City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome, everybody, to the September 14th, 2026 regular city council meeting. Will the city clerk please call the roll?

McLaughlin?

Present.

Councillor Randall?

Present.

Councillor Ring?

Present.

Councillor Runyon?

Present.

Councillor Richardson?

Present.

Mayor Mayes?

President, I'd like to ask, as far as item three goes, the Pledge of Allegiance for Councilor Ben Ring to please lead us in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Item four is approval of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

I'll move to approve the agenda.

So moved by Council Richardson and seconded by Council Ring to approve the agenda. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 5A is a presentation from, I assume, Mr. Baker, Scott, from the Northern Wasco County Parks and Recreation District regarding system development charges for 2026. Welcome.

Thanks so much for having me. And I'm really pleased to be able to come and give an update on our part district system development charges because I know that this council, there's a lot about it as well as our community development department. We updated our, what's called the methodology, the way that we collect system development charges and the associated fees with those. at a time where they had not been updated for a couple of decades. And so they had fallen really behind, even though the Park District had a mechanism to have them keep up with inflation, they hadn't done so. We went out and did a capital and facility master planning process that culminated in 2019. We went out to the residents of the Dalles, asked them what they wanted their park system to look like. They told us price tag for that was high. When you break that gap, that led to us updating our system development charges, which led to a significant bump going from about $1,747 up to just about $6,000. You know, at that time, accessory dwelling units really weren't a thing. People weren't talking about them as much, maybe in Portland, but not out here. It wasn't something that was really on our radar. And we did receive quite a bit of pushback on that jump, even though those system development charges have led to a lot of great park developments in town. We've leveraged some great grants using those system development charges as match. We did get considerable pushback, and it was mostly from people building smaller homes. So after hearing that, we reached out to our consultants and we said, is there a way that we can charge a different rate for accessory dwelling units than we do for regular single family homes? And they said that there was, we dug into a little bit more and then we really landed that there was really kind of three tiers of homes that were being built. And those tiers had different occupancy levels. Bigger homes had more people, more demand on parks, smaller homes, less people, less demand. And so there was some legal justification for tying the amount of our system development charges to square footage rather than just having one blanket fee for all size of homes. That led to us engaging that consultant to do some surveying with us. We did like a coffee and donuts open house, talk to builders. What came out of that effort was that really four tiers were needed. There was a desire to have more granularity in the different prices. Consultants took that and turned them into the fee structure that's in your packet. It looks like this. And so, you know, what we landed on was that for those little tiny homes, those above the garage kind of places that are 500 square feet or less, we're not going to charge any system development charges. From 501 to 1,000 square feet, we're going to knock about $1,880 off the fee. 1,000 to 1,800 square feet. And then homes 1,800 and 2,500 square feet have their own fee. And then 2,500 square feet and above pay the full fee. system development charge. So, just those larger homes are paying the full fee. You know, it's, I think it's been well received and it's, you know, going to help out the smaller builders, especially those who are building the 800, 900 square foot cottages. You're going to see quite a bit of reduced reduction then. The whole fee is still tied to inflation. Every year, We look at the consumer price index, the 20-year construction average published by the ENR, the Engineering News Report. Until there's a way to cap inflation, you know, it always makes sense to tie your SDCs to that, what it actually costs to build. But that's, you know, it's really incremental. In some years, it's been very little or nothing. So this is, yeah, this is kind of a sea change for the way that we wanted to do it. I felt it was important enough to come here. If you've had questions about it, I wanted to give you a chance to answer them. Have me answer them.

Questions for Mr. Baker? Oh, Council Runyon.

compared to other communities and how they do it? Is that part of the impetus to make this change?

No, as far as we know, we're the second in the state to tie it to square footage. I think that Other art districts in other cities will follow suit over time. It's more common in Washington state. But none of our neighbors do it. We were already less than our neighbors, like in Hood River, Bend, and other places. That said, it doesn't really matter that you're less than your neighbor when you're standing at that planning counter writing a big check. So it was small comfort that... you know, that were less than Bend or Lake Oswego, I think is the thousands of dollars, but, um, but still, I think this was kind of responsive to our community and the smaller home builders.

Okay. By making the smaller homes exempt basically, right. Really affect much of anything. I mean, who's building 500 square foot homes.

Yeah, so we, yeah, well, we looked at the 16 applications from January until our, these changes took effect July 1st. And, you know, one of those was 520 square feet and another was a 600. So they, you know, they might've redrawn their floor plans. It's livable to squeak under that wire if that had been in effect at the time. One of the things that our board will contemplate at our meeting on Wednesday is just giving automatic refunds to those folks. You can't look back forever, but they kind of felt like a six, they wanted, they directed staff to look at what it would cost to do a six month look back for those 16 permits that were drawn before in 2026, before this took effect. It would amount to about an $18,000 refund to those builders and owners. And yeah, and so that's for our board to decide this Wednesday.

Follow that up because you mentioned there was water. Could you use the microphone? Just to follow that up, because you mentioned there was one, it was like 526 square feet or something.

20, I think.

Is there any kind of exemption in there that if you're under a certain percentage?

Yeah, you got to draw lines, you know, I mean, that's the... Jump immediately to the big dog. Well, it's not. They're still looking at getting a $1,880 check if the board approves that refund. That's not nothing. Hmm. Okay, thank you.

Council Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thanks for being here this evening. Mr. Baker, my question is, how do you expect this new fee schedule to affect the total amount raised by SDCs? And then, I don't know, over a year?

Yeah, so, I mean, if those six-month look back is any indication, it's about a 19% reduction. And, you know, it's... It's less that we'll have for grant matches, less that we'll have to build new park facilities. But I think that it is more in line with the overall philosophy of system development charges is that growth pays for growth. And so, you know, prior to this update, you know, we just had a blanket fee, growth pays for growth, you know, whether that's an ADU or a 2,700 square foot home, it was one fee. This is still in line with that philosophy. It's just recognizing that those smaller homes hold less people. Yeah. statistically and so you know it's it's just taking a more granular look it does cut the amount of revenue that will generate the park district will receive from system development charges but it seems more fair on its face i think that you know it's um you know in these times i think that it's it's saying something for a government agency especially a small agency like ours to know, take it upon themselves to reduce their fees, but in a way that is responsive to the people that we serve and seems more fair.

Thank you.

Councilor Ring.

Thanks for coming tonight. When was the last, I didn't catch the date, when was the last time that SEC fees had been adjusted for parks? 2019. Okay, and I'm curious, is there an anticipated loss of revenue or potential gain because maybe people build larger homes or something? What's the perspective of parks and their outlook on this?

I want to clarify my last answer to make sure it was what you're asking. We updated our methodology in 2019. The fees are adjusted up or down every year in response to the 20-year construction average. So we change them every year. But the methodology was updated in 2019. And that was in response to an updated facilities master plan. That's how the consultants fit through whatever review they do and spit out a number that fits. is responsive to growth paying for the growth. So the idea being that these fees, you know, more residents come, they demand more services, more facilities, and these fees, you know, pay for those rather than putting that burden on the people who are already here. Okay. And so, you know, as far as the net fiscal impact, you know, we could have spent more staff time and consultant money on answering that question. Our elected board was really more interested in fairness. And that was the focus. And so we really, we were kind of saying, what system can we devise that responds to the people that we serve to say, wow, your SDCs feel really high when I'm building an 800 square foot house. It's a high percentage of my overall build. And then there's also just tied to that growth builds for growth number, recognizing that there's fewer people.

One last question. You mentioned that other communities, other parks districts don't break the SEC fees down the same. Did I catch that right?

Yeah, we're kind of on the cutting edge of this. I expect that more will. In fact, maybe system development charges overall might be leading this change. I think that as far as I know, there's only one other park district that is looking at this, whether they've adopted it or not, and that's Bend. But I think the other park districts, as this grows and people hear about it, they'll start asking them, why isn't it tied to square footage? It seems like a more fair way to assess the fees. Thanks. Anybody else? That's why lodging is less and multifamily is less. It's all tied to the number of people that they expect to live in each unit.

Density of occupancy.

Anybody else? I have one question. Your last sentence on the page you submitted, SDC dollars cannot be used for operating expenses or routine maintenance. I think that's a very wise policy. Is it a policy that's passed every year, or is it something that we can count on being permanent forever, or how does that... Well, that would be a legislative change at the state level.

So, system development charges are written into law so that they can only be used for... For capital improvements, responding to the need for increased facilities driven by population growth. Good. All right. You can do it anyway.

I'm sure you do. That's great. All right. Anybody else? Last call. Thank you, Scott. Appreciate you being here. Okay, I just got back in town and went over the agenda yesterday, and I noticed 5B says Mayor Award Recognition. I wasn't sure what that was about, so I called Amy, and she said, and I quote, don't worry, sit there and be quiet and look pretty. Well, I don't know about looking pretty, but... I don't...

And my wife is here, too, so I don't know what... In early August, at the Oregon Mayor's Association Conference, Mayor Rich Mays received the Oregon Mayor's Association Mayor's Leadership Award. Today, I have the honor of recognizing Mayor Rich Mays for his special achievement. The Oregon Mayors Association established this award in 1993 to recognize mayors who demonstrate exceptional leadership and make lasting contribution to their cities and communities. The award recognizes leadership through community involvement, strong intergovernmental relationships and the ability to facilitate productive relationships between elected officials and city employees mayor mays was recognized for more than four decades of public service and for the leadership and the service he has provided to the dallas and communities across oregon in the words of mayor scott kieser City of Malala, and who presented the award, described Mayor Mays, they're prepared, they ask thoughtful questions, they listen first, speak with purpose, and understand the best decisions are made when everyone has a seat at the table. Mayor Keyes also highlighted something to speak to Mayor Mays' approach to public service, his willingness to step forward and ask, how can I help? That simple question, Mayor Keezer shared, has strengthened communities, encouraged leaders, and earned the respect of mayors from every corner of Oregon. On behalf of the City Council and the City of the Dalles, congratulations on receiving the Oregon Mayors Association Mayor's Leadership Award.

Mayor Mays. Thank you.

We get to present. So should we step forward so we can get a picture?

Council did not get to vote on that either.

One way or the other. Yeah, you look pretty good. I'd just like to say, please sit down.

I'm not done here.

No, I think whatever the Oregon Mayors Association or the League of Oregon Cities or the city of the Dalles thinks of me, it's really a function of all the relationships that we've been developing around here. And I owe a lot to a lot of people, most notably my wife, Rose. Oh, yeah. Yeah. That's not true. That's not true. And all the people I work with here, the staff especially, has been great to work with. They've done a lot. And the five people up here with me, I can't say enough for them and the relationships that we've formed. I think we've done a lot as well. We all get along really well considering all the issues we've had to deal with. And One of the things I like about this group and the staff is all that we do the right thing and we try to do it the right way. And I have never heard anyone on this dais that has ever said anything other than or thought anything other than what's in the best interest of the city, period. And I appreciate that. And I think all you citizens out there should appreciate it as well. So thank you all very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, now she can go home. Okay, item six. is audience participation. During this portion of the meeting, anyone may speak on any subject which does not later appear on the agenda. Interested citizens are required to sign up in advance to be recognized. Up to three minutes per person will be allowed. Citizens are encouraged to ask questions with the understanding that the city can either answer the question tonight or refer the question to the appropriate staff member who will get back to you within a reasonable amount of time. If a response by the city is requested and that response is not immediately provided, the speaker will be referred to the city manager for further action. We have three people signed up. First is Widge Johnson. Please come forward and state your name and address for the record.

Widge Johnson, 817 West 14th Street. I'm not a speaker. I'm a street person. I don't do this. So I had all this wonderful stuff written down, and I can't even read it. So here's the deal. I got this in the mail like everybody got. Let's restrict our water. Let's help the city. We get these, and before we used to get it on the radio. I was born and raised here. So we've been doing this forever, and it's lovely, and everybody tries to help out where they can. So that part's great. But I've been struggling ever since Google came to town with the water situation. And Google doesn't participate in this. This is a level one restriction. So that means that it's just the residents. It has nothing to do with commercial or industry. So I doubt if they even got one of these little things. And I'm certainly sure they didn't get asked to check their toilets for leaks. There's a bigger issue, and that is I'm having trouble getting information about water use by Google. I always have. I've been doing this for years. But I have found a few things out, and I'd like to read a couple things. In 2021, Google's consumption of the Dallas water supply was 29%. In 24, it was 33%. In 25, it was nearly 40% of the city water. In 26 and 7, there's a further increase, of course, projected. The city just gave Google permission in August to rebuild the data center number one. And I believe the building is smaller. It's certainly within the footprint of the one that they had. However, with new technology, they're going to be using more water. So it's really difficult to find out any answers. And I've asked for a town hall because there are so many people that I know that are interested in this subject. And I've been told it's probably not a good idea, quote unquote. What else do I want to say that's really important? Here it is. I would like to know whether we have a town hall or not. I would like to know if in that contract that the Dells made with Google, Is there anything in there that says if there's a drought or a water emergency, is there any way to change the contract we have even for a temporary period of time with them? As far as I can tell, there is not. It looks like we are legally bound to that contract no matter what. And that's because the state doesn't have any regulations on these folks yet. So as far as I can tell, we're stuck. So we're at a little under 40 percent now. We don't I don't know what it's coming to after that. You know, who makes those decisions? How does that work? That's it for me. I would like more information. I'd like the city to approve more information. I'd like the city to have a town hall and explain some of this. Thank you. That's it.

Before you leave, you were told it was not a good idea. Did that come from a city person? You don't have to mention any names.

No, I won't. But yes, it did.

Okay. I would just say, I think the last thing Google would want is to give the perception that they're leaving this city high and dry with water. They invested about $28 million in- I know, and we can talk money all day.

I would like to know what's in the contract.

Yeah, okay. Well, that's a legal question, and we'll get you that answer. Okay, that'd be great. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. Next is Elaine Thompson. Oh, you want to speak about an item on the agenda? Okay, great. Okay, Kevin Ryan.

Good evening, Council. My name is Kevin Ryan, 508 West 12th Street here in the Dalles. Just a quick comment. I'm aware that the city is transitioning the short-term rental contract with transient tax to the state. Just a heads up, we got, as short-term rental owners, we received a letter I think it was August 17th or something like that. And if this goes into effect October 1st, that's a pretty short window for us to get registered. I just wanted you to know I've been trying to get registered with the state so I can do the process appropriately. And I'm having some trouble. What we've run into is I'm an LLC. And I believe most of the short-term rentals are LLCs. They're not PCs, a professional corporation, or Class C corporations. Those corporations have employees. In order to register with the state to pay transient tax, I need an EIN number. And I do not have one because I do not have employees. So the state was surprised by this, or whoever I was talking to. The representative couldn't figure it out. We spent about an hour on the phone. So I'm having a little trouble getting registered so that I can be in the system and proceed accordingly. So just heads up on that. I don't know if other people are going to be running into this problem or have or if there's something that I'm not doing correctly. But yeah. A little short window, again, could have used a little more time than a month to get this done and be ready to go October 1st. I don't expect you to suspend the decision on my behalf, but if you get more of this information, then you might want to think about that.

Thank you. This is on the agenda, and you may want to stick around. Okay. That's what I thought it was. Yeah, it's item 10A. Okay. Which is actually right after we give our reports and then the consent agenda, which usually goes very quick. It should be coming up presently. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next, Roger Nichols.

For the record, Roger Nichols, 1617 Oregon Street. And I'm going to share some information about SDCs because the city of Hood River tonight is voting on reducing SDCs for ADUs. for 800 square feet of water and sewer if they're connected to a house nearby. To me, that makes a lot of sense, and I'm wondering if the city of the Dalles might consider checking that out. I see this happening more and more down the road, so I don't know how it would affect people, but it seems like ADUs are quicker to build and less expensive and will have a more immediate effect on the housing market. So I suggest do everything we can to support them very much.

Thank you. I believe we'll be evaluating our SDCs in the near future because that was on the list of goals, I believe, wasn't it?

Did you bring a copy of that perchance for Amy?

Okay, thank you. I'd like to read it.

Okay, that's... It for audience participation. Item seven is the city manager's report. Our city manager is not present. He is in Washington, D.C. with the community outreach team made up of other community leaders talking to our elected representatives and other agencies in Washington about items that are important to the city of the Dalles. If he was here, I know he would like to introduce Rachel Fuller. Rachel, you want to come forward? Rachel is our new interim assistant city manager and human resources director. She has a wealth of local government experience. I've known Rachel since she was the city manager in Hood River a few years ago. And she has also served as the assistant city manager in Gresham. And she has served in additional interim positions in Washington County, Fairview, Hood River County, and Stevenson, Washington. So we welcome you here. And you're welcome to add any remarks you'd like or answer any questions. Anybody have any questions? Okay. No.

Well, thank you, Mayor Mays, counselors, and thank you to the city manager for inviting me. I've received a really warm welcome and look forward to working with staff to... Can you hear me?

Thank you.

Thanks for letting me know. Just look forward to working with your incredible staff to continue to deliver services to the community.

Welcome aboard. Thank you. Okay, now city council reports. We'll start on my right with Councilman McLaughlin.

Last Friday, I did attend the 9-11 remembrance at the fire station. That was a very solemn and impactful remembrance of 9-11. We will never forget. community affairs um i did attend at seven o'clock in the morning on thursdays and it's just uh where community leaders and business and discuss items um Let's see. Oh, I have received, I don't know if this is in my report, but I received multiple requests to return the blinking lights downtown on Sunday to yellow again, yellow blinking. And so I'd like to look into that and investigate why we changed. And I know for years it was always blinking on Sundays, but no longer. So I would like to look into that and have staff get back to me on that. That's it for me today. Thank you. Councilor Ring.

Thank you, Mayor Mayes. I also participated or attended, rather not participated, but attended the 9-11 Memorial at Mid-Columbia Fire on Friday. It's a deeply personal day for me. Having been a Marine and served overseas, both active duty and as a contractor, it's It's a uniquely difficult time. And I have nothing, sorry, I do have one last. Question or request for the sister cities organization here in the City of the Dalles, we have, the Japanese delegation coming in from Miyoshi City in October of this year. And I know that the volunteers are looking for a handful of more host families to help house some of the high school age kids that are coming into our city to learn more about what we do here. Thanks.

Thank you. Yes, those of you in the audience, if you know of anybody that might be interested, please get a hold of the city because we do need some more people to volunteer to house some of the kids from Japan, from Yoshi City. Council Randall.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On the 26th of August, I attended the Historic Landmarks Commission meeting, and we considered a request for rehabilitation work on the facade of a building at 308 East 2nd Street, and that request was approved with conditions. September 3rd, I attended a briefing with yourself, the city manager, and Councillor McLaughlin. On the 9th, I attended the Household Hazardous Waste Steering Committee. And on the 11th, I also attended the 25th anniversary of the September 11th.

Thank you. Councillor Richardson.

Thank you, Mayor Mayes. Last week, I attended a briefing just to turn out just to be the one of me with our city manager. And with regard to the blinking yellow, that is something that was taken up by Traffic Safety Commission plus or minus a year and a half ago, maybe, a year ago, somewhere in that order. We have a meeting on Wednesday morning. bring it back to the attention of the group and see if there's appetite to reconsider. My personal initial response is it's one of those things where 50% of the people are going to want it one way and 50% will want it the other. But I can certainly pitch it out there. Will do.

Council Runyon?

Let's see here. August 10th, I met briefly with the City Economic Development Director on the 4th of August. I was called to a meeting at the Senior Center with the manager, Rob Garrett, on their expansion plans. They're trying to just get some community input. On the 25th of August, Community Outreach Team, and that team is in Washington, D.C. today. On the 27th, a meeting with QLife Internet program in the area and in the county and looking at expansion. And September 2nd, a briefing session with the mayor and city manager. I don't think anybody else was there. September 10th, the Kiwanis State feed. There was a lot of discussion. Good handshaking and socializing there. That's a great event. And the money goes to help children in our community. A very good cause. September 9th, visited with the residents of the Oregon Veterans Home and followed that up with the 9-11 recognition, remembrance. of that awful day in 2001. I was glad to see you. We had four counselors there, by the way. I kept them all separated away. But Scott and Jim and Ben were there, and we had them positioned apart from each other, and all three county commissioners were there, as well as representatives from the Wasco County Sheriff's Office, State Patrol, and the Dallas City Police, plus all the members of Mid-Columbia Fire and Rescue, and they did a good job with their report and their ceremony. Let's see what else is going on on the 18th. That's this Friday. The third Friday every year is a national POW MIA recognition day. And that's Friday. It'll be six o'clock at the Kelly viewpoint. And anybody's, it's not a long ceremony, 20, 30 minutes, bring a chair. If you need one, we're not going to be putting chairs out, but we'll, there'll be a brief ceremony there. And they will ring a bell for the names that are still missing in action. And it's always on the third Friday. It's sponsored by the Mid-Columbia Veterans Memorial Committee. I'm not a veteran, but I am president of that committee. I worked for the Army as a civilian in 1969 and 1970. And again, up at Kelly Viewpoint, 6 o'clock on Friday. Hope to see you all there.

Okay, as far as my report goes, I just got two of what I think are very important. One is, of course, we had the Grasshopper Fire that started in late July and went into at least mid-August. Our Director of Public Works, who's present tonight, Dale McCabe, and I were able to attend five of the Incident Command Center briefings in early and mid-August. And I think it's important for this community to understand that 80% of our water comes from that watershed. We are very concerned about our watershed and the fire. When the fire first broke out, firefighters were scattered all over Oregon, and we didn't have anyone here. And we had seven of our public works employees that actually went out and cleared within 100 feet of our rather critical intake valve, which is where all the water goes through on its way to the Dalles, and also streams and other critical infrastructure around that entire area. So they spent the better part of a day or two doing that for our community. As soon as that happened, within one or two days, we had 1,600 firefighters in the watershed helping us, or I should say in the fire area to help us, and especially our watershed area, which remained safe and to this day is completely safe from the Grasshopper fire. At one point or another, as I said, I think there were 1,600 firefighters involved in the fire. When we got there, it was about 25% contained. When we left, it was about 75% contained. And when we were there, I think it was 80,000 acres had been burning. And by the time we left, it was up to 93,000 acres burning. I'd just like to say that having attended those briefing sessions held by the Incident Command people from all across the country, I might add. They were here when we were there. They worked two-week shifts, and when we got there, we had a crew here from California, and they were here for two weeks, and then another crew from southeastern United States, Florida, South Carolina, that area, they came in to relieve the people from California. I've been involved with incident command situations like this before, but I've never seen anything so organized, so efficient. And the people that were there, the professionalism they showed and the dedication, I think this entire community should be grateful for all they did for us. So with that, I also want to commend our public works director and our public works staff for all the work they did in the initial stages of the fire to get those areas cleaned. So with that, my other item I wanted to bring up was to recognize a man who passed away recently by the name of Bob McNary. I suspect some of you in the audience might have known of Bob. When I first became mayor, actually before i was mayor i didn't know a whole lot of people so i was meeting with a lot of people over coffee and asking people who else i should meet with and bob mcnary's name came up a lot you should meet with bob mcnary so i did in january of 2018 um bob lived in this community for seven going on 70 years it'll be 70 years actually this year he also served on our historic landmarks commission for 27 years starting in 1999 And he also served on our traffic safety committee. His many years of service certainly reflects a extraordinary commitment to preserving the history and the character of the Dalles. And we're extremely grateful for the time and knowledge and dedication that Bob gave to the Dalles. His long standing service will certainly be remembered. And I know everyone will, everyone who knew him knows he'll be greatly missed. So thank you very much for your attention in that. Okay. Moving on to item 10A, which we discussed briefly a minute ago. That's consideration of an agreement with the state of Oregon related to transient lodging tax administration. Mayor Mayes. Mr. Mayor. The consent agenda. You missed the consent agenda. Sorry about that. I need some water. Tonight, we have six items on the consent agenda. First is the approval of the July 27th regular city council meeting minutes. Second is the authorization to surplus two police department vehicles. And I know there's a quick clarification on that item by our city attorney. Third is approval of an employment agreement with our municipal judge, Jason Corey. Fourth is the approval of Indigenous Peoples Day as an additional paid holiday. Fifth is a resolution approving an agreement to provide access on city-owned parcel number three. And finally is an application to support an application to Business Oregon for a grant assistance for the West 6th Street and the Mill Creek Bridge project. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? Mayor Mayes? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. The city attorney has a quick item regarding item 2B.

Just a clerical correction. Before council acts on the consent agenda, there is one correction to item 9B, the surplusing of one of the police vehicles, the 2023 Dodge Charger, known as Shop 7. There looks like there was just a typo in the VIN number. The correct VIN, I'll read for the record and provide to Amy for the minutes. The correct VIN is 2C3CDXKGXP H-524-030. It was close, but no cigar in the minutes or in the packet. And so I'll get that over to Amy for the record. And also, while I have everyone's attention, Councilor Randall would like to make an announcement.

On the consent agenda, I have a potential conflict of interest with item C, so I'll be abstaining from voting on the consent agenda.

and mr mayor yes council randall or excuse me as long as i have uh the attorney close to the microphone if i have questions about um item d um is it better to pull it and discuss them or can i just ask what the questions and get them answered and go forward i think if you're if the vote if it's a otherwise a straightforward vote that you you're going to vote

Regardless of what the answer to the question is, maybe it'd be worth part of the discussion.

But if it's a question concerning... Maybe I'll put the question out there and you can tell me if I need to pull it. So on item D, approval of Indigenous Peoples Day as an additional paid holiday. By the way, that's Columbus Day to most of us. The addition of an eight-hour paid holiday will not have a budget impact, it says. But then later in the several succeeding paragraphs, staff is also recommending that it be added as an additional paid holiday for exempt employees, an additional police association with additional eight hours of paid holiday time. Were those all approved prior to the budget being put together last May?

That is an excellent question for something that gets pulled from the consent agenda.

Because it does sound like those are increases that wouldn't have been in the budget.

Yeah, and I would say if you would like to keep it on the consent agenda, you can. You can also pull it just by saying so. I think that the benefit has value, just that this helps sort of inform the decision. I think the point is that the staff report...

Well, I realize there's value to it. I'm just saying that first sentence saying that it doesn't have a budget impact, and then it sounds for four paragraphs like it does.

That makes perfect sense. And again, I would just say this. The point is, as I understand it, as someone who didn't write the staff report but who read it, is that it already accounted for or that value has already been accommodated within the adopted budget. And so no additional appropriation is needed, which is why the staff report indicates maybe in a way that's not obvious that there is no budgetary impact. But yeah, I mean, that's a question that if you'd like to have a discussion about would be very appropriate for you to pull the item from the consent agenda.

Well, then I like it pulled from the agenda until we find out the answer.

As a reminder, Mr. Mayor, no motion.

The city manager's not here tonight. He's traveling, so he would probably have the answer if he was online. But anyway, that's my request.

Not sure this answers your question, but my understanding from this was this was already negotiated with one of the other unions, not the police union. And it is in the contract with our public works union and finance employees that they would get this additional day off. And I'm not sure. I think what was meant by there's no budget impact, meaning that it's an additional time off does not necessarily reflect additional cash outlay. But I want you to let's get the right answer. I'm just speculating that that's the answer. So you want it pulled, right?

Well, I think so because, again, my question is that first sentence and then talking about additional. Yeah. And I have no problem with that happening. I just want to prove it in the correct manner. If it's written incorrectly here, we need to fix it.

Right. Okay. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda items A, B, C, E, and F? As corrected. As corrected pursuant to item B. I'll make a motion. Is there a second? McLaughlin will second. It's been moved by Councilor Ring and seconded by Councilor McLaughlin to approve the consent agenda items A, B, C, E, and F. And noting that item 2B has had a minor correction. Is there any more discussion? Nope. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries four to nothing with one abstention. Okay. Now we go to item 10A, which is... a consideration of an agreement with the state of Oregon related to transient lodging tax administration. We have our finance director Rita Meyer with us, and our city attorney, Jonathan Kara, will team up on this and give the staff report.

Sure. Let me go ahead and start us off. The city council might remember back in March of earlier this year, staff presented amendments to the city's local transient lodging tax ordinance. Those amendments were intended to enable the state of Oregon through the Oregon Department of Revenue to have the ability under our code to step in in the event that the city decided to work with the State Department of Revenue for handling local transient lodging tax administration. Nothing about that code change actually transferred the city's administration over to the state, but it simply opened the door to give the city the flexibility and the authority to make that transition if it so choosed. And so since then, since March of earlier this year, looking like six months ago now, staff has been coordinating with the state to get our heads around what exactly a transition to state-administered transient lodging tax might look like here in our community and some of the benefits that it might bring to the city's finance department and the city's manager's office and legal department. and sort of try to get our heads around whether this might be a good idea. A part of that process is our finance director will have more specifics on some of the substance, but ultimately the state of Oregon requires the city enter into an intergovernmental agreement Council at the time of the ordinances adoption in March had expressed an interest to have some more time to look at that and maybe sort of have a separate authorization for the city manager's authority to execute this IGA separate from the ordinance that adopted the amendments that would allow it. And so six months later, we are here. And there are a few items that I'm happy to answer in the staff report. And of course, any of the substantive items, I'm more than happy to answer by deferring entirely to our finance director, who could certainly talk about some of the benefits and potential consequences associated with this. And it seems like we also have some public comment and public interest that might be in some of these items as well. And that's certainly in the mayor's purview if he'd like to entertain those questions.

We will.

But I think some of the outreach that the city has been doing in collaboration with our partners public information officer and with our finance department and the city manager's office and the legal department is getting out the messaging. And it seems it's working as intended. Some of the operators are here tonight and it seems like they've been receiving some of the outreach that we've been sending out to sort of inform people about tonight's meeting and have them come in and let them know about some of the ideas here. And I believe that we also have a webpage that's been explaining a number of these possible changes and what day-to-day life might be like for an operator under the city's administration versus the state's administration and some additional information with direct links to the state. And so more than happy to answer any questions about what that might look like. either myself or by, again, deferring to our finance director.

Anything you'd like to add to the city attorney's comments?

Nothing at this time. Just happy to answer questions.

Okay. First, we'll entertain questions from the city council, and then we'll get to any public comments or public questions. Anybody on the council?

Council ring. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I wasn't sure, according to the After reading the packet and whatnot, I wasn't 100% sure what letter and what sort of contact we'd had with our operators specifically short-term rentals um i guess a question and a comment um because you also mentioned that there's a website with more information can we make sure that i'm glad that we did interact with those people because that's one of the thing key things that as a small business owner myself like sometimes we we get less than all the information so it's good to see that we're being proactive um but one thing that i'm missing from our packet agenda that might be helpful in the future um is like adding in a copy of that correspondence you know this is what went out on such and such date um to our operators or the potentially affected businesses or whatever um as well as the same references so that we can make sure that we look them up while we're doing our our own prep work um and I have other questions, but I'll wait until after we have more information.

Anybody else?

Councilor Runyon? Following up on the question that was brought up earlier that The local STR short-term rental operators are having to provide an EIN number in order to do this with the state, which they've not had to do before and run into issues. If it's not a simple process, and I'm not going to... force our small business owners into it. So there's some questions that need to be answered.

Sure, I have answers for those questions. Mr. Ryan, that made a comment earlier was correct. The Department of Revenue requires LLCs to have federal EINs to register for their local lodging tax. Even if the LLC doesn't have any employees, the good news is that that's an administrative hiccup as far as I can tell. The IRS issues EINs online for free, generally immediately. And they specifically allow LLCs to obtain one when state tax administration requires it, like this case. And so I'm not going to speak for the state of Oregon.

heaven forbid um but just you know as far as it goes getting an ein is pretty straightforward um but i'm also not mr ryan's attorney and so yeah so could we put together some sort of one through ten fact sheet to help our local operators get this done because apparently they did not find it as easy as you've described let me uh let me also say i completed the ein um

for a position for political office. And it was not as simple and it doesn't, it's not easy where you just click through and it's misleading as you move through it. And I would say, I have the capability and background to do that. So it was challenging to say the least. And I couldn't figure out why you would need an EIN number, but it's for that reason. LLCs now require it, so you had to complete it. So with that said, I understand. and a page help would be much, I think, needed to complete that. It's not easy, but it is free and it is online and it is immediate. All right, with that added information, I can assist you if you call me.

Other questions for the staff? Okay, Elaine Thompson, would you like to address the city council?

Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. I'm Elaine Thompson. I live at 3536 Avalon Drive in Hood River. And I have a short-term rental here in the Dalles. I've had it since last year. So I'm curious why you're making this change. Is it for administrative reasons?

What change?

To turning it over to the DOR to administer. Go ahead.

Yes, one of the big reasons for changing administration to the state is to reduce time for the finance office, freeing up capacity to focus on other financial priorities for the city, including budgeting, forecasting, also allowing additional capacity for the finance team to take on other tasks and responsibilities to help with other city operations. There is a significant amount of staff time currently used with TLT administration and the auditing process as well, gathering information.

Amy and I had a really nice chat today and I find some of this stuff a little confusing on how to move forward. Will we only file with the DOR or will we still be filing with the city as well?

For any stays ending after October 1st, it would be filed with the state. If the occupant leaves prior to October 1st, then you would file with City of the Dalles.

Okay. Well, we need a new certificate for licensing. Do we still license through the city or do we license through the state?

Licensing is still performed here at the city.

Okay.

Licensing would stay the same.

And it's grandfathered in still?

Yes, there would not be a new license required.

Okay. Will they also need extra documentation? It looks like from what I'm reading through here, the city started requiring extra documentation every month, our way into this year about how the taxes are taken and all that. It looks like we'll have to provide that as well. Well, there'll be a pretty good cheat sheet for us.

We're currently drafting up a cheat sheet right now with all of this information on timelines and reporting requirements, including how to register. And so we'll be sending that out if this is adopted.

Okay.

That information, sorry, that information will also be on a designated web page on the city's website.

Okay. And it sounded like hearing this gentleman, I didn't realize I had to register with them. Do I have to do that? Like, in the next couple of weeks or before October 1st?

No, the reporting requirement begins on October 1st, but the first deadline for filing that report would be February 1st of 2027. I have that period to register. Okay. Last quarter of 2026.

And thank you. That's really informative. And will you still have a cap on STRs in the city?

I don't think any of those that would take city council action, I believe.

So it's same as it ever was with that. All right. Okay. I think that about does it. I appreciate your time and your attention to the matter. I look forward to having a little cheat sheet. Help me through it.

Thank you for coming.

Yeah.

I had a discussion with the city attorney previous to the meeting. And one of the things I like about this is, you know, we've had, uh, operators operating short-term rentals in the city, not paying their lodging tax to the city. And I think the state is much better equipped than we are to find these people out and make sure they're paying their full share. Would you agree with that?

I would agree with that.

Yeah. Great. Okay. Mr. Ryan, did you get your questions answered or did you do anything else you wanted to say to the council? Could you come forward, please?

Yes, Kevin Ryan, 508 West 12th, The Downs. I appreciate the comments that were expressed and given. Councilor, or no, City Attorney Jonathan, there was no, on the one letter that we received on August 11th, there was only the link to the DOR, Department of Revenue. There was no mention of

city web page or city link that we could go to for assistance um so i don't i don't know if i misunderstood you your reference there but i no i don't think you did okay i think that's a great question and um a good point i'll defer to our pio who's hiding behind her computer screen and our finance director over there for more information on what you're talking about right now

Sorry for any confusion. We did not post that information on the city's website in advance of this ordinance, because we didn't want to put out information if this ordinance were not to go through. But that information will be posted if adopted.

That makes sense, yeah. My mistake if I said something otherwise.

I'm sorry?

My mistake if I said something otherwise earlier.

Thank you. Yeah. And I, I, counselor McLaughlin, I agreed. The process was pretty extensive. Yeah. Extensive and tricky. I've been navigating different thing. I've been navigating being a Medicare provider in my professional, professional practice. And that is very tricky. Yeah. So but the E&I have done it before, but it was years ago. But it just it surprised me and it couldn't get anywhere in the efforts that I was making. So I'm looking forward to whatever I can get as far as guidance.

If council approves the agreement tonight, I believe with our finance director, our next step will be some immediate follow-up with the Department of Revenue just to make sure that the instructions are crystal clear and that nobody gets left behind in the transition. That's the last thing anybody wants.

Okay, appreciate that. 100%.

Thank you. What I discovered through this process is when you find a person at the state that can give you that, and I found that they are just very helpful and really want to help, and they will help lead you through that as well. So that's how I finally got through it. All right. So call the numbers, talk to the people there.

I'm sure I'll prevail.

And I'll be there to help. Okay.

But I just wanted to give the heads up to the council tonight.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to? Mr. Nichols?

Roger Nichols, 1678 Oregon Street. Just a quick question. The state is going to do this quarterly rather than monthly, as I understand. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So that's a big help, perhaps, to the people that are operating this. My only question is, the state's going to take a percentage of it to do the administration. Do we know what that percentage is?

Kind of. They take 4% of the amount returned, but they don't take it forever. They take it on a quarterly basis. They administer their returns. They build a city at their own cost. And so if there's a very quick return process per that quarter for its administration in our community, we could get nearly all of the money back. And if they go over, then there's a conversation and they'll bill us their actual cost. Does that help answer the question?

It does. I was concerned that there might be 10%, 15% is a lot of government contracts. Oh, sure. Yeah. Write themselves in for the administration costs.

Yeah. It is exactly 4% for that initial withholding, but then they just bill us on an hourly basis.

May I follow up briefly on that? I just want to confirm my understanding. This does not increase the local operator's cost. We'll pay for it. Yeah, there's no increase to the local operator's cost. That's right. Maybe a little time and hassle to navigate through the EIN process or what have you. But in terms of the reporting costs, we pick up that. We pay for the convenience.

I would say that there's, just like most things, there's usually a startup investment of time, like attending a city council meeting and navigating unfamiliar IRS paperwork or websites. But overall... As Mr. Nichols just mentioned, in fact, with quarterly returns, it seems to be quite a bit less, but well, four times per year rather than 12 times per year for the filing of your returns. And so I think overall, pretty quickly, it should actually make life easier for the operators. Yeah.

Also, percent rate, that tax rate, does not increase at all either. Correct.

Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience? Just one other clarification, make sure I heard that correctly. There's no additional cost to the local business owners. The city, if everybody paid their bills on time, the state would be taking some of what we're getting. So we would conceivably get less money if everybody paid. But our big issue is... We're not getting paid all the time now and don't have the ability to follow up those nonpayments as the state will have. And so us paying them, not by raising rights to our business owners, but we weren't getting 100% of the business owed anyway.

So it should be a plus for us. Absolutely. In theory, that's exactly right, Councilor Runyon.

Okay, again, is there anybody else in the audience who would like to come and address the City Council with either questions or comments? Okay, we'll move to deliberations. Does the City Council have anything they'd like to add before there's any kind of motion made? Councilor Ring?

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I'm curious, reading through this, I can see that there's some obvious... benefits with reconciliation every 30 days versus going to a quarterly schedule and letting the state do it. But we still have the burden of reconciliation and verifying that the state did it right is still a burden to the finance department here in the city of the Dalles. Is that right?

Yes, there would be some reconciliation on our part, but not to the extent of what has been having to be done.

What I guess then clarification, uh, what is needed now versus what is the anticipated burden on the finance department going forward at a quarterly basis? Because you still have to verify the numbers, right? There's still the accounting record to verify no matter what.

There would still be an accounting process as we looked to see what the state put together. Currently, an annual audit for this reconciliation can take anywhere from

to 12 hours of staff time per operator um i see that being cut significantly by moving that administration to the state but we're still but we saw that reconciliation is that record of audit that we have to maintain within the the city's finance department so that's where i have that's where i don't see the benefit for the for being able to recoup the time or the hours like we still have to spend the man hours to verify the accounting record that the state gives us albeit we'll be doing it at a quarterly basis but like we still need to make sure that we're getting the correct amount of money from the state like trust but verify right we can't just like

Well, I think, Councillor Ring, you're raising a lot of great points. And a lot of these points are matters we already address, for example, with the city's local marijuana tax, which is also administered by the state. And we go through a very similar reconciliation process currently with that entire process. As the finance director mentioned, it's the difference between finance staff reconciling returns on a monthly basis from our 40-something operators versus reconciling quarterly returns, which already cuts it down by 75% just by pure math. And then you add on top of it the fact that the primary source of revenue the reconciliation is going to be from the state's Department of Revenue anyways. And if we're there, I mean, the current process is a bit a bit of a nightmare because we're depending on self-reporting from our operators most of the time. And we don't really have a mechanism that reliably, incredibly allows the city, which is not a state with the state's resources to have that sort of trust but verify type of mentality. It's not even a conversation about our want. There's sometimes not a way at all to verify what we're talking about as a city. as a state, they've got taxes figured out. They have the State Attorney General's Office, the Oregon Department of Justice. They have the entire business division and the taxing division of the State Department of Revenue with employees that their entire career is dedicated to collecting taxes. And so we don't really hold a candle to it. We think we do okay. And we've done a handful of enforcement actions over the last six years, at least when I've been the city attorney over the last six years. maybe call it six very serious collections, it always involved a tremendous amount of legal time. It always involved a tremendous amount of staff time. And sure, we were somewhat effective, maybe, but I don't really have a good sense that that's a consistent and reliable, durable method forward. Hopefully that was helpful.

Yeah, it does. It's still hard for me to fully grasp the difference between reconciling individual accounts to make sure that we actually receive the revenues that we were supposed to from that tax. In other words, I think what you're alluding to is that the state somehow can go back to like, VRBO or Airbnb or somebody like that and get those records? Is that one of the big differences?

That's certainly part of it. They have a much easier time navigating the subpoena and legal processes involved with those online operators. And I'd have to double check this, but our finance director is right there. Most of the revenue that we're talking about comes from hotels and not so much STR operators that might be here in this room. And so it's just a different league at the state when we're talking about the Oregon Department of Revenue. They have tremendous resources. The city has some resources, and we've talked about these in public as well. House compliance comes to mind. It's a software that allows us to track online rentals. And sure, we have some limited means of following through with that. But again, our resources, they don't compare with the Oregon Department of Justice and the Department of Revenue. Okay.

And then there's no change in enforcement and whatnot. We would still be, the city would still be on the hook for enforcement actions for finding people that are operating off the books, so to speak.

Yep.

Who enforces the, you know, mostly related to STRs, right? Because if a hotel is going to open in the city, the Dells are going to know about it. But how does that change?

The state of Oregon will take over for the enforcement.

So the state will enforce... The action for a city ordinance that I'm not tracking.

Yeah. Well, we changed our ordinance to make them able to do that. Okay. And we, we, we worked very back in March. That's right. We worked very closely with the department of revenue and their staff. They reviewed advanced copies of the ordinance as I drafted it. They, they provided input on it. Okay. Oftentimes word for word input. Yeah. Yeah. This is the, and by the way, I'd like to say that, you know, I came up with this great idea. No, I mean, this is 36 different jurisdictions throughout the, throughout the state have done this already and still do it today. Very successfully.

That was actually my next question. Like who else does that? Yeah.

It's not, there's nothing exotic or unique about this. This is a list on the state website. Yeah. It's cities and counties throughout the state.

Yeah. And it sounds like we've gotten some feedback from, this mostly I think impacts our short-term rentals more than it does anyone else.

I mean, like as far as the, yeah, probably.

It sounds like due to the letter that we sent out in August, it sounds like our short-term rental operators in the city have had some, they've been able to come tonight and have some feedback. I'm wondering if outside of this meeting and public comment, was there other feedback from short-term operators rental operators and whatnot in the City of the Dalles. Was it positive, negative, or just questions on how to proceed?

My office received no other feedback.

Okay.

I haven't received any.

According to the agreement, the Section 16 deals with the term of the agreement shall be from the date it is executed until it's terminated by either party with 90 days notice. Am I reading that correctly? Yeah.

Okay.

So if either party, the state or the city, is dissatisfied with the arrangement, we can give 90 days notice and get out of the agreement. Yeah. Yeah.

Anybody else counseling or one last question bill to because the short term rental thing came up. The year before I joined city council so in 2524. How does the appeals process change because ultimately they would have gone to the finance department if there was a discrepancy or disagreement or something. And then the city council, by handing this over to the Department of Revenue in the state of Oregon, who handles appeals for?

The state attorney general's office handles appeals through the Oregon tax courts.

Okay. Other questions or comments?

Counselor McLaughlin? My question was, again, the frequency and other cities, and that was answered. So I'm satisfied.

Okay. I think that concludes our discussion. Did you want to say something? Would anybody like to make a motion?

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to authorize the city manager to execute an intergovernmental agreement under ORS 305.620 with the Oregon Department of Revenue for administration of the City of the Dalles transient lodging tax.

Richardson will second. to move by Councilor Randall and seconded by Councilor Richardson to authorize the city manager to execute this agreement. It's a last minute discussion. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Okay, item 10B. is a consideration of a special ordinance granting a non-exclusive cable TV franchise to Spectrum Pacific West LLC. Mr. Cara.

Thank you very much, Mayor Mays. We are on page 67 of the City Council packet. Just having Adobe issues. Sorry, page 65 of the packet. As the council knows, the city regulates our public rights of way pursuant to the Dallas Municipal Code, Chapter 2.24. We, the city manager and I, have been on a... a spree over the last few years of rehashing and dusting off old franchise agreements and bringing them back with enhanced protections for our community and for the, frankly, the privilege of using the city's rights of way to offer all manner of services. I think most recently with telecom and fiber, with QLife at the last city council meeting back in July. Tonight, we're here to talk about cable. Cable's a little bit different. Cable is completely preempted by federal law. There's a An old federal law called the Cables Act, more or less, it's called the Cable Act, and it regulates what the city can and can't do when it comes to a matter of interstate commerce like coaxial cable. In the context of tonight's agenda item here, this special ordinance is a continuation of Charter Spectrum and their operation here in the city. The previous franchise agreement was entered in 2016. We are now in 2026. And it was a 10-year agreement. And here we are again with another 10-year agreement for the city council. For the last several franchises that Matthew and I have brought forward, I think council might feel comfortable with 7%. of gross revenue as sort of the metric with which compensation is judged when it comes to these ordinances and these franchises in the context of cable we are preempted by federal law uh and we're only capped at five percent of the gross revenues uh that the operator generates from user accounts here located within the city um for the last few well 18 months or so. It's been a very slow but productive process negotiating with Charter, Spectrum, Pacific West. Matthew and I worked very collaboratively with their attorney and their management, and we put together an ordinance that we believe gives the city a tremendous amount of benefit within the confines of the Cable Act. more than happy to answer any particular questions but it effectively ensures that uh charters construction in our public rights of way is being performed to the maximum degree that we can require them to to be doing so under city standards under city's current standards and ensuring our public works department is informed of their operations as much as much as possible if they ever do things in our right-of-way for for public traffic safety specifically and for our streets. And otherwise there's just a host of improvements from our current arrangement. More than happy to answer any questions that council might have about it. The current franchise expires at the end of the day on September 28th.

Questions for the city attorney. Councillor McLaughlin.

There was a temporary approval, right, about a year ago that we looked at this. And there was like an extension at that time. Yeah. And we're back now looking at that. And I look underneath the looking on the C definition of terms and channel shall mean a portion of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum, which is used in a cable system and which is capable of delivering a television channel. Which television channel did spectrum provide and which will they provide in the future?

It's not clear to me that they did provide a channel. We have a concept. If you're looking at our contract, it's on page 81. It's called Public Educational and Governmental Access. It's called PEG. PEG, it's effectively a channel. And several communities have this. And they've found it to have some value for their citizens where... You turn on the TV and you go to Channel 3 or whatever the case is. Correct. I know.

Yes.

And you can watch this meeting.

Correct.

Or whatever the city wants to put on there with a public educational or governmental access. That's a whole involved process. That is currently... In our franchise, we have that as an option that we can pursue, and there's a federal process for how that gets going. But it's not something that we've gotten rid of, and we maintained our ability to implement it if the council so chooses.

Well, as you know, I was an administrator, or I was an educator, and I also developed radios, radio channels, and also television, but we did it internalized. But it would be very nice as a training tool for our students to be able to put that together and perhaps emanate from the high school onto that channel. Or I remember there was a religious channel, I think it was channel 14, and they broadcast, and I don't know how they work that to get it through Spectrum, but it's just access for our community to have one more channel. Absolutely. And I realize that we have YouTube, we have social media, we have all the streaming, but it would be nice to be able not to lose that part.

Certainly not, yeah. There's no loss of that ability, and again, that's a conversation that we had with Charter during the negotiations, and we included it here in our contract.

Then that's all I need to know. Other questions or comments?

My understanding is that there will still be no physical location anywhere in the gorge for Charter to provide customer service.

Yeah, that was another question.

Well, I don't know about the entire gorge, but in the city limits of the Dalles, we had a conversation about that too. We specifically raised that issue with Charter. Their position is that the use of their physical stores generally has dropped substantially, probably as a result of COVID, I think, at the time, but since has sort of flatlined. Customers in return, have now had basically 24-7 phone and online support for their technical needs. There's multiple payment options. You can pay with cash, money order, I mean, you name it. We specifically asked about this idea of one of our older franchise agreements, I think, The 2006 version from 20 years ago did have that. And we just wanted to make sure that we had a good answer because Matthew and I were aware that the council had raised this question. And frankly, we were curious about it too. And after talking to them and they were telling us that they could look at it, but it's their position basically on a national scale that... It's a little bit over the top for them to really invest in that. At this time, because of all these other options, they effectively said that the cost of maintaining a storefront would ultimately be borne by their subscribers, which might raise rates pretty quickly. And then generally, just for council's awareness, the agreement still requires them to have an in-city opportunity for equipment exchanges and payments, but we did not make a charter-owned full-service store front and center. And speaking with Matthew about it, we looked at the numbers. We're about $100,000, $110,000, maybe a little bit more than that, maybe $120,000 a year now in gross revenue from charter. And so it's about $107,000 in the last four years, $104,000, $110,000 last year, $107,000 on average. And that's the 5% franchise fee on qualifying cable service revenue generated from within the city. If we were to ask Charter, and it's a negotiated franchise agreement, if they wanted to do it... They could just take all of that money and not pay the city's general fund with it. And instead, they could use it to operate their store. And it's still not really clear to us how much that would cost. I think it would cost more than $100,000 a year. But at that point, the city would effectively almost be paying charters to do it, to that amount. So with all of that in mind... It didn't seem economically viable. Maybe at one point it was. It doesn't seem to be the case anymore. And with all those other benefits that they've mentioned with respect to online payment and technical services that are available, it's not a requirement of the agreement, mostly because of how expensive it would cost or how expensive it would be.

I also learned that the 5% limitation by federal dictate and not 7% like other telecommunications. So I understand all of that. So thank you for responding and making it clear and making it certain that if we want to pursue a educational or community cable channel, that that's still a possibility.

Absolutely. It's a public educational governmental access channels. Got it.

Other questions? Would anybody like to make a motion to adopt this ordinance?

Go ahead.

Yeah, no, thanks, I got it. I move to adopt special ordinance number 26-616 as presented by title only. I'll second it.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve the ordinance by title only. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the city council regarding this matter? Is there any member of the city council who would like to have the ordinance read in its entirety?

No.

waiting for you to make sure we didn't go down that road.

Okay, a motion has been made and a motion has been seconded. Is there any other discussion?

Just to note that if you do want to talk to a Spectrum representative in person, It's in Yakima or Gresham. Those are your two closest opportunities. And actually, both those stores, people do a really good job there. They have salespeople as well as people that just help you with your bill and other services. But not here and not anywhere along the gorge other than Gresham.

Well, I hope you didn't have to be on hold for very long. Okay, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Mayor Mayes. Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Would you like me to read the ordinance title? Special ordinance number 26-616, a special ordinance granting a non-exclusive cable television franchise to Spectrum Pacific West LLC.

All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

And finally, we have item 11A, which is a discussion of the League of Oregon City's legislative priorities.

Sorry, Mr. Mays, I just want to mention, we still have Council Runyon pulled from the consent agenda, the Indigenous Peoples Resolution for the holiday. So that would be finally, but we can go from there.

Is it your intent to...

you want to address this issue anymore and vote on it or you want to put it off until our next council meeting i'm sorry the indigenous uh the indigenous holiday issue well if we're not able to get that question answered about uh it's not affecting the budget when it looks like it is do we need either finance or the city manager to explain that to us. So I guess we'd have to put it off till we have somebody who can answer it.

Could probably at least get to that part of the agenda and then we can make that decision. But we're actually on, we still have this LOC legislative priorities unless we're just going home now.

No, we have 11A to discuss. I got the impression that I was, people, counselors wanted me to address item 9B before we get to the discussion item.

Oh, I just wanted to make sure that nobody forgot about it, considering you had said it earlier that we had pulled it. I also believe our rules say that it goes to the end of the action items if it gets pulled from the consent agenda. It does. So it would be 10C.

If that's the case, then it's a fair game for discussion right now. So it's, but it's not the last item on that. And I don't really care about, I'm just, just everybody's aware. We should follow the rules item. It's the new item 10 C. All right. Um, What's your pleasure, Mr. Councilor Runyon? I think I just said that.

We don't have somebody here who can answer that question. We need to put it on the next agenda.

I just want to make one thing clear, and then I'll let council decide on this. But it seems like our assistant city manager and our finance director are speaking hurriedly in the back of the room, probably about this very matter. I'm begging somebody to come say something and let us know. Anybody. Rachel, come on up.

Mayor, if I may, it is my understanding. And again, I'm brand new here that this was anticipated that these negotiations were anticipated the way that as when the budget was being put together, the way that I read it, the staff report is that it was anticipated in the budget. So, you know, I was not here, but in speaking with the finance director, there are no budget concerns that this cannot be accommodated within the budget.

Yeah, I read that. Just the verbiage in the writing in the document did not take me down that same path. Anyway.

And the other thing, there is a matter of timing because these are included in the, this was included in the SEIU contract. So we would have a bit of a, because Indigenous Peoples Day is coming up, And I hate to, I hate, I'll never want to back anybody into a corner. Certainly, this is the city council's decision to approve this or not. But there is a timing issue with Indigenous Peoples Day right around the corner.

Yeah, I have no problem with councils to go ahead and vote on it. That's fine. I can simply vote no and it'll pass, right?

Well, assuming we don't get three votes, I think, uh, they've got a timing issue. That's, that's a, yeah, I think that's an important issue.

When it, when is indigenous, it is in October, October 12th. So we do have time.

Yes. Okay. Council ring.

I think the thing, Mr. Mayor, I think the council or onions point is that the verbiage that was in the staff report, uh, We knew that it was a part of the SEIU contract and that that's been accounted for in the city's budget. I think the difference here, and Councilor Runyon can correct me if I'm wrong, but the real question is now it's not just our employees that are covered under the SEIU contract, it's employees across the board. So are we positive that adding the additional holiday for our employees, for the City of the Dalles that are covered outside of the SEIU contract, that we have budget to add that day of holiday pay to our schedule.

Yes. And in speaking with the finance director, yes, we do. And the reason is that we anticipated that because it was in these two contracts that we would be requesting this. So, yes. And also to answer your question, there is a budget impact. I mean, I'd want to be clear that... leave does have an impact on budget. It was anticipated, but it does. It is a benefit that has an impact.

Would you say it's fair to say that the reason it was anticipated is because it had already been approved in the SEIU contract and the staff anticipated that the same agreement would be applicable to the police union and to the non-bargaining employees?

I can't speak exactly to the timing, but that's typically how those go.

Okay. Okay. I would like to entertain a motion to go ahead and approve item... 9D from the consent agenda.

I'd like to ask, Councilor Runyon, are you satisfied with the answers you've heard tonight on this issue?

I think words are important, and sometimes they're written not clearly, but I'll take our new director's word for it, and it's fine with me.

But if you're satisfied, would you be willing to make a motion and move this along? I mean, you rightfully exercise your prerogative to say, wait a minute, let's look at this further. We did. Would you be willing to make that motion?

No, I won't make the motion. Is that what you're asking? Yeah, I'm asking. No, I'm not making the motion. Somebody else can do that.

Well, I feel that five of us are elected to act independently and using our own.

I think I've done that, Daniel.

To also be cognizant and helpful as a body. And I guess I would say this is an opportunity to do both of those things.

Since I'm the only one that brought up all those questions, I think I've done that part, and I don't need to make a motion.

Maybe you could do the other part and help us out. Excuse me? Maybe you could do the other part. Mr. Mayor, I think that's enough.

Let's move along here. Would somebody else like to make the motion to approve Item 90?

I'll make a motion to approve Item 90, now Item 10C, to approve the approval of the Indigenous People's Day as an additional paid holiday.

Is there a second? McLaughlin will second. Moved by Councilor Randall and seconded by Councilor McLaughlin to approve what is now Item 10C, which is approving an Indigenous People's Day as an additional paid holiday. Is there any more discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Moving along. Discussion of... League of Oregon City's legislative priorities. Mr. Cara. Thank you very much, Mayor Mayes.

It's that time of the year, LOC legislative priorities. Every year they ask, and the LOC being the League of Oregon City's, they ask their cities, what are our priorities and what should the LOC focus its efforts on in Salem? and look at for the upcoming biennium and then the next years. What are the cities of the state of Oregon really interested in and having addressed legislatively by the Oregon legislature? As in previous years, the city's leadership team comprising our department heads? Reviewed this year's recommendations from the LOC and then recommended here in the staff report five priorities to inform council's discussion. The city council ultimately makes this final decision on which priorities to submit on behalf of the city. And the priorities ballot also allows for written comments. And so we can either be supportive or critical of some of these priorities, you know, as the case may be on any of them. The list that's included on the staff report on page 85 goes down the top five priorities as identified by the city's leadership team in order. The first, so again, in ascending order, well, no, I take it back, descending order, number one being the top priority, number five being also a top five priority, but the lowest of the five. Number one being infrastructure funding. Number two, the 2027 transportation package. And these are detailed further on in the packet with what is involved in each of these. Number three is the land availability and land use process streamlining. Number four, funding and coordination for shelter and homelessness response. And number five, targeted prevailing wage changes. And so staff is requesting with this item that the city council review and discuss this list provided by the LOC, and help us land on five of the items of highest priority. There's no budget implications and, well, there is an action item included here. This is, as I understand it, a discussion item. And so let's roll the dice and we'll figure it out as we go. I don't understand there to be an action at the end of it. And so there probably shouldn't have been an action item included. motion, but it's just fine all the same unless council would like to make a motion.

Well, there is a suggested. Yeah, that's what I was saying. It probably shouldn't have been, but yeah. Okay. Yeah. It's a discussion. How does the city council feel about these five priorities as listed here? Infrastructure funding, the 2027 transportation package, land availability and land use streamlining, funding and coordination for shelter and homeless response and targeted prevailing wage changes. Any comments?

I think a lot of the Oregon cities are experiencing kind of the same same circumstances throughout the state. So I think that's these priorities probably reflect a lot of the other cities as well as ours priorities. Looking down this list of items they have, I think it's a pretty good list.

Yeah, having attended conferences and serving on various boards, I would agree with Councilor Randall's comments.

council ring thank you mr mayor um i i think that this is probably a fine list i i would maybe modify one or two things but the infrastructure funding thing being at the top is absolutely a priority i think for all of us because of because of the water infrastructure um our you know our wastewater treatment and things like that. But the other thing that I'd like to, and I'm not sure what bucket this might fit under. I don't think that they're in this list of five. I don't believe that it fits in any one of these very clearly. But one of the things that I'm very concerned about is the Portland Harbor Superfund cleanup site. And of this list of five, I see nothing that indicates that that could be a legislative priority that I think, and I know it's specific to us. um a little bit but um that is a significant issue in my opinion and um i believe you know having been to at least a couple of other meetings um that were organized by public or by our residents here in the city of the dallas previously um the you know the current governor's office was also very equally concerned. They had actually indicated with one of the organizations, and pardon me for not remembering the name of the organization off the top of my head, but they had been in contact with the governor's office. The governor's also concerned about this, which I'm happy to hear, but nothing's being done about it yet. And I think, I know that the city of Bend isn't going to necessarily care as much as we may, but Um, it kind of sets a precedent going forward for the rest of the rural cities in the state of Oregon. And I, I'm not going to speak for city council, but my personal opinion, um, I think that things like that, that need to be cleaned up because they do need to be addressed, but they should like the people that are responsible, the organ or the areas that are responsible for those things should figure out where to put it. And it shouldn't go in our backyard in rural Oregon. That's my opinion. And I'm not sure where it fits in the current list of five, but it needs to go to Salem and it needs to be dealt with. And I think the only way that it's going to get dealt with right now is with legislative review and legislative input. That would be my amendment to this list. I'm not sure where it fits. I know that's a lot to intake, but.

Mr. McLaughlin, I agree. with your concerns on that. As I review, of course, there are some things that I would not prioritize as high, but the ones that I've focused on is homelessness. And I look through the recommendations and I agree with them that we need to make change. prevailing wage requirements and changes to that will stimulate. I know a lot of projects have been terminated just because of that prevailing wage requirement. Energy emergency readiness. Emergency readiness, you know, we have just today I read that there were small earthquakes and it worries me that we... I know we have some planning, but I think we need to do some economic planning and look at how we're going to implement in case... we know that there will be some at some time an earthquake and how will it affect us and should we have a plan in place so it can minimize the effects and that's what my concern and that would be a high high priority and then finally the waste management of the the um the Sophie Island, that area in the Willamette. And with the trucks, I know that they're planning to build a roadway up to the landfill. I just don't think that's enough. And if we have them on our roads, then they should be paying some road tax to help with our street fund, something recovering our costs. Anyway, that's my feelings. As I look through this, I think it's a good solid goal from the LOC and I agree with what the direction they're moving.

Other comments?

I'm wondering if we would, um, and I guess this question is for council and staff, both. I wonder if we could, um, support this set of priorities with the addition, sort of the off book edition of, um, bringing forward the Portland Harbor Superfund cleanup as something we really want or feel that, uh, needs more than one city involved, right? We need a multi municipality response. Um, and I don't know that it's on their list.

Well, I think the only way you can really make the connection, I think it's been suggested that to the extent there's other cities involved with this and to the extent that this could set a precedent for other cities for similar situations. I'm not sure. I think Councilor Ring made a good point about that. I'm not sure exactly where it would fit in. If we could... look at Energy and Environment Committee, perhaps the Portland Harbor situation could fit somewhere under that. I certainly don't think it would fit under anything else.

Mayor Mays, I just want to mention, so the council can absolutely identify Portland Harbor as a city legislative and advocacy priority, but I think I'd want to frame it carefully. First and foremost, what we're talking about when we talk about a Superfund site is federal law. It's called CERCLA. And CERCLA cleanup, Superfund cleanup, there are certainly limits. And I know earlier I gave the state of Oregon quite a bit of deference when it came to their authority. But there are certainly limits to state authority. And the answer actually is federal authority. And so the Oregon legislature really can't simply veto, you know, EPA's disposal decision. Now, with that all said, what we can do as a city and what we have been doing, frankly, so far on our own and, well, mostly on our own, actually, what we can do is advocate for some meaningful state involvement to protect, as I understood, council ring – I think the right term there is a host community, right? These hosting communities from the transportation and the road safety and the environmental and the landfill capacity and all of these impacts that we know and the cost associated with all of those, not just financial, but just the costs of moving Portland waste, Portland Harbor material into Wasco County and here in our community. You know, I've been working with the EPA on this issue for quite some time. They've confirmed Wasco County Landfill is one of their potential disposal sites. It's not clear to me that there's been a final action on that. I just want to mention this is not one of the 27 listed priorities in the LLC's packet. You know, we could maybe shoehorn it in. You know, if council wants this added as a separate city priority, I think we can record that direction tonight and raise it directly with the LOC and our legislative delegation and the governor's office and DEQ and the EPA and the alphabet soup that goes along with it. I'll also verify, you know, myself and report back to council whether the LOC ballot itself permits these sorts of write-in ballots, unless Amy's shaking her head now. Not in the past. Okay.

And so it's, yeah, I mean, there's this, you know, go ahead. Sorry, yeah, let me sort of wedge in here for a second. I think the question here is not, or the hope here is not to derail, you know, the priority list of LOCs listed, you know, options, but rather to emphasize to ourselves and our staff that we want to make sure it's a priority in continuing to work through various channels, whether it's LOC, or legislative days or asking state legislators to pick up the phone and talk with us about it or attending the regional solutions team. There's sort of multiple channels we might be broadcasting our concerns to. We want to make sure we don't forget this. Is that right?

Not completely. I am advocating that we go to places like LOC and that we go to Salem. They may not have a direct, the governor's office may not, and the administration here in the state of Oregon may not be able to directly impact through law the Superfund cleanup. But you said it yourself just a minute ago, Jonathan, that The city of the Dalles has been kind of alone and unafraid on this. And frankly, it's frustrating. So I think that it's high time. And this is coming up in my mind because this is an opportunity for us to go to LLC and like, here's our priorities, right? And I think we should go to them and we should bolster support across the other rural communities that are like ours. Host communities. Host communities and make sure that LLC knows that this needs to be a priority. The state might not be able to actually do anything about it, but they can certainly apply pressure. And what we don't have is a multi-pronged approach to address the issue. We don't.

And I just wanted to mention for Council Ring and for the Council and for the public, I would say candidly that this is absolutely a priority for the City of the Dells. It may even be a priority for LOC. I would just mention that this is LOC's opportunity for us, for the City of the Dells, to weigh in on legislative priorities. And, you know, we can always ask and go from there, but... As a legislative priority, it seems like we'd have to shoehorn it in in light of the federal preemption there. And that doesn't necessarily mean anything at all with respect to it being a policy priority or some sort of concerted effort priority. But from a legislative standpoint, it's hard to sort of get there with an ORS whatever that's going to address this. And that's effectively what this...

as well as for funding but that's effectively what the loc is hoping for here is what statutes are we hoping to see emphasized in salem in the next legislative session yeah i i understand what you're saying but also to my point the state of oregon is notorious for thumbing their nose at the at the federal government and if we're going to do that as a state i think that this is a priority topic that they need to consider for legislation and that they should move forward on And they should be helping communities like ourselves because it's going to happen in the future again.

I would say this just in light of the fact that our city clerk was shaking her head no as far as what the passes look like when it came to write-in ballots. And I don't know the answer off the top of my head. So I would say because the due date for this legislative priority list for the top five for the vote is before the next city council meeting, which is on the deadline, September 25th. If, if council would like, we can certainly have that parked as like our honorable number six, our honorable mention that, or a write-in priority if we have that ability. But let's assume for the sake of this, like next sentence, that that is what council wants. Totally. This is council's list. But if we can't write it in because it doesn't really fit in anywhere else, can we get a top five that we can go with as a backup? I would think, I'm channeling my inner Matthew here. Let's hedge our bets. And if that's what council wants, I'll assume that that is what council wants. Absolutely, we'll make it our number one pick. But it's not clear that we have the ability to write it in for this purpose. Yeah.

Mayor Mayes. Councilor McLaughlin. Councilor Runyon, I have been attending the meetings, centering and focusing on this issue. And we felt like they were... listening. However, there was nothing that was ever being sent up the channel. So basically, we were being ignored.

That's odd.

Okay.

So I feel like we're being ignored. And that's why I think moving on to LOC is at least moving it forward. I have a question. Something that came up was Sophie Island, which was nearby, and that could be used in order to put the debris in, fill it up, make a man-made island. Why isn't that being pursued, and why isn't that an option? That's my primary. Seems like it's right next door to where they are. It would eliminate the transportation and the risk and the safety risk of all those trucks out on the freeway going up, uh right now it would be a gravel road to the the dump or the sanitary fill so that was my question why aren't they looking at that and give us an answer i would submit that knowing the way loc operates that the answer to that question and the uh and this business of

the Portland Harbor would not be considered by LOC because it does not presently affect other Oregon cities as much as opposed to maybe a handful of cities. They usually concentrate on issues, including these five here, that really apply to just every 214 cities within the state of Oregon. Now, that doesn't mean we can't add it. That doesn't mean we can't substitute it. But I can tell you that I don't think LLC would even consider it because for that reason. Now, if we think that Raising the issue of Portland Harbor does affect a lot more cities. That's something that might appeal to LLC. But until and unless that happens, I don't see LLC considering Portland Harbor as a valid legislative issue. Agreed. But where do we go next? As far as what? About addressing this issue. I think our staff has been handling it for months now. I mean, they've been there on top of it. I'm sorry. Did you want to say something or?

Hold the ballot up and there is a place for committees to vet ideas and concepts that they think may have been overlooked. There is a write-in option at the end here to let you all know.

All right. I have a recommendation, suggestion. So number three on the list that's been recommended this evening is Pardon me. Is land use and... Land availability and land use streamlining. Correct. And if I look at that section in our packet, it talks about refining land use statutes to provide more clarity and legal certainty for cities and clarifying wetland statutes and inventories to allow efficient and orderly urbanized urbanization of land within urban growth boundaries, streamlining UGB expansion and swap processes for residents. I mean, there, there's a lot of like land development language in it, but I'm thinking about like the overall, like this clearly the use of our, and, and certainly the Moscow County, like, you know, owns jurisdiction or whatnot over our, our, or landfill, right? Because it's outside of city limits. But this, I think there could be a connection made to the land use and streamlining bullet point on here. Maybe that's the bucket that it fits under. And I think that, you know, because we've got to advocate for this. This affects more than just the city of the Dalles. There's other sites that are in the EPA's recommended list. I don't remember all of them, but there are more than the Wasco County landfill.

They mentioned Arlington.

Yeah. Arlington. So this does impact like multiple cities in the state of Oregon. And typically rural cities get a little bit overlooked with this sort of thing. And I think that this is something that League of Oregon City should probably stand up and take some action and discuss. So maybe that's the bucket that it fits in best.

So, Mr. Mayor, I just want to mention, thank you, Amy, for flagging that there is that ability for the city to include that write-in. And I think, you know, I'm just going to be honest with you generally. And specifically on this land use streamlining priority, that's really about making the land use system in Oregon simpler for cities to administer and the development of clearer statutes, things like that. With that said, I'm not sure that that's, you know, we're talking about CERCLA, remedial waste disposal, local impacts. It doesn't really meld. And so what I would recommend in light of what Amy mentioned just a moment ago is staff's recommendation of land use and streamlining notwithstanding, the packet expressly allows that for the LOC ballot to have written comments. And so we have a procedural home and vehicle for that concern without distorting one of the existing policies. And so what I would say is if council wants a one-line comment for the ballot, it could be The DALS urges LOC to protect meaningful local government participation and host community safeguards in decisions concerning transportation of contaminated sediment and disposal of Portland Harbor's CERCLA cleanup material.

um in wasco county and we can i mean that could be a straightforward pull from the minutes word for word kind of a thing and i would even add to that i think that's fine i think that i would add to it and um to emphasize that this is not like just a specific issue for us but that it to prevent a precedence set for rural oregon communities in the state of oregon

Mr. Cara, Councilor Ring, how do you feel about actually making item six? Okay, that's permitted in the ballot? Yeah.

Could we do both?

It asks you to pick five from their pre-selected list and then allows for that write-in to notify them of anything that

Okay, but we could actually label it item six and write it in that way. Okay. How do you feel about that?

Yeah, let's do it.

Okay. That's acceptable.

I would say this, and I believe our city clerk, who's obviously read this with much more scrutiny than I have, just in case she's not 100% right, and maybe there's some sort of exception, it would be amazing to have counsel on the record give, like, let's say we had to get rid of one of the five that staff is recommending, please tell us which one of the five it is. And we'll obviously not... we'll try our best to get all six in, but if we can't, please don't leave this room without giving us, uh, which one of these five you'd like us to cut in exchange if we had to.

Do we really have to do that? Yeah, we do.

Yeah.

I'll go on the record.

Yeah.

Go ahead. Um, personally. So I think infrastructure funding should stay at number one. Um, I could personally, I could scrap number two or three and put this in place of one of them.

Which?

Which is the 2027 transportation package.

Yeah.

Or number three, land availability and land use streamlining. I would replace, my preference would be to replace number three.

So you're saying leave one and two alone, move four up to three, five up to four, and then make this number five?

I would make this number three.

Make this number three. Okay.

If we had to, if we cannot have a, if we can't have a six, that would be my preference, please.

Is that a motion?

Yes. I will make a motion to make.

All right. It's been moved by counselor ring and seconded by council McLaughlin to do exactly what's been described. Is there any more discussion? All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Is there any opposed? Okay. Is that clear to the staff? Okay.