C4 Retreat (Day 1) - June 5, 2026

2026 C4 Retreat Summary Notes

Executive Summary

The Clackamas County Coordinating Committee (C4) meets to provide coordination and cooperation between jurisdictions within Clackamas County and to form unified positions on land use and transportation plans. Membership is comprised of elected officials from Clackamas County, cities, representatives from unincorporated communities and representatives from transit, sewer, water and safety districts.

The Clackamas County Coordinating Committee convened for its annual retreat on June 5 – 6, 2026 in Welches, OR. Event participants included C4 members and alternates, county and city elected officials, staff, and representatives from the Oregon state legislature. The retreat's primary topics were economic development, the development of a state transportation funding package, and transit coordination. Packet materials are available here. The following document summarizes key discussions by session and possible next steps, including topics for future meetings.

Contents

• Executive Summary
• Attendees
• Session 1: Opening Remarks
• Session 2: Economic Landscape
• Session 3: Economic Identity
• Session 4: Healthy Economies
• Session 5: Where Do We Go From Here?
• Session 6: Learning from the 2025 Transportation Package
• Session 7: Preparing for the 2027 Transportation Package
• Session 8: Local Mobility Solutions
• Session 9: Annual Prioritization
• Continuous Improvement

Attendees

C4 Members: Canby: Brian Hodson, Traci Hensley (Alt.); Clackamas: Paul Savas, Diana Helm; CPOs: Patricia Erdenberger (Alt.); Estacada: Melissa Hill; Gladstone: Michael Milch; Happy Valley: Joshua Callahan, Glenn Wachter (Alt.); Molalla: Scott Keyser, Eric Vermillion (Alt.); Oregon City: Adam Marl, Michael Mitchell (Alt.); West Linn: Mary Baumgardner; Wilsonville: Shawn O’Neil; Urban Transit: John Serra, Dwight Brashear (Alt.)

Staff: Trent Wilson; Jaimie Lorenzini

Non-C4 Members: Clackamas: Martha Schrader, Dan Johnson, Mike Bezner, Karen Buehrig, Cindy Moore, Laura Edmonds, Jamie Stasny, Brendan Adamczyk, Becca Tabor, Adam Torres, Kristina Babock, Megan Nugent; Estacada: Melanie Wagner; Gladstone: Jacque Betz; Hamlet of Beavercreek: Kenny Sernach; Happy Valley: Kevin McGrane; Lake Oswego: Lynn Peterson, Will Farley; Metro: Jaye Cromwell; Sandy: Kathleen Walker, Andi Howell; Tualatin: Steve Koper; Wilsonville: Everett Wild, Diana Kotler

Special Guests: Angela Wilhelms (OBI), Rep. Sue Rieke Smith, Rep. April Dobson, Rep. Lamar Wise

Session 1: Opening Remarks

C4 Co-Chairs Savas and Hodson provided opening remarks, followed by introductions, a run-of-show, and a discussion on desired outcomes for the weekend. Group goals for the weekend include collaboration, understanding group priorities, issue alignment, and identifying future actions. Disagreements, if any, will be resolved by seeking clarification and using consensus cards.

Session 2: Economic Landscape

Guest speaker Angela Wilhelms, CEO of Oregon Business & Industry, reviewed Oregon’s economic conditions, highlighting business, regulatory, tax, and economic performance rankings. Notably, Oregon ranks 47th for business-friendliness, 44th in state GDP growth, and 39th in top states for business (2025). Retreat participants were challenged to prioritize economic and business development, improve affordability for residents and businesses, create a solutions-oriented regulatory environment, and make tax and budget policies sustainable and competitive. In contemplating policy changes, Ms. Wilhelms suggested allowing rules to settle before instituting further changes, discussing a higher threshold for the corporate activity tax and exploring allowable exemptions, and modifying the DEQ climate protection and recycling modernization programs.

Group Discussion Ideas

• Convening jurisdictional planning departments to develop a simplified set of rules for businesses seeking to come and build in Clackamas County.
• Talking with ODOT to address issues for businesses opening on state facilities.
• Rallying around and supporting local legislators after hard votes.
• Working with the state to keep an up-to-date list of available employment land.
• Treating economic recovery like a public emergency, while acknowledging that some changes will take time to implement due to the level of complexity.
• Collaborating across the state to fix issues, which may require some sacrifice of local control to achieve a coordinated strategy.
• Leveraging knowledge in local cities and counties.

Session 3: Economic Identity

Prior to the retreat, communities were surveyed about their attitudes toward economic development. Thirteen communities responded. Sectors frequently targeted for growth include industrial/manufacturing and tourism/hospitality, while the most common barriers include utility infrastructure, road infrastructure, and affordable housing. To support economic growth, communities commonly use tools like urban renewal/tax-increment financing and local partnerships. Perceived threats involve the cumulative effects of new state laws and the loss of state support. Possible opportunities include process efficiencies, fiscal reforms, targeted policy adjustments, and state collaborations to enhance land viability.

Discussion Q1: What Defines Us?

Participants love living in Clackamas County. There is deep history, with regional destinations, and access to nature. Unlike Multnomah and Washington counties, Clackamas is not characterized by a large, central city; rather, Clackamas County contains many smaller and strong cities. Every community has a different flavor, but we are collaborative in our diversity.

Discussion Q2: How Do Others See Us?

The county board has experienced frequent turnover, and sometimes we come across as contrarian. The county has insufficient utility/road infrastructure and connectivity, but we are also known for being pro-growth and getting to “yes”.

Discussion Q3: How Do We Want to Be Seen?

We want to be known for livable communities, strong home rule, and successful logging/forest management and business-friendly sustainable practices.

Session 4: Healthy Economies

In Session 4, participants transitioned from vision-setting to practical problem-solving, identifying the specific barriers that must be addressed to realize our shared economic development identity. Visiting themed stations, participants explored topics including diagnosing business losses, developing treatment options (business retention, expansion, attraction, resiliency), economic wellness, building trust, and what’s missing. Pursuant to an activity report-out, participants engaged in a dot activity, with the following responses generating the greatest alignment.

Issues that are in Our Control/We’d Like to Pursue:

• Planning and zoning consistency (simplify and stop changing) (10)
• Develop a relationship/report card with businesses (defending and monitoring growth; celebrating business) (10)
• Clarify and reduce regulatory burden on businesses (9)
• Collaborate with the business community on an ongoing and long-term basis (9)

Items that are Out of Our Control/We’d Like to Influence

• Taxes (12)
• Land availability (9)
• The state is missing, resulting in communication and trust issues (8)
• High rent rates (commercial/residential); nuances around out-of-state property owners vs. local property owners (7)
• State investment, engagement in driving economic development (6)

Session 5: Where Do We Go From Here?

The first day of the retreat culminated in a discussion of actionable next steps, C4’s role in the ongoing conversation, and how the conversation should be memorialized.

Discussion Summary

• There is interest in leveraging C4 to inform economic development goals for Clackamas County, such as a north star, metrics/benchmarks, and where we want to be in five years.
• There is interest in developing a Values & Outcomes document. The document should be treated as a living document/roadmap and used to advocate for state dollars. The document could be developed through a subgroup, or tasking staff practitioners with developing recommendations for consideration. The document should:
  • Articulate how constituents benefit from and relate to economic development;
  • Articulate a unifying vision
  • Clarify what we need the state’s help on (e.g., medium businesses)
    • What are the big-ticket items?
    • What does accountability look like with state dollars?
  • Clarify what we can do (e.g., assisting with micro-businesses)
• There is a desire to work more closely with the Clackamas Caucus and improve the line of communication with legislators. Legislators in attendance suggested that communities be ready to provide legislators with trustworthy data and work to identify partners.

Session 6: Learning from the 2025 Transportation Package

Participants reflected on the 2025 transportation package and legislative process to identify what worked well and what needs to happen as the state prepares to revisit transportation funding in 2027.

Good things in the 2025 package: Preservation of the historical 50/30/20 funding formula, local control, money for paving, the early-stage listening sessions/partner engagement, STIF increase, clarity on what we didn’t want, menu of funding options/shifting away from gas tax, increased accountability, road usage charge, indexing, HCAS rebalance, user-pay system, funding path for the missing lane on I-205, ODOT review.

Challenges in the 2025 package: The focus was on money, not restructuring. There was no repair to the ODOT ecosystem, and findings from the ODOT review were not enacted (no best practices). There was ambiguity, including a lack of transparency from the legislature, and questions about who was in charge, how decisions were being made, and how the system works. The transit funding needs were a surprise, with needs buried behind ODOT and different philosophies about how transit should be funded. The late release of a package was also challenging, and people felt pressured to fall in line, noting partisanship and issues with trust, timing, tone sensitivity, and the invalidation of lived experience.

Session 7: Preparing for the 2027 Transportation Package

Participants engaged in a Model UN-style exercise simulating policy development for Oregon’s 2027 transportation package. Working in teams representing different policy areas, each group identified top priorities and possible trade-offs. Pursuant to the report-out, participants engaged in a dot exercise to identify areas of alignment, remaining questions, and friction. Data will be used by staff to recommend updates to the Values & Outcomes document. Following summarizes key feedback:

Maintenance, Preservation, and Emergency Response: There is a strong desire and unity to maintain the 50/30/20 highway revenue distribution formula. There is also strong interest in prioritizing maintenance and preservation, but an equal number of responses expressed discomfort or opposition to potential funding strategies, with one participant expressing that ODOT should use its resources more effectively or show the math explaining why goals cannot be accomplished.

Major Project Funding and Delivery: There is a strong desire for additional transparency and accountability measures, such as risk management, audits, and contract management. Conversely, there was moderate support for investment in Boone Bridge, Sunrise Corridor, a jurisdictional transfers program, a 2025 bottleneck funding path, and creating a new, small major projects office that operates with transparency and trust. There is no consensus on how projects would be funded.

Transit: There was strong support to broaden the qualified entity structure for direct provider control. There was mild support to change the funding structure/distribution to small providers (funding off the top for small providers). Conversely, there was a moderate-high level of opposition to, and questions about, potential STIF funding increases. Transit providers noted the need for funding, while jurisdictions expressed the need for relationships with certain providers and enhanced messaging/education.

Community Livability and Safety: There was moderate support for increased local control over speed limits, egress/ingress requirements, and flexible-route first/last-mile transit. An almost equal number of responses expressed questions, with some in outright opposition. There was also mild support for investment in bridge operations and prioritizing bridges for funding.

Freight: There are questions about the continued prioritization of the operations of freight routes, bridges, and arterials. Jurisdictions recognized the need for freight-appropriate routes, but expressed the need for greater accountability and enforcement of weigh stations and designated routes. Separately, there was moderate opposition to prioritizing more EV-charging stations for trucks.

Session 8: Local Mobility Solutions

Over the last several years, transit resources and service levels have become increasingly constrained. In Session 8, participants discussed pragmatic steps that leaders are willing to explore – individually or collaboratively – to meet the evolving transportation needs of their residents. Items prioritized for follow-up include: increasing the line of communication between the small providers group and cities, empowering local providers to develop solutions, increasing understanding of service model options, and talking about funding.

Discussion Summary

1. Communication & Relationship-Building: Jurisdictions are interested in receiving more communication from the small providers group and strengthening the voice of small providers at regional tables.
2. System Coordination: Transit needs to be viewed as a unified system, and we need to find out what makes sense for subregional service provision. Collaboration is needed to ensure that the right tool is applied to the right situation, e.g., efficiencies from different bus types and fuel sources. Transit development plans are important for moving priorities forward.
3. Service Models & Operational Approaches: There is an appetite for continued conversations and education on service model types, such as UServe, shared vehicle mobility (Zipcar), and partnering with retirement homes with unused shuttles. This may be an opportunity for transit providers to recommend solutions.
4. Data-Driven Service Decisions: TriMet has quality data on service gaps, and we could explore how to fill these gaps with local service. There is also an appetite for solutions for distributed/dispersed ridership and appropriate distribution of assets.
5. Funding.

Session 9: Annual Organizational Meeting

Session 9 closed the retreat by reviewing the preferred outcomes identified during the retreat and prioritizing issues and topics that merit additional consideration for future C4 meetings.

What do we want to accomplish by next year?

• Key Performance Indicators for economic development performance in the county.
• Interactive, public-facing data on economic development. This tool could include counters to explain why we’re growing, and material from the annual economic landscape analysis.
• Engagement/movement on a transportation package.

Continuous Improvement

Prior to exiting the venue, guests were prompted to complete an anonymous card reflecting on event strengths and opportunities for improvement next time. Guest feedback will be used by the C4 Executive Committee to improve future events. Following are major takeaways:

• Participants noted year-over-year improvement in support amenities (midday snacks, fidget items) and appreciated that the dinner service invested in the local economy. Staff support was also praised.
• Participants requested accessibility improvements (dark fonts, consistent microphone use), adding “Get to Know You” activities, and elongating the retreat to facilitate deeper conversations. Additionally, some participants found certain topics less relevant.