but ultimately metro controls the their the growth boundary.

Right.

I mean it's it is kind of like it's it's a tricky, it's kind of a tricky problem because it's like what you know, almost like a chicken and egg problems.

Like if we so when we you know, we under the under production of housing has um I think uh uh is especially sharp on the senior population, like they feel the the rise in housing costs, you know, the most, and we're already in a state where it's like very difficult to retire as it is.

So we see like an out migration in that sense of the seniors because it's very expensive to retire, just like of the tax, you know, um, because of the tax policy here in the state.

And um that just drives down like then the desire for people to come and invest in the region and the state with housing, and it just continues to depress the housing production.

So it's I'm just kind of wondering like when will the state kind of get uh wondering when they're gonna get ahead of it, you know, instead of just saying, oh, well, cities just produce more, it's like, well, you know, I mean, we can do all the rezoning.

I mean, we just did a large rezoning and the the applicant, um, you know, I mean, it's great.

We've rezoned it, they can build housing on it, but they don't have like anyone that wants to build the housing on it.

So it's like, well, um, and um, you know, we've been stalled for years on a multifamily project right here in the downtown similar region, just no money to invest.

I mean, we're seeing that you know, region wide.

So it just leads me to wonder, you know, I mean, this is fine, like this academic study on the numbers, but without it seems like us, the state getting ahead of really wanting to bring more investment in, looking working with Metro on looking at the UGB.

It's great.

I mean, there's still so many of these decisions left to local communities, but like Sherwood, for instance, I mean, they actually got their community to say, yeah, we're gonna do this UGB expansion, but then they kind of raked them over the coals in terms of listening to what the community really wanted to do.

And they had all the housing for they had the multifamily, they had middle housing, they had single family, and it still wasn't enough.

And they came back and like beat them over the heads like it's not dense enough, not dense enough.

It's like, well, what do you want?

I mean, the so then other cities see that, they're like, well, well, why would we do an expansion if if we're not even going to be able to um even following all the criteria, we're still gonna come back and say it's not enough.

It's not enough.

You know, so it just seems like we kind of um uh you know, because I mean the pushback we send like North Plains, I mean, they they they they recalled you know the the mayor and and have you know the political upheaval over there over a UGB expansion.

So they're having like real, it's very challenging, you know.

I'm just is what I'm saying.

And but yet without that growth, it seems like it's gonna be we're just kind of staying in this cycle where it's nice to talk about, but it's gonna be impossible to meet.

And then I mean, on the affordability side, I mean that's really tough.

The affordability the affordable housing providers, I mean, they're in a really tight spot right now.

I mean, they are going bankrupt.

And so and and as a region, we're staring down 2030, the deadline for the support of housing services, you know, tax, and if that measure doesn't get reformed, all the thousands of housing units that have been built on the back of the um the the Ryla vouchers, which will expire, like who knows what the plan is for that.

I mean, some of the providers might have some kind of a plan, but I mean it's gonna put them in a real bind, and that includes some of our housing here and LO is funded to do Ryla vouchers.

And if the Riley vouchers go away, you know, so it's uh anyway, like obviously it's more than you know, can be done here.

And it just leads me to, I mean, we appreciate like the update, but it's like I mean, do we have to amend the housing production strategy?

I mean, like kind of what's the the so what of all this.

I think the so what is really just yes, thank you.

Rambling on.

I think the so what is just thinking about when we get to the rezoning and we're thinking about the numbers of what we want to look at for rezoning, you know, thinking about the scale, just thinking about what our need is as a city, um, having a I guess a clear picture of what the scale of unit need is for DLCD that we're likely to be subject to when we do our nest housing and needs analysis update, really.

I think that's the the so what um is that the scale of what we're um needing to address, I think is is a little bit more clear-eyed right now.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

And and I I think that everything you're saying about the affordability levels being basically impossible for a city alone to address is these are all really reasonable concerns, and I'm not sure that there's an easy answer for any of that.

And and we're all good.

I mean, we've all the cities, I mean, every we we are all pro-growth.

I mean, that is the thing.

I mean, you see city council after city council, city council, the state, right?

Because we know we have to grow to continue improving the tax base to continue funding the services the city provides, it's critical, you know.

Um to any city.

So we're I mean, all of us are for we're all we are always, you know, we are for growth.

Um, but you know, we face a lot of um, I mean, we look at the input we've received just recently for our our uh goals, and it's a lot of no growth, stop growing, stop building housing, you know.

We moved here for the small town feel and and all of that.

And I mean, that's that's felt in communities, you know, across the um the region, and that's natural, the NIMBYism and all that, obviously, it's not unique to Oregon.

Um, but it's um just uh kind of losing, sorry, I lost my train of thought.

Well, well, I think I think the mayor, yeah.

The real thing is that go ahead.

No, I I just want it like the problem here, it's not giving your opinion.

Like in uh, oh, this is my opinion.

It's uh and uh that's why I love my friend Aaron, you know, we are on the opposite side, we are the best friend, we don't.

I the fact are real, Oregon should produce 60, it's a we are under 60 to 87,000 units per year.

Oregon has been building 20,000 units per year instead of 36,000.

It's a fact that we cannot ignore.

And the housing that should be subsidized.

Guess who should it go to?

When you go to AMI, teachers, bus drivers, hospitality, it's not people who are not working hard.

It's not people who are not saving.

Those are people who teach your children.

There's the people who bus your children, they're the ones who serve you when you're opening his restaurant.

And as people who are making decisions, what are we gonna do?

Either we are incompetent and we say, oh, we cannot build this, we have bunches of homeless that we cannot, we cannot kill them.

That's the problem.

We can we are not Nazis.

We cannot come and gas the people who don't have homes.

We have to put them somewhere.

No, no, this is because they're no no when I say that is it's it not we cannot bury our head in the sands and say, oh, no one can know.

That's what I want.

And I'm exaggerating when I say that we because those folks have to live somewhere.

It's either in a home or in the street.

And that's why Econo West, Eco Northwest, they're great economists.

These are people who when they learn, they studied their what their job, they know it.

Oregon, you know, the only state we are ahead of.

California, Idaho, New Hampshire, and Utah.

We are those are the five states.

All that Oregon is the worst after those in housing.

So we have to find something.

That's why we are elected.

It's not it just say, oh, oh, we're saving our money.

We all have homes in Lake Oswego and we all work hard to have them.

It doesn't mean that those who have less money than us should not live.

They have to live somewhere.

We cannot, this is a debate that's not of what we can avoid.

That's why the house production strategy is important.

That's why these folks are they just saying, guys, this is what we have.

And we know it's not easy.

You just cannot come in Lake Cosigo and say, hey, I'm building 500 units for people who own 40,000 a year.

It's not they won't even be able to live here.

That's you're not giving them the possibility to live.

But we have to build those units.

The 36,000 units a year Oregon should build instead of the 20 we are building, it has to happen.

If it doesn't happen, we are in situation that we cannot do.

And that's why I agree.

What do you do?

It's like here it is.

Once you know a problem, you start having tools to fix it.

And that's why we have this house production strategy.

Well, and you know, Councilman Butsain, you said before, I mean, just to be aware, I mean, we some are kind of weaponizing the the owner by saying, well, here's it's the cap.

And I know you heard that in the comments earlier.

So just as an FYI.

I mean, we were producing like we were doing the production stuff, and now you put the number to it, and people now that they're kind of honed in on the number.

And I don't know if that's exactly the best strategy either.

Now, if the numbers are high enough, you're never gonna, but that that's just kind of feeding it's feeding the NIMBYism a little bit, you know.

So just as a FYI, because we're trying to say, hey, no, it's this is just like a general thing.

It isn't like you can only hit then stop producing, you know.

Yeah, um, but that's how it's kind of being used by some in the community.

I appreciate the feedback, and I think that's why Eric invited me here to to speak today.

Yes.

Um, we're not we weren't gonna stop it.

I mean, we're either, you know, we again we can only do so much that we need the private the market that actually does the building, you know, to come in.

And if they're willing to come in and it's such a great place to be, and and the demand is there, then they'll build, you know, the build, build, build, and we're certainly not going to stop them because of the the HA.

Um, but it is just it might be good to um, you know, we probably have this in the plan, but I think it's but this is more for us, like to help our community understand these are guidelines, you know, they're not firm.

I think that's where they see the regulation, and it seems like it's hard and fast.

It's like, well, we don't want it to be hard.

You don't want it to be hard and fast because we want communities to produce, even if they're going above their production targets, and we certainly don't want the owner to be weaponized as a uh excuse to not build housing.

That would be crazy.

Yeah.

Did you have a the council?

I just would wrap it up and say I a great discussion.

Thank you for coming.

I mean, that was uh very nice of you.

It's we we always hear your acronyms of all the things that you're working with, and Eric's done a fabulous job of of um keeping us going on this ta task.

But I guess the the big picture that I look at it is that it's still it's a private economy, and until the government steps up and writes a big huge fat check to subsidize everything, which they don't have the money to do, you can have a philosophical conversation.

And I I agree that we have to have housing for everyone.

I that's not a that's not a but the reality is is that it costs too damn much money to build a house in Oregon.

And you look at our competition with our other states that we are competing against that are people are that are going to, there's less regulation, and they've never heard of an urban growth boundary.

Um they build and they um and uh when you can uh we know friends that are leaving, and you know, they can go to Texas and buy a similar house for a third of the cost or for 40% of the cost, and have a job that's paying 10 or 15% more than what they're making here.

So it's economics, folks.

I mean, it's it's real and and the income tax part and and things like that.

So I mean, well, we yes, there's give and take on all these issues, and I think the the big picture is that there is not going to be a big checkbook writer that's going to give us billions of dollars to build subsidized housing.

I mean, so I think we need to be smart about um you know, and and I have to say this inverse weighting thing, um, I think that's uh a nice concept, but um I I just think that's something that is gonna be very difficult in a free market where we don't have subsidies um to accomplish in this town.

Um, and that's just my that's the reality of the math.

And I guess that's what um I I get it, I get what you know philosophically what you're trying to do, but um, in reality, and as a policymaker, uh when I mean I have a business, I've I've been in business for a long time.

I'm a problem solver and I try to make things work.

Um my thing is that it is a philosophical goal that we have.

Um we don't really have I think we need the follow-up paper to say here's 10 things that you as a city can do to make this happen.

Um and then we would have to evaluate and say, is this going to be right for our community?

Because at the end of the day, we do represent the people in Lake Uswigo.

We don't represent the people from Salem.

Um, and so we are we want our community to be our community.

Um, and I think we'll work at doing uh uh housing production because we do need it.

It's self-serving for us to do that, but we need to do it somewhat in our flavor, our way, in order to accomplish some of that.

And and that's the delicate balance um that I think is is difficult.

So that's why we have our housing production strategy that is put together by our community.

Yeah, just really quick before we completely wrap up.

I just want to point out, you know, this comparison of other cities, adjacent cities, the sort of inverse weighting, etc.

I also have concerns about that.

It's not completely sort of clear exactly how that's going to play out.

But I have been surprised that that has actually turned out in our favor so far.

Like we're doing we're doing production here in the city.

We are producing housing and we are able to take credit for it in the way that that sort of calculation has worked out so far.

So I I will point out that, you know, uh when when we say I think you know, under production, you know, that's not really, you know, when when you look at maybe some other cities like Oregon City or some other places like in a year by year basis, like we might actually be performing well.

And I think that that will be reflected in these two.

So um and I also think expectations for each individual jurisdiction.

We they don't have the resources either, right?

So I think you know, it's going to be very difficult for any of these smaller jurisdictions to be able to actually hit these AMI targets and we'll be judged against those cities as well, and there'll be somewhat of a level playing field there.

Thank you for those comments, Mr.

Olson.

And thank you, Mr.

Goldberg, for taking the time to be here.

We appreciate the engagement with you and the information.

Thank you.

Thank you both very much.

Okay, uh information from council.

Councilor Boo.

No, I just uh thank you, folks.

And uh like to I wanted to acknowledge something.

It's a Black History Month, 100th anniversary of Black Hustry Month, and we lost a big icon of the civil rights movement.

You Jesse Jackson who built the rainbow coalition, and who would be happy that a city like us is talking about housing because that's what he fought for for in spite of his shortcomings in his life, that he always recognized when he made mistakes, where the spiritual ones or so it's very important that people like that because I think I met Jesse Jackson when I was in college in Senegal, and that's why he really, you know.

And uh uh, you know, and Ron Brown also, the former Secretary of Commerce of Clinton who died in a plane.

They sat with me, we discussed I was representing the student.

And today when I heard that he died at 84, I just uh said it's and it's very well we are having city council, it's a black history month.

I have to acknowledge, you know, like and recognize that man what he did for the underserved population, black, white, the rainbow coalition was for everyone that he created.

And I think he's one of the people who made Barack Obama president that made me sit here, and many other things that those people do.

So it's uh important to recognize him, and I just say I have to say that.

Thanks for doing and also I to respond to other people.

We are the most uh the greatest council I have ever worked with with the diversity of point of view when we get into this room, it's like we never talked about all these things, you know, and we know at the time we are like I am at the left of our, you know, very clear on many subjects, but we are friends we'll go get a beer or coffee and stuff.

So just like to say that, and that I'm very happy to work here, you know, in black history month, I celebrate myself.

And I'm saying that I was awarded uh educational excellence award by the Rotary Club of Lake Cosigo, and I will get the things uh in uh on March 10th.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Congratulations.

Thanks, Council.

In Black History Month.

That's great.

Yeah, good.

Thank you very much.

Councilor Corgan.

Yeah, I just have to uh quick report.

I was at the um health, uh community health uh resiliency advisory board this last week.

I get it right.

I they call it the crab, so I'm like, oh like think about what it really needs to be called.

But hey, these guys are going after it, and right now they are looking to start a pilot project for four from your door.

They are on fire.

Yeah, so hats off.

Yep.

Great.

Thank you for being there.

It's a good group.

They were well steward last year by Councillor Afghan, and now in good hands this year, Councilor Cork.

Um at the uh regional table, just FY, the the county is going through their update of the transportation system plan.

So that's uh that process is has started.

Um we've been here, and you might have read uh the region's been talking because there's a little bit in Clackmas County about the whole 82nd Avenue, um, this big 82nd Avenue project.

You know, that's a four-lane road.

They're gonna want to take it down to a two-lane road with the other lanes dedicated to the bus and well, big projects.

No one's on the bus.

Well, they say they do say it is the most used transit route, but that could be relative.

Yeah, I don't know what that means.

But there's a lot of pushback from the business community over there, a lot of a lot of small businesses over there, and obviously, you know, we have our experience from the Boons Fair Road project and the great communication.

The city embarked on to me.

That's not even that big.

I mean, that was tiny, and it was a huge amount of communication.

So we kind of had that discussion at the regional table how they're communicating with all these many.

It's a huge, huge stretch of road.

I mean, hundreds of hundreds of hundreds of businesses, um, many of them immigrant-owned and uh uh minority-owned businesses.

Um how they're communicating.

I don't think you know, they're if they're even organized, you know.

So hopefully they're but uh Rose Quarter uh project.

Yeah, yes.

So the um back in uh uh when was it?

The Transportation Commission, they got an update on the Rose Quarter, you know, project and kind of like um, you know, what what to do because they've lost federal funding um and they don't have the you know, there's no money to do the full uh project.

There's there's 167 million kind of currently available for the project.

Now they're doing this first phase, the first phase of the first phase um right now.

Um but the larger project, the the expanded lanes and the cap, you know, there's no there's a more money to do it.

But uh the transportation commission um is basically wants to continue kind of moving forward.

They're not pulling the plug on the project, so they're just kind of staying optimistic, but there's no money to actually do the project.

So the rose quarter.

Well, this is the roadway.

Well, you don't have you're talking now about the uh yeah.

Well, I know, yeah.

For those of us that have been here, I know it does feel like it was just more distant.

Well, I don't know, we haven't talked about that.

Um we're just talking about the the transportation.

Um so the the transportation commission has acknowledged the severity of of the financial challenge, including the gaps in the in the federal uh funding, but instead of canceling it, they just kind of reaffirmed their commitment to keep it alive.

Um they've asked ODOT to refine a roadmap for for future steps.

Um and then um ODOT's also putting together a capital uh investment plan that's gonna identify planned investments over a 10-year uh period that the agency anticipates funding.

Um I guess they didn't have that before.

Hard to imagine, but maybe it's not hard to imagine.

Um, so that's kind of what's been going on.

Uh, Councilor Mboop and I attended a youth leadership council the other week.

We were out at the Lorac.

They got a kind of behind the scenes tour of the Lorac out there.

It was also uh good.

We were there in um the evening.

I know many of us go to the Lorac, but it was nice to see all the swim teams were there, the people were working out, the people were taking classes.

It was well, there was one person hitting balls at the range.

So yeah, if you want to hit the balls, there's no one out there.

It's great.

They have heaters, and they have the heaters, yeah.

And you can hit drivers, yes, you can hit all the clubs.

It was it was very nice.

Lots of good use.

There was a lot of kids in the in the pool, and then that closed while we were having the meeting, and uh then it was just the teams uh practicing.

It is it's really nice.

Everything's everything's very nice.

Non-alcoholic beer.

And we we pitched what a great actually, some of the youth leadership council members already work at the Lorac, and we pitched what a great job it is to be a lifeguard.

Yeah, okay, yeah.

All right, Ms.

Failing.

Yes, Mayor, thank you.

Um, just two quick things for so on to say I really appreciate the opportunity to serve as city manager pro tem and really appreciate um and want to say thank you for the trust and confidence that you all have in me and um being able to serve in that capacity.

So thank you.

Well, thank you.

And second, just wanted to announce we are going to begin the recruitment process for our boards and commissions on March 1st.

Um, so we encourage you to help us spread the word.

Uh, you all know great people who also know great people who can serve in a capacity by which to advise council on the various variety of different things we have boards and commissions for.

Um community members are welcome to apply for any open positions between March 1st and April 5th.

Um and Laura will reach out to you next week to schedule interview block times.

We're um planning to do those between April 27th through May 1st.

So you'll get communication from her.

And then lastly, for anyone who's watching, we have our council goal setting this Saturday.

We will start in our council chambers at 9 a.m.

And appreciate you all talking with Amelia Wallace, the facilitator that will be joining us that day.

And I'm looking forward to some really good conversations.

Thank you.

Thank you, Megan.

Okay.

Kim will be coordinate the election.

Okay.

Okay.

With that, we are now going to move into executive session.

And I will ask Ms.

De Toyan to read the statutory basis for this executive session, please.

The Lake Ocego City Council will now meet in executive session under ORS 19260 sub 2 sub H to consult with an attorney regarding legal rights and duties of a public party with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed in subsection F to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection.

Representatives of the news media and designated staff shall be allowed to attend the executive session.

All our other members of the audience are asked to leave the room.

Representatives of the news media are specifically directed not to report on any deliberations during the executive session, except to state the general subject of the session as previously announced.

No final decisions will be made in executive session.

At the end of the executive session, we will adjourn the meeting.

We are going to recess and then we will uh reconvene in the side room.