City Council - Regular Meeting

Um, let's see, we're going to start with an invocation tonight. Kathleen, do we have somebody to give us?

Yes, we do. We have Dwayne Moore to start us in prayer tonight. Thank you, Dwayne.

Thank you. Heavenly father. We welcome your presence in the chamber today. Let your wisdom and peace rest on every council member and all who serve our city. Guide each decision with your truth and let justice and compassion lead every word and action. Cover this place with your protection and unite our hearts for the good of all who call Grants Pass home. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

Thank you. You can all rise for the flag salute and remove your covers if you have them.

to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Welcome everybody to May 20th City Council meeting for the City of Grants Pass. Take a quick roll call. It looks like we got Rob Indra. Here. Eric.

Here.

Victoria. Here. Joel.

Here.

Kathleen. Here. Rick. Here. And we got Rob. It looks like we're just missing one tonight, so we got a pretty packed house. We're going to start out with a public hearing for ordinance adopting a public installed reimbursement district for Allen Creek Road Regional Stormwater Pond. We'll start with a staff presentation.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, staff, citizens. So this reimbursement district is for Allen Creek Road Regional Stormwater Pond. So this is a public installed reimbursement district. It installed a new regional stormwater pond at 2117 Allen Creek Road. And this pond was in conjunction, a necessary part of the Allen Creek Road Bright widening project. And it supports council's goal of infrastructure. Here's a drawing of the stormwater pond on the city's property. This was done by Dow Engineering. It just shows the location of that pond. This is a map of the district boundary. So all of these properties are included in the district. This map can be found on page five of your council packet. The lot marked as number 40 on the right hand side is the city's property where that pond is being built. And so most of the properties located on this map Most of the properties on the west side of the map are able to drain. The ones on the east side, not so much, but the front of those properties still can, so they're included kind of on a just-in-case basis. This is a first-come, first-served reimbursement district, so any property that connects will reduce the capacity of that pond and eventually that'll run out and they'll have to mitigate that stormwater on their own sites. So the total cost for this reimbursement district for that pond is $456,484. That assessment and those properties included can be found on page six of your council packet. That equates to about $43,023.94 per acre. What it really equates to is about 99 cents a square foot. So if you've got a 1500 square foot house you're building, you add about 700 other square feet of impervious surface through driveway, patios, graveled areas, it would be about $2,200 for a structure to tie into that pond or to dump into that pond. Now that pond does have a maximum capacity remaining after the road of 10.61 acres. And again, once that capacity is reached, then no additional connections will be allowed and property owners in the area will have to mitigate that stormwater onsite. So public outreach, we have been working with the Public Works Department on this district. So back in November, we sent off hearing notices for the November 19th hearing where we had that first ordinance. And then on May 6th of this year, we sent out public hearing notices for this meeting tonight. We did get a couple of people that responded. one kind of just wanted to know when payment would be due so because we didn't have a mechanism in place those properties that kind of connected prior to us finalizing the district did not have to pay those fees so now that we are finalizing those fees will be paid and we'll have a mechanism to charge those people in the district The other comments we had were what constitutes a benefiting property, wanting to make sure that we apply the fee correctly now and in the future, and then also wanting to know if the pond was part of the capital improvement plan and if it was used to develop SDC charges, which it was not. So in addition to that, to the public outreach and those responses we received, we do have one small ordinance modification that's in your packet. So on section five, it should be on page two of the ordinance, we just want to add this bold sentence at the end of section five. So it reads, currently the council hereby determines the properties to be specially benefited by the stormwater improvement shall be those applying to connect to the regional stormwater pond. We would like to add if a development provides adequate stormwater management model compliant mitigation onsite, then no payment shall be required. It just spells it out completely and there's no question about how to apply it in the future, no matter who is applying that. So the imposition, so when they do pay those assessments per ordinance 23-5882 and section 9.40.100 of the muni code. The reimbursement for the street improvement, actually in this case the reimbursement for the drainage improvement would be for a building permit for a new facility or the expansion of 50% of the square footage of a commercial or industrial building. Item D goes on to say that the reimbursement for the drainage or street improvement shall not be required if the facility being expanded is a residence or duplex residence. And that comes straight from that enabling ordinance 23-5882. so this project was funded through the allen creek road improvements west harbeck to denton trail project in addition there will be minimal ongoing staff time to administer this district just to track those people connecting to it to make sure we don't exceed that capacity for it and so after this final ordinance is adopted those collected funds will be returned to the stormwater fund as there was a portion of that Allen Creek Road project that did take money from the stormwater fund. And it's recommended by staff, call to actions today, and there's the alternatives. Are there any questions?

Thank you. Questions to council? We'll start with Indra. Do you have any questions? Eric, do you have any questions? Victoria, do you have any questions? Joel, do you have any questions? Kathleen? Rick?

Thank you, Eric. So if you go back to slide five. It's one showing all the tax lots with the district. Okay, so you said the pond is actually located on number 40? Correct. And you said even though, so all the lots are within the district, but they only pay if they submit an application to be included for their stormwater in the pond?

That's correct. So if they can show that they are mitigating that stormwater onsite before it enters the city's stormwater system, then they will not have to pay that fee. they're going to have their own fee to create that. So that pond was oversized on purpose to allow for developers not to have to take up some of their land to build houses.

So I'm basically looking for clarification. If they're not using the pond, even though they're in the district, they don't have to pay. And as I believe the topography in this area, many of those lots would be downhill, so not being able to use it. The pond.

And I believe on the west side of the street, it's more conducive to use the pond. On the east side, just the front portion of those properties that really front Allen Creek would potentially be able to use it. But yes, if they connect and they have the ability to, they could utilize that pond. Otherwise, they would have to mitigate on site.

Okay, my last question. If the pond gets too full, there is a spillway to handle overflow, or is it just metered out? I'm going to defer to Jason on this.

The standard that you would see in any development, it will handle any overflow. So if it exceeds, if it gets excess flow, it's metered out. But then in a real event, it's going to overflow, or there's a spillway.

Okay, thank you.

All right, Rob.

Yeah.

So you talk about people having the option to mitigate on-site. As part of that option, are they permitted to, say, use gravel on a driveway rather than pave their driveway, or do they still have to pave and then somehow mitigate further?

I'll take that one, Eric. No, the development code standards would not change. So any portion of a lot that's being developed that is used for vehicular purposes does need to be paved. So that would not be an option. But I think to the spirit of your question, there's flexibility given to a developer. And if they do have the room, some of these are fairly sizable lots. And they may choose to put a pond within the boundaries of their own property. So I think that's more of what this is getting at. Or some other mitigation happened. But they wouldn't be able to not comply with existing standards of the code in order to do that.

So the ones that have significant grade that goes away from the pond, they basically are forced to spend some resources to mitigate, right? In other words, they can't be forced to use the pond. They can't be forced to make water run uphill. So what happens in that situation?

Right. Well, that's where the engineers get paid the the big bucks to figure out how it's going to work. They're going to have to figure out how to comply with the stormwater management rules in their particular topography. It may mean some grading work. It may mean some

subsurface works or storage you know so that's that's just going to have to be worked out and jason i may be speaking on your behalf on that sorry no you're right on target i mean it's the same for any developer in any lot anywhere in the city today they have to find a way to mitigate that storm water This project just happened to create a more regional solution that developers in the area would be able to connect into. It actually, we thought, was a pretty good idea and created a benefit to a lot of those properties so they didn't have to mitigate their individual stormwaters on site. We're hopeful to find more of these opportunities in the future around the town.

Okay, so thank you, but there are properties or there are... Parcels there that are not going to be able to use the pond.

That is correct And I believe they were not included in the district the ones that were not able to use the pond Are you saying that they they wouldn't be able to build?

They would be able to build they just would have to mitigate their own stormwater on site Thank you All right last round any further questions All right at this time. Thank you very much. I At this time, we'll open it up for public comment. If there's anybody in the audience tonight that wants to speak on behalf of adopting this reimbursement district or in opposition of adopting this reimbursement district, come up to the podium, state your name, and you have two minutes. And it will be comment on this topic only.

Yes, my name's John Camiller. I'm an engineer and builder and developer. It was me that made the suggestion on changing the language because the notice that came out said that you have to pay if you use the pond, benefit from the pond, or you develop. And it's the or you develop which would have included everything. And so that's why they've come up with that language. If you get benefit from the pond, if you don't, If you build your own detention pond, which holds the water and discharges it at a historic rate, which is an engineering calculation, and it treats it as it passes over the soil and through the plants, then you don't, it still goes through the pond, but you've done the detention and the treatment that the pond will also do. So the water that gets to the pond is at a historic rate just like it is now. Those eight lots along Harbeck, I just platted them and they're all connected to the pond through an underground drainage system. And the second suggestion I had was that they make clear that the pond was not in the capital improvements plan that is used to come up with the systems development charges because when I sold the lots, the builder asked me why do I have to pay the pond fee and the system development charge? And the answer is it's all the other infrastructure is systems development. The pond fee is just for the pond. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment? In regards to this city council action of adopting a reimbursement district on Allen Creek. I just have a question. State your name.

My name's Carrie. And I'm just curious. So you're saying all these lots are now part of the city district? Is that what I'm understanding? When you're calling it a district? Yep. Anybody know? Yeah. Did you notify anybody about that? Because I never got any notice whatsoever that you guys were changing that. within the presentation there was a notification and the notification does go out to a circumference area outside the project so maybe you were outside of that but if you had any questions you can reach out to the neighbor didn't even get the one for this one okay so as i spoke with her today about it she had no clue so the notices don't go out to everybody and it would be nice to have some kind of advanced notice when you're messing with the properties is all i'm trying to say So I don't know if you can send two notices, some kind of insurance, because they don't get delivered. So I just wanted to make notice.

Thank you. Any further public comment in regards to this topic? All right, seeing none, I'll bring it back to council for further discussion and or action. This is an ordinance, so we need two readings on it. Rick.

I have additional staff questions.

After the district, if it goes forward and is established, and you have full membership that is people using the facility, is there any sort of maintenance fee ongoing temporarily or long-term for the maintenance of the pond?

Our assumption is that's built into the stormwater fee that's charged monthly on the utility bill.

Okay, thank you.

All right, we're at discussion and or action with council, Indra.

I have an additional question off of the last speaker. So how are notifications given out? How much time and how do you make sure that the homeowners did get that? Can you explain that?

So on the estimated cost for the first ordinance, we send it just to the property owners that are listed here. So whatever mailing address they have with the Josephine County Assessor's Office, which is where we get our data from for our notifications for mailing. we send it to that address on file. Then again, we send a final hearing notice when we have those final costs with that assessed amount to all of those properties that are listed here. So properties one through 53 got a hearing notice. And we can talk after the meeting just to kind of go over which property was yours just to see if your mailing address maybe need updated. do you ever get return mail and what do you do if that happens so occasionally we do get a return mail we try to mail it out again if there's another address on there or we at least file it away to show that we did mail it it just came back unfortunately do you do any notice in the area as well there is no notice in the area it's just a hearing notice that goes out prior

All right, we're back to council for further discussion and or action. Rick.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the ordinance adopting a public installed reimbursement district D06598 for Allen Creek Road Regional Stormwater Pond and have it read by title only first reading to include the amendments as mentioned.

Do we have a second? Joel seconds. All right, so you have a motion on the table to adopt the reimbursement district as amended during the presentation with a second. Any further discussion? All right, seeing none, Rick, how do you vote? Yes. Kathleen?

Yes.

Joel? Yes. Victoria? Yes. Eric?

Yes.

Indra? Yes. Rob? Yes. Thank you. Motion passes for first reading.

An ordinance of the Council of the City of Grants Pass adopting a public installed reimbursement district DO6598 for the Allen Creek Road Regional Stormwater Pond as amended.

Thank you. Bring it back to Council for further discussion and or action.

Joel. So I move to approve the ordinance adopting the public installed reimbursement district for the Allen Creek Road Regional Stormwater Pond and have it read by title only second reading.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Rick seconds. Thank you. Any further discussion? All right. Seeing none, Joel, how do you vote? Yes. Victoria? Yes. Eric?

Yes.

Indra? Yes. Rob? Yes. Rick? Yes. Kathleen?

Yes.

All right. Passes for second reading. Thank you.

An ordinance of the council of the city of Grants Pass adopting a public installed reimbursement district DO6598 for at Allen Creek Road Regional Stormwater Pond as amended.

Thank you. Moving on through the agenda, second public hearing of the night is an ordinance creating a developer installed reimbursement district for consolidated estates. We'll start with a presentation by staff.

Good evening. So this reimbursement district is for consolidated estates. This one is going to, this is a developer installed reimbursement district. It's going to install approximately 350 feet of street and water improvements and 323 feet of sewer improvements from the west end of Southwest J Street to Lincoln Road. So it's going to extend that street. and then another 273 linear feet of water improvements on Lincoln Road from Southwest J Street south on Lincoln. And again, this supports the council goal of infrastructure. This one has four properties associated with it. This maps on page 13 of your packet. The lot marked number four is the developing property. and that's driving this reimbursement district. This property is owned by Consolidated Land Holdings, and the applicant for this project was Northridge Enterprises. So this one, the estimated street assessments were $134,873.70. That equates to about $4,995 per dwelling unit. Estimated water assessments were $316,863.18. That equates to about $6,337 per dwelling unit. And the estimated sewer assessments were $115,103.94, which equates to about $4,263 per dwelling unit. Total estimated cost for the district when you combine all of those is $566,840.82. Those payments would be made upon connection to city water or sewer or property owners would pay the residential per dwelling unit assessment at that time. For the street improvements, property owners would pay at the time of building permit issuance. Again, we did public outreach. We worked with the applicant on this district. On May 6th, we sent out those notices for this meeting and now we're having this meeting. So per the ordinance again, that's ordinance 23-5882 and section 9.40.100 of the municipal code, the reimbursement for water improvements would be due at the time to connect to that water line. Reimbursement for sewer improvements would be due to the time to connect to the installed sewer line. And then the reimbursement for that street improvement would be due at the time of building permit issuance for a new facility or the expansion of 50% of the square footage of a commercial or industrial building. Currently, there's no industrial or commercial buildings, it's just residential. The reimbursement for the street improvement would not be required if the facility being expanded was a residence or duplex residence, so just new development. For the city, there's no financial outlay other than staff time to administer the district. And we'll bring this back for a final ordinance. And after that is executed, those collected funds would be returned to the applicants as people, as properties in the area develop or connect to that water or sewer line. So again, it's recommended that council adopt it as presented, call to actions today with those alternatives. Are there any questions? Thank you.

We'll bring it back to council for questions, starting with Rob. Pass. Rick?

No.

Kathleen? Joel?

No.

Victoria? Eric? No. Indra?

I do have a question. So on D, that means that if there's an existing residence or duplex and they want to hook up, they can and they don't have to reimburse for that fee.

So they would not have to pay for that street improvement at the time for something that's existing. If they wanted to connect to the water or sewer, they would have to pay at that time for that. But as far as the street improvement, they would not have to pay for the enabling ordinance.

Thank you. All right. Thank you. Last look over any further questions. right no thank you thank you for your time um at this point we'll open up for public comment is there anybody audience that wants to weigh in in opposition or opposing this establishment of a reimbursement district for consolidated estates all right seeing none i'll bring it back to council for further discussion and or action indra i'll make a motion to approve the ordinance allowing the developer to recover a portion of the cost associated with the installed improvements for first reading for first reading thank you do we have a second on that a second from rick all right any further discussion seeing none indra how do you vote yes rob yes rick yes kathleen yes joel Victoria? Yes. Eric?

Yes.

All right. Motion passes for first reading. Thank you.

An ordinance of the Council of the City of Grants passed creating a developer-installed reimbursement district, CC6616, for consolidated estates.

Thank you. Bring it back to Council for further discussion and or action. Rick?

I'd like to move to approve the ordinance creating developer-installed reimbursement district CC6616 for consolidated estates and have it read by title, only second reading.

Thank you. Motion on the table to pass for second reading. Do we have a second? Rob, thank you. All right. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Rick, how do you vote?

Yes.

Kathleen? Yes. Joel? Yes. Victoria? Yes. Eric? Yes. Indra? Yes. And Rob? Yes.

Thank you very much. Motion passes for second reading. An ordinance of the Council of the City of Grants Pass creating a developer-installed reimbursement district, CC6616, for consolidated estates.

Thank you. Next on the agenda tonight for public hearing is resolution supplementing the FY26 budget and making appropriations. We'll start with a staff report.

Good evening, Mayor and Council and public. I HAVE JUST WHAT THE MAYOR MENTIONED, ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2026. I'M NOT GOING TO READ ALL THIS, BUT THIS IS GOING TO MODIFY THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2026 ADOPTED BUDGET TO INCREASE OR DECREASE APPROPRIATIONS IN THE RELATIONSHIP TO COUNCIL GOALS IS FISCAL STABILITY. So as part of the background, a supplemental budget can be used when something occurs that was not known during the regular budget process. It can be adopted at a regular meeting if the change in the expenditures for a fund is less than 10%. Public hearing is required for expenditure changes of greater than 10% or the use of more than 15% of the contingency or creation of a new category. THE PUBLISH OF THE NOTICE IN THE CURRIER ON MAY 15, 2026 AND THE RESOLUTION MUST STATE THE NEED, PURPOSE AND THE AMOUNT. AND A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED FOR THREE FUNDS TONIGHT. THAT WILL BE THE TRANSPORTATION FUND WHICH USE THE USE OVER 15% OF CONTINGENCY, THE WATER PROJECTS FUND FOR THE CREATION OF INTERFUND TRANSFER CATEGORY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE FEES FUND WHICH IS AN INCREASE OF APPROPRIATIONS GREATER THAN 10% AND JUST MAKE A NOTE THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY A PASS THROUGH SO IT'S MONEY THAT COMES IN AND GOES OUT FROM THE CITY. I DO HAVE A PUBLICATION CORRECTION. ON MAY 15, 2026, THERE WAS A PUBLICATION ERROR IN THE DAILY CAREER. HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SCREEN TODAY ARE THE INCORRECT PUBLISH AMOUNTS. AS PRESCRIBED BY OAR, THESE PUBLICATION CORRECTIONS WERE INCLUDED IN WRITING IN THE PACKET AS WELL AS BROUGHT TO THE FIRST MEETING AFTER THE PUBLICATION ERROR. And what you'll notice on the next screen is just a tiny little bit of a difference. And it's about $36,300 on these highlighted amounts. And I'll go through where that came from. And it was just a simple math error of double counting a couple lines. For the general fund, we have a transfer of appropriations from contingency to resting sites for a litigation settlement agreement. Fire rescue for the additional personnel that were added back in September. For police, the same reason, the additional personnel. And then park maintenance for higher than anticipated janitorial contracts. THE INCREASE IN LOGGING TAX REVENUES WHICH CAUSES AN INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS TO FIRE RESCUE, POLICE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT, PARK MAINTENANCE AND THAT IS JUST PART OF THE ALLOCATION WHEN WE GET MORE LOGGING TAX IN THESE APPROPRIATION LEVELS OR DEPARTMENTS AUTOMATICALLY GET THOSE REVENUE SOURCES. There's also an increase in appropriations in park maintenance for additional grant revenue for an urban tree revitalization grant that was awarded mid-year. And then an increase in appropriations for contingency for a correction, previously recognized franchise fees in the environmental waste fees fund. And I'll go through these a little bit more and I'll get out my little pointer here. Okay, so the 16,000 here is the correction for the franchise fees, which would be a transfer in. Here are the amounts for the excess lodging tax, and I'll go over the total lodging tax estimation for the end of this year. And then the two amounts that actually got double counted are this 10,400 for fire rescue and police of the 25-9, and that makes up that difference of that 36,300. And then here's your additional amounts for the lodging tax allocation. And then here's the approximate $95,000 for that grant revenue and park maintenance. And what that looks like as an appropriation level are these amounts here. And just notice that this is the corrected contingency usage. Note that was not in the publication, but all these amounts actually stayed the same as far as the publication. With the transportation fund, transfer of appropriations from contingency to street maintenance for an additional contribution for a required equipment, street lighting for unanticipated inflationary rate changes. I think we mentioned in the budget committee that we switched to LEDs that actually lowered the costs, but then Pacific Power increased the rate in which they were charging us. And so this is to incorporate that increase in rate charge for the street lights. the water projects fund the transfer of appropriations from water projects to interfund transfers for a contribution to lb6370 or dollar mountain parking lot for a shared portion of stormwater improvements that are to the benefit of the nearby nearby water reservoir and again this is part of the need for public hearing because we we did not have any interfund transfers appropriated before The wastewater fund transfer of appropriations from contingency to wastewater treatment to correct a missed requirement of extra flood insurance at the restoration plant. If you guys remember in the budget committee, we talked about moving general insurance allocated in what used to be services into direct charges. When we did that, we accidentally cleared out an extra insurance that was required for the wastewater restoration plan. And so this is putting it back and I'll actually be coming to you on June 3rd for a walk-in for this amount because we missed it in fiscal year 27 as well. But that'll stay less than the 10% so we don't need to re-notice the public hearing of what the budget committee approved and it won't change the total dollar amount of what the budget committee approved. For the fleet operations fund, a transfer of appropriations from contingency to garage operations for higher than anticipated contractor costs from an internal retirement. And then we have an increase in appropriations for equipment replacement from the additional operational contribution from the street maintenance program for the required equipment. Here's what that looks like numerically. You can see here's the extra revenue that is outside of the contingency and it goes directly to equipment placement and then here's just that 100,000 coming from garage operations out of contingency. In the insurance fund, transfer of appropriations from contingency to benefits administration for placing outdated automated external defibrillators throughout the city and this is about half. half of that cost is about $52,000. And so we'll just be moving that out of contingency and into the benefits administration. IN THE LOGGING TAX FUND, INCREASED APPROPRIATIONS FOR INTERFUND TRANSFERS ARE FROM HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED LOGGING TAX RECEIPTS WHICH DISTRIBUTES TO THE TOURISM PROMOTION PROGRAM THAT WILL REQUIRE INCREASED APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. MORE OR LESS THE DMO STILL NEEDS TO GET THEIR 28% OF THE ADDITIONAL REVENUES. THESE REVENUES OF APPROXIMATELY 165,000 IN ADDITION MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT HIGH BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GOT THE EXTRA WIGGLE ROOM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MEET THE APPROPRIATION LEVELS FOR THE END OF THE YEAR. And then this associates with the same distribution as you saw in the general fund of approximately $66,000 in the tourism promotion. And this is what the appropriation change looks like in total for the lodging tax fund. The debt service bankrupt funds, so transfer from contingency to debt service to correct a classification error as debt service fund types cannot have contingency appropriations. So this is just a clerical error that we're making a fix right now. THE ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE FEES FUND INCREASED APPROPRIATIONS FOR MATERIALS AND SERVICES ARE DUE TO CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS FROM OVER-PROFIT OBLIGATIONS OF SOLID WASTE OPERATIONS AND AN INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR INTERFUND TRANSFERS IS FROM AN INCORRECT REVENUE RECOGNIZED IN THIS FUND THAT WAS A GENERAL FUND FRANCHISE FEE WHICH GOES BACK I BELIEVE TO 2023 SO THIS IS JUST A CORRECTION OF THAT. HERE'S WHAT THESE AMOUNTS LOOK LIKE AND IT'S THE SAME 16,000 FROM BEFORE. And then this miscellaneous revenue which gets associated to the materials and service as it is a pass through to the solid waste agency. And the last one, Lands and Building Projects Fund, increase in appropriations of lands and building projects is to recognize the water project contribution to LB6370 or Dollar Mountain parking lot for the shared portion of stormwater improvements that are to the benefit of the nearby water reservoir, as well as recognize the higher than anticipated lodging tax transfer revenues. THIS ALL COMES IN AS ONE KIND OF LUMP SUM, 69,300, BUT THIS IS THE COMBINATION OF THE 50,000 FROM THE WATER FUND AND THEN 19,300 FROM THE LODGING TAX AND THAT IS THE CHANGE IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LANDS AND BUILDINGS PROJECTS OF THAT 69,300. So in your packet, you have exhibit A, which is the current budget appropriations, which was approved in June of 2025 with resolution 25-7568. The second column is the adjustments to the budget that I just went through today. And then the third column is the revised budget if adopted. COST IMPLICATION, EACH HAS AN APPROPRIATION IMPACT. THIS HAS A POTENTIAL FUTURE FUND BALANCE IMPACT TO THE GENERAL FUND, AND THAT'S MORE ASSOCIATED WITH THE 12 FTE THAT WE ADDED, BUT WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE AS WELL AS THE FINANCIAL POLICIES AND ENDING FUND BALANCE RESERVE IN THE GENERAL FUND. AND THEN THE REMAINING HAVE MINIMAL FUND BALANCE IMPACTS AND HAVE POTENTIALLY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR AS WE'RE PUTTING TOGETHER THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 27. And then call to action would be tonight. And then I have a potential motion. And with that, I'll take any questions.

Thank you. I'll bring it back to council for questions. And we'll start with Indra. Eric, do you have any questions? Victoria, do you have any questions? Joel, do you have any questions?

I just had a quick one. It's more curiosity than important. We knew about those 12 positions before. And now we're having a supplemental budget to support them. I guess we approved those positions after this year's budget was approved. Is that what happened?

Yeah, you approved the positions, but we didn't approve a dollar amount associated with those positions. Okay. And so making sure that we did kind of all this in one fell swoop, supplemental budget is required just before June 30th. So I'm trying to make sure that if we didn't potentially have to do one, that we wouldn't have had.

well we need to do it and it's it's a no-brainer i was just wondering why it wasn't in the original budget but we didn't add them when we were doing the original budget uh because you approved it in september of 2026 so that was outside of the budget approval process right thank you jc sorry september 2025 not 20 cents and the years go on yeah yeah kathleen you have any questions rick do you have any questions

J.C., thank you. So in the 500-year floodplain, because the water treatment plant is within that area and being a public facility, we have to have flood insurance?

Yeah, I do know part of it. We are required to have additional flood insurance for the water restoration plant itself outside of our regular policy.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Rob, do you have any questions? No. Thank you. Any last questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. At this time, we're open for public comment. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to weigh in on this council action item for a resolution for the supplement for the FY26 budget and making appropriations? Seeing none, I will bring it back to council for further discussion and or action. Eric.

I'd like to make a motion to move to approve the resolution to adopt the supplemental budget for fiscal year 2026. Thank you. And a second from Kathleen.

Thank you. Any further discussion? All right. Seeing none, Eric, how do you vote?

Yes.

Indra? Yes. Rob? Yes. Rick?

Yes.

Kathleen? Yes. Joel? Yes. Victoria? Yes. All right, resolution passes, thank you very much. All right, next on the agenda for council action is a resolution authorizing the city manager to make changes to authorize resting sites established by resolution number 25-7559. And we will start with a staff presentation by our town attorney, who finally got there. No pressure.

Somebody turn my mic off. Good evening, Mayor and Council. We are back before you today to talk about the authorized resting sites in response to some changes that are coming in the very near future for the City of Grants Pass. What we are seeking today is a resolution authorizing the City Manager to make changes to the existing authorized resting sites. This would support council's goal of public safety by amending the city's laws as to sitting, lying, sleeping, or keeping warm and dry outdoors on public property to be objectively reasonable as to time, place, and manner with regards to persons experiencing homelessness. And I'm not going to read that again, but that is what ORS 195-530, which is also known as House Bill 3115, requires the city to do. As we all remember, back on March 28th of 2025, the Josephine County Circuit Court issued an injunction finding that a reduction below capacity for 150 individuals was not objectively reasonable and prohibited the city at that time from enforcing its ordinances. In response, on May 7th of 2025, the council amended the municipal code to allow for what we're calling authorized resting sites, and four city properties were designated as authorized resting sites. Those are the properties across from, the three properties across from City Hall as well as the one property next to the police station. So three in the 6th Street area and one on 7th Street. Those four properties allowed the city to have capacity for 150 individuals. In November of 2025, the council awarded $1,179,000 in grant funding to Elk Island Trading Group, towards capital expenses in constructing an ADA compliant low barrier shelter facility with a capacity for 150 individuals. As part of that grant, the timeline for that was a very aggressive timeline of six months. Our expectation was June 1st at full capacity. However, as you probably all know, there have been some delays in that process. They are close to being able to accept individuals, at least as far as a construction project goes. The first complex is anticipated to have a capacity of up to 40 individuals, and we are expecting that that will be ready to go and approved for occupancy in the coming weeks. It may not be on June 1st, but it will be very close to June 1st according to the information that we're getting. I believe you got an update earlier today about the status that talked about how close they are. The remaining three complexes would be then completed and approved for occupancy soon thereafter. Some of the things that I wanted to mention as far as why we have those delays just so that everybody is on the same page is The original timeline that was provided was based on the preliminary site plan. That was what council saw in approving the grant award. Since December 2nd, Elk Island has been working diligently with the city to meet all of the code requirements as well as complete the project by the June 1st date. I know when I spoke with Bernie Woodard of Elk Island this morning, he is still trying his darndest to meet that June 1st deadline for having at least some occupancy available on that property. However, during the site plan approval process, a number of issues arose. Probably the most impactful was the requirement for the emergency access to be paved. So that big, I know we spent a lot of time talking about the driveway and all of that. The paving of that then led to a significant amount of impervious surface, which led to requirements for stormwater management. That took a lot of site plan revisions to accomplish and resulted in some delays in the timeline there. Some of the additional things that were required were underground piping networks, engineered stormwater planters, underground catch basins, additional surveying was required, elevation controls, all of these things that had to significantly change the plans in order to accomplish it. They also during this time discovered that there was an easement that had not been included in the original title report. So with these revisions, it did take until March 4th to get site plan approval. It was April 1st before building permit approvals were completed. The original plan had anticipated at least the site plan approvals and the submission of the applications for the permits by January 31st. So they were, at least on the site plan approval, they were a little over a month delayed because of all the changes that were required. They've also experienced international shipping and supply disruptions for those last few Connex containers. There were some delays in receiving those. And there have been complications regarding ODOT and being able to connect to the street. Despite all of those things, they have made significant progress and they are still working towards that June 1st date. It may not be quite attainable on June 1st, but it will open within the next couple of weeks and soon after we will have occupancy. So with all of that then, we've started planning for transition. How do we get people from the resting sites, the unmanaged campsites that aren't really serving our community, how do we get from that to utilizing the capacity of the low barrier shelter that is on our doorstep? And doing so in a manner that will avoid overwhelming the shelter and the wraparound services. We can't have them open for 150 beds and give them 150 people. That will overwhelm the system and there will be failures. So what we need is to be able to transition slowly to where they're able to keep up and maintain and do their work. What this resolution before council tonight will do is to allow the resting site capacity to be adjusted to reflect the low barrier shelter capacity. We know that our, for lack of a better term, magic number is 150. So as Parker's Place opens beds, we can adjust our resting sites down. So if they give us 40 beds, we can drop down to 110 capacity for our resting sites and be able to slowly shift that capacity to the low barrier shelter as opposed to the city unbanaged resting sites. So what the language would do is allow the city manager to close or reduce the size of the existing resting sites. Modify the length of stay requirements for the existing resting sites and the reason for that is because at some point we're going to get down to One resting site or even two and it won't be reasonable any longer to have that 96 hour time frame We may need to go to especially if we get down to one resting site Having a time limit is not going to be feasible. So being able to adjust that to accommodate the capacity needs and If something happens where we need to temporarily reopen any currently existing site that's been closed, being able to do that and have the flexibility to match the capacity and shift that back and forth to ensure capacity requirements are met. So the cost implication is none beyond what's already been budgeted or hopefully savings as those resting sites are closed and we don't incur those expenses. The call to action date is tonight or council's discretion. alternatives would be to adopt the resolution as written adopt an amended resolution not adopt the resolution and we are recommending that the resolution be adopted as written so that we can have the flexibility to be able to adjust as parker's place gives us the capacity that the city needs and there is a potential motion on the screen for council thank you stephanie um i will bring it back to council for questions we'll start with indra

Any questions?

I do have some. So the transition, so say they have room for 40. What is that going to look like as far as is one site going to be closed first? Are you going to pick people from different sites? What does that look like?

So the way that we are anticipating it, they have a wait list. Last I heard, I believe there's 125 people that have expressed interest in locating at Parker's Place, according to the information we received this morning. They are planning on bringing people in as they can. What we will do then is match that capacity. We'll start by probably closing the 6th Street north site. So not the big site on 6th Street, but the smaller one. Close that one first. And then if we can get to the point where we can close the big site and shift back to just the north site when we can get more capacity over to Parker's Place and off of the city. And so just kind of shifting back and forth with the different sites to slowly reduce our capacity as Parker's Place's capacity increases.

Are we looking to close the 7th Street site last?

Yes. The reason for that being it's the closest to the police station, and they seem to be a little bit, have fewer issues at that site.

Any questions? Eric?

Thank you, Stephanie, for the thorough presentation. Presentation, thank you. You said something about having to reopen the resting site if Parker's Place has some problems. Can you specify?

Probably not problems as much as if, like I was explaining before, we close the north resting site, the 6th Street North, and then when we can close the regular 6th Street, we would reopen the 6th Street North because it's got a smaller footprint. So whatever capacity dictates. is what we would do. If something happens at Parker's Place where we have to reopen, so natural disaster. If there's a lightning strike, and there's a fire of some kind, and we need to open for capacity to offset that, being able to flex. But I don't anticipate the actual shelter or services being a reason why we would do that.

So if we have all 150 If it's fully occupied, is there gonna ever be a reason aside from the ones you just mentioned to reopen the temporary resting sites?

As a good attorney, I'm not going to give you a guarantee on that, but we are going to close the resting sites whenever we possibly can and keep them closed. As long as we can meet legal requirements, they will be closed.

Which are 150 people.

That's what we've been told by the court thus far.

so so i know that elk island has been working very hard on getting this these things completed but obviously they're running behind schedule so in the meantime uh the the city is paying four hundred thousand dollars a year for each for all of these at bare minimum for all these temporary resting sites to be open so I guess my question is since they are in a sense getting behind timeline it's in a sense a breach of contract can we can the city ask them to pay for the temporary resting sites since they're falling behind on timeline?

Our contract doesn't have that provision in it. And at this point, given that we're talking a delay of a matter of a few weeks, I wouldn't recommend us going that route. But if you want to have an executive session to discuss attorney-client privilege matters, we can schedule that.

I guess I'm just worried that if from the beginning here we're having problems, what are we to anticipate going further on down the road? Is it going to be just as much of a delay and we're just waiting and waiting and we keep extending the delay? So I think that's the major problem that I see. I hope it's not.

I don't anticipate that being the case. I know that they're working as hard as they can to meet the city's requirements and things have just come up like they do in so many projects. I don't anticipate that being an ongoing issue.

I just think that maybe if a little more planning would have went through instead of whatever else was happening, maybe it would have been planned out a little better and the realistic timelines could have been met. That's all I have.

Thank you. Further questions? Victoria.

How many Connex boxes are there at this point?

I don't know that answer off the top of my head.

And how many Connex boxes have been retrofitted?

I don't know off the top of my head. That information may be in the updates that have been provided to council, but I don't have those details.

Okay. On page 3 of the contract under homeless services, letter A, grantees shall at all times ensure that access to the shelter and services meets all applicable requirements to be deemed a low barrier for entry. Do we know that that is going to be so in this delay that we don't know how long the delay is going to be? Are we guaranteed letter A under homeless services in the contract?

To my knowledge, they are anticipating a low barrier shelter with full capacity. There may be a little bit of a delay in achieving that, but I haven't seen anything that suggests they won't meet that requirement. But we don't know what a delay is? It should be, as I stated before, a matter of weeks.

And under B, it says the following services will be available on site. Individual case management, will that be present after this delay that we don't know how long the delay is? Yes. And substance use recovery and mental health support using licensed and or certified service providers, will that be present in this delay that we don't know how long the delay is?

To my knowledge, all of the services that we are requiring in our contract will be provided once they open to start accepting individuals on site. I believe that is in progress with Mint. I don't have specific details on those currently, but I know that when I have checked in with them about the contract requirements, and in particular, the detailed line items in there, everything they are either working on or have planned for or have agreements with service providers for.

So we don't really know if they have these and they will be available June 1st or in this delay that we don't know how long it will be based on my conversations with elk Island and mint, the services will be available. Okay. But we, but tonight we don't, we don't have any other than what they have told me that they will be available. Okay. And, uh, in the contract, it says that June 1st, that all of the things that i mentioned i didn't mention all of them it's got housing navigation and medical services there and workforce development and vocational training i didn't mention all of them but uh it says by june 1st there will be space for 150 um beds so is i guess well we know the answer this but i'll ask you in any way is that in the contract

that is in the contract as is section three that gives the city manager the authority to extend timelines as required so that is what I'm anticipating will occur once we have um before June 1st and once we have a better understanding of exactly those timelines so then maybe you can and I don't I don't know if this is a question for you I'm not trying to put you on the spot at all Stephanie but you said in the presentation that we don't want to overwhelm um their system

but it's a system that they told us a year ago that they were going to have space for 150 people on June 1st, but now we're saying we don't want to overwhelm them. So could you just explain to me a little bit the discrepancy between those two things?

There is a difference between having capacity and having complete occupancy. We only require them to have space for 150. We did not require them to have 150 people living on site by June 1st. Yeah, that's what I meant.

I meant capacity.

We intentionally did it that way knowing that we were going to have to transition this in and that they could not have 150 occupancy immediately. We were going to have to

uh... slowly transition those people and so that we wouldn't overwhelm their system doesn't the contract say june first they will have space for a hundred they will have to capacity for a half that's what does not have that there are a hundred it does that that that that so i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i

the resting sites after.

Your topic of litigating the actual contract that's in place is a little off topic. No, it's not off topic because we're being asked to change our resting sites.

Correct, but you're litigating the actual contract, which is not part of the resolution that we're trying to get across the board here.

That was my last question, though, Stephanie. And again, I know that you probably didn't even have an answer to that, but... But the public needed to hear. And those were legitimate questions for the matter that was before us. Thank you.

I would note that the resolution that's before you would have come before you regardless of any timeline extension needed. Because no matter what happens, we still need the ability to close the resting sites as described in this resolution. So the contract itself doesn't make a difference in what we're asking for tonight.

So then I have one more question. It seems to me like the city would be better protected if we knew what was going to happen But we don't know what's going to happen. We don't know exactly what the time is. We think it might be two weeks or whatever. And it seems to me like we are putting, well, I'll save that for later. But wouldn't the city be better protected if we knew exactly what was going to happen at Parker's Place before we started talking about changing the resting sites that we already have?

I actually think that this gives the council or the city the flexibility to be able to respond faster to what happens at Parker's Place. If Parker's Place manages to get 40 sites open on June 1st, the city manager can immediately say we're going to close that 6th Street North resting site. They can post that, give the three days that is required. If we have to come back to council at that point to provide that information, we're going to be back here on June 3rd, which would be after that date. giving the city manager the ability to adjust as Parker's Place allows for really means that we're able to better respond to the city's needs and address the resting sites as soon as possible.

Then one last question, because that brings up another question in my mind, and that is this. It also seems to me, and an issue that I'll discuss in discussion, that it might make it so the public is a little less informed about the moving of the sites. So if we did this at a different time, if we decided we're going to make sure we know what's going to happen at Parker's Place and then did this action, wouldn't that make it so the public was going to have more notice and be more informed about what was happening

Sites that are already open there is a website that we already have that provides updates regarding what's going on related to Parker's place if Council wishes we can post the notices regarding closures on there so that People have the information as soon as it's available on the sites as well. We can make that information available Right away.

Thank you Further questions Joel do you have any questions? Kathleen do you have any questions?

Yeah, I was just curious if there's going to be any ramifications legally if the contract isn't fully followed.

Okay, I'm going to have to stop you again. This is not a topic to litigate the contract. This is a resolution authorizing city manager to basically navigate the closure of of resting sites after the fact. I don't believe that this is the proper place to actually litigate this contract. So I'm gonna leave it at that. If you can keep your questions to the resolution at hand, that would be most appreciative.

I will tell council that if there appears to be a breach of the contract, I will schedule an executive session to discuss it with council.

And I'm sorry to stifle your voice. I'm just trying to keep us in an efficient manner. We could talk about this contract for all day long, and we do have other items on the agenda. But if we do keep our comments and our discussions to the council action item and the topic of the council action item, it would go a little bit more efficiently. Rick, do you have any questions?

No.

Rob, do you have any questions?

Yeah, one brief question. So I think it's been possibly talked about, maybe even tonight, but I know that I don't fully understand the answer. So when the time comes that Parker's Place has 150 spots and the transition's basically been made, is there a situation where we would ever foresee that we need 150 first spots somewhere else in the city? In other words, if somebody pulls into town, a transient pulls into town, and they're told, hey, Parker's is full up, What's their alternative? Where would they go in that situation without being arrested or run out of town or whatever?

At this point, I don't have an answer for you. The anticipation is that we are required to ensure that there's capacity for 150. Low barrier is our preference because then at least there's some management and services being provided, and that's what the law allows for. There's nothing that requires the city to allow the resting on our property as long as our regulations are reasonable under time, place, and manner restrictions. And so as long as we've been told that it's unreasonable to drop below 150, so we are going with that 150 number. If we have to modify things in the future due to situations that aren't anticipated or if we end up being challenged on those again, we'll reassess and figure out if there's something else that we need to do in order to comply with the legal requirements But at this point, we believe that the 150 low barrier capacity will allow us to be able to close the resting sites.

So the only, and I'm, I guess I'm, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but so if, when 150 is achieved at Parker's, the only, again, not the only way, but the most likely, the only likely way that we would ever need our sites, any more of the existing sites, is if somehow a state judge came back and said, hey, I know I told you 150, but now I'm telling you you need more. So barring the state coming back at us for some reason, we're looking at 150 as a pretty hard and fast number.

State or if we receive notice of a challenge where we look at it and go, yeah, you're probably right, and we would probably end up getting a judge to order that, we might consider that in advance. But unless we are challenged on it, we will likely not exceed that 150 mark. Thank you.

If I add to that being, it's a little bit off topic, but the legal premise of HB 3115 is to, if a organization or a city wants to enforce their no camping regulations on public lands, they have to have an objectively reasonable time, place, and manner for people to go. In HB 3115, it was vague enough so the person that was to determine and define objectively reasonable was through the court of law at a judicial level which we have gone through so we have a judicial mandate on a definition of objectively reasonable time place and manner for our community which we are abiding by at this moment in time with that i will run across any further questions in regards to this resolution seeing none thank you very much stephanie at this time We have an opportunity for public comment on this resolution item only. Is there anybody within the audience that would like to speak on this topic of a resolution authorizing the manager to make changes to authorized resting sites established by Resolution 25-7559? Speak your name, and you have two minutes, and please keep to topic.

Rika Brown. I believe that when she was going over the problems that came up, Most of these were problems that should have been solved in advance by our people who figure it out. The people who give the rules out. They came across some several things that hadn't been thought about. So it isn't really the fault of the builder. It's a fault of planning. That's why the city manager is allowed to Allow delays if they're reasonable Thank you.

Thank you any further public comment in regards to this resolution All right state your name. You have two minutes and please stay on topic My name is Jolie

I honestly came up here to plead with you guys to not give city manager the authority to make changes to the ordinances without a vote. But after listening to you guys and how heartbreaking your stance is on the people who live over here and their futures, I feel like maybe it's a good idea because I feel like it might be easier for God to soften the heart of one person than it is for 12. I laid my head on on the ground in Morrison Park in an eight by eight tent two years ago. I have owned homes in this town. I have 13 years with Three Rivers School District. Some of your kids may have sat in my detention at Fleming Middle School. I may have taught some of your kindergartners to read. I returned to my hometown as a widow, and my widow's pension could not afford rent in this town, and that is why I became homeless. And for one year, I marched every five days from park to park to park to park. Like musical parks, we called it. It was inhumane, it was cruel. Parked people put sprinklers on us. I camped in a park next to Fruitdale Elementary School where I worked as the homeless advocate for 11 years. And I heard the morning announcements every morning while sprinklers were put on my tent. I listen to you guys talk about the community. These people are your community also. 70%, and I have done a survey, 70% of the people over there have roots in this community, have children that have gone to school with your children, have parents that are elderly here, have owned homes, have had jobs, and shop in your stores, participate in your concerts in the park, and they don't wear a T-shirt that says, I'm homeless. But they're there with you. Thank you. And I'll stop. Compassion.

They're your community. Thank you. Anybody further from the public who wants to comment on this resolution? All right, step up, state your name.

You have two minutes, and please stay on topic. Hey, my name is Ron Lee. I just want to address a couple things that were brought up. You were asking how many Connex containers. According to the plan, it's six 20-foot Connex, 16 40-foot Connex. That gives all 152 people approximately 42 square feet of living space. She said that she was stifled in an eight by eight tent, which is 64 square feet. I don't think the humanitarian aspect has been identified or worked out completely when it comes to Elk Island. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Any further public comment on regards to this resolution? All right. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to council for further discussion. You guys are discussing a resolution authorizing city manager to change authorized resting sites established by resolution 257559. Victoria.

I just have a really quick comment to make. before we go into discussion and possible action. I was made aware of some information today that made me feel like I have to declare to the public that there may be a counselor or counselors here who probably should declare, who should recuse themselves or at least declare a conflict. And so I wanted to give counselors who were in any way benefiting financially or their friends were benefiting financially from Elk Island to give them the opportunity to explain that or to recuse themselves.

Thank you, Victoria. Any further discussion and or action? Joel.

Well, I think this is also a no-brainer. I think we need the flexibility. We need to let the city manager do his job to have eight people up here try to keep up with with what I call adaptive management, which is necessary under this situation. Just a short comment on contracts can be put behind for several reasons, including the person or the party that issued the contract. So I think we need to be very careful about saying that it's the sole fault of one party or the other. But anyway, I think we're sticking on topic. I think this is a no-brainer, and I'm ready to vote, but I also want to hear the rest of the discussion. And I am going to have to leave pretty soon.

Okay, so Joel has to leave, and he wants to vote on this, so just remember that with discussion. Any further discussion? Victoria.

Yeah, so the woman who spoke so compassionately about the people in the camps, I agree with her. That is why we have spent a lot of time trying to figure out a better way for that. But now we were told that Mr. Woodard stood at that podium a year and a half ago and said, I will have 150 beds by September 1st. and the uh june 1st sorry uh and now we're not having that and we do not have timeline of when the delay is going to be and we don't even have a number of how it's going to open to begin with and I am not assured that all of the services that were supposed to be provided are going to be provided in this delay that we don't know when it is so I think it is very premature to be and the motion she was going to make is she didn't think it was a good idea for us who should vote on these things to give up our power and give it to the city manager to do it. And it was a great presentation from Stephanie. It's not anything to do with Stephanie at all, but I am not as a counselor feeling like the things that we need to have in place will be in place. And so I could not in good conscience vote for this. There were some things that were said, overwhelming, overwhelming overwhelming the system well the system the person the guy said he wasn't going to be overwhelmed and so how i just i don't have a guarantee the public does not have a guarantee and um and the number of connex boxes that was brought up. I mean, I don't know how 150 people are going to be there, period, but I said that over a year and a half ago because I just looked at the site and thought to myself, how are those things, how is everything going to fit there? And the topic of efficiency was brought up, that this was going to be efficient. Well, we are why would the city bend over to be efficient for a contract that is not really being efficient with the city?

Victoria, I got to bring it back to you again. You're litigating the contract. So I understand your passion and I know you want to be heard. I get it. So what I would suggest is if we stay on topic and then for matters for mayor, you could bring up that we could bring the contract back to a workshop.

It needs to be brought up now because the reason why, mayor, we are voting on this... is to give leeway for the contract that is supposed to be open June 1st. That's why we are doing this.

We are voting on this resolution. This resolution was brought forward, would have been brought forward whether there was delays or not. This was the timeframe when this resolution was to be brought forward.

Well, we don't need to go back and forth, Mayor, and please stop taking my time, but I understand what you're trying to say, but the public needs to understand that they would be better off if... we were clear on what was going to happen at parker's place before we made any decision and gave our agency up to the city manager to make changes to the resting sites so there are so many things here um that are just unclear so it would be highly Irresponsible I think for council to vote on this now given all of the questions that we don't have answered and also obviously I think I think the public might be should be a little bit annoyed and So because there are people who are investing sites who would be better off in in a site That was a lot better had a lot had better accommodations so We should not be voting on this until we are clear, absolutely clear, with the date and the time and the number and all of the homeless services, A, B, C, D and on down that are, are they going to be available because that's what the contract says and it is related to this. And so I could say so much more about this but it would be highly, irresponsible for us to vote yes on this. So I am definitely a no on this today.

Thank you. Further discussion?

I've got Joel and then Rob. I'm going to go ahead and make a motion because I think it's very reasonable, and I understand what Victoria is saying, and I disagree with you, honestly. And I think we need to make progress on this issue, and I think it's good for all involved. We have an existing written contract that we're going to enforce and move ahead in a manner that is legal, socially acceptable, and economically responsible. So with that, I'm gonna make a motion to adopt the resolution as written.

Thank you, Joel. There's a motion on the table to adopt the resolution as written, authorizing the city manager to make changes to the authorized resting sites established by resolution 257559. Do we have a second? Second by Rob. Any further discussion, Rob?

Yeah, I think that anyone who's I don't know, I would just say a mature adult knows that in life there are very few guarantees and very few absolutes. We heard from Sam Engle a long time ago, and he of course is the director over at Rogue Retreat, that he said that in Grants Pass, because they've already been through this eight or 10 years ago, that we should expect things not to be exactly perfect from the get-go. And when I hear Stephanie say the word overwhelm, to me what that means is we've got the potential of 150 living beings that are in flux, and to move 150 of them at the same exact time into a brand new facility. I mean, when a restaurant has a soft opening, they just want to make sure just the kitchen is functioning, their systems are functioning, their computers are running, the air conditioning is running, and things are going. Something as simple as a restaurant that might have anywhere from 10 to 20 employees on a given night, and 50 to 100 at the most in the course of a whole night. So there's soft openings, just to make sure that systems are working properly. And when they say overwhelmed, now we've got 150 people that are used to living in one situation that may or may not be good. living in close quarters inside, or they may, or there could be changes. So when I hear the word overwhelm, what I think is you don't want to have to pack 150 people in a brand new situation before you even know if any of it's working. The only smart thing to do there is to, in my opinion, is to do it somewhat gradually. I know that in Medford, one way that they will say transition slowly In that case, it was the police department that chose people that were living on the Greenway that they felt would coexist well with others that didn't have major drug problems or major psychiatric problems. They brought them in first because they knew that wasn't going to be a serious volcanic situation having them in close quarters. So I would imagine that to some degree, Mint has an idea of who might be a good first group. The police department probably has a good idea of who the Uh, people in the resting sites are now that would probably be a little less problematic and be able to get along well with others. So that happens gradually. Um, and I'm sure that the city manager would be, um, consulting with the police that are on the ground every day. with the people in the sites. I'm sure that Mint has a lot of experience. And to me, that would help to ensure that the system is not overwhelmed. To immediately drop 150 people into a brand new situation that from day one is just not realistic. So that to me is avoiding being overwhelmed. And that's just prudent management. So I'm probably one of the last people up here that would generally cede my authority to the city manager In this particular case, I can say that our city has been waiting eight years for this. Eight years. Some of the people on the council may be waiting two years. Some have been waiting five or six. I know Rick and Joel have been waiting eight years for this. The fact that we're a few weeks or possibly a few months off I think a mature adult would say, okay, well, that's just the situation. That's what happens sometimes in life when you've got moving parts, and that's what we've got here, a bunch of moving parts. So I'm gonna vote yes, and hopefully we can move forward. And we see it go as well as it can go in the coming months. And then it'll be improved in the months thereafter. And I'm going to apologize to the people, like Counselor Nicholas, who happens to live near one of these sites, and other people who live near the sites. And I'm sorry that it's not going to be over exactly on June 1st, but I think that you understand patients and the fact that we don't want anything to be overwhelmed. Again, I'm going to apologize to the people that we're banking on June 1st. For them, it's not a head game. It's not a parlay game. It's not just intellectual. It's real. Their lives are being impacted, in some cases, very negatively. But we are getting there very soon, and I hope that they understand. Kathleen.

So I think I would feel a little bit better about this if we knew that at least 40 people could move not talking 150 on june 1st maybe 40 people could move on june 1st and we could see some transition happening so i'm feeling like yeah i mean a portion could be transitioning but it sounds to me like that's not even going to happen on june 1st so i'm not totally in favor of this i um i had hoped that uh mr woodard would have been able to keep his word and been able to transition slowly, but hold to the timeline.

Thank you. Any further discussion before we go into a vote? Rick and then Victoria. Rick.

I will also be voting yes because I've been in the planning process being a land use consultant for over 30 years and it's never an easy process and there's always things that come up and I feel Rob has really summarized those with appropriate comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Victoria.

You can go ahead and go to Eric.

Oh, you had your hand up first, but that's okay. Eric.

I understand what Rick was talking about with the planning process, but in any good plan, you have to put in a buffer, and that buffer, it wasn't accounted for. So we need a plan. I'll be voting no on this.

Thank you, any further discussion before we go into vote? Victoria.

And with that plan that you are supposed to have, Rob was talking about, what Rob was talking about, how there's always, things are always going to happen. That's why we had a contract, and Rob was also talking about the contract, so. I just wanted to point that out too. Not that I don't think he should have. I think they're very related items. But as Eric just brought up, part of the timeline, it's been months and months. The phase in should have been part of that timeline. So I'm a strong no. It's irresponsible for the council to be voting yes on this right now.

Thank you. Any further discussion before we go into a vote? You have a motion on the table to authorize the resolution for authorizing the city manager to change the authorized resting sites established by resolution 257559. We have a motion by Joel and a second by Rob. We're going to go into a vote.

Joel. Well, I disagree with Victoria. I feel I want to vote a very responsible yes.

Victoria. I'm voting a very responsible no. Eric?

No.

Indra?

Yes. Rob?

Yes.

Rick?

Yes.

Kathleen? No. All right. I have four yeses and three noes. The motion passes. Resolution passes. Authorizing the manager to make changes to the resting sites as needed when time comes. Thank you. Next on the council action items is resolution approving commercial activity in Reinhart Park and a fee waiver for the 2026 4th of July events.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council, members of the public, Bradley Clark with Community Development. We have before you tonight a request for the 4th of July commercial activity permit and fee waiver request. This is in Rinehart Volunteer Park. The request is coming from Blaze and Monkeys, LLC, and you'll see in your packet There is an application, and they are represented by Patrick Holdley, who is with us here tonight. And we'll be able to address potentially any more detailed questions you might have about the event itself. But the request specifically is two things. One is to operate the Fourth of July in Reinhart, the event, and then a fee waiver. So this is the fourth. annual one in Reinhardt Volunteer Park. Just one clarification on that. The city really took over this about three years ago. It had been operated off and on, but my department has kind of been the one organizing it. Patrick has participated with us in a couple of years on the food truck piece in particular. So we have kind of a partnership that has been developing over the last couple of years to put on the event. So it is a free event, will continue to be a free event. The event this year is July 4th, which is a Saturday. The muni code that's specific to this application tonight is 6.46.110 and the outline there is related to the commercial activity which requires council action. The next bullet outlines the fees that are assessed by the parks division in order to hold this particular event. totaling about $1,670. Blazin' Monkeys LLC is requesting that that full amount be waived. Here's a few more details about the events, very similar to what we've done in the past, but continues to expand a little bit each year. Estimating 2,000 to 3,000. The fireworks are by a licensed technician. Those fireworks were paid by the city. As you know, the city allocated $20,000 for this event, as we have done the last several years. We had about $17,000 or so that was to pay for the fireworks itself, and that includes the licensed technician. The remaining amount we're looking to have put towards the traffic management side of the event. All the rest of the costs would be borne by blazing monkeys. Looking for a little bit bigger stage this year with live music. Still have vendors, face painters, bounce houses. Here's an outline map showing more or less how the stage has been placed, how the fireworks, how the spectator seating all kind of lays out there in the park. We are looking, similar to the last couple of years, a barrier placed at the main entrance into Reinhart as well as over kind of before you get over to where the pickleball courts are. So those kind of prevent entering the main portion of the park where most of the attendees are at. Revenue source, as I mentioned, $1,670 is the cost implication on this if you waive the fees. Call to action is tonight. You've got a few alternatives before you. Approve the request to allow both the commercial activity and the fee waiver. You can modify those, you can deny those, and there's a potential motion for you on the screen.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to council for questions. Rob, do you have any questions?

Yeah, so in prior years, a couple questions. You know, has the event grown? Has the number of food trucks gone up every year? Or the number of attendees gone up every year?

Yes, yes to both. I think the food trucks, there has been a bit of an increase, and this year would certainly be more than what we have had in the past.

So typically, the food trucks... Okay, so we've got food trucks and we have potential pop-ups also. When I think of a food truck, I think of something that has some kind of power source, whether it's gas, diesel, electric, whatever, refrigeration and or cooking. And then there's also pop-ups, which I guess are more passive. People would have some kind of tense structure overhead. So we're gonna have both, as far as you know?

Yeah, and that may be a better question for Patrick, but when you say pop-up, are you referring to a kind of a tent where there's food?

Yeah, people that would be selling something. It wouldn't necessarily be hot or cold food, but they'd be selling something. So I'm just trying to get an idea of the magnitude.

Yes, yes. Yeah, and as shown on the screen here, the food trucks are located in the main driveway that goes through the park, that goes to the main parks building down here. whereas the vendors that are non-food trucks are located a little bit separate from that on this kind of main pathway. It goes toward the quad.

So, is it an appropriate question for you or for the applicant? Is the fee for a food truck or whatever, $350, the pop-up is what? Do you know what the fees are? I guess it's him. Would he be charging those fees or the city charging those fees? He would be charging those fees. Okay, so he's the general contractor, so to speak, and he'd be charging the fees. Do you know what fees he charges for those things?

I believe it's $350. For the food truck.

And then last question, I'll let other people have a crack. And how many, quote unquote, food trucks are we expecting? I think there's about 15. About 15. Thank you.

Rick, do you have any questions?

Yes, thank you. So on the 1677 fee, how much of that is the damage waiver?

$625.

Because we had a discussion the other day whether we wanted to still collect the damage waiver, which is refundable. So we could still add that in there if we wish.

It's at your discretion.

Yes, at council discretion.

Kathleen, do you have any questions?

Yeah, I was wondering how much is this going to save the city as far as having another contractor do the promotions for this?

Yeah, I did not add up the staff hours. When my staff has organized in the past, it's many, many hours to get the bands together, to get the vendors together, although Patrick has worked very heavily on the food side in the past. So unfortunately, I don't have a good solid dollar for you on that side of it. Allocated $20,000 each of the last three years, that hasn't changed. And we have more or less, we have through sponsorships gotten each year a few more sponsors so that has helped to pay for that. So in terms of the specific cash outlay that's allocated, that's basically the same. Really the difference is the amount of time that we can then put towards other economic development activities rather than putting on the event.

Joel, do you have any questions? No, sir. Thank you. Victoria, do you have any questions? No. Thank you. Eric, do you have any questions? No. Indra, do you have any questions? No. Thank you. Any further questions? Nothing? Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation. Do you want to add in as the applicant?

just want to say thank you all i'm honored to even be in this room and you have a very tough job from a little bit i've seen so far so thank you guys i really appreciate your time good question for you yeah so uh about how many pop-ups would you expect i currently have 10 uh and then two that are other food vendor pop-ups too so 12 total and then 14 trucks and and what do you what do you charge for the pop-ups uh if they're powered it's 100 if they're non-powered at 60.

Okay, thank you.

No problem. Thank you. At this time, we open up for public comment. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to weigh in on this council action or resolution for the Reinhart Park fee waiver?

Go ahead and state your name, and you have two minutes. Please stay on topic. I'm Marika Brown, and I'm wondering what's with the free speech area? I think, you know, we should all have free speech all over the park. And, you know, I might wanna get out there and pass a few leaflets. Big deal! Thank you.

Thank you, Rekha. Anybody else from the audience wanna weigh in on this council action item for resolution for waiving fees? All right, seeing none, I will bring it back to council for further discussion and or action. Rob?

I do have one quick question, I guess, for Brad. Did this at any time, whether it's this year or prior years, go out for any kind of RFP, or how was this applicant chosen?

There was not an RFP. The memorandum that the city manager put out on May 5th to the council that kind of gave the background to this It was honestly a pretty organic process where we were looking for a partnership to kind of help with the food truck side. And that's when Patrick kind of stepped up. And so since we've kind of had an ongoing partnership, there's kind of been some trust built and he's demonstrated he can do it. um we just have continued the discussion so at this point um you know this is kind of a transition year uh and so that's that's really the background we but no we did to answer your question we did not do an rfp okay so uh the discussion part of it my my rough figures here and i hope i'm accurate is that uh

If the applicant were to, if the fees were not waived, the applicant had to pay the fees, it seems to me that his gross profit, and again, I'm sure there could be a lot of work that goes into this, but his gross profit would be about $4,500, and that's if he pays the fees. I'm not sure why we would then add another $1,677 to the gross profit, bringing it up to over $6,000. But again, if he pays the fees, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong, if my figures are wrong, that's still $4,500. That to me seems pretty significant because he has a for-profit business. That's great. And $4,500 is pretty good profit for a few days' work to me.

Further discussion? I got Indra.

Yes. First, I want to thank you. It sounds like a great event that I would love to go to and the coordination with the city. I hesitate to just waive fees for for-profit business because you are going to be making a profit. We have in the past waived fees. I think it's all been for nonprofit. organization so they're not making money off of it and then when you add the 20 000 event fee i don't know where that all goes but some of it goes to help and and while i appreciate it's a lot of hard work and all you do i just think that this sets a really bad precedent precedent for for-profit businesses to go wave fees in our parks and make money i don't think it's a good idea thank you

Further discussion? Kathleen.

I just thank you for stepping up and contributing. I think it's wonderful when community residents add to our city festivities and annual events. I want to come back to what Rick was saying earlier, that I would be in favor, I think, of waiving the, or not waiving, but having the damage deposit paid, since you get that back anyway. But I think there's a lot of expense with this. $4,500 doesn't sound that much to me with all the things that you have to arrange and things you have to pay for to get this going. The $20,000 is only for the fireworks and everything else falls on you. So I would just be in favor of having you pay the damage deposit.

Further discussion or action? Joel and then Victoria. Joel.

So the other thing that events like this does is socially it establishes a sense of community, fosters a sense of community, which is really healthy. And then the second thing is people stay here for the Fourth of July. And that's an economic impact. Dollars that are earned here stay here. So I think a good compromise, I'm not sure compromise is the right word, but to have that refundable deposit to where we charge that fee for damages and it's refundable if there's no damages. That's what I would favor.

Further discussion and or action? Victoria.

well i would just like to move to approve the resolution allowing commercial activities except for the refundable deposit and uh of the park reservation fee at reinhardt park for the 2026 4th of july event all right we have a motion on the table to waive all fees except for the the deposit amount um for the activities that would happen at reinhardt park

for 2026 4th of July event any in a second from Kathleen thank you uh any further discussion Indra yeah just a quick question Brad to clarify is that 20 000 is only for fireworks it was approximately 17 000 for the contract with Western who is our contractor on

The remaining 3,000 was for the traffic control. There's going to be some flaggers to assist.

Thank you.

I tried to volunteer to light them off, but they said no. Any further discussion before we go into a vote? Indra?

Yeah, I just want to say again, I'm going to be a no vote, but it's a great community event. My real concern is that now any group, any business for profit will come to us asking for a wave of fees. the city uses those fees to maintain the parks and that's what it's for and I think we can't just say we don't need that money to maintain the parks. So that's why I would be a no, that's it.

Further discussion before we go into a vote? Seeing none, Victoria, how do you vote? Yes. Eric, how do you vote?

Yes.

Indra, how do you vote? Rob how do you vote?

Yes.

Rick how do you vote? Yes. Kathleen how do you vote?

Yes.

And Joel how do you vote?

Yes.

Thank you. All right. Resolution passes. And the resolution, just to define, we waive all fees except for the security deposit. Thank you very much. And thank you for all you do, because I went last year, and your involvement last year was amazing. And Dana works her butt off at this thing, and she allowed me to get up and announce the ban. It was kind of fun and cool. So awesome, awesome, awesome, awesome. Thank you. Okay. At this point in the agenda for tonight's meeting, we're going to go into general public comment. Just to preface this, council had done some discussion in a previous workshop this week, but those amendments and changes to public comment are not going into action tonight. So your public comment will be limited to two minutes at the podium. Public comment is an opportunity for the public to address the city council on items not related to a public hearing or council action item. for the council. The intent is to provide information that is pertinent to the city's jurisdiction. Each speaker will be given two minutes to address city council as one body, not two individuals. At conclusion of public comment, council will have the opportunity to respond. This meeting will proceed in an effective and courteous manner. Citizens and council members will be allowed to state their positions in an atmosphere free from slander, threats, and other personal attacks. Signs or placards, outbursts of applause, campaigning for public office, or other disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. If you have an any questions regarding any government-provided service or a current city policy, please contact the city manager's office in attempt to resolve the matter. We have four filled out public comment participants. First one is online, so Mike Pelfrey, you're up first. Restate your name, and you have two minutes. No worries.

Mike, you need to press star five on your phone. And now press star six.

Hello, good evening. This is Mike Pelfrey, Branch Pass City resident. Thanks for figuring out the technology. So anyway, you know, I was listening to this meeting and I knew that we were going to get to the point where we were going to go into mass dysfunction once again. And when that happens, it always seems to circle around one issue and one issue only in this city and it seems that it always comes back to the homeless people you know i i would hate to put a calculator to the overall negative impact that this community unfortunately has has created or i further say gifted to the city of grant's path um you know the other concern i have is We talked about 40 people going down there. We can't even seem to manage the people that roam our city and don't even live inside of the camps. So I really think the city needs to figure out exactly what they're going to do. They need to put on their big boy pants and lead. And when I say lead, I mean actually lead. You know, I'm sitting in a city right now that, guess what their city council doesn't have to do? They don't have to have this ongoing discussion about the dysfunction of the homeless crisis in the state of Oregon, but more importantly, in our own backyard. We can't even control the people that are parking along the streets of our city. What we do is we let them sleep in their cars and then they dump their garbage on the curb. A police officer comes by, slaps a little finger.

Thank you Mike, that's your two minutes. I appreciate your comments, thank you. Next up we have Sophie Gist or Geist. Once, twice, thank you. Rika Brown, it's been a long time, nice to see you again. Come on out to the podium, and you've got two minutes, ma'am. It was a long illness.

A massive willow grows in my yard. In the spring of 1999, I came back to Grants Pass and bought a house for my family. Our first winter, my yard was flooded, so I picked the lowest spot and started digging a small pond when the yard dried up and sent up drainage to the street. I picked a twig off a huge twisty willow down the street and planted it right away near the pond. 26 years later, it is as massive as the tree it came from. It is about 50 feet tall and wide and five feet in diameter at five feet. The unit price of water has been hiked every year since 2005. Sometime in the next decade, our city manager decided that sewage needed unit prices, saying it's only fair that everyone pays for every gallon of water that goes to the sewage plant. It is not possible to meter sewage. Since people don't water in the winter, the average winter water use per household would be our sewage usage for the year. It didn't take long for winter to be expanded to five months, from mid-November through mid-March. My willow tree has grown a lot in the meantime because it takes water from my pond and I keep it full. This year, March was warm and the tree leafed out earlier than normal. March took 40 units, which made the average for the winter 21 units. None of that water went to the sewage plant, nor does the water that fills my fountain, which waters for the birds. I challenge those charges to be continued.

Thank you, Rieke. All right, last up we got Byron Robertson. Come on up, restate your name, and you have two minutes, sir.

It's always tough to follow Rieke. Byron Robertson, Grants Pass. A couple of positive things I want to start with. I had a meeting with Aaron about a month ago and promised him I would do this and it's well overdue. I wanted to thank him for taking time out of his busy day to meet with me for over an hour about some concerns I had. I also want to thank Jason for the few conversations we had out of your busy day to express some concerns and some displeasure with some certain things going on in his department with what affects me on a daily basis. And so I also want to do a positive thing. Those of residents that live on Conklin, I want to thank them for their patience and for us installing the sewer line and the laterals. And it's been a long ongoing project and with some difficulties when you install a brand new sewer line to replace one that was put in the 1920s in some sections, there are some CHALLENGES, LET'S SAY IT AT LEAST. SO I WANT TO THANK THEM, THE RESIDENTS, FOR THE MOST PART. PROBABLY 99% OF THEM HAVE BEEN GREAT. THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THAT ONE PERSON, BUT THAT HAPPENS. I HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF THAT I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT HERE BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WE WERE GOING TO GO TO THREE MINUTES, SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO CUT EVERYTHING SHORT. I DID WANT TO CHALLENGE AARON and his leaders, Jason, some concerns that I brought forth. I'm gonna make a public challenge to actively address those. There's some accountability issues that I think need to seriously be taken a look at and some inefficiencies in some departments that make my job installing things and working for the city a huge challenge. listening to tonight's meeting here, I think there also needs to be a challenge to everybody else here to be a little more efficient and have some accountability to how they do things in here too. So that's my personal challenge to just let's be better and let's be more accountable.

And I have to say thank you to all of the people that you were managing on Conklin during that installation because they were amazing people. and they were very courteous and kind because I'm a person that lives on Conklin. They were super accommodating. Thank you for your comments. That concludes our general public comment portion for the night. Thank you for participation. I do apologize that we didn't go to three minutes tonight but we do need to, that needs to go to a resolution before it can be interacted and it has to be signed by me before it can be interacted. next on our agenda is the consent agenda so i was approached by eric to star item b resolution authorizing city manager to enter into a contract to for the elevator modernization for the city of grants pass eric you have the floor why did you want this start or is there something that you want to bring to our attention

So obviously the concern was the single bid that was on there. And we had one or two emails that discussed that to replace the entire elevator, it would be half the price than to do the inspection and get it inspection ready. And the deadline is months on down the road. So I guess my point is that I would like to see what those options are, see if it is in fact cheaper to go with a brand new elevator installed, I don't know the answer to that, or to just go forward with the single bid. So I don't know if we need to take that to a workshop or if we need to table it, but I don't know if it would be a good idea to just willy-nilly without looking further into it unless it's already been looked into go with I mean we're talking about a pretty large sum of money to to do this inspection so that that that was my concern and that was the concern of the emails that we had received earlier today

so your options tonight are basically you can ask for additional information tonight and it stays on the consent agenda and goes forward or you can make a motion to have this item voted on separately outside the consent agenda or you could make a motion to table this and push this to a further workshop for investigation so it's your choice to then upon the motion that you make, it will be voted on by the council so you have a council majority decision.

Okay, thank you. I'd like to table it and move it for another workshop, please.

Okay, so as I understand, Eric's gonna make a motion to take consent agenda item B off the consent agenda and table it for a further discussion, a further workshop. Do we have a second for that? Second by Rick. Any small discussion on that? If not, we'll go right into a vote. Eric? Yes. Victoria? Yes. Joel? Kathleen? Yes. Rick? Yes. Rob? Yes. Indra?

Yes.

Okay. Does staff have proper direction?

Yes. We will work with the mayor and council president to set up a workshop for that.

Thank you. So it has been requested to have the consent agenda read aloud during these public meetings. Indra, would you like to be the first to read aloud the consent agenda and you can exclude item B because it's been taken off.

I would love to read the consent agenda. Item A, resolution continuing membership in the city county insurance services property general liability automobile pool. C, motion acknowledging the receipt of the monthly investment report for April, 2026. D, motion acknowledging the receipt of the monthly water revenue bonds investment report for April, 2026. E, motion approving the minutes of the city council meeting of May 6th, 2026. f motion acknowledging the minutes of the bikeways and walkways committee meeting of march 10th 2026 and g motion acknowledging the minutes of the committee on public art meeting of march 10th 2026. thank you indra uh we'll go into a vote to or i would be looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda uh eric make a motion to approve the consent agenda

I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

We'll leave them for a second. Kathleen seconds it. Eric, how do you vote?

Yes.

Victoria? Yes. Joel? Yes. Kathleen? Yes. Rick? Yes. Rob? Yes. Indra? Yes. Consent agenda passes as Excluding B. Okay. Next on the agenda tonight is matter for mayors, council, and staff. Bring it back to council. Is there any items you want to bring up at this moment in time? Kathleen, first.

I want to bring it back around to separate city manager's salary from staff salary schedules.

Okay, so do you want to make a request to put that on a workshop or first?

Could we just vote on it?

You could have it go to a workshop for discussion or you can have it go to a council action item on an upcoming meeting. but then if you make a motion to put it on the council action item in an upcoming meeting, then we'll need to get a full vote on that from the council. If you just want to put it on a workshop, you just need a couple of counselors to say they want to go with that and we're good to go.

Okay. Let's do the workshop.

Workshop. Okay. We got a couple of other counselors, Victoria and Eric. Okay. So we will put that on an opening in a workshop at a future date. All right. Anybody else? Victoria.

Yes, Stephanie earlier mentioned requesting an executive session on the contract and I would like to request that.

Okay. Victoria is looking to get an executive session to discuss the contract and do we have any other councillors such as one or two that would like to do the same? Kathleen and Eric, perfect. So we have three councillors. Do you have direction, Stephanie, to schedule in the future?

Yep. Whenever we want to schedule that executive session, I'll be prepared to discuss that.

Thank you. We'll work that into the agenda during the next agenda-setting meeting. Okay. Anybody else? Kathleen.

So being that it's the 250th anniversary of our nation, quite a celebration this year. I think it would be good to have something from the city and I don't know what else, but maybe in the form of a proclamation, something to recognize that it's a significant year for our nation.

Would you like to direct staff to come up with something? you looking like a press release are you looking like a you said proclamation in your statement are you looking for some a little bit more direction i guess is what i'm looking for um could it be a community member that would do the proclamation or i guess a mayoral well the mayor's mayor is the one that does the proclamations if the mayor yeah that's why i get paid the big bucks you know i get like a cup of coffee

I mean, staff would be happy to draft a proclamation for mayor's signature at a future business meeting.

Would you like, if staff prepares something, we could send it out to all council in a memo, make sure that everybody's okay with it.

Great.

Okay, does that sound good?

Yeah, that's wonderful.

Does that sound good, Aaron?

Sounds amazing.

Awesome, thank you. Anybody else? Okay, I will take the stage a little bit. I just want to... announced to the public that we did do an official press release from the city in regards to our DC delegation trip. We have commitment from two senators and one representative as well as a few other legislators on that represent oregon to back and fight for uh... city grants pass in regards to getting our fema brick grant money back so that trip was positive and we've got press releases by at least three federal legislators and so we put out a press release that kinda touted that same thing so Anyways, I'm very proud of that because I was involved in doing that and it was pretty amazing because we have what they call in the political spectrum bipartisan support because we have two Democrats and one Republican supporting us all together in the same room on the same statement, so it was great. Anyways, anything else from you guys? If not, I'll kick it to staff. Anything from staff?

Warren. Yeah, good evening, Mayor and Council. Just to share, I think I've shared with this group before that we've been working toward our official accreditation with our 911 agency. And our folks have been working really hard to achieve this professional status, which also supports the city manager's goal of working in a high-performance organization. And last Tuesday, the Northwest Accreditation Alliance officially approved the 911 agencies accreditation. So I'm super proud of them. So I just wanted to share that with you all tonight.

Anybody else?

Jason? If I could, in light of your decision to delay the elevator project, I think our intent would be to ISSUE A NOTICE OF BID CANCELLATION AT THIS JUNCTURE. KNOWING YOUR SCHEDULE, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORKSHOP VERY SOON, AND THAT BID WILL DEFINITELY EXPIRE. WE'RE WELL PAST THE 30 DAYS ALREADY, PUSHING INTO 60 BECAUSE WE DID TAKE SOME TIME TO NEGOTIATE WITH THAT CONTRACTOR AND GET THAT PRICE REDUCED. We'll go ahead and issue a notice of bid cancellation and then come back at a later date with some options Related to either a new elevator in the existing place or refurbishing and a potential new bid offering Okay, so you understand the ramifications that Eric you on the way in yeah, I understand but it's unfortunate the question I had was

If we can look into how much it would be to just install a whole new elevator, is it cheaper? I don't know. That's what the public seems to think.

I can tell you you're not going to hit that $50,000 mark. You cannot purchase the equipment for that dollar amount. And the other thing that you're going to have is trying to find one exactly the right size that will fit that exact elevator shaft dimension. So there are some other challenges with just saying, okay, we'll go get a new one. as opposed to refurbishing what's there. But we can do a much more detailed analysis and present that to you.

That would be excellent. Thank you so much.

Rob?

Maybe the question's premature, or maybe you know the answer. So is it possible that if you go with a new elevator that there's different seismic requirements for a new elevator versus retrofitting an old one? In other words, retrofitting an old one might be a lot cheaper than seismically upgrading City Hall. Is that possible?

I could not answer that question. There would be a potential, depending on how far you had to tear it apart to put it back in, the permitting, I would think, for installing a new elevator would be different than the retrofit because the car and everything essentially stays the same. It just is gussied up, plus the cylinder and all of the mechanical pieces and the safety feature are what get changed out.

Thank you.

yeah because all the parameters around that elevator are load-bearing parameters and so that you that basically gets back into the structural analysis of the whole building so you could open up a can of worms okay thank you very much we're done with matters for mayor council and staff um we have no uh executive session scheduled for tonight We do have some urban renewal agency actions tonight. So I would be looking for a motion to adjourn this city council public meeting and reconvene as urban renewal agency meeting. I need a motion from a counselor.

So moved.

Thank you. And a second. Joel, thank you. It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the City Council public meeting and reconvene as urban renewal agencies. Everybody in favor, thumbs up. Looks like everybody's on board. So we will adjourn and reconvene as urban renewal agency. First action in urban renewal agency board action is resolution of the grants pass urban renewal agency establishing a vandalism grant program. And we will start off with a staff presentation.

Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Council. As the Mayor said, this is an urban renewal agency grant program for vandalism. This resolution will establish a vandalism program to assist eligible businesses and building owners within the Grants Pass Urban Renewal District with repairs to structural damages due to an act of vandalism. This relates to the council goal of economic growth by encouraging economic vitality, growth and diversification and ensuring downtown is a vibrant neighborhood and attractive destination. A little bit of background, on March 30th there was a workshop where the Urban Renewal Agency explored the possibility of adding a vandalism grant that would assist businesses and building owners with property damage that causes the appearance of blight. The URA agreed upon the vandalism grant program criteria at that time and voted unanimously to establish the program with an initial one-time investment of $125,000. On page 89 of your council packet, you can read in detail the parameters that were agreed upon on that day, but I'll go through them quickly. Eligible activities would include repairing and replacing broken windows and doors and also damage to hardscaping due to vandalism. Insurance deductibles would be a reimbursable expense. An application would need to be submitted within 90 days of the occurrence of the vandalism. A police report would need to be provided with the application. A maximum grant would be up to $5,000 per occurrence. There was no match required. All businesses and building owners in the URA district could apply, so they'd all be eligible. And if applying for assistance for a second occurrence within one year of the previous award, the business or building owner would be required to install security cameras prior to getting an additional award. And then also on page 90 of the council packet, this goes a little more in depth into eligible activities. Under the URA plan and the building rehab and restoration project, there are other activities that are eligible. So we did, to be more inclusive, we did include some of those in this grant program. So again, the repair and replacement of windows and doors was primary for the council. But exterior lighting, sign structures and awnings are also eligible under our current building rehab and restoration program. Repair to exterior building structures, so masonry repair. And then to be inclusive, also repair and exterior access and hardscaping, so that could include steps, walkways, retaining walls, railings, concrete planners. What's not eligible currently in our URA programs are cleaning or landscaping. So something that's like trees or bark, that kind of stuff, but something that's solid like hardscaping would be eligible. So in order to also have the most impact immediately, staff is recommending that there would be a 90-day waiver. In this current iteration, 90 days is required for the occurrence of the vandalism, but we know some vandalism has already occurred for several folks. And so in order to allow them to immediately access this, staff is recommending that we would waive the 90-day requirement for any occurrences that occurred within 12 months. And then after that 90 days, the 90-day requirement would go into effect. The cost implications for this, the revenue source would be a transfer of URA funds of the $125,000 and we would establish a new lands and buildings project to manage this. I ALSO WANTED TO INCLUDE SOME OF THE CHAMBER COMMENTS THAT WAS A REQUEST FROM THE COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY TO GET SOME FEEDBACK. THEY DID PROVIDE A LETTER TO THE COUNCIL OR I THINK IT CAME IN THE FORM OF AN EMAIL. BUT THE PIECES THAT THEY WANTED TO HAVE YOU CONSIDER TO HELP STRENGTHEN THE PROGRAM WERE TO REQUIRE MAYBE A MODEST FUNDING MATCH FROM THE PARTICIPATING BUSINESSES OR PROPERTY OWNERS They also suggested that we encourage the use of existing city grant programs to support security improvements. So the example is our security camera program that we have. And then also to consider evaluating limiting the number of grants to any single business, property, or location. The call to action is this evening, May 20th, and it is at council discretion. You can approve the approved vandalism grant program as written. You can consider approving it with edits or choose not to approve the grant program. There is potential motion and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Bring it back to council for questions. Indra, do you have questions?

I do. So the front picture, I believe, is Rogue Roasters. So I just wanted to make sure because I spoke with one of the managers there a little while back. Are they within the 12-month period? It seems like their windows were broken quite a while ago.

I don't know that for sure. They did reach out to me asking about eligibility or the details of the program. I told them it would be going before you this evening and I would contact him tomorrow about whether or not it passed.

Because that would be important to me to be able to help them and they would not be within the 12 months. So I would want to extend that for them and others who may still have boarded up that we want to help repair.

Eric, do you have any questions?

Yes, so the chamber comments, I guess it's obviously up to us to figure out if we want to take any of those under advisement and make the changes, is that right? Yes. Require a modest funding match for participating businesses or property owners. I don't know how we feel about that, but I don't know if it's a first or second incident. I'm not sure if we want to... I don't know what others on the council feel about that, but I don't know if it's a good idea or a bad idea, but I like the input from the chamber, so I don't know if we want to go with any of those.

Victoria, you got any questions?

Well, it's a comment, but also I'll say that later. Okay, thank you. But I do have a question about the modest, I'm thinking along the same lines, I think, as Eric, So the modest funding match wouldn't be equal to the grant, it would be lower than that just to give incentive or would it be 5,000, 5,000?

I don't think there's a recommendation. I think that's going to be up to you, up to you guys as counselors to decide because other programs are matching.

But if you're talking to the chamber, did you get the sense that they meant just like an incentive payment or do you know?

They didn't specify. Yeah.

Thank you.

Any questions, Joel? No. Any questions, Kathleen? No. Any questions, Rick? Comments later. Any questions, Rob? No. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, we, since it is resolution, I guess anybody in the audience want to comment in regards to this board action item? Resolution to? Okay, you can go up here, but keep on topic if you can.

You know, vandalism is random. And I don't think that a business who's expecting to get relief from having to pay for the damages should have to do a match of any sort. If you're going to be generous, be generous. Pay for their damages and move on. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Seeing no other public comment, I'll bring it back to council for discussion and or action. Rob.

Yeah. Well, one of the, if not the primary tenet of urban renewal is always blight resolution. And that's typically what urban renewal is mostly used for. And that's what we want to use it for here as well. And people who have been the target of vandalism or victims, I should say, we want to help them out. But quite frankly, our motivation, if I remember correctly, because this actually went back to something Indra brought up during strategic planning, our motivation was to make our city look better, you know. and make it look more inviting um have less reason for people to to uh leave quickly and more reason to stick around and to me if we're if that's our goal is blight resolution um then there's no point to having a match we we're not being we're not doing this out of our primary motivation was to make the city look better what our primary motivation really wasn't to be generous so to speak so i'm not looking for a match i want the city to look better pure and simple, and broken windows with boarded up is, it's worse than an empty storefront, it's terrible. So we wanna clean that up, at least I do, and to me, the match there is insignificant. We have a $297 million city budget. The match is insignificant. What is significant is how our city looks to tourists and to others. So for that reason, when we have the 12-month, I guess, the moratorium or the 90 days within the occurrence, but we'd have a 12 month delay on that. I didn't even say that properly, but the point is we'd have, people would have to report it and do something within 90 days, but the first time around we're gonna let them, we're gonna help them with a repair if it's happened within 12 months. Again, if something happened two years ago and it looks like blighted or it looks terrible, do we not want to clean it up? Of course we want to clean it up. So to me, I wouldn't have any restriction. You know, somebody has boarded up windows for five years. I mean, a tourist is not going to say, oh, that's five years ago. Let's imagine that there's glass there. No, we imagine that it's boarded up and looks terrible. So to me, there should be no 12-month requirement there whether it's, you know, whether Rogue Roasters, is it 14 months or 24 months? I don't know, but I just want to help them clean it up because I want the city to look better. So I would say that what we should do is for a period of three to six months, anybody that's got broken windows, regardless of when it happened, they should be able to come and apply for this grant for three to six months. Call it six months. They have six months, no matter when it happened. After that, we could then invoke the 90-day requirement But for six months, people who had their windows broken or problems at any time can come and we can help make the city look better. The one other piece of this that I think would be prudent would be that whoever is applying needs to get at least two bids from licensed contractors. They can choose whichever one they want, but they're only going to be reimbursed for the amount of the lower bid. And otherwise, you know, this could get out of hand. So I think we need to have two bids. Someone has to have two bids. They'll get the amount that the lower bid is, assuming those bids can get the work done, you know, within a month of each other. In other words, someone could say, I'll give you a low price, but I'm not going to do it until next January when I'm slow. Well, that's not really a competitive bid. So if the bids have to be, they can do the job within a month of each other, but they need to get at least two bids from a licensed contractor. And that's all I have to say.

Further discussion? I got Victoria, Rick, and then Indra. Victoria?

I agree with the no time for, I like the six-month or, where anybody could apply to get the broken windows but i do like the idea of an incentive for getting better lighting or or the matching because it would encourage it's a good suggestion but because it would encourage businesses to invest in in lighting that would make it so it didn't happen again so i kind of do like the idea of it being worked in either matching grants possibly or in lieu of that adding better lighting or something so that we would clean it up, which we all want to do. And I think that's a really great idea with having no time restriction on that, but to have in the future less of a chance for it happening again.

Further discussion, I got Rick and then Indra. Rick?

I like some of Rob's comments, especially getting two bids. I would also be in favor of possibly putting a limitation of going back for 24 months. And as far as a modest funding match, I think a 10% by the property owner would be appropriate. And I also like their idea of limiting the number of grants to any single business so that one person doesn't, it's spread out throughout the community rather than just one site. Thank you.

Further discussion? I have Indra.

Yes. Chief, do we still have the officer that comes out and does the security protocol?

You're talking about the crime prevention through an environmental design review. That lieutenant actually moved on to a different department, so we don't have him with us anymore, but I can always support community if they have questions about what we call SEPTED.

Because what I'm thinking is that maybe I'm not for the match. I think we need to just do it, but maybe as part of getting it, we have a officer go out and do the security, what's it called? The report. I got a big report on how to upgrade security.

You did, and that was actually quite a robust report, and that takes a lot of time. So obviously, depending on how many reports were needed, there would certainly be a time delay, because we'd have to base that upon available resources.

Well hopefully we wouldn't have so many but maybe as a requirement of getting the grant someone could go out and tell them what the best security you know how to do the cameras or what security that would cover the encourage to support security improvements so that hopefully it wouldn't happen again. I would support limiting the number of grants to single business or location or maybe Incidents per year or something like that. I'm a good with the six months and minimum two bids, but I really think We the goal is to get the boarded up windows fixed. And I think paying even a small match could be a barrier for some businesses that would delay or not do it. And then especially in winter when it's slow and they don't have extra money and then the 90 days are gone and they haven't done it. So I'm not for that matching, but I definitely think we

Can encourage the use of maybe the money they save from not matching they could go towards more security measures for their business Further discussion So my summary so far and I'm gonna ask each counselor to to Clarify for me so Summer Rob suggestions was incident happening within six months of the grant application and

No, for the first six months, it's open to anyone, no matter when the vandalism happened. Okay. For the first six months. Then after that, it would be the 90-day that is currently written in it. But for six months, there's a moratorium on any time restrictions.

Because if we're going to amend this, we're going to have to keep track of these. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Right, I get it.

Okay. And then your other suggestion was two bids minimum and award lowest bid.

The amount for the lowest bid, but they can still choose whichever one they want because they may have a working relationship with a company, you know.

And then one counselor mentioned a limitation of 24 months. Was that you, Rick? Yeah. Can you explain that a little bit more? I just want to clarify completely.

Just instead of being open-ended, just have retroactive only for 24 months if the council wants to go that direction.

Okay. And then there was a conversation about limiting one grant per one business space. Was that correct?

Okay.

Yes. Okay. Did you have further discussion, Victoria?

No. It was just another thing that Rick said that I agreed with it, a modest 10% match. But I would also think that you could do that or you could have the business choose to do the,

added lighting or some other So either the 10% match or the extra lighting or security major measures Okay, so it looks like council has an appetite to go forward with this grant but wants to make some amendments Does that look shake everybody's head? Okay, so let's go through these with with one by one First suggestion is First application First time grant applicant is open for anybody without restrictions on time period. Okay?

When you say anybody, we're talking about specifically in the area, right? Not anybody in the city.

yes yes we are we are honed down yeah i'm not saying anybody i'm not going outside the parameters of the grant i'm just trying to get these parameters right so basically first time grant applicant would be not have a time restriction on the incident correct right okay so i would look for counselors to do thumbs up on that one okay so first amendment is that second amendment is award would require two minimum of two bids competitive bids with the grant being awarded to the lower bid?

The dollar amount would be the amount of the lower bid. But like for instance, you know, I would have a working relationship with some particular craftspeople, whether it's a craftsman at my house or at my business where I'm willing to give them keys or I have a good working relationship, I trust them. So you can choose either person, but you're only going to get the amount that the lower bid is for.

That's a good specification. So two bids minimum. The applicant can use whatever bid, whatever contract he wants, but the grant will be awarded only to the lower bid amount. Okay, does everybody understand that? Okay, thumbs up on that one, okay. The next one I got was limited to one grant per business location or a business owner location, business owner. I'm looking at you all for clarification on that one. Because somebody could own a business or they could own multiple businesses, so would you limit the grant per the actual business violation vandalism location or would it be limited to only one business owner even if you own two businesses? That's where we're trying to get at.

I would want clarification that it's for businesses. downtown, but if I have a business home occupation that's two miles outside, I mean, it's in the city, but it's two miles away, are we gonna start including that?

No, I think you should tailor it to one grant per business location. I think that's the simplest way.

Whether it's downtown or not? It's the URA.

It's within the URA district.

Okay.

Because this is a URA grant.

True, okay.

So would that be an amendment that's applicable to counselors, is limitation of grant, one grant per one business location within the URA?

For what length of time? Forever? In perpetuity, they only get one?

We're tackling these like one thing at a time here. So Rob wants a parameter on that, because that is a viable question. So one grant per year? One grant per location per year. Does that seem viable? Okay, so one grant per business location per year. Thumbs up? Okay. The other one I had written down here was limitation of 24 months. Again, Rick, I have to actually explain that one. I missed it.

Well, I just didn't know if we wanted it totally open-ended, because maybe somebody had a broken window 10 years ago, but they never did anything about it. So I'm concerned how many applicants we will have for this program if it's wide open.

So Rob set the parameter of first-time applicant wouldn't have any time restrictions on the vandalization incident. So that kind of negates what you were saying. So the first time, so I look at it like this. The business owner comes to you, comes to the URA and says, hey, I have a violation that happened 24 months ago. This is the first time I'm applying for this grant. We issue, that grant gets awarded to that person. within the next 12 months, because he's done his 12 month clock, then he's eligible to come back for that business location again, per what the parameters we just set.

Okay, so I was in the conversation, I was using 24 months being retroactive, but what I was hearing, and I may be incorrect, that it was open-ended, it could be 10 years ago.

That's what you have on, one of the, Agreement so far is the first time a business location comes in for the grant The violation doesn't have a time period on it right a nice So if that's true, then that could be a ten year ago violation or vandalization. Sorry about vandalization. Yeah Okay, so let's reiterate that one state the very first one that Rob recommended the first time a business applies for this grant, there is no moratorium on the time that the vandalization happened, for the very first time that that person comes in for that grant. Is everybody in agreeance with that? Okay, okay, perfect. So I think we got, are you confused yet?

I just wanted some quick clarity, I guess. I think we were saying for six months, correct? Or is this wiping out the six month timeframe and it's the first time?

So I think it wipes out the six months. So the one that we just, the last one that they agreed on is the first time a business comes in for a grant application, very first time, the vandalization doesn't have a moratorium on the time. So the second time that that person comes in.

Hadn't happened within 90 days.

Yeah, exactly. And then the two bids awarding of the grant awards, the lowest bid, and then limited one grant per one business location for 12 months.

And Clint, I think the six months was when we open it up, they have six months with which to apply for any grant.

here okay so so if we go back to the very first one i thank you very much for bringing it up so rob's suggestion was which was a great part of this the first time applicant comes in within the what we grow we open up the grant the first six months applicants have that window to come in without a moratorium on their by vandalization does that make sense okay and i got that's exactly from him so i interpret it correctly thank you So with all those amendments, I would be looking for a counselor to say, I would like to make a motion to approve this vandalization grant program with the amended amendments that we agreed upon.

You forgot the matching part.

So is there an appetite for matching funds? Half the people seem to say no, half the people say no.

It was matching funds or incentive for lighting. Okay, so matching funds or incentive. It wasn't matching funds. It was the 10%.

Okay, so counselors that would like a 10% matching funds within this grant program, Indra.

I would just like to... comment that 10% could be quite different for different windows. So a big window in a historic building is going to be a lot more money, and that 10% would cost a lot more than just your tiny little window. So I would rather go for a, I'm for no grant or no match, but if we did a match, I'd be more for just a small flat fee.

So it was 10% or the lighting incentive. So it's both of those things.

So your suggestion was and or?

Yes.

Rob?

I believe that's what it was Rick's. Oh, sorry. I was just agreeing with him.

Rob? Go ahead.

What would the lighting incentive look like?

Yeah, the lighting incentive probably shouldn't be hooked to this because it may not be applicable to all people involved.

Well, that's true. That's why it would be either or. It's not, I'm saying lighting incentive, but I think what Rick was saying and what the Chamber of Commerce suggestion was, was to somehow beef up your security. It could be lighting. It could be something else.

Go ahead, Rob.

Well, what is already written here, already embedded in this, is if applying for assistance, number two, if applying for assistance for a second vandalism occurrence, the building, within one year, the business or building owner is required to install security cameras prior to receiving the additional award. So basically somebody can risk it and not go for security cameras, but they won't get, you know, they're not going to get another grant. So to me, that kind of covers that. And as Andrew was saying, the maximum award here, I think, is listed as $5,000, which we know for some doorways and some entranceways, you could hit $5,000. And then somebody, in addition to being out of business, potentially, for the length of time it takes to order glass, and maybe it's a week, maybe it's two weeks, whatever, In addition to that, they got to pay 500 bucks. I don't see what the purpose of that is. It seems like punitive to me. You're basically penalizing the victim. Like, why do we want to do that? How is that a benefit to us?

Or anybody? The benefit, as you said, the benefit is to, as you said just a little earlier, was to make the city look better. And so this was just a way that Rick thought of, I agreed with, and the and the Chamber of Commerce suggested as well to make sure that it stays nice. So it's not a penalty for a business, it's a grant that helps. So the motion was either a 10% modest, match or some kind of security major measure which could include cameras or lighting or other security measures that itch probably should be written in there because maybe there's something else of a fence or something that i can't even imagine so that was that was the motion okay so with

That being said, and the point that Rob made that it is already written in the nomenclature that we have in the grant that they cannot come back for a second award without actually having a security system in place.

Actually, I'm sorry, Clint. That's not exactly accurate the way it's written. So the way it's written is if applying for a second vandalism occurrence within one year of the previous award, I would probably change that to saying if applying for a second award at any time, you know, you had to have had security cameras. So right now, this is just if they come back within one year, they have to have security. To me, if they came back in five years, and they want to, you know, they need to have had a security camera, so hopefully we can catch whoever's doing it. So...

I agree with you changing the verbiage on that, because you guys already agreed that only one business can apply for a grant once every 12 months.

Okay.

Okay, so let's break it down to whether the council has an appetite to add a matching percentage to this grant to be determined. Matching percentage to this grant.

So I completely agree with what Aaron said earlier. It may not apply at all. Someone could already have security cameras. Someone could already have good lighting. So the security improvements may not apply at all. So then at that point, you're saying, oh, you've already taken care of all your security stuff. You may have even gotten somebody on camera. They might even be able to catch them because you got somebody on camera. But since you already have that, then we're going to ding you with 10%. And it could be up to $500. So they'll get essentially penalized for already having the security in place, having to pay $500. To me, it's so convoluted. This should just be simple. It should be easy. People should be able to get their buildings

their victims they should be able to get their buildings looking better and then we all benefit and again the fact that they may already have things in place then they've got to pay you know over and above that it just doesn't make sense to me absolutely and we appreciate your comments but you have eight seven other people that need to vote on this so let's just vote on it at this moment in time councillors that want to add a matching percentage to the grant application thumbs up I have two counselors, so that does not fly. So the second would be changing the verbiage of the security camera verbiage. If you could reiterate that again.

So it says currently now that if they have a second occurrence within a year, they have Security cameras installed prior to receiving additional award. I would say if they want a second You know a second grant at any time There's no one-year limitation they want a second grant before they ever before they can ever be considered for a second grant They have to have security camera installed Okay Counselors that agree with that change in the verbiage of

business at the time that they apply for a second grant have to have some kind of security in place looks like you got a lot of the thumbs up so okay is there anything else that you guys feel that you want to amend in this okay so my second question is going to be if you want to approve this vandalization grant program with the edits that you've come up with would you like to see it again in its full text before you officially approve it. Okay. All right. Well, then I will need a motion.

Rob? Is there a proposed motion somewhere or are we going to make one?

Proposed motion would be to I move to approve the Resolation Urban Agency Establishment Grant Program with amendments and edits set forth.

As stated, that's my motion.

Perfect. Okay. Second on that motion. So basically, you guys will be voting to approve this vandalization grant program with the edits that we've discussed herein. I have a second from Indra. Any further discussion? With that, we'll go into a vote. Rob?

Yes.

Indra? Yes. Eric?

Yes.

Victoria? Yes. Joel? Yes. Kathleen? Yes. Rick? Yes. All right. Motion passes. Dana, do you fully understand? Thank you. Okay. With that, we are pretty much done with the evening tonight. So I would be looking for a motion to adjourn the Urban Renewal Agency and everybody go home. And I'm talking in a monotone voice. Motion to adjourn. Second? All right, everybody that wants to go home, say yay. All right, thank you very much for your participation.