City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, Agenda approval is there any changes to the agenda this evening? Yes, mr. Mayor and council Come to my attention that we have a staff member that needs to add an item tonight to new business under 7e So I've placed on the dais an action item for 7E that's in front of you there. I also emailed it out earlier. So if there's a motion to get that agenda amended, somebody needs to make that motion a second and a vote, and then we'll place that on 7E.

I move to amend the agenda to add item 7E under new business to consider authorizing city staff to submit two regional infrastructure fund grant applications and authorizing the city manager to accept the grants and execute related documents.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? No. All right. Consent agenda.

I move we accept the consent agenda as amended.

All in favor? Aye. All right. We're going to move into public comments. This is the portion of the meeting where a non-agenda item. If you would like to step to the podium, please fill out the sheet. And you do have a three-minute time limit.

Greg Amer, Washington Street, La Grande. I've come to you a couple times to complain about the conditions of the bathrooms. I showed you pictures. I asked the city manager twice to put the pictures up on the screen. The costs are $51 an hour for the janitor to clean the bathroom, $400 a day. Total cost of $100,000 a year. I asked him to put up the pictures. Here's the pictures. City manager says, I'm not going to show them. I guess you've all agreed to that. You've all signed on to it. So taxpayers, they approve the condition of the bathrooms but won't show them to you. So I asked the guy that oversees the employee. He says, what kind of records have you got when this guy works? Well, when does he go to work? Just drop, when do you think this guy goes to work?

I have no idea. That's not my job, sir.

David Clay, do you have any idea what he does during the day?

Greg, I don't want to comment on that. It's not our job to be in charge of the employees. That is the city manager's job. Our job is to oversee the city manager and the policies of the city. That is the council's job.

There's no record of what he does. no time card, no description of what he does each day, what tasks he completes, how long he's at work. You have no record of if he works 20 hours a week, a month, a week, or 40 hours a week, but your bill is 51 bucks an hour, 400 a day, $1,000 a year. So I asked him, I says, well, he says, I think he goes to the library at four o'clock in the morning. Well, I know a guy that got off his butt, went down to the library at 4 o'clock in the morning to see if anybody was at work. And the library looks just like this black screen. There's no lights on. Nobody's there.

Mayor and Council, I'm Ken Bruce, 1407 Oak Street here in Legrand. I'd just like to speak to my observations of the latest public works water project on 2nd Street. There was a window of opportunity there starting on the 8th of June, ending on the 28th of August. to do the project from K Avenue to H. And my observations beginning were that the project was a little slow in getting started, like a couple of weeks. And I thought at the time, I thought this is a short window to do what they needed to do, get the street rebuilt, get it back open. for the opening of school on the 31st of August. And so as I visited the scene periodically, and the work seemed to sort of drag on in the middle to the end of July. And I didn't know why. And one day I stopped up there and visited with the water superintendent. And I asked him specifically, I said, do you really think, where we're at here today that you will finish this project before school starts. And his answer to me was, and I quote, sir, there's a lot of things going on. Well, what I didn't know at that point was that this was only one project that the city water department was involved in at that time. The other one being a relocation of some water lines over at the, on the college, near the college campus. And so only having X number of employees to work in the department, they had to share people from here to there and back and forth. So when we got down to the 1st of August and we still weren't appearing to me that we were gonna make the schedule, I talked to Kyle at Public Works and I said, what do you think the chances are? And he said, well, and he gave me his wishlist. He said, we hope to get the two contractors, the cement people, Chalice and the contractor that won the street award was JAL of Bend. He said, we hope to get them in place in a timely manner to have it done by the 28th and let the new asphalt cure for two days. before we can start on the 31st of the month with school. Well, so as it turns out, the street was finally graded on, I believe Thursday, the 27th.

If you could wrap it up.

And Friday JAL started paving and they paved the North half, went back on Saturday to pave the South half even though there was an event at the school district that weekend, volleyball tournament, and people driving on the new asphalt, so it had no time limit to cure. But Public Works was instrumental and went up on Sunday and striped the street and finished the project. So bottom line, I would give the Public Works director and their people an attaboy. They got it done and they got it done timely, thank you.

Dale Mammon, 405 Balsa. Lawyers, come prepared, and I have my notes here. I want to share, I've been working with the city for 14 years. One of the projects that we did, that we started on, was the firehouse. And I have for you tonight a history of a grand rescue hose company. Number one, first note, November 16, 1898, city records reflect awarding bid for the single story fire station for $2,650. The second interesting part of this tidbit, notes from a talk given by Don Keeling, most of you know Don, in 1997. And again, it's a history. I'm gonna leave all of these for John tonight so he can share with you. As part of the quasi-retirement, we found some interesting work that we had done with the city and for the city back 15 years ago. So I shall leave that notebook with you also tonight. It's a full history and documentation and everything is public knowledge that's in here, including some newspaper articles as to what was going on there, and then there's one more. And I still have a minute and a half. And my briefcase is empty. This is one, downtown Legrand. And I don't have a date on this one, so I don't know if it's a recent project. But there's maps, Jefferson Street, and including a news article that just called it a revival of Jefferson Avenue. And the date on this one, oh, it's not on there. But I think it was one of the earlier ones, an economic development commission. All of this is your city council and staff at work. And we'd really appreciate working with them for 15 years and putting this together. And I'm retiring. There's a fire chief here. I'm going to give this to you so you can give it to John or look at it and see because it's very interesting stuff and a lot of pictures in this. Any questions?

Thank you. Thank you, Dale.

Would anybody else like to speak on a non-agenda item this evening?

Nope?

All right. We have two public hearings.

The first one is... Make sure I'm on the button here.

All right, I'm in the right place now.

The first one's going to be public hearing and second reading by title only of proposed ordinance establishing a public safety service fee. The public hearing is still open for the ordinance to be read the second time by title only and considered for adoption and that the rule of order for the public hearing were read in their entirety during the regular session of August 5th, 2026.

And with that, can we have the staff report please? Good evening, Mayor and Council. This is the second reading, as you know, of the ordinance establishing the framework for a public safety service fee. The Council held the first reading on August 5th after reviewing the city's structural financial gap, declining reserves, increasing labor and operating costs, and the effect further reductions would have on police, fire, and EMS, emergency communications, and preparedness. Through the fiscal transformation initiative, staff evaluated expenditure reductions, efficiencies, restructuring grants, and multiple revenue . The proposed ordinance creates a stable and transparent mechanism for recovering a reasonable portion of documented public safety costs. It restricts all proceeds to public safety purposes, requires accountability and annual review, and leaves the fee amount to a separate resolution. Adoption tonight establishes the legal and administrative framework. The next agenda item would set the amount. Staff recommends the ordinance be read for the second time by title only and adopted. Depending on any questions you have, that concludes my staff report.

Just to be clear, John, if we vote on this tonight, we're merely voting this is the foundation from which we can establish the fee to be set.

Correct. But you'll see down in new business, one of the items we have is for the fee. There's some conversation there with some recommendations we'll go over at that time.

Just wanted to make sure that That's what this bill was for.

Oh, and just an added nuance to that. If adopted, wouldn't go into effect until February 1st, giving us time to make sure that the billable units are fully identified between now and then so that all people that would normally have access or receiving a bill would be paying not just, or all billable units receiving a bill would be paying not just the ones currently identified. Any more questions for the city manager?

At this time we'll invite city staff comments on this matter.

I'll go ahead and jump in.

I have a statement made from our HR director, Tammy Shaver. She wasn't able to make it tonight. So I'll go ahead and lead this into the record. Councilors, from a human resources perspective, I want to provide context regarding the workforce implementations of maintaining current public safety service levels and the potential consideration of a public safety service fee. First, I want to acknowledge the broader reality facing our community. Many residents are experiencing financial strain and any discussion involving additional revenue must take that into account. It is important that the city remain mindful of that context in policy consideration. At the same time, I also have a responsibility to outline the operational and workforce realities associated with maintaining existing service levels. The city currently employs approximately 180 full-time and part-time employees across departments, including a significant number in public safety roles. If financial resources do not align with the cost of maintaining current service levels, reductions in staffing become a foreseeable consideration. From an HR perspective, workforce reductions are not solely budget Terry exercises they involve complex implementation requirements that vary depending on the provisions contained in multiple collective bargaining agreements these agreements address issues such as seniority recall rights layoff order and bumping procedures as a result any reduction in force requires careful coordination and can create significant organizational disruption it is also important to recognize that historically when general fund reductions have been necessary impacts are often felt across discretionary service areas such as parks and recreation and library services as well as other non mandated functions while no decisions have been made and no reductions are being proposed at this time it is appropriate to acknowledge that these areas are typically among those most effective in times of fiscal constraint Equally important is the human impact of any workforce reduction. Decisions involving layoffs or even the anticipation of potential layoffs create meaningful stress and uncertainty for employees. These are individuals who are deeply committed to public service and instability of this nature has a real emotional and professional impact. There are also longer term organizational considerations. Even the discussion of potential workforce reductions can affect morale retention and recruitment. In public safety and across the organization where experience, training, and institutional knowledge are critical, instability can have lasting consequences that extend beyond the immediate fiscal period. For these reasons, from an HR and workforce stability standpoint, it is important to recognize that reductions in service level should always be viewed as a last resort option. Once initiated, they carry both immediate and long-term impacts that are difficult to reverse. The public safety service fee, if considered by council, would be one mechanism to provide more predictability funding stability for essential services and reduce the likelihood that workforce reductions become necessary. From an HR perspective, my intent in sharing this information is not to advocate for a specific policy direction. but to ensure Council has a clear understanding of the workforce, operational, and human implications associated with maintaining or reducing current service levels. Ultimately, any discussion of service levels or funding decisions is also a discussion about people, the employees who deliver those services every day, and it is important that the human impact on our workforce remains a central consideration in these conversations. Thank you. Tammy Shaver, City of La Grande, Director of Human Resources.

All right, at this time, we will invite public testimony in favor, opposition, or neutral. There is a three-minute time limit. If you would like to step to the podium and state what you want to say.

Greg Amer, Washington Street, La Grande. From what I understand, you've budgeted for the last 13 years for our police department. but you've never completely hired all the people. So where has the money gone the last 13 years that you budgeted and collected but you never hired the people? Went into the general fund and you spent it. I got on the budget committee, I was asking what they were doing, and they said, well, we're not going to do anything different until the reserve accounts are empty. Now the reserve accounts are empty and you want us to pay up again. I also have a problem with your budget. For the revenue for the ambulance, actual figures are $1.7 million, $1.5 million, and then you adopted last year $1.5 million, but now you show you're only going to collect $1.2 million. Now, the fire chief just had a meeting last week, and the number of calls is still about the same, 3,400. Why would you have a decrease in revenue of 20%? I see $300,000 there, or plus. that you're not showing us, but you want us to pay 500 more on our water bill. Also, he talks about a new ambulance, and you can reframe the existing ambulance, which means change the chassis and the frame out, put the same boss, or they call it a modular, and put that back on there and save a third. You could save about $100,000. So 300, 100, there's $400,000, and the $500,000 you want to put on our water bill. We're paying the highest tax rate of any Pendleton, Hermiston, and Baker City. We pay seven and a half dollars per thousand assessed value. Baker, Hermiston, and Pendleton taxpayers only pay $6 to $6.50. So we're already paying the highest property tax of those three cities. The last thing in your budget, you show you're going to collect $75,000 late fees on the water bill. The finance department says that was 6,850 times. What do you tell these citizens that don't have the financial ability to pay their water bill now and you're gonna put another $10 on it?

Would anybody else like to speak? Council discussion.

This isn't easy because citizens' finances are strained. It does add cost. On the other hand, I've looked at the budget and we are as lean as we can go. We're between a rock and a hard place, really.

I initially had a hard time with this one because it wasn't a fair, equitable thing going across the board. But now that we have included all the units that we were going to, it makes it much more fair.

Because I came out in a couple of the town hall meetings that people said,

Unless everybody pays it, why should we? So I am now in, I can't say I'm totally in favor of it, but I can accept this.

Mr. Raymer brings up a good point. We need to be comparing ourselves against other municipalities. And if for some reason we are not able to be as efficient as others are from a tax perspective, then we need to be analyzing that and looking at why and where there are funding sources coming that we are not getting. Because I mean, you drive around Pendleton These look pretty decent. Hermiston looks pretty decent. So it's not like these are towns that are falling apart.

Baker City does not have our public safety.

But Pendleton and Hermiston have more than we do. And so, anyway, yeah. Kyle's got a comment.

That's good information. Thanks, Kyle.

I mean, I think Mr. Hamer is speaking to the overall tax burden, so I don't know. I don't have those numbers in front of me, but I do think it's something that we should have eyes on. Those should be questions that we should ask ourselves continuously is how are we comparing to other municipalities? I realize you want to compare apples to apples, and you can't always do that, but I think Pendleton and Hermiston would be probably good comparisons for us to look at.

And what our services are compared to theirs and what they're spending and so forth. I think that's good. I would like to say that that i truly believe that the protection the government the reason why we're here as a city is basically is the protection and safety of its citizens and obviously we are up against the wall like um karine said that it's hard right now with people's budgets it is but i do know that community connections and other places help Oh, oh, tech helps. There's some safety nets in place. But I sincerely believe we've got to protect our citizens. We've got to continue the quick response that we have with our police and our fire department and so forth. I think that's what keeps our community safe. And I know that it's hard. And maybe this next budget that's coming up, maybe we need to analyze more about our budget compared to other budgets, where we can cut. I believe that fire and police and so forth are the core of what we are doing. should fund everything else and I know people will disagree with me because we like everything that we have is really icing on the cake but police and fire is the core and we got to keep them that way and I know it's hard and I know it's hard but safety and protection is first

Because the other thing is our staff is not paid as well as some of those other ones either.

That's correct. That's why we lose our staff to them. Well, I do know that Pendleton gets a lot of benefit from, it's not the Stampede, the Roundup and so forth. And yeah, some things like that, they could get some good revenue.

But that goes in another area that we have to get. Let's kind of keep on track with that one. Right.

But we do have, I think, in place already for people who are low income, they can have a benefit of having some of that cut. So I think there are methods that we can address there.

John, would you mind reviewing that with us for now?

As in explaining what that is?

What options are in place for a citizen who cannot pay their sewer bill or who's late? What happens?

We do have some programs that are in place that make it so that when they apply, they can get, I don't know all the nuances perfectly, but they can apply and get reduced costs for the utility bill, which also includes an impact on these service fees that are on there, both this and the street user fee. So anybody that's wanting to access that, all they have to do is just ask the question, and we'll make sure they get the information they need, and we'll shepherd them to be able to do so.

At the risk of chiming in again here, I don't mind approving the infrastructure to go in place here. With regard to the later item, I'm not sure I'm willing to approve an amount until we have seen that the city has fully been able to identify an equitable way of getting these meters in place. Because that was a mandate that I think the council gave to staff. And originally, those estimates were far beyond the number of months that we have until February. And so I think, from my perspective, I want some assurance that that has actually been done. And if I'm not understanding this correctly, but we can approve the infrastructure without approving a fee. We could, at any point later on, go back and approve a fee. Is that a multi-step process again? If we were to do that, if we don't approve a fee tonight, or is that something that can be done at a single council meeting?

If you guys approve the ordinance tonight and you want to table the resolution, that is your choice.

We could table that until we know, have confirmation from staff that we have done the work necessary to make sure that this is equitable.

It's an option. The resolution can be done in one council meeting.

Correct. Yeah, that's good because everybody needs to be able to pay for it, not just a small group like it has been before. Yeah.

And just a reminder that both the ordinance and the resolution are both effective on February 1 if they pass. Right. That's just how they're written now.

And will that give us time to make sure that all units are counted for in apartments and stuff?

That's the question. Yeah. Could you explain the process and how it's unfolding, please?

Sure. So the way that we were looking for equity all stemmed from the street user fee. So the way that the current ordinance is set up, that is established on a per meter fee. So if an apartment complex has one meter, they pay one fee. That's the equity problem that we're looking at. So currently we have a consultant that's working on our system development charges. Part of the system development charge process is looking at a way in which you assess those things when somebody's building a house. So you would look at how do you assess a transportation fee on something that you can actually measure. I can't go into all the details of that calculation, but we utilize that same contract with the consultant who specializes in looking at assessing and the equitability of assessing these different fees. So they are currently working on that for the street user fee. The idea moving forward, since they're both meter fees, they would be assessed equally or the same manner to establish that equity. There will be a report from a third-party consultant who specializes in this type of work that would be reviewed by the council, accepted, and then it could be applied for both the street user fee and if you decide to do a service fee the same way.

How do you believe that will be done by February?

They're currently working on it, so they haven't given me a timeline on finishing, but yeah, that is the anticipation that we will get it done by the end of the year.

But it wouldn't matter if we did approve it in March or April either?

No, kind of how the street user fee works is the ordinance establishes the fee, but the fee that's, the cost of the fee per assessment is established by the resolution. So if you never passed a resolution, then there would be nothing to assess.

So for clarification, so if a complex has multiple tenants and so forth. Are they only paying one fee? Are they paying for like apartment building for each apartment? How are you looking at that? So everybody knows to clarify.

How the ordinance is set up is we assess per account. So if an apartment complex has one meter per building, then they're paying a fee per building. If they run the whole complex off one meter, they're paying one fee.

Is there any way we can change that somehow?

Yeah, I mean, there's multiple ways of looking at it. And, you know, in most of these meetings we kind of discussed how do you want to look at doing that. And basically we came to the conclusion that we can come up with our own methodology on how to do it, but we have different ideas on how we're going to do that. So that's where we came up with the consultant idea of taking a third-party administrator who specializes in this type of work so they can come forward and give us a way that, won't be objected to or you know, nobody's going to come and argue against it.

Okay, so when is their report due to you? Or is there a deadline involved?

We don't currently have a deadline of, hey, you will deliver it by this date. So they're currently writing, they're the same consultant who's finishing our SDC stuff. So they're doing it along the same lines. So we've never sat down and said, I need the report by this date.

Could we set a date? Because we kind of need to know so we could vote.

More than happy to get a hold of them and talk about a deadline and when we want to see that.

There was a reason we picked the February 1st date, though.

The SDCs will be adopted in December. So February seemed like a really good conservative estimate on time frame of when they could complete that work and we could adopt their report and you guys would have time to take a look at it through a work session and dissect it and decide whether or not you like their methodology.

And they'll be comparing to how other cities handle this sort of thing?

Yes.

Okay, good.

Yep.

Thank you. Any more discussion before I close the hearing? At this time, I'd like to close the hearing and entertain a motion.

I move that the proposed ordinance establishing a public safety service fee be read for the second time by title only, put to vote, and adopted. Second.

Any more additional councilor discussion? At this time, could the city recorder read the proposed ordinance for the second time by title only?

An ordinance of the City Council of the City of La Grande, Union County, Oregon, establishing a public safety service fee and providing for its administration, amending Chapter 8, adding new Article 3, titled Public Safety Service Fee, and declaring an effective date.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Sorry, Mike, just got to find my page. All right, we're going to move into our next one. The public hearing is still open for the ordinance to be read a second time by title only and considered for adoption and that the rules of order for this public hearing were read in their entirety during the regular session of August 5th, 2026. And with that, can we please have a staff report?

Yeah, so this is for the vacation of 10 feet on each side of Cherry Street between Cove Avenue and Penn. I did the staff report last month. This 10 feet will be allocated to the properties on the side of the street. It will become part of their properties. They will own it if the vacation is approved. The conditions haven't changed. We have no objections to the request as of this date or this time. Do you have any questions of me on this item?

It's straightforward, Mike.

Thank you.

Thanks. Public testimony in favor, opposition, or neutral on this matter? Absolutely. Discussion? Or a motion?

I move that... Sorry, you've got to close the hearing first.

At this time, I'd like to close...

Number 5. Yeah, I'm on 5B.

No, 5 prompt.

Oh, okay. At this time, I'd like to close the hearing and entertain a motion.

I move the proposed ordinance vacating portions of North Cherry Street right away be read by second time by title only and put to a vote and adopted.

Second.

Motion to second.

Any more discussion?

At this time, could the city recorder read the proposed ordinance for the second time by title only?

An ordinance of the City Council of the City of La Grande, Union County, Oregon, vacating the east and west 10 feet of the North Cherry Street public right-of-way between Cove Avenue and East Penn Avenue, all being adjacent to properties described as being in Township 3 South, Range 38 East, of the Willamette Meridian Section 05DC, tax lots 3600, 4300, 4700, and 4800. La Grande, Union County, Oregon, and declaring an effective date.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right. We are going to move into unfinished business. Looks like we're going to be doing a resolution establishing policy for housing and commercial development fee waivers, reductions, and payment deferrals.

With that, can we... We need to enter into a motion and take it off the table.

I move to remove this item from the table. I'll second.

All in favor? Aye.

Mayor and Council, I admittedly am quite excited about this one, especially after the heels of our conversation at the last Council meeting. This item returns following the Council's August discussion. At that meeting, the Council asked staff to expand the proposal beyond fee waivers and reductions to include payment deferrals and to provide clearer eligibility criteria and stronger financial safeguards. The revised resolution does that. Permanent relief is prioritized for housing that addresses the low and moderate income ownership needs identified in the city housing needs analysis. Deferrals provide a separate option when paying development costs before construction is the barrier. The fees are not eliminated. Repayment is secured through written agreements and appropriate security and defined repayments, events, and a final deadline to apply. The policy replaces the more limited 2009 resolution with a consistent and transparent framework applicable to eligible housing and commercial development. It permits the City Manager to act only within the standards adopted by the Council and preserves the City's financial interests. If approved, the policy becomes effective December 1st to allow time for implementation materials and agreements. Staff recommends passage as presented and I did ask the city attorney to join us here today in case you had any questions from him. Bottom line is this effort I think that we're putting in place is gonna bust the door open for housing development and we've got some stuff projects that Kyle's going to be talking to you about again a little later for grants is going to help us get after some of the infrastructure, if approved, to open up that other housing area for development as well. So I feel very optimistic that we're going to be able to get aggressively after the development of housing in La Grande at a lower cost for everybody, not just developers, but anybody that wants to build a house. And the level of access that they will gain will be dependent on the level of house that they're building. So the biggest need gets the most opportunity. Anybody outside of that criteria will get some opportunity. So I feel like this is going to do some great things for our community. I recommend that we approve it. Depending on any questions you have of me or the city attorney, that's all I have.

I have a question. So are we trying to include all three of these? I thought we were kind of leaning more towards the deferment of payment until the house is sold and so forth. So we're not losing any money, the city, and they're not. So we're thinking about waivers and the whole nine yards?

So the waivers are only going to be for fees, and it'll only be for houses that meet our needs analysis. So the low to moderate income level. Nobody else will have access to those fee waivers. The only other things that will be offered is deferments, which the developers have highlighted to us that that's a barrier for them often for being able to build. But the timeline, it's interesting to me the way this unfolded because some people came into my office talking about some problems that they were having, and I realized we could branch this out to apply to individuals just as much as it applies to developers to include the potential of people who are wanting to build businesses. Simultaneously, within the ordinance or the... the relief. Also we have constructed into it what the guidelines are for Oregon state law of what we're required to have in our enterprise funds in order to stay solvent and stay healthy. And so this guarantees us to be able to offer this program so long as we maintain those standards and never putting the city at risk while always guaranteeing that we always get that money back. So bottom line is there's no threat to the city and lots of opportunity Anything I don't know I can't speak to but But what I can say is I feel very optimistic This will be very good for the community and will keep the city government itself healthy as it relates to these funds John I just want to confirm their objective

standards by which this would be enacted correctly.

Any more questions for Sal?

Well, I did have one. I have to find where it was. But it was something to do with the default. If somebody, like if a builder takes and it says that he has 10 years, the failure to pay the secure obligation in full by 10-year deadline is a matter of default. And the city could do foreclosure. So is that on the builder? I mean, what if they have a housing unit? They've sold the house. I would assume this default goes to them, not to the owner of the house.

So they can't sell the home without paying us. So bottom line is the moment it sells, we recover our money. If they haven't sold, we've had some properties in Legrand that go back before I came here that have unfortunately taken longer to sell than what they would. The requirement is that we've given them a tenure to be able to accomplish that. If they don't accomplish it by then, it'd be similar to some of the other actions we have going now because we have a... What's the word I'm trying to think of? We have a lien against... Thank you. A lien against the property. Then we would be able to go through the same process or similar processes to what we're doing with some of these other actions where the property would then become the city's. We'd sell it at the cost to recover our costs. And then we would not lose any money. Yeah, it would be a process that we don't want to undergo. We've... Another thing within this is in the deferments, we're not charging them interest for that deferment for the first two years. And then we start charging them, I believe it's 8% interest for every year that they go beyond that. The intent isn't to be punitive. The intent is to incentivize selling it sooner rather than later. We're not anxious to make money off of it. We're anxious to just simply get the housing to do what our community needs it to do.

I just wanted to make sure.

that piece that was that kind of all the way it was written so i wasn't sure thank you any more questions for staff public comments on this matter i'd like to throw one more thing this this is all the birth from the brilliance of mike bowquist um and so um i have to say this is a great shout out to him in regards we wouldn't be where we're at now if he hadn't thought of this first

Thank you.

Hi, everybody. Tim Matthews, TMC. I just want to say I'm in favor of this. This is a great way. La Grande's in a huge need for homes in that low to moderate home deal. We need like 150. I think you guys did a study saying we needed about 150. This helps the builders just kind of get that ball rolling and get things going. So I just wanted to say I'm in favor of this.

Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else? Councilor, discussion. That's great.

Sounds good.

Motion.

I move that the proposed resolution establishing a policy for housing and commercial development fee waivers reduction and payment deferrals be read by title only, put to vote, and passed. Second.

Any more discussion? At this time, could the city recorder read proposed resolution by title only?

The resolution of the City Council of the City of La Grande, Union County, Oregon, establishing a policy for housing and commercial development fee waivers, reductions and payment deferrals, repealing resolution 4549, series 2009, and all other resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith, and declaring an effective date.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? No. All right, we're going to move into new business. Considering resolution to establish a public safety service fee at $10 per month per available unit. With that, can we get a staff report, please?

As a mayor and council, with the ordinance framework adopted earlier, this resolution establishes the actual public safety service fee at $10 per month for each billable unit receiving municipal utility service. At that level, staff projects up to approximately $540,000 in annual revenue. That amount offsets only a portion of the city's documented public safety costs, but it provides a stable, dedicated source of support for police, fire, and EMS, emergency communications and preparedness. Every dollar collected is restricted to public safety purposes. Billing would begin 1 February 2037 if approved tonight. through the existing utility billing system. The fee would be reviewed annually during the budget process to confirm that it remains reasonably related to documented costs and any future adjustment would have to follow the ordinance. Staff recommends passage of this resolution as presented.

I favor what David said about waiting until we make sure we have this all in place. So I'm going to move that we table this I don't know. Do you have to say when?

No. Is that a later date works?

I think at that point, Mary Ann, if for some reason this is completed in January, there's no reason we can't enact it in January. So this can go both ways. But to me, again, as I understood it, the council placed a mandate upon staff to complete certain requirements before we would enact this. So if we enact this tonight, it's already got a start date. I would feel much more comfortable knowing that the work has been done before we proceed forward. I would second.

So we can just table it for right now.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

All right, we're going to move into considering resolution annexing property at 303 South 20th Street. And with that, can we have a staff report?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor and Council. So this is a request similar to what you've seen many times before. This is a property in the urban growth boundary that's immediately adjacent to the city limits. The property owner has requested annexation in exchange for receiving city and water sewer services to support new home construction. Do you have any questions?

that like triangle shaped corner lot 702 yes thank you mike okay thank you public comments is there anybody here would like to speak on this matter council discussion motion

I move that the proposed resolution annexing property located at 303 South 20th Street be read by title only, put to a vote, and passed. Second.

Any more discussion? At this time, could the city recorder read the proposed resolution by title only?

A resolution of the City Council of the City of La Grande, Union County, Oregon, declaring certain territory annexed to the City of La Grande, Union County, Oregon, specifically property at 303 South 20th Street, Township 3, South Range 38 East, Section 16B, Tax Lot 702, and removing said property from the La Grande Rural Fire Protection District.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed? All right, next one. Considering adoption of the public comment, audiovisually support and... Discretion.

Discretion, thank you.

City assistance policy and authorizing the city manager to exercise the policy. With this, can we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Mayor and Council, this policy establishes one clear and viewpoint neutral practice for audiovisual equipment and staff presentation assistance during open public comment. As a general rule, the city would not provide discretionary audiovisual equipment, technical support, or staff assistance for an individual's presentation. This does not restrict public comment. The public comment microphone remains available. Speakers may continue to address the council and submit written materials, and legally required disability accommodations are fully preserved. Permitted self-contained personnel equipment must be set up, used, and removed within the speaker's allotted time, and may not connect to city equipment, networks, or audiovisual systems. Presentations requested by the mayor, council, presiding officer, or staff for a city purpose are also unaffected. The policy protects fair access, meeting operations, city resources, information systems, and employees by applying the same rules to everyone. Staff recommends adoption and authorization for the city manager to execute the policy. Depending on any questions you have, that concludes. My recommendation is for approval. Depending on any questions you have, that concludes my staff report. Any questions for staff?

So if a group is giving a presentation that is on the agenda, they may have AV access.

They could request assistance at that point if it's on the agenda.

Has IT...

commented on this or have we consulted with IT yes they recommended that we minimize best as feasible anybody that would be potentially accessing any of our equipment because we don't know what we either intended or unintended damage that their connection to any of our equipment could cause right and that's a concern with IT that you have a breach if if a foreign

drive is plugged into our equipment and that I mean there's some cities that have been compromised in bad ways in the last couple months. So that is a concern.

Any more questions for staff? Public comment on this matter?

Greg Hamer, Washington Street. Well, I guess that because that was written against me, I'm going to comment on it. I'm going to comment on the censorship, not being able to show what you're talking about, and discrimination. If you're going to allow somebody to come in here that's something on the agenda, but not allow public comment to show it on the screen.

I have a question.

Just a minute, we're in the middle. Wait until we get into council. Oh, I'm sorry. We're on the public comments for the moment. Okay. Anybody else, public comment?

Hi, Tammy Gordon. I agree with what the city is saying. being in the military for 34 years, you always have outside sources that could potentially compromise your programs. And I think the information that you have on whatever computer or whatever screen that you use could potentially affect the entire network. So I think with the IT department's recommendation as well, I think you can always do handouts, correct? So that would be my recommendation. If somebody has something that they want to show, they do handouts instead of doing virtual. Or get on the agenda.

That's all I have. Thank you. Anybody else that would like to comment on this matter? Council discussion. Now you're talking.

so if somebody wanted to show something on the screen it needs obviously to come through us so we're not compromised but could that be put on the agenda so it can be shown would it need to go through you or how would that work yeah what i what i would say is it would depend on the circumstances but if it makes the agenda we will do what we can to make sure that the opportunity to to do what's on the agenda is accomplished Okay.

The best possible means. Okay. And my practice is that in the best case scenario, everything that we're presenting is going to be generated internally and presented that way. That way we at least have a reasonable assumption that it's safe.

So like if somebody gave you some pictures or whatever, you could scan them or do whatever you needed to do to put them on the screen then?

We could, yes.

Okay. All right. Great. Thank you.

I think just to be clear with the comment about censorship, this is not censoring someone's ability to come out and present something. Traditionally, this has been done by paper handouts. They're handed to council. They're handed among the public who are present as needed. It also, as I read it, does not preclude somebody from setting up their own equipment. from which they could provide a projection. So if somebody wants to bring in a screen or bring in a TV or something, they can do that. They're limited by their allotted time, but what it does do is it protects the city's networks. And so I think that's just an important comment that we make for clarification with the public regarding the idea that this is about censorship. It is not.

Right. Agreed. And in the past instances where this has come up, that same information has been communicated to anyone asking? Motion.

I move to adopt the public comment audio-visual support and discretionary city assistance policy as presented and authorize the city manager to execute the policy on behalf of the city.

We have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right, our next one, considering waive additional fees for the Union County Fairgrounds water and sewer project. Dr. Williams, staff report, please.

Yes, Mayor and Council. In 2022, the city reserved up to $250,000 in ARPA funds as contingent support for the Union County Fairgrounds Water and Sewer Project. That commitment has already been fully satisfied through just shy of $120,000 in transient room lodging tax funds and $130,769 in water and sewer connection fee waivers. Union County is now requesting that the remaining invoice be reduced from $177,289.24 to $119,000, which would require an additional one-time fee waiver of $58,289.24. If approved, the city's total support for the project would increase from $250,000 to $308,289.24. THIS WOULD NOT CREATE AN ONGOING OBLIGATION. STAFF SUPPORTS THE ADDITIONAL REDUCTION IN RECOGNITION OF THE FAIRGROUNDS AS AN IMPORTANT REGIONAL COMMUNITY ASSET AND THE VALUE OF THE PARTNERSHIP AMONG THE CITY, UNION COUNTY, AND THE FAIRBOARD. THE COUNCIL MAY APPROVE THE REQUESTED AMOUNT, APPROVE A DIFFERENT AMOUNT, OR DECLINE THE REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. AND PENDING ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE FOR ME, THAT CONCLUDES MY STAFF REPORT.

DID THE COST OF THE PROJECT GO UP?

I'm not sure how...

I think he said it did.

Are you able to speak to that? I'm not sure.

Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Did the cost of the project go up? So we decided that the TRT funds plus the fee waivers would cover it, and now it's not, so...

I think the initial $250,000 was a match to what Union County had originally designated to the project. So in discussions with Union County and the contractor when developing the project, they were looking at the water and sewer hookups to be basically a net zero of outflow of cash from the project. This additional fee waiver would meet that as a net zero cash outflow. So I think that's the overall goal.

Okay. The project didn't go up.

Probably some miscommunication on the front end of the project between the fair board commission who developed the project and the switch over to the county when they went out and got the remainder of the funds. of what the city's fees would actually look like. Because as I understand, and this is not fact, this is all hearsay of my discussions, when the project switched over to Union County, they were under the understanding that it was a net zero cash flow to get the city hookups into the fairgrounds as part of the project. When the final fees came due, they saw that there was a differential there where the project would outlay cash toward that hookup. And so this request is to zero that out.

I'm sure the cost probably did go up because we approved this several years ago.

Yeah.

All right. This time we'd like to invite public comments on this matter.

Good evening, Mayor, Councillors. I'm Shelly Burgess. I'm the Union County Administrative Officer, and I want to thank you for considering this item. And in response to your question, in 2022, when the city did approve the $250,000, as Kyle stated, the understanding was, or the assumption, I guess I'll say, even though we know we shouldn't assume things, but... that the $250,000 commitment from the city would mostly be in kind covering those fees and the costs have gone up from what was expected overall on the project. And so if the city can accommodate and cover the fees as we expected, then it brings us back into the budget that we had solicited funds for. I think that's all I have. Unless you have questions, I can address.

Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, that was four years ago. These have gone up in four years.

Yeah. And I think the fairgrounds are very important to us. Yeah, it's a good gathering place for working seeds and everything.

Is there anybody else that would like to comment on this matter? Councilor, discussion?

I think we kind of discussed it before.

I believe so. I still got to keep it in there. Sorry. Motion.

I move that the City Council waive an additional $58,289.24 in fees associated with the Union County Fairgrounds Water and Sewer Project.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Is there any more discussion? All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right, we are gonna move into 7E. Consider authorization of city staff to apply for two grants through the Regional Infrastructure Fund ADMINISTRATED BY BUSINESS OR STAFF REPORTING, PLEASE.

MR. MAYOR, COUNSELOR, SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT POPPED UP AND LUCKILY IT WAS CAUGHT BY STAFF THAT WE NEED TO GET YOUR APPROVAL TO SUBMIT SOME APPLICATIONS FOR SOME GRANTS. SO THE REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUND WAS CREATED IN 2013 BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE. I DON'T HAVE A TRACKING OF HOW MUCH MONEY IS ACTUALLY PUT INTO THIS FUND OVER TIME, BUT This is the first time in my career that we've actually heard of the opportunity and they've allotted a certain amount of money to each one of the regional solution areas. So there's at least a half a million dollars that will be awarded to an applicable project within Union Baker and Wallowa County because that's our region. So the staff is asking for your authorization to submit two applications. One would be our new well project in which we will build new infrastructure. The second would be to partner with a project that's far enough along that has their project to what they term shovel ready. So they have plans in place. They have it through the land use planning so that we can get the infrastructure, a little bit of money toward infrastructure for their project. So happy to answer any questions you might have.

When is the grant supposed to be awarded, do you know?

We're to turn in applications on the 16th. I believe they are supposed to be awarded at the end of October with funds available early in 27. The grant asks that everything be constructed within 24 months.

There's no matching requirement on our part either in order to submit.

It's free money.

I like that.

no problem public comments counselor discussion I think it doesn't get it doesn't cost us anything it's it's a possibility that we will get them we have nothing to lose by applying for motion I move that the La Grande City Council authorize city staff to submit two grant applications for the Regional Infrastructure Fund program, and the city manager be authorized to accept the grants and sign any related documents if awarded. I'll second.

I have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed? Do not see our accounting commissioner here. So we will move on to staff comment.

Good evening. Have you guys missed your monthly statistics? I keep them every month, so I just wanted to share. We had over 7,000 people visit the library last month. We had over 10,000 physical items circulated. We had over, let's see, we had 101 new card holders created. So the numbers are just, you know, going up. Anyway.

that's all I have thank you good evening just a short report for the month of August we had 216 medical calls 50 MBC fire calls, 12 lift assists, and we started football season, so we had a standby up at the football game. It's that best time of the year right now. Wildfire report for August. We had four box alarms, a couple out along Highway 82. We had one on I-84 and then the other day out by Stonewood we had an incident out there that was the crews we worked with our partners along with police, OSP, sheriff's office. We almost had an incident right in the park there. So got it stopped right at the edge of the trailer park and the crews did good and along with our partners with ODF Imbler, La Grande Rural. Scary situation, wind and straw don't go well together. We also had Earlier in the, well throughout the month we went out with ODF for three nights on the Hagen fire and then we also went out to the Middle Ridge fire with the crew one night. So pretty busy month for the wildfire staffing and the guys are doing great and crews are getting out there and helping out. So our I want to report we're fully staffed and today we had our last pinning ceremony for our last probationary firefighter. So fully staffed, nobody on probation. And so it's pretty cool to get that far. Worked a lot of years to get there. So how long that stays, you just got to knock on wood. But we're excited about that. We also have two firefighters in paramedic school finishing up in their last stages here in the next few months. And then two that start next week. And those are the last two we're getting in paramedic school. So pretty excited about that. And then the last thing, we're having a 9-11 ceremony next Friday. 9-11 at 0830. You're all invited. Short ceremony. It'll be about a half hour or so. But everybody's invited for the public. Where? At the fire station. At the fire station, yes. And so anyone can come and just be a time to honor those we lost that day. All right, unless you have any questions, that's my report.

Merle did a great job at our community roundtable last week in regards to public safety fire, too. So if anybody didn't get a chance to see it, it was recorded, so you can watch it if you want to watch it. But he did a great job. It was a great conversation. Thank you, Chief.

Was it a good turnout?

Yeah, I think we had about 15 in the room and then another 15 or so online.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Any more staff comments this evening?

All right. The real reason why everybody came tonight, post-mortem on the second street project. I'm really grateful for Mr. Bruce's honest testimony to how the project went. There was a lot of hurdles, and from the outside, you can't see them. So, you know, kind of following Ken's timeline, we started with a procurement problem. So, you know, when you're ordering 8-inch water parts, you get them tomorrow. When you order 18-inch ones, they're about four months out. So our valve to shut off the whole project arrived a week after the 8th when we wanted to get going so we did everything we could to prepare for that but if you didn't know you don't remove three feet of overburden on an 18 inch water line because it'll blow out of the ground so you really can't do anything other than clear out the whole other side of the street so that's what we did. From the outside looking in from a construction project really ineffective so Usually you like to move down the street and remove the whole thing, but we were like, we got to get something done because we got a short timeline. After that, we reconstructed a 48-inch storm line that we didn't anticipate that they had hung the previous water line through, so it had pretty much filled with rock. So we had to realign the water line and drop it about two feet to get it to go in without knowing we had to do that design change. We located a whole new sewer main that served four houses that we didn't even know existed. So we got to reconstruct that. We had already planned for a new sewer main along the frontage of the Tiger House. So we had the crews out there to do it. But upon that, there was also about three or four other hurdles that we hit during the project. So I wasn't able to attend the August meeting. I sent Edie here to give you an update. I did not know it would blow up into the nightmare that it did when it was reported that, hey, we may not make it. That was based on we had tried to get two contractors on. We had yet to meet with them. We didn't know what their schedules were. We didn't know what their timelines were. We had procurement problems with getting the contracts completed and we had to meet some legal requirements so we were delayed two weeks on that. It was just a lot of stuff that hit bad but I'd like to say it was really great to watch the crews number one get out there and live what we have been trying to change in our city that we will not build something unless it's done right. So we will not pave a road unless everything is fixed and that's what we did. On the back end, looking back, the one thing that was very disappointing was I learned once again, we in La Grande can't have nice things. We had people pulling onto the mats, blowing through closures. We actually had reports, I believe Ken actually reported to me that he watched people pull out behind the paver on fresh asphalt. We have, if you go down between H and I, you can watch where people parked, turn their tires, there's marks, those are future potholes. We shortened the life of a $750,000 project and had a contractor who watched people over and over again, get out, move the barricades, drive onto the project, even after the contractor moved them back into place. So that was disappointing from the standpoint of managing the public works department. It is difficult to get your people to continually go out and deliver a great project when it's basically a disrespectful, we don't care. So it's one of those things. I don't know how we're going to change it, but we have some ideas. So in the next few months, you'll see some things. We have the idea of street cutting fees, things that you know when we do a job we want to make it stay so we'll be bringing some ideas of how we can extend the life of some of these streets and try and fix some of those problems but happy to answer any questions for second street and then i'll move through the rest of it i have so i mean couldn't you get their license plates and i mean that's kind of breaking the law sort of i mean going through a barricade In some extent, I mean, in the past, we haven't ever gotten to the point where we're issuing tickets. But that is one of the avenues we wanted to do. We have new traffic count cameras that will actually take pictures. So one of the ideas was setting up those traffic count cameras on either end of a project. So when we see somebody blow through a closure, we'll actually have photo evidence to show that they intentionally blew through a closure.

I would support that. Me too. Yeah.

What about puncture strips around there?

Actually, yes, but it's hard to procure spike strips. Eastern Oregon Rental doesn't carry them.

I could make you some. Are you going to paint a white line, I mean a line in the middle? Because I drove it today and there's no line right there.

I believe ODOT was supposed to be there today to paint those. I think we marked them, we surveyed them in about midday today, so I think they're either painting them today or tomorrow. Might be a weather thing, but they will be there this week from what I understand.

because all the other lines were painted sideways, but not the one in the middle, and I just was wondering.

I got a lot of questions and complaints and comments about this project, and I really appreciate the post-mortem, because I'm like, I know there was something going on, but I don't know what it was because they're busy working. And so I'm glad to kind of get it all out there so we can all understand what went on.

Yeah, and that's one of the hard parts. You know, when Edie came to deliver the update last month, it's...

She did a great job.

Oh, I agree. I have no problem. The hard part is to relay the information of, hey, we're thinking we can finish by school time, but we really don't know until we talk to these other three people. But we don't know what we don't know, and you can't report what you don't know. And how much do you really relay that information? It's a difficult... At what point do you say, hey, we just uncovered a storm sewer we're going to have to replace that's going to delay us a week? But we're still okay.

That's okay to put that out there. I think most people would say, oh.

Yeah. I think from my standpoint, there wasn't a problem until they heard, hey, we might not make it.

I appreciated the comment that was made on Facebook from your department that you'd be working through the weekend and it would be completed tomorrow. when school opened. That spoke volumes.

Yeah, that it would be painted on Sunday and be ready to go on Monday. I think that was brilliant.

That was very good. People complained to me that, why are they working overtime? They're not .

I can hear that, too. But I also heard that they appreciated the knowledge that you guys were working to get it done. To try to get it done, yeah.

you can't yeah you know 1500 kids congregating in that area they just needed to get it done and work over time to get it done well and if you've ever parked downtown where we don't park paint parking lines you can see how effective people are if left without any guidance yeah oh yeah it was probably just effective to pay that over time If there's no other questions on Second Street, as Mr. Bruce mentioned, we've also got EOU going. So now that our water crew is freed up from that one, they're going to go do the main line work. So we've been building up to this point of getting that project prepared, getting all of the valves isolated and located so that we can shut off the old main. We're not going to rip it out. We're just turning it off and it's staying there. But what you will see and I think you all need to know there is about 16 trees coming out along C avenue. There's about 1200 square feet of sidewalk we poured last year that we're ripping out. So most people will be unhappy about that. You may get phone calls but those are to accommodate the water main move and they will be placed back after the project. So they won't be the trees that have been there for 30 years but there will be new trees that are are catered to those places so We have the urban forester ordering those trees and replacing them. You didn't know it, but we had a well down for the last month. We kind of walked that line where we never had to do any kind of water curtailment, but it did show how delicate our system is. When one well is down, we are pretty close during peak time of producing just enough water to keep everybody happy.

It was 90-something degrees.

Yeah, so we didn't have to have anybody stop watering their lawn. We didn't have to cut off the parks. So everything went okay, but that well that we were closing for construction next year will be a wonderful addition to the regiment. After we finish 2nd Street, we can now start our paving program for the year. So the first up is 5th and 7th between Owen Penn. If you go down there now, they're gravel streets. We ground them this week. They'll be paved on Tuesday. After that, we have a couple of blocks on Lane and H Avenue that are going to get hit, and then I believe we have about four or five other projects we'd like to get before it gets too cold, but it'll all be weather dependent.

Who paints the lines on 21st Street?

Who paints the line on 21st Street? Probably ODOT.

Okay.

So we can check. If they're coming in to do 2nd Street, they might be able to hit 21st Street because we did do that chip seal on there. So they may have already been through and done it for this year, and then we chip sealed it afterwards.

It looks like it's all done but not painted.

Yeah. So they may have came through and painted it and then we chip sealed over their new paint. So they usually come through at the beginning of the year, paint all the new lines, and then they come through at the end of the year. Gotcha. Get anything that we hid for a project.

I have a question.

Yep.

So we use ODOT all the time for our lines on our street. So you don't use zip line or any of that. Okay. I was just curious.

We do all of like the crosswalks and the parking lines, painting curbs. But for the center line ones, they have specialized equipment that makes it really easy and fast. So they can not close roads where we would have to close roads or buy new equipment. So it's worked really well. It's in the budget. So we run with that for now. Okay. And I think that's it for me unless you have any other questions.

All right. Thank you, Kyle. Thank you.

City Manager comments. I'll keep mine short this time. Just a reminder that on the 9th of September, we'll be doing the community roundtable for Inside Your City Budget. And then on the 17th, we're going to be doing probably a beginning of a series of education community roundtables. It's going to be about FTI, helping making sure the community is aware of what we're doing and why without overcomplicating it. So the 17th, we'll be doing that as well. And then...

That's all I have three Counselor comments I have some from Union County safe communities coalition the drug-free run is Going to be Saturday September 19th. They have a 5k run and a one-mile family-friendly scavenger hunt walk It's a good fundraiser and a community event to support drug free activities also suicide prevention or suicide awareness month is September and I can give some facts on that but one number to remember is the suicide crisis line is 988 so if anyone needs that that's the number you need to call And Celebrate Legrand is September 10th.

There was a gentleman here at the last meeting regarding the sidewalk on the underpass, and he was concerned that it hadn't been, you know, kept up, whatever, and he's a bicyclist, a rider, and he shared his concerns, and he just wanted to give Public Works or Parks Department, I think it was, an attaboy for getting it done. And it took a while, but he was very appreciative that ride his bike and not have to go into overgrown dirt that's kind of grown up onto the sidewalk or have to get off his bike where the tree is overhanging or if a person was walking by. So it makes it a much nicer walkway. Who took care of that?

Public Works actually ended up taking care of it, but it is ODOT's responsibility. So we helped them out because they weren't able to, but I think it's important to note that that's above baseline service for us to provide.

Can I jump in on that, you guys? I heard about Cedric's complaint, and so I went down and checked that out. And Public Works had gone down and started on it. So then we jumped in. We wanted to start this Adopt a Sidewalk program, which we're working with John on. It's just not in place yet. We went down with the crew, knocked it down the rest of the way. I went and saw Danny Martin. Martin had already secured with Odon, because that's an Odon property, which we didn't know at that time. And they had already got another contractor to come in and do the sidewalk. So it's all beautiful now. But we're getting ready to initiate that thing. I love it.

I think it's a great idea.

Technically, you can't speak.

Oh.

But thank you. Yeah, but thank you.

Any more comments?

Marianne, do you want to just mention, just remind everybody about October?

I'll do. Yeah.

Yeah, just remind everybody.

Okay, Halloween this year will be on October 31st downtown. It was decided, we took the, Main Street sent out a survey basically, and I think four to one people wanted it on the 31st. So it is on a Saturday, which I know is kind of awkward,

Oh, yeah.

Because some of the businesses, I don't know if they will all be back or not. We're hoping they will. But then if it was on Friday, some of the businesses closed at noon anyway, so the school was out. I know one of the comments was they wanted to have it on the 31st. They didn't want to have to dress their kids twice. However, the school, I understand, is parent-teachers on that week, so they're going to have Halloween on that Wednesday before. So they're going to have to dress their kids twice anyway.

I have one other comment. And I don't know if I should say this or not. But anyway, the downtown, we're going to try something new this year. We're going to have a Winterfest. And that will be on the 12th of December. And it will be in the Globe Building. And so we're looking for vendors and everyone to participate. And hopefully we'll coordinate it with all the bazaars and everything that's going on. But it's another event. to get the community together. So mark that on your calendar, December 12th.

It is the mainstream event.

Yes.

Is that it?

With that, we are adjourned.