I just want to remind everyone in the Tiger community that fire conditions are extremely dangerous right now.

According to the latest reports, wildfire have already burned more than one million acres across Oregon this year.

So please be specially careful and avoid any activities that could accidentally start a fire.

We do not want to add the to the burden already facing our firefighters and emergency responder across our state.

And I also want to uh take the time to thank the firefighters, first responders, emergency personnel, and everyone working to protect our communities.

Please stay safe and continue to look out for one another.

So I will call this uh uh city council meeting to order.

Uh Deputy City Recorder Bartholomew, would you please conduct a roll call?

Council President Wolf is absent.

Councilor Anderson.

Here.

Councilor Gadisi.

Present.

Mayor Who?

Here.

Councillor Robbins?

Here.

Council Schlack?

Here.

Councillor Shaw.

Here.

Thank you.

Would you please uh stand and join me in the Polite Joe Allegiance?

I pledge.

Uh Councilmember and City Teammates, do you have any non-agenda items?

See none, let's move on.

To public comments.

The public comment period provides an opportunity for members of the public to address the city council.

While it is not dialogue, either I or staff will follow up to address the issues brought forward in these comments.

The calling number is 503-966-4101, and those wishing to comment shall call now to get into the queue.

Anyone present wanting to comment should sign up on the public comment form at the front of the room.

There were four written public comments received by Monday noon deadline.

Topics include concerns with the community development block grant, CDBG, Tiger's lack of disability forward housing infrastructure, and the next step for the Tiger Police and Public Work Facility.

So let's move on to uh in-person public comments.

So when you can't when I call you in, please come forward.

And uh Mr.

Van will put two minutes.

Mr.

Van would you please the two-minute uh timer on the screen.

All right, so first person uh please come forward, Bill Monahan.

Good evening.

Uh please see state your name and where you live, and you have two minutes.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Bill Monahan.

I'm a Tiger resident.

Um I uh submitted public comments, including a letter with several questions to you that should be answered before the council and staff proceed with direction on public facilities next steps.

The public deserves to know how much the city has already spent on the Wall Street property and pre-construction consultants that have been used before asking to fund additional improvements.

I'm concerned that the staff report appears to prioritize public works needs over those of police, even though the city's May election materials emphasize critical police needs.

Those needs should be evaluated, and if they are critical, they should be addressed soon.

My main concern is the council and staff may again move forward without fully understanding the residents' ability and willingness to fund new facilities.

The field measure was flawed from the moment.

The council placed it on the ballot.

The timing was poor, the scope and cost were too large, the chosen site was questionable, and the needs were not full clearly connected to the plan.

Public trust was lost.

Solutions should not be shaped by efforts to craft persuasive language for ballot titles or for bulk mealings or for letters to support in support.

Instead, the public should receive facts, sound analysis, and clear justification.

So I'm concerned that going forward, the trust with the community needs to be rebuilt.

And as a candidate for mayor, I find that it's going to be even more difficult going forward without facts.

In addition, I'd like to acknowledge Mike Lewick, who's retiring at the end of this week after serving for 20 years as your emergency management coordinator.

He was hired while I was city manager.

I couldn't be more pleased with his performance.

And I hope you acknowledge him.

I'm sure you will.

And I wish him the best of luck.

Thank you.

All right.

So thank next uh person I want to invite forward is Felix Martimer.

I'm sorry.

What name is Felix.

Yes.

Good evening.

Good evening, sir.

Uh, you so please state your name and where you live, and then you have two minutes.

Thank you.

Okay, uh, my name is Felix Martinez.

I live in uh the Dartmouth project, other known as the opening apartments.

And um, I have court because I'm being evicted from there, actually, and I know that I am the Dartmouth of the project, but um that's not even the that's not even a matter.

But what um what I come here to talk about today for sure is uh that just compassion shelter.

They um they do good work there and they have a building coming soon.

But it's like the people they're feeding that don't stay there are oozing into the streets of Tiger, right around that area.

About a week ago, I got pepper sprayed for no good reason.

And uh the staff there did nothing to help me at no time, and I could have lost my eyesight because the spray was very thick, and it for for about an hour, a half an hour I was trying to spray my eyes out, and I could not.

But no one there volunteered any help.

They try to kick me out of the shelter when I was just trying to find a safe haven so I could get medical attention.

And that's very scary.

I could handle that, but I don't know if another individual in Tiger could actually handle the things that I can handle.

And I think we need to look into that.

And and and the police of Tiger, they do great work.

I think we need more communication with the way these buildings are being ran by these people that come with these nonprofits, and we need to secure the people of Tiger.

The Tiger is a beautiful place, and I I don't want to leave Tiger.

But these these um run-ins, like the eviction I'm dealing with, and these people from that shelter that's hanging around, they feed the people, but then it's time for them to go.

If they don't want a program, I really believe they they should not be just um loitering the streets like that.

That's something we could probably communicate with the shelter.

Like I said, police tiger, they have enough to work with.

You know, they do very well.

And um one other thing, when I when I walked in, I did hear, you know, um, all these projects for housing and this and that.

So I just wrote something down really quick that could probably help some people there.

You have two minutes up.

Can you wrap up really fast?

Yes, yes, sir.

Okay just um some type of work program for those that have vouchers or for those um people that's that you you're building these new buildings, tenants to come in.

Some of them is really low income, and and they're gonna need balloters and they're gonna need assistance from other programs.

But I think our our job is to put them on their feet, maybe have a work program for them when they slip off or something like that.

I mean, I could get into more details and I'll write it down, I'll wrap this up.

Thank you.

And I don't see your contact information.

Do would you like would you like us to respond to your comments?

So can you provide your contact information with our uh deputy city recorder?

So thank you.

All right, so let's move on to phone on video public common.

Um, Mr.

Van, are there any callers in the queue for phone or video testimony?

There are no callers.

Thank you.

All right, let's move on to city manager report.

Our city manager Rager will give a brief report.

Hello, city manager.

Uh hello, Mr.

Mayor and Council, good to see you.

Um tonight I've just got a couple of things.

No slide.

No slide tonight.

It's uh want to give you a quick update on Universal Plaza and the splash pad.

Uh so our staff uh met with uh what I'm gonna refer to as a technical advisor, this gentleman.

We uh got some advice from him during the design process, uh found him to be very helpful.

We called upon him again uh to take a look at the situation.

And he's come up with what appears to be uh a workable solution, but that uh he's not the one that would end up developing the plan.

So the next step is presenting that proposed solution to our contract engineer on this project, and that's uh the Corello firm.

Um they'll take a look at that if they agree with it, and uh it would the next step would be for them to actually develop the plan and the specifications for that that would then get submitted to the Oregon Health uh Authority, OHA.

And that's ultimately the approval we need to be able to move forward.

So uh we we look at that as good news that there's a potential solution, and now we'll we'll work that through the process of uh getting a uh getting that through our engineer.

Um so for this summer it's still gonna be closed.

So hopefully we can, you know, this gets worked through and gets approved by OHA.

Uh but we'll we'll keep the council keep the public up to speed as to what's going on there.

Um the other thing I want to mention, I appreciated Mr.

Monahan mentioning Mike Lewick.

Yes, uh Mike is retiring.

Uh I I got to be a part of hiring Mike back.

Uh I keep forgetting the the the year we hired him, but um Mike has taken the emergency management program for the city and just you know elevated it uh substantially and largely has been a one-person show uh the entire time.

Um I would say as an organization, we're in a much better place than we we were then.

Uh he was involved in you know getting the uh CERT program started here and and developed, and then it was able to take off on its own.

And uh so we're we're happy for him.

It's bittersweet, of course, to see someone uh go, but we're happy for him.

And there will be a celebration for Mike on Monday uh at noon, and I think that will be in our public works auditorium.

So you're welcome to attend if you would like.

So that's the end of my report tonight.

Thank you.

Question, comments.

Yeah, I I work with Mike when I was on CERT.

He's a great guy.

So thank you for the invitation.

All right, so let's move on to uh next item on the agenda, which is Tiger Police Department report, and police chief rogers will give a brief report.

Good evening.

We're full figured.

Good evening, Mayor Council, and Bob Wyger.

Your is your mic on?

Is it on?

There we go.

No, it's on the I want to start over.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I'm Bob Rogers, your police chief, and alongside me is our assistant chief, Brad Sitton.

This month's update will highlight thefts and a few trends you may see in the dashboard for June.

Trends for uh crimes constantly evolve, and thefts have as well over set the last several years, from confidence schemes and check frauds to credit-based credit card-based thefts and also computer crimes.

We've had to adapt and remain abreast of these trends as we address them as well, using specialized teams such as our commercial crimes unit, and then also working alongside our regional partners and considering policy updates as you're seeing up on the screen as well.

Since violent crime sentencing has made robberies and violent thefts far less attractive for those who have been involved in thefts prior, we've seen an uptick in thefts and shoplifting as a result as well, to include organized efforts that have been led both by state and regional crews focused on large retail establishments.

The law enforcement council and the district attorney's office have a uniform a unified policy statement supporting a presumptive arrest for thefts within the county.

And in concert with a commitment to prosecute these types of cases with a higher level of priority.

As long as increased space at the jail is maintained and the staffing continues, committing thefts in our county is going to be considerably more costly for those who decide to do that.

This has and will continue to cause an uptick in certain statistics that we track.

Assistant Chief Sitton is going to go ahead and elaborate on those.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor.

Counsel.

Again, for the record, my name is Brad Sitton.

I'm the assistant chief of police.

Uh next slide, please.

Okay, so on this slide, you're gonna see the overall property crime numbers for June of 2026 are up 187, as opposed to June of 2025 at 178.

Oddly enough, the number of arrests of arrests are equal of 85 for both 2025 and 2026.

The number of felony arrests increased and the number of citations to appear decreased.

We believe that the increase and decrease of these numbers are an early result of the Washington County presumptive policy on the previous slide.

You'll also notice that under the year-to-date columns, organized retail thefts are half of what they were last year.

These numbers are a result of the dedicated effort of our commercial crimes unit that have conducted multiple organized retail crime or ORC blitzes over the years.

These efforts combined with the DA's new organized retail crime detective assignment that was made earlier this year are having an effect on the retailers and the city in general.

If you had any detailed questions that you guys would like to ask, we're available for that.

That pretty much summarizes what we intended to talk to you about.

June has been a busy month for a lot of different things.

Our staffing is reduced, and we're pushing hard with recruiting efforts.

But if you had any questions, we're open to hearing them and trying our best to answer.

Thank you, Chief.

Um I was I also read recently we have a uh partner effort together working on a human traffic issue involving one uh one business in Tiger.

And then I got a question from committee member just asking us um what does you know what is the tiger police or our regional partner doing to address human trafficking in general?

Go ahead.

Yes, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh we have a part-time detective that works with the FBI on a task force officer level.

He specializes in internet crimes against children and other human trafficking um issues.

We also have a local detective assigned to assist him in those endeavors.

Our commercial crime unit also investigates human trafficking crimes when they are business related.

As such, earlier this month, there were search warrants served at four locations throughout the Tiger Sherwood area.

Uh the end result of those warrants were the arrest of three people and the seizure of over 40,000.

Property owners also will be evicting the businesses involved.

So as an agency, we are definitely involved in the investigation of human trafficking crimes.

Yeah, and that specific incident that involved the tiger.

And the mic might be a Mayor, I don't know about this.

I actually just read this and it says ironically, that was led by a task force from the Department of Justice.

The Oregon Attorney General has been putting a huge focus on that.

So it wasn't just a tiger-specific incident.

It was actually in concert throughout that.

Kind of goes back to the organized criminal aspect of this.

We're having to work twice as hard and rely on regional partners for one consensus attack on these types of issues, such as human trafficking, which is all it's pervasive throughout not only this area, the Portland metro area, but all along the northwest and along the western area.

Any other questions that come to mind?

Thank you guys for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you for everything you do.

Thank you.

All right, so let's move on to the next item on the agenda, which is uh consent agenda.

The consent agenda is used for routine items, including approval minutes, meeting minutes, contracts, and intergovernmental agreements.

Information on each item is available on the city's website in the packet for this e-meeting.

This item may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion.

Council members may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action.

Tonight we have a nonprofit low-income housing tax exemption application and three uh intergov intergovernmental agreements for the first one CDBG joint entitlement and the whole consortium participation.

The second one is city house list in the Yatzong, and the third one is the transfer of water customers from Tuatum Valley Water District to the City of Tiger.

And I understand, Councillor Shaw, you have a request.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

I'm requesting that the CDBG joint entitlement and home consortium participation be taken off the consent agenda.

Uh do I have a second?

Second.

All right.

I think the I and anybody that disagree with uh so we will remove that.

Um so that's uh but we let's move on.

So that's uh first vote on the the other item, which is A C and D.

So do I have a motion?

Mayor, I move to uh approved consent agenda items A, C, and D as presented.

Is there a second?

Second.

All right.

Uh move by Councillor Schlag and second by Councillor Robbins.

Any further discussion on the three items on the consent agenda.

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, say nay.

So the consent agenda item A, C and D are uh have uh have being adopted by unanimous vote of the council present.

All right, so let's move on to item B, which is considering resolution to approve IgA with Washington County for CDBG joint entitlement and whole consortium participation.

And housing planner Miller is here available to respond to any questions.

So uh housing planner Leila, would you please come to all right?

So counselor Shah, please please start with your remark or question.

Great, thank you so much.

And I uh appreciate that this item was pulled from consent agenda, and um in full transparency, I did let staff know ahead of time.

Um part of the reason is the concern that I have with regards to the presentation where um I don't think the council understood what the impact and the trade-offs or the pros and cons were going to be of this decision.

In particular, it's my understanding that nonprofits could potentially not be able to apply for grants if we were to accept the full amount in year two of the three-year agreement.

So that'd be a concern I have, and um perhaps you have the impacts and the trade-offs or the pros and cons available for us to discuss tonight.

And then also I'm concerned that potentially there could be a crossover of staff providing policy as opposed to the council providing policy because within the resolution and the fifth, whereas it talks about with the recommendations of its adopted affordable housing plan, and this council has not had a discussion that those dollars would go toward the affordable housing plan.

So I think that the council's uh policy decision making has been removed in this case, and that is also of concern to me.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good evening, council and mayor who my name is Trinity Miller.

I am your housing planner.

I am ready to address the pros and cons in the first remark, and I'll defer to our assistant community development director, Skylar Warren for the second uh point.

Um regarding the entitlement, um, if the council decides to elect to retain 15% of the entitlement that was previously allocated towards the county's competitive pool for public facilities and public infrastructure projects, then nonprofits within the city of Tiger would be ineligible to apply for that competitive funding pool.

Instead, any application would be at the discretion of city council.

The pros to this is it provides greater oversight and direction from city council over public facility improvements within the city of Tiger.

That decision making authority is currently overseen by the policy advisory board through the Washington County.

It also allows for greater flexibility to administer large-scale public facilities and improvements projects within the city.

Good evening, Mayor and Councillors, Scather Warren, Assistant Director of Community Development.

So on the question of the policy decision being made here, the CDBG joint entitlement arrangement that we have with Washington County was originally a policy decision that was made uh with council in 2019.

Um as part of the three-year uh entitlement process that we do uh with Washington County and HUD.

So with every three-year uh cycle, we look at um the question of whether joint entitlement still makes sense.

Um and we bring that question back to council.

And so this item as well as the previous briefings on this are the policy decision uh to be made.

Um staff recommendation is um to adopt um as proposed, but certainly we welcome uh policy debate about the the merits of uh the decision that is before us.

And to be clear, the uh the change is to the allocation.

Uh it was an arrangement that was discussed uh very late breaking with uh Washington County within the last month.

So there was not time to bring that to council, and so it's part of the resolution.

If the council wants to stick with the status quo, um that is a perfectly acceptable option.

It won't impact anything other than the two outcomes that Trinity covered, which are that we would get less uh CDBG allocation money, which would be a decrease in our capacity to apply that to uh policy outcomes that we would might identify in that housing plan, and it would give uh council less local control over its CDBG entitlement.

So by remaining in the consortium for the public facilities portion of the CDB allocation, the policy decision of how to spend those dollars would rest with the policy advisory board, um, which rests with Washington County rather than with council.

So um again, that is the the policy question that is uh before the body tonight go ahead, Councillor Shaw.

Yeah, and perhaps just for clarification, because the as stated, um, it sounds like Tiger doesn't have a voice on the public affairs board, but we do because I'm the current liaison and our council president Wolf was the former liaison.

So we do have a voice and it's a strong voice within Washington County of where those dollars go.

Um so I don't think it's an either or as presented.

Either we go back to the original agreement or we go with the new agreement.

I'd like to see if there's a policy discussion that we could have that if we do accept all those funds in year two, which is approximately my understanding is $525,000 as opposed to the 120, 125, 135 per year, that those dollars could be used flexibly, uh, not just for the housing production plan, but could also possibly used uh for if there is infrastructure needs for a nonprofit, let's say, because we know that current CDB jolls have to gone to two former nonprofits in our community, both just compassion and good neighbor for facilities upgrade.

So that is a policy discussion if there's a third item and looking at you, Skylar, if that could be a third item for discussion as opposed to an either or that also look to my colleagues for their thoughts.

When do we have to enter this IGA by you said deadline?

Yes.

Um the deadline to enter the IGA would be July 31st, yes.

So have we complied with the July 8th deadlines?

There were two deadlines.

Yes, we complied with the July 8th deadline, which was to elect joint entitlement.

This is the decision to look at the operating agreement and intergovernmental agreement.

The previous discussion discussion was the consideration of joint entitlement versus full entitlement or uh no entitlement and joining the consortium.

Well, I remember the previous presentation, I was not made aware personally of the drawback of our nonprofit will lose you know their ability to apply grant directly from the county.

So that was a surprise to me.

So in the future, when you present policy recommendation, I will appreciate you presenting both the pro and con.

So I do not have any blind spot coming from community members like this.

So and right now I feel like we are in a buying because the deadline to uh 31st.

So and um, and last time when I asked you why what plan do we have to use this lump sum, and you did not give me a definitive answer.

So is that still the case?

Now do you have a firm plan to use this lump sum now?

Mayor, I'll take that question.

So one of the issues that we have with joint entitlement is how uh low our dollar figure is 125,000 a year is not enough to accomplish any single project.

Um the fact that that if we pair that with city dollars, uh it federalizes that uh city contribution and it makes it very complicated for both our uh housing planner as well as for our finance staff to administer.

So the reason for the roll-up uh, and this was discussed with Washington County staff uh was to actually reduce the burden of that and do a single project.

Uh part of the reason that we don't have a project identified is uh we have considered with engineering staff the the case of could we do sidewalk and fill even at $525,000, it's not quite enough to to do that kind of project.

So uh we've been looking at other creative ways um to uh utilize those funds, including acquisition and disposition of uh property for the purpose of uh housing development.

And the reason that uh housing planner was not able to you know commit to a specific outcome there is because we don't uh we don't have a specific outcome.

We only got agreement from Washington County to go the route of rolling the funds up in year two uh two months ago.

And so uh what the housing plan is doing is setting out a roadmap of housing policies that the city will implement that will foster housing development to meet those identified uh housing goals from our housing capacity analysis, and um in that process, we will identify uh where we could best use these funds.

And the the parallel that I would draw here is when we did the affordable housing plan in 2019, we identified the construction excise tax and community development block grant funding is the city's only two reliable sources of consistent funding to support uh affordable housing development, and then the rest of the measures in that affordable housing plan were uh methods or programs that could utilize those funds.

Um so an example is our affordable homeownership program.

Um, as we go into this new housing plan, we will have to consider things like uh land banking.

Um these dollars could be used for it, granted it would be short-term land banking, but it would be land banking nonetheless because we would be locking up the land and then disposing of it to uh developers.

So um there just simply hasn't been time to identify those uh programs that we would put it toward, but what we can say definitively is that the single-year allocations of about 125,000 are too small to actually make any meaningful impact in terms of our uh policy goals from council counselor Robin, go ahead.

Thank you.

Um and I want to thank Councilor Shaw for pulling this because I was gonna ask the same thing, but you're more prepared.

Um I have similar feelings to what we've already talked, so I won't go over that a lot.

Um I will say I find the numbers that are being uh reiterated to be a little bit confusing.

Umprofits are saying that changing this would get us about an extra 40,000 a year, total increase of 120,000.

Yet then there's a note in the in the previous slide deck from June 23rd, slide 11 says city receives all funding for fiscal year two, fiscal year 2028, but there's no no amount listed there.

Um but then we've said it's about 525,000, which sounds confusing to me because this year is only 125,000, or generally every year it's 125,000, which would be about 50 percent.

So I don't understand how that turns into 525,000.

And I understand what you're saying, so it's very complex.

But so when I would just ask that when we have these presentations where we're being educated on something that we may not know about, we don't do this every day for our job.

Um, we have to know a little bit about a lot of things that we can get tables with numbers, you know, it doesn't have to be super complex, but if you do this, you get this.

If you do this, you get that.

So that we can see these numbers and truly understand.

And so that way, if when the a member of the public comes to me and says, well, you're only gonna get an extra 40,000 dollars every year, if it's actually 525,000, I can then say, well, no, actually, even though this year it's this amount, next year it'll be that amount, right?

And so I can I can speak intelligently about these things.

Um, and I would just reiterate that I've said this before.

We don't know what we don't know, right?

We're telling us what we need to know to make these decisions.

And like has been said, the previous presentation didn't say anything about really any pros and cons.

There was a little bit about you know more direct control, which is great, but I would also reiterate that we do have a member on the advisory board.

Um but so I in a way I want to say that I appreciate the process of having the presentation in June, that then we had time for the public to reach out and say, hey, wait a minute.

Um I am very concerned about changing this because um even if we do get 525,000 next year, which which could be a great windfall for the city when we have significant shortfalls.

Um my understanding from your presentation is that those funds can only be used to acquire or dispose of land for affordable housing and sidewalks.

Um that that's what the presentation said, and again, I'm going off of what what you guys are telling me.

Whereas I have heard from Twalton Family Promise, um and their building needs waterproofing, it's uh the two projects they're facing right now, include a roof sealant replacement and the building envelope replacement estimated cost for both is 2.1 million dollars.

So even if we got all that money, we can't use it for that project, and that's not our project, certainly, but they are a great partner to the city.

And if that shelter, if that family shelter closes, we will have a large influx of families who suddenly are homeless again.

And that will invariably fall on city staff and police to help manage that.

And so I'm that those are my concerns.

And I if we have to make a decision now, which it kind of sounds like we do because the deadline is Friday, I would advocate for sticking with what we have currently until we know more and can better understand and perhaps we make a different decision in three years.

Council Schlack.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so I just want to confirm just reading through the resolution, just trying to wrap my head around a lot of the remarks that were made this evening.

Um suppose we get you know the full allocation in year two.

Um, who has the discretion to only ultimately decide how those dollars are spent?

Is that a staff discretion as part of the normal budget process?

Would that look like coming back to council?

Would that just what where would those dollars be decided upon?

So, like with our current CDBG allocation, that would be a council decision.

So to councillor Robin's question as well, if council wanted to, as part of the affordable housing plan, or sorry, as part of the housing plan, or um as just part of another policy directive if council wanted to say instead of putting that toward uh a local facility, like a sidewalk facility, and we wanted to put it out for a grant, um, we would bring that forward to council as an option.

Um it would be a what's called a sub-recipient agreement.

There's some challenges there because we are responsible for a lot of the federal compliance uh with that subrecipient, but uh we don't get the admin dollars um from Washington County.

Um they retain those.

So there would be you know policy trade-offs that we would uh provide to uh council at that time.

So are you comfortable with the new IGA or would you link for Council Robin's proposal going back to the always?

Go ahead, Councilor Shaw.

Maybe I'm wondering if we can make a and I appreciate Council Robins' comments, uh, given that fact we have a deadline.

Um, even though we this has been on kind of the knowledge for two months.

I'm wondering if we can't take out from the resolution in the fifth whereas just take out in accordance with the recommendations of its adopted affordable housing plan, strike that from anywhere in the documents we have, and that way it gives the council the flexibility to put those dollars towards um, and it has to be compliant with federal laws, so it's very narrow, which could be the affordable housing, it could be potentially sawdwacks, though that's not even close to what we need, or could be towards a nonprofit's infrastructure needs, is my understanding.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when I was sitting here scrunching my face up.

I I would support that and I would support having a conversation um later in this calendar year where council could provide policy direction about how uh what percentage of the year two allocation and year one allocation for that matter could be um opened up for a competitive process for any grants um and what amount could be set aside for a non-competitive process for for other matters.

I think that would be helpful just if council does have final discretion on how those dollars are spent having a conversation where we can uh provide that guidance.

Certainly, and uh I guess I might suggest I don't know if the city attorney wants to weigh in, but the affordable housing plan does not include the 65% allocation.

So striking that, I I guess what I would suggest is that in the uh council here by resolves section, that council could there direct staff to uh retain the current uh whatever portions of the current agreement that you wish us to keep.

So it could be that 50% allocation.

I think because I think that is the critical concern that I'm hearing.

That sounds good.

Uh Scott, can I ask a clarifying question then?

So when it says with the recommendations of its adopted affordable housing plan, is that our plan or is the Washington County plan?

Because it's not specific here.

It's it's our plan and the whereas statement is essentially you know, carrying over the same whereas statements from when we did this in 2020 and 2023 because it was the affordable housing plan that that first recommended that we uh enter a joint entitlement.

So when it's referencing that in here, that is the affordable housing plan is still the effective you know, housing plan that we have, and so it's referring back to that because joint entitlement is part of that recommendation, but that affordable housing plan does not have a specific uh allocation recommendation in there.

So if if that portion is removed, does it change then?

Because the whereas would go to uh uh let it be resolved.

So even if we struck recommendation of it's an adopted affordable housing plan, is this resolution dependent upon that last five or six words?

I mean, I guess there's two two options.

One is to put in information in the in the hereby resolved part, but also I mean you know, we can share the copy of the IGA back with you.

Um we we've heard very loud and clear what councils uh well, I I don't know if you intend to take a vote ultimately on which option to choose, but whatever option you choose, we will implement that at the at the signing of the IGA, the drafting and the final signing of the IGA.

Because the reason why I'm asking for clarity is because the dollars we'd be received in 2028, and um we potentially will have some new counselors at that time.

And so having been on the last uh council where there was some uh less than clear guidance from whether it's resolutions or even our charter on particular issues.

Um I would just want us to be as clear as possible for the next council.

And so that's why I think if we keep that with the recommendations adopted affordable housing plan and then have and therefore let it be resolved, they could be contradictory.

And we I know we can come back and look at tonight's um exciting public hearing, but I'm not so sure how many people would actually do that.

So look to you, uh Scalar, just on five minutes.

Uh Cydia Garney Rahala, please.

Council, if I might make a suggestion, um the next item is a briefing.

I'm happy to meet with the CD team offline uh and we can hash out some options for council uh and bring it back at the end of this meeting.

Okay, so we will stay tuned and uh thank you for the discussion.

Uh let's move on to the next uh agenda item.

So we will have uh briefing on update an intergovernmental agreement with clean water services.

And City Manager Rager will provide the staff report.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, Council.

Uh yes, I'll give a briefing tonight about the efforts toward an updated operating IGA uh between Clean Water Services and all of the cities in Washington County.

Uh we cities uh serve as co-implementers of the permits that govern sanitary sewer and stormwater uh programs.

Uh so the operating IGA is very important to clarify the roles and responsibilities between the parties.

Uh the operating IGAs outline the operating financial and overall working relationships between CWS and the co-implementers.

And from an operational perspective, the IGAs provide details and definitions regarding the local program, which cities cover versus the regional program that is covered by CWS, and then as well as details about the responsibilities for each one of those.

So again, the local program is performed by cities, and that's usually defined by pipe size pipes under a certain size belong to the city, and that includes all of the associated assets like manholes, catch basins, and that kind of thing.

The regional program performed by CWS, think about sewer treatment.

Think about the larger pipes, the transmission pipes that go from one city to the next, or or pump stations.

We have representatives from CWS here tonight in case there are questions you might have, and you could ask them here at the end.

As I mentioned in the agenda item summary, the city has enjoyed a very positive and productive relationship with CWS over the years.

Most cities of our size must manage their own stormwater, national stormwaters or sanitary sewer permits, and uh CWS serves as the permit holder for each one of those.

And so it's I you know from my own perspective, I think that's a that's a great thing that you know and it's a very collaborative relationship between the cities and CWS.

We're very much a part of the development of IGAs or the you know the amendments that come along the way.

Uh personally, I've been involved in at least one overhaul or redo of an IGA, like what's what's happening now in my time in public works, and then like I said, there's multiple amendments that happen uh over time.

Uh so the cities and CWS agreed a few years ago that the time was right for a fresh IGA, so that began the long task of updating the agreement uh to a form that all of the cities uh could agree on.

Uh CW CWS began meeting with cities in a particular order, and it just so happened that Tigerd was not first.

Uh so other cities like Beaverton and Hillsboro, I would say probably did uh the heavier lifting on you know negotiating and working out the details of the IGA.

So by the time it was our turn, uh the the agreement was really in good shape.

So our review uh was pretty pretty simple.

The key updates that all that are in this new IGA are elements such as creating an even more collaborative relationship, uh providing the co-implementers with greater clarity around expectations for sanitary sewer and stormwater management within their jurisdictions, uh includes opportunity to do sub-basin planning and defining the roles for coordinating with CWS in those cases.

Clarifying asset ownership and maintenance responsibility and methodology for asset transfer.

One example of where that comes in is when annexations take place.

Uh to the city.

Updating the fee structure for utility billing and permitting.

Uh there's a new approach for uh utility billing.

Uh cities have been providing uh we've the cities have done taking care of the the billing uh for CWS for the regional component.

So we collect the both the local and regional component and then transfer that regional component to CWS.

So there's the there's a change uh related to compensation that I'll talk about here in a moment.

Um the another update is updating the operating procedures for dispute resolution, amendments, governance, termination, and indemnification, and then uh meeting annually for more efficient coordination and communication.

So those are the key updates.

On the utility billing piece, uh the cities and uh CWS agreed that you know the cities should receive some compensation for uh taking care of that regional component.

And uh so the finance directors of the cities have been meeting with CWS toward an agreement as to how that would work.

And yesterday, Finance Director Kang and I attended a meeting at CWS with all of the cities represented, and I'd say we're very close to consensus on how that's gonna look.

Uh the cities agreed that for simplicity, a common percentage of revenue should be used to determine the compensation for the cities.

So what what will happen next is the cities will get together again and uh come back with that.

What is that common percentage?

Uh and they'll present that to CWS.

So the draft operating IGA has language in there that basically spells out that CWS will pay a I think is that a reasonable amount for for this.

So it we're not specifying in the IGA what that percentage is, and we really that that shouldn't be in there uh uh, but that'll be taken care of uh by way of a separate uh what we're talking about is either an MOU or possibly pulling the financial parts of the IGA out of this operating IGA and having it be a set uh standalone uh agreement.

So regardless, even the way the the IGA is drafted now, it is ready for council approval because it does provide that provision.

Uh tonight's just a briefing, so no action tonight, but it's an opportunity for you to ask any questions, and again, uh folks from CWS are here.

Uh it is scheduled, the IGA is scheduled to come back to you on August 11th for and it'll be on the consent agenda.

So at this point, I will open it up uh for your questions questions?

Go ahead, Counselor Shaw.

Well, given we have CD of CWS guests in the audience.

Uh is there any concerns or as we were talking earlier, sort of pros and cons that you have for this IGA.

Uh you if none, you can thumbs up perhaps, but I just want to give you an opportunity to say a few words and looking at Joe.

That's okay.

Oh yeah, Councillor Shaw and Mayor and fellow counselors.

Um Joe Gall, Chief Utility Relations Officer.

Um we feel really positive about uh our relationship with Tiger.

Uh Brian did a great job.

I was whispering to my staff, like I want to take them on the road because I've got eight of these that we're trying to get done by November 1st, and he described it very well.

Um Tiger did benefit from the work that uh Beaverton and Hillsborough did.

Um it was a fairly easy conversation to have.

Um I also want to reiterate, I I think uh as someone has worked in Washington County for many years.

I think the cities, the large cities have been doing the billing for many decades without any compensation.

And I think it's probably long overdue that we uh pay the city for the work that you do on our behalf.

So I think that that's a we had a very positive meeting yesterday.

I think we'll get there very quickly.

Um that's an important component to our relationship.

And uh we enjoy working with Tiger.

We we feel part of the Tiger team, and we feel like Tiger is part of the CWS team.

And uh I always joke that this is kind of a prenup agreement.

So it's not like we pull this out every day and see who's supposed to do what, but it's a much better clearer document.

So when there is issues, we can pull it out and say, what did we agree to three years ago?

And um let's let's figure that out.

The other is it's a five-year agreement, and I think we had a history of having 20-year agreements, which are way too long.

The world changes very, very fast.

So we will revisit this every five years.

And as I may have said in a previous uh presentation, uh, this is a permit requirement.

So DEQ is actually requiring us to update all of our operating agreements by November 1st.

So with that, I also want to acknowledge uh Chris Faulkner and Megan Comer in the audience.

They're the ones that really did the heavy lift in terms of coordinating with your staff.

And uh we really enjoy working with with Tiger and look forward to a long future together.

Thank you.

Well, thank you so much.

I appreciate the sentiment that you want to pay cities who are doing your billing work.

So thank you for that.

Okay.

With no question or comments, uh, thank you so much.

Yeah, and I have to say, Yeah, go ahead.

We are partners on the Ash Creek grant application, and we were very disappointed with Metro's decision last week.

We understand the process, but we are a committed partner.

So we're ready to sit down with your staff as you reassess the future and what could we do together.

So I really appreciate you sending CWS staff to the Metro meeting.

They were with me there for six hours waiting to testify.

So we will make sure this trail will be built.

So thank you so much.

We feel the same way.

So yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So let's move on to the next item on the agenda, which is facility next steps.

Again, City Manager Raker will uh provide a staff report.

All right.

Good evening again.

Uh so I am here tonight at your request to start a conversation about potential next steps related to facility needs in the city.

I'm also joined tonight by several members of our project team that uh worked on the proposed police and public works facility concept, and um uh some maybe weren't on that project, but are here just uh expertise related to projects and and how projects move forward.

Uh given the results of the May election uh where a proposed bond to pay for the police public works concept uh did not get approved, and the council asked staff to start this conversation about next steps.

Our project team met last month in what I would describe as a brainstorming session, and I provided details from that discussion in the agenda item summary.

I want to clarify that the information and the in the summary is only there to really get the conversation started.

Uh we provided some ideas as to next steps that the council could consider.

Uh the scenario I laid out in the what-where and sequencing section of the report is one way of moving forward.

As to timing, we noted the upcoming renewal of the public safety levy and how the city might coordinate a future general obligation bond proposal with that renewal effort uh toward a standalone uh PD facility.

Um before I open this up for questions, I think it's also important to provide some context around how we got to where we are now, and this may also shed some light as to you know how some of the ideas got presented in the summary.

So uh a lot of this comes from my own experience uh you know being here in 2006.

You know, public works lost one facility to the Ash and Burnham intersection project.

Uh in 2008, we the city did a facilities system plan, and that plan and that was done by an outside consultant, and that laid out a proposed sequencing and acknowledged the needs of both uh uh police and public works at that point.

And the the idea was to move uh public works out of the downtown first, which would then open up the existing public works site for a new police facility.

In parallel with this, the downtown visioning work that was taking place at that time uh acknowledged that public works is a non-conforming use in the downtown.

So it's really, you know, we're more of an industrial use and not not great for what was envisioned for the downtown.

So Public Works began looking for land somewhere around 2010.

Uh meanwhile, time goes by and public works lost another facility toward the development of the Atwell Commons project, and also police experiencing problems with their building and just the aging of the structure and losing you know, just running out of space.

The city looked at a one-campus approach around 2013.

That was re envisioning what would happen here at the Civic Center.

Uh that did not move forward.

And in around 2020 or 2020, the city looked at an approach in conjunction with potential light rail, where uh the step one would be moving public works out uh to somewhere else and developing this the existing public works site into a new city hall and police facility.

Uh that did not move forward largely due to the light rail project not being approved by voters.

Uh meanwhile, problems continue to uh compound with uh running out of space and and the facility issues.

Public works continued to look for property because it was acknowledged that moving that function was a good first move, kind of the first domino to tip over.

And we, as you know, property was secured a few years ago, and then uh former city manager Reimer asked during while during due diligence if we could manage to squeeze both public works and PD on that property on Wall Street.

So uh and then you know the the history from there.

But that history plays into some of the ideas that were shared, and what we're looking for tonight is just direction from you.

Uh, you know, what questions would you like us to explore?

Uh one question in particular that uh was mentioned in the uh uh summary is you know, doing some polling or public engagement around the uh acceptance of a smaller uh GO bond uh in conjunction with uh perhaps utility rate adjustments to help pay for a public works facility.

That you know that's some that would be a new set of questions to ask the public.

Uh also just a reminder that while we're having this conversation, there is the effort to bring forward a new 20-year facility system plan.

So that if that that will take about a year to get through that.

Uh so you know, I guess part of the direction we're looking for is uh you know related to public engagement.

What what's important to you?

What what are you looking for there?

What kind of questions do you think we should be asking?

And um, yeah, that that's where I'll leave it for now and I'll open it up for discussion and and your questions at this point.

All right.

Thank you, C Major Riger.

Um thank you for the presentation.

And uh the staff report represents a lot of work, and I really appreciate the effort that went into developing these options.

And um, first I appreciate you mentioning public engagement because um when I read this, I don't see any public engagement effort, so I just want to be candid that candidate that I remain skeptical about moving forward with this project this point.

Um so just remember back in February, um, according to our polling, 56% of residents expressed support for the bond after hearing more information about the project.

But when I knock on hundreds of doors during the campaign, I repeatedly I repeatedly heard questions and concern about the city's approach.

So the vast majority of residents I spoke with, they they understand that you know our 40-year-old police and public work facilities need to be addressed.

That's an issue.

But their question were about you know the proposal itself, you know, why why is it 150 million dollars?

Why, as you mentioned, why do we need to have two facilities together?

And what will happen to the existing facility?

Are there a way we can um reduce the costs?

So um I I think those are reasonable questions.

And um, and the election result obviously show that we did not add adequately answer those questions for the voter.

So um, and just going back when this proposal, previous proposal was first being discussed.

I requested that the city establish a community input committee or citizen input committee, but that that request uh did not move forward.

So, and I personally think that that's that was a missed opportunity that we need to address if we decide to go forward with anything.

And I publicly stated many times um as mayor, I would not support moving forward with another major facility plan without robust community involvement.

Um at this point, again, I just don't see any component of that in the staff plan.

Um, so for major project like this, uh, we need to work with the people, not ahead of the people.

So we need to um involve residents, small businesses, utility utility customers, city employees, and other stakeholders who can help us evaluate the needs, options, and costs before the city settle on a preferred approach.

And um, to be frank, I'm not comfortable moving forward with the assumption that enterprise fund should be used at this point.

Um, just put it more plainly, um, that means paying for at least part of the project through water bills and other utility charges.

Um, to some residents, I'm afraid that shifting the cost from the voter-approved bond to utility fees will feel like uh we are going around the measures result, right?

So regardless of whatever the costs appear to be on the property tax statement or utility bill, residents we do have to pay for it somehow.

So and also maybe um sometimes that may be a reasonable case for using enterprise fund, particularly for portion of a public work facility that directly supports water operations.

But before making that um decision, the public deserve to understand the actual financial impact and have meaningful opportunity to provide input.

So are we discussing a water bill increase of two cents per month, $2 per month, or $20 per month?

How would it affect Tiger residents, small businesses, and customers outside of the city?

Those answers should be available before council is asked to provide any directions.

And I also want to know whether we are doing everything reasonable or reasonably possible to reduce the cost, right?

During the bond campaign, voters were told that the city was spending approximately one million one million dollars each year, renting storage space and maintaining outdated facility.

If new facilities will eliminate some of those expenses, can those annual savings be applied toward the project and reduce what the resident must pay?

Can customers outside of Tiger who use Tiger's water system contribute an appropriate share to a facility that supports the system?

I'm personally supportive of people living outside Tiger who use our water system pay for some of that facility.

Can future development serve the Tiger utility system, both in and outside of Tiger, contribute through system development charges, SDCs, or other law firm lawful mechanisms?

And finally, I heard that quite a bit.

Can the city sell or repurpose the existing public or facility and apply proceed or savings toward the replacement replacement facility?

That's just some question I'm very interested in hearing how we can do everything in our power to reduce costs of this future facility for our residents.

And regarding you know the proposal of potentially relocing relocating the police police department.

Um we should also ask whether relocating the police department is the only practical option.

I have seen the King City fire station being rebuilt right now on its existing site while operations continue from temporary structure nearby.

Can Tiger use a similar approach for our police department?

Could the existing police station be expanded or substantially remodeled?

What the why are the costs?

Well, that cost less than deciding another site and constructing an entirely new facility.

If possible parks or any other public-owned site is considered, uh the community must be involved before it becomes a preferred option.

And again, I appreciate staff coming out with brainstorming session, coming with recommendation or suggestion, but I'm not suggesting that any of these ideas is necessarily the answer.

These are basic questions.

The community expects us to explore opening, openly before committing to a path.

So I'm, you know, just transparency is not simply presenting information at a public meeting.

It means clearly explaining the assumptions, alternatives, costs, funding sources, and trade-offs.

It also means giving the public a meaningful opportunity to influence the proposal before the major decision have already been made.

The voters told us that the previous proposal was too expensive and that we had not earned sufficient confidence in the approach.

We need to listen carefully to that message.

I support addressing the legit legitimate needs of our police and public work employees.

They deserve safe, functional facility that allow them to serve the community effectively.

But we must address these needs in a way that residents and small businesses can afford and understand.

Before moving forward, I would like to see a structured community engagement process, a side-by-side comparison of the available options, and the anticipated monthly impact on utility customers and a comprehensive review of every reasonable opportunity to control the cost.

I will also like that community engagement to begin before staff develops a preferred alternative, not after.

So that's my comment.

So uh counselor, do you have counselor schlack?

Thank you, Mayor.

And I'm largely aligned with um the points that you raised and the concerns that you raised.

Um I think if I were to just sort of add on to a couple of points.

The way I would describe it is I think there's a lot of history, like with a long of these long-term projects that um council uh new council members interact with.

I know I feel like um when I was appointed in July of 2024, I was sort of thrown in the middle of where this project was.

Um so I would recommend based on the result that we you know um the way I would phrase it is we need to go back to first principles and how to address this issue and bring the community along with us every step of the way.

Um I would like to definitely see side-by-side options, like the mayor said, of what we can afford at different price points and what the trade-offs are in pursuing different options and different revenue measures.

I think that would have really helped um tell the story of why that would have helped tell the story of how we got to where we were with the previous proposal, and I think whatever the next proposal looks like, being able to explain sort of through presenting different options would be helpful for the community and for council.

And then finally, um, you know, there is a uh suggestion of uh pursuing another geobond for uh a portion of our um police facility needs as well as the uh public safety local option levy.

I think it would just be good practice structurally moving forward to have a council liaison or subcommittee designated for anything that would require a ballot referral uh just because ultimately the city may be heavily involved before referral, but it's gonna have to transition over to a community-led campaign.

And I think the council as um the elected representatives of the community can help provide input throughout the process of what the community would and would not be willing to accept.

So that would be what I would add in addition to Mayor Who's remarks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any comments or question?

Go ahead, Councilman Shaw.

I appreciate both of your um comments on this and support both Mayor Who and Councilor Schlack.

I know you've been uh much more engaged, so I really appreciate your involvement here and appreciate staff and all the work putting these different options together.

Um I like the idea of a side-by-side uh comparison so we can compare in the community compare.

I like the idea of having a community committee that reviews it, and I really support the idea of having a council liaison so that the input is shared back and forth.

So thank you.

Oh, Councillor Robbins.

I'll just make a quick comment.

I think Mayor Who, Counselor Schlack, we had very good points.

Um but I just want to go back and say that I I do think that the city team did a great job with our previous plan.

I was for the previous plan.

Umfortunately, the economy is kind of terrible.

Um community sent sentiment is not positive at all.

So I don't know that anything would have passed this year with the current political climate that we are.

So I don't, even though we failed, I want to do I I do want to acknowledge all the hard work that was put into that.

Um I think that we did do at least an adequate job of trying to publicize this and get people's opinions.

But um, but when I came on council, it was already kind of rolling, so I don't know how it really started.

But um from the time that I was on, we were talking about it, we were doing tours, we were you know trying to show people what we really needed.

I think there might be a lack of understanding of what is done at public works and the big equipment that needs to be stored and also the the super cramped facilities that we have there.

I'd love to do more video tours and get it out on the internet, but I just I just don't want this to come across as us simply saying that was bad and we're gonna do something better.

We did a lot, everyone did a lot of hard work and um it didn't work out, and we're gonna learn our lessons and try again.

Do you have enough information and direction at this point?

I do have a couple of questions if if that's okay.

So related to well, uh I can answer a couple of the questions you raised, Mr.

Mayor, such as you know, could customers outside of the of Tiger contribute?

Yeah, that was something we did we did consider that that could uh definitely happen.

Uh can the city sell the existing public works facility?

That was a question that came up during the project, and the answer was uh it it's complicated because the public works site is considered a water system asset.

So you have to think back to the the prior to 1994-ish, when Tiger took over the the uh management of the water system before that, the entire water system was the Tigered Water District and that site over there uh was the headquarters for that.

So larger sites within the water system, such as reservoirs and pump stations and that site are considered system assets, and the way our agreement works with our our partners, uh Durham King uh Tiger Water District that's the unincorporated area.

Um if that site is sold, the proceeds have to go into the water fund.

So they would not be able to be used to like help pay for an a new project, but they they would go into the water fund.

So any water fund contribution to the project, sure.

I mean that the the proceeds from the sale of that site would feed that same fund that would contribute.

A question I have is for us to do side-by-side comparisons.

Uh I'm envisioning the need for uh some level of well, what are we talking about and as far as a design?

I'm not talking about full-on design, but like conceptual design of something, and then well, how much is that something gonna cost that that takes expertise that we don't necessarily have in-house?

And so that's an so I guess my ask or my uh my question to you is are you open to uh if we have to develop some budget around doing some of that research so we can do side by side comparisons?

Are you open to that if we bring that forward in say the budgeting the budget process?

Yeah, I that seems reasonable to me.

I'm open, subject to seeing what the cost is.

Yeah.

Go ahead, Consul Glucy.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um along those lines.

I know that we did sort of have this cost comparison when we talked about it in December of last year, but we weren't given sort of the pros and cons.

So that's when we were asked, do we do the 150 versus the 130?

And I know I specifically asked, okay, well, what happens if we do the 130?

And the answer was, well, we won't be able to do everything that we want, kind of thing.

So it wasn't that if we do this, we lose like the indoor shooting range or this, or like specifics of what it would lose.

It was more of a this is our plan, we won't be able to do what we plan without it.

We're going to ask for more because if we don't spend all of it, then it could be paid off quickly and it could go back to the you know tax fees.

I I agree with Counselor Caduce, and that's partly where my my feedback came from, but because by the time the council had that discussion, um I think we were weeks away from the deadline to refer.

Um so this would be in part to get ahead of it to say, okay, if we did 130, okay, conceivably these are the features we could afford, these are the features we wouldn't be able to afford realistically.

And then if it were say 150 or any, you know, any whatever amounts we're looking at, um, it would just be helpful.

I'm not asking for um visual renderings of what it could look like.

It's more functionally understanding what use cases we could address, what use cases we couldn't address, and and how that would impact operations moving forward.

So even if it's just a table of price, here are the bullet points of what could and could not work, that would be sufficient from my perspective.

And how and to my point, all the options for how we can you know find alternative funding sources.

So tiger taxpayers are not the only ones paying for anything.

So we have to show voters or tiger restaurant, we are thinking everything possible to control the costs.

So yeah, so I think uh just a table will be very helpful to me too.

So yeah.

Okay.

I'm gonna just turn to our internal team other just to give them an opportunity.

Is there anything that we haven't discussed that you want to bring into this or good?

Okay, great.

Uh I think we have what we need.

Okay.

Moving ahead.

Thank you.

Uh do you have new information for us?

Do we need to read it before we talk?

If we do, I want to take a little break so I can take time to read while you have proposed.

Yes.

Um, I have additional information.

Um, so that's take a 10-minute break.

And we'll be back at Council.

If I can suggest it won't take 10 minutes for you to read it, it's just a short table of the information being presented.

So it shouldn't take that.

10 minutes, let's come back at eight o'clock.

Okay.

All right, we'll be in reset until eight o'clock.

Thank you.

That's uh resume our discussion on the IGA with uh Washington County for CDBG joint entitlement and I will buy a housing plan and Miller and come uh assistant community development uh director, uh Skylar Warren, to come back to present.

And I will invite housing planner Miller and come uh assistant community development uh director, uh Skylar Warren to come back to present.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council Housing Planner Miller here.

Um thank you for the opportunity to discuss and provide you all with additional feedback shown on the slide and in the papers before you are the decisions presented to you tonight as well as options that clarify the figures for reference.

The annual CDBG allocation is a formula-based grant from the federal government annually.

Tiger is entitled to 270,000 dollars 449, 270,449.

Of that, we enter into an agreement with Washington County that determines the allocation split.

Option one presented before you is to adopt a or provide direction for a 50-50 split.

That would look like an annual allocation of approximately 135,250, totaling 405,750 over three years.

The outcome of this option is that the city would retain a vote on the policy advisory board for the county's facilities grants, and nonprofits would have access to compete for these grants.

This would be a 6535 split of the allocation annually, that would be 175,824, totaling 527,473 over three years.

The outcome of this option is the city would have access to additional funds.

The city does not retain a vote on the policy advisory board for a county's facilities grants, and nonprofits cannot compete for these grants.

The difference between these is $40,574 annually or 121,723 over the three years.

Then decision two is the allocation schedule.

There are two options presented before you.

Option one is to receive annual allocations, so the annual figure in option one and two above.

Thank you.

Questions, counselor.

Oh, are you ready to perhaps go ahead?

So thank you so much.

I really appreciate thank you for the quick uh putting this together.

So option one is staying the same.

So we wouldn't, it's the current IGA that we have with Washington County, and so that wouldn't change, whereas option two would change because of the split.

Correct.

Option two one for decision one would be no change in the allocation amount, and option two would be a change in the allocation amount.

Yes.

So do I additional questions?

No.

Are you for decision one?

We have to we can make decision on option one, option two, and there's a decision two on option one is annual annual allocation, and option two is row up three years of allocation at all in year two.

So, Mayor, it would be my recommendation that we choose option one, um thinking thanking staff for all the work they've done.

Um I think with Washington County, the um intergovernmental agreements.

Um I don't know if any of us initially knew they could be negotiated, but now that we know if we stick with the current intergovernmental agreement that gives us three years to put our housing production in plan, we'll by then know what land could potentially be acquired and disposed, or they call it acquisition disposition.

Um, and we'll have a clearer idea of what those dollars could be used for, if it would be potentially sidewalks or if it could be um housing, so we'll know more clear because the plan will be done.

So that's why as the liaison, I would recommend that we go with option one, and this gives us three years to complete that housing production plan.

We'll be clear and we know exactly then what those dollars could go for.

How about the allocation schedule?

Um well, option one, the allocation schedule is defined by the IGA.

Okay, so it's a defined amount that comes from the IGA.

So okay.

Councilor Robbins, are you okay with that?

Yes.

Okay, yes, I'm fine.

My only other question is that Councillor Shaw had brought up wording in the resolution regarding um whether or not council is giving up its policy making decisions.

And has that part been figured out, or will we look at that later?

Yeah, council, the resolution doesn't need to change.

It'll be the policy direction that council gives tonight, and we will update the IGA to reflect that.

Counselor Godusi.

I agree.

Agree.

Okay.

Counselor Schlack.

Sure, let's keep the staff quo.

All right, Counselor Anderson.

Questions?

Comments?

No, I I I agree with that proposal.

The difference really is 40,000.

I think our our nonprofits in our city could benefit that or maybe even more over the over that life.

So yeah, I would just say option one, let's let's look at it for three years and take another stab at it.

Okay.

Do you ask do you and yes to have a motion and vote on it?

Please.

And I also want to clarify decision point two.

So yes, it is uh as counselor shaw said stated in the IGA.

This is one point where we can negotiate the IGA.

Do we want all of our money in year two in a lump sum, or do we want it each year?

Uh the staff recommendation is that there's a potential benefit to having more money.

Um, but if council wants to have a consistent amount every year, staff is just fine with that too.

So that would be the second policy decision that we would look to counsel for.

Currently it's uh we receive annually, right?

So I think that just stay stay.

I will prefer just to do a status quote on everything.

Yeah.

Okay.

If I may just to talk about the pros and cons of that, because it's such a small amount of money annually, 120,000, we don't have an identified project to put 120,000 towards.

We currently are using that money for um our affordable homeownership program, and that has the impact of federalizing that entire program through a sub-recipient agreement with the contractor that uh runs that.

So the impact of that would be shifting to try to find another way to spend the 121,000, I think, per year.

No, sorry, 170, sorry, 135 per year versus the 405 in year two.

Go ahead, counselor Anderson.

So you have to use that?

Or could could you bank it and just say for future projects?

No.

Uh Trink can probably speak more about the federal spend down requirements that come with CDBG funds.

Yes.

Um, so these funds are subject to C BG timeliness reporting and uh expenditures.

So the projects can exceed more than one year, but per our previous IGA, and in order to continue to meet timeliness, we had only a 50% of our rollover allowed for the annual allocation.

So that was to continue to meet timeliness.

So by rolling it up in year two, we still meet our timeliness, but we receive that lump sum and don't have to work on multiple smaller projects.

So three years.

Yeah, option two, not at all.

So you couldn't roll it over for 50 years, yeah.

50 percent of that.

Correct.

We would not be able to roll over more than 50 percent of the allocation for multiple years.

Okay.

So to me, we're back at square one.

If we go with option two, the roll up of three years of allocation, that means in 2028, we get what we receive 527,000.

And again, the question is from a policy perspective, this council has not made a decision how that would be spent.

So if I'm hearing and we've agreed that this will come back to council, and there will be no negative impacts on nonprofits if they were to apply via the RFP or any housing uh project.

There'll be no negative impact for housing project, then we could move forward.

Is that oh, is it is a we vote on option one 5050 split, but option one step two will still be 5050.

Or is decision decision two is uh completely independent of decision one.

So decision one is about the split, and the split is what impacts the city's uh participation in the policy advisory board vote, and it's what impacts the uh eligibility of local uh nonprofits to apply for facilities grants.

Decision two has no impact on either of those outcomes.

It's just an operational consideration for the city of whether we have a lump sum to work with or whether we have uh a smaller amount each year to work with the so just for clarity if we choose option one but go with option two and the allocation schedule, we would get how much then open year the roll-up of three years for option one.

If the council decided to pursue option one for the allocation amount and option two for the allocation schedule, that would be a three-year total of 405,750.

And then are do we still then retain the PAB seat?

And do we also then retain the ability to spend those dollars with council's direction or towards policy?

Yes, as listed under the outcomes for option one, the city would retain the PAB seat and be able to vote on the county's facilities grants, and nonprofits would have access to compete for those grants, and the direction of the allocation spend would also come from city council okay.

Okay.

Are we all fine with uh for step decision one, option one, decision two, option two?

I'm fine with that, yes.

Okay, we're all fine with that.

Okay.

All right, so some counselor uh know how to make a motion or council if the motion could also include to authorize the city manager to sign the and execute the agreement.

Anyone got that it would be uh resolution number 26-27 because we passed the uh originally planned one earlier.

Um I move to approve resolution number 26-27, a resolution to jointly accept CDBG entitlement with Washington County and remain a home consortium member and authorize the city manager to sign the uh appropriate intergovernmental agreement to execute that.

Is that good enough?

Good job, Councillor Schleck.

I'll second.

All right, so the motion has been moved and seconded.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed say nay.

While the resolution passed with the unanimous vote of a council presson.

So thank you so much for your work today.

All right.

Thank you.

There being no additional items, this meeting is adjourned.

Good night, Tiger.