City Council - workshop

and we'll get this workshop started and i think we are recording so we're good so welcome to august 3rd city grants pass council workshop and we've got a couple items on the agenda with an executive session previously noticed for the end of this um so first up we have caveman pool aquatic soul source and I WILL HAND THE MIC OVER TO YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR COUNCIL. JOSH HOPKINS, PARK SUPERINTENDENT, HERE TO DISCUSS THE CAVEMAN POOL AND WMS AQUATIC SULF SOURCING OPTION. SUBJECT IN SUMMARY, CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH THE CAVEMAN POOL PROJECT, ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COUNCIL GOAL IS INFRASTRUCTURE. As far as the background goes, at the beginning of April 14th, 2025 council workshop, we reviewed remodeling options for the caveman pool facility. At this workshop, council expressed interest in exploring options of having school district seven take over the property. In those discussions, they were interested if the city gave them funding to demo the pool itself. So then at the September 29th council workshop, we reviewed remodel only options for the caveman pool facility and council directed staff to evaluate these options utilizing potentially up to 1.5 million from the URA for stabilizing the pool and extending its useful life for 10 more years. On January 30th, 2026, council was provided with the caveman pool update memo. The memo discussed progress and challenges with stabilization plans for remodeling the caveman pool and outlined issues with the aquatic industry's lack of interest in the full project, which would create more of a piecemeal RFP project. The memo also details some upcoming meetings with professionals in the aquatic industry that was gonna help provide information on what we could and how to proceed with an RFP process. During this time, we continued to evaluate options and looking for companies interested in just the stabilization remodel. Many of our previous contacts and industry professionals became unresponsive. Renesis, which is the company that previously provided the quotes for the liner and things that we built off of, did refer us to WMS Aquatics, who they've had previous experience with putting these liners in through the Pacific Northwest. WMS Aquatics performed a site visit in March of 26. The company reported interest in providing a more complete stabilization remodel and provided a proposal in April of that year. For a little bit of history on WMS Aquatics, they are located in Washington State. They've been operating since 1972. In the past five years, they've completed 13 different municipality and owner-operator commercial pool projects with similar size and scopes of the Caveman Pool. Some of their clients include Umpqua Community College, Western Oregon University, City of Koufax, the City of Kettle Falls, and currently they have projects in Eugene and Corvallis. City staff did request some references, three were supplied, all reported being satisfied with the work WMS Aquatics performed, and reported they would use and recommend them again in the future. The WMS Aquatics proposal covers stabilization of the pool vessel and mechanical room deficiencies. It involves a new recirculatory gutter system, the Renesas liner system, both of which have a 10 year warranty, and then mechanical room upgrades to the filters, pumps, heating, piping, and other plumbing repairs that we've had deficiencies with. This remodel option is expected to extend the useful life of the pool beyond 10 years. The proposal originally expired in 5-29-26. We stayed in communication with WMS Aquatics about the council meeting when it was scheduled in the timelines. They reaffirmed that they are interested in continuing this project and provided an updated quote at 7-15-26, which is good for the next 90 days. The expected cost for this proposal was $1,486,348.15. This proposal does not include any additional user features or amenities. It's really focused on our current operational deficiencies and repairing those at the pool. So, the sole source process. The City of Grants Pass does have a process for sole sourcing a vendor outside of the competitive bid process. We have it defined in our policy 401, section 5F. Essentially, if we have a situation where there seems to really be one vendor that is able to provide us these services, and we're able to provide a justification based off of the one through four, in the sole sourcing FA section, then we can enter into a sole source as long as we're able to provide that type of justification. On May 4th, staff submitted a sole source memo request to the city manager outlining the difficulties with finding a vendor for the full stabilization remodel project, the unresponsiveness of our previous industry partners, and the highly specialized nature of the industry itself. The memo cited section basically one in four of the sole source for justification. Talk about the proposals, goods and services are making optimal use of the existing pool infrastructure and providing like for like replacements in the mechanical room. This helps keep our costs lower and provides for less actual, you know, reconfiguration of the mechanical room itself, because we're not demoing and building a new mechanical room, we're just adjusting all the piping and pumping. And then number four, the highly specialized nature of the aquatic industry and the lack of responsiveness for other aquatic professional and taking on the full scope of this project created a hardship in finding vendors. Essentially what we found is we had people interested in taking on the boiler, but not taking on the pumping. Or people interested in doing the liner, but not wanting to touch the gutters or anything else like that. And so it created a process where finding one vendor willing to take it all on, was exceedingly difficult and we'd be multiple contracts and coordinating that out through multiple vendors if we chose not to go with the sole sourcing process. For the sole source process, usually it's not for projects this large. Normally it's for projects that are a little bit lower. So normally we just write a memo to the city manager to review the information. If the city manager approves it, then it can go to council for it to go forward. But due to the complexity, size, and scope of this project, it was decided to have this proposal reviewed and the sole source option by city council before making the ultimate determination. Part of it was we wanted to ensure that city council was fully aware of what the cost is and what work is going to be performed. We're not getting new water slides or new diving boards or things like that. This is solely just stabilizing the infrastructure of the pool to keep it operational. Alternatives to the sole source, city staff would then just go ahead and prepare the full RFP process, but we'd write it in a way that interested parties could submit bids on specific parts as opposed to all of the whole. So that would open the doors for the boiler company to give us a quote for a boiler, and then someone that wanted to do concrete work to give us a quote for that, and we'd just end up managing multiple contracts throughout this process. So for cost of the caveman pool, the operating budget has been increasing. In fiscal year 25, we were just over 95,000. Fiscal year 26, we were just over 101,000. And for fiscal year 27, we're just under $120,000 in operating costs. A large part of the reason why these costs have been increasing is due to the condition of the pool itself. With the leaks that we have, we're seeing an increase in utilities, chemicals, and everything else that goes on to keep the pool operational. And those numbers are just gonna continue to increase, especially on the chemical side, because there's other things that affect that price, too, currently. Additionally, outside of our operating budget, we've also been spending money out of LB6393, which is restore and replace caveman pool. In fiscal year 25, we spent $55,851.40 in additional repairs to the caveman pool. The majority of that amount came from us needing to redo the roof membrane liner on the pool bath house and mechanical room because we ended up getting a lot of leaks that year. Then fiscal year 26 we've spent $24,833.23. This has been in valve replacements, pump repairs, piping repairs and things like that that kicked off at the start of the pool season when we start up our pool and things start continuously breaking down along the way. Currently that project has a balance of $33,179.31. For cost implication, if we did go with the sole source, you've got resources and LB 6393 of the 33,000 I just mentioned. Additionally, there was discussion about utilizing upwards of 1.5 billion out of the URA. And the potential cost, if we went with the sole source side, is the $1,486,348.15. I will say that amount, with the amount of resources we have, even if we do move forward with the sole source, this is a 70 plus year old facility, there could be things that we encounter that increase that cost as we go through it. It's similar to many construction projects, but there is not much contingency kind of left in the resources versus the cost. For call to action today at the council's discretion essentially we need direction on a few things one is council interested in pursuing the sole source with WMS aquatics if so we can move this to will do the contracting side and some other stuff to make sure we're all good for what we need to do for the procurement rules. and then move it to a council action, or is council more comfortable with doing the competitive bid process, in which case then we just go ahead and create the competitive bid and put that out for a couple months. And regardless of one and two, just ensuring that council is satisfied with this level of stabilization remodel type repair for this pool, and does not want to include any sort of new recreational features and amenities that would change the cost and what we're kind of looking to go do. And that's the presentation we have, so if you have any questions.

Thank you very much Josh. I'll bring it back to council for any questions. Let's start with Rob. You got any questions?

So Josh, if we went with the WMS, the sole source, essentially there'd be one contractor that would essentially be responsible for all of this and that would be the recourse we would have if there were any If anything were to malfunction, we would go back to the one supplier, is that correct?

Yeah, you'd have the one contractor. He's got a couple of subs listed, but essentially, it'd be like with any of our other contracts. If there was an issue, we'd follow up with them. And then, we also have warranties on the products that they purchase as well.

So, the general contractor is basically providing us with a guarantee on their work? Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. Seth, you got any questions?

Rick, do you have any questions? Thank you, Josh. I like this concept. On the approaching it this way in their bid, have they given you a generalization of what they're looking at doing?

Yeah, their proposal includes essentially what the grand scheme is and then breaks it down into the components that they're going to replace.

Is that available now to you? Yeah, I can pass it out. Like equipment and so forth?

Yeah, if council wants a copy of that stuff, I've got it with me. Okay, thank you.

Andrea, do you have any questions? Yes, how much more is this proposal than the one that expired?

I think there was just a few thousand dollar increase.

A couple thousand? Yeah. That's it? OK.

They're not too far apart. And essentially, they're locked in up until later in the year for a lot of these pricing increases. Don't happen until the beginning of the next calendar year form, they said. So it was only a few thousand dollar increase.

OK, good. Thank you. When will this project be completed? according to the proposal?

So we haven't gotten to the full timeline yet. In my discussions with WMS Aquatic earlier in the year, they were very confident they could get it done in the spring of this year. So if we did move forward, we'd be looking at either the spring of this year or at the end of the next season. So sometime 2027 would be when we'd be looking to get it completed.

Okay, and the things that, I mean, we're going for basic, the slides and all the extra, are those things that could be added pretty easily later if the city decided to?

All of that stuff could potentially be added. It's just the difference becomes what do you have to change underneath the concrete to plummet and everything like that. So, I mean, there's the potential for some of those types of features to be added down the road if council or community members wanted them. It's just this proposal due to the cost and everything is really focused on what we need to do to just keep the pool and get it in a better state of being.

Thank you. Eric, do you got any questions?

Yes, thank you for the presentation. If we decide to go with RFP, just for the general public, for their knowledge, is there a big chance that, that we won't get as good of a price as the current sole source one, the sole source bid? Is there, I mean, or will that be wrapped in with it if we do an RFP?

So you just don't know what you're gonna get when you put out the RFPs. It could come in less, it could come in more, it could be this company's not interested at that point. So we just really don't know. The RFP could potentially save money on some areas, but overall it could also cost more. We just don't know.

If we do decide to go with the RFP, will the current sole source one be part of that as well, or no?

If we decided to create an RFP process for this, then WMS Aquatics could then apply for the RFP and submit a bid to be evaluated like everyone else.

Is there a chance that they don't?

I haven't asked them if they're interested in that or not, but, you know, it'd be up to them to make that decision. Just want to make sure.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Kathleen, you got any questions?

Yeah, it sounds really good that they would do it for the price that we could do it for. What are the possibilities that it's more expensive next year? Or would this price be locked in? It just says 90 days, so would it be more by next year?

So depending on how long the contracting timeline goes, essentially we just send them a contract to lock in the pricing for this project moving forward. And then we'd be good on that. The only type of cost increases we have is if we came into some site conditions that none of us know about as they start chipping away at this older facility. And then we'd go through a change order process.

And to understand correctly that there's thirty three thousand still left in the pool fund in the LB code, there's currently thirty three thousand dollars in there. So that could be used to get up. OK, thank you.

Victoria, do you have any questions?

So there was an RFP that was put out and there were no I'm just am I correct there? And we didn't get any responses or

did i misunderstand no we didn't submit an rfp on this side of the project we've done previous ones in the past for redoing the entire pool as like a brand new facility but in this case we didn't submit an rfp we were working with a large amount of professionals in the industry seeing if they were even interested in what the scoping would look like if we were to do an rfp and wms aquatics was the only ones that stepped forward and said hey we'd love to take this on for you guys okay thank you all right any further questions

All right, CNN. Thank you, Josh. And I'll bring it back to council for further discussion. Rob?

Yeah, I'm in favor of moving forward with WMS. It seems like every year, every pool season, every month, more things malfunction with this pool. The costs do not even go up. And We're going to have a similar situation months from now or years from now. It'll just be more expensive with more problems and a potential catastrophic failure during the season, which would take our pool offline. Since we don't want to have any of that happen, I'd like to move forward today and give staff direction to go with WMS so we can finally put this project to bed.

Any further discussion?

I agree with Rob. We've seen this, we've gone over different aspects of solving the pool problem before and haven't achieved anything and I like this concept. The thing I think is really essential here, you have one person that coordinates every aspect of the pool or otherwise you get, as Josh indicated, individual bids for different things and that can become a problem. So I would be in favor of this. Thank you.

Any further discussion? All right, it kind of looks like you had two counselors say that they want to go forward in directing staff in utilizing sole source for the reconstruction rebuild of this pool. So I'd go across and look at the dais here. If you guys want to give a thumbs up in regards to directing staff to go with sole source. Looks like that's pretty unanimous. So Josh, do you have direction? All right, thank you very much. Thank you for your participation. Next on the agenda, we have downtown electrical charging stations. And my paper says that Jason's gonna give us some feedback. Presentation.

I'm here to charge you up, Mayor.

Oh, the puns start early. He'll be here all week. Just make sure and tip your waiter.

Tip your waiter, please. I have a very brief presentation for you, council. I feel like I jumped a page. And this is just to provide a little bit of information and options on replacement of failed EV chargers in the downtown parking lots and your relationship to council goals. So through a grant from Pacific Power, the city installed two electric vehicle charging stations in downtown parking lots for a total of four chargers in the downtown area. These charging stations were placed into service in early 2022. At that time, the city council elected to provide these chargers at no charge to the public to encourage downtown commerce. Somebody would plug their car in, they would go eat at a restaurant, go shop in a downtown store, and that has been fairly successful. One of those chargers has now failed. And as seems to always happen, the supplier has changed their design and the replacement of a single head will not fit on our pedestals and frames. So the chargers have become very well used fixture in the downtown parking lot. They are seeing over 125 charges per month, and that's about an average over the last four year period. We are obligated under the terms of the grant to either repair, replace the failed chargers, or return a prorated portion of the grant if we elect not to repair the failed unit. So the grant does require that the chargers be in operation for 10 years from the date of the grant and that Pacific Power be provided with the data from those chargers for a period of five years. We have met the requirement for providing data, the five years of data. However, we still have five years of service requirements to meet for the terms of the grant. And so how that works is if at any time the project is canceled or a portion of the project is canceled, we owe money back based on a pro-rata, based on the formula I'm showing. If we were to eliminate this one head, we would owe Pacific Power approximately $5,770. Were we to eliminate all of the chargers downtown, it would be a total of $23,080 if we were to shut the project down today. The replacement cost for all four heads that would fit our pedestals and our covers would be approximately $17,965, and it would transition us from a service provider of Blink to the service provider of Qualcharge. So one of our challenges is there are no funds set aside to replace the chargers at the end of their life cycle, let alone replace them early due to an unexpected failure. So possible funding sources today include LB000, which is the lands and building funds. Also the downtown budget could be utilized. This would be an unbudgeted expense to that small fund. And then additionally, we are pursuing additional grant resources from Pacific Power. They thought they may have some money to help us replace these ahead of schedule. We have not heard back from Pacific Power on that, so it's not sure that that would be a form of revenue for it. And alternately, of course, the single head can be left on line, and we could just pay Pacific Power back the $5,770 for that one head. And that would leave three chargers in the downtown, two on one station, one on the other. So they're in pairs currently. So the call to action, we're just looking for a little bit of direction. Your alternatives are you could direct us to replace all four heads or leave the current failed head offline and repay the prorated share of the grant to Pacific Power. And with that, I would take any questions that you have and look for direction. Thank you, Jason.

We'll go into questions. Victoria, do you have any questions?

yes what what happened to the broken head why we're unsure it just failed it now is offline and it will not charge okay and then how so this grant has already been paid to the city sometimes they come in installments so with them okay and then you said that the There's 125 per month, you meant charges per month.

That is correct.

Individual charges. And how much does that cost the city?

I didn't come prepared with that. It's wrapped into our regular electric bills. It's not very much. And that is coming out of your downtown budget.

Downtown budget. Okay. It would be good to find that.

Yeah, it would be. I could pull that number.

Okay. Oh, thank you. And I think that's it. Thank you.

Kathleen, you got any questions?

Yeah, so it's good to know there's two and two. Where are those locations again downtown?

One is at the Welcome Center, and the other one is in the Duck parking lot.

Okay, so there's two there and two there. Yep. And then we have multiple at WinCo and Walmart and... Not ours.

Yeah, those are not ours. These are actually owned by the city of Grants Pass.

So what is that? What's the benefit of the city owning them?

It's a service to provide to downtown customers is one of the reasons. We also own the ones that are up at the, well, we don't own, we lease the space at the welcome center, or the visitor center. I get those backwards.

The chamber?

At the chamber, yes.

Oh, okay, so there's some there too. So we have plenty around town. Okay. And just to get an overall view, what is the Downtown Development Fund? Where is that right now? We have plenty in there to pay for this.

Yeah, likely if we were going to replace all four heads, we would probably recommend the LB fund. I'm looking to JC to back that up, as opposed to the downtown fund. But either one would suffice.

So the downtown is general fund operations, and so it would be more of a draw on the general fund.

Oh, OK. All right. Thank you, JC.

Thank you. Eric, do you have any questions? No. Indra, do you have any questions?

I do. I would also like to know the cost. When you say not much, do you even have a ballpark figure? $10, $1,000? No.

When I go back and sit down, I can probably pull that up before the end of your meeting. But our normal electric bills are probably in the hundreds of dollars. But that's for the building and everything there. What I would do is go pull the one from the dock parking lot. So I can get it before the meeting is over.

Okay, and then because replacing one is not an option, that's because they don't provide those anymore, but we can't just change, if we change providers, they won't just do one, they have to do all four, is that what you're saying?

Yeah, they use some common hardware, such as the modem cards and everything, and so because you would then have a blink charger and a qual, charge, charger, they could not talk to each other. And so the ones that are on the stands, they need to be of the same brand.

Okay. And in the agreement with Pacific Power, there is nothing in the grant that if they fail, not due to anything we do, we still have to pay for it?

Yeah, it's just like any other equipment. Just one of them happened to fail prematurely. It's well past its warranty period, and so it just counts as a failure. That's why Pacific Power said they are actually looking to see if they have any grant resources that would help us with the replacement. But as I said, we haven't heard back from them yet.

Okay, but they might have something down the road to let us know.

Rick, do you have any questions? Thank you, Jason. Is there any input from Main Street or the downtown merchants as to the attractiveness for having the chargers there?

I would ask your counselor sitting to your left, they would probably be better positioned to give you input on that. What I can say is we know that they're being used quite a bit. Like I said, the 125 charges per month, while isn't a ton of charges, it's actually quite a few. So they do get utilized. I'm assuming that people, because they are also slow chargers, people aren't sitting there in their car and waiting, so they are downtown doing stuff.

Okay, thank you.

Seth, you got any questions?

Yeah, thanks, Jason. Do you know which charger it is? Is it the one at the Welcome Center, or is it the one in the lot? I actually am not sure. I can also get that information for you. Yeah, that'd be helpful. And then 125 charges a month, is that across all four, or is that per? Yes, that is across all four. OK, that's all I have. And Rick, we can talk.

Rob, you have any questions? Yeah, Jason, I tried to listen and I tried to read, but I'm still not clear on something. So for some reason, this is replace all four. And they're in banks of two. So I don't get why just the one. I understand why you can't replace one because it's basically two at one spot. But why does two at one spot turn into four?

Yeah, that's a great question. So what we would end up doing, if we only replaced two, we would then have two on one platform and two on the other. And it would just be harder to manage. So our preference would be to have all four on the same network. Then all of our billing and all of our data retrieval and all of that is through one web portal instead of having two on one web portal and two on another.

So can we assume that just replacing two would be half of the 17,000 that you quoted?

No, probably a little bit more than half because there's some fixed costs in there for them coming to do the startup and everything. But it would be maybe half and then some. We didn't quote it with just the two, but we can look into that.

It's hard for me to, in my mind, justify replacing the set of two that are working perfectly just for a small amount of convenience.

I get a question first, then I'm going to go back. So my question is just to clarify. So the city is taking on all electricity charges that are utilized. So when a patron goes and uses this, they basically plug in and charge their car for free on the city's time.

That is correct.

Okay. And do the current platforms have the ability for the city to impose charges on those charging stations? Yes, it does. Do the future replacements have that ability to impose charges on the charging stations? Yes, it does. Perfect. Okay. Further questions down the board? Nope. No more? Anymore? Did I steal the thunder? I'm sorry. Okay, cool. So it looks like we don't have any further questions, so we will thank you for your time and bring it back to council for further discussion. And it looks like I got Rick and then Seth. Rick?

It's interesting when you do the math, 125 uses during a 30-day month by four different pedestals is equivalent to 31 once a day. that being used, and I don't, from usage standpoint, I don't think it justifies itself, but that's just part of my input. Thank you.

Seth?

Yeah, I was just going to say, I mean, I would be willing to kind of put this on hold and go back to Pacific Power to see if there's any funds available that could cover this. I know they haven't gone back yet, but it seems like, you know, maybe we can reach out to him again, see if that can be expedited a little bit. So, I don't know if anyone else is for that, but.

Thank you, Victoria. And then Andrea, Victoria.

Yeah, I would be in favor of paying back the money and not having to, and then putting a charger on the ones that are remaining if we can. It doesn't make sense to me. that we got a grant from, we got a grant to put these in, and then from that grant, actually, Pacific Power is, I mean, we're paying Pacific Power for the extra. And then there are people who are charging their vehicles for free, that's a nice, that's nice to be able to do, but we don't have like, And it's a downtown service, but are we doing that for gas vehicles? Are we giving gas vouchers? I believe that the answer to that is probably no. So I don't think that this is something that is really in the best interest of the city to go forward with. But we have to, so what's the least amount of harm? So I would be for paying the the $5,000 back unless we could have some kind of a, if staff could come back to us and let us know, what would it be if it were, if we were charging? But then if we were charging, they probably wouldn't be used. So that's why I would probably go back to just paying back the $5,000. But it would be interesting to find out, you know, how those number, how much we are, how much it's costing us, and then what, oh, and it sounds like maybe you've got that now, so I'd be interested in knowing.

We did get the power number, and it's about $60 to $100 a month at the duck lot.

Thank you.

So I'm going to pause discussion one second, because I've got a question for Jason. I don't know if I missed it in your presentation. To pay back the city or to pay back the grant for one head that's offline is $5,700. Is there a timeline, like how long you can keep that thing offline before you actually have to pay that back? I mean, my question ultimately is, does the council have bandwidth to have this conversation drawn out or is this an urgency?

I don't think there's any urgency. They're going to count it as failed from you know, the day that we report it as failed. It's just as of today, we know it's not working, we stop the timer on that particular charging head, that sets the rate. But no, it's not like they say, you owe us that tomorrow. We have time.

I'm just trying to gauge the urgency and I thank you for the clarification. Bringing back to discussion, Rob?

Yeah, so it seems to me that Paying back the 57.70 actually is kind of a poor, the arithmetic doesn't really work well for the city on that because the replacement for all four heads, Jason said, is like 17.9. Call that 18,000. He said it'd be a little more than half to replace two. So call it $9,000 to replace two and Basically, rather than pay 5770 to just pay it back and get nothing, for an additional 3300, we can get two new ones and keep this program online. So, to me, the additional 3300 to get two working heads, which, whether in the present or the future, we might decide to charge for, but it does leave our electric charging facility on, you know, up and running at all, at both spots. To me, and so Jason, it's the one that's at the Welcome Center that's offline?

I'm actually not sure if it's Welcome Center or the Duck Lot, I'll be real honest, I apologize.

Yeah, it would seem to me especially that the one at the Welcome Center, the incentive for people to be in our downtown, The other one, kind of closer to grocery store and such, I think people would probably end up parking there anyway. But as far as having to be an incentive for the downtown, having them have time to have to walk around, because it's not a fast charger, makes a lot of sense to bring people there. But again, it would be for an additional $3,300, you can get essentially $9,000 worth of value. So to me, that's... That's that's the way to go is to just to get two new ones there.

Further discussion and I apologize and I skipped over you but go ahead.

So that brought up another question. So if it's it would be nice for the welcome center to to be working if it's not if one of the welcome centers broken is it possible to bring one of the heads from the other lot over to make that one work.

I'm sure it is, yeah.

OK. So I think my vote would be to defer this to another workshop to get that information, to get the information on whether Pat Power can help us to see what our timeline is for leaving that broken before we're forced to pay anything and bring it back for a future discussion, also including what it would look like to charge for those. Thank you.

Further discussion?

So I'll just add an observation, because I actually use the downtown Safeway quite often. So I see both the charging stations at the Welcome Center and the one between Poor Authority and Safeway in the Duck Lot. I rarely see if one car is hooked up in the Duck Lot. In the Welcome Center, I see the exact same car every single day. So it is an actual employee of somebody in the downtown area there, or somebody owner, so that's just an observation, because I do drive that intersection quite often when we go to utilize the downtown Safeway. So that's just a little bit more information for you guys. So is there a sentiment on what you guys want to do here? I did get a recommendation to table for further information. There was maybe an idea of just replacing two heads. So I would bring it back to council for any further discussion and or direction for staff. Go ahead, Seth, and then Victoria.

I mean, I think it makes sense to table it and just see if Pacific Power has some funds. Okay. At least go, I agree with Andrew.

So what's the sentiment with council as a whole for tabling this for further discussion to seek out other resources for grants? Looks like we got a unanimous thumbs up. So Jason, do you have direction? All right, thank you very much. Next on the agenda is park advisory committee motion, which is in my hand. Park Advisory Committee motion made to recommend council review municipal code options for increasing restrictions on e-vehicles in public walkways, pathways, and parks. So that was a recommendation, a motion made by the Parks Advisory Committee. Would council like to discuss this at this moment in time? Rob?

So we, council already gave staff direction to look into this and work on this at a Wednesday night meeting about a month ago or so. I do remember that. So I'm just wondering where we are with the direction that we gave staff to look into this.

We, I know that there was some discussion about it. I don't think it made it to the back of the agenda for a memo to come back to council. We were going to be looking at the ordinances as part of the overhaul project, which is gonna be starting here in about a month, where we're looking at all of the ordinances as a whole and trying to work through what needs to happen. If we need to do something sooner, we can. But we do have that overhaul coming, hopefully fairly soon.

So I'm sorry. So when you say an overhaul, it sounds like that's like a one year project, a three year project. What is what is what time frame are we talking about on an overhaul?

To be honest, that's going to depend on what council decides to do about municipal court, because municipal court is going to drive a portion of that overhaul. So it's. It's going to be up to council. If you want something sooner, you can have it sooner. But we are doing a large review of all related ordinances at one time. If we need to separate that out, we can.

I guess I just don't see a huge correlation between municipal court and e-vehicles on public pathways and parks, which was when we had a woman one night get up and talked about the situation that her husband was involved with and I guess he was knocked to the ground or something like that. To me, I thought this was gonna be kind of really small, easy thing to start and complete. And I still look at it that way. And when I was thinking about it, I realized that we can't really expect public safety to do much in the way of enforcement of speed limits in parks because they probably don't have the manpower for that. But for us to potentially put up speed signage along those pathways for electric vehicles like a 10 mile an hour maximum or something along those lines I think could probably be pretty easily done without waiting for a complete overhaul. So that's kind of where what I'm thinking is that we're gonna do a small scale version of some kind of speed limit on park paths and things like that that wasn't gonna require vast amounts of staff time.

Thank you for your comments, Rob. Council has acknowledged that the parks committee has made a motion for us to investigate e-vehicles on public walkways. So I have actually added this to the agenda. We will put it on our agenda at future time to review municipal code in regards to e-bikes on pathways. We'll start with a memo back to council with what we have in place at this time to further discussion to

engage with further discussion on that okay next uh on our agenda is reviewing the oh sorry sorry go ahead um can we have additional comment on that yeah absolutely sure okay um when that comes back to Council could it include um I want to say an inventory but a overview of multi-modal paths and what they may play in that, and just the different aspects. Because in our neighborhood right now, we see a lot of scooters that are electric with young kids on it and so forth. So I think it's...

So you want an inventory of the city's multi-mobile paths? Sorry, I misunderstood you then.

I just, I don't want to say an inventory, but just look at ways of addressing the issues that come from, Currently, the sidewalks are being used for this. So if it was a multimodal path, would that ease part of the conditions we're looking at? Oh, change the status of the actual public pathway is what you're saying? Well, that, to me, would be part of the discussion.

OK. So my intention at this moment in time is to direct staff to review our municipal code in regards to e-vehicles and present that in a memo form back to council to say, this is what we have currently that would address it. That would spark further discussion to be put into a workshop to actually go into a full-throated discussion in regards to it. We kind of have to know where we are starting from is where I'm kind of coming from. okay so just basically we are acknowledging that the parks committee has given us a motion it's the top of their list we're going to acknowledge that by doing our small research about our muni code make sure all of council is fully aware of what our muni code has to address that at this moment in time and then that'll spark another conversation starting with the workshop that's okay indra did you have something in regards to them I I agree with that but I just had a question do we require permits for e-bikes is that nothing okay no and I it's kind of hard to I think e-bikes got so fast and furious I I believe there's a lot of cities that are probably in our situation at this moment in time you know especially smaller cities I think even larger cities too but Okay, next is to go over business meeting for Wednesday. Does any, everybody should have had their packets already. Is there any questions in regards to this coming Wednesday's meeting that is listed in the agenda for Wednesday night? Or any questions or concerns about the packet that you've already received?

a point of clarification um it's understood for the dutch brothers signed appeal they have revised their request to 100 feet where a lot of the application says 80 feet uh we don't have brad here do we

I think we'll have to get back to you on that with clarification. All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else for Wednesday night's business meeting in regards to anything in the packet? Questions, concerns? Rob.

So on the... Council action, adopting public meeting decorum procedures. So after reading the packet and the changes, I'm not sure what the purpose, what problem are we trying to solve? How are we better off if we adopt those?

You'll be receiving a memorandum tomorrow with that explanation.

Okay.

Anybody else for Wednesday night? Eric.

In the same topic here, the language that's being used on, I don't know exactly how to frame this question, but on page 132 of our packet, it says section 20B2, specifically it says engaging in violent or threatening, Is there anything that's a little more specific than that? Because it's kind of broad. So that's the question I have.

And we can have that discussion on Wednesday night when we talk about it more in detail.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Anything else for Wednesday night? All right. Moving on. So is there anything coming up for future calendar THAT ANY COUNSELOR WANTS TO DISCUSS AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. VICTORIA. SORRY, IT'S LIKE IT WENT LIKE I KNOW WHO SHE IS, BUT I JUST FORGOT HER GAME. SORRY. I LOOKED AT YOU WITH A BLANK STARE, I KNOW.

NEW SPEAKER NO, IT'S FINE. I WOULD LOVE TO JUST PUT ON THE SCHEDULE AND Just a time to acknowledge the fire response from two days ago. It was amazing. And I think it deserves some formal recognition. So I want to make sure that we discuss that and figure out the best way to do that. OK. Thank you.

Kathleen? Well, it says here that we're going to get a memo on the exclusion zones. Is that going to cover extending the exclusion zones?

yes okay and that's up to the frog lot and maybe even that'll be part of the discussion we'll discuss options anybody else in regards to the future calendar all right i got a couple items oh sorry eric a quick run draw go ahead eric i know it looks like we've got the the pump track for for uh

it's coming back to be discussed I know that we talked about the various parks but it seems like some of the parks were excluded out of that option and I wanted to make sure that all all options are there as far as parks go and so that's the question is are we are Are we excluding some parks or are all options on the table?

That's ultimately council's decision, whether or not you want to open up to all parks with available land or for you to create available land within the parks, or if you want to limit it to certain parks.

OK. Anybody else? last call all right um so i want to put it i want to get council's i guess temperature I'd like to advise the council to take 6th and A Street, the two properties that the city owns. I'd like to encourage council to put those two pieces of property out for an RFI, which would be request for intent for development, to gauge the temperature of local developers to see if we can get somebody on board to develop those properties as commercial development and or Whatever my intention when we first when I was a council or previous on this council I really pushed hard for the city to buy that Henderson lot with the intention that someday the city would grow and expand. So the idea is if the city owns the property, they could own it and lease it back to a developer. That developer could establish a building, commercial building, so forth. The city could sit on that lease for, you say, a minimum of 15 years. So in 15 years' time, that council decides that they want to expand. They actually have a piece of property that's right next door. that they could expand into in the meantime i would like to see something besides the dirt lot on there so um i'm going to go ahead and put it on the agenda for discussion in an upcoming workshop unless council decides that that's a bad idea go ahead questions so in addition um

It's without going into details about how the Yankee pot roast property was acquired right now, I guess it also is of no use and we own it. And I think we should also be discussing because initially we were talking about potentially selling that property when we no longer needed it. And there were several councilors who thought that was the direction we should go. And so I'd like to include that property in that discussion as well.

Yes, and I apologize if I wasn't clear. I was intending for both the two pieces of property that we own side by side, which would be the sixth and A property, as well as the Yankee pot roast property. I just think they're great opportunities for development, and if we want to foster that growth, then we can do that. But we can do it smart enough to where we can hold some title on that if we do want to expand the city in 10, 15, 25 years when I'm in a coffin.

Go ahead, Victoria.

I think it's a great idea if we put it out for a possible development and we also hold the lease, the city would be making income on the lease and possibly even business taxes, or taxes. So I think that would be wonderful to add back into the community. So I think it's a fantastic idea.

Thank you. Perfect one last thing I wanted to discuss or put it on the purview to see if council wants to continue the discussion. The frog lot on the other side of the bridge had some controversy with the local business owners in the local community and one of the city's spearheaded by the police's ideas was to take our surveillance trailer and posted up on that public parking lot. It turned out to be a night and day transformation from one day to the next. So I would like to put it on the council's radar to maybe even think about a discussion in purchasing more of these surveillance trailers to utilize throughout our parks and public spaces. that's something that council wants to consider discussion they are a cost to the city but we saw a cost benefit in that use of that in the frog parking lot so just something to if council so desires i can put it on the an upcoming workshop for discussion victoria i think that's also a very good idea i but i do think we would need to put out uh to the public

to see if that's something that they would like to see. So that should probably be a part of the discussion. Because while it is wonderful for surveillance and safety, people are also concerned about being overly monitored. But it's definitely a very good topic to look into. Kathleen?

Yeah, I just wanted to give accolades to Chief Hensman for tackling the vegetation there at Froglot. Thank you for pushing that through and hearing the businesses there that are requesting it and getting that done. Thank you.

Yes, while we're on the topic of cameras, there is a lot more public concern about cameras, and particularly surveillance. And I don't know if, do we have flock cameras in the city? And I think that's worth having a discussion on.

Is it? A memo on that will be coming. It's on the agenda already. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I don't have anything. Well, I have a couple other things, but I don't have anything to discuss today. So if there's no more comments or discussion from council in regards to upcoming future calendar events, we will come to the end of this workshop. And I would be looking. We do have an executive session scheduled. So I would be looking for a counselor to make a motion to adjourn the workshop and convene into an executive session. Victoria.

I so motion.

All right, it's been motion to adjourn today's workshop and reconvene into an executive session with a second from Seth.

All in favor, say aye. Aye.

Sounds good, unanimous. All right, we will be done with our workshop. Thank you very much. Just give me one second.