Just to join up.
Tony, did you let everybody know that the chat shows up on the screen in the council chambers
and gets broadcast?
So you're not chatting privately.
Hello, everybody.
Here's Kathy's whole head.
How nice.
Good to see you.
Long time no see.
Now she's escaping.
And Judy's audio is working right up from the get-go.
Cool.
I'm quiet.
All right.
Give us all enough time and we'll get organized.
Yep.
Anybody heard from Riley?
No.
I've got after 12.
So, Tony indicated that we're recording.
So, Kathy, if you could make sure we're starting,
let Riley join us.
Okay, on record.
record. All right, well, let me call to order the this special city of Lincoln City City
Council meeting of June 19th Friday, 2020, and it's noon. And Kathy, could you verbalize
role? Dick Anderson. Yeah, Judy Casper. Here, Piana Hinton. Here. Riley Holdland,
And maybe here shortly or is he here?
No, I don't see him.
Diane Fuss.
Here.
Rick Mark.
Here.
And Mitch Parsons.
Here.
Great.
All right, well, I think to remind everybody,
the chat feature on Zoom is a public feature.
So any kind of chat you do inside that component
and it is visible to the public.
And we've called this meeting really in anticipation
of another meeting we've got at 130
with the other cities and county for a joint meeting.
And we wanted to be able to discuss the items
prior to that meeting.
And as I recall, there's two, the 24 hour hold
And then, you know, potentially downsizing, you know, group sizes of the two items.
Is that correct, Mr. Chandler?
Yes, it is.
Okay.
Mr. Mayor?
Yes.
I've also asked that we talk a little bit about enforcement for the mask-wearing just
to bring it up because I've been getting quite a few questions about that.
So I just at least want to have a conversation.
All right.
Well, since there's really not a lot of this, I mean, all we can do is information at this
point on the face coverings, Ron and Chief Palmer, perhaps if you could help us better
understand the governor's edict and.
Yes.
So this, this had originally been on the county's joint meeting, but it was taken
off when the governor issued her executive order requiring masks in our or face coverings in our
county. We got some information today that shed some more light on what this actually means.
It requires face coverings, face
coverings, face shields, and masks in businesses that were
listed. Now the term business is an interesting one and it also goes to the reason why the
county pulled us from the agenda. The businesses are listed as grocery stores, fitness related
organizations, pharmacies, public transportation agencies and providers, personal service
providers, restaurants, bars, breweries, group hubs, wineries, tasting rooms and distilleries.
And then this was the one I found most interesting,
retail stores, shopping centers,
and malls, ride sharing services.
The retail store was the one that caught my interest the most
because that is the broadest one.
And so it would affect most of our businesses.
The business is required for masks to be worn by mask face coverings, shields to be worn
by employees, contractors, volunteers, communities, and visitors.
They are to provide masks, face shields, or face coverings for their employees.
They are required to pull signs about the face mask, shield, or face covering.
Now, we did a survey this week where we went out and looked at dozens of businesses throughout
the community, and what we found was that very few have a sign up that is requiring
or masks or are requiring masks.
We only found two that are actually using the signs that we printed and provided, and
And two had other signs, so we did not find that there was a widespread requirements by
the businesses, so this would change that and then it would now make it a requirement and
make it a requirement to put up signs.
They're also to provide at no cost at least disposable face coverings for customers or
or visitors who do not have one.
Okay.
There are some exceptions to that, and there are some differentiations between the public
as those who are under 12 and those who are 12 and older.
The biggest question, and we knew this one was going to come up, and we have been looking
for information, is about enforcement. And there really is not much information out
there at all. According to the executive orders,
the failure to comply with an executive order
falls under two provisions, the state code, three provisions, but two particular, they
They fall under the health care ordinance provisions, which is in ORS 43-1A-10, and then
they fall under ORS 401-990, which makes a violation a Class C misdemeanor, which is
subject according to that of $1,250 fine and up to 30 days in jail.
Now, as I also looked through the health care laws associated with this, specifically this
one that is identified as BARS 43 1A 010, I was looking for requirements of local law
enforcement.
In other words, who is actually responsible for enforcing this?
Is it our police department?
Is it the health administration?
Just who actually is the one that's responsible?
And what I found in that is that under the health administration,
the health department is the one responsible,
but it also states that they will be assisted to the extent that resources are available.
State and local law enforcement officials to the extent resources are available must
assist the Oregon Health Authority and local public health administrators in ensuring compliance
with the law.
So that's what I found.
Rinter may be able to shed a little bit more light on the legal end of it.
Now, the chief has been working with the state police in trying to know how to go forward
with this, because ultimately one of the challenges is resources.
And so, Chief, do you want to tell them what guidance the state has been giving to you
guys?
Yeah, it's, you know, this obviously will have a ripple effect throughout the state
of this not approached carefully. And believe me when I say that there is other pressures
coming to bear on law enforcement when it comes to what's going on right now. But the guidance
we had initially got has not been rescinded and there was actually when the county was
looking at putting theirs out before the latest government thing come out, it really
came right out and said that the county rule was a kind of a forget the term they
use voluntary directed and and that we would keep an eye on it but it was the
whole purpose of behind this paragraph they put in there is to make that a
self-policing thing and not have law enforcement out chasing individuals down
the street and issuing citations for no mask. We you know you've kind of
seen what's been going on since March with just trying to keep up with VRD
complaints and hotel complaints and now the 24-hour rule and you know fortunately
the vast majority of those were were unfounded but it still takes a resource
and when you've got three or four three officers and a sergeant if you you're
having a good day or three officers and and you're spreading out to go
chase people not wearing masks in open areas like walking down the sidewalk and
that sort of thing we're just not going to be able to keep up with that you know
and so it's a catch-22 I mean if we go out there and we start confronting
people and especially if we start issuing citations it could be interesting
to see what that reaction is now that whether it's right or wrong we're
coming to the end of a period of time where people have been cooped up and locked in their
houses and not talking to people. I mean, I just hold myself up as an example. I mean,
my wife has not had face-to-face contact with about two people since the end of February
because of an immunization or an immunocompromised situation. So I know there's lots of people
out there. And the doctors are saying this is a real thing. But it's a tough thing to
decide. I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision as to what we're going to do here,
but I will tell you this will be a very distinct challenge to try to enforce.
So Ron, you were speaking, when you went through this, you were speaking of the
Governor's latest mandate, not the county's directive, right?
I was.
The chief, when he talked, he spoke of the two of them,
but they are distinct from each other.
The one I was reading from specifically
was the latest guidance we received
about the governor's directive on masks, face shields,
and face coverings.
And I would assume that's the overriding one
that we should have in front of us.
It is. As a matter of fact, yeah, it is the overriding one. As a matter of fact, as I understand
the county's directive, that is applying in the unincorporated parts of the county and
not the cities because we have not agreed to it.
And I take you back also to, you know, the prior to phase one and as we're trying to
think about approaching phase two, I mean, the directive that we got initially from
in the governor's office and in conjunction with working with Oregon State Sheriff's Association,
the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police, and Oregon State Police and DOJ was, as we
ramped up, these new rules as far as 24-hour rules are opening up the hotels or the face
shield thing. The guidance has been and remains at this time to use contacts as
a teaching moment and not go out and be be heavy-handed with this bill.
Mr. Apichello, did you have something you wanted to?
Yeah, I just want to point out again that, you know, what Ron talked about, the 431A specifically has
is its enforcement mechanism, the issuance of notices of violation by health officers.
officers. So, and this is the directive from the Oregon Health Authority of face coverings.
My guess is that the way it's to be enforced is pursuant to 431A. I'm going to agree with
the Chief that I don't know that the intention is to have officers issue misdemeanor citations
for face masks that it looks like you can get a civil administrative penalty from the
Oregon Health Authority. I don't really see it as being set up to be enforced criminally.
The biggest challenge that we face with the questions that we get and the complaints
that we receive go right to the heart of what Richard and the chief are talking about are
the people who call and complain don't make a distinction between a police issue and a health
authority issue and so that's perhaps the guidance that I was looking for the most so that
as we get calls we know either how to deal with them such as sending them to the health
the authority or to direct people to the health authority. That's been the hardest part because
when we get those calls, people don't make the distinction. They just say somebody's
breaking the rules.
Right.
And the other part of it is that if it's a business in particular, our directive was
to encourage the complainant to reach out to OSHA or for us if they're unwilling
to do that, we can take as much information as they're willing to give us. And I'll
I'll tell you one of the hardest things to get in these complaints is somebody that wants
to stand up and be a witness and testify against this person if the citation goes to court,
because a lot of these people are employed by the same people they're complaining about.
But that's what we've done with the last couple of reports that we've taken, like
on the 24-hour rule.
We've generated the information, we've directed it to the OSHA link that we were
were told to by OACP and OSSA, and then we've also educated some of the people that are
complaining that they're seeing this, that they have the ability to call OS, OSHA, direct
themselves and file those complaints.
I guess the number one concern I have, and neither one of you kind of talked about
or none of you, is the third enforcement component, and that's the vigilante citizen's arrest.
And that is more concerning to me because of a lot of things you said have pent up,
and certainly the people who are certainly pro-mask, pro-face coverings, I can see
face-to-face confrontation and I have a little you know how we're going to deal
with that and that's going to keep you busy. And that's actually what I kind of
was pleasantly surprised with when I read the county's order follow up
yesterday before they rescinded it because the update from the governor
but I'm assuming it was Wayne Belmont put it in there but there's a
paragraph about three or four sentences from the end of that document
It just says that, again, I forget the term, but this is a voluntary compliance thing and
in no way is this intended for this to be sending police officers out to enforce this.
Private citizen or anybody else, this is just information of how important this is
and it's up to the voluntary compliance of our citizens to follow through it, but it
literally points out there is no authority by anybody to confront, be confrontational
about this issue.
Eanna, you had a question?
I do.
And I'm not sure.
Maybe it's for Richard.
I was assuming that when the governor put out
her directive for face coverings and included Lincoln
County, that it was all of Lincoln County including
the cities and not just Lincoln County unincorporated.
That's correct.
The thing that I was referring to
was the initial directive that the county was going to put out?
I think the county directive is moot at this point because we have a more specific Oregon
health authority document that basically says in Lincoln County, a customer employee
doesn't matter.
And that's Oregon Health Authority Directive, and I think it's enforceable under 431A.
I think you can get a notice of violation from a health officer.
I think if they need the help of the police department, they will ask.
And maybe I see it as calls going to the health authority that there's a business
in Lincoln City that's not enforcing the mask requirement and then they would go
there I don't really see it as people getting chased down the street like you
didn't have a mask on when you were in this business I think they'll go to the
business and give the business a violation and put it on the business
that they got to tell people when they come in here's your mask put it on
And if you don't get out, I think that's how it's going to be.
It's going to be on the business to enforce or they're going to face the fines.
Okay. Mr. Mark, you had a question.
Yeah, just two thoughts that I think you're running to, Richard could help me.
You run into issues if citations are given in kind of a spotty fashion, and then someone
who gets a citation can say, well, why didn't they – I wasn't treated equally, you know,
because there were 80 percent of the people without masks.
They never got citations.
I don't know if that's – but my – I've made more practical concerns.
is can we make the signs mandatory require businesses to post the sign or something like
that?
No.
Go ahead, Bob.
So under the guidance that we received today from the state, signs are mandatory.
It states that the
must post, let's see, so a business is required to post clear
signs about the mask, face shield or face covering requirements. Now I don't know if either the
county or the state has produced any signs as samples, but ours are still certainly available,
but they are required to post clear signs. Okay, that's good. As of Monday when Ron
and the staff were trying to do a kind of impromptu survey of how the signs were being
posted.
I will say that I didn't see a single open.
Business from South 23rd to 7 Gables that didn't have some kind of posting as to what they were
expecting out of customers to come in there. Some of them, it limited the amount of customers
that come in and had lines out front with lines painted on the ground for social distancing.
And most of those people standing in line that I saw were wearing masks there. But I never
saw a single business with a sign that posted, you have to wear a mask in here or must come
in. I heard in another place in town we found two of those, but.
Uh, Judy. Yeah, for what it's worth, I was in the Chamber of Commerce the other day
to pick up my handy dandy face shield, and I asked them about the masks, you know, no
shirt, no shoes, and they said they were picking him up quite, you know, quite readily.
So, between the time the governor gave her declaration and today, I think more people
are going in to maybe adhere to what she's posting.
And they said, more businesses were picking up the signs about the warnings.
So I think maybe we might see an insurge of the use of posting.
Okay.
But, you know, could we, in managing the time, because this was just a kind of information
because we've got the governor but you know we limit it now Deanna can you
finish up and then we'll move to the next topic yeah I just have been asked by
one of the County Commissioners if we could share our sign with them and
perhaps even other cities the design of it and furthermore if we could add the
governor's order or whatever is the directive you know that makes these
signs mandatory to hang up, to put up in the businesses. And I just have a, that's one question.
The next one is more of a statement. I think it would be a really good message to visitors
and people who are shopping in all the stores if we have that one, that one sign everywhere.
So people are getting the message that, that the businesses are all together. The city
supports this and well of course the county and the governor but just to have one sign
and I know that there's a few different signs made by the businesses but if we could make
an effort to make sure that they get one of ours and if we could change it and if we
could make that graphic available to the county and other cities.
all right okay so could we move on then to topics that will be talking with the
city or the other cities and county and that's the 24-hour hold issue and Ron
can you set that up I can so
so
in the two orders that we've had that dealt
with this. The county orders number 421-185-2136. In the appendix, there was a provision that
required a minimum 24 hold be maintained between checkout and the time the room is cleaned
and put out for rental again. What will be discussed with the council, and that was
for hotels and short-term rentals, VRDs,
bed practices and home chairs.
But the commissioners have before them
and you have a copy of that is to strike that provision
and replace it with or amended requirements.
So it lists the restrictions and then it will have
and instead of the language about the 24-hour rule,
rule, it would just simply say or amended requirements.
Now, Councilor Mark had asked me a question
a few days ago about the basis for this decision
or this requirement.
Ken and I, and I've also sent in from,
had asked Wayne Belmont this question,
what was the basis for this?
I had already sent to you the information
from the Oregon Recreational Lodging Association
and I believe you have a copy of a letter
that was sent back where they have removed that provision
and said we didn't really mean it basically
and felt that the cleaning procedures were adequate
and if there's a timeframe it should only be 15 minutes.
We have looked through the CDC guidelines,
we have looked through the county's guidelines,
health departments and we've looked through the OHA for that and we have not
found anything that specifically refers to a 24-hour waiting period. I asked
again Wayne Belmont if he had any information and he has not provided me
with anything. It might be a good question to ask him at the meeting but
we could not find something that was specifically associated with that.
Could you, what the amendments are, what are they specifically recommending the county in
lieu of?
He didn't have any extra language in there, it just says we're amended requirements.
Yeah, okay.
All right, so I guess on the table then would be for us would be a discussion with the
You know, on that 24-hour hold, how we feel about it, and then, you know, spending on that,
be able to relay that at the joint meeting.
Judy, you have your hand up.
Did you?
Okay.
No?
All right.
Rick, did you?
Yeah.
So, and I pointed this out in the chat at the beginning of the meeting, and I started
I'm not sure if I was saying this earlier,
but just before 12 o'clock,
I sent everybody an email which copied an email
I sent to the commissioners
and it's included on their public input.
And maybe I should preface this by saying,
I'm not at all sure what to do.
But in terms of the basis or the authority
for the 24 hour rule,
when I looked around,
I found something from the American Hotel
and Lodging Association. Their guidelines, this was published two weeks ago, not quite
three weeks ago.
They took their guidance from the CDC.
Now, this guidance refers to
and when we had our county-wide meeting, we heard from a county health official, I don't
know if it was Rebecca or whoever it was, who said that the guidance, and this applies
if a guest is COVID positive. And if that's the case, then the CDC recommends or calls
for a 24-hour period after the guest leaves before the room is rented out. And this thing
I found from the American Hotel and Lodging Association repeats that guidance.
As I said
at the bottom of my comment,
sort of, you know, I don't know if that's the question
is the phrase, but how many guests are coming to hotels and announcing at the desk that
they're COVID positive, number one? Number two, we just had two weeks ago 500% increase
in cases in the county. Most of those were people who are asymptomatic.
I think it's
a fair assumption to say that we've got people coming and staying in our hotel rooms
who are carrying the virus and are asymptomatic and no one knows who doesn't, who doesn't.
That all said, I mean, I literally woke up in the middle of the night thinking,
I take
these messages running from the hotel owners to heart and I understand the grief we're
causing with this.
So I do not really have, I don't really know what to do about this.
I just, so I just want to make this point that there, this doesn't come out of thin
air.
This wasn't just made up.
there is a basis for the rule. Whether it's the right thing to do to apply it or not,
I'd like to hear what other people think.
Mitch, you have your hand up.
Yeah, originally when this came up, I voted no, and still for removing the 24-hour hold,
just simply based on nowhere else are we foreseeing any other industry or business to
to pretend that everybody is possibly positive
and clean accordingly.
This is the only industry, the only segment of an industry
where we're applying that rule.
Good point.
Judy, you?
Yeah, I voted in favor of it initially,
and now I'm thinking to remove it.
I've spoken to several of the housekeepers
and asked them if they were concerned about it.
And they said no, not really because they had all the equipment and the clothing and when they went in and cleaned and they were trained to clean and they hit the surface areas.
And they wanted to know where the 24 hour rule came from. It was medically necessary. They were given bonuses in one instance.
They said there's not that much of a concern from what I spoke to.
and I think if we look at nurses who come in contact with people and they come
home from their work sites to our families asymptomatic people are going to
exist no matter where we go and I think it's pretty common knowledge that if you
feel sick stay home I think we're kind of penalizing our businesses to a
degree I think they are to be commended for all the things they are
doing. In fact one of the cleaners told me that in one of the VRG areas they've
rented what you call foggers to totally disinfect a room. So I think there are
more things that are being done and I would assume that if people come out
here to visit us they know our opinions and they're going to be somewhat
pre-cautious at least to us who are in the lodging industry. So I'm
decline to remove the 24-hour hold.
Yana, you had your hand up.
Yes, and I'll take it down so I don't forget.
I still am in favor of the 24-hour hold
to support our folks that are the housekeepers.
I've received several from businesses.
Their main objection to this is that it's
an inconvenience to schedule.
And the other point that they like to make
is it's also costing them revenue,
which I understand.
And, and, but my overall concern with this
is the health concern.
And for me that overarches anything
and everything I think about COVID
and if there's a way in which we can
can keep some of our folks healthy with the masks,
with the 24 hours, I'm going to be voting that way
because like everybody knows,
I live right in the middle of VRD land over here
and I can watch the behavior.
And I have noticed that before someone checks in
that there hasn't been exactly 24 hours and then another one there has been and
very carefully checked out by maybe a supervisor before the cleaner comes in
but I think we still don't know quite enough and the asymptomatic is just as
important as a symptomatic for me and it's not just another business it's
someone who is staying hours on end and touching a lot of surfaces in one
location. So I don't equate it to another type of business at all. I think it's on a whole
leather level.
And Diane, you had your hand up.
Yes. And there's, you know, many. I think that the 24-hour hold, I would probably vote
to let that go. Simply because the American, what, HLA has said there's that 15-minute
weight. We know that there are a lot. I think we have half that follow the rules and half
that are not following the rules. And at this time, the economy is one thing. People are
losing money. They really are and they're not going to make it in January if we don't
do something about it. So I'm inclined to probably vote to drop this one for our
vote. And Judy, you have your hand up. I'd like to point out that I don't think
I think there's been any identified outbreaks at these lodging facilities or VRDs as a result of help help worker home workers, cleaners who have had an outbreak.
So there aren't really outbreaks coming from the workers who are in these industries.
And I think that's a good point, Judy. In essence, in Lincoln City, we've had rooms for rent since March 21st with the casino opening up in their lodging.
So, and then we went again June 1st with the bulk and the contact tracing certainly hasn't come back to...
If there's no further discussion, you know, this is a council meeting, we could take a
moment.
Motion, and this would be a motion that we would then move on to the county in our next
meeting as far as how the city is positioned on this issue. Somebody has a motion?
I'd like to make a motion to remove the 24-hour hold for lodging requirement.
Second.
We have a motion from Judy and a second from Mitch.
Any further discussion?
Ron, I just, Jerry, do you need me sitting in on this next meeting?
Oh, the joint one with the county?
Right.
I don't think so. You're okay. Thank you for this one.
Okay. Thank you, guys.
thing in there. Okay. Rick, you had a discussion? Just a little thought as far as other businesses
being restricted. I think restaurants are required to space out there. You have fewer patrons.
Ace Hardware, I know it was doing a really good job of having somebody at the door and
limiting the number of customers. I don't know if that reduces their revenue significantly,
but I would take the restaurants it would so there is that however I'm inclined to
drop the rule because you know I mean these hotels they get something like
two-thirds of their annual revenue over the summer it's I don't know that I it's
a lot of responsibility to to weigh it on my shoulders.
All right. Well, the motion on the table is to remove the 24
hour cold.
Kathy, could you do a roll call please?
Yes.
Dick Anderson. Yes. Judy Casper. Yes.
Deanna Hinton. Wow.
Riley Holdland?
No.
Diane Pooes?
Yes.
Rick Mark?
Yes.
And Mitch Parsons?
Yes.
Motion carries.
All right.
We'll relay that to the next meeting.
The other topic then, again, at the joint meeting is going to be supposedly a proposal
to reduce the size of groups right now in phase one you can have a group to the
size of 25 with appropriate spacing and I think the discussion will be you know
down to 10 to move that down to town 10 I could not see whether that group size
is inside a building or outside if that varied
and I may be mixing up with other phases or future phases.
So, Ron or Mr. Apachello,
either one of you can help us with that.
Is there an inside provision and an outside provision
of group size?
I'm not sure, Mr. Mayor, to check on that.
Yeah, when I read the proposed order,
I didn't see a distinction. Let me look forward again here.
Okay. Well, for the time being, let's just assume that it's, you know, any kind of both
no more than 25 in or out and the proposal is to take it to 10 or the discussion.
Any thoughts on that? Diane, you have your hand up?
Yeah, I'm kind of confused as to can you give me examples of where this
25 and 10 and if it's outdoors how do you limit that except for you know because
the one we had was a family had a party and then we had all those that came out
but I know in hotel or in restaurants they can only do like a group of six at
a table so can you help me out well I think at my experience I could tell
you and chime in is one, I think some of the businesses are only letting initially they
only let 10 people into their facility initially. And then when it went to phase one, they were
able to get 25. I think that's why you had at ACEs they had people lining up outside.
The other is I've had lots of calls from churches where they're limited, you know,
to right now 25. And all these also include appropriate spacing. So you'd have new six
feet between everybody. So depending on the size of your building, you may not be able
to even have 25, you know, today. But those are the places I've seen it. I haven't like
or anything like that.
But I guess there could be, again,
with appropriate spacing.
Rodney?
OK, so I'm looking under the order number 25 by the governor.
And she talked about social and recreational gatherings.
Social, and this is under the baseline requirements,
social and recreational gatherings outside of a home or place of residence continue to be prohibited
regardless of size, unless the distance of six feet can be consistently maintained between
individuals from a household, in which case social and recreational gatherings of up to 10
people are permitted. So this one specifically mentions gatherings outside of a home or place
of residents. So this would be outside. Then it has in both the baseline and the phases,
other regulations that pertain to food and drink establishments, businesses, indoors and
things like that. So it sounds to me like it, and that it is for outdoors gatherings.
Thank you.
Nash with what you have.
I'm looking at, can you hear me?
Yeah.
Okay, so I'm looking at the whereas clauses on the proposed order and says whereas state
baseline guidance for gatherings now in place allows local, cultural, civic and faith gatherings
for up to 25 people provided physical distancing can be in place and prohibits local gatherings
over 10 people. By comparison, Lincoln County is in phase one, which differs from baseline
by also allowing for any purpose, including any social and recreation gatherings up to 25
people provided physical distancing is in place. Another OHA guidance, such as for restaurants,
is followed. So what the county, the next section is, county desires to return to the baseline
guidance for private social gatherings only as a further means to prevent the spread of the
disease. So it looks like what exactly they're proposing is to go back to 10, which is the
baseline for local social gatherings. I don't see any other
distinctions in there about inside and outside.
Deming restaurant.
It depends on what you go to if you're working from the state's
executive order number 25, then it makes a distinction between
gatherings and it has cultural, civic, faith-based, social, recreational, then it
goes into restaurants, food and drink with separate requirements, closures of
businesses with separate, and what they have to do when they open retail
businesses. So the point where they specifically mention gatherings is in
the area of that I had mentioned about being outside and the order the order
actually is beginning on June 24th the county will restrict private social
gatherings only to no more than 10 persons in accordance with the baseline
requirements governor's order if you had a question not a question
necessarily. I was just going to say that I'm not necessarily for going back at the moment.
I think everybody in the state has an idea of what these phases are. And as soon as we start
picking apart what phase we're in, it's just going to get more muddied and convoluted if people
aren't going to really understand where we stand. Good point. Yana. I have a question. Does anybody
Nobody know why the county is interested in doing this is this because of the one family gathering that generates that first outbreak. I'm I'm just I just trying to understand this. I have a tendency to agree with Mitch that if we muddy the water a little bit then that's going to make it harder.
However, I am not really noticing anyone following the guidelines anyway so I
don't know what difference it would make but and I'm not sure if this is past if
we aren't requesting more time from the chief's officers and if so maybe we
we should consider hiring a few extra.
Let's just go with vigilantes.
So, oh, Judy.
Yeah, I was thinking that if the previous limit was 25
and the six foot distance was still required,
it seems to me that I would agree
that that would be workable.
I mean, why change course in the middle of the stream?
And I'd like to know, yeah, I'm going to agree with Diana, like what's broken.
Well, the recitals in the order say, in all phases, voluntary social distancing actions
are not being followed in many areas, including the central Oregon coast, which exacerbates
the risk to the community.
So I think what Deanna said is they're not observing the restrictions now.
So the problem with that, as also stated, is an enforcement issue.
And I think the public, from my experience, misinterprets a lot of this stuff.
And I'm not sure myself.
but more than 25 people out my window on the beach you know you know seems to get
some people excited and it's seven and a half miles of beach now granted there's
social distancing going on in that I've seen but you know walking around the
outlet mall or, you know, in a large store. I've been told that some businesses, you patrons
have questioned, you know, whether there are too many people in the store. Safeway, for
example, does that mean, you know, Safeway is limited to 75 or 75 people in that store.
So I, you know, I think we have enough difficulty trying to explain not only to
our own citizens but those who venture in from outside and then compounded by, you
know, again my concern none of this is appears to be overly enforceable
anyway and you know I think it just really confuses the whole bloody
issue so
unless you I guess we could take kind of a position unless we heard some we
hear something on the meeting in the afternoon or at 1 30 with this that would
change our mind you know Diana's point if there's been some specific connected
it outbreaks and answering the question of how better enforcement than, you know, exists
in the face covering enforcement.
Ganna, you've got a question?
Yeah, I was just going to ask the chief if there is a difference for him for enforcement
from 10 to 25 people.
I know he'd be having to count more than 10 people, which would lengthen the time
to consider, but I'm just kind of curious because, you know, I can see us going, anyway,
never mind my personal comment, how about just my question to the Chief?
Well, to this point, you know, all of the contacts that we made with very few exceptions
will get somebody that crumbles a little bit, but we haven't had anybody just out and out
goal off the rocker about us showing up and whether it's on a noise complaint
and we find that they're in violation of the BRD rental a couple of that we've
had on the 24-hour notice you know thankfully we have
I've been called in to negotiate a truce and safe way of somebody going the wrong way
up the aisle or not wearing their masks. But by and large, and especially with our business
partners, I think it has gone well. I think it's been well received. We see that they're
posting, the hotels and VRDs that we've checked are keeping their logs as been requested.
And so I think the approach we've taken to this point is successful. If we start
going out and confronting 10, 20, 30 people that's on the beach for a bonfire, and we
got a little alcohol involved, and we go down there and say, okay, you got to get out of
here if you're not wearing your mask, then that might escalate things to a little different
taste.
But to this point, we've been very successful, I think.
Now, successful meaning we haven't had any big fights with anybody, and I think by
large most people are voluntarily complying when you ask them as to how successful our campaign
is getting the rank and file of everybody out there. You've got some that are wearing,
some that are hard, some that are adamant about wearing, and some that don't care, just leave
me alone.
Judy? Yeah, I was just wondering if if Lincoln County got kind of thrown in there
as far as this requirement, because it came maybe specifically from Eastern Oregon,
And I know that the entire Lincoln County got put in this group, at least that's what the governor said,
was because the commissioners were receptive to the change.
So I just can't help but think maybe we got thrown in there and then as a group we could discuss,
well, are we going to do this or not?
But maybe they just threw us in there to cover their bases.
That's my thought.
What the 25 down to 10 wasn't isn't in the governor's oh it's not it just
Oh no it's just the face covers okay this is from the county commissioners that
are evidently wrecked what some they must have had enough public comment that they
I'm still speaking to my 25. Okay so I guess what I'm really hearing is you know
staying the course stay in phase one as it relates to the group unless you know
and I don't know what you're gonna hear in the discussion who
is that is that
the sense that, you know, everybody's, you know, on City Council is looking at it. Okay.
And I don't know, you know, we'll present that in any kind of discussion.
Chief, did
you want to, do you have something?
No, I think it's a great discussion and one worthy of having. And like I said before,
I don't want to be in your shoes because you're going to get blasted, which are
way you drop on this and but I just think the state and county and our municipalities
really need to take a look at which way you're trying to push law enforcement on doing on
this and what that truly, what that expectation truly is and means.
Thank you.
Judy, you still have your hand up.
Did you want, okay.
I guess do we want to or need to take a formal vote on staying the course of phase one as far as relates to group or I hear I see unanimous consensus unless someone doesn't just take a vote.
All right.
How about a motion.
I moved to retain the 25 people distance in groups from staying the course with phase one as it relates to groups.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
I'll second that.
And who's that?
Deanna?
Oh, I am.
Okay.
All right.
We have a motion with the second discussion.
Deanna?
I'm going to say no because I haven't heard the reason that the commissioners wished as
to discuss it.
So I'm not ready to vote.
Okay.
I'm also not ready.
You do get to vote, you know, because it's on the table, a nice try.
All
right, we have a Rick, you've got your hand up.
Just a little thought that I worry about trying to impose what's essentially unenforceable
laws, because I think it engenders disrespect for law in general.
So I think we just need to be really cautious about that, and I appreciate, I really appreciate
Chief, the effort that you and the police force are putting forth on this.
So it's, I think we need to really hold their concerns in high regard here.
you raised your hand. Yeah, but it's not about this motion. So I have something else.
All right. Diane. In regards to changing the rules from outside of the other counties,
we have to remember that we have people coming in from everywhere who have different faces,
different understandings. And so if we say we're in phase one, they may understand that,
But then they come here and go, oh, but now we're phase one,
but we're not phase one.
And it's not enforceable.
So I just say, yeah, we need to stay the course,
because it's very confusing, and we don't follow it,
and either do our tourists.
And Deanna, you must have another comment.
Oh, OK.
All right, so we have a motion with a second on the table,
and that would be to stay the course for phase one
as it relates to the group.
Number roll call please yes
Hinton
No, I want to wait to hear the county's reasoning
Hold on
No
Coos yeah
Persons yes
Anderson yeah
Motion carries. All right. Okay. Mr. Apigello. I
just wanted to let you know I've been sending emails to Wayne and he responded this is about
enforcement as we predicted it's not their intent to enforce the local public health
directive even though they have the authority to do that and obviously it's because we
now have the OHA guidance. He said they were getting some information from the governor's
office about local enforcement and that the county health department will
enforce with this education first philosophy the establishments that they
regulate and license and then they'll look to OH a and look maybe pop local
public health for assistance in the other non-regulated areas OH a might
enforcement, and then he puts in parentheses, ha, and the last resort is law enforcement.
He does say he's intending to call a meeting of the city attorneys next week to discuss
enforcement issues, and so we get some better information and guidance on the enforcement.
So just let you know.
All right.
Thank you.
Rick, do you have a comment?
one last thought I wonder if we get maybe a little stronger language on our
electronic side and can we put one in the south side of town regarding the
masks that masks are mandatory in this community if we get that big that
carries face coverings though yeah that mask yep alright
has
the call in
information been sent out for this 130 meeting yes okay did that you need me
Can you send that to you?
Yeah, if you don't mind.
All right, well, with that, up, Diana.
I just wanted to ask Ron
if he would send that out to all of us.
I have so many emails that it got buried,
so I don't know the number.
Okay.
Thank you.
With that, why don't we adjourn this meeting
and see you in the next one at 1.30.
Thank you.
Riley, do you need something or was that just a, okay.
All right, see you later.