Second 2025 to Walton City Council work session.

First time on our agenda tonight is a visit from County Commissioner Jason Snyder for his quarterly update.

It's usually an interactive dialogue, but I'll give the floor for you get the floor to you for a few minutes.

If you have a few things you want to say first, and then we can dive into the QA.

I really want to dive into that.

I mean, I I think that you all have been continually giving me, or many of you have been continually giving me feedback over the last couple months, and I appreciate that.

I'm also very appreciative of being invited back, you know, relatively on a quick time frame from our last visit on this front.

And I know I was before you to talk about the public safety and the library levies, and I have no no belief I'm going to get out of this conversation today without some discussion of one or both of those.

Um, but really want to open it up.

I I think I've been pretty uh pretty clear on the work that we're doing as a county commission.

I have my staff assistant Bryn uh with me in case there's any follow-up that we need to document and get going on.

So I I just want to open the floor up.

All right.

Uh open the floor.

Council Pratt has there a hand up first.

Okay, let's have some fun.

And thank you for sharing.

Not even a bit it.

Yeah.

So I'm trying to understand this um the library funding going forward, or what well, what's what we're seeing in our pack later tonight as the funding allocation that's proposed.

So the first thing I want to understand is um there's an allocation by kind of the area being served.

And then for the what are called nonprofit libraries, there's an allocation to support their, I guess their building and operations of their building.

Um what I'm wondering is the people that live in the cities, aren't we paying taxes to operate our buildings through the city level?

So which are these nonprofit organizations and why was this decision made to give them additional funding?

So comparing it to a city?

Yes.

The uh so first I should share that we are still as a commission having, I think we have a long session scheduled tomorrow to continue our dialogue on all of these subjects uh related to the library funding.

Um the I've been asked the qu the question you just asked in a couple different ways from other city councillors, and actually city council president Sherwood asked me the same question or very similar question around just you know, why who who's contributing or who should be contributing the sort of like city portion of the money to those nonprofit libraries?

And I I think the question is just sort of like who would like where where would that come from?

There is they other than them fundraising, um, there is not a mechanism by which they get to tax in a different or in any sort of a specific way.

I think the implication from at least the discussion I had with the Sherwood counselor was that you know somehow the county should be contributing a different amount, and we can do that, but that just means there'll be less money to you know give out.

In fact, that you could say that's what's happening now.

I mean, that that is what the the allocation formula is has more going to them.

That that would be equivalent to the same as the county contributing more.

I guess if the implication is that it should be not from the levy, it should be from somewhere else.

Then the question would be where we're moving more and more towards uh levies having to fund everything.

No, it's not the levy, it's the idea that I guess that cities are paying to have their operations, and these are nonprofits, so therefore they don't have a funding source.

But doesn't that kind of um doesn't that kind of mean the people that live in the incorporated cities are helping to pay for these libraries outside the incorporated cities?

So I think it means that, and I think that we all, given that I've lived in Tigered my entire Washington County existence.

We all have been doing that on a bunch of different fronts for decades.

And that's what the nature of having the urban unincorporated areas allowed to sort of both persist or even flourish, that's what that means.

I mean, ultimately, I don't think there's any way around that.

Now, there's a lot of things that have been done to sort of try to correct some of that and make some of it being paid for through whether it's like the enhanced sheriff's patrol district.

There's a variety of uh like there's an urban roads maintenance district, there's a variety of things that have been done to sort of try to help some of that, but there's I don't think there's a way to back it all out.

Yeah, okay.

No, I just wanted clarification of that.

I mean, I think the solution ultimately is that those areas um eventually, sometime between now and 30 years from now, all need to end up in a city.

Okay.

And going on in these areas and places that should be cities.

When I look at the allocation increases, I'm sure you've heard this one too, but like we're gonna get a 5% increase as projected in the latest model we've seen.

But ALOA banks and planes get a hundred percent or more increase.

So I guess I want to understand why their increase is so much higher than it looks like almost all the cities.

And and this is definitely a subject that's gonna be and has been uh discussed quite a bit at the commission, and I think there have already been some adjustments made because I think some of the increases were even higher in previous models than they are now.

Um but it's really a question around trying to uh balance out and be as equitable as we can be around where there's demand for the services, and just because a place has been wildly underserved before doesn't mean it should just keep remaining being underserved, I think is the the basic premise there.

I'm just gonna put in one a little plug for um the service areas were looked at, but did was there any time spent looking at how many people like use the libraries, different libraries already?

I I believe that that was part of the analysis that was done.

Okay.

And then my last question on that is the um it shows a 5% increase with the levy for next year for Tualetin.

Is that just a one-year thing?

So I I mean my concern is people are are gonna be paying for a levy, and it's gonna be a one-year increase.

If that stays flat, then between the cost of buying new books and employees, that's we're gonna be in a bigger hole in three or four years.

The the intent is to, and I think this has been relatively well communicated now to the parties that have been directly involved in the conversations.

Um, but there is an intent to uh to provide the same increase that the county property taxes go up by.

Okay.

Um I think we're nervous about committing to saying that's for sure gonna happen.

I there are dynamics at play in the you know, office space work environment that make I mean, I'm not sure what we've experienced the last 20, 25 years on that trend is going to continue in the same way that we might expect it.

So I think we're cautious about guaranteeing it, but I think what we've what the um folks in those conversations have said is we're committed to being equitable and trying to do that, and unless there's some significant reason why that couldn't happen, like the the increases did not go up by or the property tax increases did not collections did not go up by four and a quarter percent like they have, we'd need to re-evaluate that.

But I think everybody's pretty nervous about just saying, oh yeah, we'll do that.

Okay, and then I'm gonna this is my last question, and I'll turn my mic off, but I just want to know what the top priority items are for the county for the next year.

Uh wow.

Um how many how long would you like that?

Oh, just to housing and mental health.

Um I think right now in both of those spaces, we are in a world where the funding is less certain than it was nine months ago, and that we are just trying to figure out how we can continue even providing the services that we've been providing in the funding environment that we're not we now find ourselves in.

I think that's a real issue, a significant issue, and also to the extent that there are state mandated requirements around some of that where funding is decreasing.

We're going to be also having significant discussions with the state legislature about all the mandates for services that they expect but are paying less and less for.

So that's not a rosy picture, but I think that's the reality of what the work in those spaces look like.

I don't think we're in a world where we're going to be doing more innovation and being able to offer more services in that right now.

Well, thank you.

Other questions for Commissioner Snyder.

Sure.

I'd like to dovetail on that and ask you.

Thank you for being here.

I appreciate it.

Um dovetail on Councillor Pratt's question.

So are there any are there any strategies that you're currently looking at to combat those funding restraints?

Uh yes, there is both work being done on the uh I think we're continuing to monitor the legal landscape in particular.

I'll leave that at that without getting into a lot more detail.

Um so that's sort of in a continuous state of evaluation and re-evaluation.

Um there is also a pretty broad review going on now of uh county just revenue and thing revenue streams and things that we have kind of from my perspective where I sit, and this is now me giving you my opinion, but things where the counties just left large quantities of revenue on the table and not pursued them.

So one example just coming from a city uh perspective when I was a mayor and a city counselor, there's no franchise fees charged for use of right-away anywhere in the county.

So, like that's just uh you all are probably sitting here going, that's bananas.

Why would you why would you not pursue that?

So there's revenue things that are being evaluated, and that's I'm just giving you one example.

There are a lot of things like that that are on the table and being evaluated to try to shore up the financial position of the county and be able to extend some more of the services that we know our communities need.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Council Brooks.

Hi, thank you for coming today.

You back good to see you.

Nice to see you too.

So, how many nonprofit libraries are there?

I believe it's three.

Is that right, friends?

Four, I'm not sure.

I think it's three.

Three.

And then I'm just curious if there's a strategic plan around this a way to consider how we talk to our constituents and taxpayers about how this is fair and reasonable, and if there's a way of I don't want people to be underserved, obviously, and at the same time, it seems interesting that we would build something out that's not planned for financially with a tax base or any um consistent funding besides the cities all pitching in and are you talking about the urban unincorporated areas?

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, there's a there's uh I would say a fair bit of effort going into evaluating that situation overall.

I think strategic communication plan that you're describing is probably a future step that's not being worked on actively right now because we're still trying, I think, to figure out how to how to move forward in the long run.

Um and having some discussions and doing some specific work to evaluate just in a couple of places as an example what it would take to get to a to get to a different place.

So both Beaverton and Tigert are both engaged with the county at evaluating uh areas that are adjacent to those cities that um would be probably some of the earlier areas to work on, and that will inform a lot of future work.

Okay, because I just I kind of always go back to that our library does everything in social services at this end of the county, and um as much as I want to be equitable to everybody, I also want to be um attentive to the people in my community that are not treated equitably in the county.

So I think that there's a piece there where there's I don't know, a belief or something that says that this community is somehow flush with tons of resources to be contributing to other places instead of um that we've that we work really hard, that we have a library foundation that people put in a lot of time and energy, and then we're still not capturing anything near what we need to as far as social services, and especially with things continuing to diminish and people continuing to be more vulnerable at this end of the county, so far away from the county seat, Beaverton, even Tigrid, where more services are located, were um I don't know if I said this too, but when I was working on the STIP, I was representing geographical diversity, and the first meeting we had, our city was not on the map.

It was literally cut off the map, and that was the map that the county was using to consider the needs of the community.

So I have a sensitivity about is that really understood at the county level.

I think that some people think that this community is you know, doesn't have any census tracks or I have that concern, I'll be honest about my virtually my entire district.

Yeah, it um and it and it affects me directly too.

Right.

Um I I mean this is stupid stuff, but like I I get the same travel allowance, whatever that the commissioners that live two miles from the commission.

I'm 30 miles, which also means by the way, that when I drive to Salem, that's not outside the 50 mile range for me, so I get to pay for that, but they get to try.

I mean, it's like it's not it it affects everything.

Yes, and I'm just giving you a silly example, but that I mean it it is it worries me all the time about my entire district.

Yeah.

Well, I appreciate that, and um, and I guess for me, I would like to see some advocating around strategic planning around this because it doesn't seem really sustainable, and it seems interesting to be investing money before having the plan of how do you keep this building going forward, and um it sounds like there's some things that are being approached.

Yeah, and the library I would say is just one example in the tip of the iceberg.

There is a lot more to this than just the library, but I think your point is well taken and is acknowledged that you know this is not sustainable.

And the the size of I think the other thing people may not really recognize, just to be totally transparent with all of you, is the size of this area, the unincorporated urban area.

Do you anyone want to venture a guess as to how many how many residents there are?

It'd be the second largest city in the state if it was a city.

That's crazy, isn't it?

200 and more than 200,000.

It's about 220,000 to give you an idea of the scope.

And I understand then fair enough, and but and there's a lot of people that want to choose to live outside cities for a lot of different reasons, and a lot of it some is great.

So that's true, but you also can't get urban services for free either.

No, no.

Or at a discount, no, which is what's happening.

Yeah.

So yes, I don't disagree.

I'm sure I'm gonna be very popular with my fellow commissioners tonight for this.

Well, that was gonna my second question was how can we be supportive to you advocating for this area and those needs?

Um letter or is coming to which commission meeting, or is there a way that we can be I would suggest that you know, a I don't know that all of you need to do this, but some of you should probably be monitoring the whether it's the mayor or council president or whatever monitoring the work that's happening at the county around urban services framework and our financial like where we're headed from a financial sustainability standpoint and the evaluation that's happening there.

I think those are all things that directly tie to what you're talking about.

Um it's sort of like there's two concerns I have is the professionalism at our library, the library professionals um being on site, and I don't think that's good to not have our professionals on site, and then the second is um having our needs being you know, our uh communities desires being curated in the system as well.

Um if there's any reflection of what's been happening, like what you're talking about as far as um maybe disenfranchisement because of geographical location, I could say that.

Then I don't see how the centralization's gonna bode better for us in that situation.

So you're specifically talking about the centralization of the collection.

Yeah.

Uh I otherwise I think well, I know uh Lisa Tattersall, the WCCLS manager has provided responses as that question's been raised that there are uh a lot of ways that they intend to do that well and to do it engaged with their communities.

It may not provide as much autonomy as each individual library had on the collection, but there's a commitment to making sure that as best as possible needs are met, feedback is provided, action is uh or information is acted on, and that's gonna have to be part of what happens.

I you know, I'm I personally am not gonna stand for um that not being addressed because we then really will have lost something that I think is important in the process.

Um do I think it's gonna be a hundred percent?

No, but do I think it needs to be at least 80 percent?

Yeah, well, I appreciate it, and I appreciate your perspective and understanding of this area.

Um I as far as anything else that's going on, I guess.

I guess the real thing is wanting to stay in contact uh about how we can be supportive and if there's ways that we can testify at certain times it's helpful, we would really appreciate that, and at least I would I have no problem doing that, and then um anyway, and we're glad that you're here.

Thank you.

We'll I think Bryn and I both have made note of the desire to be supportive and provide both testimony and input on a couple of these topics.

So we'll be looking for those opportunities in the future.

I have one other quick one.

Um, when we're talking about ways that we're losing money towards behavioral health and those other things, um, there's all the AI training that's been going on in different quadrants that I've been in, whether it's uh the League of Oregon Cities doing some, the National League of Cities is doing some, we just had some over at the chamber.

Have there been any thoughts about um helping to, I mean, some of the stuff that's going on that's coming down through the feds is ways to do more paperwork to keep the effects systems um efficiency and effectiveness, and is there a way to um streamline that and think about that systemically so that there could be more efficient reporting, for instance, like on jobs or yeah, I can certainly ask that question, or Bryn can follow up on that.

I don't know offhand, and that that's getting I think a bit more into the operational details of how some of that work is done, and I I don't have specifics on that, right?

I just think it's so innovative and it can streamline work so quickly that it might be something that could be even guided through to help speed things up so that we don't need as many people making up the bureaucratic difference.

Yeah, I mean, I just in general, I I don't find a lot of value in doing a lot of extra reporting to get less and less money.

Right.

Um it's kind of a again that goes back a little bit to what some of the conversations we may need to have with the state.

The federal government traditionally has been pretty challenging on that front because it's sort of a take it or leave it proposition, and you're not gonna change the language in the contracts.

Um, but we could be more efficient in checking boxes.

I think it's a good point, and Brynn will certainly follow up and get back to you.

Thank you.

I just want to thank you for coming.

Uh gives a perspective that we need at the county level.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments.

Right.

Uh almost right on time.

So I just got one, and it's the one I always harp on that council Brooks kind of alluded to.

Um, you know, city services being provided in unincorporated Washington County that this county has decided before you were there to spin up these services for decades.

For decades in unincorporated areas that are traditionally city services, and now the county is finding it tough almost impossible to fund things.

They've stood up.

Same thing happened with the jail.

They do let that go, and now we're in the quandary about fixing the jail.

Uh so now that you're in a predicament now that we're having to issue these levies to basically backfill funds that the county doesn't have in a general fund, and to Bridget's point that you know, if the county did not have these four or three or four libraries out there, the funds would be going to city libraries and we funding uh more of the funds would be going towards the cities versus those uh libraries that are uncorporated Washington County, or tweaking the funding mechanism as you mentioned, uh you're still doing, I know it's still going on, to better reflect the needs in the cities because we do have to pay for our employees, the overhead of the building.

Uh so the county should be in the same hook of these libraries that they stood up years ago.

They should have to support those outside of the levy.

But the predicament you're in, I understand, is that you don't have the money in the general fund anymore, that we have to rely more and more on these levies.

So I mean as Bridge is saying money is coming from the cities to fund unaccorporate Washington County if greater and greater need.

If we're going to have a real conversation about property tax reform and how we fund public services, I think that's a very valid one.

But the mechanism that the just like you as a city that you have is to put levies on the ballot.

Like that is that is so that is what you see the county doing when we're making these moves.

And it is in part to support the cities, and it is in part to support the library system that's not in cities.

That's a both and it's not that the levy is just for one or the other, it's for both and it is it is intended to be a system.

Um that's you know, you can I guess critique whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I think we we all enjoy having a good library system, and I constantly heard when I was mayor and city counselor, and even now about how much more desirable are multiple people I know who uh I would walk into the Tiger Library and I'd be like, you live in Lake Caswigo, what are you using?

You know, they're like, well, you know, the programs for the kids and all the stuff and the things and the space is much nicer here.

It's like okay, you know, welcome to Tiger again.

I I just look forward to more.

I know you it's not till it sounds like now to the end of October that you might be nailing down this revenue sharing and the the funding stream.

So I I know it's still work in progress, so we are definitely keeping our ears open to what's going on and the changes from week to week, and you know, where other cities are standing in terms of support or lack of support for the levy, but we are listening and we do want to participate and we're listening too.

I mean, I I think there may even be some, you know, some people even in the Twalton sphere who are frustrated with the fact that the funding formula is still being revisited in some of that.

Uh you know, the reality is I think the commission is trying to hear feedback and trying to do what it can.

I I think we all kind of thought it was maybe close to settled too, and then we continued to get robust feedback.

Um, and so we're just trying to do our best to listen to all of that and to uh try to make the best decisions we can that is uh as fair and equitable to all people is really what we're trying to do.

All right.

Well, thank you for coming down very much.

Appreciate it.

All right, so that brings us to our the second item on our work session tonight, the sidewalk maintenance program backlog review.

And this will be Jackson and Lindsay.

Welcome, good evening, mayor, council, uh Lindsay Marshall, management analyst in public works.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, Lindsay Marshall, management analyst in public works.

And I'm Jackson Porterfield Management Analyst in Public Works.

And we are back to talk about sidewalks.

So just a quick overview of where okay, let's see if I remember how to work this.

Wait, there you go.

A quick uh recap of what we're going to be talking about is we're gonna be looking at our program history.

So I'll basically I'll give a quick reminder of what we've talked about before where we've been, and then Jackson will take over and talk about the new information and the kind of solution that we're coming to with.

So we'll talk about the program history, the sidewalk assessment that we completed, uh, the backlog itself, the proposed solution to the backlog, next steps, and then any feedback or discussion that you all might want to have.

Okay.

So why are we here?

Slide could also be titled, What Do We Know?

Uh we know that sidewalks have an average lifespan of about 25 to 50 years, and that since 1970, Twalton's been growing exponentially.

So that end of life sidewalk kind of looks like sidewalk defects, right?

So you get some crumbling, spalling, some lifts that cause tripping hazards, things like that.

So you can tell that the sidewalk is nearing its end of its life.

We also know that street trees have an average lifespan of about 20 years, and they're also a major cause of sidewalk hazards, especially trip hazards.

Those roots come up under the sidewalk, pop those panels up and cause uh tripping hazards.

We also know that sidewalks here in Twaleton and street trees are the responsibility of the homeowner, the adjacent property owner, and we know that property owners are not addressing this maintenance, and that's for a variety of reasons.

Some don't know that it's their responsibility, and also repairs of this type can be expensive.

It's expensive to take out a tree, pull out the roots, replace the tree, do the concrete for the panel replacement.

It can get pricey.

And so we have had for many years a sidewalk maintenance program that helps to offset some of those funds so the city will cover the cost and do the work to replace those trees and panels.

Um ideally, or when this program was first started, we had about a three-year cycle.

And over the years, with Twalton's growth and funding, it's ballooned up to a nine-year cycle.

So that's what we know.

Our current program, again, is to repair the whole purpose is to repair residential sidewalk defects that have been caused by street trees, street trees specifically.

The criteria here is lifts over a quarter inch, and a lift over a quarter inch is what ADA defines as a tripping hazard.

We've got a little more criteria kind of uh guiding that is that with street trees only.

So we're not addressing any lifts or defects caused by private trees, so on private property.

We're just working at those trees that are kind of in the planner's strip considered street trees and that are not in a driveway.

So any lifting or cracking or crumbling that's happening in the driveway.

This program is not set up to address those either.

We've got about a we do have a not about, we do have 150,000 a year.

That's been increased twice since 2018 from 50,000 up to 150,000.

And right now that's a dressing of about 10 to 15 percent of the program qualified defects per year.

So any of those defects that qualify as a lint lift over quarter inch street tree cost and not on a driveway.

And again, we know that the program has increased to a nine-year cycle.

And so we're thinking, why has this increased to a nine-year cycle?

What is going on here?

Is it just Twalton's growth?

Is it something else?

Do we bring any money?

We needed to get some more information.

So we decided to do a citywide assessment, and this happened last summer, summer 2024.

Um, and we wanted to get wanted to have we had a contractor go out, walk every sidewalk in the city and document every ADA concern.

We had a we created a photographic inventory of the curb ramp since we were already out there, and we made it painted those trip hazards with white paint just to make them more visible since we were out there.

The goal of this assessment was to really understand the condition of our network and also have data to work with, right?

So instead of like, oh, we feel like this is what the problem is.

Now we have data to say, now we know what the problem is, and we know what our sidebook looks like and what we need to do to address those things.

What the assessment found was roughly 2,000 recorded defects in the sidewalk system.

And again, these are defects, not just lifts.

This is spalling and crumbling, these are separations, these are obstructions, things that are kind of getting in the way of the sidewalk.

We found that most defects are in residential areas, but we also found that the majority of defects are not caused by the street trees.

And our program addresses defects caused by the street trees.

Thank you.

So, yeah, as Lindsay said, um, the majority of the 2,000 are not street tree caused.

It's a lot of spalling, crumbling panels, private tree caused issues.

And so narrowing our focus to what we do aim to fix, we found 327 program qualifying defects with a few small tweaks to the program that I'll get into in a minute.

And you know, from looking at this, we kind of realize that the backlog is not as large as we'd anticipated.

And kind of a return to a reasonable cycle is within reach, so we're not on that nine year cycle and letting things just stay hazardous for a long time.

So that brings us to our work proposal.

These next few slides is kind of what we're here today to propose.

So one priority is looking ahead.

And so we're taking a couple measures to stop trees from having these issues crop up.

One of the first measure is our parks department right now is revising our street tree list.

So they're removing you know the trees that are causing the most issues, and they're gonna continue to add some that you know fit in the planner strip better and aren't causing these lifts.

And you know, the second set of tweaks is in accordance with council goals that we received in January.

So one piece of advice that we were given then was to remove grinds from the program.

So we're just gonna be focusing on the most hazardous defects, and we're also aligning with uh organizational goals of the climate action plan and using low emission concrete.

Um so that's the second small tweak we're making to the program.

And third point is kind of the bulk of our proposal here.

We're aiming to do a one-time catch-up uh job where we you know work through that whole backlog of 327 defects and get back on schedule.

And that'll be over two years.

And so here we're just gonna quickly take a look at the repair costs, just kind of for some transparency, and you understand what's going into our total cost calculation.

Um you can read the costs off the slide there.

Uh we included the root barrier, obviously.

Uh we included a little uptick for general contractor management, the low emission concrete.

Um yeah, these are recent, the most recent uh, you know, these are very recent bids, and we're confident in these numbers.

They're coming from this spring at the Las Casitas CDVG project.

So we're pretty confident that we can get these prices.

And so that kind of brings us to our backlog by the numbers.

Um you can see here how many trees we aim to replace and how many defects we aim to repair.

So 337 trees are going to be replaced and repairing the backlog.

That's about 3% of our trees.

And that is one, you know, pretty important consideration of this project is we're gonna be losing a considerable amount of our tree canopy.

Um, so you know, those 3% of trees are gonna be more mature and probably account for a little bit of a larger percent of our canopy.

Um there you can see the 327 defects are 16% of the total defects we found in our you know, whole network-wide assessment.

And that all adds up to 1.2 million dollar cost for the two-year backlog repair, and that's including a you know contingency buffer that we added on of about like 24% or so.

And so, in case you're wondering, you know, how's this project taking two years to do 300 repairs?

No, we're not gonna be doing one repair every other day for 300 repairs.

Um it's gonna be, or sorry, I I think I skipped a slide.

Oh, you're good.

Where's the news coming from?

We'll do the funding first.

I skipped ahead.

So, yeah, where's the 1.2 million dollars coming from?

This is something we looked over with finance.

Um, you know, the first part we're gonna pull from is our existing program funding.

Right now we get 150,000 per year for the sidewalk maintenance program.

And so, you know, we assume that this work's gonna unfold over two years, so presumably that's at least 300,000 are coming from there.

So presumably that's at least 300,000 are coming from there.

And next we're gonna, these are kind of ordered in you know, where we're gonna pull from.

So next we'd take from what's remaining of ARPA funds, then the road utility fund, and finally the general fund if we need it.

And then here's the timeline that I was talking about.

It's not gonna be one every other day, it's gonna be pretty concentrated.

Um so we kind of look at this project as three phases.

We're in the first phase on the left right now.

Um, we're looking for approval and a little bit of you know, maybe instruction for down the line from council.

And then we're gonna be selecting a contractor and firming up that street tree list before we start doing the replanting.

Um then next summer and fall, we'd be doing the first round of sidewalk repairs and tree replanting.

Uh we would take a break there and evaluate kind of our progress in the program.

Are we on track?

Um, you know, are we able to administrate it properly?

Um is it affordable?

And then we resume the following year 2027 in the summer and fall and do the second half of the work.

Um and the final step following that is making sure that the program is kind of back on track.

We're hoping to return it to roughly that three-year cycle, so we might need to make some revisions, and so we'll kind of check in with council along the way, you know, across the two years of work and going forward to make sure the program is in the place that we want it to be.

And yeah, that's all we've got.

Anything?

Anything to add, Lindsay?

No, we're good.

Discussion feedback.

Questions?

Council Brooks.

Um I had like three.

One is um when they were doing the sidewalk assessments, were they also doing just tree assessments where some people take their trees out and don't replace their trees?

No, this was just sidewalks.

Um, so parks has been doing a separate assessment of the street tree, what's there, what's not.

So they have their own list.

This was just looking at sidewalk damage.

Okay.

So um so when we go to replace the trees, would we be coordinating with uh whatever areas we're looking at with the other inventory that's going on with streets trees that have been removed?

Yeah, we're working um closely with parks to kind of overlay our sidewalk assessment with our street tree assessment and making sure that we're making those kind of best decisions going forward, looking at the two data sets.

Okay, and then my other question was I get a lot of feedback on that one because walkers, they're like it's cool, it's cool, it's hot.

And um anyway, the next question I had was um with the trees.

Do you have any species that you know that are the more damaging and less damaging yet?

Just like an example or two.

I've heard some rumors about what they are, but I I want to say the Armstrong maple, I think was like that's 20% of our tree catalog and accounts for 40% of the tree cause defects.

I think that's roughly the case.

So that one we'll want to scratch for sure.

Okay, but we'll let parks confirm all that information, really.

Okay, we're we're curious about that.

We would love an email.

Um, at least this we and then my final question was I see ads.

I am not an expert on sidewalks.

Um about straightening out concrete from filling it from underneath.

And I was just curious if any of that kind of work is appropriate in any places, or if there could be resources for that kind of thing, too, for people as we go through and do this work and they realize oh, this is for my tree.

These are some resources that we could you know look at for trees for the tree programs that are around, and also for um different kinds of fixes for the sidewalk.

Yeah, absolutely.

We're definitely interested in looking at those kind of new innovative things.

We've had one test study, or we had one section of sidewalk where we did um they'd inject some kind of foam.

Again, I don't totally know the details, but they eject a foam, it lifts the sidewalk up and meets it back.

Um it was maybe a year or two ago.

We did it with one homeowner as a trial, and so we're gonna have to give it a couple years to see what happens there and how that turns out.

But if it goes well, then there's certainly a possibility of including that.

Okay, and was it cost effective?

Yes, okay.

I can't remember the exact numbers, but it was more effective, more cost-effective than replacing the panels.

Thank you very much.

Council Sarko.

Thank you for your presentation.

I have two questions.

Um the first one, um, and just it's a point of clarification.

But um when we say that we are going to um catch up the backlog, we specifically mean pay a hundred percent of those costs, the city, correct?

We're not okay um and then um second question.

Um the trees or I'm sorry, the sidewalks that are um that have issues that are not caused by the trees, so the delta between the 2000, whatever, and the 300, whatever.

Um, are what are we doing to address those, or are we sort of on the current um operating process where we're waiting until there's some like um notification that there's an issue?

Yes, thank you.

Yeah, so right now for this project, we're looking at just the backlog of the program qualified um defects and we would kind of go as per usual with the waiting for code compliance.

Um that is a conversation that we could have in the future, uh, but it's not part of what we're working on right now.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Council Gonzalez.

I have a couple of things, so thank you for this information.

I've been eagerly anticipating it.

So I have a c I have four things.

What is low emission concrete?

Low emissions concrete.

Rachel, do you know the answer to low?

I'm like, I'm not the technical expert on that one.

I think it has to do with the temperature of that as well.

I think it uses it a different kind of fiber that has a lower emissions.

Don't hold me on that.

We can get back to you on that one.

Okay, thank you.

With the technical details.

Thank you very much for that.

And based on your presentation, you had said 24% contingency is what you're allocating for on this project, roughly correct.

You said on the 1.2 million dollars.

That's 24.

That's 288,000.

That's a lot of money.

I am not a fan of change orders.

I don't I even when I see these projects come through the council that we have to pay a change order adjustments.

I'm not a fan of that.

Um so my hope is that when because by the time by the time we we add the change order costs, we could have just hired a contractor that doesn't give the change order cost, maybe can absorb the cost.

And I I'm not a fan of that.

I'm seeing a commonality here.

So when you reserve 288,000 dollars, I'd like to see that almost be a lot less than that.

I mean almost like five percent more so.

Um not go for the lowest bidder.

So I my my hope is that we can take that into consideration.

I think two years is too long as well.

Uh I I don't know.

We have the money, correct?

Noticing the funding buckets that you've shared, all the last one being the general fund.

We have the money to do it now if we want to, correct?

We just have to organize it, project management and get it done.

Well, we so thinking about spreading it, it's more it's the actual work itself would be about 18 months because we've got those, you know, however many months of planning until we come back and start the work next spring.

Um so rolling it into those two fiscal years, we're gonna be able to utilize the program funds that we already have allocated per fiscal year, and also considering when we would do sidewalks versus when we plan, right?

They're two different seasons, right?

Because you've got the concrete work when it's dry and then the planting in the summer.

Um we also want to make sure that we're doing it right, so splitting it up to make sure that we're on track and then coming back for a mid-project check-in.

And then we also have to consider that Bert Oldheiser, our streets manager just retired, and so we've lost that kind of bulk of knowledge, and the person who's gonna be managing the project is not here yet.

So there are a variety of considerations as to why we put it over that two years or really the 18 months work worth of working time.

And as we move on to keeping pace with the project of three years, and you and how do we stay on pace?

How is we have full inventory, correct?

So are you based at three-year benchmark based on the collected data that we already have now?

Correct.

Is that is that how that's gonna be managed?

Okay, we'll do in the the must do first due to tree issues, and then after that, whatever's then you then we start.

There's a different priority list, I understand.

Is that how that we're gonna is that how that works?

How you guys plan to stay on pace in the three years is case.

Can you rephrase that?

I'm not totally clear.

We collected a lot of information on the the most dangerous, right?

And then the the various reasons why the the problem with sidewalks.

How do we ensure we stay on pace on the three years?

Are you basing that on what you've inventoried on that workload?

Yes.

So we're basing it off that 2024 assessment.

We anticipate doing another assessment in the future to track and see.

And also um changes into the program, right?

We've what we talked about before when we came to council was maybe adjusting the program to do a cost split with the homeowner, and so that would stretch our funds further than it does now to be able to address more defects per year than we have been able to.

Um so that's one of the ways we could stay on task.

Okay.

So thank you for that.

And I know that you you can't answer this question because it's has to do with parks and trees.

So I I had sent some pictures that maybe could be viewed at a different time.

Um I know that we've inventory trees that are set up that are caused by tree problems.

Perfect.

Um but there is also trees that have that are currently planted right now.

That the that are the wrong trees.

They're literally we in my neighborhood alone.

We've just got completed a wonderful sidewalk project with AD ramps.

Beautiful stuff.

And and trees were planted back literally one foot away.

One foot away from this little corner.

And it's an Armstrong April.

And that as soon as that tree takes hold, it's gonna bust up that whole eight.

It's literally within a foot on that, and that's completely wrong.

And there's a lot of things like that that they're small that can I know that's a parks question that'll probably be addressed or something, but my hope is that we can get in front of that as well since we're already on the topic of concrete and trees and things like that.

Absolutely, and that's something where we're looking forward to working with parks on is taking their street T data and our sidewalk data and overlying that and looking at those the proper trees for the proper place and then looking at the addition of root barriers to try to extend that life of the sidewalk and the tree.

Thank you.

Council President Pratt.

And do you know how um how much a ARPA funds are left for this project?

No.

You don't know.

Don doesn't know.

Okay.

Just a question.

I think I saw I'm my I think I remember seeing on the budget that it's we should it showed about 2.5 million dollars of ARPA funds because I was asking for that money for the climate action plan to be used.

But I think there was a number like that.

Come on, up Don.

Yes, great.

So our two highest priorities of the remaining ARPA funds are finishing Las Casitas Park and then the trail next to SEPA.

Those costs are still outstanding.

And so that's why we don't have that total number of what that remaining number will look like yet.

Uh so approximately, nope.

Okay.

It'll be I gotcha.

It'll be less than a million dollars, I could tell you that.

But I but it could range from a couple hundred thousand topics.

But it could be at least a couple hundred thousand.

I believe so at this point.

Okay, that's what I really wanted to know.

Thanks, Dawn.

Um it's great the idea of catching up.

I think the the biggest thing I hear from people, I mean, there are many issues with sidewalks, but the biggest one are people are really get really upset that you made us plant this tree and now it's tearing up for sidewalk.

We hear it all the time.

So I think that's great.

Do you have um an inventory or do you know how many trees total are in the sidewalks?

Because this is just a s seems like a small percentage.

So my concern is like um, for instance, I have trees that are maybe 15, 20 years old, they were plums before that.

I don't know when that happened, but and they're getting mature, so I imagine in the next five to ten years they're gonna be upheaving the sidewalks too.

So do you have an idea of after you fix what's out there right now, how soon you're gonna need funds to fix the remaining straight trees issues, or is that just too big of a thing to take on right now?

Totally sure how we're gonna like how to project that maybe that's something we can work with parks on in their arborist.

Um, but correct Dustin, correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe there's about 10,000.

11,000 street trees in the oh wow.

Yeah, so 11,000 total and 2100 missing, just in the street tree, so the in that planar strip category.

Wow.

That's amazing.

More than I thought.

Yeah.

I was guessing a couple thousand all the way up.

Okay, well, that's really interesting.

I mean, I just think I think this is a really good start, but I just think that needs to be part of I mean, our sidewalk issues are not solved here.

It's but it's a really good start.

Absolutely.

Councilor Brooks.

Just while we were talking about that, um also curious, especially because of the concerns that people have about the canopy.

Um replacing 21,000 trees that are 2100 trees.

I'm like, wait.

Um that would help also with the canopy.

So I'm just curious if there's any way we can get like some a little bit of, especially if we're working with an arborist, a little bit of percentages and numbers around canopy cover, what we're gonna lose, how quickly we're gonna make that back, and what putting the new trees in that were just removed and not replaced will do for the city's canopy.

Yeah, so this program will remove and replace those 337, I believe, trees that are qualified for the program, and then um there's a whole different plan to address the 2100.

Yeah.

Sorry to cross or the programs, but I know that they're in the audience here.

Anyway, we're friends, we work closely together.

Thank you very much.

Other questions?

Uh so we when we had the first discussion, we talked about the folks that will have to um do some of the repairs themselves.

Is part of this project, or is it a further project?

We're talking talked about developing a contractor list for the city that someone said, Hey, I I want to grind.

So you have a preferred vendor where I need to replace some panels.

Yep.

Is that part of this project, or is it gonna be in a future project for folks who maybe want to fix their sidewalks in this two-year time frame?

Right.

Um, so we're gonna be concurrently working on, we're gonna do like you know, the construction, go out and do the tangible things in this project, and concurrently, we're gonna be working on and then coming to council periodically on those new program criteria and what how that's gonna play out and what that's gonna look like.

So coming back talking about things like contractor list is um on our work plan during this period.

Because I've had folks in my neighborhood ask is there a list of vendors the city uses because they prefer to use them versus trying to find their own.

Trying to find their own and find someone who's not so legit.

Yeah.

So I mean, if keeping it back in your mind that you know the demand will probably be there right away as soon as they start seeing other things being fixed, maybe on their block.

And you know, if they just need some small work while the while that team is there, you never know.

Yeah, absolutely.

All right.

Anything else?

All right.

Well, thank you both.

Okay, thank you so much.

All right.

All right, so our next item on the agenda is CFIC rulemaking for walkable communities.

This is uh Quilla and Aaron.

Welcome both of you.

Good evening.

Um I'm a quillaherd ravage, and this is Aaron Eggman, and Aaron's gonna give most of the presentation, and I'll help answer questions if I can.

So there we go.

That helps.

So for tonight's agenda, we'll briefly recap the project purpose and background, then we'll revisit the required code concepts and land use conditions in Twaleton before I transition into our policy discussion for auto-oriented uses.

Ultimately, though, we are asking for council's direction on whether drive-through usage should be restricted in the mixed-use commercial zone.

But first, this project is part of the larger climate-friendly and equitable communities or CFEC program, which is a state mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation with a focus on transportation planning and land use planning.

Some of the major components of CFAC are designating climate-friendly areas, which are higher density mixed use areas, and Twalton satisfies this by complying with Metro's 2040 growth concept.

There was also a parking reform component, which was met last year with the adoption of ordinance 1486-24.

And finally, the walkable design standards project before you tonight is tied to the recent transportation system plan update.

As the 2045 TSP was adopted on August 11th, Steph staff had requested an extension to adopt the walkable design standards project from DLCD.

The approved request is included in the packet as exhibit two and extends the adoption deadline to December of 2025.

So the reason we're here tonight is the walkable design standards project will require amendments to the Twileton Development Code in order to implement Oregon administrative rule zero three three zero.

And the purpose of this rulemaking is to support compact pedestrian-friendly and mixed-use land development patterns.

The mandated code amendments have been informed by a number of resources, including a code audit that our consultant may completed in February.

Direction and model code language provided by the state agency, DLCD.

The walkable design standards guidebook and model code is included in your packet as exhibit one.

We also considered input from community stakeholders that included architects, developers, accessibility advocates, and residents that are interested in different transportation options.

And we also heard from council at work sessions held in February and May of this past year.

This project touches on four key topic areas, though tonight's conversation is focused on the auto-oriented uses component.

To provide a brief background on the other components, the neighborhood connectivity rules require adoption of maximum block length and block perimeter standards for residential neighborhoods.

These standards were addressed under the 2045 TSP ordinance adoption.

The residential neighborhoods rule apply to new residential construction to promote efficient and sociable development patterns.

The project will require front yard setback reductions for residential development, as well as building orientation and access standards for multifamily development.

The commercial and mixed use districts rules call for compact development patterns that provide direct access to pedestrians, cyclists, and those using mobility devices in public transit.

The project will require maximum setback provisions in these districts.

Now that we've reviewed the project purpose and background, we'll dive into the details of auto-oriented uses and the rules.

Ultimately, the rulemaking acknowledges that drive-thru facilities can create uncomfortable spaces for pedestrians and those without a vehicle, as shown on this slide.

The state rules require land use regulations that ensure auto-oriented land uses provide safe and convenient access opportunities for people walking, using a mobility device, or riding a bicycle.

That means requiring pedestrian access to goods and services that is equivalent to or better than access for people driving a motor vehicle.

Under the state rule, auto-oriented land uses include uses that are related to the operation, sale, maintenance, or fueling of motor vehicles, and uses where the use of a motor vehicle is accessory to the primary use, and that would include drive-throughs.

To help jurisdictions implement the state rulemaking, the Department of Land Conservation and Development provided a model code with site design requirements.

The document also included recommendations that go beyond the state requirements.

And in one such example, the model code calls for prohibiting drive-throughs in pedestrian-oriented zones, though that is not required under the state rules.

The model code also provides design standards that ensure a walk-up service area is provided for customers driving on foot, bicycle, or a mobility device.

Examples of a walk-up service area may include an indoor area that is directly accessible from the street, or an outdoor walk-up service window.

Additional design standards are included to avoid conflicts between pedestrian areas and vehicle areas, and largely our code already addresses those additional standards.

The model code goes on to define a drive-thru as a facility or structure that is designed to allow drivers to remain in their vehicle before and during an activity on the site.

Drive-thru facilities also include facilities designed for the rapid servicing of vehicles where the driver may or may not remain in their vehicle.

Drive-thru facilities may also serve the primary use of the site or may serve accessory uses.

And some examples under the model code include drive-throughs, gas stations, car wash facilities, quick oil change facilities, and even drive in theaters.

And then looking at Tualeton situation, we have two zoning districts that promote pedestrian activity.

One is the central commercial zone or the CC zone, and the other is the mixed-use commercial zone or the MUC zone.

The purpose of the CC zone is to provide areas of the city that are suitable for a full range of retail professional and service uses that are usually found in downtown areas that are patronized by pedestrians.

Within the central overlay or downtown zone, the code prohibits restaurant drive-throughs and quick vehicle servicing uses, though bank drive-throughs may be considered under a conditional use permit in the area.

And then the purpose of the MUC zone is to provide areas suitable for a mix of office, retail, and high density housing.

Retail uses should be located on the ground floor to encourage an interesting and active streetscape, and buildings should be oriented to the street with clearly marked entrances.

This zone promotes the use of alternative modes of transportation, such as pedestrian, bicycle, or transit activity.

And within the MUC zone, the code does allow drive-through uses, although quick vehicle servicing uses are prohibited, and gas stations may be considered under a conditional use permit in the area.

So to recap our previous slides, the walkable design standard model code forhibits the development of new drive-thru facilities and pedestrian oriented districts.

Twelton has two pedestrian-oriented districts.

One the central commercial zone.

Most of these auto-oriented uses are restricted.

But in our mixed use commercial zone, there are some allowances.

Staff is asking council if drive-through use uses should be restricted in the MUC MUC zone as well.

It's kind of a tongue twister.

But we'll get into what's in the MUC zone on the next couple of slides.

So to orient ourselves, the mixed-use commercial zone is located in the northern antler of Tualeton, if we think of it as our deer.

Excuse me.

Bridgeport Village, the Point, Whole Foods, and the Grand Hotel are all located in this area.

And currently there are no drive-throughs established in the MUC zone.

We do have a few vacant properties in the area.

These lots on this slide are shown near the Boones Ferry Center in the Grand Hotel, which is located off of Lower Boones Ferry Road and adjacent to the claim jumper.

So this top picture here is this acreage that's just shy of an acre or the site that's just shy of an acre.

I have these carrots here that kind of show the vantage points.

So this is the top picture, and this is the vantage point of the second bottom picture.

And we also have a vacant property that's located at the intersection of 72nd Avenue and Lower Boons Ferry.

You may recall that in and out submitted for an architectural review application in 2020, but ultimately they never provided the required traffic study, and they let their application expire.

So this property is a little over an acre, and it's located with close proximity to I-5.

And on this slide, I just wanted to show some of the acreage that's required to develop a drive-thru.

These examples are pulled from Tualeton.

So you can see it can be anywhere from a little over three tenths of an acre to a little over an acre to support the use.

So some of those vacant or underdeveloped sites would be able to accommodate a drive-thru use in theory.

So as staff were looking for council direction, and we've listed a few different options for consideration.

The first option is likely the easiest option to adopt and to regulate, and that would be to prohibit the new drive-thru facilities in the mixed-use commercial zone.

Under the second option, we would allow drive-throughs in the mixed-use commercial zone with the new standards and restrictions required by the state mandate.

Largely that would include revising our code to allow for a walk-up service area window.

Option three would be to consider new drive-throughs and the gas station allowance in the MEC zone under conditional use permit.

That would allow the city to consider the unique characteristics of the proposed drive-through use and apply standards and conditions that protect the where welfare of adjacent properties and the community as a whole.

And then option four is kind of a combination of any of the three options based off of council's preferences.

So an example could be that we would include some drive-thru facilities, such as bank teller uses with new standards and restrictions as a permitted use, while considering other drive-through uses like restaurant drive-throughs and the gas stations under a conditional use permit.

So with that, I'll open it up to questions and of staff or any discussion that you might want to entertain.

Questions for Aaron and Oracle Council Professor Pratt.

Okay, Councilor Gonzalez.

Thank you very much for this information.

I do have some questions for you for the MUC.

I know this was a general presentation, but I'm sure there's been some consideration.

So if we do not, I maybe it's just a statement I can make.

If we do not allow drive-throughs in these areas, has there been consideration for seniors and of course parents, you know, kid young families with their kids are still in their car and they can't get out to get things.

So what kind of considerations have we been thinking through before we make a decision around these MUC area?

It's a good question.

I don't know if the state considered those questions when they were working on this rulemaking.

I know that they did a large public engagement process as part of this CFAC program.

I don't know the specifics of it, and I can look into that.

But as far as city, I don't know if those questions came up when we worked with our particular stakeholders.

So they're not requiring us, they're just requiring us to adopt something, correct?

So we don't have to say no, ban it completely.

We just have to give direction.

Right.

We just have to adopt standards that make drive-throughs compatible with walking.

And so that people that are arriving on foot get the same or better service as people arriving in cars.

And I'm sure they've done some case studies around other cities that have done this, and maybe some cities that have undone it.

Is there information around that as well?

I'm not aware of if that work was done.

I didn't see that in the guidance language.

It kind of talks about some of the whys.

Um and a lot of it was just to encourage more pedestrian-oriented uses in compact development.

So I think largely they kind of looked away from the gaze of a vehicle and that I guess accessibility and ease that comes with maybe having small children or being a senior citizen and getting around.

Yes, when I and I'll close with is when I was looking into this and looking at the population impacts as we're heading in the next in the next 30 years.

Um Washington County alone is looking at quite significantly the population of the aging population where they don't want to get out of the car, they need to be able to drive up because they can.

So walkability, which is and then also we also have um flourishing young families as well.

This is this is a big number.

I know that we're planning, and everything we're making now is for the future.

So my hope is I guess I'm asking these questions more so to kind of help guide my decision here in look into the future.

So thank you.

I I think we might end up being the case study, we're probably one of the first cities to adopt under these regulations since we were one of the first cities to adopt the TSP under the new climate-friendly equitable communities.

So you may be setting a standard.

Well, I wanted to thank you for the um the two maps in particular that showed the actual what's in the you know, we get a big pink blob in it, so then you're just trying to guess about where it's at.

So this was really helpful.

And then showing the two pieces of property that are kind of left blank there, and um it's really changed my mind because in that area, I I don't see where I I think it would make a mess in that area to to use those two properties that way.

And we already have like a bridge port um where it if it's got the nice sidewalks and everything where we have like shake shack that people can access, and um the whole point of the MUC is to make it a more walker-friendly area.

We have the bus service we do have is located right there, so there are ways to get there.

But thank you for these maps.

You're welcome.

Council Brooks Um I really appreciate the presentation too.

It's really clear and helps me understand things very well.

Um my one question I had was do how many drive up drive-thru things do we have here in the city of Twalton as it stands?

Just in general, how many bank teller uh drive-throughs, car washes, oil change places, I know we don't have uh theater.

I didn't do an inventory per se, but when I kind of poked around just to see where they might be located or how big the sites might be, I was surprised to see that there was more than I originally thought.

So one of the things when I think about, and even when we're talking about the downtown redevelopment and what we're doing, is that people sometimes refer to our city, they get through it, and there's these main, you know, old-fashioned ways that uh things were built with strip malls, and then people go in and they go out and they try to get out of the traffic jam.

And so for me, some of the work that we're doing with the MUC and with the other zone is to make that not that, make it a place for people to come and stay and visit and to live and walk and play, and if they don't have high visibility to not be worried about their kids getting hit by a car and um somebody getting hit on a bike or whatever.

So in my mind, um I like the idea of option one.

I imagine that we have enough drive-throughs as it stands, and I think it will just keep it really simple for um making uh land use decisions uncomplicated, which they're already complicated, um, and then really reduces the carbon and um and it's for a small area, but it's for a concentrated area for specific uses.

Um so I don't see where it conflicts with like I just don't see a drive-through right next to Bridgeport with all the restaurants that are at Bridgeport.

I don't think they'd even appreciate that much.

Anyway, thank you.

Other comments or questions.

All right, so um I'll throw my opinion in here, then we have to give guidance on which of the four directions we want staff to go in.

I'm in agreement with counselor Brooks.

Uh the only two options I'd be open to is either number one or number two, where they'd be severely restricted.

Uh, but looking in that area, the whole idea of that area.

I know looking forward and councils before us was to have this as a mixed-use area, you know, a transit-oriented development, if you will, back in the day when we were looking at the Southwest Quarter landing uh down near Bridgeport Village that we would have folks living there in addition to shopping and doing a lot of stuff that they could walk this whole area and not have to worry about you know uh getting over run over by a car.

It is a challenge to get over to Bridgeport Village from where the old village in is, but that could be addressed.

But you know, envisioning um with the governor's goal of we need more housing throughout the state.

So here's some prime pieces of land that could be developed in a mixed use format uh that those folks who are living there wouldn't really need a car because buses are there, restaurants are there, food services there, uh all the things they need, they really don't need to have a car to go to.

So in my mind, the three and four are out.

Um I'm majority on number one with a little fix a little flexibility on number two, because one of the things I looked at was the state's guidance and model code on uh what you could do and what you could limit in terms of if you do have a drive-thru, and they just take up too much land, as Aaron was mentioning.

They're taking up an acre of land that could be developed into housing when we need it so much, and maybe housing that truly is you know, middle uh class workforce housing in that area because it's right on transit routes.

So they have an acre of land or multiple acres of land taken up for a drive-thru is a waste of space in my mind in a very compact zone.

So that's my opinion.

So counselor Reyes um so when we uh write this code, it has to be too for all the four was it four or five areas that we saw.

There's only one area, one area.

No, the whole area.

I'm talking about they she showed on grand's um.

The grand hotel, yeah.

So it's we can just can you bring out the map that had point the um the two open problems the that one right there.

So if we we decide or we give you direction, it will have to be all those areas, right?

That can be like, oh, just one this like the point will have a restricted like option one code or the grand the white the REI or any of that will have a different code.

Do we have to like choose one or can we can we like spread around like the codes or it would be for the entire zone?

Yeah.

That changes everything.

Um when you say in and out property that is already owned by them.

They're showing up on the tax assessment roll, so I believe so.

So they bought the property that is their own property to my knowledge.

Yeah, well, I I don't I have a mixed feeling about just restricting it all to like option one.

I feel like I I don't want to support that because I feel like you restrict a lot of other things too, and I want to be open to other things, such as what counselor Gonzalez said about uh senior or families that can't get out and will require actually some access through their vehicle.

Uh may want to be conscious of that as well.

Um we saw through the pandemic where I work is that a lot of seniors were really happy that we had oh a drive-thru uh experience because otherwise there was nothing that they can they could have done.

Um they couldn't go and I mean it's very healy where I work, so that was one of the features that they really liked that they were able to socialize that way to come out.

So I don't I just I'm thinking of like if we restrict it to just nothing, then I people will have to pay like people that are homebound will have to pay to s have somebody buy their food, bring it back to them anyway.

So that's still is not this sound to me that we're friendly to our residents, even if they have a home two blocks from it.

So that's just my thought process.

Sure.

Yeah, of course.

Um thank you for the additional information um that you brought forward today.

Um my uh opinion hasn't really changed since the last time we discussed this.

Um I lean toward option two uh for all the reasons that Councillor Reyes just mentioned, um, and also Councillor Gonzalez.

Um I you know love the idea of a walkable city, um, all for a walkable city.

Um, but I just think that there's some areas in this particular zone that we could possibly see a drive-through in um, and as I said last time, you know, we don't know what innovations are out there.

Um I have concerned about um you know what's coming in the future, possibly um we don't know.

And I look at the restrictions that we made for food carts, for example.

And now we're in a we live in a world where which I know is not apples to apples, but now we live in a world where food carts are everywhere, and we've sort of closed the door on that for a period of time, which I know we're working on.

Um, and also, yes, I mean it doesn't seem very inclusive um or equitable equitable for those folks, senior folks, folks that have mobility issues, um, again, all the things that are previously mentioned.

Um so for that I lean toward option two.

Okay.

Others.

So I I want to add that I'm I'm leaning to option four or three.

Uh I just don't want to hamstring the future council people.

I like to have options.

I mean it it it does it still does give us opportunity to say no, we don't want something, or yes, we do want something.

But it would be it would be the behest of the council now or the future.

So I'd rather just not let regulation creep.

It's just a matter of time.

In 20 years from now, we're gonna wonder how we got here.

We're gonna be unpacking all this stuff.

Uh so I'd rather just keep it open for all of us and have that choice in the council.

Council Pratt.

I'm kind of on option one, so Council Brooks.

I'm just gonna reiterate around option one.

Um I do think that we have a lot of things available for drive-ups in a lot of areas in our community, so I don't think that anyone's really being shut out of anything.

Um I also um except for the people that don't want to be around cars all the time.

And there are those people.

Um the other thing is, and the younger people too.

Um the other thing is when we don't have something super clear, it gets it gets complicated, and then we have all these um extra things, and to me, sometimes it's the opposite of having choices because some somebody will click all the boxes, and then we won't have a choice.

We'll never even see it.

It'll be a land use decision, it'll be an architectural review, and there's nothing that the council really has in weighing in on that.

So I don't see it giving us more choices.

I think if we really want to be a clean city, we really want to have part of our city walkable, and we want to have middle income and concentrated builds and more businesses and incentivize those things.

We have to have a plan that people actually want.

And I think that um we see it in other areas.

If this isn't a new design, even though it might be new to the suburbs.

Anyway, that's my two sense, but I don't think we would have more choices.

Um what the mayor said about um this land being available for housing makes so much sense to me because it's right there where we have our best transit location and um all kinds of walkable.

It's already, you know, there's bridgeport and a lot of things there already.

Um I I'm a little I'm just not even gonna go to the senior thing, but I'm worried that people that are that unable to do anything else are not gonna be able to drive either.

So question.

Is that uh area also where we have agreed to have um seven stories, not seven story, but seventy we agreed on that.

Yep.

Okay.

Just thought I want to be reminded on that area.

So staff I don't want to kick the can down the road again on this, but as I said, I could live with number two, knowing that if you read what's in C fix guidelines number two, it is restrictive on what you can do in a drive-thru.

So I can live with two uh this way.

Um we can move on, or if folks aren't willing to get a majority to number two.

Uh I guess we're gonna have to bring this back again, which I prefer not to.

Council President Pratt.

On number two, though, aren't you using the same amount of land, which was one of the big issues?

You got you'd be using up a lot of land, but you have to file the CFEC guidelines on to make it walk up to make it, you know, basically like you see, like that uh futuristic taco bell.

You know, that it's got to meet a whole bunch of setback requirements, there's queuing requirements, there's a whole bunch of stuff in the CFEC code about you don't want us over you there's prohibitions against big parking lots.

There's also prohibition that the cars can't uh flow through and block parking stalls, all the things you're worried about in a uh a restaurant that has a huge presence.

And the two-mile line in a two-mile line, all the stuff you were worried about.

Um, we give the option that you could have a drive-through somewhere in a zone, but you know, with my hope ideally that that wouldn't occur that we'd have residential.

Council Council Reyes.

But it doesn't have to be a restaurant, it has to, it could be at the bank, right?

So if someone buys uh has a I mean we're thinking restaurants in our heads, but it could be also a bank that can have the like the Wells Fargo and Martin Assey.

We just I you know have that drive-thru, or even the one by uh river mark or reverie, the one that's by breaks.

I mean, so it's not necessarily we're I guess yeah, I think in we see a taco bell, so I normalize that's the image, but it doesn't necessarily have to be so whoever buys that property or wants to redesign can have something that is number number two, basically.

I just have to go argumentative, but if you look at banks, banks are shutting down drive through.

Yeah, you're not gonna have a bank.

The drive-throughs are gone.

They're still there, but they're not utilizing 10 years, 15 years.

We don't know what the world's gonna look like.

I'm just that's what I'm thinking.

I mean, it's been believe it or not, 10 years since we said no to the foot cards.

10 years.

So a lot of I mean it I'm just thinking 10 years and 15 years, what things are gonna look like.

That's what I'm open to two.

Council Brooks.

Um I think that one thing is I think that it's split enough that I wouldn't mind having a full council to make the decision.

And um in 10 years, it also might look like a terrible situation because of the climate situation.

There's already the first time that um the cooling from the ocean has failed is this year this week.

People probably don't know it because people don't read about it.

Um so we could have a situation where the Gulf Stream does finally fail, and that we've just slow moved on all this stuff.

We're also getting a climate action person on board, and we might might have more information to make a better informed decision.

But for me, um if we have the opportunity to pass option one with a full council, I would be up for that.

Um I don't know if you're gonna hearing counselor somewhere, right?

I don't think you're gonna get the whole council for option number one.

So I mean the whole council in attendance.

Yeah, but I'm saying okay you're not gonna get the whole council you're not gonna get the whole council.

So when do you need this by and because that's my one of my concerns?

And like we said, I don't know how many councils back.

You know, what did what tonight what's gonna affect your decision in the future that you don't have tonight?

So wasn't that the gist of back in the old days when the council used to pump this for months and months and months and drove me crazy as a counselor?

What's gonna be different a month from now that Aaron or Aquila could say that they're not saying tonight?

So well, thank you for that.

So I brought up this next slide, which kind of shows what I was thinking.

So we have our extension until December 2025 to get this adopted and accomplished.

Um, but given that that's around the holiday season, I was hoping that we could have a planning commission recommendation in October.

There could be some wiggle room with that, but I I like to play it a bit more conservatively and kind of stick to a schedule that I guess doesn't leave us open to any DLC DE proper men.

Right.

Um but largely our draft code and our findings and analysis have been completed.

We just need to finalize this mixed use component so I can plug that in.

Um given that, do you have any what did I see other questions or you had your do you see anyway?

Well, my question is more to you, I guess, is um we're really split here, so I I like the idea of letting council hill your way in.

Because it um she didn't really choose to not be here tonight.

Right.

But then we're we're still gonna be split, so do we just go with majority of it?

It's gonna have to be majority.

Yeah, make sure people are gonna be able to live with that.

Because it's not gonna be unanimous, like I receive that.

No, yeah.

I mean, we're really split here, so I I would be fine with a majority with the full council.

You're not gonna have a full council until the first meeting of November.

Oh my goodness.

So then we're stuck here.

Can I ask you a question?

Sure, go ahead.

I just I just want to clarify.

Uh I'm having a hard time.

So I a hard time under like following the um the environmental impact because to me, if someone wants a drive-thru, they're gonna go through drive-thru.

So if it's not convenient, they're gonna drive farther.

We're gonna have fewer drive-throughs with more people sitting in line at those drive-throughs.

So to me, that seems like more admissions versus it being convenient for those folks.

In addition to the rules that were laid out, it seems like these specific drive-throughs would be versus the ones that are currently in place, which actually it would apply to all of them, I guess.

But um, that there's certain things that are being put in place to eliminate sort of the the congestion um argument.

So I'm just trying to follow.

Yeah.

Can I I'd love to respond?

I feel like we um there's no drive-throughs operating in this area to start with, so I don't think there's a big desire for drive-throughs, to be honest.

Um, and then the ones that we do have, we have a lot of them, and they're located in all the sort of main area of our city.

So as we redevelop here, we could put more concentrated builds, and it could be cleaner air for the people that want to live in a more walkable community, which a lot of young people really want.

They don't want to have a car, they don't want to have all that kind of stuff, and you have jobs right there, you'd have a lot of you have your grocery store, your jobs, everything right there, so you don't have to get in a car for any reason.

But what about older people?

I mean, that's young people.

Well, and depending on their living situation, but we have a lot of older people and a lot of um drive-throughs as it is everywhere.

There's just this area.

If there was a big huge clamory for drive-throughs, there's only three vacant properties.

So do we want to waste potential housing, or do we want to actually put our money where our mouth is for going for climate action and what we're seeing and be an example of what that looks like.

I thought this was a mixed use, which means that people can still live on on those in like half.

Yeah.

So you still have you still have business, and you'll still have um but if you have the right.

Right, but if you have a drive-thru, it takes up the space where you could have uh apartment buildings or businesses and the restaurant or the bank or whatever.

So that's the whole idea that you have more units to be able to open up to seniors that might need a house.

Anyway, it's just a housing question, or maybe somebody's gonna want to drive-through one day.

I got simplified.

Um, yeah, I see it more as a like how we envision this small area and with very limited land.

And if we put housing in, I'm thinking like um similar to a Renco station, there's a lot of seniors that live there and they walk even slowly, but but they can, or when they're cars, but they can get to things much more safely that are very close by, so it would be in a lot of ways an ideal senior location.

But I see it more as not what we're not allowing, but what we vision this little area to be.

And if it's helpful um to provide more context, one of the components of this CFAC rulemaking uh does include rules for how we would approve building development in commercial and mixed use zones, and what I mean by that is that these rules would now require that the building have frontage along the public right-of-way.

So the building would be located up to the street, and we would require a main entrance that faces the street.

So when you think about how these standards might encourage more of an urban design context as opposed to a suburban design context, it could be more challenging to fit a drive-thru into that urban mold.

So maybe a different layer of consideration.

So what's the desire?

Do you want to so if if we push this November?

I don't know how's that mess up your schedule?

Obviously, it does.

Well, we meet the DLCD.

I don't want to get in trouble with DLCD, but if they're saying we're if we're saying we're working on it.

Yeah, we'll have to request another extension, really.

Um I would imagine they would grant it.

Um, but yeah, we need to request another extension and then continue the discussion in November.

Okay.

Is it helpful if I go through some of the restrictions?

Um because it they basically are um I guess it would kind of be echoing what Aaron just said, but um, so if there are drive-throughs, so let's say that um we go with option two.

Um the drive-through lane can't be between the building and the street, so that kind of creates a design where, like Yaren was saying, the buildings up to the um sidewalk, public right-of-way, and then you have to have a pedestrian access from there to the building.

Um there's some uh queuing standards and how far away the driveway can be from the um intersection, which I think is 50 feet.

There's different um stacking length for whether it's uh gas station or other types of um when it's an other types of drive-throughs, you need like 150 to 160 feet, or if for a single lane or 75 to 80 if you're gonna do more than one stacking lane.

And then there's there's quite a few um uh design regulations about the the walk-up service and what they what that pedestrian service looks like and the vehicles the pedestrian and the walk-up can't be used by vehicles.

I don't I'm not sure if they can cross cross the pedestrian area or not.

Um it has to be connected to the street by a walkway or pedestrian amenity space.

Um there might be there might be some other requirements in there, but so and they will have to provide a walk-up.

So if there is a drive-thru, they have to provide a walk-up.

The one example I can think of that might fit the way that's designed is the Wells Fargo and Martin Nazi, where you have like the main entrance on Martinazi and the teller um, you know, the the drive-through on the back, if that makes sense.

That's the one that I can really think of that's designed like that.

I don't know if it meets all the spacing standards, but um so those would be the restrictions that we would put in place, and then the difference between option two and three is that in with three, they would have to go through a conditional use permit to make sure that they're meeting all those standards.

We basically be looking to see are you meeting all of the standards that are listed out?

Um, and then whatever impacts they have from their traffic studies, they'd have to figure out how to mitigate those traffic impacts.

Um, so the conditional use permit kind of puts an extra level of discretion over it versus just meet these standards or don't.

If it's if it's just going with option two, we're basically telling the future developer like you have to meet these standards, or I suppose they could apply for a variance, but it's either you know it becomes a lot less discretion.

So I don't I don't know if that helps your discussion at all.

That's good.

Go ahead.

Um I just like I just think this could be like a really neat way to see some great innovation in what people come up with.

Um I'll just say that you know, given the input from the other counselors, this is not.

I mean, I am I would support option one from the lens that this could provide some additional housing, and it's not something that I think um will cause any harm to any residents either way.

Um and so because of that, and if it if it helps move this process along, um I will support option one if we can get a majority.

Come with one.

Do we have to make a motion or do we just do a thumbs up?

All right, thank you.

All right, okay.

So I'm gonna repeat that to make sure I understand.

We're gonna go forward with option one.

So when the ordinance comes back for all of the CFEC walkable design standards, that's what you will see.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

All right, that brings us to I think Council Round table, that good stuff.

Uh so I have Council President Pratt is up for the uh pledge tonight.

I have one proclamation, and it's for uh domestic violence.

Anyone would like to do this one?

Okay, Councilor Sacco?

All right, uh and then looking at the consent agenda, any issues with the consent agenda.

Anybody want something pulled for consent?

All right, all right, and then with that, we'll go ahead and start the round table.

I'll go ahead and start with Council Gonzalez.

The mayor and I attended the uh farmers market on last Sunday.

It wasn't a huge attendance.

We're hoping to spur some more activity, but this is the beginnings, and it was like a lot of fun hanging out with the mayor.

Getting poured on.

Yes.

And but but that's that's all I got to report for right now.

Okay, Councilor Brooks.

All right, Councillor Sacco.

Thank you.

Um September 15th, we had the idea committee.

Um Dustin, um, Kate, the director of parks, um, attended to talk um to the committee about gathering places, um, uh, which is a great robust conversation.

I appreciate your attendance, Dustin.

We also talked about the collaboration uh our collaboration opportunities between arts and parks committee, um, especially as we look at um how arts, parks, and idea shape Quora, um, which could be interesting um to get all those uh thought leaders together.

Uh we also continue our conversation around um land acknowledgement.

Um, and I just wanted to express um the robust conversation and thoughtfulness that this group is going through um when considering this.

It's not something that they're taking lightly at all as they shouldn't.

And um, so I don't know that we will see anything soon.

I know this is something that we tasked them with, uh, but they are being very careful in the way that they think about what they want to put forward.

Um so just wanted to share that.

And that's it.

Council Red.

No, I actually want to apologize that I missed the meeting um last Tuesday.

I for some reason I didn't pop up in my count in my calendar, and so I will look back on what were the minutes from that meeting.

So it was a the um downtown um the downtown parking area meeting.

So apologize for that.

Council Brooks.

Okay, on the 11th, I attended the PAB meeting, um, and we discussed some changes to the approving some changes to the um think the language to the um Cora.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, and then the um sorry the I also did the mayor's call on the 15th.

Um the arts committee we met.

Uh we didn't have a quorum, so we couldn't make all the decisions that we would have liked to, but we did discuss what our priorities um what their priorities are gonna be and um and how what projects they anticipate moving forward, and they're also updating their um they do uh community investment grant like we do, and so they will be um on the same timeline as the council in the future, and they're working towards that.

Um, and they've done such great work on it.

And then um I did the um uh Washington or no, the uh water consortium, and there will be an in-person meeting.

Um, and part of it will be saying goodbye to Rebecca Keys Gleason, who's been um in charge of the um consortium for 20 or 30 years.

I can't remember which one, but a long time.

So we're gonna miss her, and she's been a great partner to us, and the consortium really helped build relationships to make our contracting go much better this last time, so that we have a great 30-year contract.

Um, and so it's it's it's gonna be a loss because uh I enjoyed working with her.

Anyway, thanks.

Council Pratt.

Well, I stopped by the Green Market after it stopped raining.

And uh the one good thing I found out is that the Grange plans to continue the market next year.

So that was great news.

Um we went to the C4 Metro subcommittee meeting where we got a presentation from TriMan about how um they don't have enough money and they're gonna have to cut programs and um I was happy that um Mayor Buck from Lake Oswego reminded TriMet that the state the stiff funds are meant for increased services not to fill their issues.

So I was really glad that got said out loud.

On the 18th, I went with the mayor to the AARP conference on aging.

It was really great.

My favorite session was um where they talked a lot about um just making houses when they're built um ready for um seniors, like just things like the entryway, you know, there's no reason for those steps up a lot of times, putting backer boards in the bathrooms and putting cabinets in the kitchen so they could be removed for wheelchairs and and they said it's really pretty cost effective for builders to do this, so I thought that was really great that there's a lot of advocacy for that.

That um, oh, and I have to call the mayor out because he did not participate in the sing-along, but that's okay.

Um that evening I went to um it was really fascinating.

I know Conserve Books has done this, but I went to in Hillsborough to the Clean Water Services Essentials training to learn about our sewer and stormwater runoff systems.

But it was just fascinating.

We got to go through the labs and see all the the great work they do, and how you know they're ready testing for PFAWs and everything else, and we actually got to see little trays of poop that they test.

Which is kind of funny, but it was super fascinating.

And um, the one thing I learned that I did not know that in the summer, like the Twileton River, 70% of that water is coming from clean water services or storm runoff.

So it and but and they assured me it is safe to swim in that water.

That's it.

All right.

Uh quickly, because I want to give the city manager time for all her wonderful news.

Uh, on 9-11, uh, the Washington County Mayor's informal Zoom meeting resumed after several months.

Uh we had really good discussions uh about the things going on in the county.

You can imagine what two levees we talked about a lot.

On the 13th, went to uh CERTS emergency preparedness fair.

Fantastic showing of folks there, a lot cooler than it was last year.

So uh good stuff given out.

I got my uh preparedness box for my car.

It's one thing I never thought about is having um food, water, batteries, devices already pre-packed in a box that they were giving away.

So it was fantastic.

Uh the Grange, yeah, I was there with uh uh Councillor Gonzalez.

Uh one thing I'd want to encourage people, one to attend, and two um the uh variety of vendors that are there, they're doing pretty decent.

Uh I actually should say to say well, uh at least for the vendors I know had sold out that day.

So uh I encourage one vendors to come and promote their products, and two for the community to show up.

Yeah, it was pouring rain, but um I'm gonna be a little pain in the butt here.

We're always being told that we need a farmers market, we've got one.

People aren't showing up.

So if you want a farmer's market, show up.

It's the second and fourth uh Sundays of the month.

Uh end here in mid-October, but when it comes back, please attend.

Uh the zero touch ribbon cutting was fantastic.

Seeing a new high-tech firm here in the city located, 30 employees doing some really cool technology on uh testing of parts without having to actually touch the part, all done by cameras and lasers.

Uh that's Councilor President uh Pratt mentioned the age-friendly summit ARP.

I've got some notes I'm gonna type up and send out to the council plus the aging task force, they're very eager to hear about that.

That evening, uh spent some time at the Metro Mixer.

Uh Councilor uh Rosenthal gave an update on what's going on in our area and as well as other areas in Metro.

Um and it got to chat with folks throughout the whole metro system, not just from Councilor Rosenthal's district.

Uh last Friday, the Southeast Washington County Mayor lunch was held.

Uh again, another informal networking event for us to let her hair down and discuss things frankly.

And then finally today I met with our school superintendent Dr.

Udo Sonata for about an hour, had a great conversation on things going on in the uh school district, and let them know what's going on here in the city.

So with that, I'll turn it over to City Manager Lombos.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, one of the things on my list was the Grange Market.

So this uh encouraging support uh uh as uh it came up in the the downtown revitalization uh farmers market over and over and over.

So uh but also that lots of folks, most of those folks don't know anything about the Grange Market.

So there's lots of work left to do.

The next one is uh um the 28th, so this is coming Sunday, and I believe councilor Council President Pratt and Councillor Hillier, if she's up to it, will be working the city booths or the chat with your counselor booth.

Um last Saturday, the 20th, um we did a cleanup, Las Casitas uh neighborhood cleanup, and two dumpsters of trash were filled, two big dumpsters.

Uh neighbors helped load trucks to haul items for residents who couldn't bring them to the dumpsters.

The community expressed great appreciation for the efforts that have been taking place and this uh neighborhood cleanup day.

Several neighbors noted that because we've come out more consistently in recent years, the neighborhood has managed to stay cleaner overall.

And residents shared that through these efforts they now have a better relationship with Republic Services and know who to call or what items can go in their recycling bins.

So that was that's good news.

The seismic valves that are going on the water, our water tanks, they uh that we got funding for through the state.

Um our public works department is in the process of getting those procured, and um we have a limited time frame for when we can spend the money, so we're um on that right now.

Uh just a reminder that the neighborhood transportation safety program, the open call for projects is still open.

I mean, it'll be open all year, but the the specific um this season, um, it closes on the 30th.

Um I'm happy to announce that we are the recipients of a $100,000 grant through the Oregon State Parks that was facilitated in the local government grant program.

We were one of 13 agencies selected in the small grant award category, and the only one selected in that category in the Portland Metro.

So that was um thanks to Dustin and his team.

The grant will help us bring an amazing universal design playground to the community park in a project that will pair with park utility funds.

So that will be happening in the spring of 26.

Um at Zero Touch, that was great.

It's always wonderful to see high high tech manufacturing jobs come to Tualeton.

Um we have an all-employee meeting this coming Wednesday at uh community park where we will get some updates and uh do some service anniversaries celebrations and some and some other things.

Uh the League of Oregon Cities conference is next week.

Next week, I believe, right?

Yep.

Yeah.

Um it's here in Portland.

Well, not here in Twileton, but it is in Portland in the Portland region, and um that will be a great conference.

And then um the CCIO, the commercial community involvement organization.

Um, their annual meeting is this Thursday at 3:30.

Um, mayor and council president Pratt, along with Sid will be Sidson, our economic development manager will be speaking.

And finally, um, leading up to the pumpkin regatta, which is in October, of course, the library hosts a shrunken regatta.

And uh that goes October 7 through 28.

You can drop by the library, get your pack of supplies, they're small miniature pumpkins, and the this year's theme is spooky squash.

So it's always a really fun time.

So participate in that.

That's all I've got.

All right.

So, with that, I'll go ahead and close the work session for this evening.

It looks like we've got about a minute or so before we kick off the council meeting.