City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to welcome everyone to the City Council work session and special meeting of Tuesday, August 11th. Call the meeting to order and ask for approval of the agenda.

So moved. Second.

All in favor?

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Okay.

Can everyone hear us okay?

Good. Okay. So first on our agenda, we have public comment. If you wish to make public comment, raise your hand when you get to the podium. I'll tell you when. Raise your hand when you get to the podium. Please state your name and mailing address. Keep it under three minutes. We will have a visual timer on the screen. And please remember to be kind and respectful. So who would like to go first? Now's the time to raise your hand. Okay, go ahead. I don't know. John, I didn't know your name, but I know him.

This afternoon, I will Hold on.

No, no, no, wait, get your material here. I can pass it up for you. Right. Oh, yeah. Don't forget that if it's the red light, nobody's going to hear you. So Okay, and then you want to turn the mic on. Okay, now you're ready. And now your time starts.

Testing? Is that loud enough?

Yep.

This afternoon, I was fortunate enough to witness a sacred ceremony.

Name and mailing address, please.

What?

Your name and mailing address.

Oh, John Rippey, Cannon Beach resident.

Post office box.

EOB 655. Thank you. As I was saying, I was fortunate enough to witness a sacred ceremony. It was a celebration to honor Neil Main, teacher for the school district, mentor to multitudes of educators, and the source of economic and environmental gravitas in this region and beyond. About two of us joined Neil and his family to dedicate a splendid commemorative monument in his honor at the estuary in Seaside. I recommend that you go and look at it. It's great. There were folks from Cannon Beach at that gathering, as well there should be. After all, we have our much-beloved Haystack Rock Awareness Program He began it. And on this moment, on a sunny Tuesday, it gave me pause to contemplate our own efforts in conservation, particularly after this essay came about, came passed out. It was by Neil. It was given to us. And I had the presence of mind to ask for extras because His words and insights bear directly upon issues tonight. The first is voting upon a resolution to facilitate the acquisition of the Holland property. And this seems like a no brainer. It is to save a really essential part of this community. It is also, well, I would say indicative of the proper kind of collaboration between the family, the state, the city, among others. And I urge you to facilitate that resolution. The second is on the acquisition of the acquisition of the watershed. Expanding the watershed is essential to the health of this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next. This gentleman. Thank you.

Good evening. Darren O'Quinn, 121 Northeast Lowerhurst Place in Portland, Oregon. Good evening. Thanks for a couple minutes to talk about short-term rental policy. My wife, Lindsay, and I live in Portland, and we own a second home here in Cannon Beach. Like many others, we're fortunate enough to realize that dream of participating in this beautiful community. We use our home regularly, at least once a month, since my wife works a week each month at the hospital in Seaside. And when we're not using it, we occasionally rent it under a 14-day permit to help offset the cost of ownership. First, I wanted to say that we sympathize with and we agree with concerns about short-term rental investment and housing availability. Unrestricted short-term rentals do create housing availability issues in many communities. But in my opinion, Cannon Beach has already addressed this issue and largely resolved the issue of unrestricted short-term rentals. If the concern was investors buying Cannon Beach homes specifically to operate them as high volume vacation rentals, the 14-day policy has changed the economics of short-term rentals and removes that financial incentives. In other words, we may have already achieved a significant part of what the restrictions were intended to accomplish. So by adding more restrictions, I think we should ask, what additional housing benefit do we realistically expect to produce? Perhaps our situation can provide a hypothetical. If we lost our permit for whatever reason or they were restricted and we could not rent occasionally, we wouldn't automatically, for example, convert our home into a long-term rental because we use it. If it became unaffordable, which it probably would, we would probably sell, but then who would buy it? So there's a couple of potentials. One is another second home buyer, but now that second home buyer needs to be wealthy enough to carry the entire cost without any additional rental income. Thus, in trying to make cannabis more affordable, we may inadvertently make second home ownership here accessible only to more wealthier buyers. A next buyer might be a long-term real investor, which is probably the ideal scenario. But once you become an investor, the decision is purely economic. And in many parts of Cannon Beach, the price of homes, the home value is simply too high for a long-term rental investor to buy, charge a long-term rent, and such that seasonal workers can afford. For that investment to make financial sense at workforce level rents, the property values would have to fall dramatically for everybody. Given that, I don't see what additional restrictions accomplish unless the city can demonstrate that they will actually increase affordable housing stock. If this council can make that connection, then I would encourage a more targeted approach rather than treating every home as potential workforce housing. Identify the areas where conversion to say long-term rentals is actually economically plausible and concentrate your restrictions there. I actually like Seaside's approach of basing those restrictions on proximity to the beach. If the likely result of more restrictions is simply wealthier second home buyers rather than workforce renter, Are we actually creating affordable housing or just reducing the number of permits?

Good timing. Thank you. Okay, next. Ready?

Nice to have a nice building. We can hear it. I just wanted to say I'm so excited about the idea and the possibility of us actually being able to acquire more of our watershed because it is such a precious resource.

Betty, name and address. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. Betty Guerin, PO Box 137. Thank you. Sorry. Anyway, it's just such a chance for us to really secure our clean drinking water, our habitat for salmon, and keeping more trees and wildlife happy. So please, let's push this forward. Now's the time. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next. Nancy?

Nancy Littell, Post Office Box 734, Cannon Beach. I want to know when we're going to raise the parking ticket fees. You've seen those guys on bicycles all summer long. I mean, this has been an unusual summer, no doubt. But those guys on bicycles, if they go up with somebody who's parking illegally and you say, well, if you ask them what the ticket is and it's 25 bucks, that's just a parking fee. unless that's been raised and I'm mistaken. But I think we need to really look at that because holy cow, that's not deterring anybody from parking. And if they park in the fire lane, since we no longer have a tow truck available to us here, I don't know what that fee is, but it should be like $500. We need a boot to put on those things. That's all I got. Thanks.

Thank you. Next, Steve.

Steve Waite, PO Box 105.1, Cannon Beach, Oregon. I want to preface my comments by saying that any decision that was or could have been made by Planning Commission and any decision made by Council regarding STRs does not have the ability to impact me or my family or any any more than any ordinary Cannon Beach citizen. I have no financial ties to Cannon Beach business and I've learned from this experience to make these facts known prior to committee, commission, or potential council discussions where I'm involved. My comments are prompted by questions regarding my ethics and accusations of potential conflict of interest as a result of the Planning Commission's unanimous vote on July 23rd, forgoing a short-term rental cap and opting instead for more effective regulation. I believe zone density restrictions better protect our long-term rentals from becoming short-term rentals. A thorough analysis of the data provided by staff and in the Planning Commission packet is compelling evidence That a 165 cap would not have the desired outcome of protecting our neighborhoods and reducing the number of short-term rentals. If I am renting today and the 165 cap is imposed, Tomorrow, my landlord can evict me and the next day apply for and receive an STR permit. The data shows that any efficacy of a 165 cap may not be realized for a decade or more. The biggest reason we have not had an increase in STRs is the 14-day restriction, which makes it literally impossible for a homebuyer to profit as a short-term rental. The council that enacted this restriction did can and beach a true service. Zone density restrictions will protect many long-term rentals immediately if you rent within a density-restricted zone. Based on the current number of STRs and the data over the last 15 years, a 165 cap would not reduce or restrict STRs for possibly decades. Density restrictions unburden neighborhoods of a high concentration of STRs. And it includes both 14-day and unrestricted permits. A cap ignores the impacts of unrestricted permits. A zone density restriction would complement all proposed measures to increase and protect long-term rentals. For example, deed restrictions, public benefits, and lease to locals. In the future, or as an additional tool, a cap may complement density regulations, but a 165 cap alone is inconsequential. A density restriction is not a panacea, but I believe it significantly moves us in the right direction. Changing a 14-day to twice-monthly permit changes the possible number of bookings from 26 to 24 annually, lessening traffic in a neighborhood. It also significantly simplifies the city STR audit process. It allows STR owners flexibility to rent over consecutive holidays. So it's a win-win-win. And about excluding... individual neighborhoods from strs this town is already divided and drawing along down lying down the middle may divide us further giving immunity to one neighborhood of the community may cause animosity or contempt from another neighbor we all want quality of life and i would ask that communities come together with ideas supporting quality of life for all residents a rising tide lifts all boats i did not speak for other planning commission members they analyzed the data themselves and voted similarly for their own reasons let's give

Thank you. OK, next, Michelle. You had your hand up first.

Oh, hi. Michelle Ballagher, PO Box 719. I don't really have anything prepared. But I think most people realize the, I don't know if it was a typo, that Jeff put the cap without Just the 14-day rental. It should probably include all of the STRs, as you all know that I am for the cap. And then I just was going to read really quick my last correspondence with Steve Sokolowski, you know, our previous Jeff. I just said, say it ain't so. And he said, yes, it is so. I have my reasons, but one of at the top of the list is the challenge of affording to live here. So one of the employees here, that was our last communication was great. Also, I wanted to say it's really hard to hear. So maybe they could get a speaker if you're new. Most people can't hear. So you can hear mine really well, but you can't hear.

Can you hear me now?

We can hear you guys, but you can't hear the public speaker.

Oh, the public speaker. It might be the microphone. Yeah, you might have to adjust the microphone.

I noticed last meeting, too.

Okay.

Everybody needs to speak into the microphone up there. Yeah. Check one. Okay. Yeah, see?

That. Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. That's it. Okay. Thank you.

Thanks. Make sure if you, you know, we're getting used to a new home, so make sure if we need to make adjustments, we'll be happy to. We're not going to repeat everything everybody already said, but you can watch it on YouTube. Okay. Julia? No? Okay.

Okay.

Anybody else in the audience wish to make public comment? Okay. Is there anyone on Zoom? If you'd raise your hand, please.

Okay.

Okay, Friends of the Dunes is going to go first.

Hello, Diana from PO Box 211 speaking on behalf of Friends of the Dunes. Dear Mayor and Councillor, the proposed four-dune management ballot measure asks voters to approve a permanent city-funded dune management program with no identified funding source and to place that program in our city charter. Before voters make that decision, they deserve a neutral explanation of what the initiative would require the city to do and what it would cost them. We are asking you tonight to direct staff to prepare that analysis and provide it to voters before the election. This initiative is more than a policy statement. By the end of 2027, and then at least every two years after, the city would be required to inventory beach and dune areas identify public access hazard and safety concerns using standards the initiative does not define, coordinate with private property owners, prepare a biennial management plan, seek permits, conduct dune grading, invasive species removal, revegetation and maintenance, and produce a report, all at the taxpayer's expense. The initiative applies throughout the city and directs coordination with private property owners. Taxpayers could therefore fund planning, permits, grading and vegetation work, not just on city-owned land, but also on state and privately owned land. The initiative identifies no funding source, cost cap, reimbursement mechanisms, priority system, or endpoint. It also places this policy in the charter, making future changes more difficult as ocean shore conditions, regulations, and best practices evolve. It would also require revisions to the city's foredoomed management plan and related policies and code. The last revision took approximately four years involving outside consultants. A fiscal analysis should therefore include staff time, consultants, technical settings, public process, legal review and challenges, and multi-agency coordination. The precise scope and cost cannot be known because the initiative uses several undefined standards. But uncertainty is not a reason to withhold information. It is a reason to provide realistic, low, moderate, and maximum foreseeable cost ranges. We respectfully ask you to provide voters with two public documents before the election, a fiscal impact statement estimating startup and ongoing cost, and a plain language legal effect statements from the city attorney explaining what the city would be obligated to do. We are not asking the council to take a position. We're asking for the transparency voters need before placing an undefined permanent taxpayer funded mandate. Thank you.

Next on Zoom.

Go ahead, Clara. Hi, Clara Srofe, PO Box 88. First, I'd like to reiterate the comment I made last Thursday about STRs and asking this council and our community leaders to stand up for us and make a decision that actually is going to help those of us that make this community livable and wonderful for people to keep visiting. But over the weekend, I had a conversation with a close friend of mine who is a former she used to be in the Oregon legislature, and we were discussing frustrations, and I brought this up, this issue. And she was shocked to hear that we don't already have a cap on STRs in our community. And she made it pretty clear that when she was in the House and her colleagues at the time, if a city like ours came to them asking for financial help with low-income housing, workforce housing projects, she would have denied helping us just on the basis that we have not taken the easiest step to actually help ourselves, with also the concern that any of these projects would eventually be turned into short-term vacation rentals, and also that we are just not helping ourselves in the most simple way possible to actually protect our housing. And so I'd like the council to be aware of those concerns moving forward that if we don't take a step, this very basic step, to protect our housing, protect our community, we could be digging ourselves in a bigger hole when it comes to asking for assistance in the future from the state. So I'd like to put that perspective forward as well. Thank you. Thank you.

Next. Go ahead, Andrew.

Can you hear me? Yes. All right. Andrew Tonry, PO Box 664. I am here to speak in favor of an STR cap. I'd like to see it go further. Now let me get into my remarks. It is commonly said that capping or limiting STRs will not help our situation with housing. This is a canard. We heard it here tonight. While a short-term rental may not wholly cover a mortgage payment, it subsidizes that mortgage. It makes a house, a second home, cheaper to own. To be sure, this incentivizes more second home ownership. It makes second home ownership cheaper, maybe even sometimes profitable. It also increases demand, making it easier to purchase a second home and decreases supply for potential full-time buyers. STRs stress an already stressed market. Let's set aside economics and talk about stress. Many people in this community, I would venture to guess a very significant majority, are uncomfortable with businesses operating as hotels in our neighborhoods. Neighborhoods should be for our neighbors. Thank you.

Thank you. Guys, remember, we're not having a pep assembly, so if we could hold our applause, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Go ahead, Anita.

Hi. Anita Duber, Box 694, Cannon Beach, commenting as a private citizen. Karen Hollweg, I appreciate all the time staff planning and Council has given to the discussion of short term rentals and I understand the urgency for placing a CAP, but what i'm not understanding is why exclusion areas and buffer zones are not also being included in this consideration. Karen Hollweg, exclusion areas would protect neighborhoods neighborhoods are a very important part of Community. Karen Hollweg, buffer zones would restrict the amount of short term rentals in any one area. Karen Hollweg, And i'm i'm curious Randy if you're listening what what the buffer zone would be to coincide with the CAP number that you're considering. And lastly, I would ask council to give serious consideration to your planning commission recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mickey. Good evening, City Council. Mickey Moritz, PO Box 84, Cannon Beach. I am again speaking with regard to the short-term rental cap. I do support a cap. I think it's an important step, but it is not enough alone. You have heard a number of comments regarding whether or not the cap will actually affect housing availability. And the one change that we know would affect housing availability is to protect the east side through an exclusion zone of east of 101. This makes sense because these neighborhoods are currently where our highest concentration of long-term residents and people who live and work in this area are able to find rental housing and housing to purchase. If these areas are not protected, those areas will become like the rest of Cannon Beach, littered with short-term rentals. Therefore, I would recommend considering both a cap and an exclusion area. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else on Zoom? OK, one last chance for audience members. Oh, OK. OK, Zoom user, identify name and mailing address, please.

Hello, I don't know if you can hear me all right.

Yes.

Hi, my name is Herb Florer, PO Box 546, Cannon Beach. And, you know, I've listened to a couple people speak and I've talked in front of the Planning Commission and I just find it, I'm not sure what the word is, interesting, I'll say, that we continue to have people that do not understand what the price of housing is in Cannon Beach. And when the median price of a home in Cannon Beach is well over a million dollars and the monthly payments on that house and insurance and this and that and the other are not going to allow that house, the median house in Cannon Beach to be affordable. how a cap would impact affordable housing. We all want affordable housing in Cannon Beach. The businesses in Cannon Beach rely on their workforce. And that would be amazing if we could accomplish all that. But the facts on the ground are straight out, it's not affordable. and it's gonna continue in that direction. Second of all, I find it interesting that people do not understand that the short-term rental total number, regardless of what type it is, in Cannon Beach has remained remarkably steady at approximately 200 plus or minus five over the past 15 years, thereabouts by the city's own reporting. The Planning Commission has unanimously said, no, a cap is not the way to go. It's not the right thing. We need to look at other things. If the 200 number has remained so consistent, it cannot have been negatively impacting affordable housing in an increasing number over those years. Thank you very much for your consideration and thank you for being there.

Thank you. Okay, anybody else on Zoom? And one last chance for the audience. Okay, thank you, everyone. So we will move into our discussion items. First is the consideration of updated Cannon Beach Chamber contract.

All right, thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. Back in January, you tasked us with meeting with the Chamber to work on the current agreement. Mayor Knopp Bruce Dennis and myself all met with the executive director and members of the chamber board and the agreement before you has been reviewed by the attorneys and is what we have come up with a couple of big changes in this one. It has a set amount for both the visitor center and DMO. which will increase by CPI every year. And then it also has a set date for payments and percentage of the TRT funds that will go to the chamber. It moves the quarterly reports that they will actually present live to you to two, but they will also do paper reports four times a year. And with that, really, I will open it up to questions.

Anybody have questions?

Go ahead, Lisa. Oopsie. OK. Way down here. OK. Where is he?

I'm right here.

OK. I just have a question. I'm curious if the unspent money as of 6-30-26, would that be returned to the city? Because this contract starts 7-1, correct?

Correct.

And so doesn't our old contract say that uncommitted funds should be returned to the city? Yeah, but we'll...

But they wouldn't return those because they we still are under the old agreement. So whatever is flow flows through to them under that old agreement, which was 630, which will be the remainder of the funds. If you remember back during the budget process, we kind of talked about what we were going to do in 2027, 28. And that is we're rolling all the TRT funds into the same fund. And then we'll have just the set obligations. So you will be able to have a vaster pool, I guess, of TRT monies going forward.

And that'll come back to you guys in like a- I understand the going forward part, but I'm looking at the old contract, which requires that they return unspent money. And that's what it says in the old contract. So I'm curious why we're not honoring or following what the old contract says.

I guess I would not ask them to return that money, I guess.

Why? That's why I'm asking.

Because their 26 budget had a set amount of money that they were to spend. And that was under the belief that all, or actually the practice that all of their, all of those TRT funds flowed through to them. So I'm not sure me taking money from them from last year if they have money left over, because they're still going to be providing the same services. They're still going to do the visitor center. They're still doing the DMO. So those services will be provided. And whatever I would be going after would be their reserves. And I guess I'm not I'm not going to do that.

Am I wrong then that they don't have a commitment to return?

If we end the contract, I think if we were to actually end the contract, then we could ask them for the unspent funds.

But we're not ending.

We're not ending the contract. We're just modifying it. We're just modifying the contract. We're not actually saying we no longer have a contract with the chamber.

Yeah. To say that another way as well, hi, everyone. This is Ashley DeGill, legal counsel. There will never be a break in the contractual relationship. We still have the contract with them, and we still will continue to have the contract with them after this is signed. There was never a break in that contract. We never affirmatively went to terminate the first one or walk away from the first one. We're just amending some of the terms.

So the terms in the old one don't apply to the old, I guess, I don't know.

In terms of the old one.

You can get it very literally, that's all, because it's a contract. And I usually, I look at those pretty literally. So it seems odd to me, that's all.

The terms of the previous contract did have a modification clause in it. And this is this, exactly this.

And this one acknowledges that in the whereas statements that whereas we started this in 2015 and 2019, the contract was signed. This is now therefore, this is an adjustment to that contract.

Okay. I'm taking your word for it. Literally looking at the contract, it just doesn't make sense to me, but that's okay. It doesn't have to.

Okay. Other questions.

Um, I have a question, um, scope of work, uh, five F, um, let me scroll to it. Um, it asks for a presentation of those, uh, in-person quarterly reports to the city manager. Should that be just the city manager or the city manager or designee? Um, since there was discussion of a finance person specifically with TLT,

Yes, we could add designee. The purpose of that was to make sure that we were still having regular meetings between the city and the chamber. So that was the goal. So yeah, city manager or designee would probably work.

Harmon Zuckerman, Okay. And then the other question I had was for the term it indicates it's a contract only for Harmon Zuckerman, That says three years and it doesn't specify anything about renewal of that contract of mutual agreement to do at the end of three years. Do we have to go through a whole negotiation process or is this we can counsel if everything's going well counsel can just say, yeah, it's like renew and authorize signatures from staff on both sides yeah after three years there wouldn't be an issue with you amending this contract to authorize a longer term even though it's not built in it would just have to come back to Council okay so at the end of three years at the end of this contract if it were approved it would be back to Council to make a decision of whether or not that contract is going well and then make an amendment to it and repass a new contract

Correct. Or just amend this existing contract to extend the term for longer.

Okay.

So you could continue to abide by the same terms that we're bringing to you now. The only difference would be that we would extend that term for another three years or a similar term.

Okay.

Was there any discussion about reserve policy in any of this? I know we... There have been a lot of questions about reserves for a few years. And I mean, part of it was a result of the pandemic where money stopped being spent, although it was still flowing in pretty well. And those reserves mounted up. And then we've had we have had staffing positions that weren't filled for extended periods of time. And again, that money kind of has stacked up at times. And it seems like that reserve is kind of gone now. But was there any discussion about reserve policy?

We we did not have any real discussions about their reserve policy, I believe, if in the cases of kind of what you're mentioning counselor Hayes is that if we. If they weren't spending the money, then we would have. they wouldn't be able to be meeting the obligations of the rest of the contract. And that's the angle that we would take.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

I wouldn't ask them, I think, because they're going to manage their reserves. But if they get too high and they're not actually accomplishing what we as the city are asking them to do, then I think we come back with that's how we would...

I do appreciate that clause as far as making sure that they have people in place and that they're qualified. Part of my struggle is that those reserves were used to... go into operating expenses over the last couple of years. And that's why the contract is calling for $575,000 now is because they found a way to spend that money. And if you just look at what's happened since 2016, when the chamber was paid $335,000 under this contract, This now represents an increase of $236,000 over that period.

Honestly, not that much of an increase and also 70% of a decade of time.

Yeah.

Yeah. That's not, that's not a very, very large increase over that span of time considering inflation that's happened and the other contract that you're leaving out the separate contract that the chamber had with the city to get funded for the visitor center separately.

Well, it's certainly a lot more than inflationary. So I appreciate that now that it's tied to actual inflation rather than just kind of being total collection. So a little frustrated that it took us this long to get here because I know we've been talking about this for a couple of years. Yeah. I still have concerns. And other than the money, I feel like having our marketing efforts and messaging Tied to an organization like the chamber creates issues with constantly changing boards with constantly changing marketing committees with obviously frequently changing marketing people we kind of meander and we're not following one consistent path. But new people come in and have great ideas. And we just kind of we don't have the kind of long term vision and messaging that that I think we need here. And hopefully if this new person is in place, they can more ensure that that happens.

Uh, anyway, you're referring to the city position.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Um, I, I, I There's a lot of what I agree with what you're saying, Gary. There is a lot of change at the chamber, but Eric is correct in the fact that really there were two contracts that have been put together. So it seems like it's a lot more than it is. There is inflation there, that's for sure. And it probably did go a little beyond what it should have. But I think that we need to keep in mind that there is going to, there is a change happening with the executive director at the chamber. And so I think that we need to give the new leadership a chance to get their feet under them and make some good decisions. And I think that there's some people in there that, that can make some good decisions and, and some things are starting to slowly change and have, I've seen some changes over the last, even just few months. Um, so I have, um, I have faith. I have faith that, that things are going to go in a little bit different direction and we'll see what we're looking for out of, out of the leadership there.

Yeah, I agree at this point. It's like, but I think the city position to provide oversight rather than us trying to provide oversight up here makes even more sense for that kind of that long-term consistent vision. So I'm glad we're finally here.

As long as that city position isn't running the chamber, right? Right, right. Yeah, oversight, right. Mm-hmm.

Okay. Any other questions?

Great. Thank you very much.

Okay. Okay. Next on our agenda, we have the TSP process. Jeff, you ready?

Yes.

All right.

Can you all hear me? Michelle, can you hear me? Okay. Thank you for having me and I apologize for having four agenda items in a row to all of you. This is a transportation system plan process. Back in 2022, the transportation system plan was adopted by the city council at the annual retreat. We were tasked, the staff was tasked to bring back a process for bringing implementation projects forward. And if you delve into the transportation in our city code, you will see that the traffic and parking are John Potter, Under through the City Council given to the planning Commission as an annual review and with recommendations from the. John Potter, Planning Commission of the City Council and then you can see in that falls under he and their duties that perform other functions as indicated by the city state or requested by the City Council. of Public Works also has a role to play in transportation and parking as can be found under Chapter 2 of the Code of Public Works Committee where it says under direction of the Council, the committee will regularly review current policies and programs related to a number of things including roads, streets and transportation and will recommend strategies and policies for the expansion improvements of these systems. Furthermore, there's others that have a role in certain types of projects, and those would be DRB and parks. And so each has a role to play in the transportation system plan. The transportation system plan also has some language Corrections or code changes that they recommend which we hope to incorporate in our housekeeping changes coming up at the end of this year So under existing how does this TSP plan? Become a process if we look at our current we really have nothing set up for the transportation system plan Previously they did do an annual review. This was going back to 2016 2017 when I looked at it, that Planning Commission would annually meet, it looks like, and consider parking plans and transportation improvements. And once the TSP process got into consideration with the City, then that was dropped until this, you know, was the new plan was approved. And since then, we really haven't adopted anything. But if you look back through these minutes and these coming back from previous years, they looked at everything from crosswalks to improvements to roads to parking. And so how to adopt that into our system. Just to refresh everyone, if they haven't gone to our website, you can find the transportation system plan on the website, both the plan and all of the appendices that were used to compile the plan. So strategies and improvements, there were 58 strategies and improvements that were recommended through the TSP project. At the time, when I came back, we've either completed or initiated three of the 58. So there is a goal to start adopting some of these improvements. And at that retreat and the following meetings with city council, they initiated at least the parking management, some of those, the first steps, first five steps of that plan. And so we have begun by striping the one street stalls and then looking into parking management systems, which we will be bringing before you next month. But those goals are in the plan, preserve Cannon Beach seaside village charm, balance the needs of different transportation system users, enhance safety and emergency preparedness, foster sustainable transportation system, and provide environmental conservation and protection by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Each one then goes into priorities and they list those as most master plans do into near-term, mid-term, and long-term, zero to five years, five to ten, and then ten and beyond, and then rate that into a cost type of analysis under each one, whether it's roadway, transportation demand systems, transportation system management and operation strategies, bike and ped, crossings, and then other type of things like freight, transit service, and other things like that. Like I said, we've already started on this component. And so I started working with public works staff, and then we went before the public works with the same presentation and the same public works committee, that is. And then we also went before the planning commission with this presentation and concept. And so the TSP also has funding scenarios attached to that, taking into account what the city's five years prior what they had done as far as funding and then they do a cost constraint model to also say there's a this is if you didn't have the money to move forward and then they give you uh kind of plans looking forward uh from that cost constraint building on that and with other grant opportunities opportunities and those are listed in the tsp plan as well So we looked at the plan and Public Works and staff, community development staff came up with this process where we would have a capital improvement plan. The city's never really had a fully developed kind of capital improvement plan. for these types of improvements for transportation improvements. So each one of these committees, Public Works, Planning Commission, and Parks, there would be a joint meeting in October to discuss capital improvement plans. We also work with public works on just a process for people registering complaints, suggestions and things for transportation related throughout the year that would go to the public works. But then that also has a collection of things that they can't solve right then, or they don't have in the funding stream to do certain types of projects. Then that would been deferred to this meeting as well. And so from that joint meeting, then they would come up with a list of projects. capital improvement projects, then to take to you guys for your annual retreat. That would develop a project priorities list. Staff would then take that, look into, you know, what type of funding is out there, whether the grants or other funding streams, pull that together and take that to the budget committee. And then that starts the process of each project going through. And of course, some projects have to go to the Planning Commission, some have to go through the DRB, and some would eventually end up to City Council there with the project bid for that, to go out for project bid. So that's what we've discussed, and then we discussed it with the Public Works, and Planning Commission and we're open to suggestions. This is just the process we kind of thought we need something to at least get this going and something in a capital improvement kind of plan where we can have these priorities so that somebody just doesn't, can't just come in and demand something get done. without us checking off to say, do we have the funding currently for this type of project? And what are the TSP priorities on that project? And so we can kind of review those kind of suggestions and complaints against a rational kind of list.

I think it's a really good approach in involving the committees that are in charge of, you know, in charge of those areas, I think will help the process. I also like the idea of having the spreadsheet where you're going to keep track of, you know, what you've, you know, what has come in, in terms of what the community wants and, and the reasons why they can happen or why they can't happen. So appreciate that.

Thank you. Has Public Works already put together that process for complaints? Is that, you said it was mentioned to the committee. Is there a form for our community on the website, like the code complaint form?

I don't know if there's a form yet or a suggestion type form yet, but yeah. Small avenues, yeah.

Shared on the first committee.

Okay.

So you can see it in that.

Other comments, suggestions, questions?

I have a question about the life of the TSP. How often should it be revisited and revised?

Yeah, I would say most of these plans and especially if you're doing a capital improvement plan off of it suggested usually around five years to kind of revisit and update those plans with this type in place though you know i think this is a good process because we'll be getting annual type feedback uh on you know what projects are being accomplished and then we can kind of uh look at it again Now, whether to redo the plan, have another consultant come around, I'd say that's more like a 10 to 20-year effort on those.

Where are we with the three-way stop at Sunset and Hemlock? We asked to have that done, and it hasn't been. And same with the four-way at Second and Hemlock.

Yeah, I I have. I'm not aware of that. So yeah, I can I can look into that.

I mean, I think there's some things that staff could come back with some recommendations that are pretty easy instead of presenting us with another process, which a lot of this we've you've already presented to us, or has been presented to us previously, which is fine, but I think that there's some things that we can just besides, you know, the parking, striping was good. Getting some processes going like that, having staff recommendation for individual items that we can slowly but surely tick off would be amazing.

Yeah. Thank you. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Can we get an update from if if maybe Tim Tim could find it, or if you could find it. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Where that process was at for that three way stop the Council gave direction to like six months ago or more.

Was there a parking study for that one or a traffic study.

I don't know. It was before my time is I don't know.

And then I don't have the next step after the grant procedure.

I do kind of remember that now that you say that. I just don't, I guess this is me being naive, but I don't understand how hard it is to add a couple stop signs, to do a study and add a couple stop signs. So if I could understand that process more, that would be wonderful. We all could. And how much it would cost if we have to pay out of pocket without a grant because grants aren't very easy to come by.

Yeah, it seems that relying on grants at this point in time is just a fool's errand. And that, you know, there's this bunch of things like, you know, that the Elk Creek housing that were relying on grants and they didn't come through. So I think we have to think in terms of not relying getting those grants rather than relying on them because it's just then we end up we didn't get it and then everything goes into limbo and and you know that's not functional look at grants as a happy surprise as opposed to a right expectation yeah yeah a main funding stream i'm assuming that grant was for the uh i mean it doesn't cost much for a stop sign so it must have been for the traffic study on that yeah yeah

And are we required to have the traffic study to be able to make changes like that? I mean, I know the Tulavana or the Warren Way thing, I mean, I think that's just been a great change. Yeah. But I do know we had a traffic study for that. Would we need a traffic study for the other two modifications?

You know, I don't know by state law, or I can kind of investigate that. I don't know if you have to have it. It's just generally done just for... I think probably if you get sued. I mean, yeah, that's, yeah.

Get sued for not having it.

So we're going to look at parking soon. We're going to look at some options on parking. Is that time parking downtown? and or paid solutions, or what are we going to be looking at?

Yeah, so I will be, I'll just be giving you a kind of an update on our discussions with the, I think, four different vendors that we spoke with that do parking management, and so giving you kind of you know, an overview of what you could expect or what choices you could have to make. And so then you can kind of give us guidance on what to go out with our RFP on.

And we talked about crosswalks, more crosswalks on Hemlock. It would be good to see if what we could do to get a few more crosswalks in. I can't imagine that would need a study, but I don't know how many people have walked out in the street just in front of me this summer. So I can only imagine if we collectively got together on that, what that number would be.

Yeah, I know the TSP has some recommended locations for next steps on that. So we could bring those back too. Thank you.

OK, anything else on this topic? Staff has direction.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Okay, next we have Cannon Beach Housing Office and Manager on the agenda.

All right, so City of Cannon Beach recent budget meetings, the budget committee recommended the city address the housing crisis by allotting more funding from the general fund towards providing more housing while reserving some of those funds towards securing a housing specialist solely dedicated towards housing. On June 9th, 2026, Uh, the candidate city council approved the recommended budget and adding an additional $1,000,000 towards housing, bringing the housing fund to just over $3,000,000 for FY 27 are requesting staff to bring back a plan for housing support, special specialist. Uh, can beach, uh, community development department staff were instrumental in initiating the class of regional housing task force in 2022, uh, CR HTF gathers regional and elected appointed officials, housing and planning staff, along with area workforce representatives and housing advocates to discuss affordable workforce housing needs across the region. Under CREST facilitation and regional partnerships, the CRHTF has secured grant funding for regional housing, land and infrastructure inventory, as well as opportunity size analysis for each jurisdiction, which is currently in progress. The county also provided a full-time housing specialist through some federal funding, which brought Alyssa Gertler to the county through the end of 2025. Ms. Gertler's job description from Clatsop County forms the basis of the attached Cannon Beach Housing Manager's job description, which has been edited to reflect the housing support needs of Cannon Beach, and which applies the leadership for the Cannon Beach Housing Office. The Cannon Beach Housing Manager would work as Cannon Beach's housing specialist to institute the policies and procedures that would leverage federal and state initiatives and work with regional partners to administer programs and implement projects to develop affordable and workforce housing while maintaining these assets for future housing needs of the Cannon Beach community. As no budget was defined for the housing specialist position, staff reached out to regional partners, including Clatsop County, Ms. Gertler, Crest, and Noah to discuss the role of CBHM. With the absence of a housing specialist within the region, there is an obvious need for an individual who can help facilitate project development, explore and advocate for housing policy at the state level that meets the local needs of Cannon Beach while organizing the daily administrative activities that implement and support housing programs and projects that reach the entire spectrum of housing needs of the Cannon Beach community. Although the attached job description provides an outline of what the city would hope to secure and to provide housing support, another route would be to hire a consultant to help flesh out the role and scope of work for the housing manager over the next six months, which would provide a sustainable housing office. After, you know, to discuss a plan moving forward, you know, to get someone like Alyssa or someone in here as a full-time housing specialist, not really knowing what fleshed out kind of the role of this public benefits and how much we're going to be doing locally or in-house. You know, I spoke with Alyssa and others, and I think... My recommendation would be is to hire a consultant, set the limit at the 25,000 or so mark of the limit for going sole source and get someone like Alyssa or a a specialist who knows this area and then can help us draft up what that scope of work and role for that manager would be. Because depending on your decisions on this next item and then all of those policies and procedures will depend on how big of a role this person will have for the future.

I think it would be important to, definitely for a consultant, probably want a 10-year physical impact statement before we approve a lot of things. before we approve this actual position and even going into this public benefit. I mean, we want to take a really good, long, hard look at exactly what we're doing to make sure we aren't backpedaling right before you retire. Because we got to get it done.

Yeah.

So... City Council Chambers, tenure fiscal impact statement what's the public benefit going to do, how is this position actually going to help us achieve those goals. City Council Chambers, Because I think with that we can make some really good decisions.

Yeah, so something that came to mind when I was reading through this is the previous position, the position that Alyssa had up at the county was a regional position funded outside by a grant and didn't come out of the pockets anywhere locally. This would be coming out of Cannon Beach's pocket. Is there a way for Cannon Beach to develop MOUs with either the entire community regional area and get some sort of funding from other organizations to have. So this is obviously it'll be housed in cannon beach and this would be a cannon beach program, but all of our solutions are going to have to be regional solutions that are not just us in a bubble. And in the, in the same way that we share Alton with everyone around us, can we get, get some sort of MOU set up to share this hypothetical person, this position.

Yes, I mean, that is my goal for starting the Regional Housing Task Force, and I've had those discussions with the others, and I honestly believe that's why Clatsop County made that first effort. So I do think that that, and I spoke with Alyssa about this, that half of what this consultant role will be is also, like you said, coming up with a business model that helps support that role going forward, not just from us solely. It's got to have regional buy-in.

So you anticipate being able to get MOUs with Seaside and Manzanita and Clatsop County to fund some portion of this position so it's not just working on this whole area?

So you are planning on involving Tillamook County also?

You know, I don't know about Tillamook, but at least the jurisdictions of Clatsop County in our area, yeah.

maybe once we if this gets off the ground and it flies and you know in three to five years we're feeling good about it then we go to tillamook county and say this is working do you want to join us yeah but i i think i think it's probably reasonable to like you suggested with a contractor see if alissa or someone like her

would work on a contract basis to help finish fleshing out what this role, what programs this role would be overseeing. Yes.

Well, that's the, you know, that's, that was my hope because I really think just going out blindly with an RFP, um, I just don't know if we're going to get someone as qualified as we could get through that consultancy to build the appropriate position.

It is hard to hire for a position when you're not exactly sure what it means. Exactly.

Yeah. Did you have an idea of what you were anticipating setting aside for the cost for a contractor to do that? Did you say that?

I think we can only go to $25,000, is it? Yeah.

If we're going to direct award.

Yeah, direct awards. So it kind of limits us on that scope.

Is that an amount that gets the goal accomplished?

I hope so, yes.

So if we do a direct award and it can't accomplish the goal, but it can almost get it there, is there a loophole?

I'd have to ask my attorney.

Yeah, no, I'm sorry.

I would recommend talking to your land use counsel for that.

Okay. I like the approach of the consultant, but I do think we probably need to address the 25,000, whether or not we can increase that if

We need to.

Okay.

Well, obviously, our next conversation changes our needs if someone if we need someone to manage the public benefits issue. But there are certainly a lot of things in the job description as far as working on sustainability for the current for the existing workforce housing, perhaps projects like we've talked about purchasing the seven unit where you know that yes, someone could kind of drive that project. And so we're, we're a little bit early in bringing someone on, but I think that's probably the the right course.

Yes, and I think, yeah, just to move projects like that through and to set up, you know, kind of what that business model will be is a key role there, so.

So everybody's okay with that approach? Okay. Anything else on this topic? Okay. Moving right along to the public benefit housing policy. Jeff, are you ready?

Yes. Okay. So this is the public benefits housing policy. Comprehensive plan states that in order to maintain the city's village character and its diverse population, the city will encourage development of housing, which meets the needs of a variety of age and income groups, as well as groups with special needs. The latest Cannon Beach Housing Inventory's report, Unbuildable Lands Inventory, dated 2025, provides ample evidence that a large segment of the Cannon Beach population's housing needs are not currently being met, and will not be met in the foreseeable future by current zoning ordinances or market forces. Um, just a highlight that this is from a slide you've seen before, but I think it's a very important slide and and just needs a minute of explanation cannon beach there has as you can see a need a 20-year need of 660 houses and this is all types of houses if you're talking and what we would consider 80 ami to 120 ami at the most that's about half of that 330 is how many affordable workforce housing units is recommended by that horizon so in 20 years we need 660 units but unfortunately we are building even though we're building at a developed residential density so this is only the developed residential lands that I'm talking about. We're building at 5.9 units per acre. That's the best of the region, but it's still far short compared to how much land we need. Because if you do the calculations on that developable density and the 61 total buildable acres we have left, it requires us to expand our UGB 51 acres at that capacity just to meet that housing needs. And so, you know, as well as I do, the lands that we have around us, it would take probably many, many more acres than 51. That's buildable acres. And so, that's kind of where we're at. To look at this in a simple chart, a pie chart, everyone loves pie charts. Okay, that's full circle there. Anything that's light, that's built land. So that's every one of our zoning districts in the bright primary colors is what's left of each one of those districts. So if you'll see that very little bright red one down there, which is 0.5%, that's how much are three vacant lands we have. so if you were going to build 330 units that is likely where you're going to have to put them because it is the only place that we allow multi-family housing and so you're looking at a uphill climb not to mention that you know if you go into zillow right now and whether it's a multifamily unit or a single family, I think the cheapest you're going to find is around $500,000 to $550,000 per unit right now in the city of Cannon Beach. And so when we talk about affordable housing and workforce housing, that's why Um, you know, I threw the numbers at you according to the latest building inventory numbers. I wanted you to be able to see that kind of and to grasp those numbers and what's left in there. And so I wanted, through this staff report, is to kind of build the three different scenarios that we get all the time. We get the questions, whether it's from city council or someone calling us up, and they say, hey, well, a new unit's come on, or someone will walk into a meeting and say, well, I've got a piece of property that I would like to offer the city. But just like I said, we have current ones that are on the market right now for $500,000. but that's a single family. It's not zoned for multifamily. And so, you're looking at scenarios that add cost to everything that we look at. Then, that second incentive or scenario that I wanted to talk about is the ones where I get the emails from, whether it's my church or someone else that says, we would like to bring on a new vice president or pastor or whatever, but they're looking for housing. and whether it's the next city manager or the next public works director. You know, we're always facing this. So what are the business, what can we offer businesses as far as incentives to help out? That third scenario, city-owned property. Well, we've got some great RV park or whatever, Southwind. You know, what are the costs to build on those? And they're running out. So those are the three scenarios that we need some kind of policies in place and guidelines to give us... you know, a future or how to do this with some types of defensible when it comes to one property versus another property. Because policy should answer where the property has appropriate zoning in place, access to proper utilities and infrastructure, proximity to essential needs such as transit, groceries, or existing community anchors such as healthcare, governmental, and social services, while prioritizing properties that are free from environmental hazard and constraints and integrated within the community. So if you look at these other jurisdictions that have been doing this type of thing, they have guidelines on housing and they set up, whether it's for LIHTC properties, whether and it's in your community or it's a LIHTC property elsewhere, or if it's a public benefits type project, which score higher and which ones should we approve through our funding? And so, that's why I wanted to offer the three different scenarios. And so, if you have $3 million to spend, the reason why, if you talk to a housing specialist, what they're going to tell you is you need to make each one of those $3 million, leverage that with state and federal funding and other funding streams to get more for your dollar. So by having these policies in place and having a qualified housing specialist or a specialist to facilitate such transaction and maintain such agreements, city council can focus on the big picture items, actions through developing and directing a housing plan that meets the needs of the community. So I talk about a housing plan And, you know, what we're trying to do is build through those that I gave you back in June's meeting, not only the policies from the state that allow these things and the resolutions that you'll have to pass. I've tried to key that into the rest of the housing staff report document and then provide you guidance on how to do that. And what I'm asking tonight is to say, well, these are the key points. And yes, we would like to have you start drafting this type of legislation or resolution or guidelines. And so the big picture, of course, would be you know, what are the city's, what should the city's housing goal be per year? You know, how many units should we strive to produce each year? What portion of the city's housing fund should go to the management and administration of housing? How much, what proportion should go to the preservation and maintenance of housing, programs that incentivize public benefits housing, the development of new housing units or other avenues? And so that You know, you've developed a plan, you've developed these guidelines, and then those funds could be allocated towards these different projects and funding streams so that, you know, the one project doesn't pop up and you spend $3 million or all your $3 million on one that's only going to, you know, give you a limited number of units. so uh i thought we might start with um kind of the little picture as the way i i see it is that if if the city were wanting to simply encourage housing through this most basic building block of the adu what would they do well the city could remove all zoning barriers And, you know, we have done a pretty good job of that, even going back to 2015 or so, when we allow ADUs in pretty much every residential district. But there's other zoning barriers that stand in the way often. And just like I talked about how small zones for R3 or multifamily areas, Um, the city could remove wave or reduce all associated fees from system development charges to building fees, which are written not required by state obligations. The city could seek any tax abatements through city and county resolutions, and the city could offer rebates for a portion of construction costs. And yet, if the goal of the city's housing policy is to provide for housing for all ages and all incomes that the Comprehensive Plan directs, following these steps would not lead us to our goal, in fact. In fact, as has been pointed out by the sheer growth of construction costs since COVID pandemic, which now exceeds over 300 per square foot, and the data from many review of rental listings, None of our recently built ADUs can be classified as affordable or workforce housing, as none have been deed restricted or held to the HUD standards of appropriate area median income. So there's a very limited amount that ADUs can do. And I understand the want to give everyone all of these things. and the dream that once you give those away, whether it's free parking, you remove all of the fees and the waivers from the SDCs, and give them rebates to build these units, and yet you don't put a deed restriction on them, they will not be affordable housing units. They will not be workforce housing units. They will be people's free market units, which will likely go for, you know, well above what we're trying to strive for with affordable and workforce housing. So you even limit the possibilities for where affordable and workforce housing goes in the future. So I have driven or written up the decision points here, and I've put them in the form of the tiers, the tier one, tier two, tier three, city-owned lands and historic cottages, in hopes that it can kind of explain step by step and we can have discussions on each one of these so that we can start the process of, you know, at what limits do we want to hold this. Because the way that tier one, tier two, and tier three document is written currently It gives all of the, if the floor area ratio is given, you know, and we waive SDC and fee waivers currently, then it is written pretty much that you guys could approve the ZO, which would be step number one. You would approve Z, Zoning Ordinance 2502 would allow all of that. even if you pull the far it would still allow that um public benefit system development charges and fees which may be instituted through an ordinance amendment so currently if you wanted to waive uh the sdc's and fee waivers, that would still require an ordinance amendment. Yet, if you were to jump down to that next tier two level and just only do it for public benefit ones that have the deed restriction or that you're funding through that type of system, then you would not need to do an ordinance amendment for SDC. And yes, go ahead.

I'm sorry, it may just be me, but this is a lot of information to digest, way too much for one presentation. Maybe it's just my little brain. But I think maybe even if we could break it up a little bit so we can have some question and then have you continue to present it, that would be helpful for me.

So would you like to just start with this short, I mean, the system development charge waiving? Because that really is kind of the first step. I mean, your first step you're going to make will not be part of this. That will be part of the FAR reduction, you know. So that, which was discussed at the last hearing, is that, You know, you do have this floor area ratio, which currently you're limiting to 0.56. But if you, you know, if you give a public benefit, then you get the bonus. And so, but that does not weigh on that kind of tier one level discussion that we were having with the accessory dwelling unit. Does that not make sense to you guys?

I am. Also, I just want to say, I think they call that in the housing parlance tiered floor area ratio.

Yeah, you can.

It's tiered. So in other words, you get increased floor area ratio. You get bonus, yeah. Against the housing. I did turn it on. Tiered floor, I did. Tiered floor area ratio, I think is what, that's what they refer to in all the treatises you read from about housing.

I wasn't wanting to get into the FAR discussion tonight, because you can decide on those tiers that you want at the public hearing for that. What I would prefer to discuss is the other components of the public benefits. So, you know, and I think, you know, I would welcome discussion from you guys on you know, how much, uh, you know, what are, what is the goal of the public benefits? Because a public benefits, uh, the, as the program is designed is to give these bonuses, but it is a carrot and a stick thing. In other words, you only get them, uh, these bonuses if you deed restrict those properties, because, you know, I am, uh, You know, I can give you data after data of these communities. There's none that have reached or none that I know of that reached this level of land value, if you will, that is going to just give away free market bonuses because that's, you know, you're not getting anything in return. for the affordable workforce, which this program is supposed to be producing housing for. Because your only ways to produce this type of housing is through this substantive system, right? Whether it's through this public-private type of partnership we're calling a public benefits program or whether you build your own on city-owned land or give businesses some type of incentives to do inclusive housing in their complexes. Does that make sense to you guys?

So on the deed restrictions, it indicates in this packet that If you do a multi-unit dwelling, it's a 30-year deed restriction. But if you want to build the ADU, you have to have a lifetime deed restriction. And I don't think that's fair. No, no.

It says that. These are just starting points for discussion. Yeah. So that's exactly what I want you guys to discuss. And all I tried to do was give what's kind of, I would say, industry level analysis. I mean, you will go to different ones in different communities and they vary quite differently. I'll give you that. But, you know, if you're going to say the mountain town communities and ones that have been doing this a while, you know, almost all of theirs are now, you know, in perpetuity, their deed restrictions. Yet, you know, they go as low in some jurisdictions to two years. You know, they're deed restricted for just two years. So that's up for years discussion. I'm not, you know, I would like guidance on that. I just put that number there as the kind of industry standard of that.

So I'll go ahead, Eric.

I was going to comment on SDCs. I've said it before. I said it during the budget meeting. I really don't think that we should be charging ADUs, SDCs. It's an already developed lot. There's no new infrastructure going to the property. They're paying for the system hookups already and then charging system development charges for parks, for all of those additional things. I think it's excessive. We had multiple examples come forward to us of people that were trying to build something for them to move into or their caretaker to move into, and they just could not afford 10, 12, $15,000 in fees that were majority fees going SDCs that didn't go to the development of the property. I think it would be worth exploring Agreements. I don't know if it would, if deed restriction would be the appropriate phrasing for it, but something on like a five-year timescale or something like that, that if that is the, if that is the intention for the person that they're, they're going to move it and they're going to move from one house to the other or, or whatever it is like something short. Cause that's, that's essentially, that's a financial agreement of like, oh, I'm going to get $10,000 off the cost essentially for not having to pay $10,000 in SDC fees. So the more ties that out to 10 years or 15 or whatever, five years that it takes to that, that would be reasonable for that to look like a single financial impact off of the city. I don't know if that makes sense.

So you're talking almost like a loan type thing?

I guess. I mean, I don't think ADUs should have to pay SDCs at all. Anyways, the lot's developed. You're just adding a second structure to it. But if that's a middle ground to hit, because I know there's been pushback about not charging. ADU's, SDC fees. It's a lot of acronyms.

Do we have consensus on that among council?

I mean, I agree with that.

If it's a developed lot to waive SDC charges.

Is that if the ADU is going to be used for long-term rental or just any time. Any time. Even if it's being used, you know, to have a guest house for when your family comes to visit.

Yeah, or if my husband wants to put his man cave out there, his music room. Yeah, you shouldn't have to. You already have those utilities to your property. You shouldn't have to pay those again.

The assisted development charge fees. I think still paying for the hookups, those additional things that actually have a real cost that you're paying for and covering. But the SDC fees going into a hypothetical bucket of new development for the total plant.

I agree. Well, I'd be more excited about it if it was tied to, you know... if the ADU is going to be used for long-term rental. That would make me a lot more excited about using it again as an incentive, as part of a package of incentives, not a loan.

It's not enough. Well, but that's a tiered portion of that. It's a small, it's one step up, and then the next step would still be, it would still be an incentive for someone who wants to deed restrict their property, make it a long-term rental, but they would get more incentives. So if you just built an, uh, ADU on your property for your own private use, not as an STR, that could be a restriction, right? It can't be a short-term rental, but, um, And then the next step is, well, you're going to plan for, you want to build something that's for long-term housing. So then you get that incentive, plus you get other incentives. So it's a layered or a tiered system.

Yeah, I guess I just, I understand your thinking, but I'm just saying that that does nothing towards providing more housing. We're, you know, waiving the STDs. waiving those fees just for any ADU does nothing to provide housing.

But why should they pay those fees if they've...

So you're talking about a whole different subject than housing, providing housing.

But if we're talking about this in this way, we should talk about it, we should look at the whole picture, I think. Because it's really not that big of a step or a stretch.

Okay, if you want to put in an ADU so that... Your husband can have a man cave that has nothing to do with housing. That's just a whole separate subject.

That one example doesn't, but I would say it would be a stretch to say it has nothing to do with housing. We had two examples that were written as public comments that were not able to move forward, not in this packet, but some previous packets, they were not able to move forward because the fees were so high.

And a $500,000 ADU, they couldn't move forward because of the system development charges?

That's what the comment was. And on a $500,000 thing, you're talking $15,000 to $20,000 in city fees. That's a lot of fees that are associated. And for somebody to not be able to move forward on that is a real shame.

It is. I just don't understand how on a $500,000 property, $15,000 of fees is going to stop you from building. If you can build that $500,000 ADU, I don't think that the 15,000 is going to be the thing that stops it. But that's, you know, it's just my opinion.

It seems like we're just rehashing our Z02502 meeting. And I don't, is that what we're going to do here?

Because- We have a meeting next month again.

Yeah, I just don't understand what we're trying to accomplish. I mean, I could say everything that I said at the last meeting because my thoughts have not changed that we do need a tier that just has a give back of FAR for unrestricted. Then we need to tier up from there where you get more benefits for people more breaks for adding public benefit.

And that's how the current one is written, is that you would have this three-tier and you do give away the SDCs at this tier one. But then as they move up to the tier two, that's when uh, the rebate, uh, and, um, all of that kicks in. And so you would be giving, you know, whether it's a flat fee or a percentage of the billing cost, um, you would be giving them, uh, an incentive to.

So tier one, uh, does this say you're getting a give back on floor area ratio?

No. No.

Okay. So you're just taking your ADU out of your allowed FAR, which is now reduced.

Right. But you do get the SDC, right?

And it can't be used as a short-term rental.

Right. I don't think anybody's going to argue that one.

But they couldn't be used as short-term rentals now.

That's accurate. Correct.

Yeah. So there's no change.

So I have a couple of questions about the public benefit. OK, go ahead. One comment. I don't think we can do anything without deciding on FAR, which we talked about last week. But I don't want to get into FAR right now. How many additional units could be created under the proposed changes? And I don't expect answers now, but these are some questions that I do have, or I'm not asking for answers now. I shouldn't use the word expect. I don't mean to be disrespectful. One thing, density. How many additional units could be created on a property under the proposed changes? um existing properties haven't heard a whole lot about existing properties and how they fit into this public benefit program so it would be interesting to see or hear how that would work this really doesn't have anything to do with strs which is good that's my observation um What is the maximum annual financial exposure from rebates and fee waivers? So that would be another question. How much property tax revenue would we lose is another. And let's see here. Then we were just talking about a housing office and housing specialist and how much that would cost. Who decides which? private properties qualify for city's assistance? It's just a question.

Yeah, so I can kind of answer a few of these. Yeah, so the Tier 1 and Tier 2 are anyone. It doesn't have to be a new build. Anyone can build an ADU. And as far as maximum density, that's going to be Currently, depending on how those middle housing things, it still would be limited through, if it's just an ADU, would still be limited in just allowing one more unit for that property. That's not to say that the mixed-use multifamily, the Tier 3, could not be written towards increasing densities of up to whatever that middle housing would allow, whether it's a triplex or further. But that would be discussed. Marcy and I would probably discuss that at that form-based code when we're talking about that. We talked about possibly rolling an FAR into that discussion as well. That would be where we would talk about those.

And would that, if... Two small cottages were purchased in town, hypothetical, and they were in real close proximity. And each new owner wanted to build a triplex. I think that's where we get into a little bit of the density, right? How do we decide who gets to do that? Is this something that, you know, has been brought up in the rest, you know, the restricted areas?

And then, as far as the fee exposure that's handled or at least I wanted you guys to discuss that in the decision points number three there at the bottom of the page. Talking about you know how many units per year, you would be offering this to that's how most jurisdictions do that type of system, so they would allow public benefits for the first 510 or whatever number of units.

So you mentioned there's other a number of other communities and they have similar restrictions and similar policies in place. Can we get examples of other communities, what their targets were, what their population was prior to setting targets and those sorts of, if you can find anything that's a relatively similar-ish size. I know there's probably not gonna find anything exact, especially doing housing policies in communities that are small, or it's probably not very often that actually happening. But I think to be able to inform that decision, we'd have to have an idea of what's a reasonable and realistic goal. And the same with the, I think it was the next item that you had for the funds allocation. Like, I don't know how we could have an item, maybe something. A couple of slides back, but funds allocation for how much of it we should be putting toward management, how much of it, like, I don't know, council would, without a financial direction, how do we?

I don't think we could, yeah, exactly. I didn't expect us to get into the big picture discussions tonight, so.

Well, I think this tier system is great. I just still believe that tier one should be, you should get the FAR give back for building two dwelling units without a restriction.

And then, so would you then go for that next tier? Would you go higher with the FAR from that?

Well, the next tier has rebates. I would certainly consider, like, give back on front and back setbacks, front or back setbacks. I would consider greater FAR for more units, yes. Yes.

If that's because that that tier two is what triggers that to public benefits, the actual exemption, you know, lead restrictions.

I just have a real apprehension about going backwards on our current. uh, ADU policy. We only do two a year now. If, if now we move to a program where, uh, your ADU is going to cost you your reduced FAR, then we're going to have less than two, probably none. And if the public benefits program, uh, If you take advantage of that, it just doesn't seem like we're moving anything in the right direction.

Yeah. The way in the proposed housing amendments that came before us, the ADU didn't even count towards your FAR. You just got to build it.

Right.

Right now you can have the 0.6 and plus that was, you could have point the way it was suggested you get 0.46 plus your ADU, which doesn't even count towards your FAR. That's a benefit. That's a big benefit. But then again, it's tied to the FAR having some kind of deed restriction on it to be used for housing. In other words, it doesn't count.

Maybe we just disagree on this, but I just don't think a lot of people are going to enter into this complicated program that's managed by the city as far as their contracts for their rental agreements with the city. Everything's going to be approved by the city. and tie in a deed restriction for whatever it is, 30 years or in perpetuity.

Public benefit, yeah.

Because then we're just going to end up with the smaller homes and more second homes.

No, I don't understand what you're saying, though. Are you saying that you think we should just give public benefits to ADUs, whether or not they use them for housing?

I think that if what we're really doing is just letting them build what they build now, but build it in two units, yes, I think there's a benefit to the community for that. Some of them are going to become rentals. And they may be market rate rentals. But earlier you were talking about, oh, we need market rate rentals too.

They will become market rate rentals. Yeah, that's no question.

That's not solving the...

I think we're looking at this public benefit housing. I think that's the wrong term for what you're trying to do here. Because... You keep ADU, ADU, ADU. I understand creating more housing, but we aren't talking about the person that owns a home here, an existing home that maybe is a second homeowner that never comes here that would be willing to do something. And is there a public benefit for them? What is the benefit to the public? So is there some tax abatement? But is the city going to kick in some money every year to say, hey, we're going to give you $10,000 a year to help cover the cost so our workers, the people who actually work and live here, can afford to live in that home? And I think that's the biggest point that we're missing here.

That's the lease to local?

Yeah, that's the lease to local. And so is that where, well, it is, but... And that I, so that's, that's my next question. Is that where we send them as to this lease to local program?

Yes.

Okay. But that lease to local program costs us $125,000 a year. Yes. So how many people are going to do it? And what is the real benefit there? Are we paying lease to locals? If we're going to be paying somebody to manage these properties anyway, then Why aren't we bringing that home as well instead of giving it to someone else? Because you might have two or three people that are willing to say, hey, I'll do this.

Yeah. And then so we are the current pilot projects for 10 of them, 10 units. So that's the goal for the lease to local. So this is just another tool. So there's different tools we're going to try to offer. And we're calling this public benefits, but there are different portions of it. One of them is, like I said, Adam L. At you, but then you've got the ones for someone builds in a mixed use for multifamily, then, if they add additional units, then they get public benefits for that. Adam L. And then there's going to be you know down the road, hopefully, we can have legislation for reserving or preserving historic cottages and things like that to. have a transfer development right program for that. So there's other components to this. But like you said, this is a lot to take in, a lot to try to get your hands around. And, you know, we're trying to do possibly 20 years worth of work in a very short time period. And that's why I think, you know, this is going to take us a few meetings to to get the points and get the policies together. And then we'll take a housing specialist to kind of help finish the process.

And I personally think with each of those, each time it comes to a meeting, that we have one really concise group topic that we're talking about. Because we can fall so far down into the hole that nobody can, you know, we can't pull ourselves out and then we all get scattered on what topic is most important to us. And that way, maybe we could just make some headway. I think that would be wonderful.

Anything else anybody wants to add?

I mean, what's going to be helpful tonight that's moving the ball forward? Again, it feels like we're just, we're kind of back talking about everything we said at the previous, at the housing ordinance meeting.

So I was going to suggest, it sounds like staff wants direction on if the Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 is a good direction to go. And the particulars of that may be up to debate, but is that what you're asking for directly?

Could you flesh these out a little more for us, that Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3, so we can actually have a better discussion about them?

Yeah, I can take some of the questions that you guys have asked, and I'll flesh those out and then bring back at least what the difference between the tiers could bring forth.

And, and like a clear, like what, what is the commitment from the private entity versus the commitment from the city and have those, those broken down. Yeah. But I, I think it's, I think this is a really, really good idea going towards this lower, lower requirements for lower benefits, obviously. And then the higher you get into the higher tier two and tier three, where you're getting direct financial stipends as a private, private entity to be able to provide housing that is at an, at that. 80 to 120% AMI or wherever, wherever it lands, if we don't even get to 120, whatever that level is at.

Well, so, you know, I would also ask or request that we do this more frequently, you know, at least I can get on next month's work session and just do every month kind of a segment and get this done at least.

Yeah. And I mean, there's things that aren't mentioned here, so I don't know if these are your recommendations, but what about possible give back of setback?

Yeah.

For greater public benefit.

Yeah. There was a parking one that was. Yeah. Parking. Yeah.

And and what about greater F.A.R.?

Yeah.

You know, going over the over the point six for additional units.

Yeah. Okay. I will bring that back. That, you know, as you suggest, I mean, has been suggested between you guys is that, you know, maybe look at different FAR points in the steering system a little differently than has already been provided.

So I'll give you some scenarios on that.

Okay. Are we ready to move on? Okay.

Thank you, Jeff. One more comment. You made mention, it's just a generalized comment you made about leveraging federal dollars and state dollars to increase it. I think we need to face the reality of discussion we were having earlier. Those dollars don't exist. We can try, we can do what we can, but I think essentially we're on our own.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, Especially financially it's especially at the federal level.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, It's every every time there's oh we're gonna we're gonna get this grant yeah yeah it it dries up and I think we need to face that reality of what we have is what we have, and we need to use those dollars.

HAB-Judy Nogg- Actually money's being pulled back from Oregon. HAB-Judy Nogg- For grants already been awarded. That money's been taken.

And I didn't mean to start a whole thing, but I just wanted to say that.

Well, and I think that, you know, Barb, you said at the federal level, and a lot of the state money has federal funding. That's right. That's how they get it. We're on our own. Right.

Yeah.

And don't stop applying for grants and stuff. I'm just saying. Just don't. I just don't want us to have the expectation that we're leveraging and crippling our dollars in some fashion for things that just keep not happening.

Okay. We're moving on. Everybody okay?

All right.

Okay. Next, we have the short-term rental cap consideration.

It just gets easier and easier. So... Short-term rental cap can be short-term rental cap. Just briefly, I'll just briefly go through this. For those that aren't familiar with it, a short-term rental cap was suggested of $165,000. As it was written and handed to me, it was 165 for 14-day. So what that eventually becomes, though, is for all short-term rentals because lifetime will fade out because of the language you saw and some of the public comment was about seller transfer. Well, that's why because of our seller transfer language, Well, eventually, when that last name goes off the trust, then you're left only with 14-day permits. And so that's 165, 114-day permits. So that's why, you know, I think it was written the way it was. I don't know if, you know, whatever the discussion was between the previous Jeff, you know, that's still what it was written and given to me with, and that was his draft. So... Anyhow, the 14-day permit, then there's a waiting list as part of that. That's part of the language. The main section of the language is talking about that waiting list and how that would work. And then Um, you know, if they don't, if they get notice, they got 45 days to get there and make their claim on that. If not, then it will go to someone next. Uh, the data that's been presented is the data you've seen time and time again and hasn't changed. Uh, you know, going back to the data that we have on that, where it stays around 200, it has changed, you know, lifetime 14 day and five because we've, uh, uh cycled out the five-year program and those have now been taken up by the 14-day permits which now i think is right around 154 155 as of this i also wanted to highlight the regional and state comparisons because i think it's always have a context of how we compare across the clatsop county and tillamook areas in the short-term rentals And just to say that, you know, at our current short-term rentals are about 10.3% of our housing. And if this were to pass, that would, you know, then slowly, if a 165 cap were to pass, then that would slowly take away from that number or percentage. And so then you've got also how do we look across Oregon? We're very different, you know, as far as seasonal recreational housing use. You can look at 2010 Cannon Beach compared to the state where seasonal and that is just, you know, very little, less than 10% of their housing is seasonal or vacant or anything like that, whereas we're well past that. Then as part of that process, the exclusion zones and density restrictions were brought up. So during the Planning Commission, they looked at exclusion zones where no new short-term rental permit shall be issued for properties east of 101. Existing permits shall remain in force until revoked or terminated pursuant to this chapter and eligible to renew annually. Density restrictions, no new short-term rental permit shall be issued for properties within 100 feet of any portion of active short-term rental permits, property location, existing permits shall remain in force until revoked or terminated. And then the 14-day permanency occupancy requirement was also brought up about, we had done research, other jurisdictions that have done this, they have had problems where, if it's a problem, that people will just start getting getting short-term rental permits so that they hit the cap and never use those short-term rental caps. So we put in an active clause in there that would make them verify the quarterly that they're using their short-term rental permit. As part of that research and the work sessions with the planning board, we looked at that Cannon Beach, that 100-foot buffer, This is an example taken from the 100-foot buffer. This is looking at the north end of our February data back when we did this for the Planning Commission. You can see the north end. The yellow properties are the actual short-term permits. Their red buffers are 100 feet from that. This would be downtown area. This is the midtown area. Haystack area. to Levana and south end. So now if you then look at all the properties according to 100 foot buffer from current or the February data and you look at which properties are impacted, That comes to anything that's yellow. And so what it comes to if you do the data, it's about 60 to 65% of the properties would be impacted by the current 100-foot buffer or a current 100-foot buffer was used and impacted. one of the things that's not hasn't been discussed and wasn't i don't think discussed that much at the uh planning commission is if you do go to some system like this 100 foot buffer and other jurisdictions have had this conversation is that you go to that then that's going to push the potential to other areas of the city and so uh often Proximities are used, I think, in coordination with some type of zonal. And so you have the buffer. You have the zonal type. And then you could also put in limits per district is also another technique that's used. And then the recommendation, the Planning Commission appoint a motion by Councilor White seconded by Councilor Risley unanimously recommend a denial of the ordinance as written with a recommendation to seek other ways to restrict short-term rentals such as percentage-based, limits on the permits, zonal restrictions in or a density-based system where a 100-foot buffer limits any new permits being issued in proximity to an active permit. And, you know, just to kind of briefly give you the numbers there, if you were to go, the 10%, of course, would give you 189 currently. If you were to put the limit at 9%, that would equate to about 170. And an 8%, right around 150. So you could set them at, you know, one of those percentage points rather than just capping at 165. That would then know go up or down depending on how many new homes you add or how many new homes you take away that is i think how manzanita does it there's other jurisdictions that do it through a percentage-based system so we have examples all around us of different of these systems being used to limit and i think that that was the recommendation of the planning commission Commission, I don't think it was just a denial on a cap, you know, just to say we're not doing a short-term rental cap, which has been, you know, what I hear in the public. That is not what I heard from my planning commission. I think they were just saying, I think there's other methods you might want to look at. They also said timing. They looked at the 14-day versus the twice-monthly, and I think there's not, there wasn't that strong either way. I think that was just something that was, has been talked about on both sides of positives and negatives regarding that. Um, and then sell or transfer language that has been brought up by public comment. And, uh, to answer that, you know, I think our, our city attorney had said, you know, uh, uh, that, um, That language, you know, has worked for us. It has worked for us since the, you know, I can go back looking at that language. It's been in there since I think we did the ordinance. We wouldn't change that. Now, it was one of the questions that would come up if we did go to this kind of 14-day only and it's capped or limited or whatever and you have that system. Yeah, it might be something, you might want simpler language after the lifetimes have kind of died out, then you might want just simply to, you may not want that exact language, but I would defer that to our city attorney or land use attorney to discuss the language for that.

You know, Jeff, I just, I think that the buffer zones, exclusionary zones, all those things are good ideas, and I think we should explore them. But we've been waiting how many years for something? And I think that we need to just start with the cap, as you've suggested, you know, and as you've written in the, you know, sample. And All those things I think can happen. They're going to take time. They're going to take a lot of study and a lot of discussion. And I don't think, I think we need to just start with the cap and then move on from there. But I just, you know, all these are great ideas, but we, I don't know how many years ago, I can't even remember now that we talked about putting a cap in and it still hasn't happened. We've done nothing. And I just think we need to do it.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, And I, I'm happy to to talk about this. I don't want to stop the conversation, but I had a question for the attorney. We have a notice posted for a public hearing for this topic in a month. It has not been posted yet.

Yeah.

Oh, I thought it was posted.

Yeah.

Already. Okay. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure if we have a public hearing posted that we're not going to get into debating the merits of the ordinance outside of the public hearing if that's, okay, all right, nevermind.

And that's also a good question.

Oh, I apologize, go ahead. No, no, go for it, go for it.

Oh, I was just gonna say, that's a good point. But this being a legislative hearing, you have less, I think maybe that that point was going to ex parte contacts, or, you know, that kind of a question. Luckily, that isn't a concern for legislative hearings. But still, I completely agree that the primarily the the, the terms of you know, the details should be saved for and the debate should be saved for the hearing itself.

Yes, and so that would be really what I would like to suggest, too, is that, you know, all I'm asking for tonight is that would you like us to move forward to the public hearing with the language as is, or would you like us to make minor amendments?

I second everything that Lisa said. We've been waiting to do this, and... I really don't understand. Let's put the cap in place. That's what I would like to do.

I agree with that also. Can we get two versions of language, one that's just the cap and one that's the cap at whatever level that includes the density language and the exclusion language that was that's already been drafted and was presented? Because I really think the exclusion zone east of 101 and density of whatever it is, 50, 100, 200, whatever foot figure around a home is actually more impactful to the change than just a blank, just a number. And I'm not opposed to a cap. The comprehensive plan specifically calls out that we will limit the number. It's one of the items that's in the comprehensive plan. I'm not tied on the 165 as during our meeting when we decided that. I said 195. That's what our current limit was at. But I don't think the number changes the actual livability. And I think that's the objective is to increase livability of neighborhoods and maintain the livability of the neighborhoods that aren't currently full at saturation. So I think having that exclusion language and having the the buffer zones included in that is going to be substantially more impactful.

I think the cap is not going to improve livability, at least for a while. But that's not the intention. I think the intention is so that we don't get people buying houses and turning them into short-term rentals.

And that's what I want to say. I'm not against putting a number cap. As I said, our comp plan says will limit the number and we're not we don't have a number limit and i i agree with you i think the buffer and exclusive sure uh exclusivity is something we should talk about but i don't want to delay this i don't think we need to delay it to put to put that language before us in a month so to have two versions that's that's my that's my suggestion having which is having and one with i i'm that way that way it's flushed out by staff how it looks and then we can see what staff's recommendation is of what the language would look like with the other stuff in it and what language looks like as just the simple request of a number.

And then if we can't agree on the big package at the hearing, then we could at least agree on the cap.

Okay.

Everybody okay with that? Mm-hmm. I am.

Do you have older statistics on vacation rentals? I recall when I bought my place in 2000, I turned it into a short-term rental and Nancy helped me do the short-term rental management on that. And I believe at that time there were 95.

Yeah, I can look back and see what I can do.

We keep talking about this, oh, they don't change. But the question is, how much is enough? How much is too many? Are we going to wait until there's too many to put a cap on? Let's get the cap on.

Agreed. So in 2000, there were only 95?

I believe so. I don't know if Nancy remembers that, but I believe there were 95 in the year 2000.

Just because it's not growing right now does not mean it won't grow in the next three years or five years. We don't know. So that's why I just want to give people the assurance of a cap. It's not just because we think it's going to increase long-term rentals. It's just a tool in the toolbox, but it also definitely improves the livability of neighborhoods.

That's why I think the exclusion and buffer will be the actual impactful to livability of neighborhoods.

Okay. Well, and I'm not opposed to the twice a month thing either. I think there's lots to talk about, but let's get something done.

Okay. So we're going with two versions.

I can go three if you want.

No, don't want three.

Take them tears.

Is that a joke? Yeah. Okay. Okay. We're ready to go on. please. Okay, so next we have the Watershed Acquisition Advisory Committee.

Okay, Mayor and Councilors, Councilor Kerr requested this item be placed on the agenda regarding the Formation Advisory Committee to explore the additional watershed purchase. The analysis and information Section of the staff report gives you a little history of where we started and what staff has done so far. So, and I will turn it over to Council Kirk.

Well, I guess what I would like to know, I, the reason I wanted the, I originally favored an advisory committee. Because well, let me start here i'd like to know what the objectives of the city management will be as regards this acquisition will it be acquisition or search for additional spring sources such as the north fork of the cola creek will it be acquisition of existing spring recharge area that we have now. that we don't own now, but that is there, that we're aware of? Or will it be acquisition of parts of the West Fork of Pecola Creek? And what input, if any, will citizens have? The reason I was in favor originally of having an advisory committee, and I'm not locked in if I can get an answer to these other questions, but was because... We have so many people in this community who have expertise in this field, like Reinmar, Bartel, Mark Morgans, Mike Benefield, all of whom expressed a, they didn't commit, but they expressed an interest in sitting on an advisory committee if one were to be formed. And Rockaway had an advisory committee, And it worked really well for them. However, Rockaway had to make it a bond issue. So that's a little different than our situation. And that may be why an advisory committee worked better for them. But what I'm reading here is it sounds almost like the thing about the executive session, et cetera, et cetera, that we'll get some kind of report on what the recommendation is and then we'll have an executive session that doesn't sound open and transparent to me it sounds kind of back roomy you know so i'm not really sure what the objectives of the city are. So maybe Chris can explain it.

Councillor Kerr, one of the reasons that we talked about executive session is because that it'll be a real estate purchase. so that would be the reason that we would have an executive session get your guys is okay for us to actually go prop purchase the property however what our intention would be is that we keep council and the public informed as best we can without giving away our hand for what we're going to purchase and then public input could happen during account during a regular council meeting part of the issue with an advisory committee is that will also have to be a public meeting so we would have another public meeting another group that is in between staff and council and the public, I believe. So yeah, that's so our purpose right now is actually we're ready to issue the issue of contract, but we haven't yet told we found out about tonight. And then we're going to start going forward with due diligence and get some get some more solid information to figure out where we're going from there.

Well, when you say We, you mean the entity that you're going to hire to do this?

We as staff and the entity that we will hire.

When will we know who that entity is?

Tomorrow-ish, sometime. We're ready to issue. We set out a request for, not a request for proposals, but for a bid. And we got two bids back and we're ready to issue a contract.

And what are... Is your intention to look at additional spring sources as well as just the recharge springs that we know of? Or is it to explore acquisition of other, even new springs, if that's feasible? Or is it just to purchase the recharge area?

The adjacent properties can guess if there is some hydrologist work that can be done to find a potential new source, we've included that in the informal solicitation.

Okay. And that entity that you're hiring will probably do a lot of the work with the timber. They'll do a lot of the negotiations with the timber company?

That's correct, yeah. They'll help negotiate the NDA that will be required.

Yeah, because that's the sticky part, it sounds like. Okay. And I guess my feeling is I want to get this done as fast as possible, as quickly as possible. If an advisory committee is going to slow it way, way down and make it take... Because it's going to take some time as it is. It's a complex negotiation with a timber company. So if it's... If it's already going to take up to a year to accomplish this, I have no idea. But that was a figure that was thrown out to me at one point. Then I certainly don't want to add another extra year on for an advisory committee. So, you know, I just wanted to be assured that whoever you hire is going to look at all these different possibilities.

The new budget year started July 1st and we're six weeks in and we're ready to issue the contract.

I think it's moving a lot faster than I was.

I think we're moving fairly quickly. It's a very pleasant surprise. So we will try to keep that pace going.

And we'll know at the next meeting who you hired and what they're... We will.

Actually, we'll probably just send out an email to you as counsel when we issue the contract.

Okay. It's a very pleasant surprise, like Barb said. We already have that sort of direction by staff done. Good job. Thank you. Chris is doing an awesome job.

Thanks. Okay. You okay? Okay. So now we're going to close the work session and open the special meeting. And our first action item is Resolution 2618.

Okay, thank you, Mayor. In April, council approved a motion for the city to apply for the local government grant program to assist with the purchase of Haystack Hill. Mike Morgan and Amber Fowler took the lead on that. What we found from the application is that they require that a resolution is passed and not just a simple motion. And this is the resolution that they require. Open it up for any questions. You passed the motion.

We did pass the motion. And it doesn't have anything to do with the change from ORCA to sunset. This is different.

This is different. This is just for the grant itself. It's just formalizing what you did in the motion.

I move to approve resolution 2618 for the purpose of authorizing the application for the local government grant program and allowing Amber Fowler to sign the application.

I second. Any further discussion? OK. Roll call, please, Jen.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. OK. Great. And next, we have consideration of the minutes of board meetings. Are there any corrections?

I had a couple just on July 7. OK. uh july seventh page five of seven um actually it's two corrections on that page and these are my only corrections um fourth paragraph down um it says uh the chamber representatives would attend the august 14th meeting um that was the july 14th meeting there um so that's two thirds of the way down the page in the middle of that big paragraph, fourth line, who will attend the August 14th meeting. It was July meeting. And then I noticed Councilor Hayes was called by first name on that page a handful of times. Gary, Gary, Gary. And those are my corrections.

And I have a correction for June 30th, 2026, number two, a good of the order. And it said, the very last sentence, it said, Kerr asked Ostrander to invite representatives from other committees. I didn't. I asked him to invite representatives from the Emergency Medical Corps.

And well, it was, it was, it was dirt and it was the other emergency organizations is dirt cert MRC those change the word community committees isn't the correct word to other emergency emergency response team.

Others.

Move to approve the minutes of Tuesday, June 30, Tuesday, July 7, Tuesday, July 14, Wednesday, July 29, as amended. Second.

Second. Okay. Roll call, please.

Or just...

Okay. All in favor?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next, we have good of the order. And I would like to go first, if I may. Um, we had our kickoff meeting today with, uh, GMP, which is our, the firm for the city manager recruitment. Um, we will be gathering the requested information for the position. Profile materials will be submitted to council at public meetings, um, to consideration in for consideration in September, if needed sooner, a special meeting would need to be held so that we stay on our timeline. And the timeline will be pushed out to accommodate the council approval process.

I'm still very, very confused. I'm still very, very confused about council's role in selecting Mayor Mrakas, A new city manager so at one point, I asked if we would have any input on the kind of qualities, we were looking for, but when does is that what you meant we're referring to yes okay so you'll come to Council and we'll discuss what what we think are.

Mayor Mrakas, The qualities you're looking for a new manager job description will prove the qualities that we're looking for okay it'll all be done in public meetings okay.

Mayor Mrakas, And it can I just add to that as well, Mary if that's all right. To answer that question further.

Yes, go ahead.

So I think we will be coming up with a template job description for you, based on LLC models and other examples that your that GMP has and that we've seen and ideally will be presenting that to you at the next regular. council meeting that you have or at an earlier special meeting. But I also think that if you're talking about, you know, specific qualities that a city manager should hold, then I also recommend, you know, you can address that to a certain degree. in your job description, but I think also the place to reflect that would be in your contract that you ultimately sign with them and ensuring that it's reflected there. But if you're trying to solicit the actual qualities that you're desiring a city manager to have, we can spell all of those out in the actual job description, like the mayor said.

So you're going to give us a job description that's already written up or a proposed job description and we can change it? Correct. Okay.

And then the other piece I wanted to just confirm with council was that the mayor and Jen are essentially acting as staff and city representative liaisons to kind of do that day-to-day work with GMP, but then will be coming back to council to get everything authorized or express authority from you all to delegate to them to take certain limited actions. Does that seem acceptable to you all as far as, you know, day-to-day dealings with GMP? I'm not sure I understood what you said. So basically the day-to-day interactions with GMP. So actually, you know, for example, for coming up with this job description, the mayor, me, GMP, and Jen will go away and do some research and come up with a first draft. And then that will be presented to you all at your regular public meeting. I'm just confirming for that stage of the process and then also future stages of the process of hiring a city manager that you're comfortable with that team being the team who kind of does that day-to-day, behind-the-scenes work for this process.

That is subject to approval by the entire council. Yeah.

Correct. As long as we have input. That's what I'm concerned about. I just want to make sure that we're... big part of the process.

Yes, you definitely are. The part I was confirming, though, is the behind the scenes, just confirming we're good with, you know, the Mayor Jen and I working, coordinating with GMP and then bringing those kind of final decisions to you all.

It would be, it wouldn't work any other way.

Agreed. But I, yeah, just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page with that.

So I had a question then. So when is the, when would be the Harmon Zuckerman, Initiation of drafting that Harmon Zuckerman, Like the specific language that's going to be before Council. Harmon Zuckerman, So meeting with GMP tomorrow or a meeting with GMP and week to we met with them today. Harmon Zuckerman, Yeah.

And then I believe I guess I'll Jen, did we ever reschedule a meeting with them or is it just No, because we're waiting to Because we're waiting to talk. Yeah. So I think we're planning on emailing them tomorrow and then scheduling a follow-up call with them following the email. Okay.

We haven't figured out dates or anything. We were just kind of getting an overview of what the whole process looks like. Then we're going to follow up with everything tomorrow and kind of start nailing down things and then emails because there'll be stakeholder feedback and documents. We have to provide all the information. about the community to them. And so we're just kind of getting the first start of this stuff going, but we'll have more details soon. But we will each individually meet with them.

And the intention would be for all five of us at some point prior to that next council meeting, meet with them and discuss our ideal candidates to GMP. And then they will draft based on all five of ours with the assistance of the four named individuals. Okay.

That's what I want.

All right.

There's your answer.

So we're going to be working with a new client. And then once we kind of lay out the schedule and see what it looks like, our goal is to get it to you guys in September. I don't know that we'll make the first meeting, but we'll do the second meeting. So that way you guys can have documents to review and finalize. And then after that, all the documents are finalized and the next step is to publish them. to put them out and start collecting resumes when they do that. But yeah, you guys will all have a chance to share your input.

OK. And what does the process look like of considering applicants and choosing finalist applicants and ultimately choosing the final candidate?

So that's why you have your subject matter expert, GMP, on your team, is they will walk you through all of that and ideally help you with that analysis in executive sessions so we don't have to worry about sharing privileged information about people applying for the position. But they will have come up with all of those sort of review criteria themselves, and they can present those to you.

and gmp will be at the meeting that has when we have draft language yes okay yes so so we'll be able to interact yeah in public with them right then okay yeah yeah i think we're just in the beginning stages of this so i think that those questions aren't really readily available they don't have answers readily available

Yeah, again, today was the kickoff call. It was just a very, it was an introduction, basically. But I'm sure we will have much more for you as it progresses. Even, you know, at the next meeting, we'll be having those preliminary items approved. And then, you know, you'll get to meet GMP and proceed more with the process.

And I bet Jen typed everything in and she's going to make sure that those questions are asked.

I was her supervisor, yes. We also, I mean, I also think it's very important to involve city staff and the consulting firm agrees with that, that they're the ones that really work with them. And so they will have stakeholder meetings with city staff also.

Is there expectation of stakeholder meetings with large partners, the fire district, the chamber?

I think that's something that will be really good.

Okay.

Yeah, that it is. I mean, you know, the city is not just the council and the staff. It's the other entities, community groups.

Is other... PB, Harmon Zuckerman, There's other cities city mayor of seaside and stuff like that involved as PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Our city manager, maybe in seaside. Is that part of stakeholder PB, Sarah Silver, I don't PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Regionally, or is that I don't think so. Yeah.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, We could go a little too far.

That's true. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, You could. Yeah, I just was PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Thinking out loud that one.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, And I was involved. two city managers ago in the process when League of Oregon Cities was our consulting firm. And so today's meeting brought back a lot of good things that we did and maybe not so good things that we did. So it'll be an interesting process. So everybody okay with that approach?

Yeah, I am.

PB, Lupita D Montoya, Okay, who else has some good of the order.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I had a question. These containers for farmers market that are out here. We have a time of when they're going to go away. Now that the city hall was constructed

I believe we're going to move the start moving these stuff. Well, I'm not sure on the date yet, but we were just getting settled in the garage. And so we're going to be moving. That's that's going to the garage.

And the farmer's market only has four more. They, their last one is September 8th. Yeah.

But the containers sit year round.

Well, no, they're gone.

Yeah. Okay. I just, I'm curious because they're taking up spaces and City Hall's done now. So are they going away? Yeah. Okay, cool.

we had a request uh in public comment about city staff preparing uh a financial analysis of what the dune management uh initiative would cost the city what do we want to do with that why so is

It's being requested by somebody, by a member of the public, a third party, an organization. In terms of election stuff, dedicating staff, a question I imagine for Ashley, dedicating staff time for an analysis requested by somebody, by an organization that is leaning clearly in favor of one decision of that vote. How does that work? How does that go for election law? Or can it be done by being paid for by the third party as a public records request sort of thing?

I think that would maybe make it arguably worse. But it's fair to ask. I would personally not advise us to do that. And I would recommend waiting until the election itself to do that analysis. I understand the reason for the request. I think if someone was interested, they could probably make a good estimate of how much that would cost themselves without staff taking the time to do that. And again, that's purely for ethics concerns, legal ethics concerns and elections law concerns.

I personally think, as a council, that we stay out of this as much as absolutely possible and let the cards fall where they may. But we need to remain so, so neutral as elected officials, as the city itself. So, so neutral.

Yes. OK. That's good.

Good answer. Thanks.

Yeah. Do anybody know off the top of their heads how much a parking ticket is? Is it $50?

$50 for a standard. Oh, $50. Okay. $50 for a standard.

Okay.

And then $165 for like if you're in a handicapped area. Okay.

Or if you're parked on the corner, it should be $500. I agree with Nancy. Okay.

It really is. $50 is very inexpensive compared to what you'd pay, for example, in Portland, which is way higher. So I wanted to ask you, I don't know how probably you can't Are we collecting more on our tickets now? Oh, yeah. No, no. I mean, are we actually collecting more in court?

We are collecting more in court. And since we actually implemented the electronic system, I believe our ticketing revenue is up over 30%. so they're more effective, they're faster. Our judge is still probably a little more lenient, but we are still collecting a lot of money.

And towing of vehicles that are in dangerous locations. Ticketing is one thing. I know the officers can call for a tow truck if it's something pretty substantial. Is that happening? Do you know? And if so, is it happening in a timely manner since we don't have a tow company locally anymore?

Not to my knowledge, but I can follow up with Chief Schultz and see how we're doing there.

Could you look into what is the median ticket price in other coastal cities? Because, you know, $50 to park for the day and go to the beach in a 10-minute zone, big deal. You know, that's

It's not a moving violation, so it doesn't give you points, nothing like that.

Yeah, it's nothing. It's just $50 if they even pay.

So I'd be happy to, we'll figure that out and send something out to the council on what that average is.

Thank you. Okay, anything else for good of the order?

Oh, yeah, we have coffee with the counselors tomorrow, and it's going to be in here.

Oh, wow. Don't wreck anything. Okay. Anything else? Spill the coffee. No, it's spilling out the coffee. Okay. Meeting's adjourned.