City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, we got six o'clock on the dot. We'll go ahead and get started. have a fun-filled evening in front of us. We got a nice crowd. One, two, three, four, five. So we've got a quorum, but we don't have everybody. So do we have an invocation?

Yes. So I'd like to invite Janet to the podium for prayer. Kick us off. Thank you. Thank you.

This is like right here. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day. Lord, I thank you for this group, Lord of servants. I pray that you would bless each and every one of them for their service. Father, we ask that you be here. We ask that your spirit would lead and guide. Lord, we ask for your favor. Lord, may this group come together. And may your will be done. We do ask for your blessing. And we thank you for everything you do for us. You are a good God and you are worthy of our praise. We thank you in Jesus' name. Amen.

If you can all rise for the flag salute and remove your covers if you have them. All right, we'll go into a quick roll call. Looks like Rob's not here just yet. Seth?

Here.

Kathleen? Here. Joel? Here. Indra? Here. Eric?

Here.

Victoria yeah, and Rick here. All right, so we've got a quorum. I will go ahead and get started first we're gonna start off with a public hearing a resolution supplementing the FY 26 budget and making appropriations Good evening council I have the hopefully the last the final supplemental budget of this year and

This is going to make a an adjustment to the water fund and I did miss this and preparing the other supplemental budget and this is in relationship to council goals of fiscal stability and Just as a little bit of a background, again, a supplemental budget can be used when something occurs that is not known during the regular budget process. It can be adopted at a regular meeting if the change in expenditures for a fund is less than 10%. And tonight we'll have a public hearing, which is required for an expenditure change of over 10% or a use of 15% of contingency or the creation of a new category. And this is a creation of a new category. We did publish a notice in the Courier on June 10th. And then the resolution that we're going to pass tonight must state the need, purpose, and amount. It's a very high level. There's only one adjustment here tonight, that is the water fund, and that is for the creation of the special payments category. And what that looks like is a transfer of appropriations from contingency to special payments for returning previous urban renewal contributions. So this is necessary based on the interpretation from legal counsel while issuing the 2026 water revenue bonds that were issued in April of 2026. This adjustment was overlooked when Presenting the previous supplemental budget on May 20th of 2026. This is outside special legal counsel that specializes in debt service contracts which include specialized knowledge of urban rural agency in such debt offering offerings, so just as a little bit another piece of history council authorized staff to start contributing to debt service payments and of an approximation or an estimation. Upon review of the legal counsel that puts together these contracts, that was incorrect, so we are returning that money so that the water fund or the water debt service can get the full 18%. And the maximum, which is just the temple is, was calculated off the $56 million that was in the urban renewal area amended plan, uh, which is about $10.08 million in principle. And so if we didn't return this money, we would have to decrement the principle, which then calculates a lower amount of interest that we could also contribute. So this is just sending the money back so we can get the maximum amount of money from the URA, which was already done in April, 2026. So in your packet, you have exhibit A, the current budget as appropriations for resolution 26-7684, which was adopted in May of 2026. And then you'll see there's only one category that's, or one fund that has changed in this adjustments in the adjustments column, which is the second column, and then the revised budget if adopted. Obviously this has an appropriation impact because we're using contingency. This was accounted for when adopting the fiscal year 2027 budget. And the call to action is tonight, and I have a potential motion up here, and I will take any questions.

Thank you, JC. Any questions from council in regards to this resolution? Seeing none, thank you. At this moment in time, since this is a public hearing, we will open up to public comment. Is there anybody in the audience who wants to weigh in on this resolution for the FY26 budget? All right, seeing none, I'll bring it back to the council for further discussion and or action. There's a potential motion on the screen.

Joel. Well, I move to approve the resolution to adopt the supplemental budget for the fiscal year 2026.

All right, we have a motion to adopt with a second from Kathleen. Any further discussion? All right, seeing none, we'll go into a vote. Joel. Yes. Kathleen. Yes. Seth.

Yes.

Rick yes, Victoria. Yes, Eric. Yes Indra. Yes. All right motion passes. Thank you Next on the agenda tonight is a resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into an agreement with Allenwood LL's Allenwood homes LLC to construct a mixed income residential development at 175 and 225 Allenwood Drive and to convey real property And we will start with a presentation from Brad.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council, members of the public. Bradley Clark with Community Development. This is a follow-up to the workshop that you had on Monday. This is going into a little bit more detail about the development agreement between the City of Grants Pass and Allynwood Homes. So as shown up here on the top of the slide, there's kind of two main parts to tonight. First one is to authorize an agreement for the disposition and development of property as the mayor said on Allenwood Drive. And the second piece is to convey a 5.7 acre parcel for development of phase one of the project, which is the rental piece, the ownership piece would take place later. In terms of relationship to council goals, there's really those two ones that are relevant here, housing and infrastructure. Just a reminder, we're talking about the property on the south end of Highway 238, kind of before you leave the urban growth boundary on the west side between Highway 238 and New Hope. So here's a little bit closer view at that. The three parcels involved are highlighted in green, right on the edge of the city limits and the urban growth boundary. The total acreage of those parcels is about 9.7 acres. We acquired those in 2005 for a little over $1 million from using parks acquisition SDC funds. In 2010, we added the land to the park reserve. And then in 2019, we had that pave audit that we talked about on Monday that basically identified surplus properties that the city had. That committee recommended that we look at selling a portion of the nine acres and then retaining some of the property adjacent to the Allen Creek. 2022, council then directed staff to explore the feasibility of residential development on the property. And in 2023, we had a wetland study and a DEA completed an initial traffic assessment for the estimated number of units at that time. which was less than what we ended up seeing Allenwood propose. December of 2023, we published a request for interest, and the goal with that was to attract a residential developer that would partner with the city to develop that majority of the property. In May of 24, we selected Pano LLC and Inkbuilt Architecture, and then we entered into that exclusive negotiating agreement that continues to be in place today. Pano is the main developer, sort of funder, partner, and they have about 30 years of affordable housing development experience, created about 2,500, more than 2,500 units of multi-family housing in four states, and then IncBuild Architecture is the design partner on the project, and they have been involved with over 500 units, designing those, mostly in Oregon. August 24, Council approved a $238,000 grant out of the Housing Opportunity Fund for the home ownership piece. That was Resolution 2474-71. And then in July of 25, we had a formal planned unit development application that was submitted to the city. And the Planning Commission held that public hearing in September and approved it. In October of 25, the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department committed over $37 million in lift funding, which is one of the categories of affordable housing money that they have to the developer to develop the project. May we approved a property line adjustment Which I'll show you in a minute kind of switched us the property lines around there's three properties out there today We moved them around so that it would match what the property is that they're looking to develop So here's the planned unit development that the Planning Commission approved Allen Creek is here on the west side of the property Williams Highway is here on the east side So we went into more detail about this on Monday. I won't go into that unless the council has any questions, but the the main piece that was involved in the development agreement tonight is the 5.7 acres that is basically between Arroyo and Williams and this is all of the 110 units of rental housing the Community building is also a part of phase one. That is on the west side of Arroyo. So phase one would essentially be the construction of Arroyo, the construction of the new public street that extends almost out to Williams. It will not connect to Williams. And then the construction of the units and the community center. The future park Which is most of this green area here on the on the west side as well as the townhouses would be a future phase There were several questions last last workshop about the actual operation and the management of the project we Issued a memo to the council recently that went into a lot more detail about the About those questions that you had so I would refer you to that, but there are basically two Nonprofit organizations that will own and operate the development neighbor works on qua and Oregon Human Development Corporation So these are both very experienced nonprofits. We actually have the executive director of NeighborWorks Umpqua on the phone with us tonight. So if you have any further questions and follow up to that memo, Erica should be able to help you with that. So here's some more details on the development, most of which we've gone over. There's three acres of parkland that's dedicated, kind of set aside for the project. There's 110 rental units that are in 31 different triplex, duplex, quadplex buildings, so there's 31 separate distinct footprints on the property. 94 parking spaces, 49 driveways, and then 49 additional on-street. The PUD approved 19 ownership units, and then the community building is 3,500 square feet. The other piece that we talked about at your workshop was the Business Oregon grant. This was a grant that the Business Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority Board approved for the city, about $1.9 million. That is for transportation infrastructure as well as some of the other utilities. This is the money that will be used to construct the infrastructure. The city is not committing any other money or using any other money to build the infrastructure other than this business Oregon grant. So if there, this is part of the development agreement that's in your packet. So if there is any kind of overruns or anything like that, the development, excuse me, development agreement's clear that the only money that the city is putting towards this is the grant money. Rhine Cross Engineering is the civil engineer who's involved with the project, and they have about 90% complete plans on this for the city's portion for the transportation. And then we're anticipating formal bid documents to be published here in the next few weeks. Outlined in red is the infrastructure that the city's grant pays for. Essentially, which is the public street portion. It does not include the private street that also runs east-west here or any of the other utilities or landscaping etc So as mentioned the parties to the development agreement of the city of Grants Pass and Allenwood homes LLC are which is comprised of Pano, Inc. Build Architecture, Northwest Umpqua, and Oregon Human Development Corporation. And the overall purpose of the agreement that's in front of you tonight, the resolution that you would authorize the city manager to sign, is basically outlining the property closing terms and the transfer, different warranties on the sale, the phasing of the project. OHCS the main funder on the project is requiring the developer to close on phase one in July So that's the reason we have it here on your agenda tonight There's a lot to read in that agreement, so I won't go over every piece, but these are kind of the main pieces to it secures all it requires the developer to secure all required land use approvals and permits and They have to get written confirmation from the city that the building permits have been reviewed and are ready to issue, subject to the developer's ownership. Our building inspectors, building official has had the detailed plans for all 31 buildings as well as the community center in the office for a few weeks now. Those have been under review. There's been no permits issued. But subject to this development agreement, he will continue to complete those reviews. Closing date is set in the agreement, July 1, with the option for an extension upon the consent of both parties. Per terms of the business organ grant, the city's responsible for construction of Arroyo Drive, that east-west drive, and the associated utilities. And then Allenwood Homes is responsible for everything else. The developer is to pay the city $450,000 for the 5.7-acre parcel to construct phase one. That is below the total amount of the valued appraisal of the property, but that is in part because the townhome piece is not a part of this agreement. The specific property that we're talking about tonight, again, here's Williams Highway on the east. So it extends over to where Arroyo Drive would go and then extends down, takes in the community center building on the east side, and then goes down to the southern property line. So that's about 5.7 acres that would be part of the purchase and sales agreement. City has spent about $25,000 to date on wetland study, getting the ready, you know, getting the appraisal, et cetera. The developer has spent approximately 600,000. That's for all the engineering, developing the building plans. The city's revenue source for this is our surplus property sales money. In terms of the sale, $450,000 payment from Allenwood Homes to the city. and that would return to the parks land acquisition fund so your call to action is tonight and you have two alternatives to either authorize the city manager to proceed with the resolution or to proceed with the agreement or not authorize the city manager to proceed and we have a potential motion on the screen so stand for any questions thank you sir

bring it back to council for any questions in regards to this resolution uh eric rick and kathleen eric thank you for the presentation looking at the info here the urban planning commission held a public hearing in september 2025 what did that entail i mean what were they talking about what was specifically what information was given so that, I mean, how much information was given to the public about what this project is going to entail?

Yeah. Let me just go back to the site plan here. So that public hearing, excuse me, presented this map and it included a very extensive narrative application that explained all of the lot sizes, all of the zoning, all of the transportation piece. It included a couple of different studies, some geotechnical work. There was information presented about how Arroyo Drive would come off of Allenwood Drive, the current cul-de-sac, and then extend and stub down to the south property line. The hearing also talked about the fact that the Oregon Department of Transportation was not authorizing any access to Williams Highway and that this would be used for construction only. So there was, you know, a few other things.

Did it talk about specifically what kind of housing it's going to be and did it also, what was the audience? I mean, how receptive was the public? Did we have a big showing with the public? I mean, did it get a good reach, a good audience?

Yeah, it's a good question. We actually had more people attend the neighborhood meeting at Allendale School, which was the prior year, than we did the public hearing. I'm not going to get the exact number right. At the neighborhood meeting, I would say there was about 30. At the public hearing at the Planning Commission, I think it was closer to about half of that, maybe 10 to 15. So the noticing that went out for the neighborhood meeting was larger than what our normal notice is. The normal notice is just 100 feet from the property boundaries. We went, I think, about 250 feet or 300 feet for the neighborhood meeting. So in terms of other outreach, there was mailings given to those people, but there wasn't any other outreach done other than the notice on the website.

OK, thank you.

Further questions, Rick?

Thank you, Brad. I want to applaud Allenwood for going forward and proposing this housing in the layout. I think it's really ideal. But I do have concern about inadequate parking. And I didn't know if there's an opportunity to explore some different ideas that might help provide some additional parking.

Yeah, well, at this stage, the plan that you're seeing behind me has been mostly designed by the engineer, and this is the same plan that the state reviewed and approved for their project. This is what has proceeded with the environmental studies and with the other studies. So it is substantial completion in terms of the entitlement process. I would say in terms of looking at alternatives for parking, if the alternatives that you're thinking of would have the ability to be worked within the infrastructure and the lots that you see here, I'm guessing, I haven't asked them, but the developer would be open to hearing that. If you're talking about some kind of change to the property boundaries or something like that that would probably be too far down the road.

No, I wouldn't anticipate changing any of the boundaries or property layout, but just looking at possibly angled parking on Arroyo Drive that could increase substantially the number of parking spaces. And I think initially I would say an individual discussion on this with the aspect would be appropriate first before, I wanna say disturbing Ellen would with the idea. So thank you.

All right, further questions, Kathleen?

Yeah, thanks Brad. Which fund would the sale of this property go into

so the city has a system development charge account we actually have two of them related to the parks department one of them is for the development of new land new parks the other one is for maintenance of the existing parks this would go into acquisition because the funds that were used to to secure to buy the property in 2005 were taken from that account. So Oregon statute requires that if you if you take from that and then you don't end up using you don't end up developing that land for its intended purpose which we bought it intending to develop it as a park. So if you're not going to use those funds to develop or you're not going to develop the land as a park then you need to replenish That fund so that additional property can be secured and that's an SDC fund SDC with the parks Yeah, system development charge fund.

Yeah Okay, then I was wondering there are two separate properties the townhomes and the low-income and They're gonna start phase one with the low-income Is that what I'm understanding?

Yes. The phase one is all of the rental units, which are the lower area median income requirements. The town homes have a higher median income requirement on them.

But that's on a separate property and that's not included in phase one?

Correct.

So I was noticing that on the first printout that we got, which you had on the screen tonight, they were gonna build 19 town homes. In the memo that we got, it said 15. So I'm concerned a little bit about how serious they are to even build the town homes. Like, are they committed to the second phase? Are they committed to buying that second property and finishing the town homes?

Yeah, it might be a better question for Erica to answer, but I can tell you that from the city's perspective, There has been no reason to question. They have always anticipated a phased project, so that's not new information. They've always disclosed that that was their intent. It is, from a funding standpoint, typically easier to secure the funding for those rental side, for the rental units. But the city has also granted them a housing opportunity fund grant for the ownership side. And so that is an incentive of sorts. That money would have to be, that would not, you know, we would revoke that grant, obviously, if the townhouse portion didn't go through.

So I'm just wondering, you know, with this decrease of from 19 to 15 if it could go down even further and if You know how how we can secure how many townhomes are gonna build and what if they run out of money and they can't even Do that second phase? Is that a possibility?

It's a possibility love of course, you know, we don't I don't think they anybody has a crystal ball in terms of how that would happen but you know, this is This is why we have agreements. Um, and so, you know, at this point there, the agreement that the city has for the funding side is that they will use it to, to, to provide home ownership units. The RFI required this to be mixed income. Um, so they, they are required to have a, you know, up to 120% area meeting income for the people that live there. I think there's a few solid legal tools that are already in place that we can look to. But again, maybe Erica can expand on that after we finish the staff questions.

Is she here?

She's online. Oh, cool.

Yeah. Yeah, I'd be interested in knowing if we can secure a specific amount of town homes that it can't just go down and decrease and decrease.

Sure. Yeah, no, I understand what you're saying.

FOR THE QUESTIONS, VICTORIA?

I THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. SO THEY WERE TO GIVE US A COLOR, IS THIS WHAT THEY GAVE US, THEIR COLOR PRESENTATION THAT WAS REQUIRED BEFORE? OH, I LOST MY PAGE, BUT IT'S PART OF THE CONTRACT. I CIRCLED IT. IT'S ON PAGE 22 OF OUR PACKET. 0.5, 0.2. Is this the project rendering?

What I've been told is they can provide that to us at any time that we ask. I believe that in the contract it says that they just have to provide that to us prior to closing. So we don't have it yet, but we could get that.

I just wondered if that was it. Okay, so this isn't it. Okay, thank you, Stephanie. So you said that the funding... The funding is for the rentals only. Is that the 37 million? And then is there another fund that will be for the townhouses?

Correct, correct. The 37 million that has been committed, and there are other funding sources, that's the primary one, is for the development of the phase one, infrastructure other than the business organ grant that the city is is using to build the public street portion but all of the other utilities private streets you know the building paths all the buildings themselves all the landscaping along williams highway the the improvements to the wetland area that's all covered under that 37 million and would not be used to pay for any portion of phase two.

So the funding for the townhouses isn't secured yet, but there are funding avenues. Is that correct? Oh, okay. And, um, the 30 year, uh, managed that. Is that just for the rentals or is it for the townhouses? I know that. Oh, okay. So there's the first question.

Yeah, I would defer that one to Erica as well.

Oh, okay, so I'll ask then. So, oh, the $37 million, do you know if that is just for construction costs only, or is that to go into some of the management and the positions?

My understanding is that that is just the construction. Construction. Yeah.

Okay, so do we know what the funding is for the managed portion? And maybe that's the answer for Eric.

As property managers, they have a formula that they're using, which is going to be based on the rents. So the rental income will pay for the management.

Okay, and what would be if the city were one? I'm not saying they are. but if the city were wanting to be out of this contract, what would be our cost at this point or any other bad things that would be on the horizon for the city?

I'm looking to Stephanie to see if she has any thoughts on that. I mean, you know, we've our costs out of pocket. The data, as I mentioned, are kind of around 25,000. Yeah. Right.

Yeah. Um,

know the the city continues to have ownership over the the full 9.7 acres so the if you authorize the agreement to proceed tonight then that would authorize the city manager to continue negotiations and that phase one would then change hands change ownership from the city to allenwood homes llc okay

And I'll just let Stephanie get back on. Thank you, Stephanie. Oh, are you ready?

No, I'm not ready. I'm looking it up. We'd have to go back to the ENA, the negotiation agreement, to see what our options are so I can take a look at that.

Oh, okay. Thank you. And then you said there are two nonprofits who are responsible for managing the project. And are those for the construction or is that for administering, uh, rental contracts and management or, or all of that?

Uh, the latter. Yeah. So the construction piece is, you know, really being primarily funded and managed by Pano and ink build architecture. And of course, they'll be hiring a contractor, a general contractor to build the project. But the two nonprofits are really post-construction, being involved in the income verification of those that will live there and management of the property.

And I think that there was an on-site manager, somebody who will be there. Yes. And is that for the entire 30 years?

That that is my understanding and I think that's a OHCS requirement Okay, thank you.

Yep For the questions Indra Thank you So the community center that's unusual for developments. Is that part of the state grant requirement? I

I don't think that it's required, I could be wrong, but because part of their mission, if you will, if you look at the nonprofit's websites and you kind of read through what their mission is, it's really to work closely with people on education, about finance and home ownership and how to kind of help people move along that path. Continuum, you know, so it's from that it's to host, you know different events And to provide the office for the property managers. So I the It's not that unusual to have an office or a separate building many of the Apartments here in Grants Pass have them the one that's being built now on Hillcrest has a separate community building as well and

Okay. I did do some research and I saw that support services. So is that what you're talking about? What kind of support services could that be?

Yeah. Again, I think I'll ask you to defer to Erica on that. She'll be able to answer that better than I.

Okay. And then I'm not familiar with nonprofits running or managing apartments and this might be a little redundant with what Victoria asked but so the the grant covers the development but they the cost what people pay in rent will cover the management of it. I think that's what you said, correct? Okay, but it is subsidized. So is the state continuing to provide money? Is the nonprofit going to have to continue to get grants to continue to operate it?

Most of the pro formas, and I'm not an expert, but I've seen several pro formas from these kinds of projects take you through the construction loan and then all the way through the project to certificates of occupancy. So then you are issued the final certificate. You have a completion certificate, and that is where the money is targeted at. So the pro formas build in an assumption that, The rental incomes that they're going to receive are going to pay for the property management itself moving forward. I'm not aware of any ongoing state required funding for most of these. The idea is that you set those rents, and the reason they can get them lower is because of all the costs to develop the project. Um, so the actual day to day operation and management of it, um, you know, is, is, is not where most of the costs are incurred. It's, you know, it's the upfront costs.

Okay. And we talked a little bit about this at the workshop, but, um, if people exceed the income level, they will be asked to leave.

No, the memo that you were issued clarified that point, and that is my understanding from the memo is that that's not the requirement. A lot of times that does happen, of course. People will move on, and then the vacant units that are then freed up when somebody moves on continue to have that income requirement, but it doesn't sound like and again erica can probably answer this better than i that that's that's a requirement that they have to be um you know they have to move on if they hit a certain income okay and in i'm i'm concerned with parking too because i've seen some of these developments

It's hard to tell in the drawing, but I've been in one where they're so together. The driveways are so together that there's virtually no even street parking because there's no room between driveways to even park on the streets there. Are you more familiar with how that layout is going to be?

Well, there is on-street parking. You are right I mean there are driveways that serve each of these building types. The there is as we talked about there is not a separate dedicated you know parking lot if you will for events and things like that other than over here at the community center there are some

additional you know there's additional parking here but how many spaces are there at the community center I'm I can't remember exactly I think it's about a dozen one of the things to remember from a council perspective is we're limited now on the type of parking standards that we can have back in 23 Oregon legislature changed and really moving towards especially in urbanized areas which were classified Cities having to remove their parking standards or their mandates to provide for more a market feasibility process or and or rely on transportation And transit issues within the municipality within the urbanized areas So there are parking standards as you may recall if you do in back in 2023 had changed to where we've lost a lot of our authority to mandate parking regulations in in developments and

JOEL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. ALL RIGHT. SETH, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

NO.

ROB, YOU GOT ANY QUESTIONS? NO. ERIC AND THEN VICTORIA. ERIC?

I KIND OF ASKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER, BUT I'M NOT SURE IF I ASKED IT THE RIGHT WAY. FOR THE SURVEY, THE PUBLIC HEARING, WAS THERE EVER A SURVEY THAT WAS PUT OUT THAT THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY Were they positive about it? Is this something the community wants? Were there any negatives? Was there anybody that said, oh no, we can't have this? I mean, were there negatives that the surrounding community wanted?

There were. There were opposition that was voiced both at the neighborhood meeting as well as during the Planning Commission hearing.

Can you elaborate on that in terms of why they wouldn't want this?

Yeah. There was a couple of key concerns that they had. One of the main ones being traffic impacts on Allenwood Drive. As well as when Arroyo is extended to the south, there is another Arroyo also comes up from the south and there's an intervening property. And so some of the people that were in attendance, excuse me, were living south of the property. And they were concerned that if Arroyo is extended, that that's going to cause an impact of, you know, traffic on their street, which is currently county managed. It doesn't have sidewalks. So that was another concern. There was concern about the density. People were concerned about the number of total units that were being proposed. There were neighbors that lived on the west side of Allen Creek who I think voiced some concern about the impacts on the creek. whether or not there would be any flooding due to increased impervious surface area there was questions related to some of the similar that what you're asking and how how will it be operated so those I think those were some of the things the the minutes for the Planning Commission hearing are going to give you the full detail

Yeah, are we worried about that as far as how the public perceives this in terms of if we're gonna go forward with this? Are we worried about the surrounding, is the public worried about the surrounding properties perhaps lowering the value of their property because of the lower income housing? Was that a topic that was brought up?

So as planners, we have, We have a job to look at the code, and that is really what we do. So the question is, does this development as proposed meet the criteria that are required in the code? We did a very, very thorough analysis on that and found that it does. And the Planning Commission voted unanimously to support that. I think that's a different answer than what you, I mean, what you were asking is were we worried? That's different than does it or does it not comply with the code? You know, I think there's certainly you know in terms of property values all the studies that I've seen there's you know those are comp based there really isn't much in the way of comps out here because this is these are quads and triplexes most of the property in the area is single-family detached housing but they're adding a tremendous amount of actual Value to the property in terms of the the infrastructure that's being put in the ground and the buildings themselves So, you know, I mean these are things that at the end of the day the property managers Typically they want to be good neighbors. So they're going to be communicating with folks out there and You know, we've talked about you know, having meetings and keeping very open communication as they go through the construction process and as the project gets built out and

Last questions, Victoria.

So with regards to parking regulations, we are not held to having no parking regulations after or we aren't mandated to not put parking in by state mandate or law. Is that correct, Aaron? You mentioned that the parking regulations were reduced for development, but we aren't tied to that, are we?

Yeah, you are. We are. So the job of staff is to make sure that the development meets the code. The current code has less parking restrictions than it did yesterday. With this certain kind of development. So you can't demand that they have more parking.

With just this certain kind of development or no Okay, that that was my question maybe I didn't make it clear Sorry, thank you. And then the last question is what's the ongoing? Financial benefit to the city for this 30-year project.

I Don't have the numbers We could certainly do some research for you. Are you asking, is there any property tax benefit? Is that what you're getting at? Yeah.

And or any other.

Yeah. Unlike a lot of other states, there is not an automatic full property tax exemption for nonprofits in Oregon. You have to apply for your exemption and you have to apply for each one. And there's a whole long list of potential exemptions. But you have to go through the process to go through the assessor's office and apply. Then the state has to approve those as well. Usually, there is still some property tax revenue that's generated off of a project like this. They're typically not going to get a 100% exemption.

But that would be the county assessor's office that would determine that and the state? Yes. Oh, thank you.

Yeah.

any further questions um obviously this this would be questions to staff now we do have erica you said is online do you guys have any questions for the representative of the non-profit erica rick it's my understanding the townhouses would be private and therefore would they generate tax income Can you field that question, Erica?

Yes. So thank you. We are anticipating that this will be structured as a community land trust. So yes, there will be property taxes that the homeowners will pay.

Thank you. Since we have Erica on the line, is there any other counselor that had questions specifically for the representative of the nonprofit? Kathleen and then Indra? Kathleen?

Thank you, Erica, for coming tonight. I'm sure we have many questions for you. But my question would be, as I asked Brad earlier, is there a possibility that there might be a reduction in the townhouse development, seeing as it's a different phase and different financial appropriations?

Our intention is to put as many townhouses or home ownership units as we can fit on that property. There are some items out of our control that could influence that. So it could be based off of the funding available from Oregon Housing and Community Services, could be any issues with wetland mitigation or other logistical structural type of restrictions based on that land. Our best guess at this point is that we'll be able to fit 15 to 19 units. It may be just based off of our current understanding of Oregon Housing and Community Services funding availability. It may be that we need to build the homeownership phase in two phases where we would build 15 units in the first homeownership phase and then add another four units in the second phase. Our intention is certainly to build as many homeownership units as the land and funding can tolerate.

And there is a commitment to do that phase two after the phase one?

Yes, there is a commitment on our part. We do not have funding committed yet. That funding opportunity has not become available for us for the next phase. But we as an organization are committed to building the homeownership units.

Thank you. Further questions for Erica? I have Indra.

Yes. Can you elaborate on the support services that go on at the community centers in these developments?

Yeah, absolutely. So we provide resident services to the residents of all of our affordable housing properties. Resident services primarily is working to ensure housing stability for our residents. that often looks like eviction prevention. So they may be working with our residents to help ensure that they have a budget that they can continue to pay their rent with, or that they have access to emergency rental assistance if that is needed. NeighborWorks Umpqua also provides wealth building support and homeownership supports

Okay, was that, or were you finished?

Did she get cut off? My Wi-Fi must not be as good as it should be. I'm sorry, can you still hear me? Yep, yep, just keep going. Okay, okay. So we also provide wealth building supports where we're helping to teach people how to manage their finances. We provide matched savings as a skill building opportunity. Our residents and our participants can actively engage in some of the financial literacy work that we're educating them on. And the hope is that folks who are living in our affordable housing will build their skills, build their wealth, and eventually be able to get themselves into a homeownership opportunity, whether that's in one of our homeownership units for market rate homeownership units.

Okay. And do you have any other requirements for the apartments besides the income level? Are there any other requirements?

No.

All right. And then lastly, the tax exempt, do you plan to do the paperwork to apply for tax exempt for the apartments?

We do.

And typically because you manage other communities, correct?

yes yes we do and so do you know approximately do you generally get a hundred percent exemption or 90 or 80 do you know that i'm not sure that i could confidently answer that question i'd have to go back and review our financial statements thank you further questions for erica rick

So you're proposing townhouses, which I think is really nice and it seems to compliment the development that's out there. So when you include that as part of your project, does that make the overall plan a viable project because you have a mix of different types of housing?

It certainly increases the diversity and therefore increases the viability We did design this so that each individual phase is self-sustaining as it is, that it doesn't depend on the other phase. So yes, having the homeownership is certainly helpful. And if for whatever reason the homeownership is not feasible, the project will still cash flow with just the multifamily aspect.

Okay. Thank you.

Further questions for Erica? I have Eric.

Thank you, Erica, for... being online there and answering our questions. The questions that I was asking earlier, I don't know if you had a chance to hear them, but I was asking about the problems that some of the surrounding community perhaps didn't like, such as the parking or the traffic flow or the possible the possible value of their homes going down. What is gonna, is there some kind of mitigation to all that that you and your company or your, that you would like to, that you have a plan to mitigate all those different things?

Yeah, certainly our resident services is helpful. Having a full-time on-site property manager is something that's not actually required, but it is an investment that we're making in this property to help ensure that things stay calm and that we are good neighbors. We have a history of having multifamily developments similar to this in neighborhoods that are surrounded by single family homes. And we have great relationships with most of those homeowners. There's very little disruption caused from our residents And I would say generally throughout the country, it's very common for neighbors and neighborhoods to feel concerned when an affordable housing development moves in. And the reality is that there's generally very little disruption that happens to the neighborhood, very minimal, if any impact to property values. And ultimately they end up being good neighbors are a benefit for the community. Certainly having a diverse community is a benefit to both sides, both the, RESIDENTS OF OUR PROPERTY AND ALSO FOR THE GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.

FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR ERICA? VICTORIA?

HI, ERICA. THANKS FOR BEING ONLINE. WHEN WE HAD OUR WORKSHOP, I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING TO HEAR THAT THERE WOULD BE THESE I THOUGHT THEY WERE ON SITE MANAGEMENT SERVICES THAT HELP WITH management of finances and things like that. Did I hear you say now that it's off-site?

It can be either. We certainly do travel to our properties to meet with clients. They're welcome to interact with us virtually or in our offices. We tend to accommodate the needs of our residents. Our resident services, which is the eviction prevention and the housing stability work, That is onsite that we don't limit the way that our residents and customers can connect with us. But we definitely do have onsite resident services and onsite property management.

Oh, so you have both onsite and offsite?

Yes, ma'am.

Oh, okay. Thank you. And then there are two nonprofits that are responsible for the management. And are they both, do they have different jobs or different agendas or different responsibilities? Or is it a shared, and do they do the same thing?

Ultimately, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Oh, and what are examples of those things? You've already said some of them, so yeah, thank you.

So NeighborWorks Umpqua, the company that I represent and Oregon Human Development Corporation, both ultimately share the responsibility. If one of us were to fail to deliver on the services as agreed, the other one would be obligated to step up and deliver those services as part of our agreement. As we have it currently structured, NeighborWorks Umpqua, which has been managing affordable housing for 30 years, will be the primary property manager We will do most of the resident services, particularly as it comes to things like eviction prevention and connection with emergency rental assistance. Oregon Human Development Corporation is an organization that focuses on supporting farm workers. And so they will be engaging in services onsite for agricultural employees, and they will be helping to support any agricultural employees that live in or around our buildings. So they will be providing workforce supports and counseling and other opportunities that are available to agricultural workers.

Okay. And then my, thank you. And then my last question was, a few of these have been around and you've been around for a long time. Do you have any, and I don't know if you have like a sheet available in front of you right now, but over time, do you have a general percentage of, of your residents just generally and how they have, I don't, the only word I can think of right now is graduated to be out of this sort of housing and then onto other kinds of housing. Is it 10%, 90% or just a generality is fine. Thank you.

Just to make sure I'm understanding the question. I think what you're asking is how many of our residents do move on to market-rate housing or homeownership opportunities?

Yeah, that's exactly it. Thank you.

Okay. Unfortunately, I don't have that information. When residents move out, they may or may not share with us the reason for moving out, and we don't have a mechanism to track them or to follow them to check up on what their next housing option is. But I can certainly look into some of our other records with our homeownership department and see how many of those homeowners that we've helped create did come from our properties.

Thank you so much.

Further questions?

Rick?

Hi, Erica. While state law is basically minimized, are basically done away with all parking requirements. Do you have any developments that have occurred recently under the new state law and experience the complications or how you were able to address the parking that was necessary for your development?

I'm not sure when that state law was enacted, so I don't know that I can answer that aspect of the question. But I will say that parking is always a concern with all of our properties. It's very common that the neighbors and the city will be eager to make sure that there is enough parking for the residents so that it is not causing a problem. And fortunately, that has very rarely resulted in a problem for us. Our most recent development in the city of Roseburg was one of those where there was a great concern about the parking and the neighbors were very concerned that there would be spillover onto the street and all the problems that that would cause. And that has not come to be a reality at all. In fact, there's generally quite a few parking spaces available throughout the day and through the evening. We've done several studies on that project also to ensure that the parking has remained adequate. For this project, we did do quite a bit of studying to fit as much parking as we possibly could in these units. You'll notice that a fairly significant number of the units are efficiency and one or two bedroom units. And we're anticipating that families will move into this. So it's not likely that all three bedroom occupants will have a car as some of those bedroom occupants will be children. So we do feel that there's perfectly adequate parking for the needs of this development, and we've spent quite a bit of time trying to make sure that we fit as many as we possibly could fit without having to cut back on the number of units.

Thank you.

All right. Have we exhausted questions? Oh, one more. Indra.

Yes, so back with the parking, this development in Roseburg, was that before the new rules came on board? And do they have more parking than what's now required? And so you have less here?

Again, I'm not sure when the rules came on board. And so I couldn't speak to that. And I think maybe this might be a question that would be better addressed by our architect partner, ink belt.

And that was my next question. So ink build is your partner. Have you been partners on other communities with them?

This is our first first project with ink belt. Um, they're very well regarded. Um, we've, we are, um, how should I say it? Friendly with several other organizations that have worked successfully with ink belt. NeighborWorks Umpqua is a member of the National NeighborWorks Network, and our closest partner, Dev Northwest in Eugene, just completed a project with Inkbelt, and they were very, very happy with the work that they had with Inkbelt. I'll also say that Inkbelt is a member of Housing Oregon. It's an industry advocacy organization, and members of that organization are vetted before they're allowed to become a member to ensure that they are contributing value to the affordable housing community and doing good quality work.

Okay. And I, I did do a little research on ink belt and then you mentioned the farm workers and they had that in their literature as well. Um, you mentioned agriculture and in their literature, um, they have a Latin X and indigenous peoples. So I'm wondering is preference given, uh, to these groups, uh, when you're renting apartments or selling town homes?

Due to fair housing laws at this time, that is not a preference.

Thank you. Okay, it looks like I got one last question. Eric?

I had a question in terms of citizenship. Is citizenship a requirement for them to be able to get housing?

I don't know that citizenship per se is a requirement. You do have to be a legal resident. you cannot be an illegal resident or otherwise undocumented.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your participation, Erica. Thank you. Thank you. We will move on to public comment. Is there anybody within our audience tonight that would like to weigh in on this resolution in regards to Allenwood Homes LLC?

come on up specifically on this resolution correct yes sir thank you state your name and you have two minutes patrick rooney josephine county just a few questions mostly i i think i heard at the beginning that as far as the notice given to the neighbors it only needed to go 250 feet okay we're talking about a kind of a rural area that's not really a very long way to different properties. That's kind of a little strange. Also, this was supposed to be a park originally, is that right? The city was going to make it into a park. So what changed? I'd like to know what's the change there. Why was it not made into a park, and why is it turning into a housing development? I'm going to leave a pregnant pause there.

This is public comment. We're not going to do back and forth, so you're going to give your two cents to us, and we'll digest it.

Yes, sir, Mayor, and I hope it's worth at least two cents.

Oh, it is, absolutely.

Okay. Also, I'm wondering who benefits then in this case, why this happened. I think it's a really important question. I think we'd all agree, I mean, there's definitely a need for the housing. Of course, we all want to see you know, people get into homes. I'm wondering because it's mostly rentals, how much are we pushing people towards hopefully home ownership, which I think we all want. And I think some of that is maybe addressed by the nonprofits working with people. So, but I think in the end, I guess my final question or point is, I would think we would want to streamline private home construction in the end. And I'm wondering why the city necessarily is having to get into it. Are we putting enough emphasis on perhaps making it easier to build homes so that private investment can kind of handle the job instead of handing it over to the city? So I just want to leave that as an open question. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Anybody else in the audience that wants to weigh in on public comment? Come on up, Rika. And this will be on the resolution at hand. All right.

I just wanted to point out that about 60% of grants pass are renters. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else from the audience? All right. Thank you very much for your participation. I'll bring it back to council for further discussion and or action. You have potential motions on the screen. I'll bring it back to council for further discussion and or action.

I don't want your answer.

Okay. Stephanie feels that she has some information to add to the conversation.

I did have an opportunity to review the negotiation agreement that we currently have. We do have an obligation to negotiate in good faith, and there has to be reasons why we don't pursue this pursuant to the contract that I'm not going to get into in a public setting. There could potentially be some liability if we do not move forward with a plan that's consistent with what we had what we've been working on for several years now.

Thank you, Stephanie. All right, further discussion? I got Rob.

I'd like to make a motion. I move to approve the resolution authorizing a city manager to enter into an agreement for disposition and development of property with Allenwood Homes LLC and convey 5.7 acres of land for construction of 110 units of rental housing and a community center upon satisfaction with conditions present.

Thank you for that motion. We have a motion to approve with a second from Rick. Any further discussion? Joel.

So as we deal with our citizens in good faith, housing is one of the legs of solving the unhoused. If you don't have housing, it's pretty hard to solve the unhoused situation. And this is just one avenue and this is just one leg, but to me it's a no-brainer.

Further discussion? Eric?

Yeah, I agree, Joel. But I also have concerns regarding the parking, the amount of housing that's gonna be in there. My concern is that perhaps it's too much in one area. There's also the lanes going from two lanes to one lane. the congestion, the surrounding neighborhoods, the surrounding community, the 250 feet that was, I don't know if that was adequate enough to let the rest of the community or neighborhood know exactly what it is that's going to be happening there in their neighborhood or in their surrounding area. So that's my big concern there. So I will be voting no on this.

Any further discussion before we go into a vote? Indra.

Yes, I have several concerns. I know that Salem and Portland are pushing the high density mixed use. We're talking about a mixed use at Midland. I just don't think this is the way that the majority of residents in our town want to go. We do need housing and we need a balanced approach. But this is high high density in an area outside really not even that close to downtown that I just don't see it as a good deal. I don't think There were concerns from neighbors that weren't addressed. I don't think it went out to enough people either. I think they'll be shocked when it starts happening. Also, we're losing another tax base. So now we have two more nonprofits in town. We hear a lot about the nonprofits and the tax base we lose every time something comes in like that. I don't mind helping people in need, but it seems like that's all we do. And we have a need for affordable housing not subsidized housing and I think we need to allow people to own homes and not just rent the reason we have so many renters is because people can't afford to own homes because they're so high and so I would rather help people get into a BUYING AFFORDABLE HOMES BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOUR ASSETS COME FROM. I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE YOU GROW YOUR WEALTH IS IN YOUR HOME, AT LEAST I HAVE. AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE HAVE THAT IN THEIR HOMES. EVEN THE TOWN HOMES, THE PEOPLE WILL NEVER REALLY OWN. AND THEN WE HAVE NONPROFITS AND STATE AGENCIES REALLY CONTROLLING THIS PIECE OF LAND FOR 30-PLUS YEARS, IT LOOKS LIKE. I would rather help people buy less expensive homes. And it's true what the speaker set up here, Patrick, I think. We keep raising development fees and system development fees and charges and permits. We raise and raise till the cost is so high. we love then we give money away or we give it away to non-profits so i think it's a bad road we're going down and i am not in favor further discussion before we go into a vote uh rick

When my daughter graduated from college, she moved to Seattle, worked at minimum wage, and she qualified for subsidized housing. She was able to afford to live there, even though she was on minimum wage. But as her jobs changed, they did not require her to move. but required her to contribute additional monies to her rent. And at such point when she did move, she moved up the chain of housing because one of the biggest problems is moving into owning a home for yourself is having the money and being able to afford it. So to me, a development like this is a step up for people. It gives them an opportunity to get into the rental By having that rental history, they can then move into through savings into buying their own home. So I think this development gives them that opportunity and consequently I will be voting in favor. Thank you.

Further, sorry, that was me, all me. Further discussion before we go into a vote, Kathleen and then Rob, Kathleen.

Yeah, I'm seeing that there's quite a few variables here that we kind of don't know what's going to come out of the townhouses and how much that is going to benefit our city. And I'm thinking there's too many variables to vote yes on this.

Further discussion before we go into a vote? Rob.

yeah so tonight um so many different aspects of of development were brought up developments of this nature were brought up nothing new tonight but the types of things that we hear often for me what makes this what tips of scales of why i'm going to vote yes on this is while i think some of eric's concerns were were valid we don't have a single member of the public who's here from that neighborhood that's protesting this or asking for us to vote no we didn't get a single email from the public asking us to vote no we've had hearings like this where literally the room is packed with people begging the council to vote no for for one reason or another tonight that's not the case so we can pontificate forever but the fact is the people in that neighborhood are not telling us to vote no. So to me, had they been here in number, or had they been here, or had they been calling or emailing, I think some of those questions might be more valid, but I'm gonna be voting yes because I think that the majority of the, I think this will be more of a benefit than a hindrance, and for that reason I'll be voting yes.

Thank you. Further comments before we go into vote?

Joel, Victoria, Joel. Well, I'd just like to say from my own personal experience, when Judy and I were going to college, we didn't have a whole lot of money. We lived in housing such as this, apartments, and it allowed me to complete my education and to become self-sufficient, and it was appreciated.

Further discussion, Victoria.

I just wanted to quickly ask if the public was notified again. These hearings were like three years ago. Is that correct? Bradley.

The Planning Commission hearing was October or September of 2025.

OK. So it was. All right. So but it was a while ago. But For tonight's meeting, the only notice was, which I'm not saying anybody did anything wrong, but it was just our agenda that was in, put on the website, is that correct?

Right, yeah, that's correct.

Oh, okay. All right, so, well, then that's all I have for now, thank you.

Further discussion before we go into a vote? Indra and then Eric, Indra.

Yes, while it's true that I don't know why people who had concerns aren't here, there are all different kinds of reasons, but this doesn't just affect the people who are in that neighborhood. Anytime we have subsidized housing, That money comes from somewhere. It comes from everyone in our community. And so when you give money to someone, you're taking from someone else. And so it doesn't just affect that neighborhood. It affects everyone. And the reason state taxes are going up so much is because they're giving $37 million grants around. That money comes from us. And so there is a broader reach than just the small development.

further discussion Eric yeah Rob I was wondering if you'd be willing to do a friendly amendment to that motion in terms of essentially holding off on this until we get some more clarity on the public feelings about this because honestly I we really don't know 100% if the public

really wants this. Sure. I'm not willing to table it, and I'm not willing to change the motion, but I appreciate you asking.

Further discussion, Eric? No. Okay. No more discussion. All right. I'm looking at this in a totally different manner than you guys are. I'm looking at this as you're going to have 100 plus employable bodies, if not even more, going into a rental where we are lacking and we are in desperate need for rentals, properties for people. So whether you equate that you have the possibility of not getting a full property tax out of this because they could get a partial property tax exemption, you're still looking at 100 plus bodies that you can throw into your employment base so we could anticipate or entice manufacturing base, an industrial base, some kind of business to come in here and expand because we do have the employment base for them. So I'm kind of looking at the whole grand scheme of things and this project has been going on for three plus years. We are in a point where you're kind of down the road quite a bit. This is kind of crossing the T's and dotting the I's of getting this development agreement done. the city has this a plan has been approved through planning this plan has been approved through the uapc this plan has been approved through the state so i'm just leaving that in the sphere of your mindset before you go into a vote did you want to add anything i just wanted to make sure we were clear on

If we were to stop this project moving forward, there would potentially be some obligation on the city financially to reimburse their efforts and or continue negotiations up until October in good faith by both parties. And because of the amount of time and effort that both parties have put in, especially them, I'd imagine that that bill would be relatively large in nature. But those are some of the consequences. If this doesn't pass, then I'm And it's not a threat. I'm just providing that additional information to you. If it does not pass, we have the ability to continue to bargain in good faith until October. And or if the project was stopped, then we may have some financial obligation to make them whole.

Yes, so currently you have a motion on the table to authorize the city manager to go into an agreement development agreement with Allenwood LLC homes any further just Yes, and Stephanie, please one additional thing I do know that their funding does have some deadlines in July That's the reason for that July 1st date is because they have some obligations to their funders and may have some consequences. So I If we're continuing negotiations, it will have to be very, very short turnaround on those.

Okay, and there could be an extension I think you said earlier but not for the funding the funding has a deadline of July 1st We have no control over there what their funders are are requiring of them could negotiations include a different plan with better parking and maybe more townhomes than apartments or no, I

At this point, they're meeting all of the code requirements and there would not be enough time to turn another plan around through the planning commission within the confines of our negotiation agreement.

let alone if they change the plan, they're gonna have to go back through their funding stream through the state and that probably would be detrimental as well. Further discussion before we go into the roll call vote. I'm just gonna state it one more time. You have a motion on the table to approve the manager to authorize the manager to go into the development agreement with Allenwood Homes LLC. Further discussions before we vote. Rick and then Eric, Rick.

As you all know, I've been a land use planner for over 50 years. And when you have a developer come into town and propose a development such as this, any developer, if they start encountering difficulty, even if there were no just putting aside any financial ramifications, they're going to walk away from that development. And if we as a city want to be healthy, we have to have housing. If we as a city want to be healthy, we have to have employment. We have to have businesses. And if this gets out that we are not supportive with this type of development, you're not going to have anybody coming here. So you're not going to have businesses. You're not going to have income. You're not going to have taxes. You're not going to have this new thing. So this is important. And if this is not supported by the city, I see a lot of people who would want to come here and say this is a great city to develop in will say, no, I don't want to do it. Thank you.

Just to add to that too, we have one, two, three, I believe four chicken joints that are coming in immediately, which are gonna need 30 plus people, each of them to, within the next year and a half, two years, we're gonna have more businesses coming in that are already scheduled to start construction and or go through planning. Just to get that employment basis, kind of what I'm really looking at. Further discussion, Eric and then Indra.

Thank you, Rick, for what you said there. I understand fully what you mean. What I'm thinking is maybe this plan is a little aggressive in terms of the density of the area. Maybe we need to downsize a little bit. I mean, the parking is a big factor. I mean, how are these people going to come and go and not have to rely on public transit? Don't they need cars? I mean, where are they going to park? There's a lot of different factors there that I think need to be reviewed and looked at prior to, or maybe it gets agreed on, and then it needs to change later on when they see, oh, this is too aggressive, this is too dense. So that's my concern, and I hear your concerns, Rick, and And I know that we're here with, we've got deadlines, but oftentimes deadlines could be brought or delayed quite a bit or extended. The problem is, again, I think it's too dense. I think it's too much. So that's my thought process on that.

Thank you for your comments, Eric. I do have to address that because basically that we are at where we are with development because of some of the state statues that have come forth. The planning department and the city does not have the ability TO SAY THAT THIS CANNOT BE ANY DENSER OR ANY LESS DENSE THAN IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED BECAUSE OF STATE STATUTES THAT ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND US. COMES DOWN FROM THE MIDDLE HOUSING CODE THAT WAS PUT FORTH, I BELIEVE, IN 2022, 2023, WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO US FROM THE STATE, BROUGHT TO MOST ALL CITIES WITHIN THE STATE OF OREGON, AND IT DOES PUSH A LOT HIGHER DENSITY WITHIN THESE DEVELOPMENTS. but there's really no ramp. We don't have any control to peel that back. So we are kind of, we couldn't really bring this back to the pottery wheel and start redoing it because a developer has the ability to put this density forth on this piece of property because of the state legislation that's above us. Any further discussion? Indra?

yes i i want to make clear that i am not against housing we do need more housing i just am not a fan of a high density low income housing complex run by non-profits i think i would feel a lot better if it was a private entity that ran it we had some capitalism going in there instead of uh non-profits grants state involved so i'm not against housing we do need affordable housing i just feel like we don't need this type of housing thank you um any further discussion before we go into a vote

Everybody has been very vocal on their opinions. Hopefully you guys feel that you've got enough of discussion in here Are you ready to go into a vote? Looks like we are so we'll start out with Rob who made the motion Rob. Yes Seth yes Kathleen no and Joel yes Indra no and Eric No Sorry Eric, can you repeat I did not hear no. Thank you. I Victoria no Okay, and Rick yes All right, so we have a tie four to four. I have not been shy about my opinion on this I think this development should go through so Taking care of my duty as a tiebreaker I would break this in a tie to approve this action to go forward because I solely truly believe that we need this Rental market to increase and I'm looking this just like I said to every single one of you I'm looking this with a hundred plus additional employment bodies So motion does pass with my breaking the tie. Thank you Next on the agenda is a resolution consenting to the change in assignment of Southern Oregon Sanitation Inc And it looks like Jason will lead us with a presentation

As long as I can find my presentation. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I have a very brief presentation for you tonight. And this is a resolution consenting to a change in assignment of Southern Oregon Sanitation. So the subject in summary is to consider a resolution which would allow the change in assignment of Southern Oregon Sanitation. And we'll get into what that means here in a second. And this supports your goal of infrastructure by following the rules laid out in our franchise agreements, ensuring solid waste collection. So as a little bit of background, in the city of Grants Pass, solid waste services are provided through franchise agreements with two firms. The original agreements have been in place for a number of years with the last major revisions coming with the closure of the Merlin landfill in around 2000. The franchise agreements provide the framework which assumes, assures that solid waste services are provided in an orderly, environmentally protective and cost effective manner. So per the franchise agreement, the term assignment includes sale, exchange, or other transfer of the franchise to a third party, sale, exchange, or other transfer of 50% or more of any stock issue, Reorganization, consolidation, merger, recapitalization, which would also result in a change of ownership or control of more than 50% of the stock. Assignment per the franchise does not include a change of ownership or control to immediate members within the same family. So it covers a lot of ground. It's not just selling the company. It has a lot more subtle meanings. In the franchise agreement, if the city receives a request for consideration from a franchisee, to consent to a change in assignment, the city must act in a reasonable timeframe and shall not unreasonably refuse to approve the assignment of the franchise to an assignee that has sufficient knowledge, experience, and financial resources so as to meet the obligations of the contractor of the franchise agreement. Essentially, if we believe that the assignee can meet the franchise obligations, which they will be required to, we cannot unreasonably withhold that transfer. On May 29th of this year, Southern Oregon Sanitation, in accordance with the franchise terms, provided the city a grants pass with notice of their intent to accept an offer of sale for more than 50% of the company's stock from Waste Connections USA Holdings Incorporated. Southern Oregon Sanitation is now asking that the city consent to that sale. Waste Connections US Holdings is a national and international company providing a full range of solid waste services to communities across the United States and Canada, including Medford and Jackson County. They have proven knowledge, experience, and financial resources to provide service and grants pass in accordance with our existing franchise agreements. And as you can see, they are all over the United States and Canada. So I do have a call to action with some alternatives. We are recommending that you pass the resolution consenting to the change in assignment. And I know that Trent Carpenter is here from Southern Oregon Sanitation to speak to you about this if you have questions of him. And with that I would take any questions from you.

Thank you Jason. Does council have any questions. Rob you got any questions. Seth you got any questions. Kathleen you got any questions. Go ahead Kathleen.

SOS So I was wondering It says that I think if I'm understanding this correctly that the franchise agreement which is what you have in place now would remain regarding fees with the fees that you're charging now stay the same and

That's a really great question. Yeah. SOS won't change. The company is buying our stock. So Southern Oregon Sanitation will still be a company. The trucks will stay Southern Oregon Sanitation. They'll stay on the side of the truck. The people that are picking up the garbage last week will be the people that pick up the garbage next week. The person that you talk in the office, no one's going down the road except me. I know you guys will all miss me, but I'm one of the few casualties of this. All the other staff will be staying on. Their commitment to this community stays on. And most importantly, I mean, depending on what you read on Facebook, I'm either the mob or I'm selling to the mob or I might be the tooth fairy. I mean, it's been a lot. The rates that we are allowed to charge are highly regulated. So before anyone, whether I owned it or I bought my brothers out or someone bought our stock after you guys approve it, they can't just arbitrarily change it. They actually have to go to the solid waste agency and have multiple public meetings and approve through that agency here's the reasons why the rate increase would need to take effect and then that would be brought to this council and they once again would have to show it they will still be held to the same standards that we currently are which are are we have our financials reviewed every year by an outside firm They make sure we're following GAP standard. They make sure all the expenditures are allocated correctly. None of that changes. We had one person ask one of our managers, what's going to change? And she said, if we didn't tell you, you wouldn't know. But the only thing that's going to change is the name on the bottom of the check that I get every two weeks. So to answer you, the rates do not change at all, and they could not change without your authority.

Joel, do you got any questions? The only question I have is Trevor. How many fish are you gonna catch?

You know, it's been an emotional roller coaster over the last couple of weeks and and going into this our family has provided this to this community and been in this business for 80 years and so There's times that my wife was laughing and 37 seconds later. She was crying because her grandfather started this company and But it was time for us to say, someone else needs to take charge of this ship and bring it into the future. And that's why we love the idea of Waste Connections, because they're going to do that for this community. They keep everybody local. They keep all the decisions-making local. And I might go fishing in Alaska a few more times.

Andrew you got any questions?

I do. So I'm trying to think back and I could be way off so remind me but it seems like back in January I think it was SOS you came and asked for a temporary rate increase and are we still in that temporary rate increase and what happens with that?

So you guys will be getting a presentation shortly about the yard waste. And that was specifically only for yard waste and only at the transfer stations because the only yard waste facility that was accepting material closed down. The nice thing is the company that's buying our stock is the company that we're taking that yard waste to. So there's some efficiencies that could possibly be gained there. But that was purely driven. And again, it would be entirely up to you guys if you want to continue that after seeing the demographics of here's how many loads came in. Here's what we charged. Here's where our costs. You still have all of those controls. So that you do know also this, I'd like to say we saved the best for last. This is actually the last municipal body that has not approved this. So this has gone through Josephine County, Jackson County, City of Rogue River, City of Gold Hill, City of Eagle Point, City of Shady Cove, City of Butte Falls. But we wanted, I'd like to save you guys for the last, but it just happens to be the way it worked out.

Best for last.

Stay there, but are you going to address?

We will be bringing back that temporary increase. We'll get it on the future agenda. I believe we agreed to it, and we would bring a report back within one year. And so we're still collecting data, but we will have that back in front of you here. IN A COUPLE MONTHS.

OKAY. SO TEMPORARY IS ONE YEAR. GOOD TO KNOW.

I THOUGHT IT WAS FOR ONE YEAR. I'M PULLING THAT OUT OF MY MEMORY, BUT I'LL TRY AND GO BACK AND LOOK. I KNOW THAT IT WAS NOT A PERMANENT RATE INCREASE. IT WAS TEMPORARY AND THAT WE WOULD REPORT BACK TO YOU.

OKAY. SO A CONSTITUENT BROUGHT UP TIPPING FEES AND THAT the people getting over 50%, do you know, you pay tipping fees to that? Is that familiar or no?

We pay disposal. So the garbage that we pick up here in Josephine County, we transport to the Dry Creek Landfill and we have a disposal cost for that. we will still have a disposal cost for that even though they happen to own that landfill because they have to pay their employees and insurance and everything else. So the franchise in its wisdom also addresses any time that there's an interrelated party transaction or an affiliate transaction, they have to show that it's at market rate. So they can't suddenly say, well, we're on both sides of this, so we're going to jack the rate way up. They're not allowed to do that. Matter of fact, they have to prove to you that that's a market rate. As we turn in our financials every year, you'll still get those same financials and be able to say, wait a minute, To be perfectly honest, we're under a contract, an evergreen contract for the disposal for a longevity of making sure we have a disposal site. So the only thing that can go up is CPIs, but also the Dry Creek Landfill is regulated by Jackson County. So they make sure that they're doing what they're supposed to with that. But because they happen to own that doesn't mean that we get garbage for free. Just like if they happen to own a gas station, we wouldn't get gas for free. Just like I own some Dutch Brother stock, they haven't gave me my free coffee yet.

On your birthday. On my birthday, yes. Yes, so we're hoping the fees will come down maybe and they'll be nicer to us than you. I'm just joking.

No, and I think there's a misconception at times, but what you can look at is a larger company can bring a lot of expertise to the system. I think I know everything, but I don't. And I get reminded of that quite often when I'm at home. But you are talking about a company, instead of having 80 employees, has 25,000. You're talking about a company that we think we're pretty good and we helped close the Merlin landfill. We run two transfer stations. They run 80. So when there's an opportunity for efficiencies, they're going to be able to look at those and say, hey, we might be able to do it a different way, but they're going to be talking to you guys before they can even make those changes.

What are the disadvantages of having a larger corporation like that taking over locally? Because we like local here, right? In Grants Pass, we like you running it.

I'm going to be really careful here. Depending on the large company that purchases you, they drastically have different models. Some companies out there that buy them will take all of your customer service staff, and they may not even be in the United States anymore, or they certainly aren't in Oregon. They may say, we're not going to do any of this here, this here, or this here, and we're going to cut everything we possibly can. Um, I do have a representative from waste connections here, but I can tell you that's not their model and why they have become the third largest garbage company. They are a decentralized model. They don't look at it and say, we're going to go in and change everything and pull everybody out. All you have to do is look at rogue disposal and you see that model. Most people think rogue disposal is still owned by Steven Gamby. That's never changed. Waste Connections bought that company four years ago, five years ago, but their employees are the same. Their trucks are the same. They are still committed to the community. You see that name at the fair. You see that name at fundraisers because they know that our business is being about the community and solving the community's problems. And that's the model that they've used and been so successful. If we were selling to the wrong company, which our family wouldn't do, it would be a problem. But we know that and we still are going to live in this community and be part of it. That's why I want to be able to look at every one of my employees in the meeting that I had with them and say, this is an opportunity for you guys. You now have and will be employed by a company that you could decide to go to Sedona, Alaska and be fishing because they have garbage companies there. If you were thinking about bettering yourself and getting a business degree, there are multiple opportunities now that would not be there with my company. Not because I don't like them or we don't try to build within, just your size.

Thank you. And Brad, what are the consequences of not passing the resolutions?

I know, but she meant Jason. I could tell. She was looking at me. I'm sorry. I knew exactly what you meant. So if you take no action tonight, of course, this would go into effect within 60 days. That's by the franchise. Were you to vote no, you would really have to have a substantive reason of why you would not allow the transfer or the assignment. And I think you can see from just what we have showed that the company does have the financial capabilities, the knowledge, and the experience to meet the franchise agreement.

Thank you. Further questions? Eric?

I'm good, thank you.

Victoria, you have any questions?

Yeah, I think you pretty, you answered everything so far, but just because I saw some of the chatter, too, and, well, the one question I did have was, is U.S. holdings will be renegotiating the contract when it comes up, is that correct? Or will it be, well, It'll be SOS, but it'll be owned by U.S. Holdings.

Yeah, you know, I can't necessarily speak for Waste Connections, but I can tell you they have franchises throughout Oregon, and when those need to be negotiated, they come to the table just like we would. Right now we're actually talking about cleaning up some of the franchises, and they're perfectly aware of that. Hey, we need some cleaning up and look at what happens. I mean, Jason alluded to the fact that the franchise that we're currently operating under is 20 years old, but it has been updated from time to time and they need to be refreshed because either ORS has changed or the demand changes and they're gonna partner just like we would have to do that.

Okay, thank you. And so is there any one or two things you could say to the community to let them know that this wouldn't be anything that all the fears that they have are probably not going to be realized? just to help people understand that one thing or two things.

Yeah, I think, I think the idea that they are remaining here, that the 80 plus employees are still going to be driving the trucks and answering the phones. Some of them are actually getting promoted up cause I'm going a different direction. So that's great. I'm actually, Jen McGowan is going to be named the director that takes as my place. She's been with us for 10 years and done the operations and the HR. So they look inside the team and say, absolutely, we're going to keep it. So what I would say is keep putting your carts out on Friday mornings because it's going to get picked up. It's going to be by the same driver and the same truck and you're going to get the same bill.

Rick, do you have any final questions?

I'm on the solid waste committee and I'm in favor of this. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Um, at this moment in time, we have the ability for the public to weigh in on this resolution. Uh, anybody from the public want to comment? All right. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to council for further discussion and or action. We do have a motion on, or you have some literature on the screen, Seth.

Um, yeah, I'm going to make a motion, but first I just wanted to, thank Southern Oregon Sanitation for everything they've done, you know, under the current ownership. And, you know, I'm looking forward to Waste Connections coming in and, you know, supporting the community the same way that SOS currently does. You know, I think this is just a standard life cycle of a family-owned business, something that happens all the time. And I think everyone should support it, get behind it. And so, yeah, I'm gonna make a motion to pass the resolution consenting to the change of assignment to Waste Connections.

All right, we have a resolution, sorry, we have a motion to approve the resolution with a second from Rob. Any further discussion before we go into a vote? Joel.

Just real quickly, I wanna commend you, Trent, and look forward to just knowing you as part of our community.

Thank you. Any further discussion before we go into a vote? Indra.

I'd also like to show appreciation to SOS, Trent, and all the former leaders of the organization. Thank you very much.

All right. Seeing no more further discussion, I would look to roll call vote. Seth.

Yes.

Kathleen. Yes. Joel. Yes. Indra. Yes. Eric.

Yes.

Victoria? Yes. Rick? Yes. Rob?

Yes.

All right, unanimously passes. Thank you very much. Next on the agenda tonight is a resolution authorizing the manager to adjust the salary schedule for non-bargaining employees. And Aaron will lead us with a small presentation.

All right, in the interest of full transparency, I want to disclose that I will also be included in the cost of living adjustment approved by council. While I stand to benefit in the same manner as all non-bargaining staff, my recommendation today is based solely on organizational need, market competitiveness, and the city's adopted compensation practices. I'm presenting this information in my official capacity and in accordance with governmental ethics standards, ensuring that the analysis, methodology, and recommendations are objective and are the best answer to the city. Today, in front of you is a resolution authorizing the city manager to adjust the salary schedule for non-bargaining employees. Each year, a request comes in front of council to review and adjust non-bargaining salary structures. Council is contracted with Logic Compensation Group for a non-bargaining salary and compensation study, is another thing that we're looking at. The CPIU for November to October of the preceding year is normally what we utilize for the COLA, and it is 2.2. seven one percent so salary schedule adjustments happen with non-bargaining and with bargaining units there they can occur from a cost of living adjustment definition of cost of living adjustments and other salary adjustments include a standard annual pay adjustment which helps wages keep pace with inflation city calculates colas based on cpiu which i discussed sometimes market data may also be considered to stay competitive with other jurisdictions COLA is not a merit. I want to point that out. It does not reflect job performance. It just helps maintain fair and stable predicted compensation for both recruitment and retention. And it's used across both bargaining and non-bargaining groups. We're looking at a list of approximately 33 non-bargaining positions that this would be impacting. Here is a chart of the adjustments that have occurred in the past few years associated with either the non-bargain, which is not associated with the contract, or contract negotiations that are either in process or that have been already agreed to. Just for your information, we are currently in negotiations with Teamsters, and GPA has formed with Teamsters, so that's a little bit of a change. And then IAFF, the Firefighters Union, will ultimately be giving us probably notice of their intent to bargain also as their contract ends the end of the calendar year. To implement the 2.71 for non-bargaining, we'd be looking at, for the full fiscal year, $225,150. Of that $225,000, $99,000 would be coming from general fund. The rest would be coming from those enterprise-type funds. Call to action is for June 17th. Your cost implication is $225,000. Your alternatives are to approve the resolution, approve as modified, or council can take no action and there is a sample motion in front of you.

Thank you, Aaron. I'll bring it back to council to see if they have any specific questions for Aaron on this. Rob?

Aaron, did you say that this would affect 33 employees?

Approximately 52 employees. Okay, thank you. Yes.

Any further questions for Aaron in regards to this resolution? Victoria?

This is adjusting the schedule based upon the cost of living that we approved previously. Is that a good way to say this?

Well, it's based on the cost of living. We look at the cost of living every year, November, October, and present to you each year. This year it was calculated at 2.71.

So the answer is yes. Okay. Yeah, I think so. Okay, thank you.

All right, any further questions? Eric?

I just wanted to make sure the public understands what this is about in terms of the budget. This was accounted for in the budget, correct?

That's a great question, Counselor. Yes, this was accounted for in the adopted budget. Thank you.

All right. Any further questions? Last call, no, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for that. At this moment in time, we'll open it up to public to see if the public has any comment in regards to this resolution. Go ahead.

Patrick Rooney, Josephine County. I hope I'm not wearing out my welcome here. I'm a little, I don't, I just wanted to get a clarification. I know you guys don't necessarily answer back, does this have anything to do with the presentation that was made about the Salaries going up for the non-union employees. There's nothing to do with that. Okay Now I'm gonna walk away pretend. I wasn't here Thank you, sir.

All right See any other public comment? All right. Thank you I'll bring it back to council for further discussion and or action there is language for motion on the screen and Joel.

Well, I'd just like to comment. You need to come every time. You'll never wear out your welcome. So my comment is that the cost of living is across the board in the private sector and the public sector. IT'S ALREADY BEING NEGOTIATED WITH THE UNIONS. IT'S NEEDED TO, LIKE YOU SAID, TO TRY TO KEEP THE PAYING STATUS. SO I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ADJUST THE SALARY SCHEDULES FOR NON-BARGAINING EMPLOYEES AND HAVE DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION.

THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION TO PASS A RESOLUTION FOR THE INCREASE IN FY 26-27 for CPI with a second from Seth. Any further discussion before we go into vote? Indra.

I'm not going to be very popular here, and I suspect that this will pass, but I speak with a lot of people who are struggling out there and struggling to pay bills. We've had businesses close. People have lost jobs. our government the city just keeps growing and making more and more money and I get we have the union coming up they always get raises then the non-bargaining have to get raises and and the benefits are awesome and I would dispute what Joel said private sector don't always get cost of living increases and in fact as business owners sometimes we don't even we get less salary as the year goes by, depending on profit. But government just keeps making more and more and more. And we're going into this salary structure, too, where we're going to give increases. And I'm just wondering, at what point does it stop? Because people come. I mean, I've had tears, people just tearing up because they're so frustrated with what they don't get that city employees get and and i know that you work hard and it has nothing to do with valuing less but at some point we have to stop just spending spending spending because the more we spend the more we have to collect in taxes and that's what we do and it's so easy when it's not our money To just give it away, but it is other people's money and it's hard to make a living out there So I'm gonna probably be the lone, but I'm not gonna support this Any further discussion before we go into a vote?

All right CNN start with Joel Yes Indra no Eric Yes Victoria yes Rick? Yes. Rob? Yes. Seth?

Yes.

Kathleen? Yes. All right. Resolution passes. Thank you very much. Next on the agenda is resolution approving the purchase of real property at 124 Northwest Midland Avenue. And it looks like Aaron will lead us in a presentation.

Good evening, Mayor, Council. As the Mayor mentioned, this is for the purchase of a property on 124 Northwest Midland, Suite M. Just to give you some background, the city did purchase some property, 8.3 acres, in Midland, in Washington. We have also a study for Midland, Washington, where first 40 feet has begun some work, and you're probably familiar with that, and a lot of public outreach. There were five lots in the property in the block that we were looking at that were adjacent to the property that we purchased. One of those was 124 Northwest Midland Unit J, and we did purchase that November 5th, 2025. There were four tax lots remaining. One of those is Unit M on 124 Northwest Midland. This here highlights the piece of property we did purchase. Here highlights a piece of property we're talking about tonight. those are the other three that are not within city ownership this is the one we're talking about today today this is suite m on august 11 2025 staff was approached by the owner of 124 northwest midland unit m to explore the concept of acquiring that property the property is owned r4 it's about 1300 square feet with 0.16 acres the real market value is 368 000 according to the tax records And the sale price in front of you today is $350,000. The lot is served with all municipal utilities. There's no outstanding code enforcements and violations. And if needed, there is a potential for short-term lease income, depending on where we go with our ultimate plan. Here's just some photos of the property. We're talking about some aerials. This is the site. It does come with some parking spaces. which was nice and unique compared to the other property we purchased, which was just the building itself basically in the land it sat on. The building, as I mentioned, seems to be in good order. It was formerly used as medical facilities. And so their urban renewal agency's budget is $7.8 million. We've got anticipated revenues of $2.7. There are sufficient funds to purchase this. And your call-to-date action is today to meet with the escrow calendar. Cost implication would be $350,000. And there's a potential motion in front of you.

Thank you, Aaron. Bring it back to council, see if you have any questions for Aaron. Rob, any questions? No. Seth, you got any questions? Kathleen? Joel? Indra? Eric? Nope. Victoria? Rick? No. All right. No questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Open it up to public if public wants to step up and make a comment in regards to this property purchase. All right. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to council for further discussion and or action. There is a potential motion on the screen. Seth.

Yeah, I move to approve the resolution for purchase of real property at 124 Northwest Midland Suite M.

Thank you. We have a motion on the table to approve the purchase of this property with a second from Rick. Any further discussion? Joel.

Well, I'd just like to acknowledge that it's part of our urban renewal project and that, like Aaron talked about, and it's the economic benefit of increasing the tax base and in the future will also be a location where housing or jobs in the private sector will occur. Thank you.

Any further discussion before we vote? All right. Seeing none, Seth?

Yes.

Kathleen. Yes. Joel. Yes. Indra. Yes. Eric. Yes. Victoria. Yes. Rick. Yes. Rob. Yes. Awesome. Motion passes. Thank you. All right. I choose a big portion of our council agenda tonight. Now it is time for general public comment. This 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, drum roll please. Each speaker will be given three minutes to address the council as one body, not two individuals. At the conclusion of public comment, council will have an opportunity to respond. The 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, applause campaigning for public office and other disruptive behavior will not be tolerated if you have a question regarding any government provided service or a current city policy Please contact the city manager's office in an attempt to resolve this matter All right. We are in general public comment. I have three comment cards first one is Mike Pelfrey who is online and Mike Pelfrey is offline and Thank you for your participation. And I will give the floor to Reka Brown. And now you have three minutes, Reka. So please restate your name and you have three minutes. Thank you.

Reka Brown. And I won't take three minutes. Eight beavers solved a flooding problem in the London Tube. Since the 1970s, there had been a problem with flooding in London Tube in the Ealing area and the neighborhoods around it. Nothing the city did worked to stop it. But in 2023, the city introduced five beavers to Paradise Fields, which this year had eight beavers. There was no flooding problem in the Tube or the neighborhoods this year, even though there were torrential rains. The dams and wetlands the beavers created held the water. We have had occasional flooding in the southwest portion of our city on the south side of the Rogue River. Public Works Director Jason Kennedy told me that they are staying on top of it, but he is intrigued with the idea. It might take longer than in London. We might have to buy land near the Redwood Highway or Redwood Avenue and plant a lot of fast-growing willows, poplars, and big leaf maples. But our river will be cleaner once the dams are built and the chances of flooding will be greatly reduced. We don't even need to go far for beavers because they live in our river and they make their homes in its banks. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Next up we have Patrick Rooney. Come on up. Restate your name and you do have three minutes. I did give you three minutes before I just didn't tell you.

Thank you. Patrick Rooney Josephine County. Thank you for the three minutes restoring that. That means a lot. When you only have two you kind of jamming in your start stuttering and now I can stutter but it'll take longer. But seriously I want to deal with you guys. I really appreciate you guys passing the resolution at your workshop to repeal or change SB48. So thank you to Councillor Marshall and Councillor Schlegel has been very vociferous on this many of these points regarding SB 48. I appreciate that. I think we all should be, and that's one reason I keep coming back to repeat about 48. So you guys supported this. Is there, I don't know when it gets announced. I don't know if anyone saw it get announced. It probably won't until here tonight or whatever, but it'd be nice if things like this get announced, and as grateful as I am that you guys are doing it, I don't think we want to see it just become a thing that, you know, you say you're going to do something, and then it gets checked off the agenda. How much do we really believe in this? And if we see the problem with catch and release in this state, and especially in this city, I think we'd want to do something about that. Here's something I just read in today's Daily Courier on reporting what's going on around, and I think it kind of talks to this issue. And also, maybe it will answer Councillor Pell a little bit, who didn't want to vote for it and maybe didn't feel like he had enough information or something. I can understand that because we don't necessarily know what it is that is going to be done here, but I think we should be able to agree that something needs to be done so that the revolving door of people getting arrested for doing crazy stuff and going to jail and then gets dropped out on the street again, as obviously the commissioner knows about, we need to stop that somehow. And I think we should be passionate about doing something about changing SB 48, really seriously. So here's what the courier said. I have a little bit more time here. Callers reported a naked man walking on Redwood Highway toward Parker's Place and throwing rocks. 21-year-old was arrested for disorderly conduct, charged, blah, blah, blah. And 30 more seconds here. He was arrested for the 22nd time in this past year. How many people have we read about that this is going on with a revolving door and mayor as well. I urge you to also get behind this. I know the council did. I think it's really really important. I hope the police chief has been gets behind it and the district attorney of this county gets behind really doing something. There's going to be a petition, but we need the votes and we need people to sign the petition. So hopefully all you guys can get behind it. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your participation. That is all I have for general public comment tonight. Thank you very much for your participation. Next on our agenda is the consent agenda. And I did have a last minute request to star item C from Councillor Svogel and Please state your reasoning or what you need for your request for start item.

So we were given a memorandum. I just wanted to make sure that the public understands the reason that it was put on the consent agenda and the memorandum. If we can just get that briefly explained to us and the public so that they understand what it is that happened with the elevator bid. Do you, I know you're put on the spot here.

Do you have enough to give a synopsis?

I think I remember most of it. So thank you, Councilor Schoville, that yes, we did put it back on. We did develop a memo for you based on your concerns, which were that we had only received one bid and that we were moving forward, even though... a citizen had reached out and discovered that a new brand new elevator may be cheaper. Um, and the memo contains our research, our own research and multiple other bids along the way that showed that our price was in fact competitive and is going to come in at a lower level than what we're awarding the contract for because we will do a a contract amendment once it's awarded. So the price will be a little bit less than the value that is awarded there. But that we had done multiple outreaches to numerous companies and we did validate that the one bid that we had was a very competitive bid and that it is gonna renew our elevator for a reasonable price.

Thank you. I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I figured I just I figured the the public deserves to know what's on the memorandum and that that way it gets explained and everybody knows what's going on.

I appreciate that very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Perfect. All right. So we have a consent agenda that is listed on the screen. I would be looking for a volunteer. Actually, no, I'm just going to say, Rick, can you read the consent agenda before we approve it? Thank you.

Item 4A, resolution authorizing the city manager to execute agreements for water treatment plant chemicals, sodium hydrochloride. 4b resolution authorizing the city manager to contract with state accident insurance fund for workman's compensation insurance for fiscal year 27 4c resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into a contract for elevator modernization located in the Grants Pass City Hall 4d resolution authorizing the city manager execute agreements for water treatment plant chemicals aluminum sulfate 4e resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into an inter-governmental agreement with odot for lincoln road multimodal and transit enhancement project 4f motion acknowledging the receipt of monthly investment report for May 20 26 4g motion acknowledging the receipt of the monthly water revenue bonds investment report May 20 26 4h motion acknowledging the minutes of the City Council meeting June 3rd 2026 and 4i motion acknowledging the minutes of the urban area Planning Commission meeting of May 13 2026

Would you like to motion?

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

Thank you, and we have a second from Victoria. All right, so any further discussion? All right, seeing none, we'll go into a vote. Rick?

Yes.

Rob? Yes. Seth?

Yes.

Kathleen? Yes. Joel? Yes. Indra? Yes. Eric?

Yes. Victoria?

Yes. All right, consent agenda passes. Thank you very much. Next on our agenda tonight is matter for mayors. Council and staff. I'll bring it back to council. Does anybody have any discussion points? Seth?

Yeah, I have two quick things. One that's been, well, actually we've talked about both recently. One that's kind of come up, I think as of yesterday, about the downtown welcome center bathrooms. I think just in the interim, at least until further notice, we should potentially consider closing them All together. I know there's a memo that went out about maybe changing the times. I mean just this morning I Heard there was someone with a needle in their arm and one and passed out on the other and the other ones out of order so Until we can kind of get a handle on downtown Until we can close I think even these camps on on the corner here that I think is a solution Unless we're gonna have other or more law enforcement down there. And then secondly, I, I am in favor of the exclusionary zone, uh, you know, with the caveat that, you know, we'll see if it has a positive impact. Um, I think it'll take time and, you know, obviously at the end of the day, it depends on if they actually can be lodged and prosecuted. So anyways, I, that's just a consideration, something to consider. I've had people reach out to me, businesses downtown, um, just even today about this subject. Um, there was a post going on Facebook, And some downtown merchants were commenting on it.

So, yeah. Any other counselor have anything to?

Kathleen. I'm not sure how to accomplish this. Possibly this is a budget amendment. I would like to have a list of positions that are vacant in the city and how long they've been vacant.

Yeah, that's something we could just provide counsel and email on.

And how would that be accomplished? I mean, as far as looking at the budget and what's in it and what isn't being, I mean, I know they're calculated in the vacant, but how much it would save us if these positions weren't filled?

Well, I think we have approximately, I'm going to say 13 or so, maybe 15 positions that are vacant right now At least six of those are I think in police and then we have other vacancies throughout the earth throughout the organization if What I would need to do is get further clarification from you on counselor on what you're wanting to accomplish People more than happy to give you the information on what the vacancies are and where what departments are running everything my understanding is from what you've just mentioned is you're trying to come up with maybe cost savings measures yes okay so if you're talking about cost saving measures we really need to take a look at level of service council is the one that drives policy and level of service and if you're looking at wanting to try to save money somewhere i think that's a bigger scope thing budget and that's why i think you started out with the budget thing which would require some work on our parts to try to put something together for you to start to have a discussion on level of service discussions and where you may want to save some funding. Do you want to save funding in some of the enterprise zones or in the enterprise funds or in the general fund? Because some of those positions we have right now may not really impact the general fund if we did not fill something, but it would impact the level of service. So when you go about saving money, it's not about not filling positions. It's about trying to determine what level of service you want to define. And we'd be more than happy to start that process in discussion with you if that's what council would like to do.

Yes that's what I'd like to do. Thank you.

All right. So you can we can start with a list of vacancies within staff and then in a memo form and we'll go from there. From that I would end. I WOULD ENCOURAGE COUNSELORS TO READ AND DIGEST THAT AND THEN COME BACK AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE TIME TO SEE IF THEY WANT TO FURTHER THE CONVERSATION IN UTILIZING A DISCUSSION ON LEVEL OF SERVICE VERSUS COST SAVINGS, CORRECT?

YEAH, AND JC AND I HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS DOING SOME Q2, SOME LONG-RANGE PLANNING, AND WE BELIEVE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT COST SAVINGS MEASURES OR NEW REVENUE SOURCES OR LOOKING AT OUR BUDGET IN GENERAL. The ideal time we thought would be good to do that would be to do it come 1st of January. The reason for doing that is this is an election cycle, and by the time we get geared up with the budget and the finances, we may have turnover of certain elected officials, and we thought from an efficiency perspective, it'd be good for us to start talking about budget come 1st of the year, and we need to address, I think, some of the concerns that you might be bringing up. So from our perspective, we thought that that would be a good time to do it and put it on the schedule. But if you want to start it early, and if council wants to do that, we'd be more than happy to prepare you for having discussions about the budget and potential cost saving measures or areas of levels of service to change.

I think I'd like to start that early.

It's up to council to decide that.

So are you guys good with taking in a memo first and then digesting it or do you want to get more councilors sentiment to start this conversation earlier? Okay, all right, I will put that on the back of the agenda to start conversations about cost saving measures versus level of service in the near future. Any further counselors.

Indra. I would support Seth's suggestion to close those public bathrooms. I don't know if you need support for that or not.

Ultimately I would like to get council direction on that currently right now the way it stands as we did see some increased vandalism after 5 o'clock that's when things will slow down a little bit in the downtown there's not quite as much activity. Welcome centers closed and other things like that however As Councillor Pell and I have discussed, there is also some business activity that still goes on, and a lot of the retail stores are open until around 6 or so, and so we were looking at maybe closing the restrooms down from 6 to, you know, 6 o'clock, I said 10 o'clock, to try to curb the majority of where we're seeing the vandalism occurring, which is in the early to late evenings. And so if council would like to modify that, I'd love to get that direction from council at any time, and tonight could be that. But that's currently, just to let you know where we are right now, we're looking at having the restrooms closed at six o'clock because we recognize the majority of that vandalism occurs in the early to late evening.

Rob?

Yeah. On the bathroom matter, some history a lot many many people many many downtown business owners many people in the community worked a long time to get those bathrooms initially 20 some odd years ago through negotiations to get bathrooms downtown to remind people counselors who may not realize it a lot of the historic buildings downtown do not have bathrooms that are accessible to the public In other words, there could be a bathroom that you have to walk through some business owner's back room or office to get to. There are many people that customers that will come in off the street, or non-customers, that's the point too, will come in off the street looking for a bathroom, which was the whole point of having bathrooms downtown. It was to serve customers because they were constantly or often coming in and asked to use the bathrooms, and then they would get upset. Let's say they've got Some mother comes in with a young kid who's jumping up and down, needs a bathroom. Do you let them go through your back room or through your office, through an unlocked desk area to get to a bathroom? Or do you tell them, geez, I'm sorry, I can't do it. I can't allow that. I'm here by myself. I can't walk you through to my bathroom, but there's no bathrooms downtown for you to go to. I mean, it's a really negative spiral that that gets into. And I think, quite frankly, for anyone to suggest that tonight, without talking to business owners downtown, I think is really blind. I think it's very short-sighted. And a lot of people worked a long time to get those bathrooms open. The reason that we had the bathrooms, we designed the bathrooms, the welcome center to open from the outside is because so many people are going in the welcome center. It was causing a drain on the people that actually worked in the welcome center to have to constantly allow people in and out of bathrooms. But we basically set that up so that customers who are walking around downtown, and we want them to stay there longer rather than go somewhere else, we want them to, and there's a lot of businesses that do not have publicly accessible bathrooms, and you end up in a bad situation when somebody comes in needing a bathroom, and you tell them, no, you can't go here, and we have no public restrooms open. Bad move on everyone's part. If that's what the council decides, it's a bad move. Seth?

Yeah, I'm not against restrooms downtown. My suggestion was just at least temporarily, because again, I think I disagree that there's people downtown that are ecstatic about, at least specifically the Welcome Center one. There's a couple others down there. It's become a haven for bad behavior. I mean, we saw a memo about the costs associated recently with, in the last year or so, with damages that have been done to those bathrooms. I mean, I'd hardly want to take my kids in those bathrooms when I've had to. And, again, I don't disagree that we, as they should be intended to be used, it's a great idea. But currently that's not the case. So, again, what if that means, you know, maybe A Street closes and we, it starts to clean up down there, that'd be great. And if an exclusion zone gets put in and that helps, great. If we increase law enforcement, great. I don't know, but I mean, and you know, I don't know what time do they open right now?

Uh, they open around seven to eight o'clock. That is when concierge goes and opens them up in the morning. And then, yeah.

So then there's time in the morning. I don't know. You know, there's time early in the morning when they first opened clearly, clearly according to the sources, um, that witnessed it this morning. Um, so yeah, I mean, I shoot, I'd be happy to talk to main street about going around and getting a, at least a, somewhat of a survey from people to see what they think again I don't want to close them permanently that's not the goal and we spent money on them I think it's useful but I think just in the interim until we can kind of figure out what we're gonna do that's my suggestion Victoria yeah I think those bathrooms are great for the public but they're probably not being used by the public right closing early to see what that does or I'm not even opposed to closing them

temporarily because I just don't see that people are going to use the bathrooms if there are people who are using using drugs in them. They aren't going to be clean. They aren't going to be safe. So I think we have to consider the safety of the community first. So if that required closing them I'm fine with that for temporarily. But and then the second best thing would be to close them early. and maybe even 5 o'clock at the close of generally you know the close of business and there are two other restrooms besides that downtown I believe. Kathleen.

Something that I suggested when this topic came up was that the Welcome Center could monitor the bathrooms by having a key inside and having people that want to use the bathroom go inside to get the key then they could monitor who's using them. So that was just another example of what might be a compromise.

Utilizing, one, that's not in their contract currently, but if we did do it that way, the restroom hours would be even more restrictive than what we're proposing right now, because they're not open as much as we're proposing right now. We're just closing them around six. If you do end up going to a full closure and you still want a restroom, we could always do a hybrid like we did before. We had an ADA porta potty out there in the back courtyard if you still wanted to provide that type of service for that also, so.

Indra?

I'm no on the porta potty. I agree. I mean, I don't know. I was thinking of some kind of code thing too and maybe somebody whether it's visit Grants Pass or someone else could give the code, maybe, so I would, I wouldn't go in there currently. I mean, what you're describing, I don't know that we want our visitors downtown to chance going in there. So either temporary close, ideally, yes, we would love to have bathrooms downtown, but let's stop what's going on first. And maybe opening later when at 10, when businesses mostly open downtown and there's more people maybe cutting that morning early morning hour because a lot of people are milling about in the early morning hours, too. So maybe opening later and shutting earlier. Seth?

Yeah, I mean, I think, like I said, I'm in favor of just, and as of right now, just temporarily closing them, although it could be a situation for a special event, you know, when people are down there for First Friday, maybe they're open for First Fridays. until, and I can't believe I'm saying this, we can talk about this in a workshop about about a bathroom. Unfortunately, that's what we've come to. Um, but it's gotten bad. I mean, I am downtown all the time and people hang around there. It's a public property, so it's limited to what you can do. So again, I, again, I think just temporarily, and maybe that's a month, I don't know. Right. Until we can discuss how we can mitigate some of these issues. Um, if that's possible. And then if there's a first Friday event or. some other large event, I don't see why you couldn't open them for that.

Okay, so you guys are discussing lots of parameters. I, summarizing that you have some appetite to close temporarily. You also have some appetite to change the hours, not so early in the morning, extend it six, seven at night. If you guys want to solve this right this moment, I would start with the motion to do something and we can get the full weight of the council's opinion on it. Seth?

I mean, I'll make that motion to close temporarily. Again, I would put the caveat for special events and, you know, we can, I guess, put it in a workshop. I don't know. Figure that out later.

Okay. So you have a motion to close the public restrooms temporarily. Do you have a time limit on that?

now it's to maybe end of July okay close temporarily until the end of July do we have a second on that motion second on that motion from Victoria any further discussion Rob big mistake draconian overreaction from somebody who does not have a downtown business who does not have people coming in that business that has to use the restroom incredibly blind, so number one. Number two, those hours could probably be cut in half and still be able to serve the public. There's very few shoppers downtown between the 7.30 current opening time and we'll say 10 o'clock or so. I mean, my business is an outlier. It opens earlier than that. Most don't. It's 10, 10.30 in there. So you could close them for three hours there. You could close them for three hours on the other end. and have them be open until six or seven. Now you've cut them for half of the hours that potentially are causing problems while still being opened during the day when shoppers are downtown. And that would be, to me, if you're going to close them at all or reduce the hours, reducing by roughly half would probably be a reasonable way to look at that reduction. Draconian method to say they're closed completely with an arbitrary time of July. I mean, why not choose August? Why not choose November? I mean, completely arbitrary. So, you know, the bottom line is we don't have the six extra cops that we hired so far, that we contracted for, that we budgeted for. But to me, if they were closed from 7.30 to 10.30, three hours on that end, three hours on the other end, you could reduce it by six hours and still have coverage during the day when there are shoppers that we, in theory, want to attract and we want them to remain in the downtown as long as we can so that they'll go to more than one store. If you don't care about that or you don't think that,

That will have any impact on that go right ahead close them close them the entire time huge mistake by someone who does not own a downtown business Okay, so we got a motion on the table to close the bathrooms temporarily and where I'm kind of going at it this way to kind of chip out to see what the full council's opinion is under on regards to this so further discussion set first

You can go on Google right now and Google my business. You can see my address, which is like probably a block from yours. So I do have a downtown business and a location downtown.

Is the retail open to the public?

Yeah, you can get anyone to go in the building. It's open to anyone that wants to go upstairs into the building. I mean, there's a bathroom downstairs, actually. We don't have a retailer. I will go business to business if you really want me to and ask, and I will take note and survey them on what they think. Oh, and I said, we will do that. And I guarantee you the results will come back that they'd at least be in favor of temporary closure. I'm not saying permanent. I don't want it permanent, but as of right now, you go there, I go there all the time, especially now, you know, with who visit grants passes in there. Um, I see people there all the time. Again, I'm not saying permanent. I think, and it will, End of July was not just a random guess. It was just we can discuss it, hopefully before then, on a workshop or however we want to do it. But I just think as it stands right now, and I don't think people are coming downtown to go to the restroom. So, I mean, I know we need them. I know it's part of what we do as a city and it's a service we provide. But I don't think it's an end-all be-all right now if we temporarily close it and keep it for special events. That's just my thoughts.

Further discussion, Rick?

I find when I'm just in the course of life always confirming where the bathrooms are located. And if I'm downtown shopping or something, sometimes I have to get in my car, drive to the city hall, use my code, get into the bathroom, use it, and then drive back down there. Most people don't have that option. So I guess I'm having difficulty closing the bathrooms. Thank you.

That guy comes down my street at 3 o'clock in the freaking morning. and blows that horn for the last three nights. Sorry, I just got PSTD from that. Eric.

So, do we know approximately when this drug activity is happening in the bathrooms, the graffiti? Do we have an approximate idea? I would think it's happening when there's not much uh foot traffic in downtown so maybe we can make a friendly amendment to where it's uh you know reduce the hours uh when when there's not much foot traffic down there and open the bathroom was when there's a lot of foot traffic. I don't know, just putting a couple of ideas out there.

Yeah, I'm floating this motion right this moment because I'm trying to get the full appetite of the council. So if you guys want to continue to discuss it, we can do that. If not, you can vote it. If you vote it down, then I would be actually bringing it back to council to say, what hours do you want to have it open? So let's further discussion. I got Joel and then Indra.

THIS REALLY MAKES ME ANGRY THAT PEOPLE THINK IT'S OKAY TO DO THAT. AND IT'S VERY IRRESPONSIBLE, AND IT'S NOT A COMMUNITY THAT I WOULD WANT TO LIVE IN. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A... NOT A MAJOR THING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RESULT OF THAT. AND IT'S JUST A SYMPTOM. IT'S NOT THE CAUSE. And closing the bathroom down is taking care of a symptom, but it's not taking care of the cause. And it strikes me that the exclusion, the accountability part of the four-legged stool for dealing with all of our citizens and building that sense of community is the solution, regardless of whether that bathroom door is open or closed. And it makes me mad.

Further discussion? Indra?

I'd be in favor of a compromise at this point. I think later in the morning, 10 a.m. to 6 maybe, and let's go with that and see how it does. Seth?

Yeah, I was going to say I would be in favor of 10 to 5 or 6, either one.

Okay. Do you want to go? through a vote to temporarily close the bathrooms, or do you wanna just pull your motion and re-amend it just to change houses?

I'm re-amending it to 10 to six.

Okay, so the motion has been amended to, not to close the bathrooms temporarily, but to amend the hours, say that one more time.

Not to close temporarily, amend the hours 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., but we should monitor over the next few months the activity.

Yeah, and honestly, if reports come back by the time we convene again that something tragic has happened or it's not changing it, then we can actually discuss it. So the motion on the table now is to change the open hours for the public restrooms from 10 a.m., opening at 10 a.m., and closing at 6 p.m., with a second from Kathleen. Any further discussion? So you guys will be voting on changing the public bathroom hours from open at 10 a.m. to close at 6 p.m. Seth?

How do you vote? Yes.

Kathleen? Yes. Joel? I want to abstain and just respect the wisdom of the council, and hopefully we'll get at the cause of this and not just treat the symptom. Thank you. Indra? Yes.

Eric? Before I answer, what are the current hours?

They're currently like 7 to 8 to 10 o'clock. Ish.

I'll vote yes.

Thank you. Victoria? Yes. Rick? Yes. Rob? Yes. All right. Bathroom hours have been changed from open at 10 a.m. in the morning to close at 6 p.m. in the evening. Thank you very much. Yes. Rick?

Yes.

Rob?

Yes.

All right. Bathroom hours have been changed from open at 10 a.m. in the morning to close at 6 p.m. in the evening. Thank you very much for your participation. Anybody else have any comments? Victoria.

Yeah, I just want to say a few things about nonprofits. So we voted tonight. I understand the contract has been or the negotiations have been in works for a few years. It wasn't really in the works under under this council and I didn't really even know too much about it until recently. But and I'm not speaking about this contract now but I'm just going to. But I will say this is we just voted to for the public to be responsible for a public housing unit that is managed by nonprofits that are funded by taxpayer dollars for 30 years. And it's not the only one. There are dozens of nonprofits operating. They are all funded. We say grants. I wish we would never say grant again because grants come from the taxpayers, whether it be federal or state. And it's very important that the public understands that. And it's really important that we as a voting body make it clear to the people when we are voting for something, if it's going to be funded by the taxpayers or if it isn't. And we just have to, as a society really, but we're here, we're a voting body. There has to be an end to subsidizing nonprofits. It's not a sustainable model. It is not a sustainable model for our city or state or for our nation and it's And it shouldn't be and just speaking in in generalities People are going to college to learn how to start nonprofits and So it's just something that we really need to keep in mind when we're voting on things because it's becoming, I mean, at what point do the taxpayers fund everything? And that's not our form of government. This is 250 years coming up for the United States of America, and we are a constitutional republic. And we operate it under a free market system, but barely. And these nonprofits and huge contracts that are paid for by the taxpayers, it's just not sustainable. So it's just something that going forward, I think all of us should consider when we're voting on anything. And again, I'm not talking about this particular contract. But I would say about this particular contract, that one of the questions I asked was, I think one of them had been in business since 1991, I might have the year wrong, but for a very long time. And when I asked for numbers about the success, they weren't, they weren't readily available. And that might've been a weird question, but it should not be a weird question. If you are going to be funding your business with taxpayer dollars, you should be able to immediately tell the taxpayers how successful you are in your business. So, um, it's just something that weighed heavily on me. And so I wanted to take a minute to talk about it here and thank you.

I do have a clarification just to make sure that everyone's on the same page with what happened with the Allenwood agreement today. What the council has agreed to do is to sell a piece of property to a developer. There are certain terms as far as what they're allowed to do with that, but we are actually receiving $450,000 from the developer for that. The purchase of that piece of property, we're not giving them any funding for what they are planning to do on it from the city.

Yes, I understand that, but that's still taxpayer dollars. I mean, it's grant funding that's coming to us.

I was born and raised on the East Coast, and of course that's where the Declaration of Independence and everything else in our Constitution originates from. And what's interesting, you go back in time, the fire department was volunteers. The police department was volunteers. There were a lot of volunteers. Today, things have changed. Thank you.

I wanted to ask you, Mayor, what happened to that... time issue that you brought up as far as when workshops would be held. Was that going to be changed or?

It's being discussed in workshop June 29th.

Okay, thank you.

Just real quick, I'll try to keep it to 20 seconds. So I'm from Iowa and I went back to a family reunion and you know you travel throughout the country and you see different places. They're making a lot of marbles money back in Iowa. The trains there below where we stayed, there was 20 trains a day, 100 cars, a train loaded with goods that were being shipped elsewhere that were bringing in marbles. There were barges going up and down the Mississippi, probably 25 of those a day, and they're huge, filled with marbles, bringing money into Iowa. Oregon's getting left behind, and I know it's not the fault of this council, but over the long run, we're going to be in trouble if we don't address that.

Okay, so can I talk now? Cool. Okay, so you guys are trying to solve world problems here, and I love the effort. I would employ you to bring your focus back down to what you guys have purview over, but that's my personal opinion because I'd love to solve world problems, but we can only do so much. Just some clarifications. The city, the council will be looking at In a council action item for July 1st meeting, a resolution to support reforming or repealing HB 48. That will be the meeting of July 1st. That is on the schedule at this point. Exclusion zones ordinance will be on that same meeting. So we will have time to discuss that. And if you council goes forward with that, that they have the opportunity of that. On a good note, Sorry, SB48, everybody knew what I was talking about. Dude, it's long in the tooth. So, I'm gonna say good things now. Today I had an opportunity with Aaron and executive staff to host a sister city from Mexico, and I'm going to totally butcher this, but it is Alitali? Otlin? Otlin, Mexico, and there was They brought a delegation up here. It was amazing. Um, they also brought an interpreter because that Joe, that, that other mayor, he spoke very, very fast and, um, it was very good, but, um, I was able to take a little time out of my day, come down and steal a cup of coffee from the city office and meet with them. Um, they did present us with a beautiful painting. Um, it looked like it was Carlos Santana and FIFA stuff on it. It is in my office. If you guys want to, view it we will be displaying it down here in the chambers at a later date but what a great experience it was it was awesome to see those people and they had a delegation of like almost 10-15 people I mean it was it was it was wild so I don't like to take time out of my day but that was worth every moment that I spent down here and that I had to log in as PTO. So with that, is staff have anything to add tonight? Yes, sir.

I just want to thank everybody here, too, because this Monday, I'm sure some of you saw the smoke, the West Jones Creek fire. So I wanted to say because of the council, the X team and what we were able to accomplish on Monday, that fire stayed at 17 acres. Our team responded. That was our first response zone. We were there. We were in command of that fire, along with our mutual aid partners and rural metro and ODF mutually. We called a task force in from Jackson County. And I'm not saying everybody that was there, but it was a team response from both counties and our team because of the staffing that we had and we were able to throw so much resources at it so fast that fire stayed at 17 acres and i want to give them a praise kudos a round of applause because they handled it well we were all there both deputy chiefs and ODF. We got two type one helicopters on it really quickly because we went from a second alarm to a third alarm really fast. And we also were handling evacuation notices because of our partnerships with the county and the sheriff. We took care of that as well to make sure our citizens were safe and that didn't come into the city of Grants Pass. So I really wanted to recognize them for that, for that effort and what occurred on Monday and what a difference that made with having those extra bodies. We were able to throw more water at the fire, have more apparatus show up. And when we did an emergency callback, we got an entire ship back to cover the calls that were ongoing in the city in that moment. So I just wanted to recognize them for that and thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And we appreciate everything that public safety as a whole does, fire and police. So thank you very much for your support and your efforts and how much you guys step up all the time. Anybody else in staff? Seeing none. We don't have any executive session scheduled for tonight. So I would be looking back to council to get a motion to adjourn before nine o'clock, unless you wanna sit on it for about 10 minutes. So moved from Indra, second from Victoria. Any further discussion on adjourning? Seeing none, everybody's out. I'm assuming everybody's gonna vote yes, bye.