City Council - Special Meeting

That

in fact got away. Are you on I won't tell you how to

How are you? kisses. Okay, we're time to get started. And uh we've got a quorum of counselors. I think we have Indra online. And our first

Yes. Yes. Hi, Andra. And what is our our what's first? BR report. Okay. The BR& report that I hope the Chamber of Commerce is here to do. Yeah. And I do see the chamber here. Great. And Dana will get us started. Thank you. Yeah. I'll provide a quick introduction. Um, as you know, every 3 years the Chamber of Commerce does a business retention expansion survey for businesses locally. And so I'm going to start by just introducing you to Terry Hopkins. He's the CEO and president of the Chamber of Commerce.

Good morning, Council President and Council. Thank you for having me here and uh thank you to those that helped participate in this. I mean, the city's been a great partner in doing this for many, many years, and it's greatly appreciated. But uh as Dana said, one of the functions of the Chamber of Commerce is our business retention and expansion committee. Every three years we host this business survey. It started back in 1996 uh with the planning. This is a model that's used across the nation and supported by the University of Minnesota. Uh in each survey we hear issues from local businesses where they're struggling, where they could use help, and where they're finding success. And it helps us uh along with economic development partners like within the city to uh sculpt our work around uh providing that help. uh this in addition to steering uh the work that we've done, we've had some pretty big success over the year. I mean, dating back to some of the first surveys that helped spur the development of the Spalding Industrial Park and you know, here today we celebrate uh receiving money to get some expansion in that. Uh more recent efforts include uh workforce development and some of our uh work in the rogue leadership training experience. uh the the surveys when we do them still a little bit old school. We get out and we do one- on-one confidential surveys. Uh we have a slew of folks who volunteered and including folks that I'm talking to here today. So again, thank you. Uh but we go set out and it's not just an open invitation to everyone. We're pretty targeted in that we make sure we capture some that are maybe a little bit more rural in the county, some here in the city. Uh we focus on big businesses, larger employers and uh we also are very intentional at making sure that we get the mom and pop owner operators. Uh in addition to geography and size, we target uh different industry sectors. So

we make sure that we have balanced representation uh whether that be health care, trades, retail, um manufacturing and service-based industries uh just to list a few. Uh so we really uh you know uh work hard because sometimes the trades the folks out there plumbing electricians don't always have an hour to set aside. So uh it's very intentional. Uh in addition to the work of the the committee uh I'm joined today and want to introduce Chuck Run who I think many of you know. Uh Chuck was the president of Charleston Research Company, a public policy and opinion research firm that designs and develops strategies for clients in business, politics, and the law. The company conducted extensive and national public opinion research for over 250 corporations, including 24 that are listed in the top 100 of Fortune 500. Recognized as an expert in the research and analysis of specialized issues affecting the political community, Mr. Rund has been a key player in four presidential campaigns, 12 gubernatorial campaigns, 17 state races, campaigns for 48 elected Congress people, and many state and local initiative campaigns. Mr. Rund has been an election night analyst for CBS News for 32 years, remains a breast of the national and statewide trends. Uh Chuck, I really appreciate all the work you've done in that arena, but most importantly just honored to have you as part of our BR&E committee and providing many years of analysis for us here locally with our local businesses. So with that, I'm going to let you come up and uh today we have prepared a a very modified summary. this information in further detail is available to you all but we wanted to be respectful of your time and hit some of

the high notes as it really uh you know some of you came to our larger presentation but this one maybe dials a little bit more into the city specific issues. So with that Chuck I'm going to hand over the power to you.

Well thank well thank you Terry and uh good morning to all of you. Uh, I hate to say starting Monday morning with a data analyst is probably not high on your list of uh of of ways to get your week going, but at least we'll try to walk through these and have a have an enjoyable time taking a look at where data fits in to making decisions, you know, about what kinds of things and and particularly public policy that we're trying to make. The the people you're listening to in my data or the the chambers data here is basically businesses. So this is the voice of business to a degree talking about what they see going on. And so it's not a they're consumers as well, but they're they're we're we're talking to them in a business context. And so with that, let me just talk a little bit about today's presentation. U the uh we're do a little quick national overview on some consumer sentiment, uh some top concerns people have, you know, a little bit of inflation. You know, we're not going to get into AI too much, tariffs, that kind of stuff, but it's there. We've got a couple of things to show you on that. We spend most of our time on the bottom half the BR& uh and that is business retention and expansion. Both of those ideas of expanding you know what the operating status is revenue services labor shortages employee recruitments and then city and uh and county services and and business's impression of of those items. You've got the deck in front of you and uh I'm sure that you've had a chance to look at it and we we can go from there. So with that let me just go on the there were four basic major top concerns in uh in taking a look at this data the four things that people mentioned as what are your top concerns looking forward decreasing consumer confidence and spending was number one. So what the businesses were saying just a few months ago is that the they were seeing consumers not spending money and not having much much confidence in where the economy was and where it was going to go. It was a shortcut conversation to what tariffs mean and

the fact of the uncertainty in the economic markets as well. And I'm not going to spend a great deal of time on that. The second was global US recession. Boy, it's pretty hard for us to solve that one. If you've got an idea, I'm sure some of you back in somewhere else would really like to hear it, but that's obviously something that everyone's worried about as well. You know, the availability of qualified workers, that's something we can take a look at and spend some time on. The chamber can really have an effect there. And then last, inflation. Again, one of those very major issues. So, three of the top four issues that businesses were think were thinking about was the inconsistency and nervousness they have in general about the economy. and we hadn't gone to Iraq yet or Iran yet. So, here we are. It's a very interesting spot in the nation. Money is playing a very major part and we'll take a look at those as we go along. The bottom half of that list, by the way, are a number of things I'm sorry you can't read them that we really really can have some impact on. financial impact of operations, tax and trade issues, supply chain uh disruptions, wildfires was also a big issue, lack of information for decision-m, lower productivity, employee stress, these kinds of things were also mentioned in that lower half and we can surely talk about those as we go through this today. Um, some of the top concerns, the Michigan index of consumer sentiment at the time we took the survey was the lowest it's been in the country uh since the 1976. So what we're saying is consumer confidence is very low. They're not spending much money. They're a little bit nervous. These are fairly major economic impacts. They're going to impact us. Sometimes we can do something, sometimes we can't. Blue collar unemployment or employment has been decreasing. This is just taking a look at the last two years. And you can see the manufacturing side of that has been underwater for the last 18 months. Uh there's where that blueco collar uh uh portions are hit. looking at that those are very very important kind of numbers trying to raise those kinds of employment structures particularly in our geographic area and the impact they have on our economy and what we're doing

you know is really important I just didn't show a number of other ones but I would like to mention the fact that 10% of the earners of money in America spend spend 50% of of do buy 50% of the purchases so think about how many rich people we have here and how many of them are going to spending of our top 10% 10% are going to buy 50% of all the consumer goods. Well, that sure changes your mind a little bit in terms of where the economy is going and what we need to think of. So, there could be some rough times ahead depending upon how place with that. I'm not going to spend more on that although it's a place I like to to chat. So, I have to get out of there. Okay. So, I apologize for that. BR& is is this next route. So, we asked a series of questions. One of the early questions we ask is looking at the past year and the current year and the future, have your products or services increased, decreased or stayed the same? So, it's a three-part three-part question. If you take a look at the top next year, uh people say their part their their uh uh uh their products and services will increase up to 60%. During the pandemic, it was at 45. Pre- pandemic in 2017, it was 81. We've come back. We've only come back half of where we were pre- pandemic. We're still in a post-pandemic world. We're 20 points below where our e our economy was looking from a business perspective and where it was going to be going. And we've now been out of that period of time now for the last three or four years. The economy is a very slow moving issue. It doesn't happen very fast and people's attitudes on it stay very strong for a very long period of time. Current year again the same set of of challenges. You see 57% say they think the current year has been pretty good. It's 20 points up from the 37, but it's way below the 75% that it was in 2017. You can see the difference in the flattening of the marketplace. Businesses are still struggling. They're looking to find out ways to get around that and find a way. And when you take a look at where things have been in the

past year, they had increased. You can see it's 48% but it was 31% during the recession. It was 75% po pre pre uh uh pandemic. So this pandemic has really played a major role. It hasn't gone away. It's still there. It formed a set of attitudes and structure about consumer behavior and business behavior that is really driving where the country is going. And it seems that we're in a series of other economic tariffs and now foreign policy changes that are really making a difference in terms of where the American people and our local community are thinking about things. So anyway, with that sales and production overall in your industry, would you say that sales or production levels are increasing, unchanged, or decreasing? Well, they're increasing, but they're not increasing anywhere near where they were in 23 at 61 or in 17 and 14 on the other two previous surveys. So that's a 10-year. Take a look where they were clearly up right around 80%. The industries for each of these business line lines of business are really not helping the line of business much is what that says. So there's a real disconnect between local businesses, the industries they represent, and how much help they're getting from their in industry partners around the country. Very, very interesting factor, one that's very, very strong, which means they're look, in other words, the businesses are looking for money. They're looking for markets. Businesses are always going to go to where the money is and take a look at that. This is one suggestion to say that they're out there looking in a very, very strong way. and they're down at 43% here at uh you know so you know that that's something to look at innovations over the same three-year period has your business or organization made any of the following changes or do you expect to make changes in the following areas of innovation expand the use of technology 43% said we've already implemented it we're expecting 20 another 23% said we're going to do it you know and 26% said no change so on and so forth so they're looking at technology they're looking at where the the the country is going to go and how technology plays added product lines again strong. The third adopted efficient technologies.

You know, taking a look at what our business can do, how more we can be more efficient, how we can look at that. And then all of a sudden it drops down to, you know, 31% and 60% on the far side. No changes in terms of entering new markets, adjusting to domestic competition, attracting other product lines, adjusting to new and anticipated tariffs. They have no idea what to do with that. By the way, that's all that says to you. Someone set up an economic model that the country is going to run on and nobody in the business community knows what to do with it. Well, that's an interesting thing, isn't it? I just throw it out. I mean, you know, it's you got to think that way a little bit. And then the last one is, you know, adjusted due to foreign competition. We don't have that much foreign competition right here in Josephine County, but you know, there is a little bit. And so, so there is, but really these top ones we can take a look at. Technology is playing a major role. We also asked a specific question on technology and that was what percentage of your sales are internet-based. Uh 51 to 100% there was 14% of our businesses said yes. 26 to 50% 9% said yes. That's 23% of the businesses are actually doing something with technology locally to make money. What's the biggest change taking place in America? AI technology all of that. How much are we engaged in it? A little bit. Not too much. We're not over exceeding oursel here. We don't have those kind of businesses here. We're not part of that. We need to kind of take a look at that and think about where I AI fits in and what's going on. None. 42% 1 to 25 70, you know, 75% are saying nothing really. And so there we are. We're not really engaged in that world. something to think of as a challenge both for the two big b the the two big money generators that exist here are you guys and the business guys that's where money comes

from right here I mean so what's going on one half of all that is where the money's coming from and who's getting it where are they how and how are they looking to put that together anyway market geography where is your market and uh which which means uh and this this shows means that's why the numbers are over 100% so but it It's proportional as you kind of look through it because people g could give more than one answer to this local markets. Grand Pass and Josephine County 64. Okay. Second on that list was regional in southern Oregon you know another 26. So we're really local regional and all that. Statewide Oregon 11% and then national 24%. Wow. That's an interesting thing. We don't look to Salem. We don't look to Portland. Uh twice that. We're looking for a national outlets. I went back and looked at the data. The data was exactly the same in the last two major surveys we did for BR&E at 25 to to 30% on looking nationally. So, in terms of looking for money, our businesses are going national. They're not looking to trade here lo, you know, outside of our local area to the rest of the state of Oregon. I'm not sure what the relationship between us, Salem, Northern Oregon is all about, but clearly from a money perspective, there's not any money coming into this community from those places because they're not part of what we're about. That's something to think about what our role should be there and how we can, you know, talk about that and adjust and move forward in thinking that through. If it hadn't, if it had only been this one year, would be an outlier, but it's been consistent now over the last 10 years. So, we have to look at that. Workforce issues, uh, percent reporting on impacts to business, problems recruiting employees. This is something that we've had a problem with businesses for a long time. Availability of child care, availability of workforce housing, and problems retaining employees. The top one and the bottom one, recruiting and retaining, very big issues. The chamber's got a number of programs working on with that. I know that the

city's done a number of things as well. You've looked into those things. Very, very important issues. And so, we pay attention to what's going on in that marketplace. the childare and and work force housing. By the way, we we went in a little bit more depth on those two issues. Let me say what's going on as an employer and how has the availability of child care services affected your company. I'd like you to look at that that 42% on the right in red over there. That's that's how it's impacted people. It was 53% in the prior survey. Congratulations. You're making progress. You're moving in the right direction. Things are happening out there. Businesses are seeing it. They think it's moving in in the right way. actions being taken is important. It's really it's really and it's really helping and that's a significant change. On the second issue in terms of impact of housing availability, the same set, look at that red on the side. It was 35% you know down from 42% in the last survey. Again, progress being made in terms of those areas very strong. If you don't have a place to live that you want your family in, you tend not to move to that place. It's a simple recruiting issue, you know. It's not it's not complex. It's a it's really straightforward. people think of it very clear. But anyway, real progress is being made. Congratulations uh you and the county as well. Uh community disadvantages. Um uh what are the main disadvantages we have? Social issues was number one. I wasn't trying to say housing is solved because that was the number one mention of the number one disadvantage by the way of what our problems are. Um, for any of you who did participate in that, I'm sure you all heard stories about, well, I went to work this morning, a 30-year-old woman, and there was a person sleeping in the doorway. What was I supposed to do? And those issues are still there. They're important issues. They're important issues to kind of confront, deal with, and look at in a broad public policy way. But here we are. No disadvantages. That's a pretty good answer. U, you know, things are fine. It's a small town. uh you know that you can only get so much out of small the economy and the market is not strong over leadership and governance other kinds of issues but

that social issue thing is still a little bit dominant but a lot of other issues playing a role in terms of disadvantages a critical job skills what skills are critical to your business and your organization this is a very important one it's been the exact same issue that that it was in the last survey we did and that is interpersonal skills that is just how to show up on time, go to work, be counted, be dressed properly, say things like, "May I help you?" You know, fundamental social, human interactions at a basic level are the number one thing that needs to take place. The chamber has done a lot of work around that issue. Put a lot of great effort there. soft skills, networking with with people skills, reliable and dependable, learning how to communicate, finding out how to work on a team, understanding what a work ethic means. These kinds of things are the drivers for what takes place in our community. We really need to take a look at those and look at training models to get better workers on these very simple, straightforward human relations. Number two on that was mentioned, specialized skills and technology is the next one down. Those are doing pretty well. We people are finding what they need there. They're they've already done that work. They've they've added new technologies. They're they're working on the technology side. They're making they're adding to people's skills. They can get them a class at RCC. These kind of things. It's these interpersonal and how to act in as a as a member of society that this world. I'm not sure that's a business job or it's a government job or I guess it's all, doesn't it? Anyway, when you think about that, where's it start and how does it go? um awareness of uh of services. Are you aware if you use any of these local business services? Um Chamber of Commerce, that was number one, by the way. And it was probably because when we walked in the door, we said, "Hi, we're from the Chamber of Commerce." So, um you know, that's probably But you probably wonder

about the 13% who'd never heard of us. That's kind of funny, isn't it? I I'm sorry. It's, you know, it's a Monday morning. You know, what can we say? And Main Street resources are there. small SBDC travel grants pass 40% you know so ready you and it drops down to southern Oregon rogue work workfor business or business organ so on and so forth but clearly people have some ideas of who are helping out there that the businesses know about them and are working with the with these organizations specifically city services how would you rate the following city services uh city fire city police protection are one and two um these are very good good and then fair and poor is the yellow on on that sheet As it runs down, you begin to see it kind of changes in and and moves. Uh recycling, tourism, dis school district 7. The you can see the unknown is non-answer. NA is the white line on the is 34% people just didn't have their kids in school anymore. They couldn't answer that question actually. So they hadn't been paying attention to the school district. It wasn't they didn't know how the school district is doing. So you you need to know and so you kind of look down there and all of a sudden you know you get down to about city planning city administration uh city uh development services and city council um at 70% um is at the bottom and there and we'll talk about that in in a minute or so. But anyway, that's the the way people are looking at things and how they're rating. So businesses are looking at the city from these perspectives and this is how they're adding that up when taking a look at county services. Oops. There's no data on that one, but I have it for you. I don't know why there's no data there, but there's not. Maybe I have it for Do you have that one in your packet?

Yes, we do.

Oh, oh, good. Take a look at your packet uh for that data. Um, and I'll pull mine up here, maybe. Uh, number one was fairgrounds. Actually, the the number the number one service we had was the sheriff's office. That came in number one. Number and and that was not not on this page. And the second was fairgrounds, Josephine County Clerk's Office, disposal, recycling, fire protection, as you can see, public transportation. These kinds of issues. They're all really strong. They're they're positive. They're big. And you have to get way down the list before you find out some people that have some concerns. emergency preparedness is issues, uh, legal counsel, uh, tax issues, never never have been popular with business. If you haven't ever noticed that, by the way, I just throw that out. So, uh, you know, feel feel free to have have that joint, you know, engagement with your business, uh, friends all the time. It should it should be there. Um, Josephine County City Planning and County Commissioner, board of county commissioners. Um, so you can see these the reason why these kinds of charts are are interesting is that when you ask a when you ask a public or any or any group of people questions on survey about, you know, fault good, fair and poor, these kinds of things, you look at the ratio between those who say fair and poor and those who say, you know, very good and good. And if you're at 50% on that, you've got an ability to have a conversation with whatever public is at 50%. When you begin to below fall below 50% in terms of how people understand that you're really underwater and you have to spend a great deal of time and an enormous amount of effort trying to even be listened to or paid attention to. And so the reason why this these little factors are important is because if you don't have an audience to explain yourself, it's really difficult to change who you

are and where you fit and how that goes together. general area. Um, boy, people love living here. Uh, they really do. This they this is who we are, what we're all about. It's a place to live. Post-secary education, broadband is really popped up, done well. Place to conduct business as you can see. And then, you know, charter schools, although fewer people know, and you have to go way down the bottom line where it's online schools, trade, childcare, these kind of things, which you've got that negative negative to positive that are playing. And then I'd like to show one last data chart. um don't feel like those issues around city attitudes towards city council and attitudes towards county commissioners is something unique to us. This is data that goes back to 1960 70 years old here that we're taking a look at. Plus, and basically America doesn't really trust um its government very much and it's been declining for the longest time and it's at the lowest it's ever been. When we ask what good of a what kind of a job they're doing, the House of Representatives is at 6%. Single digits, under 10, and on it goes. The country has a major problem with its elected officials and the public's perception of who they are and where they fit in society. And clearly, that's something that should be addressed because these numbers are identical to the ones we asked three years ago and the ones we asked six years three years before that. So, it's not as though these are brand new and unknown. It's just that no change has been made and those kinds of things. Um, and with that, thank you very much. There's one more page if you want to see it and that's key findings and I'll let you read those on your own. So, there if there's any questions, I'd be happy to take those. Um, by the way, the first time we presented this, it was only it only took an hour and 15 minutes. So, you know, I could have really made you some, you know, sleepy tea with that one. So,

yes. Good. Joel, go ahead. Um, Chuck, um, thank you. I I appreciate your talent and your skill. Um, and you do a very good job and uh, uh, we need to hear what you're saying and uh, you're very professional, so you're a great addition to our community. um how would you expect these uh answers to compare with other places across the state or across the nation and what differences would you see and why?

Yeah. Uh good good question. Um uh I wish I had a really positive answer to that. the u um in almost all cases we find out that the government closest to the people is the most popular government in the citizens mind in America. In most communities those numbers are clearly the highest ratings that the the American public in every town in the country give uh on on these kinds of measurements that the second is the state and the third is the federal government. So it goes in reverse order to size. The closer government to the people is the one that has the the higher ratings and the higher positives. Second is the state. Third is the feds. Here they're for us they're all flat. They're all low and we're as low as as anyone else. And so we differ a little bit there. There's been a some tensions uh in our uh political community uh and our our uh social community for a good long time now. um we we seem to have a recallitis uh set of factors in in how we look at things um and uh there's a lot of issues in play here. Um and I think I'm not sure how those need to be addressed but they need to be thought through and understood in in that context but so we're at an inverse to where most of the country is I have to say on those kinds of data. So um just keep that in mind that these are not good these are not good marks. These are not good scores and uh and we seem to be repeating some bad electoral habits in how we approach our problems and and you those must be solved structurally. You can't sol you can't solve those with a communication plan, but you have to structurally understand where that fits and then how

to get out of that to to to make make progress on those things. Um yeah uh I just I don't want to get in anybody else's way. Um so um could just comment on the observation that it seems like um local government um has grants mainly for um companies that uh are having a hard time showing a profit or have yet to show a profit. At the same time, um, you have companies like Dutch Brothers and Michael Risa. Um, they had a a great, uh, business here in town. They were making and they're still making a lot of money only. Now they're making it in Medford. Uh, they don't make it here. They they moved to Medford when the guy sold the company. Um, and then I look at uh, I think it was Amazon's warehouse. I can't remember but they were looking to um in western Oregon and and Grants Pass was in the running and again we lost out to Medford. So it seems like our efforts at the local level are are focused on companies that aren't making profit meanwhile the companies that are making profit uh at least the some of the better ones are leaving. Um tell me I'm wet. All wet. Well, no, your facts are absolutely correct. I mean, that's exactly what's happened. Um uh I think they're each one complicated. Um um uh one of the u um uh recommended models that I kind of look at is um why someone's building a company when they build it and what that means. And there's several uh different

sets of business schools across the nation that have done some work in what's called built to last. How do you build something to last and how does that that business that you've built create a superior business uh for the community? And I think thinking through where what creates a superior business that you're looking to have in a in a community and where that community fits with the interaction and the relationship, you know, with with government and the people themselves is a very important uh uh set of things factors that that go into defining, you know, a good business and where it fits. Um I just don't say that off the cuff. I mean it's that's what businesses are about. I mean, you know, you I mean, in in the simplest and and kind of a little bit negative, I mean, businesses rush into a community and get as much capital and and and labor as they can for as cheap a price as they can they can figure out how to do it. Okay? And then you then government comes along and plays a very powerful role and says, "Hold it. You can't do all those things. We need to adjust you and manage it." So if you take a look at the relationship between the two most powerful industries that make America work, you know, it's entrepreneurship on the business side and it's democracy as a way to express freedom uh on on it on its governmental side. you know, they they've got some natural conflicting spots that they fit in, but they need to find ways to work those through and to work them through in ways that are beneficial in a broader basis around the community and to look at those broader pictures when when those kinds of situations arise. Um, I don't know enough about either one of those specifically in terms of companies to be able to comment on them. you know, um it does seem sad that you build you build a billion-dollar local enterprise and you can't keep it. That's a hard thing. And I don't think that's because

of the community. Maybe maybe it was. I don't think so. Was my my read. I think it was broader issues that kind of came into play there. Um that that that didn't have anything to do with this. But gosh, that's you know, I guess that's maybe our relationship to Salem. I just throw it out. we didn't have we don't have one you know they get no money from us we don't look to them I don't know I just it's just we we we need to start figuring some things in a broader scope scope and scale and and that would say would be a way I would think think of an answer to go to that and then find out if other people more knowledgeable than me and maybe better capable to answer that with specifics uh to kind of drive it but clearly looking at some of those are important I'm sorry for the long answers gentlemen ladies and gentlemen my my Eric

you had something yeah Yeah, thank you for the presentation. I um I noticed this pie chart here. It says uh social issues 26%. You you've got home housing and homelessness. Um but I don't see anywhere on there where it says anything about uh drug use and drug abuse and the laws that were passed by the state. So yeah, um that was one thing one thing that uh that I think is is a detriment to us here in southern Oregon

is obviously the state and the laws that it passes and then uh you know we get to we we get to um uh reap the the havoc that uh that the capital passes their ridiculous laws and uh we we get to live in this unemployment and the drug abuse and the homelessness, all of that. So, I don't know if that is somehow mentioned on on your on your slides there, but I think that's a big thing and that's what's causing a lot of the homelessness here. um you know, the the the drug drug laws that were passed a few years back and then now we're having to uh

you know, as as a result, these these uh drug addicts become homeless and uh and uh we get to we get to see the the havoc that it that it reaps on us.

Yeah, counselor. Nice. Yeah, thank Yeah, thank you for bringing that up. Um, I do have a couple of uh things that might make a way to think about that slightly differently. I don't think I can answer the relationship of, you know, drug abuse and homelessness and how those fit and they go together. But they do go together. I mean, um, uh, if you're an American and you don't have any money, you have a problem. Or if you're anybody and don't have any money, you have a problem. But, but, but particularly in our society, it's a very important thing. Money is a a definer in many ways of what our social engagement is. And if there's more people that don't have money and don't have a way to see to find money, then that's a difficult that's a difficult problem and it's one that needs to be addressed. It it's not just simply like get a job and all that stuff. It's it it's the idea of what money means and how pe and how people handle handle money. basically uh seeing all the money that Josephine County has is in this room business and and government is pretty much you know that's what the answer to that is so we have to get better at being able to look at that and look at it well here's something we found uh back in prior to the 23 I think two fellows uh Nicholas Everest and Peter Vaness uh picked up a thing on called the geography of work and what happened what caught my eye on this was as you look at this map of the I think you'll see that little teeny red dot coming down the west coast. Okay, that's over there and and that's Josephine County and that's data on labor force participation rate. We have of the 510 SMAs statistical metropolitan areas okay of which we have joined that class of people we are in the bottom 5% of labor

participation rate in the nation so what you're saying is the statement of a fact that's a reality who is addressing that how is that being addressed and in what way I think maybe needs to be taken a look at from the economic construct of that and where money is, who has it, what's going on with that money and how do we relate it to those particular kinds of things. It's maybe some of that stuff we saw in terms of what people need in their employees and it came down to very fundamental basic social skills in terms of society and thinking some of that through in a little bit of a different way. So, and then I think there's one more and then here they are. Here's the top or the top and the bottom of the 510 SMSAs and you can see they kind of run down there. But anyway, Josephine County is in that bottom piece and I think it's important to understand that we have some structural cultural ways and this is Chuck Run. So please, you can shoot this any way you want to and I really mean that. But from just an intellectual perspective of thinking it through, there's some structural ways within our society itself that we need and culturally that we need to think through a little bit stronger and to say how do we go and get oursel out of that data point because that data point is holding us low and and we need to address that. And you just can't say better schools, you know, you know, you know, increase public services. I mean, whatever. I mean, it's got to be a little bit bigger in terms of driving to that. Um, and and and making it okay work. So, I I throw that as a little bit of an insight into where to go there. And we've talked about this around the chamber a little bit uh with with Terry and and and his board. So,

and I think what to add to that and to answer your question, yeah,

the homelessness I think being 23% that's ultimately um the cookie that's coming out of the oven. But in order to create that cookie, there's some major ingredients that are associated with homelessness, like you mentioned, drug addiction, mental health issues that go into creating that ultimate number that's represented, I think, in that number. And what Chuck was saying here, which I thought think was interesting, is just on on Thursday, we sent out a notice about our our bond rating, our A+ bond rating. And one of the things that's mentioned about a hindrance for us, there's a number of things for us versus a a A+ to a double A minus is the community affordability considerations where our region and which is shown here it remains below state and national numbers and so that is a just another symptom of of our economy here regionally.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Victoria, welcome. Yes. Thank you for the presentation. Um, I noticed that there were 77 businesses that were represented. Yes. And what percentage is that of our total businesses in Josephine County roughly? If you know,

I don't know. I don't know that we actually have that number that what that is. I what we did what the uh the model we used was developed by the University of Minnesota was developed by the University of Minnesota 30 years ago. And basically the model uh what it does is is it allows a group of people to select a set of businesses and then these are the of that select group of businesses that were there which were around 250 300 or so. Uh then we these were the number of completed interviews and they were looked at by industry structure you know you know the old SIC code models u and so we went ahead and and selected that across the whole part of it and then that becomes the database. So from a statistical perspective, you know, it's light. Okay. From a understanding perspective, it's the only way we have to look at what our issue is because no one else has done the work. So and it's been done systematically and and historically the same for a long period of time. So there's some value in that. So um you know that's what I say to you. The data is good and from my perspective. So the se the bas the 77 is the formula under the model to to reach the representative overall.

No no no we yeah from a statistical point of view it's it's called confidence in the data. Okay. And this is not a random selected data set. Okay. It's also not it's not a random that that's what I that's okay. It's not a random set of data from all the businesses that exist in the in the in the county. Right. So it's it's not a random style. No, it's a selected sile. Okay. I Yeah. Oh, thank you.

Right. And the other question that I had is uh in the state of Oregon, we have a unique data set in my opinion um that state statutes are uh in your model are state statutes and their effect on local communities like Josephine County. Uh is that reflected in the data at all? uh like uh land use. I think Oregon and Hawaii are the only states I believe in the nation that have centralized land use um uh laws. And but that's just one example.

Yeah. in your um modeling, in your data, do you have anywhere in there that is reflected um how business owners feel about state statutes and regulations and uh Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. No. Yeah. Thank you. Good question. Uh we did not we did not ask the businesses to kind of compare the state to the city and and the county. We we did not do that. Um, and that would be, you know, something we could think of adding in the future, but we did not do that here. Might be something to take a look at. I think some of the findings we had are suggesting that we don't understand what's going on with that relationship and there seems to be a deficit in terms of our knowledge there and what that's affected in terms of specific statutes. Um, and thinking of that, yes, we have tested um, in different surveys over time things that are statewide of importance. We did a great deal of work uh in terms of the development of as as the uh emergence of the drugs uh were legalized and what the impact of that was in the community and what businesses thought about that and did an entire piece of the survey on that I think four last the last cycle through or the one before that. So we have taken individual elements and taken a look at that that were affecting us and our communities and done that. We could get some of that data to you from that in the past. We did not repeat that again in this particular set of uh questions that we asked. So each time we get to build our own model so to speak. Okay.

Okay. Oh, thank you. You're welcome. Yeah. Um quick question on this uh yeah chart that you showed us is the vertical axis is that represent income and in tens of thousands or I don't think it no it's not an in it's not an income uh it's not an income definition. And it's um have no idea what the vertical would represent then if it's not income. Yeah, I'm I'm wondering if let's see it's let's see.

Oh, is the Michigan index of consumer sentiment. Yeah, this is um this is basically a cross tab taking a look at high school through college. Okay. from from those years basic basically saying um uh the confidence people have in in the uh the consumer's confidence in the economics. I understand that. I'm just asking what does the vertical axis represent? Is that income? Yes. Horizontal axis is the year. That's the income. That's the income. Yeah. Thank you. Right. Sorry. Right. Yes. That's the income. Right Joel. Yeah,

Chuck, I just I just need your feedback. Um, one of the takeaways that I got and you you need to uh fact check me what's reality um that we have control of is um the the social issue of unsheltered and and one of the biggest economic development things that the council can do is um have that issue uh resolved in a manner that is compassionate yet accountable. uh and provides a good business and uh climate. That's one of the things I I'm taking away from you. Um the other thing I'm taking away and this is a little bit of a stretch and you give me feedback on both. Um it's been my experience and it's not reflected here in the survey that government is very poor at business. Um and entrepreneurs are very good at it. And um so for government to uh um stimulate the economy um what has been most successful is they put a lot of money in the hands of entrepreneurs and they go out and they do well. Uh uh and that's an overexaggeration but u um and and government kind of gets out of the way but serves some of the social needs. Um and so as as we look at going forward from here based on work that we need uh and you talk about structural differences uh one of the things I the council and I think we have but it takes time is that solve that unhoused issue to provide a better business climate. It's probably the most important thing we can do for economic development. And then the other thing being uh um

provide an environment where entrepreneurs can flourish. uh and just give me feedback.

Uh yeah, there yeah there's no question that uh you know the number one thing that defines someone's life is their if they're un is their housing. they have to be housed and if you don't have housing then you your society begins to decline rapidly and that's not data from me in any way that's or anything I've looked at that's kind of a national perspective is that uh if that's not available then there's some real difficulties around the housing side of things it's called health and it's around the whole health model and what that's all about and and so it's it's bundled into that mix of things uh that that an individual has to have to be able to be part of society. Okay. And one of those things is you if they get ill and they have no residency and they leave the hospital, they go to the hospital and they leave the hospital and the hospital can't get in touch with them to help them further on. I mean, then they still stay ill and you can't fix. So, there's lots of things that roll from the fact that there's no not housing and and not housing around. I think it was just a story recently in the news in the paper in the last couple of weeks on Oregon as someone mentioned it earlier is we're the fifth uh most expensive uh housing market in the in the country is do you all recall that what that is that that's basically a uh it's an affordability index uh story that was if you haven't seen that data it's uh I I brought brought it along just cuz I kind of wonder what it was when I saw that come out. Um, and Oregon is uh is fifth that was and that's the affordability is based on u you know the cost uh uh of housing is four times uh more than the income people make and in Oregon it's six times more than the income people make. And so we we don't

live in a very affordable state. Um, and whether how that applies to Josephine County and Grants Pass, I don't have an answer to that. Um, but but that was those data. If you'd like a copy of this, you could have this copy of whatever. But I So, the answer is yes. Are they tied together? Yeah, they are. And you're just a little bit over my economic, you know, intellectual skills, if you want me to attach those in in in a a functional fundamental way. Um, I uh I love economics, but I am not an economist. And so you must take into account that that I can say something about that, but I would stick pretty darn conservative and close to the data and not venture myself into uh launching into some policy social construct and how the intellectual elements of those have fought each other off over the last several years and kind of talk about the dynamic of our society based on that. Although I like your question Joel, it was a wonderful question and uh and I can and I understand how those things fit together or don't fit together. But on a fundamental basis, I mean if you don't if you are unhoused in our society um you you have a problem and and that problem has manifested itself across all other things that that that go through that individual's difficulties and I think it must be addressed as that right without question. So you can't give them food, you know. I mean, here I'm going you shelter just go to back to Maslo and kind of follow up the scale and follow Maslo's uh you know model there. I think it's the best way. Yeah, I would suggest we you get would ask the state economist, the Oregon state economist that and then uh and uh and have them come back with that question because I think that would be a useful a useful understanding. And we do have a state economist for southern Oregon by the way to uh to bring the those economic factors into bear and that would be a

good uh you know a good com conversation to have. So any any other questions from council? Um Indra if you're still there any any questions for Chuck? Okay. Hearing none I guess uh thank you very much. Very helpful good overview. Thank you, council, and I appreciate, you know, being able to present for the chamber. I'm just a member, so there you go. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Next up on our council workshop is the city manager evaluation process discussion. And I Aaron, are you going to lead this off?

Yes.

Okay, you're up. Thank you, council. Uh, you know, the annual evaluation process should not deliver any surprises on either side, but even the most seasoned manager and the most seasoned city council member still at times might feel a little bit nervous or unease. And that was the little cartoon that was there. This presentation today and the information you have in front of you relies heavily on ICMA's 2025 manager evaluation guide. They just created that and they spent a lot of time and research in coming up with best practices for evaluating a city manager and this uh guide is on the dis with you today. It tries to uh frame evaluations as structured two-way communication to align goals and expectations to focus on both results which are the goals and leadership behaviors which is the how and those desired outcomes being mutually understandable and clear action steps are applied. ICMA stresses in the book that you also see that a good evaluation is about dialogue. council manager get to hear from each other, agree on priorities, and leave with a shared plan. So today's subject, as councelor Pel mentioned, is a discussion to uh take a look at the evaluation process that we currently have and an opportunity to potentially modify, change, or leave as is. The purpose of an evaluation really is as a communication tool. Evaluations are an important annual communication tool for both the city council and the city manager. The process provides an opportunity for the governing body to

identify goals, objectives, and targets for the city manager that are linked to the elected body's established strategic plan goals and priorities. It also provides an opportunity for feedback on the chief executive's degree of progress towards achieving the organizational outcomes and assigned duties and responsibilities associated with the position. This kind of feedback is important and it helps uh foster and ensure positive contributions are noticed and it reduces the risk of uh the council city manager relationship going ary. We have a current structure and I'm just going to go over that briefly. You're familiar with this because we've all on the dis gone through this last year through the process. Uh it starts with uh council going through and evaluating. It's led by the council president and we go through and we do a packet. We submit a progress report. Um uh the city manager submits a self-evaluation progress report. Council has the opportunity to meet with the city manager. We prepare and score our forms. Uh the city recorder compiles all the individual results. The manager has the opportunity to address those things. And then we ultimately have a meeting in executive session to discuss all of council's comments and review the city manager in that process. The foundation for the recommended evaluation process, which we'll talk a little bit about today, uh is really rooted in a couple of things. One, ICMA's manager evaluation guide, which is in front of you. National best practices in council manager governance. Industry standards for transparent and documented process. Oregon public meeting law is associated with this recommendation. Also, local context and government expectations and performance management principles are

all part of the recommendation that are in front of you today. So from an evaluation form design, what is in the packet and what we've recognized is that numeric scores are hard to norm and can mask real feedback. We currently have numeric scores. Descriptive categories plus narrative examples drive better clarity. It emphasizes coaching over judging. This is a performance conversation, not merely a scored report, which you start to focus on if you're just dealing with numbers. Some of the dos and don'ts with regards to this are on the screen, but the dos and don'ts really help keep the tone constructive while ensuring expectations and next steps are unambiguous. The dos is start with positives, be specific, use examples, avoid surprises. Be honest, be a coach, get the manager's feedback, and when appropriately join uh jointly develop a plan uh an implementation plan, an improvement plan. ICMA outlines a number of roles associated with the independent facilitation, which is addressed in the handbook. This is something that's recommended today for your consideration. It professionalizes the process. It provides an equal voice for all council members and most importantly it also has a clear synthesis for the manager. It provides an opportunity for the city council to speak with a corporate voice and not with eight individual voices trying to direct the city manager or or give feedback from the city manager from eight different perspectives. Independent facilitation is increasingly becoming common because it reduces political tension. It increases fairness. It improves clarity. It strengthens documentation. It aligns expectations of council and city manager. And it protects both the

council and the city manager. It transforms the evaluation from a potentially uncomfortable event to a professional management tool. For additional information, I do want to refer you to a memo that's on your DAS and we'll I'll mention that uh a little bit later on. Also, the benefits of using a facilitated evaluation process for the city manager. It's timely, well-managed process. It's specific and it provides useful feedback. There's a consensus view of performance. It provides that corporate voice that's very necessary. It's an opportunity to discuss other things in a constructive manner. From a governing body perspective, a council perspective, it becomes uh the process consumes less time and effort. All council members have their say. One or two members don't dominate the discussion. Dialogue is less politicized and more focused on objective criteria. A facilitated evaluation process contributes to achieving consensus about the most significant priorities moving forward. and the expressed role of the manager in achieving those priorities. Another thing that's common in uh evaluations that I've seen is some form of a 360 input. When using a 360, a safe approach is to use it separately from the form of evaluation. So, it's part of but it's not directly related to as part of the manager's professional development plan. It's summar it's summarized by a third party. So it's done by an independent facil uh facilitator, third party or um software program where raw comments are kept confidential. It focuses on leadership competencies, not political or operational disagreements. It's integrated with clear council manager goal setting, so feedback aligns with outcomes and not personalities. Another

item to consider when looking at the evaluation and changes and and the recommendations that's in front of you today is to reinforce that our process follows Oregon transparency laws while preserving candid constructive dialogue. This is where I'd like to refer you to a memo that's uh from our legal council that's on the dis with with you today. And please refer and take a look at the last uh paragraph in that in that memo that is on your dis. I believe that would be the information provided in that memo would be helpful to you in confirming a direction uh as recommended today by the city manager. city manager value uh evaluation process. There's commonalities of other jurisdictions. There's a there's a lot of similarities and a few outlier things that happen, but in general uh processes are very similar. There's some form of structured scoring system. Uh there is some t some communities that do independent facilitation. There are some that that include 360 style inputs from direct reports in the process. There's uh a lot of commonality with self-evaluations which we we do some similar to that. There is a transparent unified final evaluation where it's a corporate voice that you're speaking with and there is a goal setting portion of that for the next performance period. Those are some of the commonalities that I've seen with regards to the research. we researched both uh from taken from the MA report but also we took a look at a number of cities in the state of Oregon and they seem to all have th these type of similar threads. The recommendation in front of you and that I'd like to discuss and council to consider is a process that would include uh council identifying an independent

facilitator to help with uh the evaluation of the city manager. We would go through an RFP process. A city manager would provide a self-evaluation. We'd have a structured scoring system using descriptive ratings, not points. There would be some form of a 360 style input from direct reports. We would also end up with a clear alignment with council goals at the end of the process. It would be transparent. There'd be unified final evaluation. Uh that would be ultimately public record. And then there would be associated with that also goal setting for the next performance period. So both council and the city manager have clear ideas on what's going to be expected of the of them uh in the next year. Your call to action today is at your discretion. The cost implications are none if we continue to do something similar what we're doing to up to from looking at and talking with other jurisdictions up to about $17,000 for a consolidated process. Your alternatives are in front of you there to provide direction move forward with the evaluation process. uh as recommended to provide direction with concurrence of city management in some other form to form a study group or to take no action and again uh I open it up to again the recommendation is to start with a facilitated process which means things could look differently than they are now. You also have on the dis a potential suggestion for changes with regards to our current rating system that does away with numbers and provides more descriptive actions and objectives and tasks associated with the evaluation of the city manager. So that's for you there also which I think is an improvement from our current system if no change was to occur. But it is the recommendation that we start with a uh city council acquiring the services of a facilitator who would then work with council and the city manager to determine what the the form would look like. And we've moved forward with a ultimately a document through the

process that would be released and can be releasable to the public. That would be a consolidation of the council which would speak with one voice and there would be clear direction on goals to achieve for the next year. With that I turn it over to questions. Counselor Joel. Um, thank you Erin for doing this homework. Um, I got I have two questions. Um, under interpersonal communications on the evaluation form, which is item number five. Um, under that, uh, you have items four and five, and they just repeat repeat each other. I'm sorry, what document are you looking at, counselor? Can you show me? Um, oh, the just the suggested draft. Uh-huh.

Yeah, a suggested draft. Um anyway, I was wondering was um it it's it's just a typo, a mistake. Um you you just four and five are identical and I wondered if there was another five there or another four there that was supposed to be in there that was omitted.

Oh, I see. Yeah. Number four and five under five interpersonal communication. Yeah, one of those numbers would need to be taken out. That's a duplicate. Okay. Thank you. And then um this the second question I had was and we haven't done it yet. Um depending on the salary scale uh for the city manager uh and before the um there were step increases and right now there still are step increases uh depending on how the um uh study comes out and um and that's based the step increases are based on a acceptable performance. Um and here we don't have the numbers to calculate that. Um at least they're not obvious. Uh so two questions. One is we haven't moved forth on the uh city manager pay scale and what we're going to do there. And then uh the second one is how does this evaluation then uh translate in terms of what the council decides for that pay scale and is it automatic like it was before or or what is it?

Sure. Ultimately, one, this is a discussion on the performance evaluation of the city manager, which is totally separate from compensation to some degree. If council wants to link compensation to the city manager's performance evaluation, what it would do is if there was a a general scoring that averaged and outperforming or on track, that I believe would bring more merit to council to discuss some kind of compensation, change, or benefit. Whether or not the city managers in a salary structure uh like the non-bargaining or not is all yet to be determined and I don't think any of us on the dice right now have the ability to talk about the compensation aspect but today we're discussing the performance evaluation and and moving forward

and up to this point in time the evaluation did have a direct correlation to uh reimbursement because a person would get a step increase if they got a certain percent uh a certain performance award. Yes. So, in the past there was a direct connection and whether this will have or not is yet to be determined. That is correct. Yeah, Rick. Thank you, Erin. Um, when you've talked to other towns of similar size, do a lot of them use facilitators or do they do the evaluation by themselves?

There is a mix of both. Um, so it's really the comfort level and and the dynamic of uh the the council, the policy board, the city manager. Uh, I'm recommending a facilitator. I think one of the two top things the city council does is adopting a budget and providing uh parameters for spending and the evaluation of the city manager. And I think the cost associated with a facilitated evaluator is uh is well worth that for the performance perspective. I also believe that most of us on the DIS including myself think that um the performance process the evaluation of the city manager in this past year was less than desirable and I think that we need to start with a a professional focus that would provide me with a corporate voice from city council and cleared goals to work on in next year. I strive and I want that. Our current process does not provide that.

Okay. Thank you. Indra has a question. Indra question. Yes. Erin, since you've been a city manager, has have we ever had a facilitator paid for? No.

Okay. And then you mentioned that individual counselor's voices will be heard, but then you all and it would be transparent. So as we fill out our evaluations is I don't see how that because then sorry I'm getting my thoughts together because then you said it would be all combined and uh it would be a corporate answer. So, how can you have individuals uh answers on there, but then it's all combined into one corporate answer? It doesn't seem transparent to me that way.

Well, I'm going to start and then I'm going to let legal counsel step in on this. But in moving forward with the recommendation of utilizing a facil a facilitator for this, we it's really our current process and how we get to an end result would be totally different and in order to facilitate that. So I'm going to stop there and I'll let our legal counsel uh provide some additional input. Um without kind of crossing into the details of the memorandum that was distributed today, which I'll make sure you get a copy of counselor, um the executive session components would allow for the discussion that was previously had in writing. So where you filled out a form before it would simply be a discussion during that executive session where you were would be able to provide that feedback as opposed to written format. Okay. So, I didn't I didn't see that memorandum. So, what you're saying is when we go into executive session and talk about the evaluation, that will all be translated into written format for everyone, the public to see. Is that what you're saying? The end result of the facilitated process would be that a written evaluation would be generated and that would be based on the discussion that is had in executive session. So all counselors would be able to provide that feedback but the end result would be that consolidated corporate voice um of council as a entire body. So the public would not be able to see each individual counselor's what they had to say. It would be packaged as one.

That would be correct. Each individual counselor would only speak during executive session. Okay. Thank. And that would not be subject to a public review. Correct. It's executive session. So, it's outside the public meeting. Thank you,

Victoria. So, I would definitely be in favor of um forming a study group because I think there needs to be more time to absorb all this information and uh I'm not sure under this particular model um and and here here's the question. uh this model seems to be consensus and um I don't care for that under a uh under our form of government the consensus model isn't uh well it doesn't translate to one person one vote so I wouldn't be in favor of a process that reaches a consensus because that doesn't seem to me like it is equal weight for each um counselor. So I would be

in favor of you have a question. So well that was the question.

Thank you. Um this is more of a consensus model under the way that you have described it and the way that Stephanie kind of crystallized it. Would would you say that is true? It's more of a consensus model. I would say what it is is it follows best practices of providing a corporate voice for direction of the city manager and how he's performing versus eight different voices. Oh yeah, thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. So um if a if a study group was formed uh maybe this is a question for Stephanie, maybe it's for you, maybe it's for both. Uh what would that look like? Well, it says two counselors and um do how many sessions do you think that would take or

So, we've done this before in the past. Uh we have someone in the audience that has done that before as council president at one time. Uh council lovely is there. Uh we did form study groups uh where it was myself and two council members and we just took a look at what other cities have done and and and uh what we'd like to do to try to come up with uh something that would create healthy dialogue between the council and the city manager and provide a clear goals moving forward and provide a an an idea of of having that that good relationship where we're coaching each other to to accomplish council's and the community's goals. Thank you. I appreciate that.

And and it usually took one or two meetings. It wasn't very one or two meet. Thank you. Yeah. Eric, question. Thank you, Erin. Um had a question in terms of uh the executive session that I'm not sure. Oh, that could be Indra, right? Oh, she's muted. Okay. I don't know where that's coming from. Well, I appreciate the music. It felt good for getting uh it was the intro to you coming on intro to my intro to the important question about ask.

Um so uh maybe it's for Stephanie but maybe Aaron. So in terms of this uh executive meeting that we would have that would be before we end up doing the evaluation. Is that correct? I mean um it it seems like uh for an entire year u one meeting u compiling together and and getting that executive session taken care of um seems like a lot and seems like it would be I mean is that the that's the question I have is it is it once a year that we would do it or

I think that would be up to council to decide what the statute says. is is that you can have an executive session to review and evaluate the employment related performance of the public officials. So that would be the city manager. However, that happens I think is a process that could be designed and would be a discussion based on how maybe other jurisdictions are doing it. So we could we would be able to increase that frequency say maybe quarterly or semianually. Correct. We certainly could. that that might be it's not a question but it it will be a suggestion from me possibly.

So uh just to follow up uh with Indra's question earlier to so I got a question for Stephanie. So in the last paragraph of the um the memorandum um it would appear because uh the problem that we ran into last year is that um uh I guess you expect you express some confidence that the notes that were in executive session uh may have been considered executive session. um um um what's the word I'm looking for? Um exclusive to executive session. It may not uh have been reported on, but it turns out that um that you know I guess your your attempt there uh the DA did not agree with your assessment um or your interpretation of that particular RS and uh insisted that all of that be uh made public. So, it it appears that if this last paragraph is um essentially a workaround and a way for council to uh have discussion that would be then shielded from the public. It would seem as though that's what that the intent of that last paragraph. Is that is that accurate?

I would disagree with that interpretation. Um what you're referring to is under public records law and you're correct. The DA did disagree with our interpretation. I would note that in his opinion he did say that the city's reasoning might have been persuasive but for some other things that provided context for around it. So the fact that there had been prior illegal meetings things like that is one of the reasons why he disagreed. So it's not that our argument was completely wrong. It's that it was less persuasive because of the uh situation here. Um that's public record law though. That's if there's things that are in writing, they are public documents unless an exception applies if there are. But public meeting law provides a very explicit exemption for having a manager's evaluation in an executive session. So there's a very particular way we can do this where you can still have those frank discussions which is the basis that we excluded the records before which is in the interest of having frank discussions. You can do that under executive session. You can't do that under public records law. That's so it's two different laws that are being referred to. This would allow for um using the executive session as it's intended by statute, which is to conduct a performance evaluation. So it's not trying to do an end run around anything. It's following the law as it's written. And so you're saying that you you believe that following a law as it's written um basically then would preclude and I believe this is the answer you gave Indra earlier but I'm not sure it would preclude the public from actually getting individual um attributions to particular counselors for any any um aspects. It would just be essentially um uh generalized or summarized by someone else, maybe um a

facilitator or whatever. And the at that point that would be um um uh available to the public, but the actual discussions that would go into that would then not be available to the public. Is that is that accurate or that would be correct? Unless council wanted to have particular attributions as part of that final evaluation, you could choose to do that. This is simply saying that the frank discussion can happen in an executive session. So if you if you want that final evaluation to say councelor Pel said this um and so forth, you could still do that. It would be up to council to decide.

Okay. I guess um that is kind of different than the answer I heard I thought I heard you give to Indra was that's that's opposite. It's up to council to decide how to proceed. The typical way to do it would be to provide a corporate voice to provide a single unified the city council as a whole body is providing this evaluation of the city manager. If that would be what would I would anticipate coming out of that if council wants to do something different and if council wants it to be more individualized comments regarding the city manager per manager's performance you can choose to do that as well. Um I think the more typical way would be to have the consolidated single voice as opposed to eight voices.

Okay. So that decision would be a council decision. Now um my understanding is is that uh the council and the manager have to mutually agree on the process. So it would not just be a council decision. The manager would also have to agree to that. Is that correct or not? I'm not sure off the top of my head the answer on that. Okay. So this this whole that whole last paragraph and this whole aspect of this memorandum to me given the fact that she gave a different answer to Andra different answer to me and we're not sure of the other part of it the manager's approval of that um I don't know uh I can't come to any conclusion of what this memorandum actually does mean for sure.

So I think there's no certainty here at all. I I I'd like to clear this up if you've got confusion because it's really clear to me what the memo provides you from information perspective. To answer yes, it's stated that both the city manager and the city council will mutually agree upon any evaluation process. I've provided to you a recommendation on what creates a healthy evaluation process, provides an opportunity for us to focus on goals together. uh it provides an opportunity for us to to do so in a a good working environment. Uh the memo that has been provided to you today I think is relatively clear. Maybe you can restate that restate that. Uh it does appear in my in my uh reading of that and what we're talking about here is council gets to have their individual voices heard. Uh and that is done in executive session. I think what we're talking about here is what is going to be the document that would ultimately be utilized as the the evaluation uh of the city manager which then is releasable. And that ultimately is something that as as our city attorney said and what I'm asking for because it's greatly needed is direction from council as a whole uh and that one corporate voice so I have clear direction on what to work on, what should be accomplished, and together we can accomplish those goals for the best of the community. Uh having that one document uh would would be good. So it's and and that would be the and that would be part of this process also. So um I don't know if that clarifies but each individual voice would be heard but there would be one document that would provide council's direction and and an evaluation of the city manager that would be done through the facilitated process.

Okay. So Aaron, I I understand what you just said. It's makes whether I agree with it, it makes uh it's very clear. Um, and I think I understand what Stephanie said, and I I still not 100% sure of what the take-home message to what council would be because I think that uh while you're saying there would be one document that would be uh give a corporate message. Uh Stephanie is then saying, if I understood, if I heard correctly, that there could be uh incorporated or as part of that document, an individual counselor also saying something which is and that's different than what you just said. Okay. So, we've really gotten a mix I I feel unless I'm not hearing it right and maybe I'm not, but I feel that we've gotten a mix mix. It's not clear whether or not what the answer to Indra's question would be. You're saying yes, you get one message, we move forward as one body. you get a message, it's it's it's better for both parties. Uh some counselors might be concerned with having their voices removed. Now, you the way you describe this process is, oh, this would be beneficial because every counselor needs to be heard.

Yes.

Okay. Well, that that would assume that some counselors were not heard and other in other uh evaluations or some counselors were too timid or whatever it was. I've never found that to be the case. I always felt that all the counselors had an ability to to speak. But but what you're saying now is that um you know one one voice and uh we're also hearing that it might still be possible to have individual voices. I don't know but again you would have to agree to that process. So again I don't I don't know the answer to question. I'm trying to clarify is it one as you're saying or is it also possible that council can decide that there would be one message and also individual message. I think I think it depends on where council believes is the best work product and the best way to have a positive rel make this a positive experience for both parties. And if council wanted to have this facilitation process plus they wanted to have individual council members also have a statement associated with that that could be something that could be worked into the process. Uh the overall theory though is from a standpoint of leadership development and growth, clear expectations, best alignment with council goals, the ability to make sure that that the city manager is being being evaluated on those items, the one corporate voice is extremely important.

Okay. So, I I appreciate that and I think uh as a counselor and I'm hoping the rest of the council understands that um it still if if from what Aaron said is that it would still be essentially up to council to uh be an active partner in in in tailoring this process if we were to go with facilitator. And um does anyone else have any questions for Aaron at this point?

I I think council P you're you're correct on that. If we go through a facility process through you once you go through an RP process, you would have a detailed discussion with the with a facilitator on what the ultimate process will look like and what the the end products would be and and that would be something that you could talk through uh with with your consultant that you choose.

Joel, so I'm not sure how to handle this legally uh Stephanie. So if I step out of bounds, you you um correct me. Um in the third paragraph that is attorney client privileged, it talks about a um individual counselor written response. Is this an individual counselor response? So, if you'll recall from our p the most recent evaluation process, yeah,

um not only did the summarized consolidated version of the um city manager evaluation, the draft form were we required to disclose that, we were required to disclose each individual counselor's personal submission. So, all eight that were consolidated into that final document. The DA, yes, the DA determined that all of that because it was in written format and didn't fall within the exemption, all of that h was subject to a public records request.

Council, is your mic on? Or if not, maybe you can speak a little closer. Um, so I um I didn't hear you address it directly and and it's probably more my problem than yours, so don't worry about it. But um the the form that we had that is not a number form um I just misplaced it but it's right here. Um oh here it is. So this form here is that an individual counselor

if you completed it and submitted it as your comments. Yes, that would be an individual counselor's and it would be a record that would be subject to a records request if you put it in writing and turn that in. It is a public record that would be disclosed that will be disclosed or could be disclosed. Correct. Okay. Thank you. That's that was I was confused. I want to make sure to help clarify that that document is there as an example of modification of our current document that is more beneficial from a standpoint of a feedback perspective. it's not necessarily anything that would be associated with a facilitated process. I want to make sure those two things are separate.

So, if I heard you correctly, um this example of um individual format that would be available will not be used and instead it would be 100% discussion. I cannot say that it wouldn't be used or I couldn't say that's that would ultimately be up to the the proc a facilitated process. These that type those type of questions that type of information sharing that type of feedback may be all incorporated into a facilitated process but not necessarily with that form. Okay. Thank you.

Yep. Any other questions from council before we try to discuss this? I think we're good from Aaron for now. Thank you, Council Pel. Okay. Anyone want to start a discussion? If if not, I will. Kathleen,

so um the feedback that I got about the last evaluation that we did, it it uh was something that most people had never seen before. business owners that evaluate employees um that it was uh that it was very different. I personally don't have that experience, so I didn't know what to compare it to. So therefore, I would definitely be in favor of using a study group consisting of two counselors and the case manager to at least explore what the options are. Um, this one seems very um brief, this new one that we've gotten. So, something in between might be nice between the very in-depth overwhelming one that we had before uh compared to this one that is quite brief. Um, yeah, I think we could uh decide on something a little bit more user friendly as well as maybe what we're looking for as far as trying to evaluate this position. So, um, yeah, a study group might not be a bad thing.

Victoria, was your hand up earlier? Yes. Uh, I guess just to reiterate, I would be very much in favor of having one or two meetings to look over the available information and to figure out what we wanted to do rather than making the decision uh right now, I think, or at least waiting to make the decision because there's a lot of information to look to and uh so I wouldn't be willing to vote today on changing the evaluation. We just need some more time to uh and effort put into it. Eric,

yeah, I I agree with uh a lot of that. Uh we need we need definitely to figure this out. Um we were all new uh or most of us were new at this and didn't know what to expect. I mean, I've being in the Marine Corps uh as a as a veteran, as an officer, I I've written a lot of evaluations and this has this last evaluation that I wrote. Um there's it it in my in my mind it was inadequate the the whole format the way it was. You have to have some kind of some kind of a goal uh put down and say, "Hey, did you meet this stepping stone, this goal? Did you did you meet that?" Uh there wasn't any structured goals per se. Uh so I instead what I found it was is some of some counselors found it as a um way to bash other counselors in there to just write whatever they wanted to. Um, so I that was completely um inappropriate and I felt that um you know it's something to use as an evaluation tool for the city manager, not other counselors. Um, as far as the $17,000 for uh for for another uh consultant, I don't know if that's what we need. Um, but I'd be willing to definitely entertain a professional to come in and look at this in a more uh uh professional manner. Um, I I know I know that the the number one public input that we usually get is, "Oh, here is another consultant uh and here's another $17,000 that the city council is spending on another consultant." Um, I

realize that sentiment. I I I understand that that that um um I understand that people don't like it. Uh, and but I think that we we need to definitely discuss this as a as a as a council to figure out a way forward because right now the I think the the evaluation system is is is inadequate and um very subjective, very very subjective and it needs to be more um brought down to like a goal centric type of um evaluation to where hey certain certain stepping stones were met. Did you meet that? Did you not meet it? Did you I mean did you partially meet it? I I can't just I can't as when I was in the Marine Corps I couldn't just say okay you get a a poor evaluation. Uh, and then and then the individual Marine looks at you and says, "Oh, well, why? I I can't really explain why because I don't have these goals that I went over with you prior to uh the evaluation system being put in effect after an entire year. So, it's so the an entire year worth of no goals and then come come towards the end when it's evaluation time. I mean, yeah, I I took notes and everything like that, but for an individual that has never done other individuals here on the council who have never done any kind of evaluation, um to be expected to just get lastm minute uh evaluation done on an entire year's worth, I find to be very unrealistic. So, it's definitely needing to be improved on.

Thank you. Thank you, Rick.

I believe Eric made some very valid and worthy comments and that especially somebody that's new to the scene to understand the whole process uh can very u be undaunting in many ways and I would be supportive if if the council wants to go the direction having small group um getting together and discussing what they want to see as the outcome of which Erica stated. um I think essential elements, but I would also be in favor of of a professional being on board to um take those elements and look at going forward and how it would be presented and I would say u performed um as a document for the city manager to observe going through the year. Thank you.

Indra has a question. Um, Indra, you have something to say?

Yes. So, I I do agree. I realized we had some issues at the last evaluation time. I think it was a big learning curve and and we all learned a lot from that. I feel like the major issue, however, was not um that we didn't do a good job with the evaluation. Although I do feel like I would like a study group um to refine the evaluation process as Eric talked about, I think the evaluation form itself could have been much more helpful. And I think it would be better to have a small group look at the evaluation and change up the document to fit fit us better perhaps instead of spending time at a council workshop doing that and then just presenting it to the council um for approval would be a better uh way to spend time. But I also think the problem before was the transparency issue and that uh that was a big surprise and then there was a big deal about um getting the evaluations and it was almost like the public uh anticipated something way worse than what they really were. So to me that was the big issue and I think hiring a consultant uh is a a complete waste of money. I feel like it's this is something we should be able to do ourselves being professionals. And then I also feel like what uh Victoria mentioned earlier is that people did elect us and I feel like us going in executive session and secretly talking and then coming out with a corporate response uh is kind of uh not looking good as us being transparent to the people who

elected us. So I really feel like we should do our own evaluations. uh they should be open for public to look at. We shouldn't be embarrassed by what we write. It should be professional. It should be objective. And I don't feel like we need a consultant to come in at the end and wrap it up in a bow for the public. And then uh changing as I said that evaluation uh form I think would be helpful as Eric suggested. So I would be for uh no consultant. I would be to move forward with the study group and not uh take any action on the consultant at this time. Thank you.

Joel, did you have something you want to say?

Yeah. Yes, I do. Um, thank you. Um, there there's two ambiguities that uh in my mind are unclear. Um, and and to be fair to the employee, the city manager, I think they need to be cleared up and also to the city council so they can do a a a good job of evaluation. Um, we we we got rid of the this proposes to get rid of the number system and change it to um outperforming, on track, needs improvement, cannot evaluate. Um, and we're told that Stephanie, if I understood you right, and don't let me put words in your mouth, that um, if we've used this form, it would be available to the public. Um, and then when I asked Aaron, he says, "Well, we may use this form or we may not." So, there was some ambiguity there. Um, and I think we probably need to clear that up for Erin's part. You don't need to do it now, Erin. No, I'd like to clear it up now.

Okay. Okay. Let me but let me ask my second question and you can do that at the same time. Uh in the past um for an employee and and uh it's been that way with every employee that I've given and and across the all of the city employees. they know um what is a um uh needs a performance improvement plan and then they also know what is the um uh result on their salary just like we've done for the last since I've been on council uh on on their step increase and um um whether or not it's this city manager or another city manager I I think we need to know that ambiguity uh cleared up here too cuz we're not doing numbers anymore. we're doing these things and how does that portray um in connection to the f I think the employee needs to know that and I think this city council needs to know that going in and not just have it be a surprise to the city manager or or to the council

to clear up the ambiguity of the question that you had with regards to do we use it would we use this form would it be uh or not used that ultimately is if you used that form and that form was there as a suggestion on how we can improve our current form. Okay. It's not it's not my preferred recommendation as you as I I showed. Oh, okay. Okay. Uh if we go with a fac Yeah. If we go with a facilitated process that a form may not even be used it it it would be a lot of that information gathering would be done through likely a facilitator. Okay.

And so what that looks like would ultimately be jointly worked out between the city manager, council, and the consultant to make sure that you that we all are getting the desired results that we're looking for at the end of this beneficial process that's supposed to be positive in nature. Okay. And then and then the salary stuff, uh Erin, did you want to respond to that? Yeah, sure. The salary the salary stuff again is separate. We're talking the evaluation process. Now, at the end of the evaluation process, based on council uh and and council's discussion and based on the evaluation at the end,

depending on what that is, if it's a scored evaluation or if it's something like this, then we we would identify if or it would be helpful if it's identified if the city manager received this type of uh general feeling from council, then there could be the benefit of a some kind of merit in some degree or whatever. But ultimately the merit and compensation is a different approach. We don't have the information today to talk about that. I don't know if council is going to continue to have the city manager in a salary structure format or an undefined salary structure format. And I don't want to confuse the discussion about salary and having a healthy review of the city manager. I think they're two separate issues at this point and I really want to make sure council's focusing on let's get a process that's a positive process for both parties in evaluating the city manager.

So let me repeat back what I heard you say. The proposal before us today does not include this form. That is correct. That is just one example. I tried to provide a comprehensive look at different approaches if we if we went somewhere. Today's recommendation is an evaluate facilitated process which would not incorporate that form or that is to be defined because it would be defined through the RFP process and the consultant that would be helping council and the city manager.

Okay. So I heard I heard you correctly on that. Then the second thing on salary is the um since there's no form there's no effect on salary that is an entirely separate thing that would be considered after the evaluation by council. It wouldn't be an automatic thing one way or the other. Again, your statement there has identified a an an approach that no matter what the comes out of the evaluation, that would be a separate discussion that is that would ultimately needs to be defined in another engagement. This is you can have an executive session to discuss any the and the evaluation of the city manager and CEO. You don't do and you can't have an executive session to discuss salary. uh that's in open session. So that's a totally separate issue and I don't want to confuse the two. The biggest win is for us to make sure we're focusing on the evaluation process for the city manager. What's going to provide good good goals and structure moving forward in a positive environment. The salary thing is a is a a separate discussion and it is separate even in process because it's not an executive session discussion. So if I interpret your um your explanation then I am I did hear you that uh this is is not going to be tied to salary at all except in a separate discussion that would be open to the public. That could be one of the approaches council may want to link whatever the evaluation is specifically to a salary structure that has been identified by the city manager with certain steps or something along those lines. But that is not yet to be determined counselor. So again I'm I'm hoping that we focus on the today's discussion which is evaluation of city manager not compensation of city

manager. Well I'm I'm not focused on it. But I just want to make sure that what we've done in the past that we have the latitude to uh look at that as we move forward and that it isn't automatic. Okay. Thank you. Indra has a question. Yeah. Indra question.

Uh yes and a statement. So I I think I hear what Joel's saying and I think it would be appropriate uh if we had the study group with a couple counselor city manager who could again redo refine there's so much information on how to do evaluations and examples of evaluations and I think if we refined the form it would really help counselors um to focus on goals and objectives ives and so there's a healthy outcome for everyone involved but also that study group if I'm not uh if I'm if I'm not correct let me go no the study group when they do refine and redo the evaluation could make uh compensation tied to something in the evaluation that then would be presented to council to approve the evaluation and approve the compensation at an open public meeting. Could that not be done?

Yes, that could be done if you were associating the potential that could be done. Yes, could be discussed. Thank you.

Thanks, Linda. So, um there's a couple things I'd like to uh add to this discussion. Um first um in um um addressing um one of Eric's uh concerns um regarding an annual um evaluation may not be uh may not be sufficient because things have potentially gone off the rails for you know 3/4 of a year before we get to a a problem. I I can tell you that three roughly three years ago now um with the last council might have been four years ago, uh myself and council councelor Fasure I think were uh chosen by that council to discuss to talk to a facilitator uh about potentially upgrading our process. The very first thing that I mentioned was I thought it should be at least four times a year because things can get out of control and when it's a year down the line now we've missed a whole year of potential improvements and potentially so I completely agree that uh a minimum of two or four times a year in executive session to have a smaller evaluation would be uh beneficial especially to the manager and possibly to some of the counselors as they're may be frustrated. I know that uh in the past it seems as though Aaron has preferred kind of one-on- ones with counselors and things of that nature. To me, if uh if a counselor, Eric or anyone else has a problem with a particular aspect of management performance, I'd like to hear it. As a as a fellow counselor, I'd like to hear it. And in a quarterly type of situation, uh we could all hear what the rest of us are thinking or any criticisms that we might have or or any uh comments that Aaron might have about particular issues. But to to wait a year, I think is just uh that's just setting us up setting us up for uh possibly failure, but certainly not as good as much success as we could. So I I agree with a four times a year um

aspect of it. But the other thing is that getting back to I think what um uh Victoria initially kicked us off with is that you know she felt she needed more time. There was a lot of information here. Well, most of us, I think, here are kind of we'd be acting uh almost in the dark if with almost any decision that we were make today. And we've got information from essentially from Aaron, which is essentially one party here. But um I I going back to something that um I've participated in a couple times, but back uh in 2012 when we were trying to uh evaluate um and possibly make changes to our our city charter, the way the charter task force did that is that we um we looked at other city charters and how they did it, how they did the specific how they addressed the specific issues that we were concerned with. And there were so many different great ideas there and we brought those back and we were able to discuss them and and kind of hone that down to what how we wanted to move forward. I would like to see or I'm going to propose that I I think that um and I think it would address pretty much what everyone's saying is if we had um if staff were to get back to us with examples of city manager evaluations from say uh in the t in the way that we when we're talking about um uh collective bargaining with uh uh police and fire unions, things of that nature, they'll they'll they'll take averages of particular data from five up and five down, the cities that are closest to us in population. I'd like to see how other cities that are close to us in population handle their city manager evaluation. And I think that uh that data could easily be emailed to council. We could all look at that. And what I like about that is each one of us could look at, you know, we may see a particular part of an evaluation that that we feel is really important. You

know, if we have just two counselors and the manager looking at things, you know, a particular concern of a particular counselor may not be addressed at all, you know. So, if we all were to look at if we were to say u uh three or four cities close in population, three up, three down, possibly a big city, possibly a small city, but if we actually had those forms in front of us, I think that we would be capable of saying, gee, that form from that particular city is awesome. They must have done a lot of work on it. that might actually be exactly what we need and it would cost us almost nothing to do that or we might see, you know, one counselor might see some ideas and in one different counselor might see some ideas in a different a different uh city's evaluation form. But I I'd like to see what other cities do that are roughly our size, how they handle it, and we can do that basically for free. It'd be interesting too to see of the let's say five up and five down cities, how many of those uh use the facilitator? How many of them don't? You know, we may even be able to get an explanation from one of the cities. Gee, how did it work before and after you use the facilitator? But I that's that's what I think would I think satisfy most of what I'm hearing is the fact that we don't really have, you know, we're kind of in the dark. We don't really know what a good city uh evaluation form looks like. We know what ours looks like. We know that we don't like ours. Um we know it wants to be changed, but we really have no idea what we want to change it to. Aaron has his idea what he wants to change it to. We don't have our idea. So to me, if we were to uh give staff direction to come back and geez uh acquire um you know uh uh from however many up three up, three down or five up, five down cities, what does their evaluation form look like? And have us look at it, you know, in a memo. Uh we could then come back to a workshop and say, I think we can do this on our own. We've got some really good ideas here. Or maybe at that point we might say, gee, this is too confusing. we need to

hire a facilitator. I'm not clear I'm clearly not at the facilitator um uh stage yet because I don't I I think it's something that we can probably do on our own. If we look at other examples from around the state, we might see exactly what we're looking for. So that that's that's the way I look I'd like to move forward is uh u and that gives us time to look at them all, time to understand them all, time to look at the data that we got today to see how that might might fit in. But um I don't know if any councilors have any thoughts about that idea, but I I would say looking at possibly six different cities that are close to our population size and how they handle it, I think we could we could move forward and potentially do this on our own for very low money. Indra has a question.

Can I go? Yeah, go ahead, Indra. Thank you.

Okay. I was just going to say I I don't know that we need to waste staff time on them coming back to us with that. You I have used the internet to Google so many times all kinds of forms and evaluations and you can get them from cities all over the state, the area or nationwide. You can get so many forms to look at. And so I would suggest that each individual counselor just, you know, start looking at some city manager evaluation forms. You could find one from uh the east coast that is perfect. I I I don't know why we would need to stick with this area in particular, but I think it's uh just as easy for us individually uh to Google and find something we liked. Uh, I don't know that staff would have to waste time doing that, but maybe it's not much time. I don't know. That's just my suggestion. Thank you.

So, Angela, I'm just going to reply to that. This is Rob. So, um, when we on a charter task force, when we did that, everyone was in that task force uh, was assigned three different um, other cities to look at how their charters handled certain things. But to your point, as far as possibly looking at things on your own, everyone else looked at three and frankly I studied 39 different um city charters because I really wanted to know how these different uh cities handled certain situations. So you're any councelor would still be free to look at however many other cities they want to look at and possibly bring back some really really good ideas. There may be some outliers that are really good ideas to our to our discussion, but I think that I think that it would uh be simplest and possibly fastest and easiest for every counselor to uh be working from a maybe u six different examples or eight different examples. And if counselors didn't see what they what they thought was applicable or acceptable in those, there's nothing that would stop any counselor from going and finding other examples that worked as well. So both things could be true. Uh you can look at extra or um but at least everyone would have a minimum of a of the same baseline that we'd be functioning from.

She has another comment. Go ahead, Andra. Yeah. Yes. And and I get your point and that's good. That's why I would like to see a smaller study group taking the evaluation. So maybe we each give them one we like or two we like because I don't see having eight counselors talking about evaluations would take hours. Like for me, I would trust other counselors to refine the evaluation in a small study group and then present that to us to just look at at the end, make some small changes if we wanted to and improve

on it if we needed to. Um I that's what I would use the small study group for. Just my thoughts. Victoria, did you have your hand up? Yeah.

Yes. So, um, some ideas that I have heard and maybe some new ones to add is, uh, going back to Eric, um, we need to have goal setting at the beginning of this process and, uh, benchmarks along the way so that the final evaluation is much easier to do. And, um, I think that it would be better to do this in a small group away from council. I think it would take it might be I think eight people trying to do it all together at once might end up just being too confusing. So I think that we could in a small group setting. Um there's nothing that says we couldn't elicit, you know, information from other counselors. In fact, we can just say that's part of the process that get us your ideas for evaluations from different cities to us by this time so that we can absorb absorb that and then work it out in a smaller setting. But I think that we can come up with a really good evaluation process that is grants pass centric and I I think that might be the most important thing is just to make sure that this process really benefits the city and uh and I'm sure that other small cities around the nation have done that work has have done just that but I think it would be too much to do it all together, eight people all at once. So, I would be in favor of having people uh submit the information that they wanted to to this group by a certain amount of time and then a smaller group could go through that. Maybe the counselors uh whoever they are, two or three um

beforehand and then meet with the city manager. And I would also say it would be important probably to bring uh Stephanie into that discussion as well. And I think it could probably go pretty quickly and efficiently that way. Okay. I'll just add one other thing that council may not be aware of is that um when I have looked for city manager evaluation forms around the state. Um there are many cities that don't have that of information available on their website and unless staff were to go out and reach out and get some get some of those I don't know that council would then be able to come up with good examples from other cities because we may not be able to as individual counselors get that information. So, uh, that's actually probably the primary reason I was suggesting that staff brings us back, um, uh, examples of of evaluations from other cities. And at that point, uh, if we wanted to form a study group once council has seen exactly what other evaluation forms look like, because we may not be able to get that on your own. I I I know that you can't get them all on your own. So, uh, I'd like to see us get the information from other cities that are close to us in in size and then if we wanted to, uh, come up with a a smaller, uh, uh, smaller group, um, maybe that would be a way forward,

Kathleen. Yeah. Um, so it sounds like we pretty much are agreeing on a uh, study group form consisting of couple counselors and the case managers. So, I'd just like to make the motion to form a study group consisting of two counselors and case manager to recommend and refine the evaluation process. I would like to second that, but I would like to ask if you would entertain having it be uh three three counselors rather than two. Yeah. I just said one a couple of counselors. Three is fine. Yep. There's is there a second? That was I second.

Okay.

So, I I have a a question. So, if uh other counselors wanted to see examples of other city uh evaluation forms um that they couldn't get on their own, um how would how would that happen? Would would a individual counselor be able to uh give staff direction if they wanted to see them or would they just be out of luck and and we wouldn't be able to see those? I think that staff has always been pretty um good when you have a question and uh so if we ran into that issue, I think that an email to staff would readily I I think staff would be willing to help us with that. Well, I didn't hear anything from staff about that, but um I guess the point is is that very often when it's not considered appropriate for a counselor to necessarily give a staff member a job that could take them a couple of hours without uh essentially the entire council uh agreeing to give that direction. So that's my concern there. it's one counselor can't necessarily give uh uh the HR director or the manager or anybody else um any any direction of that nature.

Well, perhaps we can just um stipulate that right now then. Okay, that that was my point. So, um I would hope that uh maybe Kathleen would make a friendly amendment that would include that uh uh councilors can get examples uh or staff will provide uh council with examples of other um city manager evaluations forms also before we move forward.

Okay. I make a friendly amendment that we should uh include the staff in getting um other city uh manager evaluation forms if needed. And a second. Second's good. Yeah. Okay. Any any further discussion on that? Eric,

I I think uh maybe instead of uh if needed, should we just go ahead and ask for that? That way in the interest of time, we can get get that done exped expeditiously just in case. Should we do that or anybody else feel that way? My understanding is the motion includes the creation of A3 council member and city manager committee to review and make recommendation to an evaluation city manager process which would um start off with the city providing council memo of some like jurisdictions evaluations of city manager examples first. That sounds does that sound what you were had in mind, Eric?

Yes. Thank you.

So, that sounds reasonable to me, but the only the only question I have there is when Aaron says some cities. So, to me, um uh you know, which in the same way that when we're when we're negotiating with collective bargaining, it's cities that are that either closest in in population andor southern Oregon or whatever. And I'd also even like in examples of those that uh if some number of those let's say we were to choose uh you know four up and four down eight cities if some number of those had a facilitator okay maybe we maybe we get that form maybe we don't get that form I'm not sure if but it'd be good to know who who's using a facilitator what percentage is using a facilitator but out of a specific number not just uh not just sum. So how do we how do we define the word sum is is I guess what I'm saying. Well, council can provide additional direction. If you want me to do a five up, five down like we do with bargaining uh groups, we'll we'll do that.

I I I'd probably like to see four up and four down or five up and five down, but I'd also like to because not all the ones in southern Oregon uh would be that close to pop in population with us. So, I'd like to see the ones in southern Oregon also so we know exactly what our what our neighbors are doing. I would um in addition to population maybe uh geographic and economic um maybe there's other factors than than just population. I'd just like to point that out.

Yeah, I I did say southern Oregon also. So that which which also anyway may to me that would be that would that would cover that the inclusion of the five southern Oregon cities that we use for other other U comparisons. Oh I I'm I don't think that if we were to well if we were to do something like Clamoth Falls then maybe that would be um that would take care of that. Indra has a comment. Yeah, Indra,

I think we're making this way too complicated. I I don't see the point really of having up or down of southern Oregon. I mean, you either have a good evaluation for a city manager or you don't. You might find a great one in Michigan for a small town. I I don't I I really don't think that it matters if it's a southern Oregon city or some near us. um they might have evaluations that we don't like that all suck. Then we might find some one in another state. I think it I don't know why we have to have a southern Oregon thing. It's not like a compensation study. That's just my point. Um I think it's too complicated what we're doing. Thank you. I guess in response to what Indra had to say, um I I'm also concerned with it being too simple. The way it started out with basically, you know, two counselors and the manager, that was way too simple because I don't know that we'd get a representation of what all the counselors want to see. So that that's my point, Andrea. And you're, as I've said before, every council would be free to find whatever they want to in Michigan or anywhere any other place and bring it to the group. But um I I'm I'm ready to um Yeah, I'm ready. I'm ready to vote on Kathleen's motion at this point. Yeah.

Well, I think Kathleen's motion was that counselors and and you can read it back was to bring uh to submit things, a couple forms or whatever they wanted to include in the evaluation, submit that to the study group. and the study group would work on it, refine it, and come up with a product to give back to the council for approval. Am I wrong on that?

Well, that's the way it started, but I'm reasonably sure that counselors as individuals will likely not be able to get all the city manager evaluation forms that they want to. I think staff would have a better chance of doing that. And then she made an amendment. I believe that staff would help us do that. Aaron, you have something to say. So to clarify if this motion passes

to to clarify if this motion passes, staff's understanding is that we are going to start off by providing the 55 down plus local area jurisdictions. local area jurisdictions will be defined as those that are defined in the RFP for the collective for the non-bargaining uh local jurisdictions. Those will be submitted through a memo to council. We will also be getting direction from council on what three council members would be part of a group to partner with the city manager to make a recommendation on the city manager evaluation process. That's what I see as the motion as it stands.

Does that sound Does that sound accurate? Kathleen says yes. Okay. So, I think we're ready to vote. So, Kathleen, have you voted? Yes. Eric, yes. Rick, yes. I vote yes. Joel, um, I'm going to abstain, but I'm going to, uh, support whatever the council wants to do, and I'll have it I'll make it s I'll try to do my best to make it successful. Victoria, yes. Indra, how do you vote? I'm going to abstain to and only because I don't think the up and down according to compensation cities is appropriate in this case. So I'll abstain as well. Thank you. All

right. So I think we have uh what do we have? Five or four. Four yes. And two abstain. So that doesn't What do we have now? I think that was four in the affirmative and three either.

Five in the affirmative. So motion passes. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. Urban urban renewal uh program vandalism. And I'm I'm glad that uh Terry and Chuck stayed for this part of it. Um because your opinion might be valuable here. Um and we'll turn it over to Dana. Thank you, counselor. Good afternoon, everyone. Um, so this topic was brought to staff to review some um the potential for including vandalism in a grant program. So, we're looking at our urban renewal agency grant program and seeing where that might fit. Just a quick agenda for this presentation. We're going to look at the current standing of the grant eligible urban renewal agency projects and then we're going to review the eligible activities that are existing in the current urban renewal agency and economic development grant programs that that could potentially apply to vandalism and um then discuss more specific parameters parameters related to vandalism and also address some policy questions at the end. Just looking at the current standing. These um are the two programs within our current grant u grants for urban renewal that um these two projects all of our um the grants fall within that could potentially um cover vandalism. So um when you look at the first one there the north sixth and seventh street um that program that project itself the specific goal of it is to um improve the visual um enhance enhance the visual um beauty of

the corridor the sixth and seventh street corridors for um visitors first impressions to the city. So, um, some of the grants that have gone out, only a few, you can see just $17,000 has been spent are focused on, um, projects that were on the sixth and seventh street corridor. You can see the, um, plan allocation right now that is for 4 million. The intention of that project is to en enhance the the incoming um beauty of the city as you're coming in, but it includes um facade improvements as well as other kind of public infrastructure items like um public restrooms, public parking and other other types of improvements like landscaping and things like that. Um and then the other project in urban renewal business rehabilit or building rehabilitation. This is also um within our current grant program and most of our grants right now are going through this program. Um and you can see a larger sum has been spent 465,000 out of that with uh 2 million as the original allocation. I'm going to go ahead and go through our the current grant program guidelines and I'm going to just speak a little bit um keep in mind the vandalism lens here. So, um, these current programs could potentially allow for assistance with that under the North Sixth and Seventh Street. Um, the program describes, uh, having exterior improvements, assisting, uh, with replacement or repair. Um, and that could include doors, windows, and lighting as part of building facade. And then under building rehab and restoration, um similar thing, uh it's to improve the face of buildings and it could include again repair and replacement of awnings, exterior lighting, sign structures, windows, doors, other improvements. So you could see with the current guidelines, um the definition, however we define vandalism could potentially uh fall

under there. And then if we also look at our economic development grant program, we do have a light the storefronts and security camera program. Those funds are used to assist with ambient storefront lighting and exterior security cameras. Um so it's another preventative um program that we have available right now to assist. Continuing to look a little more specifically at the grant programs we have underneath um the criteria under applicant requirements um unless authoriz authorized by urban renew the urban renewal board there's only one award per tax slot um that is allowed within a 5-year period. So again we're going to look at these grant the grant program criteria but think of it from the lens of vandalism. This could be something that would be restrictive if we were to include vandalism. um there's going to be other elements that support it. So keep both of those in mind as we go forward here. Um also um the applicant must agree to maintain the agency improvements in good condition for not less than 5 years and that includes prompt repairs of any vandalism and removal of graffiti. So currently in our programs, we require if we've um provided funds, we require that they maintain um their building clear vandalism and graffiti. Something that's actually an ineligible project right now or activity would be cleaning activities that are considered routine or general property maintenance. So I think that's one restriction for graffiti potentially um that it's not an eligible activity. cleaning of that, I guess. Um, continuing on looking at the funding rules in the current grant program, funds will not be granted to projects that have already been completed prior to the funding approval. So, um, and

you'll see in the next slide why that matters. Obviously, vandalism is something we can't predict. So, um, applying for a grant prior to that happening, um, isn't really possible. Um for also for the qualifying privately owned improvement projects right now the urban rental agency um provides a match of 25%. Um and so the private the private investment has to be that 75 u maximum and up to a maximum which in each program is a little bit different but the sixth and seventh street the max is $20,000 and in the building rehab is 50 50,000. And then as far as the dispersement process, this is the same for all of our grant programs. Right now it's awarded as a reimbursement on eligible expenses. So having to show those expenses prior. Now let's go a little clo more closely at maybe the specific parameters that we'd have to change if we were going to put it under the current program. So, some of the exceptions to the current program, the URA board could um authorize more than one award up to a maximum amount potentially. Um that amount, I think we'd have to evaluate uh really look at what is the um maybe annual cost that people are experiencing for vandalism. We could do further research to to determine that amount, but it does make sense to set a maximum um due to that unpredictable nature that would cause the need for repair. applications could be accepted for after the repairs have been completed, but within a certain length of time, that's something that also could be established. How long um before the grant request um it could we accept that um that request? Did the act I'm sorry, before that grant request, when did that vandalism occur?

And then also considering the match piece of it. Um you know is 50% match a better match in this scenario because of what the project is and the size of it. Other things to consider would be location criteria. Um under our current program if you were to look at option one you could restrict um the properties that would be eligible for this vandalism assistance on for the sixth and seventh street frontage properties. um and that would fit within that project of the urban renewal. Or option two would be to make it available to all businesses within the urban renewal district and that would fit under the building rehab project. Continuing on on specific parameters, um because of the differences in the purpose really of urban renewal, um we would probably need to have some additional required documentation like a statement supporting that the evidence that shows um that the vandalism actually occurred or what the damage was. also some proof that insurance will not cover the cost of this um damage or even that it only covers a portion of it. And then also um this is relating back to that last slide setting a length of time prior to the grant application that the event actually occurred and the improvements were made and just an example would be no more than six months prior. Also we would need to establish um specific eligible activities. So, you know, windows and doors might be eligible or structure oriented damage. Um, and then the the remaining um other elements of the UR program could could just be the same. We could retain the uh other pieces of criteria. other comparable programs. We um did reach out to Elaine Howard who's our consultant for urban renewal and she didn't know of any other URAS in Oregon

that currently have a grant program dedicated to vandalism and use tiff funding. Um we did find um Prosper Portland has a grant specific to vandalism support and um it's their local small business expanded repair and restore grant. That program is funded through the American Rescue Plan Act. And this link just um provides you a way to look at more information about that program. The cost implications um right now we have $250,000 per fiscal year allocated for URRA grants. So should this program be included in the current guidelines? Should the program stand alone? um or should we consider even looking at alternative alternative funding sources to pay for the program? And lastly, the call to action is just the policy questions before you. Does the agency wish to establish a special vandalism parameters under the current URRA grant guidelines or does the agency wish to establish a new grant program outside of the URRA guidelines and allocating funding beyond that 250,000? So, that's what I have for you. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Kathleen, thank you. Uh, Dana, uh, I refresh my memory. If all the money has been used in the past, have have we allocated a full 250,000 every time? Do these funds get used up?

Yeah, so the 250,000 is allocated each year. um the last I think we've just started the program only two and a half years ago. So we haven't fully expended a 250,000 I think quite yet. Really close though, you know. Um we've allocated um the previous year 225,000 I think. And then this fiscal year we have only done about um 150 I think so far. So there's still about 100,000 remaining for this fiscal year. Victoria.

So, has there been I'm just curious. Has there been um businesses that have reached out to say this is a stated need or have businesses inquired saying, "I've got this vandalism. Is there any UR or city money that can help or?" No, not so far.

I haven't had that. And uh I'm guessing restricting it to sixth and seventh would just be that beautifification of what people see when they're just coming into the city as we're as Okay. So that that would be the main reason of just restricting it to sixth and seventh. I I just think the other thing to consider is when you do open it up to the full URRA, our our urban renewal area is very large. Um and so um at some point you're you might may be peacemealing out funds to um businesses all over the city. It's not necessarily a problem, but it's something to consider um to get the full impact of the purpose of urban renewal. We really want to see um larger impact as far as visual improvements to buildings um and even though it is obviously nice to remove something like a broken window so that it looks looks good again. Um, we are hoping to incentivize larger investment in in upgrades to a building. Oh, okay. So, then maybe maybe the city is seeing uh a need to incentivize and that's really the reason why you you're bringing it to us. It would you say that's accurate? This was brought to you because it was a request by council to to learn more about the possibility of covering.

Okay. I didn't actually. Thank you. I didn't know where the request came from. And then lastly, do you think that this would just I I don't know. It's it's an opinion, I guess. Would this restrict or make it harder for other things that we do through urban renewal? Would it be a drain on those funds, do you think? or uh do you think it would just be another a different um uh way to spend the money for what the agency is designed for?

Um I think I guess it could be either depending on your perspective. Um I think there is that possibility that uh we could include in the guidelines even if um you are wanting assistance with the repair of a window. Are there other improvements that you want to make and try and encourage them to do, you know, more with the project? I think there's a possibility there. So, it could be um a way to connect with businesses. Um but I I I guess that's there's potential either way, I guess. Okay. Thank you. Andrea has a question. Andrea, go ahead.

Uh yes, I just have a couple questions. So that grant uh the Portland safety project, is that something they already got or is that something still available to communities to to ask for to apply for? Uh this is Brad counselor. So the example that Dana gave was not a grant that the city of Portland got. It's a grant program that Portland's urban renewal agency operates for businesses in Portland.

Oh, I thought underneath funded through American Rescue Plan Act. So, it's the funds came prior like that's not something that's still giving money out. That was my question. No, my my understanding is they they are they are still um whether they're Yeah, I I guess we don't know for sure if they're ARPA, but that ARPA was how that program originally started using using the American Rescue Plan Act funding. Um and yeah, that that was just one of the projects that they chose to uh apply their ARPA money towards.

So that's gone. I mean, it's nothing we could apply to is what I'm asking. Is it something we could apply to currently or no? Well, all of the ARPA money has already been distributed from the federal government to the city of Grants Pass. Um, we do still uh have, you know, a few proceeds and I think I don't know if that's coming up on an agenda or not. That might be some opportunity. No, this is not a new program. This these are allocated funds from from years ago through ARPA. So this is not some a fund that the city can apply for and start this program based on new funding mechanism to answer your question directly.

Thank you. That was my question. Okay. And then my second question uh go back there was an exemption or something about insurance. You would require proof of insurance and I'm wondering because most businesses have insurance but there may be a deductible. So would that be something then that the um city under this proposal would cover is maybe their deductible. That's something that the council could decide. Thank you. Eric question. Is that propos is that in the proposal or no?

Um we don't have something that's that specific yet right now. We're just looking um as kind of an overview of what this program could potentially be. Um so if that's a detail that you'd like included, you can let me know and we would um bring it back as in a more formal proposal. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So Indra, there is there is no proposal right now. Council's deciding whether or not we want to try to create a proposal. So Eric, right, but there's kind of a structure that she's come up with. Correct. No, a little bit. No. Oh, okay.

She She's basically just uh reviewing with us what the current URRA uh grant possibilities are, but that's that's currently what's on the books and we're deciding whether or not we want to do add something to it or do something different. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, Eric.

Thank you. Um Okay. I I had a question in terms of how effective we think this has been for all these funds. And I guess I don't know if you you can answer that, Dana, or um I know it's kind of a hard question to answer, but maybe if if Chief Hensman possibly could elaborate on on uh what he thinks, you know, obviously any little bit of amount of money will will help, but uh I don't know if if if uh I guess the question is how effective do we think this program is and and uh or the this the funding is and is it beneficial for us to to continue or alter or do we have any suggestions?

You want me to take that? Yeah, go ahead.

Okay, I can. Uh just my thought from um my professional opinion and from a public safety perspective when we talk about blighted community, when we talk about vandalism, um it's critical to get it cleaned up ASAP. If you leave your environment looking shabby and run down, it just emboldens um people to behave poly, aka commit crimes, uh more vandalism, and they just think they're going to continue to get away with it. Uh so any type of a let's clean the place up and make it look better program is always a positive from a public safety standpoint. So I'll leave you with that to consider. Um, but also too, um, as I'm listening to Dana's presentation, I would also, uh, throw out for your consideration that there is a restitution piece if we do catch an individual that's committed a crime. And I would just ask that that be added to the recipe, uh, that if a business was, let's say, um, provided funds that paid them back for fixing a a door, a window, whatever, that if they received grant money, they should do the right thing and give the money back to the city. Right.

Thank you. I think that's great advice. Thank you. I think council should Yeah, let's look into that. I think any other questions from council before we go to discussion. Victoria, I just want to make sure that I understood chief what you said. So, uh you're you're restitution. Are you talking about maybe I was way off about uh perpetrators? the restitution that they are paying if they pay it. If they paid it. So I just want to be clear that that's what you were. Okay.

Just for your knowledge that uh if an individual is caught for breaking the law and there's a a financial component attached to it, sometimes that would be part of the u the court court case essentially. Oh, thank you. Okay, I think we can. Thanks, Dana. Thank you. bring it back. Yeah. For Joel for discussion. Yeah.

So, um I think this is a very timely topic. I think it plays into Chuck's presentation earlier uh in our workshop about uh entrepreneurs and uh the um problem that they identified as uh not only housing but the effect on their business and unexpected expenses that are not their fault. um seems like it needs to be uh kind of a a fund that comes in after restitution and insurance and um I would think something like um uh up to $5,000 per occurrence. Uh that would it'd be designed mainly to cover the deductible under the insurance. Um, and then I also think there needs to be some kind of timeline because for example, when uh we had the car accident downtown and there was the unfortunate thing of the door being crushed in on the business, I mean, he's not going to wait till he gets a grant approved to to fix that. So, there has to be some kind of u u 90day um thing that prior to the grant application that that we would reimburse that if that was due to vandalism. So, um, that's what I'm thinking. And, um, we could include it under, well, I would count on Dana's expertise, but, uh, how however we fund it under, um, uh, urban, uh, renewal funding, um, I would be okay if it's a separate program or if it's part of these other existing programs. I think there needs to be a limit set on it uh maybe $300,000 or less. uh just so that uh if it does exceed that for some reason um that we um so uh the only only thing I thought

of is if it did exceed it would be an earthquake or something which we get emergency funding but uh um but but put an upper limit on the program so that um we could make another decision there if it got out of hand and up up to 25 or 30 businesses at up to $5,000. Thanks, Joel. V Victoria.

Um, I really like the idea. Um, I and I also like what Joel just said. So, something like uh I like the 50/50 match with the with the cap at $5,000. I mean, you could do you could do both of those things. I like those ideas. And uh I also I don't think it should be limited to Sixth and Seventh Street. There are many areas going down, you know, F and and I think it should be open to the entire community because uh the entire URRA district pays the into it so they should reap the benefit of it. And so I I think it's a really great idea and uh I like the idea that Joel just said of considering you know deductibles for insurance and then also of course the restitution being a part of that as well. So really good ideas.

Yeah, I like all those ideas too. I would be in favor also of a timeline 90 days that it wouldn't be like endless time there. But I also would like to establish it under the current year grant guidelines just because we have so much money left over. It seems like we could easily fit that right underneath. Andrea has a comment. Andra, go ahead. Andra, go ahead.

Oh, yes. Um, I agree with what most everyone said. The deductible um for the insurance, I don't know. I mean, 5,000 seems a little high as a cap, but maybe not. I don't know what the windows are worth. I would like to see the entire UR area get it, too. I don't think it would be right to have the frontage and then just around the corner on G Street, they don't get anything or down the block. Um, and then I would also I I think a 50/50 match is a lot to a lot of businesses.

You know, it's a hardship when you have to replace, you know, whether it's $700 even um you're not buying a piece of equipment that you need because now you have this emergency window or graffiti to do. I would like to either bring it down to 25% or, you know, maybe even no match. It's definitely Thank you, Chief Hensman. It's definitely a blight and I think um we all agree if you see boarded up windows or crack it just is so bad and it does invite more. So, I would like to just make a big incentive so that we don't have that anywhere in our city. Yeah,

but I agree with what most everyone said with those few exceptions. Thank you.

Yeah, I'm going to comment now. Um I I think that uh there's a couple couple things that we're looking at here. And I I don't know if um uh many on the council really understand what uh it's like for a small business to get hit with a double or a tripling or quadrupling of their uh insurance because often when you um uh basically even if you pay your deductible, you can end up with a giant insurance jump the next year. huge. And getting back to, you know, the business retention um conversation that we had earlier, when it comes down to certainty and confidence of whether or not somebody uh wants to try to stay open next year or the following year, um a lot of these unexpected expenses enter into that calculus for them. Um, I actually don't think that um I think that we should try to do this without someone having to employ their insurance because um if we want this program to be successful and we want it to be used, I think that it's going to be used if there is uh no insurance um match required. uh right now um as soon as you use your insurance and this would uh uh as as a property owner, same thing. As a as a homeowner, same thing. We get people, you know, there's people being cancelled. There's there's huge jumps all the time and we're looking at empty storefronts downtown and we're looking for ways to try to try to give people a little more confidence that Grants Pass is is a safe place to have a business. Well, to me, um, taking care of any vandalism, uh, related expenses as far as glass breakage, I think is is a really sign of, uh, good

faith by the council. Um, I think that, uh, adding to that, getting back to what Chief Hensman was saying, uh, what I would like to see if we're going to do something like this is if somebody were to get benefit and have their their window repaired on the city's dime, on the URA dime, um, that in order for them to ever be eligible for another, uh, similar grant that they install, uh, cameras first. So, in other words, if somebody is uh for whatever reason is a repeat target, um at least that they would have a camera set up so that uh police would have some chance of apprehending uh whoever the offender is. I mean, things can get really crazy. We knew what last year was it one guy broke like 15 windows,

including Republican headquarters and and a bunch of businesses. And I know that um just to give you an idea um hold on one second because I got some figures. Uh um I called the glass companies that actually did some of those repairs. And to give you an idea, like at the fly shop down on 6th, they had a fairly large window that was taken out and um it was 72 by 104, which is not the largest. You you'll see some windows that are bigger. And to replace a window like that today, just the glass is $12 to $1,500 and the labor is typically around 10%. So, you know, that that kind of expense, even even half of that expense and half of $1,800, that can be really significant for a small mom and pop. Um, you know, the pharmacy, Grandpass Pharmacy, their their their glass was 54 by 78, I think, was the same person, the same the same guy who did the 15 breaks at the same time. I'm I'm not sure about that. Um, even theirs was uh approaching $1,000. So for um you know for somebody to then use their insurance potentially get a huge jump the next year in their insurance um there are actually you know uh at this point from what I understand there's there's some some insurance uh companies that won't even do uh this type of insurance anymore. Fortunately I I haven't had that problem yet but and I hope not to have that problem. But I guess my point is I I I think that if we want this to be used, if we want it to actually be helpful, if we want to give uh businesses uh confidence that this is a good place to keep your business or possibly expand a business, um I think that we should do uh 100% of it up to a particular dollar amount per per event, but I we should do 100% of it um you

know uh with no more than once every uh couple of years if the same person were hit again. But uh otherwise it's not going to be used because people are you know people have their insurance they don't they don't want to engage it because they can be they can be canceled the next year. So if we want it to be used I think we've got to go from dollar one. Indra has a comment. Uh Joel has Joel had his hand up.

Oh um uh Rob I I sure appreciate what you're saying. One one of the things I would I would u add to it and it'd be a little different twist that we would uh compensate each individual up to $5,000 and then uh per per occurrence uh that and that uh then we would fund it to let's say 250 occurrences. Those those uh examples you set were far less than $5,000. Um, the reason people have insurance and it does go up. I know I'm they won't insure, I shouldn't say this publicly, but uh my business they won't they won't even insure it, but um um you have insurance to offset really large risks, you know, not not the not the $5,000 and less and um and and that so I I I think that would cover 9% of the windows anyway. And so that uh we would have require no match up to $5,000 and then after that if it over that it would be their responsibility.

Yeah, Rick, I would be in favor of 50/50 match and up to $5,000. I can also see a lot of times um the individual has a $500 deductible. So, if it's a $1,000 window, um, they would then be eligible for that other balance beyond their deductible. Thank you. Uh, Andrew, did you have something else to say?

Yeah, I was just going to say I agree. I I would go for 100% on it. It it is really a hardship to businesses and through no fault of their own. If we really want to support our businesses and help them uh to grow and stay, I think we this would be a big help for them. I would go for the 5,000. Um Joel, I think you said per occurrence. So 2500 per occurrence. Uh it's because some of the businesses are that are more visible and in certain areas are more prone to breakage and graffiti. So I would be okay with having a per occurrence where a business if it happened one year and then down the road happened again they could apply again and still get it up to 5,000. I'd be okay with that. Um, I had a window breakage a a couple few years ago. Um, and I didn't even go to insurance. So, you're right about that, Rob. I mean, you you're afraid to go to insurance because you know it's going to go up and so I I think that proof of insurance shouldn't be part of it as well. Thank you.

Yeah. You know, to to add to that, a lot of people may not realize, but years ago, fortunately, it was a long time ago, last time I had a window broken. Um, I'm trying to remember the dimensions of my store, but it's at least uh it's at least 100 to 120 feet deep. I had a front window broken and there was literally glass shards throughout my entire store. From that one window being broken, there was glass shards 100 ft covering the entire store. And guess what? I didn't do business that day. So in addition to you know the the expense in addition to the the trauma and the pain in the neck um I also and then we're and and as and as hard as we tried to get all that glass you can imagine how long it actually took to get all that glass. So, so it's it's it's a big thing and and I think that if we're looking for business retention, if we're looking for uh you know, support for our our our businesses, even if we came down from $5,000 per occurrence to 3500 per occurrence, I'd like to see it from dollar one. So, no match necessary. um either up to 3500 or 5,000. But I think no match I think is is the way that we can actually help the businesses here uh so that they won't incur uh massive increases in future years.

Joel, I don't want to cut off discussion, but I was going to make a motion. I have a question. Okay. There's a lot of details. before you do that. Thank you, Joel. Um, is this just are we just talking about windows or are we talking about graffiti as well?

My my my thinking on this this was windows and doors. This was glass breakage. I mean, we could expand this to a bunch of other things, but this this to me was um glass breakage. the things that we don't well graffiti is also something we don't want to see down down our our main carters but it was the things that would really be off-putting to to tourists and off-putting to other business owners um plywood etc etc I suppose we could uh include um uh graffiti in that as well but to me this was this was about glass today

okay and I'm good with that because I think Chief Hensman Isn't there a program or someone that does graffiti cleanup? Is there Hey, counselor. Um, we do have the ability to clean up small graffiti, but it's actually the business owner's responsibility to clean up their own graffiti. Okay. And I think that's perfectly reasonable. So, I'm I just wanted to make sure we're just talking about window and glass breakage. Thank you. So before um Joel or anyone else makes the motion, there was a lot of other things to to details to talk about. Kathleen. Yeah.

Okay. So I thought we were talking about vandalism in general. I mean windows, graffiti, caved indoors, blight. I would I would be willing to include graffiti. Um it could be a large piece. It could be the whole side of a building. Um anyway, that's my on that. And then also I was wondering if we were changing the applicant requirements that says uh one award per tax slot would be allowed within any 5-year period. So we're changing that. Well, that that was one of many details that I think that we need to talk about. Victoria.

Yeah. I in the presentation here, I think it said windows and doors, but I like the idea of graffiti as well because that is something that um really needs to be taken care of quickly. And so if we had incent if we incentivized doing that uh from from dollar one, I like what people were talking about with avoiding an insurance claim. Uh that would be good. So, if we made it for uh vandalism to include doors, windows, and graffiti, uh I I would like that idea along with the from dollar one idea up to $5,000.

Andrew has another comment. Yeah, I just want to um add one thing to there. The only uh uh the only question I think the graffiti is a good idea. It's just uh it's a little bit harder to quantify what's an appropriate um cost. Glass is pretty easy to quantify and and the time it takes to do the glass on graffiti. Could we end up repainting like the entire side of somebody's building or how do we have different different aspects fit in? I just don't know exactly how we would would define uh a maximum there, but um we we could we could do that and don't necessarily have to define it, but it could really be uh it's it's more subjective, I think, than than glass breaking would be.

I I can see that, but cleanup is uh the the cleanup materials and then the paint. So, um I think it it I don't know as though we need to to specify what is covered under um graffiti renewal, but uh it seems like it would be easy to do if it were cleaning materials and paint. I I guess there could be other if it was on metal or so I I I don't know as though we need to to quantify that but uh graffiti uh remediation doors doors was something though that was in the presentation and I think that might be something really important to include because if there are you know locked you know broken locks and doors and things like that might be uh it was in the presentation I believe and I think that that should also be included. Thank you. Uh Andrew, what were you going to say?

Yeah, I would be for the doors, that structural damage as well. Graffiti is not expensive to get rid of because I've I've done it too and you go down and get a can of spray paint that matches the color and and just spray paint over it. But so it's not expensive. I think if we see graffiti that business owners have, I mean, you're talking two $3 or four or five, um, it's because they just don't take the time to do it. So, maybe just peer pressure to get them to do it. Maybe the graffiti that we're seeing that stays is either absent owners or maybe it's uh city-owned property that hasn't gotten cleaned up yet or something like that. But I think most businesses uh take care of the graffiti on their business and it's not that expensive. That's my only comment on that.

So, I'd like to uh hear from council. Uh it's my inclination to ask uh Terry or Truck what they think of this because they are business retention experts. If if council thinks that's appropriate, I'd like to hear if what they've what they've got to say on this. Is that okay with council? Thumbs up. Yeah. You guys have anything you want to say on this? Terry or Chuck?

Yeah. I mean, I want to make sure it's clear that as the chamber president and CEO, I'm a reflection of my membership. We have not had this discussion internally. I think I could draw some conclusions based on the BR& survey. Um, so rather than maybe answer your questions, if I could if I could add a couple, um, is this grant to business owners or building owners when you're talking about business retention and expansion? And if if there's somebody who's got a building that's chronically vacant, uh, I think that that adds to graffiti and vandalism in our town. So, is there any kind of incentive for folks that actually have their business uh occupied? I think that's a big question that you have to answer for yourselves. Uh and then I'm with you. I don't um the deductible. I don't know if you're you know, if you end up saying 100%, I get it because Rob, you're right. Most people just have these done outside of insurance, but are you rewarding people that have crappy insurance policies? uh you know, if I pay more for insurance and I've got a lower deductible than somebody who took the cheapest thing possible, are you uh rewarding folks that maybe took the uh easy way out? And I I'm happy to answer questions, but those are my initial thoughts. I would also be happy to take this to both our government affairs and BRD committees to gather more feedback.

Thank you. Did anybody have any questions for Terry? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Actually, Terry, how long do you think uh it would take to be able to gather that information? Both of those committees meet the second week of the month, so I could add it to those agendas and get some initial feedback probably within a couple weeks. Oh, thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. Um, yeah, I think, uh, you know, again, Terry touched on a point where you can have a repetitive, uh, or repeat, um, victim, so to speak. And I think that's part of what I would like to see in here is if somebody gets a grant before they'd ever be considered for another one, if they had security cameras up and running um, to uh, potentially help us uh, capture and and get restitution as Chief was talking about. Yeah, Victoria.

Um, I think that all regardless of whether it's a business owner or a building owner, they're still paying into the URRA. Correct. So, yeah. So, I I I'm not sure that we should distinguish between business owners and building owners for that reason. Am I right on that? Yeah, I see. You're kind of So,

you you are right. uh they they pay into their renewal agency whether they have a business or not. It all depends on from a policy perspective where you want to go. Do you want to focus on businesses and maintaining their ability to stay in business versus cost versus a a a building owner? So the the Prosper Multma one is just strictly for businesses uh and they have a requirement to stay in business and that this helps them stay in business. But it seemed like in the presentation we were talking about you know urban blight. So that in my mind that includes building owners as well. That's up to the the Urban Rental Agency board which is you to determine. Okay. Thank you.

Joel, did you have something to say or not? Kathleen, sorry. I think that's an excellent idea. uh Terry that the businesses or the building should be occupied because it does invite uh more vandalism if it's not occupied. So I think we should as a board consider that. And then I wanted to add landscaping because I know that we had several uh businesses contact us early on when we moved the resting sites up here that their landscaping was getting destroyed and they were very unhappy about that. So I and I also heard Dana mention that that landscaping would be one of the types of vandalism things. So I want to include that.

And then Indra also has a comment. Rick and then Joel.

I'm hesitant on including that the building be occupied because we have a lot of businesses out there that are struggling and some are occupied right now and some are not. And I think um if you find a building is damaged and vandalized, it's not attractive for a new business to want to move in there. So um I would again um not want to have that condition in there. Thank you, Joel. Well, I would just echo what Rick said and u with all respect um building owners are business owners also. they're they're just landlords or are putting in a business and u the effects that the chief talked about it it doesn't care. I mean um when you drive through the south side of Chicago and there's not a window that's intact for 10 blocks um whether the building's occupied or not occupied, it sends a message that is not healthy. And and we need to uh get back to what Chuck said this morning. Uh um so I I would say it's a building or business owner.

Yeah, Indra, you're up next. Oh, yes. I I agree. Um I don't think we should determine whether it's occupied or not. I mean, some landlords are desperately trying to get their businesses occupied and they just can't. So, I don't think we should disadvantage them. I would also I'm going to go back and agree to the 90day. I think several people mentioned that. And then as far as cameras, while that would be great, I don't think we could make uh people do cameras, but if we have a cap on it, um then they can't go over that amount. So, I I think that's good.

Thank you. So, um, Indra, when I mentioned cameras, it wasn't for the the first time, uh, that they come to us for a grant for broken windows. It would be if they ever were a victim a second time. In other words, after the first time, we we fix their windows for them. We get them back uh, looking whole again, and then it's up to them to get cameras if they want to. But don't come back to us if you don't have some evidence that the uh, police might be able to use to to apprehend somebody. That was my point with cameras. That was for any any repeat uh um you know anyone who who comes back for a second grant was was my point on the cameras. But a couple other things that um we were going to discuss was whether it was going to be sixth and seventh only or the entire URRA I would make the point that if it was going to be primarily sixth and seventh I think it should be G&H as well if we're worried about uh how tourism looks and things of that nature. um you know if it comes otherwise we could do the entire URRA but um but I think we if we're going to make a motion we need to uh decide if if it's going to be um I think we've all this I think we all agree that roughly 90 days someone would have to report it. I think we've all agreed that roughly 5,000 per occurrence. Um uh I'd like to see if it was if it was fresh analism I'd like to see a police report involved. Um, and probably a licensed contractor should be uh required, especially when dealing with glass. Um, because the uh the permits keep uh I mean not the permits, the uh the codes keep escalating. What was what was legal for uh uh someone to have in their store u glass for a front window uh 30 or 40 years ago and some of them might have glass that's 50 or 80 or 100 years old. That's not legal to replace with. So, so a licensed contractor is definitely an important uh piece of this. And you

know, there's there's also details about if if glass is within 3 ft of front door, it it requires a a different kind of safety glass and so forth. So, so I to me um 5,000 per occurrence, 90 days per um uh to to uh apply um I would think a police report. Um and then the question is do we want to do just uh sixth and seventh front facing? Do we want to do sixth and seventh G&H or do we want to do the whole uh whole URRA? So um uh Victoria

so I really think we should include the entire URRA because if you are paying into the URRA and you don't really have a choice in a matter if you are in the URA so um I think everybody should be able to reap the benefit of that and uh so I don't I don't know if Joel was ready to make a motion but I'll okay so but I would definitely advocate for the entire URRA and vandalism to include doors, windows, graffiti and and landscaping.

Man, what a tough group to keep up with. Okay. Um, I'll I'll make a motion and you and if there's something there that you want that's not there, then we can have a discussion and a an amendment to it. Is that okay? Cuz I uh hopefully I captured everything as well. Counselor, if I could, the one thing that wasn't discussed in that synopsis of the discussion was that I didn't catch at least was should the program be included in the current guidelines or should we have a standalone funding source for it? Okay. So, is it going to be included in the 250 that we have already have allocated in that program or is it going to be a standalone with a designated amount of funds? Sure.

So, um I'll make a motion to have standalone funds to the tune of $125,000 that would reimburse building owners or businesses up to $5,000 the actual cost of repairing vandalism that include doors, windows. I'm gonna admit I'm gonna omit graffiti because it was so um inexpensive

and it and my it might be a uh a nightmare for Dana um and and land I'll I'll put I'll include landscaping for the entire N UR and that uh if there's um uh a second request within um a here that u they need to have security cameras uh to um uh uh be eligible for the grant and um if work is done 90 days before the grant application and it's due to vandalism that it would be covered

and police report. What's that? Would you also include a stipulation that there needs to be a police report? Oh, um well, you know, code and police report. Um gez, that's kind of standard operating procedure, but u we could put it in there if you want. Uh but it has to be up to code obviously and and it has to be um uh true that it was vandalism. And I don't know how you know if that's a a police report would be a way to do that. So we could say and it requires a police report. I don't know about the code stuff in terms of the glass within the front door and that I mean it has to be done up.

Yeah. And the licensed contractor. I mean that's all code, right? Well, we want to make sure it is. Yeah. And so that if it's covered by code, I don't want to repeat that. It would just be re re it's a reimbursement program and we'd be in re reburse based on the the expense associated with the licensed contractor to do the work. Okay, that sounds great. Include that by reference. Dana, you're better at this than I am. Okay, Rick. Second. Second from Rick. Any further discussion? Kathleen. Um, did you include the insurance or not on that? I think

it's up to $5,000 actual cost. If it's beyond that, then uh they're on their own. Yeah. So, and there's no no match. No match. No. Yeah. No match required. Yeah. And Rick seconded it. Any further discussion? Chair, I'm sorry. Could I ask a clarification? Sure.

Theuh 75,000 I believe 25 is that per fiscal year? 125. Uh I just had it as a total. That was my thought. Uh and then if if if more is needed later on, I most of the windows that are going to be replaced are going to be far less than $5,000, I would hope. Um so you're talking uh 60 $5,000. So five into 125. You're talking um uh 25 occurrences, 25 broken windows at this point in time that we would replace. So So that's the life of the the life of the program, the 30-year program or

Oh, the life of the program. So is that um Gez, you can have it till the money runs out. Um so what would you suggest, Brad? Well, I mean, I think it's fine. you know, we can always come back to you, but I just wanted to make sure that we understood when we were setting this up what what your intent was. Okay. Okay. Yeah. If if you want to set a life on it, I'm okay with that. But I would say right now with with that little of money that I think over time that's going to be depleted down to zero. I hope not, but I think it will.

I think that's why. So, does this need to be renewed every year? the money replenished if it isn't used every year. The 125 Well, we do that with urban renewal dollars anyway with all projects. So, so up to 125,000 each year. Um I I had it as total and that we review it when we Oh, okay. All right. We got that, Brad. Clear. Okay. And Joel, you made the motion, right? Yeah. How do you vote? Um I Okay, Victoria, yes. Kathleen, yes. Eric, yes. Rick,

yes. I vote yes. Indra, how do you vote? Yes. Great. It's unanimous. Seven to zero. Thank you.

Oh, I knew there was a reason Valerie was here. Okay, I guess we're going to hear from staff about Beacon Hill Park. I forgot to set it up. I take the break. Can we start?

All right. Go ahead, Bradley.

Okay. So, there's kind of two parts to this item. The first one is a continued discussion about the land division that we've talked about a couple of times at Beacon Hill. Um, and then the second is a um conversation. It's a little bit new about the uh parks and recreation plan and then the Beacon Hill Park site plan. A little bit of an update on that. Think you know where the property is. Uh we're on the north side of I5 on the south side of Hillrest and the west side of Beacon, 1055 Northeast Hillrest Drive. It's about 10.3 acres. If you have been out in that area recently, you know that there's there's a lot happening right now. Uh this is a picture taken um just last week. Uh the Hillrest is being widened um with some curb gutter sidewalk. There's a multi-use pathway that's being put on the uh on the park side of the property. It's going to be an attached sidewalk on the north side. Uh but you can kind of see they're making some good progress out there. Expect to be done by by uh sometime in June. Um here's here's the bridge, the I5 bridge that crosses over Hillrest right there. Um so and then the the the park property that we're talking about is just past this uh this telephone pole, utility pole here on the left hand side. um making quite a bit of progress. So, here's just another shot. This I put this one in because the storm water pond, it's a little bit tough to see, but maybe you can see some of the um uh grading work uh that is created there on the side. So, this this is a pond that's associated with the city's Hillrest widening project, but it is on this property. So it will collect some storm water runoff from the uh

Hillrest and that will so there is a portion of the park property that that is being used uh for storm water management of Hillcrust. Real quick um won't go into all these in details but basically about 25 years ago the city acquired the property uh got listed in the master park and wreck plan in 2010. Um there was a Beacon Hill Park site plan that the planning commission approved 10 years later. Um 23 council directed staff to to pursue a land partition um to create three lots off of this property um smaller sort of residential building lots. October of 24, Peter Allen Surveying was hired. He prepared a partition plaid and in the process of that discovered some um storm water drainage and some wetlands issues. We brought that to you in a workshop as well as in council memo. Uh November of last year, we were here and we talked about your preferences for where where to go. You had a 5-3 vote that was to suspend the survey work and go out to the community and solicit feedback from them about the park and some of the amenities in the park. So, that's what we did. But then very soon after that there was some feedback from counselors that um I guess for the lack of a better term kind of questioning whether or not you wanted to to go that route. So we didn't proceed with the with the survey. Um but we also didn't proceed with the community feedback. So we've kind of been on the holding pattern here for a while. Um so that's that's basically where we're at in terms of the timeline. nothing nothing really has happened in terms of outreach um to the community on the project. Um we also have not spent any more money um to continue with surveying the property.

This is the preliminary survey that we did. Um I guess you don't want me to write on this. I'll use the other one. So here's this parcel two, parcel three. um are the two lots that we talked about before. Um parcel 3 ends up coming back as pretty much of a a non-buildable area. So that is kind of taken off that collects a lot of run drainage runoff from the north side and brings it into this area. Um so that's non-buildable. Parcel two is what we talked about at your last workshop about maybe continuing on. We did get a appraisal on that came in about $100,000. This is just a little closer look at the site constraints that we're dealing with. Um you can see here again parcel two the natural drainage that bisects the property. Um doesn't make it impossible to build, but it does make it a little bit more expensive to build. Um, and then you have the Demoray Canal that that you know comes down runs kind of northeast to southeast uh uh I'm sorry, northwest to southwest kind of through the property. Uh that also will pose some some development challenges. We'll talk a little bit more about that. So in terms of the land partition, um maybe just a couple other decision factors for you to consider. So costwise, there is going to be a little bit more than what we've budgeted. We have $9,000 contract with with Peter Allen surveying that basically gets us to the point where, you know, a lot or two lots can be done, but it doesn't get us to, you know, marketing fees or closing fees or anything else like that. So there there's probably another $3 to $5,000. Um, it also doesn't factor in the, you know, some of the other utility

stubs and things. So we you know that your your 9,000 is just strictly getting you a paper survey but then in order to complete it we will have to you know spend a little bit more money to if you want to proceed with this um with the with the partition. um in terms of benefits to you know marketing the property as a whole. I mean if in terms of both residential and as a park um there that multimodal pathway that we're that we're currently building it's you know it's an asphalt and it's detached from the street and it's going to run all the way from 10th Street up. So it'll it'll be a nice feature. Um we do have some other potential proceeds that you could consider as a benefit. You know that if you sold it would be go into the general fund. Um uh there there is about $85,000 of park development SDC fees SDC's that has to be paid back. That that would be for the entire 10 acres. Um city got a uh a really good deal on this back in 2001. So there's not a lot, but there is some park SDC's that were used in 2001 to buy the property. So some of those will need to be repaid. Um there are a couple development challenges and and these actually to be honest apply whether you're talking about partitioning offs and selling some for residential private development or for us. Um the sewer um it it it's a it's a site that has some challenges to sewer. It may require pumping unless you really put something close to hill to Hillrest. But if you want to come further down off of Hillrest because of the slope, because of the uh the sewer, the way it gravity's out there would be pretty challenging. Um, in terms of water, it it's in a splitzoned area. In terms of being able to service it, we don't have Jason here. He could give you a better explanation, but um, but it will likely require an extension only from Beacon. That's where we have the better pressure. And uh, so

you would you would look at be looking at a line that would come in off of Beacon. So to break off the one off of Hillrest um at this point um we you know there is no water man in Hillrest right in front of that lot. So it could be a challenge to figure out a way to get a water mane up to service that house. Um again none of these things are impossible but they they they do present some challenges that you should be aware of. So that's kind of where we're at on the history and on the partition. um wanted to go into I'll just give you some background on the parks and um wreck plan itself and how it applies. Council President, we have a question. Do you want to

Rick? Thank you, Brad. Uh can you go back to slide seven? Okay. um say 10 or 15 years ago when there was a subdivision directly on the south line of that property. Um the city required that a sewer line be extension be located there for the very purpose of serving that property. Is there ability? So what you're citing here for that lot that's up there, it could have difficulty connecting to sewer.

Yes. Well, I think for for the single connection, it may be it may be doable. Um but if you the further down you come particularly when you get south of Demorray Canal. Okay. So that's where the challenges come. They theoretically they could have the opportunity to take sewer line from that all the way to the south. But again, if you're putting say a park setting, putting a sewer line through the middle of the park, the cost on that would be quite substantial. Would that be appropriate comment?

Um, yeah. I I I think as a as a broad high level comment, yeah, that's appropriate. Um I I was I was making the comment more related to if if the council was looking at more than just partitioning off one single lot um and if you were looking to service this whole property you know with sewer um for multiple houses.

Okay. in terms of one I I but yeah you know either way um I mean obviously in terms of a park planning perspective you know we have more opportunity to site the the restroom where we would want to in order to get be the the most the best way to service it. So I just want to confirm that the planning commission required us to provide access for that property for sewer. So that opportunity still exists. Yes. Thank you. You bet. Okay. Question. Yeah. Andra

and thank you. So back on that uh picture the between so parcel three is going to be very difficult. two just somewhat difficult. In between those two is just natural drainage. That's what I'm reading. Is that right? Tax slot 107. Oh, yeah. This is actually an existing builtout house. This is a this is Oh, there is a house there already. Yes. Yeah. That's that's not a part of what the city owns. Okay. Thank you.

You bet. Okay. Um, so here's the master plan that it was adopted in 2010. We amended it in 2023 adding mainly Dollar Mountain with some changes, but um, so you can see this up in this northeast portion of the community. Um it has it was identified then and it continues to be that case where there's uh there's minimal opportunity for uh being serviced by developed parkland. Um that was some of the motivation. Here's here's the park site plan that the planning commission approved. Here are some of the features that were in that plan. walking paths. Uh there were two dog parks, a playground, pump track, um half basketball court, restroom facility, 37 parking spaces, and then a a freestanding canopy. Um probably important to point out here, these kinds of projects, and Josh can give us a a more educated explanation of it, but are phased. Um and so the the plan really from the beginning was to kind of start with a parking lot and some walking paths. You know, walking is the number one recreation activity for Grants Pass. Um and so if you have even just a parking lot and some walking paths uh to start out with in phase one and then um continue to pursue either grant money andor u you know other city general fund money to complete the subsequent phases. That would be the intention. Um, a couple other items that are in the master park wreck plan about this area. Um, in chapter 5, it identifies a need for about 51 acres of new neighborhood park in seven different areas of the urban growth boundary.

So, here's the seven areas that were identified in the plan. the the three that have asterisks are the ones that where Parkland Reserve is already, you know, in hand where we the city already owns property. Um the other four we do not. Um but in this neighborhood park category of the plan, there's multiple sizes of parks. In this neighborhood parkland, uh the target was 51 acres and that is where this Hill Crest piece falls. A few other goals that are in our adopted plan provide 9.9 acres of parkland per thousand residents. So that that equiv is equivalent to about 386 acres for a 39,000 population. Um currently we have just under 200. Um and again these are improved developed out parkland with amenities, grass, you know, some other features with it. That does not include Dollar Mountain. Dollar Mountain's, you know, about 440 acres. Um and uh if you include Dollar Mountain, obviously it changes the ratios quite a bit, but the the this this particular goal is saying 9.9 acres of parkland per thousand. Um so that puts us at a target of 386 for the citywide. Uh A4 policy provide access to basic recreation amenities within a half mile radius of most residents. And then A5 is similar provide access to green space and natural areas within a mile radius of most residents. So um we have a slide here in a minute and I'll show you how those distances relate to this property. Um policy A10 says develop park reserves to meet priority community needs. Consider the Hillcrest Park Reserve for the development of dog

park and or neighborhood park. Um which again that there were two dog parks in the first round that we did on this a few years ago. And then uh table 9 identifies where uh we wanted to target to have these neighborhood parks. And Hillrest Reserve was identified there. Here's just a little other way of looking at all that. Um, level of service is in in this plan is calculated in a couple of different ways, but the main way is to take your your per thousand population and then divide by the acres of improved parkland. And that kind of gives you this ratio that you see here. Um, and then we have the different types of park categories. And so you can see the neighborhood parks which is what the Hillrest in comes in at about 1.07. Comparable cities is 1.61. Um the comparable cities for this planning process was Albany, Medford, Roseberg, Tigard and Westland. Um so taking those averages across all those different park types um our the comparable cities came in at as a total subtotal developed parks at 16.06. 07 level of service ratio whereas we're at 4.92. Um again though, if you add in the park reserves which are not developed, um that puts us uh really close to where the uh the comparable cities are at. Here's a a map just kind of showing you that one mile radius with Hillrest being in the middle of it. So you can kind of get a sense for what one mile looks like. Uh the half mile again is the policy that's used for for amenities for giving park amenities within a half mile. Um the open space was the one mile

but uh so about I don't know I didn't calculate it but it's it's a little bit more than 50% is in the urban growth boundary. So you can see there is quite a bit within that one mile that is actually outside the urban growth boundary. It's very steep and probably wouldn't be serviced. So can you tell us what's the difference between uh basic recreation amenity within the half mile and then the uh green space within one mile? What what is definition of basic amenity? Um let's see you're referring here. Well A4 A4 and A5 and then you just use the term again. though.

Yes. Um, so in the open space that that could be that could be an example of of most of dollar mountain where it's it's you know there is a trail cathedral would be another one. U but there's not a bathroom. Um there's not any city parking um off-site parking. So those are I think what it's referring to. Does that get to your question?

Okay. So A4 it says BA provide basic within a half mile with basic recreation amenities and then A5 is access to green space and natural areas. So how do you define basic recreation amenity? So basic recreation amenity in the plan is something that you would uh associate with an urban park. So that would be off- streetet parking, that would be a restroom, that would be some kind of improved flat grassy area, you know, to throw frisbee or to, you know, take out and and uh picnic table. So those some of those are basic amenities that that that you would have in that definition.

So you just said off- streetet parking. So, like it what like Lawn Ridge Park in in uh in Grass Pass? Is that a basic amenity or what is that? It does fall under It doesn't have the off street parking you just mentioned. It doesn't, but I'm just giving you an example. It doesn't mean that every city park is going to have all of those amenities.

Okay. So, so something so if Lawnidge Park is a basic recreation mounty then um the next step up would be a larger version of that or it says provide access to green space. Not necessarily larger. I mean, I guess it it probably typically would be, but it it would it would uh you know, these are areas where you could go to to to hike or recreate or, you know, just have access to some open space, but you're not going to go there to, you know, barbecue or typically, you know, host, you know, a family reunion or something like that. These are they're more natural, unimproved wetland areas. Might be another example of that. You bet. So, here is the distances from uh Hillrest Park Reserve, which is up here on the right upper right portion of the slide. Um, again, here's I5 um to our nearest recreation to the council president's questions to the nearest recreation amenities, the the the city parks. Um, so the closest is Croxton, and that is to the south. Um, Kruxton uh is one of those probably not the greatest example because it doesn't actually have too many amenities in it. You have a historic element which is an important part of a lot of parks if you can incorporate a historic. So, it has that. It does have uh some walking areas um and flat, you know, lawn area for walking and and walking your dogs and things like that. Um the the next closest one is Ogle um which is8 mi away. Um and again to be noted these these distances are kind of as the crow flies so it's they're actually going to be longer um to to follow the streets and the sidewalks. Um Ogle again is one of our smallest mini parks. Um there is

a canopy there. There is a there is a table. Um, uh, Gilbert Creek is the probably the is the next largest one with the most amenities. That's just under a mile away. And then the Loveless Beast Street Jumps is 1.46 miles. So, um, the the distances there are just incorporated for two reasons. One, to kind of refer back to the policy that I mentioned at the beginning that our that our current parks plan has a goal for a half mile um, for recreational amenities. Um and then secondly, just to kind of give you a sense for for you know where the uh residents up in this area are likely and or able to go to get service with Parkland. So in the using the onem radius uh we we did a quick analysis found that there's about 1,900 existing dwelling units within that mile. 4,500 residents. That's using our 2.3 uh persons per household. That is the uh number that's dropping all the time. Um I think in the next census we we will see that lower, but right now that is the most accurate that we have. Um the census uses 2.3 persons per household. Um so that using that number that puts you at about 4,500 residents currently and then there are about 230 vacant air the vacant acres within that mile um which if you estimated out um at our current densities that we're seeing in the last couple years you know you're looking at 500 to 700 units and that would put you about another 1100 to600 people um in that in that mile on top of the existing 4500.

Couple of other big picture things. Um, in 2019, the city did do this process where they looked at all of the park reserve properties and all the other properties that the city owned, not just park reserves. Um, went through the process of of having a committee, did site visits, did an analysis on what those uh benefits were to holding on or not holding on. Uh the recommendation at that point was of the uh 42 parcels that were studied, uh 19 of those came back as being recommended to pursue some kind of sale um or um uh consider them surplus. Um so this this piece was looked at in 2019. The committee uh did not at that point recommend this being uh considered to be surplus property. So here are the cost implications for both the land partition and um the park plan. So cost implications on the land partition survey $9,800 about 3,000's incurred to date. Three 3 to 4,000 more on top of that to get it finalized. And then um we don't have a good estimate on what it would take to to get the site improvements. um but it would be several thousand um on top of that. So that that's in terms of getting the land petition done. And then so our budget resources for that we have been using surplus property sales money. Um as of last week there's about $356,000 in that account. Cost implications for the park development. Total cost to develop the park depends on the recreational amenities um but at least uh 2 to 3 million. Park development as I mentioned earlier typically phased and uh phase one construction of of parking lot and walking paths expected to be under a

million. Um the budget resources for that we currently have an LB631576,000. So from staff's perspective, listening back to your last couple of workshops on this, uh I think this is where we're at. So the the the direction that we're looking for today, do we do you want to proceed with the completion of the land partition? Do you want to proceed with neighborhood and community outreach? Um again, related to the future park. Uh, and then that kind of ties to that third bullet, resubmitting the park site plan to the planning commission because their prior one expired. Um, and then pursuing grant funding for future phases of the park. You are scheduled to discuss at your April 13th workshop the um, Reinhardt Volunteer Park Fishing Pond and that relates to the pump track. So, that's already on your agenda. Um staff's thinking today was was just to set that aside because you already have that topic and that we didn't bring any of that if Josh is going to have much more information for you at the April 13th meeting on that. Um we can certainly bring for you more details on what that pump track feature alone involves and look at the you know the different look at Reinhardt and some others. Today's discussion was just to recognize that yes under the original flight plan it did show a pump track. Um, it doesn't mean that you have to have a pump track, but it did show one there. U, but this that I think would just kind of set that aside until your April 13th conversation. So, that's what we have for you.

Questions from council Joel Inra has one as well. Um, we do have an uh a motion from the parks committee as well or or from was it the biking committee? I can't remember. biking committee that might portray uh future development and whether we want to proceed with the existing plan or a different plan that we have that that uh proceed with the neighborhood and community outreach and the site plan to UAPC. Could you tell us what those that motion was? It's what

today? Oh yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, this is coming up on your business meeting agenda after after the workshop. Yeah. So, that motion to recommend the installation of a small kid-friendly pump track player play play area at Reinhardt Park to support the needs of the community and young riders and the motion to support the development of a full-sized intermediate level pump track at the future Beacon Hill Park, including multimmoal paths. Um, and then you have a third one that's related to the Crescent Trail Head. So, so Joel, I was at that meeting and the one thing that I guess somehow didn't make it into the motion, but verbally I uh they said it, they added to the desire to uh or the support for the full-size pump track at um Beacon because that they felt that actually would be a statewide tourism draw, whereas uh uh one that would likely be sized for younger riders at Reinhardt would not be like a legitimate draw from from out of the area. That that was that was their thinking. Yeah. Anything Anything else from council at this Are you are you finished, Brad, or no?

Yes. Okay. Anything else from council? Andrea has a question. Oh, Andra, go ahead.

Um Brad, what does the um neighborhood and community outreach look like? So that could be structured in a number of different ways. Um when the city's current parkm plan was done, we had about 1,400 individual comments, feedback, you know, on on the plan that took form in small groups, focus groups. It took the form in surveys. Uh it took the form of um can you remind me, Josh? I think we had we had it there was about seven different opportunities for people to comment on that. Um you know there was uh a mailer um there was um at that point I think they even went into just uh you know like some of the grocery stores and set up tables and so people could comment on them there you know when they're just when they're out and about in the community. um when if for this particular one since we're focused just on on one 10 acre area um you know it could be a more intensive um outreach. Uh we could we would likely you know include um uh a postcard that would be mailed to everybody within a certain radius um and then probably an opportunity to come and comment at a at some kind of a forum. So it would be basically the same type of survey just with closer in the neighborhoods within a mile say of it. And basically the questions would be what do you want?

Kind of like the last one. Right. Right. Okay. Thank you. Joel. And so, um, being a planner, Brad myself, um, what how long ago did we ask the same questions? Uh, the ones that I was just referring with the community outreach. So, for the, uh, Beacon Hill Park, that was in 2019. Um, and for the master plan, that was in like 2009.

So, 2019. So, that was what, uh, six years ago? Seven years ago. Okay. And then uh is it a requirement that we resubmit that park plan to UAPC? It is. It is. So that's got to be a yes then. So that's there's no discretion on that. Well, there's I mean there's a certain level of discretion in that. The the development code doesn't require that you do an extensive neighborhood outreach to to go to the planning commission. We would that that's literally just a a mailer that says the public hearing is on this date. Oh, okay. That's the only thing that's actually required. Um, okay. But, you know, best practice on these kinds of things, I mean, is to do more extensive outreach.

So, if we didn't complete the land partition and we have that as part of the park and we proceed with the neighborhood and community outreach, we resubmit the the site plan and then we pursue grant funding. Is that a logical strategy? It is. Miracles never cease. Okay, Indra has another comment. C. Yeah, Kathleen.

So, um I'm wondering if another order is uh necessary. I'm kind of thinking the money isn't there to develop this. So, would it be better to research the grant funding to make sure this can even be a go um before we do the community outreach? Maybe I could ask Josh to come up and speak a little bit to what the Graham looks like

this qualifies for every Oregon parks grant. For a project like this, we'd either use the local government grant program or we would use the land water conservation fund. Either one's a 50/50 match. So essentially, one thing both programs love to do is use their money to build parks. Uh it'd be pretty easy to get a grant for this one out of those two programs. So you're 576 times it by two and that's what you got to start with.

Um, sorry to making it up again. I didn't understand the last sentence. 576* 2. What does that mean? It's a 50/50 dematch program. Both of them are. So, if you have $576,000 set aside already, you have the ability to double that to be able to go get a grant to develop your phase 1, phase 2, or phase three type of a thing. So, that would be either either of those might be 576* 2. Uh, whichever program we chose to do. A park like this, my preference would be land conservation for a variety of reasons, but it also qualifies for local government grant. Okay. Thank you. He's saying 576,000 because that's what we already have. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Thank you,

Josh. Oh, go ahead. Uh, Indra,

I sorry, I have a question for Josh. I can't see him, so I don't I didn't want him to sit down. Um, so the grant that you're talking about, what's a timeline on the grant? Like, are there specific times you can apply or you can apply any time and how long is it before you receive an answer? So both programs run a little differently. The local government grant is yearly. The land water conservation is typically every two years, but recently they've been doing it yearly. It depends on what's going on at the federal level with that one. Uh both of them are expected to go this year. Right now the landwater or the local government grant is open and it's due by June. The landwater conservation fund grant should open up in September. Uh that's the one we use for like the Reinhardt playground local government grants the one we use for dollar mountain for reference. So this September they may have the landwater conservation fund open and that you know gives you time to get your planning in and things like that. When you're applying for a grant essentially you've got basically from when application is due 6 months or so a grant review then another 3 months before they really make their decisions and then you might have another 3 months. So, it's about a year to get your notice to proceed to continue and then you're able to move forward at that point.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. And then can I ask you another question or Brad about the um the land partition? So, three was not advisable. Two, two is going to be challenging. But if if we don't partition them off, can that land still be a valuable use to a park? Does that make sense?

It does. It does make sense. Um and you know there's a lot more um flexibility of course with the park because um you know we're looking at the the most the optimal way to design the park to work with the constraints. Um, so if you have an existing constraint of, you know, a wetland or, you know, a deep ditch, um, you know, there's different ways as a park planning process that you can use to incorporate that into your park plan. Um, whereas if you're talking about a, you know, a a single family residential property, um, you're going to you're going to have to get your driveway, your parking area, and your footprint of your house. Um, so there, you know, there's and when you're only talking about.3 acres, um, it becomes more much more challenging to design.

Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Yeah. Yeah. Joel, your question. Um, again, I don't want to cut off conversation, but I was going to make a motion. You want to talk more? Okay. Go ahead, Rick. Rick. Brad, is this this is outside your renewal agency boundary? It is. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Hold on one second. Joel, so um Valerie, are you the chair of the parks committee or in some way authorized to speak for that committee? I know. I will say the I am on the committee and both the chair and the vice chair were unable to make today's meeting, but I did say that I would speak if

So, are you authorized then to speak for the park committee? Shoot. Yes. Okay. if you'd like to say something.

I will keep this short, but anybody who knows my years on the council, I live in the northeast area of town. I taught for 25 years in the north area east area of town. Um, I'm very familiar with that area. Uh, there are no parks. I mean, the park that we have is Croxton. It has one park bench or one table there. That's it. There's none. We have no dog parks. We have no playgrounds. We have no sports. We have Grans Pass High School, but you can't go to Grpass High School during the school year, and a lot of it is locked off now. We have um Lincoln Elementary School, but that also is locked off blocked off during the school day. So even you cannot go from the track which you know people like to walk on the Lincoln track. You cannot even go up into Croxton Park anymore because it is gated off because and sadly the world that we live in. Um so it has it is it is when I went on council back in 2015 that was one of that was truly my goal. Um it was also to get safe routes to school which I did get. And so they just now are completing safe rest to school in the neighborhood 10 years later. But it's nice to see and we have sidewalks and that's another reason we could not do anything with it for a while because we had to finish sidewalks. We had no sidewalks on Beacon between Hillrest and um at that point um a street. So it has been because it's the older area of town. It was not developed with a park. Um there's a couple other areas would be great to have a park. They're big open lots, but people want those to be for apartment complexes down by Walmart and that sort of thing, which does make sense because that's but there is that literally is an area and Lincoln has always been one of the largest schools. So, it's not that there are not people living up there and they've actually

developed up above there and now they're developing even further up into the but once again we do not have that park. So, uh, we couldn't think about it for the last 10 years cuz you could not say the word park for reasons I'm sure you totally understand. So, after 2019 was when they did the latest um, I was I actually went to the 2019 when we did the local, you know, talking to people what they wanted. Most of them just wanted walking. They just wanted dock parts and they wanted someplace to walk because they didn't even have any sidewalks. Safe Route Schools has helped build sidewalks. Um, and now of course the the county came in and finished um Beacon, not completely, but pretty close. If we do the park, it'll be complete. Um, finished 10th Street and now they're putting up the Hillrest. So, now is the time. It's ripe. The the infrastructure is there. They've got water. They've got what they need to do it. So, it just seems like the natural place to do it. At the time we sold River Road Reserve, which was also when I was out council, um, one of the one of the focuses was that that park would take forever to develop. It was out in the county. It was far away. Um, the roads were not set up to even build a turn lane and probably would not be. And so at that time when the land was sold, that's when we put away that $600,000 for that park because we knew how necessary it was. And that's why there is a land in buildings fund for that park. So I just think this is the time it's there. As um Josh mentioned, you can you utilize that to double your money with grants. Um there's just I I mean it I will say that you know being as close to the freeway as it is, it's not great. But you know something, I know a lot of people who don't like pickle ball courts because they're too close to their houses or

don't like necessarily pump tracks because they make a lot of noise, but you can put those things down closer to the highway and that will, you know, help buffer that. So, I just I just think the time is right. Like I said, I fought for this for a long time. When I knew it was on the agenda, I knew I had to come and say, "Yes, I put myself in the parks committee because I like I said, that's where my heart is, is on parks and things for kids." Um, so anyway, I would just really like to see it move forward. Thank you. Any questions? I'll answer them. Any questions? Any counselors? Thank Andra.

Yes, Valerie. Do you think it's necessary to proceed with a neighborhood and community outreach or do you think we already have enough information for that?

Well, we did one in 2019 and I can tell you at that point in time, the main thing people wanted was just walking trails. I mean, there's there's there are no rocking trails up there and dog parks. You know, I don't know now how they feel about it. Um, I think that's just a natural thing to do. Personally, I think you could have it at Lincoln Elementary School and bring people in. So, I always believe in public outreach and there's been people who have moved. So, I would say doing a public outreach in terms of the postcard and having a meeting and having people able to attend would be ample Thanks, Valerie. So, I guess we turn it back to council now for discussion,

Joel. Well, I I I come back again to Chuck's presentation this morning on economic development and the quality of life in Grants Pass. And that's why uh that's is why a lot of people move here. um and to to keep and maintain that uh it's um it's an economic development thing. Um which is a good thing to have plus uh it's family oriented and all that. Uh the the other thing is uh since it's been planned and it's also been recommended by the U parks committee, it's this plan is consistent with that recommendation and yes, it's going to take some time for adequate funding, but I don't know why we wouldn't do it. Kathleen.

Um I'm just thinking here totaling up some of these uh matching funds and it looks like um it would be wise to stay within that money right out of the gate is to develop that parking lot, put in the walking trails and a dog park just for starters and then go from there. That's what I would be in favor of. Indra has a comment. Yeah, Rick,

I'd be in favor of completing the land partition for that one parcel towards the west and the community outreach, looking at proceeding with design and development of the park, including grant funding. Thank Rick, when you say the one parcel, I'm not I'm not sure. Right. Well, there's one parcel to the east, right? And there's one parcel to the west, right? So, I'm saying at this time just surveying the parcel to the west and look at marketing that for sale. Okay. Thank you, Victoria. Yeah.

Yeah. I I agree with what everyone has said and um so I I think there was one more comment to be made but I would just uh and incorpor I would I would like would you like to make that a motion Rick? It sound like it was pretty um well fleshed out. Sure. Go ahead. Would you like me to restate that?

Yeah. Go ahead. like uh make a motion to complete the land partition of the the one parcel to the west. Proceed with the neighborhood and community outreach. Uh pursue a park which we already have a park site plan but start proceeding with phasing of that and to include grant funding and the community outreach. I think I don't know did you say that? Maybe I missed that. Oh, okay. Thank you. Okay. Do we have a second? Kathleen. Okay. Any further discussion on this? Uh, okay. Rick, how do you vote? Yeah.

Oh, Andra, wait. I question. Hello. Yes. Go ahead. Oh, I had a question actually. Sorry, I've had my hand up, but I had a question for Brad. So with the grant funding, can we it because he said it would might take a year. It can we start the project and still apply and get the grant funding?

We we would not be able to actually put a shovel in the ground. Um that would potentially compromise the funding. But what we could do is do the community outreach piece. um and some of the planning. So, we wouldn't be able to really start anything for a year if we were counting on a matching grant.

Correct. Right. And of course, we would, you know, we'll look at other sources. I mean, I think Josh mentioned the two most likely and probably the two um most wellunded, but that, you know, we we can look at others um and and see, you know, if there's some other money out there that we're just not aware of. Um and like I said, a lot of times the I mean, just the completing the planning process, going through getting the the community input, um getting the plan, you know, before the planning commission and approved, I mean, that's going to be several months. So um so that that will take some time but you're but if I understand your question right yes and and we would not be able to actually start work um if we are going to be getting those other grant monies

thank you and so if we're still in discussion I just want to say I I want the park people are very anxious for the park. Um, it's a shame we have to wait like a whole year to potentially to get funding. I'd like to see it happen as soon as we can, of course, within our budget um that we have, but also I'm I know uh Rick made the motion. I I just want to state I I'm I I will vote for it, but I'm not in favor really of the land partition because for what little money that brings in and we could have another piece of park that might be cool. Um that would be the only reason um the only objection I have to it, but I will vote for it. Thank you.

Any other discussion? And uh Rick, you made the motion, right? How do you vote? Yes. I vote yes. Joel, yes. Victoria, yes. Kathleen, yes. Eric, yes. And Indra, yes. Okay, it's unanimous.

Okay, let's see. Federal legislative earmarks. So, legislative earmarks was an item that was put up there for us to get some general direction from you. I talked to the mayor today. Unfortunately, he couldn't make it. He's on his way back from from an obligation. Um, basically what we're needing to do is we're at a a a go or stop process when it comes to sending a delegation to DC and I need direction from council that we're going to do so. Uh we have slated tentatively we would have meetings with our senators and reps in DC on April 20th and potentially 21st coming back on the 22nd. So there would be a delegation that would be leaving on the 19th would be doing business on the 20th 21st and coming back on the 22nd. Normally way this process works is uh the officers of the elected body are the ones that would be attending uh or or highlighted for that. So, the mayor has commented that he is interested in attending this and championing the discussion item of the brick grant and we've spent millions of dollars in trying to trying to comply and then it getting pulled and it has cost us a lot of money and we'd like to be made whole. That would be the argument that we'd be sending and the message that we' try to send to our national representatives based on that. It would be normally with the delegation you send two or three elected officials, one or two staff members to help with regards to the information provided. Uh and that would be the the the group the delegation that would go. So it would be the mayor and council president or the mayor, council president, vice president that would would be offered to attend first. Uh and then depending on if it

was going to be the brick grant could be the uh city manager and or the uh public works director with regards to the knowledge base associated with the request or the policy change that we're looking at doing. It's going to cost approximately 3235 $3,500 per person. Uh that would include also the a representative from United Strategies who would help us through this process which would be Greg Glim House uh most likely. So we'd be looking at uh you know five potentially five or six individuals for this delegation to go at about $3,500. So I'm needing council to provide me direction on whether or not we're going to continue to do this. Airfare is is still obtainable. Hotels are getting tighter as we're getting close to the date. So, that is my spiel on what this topic is. I'm just needing council direction. The mayor would still like to proceed. I talked with him this morning about this and so he he would like to continue to proceed with this a delegation to DC to try to discuss with some of our our national representatives the brick grant and try to represent the city along with starting that relationship uh of potential earmarks and other policy issues that are important to us. With that, council president, I'll turn it over to you for questions or discussions. the 19th through the 22nd of April.

What's coming up? Okay. Does council have any uh any thoughts about that, Kathleen? Um I thought in the last memo that was sent out that we were not going to pursue the brick grant or we were going to vote on whether to pursue the brick grant because we've already gone ahead with the recon or the construction and we have figured out that we're going to do just fine without that brick grant and to come back and try to fight for it and then yes no yes no push come to shove that it might not even go through anyway. So, I'm just wondering why that's a priority.

Well, one, we're still they reinitiated the brick grant. What that looks like, we're not sure. It's still too early, but they're honoring at least the process of the applicants from the the brick grant, which would be us, the 25 applicant 25 year fiscal year 25 applicants. Uh, it would it makes financial sense for us to continue to to stay yes, we're still interested in receiving up to $50 million for the brick grant. Now whether or not we actually will get awarded anything is still unknown. We have broken ground which is an automatic disqualifier but they haven't determined exactly what that looks like when they're they were initiating that because there's a number of people number of or jurisdictions that are in the same boat we are that were relying on the brick grant and the brick grant was pulled and now they're bringing it back. So, um, I believe it's important that we we're still in the queue and so it could have a financial benefit to the city if we're awarded something from from the brick program of millions of dollars uh to your constituents. Yeah, Eric,

I'm just thinking in terms of uh uh financial looking at the financial aspect, would they offer uh Zoom calls or anything like that to be able to I I understand that if you go there in person, it might be a better way to go, but uh uh I in light of the specifics here or in light of the uncertainty, would it be better to just do a Zoom call? Is that an option? You know, I'm not sure I haven't pursued that that Zoom option. In discussions with our legislative advocate advocate group, uh they have expressed the the importance of having a face and a name and a personal visit as showing that it's important to this community. Uh a number of communities have done so and have benefited maybe not in the first year, but over multiple years of building those relationships in person is a key point and that's one of the reasons why it was recommended we do this. So, that would be my response. I I'm I can't answer that specific question. Counselor

Andrew has a comment. Uh Joel, did you have did you have your hand up? Yeah. Um so the trip would cost what? 30,000 20,000 I think. 20,000,00 and the benefit is 50 million.

I mean, if we knew we were going to get it based on the trip, spending 20,000 or investing 20,000 to get 50 million is a no-brainer. Um, but the other thing I was wondering is um to to invest that 20 million or $20,000. There's got to be other topics that uh we would want to bring up back there um that would be um of benefit to the citizens of Grants Pass. Uh, and I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm just thinking like Spalding or uh um uh social grants for uh one of our four pillars of dealing with unhoused or or whatever. Um and that we we put together a total strategy. The brick one would be the uh be the tip of the arrow. Uh but those other ones while you're back there, you might as well why take advantage of them and then maybe they the $20,000 would result in more than $50 million. I don't know. I don't play the lottery. That's

I think Indra is next. Yes. Erin, do we uh meet with our senators and reps when they're actually home in town? Like, have do we reach out to them and have regular meetings with them? And have we spoken with them already about the brick grant? It seems like we maybe have done that or should have. So, when they have their town hall meetings there, it's not uncommon at all. We have met with them primarily this year. It's been the mayor that has met in advance of the town hall meetings with our our senators, international reps. They provide an opportunity for us to meet and discuss local issues.

So, have we met with them to discuss the brick grant with our lobbyists as well? Yes. Yes, we have talked to them about a number of different issues. Now, the brick grant specifically is a little different from when it was a few months ago when they came and visited uh because now it's back on and uh so there's a number of different discussion items associated with that that was not discussed during the town hall meetings. Great. Uh Kathleen,

maybe now that Jason's here, we could have him speak to this. Is it worth it, Jason? Yes. Um for a couple of reasons. Uh if we are able to obtain the full $50 million grant, yes, we'll have to reduce and redesign as we talked about, which will add a little bit of cost. But what we would be able to do is take the bond proceeds, the $65 million that we're just issuing, and put those aside and basically take them out of that bond debt. that would then lower our overall debt service which then provides you with the opportunity to re-evaluate the rate structure in the future. So I I think it is worth it. Would I hold my breath and guarantee that we would receive it? Not a chance. Um, but there is a hope and I think that because of the size of the dollars and the fact that that we're putting put back into the queue exactly where we ended, um, I really feel like we have we have to pursue it. Victoria.

Uh, so maybe this is for Jason, maybe it's it's for um Aaron, but this cohort would not just be speaking probably to our reps, but would probably be speaking to committees, uh, or is is that true? So, is there a benefit of being there because we're going to be talking to more legislators than just ours?

There's that possibility. Uh I know that we already have tenative uh meetings with with our our representatives and potentially uh we could have other things uh scheduled and meetings with with other committees or or committee chairs, but I don't have that schedule in front of me. Yeah, that would be a good that would be even better if that were able to be done. Indra has a question.

Indra, go ahead. Yes, I think it would be valuable to have our lobbyists who's that's their job and what we pay them to do to go um and maybe is there a reason we can't just take one city representative instead of a whole contingent. That's ultimately council's determination on what they'd like to do. And normally uh I've seen other municipalities, they'll usually take two or three and it's usually the officers of the council that go along with one or two staff members to help support the process from a technical perspective.

I put my money on red. Okay. Is any anyone have any thoughts on whether or not we should send anyone and if if so how many we might want to send. Kathleen, I think that sounds like a good idea. I tend to agree with Indra that um our lobbyist is the main uh voice for this. Uh knows how to argue for it, knows how to address the senators and representatives. And if there was one representative uh that went with us, they could I it feels to me like that would be enough.

Rick, I would be in favor of three to five representatives. Okay, we're narrowed it down. Now we've got one to five. Uh to me, if we were going to send two people, I'd probably want to send the lobbyist and the mayor, but uh and possibly a a staff technical person, uh that would be a a good threesome to me, but um that's if we're going to send anybody. Victoria,

I think sending our public works director would be an important um thing to do if you are going for the brick grant because that's the person who knows the most about it, who has been living and breathing breathing it for a very long time. So I would be in favor of Jason being on that. Y and Indra has a comment. Okay, Andra,

th those are my thoughts, too. The lobbyist and Jason to represent. He knows about what we're doing in the water plant. I would vote for two max. I don't know why we have to spend money bringing an entire group. I think two would be just as effective. Thank you. So, really, um, the elected officials want to hear from the elected officials. If if council wants to do the bare minimum, the bare minimum would be our lobbyist, the mayor, and a staff member, which would likely be Jason Kennedy going, that would be three.

I was I was going to say that I think it's probably pretty important for our mayor to represent our city. So, I would be in favor of sending the mayor and Jason. Yeah. So, do you need a motion on that? Yeah. Make a mo. Is that like to make a motion that the lobbyist Jason and the mayor be three people to send to Washington DC? Okay. On the brick grant. Okay. Kathleen with a second. Any any discussion on that, Joel? Well, I'd like to amend that that if they don't get it, they can't come back. Okay. That doesn't sound very friendly, Joel.

Okay. Any further discussion? Rick, how do you vote? Yes. I vote yes. Joel, yes. Victoria, yes. Kathleen, yes. Eric, yes. Indra. No. Okay. Okay. Motion passes six to one. Thank you. Thank you, counselors. Okay. Okay, now we're coming up to agenda review. Um, so we've got to appoint uh well actually agenda. We'll do agenda review first. Yes. Any agenda items anybody is concerned with? Victoria.

No, I had something to add so I'll wait. Okay, Kathleen.

Um, well, yeah, I have a couple of things here. Um, I definitely wanted to reiterate that uh in in regards to the 2 million uh dollars that we got for Spalding that yes, that the city did support this, but it could have never gone through without the uh Dwayne Yunker's office submitting it or or pushing it or it had to go through his office. So, I think in all due respect, we want to give uh that office the credit for bringing back that 2 million uh for Spalding. So, I just wanted to make that uh known. And then, uh I just wanted to give a shout out for our drug court uh Jose County drug court. Uh I was out there graduation this last week and uh it was very inspiring. Uh it was uh fun to reconnect with my old co colleagues and um I even was a knew some of the people that were actually graduating. So nine people graduated and just to hear their testimonies and the the room was packed. When I went uh maybe eight years ago, that room was bare. There was a couple of parents uh visiting and of course the case managers and all the um counselors and the PO that supported the people. But this room was packed with families, friends. It's really grown to be a wellsupported community event. happens yearly and uh it's a very worth supporting. People are um in a well-rounded program although it's uh

it's it's mainly run through criminal justice. It's um it's uh the program is run through choices uh outpatient drug rehabilitation and they just do an excellent job. they're good at. They've been doing it for years now and they really know what they're doing. So, I just want to give a big big plug for um the outcome of drug court. Something that um we can really encourage, support, and uh look forward to every year. Um I guess just one more the last thing was that um we were at the we had the uh homeless committee oversight group meet this last week also. Uh the main uh reason or things that we went over this time was uh the transition process and I know that uh we pulled on Chief Hensman to tell us how from his perspective how we were going to do that transition and I know there's a lot of concern about the transition. So that is being looked at really closely about how to get um most of our resting site residents over to the new location. Um especially for the non-compliant that's going to be an issue and we're well aware of that. So that is being um there's many good suggestions about how to make that happen from both sides from uh the uh police side as well as uh residents in the resting sites that could talk it up and make it of an importance that people buy in and want to make this transition.

Um also uh the we looked closely at the manual. Um the previous meeting we had been given a uh employee uh handbook manual to look over and ask questions about because there were uh several items that weren't real clear how they were going to process this or or um carry it out. So there's been many many good suggestions about that and also I think they uh are looking real closely at Rogue Retreat's manual to um not have to reinvent the wheel but to um have a manual that's already been working for the past couple of years and uh I was wondering were we going to get copies of that Stephanie Did Did you know that I requested that?

I I was out most of last week. Um I came into an influx of emails. I I saw it and didn't have a chance to take care of that. Is that possible that we can get Can we talk offline about that? Sure. Thank you. I think that's it. Thanks. Okay. I guess we're into matters from mayor council from our meeting that hasn't started yet, but we can finish that for now. I guess Victoria,

that's what I Yeah, I I'll just go ahead and it I think it'll be pretty quick. So, uh mine is along the same line. So, uh RV Cog Rogue Valley Council of Government. Um, at the last meeting we had a presentation from Operation Rambo and it was an amazing presentation that I think we will want to have at city council if if there's other counselors who want to do that too. So, I'll very quickly tell you what it is. There's a group of uh veterans and they operate in mostly in Josephine County. It's their hub here, but they also operate in uh Douglas County and Jackson County. And what they do is they adopt dogs that are um in kill shelters. And so they otherwise would be animals who would be euthanized and they train those animals with a vet and they place those animals with a vet. So, and it's at no cost to the veterans and it is a 501c3. So, uh just the stories that were told uh from the veterans and some who were there and some who uh who they just told us about in this program right in our area there have been uh veterans lives saved by these dogs. So, I think it's something that city council might be interested in in hearing about and having a presentation from Operation Rambo to see either a possible city um grant, but even if it wasn't a monetary, it could be a a services or information sharing so that the public is more aware of Operation Rambo and so that it could

expand Um, so, uh, I just wanted to share that with council and you you would just, uh, it would be something I think that would be enjoyable for council to see see. And so, if there's at least two other people, maybe we can get that on a future agenda. Okay, we got uh, at least three counselors that are supporting that. So, for a future agenda. Thank you.

And we will make note of that. Thank you. Okay. Now, we need also to uh appoint a small business task force council liaison. And she wasn't sure if she's going to make it here today, Indra, but so she sent us an email earlier saying that she was interested. Uh I guess she's probably still with us. Yep, she is. Okay. So, we need to appoint somebody to uh be the council leazison. Joel. Well, I think she would be an excellent candidate because she this was her uh initially her idea. I don't want to cut off discussion, but if there's no further discussion, I'll make a motion.

Um I'll make a motion that Ingra be our council leazison for the um uh small business. Small business uh committee task force task force. We need a second Rick. Second. Uh discussion. Joel, how do you vote? Yes. Victoria, yes. Kathleen, yes. Eric, yes. Rick, yes. I vote yes. And Indra, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you. It's unanimous. You're welcome. Thank you. All right. I think uh are we going into our business meeting now or do we

We have the bikeways motions. I'm sorry. We have a bikeways motions. Okay. Go back to the bikeways motions from earlier. Yeah. Go ahead and review the bikeways motions, please.

Okay. A motion to recommend the installation of a small kid-friendly pump track play area at Reinhardt Park to support the needs of the community and young riders. A call to action, ask for a council workshop, put on a council business meeting, take no action. and then motion to support the development of a full-sized intermediate level pump track at the future Beacon Hill Park including multi multimodal pa paths connecting Beacon and Hillrest. Same actions and then motion to recommend the 6x6 gabled roof kiosk from rock art signs and markers featuring a topography map and signage prohibiting motorized bikes for installation at the Crescent Trail Head.

Great. Thank you. So, we've got uh the the uh fly fly fishing pond on an upcoming workshop, right? And or possible pump track discussion at We do. Yes. Okay. So, possibly we could invite members of the bike committee to come and speak on those issues at that time. We can. That's for scheduled for April 13th. Does that does that make sense? Sure. Does that make sense to council Joel? Well, and it makes sense too with our decision earlier today on Hillrest, right? That that would that would be the the second half of the of the issue. Sure. So, we'll we'll invite the chair or whoever some representative.

All right. We'll do qu Andrew, did you have something to say or

I did because at the tourism advisory committee, um, they didn't make a motion, but they actually talked about how great it would be and were maybe going to work on the tourism, bikes, and parkway people getting together to talk about that. And so I'm wondering if we should invite the chair or a representative from each of those committees to the meeting where we're going to discuss it because they all have a stake in the parks and the pump track and the sidewalks and tourism. Thank you.

Well, certainly having uh the chair of the parks committee would make sense to me, although we did hear from parks committee uh representative today, but it would make sense at that meeting. So, do you want at that meeting chair of parks, bikeways, and tourism? Yeah, if they're interested in coming. Absolutely. We'll make note of that. Thank you. Okay. So, are we finished with our workshop? We are. We are ready to go ahead and adjourn the workshop and open as a special meeting.

Okay. I got a motion to adjourn the workshop and open a special council meeting. Victoria and I need a second Joel. Okay, we are now at our city council special meeting and we've got a quasi judicial hearing and now I've got to read something important. Um, at this time I will open the public hearing to consider an application. Um, what is this for anyway? This is for utility easement

terminating. Yeah. Orders terminating city utility easement in Champion Park subdivision on tax lot 200 of map number 36-06-23-DC. Um we'll begin the meeting with a staff report followed by presentation by the applicant, statements by person in favor of the application, statements by person in opposition to the application, and an opportunity for additional comments by the applicant and staff. After that has occurred, the public comment portion will be closed and the matter will be discussed and acted upon by council. Is there anyone present who wishes to challenge the authority of the council to hear this matter? And uh no, let's see. Um okay, nor Okay. Um, do any counselors wish to abstain from participating in this hearing or declare a potential conflict of interest? Okay. Are there any counselors who wish to disclose discussions, contacts, or other exparte information they have received prior to this meeting regarding the application? Seeing none, in this hearing, the decision of the council will be based on specific criteria which are set forth in development code. All testimony which apply in this case are noted in the staff report. If you'd like a copy of the report, please write that on a note to the city manager and one will be provided. It is important to remember if you fail to raise an issue with enough detail to afford the council and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue. You will not be able to appeal to land use board of appeals on that issue. The hearing will now proceed with the staff report.

Thank you, Council President. Members of the council, um very easy one for you today, I think. Um this is a vacation essentially. We're calling it a termination because um our code typically reserves the word vacation for actual rightway. Um this is just an easement that we're talking about today. Um this relates to the Countryside Village property. If uh you've been out to Countryside Village, this is on uh on that property. Um and there is a city utility easement that's been there for a number of years. It was created when the plat was was recorded many years ago. Um, and it has basically just been sitting there as an easement. Um, waiting for a utility that never arrived. Um, so this is the uh the property uh 1700 Kellenbeck Avenue um just north of uh of Redwood uh Highway and uh south of Redwood Avenue. this on Kellenbeck. Um here you can see the actual easement that was created with the plat. Um again reserving uh 40 foot wide for for city utilities. Um it was basically becoming an incumbrance to the property uh for their development and they asked if it could be removed. Um so they they went to public works and public works looked into it and uh does not have any concerns with that being terminated. So the criteria for this uh basically is that the city utility easement will not result in a substandard condition. It does not it basically just allows that 40ft strip uh to be used and and they don't have to set back from that either. So it gives them uh more opportunity to to work with on the on the property. We did not get any written comments um or oral comments and uh there really is no cost implication. We're just uh uh recording a termination that would

remove that 40 foot eastment. So, but because it was on a recorded plat and it's in favor of the city, uh we did need to bring it to you. So, stand for any questions. Any questions from council? Kathleen? So, I'm not really familiar with terminating an easement. What does that look like? You just tear up a piece of paper that said this is the city's easement. I mean, you're not going in and destroying or taking physically anything out?

No. Thank you. That's a good good good clarification. Um, no, it is it is strictly a uh a process that that does end up getting recorded at the county courthouse so that you know it's noted in perpetuity that this action is taking place. But it it it basically refers to the plat and refers to the 40ft strip and it says that is no longer um a part of the plat. So it becomes just part of the part of the lot um that's buildable. So it's but it's strictly a uh administrative procedure.

Could uh anyone here from the is the applicant here? They want to speak on behalf of this. If not, we can go back to council for discussion or a motion. Rick, I'd like to make a motion to approve the ordinance terminating the city utility easement for map 36623 DC tax slot 200 first reading. We have a second Kathleen. A second discussion. Rick, how do you vote? Yes. I vote yes. Joel, yes. Victoria, yes. Kathleen, yes. Eric, yes. Indra.

Yes. Okay. Unanimous. It is an ordinance of the council of the city of Grants pass terminating a city utility easement on tax like 200 of map number 36623 DC. We have a motion for a second reading. Eric, I move to approve the ordinance terminating the city utility easement located on map 36-06-23- DC, tax slot 200, second reading. And a second from Victoria and Eric, how do you vote? Yes. Rick, yes. Yes. Joel, yes. Victoria, yes. Kathleen,

yes. Indra, yes. Okay. unanimous. Second time, an ordinance of the council of the city of Grants pass terminating a city utility easement on tax lot 200 of map number 36623 DC. Okay, we're now on to the consent agenda. And I guess I need a motion to approve the consent agenda. Uh, no motion. I I will make the motion to approve the consent agenda. A second from anyone. Rick. Okay. Discussion. I'll vote yes. Joel, yes. Victoria,

yes. Kathleen, yes. Eric, yes. Rick, yes. Indra, yes.

Yes. Okay. I think we finished with matters from uh mayor and council. Do we have any matters from staff? Mayor, uh, mayor, sorry, council president, I just had one thing. We did, um, skip over a motion from the parks committee. I was wondering if we could get some additional direction. I don't think staff has an issue with it, but they also did a motion to recommend a 6x6 gabled roof kiosk uh, from Rock Art Sign and Makers featuring a topographical map and signage prohibiting motorized bikes for installation at the Crescent Trail Head. And if council has no issues with that, we'd be looking at So if we have no issues, that would go on a consent uh for a future meeting.

Well, actually, we would just go ahead and install it. It's within our parameters to do, I think, unless staff has any objections to that recommend recommendation, which we don't. So, they Does that make sense to council? Uh Rick um Joel rather. Well uh the the Hillrest Park's going to u has the pump track in as part of its design and I assume that that will stay there. And then we have the uh the small pump track can be on the agenda when we talk about all sports park. And then the third one is do we want to do it or not? And I don't know enough about it. I don't even know what it is but

yeah. Yeah. So, the Crescent Hill parking lot is is just at the base of Dollar Mountain on Crescent Hill. And there's there's a a a small area on the side when you first come in the first left into the parking lot um where a kiosk could be put. And so that's that as I understood the motion that I mean that they that's that's where we would basically get a small kiosk built to uh to install there. And was that the exact same thing that we discussed uh within the last month or was that in a different part of Dollar Mountain because we discussed something like this already. Right. Up at Highland Loop. Right. Right. Right. Mhm. Yeah. Joel,

I assume I assume financially we're um it's not a big ticket item. No, it's not. Okay. And vandalism, I guess, or not. Though the other thing is if if if we do want to uh give it the opportunity to develop into a tourism attraction, we need to we need to uh clothe it appropriately. And then so I I'll make a motion to go ahead and fund the uh installation of this kiosk uh on uh Dollar Mountain. Okay. I don't I don't uh Erin, you said we didn't need a motion or how would you like to do this?

No, motion is is fine. We didn't technically need approval to put the sign in because it's all within our spending authority and it's and we have budget. Do we have a second? Rick second. Any discussion? Joel. Oh, Kathleen, go ahead. I just wonder where is that exactly? That uh parking lot? I've looked for it and I just can't find it. Is it on the intersection of B and Crescent or So B ends up turning into Crescent. Okay. So you just kind of keep following the serpentine be kind of go up and up and then it'll eventually turn into Crescent and then you go down maybe I don't know 1,000 ft before Crescent makes another big turn to go towards Forest Hills.

So it's and so the parking lot is is right right there on Crescent Drive. Okay. Um, I just had one additional suggestion for the kiosk that be large enough so that we can put um, uh, fire uh, danger and restrictions u on the kiosk as well. Sounds like a good idea. Victoria,

I just wanted to point out that I think there was an agenda item. I think Eric may have had an agenda item, so I didn't want to skip by that. Okay. So, Eric, you had something.

Yeah. I just uh wanted to I wanted to make sure that everybody realizes about um um the Gospel Rescue Mission. It's almost always 50% empty. And I just uh texted the uh the owner and he told me he's got a bunch of beds. Uh he's got over 15 beds for for regular people and about 40 for for for children. Of course, not all of them could be taken at the same time, but um it's I wanted to reiterate to the public that everybody uh kind of dismisses it that the Gospel Rescue Mission is there. And I'm the only reason I'm I'm promoting it is because it's it's it's essentially free for anybody that is willing to get some accountability that is living homeless uh on the on the streets. Um and but it essentially it requires accountability, personal accountability. And that's one thing that I think many of the citizens don't realize that this place is available. And uh it's it's uh is they're just willing if they're willing to go over there and take some personal accountability, maybe part of what we have here at the temporary resting sites wouldn't be as bad as it is today. And now, of course, the city is paying 1.2 2 million to uh to have this Elk Island open up when uh we also have other options. And we've got over 90 something uh nonprofits in Grants Pass alone just to deal with the homeless. So, I just wanted to make the public aware of that. And uh you know, this has been a very contentious um uh topic for the city. And so, um, that's all. Thank you.

Indra has a comment. Hey, Indra. Indra, you still there? She probably thought we adjourned. Any other matters from staff? Oh, I'm I'm sorry. I was muted and talking. Um, are we in matters? Yes, we are. now. Okay, thank you. Um, so I failed to recognize it came up at our last meeting or workshop about the Rose Society. I think they are that trims the roses in Riverside Park. Is that right, Erin?

I'm not familiar with that. The ro who trims the roses in Riverside Park. Maybe them. I don't know. It came up at our last meeting. I thought it was roses. I I don't want to recognize the wrong group, but the group that trims the roses, they do such a beautiful job. And that was when we first moved here, one of the um the best things about the park or the roses. And so I just wanted to recognize that group. I failed to do it at the last meeting. That's all. Thank you,

Kathleen. I just wanted to make the inquiry about when we were going to get the surveys back from the Reed building. Yes, those closed I think at 5:00 on Friday. Okay. Um to the the both of the neighborhood one and the communitywide one. So I believe Mike Zakino um one of Karen's staff has processed that and is pulling all the numbers together from that survey. Um and so we should have the results of that pretty soon. Great. Thank you. Did I see any other hands go up or are we going to go for five five hours? Can we stretch it out anymore or No, we we've done enough.

Okay, I guess uh I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Anyone want to adjurnn? Good. Good. Seconded. Seconded by Rick and Eric and made Okay, we're adjourned.