City Council - Regular Meeting

and indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All righty, thank you. Will the city recorder please call roll?

Mayor Giacola.

Present.

Council President Steinhebel.

Here.

Councilor Conte.

Here.

Councilor Angelford.

Here.

Councilor Salvage. Here. Councilor McLean.

Here.

Councilor Workman.

Here. All righty, thank you. We'll move on to consent calendar. The following items are considered routine and will be acted by one motion. There will not be separate discussions on these items unless a council request. In that case, the item will be removed from the consent calendar and considered separately. Agenda, Lebanon City Council Agenda, September 9th, 2026. Board Meetings, Library Advisory Committee, June 9th, 2026. Council Meetings, Work Session, Regular Session, Executive Session, August 12th, 2026. And easement, public access and utility easement for the City of Lebanon water line and fire hydrant, 50 Market Street. Is there a motion?

Move for approval. Second.

Motion has been made to approve the consent calendar. It's been second. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion passes. Okay. No presentations tonight, so we're gonna move on to public comments. Citizens may address the council by filling out a testimony card prior to speaking and hand it to the city recorder. Each citizen will be provided up to five minutes to provide comment to the council. Council may take additional two minutes to ask clarifying questions. City recorder will accept and distribute written comments at speaker's request. Tonight we have two, Darlene Nielsen. Make sure the mic's turned on. Just hit the button that turns green. There you go.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Darlene Nielsen. And although I live in the county, I do have a Lebanon address. And so I'm in Lebanon all the time. I work here, I go to church here, my family shops here, et cetera. I am here in favor of the, the old hospital library becoming a museum for Lebanon. I homeschooled for 20 years. And when I went on a pilgrimage, when I took my kids anywhere, the first place we would go is to a museum and learn about the area. And so I think that this would be a fantastic opportunity for Lebanon to finally have somewhere to put all their old stuff. and teach people about the history of this area, all its people, its culture, all the things that have been sitting in a basement or a storage facility for too long. I really think that it also is, like I said, a destination for people to come and see Lebanon. because people go to museums, ironically enough, especially if you have some interaction. I was telling former Mayor Aziz, I said I would come and help teach a class if they have a museum and need some classes taught. I know that they want to lease the building, so I think that if it doesn't cost a lot of money, I think it's a great idea for Lebanon, and just wanted to support, voice my support for that. Thank you.

Alrighty, thank you. Next up tonight is Dr. Elaine Wilder. Ward 3.

With your permission, and because I have a loud voice, I'm going to ask to stand. If I sit down, I'll take the five minutes to go. I'm Dr. Elaine Wilder. Tonight I'm representing the Lebanon Aquatics District, and I just wanted to give you an update. If you go back a year and a half when I joined the board, We had a $1.8 billion plan to revise the pool. And then we kind of cut it down and got it to $1.2 million. And that's when schools lost funding. And that meant that we lost $500,000 that was promised from the school district. So we've had to refine and look at new ways to do our repairs. So right now, we're in the middle of repairs. We've been closed for about a month. And it looks like now we'll be closed until about the 1st of October when we plan to have a grand reopening. But I think you all will be amazed when you see what we've been able to do with lots of volunteers, including Stephen Hodges, who's an OSU faculty member and an entrepreneur, and formerly Matt Reed with Peak Internet. And so you'll find that we're partnering now with Square. We're going to have online registration, which is so amazing. So people won't have to just come to the pool Once again, we'll be starting our third graders swim lessons, which that's a big part of why I'm a member of the pool. My daughter's a paramedic. I was just in St. Louis. And in two weeks, they had six drownings. And so to me, it's so important for people, not only children, but for us to learn how to swim, but not only children. So I just wanted to give you that update and to tell you that I think you'll be very excited about what we've been able to do with the pool. And if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer those.

Alrighty, thank you. Is there any questions from Council?

Thank you.

Alrighty, thank you so much doctor. We'll move on to public hearings. We've got one on the docket tonight. Ordinance Bill 2026 dash 08 ordinance number 3050 for vacating a public right away. The public hearing is now open at 606. Development director, please present your staff report.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Before you tonight is a request to vacate approximately three acres of unimproved right-of-way. The right-of-way were originally dedicated in anticipation of future street system in this area, and these portions of Walker Road and Airway Road were never constructed and remain unimproved. As the development plans for the area have evolved, these right-of-ways no longer align with the anticipated street system. As part of Emerald Crossing development, a conceptual future street alignment has been identified, including potential realignment of 12th Walker Road and Stoltz Hill Road. Vacating these unimproved rights-of-ways removes the outdated road alignment and allows the development process to establish the future street system. This vacation will not eliminate legal access to any property. And access will continue through public streets and recorded easements. Existing public utilities will also be protected including a 20-foot public utility easement over the existing west side interceptor sewer. The vacation is being processed in accordance with ORS 271. The required notice and posting period has been complete and staff has obtained the required property owner's consent representing at least two-thirds of the affected properties. Tonight's public hearing provides an opportunity for council to receive any public testimony regarding the proposed vacation. Following the public hearing, staff recommends that council approves the ordinance to vacate the unimproved Walker Road and Airway Road right-of-ways and proceed with the adoption of the ordinance. And I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Is there any questions? Is there anybody that would like to speak regarding this matter? If so, please come forward.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Councillors, city staff. Brian Vandetta, for the record, 63 East Ash Street, Lebanon, Oregon. With me also tonight is Alan Sorum, legal counsel for the property owner that's requesting the vacation. We've read and reviewed the staff report, so we agree with the ordinance as presented, and we'd ask the council to approve it this evening, and we'd offer ourselves for any further questions.

Okay. Any questions from council? Okay. All righty. Too easy, right? Easy, easy. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on this matter? Okay. Public hearing is hereby closed at 6-0-9. All further discussions will be held with council and staff at this time. Is there any discussion to be had?

I kind of knew this was coming in a way.

Yeah. Okay. If there's no discussion to be had, will the city attorney please read the title of the ordinance?

Ordinance Bill number 2026-08, Ordinance number 3050, a bill for an ordinance vacating public right-of-way on Walker and Airway Road.

Is there a motion?

Move to approve as read.

Motion has been made to approve as read. It's been seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion passes. We'll move on to regular session, resolution 2026-19, authorizing application for 2026 business grant. Will the library director please present your staff report?

Good evening, everyone. This is basically a formality. We've already, council has already agreed for these funds, but the grant itself requires this resolution.

So, I grabbed the wrong paper, sorry.

The City of Lebanon is preparing an application for 1.1 million in 2026 Community Development Block Grant funding through Business Oregon to support the planned expansion of the Lebanon Public Library's children's area. The project will add dedicated programming and meeting space to better accommodate the growing demand for library programs and services for children and families. As part of the CDBG application process, Business Oregon requires the city to adopt a resolution authorizing the application and identifying the local matching funds committed to the project. Resolution 2026-19 commits 500,000 in matching funds for the project consisting of 300,000 in city funds and 200,000 from the library trust combined with the requested CDBG funding. These funds will support construction of the library's children's room expansion. the resolution also authorizes acceptance of grant funds awarded as a result of the application and delegates authority to the city manager to execute documents necessary for the application and administration of the grant approval of resolution number 202619 will allow staff to proceed with the city's 2026 cdbg grant application staff recommends that council approve resolution number 2026 19 authorizing the city's application for 2026 community development block grant funding and committing the required matching funds for the city's for the library's children's room expansion i could have done that better i know a place you can go and study um is there any questions

I think I know the answer. We've agreed to this. This is great. Do we know any more about the possibility of success or is this just another step to find out?

Ron and I met with our grant administrator with our Biz Oregon person who would be reviewing the grant and I got to tell you, optimism is not my natural state. I'm a born pessimist and I have to work really hard to be optimistic, but I feel optimistic. She told us there were about seven other projects going after these funds. It sounds like we are the only project that is shovel ready. And we get a lot of points for that. And it's a point-based system. And we are ready to break ground. We have everything in place. And it didn't sound like any of the other projects did. Also, the majority of the other projects are in eastern Oregon. There are only a couple from on this side of the state. And they definitely like to spread the funds around. So I feel pretty good about it. Good news. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you for asking.

Any other questions from council? All righty, will the city attorney please read the title of the resolution?

Resolution number 2026-19, a resolution authorizing an application for the 2026 Business Oregon Community Development Block Grant for the Library Children's Room Expansion, committing matching funds and delegating authority to the city manager to sign related documents. Is there a motion?

Move for approval.

Second. Motion's been made to approve. The resolution's been seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion passes.

Thank you.

Um, I see a lot of new faces in the crowd and I do this every once in a while when I see this, when we're going through these things quite quickly. Um, be reassured that we've done our due diligence on these and this is the final decision making point on this item. We've talked about it multiple times. just just for clarification because sometimes you'll get people come in and go oh my god it went through this agenda like like that so just be reassured that we've talked about this many times so we'll move on to resolution 2026-20 authorizing an application for uh infrastructure funding city manager uh thank you mr mayor uh what you have before you tonight is a resolution for the city to apply for a business oregon regional infrastructure fund grant

This grant became aware to us probably two three weeks ago. Maybe a little bit longer We did a lot of research in what projects would meet the criteria of the grant some of that criteria is being Excuse me Environmental all your environmental stuff all out of the way Currently we had no projects in line for that. So we went to Western University and They have a lot of their environmental and archaeological studies done. And so what we're proposing to do is build the roadway to the north side of the railroad tracks along with the utilities off of East Grant Street. This would be the first step in them getting access to the site. It would not build the underpass, but it would get at least the roadway built, functional roadway, and the utilities built there. You can see Devco Engineering completed a 30% design estimate. The numbers that are in the packet, I've updated those. I received a newer estimate early this week, and the $1.449 million has actually increased to $1.575 million, which changes What we're asking for, this is a transportation SDC eligible project. It's 100% eligible, the street is, and that's what the city's match would be. It's in our current transportation system plan. And as part of our TSP, it's also been appropriated for this year. So that total would be somewhere around $729,000. So ultimately we're asking Business Oregon for $846,000. We've been asked to see if we can scale the project, which we can scale the project. It may mean building less of the roadway or less of the utilities, but we do have a plan for that since there's very Very competitive grants out there are and we expect that They're gonna want to stick some of the money everywhere. So we're ready for that. So the resolution authorizes Us to apply for the grant and authorizes me to be the signatory on it I'm more than happy to answer any questions as we move through this Any questions

And of course, this road construction would happen after the underpass is installed.

No, this would happen up to the north side of the tracks. So the underpass would happen... and then the roadway would go underneath the underpass, yes.

Well, I'm just wondering about like equipment in the underpass.

We would stop it short enough to where you wouldn't have to, we wouldn't damage the roadway down there. Okay, all right.

Yes.

Is there any other questions? Just out of curiosity, you mentioned the scalability. Is there a chance that, you would not get enough funds to be practical so that you'd end up having only enough money to do half of something where it wouldn't really make sense? There's always that possibility.

I think we would have to look at that when and if we're awarded any kind of grant money, right? So we would have to look at that and make the determination at that point whether it made sense to move forward or not. You can build enough roadway, excuse me, but you don't wanna not build the utilities in it as well. So we're just gonna have to look at that. That's what they've asked us to look at. We're hopeful that with the grant application that we're gonna put in that it meets all the criteria and we're gonna get fully funded. But I won't know that until we actually see what they're gonna do.

Right, so you won't be committed to anything until you actually know what you've been funded for, right?

Right. I mean, we would have to accept the grant, yes. But if it's to a point to where it doesn't make sense to build, you know, 20 feet of the road, you know, we would obviously say, well, that's not going to work for us. Does that make sense? Okay.

I have a question. Ron, I know the general area that they're talking about this. Is there already the start of a road or is there a right-of-way or where exactly is this new road?

So I wish I had brought a map. But if you, San Diego Physical Therapy and then the restaurant that sits there next door, that is not a right-of-way. It is an actual real property that's owned by the college. So all that will be dedicated as right-of-way. from basically East Grant all the way in to their site. And at their site on the back side, there's, I'll call it a roundabout, but it's not really a roundabout. It's more of a big cul-de-sac back there. And that's where the public road right away ends and then becomes private. but that's on the other side of the track with access to split those two properties.

Would they split those two properties? What you're saying?

Yes. Yes. And they have, they have the right away all figured out through there. Uh, they've worked with the property owners. Um, so right away is not an issue. Uh, it's just a matter of them transferring that right away to us once the project is complete.

Gotcha. Thank you. Alrighty. Any other questions, comments?

Okay, will the city attorney please read the title of the resolution? Resolution number 2026-20, a resolution authorizing the application for the 2026 Business Oregon Regional Infrastructure Fund Grant for Public Infrastructure Improvements, supporting the Western University of Health Sciences, Oregon Campus Expansion in Lebanon, Oregon. That was a long sentence. A real long sentence.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

Most has been made to approve the resolution. It's been second all in favor.

I abstain. As an employee of Western U.

Any opposed? OK, motion passes. Move on to resolution 2026 dash 21 update public policy or public record policy city recorder.

Thank you. Tonight, I'm bringing forward an update to the city's public records policy. The current policy was adopted in 2019. And since that time, both the volume and complexity of public records requests received by the city has increased. In 2024, the city recorder's office received 20 public records requests. That increased to 56 records. in 2025 and so far in 2026 we've received 71 requests. So in just three years we've gone from 20 requests to 71 and we're not even through the end of the year. We are seeing more requests that involve large volumes of records, multiple departments, multiple years of information and requests that require significant staff time to locate, review, redact and compile. We are also seeing more related or recurring requests from the same requesters. The goal of this update is not to make public records less accessible. The city's obligation to provide access to public records remains the same. Rather, the goal is to establish a clear and reasonable process for handling requests so that we can provide records efficiently while also recognizing the amount of staff time and resources it takes to complete these requests. I'm just going to go over a couple of the changes to the policy. In the policy that we have currently, we have a level one, two, and three request system. The proposed policy would eliminate those different levels and we would just treat all of the record requests that come in as the same. This would establish one consistent policy for all of the record requests regardless of the level. The second change that we're proposing is to change the provided staff time from 30 minutes to 15. So the city will continue to provide the first 15 minutes of staff time without charge. After that, staff time may be charged in accordance with the city's adopted fee schedule. And again, the purpose is not to discourage someone from requesting records. It recognizes that even a simple request can require quite a bit of staff time to locate, review, and prepare records. The third change is related to, and this is new, reoccurring requests. This is something that has been increasingly relevant as the volume of requests have increased. We are seeing multiple requests from the same requester and a single request for the purpose of 15 minutes of staff time without charge when the requests are related to the same matter, seek the same or similar records, or continue a prior request, divide a larger request, or are reoccurring to the same type of records over consecutive periods. So we also put a limitation on that provision. Related or recurring requests will only be considered together in the same calendar year. So a new request begins January 1st. The provision is intended to prevent a large request from becoming divided into a series of smaller requests simply to receive a new 15-minute period of staff time with each request. We've also clarified the city's process for reviewing and redacting records. Before records are released, staff review them to determine whether they contain information that is exempt from disclosure. If necessary, exempt information can be redacted and the remainder of the record provided. This policy clarifies when legal review is necessary to determine whether information is exempt or to review proposed reductions. Those costs may be recovered in accordance with the city's policies. Overall, the proposed policy is intended to simplify the process by treating all public records consistently. The nature and complexity of each request will still determine the amount of staff time and resources required. but staff will have one clear process to follow for every request. This will provide a straightforward and consistent process for both the public and city staff. And I am happy to answer any questions.

Questions.

Julie, can you give me an example of a public records request that would take 15 minutes or less, and then an example of one that would take 45 minutes to an hour for staff?

Records that I routinely get that are a simple request, I have a requester that actually I've had twice this week and they request bid tallies. Those are easy for me to complete because we have that information online. So I am able to go to our website and grab the document, I also send them a link to the tally on the website. That one is simple. It takes me less than five minutes.

You said bid tally?

the final tabs for any bids. And a recent example of one that was quite complicated is one that expands over multiple departments. It's one that we've had to have reviewed by the city attorney. It's definitely one that would take In fact, I haven't even calculated out how long it's going to take for the staff to complete it yet. But it will be a request that isn't easy to fill and will take multiple staff members to be able to fill it. So does that answer your question?

Yeah, kind of. On the simple one, like the bid, if someone requests this week for... the bid tallies, and then two weeks later they request updated bid tallies. They're totally separate. Does that fall under this continual or is that too separate?

It would fall under the reoccurring request. And in fact, this is a discussion that a lot of the city recorders have because we're all receiving the same request from the same requester. And it has become almost daily that we're receiving these requests. So in a case like that, if I can fill it quickly and it's not going to take, let's say, five minutes to do, I just sent in links, it's probably not going to fall under that reoccurring. But when it's something that, let's say it's employee benefits and it takes me less than 15 record. like basically human trying to persuade this person to use our form and then you know i'll it's just not worth it counselor i do

of documents or ordinances or anything like that that we can reach real quick. Any of us will just grab them.

And going back to Councillor McLean's question, that's probably why a majority of them are not Lebanon citizens because if they have a question, we just answer it and we give them the information. It's usually pretty simple.

And to add to that, out of the three years that I've been in my position, I think I've only actually charged for two public records requests. So normally our public records requests are easy and they're able to be filled just in person. We do that fairly quickly. It's the larger really complex that takes multiple departments. Those are the ones that there would be a fee.

Any other questions? I'll just say this comment. If they came to every city council meeting and sat out there like these fine ladies and gentlemen, they wouldn't have a request. They would already have the information. So if there's no other questions or comments, city attorney, please read the title of the resolution.

Resolution number 2026-21, adopting an updated public records policy, including reasonable measures for public records requests.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve it. Second.

Motion's been made to approve the resolution. It's been seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion passes.

This is going to be expensive.

Just kidding.

We're going to move on to the next item on the regular session, Resolution 2026-22, authorizing inter-fund transfer, and I'll turn it over to the Finance Director.

Oh, this one is coming to me. I thought this was going to Ron.

I thought it was going to me, too.

But hey, take it away, bud. So what is before you? The resolution itself is a transfer of appropriations resolution. We are requesting to move $50,000 from the street fund contingency budget into our contract expense line. A project has been brought to us that we feel would be advantageous for the city to pursue. Pacific Power has approached us with an opportunity to replace I think it's 635 streetlights across the city that are some of the older I don't even know what the bulbs are.

They're just a standard bulb. Standard bulb.

Yep. With LED lights instead. The estimated savings for the city for those 635 replacements would be about $25,000 a year, I think it is. Yes. It might be in the month. $24,000 is what they're asking.

Let me get your mic.

Turned it off.

About $24,000. OK.

So about $24,000 a year in electricity costs that we currently pay. So if you aren't aware, we do pay the electricity costs for all the streetlights in town. And so this would save us a significant amount of money to replace out those fixtures. The initial costs for the projects are estimated at $165,651. That's the cost that Pacific Power would pass on to us. They would use our facilities, our spot at Public Works to get the light replacements ready to roll, and then they'd take them out and get them installed for us. There is a rebate or an ATO, Energy Trust of Oregon, incentive that would offset some of that cost, totaling $116,412. So that would bring the overall total cost of the project down to $48,320 for the city, which means that we could recoup that cost in about two years with the electricity savings that we see, or the cost savings that we see over time. We wanted to bring this to you. It needs council approval. And then of course the contingency adjustment does need your approval as well. But Ron will need your approval in order to sign the documents to move forward with the project. Either Ron or I is happy to answer questions about this if you have them.

The savings equation in this, is it lifespan and lower usage, or is it a combination or one or the other?

So in the event that the lights have to be replaced in the future, Peck Power would replace those, right? This is... Anytime a light does go out, this is just a one-time cost because we're essentially moving forward on a faster clip than they would normally replace these, right? But anytime one goes out, Pacific Power does replace those without any cost to the city. We pay through the electricity rate.

So they're saving just because they're more efficient?

Yeah.

These LED lights... How robust are they? And the reason I'm asking is we had a street light at the end of our street that was getting picked off by a yahoo with a BB gun on a regular basis. So I'm curious how these might hold up to that.

I don't know that answer. Probably the BB gun scenario is going to need some intervention from another department that is not finance. That being said, I don't know what the structural integrity of these lights are. You could probably still take it out with a BB gun, would be my guess.

They're just a standard street light. They're just an LED bulb in them. So yeah, if somebody's shooting at them, they're probably going to go out. So that's where Frank's department would come in.

Yeah, I was just curious if maybe one of the little LEDs might be taken out, but the rest of the cluster would still function.

That's possible. Yeah, I couldn't answer that. I don't know the answer to that question. But it's a good question. I don't know. We could find out. If we could find an LED and a BB gun, we could try it.

We'll see if they can buy 636 of them. No.

We could certainly get that answer if you need it.

They are, I would say, you know, just from my own personal experience, we had one installed outside my house. They are a little bit brighter. The light kind of spans a little bit more on the ground. So there will be a noticeable difference in that regard probably. But Pacific Power does a good job at trying to make sure that, you know, these aren't going to be glaring lights that are going in windows or blinding drivers as they're going down the road.

How does the cost per light compare to the existing? Is it a higher upfront cost with a savings in energy reduction later on, or is it comparable?

You know, as far as replacing the current ones with the current setup, I don't even know that we have the opportunity to replace lights with kind of the old model. Pacific Power has been working at kind of replacing, as lights go bad, or the actual bulb needs replacing, they've been swapping them out over time. This is just escalating that process to get that done, and then for us to realize the savings earlier.

And is this expenditure just for bulb replacement or are there new lights?

They're new lights, so they'll replace the whole pole and everything. I don't think they're replacing the whole pole. This will just be the head, the light fixture at the top itself.

So it's all replacement, no new construction?

Correct.

Yeah. One other question. Is this the blue tannin? Yes.

That they were talking about?

Yeah. Jeremy, go ahead.

This probably is for Ron. If we were to not spend this money, in how many years would all those balls be replaced just based on their current replacement pattern? I mean, are they replacing a dozen a year right now or two dozen a year, and this would take 20 years to get there? Or in three years, if we don't spend the money, will all those balls be replaced because all our other ones have burned out?

Sure. I don't know how often they're out just replacing bulbs or heads. Most of the time it's complaint driven because something's not working. I don't know that they have a program in place other than something like this where they're actually out, hey, we're going to do this quarter of town over here. It's a question we could ask them for sure. But the beauty of it is anytime we have a street light that goes out, the city can call Pacific Power and they replace that at no cost to us through our franchise agreement. As far as... we didn't do this right now to me it seems pretty easy because of the of the savings in the power cost right I mean in three years we're we're $25,000 less out of the street fund to pay for power in the street lights so that's kind of the way we looked at it I don't know I don't know how they run the the rest of the operation

I think judging by the fact that there's 635 of these to actually replace, the existing light fixtures last a decent amount of time, especially since they're not on, certainly not on 24-7 kind of thing. And so over time, you are probably looking at several years, and it's purely a guess, but somewhere between five and 10 years before you really get all of these things swapped out as existing bulbs go bad, depends on the age of the light, that kind of stuff. So this is certainly speeding that process up and allowing us to realize that savings In a street fund that you know as as many organizations are facing street funds are hard to come by and certainly the more that we have the better the more that we can save and put aside for projects and.

And this is being done by a contractor through PP&L. So which kind of tells me that they probably don't have a program to where they have their own crews go out and do that. It's got to be enough work to hire a contractor to come in and do the actual work. But we can definitely find out more if you'd like to.

No, I think Brandon's right.

It seems like budgetary-wise, it's nice to know the ROI and when we're going to be on the other side of it. And it sounds like there's a lot of algebra. There's 630 of them out there. I think it's best to just do it and get the savings coming to us as we can count it as soon as possible.

This is one of those kind of easy cost saving measures, especially if we can get that return on investment in two years and then start realizing the savings on our own. Certainly beats a lot of other projects we've looked at.

I don't know if there have been cases like having formerly worked for the school district, like there was a house bill that all school districts have to change their light bulbs to LEDs within a certain amount of time. And I feel like we might as well just take advantage of it while we can, not that there's any bill that's on the docket, but there very well could be in the next five years and might as well be ahead of the game. I think the other piece of this is the energy trust.

reimbursements right this is a program that you know they brought to our attention that at least currently has ETO funding and they did tell us this there's no risk of that funding running out before we complete this project so soon as we sign that contract right those those reimbursements will be ours but that doesn't mean that you know somewhere down the road that ETO funding does not exist especially with the state of Oregon in its current budget was where they are

We'll get ready. Some people complain about the color of the lights, I'm pretty sure. There's probably that.

Well, that leads into kind of a segue into my question. Hopefully if they're contractors, they're not like some of the past contractors we had for fiber. So anyhow, is there any other questions or comments?

I guess one last question. LEDs can be a bit funky. If for some reason these things start to go on their fritz, what kind of warranty do we have with these things?

We don't even need a warranty. We just tell them that it needs to be replaced.

Our franchise agreement covers that for us so that if something's going on with the light, sometimes you've seen some of those LEDs with the purple light instead. That indicates that the light has gone bad in some fashion. Pacific Power will come out and get that taken care of at no expense to the city.

That was his last question. Is there any other questions? Okay. Will the city attorney please read the title of the resolution?

Resolution number 2026-22, a resolution authorizing an interfund transfer to cover streetlight replacement project.

Is there a motion? Move to approve.

Second.

Motion's been made to approve. The resolution's been seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Motion passes.

Thank you. Thanks, Brent.

Move on to the next item, Ordinance Bill 202607, Ordinance Number 3049, amending a chapter. City Attorney, please present your report.

Thank you. This is an ordinance that was kind of drafted before the end of the last meeting. After we had the discussions last meeting about the running of the reefer trucks along the portion of that road, I did some research and found out that it's becoming more of a problem in different localities across the state and across the country, to be fair. And so when we set that, I went back and also looked, when we set that parking zone up, Certainly, we were just looking for a place to park semis, not to leave them running or to have these reefer trucks. So no good deed goes unpunished, and we needed to close that gap. So this ordinance basically doesn't change the parking rules along there, but it does say that they can't, during certain times, basically sleeping times, they can't leave them running or run the reefers or any other mechanical engine during basically those sleeping times. What did I put in there? 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. And with that, if you have any questions, happy to answer them. Any questions, comments?

I have a small question. Does this, and this is directed towards the chief, does this give you what your team will need to enforce, like to respond to complaints when there is a situation? Okay.

I just wanted to clarify. There are no small questions.

Thank you. Just small answers.

Does this take into account, for example, if electricity goes out and people start lighting up their generators?

Well, this would only be with the with the trucks themselves.

It only applies to the trucks.

Yeah, it only applies to the trucks. I mean, technically, any noise making in an area has a certain standard that it has to comply with. And I'm sure neighborhoods would take into consideration if there was a power outage. But basically, any unreasonable noise during certain time periods can be a violation of the code.

Is there a fine that goes along with this if someone's in violation?

Certainly, but like most code violations, compliance is our first goal. So they would be on notice before they got a fine. But yes, certainly there's a fine associated. I can't remember for this, I think most likely this is up to $500 if it's, I think this is in the regular nuisance code, but I'd have to double check on that.

Any other questions, comments?

Thanks for acting on that so fast. Some of you will be happy.

Okay.

Move on. The city attorney, please read the title of the ordinance. Ordinance bill number 2026-07, ordinance number 3049, a bill for an ordinance amending chapter 8.10 of 11 of municipal code titled noise regulations by restricting the use of refrigeration units in residential areas.

Is there a motion?

Move for approval. Second.

Motion has been made to approve the ordinance. It's been seconded. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Motion passes. I know there's a crowd of people in the back row that have been waiting this whole meeting. It's been a fast meeting, so you haven't suffered too much. On the old library building, future use and long-term lease options. City Manager.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council. So over the past few months, we've been looking at all of our city-owned properties, trying to determine which of those are still needed, which of those aren't for municipal purposes. Former library building is not currently used by the city, and we don't see any future municipal use. It's currently leased out to the Lebanon School District for about $12,000 a year. That lease runs through June of 2029, but may be terminated within six months notice. As you're aware, the Lebanon Museum Foundation has approached the city with some interest in that building. We've looked at a couple of different options, one of them being a long-term lease that allows the city to retain ownership of the building or the property. It gives the foundation the stability that they need in order to get the museum off the ground. And it also provides them a permanent location. Any lease obviously is going to need to address lease terms, payments, maintenance, capital improvements, insurance, all that stuff. But that could be done at a later date, which we would bring back to the city council. The other option is a potential sale. You could go through the statute, ORS 221.725, which declares surplus property. We'd go back. You need to get an appraisal on the building. Typically, you would do that through a public notice, and then you'd accept public bids after that in order to declare that surplus and get rid of the building that way. If we decide that, if the council decides that they like the long-term lease, we would recommend that we allow the school district to run through the 26-27 school year and termination the lease in June 30 of 2027. That gives the school district time to find a place to move, minimizes disruption, and basically allows us to start negotiating a long-term lease or Not with the Lebanon Museum Foundation, so I've laid out four options Those are provided in a packet one of them is to pursue the long-term lease with foundation We could pursue sale of the property We could maintain the current lease with a school district or if Council's got another option that they'd like us to try on we'd be more than happy to entertain that so we're looking for a motion on which way you would like to go and with that I'm more than happy to answer any questions

I would be more in favor of donating the building to the Museum Foundation and not dealing with it in the future and donate it as is condition. Let them take it and do with it what they want.

So we looked at that, and to be honest, we tried to fit it into that formula. And the state statute doesn't allow us to do that. It allows us to do that for, what was it, some like public parks? Yeah, it's very limited. but we couldn't quite get it to fit into that statute. Um, so you're really limited, uh, when you have a piece of property that does have value, you're limited either to selling it through public meeting with a, uh, with, uh, getting a, uh, an appraisal or the kind of the, uh, the option that was, I recommended after we couldn't do the donation, uh, route was the longterm lease. Cause we can certainly look at the longterm lease for a, uh, and, uh, and the amount we're going to charge them.

I know my concern, if they own the building, they can go for grants. Is that correct? Are they still in the ability to get grants in a long-term lease?

My guess is somebody that's going to talk is going to tell me because I don't know.

Okay. I think that's my biggest concern, and I kind of share with Dave.

I wish there was a way we could just… We can do a triple net lease and lease it for $1 a month. $1 a year.

$1 a year.

Would actually Would not have the liability of upkeep maintenance And if the roof leaks it's on them right here the concern

Well, I'm definitely in favor of option one, understanding that we can't just donate it to them. I do think that the 150th, the sesquicentennial, did I say it? I'm getting head nods in the back. Yes, I did it. Understanding that that is in, I believe, 2028, you know, a long-term lease option gives them about a year probably to get everything going for us to be able to have that celebration and celebrate our community and our culture and what makes Lebanon Lebanon. So I'm very much in favor of option one.

Why don't we do this real quick? Former Mayor Paul Z's and whoever you want to come up with and answer some of those questions about grants and some other stuff.

Can I ask one quick question as they come up? I'm sorry. The school district knows what's going on.

I know that former mayor, as he's presented to the school district.

I figured it was. Yes. And yes, I have talked to the school district. I just want to clarify. Thank you. Yep.

Thank you.

So there was a question about grants. Maybe you can kind of enlighten us.

Yes. Am I? Yes. In talking with Ron, one of the things that we had discussed was a sale or giving it to us, however that would work. But it looks like that's not legally possible. So we were looking at a long-term lease. So we looked into it. And it does appear that we would be able to get grants if we have a lease, especially the city is really not doing anything other than owning the building. We would have all upkeep, all responsibility. And that's something I would like to have in the lease. would be that we would be able to make changes, to update it, to make it more handicapped accessible, get grants for those kinds of things. So that's our goal is to really make that building shine. Great.

I love that.

Since you're up here, is there any questions?

Any other questions? All for it.

Just out of curiosity, what is the foundation's financial outlook to be able to implement these improvements and take care of the maintenance, et cetera?

We have a little over $25,000 in the bank right now. So that's what we have. We will be obviously doing fundraising if we do get a lease in the building. And the goal would be to raise money to upkeep that, plus also apply for grants is what we're talking about. I think the grants is really the way to go because there's a ton of grants. But what we found is when we're looking for a building, there are no grants for buildings. You can't get... like that kind of a grant but if you have a building you can get an ada accessible grant you can get all kinds of uh for shelving and displays and lighting and all kinds of things so that's the advantage that once we get a lease we would be able to start working on those kinds of things any other questions

Just I think to Councillor Workman's piece, I did reach out to the superintendent, and she did request that anything, if council were to go ahead with this, that we waited until the end of the school year, which is, again, in that option one. I do believe they have about a dozen students that attend like an alternative education there.

Great. Paul, can I ask you a question? Sure. What is a museum foundation willing to pay for rent?

I'm sorry, what was that?

What are you willing to pay for rent?

We're open to discussion. To be honest with you. Yeah, we would be open to discussion. Obviously, it will be easier for us to be able to put money towards making the museum really good if we didn't have to pay a huge rent or lease.

I think a nice negotiation of like a monthly program at the new facility sounds really good.

Yes.

Yeah. Yeah, we could host council meetings at this new building.

Any other questions? Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much. Appreciate all of your time.

Okay, so whoever does a motion, well, let me say this. I'm very supportive of the long-term lease, option one. It gives the school district the opportunity to readjust. I think they have, what, 12 students there or something like that? More around there. They'll be able to absorb it, so don't feel that the school district's getting 300 students kicked out in the street because they're not. But it gives them a chance to absorb the change, and it gives the museum foundation the building they truly need and desire. So if I was going to do a motion, it would be option one. But I will leave it up to the council, of course, because that's the council's duty. So is there a motion?

It has to be read a certain way.

OK. An actual motion.

I move that council moves forward with option one and pursue a long-term lease with the Lebanon Museum Foundation and with a termination date with the Lebanon School District of June 30th, 2027. Second.

Motion's been made as read. It's been seconded. Can I say it that way? Sure. Okay. It's been seconded. All in favor?

Aye. All opposed?

Motion passes. There you go. Look at it. Every once in a while, we get to do something really cool that people are like, hey, great. And we don't get tomatoes thrown at us. Yes, please.

I just want to say thank you to the council and to the city, to Bob, to everybody working on this with us. The one thing I want to say is you have helped create a legacy for this town. And that's the exciting thing about being elected official in London. I spent 10 years. And we are going to go forward and have a museum and be able to tell kids and people who we are and where we came from. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Now, after that great moment, we're going to go into legislative priorities for fiscal year 2027-28.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, City Council. What we have before you tonight is basically the combined results of all your voting on the legislative priorities that Julie was so kind to send out to you. If you remember right, during the work session that Sean and I did, there was five priorities that he had listed out which were kind of geared towards our legislative policy. Those were full funding and streamlining for house production, 2027 transportation package, infrastructure funding, administrative procedures act reform, and land availability and land use streaming. So after that you guys all got ballots and we got those results back and you can see from the results there where everything landed there are there is five top a top five priorities there. I don't know if you want to have any more discussion on this because it was not unanimous. Infrastructure funding was definitely unanimous. Land availability and land use streaming at six votes. The 2027 Streamlining, yes, thank you. And 2027 transportation package had four. Full funding and streamlining for housing production had four. And administrative procedures act reform had four. Beyond that, there was three, two, one, and I think there was a couple others that got some one. So with that, we're looking for your top five. I mean, the top five show there, but if there's something else you want to discuss or if you want to...

make your case on a on one that you feel is more important uh now is the time to do so and we'll get those top five priorities and send them to the league of oregon cities what kind of came down to me i was the outlier that was the maintain affordable energy the full funding of the streamlining housing i know we need to do that but you know affordable housing When you put it through $1 billion, it's something that's not necessarily making housing affordable. So I get it. Both of those are costs. My personal feeling is that it's important that we do both of those, and they both cost us. They're both going to cost us in the long run. So while I don't oppose them unnecessarily, I can accept these priorities. That was my concern. That was one of my concerns.

I don't know that... It was targeted at affordable housing. It was just streamlining housing productions.

Yeah, I read through it. And like I said, I'm good with it. It's just it was presented as both of these are going to cost. Let's try to save. If the power grid goes down, let's face it, we all saw it not that long ago when we got the kind of brownout thing going on. That's a real vulnerability to all of us, and I think it's something that is important. I can admit that full funding and streamlining the housing production is more important, but that's an issue that could affect all of us. Whether we can afford a house or not, I mean, whether we have another house or not, that's a demonstrated weakness in our infrastructure.

Any other questions from council or comments?

I wanted to vote for it, but it wasn't on there. Something that had anything to do with wetlands, I wanted to make a priority for us and the rest of the state, but I didn't see it.

Yeah, I think there is a pretty good groundswell on that issue. Sean has been working diligently, who's actually on right now. Everybody wave hi, Sean. Nice to see you.

Hi, Sean.

Has been working diligently on getting some language crafted so that we can take it in this 2027 session. I think there's, uh, a couple of representatives, probably more than a couple that see this as probably the Achilles heel of not only housing but economic development as well. So we're going to make that push. We're working on a coalition of cities. I don't know why the League of Oregon cities didn't really put that out there, but I see that as probably one of our number one priorities. I agree. The elephant in the room.

For Lebanon, it's been handcuffing us for years.

And a lot of ways that...

are very detrimental and hurt our growth and hurt our budget and yes absolutely yep so counselor if i may um really quick just to add on to what ron was saying um there is quite a groundswell of interest in this as the barrier that it's been presented as I know of a couple of Democrat legislators who are considering putting forward some help in both legislation and rule. And then I know that Kevin Mannix is working on a bill right now and seeking some input on that to address Wendland's concerns. mitigation concerns, streamlining concerns, all of those things. So there is quite a bit of activity around this issue right now. That's encouraging.

Glad to hear it. Thank you.

You're welcome. Sean, since you're on, did you have anything else?

Yeah, I just want to make clear again that and I really appreciate everybody's help with this and I know the league does as well those who voted for outlying issues those are still things that are likely potentially to be picked up by the league let's remember that this is the league priorities that we're helping them set as opposed to Lebanon's priorities we still have our own list of things that we engage on and reasons why. And a lot of those one vote, two vote topics touch on those. So we will be paying attention to them. I just want to make sure you understand that.

Thank you. You're welcome. Did you have anything else?

No, as long as everybody's good with the top five, that's what we'll submit to the League of Oregon Cities. And there is a motion on the back. Julie even put a suggested motion on there. Where?

I don't see one.

I move that the Lebanon City Council adopt the following five legislative priorities for the 2027 legislative session. infrastructure funding, land availability and land use streamlining, 2027 transportation package, full funding and streamlining for housing production, and Administrative Procedures Act reform.

Second.

Motion's been made to approve the- I got one right. What's that? I got one right. Made to approve the top five priorities. It's been second. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Motion passes. Next up is the fiscal year 26, year end status update. Finance director.

I'm not going to cost you any money in this moment.

Okay. Thank you, Mayor, City Councilors.

I'll try to keep this brief. What we wanted to do is give you a snapshot on where we ended the 2026 fiscal year. I will add a caveat that, of course, as we move forward with audit, there are still adjustments to be posted. This report reflects the information that we have today to the best of our ability, but we don't anticipate any material changes over the course of the next two months, three months as we're working through audit. So with that said, I'll jump right into it. The city generated last year $47.6 million in new revenue. So that does not include our fund balances. And we had expenditures reach $40.2 million. math, we had a increase in our overall fund balances across the organization of $7.3 million. A lot of that was contained in the utilities, which we'll get to here in a second. And I'll kind of walk through why. I did want to take a second to highlight the general fund specifically. We added $127,841 to that fund balance. um on a fund that spends about 11 11 million dollars a year that's not a lot um i also want to caveat that um you generated 2.1 million dollars through the city service fee so without that fee structure in place um that 127 000 surplus would be a deficit of about two million dollars um so as annoying as the fee is, as I know that it is not the favorite of many in the community, it's not a great methodology for organizations across the state, but it is doing what it was intended to do, which is kind of fill that hole that we were experiencing a few years ago. I'll walk through the specific revenue categories that we outline in both our budget and our audit document, and then we'll move over to the expenditure side to give you a highlight. The first one is utility charges for service. We generated $14.6 million in utility fees, so that's water, storm, and wastewater. We had budgeted $14.1 million, so just a little bit more than we had anticipated. Across the utilities, we saw the three utility funds increased 2.1% over the prior year. Some of that is just due to increased water usage. There were no rate changes for 2026, so it's all just based on actual usage and new accounts across the city.

Overall, we added $2.5 million in fund balance in the utility funds.

Specifically, the wastewater fund finished with a fund balance of approximately $18 million. We had planned for that. A lot of that is going to go towards the construction or the enhancement projects out at the wastewater treatment facility in line with that master plan, that giant binder that Jason threatened to read to all of you. We're glad he did not. Property taxes. We generated $8.9 million in property taxes. That number was 0.02% within what we had adopted for the budget. So we pin that tail on the donkey pretty well. Those funds were deposited both into the general fund and the general obligation bond fund to help pay for the debt on this facility, this building, the library, and the justice center that way. So we were pretty happy with that revenue generation there. Intergovernmental revenues, so that's money that we received from other government agencies, including the school district, fire district, county, state, and federal governments. We saw $6 million in revenue, which was about $2.1 million less than we had anticipated. Couple of reasons, one is we had some grant, reimbursements for Cheetah Lake Park that we just timing wise they did not come in before the August 31st deadline for us to be able to claim that in the 2026 fiscal year those are those reimbursements are starting to flow in now so that will pick back up in the future in this current fiscal year we're in now but more concerning was the drop in state shared revenues that we saw as the state's revenues either begin to decline or even level off. the amount that the cities receive is starting to decrease. That's concerning for us given that most of those state shared revenue funds exist in the general fund for us. Specifically, we saw that liquor revenue finished 21.7 percent below budget. We're seeing a trend nationally where liquor sales are on the decline. And so we are starting to see that impact what we receive. And then overall, just in general state shared revenues that are just kind of generally allocated by the state, we saw a drop of 20.4% below what we had budgeted. So that is going to put some pressure on what we can do financially in our general fund. Again, being that the general fund is the fund that receives most of those state shared revenues. So we'll just need to be cognizant of that as we move forward. Franchise fees, we exceeded the adopted budget by $4,401 bringing in 3.3 million. Franchise fees are those revenues that we collect from Pacific Power, Northwest Natural, Republic Services, and then the city's utility funds as well contribute to those franchise fees. So we were relatively in line there. We are seeing the 3.3 million is more revenue than we've generated in our history as far as franchise fees are concerned, and as utility companies continue to raise their rates, we will continue to see an increase there. This last year, we did see Pacific Power actually propose a small rate decrease for residential customers, so that we're gonna see that level off for a minute, but I'm sure that the rate increases will return, but we'll just keep an eye on that as we move forward. Interest earnings across the city, we generated $2.7 million. We have a relatively conservative approach to our investments in that most of those funds just reside at the state level with the local government investment pool. Today, that fund is generating about 4% a month on the cash that we have on hand. uh moving forward as far as an economics picture and an economy picture we don't anticipate rates to fall in the next probably six to 12 months i think that what you're seeing right now is um job market has been has been doing pretty well But inflation is still kind of sticking around. And so I think you're going to see the Federal Reserve make some movement on interest rates that is probably not to lower them. If nothing else, they will probably remain the same, at least in this month's meeting. So I anticipate that we'll see 4% for a little while. But as we spend cash, right, to spend down our fund balances, to do the wastewater treatment plant project, we're going to start to see what we have in interest earnings fall. So just something to look forward to there. And then in a other revenue line, we, where is that? Oh, 6.8 million. And other revenue covers everything else that we haven't put in a bucket already. So the city services fee is included in there. We did see an increase related to the sale of the San Diego Travel Station that we did not anticipate last fiscal year. So that 6.8 million just goes to help shore up some things across the organization. On the expenditure side, personnel expenditures, we spent about $16.7 million in personnel expenditures. That's about $137,000 above our budget. And looking at what we spent last year in personnel, it's about 5% above last year's numbers. So as healthcare rates and PERS rates and salaries increase, we're going to keep seeing that the personnel costs go up. This next year, so not this current fiscal year, but the next fiscal year is a PERS rate increase year. We are anticipating a significant increase in our PERS rate as some of our We had a bond out there that was helping buy down our PERS rate overall. That's going away as the last of the revenues there fall off. And the state was unable to generate what they hoped for in a few of their years impacting the overall structure. So the unfunded liability at the state level is higher than it has been. in the last few years, which means we get to pay in order to make up that unfunded liability. So we're anticipating a fairly steep increase in our PERS rate this next, in the 2028 fiscal year. Materials and services, we spent $9.29 million. We had budgeted $10.25. We had some unspent areas, specifically in the water utility related to legal services associated with the South Sandium drawdown. That money resides in the water fund, isn't going anywhere, and will be continued to use We'll continue to use those funds for the purpose of either that legal action that we have taken or to kind of supplement what the water fund has in available capital monies. So those funds will reside in there until future use. IT had some leftover money regarding computer replacements. All that money is in an internal service fund, so that money will go back to the related funds it came from, which will start to divvy out over the next couple of months. The last category I have for you is capital construction or capital outlay. This is the largest variance in the overall budget. It's very hard in some cases to plan for, you know, kind of some of the projects that we're able to get to over the last few years. We have seen some staff turnover, you know, certainly with with Ron sitting in the chair that he's in now, right? Capital projects has kind of experienced a turnover as far as the staffing is concerned. So we're trying to get the kind of things back on moving forward. We've got a lot of projects budgeted in this year, but we budgeted about $7 million or we spent $7 million of a $25.7 million budget. So as projects start to move forward, you'll start to see those funds get eaten up over time. These are all planned.

Some of that is SDCs. So we're carrying about, I want to say probably 11.

11.6 million.

Yes. And SDC funds that we appropriate every year. And most of that is because we're not sure what could come up throughout the year. So that's a big chunk of it.

And timing's big, right? So as projects move forward, there's engineering, there's bid documents, there's actual construction. So all of these things are very fluid. This year, I think you're going to see, we budgeted, for example, the full $32 million for the wastewater treatment plant project. We're not going to end up spending $32 million this year by the time all is said and done. Those funds will remain there. We'll budget them next year to finish off. But we just don't know timing-wise all the time where we're going to get to. So we budget what we can so that we have the flexibility and then ensure that the funds are there for the future. That was a very quick overview of everything that's written out in the memo, in the packet. I'm certainly happy to answer any questions you might have and go from there.

Not really a question, but none of us like the city services fee, but I have to commend everybody. We're pretty accurate with that. I mean, we considered what the number we didn't need. We didn't take more than we needed. We didn't take less than we needed. So it'd be much harder if we'd taken less and not plugged the hole, basically, and be coming back for more three weeks later. I mean, overall budget-wise, I get it. You're pretty accurate in all that stuff.

You had mentioned the declining state shared revenue and the liquor portion of that. Can you expand a little bit more on the other declining revenue sources?

Yeah, so there's a few state shared revenue lines. So the other ones are state cigarette taxes. That's been declining for decades. years, decades, we're down to just getting about $10,000 or less from cigarette taxes, sale on cigarettes across the state. Marijuana taxes is one of them. We took a huge hit in marijuana revenue back when Measure 110 was passed, and they kind of took some of the from the marijuana taxes that they generate. We're down to about probably $25,000 to $30,000 a year from the state of Oregon in marijuana revenue, setting aside our own taxes, right? We have more above that that we generate in the city limits. And then the other piece is just there's a generalized state shared revenue formula. I don't know exactly what it is and couldn't walk you through it, but as the state's revenue starts to decline, the amount that we get back starts to diminish as well. So we did start to see that this year where the state just was not generating the revenue that it had in the past. And so we start to lose some of the revenue in our coffers.

Is any of that portion from lottery?

No. This is all separate revenue. Lottery funds usually are held for capital projects or grants or other things like that. This is all straight out of the state's general fund essentially.

Any other questions, comments?

Thanks for the information. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you so much.

Department of Reports, City Manager. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council. Just a couple things tonight. This week... Councillor Steinhabel and the mayor and I met with a field rep from Senator Merkley's office. We had a good meeting with her to just kind of go over everything that's going on in Lebanon, kind of get a brief overview of what the federal landscape looks like. We don't want to go into that. It's not good. So we did that this week. We continue to meet with our legislative reps. We're going to try and set up a meeting with Representative Bynum here soon to meet with her as well. reminder that the November council meeting remember that is changing to the 4th of November as opposed to the 11th so we will make sure we get extra notice out for that on that meeting and I think that's it unless you have questions for me the next meeting November meets the day after Election Day so dun dun dun

There'll be some people that are happy and sad. So, is there any other questions or comments for Ron? Is there any items from council that councilors would like to bring up?

I'd like to just mention to council and anybody here, please show up on 9-11 at the fire station at 10 a.m. It is the 25th anniversary of 9-11, and we'd really like to show as much support for them as we can. So if you pass that on, and I would hope that as many of us can be there as possible.

Thank you. Any other comments or items? No? Okay. Any press or public comments? None from the press. Any other additional public comments? No? Okay. Next scheduled council meeting will be October 14, 2026. It's even on my script here. They tell me what to say. So a reminder, thank you.