In the minutes: Durham July 28, 2026 City Council Meeting Packet, license plate reader (Jul 28)

City of Durham
17160 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd.
Durham, Oregon, 97224
Jordan Parente - City Administrator

phone: 503.639.6851
e-mail: [email protected]
website: www.durham-oregon.us
Wyatt Bean - Administrative Assistant

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Durham City Hall: Tuesday, July 28th, 2026, 7:30 p.m.
A. 🛫 OPEN REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING at 7:30 p.m.
B.

ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
(Mayor Joshua Drake, Council President: Leslie Gifford, Councilors Gary Paul, David Streicher and Sean Lee)

C.

COUNCIL MINUTES - Council will consider adopting June 23rd, 2026, City Council meeting minutes (pages 1-7)

D. CALENDAR OF MEETINGS & EVENTS







Tuesday August 11th, 2026, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m.
Monday September 7th, 2026, City Hall Closed in observance of Labor Day
Tuesday September 8th, 2026, Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m.
Tuesday September 22nd, 2026, City Council Work Session at 6:30 p.m.
Tuesday September 22nd, 2026, Regular Meeting of the City Council at 7:30 p.m.

E.

PUBLIC FORUM
For matters not appearing elsewhere on the agenda. Matters requiring further investigation or detailed answers will be
referred to City Staff for follow-up at a future meeting. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes.

F.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FROM JUNE 9th, 2026 & JULY 14th, 2026 (pages 8-13)

G. RESOLUTION 706-26; A RESOLUTION OF THE DURHAM CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE

MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (pages 14-22)
Motion Required
H. RESOLUTION 707-26; A RESOLUTION OF THE DURHAM CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE

CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE MIDWILLAMETTE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FOR SERVICES (pages 23-32)
Motion Required
I.

NUISANCE ABATEMENT STAFF DIRECTION 7664 SW TAYLOR LANE (pages 33)
Motion Required

J.

FINANCIAL REPORTS
 Financial Reports for June 2026 (pages 34-38)
 Approval of Vendor Checks 17957-17972 totaling $15,972.44 and EFTs/Payroll totaling $19,896.76 (pages 39-40)
Motion required

K.

ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT

L.

COUNCIL COMMENTS & MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

M. ADJOURN

City of Durham
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
June 23, 2026
A. OPEN REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING.
Mayor Joshua Drake opened the regular council meeting at 7:31 PM at Durham City Hall.
B. ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.
Councilors present: Mayor Joshua Drake, Council President Leslie Gifford, Councilors Gary Paul, David
Streicher, and Sean Lee
Councilors absent: None
Staff present: City Administrator Jordan Parente (via Teams) & Administrative Assistant Wyatt Bean
Visitors: Washington County Sheriff's Office Undersheriff John Koch & Commander Tim Tannenbaum,
Metro Councilor Gerritt Rosenthal, Metro District 3 Policy Advisor Jeff Kain, Metro Regional Investment
Strategies Manager Michele Ruffin, and Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments Community
Development Director McRae Carmichael
C. COUNCIL MINUTES.
Council considered adoption of May 26, 2026, City Council meeting minutes. Council President Gifford
moved to approve the minutes as presented. Councilor Lee seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously (5-0).
MO 062326-01
D. CALENDAR OF MEETINGS & EVENTS.
Mayor Drake reviewed the upcoming calendar, including City Hall being closed Friday, July 3, 2026, in
observance of Independence Day; Durham’s 60th Anniversary and Independence Day Celebration on
Saturday, July 4, 2026, from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. at Durham Park; the regular Planning Commission
meeting on Tuesday, July 14, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.; and the regular City Council meeting on Tuesday,
July 28, 2026, at 7:30 p.m.
E. PUBLIC FORUM.
Mayor Drake opened the public forum and stated that speakers should identify themselves and limit
comments to no more than three minutes.
Jackie Mathys spoke in support of her request to install a dog waste station inside the Durham Park offleash area. She stated that the proposal did not request City funding, labor, or maintenance, and that
volunteers would fund, install, empty, and maintain the station. She acknowledged staff concerns about
long-term maintenance but stated that the station could be removed if it did not work.
Craig Mitchell stated that Durham Park is known for its off-leash area and is used by residents and
visitors from nearby communities. He stated that the existing trash disposal options are too far from
much of the off-leash area, which discourages convenient disposal of bagged dog waste. He also
stated that the existing dumpster is oversized and attracts illegal dumping.

1

1

Bo Farmer stated that Durham’s off-leash area is one of the best in the area and supported adding a
waste receptacle within the off-leash area for convenience and cleanliness.
Sue Fuller asked for clarification regarding the deadline for submitting written comments and requested
that meeting packets be posted earlier to allow more time for public review. She also spoke against the
proposed City tree removal resolution, stating that Council should retain oversight over irreversible
decisions such as tree removal. She expressed concern about removing trees in remote areas of the
park unless they present high risk. Ms. Fuller asked whether the arborist’s change in recommendation
was in writing and suggested that independent arborist review could reduce the appearance of bias.
Tim Hall stated that he uses Durham Park frequently and supported the dog waste station proposal. He
said the informal waste bag recently placed in the park had improved cleanliness and that convenient
disposal reduces the likelihood that users will leave bagged waste behind. He stated that he would be
willing to contribute toward the station’s cost, maintenance, and supplies.
Sarah Harrington spoke remotely in support of the dog waste station. She stated that the informal bag
has been used frequently and filled every two or three days, showing that park users will use a
convenient disposal location. She stated that the arrangement has reduced dog waste left near the trail
and asked the City to consider the proposal.
F. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FROM JUNE 9th, 2026.
Council briefly discussed the June 9, 2026, Planning Commission minutes. Council members noted that
the packet appeared to be missing a page or ended mid-sentence. City Administrator Parente
apologized and stated that he would include the complete minutes in the July packet. He summarized
that the Planning Commission had approved prior minutes, discussed the July 4 event, and received
updates regarding potential planning service changes.
G. PRESENTATION BY WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE UNDERSHERIFF KOCH & COM
MANDER TANNENBAUM.
Washington County Sheriff’s Office Undersheriff John Koch and Commander Tim Tannenbaum
presented the annual update, describing the Sheriff’s Office as a countywide public safety partner
serving cities, contract agencies, and unincorporated areas. They emphasized regional collaboration
through shared specialty teams, training resources, and technology, noting that this approach helps
address increasing service demands with limited resources. Commander Tannenbaum outlined key
specialty teams, including crisis negotiation, crash reconstruction, canine, marine patrol, mental health
response, search and rescue, and mobile field force, highlighting their roles in complex incidents and
coordinated regional response.
The mental health response team pairs law enforcement with clinicians from LifeWorks Northwest and
Washington County Behavioral Health to provide crisis intervention and connect individuals with
services, reducing unnecessary jail involvement. Clinicians are embedded within teams, available
during peak hours, and after-hours support, as needed. The mobile field force was described as
supporting public safety while protecting constitutional rights during demonstrations.
Undersheriff Koch also reviewed technology initiatives, including body cameras, in-car video, drones,
license plate readers, and AI-assisted reporting. He noted that drones can improve response efficiency
and safety, with broader deployment expected later in the year. He also discussed policies governing
transparency and data use for license plate readers. Koch provided an update on the Washington
County Jail, noting ongoing capacity challenges as they continue to fully reopen, with long-term
expansion planning underway to improve facilities and services.

2

2

Koch thanked Council for supporting the public safety levy, which funds specialty teams, jail operations,
and related services. He said individuals arrested by municipal agencies are housed at the county jail
and noted that the levy also supports a transport unit assisting partner agencies during peak periods.
H. PRESENTATION BY METRO COUNCILOR ROSENTHAL.
Metro Councilor Gerritt Rosenthal presented an update on Metro activities and introduced Metro
Regional Investment Strategies Manager Michele Ruffin and Policy Advisor Jeff Kain. He described
Metro District 3 and Metro’s regional responsibilities, including transportation, housing, land use,
garbage and recycling, parks and natural areas, the Oregon Zoo, and regional venues. He also noted
Metro’s role in public safety and supportive housing services.
Councilor Rosenthal discussed Metro’s Future Vision process, a long-range effort to understand
regional priorities over the next 50 years, with outreach planned at community events and an emphasis
on youth participation. He noted survey responses in nearby Tualatin highlighting walkability, natural
environment, cleanliness, affordability, and safety.
Ms. Ruffin updated Council on parks and nature work, including habitat restoration, park operations,
and community investments. She stated that Metro has protected over 20,000 acres and provides grant
and local share funding. Councilor Rosenthal noted the relationship between the parks bond and local
option levy and the need to consider future funding as the levy nears expiration. Ms. Ruffin also
discussed housing programs, including the 2018 Affordable Housing Bond and 2020 Supportive
Housing Services measure, noting progress toward exceeding housing targets and building regional
service infrastructure. Councilor Rosenthal stated that bond funds are largely allocated, and future
housing efforts will require policy decisions, including possible adjustments to the supportive housing
measure.
Councilor Rosenthal described Metro’s support for economic development through data, transportation,
grants, tourism, and coordination. He discussed regional venues such as the Expo Center, Oregon
Convention Center, and Portland’5. He also noted ongoing transportation efforts, including the regional
transportation improvement program and Interstate Bridge Replacement project.
Mayor Drake asked about the housing tax, and Councilor Rosenthal clarified it applies only within the
Metro District in Oregon. He also stated that revenues remain stronger than projected, despite differing
views on the tax. Council thanked Metro representatives for the update.
I.

MCRAE CARMICHAEL MID-WILLAMETTE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS.
McRae Carmichael, Executive Director of the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments,
introduced the organization and described services that could support Durham. She stated that the
Council of Governments is a membership-based organization serving Marion, Polk, and Yamhill
Counties, cities and districts. Affiliate membership is available outside the boundary for $500 annually,
with services provided on a fee-for-service basis.
Ms. Carmichael explained the organization offers planning, land use, grant writing/administration, legal,
business lending, interim city management, recording, budgeting, audit, bank reconciliation, and
accounting services. She noted that it supports many small cities without full-time planning staff and
could assist Durham on an interim or contract basis, including identifying and applying for grants such
as park funding.
Council asked about affiliate members and grant services. Ms. Carmichael stated there are about 10
affiliate members and that the organization has assisted various governmental and nonprofit entities.
She confirmed that staff can help identify and write grants. In response to City Administrator Parente,
she said the organization can assist with accounting and connect Durham with subcontractors for

3

3

system development charge methodology, though it does not prepare SDC methodology directly.
Council thanked Ms. Carmichael for the presentation.
J. INSTALLATION OF DOG WASTE STATION AT DURHAM PARK – COUNCILOR STREICHER.
Councilor Streicher said he requested this agenda item so Council could decide it without delay. He
noted that park users carry waste long distances to receptacles. Volunteers have offered to fund,
install, and maintain the waste station, with the City retaining the right to remove it if not maintained.
City Administrator Parente discussed the current disposal arrangement, noting that existing waste
receptacles are maintained by Pride Disposal and the City of Tigard. City Administrator Parente stated
that installing a dog waste station creates expectations and Durham does not have staff capacity to
service it, should volunteer maintenance decline. Council discussed whether such expectations exist
with the informal bag near the off-leash area already and if removing it would worsen conditions.
Council President Gifford noted that Durham Park is not solely a dog park and that many speakers
were not residents. Councilor Paul expressed concern that it may not address the issue at hand if dog
users who don’t use the current receptacles also don’t utilize the new one. Councilor Lee stated that,
with volunteers handling all aspects of the station, the impact on the City could be minimal if conditions
were clear, including the City’s right to remove it. Council discussed placing the station near the existing
informal bag location and identifying volunteer contacts.
Councilor Streicher moved to allow installation of a volunteer-supported dog waste station near the
existing informal bag location, subject to City approval of the exact site, with volunteers responsible for
all costs, supplies, maintenance, and the City retains discretion to remove it if concerns arise. Councilor
Lee seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
MO 062326-02
K. BUDGET CONSENT AGENDA.
Council considered the budget consent agenda, including April 28, 2026, Budget Committee meeting
minutes, Resolution 702-26 declaring the City’s election to receive state revenues, and Resolution 70326 adopting the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 budget, making appropriations, categorizing and levying taxes.
City Administrator Parente stated that the Budget Committee had approved the budget and that the
consent agenda included the related minutes, the resolution to receive state revenues, and the
resolution adopting the budget and levying taxes for the fiscal year. Councilor Lee noted that Resolution
703-26 contained an incorrect reference to Fiscal Year 2025-2026 and asked for it to be corrected to
Fiscal Year 2026-2027.
Council President Gifford moved to adopt the budget consent agenda with corrected Resolution 703-26
reflecting Fiscal Year 2026-2027. Councilor Streicher seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously (5-0).
MO 062326-03
L. RESOLUTION 704-26 TO SIGN IGA WITH TUALATIN FOR POLICING SERVICES.
Council considered Resolution 704-26 approving an intergovernmental agreement with the City of
Tualatin for police services. City Administrator Parente stated the proposed one-year agreement is
approximately $195,000, an increase from the current year but less than Tualatin’s earlier request. He
noted Durham’s projected property tax revenue of about $140,000 is insufficient to cover policing,
requiring use of savings. He will explore longer-term options to increase and fund public safety, such as
a public safety levy or traffic cameras.
4

4

City Administrator Parente said the City Attorney recommended IGA language clarify that Durham
funds a police position and that Durham matters should be prioritized, while Tualatin retains operational
discretion. Mayor Drake asked about Tualatin’s discretion. Mr. Parente confirmed Durham receives
24/7 service, but operational discretion remains through the chain of command. Council discussed the
need for a dedicated officer, with Councilor Lee stating continuous coverage is more important than a
strict one-to-one assignment. Council agreed to proceed with the current language for the one-year
agreement while staff continue negotiations for a long-term agreement solution.
Councilor Paul moved to adopt Resolution 704-26 approving the IGA with Tualatin for policing services.
Councilor Lee seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
MO 062326-04
M. RESOLUTION 705-26 TO SIGN IGA WITH TUALATIN FOR MUNICIPAL COURT SERVICES.
Council considered Resolution 705-26 approving an intergovernmental agreement with the City of
Tualatin for municipal court services. City Administrator Parente stated that the agreement provides a
court of record for Durham code violations and other matters requiring municipal court services. He
explained that the agreement includes a 90% Tualatin-10% Durham fee split for some matters and that
Tualatin receives 100% of traffic citation revenue under current arrangements. He stated that staff had
added traffic camera language because the issue was not addressed in the draft. Tualatin countered
with a request for 10% of traffic camera revenue, should cameras be installed.
City Administrator Parente stated that staff would like to continue discussing traffic-related revenue
splits and prosecution responsibility, particularly if the City installs traffic cameras and whether Tualatin
could prosecute those violations. Councilor Lee stated that traffic camera revenue might reasonably be
split 90/10 in Durham’s favor, while current traffic violations handled by Tualatin could continue under a
different split. Council agreed that staff should continue discussions on the identified issues.
Council President Gifford moved to adopt Resolution 705-26 approving the IGA with Tualatin for
municipal court services, with direction for staff to continue working with Tualatin on the fee split and
other identified issues. Councilor Lee seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
MO 062326-05
N. PROPOSED CITY TREE REMOVAL RESOLUTION AND DEAD & DYING TREES REQUEST.
Council considered the proposed City tree removal resolution and the request regarding dead and
dying trees in Durham Park. City Administrator Parente explained that the proposal aimed to address
challenges of applying the current hazard-tree framework in the park. The absence of permanent
targets in parks, like buildings, effectively means no trees meet the “hazard-tree” standard and the City
Administrator has no authority to remove trees that pose risks to users. He also noted that past public
notice efforts have been hindered by people who remove tree marking ribbons and paint.
Council discussed whether to revise the existing resolution. Mayor Drake questioned whether a hazardtree finding is required or if Council approval alone is sufficient. Councilor Streicher stated that the
current resolution allows the City Administrator to remove trees posing immediate danger or rated high
risk by an arborist, with other removals requiring Council review. He emphasized that the current
resolution reflects prior deliberation and supports oversight, especially near Fanno Creek where bank
stability may be affected. Mayor Drake said a revision was unnecessary and that the current process
could address the request. Councilor Lee agreed that the resolution and tree removal decision were
separate and suggested establishing a consistent process for arborist review and documentation.
Council then discussed the specific trees. Mayor Drake supported leaving trees leaning toward the
creek but expressed concern about those overhanging the path. Councilor Streicher questioned
removal if trees were not rated high risk. City Administrator Parente said the arborist warned that dead
5

5

trees over a path could create liability risks. Councilor Lee agreed liability was a key factor, and Council
President Gifford noted that trees may still pose risks to park users, even if not threatening structures.
Council did not adopt the proposed tree removal resolution. Council President Gifford moved to
authorize the City Administrator to cut the four alder trees near the path the arborist identified as
creating a potential liability concern. Mayor Drake seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-1, with
Mayor Drake, Council President Gifford, Councilor Paul, and Councilor Lee voting in favor and
Councilor Streicher voting against.
MO 062326-06
O. FINANCIAL REPORTS.
Council considered the May 2026 financial reports and approval of vendor checks 17944 through
17956 totaling $59,189.03 and EFTs and payroll totaling $20,019.74. Council President Gifford moved
to approve the financial reports and payments as presented. Councilor Lee seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously (5-0).
MO 062326-07
P. ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT.
City Administrator Parente reported he would restore the City tree removal resolution to the website
after it was inadvertently removed. He also addressed public comments on agenda packet deadlines,
noting submission deadlines are posted online. Materials are needed the week before Council packets
are distributed, which is the Friday before the Council meeting. He acknowledged this does not give a
lot of time for public review; however, state law only requires notice of agenda items.
City Administrator Parente reported receiving a written response from the City’s auditor, Roy Rogers,
and signing the audit engagement letter. The audit is scheduled for August and should be completed
before the busy auditor season. Councilor Streicher requested the auditor’s letter be shared, and City
Administrator Parente agreed.
City Administrator Parente stated that accounting firm Merina & Company is discontinuing services
after the current fiscal year. He noted this should cause minimal disruption as Administrative Assistant
Bean handles much of the daily financial work and the accountant reconciles statements and oversees
the audit process. He hopes to transition to Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments. Councilor
Streicher asked why the firm was ending the relationship. City Administrator Parente said they
expressed concerns relating to the City’s past practice of transfers to the General Fund. Council
discussed transfer methodology, documentation challenges in a small staff, and the need to clarify the
accountant’s concerns.
City Administrator Parente reminded Council that full police report data may contain protected
information and should only be reviewed on public computers. He also reported that a Durham Park
encampment had been posted with a 72-hour notice by Tualatin Police, which expired June 18, and
that an arrest occurred at the time of posting.
City Administrator Parente stated that Administrative Assistant Bean will reach one year of service on
August 4 and recommended moving him to step 4 one month early. He also updated Council on July 4
planning, noting the City has obtained a temporary restaurant license and plans to provide food, games
and music. Council discussed logistics, including equipment needs.
COUNCIL ENTERED EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10:02 PM.

6

6

Q. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ORS 192.660 (2) (h) – TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL REGARDING
LEGAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF A PUBLIC BODY WITH REGARD TO CURRENT LITIGATION OR
LITIGATION LIKELY TO BE FILED.
R. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ORS 192.660 (2) (i) – TO REVIEW AND EVALUATE THE
EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PERFORMANCE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF ANY
PUBLIC BODY, A PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR STAFF MEMBER WHO DOES NOT
REQUEST AN OPEN HEARING
COUNCIL EXITED EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 11:04 PM.
S. CONSIDERATION TO ADJUST CITY ADMINISTRATOR SALARY
Council considered adjusting the City Administrator’s salary. Council President Gifford moved to
change City Administrator Parente’s salary to $100,000 plus the medical benefit cost-sharing. Councilor
Streicher seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (5-0).
MO 062326-08
T. COUNCIL COMMENTS & MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.
Mayor Drake opened the item for Council comments and miscellaneous informational items. No
comments were made.
U. ADJOURN.
Mayor Drake adjourned the meeting at 11:05 PM.

Approved:
__________________________________________
Joshua Drake, MAYOR
Attest:
_______________________________________________
Jordan Parente, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER

7

7

City of Durham

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 09, 2026
A. CALL TO ORDER.
Planning Chair Susan Deeming opened the meeting at 7:02 PM at Durham City Hall.
B. ROLL CALL.
Commissioners present: Planning Chair Susan Deeming, Vice Chair Matt Winkler, Commissioners
Patricia Saab, Cheri Frazell, and Krista Bailey.
Commissioners absent: Commissioner Andrew Mast.
Staff present: City Administrator Jordan Parente.
C. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES.
The Commission considered approval of the April 14, 2026, meeting minutes. With no corrections
offered, Commissioner Bailey moved to approve the minutes as presented, and Commissioner Saab
seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously (5-0).
MO 060926-01
D. PUBLIC FORUM.
Chair Deeming opened the public forum. No members of the public were present, and no testimony
was received. Chair Deeming closed the public forum.
E. CITY PLANNER & DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE.
City Administrator Parente reported that contract planner Alice Cannon is reducing her practice and
expects to conclude her work with the City during the summer. He stated that Ms. Cannon will continue
assisting with current development matters during the transition. He identified the Mid-Willamette Valley
Council of Governments and Laura LaRoque as potential replacements for planning services.
City Administrator Parente explained that the Development Code update is expected to be a significant
project and may not begin in earnest until fall due to the planner transition. He said a blended approach
may be useful, with one planning resource assisting with development review and another focusing
more directly on Development Code updates. Commissioner Frazell suggested that he connect with her
neighbor who is a planner with the City of Tualatin, as a potential resource. City Administrator Parente
welcomed the suggestion and stated that he would be open to additional information and references.
F. JULY 4TH CELEBRATION.
City Administrator Parente updated the Commission on the City’s planned July 4th celebration. He said
Council had provided a budget and staff had explored food options. Because a temporary health permit
for serving hot dogs would cost about $300, he stated that the City may instead provide packaged food
items. He noted that cotton candy may be exempt from permit requirements.
The event is expected to include a tent, music, Durham artifacts, and recognition of the north loop park
area donated by local families. Commissioners also discussed a member of the public’s request to
install a garbage can at the dog off-leash area of Durham Park. City Administrator Parente expressed
concern about maintenance and noted that existing garbage cans already serve park users.
Commissioners discussed event outreach and activities. Commissioner Saab suggested neighborhood
signs and offered to place one in her yard. City Administrator Parente said the event had been included
1

8

City of Durham

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 09, 2026
in the newsletter. Commissioners also discussed lawn games such as cornhole, and City Administrator
Parente encouraged participation in the event.
G. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS / REPORTS / STAFF UPDATES.
Chair Deeming raised concerns about several fences that appear to exceed the Development Code’s
six-foot height limit for residential setbacks and reviewed the applicable code provisions. The
Commission discussed whether the fences posed safety, visibility, or neighborhood impacts and
whether property owners should be asked to provide measurements and specifications. City
Administrator Parente explained that the code does not provide a process for approving taller fences.
He noted potential structural concerns and said the variance process is costly and may not apply in this
case. Commissioners discussed the importance of enforcing the code, the possibility that the fences
were constructed without knowledge of the requirements, and whether the issue should be addressed
through future code updates. The Commission ultimately agreed to table the matter for further review of
the Development Code, variance provisions, and possible options before notifying property owners.
City Administrator Parente reported that there is currently a Planning Commission vacancy following
Forrest Boleyn’s resignation and noted that, with six members, the Commission still requires four
members for a quorum. Chair Deeming expressed a preference for keeping the position open and
advertising the vacancy until an interested applicant comes forward. Commissioner Frazell agreed that
advertising the opening could encourage community involvement. City Administrator Parente said he
would move forward with advertising the position. He also reported that 2026 is a City Council election
year, with two Council positions scheduled for the November 3, 2026, election. Election materials must
be submitted to the City by August 25, 2026, with incumbents required to file one week earlier.
Candidates must circulate a petition and obtain at least 10 eligible voter signatures, though he
recommended collecting additional signatures in case any are deemed invalid.
City Administrator Parente stated that Impact West, a newer business located near City Hall, had
submitted a sign application after installing a replacement sign for the space formerly occupied by
California Closets. The application was not received in time for this meeting and will be presented at the
July Planning Commission meeting.
He also provided an update on the City’s new tree permit process under the municipal tree code,
explaining that the City has transitioned to a digital form process that allows applicants to attach photos
and submit information more easily. While implementation has been somewhat clunky, he said the
process is improving, and the City will continue working with Sav-A-Tree as its arborist while evaluating
the program before pursuing a formal request for proposals. He further noted that the City’s engineering
firm had been acquired and that engineering services may need to be revisited, and that the City’s
accountant had advised the City it would no longer provide services after the fiscal year. City
Administrator Parente also reported on a recent arborist review of trees in City Park, stating that
ribbons used to mark certain trees were removed and that, after he switched to marking paint, someone
peeled or scratched bark from marked trees.
Commissioner Saab asked for an update on the status of the Durham Heights development. In
response, City Administrator Parente reported that Durham Heights is nearly complete, with only a few
homes remaining unsold. He also reported that Durham Estates has an approved site design plan and
that the City is working with the developer on required improvements, as well as some improvements

2

9

City of Durham

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 09, 2026
that were not required. Commissioners briefly discussed the project name, unit design, and market
conditions for townhomes and multi-unit residences.
Commissioner Frazell joked her family had expected to see Mayor Josh Drake in the Rose Festival
parade of mayors. City Administrator Parente said when the City receives such information, he
generally forwards it, but our invitation must have been lost in the mail.
H. NEXT REGULARLY SCHEUDLED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission was announced for July 14, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.
I.

ADJOURN.
Chair Deeming adjourned the meeting at 8:31 PM.

Approved:
__________________________________________
Susan Deeming, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________________________
Jordan Parente, City Administrator/Recorder

3

10

City of Durham

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 14, 2026
A. CALL TO ORDER.
Planning Chair Susan Deeming opened the meeting at 7:04 PM at Durham City Hall.
B. ROLL CALL.
Commissioners present: Planning Chair Susan Deeming, Commissioners Patricia Saab, Cheri Frazell,
and Andrew Mast.
Commissioners absent: Vice Chair Matt Winkler and Commissioner Krista Bailey.
Staff present: City Administrator Jordan Parente and Administrative Assistant Wyatt Bean.
C. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES.
The Commission considered the June 9, 2026, Planning Commission meeting minutes. With no
corrections offered, Commissioner Saab moved to approve the minutes as presented, and
Commissioner Frazell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (4-0).
MO 071426-01
D. PUBLIC FORUM.
Chair Deeming opened the public forum. No members of the public were present, and no testimony
was received. Chair Deeming closed the public forum.
E. SIGN PERMIT REQUEST #481-26 FOR SUITE 245 AT 17400 SW UPPER BOONES FERRY ROAD IMPACT WEST.
The Commission considered Sign Permit Request #481-26 for a wall sign identifying Impact West at
Suite 245, 17400 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road. Staff reported that GISI Marketing Group submitted
the application on behalf of Impact West and had previously manufactured signs considered by the
Commission for nearby businesses. The Commission found the sign consistent with the applicable size,
placement, and illumination requirements and expressed no concerns regarding the proposal.
Commissioner Saab moved to approve Sign Permit Request #481-26 as proposed, and Commissioner
Mast seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (4-0).
MO 071426-02
F. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS / REPORTS / STAFF UPDATES.
Commissioner Frazell asked if any Commissioners would like to proceed with complaints about
potential code infractions discussed at the previous meeting. Chair Deeming noted no formal
complaints have been received, and the Development Code needs updating. Commissioners agreed
not to pursue immediate enforcement and will review standards and procedures during the
Development Code update.
The Commission discussed improving public awareness of permit requirements, particularly for newer
residents who may not realize they live in Durham or understand City regulations. Commissioners
supported recurring newsletter reminders encouraging residents to contact City Hall before making

1

11

City of Durham

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 14, 2026
improvements, such as replacing fences, removing trees, constructing decks, or undertaking similar
work.
Commissioner Mast suggested supplementing the newsletter with social media or other communication
methods. City Administrator Parente said the newsletter remained the City’s primary communication
tool, while Washington County alerts served emergency needs. He noted that social media would
require staff capacity, create moderation and public-record considerations, and might receive limited
participation. Printed newsletters are mailed to every household, while approximately 40 people receive
the digital version.
Commissioners discussed the Comprehensive Plan’s community-engagement goals and expressed
interest in exploring low-cost methods of strengthening community connections. Suggestions included
surveys, newsletter outreach, online feedback, neighborhood gatherings, park events, runs, potlucks,
art projects, and other simple activities that could become recurring traditions. Commissioners noted
that prior City surveys, including the Metro Local Share survey, demonstrated that newsletter and
online outreach could generate useful feedback. The Commission agreed to continue researching
community-engagement ideas for discussion at a future meeting, likely in September.
City Administrator Parente reported that the contract planner was leaving sooner than expected. He
contacted planner Laura LaRoque and the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments regarding
potential services. A blended approach could provide flexibility for development reviews and larger
projects such as the Development Code update.
Staff reported that the new tree-removal permit process was working but still required refinement,
particularly in coordinating arborist reviews and communicating decisions. Routine dead-tree
applications could take longer than before, while more complex applications were generally being
resolved faster. City Administrator Parente said the $150 permit fee for most tree removal permits was
below the City’s arborist cost of approximately $250 per hour, although several properties could
sometimes be reviewed during one visit to minimize arborist billable hours. Staff had received little
feedback from residents beyond concerns about higher fees. He also reported that longtime City
Arborist Trevor March had retired from SavATree the week prior.
City Administrator Parente reported that the City budget had been adopted and that Pride Disposal
would be presenting to the City Council at the July meeting.
Chair Deeming asked whether the revised Durham Estates middle-housing plans would return to the
Commission. City Administrator Parente explained that state law requires administrative review and
gives the Commission no discretionary role. The developer currently has two townhouse approvals, one
covering seven lots and another covering all nine lots. City Administrator Parente stated they need to
select which they intend to pursue and noted submitted plans are available at City Hall for members of
the public to view if, if interested.
The Commission discussed state middle-housing requirements allowing multiple units or cottage
clusters on property previously zoned for single-family housing. City Administrator Parente said the
requirements reduced local discretion and could strain street, water, sewer, parking, and other
infrastructure as populations grow and if insufficient infrastructure remains unimproved. Commissioners
acknowledged the need for more housing while discussing affordability, neighborhood compatibility,
infrastructure capacity, and increased density.

2

12

City of Durham

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 14, 2026
City Administrator Parente also reported that Durham Park Users had organized and agreed to
maintain an additional dog-waste receptacle in the off-leash area. Commissioners expressed
appreciation for residents who volunteer to collect litter and dog waste in the park, as well as those who
take other steps to care for the community on their own time.
G. NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission was announced for September 8, 2026, at 7:00
p.m.
H. ADJOURN.
Chair Deeming adjourned the meeting at 8:16 PM.

Approved:
__________________________________________
Susan Deeming, Chair
Attest:
_______________________________________________
Jordan Parente, City Administrator/Recorder

3

13

City of Durham
17160 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road
Durham, Oregon 97224

website:
e-mail:
phone:

durham-oregon.us
[email protected]
503.639.6851

Jordan Parente - City Administrator

Wyatt Bean - Administrative Assistant

MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:

July 24th, 2026
City Council
Jordan Parente
Community Block Grant Intergovernmental Agreement

Washington County and the City of Durham participate in an intergovernmental agreement (IGA)
for the County’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships,
and Emergency Solutions Grant programs. The current agreement was written in 2014 and
amended in 2020 and 2023 to incorporate updated federal fair housing and subrecipient
requirements. Washington County has prepared a consolidated replacement IGA for Federal
Fiscal Years 2027 through 2029 that will supersede the amended 2014 agreement.
The proposed IGA retains the existing program structure but makes some substantive changes.
Automatic renewal is limited to one additional three-year period, covering Federal Fiscal Years
2030 through 2032, rather than continuing indefinitely for successive qualification periods. It
expressly provides that neither party may terminate, withdraw, or be removed during the initial
three-year period. The agreement also permits the City or County to apply for State-administered
HOME or Emergency Solutions Grant funds when allowed by the State, while retaining the
restriction against receiving federal formula allocations outside the County.
The revised agreement adds express compliance requirements under the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act and related federal displacement and
relocation regulations. It reorganizes the parties’ civil rights, fair housing, accessibility, and
program-compliance obligations and removes some of the prior agreement’s express references
to County enforcement remedies. It also removes the separate requirement added in 2023 that
HUD Form 424-B assurances and certifications be signed by an authorized representative,
although such certifications may continue to be required through other HUD or subrecipient
documents.
The proposed IGA also revises the Community Development Policy Advisory Board provisions.
The 2014 agreement required each jurisdiction to appoint an elected official as its primary
representative and an employee or other public official as the alternate. The new agreement
provides only that Durham will have one primary and one alternate member. This removes the
elected-official membership requirement and gives the City greater flexibility in selecting its
representatives, subject to the Board’s bylaws.
Recommendation: Staff recommend that City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the
proposed IGA with Washington County for Federal Fiscal Years 2027 through 2029.

14

15

16

City of Durham, Oregon
RESOLUTION NO. 706-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE DURHAM CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
SIGN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Durham City Council participates in the Washington County Community
Development Block Grant Program through an Intergovernmental Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Durham City Council agrees with the proposed Intergovernmental Agreement
amendments proposed by Washington County, as attached hereto in Exhibit “A”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DURHAM, OREGON as follows:
1. The Mayor and City Administrator/Recorder are authorized to execute the amendment to the
agreement between the City of Durham and Washington County.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Durham, Washington County, Oregon, this 28th day of July
2026
CITY OF DURHAM
By:

______________________________
Joshua Drake, Mayor

ATTEST:
______________________________
Jordan Parente, City Administrator / Recorder

RESOLUTION 706-26
1
17

RESOLUTION NO. 706-26 – EXHIBIT “A”
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
YEARS: 2027-2029
This Agreement is entered into between Washington County (“COUNTY”), a political subdivision
of the State of Oregon, and the City of Durham (“CITY”), a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon
located within Washington County, for the cooperation of units of local government under the authority of
ORS 190.010.
I.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has enacted the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 (“THE ACT”), the Housing and Urban/Rural Recovery Act of 1983, the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1987, the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990; and
WHEREAS, the primary objective of the Act(s) is the development of viable urban communities, by
providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities
principally for persons of low and moderate income; and
WHEREAS, the parties to the agreement agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking,
essential community development and housing assistance activities, as approved and authorized
between the parties in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Agreements, including the
Washington County Consolidated Plan, and
WHEREAS, the Mayor of the City is authorized to execute this agreement on the City’s behalf; and
WHEREAS, the Chair of the County Board of Commissioners is authorized to execute this agreement
on the County’s behalf, and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to join together to meet the criteria for an urban county in order to
qualify to receive funds to meet national objectives,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and benefits given and received within
this agreement, the parties agree to the terms below:

II.

MUTUAL COVENANTS
1. The CITY and the COUNTY agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community
renewal and lower income housing assistance activities.
2. The parties agree that this agreement covers the following formula funding programs
administered by HUD where the County is awarded and accepts funding directly from HUD:
Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG), the HOME Investment Partnerships
program (HOME), and the Emergency Solutions Grant program (ESG).
3. The parties agree to take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the urban county's
certification required by Section 104 (b) of Title I of THE ACT, conducted and administered in
RESOLUTION 706-26 EXHIBIT “A”
Page 1 of 5
18

accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR
part 1, the Fair Housing Act and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 100, and will comply
with the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (24 CFR 91.225(a) and Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing Definitions and Certifications (86 FR 30779, June 10, 2021), to be codified at 24 CFR
5.151 and 5.152; Section 109 of Title I of THE ACT and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 6,
which incorporates: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the implementing regulations
at 24 CFR part 8; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1974 and the implementing
regulations at 28 CFR part 35; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and the implementing regulations
at 24 CFR part 146; and Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968; and other
applicable laws.
4. The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the County has the final responsibility for
selecting CDBG, HOME, and ESG activities and filing required documents with HUD.
5. The parties to this Agreement understand and agree that they may not sell, trade, or otherwise
transfer all or any portion of CDBG funds to a Metropolitan City, Urban County, unit of general local
government, or insular area that directly or indirectly receives CDBG funds in exchange for any funds,
credits, or non-Federal considerations, but must use such funds for activities eligible under Title I of
THE ACT as amended.
III.

CITY COVENANTS
1. The CITY expressly agrees that as the cooperating unit of general local government it has adopted
and is enforcing the following requirements of law:
1.1 A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its
jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and
1.2 A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or
exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights
demonstrations within jurisdictions.
2. The CITY agrees that it is subject to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients set forth
in 24 CFR 570.501(b).
3. The CITY agrees in order to participate as a subrecipient under the terms of this agreement it
shall, pursuant to 24 CFR 570.501(b), be subject to the same requirements applicable to
subrecipients under 24 CFR 570.503, including the requirement to enter into a written contract.
The City agrees that the County as the recipient is responsible for ensuring that CDBG, HOME,
and ESG funds are used in accordance with all program requirements. The COUNTY, as recipient,
is responsible for determining the adequacy of performance under subrecipient agreements.
4. The CITY authorizes the inclusion of its population for purposes of the Act(s), and joins together
with other units of general local government to qualify the County as an urban county for Housing
and Community Development Act block grant funds.
5. The CITY agrees it may not apply for grants from appropriations under the State CDBG program for
fiscal years during the period in which it participates in the urban county’s CDBG program.
6. The CITY agrees that it may not receive either HOME or ESG formula allocations, except through
the County. Regardless of whether the County receives a HOME formula allocation, City agrees
that it may not form a HOME consortium with other local governments. This does not preclude
either the County or the City from applying for HOME or ESG funds from the State, if the State
allows.
RESOLUTION 706-26 EXHIBIT “A”
Page 2 of 5
19

7. The CITY agrees that it may not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of such funds to
another such metropolitan city, urban county, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe, or
insular area that directly or indirectly receives CDBG, HOME, or ESG funds in exchange for any
funds, credits, or non-federal considerations, but must use such funds for activities eligible under
Title I of the ACT, as amended.
IV.

TERM OF AGREEMENT
1. This Agreement shall remain in effect for the three-year program period of Federal Fiscal Years
2027, 2028 and 2029, and until the funds granted and program income received during the threeyear program period are expended and the funded activities completed. Neither the COUNTY nor
the CITY may terminate, withdraw, or be removed from the program during the three-year
program period.
2. This Agreement will renew automatically for participation for one successive three-year Urban
County qualification period (Federal Fiscal Years 2030, 2031, and 2032), unless either party
provides written notice to the other that it elects not to participate in the new qualification period.
The parties agree to send any such notice to the HUD Field Office at 1220 SW 3 rd Avenue, Suite
400, Portland, OR 97204-2825, upon such election, and by the date specified on the HUD
Exchange Urban Counties website.
2.1 The COUNTY will notify the CITY in writing of the CITY’s right to make this election. The
COUNTY shall send the notice to the CITY and HUD by the date specified on the HUD
Exchange Urban Counties website.
2.2 The parties agree to execute amendment(s) to this Agreement as may be required by HUD to
meet any new Urban County Qualification requirement(s) for the subsequent qualification
cycle, when applicable. Failure by either party to execute any such amendment, and to
submit the amendment to HUD as provided in the Urban County Qualification Notice will void
the automatic renewal of subsequent qualification periods set forth in Section IV.2 above.

V.

TERMINATION

This Agreement may be terminated by the COUNTY in the event funding is no longer available; otherwise,
neither party may terminate or withdraw from the Agreement while the Agreement remains in effect. The
agreement remains in effect until all funds (CDBG, HOME, ESG, and any program income) are expended
and all activities are completed.
VI.

ENFORCEMENT

The COUNTY and the CITY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the County’s
certification under Section 104(b) of Title I of THE ACT, as amended, that the grant will be conducted and
administered in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the implementing regulations
at 24 CFR Part 1, and the Fair Housing Act, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 100, and will
comply with the obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. The Parties shall comply with Section 109
of Title I of THE ACT, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 6, which incorporates Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 8, Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1974, and the implementing regulations at 28 CFR Part 35, the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 146, and Section 3 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
RESOLUTION 706-26 EXHIBIT “A”
Page 3 of 5
20

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, and the implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24, Section 104(d) of
THE ACT, and the implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 42, and all other applicable laws and
regulations. The Parties agree that Urban County funding in no event will be used for activities in, or in
support of, any cooperating unit of general local government that impedes the County’s actions to
comply with the County’s fair housing certification.
VII.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICY ADVISORY BOARD

The Community Development Policy Advisory Board provides oversight on Consolidated Plan Annual
Action Plan, and report development, makes recommendations to the COUNTY on application questions
and scoring criteria for CDBG, HOME, and ESG application cycles, rates and reviews applications and
makes recommendations to the Washington County Board of Commissioners for program policy and
project selection. The adopted bylaws of the Community Development Policy Advisory Board provide
additional guidance. The CITY will have one primary and one alternate member participating on the
Board.
VIII.

INTEGRATION

This Agreement is the entire agreement of the parties on its subject and supersedes any prior discussions
or agreements regarding the same subject, including that intergovernmental agreement executed June
26, 2014 and renewed and amended June 30, 2020, and renewed and amended September 5, 2023.

RESOLUTION 706-26 EXHIBIT “A”
Page 4 of 5
21

IX. CERTIFICATION
The parties by the signatures below certify that the governing body of each party has authorized entry into
this Agreement and that those signing are authorized to execute this Agreement on the party’s behalf.
IN WITNESS, the undersigned parties have executed this Agreement this _____ day of ________, 2026.

WASHINGTON COUNTY

CITY OF DURHAM

BY________________________
Chair, Washington County Board of
Commissioners

BY Joshua Drake
Mayor
Title
7/28/2026
Date (required)

____________________________
Recording Secretary
_______________________
Date (required)

RESOLUTION 706-26 EXHIBIT “A”
Page 5 of 5
22

City of Durham
17160 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road
Durham, Oregon 97224

website:
e-mail:
phone:

durham-oregon.us
[email protected]
503.639.6851

Jordan Parente - City Administrator

Wyatt Bean - Administrative Assistant

MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:

July 24th, 2026
City Council
Jordan Parente
Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments Intergovernmental Agreement

The City of Durham operates with two full-time employees and relies on contracted services
and intergovernmental agreements to provide specialized municipal services. The MidWillamette Valley Council of Governments (COG) is an Oregon intergovernmental agency that
provides professional and technical assistance to local governments. The proposed Master
Service Agreement, COG No. 2026-068, would establish the general terms under which
Durham may request services from COG through separate Local Service Plans.
The agreement would give the City access to experienced governmental professionals on an
as-needed basis. This approach allows Durham to obtain specialized expertise or additional
staffing capacity when a project or operational need exceeds the capabilities or available time
of existing staff. It also avoids the ongoing personnel costs and administrative obligations
associated with creating additional permanent positions for work that may be temporary,
intermittent, or highly specialized.
The Master Service Agreement provides a flexible framework rather than committing the City
to a predetermined level of service. Each requested service would be described in a Local
Service Plan, allowing the City and COG to define the scope, schedule, deliverables, and
estimated cost before work begins. The City would pay a $500 annual affiliate fee and would
be invoiced only for services requested at COG's applicable rates. Expenditures would remain
limited to funds appropriated in the City budget.
The agreement would also improve administrative efficiency by establishing standard legal,
billing, records, insurance, and dispute-resolution terms in advance. Once the agreement is in
place, staff may engage COG for appropriate services without negotiating a new master
contract for each assignment. The agreement runs from July 1, 2026, through June 30,
2027, and either party may terminate it for convenience with 30 days' written notice,
preserving the City's flexibility if the arrangement no longer meets its needs.
Recommendation: Staff recommend that City Council adopt Resolution No. 707-26
authorizing the City Administrator to execute COG No. 2026-068 and take the administrative
actions necessary to implement the agreement.

23

City of Durham, Oregon

RESOLUTION NO. 707-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE DURHAM CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE CITY
ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE MIDWILLAMETTE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FOR SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments is an Oregon intergovernmental agency
created under ORS Chapter 190 and is authorized to enter into an intergovernmental agreement for services
with the City of Durham pursuant to ORS 190.010 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Durham is a unit of local government authorized to enter into intergovernmental
agreements pursuant to ORS 190.010; and
WHEREAS, the City of Durham seeks specialized governmental services, which the Mid-Willamette
Valley Council of Governments can provide to the City of Durham through a Master Service Agreement
and related Local Service Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement will be effective from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027, requires a $500
annual affiliate fee, and payment for services requested by the City at applicable rates;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DURHAM,
OREGON as follows:
1. Section 1. Authorization.
The City Administrator is authorized to execute the attached intergovernmental agreement, COG No.
2026-068, between the City of Durham and the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments and to
take administrative actions reasonably necessary to implement it.
2. Section 2. Expenditures.
Expenditures under the Agreement are authorized only to the extent funds have been appropriated in
the City budget.
3. Section 3. Authorization to Proceed.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Durham, Washington County, Oregon this 28th day of July 2026.
CITY OF DURHAM
BY:

____________________________
Joshua Drake, Mayor
ATTEST:

____________________________________
Jordan Parente, City Administrator / Recorder
RESOLUTION NO. 707-26
1 OF 1
24

COG #2026-068

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
Between
MID-WILLAMETTE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
And
CITY OF DURHAM
1.

PARTIES TO AGREEMENT

This Master Service Agreement (Agreement) is made pursuant to the authority found in ORS
190.010, et seq., between the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments, an Oregon
Intergovernmental Agency created under ORS Chapter 190, hereafter called COG, and the City
of Durham, hereafter called AFFILIATE. COG and AFFILIATE collectively are referred to as
Parties.
2.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the terms and conditions under which COG will
provide services as described in the Local Service Plan to AFFILIATE.
3.

TERM

This Agreement shall be effective for the period of time from July 1, 2026, through and until June
30, 2027, unless sooner terminated or extended as provided herein.
4.

5.

METHOD OF PAYMENT AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE
4.1

COG agrees to submit written invoices for services to the billing contact person
identified in the signature block below.

4.2

COG shall submit invoices for services according to the current COG "Schedule of Fees
for Services."

4.3

AFFILIATE agrees to pay the annual Affiliate fee of $500. AFFILIATE agrees to pay
for services at the rates set forth in the most current COG Schedule of Fee for Services
resolution schedule, including, as applicable, hourly staff rates, flat rates, indirect rate (if
applicable), and mileage at the IRS mileage rate for travel related to providing said
services.

4.4

AFFILIATE agrees to make payment to COG within 30 days of receipt of invoices from
COG.

ACCESS TO RECORDS

Both parties shall maintain all records relating to this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. In addition, both parties shall maintain any other records pertinent to this
25

Pg 1

COG #2026-068

Agreement in such a manner as to clearly document both parties' performance hereunder. Parties
acknowledge and agree that the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office, the Federal Government, and their
duly authorized representatives shall have access to such fiscal records and all other documents that are
pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of performing audits and examinations and making copies,
transcripts, and excerpts. All such fiscal records and documents shall be retained by parties for a minimum
of six (6) years (except as required longer by law) following final payment and termination of this
Agreement, or until the conclusion of any audit, controversy, or litigation arising out of or related to this
Agreement, whichever date is later.
6.

COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS

Each party agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws, codes, regulations and ordinances
applicable to the provision of services under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the
provisions of: (i) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Section V of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub L No 101- 336), ORS 659.425, and all
amendments of and regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to those laws; and (iv) all
other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules, and
regulations.
7.

AMENDMENTS

This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. Any amendments shall be in
writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of both parties.
8.

9.

SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION
8.1

This Agreement may be extended by written agreement of the parties signed by the
representatives authorized to execute this agreement.

8.2

This agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of the parties at any time.

8.3

This Agreement may also be terminated for convenience upon written notification by
either party with a minimum notice of thirty (30) calendar days delivered by mail or in
person. In the event of Agreement termination for convenience, COG shall be due
payment for all work completed by the time of termination.

8.4

Any such termination of this agreement shall be without prejudice to any obligations or
liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

AFFILIATE has engaged COG as an independent contractor for the accomplishment of a particular
service. Neither party nor the officers and employees of either party shall be deemed the agents or
employees of the other party for any purpose.

26

Pg 2

COG #2026-068

10. LIMITED WARRANTY
In no event shall COG be liable for indirect or consequential damages. In no event, regardless of theory
of recovery, shall COG be liable for any damages in excess of the amounts actually paid by
AFFILIATE to COG for services provided under this agreement.
11. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No AFFILIATE, officer, or employee of AFFILIATE, or its designees or agents, no AFFILIATE of the
AFFILIATE Council, and no other public official of AFFILIATE who exercises any function or
responsibility with respect to this project during the public official's tenure or for one year thereafter,
shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any contract or subcontract, or the proceeds thereof, for
work to be performed in connection with the project assisted under the contract.
12. NONDISCRIMINATION
The parties agree to comply with all applicable requirements of Federal and State civil rights and
rehabilitation statutes, rules, and regulations in the performance of this agreement.

13. INSURANCE
Each party shall insure or self-insure and be independently responsible for the risk of its own
liability for claims within the scope of the Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.260 to 30.300).
14. INDEMNIFICATION
Each party shall indemnify, defend, save, and hold harmless the other party and its officers, employees,
and agents from and against all claims, suits, actions, liabilities, damages, losses, or expenses, arising
out of the acts or omissions of the party, its officers, agents, or employees performing under this
Agreement, provided that this discharge and waiver shall not apply to claims by one party against any
officer, employee, or agent of the other arising from such person's malfeasance in office, willful or
wanton neglect of duty, or actions outside the course and scope of the person's official duties
15. MERGER CLAUSE
The Parties concur and agree that this agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
Parties. No waiver, consent, modification, or change to the terms of this agreement shall bind
either party unless in writing and signed by both Parties. There are no understandings,
agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein, regarding this agreement. The
Parties, by the signatures below of their authorized representatives, hereby agree to be bound by
its term and conditions.

27

Pg 3

COG #2026-068

16. ASSIGNMENT, DELEGATION, SUCCESSOR
Neither party shall assign, delegate, nor transfer any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement
without the other party's prior written consent. A party's written consent does not relieve the other party
of any obligations under this Agreement, and any assignee, transferee, or delegate is considered the agent
of that party. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the
parties to the Agreement and their respective successors and assigns.
17. CONFLICTS
Should a conflict arise regarding billing or quality of service, the parties shall, prior to bringing a claim,
action, suit, or proceeding in court, meet to attempt to resolve the issue within thirty (30) days of issue
identification. Each party shall designate a representative authorized to negotiate a solution to the conflict.
If the conflict cannot be resolved by the parties, the parties will submit the issue for mediation. Each party
shall make a good-faith effort to resolve the conflict through mediation.
18. GOVERNING LAW, JURISDICTION, VENUE & ATTORNEY FEES
This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon,
without resort to any jurisdiction’s conflict of laws rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit, or
proceeding (collectively, “the claim”) between the parties that arises from or relates to this Agreement
shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within a Circuit Court of the State of Oregon.
Provided, however, if the claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted
solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Each party shall
be responsible for the party’s attorney fees, costs, and disbursements at all times, including appeals.
19. WAIVER
The failure of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by that
party of that or any other provision of this Agreement, or the waiver by that party of the ability to enforce
that or any other provision in the event of any subsequent breach.
20. COUNTERPARTS.
This Agreement and any subsequent amendments may be executed in any number of counterparts
(including by facsimile, PDF, or other electronic transmission), each of which so executed shall be
deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall together constitute one agreement binding on all
parties.
21. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court or tribunal of
competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision, and
the obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if the Contract did not contain the
particular term or provision held to be invalid.

28

Pg 4

COG #2026-068

22. NOTICES
Any notice required to be given to COG or AFFILIATE under this Agreement shall be sufficient if
given, in writing, by first-class mail or in person as described in the signature block below.
23. SIGNATURES
This agreement and any changes, alterations, modifications, or amendments will be effective
when approved in writing by the authorized representative of the Parties hereto as of the
effective date set forth herein.
In witness whereof, the Parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed on the date set
forth below.
MID-WILLAMETTE VALLEY
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

CITY OF DURHAM

By: _______________________________

By: _______________________________________

McRae Carmichael

Jordan Parente

Interim Executive Director

City Administrator

Date: ______________________________

Date: ______________________________________

Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments

City of Durham

BILLING CONTACT FOR INVOICES
FOR COG

For AFFILIATE:

Theresa Whisenhunt

Name: Wyatt Bean

Financial Analyst

Administrative Assistant

100 High Street SE Ste. 200

Mailing Address: 17160 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road.

Salem, OR 97301

Durham OR 97224

NOTICES

For COG:

For AFFILIATE:

McRae Carmichael

Name: Jordan Parente

Interim Executive Director

Title: City Administrator

100 High Street SE Ste. 200

Mailing Address: 17160 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road.

Salem, OR 97301

Durham OR 97224

29

Pg 5

30

31

32

City of Durham
17160 SW Upper Boones Ferry Road
Durham, Oregon 97224

website:
e-mail:
phone:

durham-oregon.us
[email protected]
503.639.6851

Jordan Parente - City Administrator

Wyatt Bean - Administrative Assistant

MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:

July 24th, 2026
City Council
Jordan Parente
Retaining Wall at 7664 SW Taylor Lane

Emerald Homes NW constructed a retaining wall within the public utility easement (PUE)
adjacent to 7664 SW Taylor Lane without City approval. The wall conflicts with both approved
site designs associated with the property. The PUE was established when the nine-lot
subdivision was platted and is located approximately eight feet from the City right-of-way.
Public utility easements preserve space for the future installation, maintenance, and
replacement of utilities. Locating these easements near the right-of-way is a common practice
throughout Washington County because it allows utility work to occur without repeatedly
excavating and replacing public streets and related infrastructure. The existing PUE also
implements Durham Development Code Section 8.9.2.4, which is intended to provide utility
access adjacent to the right-of-way.
The developer has proposed vacating the existing easement and establishing a replacement
easement beneath the private driveway network serving the approved developments. Staff do
not recommend this alternative. Relocating the easement beneath private driveways would
undermine the purpose of the Code standard, create impacts similar to excavating City
infrastructure, and cause substantial inconvenience and disruption for future residents when
utility access, repair, or replacement is required.
Because the retaining wall was constructed without approval, is inconsistent with the
approved plans, and obstructs the existing PUE, staff recommend that the City pursue
removal of the wall. The City's nuisance abatement process would provide formal notice to
the responsible party and an opportunity to correct the violation before the City undertakes
further enforcement or abatement action.
Recommendation: Staff recommend that City Council direct staff begin the nuisance
abatement process for the unpermitted retaining wall located within the public utility
easement adjacent to 7664 SW Taylor Lane.

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

$6,406.78 + $13,489.98 = $19,896.76

40