Megan Hello, Mayor, members of the council.

I am Megan George, the deputy city manager in Towallaton, and I am here to introduce three members of our government relations team with Thorn Run.

As you'll recall, about a year ago, a little over a year ago, we hired Thorn Run to represent Towallaton in both Salem and Washington, D.C.

They are here to provide an update on their work at both of those locations.

One of our big priorities for Tuallaton was to secure funding, and I'm pleased to share that we'll have an update on that.

As you know, Cody and myself are the staff liaisons to our government relations team, so we work closely with them throughout the legislative session and throughout the year.

So with that, I'll introduce Dan, Leah, and Tyler.

Welcome.

Good to see you all again.

See you all.

Thank you for uh having us here, Council.

Um we'll go through and introduce ourselves and then I'll kick off our little presentation here.

My name's Tyler Jansen.

I'm a vice president with Thornrun Partners.

My name is Leah Navarro with Thornrun Partners.

And I'm Dan Bates.

I'm a partner with Thornrun Partners.

Well, thank you so much for hosting us here tonight.

Um we're really pleased to be here with you and to share a little bit of an update of uh both our performance in 2025, and as I'm sure a lot of you are aware, uh a special session is just around the corner about transportation funding.

Leah and I literally came from the Capitol here to be with you tonight, so we have some updates uh hot off the press.

Um, but before we go there, I just want to start with a little bit of an overview of the 2025 session.

So uh the major themes that we saw this year uh being the long legislative session that was six months long from January through June.

Um we saw uh very much the same priorities that we have seen for uh ever since Governor Kotech took office.

Uh we saw transportation, behavioral health, K-12, and wildfire funding really took uh top tier.

Um while those were the top priorities, I do want to emphasize that this legislative session we saw more legislation introduced than we have ever seen before.

So for a part-time legislature, uh we saw over 4,000 bills introduced.

Um that led to, as you can imagine, uh a majority of those bills not being heard, certainly a vast majority of those bills not passing, and the ones that were granted time in committees maybe received less time than they would have if uh there had been fewer bills introduced.

Um of the major themes from the 2025 session uh was that Oregon for a number of years now has enjoyed some really tremendous economic forecasts and revenue forecasts.

This was the first session since 2011 where we saw uh the quarterly revenue uh estimate that comes out in May actually decrease from the quarterly revenue estimate that comes out in March.

Um, as we are all grappling uh with understanding the implications of federal legislation that's rolling out, which uh my colleague Dan is going to speak to during the federal update portion.

Um we really started to feel that at the state level this year.

So uh for the first time uh since 2011, we felt a much more constrained budgetary environment.

Um it felt more tense in the Capitol than it has in years past, simply around uh a finite pool of resources and uh legislators who had been around who may have been used to seeing their capital projects funded.

Um there was there was disappointment at the end of this session for many of them to not bury the lead.

Well, we will certainly get to the success that we had with our capital funding request.

Um, but overall did want to paint that picture of the mood.

Uh you are aware of some of the major legislation that uh came up this year.

Certainly um one that received a lot of airtime and ended up passing was the uh strike pay bill, um which was Senate Bill 916.

Um it was a topic of pretty fierce negotiation.

Um at the end of the day, uh the bill did end up passing.

Uh the waiting period uh was amended, uh, as was a cap on the amount of benefits that are um available to striking workers.

Uh we do anticipate to see uh implementation of that bill watch very closely as well as um any employers watching for any unintended consequences as a result of that passage.

Um critical importance to local governments.

We saw uh pretty significant uh property tax study bill pass, um, which uh in its original form would have tasked the legislative revenue officer with doing a study and interviewing only legislators.

Coalition of local governments was very successful in arguing that it probably makes more sense to talk to your cities and counties about revenue implications under measures 5 and 50.

So we were able to see passage of a study bill that explicitly gives the association of Oregon Counties and the League of Oregon Cities seats at that table.

We will certainly be very involved in making sure that they have information from Towallatin at their requests as well.

Another final piece of major legislation affecting localities was seeing enshrined permanently some of the recreational immunity protections.

You're all aware of city-county insurance services essentially issuing a decree that localities may wish to close their parks and recreation spaces after a slip and fall incident in Newport that sort of cast uh that recreational immunity protection into question.

There was uh a good uh compromise bill this year between the local government side, uh the risk management side and the trial lawyer um side sort of coming together to enshrine some of the temporary protections that had passed in the last uh short session into this longer session fix.

So it doesn't go as far as just outright granting the landowner intent as a level of immunity, but it does uh protect those certain activities like walking and running and equestrian practices.

With that, I'll pause if there are any questions on the big themes and then I'll turn to the special session.

Okay, great.

Um the special session we are going to be kicking off on Friday.

Currently, as we speak, there is public testimony happening in hearing room F in the state capitol.

Um the latest version, which uh I believe you have probably seen is this LC2.

So it is the uh the secondary version of what the governor has proposed for uh how we might do a band-aid fix for our transportation network.

For context, uh the marquee issue in many ways of the 2025 session was a transportation package.

Um we didn't see the package published in draft legislative form until June.

Uh despite there being sort of a framework that had come out in February with some broad strokes about where we wanted to go.

Um, and to boil it down to a nutshell, it felt very much like it was it was a big bite to take with three weeks left of session.

Um so there was a lot of uh reaction to the bill when it came out about uh certain pieces that were included or not included, the the actual volume of the tax hike that uh Oregonians would feel as a result.

This boiled down version, uh, this band-aid version that we have ended up with, which we anticipate to see starting to move through the legislative process, certainly with public hearing today, but actually seeing action at least in the House side on Friday, uh really boils down to a few key pieces.

There is a gas tax increase of six cents, the title and uh registration increases that you see outlined there on the slide.

Um it moves somewhat aggressively towards a road user charge, particularly for EVs and hybrid vehicles.

Um also uh critically important to any city government.

It protects the 50, 30, 20 revenue split.

Oregon is somewhat unique in that it shares half of the uh uh state highway trust fund with its local government partners.

If you will all recall at the end of the 2025 session, literally on the last day, there was a a Hail Mary, if you will, uh passed to try to save some state ODOT positions that cut that did away with the 50, 30, 20 revenue sharing agreement.

Um that would have been detrimental to local governments.

A number uh of uh local governments did show up uh either flying into you know down the road to Salem or at least coming in virtually to say that if we're going to do this, we have to honor that commitment.

So this bill does do that.

It does increase the state uh payroll tax levied on employees by 0.1%.

That helps fund the state uh transit uh uh system.

And it includes a number of accountability measures for ODOT, notably moving the hiring and firing authority for the ODOT director out of the Oregon Transportation Commission's hands and into the the governor's purview.

Pause there.

Uh, our sense for Leah and I, Leah can correct me if she feels differently, but we just came from the committee hearing.

It felt very much like from talking to the legislators present, it felt like this LC was sort of on rails to pass, but not without the public process that uh you know there were a number of legislators who were not keen on just greenlighting something and waiving rules and getting done quickly.

It feels like we're probably in for a weekend of substantial bill readings and uh probably some lengthy floor speeches and debate on it.

Uh but our understanding is that the House is poised to take up passage of the bill on Friday with the Senate poised to take up passage of this bill on Monday, Labor Day.

Pause there.

Any questions?

Council President Pratt.

Um I'm gonna focus on that increased accountability and transparency for ODOT.

And so, you know, they they put out their PR and told us they're not gonna ply all the roads and blah blah.

So supposedly the focus will be on maintenance and taking care of the roads, but and maybe I haven't seen it yet when I read what I read.

But is there anything that keeps them from moving those funds to a project?

Is there any stop gap that keeps them from doing that?

That's that's it.

Um without sitting with the fine-tooth comb and looking and seeing if if uh there are prohibitions on it.

What I can say for context is the way that we got to this situation and what the committee staff started outlining today was that the last transportation package we saw in 2017 did raise a tremendous sum of funds, but to your point, Council President, those funds were dedicated towards capital projects.

There was uh a minuscule amount left over for operations and maintenance.

So the premise of this package has been that these are dedicated funds for operations and maintenance.

Um I would have to go through, and perhaps you know it's maybe a good question for um uh your city attorney to see if there is any um prohibition on those funds in terms of shifting.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And unfortunately, our city attorney's gone to the thing that I've seen is there's no funds for any of the 2017 projects.

No additional funds.

This is strictly um calling it jobs bill.

But my point is, you know, can they do like Washington County?

Other questions?

I know Councilor Sacco's virtually, I don't know if her hand's up or not.

Nope.

All right.

Okay.

I'll turn it over to my colleague Leah.

Yeah, thanks.

So for this legislative session, the City of Twalleton was awarded the 1.75 million dollars in general fund dollars through House Bill 5006, which is one of the end of session bills for seismic valving, which is really great.

And part of that success is largely due to the fact that we were in front of legislators really early on during session.

And um mayor chairlin and Megan, thank you so much for being part of that.

Having your presence in the Capitol was really significant, showcasing the commitment of the city of Twilighton to that project.

Um and the Oregon Water Department Services has also contacted the city in terms of um getting started on that grant allocation.

You'll notice that we don't have the um shaded structure on there, even though we did the same advocacy for that, but part of that is because uh a lot of the legislators didn't get um projects funded.

Um they usually got one project funded for this session, and so uh a lot of the support came from our legislative delegation, Senator Wagner and uh Representative Walters, who was a great champion moving that forward.

Looking ahead for this upcoming legislative short session, it's going to be a pretty tight budget cycle.

Um I'm sure you've heard of and are aware of HR1, which is at the federal level, the reconciliation bill, and one of the biggest things for this session will be on Medicaid because of the churn, and also because of the uh capped provider tax and um the new work requirements that are attached to Medicaid.

So we're gonna be seeing a pretty big budget hole in that um aspect.

And then in terms of the legislative timeline, um we will be coming up for the September legislative days, and then um in November, we will also have the deadline for requesting the legislative bill, and in January 2026, we will have um the legislative drafts returned to us, and then um in February 2026, the short session will begin, and that is from February 2nd, and it'll run through March 9th.

Evening, council.

Um any questions on the before we move into the state update, any further questions on that.

Great.

Well, on uh oh Mr.

Sorry, Council.

Um you talked about a bit pretty big budget hull for um Medic Medicaid.

Um is there any idea of what it would be?

Counselor Brooks, that's a really great question.

Um we could see up to 15 billion dollars in the next 10 years for that budget hole, and so um that also includes SNAP being cut from the federal level and um having a reduced cuts in in the match from the federal level.

15 15 billion with the B.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um and then is there a differential between um well from what I understand the work requirement seems to be a lot to more to have an impact on administration than actual function of the clients?

So I'm just curious about your thoughts on that.

And how much more that costs us to administer four times a year than one time a year?

Counselor Brooks, thank you so much for your statement.

Um that is true, there would be an administrative side, especially from the state level when it comes to the work requirements, but also that um enrollment process every six months.

We don't really have a number on like how much that would cost, but um we do expect that to be an impact for the state.

Yeah, I mean it seems like it would be about four times what it cost right now, or three times that we had it once.

Um and then I guess the other last question is about the um the budget minimums that we can spend as a state, or maximums, I mean.

Is there um a lot of that is due to um the economic forecast, and so that sort of gives us an idea and a projection of how much the state has to allocate in terms of their budget.

Okay, but we have lit like now there's limits for how much we can spend to like cover costs that would not be covered in the future by the federal government, right?

I believe that's one question for the councilbrooks.

Uh do we have limits on what we have already allocated or what we can in the future?

In the future.

Yeah.

So I mean the federal limits for the states to spend on it.

Yeah, I I think more of those qu there are I don't know that there are global limits in the sense, but there are severe limits on um categories and where they're going to that what they're willing to match.

Uh and so I think we there are there are a lot of areas that Oregon has invested in that we do not expect to match going forward, but how that all works itself out is I think we're in in for a journey.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate that clarification.

Like I put journeys.

Uh it has been uh a roller coaster, as you all well know, um, and it has been on an ongoing um uh sort of uh changing environment in terms of uh particularly on terms of federal funding.

There's a global process that has actually felt somewhat familiar that we'll talk through on the appropriation side.

Um at the same time, there has been a seesaw of activity between the courts and rescision packages and administrative actions on what is the prevailing view right now about certain types of funding.

And you all have been caught up in some of that uh and we'll work walk through that.

Um like Leah really appreciated your involvement at uh in Washington DC and being there as we did some meetings associated with NCSL or not in C SL National League of Cities.

The presence, the ability to show up and tell your elected officials that that what we're dealing with is critical to our community, and that you're willing to make that trip and those meetings ends up sending a powerful message.

Uh and uh it helps the ongoing relationships that you already have with them here and demonstrates that you're you're committed to the agenda that you've set forth.

And uh and so in the appropriations process uh again it has been um going as appropriations processes normally do.

Uh the Senate and the House have considered many of their bills.

We have seen uh a number of the project uh community projects that have been funded uh or allocated in those bills.

Uh what remains uh uncertain, and and really this has been uh par for the course over the last few years, which is not feel as if there's an obvious agreement to finish these finish these bills.

The differences on the funding levels, the differences on uh both global funding levels, uh individual bill funding levels, uh, different policy disagreements really uh have sort of are leading us to a place where it's not clear uh that you'll be able to pass.

In fact, I think a lot of people doubt you'll be able to pass uh any of the individual bills on their own.

There may be some that you can pass combining one or two of them together.

Uh almost everyone expects that a continuing resolution will be needed, as you know, the the federal fiscal air year ends uh at the end of September, and you would need essentially a continuing resolution to continue the operations of the government.

We expect at least some form of a short-term CR that would allow you to get beyond the September 30th to pass in the legislation to give yourself a chance on that.

Even that, as you've seen in past years, uh can produce a uh uh a détente where all of a sudden you're you're having a government shutdown.

That can happen both at the moment of a short-term resolution being needed or even the a fight over a long-term continued resolution.

So we will move into the era uh where you are going to be wondering whether government is shutting down.

And that's that's the space.

There is nothing new about that in this particular cycle.

Uh you you're used to that.

Um what uh you also recall then in the last process uh in FY25 where there was an allocation made, uh, the long-term continuing resolution that ultimately passed uh eliminated all the community projects.

And um it is uh it is unclear how that would happen uh going forward in this in this sense.

There have been uh all kinds of discussions around uh changing the continuing resolution um in a way, a long-term way, to try and navigate either keeping some of those projects in or not.

They are almost that they're never included in a long-term continuing resolution.

But I think in this era where people feel as if they need to pass uh something, uh there is uh great community support for these uh projects.

Uh there's also a great debate uh uh particularly among the Republican caucuses about whether we should be doing this type of funding at all.

And and so I think it remains unclear whether we are heading down the same path as we did last time, where if there is a long-term continuing resolution, whether it will include projects, uh history would suggest no.

History would say if you're getting a long-term continuing resolution, uh you're probably not gonna have any projects.

Um we're in unprecedented times.

Um we uh there are increasingly few vehicles that actually pass Congress.

Uh that puts immense pressure on making deals around those.

Uh, and and I just wouldn't hold out that if that's the pathway uh the projects uh that are in there won't ultimately successful.

I think it would be difficult.

Um the uh I think there's a list remains hope that you would have an omnibus appropriations bill rather than a continuing resolution.

Uh again, you the part of the dynamics on this is if you'll recall the continuum resolution from last time uh actually passed funding levels from the previous administration and previous Congress.

Uh and so at some level um the allocations of of those funding levels makes the democratic uh Democratic caucuses in Congress uh they feel better about those than what might be proposed and have been proposed in the budgets.

Um and and yet the the politics around passing a new budget uh in those funding levels uh and and how much cuts you will make uh has made passing a new one uh more difficult.

So there is this give and take about how how you pass these funding levels, who wins and who loses when, uh, and it just makes it very uncertain.

Uh and what is certain is that uh nearly certain is that we won't have the answers by the end of the fiscal year.

Um we are going to continue into this process uh into the winter, and and sometimes we've we've crept into the early early next year on this.

Um representative Salinas um uh was able to secure in the House version of the transportation thud bill 250,000 for um the Borlin uh project.

Uh we asked for three million and uh and I will say uh in surveying uh the uh the different projects in the funding bill.

Um it is not a typical this time around to have a 250,000 dollar allocation for a project.

Um the um the what happens typically uh particularly in the Oregon, there's a fair amount of um uh coordination between the Senate offices and the members in the House.

Uh and they they talk about these projects, and so I I don't think it would be appropriate to read uh the fact that it is not in the Senate versions of the bill as a lack of support from the Senate side.

They do actually a very good job of identifying sort of which projects are out there and and who's on first and making sure.

So I I think um this project enjoyed the support of the Senate offices, it clearly enjoyed the the support of representative representative Salinas.

Um it is uh less uh than uh we had asked for, and uh I know there's conversation around uh whether or not that cost is uh increases result of the federal side of that is um uh warrants the the 250,000 dollars, um which I'm sure you're in the midst of discussions to think about on that.

Uh there's um any other any questions around the appropriations process.

We will um already chatted with you know with Megan.

We will start the process for the next fiscal year, which feels very, very weird, right?

Because we went through a process on the uh on the police station uh that ended up not producing a result.

We all acted like nothing's changed, and we went through it again, and you are not alone in that.

Uh if you read the bills, there are lots and lots of projects.

We don't know whether or not this one's gonna be successful ultimately, but we're gonna start the next one.

Um and uh and and and that's appropriate.

Um there are and until there is a decision, um, and and I don't think there's a support right now if you were to take a vote, a decision to get rid of these types of projects altogether.

Um there will be a there will be a process.

We will go through the process.

You do not want to leave that opportunity missed, um, but I know that it feels a little bit like um sort of an alternative world in in that regard.

So we we will start that process um and and think through what in FY27 uh we will need to be doing there.

Um last we chatted um we we knew that the um the tank up project was in in trouble because of um decisions the administration made about holding back certain funds.

Um this is one where the courts have gotten themselves involved in a variety of these types of projects.

Uh you have probably read the news that the Nevi dollars are starting to um head out.

Um these were some of the which were the electric vehicle dollars, these were some of the ones that were held in abeyance in the same um uh same notion uh that the administration was making around why it could do this.

So I I think uh we believe that that the tank up funds are just as uh the the holding them back or just as legally dubious as as the Nevi and how this worked itself out uh is unclear, but what we remain hopeful on that's supposed to be is that the last one?

Or am I just oh there we go.

All right.

This is the oh there we go.

Um these are uh in addition to everything that you were reading about um and in a from uh from a real technical perspective, we we remain uh continue to remain concerned around further rescision style packages uh that are both administratively driven or frankly uh Congress leadership of Congress has committed uh to continuing to do the rescission packages.

And and that is one of the theories of the case as it goes for why Republicans might for be willing to accept the funding levels in a continuing resolution that are higher than they would like because there are previous administrations funding levels, because if they pass rescision packages, they can pass the appropriations bill and then hold back some of the money, and they can try and get some of the cuts that they want.

Um and um the the issue and the uh the legality of administrative driven uh rescission packages will continue to be uh litigated.

It's very clear that if Congress does it, it's um it for the most part will be successful.

Um there the and so that the question is um how will this impact both the programs that we care about, the programs that we use, um, but frankly, other programs that that then um the collective we have to figure out how to fund uh in that regard.

Um there have been significant changes uh to FEMA.

There is a lot of conversations around uh further um further changes there, um, but as you can see, there are there are fewer uh declarations.

And then we have this potential for no future funding on hazard mitigation.

So there's a lot of uncertainty in the FEMA space.

Doing something wrong.

Oh, oh no, next one.

Oh, try to put the one in front of it then.

Maybe that's that's where we do.

Okay, we just skipped over.

Uh so you all have been engaged in more than the funding request in Congress.

Um, and uh CDBG has been uh one of the biggest uh most important programs for local governments for cities uh and uh you you've joined in the in the effort there to uh support that program.

Um not a typical um there have been other administrations, bipartisan administrations uh that have proposed elimination of CDBG.

Um thankfully uh the House numbers and the Senate numbers are both good numbers.

Um so that is I think a collective uh sigh uh and and a potential win uh moving forward.

Um clearly, and you all use these and and around the country these are used in ways this is one of the only direct fundings of federal dollars to local governments, and the ongoing demonstration of how well they are spent and for the purposes they are spent continue to be important and uh we we stay in dialogue um with the delegation to make sure they have everything they need.

They have been incredibly supportive of the C D BG program, um, and sometimes they they need some sort of more recent examples to demonstrate that, and we're always happy to provide them.

Uh but this is these are great work.

Um another uh another success uh that uh I think there was a lot of conversation in HR1 about potentially ending uh municipal exempt tax um uh tax exempt municipal bonds, those were protected.

Uh and those are continue to be an ongoing um source for local governments on funding.

Um and then we continue, and the city has weighed in on the importance of this railroad crossing elimination.

You'll recall last summer we did we talked about it as a potential source of future funding when the city is ready on these programs.

Um it is one of those programs that there were whispers around it um uh being eliminated.

We're gonna continue to stay vigilant on that.

Um there will be the conversations around a transportation uh reauthorization bill are picking up in Washington DC.

Uh and uh so we will continue our work on the city's behalf of making sure that the delegation knows how important this program could be for for you all uh and um in even if there's a move in the administration and a proposal that it may launch that we would try and secure support in Congress for the program, similar to something like C D BG.

Um we'll we'll do the advocacy with the administration as well.

Um but those are uh some areas that you all have weighed in that I I think we've seen some uh some success in you joining a broader coalition.

Um and that's that's where we are on a federal update.

Uh they are on recess uh right now and we'll we'll know more in the next 35 days or not.

So happy to answer any questions on uh on the federal side.

I am sorry that Greg could not be here tonight.

Uh the dog days of August in DC a lot of people to leave.

Uh and he's uh so he's not able to be with us, uh, but I know as I have and the whole team has been incredibly honored to represent you all and have been incredibly thankful for the work of your staff uh and yourselves and being responsive uh in asking both the right questions but saying the right things at the right moments and communicating to us in the most appropriate ways when when that engagement's happened.

So we couldn't be more pleased with the work that you all have been able to do uh in both levels, um, particularly in a moment of of strangeness.

Uh and uh so thank you.

Questions counselor Reath.

This may not be something that it's up there, but it was just um on mine over the weekend as I was out eating um with at restaurants and I was tipping.

So any word on that on the no tax on tips and no tax on there's another one that um I was asked the I think it was the overtime or something like that.

It's yeah, I think there is there remains a lot of energy, bipartisan energy around the um the no tax provision uh no taps on uh tax on tips.

It's yeah, I think there is there remains a lot of energy, bipartisan energy around the um the no tax provision uh no taps on uh tax on tips um and uh I would need to defer to Greg on what elements were what progress was made.

Um I don't think it was a wholesale change, um, but it continues to uh garner bipartisan support.

I'm not sure it has bipartisan momentum, which is different, um, but I I think both sides uh see that both as good politics and good policy uh on a broad level, making it actually work in a uh a reconciliation bill and getting the right offsets um can be a bit more difficult.

Um the um and then um the the second question was time.

I think there was another one on and the the I'm just just curious, so I haven't really dug into the details, but the other one was no tax on overtime, I think, for employ for employees.

Yeah, I think that that has had uh uh at the federal level, I think a little bit less um air time uh in that regard.

Um the uh but let me I will also follow up with Greg a little bit to see um what he knows on that and we'll get back to Councillor Mayas.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Council President Pratt.

So on our 65th in Borland, is there any reason that like when we prioritize what we want that we can't ask for the other 200 2.75 million that we didn't get?

No, I was I actually just uh chatting a lot uh a little bit um with the team.

I think we need to evaluate the timing, the expenditure and to make sure that if that is a desired future ask that the timing is right for when that funding would come.

And so we would have to evaluate other potential options to supplement that.

Um and you would probably have to make a decision around agreements on the allocation before you had certainty on those other funding.

So you you would just have to sequence if if there's risk associated with taking the 250,000 dollars, what certainty you have on future funding and how does that play?

And that would just be a conversation we you would need to have.

But there is nothing there's nothing that would prohibit you from uh asking for those funds from additional locations, whether a grant program or or our future fiscal year.

Uh you have probably heard me.

If I didn't say it, I probably should have that that it is not um I don't recommend continuing to go after the same project repeat repeatedly.

You're well within the the realm with a great explanation as to why that would be totally justified of going out in another future fiscal year uh on that.

So I I think it is worth an evaluation of whether or not that makes sense, uh, but there's there's no kind of prohibition uh on doing that.

Other questions counselor Brooks and a couple questions for um the tax dollars coming back to communities.

Is there a differential that we can see like a percentage numbers or we can find out?

Um councilbrooks uh bit of clarification, the tax dollars from from which from um like our local taxpayers or even the state coming back to our state.

On the allocations, on the allocations, yeah.

And even on yeah, service, all of it, yeah.

Health, well-being.

Counselor, there have been lots of attempts to, I think give um what I would call plutonian shadows on what that looks like because it is so it is so diverse in how the funding flows and and where it goes.

I don't think there is uh super accurate um uh uh numbers on that.

Within certain programs, there's a better delineation of that because you can you can potentially ascertain within this program how much federal dollars but there probably isn't a a good global number on that on either the federal or the state level.

In fact, I was just engaged in a conversation around the state side um on this about uh how do we know whether the dollars you're sending into uh the state system, whether you're getting an equitable um uh notion back in their Equo Northwest and some others have done some work in this space, um, but I I think it is a complicated um analysis that that may not have an answer ultimately um other than within individual ones.

I think it gets even more complicated at the federal level.

Um but for example in the transportation space, uh there has been good um discussions over the years at the federal level about which states are donor states to the highway trust fund.

So within a certain um uh funding stream, you can do some good work, and there has been some good work on that.

Okay.

And I guess the other question is when we're thinking of this new administration and the focus of this administration, are there areas to focus on more strategically for communities, for cities and towns and villages.

And I think I would.

So let me give you some of the high points that I think remain salient with this administration.

So I I do think there is if you can demonstrate a project that generates, and I'm thinking of economic development projects that generate either uh domestic jobs or that are elevators or leverage in making bigger deals happen or more economic development happen.

I think this administration is pretty interested in those style projects.

Um the the harder part is within the current, so say you come up with a great project.

The hard part right now is how do you get through the difficulty associated with the federal funding process because it it feels very uh hard right now.

Um but I do think the the leveraging, the the economic development pieces are important.

I think I told you in the summer that um uh uh what I use the word resiliency um I I um I would I would say um uh public safety and security in the way that this administration thinks of it is uh is even greater priority than we discussed last summer and traditional emergency management probably hasn't taken off in the way that that I may have anticipated that it did.

Um and I think part of that is the politics associated with FEMA have made those discussions even more difficult.

But but I do think um that increased focus on uh traditional um uh traditionally thought of public safety and um and security um uh now what we're all challenged with in the administration is is that each of the new funding sources associated with those come with a set of requirements that are different uh than they have previously that uh that I think uh each community is having to evaluate whether or not um it is even legal uh for them to say yes to that in their state because for example, Oregon's laws are likely in contradictions to some of the requirements on these agreements, and so there's this in that space that I think would be a fruitful place, we we may not actually have opportunity because of those conflicts, um, either because of community value or because of of state law.

Okay.

Yeah, that was gonna be my next one.

Is there about is there any conversation around um around percentages of differentials between states that are sanctuary states and other states, and what kind of percentages are we looking at?

I haven't seen a strong analysis on the percentages.

Um I don't think anyone is under the impression that there isn't a difference.

Um and that relates both to practical implication of not being able to accept certain dollars, let alone dollars that might or might not be awarded.

Uh and so I think there is an ongoing there I I think there's no question that that that is occurring.

Um one of the things that makes it uncertain is the level of litigation that's occurring on a lot of these decisions.

And um I I join um a uh uh a regional conversation with um uh local governments and and uh their DC representatives to really coordinate on who's who's hearing what, particularly in one of the conversations that has dominated is when um an uh the Oregon Attorney General objects to a a provision around federal funding um based on Oregon law, does that bring in local governments into it or not?

And so this really answer to that is it depends.

Uh and so much of this is uncertain that I I don't think anyone is thinking that there isn't a differential, both what it is and what it will be.

I I just don't think we know.

Okay.

I think you very much for um advocating for us and um earning the dollars and joining us in DC.

I really appreciate the work that you've been doing and enlightening us in a time that's pretty confusing and chaotic.

If we would, even if we were to build rockets, we probably wouldn't get the money here, right?

So have a police roof.

Other questions or comments.

I think Kristen's hand up.

Well, thank you all for all your efforts as Council Brooks says I very much appreciate it, and I very much appreciate when I shoot you that email with a quick question.

You guys are very fast from responding.

Also helped me craft messages sometimes when we've got like an hour or so to get the testimony in.

So thank you very much.

And hopefully the short session here, special session, be done and over with very quick quickly so we can enjoy your Labor Day weekend.

But thanks for coming tonight.

Thank you, Councillor Achiller.

All right, next up on the agenda is our CIO annual report.

We've got leadership from the different CIOs.

Come on up.

See a whole bunch of folks in the audience.

If you need a chair, bring a chair up.

You don't need an interaction.

Good evening.

Hello, how are you guys?

Good evening.

Mr.

Mayor.

We got three of the four.

Well, she's gone over the hospital.

Madam President.

We all I have to do.

We didn't bring all seven, but we do have uh one person or one president in the audience, Janine Wilson from River Park.

So I'm Catherine Holland.

I'm president of the commercial CIO.

I'm Tim Neary, president of uh Byrum CIO.

I'm Tammy Palumbo, president of the Midwest CIO.

And I'm Patricia Parsons, president of the there we go.

Yep.

There you go.

Okay.

Patricia Parsons, president of the IVAC CIO.

We're here this evening to give our annual report.

The last time we were here was about a year ago today.

Next slide.

Who are we?

Well, we're volunteered powered organization.

There are 44 of us on the leadership group.

There's some CIOs that have four members and others who have seven.

So it just depends on the needs.

Megan?

Stand up.

Megan is treasure.

And we are challenging.

So she's a treasurer dealing with challenges.

And we have seven separate boards.

Next slide.

All seven have are either have or have scheduled annual meetings, along with social events, neighborhood events.

So we're going to talk about those tonight.

And the city staff, which is Megan, provides a support, marketing materials, communication guidelines.

She interfaces with all of the different departments.

She's able to help us find the right person to talk about or talk to at the city when we have an issue come up.

Four CIOs actually had picnics or social events.

And we have three that are active discussion with developers right now on some major projects.

Next slide.

Next slide.

Tammy.

So thank you.

The Midwest CIO honored or participated in National Night Out by having an ice cream social.

So this was our return to this tradition.

So we had uh a face painter, we had a balloon man.

Let's see, but we had three people from the community actually volunteer, and two of them there are scooping ice cream along with Thea who's on our board.

Lots of kids came and I thought that the line of kids was so cute like that, and it was so convenient of them to turn their faces away, so we you know we didn't breach any privacy rules, but um the kids loved it, lots of kids.

We had all kinds of toppings and they really enjoyed it.

We uh had CERT have a table up there, and also the public library and the pole centers were a poll center, um, both had uh tables there, and um lots of community involvement, um lots of conversation about events at those two centers.

Um the police came twice, actually.

They started our um they came the motorcycle officers came right when the event started, and um kids loved that, and then um we also had um the canine officer come with the human officer, and uh really really wonderful.

Um so we're we're planning to do this every year, and we just wanted to show you some of the community engagement.

Next slide.

Can you hear me?

Okay, good.

Uh counselors and mayor and city staff, thank you for allowing us to be here today.

I want to just start out by saying that oftentimes there's not a lot of community engagement until something big happens in the community.

And at our annual meeting for IBAC, we had well over a hundred attendees, angry attendees, because they got wind of the development that's going to be happening at 103rd and IBAC.

Somebody found a map that had been created or a design that had been created that showed I think almost 40 townhomes.

And the initial reaction was how can they do this in our community?

We are low density residential.

And so we had to go down this big rabbit hole of really researching how in the world this kind of a development could happen in our backyard, and at the same time keeping the peace within our community.

So that's kind of the preamble.

Um I'll give you just the highlights of what's happening on these development developments, and I'll ask Tim to step in and help as well.

So with the IBAC and 103rd development, um, as I said before, we had well over a hundred uh neighbors come in.

Since then, we have created an email uh community.

I I use the word community lightly because it's really me taking in comments, be it um subjective or objective or angry or um whatever, and then regurgitating it back out to the 100 plus participants on this email chain because the community wants to remain somewhat anonymous, and they don't want to have this back and forth within an email dialogue.

So it's really just me taking in information, be it from the community, from the city, from the developer, from the engineer, from our state representatives, um, and then regurgitating it back out.

When we got this map and started looking at it, uh the first thing that we did was create a letter to the developer does development.

And we we researched what their what their initial plan was, and we asked kind of for the moon.

So initially they were gonna have a big dump and recycling station within the development.

We asked that they do not include that whatsoever.

Um they were gonna have five curb cuts along 103rd.

We asked that all of the buildings be inward facing and that there was would be just one access in and one access out.

We asked that they not be any taller than two stories, and they gave us all three of those big points.

So there'll be no garbage recycling station.

All of the buildings will be inward facing, and there's going to be one access in and one access out.

The biggest concern I would say around this is parking.

Because House Bill 2001 does not require any consideration for parking, and because the city, as it is over the population of 25,000, 27,700 and change, we have to the city, and when I say we, the city has to abide by House Bill 2001.

Getting that information out to the community has been the most challenging piece of my job as a CIO leader, I will say.

Uh I think he's had informational meetings uh averaging probably one every two months or so throughout the entire development process, and that's been I think going on well over a year at this point.

And um really included the neighborhood in the design process, the layout, what neighbor concerns were in the community, and very similarly uh listened to a lot of the concerns, concerns of course that relate to very common themes about traffic, um preservation of trees, uh number of units, the impact on the area.

Parking.

Parking, yeah.

And uh so yeah, that's the basalt creek living development, which is currently underway, and the level of engagement while I think based on history, there's still a lot of reservations by a lot of the community.

It's been a much uh more transparent process, and as things are starting to get passed, we're starting to see like okay, it's actually happening as the conversations have been unfolding, which is very refreshing and uh would be a great model if things would always go that way going forward with the save the trees on Norwood recently.

Um that's been a little bit of a flipped script from what we're used to, and that uh the developer was really pushing the save trees, and there was a um a uh impasse with city code that looked like it was requiring everything along the uh side of Norwood to kind of be developed in the same kind of way.

Now, as far as I know right now, I believe that's still a work in progress, but uh we very much appreciated the last city council meeting, the uh city council's interest in wanting to preserve the trees along that that stretch, and we're continuing to stay in tune to it uh as um the process continues to move forward.

Uh so with does development with the salt creek living, those are two examples of very involved developers, which I believe stands in contrast to some of the experiences that River Park has had with uh land development.

And I think that one of the things that I have learned, and and I would say that you know, when I was a kid growing up, my mother used to say to us at times, man, this is gonna be a moment where you're gonna learn more than you want to.

And this definitely has been in that category for me.

I I have spent my career in this sandbox.

I've worked with developers, I've worked with city staff, I've worked with attorneys and brokers and lenders for 40 plus years.

So a lot of a lot of this is it it's not new to me, but our community at large, I think is how do I say this naive to the process, and the process is not easily understood.

I found myself calling Sherilyn and Aquila and Steve, and I try I've read through House Bill 2001.

I don't have any more insomnia, seriously.

I it it it's it's a lot to digest, but I think that the communication back and forth between the developer and the community, and the community and the city, and the city and the state and the community and the state, it's it's complicated for sure to be clear.

Um the first CIO annual meeting that we had, or the the last CIO annual meeting that we had with IBAC, over a hundred very angry residents because of this development.

The first neighborhood meeting we had, another 150 very angry people.

I started to do a lot of research, and then the second neighborhood meeting we had, and we had a second one because the developer neglected to post physical signs on the property.

They would tell you that we had it because they felt like they needed to have more community input, but I think I know why that we had the second meeting.

Um at any rate, there was a lot of anger from the community.

Why isn't the city here?

And why aren't our counselors here?

And so my message back to our community was look, this isn't a meeting for the city.

This is not a meeting for the counselors.

This is a meeting for you to voice your concerns to the developer.

And I think that I I really hadn't even thought about that before, but I think that more communication back to us as CIO leaders that we can disseminate and share with our communities about the process on development is going to go a long way.

And so I I think what I'm what I'm trying to say is what I've just described is part of the problem maybe with LAM.

And I don't think we have a cohesive ask on this uh all around.

But I mean, from what uh our experience has been uh greater development developer involvement with the community, maybe more community involvement meetings, just include increase the communication, increase the transparency, that couldn't hurt.

And I would say that uh so I communicated back to our neighborhood.

Look, we don't want the counselors there, because if this goes to a council meeting and a counselor has participated in a neighborhood meeting, they very well may have to recuse themselves.

We don't want the city there because we don't want the community asking the city questions that are arbitrary or really subjective and not objective to the development, which in our case in the CIO uh or in the um IBAC 103rd case, nothing's been submitted to the city yet.

So there's the questions that would be diverted back to city leaders would be very subjective and and really take over than the meeting that is geared towards the community and the developer.

I just don't think that the community understands that.

So I don't and I don't know what the answer is getting getting this information out better or better getting this information out to the community so that there's not this anger and impasse and um defensive stance right out of the gate.

And um, yeah, I mean, just being clear on some of the concerns around Lamb too, uh the contrast there is that it has not been a transparent process.

Uh it's the neighborhood uh I believe the sentiment is that they've been kind of locked out and that it's going through a more litigious process.

Um really has not been much meaningful engagement with the community.

Um I think that's putting it politely.

Unless you want to add anything.

Um we invited her to sit at the table.

And I'm Jenny Wilson, president of River Park.

Yeah, talk right to the I think we've been pretty successful though.

Uh the planning commission met this week, and much to the concern of the the of the few people, the citizens that were there, I know they all sent written comments, and that is that uh planning would not address odor.

It wouldn't, I mean, I'm sorry, I slipped the Grimms.

We did that too.

Um that their concern was that they wouldn't talk about the noise, and one of the citizens has been real concerned about the noise, and also uh traffic, and the they won't be discussed at planning and they wouldn't be voted on, but that's moved to the architectural review, which is set for the 10th.

And so I'll be sending out a mass email letting our folks know that they should probably come if they're interested.

There's you know the old saying about your voice matters.

Well, sometimes your physical presence matters.

And I know you've experienced that at your uh meetings when there's a problem in the CIO, all of a sudden there's hundreds of people that show up in that uh we were successful.

I guess they they dropped the intersection at 115th, but it's been moved up the road.

And so anyway, we're just waiting for that architectural review, and um, I think there will be many folks from River Park present.

And I'd like to just say one more thing about the trees as it relates to 103rd and IBAC, as the developer was showing the proposed map of this development, keep in mind, well, keep in mind that House Bill 2001 allows for 25 town homes per acre.

We're at 1.76 acres, so you can do the math on that.

They've come down to under 30 town homes, and I think they're gonna come down even further to include that internal parking.

But looking at the map, um, I I stated at our last neighborhood meeting, neighbors just know that if this development goes through as it stands on this board, every tree is coming down.

There's you can't put this development on this 1.76 acres and keep trees.

You just can't.

It's it's one or the other unless you come into the middle, and they're not gonna do that.

So I think we're gonna have some more emotional outbursts around this because I just don't think that people really are thinking this through to the end.

But I mean it is what it is, right?

So I just want to say that.

Okay, you guys got it?

Yep, I think we're ready to go to the next one.

That was our longest slide.

I don't think we'll have as much to say on the next one.

Uh the uh these are the issues that we talked about last year, and Tim's gonna take you through on a status report of uh uh the uh increased funding to 2500 uh to allow us to uh include in that amount event insurance, uh, to review the CIO boundary for the growth that's going on, um, to discuss by individual boards uh whether or not we want to become Oregon nonprofits, and to uh talk about how to improve the CIO interface with developers.

Tim, next slide.

Yeah, so a lot of thank yous.

Uh first uh the grant limit increase from 1500 to 2500 uh makes a big difference to the CIOs just in terms of what we're able to do and provide to our neighborhoods.

Um I think there's a lot of interest amongst the CIOs in being able to host at least one or two community events every year to really have more face-to-face engagement with our neighbors.

And the increase limit helps uh with just the logistics and planning of those kinds of things, including um the event insurance that uh goes with that too.

So over the course of the last year or two, we learned that uh we do need to be starting to provide our own event insurance.

I think for a period of time events uh were covered by the city's insurance, and that's not the case, but the increase in funds definitely helps that out a great deal.

And there's been some good events.

The other, I think uh big cost uh that some CIOs can have is when they choose to do mailers out to all their residents.

And um, yeah, while there's like some bulk uh mailer options out there, it still gets costly when you're trying to reach every single one of your residents.

So the increase in funds allows CIOs not to just blow their whole budget on on mail.

And then the uh CIO boundary map.

Um yeah, so that is currently being reviewed, and that's in progress, and I think there is more on that in the coming slides.

Next slide.

Um before we get to the uh CIO, uh the or the uh reboundary uh plan.

Uh we did have been having discussion for uh a good while about if uh CIOs should incorporate as work and nonprofits.

Uh four actively decided no, uh three are still considering uh the um whether that's worthwhile uh thing to do or not.

The CIOs occupy very gray area and uh as entities, as we're not part of the city.

Uh we're not at least unless they decide to incorporate uh not corporations and other means, which has kind of this loose organization of people who care about their neighborhood that has been sanctioned to exist by the city.

I think what we are and yeah, as far as we're bringing out to increase impact um of CIOs and neighborhood communication to developers.

Um impact has been uh meetings and more events.

So yeah, we saw some slides earlier with a number of the uh or there's just a good number of events that were hosted by CIOs.

Uh for us in BIRM, we definitely like our uh holiday light parade watch party that are trying to make that a tradition, though I always have to wave to it.

I try to be in the parade.

Uh yep.

Then the boundary discussion.

So this came about uh in part due to the new developments that are coming up.

Uh that to the south of Byrum is the Autumn Sunrise uh subdivision, the Norwood project that's currently being debated, uh Plambeck Gardens, um, all of which are now part of the city of Twalton but are not within any designated CIO boundaries.

Uh cities had some other growth, other areas of residential development, and uh the consensus among the CIO leadership was that it's important that all residents of Twalton have the ability to be represented and part of their CIO and be included by their CIO.

So it makes sense to look at uh expanding the boundaries to make sure everyone's included as much as possible.

Three main options were being looked at.

Um we also looked at the projected household count, and we're looking at a fourth option, all of which was great information again provided by Meg and George.

So another shout out to Megan.

And I think uh some of that work comes up on the next few slides.

Next slide.

So this is the process that we're going through that uh Megan developed and reviewed with the CIO leadership.

And we're currently on step five.

So we've already looked at the current boundaries, uh, city staff's analyzed the boundaries, created some alternatives.

Uh there's been review by CIO leadership and additional revisions.

And now CIOs are talking to their neighborhoods about how people feel about the current plans.

The three major plans that are presented, and including the fourth one, all include uh an expansion of BIRAM to the south to the city boundary to include Autumn Sunrise Plan Back Gardens.

Uh Byrum hasn't voted on that yet, but we're we just haven't met yet.

We're almost certainly going to.

Um then uh as part of the consideration too, we're looking at is uh how many households are within each CIO.

And this isn't quite the same as total number of residents, and there's a lot of variability as far as exactly what kinds of households these are.

Um but this was important for us to consider as we're looking at the boundaries because we're trying to keep the CIOs even, especially since we have fairly equal budgets, and if some of the CIOs are using their budgets for mailers and they just have a lot more households to reach, that's going to be a much bigger relative expense.

So this is the current breakdown.

Next slide.

And this is the current map of the CIOs.

Next slide.

And then the three main options that we're examining.

So option one is just expanding Byron to the south.

Option two is doing that, and then also looking to cover the residents in the downtown development area and the bridgeport area.

So right now they're not part of any CIO.

So option two would be looking at splitting that territory up to river park and east.

River Park and East are two of the largest CIOs, and I think uh have a fairly high proportion of households that are um multifamily or apartment uh style uh homes.

Then the third option is uh expanding Martinazi Woods right up the middle into the downtown and bridgeport area.

And that uh I believe of those options was a little bit more even in terms of household count.

And then the um fourth option that uh wasn't initially presented but was one that was up for debate is does it make sense to look at adding one more CIO that specifically is for the downtown area and the Bridgeport residents and maybe taking some of the nearby sections of River Park and East Towalton.

Those types of residences that are in that area tend to be more commonly the multifamily or apartment community uh style housing.

And so there's some logic there that it might make sense that they have um similarly aligned views for their neighborhood, and uh especially with all the plans for development of downtown too.

Okay, this is option one.

Do you want to look at option three, which is uh more noisy?

Yep, sorry, uh yeah.

So option one, so just biram goes down to the south there, and then option two.

So option two, we see River Park and East Towalton meeting in the middle uh and East Twalton kind of going up a little bit uh into the Bridgeport area.

Then option three is this is the extension of Martinazi Woods north uh up through to Bridgeport.

Excellent.

And this is what the option would look like in terms of household count.

So uh total household holds as current uh with the biome expansion, we would be somewhere around uh 1500.

Uh with option two, we see that East and River Park, which already start uh around 3,000 apiece go up a little bit more.

Option three, Martinazzi Woods, which is uh uh kind of in the middle moves up to around 2,000 a little bit more into the uh goes from low middle to high middle.

Excellent.

Then the seventh option yeah would be looking to create a another residential CIO specific for that downtown and bridgeport corridor area.

Um and yeah, that might uh include decreasing some of the size of the adjacent river park and east Twalton uh CIOs uh to balance the household count and decrease their numbers while also making sure that there's enough people in that new seventh CIO.

Okay, that's our annual report.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you, Jeanine.

Um we'll be glad to answer questions.

Um one of the things that came up in our meeting is we feel like the residents that are in the core area, the downtown area, are not represented by any CIO, and I run into that with the commercial CIO because they're on my mailing list because they're commercial properties, so uh they're not represented, and we think some decision needs to be made, either what options two, three, or four.

Uh we think every resident should be represented.

So that's my summary.

Um do you have any questions for us?

Questions?

Council Brooks and Council President Pratt or right behind.

Well, first of all, I just want to thank everybody um that does this volunteer work, and I think we um identify with it, even though it might be a little bit different.

It's good training if you want to run for mayor or um and um or council.

I'm just uh my first comment or is really to say thank you for considering um including everybody.

I also wonder about um like sort of Las Casitas area and the edge over there, it looks like some of it's covered, but not all of it.

Those apartment buildings across from the um across from the um hospital.

Are those covered?

Do you guys know?

They are covered.

Okay, good.

Um so I I totally support that idea.

Um and I also um I guess my question too is around the commercial developments, like the commercial decisions versus like residentially building out.

Um I'm just wondering if there's a um a fact sheet or reason why, like I think there's different approaches for something like the LAM, and then something like apartment buildings and homes and things like that.

So I'm just trying to think through as far as because some of the things that you mentioned were is like how do our residents find out what's going on, and then is it a reaction or a response?

And a lot of times, even us as city counselors we're not aware until there's a reaction.

So, I mean, I don't know if you look at sales or until it comes to the city, because these are private um properties, and private property laws are really strong in our country.

Um I think part of it is being aware of um what's for sale in the area, and when something's been sold, that might be something that could be discussed in the CIOs or might be realtors or things that have better insight than I do.

I'm not a professional at this, but um that's just something that came up for me when I was thinking through, and then just the different expectations that we might have around residential versus um commercial and how they're gonna respond and how we're gonna communicate with the those guys.

Um and then as far as the um the autumn sunrise, I just want to say uh there's a couple things that always come up for me when this conversation happens.

First of all, before I before um the mayor was the mayor, and I was even on city council that that property had been negotiated and things like that.

So I came in in the middle when we had those conversations with the developer.

We I felt really proud that we stood for those trees.

So the fact that that happened is something that we spent a lot of time and energy on.

So I just don't want there to be any misunderstanding.

And we had to look through all the same things that we look at with these other developments.

What are the rules and what can we really do?

And now it's how can we really protect them if somebody is going to make an agreement with us?

How are we going to hold them accountable if they don't really do it?

And I'm not looking for a fault finding measure, but I just want to be really clear on that, especially with all the work that we've done as a council on our climate action plan and everything like that.

So I appreciate I appreciate all the work in the communication.

Um just want to say too if there's any way that we can be helpful or around problem solving some of this.

And I do think that also looking at a methodology for when we are bringing new property in or new developments in to figure out how do we include the new residents of Tualeton to make sure that there's a way to like into the CAOs, whether it's you know, moving or just coming in as a new build.

Uh so I don't know exactly how that works, but yeah.

The hope is I think that these new boundaries that'll it'll future proof things for a while.

Um I think the method aside from these boundaries is just going door to door to each house and saying, hey, do you want to be part of the CIO, which would very quickly lead to a checkerboard.

I might just add in a couple of thoughts on that.

Um, counselor Brooks, thank you for that, first of all.

Having some kind of a I you mentioned a fact sheet, something that the community can rely on in terms of when this happens, then this occurs, would be very useful.

And whether that is something that is on the website or it's an actual person, a community advocate, whether it is a PDF, I I'm not sure what would best work, but something rather than just I'm Patricia Parsons and I'm calling Aquila, or I'm calling Sherilyn, or I'm I'm talking to anybody who can give me any kind of information that I can then pass along, would be extremely helpful, I think.

And to your point that we have very specific laws protecting property owners, it it doesn't fall on deaf ears.

I think that a big problem that occurred, a big um surge of emotion with the IBAC on 103rd was everybody said to me, no property for sale signs were posted on that property.

Well, they don't have to.

I you know, you can sell your house without putting a sign up.

Um so not knowing creates this immense emotion.

Yeah.

Um that subject, and I should have given credit to the city.

Uh this last year, uh we are receiving notices in a timely fashion.

Yes, and developers are are actually reaching out to us, making sure that we get all the information that we need.

In fact, that's kind of a lead sentence.

So uh kudos to the staff, it's much improved.

Um if if the CIO leadership knows that something is coming up, the city's been notified.

That has really helped us get the word out.

Now, the deals that are behind the scenes, we can't nobody can help with that.

But the ones where the city's notified, they've been very consistently informing us.

So thank you.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Again, okay, I've been told to be quick here.

Um my question is you had a little note on the bottom that not none of those options will include all the households in Tualeton.

Is there any way to do that or why not?

There's a few houses in the manufacturing area, light manufacturing.

I I we just tell them in on our website, if you're near a CIO, you get to pick who you want to go to.

But you're we're never gonna be able to map over because these are ones, twos, threes, if that's okay.

That makes sense.

Yeah, that's that's really helpful.

Um I just want to say, I know that not that many years ago we talked about if we should continue to have the CIOs, and I know that we wouldn't have them without everybody in taking a leadership role and doing all the work.

I mean, you all of you, I know have done a ton and ton of hours of work to find out what's going on to inform the community, and as Patricia, you noted, like we because of ex parte communications, it kills us because we love to talk to people, and we kind of have to stay out of it, so it's really difficult.

And um I take to point what you said that maybe there's a way we should we should look at or the city should look at of better communicating that to our people that live here so they understand that and um I think what you said is correct that when people are informed and know what's going on, it's you can tone down the emotions when they understand, but it's these are really complicated, especially the land use deals, and they're really hard.

And thank you all for um the community events.

I know Janine, you've been involved, and um I'd really like to have Martin Housey Woods have an ice cream social.

But anyway, thank you.

Council Reyes.

Yeah, thank you very much for your report.

Um I really enjoy the the feed, the everything you're doing within our community that they of the uh national night out.

I was in a meeting, but I was like sending all the great um vibes.

I'm at the Midwest uh CIO.

Um one of the things that I remember from um just being here in our communities, um it's really hard to understand what CIO means unless you're from here.

So as you restructure or redo or think of ideas and creative uh ideas, um maybe not I don't know if changing the complete name, but community involvement, maybe we should kind of keep saying that because it's really hard to if you're from another city or another town, there's no way you know what CIO stands for.

So unless somebody tells you because I didn't know, and I lived here for like five years before I found out what CIO meant.

And um the other thing is that um I I really being a new city council meet member, meaning that I've been here since the term limits happened.

I had no idea I couldn't uh uh attend, we were actually scheduled to attend several at several meetings with with CIOs and and listen to you, and we were like told you can't because the ex parte.

So we really I the sentiment of not wanting to be there, it's not that it's just we couldn't, and it really killed us to not be able to speak with you and and hear you and and just kind of be there to to ease out whatever tension and problems were happening, but um our we really wanted to be there at all these meetings, and we couldn't uh because we really want to be um conscious and and very good at making decisions when we're here and listen to all voices.

Um the other thing that I I feel like um as we expand, get the word out to the new neighbors because it is hard, like especially not feel resentment for those that are out on some rise because they're our neighbors now, right?

So and welcome them into our neighborhood.

I think that that will be also a healing process of all the issues that happened before that was billed.

So um just thank you.

I know it's a lot of work, and I know that going out there and talking to people is um takes time, and I commend you for that.

And um, as much as we can, I'm here for you.

So if if you're if you need a talk or ideas, um reach out to me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Counselor Hillier.

Thank you.

I won't belabor all the other amazing points that my fellow counselors and I'm sure the mayor will make.

But um, yeah, I think to one thing that to remember um is that we do live work and play in our own community, and so the things that you see and hear really matter to us.

So kind of to your quest your asks, right?

Like um process knowledge, those sorts of things.

I mean, I know that you've each become land use experts, uh, water experts, you're experts on a variety of things, and I thank you deeply um for all the effort that you've put in.

And I thank you deeply for all the effort that you've put in.

I feel like you deserve medals, or at least to put in your time to uh close the bank on that $2,500 very quickly.

Um but I do wonder what is the process.

This is I hope I say this without being offensive.

Um but what is the I know that you're each elected in your positions, but do we have like a training process for you to help you do the questions and answers and things, and is that something I get the giggles, so I like that, but um is that something that we should consider finding a way to budget next year in our process or like what and maybe that's a separate work session conversation, but that to me feels like a way to help prepare you to then be the face of things in the community, and so yeah.

From my experience as a relatively new uh CIO president is uh no, there's not a formal structured kind of uh orientation or but uh that has been something that we've been discussing, and I think we've been informally developing that.

Uh there's been work, I think over the past year or two to kind of standardize some of the role descriptions, which uh starts to go in that direction.

But uh I think you're absolutely right that there's definitely room to fill in a lot of knowledge gaps, especially as there's there's turnover.

Now, the city did offer us just before COVID uh volunteer training, and then COVID just blew it all up.

Uh so maybe that's uh advice that we could take back to Megan and see what staff says, because it probably would help with recruitment, but we have standardized job descriptions, but each CIO is still unique, and so there's a lot of creativity going on depending on its situation, but I think that's a good point.

COVID's over, so we'll talk to Megan about it.

Yeah, thank you.

I'm not suggesting that you have to un that it has to be standard across, but I do think that there's maybe some skills and um processes that could um be standardized, and I do think that there are best practices in other communities.

I know they call them different things, but there's certainly best practices that make it super great or digital.

Oh, sister, come on.

You're never leaving.

We know we hope.

We may have to write it in our bylaws to get rid of some of us old.

All right, well, I'm gonna take that part out.

Well, and to that, I would I I giggled when you said that we were elected because um it it really was somebody tapping me on the shoulder saying I need to step away and please please, please, please, please, please.

And I looked around and said, Well, who are you talking to?

So it makes me more.

We have a more of a recruitment, someone who's involved, who's interested, then we point we we try to educate and and see if they'd be interested in coming on.

Uh the fight for positions has never been so the so maybe it's a voluntole position that we we work on.

But I do think I do want to say thank you.

And obviously, there's some opportunities for improvement, and we thank you for bringing this forward.

And um please do express uh to your constituent the folks that you represent that we we really do wish we could be in certain settings, but you elected us to do a job, and that's our responsibility, and so that's what we're doing.

Uh Kristen, you have anything.

I don't have anything that's already been said.

Um, and I know that we're running over.

Um, but thank you, Mayor, for calling on me because I do want to take this opportunity to say thank you for all your hard work, your advocacy.

Um I know that you work um very uh thankless hours sometimes, and um it does not go unnoticed from from this group.

Um so thank you very much, and I echo much of what the counselors um have already said.

All right.

Thank you all for coming tonight.

Very much appreciate it.

Have a terrific evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so next up on our agenda is the Washington County Cooperative Library System Levy Support.

Uh you recall last city council meeting, uh, we had a request from Rob Drake, who's leading the charge on getting proclamations and support from different cities and electeds uh to support the levy.

Uh we had the presentations last week also from uh the public safety levy and the library.

Um the library folks are here first with a proclamation.

So tonight we you know normally uh they've submitted the proclamation request, and we just have to vote on supporting the levy.

And then uh obviously if you support the proclamation, you're uh assuming you're also supporting the levy itself.

So we have folks in the library foundation and friends uh to get our signatures for the voters' pamphlets.

So I'll open to the floor.

Uh how do people how do folks feel about supporting the library levy?

Council Brooks.

Um I feel supportive if if the things go forward as we as they've agreed about, I do feel supportive of the levy.

I think that our library depends on this money and that negotiations are very important, but the bottom line is that we at least for me.

I um I think that the city would do a lot better with the levy than without the levy.

And I hope that the public um shares that view and supports our library.

Others president Pratt I agree.

I I mean um I think it'd be devastating if we even get I mean if this levy didn't pass, that library is such a vital part of our community, and I don't really feel like I have a choice but to support it.

Council Reyes.

I to support it as long as uh we um it's on the agreement that that it's uh I know that we went through several steps to to be where it is now.

Um if I hear that it goes backwards, then I am not in supportive of that.

But if it moves forward to the changes that we suggested and um continues to support Washington County City Incorporated libraries, then yes.

Okay.

Okay, thumbs up, Councilor Sacco.

Yes, thank you.

Um I am also in support and do share some concerns that have just been expressed by fellow counselors.

And I just want to also say that I you know I recognize that uh you know costs are raising for you know for folks out there, but this is one case where you know I don't think that we can we can we can cut it.

The library provides such vital support for our community, and um I yeah, I think it it is necessary to support this levy.

Thank you.

All right, so it's pretty much unanimous of the folks who are in the meeting tonight to support the levy, so we'll go ahead and approve the uh the proclamation request and uh sign on to request to have stuff in the voters' pamphlet.

Something to think about also is the I got an email from Councillor Snyder, or sorry, Commissioner Snyder, about the public safety levy.

So you're gonna be thinking about whether or not you're gonna support that.

Uh they haven't asked for proclamation, but they might be reaching out looking for you to sign on uh for voter pamphlet arguments as I understand everyone's trying to get their stuff done by the end of this week in anticipation that you need got to do um some prep before submitting to the state.

I'm sorry, submitting it to the county.

Uh so you might be getting emails galore this week uh to sign on to uh approvals of adding your name to uh statements in favor of both levies.

Uh so with that we'll can I ask a clarifying question.

So I we will bring back the resolution of support um uh according to this at the next council meeting.

Is that um or is that necessary?

I'd still bring it knowing that the folks who are doing the voters' pamphlet arguments can get signatures that they need because obviously the proclamation is not going into the voters' pamphlet, but our indication of support will go in the voters' pamphlet.

Okay, yeah, with folks when they come with us to sign all the state forms.

Yes, so despite the timing, yeah, we will bring forward the resolution of support.

Yeah, the election is not till November, so it'll be out there.

All right, thank you.

All right, so uh agenda review real quick.

Uh councilor uh Gonzalez is supposed to do the pledge tonight, so I'll do it in this in his place.

Uh any question on the consent agenda, Mayor.

Um, I would like to pull off uh item number two and item number three, please.

Okay, all right.

Other requests for having items removed on consent.

All right.

So with that, we have about 15 minutes.

We'll go ahead and start our city council round table, and I'll start with Council Hillier.

I've had no formal meetings.

Okay.

Council Reyes.

No formal meetings.

Council Brooks Council President Pratt.

No formal meetings.

Sherlot.

Yes, let me get to my.

I have had formal meetings.

So this is in no particular order.

Dustin took me on our parks director uh took me on a field trip to Las Casitas Park to observe the construction.

It is everything's above ground.

If you get a chance to uh take a quick field trip and um jaunt around, it's um it's looking very good.

Um our climate action program manager is on the street.

Uh the it opened on Saturday, and it it the position will remain open until November the 14th, and uh so we're very excited about that.

Open for two days, and we've already gotten nine candidates.

So um also our planning manager, so the um the uh Steve, I'm gonna call it replacement, uh is um is also on the street.

Um our street sewer storm manager Bert Olheiser, who you have seen in front of you before, mostly at budget time is retiring.

This is his last week uh 35 years of service.

It's amazing, and he's an award-winning um manager and just will leave a big hole.

Um as a side note, I was appointed to the board of the Oregon City County Managers Association.

The formal vote will be of the membership will be um at the League of Oregon Cities Conference, but um I'm excited to um start my three years there.

Um we got a notice to proceed for the CDBG money uh from the county for the poll center that had been held up with the DEI work that the access and opportunity work that the county's been doing, but that is um currently um moving forward, and we're gonna move forward with that.

Um the Labor Day holiday on Monday.

Um remember the city facilities are closed.

Um a reminder that the library is closed the Tuesday through Friday.

Also, we're doing a well, we're doing a big lighting replacement um project.

Um I stopped by Friday's lunch at the poll center.

Um we had 48 RSVPs.

Um trivia with Doug, and it was just it was rocking.

And uh it was so cool to see it so vibrant and people having such a good time.

Um if you're interested in um uh participating in trivia with Doug tomorrow night at uh is Tap House Trivia at Stickman, and it's always very popular, 6 p.m.

at Stickman Brewery.

Um coming up on uh no September the 13th, the emergency preparedness fair.

So that's kind of out in the distance, but uh that's at the library again on September the 13th, and then just a reminder I will not be here at the next council meeting.

Um so Dawn will be sitting in my place.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Brooks.

So thank you for your patience.

Open in my calendar the right spot.

Um I attended on the 14th of August um the policy advisory board for Washington County for the um and we actually met at um family promise and did a facilities tour and um and spoke and had a presentation from the executive director there and then had our meeting uh and the home money was also put into the budget by one of the senators so that uh scare um was believiated.

Um then we I had my mayor's call and then we for Tuesday the 19th, we had the Twelton Arts Advisory Committee meeting.

Um we combined with the Tea Park and um went and river keepers and they hosted us on a um kayak uh paddle and we were able to see the different landmarks.

Um we were able to see where the new riverfront property is from the water, which I suggest is a great idea for anyone to check out, especially as we're planning um ahead.

It was a really great experience, and I appreciate Dustin's leadership and also uh the Tweltoon River Keepers for hosting us in such an interesting and safe way.

Um then oh, and then it was at the titanium happy hour, which they just started on Thursday and saw the mayor and um with the chamber and also went to the chamber multi um chamber event in Wilsonville this last week as well.

And I think that is it for me.

Thanks.

Oh, I want to also say thank you to the library staff for hosting everybody during the heat wave this last week, and it really is the center for our community members that are in need, and as we heard tonight about FEMA, it's more and more important that we have things stood up in our community.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh my big thing for the last two weeks, spent five days in Baker City attending the Oregon Mayors Association conference.

I'll be writing up a report.

Uh attended multiple sessions with really fantastic information.

Got to see uh downtown Baker City and the Oregon Trail Interpretive Center out there.

If you haven't had a chance to visit Baker City, I would highly suggest it.

It's a fantastic city.

What a beautiful downtown Main Street.

And if you're a fanatic of Oregon Trail History, it's the place to go.

My other meeting for the last couple weeks was the WEA board meeting.

We spent a significant amount of time talking about their effort working with Clackmas County on creating an industrial lands inventory, a realistic one that you know incorporates you know, grade and the ability to assemble uh plots together to create a 20 to 70 acre um developable site.

Uh the inventory the Metro has right now is unrealistic.

Uh so there's gonna be a big push with um the new Metro Council to really look at the industrial lands and better finesse the UGB process and how we look out and actually realize um what really is out there versus what Metro thinks and what's really developable, where things they're brought up is that Metro thinks you can build things on up a 20% grade in an industrial spot.

Well, that's not the case.

It's more like four to five percent is a max, if you will, maybe 10 at the highest, 20 doesn't cut it, and now we get you know, we're asking them to uh take that out and fix it.

Realize I haven't uh asked Councillor Sacco, so over to you, Counselor Sacco.

Thank you.

Um August 18th, um, we had the idea committee meeting.

Um and the committee um is starting to discuss the land acknowledgement.

Um, and just as a short review, um, we had a community committee um that put together a um a summary of what that might look like in Twiliton that was brought before council um a few years ago um before idea was was a committee and um we tasked them with with taking a look at that.

Um they're in the very beginning stages of of that work, um, but I just wanted to let um you know you all know that um they are starting that work.

Um, and then coming up, um, we'll take um we have been the committee has been looking at um the core opportunity reinvestment area.

Um, and we do have a committee member on um that uh committee as well.

Um, and they are keeping the idea committee up to date on the progress there.

Um, and then we'll also have as a future agenda item um the parks director um Dustin attend one of the meetings um to discuss gathering places and toaletin.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh with that, that uh round that closes our go ahead and close our work session for August 25th, and we'll go into recess for about five minutes until we start our regular works, our work uh regular city council meeting at seven o'clock.

We'll see you in five minutes.

Record