City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and I'd like to welcome everyone to the City Council special meeting in one session of Tuesday, June 9th. Call the meeting of the order and before we approve the agenda, I would like to revise it to add an item underneath action item number four and that is the authorization of the ending of the DC settlement agreement.

I move to approve the agenda as amended and ask that everyone be mindful of time so we can get through this agenda efficiently and adjourn with a reasonable time. All in favor?

Yes.

Okay, and just for everyone's information, Tim Collier is sitting out here with us because he likes to spend time with us. Because Bruce is on vacation this week. So welcome, Tim, to the big kids table. Okay, so we'll start out with public comment. And if you'd like to make a public comment, please raise your hand. When you're called up to the podium, state your name and mailing address. Keep it under three minutes and remember to be kind and respectful. Is there anyone that would like to make a public comment?

Public comment, anything, Barb, or just?

It should be, it matters.

Not one of the man is one of the matters on your agenda, but I is a part of our total agenda. So, okay.

Yeah, that's fine. Is it okay. Now, sure. If you're ready, I was going to have a lot of first she raised your hand. So, and then you can go right after they go.

So just a comment about the memorandum of agreement with an arcade. Okay. I would just strongly encourage you to complete the Memorandum of Understanding of the ARCAPE from an emergency response perspective. The fire department's sports ARCAPE, as they do in Cannon Beach. The Medical Reserve Corps sports ARCAPE, as I'm doing in Cannon Beach. And the last time you want to be making a decision about who's going to do what and how it's going to play out is in an emergency. So to have that spelled out in advance, we're critical to say less. And that's it. Okay. And you can put your mailing address. Oh, I'm sorry. Lila Winkum, PO bus, 2308, Polo Mountain Park, 97145. Okay. Thank you. Okay. My name is Gary Smith.

the 264 children trail in Canada Beach. I'm only concerned about the wire that I received. I have a hazing permit from the Department of Wildlife to deal with the elements there. And the arguments that I was reading, it looked to me like if you pass this ordinance, it's going to take that ability for me to protect my property and my pets. from the bottom of my yard on a regular basis. This was precipitated by this incident that happened when my son was dog-bearing, letting Rockyville do its business, and I ended up with 40 elk in my backyard. The grave that I'm just about killed, $4,200 worth of death, it was later, and around $1,800 worth of damage to my backyard. I filed a report with the Oregon State Police. They're getting an AC permit. They said, do whatever you have to do other than injuring them and killing them. I do. This ordinance didn't stop me from doing that for protecting my property like that. I've been around this town since 1967. I've seen a lot of wildlife around here. They all have been here long before then, but there has never been 40 to 50 to 60-yard road in the streets like there are now. They have no competitors. The only competitor they have is man. You stop hunting and they don't deserve or deserve us here. What we have to do in the nation after making the game, the bird is that given unchecked, this bird will continue to grow. They will overtake the town and it will be the people living here that are going to be in trouble. So I would think strongly. from the liabilities to the standard going from the city, that you do not make an ordinance that protects them, making an ordinance that makes it illegal to feed them, stopping in the middle of Hemlock Street or Highway 1 and taking pictures of them, and on and on and on. But I don't think we need to take away the property rights. The property rights should prevent them from doing what is necessary to get along with their property. Yes, you are there.

Thank you.

Yes.

Well, not. The way it says here. The address is you know. Well, our work and I am aware of the incident that Mr. Smith started about. I have heard that elk have bad eyesight and can confuse a large dog with a wolf. And animal, domestic dogs can be injured or killed by elk. Sandy, you know, the question was 12 counts, his 12 counts. He was in his own fence yard and he was attacked. by Yale. I have seen tourists feeding firewood and apples out of their car windows. And I'm just urging the folks on the Capitol to consider possible side effects of a tourist or resident getting hurt by them. Because it's That's only a possibility. As you folks know, it's bad for wildlife to get fed.

And BAMF and Yellowstone bears get fed, they get aggressive, they end up getting shot and relocated or taken out.

So it's bad for the elk, and it's bad for everybody. The problem is people don't understand and want to feed their humans. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes. Michelle? Michelle, I love you a lot.

First, I want to address the planned agenda time limits. Many city councils adopt a curfew or adjournment rule. For example, Astoria has a 6 to 8 p.m. time limit. And if more time is needed, the council can be ready to extend the meeting by 30 minute increments. Portland City Council has a curfew of 10 p.m. Watching time limits, help with better decision making, avoiding staff burnout, and encourage civic engagement. On the subject of STRs, I spoke with the Community Development Department yesterday. They have a variety of different zones of land use laws, like exclusion areas, density restrictions, and conditional use such as home state lodging, which, with our RVVs, was originally intended for. Short-term rentals are treated like a business license, which they are, in fact, a business. They only have 15 STR licenses available because of land use and zoning, and they haven't hit that number yet. It's amazing. Community is a valuable resource. We need to nourish and cultivate it. Good impact on STR is a good start. I'd like to read from the former city planners. This is really quick. It's called The Best Thing That Ever Happened in Cannon Beach. This is from Cannon Beach Art Association's stage or show at the Cannon Beach Gallery titled Cannon Beach Collects Cannon Beach. The following is taken from the description of the book. The quiet streets that The empty storefronts and the cheap housing provided an ideal setting for a group of artists hoping to give form to some of the ideas of what is now before 2060s. It was a locale which provided steps away from mainstream culture and a place dominated by a powerful natural presence. A place where emphasis could be placed on personal expression in the context of a small community which was interested in shaping an expression that that expression would take. So if we can figure out how to get back to that idea, it really cultivates artistic . I mean, . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Next. Andrew.

Andrew, can I give up for maybe it's a coincidence that just very long meeting agenda as a item on making meetings more efficient. And I support that, I think. We reach diminishing returns as meetings go on. A lot of people that are presenting, working, have been working all day. We've reached a place of common overload. And I think shortening or timing the meetings in a way could get more people involved. It would seem less daunting, more community engagement. I support item number two. My number two, let's send that land use notice out for FTRs and just do that. We want it. We know what we want. Let's get it done rather than package it into a larger grant. It'll be more difficult. But we really wanted to talk about the budget, which is coming up today. And I really want to underscore a conversation that was had during the budget meeting when Kerry Anderson came in here and question the budget process in that it seemed like policy was being said during the budget. To me, that's not the perfect place to be doing such a thing. It should be about projections and numbers, but not about creating jobs or positions. That's what struck me in the meeting, is jobs being created. I'm very clear. what a TLT overseer is and why we need one. There was, you know, they were talking about Public Works, positional injury. It seemed like Public Works didn't even want. And personally, there was a conversation about increasing the time of the HRAC communications coordinator. That's a job I've held, a job that does not need more time, a job that should be, you know, if someone can't do the job in the amount of time, The answer is not giving them more time to do it, but find something to do it well and do it right. That's not a job that needs to be into Persian territory. It's a job that posts on social media. I don't know why we're chasing so much social media these days at the city, but that's another discussion. But I think we really do need to look into what are the, you know, Like a job before Council and shouldn't be in the. You know, I am one of 200 in the budget where there's just so many things going on and the decisions may seem small and in terms of, you know, the $24,000 raise to a position. When you're looking at a multi-million dollar budget, but we're not really looking at it for really what it's worth, which is that when we're looking at it in terms of the gigantic spirit of the property, you're going to sign.

Yeah. Yes, in the audience, anybody? Okay, does anyone want to resume?

Yeah.

Good evening, Mary Beth.

Oh, thank you. So I have a couple of things to say. One is on the elk. I hope that the way that any ordinance that is written is worded that it will not put me in a bad position when I go outside to get in my car and the elk are standing around it. I stand on the upper balcony and I click my car thing to make it go beep, beep, beep, and the elk will wander away. Am I hazing or harassing the elk to do that? I'm hoping not. Because, you know, if I wait for them to just move on their own, that's kind of... Puts me very late to work. That's just one idea, one thing that's on my mind. The other thing that's on my mind is the... And this really isn't something... that is in your purview as the city council but it is something that you could speak to the special district about and it's the sunset transportation sunset empire's transportation district that cannon beach we all pay into that transportation district that special district but we have far less connectivity within that district. There are not so many buses that come to Cannon Beach. There's a big chunk of time in the middle of the day where you can't get a bus back to Cannon Beach. If you go up to seaside or to warrenton to do your shopping you may have a two or three hour wait to get back Depending on on where you are so it would It would be really nice if they served our area equally, just the way that they do to Warrington to Astoria. There's a lot of connectivity there. Also, the Dial-A-Ride program goes out to Napa and Svensson and John Day, but it doesn't come down to Seaside or Cannon Beach. And there are a lot of people without cars who would be better served if they had more options from Sunset Transportation District, Sunset Empire Transportation District. So those are the two things that are kind of on my mind tonight. I thought that Seaside and Cannon Beach could perhaps talk to the special district to encourage them to improve connectivity for our two cities.

South County. Thank you. Could you give your mailing address also, please?

Oh, P.O. Box 492 in Cambridge.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else?

No.

Okay, anybody else in the audience? Okay, thank you very much. So first item on the agenda is a public hearing and the first public hearing is resolution 2611 for the purpose of declaring the city's election to receive state revenues for fiscal year. At this time, pursuant to ORS 221.770, I will open the public hearing in order to give the citizens of Cannon Beach the opportunity to comment on the use of state revenue sharing funds in the city of Cannon Beach's budget for fiscal year 2026-27. Staff, please present your report.

Okay, may or not, members of the council, Oregon Budget Law requires the City of Old Provincial Cairn probable use of state revenue sharing funds, pass a resolution approving the participation of the program for next year. The estimated funds that we will be receiving in the state revenue sharing program totals $238,155. dollars made up of general fund of $116,000 and total road fund of $122,155. Now I'm opening it up for any questions.

Any questions? Is there any member of the public wishing to comment on the proposed use of state revenue sharing for fiscal year 26-27? If there's no further discussion, I will close the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone that would like to make a motion?

We move to approve Resolution 2611 for the purpose of authorizing the city's election to receive state revenues for the fiscal year 2026-2027. Second. Any further discussion? Okay, one more call, please.

Councillor Hannon. Yes. Councillor Hayes. Yes. Councillor Croninger. Yes. Councillor Osteiner.

Yes.

Now.

Yes. Okay, next we have public hearing resolution 26. At this time, pursuant to ORS 29.453, I will open the public hearing in order to give the citizens of the Cannon Beach the opportunity to comment on the budget approved by the City of Cannon Beach Budget Committee for fiscal year 26-27. Now, please present your report.

Okay, the I think you're going to the can be but the commitment to sessions during May review and deliberate on the proposed fiscal year 2016 budget. You can see the test the budget committee action or the next phase of the budget process is the City Council to undergo a little carrying the state of any public testimony. There are 3 things in which the Council can do you could reduce tax not please talk to them. You can reduce the expenditures with corresponding reduction to resources. You could also increase, or number three, you can increase expenditures no more than 5,000 or 10% of the total expenditures of the fund, whichever is greater. So we have, essentially, we have two resolutions in front of us. Resolution number 2612A is for what was originally passed by the Budget Committee. There is a appropriate motion for that resolution. However, in between the approval of the budget by the budget committee and this meeting to adopt the budget, an agreement had been made in principle for $790,000 to settle a recent lawsuit. In order to have the necessary appropriation for that agreement, a version B of the resolution 2612 adopting the 2627 budget has been included and can be approved with the following alternative motion, which is below. And with that, I will open it up for any questions.

Is there any member of the public wishing to comment on the approved budget for fiscal year 26-27? Is there anyone online? If there's no further discussion, I will close the public hearing at this time.

If there is one. Resolution 2612 version of the for the purpose of adopting the 2627 as a story submitted and acted upon by the budget committee of the city of canton beach and then amended by city council making the appropriations and letting taxes for municipal purposes of the city of canton beach for the fiscal year commencing july 1st 2026. and ending June 30th, 2027. Second.

Any further discussion? Okay, well thought through. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Okay, I'd like to thank the budget committee for putting up the process of the budget, attending the meetings and studying it all. That's going for action items and for I'm on the agenda agenda and them.

Okay, thank you. May not counselors. Councilor Hammond has requested a general timeline to be added to the meeting as an action item and has presented some interest. So I'll turn it over to Councilor and you present or recommendations.

All of the evening everyone initially I presented that you would see in the packet are time limits on meetings or agenda item. I have, I had a chance to rethink that. And so I came back with a compromise plan or a planned agenda. So basically it's planning the agenda. It starts at six o'clock, maybe it ends by eight or if there's an asset can end sooner. And then major and minor items would have time limits set for them. They aren't hard limits, though. So we can agree to extend the discussion a little longer if we need to. We can agree to move so we realize that this is going to take longer. So maybe we need to move it back to another work session. As long as the meeting keeps flowing along properly, and we take care of the time, we should be able to be able to open our meetings up to the public a little more. So if there's something that you really want to hear about, you're going to have an idea. Maybe you show up 20, 15 or 20 minutes before it's supposed to start instead of having to be here at the beginning and sitting clear through to what could in the past has been maybe a four-hour meeting. And then there's even been times that things haven't even been heard at that point. So that gives everybody the opportunity to have their item heard at least in one way or another. We can extend the discussion in real time. Again, we can extend the discussion. If discussion falls short, we've made a decision, we can move on to the next agenda item. It doesn't hold us to, we said we're not going to talk about this until 7.10. and it's only 655. So we could still move on to that other agenda item. So it's just a guideline to keep us focused so we can make good decisions. And it will prompt us to come to meetings prepared to make decisions. And I realize that sometimes questions are important. Asking those before of city staff is always helpful. The benefits of the planned agenda approach, predictability, the public can anticipate when items are going to be heard. Fairness, all items receive planned attention with the agenda structure. Flexibility, the council retains discretion to extend and continue items. Efficiency, focuses presentations on key information. So you aren't going to have a presenter reading verbatim everything they've already put in the packet. Reduced fatigue prevents meetings from drifting without structure. And then transparency, time expectations provide public visibility into meeting flow. And it also stops open-ended meetings to where a meeting can just go forever. It's kind of the happy medium between we're going to go by these hard timelines and just for lack of a better term, willy-nilly our way through a meeting. Not that we always do that. I'm just using that as an approach there. So it would be a planned agenda, similar to a timed agenda with no default time expectations, These time allocations are intended to provide structure, sequencing guidance, and predictability for public. But basically, I'm just kind of reiterating what I'm saying here. The overall effectiveness and ease of this structure depends on consistent facilitation by city staff and should be maintained by the mayor or presiding officer to ensure the agenda functions as intended. So keep an eye on the clock and keep an eye on the chat. when we wander off into places. Not that it happens often, but it does happen occasionally. So I think we would be short-sighted not to try this.

Interesting. I do agree with you that sometimes when we have a presentation by somebody who provided us with a lot of material in our packet, a slideshow, et cetera, et cetera, and then they get up before the council, and just verbatim go through their whole presentation of the packet that is incredibly time-consuming. And it sort of is based on the premise that none of us really can pack it because we all can read. And I've seen, at least in the last, this last year, that everyone has been really, it seemed to me that everyone was very prepared for meetings. people had all read through the packet and looked at it carefully. I just don't, I guess I don't see the, I see the idea, I see the importance of limiting presentations to sticking to any new information that you're providing or answering questions on the material that's been presented. But I don't see the advantage of making a timeline on discussion of topics, for example, when we have an appeal before us, a land use appeal, that can be really lengthy, whether we like it or not. It's just, it's the nature of the beast. It really is.

And if I may, really quick, because in this second packet that you got, well, we got it. It was all sent to all of us. But it actually has more complex items, such as legislative actions, appeals, or majority um, major policy discussions could be identified in advance so they can be scheduled with the appropriate amount of time. Right. So, so there are going to be times when we're going to have a meeting until nine o'clock, but we're going to know in advance, the public is going to know. Right. And I think that that that's the biggest thing. So that doesn't take that, that doesn't take that ability away and it doesn't take the ability away For a presenter to reach out for Jen, maybe it's a complex, it's a complex presentation. And they're like, we really need 30 minutes and we're really going to need 30 minutes to talk about it. But then it's planned in that way. So it's just planned in that way. So we, we know what to expect. The public knows what to expect. Our staff knows what kind of what to expect.

Well, you know, I looked at other jurisdictions. For example, I reached out to the mayor of Cesar. They have no time whatsoever. And Manzanita does. They have an ending time slot of 9 or 9.30 if it's a very complex agenda. And that's how they do it. They don't go past a certain time in the evening. I guess I... They also have discussion during public comment. In other words, the council can ask, when someone comes up here to do public comment at the beginning of the meeting, you can interact with them. So the council can ask them questions, they can ask for clarification, that kind of thing. That is part of their agenda. So, you know, every jurisdiction does it differently. I've always wished we could have interaction, but That's just the rule. We can't. So I guess I'm not seeing the necessity for setting a timeline unless you want to perhaps set an ending time.

I think it's 8 o'clock. I think it's as per meeting, because every meeting changes. But setting up guidelines is a guideline. It's nice to have our constituents desert. I mean, I'm going to back up a little bit. I've heard many people say that they would have loved to, they would love to come to meetings, but they stopped coming because there were things that they wanted to be talked about and they would be here for two hours or three hours. And they didn't know when it was going to be on the agenda, how long the agenda items were going to take. So it's a guideline for our constituents to, And I just, I think it would be short-sighted of us not to at least try.

Well, yeah, I can see putting an end to my big 8 o'clock. It's way too early. Unless you're willing to come to more meetings. And that has been the issue, is that, Jan, when you sit in the house, notice that you're always trying to find the time when everyone will come to an extra meeting so that we don't have to go as long as we do at the meetings we're at. And people are not available. So I don't, you know, I think either if you're going to make it 8 o'clock, then you have to have a willingness to come to more meetings. Because two hours on some items, you know, just isn't long enough.

Well, and I just talked about that specifically, that it isn't always going to be an 8 o'clock time. Right. I mean, that's going to come with each. I think that's going to come with each agenda, but I think we should shoot for that time. And then that pairs down our conversation. I just.

I think it happens naturally. Like last week, our meeting ended at 7.15. You know, because... No. Because we just... And there wasn't... It was a short agenda. And we also pretty much were in agreement on just about everything, so we didn't have long discussions. It's when you, you know, have different viewpoints that need to be aired publicly. I would not want to see that inhibited whatsoever. That would, you know, I think it's really important that no one feels constrained in speaking publicly about what their feelings are or their beliefs are or their, you know, what they believe, how they believe an issue should be resolved.

I don't know. I mean, I, you know. Well, important issues deserve adequate time, but they don't deserve unlimited time. And so I've never seen that happen.

Unlimited time. Be good in other places. So we do need to consider that when we're developing this program where we're going to put our agent in.

Well, and on the ADA accessible, you'd be looking at, like, van accessible. How would you accomplish that with a parallel on-street site?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. That probably will not be the answer. We don't do that per one street.

So that last bullet point was really not a footfall.

Yeah. I think that waiting for a parking solution as far as paid parking or whatever is, I mean, you're looking at a year down the road, maybe more. I think that it would be beneficial to figure out the size of the spaces that we want and go forward with striving. I mean, I walked down the street, I'm sure we've all walked down the street and been able to identify five or 10 parking spaces that are in increments of five feet. So just to get it started and it's at least then we've started something.

Yeah, I agree. I think that, you know, talking about parking solutions more, you know, overall is going to be a big conversation. And I would love to see something happen here. And I mean, even if we're not enforcing, you know, people in the larger vehicle, you know, space and maybe a little more until we figure that out. I think it would be worth moving forward with it.

I would suggest that ours currently is In our code currently for off-street parking, we require 22 between any parallel type. So the 22 is kind of what we are accustomed to. And, you know, I think, like Chris said, we're seeing more of those kind of larger van size and stuff like that than, you know, what's better than any type, you know. And so this would allow more of those, I think. And full-size STBs.

I think with the full-size cab and full-size truck or full-size bed and full-size cab is 18 and a half feet long. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. They're probably not going to be parallel parking. I think moving forward with this and we're going to re-strike We come back and re-stripe every year anyway, so urban planning develops down the road, and we haven't made modifications to that. We haven't made modifications to what striping goes in right now down the road.

So everyone suggested, or everyone who's spoken has suggested that we go ahead and go with striping and go with 22.

Right, okay. But I just want to hear, so none of those would be parking A because of their terrible parking?

You know, I don't know. Do we have any current parking A funds? I don't know. Yeah, I don't know either. You know, if we had them currently anything that we would reserve those, but I don't know of any that we would put up on the street. But it's something we will definitely take into account as we develop the long-term

They have to be the end phases probably. But again, that's probably something that can be done at any time.

Yeah, we will have maybe a spot over with the new building or going in.

I have a quick question related to parking, but probably not striping. And it's probably going to be Chief Schultz. The camper vans, the... whatever they're called, the spreader vans, are those legal to park on the street in downtown, or are they considered RVs, or do they really have a classification? They're considered an RV. They are?

Yeah, okay. If you are a temporary facility, they're considered an RV. Okay. Thank you. So they'd be ticketed at a regular street spot? Yes. Okay. If they're in an RV spot? They will not be ticketed in an RV spot, but they would be ticketed in a regular street spot. Yes.

I have a question about the RV signs at the Midtown parking lot that say no parking. I feel like the verbiage in that is super weird. I took a picture of it today, but it says no parking on the tracks, and then it says pick up trucks. I don't know. I'll take it. And I know they just got remodified and changed, but it seemed like it can be something potentially confusing language for those. I didn't, I didn't have to look at it. They said specifically down here, but I saw those and it was in reference to the 22, 22, 22, 22. And I was at the 51. Okay. So they're already approaching the moment. Are they legal to park over there? And it doesn't seem like they're legal to park there at our current signage. If they don't fit in the terminal spots, so. Oh, yeah, they're cheap. Okay.

I've only been curious about, there's a maximum size, but, you know, sometimes you see large pickup trucks using those, and I'm assuming they get tickets. So I don't know how to clarify any of that, but.

I'm going to make sure everyone knows where I'm supposed to park, where I'm supposed to park.

That's what we needed. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Oh, sure. Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. Next we have an opportunity session. Okay.

I won't be guessing. Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. The modular discussion follow-up. At the May 26th Council Meeting, Council discussed the potential to purchase or continue to rent one of the modular buildings for the food pantry's use. These modules are being vacated at the end of July as the completion of new City Hall approaches. Council have received a report that the cost to move one of the modules at the temporary City Hall site was approximately $280,000. Staff has found that the cost of installing a modular at the NACUS site was approximately $325,000, and that decision could be made within the design process of the project. Analysis information, the city manager and assistant public works director met with the food pantry at their May 28 board meeting to discuss potential options in hope of arriving at a decision among the existing modular buildings. During the meeting, the food pantry board agreed that it was best not to move forward with the modular building at this time. And then I realized that this is written as a recommendation and an actual motion. I don't believe that's necessary, especially as this is in the discussion piece, but the intent of the staff report is to illustrate that the food pantry board agreed to not move forward with the modular building at this time. And seeing as how the modulars were here for the construction of the city hall and PD projects, and those projects are wrapping up, the current plan is to allow those to go off rent and back to where they came from.

So I would like to clarify one thing in the staff report. That was the May 20 meeting was a meeting of the communication committee, not for that board meeting. But both the food pantry board did propose that, did vote to not move forward with a modular building.

You mean moving a modular building to the Goose?

No. To go ahead and not take them away. We'll take them away out of our city. So the ones that are being used for police station and city hall are going to go back to the rental agent.

So I went back and asked the following questions. I see the four. This is my email. I see the food pantry board decided it was best not to move forward with the modular. Did they come to the table with a solution? If so, what is it? If they pass on the modular, there may not be an alternate city funded solution for them. Did they consider that? And so Trevor called me. Trevor called me and kind of explained what some ideas were. And so I think that this is... It would be nice to hear from city staff what, or from the food pantry, what their idea is. I don't think it's my place to say anything.

And the food pantry is coming there for July 14th meeting to explain their, okay.

Okay, so, but I think that that left it and not to anyone's fault, but I think that, the staff report just left it so open-ended, like the modulars are gone and we don't, you know, so like, where does this go?

So, yeah, my concern is, I mean, maybe, maybe we'll hear what their thoughts are. It'd be nice to hear it, you know, when we're kind of in the middle of this discussion, but they need a little more research for it.

Okay. Yeah.

I mean, my concern is depending on the park land, you know, they may need a location. Right. So with being there, they got ideas on that?

They need more research. Okay. They want to come up with a good plan. And, you know, if we end up having to have a modular building at that site, we can get one to come, a modular to come back. Not those particular modulars, but yeah.

And so it sounds like instead of leaving them open, it sounds like they may have identified some property and they're looking for it in order.

Well, not necessarily. I think maybe they're just, I don't know if they're going to identify another location or not. I have no idea.

I am just reiterating what I was told in a very to at least help alleviate some question. Gary's going to vomit. What the heck are they going to do, right? I understand that they've possibly identified a VUSA property and they're looking at work in order and not at NICU.

Yeah, I mean, I would not be supportive of a modular going back into NICU. that's why i wonder if we shouldn't hold on to it but uh so i don't know it feels like we're still having this conversation too early but we need to act on the model we don't have to spend another right how many how much for a month yeah it's four or something but it's also the um

the mobilization and getting them out of here, et cetera. So, and the length of time.

And getting parking back open. And what's the worst thing that could happen if we got another modular and we had to move it back over there, which I know that. I'm saying worst case, but if we had to move it back over there, up by the wherever, then it would, it could be, you know, And something that was configured more to what the pantry needs.

But we aren't holding that.

No. But it doesn't seem like there's a change, though, because this is something that if we just take no action.

We're authorizing staff to just go ahead and start removing the modular, it sounds like.

Well, we were already authorized. Right. Yeah. We're just not changing those orders. Yep, totally fine.

Okay, good luck.

Good luck. Thank you.

Okay, that's on the agenda. We have the drawing ordinance discussion. All right.

So you're going to be spending the streets of the north and growing orders across the country over the past 20 years. I've provided to a lot of different ones that I wanted to show one of the at a very brief. Ordinances now the city or or in parts and then you've got to say Mary which is more problem because it's a little more complicated. Because we worked with the Joint Land Use Plan, which includes the county and the military base there in St. Mary's. And really, that was about protecting the airfield and the base. And so they wanted the buffer area. So this can be, these kinds of ordinances can be written for certain areas. And buffer areas are often our districts, you know, fly-type zones. or they can encompass the entire district or city. And so I've provided a couple of examples to look at. And just for your all's information, if you have any questions, I'm happy to discuss them. But there's plenty out there. And I think, and Commissioner Curry, quite a few in Colorado, but, you know, there's a lot all across the United States.

I wanted to ask Ashley, can you regulate drone landing and take off on private property or not?

So you can regulate drones generally within city limits. I think rather than private property, my bigger concern is just ensuring that we aren't conflicting with any sort of state or federal usage. So usually that's about height. So we can regulate taking off and landing in the city, but drones flying over the city above a certain height, it's more difficult to regulate.

Yeah. basically. I was told that we can't regulate the airspace, but we can regulate takeoff and landing within a city.

That's exactly right. We can also regulate the airspace if it's close to the ground, but above a certain height, we can't regulate it.

I would love to see the city pass a drone ordinance, with exceptions, of course, like the exceptions you just did you know, for Oregon, for Oregon, it made total sense, you know, for mapping, for a special project that might be having to get permit for that. But just for purposes of birds and, you know, the well-being of birds, but not just that, for privacy issues of citizens, I really, you know, Yeah. I mean, when I'm walking down the street, there's a drone flying over my head. You know, I kind of wish I had a lead in that. You know, I mean, it's just, it just is so offensive to me that somebody could fly around over citizens and watch what they're doing in the air. So I wondered if there's any more company. The one The settlement money provided is way too complicated, obviously, and involves the military bills. But just, and I think there's not that many of them out there just because it's fairly new. You know, I don't think that many cities have actually thought about it that much. And I'd love to see us, you know, just like we did with violence, you know, just say, no drugs, unless you're doing a specific project.

Well, I'll come and get them. And I can bring back other language or graph version for your comments. That would be great for a work search.

I honestly would prefer to see how the new ordinances with OKRD are framed. There's a lot of stipulations that are in new ordinances that haven't been tested, haven't been checked, that they're effective, that they're doing what they're supposed to do, that they're enforceable. Those sorts of things. I would rather wait before we draft language to see how the state is dealing with it, how they, the results that they get from their ban that they got in planning, rather than just jumping forward to another set of draft language. It's going to be our officers that are enforcing it. And if OPRD is having trouble enforcing it, and they need to change with the way that's written, or, and it's, even the OPRD is going to probably be our officers enforcing it on beat. How did that come out to actual effectiveness of passing the ordinances?

It doesn't have the manpower.

No. And so if we add that additional word, does it get enforced? Does it get word? Does it just create a lot of confirmation that I'm not allowed to do it? And so there's group law work and methods and other things. The normal bollards, they do it anyway, they don't get in trouble because we don't have to build these horses.

We can't pass a law because to be able to break up. No, but you have to think of the horse fence.

I don't know what additional work we're actually talking about. And my concern is always on the Black Ocean shore. And not only my own irritation with it, but certainly the bird life and anywhere near the National Wildlife Refuge areas So I would hope that Oregon State Parks is taking care of that. That sounds like they have. I have not experienced, you know, a drone, you know, buzzing me in the city park or anything like that. So I'm not sure. Do we want to spend our time now doing an ordinance on something that we've got a problem?

Well, the reason I brought it up was because Some of the books, actually one of the people who works for what used to be Ottegon is now Blue Alliance. There was some concerns because he was very involved in the drafting of the state rules. And there were some loopholes that might develop. First of all, right now, what they're doing is they're trying to map what parts of Cannon Beach are less than half a mile from the rock because there's a half mile radius if you're not supposed to go. So it may be premature because they still haven't finished mapping. I think it was Oregon State University that's doing the mapping, and they haven't finished it, the last diaper. And so maybe we want to wait and see what areas we're actually looking at where it could be an issue.

Yeah, I wouldn't be opposed to no drones without a permit. in the city limits, but probably just right now, I don't know.

So I guess we can wait and see what happens with the half mile limit and the mapping and see if there's, you know, if there is a, once we see that, think about the amount of type four. And if, you know, the Bird Alliance is set on seeing it happen, I would listen to them. Me too.

So do you have any idea how long that's going to be?

No. All those things take so long. The bull mating has taken a long time. And everything is still up in the air. I'd love to know, Council, if it turns out that we can do it, if there's an appetite for doing it.

I agree with what Eric said. I think that we need to try, you know, see. get ORPDs, new rules, and then we'll look and see if that will help. I think that that will help in town because I don't think that people are going to, and I've never seen it in town, but I think people are just going to take off in town to go over the beach. They're going to try and stay closer as well.

I'm not sure what we're going to learn except for it's difficult to enforce.

Yeah, right. I think that's very true.

The information I'd like to see is the number of violators that are identified on the beach. How many tickets end up getting rid of these new rules that are there and if people are just blatantly violating it. There's a lot of complaints and I can't I mean, that would be one. Before we just see a massive decline automatically with new rules, there would be better people to recognize it.

Do we have a permit process at all? Does the state have a permit process for drones? I think you just go by them. I just wondered, because you do see video, you know, of

Yeah, there are, or like if you have a certain license, like our drone that does the beach flight, he has to go through the permitting process with the state, and everything does.

So there is that level.

Well, but he's doing commercial though, so he's selling the services for... So there is a state permitting process.

for a commercial application.

It's almost like you get flagged.

Well, if I can stay, I'll stay in contact with the people who actually were part of the drafting of the original statement and see what they, you know, how it develops and what they would suggest. I think that's a good approach.

Kate, do you have any brief thoughts on this discussion?

Uh, just looking it up, uh, ORP, uh, was the Oregon Parks and Rec.

Um, they adopted the rules, but it is not currently in Oregon or by statute. So we have no enforcement, uh, ability as far as the police department can go down there and notify people and educate them. State Parks employees would be the ones to issue a citation on the beach or in any state park, um, as far as citations from, from watching on the beach.

And so if you have no jurisdiction, then an ORPG is sort of stretched, you know, with very few people who can cure citation. And really, well, that's, well, I guess maybe when rulemaking happens, or, you know, when it gets into the divorce statutes, it does.

You know, and I think, too, it's my philosophy is, know if somebody you catch them doing their clients that one society but a lot of times a warning and just public education goes a long way um when it comes to traffic stops i don't get everybody to take it um a lot of times it's just hey watch what you're doing use the rule of the road these are the rules for playing drones out with state park public education and uh you need to get pretty good compliance if they don't move forward and In that case, if we can get their information, we can forward that to state parks and they can follow up with the person that's in violation of that rule. Okay.

Yeah, so again, if we can get their information.

So it would be really enforceable other than by state parks. Correct. With the animal wildlife refuge.

Correct.

And that's actually would be, we would take, same thing, we would take down the information and forward that to U.S. Fish and Wildlife and they would follow up with any kind of sedentary agents or criminal sedentary agents. Now, if they're harassing wildlife, we do have a state law harassing wildlife. It's named as a meter. So, if they're knowingly and recklessly or criminal negligence or intentionally doing it, you can send them an issue to the court for that.

Okay.

So, you want to keep this? Yeah.

I'll keep this. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay, moving right along to short-term rental caps.

All right, so short-term rental cap ordinance, there's really, I just want to let you know, there's two different types of notes. I listened to the, I wasn't here at the last meeting for, I had to do, but I did watch the tape of it. And I think the clarification is that no, that has not gone before the Planning Commission at the hearing item. So it has not reached the Planning Commission. So I provided in the staff report that dating, you know, the measure 56 knowledge requirements. So you have to know the time period, 35 days, I believe, for measure 56, and then you also have to let the state know through a patent notification, and so they have held work sessions on the short-term rental cap, and they have language for it's currently a 165 requirement for 14 days, and then they've added a few other things that they've talked about, a buffer or a a limit of not having the east of Highway 101, but have not settled on those two. We will draft language for the 165 gap, as all have been requested, and so that will go before them. As I said, in the staff report, that would be... Like we held one and we will want to package that with the signage language changes that will be Thursday night before the URB, which would then go to get the planning commission next month to talk about the planning, the work session room, and then we would have the full package of the housekeeping sign of historic STR cab before then we would go with the all three of that.

want to send it to the planning commission and request that they act on it that is why we call and it's been sitting there there's no there's no proper notice and there's no no there's not been an application filed yet so that we'll go before them and well that was the plan uh and they have

We sent it to them, and you guys sent it to them for their recommendation, and that's a game-changer. If you want us to move it on the very next agenda, we'll do it anyway.

Well, I'd say the planning commission.

The next planning commission. That would be July. And so that's a one-month difference, and we would still have to work through two Measure 56 numbers. I'm not sure it's a one-month difference.

There's so much involved in the other one, I'm not sure. I was going to say squirrel, but it is really not.

Anyway, so on the S2 dollars, I've got two things here. The STRs, we did send it back to the Planning Commission. From what I understand, the Planning Commission had conversations about it, and it's just not the highest and best use of their time.

It's kind of... No, that's not. No, I asked them to package this with the housekeeping and the signing, which will make their way to...

So this is the second point of what I was going to say. Packaging all of these things together... is the worst thing we can do. We need to get this cap passed. It takes one of those little housekeeping items or one of these other little things to have a hiccup, and then it goes nowhere. And we need to get this cap. We need to get all of the things filed, and we need to get it done. Am I going down the wrong path?

I think what he was saying is that it's because of the notices that have to be sent out, so we have to do it twice. I'm afraid we might have. Yes. Well, I think we're, I think we're, if we have to be prepared to do it twice.

Yeah. I think we can package it all together. Great.

But I think we need to be ready to, I would just ask you wait one month. We will not change the 165. You know, we're not, in other words, whatever you set, it's going to be set there for, you know, forever or as long as you, as long as the council changes it. So that limit will not change. And so, We have not reached that. And even if we have, that limit will be set. And you can lower it. And by attrition, we have about 30 or 40 that will be coming off of that. And so, you know, it's slowly shrinking as we talk about this.

But it's not just about, I mean, yes, it's about the cap. We need to get the cap on there. But we need to get it done. And if we wait for them to decide, you know, planning to decide about limiting the east side of the highway and limiting this and limiting that and also agreeing on there's some housekeeping issues that we need to get done. One thing can throw a wrench in that whole thing. So I think that we need to be, Gary just said, we need to be prepared to do the STR solely. Do more than the cap. The cap. No, the cap on its own.

The perception is that this has been boiling for months. And nothing has happened. And I understand what you're saying about all the notifications and everything. And I know that's a lot of extra work. But we just have to do it.

I don't see a choice. I just want you to know, I just don't understand. I mean, Honestly, I had no understanding of this at all. And it's going to cost us, you know, two days of work over there, which we can't spend on any of these other things that you want to do. And so I think that's what I'm, that's the only thing I'm asking is that, you know, this is going to save you at best one month. Yeah.

So. So I heard you saying, but you said it was just about this one month.

And they said, no, I have not ever, I've never said that. I have never said anything about the short-term normal cap being done in a certain amount of time. That is not. I have said, in fact, you can watch the Planning Commission meetings. I have said this exact timetable that I'm speaking about. We're going to harvest to them, packaging these other new items with, and that's the only reason they held off on it, because that's made the sense for going out through that. But I'm fine. We'll do that. I mean, I'm happy to do it. It's just that I just want you to know that's going to cost us one other item down the way. But yeah, we're happy to do that. Okay, so So we'll put it on July's agenda. We can't make, you know, this hour. So July's agenda, planning commission, and then and we can even have a special meeting.

I think that, I guess my biggest concern here is this council has directed the city manager to make this happen for the cap on the STRs repeatedly, and it has not been done. And now we're getting pushback from staff on why it can't be done and about money, which we've clearly stated we understand. And I agree with Eric that we've heard one more month, one more month. We've talked, we talked about this months ago and it, it just needs to happen. If it needs to go back to planning commission, so be it. One standalone item. Actually, the more time we spend, the more it costs us. So, I, Thank you for letting me speak.

I think whether or not some people don't think this will affect the housing situation for middle housing, low-income housing, I don't think that's it. I think a lot of people feel that it will. And I think there's a lot of evidence out there that it does. And we were given a presentation that said it does affect that. So I just think we have to move on. OK. I think that was two sentences.

We want to move on.

And so we're going to plan a mission and I love it. If it can be packaged with everything, we'll package it.

If they don't, or if they can, that'd be an arms. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. We'll get them all done. Okay. So July planning commission. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Yeah. And just the cap, not, I mean, I have listened to the Planning Commission, and I think they have spent a lot of time talking about exclusionary, and that we just want to cap right now.

Yeah, I think we had council consensus on capping STRs before you came back. Oh, yeah. And so we've kind of been, but, you know. Okay. We will see. Sorry, John.

Oh, no.

if you come back i've got a lot to get done in the next few years are you going to put a big counter on okay that's on the agenda we have wildlife um yeah where yeah i think it's me right uh wildlife uh council requests the staff with the with the City Attorney to draft Wildlife Protection Language for the Municipal Code. So I think I'll turn it over to Ashton to talk about the Elk Municipal Code draft.

So I believe that this was Jodi that assisted you all with drafting this. But as far as I'm aware, it is generally intending to focus on some of the elk issues and interactions with the public that you have seen in the city. in I would say recent months, but I think just maybe it's been an ongoing issue for you all. And so the language is essentially hoping to address interactions between members of the public and the elk population that you have, and also avoiding harassment of the elk as well.

We're going to differentiate people trying to get out of their house and get to their car from approaching too close or harassing elk or someone who was actually hazing her bed.

Like my pots and pans in the garden from the death. I banged pots and pans to get them out of my garden. It doesn't always work. It does work a little bit. I chased them out of my garden too.

Is that hazing?

I really... It's interesting that was brought up during your public comment. And I didn't put that down as a note because I think we have to define what hazing is. I mean, I think hazing, maybe what is intended is, you know, purposely aggravating them or, you know, jumping around and teasing them or whatever. I think that chasing them out of your garden without harming them.

So the current code language does, it uses harass as the term, and it does define it. It says it means frighten or chase, but not kill.

Well, chasing, I mean, I guess I don't, I like a lot of the things, the assortments, like stuff, you know, I think it'll help, may help people who are feeding them, et cetera, which is, you know, in everybody's benefit. for everybody's benefit. But the thing about not saying, I think you have to differentiate between harassing and without harming them, chase them out of your garden or chase them out of your yard, go away in your car in a way that doesn't endanger you or them. Like, you know, standing in your doorway, banging and making a lot of noise sometimes works. Is that pacing?

I think the difference here may be on city property. I mean, if they're in the park or in green space, I feel like this can and probably should apply when they're in your yard and you can't avoid them without going about your normal routine or you don't want them eating everything in your yard. you are potentially frightening or chasing them and breaking that ordinance.

So that's the question. So I am on the same boat as Mr. Smith as well. The routes are very spongy, but if you add in, or if you change the bottom by a so-called city property, then those honking your horn as they're driving and they're blocking the road, they're backing out of this route because they're frightening them. or chase them out of the road. Now where you've been violating the code by just honking your horn for a third, they don't listen to it, but honking your horn on the city road because you're on city property or you're on public property at that point.

I'm hearing from you all that your main concern with this language is frighten, whereas maybe it would make more sense to say chase. Harassment is chasing but not frightening the elk because what I'm hearing you say is you need to be able to essentially – get around them peacefully, right? If they're in the road, you need to be able to honk your horn. If they're in your backyard, you need to be able to bang pots or whatever. But you don't want people proactively rushing after them or chasing them with cameras and getting too close or following them with a car, etc.

And we do want them to keep their distance if possible. Because the more that people approach them closely, they allow a pretty close approach now as opposed to 10 or 15 years ago, when they would always walk away from you. Now we don't walk away from you, and people are putting themselves in dangerous territory when they get that close.

I just want to make sure that if we have anything in here about harassing Elle, that it doesn't go in an opposite direction of what the ODFW permits people to do with Elle. They issue hazing permits, if you have a problem in an area that has problems with hazing permits, which essentially is do whatever it takes without injuring the element, it can go away. So I just want to make sure that any language that we have doesn't go contrary to that. When we have biologists in here telling us that hazing can be a limited benefit to changing behavior.

But by the same token, we don't want to give a hazing permit to the entire city.

Well, we don't issue the permits.

I'm just saying, it results to be the same. So I think that, you know, protecting personal property or protecting your property, and you should be allowed to try and chase them off, but we have, I just,

We're actually too close to the elk right now as we're sitting here. There's one about 25 yards away.

So I think that I agree with Mr. Smith that we've got to feed the wild animals. That's an ordinance. If we have something like this, first of all, how is it going to be enforced? I just think that ODSW has things in place. I just think that we're overreaching. You know, you can't be within 100 feet of the elk. And Gary just pointed out that we are right now. But, you know, you walk around, somebody's walking their dog, and you walk around a corner, and there's a herd of elk right there. So you can't scare them off. And you're too close, so you're in trouble. And that's on a city street. I just don't see how this would ever be enforceable. I mean, it would have to be. I just don't. I think we're barking up a tree that we just can't enforce.

I think it needs to be fleshed out. That's all. I think it's a great idea to forbid feeding them, forbid approaching them. I think we do need some kind of ordinance for that. I just think that, you know, I think that Unfortunately, there needs to be more in here that defines exactly. Obviously, we're in a building. And if they come to your house and they're in your yard, you're also going to see. So, you know, that's why this isn't completed.

The main thing that's missing is city property. Because if they're in your house, there's nothing you can do. If you come around the corner, there's nothing you can do. What I think it's worth on having this for real harassment, which is approaching elk too close when you can avoid them.

I also think the word intentional has to be there. You intentionally approach the elk. But because that takes care of the question that Diana was talking about where you come around the corner. You're not intentionally approaching the elk when you come around the corner. So you have to have intent to try and go near them and photograph them or pat them or feed them. You know, so that word intentionality, that is a big difference.

But then we have enforcement issue. Ashley, do you have anything?

So I completely agree, I think, with what you were just saying. I mean, enforcement is always the hardest part of any code, right? But I was just going to say first, in the first section of 614, I think maybe it's overly broad for what council is looking for. Right now it says, no person shall willfully approach remain or otherwise engage in any activity within 100 feet of an elk so there's three elements there willfully approach remain and then engage in activities 100 feet away from an elk so if we just said no persons shall willfully approach an elk i think that would get at what i'm hearing you all say and then In two, I think if it just said harass means chase or feed or, you know, some of the other examples that you were giving, I think that could maybe get to the point of the code a little bit more. As far as enforcement, I mean, I would have to look to your police chief on that. But I know how difficult enforcement is, just the same as the drone conversation we were just having, right? That's always the difficulty.

I don't think that enforcing enforcement is very difficult. Yeah, everything is difficult to enforce.

You cannot pass an ordinance because it's difficult to enforce. The police will do their best. We can't expect them to be there every time somebody violates, you know, beats an elk. How could they possibly do that?

Honestly, I think part of the benefit of an ordinance like this... It is to be able to tell people. Yeah. And just to let you know, you know, the enforcement is by us educating people and saying, you know, it's a $1,500 fine for approaching elk like you are right now. And, you know, I hope the fact that we pass an ordinance like this makes new papers if there's any of them left.

I have issues with word chase. I wonder if there's a better word to use because, I mean, I just, chasing an elk or chasing anything, you know, and I don't have another word for it, but I'll be thinking about one, but I think.

Follow?

Yeah. Pursue. Pursue.

Pursue. Follow.

Pursue. More information that might help. Sure. Why not? I know. We already have the current wording by statute, which is chasing or harassing wildlife is prohibited. That includes any protected wildlife, not only elk, but it could be a bear, whatever. That is a misdemeanor. What's that? They use the word chasing? No. Yes, they do. No person shall chase, harass, molest, worry, or disturb any wildlife except for while engaged in lawfully angling or taking and hunting or tracking such wildlife. And it lists harassment as any disruption of an animal's sense of security so that its natural behaviors are disturbed or it's forced to move on. With that, in speaking with the state police game division to write that a misdemeanor citation, which will be a crime, obviously. We have to set a mental statement. I think Counselor Kerr mentioned this. Are they doing it purposely or intentionally? Are they doing it knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence? So maybe some of those words tied in with the ordinance. But we already do, and we've already cited people for this over the past several years for harassing the elk here in Cannon Beach. Now, what Mr. Smith talked about, he got a hazing permit through Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. That's the only way that you can go about and legally haze these animals to get them out of your yard by harassing this camp. chase them out of our yard.

No. And is that just on his property?

Just his property, yeah. Yeah, the permit will allow, I'll lay that out. If you, say for instance, you had 100 acres of an alfalfa field, we would be allowing for your 100 acre field to phase the alfalfa out of that area to stop grazing there. So by date statute, we wouldn't be able to chase them out of our own yard, but... we could still create an ordinance that talks more about public property.

Right. Can we add in the permission period notwithstanding whatever LRS that is used for issuing and negating permits through ODFW? So if someone, like someone else in St. Louis Is it necessary to call it out in our local ordinance or is that just...

I think it would be beneficial so that way you don't have the ordinance by statute going against our municipal code. So they will kind of line up. And then is it just selective enforcement or are we going to cite Mary Beth for clapping her hand when she wants to get in her car? I think once again it's... If they're doing it to protect themselves, I think you just have to have that mental state that Lisa said that, are they doing it purposely to harass them? Or are they doing it because they just want to get their vehicle? Yeah.

Just to add to that as well, I can say, you know, if you have these requirements at the state level and you have a state permit already, whatever we do at the local level will just be extra, right? It'll be on top of what already can be done. And so if you are silent on particular topics, like, for example, I've been hearing council saying no. They don't want to overstep and necessarily say no person shall remain or engage in activity within 100 feet of the elk, pointing out the window and saying there's elk right there. Just even though that is maybe not permitted in state law, we could just stay silent on it in your local code so that we aren't going and having the option to enforce in those particular situations a violation. But really, we focus on the you know, pursuit of elk or willfully approaching elk instead in our local code.

I think we've given you enough information you could, you could grab something.

Do you feel like you can?

Okay.

Me? Yes, I think so. I think I've heard what it sounds like you all are looking for. But yeah, I think we could take this. We could bring this back to you with the revisions that I've heard. I've been kind of trying to repeat the revisions I've heard back to you. So if you feel like I've missed something, please let me know.

OK. I have a question about the whereas. The last whereas. Who would say the city's first priority was the preservation of wildlife? I would just think about domestic animals and property Since that isn't really brought up anywhere else in this language, I think it makes more sense to just say the preservation of wildlife being an important priority as well, or something like that, not sort of classifying priorities. Obviously, we're going to say human safety is our top priority. But after that, I don't think we should be classifying them. I think we should just because it isn't brought up elsewhere in the ordinance. So you could maybe think about that too.

Just to be clear, is that the final, the last whereas, or the first whereas that you were talking about?

The last whereas.

Oh, the last whereas. Perfect. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you.

Yeah. The question from the last is to go to the next work session and review it over time before you bring forward an ordinance. or do you want me to go move forward with informants? I think we need to work at it.

Okay. Cause we're basically redirecting. Yeah. Or we aren't. Your direction.

Okay. I have one thing about the elk. Um, and you know, I'm, I'm good at making unpopular comments. So, um, So I know this isn't going to be popular. It doesn't really need a lot of discussion, I don't think. But I still really think that at some point we need to look at opening the forest reserve for two weeks and having them hunting tags issued. I know it's not a popular discussion, but it's unfortunate. We will be overrun with all if we don't do something. That's all.

Okay. If we're ready to move on. Is it good to order? I'm going to start. First off, I would like to announce that Bruce St. Dennis is going to be retiring as our city manager as of August 7, 2026. And then the other items can wait. Somebody else is going to turn it. And it's good news.

It looks like we're going to have Dave's chair here at Canada Beach. And there's a men are having a fun exam.

And I just think that's really exciting. Where's it going to be?

I think it's going to be that guy who has the rock shop. Or the damn shop. He also brings up Yeah, the memorandum is between some other people.

So he was able to locate a space.

He's getting a shed because a friend of his dad actually got a grant from Travelorg and can pay for him to get a storage shed for David's chair. We're done. He's probably not understanding. So I just think it's fantastic. That's good news.

Other items? Okay, I have a phone call from the back. She said hi. And that he is looking forward to progress on the police and would like to be involved. And then also on the farmers market is that starting next Tuesday, from 11 to 30 at the new town. Working on the chair again. Already tied. or any time.

Doug? Yeah, I'd just like to follow up on Nick's. So it's my understanding that the committee has done their job and selected a firm. And so I guess I'm just curious what the next steps are.

We are, this week, we are working there putting together their pricing proposal. We will work with them. We will get back with them Next week, kind of negotiation when we have to do a letter of intent by June 26th. Okay.

Any of the council have a July working meeting for me? So people see their plan then? There's no plan.

No plan. This is just to bring the person. This is to bring for them. I just read for them.

But when do you, is there any idea when we're actually, do they have a timeline that they have to meet? to draw ideas or plans?

No, because then there'll be the public process and put that open. So it'll be a while. It'll be a while.

I think we should consider a committee to work with the designer that represents the various interests where Dick is going to have his, you know, an opportunity to have the say. and someone who can speak to the interests, you know, a group that can speak to the interests and they may be varied, but. So I hope that's something that we'll look at being prepared to do.

We can add that to the work session item. You guys will have to do what we did with the advisory committee, create your resolution with all of your things in it. So do you want to do that at the You can do it in the work session item at your meeting. So I don't know what your timeframe, they shouldn't have to come up with your criteria and all your parameters and then it off the resolution board. So do you want to talk about that on July 7th? Or the 14th when you guys are doing the, or maybe.

As long as Renata will already have, you know, two hours of agenda items.

I think that's perfect. I think what it should be in office. No, no, no. I just didn't want to just kind of take a walk for.

For the designers. You said how long we do a notice of intent on June 26th and it comes before you and on the 14th, July 14th to approve the contract, approve the contract. And once that contract is approved, then we would. Yeah. So we won't even really be kicking anything off until after August. Right. So I think that's me.

Yeah. We're session in July and resolution in August.

I think we should be ready to start working. Yeah.

Once they can. Okay. July.

Deliberate session. Okay. Question. Do we know that this selected designer is willing to work with the public committee or not? Yes. We would assume they are.

They only want to be selected, so. Right. Yeah.

Yeah, that's different for design.

And they don't want what they need to be to serve in the way of interest.

Right. I mean, part of any of the design process is having public input through that.

And they're aware of the work. No one plus this crisis.

Thank you. Okay. Anything else that's going to be ordered? Okay. Thank you.