[0:07] Hey, I'd like to call to order the August 17, 2020 city council meeting at

[0:12] 700 p.m. If you all rise for the pledge of

[0:14] » allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the

[0:19] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation

[0:25] under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[0:31] » Thank you [clears throat] room. We actually have a full staff roll

[0:36] call. We're all here today. Um,

[0:42] before I begin and get on the agenda, I'd like to I'd like to just take a

[0:47] moment to remember that and the and honor Jeff Weiss, the longtime director

[0:50] of Scapoo Public Library who passed away on July 24. Jeff served our community as

[0:55] library director since 2017. He brought with him 25 years of library experience

[1:01] from Muny, Indiana, where I believe people here will remember most his

[1:05] quiet, gentle nature and his genuine commitment to helping others. Jeff

[1:10] worked countless hours to make our library um and was is there for our

[1:14] community. He believed that everyone who walked through the library doors

[1:17] mattered and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect. So on behalf of

[1:20] the city council and the city of Scaffos, I want to extend our deepest

[1:24] condolences to Jeff's family, friends, library colleagues, and everyone in our

[1:28] community who knew and appreciated him. So I'd like to ask everybody to join me

[1:32] in a moment of silence for Jeff's memory.

[1:45] » Okay, thank you. Um, okay. As we move on to tonight's

[1:50] agenda, um, I did want to make one little change on resolution 26 07. It

[1:57] should read 2611, uh, number five.

[2:04] And I was wondering if I could add um add just one. Uh, we have Tyler Ferrer

[2:12] here today. I'd like to be able to say something that maybe works. You guys

[2:15] feel that uh number three right after the

[2:20] oath of office. A little thank you to Tyler.

[2:27] [clears throat] Make it 2. A 2.2.

[2:32] We have to change all the other numbers. [clears throat]

[2:38] We're looking at that. I would look for a motion to approve tonight's agenda.

[2:43] » Mr. Mayor, I move to approve tonight's agenda as amended.

[2:46] » Councelor Hogan makes a motion to approve tonight's agenda as amended. Any

[2:49] second? >> Second.

[2:51] » Second by councelor Santiago. Any more discussion? Seeing none, all

[2:57] those in favor say by saying I. I. >> Opposed? Motion carries.

[3:04] So tonight, uh we are now on to public comment. This is the place on the agenda

[3:09] where the public's invited to speak to council regarding any matter not on the

[3:12] agenda and not scheduled for public hearing. Members of the public

[3:15] addressing council are requested to give their name and city of residents. Please

[3:19] try not to repeat questions to allow for more speakers. Speakers will limit their

[3:23] testimony to five minutes. We're limited to 30 minutes total for all public

[3:26] comments. I do have one so far. Miss Higgus, if you'd like to step up to the

[3:32] microphone,

[3:40] » this one working this time.

[3:44] » It should be good. >> Uh, my name is Alicia Higgus, resident

[3:48] of Scapus. Good evening, mayor and council. Tonight, I'm going to be very

[3:53] direct. I believe the city of Scapus has a leadership problem. I've spent years

[3:58] raising concerns about accountability, transparency, inconsistent enforcement,

[4:02] and conduct within this city. When the same problems continue under the same

[4:07] leadership, we have to stop pretending they're isolated incidents. The urban

[4:11] renewal grant is a perfect example. My husband and I have asked what

[4:15] documentation showed that previously identified compliance issues were

[4:19] corrected before the grant application moved forward. City Manager Ben

[4:23] Berginger told us that a final staff report memor memorialized staff's review

[4:28] and determination that the application met the grant requirements.

[4:33] When it wasn't provided, we filed a public records request seeking that

[4:36] documentation he told us existed. Only then did Mr. Berginger acknowledge he

[4:41] needed to correct a prior statement. The city's official records response

[4:47] followed. The final staff report he referenced, none exists. A written staff

[4:53] recommendation, none exists.

[4:56] Documentation that the compliance issues were corrected or identifying who

[5:01] verified the corrective work, nothing in writing exists. That's a serious

[5:07] credibility problem. Council relies on the city manager, too. If residents

[5:12] cannot rely on the accuracy of his representations, how can council be

[5:16] confident the information you're receiving is accurate? These

[5:20] accountability concerns also extend to enforcement. An abandoned boat sat on a

[5:26] public street for months. SPD knew about it. It had already been cited. And on

[5:31] July 1st, Officer McFarland posted an abandoned vehicle notice citing SMC

[5:37] 11.04.2080. two 280.

[5:42] Yet, the owner was given until August 19th before it would be towed,

[5:46] approximately seven additional weeks. Why was this consistent with how SPD

[5:53] treats other residents? Or was someone given special treatment?

[5:57] What other laws and ordinances aren't being enforced? And who decides when

[6:01] enforcement is optional? My concerns with SPD go beyond enforcement? I have a

[6:08] video of an encounter involving recently promoted Detective Johnson and a

[6:12] resident who called the police himself last month. The resident was frustrated

[6:17] and trying to grab his phone. Rather than deescalating, Johnson's response

[6:22] escalated the encounter to the point that he reached for and attempted to

[6:26] draw his firearm in the presence of half a dozen children. And the council needs

[6:31] to know something else. He couldn't get the gun out of his holster. Think about

[6:36] that. Why was reaching for a firearm

[6:40] necessary? And if an officer believes circumstances justify drawing one, is he

[6:45] sufficiently trained and proficient to respond safely? Those are serious public

[6:50] safety questions. The resident subsequently complained to

[6:55] Chief Llewellyn, so leadership was notified and is aware of the concern.

[7:00] Was Johnson's bodywn camera footage reviewed? Was his decision for reaching

[7:04] for his firearm and his inability to successfully draw it evaluated?

[7:10] Was the complaint investigated? And how does an officer involved in an

[7:14] incident raising these questions subsequently get promoted to detective?

[7:19] SPD needs meaningful deescalation training before somebody gets hurt.

[7:24] But this goes beyond one officer. I've raised concerns about SPD's

[7:28] accountability, transparency, enforcement practices, and conduct for

[7:33] years. I believe we've reached the point where the Scampoo's Police Department

[7:37] needs new leadership. And the leadership problem doesn't stop with SPD. The city

[7:43] city manager oversees city operations. Council oversees the city manager. I

[7:49] have lost confidence in both the police department's leadership and the city

[7:53] manager. I'm asking council to seriously evaluate whether you still have

[7:58] confidence in that leadership. An oath of office requires integrity,

[8:03] accountability, equal application of our laws, protection of this community, and

[8:09] telling the truth even when it's inconvenient.

[8:12] I shouldn't have to file public records requests to determine whether things I'm

[8:16] being told by city leaders leadership are true. Residents shouldn't have to

[8:21] question whether city ordinances are enforced equally or whether some people

[8:25] are given special treatment. And we shouldn't have to wait for somebody to

[8:29] get hurt before demanding accountability from our police department. These aren't

[8:33] isolated complaints anymore. This is a pattern and patterns are a leadership

[8:39] issue. Scapus deserves leadership that the public and this council can trust.

[8:46] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[8:53] Okay. Um, we're on to Is there any more public comment online? Anybody else

[8:58] here? Pink's list. All right. Thank you. We'll close public comment. Moving on to

[9:02] number one. Tonight's consent agenda. July 2026,

[9:06] city council meeting minutes. I'm looking for approval of tonight's

[9:10] consent agenda. [clears throat]

[9:14] » Mayor, I move to consent agenda. Councelor Marque makes a motion to

[9:19] approve. Any second? >> Second.

[9:23] » Second by councelor Santiago. Any more discussion?

[9:26] Seeing none, all those in favor state by saying I.

[9:29] » I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. On to number

[9:34] two. Oath of office for officer Cunningham. Please join me down here.

[9:38] Appreciate it.

[9:52] » [clears throat] >> Reaffirming the oath of office. Uh,

[9:54] please I mean I please state your full name. I

[9:59] » hereby swear on my oath >> to honestly and faithfully discharge my

[10:04] duties >> of police officer for the city of Scapus

[10:11] » and that I will uh support the laws >> the constitution of the state of Oregon

[10:18] » and the United States of America >> and the charter and ordinances of the

[10:24] city of Scapus. to the best of my ability.

[10:29] So help me God. >> All right. Thank you.

[10:38] » Officer Davos already warned me about this.

[10:41] » Uh it is a pleasure to be here. Uh from day one on I think it was March 23rd, uh

[10:47] chief told me I was hired. Uh I was just very excited to start. 16 weeks to the

[10:53] academy was grueling, a little boring in some spots, but it was great to be back

[10:58] on week one and get straight to the straight to the road and just kind of

[11:02] hit the road running. Uh, it's been great so far. I appreciate you, Chief. I

[11:06] appreciate all the other officers that have been there and supported me through

[11:08] the entire thing. So, it's great to be here. Thank you.

[11:11] » Thank you very much.

[11:27] Okay, thank you everybody.

[11:35] » Hey, one more. We're on to 2B. If um Tyler Ferrer, come on up there.

[11:43] » Mr. Mayor. Yes. >> Here's a box for coming in here.

[11:52] » You make that yourself. [laughter] All right. Uh Tyler uh was

[11:59] representative of the Scapu School District on our student council last

[12:02] year. So I wanted we wanted to give this to him. This certificate is proudly

[12:06] presented to 202025 2026 city council student representative Tyler Ferrer in

[12:11] recognition of your outstanding dedication, commitment, and valuable

[12:15] contributions as a volunteer with Scapu City Council. Your efforts have made a

[12:19] meaningful impact and we sincerely sincere sincerely appreciate your time,

[12:24] energy, and service. Mayor Joe Bakus and city council presented today, August 17,

[12:29] 2026. Thank you.

[12:44] All right.

[12:53] Big one here. Um, okay. We're on to old business.

[13:00] I'm doing this. All right. We um last meeting we had our first reading of

[13:07] ordinance 927

[13:13] notes.

[13:22] It's first reading there. Your second

[13:28] this ordinance is on second reading. They received a motion for approval and

[13:31] a second during the July 2026 city council meeting. So, is there any other

[13:37] additional discussion? Couple counselors that have read and

[13:42] listened online, but we're not here at the meeting. If you guys have any

[13:45] questions, you guys have asked your questions, have had discussions, I'm

[13:48] assuming. >> Okay.

[13:50] » Mr. Mayor, I'd like to recuse myself. >> Okay.

[13:53] » And I'll be recusing myself as well. >> Okay. What I will do then, um, why don't

[13:58] we just to make it good is have you guys leave, um, and, um, we'll call you back

[14:04] in as soon as we're done.

[14:17] Is there anything new to add since our last meeting, Lori?

[14:20] » Uh, no, there is nothing to add here. Uh, if not, I'll read the ordinance

[14:25] title for the second time and call for the vote. Ordinance 927, an ordinance

[14:30] relating to land use, amending the urban growth boundary, establishing urban

[14:34] reserves, amending the comprehensive plan text and map, amending the zoning

[14:39] map, and amending the Scapoo's municipal code chapters 17.22, 17.26, 17.40,

[14:46] 17.44, 17.50, 50 17.54 17.56 17.62

[14:53] 17.68 17.70 17.74 17.81 17.82 17.84

[15:02] 17.85 17.86 17.89 17.92 17.94 17.100 17.104

[15:12] 17.106 106 17.114 17.120

[15:17] 17.126 17.130 17.134

[15:22] 17.136 17.140 17.142

[15:26] 17.150 17.152

[15:30] 17.154 17.160

[15:33] 17.162 and 17.164

[15:38] So we had a first and second and no more discussion. Um, all those in favor state

[15:42] by saying I. >> I

[15:46] » oppose.

[15:50] » Did you vote? >> Yes.

[15:52] » Okay. Um, so four one. Uh, motion carries. Um, so that is that on the

[16:00] 50-year plan and ordinance 927. I want to thank you Lori and Cru for all

[16:07] your help and work on this for several years. uh Beth and and appreciate all

[16:11] your help. So hopefully now we'll make sure it works well. Okay, we're done

[16:15] there. If they want to come back in, Marty's out in the hall.

[16:28] Okay, now we're on to new business. Um St. Helens to Scapoo Trail Refinement

[16:34] Project feasibility study. uh community development director Lori Joseph with

[16:38] her report. >> Thank you, mayor and council. Uh so

[16:43] tonight I'm just bringing you uh really an update on this project. It um

[16:49] actually got kicked off last December. We've had a few uh project management

[16:55] meetings. Um and just uh as a reminder, it was back in uh June 23rd, 2024 that

[17:02] city council first approved the resolution. uh which allowed Scapus to

[17:07] enter into an IGA with St. Helens to coordinate on this project. Uh the city

[17:13] has already paid their match for this grant. Um and so the purpose really was

[17:21] uh there were some questions that ODOT leadership received about feasibility

[17:25] and cost effectiveness. There was a slight pause uh while information was

[17:30] gathered um to resolve this and just to get early kind of touch points and buyin

[17:36] from council um here in Scapus as well as in St. Helens and the county board of

[17:41] commissioners. Uh ODOT chose to incorporate this feasibility study at

[17:46] the beginning of the project kind of moved it up in the process um as part of

[17:50] task three. And so the purpose of the preliminary feasibility assessment

[17:55] really is to identify any uh uh well first of all to identify potential

[18:00] alignments for the path. Um you'll notice as you look through the packet

[18:05] that the uh trail alignment is is divided into three different segments

[18:11] with three different um alternative options for the trail alignment within

[18:16] each of those segments. Um once those potential alignments were

[18:22] um evalu were discussed um they evaluated the feasibility of each of

[18:27] those potential alignments. The initial screening does show that

[18:31] feasible options for a path exist. And then just a note that the evaluation

[18:38] in this report uh relies on available data does not yet include any uh

[18:44] community input or coordination with uh interested parties such as maybe some of

[18:50] the private um property owners that this could affect.

[18:54] that input will be conducted at a later later stage in this project to confirm

[19:00] feasibility um and inform the selection of the preferred path alternative.

[19:05] Uh, additionally, the consultant team conducted brief case studies to identify

[19:10] and then summarize the approaches that some other similar paths uh have used to

[19:15] address similar key challenges such as in our case uh this is going to traverse

[19:22] wetlands uh private property railroad coordination. There is some flood plane

[19:27] as well. Um, and that information is included in appendix A, which uh which

[19:34] is in your packets. And so, ODOT asks that the preliminary

[19:38] feasibility study be shared with council and that any major concerns are

[19:42] identified now before any additional planning work continues.

[19:47] And then uh as stated by ODOT, all of the funding to complete this uh planning

[19:54] does remain in place and all other existing tasks would continue to move

[19:59] forward um once ODOT hears back from um Scapus and St. Helen City Councils and

[20:06] Columbia County Board of Commissioners. And so you'll see in figure uh four

[20:11] within the feasibility study that the trail route again you have three

[20:15] different segments three different potential uh trail alignments within

[20:19] those for our segment which is the southern segment three. Um the

[20:25] discussion on that starts on page 102 of your packet. There is a map of the

[20:31] potential alignments on uh page 103. Um again there is an actual table that

[20:40] kind of grades and lists um each of the concerns that are identified. That table

[20:46] is on a uh page 115. And then for scapuse uh which again is

[20:54] trail segment three alternative B and C trail alignments uh are both emerging as

[21:00] promising options. we um the consultant team is not seeing any fatal flaws uh

[21:06] with with those alignments at this stage.

[21:12] And so um once in terms of finalizing the trail alignments, that's going to

[21:18] involve uh a site visit which we will also open up to our uh public advisory

[21:24] committee and technical advisory committee members. It will also include

[21:28] utility rail and property owner coordination

[21:32] uh partner review and refinement. Uh we'll be working closely with the rail

[21:36] as well. Uh we will have public engagement. So that definitely we want

[21:42] that public input [clears throat] before the preferred alternative is

[21:47] selected and then further evaluation um in terms

[21:52] of getting a little bit more specific on that uh preferred alignment. So looking

[21:58] at things such as uh you know right-of-way acquisition, physical space

[22:04] constraints, any utility conflicts, safety, and then access to key

[22:10] destinations along the proposed alignment.

[22:15] So again, this is just included for for you all to to have a look at and then to

[22:20] let me know of any concerns that that you have at this point or you know if

[22:25] your feedback is this is great and exciting. Um happy to take that uh back

[22:31] to to the team as well.

[22:40] » Um quick question I have is kind of looking at it. I mean, would we then be

[22:44] I know we paid a third of the matching. Would we be responsible basically for

[22:48] the cost of our section? >> Yeah. And those discussions haven't

[22:52] really occurred yet because this is um essentially what this results in is a

[22:58] 30% plan for construction of the preferred alternative. Right. So, it

[23:03] doesn't include any type of construction funding at this at this stage. Um and I

[23:09] think uh mayor that that would make sense that you know each jurisdiction

[23:14] would share in the cost of development. Um

[23:19] I would say if it's outside of you know rugg

[23:23] um that would be a good case for that would more be on the county side of

[23:27] things. Uh but those discussions haven't actually taken place yet. I anecdotally

[23:32] have heard through the consultant um and through ODOT that there could be future

[23:39] grant funding available for the actual construction piece

[23:43] » and that total project cost of 405,000 that's a portion of it.

[23:48] » The 405,000 is just to do this uh 30% design.

[23:59] Uh Lori, um yes, first first I'm delighted to see this moving forward.

[24:03] » Yeah. >> Um and uh it's been a long time in

[24:06] coming, but uh uh one of the questions I have is uh on page on 103 map. Um I I

[24:13] assume you could you could mix and match option B and C in terms of a route

[24:17] across more road and west lane. Um simply, you know, just from the

[24:23] st viewpoint of a cyclinger. >> Yeah.

[24:25] » I hate driving with a rail with a with a gravel trucks. Mhm.

[24:29] » Um, and so, you know, I think, you know, either one of those would be would be

[24:33] good if you I think it would better if you took took them off the the gravel

[24:37] truck route. >> But I'll I'll make that comment later,

[24:41] too. >> Okay. Perfect.

[24:42] » Yep. >> Thank you.

[24:45] » So, so you're just basically what what preference we A, B, or C. Correct.

[24:50] That's >> not even that. um you know because we're

[24:52] going to get more feedback as we um delve into the project a little bit more

[24:56] and get community input etc. Um and so not not you know for this meeting it's

[25:03] not about you know which which alignment you prefer. It's more do you have any

[25:07] overall concerns with uh this whole thing moving forward in terms of just

[25:13] completing the 30% design and and >> no I I I'm totally for the idea. I I

[25:20] just if I was thinking of concern I was like trying to avoid the highway 30.

[25:24] » Yeah. And I would I will say that um for each of the trail segments the first

[25:31] option was just having having it on the 30 alignment. Um that is the fatal flaw

[25:37] with all of them. It doesn't work because in most cases ODOT rightway

[25:42] butts directly up against the rail rideway and so there really isn't uh a

[25:47] great place to put a trail. Great. Okay. And then you said like for example

[25:53] um alternative C that doesn't have already a road. So then we has to be

[25:57] constructed. So this uh 405,000K that already estimated in all of the

[26:05] options. >> So again that's just to do this planning

[26:09] » that has nothing to do with construction. Um, appendix B was the

[26:13] last item in that um, packet and that has the uh, costs. Yeah.

[26:20] » And for Yeah. Alternative B and C actually they have essentially uh, at

[26:26] the same cost. So either one is

[26:31] » they look at moving the rail and using the rail line as a trail and moving the

[26:35] rail somewhere else. >> No. [laughter] Wouldn't that be nice?

[26:44] I've seen a lot of old railroad lines trails to trails, you know. [laughter]

[26:50] » And can you not make a trail on top of the dyke? Can that be a trail? Can you

[26:54] not pave the top of a dyke and not >> You could, but that's outside of the

[26:58] project area. Yeah. >> Yeah. Right.

[27:04] » Um, so I guess the biggest concern that I have on these types of projects is the

[27:08] property owners willing to transact. Yes. There's no

[27:13] legal authority to force them to do anything in these cases, is there?

[27:18] » Um, you know, potential not to my knowledge and that's not

[27:24] necessarily a direction we would want to go. The only thing I could think of is

[27:27] like if they were to force an eminent domain or something and state that it's

[27:32] for a public purpose, but I, you know, I don't know that that's really what

[27:36] anyone's looking to do here. Um, and that's why it's going to be really

[27:41] important to have those property owner conversations.

[27:44] » And what do they make that a step more upfront before we put too much time

[27:49] into? Okay. >> Yes. So we don't obviously we don't want

[27:53] to present this um generally to the public to get their buy in until those

[27:58] conversations have been had to know that you know these are still possibilities

[28:02] in in the different routes that we're looking at.

[28:06] » How does the immunity get triggered on things like this if something happens on

[28:12] the trail? Maybe now is not the right time to ask this question, but I guess I

[28:18] » from a property owner's perspective, that is one of the concerns that I would

[28:21] have is if somebody sustains an injury. Well,

[28:26] on their part of, you know, on their parole, the the part that passes

[28:30] through. I mean, I would think that hopefully as a part of this, you know,

[28:36] it it can either happen where the cities or county um can acquire the property.

[28:44] Yeah. Or it's going to come through an easement. And so I guess I I'm not quite

[28:49] certain what that looks like if Ben has any.

[28:52] » Right. That would have to be reviewed by attorney recreation community should

[28:55] apply to some extent if it's a city purpose or county purpose trail for

[28:59] recreation purposes. Um, but yeah, we'd have to get official legal opinion on

[29:03] that. >> I guess

[29:06] to kind of firm that up, I am curious if it's if it's an easement, if that

[29:09] immunity still applies or does the government entity have to own

[29:15] the dirt to >> Yeah. Yeah, like I said, we need to

[29:19] follow up on that, but if it's a citybuilt and maintained

[29:24] uh facility, it's usually even with an easement, just like you're leasing

[29:27] property, that would be a city's or county um infrastructure that it' be

[29:32] viable for. >> I'm just flagging that because if you

[29:36] approach me, that'd be one of the questions that I would immediately have.

[29:39] » That's a good question >> on that piece.

[29:42] Thank you. No, I I No, I just I answered my own

[29:48] question because I couldn't see. I didn't bring my glasses and I was just

[29:50] wondering what >> Gotcha. I'm good.

[29:54] » I think this is good. >> Appreciate this. And I like the having

[29:57] the other options to go on and look and go out and check out these other trails

[30:01] and see how they've worked. >> Right.

[30:04] » Great. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. Thanks, Lauren.

[30:09] » Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, moving on to number five,

[30:14] resolution now 2611, a resolution of the council of the city of Scapus

[30:19] authorizing the city manager to make an application to the department of land

[30:23] conservation and development transportation growth management PGM's

[30:27] grant program to develop a downtown improvement plan. Community development

[30:31] director Lori Joseph with the staff report on that as well.

[30:34] » Thank you. Yes. Uh this continues to be a uh council priority to develop a

[30:41] downtown improvement plan. We have identified a grant that would um fund

[30:45] that plan. The grant is due this um this Friday and we did apply last year. We

[30:52] scored well, but uh it is a very competitive process and our TSP was

[30:58] funded but not the downtown plan. So, um, again, my my ask is that you would

[31:05] approve resolution 2611, uh, which just gives, uh, city manager

[31:11] Benjamin the ability to, uh, make application to DLCD for this grant.

[31:20] » Thank you, >> uh, Mr. Mayor. Yes, couple.

[31:23] » So, I know what this means, but just as a matter of putting it on the record for

[31:26] clarity to you on uh one bait number 135 physical impact, it says none. It goes

[31:32] on to say the grant request will be for 185,000 and there's no match require,

[31:37] excuse me, there is a grant match requirement of 11.5 requested funds, but

[31:41] we are matching that in in basically >> in

[31:45] » labor and supplies. So, we're not actually going to be giving 21,275 in

[31:51] cash. Correct. >> Thank you,

[31:56] » Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, Councelor Hogan.

[31:58] » I move that council adopt resolution 26-07,

[32:02] a resolution of the council of the city of Scapus authorizing the city manager

[32:06] to make application to the department of land conservation development, TGM's

[32:10] grant program to develop downtown improvement plan and sign all associated

[32:13] documents, including the final grant agreement if awarded.

[32:17] » Okay. Council, we we've it's 2611. Oh, I'm sorry. 2611. Correct.

[32:23] » I have a motion by council having to move to adopt resolution 2611. Any

[32:28] second? >> Second.

[32:30] » Second by Miller. Any more discussion?

[32:35] » Seeing none, all those in favor state by saying I.

[32:37] » I. >> Okay.

[32:39] » Opposed. Motion carried. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[32:43] » So this be updated to this. >> Yes. resolution will be

[32:49] number six. >> Did we put that on the record? The

[32:53] correction. >> Yes. Um verbally.

[32:57] » Yes, I'm put on the record. We did in the agenda. We've changed that.

[33:02] Originally, it was resolution 2607, but it is correctly as 2611. So, on the

[33:08] record, that's resolution 2611. Okay. Now, we're on to number six.

[33:15] Ordinance 928, an ordinance amending Scapoo Municipal Code Chapter 13.22.

[33:22] Uh we are at a public hearing and our first reading um storm water management.

[33:28] So Chris, city manager Chris Nagelpa and we got

[33:31] » you promoted.

[33:35] [laughter] [snorts]

[33:38] » No, not my book. Not my [laughter] notes. The engineer.

[33:43] » So this [snorts] is just you. I see there's a big table, but this is city

[33:46] engineer Chris Nagel with the staff report.

[33:49] » Thank you, uh, mayor and council for, um, uh, allowing this to be on the

[33:54] agenda for tonight. Um, this, um, council action is somewhat timely as

[33:59] we're under a deadline to get this section of our stormwater code amended.

[34:04] So, back in um just a little background, back in 2019,

[34:10] um the DEEQ adopted a plan um that required agencies to um control mercury

[34:18] um deposition uh in soil from running off into our

[34:23] into local streams uh in the Wamut basin. And so, we're in that we're in

[34:28] that basin. And um uh the the plan gave timelines for implementing certain

[34:35] portions of the of the full requirement. And we're currently on item four on a

[34:42] table of items that include six items. The first three we took care of with um

[34:51] updates to our website, reporting on maintenance, things that we were already

[34:55] doing. So those were fairly basic things that we were already doing. We just had

[34:59] to document them. So we took care of that. Um this is this code amendment. Um

[35:06] uh I'll just read from the staff report here. Um the report's called the final

[35:12] revised Wamut Basin Mercury total maximum daily load plan. We call it the

[35:17] TMDL. We'll call it the Mercury TMDL plan. And in our case, it's for cities

[35:22] and populations under 10,000. There are different requirements for cities over

[35:26] 10,000 somewhat more stringent. They have a few

[35:30] more things to to deal with. Um the pre the plan required phase implementation

[35:34] of those requirements. The current phase requires establishment of an elicit

[35:38] discharge detection and elimination prevention program by ordinance and that

[35:43] we affectionately call the IDE prevention program. Um the exist

[35:49] existing chapter 1322 um which we currently have establishes

[35:55] the city storm water management utility and addresses administrative

[35:59] administration charges billing collection appeals [clears throat]

[36:04] account use um classification severability. However, the current

[36:08] chapter contains limited language addressing water quality, listicid

[36:14] connections and discharges, private storm water facilities, spill response,

[36:20] inspections, remediation, monitoring, enforcement.

[36:23] So to um there was a lot of things to incorporate in our code which were not

[36:30] there. So to help streamline that process, we looked to other agencies

[36:35] um that were similar in size. St. Helens is over 10,000. So they were required to

[36:42] implement these things about a year ago. They've had some time to work through

[36:45] the code. We looked at them. We seem to have some good model code for us. So we

[36:51] use that as the as the base for the red line update to our chapter 1322.

[36:58] And those things essentially added definitions

[37:03] um some f additional findings and policy um public and private maintenance

[37:08] responsibilities and then of course the water quality and

[37:11] elicit um discharge prohibitions permit compliance bill remediation the other

[37:16] things I mentioned earlier inspections and enforcement

[37:21] um in order to meet those IDE requirements.

[37:25] The amendment does not change any provisions regarding storm water rates.

[37:29] Those are being kept the same. Um so our recommendation to council is

[37:35] to approve the ordinance amending scapuse municipal code chapter 1322 as

[37:41] presented. It's it's um attached in your packet says exhibit A. Everything that's

[37:46] been changed is underlined and in red text so you can kind of page through and

[37:52] see what things were added. Um it's um so

[37:58] there any questions? >> Um yeah I what is um what is under

[38:04] enforcement provisions? >> The enforcement provisions

[38:08] » yeah what is that what do you define? >> Um will they're already have an

[38:13] obligation to do like private property owners are already required to do

[38:17] maintenance on their storm facilities. This would allow us uh an enforcement

[38:21] tool um uh to that. Um it it it identifies

[38:29] the a V amount which previously we didn't have for that was storm water

[38:34] specific. Um it names the

[38:38] um uh right now the enforcement will be through our nuisance code. So it

[38:44] references that code essentially. So we'll be using other code. We may we

[38:48] might provide more clarity um to this chapter in the future to have um

[38:53] enforcement called out more specifically here but for now we're using our

[38:57] existing code for that. Um the other thing is it identifies fines for elicit

[39:02] discharge which we don't really have identified. Traditionally that would

[39:07] have been handled through the DEEQ. We would have notified them and then they

[39:10] would they would investigate and issue some enforcement action.

[39:15] » Okay. Thank you. One question I have is um kind of modeling it after St. Helens.

[39:22] You did say they're over 10,000. Um so are we using their old plan? I mean

[39:29] is it more stringent? I mean are we we're still at the under 10,000 planning

[39:35] phase? >> They're um they're essentially

[39:40] I mean with regard to this it's essentially the same. will be meeting

[39:43] the same standard as they are.

[39:48] » Do we have resources to enforce this? Those those um those issues are in

[39:56] discussion. We currently do not. Well, we do through

[40:00] our code enforcement officer. And so that's that's how this that's how it

[40:05] will um there's some additional updates that we'll be doing that are

[40:11] required to be done over the next few years that will that will require um

[40:16] more routine inspections similar to what the DQ requires for um construction

[40:22] store 1200 C if you're familiar with that. We we don't necessarily have all

[40:29] the resources in place for that but we've got some years to figure it out.

[40:34] Uh Chris, what what's what's our history of testing for mercury in the community

[40:39] uh storm water? >> We don't have any we don't have any

[40:44] history of that >> any historical testing at all

[40:47] » and and I don't believe the DQ actually tested in our reach of

[40:50] » I noticed that on their on their chart. They just nothing close to us. But we we

[40:54] have no testing of mercury in our >> we've done testing over the years on

[40:58] channel and wastewater effluent. That's the

[41:02] » Okay. So, we have gotten the test out of our upload to the channel. Yeah. Okay.

[41:06] » I did I did make that suggestion that we do some, you know, analytics that go

[41:11] along with this and the temperature because we have a temperature TML we're

[41:15] having to write code for. Um that we would, you know, do some testing um at

[41:22] South Scampoo Creek coming into the city and then as it leaves the city. Good.

[41:25] » Because that would give us some really good baseline data to know if we're

[41:28] making progress. Um and possibly to somewhat um you know

[41:35] reduce the burden on the city if they're like you know you know making steps to

[41:40] um make things better or if there's just no change essentially. But the DQ wants

[41:45] all of these things implemented regardless of those levels.

[41:50] » Good. >> But I I do agree that that some testing

[41:53] would be good. >> Yeah. And we have been in discussions

[41:55] with the Scapus Bay Watershed Council executive director to do some testing.

[42:02] And so um we would probably do that um you know over the next few years just to

[42:09] get some baseline data. I think that would be a great idea.

[42:11] » Okay. >> And if we're found to be over the

[42:16] limits, what are the mitigation steps that can be taken? Well, we're not

[42:21] really we're not really over a limit. Although we don't know, right? Because

[42:26] we could be there could be stuff coming to us that I don't think anything from

[42:31] Scapus is causing an issue, but we could have waters coming to us that are

[42:35] because it's that basin is in a heavily logged area. And so basically what

[42:41] you're trying to do is control erosion and sediment

[42:46] uh because that transports mercury. So in so much as we can control um you know

[42:52] sediment loading in the creek then we'll then we should see you know we shouldn't

[42:56] see a problem here. Um you know even during high storm events

[43:03] we don't get a lot of erosion in the creek which is kind of good news. I

[43:06] think we we try to obviously those sources

[43:11] from within the city are he heavily regulated you know as as projects get

[43:16] developed they have you know strict controls over runoff.

[43:21] Um if we do find levels that are elevated um we would certainly discuss

[43:27] that with the DEQ. So right now I think that they're

[43:32] probably non-detectable because again it's all related to

[43:36] sediment transport. >> Yeah, I I I would guess that they're

[43:39] probably more likely in south north scapulas creek and south scapulas creek

[43:44] because of the whole rail activities and development up the up the canyon and

[43:49] » right with that.

[43:52] » So um just so did you get your answer did he answer your question? Well, it

[43:58] sounds like the city wouldn't be obligated to do a lot of extraordinary

[44:02] mitigation efforts if we had higher levels.

[44:06] » Yeah, we're already doing essentially we're already kind of doing all of these

[44:10] things anyway. We're just not it's just not being um documented. I mean,

[44:15] everything down to an acre is being managed ex, you know, how this code is

[44:19] written. Um we're just regulating it now down to a half an acre.

[44:23] » Okay. And so it's it's just more it's just a more stringent, you know, so now

[44:28] it's getting regulated down to smaller developments which essentially are

[44:32] already doing these these things anyway. So it's more of a documentation

[44:36] exercise. >> So did you say we're not documented or

[44:41] we will document? >> We would under this you're sort of

[44:44] having to document and >> Okay. So Okay, good. That's okay. Great.

[44:49] » Yeah. So, it's just more I mean, these things are happening, but they're more

[44:53] they're just, you know, people are observing if activities

[44:58] um might cause an issue and they're making contractors correct those issues,

[45:02] » okay, >> in the field. They're not like writing

[45:04] it in a log book. This this would essentially require that and then and

[45:09] then reporting back to the DQ on failures and and you know, and reporting

[45:16] on the remediation. Yeah, I guess I guess what when uh councelor Holmes

[45:21] asked that question, I also thought like who who would be responsible who you

[45:26] know obviously investigation who who pays for what if something happens if

[45:31] something bad happens or we get the water gets contaminated you know

[45:36] who's at fault and so we do have processes in place for those and that's

[45:40] what this ordinance about right >> yes and the and the enforcement piece

[45:44] would um there's a there's fines And then there's also whatever costs are

[45:50] related to cleaning up those elicit discharges because it could be many

[45:54] other things too, you know, >> and that would be your department,

[45:57] Chris. >> We would have code enforcement handle

[46:00] the enforcement and then it would go through the court system for the fines.

[46:04] » Court system. Okay. >> Yeah.

[46:06] » Thank you. >> We need to

[46:09] » Yeah. Let me add uh first this is a public hearing. So if there's no more

[46:13] questions, I will open up a public hearing.

[46:16] Anybody has any comments or anything public

[46:19] » and online? >> Nope. Okay, we will close the public

[46:23] hearing. Uh my question then is kind of looking at this as being a first

[46:27] reading, second reading. Is this like normal Ben where we will do a a motion

[46:31] and a second and then stop and come back and read it, finish it at the next

[46:35] meeting? >> Yeah.

[46:37] um not an emergency type where you have the

[46:41] 30 days you're talking about time. >> Mr. Mayor,

[46:44] » yes, Council President Miller, >> I move that council approve ordinance or

[46:48] we are still making the first motion though, right? Yeah. Okay. I move that

[46:50] council approve ordinance number 928 amending Scapus Municipal Code Chapter

[46:55] 13.22 storm water management.

[46:58] » Have a motion by council president Miller to approve ordinance 928 amending

[47:03] scapoo municipal code 13.22 22 storm water management as presented. Any

[47:08] second? >> Second.

[47:10] » Second, Marquee. Council Marquee. Okay, we'll leave it there as a first reading

[47:15] and we'll come back to the next meeting and discuss further take a vote.

[47:20] » Thank you very much, Chris. >> Thank you.

[47:22] » Thank you, Mr. City Manager. [laughter] [clears throat]

[47:27] » Besides uh asking about the bioolids, we're here for change order Keith Road.

[47:32] Um we're joined today by public works director Kevin Turner and the contract

[47:37] administrator Matia Malberg with the staff report on the change order.

[47:41] » Good evening, mayor and council. Uh we're here to discuss the change order

[47:46] tonight and Matia has been doing a great job with contracting and tracking and

[47:51] development of those. So she's going to go over tonight's change order and then

[47:55] I'll be available for any questions you have on those projects.

[48:00] » Good evening. Um, so this project has been going on since 2024 and we are in

[48:05] the final wrap-up stages. Um, there's a lot of detail within that staff report

[48:11] and I can certainly dive into that. Um, but I figured I'd just give you guys

[48:14] kind of an overview of what's happened. Um, so since the contract was signed uh,

[48:21] August 24 21st of 2024, there's been six approved change orders. Those are listed

[48:28] out within that staff uh report and they detail the amount of those um and what

[48:33] they were for. Combined, the total for those six change orders is just

[48:39] $12,889.92.

[48:43] This proposed change order, which is number seven, includes the completion of

[48:48] waterline work at depths greater than depicted on the contract drawings,

[48:53] resulting in additional time, labor, equipment, materials, and fees. And the

[48:57] proposed cost of this change order is $35,10014151.

[49:06] Stop is requesting changing the total not to exceed amount to 8,897,889.92

[49:17] to cover the currently requested changes from MEI and any unforeseen additional

[49:22] changes that should arise during the completion of this project. While there

[49:26] are no anticipated future change orders in these final stages, staff is also

[49:30] requesting that city manager Bergner be authorized to execute any additional

[49:36] change orders up to his limit to ensure the timely completion of the project.

[49:40] The council approve approved a special works

[49:44] fund loan on November 18th of 2024 with resolution 2417

[49:50] for the amount of $2.95 million. Remaining funds currently sit at

[49:55] $955,843.

[49:59] The estimated remaining amount to be invoiced, which does include this change

[50:03] order request from MEI, is $439,60.72.

[50:11] So staff is recommending that council approve authorizing city manager Bergner

[50:16] a not to exceed budget of 8,89789.92

[50:23] for me an authorization to execute any additional change orders within his

[50:28] limit for the purpose of completing the keys reservoir project.

[50:34] » Is this within your limit now? I mean >> normally to 35,000.

[50:40] » Yes, it would have normally. My my limit is 75, but because the prior agreement

[50:45] had a limit of a a total $8 million flush project, it it really falls into

[50:51] that approval. Um so yeah, it's typically I mean we talked about this at

[50:57] the prior meeting um and the way we're looking at maybe adjusting the

[51:01] procurement in the in the future would be to have that similar to where you

[51:04] have the overall project but then on small ones we can you know on a on a $9

[51:09] million project 50,75 is not really a whole lot um compared to the rest of the

[51:13] project and it's very possible to hit those and change orders. We hope they

[51:16] don't. This one has stayed pretty low relatively to the rest of the project

[51:20] only at just over 40,000 uh for the total of the project thus far

[51:25] and that's all we're anticipating at this point. But it does um yeah where

[51:30] normally we could adjust or approve these because of the way we've

[51:33] structured this in the past. We have to come back for a smaller approval.

[51:38] » Does um is this about done? I mean we we are we using it yet?

[51:42] » We're not using it yet but the reservoir is full. Uh we're waiting on telemetry

[51:46] connections and a valve swap on the exterior new reservoir.

[51:52] » So will it be used in September, October? I mean if

[51:54] » Oh yeah, we're we're just a few weeks away from completion.

[51:58] » Really drowning season. Um and no, we still have money available on the loan.

[52:04] How it reads? >> That's correct.

[52:08] event. And were these changes done uh requested by the city or were they all

[52:13] changes uh done by the contractor requ that they needed to make these changes?

[52:18] » The contractor is construction project. There's always changes to it. The

[52:22] biggest one was the the depth of the pipe. The main cluster of valves was

[52:27] additional 10 ft. They started getting into that around January. So there's a

[52:31] lot of dewatering and just mud they had to deal with to get to that.

[52:35] Did they anticipate or put it part of the proposal? Did or was that part

[52:40] » it was labeled wrong. It was identified at a wrong depth in in the proposal. The

[52:45] proposal the old plans from whenever that was built were not accurate.

[52:51] » So So Kevin, so who was who was responsible for the inaccuracy?

[52:56] The contractor. >> I guess it would be the original plans

[52:59] and I don't know the date of that. 78 I believe. So th those plans didn't match

[53:06] the depth when they did their calculations,

[53:10] » right? So can we recover anything from that that contract for for for this

[53:15] error? >> You know, I I don't know if there was

[53:19] additional soil brought on after the fact that changed those depths. I I

[53:23] don't have that information. And in these larger projects, it's very common

[53:27] to not I mean, even the best engineers try to do their best they can while

[53:31] they're creating these. But when you get on the project in person, there's always

[53:36] on-site unknowns that weren't identified because it's under the ground. We just

[53:40] have no clue what's there or it was maybe years of dirt that have

[53:45] accumulated or there's so many different I you said 70 1970 something.

[53:49] future reference. Can we build that into our contracts so that we that the

[53:54] contractor eats this? >> It it all depends on if it's really a

[53:59] fault of theirs or a fault of ours um or it's just an unknown and no party knew

[54:04] about it typically. So, for example, we had a um a [clears throat] valve that

[54:08] needed to be replaced that we were looking at a change over of 180

[54:11] » $180,000 >> $180,000. As we went through that, we

[54:14] found out there was an error on the um that there was a separate error that was

[54:19] actually on the the contractor's side. And so we were able to recover that and

[54:22] say, "Hey, this was your error." And so they went down and fixed and it was a

[54:27] separate thing that actually caused the issue. It wasn't what we had originally

[54:29] thought, but it it did um save the city an $180,000 change order because we were

[54:35] able to identify that. So we do that quite often if it is clearly their

[54:38] fault. um something that they did that they should have known or that it was

[54:43] because of their own actions, we can usually recover those. It's just really

[54:46] when it comes down to the unknown of plans from the city side or um a

[54:51] contract from 1970 that's pretty hard to recover 40 years

[54:56] later who really is at fault on that one. It's just unknown.

[55:00] » So I I have a sorry something to clarify. So the the engineering plans

[55:05] were done in the 70s. Is am I hearing that correctly? Okay, that portion of

[55:09] the plant is 1978 I believe 7778. >> I add too that had had the contractor

[55:16] known that there was the additional depth of the piping they just their

[55:19] contract value originally would have been more anyway essentially what you're

[55:24] seeing I mean what might have been slightly

[55:27] less but they would have accounted for that.

[55:29] » So is this below the new reservoir or this below the building? Is this below

[55:33] the old reservoir? >> It's in between the building and the

[55:35] reservoir. It's the main valve cluster that valves the processed water to the 3

[55:41] million gallon reservoir or the 2 million gallon reservoir.

[55:46] And these were part of the engineering plans for the new reservoir that were

[55:50] done in the 70s. Yes, those original elevations were taken from those plans

[55:55] and then those current project plans weren't made

[55:59] in the 70s, but the information they got >> were from the plans that were left in

[56:05] the 70s. >> The original plans and they don't dig

[56:09] down to get those depths for the new plans. They go off the old plans and

[56:12] sometimes >> those aren't updated. I mean, these days

[56:16] we do a better job of making changes. if there was something they ran into back

[56:20] then, they had to change the elevation in the field and that didn't get updated

[56:24] to the plan. That happens occasionally. >> Okay.

[56:30] » In terms of the reference to the authorizing the city manager um uh to

[56:36] just prove the change orders up to the limit, could we make it I think this

[56:40] could be read one of two ways. It could be read that in total the change orders

[56:45] could sum up to 75,000 or for each request as long as it's under 75,000.

[56:50] » I I would dictate totality would be within that. I mean that would be of the

[56:54] project. I wouldn't be able to do individual for something like this.

[56:58] That's how I'd recommend doing it since it is such a big project. It just be for

[57:02] the small oneoffs or you know if we need to do something quick that at least

[57:05] gives us that flexibility. But anything above and beyond that we'd have to or

[57:09] after several that we have to bring it back to the council and obviously give

[57:13] them an update and explain next route from there.

[57:17] » Yeah. And I would be comfortable with that because if you look at all seven

[57:19] change orders, they still don't up to 75,000. So I think that is a a good way

[57:24] to proceed efficiently. But we'll just should make that clear.

[57:29] » And there's no realistic way we get MEI to eat this.

[57:34] Well, >> it's not really MEI's issue.

[57:38] » Yeah. >> That it's just something they had to

[57:40] deal with. >> Well, right. But they have they they bid

[57:42] on a not to exceed mount and then you have the change orders which are are we

[57:47] already passed. But then this is something new. I a company should

[57:52] anticipate those kinds of things when they when they make a bid on a not to

[57:55] exceed project. That that was that was my point is

[57:58] » sure any way we can get them to eat that. Well, it does depend on what the

[58:02] contract language says, too. I'm sure there's there is some caveats built into

[58:07] that, but without knowing what that is, I you know,

[58:10] » no, that that was my question. So, there is no way we can we can carve that out.

[58:15] » No, not I mean there there's no identified their fault issue difference

[58:19] in the plan. They have to put more money in than they anticipated. They didn't

[58:22] have good information from us in the first place to bid appropriately.

[58:26] » They made it based on the plans we gave them. They don't dig down and find out

[58:29] where. So, we If we had told them 10 feet lower, they would have bid $35,000

[58:35] higher. If >> it was a couple feet off, I'm sure that

[58:37] would have happened. But okay, >> this is pretty significant.

[58:41] » But then I mean maybe your question stems around what type of contingency

[58:45] was originally built into the contract and have they run through their

[58:48] contingency? >> I'm I'm not sure on that one. That would

[58:51] be >> um to my knowledge, they haven't um run

[58:55] through their contingency at all. Even to this day, we haven't even reached uh

[59:00] reached the full amount that they have to bill yet. So, even with this change

[59:06] order, we're still um well, minus the change order, we still haven't reached

[59:11] that not to exceed. That makes sense. Sorry.

[59:14] » So, there's still a possibility that it could be under

[59:17] » Yeah, there's still a possibility we could be under that amount. Okay.

[59:21] » But just not having them fully build us yet. You're asking for about a 50,000

[59:27] increase to the not to exceed order. About what it is 7,000 52,000.

[59:36] » Uh I believe it's about like Yeah, that's about right. A little bit under.

[59:42] » Mr. Mayor, >> Council President Miller,

[59:44] » I move that council authorize city manager Bergener to not to exceed budget

[59:49] of 8,89 or excuse me 8,897,8892

[59:55] cents for MEI and authorization to execute any additional change orders

[1:00:00] within his limit for the purpose of completing the Keys

[1:00:05] reservoir project. Do we need to add some clarification? That's a total of

[1:00:09] 75,000 for all the change orders. >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:00:13] » I have a motion by council president Miller to approve authorize city manager

[1:00:19] bringer to not to exceed budget of 8,897,889

[1:00:24] to 92 cents for me and authorization to execute any additional change orders

[1:00:30] within his limits for the purpose of completing the Keys

[1:00:34] Reservoir project. >> Any second? Second.

[1:00:37] » Second by councelor Hogan. Any more discussion?

[1:00:41] Seeing none, all those in favor say by saying I. I.

[1:00:44] » Opposed. Motion carries. Appreciate it. >> Thank you.

[1:00:49] » Thank you. >> Okay. Um, now we're on to our 2026 to

[1:00:56] 2028 LOC legislative priorities. City manager Van Ber with the staff report.

[1:01:03] » Awesome. Thank you. Um, and before I start that, Tia, Kevin, Chris, thank you

[1:01:07] for your time. And Lori earlier for everything that you guys have done, put

[1:01:11] a lot of time into everything that you you do and all these.

[1:01:15] » And I should add really quick, too, it's the reservoir is looking really good. We

[1:01:19] some of us drive by it, you know, several times daily, and it looks very

[1:01:22] nice. Thank you. I've still just I'd love to have it wrapped with trees

[1:01:27] paint, you know, paint re, you know, I'll show you several on the map that

[1:01:31] we'll get a class up there painting it or some mural group or something with

[1:01:34] wrap it with green trees.

[1:01:41] » That's a great idea. >> Maybe an urban renewal project.

[1:01:44] » Yeah, some trees up there. [laughter and clears throat]

[1:01:49] » Thank you very much. Real quick.

[1:01:52] » All right. Um so League of Oregon Cities uh priority list each every other year

[1:01:59] the League of Oregon Cities sends out a member voting guide detailing 20 well

[1:02:03] this year it's 27 different legislative uh policy priorities. These 27

[1:02:08] priorities were created by seven legal Oregon city policy committees that

[1:02:12] consist of city officials throughout the state of Oregon. Um we do have a

[1:02:16] deadline to respond uh within by September 25th. So, we don't have to

[1:02:22] have an answer today. We could um make final answers by the next council

[1:02:28] meeting if we wanted to. However, I'll leave that with the council if there is

[1:02:31] clear direction or if we want to do uh votes offline and bring it back with a

[1:02:37] summary of the votes. Uh the the purpose of today's meeting or agenda item is

[1:02:42] mostly to discuss or have the each council member have the opportunity to

[1:02:46] discuss anything that they saw on there that they should want to note for each

[1:02:50] council member to consider that they feel might be of importance. Um the goal

[1:02:54] here in the end of today either today and next time or just today is to come

[1:02:58] up with five top priorities that the council would like to send on to the

[1:03:02] legal Oregon cities. They take these top five five priorities that you submit and

[1:03:07] they assemble those with all the rest of the priorities from the other cities

[1:03:10] that submit and they use that to uh create their own priority list when they

[1:03:14] go to do lobbying at the state legislature of really where they want to

[1:03:18] focus most their attention on. Um so yeah, just because we submit the five

[1:03:22] doesn't mean those will be their top five, but it gives us a chance to be

[1:03:25] part of that process and to help identify where we feel they should do.

[1:03:29] Another thing I want to accomplish that we didn't do last time that would be

[1:03:33] helpful is to go through each of the priorities or at least identify if

[1:03:37] there's any priorities you don't feel we should have as um just for me. So if the

[1:03:42] league organ cities reaches out and asks us to provide support for against

[1:03:46] something I know where the council's opinion is on that so I could jump in

[1:03:50] and provide that on behalf of the city. um even beyond the top five just so we

[1:03:54] kind of know a yay or nay or for this or against this support this or not. Um

[1:04:00] that way it gives me direction separate from this of how to work through the

[1:04:03] legislative s session. Any questions?

[1:04:08] » I mean >> they there is a lot of good stuff in

[1:04:10] there. Um yeah some context in this I served on

[1:04:16] two of the league's seven committees uh and uh and there was a lot of contention

[1:04:21] you know among throughout Oregon so um u this is important you know so I my

[1:04:28] suggestion at this point is to for us to each ruminate on the ones that are

[1:04:34] articulated here and there were actually quite a few more beyond that that didn't

[1:04:37] make the list um and then rank them you know for like like Ben suggested

[1:04:42] Um and then maybe we each score our top five and then the next meeting we can

[1:04:47] kind of coales and see where where we have agreement where we where we make

[1:04:51] some have a consensus on. I think that's probably the one of the more efficient

[1:04:56] ways after committ after hours and hours on these committees. Um it's uh you you

[1:05:02] can't do that in you can't do this in in in 20 minutes or an hour.

[1:05:07] » Absolutely. The reason that's what we did last year and the reason I brought

[1:05:10] this ahead of time was I felt it it might be and maybe it's not necessary an

[1:05:15] opportunity for you to be able to at least have a discussion before votes are

[1:05:19] done. >> Yeah.

[1:05:20] » Guess your own way to lobby for what you think is most important before people

[1:05:22] vote for it. >> But yeah, that's my suggestion. We we

[1:05:25] each go through this list and we send our our amalgamation to you, right?

[1:05:29] » And then at the next meeting and we have sill time by the 25th,

[1:05:33] » right? Um then then we come up as as a consensus of our five top five,

[1:05:37] » right? >> Hey Ben, do you can you remind us what

[1:05:40] we voted for last year and where we um where did LLC um

[1:05:47] you know what did they uh actually achieve with those?

[1:05:50] » I can get back to you on that. I don't have those present. Um

[1:05:55] the accurate information >> that would be helpful.

[1:05:57] » Yeah, I can send that out after the meeting. So if we had discussed a little

[1:06:00] bit quickly about them and and and um and then maybe send you our top five

[1:06:06] » and then you can kind of give numbers and if all of us said one of them then

[1:06:11] we know we all are passionate about that but then at the next meeting we can kind

[1:06:14] of fine and come up. How many do you want to submit to the LLC?

[1:06:19] » We we can only do top five to them but I mean we can have as many.

[1:06:23] » Yeah. If you submit top five and you see three of them were unanimous, then

[1:06:27] you'll know if they've for letters of support or questions and you know how we

[1:06:32] feel. >> Um, [clears throat]

[1:06:34] I'll just kind of start. I mean, they're all good. The ones that I've heard a lot

[1:06:37] of, you know, I'm on a on a um on a task force right now about e uh

[1:06:44] energy transmission capacity. And you know, that's a big one for us is just

[1:06:49] that the transmission itself. We got a lot of issues with power lines and stuff

[1:06:53] and I know it's it's all around the state. Um so I to me that's an important

[1:06:58] one I'd like to kind of look into more um that directly affecting me because

[1:07:04] I'm having to do meetings and stuff with it.

[1:07:09] What I had uh and you know we do public meeting law clarity seems to come up a

[1:07:13] lot and and kind of changing in the importance of it. So, I'm always wanting

[1:07:18] to make sure we're above board and and we're on we know any changes they make

[1:07:23] or recommendations. Um, so that's kind of a a big one that I

[1:07:29] hear a lot about. And then infrastructure funding, loving

[1:07:34] to be able to like those direct funding we got on ARPA dollars or money that we

[1:07:39] could just use for our own decisions. It's really good to be able to have some

[1:07:44] money for our water and our storm water and our wastewater facility.

[1:07:50] » Well, for me, it's almost on topics that that we're struggling with statewide,

[1:07:55] which is and sometimes country, you know, the country, but uh I know

[1:07:59] transportation we're struggling with, excuse me, dollars are being taken away

[1:08:03] from like ODOT. So, um and then workforce workforce development. So to

[1:08:10] me that's, you know, most of what I do and see it every day. So

[1:08:15] » I know on the transportation, they almost passed that emergency tax bill

[1:08:19] [clears throat] in the middle of the session. I mean, it's it's a big deal

[1:08:22] out there. We may not see it dayto day on our own, but it's if you read about

[1:08:26] it, it sounds like they're broke and need definite fixing.

[1:08:32] » I think land use street lining will be not all the time, but it's total mess.

[1:08:49] Yeah, we've always heard that Oregon's land use laws are really complex and

[1:08:54] hard

[1:08:59] » especially if she's trying to get us to build a lot of housing.

[1:09:03] » Um, but they aren't giving you the tools to have it done.

[1:09:07] » Yeah. AI too, >> the cyber security

[1:09:29] complex. We have citizens, you know, are literally cutting down, destroying

[1:09:37] uh it's reached the point where the company itself is actually backtracking

[1:09:41] kind of damage public relation. So I think this would be a prime

[1:09:48] to uh to implement some sort of consistent coherent idea

[1:09:55] what they do how they do it how they it's getting

[1:10:03] some sort of leadership

[1:10:12] I guess I'll share my thoughts first of all I'm a bit disappoint appointed that

[1:10:15] there's not more meaningful ideas around tax reform.

[1:10:18] » That's my big [laughter] >> like where are the long-term meaningful

[1:10:22] solutions? So, um but uh more positively the the things that really stood out to

[1:10:29] me, the public meeting law clarity. Um, I remember going through the public uh

[1:10:34] was it the Oregon Ethics Committee training that we're all required to and

[1:10:38] to do and um, you know, some of the the newer reforms I think discourage people

[1:10:44] from public service. There were people on like planning committees and

[1:10:47] different jurisdictions who were like this isn't worth it to me to be

[1:10:50] personally liable, right? So, I think that's a really important one. I think

[1:10:54] the land availability and land use streamlining is also really important.

[1:10:58] And then my other three really revolve around energy. The energy resilience

[1:11:02] disaster planning support expedited local renewable energy generation and

[1:11:07] support increased energy transmission. I think these are some of the biggest

[1:11:11] constraints for uh economic development um and risk for communities.

[1:11:20] » Some of these to me look like they're not real obtainable. So,

[1:11:26] um, I would, you know, reading through these, it's, I mean, these all sound

[1:11:29] great, but I think we also need to be realistic on I would rather see LOC put

[1:11:34] their time into things that are likely to be obtainable than

[1:11:39] um, picking things and trying to spearhead things that are a waste of

[1:11:43] time, basically. >> Or they need to stand out right off the

[1:11:46] bat. I think start >> um, I just kind of skimmed over.

[1:11:53] It's kind of funny just listening to everybody because, you know, based on

[1:11:57] their experience and what committees they're involved in, you know, the

[1:12:01] that's kind of their wheelhouse and so they kind of,

[1:12:04] » no pun intended, flock to those >> those topics. So, um, you know, like the

[1:12:11] emergency communication system one stands out to me because of my

[1:12:14] background and being on the 901 board and understanding, you know, the lack of

[1:12:18] funding for, um, those systems that, you know, every

[1:12:22] 10 years they're basically outdated. So, um, I don't I would like to take a

[1:12:29] strong a more in-depth look at these, but

[1:12:32] » yeah, I would maybe vote on your top five in order of of employees and it is

[1:12:38] funny. there isn't anything on policing or safety or really um specifically I

[1:12:44] mean and then the taxation is the big one I I they've even kind of said it's

[1:12:48] just too big for them to to but you got to start somewhere if there is an issue

[1:12:52] and everyone says there is why can't you at least start a you don't have to solve

[1:12:57] it in the one year but you can start getting people at the table and

[1:13:02] » and it is the biggest issue that impacts us so I agree with too big for LOC to

[1:13:08] tackle who's going to tackle it?

[1:13:11] » But but that's the thing is, you know, these five are important because because

[1:13:16] we're, you know, those those are going to be the focus of the lobbying effort

[1:13:19] on on the legislature in the next legislative session. So, you know, if we

[1:13:23] if we can have our input and it aligns with 75 or 80% of the other communities,

[1:13:29] then we've got a much more forceful argument. Um, and so, you know, putting

[1:13:34] some thought into those, you know, because I I I've got eight or 10 that

[1:13:37] I'd really like to see there, but I know it has to be, you know, down to five.

[1:13:41] And so, I think that's where we have to think about this and I I like this this

[1:13:45] kind of Ben's suggestion of just having a spreadsheet and and list them, you

[1:13:49] know, this one. Yes. You know, so, you know, that kind

[1:13:54] of thumbs up approach. And I think when we we melt together just from market

[1:13:58] listening the conversation I think there's three or four or at least two or

[1:14:01] three we all we all are going to agree on.

[1:14:04] » You look up last year's they went or two years ago they went and they fought for

[1:14:08] five things and be interesting to see what they are. One of them was the tax

[1:14:13] on hotels being able cities have more ability to do that. They kind of died in

[1:14:18] committee and and one was a transportation one. So you kind of see

[1:14:22] what they fought for and which ones didn't get out of committee and which

[1:14:26] ones they got. They won some things. The recreation immunity one was a big one,

[1:14:30] » right? And they don't just focus on the top five. That's just kind of gives them

[1:14:33] their main priority, but they they do lobby for the rest of them as well as

[1:14:37] they come up. You know, they did have some success and they and we had um

[1:14:41] Patty do a presentation um or some from the organization show

[1:14:46] what they had done and what they had accomplished out of those. A couple of

[1:14:49] considerations for that staff. I haven't got it from all the directors yet, but

[1:14:53] they had mentioned um as notable the maintaining the local control of a safe

[1:14:58] and modern rideway. So that affects like our franchise agreements taking away our

[1:15:02] ability to charge on those. Uh telecommunications has been a huge one

[1:15:06] nationwide that has been trying to fight that. Um, but it is our right away, our

[1:15:11] land, and the goal, I guess, is there's those who are trying to take away that

[1:15:15] ability for us to have franchise agreements or the ability to um

[1:15:21] control those as much take away some of that.

[1:15:23] » I have a question. Uh, am I understanding correctly that you're

[1:15:26] going to send something out and have us vote?

[1:15:28] » Yep. I'm just giving considerations for thoughts and then we were gonna Yeah,

[1:15:32] we're going to do the one through five. I'm going to tally them together and

[1:15:34] then we'll have additional discussion next time. So would it be um realistic

[1:15:39] with your time to also just put I don't know if you want to do like a graded

[1:15:45] assessment on what you think the likelihood of I mean I want to spend I

[1:15:51] want to make a recommendation for them to use their time wisely on something

[1:15:54] that's going to return something that is actually

[1:15:59] I want to I want to advocate for something that's achievable. So yeah, I

[1:16:02] could I could maybe give a little bit of that input of if it's a near-term or

[1:16:05] long term. You know, for example, you mentioned about the taxation um wanting

[1:16:09] that in there some of the issues. So the legal organities is going through a

[1:16:12] process for that. However, for the actual legislative session, they're very

[1:16:17] limited because it's a charter amendment they have to go through. So it's a

[1:16:19] voter, it has to go out to the voters. So when they actually are going to do

[1:16:23] something, they want to send that out and knowing that the states voters are

[1:16:27] going to approve it, not just try to get the legislation behind it because they

[1:16:31] can't do a whole lot with it at maybe just that session. Then maybe they could

[1:16:34] have some type of adjustments. I don't know the limits of that, but I do know

[1:16:38] they are um bound. It's pretty difficult on that one

[1:16:43] because it is in the state charter of how that is working with those taxes.

[1:16:48] But yeah, I I could um a lot of them I may not know uh if it's

[1:16:53] I mean some of these I don't deal with directly. So as you might have to make

[1:16:58] your own decision on that. Um yeah, so and I can send out the rest with the the

[1:17:03] staff as well just kind of showing where those are at. Oh, we'll go through that

[1:17:07] next time. The other one that really stood out um well I'll just name them

[1:17:11] the ones that they put down. So the rightway the cyber security proficiency

[1:17:15] the public meeting laws. So a lot of what you guys had mentioned already um

[1:17:19] there was a mention of the shelter and homeless response full funding and

[1:17:22] streamlining for housing production and land availability. So all three of the

[1:17:26] housing land use ones their support for several of the energy and environment

[1:17:30] committee. Obviously we have a um transmission issue in our county and

[1:17:34] that affects the businesses that come into town or the ability to give them

[1:17:37] electricity. So that was mentioned. Emergency communication system resource

[1:17:42] was mentioned. uh the autonomous vehicles cautious adoption and

[1:17:46] infrastructure funding were the the ones that they had identified and and like

[1:17:50] you said it is interesting because the response I got from them were within

[1:17:53] their own wheelhouse as well. I mean, you have public works looking at public

[1:17:57] works stuff, planning, look at planning stuff. Um, I think there's a lot of good

[1:18:01] stuff in here. It's just ultimately what you want to submit.

[1:18:04] » That's good. I wouldn't really thought much about modern right away, but then

[1:18:07] when you see that it's also the revenue derived from the use of that and that's

[1:18:11] good to hear that that does affect us directly.

[1:18:14] » Right. Well, our biggest challenge is funding. Is that an accurate statement

[1:18:18] for all the cities? Really, all the smaller cities basically

[1:18:21] » usually um unfunded mandates which goes back to funding. We mentioned that with

[1:18:24] the the storm water today, they make new regulations. Do we have the people who

[1:18:28] can actually enforce it? Um yeah, infrastructure control. A lot of the

[1:18:32] things that hit us are around funding or the ability to

[1:18:37] um to get their >> other than the public meetings law is

[1:18:41] not funding one >> and power for us

[1:18:45] » transmission. It's funding for the PUB they need, but it is what gets in the

[1:18:49] way of it because talking to the PUD, I mean, it's $20 million plus if they get

[1:18:54] Bonavville to actually support systemwide, this will be a big hit for

[1:18:58] our county that we'd have to um deal with. So,

[1:19:02] » all these probably kind of go back to funding except public meetings, but

[1:19:05] it's, you know, shelter and homeless and the funding for that, the revenue from

[1:19:10] alcohol, that's revenue. the local, you know, the rightway. I mean, all these

[1:19:14] kind of come back to a funding issue. >> Instead of addressing the tax,

[1:19:20] how we tax, they want to do all these other little

[1:19:25] » Okay. Any more? >> No. If there's any more discussion for

[1:19:28] you, I just I just want to have the conversation. You guys had a chance to

[1:19:31] just talk about them. Any questions you have about any of them, and then like

[1:19:34] Yeah. So, if you just want to get me your top five, uh, just email them to me

[1:19:37] in the next couple weeks. Read through those, ask me questions. Um, you could

[1:19:42] go back and review the meeting or I can send out the results of their last time

[1:19:46] with what five that we voted on last year. So, I'll send that out. Um, yeah.

[1:19:53] » Has LC in their meetings. I have I haven't attended the last one. Um, have

[1:19:58] they presented and said, "Well, it seems like these are the ones that we can

[1:20:03] actually, you know, um,

[1:20:08] advocate for." and then that they seemed like they were a possibility to pass

[1:20:13] um or anything like that like >> no they haven't I mean all these went

[1:20:17] through the policy committees of what cities are facing um so they already

[1:20:21] have some type they already have some poor direction that these are important

[1:20:24] and have a direction that they want to support to move towards some of them may

[1:20:30] be longer than others as far as timeline to get something done

[1:20:34] um >> I just like to you I forgot her name um

[1:20:37] she's the one that uh was talks about all the legislation or the update.

[1:20:43] » No, the um >> I think sometimes uh does that as well?

[1:20:49] I >> think she has like red hair.

[1:20:51] » Oh, >> anyways, I think it'd be good to get her

[1:20:54] opinion. Is it not Jessica? Is it >> I have a whole lobbying team. So, it

[1:20:58] just depends on who came to that meeting.

[1:21:00] » Can we reach out to them? >> Yeah, you guys can reach out

[1:21:03] » by all means. >> Good. Thank you.

[1:21:07] Okay, thank you. Uh, moving on. Uh, looking at cancelling the right after

[1:21:13] Labor Day, September 8th, city council meeting. Anything pressing that we need

[1:21:18] to we will be missing. Are we still good on

[1:21:21] that? >> Okay, good.

[1:21:23] » Caught up on this year plan. Everything good?

[1:21:28] All right. Um, I guess we've stuck to voting on

[1:21:33] that. Does anybody have a motion to cancel September 8th meeting?

[1:21:39] » That is right after Labor Day. >> And with that, I mean, that means staff,

[1:21:43] everybody has to get their reports in. Yeah.

[1:21:45] » And um and and it's harder for us to look at a lot of notes if we're out of

[1:21:52] town on the three-day weekends, and if there's nothing pressing, it costs money

[1:21:56] every time we have a meeting. So, we've been doing pretty good right now. Um

[1:22:00] definitely willing to go to two meetings and get the business done especially if

[1:22:04] it starts to pick up as the year progressive progressive.

[1:22:09] » Mr. Mayor, I move the we council on September. [clears throat]

[1:22:12] » Councelor Han makes a motion to council the September 8, 2026 city council

[1:22:16] meeting. Second by councelor Rayuda. Any more discussion? Seeing none, all those

[1:22:21] in favor state by saying I. I >> oppose.

[1:22:26] Carries. Thank you. Um, we're on to the calendar. August

[1:22:35] 17th. Okay. For the rest of the month, we do have still movies in the park the

[1:22:39] last two Fridays in August and the Scaven Farmers Market 9 to 2 every

[1:22:44] Saturday in August and September. Uh, looks like right now the next council

[1:22:50] work session at 6:00 p.m. followed by council meeting at 7 p.m. on September

[1:22:55] 21st. That's it for the calendar update. City

[1:22:59] manager Ben Bergen, any updates? >> Yeah. Um, just first of all, it's it's

[1:23:05] always exciting um to work with the staff that we do have. Um, Kevin Turner

[1:23:10] is here, the new public works director. He's really had a lot on his plate. He's

[1:23:13] come over uh taken over that position just to see how he's already thriving

[1:23:18] and the different things that we've been able to do since he has come in. Uh,

[1:23:23] it's been really great to see. I hope the community has had a chance to go out

[1:23:26] and see the progress of the playground that is being built. It looks really

[1:23:29] good. Um, people have utilized the pickle ball temporary courts that we

[1:23:33] have in there as well as the disc golf course that is all new within the last

[1:23:37] month and a half. So, a lot of uh areas on the parks, a lot of infrastructure

[1:23:42] upgrades and improvements. Uh, we're excited with the basalt well, actually

[1:23:46] getting down to the basalt well, which is further than we've been before. They

[1:23:49] will be getting that secured. Um then you get down to they're at 85ish

[1:23:54] feet and then you get down to 800 a little over 820 to actually secure uh

[1:24:00] the um the casing

[1:24:05] water. Yeah. >> Not not yet. No, they need to get the

[1:24:07] casing in there and secure it actually in the basalt layer before they're going

[1:24:10] to drill down and actually look for the water um beyond that. So they've gotten

[1:24:15] further than we were able to get in the past. It was really good to see that

[1:24:18] progress cuz we got past all the major obstacles that we've hit. From this

[1:24:21] point on, it's it's really drilling down and they're contract to go down to,200

[1:24:25] ft. So, we've got a good room to go with that. Um hopefully we hit something in

[1:24:31] less than that. But, uh we are excited to see that progress and moving forwards

[1:24:36] along with the the water and the wastewater plants getting right at the

[1:24:39] end of those and the the benefit they'll have to the community.

[1:24:44] Um yeah, as far as uh other part uh just

[1:24:51] you know it's always good to follow up on the you know it's unfortunate uh that

[1:24:57] sometimes there's well recently a lot of public comment that attacks our police

[1:25:02] department and I I do want to express my disagreement with the characterization

[1:25:06] of our staff as well as the chief. I do fully support the police chief and his

[1:25:11] staff for all they do. They're not perfect where they have imperfections

[1:25:14] they improve on, but they're really good staff and they're providing a really

[1:25:17] good service to our community. Um that, you know, easily it's easy to hone

[1:25:22] in on individual imperfections, but it ignores the totality of their

[1:25:26] performance and the contribution to our community and the city, including the

[1:25:29] training and growth process that all employees go through as they learn their

[1:25:32] jobs and and look to get better. Uh once again, I fully support them and I I

[1:25:37] support our decisions and the associate promotions. We have done the best we can

[1:25:41] with the resources we have and look forward to continue to provide the best

[1:25:46] service possible to our community.

[1:25:50] » I have a question, Ben. Were you familiar with the incident that um in

[1:25:55] public comment that was mentioned in the public comments?

[1:25:58] » Which one? >> Um the incident that that uh she

[1:26:02] addressed >> with the firearm, I believe. the firearm

[1:26:05] and >> and no that was the first time I I had

[1:26:09] heard of that one >> or the accusation related to a firearm

[1:26:13] that way since there >> exactly I'm just wondering what how much

[1:26:17] truth or because you know this is it's public comment it's in the public and

[1:26:22] people are going to hear what they want to hear but I also want to hear like

[1:26:25] there's two sides to a story >> well yeah what what I want to say and I

[1:26:29] don't want to get into personnel issues um and um the can of worms that that

[1:26:35] brings. But when we do receive any public comment about anything new that

[1:26:40] we have maybe not heard or we may already know, we do look into all of

[1:26:43] those and if there's any adjustments, we do make those or do proper training for

[1:26:46] that. We take all comments, whether from public comment or written comments uh

[1:26:51] seriously. We take a look at all of them and review them. Doesn't mean we always

[1:26:55] agree with all of everything that's done. doesn't mean that we do everything

[1:26:57] they ask us to do because sometimes people misuse that process or they just

[1:27:01] don't understand the process, but we do review every single one and if there is

[1:27:06] any opportunity for growth, we always take a look at that and and we own up to

[1:27:09] those and and change those uh where we we can or where it's feasible to do so.

[1:27:14] » And and I know you do that. It's just um I think it it would help just if we're

[1:27:18] more transparent with okay, we followed up and this is what we done. Not you

[1:27:22] have to explain everything, but you have addressed it. So then we know because

[1:27:27] then they they come and then they say, "Well, they never they never got back to

[1:27:32] us. It was kind of put to the side and it was we were ignored." We just want to

[1:27:36] know we want I for me I want to know both sides of the story.

[1:27:40] » Council Shini, um I was going to talk about that, but

[1:27:43] » Okay. >> Can I hold off and see if you're going

[1:27:45] to say something? Once again, I want to be very careful with personnel related

[1:27:48] experiences, >> right? Um, while there's a lot of

[1:27:51] information people would like to know and it's fun to know, when it comes to

[1:27:55] personnel, what I can say is we do take those serious. We'll look into them and

[1:28:00] we will make any training or corrections if there is anything substantiated in

[1:28:05] that. But we do not follow up on those because that would be addressing whether

[1:28:09] there was personnel performance issues done or not.

[1:28:12] » Um, which is a protected record. Um, but we do look into those and we do follow

[1:28:22] up on them internally. >> I want you to state that further also

[1:28:24] for the record. Thank you. >> Is it is it accurate to say that um her

[1:28:30] statement that the person that was the citizen that was involved in that did we

[1:28:35] receive a complaint? Can is there just that you don't have to go any further

[1:28:40] than that. Just was there a complaint? >> Yes, there was.

[1:28:44] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:28:47] since you have the cach um chief luella. >> All right. Good afternoon, Mayor. Also,

[1:28:54] counselors also those online who are watching us later on. So, first I want

[1:28:57] to say congratulation to officer Jacob Cunningham. Um just graduated academy.

[1:29:02] He's out here doing his FTO process. He graduated with over 90% at the academy

[1:29:06] auto reference. So, good to him. Um thank you was choing at the bit to talk

[1:29:12] about this but I won't go into more additional details to the um the grand

[1:29:17] center but just ref comment and I give there first I'll start about towing um I

[1:29:22] know it's been a big thing especially you post up on social media the RV a lot

[1:29:26] of people think just because there's a municipal violation of a tow um that we

[1:29:30] can tow it instantly that day a lot of people don't know and realize too though

[1:29:33] that there's a municipal code it's title 04 4 280 that says we as a police

[1:29:41] department if a vehicle is in violation of that chapter for park. We cannot tow

[1:29:45] it unless there's two unpaid tickets. So that requires us as a police department

[1:29:50] to cite that and each ticket usually takes about 30 days to go through the

[1:29:53] court system. So about 60 days. There are some different additional RS's where

[1:29:58] um if a person's driving, we stop them for like my hammer shirts and stuff like

[1:30:01] that. You can tow their vehicle, but usually don't apply in the situation. um

[1:30:05] reference about this um complaint that was received even before it was done

[1:30:10] that complaint was reviewed already and generally speaking for us in police

[1:30:13] department. When we do see a complaint at a certain seriousness, we have

[1:30:17] software that I purchase so that we can track it. It has time stamps for

[1:30:21] everything like that. usually comes to a first life supervisor in the situation

[1:30:24] it did who reviews body warn camera have here and also for validity of those

[1:30:31] complaints and this situation rank adds another self um another um level it goes

[1:30:37] up to me as a supervisor as a chief and this situation I personally went out

[1:30:41] there and talked to individual looked at their footage to compare I won't go into

[1:30:45] details but some things were self-esteem that was talked about and then from

[1:30:50] there in this particular situation Even though um there was no major um

[1:30:56] issue that I particularly saw in a general level transparent without being

[1:31:00] prompted, I reached out to another police department just double check and

[1:31:04] look and get their input. So this is something I did. I do believe in

[1:31:06] transparity and also policing oursel as law enforcement. And just one thing I

[1:31:10] want to say about Detective Johnson, he's a fellow veteran. He's very

[1:31:14] competent firearm. Um and we do hours of training throughout the year at Skeptics

[1:31:19] Police Department for Firearms to include this week we're doing some fire

[1:31:22] extreme partners at the St. Holmes Police Department. So there was no

[1:31:25] issues from removing it. That was a tactical decision made from there. So

[1:31:29] this is documented those type of situations. Um any additional go into

[1:31:34] too much more details. Is there any additional questions on that?

[1:31:37] » No, thank you for the record. >> Yep. Oh no problem. I mean people have a

[1:31:42] right to and thank you same man for your comments too. People have a right as a

[1:31:45] veter myself I believe in the first amendment like act reformation but they

[1:31:49] have a right to say what they want in this in this country that's why I love

[1:31:52] America and uh that being said unless there's no question

[1:31:57] » yeah go ahead >> kind of going on the the something

[1:32:00] they're towed I mean there's also opportunity that it might have to go to

[1:32:04] a court and the court the judge may push it off I mean things can take months

[1:32:09] because of other things not us I mean >> yes it's not that simple and everything

[1:32:14] too from my experience also working my previous employer with the wash state

[1:32:17] patrol people also have a right to a hearing now what happens if we were to

[1:32:22] lose that we didn't follow the law particularly then the city of scapoo

[1:32:25] pays the bill for towing fees which can require thousands of thousands of

[1:32:29] dollars so that's why I want to make sure our department is following the

[1:32:32] letter of the law so if there was some change that want to be made that's

[1:32:36] something I'd like yes council president Miller

[1:32:38] » so chief I just to summarize this I I mean you guys have a procedure that you

[1:32:42] use for taking these things with a timeline that's prescribed. Correct. And

[1:32:46] so if somebody comes in and doesn't like the the timeline that was given or a

[1:32:51] date that was written on say a uh the orange tag the impound notice that was

[1:32:58] prescribed by either our MUN code. We're not arbitrarily making up these dates

[1:33:02] and the amount of time that they have to respond to these things. Correct.

[1:33:05] » We're as a police department, we don't operate that way. I personally don't

[1:33:07] know who owns the boat. I do like boats, but I don't know who that person is. And

[1:33:11] uh with that being said, going forward um we continue to just follow um what's

[1:33:16] outlined in the law >> from the summary of all this basically

[1:33:20] is is that the procedure the community code the amount of time that somebody

[1:33:23] has to respond to do something related to their vehicle was followed and that's

[1:33:28] » correct. I recommend people also look at the municipal code too regarding when we

[1:33:32] can end under that. And I think last but not least too as well is that uh you

[1:33:37] know for us we continue to always improve our processes things such of

[1:33:41] that nature obviously um but thank you for the opportunity to let me just kind

[1:33:45] of explain that and there's additional questions but we document those things

[1:33:49] and we take complaints seriously they may not be found or not. as well.

[1:33:53] » And I I do want to reiterate on code enforcement. It has been a we've had

[1:33:58] several comments or questions about that recently that and and we are looking at

[1:34:04] how ways to maybe help uh the public better understand the process of that.

[1:34:08] But >> um just to reiterate the process uh you

[1:34:11] know people usually put in a complaint and some some you know typically want

[1:34:16] that taken care of right away. um the way that we operate and the way that

[1:34:21] state statute and city code works, if there is an uncompliant um person, it

[1:34:27] can take time. So, we we typically try to reach out to give somebody the

[1:34:31] benefit of the doubt, let them know that there's a violation, give them a chance,

[1:34:34] the the ability to rectify themselves before it goes into a citation or

[1:34:38] something else. Um just because a lot of people don't know where the code is. And

[1:34:42] so just to notify them, hey, just let you know, you're outside of our code.

[1:34:46] It's a violation to get that fixed. They get the opportunity to do so. If they

[1:34:49] don't, that's where they have to follow up with more strict measures. Um, they

[1:34:53] get those citations, uh, which typically end up with a court date, which could be

[1:34:57] a month out or or more, but typically about a month, depending what happens in

[1:35:02] court, can spread that out further. And and every single one of these situations

[1:35:06] is so unique depending on the person, depending on the situation. the the

[1:35:10] police department and the code enforcement tries their best to follow

[1:35:13] the the process, but it can be a different timeline for something that

[1:35:18] seemingly seems like the same process just because depending on what happens

[1:35:22] through that process, uh depending on outside, you know, circumstances such,

[1:35:27] like you said, um Mayor back is that if a a judge prescribes something else, it

[1:35:32] can throw that off or or if there's an appeal or there's something else. Um,

[1:35:36] and so what I want to really put on the record for for those looking at code

[1:35:39] enforcements, you know, they we have a good code enforcement officer, a good

[1:35:43] process, we're we are improving it, but it does take time for those who are not

[1:35:47] looking to um to comply with that. So, um, and if I can too, not to be a dead

[1:35:55] horse, but I think the reason I wasn't here when the law was made for the two

[1:35:58] tickets, but I think it's designed to help give people a chance to comply. I

[1:36:01] mean there's a lot of people their vehicle is their livelihood and we can

[1:36:05] technically tow a vehicle just because your license your registration expired.

[1:36:08] There's a lot of people who use that to commute and to bring food on the table

[1:36:11] for their family. So there's both sides of the coin and I think obviously it

[1:36:15] gets that 60 days then they're not planning to comply. So um that's another

[1:36:20] reason I think it's a little bit drawn out there but something that council can

[1:36:24] possibly change they wanted to future. So, I was going to make a comment during

[1:36:28] my comment time about code enforcement because I have my own frustrations to be

[1:36:33] candid about the code enforcement program and I can get into more detail

[1:36:36] about that, but I'm wondering if some of it if not a lot of it is based on

[1:36:44] this how long it takes to accomplish

[1:36:48] something. I'm wondering if there's a way to link something because this is

[1:36:52] public record. So, I'm wondering if we can

[1:36:54] » if we can put on a page on the city's website basically the address or

[1:36:59] location of a code enforcement activity and just the very generic nature and

[1:37:04] what stage it's in. And then we can start because I think a lot of it is

[1:37:07] just communication and and um transparency is not the right word

[1:37:11] because we're not hiding anything, but it's just putting it's putting out there

[1:37:16] a place where people can go to get informed about where something's at. But

[1:37:20] I mean, I've made a code enforcement complaint about a residence that has

[1:37:24] multiple code enforcement violations over a year ago, and I don't know that

[1:37:28] anything was if it was even looked at. Um, and I have other examples, too. But

[1:37:32] I do have I do have frustrations with our code enforcement program, and I hope

[1:37:36] that we continue to improve that. But I think a big part of it is potentially um

[1:37:40] the way that we educate the public about our uh pending code enforcement

[1:37:44] violations and where we're at with the status of those things.

[1:37:47] » Okay. All right. My one my one recommendation around that would be to

[1:37:51] consider the person being put on a map. Um if especially if they're not overtly

[1:37:58] being belligerent or you know if they're out of town or can't get a hold and they

[1:38:02] end up with a citation it could become a public flogging type thing like oh

[1:38:06] you're out of compliance. What the heck is going on? And people who normally

[1:38:08] wouldn't know now you you're on this record publicly that people could use to

[1:38:14] publicly >> well maybe attack. then maybe we limit

[1:38:18] it to things that are visual that people can see with the eye because those are

[1:38:21] the things that people are generally complaining about the most. I see your

[1:38:25] point and I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you. This is actually what I

[1:38:27] was going to comment about during my time but since we were talking about

[1:38:30] Yeah. Thank you. >> Um but yeah, I mean I don't Let's leave

[1:38:33] it with this. If we can think about this and see if there's any way to do

[1:38:36] something like that >> um and maybe have further conversations

[1:38:39] about it later, I think that'd be great, >> right? And and way this one way to solve

[1:38:43] that is just when people are curious, they can always call in and ask about it

[1:38:47] and they can submit their own complaint as well and then they say, "Hey, we're

[1:38:50] already working on that or they can get information or do obviously a public

[1:38:53] records request." But um which would then get the opportunity to redact

[1:38:58] anything that is um not supposed to be out there. But yeah, yeah, we we can

[1:39:03] look at that. We're always looking to improve that process and appreciate any

[1:39:06] feedback or ideas like that. Um, and we'll we'll respond obviously with any

[1:39:10] potential concerns we may have with that and then come with a process that is

[1:39:14] just hopefully better than what we had before. So,

[1:39:17] » thank you. >> One thing I'm looking at is I mean I

[1:39:19] think our code enforcement has evolved and growing here. I mean, before we

[1:39:22] didn't have anybody then kind of a part-time and now we're going to

[1:39:26] full-time and I think it would be nice to understand what code enforcement

[1:39:30] meant. What is our codes? What are they looking for? I mean, I I agree. I don't

[1:39:34] want to go out and necessarily ticket everybody right on right away for

[1:39:37] everything. I like education. I like us to communicate and maybe by putting out

[1:39:42] in the newsletter things we're looking for, things that are popping up as code

[1:39:46] enforcement violations that we see ahead of time. So maybe you guys can work on

[1:39:50] them ahead of time. And then again too, if I leave a basketball hoop out, I

[1:39:54] don't want to be on some website. They came to me first and just said

[1:39:58] something. I fix it right away. Now, if I don't or if I don't for a while and

[1:40:02] then I I get it. But >> and not Yeah, not to counter, but I

[1:40:05] think a lot of people are our community members do. There are some those that

[1:40:09] are a little bit more difficult, need more attention, I would say, um to kind

[1:40:13] of make that happen. And particularly certain things like when it comes to

[1:40:17] weeds or grass being tall, there's some people in our community that unless law

[1:40:21] enforcement talks to them, that's going to keep developing. You have to do it

[1:40:24] seasonally. They go out there over and over again. I experienced that

[1:40:28] personally here when working here in my capacity. So,

[1:40:30] » and I trust that if safety fac if there's some safety involved, you're

[1:40:34] going to step in sooner and run away. I mean, if if it's a safety issue,

[1:40:37] » correct?

[1:40:43] Um, let's go. Uh, Mr. Turner, public works director, since you're still here,

[1:40:49] we have your report in the back. Is there anything real special you wanted

[1:40:52] to give us an update of your department? Anything happening? If you do, you need

[1:40:56] to come speak to the microphone.

[1:41:01] » Couple projects we didn't mention tonight. I think the comm layback is

[1:41:06] underway [clears throat] and then the recent um pavement overlay just down the

[1:41:12] street. Those are successful projects happening and we always uh measure those

[1:41:18] successes and also look at opportunities for improvement on future ones by doing

[1:41:22] those. And those uh overlays were done by gas taxes. So, Right. [laughter]

[1:41:28] » Right. >> Those signs will be up, too, if they're

[1:41:30] not already. >> I've been seeing a lot of people at the

[1:41:32] park lately. Um I even saw the workers were down there a week ago, Sunday,

[1:41:37] working building stuff, and people are asking about bridges and and everything.

[1:41:41] And and um with the overlay, I mean, is that still in the works, the possible

[1:41:46] bridge that we were focusing on earlier? >> That one's in planning as well. And then

[1:41:51] the Veterans Park North um plans are being approved and you guys are picking

[1:41:59] it looked like you selected an outfit to >> archaeologist.

[1:42:04] Yes. >> So that's all in pro it's all working.

[1:42:08] » Great. >> Appreciate it. Thank you.

[1:42:12] [clears throat] Uh student rep Michael your first meeting here. If there's

[1:42:16] anything I know it's the middle of summer, not much happening. School's

[1:42:19] about to begin shortly. Is there anything that you'd like to report or

[1:42:22] give us an update on? >> I do have a couple things. Um, one,

[1:42:27] during throughout the summer, there's been summer workouts at the school for

[1:42:31] athletes who want to get a couple reps in at the gym or want to get more

[1:42:37] agility stuff done on the field. That's been a really good help for athletes.

[1:42:41] I've gone there a couple times myself and there's always been a large group of

[1:42:44] people. Um last week or the week before I went to the school board meeting and

[1:42:49] the biggest thing was um OP and Warren Elementary had new two

[1:42:55] new principles appointed and they talked about that and also the

[1:43:00] bond which they proposed three options for it and a lot of people were still

[1:43:05] kind of skeptical about it and with you know summer ending fall sports

[1:43:12] is starting to begin so more practice ices happened at the high school. That's

[1:43:17] really about it. >> Thank you. I did hear I mean they're

[1:43:21] really iffy on this bond at this time to get it on the November ballot. I'm sure

[1:43:26] they really want to do it right and they don't want to rush through. So I I don't

[1:43:30] know if there's meetings still happening to really make a final decision or if

[1:43:34] they've announced anything. >> I'll segue off of Michael's comments

[1:43:38] then. Um, yeah, the school district, my understanding is going to be on pause on

[1:43:42] the bond and and I think there's a genuine interest in involving the city

[1:43:47] in discussion. So hopefully that comes to fruition

[1:43:51] sooner than later. Uh, but I don't think there's any reasonable way that that can

[1:43:55] bond can be on the November ballot. That's not that's not possible. So, you

[1:43:59] know, may maybe May next year, but I think we're g the

[1:44:04] city's going to see a lot of interaction here with the school district hopefully.

[1:44:08] But just a little elaboration on that. >> And I like to add on to, you know, the

[1:44:14] summer workouts, the early morning workouts. I do want to give a shout out

[1:44:17] to, you know, Joe Non and the staff there. I think that's why the school has

[1:44:20] done so well in a lot of their athletics is their ability to really put in the

[1:44:24] time and energy out of season before and after. And I think it's really helped a

[1:44:29] lot of our student athletes and uh I've seen it over the years.

[1:44:33] » And then then I've got a couple other things. First I want to publicly uh note

[1:44:38] that I have complete confidence in Chief Luella and city manager Bergner. Uh you

[1:44:44] know in contrast to other statements that have been made recently. So I just

[1:44:48] want to publicly state that. Um and then also as as a courtesy I'd like to

[1:44:53] explain why I voted no for the 50-year plan.

[1:44:57] Um and uh courtesy to the staff which did a remarkably good job. The

[1:45:02] volunteers at Northwest did a good job. They very good work. But I I could not

[1:45:08] come to terms with the fact that we did not do a a comprehensive watershed

[1:45:12] study. They should have driven the whole planning process and that was never

[1:45:16] done. It wasn't addressed. It wasn't wasn't even considered. And I I don't I

[1:45:21] couldn't understand how you could do a 50-year plan without addressing those

[1:45:24] kind of environmental issues. Um and then secondly, uh I basically have three

[1:45:29] reasons for for voting no. Uh the second one, I don't see we have an adequate

[1:45:34] water supply, um at the present moment to to serve uh anticipated growth. And

[1:45:40] so that's another uh another rationale for not expanding the UGB at this

[1:45:45] particular moment. And then third, um we have a surplus of industrial property uh

[1:45:51] that uh has an infrastructure already in we don't have to pay for. It's already

[1:45:55] done. And reszoning some of that for residential property uh was not even

[1:46:00] looked at. And so I had I had three serious issues with that plan. I voted

[1:46:05] for it to begin with to to support it to to start the process. It didn't it

[1:46:10] didn't turn out the way what I was visualizing. So that was my rationale.

[1:46:14] It it does not it's not an affront to anybody. I have the greatest admiration

[1:46:19] for the for the Echo Northwest staff and the volunteers that put a lot of hours

[1:46:24] into this. So, I just wanted to publicly note that uh you provide a rationale as

[1:46:30] a courtesy for for my no vote on that. Um, and then, uh, lastly, um, there's a

[1:46:37] mug that, uh, Brad Bremer, the local potter, uh, he, he made two prototypes.

[1:46:45] And so I'm going to pass this down and then I'll hopefully end up with Ben and

[1:46:49] maybe Ben will secure some bunch of these so we can give them to various

[1:46:54] people in milestones and in in their uh in their time with the city, city

[1:47:00] councilors, planning commissioners, anybody or people that come guests that

[1:47:05] come in uh to uh look at the SC community for business, you know, pro

[1:47:10] prospective businesses. So, take a look at this and if you if you if you like

[1:47:14] the looks of this and it's got the Scapaloo logo on it in the font, correct

[1:47:19] font and I thought I did a really nice job and and then Ben can use that to

[1:47:24] drink coffee out of here for he can drink tea out of that. So,

[1:47:27] » that's right. >> Well, thank you Joel. I I do appreciate

[1:47:31] your comments on on your boat decision there and I'm hoping then um put in a

[1:47:37] lot of time and energy this over the last several years. So hopefully we will

[1:47:40] be able to listen to kind of your concerns and issues as we go forward and

[1:47:44] and address them if needed. So because I think they're valuable.

[1:47:48] Appreciate that. Um are you done? Is that your comments for the night?

[1:47:52] Appreciate there. Um and is the high school gym open yet? Did they reopen the

[1:47:56] gym from all the crack? Currently, they are still making some final um

[1:48:02] adjustments to the support beam, but by the time school starts, it should be

[1:48:08] completely fixed and the gym should be open before school starts.

[1:48:12] » Perfect. Counselor Way. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh like to turn

[1:48:18] this something a little more pleasant. Uh, I'd like to talk about trees and

[1:48:25] watching some trees being planted along the

[1:48:30] uh I noticed that they're putting in some of the same trees that I've seen in

[1:48:33] some parts and the trees that are in for veteran uh they don't particularly help.

[1:48:41] Part of the reason for that is sister really

[1:48:44] would do well in this particular location. So I I just had a conversation

[1:48:49] with Gloria Joseph reportedly. We were discussing about how trees are

[1:48:55] surviving the tree and she said that there is a list of

[1:49:00] approved trees and that it's just sort of been accumulated over the years added

[1:49:04] to it but no one really and she said you'd be happy to share it

[1:49:10] look at it and so that got me thinking one of the things as I walk around the

[1:49:14] city I think to myself there is such a thing as the street tree program and

[1:49:20] that's where the people in the community living there or visiting there can look

[1:49:25] at a tree and say I wonder what sort of tree it was. I wonder when it was put

[1:49:29] in. I wonder if it has any security and that we travel around Europe and come to

[1:49:33] the United States. They have documentation look up a number or look

[1:49:38] up QR code and the treat. And what I would like to do is I would like to

[1:49:42] undertake this project myself. uh not beling on the city staff except

[1:49:49] for the occasional request for information

[1:49:53] and possibly leverage the citizen science of many of the local people in

[1:49:58] the area through the naturalist program to see if we could put together at least

[1:50:02] the beginnings of a street tree map. document what trees are here, what

[1:50:08] species they are, where they are, maybe a little bit about what condition

[1:50:11] they're in, and then if we can succeed in that, perhaps look at expanding that

[1:50:16] out into what eventually we reach as a full tree inventory to the benefit of

[1:50:21] the community so that people could become more engaged with the nature of

[1:50:27] itself. We have a lovely it's very rich and I think that more

[1:50:32] people might like more about it if they have the opportunity

[1:50:37] No, I think that is good. According at least with me, I know when I first

[1:50:40] started, we did have somebody come in. I don't know if it was from the watershed

[1:50:44] or SCA tree inventory and they did a whole inventory of like a lot of our

[1:50:48] trees and our coverage and our and our um and talked about how we are kind of

[1:50:53] lower than we should be on our canopy and stuff. And so it would be

[1:50:57] interesting. Also, are you able is there apps where you could take a picture of a

[1:51:01] leaf and then it just show you what it is? Yes, that's that's the reason I

[1:51:05] would like to leverage the citizen science app. The nonprofit organization

[1:51:10] called I naturalist and it's loaded on people's phones. We simply take a

[1:51:15] picture of plants or anything like that and we can geotag it to a location

[1:51:21] whenever we use the collected database provide an identity as to what it is. So

[1:51:26] in that way we could document where it is and what it is and because you can

[1:51:32] use a program for research such as this. There's a local uh affair that has just

[1:51:39] continued a very significant research program into the amphibians of county

[1:51:46] and they've produced quite an impressive report completely volunteered and

[1:51:51] completely based on citizen science. So I think this this may be something that

[1:51:56] we could we could achieve. >> I think your expertise and passion for

[1:52:01] it would be greatly appreciated.

[1:52:05] » Right. Council Mars. I don't have much to add other than say

[1:52:12] I done a tree map of white. So there's already some

[1:52:23] that's all right. Councelor Holmes. >> Um yes. Uh I also want to uh show my

[1:52:30] vote of support for city leadership. I look back at uh the position the city

[1:52:35] was in four years ago when I joined city council and I think we are in a very

[1:52:40] strong position um both in terms of uh where we are with city management

[1:52:46] financially um our leveraging of grants for expansion um is is great and

[1:52:53] certainly the the state of our police department is probably the best it's

[1:52:58] been in anyone's recent memory. So, I don't think there's any question that

[1:53:03] the city's in uh good hands with our current leadership.

[1:53:07] » Um I will just give a quick update. Uh the C team, the community emergency

[1:53:12] response team continues to meet. I did want to share pass along one piece of

[1:53:16] information. We had the county's new emergency manager Jessica come and join

[1:53:21] the meeting. Um she's working on helping to identify different training

[1:53:25] opportunities for our newly growing team. Um we are also establishing uh the

[1:53:30] minimum training requirements for volunteers uh kind of making two classes

[1:53:35] of volunteers. Those who are just kind of interested in learning more about uh

[1:53:39] emergency preparedness and maybe helping with community events and then those

[1:53:43] that can actually be activated because they have the proper training. Um so

[1:53:47] we're working on kind of defining all of that and also a participant agreement

[1:53:51] just so we can ensure there's certain level of um performance and

[1:53:54] professionalism uh that the volunteers have. So, the the group is taking shape

[1:53:58] really nicely. Jessica did let us know um the county's natural hazard

[1:54:03] mitigation plan expires on February 2nd. This is the plan that enables

[1:54:08] communities, makes them eligible for receiving money from FEMA in the event

[1:54:12] of a declared emergency. Um it takes about 18 months to renew the plan and so

[1:54:18] ours will expire before that can be completed. So they'll be filing an

[1:54:22] extraordinary circumstances extension so that the during the time that they're

[1:54:26] working on updating the plan effectively people will remain eligible for

[1:54:30] receiving funds if needed. Scapuse will need effectively like a chapter and so

[1:54:35] they'll be reaching out in January uh to engage when they have bring their

[1:54:38] contractor on board. So just kind of put a pin in that for a forecast that we'll

[1:54:43] need to work and contribute to that to make sure that we are eligible and

[1:54:45] covered under the update of that plan. Uh, and I would just say since we are

[1:54:51] cancelling our next meeting, school will be in session. Kids will be walking to

[1:54:54] school. Uh, everyone muting, please be mindful of all of our youth that will be

[1:55:00] making their way as well. >> Appreciate it.

[1:55:02] » Thanks. >> Thank you, Counc.

[1:55:05] » Yeah, I was gonna not have much, but you guys all came up with something. Um, I

[1:55:12] was thinking, uh, thank you, John, for offering that. I would be That's a great

[1:55:16] idea. I'm thinking maybe we can incorporate something with what's going

[1:55:20] on with the trail the the grant that Lori was talking about today. So that

[1:55:26] came into mind. Um and of course I am I agree with all of you guys and

[1:55:32] supporting the city supporting uh city manager chief. Uh I just think that we

[1:55:39] should be addressing it for the for the public and just uh for the record and um

[1:55:46] and I agree when I came on initially this it wasn't like what it is today. Um

[1:55:53] so we are 100 times I would say 100 times better than we were when I came

[1:55:58] into council. Um, and then also the planning. That's great because of I'm

[1:56:05] great that I'm glad that we're going to have some type of plan. There's so many

[1:56:09] things that are going on in the world, earthquakes and fires and things like

[1:56:12] that. So, I think it it's very important and thank you for sharing that

[1:56:17] information and for being part of that committee. Um, by the time we get back

[1:56:21] to our next meeting, and this is just coincidence that I'm wearing this shirt,

[1:56:26] but it um it's going to be Hispanic Heritage Month. uh September 15 to

[1:56:30] August or October 15, excuse me. So um but yeah, so have um gosh already

[1:56:38] summer's gone. So happy fall everyone. >> Quick. [laughter]

[1:56:43] » Council President Millard, you want to add anything?

[1:56:45] » Oh, just glad to be back in person. I miss you all. Um and uh Sean, do you

[1:56:52] have I did you get what you needed from us and the city about proceeding with

[1:56:57] that project or you feel like you >> this is just the first steps this

[1:57:03] evening. been something floating around in my head that it's actually started to

[1:57:08] work this evening with my conversation with Lori that gave me a place that all

[1:57:13] right there's a current place that I can begin with this knowing what's been

[1:57:18] approved and my my intention is to focus on let's start with the main thorough

[1:57:22] affairs and main parks first because those are the most public and then once

[1:57:28] we can document those we can see how the documentation works see what we need to

[1:57:32] reply and then go out there. >> Yeah. Susan, do you recall when we had

[1:57:37] that tree? We had somebody come in and talk to us. It was probably four or five

[1:57:42] years ago now. And >> right after I started

[1:57:46] » Okay. Yeah. And it I I have a feeling that's going to be really useful

[1:57:52] information for >> you, but I just want to make sure that

[1:57:55] city manager and I want to make sure that we're giving you what you need

[1:57:59] because it sounds like an amazing awesome project. it will be a hit for

[1:58:02] the community. So, um I just want to make sure we have some wheels on this

[1:58:08] thing, I guess. >> Yeah, just reach out to uh Lori or

[1:58:11] myself. We can find that report if it was done. I I haven't seen it myself,

[1:58:15] but we could probably find that. >> It was an intern Portland State

[1:58:19] University, right? Yeah. Canopy >> that's ringing a bell

[1:58:22] » cover study. Yeah. >> Um All right. Well, I got one minute. Um

[1:58:30] really bright anything say no I appreciate it again um just kind of for

[1:58:34] the record you know Ben and Chief 100% support um you know we don't always

[1:58:40] bring it up public meeting but we do I think we all talk to you guys on a

[1:58:44] regular basis and and you you give us all the information that's important and

[1:58:50] pertinent and um I think you guys are doing a great job and really appreciate

[1:58:54] the team we have right now uh with public works director Turner now on

[1:58:59] board. I think we've got a really good team. I really look uh forward to all of

[1:59:03] our meetings. So, appreciate it and um thanks. Have a good night.

8-17-2026 City Council meeting

Transcript