[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.