[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] We got work.
[0:06] We got work.
[0:07] A couple times.
[0:09] We got a couple times.
[0:22] I got
[0:27] business cards.
[0:28] Yeah, yeah.
[0:40] Ready?
[0:46] Call the orccession of the Newport City Council to order on Monday, August 17th, it is
[0:54] for a 1 p.m.
[0:56] It will call, please.
[0:58] Councilor Eman.
[0:59] Here.
[0:59] Councilor Ruma Gilles.
[1:01] Here.
[1:01] Councilor Hickman.
[1:03] Mayor Kaplan.
[1:04] Councilor Hall.
[1:06] Councilor Appetitio Reyes.
[1:08] Councilor Jacobi here.
[1:12] Okay Nina.
[1:13] Here first discussion I am is to a upcoming work sessions?
[1:26] Make it a potential proposal for a work session topic.
[1:33] Earlier we spoke about this one-on-one.
[1:37] One-on-one, one-on-one.
[1:40] That part of between Walmart and
[1:45] had turned and that, you know, I mentioned orphan highways and what not, and this is a one,
[1:52] an ODOT issue that they're saying, and can we bring that to a work session to discuss
[1:57] a strategy for how we approach ODOT to let us, look at that in terms of like, well, I mean,
[2:04] we're talking about traffic calming and all that stuff in a different context today, but like looking
[2:09] at that stretch of 101 and what we can do to be better responsive to all the residents who
[2:14] to come on to 101 from there.
[2:17] Yes, all talk was Derek and city engineering a bit about it.
[2:21] And we'll figure out whether it's a work session
[2:22] or what the right format is.
[2:27] Anything else on upcoming work sessions?
[2:36] I don't know whether this is for a work session or not,
[2:40] but we used to have a Coast Guard committee,
[2:46] and we don't anymore.
[2:47] And I was wondering, since this is Coast Guard.
[2:52] to revisit that and whether we wanted that Coast Guard Committee again.
[3:01] That committee do.
[3:04] I think that's before my turn.
[3:10] Well, we met like every month at the Coast Guard station and just talked about what their concerns were and what it was just a good way to make sure we were
[3:23] in communication, and they seem to enjoy it. I mean, I think they kind of missed this one.
[3:32] It's not a, if they only needed something, and then we tried to do one thing to honor them.
[3:39] We had a crab feed one time.
[3:45] Oh, crab feed, I think city crab came.
[3:51] And that's one that's really nice to know Katie, because let's see, got the crab for us.
[4:02] Let me ask Nina, would you give some thought to perhaps maybe, I think one of the challenges that we've
[4:09] went through in the last couple years was that we had so many committees and we all required
[4:14] We're taking it with the way the Pollock meetings laws are, they're all required a huge amount of
[4:19] staff time for meeting notices and then it's all that and that to be recorded. But I think the
[4:26] notion of having developing more relationship with the Coast Guard if there's a way for us to do that.
[4:35] Cynthia. Maybe we could have a council liaison attend the meetings rather than another committee.
[4:42] Right, that might think that would cover it.
[4:45] How well they would, I don't think they met.
[4:49] It was.
[4:50] But who I broke into helping was Mark Miranda
[4:55] because he's an ex-coast guard person.
[4:58] And he loved doing that.
[5:00] We might be a good person to kind of set that up, help.
[5:08] I can give that some thought of what the right format is. Before we, we will revisit all the committees.
[5:14] The assignments, the liaison assignments in January.
[5:18] Because we typically do a kind of a rotation of reassigning.
[5:21] So if we want to add that to the list of things that we think about before we hit the new year,
[5:27] I could definitely put that on the list. If you have other thoughts regarding committees or liaison assignments,
[5:31] I mean, I can add those to the list as well.
[5:33] And that's a really good solution is that we don't
[5:36] everything doesn't have to be a committee of the city council.
[5:40] But that really, I think what you're describing to you
[5:43] is that there was a liaison relationship.
[5:49] All they just have to do is have coffee once a month.
[5:52] And he grabbed a pair of me.
[5:56] OK, anything else on work sessions?
[6:02] So we're up to the League of Oregon City's lobbying priorities.
[6:09] So we do circulate this through the staff to see what priorities they think that we should
[6:17] consider.
[6:17] Hold that much on my mind.
[6:24] So I'm just going to go through those briefly.
[6:28] I'm going to go in order of their appearance.
[6:30] Okay, yes, question before I start.
[6:32] Sorry.
[6:32] Can I ask that process?
[6:33] like just to maybe save us time to people of a chance to go through them and like personally
[6:37] rank them. Like like in terms of a five with that be easier. I just want to save time because
[6:44] there are a lot of them. Oh, I'm definitely not going through all of them. I was going to go through
[6:48] their tactics. Yes, I was going to the categories and there's six in particular that we highlighted
[6:52] a staff. I believe mayor also has a list from a recent meeting. So I'm certainly not going to go
[6:58] through the whole document.
[7:00] Unless we want to talk about this for the next four hours.
[7:06] Okay, so I'm just going to go in the order in which they appear in the document.
[7:10] The first one is under the category of broadband cybersecurity, AI and telecommunications
[7:16] committee.
[7:17] And this one's titled, maintain local control of a safe modern right-of-way.
[7:23] And what the recommendation is from the leading on this item is that it will oppose any
[7:27] legislation seeking to preempt local control of municipal rights of
[7:32] way.
[7:34] So, similar to some other items that you see on this list, this is really about maintaining
[7:37] the control that we have over our right of way.
[7:44] And you're saying that that's a staff priority in the unit, just don't
[7:47] clarify.
[7:48] That's correct.
[7:49] One of six.
[7:54] I would quickly question on that one.
[7:56] They know that the federal government's trying to preempt that two, right?
[8:00] So it's just not the state is just I wasn't clear they wouldn't be lobbying the federal this is only for lobbying the state
[8:08] Correct
[8:11] or there's the legal organization is going to tackle both
[8:14] I mean, it doesn't specifically say that in their document. So I don't want to and I don't want to say for them
[8:18] I think they primarily spend time on the state
[8:20] They do they do work through the sorry. Go ahead. Good. We remember the of this national audience. Yes, and yeah, the League of Oregon cities is a member of the National League of City
[8:29] So they do work through the national organization to lobby for things as well.
[8:35] So there could certainly be, you know, if there's several members of the NLC,
[8:39] who believe that this is a priority.
[8:41] It could end up also being something that's just got to the federal level.
[8:43] But primarily, the link of Oregon City's work is on lobbying at the state level.
[8:47] And then my follow up would, is there a big push at the state level to try to be sure
[8:51] of our rights?
[8:52] I hadn't heard about.
[8:53] I'm under the federal one, but I haven't heard either.
[8:56] Really, this is kind of a preventative measure, I think, or the League might know more about whether there's
[9:02] rumblings of something happening at the state level, but I'm not aware of anything in particular.
[9:16] The next one is under General Government Committee, Public Meetings Law Clarity.
[9:23] I probably don't need to explain this to you well, but for the sake of our listeners here,
[9:28] the League will advocate for a comprehensive statutory reset of the Oregon Public Meetings Law
[9:33] to restore operational functionality and practicality for local governments while protecting
[9:38] public transparency.
[9:51] Okay, the next one is housing, land use and community development committee, and there
[9:57] are two items in particular under this category.
[10:00] The first is funding and coordination for shelter and homeless response.
[10:07] So the LOC opposes cuts to the state shelter program funding and supports continuing investment
[10:12] in a comprehensive homeless response system to fund eviction prevention, shelter, and rehousing.
[10:18] So you probably know the funding that comes to linking county to address homelessness is state funding.
[10:24] So this is something that certainly could be at risk.
[10:32] And the next one in that category is titled Land Use or sorry, land availability and land use streamlining.
[10:42] The LOC supports and updates and streamlining statutes to better support good land use planning and land availability for all needs.
[10:52] And if you have questions, I'm sure Derek would love to talk about this one.
[11:01] Okay, and the next one is in the category title, Transportation Committee, and it is the
[11:06] 2027 Transportation Package, I think you all are very aware of this, but the LLC supports
[11:13] a robust transportation package.
[11:15] You probably know we do the city receives a funding of state highway tax dollars, and so
[11:22] incredibly important that whatever solution is devised that we continue to receive,
[11:27] a portion of the state highway tax dollars, we want to make sure that we don't lose out
[11:32] in whatever transportation package just put together. So it's not just, it's not really just
[11:37] about supporting ODOT in whatever plan they come up with. It's also about making sure that we continue
[11:42] to receive dollars as part of the solution.
[11:52] And then last but not least, under water and wastewater
[11:54] committee, it's titled Infrastructure Funding. The LLC will advocate for increase and sustain investments
[12:01] in drinking water, wastewater, storm water, and water reuse infrastructure needed to support housing
[12:06] production, economic development, public health, and environmental protection. The more funds we
[12:12] have available for water, wastewater, and like the better to us, so we want to continue to advocate for that.
[12:18] So those are the six priorities that we were able to identify that relate directly to either issues
[12:24] We're experiencing or we have experience whether it's with a state or just due to lack of funding.
[12:29] So I'm going to turn it back over to you.
[12:32] So when I think I'd like to do, because I think it's important, but we don't want to spend
[12:37] 12 hours on this, are there any of that, that Nina just meant, are there any of that Nina
[12:44] did not mention that folks had as priority items?
[12:53] So I had the administrative procedures act reform as a, I thought that might be a priority
[13:00] because as a state user, you know, a person, a lot of the regulations are very hard to get through.
[13:07] And I think that would be helpful.
[13:08] But if the city is not running in a, that has an issue, you know, it might not be necessarily a city priority,
[13:15] more of an individual priority.
[13:18] And then rather than the land use for housing, I was full funding and streamlining for housing production,
[13:29] I thought, making more grants available for us, sort of tailoring that to me,
[13:34] felt like more effective use of lobbying to get a quicker, more beneficial to the city
[13:42] outcome, then land use doesn't seem to be as pressing an issue to me personally.
[13:50] Which one are you middle one?
[13:53] Yeah, the middle one.
[13:54] I mean, they were all good.
[13:55] I mean, if we had more pretty much everything on that list is important, but you've got to
[14:01] pick your top ones.
[14:02] And you need to say that these 27 items have all been identified by the league as items that
[14:09] priorities, and that Mulee has a stance on. So they're really asking to identify the top five,
[14:19] so they know where to focus, they're most effort, but it doesn't mean they won't work on
[14:23] other things. Right. And then I agree with all the other ones they had, too. And the infrastructure
[14:30] if you want to go to my 6-1 if I picked one. Yes.
[14:36] I will just add those two that you just highlighted. We're also ones that we considered
[14:42] as some priorities. We tried to cap ourselves at 6. So, one of those were close behind.
[14:50] See you.
[14:51] Do whatever you want.
[14:53] Okay.
[14:55] I agreed with the water infrastructure funding.
[14:57] the 2027 transportation.
[15:00] Good. Good. Yes. And that land availability under housing and public meeting law. And that, and I also picked six, but the other two that I picked were under energy and environment around, I'm looking at my notes and going back and forth, the investing community energy resilience and disaster planning. And then if I can have a six right under finance, taxation and economic development.
[15:30] I clicked string-fitting economic and workforce development. Those were the other two that I had had.
[15:41] I had one that caught my eye and that was on page 19. The rate payer assistance water bills
[15:52] are going to be going up. I think there's no way around that and that certainly does stress low-income
[15:59] families. There's already programs in place to help them with this. So I think maybe adding
[16:08] funds to that would make a big difference to some families. And it might not, I mean, it won't
[16:13] cost more to administer. I think they just need more funds.
[16:20] Okay.
[16:24] And pretty good with most of
[16:27] what we're not having a serious suggestion. The only place that I really had a problem was with
[16:32] is the way that the energy environment priorities were set up.
[16:38] I would have considered that as a package to be one of my top five.
[16:43] And happened to be that particular committee broke their recommendations in this text.
[16:50] Six that were all pretty much into related.
[16:54] Basically we're trying to assure that communities were ready, had access to alternate forms
[17:01] of energy you had in support to do that.
[17:05] So I don't, that may be more of a common I'd
[17:07] like to attach in submitting our five.
[17:11] But to say, you know, and that may be just me,
[17:15] but since I'm like, you all said the same kind
[17:17] of feeling that any one of those individually,
[17:20] I wouldn't make my top five.
[17:22] But together, if I look at the whole package,
[17:25] I'd say, oh, this is about resilience.
[17:30] So that was,
[17:36] and nobody else, I had one of my five was what are workforce development,
[17:42] but that, because that affects us a great deal, but that seemed to have come through the
[17:47] last session, um, there is October's going to be, but that's one of your, is okay.
[17:53] Um, in the last legislative session, and they didn't really do anything other than they said,
[18:00] We need to focus on that and raise a high, and I believe that was October was designated
[18:06] as water workforce month, or I forget what they called it.
[18:12] But it was elevating it as to say something we have to pay attention, because Oregon doesn't
[18:16] have the kind of reciprocal licensing, with other states that makes it very challenging.
[18:23] So, it has a license and Idaho, they can't come to work here, with them so it has a license
[18:27] and they go to work and I know so that I don't know how high that needs to be, but it is important as all these are.
[18:43] So Nina, what's in you scoring these here?
[18:46] I'm attempting.
[18:47] I think what I'm hearing and you can correct me if I'm wrong is there's three that you sound like you probably agree on public meetings law.
[18:54] Twenty twenty seven transportation package and infrastructure funding.
[18:57] Okay, and the homeless and the homeless continuation of the funds I thought we didn't want not a group.
[19:05] I thought that too. Well actually we were split. There were we were we picked all the different ones under that one.
[19:13] Oh yeah. So you have three that there's three that seem to be consensus for sure.
[19:18] Good.
[19:19] Say it again.
[19:21] If public meetings law, 2027 transportation package and infrastructure funding.
[19:29] Where's the water infrastructure funding?
[19:37] So then the other ones are that we have divergence on our rate payer assistance, strengthening
[19:45] economic and workforce development,
[19:49] energy resilience and disaster planning, and all of the ones
[19:52] under housing where we didn't have consensus, how do we want to get there?
[20:04] All right, I was on that, the land use committee.
[20:11] The funding and stuff is really critical, but I think one of the things that came out very strongly in that committee was that every session that we spent a huge amount of time creating new rules and changing and by the time, in his kind of people who do what it does, by the time they catch up, it's the next session and they change them again. And it makes it really hard to just pursue
[20:40] to get things done, and so I think that was the reason that the league was sort of seeing
[20:47] that as a likely one, as one of the, because that's been a real barrier to just being able
[20:54] to somebody walks in to Derek, so I mean, what are the rules? I don't know, I mean, I'll change
[20:58] them next week. And I know that that's one of the year issues has been being able to be consistent
[21:05] with the public being able to make that clear.
[21:10] So I don't have, but I couldn't argue with anybody who said we need funding for that.
[21:15] That's the issue with those three of their all super high priorities.
[21:23] So if maybe we just say we take all three of those,
[21:28] but then that's so much into housing.
[21:31] I mean, I feel like there's other priorities that we should pick too.
[21:34] But so I would throw my two cents in for the funding and
[21:38] coordinates of the shelter when I was on L.C.
[21:41] Hab.
[21:41] That was a big issue.
[21:43] You know, they're looking at cuts and pulling out money for having
[21:48] our day shelters and we want to expand not contract.
[21:51] So that's why I would, if I had to pick one of those three,
[21:54] I would pick that one for sure.
[21:58] And I also picked two.
[21:59] But I did go to the full funding and streaming is very useful too.
[22:02] So, they're hard, it's really hard.
[22:05] Yeah, I
[22:14] like the maintain local control
[22:17] of a safe modern right away.
[22:21] That is one that I'd.
[22:23] That was the safe party.
[22:27] Yeah.
[22:27] And I would support it.
[22:29] I'm not like, no, we can't support that one.
[22:32] So,
[22:35] I know you've been part of the,
[22:36] I don't know how frequently that homeless advisory group is
[22:39] meeting.
[22:41] We've had one meeting the first one got canceled and then the second one they said and
[22:47] noticed like a couple days before.
[22:49] So yeah, but yeah, I mean, that's one of the biggest things that that was talked about.
[22:56] Is that the funding is just decreasing year after year after year? I mean, that's
[23:04] that's huge. I mean, if you walk out, you see, you see that it is it's a problem that keeps
[23:09] growing and growing and growing, I mean, these economic times, it's people are losing their
[23:15] houses, people are just, they can't work. And so, I mean, it gets worse. So, I do think that's
[23:23] a should be a priority that we look at as well.
[23:28] So, it seems like there's some consensus that we
[23:31] should have one of those, at least one of those three. I think for sure, at least one of them.
[23:36] go with shelter and I'm comfortable with that because again the others don't drop out of the
[23:43] world but in terms of what we need here. Derek, any opinion on that? Put you on the spot.
[23:51] I think that's fair and a few points well taken. You know the things are pretty dire on the shelter
[23:59] side of it in terms of funding. And, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and as you pointed out, we don't
[24:05] win a one-way going backwards. It took a, it took a, it took a pretty big lift just to get to where we're
[24:08] out right now. And, so that, that is, that is, that is pretty critical component. Housing piece is going to be
[24:15] there. It's going to be, ever present, this session, as it has been, and, so, well, we'll work through it.
[24:24] And, one, then, I think, maybe, maybe a future work session before this legislative session,
[24:28] to really know where we stand as a council, because one of our representatives, as an
[24:34] randerson, that's one of his priorities is housing and there have been times when we have
[24:40] not always been in the same place around that and knowing what our position is would be helpful.
[24:48] We don't have to do that tonight, but I think that's part of where that issue around, you know,
[24:53] Don't change it over here because people keep having better ideas, but then
[25:00] You never know what did what worked or didn't, but I think so I think we're solid on that.
[25:05] That's four, and we just need one more, and we've got, we've agreed on wastewater infrastructure, or water infrastructure,
[25:13] 27 transportation package, and the shelter and homeless response funding, and the public meeting law clarity.
[25:22] So that other ones are local control of the right of way.
[25:29] Oh, I just lost the page.
[25:31] I don't know what happened there. Sorry.
[25:34] I just kind of couldn't.
[25:36] I was going all the way back.
[25:37] I'm going to end it up with two rooms.
[25:39] Oh, okay.
[25:42] And then the rate payer assistance.
[25:48] I think was one of the other ones that I missed one.
[25:50] I feel like the energy resilience and strengthening economic development and workforce on that's right.
[25:55] That's for.
[25:57] And I would suggest on the energy that we send in our five and if folks will come through with this,
[26:05] that we send in our five with the note that says these as a group should be prioritized, as number six or something to point that out because each of these policy committee sort of works things differently.
[26:20] And
[26:24] if the form lets me do it, I can try to do it, but I think the R&T that the form will
[26:28] let me, you know, you're on the.
[26:31] No, I'm not on the committee this year.
[26:34] I'm on the board.
[26:35] Yeah.
[26:35] That's real.
[26:36] Yeah.
[26:37] Yeah.
[26:38] So I guess what's the biggest bang for our buck amongst the remaining ones, set of
[26:44] I actually, I hadn't really thought about
[26:47] synthies idea of the rate pair,
[26:50] but I've heard from a lot of people about that.
[26:53] So it feels like maybe that is a priority to keep that.
[26:56] Again, we don't want to go backwards.
[26:58] We've got a program that already helps.
[27:00] Let's keep helping and maybe expand it in these times.
[27:04] So I can definitely support that as one of our five priorities.
[27:11] Yeah, I'm really pulling towards the economic development
[27:16] and then work forth, you know, like that's another good one too.
[27:18] I feel like we lost a big industry
[27:21] and how do we continue to attract and retain
[27:26] the businesses that we do have in our community
[27:29] that are helping people have a living wage,
[27:32] or you know, that feels interesting to me.
[27:35] But I don't know, I think the biggest bang for your,
[27:37] our book is a really good question.
[27:39] I think that's a really good question.
[27:41] And one's more long term, one's more short term.
[27:43] I would suggest that if the infrastructure funding for water is there, that helps to control the rates.
[27:53] When we don't get through infrastructure funding, because our water rates are the result of the net cost.
[28:01] If there's grant funds or more funds into that, that would have the effective lower rates.
[28:10] Yeah, and I'll make sense in which would sort of bump up the workforce training to be the
[28:16] more meaningful or effective use of our vote.
[28:24] I had the head of the, you know, I would agree there.
[28:29] They'll accomplish the different ways to accomplish the same thing, which is to get more efficient,
[28:35] more effective in funding our water.
[28:37] And then having somebody to actually operate it, who knows what they're doing.
[28:48] What are our enterprise zones around?
[28:51] Like, when you read about this, it talks about the long,
[28:56] it would really focus on incentive programs and enterprise zones.
[29:01] And do we have an enterprise zone in our area?
[29:06] Yes, Derek, do you want to speak to them?
[29:08] Yes, we do have an enterprise zone.
[29:12] And, you know, Rogue Burry had been, you know, and in the role E, and unfortunately, they, you know, over time, they were no longer able to keep up with the additional requirements of the program, such as hiring additional staff growing the business that kind of thing, and so they fell out of that program, and I don't know that we have anybody else in there right now.
[29:36] We also did seek a work with economic e-dalk to see if we could get an opportunity zone designation.
[29:46] We do have folks that would be interested in securing that.
[29:50] And we just haven't heard where that stands right now.
[29:53] But might not be the best bang for a buck if we pick that one.
[29:58] I don't know.
[30:00] If we don't have immediate businesses that would come to mind that would benefit, then it's not necessarily benefiting, the residents like a rate pair assist would, you know.
[30:13] Well, what happened to the land availability and land use streamlining?
[30:18] I think that one that you had, Nina, doesn't that kind of hit in?
[30:25] You've got to have the land availability to get the folks here.
[30:34] I think we had it down.
[30:37] There was one of those struggles that were like,
[30:40] I think we would support them both, you know,
[30:43] that was, I think we either are choosing the funding and coordination for shelters above the
[30:50] land availability, then you just stream running.
[30:57] Can I pick, I picked the land availability and sort of the city pick that one, so that could
[31:01] be our fifth one.
[31:06] What's the score?
[31:07] What can you please repeat?
[31:09] What is our fifth one?
[31:10] We're still in the decision phase of it, but I'm, like, that could be one, because that
[31:16] as a complement with the city's priorities,
[31:18] where the city's task priorities were.
[31:21] Like land availability and streamlining,
[31:23] and it helps housing, it helps industry,
[31:26] it helps a lot of different things.
[31:27] And it's
[31:32] interesting that it would be water infrastructure.
[31:36] 2027 transportation, public meeting,
[31:38] law clarity, shelter, and homeless response,
[31:42] and land availability.
[31:45] Very well, I think.
[31:46] Can we live with this?
[31:48] I can start all of that.
[31:49] and we decide for the state of Oregon.
[31:54] I will submit the ballot then, and it looks like I can put a comment in, so I will be
[31:58] putting in a comment regarding the energy.
[32:01] It works well, because it was for us being like, and I know some people on wrong policy
[32:06] committees, you meet a few, they're good, it's good work, but you had to come to a project
[32:12] and you're not meeting forever to whittle it down.
[32:17] So, good, we're good on, thank you.
[32:22] I think that's a good discussion.
[32:24] I don't want to talk to you.
[32:25] And I would encourage folks to keep reading this stuff
[32:27] because what happens during the session
[32:31] is these things come up very quickly, suddenly,
[32:35] and that if we have taken a position,
[32:38] then any one of us can respond.
[32:41] Whereas if we have not taken a position,
[32:45] waiting to go back to council and try to, you know, as you can't speak for council, but in
[32:50] what's council is spoken. So I really want to push that this year and appreciate that.
[32:57] Okay, excellent. Whoa, we got it. Who's here? Our next item is two C, neighborhood traffic management
[33:05] program pilot project concept. And I think Derek's going to get us kicked off. Yes, thank you. Derek
[33:15] So I just wanted to do have some lead comments and then Marilyn who's done most of the work here is going to kind of walk you through the different components of this program.
[33:24] We have had an opportunity to, you know, work with engineering department and we've collaborated on coming up with this framework and we've had an opportunity to
[33:35] that it with the planning commission and kind of incorporate their feedback into this.
[33:40] So the reason we're pursuing this neighborhood traffic management program, you may recall that
[33:46] when we wrapped up the 22 transportation system plan, this was a piece where we were able to
[33:52] identify what types of streets are appropriate for traffic calming measures, but we didn't go so far as
[34:00] put in place a program for vetting requests and determining which ones are a priority for funding
[34:06] and how they would be funded. So we took it so far as to put in place a policy into our
[34:11] conference, a plan that said, that's next step. We need to put in place a framework for
[34:19] evaluating requests for traffic calming measures and for funding them.
[34:24] And so our objective here is to get a framework in place such that we could open the door
[34:36] for proposals and we can organize ourselves so that we're ready to make a funding request
[34:44] for the next budget cycle, not the current one.
[34:47] Which means we want to have this more or less fleshed out so that this fall going into the
[34:54] winner, we'd be able to open the door for folks to make requests for.
[35:00] Or traffic calming in their neighborhood, and would know how we were going to be addressing them. So, as we go through this framework, we're really looking for your feedback, is this kind of going the right direction? Are there things we should be considering that we're not currently considering that kind of thing? And you have an opportunity at a future meeting to look at further details, as we take this from a conceptual framework to something that's real.
[35:30] That was for my lead comments, and now I'm going to be the one who pushes buttons, and Maryland's going to tell me.
[35:37] Good afternoon, everyone.
[35:40] Good to see you, name.
[35:40] My name is Marilyn. I'm the planner for Community Development Department.
[35:45] So I'm just going to do kind of a high overview of what the program would look like.
[35:50] So I'm going to try to run through these pretty quickly.
[35:53] There is a procedures that I shared with you.
[35:59] that goes into more detail about the program
[36:01] and what it's gonna look like in its pilot stage basically.
[36:06] All right, so here's just a general overview
[36:09] of what this presentation will be.
[36:11] It's why this program, the structure of it, how it works
[36:14] and some considerations for council today.
[36:19] Yeah, so really we wanted to make sure
[36:22] that this program was in alignment
[36:24] with the comprehensive plan and the transportation system plan
[36:27] that was updated in 2022.
[36:30] So we pulled a couple of the goals from there
[36:32] and tried to make the program fit that structure.
[36:37] We can go into the next one.
[36:40] I know I'm going through these really fast,
[36:43] but we can go into detail if you like.
[36:45] This is just very general question.
[36:48] Should we hold comments till the end?
[36:50] Oh, yes.
[36:51] Yes.
[36:55] So really we wanted to create something
[36:57] that was accessible both for the public and for our staff.
[37:00] We just wanted it to be very straightforward for people
[37:03] to kind of understand what the program would look like.
[37:06] So that's where we started.
[37:07] We wanted to make sure that there was data driven.
[37:10] A lot of the times these programs are funded
[37:12] through different strategies,
[37:14] and so we just wanted to make sure to have
[37:16] a more comprehensive kind of data collecting format.
[37:24] And then we wanted to test the feasibility
[37:26] of such a program that's where this pilot came into play and then lastly build that foundation
[37:31] so that we can monitor how it's going and where we wanted to go and yeah that's kind of the
[37:39] direction we wanted. So in creating the structure of this program I wanted to be as simple as possible
[37:46] through different jurisdictions. There was a multi-step process. One of the more extensive ones
[37:52] was up to 12 steps. So I wanted to keep it as short as possible. So step one would be the
[37:58] request and eligibility screening that we'd start with. Step two would be the engineering
[38:03] evaluation and scoring matrix. That would then give us some direction about prioritization
[38:10] later on. The community engagement piece and the planning installation monitoring which would
[38:15] at the end. And I would just add this Marilyn shared it with me. One of the key pieces here is
[38:22] is that straightforward process component. She'd reached out to some communities that have
[38:29] processes that look wonderful on paper, very, you know, very comprehensive, but so daunting,
[38:36] nobody's willing to do it. So it's a great process on paper, but nothing's come of it. And so we
[38:45] We're talking about one and two projects per fiscal year under this kind of framework and under the pilot project, this would be fully public funded, so we're thinking around $100,000 a fiscal year in terms of the ask, which would come out of the street improvement funding.
[39:09] Yeah, thanks, Eric.
[39:13] So here's just an overview of what we're thinking.
[39:15] The schedule would look like we'll have a deadline for when
[39:19] Request will be accepted for the upcoming year,
[39:22] but we will continue to receive requests throughout the year
[39:26] and then look into them for the following fiscal year.
[39:31] Yeah, and so we'll start in the fall and hopefully implementation
[39:35] can happen in the summer. The community meeting will happen in the winter. That's what our
[39:41] community engagement will look like for now. And I'll talk a little bit more about that in a couple
[39:46] slides. But yeah, generally it'd be a fall to summer type schedule. We'll receive requests on a
[39:51] rolling basis and then review them for the upcoming year. And evaluate them for priority.
[40:07] So to start off with step one, the request and eligibility screening, we have two ways we've thought about, one of them is using the GIS layers that we already have from the transportation system plans so people can see right away if they're street qualifies for a traffic calming device and we also have a paper fillable version where people can put in the request and then one of our staff can reach out to them and let them know.
[40:32] why they won't be going through or if we will evaluate it at a later time.
[40:41] Yeah, so that's after it passes the kind of initial screening that we have, the evaluation piece will be at a later step.
[40:54] So the engineering and evaluation in scoring matrix, as I mentioned earlier,
[40:58] are really more geared toward prioritization and kind of figuring out which streets that
[41:04] qualify can then go into the actual implementation piece of it.
[41:11] The engineering evaluation is pretty straightforward across jurisdictions.
[41:16] And so that's something that I conceptually put together, but really once we start getting
[41:22] the request, I think we can start looking into specifics about what the waiting looks like in terms of
[41:27] What scores can be prioritized like yeah, I get's a little complicated there, but this is just a very conceptual just starting point
[41:41] And then
[41:43] The next step so that's step two after the request has been screened and it's good to go. It's gone through the evaluation
[41:51] Oh, did you want to oh, okay
[41:58] And in that evaluation piece, we'll also figure out which traffic
[42:02] calming device will go on that street.
[42:05] So not all traffic calming devices can go on every street.
[42:08] So we are trying to be mindful about that.
[42:12] And so once it's been selected,
[42:14] we then have a conversation with the affected community members.
[42:19] There is an interdepartmental approval process that will go through as well
[42:23] just to make sure that there's some coordination there.
[42:30] So the community engagement piece is where we'll host the meeting with the affected community
[42:36] members and kind of talk through traffic calming device selection. We'll talk through
[42:42] what the implementation will look like and then up to this point I didn't go into depth about it
[42:49] but there is a petition that we can require from people before they submit a request
[42:55] to ensure there is community support. This piece was one that I saw across jurisdictions as like the
[43:03] beginning piece of it so you have to have that threshold met of 51 to 76% before you could even
[43:09] submit the request. We talked a little bit about it during our planning commission work session but
[43:18] showing that there is support right off from the beginning I think is what we're hoping to get
[43:25] So if the request comes in and the petition's been done, I think we can then move to step
[43:31] forward, but this is where we'll gauge what that community support looks like, I think.
[43:35] Yeah, there was one point that the Planning Commission really emphasized after they heard all this
[43:40] was they felt very strongly that they're needed to be some form of petition up front
[43:46] that an individual property owner, for example, who just really likes, you know, traffic calming measures
[43:54] might be throwing requests all the time and they did not want to see a lot of city resources
[43:59] invested in, but it's just one person who wants this and not the broader affected community.
[44:08] And so no, no specific recommendations from the commission in terms of what that percentage
[44:12] should be other than they also recognize that it shouldn't be so high as to be deterrent.
[44:18] So coming up with something that's a reasonable figure in both in terms of the percentage,
[44:23] about what's your area that you're talking about or things that we would like to know.
[44:26] Oh, there's my question, is how would you define the neighborhood free particular project?
[44:31] Right, that may vary depending upon the nature of the ask, you know, too, but we need to put some more
[44:36] thought to that. We haven't really quite got there yet. Yeah. And then right now, we have it as one
[44:43] community meeting, but we're definitely open to having more. If it goes case by case, if it presents itself
[44:51] for the need for another meeting, then we'll definitely look into that.
[44:57] But see, for this, that's where Chris and his folks.
[45:00] We've already had an opportunity to look at viability, and so when we're walking out and engaging the community in this meeting, we're walking out with a concept, not just a point piece of paper, but these are what we think we could do in that area. What do you guys think?
[45:18] And we'll be in a position there too to explain why certain options weren't identified as priorities.
[45:25] It could be to do with the curvature of the road and development pattern in the area.
[45:29] There are a lot of things that factor in your post-its beads, all that stuff.
[45:35] Mm-hmm.
[45:39] Yeah.
[45:40] And then the last step would be the design and construction, the monitoring, and the project log.
[45:48] So, in this time is when people would know when that traffic
[45:53] calming device is coming into their neighborhood, the monitoring piece will go really based off that staff capacity, that's really what we can do, to help track some of that, like the, if the traffic calming device is successful in an area we'd want to know and pick that up and it helps for funding strategies in the future.
[46:15] The public project log is more for transparency for the public.
[46:19] I think we just want them to know when a device has been selected for a street.
[46:26] And so that people can know that that's something they can look into if they need it.
[46:32] Yeah, so that's kind of where we landed as the final step for the program and this time.
[46:40] You know, for all the time and effort that was put into Ocean View, we haven't done the post-installation traffic counts yet.
[46:48] Something that we were talking about, right, crazy.
[46:50] Yeah, crispy city engineer.
[46:53] We are going to put some counters up.
[46:55] It's just a matter of finding the correct location, because obviously at like 15th Street,
[47:00] we've got speed.
[47:01] I'm so excited that intersection.
[47:03] So obviously the speeds are going to be slower, you would think.
[47:06] So it's finding that place that they tested before, and we're working on finding that.
[47:13] Great.
[47:17] So as we move forward, and we're not asking you to answer all questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 here,
[47:22] but we were putting out some policy considerations as we move this forward for, you know,
[47:28] where we really know we need your feedback.
[47:30] One, we're going to want to make sure you're comfortable with the funding level.
[47:34] And that, you know, we're looking at a two-year pilot to start.
[47:38] that then can evolve into something else as appropriate.
[47:43] We're going to need your help.
[47:45] At least telling us what you think they're reasonable or not,
[47:47] as we put together numeric eligibility thresholds for scoring
[47:51] and what makes sense on that scale.
[47:56] Really could use your feedback.
[47:58] It will bring options to table on a petition
[48:00] and what that should be.
[48:03] Both in terms of the percentage and the parameters.
[48:08] defining what your expectations are in terms of community engagement, that's going to be helpful as we move forward.
[48:16] And what you see in terms of, you know, kind of a minimum level of monitoring that we should be doing, you know, after we do an installation.
[48:26] Like Chris had traffic counts or other things that we should be thinking about in terms of post installation follow-up.
[48:35] And that'll start when?
[48:39] Well, our hope is to have this framed out such that we can begin to accept requests under this framework.
[48:50] This fall going into the winter.
[48:52] So it could be, you know, maybe in October to December time frame in something like that.
[49:02] Thank you.
[49:04] Thanks for the presentation.
[49:05] is very thoughtful. And I know Ocean View is kind of a test baby here, wasn't it? Yeah. Yeah,
[49:13] I do have a couple of questions. A couple of meetings ago we had talked about traffic studies
[49:19] and that there would be a charge for that. That's not in here anywhere. Is it not at this point
[49:27] being a pilot program? We would wave that charge. Oh, okay. And I remember that when the bike
[49:34] had committee was disassembled that they were concerned about not having enough input from
[49:43] people who write bikes when what we might do things like this to streets, to change the
[49:51] streets. I would just want to make sure that the that the Viking community were involved somehow,
[49:59] And I don't know how you...
[50:00] You would do that exactly, but there must be that opportunity.
[50:07] Do you have any requests, active, that present to?
[50:13] Most of the requests right now are on the gravel roads that we're going to be paving before they even know there's going to be a problem.
[50:22] But it's assumed that the speeds will go up with gravel roads paving, so we do have an active request.
[50:27] Okay. And then I was, I was just wondering about, you know, when the neighborhood would be asked to get this petition with a certain threshold.
[50:39] I think we need to think, thinking out about how you would count homes, like second homes, people who don't live here,
[50:57] I think that would be a factor also.
[51:02] I agree with that.
[51:04] We did discuss that internally about houses like that.
[51:08] And neighborhoods in general, ocean we drive, you know,
[51:10] it's kind of a community,
[51:12] but it's also affects the whole city
[51:14] and even more than that, people traveling ocean we drive.
[51:18] So that'll be ironed out.
[51:20] We'll iron that out and get input from you.
[51:24] And hopefully we can make the right decision on inclusion.
[51:29] Thank you for preparing this.
[51:31] It's a good thing to have on hand.
[51:34] They're not done.
[51:38] Thanks.
[51:39] I had a couple of questions and or concerns.
[51:43] You mentioned in there are streets of 500 cars per day or whatever.
[51:48] What's that example of a street that has around that volume?
[51:52] I don't go off course to have.
[51:58] It's just under it.
[52:00] When we remember when we were looking at the shared street concept and we brought a bunch of
[52:07] examples of different streets in the community with their different ADT, that's the one
[52:10] that was probably closest to 500.
[52:13] So that or higher would be one of the thresholds that they would have to meet.
[52:17] And logically, I mean, when we put in place the shared streets the concept was that
[52:23] It was under 580 to generally the various studies of shown folks are comfortable sharing the
[52:30] street.
[52:31] There's not so much background traffic that they feel that they need to separate it, like
[52:36] head to silly, like sidewalks.
[52:38] They're okay walking their dog down the middle of the street or riding their bike down
[52:41] the street because they're just not a lot of traffic.
[52:44] Not too much.
[52:45] Right, not too much.
[52:46] But if you don't want one car a day, kind of thing either.
[52:49] Another one I had, we're talking about the petitions and stuff, and I noticed one of the
[52:54] comments is a lot of people have struggled, there's sort of the two sides of that coin.
[53:00] So I think that's going to be a very important concern as SISI was saying with a lot of
[53:06] streets having tons of second vacation homes or rentals that becomes even more of an issue.
[53:13] You know, how do you get the petition done and and do the people respond even?
[53:19] And then my last comment was I'm not sure
[53:24] We should roll out a free program if in the long term when we were thinking of doing a shared cost program because it might seem a little unfair to the people who got in in the beginning
[53:34] God didn't have to pay anything
[53:36] So I might suggest that we think about whether we're gonna just say we're gonna commit a hundred thousand per year
[53:41] or if we're going to say people who come in with these proposals might be able to, you know,
[53:47] have to be asked to share the cost.
[53:50] It's an excellent point.
[53:52] Are thinking on doing this as a pilot, it's fully funded, as it gives us more time to
[53:57] think through the equity issues that aren't here and to what you just brought up.
[54:02] Because, you know, there are a couple of sides of the coin there, you know, if it's in
[54:07] an area that's fluent enough that people feel that they can take on the additional assessment
[54:10] and they really want this.
[54:13] Well, that's going to serve a certain, you know,
[54:15] second segment of the community.
[54:17] And then what about those that aren't in that position?
[54:21] So I think that's gonna take some careful thought
[54:23] and our suggestion is try this type of pilot program
[54:26] for a COGO's and we can always roll in the capturing component
[54:30] and probably we'll need to to really do this well
[54:34] moving forward, but it gives us more time.
[54:36] What would it be at that point,
[54:38] maybe if it's a pilot as part of the petition or the feedback is when we ask the people
[54:43] if they are in favor, would they be in favor if they had a share of 20% of the cost?
[54:48] You know, that kind of thing, and that might be a way to sort of get that data.
[55:01] We're done.
[55:04] There's like a couple more, but it's not my dad.
[55:08] No, it's okay.
[55:08] I think the most part of the world about everything.
[55:12] These were just jurisdictions that I looked into and how we thought about it.
[55:15] Oh, yeah.
[55:17] No, this is, sorry.
[55:19] This is the end of it.
[55:20] It's kind of just reiterating what we've talked about.
[55:23] Except here, I've mentioned the neighborhood traffic management programs I looked into from different jurisdictions
[55:29] and just kind of talking about how they what their structure kind of main points of their structures and how they're different.
[55:38] But part of the reason I picked these jurisdictions is because they have a longstanding
[55:43] neighborhood management traffic plans and so a lot of them are 50, 60 years old and so I wanted to look at them.
[55:52] And when I reached out, they had some information to share about how their programs are going
[55:57] or any assessments Corvall has shared their most recent assessment of their neighborhood traffic management plan and the equity issues that we've talked about or something they also brought up.
[56:07] So that's why this slide is here, but yeah, that's basically it. I think there's one more.
[56:13] And it's just that kind of again reiterating what the inequities are asking about funding strategies and community engagement and this is where we landed but yes, that's it.
[56:32] I'm going to go for it with some questions.
[56:36] I'll start actually with Councillor Eman's question around the equity issue and funding,
[56:41] because it would help also the question around like, well, I think knowing what budgetarily
[56:48] it costs for the different traffic calming measures, because it's really hard to say like
[56:52] these larger cities that were compared, they're like what we only have $100,000 and we get
[56:57] 75 to 100 requests.
[56:59] Well, 150, you know, it's like, how do you manage that?
[57:01] Like, I have no idea what that would look like for new port
[57:05] in terms of what money we would be setting aside.
[57:08] And then also, it would really be helpful if we have the data
[57:11] around where the crashes are, where we need to do more
[57:14] traffic calming, where it's 500 or more cars.
[57:16] Like, we don't have that information, right?
[57:19] So it feels kind of a morphist, like you mentioned, GCD.
[57:22] I would never thought, I mean, I forgot about that, right?
[57:25] Like I wouldn't have thought that golf course drive would be like that high of a priority and then it feels a little bit like it's like, well, if I get enough people and it was never clear like it's 51 to 75% the number of people who are impacted is that who would have to be the 51 to 75 was not I didn't understand what the clear what 51 to 70% of what is the community support required for the petition to go through for requests so it is the people who would be impacted by the straight.
[57:54] Okay, that's how I was trying to, it wasn't 100% clear on that.
[57:58] So if I drive down at every day, I'm impacted, right?
[58:05] So maybe I don't live in the impacted community, but if I drive down at every day to go to work
[58:09] I just try to figure out what is considered impacted.
[58:13] I do have a lot of questions, so I'm just going to try to scroll back and try to throw them all at you.
[58:21] Also, a response to every applicant, I love the accessibility piece of that, if I apply in your one or your, you know, is it carried on to your two if it's not, you know, and then, again, going back to the cost sharing, I think it would really depend on what the traffic calming costs are, like the different ones, and actually don't know what a traffic delineater is, I was like, I don't know what that one is.
[58:43] But that just made me a little bit concerned about how do we get to that?
[58:49] Hold on a second. I have, I'm trying to, yeah, so the crash data piece would be really important to know that.
[58:56] And what is a speed trailer? Just like a little thing that gets says, okay, okay, I'm sure.
[59:02] And then the matrix, I wasn't sure if setting the numeric eligibility is like the, if it's 35 miles
[59:08] power over or if and what's the scoring matrix like they were scoring matrix is mentioned
[59:13] from other cities.
[59:14] I think that also you're really good to understand because again, if we only get a certain
[59:20] amount that we can, you know, set aside for this, should we be thinking about the areas
[59:24] that are the most prone to accidents, the higher than 500 cars, like the most most
[59:30] most like should there be a tiered thing.
[59:33] I'm not saying community involvement shouldn't be a part of it, but like I feel like
[59:36] you should know what those streets are, like that.
[59:38] And again, if you only have a loan amount of the budget,
[59:42] then you are a little bit constrained
[59:44] with what you can really do, again, really depends
[59:47] on the traffic calming.
[59:49] I think I have some other questions that from one of the other
[59:51] documents, but those are my starter questions.
[1:00:02] We do have, I guess, a conceptual scoring matrix, I just did an agenda mic.
[1:00:09] We have a scoring matrix that we talked about. I just did an included today because it's not final.
[1:00:16] Then I think some of those other pieces were helpful to talk about.
[1:00:21] And a part of the considerations for today are thinking about what those weights will look like to then prioritize these projects.
[1:00:29] So, constrictability was one of them, and equity was one of them.
[1:00:35] We went a little bit back and forth on equity, due to possible federal funding, but
[1:00:42] what those markers would be specifically, I guess, is what I meant.
[1:00:46] And then, those each carry different weights, which would then rank it on prioritization.
[1:00:54] That gets a little complicated so I didn't show it today, but that is something we're working
[1:00:57] on.
[1:00:58] We specifically considered the carryover, so if there was project proposals that came in,
[1:01:04] but they didn't rate out enough to be funded a current fiscal year, they would carry over and be reassessed with the pool of whatever we have in the next year.
[1:01:12] That was our thinking on that.
[1:01:16] We can provide cost, Chris, what was it?
[1:01:18] You said the cost per speed hump is, I think you had a number at one point.
[1:01:24] That was about 25 to 30.
[1:01:27] So it's kind of very, you know, the delineated you, those are those things that stick to the ground and go up, you know, you to be like a white one with a little bit of a flash.
[1:01:38] Yeah.
[1:01:38] Kind of tall and they kind of, you know, it'll direct you.
[1:01:42] I'll go pull it.
[1:01:43] I did, I should have done my homework on that.
[1:01:45] I didn't do my homework on that.
[1:01:46] But the cost is going to vary in some point based on the type of solution that's appropriate in a given area.
[1:01:52] You know, your signage and striping is going to be a little cheaper.
[1:01:54] If you're going in with speed-offs, it's going to be more expensive, but our thinking was that
[1:02:01] the budget of about 100,000 per fiscal year should be sufficient for us to be able to implement
[1:02:07] one-to-two projects, depending on what their scope is.
[1:02:13] Yeah, on the ocean, you drive speed-offs. That was the first go for the contractors, local contractors.
[1:02:18] So, and we had to get a form from Coralis, we borrowed a form.
[1:02:23] We do have that, we got that template, so we can make her own, and I expect, as they do
[1:02:30] more of these, that costs will go down, part, at least, stay status quo over time.
[1:02:37] Do we have any idea what the demand for these would be driven by the residence versus
[1:02:43] by you guys saying, oh, we know there's a lot of accidents here, where this road needs work as
[1:02:47] comparison.
[1:02:51] We don't really have that information based on the amount of
[1:02:56] inquiries we've gotten before. I really don't look at speed-homes or traffic
[1:03:02] calming measures to try to determine where they go. It's just when it's
[1:03:06] brought to my attention we evaluate it and determine it that way. So it's basically
[1:03:10] totally a resident driven type program. Yes, okay.
[1:03:15] And to your point, because the notice, we were thinking about, well, okay, we're going to
[1:03:23] be doing notification for a community meeting, you know, there may be direct mail notification
[1:03:28] maybe to those properties that are immediately along the segment where the traffic coming
[1:03:32] would be deployed, but there would be a need to reach out to the broader communities
[1:03:35] well in some form, you know, reaching out through social media, getting out, you know,
[1:03:44] Well, we do want to be sensitive to, you know, postcard drop for an entire state's kind
[1:03:49] of expensive and is it really effective in this kind of context?
[1:03:53] So what's the right mechanism for reaching out to the broader community?
[1:03:58] We know we need to pin that down.
[1:04:00] Yeah, I think our certain radius within the project, a potential project or a grid, each side
[1:04:06] of it, to box it in, to figure it out that way for starting.
[1:04:11] I'm kind of curious, and I don't know if this was a question, yes, to answer, it would
[1:04:17] seem to be something like this would be sort of a natural fodder for all of the most
[1:04:21] of the communities you're looking at have neighborhood associations.
[1:04:26] And that would be sort of the, oh, we'll go, the neighborhood association ought to be coming
[1:04:30] forward and as the voice of that neighborhood.
[1:04:33] So I wonder if this might be some aside product of this might be people saying, you know,
[1:04:39] Maybe we don't have a neighborhood association, so we can speak.
[1:04:43] And I'd be happy, and I'd be glad to see that,
[1:04:46] because that house brings neighborhoods.
[1:04:49] And then there's a way, you've got somebody to talk to.
[1:04:52] You can get, you can talk to that neighborhood with somebody who, no, no.
[1:05:00] So over time, I think that could be better, very beneficial.
[1:05:08] I have one last clarifying question. So it is based on individual submissions or you are
[1:05:16] overlaying it. Like I'm reading the part about the interactive mapping tool. Like you are
[1:05:21] overlaying it with like crash data and like where there are like near misses and that kind of thing.
[1:05:27] Like it is pulling from our data on that.
[1:05:35] Yeah, I think we're going to be working with GIS to our staff there to put in this data as it comes available and the crash data is already available, just matter and get it into the system and average daily traffic as we do traffic counts will will enter that into the system as well and some of the components that will go into the scoring matrix would be on there.
[1:06:01] So you're looking, one, you want some sense of where the council's at.
[1:06:06] Can we just, generally, do we have like kind of thumbs up thumbs down on this?
[1:06:11] Got a couple, got two thumbs over there.
[1:06:15] And I would, I've got two as well.
[1:06:17] I think, yeah, we'll go fourth and do good.
[1:06:20] All right.
[1:06:21] And I think you have a sense of what the concerns, and they're not,
[1:06:24] they're not like, don't do it kinds of concerns.
[1:06:27] They're just, how to do it better.
[1:06:28] right? No, and we appreciate it and we don't have it fully, you know, fully framed out.
[1:06:32] Yeah, and this kind of feedback is going to help us kind of fill in the gaps and we can bring a more complete product back
[1:06:38] to you before we roll it out.
[1:06:40] Great.
[1:06:41] Good work.
[1:06:42] I'm going to do the excited to see this.
[1:06:47] Thank you.
[1:06:50] Hey.
[1:06:51] And with that.
[1:06:57] And with that.
[1:06:59] Oh, no, I do I need to read before we adjourn?
[1:07:04] Yes.
[1:07:05] Okay.
[1:07:05] The council will close the open portion of the meeting and move into executive session pursuant
[1:07:12] to ORS192.6602E to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate
[1:07:22] real property transactions. Under ORS192.6604 members of the media may report that an executive
[1:07:32] session was held under the specific statutory authority stated. However, they may not disclose
[1:07:38] any specific information discussed during the executive session. No sessions will be made
[1:07:44] during the executive session. No decisions, I'm sorry. Council members and staff are reminded
[1:07:49] that all discussions during the executive session are confidential and must not be disclosed
[1:07:54] outside of this session. At this time, we respectfully request that members of the audience exit
[1:08:00] The room following the executive session, the meeting will be adjourned.